TomG's page

aren't you necro-ing a ton of monk proficiency threads?

Just the top two search results from Google.

What it adds is a reminder to those that had questions (like I did) that UC Monk proficiencies are different from vanilla monk proficiencies. Indeed, these two threads caused me a good deal of confusion until I realized that specific difference between the two classes during a character audit, and I wished to save someone else that particular headache. I don't normally play the monk, UC or otherwise, but some of my players do.

I don't feel strongly about changing the FAQ, for example, but do feel strongly that having a note in prominent rules questions threads is useful as rules change.

These forum threads are not just archived discussion pieces, they are also knowledge bases (especially for PFS, where many rulings seem to exist only in old threads), and as such I believe the occasional necro with new information is useful, especially for thread high in the search results.

Even a simple API that had nothing to do with players would be useful.

For example, a set of API endpoints that returns a list of all sanctioned scenarios, tiers and sub-tiers, and which are evergreen, and other sanctioned content modules/paths/etc., and their associated information.

Or perhaps an API that lists shipping PF products, current prices, release dates, etc.?

I'm going to necro this thread (landed here on a rules search), and point out that the FAQ entry seemingly applies only to Monks. The Unchained Monk specifically has proficiency in all weapons with the Monk special quality.

Perhaps the FAQ entry could be clarified?

A quick necro (in case this thread is used for rules clarification later) to point out that the Unchained Monk is specifically proficient in weapons with the Monk special property.

Page 553 of the Core Rule Book already contains the general rule for upgrading magic items.

So it does. But it also uses the implicitly adopts the crafting rules that don't exist in PFS, and uses as an example adding invisibility to a ring of protection, which is not possible in PFS, so it's perhaps not the best source for rules on upgrading magic items within the structure of PFS.

Even if the intention is that the CRB be the source for the upgrade rule, the FAQ is still pointing to the Guide for a rule that no longer exists there.

I agree. Kyle's comments made it in to later versions of the Guide. It's clear what the rule was. The removal of the text made it less clear.

It's odd that it was so recently removed. It's important, and should remain in the Guide. This is a core feature of organized play, and should not be found solely in the forums.

And I can envision some pedant arguing that the removal was after Kyle's original post, thus the upgrade rule no longer applies.

The Season 8 Guide is missing text that appeared in the previous season's guide regarding upgrading magical items.

For ease of play, a masterwork item can always be upgraded to a +1 item without paying for the masterwork cost again. Instead, you pay the difference between the cost of the +1 item and that of the masterwork item. This rule also applies to upgrading from a +1 item to a +2 item and so on—you never have to repay the original cost or sell your current item for half to upgrade to the next step. Note that this only applies to items of the same kind—you can’t, for example, turn your masterwork rapier into a +1 greatsword.

For ease of play, items of the same kind can be upgraded from a masterwork item to a magic item by paying the difference in cost of the two items. However, you can’t turn items of one type into another (i.e., you can’t turn a masterwork rapier into a +1 greatsword). ...

In other words, the rules for upgrading magic items numeric-based have been removed from the Guide.

I'm not suggesting the rule has changed. Indeed the FAQ item on upgrading named items was updated to the new season's guide page (although the page now says nothing about upgrading magical items).

Named magic items—including specific armor and specific weapons—are not upgradeable. Non-magic specific armor and specific weapons may be upgraded normally. Magic armor and weapons may be upgraded to named versions if they are the same basic material and shape as, and meet but do not exceed the enhancement bonuses of the named versions. Wondrous items whose names include a +X value (such as bracers of armor, headband of vast intelligence, amulet of might fists, etc.) may also be upgraded following the rules for upgrading magical items on page 19 of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play.

(As an aside, the name of the text being referenced is also incorrect.)

I suspect this change was made for editorial/page-fit reasons, but there is now no RAW text describing the upgrading of magical items. Veterans will understand because "it's always been that way", but those new to PFS (or new to RTFM) won't find the needed rule.

Or, is my interpretation wrong, and the intent was to remove upgrades for already-magic items?

FWIW, I enjoyed Ray Porter performing Death's Heretic and Redemption Engine.

I'm happy to pop in, GM Zinou.

