Link2000's page

thejeff wrote:

We may have different definitions of trap.

Losing a better fit for concept because they thought the stat bonus mattered is a trap to me.

If they are prioritizing single ability score points enough to mistakenly think theme makes a huge difference in power, than they were never going to pick to fit a character concept, in the first place. Or, a munchkin is not going to magically build for concept just because its explained that one particular munchkinism doesn't actually work. Thus, I feel no regret.

That's not necessarily true. When I talk to new players and explain ability scores to them and how they work, they catch on to that pretty quick. And maybe they at first want to be a priest, but they see that it gives a bonus to Wisdom. They think "I'm a soldier, so is putting this point into wisdom the best choice?"

Now, I would tell them, "Select the priest if you want it, the point doesn't matter." Followed by explaining why the point doesn't matter. But I know that I am not the only person introducing people to the game, and some may not point that our to their players.

Their concern is rarely "I want the best stat." It's often "I don't want to be a hindrance to the group." Both of these thought processes, however, lead to the same result of over-valuing that one point.

That mindset you have would work with experienced players, but I would dread sending a new player to your table when you belive they are prioritizing for no reason other than "munchkinism".

Conjectures! (possible spoiler alert)

** spoiler omitted **

and

** spoiler omitted **

3/4 Correct!

By the way, the puzzles were amazing this year, and there would have been no way for me or the wife to have solved the "secret puzzled" without Jason's and Joe's help.

I'm super excited that this has been made public!

My Envoy in an AP is going for a computer to place into the Datajack he has installed in his head.

<<Steward>>
Tier 3 Computer (Total Cost = 2135 credits)
-Modules-
Complex Control (Shirren-Eye Rifle)
Average Secure Data (Stewards)
-Upgrades-
Artificial Personality
Miniaturization x4 (Negligible Bulk)
Range II (1 Mile)
Self-Charging

He was eventually going to load it all up with some Library Chips as well to sort of act like a walking infosphere. He can control a Shirren-Eye rifle from up to a mile away with it as well. I thought it was all pretty cool.

I think I've finally got it! Thank you Joe and Jason for all the help both at the con and away! The wife and I enjoyed the puzzles immensely! We can't wait to see what's brewed up next year!

I'm actually okay with a Level 20 Wizard being able to tear apart a Level 1 Fighter with nothing but a dagger.

That level 20 Wizard (Bob from hence forward), has seen things. Experienced things. Bob has had to face down Dragons, Demons, Devils, and gods knows what other horrors.
Bob has created entire planes of existence simply because he desired it. He has terra-morphed entire landscapes because he did not feel like teleporting around a mountain this morning.

Then this Level 1 Fighter (Phil) want's to raise a blade against him? Who is this Phil anyways? A once upon a time farmer who picked up his grandfather's sword? He's been "training for months" on how to wield it. Like that's supposed to mean something to Bob.

The more you've experienced, the better you are. Bob has experienced ALOT (19 levels worth of crap), Phil may not have even seen a zombie in his life, and is supposed to be a challenge to Bob simply because Bob is only armed with a knife and decided it would be nice to leave the spell book in his tower within the demi-plane "Bobbiton"? I don't think so.

Just my feel on it. If you think a level 1 should be able to compete with a level 20 simply because circumstance is against the level 20, that's okay. I just so happen to disagree with the sentiment.

what people seem to be missing is that in pf1 it is a *choice* to be better at climbing. You spent a *limited* resource and decide to be better at climbing but not better at swimming. And that resource, it goes up per level, I don't see anyone in this thread complaining that high level characters should improve.

Now instead we have *no choice* you *must* be better at not just climbing, but swimming, and bluffing, and perform dance, and all sorts of things that probably never even came for the character during the campaign.

And for people who propose, just ignore the rules, just house rule, just refuse to roll and say you fail, sure people can do that, but why are we even playing pf2 then? And let me ask, if you're at a pathfinder 2 society game and everyone decides they are going to sneak past the guards and one person suddenly says, my fighter, lord Berneer was always a clumsy fellow, i don't roll, i fail my stealth check, what you think will happen at that table? The player likely to be tossed for being disruptive or get collective gasp from fellow players. People are proposing a non solution.

I want variety, I don't all my level 10 characters to essentially be within a -/+3 margin in every single untrained skill, that feels so incredibly boring to me. And worse, completely destroys my agency as a player playing a character.

I don't know about the campaigns you've played in, but even at low levels, most if not all of my characters have had the opportunity to use all the skills on the character sheet. Some of which I could not perform because I was not trained in them even at the mid to high level games where one would think that I should have learned something by then.

