While PFS1 doesn't use the lorespire guides, and we're not planning to update any language in old guides, feel free to use this as a guideline for our intent on how these sorts of issues should be handled in that campaign. Assuming that people are receptive to it, since the point of this post is getting a feel for community response.
I understand a Cleric of Gorum, for example, will not be granted any spells from a dead god after a rest.
What happens, though, with any spells you haven't expended?
If you used one after August 1st, would it still take effect? Or would it not work at all even though you still have that particular spell prepared?
I ask because let's say I still wanted to play a Cleric of Gorum even after Gorum's death. I'm thinking I'd have to be VERY judicious with spell-use because I know I'm never going to get them back after he dies.
Casting a Heal spell becomes a HUGE deal for my character and it had better be for a DAMNED GOOD REASON!!
We're just not equipped to track that sort of thing, or plan scenarios around having a caster who's resources are truly limited. It raises questions of Focus Points, and opens up too much table uncertainty.
It's a really cool idea, but the kind of idea that just isn't suited for Organized Play.
As there's a good chunk of players who don't actively follow the forums and paizo news, how would you recommend GMs to handle situations where someone sits down with a gorumite after august 1st, and they haven't yet heard about the change?
If such a character is played in a game before the Gorum tap is turned off on 8/1, but then the player shows up to GenCon and tries to play that character (so playing a Gorumite on or after 8/1) see if the option can be quickly rebuilt using the free rebuild you get. Otherwise, give them a pregen.
If, instead, someone's first Gorumite game is on 8/3, their GM there is unaware of the change, and then at, say, at DragonCon on 9/1 they try to play it, it'd be like brining a cleric of Asmodeus. Gorum won't be a legal option for clerics in PFS to choose (since he can't have clerics when he's dead). Such players should get a pregen and work out with local venture officers how to correct the character moving forward.
Tomppa wrote:
There's also a bunch of non-core 20 deities that are going to die. Will those be handled with the same rules (immediate rebuild when one of them is announced, like with God, Varix the Despoiler, and Sturovenen the Dragoneagle?) and do we need to wait for OP's confirmation for each death/deity, or can we just assume that any that dies results in a rebuild?
While such characters will get rebuilds just like Gorumites, not all of those deities will die when Gorum dies, and not all have been announced. As such, to give you all time after that announcement, those characters can be played until the end of 2024.
Will some of these kid-friendly adventures still include occasional, mild violence and horror, in the Saturday morning cartoon, shounen anime, Goosebumpsy sense? Asking because I'd hate to deprive the kids of ghosts, slime monsters, and guys punching each other.
They can still include battling, but foes will probably be less scary. Mild violence is probably a good way to put it. Ghosts and the like are tricky, since we want it to be approachable for anyone who can do the math, and those can truly be scary to younger players, if not handled particularly deftly. Rather than a list of what's in and what's out, though, the approach is more making sure the atmosphere and content of the adventure is suitable for as many of those younger players as possible.
My question is if there are going to be some with the Repeatable tag. With the AP's and other materials outside of the Scenarios having to be played outside of the organized play structure (and retro rewarded with lesser chronicles), there is a limited number of material to actually play our characters in PFS, carbon copies not withstanding.
I understand completely, given the nature of quests and the role they can play in brining in new players. I just answered a similar question from Hilary, but since you went so in depth with your question, I want to specifically say that I agree. Which is why we're going with repeatable quests.
QUESTION FOUR: Will these quests be repeatable, the way bounties were?
The plan is that all will be repeatable. I checked with the others in Org Play just to be sure, and we all agree that repeatable quests are the best quests.
Alex already got the others out of the way, but I am indeed new! And I appreciate the warm welcome. I'll leave my full introduction for the one I wrote up in tomorrow's blog.
"It might be possible in some situations to meet the DC even on a 1. If your roll would equal or exceed the DC even on a 1, you don’t critically fail, but you still fail instead of succeeding. You can’t succeed when you roll a 1 no matter what your modifier is."
And that is really rather disheartening. Did your 20th level, legendarily-skilled rogue roll a natural 1 on that skill check against a low-level creature? The rogue fails.
