Victor Zajic's page

Bards with healing ability aren't going to be that common.... because true bards themselves are not... and most that are... aren't the kind to submit to conscription or the demands of a military career.

Ummm, What? Not all bards sing in taverns for their supper. There isn't a "chaotic only" requirement for the bard class. I bet a lot of bards play drums or trumpet or oratory in armies. Add in access to healing magic and the ability to buff all allies that can hear you? The military is perfect place to find a bard. Hell, there is even a prestige class explicitly designed for the bard military officer in mind.

Also, some Arcanists can heal, Alchemists and Investigators can heal if they take a certain discovery, and there are some new classes that can cast cure light wounds as an occult spell.

However, none of these non divine options are as good at healing as dedicated cleric, so there is a price to pay for the ban.

It just seems a bit odd to sanction content, and modify the MindTech discipline when it's abilities can really be used.

I do like the Force Field discovery, though.

So this legal PsiTech discovery in Occult Realms lets you channel unused spell slots or phrenic pool points to power tech items, but unused charges go away at the end of the round.

But it explicitly can't be used to power timeworn devices.

Besides maybe E-picks, can anyone thing of any items, including on chronicle sheets, that this ability could be used to power?

Brad Turner wrote:

Here's an interesting tidbit for any interested GMs. I was curious about the opera entitled "Huntress of Heroes" that Shensen was going to perform before her disappearance and the opera house was shutdown. It's also very relevant to the "Diva in Training" campaign trait in the Player's Guide.

I wasn't finding any flavor text for it in any of the Hell's Rebels books but I managed to find a synopsis about the likely story used as the basis of the opera. If you were also curious, check out the the story of Aolar, Lady of the Hunt on pages 30 and 31 of Book of the Damned, Volume 2: Lords of Chaos.

Ha! Was waiting for someone to track that info down. :-P

The story of Aolar as seen in the Book of the Damned is indeed the exact story that plays out in the opera, "Huntress of Heroes."

Any chance we could get a brief summary for those missing that book?

There are two boons that let you recharge stuff, and it doesn't say you have to use them on your own stuff. So play the tech Scenarios and talk your buddy's into recharging your stuff. Also take the Technologist feat and be a member of liberty's edge.

I just realized Greater Magic Weapon is on my spell list, so the question is kind of moot.

Is this possible? Could I have Masterwork Transformation cast on a timeworn tech gun, then have it enchanted as a magic weapon?

Victor Zajic wrote:

There is an entire special scenario where you are tasked to steal, blackmail, and extort the competition in an auction so that the Pathfinders can win it.

Who is the competition? A neutral/evil organization or the Sisters of the Poor?

I agree that OOC, PFS portrays the Society as not ostensibly "good". But we are not even in the same ball park as the Aspis consortium and the activities of the PCs don't cross the evil boundary....they can't because if they did, then any random Paladin would have to atone and OOC PFS would never set up a players to fail like that. And yes, I'm aware that some scenarios have to be dealt with delicately if you're a Paladin, but no mission that I'm aware of would require a Paladin to fall if completed successfully. Is there one? I know I've heard a few GMs try to claim it as so, but never have I seen John Compton say a mission could not be completed by a Paladin without needing atonement.

If the none of missions can cause a Paladin to fall, then the average alignment of the Society would have to be closer to good than neutral as every good mission would never be counterbalanced.

EDIT:
How do you feel about the use of the Faction Journal Cards to promote the faction system compared with the old techniques/missions?

Only one of the competitors is known to be an evil group when the mission is given, and you are blatantly sent to rob said evil organization. I played that scenario as a good leaning cleric recently and I had to go out of my way to justify my characters actions in character.

My paladin has to very often somewhat undermine the mission parameters in order to keep true to his ideals. the PFS campaign is actually very poorly suited to paladin PCs. And I've played in many games with paladins where I definitely would have called for atonement afterwards if

The society isn't morally bankrupt, but morality is not their goal. PCs are only sent to do noble things when the society has something concrete to gain from it.
I adore the new faction journal system.

Why would there be an organization devoted to using the Pathfinder Society for good aligned goals, if the society was already good aligned.

Wanting to play is a choice. you could find other people to play with, or not play.

Good Aligned NPCs have been set up as enemies to fight in multiple Scenarios.

