Qalyar's page

Oh, hey, it's right there. I'm clearly illiterate. Thanks, and sorry for the stupid question.

It is clearly written that variant class features work like archetypes for stacking. If you alter a feature with one, you cannot alter or remove it with another. Does that suggest that variant class features are "archetypes" that change only one feature?

Specifically, are the Haunted Heroes Handbook variant Paladin Divine Bond options legal for sanctioned play? The AR approves all archetypes in the book, but without page references.

I am inclined to think that they are not, but have a player who finds the argument compelling that they are essentially archetypes, and so clarification seems prudent.

It seems he really wants a Mantelet, but there really aren't rules for them.

The mantelet in that picture is pretty much a pavise with a mounting stand to make it easier to set in the ground. In Pathfinder terms, we'd call that a tower shield. Larger versions of the mantelet included big, boxy wooden things with wheels and arrow slits, which does indeed sound like what he's going for here. Under the D&D categorization of things, I think they'd have to be governed by the siege equipment rules, which are a hole with no bottom, honestly.

If you've set something like this up and are just trying to adjudicate the attacks, any side that is protected by an unbroken barrier provides full cover. Any side with arrow slits or the like provides cover or improved cover (following from the tower shield rules on marking edges of your squares).

If it's man-portable, then follow the spell targeting rules for tower shields. Otherwise, it's essentially a siege machine or portable barricade. Attacks that miss because of cover, or that are targeted against the barrier itself do their damage to the object per normal rules. Assuming this is just thin wood, that won't last long. Obviously, a mantelet made from metal plates or the like is a serious obstacle to attacks, and an even more serious problem to actually transport anywhere.

Penalty-wise, beyond the difficulties in transporting such a contraption, the character taking cover inside would fail sight-based perception checks made "through" solid walls, probably warrant a penalty for those made through arrow slits (especially if permitting improved cover), and would suffer the "through a closed door" penalties to other perception checks.

It is possible for familiars to have spell like abilities, either by virtue of being Improved Familiars, or from an archetype (such as Emissary), or both. Spell like abilities provoke attacks of opportunity but may be cast defensively as with spells; this requires a concentration check.

Even in weird cases, determining the DC of that check is fairly straightforward. Determining the bonus on the check, however, is not.

Let's take the example of a magus (with the familiar arcana) whose familiar has the emissary archetype, permitting it the use of guidance at will and a domain power SLA 1/day. The concentration check modifier has two components: caster level and casting ability modifier. Neither are explicitly defined.

Is the caster level for this purpose: 1) the actual HD of the familiar's base creature; 2) the master's HD, per the "effects related to number of Hit Dice" text of the Familiar Basics feature; 3) something else entirely, such as the minimum level needed to produce the equivalent spells?

Is the casting ability for this purpose: 1) the familiar's Charisma, as the default monster rules for SLAs; 2) the familiar's Wisdom, as these are derived from cleric features; 3) the familiar's Intelligence, because that is it's master's casting ability; 4) something else entirely?

Setting aside the question, so much has changed with pfs that I would suggest that the players start new. This will give time to resolve the problems discovered on the audit.

This would give everyone a couple of adventures under their belt.

Everyone involved does indeed have new characters, but the returning players (myself included) are wisely intending to use their existing, somewhat higher-level characters as backups for after the inevitable (and hopefully properly handled) deaths.

After several years hiatus from PFS play, my local playgroup is getting the band back together, along with some new blood. I'm mostly DMing the show, and have opted to do full audits of the returning characters that haven't been played in 2-3 years, for both my benefit and the players'.

We have a problem, and I'm not sure how to resolve it.

One of the players in the group had a character marked as dead after a scenario run about three years ago. However (and I can attest to this, in part because I was also a player at that table), the death came as the result of significantly incorrectly-played rules, well beyond the level of table variation. Specifically, his character was grappled, and the DM at the time randomized all attacks made against the creature (melee and ranged) between it and the grappled character. Over the next 4 or 5 rounds, he was slowly hacked to death by his fellow Pathfinders as we attempted to dispatch the creature holding him.

At the time, we were making the transition from 3.5 to PF and didn't initially recognize this as a problem. Somewhere around 4 months later, having discovered just how improperly this was run, the player in question made an appeal to his then-local VL/VC for a somewhat belated correction. He was told, if possible, to pay for a raise dead pending a final determination. Lacking the PP for the spell, he sold the bulk of the character's belongings to cover the spellcasting services cost.

The character was then played in a subsequent scenario. Afterward, we had people move, change jobs, and get a divorce, and the playgroup broke up. He made no further effort to follow up on the appeal of his character's death, believing that he would no longer be participating in Society play.

Fast-forward 2.5 years to now.

My audit of this process revealed another problem. The hasty estate sale used to pay for the raise dead in question was faulty; a numeral got misplaced along the way. There was not sufficient money available to pay for the spell in the first place, so his return to life, and subsequent participation in another scenario was permitted in error. But, alternatively, his death was a clear error in the first place, and neither he nor I have any idea whether that death was properly overturned (and at this point, no record of even to whom the appeal was made).

What is the proper status of this character? If the character is dead, does the following scenario still count as having been run for this player (as it would then have never been run legally)? I can envision several outcomes:

• The character is dead. The final scenario was run in good faith and so counts as expended.
  
• The character is dead. The final scenario was not run by a legal PFS character and is still available for the player to run (with a different character).
  
• The character's death was in error and is redacted. Property sold by the character for 1/2 value remains sold, although no spellcasting services were performed. The subsequent scenario has been run, and is credited to the character.
  
• The character's death was in error and is redacted. The estate sale used in an attempt to remedy this error is also unwound. The subsequent scenario has been run, and is credited to the character.

Sometimes searching for current PFS information is tricky. Are Pathfinder Tales (novel) boons in the old format (no Prolific Reader feature, etc.) still 1/character rather than 1/player?

I'm returning to PFS play after a couple years off, this time to DM, and I'm trying to determine if one of my players will be sad about his Queen of Thorns or not.