Pink Dragon's page

In university, I studied Chemistry then went into teaching. I now have an M.Sc. and a B.Ed., but work as a patent agent.

In retrospect, I would have done math, then philosophy and then physics, and then studied the nature of God.

PFSRD wrote:

"Monks are proficient with the club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, short sword, shortspear, shuriken, siangham, sling, spear, and any weapon with the monk special weapon quality."

Since a "monk weapon" that has received a Weapon Modification is still a weapon with the monk special weapon quality, Unchained Monks are still proficient with them.

There is no deity so there is no deity's favored weapon.

You could take the Separatist archetype to at least get one domain that you like.

I played AD&D from 1980 to 1986. I have been playing Pathfinder edition 1 from 2013 to present. I have been playing D&D 5e from 2017 to present. My experience has been that I enjoyed playing AD&D and enjoy playing D&D 5ed more than I enjoy playing Pathfinder, but I enjoy building characters in Pathfinder more than building characters in either AD&D or D&D 5e. I don't know whether others have experienced this, but that is my experience.

Here is an outline of a build to 10th level.

Human, female

STR: 14
DEX: 15 (17)
CON: 14
INT: 10
WIS: 10
CHA: 8

Forget normal arrows and buy cold iron arrows routinely (5gp for 50)
Buy silver-tipped arrows
Buy a few durable and adamantine tipped arrows
Get a 14 STR-rated masterwork composite longbow asap (600 gp)

Traits:
Deadeye bowman (must be a worshipper of Erastil)

1st level ranger
weapon focus longbow (free feat for being human female)
point-blank shot (1st level human feat)
precise shot (1st level character feat)

2nd level ranger
archery style - 2nd level ranger combat style
rapid shot - 2nd level ranger style feat

3rd level ranger
deadly aim - 3rd level character feat

4th level ranger
+1 to DEX

5th level ranger
(choose something for character flavor) - 5th level character feat

6th level ranger
point blank master - 6th level ranger style feat

7th level ranger
manyshot - 7th level character feat

8th level ranger
+1 to DEX

9th level ranger
clustered shots - 9th level character feat

10th level ranger
improved precise shot - 10th level ranger style feat

Your local event coordinator is correct. Armor and shield bonuses do not add to touch attack. But force effects are effective against incorporeal things trying to touch you.

In my experience, if the inter-character conflict is at the level of greed or preventing another character from reaching a personal goal, it almost always leads to PvP or at least bad feelings between players.

However, if the characters are disagreeing over deep philosophies, religions or other in-game metaphysical questions that do not impact directly on the practical goals of the characters, even when things get heated there is less likelihood of degenerating into PvP. Finding something that the characters can disagree over without impacting each character's immediate practical goals can be difficult sometimes.

I was mostly hoping people could use my opinions as examples. I'm not planning on going into depth to explain what amounts to personal preference. I genuinely just want to hear what people care about with regard to flavor.

Are there any bits of game flavor that you see as fundamental?

For me, the most important game flavor is the struggle. I like low magic games, where every magic item has meaning, uniqueness AND relevance to the PCs build, which help with the struggle.

The second most important game flavor is the awe. To achieve awe, magic cannot be commonplace. Magic users should be awesome when they cast, doing something that cannot be done otherwise, BUT on a limited basis and without dominating the game.

The third most important game flavor is the ability of apparently inconsequential characters to make a difference. I like the idea of everyone having a special, unique ability that sets them apart and is crucial for success in some circumstances.

I think the weapon list should look like this:

Melee weapons:
Small weapon - used in one hand and throwable, 1d4 damage
Medium weapon - used in one hand and not throwable, 1d10 damage
Big weapon: - used in two hands and not throwable, 2d6 damage
Reach weapon - used in two hands and not throwable, 1d10 damage

Range weapons:
All - used in two hands, 1d8 damage

Flavor as desired.

Freedom of movement is overpowered for reasons beyond the ability to ignore the grappled condition. FOM ignores grapple, paralyze, underwater, entangle and just about anything that limits the ability to act normally.

