Cleric of Iomedae

albadeon's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber. Organized Play Member. 246 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 246 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Note the different scales shown.

The bottom right map is the "overview", in a much smaller scale. There, 1 square = 40 ft.

The other maps on the page are much enlarged versions of the rooms (on the overview map, each of the rooms is tiny, only about one square in size). On those maps, 1 square = 5 ft. The corridors connecting those rooms are only shown on the overview map.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I'd still say that even though the rules allow you to wear the padding part of the heavy armor by itself as padded armor, if you wear the heavy armor over it, for the purposes of runes, AC, etc. it is not two seperate armors worn over each other, but one armor. After all, without the padding, what remains of the heavy armor becomes unwearable on its own. I don't think this should be read as allowing a separate padded armor underneath a complete (i.e. padding and plates) heavy armor.

It also reads as if its intended to have all armor runes of the associated heavy armor apply to you even if you're only currently wearing the padding as light armor. That seems odd, I'm not sure how I feel about that yet.

About medium armor, I'd say no. This seems to be a special case of only those armors specifically being able to be split up into a lighter padding that can be worn on its own and the plate parts that can be added to the padding to make it a full heavy armor.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber


Why isn't there a clause stating that you must satisfy the requirements of an action to benefit from that action?

is a reasonable question.


Does "Raise a Shield" survive unconsciousness?

is not.

Loss of consciousness obviously causes loss of voluntary muscle control, which in turn makes keeping anything raised flat-out impossible.

Maybe I've had too many rules-lawyer-type players who thought that any imperfection in the rules was there for them to exploit in the most unreasonable way possible. And if you read the original post, OP comes to the conclusion that even after falling unconscious, his character would still have his shield raised and be benefiting from it. It's the same kind of attitude, not approaching rules reasonably but from the point of "where is a loophole for me to exploit" that I resent.

I've edited my post above to tone down the language, but my general point remains.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Note: retrospectively edited for language.

That is certainly one of the more "interesting" interpretations of the rules I've read on here... It seems really obvious and self-explanatory that your shield does not stay raised if you drop to the ground unconscious.

Similarly, if you raise your shield with your first action, then as your second action interact with it to take if off and with your third action you run away, even though after raising your shield it "remains raised until the start of your next turn”, you're still not getting the AC-bonus for it by the end of your turn.

Losing consciousness or dropping your shield are both definitely costing you that bonus, even if that is not specifically mentioned...

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Have you considered giving your NPC bandits a few lesser alchemist fires and give them an ability that allows them to apply those to the arrows similar to how poison can be applied? Maybe have one alchemist fire be good for 2 or 3 arrows, but lose some of the potency in the process (1d6 instead of 1d8, and no splash or persistent damage)? Maybe let them have a few arrows pre-soaked and have a rule that they lose their potency after a day or so, if you want to give them to your players (be aware, however, that in the similar "official" example below, max duration is 1 minute).

In Fall of Plaguestone, one enemy has a "alchemical crossbow" that auto-applies a slotted alchemical bomb to the next 3 bolts fired, giving them +1d6 of the appropriate damage. So there's one option for a hawk-eye-type archer who wants to be able to flexibly apply various effects to his shots.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
randall s. wrote:
since she is only an npc who won’t be seen much of during the campaign.

If you're building an NPC, those don't have to follow the rules for leveling PCs. You can basically just create them with whatever feats and abilities you wish.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I'd say softer underarmor padding is part of the actual armor; after all, not even the toughest half-orc would want to wear chain or plate directly on his skin. So there'd be no room there for additional armor layers under the actual armor. And even if it were somehow possible, that should certainly not allow you to have more armor runes active at the same time, that would certainly be one of those "too good to be true" cases.

You would of course carry a second set of comfort "pyjama armor" in your backpack that you change into for nights by the campfire. And since those aren't usually very hard to put on, it shouldn't be much of an issue to change into them as part of taking of your main armor for the night, especially, if it was just explorer's clothing.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Zapp wrote:
I wouldn't consider it unreasonable for a level 4 character to reach a town, a level 6 character to reach a city and a level 10 character to find a metropolis. So in general, I would say these restrictions aren't as harsh as they first appear, at least not until level 10. That is, I would think it reasonable for a character willing and able to move, to be able to find a task of his or her own level.

For comparison, looking at the Age of Ashes adventure path, the biggest settlement in Part 3 is level 7 (with PCs expected to be level 9-12), while the only settlement in part 4 is level 5 (with PCs expected to be level 12-15). For the settlements in parts 1 and 2, no levels are given, but I wouldn't expect them to be much higher.

Sure, the PCs could travel to some metropolis, but getting there takes time as well, which you could otherwise spend crafting. Again, how your GM handles this has a major impact. If he just chooses to let you travel instantly for free, crafting is going to be worth less by comparison. But if you have to make the choice between crafting level 10 items for 28 days or spending 14 days on the road to do 14 days of level 10 earn income, it might be looking more attractive.

I'd probably decide on how to handle it based on player preferences: if a player wants to play a character invested in crafting, I'll make sure to follow the rules more closely (and not give the non-crafters all those freebies, like getting optimum-level jobs immediately whenever they want them) in order to ensure that he get's some advantage out of his feat-investments. However, if noone cares for crafting I'd be much more open to do more hand-waving.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

For regular PF2 play, I'd very much encourage that and would probably give out one bit of information based on how the combat went and on what's "left" of the enemy afterwards and set a DC accordingly (It's much more difficult to determine resistance to piercing if the monster has been reduced to a pile of ashes by that last fireball). I could see such a player slowly assembling an almanach of monster abilities.

