Grooven's page

I thought I recently read a FAQs or errata that said you can take 1 1/2 your str mod to dmg while mounted and wielding a lance one handed but now I can't seem to find it. Is this because I'm going senile and never actually read that or does it exist somewhere?

Do ability modifiers from the same ability stack? For instance, can you add the same ability bonus on the same roll twice using two different effects that each add that same ability modifier?

No. An ability bonus, such as "Strength bonus", is considered to be the same source for the purpose of bonuses from the same source not stacking. However, you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier. For this purpose, however, the paladin's untyped "bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws" from divine grace is considered to be the same as "Charisma bonus (if any)", and the same would be true for any other untyped "bonus equal to her [ability score] bonus" constructions.

Thanks for mentioning the FAQ. I found this, I think it makes it pretty clear that they don't stack.

If I build a character with levels in monk and warpriest (sacred fist archetype) do I get the wisdom bonus to AC twice or do the bonuses not stack because they are the same type (wisdom bonus).

Thanks for your input. Many valid points have been raised in this (and other) threads. No matter what side you fall on it is easy to see how this will have table variation. Please take the second to hit the FAQ button if you haven't already.

I wish those things you quoted from 3.5 were explicitly stated in the pathfinder rules and that the language that Aydin quoted didn't exist. It makes it grey enough that table variation is sure to exist.

Make it simple - go urban barbarian and dawnflower dervish. Both stack, you can use charisma skills, and you can get dex out of your rage. [/QUOTE

A valid solution I'm sure but it doesn't really answer the question. A player may not own the appropriate books or be playing a pfs core campaign character and would still be wondering "can I rage and inspire courage at the same time?"

There are multiple threads discussing the interaction between rage and Bardic performances. Lots of good arguments but no definitive answers (at least in my mind). It would be nice to get something official.

Can a character maintain the inspire courage bardic performance while raging?

Simple rules as written question. Can a Druid who has a domain spell that is not on the druid spell list prepare that spell in a non domain spell slot? It is very clear that the answer is no with a Cleric, does this same rule apply to a Druid?

"The shaman causes doubt to creep into the mind of a foe within 30 feet that she can see" I don't know how it couldn't be mind affecting based on that. I know I certainly won't be allowing Shaman's to evil eye baddies immune to mind affecting abilities in any game I GM, home or PFS and I doubt many others will either.

I am aware that scenarios have been creeping toward and sometimes over the 5-hour mark. I've started by being particularly vigilant when developing Tier 7–11 scenarios, whose combats can be very long indeed. I believe that the upcoming #6–04: Beacon Below is written in such a way that the adventure should fit into a more reasonable timeframe—barring any hard-to-predict complications or unorthodox tactics on the players' part.

In general, my impression is that the higher-level adventures and several of the roleplay-heavy scenarios are the main ones that tend to go over time the most. These are the ones that I'm watching most carefully.

Thank you for your response and acknowledging this. I am glad to hear you are working on it. I agree with your observation that the 7-11 scenarios tend to be the biggest culprits, this is what I have noticed as well.

Grooven wrote:

I just had an opportunity to play 6-00 Legacy of the Stone Lords was very disappointed.

Where did you play it at?

At a local gaming convention, about 7 tables.

You do realize that Legacy of the Stonelords is a Special, intended to be run as a large scale event with multiple tables working toward a common goal? There are far more encounters built into that scenario than a single table will ever see, so that each table can choose its own path through the adventure. This is definitely not the scenario to base your feel for PFS on.

I am aware of that and I am certainly not basing my feel on this one scenario, I am basing it on all of season 4 and 5. I played it at a local gaming convention and understand the concept of only playing portions of it. My point was that each portion of the adventure felt rushed, much like the scenarios in season 4 and 5.

I felt the need to post this somewhere so that hopefully Paizo Game designers can read this. I just had an opportunity to play 6-00 Legacy of the Stone Lords was very disappointed. While the content was great and I am sure it could have been an excellent experience there was just to much content packed into to little time. This is just my opinion and I am sure there are many different ones out their but I feel that for the last couple of years many of the scenarios have gotten to long to fit into a typical 4-5 hour game slot (that is how much time is allotted at the gaming stores I play at).

