Outl's page

Should the Greater Phantasmal Doorknob be added to the Withdrawn Items table, now that it's Limited?

Oil of Unlife would definitely work, or the Harm spell, or Spirit Link.

In most games, Soothe and Battle Medicine would both work. Soothing Ballad if there's a high level bard around. Touch of the Void if there's a champion nearby, or Malignant Sustenance from a cleric.

Treat Wounds generally won't work without the Stitch Flesh feat.

Many undead would be destroyed at 0 hp, but the rules on page 37 say that companions actually get to use the dying condition instead.

Consider an elven fighter with heavy armor and a fortress shield. Normal movement speed would be 15 feet.

With Elf Step, our hero could move two squares straight north. But with Mobility, only one square.

Mobility is usually better but there could be times, such as when you're encumbered, or hit with Tanglefoot, that Elf Step actually works better.

I believe the spot on the chronicle that says 1400gp is incorrect.

It appears the rule I was after does exist, it's just an unwritten rule.

1. You will gain very little by crafting your own magic items. The days you spend crafting an item could just as easily be spent earning income (with crafting). There are some small gains to be had, for instance with crafting an item you can continue a project over several downtime periods without rolling again, so you remove the risk of rolling a nat 1 for the next few adventures. But this is on average a rather small gain, and it's offset by the day or two you spend setting up each crafting project, plus the cost of formulas. In the end the gain is usually so small (maybe 1% richer) that you'd probably be better off retraining Magical Crafting for something more useful.

There is one exception: if you take Specialty Crafting and Impeccable Crafting (and probably Crafter's Workshop boon as well). Now you almost always get the equivalent of critical successes on your downtime rolls, as long as you keep crafting items of your specialty. So you're making considerably more money during downtime than everyone else (but not twice as much). It will take some planning to always have a useful item to craft, which will mean spending hours and hours poring over books (or AoN) and planning your character's future, and you might even find yourself doing a bunch of mathematical calculations, but it can be done. Also it's complicated so your GMs probably won't be able to help you with it at the end of each session, you'll have to figure it all out yourself. With three skill feats invested and extensive planning, you might end up 3% wealthier overall than if you'd simply chosen Additional Lore instead of Magical Crafting.

2. There are two mechanical disadvantages. First is the obvious tradeoff that you could have taken three different skill feats instead. Most people won't miss an extra 3% wealth, they would definitely rather have the skill feats.

Second is the crafting delays. You can't start crafting a level X item until you're level X. It usually takes 20 or more downtime days to fully craft an item (sometimes even 50 days, it depends on your level), so you'll actually be level X+1 before you can use that item. Right before you finish an item you've invested 90% of the money into it, but can't actually use it yet. You're definitely missing out on some of the usefulness of every item you make.

3. It's not impossible to improve the crafting rules, but I doubt there's any desire to do so. It's just... easier... if magic item crafting is rarely if ever used. However, I can imagine some crafter-specific boons being added (either in the store or on chronicle sheets) that would bypass the crafting system altogether and just give specific benefits, perhaps in exchange for downtime days. But boons like that would only be created if there was a general recognition that crafters are at a disadvantage and need/deserve a bit of a boost.

4. I think trading anything between characters is enough of a bookkeeping nightmare that it will never be allowed. Technically you can already hand items (including consumables) to your party members during any adventure. But as for permanently trading items between characters... I doubt it. It was allowed in 1e PFS so it's not just a theoretical problem, more experienced players have seen the practical consequences of it.

The Withdrawn Items table comes pretty close -- allowing characters to replace a Staff of Evocation with a Staff of Elemental Power 'for free', for example.

Also anything that's been updated with the same name can (indeed must) use the newer version.

It's sometimes hard to understand why renamed items (also many spells) are overlooked (such as Bag of Holding becoming Spacious Pouch) while the other 90% of our items are automatically updated.

This is a question about gear, not character rebuilds.

I have a character who uses a Rungu. After perusing PC2, I've decided he'd rather use a Cruuk instead.

Am I expected to buy a Cruuk, pay the 10% to transfer weapon runes from the Rungo to the Cruuk, and then sell the Rungu back at half price?

Or is there some rule that would let me change the Rungu to a Cruuk for free?

Alex Speidel did mention this in another post in the general forum, while talking about Run as Written and GM discretion. I don't know if this counts as an actual answer, but:

"I do think a GM would be within their rights to say that the final encounter takes place at night if the adventure took 18 hours to complete. I don't think they should have to, but I don't think it's out of line either."

I believe PFS is meant to drive, or encourage, or incentivise, purchases of Paizo books and maps and etc. Straight-up allowing alternate maps would seem to conflict with that goal.

But it can also lead to different tables having different experiences. Switching a map for another will alter the character of an encounter at least as much as switching wolves for tigers because of GM preference. Especially if the new map has more or less space, affecting how many move actions are needed to close the distance, or how many targets can be hit with a single AE blast, but sometimes for other reasons as well.