I think that requiring make-work things to be mandatory is a good way for PFS to lose GM and player base. PFS is primarily a marketing tool for Paizo. Anything in PFS that alienates the GM and player base is not a good thing from Paizo's point of view.

The following is my view.

Chronicle Sheets and the process for filling out Chronicle Sheets should not be tailored for Lodges having problems with players who are cheaters or who are incapable of doing math. Chronicle Sheets should simply list the rewards a character receives for a scenario.

A GM should be able to fill out the Chronicle Sheet once and simply hand it to the player without having to revisit the Sheet. Further, the next GM should not have to bother with Chronicle Sheets from the player's previous scenarios, unless the GM wants to do an audit.

The Chronicle Sheet should, imo, have the following information which the GM can fill out and then give to the player at the end of the scenario.

Player Name
Character Name
PFS Number of Character
Faction
Classes and level of the character
Fame reward
Gold reward
Day job reward
Event
Event Code
Date
GM name
GM PFS number
A list of boons and item unlocks.
A list of in game expenditures (bribes, etc.) more to remind the players of what happened.

Official tracking of item buying should be done away with entirely, either on Chronicles or ITS's. Players should be allowed to do that offline without needing GM sign off. If a GM wants to audit a character then the GM can request Chronicle Sheets and the Character Sheet to determine if the Chronicle Sheets and the Character Sheets align.

When I GM, I have zero interest in policing cheaters or math incompetents. If a character seems way out of line to the point of sucking the fun away from other players, I will do an audit. One reason I do not GM a lot in PFS is the Chronicle Sheet requirement.

Chronicle Sheet process should be simple for both the GM and player, providing flexibility for the player to think about character development between games without having to take GM time to sign off on stuff.

I agree with Fadrieldur. Organized play is based on trust. Trying to catch cheaters or math incompetents with make-work rules only angers the trustworthy.

Thanks. This is a big help. The game is an E6 game so no leveling past level 6, which is why the level 6 exactly condition is artificial.

Has any one done a survey on why people play in organized play? Statistics in this area may help inform whether there is any type of replay that would be beneficial. Here are some that occur to me (but only some of which apply to me).

1. The convenience of playing in a time slot of choice (applies to on-line play).

2. The convenience of not having to commit to a time and day on an on-going basis (applies to a greater extent to on-line play but applicable to cons and store venues too).

3. The desire to meet different players.

4. The desire to meet different characters.

5. The desire to see many different character concepts/classes/feats in action.

6. Cannot find a home game (for various possible reasons including limited player base in the area, do not like the player base in the area, the player base in the area does not like you).

7. Many home games do not last long.

8. Prefer the consistency of scenarios that are run as written (more limited GM flexibility).

9. Defined and more predictable character progression opportunities.
10. The desire to show off your character to the greatest number of people.

11. The rewards accrued in organized play.

12. The desire to maintain a healthy player base for the game by recruiting more players.

13. The desire not to play regularly with the same people.

You don't have to roll anything. Gravity bow is on the ranger spell list so rangers can use the wand without fail. I would stick with the first level wand. Most combats are over within 1 minute.

Sounds like decent tactics. Maybe the opponents in the battle would learn from that and do the same.

For me it depends on intent of the GM, whether the story line is carried forward and whether the bad things fit my character's background and motivations. This applies to intentional bad things.

Random bad things I don't mind if the situation was fairly set up (e.g. the DC of that save or such roll was actually reasonable). However, I hate random bad things if they happen "all the time".

Gallant Armor,

I have backed up my assertions each and every time with the same direct quote from page 192 of the CRB. That quote states quite clearly that nonlethal damage is hit point damage. If it was not hit point damage, then healing nonlethal damage would not occur at a rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level.

Your interpretation of that line of text does not meet the plain reading of the words in that line.

Please back up your assertions. All text indicates that the two are separate entities.

Page 192 CRB:

The rules say that nonlethal damage is hit point damage (see above quote from page 192 CRB), therefore nonlethal damage is hit point damage.

Nonlethal damage may be a separate entity from lethal damage, but the two separate entities are still each hit point damage.

Page 192 CRB:
Healing Nonlethal Damage: You heal nonlethal damage at the rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level. When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.