I like to build flaws into my characters just like everyone else, but I expect my character to learn to grow around those flaws. I don't expect my character to adventure for months or years or whatnot and never be able to learn to at least grow in most areas of their adventurous life.

A socially inept Wizard is great idea at level 1. But to forever be socially inept after being in countless social situations seems more farfetched at level 20.

As for your final paragraph, Mark has mentioned numerous times in this thread about the gaps being much larger than just -/+3.

I am not without concerns of this new system, most of the blog post was vague and didn't necessarily say anything other than "The system is going to be totally different and great". Right now, I'm hoping that at least the last part is true. But before accusing Paizo (seeming to specialize in the field of character options) of removing options off the table, I think it would be most fair to wait until we have more information.

Please don't take this as an attempt of me silencing your or anyone else's concerns. Voices from all sides matter, I just wanted to point my view on this system and your post looked like a great building block for me to speak mine. Thank you.

Well, this will be my final post on the matter, because I will probably make better use of my time teaching my cat how to play a proper game of chess than to explain how an amulet of mighty fists works to you.

The flaming weapon property gives all the attacks of the enhanced weapon the effect. Spell storing gives one attack of the enhanced weapon the effect. Same goes for the amulet... like every other enhancement works. The only difference is that the amulet can apply the effect to your unarmed strikes and natural attacks.

Well, he is human...

Assuming I am able to retrain that race trait, I would be perfectly content with a Code Runner/Skirmisher Ranger with the "Comprehensive Education" alternate race trait.

Thanks for all the great suggestions! It would be grand to at least keep the important parts of my character alive. I will have to purchase Inner Sea Races though... But I suppose I have been putting that off long enough.

*reads backstory*

Hmmm, knowledgeable, likes books, pacifist martial (likes the feats).

Code Runner Ranger with Underhanded/Menacing Combat Styles?

(Could have sworn we had a full on non-lethal combat style)

Really cool archetype (I have another bookworm character that I think would greatly appreciate it), but it looks like I'd lose a lot of my Knowledge class skills. Also, I really don't want him having access to spells... But you have convinced me into not giving up on this guy just yet. I'll scour through my tomes to see if I can find something or a combination of somethings that will satisfy the background Casper has!

*scratches head*

Then why did you make him a martial?

Caspian was raised in a small farming village. His dad made sure he new the art well, when to till, when to reap and whatnot. Was even taught to hunt, although after finding out how meat came to the table, he wasn't quite as fond of it since. He doesn't judge others who are willing to take a life for survival, but he refuses to do so himself believing that there must be other methods.

He had deep respect for his father, but it was his mother who showed him how to read. The stories in those tomes are what really motivated him to take up the life of adventure. He remembered the tales of fearsome dragons, taunting devils, and gallant knights the most of course. But he didn't aspire to become the "hero" that the books often portrayed, he wanted to understand what made the dragon's so fearsome. To understand why the devil's taunt us at all. To know why the actions the knights performed were considered gallant. Each new book raised more questions than answers and he must know.

Eventually, he heard of the Society while in town. A group of individuals coming together to understand history and to make allies with strange creatures. It looked like the best way to start his journey. The only problem was that he didn't really have any real skills, not mentioning that he was "blessed" with his father's "good looks" and accent. Long days during harvest made him quite proficient with his scythe, allowing him to make strong low sweeps. He had a fair amount of knowledge, but nothing like the great wizards he had the opportunity to come across. He had not one ounce of magical knowledge to assist him. But it turned out that his determination and ability to be well prepared gave him the edge he needed to join the ranks of the Society.

The adventures are grand, but the library at the lodge is what really sealed the deal.

I chose a martial because it felt right at the time. Also, I really love feats, so Fighter has always had a place in my heart, so seeing a fighter with more than 2+ int for skills got me real excited to make this guy.

So, as I lay Casper to rest, I'm looking into the retraining rules as laid out in the guide. Am I correctly assuming that I have to keep the same equipment? If so, that really hurts as a lot of the gear was designed for his style and personality (sleep arrows for non lethal ranged combat, a crap ton of oils and potions to be prepared against the many foes he had read about, a scythe because he's a farmer during his downtime (it was also his weapon for his trip build, but I feel that I'm allowed to be both thematic and effective)).

I was considering in "transferring" his chronicles to another character idea that I have on the shelf so the playtime isn't completely wasted, but now I don't know what I'm exactly allowed to rebuild... Typically these things get banned before I get to actually play them, so this is new to me.

