Warrick's page

I've noticed a trend. Monday Mornings bring basic rules questions. That's cool. We see new stuff over the weekend, and some if it is basic to the game. This thread is based on the premise that we all have basic stuff to learn about the game. Post your WStF mom enemy's from the weekend.

Last night I opted to to not play a game of Way of the Kirin because we had seven players. I'm fine with that; I value the enjoyment of a game rather than the quantity of games played. However, we also had a second GM available and could have split to a table of four and a table of three plus NPC. What I found interesting was that I realized I didn't care to do this either; the short-handed season four mods I've played so do make me leary of doing so again. I don't think the adjustments for four players are sufficient.

So, I might just be picky, but I'm finding myself wondering if the Season Four six player assumption hasn't reincarnated the seven player problem. Anyone of like mind or am I just over thinking things into being a wimp.

I posted the following in one of the too soft/too hard threads, where it either got buried by the noise or truly is seen as having no value. So, I've liberated it from the noise to see if this may have the value that I think it does, or is just something else that is perceived as theory crafting with no actionable or usable concepts. :)

We don't have collected data on lethality. No data means decisions are based on anecdotes and squeaky wheels. We do, however, have an already collected body of data that provides a filtered view of success/failure, player capability, character capability, GM contribution to these factors, change in success/failure over time, etc. This is the data on prestige gained. This data is available for analysis. The data is there for prestige gained, table size, by character, by player, date, and by GM.

It is possible that the data is too far removed to be useful. However, the data available now within the reporting database can be used for:

1) Prestige gained, viewed by adventure, date of play, size of table. This can be used to see if, for example, prestige awards have changed for a given adventure over time.

2) Average prestige awarded to each player. There will be variance, and it can be used to see where the average success rate is. It might also be helpful to interview the outliers to see what their experiences are like.

3) Average prestige awarded by GM. (same idea as point 2)

4) Other.

The data is there, although it may mask at-table activities too much to be useful.

The text for this item is in conflict. It says both that method of activation is different and that it is exactly the same.

Does a Riffle Scroll need to be read to be activated?

5' step isn't allowed in rough terrain. Do effects that limit move to 1/2 also prevent 5' step?

Before saying anything else, I have tremendous appreciation for the folks that run a pile of adventures. I obviously run few, but my ratio is somewhere between 1:2 and 1:3.

I have seen several posts in the past week or two, including at least one from a VC, along the lines of, "You know nothing, you don't even have a star," or "...you only have 1 star," and so forth. One of these was directed to me, most of them to others.

Folks, this is just another form of ad hominem and a reverse form of the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. It's basically saying, "I'm discounting you and your argument, or labeling your opinion as questionable because you've only GMed X games, at most."

Folks, we're better than that. Let arguments stand on their own merits, not who makes them. People go through different periods of their life when they may be more or less active in organized play. There are a lot of people here with experience from other organized play programs and have experienced the trials and tribulations that they entail. That information and experience is meaningful; PFS deals with many of the same issues, and handles many of them better to my thinking. Others have some very good insight, whether they GM a lot or not. Some people have the experience of running 100 PFS games, and others have the experience of running 1 PFS game 100 times. Give respect to the dedication, but stars alone don't support a position, nor does the lack of them mean an argument is without merit.

Of course there is a bit of self-interest here, but this really only puts me in a place to be aware that it is happening. This isn't motivated by my own lonely star. Rather, it is motivated by the observation of a two-classed society.

Just to reiterate, I have a great deal of appreciation for the people that put on a lot of games. I'm not taking anything away from them in saying this. Please take this in the positive manner it is intended.

The growth domain ability at first level is:

"Enlarge (Su): As a swift action you can enlarge yourself for 1 round, as if you were the target of the enlarge person spell. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier."

Enlarge person targets a humanoid only; a non-humanoid cannot gain the benefit of it. Is a non-humanoid cleric with growth domain likewise unable to use the Enlarge ability, or does the "as if you were a target..." effectively refer to the effects of enlarge person and bypasses the target: line?

For PFS, does this look like a clear answer or a grey zone that will result in table variance?

I'm making a new character for PFS and have a concept I'm trying to fine-tune. My general approach to organized play characters is to avoid grey rule areas unless I'm willing to put up with the most conservative ruling I might see.