Please PM if there is a spot open, so that I can dot.

I'm here. Was moving the past couple of weeks, and am sorted now, if my space hasn't be taken.

I would like Poog, but will take whomever because I'm last to the table.

TomG wrote:

I'm nearing completion of my fourth run of GM-ing this. As others mentioned, the lack of notes on lighting in the sewer was frustrating the first time. After that, I simply made sure the PCs had light, and described Laszo as working in light.

I got overly worried on this when I ran it as well, but the beetle gives off light for Laszo to use in his work. I kinda forgot that in the heat of the moment.

Right, but the flash beetles are "hiding in the pipes near the statue", and thus are not initially visible and usable as a source of light.

The beetles' light works for the fight, though.

Alright folks, we're updated! We've got:

...
- Bug reports up until this post (sans any index related bug reports)
...

Um, nope! Neither of the issues I reported were addressed.

The Witch page has multiple anchors for "#witch's-familiar". Only the first one works (because anchors are supposed to be unique).

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/baseClasses/witch.html#witch's- familiar

Also, the "sidebar" table further down the page is wonky in Chrome (current version), and extends far to the right instead of wrapping.

To clarify: The first bug exists because there is the code

This means a) any links to that URL at the "#witch's-familiar" anchor resolve to the first instance, and b) there is no way to link to the h1 heading in the second instance.

The second issue is the "Witch's Familiar" table (which I can't link directly to, because of the first bug) doesn't wrap appropriately, and requires four screens worth of horizontal scrolling to see each line.

Thanks, Chris. I look forward to it working!

TomG wrote:

Did a quick scan, and didn't see this one mentioned yet: Humans trying to take Racial Heritagae(kitsune) and Fox Shape feats.

That one is an absolute no for pfs. Fox shape is only available in the additional resources to kitsune, so whether you see it as a seperate ability or an add on to change shape is irrelevant, it doesn't work in PFS.

(see note above about racial heritage needing a BIG asterix)

I agree with you. But not everyone does.

The argument goes something like "Racial Heritage(Kitsune)" is written that a character counts as Kitsune for the purposes of taking feats, thus, they count as Kitsune for the purposes of Additional Resources restricting feats to Kitsune characters (because they "are" a Kitsune character for the purpose of feats). As I said, I disagree with the reasoning. Still, many threads have argued for pages (and even seen locks) on this issue.

But as the point of this thread is to bring up questions that clarity would assist, instead of offering your opinion on the answer, I'd appreciate support in convincing the powers that be to address the question. :-)

Did a quick scan, and didn't see this one mentioned yet: Humans trying to take Racial Heritagae(kitsune) and Fox Shape feats.

#7-10 Consortium Compact is evergreen.

I have a player telling me that after the table was reported to Paizo, his level one character is shown in sessions tab as not receiving PP for the event, with a warning saying he's played it with another character.

Is this normal for evergreens, a bug in the system, or did I screw something up reporting it?

(Yes, I know paper copy rules all, but it'd be nice if data in the system were correct too.)

I'm nearing completion of my fourth run of GM-ing this. As others mentioned, the lack of notes on lighting in the sewer was frustrating the first time. After that, I simply made sure the PCs had light, and described Laszo as working in light.

I also agree that the Disable Device roll for the ship is a wee bit high for Tier 1 characters. In four tables, I think there was one person with any ranks in that skill. (Although two of the tables didn't even do the ship.)

One little missing piece I brushed over when running: the scenario doesn't describe a way for the PCs to distinguish between Kortos and Aspis in the final encounters. No tabards, insignia, badges, or even descriptions of how they introduce themselves. I "solved" that problem by having the Kortos enter with a spoken challenge and having Aspis try to sneak in afterward (process of elimination meant they were Aspis), but I'd have liked that to be clearer.

I loved the creativity possible in the tavern. One table spent the morning catching rats and other vermin while the table's "face" tracked down (and diplomanced) a health inspector. They released the rats during the surprise inspection, and got the place closed down.

Lastly, and this is a little thing, but was frustrating: Please don't put half of the stat blocks in the appendix and half in the scenario description. (Sewer encounter in particular, where Laszo was in the scenario and the beetles were in the Appendix.) Having to bound back and forth each round was a pain. Put all stats for an encounter in the same place. The appendix is fine.

