MathNerd's page

23 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


I call it a ubiquitous keyword, it's where a keyword is used accidentally and it may confuse meaning. It seems fairly clear to me that you don't get extra 'spells per day', only extra prepared spells... per day. XD (See how pointless and confusing the 'per day' is). Thanks for the Faq, I hope they Faq it and eventually eratta out 'per day' for simplicity's sake, that should not only make reprints clearer, but also improve future versions. The best part is that fixing a pre-existing book is as simple as whiting out two words in the appropriate places.
Fundamentally, it doesn't change the meaning, it just makes reading it clearer.

5 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

"School savants are able to prepare more spells per day than typical arcanists, but their selection is more limited."

I'm not sure if the person who actually wrote this read it.

See, Arcanists CAST 'Spells Per Day' (it's a keyword). Arcanists Prepare 'Spells Prepared'.
There's a section... a whole section... with the words "Spells Per Day". :/

Personally, I bet the blame falls on quick editing/fixing... someone saw it, thought they were trying to say one thing, and 'corrected' their grammar/phrasing in editing... to something that was wrong.

Here are the rest of the problem phrases under 'school savant'

In addition, the arcanist can prepare one additional spell per day* of each level she can cast, but this spell must be chosen from the selected school.

These are technically correct, the arcanist can prepare more spells each day... but... not 'spells per day', those are never prepared.

Is it nitpicking? Maybe.
Are A LOT of characters getting extra power for free because they made this mistake: Yes. I have seen it on character sheets and in forums. I had a list I made from Giantitp and Paizo forums of people making this mistake.

Elemental Master:
The arcanist can prepare one additional spell per day* of each level she can cast, but it must have the elemental descriptor of her chosen element.

Only the Eldritch Font gains additional power, and it may not be able to use those due to not having a spell of that level prepared. (that puts it up to 2 levels behind the wizard in terms of highest level spell)

School Savant:
School savants are able to prepare more spells per day* than typical arcanists, but their selection is more limited.

In addition, the arcanist can prepare one additional spell per day* of each level she can cast, but this spell must be chosen from the selected school.
(My suggestion is to simply delete the words 'per day'). It does not change the meaning at all, but clears up any ambiguity, and the correction can be administered to existing books by a single swipe of white-out!

My suggestion, an edit for clarity, is to simply remove the words 'per day' from the two sections, from the summary and the main body, which will result in 3? minor corrections.

The other reason 'per day' is unnecessary is simple, Arcanists need not prepare spells daily, they can keep the previous day's prepared spells, or just change those they need to change.

Also, the arcanist does say "spell slots per day" in one entry.

My issue is how easy it is for people to miss that the specialist Arcanist only gains in versatility, not in total spells. :/ The wizard gets spells 1 level sooner, gets extra from being a specialist, and can take the 'Spell Sage' archetype!

Unrelated, I still read the rules, I still want to play, and I just bought the book. I never stopped designing characters, just playing society for a while, and that's best dealt with in a relevant thread, which this one isn't. :)

Actually, the addition of 'Secret Chest' 'Continual Flame', and 'Masterwork Transformation' is an improvement and removes a previous complaint I had about the game as well, so I am glad to see things are improving. I'd rather not see this thread turn into a duplicate. I had not used any trick like this, ever, on my character or in organized society play. :) Nor had I played a custom character. (Used a pregen).

The point of this trick is to use Memorize Page to memorize what you want to scribe into your spellbook, and record/scribe it at the end of the scenario, or when there is downtime.

Amusingly, it is also a touch spell, you can have your Familiar deliver the touch spell to it's-self, and peek over the enemy looking at a 'map', etc.

Also, it would be an amusing way to settle a dispute between a which and a wizard over who gets to use the spell on the scroll, though RAW it only states how it works for level 1 (1 page) spells. Level 2+ spells may take multiple castings or be entirely unusable with this.

Witch: Don't make me hex you! It's my scroll, my precious!!!
Wizard: I called DIBS!!!
Familiar: *Xerox sounds*
*both stare*
Familiar: "What, you were arguing, I memorized the page."

Keep in mind that the process of copying a spell from a magic scroll into a wizard’s spellbook removes the spell from the copied scroll, turning it into a blank piece of normal parchment.

Memorize page, also, does not specify destroying the scroll. (Though, succeeding at scribing a spell you have used memorize page on should destroy the scroll, assuming it still exists at that point).

Finally, in home games you can use the 'Summon Neutral Monster' feat (why am I having flashbacks of Futurama's neutral planet) to summon a Viduus, which can 'modify memory' with a strike, long before the spell is ever learned by a bard. This makes it useful about Level 9 in home games. :) (Or level 8 if you're willing to wait to erase the relevant pages). It would cost 360gp to have the spell cast, though it's only marginally cheaper than a 10th level bard (10gp), and potentially harder to find.

However, the fact that it's available on my spell list with a feat is nice.

Ooh, just found a bug (another fun rules glitch) Share Shape (animal archive) reads "If your familiar or companion is not an animal, this spell has no effect."
Familiars are of type: MAGICAL BEAST, so 'Share Shape' never has an effect with ANY familiar as written, because no familiar is ever an animal!! This would have been clearer to the writer if he had used the correct terminology: "familiar or animal companion" Please check the book. Also, 'companion' by it's self is technically wrong as that is not a pathfinder keyword and has no definition, they clearly meant animal companion.

What I find funny is when people make the above rules glitches, it's always so apparent that they were thinking about it, by changing 'animal companion' to 'companion' they must have realized that having animal in there twice sounded odd.

I should really make a post about this in the relevant product forum... I'll do that later.

A rogue who has selected the 'minor magic' or 'Major Majic' may refill this staff with his minor magic (1 charge) and 'Major Magic' (2 charges) may activate this staff for the following abilities.

2 Charges: Pass without trace.
3 Charges: Invisibility.
5 Charges: Greater Invisibility


400*4*11 / 3+300*2*11 / 5 + 200 * 1 * 11 / 2

400gp * 4 * 11 / 3
300gp * 2 * 11 / 5
200gp * 1 * 11 / 2
10,120GP Base cost.