Perhaps specify just using alternate or modified maps where needed or necessary. Or even get right to the point and specify only doing it to deal with errors and mistakes in the scenario as printed.

Most players don't mention their hireling even if they have one. It's not required. In many players' minds it's not even treated as a person, more like a boon roughly equivalent to an Additional Lore feat. Also, many hirelings are mostly used for Earn Income so they wouldn't come up during play anyway.

This isn't all that unusual for PFS play, some things just happen silently in the background. Most players also don't mention when they cast long-term buffs like Mage Armor, Tailwind, Ant Haul, and Deep Breath. Most GMs don't ask whether weapons are drawn while exploring, and might not even ask after initiative is rolled. Preparing and swapping out prepared spells is also usually ignored, and medicine checks, refocusing, and searching are often handwaved after a battle ends. It's just assumed the player will track all that stuff on their own without (or sometimes even with) cheating. Probably a result of trying to get through adventures quickly.

I sometimes mention my hireling(s) during character introductions at the beginning of the sessions, but many players don't. And some groups don't even do character introductions.

When I use the hireling I always try to describe how the hireling is helping, or at least mention them as I tell the GM the result of my roll, but as far as I can tell no one has ever cared. Other players often don't even distinguish it as any different than their character rolling, so maybe you've seen hirelings used in play without realizing it.

I believe it's only allowed for characters with a Home Region of Arcadia (or with the World Traveller boon for Arcadia).

One of my characters had both Godless Healing and Pilgrim's Token. Does one of those feats just stop functioning?

One of my older characters has a Bag of Holding. I am building that character in a VTT for an online game.

Bag of Holding is not on the Withdrawn Items table. But I can't find Bag of Holding in the VTT.

If I change the character's Bag of Holding to a Spacious Pouch, does that break some sort of PFS rule?

One of the sample images shows a grid 25 squares wide, and the other shows 24 squares wide. Does that mean the squares on each side of the mat are different sizes?

I have doubts about items that were reprinted, but not with the same name. One of my characters had, among its items, a Staff of Divination, Winged Boots, and a Hat of the Magi (Greater).

I'm pretty sure the Staff of Divination needs to be changed to a Staff of the Unblinking Eye.

Should the Winged Boots be changed to Winged Sandals? Or is it optional?

Should the Hat of the Magi (Greater) be changed to a Mage's Hat (Greater)? Or is that an unwarranted upgrade?

This is all just my personal perspective, but here goes...

First three questions: Let them hide all they like, in any way they can think of. It's a perfectly natural thing for a tiny creature to do during combat. But they're still rather vulnerable to fireballs.

Second questions: the hex ability isn't an action, it's just a something that naturally happens around them. No, it isn't disabled by stunned -- it might even work when they're dead.

For the last few:

1 I like to allow familiars to 'activate' non-magical items, including gadgets like a Wind-Up Cart, and also potions. The rule about activating items is in a weird place to begin with; a comment on a youtube video is less official than sentence in a rulebook. Besides, it's unclear what counts as 'activate' -- is lighting a torch considered 'activating' the torch? Or is it 'activating' the Tindertwig? Is opening a door 'activating' the door? If you take 'activate' too literally, a familiar becomes immune to Glyph of Warding. So RAW isn't really an option. I'm quite generous with other allowances too. I'd also let them benefit from items that lack the Invested trait, including warm-weather clothing and (if they get spellcasting) spell catalysts.

2 Yes, a familiar can swallow a potion that's fed to it.

3 Unfortunatly, yes. Otherwise enemies might sometimes find the familiar an easier target than the wizard. But circumstance bonuses are still separate. So cover, shields, and flanking still affect them individually.

4 'hide in the bag' is not really a thing, unless they're in an extradimensional space like with Pet Cache. Fireball will even find them inside a backpack (even though it doesn't affect carried items, including the backpack itself).

5 Usually only with Familiar Tattoo. But Drain Familiar is very important to wizards, so it can vary.

6 Yes, cover works. I would also note that cover works the other way too! RAW, a familiar with Manual Dexterity can raise a tiny Tower Shield to give cover to all the medium creatures nearby.

7 Oh, I wish there were rules for dead bodies. In previous editions they were difficult terrain at least, and sometimes a real obstacle. But you just have to improvise.

8 I recommend changing the Flanking rule to say "able to make an unarmed strike" instead of "able to make an unarmed attack", so that familiars can't flank.

Also, decide how long a familiar can follow instructions outside of combat. If you tell it to 'wait here for one minute', is its attention span that long? If you tell it to do a 2-hour activity like Gather Information, will it come back 2 hours later with info?

Also, decide whether a familiar can use an exploration activity while travelling. Their scent and night-vision abilities might be especially useful when searching, but what if they want to scout?

I've put a ridiculous amount of thought into this question. I can explain in GREAT detail the assumptions that led to this, if you care, but the short answer is: I think it's simplest to have one toolset for each type of material. But then bend the list slightly to accomodate the different types of Specialty Crafting, and categories called out in other feats and rulebooks. There were a few I just couldn't bring myself to combine though: for instance, I didn't lump shipbuilding in with wood even though ships are made of wood.