I have a boon for playing a sylph, and am trying to find a way to make a ranged rogue concept work by using the Cloud Gazer feat: "Benefit: You can see through fog, mist, and clouds, without penalty, ignoring any cover or concealment bonuses from such effects. If the effect is created by magic, this feat instead triples the distance you can see without penalty."

The idea is to use the one-directional concealment from fog, mist, and clouds to sneak attack at range. My first thought was to make use of obscuring mist to control the presence of concealment, but it looks like the clause about magically created effects would just mean, at best, 15' of 20% concealment, and concealment kills sneak attack.

So, it looks like I need a source of fog, mist, or cloud that is non-magical, or a magical source which has a distance that has 0% concealment. Other than the rare situation of being in a fog bank, any ideas on a resource that would grant what I'm looking for? A Conjuration (creation) spell with instantaneous duration would do the job as well for educated GMs, but would likely still see some table variation.

Any other thoughts on how else to pimp out my sylph?

I'm requesting a forum for in-character posts. The Faction Talk section is fine for discussing stuff about the faction missions and goals, but there is no area on the boards that is appropriate for PFS in-character posts. I've posted a couple in the PFS General Discussion board, and in each case they've been moved to the Faction Talk section.

The first was from an Andoran character announcing his resignation from the Society. It was moved to the Shadow Lodge board; he was not a SL character and the post explained why he was resigning rather than joining SL.

The second was for an obituary notice. This was moved to the Taldor forum. While the character was a member of the Taldor forum, the post really had nothing to do with the Taldor faction's goals or missions.

When I posted the obit, there was a reply that wished that others would make similar posts. If there was an appropriate forum, maybe that would encourage similar posts. From Paizo's perspective, encouraging a deeper relationship between players and their characters is good business. You have a business model in which you pump a lot of product to relatively few customers. Deepening your customers' involvement with the game encourages retention and repeat sales.

Thanks!

It is with regret that the death of Warick Samson, Freeman, is conveyed to the Society. Born the son of a slave in Oparra named Sam, Warick was named by his master. The doughty halfling made use of his nimble hands, personal toughness, and innate sense of self when enrolled in The Pathfinder Society by his master to serve the goals of the Taldorian nobles. Known early in his career as Warick, Son of Sam, this gentle and naive soul achieved his freedom scant days before his death, and was subsequently known as Warick Samson, and was in search of his missing master to sign his manumission at the time of his death to a hellish fire-breathing hound.

Warick completed 10 favors at the request of the Taldorian nobles who sought out his aid while completing over 20 missions on behalf of the Society. Warick was fearless in the face of adversity, although observed that he simply didn't realize that he was in danger. Naive, and tending toward literalism that was variously seen as amusing and exasperating at times, Warick's reliance on the luck of his race led him to acrobatically insert himself into the midst of his enemies in search of opportunities granted by their distraction from his more obvious compatriots. Warick's companions will remember him for his simple description of his capabilities, "I am a mighty warrior and I can use any wand," as well as is explanations when posed with questions beyond his ken, "I'm not allowed to learn things." Warick spent his days away from Society missions steadfastly working on his skills, without distraction from daily business ventures than many Pathfinders find themselves engaged in, with a single minded dedication, or as some have said, with a half-witted dedication. Warick himself merely described this difference from other Pathfinders by saying, "I'm not allowed to have a day job."

Had his death come later in life, he may have opted to return from the dead to explore his new freedom, but the trail for his missing master had gone cold, and his nearest and dearest friends remembered that he always had concern that his master would not live up to the agreement to free him on completion of 10 missions on behalf of the Taldorian nobles he served. It is thought that, having found freedom in the afterlife, he had little reason to return to this uncertainty that was growing in the back of his admittedly simple mind.

In his final moments, the halfling luck that had served him so well failed as he attempted to retreat, bloody and dying, from the mouth of a devilish beast who proved more capable than he thought.

Raise a glass of milk in memory of Warick, as he wasn't allowed to consume stronger drink until he achieved the freedom that he strived so hard for.

This is being posted in hopes of an FAQ response. Please hit the FAQ button if you think this needs an FAQ response.

"When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on higher ground. If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can't make a full attack. Even at your mount's full speed, you don't take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted."

Can a mount's rider make a single melee attack if the mount makes two move actions during a round, whether move (mount), move (mount), attack (rider); or move (mount), attack (rider), move (mount).