I don't think either of us is going to be convinced by the other on the nature of the society. I suggest you actually do some research on what Paizo has published about the Pathfinder Society before state that the PFS campaign is about good vs evil. And Pathfinder as a system is not about good vs evil. The core rules provide all the tools to run a campaign that is evil vs good, if you wish to do so.

There is an entire special scenario where you are tasked to steal, blackmail, and extort the competition in an auction so that the Pathfinders can win it.

I'm not saying the society is an evil organization, just that it's definitely not a good one.

Edited post because it was too combative.

I disagree with your interpretation of the society and the campaign.

Pathfinder is often about good versus evil. Pathfinder Society is not one of those campaigns. The Pathfinders and not a good aligned organization. The entire Worldwound Arc was not about killing evil creatures. It was about making allies to help us fight our way into the Worldwound so that we could loot a dwarven sky citadel no one else had looted yet. Had that not been involved, the Pathfinders would have had no reason to help out the Crusade.

Nothing actually forces your character to go on missions with PCs they do not like. Your character is completely free to turn down the mission and not play. You still play because you and your character want to, because your PC is a member of an organization that doesn't tolerate or accept someone who would refuse to cooperate with their fellow Pathfinders while on a mission.

The reason PFS has banned evil character is not because the Society rejects evil characters, it is because having an evil alignment has been used very often as an excuse not to play well with the others at the table. It's to promote unity and cooperation, OOC mostly, not to punish wickedness.

** spoiler omitted **

That was not how it was ran for us. I thought that might be the case, and was ready to void my contract if needed, and said as much to the other players and GM. We found another way to bypass the spell that was causing that feature. I don't know if the GM changed thing, of if what you mentioned was just one way around that problem. If that was the case it would have been an easy solution to our disagreement, so I'd be surprised if our Venture Lt. choose to change things just to let me get away with what I did.

Riggamortis wrote:

He then told the GM he could not allow us to attack the creature because there is a rule stating players cannot interfere with preventing faction missions.

I've not seen such a rule. There is the OOC "don't be a jerk" rule which can certainly be invoked in some situations, but this is one where that rule might apply both ways.

The fundamental problem I have with what the player did is that the game has an asymmetry with regards to character actions and OOC protections. Essentially, the player is gaming the system by having his character take IC actions because he as a player knows that OOC restrictions apply.

If a character made a deal with an evil creature and tried to prevent the party from killing the creature, it's highly likely the party would see the character as being an agent of evil and kill the character as well. As a GM, I will not allow a player to game the system. I won't allow characters to take actions which disadvantage the party and simultaneously enjoy protection under the very OOC rules meant to bolster a better experience for all.

This campaign is not about killing evil creatures, and there are evil members of the society(NPCs, like the head of the Dark Archive). Our PCs are not allowed to kill them because they are evil. The campaign explicitly encourages players to make characters with a darker theme by having a faction that encourages and rewards such behavior.

Also, the campaign admins have approved a chronicle sheet with an artifact on it that can force your character to switch alignments to evil and atone at the end of the scenario or be reported dead, and the boon can be used repeatedly. And said boon had already switched the character in question two steps towards Lawful Evil from Chaotic Neutral(So LN), in that very scenario.

Killing a PC because they made a deal with an evil creature is very blatantly against the rules of PFS. It is not uncommon for a scenario or faction goal to actively promote such behavior.

Riggamortis wrote:

The party attacked the evil creature on sight and the player stated we could not because he made a contract with it guaranteeing it safe passage and no harm from the pathfinder society. He then told the GM he could not allow us to attack the creature because there is a rule stating players cannot interfere with preventing faction missions. Is this something that is allowed?

The journal cards are not faction missions. Faction missions are something from older season scenarios and no one is required to do them any more. I tend to look them over for each scenario, and decide if they add to the scenario or not. I will also avoid giving them out if I think the scenario will run long.

There are rules about cooperating with your fellow pathfinders. In general, you shouldn't undermine each other's goals. The thing is, if there were Silver Crusade characters in that same adventure they could claim that making such a contract undermined their own goals.