Because I didn't want to duplicate items that already exist, such as Alchemist's Lab, Paint Set, Cookware, Snare Kit, and so on, I settled on this list. A magic item made of several different materials might require several toolsets. On the other hand, you needn't overlap tools: Etching tools are for runes, but if you already have metal tools that's enough for etching a sword, you don't ALSO need the etching set.

Wood
Leather
Metal
Cloth
Stone
Glass
Ceramics
Weaving
Paper
Lapidary
Shipbuilding
Jewelry
Gunsmithing
Clockwork
Etching
Tattoo
Taxidermy
Crafts (this is my catchall for other types of 'artistry', other than jewelry. Basically everything in Hobby Lobby)

On a related note, I also made a list of private wokshops. Besides the Smithy, Tannery, and Alchemy Lab, (and Pocket Stage), I've identified ten other types: Pottery Kiln, Glass Furnace, Kitchen/Oven, Woodshop, or workshops for clothes, stonemasonry, weaving, books/paper, jeweler/lapidary, and gunsmith.

Some other items I might put on the equipment list, but not as artisan tools: Pot Still, Quern, Forgery Kit, and maybe even a Gristmill.

I like your answers and they all seem sensible. But...

Not long ago I was in a session where half the group got

Discussing it afterword, the opposite conclusion was reached on every point: We wouldn't realize it was a curse at the time, and wouldn't notice at the end of the session either. The curse continues past the the end of the adventure, so that's as good as permanent. But it wouldn't have mattered even if we did know. Extra days cannot be allowed after the adventure specifically because extra time is exploitable. And therefore, there is no chance to prepare Remove Curse and no opportunity for saving throws at each stage.

This was not a bad ruling, nor a careless decision. This was an experienced and capable GM who considered our arguments, checked rules on Nethys and the Guide, consulted both Reddit and Paizo boards, and checked with other venture officers as well. That's about as thorough as a body can be; there's no wrongdoing to complain about.

My point, if I have one at all, is to say this: When a rule plays out in completely opposite ways at different tables, with nontrivial consequences, maybe the rule should be written more clearly.

This particular rule is a Society rule, not a Paizo rule, so that's why I came here to say it.

This is really more of a website issue than a guide issue, but it does seem to be related to the 5.05 update.

The Heroic Inspiration (Envoy's Alliance) boon on the website shows a wrong description. Also, if I download a pdf of that boon, it shows the wrong text.

A related question: Are shield users allowed to Climb? (be it climbing a ladder or climbing a tree or climbing a wall or whatever) If so, how many actions would it take to do so?

Climbing requires two hands (for most characters). Is there any way to free up that shield hand for climbing without unstrapping the shield? If so, would that method also allow you to free up your hand for wielding a weapon? And would it take an action to regrip the shield, or is that a free action because of the straps?

If not, then you'll need to unstrap the shield first. We know that takes one action. But what do you do after unstrapping the shield? After unstrapping, is the shield 'held' in your hand? Can it still be raised? Do you need to use a free action to drop the shield on the ground before you can begin climbing... or perhaps an action to attach(not strap) the shield to your body so it doesn't fall on the ground (much like putting a sword into its sheath)?

Just to complicate things, the answers to these questions do have implications for what happens after you're knocked unconscious in combat.

Personally, I would prefer to have clearer rules about how shields work so that I could make a reasoned decision about whether my character should carry a shield. Also so I could try to plan out my next turn before my next initiative without pestering the GM with rules questions.

Well, I thought it was an interesting topic. Perhaps I'm the only one. Plus, the questions that come up are specifically due to the Society rules; they wouldn't be significant in a regular home campaign.

1) Does a type 4 curse even count as a permanent condition? Or a type 2 for that matter.

2) If it does, should the player be informed their character has a curse before the end of the session, so they can do something about it?

3) If the curse is noticed, are they allowed to make the expected saving throws for each stage, on subsequent days?

4) If the curse is noticed, are they allowed to rest a night and prepare Remove Curse to cast on themselves?

5) If they are allowed to rest an extra night at the end of the adventure, is that exploitable somehow? I dunno how... maybe taking extra time to learn a spell or replace a dead familiar or craft some arrows... or maybe go back to look for more treasure they missed earlier?

The Negative Effects section of the Guide to Organized Play talks about what happens if a character ends an adventure with a permanent condition, or a non-permanent condition, or a curse. But it talks about them as if these are three separate things. If a condition is in multiple categories, which method should be used? It further says that PCs can use their spells to clear conditions, but doesn't say whether those PCs should be allowed to rest a night (at the end of the adventure) to prepare those spells.

Also it's possible for a character to be unaware they have an ongoing curse (or disease) until after the adventure is over. For instance, a character hit by an Animate Dream or an Augnagar will know that they are fatigued or drained, but might assume those conditions will wear off after a night's rest, not knowing they're cursed.