I have had the opportunity to play some of the scenarios in an environment where time is not an issue and the experience has been great. I love the scenarios and feel that Paizo has done an excellent job creating challenging, fun scenarios. Unfortunately the play time is usually limited to 4-5 hours. Having to rush through the scenarios to complete them within the time allotment ruins the experience (at least for me). Are others having this same experience? I would like it if Paizo could find a way to adjust this and make the scenarios a little shorter so we can be a little more relaxed when we play them.

Thanks

I read a while ago that someone(s) hit level 20 with their pfs character. I can find sanctioned content up to level 18 but can't find anything for level 19. Can someone point out what I'm missing. My friends and I would like to play to level 20.

Hello,

I have a question about gaining credit for sanctioned content. We are running a home game adventure path. The rules state that

"Alternatively, if you are participating in the Skull
& Shackles Adventure Path with an ongoing group
undertaking the entire, six-chapter campaign, you may
receive credit for playing the sanctioned portions of the
adventure as if you had played a pregenerated character."

I am assuming that this means that each player and the GM get a chronicle sheet that they can apply to a PFS character after completing each sanctioned portion of the adventure path.

The pregenerated characters are lvl 1,4 & 7 so my question is do the players have to apply credit for to their pc's when they hit the lvl of the pregen or can they apply it to any character in the level band for the sanctioned content. If the answer is they have to apply it at the pregenerated characters lvl (1,4,7) what about the sanctioned content above these lvls (for example a portion that is for levels 9-11). Thanks for any help you can offer.

I have to say I agree with everyone of your arguments and I personally interpret the rule to be that you can skip the second feat in the path as it isn't a style feat. Having said that the whole point of my post is that their is a large group of people out their who interpret the rule differently. As Rynjin alluded to earlier in this thread many people erroneously use Hero Lab as a rules resource and when Lone Wolf development comes out and makes a statement like:

"that until a developer or official FAQ comes out stating otherwise, they are reading the line that says "Alternatively, a master of many styles may choose a feat in that style’s feat path (such as Earth Child Topple) as one of these bonus feats if he already has the appropriate style feat" to mean "as long as he has the previous feat in the chain".

It creates a lot of confusion and because of that you run into GM's who are now saying that you need the second feat to take the third feat. This is why I would like a faq. I don't want my pfs monk to get audited and claimed illegal by a conservative pfs GM in my area.

I wholly understand Rynjin's sentiment that he doesn't want it faq'd in case it gets crane winged. I don't think it will though as it seems to me the intent is to let you bypass the second feat.

Regardless, I think it's difficult to ignore that their is confusion around this and in pfs you are taking some risk by skipping the second feat in the chain.

Rynjin wrote:

Someone erroneously using Hero Lab as a rules source again?

And James Risner says it never happens.

Turns out this particular rule has a fair number of people on either side of the debate.

I don't know which way it should be ruled, but we don't have direct guidance (to my knowledge) whether or not you can skip ahead to the third in the chain by skipping the first and/or second.

Thanks for this comment. This is the whole reason I am hoping for paizo clarification. I would appreciate it if people marked this for a FAQ. As stated in the original post I didn't want to rehash all the arguments in this thread.

The counter argument would be that crane wing and crane riposte are in fact both style feats as evidenced by the fact that they are listed under the style feats heading in the table on page 86 of Ultimate Combat. Again, I'm not trying to argue that this is correct just that there is a counter argument present. This counter argument makes things gray and creates GM variation on the rules interpretation which can be a problem in society play. Hence the request for a rules clarification.

I am not using hero lab as a rules resource! I am using them as an example that their are people interpreting this rule in different ways. Other examples can be found with forum searches. Different interpretations leads to GM variation which can be a problem in society plate.

@ Krodjin, what it says is a master of many styles monk may choose a feat in that styles the path as one of these bonus feats if he already has the appropriate style feat. Some people are interpreting the appropriate style feat to mean the preceding feat in the path.

Please don't interpret what I'm saying as I agree with this argument, rather that the argument exists and it creates GM variation which can be a problem in society play.

Thank you for your response Ssalaran. You are presenting the argument that MoMS lets you jumped the second feat in the chain. There is also the argument that it doesn't let you jump the second feat in the chain. As I stated above I don't want to rehash the arguments. My point is that a argument exists for both sides. In fact Lonewolf development has set up Hero Lab so that you have to take the second feat before you can take the 3rd feat. They have also stated that they won't change this unless they See a FAQ from paizo. No matter how strongly you believe one side or the other fact still exist that this is a grey area as there are people on both sides. This makes skipping the second feat in society play risky as you may run into variation in GM interpretation. This is why I was hoping to find an official answer from a paizo employee or have it marked as a has FAQ candidate.

