PonyFlare's page

There is much demand for more of this set. Why no reprints?

Just to sum up everything mentioned in this thread, plus adding in a few more since I decided I'd just go and do a more thorough search if I'm to be doing this. Only a month and a bit since the last bit of necromancy here, so I don't feel bad doing this.

Base Classes*:
1) 1st level Rogue (a bunch of archetypes give that up)
2) 3rd level Urban Ranger
3) 1st level Trapper Ranger
4) 1st level Seeker Oracle
5) 1st level Seeker Sorcerer
6) 1st level Crypt Breaker Alchemist
7) 2nd level Trap Breaker Alchemist
8) 5th level Alchemical Trapper Alchemist (Kobold only)
9) 2nd level Detective Bard
10) 6th level Archeologist Bard
11) 1st level Sandman Bard
12) 2nd level Archivist Bard
13) 2nd level Soulknife(Cuthroat) with Trapfinding Blade
14) 1st level Pathfinder Field Agent with training
15) 1st level Investigator
16) 2nd level Slayer with talent
17) 1st level Patient Ambusher Hunter
18) 1st level Vigilante

*Note that some of these, such as the bard, do not get disable device as a class skill.
Also some of these abilities are similar to, but not actually trapfinding. All allow the key component of disabling magical traps.

Prestige Classes*:
1) 1st level Pathfinder Delver (6th)
2) 1st level Aspis Agent (6th)
3) 2nd level Brother of the Seal (7th)

*The level in parentheses is the minimum full class levels required to get the ability

Honourable Mentions:
1) Trap Finder campaign trait (People of the Sands/Mummy's Mask)
2) The 2nd level bard/alchemist/wizard spell Aram Zey's focus (1 minute per level)

I got one of these in a Starfinder pawn bases pack the other day and got excited... But a 10 pack of all the same colour seems pretty useless. A variety pack with 10 different colours I would go for. This.. I'll pass.

The Witch Hunt event has 15 participating colonists "of varying age and occupation", all commoner 1/warrior 1. This seems extremely odd given most other colonist encounters have them use farmer stats (commoner 1/expert 1)

I just have a hard time believing there are that many warriors among the colonists, let alone that many that aren't faceless stalkers and are roused to form a mob that somehow doesn't include any experts.

I'll definitely be modifying this encounter to include 'farmers' when the group gets around to it.

Just noticed a slight issue with a certain NPC's class.
The 6 soldiers are listed as Fighter 2 on page 69, but Antona Sedgewick is listed as being one of them but being only Warrior 2 on page 28. Which of these is correct?

My only issue with these maps (so far) is the placement of Talmandor's Bounty on the colour map of the region, which clearly places it a significant enough distance further north than the maps in the books to be quite noticeable.

A full year seems excessive. Certainly at least a supply ship would have arrived in that time. Also, Talmandor's Bounty would be much further along in construction at that point, and certain fixed encounters would possibly have already claimed some victims/been dealt with in that time.

Underwater games can be quite interesting. I haven't played through Ruins yet (we only had session zero this week), but I did play in the Cerulean Seas Campaign Setting a while back. It's a purely underwater setting, which came out before Aquatic Adventures so they went all out creating the rules for it.
It has some interesting ideas for underwater combat, the best way to represent the 3D environment, as mentioned in the book, requires a bit of crafting. I started on it, but never actually got around to doing it. We just went with Theatre of the Mind with occasional help from a 2D map to get an idea for some distances.

Anyway, going from memory:

You need a few long but not too thick dowels, some wood, some clothespins (The kind that has two pieces and a spring keeping them together), some poster board, felt pen, ruler, a box cutter, and some wood glue.

The poster board and wood are cut into 4 inch squares, with a hole in the middle to fit the dowel. The wood, of course, forms the base. The poster board has the 1 inch grid on top while a clothespin is glued to the underside such that it can be clipped to the dowel.

Now you can just slide the squares up and down on the dowels to represent height/depth. One of those soft flexible tape measures (usually used for fabric/sewing) is recommended to measure the various diagonal distances. You can also mark the dowels at intervals to make positioning easier.

(The lack of tools to make the wood bases is in large part responsible for my failure to complete this project myself.)

