Jacque the Useful's page

So I feel the need to raise the issue of Comprehensive Education up. The human alternate racial trait has come up in the Pathfinder Society group I play in, and I've been unable to find any official FAQ or clarification of it.

Comprehensive Education: Humans raised with skilled teachers draw upon vast swathes of knowledge gained over centuries of civilization. They gain all Knowledge skills as class skills, and they gain a +1 racial bonus on skill checks for each Knowledge skill that they gain as a class skill from their class levels. This racial trait replaces skilled.

We haven't had any players push the interpretation that it grants you a cumulative bonus to all skill checks... But we've had a couple players push an interpretation that instead of a +1 to each Knowledge skill that is gained as a class skill from class levels... That it is a cumulative bonus where if you have 10 Knowledges as class skills, then you get +10 to every knowledge. The problem is obviously the word "for" rather than "to". But without anything official its been frustratingly difficult to argue against. There's a Wizard with +19 to every single Knowledge at level 1, which is absurd.

I'm hoping somebody has an official clarification to point.

As both a player and a GM, I've personally always been a fan of dark, serious, even melodramatic plots in my campaigns. But I've played with several other players who hate that. I'm not just referring to the Bard that feels compelled to crack jokes even when it isn't appropriate, but players in general who just don't engage with serious storylines.

Don't get me wrong, I love shenanigans... But I love drama more. And there is plenty of room for humorous breaks in drama.

I had a terrific group of players once that adored the extreme end of dark-plots... Where their characters went through irreparable trauma to their breaking points. They weren't sadistic or masochistic, playing the drama for them was like enjoying a good tear-jerker.

So I have to ask. As a player (and as a GM if applicable) what kind of stories do you prefer? Serious or light? Silly or dramatic? Or anywhere in between. If you have specific stories that'd be great (just mark any spoilers if you're talking about a Paizo product)

So with the announcement that PFS would soon allow the elemental races to be played, I have to ask as I can't find an answer anywhere.

By my reading of RAW, it looks like the [element] Affinity racial traits don't work with Bloodrager (or for that matter, Blood Arcanists).

Am I correct in this reading? Hoping I'm not.

EDIT: I found a FAQ answer that seems to lead to the idea that it might work. The FAQ answer about Dragon Disciple Bloodragers here

Dragon Disciple and Bloodrager: The dragon disciple’s blood of dragons ability increases draconic sorcerer bloodline powers. What about draconic bloodragers?

Yes, dragon disciple's blood of dragons ability should also increase draconic bloodragers’ bloodline powers.

and Dragon Disciple says this

Blood of Dragons: A dragon disciple adds his level to his sorcerer levels when determining the powers gained from his bloodline. If the dragon disciple does not have levels of sorcerer, he instead gains bloodline powers of the draconic bloodline, using his dragon disciple level as his sorcerer level to determine the bonuses gained. He must choose a dragon type upon gaining his first level in this class and that type must be the same as his sorcerer type. This ability does not grant bonus spells to a sorcerer unless he possesses spell slots of an appropriate level. Such bonus spells are automatically granted if the sorcerer gains spell slots of the spell's level.

and since Bloodragers don't have an "effective sorcerer level" of any kind, by RAW (without the FAQ) it wouldn't seem that there is anything to suggest that they stack. Rather a Bloodrager would be (by RAW without the FAQ) treated as not having a Sorcerer level and would have the same bloodline twice without it increasing from Dragon Disciple. But with the FAQ this is overridden. So this leaves me very unsure how to interpret Fire/Water/Wind/Earth affinity with a bloodrager. This also has me questioning EVERYTHING in Pathfinder which directly calls out Sorcerer in reference to Bloodlines, as there are a number of archetypes of various classes that grant Bloodlines without "effective sorcerer levels" such as the Eldritch Scion, which gains a Bloodrager Bloodline. What of anyone who takes Eldritch Heritage?

My fiancee has been thinking about giving Pathfinder a shot at a Society session, she may play a pre-gen instead of her own character but either way this question needs answering (so let's assume her own character).

She's not great with arithmetic, and the fewer things she needs to keep track of the better. Her eyesight is poor but she can read, so classes that are less likely to have too much clutter on the sheet are better.

But flavor wise, she seems to desire several particular things. Most of all is an animal companion (ideally a Wolf) and some level of nature affinity (even if only flavor and not mechanical). The Druid comes to mind, but I still felt like getting some opinions on classes with animal stuff (through archetypes or whatever) that people think might be easy enough and fun for a brand new player like her.

