Sargonoth's page

One thing to add. Our VC's interpretation is similar to this DM.

So unless I can get a ruling from a "rules" person at Paizo (whoever that could be) I will have to decide whether the situation is irritating enough to impact my scenario sign up decisions.

Situation:

The DM says that James Jacobs is NOT a "rules" guy therefore his interpretation is meaningless. He maintained that his own interpretation that a creature with pounce and rake MUST grapple to get the rake attacks is the correct one even though I pointed out that the rake rule mentions that rake attacks TYPICALLY happen when grappled and it does not say that it is the ONLY time it can happen.

My question - who is considered a "rules" guy and has there ever been a ruling by such a person. I would have thought James Jacobs would have been sufficient especially given the wording (i.e. "typically" happens)but that is not the case.

I fear that I am out of luck with society play unless there is such a ruling

Nefreet wrote:

I would imagine the word "cured" was used to eliminate the desire to strap on newly skinned hides and use them just as effectively as a finished product.

I probably wouldn't use that as a limiting factor, otherwise nothing could be made out of darkleaf cloth.

if that was the case, they wouldn't have also added the word "hides" to them, cause those are definitely not treated.

I'd have to agree that lacquered leather would not be replaceable with darkleaf. "because darkleaf cloth remains flexible, it cannot be used to construct rigid items such as shields or metal armors" lacquered armor would completely ruin the point. as in that case, there would be no reason not to make it into metal items, since it is now rigid. and it would exclude lacquered armor for not being supple any more

you can consider that fluff text if you like, we have to base this consensus on something and "although other types of armor made of leather or hide might be possible" leaves it to our judgment.

Its a game balance decision only vaguely related to real life.

Boiled leather is only flexible for a short time until it sets into the shape (you mould the leather around a form). These pieces would then be sewn together to form a suit. Thus, BOILED LEATHER is NOT flexible like tanned, unboiled leather.

The CRB defines regular leather armour as HARD BOILED leather ["Leather: Leather armor is made up of pieces of hard boiled leather carefully sewn together."] Since boiled leather by its very nature is NOT flexible but stiff shaped pieces of leather, the argument that leather lameller could not be made from darkleaf because it is stiff makes no sense.

One could interpret that the Darkleaf improves the max dex bonus of boiled leather by replacing with stiff boiled leather with tough supple leather but by the same argument lamellar could replace the lacquered leather with tough supple leather (lacquering only improves durability against the elements not against weapons).

It is clear that the game designers are making a game balance decision. If the armour is PRIMARILY metal then use mithral/adamantine/fire-forged steel etc, if it is PRIMARILY leather or hide then use darkleaf/eelskin/angelskin etc., if it is stone you are plain out of luck. Darkleaf appears to have be introduced to compensate for the mithral armour trope which cannot/will not be used by many classes.

Based upon how this is a trait for Angels and fits every element of the OP's initial description, I would be shocked if this was not what his/her player is using. This trait is not available thru any other ability/bloodline/feat etc that I can find. I did not mention that it was an Angel trait since I mentioned it in my previous post (3 up form this one). However, I should have reiterated to make it easier for people to keep the thread straight since it can get confusing trying to keep things coherent (sorry)

Protective Aura (Su) Against attacks made or effects created by evil creatures, this ability provides a +4 deflection bonus to AC and a +4 resistance bonus on saving throws to anyone within 20 feet of the angel. Otherwise, it functions as a magic circle against evil effect and a lesser globe of invulnerability, both with a radius of 20 feet (caster level equals angel's HD). The defensive benefits from the circle are not included in an angel's statistics block.

This ability fits the description including the 20' radius

Thought you cant rake on the turn you grapple

This has been resolved by James Jacobs already. Pounce allows the rake attack WITHOUT being grappled (thus you get all attacks including the rake on the turn you pounce).