As the person in question, I can tell you that there were not completing faction goals. Had another PC had a goal that involved killing the monster, I would have considered neither of our needs to outweigh the other and let the chips fall where they may. In this situation, one player wanted to complete a faction goal, and the other player wanted to kill the monster that had agreed to join the pathfinder society and share it's knowledge, in a infernally enforceable contract, fully witnessed by the needed parties(some devils in the scenario). Characters would not be allowed to murder regular society npcs, and this solution would have shaved 20 minutes off the slot had we not stopped to argue about it. In this scenario, I had deliberately stepped aside from participating in a combat so that the players who wanted to have fun fighting things could do that more.

I think you are going to have a very tough sell convincing me that rules regarding faction missions should not apply to faction journal card goals. Do you really think it should be allowed for one PC to deliberately undermine another PC's faction journal goals, denying them a mechanical benefit, because their right to kill whatever they please is more important? These rules were made to outright stop interparty and player conflict. All the other PCs received full rewards for the adventure and were not penalized in any way, shape, or form. Killing evil monsters is not the goal of the society, recovering knowledge and artifacts from the past is. We had not been sent by the society to kill this monster. My characters action were directly aligned with the Society goals, and there were no Silver Crusade PCs present. That didn't matter to the other player in question, he just wanted to kill things. Said PC had never player his character as particularly concerned about morality. Earlier in the dungeon we had lost out on a good boon because we didn't work with the bad guy.

There really wasn't another solution to this problem that wouldn't have resulted in Player vs Player combat, which isn't allowed. I asked the other player nicely before-hand to not be a jerk and mess up my character's stuff, but the player refused. I only invoke the rules to prevent the PC's actions when we couldn't work out some sort of agreement or compromise, and the GM agreed with me that those were actually the rules to govern the situation. We were at an in-pass, and one of us was going to be unhappy with the outcome. I tried very hard not to be the jerk in the situation.

The campaign administration has ruled that deliberately sabotaging another character faction mission counts as PVP and is not allowed. It's not the in guide explicitly, but their interpretation of the rules in the guide. I don't have a link handy, but it has come up before and been ruled on, it shouldn't be that hard to find.

There was a full contract written out, signed, and witnessed. The GM allowed me to make a Linguistics check for that faction goal instead of a Diplomacy check, but it was in game time consuming.

The level in question clearly announced the big bag guy's presence ahead of time, and it was not hard to infer that the monster was probably a spell caster, that is why I decided to try and convince it to join the Dark Archive instead of having to kill it. Many of my different characters offers the bad guys a peaceful solution in many scenarios, it's just rare that a monster shows some sense and agrees. I had not read the module ahead of time or used out of game knowledge, I was perfectly willing to accept an answer from the GM saying that the monster wasn't a spell caster and didn't meet the faction card goal requirement. I'm not really seeing how that could be out of character knowledge or meta-gaming. My character in question had a genius level intelligence, the logic beyond the decision was not out of his grasp.

I didn't actually prevent any character from coming into the room while I negotiated, but I did close the door and no one opened it. I honestly thought the other Players would be pleased at a creative solution that saved us some time with no mechanical downside. It didn't occur to me that the particular party would object to my idea, which I announced to them ahead of time. No one objected to it ahead of time, though once their players heard what I offered the bad guy(helping him escape so he could join the Dark Archive) they snickered and said they would just kill the monster anyway no matter what I wanted to do. I did know that they weren't allowed to do that, which did influence my out of character decision to continue with the negotiation based on their out of character comments. I suppose I could have been more considerate of their desires at that point, but I don't think that my desires should count for nothing.

TLDR: I let the other players know what I was doing ahead of time, thought they would be happy, and tried to work the problem out. The GM agreed that them deliberately messing up my faction goal was against the rules of PFS. My character could have solo-ed an early fight and I didn't because I know they liked fighting things.

Hehe, me and my friends were the Chelish group mike was referencing.

I concur that the status quo works well. Mike's ruling above is very generous. If you have a serious physical problem carrying around the books, there is the simple solution of using less books for your characters.

I think we're assigning a lot of motives to the OP all of a sudden...

The OP was pretty clear about his motive in his post.

Clearly you have problems with the person playing the fighter. I would recommend you talk this issue out with that person rather than resort to passive-aggressive tactics such as deliberately sabotaging him.

This is the real problem here.