For PFS2, you could essentially do the same thing. Most of the knowledge gained is for practical purposes merely giving the character in-game knowledge that the player might already have out-of-game. How much a character does or doesn't act on player knowledge (that isn't character knowledge yet) is basically impossible to govern. As a player I wouldn't expect any tangible benefit rules-wise for knowledge obtained that way, but certainly a more enjoyable flavorful role-playing experience.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

How much crafting is "worth it" depends on the way your GM handles other downtime activities, in particular the "earn income" activity. If he just hand waves to let the PCs pick a task at their level to earn income, it doesn't really change the result whether you spend your time crafting or earning. The money saved by crafting an item of some level yourself is pretty much the same as the money earned doing an earn income task at the same level.

However, if he restricts the availablity of higher-level earn income tasks (I can't find the quote right now, but seem to recall a limit based on the settlement's level, e.g.), crafting a level 10 item as a level 10 character can be very much worth it compared to doing a level 5 earn income task (because in the small village you're at that's the best work to be had...) instead using the same amount of time..

Similarly, Society play lets you earn income at your level-2, but craft at your level in general.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yes, there's still lots of non-fliers for your barabrian to smash. Also, there is planty of available downtime between modules, so retraining a bit is always another option as well.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rysky wrote:
Yep, takes a bout a month.

Well, technically, even just changing from Warpriest to Cloistered Cleric takes "at least a month" of downtime, possibly more depending on your GM's decision. And that's in addition to the time for all the feats, etc. that you might want to change to fit your new build.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yes, you can generally retrain almost everything and almost completely rebuild your character from scratch, with a few noted exceptions like ancestry, heritage, background, class or ability scores.

It is dependent on GM approval in that your GM decides whether you can even get retraining, and if so how much it costs and how long it takes.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The delay action just moves your turn to a later point in the initiative order. Anything you do during the turn, even if the turn was delayed, will still be during your turn and thus subject to the MAP rules.

If you were thinking of a readied action instead, in that case the CRB specifically mentions that MAPs still apply here as an exception to the general rule.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
CRB p.446 wrote:
The multiple attack penalty applies only during your turn, so you don’t have to keep track of it if you can perform an Attack of Opportunity or a similar reaction that lets you make a Strike on someone else’s turn.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yes, and nothing bars a GM from banning certain common feats, spells, etc. as a house rule. But the system tries to establish a base line different from "everything is generally available everywhere for everyone". Which is a good idea, imho. And just because in the future a mistake might happen that might accidentaly break that system, doesn't make it in any way less of a good idea

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

It's the assumed standard that has changed. Previously, everything was presumed available, unless the GM specifically disallowed it.

Now, only common items are presumed available, unless the GM specifically allows it.

For many GMs and their players, that will not change much or anything in their regular campaigns, they'll just find a consensus and play on, like normal, functioning groups would.

However, in some cases it makes it easier for the GM:
- he doesn't have to be the one to forbid something (for some people, that can be an issue, especially when confronted by a player aggressively demanding what he feels entitled to), he just merely plays by the standard rules.
- with more and more material being published and the inevitable plethora of options becoming available, as a GM you don't have to have extensive "I disallow ..." lists or worry about a player coming up with an obscure feat from some out-of-print resource that you've never heard of and where you now have to read up on complex extra rules. If it's not common, it's not available. If the player wants it, he can still talk to his GM and if neccessary provide the rules so the GM can prepare it.

Also, for society play, it provides plenty of new rewards for boons.

And again, for normal socially functional groups and players, not much will change. But sadly, not everyone who plays the game actually plays well with others...

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Another question is how this ability is supposed to stack with other forms of slowed.

Assume a character has in the previous round critically failed the save against a slow spell and is now slowed 2 for 1 minute. A few rounds later he gets hit by the cockatrice and (normal-)fails his save.

The initial effect only says he gains slowed 1, nothing about increasing the amount of slowed. So, since he already is slowed 2, that does not change. But does the duration of his slowed 2 change (it had only a few rounds remaining from the slow spell)?

If he gets hit (and fails his save) again the next round, the cockatrice's effect now increases his slowed condition by one, which barring extraordinary circumstances would reduce him to 0 actions, becoming petrified?!

If he instead lasts a few more rounds before being hit again, reaching the end of the slow spell's duration, now that the "time dilatation" of that spell is gone, is he still slowed 2 from the one cockatrice hit?

I have a hard time making sense of this mechanic, and while I understand that rules have to simplify reality that is a tough sell for me in this case. I'd probably have preferred a mechanic like:

- If a cockatrice hits you successfully, make a DC 20 Fortitude saving throw -> Crit fail: gain two petrification counters, fail: gain one petrification counter, success & crit success: no change.

- Each petrification counter you have increases your slowed condition by 1 while you have it.

- At the end of each of your turns (or after 1 minute, whatever the unclear intention here was), while you have petrification counters, make another DC 20 fortitude save -> crit fail: gain one petrification counter, fail: no change, success: remove one petrification counter, crit success: remove 2 petrification counters. (or maybe instead, just succeed at a DC 15 flat check to lose one counter??)