Looking into this a bit more.
An important thing to consider is that the first ship landed 6 months earlier to establish the colony.

Reading the Gazetteer with a bit more thought to the details...
Winters can be cold, potentially reaching temperatures slightly below freezing on some nights, while hot & humid summer peaks can be difficult to breathe in, and late-summer through late-fall sees potential for violent storms.
Mid-March would put the original colonists landing in mid-September.
I'm thinking of reversing these times you suggested, giving the original colonists time to establish buildings and crops in good weather; to be ready before the cool, dry winter.

Makes for a slightly harsher time for the PCs and others arriving with them, but makes a bit more sense to me.

Around what date in-world does this AP actually start? There are seasonal variances in weather according to the Gazetteer in book 2 and I'd like to keep track.

I can't help with most of this, but supernatural abilities don't require concentration. So unless there's a specific rule otherwise, it seems that a supernatural feather fall is the best type.

It's somewhat unfortunate that supernatural feather fall is self-only in such a case. (the at-will is nice, but if you're falling often enough for it to matter you're either doing something wrong or the GM is out to get you. - Unless of course you're doing it deliberately. "See you at the bottom guys!" as you jump off the cliff while everyone else takes the long, walkable, path.)

@theacemu That is certainly something I'll keep in mind for the next group I play with, but it's over for me with this one.

I officially quit the campaign today by showing up to tell the rest of the group (The GM and through him the player in question were already aware) and also give proper goodbyes to the two that don't participate in our board game nights. I left before the game got started.

This post shows that it was answered in the FAQ, but no FAQ entry exists, as far as I can tell.
----

The questions are essentially as follows:

• Does feather fall require a DC 21 concentration check as other spells while falling?
  
• Are you considered flat footed and thus unable to cast feather fall after activating a pit trap.
  Bonus related questions:
  
• Can you cast other spells normally while under the effects of feather fall? (Still technically falling and under 500 feet)
  
• If feather fall does require a concentration check, does a supernatural version of the spell do so as well? (As per the wizard's air school power)
  

My own questions are:
Has this answer somehow been posted in a weird non-FAQ, non-forum location?
(No relevant posts by Pathfinder Design Team, which is the only official rulings source for forum posts)
Can we get whatever that answer was actually put into the FAQ?
(hit that button!)

---

I'll just add my personal opinion, for whatever little it's worth, that the "magic parachute" can always be deployed successfully when relevant, barring extreme circumstances such as an anti-magic field. RAW may disagree.)

Might just be a symptom of a great curse at play...

Edit: Oops, PFS... that really does limit options severely to nothing but pure fluff options.

I tried rolling with it at first, but I've reached my limit.
This one person's fun is severely reducing my own fun to the point that I must answer that question with "no game is better".

As to the other question.. someone deliberately destroying artwork (such as that fancy carpet and other stuff in the shack) probably doesn't appeal to Shelyn, goddess of art, all that much. I doubt she'd be pleased. No idea what she'd do though.

So, it's not a question of which Faction *you* like, it's a question of which Faction your *character* would join.

I beg to differ, as I could never enjoy playing a character interested in a faction I truly didn't like (most of them).

I'm more and more inclined to not even show up for my first game tomorrow. Somewhat regretting the purchase of two rulebooks books I may never otherwise use as well as the time spent working on the character.

I think the problem is you're shoehorning the factions a bit into how you want to perceive them.

Certainly, but none of what you said really changes my feelings. Their flavour as written in the guild guide just makes them unappealing to me. Some of this may change as I play and actually encounter them though.

Ugh about the Lich thing. Now I like my top choice less. *sigh* and they're leaving... great. What I considered was the top of the pile of.. stuff... won't even be around long enough for me to gain any serious experience with it.

Factions are nice, but not required. It is perfectly viable to just play a Pathfinder who doesn't worry about fulfilling their faction goals.

True you can ignore the goals, but it's clear you can't ignore your faction (at least in character) since core concepts of PFS, fame & prestige, require you to deal with and belong to factions. Your purchasing power is severely limited otherwise.

... and this discussion is reducing my interest in PFS.

New to PFS (long time player otherwise).
Looking over the factions... I can't say I like any of them.

