William Griffiths's page

When I am DMing, I do randomly determine what the character knows. I completely agree with nosig on the strangeness of being expected to ask questions. Just my opinion. Rarely, a PC may disagree with what I consider to be useful information, but I can't remember this happening yet. I have, on the other hand, at other tables, seen players demanding to know particular resistances. I personally found their behavior in poor taste. But that's just my opinion.

We just have the DM randomly determine from the monster's special abilities, qualities, feats, etc. It has worked pretty well for us. I suppose we believe that you can't control exactly what you know, although some PCs would say they specifically study monsters' SR and DR, etc. At game days, I usually just ask the DM to tell me whatever useful information strikes their fancy.

Chaos is correct. This is an old argument that has always had the same answer. Many players will try to tell you they can do crazy stuff with weapons and shields in order to be casting. But it is simpler than that.

A two handed weapon can only be wielded in two hands. Yes, you can 'let go' with one hand. The weapon is no longer being wielded, and has to be re-readied or a new weapon drawn. And that is, and always has been, a move action. The most relevant source has been given:

"Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action."

There is also one about manipulating an object being a move action. Also, if you have your two handed weapon in one hand when you cast the spell, you do not have a weapon available to deliver the strike.

Well, my opinion is biased in some ways. I started playing in year 0, when factions were designed to be antagonistic. Chaosthecold and I played many a scenario at odds, my Cheliaxian vs. his Andoran. And we had our fun. We let another person play at our house, and played the original way, and he went balistic when he didn't get his PA by our actions.

Next thing, he got Brock involved, posted on here, and many many MANY of you called me a bully, and said I was breaking the rules of the campaign. These faction missions have changed so many times since year 0, with strangeness throughout. I don't do them anymore, and find them incredibly annoying, as many do, when they derail the module I am playing. But that's my choice.

In summary, make it just role-playing choices if that is what people want and toss the missions out. People apparently weren't mature enough for the year 0 system, and there's still too much periodic disagreement on these issues. It serves no purpose other than to fractionalize the party and call for a few skill checks. Toss PA while you're at it, give module access to items with favors, and for heavens sake start limiting access before the next magic item compendium comes out.

But hey, according to many, I'm a bully (some prefer 'jerk') so what I mean to say is that 10 factions are awesome, and you should all agree with me. (Reverse psychology works, right?)

I played mostly at home with friends. However, after the Ultimate Magic and Combat books came out, a level of disatisfaction with the rules system crept in. Simply too much power on the player side of the ball. Then, when bad guys finally started having some of the same toys and we were hit with them, it reached a breaking point. I dropped my subscription, but tried going to local game days.

Needless to say, I played with some people I'd rather not. All 7s in Charisma, with no role playing to boot. (Not that you'd expect much from 7 Chas, other than people using it to justify their being extremely annoying and rude.) So I stopped doing that, too.

You have good points. That being said, I choose to play games by their rules set. Otherwise, we'd all be playing Amber, the diceless role playing game. Rules lawyers and attention hogs are always going to be a problem, but that being said, if the game simply does not support high level play, that is an issue.

Furthermore, from the design perspective, we just did not want to play in a world with Magus, from a power perspective, nor gunslingers, from a role-play perspective. (Not sure if Gunslingers are overpowered or not. Wouldn't surprise me, but can't bring myself to read the class.)

I can only ignore problem players to the point that I can still get on tables at game days. Limiting the really obnoxious rules items served me well in the past; in LG, at least many of the problems were mitigated by banning the worst rules items. We played 4ed, where everything was allowed, and quit it for PFS (after Mounted Combat/Lizard fiasco, coupled with Healer's Sash), where again just about everything was allowed. I really miss reading an obviously foolish feat, thinking 'no way this will be allowed' and having a good chance of being right.

Bottom line: Couldn't stand to play a game with Power Shot, Magus, Create Pit, etc. Don't like to see PCs ruining combats with them, and don't like to have to use them on PCs as a DM.