- If at the start of your turn the number of petrification counters you have is ever at least equal to the number of actions you would have received without the slowed condition (normally 3, but might be 4 if also quickened), you become petrified.

That way, the petrification effect contributes to any other slowed effect up to reducing you to 0 actions, but the actual petrification is independent of other slowed effects. Flesh to stone could use the same mechanic and stack with a cockatrice's petrification, obviously.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
larsenex wrote:
I dont mind having spells rare like this I just wanted to know the method for the player to learn or acquire the spell.

Actually, if you as the GM want to allow the spell in your campaign there is no need to have any special way of obtaining access to it. You can just declare the your player's cleric can have access to it and that's that. Now, if you WANT to turn gaining access to it into a quest, no problem. But it wouldn't be neccessary. The official paizo material just assumes that players have access to all common things but not neccessarily to any or all uncommon things. But there is no set way of gaining access other than "GM decision".

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

From the Alchemist section in the Classes chapter of the CRB (emphasis mine):

CRB p.72 "Alchemy" wrote:
You gain the Alchemical Crafting feat (page 258), even if you don’t meet that feat’s prerequisites, and you gain the four common 1st-level alchemical formulas granted by that feat.
CRB p.73 "Formula Book" wrote:
The formula book contains the formulas for two common 1st-level alchemical items of your choice, in addition to those you gained from Alchemical Crafting and your research field
CRB p.73 "Research Field / Bomber" wrote:
You specialize in explosions and other violent alchemical reactions. You start with the formulas for two 1st-level alchemical bombs in your formula book, in addition to your other formulas.

So, I'd say 4 for the crafting feat + 2 extra in your book + 2 extra for being a bomber. Reads like 8 should be the right answer, I think. I'm not sure where you got either 6 or 10 from to be honest...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

As a GM,

- if a champion character has acted according to a new alignement sufficiently much to warrant a change of his alignment (very much a GM-decision), I'd not let him use his alignment specific powers anymore until he has retrained to the new cause, and

- I'd not let him retrain until he has actually changed his alignment.

So, in all, changing your cause will come with a period of being able to use neither your old nor your new powers.

I'd probably not require any additional "reconfirmation", though most players I know would likely want to go on a cause-specific quest to act out this change of mind roleplaying-wise.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Hmm, interesting spell, I hadn't looked into that before. The way it's written does make me wonder if it wasn't actually intended to be more like a preparatory spell: you cast it to be able to use your NEXT action to do something extra-ordinary, like jump 30'. Since that would take two actions to first cast and then jump it would make the spell considerably less powerful and much more in line with the power balance of say the spell "true strike", which is also 1 action to prepare an "improved" second action.

The spell description even talks about the spell causing you to "get ready to leap". And the whole falling after the next action bit makes much more sense if the next action referred to were the actual jump action.

I agree that with the 2nd sentence as it currently stands I'd read it to include the jump action for now, but the comparison to true strike was the first thing that came to mind and I totally wouldn't be surprised if not including the jump was intended (or maybe at least originally intended). It does seem somewhat OP for a 1-action 1st level spell the way it stands right now, and must-have spells were something they were trying to get away from...

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
tivadar27 wrote:
albadeon wrote:

The CRB quite clearly has the written rule that GMs are the final arbiters of how a rule is meant to be interpreted and quite clearly advises the GM to use the rules as intended (however the GM interprets the intention) instead of the rules as written whenever there is doubt. In any hypothetical disagreement about a rules interpretation between a player and the GM, the GM wins by default, that is part of the RAW. The player is entitled to have a different opinion but that opinion has no effect on game play.

Since that is part of the core rules, and there are no specific society rulings against it, this "GM is the ultimate arbiter on the rules" principle holds true in society play just as much.

Unless the society comes up with a specific ruling for this particular case, just go with your best interpretation, and you will always be in the right for your table.

Actually this isn't true

See the section on table variation, namely:
"Scenarios are meant to be run as written, with no addition or subtraction to the number of monsters (unless indicated in the scenario), or changes to armor, feats, items, skills, spells, statistics, traits, or weapons."
"As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgments, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder source, errata document, or official FAQ on What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right for your table during cases not covered in these sources."

Please stop with the statements that you don't need to run an adventure as written, GMs don't need to follow the rules, or there "are no rules as written". This is pretty clearly spelled out in the guide to organized play.

I really don't see where you get from this quote the feeling that I'm saying that "there are no rules as written". There definitely are. However, as you yourself have pointed out a few posts later, and as many, MANY, posts on these forums demonstrate, the rules as written are very often subject to interpretation and are very rarely universally understood to mean the same thing. Language is a complicated thing and cases that may be obvious to you might look completely different to me. And we might both be wrong, obviously.

And in those cases, where it boils down to interpretation, if there is a difference in interpretation between the GM and one or more players, it is the job of the GM to decide what the "correct" interpretation for this game and this table is. Sadly, I have had to make the experience of players quite belligerently "demanding" that they were entitled to something or other based on their personal interpretation of the rules, and thus I'm merely pointing out that fortunately it is part of the rules as written that the GM's interpretation trumps all others at that table (with the possible exception of sitting at a table with paizo-executive players...). And really, that is just codifying good common sense.