You are wrong. By RAW nonlethal damage is hit point damage (quote above). It accumulates separately, but it is still hit point damage. It is not "real" damage, but it is still hit point damage.

If you want to "contextualize" nonlethal damage with other statements in the CRB and then make interpretations based thereon, you are arguing RAI.

You are wrong. The CRB on page 192 clearly says that nonlethal damage is hit point damage. That is RAW. Any conjectures you may want to make from other passages in the rules are irrelevant.

RAW nonlethal damage doesn't count as hit point damage as "It is not 'real' damage" so it shouldn't work with power attack.

Incorrect. Nonlethal damage is hit point damage.

Page 192 CRB:
Healing Nonlethal Damage: You heal nonlethal damage at the rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level. When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.

Zero interest in 2E. If I can't find 1E to play, I will likely play D&D 5E.

So I just read through this thread twice. Once in whole and once only re-reading Nosig's posts. To me, these two are the most cogent comments in the thread, which are both Nosig comments:

"Could someone please define "Good Roleplaying"? Because several posters here seem to have VERY different opinions on what the term means."

"Sometimes we role play, sometimes we roll play. It's all part of the game."

Crawling is specifically defined at Page 186 of the Core Rule Book:
Crawling: You can crawl 5 feet as a move action. Crawling incurs attacks of opportunity from any attackers who threaten you at any point of your crawl. A crawling character is considered prone and must take a move action to stand up, provoking an attack of opportunity.

Page 110 Ultimate Combat:
Monkey Style
you can crawl and stand up from lying prone without provoking attacks of opportunity

The act of crawling means that the character moves 5 feet while prone thereby provoking an attack of opportunity. Monkey style allows the character to avoid that attack of opportunity.

Antimatter is well-known both physically and theoretically, as pointed out above. Antimatter is more of a misnomer, since 'antimatter' particles are the same as corresponding 'matter' particles except for having the opposite charge.

Dark matter is more speculative and is thought to exist only because we see gravitational effects that are unexplainable with our current understanding of the amount of matter in the universe. This is more of a problem with our understanding of the universe than anything else.

Physicist have lots of math to try to explain things. The math and physical observations aren't necessarily coterminous, and are often contradictory. Further, the different maths are often contradictory.

At the forefront of physics, uncertainty rules (and in many cases uncertainty is a physical rule). Even established physics is prone to being overturned, or at least revised, just look at Ptolemy's epicycles or Newtonian physics.

This is how science works in general, not just physics.

The GM wants to run a game. The players are either on board with the way the GM wants to run or not. If the player is not, then the player shouldn't play in the GM's game. If the GM can't find enough players on board with the GM's conception, then that is the GM's problem.

What is so hard to understand about people having different thoughts about the game?

I love the monk. Lots of variation in the way the character can function, and many abilities that act like spells.

but like I showed, this is only basic optimization. Pt buy a 16 and racial +2 into it. pick barb class and combat feats of weapon focus and power attack and upgrade your gear like you're expected to. Like you're saying to ask the player to intentionally be bad, like why not say they need to be a halfling warrior with no feats, that will lower his combat aspect. Like sure, if he refuses it shows that they like having effective characters that fulfill their basic role.

like barb, 16+2/14/14/12/12/7 you'll have 5 skills, survival, perception, and then whatever else you want skill wise. Like that's plenty of ways to contribute out of combat.

edited to fix from lady-j's comment

Different games have different expectations. If basic optimization is overpowered for the way the GM want to run the game, then don't do it.

Different strokes for different folks. If you find it excessive in your homebrew campaign, draw the player aside and ask her to reduce the combat effectiveness of her character and build up some of the non-combat aspect. Everyone, including the GM needs to enjoy the game. If the player refuses, then you have a genuine incompatibility in play styles, which is usually only addressed by the player leaving the game.

its not the flirting or sex jokes that the issue its that the paladin is sexually assaulting people which is a big no no for the standard paladin code

I agree here. If the paladin is "groping" without consent, that crosses the line.

no but there's this and purposely groping people would be a violation of the standard paladin code so unless he traded that out he should have fallen already

The Oath of Chastity is something a paladin must deliberately take, rather than something that needs to be traded out.