Chess Pwn wrote:

Okay, so you have someone that is specifically trying to listen and understand your view. First problem solved.

Assuming that's true for a second...

Question: What is the observation level of a Rogue in an alley at dusk cleaning his fingernails and with a 20% miss chance ?

Answer: None of the observation levels fit perfectly.

You can be targeted with a spell at 20% miss chance or +4 cover (which meets the definition of observing) but there is a miss chance so it meets the definition of "aware of location".

I can target my kidney, I'm not able to observe it while it's still inside this sack of meat.

I think everyone can be right in this argument. Sure you "see" the guy, but when he moved (stealth is typically done as part of movement I recall), he seemed just "disappear". You were observing him, but now you're not. A dagger is thrown at you from what you are pretty sure of is a barrel in the alley. You're confident you know his general location, but you just can't pick him out from all the other shadowy figures present.

I don't know honestly what the intent is, but I think that giving a rogue a chance to shine in battle isn't the worst thing to do. I'd rule that they can stealth as they meet the requirements of the "clarification". But just because they "hid" behind the only cover in a well lit room doesn't mean my NPC's won't just march around the corner and poke them a bit.

This is for PFS, just please keep that in mind, Thank you!

So I was thinking of essentially making a Dragoon from the FF series. I want to jump up high and do some heavy damage on the fall. The issue I'm running across is how to get the actions to work and whatnot. Maybe this wonderful board can help me out! I understand that some of the rules on the matter may be unclear and maybe even be subject to table variation.

Branch Pounce will be the base of the build:

Benefit: When charging a target by jumping down from above (such as when jumping out of a tree), you can soften your own fall with a melee attack. If the attack at the end of your charge hits, the attack deals damage as normal and also adds the appropriate amount of falling damage (1d6 points for a 10-foot fall, 2d6 points for a 20-foot fall, and so on). This falling damage is not multiplied on a critical hit. You land in an unoccupied square of your choosing adjacent to the target, and you take falling damage as if you had fallen 10 fewer feet. You can attempt an Acrobatics check as normal to treat the fall as an additional 10 feet shorter for the purpose of determining the damage you take from the fall and treat the first 1d6 points of damage you take from the fall as nonlethal damage. If your attack misses, you land prone in a random square adjacent to the target and automatically take the full amount of falling damage.

I was thinking of Aerokineticist 2/Ninja 4 to get the Air's Leap and High Jumper abilities to get maximum usage of Acrobatics.

Assuming I use a long spear, how would I "attack" in this fashion.

Lets say I want to jump 30ft (1 move action) up in the air over my enemy, and I roll high enough on my acrobatics. Do I "automatically" get to try "charging" from my fall allowing me to attack with Branch Pounce? What sort of action is falling at this moment?

Now lets say I Jump 60ft! Does that constitute a "double move"? And would I permitted to attempt to attack next round?

Thanks for all the input ahead of time!

I agree with Cabbage that your character's genes do not create the character, but I do believe that it should have a small effect on those around you.

You see a dwarf and you stereotype it into being a person who knows their craftsmanship, their liquor, and the dirt.

But maybe your character did not like those things. Preferred to buy finely crafted objects over learning any craft themselves. Mayhaps liquor is too bitter, and you prefer a nice sweet tea instead.

As a GM, I often have my NPC's (based off their personality) go into a situation with a level of expectancy. They may expect the gnome to be wild and maybe even dangerous. Or expect the half-orc to be gruff and uncultured. But from there, they can either be pleasantly surprised by the player or be smug in the idea that they knew you'd be no different than what they think of your kind.

So ultimately, understand that your race does have a culture or typical background. But do no think that automatically makes your character a part of that culture or background. Give and take from that culture what you think sounds like a good backstory, and do not feel like "Dwarves are all heavy drinkers, so my dwarf must be one as well". In the end, this is your dwarf, and their story. Make it as you feel is best.

It's easy for the GM to figure it out. They didn't finish so they get partial credit. Done. If the player is unsatisfied they can work to get their exception. It's not my job to bend/alter/break the rules for them, that's the job of someone higher up.

Regardless of whether you participate in the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild at home or at a convention, your most important responsibility as a GM—other than providing your players a fair and fun gaming experience—is to keep a careful record of events on every scenario’s Chronicle sheet.
Chronicle sheets record everything that a Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild character does over the course of her career and serves as the official record of each character in the campaign so a character can be played under a number of GMs at events all over the world. Chronicles also help prevent the rare unscrupulous player from cheating.

