RSX Raver's page

RSX Raver wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

You get one pocket scorpion. It sits in your robes and gives you a small static bonus.

I once played with another player whose pocket scorpion was actually a codpiece scorpion, it helped motivate him to act faster.

This is why druids can't have ranks in profession: personal trainer.

Chad the Druid: Not saying I will turn into a large bear and maul you if you do not give me another 10 reps, but I am a level 12 Druid, you do the math.

You get one pocket scorpion. It sits in your robes and gives you a small static bonus.

I once played with another player whose pocket scorpion was actually a codpiece scorpion, it helped motivate him to act faster.

I love mounted characters, but it is threads like this one that prevent me from using reach weapons in PFS play with my mounted builds.

One of the reasons that FAQ about both rider and mount are considered charging if either charges, was to prevent Vital Strike shenanigans that were going on. So it is unfortunate that it is now being used to prevent the most basic and common use of a lance.

I agree with many of the other GMs here, it is part of the GMs job to look at something as broken as the mounted combat rules and make the sensible rulings that will make it function as a legitimate build option.

Give the guy a break, geesh.

This.

Also with Feint being unused often(I have a two weapon feint build in an AP so I had to get real familiar, but my GM had to read the rules again the first time it came up), I know many experienced GMs that fail to remember all the nuances of how it works without having to reference the CRB.

Do not present it as if all of the players were on your side during the ruling, at least two said that they could see it being read either way.

Remember though, someone seeing why you are understanding the rule a way, and agreeing with your ruling are different things. Plenty of times I have seen a GM rule in a manner against the way a mechanic worked because of the wording Pathfinder likes to use is not always clear. I understood why they misunderstood, but that did not mean I agreed with them.

As a GM I also know that it is a littler harder to want to hear the player's side of things when they are being combative. As the rest of us were not present for the game, there is no way to know how the interactions had been up to that point, though it does sound like maybe it was a bit tense.

On the brightside, you probably will not forget how feinting works going forward.

andreww wrote:

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Especially useful for wands, which are not weapons, so otherwise require a full-round action to "fish" from your backpack.

Wands are explicitly weapon like and can therefore be drawn as part of a move action.

In addition retrieving a stored item is a move action, not full round, although it does provoke.

Hmm....Okay, so does retriving the stored item equip it, or would I need two move actions (one to retrieve and one to draw)? I may be mixing up full-round actions with double move actions turns. Either way, happy to be wrong here.

You can draw a sword as part of a move and then use it immediately as a standard. There is no "Equip" action. If you have your weapon in hand or hands, it is then usable unless something specifically prevents it. This is also true for a wand. If you draw your wand as part of a movement, you can then activate it with your standard.

Also here is the official FAQ that backs up andreww: FAQ

Yet another FAQ that seems to punish people using AC. Getting rid of the Fitting enchantment will just make people with ACs even more disadvantaged on top of the magic item rules. It also means taking Mammoth Rider becomes a terrible fit for PFS due to gold limitations.

Why does campaign leadership hate my wolf?

Removed a sniping post and the reply to it.

To provide some insight: the entire company is in the midst of preparing for Gen Con, where we're releasing an all new game and Organized Play campaign. This is an all-hands-on-deck effort, and we understand that folks are antsy to find out what new things they can use for their characters. We appreciate your patience as we push to get ducks in a row here.

However, it's really not productive to start picking apart our staffing resources here, or to make assumptions about our web development environment. For clarification: I am not strictly part of the "web team" (you can find a relatively accurate breakdown of our departments on the Contact Us page, if this is something you're curious about), but actually have a hand in a number of jars (some relevant to community, operations, marketing, and web). I can however assure you that as part of our leadup to Gen Con, we are looking at ways to smooth out parts of the process to getting things on the website once Org Play has completed them.

I do not think this is picking apart your staffing. I think that you guys at Paizo know that the majority of the community wants to see updates more regularly and it has not been happening. Fact is, your web team is not big, Paizo as a whole is not a big company in terms of employees (As the link you provided shows). Also, as you said yourself, you are not strictly just web team, you have your time split among a number of responsibilities. We have had numerous reports in the past where campaign leadership says they are done with their part and it is waiting in the que to get pushed out (maybe that is the web team's que, maybe that is another team's) but that points at resource deficiency. That is not a bad thing per say because it means there is lots of things to do and Paizo is growing (like adding Starfinder!). That is good for the player base, it means you guys are not going anywhere any time soon. However as a customer who spends a lot of money with Paizo as a company (Books, Minis, APs, Scenarios, etc.) I feel you guys can do better and probably need more resources to do so.

ok, so why aren't you posting, instead of the guys who aren't playing Lore Wardens?

