asymmetricia's page

**** Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 8 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 21 Organized Play characters.


Scarab Sages

How would you feel about including a page number reference next to `Basic Reflex Save` (or `Basic Damage Reflex Save` or whatever?)

Especially in picking up the new edition, it's very hard to know where to look up exactly what that means. (I _still_ have a very hard time finding the calculation for spell save DC...)

Scarab Sages

Shaun wrote:

Is it required to additionally pay gold for each point of capital you earn following the table 2-1: Capital Values? If my inn gives me a +44 to generate influence and I roll at total of 54, do I also need to pay 75 gold to get my 5 points of earned influence?

That seems like a lot of money every day.

Yes, you always have to pay the "earned cost" in gold for capital you earn. Think of it this way- if you're rolling to get Influence, as in your example, you're basically giving away the service in exchange for good will; if you have an Inn, you're giving Important People in town free dinners and free nights' stay in the inn. You're burning commodities (via the proxy of "gold") to do so. In fact, if you're getting five capital in a day, you're putting on a lot of very fancy dinners.

The alternative is to have the inn earn gold, which is basically "business as usual." You take in some money, you don't gain or lose capital. (Remember, in "business" speak capital isn't a consumable thing, you don't spend it; you turn it into other things. In UCa, you turn it into buildings, for example.)

Regarding the main point of the thread-

My opinion is that each "business" gets one roll for whatever you want to roll for that day. A business may not be an entire building, but is probably more than one room, and it depends on what you said it was when you created it. Your Brewery has "Storage," but that storage is not a warehouse, and you're not renting it out; it's part of the Brewery.

The rules don't care if you have a one-room bar, a one-room brewery, two one-room storages somewhere else in the city, etc.; but I, as the GM, will make you declare; and then you'd need to have Managers for all of them if they're separate, plus you can only "Run The Business" at one of them.

Scarab Sages 3/5 5/5

Specific context: I want to retrain Ecclestitheurge 1/Ouat Monk 1 into Ecclestitheurge 1/Zen Archer 1.

1. It looks like it would take 10 days to train out of Ouat Monk into regular Monk- 5 for Awaken Divinity, 5 for Spurn Tradition. This assumes that I don't have to worry about the *racial* features that are removed/added, since the Ouat Monk has class features that replace racial features. Is this assumption correct?

2. Training into Zen Archer would require replacing base Flurry of Blows with ZA's Flurry, base monk's weapon proficiencies with ZA's weapon proficiencies, base monk's base feats with ZA's base feats; (*and* posisbly retrain that feat); and finally retrain stunning fist into perfect strike. Flurry, 5; weapon prof, 5; feat feature, 5; perfect strike, 5; for a total of 20 days. Is this math correct?

My _real_ question is: Can I just retrain as though changing classes instead? This would take either 7 days or 5 days; 5 days if we treat Zen Archer as having retraining synergy with Ouat Monk.

(I can understand that retraining an archetype would be cheaper if I had more levels or the class in question; or if the archetype was one with fewer first-level-applicable changes; but that's not the case with this change.)

(Also, side commentary: This is my first multiclass build, and I found at first play at Level 2 that it was really ineffective, by which I mean likely to die and not able to greatly impact combat. By definition, I'd never get to 'free retrain' a multiclass, it makes it hard to figure this stuff out in the context of PFS.)

Scarab Sages

Sniggevert wrote:
pdbogen wrote:

Hmmm. In Trial #6...

** spoiler omitted **
Here's the author's take on the issue. The general reasoning is in the first quote of the linked thread.

It's nice that he addressed that, but...


No, I disagree; this isn't even a grey area. "Off the side of a platform 200ft up" is not a "safe place to stand" even if they won't take damage when they fall.

(I also don't know how that ability is supposed to work anyway. Why can I suddenly not push someone off something when I could if there was a platform there. I get it's a balacent hing, but- ugh, nonsensical rules.)

Scarab Sages

Hmmm. In Trial #6...


Aramaya's strategy states that she "push[es] the PCs back -- ideally off the platform -- with the Pushing Assault feat", but the feat itself states:

"the target must end this move in a safe space it can stand in."

When I run this in a few days, I intend to run it without this aspect of the tactics, because my preference is to not break very clear RAW rules in favor of fixing a suboptimal tactic. However, I think this will make the encounter a little easier than it should be. Perhaps it'd be helpful to make explicit that this is an exception to Pushing Assault (though that's not my preference).

If the edge of the platform were standable but somehow slippery (perhaps it slopes downwards, requiring an acrobatics check when leaving but otherwise making it "safe" to "stand in"), that might be close enough to "safe" while still giving a similar outcome of Aramaya pushing people off.

Alternatively, perhaps rework that mechanic around Ki Throw, though that would require Aramaya to be standing at the edge herself, which might just get her bull rushed off instead.

