The Cube of Rubix's page

Without multiweapon fighting it is -6/-10/-10/-10

With it you are looking at -2/-6/-6/-6

Pretty large deficits to overcome.

Except does that mean if I am fighting with a long sword in one hand and a short in the other I take a -2/-6?

I was thinking an opposed Str Roll.

And the original scene was what inspired the second idea.

Centaur character who harpoons (3.5) or nets his opponent and full out runs thats 200 feet per round, no normal character can match that to catch up.

Explain the -4 penalty when it should be -2 I mean unarmed strike is Light Weapon

Yes but I dont know how to find that out. Fall damage at least had set rules. And if you have 5 feet out the ground is moving faster, but further away its slower and each impact is allowed to fully bunce you around.

Centaurs have 50 ft per round and thats without something like fleet. How would you have ti do damage.

Lilith, James Jacob who is the creative design director says yes they get a total of 4 attacks even at level 1. He also admits they are way OP because of this and are not suppose to be common player characters.

Ok so one of my players wanted to know something, we house ruled it last game but I would like to know if legit rules exist.

They lassoed a orc and their wagon was being pulled by a team of horses at full run. They dragged the orc off the horse and down the road behind them. I rolled damage every round as if the orc was taking fall damage equal to the amount of rope they let out, so 30 foot fall damage each round.

But are there rules?

According to James Jacob a four armed player character would indeed get four attacks, because Unarmed Strike is a Light weapon however all his attacks suffer a -2. So it would look like -2/-2/-2/-2.

But yes Flurry of Blows is useless to the Kasatha, I recommend taking Master of Many Styles to trade it for flurry of style which can be used.

Ok I was always curious so I figured I would ask.
Say I have a Breast Plate and Tower Shield fight his total ACP is -14 from Breastplate and Shield.

Now if I Mithral both Breastplate and Shield (5000 GP) reduces this buy -6 (-3 each)
If both are Mwk thats another -2
Now say I take both Armor Expert and Armor Master for another -2

Now if I use a Dwarven forged enhancement from AEG-Mercenaries from 3.5 days I can reduce that by another -1

So a total ACP of 3.
But does my ACP get calculated as a sum total or to each piece of gear.

Meaning I need to specify Armor Expert and Master to be for my Shield or Armor, rather then just dropping the collective total.

Ok so here is the brief explanation of commonplace guns
Commonplace Guns: While still expensive and tricky to wield, early firearms are readily available. Instead of requiring the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat, all firearms are martial weapons. Early firearms and their ammunition cost 25% of the amounts listed in this book, but advanced firearms and their ammunition are still rare and cost the full price to purchase or craft.

Now however, if you have the Gunsmithing feat or are a gunslinger you can make ammo for 10% of the cost it normally would take.
I think normally that is like 2 gold and 2 silver a round.

But with this new things saying their ammo costs 25% of the amount listed.. so I calculate the costs down to 25% then use 10% of that new number?

The Cube of Rubix wrote:

I think a big concern for Paizo is that Monk's are semi self sufficient and really do not need to worry much as the other guys for gear. Their Wis to Ac is a big deal and can be added bonuses to for little cost were as their go to weapon costs 0 gold and can never be disarmed.

But yeah brass knuckles or cestus should deal Unharmed Damage same as a Gauntlet should do.

Yeah, I find that their concerns are a bit overblown, though. Unarmed strikes come with plenty of disadvantages to offset their advantages. Most notably the bad critical stats and the fact that there are spells and monster abilities like Burn that will do bad things to an unarmed striker, but not a weapon-user.

I agree, I am just saying I think it is one of their concerns,

anyone playtest the new Unchained or Unleashed book coming out soon with the new take on monks from paizo?

I love this module, and the flavor is really nice.

As for what to do, the first time we ran this, we had a cavalier with us, a core Cavalier and he hated it, because his horse was forced to stay outside. So unless your pet is small enough to move in the space don't work on pet combat, though they can be good scouts, we had a summoner the first time and it helped to scout the area ahead.

Tower Shield specialist would be awesome for specific areas and would really shine in those area without feeling to far back.

At the junctions where the narrow halls open up Combat Reflex fighters could be of use, stand next to the opening and as the creatures pass through they eat AoO.

I think a big concern for Paizo is that Monk's are semi self sufficient and really do not need to worry much as the other guys for gear. Their Wis to Ac is a big deal and can be added bonuses to for little cost were as their go to weapon costs 0 gold and can never be disarmed.

But yeah brass knuckles or cestus should deal Unharmed Damage same as a Gauntlet should do.

Pretty much exactly what Kestral said, not just Cayden, loads have Rapier or other high crit weapons.

I would love to make an Achilles (Troy) build off the spear trick idea, using the spear and shield combo. Would be really fun and iconic.

The Fighter 3/Shield Champion X would be very nice to do that but I am not sure it captures it all. But it definitely makes me want too.