I am, I really hope they grandfather in the old version. It will be incredibly annoying to rebuild characters if this nerf does not do that. I honestly would be fine with the new build IF they did not lose the 2nd level feat on top of the other changes.

Gudrun the Reader wrote:

Muse. wrote:

wait... has anyone still on this thread actually MADE a Lore Warden?

Hello!

I'm a trip / reposition focused librarian.

Which has me currently at 8 levels of Lore Warden

Feels like Fighters Anonymous in here

Hi, Gudrun!

Hello, I play Marc Langley (Earl in Taldor), and I'm a Lore Warden. I focus on Trip/Disarm, with a minor in Grapple.

I have a number of Lore Wardens, I like skill points and fun builds that need Combat Expertise for silly feats.

RSX Raver wrote:

Isabelle Lee wrote:

shaventalz wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

*torches pitchforks, get em here , you know prices are just going to skyrocket soon...*

Ooh, nice. Where'd you get the stats for a pitchfork? Is that from Adventurer's Armory 2?

Tragically, statting up pitchforks as weapons didn't even occur to me.

Next time. ^_^

Clearly a Ustalav themed Player Companion needs to be made just so we can have the pitchfork and angry mob mechanics.

Maybe with an archetype dedicated to dual-wielding said weapons?

Pitchfork and Torch dual wielding, commoner archetype called One of the Herd.

shaventalz wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

*torches pitchforks, get em here , you know prices are just going to skyrocket soon...*

Ooh, nice. Where'd you get the stats for a pitchfork? Is that from Adventurer's Armory 2?

Tragically, statting up pitchforks as weapons didn't even occur to me.

Next time. ^_^

Clearly a Ustalav themed Player Companion needs to be made just so we can have the pitchfork and angry mob mechanics.

So I've been trying to stay out of these "alignment" threads because they never go well and no one's mind is ever changed. But I do feel moved to respond to this.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Rysky wrote:

And the "doesn't make it true" isn't actually correct, since the Associates part of Paladin say they have to atone regularly if they work (for the greater good) with someone who is Evil or who offends their moral code.

I'd assume the society covers this if it becomes an issue (and have joked as much before)

Your character is only responsible for the things your player makes them do in the adventure. You're fine.

No.

There's nothing in the Guide, nothing in the FAQ, and nothing in any post by Campaign Leadership I have seen that says "You get a free pass on the strictures of your class because it is Organized Play."

Playing a divine class is hard. It's not just plugging in the class features you like. You have to live with the fact that those powers are coming from a divine source that holds you to a high standard. And will take those powers away if you don't meet his or her standard.

But this is far less of a problem than it appears on the messageboards. In well over 400 tables of Pathfinder Society I've seen conflict by divine code a handful of times. An inquisitor of Pharasma at the same table as an undead animator. An Andoran cleric of Cayden Cailen at the same table as a character who not only uses profession (slaver) but takes slaves with him everywhere. A paladin being given a mission that is clearly "break the law." In all but one of the cases it was sorted out amicably by one or more people changing characters. And in that case it was a player who said "I don't care what it does to you, I'm bringing the character I want to," forcing the other player to change without even a chance to discuss. (That player was not a nice person and after many talks and chances was shunned by the community.) The point is: don't try to fix a problem by removing...

Not overly hard to play a divine class, since a cleric does not have to follow a code, and there are no rules for "falling" as a cleric. Paladins have a specific code or they will fall. However the Code of Conduct section in the CRB does not include the section listed under the Associates section. The section on Ex-paladins is very explicit of the handful of things that cause you to fall, and partying with someone that does not follow your code is not one of them. Also there is a pile of different paladin codes based on the different gods which have vastly differing rules. The primary issue here is that everyone is incorrectly combining two class features and treating them as the same thing for a paladin. Code of Conduct is a class feature and Associates is a separate class feature. You will see no mention of the class feature associates under the class feature of ex-paladins, therefore in organized play, per RAW, you do not fall for partying with someone who breaks your code.

Edit: Spelling and grammar.

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Rysky wrote:

No, Undead are monsters. Just because a Neutral person sees it as "efficient" doesn't change that.