Nowhere am I advocating to just randomly break or replace rules. But if a rule or text passage requires interpretation, the GM decides what it was meant to say in his opinon and runs the game accordingly. He should use his best judgement and use available resources but ultimately, it's his call. And yes, that is just as true for Society scenarios. And the guide2play does not oppose that at all. These judgement calls are only ever needed if a rule or text passage as written is unclear, in which case the GM clarifies it for his table and his game. Not doing that would actually violate the rules as written about adjudicating unclear rules cases. Clarifying an unclear rule and playing according to the clarified rule is not at all breaking said rule, even if a player holds a different opinion. So no problem for Society regulations at all.

tivadar27 wrote:
So hence, even if RAW is clear for me, it's not for everyone, which makes, unfortunately, RAW ambiguous

See, we actually agree. All I'm adding is that the solution to this problem is already written into the RAW: GM adjudication.

Now, back to battle medicine!

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
As a side note on the paralysis caused by the gelatinous cube. The paralysis has the Incapacitation trait, which means that if the PC is higher level than the ooze (yes, level 5 vs. CR 3) then you treat save results as one step better. So a failure on a fortitude save becomes a success. You need to roll a critical failure, downgraded to a normal failure, to be paralyzed in this situation.

Thanks for that explanation, Lau, none of us were aware of that rule. That would have made a difference in the final fight. Getting proficient in the new system is definitely a learning experience... :)

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Some people here are basically trying to bypass the craft skill by just saying "I'm having the NPC do it for me". Which would be fine, if you weren't also assuming that said NPC does it for free, on his own time and with no risk of failure. You are basically proving the raw resources (the rune and the weapon to be etched), or pay the price of these resources, and expect to reap the rewards of turning those raw resources into something useful for free. For all other uses of NPC help with a skill (and use of the craft skill is repeatedly referenced in pretty much all the relevant sections and sidebars in the CRB), you'd be expected to hire that NPC and run the needed check at the bonus he provides. There is absolutely no reason why that general principle should not apply here.

The prices given for the individual parts (rune, sword, etc) are quite clearly the prices of the starting materials, not that of the finished product. You arrive at the finished product by applying the craft skill to those resources. You either "pay" for that by having invested in that skill yourself, or you "pay" by paying someone to do it for you. It takes time and effort. Getting it done for free is "too good to be true".

If you were to apply similar logic, why bother with buying finished products for the high listed price at all? Just give the metal to the smith and have him do the needed craft checks to turn it into a sword - for free, on his own time and with no risk of failure. Or if you want to go with the tavern example, give him some hops, wheat and water and expect to get all the beer this could be turned into over time in return.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I don't think a success when looking for information should give you the false information that you've learned all there is to found here. That kind of misleading information is something that should be limited to crit fails, imho. That's why I don't get why it's in the list of things you learn with successful checks. That is completely irrespective of whether you allow only one check for the entire party per hour or one for each PC. It's just generally wrong to give false information for a successful check.

The in game explanations are mostly very much contrived to allow for a wide spread of skill checks to be used. You don't really need thievery to open glass doors either, especially after a violent fight in the same room...

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I tend to think of these adventures as two seperate scenatios, one for the low tier and one for the high tier. They come with different DCs, different enemy numbers and sometimes types, etc. They share most or even all story elements, but are two distinct things, just printed together to save space.

Similarly, the chronicles are actually two different chronicles put together onto one sheet.

If the players completed the low-tier adventure, they get the low-tier chronicle (with the high-tier parts crossd out as they haven't played the high-tier adventure, obviously). Similarly, if they completed the high-tier adventure they receive the high-tier chronicle (with the low-tier parts crossed out, as they haven't actually finished the low-tier one). I've seen a number of GMs who do not cross out the low-tier parts on completion of the high-tier adventure, and in many cases that doesn't make a whole lot of difference. But I've never seen anyone award the high-tier rewards after finishing the low-tier version of the scenario.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Ah, actually reading it might have helped, then :). I had not received it yet when the issue was discussed... Thanks!

If the chronicle can be applied at lower levels, the items on there make sense. But if it could only have been applied at 5th level, it just seemed odd to have items on there that by that point would be available through the CRB anyway.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I have one question about the chronicle, and I'm sorry if this has been answered elsewhere: The GM and other players were adamant that it needed to be applied immediately and could not be saved up. The character I had assigned for this scenario had finished 3 other scenarios before (with no playtest boons applied), so I guess she was technically 2nd level (even though at the time, she had never been played as a 2nd level char and I had not actually levelled her up). The Guide to Play has this to say about the matter:

Society Guide to Play wrote:

You may apply a pregenerated character’s Chronicle sheet to one of your Pathfinder Society characters once your Pathfinder Society character reaches the level of the pregenerated character used to play through it. For example, if you played a 5th-level pregenerated character, you would apply the credit once your character reaches 5th level.

You can apply credit from a higher-tier adventure to a 1st-level Pathfinder Society character. When doing so, you gain only the gold appropriate to a 1st-level character. You do not benefit from any boons until your Pathfinder Society character reaches the minimum level listed on the Chronicle sheet, unless otherwise noted.

So I'd read that as saying I cannot actually apply the chronicle to the current character (her being 2nd level), but have to wait until she is at 5th level. And even if she were 1st level, she could get the xp, but not make use of any of the boons until she was 5th level and would only get 1st-level gold.

