Mike Tuholski's page

This is really awesome and I love that you guys decided to go for a 12-15 level range. That not only makes planning much easier but also gives those 13+ characters some PFS options beyond modules and APs, which is nice.

Actually, I would really love to see these "Seeker Arcs" become a more regular feature of the campaign. I know they'll never be as popular as level 1-12 scenarios because relatively few characters make it to Seeker status, but I think a new Seeker arc every other year would not be too much.

I am in the midst of running this game on line and have been a bit frustrated by the lack of suggestions on how to proceed when the players reach the Bronze House. There are suggestions for different "routes" they might take but not much on what to do for each one.

For example, my players decided to go with the "Business as Usual" tactic, playing themselves off as merchants as they pretty good Bluff modifiers all-around. But once they sit down with the clerks, what then? I had one of the clerks present them with the mask from area C5 as an example of their wares but how are they supposed to find any secret documents or evidence using this method without just flipping the desks over mid-negotiation and fighting off the guards. Once they get in, there don't seem to be many subtle ways for them to investigate without raising the alarms immediately. That is, I am sure such ways exist but the scenario offers no suggestions on how to handle this part of the investigation. It's just basically "once they raise the alarm, Sloan shows up after x minutes."

I agree, this season has been a vast improvement over Season 5 and I have in general been a fan of many of the changes that have been implemented over the past year. The scenarios have been much easier to run and complete in time and I have greatly enjoyed the story arcs this season.

However, one thing that never seems to be on the PFS "to-do" list is sanctioning of APs and modules. I know it's not a top priority but I think it should at least make the list. The last AP backlog sanctioning we got was Carrion Crown in the fall of 2013. It is getting dangerous close to two years since we have seen one of the older APs sanctioned.

Furthermore, Iron Gods has been finished for some time and we still have yet to see the chronicles. I put my own game on hiatus and know another GM who has done the same because we were expecting it to be sanctioned as it came out (a la Mummy's Mask). And now we're half-way through Giantslayer so it's going to start falling way behind if those don't get taken care of soon. And with the themes of Season 6 being technology and Numeria, I would have thought Iron Gods sanctioning would be have been near the top of the list.

I realize that it takes a ton of unappreciated work to complete these momentous projects and that there are probably higher priorities that cause these sanctionings to be pushed back again and again, but if they never even make it onto the "to-do" list, it becomes increasingly unlikely that they will ever be done. And that's too bad, because some of those old APs are great and opening them up to the PFS community might spark some new interest in them.

Again, great job on all of the changes this season and on everything done this far. I am looking forward to running all four specials at GenCon this year and coordinating all of that took a huge amount of effort, I am sure. Thanks again to our intrepid PFS team!

Thank you, these look so much better. Glad to be rid of those garish LE and SS colors. These are much more appealing to look at.

Some of you may remember "The Flesh Puppets premier aka how to seduce the BBEG".

I just wanted to add that the leading Flesh Puppet is still very much active and during a game of The Harrowing recently immortalized the event in that most epic forms of art, the power ballad.

Brilliant idea!! As say David Haller many people leave the PFS because many characters become overpower with the optimization, and some we want more role playing than Roll Playing. This is Awesome initiative!!

I want to applause the minds that thoght this!!! Many thanks team!!!

I haven't left PFS but I have been getting overwhelmed with so much new material lately. We just got 10 new classes with the ACG and before the dust settles the dev teams goes and releases the Occult playtest? Too soon in my opinion, but this isn't really the place for that discussion....

It will be a nice reprieve to return to a more basic RPG style with the same great adventures we've all come to love.

Very very cool! As a GM who has run every single scenario (as well as most of the modules and several of the APs), I was really hurting for material to run for credit. I've also played all but a handful so this will be a nice challenge to me to create core-only characters and replay some of my favorites!

Question:

Will the character numbers remain the same? i.e. Will there be a 'regular character #1' and a 'Core character #1' or will there just be a mark somewhere to indicate that characters #1-10 are regular, #11 is core, #12-13 regular, #14 core, etc?

Man, I'm starting to feel like we (myself included, RE: Wardens) as a group are a bunch of entitled jackasses, here.

So, instead of griping about what is and isn't sanctioned, allow me to say thanks to the people who are working on these things.