Ugh. What a terrible way to have written the earlier text, then. And I agree, that's a terrible rule. I'll use it for the playtest, but if it's in the final release (assuming I play) I'm using the rule as it's written on 292 (where a 1 isn't an auto fail). Because it's actually sensible.
Apparently, according to page 292, characters always suffer at least a 5% chance of failure regardless of their roll modifier.
So 292 doesn't actually say that.
292 wrote:
If you fail and roll a 1 on the d20 (also called a “natural 1”), or you fail and your result is equal to or less than the
DC minus 10, you critically fail instead of just failing.
Bold mine.
So you have to roll and 1 and fail (or fail by 10) to critically fail, according to 292. This contradicts page 8, where they do call it out as a critical fail, though pg 8 seems more like a rule of thumb then the specific rulings 292 is going into, but a contradiction is a contradiction.
Same with Critical success. On 292 you need the 20 and success, while on 8 you just need the 20.
I really hope they don't have it set up so that the legendary crafter ruins 5% of the bog standard longswords she makes. That would be dumb.
Edit
Oh dear lord the plot thickens. So pg 177 agrees with pg 8, a 20 on a strike is a critical hit. Who the heck wrote 292? And I don't see anything aside from pg 8 saying 1 is auto fail. The rulebook can't agree on the core mechanics of critical success and failures.
First off, to Vic and all of Paizo, thanks for your transparency in all of this. I know Gen Con and the release there must be insanity, so to have this hit now must be maddening.
The fact you're trying to have them refund shipping is good to hear. That in conjunction with the $15 store credit is pretty nice to be honest.
I won't say I'm not disappointed, but that's on Amazon, not on you guys.
So I'm diving deep into Taldan lore for the new AP. I'm looking into the Karthis family, but can't find much on them outside of the small blurb in the Noble Scion feat from the Player's Guide and a small mention in Echoes of Glory of a "Senator Karthis."
Is there a named Patriarch or other family? Any new political goals? It sounds like they're against Eutropia, but anything more would be welcome information.
Flowing Monk, for monk. Dear god flowing monk please. My personal concept of monk has always been the defensive, turn-your-opponents'-power-against-them style, and flowing monk was the first and only time I've really seen that embodied in a d20 game.
Lore Warden, for fighter. I love the flavor, but also it's nice to have a way to put tactics and knowledge into the mechanics of your character when you want to play a battlefield genius or commander-type fighter
Ninja, for rogue. It's listed as an alt class, but it's basically an archetype that just heavily modifies everything. It's got a lot of flavor baked in, and before unchained it was nice that there was a combat-heavy option to go alongside the skill-heavy one.
Saurian Shaman, for druid. It's a dinosaur druid. Everyone loves dinosaurs.
I don't know if it counts as an archetype, but I really really love the Void school for wizards. It's got great flavor and excellent utility built in.
If void school doesn't count, put me down for Hospitaler for paladin. It changed up the focus for the class and allowed for a healer who wasn't a primary spellcaster, which is pretty unique, I'd say.
I find that rerolls actually can increase tension or drama. A simple "will you keep that, or reroll" followed by a poker face actually adds tension. Does a player trust her save modifier? Does she trust her luck on the reroll?
I've never felt that it was abusive when a player survived because of one of these. I also tend to feel players should succeed after facing difficulties. A chance to roll twice on a single roll doesn't negate all challenge in any way. It doesn't make up for bad modifiers or bad tactics. It can stop something from failing do solely to a bad die roll. Why is that a bad thing?
So as someone who's GM'd very little in season 5 and a great deal in previous seasons, I found the old faction mission style incredibly tedious.
There were some standouts, true, but by-and-large there was a whole lot of boring distraction. For as many people who latched onto a faction mission they liked, I've seen similar things in overall scenario missions, but I've seen more turned off by restrictive skill checks that kept prestige away.
What's worse is the lack of backwards compatibility. Let's be honest, the 10 faction tie-ins to the old 5 faction system was an awful kludge.
