![]()
Search Posts
![]()
![]() I like this scenario; some cool backstory and interesting exploration elements. The PCs get to be Pathfinders rather than run errands (like in the not-so-great previous one). I had a few questions: 1) It appears that the only advantage/disadvantage for how long it takes the PCs to reach Seeker's Folly is the following:
Quote: If the PCs arrive ahead of schedule, the extra time they have to explore grants them a +2 bonus on Knowledge, Linguistics, and Perceptions checks while exploring area B. If they arrive late, they are forced to rush and instead take a –1 penalty on these checks. This seems a little contrived to me and I dislike it from a mechanical sense; the PCs do not know how long it will take Yjalk to reach the ruins, and would not necessarily know to "go faster" or that they could "take their time." Also, after Yjalk arrives and is negotiated with or defeated and the Sage of Plagues is put down, wouldn't the PCs have as much time as they needed to explore the ruins before contacting Amenopheus? I fully expect PCs who have not solved certain riddles to continue trying (perhaps even waiting a day, unless Amenopheus wants to leave for the Pillars right away) before leaving the place. 2) What kind of information can the PCs get from the sarcophagus? Do any of the corpses from B12 work? What about the corpses of Torch's old team? What information would these corpses provide? Is there some recommended background reading on what could be provided by knowing the history of Osirion up to the Song Pharaoh? I can wing it if necessary, but would like to provide actual answers. 3) Is there a book containing some additional background information on the Jeweled Sages? One of the new Mummy's Mask-associated products perhaps? Some background on the order would really help with the framing of this scenario. ![]()
![]() I had a few questions about the new Storm of Blades spell from People of the Sands. Quote:
Do the blades simply do the base damage for each sword, or do they add Strength to damage as well? Also, would "lead blades" work on the blades from this spell? I would assume no, as the spell says there are no penalties for using melee weapons as ranged weapons, but lead blades requires melee attacks. Also, if a large creature cast this spell at an opponent, would the base damage for each blade be higher? Thanks! ![]()
![]() This post is intended for campaign staff (Mike Brock and John Compton). As it stands, according to Additional Resources, once the playtest is over:
Quote: You will be forced to update your character—adjusting only the features that have changed, not rebuilding entirely—once the Pathfinder RPG Advanced Class Guide is released. Please reconsider this decision. This decision will make it much less likely that people will be willing to try out the new classes, and at the moment, the playtest would greatly benefit from observations of how the new classes function in Pathfinder Society. Currently, there are discussions going around the playtest boards (some of which have even been noted as being flagged for dev team review by Jason Buhlman and Sean K. Reynolds) about making relatively major changes (at least in a PFS context) to some of the classes, including but not limited to:
These changes might cause a character build in Society to become very different and even potentially unplayable; for example, a weapon that has had a great deal of money invested into it might become unusable, certain saving throw DCs might become very low, or certain characters might lose access to certain feat chains that are integral to their build. I do not think there is any harm in allowing a free rebuild for those who are willing to try out these new classes and provide feedback for Paizo to improve its products. I think it would greatly increase the number of people willing to provide feedback if a rebuild option were provided. Allowing this one-time rebuild should not lead to any exploitation of the rules; rebuilds have already been allowed in the past for those who have had their character class changed (for example, the Hellknight prestige class). Perhaps it would work to require that the people who receive a full rebuild must have filled out the ACG survey and were thus providing feedback for the playtest? The people who are willing to work with Paizo to test these new rules should not be punished due to potential changes being made to the character classes. ![]()
![]() The Movanic Deva can be summoned using Summon Monster VI if a caster has the Summon Good Monster feat from Champions of Purity. This creature can create an Antimagic Field 1/day. Normally, AMF interacts with summoned creatures as follows:
Quote: Summoned creatures of any type wink out if they enter an antimagic field. They reappear in the same spot once the field goes away. Time spent winked out counts normally against the duration of the conjuration that is maintaining the creature. If you cast antimagic field in an area occupied by a summoned creature that has spell resistance, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against the creature's spell resistance to make it wink out. (The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.) However, if the summoned creature itself (such as the mentioned Movanic Deva) casts the antimagic field, things get a bit weird. The field first appears as a 10-ft.-radius emanation, centered on the Deva. The Deva then automatically beats its own Spell Resistance (as far as I can tell, you cannot choose to not automatically beat your own SR), and one of the following things happens... 1) An infinite loop. The Deva winks out, which winks out the Antimagic Field, causing the Deva to wink back in, causing the Antimagic Field to wink back in, which causes the Deva to wink back out...etc.