You know, the makers of the 1984 film Top Secret needed to put a cow in boots. According to the directors commentary on the film, what they discovered is that the cow just kicks the boots off, unless you cut the bottoms of the boots off first. As long as they can feel the ground normally through the bottom of their hooves, cows are fine wearing boots.

Would the same hold true of horses? It seems likely. But I doubt we'll ever really know.

Same principle applies to horses.

You are. The rule you quoted is the correct one.

"Any weapon with at least a +1 magical enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls overcomes the damage reduction of these monsters."

All of the weapon damage goes through the DR/magic if the weapon is magical.

Illusion faq

Here is another thread on the issue.

I would also say that you do not have to UMD the wand if the spell is normally (non-core) on the spell list of the character class.

Edit: Fixed link

Unless the weapon is listed as being a double weapon it cannot, under the rules, enjoy the benefits of more than one material.

No, Bonekeep doesn't need skill checks, it needs super high perception traps, insane save traps, and than CR +3++ monsters.

There is indeed a base of Society that wants a Tomb-esque dungeon, and it is not unfair to ask for one, once every other year.

I and several other's I game with, would really love another successor to this style of play. I understand it isn't everyone's cup of tea, however I believe much as we now are starting to see 12-15 modules show up, that we would also have success with a super hard dungeon crawl adventure once a year or once every other year.

There is most definitely a group for it, and before the argument of arm's race goes off. Arm's races are by definition the bread and butter of splat books. Every splat book that comes out, increases the power creep of characters. It is not unfair to ask for a super hard dungeon once every 52 scenario's.

Hopefully with Bonekeep's still being offered at varied conventions, we can add another floor, or even a new slag crawl as it were to the menu.

On another note, than you everyone that has been participating, for being cordial to one another. A lot of us enjoy different things, and hopefully there can be a balance for everyone.

There is also a group who enjoy 'no combat scenarios', where if you must kill something to make it through you gain 0 xp, 0 pp. Following your line there should be a scenario once a year or every other year that requires optimized social characters just to make it through. And to make it more interesting, if a characters fail to make it through that scenario without killing somebody, the character is drummed out of the Pathfinder Society.

I suggest monk (martial artist archetype for straight out fighting or Qingongg archetype for a more mystical approach, though the two can't be both taken). Dipping 1 level into sorcerer gives some useful minor magic, Dipping into other martial classes like ranger, bloodrager, or fighter can add some useful abilities, but too much multi-classing can be weakening.

There are always greedy and non-greedy characters in every party, and greedy and non-greedy players in every group. While discussing loot distribution should be the best way, my experience is that it results in a non-fair distribution.

I think the fairest way is to:

1. Split coins equally among the party members.
2. Put all healing magic in the "party" pool for use on everyone as needed.
3. Total up the re-sale value of everything else and split the re-sale value evenly. Inquire whether any party member wants to buy a specific item for the re-sale value and, if so, that gets subtracted from his share. Lay-away plans can be an option.

The "Acquiring Skill" section on Page 86 CRB defines "Aid Another" with respect to skill checks as follows:

Aid Another
You can help someone achieve success on a skill check by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort. If you roll a 10 or higher on your check, the character you’re helping gets a +2 bonus on his or her check. (You can’t take 10 on a skill check to aid another.) In many cases, a character’s help won’t be beneficial, or only a limited number of characters can help at once.
In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results, such as trying to open a lock using Disable Device, you can’t aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn’t achieve alone. The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well.

Nothing in the rules say that failing to Aid Another on a skill check imposes a penalty. The rules say "In many cases, a character’s help won’t be beneficial ...", which is not the same as saying that the character's help would be detrimental if the Aid Another roll was failed.

The rules further place some restrictions on Aiding Another by including a vague statement about how many people can help at once, and also including the statement "you can’t aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn’t achieve alone", which is also open to interpretation.

The final sentence in the rule might give the GM leeway to impose a penalty on a failed Aid Another roll, but now we are in Rule 0 land.

Whatever makes the players happiest is the best level of metagaming. This will vary from group to group and player to player.