Now there's not only a chance to meaningfully impact the course of your faction, but a lot of these decisions involve knowing your faction, not just a handout telling you to grab a random item.
I always had a problem with the mission delivery system, too. The leaders sometimes knew where we were going and what was going on in ways that really strained disbelief.
I've also never felt that faction missions really defined my characters' connection to his or her faction, and that their loss made me any less a faction member. It's easy to play up faction and set your own goals, even if the mechanics don't reward it (just as you can play up deific devotion or alignment).
I'm quite pleased with the change. Even more pleased with the removal of nation-linked factions and the shift the ideological ones (which always made more sense to me)
That's a deadly encounter. I've nearly ended two parties on it.
Some Specifics:
Darkness is devastating for groups that don't have a means of dealing with it. Oil of daylights are pricey, but when you need them, you really need them. The high tier is even worse, since there are two, and they can try to dispel the daylight while the other remakes the darkness. Offer alternative tactics to PCs used to standing and fighting. Maybe, instead of phrasing it as running away, they try and goad it out of the darkness.
If I see a party completely unable to deal with a threat, depending on experience of player I may offer up some nonstandard tactics (intimidate/bluff to play to its pride and have it fight in the light, or something). High tier would likely not get those concessions, as a 6-7 needs to have a way of dealing with darkness.
Speaking of which, did the sorcerer have any means of dispelling? It's a potent and often overlooked option.
So too, with DR. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of backup weapons and contingencies for just this sort of thing. Make sure the newer players know what's expected of them as pathfinders: Pathfinders are prepared.
Make sure your players are educated and help them see holes in strategy and preparation in-between games. Darkness, DR, Ranged, Flight, Weather Effects, Swarms, and more I've seen trounce parties otherwise wrecking a scenario because they were unprepared. Work with your players, and make what could be a very negative event into a learning experience of the sorts of threats they will see as they gain levels.
It's not a bad thing to have an extra wand of cure light floating around, anyway. Even if you can't use it, likely someone has it on their spell list and can use it to wand you back up to full between combats.
Nick's absolutely right. The Wand of Cure Light Wounds and the Wand of Infernal Healing are the 2PP Medkits of the Pathfinder Society. Everyone should have at least CLW (because it's just 2 PP), and those less... virtuous in their morality might want to carry both. You can carry the infernal healing only, but some casters will refuse to use it, and some characters will refuse to benefit due to the spell's nature.
That being said, infernal healing is the more efficient of the two, in terms of hp/charge.
Honestly, I don't think you can get the PP refund, but I don't really think it hurts you.
So I've resolved to qualify for 5 Star by the time my two year anniversary of my first game comes around. I have 10 months to do so, and I'm at 2 stars. Wish me luck. Apparently I have lots of Murder's Mark, Tide of Morning, and Prince of Augustana in my future.
Don't forget We Be Goblins! Your future is chock full of We Be Goblins!
As for your day job question, I'm not sure why it wouldn't. It's basically an "always-on" ability for all intents and purposes. You'd certainly be able to use it at my table. Plus, the bonus isn't all that crazy anyway, hardly a benefit worth shutting down for abuse, considering all the crazy ways certain classes have to get their day jobs into the 40's
As for the original question, my GM experience was like a freight train building momentum. GMing started slowly, a game here and there, but pretty soon I was helping run two stores (the same ones Compton mentioned) and GMing 4 to 5 games a month, plus pretty much 5-8 games at any conventions anywhere near Georgia.
My first GM credit was May 2010, I got my 4th star shortly before Gen Con 2012. My 5th star was at Connooga 2013 (February or March).
So under 3 years.
As for exclusive requirements, I've been running games at Gen Con, Dragon Con, Connooga, and Scarab since 2011 (though Scarab might have been 2012). I ran many many specials and played in far fewer (that's the trade off to get 5 star quickly). I also ran Cyphermage and Day of the Demon a great deal.
Though I do recall one Dragon Con where Mike Brock ran nothing but the exclusive (Midnight Mauler, I think?). I've never had to go that far.