What is the correct answer? ![]()
![]() Recently, the design team clarified that the Spell Mastery feat in the Core Rulebook by RAW applies only to wizards, but could easily be expanded to apply to witches, magi, and alchemists.
Sean K. Reynolds then went on to say that the only reason this feat could not be officially changed was because it would then have to reference classes that were not in the core rulebook:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
In light of this, would it be possible to get a "PFS Houserule" allowing witches, magi, and alchemists to take the Spell Mastery feat (and therefore prepare a small number of spells without their familiar/spellbook/formula book)? ![]()
![]() Figured I would get this thread started. I had a question about the "Conjuration among the Thousand Columns" section. Would these restrictions also apply to either:
Second, I had a question about the briefing itself. Shiela seems to imply that the goal is to get the words to access Krune's domain; is her goal (or at least the goal she'll share with the PCs) to get inside his domain and kill him before he wakes? Just FYI, here in San Diego we've been suspicious of Sheila since the beginning of the year...this scenario does not do anything to soothe our fears. ![]()
![]() I didn't see a GM thread for Eyes of the Ten Part 3 (Red Revolution), so I made one here. Heavy spoilers below. I had a question about reactivating the engines on the airship. The scenario lists a DC, and allows Knowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (Engineering), or Use Magic Device checks.
Quote: The airship is rapidly losing altitude and will crash in 10 minutes if the PCs are unable to restart the engines. Any PC with Knowledge (engineering), Knowledge (arcana), or Use Magic Device can make a DC 40 check to figure out how to reactivate the artifact that powers the airship. Generally, for Knowledge checks, the check is a "no action" that cannot be retried: Quote:
However, Use Magic Device can generally be retried unless the PC both fails and rolls a 1, and generally takes an action: Quote:
If a PC decides to use UMD to try and activate the engines, should they be able to retry the check on a failure? How much time should each try take? (I don't know what the timeframe on "activating an airship engine" would be.) It seems that if the normal UMD rules are used, the PCs would get 100 tries to activate the engines with UMD but only 1 try with Knowledge checks. Should I run the UMD check in the same way as a Knowledge check here (i.e. no action but no retries, you either figure it out or you don't)? ![]()
![]() The Additional Resources page notes that the role "Shoanti Totem Shaman" (from Varisia, Birthplace of Legends) is legal. This role mentions as one of the options a cleric that chooses domains from one of the Shoanti Totems listed on the inside front cover. However, the totems are not explicitly called out as legal for clerics to worship in Additional Resources. Are these totems legal for Shoanti clerics to worship in PFS? ![]()
![]() Mark had previously clarified here that half-elves could take elf-only archetypes, such as the Spire Defender Magus: Link Does this apply to the new archetypes/feats/spells from the Advanced Race Guide as well? What about a half-orc or half-elf taking a human-only feat or using a human-only spell? ![]()
![]() Summon Monster II lists as one of the creature choices a Small Elemental. I know this means we can use it to summon Air, Earth, Water, and Fire elementals from the Bestiary. In PFS, are the newer elementals (Magma, Mud, Ice, Lightning) also valid choices for the spell? They seem to fit the "Small Elemental" criteria just like the older ones. The "Additional Resources" page lists that creatures from Bestiary 1 and Bestiary 2 are valid for Polymorph effects, but does not mention summoning for either case. Thanks! ![]()
![]() In the recent FAQ update, it was clarified that imp and quasit familiars can use wands/circlets of persuasion/potentially other magic items. Does this also extend to other "human-like" Improved Familiars? For example, the Cassisian (which is added as an Improved Familiar option in the Ultimate Magic appendix, and which campaign staff mentioned on these boards was therefore a legal choice) can take the form of a human child; in this form, could it also wield a wand? Basically, can other Improved Familiars with hands and the ability to speak use wands? Just trying to get some love for the good-aligned folk. Thanks! ![]()
![]() I had a question about the Planar Ally line of spells in PFS. The spell description reads:
SRD wrote: By casting this spell, you request your deity to send you an outsider (of 6 HD or less) of the deity's choice. If you serve no particular deity, the spell is a general plea answered by a creature sharing your philosophical alignment. If you know an individual creature's name, you may request that individual by speaking the name during the spell (though you might get a different creature anyway). Are there any restrictions on what outsiders can be called by a player in PFS? What about templated creatures (for example, the Celestial template reads that a creature with the template can be called by Planar Ally). Could a player therefore request (for example) a Celestial animal or a Half-Celestial Unicorn? Should I as a GM allow basically any reasonable outsider to a player? I was thinking that I would basically allow the player to call whatever outsider they desired within the limits of the spell, their deity, and alignment, but I was wondering what others had done in a Society environment. I figured that the power of the spells would be balanced by the cost. ![]()
![]() Are the new improved familiars from Ultimate Magic legal for PFS play? The "Additional Resources" page mentions that everything in the book is legal except for what is listed; the list does explicitly mention familiars from Chapter 2 as legal, but does not seem to comment on the legality of the Improved Familiar feat. I assumed this would mean that the new Improved Familiars were legal, but wanted to check. My wife was hoping to have a Silvanshee improved familiar for her wizard if it is allowed. Thanks! ![]()
![]() The other forum posts have seemed to focus on weapon-using animals or the requirement of Handle Animal, but I had a question on communicating with animals. The recent blog post states that:
Quote: Gaining a language does not necessarily grant the ability to speak. Most animals do not possess the correct anatomy for speech. While a very intelligent dolphin might be taught to understand Common, there's no way for him speak it. There is also the issue of learning the language. The rules are mostly silent on this front, due to ease of play for PCs, but a GM should feel safe in assuming that it might take years to actually teach Common to an intelligent animal. All of this, of course, assumes that the animal even bothers to fill that language slot. Possessing the ability to use a language does not necessarily mean that such an ability is utilized. I spent a skill point in Linguistics with my intelligent wolf animal companion to learn Common. Prior to the blog post, I thought that this would be a good way for the animal to "learn the language," and clarifications from James Jacobs on the forums agreed. I (and the GMs I played with) all interpreted this as meaning that my animal companion could understand simple speech and therefore execute more complex combat maneuvers (eg Overrun, when to Power Attack and when not to, moving around for a flank, etc). Even though I personally disagree with requiring tricks to command intelligent animal companions, I am OK with this (and my Druid didn't skimp on the Handle Animal). However, does the new ruling mean that I can no longer instruct my INT3+ wolf to Power Attack against certain foes and not others? Or to use the Lunge feat against creatures with reach? Or can I issue the "Attack" trick, and then shout in common "go for the kill" or "stay back?" ![]()
I made this build for Pathfinder Society, and just hit second level. I was hoping to hear some advice for higher levels if anyone had done something similar. Human Cleric of Shelyn 2
Domains: Charm (Love), Luck Skills:
Spells:
Feats:
So far I've generally been buffing or using command to disable a foe and using the "Bit of Luck" domain power to provide rerolls to fighter/rogue types. Defensively, the "Adoration" ability is fantastic, as most creatures need to make a will save in order to attack me. I was debating either:
![]()
![]() I am a little confused about the Inner Sea World Guide update. The additional resources page says: Quote: Equipment, feats, and prestige classes already in play remain legal and Quote: Any rules element which has been updated in the Inner Sea World Guide (as denoted with an asterisk below) MUST use the version in the World Guide. I have a character who took the Fey Foundling feat from the campaign setting at 1st level (which granted DR1/cold iron). The new feat increases the effect of healing magic. Does my character need to update his feat to the new version in the world guide? Or does his previous version of the feat "remain legal"? If I do not want the new version of the feat, can I choose a new legal feat or am I stuck? |