Argument in favor of Yes: A rider can make a single melee attack if the mount moves more than five feet, and there is no penalty on the melee attack if the mount moves it's full speed. While there is no in-game definition of full speed, this is an indication of a double move. The mount and rider have a different pool of actions and these can be interspersed in the shared initiative count as desired.

Argument in favor of No: A rider can make a single melee attack if the mount moves more than five feet, and there is no penalty on the melee attack if the mount moves it's full speed. While there is no in-game definition of full speed, this is an indication of the full distance of a single move. The statement about waiting for the mount getting to the enemy before attacking refers to the shared initiative count; while actions can be interspersed, the mount and rider are constrained by the total time of the six second round such that the combined sequential actions cannot exceed the total of the actions normally allotted to a single character.

Thanks!

The PFS FAQ has an entry on purchasing scrolls with multiple spells using prestige, here. Is the intent of the reply to indicate that any scroll with multiple spells are limited to duplicates of the same spell, or is this limit only to those multiple spell scrolls that are purchased with PP? Reading it, it seems that it applies to all multiple spell scrolls, but seems odd to me.

Looking to brainstorm with people on plot ideas. Some of what I'm planning on including here is stimulated by Fiction/TV, other stuff by coming across various oddities that look like they might work for a fantasy game. Feel free to pitch in.

Please try to keep this mainly as an index by starting and linking threads that start to get complex. I'll try to post a summary index periodically that will appear towards the end of the thread and which I'll put a link in my profile.

Recently I posted the following in-character thread in the PFS general discussion forum: link. If anything, it was an explanation of why the character was retiring from PFS play. Somewhat understandably, because it provided a comment that the character was opting NOT to join the Shadow Lodge, the thread was then moved to the Faction->Shadow Lodge forum.

It's an inappropriate location for the thread, and yet there is no other in-character forums that would make more sense...this is why I put it in general discussion in the first place. It highlights that we do not have in-character forums that are appropriate for in-character discussions that are outside of the faction system.

May we please have such forums?

As my final act as a Pathfinder, I hereby call for the resignation of Aram Zey. Despite being the Master of Spells for the Pathfinder Society, this man repeatedly has asked Pathfinders to take risks without taking efforts to understand those risks. This has become woefully obvious in the matter of the Tapestry. In particular, regarding the possibility of becoming trapped in the demiplane when entering by means other than the tapestry itself.

I have come to believe that Grandmaster Torch has a point. While he and others may opt to work for change within the society, I will be taking another route outside of the society. To those with whom I have shared many missions, I wish you luck, and encourage your cation in dealing with this man.

To those needing clerical spellcasting services within Absalom, I offer my services at the customary cost.

I have an unplayed character with 6 GM chronicles on it, and have been considering a wayang (mainly 'cause I have the boon chronicle), but am having trouble getting anything to paper on it. I've considered playing the racial archetype bard, or a shadow based wizard. Neither is really drumming up any much enthusiasm and I could use some ideas. My other characters are a cleric 9 of Shelyn (luck and protection) and a rogue 6. This character will likely play quite a bit with my daughter's rogue/bard through at least level 6 or so; her character does quite a bit with intimidate.

Thoughts?

"All 3.5 scenarios are in the process of
being updated to the current rules and re-released." (from the guide, p. 26)

Any word on progress and schedule?

Will updated PF versions be automatically available in downloads for those season 0 adventures that have already been purchased?

For example, if I buy Black Waters to run next Friday, will the I get the updated release automatically, or will I gnash my teeth when it is replaced?

Don't know anything about the adventure other than it has a killer rep. Not looking for spoilers or meta-advice (so pleae respect that). But....I guess I'm just nervous about my poor little halfling rogue's future. Buck up, little guy!

In another thread, the following exchange took place. I've moved my reply here, as well as an open call for discussion.

Howie23 wrote:

That said, within the game, you can buy a warhorse. You don't have to break it or personally train it. Handle Animal gives anyone the ability to control a trained animal merely by making the appropriate DC skill check.

Really, so if I'm facing a mounted character I can use handle animal to make the mount come to me as a move action?

James, this isn't what I said, and appreciate that you are generalizing the statement for the purpose of constructing a reductio ad absurddum argument. Rather than running down that rabbit hole, how about if we address the general question about who can give commands to an animal.