And the restrictions you suggest are not "things they should be doing anyway". A Paladin of Sarenrae, maybe. The others? Not so much.

So for your non-sarenae Paladins and followers are Pharasma, are you role playing them pro-death, just anti-undeath? Does your Paladin sit atop a pile of corpses?

Trying to parse that, yes, Paladins have no problem killing things that need killing.

Almost all of your comments seem to point towards you believe every character views the undead as a problem. You as the player are injecting that sentiment into all your characters, which sounds less like role playing and more like personal belief.

Also Paladins as you are portraying them should absolutely have problems being forced to resort to killing. Several Paladin codes say that killing should be the last resort and that taking life in general is rarely a good thing. You seem to cherry pick the parts of the code you believe in while ignoring others.

re horizontalize

It is words like this that make me enjoy BNW's posts.

Rysky wrote:

It's still making Undead, which a lot of people take issue with.

Ok, at this point I'm pretty sure this whole thread is going in circles faster then water down a toilet bowl. I'm also pretty sure any semblence of debate is over and the most undead thing here is the thread itself.

This debate was over before it began very likely. Gamers are notoriously stubborn and once they have their opinion they will defend it to the death. Nothing short of direct input from an official source can sort this out, and probably not even that.

RSX Raver wrote:

Tallow wrote:

Jeff Morse wrote:

I dont think falling is only reason to get atonement. If i played at table with my pally and felt i turned the other way too many times to complete mission and get along, than off to temple he goes. It is an RPG decision.

Exactly. Why does this sort of thing have to always be a GM being a jerk? Why can't it be a player making the correct choice based roleplay and on how a Paladin is written up.

That is taken very out of context. It is not a jerk GM that causes a Paladin to fall for say, killing a helpless enemy. I am saying that causing the Paladin to fall just because they did not try to kill the Necromancer at the table is not okay. If you want to say you feel your paladin need to atone because your role play belief that it is the right thing, and then go get an atonement, then more power to you.

That's my point. I never said anything about a GM forcing a paladin to fall for something like this. But it is my opinion that the way the Paladin Code is written, a player most likely should at least consider getting that atonement if they willingly adventure with a necromancer that is unwilling to mitigate their raising undead. And that is where the griefing comes in. Those I've seen play necromancers know that's how Paladins are written, and do whatever they can to cost the Paladin cash or just grief the player because its a Paladin and its fun to make them squirm, or whatever.

If the player of the paladin decides that his character wants an atonement, it is not griefing. It is not "forcing" them to spend cash. That is that player's choice not being forced by the GM.

If the GM says "I am going to make you get an atonement" and the player has not done anything more then complete a scenario with a necromancer in the party and also does not believe they need one, then that is the GM being a jerk.

RSX Raver wrote:

Rysky wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

A big mistake role players make in pfs , or well, in any cooporative game, is trying to decide what the character WOULD do and then doing that. A better idea that goes double in PFS is to find something that your character MIGHT do and pick something off the list that lets them work with the party.

Lecture the necromancer

Show the necromancer how fleeting the power of undeath is by gleefully cleaving through zombies

Stand back and let the torch and pitchfork mob kill the zombie.

Would I be allowed to do even that? Or even if you do, and they obviously don't listen (cause they wanted to play a Necromancer), what then?

As long as you are not gleefully cleaving through their zombies, then I do not see a problem with those choices.

Your character tries to redeem the necromancer from their dead raising ways, if they do not listen (as is there right in a role play way) then you character realizes they can not be saved and moves on. Make it a fun role playing experience, and not an interpersonal conflict between players.

... that's not how Paladins work though.

Funny thing about Paladins, you will notice a lot of people disagree on how they work. Especially considering that every god has a different Code for their Paladins to follow. In my opinion, that is absolutely how they work, they are still mortals after all and honor bound to their service in the Society.

Nefreet wrote:

Varun Creed wrote:

Really, why can't the Necromancers actually take us Pallies into consideration instead??

Because they lose half their functionality when they do, while the Paladin gets to enjoy all of their class features.

Maybe not for long. Depending on just how accommodating a Paladin is to the evil undead being part of their adventure experience and ally, every adventure with a necromancer might require an atonement.

As stated before, that is very likely not the case. Any GM that punishes your Paladin like that because someone else at the table is playing a character type that does not care about Paladin code is not fit to be GM in PFS. Fact is that as far as organized play goes, that is something counter-productive. If the Paladin starts doing things to enable the necromancer, or starts raise the dead themselves then sure make them fall. However if the Paladin is just grimacing and bearing the indignity out of honoring their duties to the Society, there is no reason to punish them for cooperating per the society tenants.

