KL Sanchez's page

Organized Play Member. 49 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 5 Organized Play characters.


Another thread necro.

"No Response Needed" would also imply that the rules should be very, very obvious to anyone who is an English major.

"At 1st level, the infiltrator’s will is bent toward subterfuge and deception. She adds her Wisdom modifier on Bluff and Diplomacy skill checks in addition to the normal ability score modifiers."

"Charm of Wisdom (Ex): You use your Wisdom modifier instead of your Charisma modifier when making Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate checks."

There are other implications, but I'll keep this simple. A diplomacy check is a Charisma check using your Charisma modifier. Charm of Wisdom replaces Charisma with Wisdom. It does not change the nature of the check; it remains a Charisma and Diplomacy check. This is a key note in the PACG, as well, when using items like Pearl of Wisdom to swap out dice. The Infiltrator ability adds Wisdom as an untyped bonus to the diplomacy check, in addition to the normal modifier; the normal modifier has become Wisdom. You have added Wisdom in addition to Wisdom. There is no core rule that says you may not add the same modifier twice as a result of shenanigans, it only states that you cannot add the same type of bonus twice, save for certain exceptions. As Wisdom becomes an untyped bonus to a Wisdom modifier Charisma/Diplomacy, there is no RAW that states you cannot have this same modifier added twice to the same check. The rules of English (as an analytical language rather than an inflected one) state that something as stated is what it is, until it becomes a pun, double entendre, or some other form of comedic fallacy.

Mic drop.

If you wanted it worded differently to completely eliminate confusion, reword it as: "At 1st level, the infiltrator’s will is bent toward subterfuge and deception. She adds her Wisdom modifier as an untyped bonus* on Bluff and Diplomacy skill checks in addition to the normal ability score modifiers.**"

* You may also consider it a circumstance, insight, or competence bonus, if you like, but it seems the intent here is to build it as an untyped, innate, and inherent bonus to the check that can stack with other bonuses.

** The language of "in addition to" might also be dropped because it has now become, definitively, a bonus, to eliminate the confusion it has apparently caused.

Wolf Munroe wrote:
... According to some mythology of the Creation of the Multiverse presented in some of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting materials, Asmodeus is possibly the oldest living being in the multiverse ...

Thread necro~

This is a fascinating discussion, but I have a point or two to make:

Black Magga, for one, is stated to be "older than the gods themselves", so it's possible she (and maybe the mothers of oblivion) existed on some plane of existence before the birth of Ihys and Asmodeus, and was somehow subjugated by Lamashtu to serve as her messenger. I'm GMing RotR right now, so that's why it's fresh on my mind. =) The creation of the mothers of oblivion is also a mystery, so they may also predate the gods. The fact that Magga is still CR 15 in RotR - after weakening by probably 1 CR every slumber cycle - multiplying by maybe one cycle every thousand to ten thousand years, over all the eons... yeah, she was probably truly a sight to behold in her heyday; maybe even more powerful than many of the middle or greater gods.

The aboleths also claim to predate the gods, but such a claim may only be grandstanding by the creatures; that is such a long time in the past that they may either be misremembering, or simply boasting that they've been around so long that they don't recall there ever being anything else existing before they did.

Rovagug's origin is so mysterious that he may be among the primordial beings. For all anyone knows, he's the primeval manifestation of annihilation, a more-comprehensible form of Azathoth. Whether he is a true god or simply the mightiest of all qlippoth, he is a being of such incredible power that even the, quote, "original" god — Asmodeus — was unable to defeat him. Indeed, it took a cadre of gods - good and evil, enemy and foe alike - in a combined, ages-long effort to simply weaken him enough (likely only to a large enough fraction of his power that he could subdued) that they could cast him into a prison, placing an effectively world-bound seal around him, and giving the key to arguably the most powerful god, the only primordial creation-myth god remaining: Asmodeus. That should probably be left to sink in for a moment: a creature - who may not even be truly a god - so powerful that the gods themselves cannot destroy, they can only seal him away and pray that he never bursts free, or he may well have become so powerful in his slumber that they may never defeat him again. Probably, in Pathfinder mythology, Rovagug is the representation of the Great Beast of Revelations, except his end result is factual, total annihilation of all living things across any plane he can break in to... which, considering his power, is probably all of them.