The Concordance - Not really bad, just not entirely sold on it.
Dark Archive - I just get a vibe that it's evil and barely grasp why it's even allowed to exist as an option for players.
The Exchange - Too much greed here.
Grand Lodge - Motto: 'Loyalty to the Society Above All'... umm.. too domineering for my taste.
Liberty’s Edge - Not a bad goal. Doesn't interest me much though.
Scarab Sages - Most appealing to me, and my first (and only) character is a member. Her first scenario is tomorrow. Still 'meh' on it.
Silver Crusade - Too much paladin. (Paladins are my least favourite class by a margin of "I ban this class in any home game I run". Extreme, but I don't care.)
Sovereign Court - I couldn't care less about the nobility and their shenanigans.

So... Concordance, Liberty & Sages are the only three I have even marginal interest in being a part of.
I feel this puts a serious limit on my possible character options if I want them to actually make sense for whichever faction I reluctantly make them a part of.

Two related questions:
1. When will this pin be made available in the store?
2. When will the logo be made available in the Community Use Society Faction Symbols package?

Made a custom table tent with Scarab Sages logo for my first PFS character (first game tomorrow!) Want that Concordance logo for what may be my second. (third at most)

Needs The Concordance added.

This is long, sorry!

One member of my gaming group, the only other one still remaining from our original group. (Others have left, new ones have joined...) has a tendency to railroad when she runs the game.
The two examples that annoyed me the most are following:
We had just finished a story arc and into town where a new plot hook ended up waiting for us: A stone statue of a paladin, which my character learned (through some effect that just put the info in my mind when next to it, iirc) that he was actually a real person turned to stone and was basically given the quest to break his curse.
My character, the only one to actually receive this message, a CN bard who dislikes paladins (which, as a player, I'd already made abundantly clear was my absolute least favourite class by a wide margin) just starts laughing hard and walks away. I didn't mention it, but was thinking it would be hilarious and awesome if all paladins were turned to stone.

A few sessions later we'd somehow incidentally rescued him anyway, despite no other PCs knowing about this quest and mine having already made it clear he didn't want it to happen. Probably would have actively worked against it if I'd been given any hint that we were on track to freeing him regardless while on what I believed, until after we'd suddenly freed him, was an entirely different and completely unrelated quest.

This second example ended in a literal ragequit.
This was a new campaign, I'm playing a crossblooded sorcerer (elemental/dragon, both with electric powers).
There were a few homebrew rules in effect, also the GM has an obsession with vampires. She's since actually gone to get custom fangs made for herself... this is very relevant.

Anyway, at one point one of the PCs, a tiefling, contracts a vampirism curse. She'll not actually turn into a vampire until she actually drinks blood, so the rest of the party, as a whole, did their best to keep her from doing so until we could find a cure.
Cue the GM talking to the tiefling's player outside the game and coming up with a plan that has her drink blood while the rest of the party can't interfere...
That part happened like this: Part of the plot involved some villain going back in time and changing things. (There was some ripple effect that made it change in wave that we, in the present, actually noticed and we ended up with amulets that protected us from it...) We made arrangements with the leader of the city at the center of this (a vampire, no less.) and jumped back in time. The entire party except, of course, the half-vapiric tiefling, is knocked unconscious for several hours after the jump. She managed to get up immediately, apparently because of her infernal blood. (my elemental/draconic blood didn't help me in any way, of course).
So we chase her down and she's drunk blood and all that.
The other players mostly just rolled with it, including a small retcon after another player was going to attack her but yet another player ended up saying 'what if my character had said....' and it got accepted.
I only had one response: She must die now. I would not hear otherwise and very vocally ragequit the campaign. (This was, admittedly, a very very poor response on my part. I quit rping for over a year afterwards. Have better meds now.)