I'd like to add my voice to this discussion. If anything, I'd say you've not been harsh enough. Now, I don't expect anyone here to try to serve me, as I have stopped playing because of these issues. I am sure the following opinion will not be welcomed, but here goes:

To be frank, there are so many things in the campaign that are too powerful, it's not worth it to begin listing. I played about 40 PFS mods before my whole gaming group couldn't take it anymore, and quit en masse. But I still lurk because I like organized play, and want to play something current. We police ourselves around the house, but my forays into the Atlanta area have all been less than satisfactory. (Create Pit. Really?)

Anyway, in the interest of the game, we need a good and long banned list. The core book was largely ok, but many of the supplements have classes and feats that one doesn't even need to combo with to break horribly. The power level of PFS has always been way too high, and it just seems to get worse and worse with each supplementary book. I suspect this is the reason we retire at level 12, since the 10th level characters I have seen all have numbers off the charts.

Oh well. Guess I might have to wait for new editions of PFS or D&D and hope for the best.

What is being discussed here, I think, are two serious problems with PFS. In any kind of heroic campaign, where evil creatures are plentiful, paladins past a certain level are too good. Obnoxiously good.

Separately, archers are also too good. Deadly Aim (which is Power Shot for archers, as I recall) is an absolutely terrible idea. If I made a banned list for my home game, this would be number 2 on the list. (Falcata is always number 1.) Giving fighters and paladins this kind of extra options for damage on a weapon that easily gets extra arrows and attacks (Rapid Shot and Manyshot do indeed work together, no penalty) is a serious problem.

Paladins should not subsume dragons, undead, and evil outsiders like they're nothing. I grant the responders, a home game GM can even this out by giving the dragon various spells and magic items, to prepare himself. However, a dragon should not need buff rounds to survive one round against an archer 2 levels lower than the CR. Period.

Original poster: Most people are going to defend the paladin. Various reasons exist, but in my experience, most people are going to emptily defend a powerful mechanic until it is used against them. The Magus is another extremely obnoxious class in the mid levels, always defended by my players until they had to face one. It's only silly when one of them has put you on the floor before you get to act.

All of this discussion is made much worse, by the way, when you leave your home game and move to PFS. In a home game, the DM can tailor the encounter to actually challenge the players. In PFS, you pretty much have to run as is, and there is a real problem finding the right difficulty level over there.

Now, to change my tune a little: There are so many problems with Pathfinder power mix right now, that without a good banned list, there will be problems like this starting around level 5. However, of all the crimes that are possible, Paladin is nowhere near the top of the list. Smite evil is good, too good, but archery is the real criminal here.

We played a scenario last week at my house, and randomly, the Fighter and Paladins missed the game. All of a sudden, the wizard got to cast more than one spell per fight. Afterwards, and no offense to our fellow players, we realized that we had more fun in that one game than we had on any other PFS scenario in the last two months. Several times, a fighter or paladin has ended a combat before half of the PCs get to act, and this is only tier 5-6.

Do what you will with this opinion, but I don't check these boards much, so I may not be quick to respond...

There are many players in my area with strong opinions on the summoner class. That being said, we would never give a stranger a hard time about his class. You should play the character that you want to play, as has been said by so many others. Now, if you did repeatedly summon things, and are unable to be prepared with the monsters, THAT would be supremely annoying!

I will admit that I rolled my eyes at the mention of avoiding weapon training so that an eidolon can use a weapon. The one time a bad guy summoner showed up in a mod, it was a truly annoying experience, no one had fun, and I even saw my first player rage quit!

The thing I miss most about LG: A strong banned list. (I'm looking at you, Falcata.)

LazarX wrote:

That choice may turn off a lot of people but allowing non-faction players would turn off a lot more.

To anyone who wants to play a PC who is without faction: please, for the love of whatever God I pray to: do it and do it well. Choose one for paperwork reasons, but never ever act on it nor read missions: play your character as you would and enjoy the game.