Unlike other staves, once per day this staff can be refilled using a 0th level spell, provided that spall came from the 'Minor Magic'. Additionally, expending a use of the 'Major Magic' talent refills a single charge as normal for a 1st level spell, even if that spell does not appear on the list of spells the stave is capable of casting.
(Cost, 1,500 for heighten spell, I was unable to cost major magic as a charge option, but I don't think it should alter the staves cost as it could be a viable charge option anyway)
Cost source: 1/3rd of a single level spell bump (eg: silent spell, for heighten), * 1.5 for including it into a pre-existing item 1/day.

Base cost so far, 11,570gp + the cost of the 'variable charge' ability... though I am tempted to leave it at 11,570

I'm also likely to restrict it to nonlawful alignments (absent a UMD check) for an additional 10% discount, as per magic item creation.

Unfortunate drawback: cannot be used to fuel arcanists consume items ability as it takes 2 charges for a single spell to be released. Then again, the item is intended for rogues with UMD.

Spirit's Gift is not nothing, this is the feat before: eral-feats/spirit-s-gift

And this is the current one.

Honestly, I do agree that the feat is too flexible. As written it is better than the class ability in that you can change it every day. However, nerfing the duration kills a very interesting thing you can do with it. (I personally would have limited it to 1 spirit, chosen when levelling or when a familiar was obtained).

Using the 'Heaven's Leap' ability on a Mount (possible because it functions as a druids animal companion) would be a viable fix for the Cavalier and other mounted characters who never get to use their mounts. (A fly speed of 5' is better than nothing).

Assuming 5' per round, 6 rounds, your familiar can now fly 30 feet per level!!! Wow... And as a supernatural ability it should now be a standard action to activate which means you can't even use it to save yourself from falling. :/

Many builds are based around a single feat, or the use of a feat, nerfing them to 1 min per level (unless the feat was originally written that way) kills those builds.

Now, instead of having a familiar that does it constantly... as a feature... it just sort of happens... and they can still switch. :/

"Did your cat just sort of glow and lift slowly off the ground?"
"He can do that."

Another issue is that I just bought the book (humble bundle sale)... :/ Apparently, however, I needed the old version... which would mean I can't play pathfinder society... but I'd still rather have the old version. :/ (For home games or throwing one together).

Where can I find a list of changes?

The Arcanist was not overpowered in my opinion, it was good, yes, but the Sorcerer had it outclassed in spells per day, as did the Wizard. Absent the 'mis-reading' glitch that many seemed to make (assuming that specializing gives more spells per day), the Arcanist was clearly the most limited in terms of spells.

It's advantage was the ability to convert it's spells into minor bonuses.. though, admittedly, 1 per spell level did add up to a lot of hopping around with dimension slide. (I'm talking about 'consume spells').

It's now limited to 1 use per point of charisma modifier... which means that it scales linearly with top spells, assuming you use your highest level spell slots to fuel it.

The problem... this goes FAR beyond a simple nerf... a class feature has gone from unlimited to 2 or 3 times a day. Worse than that, a class feature that powers all the other class features... it's so bad, in fact, I'm probably going to wind up making a lot of reversals on the eratta for my home games.

I think it would have been much better to cap the total spell levels or points gained at Cha * Highest Spell Level points per day. Or to not cap it at all.

My problem, however, is how the instability and surprise nerfs affect players... and even those who have old copies of books. Eratta should be common sense clarification... not full-on redesigns. (Though, sometimes it's necessary, as in the case of the Constitution casting scarred witchdoctor and it's single attribute dependency).

One players character was suddenly unplayable due to having 9 Cha. Even with a higher Cha, he bounced around the battlefield so often (and needed that maneuverability) that he would deplete his entire reserve in mere rounds.

Can you recommend a new character for me?
How does this make you feel about your books?
Has anything else been nerfed this hard? (Besides the silly [does it make sense, yes, does it double cost? Yes] ruling that the already weak Monk has to alternate 'flurry' with two weapons?)

Small question on the above... I was reading the Monk class, seems to me he still needs two weapons to flurry, just has 20 BAB so he can switch to normal attacks... is this correct or was there some change in the wording?

Also, is there an old copy of the Paizo Pathfinder PRD archived anywhere??? I don't like a lot of the new eratta and when I make a home game I will be un-nerfing some stuff and Rule-0-ing some rulings.

Paizo, if you're reading this... old prd archives??? By date? Please tell me you kept them. I don't really want to have to search through internet backups and manually copy things over. It would take a year... and if I had to go that far I'd... it would be a lot of work and I would rather avoid a year long project! The less work I can do, the better for both of us.

It was pointed out to me recently also that you only have to *find* the item. (By a member of paizo staff)

... why is this being pointed out by paizo staff to a single player and not tattooed on the GM's foreheads and listed on a pamphlet handed out that reads 'your first game'. :/

Actually, an 'after your first game' pamphlet would be a great idea.

Warning, wall of text.

Michael Hallet wrote:
Disappointed or angry, I can see, but bored?... (more text here)... But honestly, one bad experience drove you away for 2 years? If that were the norm most players would have quit by now. Maybe you didn't have fun that one time, but maybe you also overreacted a bit.

"If that were the norm most players would have quit by now."

What percentage of players come back after their first session? What percentage of players who play their first game register the chronicle sheet and become an active member of the community after a convention? What percentage of players return after their 2nd, 3rd, 4th?

I realized that I had missed the item. I realized that the only way avoid missing the items was to play a very limited set of options that would maximize treasure found and survivability, which (unfortunately) limited fun or to only play when another player was capable of assisting in items found.

The limited set of options reduced the fun of the scenario and narrowed my possible character options, eliminating those I considered most enjoyable and resulting in me deciding that a videogame (in which I can do everything found in pathfinder, given the limited options given) was actually as enjoyable or moreso than pathfinder.

Or, rather, I realized I was just playing a videogame without good graphics... not actually roleplaying.

And I quit... out of boredom, because I already had videogames I could play that were essentially the same. And I could get all the items, roleplay just as much, kill everything just the same way. The 'rolepaying game' of pathfinder society effectively lost it's advantage over a videogame that day.