Source: message board under ... RulesQuestion/Pounce and Rake from Apr 17,2010 02:43pm (sorry - don't know how to create link so have to give path)

edited to attempt link:
[url=http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kq4n?Pounce-and-Rake#4]

I have a question. A player in my group has a aasimar sorcerer with a angel bloodline. This gives them and those 20' from the character a +4 to armor class and saves when dealing with evil. Does anyone know where this comes from and if it is legal to play in society?

I have not heard of an "Angel" bloodline in Pathfinder. Angel creatures in Pathfinder (Devas, Planetars, Solars) have "Angel" traits. One of these is Protective Aura which gives +4 AC and +4 Saves. However, I do not think that Aasimar get it. I would ask to see their source material.

It sounds like they focused everything on being an Angel (probably angelkin aasimar, celestial bloodline) and thought that meant they get the angel type with all the traits. Do they also have Truespeech and immunity to Acid, Cold? If so they have added the traits to their characters

Now

Does James Jacobs, Paizo's Creative Director, do it for you?

James Jacobs wrote:

Yeah; you're overanalyzing the thing.

Pounce lets you make a full attack when you charge. This full attack includes rake attacks, if the creature has rake attacks.

Rake, on the other hand, is a type of natural attack that normally a creature can't use during a full attack or standard attack; something has to happen to allow a rake to take place. Normally, this means when the creature is grappling a foe, but when something has pounce AND rake, pounce lets you rake as well, even if you aren't grappling a foe.

Rake is indeed meant to represent the hind legs, generally. So in order to use a rake, a creature has to basically be all over its target... as in the case when it grapples, or when it pounces onto something.

This is perfect. This shows that you get the rake attacks either when you grapple or when you pounce

Situation: I play in Pathfinder Society and I have two groups of DMs interpret the interaction of Pounce and Rake quite differently. Since this is an interpretation of rules and NOT a Pathfinder specific situation, I put this thread in the rules section. I mention Society since the normal answer “DMs have the right to interpret rules differently in their own campaign as long as the PCs know the interpretation. ” is not a sufficient answer for Society play.

Example: A Lion is charging and uses its pounce ability to get a full attack. It has the Grab ability on the x1 Bite and but no grab ability on the x2 Regular Claws.

DM Group 1: The Lion gets 5 attacks (x1 Bite, x2 Regular Claws, x2 Rake Claws). It does not matter if the bite or the two regular claws hit nor does it require a successful grab attempt.

Rationale [UPPER CASE added for specificity]: Rake is general rule presenting one example of when a creature gets the x2 Rake Claw attacks [ “Rake (Ex) A creature with this special attack gains extra natural attacks under certain conditions, TYPICALLY when it grapples its foe…”]. Pounce is a specific rule which provides another time when a creature gets the x2 Rake Claws [“Pounce (Ex) 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).”]. Thus, the grappling requirement is irrelevant during the pounce attack since the grappled condition is only necessary during the typical situation (i.e. non-pounce).

DM Group 2: The Lion gets 3 attacks (x1 Bite, x2 Regular Claws). The tiger then gets to make the grab attempts for any attack with the grab quality that hits (in this case, only the Bite). If the grab attempt works, then it gets x2 Rake Claw attacks. If there is no successful grab, then the tiger does not get the x2 Rake Claw attacks

Rationale [UPPER CASE added for specificity]: Rake is a general rule which LIMITS when a rake can occur [“Rake (Ex) … a monster with the rake ability gains two free claw attacks that it can use ONLY against a grappled foe … ”]. Thus, the target must be grappled to get the rake attacks. Pounce is a specific rule which allows a rake attack if the target is grappled during the pounce as opposed to waiting until the next round [“Pounce (Ex) 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).”]. Thus, the rake attack consists of the required grab and then the claws not just the claws without a successful grab.