Oh, don't get my tone wrong. I know it wasn't directed specifically at me but I just wanted to make it known that I'm not ungrateful for the recent sanctions, nor am I in the habit of griping about upcoming sanctions. I'm very happy to see all of this stuff sanctioned and I'm looking forward to more in the future. It's just been a long time since we've heard anything about the old APs and I've been concerned that that project will ever get finished. But I'm glad to see that John still has it in his mind and I look forward to seeing what comes of it in the future.

thistledown wrote:

But still no sanctioning for Iron Gods... :(

Maybe.

Cool. I'm patiently looking forward to IG sanctioning as well.

Mike Tuholski wrote:

Between Wardens sanctioning last week and Plunder sanctioning this week, it seems the time between module release and PFS sanctioning has dramatically decreased. In fact, at the current rate I believe I can project that we should expect the chronicle sheets for Daughers of Fury slightly before the module is actually released and the chronicle sheets for Feast of Dust any day now as well.

;)

But seriously, keep them coming! Nice to see lots of new sanctioned material out there!

Oh, that's a dangerous trend—one that probably results in my publishing several Season 9 scenarios two weeks ago.

However, I didn't run the projections on the previous APs. We got Carrion Crown over a year ago and I've been looking forward to Serpent's Skull since then. I'm scared to look at the projections for Curse of the Crimson Throne sanctioning but I have a feeling they look pretty dire.

Between Wardens sanctioning last week and Plunder sanctioning this week, it seems the time between module release and PFS sanctioning has dramatically decreased. In fact, at the current rate I believe I can project that we should expect the chronicle sheets for Daughers of Fury slightly before the module is actually released and the chronicle sheets for Feast of Dust any day now as well.

;)

But seriously, keep them coming! Nice to see lots of new sanctioned material out there!

Yes, I'm glad to be back to the world-spanning PFS model after the whole Year of the Demon debacle. It sounded cool at first, but man was I tired of demons and Mendev-related plots by the end of the season. Moving away from the APs is a fantastic idea; PFS has the opportunity to be highly mobile and varied in its presentation of Golarion and tying it to one location/story-line with the APs was detrimental to its potential.

The first half of this scenario seems fine but there really should have been a more explicit discussion about how the characters find out what to do about the moving sphere and the crystal. I think the above suggestions about an empathic link are implied in the text and that's what I'm using when I run to that part but it is nowhere explicitly stated and a GM who doesn't pick up on the empathic link could easily leave the players in the dark. With the players having no idea what is going on or what needs to be done, failure would come pretty quickly.

I've come across this problem a few times in PFS scenarios so in the future I'd suggest that the authors/editors/leadership/etc make sure that there is explicitly written an in-game way for the characters to figure out what to do when something special or timed needs to be done.

Congrats everyone, especially Mike and Jeremy! Many good times gaming with you two!

GM Bold Strider wrote:

Question: Why is the worship of the Old Great Ones or Outer Gods disallowed?

I honestly cannot think of a reason why these two groups of deities are excluded when deities such as Urgathoa/Lamashtu/Zon Kuthon/etc. are allowed to be worshipped.

I'm guessing it might have something to do with the fact that these deities are actually strongly represented in the Inner Sea and Golarion lore, whereas the GOOs or OGs are only mentioned as having out of the way cults?

PFS is played in Paizo's version of Golarion. I know the GOOs are there, but they are a minor group in this version.

To your point about the GOO and OGs not being major forces on Golarion: the Ancient Osirion deities are legal even though they are not normally worshiped in modern Golarion nor do they hold much force in modern Golarion. Even though they only hold small pockets/cults of worshipers, they are still legal for Society play.

I had the same thought a while ago when I considering rolling up a cleric of Yog Sothoth or something similar and was disappointed to find that choice unavailable for Society play.

I have to agree with the OP that I am a bit perplexed by the decision to exclude these deities from Society play and yet allow the aforementioned Urgathoa, Lamashtu, etc as legal choices for divine classes. Ideally I'd like to see the GOOs and OGs become legal but at the least I'd like perhaps a bit more of an explanation as to why those deities are not allowed.

Thanks!

Nice fairly obscure reference on the title!

Yep, looks like you're right. I also missed that sentence, which is why I wanted to double check on here. Although I admit that I'm a little saddened that the cohort-of-monkeys alchemist build is not going to work in PFS.

Question regarding the alchemist's formula book:

As a vivisectionist, he gains baleful polyrmorph as an extract, which is not normally available for alchemists. I have an alchemist in my game (PbP) who is wondering if he could learn this in his formula book for future use, as it is available during the scenario (he likened it to the keen longbow situation).