Given that the prereq ability specifies human-only, at least at my table you'd be limited to human forms. As for your revision, it's not game breaking, and would actually work pretty well in a home game, but it's not well-suited to society play. How human-looking is human-looking? Feathers, bronze skin, tails and more are often present on native outsiders. I'd be wary of letting you assume anything fantastic like that. Even the ability to do all medium and small humanoids is just too broad, and the ability to go size small and back at will would be a bit too much.
All-in-all, expect many GMs to restrict you to human-only.
Zarta Dralneen, if memory serves, is evil. And if she wasn't, she certainly seems to be heading that way. No one knows what anyone on the Decemvirate's alignment is, and some could very well be evil.
Torch may have been evil, but he's probably under a misdirection spell pointing to a table which is under a misdirection spell pointing to a half orc who is under a misdirection spell pointing back to the table.
Getting my little dot on this one. I'm back to 148/180-ish. The module thing is the likely culprit, but it's not a huge deal. It'll be like hitting 5 star twice... right?
Also, to #1, you can only purchase consumables (wands, potions, etc) at higher than base caster level if those are on a chronicle, regardless of your fame.
So 3rd level wands of magic missile are out, unless you've got the chronicle, but a 3rd level wand of glitterdust is fine.
Most of my characters aren't particularly loyal to the society OR their faction. They have a variety of reasons for joining the society but most boil down to the fact that the society is a very fast and comparatively safe way of achieving their goals (some combination of power, money, experience, knowledge) and being part of a faction is essential to success.
Don't get me wrong. They're all very good at being pathfinders. They cooperate well and have very good track records at achieving both society and faction goals. But they have little to no emotional investment in faction or society. The ones created in season 5 barely know what faction they're in :-)
Ironically, both of my Lantern Lodge characters and one of my Shadow Lodge characters were exceptions to that general rule.
I've got a few of those, too. I might have stated things too strongly, but you named the key thing - they're good at being Pathfinders. They don't have to love the organization (it sure as heck doesn't love them), but they know that, in some way, continued affiliation is crucial for them to accomplish something they want, and starting fights with fellow agents is therefore a hindrance to personal goals. Even if they despise the fellow agents in question.
That's what I meant by Pathfinders first. They need a reason to be there, even if it's training and gaining power to take revenge on some far-flung noble who wronged your family, getting kicked out cuts your access to that power and the resources the society possesses.
All someone needs is a reason to listen to Venture Captains and work with other agents, whom they may never have met.
But, at least in my view, if that reason is developed first, before factions are even considered, then the conflicts GM Lamplighter has seen will be far fewer, or at least the ones "justified" by "that's what my character would do"
I think a lot of the problem with players who go into PVP with "that's what my character would do" is the core question: why did you make a character who would do that?
I still don't buy that the Sczarni or Chelaxians are more likely than Andorans to get pushy and violent. Nor do I feel that their stated goals are anti-society.
I see what you're saying, but Cheliax isn't about being evil, it's about bringing order, and they feel that harsher paths are the best route. Too few people catch that distinction. Considering what happened in the Fortress of the Nail, Dralneen feels that her new path is the best way to achieve order, and put herself at the top. She would not risk the Crusade failing though. The Abyss would have none of the order she seeks.
The Sczarni are oppurtunists, through and through, but Guaril needs the Society. They got him where he is and are crucial to his keeping that standing. He's ruthless, cunning, and not at all that nice, but he would not risk destroying his relationship with the Pathfinders. The price would be too high.
There is nothing in those factions explicitly telling people not to cooperate, and a good deal of the flavor (especially Sczarni) indicates otherwise. Work with your players to design Pathfinders first. Figure out why they joined the Society, then figure out where their politics lie once they're there. Not vice-versa. PCs need to be Pathfinders first. That means explore, report, cooperate. They should not make characters who cannot keep to those tenants, be the Sczarni or Silver Crusade.
Hell, paladins have a tougher time keeping to that code than the shiftiest rogue.