What to do in that case? Is the character to be marked dead? Or given a chance to buy a casting of Remove Curse or Pathfinder Condition Removal boon before being marked dead? Or allowed to roll the saving throws for each stage? Or (if non-deadly) assume they will eventually make their saving throws, so they're just fine? Should the character be allowed to cast Remove Curse on themselves the next day, after noticing that a night's sleep didn't work? Or even ask one of the other party members to cast it on them, post-adventure?

BTW, this topic is complicated by there being different types of afflictions -- they're not all the same. Differing opinions and table variation are to be expected. We could leave it at that, but it seems to me that any issue which may-or-may-not result in character death (or related expenses) without warning is worth a little clarification.

------------

addendum:

Even if you restrict yourself to curses with long durations there are different types. I'd consider five categories, but each type can be either a disease or a curse or both so multiply the categories by 3. The first type is the most simple and obvious, but ongoing saving throws (or stages) have more moving parts so they lead to more 'what if?' questions and odd scenarios.

1) Permanant conditions with no daily saving throws 2) Potentially deadly conditions with daily saving throws 3) Potentially deadly conditions with daily saving throws that cannot go away on their own even if you make the saves 4) Non-deadly conditions with daily saving throws 5) Non-deadly conditions with daily saving throws that cannot go away on their own even if you make the saves

Example of type 1: Mariner's Curse spell or Blindness or Curse of the Werecreature

Example of type 2: Goblin Pox spell or Graveknight's Curse

Example of type 3: Bog Rot from a Bog Mummy

Example of type 4: Rotting Curse from Augnagar

Example of type 5: Expeditious Evolution from Aukashungi Swarm

Would it make sense to also add Material Component Pouch to the Withdrawn Items table?

Twas my intention not to argue any of this stuff here... my lists are just meant to be food for thought, and a response to the OP. But somehow the line about flying (the last one I'd have expected) has drawn questions, so here we are.

I actually dislike the needs-wings interpretation too. I prefer my familiars magically float like a balloon or walk on air (like Air Walk spell) if possible. But some people like wings, and their perspective is also valid. Besides, a rule making wings a requirement could have numerous benefits. For one thing, people might be willing to have bird familiars again, instead of avoiding them like the plague.

I do consider the flying rule to have an impact. In PFS, for instance, I remember one challenge was to retrieve an egg from a treacherous treetop. At level 1, I was just like "I'll tell my familiar to fly up and get it." Twas awkward for the GM to shut that down.

And I do think it matters from level 1. Especially because the familiar can fly all day, but a Fly spell only lasts a few minutes. A familiar can carry things without being a mount -- for example if I tie a rope around my waist, and have the familiar lift the other end of the rope, it's not really a mount. I can either make myself smaller with Pest Form or a Bag of Holding so the familiar can carry my weight, or I can make the familiar bigger (with either Master's Form or Enlarge, or some other trick) to the same end.

Even if it's nothing more than a familiar carrying one end of a rope to the other side of the chasm and tying it off, rather than carrying any actual people... isn't crossing-a-chasm exactly the sort of classic obstacle that saving flying for higher levels is supposed to preserve?

If you do take a close look what minions (esp familiars) should be capable of, it wouldn't hurt to also reconsider (nerf!) existing abilities that aren't unclear. For instance:

Why are familiars allowed to fly from level 1, when most other instances of fly are restricted to higher level?

Should familiars be allowed to take a different Lore skill each day?

Should a familiar with Skilled be capable of Treat Wounds?

Should familiars be allowed to take Flier one day, but not take Flier the next day? Is it gaining and losing wings on a daily basis?

Should it be normal for GMs to determine what a familiar does in stressful situations, making it more NPC than player-controlled?

When a cat uses Master's Form, does it somehow manifest clothing? If so, what type of clothing?

If a cat has Flier, and then uses Master's Form, does it still have wings and the ability to fly, or does going into Master's Form remove that (and several other) ability?

Should familiars always have an 'off' trait or look or glow somehow so they can be distinguished from 'normal' animals just by looking at them?

Should familiars be allowed to enter a Familiar Tattoo (or similar cache) while wearing a Collar, or should they have to remove the collar first? (Collar doesn't have the Companion trait)

Should Levitator allow familiars to coast over pressure plates, thus outclassing other sneaky characters like rangers and rogues?

Should Snoop be allowed to work, since it requires focusing on a task for far longer than one minute?

I do recognize that some of the issues in this thread seem ridiculous and rules-lawyery. But each of those issues could be solved by adding as little as two words. A single paragraph could fix most if not all of the questions in this entire thread.

And that's really all this thread is asking for, some simple explanation or clarification of how minions are expected to work, so there can be a common understanding. The design of this feature is incomplete without it.

And I really don't think it would become harmful and restricting. Individual GMs would still, as always, be able to alter the expectations if it suits their table.

Regarding length of following commands outside of combat:

The question I start with is: Are minions intelligent enough to play 'fetch'? RAW is unclear.

Fetching an item takes at least three actions: Stride to the location, Interact to pick it up, and Stride to return with it. For a minion, that's definitely more than one round. If the object is further away so that it takes multiple Strides to get to it, it could be many rounds.