Take the faction mission and put it aside, never read. Tear it up. Eat it. Just smile and go with it. Then roleplay the heck out of your character and have a good time.

If other players have issues with it, that's their problem, not yours. They are acting selfishly and foolishly.

To any GM/local coordinator who has players who choose to play without factions: if you're not as welcoming and understanding of that play choice as you are every other viable concept, you're probably playing wrong and doing a dis-service to the community.

PFS can accommodate a variety of playstyles...and 'factionless' is a fair choice.

-Pain

I promised MYself I would stay out of this one. I let Painlord fight the good fight, and he did an excellent job. For the record, we have an entire party going factionless here. We have another party that only plays together, all of the same faction, so we don't have to bother with the missions.

Our factionless party plays exactly as Painlord has described. (We promise not to tear up your handouts.) It is interesting to actually care about scenario chronicle item access!

Thanks Pain.

MisterSlanky wrote:

Hyrum,

I am not asking when it will happen, but I am wondering if the next version of the Guide will contain verbiage that eliminates the confusion and clearly sates this.

I'll make sure it's clear and unambiguous. :)

Hyrum.

Here here, and thanks on the future version of the guide. I do have a suggestion, though: As the originator of this thread, and a player seeking information, I recommend that you not put this under the jerk rule.

In reading the past posts on this forum, it seems clear that in season 0, at least as far as many of us were concerned, we were participating in a zero-sum game, as pointed out previously. Hence we simply misunderstood the campaign. It is possible, for many, to interfere peacably with one another. Now, the focus of the campaign shifted long ago, but there might be other players, like me, who are still in that season 0 frame of mind. (And even some players who liked competing over their faction missions.)

And, in summary, for me anyway, it is more amiable, and certainly less insulting, to say that this is now considered PVP (since, when it used to be LEGAL it caused problems), instead of saying that we are being jerks. All we need is a rules clarification, not many individuals bandying about the terms 'bully', 'jerk', and this talk about being thrown off tables and folks refusing to play. (Although I have been told that, since I posted in a forum, I got what I deserved. :) Joke!)

That being said, as this is now PVP, it won't happen again from my end. Suffice it to say, we used to do it in the home group, but I understand that, in a public venue, someone may lose a PA, and that could mean less fun for them.

The answer to your question is that it's considered PVP. PVP isn't always just combat. There's a thread in the archives called "why the demphasis on faction competition?" where Mark Moreland, who's now one of the two people in charge of PFS, states that he considers this action to be PVP and it shouldn't be allowed. I think that's fairly straightforward. I'm going to try to post the link below, but please bear with me if I get it wrong. Not familiar with BBC tags and it's the first time I've tried it...

Go to[url=http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderSociety/general/whyTheDeemphasisOnFactionCompetition[/url]

EDIT:oh, well, it didn't work, but that is the url to the page.

I wish I had read this before posting. This COMPLETELY answers my question, including confirmation by Mr. Frost of a well worded discussion. Thanks to Teribithia for providing this!

OK, all, game on, and see you at game days and conventions.

For posterity, I had only played Season 0s to this point, all of the faction missions I have seen have been very confrontational, i.e. steal the handout and mark out all reference to such and such. Things are apparently different now, and I will modify appropriately.

DigitalMage wrote:

Playing Devil's Advocate a bit, the "don't be a jerk" and "don't spoil someone else's fun" rules go both ways.

If the real world clock is ticking and in order to complete the actual main scenario (rather than have it "called") the party need to proceed straight away, having one or two players refusing to do so because they need to go off on a tangent to complete their faction mission could really piss off the rest of the party.

The question being brought up here is not "the players are taking too much time doing their faction mission". Rather, the problem here is, does the storyline regarding the Secret War for Absalom justify a player, who's own faction mission has nothing to with any other player's faction mission, interfering with other players completing their Faction Mission.

Yes, this is exactly the question, thank you.