Is that right? Also, what's the point of having the items on the chronicle sheet - my character would be interested in getting the dagger of venom (item 5) - if you can only ever get them once you have reached 5th level (when they'd be available anyway, being common items from the CRB)?

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I haven't GM'd this scenario yet, but played it and read it afterwards.

We were 6 players, so we were using all 6 of the available lvl 5-pregens. The game was played online, I didn't know any of the other players before.

During the library research our GM had the party split up and let each player decide which section his character was going to research during that hour-long research-interval. Different players were allowed to investigate topics at the same time or one-after the other, even if another player had already failed there. Minis were placed on the map next to the relevant sections and each player was asked to keep track of where they had already researched. When the statues activated, combat started from that spread-out position, which was a nice change from the usual "party enters map here". It did make the fight noticably more difficult than I would have expected with Fumbus being flanked by two statues in the first round and being seriously in trouble quite a bit away from the others.

After each 1h-research-session, we received the discoveries for all the successful checks at the same time, which lead to us finding both the "there is nothing more here" and the next one after that simultaneously, which was odd, but led us to continue researching and find the final one as well. I'm not sure we would have continued if the last clue discovered was that here was nothing more to be found, I really don't get why that is in there, we just basically meta-game assumed during the session that that player had crit-failed his (secret) roll. Such a false clue would be totally okay for a crit fail, but on a success?? Hmmm...

We did get the multiple hints that there might be oozes to fight coming up, so did extensive research on those and knew about their resistances and split-ability going in.

We took our sweet time during the initial part, in particular fighting the stautes took longer than I would've expected, which in retrospect was probably good for us, as it caused our GM (in accordance with the sidebar declaring that encounter optional if a certain time has passed irl until that point) to skip the trap in B1 which reads like it could have seriously hurt.

Even with pre-knowledge of the oozes abilites be were not smart enough to think of bringing extra blunt weapons... However, since we knew about the split, we were able to fairly effectively carve the black pudding up into multiple smaller pieces before hitting them all with a fireball, which helped tremendously (even though the Merisiel player decided to roleplay being scared and not throw a few daggers at the pudding(s) as had been agreed initially). Still, after the fight we had to retreat and buy Amiri some new hide armor and repair Valeros's shield boss. I can definitely see how this encounter can easily turn into a massacre for an unprepared party, even though our group had a reasonably easy time with it. We were unclear during the game about being able to melee attack a creature that has grabbed you from 10' away with reach, but our GM hand-waved that you could still hit whatever bit of the creature extended towards you (which in retrospect is exactly according to the rules, we were just unaware of that rule at the time).

We went through the sewer and completely bypassed the B4 hazards.

The boss fight was very enjoyable for (almost) all. Merisiel was tinkering with the weird machine. Valeros was tanking the Ochre jelly the machine initially spit out (6-player adjustment) with some pretty lucky rolls and smashing it with his shield boss over and over again until it finally stopped moving (ultimately, that was the last opponent alive). Amiri finally had some targets she could actually hurt with her big sword. Kyra was trying (and mostly succeeding) to keep us all alive. Ezren did his magic thing while hanging back. Poor Fumbus, however, ended up being swallowed by a Gelatinous Cube and with some bad rolls spent most of the fight paralyzed inside the cube. While that was arguably not so much fun for that player, it provided some excitement for the rest of the party wo where scrambling to somehow get him out of there. He ultimately survived only because by unanimous party vote the last hero point to be distributed went to the paralyzed Fumbus (at Dying 3 with no hero points left and noone close enough to help) for "heroically tanking the cube from within". That was probably somewhat fishy rules-wise, but felt right.

Overall, I was positively surprised by the adventure after having heard some rumors of "it's almost impossible to succeed with the pregens who are totally unsuited for the task". After reading through it, it definitely has that TPK-potential, but if players are paying attention, there are enough clues there to be able to come prepared enough. Still probably not ideal as an introduction to a new system, #1-01 is definitely what I'd use instead to introduce new players to the game.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The CRB quite clearly has the written rule that GMs are the final arbiters of how a rule is meant to be interpreted and quite clearly advises the GM to use the rules as intended (however the GM interprets the intention) instead of the rules as written whenever there is doubt. In any hypothetical disagreement about a rules interpretation between a player and the GM, the GM wins by default, that is part of the RAW. The player is entitled to have a different opinion but that opinion has no effect on game play.

Since that is part of the core rules, and there are no specific society rulings against it, this "GM is the ultimate arbiter on the rules" principle holds true in society play just as much.

Unless the society comes up with a specific ruling for this particular case, just go with your best interpretation, and you will always be in the right for your table.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
SuperBidi wrote:
can a doubling ring "enchant" shield spikes


The 5th-level pregen Valeros makes use of this, his sword runes are doubled onto his shield boss, so definitely yes.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yes, that's my reading on this as well, atm.

That said, I wouldn't totally rule out the "poorly worded" explanation, but I think with the rules as they currently are "poorly worded" requires a bit more of a stretch and assumptions than the "not all low-level focus spells are meant to give you another point (possibly for power-balance issues)".

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The "disable device" action is the way to use thievery to, well, disable a device. So definitely yes (and note that you need to be at least trained in thievery to even attempt this), unless the trap specifically lists some other means of diabling it.