Curiously, though there are archetypes for nearly all the major deities and gods of mankind, I can't find one for Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah/etc. Maybe Sarenrae, but she could be considered a more mid-level god, compared with the immense, reality-shaping power of other gods. You might say Ihys, but to be a true archetype for Jehovah, such a being would have to be the one true creator of all things, including the primordial and creationary gods, and the highest of all creation. If he does exist, he either hasn't been represented, or could be simply referred to as the energy from which the first gods were borne, and who simply prefers to let all creation do its thing while he so subtly manipulates matters that not even the gods know he exists...

That was basically what I was trying to confirm before someone accused me of being a munchkin. I wasn't sure if the recharge section is distinct from the power section for the purpose of this mechanic.

I want to be sure if I'm being too strict or exactly strict with my interpretation. Class deck Damiel states, to reduce the wording to its relevant clauses, "When you would banish (...) a spell for its power, you may recharge it instead." It's been my interpretation that spells discard or display for their powers. Ergo, to my eye, there are no spells in the alchemist deck that specifically call for you to "banish this card, then perform a power." Or am I just being too literal, and the intent is that the character power overrides the recharge check, and isn't dependent on how the card is actually activated?

Those were the two lines I couldn't find on a skim.

I was actually just going to pose this question, but with Damiel. The ruling I'm trying to find and have been unable to, even though I swear I saw it in the rulebooks somewhere (I must be blind), is which cards override which. I feel like it had something to do with locations overriding scenario cards and the like, or something to that effect.

Which brings me to the way I was reading it: is the card more specific than the power, and therefore does the alchemist's kit override Damiel's own power, making the alchemist's kit a drawback instead of an aid; in most cases, I'd rather recharge the card, but the kit seems to imply that it's always discarded.

I designed a game once that uses the "when you would" language, which in my game interrupts all other sequences for that effect, but there's still the matter of which effect/power triggers first: the card's or Damiel's innate ability.


Also, what's the ruling on loot? The scenario itself says that players get to keep the loot found, but the boon box says nothing of this. Am I reading it right (all players can divvy up the items found and record them on their chronicle sheets/inventory sheets) or do you simply get a discount on items for being Dark Archives (the secondary boon)?

Alexander Augunas wrote:

While this looks like a really fun scenario, it might hinge upon a major mechanical error.

Realistic Likeness reads as follows:


Realistic Likeness (Kitsune)
When you are in human form, you can take the shape of a specific individual.
Prerequisites: Kitsune.
Benefit: You can precisely mimic the physical features of any individual you have encountered. When you use your racial change shape ability, you can attempt to take the form of an individual, granting you a +10 circumstance bonus on Disguise checks made to fool others with your impersonation.

Specific trumps general. Realistic Likeness specifically says any individual you have encountered. It is an incredibly powerful feat that basically turns a kitsune into a true shapeshifter (for humanoids). If anything, it should be assumed that "any individual" means any humanoid of like or similar size (so no turning into large or small humanoids because where does that extra space come from or go to?).

A quick search didn't come up with anything, so I'm just gonna ask it straight up: when do we officially get our characters' role cards for the Wrath of the Righteous season?

Is it after completing Adventure Deck Three? After attaining Tier 3? Tier 4?

I don't recall seeing roles mentioned anywhere in the official handbook for season two.

Edit: The only singular mention aside from example Tier 5 characters is in the section on starting in with higher-level characters. "Your character (and role card, if you’re playing a scenario with an adventure
deck number of 4 or higher) ..." No specific mention of gaining your role after adventure 3.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

... your best melee character is a Dex-based ninja.

I am that ninja. It is painful every time it happens.

Ah, then it is definitely legal to - with 20+ Fame - buy an Agile AoMF with no bonus otherwise and then modify it from there via general upgrading rules, I assume? From +0 Agile to +1, +2, +3, etc. until it's maxed out at +4 (because of the existing +0 (+1 level effect) for Agile)?