As far as I can tell, nothing is stopping him from doing that since according to the Alchemy ability alchemists can prepare any formula in their formula book and nothing is preventing him from adding it to his formula book. Unless leadership says otherwise I suppose he is free to do that.

I believe his ultimate plan is to give his monkey familiar poisoner's gloves, fill them with infusions of baleful polymorph, have the monkey 'poison' victims with baleful polymorph and turn them into what he is calling his "monkey cohort."

I just wanted to jump back in to correct what may have been some hasty assumptions from a few posters:

I am not the type of GM who enjoys killing characters. This is not a plea to let me kill more characters. I wouldn't say I have "GM angst" over the issue or over my players having a slight advantage in avoiding death via the reroll.

Maybe this was just my general dislike for 'reroll mechanics' coming to the surface. Maybe my proposal wouldn't change anything or make any sort of improvement; honestly, my preference would be to get rid of rerolls entirely but I didn't think that was even remotely plausible.

I guess I just prefer to leave the dice where they fall. I thought that rolling two at once might be an improvement because with the system as it is instituted now most people use their reroll when they roll lower than a 5. Despite people's anecdotes to the contrary (there is probably some confirmation bias and selective memory going on here), there is a greater chance that you will roll better on that reroll (especially when GM stars are factored in).

However, when rolling two dice at once you have the distinct disadvantage of potentially wasting that ability when it is not needed. Both dice could come up 17 and you're fine. Both dice could come up 2 and you're not fine. You might say but the chances of you being fine after using the reroll ability are increased compared to how rerolls work now. But I think you're failing to consider that the player has to decide to use the ability before they roll anything, which changes things a lot.

I guess I just have less of a problem with that system than the current system but that's just my opinion. It actually gives the players a greater chance of success but doesn't allow them (necessarily) to get rid of that natural 1 exactly when they want to. I enjoy chance and luck in the game (that's why we use dice, after all). Whether that is a better system or not is up for debate and honestly I'm not wedded to my proposal so I'm enjoying the back-and-forth.

Statistically/mathematically it might be more powerful as you are taking the greater if two rather than the second one even if that is lower. However in practice I'm not sure it would actually be more powerful because people wouldn't be deciding after they've cal ready seen that 1 on the first die roll; they'd have to decide to use it before anything is rolled at all.

Well, it's not just an issue with save-or-die spells but with any type of d20 roll be it a stabilization check or a fort save to avoid poison or even that attack that just rolled a nat 1. And natural 1s are a part of the game and should happen once in a while. If everyone has a "get out of jail free card" to avoid a natural 1 very scenario, it gets rid of that certain element of the game.

However, by allowing someone to roll two dice at once and take the better you still eliminate a certain portion of that (bad) luck and give the player the appearance of taking fate into their own hands without just letting them save that reroll until a 1 comes up on their d20.

In wouldn't say it's a problem unique to PbP and knowing the save DC ahead of time. I actually have more over-the-table GM experience and have noticed the issue there as well.

Becca and I surely miss the vibrant Bloomington PFS community!

As a player I also refrain from using my reroll unless another character's life depends on it. I don't like using it to save or benefit my own character; like Bold Strider said, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It just feels too close to cheating.

I will not ask to remove the reroll rule, but alter it to make it less game-changing.

At this point, I have GM'd every single PFS scenario out there including quite a few modules. I also have GM experience with several APs. That amounts to GM credit for just shy of 200 games at this point.

And in that time I can not begin to count how often a reroll has completely changed the course of a game. In my opinion, it is game-breaking. In my (campaign-mode/homebrewed) APs I do not allow rerolls unless they are gained through a feat or class feature and save-or-die/suck spells are tense moments at the table. In PFS I hesitate to even use such spells because almost every single time that the player fails the save they pull out their reroll, save their character, and move on. Save-or-die/suck spells go from being tense moments to *shrugs* from my players.

Examples? Here are two in a row from a game I'm currently running:

There seems to be something wrong with the maps in this pdf. With most other scenarios you can copy-paste the maps (which leaves the room labels behind) and print the maps out or use them for online games. The maps in this scenario just copy-paste as a black box; I suspect something isn't layered right as I don't know what else would cause that.

Which of course means that for anyone wanting to print the maps or use them for an online game is stuck with the room labels (and secret door labels!) on their map for the players to see in plain view.

Thanks! I missed that. Doesn't bother me at all, I was just curious when I saw that.