Way to much to have for one feat. Honestly a one level dip and then deadly agility gives you dex to damage for virtually any weapon if you pick up Weapon Versatility

I am curious, I know they have feats to allow for Net and Trident combos. But is that a good fighting style, a fair investment for those numerous feats that it requires to come online.

Anyone else play with it?

Hmm Phalanx Soldier 3/Shield Brawler X would be a good Achillies build. Use the beginning free feats to set up your Reach build and then focus on shield bash for close range combat.

I was just looking at the Phalanx Soldier Fighter Archetype, and I'm impressed by the ability to use shield and polearm. Since polearms and spears have such a cornecopia of special tricks: reach, trip, brace, and disarm, and many of them have impressive damage for-1 handed weapons, there is a wealth of options.

With the Bashing Enchantment a heavy spiked shield or a Klar does 2d6 damage. With Shield Slam, you can maintain reach, Bull Rushing anyone away who gets too close.

With a good bashing shield and a reach pole arm, you could Great Cleave everyone within 10'. Pretty cool.

You could use 2 weapon with a small spiked shield and a halberd or something and do quite respectable damage, although my favorite manufactured 2 weapon fighting combo is Thunder and Fang.

A tripping build with a tripping reach polearm is classic.

I've always wanted to do a build that develops the Brace feature, exploiting battlefield position and maybe a feat like Goad or Antagonize to finesse a charge out of opponents.

Since pole weapons have a variety of special features, this character might be a good candidate for Quick Draw with the ability to always have the right tool for a job whenever you need it, throwing spears until the enemy charges, then bristling out with a reach brace pole arm taking multiple attacks of opportunity that do double damage, and when they finally get close to you, you bull rush them away and tenderize them more.

Pretty cool.

Imagine that on a build that has martial flexibility so they can trade out manuever feats at will.

Dynamic Priest from Dragonlance transfers Wis to Cha for Divine Spellcasters casting requirements.

So you would have a Monk like character who can wear armor and flurry with a weapon that crits like crazy.

Though this does make me wonder if Flurry of blows with a rapier adds precise strike to each hit

You know I wonder, I was curious about flurrying with a spear in my gestalt game. Three level dip into Phalanx Solider for Spear in one hand and using a shield and then using Swashbuckler beyond that (Dex and Level to damage is just appealing)

We all know a Monk loses his AC bonus, his Flurry and Fast movement is he picks up a shield.

However the way Sacred Fist is written is a little more obscure.

It says for example it works like the monk ability of the same name. But Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so, he may make on additional attack, taking a -2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. These attacks can be any combination of unarmed strikes and attacks with a monk special weapon (he does not need to use two weapons to use this ability). For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus from his monk class levels is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.

At 8th level, the monk can make two additional attacks when he uses flurry of blows, as if using Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).

At 15th level, the monk can make three additional attacks using flurry of blows, as if using Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).

A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands. A monk may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows. A monk cannot use any weapon other than an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows. A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks.

Now Monk's AC bonus does call out shields but that is not part of the Flurry's specific ability.

SF's AC ability says only when Unarmed and Unencumbered does he gain his Ac bonus. Shield Bonus is not an Armor Bonus is it?

So can a Sacred Fist pick up a shield and still flurry?

Its an old 3.5 setting, Unearthed Arcana if I am remembering right,

Well Serrated and Laminated can only be applied to Slashing Weapons.

Well they are enhancements like Masterwork. the way it works is it takes the Cost of the weapon + 300 (Mwk) + 300 (Serrated) + 900 (Laminated) x3
what it would do to a rapier is make it a 1d6+1 dmg, 17-20/x3 for something like 4560 GP

Well we use a book from 3.5 called AEG Mercenaries which allows for the Laminated and Serrated Blades on a Rapier.

Well I was curious if there was a way to change a weapon with the Piercing quality to slashing

Is there any way to change a weapons type for the purposes of enhancements, such as turning a Bludgeoning weapon to a Piercing or a Piercing to a Slashing weapon?

Lord Foul II wrote:

The official rules for playing as a drow noble is a suggestion that you start one level lower (I guess in only one of your classes you're gestalt)

The OP touched on that in their first post. When it was posted there hadn't been the commotion about "Paizo employee posts" that lead to the now current only the design team publishes errata/FAQs. So they are choosing to ignore the post as "official" rules.

As I mentioned that post was in late 2009 and they have since published more "appropriate" rules (I guess you'd say) for players playing noble drow in the ARG in 2012.

I looked up that page, and well it doesn't seem to say to play a drow noble use those feats. They definitely help make a drow noble character. But I have to disagree that taking the feats is even a valid option.

I mean that's honestly like suggesting Magical Tail to a Kitsune.

Sure they are nice feats, that totally gimp your character for something that is overshadowed greatly by the time you get it.

To get all 6 feats you would have to be a level 11 character.
Level 11 is when Wizard's get their 6th level spells. You are saying at any point in those feats they compare even slightly in power to a 6th level spell?