I don't like missing out on items because I'm playing a sensible, reasonable, fun character rather than a 'scorched earth' borderline-homocidal stick-in-the-mud. (Like most videogame protagonists are).

Nefreet wrote:
If you had engaged the NPC in combat, it's possible you could have suffered from a condition (including death) that later would have required gold to remove, in which case your character would actually suffer from a monetary setback. Possibly one that even offsets an item being found.

No it doesn't. I HATE playing an evil character, but I play an evil character in some games. Why? Simple, because the amount of gold you miss playing a good character is so crippling as to hinder the enjoyment of the game. (Your character is too broke to get the good stuff, what you miss is not worth it, and I mean entire characters that are funny and make the game more enjoyable here).

In Pathfinder, I see the same problem.

"One has explicit language in the guide that allows for its recovery, the other doesn't."

Maybe that is the problem. Why can't a player use items found during a scenario to cast a spell without having to pay for the spell components in question. (Mike Brock said this in 2012, let me know if it's been changed from 'consumables' found during a scenario to 'items'). Why allow a healing potion but not other items. Even if the player use 'Wish' to wish for a +1 inherent bonus to an ability score using a found diamond worth 25,000 gp, it would not persist beyond the end of the scenario.

Protip: wish for spells, scribe everything! Yeahhhh.... I probably wouldn't let that slide.

Why try so hard to keep chronicle sheets and items awarded to players consistent... THEN CROSS THEM OFF?

I say, give the players the whole tier they played.

Also, even if the GM made the wrong call, it was his call to make. He could say that because I bypassed the encounter using diplomacy I never found the bauble in the Kobolds pocket... and that's a perfectly valid point. The problem isn't that I was penalized, the problem is that I CAN BE penalized... this leads to inconsistent play experience, which is the exact opposite of pathfinders purported goals.

Because Bob had a rogue in his party who found the chest, he was much more greatly rewarded than I, who played the same scenario, and had no rogue.


Because Bob had a Sorcerer in his party who spoke draconic, he never fought the Kobolds and thusly never entered their chiefs chamber to find the magic sword. Detect magic cannot pass through walls, and as such he doesn't even know it exists. Thusly, he will not be getting it.

This is a perfectly valid interpretation of the 'not found' rule... and I would argue that it is NOT okay.

Two players of exactly equal skill, with different party members, could play the same scenario, make the same contribution, and get two different rewards.

A Wizard who finds a spell component and uses it to cast a spell he never would have cast otherwise is billed for it (Mike Brock claimed this in 2012, I need a link if someone knows where it is).

A Fighter who finds a potion and uses it is not. (Because it is a 'consumable').

The Wizard and Fighter both gain additional combat ability... actually, the Fighter comes out better because his primary job is 'meat shield', so more hitpoints equals more power. The wizard... should not be out front and should avoid using his hitpoints, if possible.

Finally, why should a Wizard be billed when he doesn't get anything extra at the end of the scenario, except maybe survivability which the consumable potion would have offered.

*If an item is in a secret compartment that the PCs do not find. It is crossed off the chronicle sheet.

'The PC'S'... not to self... next time people ask me to play in a scenario without a rogue... say no."

Here are the basic looting rules for PFS:
*If you walk into a room and kill the (hopefully bad) NPCs you get all the loot listed for that room. Whatever the PCs find unused or undamaged at the end of the fight they can use it until the end of the adventure when they hand in everything they found to the Society loot mart. If items were used or destroyed during the battle. The PCs don't get to use it for the rest of the game, and still get credit for finding it all when they hand in the remains to the society. Basically you could nuke a castle completely leveling it, and spend a week shifting through the rubble, and still find enough left of all the treasure to get full rewards. Although this tactic might negatively impact your team's ability to complete primary or secondary mission objectives.

So, basically, play like a videogame... loot everything, go into the NPC's house, check the dresser drawers, make sure you don't miss an item.

Yeah... it's a videogame.

If you walk into a room and kill the (hopefully bad) NPCs you get all the loot listed for that room.

In a game in which I am not allowed to play evil characters... murder is good? And the scorched earth strategy of videogames is the most effective one? (Do you guys get why I just quit, went to play videogames, and didn't even bother to go back for another game? Because there was no meaningful benefit to playing pathfinder instead of a videogame... the results... expected actions... benefits... were the same. I find items that don't really exist for murdering everything in sight.)

The advantage of a 'ROLEPLAYING GAME' is simple, roleplaying... but when a scorched earth strategy is encouraged to this extent it detracts from the overall roleplaying experience. The reward structure is such that it actively discouraged a roleplaying solution. It discourages SMART actions of avoiding unnecessary rooms punishing the PLAYERS because their CHARACTERS take prudent actions.

Not in character thoughts: Hmm... maybe I don't want to skip the room with the killer golem... stuff might be in there.

Think about it... do you really want to skip the room with the killer golem.

Yes, any sane character would... a player wanting all items would not.

You should not encourage players to think or act differently from their characters. That just leads to lazy writing... or lazy roleplaying.

It also means that everything about keeping adventures and rewards consistent is blatantly false and that two players who have played the exact same set of scenarios will have different items, etc. In effect, being given radically different rewards, not necessarily because of their own actions.

I understand it.
I get it.
It makes sense.
And it's stupid.
And it's counter to stated goals!

That said... true randomness is addictive so... I'm not sure if it is bad for attendance, but it is definitely against the stated 'consistency' goals of organized play, which so vehemently rejects 'custom' chronicle sheets.

I'm glad that a scenario can now be attempted multiple times, I think that is a drastic improvement (and a huge fix).

Quote: The Pathfinder Society isn't a good-aligned organization.
However, it does ban evil characters, which is de-facto encouraging of Good. (Unless you'd rather everyone be neutral... in which case... why do anything, let's go home.) Well, except for the 'murder everything, get all the loot' part. :/

No scenario should ever be written with any benefit for interrogation when players are shoehorned like this, unless specifically stated.

What I did was roleplaying. I solved a scenario by roleplaying and that led to a LESS DESIRABLE RESULT than rolling a dice, saying "I murder everything and loot the bodies".