Regarding Exploration activities: Yep, this needs some sort of guidance in the rules, table variation is too high. You don't need to elaborate on EVERYTHING. But a person leveling up, deciding whether or not to take the Find Familiar feat, needs to be able to figure out what sorts of things familiars can do. How can you choose a feat if you don't have at least a general idea of what that feat does?

Regarding Trained skill actions: The Player Core has also nerfed the Skilled ability slightly, it apparently gives no more than +3 now. Removing trained actions from familiars definitely might be intentional, either to avoid a familiar showing up an (untrained) adventurer, or to avoid familiars trying to Earn Income.

Regarding Familiars and Activate:
"Can a familiar 'activate' a potion?" is just the beginning of this topic. It quickly grows to include a bigger question: can a familiar 'activate' a nonmagical item, such as using a match to light a torch? This is another one that should be knowable by a person deciding whether or not to take the Familiar feat.

There's also a line that minions can only use items with the Companion tag. It'd be worth clarifying that that only applies to worn magic items. After all, items like Tack and Collar lack the Companion tag but should still be usable.

Other things for familiars in particular (and pets):

1B) Are familiars that are fully 'stowed' away, such as inside a backpack, still subject to area effects, such as fireballs, toxic clouds, and acid splash?

2B) Unfortunately, that also leads to the related question: Is a familiar that is merely 'worn', such as perched on a shoulder or riding in a pocket subject to area effects? Because our other gear -- torches, scrolls, shields, etc. are generally not subject to area effect damage when they are 'worn'.

3B) Does the Master's Form ability have the Illusion trait or the Polymorph trait? The majority seem to think it's pure illusion -- although it seems strange that Manual Dexterity would be a prerequisite in that case, or that Humanoid Form would need to be refrenced at all.

4B) Can a familiar flank? Sure we all understand that familiars can't Strike, but it's generally believed that they can Trip. Trip is an unarmed attack that is not a Strike, so seems to qualify for flanking, and some familiars do have reach.

5B) Can a familiar with Manual Dexterity deploy an item such as Marbles? Or better yet... can a familiar 'wield' a weapon? Alas, the very useful notion that 'if you can't attack with it you can't wield it' is not printed anywhere. A familiar might use a wielded weapon to Trip, or use a wielded bola to Ranged Trip, even though familiars aren't able to Strike.

6B) Can a familiar with Manual Dexterity carry something that weighs 1 bulk? How about 2 bulk? 3?

7B) If a familiar with Speech calls its master 'Master', is that a violation of community standards? Kinda related to whether or not familiars are sapient.

8B) If a flying familiar drops an alchemist's fire or acid flask from a great height, what happens? Familiars can't activate items and can't strike... but the flask must land somewhere.

Wondering if there is some guidance given to transitions between Exploration and Encounter mode.

Ex) Besides Scout, Defend, Avoid Notice, can other activities give a first-round bonus? How?
Ex) What about Refreshing Reactions as Encounters are started? "GM decides"? Or are there additional clarifications?
Ex) I am aware that Hazards, if their triggers are tripped, can "start" an Encounter ("the trap attacks and everyone rolls initiative"...). Is that sort of privilege reserved for one side of the screen? If not, how?

Yes, the transition into encounter mode is important, but hardly described at all.

Ex1: There are supposed to be other ways to use your repeated action, fully customizable. But not all GMs allow custom activities at all. For instance if your ally is raising a tower shield you might be able to use Defend to Take Cover behind that shield rather than raising your own shield, to start the first round with cover.

Ex2: The majority seem to think that reactions do exist during exploration, for instance for Grab a Ledge, but then get erased when initiative happens. You don't get your reaction back until your first turn. If that's not accurate, it could use a correction.

Ex3: Not just hazards, it seems that all monsters ALWAYS get to decide when to "start" combat. The party has no effect on this, even standard exploration activities such as Scout and Search have no effect. Even in an ambush, the monsters decide how close to get before the ambush is triggered. For instance: Two groups see eachother coming on a long straight road while still 3 miles away. The wizard prepares to fireball as soon as they get in range (500 feet). The enemies can decide to be within 40 feet before initiative is rolled.

Could someone post the stats for the new staves? I see a requirement to replace the old staves, but currently have no access to the new GM Core. I will be playing my character this weekend, before any popular sites are updated.

Archives of Nethys lists Thassilonian as an Uncommon language, and it is also marked as a Regional language. BTW, AoN marks 27 languages as Regional, but the Regional Languages table in the CRB only mentions 9 of them.

If I create a character from New Thassilon, does it have access to the Thassilonian language?
If I create a character with the Thassilonian Traveler background, does it have access to the Thassilonian language?
If I use a certain boon to create a character with the Time Traveler background from that nation, does it have access to the Thassilonian language?
If I create a character from Saga Lands, does it have access to the Thassilonian language (because of World Guide page 108)?
If a character takes the Multilingual feat, can it learn the Thassilonian language?