Good good if true, since Agile is actually a far better bonus for me than stacking Brawling over and over again. =)

It also sounds as if I can outright buy a Headband of Mental Prowess once I have the cash for it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong before I start saving for something I can't buy. As pertains to that, also, if I want to upgrade the Headband at a later time to a higher bonus, is that also legal? I bet there's a thread on it somewhere but I don't have the time to search myself (between two jobs and two to four hours of sleep a night...).

An additional question while I'm thinking of it: my character builder claims that you can have armor with enchantment bonuses to stats. Is this legal or even possible? I haven't yet found a resource that actually lists a method or means for giving yourself stat bonuses via Armor. For instance, a +1 Armor that gives a +1 Dex bonus. I've been working under the assumption that it's not possible or otherwise rare, though the builder is supposed to be operating under "PFS Legal" mode.

I also don't have the time to scour the web until I find a definitive answer, so I'll, again, ask folks who have more experience than I.

Probably this has already been answered, but it's also a specific question and my character manager program effectively is saying that I can't do it by virtue of not doing the upgrade, or at least not applying the effect properly...

The question: is the Brawling armor property stackable with itself with regards to upgrading from +1 to +2 and beyond? The question is specifically about legality and functionality, not about cost (those tables exist elsewhere).

I.e., I have a +1 Brawling Haramaki for my ninja... is it legal to upgrade it to +2 and get a +4/+4 bonus for having two instances of the Brawling keyword, so to speak, on the armor?

A second specific question: do I need to complete a scenario that grants access to the Amulet of Mighty Fists and/or a Headband of Mental Prowess to be able to buy either one? My suspicion is yes, but can't hurt to get a straight answer from those with experience.

And a third with regards to the Amulet of Mighty Fists: scuttle is that one can make a +0 Agile Amulet of Mighty Fists (or a +1 overall with a +0 Agile property) and get both the Agile effect as well as the +1 fists effect. Is this specifically PFS legal, and what would that cost be? Just the cost of a regular +1 Amulet, or plus 2000 or 4000 (whichever it is) to load the additional +0 Agile property? My personal suspicion is that a PFS-legal Amulet of Mighty Fists cannot have additional properties on it, but again, better to ask than try it and suddenly have an illegal character.

Will there be a fourth, fifth, and so on box set of these? Considering that they seem to be selling out -fast-, I was thinking maybe probably hopefully so, since the minis -and- the cards are nice additions to any Pathfinder collection.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is the program still on pace for May 27 early release? Our group plays on Mondays and I've already got my base set; we could theoretically start tomorrow if we had materials.

ThreeEyedSloth wrote:

Oh, and get ready to see this a lot:

"[insert monster name] is immune to the Electricity, Poison, and Cold (or sometimes Fire) traits."

That comes up so much in Shackles right now, and Seoni just shrugs and blasts them into oblivion anyways.

"So it's a combat 24? I discard a card, it dies."
"Aren't you gonna roll any dice?"
"It dies."
"But it's immune to-"
"It dies."
"But the after-combat dama-"
"Damage? What damage?" (adjusts rings)

There's an incentive (adventure reward) for players who completed Season of the Shackles to play Wrath of the Righteous, and by extension, to replay their old characters in the new season; new gameplay, new storyline, new ways to play your character, etc.

A severe thread necro, but this one made me quite literally laugh out loud. Now I have to play an orc and throw a sORCeror at an enemy for the lulz. :D

But as a Trek geek, I have to add my two cents that betleHs are actually quite powerful; I'd rate them more at d10/d10, 18-20x3, blocking, tripping, slashing, piercing, disarming. Of all the studies done with them and all the fighting styles developed, yes, you can use it as a shield, axe, sword, lance, and almost as a staff (in tripping); you even see it used to trip and disarm all the time in the shows (and all valid maneuvers). They also have the power to cleave through metals (maybe the way it was seen on the show was badly overstated, but that was for style points), with all the cutting power of heavy axes; a lot like falcatas and the like. Hell, if you want, you can even bludgeon someone to death with it like a club with the flatter edges, especially the center edge, itself useful for both blocking and disarming.