The fact that the 'looting rules' were posted above... not that I don't greatly appreciate you sharing them (I actually needed those, thanks), illustrates another point. The looting rules are, in this case, more relevant than actual roleplaying and someone who simply loots everything will end up better than someone who actually roleplays.

Rewarding looting is built into the game.
Rewarding roleplaying is largely fiat.

Someone who actually obeys the goblins wish that they not go into their sacred chamber will end up better than someone who simply kills them and goes in there.

Maybe it was a design flaw, maybe the module designer never considered that the player could speak Goblin. (Or in my case Draconic, so that I could start a discourse with the Kobolds instead of killing them... I am never letting a kobold live again, btw.)

My issue, is simply the narrow set of actions encouraged (or potentially encouraged) and how it reduces the roleplaying game... to... well... in my case just a game. So, I went and played another 'game' instead... of the video type... and I enjoyed it just as much and found it had as much character depth and rewarded the exact same set of actions.

I roleplayed but, honestly, everyone in the group would have been better off if I hadn't. And I think that's a design flaw. A roleplaying game in which you are better off NOT roleplaying.

And, maybe, avoiding danger is beneficial... but so is staying at home in character, not being heroic, doing nothing. It's not very fun, and it doesn't sound very enjoyable to the other characters either. The opportunity cost is too high, and the opportunity cost is better to not roleplay, or to roleplay poorly.

I wasn't driven away... I was bored away, when I realized I was just playing a videogame. Kinda cool that it's multiplayer... but I was looking for a more 'open world' sort of thing, less 'loot the bodies' more actual roleplaying. :/

I get that it's hard to do that with Organized Play, but isn't encouraging that the very point of putting that 'suggestion' in there in the first place.

Also, gear and expendables... but not spell components?

"roleplay their way through a combat"

Why so narrow in scope?

"Additionally, if the PCs roleplayed past an NPC who carries a specific potion or scroll that the PCs might be granted access to on the scenario’s Chronicle sheet, don’t cross that item off the sheet—instead, allow the PCs to find the item elsewhere as a reward for creatively resolving the encounter without resorting to combat."

What if they sneak past everything? Rogues are a class?

it also gives the GM a level of flexibility in ensuring players receive the rewards they are due.

Maybe instead:
"it should also ensure that players recieve the rewards they are due."

GM Flexibility is great, but if the GM has the flexibility to give the rewards he has the flexiblity not to, which leads to inconsistency.

unless you are talking about a unique item, a partially charged wand or a higher caster level scroll or potion you can almost certainly buy anything appearing on a chronicle with normal fame limits

Actually, I am talking specifically about 'partially charged items', 'high caster level scrolls' 'potions', etc. I think the number of things that can be crossed off should be limited. And maybe things that can't really be replaced by other scenarios shouldn't be able to be crossed out and lost forever.

Just a thought.

Michael Hallet makes a good point:

"But there is not definition that I can find what constitutes a "found" item. It's clear that if you loot a potion off an NPC you found it and even if you use that potion during the adventure, you can buy it later."

Quoth a reddit: "Unfortunately, Pathfinder Society is a bit more gamey and a bit less roleplay-ey than a typical home-game environment, so players are usually encouraged to make sure their characters have something that works well."

Characters have to be... I mean, you can die... but the 'loot everything' need not bee so 'gamey'.

*submits wall*

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I used a diplomatic solution and managed to bypass an encounter. Because of this, the DM ruled that I had not found an item and crossed it off my (and the other characters) character sheets. It was a very nice item, I got bored, and didn't play again for 2 years.

I was using a pregen and hadn't even made a character yet... and I was already down an item. As were all the other characters. Now, I can imagine a scenario lacking a rogue.

Then I realized I could NEVER AGAIN attempt that scenario to get that item. I considered what might happen with a necessary item... and...

That was two years ago... if not more. (How long has it been since pathfinder was released?)
This is old but....

Items found During this Scenario These are items found/boons gained during the course of your scenario. If you did not find the item or gain the boon, it should be crossed out. These items are available to buy at any time, but you do not get them for free.

The item was crossed out because a character we didn't murder had it.

How to properly play pathfinder:
MURDER EVERYTHING THAT ISN'T HUMANOID!!! Just like a videogame... actually, why don't I just go play the videogame. (And I did... actually, I think that was my reasoning).

I just want to say, that I think this is a problem.

I also think it's wrong to punish a character for being good, especially in a game about heroes which mandates non-evil alignment. I think it's silly to punish a whole group for not having a rogue to pick everyone's pockets. (I probably could have cast detect magic and decided to murder them all out of character because of a magical glow).

And I remember 'Mike Brock' saying the whole point of chronicle sheets is to make sure everyone has the same stuff...
He was talking about editing chronicle sheets, 2012 I think... but basically the point is the same.

Is there a glitch in the quote above?

Memorize Page.
Memorize Page, from the Advanced Class Guide, is an amazing spell, it lets you take a backup of 'int mod' pages, plus one for your familiar, if you need to.

The rules glitch is as follows: The large problem with the spell is that the memorized pages remain no matter what... in short, you cannot change which pages you memorize, ever... they are permanent unless removed by the 4th level spell 'modify memory', which only bards can cast, or another similar effect.

However, according to the pathfinder society rules, any spell cast by a PC ends at the scenario, along with all effects thereof. In short, no matter how many times you cast the above spell, you begin and end every scenario without the memories. (Basically, much like free hit point restoration if you don't heal up, your memories are fresh as a daisy next adventure).

This also means that if you want to learn a spell and add it to your spellbook, but don't have the gold... it's gone from your memory at the end of the scenario.
I've never had a problem as a player or GM with the PCs hanging out together for days after the mission ends to nurse each other back to health.

My big worry with this glitch, is that a GM might hate it and try to force a scenario to end. However, I just noticed that it says end of a session. So.... :)

"The existence of a Day Job check pretty much indicates that PCs are assumed to have time before and/or after the adventure to do things."

"This is a subject of table variaion."

"must be resolved before the end of the session" - death

Can anyone else think of a spell or an ability that benefits from whatever players do being undone?

I assume the servers are overloaded... they sold a lot of bundles. I'll be waiting to download mine, personally, due to the heavy traffic.