Basically if you are forced to take the 6 feats to be a noble, either you have to be a full caster, or pray to whomever you worship the build you want requires 0 feat investments... and that seems unlikely for a Paladin

I see I didn't notice they changed the abilities text.

Regeneration in D&D Glossary

It says if you have regeneration all damage is treated as Non-Lethal except for fire and acid damage.

Interesting, I was always curious about that.

So Regeneration makes all damage not of Fire and Acid non-lethal damage.

I was curious how this would interact with a Warforged from 3.5, Warforged are immune to Non-Lethal damage so they would take 0 damage from anything short of Acid and Fire, but with that enhancement on their body armor and a shield they could be immune to all damage.

then you take 5 levels of Warforged Juggernaut which has these additions
Construct Perfection (Ex): A warforged that follows the path of the juggernaut seeks to improve itself by embracing its construct heritage. As a warforged juggernaut advances, it abandons what it considers the weaknesses of the living construct form to gain qualities more indicative of true constructs. While retaining its intelligence and sentience, a warforged juggernaut gains the following construct features as it advances in level.
Construct Perfection I—At 2nd level, a warforged juggernaut is no longer subject to nonlethal damage or extra damage from critical hits.
Construct Perfection II—At 3rd level, a warforged juggernaut gains immunity to all mind-affecting spells and abilities (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects).
Construct Perfection III—At 4th level, a warforged juggernaut gains immunity to death effects and necromancy effects.
Construct Perfection IV—At 5th level, a warforged juggernaut is no longer subject to ability damage or ability drain.

Alright so I know Regeneration is restricted to specific things that turn it off. Like Acid and fire for a troll.

What happens if you are immune to both fire and Acid, or at least one of those, for example an enhancement in the MIC from 3.5 for armor or shield was Energy Immunity (I think it was a +2 Enhancement) so say someone who had taken the Troll-Blooded feat took this enhancement and placed it on their armor to make them immune to fire.

Do they somehow lose their regeneration? Would they only be able to be killed if someone sundered their armor and thus broke the enhancement?

PF is suppose to be backward compatible, sure its out of PFS but not out of question for most tables.

Abuse RAW by using Catch Off Guard and play a Zen Archer, then using flurry of blows, whack bad guys in the face with your bow.

Disclaimer:
I'm half joking.

Technically speaking that should really work.

I am curious if I should invest in getting a Swordbow from the Magic Item Compendium

It can Inspire ideas I did not meant it was a required use.

The Cube of Rubix wrote:

Heck I have played games where we played with just straight 14s not including Racial Adjustments and we had a blast. Sure it felt a little more Bleh because you don't get that thrill of a "Sweet I rolled really good on this one" feeling which is part of the game.

It didn't have to feel bleh. That's the point. The game could have been exactly the same except without the bleh, but you purposefully chose the bleh. Why would you do that?

It only felt bleh because of the lack of that thrill. Because when you roll well or even average it still feels like a small thrill./ I mean I could have rolled so much worse. Also it gives you RP opportunities when you roll a 9 and have to stick it somewhere. Why does it have to be a 9, well maybe your impulsive so your 9 Wisdom makes sense. So the character is effected as they would be.

I don't even know what you're arguing, Rubix.

People are willing to roll randomly for attacks and skills because you can try again.

With stats, which inform class/feat choice, you get your roll and that's it. You rolled like crap? Hope you didn't like this campaign. I know people talk about the good old days where everyone was miserable and liked it, but there's no reason to subject oneself to that.

The dice still fall where they may in-game, but I get to choose who I am and what I can do before that happens.

That is why I like the way we play, roll roughly about 6 times and take the highest set average. Figure out how you like either number of adjustment bonuses (add all the +# together to find a total) or add the number of the total together (18+12+16, etc) to find the total.

I know one guy tried a digital dice roller to roll a d48 and take the number, and add that to whatever ability score you like. your stats start at 10 each and say you rolled a 48 that evens out to 18 each stat.

You can break anything into a point buy, I mean hell one of the digital dice rollers I use can be marked to tell you the point buy value of your randomly generated rolls in much the same way as Dennis mentions.

It is still random, everyone could roll really low at the start nothing over 14, and still have fun. Heck I have played games where we played with just straight 14s not including Racial Adjustments and we had a blast. Sure it felt a little more Bleh because you don't get that thrill of a "Sweet I rolled really good on this one" feeling which is part of the game.

The Cube of Rubix wrote:

I am starting to wonder if people who use Point Buy even really like rolling dice. I mean the random chance must drive them mad because its unfair and unknowable.

Attack rolls and skill checks are localized. Stat rolls are global. There is a difference in degrees of importance. Your speculation is unwarranted and rather insulting.

No insult meant, but it is coming off as the argument is simply "Its random so its unfair" but all rolls are random. Is it fair that jimmy can't seem to roll above a 5 all night and Bobby is rolling nothing but 18s, 19s, and 20s that is not fair but its the RNG at work.