GenCon GMs who got a free hardcover: does your ACG say "Pathfinder Adventure Path" instead of "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game"? Was this a misprint? The store image shows the correct "Roleplaying Game" logo but my book shows the AP logo at the top. It was free so I'm not complaining if they gave us the misprints but was just curious if others had noticed this (of if Paizo had even noticed this). Maybe it's not even a mistake and I'm the one who's mistaken and someone can shed some light for me.

I actively dislike the new Faction logos. They aren't really up to the standard that's been set in the past. It would be great if a dedicated graphic designer could redesign these. Right now they're not cutting the mustard. Heck, I'd do it myself for free if I thought it'd get somewhere. Without getting into details, I think they could all go back to the drawing board.

I tried to give some advice above on improving them but the more I look at them the more I agree with you. I really dislike them and think someone with more graphic design expertise than myself needs to go back to the drawing board on all of them.

"They aren't really up to the standard that's been set in the past" was a great way to put how I felt about them too.

Not digging the new Faction symbols. Darkives in particular, all about uncovering hidden knowledge and their symbol is burning books??? Liberty's Edge, is very, very "meh". Not sure what the Sovereign Court has to do with their symbol? It sort of seems mix of the newer Andoran faction symbol and something that suggests Tian Xia.

Just some of my thoughts on the new logos and some suggestions on how to improve them:

I have to agree with the several other people who have brought it up already but I am a bit. . . offput. . . by the new faction symbols. Hopefully they are just temporary mock-ups or something. I actually think Darkives looks the coolest, even if Beckett doesn't think it's a good representation of the faction. Darkives is the one symbol I'm actually ok with, although if he or someone else can come up with a more appropriate symbol I wouldn't cry over seeing the current one go.

Liberty's Edge seems very tacky and the color scheme is too bright/too neon. If you're going to stick with that symbol (and I don't have a problem of the sword and shackle), use a natural color scheme or at the very least not highlighter yellow.

The Exchange uses an actual bag o' cash as their symbol? That one is the most hokey I think. The scale would be fine on its own but the money-bag is just too Monopoly Guy for me. Either just the scale or something new entirely; they're not bank robbers carrying bags of cash from their most recent steal.

Scarab Sages is fine but the colors need to be tweaked to be a little less neon. I'm sure you were trying to distance it from the red scarab of Osirion but the current color scheme is too funky. If the color scheme were adjusted I think this logo would be fine. Even if it is very similar to Osirion's symbol, that's unavoidable as the Jeweled Sages were from Osirion.

Sovereign Court's symbol looks neat but I was also confused at first; I caught the 'rising from the ashes' Taldor reference, as someone pointed out, but I thought we were trying to get away from nation-based factions? The phoenix rising from the ashes is too closely associated with Taldor and the Sovereign Court is supposed to represent nobility everywhere. Maybe you should take a page from The Exchange's book and make the symbol a monocle. . . jk. I'm not sure what to suggest for this one though but I'm sure the community could think of something clever.

I think this is a great move and a fantastic way to transition to "Pathfinder 1.5" as I imagine it (without forcing people to buy new books if they don't want to upgrade).

The one thing I didn't see listed that I was really hoping for though was an alternate magic system (i.e. NON-Vancian casting). Without that I think the book will be fairly incomplete.

They should either take the blog down or release the scenarios anyway. It's already out in the open.

Agreed. I bought them and downloaded the PDFs immediately before they were taken down (not realizing it was a mistake), as I'm sure many others did. Nothing's really stopping anyone from running them if they were so inclined. Since they're already out there, just go ahead and put them back up unless there are further edits that need to be done.*

*like the chronicle for 05-24, which says "[Include 2 check boxes here]" instead of actually having checkboxes next to one of the boons.

j b 200 wrote:

I started this thread for discussion of my updated Bard Guide. This was one of the few that hadn't been updated since Treantmonk did it and it was somewhat incomplete even then.

Any suggestions are more than welcome. I've only just started the Spells section (as you can likely tell) and I haven't quite gotten to equipment or Multiclassing, but the bulk of the work is there so I wanted to get it out for people to get a look at.

Hope you like it.

Pathfinder Bard Guide

Can you please amend the feat section? Silent Spells cannot be used by Bards.

I was about to note the same thing. Silent Spell specifically calls out that bard spells can not be silenced.

Primitive Humans? Excellent! Now I can finally make my Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer negotiator bardbarian.

Edit: I'm surprised the suggested names don't include Mr. Key Rock ("Just Key Rock, Your Honor.")

Additional Resources has been updated. Chronicle sheets for Mummy's Mask and Pathfinder Tales are still pending.