RSX Raver wrote:

the bigger issue is how the other players act

That the issue that this attempts to solve. Players are often more opposed to undead as allies than they are anything else. Even a summoner with an evil subtype eidolon is often treated with more respect than someone summoning/raising undead. Other players will go out of their way to threaten/restrict the actions of the necromancer player character, in ways rarely seen in other situations.

In my experience the players that act that way will do so regardless of roleplay or other elements, that is them as a person being a jerk. I just tend to ignore them.

The ones who are playing a charcater that is a Cleric of Pharasma or a Paladin with Oath Against Undeath that are not actually jerks as human beings tend to want to have a good roleplaying experience instead. I find these scenarios very rewarding, like the time I saved a Paladins life by sacrificing my undead minions to a Dire Bear so the Paladin could get back into formation without being eaten. He had fun making his character start to question his faith and my necromancer was whispering sweet nothings of corruption to him.

I play my NPCs as if they were PCs. My PCs will not typically risk finding out the hard way whether or not someone has Combat Reflexes, why should my NPCs*?

*Of course, some NPCs have tactics that say otherwise. If the tactics say they "attack mercilessly/carelessly/whatever," they will charge forward, tactics be damned.

That statement just made me think about the phrase, "if everyone is special then no one is." Why should every NPC behave with the same guile and expertise as the heroic adventurers? That feels way too much like a GM attempting to beat the players, not facilitate the telling of a story where the PCs are the heroes.

RSX Raver wrote:

Fromper wrote:

Ok, so there's always a few exceptions. But my point is that pole arms and Combat Reflexes are like peanut butter and jelly - you won't see the first without the second more than 20% of the time.

So any NPC of int > 8 would probably assume that the pole arm wielder is ready to hit them as they approach, even if they're trying to get inside the pole arm reach fast enough to catch them unaware.

I respectfully disagree. That is the type of metagaming that I feel is unfair to players. I know a lot of polearm wielders that do not have Combat Reflexes, especially strength based ones or none fighter types that spend their feats on the many other things they need. Fact is that PCs make up an incredibly small portion of the population of Golarion, or even the combat capable populace, and among them many do not have Combat Reflexes. There is no reason a soldier should assume ever polearm carrying person has it without seeing evidence first.

Not assume they have it, but realize they might, and take that into consideration as much as their intelligence suggests they should.

The only consideration they could take would be to act is if the person had it. That is no different then assuming everyone does. As stated earlier in the thread by someone who is trained in polearm use, the only way a person with a sword (or other non-reach weapon) can attack someone with a reach weapon, is to get inside their reach. So purposefully avoiding it would be not something a trained fighter does.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Even applying real world logic, wood does not instantly combust when placed in a campfire. it takes more than 6 seconds. Fire hardened spears are a thing you do if you can't find suitable stone

Right, but blanches take longer than 6 seconds. They take 60 seconds.

And I'm well aware of fire-hardended spears.

If you hold a wooden stick over a fire, sometimes it will catch on fire if the fire is hot enough. I've done it many times. Other times you can put it right in the hot coals and it won't catch on fire.

I consider this just bad damage rolls.

If you put wood in a fire, it will take fire damage. If it takes enough fire damage to destroy the piece of wood, it burns up.

Why is is 60 seconds? A full round is 6 seconds.

RSX Raver wrote:

Jeff Morse wrote:

They all stack, as long as you dont double up on same kind, so no fire and celestial. Or if druid could get dark tapestry you couldnt do advanced twice.

When you say "same kind" does that mean a template from the same source? I have always been curious about stacking templates on summons myself.

What I thought of when someone said "same kind" was templates that change the creature's type, so like, you can't add the skeleton template and the zombie template, because once you apply one, the creature is of the undead type, so now the other template can't be applied anymore.

Ok, that makes sense, thank you for clarifying that. Does anyone know if there is a master list somewhere of legal templates for PFS summons? It would be nice to have some sort of index for what there is and what combos you can make.

RSX Raver wrote:

Pirate Rob wrote:

Neither person can play more than 1 subtier away but they can both play together in subtier 3-4 of a 1-7 scenario.