I think a lot of the issues you've brought up with regards to characters you've seen have to do more with the players, not the factions. If you removed these options, those players would still play, and now they'd be knocking other PCs out in the name of Andoran, or pointing to the Neutrality of the Grand Lodge and how their methods shouldn't matter. If you have to enforce the "don't be a jerk" rule, that goes beyond in-world concerns, to me. You may want to have a talk with these players.
Honestly, I don't see Qadira all that removed from Sczarni, they just go about their ultimate goal differently. Further, Cheliax isn't good, yes, but neither is it an ally of the demon forces. The fact the Paracountess wants to gain from the conflict doesn't change which side she's on.
The Society is not a particularly moral institution. The Cooperate rule actually reflects this: we don't care what you believe or how you do things, but Pathfinders don't hurt other Pathfinders. We don't have to like each other, we don't have to agree with each other, we just have to avoid coming to blows and not get in each other's way.
Honestly, faction interplay has added a lot to games I've played, where the players were mature enough to let the tension play out without it becoming actual conflict. One of my more enjoyable games involved myself and a friend as a pair of Andorans teamed up with a pair of Chelaxians. The roleplay, for me, ended up being one of the highlights of the game.
Badly behaved players will always be an issue in any organized play campaign, but removing factions isn't the answer, and won't really solve that problem. The factions add tension that can lead to memorable moments outside of the scenario text. This isn't the Best Friends Squad, and I don't really think it should ever become that. I should trust that my companions won't kill or hurt me, but I'm okay with not trusting them beyond that.
If you regularly travel with a druid, you could get the amulet of mighty fists with the specials on it (acid, holy etc) and have the druid magic fang you. Just be sure to carry potions of magic weapon in case the druid is off that week.
I know when i see "monk" i set my spell list to "extra animal companion"
My monk and your druid would be great friends. She's also a big fan of anyone who can use her pearl of power to drop some Mage Armor love.
A monk's fists are considered magical weapons once he reaches 4th level if he has Ki Pool and at least 1 Ki point in his pool.
Well, yes, but the amulet isn't limited to monks, nor are unarmed strikes. The amulet doesn't give you that ability, that's what's important for this discussion.
Creatures with the incorporeal condition do not have a physical body. Incorporeal creatures are immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Incorporeal creatures take half damage (50%) from magic weapons, spells, spell-like effects, and supernatural effects. Incorporeal creatures take full damage from other incorporeal creatures and effects, as well as all force effects.
Since the damage from holy, flaming, etc weapons is magical, it seems like half of that would get through. This does not make the unarmed strike itself magical, though, so the unarmed strike damage would not get through. That's how I read it, at least.
As others have said, if anything sounds too good to be true, you are well within your rights to request a player show you the source. If the player cannot, that ability is not available.
We're not robots and we can't know every rule or options, that's part of the reason why the core assumption isn't every book. Besides, they have everyone else's turn to look something up, you don't really have a free moment in combat that doesn't involve stopping the game.
This character's alignment is Chaotic Good, so I don't know how well he'd work within Grand Lodge, but since it's a "catch all" faction, I suppose I could just lump him in there.
Chaotic can work fine with the grand lodge. I've got two in there. Pathfinder's first, politics second.
I'm with Chris on the hp, but it's a personal style thing. As for casting, the character could announce it, but tactical table talk is in character at my tables absent telepathic bond, so the baddies can hear what you're doing. So if someone says "I've got a breath of life" or somesuch, intelligent foes with spellcraft will react accordingly. So I suppose I'm with Chris there, too.
I use an agile furyborn AoMF in PFS and never had a GM have a problem with it.
I can tell you right now I'd give it a "no" at any of my tables. So be careful when buying. I feel the wording is clear, though I see the other side's point. Moral of the story: this thing is expensive, so be careful and be willing to accept what you GM rules. Heck, bring it up ahead of time so there are no nasty surprises in combat.
Says "the weapon." The amulet is not the weapon, the attacks it enchants are weapons. So it'd be off of each attack type separately. The source isn't relevant.
*edit* And when I say attack type, I mean each natural weapon independent of the others.