Point Buy feels honestly a little PC so that everyone can feel special together. but really its easy to minmax into power with Point Buy.
15 point buy. you can get a 18 Str, 12 Dex, and 14 Con, with 7 in Int and cha and 9 in Wis and still function. With human bonus that 18 goes to 20. So when Mr. Fighter here swings his big ol Great Sword with two hands and rolls 2d6+7+2 He is likely to deal 11-21 damage (7 comes from 1.5x Str 2 from PA) so yeah he is killing anything that gets in his way and he is effective. Same with a Wizard in physical stats he can dump Str, Cha, and Wis do the lowest possible and have a 20 in Int allowing him a lot of Spells from level 1 on and of course higher DCs. So yes SAD characters get an advantage in Point Buy.

I am starting to wonder if people who use Point Buy even really like rolling dice. I mean the random chance must drive them mad because its unfair and unknowable. I mean sure they could use a system like Hero Points to confirm hits and such but really this aversion to random chance in a game based on it seems counter intuitive.

The Cube of Rubix wrote:

What my group does is this, we all sit down and roll out 4d6, drop lowest, reroll 1s 6 times. We figure out what our stat blocks look at, then we determine who had the best rolls at the table.

So say Jimmy rolled, 11, 15, 10, 18, 13, 14
But Bobby rolled 15, 16, 12, 16, 14, 18
One is clearly a better set then the other. Well we all use the better rolls. So we all take Bobby's stat array and affix it to our own characters.

So everybody in your game get an equivalent of a 51 point buy? That's just insane. Even though Jimmy had decent and considerably better than average stats (equivalent 33 point buy).

The Cube of Rubix wrote:

Point Buy is unfair to classes that are MAD because you are forced to be absolutely abysmal in dump stats (Monk for example need Str, Dex, Con, and Wis as primary stats, and can dump Cha and Int) while only being Meh at best in the primary stats...

This is the opposite of what is true.

In reality, if I roll an abysmally low 5 (cuz hey, it happens) and am playing a wizard, I can reasonably put that crappy stat into Strength or maybe even Wisdom, since I don't need strength and I have a good Will save. But what am I going to do with a roll of 5 if I want to play a Cleric or a Rogue or a Ranger. Not everyone wants to play characters who are mentally or socially challenged. That seems neither classically heroic nor fun.

The fact remains that rolling for stats is more likely to preclude you from playing a class that you'd like, rather than helping. I can tell you, it's worked pretty much exactly like that since first addition, when character classes had required stats to play. "You want to play a Paladin? Sorry man, not with crap rolls like that."

If you are so worried about s&%@ty rolls why nto play with straight 12s that would be utterly and without a doubt fair and balanced.

But what if jimmy rolls a bad to hit score and bobby rolls really high (on pure dice) thats not fair, so should Jimmy be able to use some buy method to be as equally good as bobby in a pure luck and chance setting? Dice are not always fair. You can roll straight 18s and still die in opening combat due to bad luck. Why pretend your not in a luck based game from the start?

Also when we roll really high, our NPCs and Mobs get higher stat arrays as well.

Wow I feel like the odd man out, though I get the benefits of Point Buy, but it seems silly to rely on Luck for every other aspect of the game and not when rolling the characters.

What my group does is this, we all sit down and roll out 4d6, drop lowest, reroll 1s 6 times. We figure out what our stat blocks look at, then we determine who had the best rolls at the table.
So say Jimmy rolled, 11, 15, 10, 18, 13, 14
But Bobby rolled 15, 16, 12, 16, 14, 18
One is clearly a better set then the other. Well we all use the better rolls. So we all take Bobby's stat array and affix it to our own characters. This means is someone rolls really well we all don't feel so left out. Also if someone rolls straight 8s (Happened once) we don't make them use a useless character.

Point Buy is unfair to classes that are MAD because you are forced to be absolutely abysmal in dump stats (Monk for example need Str, Dex, Con, and Wis as primary stats, and can dump Cha and Int) while only being Meh at best in the primary stats. While someone who is SAD like the Wizard can pour a big ol' 16+2(Racial) in Int and Meh in all others and still be fine the wizard doesn't care if his Str is 11 as wella s everything else. He is powerful where it matters for his character.

Well I don't think figuring out if it was light or not was the issue here. Just if it was possible to use two and get stacking effects, but as its not possible it shouldnt be an issue.

I guess it is, thought like I said it makes sense. Bone is lighter then steel, so it would be a Light Weapon in comparison.

It is just what I was always told seemed to make sense, never really bothered to look through it so its possibly a house rule. I only ever see Klar as a one handed weapon to be honest.

The Klar is a skull with a blade coming out of it. The bone version of the skull apparently is the light weapon type. If the skull is metal its a one handed weapon.

Thats the feat I was thinking of.

I believe his was bone which is the light version, Metal one is One-Handed.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

Have you learned NOTHING from WotC?

