Millefune's page

FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 119 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 15 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

REMOVE CURSE
Remove curse can remove all curses on an object or a creature. If the target is a creature, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against the DC of each curse affecting the target. Success means that the curse is removed. Remove curse does not remove the curse from a cursed shield, weapon, or suit of armor, although a successful caster level check enables the creature afflicted with any such cursed item to remove and get rid of it.

.

The first sentence says it can remove all curses from an object or creature. Later in the paragraph it gives the exception of cursed shields, weapons, or suits of armor don't have the curse removed, but they are able to be taken off and be gotten rid of.

So a ring, necklace, or other cursed Wondrous Item that isn't a shield, weapon or suit of armor can have its curse completely removed from a casting of Remove Curse? If so, why does Break Enchantment, an even more powerful form of the spell, only allow things to be taken off or gotten rid of, and not also completely "remove all curses from an object?"


Is this keep going to have bathrooms/privies in it this time?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Please tell me the Knight of Ozem pictured on this blog post will be released in a future Pathfinder Pawns set, pretty please?!


This (the fact that they forgot to adjust the table after bumping up the strength of horses) has been known since at least 2013 (when I started playing Pathfinder, and had to research it and found a past thread* about it), and they still haven't updated their SRD or changed the table as of the 5th printing of the CRB.

* http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pdj8?Overland-Movement-and-Carrying-Capacity-C oncern


I will second the request for a reprint. A product like this is an amazing tool. Everyone's always running out of orcs, gnolls, goblins, and the like, and buying single miniatures is prohibitively expensive and take up too much space. Reprinting this would be easy money for Paizo.


You're overthinking it.

Aroden, and "Prophecy" as a whole, died in the campaign setting material, because Pathfinder and Golarion was opened to the public. Anyone/everyone can run their games differently, choose what published materials they want to use in their own versions of Golarion, change what is canon within their games, players can do different things and cause different chains of events, etc.


In "Andoran, Birthplace of Freedom," Codwin I of Augustanna was the Supreme Elect in 4715 (2015), having been reelected into office in 4712 (2012). So with the 4716 election year, did someone else get elected into office, or did Codwin I get reelected?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If 4712 = 1917, that changes the 4700 = 2000 I was told while I was the local organizer for PSOP/PFS back in 2014. I was told that 4708 = 2008, when Paizo made the Pathfinder in response to D&D 4E., and that's why the "current year" in the Inner Sea World Guide's timeline, which was released in 2011, is 4711.


Where are the privies/restrooms? I know people don't usually RP using them, but so many buildings/maps without them kinda breaks the immersion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is there supposed to be a map pack or something that has the interiors of the "roofed" hamlet's buildings?


Finally, a building with restrooms! So many tavern, fort, castle, prison, and other building maps with no restrooms. It's nice to see they had the cartographer put them in this one.


"Noble Estate" with one bathroom and one toilet room....


Cool beans. Thanks for the replies, everyone. As I have no ranks in Knowledge (Geography) or Profession (Boatman), I didn't realize that big trade rivers' flow was so slow that a big boat could sail or be rowed upriver. I figured it was either by motor (not really a big part of the setting world) or the whole animal pulling along the shore (which I thought would be really slow and require a crazy large amount of animals). Anyway, thanks for everyone's time. Now I can accurately describe how the boat they'll be on is traveling upriver.


I'm running a campaign in Sargava, and one of the things in the "Sargava: The Lost Colony" book mentions that the Korir River is used by trade ships both to to/from Kalabuto to/from Port Freedom. How is this possible, as rivers generally flow from the inland out to the ocean/sea. There are some occasions that a river flows inland. Regardless, rivers don't flow both ways at a time. So which way does the Korir River flow?


In regards to Nethys, he's Osiriani... which is Golarion's copy of Egypt. Having been to Egypt, I can say for certain that there are plenty "not black" Egyptians. Not sure that excuses him from looking like a half messed up Sephiroth, though.


Tacticslion wrote:
Judy Bauer wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
The Bekyar, however, are seen more as "dangerous/kill on sight" kind of creatures instead of as humans (as they're dangerous demon-worshiping cannibals). The Zenj have almost lost their cultural identity, while the Bonuwat are seen as quaint and mostly harmless.

Just a quick note here—the Bekyar may be slave traders and worship demons, but they aren't cannibals, and they trade extensively with e.g. the Aspis Consortium (Heart of the Jungle 12). So while they're not great neighbors, they're treated as humans and interact directly with the world economy.

There are, however, human cannibals in the Sodden Lands (the Koboto people, ISWG 175) and in the outer islands of the Shackles (kuru—humans contaminated by Ghol-Gani spirits, ISWG 172).