That said it's a bad idea to muster that way and should be avoided when possible (also another reason we don't have 1-7s anymore)

I have heard this before (though I think it has only ever come up one time) can you quote the rules text where you are getting this?

Andrew:
You may wish to change the wording from "stopped allowing" to "strongly discourage". As far as I know, you can not prevent a level 5 from playing in a tier 1-5 for the personal (even if it is logical) reason of you feeling it becomes pointless if everyone else is in low tier.

He can choose not to run the table. I might consider it depending on the situation.

There is a decided difference between choosing to not GM the table, and telling someone that their legal character in the level range of a scenario can not play. The former is a personal choice fully allowed, the later comes off as changing policy of organized play which is a big no-no especially for a VL. It is all about phrasing.

I laugh every time I see this thread subject line.

This weekend's past experience aside from that was more 'people forgetting they could do more awesome than they were doing'.

I have been guilty of forgetting abilities in my RoTR game so much now that my party mates tease me. After forgetting to debilitating injury like 30 times in row on one of the harder BBEG.

A level dip in swashbuckler will give you Swashbuckler's Finesse (Dex to hit for light and one handed piercing weapons). Then with Slashing Grace (Katana) you can treat the katana as a 1 handed piercing weapon. There is your Dex to hit and damage, but remember it does not work while using spell combat.

While I'm normally on the 'inclusion' side of the fence, the idea of that much cultural blend in two nation-states that traditionally have warred with each other for centuries seems a bit 'off'.

While there is a valid argument 'since it is not written in the description SPECIFICALLY', when the discussion came up in the other thread I had a disconnect because the Dervish seemed very much to be devoted to Sarenrae, much like Bladed Brush is devoted to Shelyn.

The fact that a developer has indicated that their initial design idea was that this was related to the sacred path of a given deity, even if it doesn't have 'full weight' in PFS, should be a telling point as well.

EDIT: Figured out the disconnect for me, at least. It feels sort of like Lawful Good paladins of Asmodeus...

Wei Ji: Shelyn is not a "Taldan" deity. She is an Inner Sea deity who is worshipped even in Tien Xia (per Dragon Empires Gazetter). The Qadira, Jewel of the East campaign setting that was recently released even states that there is Shelyn worshippers in Qadira. So while there is a disconnect for you, the canon does not make it unreasonable for a Dervish or Samurai to worship Shelyn.

While the developer has spoken his intention, the fact the deity requirement did not make it into the final product is equally telling to me. Plenty of archetypes and PrC were printed prior to the ACO with deity requirements clearly stated, and for this to be 2+ years later to now be an issue only brought up by the possible interaction of it with a deity specific feat seems ridiculous on some level. If the requirement was so important, then it should have been addressed before this point.

Whirling Dervish can easily be a Qadiran themed archetype that draws much from the fact Sarenae is the primary deity in Qadira.

Lune wrote:

No. Not just "certain specific abilities". It counts for "all feats and class abilities". You don't get to cherry pick things it does count as a one-handed peircing or slashing melee weapon for and other things that it does not. It counts for all.

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

Bladed Brush doesn't make your off-hand count as empty, and Slashing Grace requires that.

Since the glaive is now treated by the feat owner, as a one-handed weapon, why would the wielder not be using it one-handed?

Because the feat does not say you may wield it with one hand, only that you can treat it as a one handed piercing or slashing weapon for purposes of feat and class ability interactions. This is important because it means you still get the option for 2 handed power attack or 1.5x weapon damage.

If they wanted it to be wielded one handed, they would use the same style of verbage from the Phalanx Soldier archetype's ability,

At 3rd level, when a phalanx soldier wields a shield, he can use any polearm or spear of his size as a one-handed weapon.

Notice there is no mention of "treating" it as a one handed weapon.

Something having ambiguous rules text is not a reason to not allow it in PFS. It is a reason for it never have made it to print. I am not saying that mistakes don't happen. I'm saying that if they do then they should be corrected for everyone, not just PFS players.

You are still the only person that believes they should not print things because you do not like that it is not allowed in PFS. Plenty of people want this in PFS that is without question. But just because it is not allowed in an organized environment, does not mean it should never be an option for anyone. I happen to enjoy using this in a campaign mode AP right now. And yes, with it working with Slashing Grace, it is very very good.

RSX Raver wrote:

That does not sound like an official ruling, more John's opinion. Clearly there needs to be discussion, assuming it has not already happened. It does look like the majority feels they should be legal, but giving both sides a chance to talk it out is good.

