Mike Lindner's page

***** Pathfinder Society GM. 796 posts (808 including aliases). 2 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 30 Organized Play characters.


I have played the Into the Unknown quests and would like to replay them with a another character. I wasn't able to figure out whether I can do so when looking at the Guild Guide. I feel like I missed something in there. Is this allowed?

I want to clarify exactly when a character gets a saving throw against a spell and the effect of that saving throw. This is for spells that don't have "Saving Throw negates" in the spell description. So for a spell such as Trial of Fire and Acid that specifies when the target gets a save, assuming the spellcasting is successful (all concentration checks made, etc.), does the target get an immediate saving throw to avoid the entire effects of the spell plus a save each round OR is the target affected without making any saving throw, and then makes the save per round to halve the damage for just that round?


Underwater Demolition is an alchemist discovery on page 191 of the Advanced Race Guide, along with two other discoveries. However, it is unclear whether these discoveries can be taken by non-grippli characters in PFS.

From the additional resources page:


Note: Alternate racial traits, racial archetypes, racial evolutions, racial feats, and racial spells are only available for characters of the associated race. Racial equipment and magic items can be purchased and used by any race as long as the specific item permits it (for example, only halflings can purchase and use solidsmoke pipeweed).

The new alchemist discovery on page 44 is legal for play for characters of all races.

Gripplis: all alternate racial traits, favored class options, racial archetypes, racial equipment, racial discoveries, racial magic items, and racial feats are legal for play.

These discoveries are certainly legal per the grippli entry as quoted above, and since they are not specifically restricted to just gripplis by the overall note at the top of the ARG entry I would assume they are legal for any alchemist. However, the specific mention of discoveries on page 44, and not those on page 191, makes me question this.

So, are the alchemist discoveries on page 191 legal for all alchemists?

I rebuilt a PFS character with 1 XP into a vigilante for a game last night, 6-22 Out of Anarchy.

The character is a kitsune stalker whose vigilante identity is a Pathfinder in his native kitsune form, who is in it to help kill people and take their stuff. His social identity is a human bum who sits on the street corner at the end of the adventuring day with "the end is nigh" signs occasionally yelling at people about the end of the world. (With profession beggar for his day job.) Quite literally a murder hobo.

As you might expect the main identity is the vigilante - I don't expect the social identity to ever come up much or interact with the other PCs. For me this solves the dilemma of how to handle multiple personalities within PFS and it worked out well I think.

Without saying too much about the scenario I was able to at least change into my social identity for a while during a roleplaying section to scout and gather information without drawing unwanted attention to the pathfinders. The rest of the time was spent in his vigilante identity.

Mechanically, the vigilante identity worked out just fine considering he's only first level. I don't mind that hidden strike just uses d4s most of the time, although I have never played a rogue sort before.

I like the fact that I had enough skills to contribute outside of combat, having put a rank in both diplomacy and bluff.

Overall I was able to contribute without overshadowing the other PCs, enjoyed playing as a vigilante, and am excited to play the character more at higher levels.

Does the limitation on applying the effects of a vigilante talent marked with * "only when that hidden strike is dealt against a
foe that is unaware of the stalker vigilante (or who considers him an ally)" apply to the rogue talent vigilante talent?

Playtest document wrote:

Vigilante Talents: A stalker vigilante may select from any of the following talents. A stalker vigilante can apply only one talent marked with an asterisk (*) to a given hidden strike, and only when that hidden strike is dealt against a foe that is unaware of the stalker vigilante (or who considers him an ally), unless otherwise noted.

Rogue Talent (Ex): The stalker vigilante gains a single rogue talent (not an advanced talent) of his choice. If he selects a rogue talent marked with an asterisk (*), that talent applies to his hidden strike instead of a sneak attack, and it counts as a vigilante talent with an asterisk (*) for the limitation of one per hidden strike.

Perhaps it's just seeing what I want to, but the way I read this is that the limitations are not inextricably linked, and since the rogue talent talent specifically calls out (only) that it counts "for the limitation of one per hidden strike" then it can be applied to any hidden strike attack. To me this makes sense balance-wise as rogue talents were written assuming they would be applied that often, rather than the more powerful vigilante talent effects that are balanced by not being applicable as often.

I want to take bleeding attack and would like to apply it to every hidden strike attack. Otherwise I will just use the wounding weapon special ability.

I would like to submit a feature request for the website. This is mainly to support organizers and players of PFS.