Problem: I cannot just show the forum response since most DMs tend to hold strong opinions that their interpretation is correct (which is a good thing since it means that they want to adhere to both the letter and the intent of the rules). However, since these opinions are based upon their own due diligence, they will tend to feel that others are interpreting the rule interactions incorrectly. Using the forums to show that other individuals support one view over another does not sway them since there belief is that they are correctly interpreting the rules while others are not. Only if you can show an official Paizo staff member or an official Pathfinder Society interpretation will they agree with an interpretation.

When the original post is in the "Pathfinder RPG" general discussion forum, one can assume that it is referencing role-playing characters (as either a player or a DM) in the Pathfinder game system and not as a philosophical discussion as to the real-life nature of good and evil (there are countless off-topic threads covering this topic). Further, when he references whether using a spell is good or evil, this is explicitly discussing role-playing

Sargonoth wrote:

(Playing a character as) Good is Easy.

(playing a character as) Evil is Hard

I agree that it can be hard to play Evil, but I don't think Ross meant that it was hard to play good when he said that Good is hard.

"Good is hard" and "it's hard to play a good character" are two different things.

When he says that being good as an adventurer is even harder (quote is about three quarters down in his original post), that sounds like he is reffering to playing a character. In fact the whole second half of the original post is about playing a "good" character

But that is NOT how Pathfinder defines Good and Evil (which is the only issue relevant for the game since it drives who spells and NPCs interact). Instead, Pathfinder defines Good and Evil as a very explicit set of behaviors and attitudes to allow the GM to adjudicate easily

/Quote Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. (from the CRB) Quote/

There is no "monkeysphere" in Pathfinder. Your definition is very logical and very understandable for real life. However, this is your belief system and NOT the explicit system defined by the designers.

I say again, since we are discussing Good and Evil in the context of a game NOT in real life -

(Playing a character as) Good is Easy.

There is no soul-forging struggles to do the "good" thing. If it is a choice of giving up your treasure for the encounter so a town can be rebuilt (without getting anything for it) or keeping it, the easy choice is to give up the treasure. Keeping the treasure goes against most people's personal beliefs so strongly that you would always despise that character and soon lose all enjoyment playing it. Sacrificing your PC's life (when you can just make a new one) for a "heroic" end is easy. Letting an innocent die so your character can have a bit more loot is hard.

(playing a character as) Evil is Hard

Good is Easy and Evil is Hard (to play in Pathfinder)

To role-play an evil character is VERY hard since you are going against the vast majority of your personal core values and the idealized playing you did as a child when you were a make believe hero. Society constantly lauds the heroic and makes it easy to ingrain what that means into you at an early age.

To play a character with the blackest soul, is almost impossible since you have no standard to compare. You have to constantly stop yourself from acting in a good fashion. You cannot let yourself slide (oh so easily slide) into the trap of doing something nice. Every action has to be thought out to make sure you are doing everything for yourself and never taking into account the values that you live every day in real life. When you play an evil character you must always make the hard choice to do something that in real life you would utterly despise.

I say again Good is Easy since you get to continue play acting that you have done since childhood. Evil is Hard since most of us never play acted an evil character for any perceptible length of time.

DrDeth wrote:

Umm, no, just the opposite. "Optimized" generally means, at least here on the boards as optimized towards one thing, usually DPR. Look at my paladin example above.

No, that's just min-maxing which is just a method of optimization. Not necessarily a good one.

All optimized means is that it's good at its intended job. If the intent is to build a character that does loads of damage.

From the Free Dictionary

From Merriam Webster
Full Definition of OPTIMIZE

: to make as perfect, effective, or functional as possible

Optimize doesn't just mean being "... good at its intended job." as you proffer It means to make something as close to perfect at its job

Celestial Pegasus is to be commended for the work he/she did on discussing the Silvanshee. The comments were thoughtful and creative. It is a pleasure to read other people's thoughts that are laid out in a constructive and logical fashion (even or especially when I have a different interpretation of the abilities values).