As far as martial weapons go, the kings are katanas, swords, axes, mauls (for their raw destructive power), betleHs, and meqleHs, where meqleHs have their own kinds of nastiness, cutting power, and versatility.

betleH: 1d10/1d10, 18-20x3, blocking, slashing, piercing, tripping, disarming, reach*. Heavy Two-Handed Melee Weapon.
meqleH: 1d8, 18-20x2, blocking, slashing, piercing, disarming. Light One-Handed Melee Weapon.

* In certain maneuvers, yes, you can even use a betleH as a reach weapon; it involves slashing types of swings, but you can reach out at double your arm length and hit if aimed properly. More effectively used to "lead" your enemy, however, and goad them into a false step. In game terms, it'd probably have to be "Choose Reach or Close" when making an attack action.

Imagine, though: you parry a strike, take an immediate action and disarm, then trip, then proceed to beat your enemy to death while he's prone. The game probably doesn't support it all in one turn, but you can actually do all that in less than two or three seconds in reality.

Each of them is also *begging* for a Feat that grants a +1 shield bonus to AC (+2 for the betleH). Both are *exceptional* at blocking and deflecting strikes, in some ways even better than a shield can, if only for the ability to flat-out disarm someone in the process of blocking. As a weapon, each of them is just insanely well-designed and surprisingly versatile.

This moment of geekiness brought to you by a severe lack of sleep.

Additional situation: you are at another location, and move or are forced to move to where the ship is anchored; you then end up on the ship with anyone else who happens to be there.

I think the bottom line is, the ship is wherever the captain is, unless the ship is anchored at a specific location; anyone who is at the ship's location (and by extension, the captain's if the ship isn't anchored) is on the ship.

Rum Punch Scenario:

"Before you attempt a check to defeat Nefti Unwesha..."

Nefti Unwesha:

"Before you act, choose a card from your hand..."

Am I correct in interpreting this as, you shuffle out the card upon encountering Nefti, then you attempt the check and can pull from the ally pile? Either way, I haven't even started yet and I'm not looking forward to probably losing one of my good items to the box (because chances are I won't find my item again before the scenario ends).

I've also been interpreting "Before you act" to mean before you even attempt a check to Evade.

I don't know if I chose a bad party for it, but I ended up having to tackle the first scenario in "Plunder and Peril" four straight times to beat it (took about five, six hours). I couldn't tell if the scenario was unbalanced or what, but I ran out of time three times in a row, and only on the third time did I even come close to actually having a chance to beating it. On the fourth try I got lucky and half the henchmen got shuffled into the middles of the decks, so I had a fair shake at it, but I still ended up with only three or four cards left in the Blessings deck at the end.



I don't think it helped, though, that I shuffle maybe too well: I ended up with most of the henchmen as either the next to last or very last card in every deck.

Hirgenzosk is horribly rude, though... Combat 30 in the first scenario of the game? I have almost no shot at even coming close to making that check, unless I have Sel go in with a Rapier and spell, getting two Gorums and another two Blessings, a ranged shot from Lirianne, and maybe getting a Magic Weapon from himself and/or another person: 7d8, 1d6, and 5d4 +3 for a range of 16-82... and the average comes out to 44. (Whimper)

Game's pretty much declaring, "Discard someone's entire hand, or your ship is wrecked and this location can never be closed until the villain winds up in it." Owwwwww. In the end I wound up culling the vast majority of stronger items in the box, so now I don't have much need of exploring ever again, since there's a grand total of maybe - maybe - seven cards left in the entire box worth getting.

On the other hand, I should end up like a level seven player rolling through a level two game from here on out. ;-) Zero skill bonuses and I'm already starting to auto some stuff.

And I don't know if I'm even in the right forum (should it be in the PACG Rules forum?).

This is a question for the PACG organized play events, and it comes from this block of text in v 1.1 of the PDF:

"All the cards must come from your Class Deck, with one exception: You may substitute any character of the appropriate class (along with a matching role and token card) from a base set or Character Add-On Deck. For example, if you’re using the Fighter Class Deck, you may use the fighter Valeros from the Rise of the Runelords base set or the Skull & Shackles base set."