Some folks seem to think all five answers are yes, some think all five answers are no, and there are some in-betweens.

Is it possible to get an official answer that's more than a guess?

If the apparitions can directly interact with the world when the animist is around, does that make Animist a pet class, similar to a Summoner?

There seems to be some inconsistency in the class concept, in its theme. Sometimes apparitions can interact with the world on their own, sometimes they can't.

I see that Animists "Talk to spiritual entities only you can perceive"

and "Apparitions are spiritual entities who generally lack (any way) to enter or affect the physical world."

and "Animists gain their power by serving as a bridge for (apparitions) to commune and interact with the physical world."

But then the abilities don't match that. Apparitions seem more than capable of interacting with both people and things on their own. Grasping Spirits Spell actually drags people around, sometimes even more effectively than a Distant Grasp psychic could do, or more powerfully than PF1 magic spells, let alone PF2 magic spells.

Also some of the vessel spells such as Earth's Bile and River Carving Mountains have the apparitions becoming quite solid and manipulating the environment. Discomfiting Whispers definitely has them being perceived, and even causes real damage to people.

When the apparitions are aiding, guiding, and inspiring the Animist himself, they make sense. They might even use him as a bridge, such as by possessing his body for awhile. I believe the old Medium class had them work in that way. But now that they go around interacting with the world on their own, that seems inconsistent with the whole concept.

A boon that would allow my familiar to participate in the marketplace.

My familiar complains about this incessantly during downtime. What she really wants is to enter Master's Form and make her own Earn Income roll. But I think she would settle for assisting me in my tasks, with an untyped bonus to my Earn Income (or Crafting) roll.

A boon for access to the Aklys weapon.

(currently unavailable through any feat or ancestry, even though it's listed in a core source)

The only place where it's explicitly allowed is in the description of Tear-Away Clothing. You should be able to wear Tear-Away Library Robes over either a magic robe or a leather armor.

I believe it's common to wear armor over or with basic clothing. Because Winter Clothing wouldn't be very useful if you couldn't.

I suspect that those two situations are the reason why basic armor has an implicit, rather than explicit, usage entry.

In any other case -- for instance plate mail over studded leather -- it is unlikely to be allowed, even without any actual rules reference.

It's been at least a week since the PDF was updated. If I order a hardcover copy of the CRB from Paizo's website today, will I receive the 4th printing?

I'm a little surprised that almost everything in Dark Archives is sanctioned. Dark Archives containes a lot of necromancy and occultism, and is flavored to match.

I was under the impression that the pathfinder baseline on CRB 486 was interpreted rather broadly in PFS. I imagine something like the Shadow Spy spell, as written, would violate the first point. I can just imagine the reaction of a passerby hearing a player talking about wringing a bird's neck and drinking its blood.

The PFS Guide to Organized Play seems pretty clear about table variation though: "No banning of legal character options", "No changes to spells", and so on.

I suppose I could just cross my fingers and hope it never becomes an issue. But I'm going to ask for advice instead: what is the right or best way for a GM to handle this if it does become an issue?

That same section on Downtime Activities tells us "Only one crafting project may be started during a Downtime Unit". A "Downtime Unit" is 8 Days.

So if you spent your usual 4 Days preparing to Craft something (or 2 Days if you have that Boon that I can't recall right now), but you failed at your Crafting check, you'd have to find something else to do with your remaining 4 (or 6) Days.

I've noticed that GMs tend to allow a second attempt at the crafting if the first one fails. Sometimes it's because this is the SAME project so it still counts as 'only one crafting project during this downtime unit'. Or sometimes because the failure result of the crafting activity seems to explicitly allow you to start over. Sometimes that phrase is even thought to mean something entirely different, about starting a second crafting project before the first one is complete. You or I might not agree with either of those interpretations, but they're common.

There are quite a few level 3 items that provide a +1 bonus to various skills. I would basically copy one of them over to religion.

The nonmagical ones tend to be somewhat limited to a portion of a skill (Infiltrator Picks, Lensatic Compass, Professional Fishing Tackle, Extreme Climber's Kit, Expanded Healer's Tools, and so on).

The magical ones cover a whole skill, are invested, and the level varies by what other bonuses they offer. For example: Hat of the Magi, Coyote Cloak, and Pendant of the Occult are still level 3, Healer's Gloves are level 4, Diplomat's Badge is level 5, Choker of Elocution and Primeval Mistletoe are level 6.

I recently played this, with a curious result. I'm here looking for an explanation. The group achieved both objectives and all treasure bundles, defeated the bearded devil, did the ritual, and returned the documents and such to the venture captain. But we still didn't get the first boon because "You did bond the demon, but you didn't take over ownership of the keep." Is there something else that need be done to properly take ownership?

Suppose a character joins the Generalist School but at level 5 does not meet the prerequisites for any of the offered bonus feats. What are they supposed to do then?