Thank you

So their errata is in need of errata - truly confidence inspiring.

Especially in light of what SKR mentioned back on Sep 23 2011 (which appears to be the last designed post I can find) where he says the power should scale but usage should be limited to 1/dy.

Basically get this familiar if you want to have the cheshire cat for rp flavor, otherwise it is --- to quote another person -- quite "lame."

There does not appear to be an official errata however posters are pointing out that the silvanshee's lay on hands is quoted as being "... always as a 2nd-level paladin."

Given this interpretation, it appears to be outclassed by many other improved familiars (eg. the lyrakien is a better medic since it gets cure light wounds (1d8+5) compared to 1d6, the ability to use wands. The lyrakien can also remove fatigue, can kill swarms (starlight burst, etc). Dimension door with 5 lbs as a role is really reaching since it is a highly constrained set of circumstances)

Thus, the real value of this familiar is if you cannot take one of the more versatile familiars due to alignment restrictions.

My understanding is that the Silvanshee's lay on hands ability is a scaling racial ability (the lay on hands ability is an agathion ability - NOT a silvanshee exclusive ability). I was informed today that SKR provided the silvanshee as an example of the scaling of this specific ability when used as a familiar (looking for the specific reference to verify). Hopefully someone has that info readily available

Sargonoth wrote:

If I say a person can BUILD a car to be a sports car or a racing car, this does not mean that I said a person can DRIVE a car like a sports car or a racing car. If the Stormwind Fallacy discusses how people PLAY a character, this does not necessarily mean that it is applicable to BUILDING a character which can then be PLAYED in any fashion possible (roll playing or roleplaying)

This changes nothing. The fallacy still applies as much to the way a character is played or built, as well as the underlying assumptions that the player must either be a role player or a roll player.

It is not a false dilemma in the BUILDING of a character (you cannot build a stat Optimized character and a more stat generalized character at the same time - thus this is a valid dilemma. Since they are mutually exclusive, this by its nature is a real dilemma). You have to choose which is more important to you: Optimization or Generalization. Each type offers options that the other cannot. For example, an optimized build cannot realistically perform functions that rely on dump stats while generalized build can (

It is a false dilemma in the PLAYING of a character in that you can play any character in any fashion. Now it is a corollary of the BUILD statement that the two approaches will limit certain types of options and will favor others.

Sargonoth wrote:

Actually, no - I am not wrong in my points. You create points that I never mention and then say that is wrong (corrrectness does not change regardless of how adamant you are about that)

vs

people are either primarily wargamers or roleplayers

For the life of me I cannot fathom how that latter statement is not the stormwind fallacy writ in black and white.

If I say a person can BUILD a car to be a sports car or a racing car, this does not mean that I said a person can DRIVE a car like a sports car or a racing car. If the Stormwind Fallacy discusses how people PLAY a character, this does not necessarily mean that it is applicable to BUILDING a character which can then be PLAYED in any fashion possible (roll playing or roleplaying)

Since you cannot fathom the difference between building and playing, I throw in the towel in the face of your immutable assumptions.

Given the uselessness of this back and forth and since the OP has already had his question answered, I leave you all to your discussions on other weighty topics. I will ponder your opinion that I am wrong and the implication that I am insulting to unknown posters that I have never met.

Sargonoth wrote:

Another way to think of it is as a two dimensional function which is constrained in that you cannot have a high score on both axis

Yeah... That's the fallacy. The two are interdependent of each other, and it can get pretty insulting to call min maxers bad roleplayers or vice versa.

Where did I say that optimizers were bad roleplayers? I reference two ends of a character construction philosophy. I do not believe I talked about actual gameplay.

Sargonoth wrote:

The Stormwind Fallacy is a shibboleth of one spectrum of rpg'ers. It neither proves nor disproves anything.

No. No it is not.

It is in fact a fallacy in every sense of the word. Specifically it is the either or fallacy aka false dilema

This in fact has been settled. You are wrong.