With hazards and locks, if it only lists one check it only takes one success. Note, e.g. that drowning pit on p.526 takes a thievery check per water spout (four, usually) and either a thievery (against a higher DC than the spouts) or an athletics check to open the trapdoor. In those cases it's up to the GM to rule if you have to fist disable the spout and then open the door, or if e.g. after you fail with the spouts a few times you have now floated up high enough to reach the trap door, or whatever.

Other traps in the complex hazards section also require several checks, including sometime several thievery checks in a row.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Whenever your class gives you a trained proficiency in a skill you already have from your background, you get to chose another one that you're not trained in yet.

That's true for all combinations. Rogue gives you trained in stealth and (depending on your subclass / "racket" thievery e.g.). But if your background already gave you one of those, you don't get to go to expert immediately, you just get to pick another one to make "trained".

Your level one char is just not that proficient in anything yet, it'll get there soo enough! :)

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Hmm, okay, my bad.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The Roc entry in the Monster Manual has a special ability "Snatch" to allow it to do fly off with a grabbed crature. So likely not intended to be generally possible without a similar ability.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Zhamer00 wrote:

hmm... Thanks for the clarification.

That is somewhat where I was leaning but I didnt catch on to the details of flaming rune persistent damage. So let me write some examples for you to make sure I understand.

I hit a target with a lesser acid flask with a crit:
1) Target takes 2 acid damage immediately
2) Target and any creature within 5 feet takes 1 acid splash damage
3) at the end of the targets turn, they roll 2D6 for persistent acid damage and keep doing it until target succeeds a flat dc 15 check

So moving on to say lesser Alchemist’s Fire with a crit:
1) Target takes 2D8 fire damage immediately
2) Target and any creature within 5 feet takes 1 fire splash damage
3) at the end of the targets turn, they take 2 persistent fire damage and keep doing it until target succeeds a flat dc 15 check

Seem right?

Sound right, except your wording on acid flask point 3) seems to imply that you roll the 2d6 every round. I would not read it as such, instead, you roll the damage once and then they take that damage every round until they shake it off.

Edit: As Fuzzy-Wuzzy has pointed out below, I was wrong here, you do reroll every time.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
thenobledrake wrote:
albadeon wrote:

Except that p.300 says "You automatically gain a focus pool of 1 Focus Point the first time you gain an ability that gives you a focus spell."

It goes on to say "Some abilities allow you to increase the Focus Points in your pool beyond 1", which is expressly the case e.g. for the later feat "advanced deity's domain"

To me that seems like a specific rule superceding a general rule.

The part of the text you are quoting is there to make sure that any ability which says you gain a focus spell can't be accidentally worded so as to end up on a character without a focus pool to use it with.

However, since the Devotion Spell feature provides a focus pool on it's own, the part of text you are quoting is also not relevant.

Devotion Spell feature gives you a focus pool > Deity's Domain gives you a spell to spend it on.

If that were the case, why does the 8th level feat "advanced deity's devotion" which also gets you another devotion spell specifically adds that you also get a focus point?

Similarly, sorcerer's bloodline focus spells have similar wording in their class ability description. Their Advanced and Greater Bloodline feats also get you the new bloodline spell (which by your logic should automatically trigger an additional point via the general bloodline spell entry mentioning you get a focus pool. But these feats also specfically mention getting an extra focus point.

With Bard's composition focus spells it's the same thing, all their feats that get them a new composition spell specifically state that they also get an additional focus point.

With druid, Order spells again have similar wording. Here, the feat "Order magic" gives you another spell, but not a focus point, whereas later feats such as "impaling briars" do.

If all these would automatically give you a focus point via the same logic you use for devotion spells, why do most of them have the additional focus point mentioned, but some don't? Maybe it's a balance thing and some low-level feats are deliberately not intended to give you that extra focus point?

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Well, on p.550 it says the "stat block includes the price and features for a single dose." So in order to achieve the effects listed, the target must have been subjected to one dose of poison. There is nothing saying that having less than a dose applied has any effect whatsoever.

So, one dose per weapon/arrow/bolt.

For melee weapons, if you miss the blade remains poisoned. However, it's not entirely clear what happens to a poisoned arrow if it misses. Afaik, there are currently no rules regarding reusing (non-magical) ammo, but since ammo is listed under "consumables" in chapter 11, I'd say it's spent even if it misses.

It potentially makes ranged poison use more expensive, but then, being at range also makes it less dangerous to the user, so balanced (and not different from regular ranged attacks which need to use limited arrows, while melee can just go on forever).

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
thenobledrake wrote:

You're spot on with all but one detail:

Deity's Domain calls out the Devotion Spell rules from earlier in the champion entry by saying "you gain the domain's initial domain spell as a devotion spell."

The Devotion Spell section then says "...special divine spells called devotion spells, which are a type of focus spell. It costs 1 Focus Point to cast a focus spell, and you start with a focus pool of 1 Focus Point."

As a result, Number 4 is actually Number 1 in a disguise.

Except that p.300 says "You automatically gain a focus pool of 1 Focus Point the first time you gain an ability that gives you a focus spell."

It goes on to say "Some abilities allow you to increase the Focus Points in your pool beyond 1", which is expressly the case e.g. for the later feat "advanced deity's domain"

To me that seems like a specific rule superceding a general rule.