Scarab Sages 3/5 5/5

Thank you for your feedback, Belafon.

As to your first point:


I think that there is an argument that can be made around whether or not Laurel will attempt to cure the plague prior to completion of the tasks. This argument, however, seems independent of whether or not she /can/. There is no reason to present the issue as a "-20 penalty" unless she can attempt the check despite the penalty.

As to your second point:


Although I'd concur with the suggestion that Act 4 would commence when the players exit the shop, having given up their attempts, whether or not the party was divided- that was in fact not the case here. In fact, the players were exiting the shop as part of carrying out the assistance, i.e., on their way to conduct a skill check that logically happened elsewhere. I believe this contravenes both the letter (i.e., they weren't carrying the antiplague) and the spirit (they weren't done with their efforts) of the act's trigger.

In this case, the monk and the mounted paladin had a base speed of 40ft, compared to the slowest party member (20ft). They were Hustling and would have therefore made the four hour trip in one hour, each way.

I believe Michael Eshleman and Dame Kerline have both quite adequately addressed your third point (thanks!); I'll add this text from the PRD (


Aid Another

You can help someone achieve success on a skill check by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort. If you roll a 10 or higher on your check, the character you're helping gets a +2 bonus on his or her check.

As to your fourth point:

In fact, this is not reasonable justification to disallow retries. As it happens, our party ventured out that evening to find and confront Vondrella, defeated her, and returned; as it's an hour's march away, that's totally reasonable. Defeating this extant threat should have let us address curing the plague with Laurel's help at our leisure.

(Most of my concerns were about Act 3, so I didn't read the scenario word-for-word before now. Holy crap:

Act 1 gold is from stealing the infected lumber workers' wages?! Why not just murder them outright, too?

Scarab Sages 3/5 5/5

Jiggy wrote:

Sometimes GMs make mistakes, and you need to just go with it. If you think the consequences of potential errors are serious enough, go back to your GM and politely and clearly make your case. If he's not receptive, repeat the process with your local VC/VL. If you're still unsatisfied after that and think it's necessary, contact Mike Brock.

Hope that helps!

Thanks; that does, and that was what I was planning to do.

I wasn't trying to get action against the GM here, or anything. Mostly I wanted to see if I was misinterpreting the scenario somehow, and if others had a different perspective that would show the GM's rulings in a different light; or if indeed, there was some consensus that the GM had misinterpreted the scenario, which I believe makes it much harder than it should have been.

Edited for grammar and clarity.

Scarab Sages 3/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hi, guys. Our GM ran Pallid Plague last night, and I found it frustrating and unsatisfying in the extreme. We didn't die, but we failed both success conditions; and in this case, I think the GM made some incorrect calls. I'd appreciate if someone could check my thinking on this.

I downloaded the scenario and read through it, and have a few questions...

At Tier 3-4, Laurel has Heal +11 to help treat a DC22 fort save. She has -20 due to the scenario, making it impossible for her to make the check (she can roll at most an 11). Our GM treated the disease such that *nobody* could make Heal checks to help unless we passed 10 "help Laurel" checks to *completely* eliminate (which I believe is different from the RAW "effectively eliminate") her penalty. I think this is incorrect... Any thoughts? Can Laurel attempt Heal checks while still retaining some penalty? Can PCs make heal checks with or without the cure? (If the PCs recover naturally unaided, does that count for Laurel's purposes of finding a cure?)

Furthermore, during this encounter, we divided the party a bit...

The Monk and the mounted Paladin Hustled back to the garden to retrieve the body of an infected ex-druid for dissection. The GM had the second encounter, with the beggars, happen while we were gone, which was before Laurel made the cure- the PCs leaving Laurel's shop with the cure is the starting criteria for this encounter. Can someone confirm that the GM should have waited until/unless we had a cure before beginning this encounter?

Still speaking of all those rolls...

The DM ruled that we could not Aid each other in making *any* of the skill checks to help Laurel, whether or not it would be possible in the context of the action (E.g., I think aiding a Heal check to dissect a corpse is reasonable; more eyes might notice something the first person missed, nevermind that during, e.g., surgery, it takes more than one person to be effective anyway.) I'd be OK with saying that the attempt to aid counts as that character's use of that skill for the purposes of the encounter, but I think making every person roll completely independently is not supported by the rules RAW and isn't explicitly called for by the scenario.

Which brings me to something in the scenario I don't agree with, but it's written that way...

It's infinitely frustrating for me when the scenario overrides book rules for no reason other than, apparently, to make it harder. Many/most of the skills we were using allow for retry every day; I don't see a justification for the scenario to prohibit this. We're still dealing with a disease that deals 2-4 ability damage per day, including con damage; if it needed to be more dangerous, make the disease more dangerous instead of rewriting the rules. My $.02 on that.

Edited for grammar.