My statement was made within the context of discussing an unattended cavalier's bonded mount. A number of people were making statements about a warhorse having a special relationship regarding command and control of a warhorse in general being controllable by a limited number of people. This included statements derived from assumptions about real world warhorses.

The situation as described is complicated by a couple of areas that tend to hit areas of the rules that raise varied opinions. The simple case is control of an unattended trained domestic animal. Complications to that include control of mounts vs. unmounted animals as well as the special circumstance of bonded mounts or animal companions.

Both of the latter are areas that are known to result in varied opinions. In the case of mounts in general, mounted combat and the control of mounts is a known problem area in the rules going back to 3.5. PF did little to resolve this. In the case of bonded mounts, this comes down to differences of opinion about the nature of the bond between character and the animal in question. Let's avoid those complications to start and then come back to them.

******************************************

A character can buy a trained animal. He doesn't have to train the animal himself. He can direct the trained animal via Handle Animal.

Handle Animal skill: "You are trained at working with animals, and can teach them tricks, get them to follow your simple commands, or even domesticate them."

Handle an Animal task: "Handle an Animal: This task involves commanding an animal to perform a task or trick that it knows. If the animal is wounded or has taken any nonlethal damage or ability score damage, the DC increases by 2. If your check succeeds, the animal performs the task or trick on its next action."

Handle Animal is a skill possessed by the handler. It relates to the control of animals. It requires no relationship between the animal and the handler. It is reasonable to apply circumstance modifiers to controlling an unfamiliar animal. If two people give an animal command, a reasonable mechanism is to resolve it via opposed checks.

In the simple case, anyone has the option to control an animal using the Handle Animal skill.

Am I missing something?

What, if anything, would be different in your view of your characters, of the chronicles your characters have, and how we might perceive what would be good to see on chronicles or boons, if this were different:

Think of those things in a chronicle stack as cards in a CCG. What if some sorts of upgrades could be traded between characters or players? What if combinations of chronicles in a stack gave additional benefits or penalties? Would this benefit convention play, gamestore play, or both?

Hello. My name is Peekasso, and I have atoned.

Over time, I have come to think of myself as the paintbrush of Shelyn. I have created masterworks of the painted form in her honor. I have traveled to distant lands to apply my critical eye to the decorative forms there, and pass judgement.

Beauty, certainly an element in some art, is also represent in the animate form. Many times over has a vile creature of undeath heard the pronouncement, "You're ugly," just as my glaive crashed through her skull, roiling rainbow hues of positive energy collecting from otherwhere into the blade before exploding in her head.

But, for all the direction that art and beauty have provided me over my years with the Society, I was betrayed by that reliance. Perhaps it was my own pride. Perhaps I focused too much on some aspects of Shelyn's divinity while ignoring others. For is not Shelyn also a mistress of Charm? I did not understand at first, but I do now. I have transgressed, but Shelyn has seen fit to allow me to understand my failure.

And, as a gnomish friend of mine was wont to say at a time, "if you can't learn from your mistakes, why make them?"

I, for one, am heading out to catch today's annual solar eclipse. I got fogged in for the last one visible in my area some 20 years ago or more. Getting in the car, driving an hour or so for a full ring, and taking precautions with my eyes. Might even get out on the golf course to play during it for a merging of interests and a strongly reinforced memory.

Enjoy nature's display of goodness!

What are the acceptable methods for distributing adventures for convention GMs? Is this by the coordinating GM, by Venture Captain and/or Lieutenant only? Or, are GMs to purchase their own adventures?

Not looking for information how people might skirt around what is acceptable, looking for info on how the system is designed.

Thanks.

Howie23 wrote:

An incorporeal can stay in an object and attack. Doing so is vs. total concealment (the target of the incorporeal has 50% miss); attacking this weay gives the incorporeal cover. Or, an incorporeal can come out of the object, thus negating the concealment if it attacks, but also meaning it gets no cover. The incorporeal doesn't have to emerge, but while it is attacking, part of it is out and can be attacked.

I fail to see your reasoning.

We seem to have some very different views of how this works.

Unspoilered Incorporeal: An incorporeal creature can enter or pass through solid objects, but must remain adjacent to the object's exterior, and so cannot pass entirely through an object whose space is larger than its own. [A]It can sense the presence of creatures or objects within a square adjacent to its current location, but enemies have total concealment (50% miss chance) from an incorporeal creature that is inside an object. [B]In order to see beyond the object it is in and attack normally, the incorporeal creature must emerge. An incorporeal creature inside an object has total cover, but when it attacks a creature outside the object it only has cover, so a creature outside with a readied action could strike at it as it attacks. An incorporeal creature cannot pass through a force effect.