While I realize the effort required to implement and maintain this is non-trivial, I believe that providing the below tools and features on the website would put Paizo on a special level of community support. As the organized play campaign expands I believe that the level of excellence in tools to bring together local players should expand as well.

Today every local PFS group needs to solve the same basic problems of organizing, communicating across the group, scheduling scenarios, etc.

What I am thinking of is a way to create local PFS lodges within Paizo.com or some new domain. Each would provide a number of features accessible to members of that lodge.

  • Each lodge would consist of a mini-site with basic features to create a cohesive community of local PFS gamers.
  • Summary description for the lodge.
  • Set a location for the lodge with the ability for general users to search for lodges by location. This allows folks who move, are traveling, or just getting interested in Pathfinder to find the lodge(s) near them.
  • Ability for players to join one or more lodges.
  • A message board that is not restricted to members of that lodge, but is separate from others to allow focused discussions within a local group.
  • Better support for recurring events (referred to as REs below) with at least the ability to distinguish one particular meeting (physical get together) of that group from another while still tying them together. This may simply be some sort of meta-event that acts as an optional parent to existing events. Trying to reuse one event in the existing system means that eventually the event will no longer show up on the events page when it gets too old (I have seen this bug myself), and it also complicates trying to go back and correct any reporting issues since there would be a great many sessions all logged under that one event. The clone function is very nice, but I think this goes that one extra step towards awesome.
  • Ability for players to opt-in to specific REs. This would not be signing up for specific scenarios on specific days, but for being a member of that group of players.
  • A calendar view of all public events associated with that lodge, both recurring events and one off events.
  • Tools for organizers of REs
    o Ability to set one or many individuals as the organizer for an event (RE or one-time, such as a convention).
    o Ability for all of an event's organizers to report sessions for that event rather than restricting reporting to only the individual who created the event.
    o Ability for a RE's organizers to see what scenarios are available for a given set of users - either all those who have signed up for that RE or a subset selected on the fly. This is the best and most important feature for me personally because it gives organizers the tools to ensure that they consistently offer up scenarios that will meet the needs of their players.
  • Warhorn-like features that would allow players to sign up for specific scenarios at specific events, along with the event management tools to go with this. To me this is a nice to have feature that should be there at some point, but is not strictly necessary for the rest to be of great value.

I think one thing that will set this apart from facebook groups, warhorn sites, meetup groups, etc. is the low barrier to entry and the ability to drive new players to their local lodges. Every player is expected to register their PFS number on the website. Anyone logging in with a registered PFS number can be directed to their local lodge site by virtue of the fact that the events they play can be associated with that lodge (if there is one). This means you don't even have to search around or even be otherwise informed about its existence. The power of data ties it together. Yay data.


I present to you the PFS schedule for this year's PretzCon. You can register for individual slots on the PretzCon website. If you'd like to GM please email me at michael.lindner@gmail.com.

Friday April 5
7PM - 11PM
We Be Goblins! (1)
4-EX: Day of the Demon (3-7)

Saturday April 6
8AM - 12PM
Rise of the Runelords: Thistletop (3-5) slot 1 of 3
4-11: The Disappeared (1-5)
4-EX: Day of the Demon (3-7)
4-13: Fortress of the Nail (5-9)

1PM - 5PM
Rise of the Runelords: Thistletop (3-5) slot 2 of 3
41: The Devil We Know, part 3: Crypt of Fools (1-7)
4-13: Fortress of the Nail (5-9)
4-10: Feast of Sigils (7-11)

7PM - 11PM
Rise of the Runelords: Thistletop (3-5) slot 3 of 3
48: The Devil We Know, part 4: Rules of the Swift (1-7)
4-16: The Fabric of Reality (5-9)
4-12: The Refuge of Time (7-11)

Sunday April 7
9AM - 1PM
4-18: The Veteran's Vault (1-5)
4-16: The Fabric of Reality (5-9)
Module: The Godsmouth Heresy (1-2)

2PM - 6PM
4-18: The Veteran's Vault (1-5)
4-EX: Day of the Demon (3-7)
Module: The Godsmouth Heresy (1-2) continued

Any GMs from out of town have first choice, and if there is something special you would like to run I would be happy to work with you. The only thing locked in with a GM right now is Rise of the Runelords: Thistletop on Saturday.


This is a new feat from the Blood of Fiends book.

Blood of Fiends wrote:
Benefit: When you shoot or throw ranged weapons at an opponent engaged in melee, you can choose to take a –1 penalty to your AC and gain a +2 competence bonus on your attack roll. However, when you roll a natural 1 on a ranged attack roll made with this bonus, you automatically hit a random adjacent creature that threatens your intended target.