Really? Huh, that's interesting. I really mis-remembered that, then (and I think I mis-played that in our game). Thanks!

There are two Bekyar tribes mentioned in "Sargava: The Lost Colony," pages 6-8.

The Bandu (Bekyar) are the raiders/slavers.

The Yemba (Bekyar) are the super scary cannibals.


mikeawmids wrote:
Millefune wrote:
I'd like to know how much information on Trunau is in this book before buying it. Does this give more details about Trunau than its entry in "Towns of the Inner Sea?" A better map of the town, more info on the NPCs, pictures of the NPCs, etc.?
Most of what you just asked for is available for free in the Giantslayer Players Guide.

The Player's Guide info on Trunau is a cut and paste from most of the Towns of the Inner Sea book entry on Trunau. :(

brad2411 wrote:
Millefune wrote:
I'd like to know how much information on Trunau is in this book before buying it. Does this give more details about Trunau than its entry in "Towns of the Inner Sea?" A better map of the town, more info on the NPCs, pictures of the NPCs, etc.?
No the towns of the inner sea write up has more.

I was hoping for more, but oh well. Thanks! :)


I'd like to know how much information on Trunau is in this book before buying it. Does this give more details about Trunau than its entry in "Towns of the Inner Sea?" A better map of the town, more info on the NPCs, pictures of the NPCs, etc.?


Thank you, much appreciated!


If I have a high enough BAB, can I take the attacks out of order?

For example, I have +6/+1, and my opponent has a high AC, but low CMD. Can I use my lower +1 attack first to trip, then use my higher +6 attack to go for a damaging hit?

It also works for the cinematic imagery. Like in the movies (especially martial arts movies), they block or parry most of the initial attacks, but then the last attack gets through for the damage/kill.


Thanks a ton for clearing it up, folks. We had issues with it, because even the smallest amount of cover prevents AoOs, and we wanted to be sure whether it was the same or different with concealment.


When you don't have total concealment, do you still provoke attacks of opportunity by moving, putting something away, whatever would normally provoke? Like if you're in Obscuring Mist (20% miss chance), and you move through or leave squares that an opponent would normally threaten and gain an AoO from?


I've read over the Grappling rules and used Google... but I can't seem to find the answer to this.

If an opponent has an ally in a grapple, and you don't want to assist your ally in breaking or taking control of the grapple by using Aid Another (say you have a much higher CMB), can you just grapple the opponent? The paragraph on multiple grapplers only addresses aiding, but not whether or not you can initiate your own grapple with an opponent grappling an ally.

If you can do it (I don't see any rules that say you can't), and you succeed at controlling the grapple between you and the oppoenent, is the opponent still grappled with your ally and controlling that grapple?


Are those Halfling sized "rooms," or did they finally add restrooms in the maps? Please be restrooms!? I've been waiting for this day after dozens of flip mats without a single restroom!


Does this mean that Tahonikepsu won the vote to be the leader of the Jeweled/Scarab Sages?


Why didn't Paizo take the chance to close a rules loophole when it had the chance to when the feat was able to be reprinted and updated in Inner Sea Gods?


I'm dealing with an Aurochs animal companion, and when it increases in size, it gets the Trample special ability. The trample damage is not listed in the Animal Companion information. So I went through the rules to find out what it should be, but I'm getting conflicting information. If you have the time, please help me figure this out?

Trample wrote:
As a full-round action, a creature with the trample ability can attempt to overrun any creature that is at least one size category Smaller than itself. This works just like the overrun combat maneuver, but the trampling creature does not need to make a check, it merely has to move over opponents in its path. Targets of a trample take an amount of damage equal to the trampling creature’s slam damage + 1-1/2 times its Str modifier. Targets of a trample can make an attack of opportunity, but at a –4 penalty. If targets forgo an attack of opportunity, they can attempt to avoid the trampling creature and receive a Reflex save to take half damage. The save DC against a creature’s trample attack is 10 + 1/2 the creature’s HD + the creature’s Str modifier (the exact DC is given in the creature’s descriptive text). A trampling creature can only deal trampling damage to each target once per round, no matter how many times its movement takes it over a target creature.

The "slam" damage for a large creature is 1d6 according to the Natural Attacks by Size table, but the Aurochs entry in the bestiary says the trample damage is 2d6.

Where does the extra d6 come from?


I have been using "ah-meh-nuh-fes." I've heard ay-men-OH-fee-us, ah-mih-noh-fee-oos, ah-men-off-yoos, and all sorts of other ways...