The first part I bolded shows that a GM's first and foremost duty is to provide the players a fair and fun gaming experience. If you find receiving a zero across a chronicle to be fair and fun, then I assume that your GM was doing their job. However, if that is not the case, the GM needs to figure out what they can do to make it fair and fun. Now, I understand that some calls will be more fair than fun and vice-versa, but that is the responsibility of the GM.

The second bolded part was for a secondary (as the primary is to serve as a record) reason why we keep chronicles. To prevent cheating. This is your current primary concern. Cheating is bad, but if you give a zero sheet to a player because they had to leave for medical/emergency reasons, then you are not "stopping" them from cheating, but rather cheating them out of a scenario for no other reason than what you believe is you duty.

The issue with your view is in one breath you say, "it's the GM's responsibility to make a fair judgement to whatever circumstance" and then say "if the GM had simply asked me how it should be handled instead of taking it into his own hands" is that you're proposing the GM takes it into his own hands to not give the 0 chronicle if he feels the player deserves it, then in the same breath complain about a GM doing what he thought was correct without asking first. The issue is, for a GM following the rules that you get 0 credit is always "right", thus a GM isn't in a state of not knowing how to handle the situation or what is fair cause the rules have already told him that.

What I said is that the GM needs to make a fair judgement to whatever circumstance that caused the loss of credit. And I also said that my GM made a mistake that he should have taken to me as he decided the players were allowed to bypass a fight by speaking to a creature, then said they failed to meet the secondary success condition of defeating said creature, and then dinged the players for it. In this case, he should have come to his VO and said "Hey, I let my players do something that the scenario technically doesn't allow. It made them fail their secondary success. What should I do?"

His call was not fair, as it was his fault that he did not stick to the scenario.

This issue is the same as for court. If you don't like the ruling of a local court you can petition the higher court to look at it. The lower court did it's best and ruled as it thought right. It's not their job to hold off on a ruling and ask the higher court, nor should they really worry about it after their ruling. If they decide to petition they can't go straight to the supreme court, they need to go to the immediately higher court. It's not someone skipping up the chain because they have already dealt with the first step and are then moving to the second. And it's not the first court being unfair or jerks, it's what they decided was right.

This is a game, not court. Should definitely not be treated as such.

GM's should do what they feel is right, and following the rules is always okay. If a player disagrees he can talk to the GM/leadership to try and fix the "error". If the GM wants to double check and ask leadership and hunt people down to fix the error he's welcome to do so.

I agree that following the rules is always okay, but when the rules start looking a little gray, maybe look to someone else before you make a judgement call.

Player leaves halfway because he's bored? He earns partial credit. (Pretty clear how it should be handled)
Player leaves because he lost his lunch during the game? Ask your VO how it should be handled before telling the poor guy he gets partial credit. (Not so clear as it is an extenuating circumstance)

The point of the rules is to be followed at the table. The point of the rules is to avoid bad practices. The deal is, in PFS as well as most organized events, there's a leadership chain that you can petition for an exception. Thus we penalize the 1 to stop the 1000, but the 1 can become un-penalized via petition.

In court and going to jail, that is pretty much the final decision, the chain is short. So the ability to have 1 person get a legitimate fix is much harder and more severe, thus we err to make sure that issue doesn't happen.

If Wei Ji the Learner ask their VO to ask Tonya for the ability to replay that mod that he zonked out in I'd imagine she'd approved, she has the power to override the local table and it's easy. If I was the GM of the table I'd probably hand over the 0 chronicle and say, "if you have an issue and really want to play for credit I advise asking your VO to talk to Tonya about it." Since the rule is you get credit for how much you play once you start, and I try to follow rules. I feel as a table GM I don't have the right to overrule that PFS rule, thus I wouldn't. As such, and feeling that there are probably many GM's that'd have a similar mindset, I ask that you don't rag on GM's that are put in a rough spot and follow the rules. It's not their job to change rules cause you decided to have a too full schedule and be to tired to play or you spontaneously go from fine to puking during the scenario or if an emergency comes up.

I agree that if a person feels a reporting call was made unfairly, they should work up the chain.

My only disagreement with you is that sometimes "following the rules" isn't the best call. In Wei Ji's experience, I think it would have been more fair to just call him a "no-show". Of course, I wasn't there, so I only have one side of this story to judge off of.