Pathfinder is a team game, and your character has explicit orders from the Society to cooperate with his team. If you can't play well with others than you should play a different game.

Racing to see if one PC can tie up the enemy before another PC kills it is not acceptable behavior. Putting the GM in the middle of this situation is in amazingly poor taste. Talk it out like adults and come to a Mutal decision.

And if the fighter was taking a prisoner to complete a faction card objective, you killing the prisoner is explicitly against the rules. Both the PVP rule and the Don't Be A Jerk rule. The rules don't protect your right to kill whomever you please, but they do protect someone from having another player deliberately sabatoge their faction missions.

That being said, I don't think you can so cleanly seperate your out of character motivations with your characters motivations. I don't buy the arguement all that you wanted to get a hit in because you were frustrated, but your character only had the most noble intentions.

Killing a helpless opponent, without consulting your allies, and knowing it is against the wishes of one of them, goes way above "just killing". It is getting really close to killing just for the sake of killing, and if I were the GM, I also would have counted it as an evil action.

Coup-de-grace is not always an evil action, but in this situation the GM is well within their rights to say it counts as one. Puting him in the situation to have to make this ruling is a mean-spirited thing to do to a volunteer judge.

Core Campaign only restricts what your character can access. If you run a module with pregens, you can make it a core game and apply the credit to core characters.

This is not something that needs to be written in stone. GMs can rule this either way and be justified because it isn't defined. Lets just leave it at that. These faction cards are just extra bonuses anyway, so there's no reason that we should worry about completing them.

Its the difference between having sprinkles on your doughnut and not. If you get sprinkles great, if not, well, you're still having a doughnut.

GM's can rule either way on this, that is true.

But this is not a vague issue, where the GM is forced to make a ruling because the rules don't explain what to do.

A Magic Gem is a gem with a clearly defined value, printed in the text of the item. The faction card makes no qualification on what kind of gem is okay beyond it's value, and that means there are no other qualifiers on what counts. This isn't just a opinion of a point of view, it's a objective fact, how we feel about it doesn't change what the rules say, or what the words in the rules mean. There is no definition of "Gems" that includes unspoken/unwritten restrictions to which gems should count or not.

I understand the arguement on why it makes sense not to count a magic gem. But anyone preparing to rule that way should expect to get pushback from players who expect the rules to be run as written, and for the GM to follow the rules of the game.

The GM can choose to not follow the rules as much as they want, and often that can create a more fun game. But to change the rules just to deny a player a faction card checkbox, just because you think that the goal should be more difficult that what it actually says, is in very poor taste, especially when the rules explicitly says to err on the side of the player in these cases.

I don't think the suggestion to advise a player to sit at another table is inflammatory, it seems the only reasonable compromise between two party's that have wildly varying ideas of what it means to follow rules.

You can say people are entitled to their own opinions as much as you want, but that doesn't answer any of the points I've made.

As to the donut example, I know many players who really value their character's factions and advancing their goals. Just because it's optionaly doesn't mean it's okay to just disregard what makes the game fun for them.

Victor Zajic wrote:

I still don't see anywhere on the faction card where they make that distinction, Andrew. It being a magic item does not make it not a gem.

I don't see how the faction card isn't clear. It doesn't exclude magic gems, end of story. You think that maybe it should, based upon what you think the faction really wants, but is not what the rules are. And since we're RAW, we can't add extra restrictions, even if we think they make a lot of sense.

This game is largely exclusive, not inclusive. If you want to play the, "it doesn't say" game, then I'll throw back that it doesn't specifically include magical gems. More importantly, gems whose whole value is determined by the magic, not the gem.

Its actually your onus to price they should be included as the precedence of game rules work.

Here's the problem with that. The rules do include magic gems. Because they are gems, and the rules say gems. Unless the rules make a distinction, the word "gems" means every kind of gem. It includes all subsets of gems, including bit/little gems, red/green gems, magic gems, uncut gems, ect..., unless it speficially excludes one of those subsets.

That's like saying you can play a fighter, but because the rules don't say you can play a dwarven fighter it isn't allowed.

You are adding extra meaning to what the rules say, with not actual rules justification. Point out one instance in the rules where it says something, but secretly means not all of that something without saying it.

By your own logic, you are the one saying "It doesn't say that it include magic gems", and then asking us to prove a negative.