I'm not saying there are many trolls, just that it is (was) a phenomenon, and the powers that be are aware of it.

I concur with the comments above. Find a GM you trust, first, and then campaign. I've had some great PFS GMs, and continue at their tables (feels like a campaign!), and some that ... let's just say I'm glad I tried them, and also glad the scenarios were short.

As it happens, there are some troll users too, that offer up APs or other open worlds, string people along, and then drop the campaign without any word. Paizo has been trying to police the accounts that do this, but do your homework on the GM before applying. He/she should have a few thousand posts under their GM alias before trying something that significant, IMNSHO. (And I say this as a relatively new PFS GM.)

I'm currently running four (!) PbP tables of this.

One of my frustrations is that the races and genders of the NPCs aren't specified in the stat blocks. Digging through the text some are identified as women (the port inspector, for example), but I feel this information should be in the stat blocks.

Similarly, I'm assuming most everyone is human, if it doesn't specify otherwise ...?

The Witch page has multiple anchors for "#witch's-familiar". Only the first one works (because anchors are supposed to be unique).

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/baseClasses/witch.html#witch's- familiar

Also, the "sidebar" table further down the page is wonky in Chrome (current version), and extends far to the right instead of wrapping.

So... it looks like you have four (which is just as well, as I neglected to dot in gameplay, and missed a couple of days). So I'll bow out again.

Geesh, this one is full of little errors.

One more example: Encounter C1 has the compass rose pointing "down" on the map... about 1/3 of the descriptions for this part respect this. The other 2/3 assume north is up instead of down.

Like the other errors I've seen in this scenario, it's pretty easy to correct once it's noticed, but it's off-putting the first read-through.

GM dropped me a line and sent me this way.

I've played (and GM-ed) one and "Too", but haven't done anything with "free". Happy to take up as Chuffy, if you'll have me.

Thanks.

I'm putting together a character that could use a Confirmation.

I figured that much out. It seems an easy enough fix I'm surprised they haven't corrected it. 4 and 37 are very different numbers.

Is there a place to report issues with the scenario?

p. 14, I'm pretty sure the large number of CR 1/3 creatures (for tier 1–2) shouldn't have 37 hp each.

But I *am* having fun imagining the table conversations. PLAYER: "What do you mean TPK in the first encounter?!" GM:"I'm required to run the scenario as written."

927. The only interesting places are places you shouldn't be.

Evil wizard researched a variant of anti-magic field with range of touch (instead of personal) and area of "object touched" or 3', instead of 10'. This is then cast, with permanency, on a small disc that is surgically embedded in the target's chest. (Or, cast directly on the heart itself. <shudder>)

Depending on the effects, this might lead to additional abilities of having other external magic fail when in close proximity.

Third, your friend was collecting checkboxes on a Grand Lodge faction card for his pregenerated character. Last night, I allowed him to use one of the rewards from the faction card to keep things moving smoothly, but I'm not 100% certain that was correct.

Some Google-fu revealed the following:

Mike Brock ruled that pregens used for adventures do not qualify for a faction journal check. (That whole thread answers some great journal card questions.) I don't know if that ruling has been revisited. To my knowledge (and searches), it is not in the FAQ, nor is it in the PFS RP Guild Guide (Season 7).

Even if this were revisited later, journal cards are still tied to a single PC (and thus, character number), so checks earned with one character number wouldn't apply to a card for a different character number. (As mentioned in this thread, people who repeatedly play pregens may wish to change up character numbers on occasion to not cause problems for their table's reporting.)

These are a special way to track your character’s contributions to her faction. ...

Your character can use the Faction Journal Card for her faction ...
... you can only check one box per adventure.

I would rather they spend time FAQ-ing things that are contentious, not those on which there is general agreement among those who read the PFS RP Guild Guide.

Here is a list of the boons and what they do, for your perusal.

Thanks. I've seen it previously, and even shared it. But not only is that list incomplete, it's also unofficial.

I've heard (unsubstantiated) rumor that Paizo discourages such lists as it encourages "boon shopping" (in the meta-gaming sense that a player seeks out particular scenarios or boons for a specific character concept).