[A] Is for situations when two incorporeal creatures fight one another within a solid object.

I'm not sure where that interpretation comes from. The passage says nothing to indicate this. Breaking it down:

"An incorporeal creature can enter or pass through solid objects, but must remain adjacent to the object's exterior, and so cannot pass entirely through an object whose space is larger than its own."

This says an incorp can be in an object, but must remain adjacent to the exterior.

"[A]It can sense the presence of creatures or objects within a square adjacent to its current location, but enemies have total concealment (50% miss chance) from an incorporeal creature that is inside an object."

This says that it can sense creatures or objects adjacent to it's current location. It's current location may be inside an object (from the prior sentence). If it's inside an object, it can attack stuff that is adjacent; it just can't see it . If it does this (attack from inside an object), it can only sense the opponent and thus the opponent gets a 50% miss chance.

"[B] In order to attack normally, an incorporeal creature has to emege and thus no longer treats opponents as concealed and it loses its total cover.

Normally here means to be able to see it and attack without the miss chance. To do this, it has to come out, has no miss chance due to concealment, but loses its total cover.

This is a recent post from a thread on how raksashas have changed over time. Brian, i'm not disagreeing with anything. Rather, I'm providing some commentary in support of an idea. (Edit: although it might be a different idea than the one you were talking about... :) )

..but clearly design decisions have been made over the years changing a variety of rules. One intent of those rule changes was to make a mechanically cleaner, simpler game, and they arguably succeeded at that (and then promptly made it more complex again with all the feat and skill options). I do suspect that another design intent was to get rid of things a lot of players complained about - and most of those things made the game harder/more deadly. A brief, and by no means comprehensive list of things that have been changed that you could argue make the game "easier".

I'd suggest that a lot of these changes are things that have to removing the Gygaxian love of random consequence and risk. For all of Gary's background in wargaming, he did love his random tables and risk. Reducing random outcomes results in a game with a more strategic scope to its design. Paradoxically, changes to the monster that lead to this post, the change from spell immunity to SR for our tiger-headed friend, introduces tactical options instead of "Ixnay on the Agicmay."

Numbered lines are OP's; I didn't bother quoting and unquoting everything.

1. Much more powerful characters - monsters also more powerful, but not as much as characters

This may be. I've never played the game at high levels in over 30 years of playing. In the sweet zone, I'm not sure this is so true. For examples, I can remember dragons being a walk-over in 1st edition, but they can be brutish in the hands of a good GM in current gaming.

2. Now can fire into melee without chance of hitting friend
3. No chance to die from teleport
4. No chance to fry friends with miscalculated fireball

All of these are in the category of removing the "Are you really, REALLY, sure you wanna do that?" action that seemed so common back in the day.

5. Traps have been nerfed hard

Largely because it's boring as hell to play a game where the entire party moves like a snail behind the rogue or thief. :)

6. Far fewer save or die effects

That's a conscious change in PF from SRD/D&D. It reduces the swingy encounters and gives more tactical scope to encounters.

7. Raising characters from the dead costs only money now

This fits into the RPG on airbags suggestion OP made. This is largely a gamist and social gaming matter. But, it does take the scythe out of Mr. Death's hands and gives him a cash register instead.

8. Assumption of Magic Mart and ease of magic item creation

I would say that PF reduces the Magic Mart assumption. The MIC system, in my opinion, is horrid in design. I'm not sure this is so much RPG with airbags as much as giving everyone a chance to drive, tho.

9. Take 10 and Take 20 rules removing chance of failure

Covered in another thread, this is also in the "Are you really, REALLY sure" category at one end on also is designed to keep the game on focus rather than on trivial details. However, for gamers who love working out the intense detail of how they prepare against every contingency to get the Eye of Doom from the Statue of Evil Incarnate, I can see how it can sometimes be a let down.

10. Can now swim in platemail and fall hundreds of feet without dying

Maybe sometimes. This is more removal of the Insta-death stuff. Does seem a bit like airbags. From a gaming standpoint, a non-heroic death by drowning after a misstep isn't so heroic. I think that gaming back in the day made it a lot easier to bring in new PCs. The PC creation process is more of an investment now.