Don't piss off your costumers who are invested in the system that's already there

But more importantly, they're still going to be selling soft covers of Pathfinder 1st Edition. So your favourite game isn't going anywhere :)

It isn't? I bet new modules and APs will be released 2nd edition only. the game setting is actively dead for all purposes if no new content is written.

I'm sorry, but that's a huge deal breaker

They are not killing the 1.0 compatibility license. People can carry on making 1.0 stuff as long as people want to buy it.

I don't recall a previous edition bump from a company where they both continued selling the old version, and allowed third-parties to continue making stuff for it. Unprecedented!

Gulthor wrote:

Although I don't expect Paizo to continue to create new content for PF "1", do you plan to continue to sell material for the original version of Pathfinder (particularly Adventure Paths)?

I, like many others, have active disinterest in switching to a new version of the game, but there are still decades left of AP's left for our group to explore, and we'd like to continue supporting your company, even if we don't go down this road with you.

Please see the FAQ, especially the question But I don't want to change editions! I want to play Pathfinder First Edition forever and ever and ever!

At the point at which it is no longer feasible to keep those pocket editions in print physically, I see that they remain 'in print' digitally. Will you consider putting them up for 'Print On Demand' at that point, or are the print on demand services still below the quality level that your happy for Paizo products to go out at?

"A tiny chunk" is likely insignificant.

Easy to say until it's asphyxiating halflings bouncing off your windshield. :)

Every time a Drift engine is used, a tiny portion of a random plane is torn from its home...

... might tear away a chunk of hell and leave you flying through a cloud of furious devils.

If this happened to a world populated by most mortal creatures, they would die, lost and alone. So using a Drift drive is an inherently selfish and evil act. You are risking the death of other creatures for your gain.

I'm sure the intent wasn't to make it an issue for Starfinder Society, but now that it's occurred to me, I'm going to have to think of a way to explain it away. Any ideas?

What would be really great was if Paizo decided to provide the Goblin boon (or another rare boon) for those who donated a certain amount to this charity. We'd jump up the donations pretty quickly!

That would cause a massive argument about 'pay to play'/'pay to win'. Some people are really touchy about getting stuff for paying more.

However, if Paizo were to donate a cool boon as a second raffle prize, that might also boost donations.

Marks thread for future use when someone one rolls low on a Knowledge check to identify a monster.

Not that, Tri, the other one...

Giving someone 'the finger'.

No Pathfinder agents were harmed during the process of bringing you this intel.

Yeah.... about that... :)

OK, let's kill this by looking at the question from another angle:

BNW and TO have convinced me. I think the wording on activating a scroll could be more useful though, by stating you have to pick a class to activate it as. That would clear up the other questions nicely.

Sorry for the derail.

If you could make a UMD check to emulate the spell class feature, all you'd need to do would be to make the dc 20 check, rather than the harder dc 20+caster level (just noticed that isn't spell level)

That's a good point. Does the 'Spells' class feature give you the spell list, or does having levels in the class give you the spell list?

Squiggit wrote:

I find it dumb precisely because it's weird from a worldly angle. A wizard cannot aim a spell through a bay window even if the spell has no physical effect that needs to pass through the window, but a stone wall with a 1cm slit that's sufficiently long can give that same wizard impunity to cast any spell in their arsenal, even with spells that project effects that shouldn't be able to fit through a 1cm gap.

Assuming it's a bay window with ordinary glass, a lightning bolt can easily destroy said window and then affect whatever is on the other side... including your strawman.

I'd probably go with a scorching ray against a strawman.

i'm a strict believer that Role playing and fluff should be just as important and taken just as seriously as mechanics

Ok then.

If the rules matter you could just say you have to pick a class you're pretending to be when you use it and stick by those rules.

As far as I can tell, that is exactly how it works. There is no difference between an arcane or divine scroll, so the rules depend on the person who is casting it.

CRB page 490, Chapter 15: Scrolls, subsection Activation, sub-subsection Activate the Spell, last sentence: wrote:

Using a scroll is like casting a spell for the purposes of arcane spell failure chance.

Now I presume that using divine scrolls is like casting divine spells and so no arcane spell failure is possible. However in PFS I don't get to presume so I'm looking for clarification as to whether that's a correct assumption, or if the sentence is saying that ALL spell casting off of scrolls incurs spell failure chances.

You don't need to presume. This is talking about arcane spell failure, which does not apply to divine spells i.e.

Using a divine scroll is like casting a divine spell for the purposes of arcane spell failure chance (none).

I doubt the Boneyard needs a full book but some coverage would be nice. You can't adventure in a place that's lifeless.

I have some Pomegranate seeds that disagree with you.

well yes the alchemist can still die from a sword though the heart or decapitation. but he/she has no fear of time killing him/her.

Killed by a falling grandfather clock, how ironic.

brock, no the other one... wrote:

Last time one of my characters saw him, he was being beaten to death in a puddle of his own vomit by a Pathfinder who seemed to have some form of personal grudge against him. Nothing to do with me, I just threw the Ghast retch flask at him.