I was using the mobile version of the Humble Bundle website. Unfortunately, when I checked my receipt I found out I somehow had the comic bundle, not the RPG bundle. (I suspect that it has to do with using the physical back button, and the previous page not having the data in question embedded into the URL). (It's a recommended design practice to improve usability and prevent these kinds of errors, but not all programmers know about it.

They refunded me. (It's all good, right... not so much, apparently the glitch counts against my purchase limit and I can't get a 3rd Humble Bundle... as a gift... :/ This means that whatever group I find/make in my area, we will have to use 2 sets of e-books instead of 3... which would be perfect with 1 physical set.)

One of the sets is mine, my first pathfinder books... ever. I should also mention that my city DOES NOT have a pathfinder game running, in spite of the fact that there is actually a SMALL yearly tabletop gaming convention in my city. (Though, to be fair, the nearest other city is about an hour and a half away, and in that gap there are a great many small towns and other cities, and pathfinder has a pretty good turnout from those small towns at the local event... I know that at least 4-5 tables of pathfinder games run simultaneously at the yearly event... and those are usually booked solid all day).

I, honestly, would have rather lost out on the donation and still been able to buy the bundle... :/ All I really cared about was getting all 3 of those bundles.

This also means that anyone who bought both the comics and the RPG books would have been rate limited on one because of the other. (In short, one could buy 3 comics, 3 books, or 1 comic 2 books, etc.

Is it really fair to punish those who also wanted the comics? I'm getting distracted... unfortunately, while they did remove the rate limit... I just got the e-mail and the bundle is over. Is there any way for me to get that 3rd bundle? (Keep in mind that I'm the same guy who waited 2 years for a second 100baseFX fiber optic unit at my local goodwill... ($5 btw, regularly $120 new!) cheap... and broke... do not begin to describe the vast emptiness that is my wallet. I still need it at the humble bundle price, and if I hadn't found it luckily, I likely never would have purchased the books.)

One more guys... you have no idea the value you are getting... I literally get paid to sell stuff... by the hour. When I have something, when I like something, when I enjoy something, I share it. Honestly, if I can't get that bundle, Paizo is losing much more than me.

Not familiar with dragonlance gnomes, sadly. My gnome mad inventors are basically the (mostly sane) version of the homocidal explosive obsessed goblins in my universe. (They're actually two related species.)

Regarding the feat, just realized Reincarnate doesn't affect mental stats, so I guess it's also a fix for GM's who like to reapply mental stats and wreck their players characters (which is about the same time I like to make a new character). So remove the 'reincarnate' note for most campaigns, it only applies in campaigns with a houserule that affects mental stats.

Fun with the witch's 'Forced Reincarnate' hex. "My character refuses to come back to life." Same with the GM's reincarnate. "My wizard refuses to return to this world in an inferior form."

I may also create a tile-based reincarnate chart to go along with it later. (Increases the chance of similar abilities being selected.)

Anyway, if GM's want to reapply mental stats, that feat should keep the character working. Otherwise the note is unnecessary.

I wish. I was thinking of doing a prerequisite of a specific wis or cha for Genius, but the problem is that the feat it's self LOWERS your ability score by subtracting 2, so you would need a 15, or the feat would toggle on and off (what?) Yeah, the feat dropping cha, means you no longer qualify for it, so your cha goes back up. XD

Requirements: +0 Int from race, a racial bonus to Wisdom or Charisma.
(I rephrased this 4 times. XD)
Requirements: A racial bonus to only Wis or Cha mental ability scores.
Requirements: Ability Score Racial Tratis(+2 Wis or Cha, +0 Int maximum).
Requirements: +2 Wisdom or Charisma Racial Trait. (And just make it not stack. Eg: "Your racial bonus to intelligence improves to +2")

Problem with 4, +2 Wis, -2 Int becomes, +0 Wis, +2 Int (a net boost of +4).

Requirement: +2 Wisdom or Charisma Racial Trait.
If you do not already possess a racial trait that provides a bonus to Intelligence, you lose 2 points of your racial bonus to Wisdom or Charisma(whichever you used to qualify for this feat), and gain an equivalent racial trait providing a bonus to Intelligence(max: +2).

Special: Apply the benefits of this feat to the base race before applying templates when generating NPC's or other characters. This feat may only be selected at first level, or when reincarnating (use the retraining rules).

The wisdom equivalent is called simply 'Wise'.
The charisma equivalent, Charming, magnetic, alluring

Ingelligent, Wise (seeing if I can come up with 3 that match) Captivating? Charming?
Or: Great Charisma, Great Intellect, Great Wisdom

Savvy! Genius, Wise, Savvy?

I like the fact that the feat Genius might enable a lot of other races players wouldn't normally play as Wizards to be Wizards (much like the Sage archetype, or the Empyreal for -2 Cha races, it is clearly better than other sorcerer archetypes as a +1 is always better than a -1.)

The real question with the Genius feat: It's good, but would you consider it unbalanced? Functionally, it really does create a new race (from players perspective) as the advantages and disadvantages of the race change. EG: would you pause for even a second if you saw a genius halfling, gnome, or aasimar next to a human or half elf.

First issue, the +2 AC. (Halfling with +2 Dex and Small, combined with +1 to saves). And I just realized that even if I make that as a race, it's still the same RP, this is why DM's make races.

You lose 2 feats over human. Hmm... a ray focused halfling sorcerer might not have the same skills, but would be a match in terms of spell DC and could take Dodge, which would not only meet the prereqs for other feats, but

Vs. Tiefling
-1AC, but you could take dodge as you still have the feat... tieflings are much better. Halfling tieflings, better still.

Okay guys, what do you think about no trait, or a static +1 bonus on knowledge checks, or an extra language? I like the trait because it supported fluff, I want the person to actually be a genius (if they are a genius).

Additionally, whenever you make a knowledge check with a skill with which you have the maximum number of ranks...

Merely because I know a lot of things, doesn't make things any better, all it takes is one abuse or trick I didn't think of (like the 'tomor familiar' with the protector archetype, and the feat/item/etc is useless.

I do want constructive criticism, and the ability to respond to it. Questioning the questions is part of debate. I posted the reasons for the pricing in response, hoping people can tear that down, find something I've missed, put in a suggestion for ad-hoc pricing, or give me more reasons to reconsider.