PLEASE either do another print run of these (and the "normal" Forest) flip mat)!? Mine has begun to have a small hole form at one of the cross-folds, and I want to replace it. Or perhaps make a new forest/woodlands flip mat people can order/use, since both the Forest and Deep Forest flip mats are out of print? It's not like they won't sell, practically every campaign has a forest/wilderness encounter... and no one likes drawing out sh!t tons of trees on blank mats that won't ever look as good as the ones that have been released thus far.


Yes, ChainsawSam, I'm not a fan of hyper-specialized one-trick ponies either.

In a city-based campaign CMB specialized NPCs and characters are pretty much unstoppable unless you build to counter.

I'm a "turtle-style" player in games, and I'm finding that it's a lot harder for me to raise my CMD than it is for others to raise their CMB. This saddens me,and which is why I made the post in the advice column to see if there was a way to even the gap.


Level 8 (1 Barbarian, 7 Lore Warden Fighter): +8 BAB, +6 STR, +2 Improved Trip, +2 Greater Trip, +1 Weapon Focus, +2 DEX (Fury's Fall), +2 Weapon Enhancement Bonus, +4 Maneuver Mastery = +27 before Heroism, Rage, and/or Enlarge Person kicks in... and you don't have to dump WIS or CHA and be ugly or crude/rude or foolish.

22 STR (16 + 2 Racial/Choice + 2 Belt + 1 Level 4 + 1 Level 8) = 10 points
14 DEX = 5 points
13 INT = 3 points

2 more points to play with. If we really wanted to be lame, dump two and one point(s) from WIS and/or CHA... and you can get 16 DEX for another +1. Then there's stuff like Inspire Courage, Bless, Prayer, Heroism, whatever.

Most CR 8 stuff have CMDs in the mid to high 20s. Some in the low 30s. Eezy peezy for a +27 CMB... before buffs. Even without Lore Warden's Maneuver Mastery, a +23 CMB (before buffs) makes easy work of the vast majority of CR 8s.

There are all sorts of feats and buffs to help attack (and thus CMB). But three of the biggest forms of buffs to AC (Armor, Natural, and Shield) don't apply to CMD.


I'm finding that it's way easier and cheaper to raise your CMB than your CMD. So much that CMB builds start wrecking CR appropriate and even "CR+3" fights by low-mid levels. I know the general ways to raise CMD described in the CMB/CMD section of the Core Rulebook, but are there other ways to raise CMD or some new rules or supplements I'm missing that balanced out the disparity of ease of raising CMB over difficulty of raising CMD?


ryric wrote:

You are:

PRD wrote:
A creature with an alignment subtype (chaotic, evil, good, or lawful) can overcome this type of damage reduction with its natural weapons and weapons it wields as if the weapons or natural weapons had an alignment (or alignments) that matched the subtype(s) of the creature.
From the Bestiary entry on damage reduction.

Thanks. I remembered seeing that, but couldn't find it. It didn't help that at the PFSRD site, it specifically states "they count as X and Y for overcoming..." in the Demon and Devil entries... so I thought they would be in the respective celestial entries as well. got lost/misdirected. I appreciate you finding it for me.


Going through the Celestials and Fiends, I noticed that Demons' attacks count as Chaotic and Evil, and Devils' attacks count as Lawful and Evil. On the Celestial side, however, Azatas' attacks don't count as Chaotic and Good, and Archons' attacks don't count as Lawful and Good... not even Angels' attacks count as Good.

So when Celestials clash with Fiends, the Fiends pretty much can tear through the Celestials' DR, while the poor Celestials have to deal with their attacks not inflicting as much damage, since they can't naturally bypass the DR.

What's up with the unfair treatment? Am I missing something?


It says in the Linguistics skill that you can retry it. I can't see how this works... if I came across Arabic writing, and I didn't know what it said (say I made a low roll), I wouldn't be able to just figure it out by looking at it for another minute. I would understand if it was "Retry: Yes, if you can do further research on the language," or something similar. How do the rules justify someone just figuring out the meaning of writings in a language they haven't seen before half the time by just sitting there for twenty minutes?

Player: I sit there and retry again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again. OK... let's see, I think it says this or this. One of these is a false conclusion, since they don't match. I have a 50% chance to understand ANY writing I come across.


Aroden died, because Pathfinder got published and released to the players. You can't have a God of Prophecy when you have multiple GMs with the freedom to pick and choose and change and create what they want about the world.

Anyway, I stumbled upon this thread, and love it.


OK, so since it says in the CRB (quoted and cited by James to be on page 442) that blinded creatures can't charge or run, then if you're flying, you can't use the "run" action for x3 or x4 movement speed?