Edited to add: I don't wish to be a wet blanket on the boon trading thread. If there was an official issue with it, I think it would have been shut down long ago, rather than stickied. I'm just saying the idea takes some getting used to, and seems incongruous with how Paizo otherwise treats boons.

If someone wants to spend 150 bucks on an aasimar boon then let 'em.

Only half-tongue-in-cheek. Sure! I'll have one soon, and would take that offer....

Although, yes, I understand—and agree with—the principle of not exchanging boons for money.

What I really popped in to post is this:
The whole idea of trading boons is a bit odd to me. They are rewards for a particular action, and not necessarily tied to a particular person. But trading them treats them like payment for service (a good or commodity) rather than an award for appreciation. I'm not saying trading is wrong, just that I'm not yet attuned to the idea, even though I see it as a way to get boons I would otherwise never have access to.

More interestingly, as Paizo (nor anyone else that I've found) doesn't keep a list of boons and their meanings, a trade thread means very little to someone not in "the know". Google helps with some of these, but not all. (Some occasionally are listed on the Paizo blog, but that's not universally true.)

It's a question for a different thread, but if there are many unused (tradable) boons floating out there, does that mean Paizo gives away too many or that their pool of recipients is to narrow?

An ability that alters your attacks still works if you only have one attack.

The difference is that one may take a single attack in multiple rounds and thus the plural is achieved, and this hypothetical benefit applied multiple times. Attacks may not be the best example as the designers seem to be good about specifying "attacks" and "next attack". Perhaps you have a specific example?

Thus, I still do not find such an argument persuasive, although I have wrestled with it myself.

The plural does not exclude the singular. It encompasses it.

Because English is stupid and imprecise. This sort of thing is much easier in languages defined by formal grammars. However, as I described above, I do not find the particular example you gave persuasive.

That post was mainly to be a summary of arguments against. The discussions have mostly been hashed over already.

TomG wrote:

Changing from kitsune to fox shape is a standard action.

3. The change is from kitsune form (not from any form) to fox form

With Racial Heritage, you Human form IS your Kitsune form. They are one and the same thing, because it's not a template.

Interesting position. I don't agree, but interesting. (Also, novel to this thread, I believe.)

Made more interesting that you count human form as "kitsune" for a human, but by a strict reading, even a kitsune wouldn't be able to transform to a fox from human form. Thus, by your reading, the human gets a qualitatively greater morphological change from the feat than the (natural) kitsune does. That makes it difficult for me to agree.

Racial Heritage grants the racial type, but not the form. One can "count as kitsune" for spells and effects without having kitsune form.

As an aside, unlike some others on this thread, I'm seeing Beckett as someone who is polite in his disagreement. Maybe because I've worked with Beckett before, and trust him to be level-headed. From my perspective, our disagreement is collegial rather than adversarial.

Sigh.

I explained several pages back why I would disallow it in my home games.

Fox Shape

You can change into a fox in addition to your other forms [1].
Prerequisites: Cha 13, base attack bonus +3, kitsune.
Benefit: You can take the form of a fox (Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 3 112) whose appearance is static and cannot be changed each time you assume this form. Your bite attack’s damage is reduced [2] to 1d3 points of damage on a hit, but you gain a +10 racial bonus on Disguise checks made to appear as a fox. Changing from kitsune to fox shape [3] is a standard action. This ability otherwise functions as beast shape II, and your ability scores change accordingly.

Namely:

In PFS specifically, the character is required by "Additional Resources" to be kitsune. Even if one were to accept the feat in a home game (despite the above), I do not accept that the Racial Heritage feat bypasses the requirement of the Additional Resources. I concede it bypasses the kitsune(racial) requirement of the prerequisite, but not that it provides (a) kitsune form presumed by Fox Shape (as mentioned above) or (b) makes the character a "kitsune character" as required by "Additional Resources".

Although the Racial Heritage feat permits taking feats with race prerequisites, I think it's a stretch to consider "Additional Resources" an "effect related to race".

The arguments against all fell apart 300 posts ago.