Good to hear Mummy's Mask is coming soon, I'm really looking forward to seeing that. Any timeline on Wardens or Tears? Just last week I knew I guy who was going to buy Wardens from our FLGS and then put it back on the shelf when he heard it wasn't sanctioned yet. . . (I'm not saying that's a great attitude to have-I bought it anyways-but PFS is a marketing campaign, after all).

Also, you may not be able to buy scrolls of higher level spells but as I understand it, it is fully within the rules to have those spells in your spellbook even below 13th level (you can't cast them yet but they can be there) if you come across them in-game. For example, if you come across an NPC who happens to have those spells in a spellbook or on a scroll, you could copy them into your spellbook and save them for a level when you could actually cast them.

---

Also, the new FAQ allowing you to learn spells from nameless NPCs (or Aram Zey's library as I think of it) between scenarios means that you don't have to buy a high level scroll to put it in your spellbook, so could you potentially learn level 7+ spells in your spellbook from Aram Zey's library before you actually reach level 13? That one is a little fuzzier. I don't see why you wouldn't be able to (or why that would be an issue since you can't cast them yet) but I'm a bit confused by this sentence:

Access to these spells is restricted to scrolls and is not available for spell-casting services.

What do they mean by "access"? Does that mean there are no NPC wizards with level 7+ spells in their book who would be willing to let you copy the spell (for a price)? That's what it sounds like on first pass but I'm not really sure if that is what is intended.

Good job Other Bloomington Mike! Many fun times over the past couple years. A few more specials and perhaps one day I will join you in the five-star rank.

What is the actual price of the Mossy Disk Ioun Stone? Page 45 says 5000 go but page 48 says 2500 gp.

Or just require this AP be run in campaign mode.

I think this is the way to go. Unfortunately I don't think it will happen.

He is a First Law Cavalier

Unfortunately this was recently made illegal.

I know, I was upset too. I already had mine up to 2nd level when the ruling was changed.

John Compton wrote:

GM Hills wrote:

The real question: When/will they be legal for PFS?

An Adventure Path's rules contents typically appear on the Additional Resources page within a month of the book's publication—often very close to the listed street date. Since this material appears in Pathfinder Adventure Path #80: Empty Graves, I would expect to see any material from this book available around April 30th.

Thanks very much, Mr. Compton. That's perfect, I just wanted to make sure: 1) It would be legal and 2) It would be available for an eventual Warpriest once the full release rules are in my hands at GenCon.

Yes, I had the same question so that's good to know. I'm already making my khopesh-wielding warpriest of Horus that I've been dying to try.

Yes! I've been waiting for this for quite a while! Very nice!

Ok, thanks! Just wanted to make sure they were aware of the problem but looks like they're working on it.

The Paizo Blog and Web Fiction links at the top of the home page haven't been working for me since the update; I've had to scroll down and use the links on the side. Is anyone else having this problem?

I think it might have been more because of spells like bless that they couldn't save against. Some players might have seen it similar to PVP as every time a helpful divine spell is cast they lose their abilities. It doesn't seem like that friendly of a class for organized play, especially when they'd refuse any kind of healing, quite possibly be killed early in the scenario, then everyone else is facing even tougher odds.

I hadn't considered how bless might affect them-I suppose you could just ask the cleric/oracle not to use bless. To clarify, they wouldn't refuse any kind of healing; as long as you have a bard, witch, or alchemist with infused cures you'd be fine. There are plenty of other builds which would be just as or even less 'friendly' for organized play that are currently legal. But that's besides the point; I'm a bit frustrated that I have to recreate that character after already putting XP on him but I'll save that concept for an AP or homegame and put something else in his place I guess. No harm done.

I think the above problem (and similar ones) were the reasons it was banned, yeah.

Yes, I'm sure that was the reasoning behind the decision, which is a little disappointing that they'd rather just ban the order outright than address the issue but I also understand that changing the rule may or may not have opened up lots of other issues that they didn't feel like messing with.

Still, even without changing the rule and forcing a cavalier of the Order of the First Law never to use potions or wands, I was willing to play such a character (already have XP on him, after all!). I don't know that a ban on the Order was necessary.

Well, you kind of answered your own question, didn't you? Except you bolded the wrong part:

Mike Tuholski wrote:

Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, pp 23-24 wrote:

Potions, Scrolls, and Wands

All potions, scrolls, wands, and other consumables are made by clerics, druids, or wizards in Pathfinder Society Organized Play. The only exceptions are spells that are not on the cleric, druid, or wizard spell list.