TLDR: Magic Gems are still gems, so something that reference gems without excluding magic gems is talking about both magic and non magic gems.
Asking for it to list the kind of gems that it is talking about is not the way the rules of this game work.

I've found most levels of the Emerald Spire run very short, especially for 3xp modules.

I still don't see anywhere on the faction card where they make that distinction, Andrew. It being a magic item does not make it not a gem.

I don't see how the faction card isn't clear. It doesn't exclude magic gems, end of story. You think that maybe it should, based upon what you think the faction really wants, but is not what the rules are. And since we're RAW, we can't add extra restrictions, even if we think they make a lot of sense.

I think Melee Tactics Toolbox printed updated lists, but I'm not sure.

If not, my advice would be save you obscure dwarven weapons specialist for a home game where the GM can apply some reason to the rules. Not every build is a good fit for PFS. Which is sad, because Dorn Dergars are incredible.

I say no, because the cost isn't based on them being Gems, rather magical items. So once they become a wondrous item, mechanically they are no longer a gem.

Are you being sarcastic here? I can't tell. Is what you are trying to say that a Magic Gem is not a Gem?

My 2 cents. Elemental Gems aren't terribly common in Scenarios. They are very clearly gems. The Faction does not say the gem must be non magical. If you need a flavor reason, I liked when someone said magic gems could be research to help learn about enchanting other gems.

Since the only thing the card mentions is value, and doesn't say anything about excluding magic, and the faction card rules explicitly say to err on the side of the player, I'm very suprised at the number of people here saying they woulnd't allow it.

Pathfinder seems to define pearls as gems explicitly in the rules. How is the question not answered by that?

No Sczarni Vanities, for the record, is lame.

That's not how the grandfathering rules for Aasimar and Tiefling worked.

I seem to recall an Investigator in my area using a wand of Alchemical Allocation, which is why I thought wands of Alchemist spells were a thing.

Apparently I'll have to track him down.

Maybe a wizard created it using infusion extracts of the spell.

Page 24 of the Guide to Organized Play answers this question, I believe:

Guide to Organized Play wrote:

If a spell appears at different levels on two different lists, use the lower level spell to determine cost. As an example, poison would be priced as a 3rd-level druid spell instead of a 4th-level cleric

spell.

As well, in PFS, there is no distinction (in this regard) between arcane or divine spells:

Guide to Organized Play wrote:

For the sake of simplicity, there is no difference between an arcane and divine scroll or wand. Thus a bard and cleric may both use the same scroll of cure moderate wounds.

Some abilities trigger versus just arcane spells, or just divine spells. How do I figure out that out when someone uses a scroll.

PS Alchemist not counting as spell casters is silly.

I know that when we purchase wands or scrolls we are supposed to go from the cleric or wizard list if the spell is on them. But what if I want to buy an Arcane Scroll of a spell like Lesser Restoration. Can I pay the extra cost(CL 4 instead of 3) to buy an Alchemist scribed scroll, or am I forced to buy the divine version off the cleric list instead?

From Inner Sea Gods, this magic glaive lets you use Color Spray 1/day.

The caster level of the item is 3rd, so the Color Spray would be CL 3, but what casting stat should I use to set the DC?
Minimum for 1st level spell, 11?
My casting stat?
12, the minimun to cast level 2 spells as a wizard or cleric?
or something else?

Couldn't the Alchemist make Tiny Monkey sized splash alchemy items?

can you buy an item off a chronicle sheet that's 750 gp or less with prestige?

nosig wrote:

Victor Zajic wrote:

Whoops, missed that part.

But I would still have wings, right? That honestly is the important part to me.

if all you want are the wings - or to appear to have wings -

get a Hat of Disguise. This would let you appear to be another creature of your type - and as an aasimar you couldn't look like an Elf, but you could look like a Solar. Instant wings.

No flight though (and you did say the wings were the important part right?) - and anyone reaching out and touching them would notice they aren't real. Maybe you could use a Masterwork Tool Disguise (set of feathered wings). and with a good disguise skill check...

Once again, the hat of disguise is the Most Useful Item. :)

That's a good idea, but I'm really just looking for something for when I'm using my racial Alter-Self.

Is the Bestiary only restriction in the Guide to Organized play? Because I couldn't find it in there.