I did not, however, invalidate the fact that 'access' to quicken at a lower level might make it potentially strong. Whether or not it has a slot is very much relevant.

Also, the inability for 'grease' to be used is still not invalidated. I consider that balanced against the loss of a ring slot, of which most casters (the only ones the ring is useful for) will want to take a ring of sustenance or another ring, thus taking up the slot entirely.

In person, I often play devil's advocate and will take the other side, including arguing against myself if nobody else will. I once spent 3 days proving myself wrong.

Do I like it my way: Yes.
Will this be the final price: I have no idea. I've changed the price 3 times to get here before I even posted the ring, researching magic item creation rules, I just now found the rules about combining multiple similar abilities on unslotted items, that seems to indicate maybe it should be cheaper. (But I think it is already cheap enough, and don't want to go any lower, but if I can find a raw pricing over an ad-hoc pricing, that would be preferred.)

Interesting: when combining mutliple magic items, they are divided by half (for slot affinity), then multiplied by 1.5, for a 75% reduction net.
Also, when combining slotless items with similar abilities they are reduced by 75%.

Multiple Similar Abilities: For items with multiple similar abilities that don't take up space on a character's body, use the following formula: Calculate the price of the single most costly ability, then add 75% of the value of the next most costly ability, plus 1/2 the value of any other abilities.

So, is the 1.5 the combination of 75% reduction for the second item, plus doubling it to make it slotless. (For example, if combining two rings, the first one is a slotted item at regular price, but the second is reduced by 75%, for being combined with another item as a lesser ability, THEN doubled [to 1.5 times] for not taking up a ring slot). Still cheaper than a slotless ring (double), but not by much.

An item that does not take up one of the spaces on a body costs double.

I do want dissenting responses, and I want to dissent to the dissenting responses, then I want people to dissent to my dissent of their dissent of my...
Question everything, Why? It is a traditional style of jewish debate, and it works quite well for understanding things. I appreciate your contributions. I'm still reflecting on grease, and as for the feat above... it definately needs to be rewritten.

Though, honestly, I got distracted by the ring. XD I'm still rewriing the feat.

If anyone can find the 'wealth by levels' and maximum purchase in pathfiner society (I'm using it as a baseline for the design), I would be most appreciative.

Hi, I was writing a huge response, However, I noticed you seemed to have completly ignored the actual reasons for the magic item pricing.

Gilfalas wrote:
Also, rods are not priced as per slotted or unslotted to start with so lowering the costs for a slot is not an applicable comparison. They effectively use the 'primary or off hand weapon' slot since all rods must be held to be used.

One: That isn't an item slot. If it were, summoners with eidolons wouldn't be able to wield weapons as their eidolons do.

Two: That 'slot' doesn't have affinity, which means complaints about cost difference moving it from slot to slot are moot. Technically, I am moving it from an unslotted item (held in hand), to a slotted item, however, I didn't feel that it justified a cost reduction as such, in spite of the fact that the ring of sustenance uses the same item slot.

Also, regarding affinity. Let me just rattle off a quick list: Ring of Sustenance (prepare in only 2 hours), Ring of Counterspells, Ring of Spell Storing, Ring of spell knowledge, Rings of Wizardry.
Though, unlike other item slots, you have two ring slots.

Two: The 1/3rd reduction in price is paired with a 1/3rd reduction in charges, as per the magic item creation rules under 'charges per day' this is appropriate. Divide by 5/charges per day. Taking the reciprocal, I wind up with a metamagic rod of quicken being multiplied by 3 times the single charge price.
Charges per day: Divide by (5 divided by charges per day) Boots of teleportation

Frankly must be worn for 24 hours to function is nearly meaningless as a drawback unless for some odd reason your rings are regularly being removed on that character.
Then I suppose being worn for a week (ring of sustenance) is rather odd too.

Your lesser variable ring is insanely broken and underpriced. Your effective getting access to 3 Metamagic feats. And Quicken is a 4 level modifier so should it not at least cost 4 charges by your descrption instead of 3?

You have access to 3 feats, yes, that is the versatility part, but if you choose a minor effect (such as a silent or still) you lose quicken. You get 3 charges, once you use 1, the higher level ability of the ring is lost and it effectively becomes no better than a 3000gp metamagic rod in most respects. Also, if you choose a +2 metamagic ability, or any other feat, you lose quicken and instead gain 1/3rd of a 9000gp magic item. Effectively, any item other than quicken reduces the ring to a much less expensive item.

You can get a +2 metamagic rod, and a +1 and have 3 uses of each for 12000gp, but with my ring you get a single use of the +2 rod and either silent, still, or another activated rod. This is clearly a superior value to a single metamagic +2 use, and one +1 (silent or still), AND it costs less.

The ring is VERY versatile, until you use even a single charge, and then you're done for the day.(Unless you chose a weaker effect, in which case, two more weaker effects, and you just saved 3000gp by buying a very expensive ring). Please consider it in play, not in theory. 4 encounters a day. A metamagic rod affects 3 of them, my items, one.

The feat is unnecessary when applied to humans, yes. I merely wanted to illustrate that a flexible bonus is sufficient.

Requirement: Human, half elf, half orc, gnome, halfling or other race with a racial bonus to a mental ability score.
You lose 2 points of your racial bonus to Wisdom or Charisma(whichever you used to qualify for this feat), and gain an equivalent racial bonus to Intelligence(max: +2). You may additionally select one trait related to spellcasting, an arcane spellcasting class, intelligence, or any intelligence based skill, including selecting a qualifying racial trait through the trait 'Adopted'.

Special: This feat may only be selected at first level, or when subject to a 'reincarnate' spell if your previous form had a racial bonus to intelligence and your new form has or can have a racial bonus to Wisdom or Charisma.

The intent of this feat is to support gnomes who are supposed to be amazing inventors. I would probably also allow a gnome to get this feat in place of ANY racial trait(the ones under the 'gnome' entry such as Defensive Training or illusion resistance), but not gain the extra trait effectively, it becomes a half-feat they can trade a racial ability for, well unless they trade Gnome Magic, that ability is worth a feat.