Thanks for the response, my question was actually can you take the third chained feat without taking the second chained feat (with your moms bonus feat) assuming you already have the base style feat. I appreciate the link to the FAQ as well.

In the example you gave, could you take earth child binder assuming you had earth child style but not earth child topple.

I have found posts and discussions on both of these questions but was hoping to get an official answer from paizo.

Question 1: If I take an archetype that allows me to skip style prerequisites such as master of many styles monk, do I still need to take the second feat in the chain to take the final feat? (ie: Can a MOMS monk take Snake Fang without taking Snake Sidewind with his second level bonus feat?)

Question 2: Can I mix the Qinggong archetype with other archetypes by choosing not to replace the class features that they other archetype gives up.

I have read differing opinions on both and understand both sides of the arguments on both topics. Most of the games I play are society games so I like to stay away from grey areas in the rules because each GM may interperet the rules differently.

I'm not looking to rehash the arguments here but rather asking if anyone has seen an official post on these topics from a paizo employee and hopefully to get it marked as a faq candidate.

Does this mean Paizo will refund the cost of my Blood of Angels player companion PDF?

Death is just another status condition, and not even that hard of one to remove.

Perhaps, but it can be an expensive one to remove and one that people seem to take personally.

I am posting here to start a conversation. I would like to share my philosophy when it comes to sitting behind the GM screen and character deaths. I would like to hear what other people’s philosophies are and what other peoples kill rates are.

I consider my number one job as a GM to be to ensure that the players have fun. This is a pretty open ended task however, what is fun to one person may not be fun to another. My experience has been that most people like to be challenged but don’t like their characters to die. So when I GM I try to challenge the characters as much as possible without killing them. This can mean rolling behind a screen at critical junctures to ensure I don’t kill someone if things are tight. For the most part I consider it a personal failure if a player character dies (with some exceptions, see below).

I don’t believe players should have to optimize their characters to survive the game; they should be able to bring a poorly optimized completely wacky build to the table and have fun. I consider it my job to adjust the adventure so that this character can still be the hero. A group of 10 year old boys playing in their first game ever playing fighters with high charisma and intelligent scores should still be able to have a great time.

There are times when I think a character death is acceptable. An experienced player who knows better does something really stupid; you may have even warned them or dropped strong hints to discourage the behavior. If you don’t kill the player in this setting the behavior will continue and the integrity of the game will be sacrificed. Another example would be when a player has over optimized and is abusing the rules to dominate the game and isn’t allowing anyone else to shine. I will try to talk to this player and let them know my concerns and expectations. If this doesn’t work then I consider them fair game. I would probably just ask this person to leave the game, but may consider killing them in game as well (even by fudging dice rolls).

Overall I would say my kill rate is less than one person per 20 games. What are other peoples kill rates and philosophies in this regard?

hmm, ok, knock over seems to be a pretty poor description of what bullrush does though, sounds more like a trip.

This may have been addressed before but I can't seem to find a good answer to my question. Hydraulic push reads as follows;

You call forth a quick blast of water that knocks over and soaks one creature or square. You can use this blast of water to make a bull rush against any one creature or object. Your CMB for this bull rush is equal to your caster level plus your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma modifier, whichever is highest. This bull rush does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Hydraulic push extinguishes any normal fires on a creature, object, or in a single 5-foot square which it is targeted against. Magical fires are unaffected.

I am interpreting this as the spell soaks one creature/square and knocks over one creature square. This would mean that spell automatically knocks over and soaks one creature with no save. It then states that I can make a bull rush attempt. So after I knock them over and soak them I can make a CMB check (as outlined in the description) to bullrush them as well?

I should have clarified, the question is for society play, so it is rules as written. My opinion is no, but I wanted others opinions.

Is it legal to use the ultimate campaign retraining rules to retrain a feat to fey foundling after level 1?

The bonus revelations for Dual Cursed come at 5th and 13th level (not 3rd and 7th) so you wouldn't get the bonus revelation that Alexander noted.