11. Are now alive until you reach negative HP = Constitution

One of my first characters was a 1st level wizard with a single hit point. Bad roll on that flaky (literally...) d4. Back when zero HP was death. He fell off a horse and died. The current death at -Con makes more sense than a flat -10 to me. How many times did I read about Tarzan waking up with yet another bonk on the head and left for dead at the end of the prior chapter. In essence, the -Con thing is a continuation of a trend that goes back to -10 in 1979's DMG. Investment in characters is greater. Let's remember that Melf was short for Male-Elf, because one of the Gygax kid was short on time.

12. Wounds, barring colossally bad luck, almost always stabilize - no bleeding out

More of the above.

Taken individually, each of these rule changes is popular and probably easily justifiable. Taken as a package (and if I were to take more than 15 minutes, I could probably double the length of this list), it's not hard to see why geezers like me think that the game has had airbags installed in it to make it easier/safer for those who play it.

I'm a geezer, too. I agree that characters have better chances of survival today. Gygaxian D&D was almost a matter of evolution in practice. Bad rolls...unlikely to survive... In general, I think it is MUCH better game design.

All that said, any GM worth his salt can still use the existing rules and adjust things pretty easily to still provide enough challenge and danger to make for an enjoyable gaming experience.

Agreed.

Side Thread for C&D to yell at each other.

Thread started for side discussion on Empower Spell. Please move conversation on topic from big "frequently unknown rules" and/or "FAQ needed threads.

Please do not debate rules in this thread

In the spirit of the Frequently Unknown Rules thread, this thread is for the group think collection of those rules or rules topics that are highly debated, possibly unresolvable due to contradiction or ambiguity, or otherwise nearly impossible to obtain a meeting of the mind. I will maintain a summary list, as done for the Frequently Unknown Rules thread, along with links to the detailed argument threads.

In a perfect world, identify the rules issue, the conflicting positions, and the rules source that gives rise to the problem. Provide links to either existing discussions on the topic, or start new threads with links here if appropriate. If a position has been misrepresented, post your rebuttal and then take the discussion elsewhere, with a link from here to that thread.

Please do not debate rules in this thread

Additionally, if the message hasn't gotten across,

Please do not debate rules in this thread.

Please move discussion regarding Defending Weapons from PF Rules, Changed and/or Misplayed here. If there are other relevant threads, please post them for inclusion.

Can a spell with a casting time of 1 round, such as enlarge person, be quickened?

quicken

enlarge person

Or, does the distinction made between 1 round casting time and full-round action casting time suggest otherwise?

There are multiple conversations on mounted combat going on right now. It is an area of the rules that is somewhat unclear. The following are links to a series of Rules of the Game articles for D&D. While they may not follow the written rule exactly and/or sometimes add assumptions to the rules set, they provide a decent system of play for mounted combat. Some adjustment may be needed for differences from D&D to PF, but it should be minimal.

• RotG Mounted Part One
  
• RotG Mounted Part Two
  
• RotG Mounted Part Three
  
• RotG Mounted Part Four

In another thread, the following statement was made:

Variety should not be mistaken for power.

I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement. This idea is tied to 90 year old concept in gaming made by Aron Nimzovitch, "Sometimes the threat is greater than the execution."

The existence of available options, in themselves, result in an increase in power. A character's ability to respond to a given challenge is a function of the options they have available. If options are limited, compromises may be needed to overcome the challenge in comparison to choices that have a greater degree of optimization inherent in from additional choices.

Even variety in the form of "you have the choice of A or B, but not both" has the illusion of being power neutral. But when combined with other choices of a like nature, in the presence of synergy between the choices, the whole is greater than the parts. The ability to creatively make choices that are based on this variety is a fundamental cause of power creep, regardless of whether the independent choices are balanced.

A character's options at the table give power. The existence of more choices in character build, such as feats, traits, multi-classing, archetypes, traits, spell availability, or any other such resources, result in more powerful characters. Power creep is inherent in a system that offers new options, regardless of whether the options are balanced independently or not.

Has anyone put together a checklist for PFS adventures? A perfect world would be if someone has a sharable file with Mod name, number, level range, GM credit (yes/no), player credit (yes/no).