(same could happen with the Swords School, but it's less likely there)

Ok, time to get real. In other guises, I've been in a "Knights of the Round Table" MMORPG guild for about 20 years now. We started in an online D&D game (the first Neverwinter Nights on AOL), where groups did build social kingdoms and affect the world, and we have had chapters in a succession of online games since then (The Realms, Everquest, WoW, etc.), but going back to a D&D-style sandbox game would suit us. (We are some of the folks who've been waiting for this type of game for a very long time.) But a lot of our history and tradition is wrapped up in stuff that predates Pathfinder altogether, so obviously it won't match your trademarked lore.

The difference between 'don't use four-letter words' and 'don't say ray-gun or mention a wagging tail' is actually pretty huge. This is not a game you can choose not to play. There's a limit to how vague your rules can be. If your policy is truly that you will arbitrarily and capriciously impose a heavy hand to control which stories are allowed (like in a themed MUD with storylines), then players kinda deserve to know that before they invest too many hours into their characters and kingdoms. At first, even Chelaxian-themed companies will seek reassurance that they are allowed (as Cheliax is so far away from the River Kingdoms), whether you think their concerns are absurd or not. The language and content policy of a game is typically where such guidelines would be stated.

I'm not actually meaning to game the rules as trolls would, with a succession of companies to see how uncomfortable we can make people. I was just trying to be specific about the types of groups who are likely to show up (independently of each other, and without any help from me or you).

If I'm playing any game here in the forums, it's including my second topic: trying to get you to say in one thread "Goreans will not be allowed" while saying in another thread "Goreans will be tolerated". But it doesn't have to be Goreans in particular, there are any number of roleplay groups that create 'adult-oriented' controversies, even while the members are well-spoken, polite, mostly in-theme, and keep far away from the borderline of any language rules. This second topic doesn't bear quite as much 'players kinda deserve to know' status, so it can be hushed for now. But I do think the first topic is rather important.

I know that this rule:

"Don't compare anyone to any person or group of historical infamy."

was only meant to apply to a couple of popular political groups from the 1930s. But I doubt it'll stay that way. In practice, anyone who's viewed unfavorably (even if it's because of membership in the groups the first four rules refer to) will have to carefully avoid words like 'vandalism' and 'assassinate' (even though everyone else can continue using them). And woe betide the angry player who calls your rules 'draconian' upon receiving his first warning... that might count as his second offense in and of itself. Yes, this is an *actual* concern.

However, I'm much more interested in the naming policy, especially since you specifically mention a bias toward 'immersion'. I'm all in favor of this, and a naming policy is a great start, but it takes more than good names to keep it. What I really wish your blog post would address is what you would do about other roleplayers such as:

1) a Chartered Company called Bantha Clan whose members claim they crash-landed their tie-fighter on Golarion, and are now training their jedi powers and building their lightsabers while waiting to be rescued?

There's actually quite a lot of immersion in such a story, it's just not immersion in the particular way you wanted. But that's how sandboxes work. And btw, it's *very* likely that someone will try it. Yeah, yeah, you'll just get them on trademark infringement. But then what about

2) a Chartered Company called Space Travellers who claim their spacecraft crashed on Golarion, and are now battling the natives with their ray-guns and psychic powers?

Just as jarring, but no trademarks... now what? Ban reference to future-tech (or superheroes or anything non-medieval) as if it's just as bad as religious slurs? Possibly... but then what about

3) a Chartered Company called Company of Nine, which consists mostly (but not entirely) of halflings, whose mission is to seek out and destroy evil magic rings all over Golarion?

Now it IS medieval, plus it skirts around trademark issues just as efficiently as the game itself does (really... Halflings?), but it's still fairly obvious.

Actually, there are many versions of number 3, from Knights of the Round Table to Crusaders of Christ to Knights Who Say Ni to various sparkly vampires. And for the most part, these are pretty much exactly the types of customers that you DO want to attract to your sandbox, as near as I can tell.

These are relevant because they are exactly the same issues the naming policy addresses. The blog mentions "makes our game less fun, angers someone else, breaks immersion, is a copyright or trademark infringement, or identity theft." But these people really and truly do not believe their clans make your game less fun... they're not trolls, they really want to play Pathfinder that way. And you'll be surprised how many of your customers agree with them.

Anyway, moving on... eventually you'll also get

4) a Chartered Company called Confederacy of Ar who found a large in-game settlement with high defensive walls, etc. to promote in-game trade. The Confederacy believes the men should all be warriors and PvP often, while the women stay within the settlement, doing tradeskills, running the taverns, playing healers, etc. (while wearing the least amount of armor possible).

This is basically the same as number 3, except they're immersed in Golarion lore as much as any group could be. They tie their backstories to real towns and historical events from the books, and definitely always choose 'good names'. Plus they're more active, popular, and successful than number 3 would be. It would be lovely if you could just let them die out peacefully when no women choose to join... but somehow that just doesn't seem to happen. Nevertheless, these Goreans can be quite controversial, and so are an interesting test of your policies: do you love them or hate them? I really can't guess, from your blog post. And then, of course, right behind the Goreans come

5) the Furries.