Can anyone think of a Bestiary race that has wings? Can I Alter Self into a Scion of Humanity Aasimar with the Angel Wings feat? Can someone think of another way to get a humanoid with wings with Alter Self, so my Angel Blooded Aasimar can look more angelic when using his racial ability?

Whoops, missed that part.

But I would still have wings, right? That honestly is the important part to me.

Are there any limitations to what sources I can pick humanoids from when casting alter self in PFS?

Could my Angel-Kin Aasimar use his racial Alter Self to change into a Strix, thus gaining wings and a fly speed for a limited time? (Assuming I have a proper source for Strix stats)

Victor, hopefully this helps.

Michael Brock wrote:

Darrell Impey UK wrote:

Has there been a definitive answer about how these interact with APs played in campaign mode? I'm guessing/hoping that it will work similarly to the Chronicle; as long as the PC the Chronicle applied to is of the appropriate Faction, and the in-AP character performed the act, then you just tick the box.

it is advised in the first sheet of the PDF instructions.

"Once per adventure that grants a Chronicle sheet and at least 1 XP—whether it is a Pathfinder Society scenario, a section of a Pathfinder Module, a Pathfinder Adventure Path volume, or other sanctioned content—you may earn credit toward one of the goals on the back of the card and check one of the boxes that precedes that goal; even if you fulfill multiple objectives, you can only check one box per adventure."

As long as a PC receives a Chronicle sheet applied to the appropriate faction, and the in-AP character performed the act, then you tick the box.

With APs you can tick a box in either PFS or non-PFS mode.

Michael Brock said you must play your PFS character to check off boxes. In non-pfs mode you don't play your PFS character. Why would my completely different PC in a home game AP that isn't a member of the faction be able to advance my PFS character's goals?

Mike didn't really answer the posters question. He just said you can check boxes from AP, and qouted some text that didn't actually take non PFS mode into account.

There seems to be some confusion about AP modules and playing in home mode. Some of this has been caused by not everyone completely understanding the question being asked.

As I understand it, the rules are as follows.

If you play an AP in PFS mode, you can check off a box if you qualify.

If you play an AP in non PFS mode, you can not check off a box because you weren't playing your PFS character in the adventure.

Similarly,

You can't check off a box when playing a pregen, except maybe if your character is also Grandlodge.

If you GM, you can only check the box on the card for the character you are applying credit to.

If these are wrong please let me know.

Also, there seems to be some confusion about the new cards at gencon for season 7. Some of this stems from some of the information released in previous blogs about the cards, where it was implied we couldn't work on the cards in any situation after gencon.

As it currently stands, this is my understanding.

If you check at least one box on a faction card before Gencon this year, you can keep checking boxes and getting rewards for that card post gencon. AND you could also progress the new faction card too, but not both in one scenario.

If you don't check a box before gencon, you can ONLY use the new faction cards.

If these are wrong please let me know.

The Exchange is disappointingly 'Merchant' and not enough thug left in it - A lot about Diplomacy and Merchant skills, and not a lot of the old enforcer types who rely on standover and other shady activities - I know we went 'legit', but this is just too nice.

You have to recruit people or 'trick people' - what ever happened to "You don't work for Fat Tony then you don't work for nobody"? Fuggedaboudit.

I very much second this. Me and my friends were excited to create a mafia inspired group, but then the faction changes happened and we couldn't even get credit for new modules that rewarded Exchange PCs that were Scarzini before the change for doing thuggish things.

Also, merchanting for merchanting's sake is kinda boring.

There is a trait that reduces the penalty to deal nonlethal damage with weapons. Barbarians have a couple of nice totems (the rage power kind), that work well against evil outsiders.

Do you have a character concept in mind ?

I helped a friend throw together a barbarian in 5 minutes to play along side a grandfathered Aasimar I had never gotten around to playing, which ended up as a Mammoth Lord Tribe Hunter with a Celestial T-Rex animal comp.

It was basically war hammer, shield, speed, and hit points. We're wanting to flesh it out more, but Barbarian is one of the few classes I've never played in depth much in pathfinder, someone else always is already playing a barbarian, and melee smash is very rarely the thing lacking at a table.