I've already spoken with at least on Venture Captain regarding this issue, and have been told that the "Don't Bully Other Players" rule applies to this sort of gaming situation. I've informed him of this Message Thread and has told me in turn that he, several of the Venture Captains, and perhaps some of the game designers will be commenting here shortly.

There is a Don't Bully Other Players rule in the guide. In addition, there is the rule in the guide linked above, which explicitly allows this. So it is not so clear as "So and so is being a bully."

Now I need to check the URL given above. Thanks!

If you want a bit of politics in game, go for it and replay it. However, asking for opposed bluff and sense motive checks between characters, and then when you beat their roll, you intentionally set out to sabotage their faction mission is the very definition of ruining someone else'a fun.

No one has done this. I agree that asking for such checks and being that obsessed with faction missions is unhealthy for all.

If you are intentionally attempting to sabotage another character's faction mission just for your own enjoyment, then I will remove you from my table. As a DM, I reserve that right, and luckily, I have only had to do it once. Being a jerk because you think it is "roleplaying" is beyond the scope of PFS. Afterall, why would you pick pocket a fellow player to steal the vial they had just acquired to finish their faction mission? Everyone is playing the game to have fun.

This also leads into other problems. If you sabotage another character's faction mission, then it creates a snowball effect. If the character who has been sabotaged is the cleric, that character may in turn decide not to heal the rest of the scenario and very well may be the only character left standing. If the sabotaged character is the "tank," he may take on the monster, withdraw back to the spellcaster, and then make a full withdraw the next turn so the monster can eat the spellcaster. The above two could be roleplayed as "eliminating a threat so I can complete my faction mission without further interference."

Plain and simple rule here folks -- Don't be a jerk and limit someone else's fun because you want to prevent them from getting their extra PA. You certainly don't have to aid them but don't go out of your way to stop them either. It is only fun for the jerk at that point.

If I don't receive a PA, I will not cooperate on the Pathfinder mission that we have, which is also explicitly against the rules? If you have a player like this, there are much deeper problems than PA and faction missions, and they are the 'jerks.' Why will this 'jerk' thing not die? Let's assume the person playing this character is not a jerk, has potentially misunderstood the purpose of the campaign mechanic, was looking for a bit of politics from these missions instead of irrelevant side notes that give time to individual players, and has therefore brought the issue forward for the improvement of all.

Now, back to the academic discussion:

Cooperating on combats is in the rules, and so is the right to potentially affect other factions, which negates most of the preceeding comments. Also, the guide explicitly allowing interference in faction missions has not been addressed by any post yet save one, which I shall concentrate on:

If this is indeed an artifact of the past version of the campaign, then that would be an actual answer to my question that neither insults nor threatens anyone. Is this the case? Has it been overruled somewhere, as I have not been able to find such a thing.

Kortz wrote:

It's okay to sabotage Cheliax.

It is Ok to Sabotage mission trying to be completed by Hal-Orc druids with Ape Animal Companions..

That said,

I am sure this comment was in jest. But let us drop the 'jerk' talk to keep this discussion above board. We all agree that players should not be bullied by other players, neither to prevent nor achieve faction missions. Nor does anyone expect this to give allowance for bad behaviour.

I have played most of the mods at the house, but am considering playing at local game days and conventions again. Before venturing out, I wonder if I am in a minority of folks who are doing this. If everyone is cooperating, and missing a PA point crushes people's enjoyment, then that information will be helpful as well. I do confess a preference towards at least the threat of sabotage encouraging secrecy. Demanding all the slave nations sit idle while the Andorans accomplish the abolishment of slavery for PA is an (admittedly extreme) example of another kind of bullying, as is any GM overriding players acting potentially in accordance with the guide, and within reason.

Sounds like there's a variety of opinions on this subject. I shall play the role of the jerk, and defend the ability to "prevent other actions actively or passively" as expressed in the guide to organized play.