Um, no. There was just no purpose continuing to discuss, as reasonable people can reasonably disagree about things. Repeating the same contention would not contribute meaningfully, so I have not attempted "proof by repeated assertion." Silence is not the same as acquiescence.

Is copying non-core spells from spellbooks still legal? ...

Yes. the blog post you refer to is only clarifying that the FAQ on the issue applies to the Core campaign, and not just to Standard. This is expected, as the rules don't change between the two, just the available default resources.

@Darksol: One could, possibly, AoO with a held touch spell (once, anyway), but one can't cast as a free/swift action (Quicken Spell is a quick action, which must be on one's turn, not a free or a swift).

One has to threaten in order to take AoO, and uncast spells don't threaten.

So, not relevant to this discussion.

Lastly, @maouse, your contention was responded to earlier. You're just repeating earlier claims that have been countered, with no new information or argument.

I brought this up earlier, but no one seemed to notice.

It was also answered earlier, but you didn't seem to notice.

EDIT: Here is a response, but the specific response I was thinking of was a different thread.

Is a Fireball considered a ranged weapon when you try to send it through a narrow passage?

The damage roll doesn't apply to the target of the "attack roll", so no, it doesn't meet the basic definition of "has attack roll, does damage to target".

Fireball is an exception that uses the "attack roll" mechanic to NOT hit something.

The trouble is, it seems you're saying this to be difficult, rather than actually seeking the opinion of others for the answer.

It eludes to the fact that ...

I'm going to be that guy. I've seen this too many times this week, and you are the unlucky one.

The word you're looking for is "alludes" (M-W:"suggest or call attention to indirectly; hint at").

Elude — (M-W:"evade or escape from (a danger, enemy, or pursuer), typically in a skillful or cunning way")

I think i's clear by this point that I agree with @graystone.

@Nefreet, if you agree with the tallied bonuses (and it seems you do), then there should be *some* Weapon Focus that applies. The question then, is "Weapon Focus(what?)"?

Boy, I suck at textual sarcasm.

It's a fault of the medium, not with you.

See Poe's Law.

In some online communities a 'sarc mark'—such as '\s'—is pretty much mandatory. Probably holds true here, too.

I'm finding the PbP format in general is great for a new GM with pretty much anything low level. Players don't have to sit and wait that seemingly forever (2 minutes, 5 minutes, or even 30 seconds) while a GM researches a rule or consults the scenario description again. GMs have the time to get it right, and it's wonderful.

It's also spelled out in the PFS RP Guilde Guide, under the section "Conditions, Death, and Expendables".

However, any equipment that’s listed on the pregenerated character sheet may only be sold to clear their own conditions during the play of a sanctioned event, ...

A pregen can sell its gear to raise himself/herself, but not others.

I've screwed that one up before, which is how I know that line is there. 8^)

@TomG so if spells that use attack rolls are weapons, what do I take weapon focus for? Weapon focus non-ray ranged touch spells?

I concede the issue may a bit muddier with regard to this feat, as I've mentioned previously.

As @graystone mentioned, the 3.5 book, Complete Arcane suggested the following (...digs out old copy...):

Weapon Focus: Choose one category of weaponlike spells (ranged spells or touch spells) and gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls made with such spells. You can gain this feat a second time, choosing a different category of weaponlike spells.

This is one avenue I've seen suggested and seen others use within PF. It seems reasonable, and is, I believe, consistent with how Pathfinder works. It's consistent with this FAQ, except that the question answered was narrower than the one you asked, which I think has only added to the confusion over the years. (The same narrowing of the question was used in this answer and this one.)

What I'm asserting is that ranged-touch-attack spells not specifically defined as rays (e.g., acid splash) are de facto rays for the purposes of all feats and effects, and should be treated similarly.

Thus, Weapon Focus (ray) and Weapon Focused (ranged touch spell) are effectively the same (only one is needed to gain the benefit for RTA spells), while Weapon Focus(touch spell) would be a different feat for melee touch spells.

To add to the above:

Link to the "Secondary Success Conditions" document.

Yes, I'm being a bit heavy handed. I'll admit that. A couple of the same people have been coming back to this thread saying (in effect) "there's *currently* a problem", without providing a reason for doing so.