Edit: Also per the Season 8 Role Playing Guide, official rulings come from Forums, Campaign Clarifications, Additional Resources, or the Guild Guide. No mention of Facebook.

John is the PFS lead developer. If you don't think his view is likely to be determinative in a case of doubt then I am not sure anything will convince you. Variant undead are not legal at my table nor, I suspect, many others. You keep referring to the majority accepting them as if you have conducted some sort of scientific poll which I rather doubt is the case.

Yes, and John has many times in the past said his opinion on something but it was clearly not an official ruling. He is human, and therefore has how he thinks things should work but that is not always how they work. Official rulings tend to be worded as such.

Johns quote from the thread I linked earlier:

Quote:

From John Compton from a thread I created in the Pathfinder Society Facebook group:

"Looking at the animate dead spell, there is no reference to the bloody skeleton, flaming skeleton, fast zombie, or plague zombie alternates; those appear in the Bestiary, which does not list those "sub-templates" as legal. By a strict reading, they're not available in the organized play campaign. However, I think there's a case to be made for them being added. I would like to make sure that the paizo.com community weighs in on the matter, too, so I encourage someone to create a thread in the organized play general discussion. That is also where I am more likely to look when I am at work and updating the documents."

That does not sound like an official ruling, more John's opinion. Clearly there needs to be discussion, assuming it has not already happened. It does look like the majority feels they should be legal, but giving both sides a chance to talk it out is good.

Edit: Also per the Season 8 Role Playing Guide, official rulings come from Forums, Campaign Clarifications, Additional Resources, or the Guild Guide. No mention of Facebook.

Let's put all the rules side-by-side, shall we?

Combat While Mounted wrote:

If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).

Ride-by-Attack wrote:

When you are mounted and use the charge action, you may move and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again (continuing the straight line of the charge). Your total movement for the round can’t exceed double your mounted speed. You and your mount do not provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent that you attack.

Pounce wrote:

When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).

The way you rule here will come down to your interpretation of the ride-by-feat. The ride-by-feat says you (the rider) must take a charge, but says nothing about whether your mount is considered to be charging with you. If you rule that the mount is also charging then the pounce ability is pretty unambiguous and the mount should get its full attack. If you rule no then the mount gets no attack at all (it isn't charging) and only the rider gets to attack.

I'd also concur that the mounted combat rules have a lot of unaddressed edge cases and could use some clean-up. Certainly any time mounts are involved you can presume table variation.

There is a FAQ that states if either the mount or the rider is using the charge action, so is the other one.

So because of that, ride-by-attack requires both you and the mount to charge, and once your charge action is complete you would move again. Because Pounce augments the charge attack for the mount to full attack, I do not see why this does not work. Otherwise they are saying you can not ride by attack.

The real problem is, people hate Pounce. It is considered too powerful and that makes GMs rule against this out of personal opinion that it would be too good, even though the rules do support it. Because Paizo will not rule on it officially we will not get an answer.

I agree that we need a mounted combat splat book, I would be all about buying that.

No they don't, thats Disarm and Sunder you are thinking of. The Trip quality is parenthesized with the word Ranged to indicate that the weapon can perform a trip attack at a distance, that is it. Like Trip Arrows.

Additionally, no, they cannot deal damage and trip at the same time without some kind of class feature or other effect adding in damage.

Is this stupid? Of course it is.

Ranged Trip (Combat, Targeting)

This would be the feat needed to do both damage and trip

Charm is ongoing. Lasts more than a turn.

Confusion could result in attacking friends. Not peaceful.

Command is a one round spell. They may not be told to commit harm. It works.

Forbid action stops them from taking certain actions. One round duration. It works.

Charm is not ongoing control. It only makes the target more friendly to you but does not give you control over them, such as Dominate Monster.

The Trait calls out Calm Emotions and Sleep, which have a duration of longer then 1 round, so your assumption it has to be a 1 round duration is incorrect.

Charm Person would work.

RSX Raver wrote:

Everyone seems to assume that as soon as your Full Round Action ends, so does your turn. If I full attack, after my last swing of my weapon the Full Round Action is over. I can still 5 foot step, or cast a quickened spell, or use my Lay on Hands on myself. You deliver the spell as part of the Full Round Action, it is not that complicated. Everyone is reading way too much into the fluff text at the start of the description to Full Round Action. It is meant to give you an idea as to why you do not get a Move or Standard action when performing a Full Round Action.