How optimized a character is has zero, nadda, NO bearing on how well it is role played. At all. A player can make Joe Average and give him all the personality of the paper bag he can't punch his way out of or he can portray the sweeping epic drama of Yngvar, beauty school drop out of death.

Asking if a character is role played or roll played is like asking if your car has a standard transmission or a red paint job.

Actually, no - I am not wrong in my points. You create points that I never mention and then say that is wrong (corrrectness does not change regardless of how adamant you are about that)

I too could pick a different question on the topic and say you are wrong. For example, I could say that your belief that standard transmissions are horrible is wrong (notice you never said that - just like I never said anything about roll vs roleplaying)

Please focus on my point (people are either primarily wargamers or roleplayers) not on what you would like my point to be (people are either roll players or roleplayers). Your diatribe on car colours is very noble and passionate but obscures the underlying point.

The Stormwind Fallacy is meaningless in this context since it conflates two separate elements - construction and play. Notice I have been talking about how you create characters and NOT in how you play them. The only references to play is that a wargamer is limited in his/her backstory options since they have to always explain multiple bad stats. Other posters have discussed how it ruins the experience if a character is sub optimized. There has NEVER been a discussion of the actual roleplaying. Roleplaying in the way I used it was to distinguish between two type of CONSTRUCTION philosophies

MrSin wrote:

Sargonoth wrote:

The Stormwind Fallacy is a shibboleth of one spectrum of rpg'ers. It neither proves nor disproves anything. I see this referenced frequently as if it shows the disagreement has long been settled when it does nothing of the sort

Well its a fallacy, its not meant to prove or disprove anything. Its a fallacious thought to think that you can't be good roleplayer/optimizer, or that an optimized character is weak for roleplay and an optimized one is inherently better. Some of us do strive to do both, and there are lots of ways to go about this that vary from person to person without lumping everyone into a label.

It is not a binary assignment, it more a spectrum. Thus, my use of the term primary lens. Another way to think of it is as a two dimensional function which is constrained in that you cannot have a high score on both axis

My label of primary lens is to highlight which goal is primary - Do you optimize and then conceptualize (e.g. heaven's oracle) or conceptualize and then make it good (healer and backup ranged attack). Everyone who plays any rpg is doing both but almost always one approach comes first. I know "everyone switches back and forth" but one approach is usually predominant for the individual

As always, this is just my opinion and I do not mean to target any individual personally. My intent is to focus on assumptions and ways of looking at situation. I realize that I should have said "the assumption that the distribution of heroic NPC stats in a 15pt buy reflects and underlying assumption that one stat must be dumped is not necessarily the most accurate."

Sargonoth wrote:

The Stormwind Fallacy is a shibboleth of one spectrum of rpg'ers. It neither proves nor disproves anything. I see this referenced frequently as if it shows the disagreement has long been settled when it does nothing of the sort

Well its a fallacy, its not meant to prove or disprove anything. Its a fallacious thought to think that you can't be good roleplayer/optimizer, or that an optimized character is weak for roleplay and an optimized one is inherently better. Some of us do strive to do both, and there are lots of ways to go about this that vary from person to person without lumping everyone into a label.

It is not a binary assignment, it more a spectrum. Thus, my use of the term primary lens. Another way to think of it is as a two dimensional function which is constrained in that you cannot have a high score on both axis

A better test would be to look at the pre-gens (since they represent the designers expectations) and see how many had a stat below 10 (or two stats). If jiggy is correct with his interpretation then all of them will have 1 stat below 10 and some will have 2 (I assume that the floating bonus will not go to reduce the low stat since that would go against the underlying assumption)

Barbarian 18/13/14/10/12/10
Bard 8/14/14/13/10/18
Cleric 14/10/12/11/17/14
Druid 6/12/16/12/16/15
Fighter 16/15/14/12/10/11
Gunslinger 12/16/14/10/15/11
Monk 16/15/14/10/13/10
Ninja 10/18/10/13/12/14
Paladin 16/10/14/10/13/15
Ranger 14/16/15/10/14/8
Rogue 14/18/12/10/12/10
Samurai 15/13/15/10/14/12
Sorcerer 10/14/12/10/13/18
Wizard 10/14/13/18/12/10

Only 3/14 (Barb, Druid, and Ranger ) have any stats below 10 and none have two stats.