Wands are weaponlike for the purpose of drawing them, but they do not threaten. I'd say you can, but I could conceive of a GM reasonably saying otherwise,
Just because Hero Lab lets you do something does not indicate one way or another if something is PFS legal. Good call asking here before bringing it to a game, though. As others have said (and linked) check the additional resources for what's in and out.
Ran this twice at Connooga this past weekend. Once at low tier and once hight. The scale for the barn is impossible, so I upped it, thinking the map was off, and it worked fine both times. The gargoyle(s) were not much of a challenge either time, but both parties had ways to neutralize them. Vega was fun. She worked quite well for both groups. I even had a paladin fail to see through the mislead and couldn't bring himself to attack a child at the end.
The Babaus were deadly at both tiers. Darkness is always a heavy risk, and parties seem to have a tendency to send a lone flying member up to the balcony to drop a rope. This ends poorly for said character. Both groups had a player drop due to this, at high tier he was two away from dead.
The last fight is a nice reveal, but Vega is pretty much a kitten in terms of threat level. The Yeth hounds just don't have the staying power, hitting power, or fear DC. I love the story, but the big bad isn't a threat to really any group. Not sure what to do about that.
Overall it's got a great atmosphere, and both groups loved it. I agree that the Big Evil Guy shouldn't leave entire diaries around and that burned remains or the like fit the atmosphere better. The way to go with this seems to mirror a lot of tricks one might use for Empyreal Enlightenment: will/perception/sense motive rolled beforehand, and touches to the general table atmosphere to give a sense of something very off going on, just out of sight. The fights are decent, but not the main attraction, so don't worry too much about PCs blowing through combats initially. That being said, the babaus will humble many a party.
Not sure what to do with the scale. I agree that it feel incredibly cramped as is, especially the stables. The howlers are large in either tier, and fitting them isn't possible. Perhaps they're back from a hunt and attack the party from outside the stables? Whatever you do, if the scale stays the same, the fight needs to get outside and fast, perhaps as they come upon the wagon.
Congratulations! It's awesome to see when hard work and dedication are recognized. I suppose now that you're halfway across the country and running a game in some capacity, I'll have to feed you more wonderful terrible ideas. Breaking rule 1 was always and enjoyable tradition.
If you play a summoning character at the very least you should have cards for all the things you're going to summon.
Right. My apologies for not being clear.
So, if I (somehow) summon a tiefling, I don't need to bring the legal sourced pages. (I can bring "cards".) That's because it's a finite list.
But if I play a no-bells-nor-whistles tiefling, I need to bring the Bestiary page. That's even though "tiefling" is a list of 1.
That makes no sense.
I'm not aware of any spell in the core assumption that has tiefling on the list. I'm talking about the spell. If the spell is a summoning spell that gives a list of creatures, and that spell is in the core assumption, then because the list is in the core assumptions it suffices legally so that they don't need the other resource (though, as Kyle pointed out, they better have the stats ready).
If a player asks to borrow my Bestiary for their summoning focused character, they are going to get one hell of an evil eye.
No doubt, mine as well. But legally they don't need it. If they're summoning focused, though? Yeah, they should not only have the resource, but have the stats of what they summon ready to go
Are you saying that a tengu summoner who brings in a bunch of celestial bison needs the official source for her tengu, but not for the summoned critters?
Yes. The summoning spell details the legal creatures, the stats of which the GM is assumed to have access. So long as the summoning spell is from a core assumption book, the player need not provide the book, as there is a limited list. If the player wished to summon from an expanded list made legal in an AP or other source, she would need to provide that source.
Face characters are excellent. There are several scenarios that actively penalize a group that is socially incompetent. Beyond that, many GMs react favorably to characters who seek noncombat resolutions.
That said, not every encounter will have a peaceful solution. Some creatures are magically compelled or simply unwilling to negotiate. There will be times when social skills will not avail you, but for one member of a 6 person group to be a social specialist? It's not only useful, it's advisable, I'd say.
look at the cheesy builds people make with gunslingers, archers, zen archers, druids and some fighters. Some of them are MORE powerful than the four they banned. Shouldn't they be banned also?
Reading the explanation for the ban, it seems a lot to do with flavor, though. I don't think it was all about power.
Developer