I find replays beyond the 2nd time to be generally boring as a re-player.

In groups with 1st timers and re-players, I find one of two outcomes. Either the re-players trivialize the scenario by providing solutions or at least hints to solutions, or the burden of finding solutions is concentrated, perhaps unfairly, on the few 1st timers at the table. This is less of a problem in combat-oriented re-playable scenarios (e.g. MotFF), but more of a problem in more puzzle-oriented scenarios (e.g. Wounded Wisp).

IMO replay as it stands now in PFS still manages to stay in the side of beneficial, because replay is centered on 1st level scenarios and on incentivizing GM's. However, generalizing replay would be a bad idea, even with regimes to reduce boon farming and the like.

It was mentioned up-thread but bears repeating that Core Rules apply to how a players may build their characters. Page 8 of the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide states:

Core Campaign PCs are limited to using the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide, and Pathfinder RPG Character Traits Web Enhancement when building their characters.

Core Rules do not apply to how a scenario runs. The scenario must the run as written. PC's may act in a scenario in any way allowed by current Pathfinder Rules.

Edit: After more consideration, I see that an INT boosting item would increase the number of skill ranks per level in addition to the increase in bonus, which could be used to increase actual skill ranks in a skill that wasn't already maxed out. I still view the checking of a goal on the faction card as a one-off event once the goal is met.

GM Lamplighter wrote:

No, it applies to all non-Pathfinder items.

I am pretty certain this is not true. Gauntlets of Strength appear on a season 7 chronicle.

I believe Andrew to be correct. Prior to Tonya's post up-thread, the last word from PFS management I have seen on this topic is from John Compton on December 12, 2013. Here he says:

1) the ruling on Season 0 Chronicle sheets that have items that no longer exist or were replaced by nearly identical items (e.g. gauntlets of giant strength +2 later replaced by belt of giant strength +2) still stands.
2) Please do bring weird anomalies in magic items to my attention. ... I'll aim to call out any such exceptional items or combinations on Chronicle sheets in the future to note that "yes, you're reading this correctly."

The blanket prohibition on illegal items only applies to Season 0 items. For all others Seasons, PFS management is to make a case-by-case decision. Tonya's post up-thread is directed only to a comment about Season 0 chronicle items, and aligns with Part 1) of John Compton's statements on December 12, 2013.

Try the online lodge. Many games are posted on the Pathfinder Society Online Collective website.

You will need internet connectivity, accounts to various on-line VTTs (especially Roll20) and accounts to audio chats (especially Discord and Google Hangouts). The groups are varied and you never know who you will end up playing with, but that can be a good thing too.

Edit. Double ninja'd.

That's not even close to being equal though. Say a TPK happens at a table with pregens and real PC's. Under the old rules, some people lose a single scenario while others lose that scenario plus their PC plus all of the other scenarios that PC had played.

My answer to this would be so what. For me, PFS is not a competition between players. What another player does or does not do with his characters and what those characters get in comparison to my character are irrelevant to me.

Under the old rules, everyone had an equal opportunity to play a pregen at no risk. Even then, some (probably most) people chose to risk their own characters anyways, while others did not. Those who chose to risk their own character did so for whatever personal reason knowing that they could have chosen not to. Others preferred not to play that way and chose to play a pregen. Both played the way they wanted to suit their personal taste. I see nothing intrinsically better about the new rule that forces players to risk their own characters when they don't want to.

You don't have to agree with my reasons. Disagreement does not refute them.

Yes. And your reasons for supporting the rule don't make the rule a good one.

Anytime you have a question about whether your build works or a gray area where you get table variation, bring it up to the GM before the game. Outline the issue, explain the arguments on each side, provide references if requested (links to forum arguments, developer posts, related FAQs, etc.).

Ask your GM to make the ruling before the game starts, and adjust your play accordingly. You benefit by knowing what you're getting into and not being surprised by a negative ruling in the middle of combat. Your GM will also appreciate getting a chance to review the issue with less pressure, and your fellow players will thank you for not slowing down the game after it's started.

This ^^^

And I would add - build your character so that whatever the ruling, your character still functions adequately to your liking.