I've been encountering this a fair bit lately, the idea that a GM is basically incompetent upon the slightest mistake or smallest deficit in understanding of a rule or rules. And in some cases the slightest misinterpretation of (or disagreement with a player over) a thematic issue.

And I have to ask this general question, to what standard do you hold your GMs to?

At one extreme do you expect GMs to have a perfect recollection of the entire Core Rulebook (and perhaps the accompanying books like Ultimate Combat, APG, etc etc) and how every single rule could potentially interact with others in other books? And would you expect them to agree with you on every single thematic issue (even the Goblin Orphanage)? And would you be unwilling to forgive even the first mistake?
Or do have incredibly low standards and willing to excuse just about any problem?

Or are you somewhere in the middle? Obviously most probably go on a case-by-case basis but some may have a hardline set of standards.

Speaking as a GM who has made his share of mistakes, I'm usually quite forgiving even when the GM is wrong so long as they aren't a dick about it. (Though as both a player and a GM I prefer to keep all but the simplest and most urgent of disputes deferred post-session to minimize disruption).

I'm also interested in hearing anecdotes about disputes with GMs, both resolved positively and not so positively.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. But in my reading of spellstrike and spell combat.... (Assume level 2)

With spell combat the Magus gets one attack with their weapon, and one melee touch attack with their open hand both at a -2 (as though using TWF) along with a free cast of a spell in the empty hand.

Spellstrike in my understanding replaces the TWF stuff in Spell Combat with a free melee attack to deliver a spell with a range of touch through the weapon.

Now basically the problem is that a player in Society the other day tried to argue that the way the class features are written means that the Magus when doing spellstrike gets two melee attacks with the same weapon but with a -2 to each hit, along with a spellcast delivered through the weapon. That's wrong right? And this FAQ answer
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9r45 seems to suggest that he is wrong.

Spellstrike: At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell.

And this clearly states "instead of the free melee touch attack" which is referring to Spell Combat. But he insisted that it doesn't specifically call out Spell Combat as being overridden, and insists it still gives him a free melee attack, but somehow it is transferred to his weapon instead of his empty hand.

I made a call and said no, but he continued to argue the point afterwards, and I told him that even if by RAW he is right (though I believe he is not), he will both draw the ire of GMs for arguing it and will have to argue over it every time he plays with a different GM.

So since it was determined officially here
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fn#v5748eaic9qqn
that Druid and Cavalier levels stack for AC for determining the abilities of the animal when the animal is available on both classes' lists... I'm a little unsure about something regarding the Beast Rider archetype and available mounts.

Medium beast riders can choose a camel or horse mount at 1st level. At 4th level, a Medium beast rider can also choose an allosaurus, ankylosaurus, arsinoitherium, aurochs, bison, brachiosaurus, elephant, glyptodon, hippopotamus, lion, mastodon, megaloceros, snapping turtle (giant), tiger, triceratops, or tyrannosaurus as his mount. Additional mounts might be available with GM approval.

The wording of this suggests to me that you have to have 4 levels in Beast Rider in order to have the available companion list open up to include lions and tigers.

Assuming I'm reading the RAW correctly here (while considering the FAQ answer about effective Druid level stacking) the effective Druid level is NOT used to determine the available Animal Companions in this archetype, only the Beast Rider level. Which seems a bit off to me, having a 3 level gap where it doesn't stack and then it suddenly stacks after 4.

Mechanically it strikes me as odd, and thematically I'm entirely against it not stacking for the purpose of determining the available mounts. On one hand it kinda makes sense that you would have to specifically train yourself to be able to handle riding a more powerful animal... but at the same time at Druid level 7 the Lion would become large anyways, and mechanically I would be able to ride it comfortably without any levels as a Cavalier, so it isn't like thematically or mechanically I wouldn't gain the capability to ride a Lion without Cavalier levels (though I'd miss out on Cavalier abilities). Additionally if it did stack, the animal would still become large and I would be able to comfortably ride it. If it's supposed to be nothing more than a tax, I'd say missing out on spellcasting levels is already enough of a tax to gain the low level Cavalier abilities.

In a home campaign I would rule without hesitation that if counting effective Druid levels makes the animal available, and if effective Druid levels would stack should the animal be available... then it should stack. Largely because it makes no thematic sense that a Druid with such a close tie to a Lion companion, would suddenly obtain a horse (that the class feature dictates has a close bond with the character) then ditch it the moment 4 levels have passed... then the Lion suddenly becomes 4 levels more powerful.