I've seen some little complaining about the interpretation I offered, but no real counter argument. Some of the rebuttals have been ludicrous. Some have been honestly inquisitive. However, I haven't seen any in the past few pages provide an evidence-based argument for an alternative interpretation.

A couple have mentioned (and I agree) that deciding how to apply Weapon Focus is something that may see some table variation. (But this issue is much narrower, and is a different question than what was posed. Besides, @graystone addressed it well above, saying, "Check page 73 of Complete Arcane.")

There are lots of rules discussions on this forum. For many of those issues, I agree there needs to be a FAQ, and that reasonable people can disagree. But IMNSHO, whether feats and abilities apply to ranged touch attacks from spells is not one of those "depends on your game/GM/interpretation" issues. They apply. Hands down, no question. They apply because they rely on the basic assumption of ranged attacks and Base Attack Bonuses, and all of the other bonuses and penalties that go with it. Saying feats and abilities do not apply would also remove Dex bonus, BAB, size bonus, and everything else, under the same rationale, and that is an absurd outcome.

Would it help if Paizo were clearer about it? Sure, I'm not against that. I've clicked 'FAQ', on this thread and on similar ones, even though I don't have this question. But I also don't think a FAQ is necessary. This thread, in my mind, came to a consensus that feats and modifiers apply as related to the attack rolls long before I jumped in. The answer is already there in the rules if one doesn't carry too much baggage from prior systems with them.

Have I run into a GM that ruled differently? Yes, once, but that was 5+ years ago, and was an untrained/unconnected GM that didn't follow errata or rules discussions. I was away from PF for a bit, but I have not worked with *any* GM in the past year that has ruled differently from what I've described here. So, no, I'm not convinced the problem is as widespread as you're making it. I see some FUD, but I haven't seen a problem in real-life play. Admittedly, that doesn't mean no one else has, but if it does occur it's not being regularly reported here.

As an aside, you're moving the target. The OP's question is whether feats apply. You're now arguing about whether the question needs a FAQ or not, without addressing my answer to the OP's question.

Yes, those are three categories. No, it's not a problem. I don't understand why you keep making it one. (Although yes, Paizo could be more explicit, but there isn't really a huge need to.) Just because you keep saying it's a problem doesn't mean it's actually a problem.

As for the citation (it's the same one I've mentioned three times):

Attack Roll

An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

Okay, let's start here. The attack roll is a d20. We add bonuses. Which bonuses do we add?

Attack Bonus

Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is the following:

Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier

With a ranged weapon, your attack bonus is the following:

Base attack bonus + Dexterity modifier + size modifier + range penalty

Please notice there are only two choices: melee weapon or ranged weapon. If we're making an attack roll—and we know we're doing so when we apply our BAB and trying to hit something—we're using a weapon.

As for the examples above (Throw Anything, monkey flinging poo), these are weapons within the context of the system.

Either "ranged touch attack" is a subset of "ranged attacks" and they are all weapons, or they are not, meaning you can't gain cover vs ranged touch attacks. You can't have it both ways.

They are weapons for the purposes of this roll. Cover applies, as does firing into combat, concealment miss chance, or any other element of the Combat Modifiers table.

No, it's not a problem. It uses a ranged attack roll. Ranged attack rolls are only for weapons. Therefore, such spells are weapons. It's really that simple. (The same is true, as was pointed out, for kinetic blasts, which are Spell-Like.)

You're creating a problem that doesn't (or rather, shouldn't) exist. The issue comes, partially, from a long 3E history.

To my knowledge, there has been no ruling in Pathfinder, ever, that differentiates between ray and other ranged touch spells. Some rulings have referred to rays specifically, that is true, but such rulings have never excluded other RT spells.

Sure, explicitly to ray spells. To spells that list as a weapon, like Acid Arrow.

How about spells that make RTA that are not rays, nor have weapon-like names?
Acid Splash, as an example.

The answer is the same. (Although you might see table variation around Weapon Focus, the other feats work the same.)

The description of these as a "weapon" is, as I mentioned, in the Combat section under "ranged attack". RTA is a ranged attack. Ranged attacks use weapons. Thus, these spells are weapons.