I'm not denying that it may have been intended otherwise, but for now I read that as not getting another focus point for "deity's doman" if you already have a devotion spell (or other focus spell) and that the OP's interpretation is correct. And I agree with OP that it would be preferable that every ability that is intended to give you a focus point (with a max. limit included) would just say so and you just get a focus pool the first time you get a focus point.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Baarogue wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:

You are mixing 2 non-correlated things. Ammunitions can be poisoned even if they are not weapons. There is a rule, which uses some mechanics with some words and then there's the in-game translation.

Like when you say that you Strike with your bow. The rules use the word strike, but in-game you shoot.

It's the same here. When you poison a bow, you obviously poison arrows.
Considering arrows as weapon only modifies the application of the rule, not the in-game actions and description.

That's actually how I read it originally. If that's what you and albadeon are arguing, I'm fine with it, provided one can poison multiple ammunition ahead of time if they choose.

Well, not quite.

I'm arguing that
- a bow is a weapon, whereas an arrow is not (but rather ammunition, a separate item type that is meant to be used as a projectile with a weapon)
- the rules (specifically the rules on injury poison) only mention weapons as the way to apply injury poison. I think this is intended to include other "piercing/slashing" injuring forms of applications, such as via arrow or trap. But as it fails to mention that, it could be read as excluding those. And if it can be read like it, someone will read it like that. Depending on your POV, that would be either an abusive GM who wants to prevent your wonderful ranged poisoner PC from working, or a horribly obnoxious player who wants to keep your traps from doing the amount of harm they are meant to do after he triggered them. Both suck :).
- until the text is clarified, I'm ruling for any table where I'm the GM that that is the RAI and apply it as such, i.e. you can apply poison to arrows/bolts even ahead of time
- using "poison the bow" as a substitute works acceptably in most cases, but needs additional clarification, i.e. one arrow per dose of poison, not continouusly poisoning all arrows shot from the "bow of poison", etc.
- The one case where this does not work is where you obtain bow and arrows as two seperate things, i.e. you get a bow, you "poison the bow", then you move to the next room, you pick up the arrows there and fire at something. Poison damage or not?
- So, really, I'm going to stay with poison being applied to the arrow, even though that is not in itself a weapon.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I don't read anything about combining damage types, so I would keep those separate, but combining damage of the same type for the purpose of overcoming specific resistances.

If you had say a enchanted club dealing 6 blunt and 4 fire damage and an enchanted sword dealing 8 slashing and 3 fire damage, I'd combine the 2 instances of fire damage together and only appy an eventual fire resistance 5 once.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Baarogue wrote:
Alright, so we have the common ground of agreeing ammunition should be poisonable. So let me ask you this: What do you gain by arguing ammunition aren't weapons. What do you lose by agreeing that they are?

Treating ammo as weapons requires you to make numerous exceptions in the rules for these "weapons", that aren't really weapons. That's a whole lot of special pleading.

If you have just an arrow, no bow, is that a weapon? How do you attack with it? It's listed under ranged weapons, so would you use a ranged attack roll? How much damage does it do? None is listed. Should weapon runes be able to be inscribed on it? I'd say no, but your milage may vary, but if you classify them as weapons you either have to let runes be used on them or make another exception.

These are weapons that have none of the traits all the other weapons have. They cannot be used to attack by themselves an any better than any other improvised weapon can, but only used to "deliver" the force of the attack of the actual weapon.

It's like arguing the rocks slung with a catapult are weapons. They are projectiles used with a weapon, but they are not weapons themselves. Or would you see those as weapons, too?

Baarogue wrote:
I agree that sling bullets can't be poisoned, but not because they're ammunition. They're Bludgeoning, and so can't apply Injury poison, and Contact poison would be too problematic.

The very much misrepresents what I said, I only mentioned sling bullets because they can easier be imagined as as pretty much pebbles, instead of the somewhat pointier arrows and I thought that might help you see them as not weapons. They could be poisoned just like arrows, but yes, you'd need another type of poison and it would be less practical.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Hmm, I wouldn't see craft as must-have skill. At least not as long as there are alternative workarounds available. You either invest in the skill or invest a little more money when you find you need something crafted.

The current henchmen have expert proficiency, which is good enough for crafts up to about level 10, when master proficiency starts being a requirement. I'd expect to have master and better henchmen available eventually, maybe through the GMG already, though I still like the idea to make boons available to allow for downtime crafting. And if the faction boon hirelings are deliberately barred from that than have others instead.

It would certainly make more sense than the Lvl 3 common loot items on some of the chronicles I have :).

If in turn you were to remove the crafting requirement from the "runecrafting" and just let it be done for free, or included in the price of the rune, that would imho devalue crafting and I don't really see a good argument for why the same should not be applied to all other downtime crafting as well. And honestly, I'd rather they come up with more varied uses of other skills for downtime than to remove even more from it. I like the general idea, but if it gets reduced to basically just nothing but earn income checks, what's the point?

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I have and would again totally argue that ammunition is not a weapon (and if you think of sling stones or even irl bullets, I think it's blatantly obvious that they are not weapons themselves but rather something to be fired from a weapon).
And as I've argued above, the rules do support my view, even if they may be ambiguous enough to support multiple views :).

It doesn't really matter though, as I think we can all agree that the intended rules are that ammo and traps should be able to be poisoned.