PvP is defined in the guide as combat. I certainly would NEVER advocate the ability to harm another PC. As for the core value of "Cooperate": In this scenario, the PCs would fully cooperate on the Pathfinder mission, regardless of allegiances. This is how we explain devil worshippers and paladins working together. I believe no one expects me to provide assistance for your faction mission. In fact, that is specifically not encouraged in the guide.

I am also not suggesting that one player dominate the session by trying to stop every other PA from being awarded. Some missions are not suspicious, but some are highly obvious.

Just my 2 cents. (I must be up to a dime by now...)

William Griffiths wrote:

I have a question: Given that there is a shadow war going on, and our characters know it, if we suspect another of attempting to complete a faction mission, is it within the purview of my PC to (sneakily) sabotage the attempt? Or is this automatically considered bullying another player?

I certainly do not want to be one of the problem players, but I seek clarification. My understanding of the faction guide is that we should be subtle with our missions, and sometimes you're just going to fail. (I have before, certainly.) Some missions are, let's face it, hard to accomplish without being obvious that you have another agenda. So, I assume if I catch something flagrant, and it does not involve PvP, a little rivalry is appropriate.

However, it has been brought to my attention that this may be incorrect, essentially that while one should be under no obligation to assist, sabotage of another player is wrong. How has this been handled in your games? I know some of you are sabotaging each other, but is it only with friends at home who know to expect it?

Thanks for any thoughts and rulings on this matter.

Every GM is different on this.

I for one would not let it happen at my table.

From the guide, chapter 3, on factions, copied and pasted. (Check the parentheses.)

During the course of play, it’s entirely up to each
player whether or not he reveals his character’s faction
affiliation and missions. Though we advise you keep
faction missions to yourself (to prevent other factions
from actively or passively disrupting your character’s
mission and thus his PA), we’re unconcerned with
either being revealed at the gaming table or elsewhere.
We’ve also heard of tables with diametrically opposed
factions helping each other accomplish their goals.
Again, this isn’t anything we oppose, though we don’t
want to encourage total helpfulness between factions,
because it makes the idea of the faction system a little
less interesting.

I have a question: Given that there is a shadow war going on, and our characters know it, if we suspect another of attempting to complete a faction mission, is it within the purview of my PC to (sneakily) sabotage the attempt? Or is this automatically considered bullying another player?

I certainly do not want to be one of the problem players, but I seek clarification. My understanding of the faction guide is that we should be subtle with our missions, and sometimes you're just going to fail. (I have before, certainly.) Some missions are, let's face it, hard to accomplish without being obvious that you have another agenda. So, I assume if I catch something flagrant, and it does not involve PvP, a little rivalry is appropriate.

However, it has been brought to my attention that this may be incorrect, essentially that while one should be under no obligation to assist, sabotage of another player is wrong. How has this been handled in your games? I know some of you are sabotaging each other, but is it only with friends at home who know to expect it?

Thanks for any thoughts and rulings on this matter.

If you are correct TwilightKnight, then thats a little disappointing. I mean, I could play it with another character, but he would be level 1, so I don't think i would have nearly as much fun as at level 10

This was mostly brought up because that is the only game running in that slot, I figured if it was all i could play, I would play the top tier with the character that has already done it, for the fun of it, and to have a chance to finally play with the people who got me into PFS to begin with

While I do empathize with you, Shigamori, I must add publicly: I hope TwilightKnight is correct. Any rule that leads to people planning to replay the same scenario with the same character is bad for the game in general. Some of us don't want to play with people replaying a scenario, whether they make the table or not. Frankly, the replay rule is a very risky business, as it leads to these confusions...

I did. Unfortunately since that post, I sent out a message to all judges I know who aren't running or playing in a game that slot. No one was willing to step in to DM so I was unable to add another table. My apologies.

Ah, I see, Mr. Brock. That makes sense. Ah well, if we don't fit anything, we'll hang out at the con until the Shadow Lodge. Thanks for trying, and for your kind attention.

We're really looking forward to your Venture Captain exclusive that morning!

We have no more judges available so once a table fills up, it is gone. Of course if someone doesn't show up, you are welcome to join the table.