Please revise the "one trick trained per scenario" rule. That is all. -)

Kyle isn't the only one who has said this. In fact, I suspect the opinion is nearly universal. Please change this.

The only game-rules basis for limiting this is if there is a defined limited amount of time between scenarios. Yet, there isn't. Wizards can copy an unlimited number of spells into their spellbook, but that is also a time defined task.

From an aesthetics perspective, there may be some resistance to animals being fully retrained or replaced between every adventure. While the far end of the scale is when we see animals, even companions, treated as speed bumps or bearing the nametag "MeatShield XIII," this is a roleplaying matter.

The one trick trained rule has been called into center stage by the animal intelligence blog/FAQ, but it's been a problem for a while. It makes class features nearly useless and it encouraged acceptance of the Int 3= No Handle Animal perspective.

The pain of the existing system has been kept to a dull roar by fact that most dedicated animal handlers weren't using Handle Animal. Now they all are. The dull roar is about to blossom into an acute roar of crippling pain. Perhaps I stretched that too far....

Anyways, please fix.

Can we get some input, here and in whatever mechanism is in place for updating the PFS guide, regarding the blog regarding intelligent animals?

Convenient Link

If players bring character resources to the table that are not part of the Core Assumption, they have to provide the rules materials to run that material. This makes sure the material is at the table.

If adventures are making use of material from outside the core assumption, please include the rules resources to be able to run the materials provided. If an NPC has items out of the APG or any other source, please include the text in the adventure PDF. A note to see such-and-such source for how to run the item, by its essence, expands the core assumption of what the campaign expects GMs to have on hand when they run the adventure.

We had a second successful PFS gameday in Ventura, with our one table in November growing to two tables on December 12. Our next gameday is scheduled for January 9.

Ventura and her environs has had 30 or more organized players in the past, and I'm hoping to see more of those who enjoy this type of episodic gaming in the future.

To PFS in the New Year!

I have a player wanting his character to use Tower Shield while mounted. Looking for input.

Mechanically, there is not a prohibition on using the tower shield while mounted. I do, however find it to not work for me from a perspective of RPG as model of a fantastic reality. But, I'd like to avoid a straight: No, doesn't work.

Looking at a number of ideas for house rules that might include variations on:

1) lack of total cover
2) ACP to ride skill
3) Ride check to get benefit
4) Treating mount as encumbered
5) Adjustments to use of mounted combat features

Anyone have any existing houserules on the topic or thoughts?

Recently a player asked about magic slots for animals within PFS. Mark redirected the thread to Rules Questions. However, this is an example of a game rule question for which there is no answer and which must be decided by the GM. For single action decisions that have rules variance, table variance is something that organized play must live with; it's part of the terrain. However, for rules questions such as this that have a material impact on character development and purchases, there is a requirement for organized play to make a statement about what the rule is within the campaign in order to make it a more enjoyable experience for all.

Optimizing Otto, a knowledgable player who likes to put together mechanically excellent characters, looks at the example item and says to himself, "Self, it seems reasonable that Ol' Meatshield can have all the items as a human. We'll call rings pawclips. He can have pawshoes. He can have a belt..after all he has a narrow spot below his rib cage. Armbands...hmmm...weave it into his tail? Well it doesn't matter, only a jerk would deny Meatshield his bling."

Georgie Grognard, an experienced GM who remembers white boxes, red boxes and when elves were a class, may recognize that there is variance on the matter, but also that there is a tradition in organized play of players avoiding matters of unresolvable table variance. He is comfortable in his conservative approach. He says to himself, "Self, I know there are many ways to do this, but I also think that I have a duty to maintain the integrity of the game as part of what it means to have fun. The RAW is clear to me. Since there is known variance on this, and because players won't intentionally ask a GM to do something he thinks violates the rules, I feel confident that only a jerk would put a GM on the spot like that and make him uncomfortable when he has volunteered his time."

All is well until Otto meets Georgie and the immovable mountain is faced with the irresistable force. Maybe they're skilled at dealing with conflict resolution. Maybe they aren't. Maybe they go home with a good feeling. Maybe they poison the table with the resulting ill will and 7 people go home wondering if the time would have been better spent doing something else instead of spending time with those two jerks.

Since the new regime is in the process of reviewing the campaign document for PFS, I am encouraging them to consider changing the approach about dealing with rules that have long term effects on character choices, but for which the game has no clear answers.