This makes me wonder if Alahazra is then playable via Class Deck, and if so, what Deck class would she belong to? Cleric? Sorceror? Bard? It also makes me wonder if Amiri is compatible, and if so, which Deck? Fighter?

I'm still trying to decide which character to take into Organized Play, but tops on my list of S&S characters is Alahazra and Ranzak, who I didn't think were going to be playable ('til maybe now) except in home games.

On the other hand, does this actually mean it must be a character who is in both S&S (or RotR) and the class decks, like Harsk, Meri, Val, Seoni, Ezren, or Kyra? I'm not inclined to think so, but the example referenced Val specifically, which made me wonder.

On an unrelated (maybe related?) note, I'm probably more interested in Tempest Alahazra myself; the ability to have Arcane and Divine skills makes her into a combination of Kyra and Seoni: she can use any attack spell (with d12's) and not have to banish them, in addition to being able to stack up some healing spells in tandem. The tradeoff is somebody else needs to handle ship encounters, but hey, the game is full of tradeoffs.

I almost wish I could play two Alahazras at once, one Tempest and one Stargazer. =p

Sounds like I'm not the only one, then.

I appear to be a victim of the Backorder Glitch, as I've been checking at least once a day for the last two, three weeks and the order just flips between "Expected to Ship", "Originally expected to ship", and "Originally expected to ship ... / Waiting on backordered product(s)." I've been wondering if Paizo actually managed to not print and stock enough sets (a thought I found unfathomable considering every good manufacturer should order at least their Preorders + 25% minimum for retail), or if there's some kind of delay in the warehousing and shipping part of it.

I haven't actually looked at my credit card to see if it's been charged yet, but last I checked my base set/character add-on order was a "Pending" charge, though that was at the beginning of the month. If everything's supposed to leave the warehouse en masse by or on Friday, then I guess I'll just wait and keep checking, but I might have to resort to angry phone calls if I don't see movement here soon; that's a lot of cash to drop and I've never seen this kind of delay with an order of mine before, be they custom auto parts or game materials.

Bump because this situation just happened to me.

Not the Woods one, but in the Death Zone I came across a Muck Graul with Amiri, Seoni, and Kyra in the party. Kyra beat it first, but didn't have Fire, so it went to Amiri; Amiri then beat it, but without Fire, so it went to Seoni; at this point I decided to check whether I actually need to do the third encounter because I realized this could end up in an infinite loop if no characters had the Fire trait.

I also wondered whether - if it did keep chaining - the card is somehow summoning multiple versions of itself to the bottom of the deck, or just sending itself to the bottom of the deck despite already being there.

Maybe it needs a new paragraph, something like, "...place Muck Graul on the bottom of the deck; regardless of the outcome of the second encounter, Muck Graul remains undefeated and the encounter ends."

Dave Riley wrote:
You might wanna advance your ODC up a few decades. These days it's perfectly fine to use terms as gender neutral (see: "actor" instead of "actress," see also in Pathfinder: Enchanter). A lot of people even prefer it! :D

I think it's actually a rule of English, though; certain archaic terms like gender-specific nouns (waiter, waitress, stewart, stewardess, butler, maid) are supposed to retain their "gender", so to speak, even in modern usage.

Also, "ODC"; that's an OCD spelling alert! =O

And the dice roll and Locked Door/Chime story are awesome.

In Deck 5, Thassilonian Sins, I think I interpreted the Scenario text wrong; it reads, "When you defeat a villain, place it next to this card..."

When going through, I encountered Ordikon first in every single location when I found a villain or henchman, and resorted to the standard rule of letting him escape to open locations each time (and four times out of five, rolling 1 or 2 on the defeat check and having to punch him out twice in that turn). Not until I cornered all three villains in the same location did I realize that I think I was supposed to put him by the Scenario card immediately on beating him, instead of letting him escape; is that the correct way to interpret the rule?

That in lieu of escaping, he was supposed to be removed immediately? It does open the question, to me, of whether it's possible to end up closing only two locations if you were to encounter all three villains in succession, and if that ruling is the case (that they're not actually allowed to escape).

On a more humorous note, Worst Day He Ever Had: getting his face utterly beat in no less than nine times by three different people.