Do you even care whether they portray their characters as races not in the Core Rulebook? How picky will you be about that?

Believe me, I can come up with some even cleverer and stickier situations... but then we end up talking more about griefing than immersion and language, so I shant for now.

Anyway, THESE are the questions I really want answered in a policy on 'bad communications' and immersion. Could you possibly clarify now what you'd probably do about these five groups of 'roleplayers'?

The term "Pathfinder" was already used by Paizo even before them creating their own system.

Yep, that's technically true. The perfect counter to my reasoning, technically.

Still, *most* fans of the game came after. *Most* fans can look forward to many years of entering 'How much damage does a halberd do in Pathfinder' into Google and getting the wrong answer. Or looking for a game of Pathfinder online to level up their PFS character and only finding dozens of links to some MMORPG, instead of the online forums they needed. Such confusion is inevitable whenever two different sets of mechanics are tied to the same title.

Other games have survived this, of course. For instance, you can't google 'How much damage does a halberd do in Dungeons and Dragons' either, because it depends on which version of D&D you play. It's surmountable. But I thought this community in particular would be more attuned to the resentment that caused among D&D fans.

Yes it will matter. Names matter.

At this point, calling this online game 'Pathfinder Online' is no more (or less) accurate than calling it 'Palladium Online' or 'Rolemaster Online' or 'Hero System Online' or 'Atlantis Online' or whatever. It's an online interpretation of a pen-and-paper RPG which doesn't copy the mechanics of any of the above systems, but tries (and let's just assume succeeds) to keep the 'flavor' of a pen-and-paper RPG. That is an inherently good thing, by any name. More important to me, though, is that calling it any of those titles is also no less (and no more) *misleading* than any other.

I fully understand there's a desire to capitalize on the intellectual property you fully own/control (basically everything in the world guide), rather than the parts you don't fully own/control (basically all the OGL stuff in the player's guide). For this particular company, it's a particularly good idea. But I thought Pathfinder folks would be a bit more sensitive to the nuances of changing the mechanics but keeping the same name, considering the circumstances that led to the popularity of the Pathfinder RPG in the first place.

The community should designate an unofficial ERP server at the get go.

The community can't do it. It's just not possible. The *most* you can hope for is players willing to help enforce the rules. That's iffy even with official support; without that, most players won't even bother with the MMORPG version of yelling "get a room". Even if the community unanimously chose an area on their own (OMG, did I use community and unanimous in the same sentence?), with enough conviction to be willing to break up their own guilds and friendships to keep their area 'pure', there's still other folks in it for profit. Good luck getting a bunch of Chinese gold farmers (or other... opportunists) to follow your community standards.

On another subject... A Man In Black wrote:

if getting your sale chases off ten potential customers, you are not a worthwhile customer.

Nice to get back on topic. I totally agree the ten customers are more important, but my question is: Does having ERP everywhere chase off those ten customers more than or less than having it in only some areas?

Outl wrote:

Vic Wertz wrote:

Pathfinder is not and will not be a "mature audiences only" property, and I'm not willing to entertain steps in that direction. Sorry.

What steps in what direction? I sympathize with your position, but isn't that the opposite of what the original poster was saying? Wasn't the OP suggesting a way to avoid that stuff, or keep it understated, precisely to avoid that reputation?

As I read it, he sees it as inevitable that some 'mature audiences' activity will go on, unless you find some way to segregate it off to the side, perhaps on a different server or in a separate zone.

There's a difference between saying that player-to-player interactions may not always be rated "E for everyone" and setting up a version of the world where every third building is a brothel.

To provide another example, there's a world of difference between opening a 5-star restaurant where you may occasionally find a hamburger on the menu and opening a hamburger joint.

Ok, I guess it's decided. That's a sensible (and fairly common) attitude. Just be aware of what you lose by that position: the ability to have a 5-star restaurant that *doesn't* serve hamburgers. That is, there will never be a way to say to parents "on this list of servers, Goreans, furries, and player-run brothels are not allowed". They will be rare everywhere, instead of common somewhere and banned elsewhere.

Pathfinder is not and will not be a "mature audiences only" property, and I'm not willing to entertain steps in that direction. Sorry.

What steps in what direction? I sympathize with your position, but isn't that the opposite of what the original poster was saying? Wasn't the OP suggesting a way to avoid that stuff, or keep it understated, precisely to avoid that reputation?

As I read it, he sees it as inevitable that some 'mature audiences' activity will go on, unless you find some way to segregate it off to the side, perhaps on a different server or in a separate zone.

We may have just witnessed the creation of a new (or at least much more viable) archetype: The low-str, high-dex dual-wielding tripmonster.

Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, and Improved Trip are the obvious feats, don't bother with Agile Maneuvers.

Rogue and Ranger jump to mind, but not exclusively.

Dagger is an obvious weapon choice but any light weapon will do, including spiked gauntlets.

I can only imagine the strategy consequences when I'm more worried about the skinny little guy with daggers tripping me than I am about the big hulk with a halberd tripping me.