So assuming he is speaking the truth as to what had happened, then the GM could have just made a judgement call and avoid the whole "up the chain" process. As GM's, we do have the ability to make judgement calls, even when it comes to reporting successes and failures of the chronicle. If the GM is uncomfortable to make such a call, then they should go up the chain themselves to find someone who is.

In the end, if a GM is going out of their way to make a call that does nothing but harm the player(s) at the table, then they missed the more important sections of the Guide. A 0/0/0 chronicle for a player that made 1 or 2 skill checks is doing nothing but punishing the player, and our jobs as GM's is not to punish.

Look, don't blame the GM. It's a tough place, do you follow the rules or break them for an exception, and most people wont feel like they are in a position of power to make that kind of exception.

Sometimes, it's the GM's fault something went poorly or got handled incorrectly.

As a frequent GM myself, I've had to second guess every player kill that happens in my game to make sure that I followed the scenario to the best of my capabilities (once I forgot about a certain tactic that made the scenario much tougher when not employing). I recheck every time my players don't earn that second prestige. I make mistakes.

I've had players complain to me about another GM who "modified" a scenario with the desires of making it more fun (allowed a player talk their way out of a fight) and then turned around and give them one less prestige as they only receive it for defeating said fight. I had to pull the GM aside and get their side of the story to tell him that if he's going to modify a success condition fight, he needs to modify the success condition as well. I also had to tell him that he should not be modifying the scenario outside of general dialogue. I understand that his minor modification was fun for the group at the time, so I'm all for it, but the players cannot be punished for what was his fault.

Being a GM is tougher than being a player, but it does not make them blameless. A GM is supposed to provide a pleasurable experience to the players. If it's going too easy (game is becoming dry and boring), fudge a roll or two to add some tension, make the NPCs stand out more to bring a better social element, do something that brings the players back into the game. Too difficult? Fudge a roll or two to ease the tension, provide an alternative victory condition that better suits the party's composition, do something that makes the players feel that I am not against them (because I am not).

I am not breaking rules for an "exception", I'm breaking rules for the spirit of a game: to have fun. It's not fun to go to a hospital for a medical emergency. It's not fun to then after get told that you received partial credit on a scenario because of it. Because that would mean that not only do you lose out on the rewards of the scenario, you will never be able to try again without having to burn a GM star.

Now, the medical emergency is more cut and dry as to what is pretty excusable. The interaction I mentioned earlier about a player who quit is not so easy. I cannot simply tell them that they receive a handful of gold and 1 experience and zero prestige as the player blames me for a mishandling of the rules when it comes to skill checks. So I decided to leave it my "superior" and pushed the question to my Venture Captain. He will make the final decision on the matter, and he made a fair one.

So just because the GM is not in a position of power to make an exception, they can and should push the bill to someone who is.

That just feels wrong in general. No matter how much we look at it this is still a game. And games are supposed to be fun. Why be that guy who makes it not fun?

Well, I may not agree with them, but my suggestion would be to not take it up with the guy/gal that makes such a... detached, call and instead just reach out to the peeps Thomas mentioned.

Grumbaki,

I commiserate with you on your experience. It is regrettable.

The replay rules are there for two reasons that I can fathom...
As others have stated, to prevent chronicle mining, and, covertly, to force-sell published product.
One is a good reason. The other is brown matter we put up with to play the best (not perfect!) game on the market.

Like most laws, IMO, the replay rules should be enforced wisely.
Sadly, in this Age of the Lawyer, that's a very hard thing to do.

While I am no lawyer, it makes me wonder, rhetorically, if the rule would withstand a legal test and undergo the detestable legislation via judiciary.

"Your Honor, my client, a paying consumer of their product, played this scenario one time at a convention and suffered a seizure [or any protected event] after the first encounter. He could not finish the scenario due to his health and was given a chronicle with 1 XP, 0 PA and minimal gold as he was loaded onto the ambulance stretcher. This is clearly discrimination based on his medical condition. Paizo has no mechanism in place for medical waiver of replay rules. We demand the right to replay, plus legal fees & monetary damages for grief sustained by this unfortunate incident."

Then you have people feigning illness in order to get replays. It's an ugly business, I tell you!

Makes me think of a time that a player of mine quitting after disagreeing with how I handled the first encounter. It put me in a pickle because the table only had three players to begin with and was using an NPC.

So I ended up breaking a couple "PFS Rules" that day so that my players didn't waste their trip. Used a second pregen to fill the slot was one for sure (I don't really know if I broke another).

I later told my Venture-Captain what had happened and asked whether or not I should report her 1/3 credit. He said what I thought to be a good call and basically told me to let it go, no need angering an angry person even more.