I was wondering if Freya (sp?) would show up in one of the decks somewhere... sweet! Needs more badass female characters in games. =)

Psst... is "Goblin Weidling" supposed to be "Goblin Wielding"?

Also, yes, Hawkmoon is totally awesome. He (she?) probably ought to be a staffer (hint hint wink).

I think the consensus was that you can certainly mix the boxes (or I guess even parts of both boxes) for both adventure paths if you so pleased.

Taking a mark in Seoni's "If you fail a check by 1, you may bury a card..." power on Celestial Sorceror, and then smashing every check after that by comfortable amounts, or failing miserably.

As an unrelated sidenote, I wish "Sorceress" was the term instead... I feel wrong every time I read "Sorceror" next to a woman character. But I suppose that's just a writer's OCD talking. =)

If PACG powers had names, this one should be called "Yellow Bellied".


Yeahhhhh never banish a card from your deck or hand unless you absolutely don't want it and know exactly what it is. =p

I'm always paranoid, for instance, about going to a location with a "Banish card on closing" effect for fear I'll pull the villain on the first card and end up having to banish something or running the location dry before I can close it. But once I'm there, I always try to keep some bogus card in hand (like a Wooden Shield or potion) so I can burn it for closing.

On a sidenote, I really wish the dragon was "bury" when you fail the check, and maybe something more toned-down in place of the +5 Fire... like 1d6+3 or +2 with the Fire trait. Pet dragons are just an awesome status symbol. =)

She's got 'im in the Torture Rack!


Our group personally never seems to find a reason to *roll* a Perception check... in fact, I don't think we've *ever* rolled a Perception check (Harsk and Meri are the only ones who even *have* Perception as a skill).

Another item I noted that has the "an Intelligence check" print is Ordikon's Staff. If true though, it's certainly strange, but definitely helps everybody out. We'll continue adjudicating it that way.

In deck 5, the Headband of Epic Intelligence states, "Reveal this card to add 2 to an Intelligence check."

...AN Intelligence check. Does this mean that the Headband adds to *any* character's Intelligence check anywhere in the game world? If so, this item just became OMGAwesome, otherwise, I'm thinking it's meant to read, "...your Intelligence check."

All the other +Stat items, by the way, state "your [stat] check", this one is the lone exception (as far as I can tell, anyway). Haven't seen any other mention of this card yet, for what it's worth.

It's limited very specifically to Ezren's discard pile (in this example), so I can't imagine any scenario where it would break any other part of the game. It's simply a very effective healing item for Ezren, or anyone else who manages to succeed at the checks.

A more interesting question is whether Headband of Epic Intelligence breaks the system, which I'm about to post a thread about...

The questions of swapping cards between the box and deck bring to mind another question: how does one handle promo cards from the base boxes? If one acquires a promo card during play, is it treated as if it's a card of an Adventure Deck level equal to the deck that it came with, and of an item equal to its type?

E.g., if one picks up a promo card that's a Weapon shipped with the 4th Adventure Deck, does it become a standard AD 4 weapon from the class deck?

Personally, I think it would've been awesome to have some class-specific promos for each deck, or just a singular type of boon promo across all the decks. E.g., a "pet" ally printed in limited quantities, such as:

* "Scouting Falcon" for Rogues; Reveal to add 1d4 to your Ranged combat checks.
* "Hunting Hound" for Fighters; Reveal to add 1d4 to your Melee combat checks.
* "Dwarf Dragon" for Sorcerers/Sorceresses; Reveal to add 1d4 with the Fire trait to your combat check.
* "Griffon" for Clerics; Recharge to heal 1d4 cards for any character at your location.

...Aaaand etcetera. It'd be like having a pet familiar with you at all times, like Lini gets to pull off, but themed for each character class. =)

Or, on the alternative, just extra-powerful weapons or items, like a staff for Sorcs with a bonus to Arcane checks (on recharge or reveal), or a sword that lets a fighter dual wield; e.g., "You may play another one-hand weapon on this check."

On a side note, will there be more of these for the other expansion classes, like Barbarian or Monk?

Precisely my thinking, just gets painful if you don't have a "reveal to reduce" card in hand.