Uh ok, fair enough, we'll work it out somehow. But you did JUST tell me to let you know so you can have judges in the right spots and add another table of the same game. So I let you know.

William Griffiths wrote:

Michael Brock wrote:

Lots of PFS Scenarios (80 to be exact): Check

DMs to fill every game: Check
Players to enjoy some PFS goodness: *SIGH* lacking.

Hey, we're coming and will be registering soon. Just wanted to say, as far as mission beat LFR, you are killing them! We have about 30-40 Pathfinder player and judges. Their total? 3!

Please try to register as soon as you are able so we can make sure we have our judges in the right spots, know to add another table of the same game, etc...

My brother and I have registered, and another couple of friends will follow. Apparently, the website will not allow us to register for many mods, as it will block it off when one table is filled.

In slot 6, we were hoping for another table of 1-43, The Pallid Plague, if you've got another judge for it...

Thanks much, and we'll look forward to the Venture Captain mod on Saturday.

Lots of PFS Scenarios (80 to be exact): Check

DMs to fill every game: Check
Players to enjoy some PFS goodness: *SIGH* lacking.

Hey, we're coming and will be registering soon. Just wanted to say, as far as mission beat LFR, you are killing them! We have about 30-40 Pathfinder player and judges. Their total? 3!

William Griffiths wrote:

In a quick search, I have found nothing correcting this, so:

Under Pathfinder Society, when you click on pregenerated characters, you arrive at 2 sets. Now I realize that the advanced player's guide characters are explicitly labeled as such, and not PFS as the others are. That being said, they are listed under the PFS, so people might use them for the campaign. Should they not, therefore, also have a 20 point buy?

There are some errors in the pregens and they are currently being revamped, but I think all of them are 20 point buy.

The traditional characters are on the 20 point buy. The APGs are on a 15 point buy.

In a quick search, I have found nothing correcting this, so:

Under Pathfinder Society, when you click on pregenerated characters, you arrive at 2 sets. Now I realize that the advanced player's guide characters are explicitly labeled as such, and not PFS as the others are. That being said, they are listed under the PFS, so people might use them for the campaign. Should they not, therefore, also have a 20 point buy?

Flux Vector wrote:

Stuff

This is well stated and in the case of Protection from Evil not a big issue, IMO. Since your enemy is not restricted to an evil alignment, there will be numerous occasions where the spell, if used, will be wasted. The bigger issue is that when using a Wayfinder loaded with a Clear Spindle Ioun Stone, the alignment requirement is waived and the item becomes effective against all casters. Under current interpretation of the rules, this seems to be the way it is being adjudicated in society play. The questions become (1) should a single item have the power to effectively neuter a school of magic? Yes, not all enchantment spells are blocked, but the majority are. And (2) if it does work that way, is 4250gp a reasonable value for said item? Even those of us who answer yes to #1, are saying no to #2. Unfortunately, since it is in a published book, the RAW seems to support a 'yes' answer to both #1 & #2. Is this an issue with edition conflict and missing language? Perhaps. But until the developers weigh in, RAW is what it is. You are free to rule as you wish in home-style games, but in organized play, consistency is needed.

A request for consistency is fine. However, we all think that the rules support our claims. I believe the rules clearly state that the spell/magic item only prevent dominate and the like effects. We are having a good, strong debate over what the rules support, and it is (hopefully) not a 'yes' answer to the questions.

Not trying to score the last word in the forum, but to clarify: We are not arguing what the rule should be, but what it actually is. People are reading what they want in the rules, but I guess the meaning is unclear. What should be the text of the spell? I guess folks need it to say "against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment[charm] effects and enchantment[compulsion] effects THAT POSSESS OR EXERCISE MENTAL CONTROL OVER THE CREATURE.)

That, or you need a definition of 'control.' That's simple: Dominate uses the word control, and specifies that with the spell, you can control the actions of another. Confusion/Hold/Hideous Laughter do not.