Because the RAW specifically says a Full Round Action takes your entire turn to complete. Therefore, if your turn isn't finished, likewise your Full Round Action also isn't finished, because their durations are both synchronized and simultaneous.

If an entire turn is equal to X (which is the amount of time a turn takes in the combat round), and a Full Round Action is equal to an entire turn, then a Full Round Action is equal to X in terms of how long it takes to complete it, based on the transitive property of A=B=C -> A=C.

Again, you need to understand my argument better. You made the same mistake Squiggit (and thaX) made, assuming that I'm disallowing actions based on them simply being actions. That's wrong, and that's never what I've said.

What I've said is certain actions, such as Lay On Hands and Quickened Spells, which have restrictions and limitations listed in their respective features, apply, and are independant from the Full Round Action you're undertaking. In other words, you need to fulfill the restrictions and limitations for options separately.

For example, in order to use both a Quickened Spell/Lay On Hands and a Metamagic Spell, you need two hands free, the ability to speak (in the case of a Quickened Spell, you'll need to speak two incantations at once, though again, in-tandem is fine in my books), and the components (for both spells if using Quickened) at the time of casting. If you...

Again, the purpose of that line is to give concept to the amount of effort a full round action takes. It has been that way since d20 system was born and it has not changed in Pathfinder. A full round action is fundamentally a Move+Standard. Your just overthinking it to the extreme with your beliefs and I pity your players a little.

Everyone seems to assume that as soon as your Full Round Action ends, so does your turn. If I full attack, after my last swing of my weapon the Full Round Action is over. I can still 5 foot step, or cast a quickened spell, or use my Lay on Hands on myself. You deliver the spell as part of the Full Round Action, it is not that complicated. Everyone is reading way too much into the fluff text at the start of the description to Full Round Action. It is meant to give you an idea as to why you do not get a Move or Standard action when performing a Full Round Action.

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Being unaware of allies does not permit players to bypass the ban on PVP in PFS. You can't fireball those enemies if the blast includes the allied invisible ninja, even if the caster of the fireball is totally unaware of their ally being in the blast.

you definitely can... with the ninja's permission. If the ninja's player says "wow.. yeah. Bad communication kills, i totally dropped the ball on that one , fire away. Come on evasion..." it definitely goes through

Without it you're in an enormous gray area. It's not PVP combat , and dropping the ball without hitting the ninja is a gray area as it would require some serious metagaming, and you can't just have a no fireball policy every time schrodinger's ninja enters the battlefield.

This is my new favorite saying.

Hmmm, Capt. Hook the magus... A terrible incident involving a druid's crocodile in the shackles leads to a Wizard Hook hand. Just what Portland needs.

Look around the table for Bonekeep pt. 3
Me: "does anyone heal?"
Only player to respond: "I have a wand of cure light."
Me: "..."

I would be interested to see how many of the people replying on here actually have a higher level Necromancer. Having a level 10 Necromancer who specializes in the commanding and raising of undead I take offense to everyone that says it is because I am trying to skirt the no Evil rule. My character simply uses the undead as a means to an end in a never ending quest for more power in service of the Dark Archive. They are an effective tool, the same way a fireball would be to an Evoker.

I play in a very goody goody centered PFS community but I have always been able to find common ground with the paladins and clerics running in the party. As has been brought up several times already, every player that chooses to sit down at a sanctioned PFS table is playing a Pathfinder member who would have had to come to accept that cooperating with other agents that you dont see eye to eye with is part of Pathfinder life.

It is no more annoying to play a game as a Pharasmin tolerating someone creating undead in the party then it is to play as a Necromancer (or any other character) and watch a stupid zealot screw the party because they need to "follow belief/faith tenant X". So assuming the Necromancer is the jerk just because they are playing what there class does mechanically is unreasonable. Unless the player running the character is saying they are intentionally raising undead to piss off your character, then you are just making an accusation based in prejudice.

Hey Nohwear, we hear ya! Recently, my little team has gone down to one person, so I'm fairly backed up. I have all the information for PFS updates in hand, but it is a matter of tackling some higher level priorities on my plate first. The best answer I can provide is: as soon as I can*. :)

*With the caveat that I had originally planned on Wednesday, and given what I have on today's docket, it will likely move to Monday.

Oh Chris you teased me with the sweet lure of new updates on Monday and now I am checking the additional resources page like every hour since Monday LOL.