And then said character shakes their fists and yells KHAAAAAAAAAAAAN!

From that thread, it indeed sounds like they didn't quite word it clearly enough; I suppose the ruling, then, is that damage dealt before the encounter is considered separate from other damage and unaffected by modifying powers elsewhere on the bane's card.

I would probably word it as: "Combat damage dealt by [the bane]..."

One word changes the entire power, then, and keeps it from going nuclear, while keeping the bane as the source of the pre-encounter damage.

Let's say a card (and there are a few, I think) deals 1 Combat and 1 Fire damage (or some combination thereof). If these are to be considered multiple instances of damage, then if you use an armor or item to reduce the damage from one, then is it true - as I believe - that you can't use the item on the second instance since it's a different origin of damage?

Which is to say, the damage doesn't stack up and then isn't possible to eliminate with one check or item?

Layman's terms: do I need to play an armor/item to reduce damage for an instance of 1 damage, then another for the second instance of 1 damage?

My personal ruling is that since they're separate, one armor or item can't affect both.

More of a ruling question, this one; the text on Warden of Runes reads:

"Before the encounter, each character at this location must succeed at a Con of Fort 14 check or be dealt 1 Electricity damage.

Damage dealt by the Warden of Runes is dealt to each creature at this location."

The way I read this is, a character for example fails their Con check, takes 1 Electric damage, then every other character there takes 1 Electric damage. Then the next character could fail their check, and everybody else takes 1 damage. Then the next character could fail their check, and the chain reaction starts to get brutal until everyone has done their checks.

Is this a correct ruling for the Warden? Or is it supposed to imply that the Warden is not the one dealing the damage on the Fort check, and thereby doesn't chain react the damage to everyone present?

It sounds cheap, because so few characters have godly Fort skills, and by the time you get there, I imagine most groups will either have banished all the Fort potions from the box or would need to burn through one or more Blessings on every check just to keep the damage from going nuclear on them, which effectively has the same result of burning through their hands.

This seems especially punitive for Into the Eye, in which a six character group could theoretically nuke very nearly (or completely) their entire hands if everyone were to fail their checks; that, or nobody would have Blessings left for the combats, which could make the combat checks mathematically impossible.

Seems like the strategy would then be to purposefully decline to explore every turn, discard through everyone's decks, and build up a hand of 4/5 Blessings and one or two attack weapons or spells and rushdown a single minion on one character's turn; then, have the Cleric heal ad nauseum and repeat the process just to be sure of success at the Con checks, which could theoretically destruct everyone's hands.


He's a lot like Deadpool, really, from what I can see. If you choose him, other veteran players might look at you like, "...Whyyyyy?"

He's got some stuff that can sting a good bit - like discarding the top card of the Blessing deck to explore again - but also a lot of useful abilities. To me, what hurts the most is that he doesn't get a Melee or Ranged bonus, making him less than ideal as a fighter in any role, nor does he have Arcane or Divine, making him less than optimal as a spellcaster. Now, if he had a Ranged bonus, he'd be pretty saucy and quite well-rounded as an explorer, and quite tempting to pick up, especially early in the game.

So, yeah, he's obviously there to either shuttle through the location decks like a crackhead on speed, to dick with the other players, or to snatch stuff up like a, well, kleptomaniac. =)

He could be fun, but I don't think my gaming group would appreciate anyone playing such a character, because of the harm he can cause the party if his player decided to be an ass for a turn or two, and for the simple fact that you can't min-max him until he becomes a warmachine. We're pretty big on min-maxing and auto-killing stuff before the rolls. ;)

Damn you people and dangling pretty things for me to buy! ò_ó

I'll have to remember to pick these up one at a time until I have the whole set. Collect 'em all!

3 people marked this as a favorite.
This one is my bad; In PFS I ruled that using presdigitation to make an enemy smell like barbeque would grant the wolf animal companion with scent a bonus percent chance of hitting the target concealed with darkness. That opened a can of worms.

That is one of the best rulings ever.