Sargonoth wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Sargonoth wrote:

If you view PFS thru the primary lens of the wargamer, every character you have will have at least 1 if not more stats below 10.

Having at least one stat below 10 is the baseline expectation of the system.

Really? You are expected to have one stat below average which causes you to be penalized.

"Expected" may be too strong a word, but Jiggy posted the baseline heroic NPC stats earlier in this thread. That's what's considered "normal" for an adventurer in the game world. Go from there.

Also, google "Stormwind falacy" if you've never heard the term before.

The Stormwind Fallacy is a shibboleth of one spectrum of rpg'ers. It neither proves nor disproves anything. I see this referenced frequently as if it shows the disagreement has long been settled when it does nothing of the sort

Also Jiggy's interpretation an NPC 15pt stat array to a support his reasoning for dumping a stat is not the only interpretation. I would interpret that NPC stat array as meaning a character should have 1 stat which could reach +3 (with racial), one stat a solid +2 and two stats +1 . Since a 15 pt array can only achieve this with a dump stat that is why it is forced to have a dump stat. the 20 pt build allows you to avoid having to have a dump stat.

Sargonoth wrote:

If you view PFS thru the primary lens of the wargamer, every character you have will have at least 1 if not more stats below 10.

Having at least one stat below 10 is the baseline expectation of the system.

Really? You are expected to have one stat below average which causes you to be penalized.

Sargonoth, I respectfully disagree with your views expressed above.

Thank you. I expect all reasonable individuals to disagree on many things. It would be boring if they did not. All I ask is that we listen to each others opinions and then decide.

@Sargonoth

1. I really hate the argument that a game is either a "roleplaying game" or a "wargame." Why can't it be both simultaneously?

It's obvious PFS has combat very integrated into the game, so the wargame aspect is there. It's also obvious that there are very many diverse roleplaying situations that come up, so it's a roleplaying game.

I also feel that people need to get off their pedestal thinking that because they are more "roleplaying focused" that they are somehow better gamers. Why is this so? Why is it that someone who enjoys the combat aspect more is an inferior gamer somehow? Why is having an in-depth back story that took months to think out cooler than a great character build? I don't understand the reasoning behind this logic. Is one form of gaming not valid while the other is?

And, yet again, why is it not possible for both to exist? Is it not possible to have a character with an in-depth backstory, a great personality, and also a terror on the battlefield? Why do the game statistics matter for how in-depth a back story your character has?

2. We're not telling people to play the best character ever. We're trying to prevent the "useless character" that some of us have had so much experience seeing at a table. I've had a character in my party that couldn't do more than 8 or 9 damage per turn to a monster that had no DR at level 8, and even so he missed very often! I've also had characters in my party that have done 1d4+1 HP of healing every turn at level 7! This is not something we should promote to any degree, especially given the difficulty jump since the previous seasons.

You don't need to have a character that rips through everything in their path, but please at least make reasonable characters. I prefer a higher power game, but I'm not going to dock someone for not doing so.

You miss my point. Of course you can create an uber-munchkin and give it as good a backstory as well as a competent generalist. However, the question is what does the player use as the primary "lens" on PFS.