If a player had a seizure at my table even half way through I'd give them the option of taking the Chronicle (with the offer to receive whatever credit the rest of the team got), or to not do so and have another shot at it at a later time.

Although I appreciate your tenacity Snowlily, and I feel that almost no GM would rule against you in the matter, the rules don't support improvised weapons becoming improvised masterwork weapons or improvised enhanced weapons at the moment.

I would love an FAQ on the matter, but I don't think it is going to happen, and if it does, I don't think it will be in our favor.

I had argued at one time that spells like "Ray of Frost" are usable against swarms. MANY people disagreed and eventually I had to change my outlook in any organized play environment to suit "the masses". I still disagree with the majority on that one, but that's the "common" interpretation.

Right now, the "common" interpretation on this subject is that an improvised weapon cannot become an improvised masterwork/enhanced weapon (barring specific examples, as you know, specific trumps general). I strongly encourage the idea of creating house-rules for groups as that creates a level of fun that is personalized. But in organized play, I am currently forced to question how a player had obtained a "+1 Frost Beer Bottle" and that even though I may allow it at my current table (as the ruling is not solid), that other GM's may argue against it and to expect table variance.

Also came across a pretty terrible Alchemist. Good kid, has fun, but his stats are all over the place for what he wants to play.

He has high INT, but poor DEX and STR and he is running around with a bastard sword. He wants to melee all the time. Other players typically have to request him to use his bombs.

It might just be that he's still young, so luckily nobody holds it against him yet, but I can see some frustration on their faces every game he plays in.

I'm currently playing a human druid in a skull and shackles campaign, and although I have been a great help outside of combat, I feel very weak in combat.

Small backstory: Group of friends, three/five players have never played. One chose Monk, another Rogue, and the last a Fighter. The fighter dropped out after the second session when he realized he'd rather do something else.

I chose to be a Storm Druid and the other experience player chose Sorcerer to help balance the party.

I wanted to be a "Generalist" so that I don't outshine the new players (I typically make some pretty brutal builds). So I started out with (20 pt buy):

13 STR
13 DEX
14 CON
10 INT
18 WIS
09 CHA

Those stats scream "Caster", but as I am the only "healer" in the party, I'm typically prepping spells that don't need good saves. My domain gives me "fog" spells so far, and those aren't good for the current group... So in fights I'm just trying to provide flanking where I can and cast spells when needed.

Also, never played a Druid before, I just don't know what feats I want. The GM is allowing retraining if I desire, so I at least don't have to fear choosing poorly. Currently I have Dodge, Improved Initiative, and Blind-Fight for now.

The group appreciates me, and I am having fun. But I sort of hate combat in that game at the moment (Just hit level 4, so maybe wild shaping will be fun) as I spend a lot of my turns missing melee/range attacks, or casting the very occasional support spell (for being new players, they rarely need anything, which surprised me).

@Link2000: The Gravedigger Investigator Archetype is Proficent in all simple weapons and Scythes. And can use Lanterns and Shovels as if they had the Catch Off Guard feat.

So, using a Heavy Mace or Quarterstaff (wooden headed shovel) to represent a weaponized Shovel is something you can already do with that archetype. What you can't do, is combine Catch Off Guard with your actual weapons.

But what I want is my Shovel to be equally efficient in digging holes as well as attacking with. With Catch Off Guard, that is possible, but not with a re-skined Heavy Mace or Quarterstaff.

I'm okay with the game not working in my favor, so I'm not trying to shoot down your suggestions (as they are good), but sadly your suggestions are not suiting the build I have in mind.

Yorien wrote:

• Do improvised weapons count as weapons for purposes of enchanting them as weapons?
  Yes. An improvised weapon is still a weapon.

No. To be enchanted as a weapon, an item must first be a MASTERWORK weapon, not simply a masterwork item.

While this alarm clock might be a masterwork mithral alarm clock, that does not make it enchantable as a weapon.

That makes me wonder, could "Masterwork Transformation" turn an improvised weapon into a masterwork improvised weapon assuming you pay the 300gp for it?

I've seen this argument too many times to count. It makes my Gravedigger sad that there's no official ruling at the moment. Though I've never thought of Masterwork Transformation until now.

Standard ranged feats (point blank shot, precise shot, rapid shot)

weapon focus - kinetic blast (less needed for energy based since it hits touch AC)
toughness (more HP = more burn)
improved initiative

Put your skill points into acrobatics if you want to be all flippy.