That means that any wand/potion of a cure spell that you purchase has been made by a cleric. So while yes, a bard/witch can use a wand of CLW, it was still made by a cleric per the GtPFSOP.

Well, my question was whether this should be revisited based on the quoted class feature and trait. So unless there is a change in policy and you are allowed to buy potions from alchemists or witches, a character with the Rahadoumi Disbeliever trait has to make a Will save against potions they buy.

I'd like to point out that the Order of the First law was banned in the most recent update of the Additional Resources.

Wow, I had not noticed that. It was originally legal when the book came out and when I made that character. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I'm not sure why it's illegal, except maybe to avoid the above problem. That kinda sucks, I guess I have to remake that character even though he is second level already.

Infernal healing is a spell that is on the sorcerer/wizard list. Perhaps that might be more useful to you?

That is one solution but it doesn't answer the question: could a Rahadoumi character of the Order of Law buy an "arcane" potion/wand of cure light wounds and in order to abide by the restrictions of his rejection of faith ability?

Besides, I dislike using infernal healing without consequence. The character I am creating would not be comfortable using it. In fact, I only have one character (a necromancer) who accepts healing from that spell; all of my other characters refuse it if offered. But that is another topic entirely and not related to the question at hand so I won't get into that here.

As it stands now, consumable items are made by wizards, druids, and clerics:

Potions, Scrolls, and Wands

All potions, scrolls, wands, and other consumables are made by clerics, druids, or wizards in Pathfinder Society Organized Play. The only exceptions are spells that are not on the cleric, druid, or wizard spell list.

. . .

For the sake of simplicity, there is no difference between an arcane and divine scroll or wand. Thus a bard and cleric may both use the same scroll of cure moderate wounds.

This ruling-particularly the bolded part above-has some interesting consequences concerning the following class feature of the new cavalier Order of the First Law.

Order of the First Law

Rejection of Faith (Ex): At 2nd level, the cavalier must refuse all divine magic, including helpful effects or spells. As long as he has not benefited from divine magic in the past 24 hours, he receives a +2 morale bonus on one saving throw of his choice. Each day he can change the saving throw to which this bonus applies.

There are also some complications with the following trait:

Rahadoumi Disbeliever (Regional): As a Rahadoumi who rejects covenants with gods, your belief is strong enough to repel divine spells. You gain a +2 trait bonus on saving throws against divine spells, but you must make a saving throw even when that magic is beneficial to you.

---

If the above trait and/or class feature were used in a home game, it would be simple enough for that character to make sure they always purchased their wands of cure X wounds from a witch, bard, or alchemist. However, since in PFS "there is no difference between an arcane and divine scroll or wand", how should a Rahadoumi character interact with these items? Would they be forbidden from using any consumable healing items because it is assumed that they are all made by a cleric? Or does the wand become arcane in the hands of a bard/witch/alchemist but then switch to divine in the hands of a cleric/oracle/druid?

And what about potions? The rule does not mention whether potions are arcane or divine, but this is important to a character with the above class feature and/or trait. Is the Rahadoumi character banned from ever using curing potions because they have to assume that it came from a cleric? Or can they buy "arcane" potions of cure light wounds from a witch or alchemist?

---

I think based on the above complications the ruling on arcane vs. divine scrolls/wands/potions might need to be tweaked a bit. At the very least some clarification is needed for those (albeit rare) character concepts that depend on this distinction.

For example, rather than limiting all consumable items to being made by clerics, druids, or wizards, allow items made by other classes as long as the spell level is not lower in that other class compared to the cleric, druid, or wizard spell list. The would not alter the price at all but would allow someone (for RP purposes or for legitimate mechanical reasons like the abilities quoted above) to, say, purchase potions of cure light wounds from an alchemist instead of a cleric. The reworded rule might look like this:

Potions, scrolls, wands, and other consumables are generally made by clerics, druids, or wizards in Pathfinder Society Organized Play. The only exceptions are spells that are not on the cleric, druid, or wizard spell list. In addition, potions, scrolls, wands, and other consumables may be made by other classes (bards, witches, alchemists, etc.) as long as the spell is of the same level as it is for clerics, druids, or wizards. . . .

Of course, there may be better ways to phrase that so I welcome suggestions on how to clarify this ruling so that it no longer nerfs some character concepts like the above Rahadoumi features.

Tier 3 for me again. Just sent in my application. Great time last year, looking forward to it.