I know there is a fiend Totem rage power tree, is there a celestial version? Are there some option in some of the good focused splat books(of which I have less knowledge than I'd like) for smashing face in the name of good? Most of the Barbarian options in Demon-slayer's handbook are about ripping out organs and feasting on them.

The typical barbarian is played as a fairly amorally, rage-fuel sociopath who commits violence mostly for violence's sake. I'm looking for ideas and mechanics to make a different kind of barbarian(not completely different, but enough to clearly show).

I really, really like that there were a lot of option in this scenario for players who didn't want to rush in and kill everyone.

I was running, and I didn't feel the mural were excessive. I didn't require the players to roleplay their answers, and I was very happy to get a chance to share the cool backstory of the scenario with the players. Scenarios tend to have really cool stories setting them up, and it's almost never that the players get any of that information. I found it interesting that they players got to show of some of what they knew(and showcase non-combat skills), and then the golden guardian tied everything together into a cohesive narative.

Also, I really love that we can get feedback from the author. That's incredibly rare in most other living campaigns I play. Very classy.

The Kobold's pet was the highlight of the scenario, for me and the players.

Can anyone think of any good silver crusade flavored feats, trait, or class abilities that would work well for a CG barbarian?

It maintained the grapple as a standard action; In doing so, it did its Grab Damage automatically (Using the limb it was grappling with). As part of its grapple check, it also chose to deal damage, rather than attempt to Pin or Move, for example.

I don't have that monster's stats handy, but the Grab Special Ability doesn't do that. You're thinking of Constrict.

Victor Zajic wrote:

This isn't a divisive issue that the rules don't cover well, with expected table variation. The rules as written are crystal clear on this issue.

The fact that we are having this conversation tells me differently, as does the fact that I have seen another GM rule the same thing.

I don't really see this as a big deal anyways, the only time I ever saw it come up, someone asked if another re-roll could be used and the GM said no. I had assumed that was the way it worked myself, so I didn't even think about it. Re-rolls are pretty rare around my area, most games I GM the only one taken is my own folio re-roll that I give out to the players for the game so in a way it wouldn't bother me at all if it got FAQed and I turned out to be wrong.

What is starting to really rub me the wrong way though, is the insistance of people like yourself that your reading of this rule is the only one with any validity, and the implication that some people are making that anyone who disagrees with your side is somehow anti-player and is house-ruling etc... I don't know if that's from some genuine fear that this is going to ruin games for people, or from some deep seated need to have their opinion validated by making everyone agree with it.

If I was a table where a judge made that call, I would remind him that pathfinder doesn't have a rule against reroll, and then go by whatever the judge ruled. I would probably attempt to have a conversation with the judge after the event was over. I recently learned that I was incorrect in my understanding of the need to threaten your opponent when aiding an ally's defense, in this exact process. We're all human and we make mistakes.

And most the time I would agree with you. The rules are not really written in a fashion provides clarity the vast majority of the time. And trying to demonize the opposition is a dishonest way to argue.

This is not one of those cases. The word 'must' has been defined, in English, many times by various sources. Not one of those definitions even hints at the idea that absolutely no variations are acceptable in the desired outcome. No one has provided a single example of the use of the word in a fashion that even implies such usage of the word, and I'm scratching my head to come up with one.

What you are saying that the word 'must' means is factually incorrect. You are giving a meaning to the word that is objectively false. This is not an interpretation of the word means. This not an issue of interpretation. You are saying a word means one thing, and it does not mean that thing. Anyone's feeling on the matter do not change what is true and what is not. This is not a vote, or a popularity contest. To put it in binary terms

'Must' does not equal 'Must Only'

Saying 'Must' equals 'Must Only', in this exact chase, is housing ruling. You are adding meaning to a rule that does not exist in the words used to create the rule we are talking about. It's not because I disagree with you that makes it a house ruling. The rules are not unclear in what they are saying, in this situation.

In this specific circumstance, modification of the dice result is inherently implied. You don't take the die result, and only the die result, you have to apply mathematical modifiers to determine the end result of said roll. But re-rolling is a valid way to modify a dice-result, a way in which the first reroll was already doing. Just because it isn't a plus of a minus doesn't mean it isn't a valid way, in the rules, to change the result of a dice roll. You always 'must' keep the result of your first roll, unless something gives you the ability to change that. Rules that allow rerolls do that exactly.