Where exactly the exact text of the rules needs to be modified to better reflect this, I honestly don't care.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Ammo is listed as consumables (and not as weapons) in the Crafting and Treasure chapter. And the description in the ammunition entry in the Equipment chapter makes it quite clear that they are still seperate from weapons despite being on that list (multiple times, as there is an entry for each weapon shooting that particular projectile) for convenience's sake. I'm pretty sure we've been through this, maybe read the thread above :).

Still, I believe the general agreement is that arrows (and not the bow itself) are the object intended to be poisoned. The paragraph on how injury poisons are applied in the Crafting and Treasure Chapter however neglects to mention either ammo or traps, which I believe is merely an oversight and should be errata'd. Officially published adventures have injury poisons applied both via ammo and via traps.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think this is why I'm so vehemently opposed to your interpretation in the context of PFS: Every character has access to a limited and well-regulated number of feats, skills, etc. They are meant to provide a balanced power level. You have to make choices and these choices have meaningful consequences, both in regard to what you can do and what you cannot do.

If I choose to play a high-INT alchemist with an expert ability in crafting but low DEX and no training in thievery and I need a lock picked, I have to cope with the fact that I cannot do it myself. I can either do without (leave the loot behind), or find a workaround (hack the chest open likely destroying something inside), or hire a henchman to take the thievery check for me. Those all come with a certain price. If I were to argue that not being able to open that lock is unfair to me and punishes me for playing the way I like playing and I should just be allowed to open the lock for free, after all, no party should be required to have someone trained in thievery - well, wouldn't that just be ridiculous?!

The crafting skill is absolutely no different in that regard. There are some tasks that require a proficiency in crafting, and that includes adding or changing your gears' runes. If you chose to go for a high-STR fighter with different skills and are not trained in crafting, that's fine, you get other advantages from those choices. But if you now wish to do something that requires proficiency in the crafting skill, you again have the same options: do without that improved weapon, find a work-around (buy it ready-made at the market, maybe?), or hire a henchman to take the craft-check for you. And again, those all come with a certain cost. Your example of giving it to the smith is essentially just hiring a henchman, except you for some reason expect to get this henchman to do it for free and with an automatic success to the required check.

Why should this kind of free-of-cost outsourcing be allowed for one skill but not the other? And keep in mind, we're talking 5sp/d for a trained henchman or 4 fame for the boon. It's not like you're getting robbed. People are taking henchmen along to help with checks in skills where they are weak or untrained all the time!

Crafting is not more or less important than any other skill, and all skills are written and intended to be used on equal grounds, merely dependent on circumstance. So there is absolutely no room to argue that crafting skill checks can just be ignored, skipped or out-sourced free of charge when modding your weapons' runes any more than thievery skill checks could be when standing in front of the juicy loot box.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Nefreet wrote:

Also, these questions are important, and need to be addressed:

Earlier, I wrote:
To suggest that you need some sort of Boon to ever upgrade your magical gear is preposterous. To suggest that you have to sell your +1 item in order to buy a +2 makes no sense. To suggest that a party needs a character dedicated to Crafting so that everyone else can have up to date gear implies a design flaw that, for me, is an extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary evidence.

The party does not NEED a dedicated crafter, but having one helps saving money and time in some instances. You either invest skills/feats/abilities into something or you have to pay a higher price for services that you or your party cannot accomplish themselves.

You either have a spellcaster that can cast a certain spell, or you have to pay someone for their services if you need said spell cast.

It's a matter of balance, like everything else in the game. There are no freebies. If you choose to invest in skill A you are rewarded when that skill is needed, if you choose to invest in skill B instead, you pay the price for not having picked skill A and the other way around.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I have quite cleary summarized the process in one of my posts above, citing all the relevant pages where the information is found.

Nowhere was there any reference to just "handing it over to a smithy, and all I have to do is pay the difference".

As per the example given by the OP, I was describing the process of adding a +1 rune to a previously non-magical weapon and the pages I cite quite clearly give the process I have outlined.

The example you give (upgrading +1 to +2) is even more messy, as there is conflicting information in the CRB: there is a sidebar describing removing the +1 rune and exchanging it for the +2 rune of a different weapon, essentially "swapping" the two runes on p.581. On the other hand, there is a sidebar on p.582, summarizing an "upgrade"-process, where a +1-rune is somehow upgraded to a +2-rune. It mentions a Craft check needed but with no details, such as time or skill proficiency. This sort of "upgrade" is not mentioned anywhere else. NB The sidebar quite clearly refers to YOU upgrading something not you giving it to a smith to have it done for you.

How this is supposed to work is quite unclear: what happens to the +1-rune? Is it transferred to a blank runestone (and if so, does your example assume you can just sell it back or trade it in to the smith for full price, even though everything else sold back is half-price)? Or do you provide another weapon for that? Is there a different +2-rune, that is just an add-on to the +1-rune (nothing in the CRB indicates that adding a +2-rune to a weapon requires there to be a +1-rune on the weapon beforehand)?

I don't see the extremely imprecise information in either of these sidebars as a good indicator of how this process is meant to work, especially in the confines of PFS, where the available amount of downtime is strictly regulated and balanced to be used either for earning income, or for crafting things. If you just assume the crafting work required for any process (and it is quite clearly stated that a craft check is required and that those take one or more days) is done for you for free while you are able to earn income simultaneously, you are effectively doubling your available downtime.

1 to 50 of 246 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>