Anyway, now to modern day. New campaign, different GM, this person is now a player.
We started at level 3, we're 4.
Undead bloodline gnome sorceress.
The following things have been becoming increasingly clear:
She has no combat spells.
Her favourite spells to cast are invisibility and expeditious retreat. (After earlier somehow trying to weaponize mage hand for reasons that boggle the mind for a player with enough roleplaying and GMing experience that she should know what she declared the PC was attempting was not actually possible.)
She's a pyromaniac.
The 'chaotic neutral' on her character sheet is a lie. I'd have probably shifted her alignment and had her character sheet destroyed after she shoved a vial of alchemist's fire down the throat of an enemy a while back. (I don't even remember how she was even allowed to attempt it, even less how she succeeded... I think GM just went with 'rule of cool')

In our last game, the boss fight we'd been making our way towards for the last several sessions, her actions amounted to turning invisible and going to play with a distraction (a 'baba yaga' type hut on spider legs). That made the rest of the combat safer for the rest of the party. By the player's own admission, she was going to go try starting a forest fire (keeping in mind we're in the middle of said forest) until the distraction was pointed out.
It doesn't end there. The hut had been described as something of a 'gilded turd'. Pretty ramshackle hut, but the inside was richly decorated with nice carpets and stuff. So just before trying to make her way out of the hut (the door wouldn't open) after the rest of us had finally managed to win the rather deadly combat without her she throws a vial of alchemist's fire behind her and starts burning the place down, deliberately destroying possible loot. This semi-alive thing of course doesn't like the fire and is moving around like crazy making it more difficult for her to escape... unfortunately in character my NG cleric of Shelyn wielding a glaive couldn't just let her die so chopped a hole in the wall she could escape through. The 10 foot reach of the weapon made this relatively easy. The movement and height of the spider-hut made it pretty much impossible to put the fire out. (I could have conjured more than enough water to do so otherwise. Might have salvaged something.)

I had talk to the GM about my issues in the week before last session. After last session I talked to him and gave an ultimatum: That character is removed from play or I leave the table. This will be discussed next session with the other players and which character leaves the party will be determined then.

Things will be a bit awkward, if it's me, since we game at my mother's house. It's the only place between us that's free, quiet, and has a large enough table for a battlemap!

If this doesn't go my way, I am most likely never going to play another rpg involving that person in any capacity, which is sad as she's one of the first friends I made in this city. We'll still have our board game nights though (we alternate PF/board games week to week).

For the record, I kept quiet as long as I did mostly with the memory of my ragequit in mind and not wanting to cause another scene. Also hoping the GM would himself actually call her out on her evil acts and tell her to stop.

.. and now done. To those who read through: Thanks for your patience!

While the animate objects spell specifically states that the object attacks whatever you designate, there is no such ruling for those created using Craft Construct.

Furthermore, I can't find any general ruling that states constructs are controlled by their creator, only specific (and differing) instances as per the spell or in their own descriptions.

So by RAW as I see it, crafted animated objects are just mindless creatures with no direction and not much incentive to do anything. Should they be somehow goaded into attacking (I can't see why they'd initiate combat), they wouldn't differentiate their creator from any other creature.

Similarly, those created by the spell, which seem to have only one command, attack: What do you do with those made permanent? Designating new targets requires actively doing so with a move action, so leaving them alone to guard would have no effect, and hauling them around would be annoying at best, with no incentive to follow you unless you designate yourself as their target. (And without a 'stop' command you'd have to designate a rock or something else pointless for them to pulverize to stand down.)

Can anyone prove me wrong?

Surprised they never caught and gave errata for that. It's in Bestiary 1!
(Same error in my hardcover.)

Well, skill points makes somewhat more sense, but still seems backwards for more or less the same reasons. 1 point in Intelligence and it loses a full half of its skill points which it can't possibly regain without magical bonuses.

As per the Animated Object rules they have AC 14, touch 10, flat-footed 12 (+4 natural)

I'm not understanding how it's losing 2 points to its flat-footed AC.

Was reading through the campaign clarifications, and under Legacy of Dragons there are two conflicting entries for page 4.
"... you gain DR/ piercing or slashing."
"... you gain DR/ piercing and slashing."

With or it would mean either one works. The and would mean that a weapon must be doing both types to bypass DR.

Given and would effectively give DR/— (does anyone have a hurlbat?), I would assume or is correct.

Second, for page 22
"A drake rider gains skill points as indicated in the skills section on page 22, not as indicated in the table on page 23. Drakes that do not raise their intelligence scores gain 3 hit points per HD."

A Drakerider is an archetype presented on page 24. Don't understand the presence of 'rider' above (I assume this is simply an error).