Torchbot. Any time you defeat him it's a torchbot.

A shame. The gentleman delivering the pummelling seemed to be finding it incredibly cathartic.

claudekennilol wrote:

Then the GM is going to have to be a dick and tell me no. I'm not putting holes in my shirts just for an extra 1-4 on a skill check.

I cut the tines off of mine and gorillia glued a small round magnet onto the back. Another magnet will stick it through the shirt. I even sewed a magnet to my hat so i can hot swap them out like benny from the mummy.

Pinned all mine to a lanyard to wear round my neck for maximum Benny :)

I know in the past when keeping a pregen despite 'bad things' happening, you didn't actually process the cost of the 'bad thing' until the chronicle is applied. So a 1st level character getting a 7th level pregen chronicle with a death wouldn't pay the chosen equity payment until that chronicle applied. You would decide at the time the GM is giving you the chronicle, and it would be noted on it, but the fee wouldn't come due until you get the rest of it too.

To my understanding, that has never been the case in PFS. You have to pay to clear the conditions on the pregen at the end of the session, or the character it was attached to was marked dead. This is why the rule of being able to reassign to a different character number came about.

I'd be a lot happier to assign pregens to real character numbers if this deferred payment thing was true.

Jegus, it's an expensive improvised grenade that requires two rounds of action and a weapon obtainable only from a meatgrinder 3-7 that could become nonfunctional by glitching at any time.

I get it that everyone's too cool for leniency school and a tad too enamoured with their own words, but I'd cut this guy some good ol' slack.

Anyone cool enough for this tactic is going to dual-wield their powder-kegs and laser pistols, and get this off in a single round, penalties be damned! :)

This is the kind of situation where the GM should always try to say "Yes, but..." rather than "No."

If a player can't put in some time of their own to get their character in order so I can easily inspect it and ensure they have the necessary reference documents... well, maybe they should go play at someone else's table.

There is a subset of players for whom that kind of organisation is just alien to their being. They literally can't do it. A subset of that subset are actually cheating, and a further subsetting gets us to the ones that are cheating on purpose. It would be a shame for the default response to disorganised players to become "go and play a game from a different publisher", just because we want to 'catch' the cheaters.

The only productive thing we can do here is noodle ideas on how to make it easier for people to track this stuff with the minimum effort and thought on their part.

Someone commented on writing down the source of stuff when you take it. How about an AR form, similar to the ITS, that has Ability Name, Book, Page, as columns and you write a new line on it whenever you add something to your character?

[ Edit ]

As an option, a GM could initial and PFS# a line if they have checked the player can provide a copy on request.

Quote:

You also need to inform the GM of any additional resources you're using pre-game so the GM can familiarize them self with the rules you're using.

And this is done never. Assume most of the people at the table have stuff outside of core.

If my standard GM preamble didn't contain this right at the start:

I'd never get any tips on what stuff I should be reading up on to build my own characters! :)

Admittedly, my next words are usually "Very cool! I'll trust you to be able to tell me the rules that apply to that as needed."

I disagree. Since illusion rules from the CRB are ambiguous, and a GM has to come up with a ruling, there is nothing illegal about a GM 7sing Ultimate Intrigue to help inform then how to make that ruling.

True, but if we want them to be used we first need to make sure the player base knows they exist, and then make sure they have easy access to them.

Rather than make that page of UI legal via Additional Resources, it would be better to copy/paste the appropriate text straight into the Campaign Clarifications document. That way it is available to all.

I'm noodling ideas on how to do this without it causing bookkeeping problems, and avoiding the idea of replaying an old scenario 4 hours after you first played it. This one hit my brain out of left field.

There are those that dislike the expansion of the allowed races beyond a certain point, claiming that it makes PFS feel like a trip to the zoo. What if we split off a third stream of the campaign and have PFS / Core / Menagerie options?

Most of the currently legal races would remain in PFS. Menagerie would open up another set of races that could only be played at tables that were formed from that group of races alone.

Would a third chance to replay be enough?

What about allowing replay after 4 years, but for a no-credit chronicle? In other words, you don't have to be making a table up to 4 to replay if the scenario is more than 4 years old, but you get a 0XP/0PP/0GP chronicle when you do so — you play only for fun.

I only am currently eligible to play 2 scenarios and a few modules everything else I have played. I'm not the only one in this boat. But I'd love to play the stuff I played at the start of my PFS career again. For most of them so much time has passed i don't recall the details anyway.

If you've played that much, do you really need more credit on more official characters? Why not just get some like-minded people together and play the old scenarios not-for-credit?

It is far more enjoyable to actually get to participate in the fight rather than have it end after the party's first actions. Character building your way to victory removes a lot of the enjoyment along with the risk.

I disagree with this as an axiom. It can be true, but isn't universally true. Not every person in the Pathfinder society wants to get involved in a fight.