Not to worry: Protection spells are still quite useful, and you are still getting a nice, continuous protection with your cheap ioun stone stuck in a wayfinder. That being said, look forward to your character overcoming challenges besides simple hp damage, and good gaming.

In 3.5e, the spell had the specific verbiage of "ongoing control", which neatly removed any doubt as to what spells were affected.

The spell's theme comes from myth and legends of summoning creatures and protecting from creatures that tried to possess or control you in some way.
No where in the theme of the spell do I get the impression that it's to protect against being put to sleep, etc.

Now, if Pathfinder means to make the 1st level spell grant immunities where they took it away from an 8th level spell (Mind Blank), then whatever... I'll believe it when I hear a FAQ on it.

However, the intent behind the spell changes makes me feel it's more a problem with edition carryover.
They tried to add their own wording to grant the +2 bonus to removing a current controlling force, and in the process they screwed up important words in the copy/paste.

It's probably too late for an errata to shove in the word "ongoing", but I'll settle for a FAQ to stop this neverending back and forth.

Well said. I'd like to add though: I think the wording is fine as it is. What I find humourous is the folks reading the spell and claiming that the rules say you can't sleep someone protected. I believe the spell is worded properly, especially considering one cannot cover every eventuality for every spell in a finitely worded document. The funny part is that we all believe that our position is what is worded in the rules.

To my opponents: I really do not wish to sound haughty, and I do respect your right to an opinion. That being said, and having argued this into the ground through 3 editions of this game now, I can be a bit passionate. One cannot decide that sleep/confusion/hold/anything exercise mental control just because they affect the mind. That's what mind affecting means, and if the spell protected you from all mind affecting effects, it would say so. There's an old saying: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

As for the gentleman pointing out the possibility of TPKs and people not liking when their character is taken out of a fight: This, like any other threat, must be prepared for by not minimizing your will save and having access to the appropriate spells. If a 1st level spell is that much of a game changer, see my above line about things sounding too good to be true.

Chaosthecold wrote:

If you take a step back, do you actually think that it only costs 4,250 gold to negate a school of magic?

There are numerous rules that do necessarily make logical sense to all readers. This is the essence of the issue. Obviously, most of those on either side of this issue are firmly planted and will not budge. I guess I am one of them. To continue spinning the broken record, this is why I think it is imperative that we get some feedback from Hyrum or Mark on this issue, specifically for organized play. The problem with that is Seeker of Secrets is not a PFS specific publication. Any rule they make may be interpreted as being an FAQ-like ruling for all PRPG. They may not be prepared to make that decision.

Frankly, this is a very old argument. And as a long time convention player and judge, for years I have been on the side of reason, in my opinion. Honestly, one cannot expect a person with a 1st level spell up to be immune to the entire spellcasting ability of a 12th level Bard. Nor should a 4000 gp magic item make you immune to these effects. And Hideous Laughter, Confusion, and Hold Person are not prevented by such a spell. If that were the case, then enchanters are not viable, which is bad for the game. It's bad for the players and bad guys, and some of us don't want to show if the only type of Wizard that makes sense is one with Fireball.

Prot. Alignment is already powerful for its bonuses as well as protection from ongoing control effects. It stopped a Vampire from getting me Tuesday night. I also got some good use out of the deflection bonus to AC at the same time. Even if it were only protection from the dominate effect, that is worth 4000 bucks in a slotless wayfinder. Anything more is (and not trying to start a flame war here) silly.

It should protect from Dominate. It should protect from charm if that still has the line about the charisma check. And now it even gives a save if you're already affected! But to claim it replaces the need for a Will save is, for lack of a better word, ridiculous.

This is not a Pathfinder Society question, it is a rules question for the entire role playing game. And Twilight Knight is right: My post is not going to convince anyone in the other camp, and they won't convince me. Assuming I understand the rule, I'm going to create another Bard/Enchanter type guy, unless the bad guys prot. good defeats me entirely.