I don't understand the final part at all. What it seems to be saying is that, so long as the drake remains stupid with it's starting Int of 4 and never boosting it through any means (typically through the ability boost every 5 levels) it has more HP, and that as soon as its intelligence increases, that bonus HP is lost.
No part of that line seems to be mentioned in the book in any way, and it doesn't seem consistent with general Pathfinder rules.
I can't think of any other situation where higher Int equals lower HP.

As far as I can tell, any url with products/btpy****? is a scratch & dent, so it's relatively easy to avoid those.
It does seem that many (all?) links from before the redesign link or redirect to the S&D
This page for example, has links to the CRB & Bestiary which redirect to the S&D versions. (All links on that page are broken in one way or another, the AP link is the only one that comes close to the right location)

Reflex save? That's all I've got lol

Saving throws are listed sepperately.

PonyFlare wrote:

Ah. A second, related question: What other checks might apply to avoid slipping and falling?

Acrobatics - Moving through enemy squares and jump checks.

Climb - Catch a Falling Character While Climbing

These are instances where you might use the skill in slippery conditions but failing the check wouldn't cause you to fall or slip.

Those do answer my original question, but do not in any way answer my second question, which you quoted.

Ah. A second, related question: What other checks might apply to avoid slipping and falling?

Only one I can think of is a straight ability check, which would bypass armor penalty, although I can't think of any situation where that would be allowed short of a house rule.

Hillariously thinking of this right now: "I use Intimidate on the ice to convince it to not make me fall."

Since Heart of the Snows says that you get the bonus "on any check", is there any good reason it goes on to specify Acrobatics & Climb checks in the next sentence with basically the same condition?

It's been stated that they want to avoid replicating D&D books, so an official Spell Compendium is likely out of the picture for this reason as well.

i do lots of DBs, links below to my google docs

a thing that people may not know, the full text field link to a PF.css file which give it a Pathfinder formatted look to the html
that file is below
...

A little off topic, but I don't suppose you have a traits database in the works? The one on d20pfsrd is incomplete (not updated since created in 2014), lacks sources for most of what is there, and, of course, lacks any Golarion content.

Thanks for those you do have listed.. some of them will prove quite handy for a project I'm working on. (Which may or may not get completed and released into the wild, but that's a matter of how dedicated I remain.)

p.s. That last one in your list is Afflictions not Affiliations!

So I was looking through the community use products list and noticed a few items that aren't mentioned at all, in either section.

There's the full block here:
PZO9459 - PPC Dirty Tactics Toolbox
PZO9460 - PPC Heroes of the Streets
PZO9461 - PPC Occult Origins
PZO9462 - PPC Black Markets
PZO9463 - PPC Weapon Master's Handbook
PZO9464 - PPC Agents of Evil
PZO9465 - PPC Arcane Anthology
PZO9466 - PPC Blood of Shadows

Plus:
PZO9000-11E - Shattered Star Player's Guide
PZO9000-12E - Reign of Winter Player's Guide
PZO9000-13E - Wrath of the Righteous Player's Guide
(and all players guides and interactive maps beyond, even though many of their respective Adventure Paths are listed)

PZO9282 - Giantslayer Poster Map Folio (Although later ones are available)

PZO92105 - PCS Taldor, the First Empire (even though every other chronicles/campaign setting book, except the last unreleased, is on the list)

A few others, but they're all at the end of their respective lists and in part unreleased.
PZO9486+ & PZO1139+ & PZO9500-8+

Also many PFS scenarios, most notably a gap starting with #6-17 then continuing with #7-00. Although my guess is there are campaign reasons for that.

(Okay, so maybe I went a little overboard with my "looking through" the list)

I looked around for an official FAQ or errata mentioning this. I never would have considered looking at any PFS stuff, as I don't participate.

There is a lot of useful errata on that page. Would be nice if it was made official outside of PFS (At least what isn't campaign-specific) and available for download along with all other errata.

After reading the text for this trait, I'm a little perplexed. It's written as being worth 3 racial points, yet it replaces none of the elf's existing traits.

Surely it should be marked as replacing Elven Magic?

I'd certainly use it that way, but by RAW...