There are certain characters that I play where if someone combat-focussed were to 'pull their punches' and avoided dropping the enemy, just so that I got a chance to 'participate', I'd be quite annoyed (presuming they did so because they thought that was the 'right' way to play the game and didn't discuss their intentions before hand). With those characters, I'm not there to fight, I'm there to 'translate the runes', and I make that clear in the introductions.

This is why this issue is purely an out-of-character issue to resolve, and can't (shouldn't) be resolved mechanically. It is impossible to develop a set of mechanics that adequately serves the play styles of all people, permuted into all possible combinations of tables. People are just going to have to be honest about their expectations and talk it out.

I'd also say that there are certain players who get more fun out of crafting their characters than playing. Playing is just a chance to field-test the stuff that they had fun crafting. And that's also a perfectly fine way to play the game.

Although it can be annoying to encounter a build that stomps a particular scenario, that build is going to be especially weak in other scenarios through it's career — it balances out. If it's causing out-of-character problems with the other players at the table, then the right way to handle it is with an out-of-game chat around the table, not an in-game change.

or did I just not get enough sleep last night?

Sleep well. :)

I have to confess, my wallet is secretly glad of this gap between sets.

claudekennilol wrote:

Problems it creates (as has been pointed out by others):

Not using a pregen to round out a party as it isn't as equipped as their own PC--it might provide a different skill set that is simply needed but isn't as survivable. Now when people show up and there are 4 rogues in an elemental-themed scenario, when previously one of them might switched out for a heavy hitter such as Oloch or Amiri. Now they'll be more likely to stay as what they originally brought because they have their own breath of life scroll, or have a higher AC, or just simply don't know the pregens well enough to feel comfortable enough to ensure their own survival--even though that would better the table overall.

Nothing in the new rules prevents this switch from happening.

I'm not going to play a pregen when it increases the level of risk to that character that I either otherwise would have played, or that I wasn't even planning to play. So in that case, yes the rule change has prevented the switch from happening.

It is an increase in risk because I am not as familiar with the abilities of the pregen, and because the pregen doesn't have the range of equipment that I've bought to combat certain situations.

you can apply it to a character you already have and live on the edge applying the rewards earned to a specific character

Also note that one person's 'living on the edge' is another person's 'unacceptable level of risk'. For sufferers of anxiety disorders, risk outside of their normal comfort zone (the previous rules) and/or outside of their control (not their character), is a big thing.

Encouraging people not to play is not my stance either, but you can apply it to a character you already have and live on the edge applying the rewards earned to a specific character or apply it to a non-existent character from the beginning. In the second case you might die in which case no big deal or you might succeed providing yourself with some cool stuff on another character down the line. I don't think its a big deal letting people apply it to an empty character slot I just think whatever choice they make they should have to stand by it.

I largely agree with you, but I think that the resources needed from the base character to clear the conditions on the pregen need to be finely tuned to be fairer than they are at present, otherwise the result will be to drive people away from playing pregens, and in scenarios where pregens are the only option.

There was no risk, and no dead character because the player could just shift the chronicle to a non-existent blob.

It's known as an opportunity cost. That chronicle is now unavailable for ever - they have lost the opportunity to gain it.

If the player could have successfully completed the scenario with their own character, but failed it due to playing a pregen to be helpful to the rest of the table, there was a risk and a consequence to that player.

Forgive an ageing guy talking to himself...

I am as happy playing a game with a character when there are no future consequences of failure as I am when failing will result in the 'death' of 30 hours of play.

I should note that what I am not happy with is losing the results of hours of play due to factors that are outside of my ability to properly affect. An example of that is when I am playing with a character that I haven't created. You could argue that I had a choice not to play, but encouraging people not to play PFS is not what PFS is about.

I'm happy with a penalty, but not with having to resolve the expensive conditions a 7th level pregen can expect to receive using only the 1/2 gold gear and whatever resources my 3rd level character has. It seams mean to beat the poor thing to death with sticks well above it's pay-grade.

... risk needs to be part of the equation so that our choices and actions at the table have meaning. Otherwise the GMs might as well just narrate the scenario to us.

This is a true statement for some people who play PFS, probably a majority. It is not true for all people who play PFS. It also depends strongly on the meaning of "meaning".

I am as happy playing a game with a character when there are no future consequences of failure as I am when failing will result in the 'death' of 30 hours of play.

To me, it's about the roleplaying and the story created by the interaction of the people at the table. Not whether the numbers on my piece of paper mechanically beat the numbers in the scenario and survive to be computed upon another day - that is fun, it's just not why I do it.

See Feynman's quote about physics giving practical results.

And I will only be making revision suggestions based on the parameters set by the leadership team. Unless they change thier mind on how they want things to work, my suggestions will be to clean up the language currently in the guide. Focusing on that will be much more productive.

I would ask you to make suggestions based on what you think best for PFS and what you have read here, rather than pre-cull them down to what you think the team want to hear.

They want there to be a real risk of death for solely the purpose of there being a risk of death.