Would using this feat be subject to the no PvP rule in PFS?

5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the Spells section for the Sorcerer (and similarly for Bards and some other spontaneous casters) is this language.

Core Rule Book wrote:
Upon reaching 4th level, and at every even-numbered sorcerer level after that (6th, 8th, and so on), a sorcerer can choose to learn a new spell in place of one she already knows. In effect, the sorcerer loses the old spell in exchange for the new one. The new spell's level must be the same as that of the spell being exchanged. A sorcerer may swap only a single spell at any given level, and must choose whether or not to swap the spell at the same time that she gains new spells known for the level.

I have a character that is currently Sorcerer 5 / Dragon Disciple 6. When I next level up and take another level of Dragon Disciple it will make my effective Sorcerer caster level 10. Can I swap out a spell at this point or would I have to take an actual Sorcerer level to get this benefit?

Since I will gain new spells known as though I had 10 levels of Sorcerer, I could see being able to swap out spells, but I could also see this falling under "other benefits." This is for a PFS character, so I'm trying to figure out what RAW really is for this to avoid any issues at the table.

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is some inconsistency in the descriptions of a number of prestige classes. Not all prestige classes that grant an increased level to a spellcasting class have text granting the same benefits of increased spells per day, spells known (if a spontaneous caster), and effective caster level.

Of particular concern to me is the wording for the Divine Scion class which states:

Inner Sea Magic wrote:

Spells: When a divine scion gains a level, she gains new spells per day as if she had also gained a level in a divine spellcasting class she belonged to before she added the prestige class. She does not, however, gain any other benefits a character of that class would have gained. This essentially means that she adds the level of divine scion to the level of whatever other divine spellcasting class she has.

If the character had more than one divine spellcasting class before she became a divine scion, she must choose which class she adds each divine scion level to for the purposes of determining spells per day.

Notice there is no mention of increased effective caster level or spells known for spontaneous casters. So as written if I were to have 5 cleric levels, then take 3 levels in this prestige class the character would have an effective caster level of 5, not 8.

Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook FAQ wrote:

Prestige Classes and Spellcasters: Does a wizard (or other character that uses a spellbook), receive bonus spells to add to his spellbook when he gains a level in a prestige class that grants an increase to spellcasting?

No. The increase to his spellcasting level does not grant any other benefits, except for spells per day, spells known (for spontaneous casters), and an increase to his overall caster level. He must spend time and gold to add new spells to his spellbook.

—Jason Bulmahn, 11/24/10

Can this be clarified to indicate whether the Divine Scion or possibly all PrCs with "+1 level of existing arcane/divine spellcasting class" are supposed to grant all 3 benefits?

For reference:
The wording is similar to the Divine Scion for the Diabolist, Cyphermage, and Harrower PrCs.

Some PrCs leave out the bit about gaining spells known but do grant an increased effective caster level, such as Genie Binder, Balanced Scale of Abadar, Spherewalker, and Crusader.

I would like to get other people's opinions on whether the Taunt feat will work with the Blistering Invective spell to allow the demoralize attempt to use Bluff.



You may be small, but your remarks cut others down to size.
Prerequisites: Cha 13, Small size or smaller.

Benefit: You can demoralize opponents using Bluff rather than Intimidate (see the Intimidate skill description for details) and take no skill check penalty for being smaller than your target.


Blistering Invective

School evocation [fire, language-dependant]; Level alchemist 2, bard 2, inquisitor 2
Components V, S
Casting Time 1 standard action
Range personal
Area 30-ft. radius
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Reflex partial, see text; Spell Resistance special, see below

You unleash an insulting tirade so vicious and spiteful that enemies who hear it are physically scorched by your fury. When you cast this spell, make an Intimidate check to demoralize each enemy within 30 feet of you. Enemies that are demoralized this way take 1d10 points of fire damage and must succeed at a Reflex save or catch fire. Spell resistance can negate the fire damage caused by this spell, but does not protect the creature from the demoralizing effect.

The spell clearly says to make an intimidate check but the purpose of the check is to demoralize, so it seems to me that Taunt would apply.

I am planning on taking levels in the Living Monolith prestige class. I noticed that Ka Stone and Master Ka Stone are supernatural abilities but Greater Ka Stone is spell-like. Is this correct or was that 'p' supposed to be a 'u'? If it is right, I am interested in understanding why that is. Is it just a balance issue?