I am finding the idea of Evolved Intent to help me understand a number of rules discussions and to understand how opinions have formed in different ways. Examples include recent discussions on prestige class spellcasting progression and charging feats. One that is undergoing evolution currently, I think, is the use of the word ally.

We know about RAW and RAI. I also think that there is, at times, rules as the intent has evolved (which really needs a better acronym). Over the last 10-12 years, from pre-release development of the 3e SRD to the current PRD, there have been a number of different developers and a very robust discussion board community. In some cases, I think that later development has built upon an interpretation that is a step away from ambiguous text that forced RAI conclusions, or away from RAW that was often houseruled away or was unpopular from a community cultural perspective. These newer rules sources can be subject to the same process.

I'm still mulling over this concept, but am finding it helpful.

The following action is valid vs. a charge:

A character, seeing a charging lancer on the field, readies the action: "If the chager charges me, I step forward before he can attack me and attack him." The wording may vary, but the concept remains as possible in any game that allows movement to be interrupted mid-movement by a readied action. A less eggregious variation would be to ready an attack vs. an opponent that moves out of cover.

In the case of the lancer, this results in moving the character inside the donut range area of the charge, which seems eggregious and a case of gamesmanship. In particular, it appears to step on the toes of a braced weapon.

1) Is this action permitted by the rules? (I assume it is,which is why it is here instead of in the forum Rules discussions) Edit...please move to Rules Questions forum. *sigh*
2) If it is, is it desirable?
3) If it is seen as eggregious, does anyone have houserules to prevent and/or modify the attempted charge-nerf, such as a skill check or similar resource?

Adding one more:

Rider's Charging Feats While Mounted:
A number of feats and or abilities gained through other resources (class abilities, spells, etc.) give characters additional abilities when they charge. When a mounted character is part of a charge, it is the mount that is charging, not the character. There are interpretation differences in whether riders received the benefit of their charging feats while mounted.

This follows from a discussion on the PFS board.

Relevant Rules:

A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed. (p.213)

Start/Complete Full-Round Action
The "start full-round action" standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can't use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw. (p.186)

****************************************

A caster can start casting a 1 round casting time spell (such as sleep, summon monster, etc.) as a standard action. He might do this if casting in the surprise round or because he has previously used his move action.

He can then finish it by consuming his standard action in the following round. When does the spell come into effect?

Animal Companions are animals. They may have intelligence greater than 2; while this isn't stated explicitly, it must be true. Animal Companions (and other types of mounts/companions that reference the AC progression) are exceptions to the type description for Animal. They are of type Animal (augmented). See discussion HERE.

Creatures with intelligence of 3 or higher can understand one language, even if they cannot speak it. However, if it has Int 3, it can be neither the subject of diplomacy, handle animal, nor wild empathy. If Int 4 or higher, it is subject to Diplomacy. The DMG 3.5 had a section on interacting with intelligent mounts (such use required diplomacy). See discussion: HERE.

How is an animal companion with Int 3+, paladin's mount, etc., controlled and/or directed?

It just does as told? It is trained with Handle Animal, and then just does as told? Or is no training necessary (no need for tricks?) Is diplomacy needed?

Diplomacy cannot be used on a creature with intelligence of 3 or lower; this is a reasonable addition to PF due to language limitations.

Wild empathy can be used with animals and magical beasts with intelligence of 1 or 2. Handle Animal can be used with creatures with Int 1 or 2.

A creature with intelligence of exactly three....cannot be reasoned with? Throws tantrums due to lack of comprehension?

DMG 3.5 had a section on mounts with intelligence of 5 or higher...such creatures were controlled via Diplomacy, but trained via Handle Animal as well. That section is not in the SRD (or I can't find it); I don't see similar rules in PFCR.

What skills are used to interact with a creature of Intelligence of exactly 3?

An animal companion is generally an animal. I would expect some magical beasts to also be possible companions. By the description of animal companions, an animal comapanion cannot have an intelligence of greater than 2.

An animal cannot have an intelligence greater than 2 (per the type description for animal).

Can an animal companion's HD stat bump be taken in intelligence? If so, does it still have the Animal type? Does it become Animal (augmented) or Magical Beast (augmented animal)? Is it still a valid target for spells or effects that target only animals?

The one page flyer for use in spreading the word (link is toward the bottom of the PFS page) is out of date. It references PF still being in beta, for example.