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

You can remove the "half-speed" by making an Acrobatics check, but does that allow you to run if there are no obstacles in the way, or "fly run?"


Two Prestige Points for a "Wand Battery" and nigh infinite pool in PFS/PSOP?


Yeah, across all monsters... but we don't fight all monsters.

Anyway, HELL F*CK*NG YES! I am so happy that we can at least apply feats to them as if they were rays. Now the Sound Striker has a chance to be able to actually do something to an extra-planar, fey, construct, etc. creatures (which, Mr. Risner, have a tendency to show up in most campaigns... especially PSOP).


If the PDT team is going to keep the Weird Words damage as weapon damage instead of switching it to sonic, I am begging that they at least allow us to use "weapon feats" (Point Blank Shot, Deadly Aim, etc.) with them, or at least allow the Sound Striker more options in overcoming DR. Like allowing any one "weapon material property, damage type, or alignment" at Level 6, then two at Level 12, and finally three at level 18.

I think that it overcomes "magic" by default, since it's a supernatural ability, and wasn't mentioned in SKR's ruling that it lost its magical properties.


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

Is the Archivist able to make separate Knowledge checks against different types of opponents, and then allow his or her Naturalist ability work for the party against all the creatures the Knowledge checks pass against?

I saw someone say you could on this thread: paizo.com/threads/rzs2offa?Archivist-clarifications

However, I'm not sure it's right. Most people I ask seem to think that it's "one type only," but some say that since a Knowledge check is a free action, it can work on multiple things if the Bard knows what they are.


Well, if they do change it up, I really hope they allow PSOPers the chance to freely rebuild it. My only issue with the ability is the number of rolls needed to resolve everything. After chatting with my groups, we have have come up with two ways to have it balanced to make it appealing, but not broken. This way, there's a Bard option to not just be "party buffer" and can have the choice to maybe do some fighting... without outshining the blasters, sneakers, and strikers. We let Clerics and Oracles opt out of being their primary traditional role (healers), why not let the Bard have a chance... without having to be a dirty Archeologist?

1 Weird Word per two Bard levels.
Sonic Damage
No DR
No save (Scorching Ray, Acid Splash, and other Ranged Touch magical effects don't allow saves.)
1d8 + CHA modifier

OR

1 Weird Word per two Bard levels.
Weapon Damage (B, P, or S)
Becomes a "ray" in order to allow weapon feats, as it does weapon damage.
Allow DR (can be brute force bypassed the same way archers do, by applying Clustered or Deadly Aim... but hurts Bard's limited feat selection)
No save (it's a weapon)
1d8 + CHA modifier

First option makes it more thematic to "Bard-iness," but it can be shut down by sonic resistance, or a simple Resist Energy.

Second option keeps it closer to the original ability, but makes it so that the Bard is able to have a chance at getting through DR if they're willing to spend the feats.

There is no way the SS can replace an archer-type either. 30' may be good for dungeon crawls, but anywhere else, it's trash.


Radiarch Eklesya wrote:
Jade Regent AP Pawn Collection WANT!

I would also 100% purchase a Jade Regent Pawn set. I've purchased all the released pawn sets so far if it's any indication or matters to the Paizo sales and marketing teams.


Devilkiller, I like the "Sonic Rays" idea you and Tels are throwing around a lot better than what the PDT is planning. It gives decent damage, allows multiple hits against big bad bosses, can have weapon-feats added to its hit/damage abiity, etc.

I would change what the PDT is planning by removing the "B, P, or S" damage types out of it and switching it to sonic, and not let DR apply, since it's a supernatural ability, then allow the bard to use more than one word per target for every six or eight levels (two at 6 or 8, three at 12 or 16, and so on). It would make it more powerful that way, but with the huge nerfs of one round of performance use, and limit of one word per target, it's way tamer than the insanity of Dragon Disciple Amiri, Zen Archers, Gunslingers, etc.


Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

The design team and the developers have talked about this ability, and we agree that it is problematic, in that it isn't clear, and (depending on how it's interpreted) is either a very poor ability or a very powerful ability.

Problems include:
* text isn't clear whether you can shoot one target multiple times
* two rolls needed to resolve the effect (ranged touch attack and saving throw)
* damage is low if you can't shoot a particular target more than once, but high if you can
* ability starts with 6 shots when you first gain it, but caps out at 10 shots only 4 levels later

There's no easy or obvious fix for the ability as written.

Rather than quickly putting together an official FAQ or errata with a fix, having people find problems with it, and post revisions to that fix, what we're going to do is present a rough idea of what we think the ability should do, let people pick at it for a while, and revise the wording based on this feedback.