I agree with the more con/less dex for an energy base kineticist, at higher levels you will virtually never miss.

If you take the flying talents, point points in the fly skill, otherwise you will crash into walls a lot. (Unless you are playing in a home game where the GM does not use the RAW flight rules)

Everything here is great advice, except rapid shot doesn't work with blasts. Just pointing that out to OP.

My fiance is playing one for Strange Aeons. She doesn't know much about the game, but she enjoyed the concept of throwing books at people. We got her the Magic Domain for the Hand of the Acolyte ability, and so far she loves it, aside from the fact it's a caster (she finds keeping track of spells too tiresome).

From an optimization standpoint, I find the archetype useful for additional flexibility in spell casting and skill points. Losing Judgement feels pretty harsh, but having a weapon that gets stronger and spell flexibility is a pretty fair trade off. Bane I would say is the worst to lose, but getting it back in a "pseudo" fashion is hardly a problem when it can be enchanted with other abilities as well.

I think what I disliked most was the loss of monster lore. Losing stern gaze would have made more sense thematically, as an intelligence based character loses out on the knowledge of enemies, but retains his eyes of scrutiny...

I think the trade offs are ultimately fair and the archetype opens up more avenues of play.

I would rule it in favor of the player either way. If they want to carry 5 pounds of coin to attack with and are counting it towards their weight for encumbrance, let them. If they would rather hand wave the encumbrance of their vast riches by assuming banks and what not, let them.

I would only question it if they said something along the lines of "I would like to drop my sack of coins on them, it weighs roughly 500 lbs". Then I would ask how have they been carrying all of that and have they been counting the encumbrance. Hasn't happened yet, but that's how I'd handle it.

The problem here is that Pathfinder doesn't necessarily utilize proper physics for their game. Mostly to keep it simple and I appreciate that. So trying to drag what is realistic into this setting is pretty much moot to point.

Here's what real physics says: Force = Mass * Acceleration, a resting 50lb anvil has a mass of roughly 22 kilograms. (about a 1/4 of a human male). Gravity pulls that mass at roughly 30 ft/s towards the ground, meaning to change it's direction to "ignore" gravity, a person would have to swing with at least 100lbs of force (double the force pulling down), moving the same object at nearly 40 mi/hr. 50lbs at 40 mi/hr would pretty much crush any human bone in the objects path. I would like to note that the physics here is not perfect. Doesn't take account resistance or inertia, but it is close enough for politicians.

Sadly the best the game will give us is a simple weapon of comparable weight... So maybe a huge two-handed simple weapon that does bludgeoning?

Not a huge creature, but Giant Octopus has a land speed and if you cast Air Breathing (Monster Codex) at level 20 will last 40 hours.

It has a bite, and 8 tentacles.

+15 bab, +9 from STR (assume starting stat of 18 with four pluses from levels, and a +6 belt), +5 from amulet, -1 from size = +28 attack for 1 bite of 1d8+14 (reach 10ft) and +23 or (+26 if you have multiattack) attack for 8 tentacles of 1d4+9 with grab and constrict (1d4+9) (reach 20ft)

No pounce though...

EDIT: Math was wrong, fixed it

Don't get so caught up on the rules of the game that you miss out on the fun of it.

I think that Murdock is right. It all depends on circumstances.

If you're already in a moderately tense situation then casting a magic spell is going to be seen as hostile and will often result in initiative being rolled.

That's like having cops pointing guns at you and you reaching into your pocket for ID, I'd think that's a fair ruling to have initiatives rolled.

If you walk into a store and cast a spell it is going to be seen as hostile (the storekeeper in a store selling anything an adventurer would care about KNOWS about Charm Person, after all).

Two things:

In that same store, looking at a magic item, saying "I want to examine this myself under detect magic", waiting a second, and then casting detect magic is NOT hostile.

And that is no different than walking into a store, saying "I'm going to detect magic on this" and then cast Charm Person instead. Magic is part of life. Unless that storekeep has something they are trying to hide, a casual casting probably doesn't mean much to him. Although I would say that a storekeep has a higher chance of having spellcraft to assist in his job and is more likely to know that he is about to be charmed.

Take the Harry Potterverse as a good analogy. VERY VERY different reactions to drawing a wand or muttering a spell depending on cirvumstances.

And that's for anything in any world. Different circumstances will require certain tack. Everyday Joe probably does fine casting his Light spell, or Prestidigitation most of the time. But if he's being threatened by the guard, the casting will probably get him stabbed. Just like everyday Joe in our world can pull out his phone under normal circumstances just fine. Do it while being told by police to not move might get you shot.