If you view PFS thru the primary lens of the wargamer, every character you have will have at least 1 if not more stats below 10. Each character will be optimized to do 1 (maybe 2) types of abilities. Any additional abilities will be serendipitous byproducts of the stats for that primary ability(for example, a monk that also do ranged is a byproduct of two stats needed for melee str/dex and it is unlikely that they have the PBS and RS feats since it is unlikely they pursued both melee and ranged. In that case, the ranged damage would be in the 8-9 a turn range). If you put things on a curve, each wargamer character will be at least 2 std above the average on that ability (be it damage, save dc, healing thruput). You will be sub optimal at anything outside your very narrow competence since you will not put feats,traits, or stats into other things. Of course, you can have a great back story explaining why you are focused on only 1 or 2 things and every character will have a similar backstory explaining why they dumped 2 stats

If you view PFS thru the primary lens of the roleplayer, the only characters that will have a stat below 10 will have a roleplaying impetus, your skills will support a range of competencies, and you will provide a range of "backup." Your character will be average on most things and will be above average in 3-4 things (a byproduct of not dumping stats and using feats and traits to support multiple areas)

Of course, there will the occasional "concept" person who played 20+ scenarios with a "unreasonable" character but I am willing to bet those types are so much rarer that the "18 16 12 10 7 7" characters who cast 1 empowered spell in every encounter. Also, I am willing to bet that the concept character can do a lot of other things (playing 20 scenarios or 100 hrs of your life with a character that can do nothing strains my belief)

Wow - Just wow

Most posters on these PFS boards appear to view the game as a fantasy wargame with the intent that they want to "own" or "demolish" the scenario. For them, success is having a character that can sleepwalk thru an encounter that is in their baliwick if they want and still destroy it. Success is making sure other players know that their character can solo the encounter if needed but is gracious enough to let others have a moment in the sun. They want to take every scenario playing up to the max, dialed to the hardest level possible since then they feel challenged.

Most players I have encountered view the game as a fantasy role-playing experience where they show the cool things they can do or the awesome backstory or even the diversity of their competencies. They do not own most scenarios but they get to talk about how they pulled something out at the last minute. Sure, there is the shocking grasp magus and the heaven's oracle but those get to be boring to play (the proverbial one trick pony) and render other characters moot.

Decide if you want to treat PFS as a wargame (in that case, you will want to be optimized to do 1 or two things) or as a roleplaying adventure (in that case, be competent in an overall role with strengths outside that field)

Finally, from my experience, the posters on the boards represent only a small segment of the players and are not really representative (at least from my experience) of the larger base. Usually, this means that you will have the "power" table and then all the other tables.

It looks like its an error it should be +10 with no ranks. Although i dont see how that connects to re assigning skill points.

There are no unassigned skill points left to assign if not a familiar (2 HD with 10 int is 12 skill ranks). However, if take as improved familiar, it uses the PCs skill ranks (7 in this case) so it would have a +20 Fly skill assuming my calcs are in order

According to the PRD, the Silvanshee fly bonus is +6. However, this seems to be in error since its base is 10 (stat+2,size+4,Fly quality of Good+4)

In addition, there appears to be an unassigned Outsider class skill which should probably be assigned to Fly (acrobatics, Climb, Knowledge Arcana appear to be the implied skills).

I have tried to find where there is an errata or a confirmation but there does not appear to be any.

Reason: I am thinking of improved familiar where I have fly ranks (thus the curiosity about class skill). Familiars use their own ranks if better than PC. I know that familiars get Fly as a class skill so if the other outside skill is really unassigned, it would be nice to be able to put it somewhere else (oh say Diplomacy)

Hmm - I have too assume it is a made up number to lend an air of credibility to his comment. Unless he asserts that he collated all the responses on the different messageboards.