Here is the proposed new wording, parsed over several lines for easier reading:

Weird Words (Su): At 6th level, a sound striker can start a performance as a standard action, lashing out with up to 1 potent sound per bard level (maximum 10), each sound affecting one target within 30 feet. Note: "Up to" means you can choose to fire fewer than the maximum number.
No target can be struck more than once. Note: This makes the intent clear.
Each potent sound expends 1 round of bardic performance. Note: This is new, and keeps the cost from being trivial at higher levels for using the maximum number of sounds.
These are ranged touch attacks.
Each weird word deals 1d8 points of damage plus the bard's Charisma bonus. At 10th, 14th, and 18th level, the damage increases by 1d8. Note: Scaling damage is new. Fort saving throw removed.
The bard chooses what type of damage each word deals (bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing).
This performance replaces suggestion.

If this becomes official, I would ask that PSOP players be allowed to rebuild their Sound Strikers. Sound Strikers still don't hold a candle to the insane Barbarian, Fighter, Dragon Disciple, Zen Archer, etc. builds you see running around at conventions.

Also, perhaps remove the fact that it's affected by DR, and giving it the Sonic damage descriptor, so that the ability isn't overly nerfed once it's only able to be used once per target. Having it be affected by DR when Sean K. Reynolds ruled on it in the past nerfed the Sound Striker really harshly, to the point where it was balanced when it was able to hit one creature multiple times, since there's no easy way to give it material or alignment properties. I tried to help take down a Succubus with a Sound Striker, and it was such a joke, that just Inspriing Courage while the already powerful warrior types pulled out their cold-iron arrows would have been better... had the warriors been wise enough to spend the extra 1 gp to have cold-iron arrows....

One performance per word is a HUGE nerf on top of what's already been proposed. It makes it so that the Sound Striker can use it less times per day than an Alchemist can toss a bomb, and meanwhile Gunslingers are shooting multiple times at one target's Touch AC with x4 criticals with Holy and Cold-Iron/Silver damage all day.

Nerfing the Sound Striker to the extent of what's being proposed with the addition of SKR's ruling on it being affected by DR, will destroy the Sound Striker into being irrelevant and taking away an option to have a "offense themed" Bard, and putting them back to being "support only."


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Story Archer wrote:
No, I was asking about making checks for multiple creature types, like making a 'Local' check for the goblins we're facing and making a 'Nature' check for th edire wolves they're riding...
Yeah, you can check 'em all.

Every GM I've asked says that it only works against one type, and you can't have it work against multiple types, because the ability says it works against the certain type. If you wanted it to work on another type, it would have to be a separate performance, which one Archvist can't do by itself.

****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
dulac50 wrote:
We had a group play this module at a local convention in Sacramento this weekend. Four players attempted the module. One was only 4th level. All players were very experienced. All four survived because the GM took pity on us. We had two fifth level characters (Cleric, mixed fighter type with a level or two of paladin), 1 sixth level, and a 4th level rogue. I can't imagine that this module would be a good introduction to Pathfinder Society Play or to Pathfinder in general. Our heaviest hitter was dominated and my cleric only escaped by running from the dungeon after the fighter character failed several attempts to resist the domination including rerolls.

Hiya, I'm the GM that ran the module. I apologize for its toughness. I really didn't see it going that way. When I played it, the GM that ran it did it wrong and didn't know what it was doing... so my group pretty much walked the module.

There were five players at the table. Three died, two came back via prestige and gold.

Session Details:
Barbarian: Dominated, and died to boss.
Gunslinger: Died, came back with prestige.
Monk-ish guy: Ran away.
Oracle: Died, came back by selling gear to pay for raising.
Ssssnake Guy: Suggested to run away.

Yes, it could have been a wipe, but I'm really not into that kind of thing. I'm not an adversarial GM, and I get no joy out of player death. So I had her suggest one of the remaining living people to run away, and gave the other living person the chance to run away as well. I was actually disturbed when I overheard other people bragging about killing players, and some people congratulating and fist-bumping me for causing three deaths.

I hope the session was enjoyable for you, at least before sh*t hit the fan.


Thanks for the replies, everyone, and to Diego for the developer quote and answer to the original question.


In the item creation rules, it says that you can have another caster provide the spell needed in creating a magic item if you don't have the spell itself. So with Scribe Scroll, could a Wizard make a scroll of Daylight as an Arcane Scroll or Divine Scroll (or is it his choice), if the spell's provider is a... let's say... Oracle?

1 to 50 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>