I see a lot of convoluting argument trying to evade the mechanics of swarm immunities.

Rays are Single-Target effects. Swarms composing of creatures smaller than tiny are immune to such effects. ergo Rays are useless on them.

It's all clearly laid out in the rules no FAQ is needed. And I don't think you're going to get much traction on a rules change which would be another caster boost.

No where does it say rays are single-target effects, it says Disintegrate is (probably because it has "Only the first creature or object struck can be affected; that is, the ray affects only one target per casting." at the end of it's spell description).

I'm not creating any convolution in the rules. And I do feel that the rules are clearly laid out as well, but it turns out that others have a different opinion on that. Which is fine, but leads to the rules being "less clear" than I thought. I want to remove that smudge.

Not looking for a rules change, looking for a clear answer.

To each their own.

The problem here is that everyone is comparing apples to oranges.
Fighters are not Paladins.
Nor are they Summoners.
They are not even Barbarians.

Fighters have their own thing that no other class gets. A feat at every level. Feats are powerful. Very powerful, and something that most classes would love more of.

Can Fighters heal? Most likely not, but neither can a handful of other classes.

Can Fighters cast Fly? Same thing as healing, probably not, but many other classes cannot either.

You can always win out on one class over another if you narrow the view to a specific thing.

Fighters are king when it comes to Feats, and because of that, most of the time they are going to be your best front-liner (depends on feat selection of course). Sadly feats typically do not fix the problem of their low out of combat utility.

I, admittedly, have not played really high levels (typically stopping around 12-14) but I only noticed the "disparity" during out of combat situations.

Calling the Fighter a drain on resources in a cooperative game doesn't mean much. A Fighter fights, it's what he does. I've seen plenty of Fighters bringing down big bad guys without "buffs" from team mates. My problem with them is that outside of the fight, they are just twiddling their thumbs. They have a small skill pool, a small list of class skills, and no spells or features to complement that lacking for outside of the battle.

In fights, your actions should be something that benefits the team. If you feel that giving your Fighter fly would help the party the most, then do it. If you feel you have a another spell that would be better than giving the Fighter fly, then do that. But complaining about the Fighter in your group who constantly places himself between you and the big thing that thinks your tasty is not what a team member should do, consider solo play.

A successful party is measured by the group, not the individual. Play as a team, they will go far. If everyone is looking out for themselves, then I hope they have some good luck.

Rage Prophet is a bit redundant after this feat: Mad Magic.

Multiclass Bloodrager and Oracle as you wish, take that feat, all good.

Redundant or not, it's what I have my heart set on. Thanks for the feat though, will definitely consider for future builds.

Definitely. Disable Device is the clean method that lets you keep or use what you disable. Adamantine is the "f" it process of just getting it done.

Sometimes breaking chests with adamantine objects damages the contents. So you could "punish" the over usage by watching him get sad when scrolls or potions are broken because of his corner cutting ways.

Now, I'm certainly no expert in this matter, but Toaster has got me to think about at least one thing.

What if a GM says "Your (legal) character is illegal, you need to rebuild"?

As a player and GM, I don't think a person should have to "scrap" a legal character, and having to "walk" away from a game is simply not fair either if you spent time (not to mention resources) to get there.

I believe that if both sides show their "evidence" as to why their explanation would work then one of two things should happen:
1) The GM folds to the player (assuming his explanation is not detrimental to the overall flow of the game) and let's him do "whatever". I do this all the time because I am certainly not going to hold up a table to just bash a player for being mistaken, or to be bashed for being mistaken.

2) The GM states he's not comfortable with the player's ruling and question if it would be okay for it to run "this way" instead. If the player is okay (enough) with it, then great! If not, suggest that he find another table or just put up with the ruling anyways. This sticking to the guns method typically should only be used if that interpretation would be detrimental.

I was at a convention before and experienced my worst run of "The Confirmation" because the GM said we couldn't damage a swarm of vipers with weapons. I mentioned that swarms made of tiny or larger creatures can be harmed at 50% damage, and even showed the section of the bestiary that held it. He grabbed someone else who also said that "all swarms are immune to weapon damage" and our table had to struggle beating the thing up with burning sticks.

The message behind this story is that even if you know the other person is wrong, if that person isn't bending, just roll with it for the time. You can "report" them later.

But I don't believe a player should EVER be FORCED to rebuild a character that is LEGAL. They should just have to work through the scenario (maybe with a handicap due to an ability "not being allowed")