Disturbing when you just throw out random numbers (<3%)to "support" your point of view. It is just as valid for other posters to say >99% hate the rule.
Fact: Nobody has any clue how many players like or dislike this rule (I am aware of no scientific polling or surveying that has been done. We can't even say how many people who post like it since people post under multiple names.
BUT we can say one thing as fact: The designers of the rules for society play like it. Thus, they must feel that there is a problem that needs to be corrected. If there is a real problem of people cheating at a game that is COOPERATIVE, then I am sorry to say gamer's have earned their negative stereotype

I will retrain some early feats (dodge). As an aside, it will be interesting if drawbacks are allowed to pick up another trait (I plan to use a feat to pick up Magical Knack but it would be nice to save it)

The problem is that MAD and min maxing are interrelated and intertwined with a change in how campaigns have evolved

Campaigns
In early D&D you spent the majority of the adventures GETTING to the BBEG (Big Bad Evil Guy/Girl/Gestalt)or doing random dungeon crawls. Having a character that could do 1 thing and only 1 thing meant that they were dead weight the majority of the time (carry the mage in a backpack so he can launch the fireball at the right time). The encounters were varied and the needs widespread. The only way to make this happen was if everyone was at least competent in fighting, surviving, fulfill another role, etc. Think of it as a jam session

The current way of D&D/PF is an optimized team which goes from set encounter to set encounter. The encounters are designed to have a full team that interacts with each other like clockwork. Think of it as a symphony which constantly practices

MAD and Min Maxing
Given the need to have an optimized team, you need to create an optimized character. Using a point buy system, you can usually only optimize 1 or 2 stats. A MAD character cannot optimize in all their stats since they have more stats that need to be high. Min Maxing is the only way to maybe allow for 3 stats to be high enough (since it takes 7 points to get to 15 in a single stat and 10 points to get to 16 in a single stat, you are build point starved). Thus you have to take huge negative somewhere to get the points.

Unfortunately, this leads to characters who are referred to by their abilities instead of their character makeup (e.g. " Heaven's Oracle" -designed to colour spray), "Greatsword with organic counterweight" - designed to power attack and only power attack", "Lightning Blade aka Magus" -designed to deliver a maximized shocking grasp). If you want to create interesting characters that are not optimized, then you need to make sure you get in with a group which shares your philosophy since the PF system is really focused upon optimized characters

Is it the intent of the game developers that a character is limited to a single familiar at any one time (regardless of how many different classes they may possess) or can they have more than one (1) familiar at the same time?

I can make arguments about how class abilities are different or the same. I can also make arguments that serpentfriend is called something different and thus even though it is treated like a familiar, it is not called a familiar.

I am hoping that the developer's may have already stated that their INTENT was either to restrict characters to a single familiar or allow multiple familiars.

Pathfinder Society Specific Question (thus no home ruling, custom, etc)

Ignoring the quality of the idea, can a PC have both a familiar (lets say it comes from a dip into Eldritch Heritage/sorcerer) and an Arcane Bonded item (lets say it comes from Mage class)active at the same time?

I know that you cannot have two creatures (animal companion and familiar)active simultaneously but I assumed the rule was to avoid having a PC run a zoo of animals. In this case there would be no zoo.

Agreed - the DM description of the situation is inconsistent, illogical, and highly unlikely.

DM states the player was questioned about stats and armour proficiency twice and it was the players choice. In addition, the player deliberately chose light armour. It strains credibility beyond reasonableness to say that the player "...wants desperately to be up front hitting things in melee .." ESPECIALLY since the DM states the player has already creatively used spells, channeled skeletons, summoned monsters (and I assume healed with every other spell he had available). Note that the group appears to be a smash and bash party which will tend to have a high need for healing

Much more likely the following situation:

DM expects every character to do melee. The player looks and sees that the other characters have melee covered (fighter paladin archer should qualify as having melee covered). Probably looks at skill pool and sees that there is none.

Come to dark tower, detect evil. Cleric says I am out of channels and I have used my Cures to get us up to full. It is up to the two bruisers to hold them off until we get somewhere to rest. Undead hammers the bruisers with unlucky critical. The cleric is out of spells and attacks with his weapon since it is the only thing available. DM says "See- I told you that your lack of melee prowess would get the party killed."