Andrew Christian wrote.(I apologize for not knowing the correct way to format this)
"Ill reiterate. I have no personal feelings here. I honestly believe that the word must is meaningful. As always specific circumstances and wording of specific abilities may mitigate that on a situational basis."

I agree with you. The word "must" is meaningful. It just doesn't mean what you are saying, and the wording of specific abilities that grant you reroll, just as the rule that says you add your strength modifier to melee attack rolls, explicitly can interact with the rule and its use of the word 'must'.

And again, I'll reiterate. Why are you saying you have no personal feeling here when you posted personal feeling on the matter in this very thread? You have already expressed your stake in this disagreement. It is too late to claim objectivity.

It's possible that I am incorrect on this issue, that there is definition of the word "must" that matches how you are using the word. Or that there is a rule in Pathfinder about rerolling rerolls. I've playing in a lot of games that have those rules. I am unable to find that rule for pathfinder. As a 5 star GM, people look to your example when you answer questions about how the rules work. I have made very specific points, one of which is very plainly stating that this isn't an issue where it could mean one thing or another thing. If you have an opposing view, it is your responsibility, that you assumed when you answered the original question, to actually give an answer to people who disagree with you. This is the only reason I am singling you out on this issue. It's not an attack to request that you defend the argument you have given, one which others are using to make decisions at their tables based upon.

I say 'Must' does not equal 'Must Only' under any definition. I also say that this case by its very nature assumes modification to the reroll result, specifically using the result of a reroll to change the results of a roll in the first place. Do you have answers for these two points?

At some point, a sessation of rerolls needs to happen. Just because I have 5 different abilities that allow rerolls, should not mean that I can take them all on the same roll, assuming the word must is used.

Otherwise, as a GM, I should just give you one auto success per session rather than one reroll.

This is a textbook example of a "personal imposition", if there is confusion about why people are calling you on this.

This isn't an issue of table variation. The word "Must" only modifies what it says in the rules. Which is that you have to keep the second roll, instead of being able to choose the first roll is you wanted to. Absolutely nothing forbids another rule from modifying the results of the second roll, including but not limited using another reroll to change the final value of the second roll. If the second roll is modified in some way, I'm still forced to keep the final results of that roll.

This isn't a divisive issue that the rules don't cover well, with expected table variation. The rules as written are crystal clear on this issue. The word 'must' doesn't mean what you are saying that it means.

If I 'must' run quickly, that doesn't preclude me from running quickly with my eyes closed.

If I 'must' eat scrambled eggs for breakfast, if I eat scrambled eggs with salt and pepper I am not breaking the rule.

Addition words would be required to make the rules mean "what you rolled on the second roll, plus the modifiers on the first roll, and nothing else". Those words are not present. Adding that meaning to the rules is changing them, not interpreting them differently.

I kinda see it as evolving from "Peck" from Willow.

I also think the illusion it creates is set at item creation, so if its set to look like a three piece suit, that's the only thing it ever looks like, no matter who wears it.

Since you are basically adding enhancement bonus but using a different slot than normal to do so, I would add the off slot modifier to the base price of 4,000. I think that makes it 6,000. That sounds fair to me. If you made it an amulet then 4,000 sounds good to me.

To the poster above, there is an item that does a very similar thing already in the rules. It's called an amulet of mighty fists(replace natural attacks with weapon attacks). This isn't a completely different effect, it's the difference between Magic Fang and Magic Weapon. Saying that if the item doesn't require a standard action to activate then it breaks the game mechanics is complete and utter nonsense.

An bored looking man with a neatly trimmed short beard, dressed in the gaudy trappings of Chelish nobility flips absentmindedly through a thick tome, bound in leather and iron, in the back corner of the room. Without looking up, he answers in a thick regional accent. "I need someone to help with experimentations with hellfire. 500 gold pieces"

How is this not clear?

I reroll, and I must take the results of the second roll. I use another reroll on the second roll. It changes the result of the first reroll, and I must use that value instead of my initial roll.

Nothing about the word 'must' means that the second roll can't be modified in any way. It means that you can't use the first roll you made.

Pathfinder Society is not the campaign to impose your personal opinion of what things should and shouldn't be allowed.