Which is fine, but it has to be a fair risk, and there is some debate on where that line lies, especially with 'sight unseen', mandatory, pregens.

To avoid the abuse of using a pregen instead of a legal character for the purpose of avoiding the risk of death. And so folks won't play stupid or overly risky with a pregen knowing there is no longer lasting risk, and thus unduly endangering the real characaters at the table.

Apparently this has been enough of a major issue in enough regions that a solution was required.

The latter should be handled robustly by the GM at the table. This will still occur if the player in question pre-assigns the pregen to a character number they don't care about. So press the point to GMs and players that asking the pregen player to leave the table should be the solution in this case, or treating it as PvP where the pregen players actions can have no negative effect on the other characters. If players are in this situation and the GM refuses to step in, they should walk away and talk to a VO.

The former, I don't consider as much of an issue as it doesn't impact others. If someone wants to take a character number all the way to retirement by playing pregens instead, it's not really prevented me from having fun.

Postulate : We need a rule that is clear, concise, and simple, and which also doesn't discourage people from playing a pregen in situations where it's helpful to have them do so.

We've already talked about completing the paperwork next time you see a GM if you don't have your chronicle stack with you. We've also talked about the pregen being a proxy for your real character at that point in future time.

Why not just write down the cost of clearing the conditions on the chronicle gained by playing the pregen, and any gold gained (including by selling equipment) and worry about whether the character is dead at the point in future time when the chronicle stack catches up and the player can show the correctly completed stack to a GM?

It's simple, and it doesn't penalise someone who is helpfully trying to get a high-level game to run by killing off their lower level character prematurely.

Yes, some people will simply throw away the chronicle gained by playing the pregen. I suggest that is less bad for PFS than the result of forcing people to handle the conditions using only the resources on the pregen and the chronicle. If we open the door to allowing people to use not present chronicles, then it increase the risk of cheating anyway.

To nosig & pH unbalanceds' point - I think those of us that get to enjoy the fertile plains of Minnesota and our 15+ tables of games every week do not understand the limited replay opportunities of other regions.

Agreed. It should be standard procedure to accept what other people say are their experiences of play. We have vastly different play cultures and habits by nation and state, and most of us don't get to experience anywhere near the full spectrum.

What if, we were to handle pregen death by filling in the cost of clearing the conditions as a negative number in the 'Gold Spent' box on the chronicle being handed out, and left it at that?

When the player fills in the rest of the sheet, whether that be immediate or much later on (depending on the level of the character being applied to), the end total has to be a positive number or the character is declared dead at that point?

• People don't have to bring the chronicles for characters that they don't think they will need.
  
• People don't risk losing a character due to low gold just because they had to play a high-level pregen.
  
• You gain the chance to plan ahead to have enough gold/prestige to save the character.
  

Would that be the golden triple of: simple, provides risk, doesn't put people off?

Keirine, Human Rogue wrote:

But I think what Torrquan is getting at, why should a new player have to look up that information up in the FAQ, when 99% of the rest of character creation is in the guide?

Very few class-specific rules rules exist in the Guide. It is a place for general rules as they apply to all characters. Specific rules such as companion HP, spellbooks, etc belong in the FAQ, IMHO. Even "simple" classes like fighters have questions regarding their builds. Again, all of that belongs in the FAQ

I disagree. Rules belong in the guide (if PFS specific) or the CRB. If you need to consult the FAQ to get a rule, it's missing and should be an errata to either the guide or CRB.

The FAQ should be clarifying only.

What problem is this even intended to solve?

That is something that there is great value in making clear in all endeavours. It's never as obvious to the rest of the world as it is in the mind of the person who is writing down the solution.

Although we unfortunately have no official Paizo preview this week

I'd like to say sorry on behalf of the UK for kidnapping Erik and forcing him to come and game at PaizoCon UK over the weekend. I'd like to but ... totally not sorry! :)

Tuesday, and only two post-con posts. It's almost as if everyone is too knackered to type or something ;)

@Rei contact Chris, maybe something happened :)

Totally full at present, but Chris will keep a list for last minute contact in the event of anyone having to drop out at the last minute.

Typical Remain stupidity, calling it an emergency budget. Yes, if Article 50 had been triggered immediately and it was clear that we were going to lose the financial passport, then that style of emergency budget would have been necessary. Phrasing it in the terms he did though just made it seem like scaremongering.

Really, this situation is utterly shambolic. There are good reasons to consider, at some point, a planned and measured exit from the EU, if necessary. This isn't the way to do it, and this is not the time to do it.

In fairness, the country was also lied to by the 'remain' camp, who promised some sort of financial apocalypse, and George Osborne going crazy with a budget hatchet within days of any 'leave' vote.

It's good to be even-handed, but there is a material difference between misdirection (I won't label the Leave campaign as liars), and prediction. The first stirrings of the financial pain it has been predicted this will cause have been felt, and if we lose London's 'financial passport', that is £35B of tax going into the budget that has to come from somewhere else (it will only be a proportion of that, probably).