Metamagic Ring, Lesser Quicken 1/day, Cost 12,000gp.
This item functions as a metamagic rod to quicken a single spell of up to 3rd level once per day. The ring must be worn for 24 hours before a spell can be cast in this way.
Note: It costs a straight third of a metamagic rod of quicken spell, but also has the requirement that it must be worn for 24 hours and takes up the ring slot. Balanced? (Normally, a slotted item would be half the price, but I upped it from half because I thought it fair and underpriced otherwise).

Metamagic Ring, Lesser Versatile. Cost: 17500gp
This ring allows for up to 3 levels of metamagic feats to be applied to spells of 3rd level or less per day. This ring must be worn for 24 hours to function.
1 Charge: Silent Spell or Still Spell
2 Charges: Silent Spell and Still Spell
3 Charges: Quicken,
Varies: Any other metamagic feat or combination of metamagic feats up to +3 spell levels, chosen when you prepare spells(if so chosen, this replaces quicken).
1 Charge: You can activate a metamagic rod of up to 3000gp held in hand without expending a charge or without moving it (your choice) by expending one charge from the ring, it's effect (in addition to those of this ring) are added to the spell.
2 Charges: Up to 9000 gp.
3 Charges: 15000 gp
You may combine the above actions, up to 3 charges or spell levels may be expended in this way.
Creation: As a metamagic rod, plus Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer.
Note: This ring fills the void of a missing 'Metamagic Still' rod, which can't exist because metamagic rods need to be waived around.

To get pricing of versatile: Divide metamagic rod of quicken by 3 (one charge of 3 spell levels, the most powerful ability), multiply by 1.5.
To get pricing of lesser quicken ring. It should give 4 spell levels, but only gives 3 unless quicken is used. Cost is ad-hoc.

Bizarre Metamagic Ring of Spell Silencing, Lesser
While wearing this ring, sounds you produce appear muffled and you gain a +2 competence bonus to stealth checks, additionally when not trying to be silent and attempting to communicate, make an stealth check at a -10 penalty, those who fail are unable to hear your words (thought they can read your lips normally).
After the ring has been worn for 24 hours, three times per day the wearer may, without a sound, gain the effect of the 'Silent Spell' feat as applied to a spell of 3rd level or lower.
Cost: As a metamagic rod of the same price, plus 600gp, so 3,600gp.
(1.5 times the cost of a +2 competence bonus from an ioun stone).

(Note, this is a crazy fun item, especially with a cranked up stealth check, especially on a rogue).

Ring of Unseen Casting CL 3rd (Caster level based on mistmail)
3000gp (As a metamagic rod of still spell)
400gp (Single use of a first level spell effect, caster level 1 2000 gp / 5/charges [one]) That's per charge cost.
CL 3, 3 mins total, single use or 3 cl1 charges
Three charges would be 1200... hmm.
1200*1.5 = 1800

Ring of Unseen Casting, CL 3rd
Cost: 4800
Three times per day you may choose to cast a glamer over yourself which prevents your motion (other than throwing a ranged weapon, or

benefit from the spell 'Illusion of Calm', while under the effect of that spell you may also cast a single spell as though it had been prepared with the still spell feat. After you have cast the spell, the illusion ends.


2250, 250 masterwork chain shirt
There it is. XD Thanks. And Paizo, an edit function... would be nice, or maybe at least the ability to 'spoiler' after the fact. Also, something is horrifyingly wrong with the fact that someone said "if you're still reading this thread." Everyone should be able to easily find every thread they have posted in on their profile page. (This is typical in most forums.)
Read Magic is not on the witches spell list.
Spellcraft check DC20+ spell level to use a scroll of a spell on her class list without read magic.

Or: Two worlds magic... which still doesn't let you learn spells from spellbooks. In fact, even the Bard, Paladin, and Ranger get it on their list. That's every core class from the edition pathfinder was based on, which implies that it was a very necessary spell (everyone gets it).

bard 0, cleric 0, druid 0, paladin 1, ranger 1, sorcerer/wizard 0
Basically, every spell casting class in 3.5.

"It's still kinda weird that witches feed scrolls to their familiar."
"Oh, we just tell everyone that, we really just destroy scrolls because we're irked at being the only ones who can't read them."
Also misses the mark. However, the fact that the witch's familiar EATS the scroll to learn the spell means arcane/divine is irrelevant. Is this a legacy rule that was missed? If so, what should replace it? As is, witches can't cast scrolls, might as well eat them.

The problem is that witches are one of the few classes that does not get read magic. Thematically, it does fit, but crippling their ability to use scrolls when even Mr. thwack n heal (paladin), bard, and ranger can... is weird.

The more I look at the witch class, the more crippling flaws I find. Please tell me, am I right? If so, how does it make sense for witch spells to be available as scrolls.

Hex Vulnerability
How on earth can you buy a scroll of this? By all the laws of logic such things should not exist.

Please tell me I'm wrong, or that it's an error.

Witches have to pay 6000 minimum to back up their spells and can only do so at a certain level (when that is 1/4 their wealth). Witches have a living spellbook that many GM's try to kill, cannot learn spells from sources other than other willing familiars or scrolls (so none or little as loot, whereas a wizard could find an entire spellbook[or 'borrow' one]).

Heck, for the ultimate in broken-ness, (comparatively) a wizard who loses his spellbook can just borrow another mages, and can then proceed to prepare every spell he had in his old book, which he can then scribe from memory, even if that spellbook is destroyed. A witch who loses her spellbook, however, must begin again from the beginning.
The wizard can get any spell in the game for 1.5 times the cost.

Also, if a wizard or a witch finds a scroll, only one of them can use it to learn a spell in pfs. (Could cause conflicts).
This has been clarified according to the upper link, which is actually older.

Scrolls used in this way during an adventure do not need to be purchased, but are still consumed as normal.

Hmm... memorize page... memorize page functions on a scroll and does not consume the scroll (as it does not borrow, duplicate, or retain any of the magic), it would allow the wizard to scribe it later, then the witch could eat it, the wizard would retain perfect memory of the page for the entire duration of the adventure, good for up to 5th level spells for a good int wizard build. 6th if the familiar can memorize one page.