Disciple of Sakura wrote:

First 3.0 campaign I played, I was a fighter with weapon focus: Heavy Crossbow for thematic reasons. I fired at a creature climbing up towards our location along an almost sheer cliff. I asked how far away it was, the DM replied "120 feet" and I fired at it. Rolled pretty high, DM responded that there was "no way" I could hit it because it was "120 feet away. That's too far to hit it." Needless to say, I quit that game after that session.

My first 3.0 experience, I built a gish sorcerer and gave her Martial Weapon Proficiency: Greatsword at first level. The DM refused to allow it, because she didn't know how to wield a longsword, and there was no way someone could learn to use a greatsword without knowing how to use a longsword first.

That's a pretty bad pair of rulings. Your counter arguments should have been:

* "One doesn't need to know how to use a pistol first before they can use a shotgun, nor a musket before using a revolver."

* "120 feet is just slightly longer than a basketball court, and a third of a football field. Heavy crossbows have real-world ranges well beyond that, and are accurate at likely twice that range in the hands of a proficient user."

In reality you can probably hit a target from 200 feet with a shortbow if you really know what you're doing.

I don't personally have a worst ruling ever, just a ruling that makes some sense to most but that I disagreed with privately: I was playing a game of Dresden and leaping from a tall building to strike at a troll with a pair of iron knuckles. The DM at the time ruled that I couldn't add Inhuman Strength (it might have been Superhuman at the time) because I didn't have a place to brace my feet, a ruling that disregarded the real world physics of an arm's power not being linked with the feet or stance in a free-fall setting. It's a bit much to get into, but throwing a punch increases the speed of the attack, where force is a measure of mass by acceleration; strength should really have been added.

In the end, I knocked him senseless regardless so the ruling never bothered so much; in general the rules of the Dresden game are just broken beyond repair. The chase, speed, and distance rules in particular are badly broken, and the combat system itself is far too easy to game into single, massive blows by any particular player class if they simply maneuver the system properly.

Outside of all that, I really don't have a lot of bad GM'ing stories in general; every GM/DM I've played with stuck to the rules and used common sense. The weak point of the GMs I've played with has rather been coming up with enough story to keep original settings going, not any problems with rules interpretations; they've in fact been all very spot-on and logical in applying rules, even with complicated sets like Dresden and DnD.

Never played Pathfinder pen-and-paper though, so I have no idea how the Pathfinder community is like. These days I've just been trying to meld the various game designs into an original one, a project that's likely to take some more years until I have a design I like.

I imagine that Paizo probably makes a bit more cash from each transaction when you buy direct, too.

The biggest personal consideration is the promo cards; you get them for no extra cost through Paizo and if you jump on board early (non-subscribers don't get them if they order through Paizo after their release, I think), though you can find some on eBay after the fact, albeit generally at a premium. They're intended to be rare and their value inflates as such.

It's just a matter of how exclusive you want your copy of the game to be, and how you balance shipping costs with the cost of the game; to some people it matters, to others it doesn't. Case in point, those who would be better served buying locally and saving 30 to 50 bucks in shipping, then re-upping their subscription for the Adventure Decks.

And still others might be collectors that got into it too late; my gaming group got me into the game, and I subscribed just in time to get Adventure Deck 6 with promo, if I'm not mistaken. If I want to be a completionist, I'll have to track down the promos on eBay, and then there's the potential issue of reconciling first print versus second print versions of the decks.

It's a matter of what's going to work for you. Some of the promos are really nice, others will come off as just a shrug to other players.

I'm personally of a mind that it benefits Paizo more to buy direct from them rather than a third party; I'm willing to believe their profit margin is better that way. A big reason I subscribed and will stick with it, though it'll cut my cost by 50% to buy RotR to date from a third party; I don't make enough coin to drop almost $300 on the complete set and then track down the promos... o_O

In my group, a player was using Sajan and was intentionally trying to cull out items from his deck so that he could be short at the end of the adventure and be able to restock his deck with more useful items. After breaking open a locked chest and collecting his loot, he suddenly realized that he'd just refilled his hand with items he didn't want and declared through a maniacal laugh, "Oh, wait! Sonofa*****!"

He immediately decided to take a vow of poverty and threw all the items back into the box. We pretended he chose to fail the check. -_^