As for flipping a coin in pathfinder society: No. It's not in character to do so. I am a seeker of esoteric lore, the idea of allowing someone to burn a spell thus permanently destroying what might well be the only copy is abhorrent to me. My response would be simple:
"HAVE YOU GONE MAD? Can you not see reason, knowledge is something to be treasured, recorded, shared, passed down, not fed to a cat."
Familiar: "Hmmph"
Wizard: Not you, obviously.

The pathfinders are: "a legendary league of explorers, archaeologists, and adventurers dedicated to discovering and chronicling the greatest mysteries and wonders of an ancient world beset by magic and evil."

Does this sound like someone who burns scrolls before copying them, or who would risk the destruction of information when not absolutely necessary? (EG: someone needs the scroll to raise an evil god, sure, burn it).

Sorry for the PFS specific stuff, but people keep kicking threads out of Pathfinder Society when they ask rules questions, so I'm putting it here in expectation of that happening anyway.

Am I right, a Witch can't use a scroll without a DC20+spell level spellcraft check?

Anthropomorphic Animal (or Alter Self) + Familiar Melding + Mistmail barding gives your witch's familiar a permanent 20% concealment.

Note: I did the calculations to break down the cost of Mistmail, it is, in fact, priced as 24/7.

It's 7th level, if anyone can think of a way to pull this off at a lower level, let me know.

Or Alter Self (The lowest level spell that does the job)

School Familiar archetype, Familiar Adept Wizard gets 'Greater Summoned Shell' if you are a Conjurer, and it can control a Lantern Archon, Bralani Azata, Kyton, Salamander, or succubus.
A medium metamagic rod of extend spell (double duration) plus the occultist Arcanist archetype (1 minute per level) gives your familiar the ability to control a succubus for 2 minutes per level.

Improving communication:
Extra Item Slot: Belt of Dwarvenkind.
The wearer can understand, speak, and read Dwarven. \
Robe of Blending
Turn into an orc, or whatever, speak orc, or whatever.
Alter Self.
School Familar: Illusion, lesser illusory maestro (4th level, one level below speak with master your familiar can make illusions).
Share memory pathfinder, 3rd level. (2nd level spells) Have your familiar imagine saying it in common, alter self is more effective.
Same level/cost as remove curse, no opposed roll.
Memorize Page is automatically erased at the end of scenario, per the pfs rules, you can scribe whatever spells you memorize. Also useful for maps! Ironically, the PFS nerf makes this MORE useful.
Duplicate Familiar: Range: Touch.
You can have the familiar carry the touch spell and use it when it needs it.
Alter self: Possibly also the same, if you can designate your familiar as the toucher for a spell that was personal converted to touch.

Feel free to reformat/clean up as necessary as long as the core point is retained: Question: Is the broodmaster able to allocate/divide hit dice and abilities as he see's fit? (minimum 1, I would argue... except that the ability to have 8 small eidolons directly contradicts having a required attacks minimum, as one MUST have 0 attacks.)

The stated example gives a 1/1hd eidolon, but between the two of them there is only one feat to be divided. Also, the large size evolution (given later) gives medium and small eidolons. The hinge is on the word 'divided' which does not necessarily mean evenly. (Nor is even possible at every odd level, and I need to do some calculations to see if it is even possible at all). It is possible to divide evenly at 5th level, and every 5 thereafter.

Regardless of the number of eidolons in the brood, each eidolon has the same base attack bonus and base saving throw bonuses, but the rest of the eidolons’ base statistics must be divided between the eidolons, including Hit Dice (minimum 1), skill points, number of feats, armor bonus, Str/Dex bonus, evolution pool (but see below), and maximum number of natural attacks.

The example given is a level 2 summoner, 1/1hd. However, it only has one feat and only one Eidolon would get it. Also, it later details two small eidolons and one large eidolon (Should they have the same HD, I don't think so, as certain creatures advance in HD they get bigger). One possibility I'm not sure most of you have considered, giving most of the abilites, hit dice, etc... to ONE eidolon, and only a few to the other. (Though, attacks would still have to be allocated, which would reduce the utility of the first.

(Suddenly, I want to make one small eidolon with 1 hit dice and +16 natural armor, and another huge eidolon with NO armor bonus and 15 hit dice).

When you think about it, splitting strength, armor, and hit points evenly in half cripples the Broodmaster so much at mid levels that it becomes inviable. It's twice as easy to hit and has half the hit points, that is far weaker than any CR-appropriate creature would be[each reduction Halves it's combat survivability], on all terms. However, dividing them unevenly is more viable.

The mental hangup is the mathematical definition of divide (most often used in D&D, divide your armor bonus by two if tiny[does that apply tho the base armor bonus, the enhancement and armor bonus combined, or... later]), vs. the linguistice divide, which means to separate into parts, which could be categories but need not be even. For instance, the two small one medium would have 4 attacks to split between them.

All the mechanics, only sacrificing hp for one eidolon, only summoning one eidolon, only looking through the eyes of one eidolon, in spite of being a brood master.

The discussion centers very heavily one the definition of the word divide.

Math Lingo vs. Plain English: Double Entendre
Has an entire paper on this, and a small snippet relevant to this conversation:
Correspondingly, "divide" means cut into pieces, possibly equal pieces. In math lingo, "divide" is the same as "multiply," in the sense that dividing by a number other than zero is the same as multiplying by some other number (its reciprocal).
Possibly equal, but not necessarily so, and not possibly so in this case.
Add up the XP values for each CR and then divide this total by the number of characters—each character earns an amount of XP equal to this number.

However, if the mathematical definition of 'divides' is intended, then the broodmaster directly contradicts it's-self by ummoner.html

The broodmaster decides to give the first eidolon 4 skill points, one feat, a +1 armor bonus, a +1 bonus to Strength, 2 points from the evolution pool, and a maximum of two attacks. The remaining 4 skill points, +1 armor bonus, +1 bonus to Dexterity, and 2 points from the evolution pool go to the second eidolon, but it gains no feats and can have only one natural attack.

The uneven-ness looks to be out of necessary, but it says he 'decides to give'.

RAW and RAI, DM's of PFS, how do you rule?