Search Posts
May I suggest ‘you accrue an equal amount of Reputation with the Faction whose Boon you slotted at the start of the scenario’ and adding later ‘you earn this bonus reputation even if you do not possess the boon for the corresponding faction, and/or in addition to any reputation gained with that faction from fame in this scenario.’ Presuming I’ve got this right...
But more importantly, they're still going to be selling soft covers of Pathfinder 1st Edition. So your favourite game isn't going anywhere :) They are not killing the 1.0 compatibility license. People can carry on making 1.0 stuff as long as people want to buy it. I don't recall a previous edition bump from a company where they both continued selling the old version, and allowed third-parties to continue making stuff for it. Unprecedented!
Please see the FAQ, especially the question But I don't want to change editions! I want to play Pathfinder First Edition forever and ever and ever! At the point at which it is no longer feasible to keep those pocket editions in print physically, I see that they remain 'in print' digitally. Will you consider putting them up for 'Print On Demand' at that point, or are the print on demand services still below the quality level that your happy for Paizo products to go out at?
Please try and use it in the PFS scenarios. There have been times when it's been quite tricky to work out which map pack cards have been used, and in which orientation, to build the pretty map printed without dividing lines on the page. Come to think of it, a slightly thicker gridline showing the edges of the tiles on the PFS map would be useful.
It's a little unclear from the description, but it looks like you've 'mottled' the regions, rather than making them big geographical blocks - giving people an achievable incentive to head out to a CON they might not have otherwise gone to. Nice work! Rather than using terms like 'Southeast Mega-Region' (based on RVC locations?), would it be simpler to use timezones? Most people know what timezone they are in without checking the guide to organised play. Not criticising, just far enough into 'test the Christmas beers' to get all brainstormy. Loving SFS so far. Edit: To clarify my lack of clarity - when you say 'Central Europe, Northwest, and Southeast Mega-Region'. Is that 'Central Europe, and the Northwest and Southeast of America'?
And that's actually a really great and thematic bit of world building. But unfortunate in an organized play campaign where you have to track evil actions.
If this happened to a world populated by most mortal creatures, they would die, lost and alone. So using a Drift drive is an inherently selfish and evil act. You are risking the death of other creatures for your gain. I'm sure the intent wasn't to make it an issue for Starfinder Society, but now that it's occurred to me, I'm going to have to think of a way to explain it away. Any ideas?
I am use to big box stores like Amazon shipping the same or next day. Paizo is a tiny bit smaller than that (see http://paizo.com/paizo/about/contact), so things can get a bit slow around major conventions like GenCon.
The spoilered thing is from 'Chronicle sheets earned in the Core Campaign'. It is neither 'Promotional boons' nor 'other Chronicle sheets'. The choice of text in the new guide is unfortunate, as 'item' can be read to mean a physical piece of equipment or something itemised on the chronicle sheet. In this case, I would read 'Item' as 'Things'.
Second, I hope everyone realizes that the reason the campaign has black-and-white rulings on things like this is because the campaign has to provide a not-creepy play environment for a diverse set of players. If a subject matter is likely to disturb players, it tends to get hedged out, even if there are players who are completely fine with it. That's an excellent way to put it. If you are playing with friends, or a group that you know to be seasoned (heh) PFS players, then sure - in the introductions at the start say "As a ratfolk, my character has no problem in using defeated foes, even humanoid ones, as a food source. If anyone has any problem with that, I'll happily not mention it further." Otherwise, if you don't know people or you are playing in a public space with people who may be new to PFS, don't even bring it up. In short - the considerate PFS player self-censors.
I think he was suggesting a change whereby you could, possibly instead of reviving a new chronicle, unlock higher tier rewards on an existing player chronicle by GMing the scenario. I don't think he was suggesting that's how it currently works. Exactly correct - a little extra bonus to tempt GMs, and to resolve this issue that has the effect of making people regret playing.
Random idea: if you GM a scenario, you also unlock the high-tier items for purchase off the chronicle applied from playing the scenario. Recording this neatly on the paperwork needs some thought.
I think that a lot of people would be willing to buy it.I'd buy that shirt. Drendle Dreng, VC in charge of spurring developments in horology.
What would be really great was if Paizo decided to provide the Goblin boon (or another rare boon) for those who donated a certain amount to this charity. We'd jump up the donations pretty quickly! That would cause a massive argument about 'pay to play'/'pay to win'. Some people are really touchy about getting stuff for paying more. However, if Paizo were to donate a cool boon as a second raffle prize, that might also boost donations.
Ah yes, that time I misread 'courtesan' as 'courtier' when creating a character in a hurry for Council of Thieves and thought someone experienced with dealing with nobility would be useful. The next year playing a male gnome of loose morals was actually quite enjoyable!
At no point during the course of the scenario would he have more than one combat animal though. It's ok to switch combat animals. The limit is there to prevent a player's turn from taking too long as they account for the actions of multiple animals.
There is no way to go from that to requiring the spell class feature. Scrolls: "To activate a scroll, a spellcaster must read the spell written on it." Someone with a spell list consisting of one spell, just added by a UMD check, is still not a spell caster. In non PFS, a druid (a divine caster) cannot use an arcane scroll of spider climb even though he has the spells class feature, and a wizard cannot use a divine scroll of spider climb (probably written on bark) even though he also has the spells class feature. Could they, by emulating the Spells ability of the appropriate class?
Use a Scroll: Normally, to cast a spell from a scroll, you must have the scroll's spell on your class spell list. Use Magic Device allows you to use a scroll as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list... The requirements to cast a deciphered scroll are: correct type (but not for PFS), ability score (based on caster class), spell on class list, caster level. Since the UMD check for scrolls includes caster level, we can presume that that requirement is catered for. Ability score is catered for by another check. So, should the wording be: Use a Scroll: If you wish to use a scroll containing a spell not on your class spell list, make a Use Magic Device check with a DC equal to 20 + the caster level of the spell you are trying to cast. If you do not have a spell list, also choose a spell casting class to emulate for the purpose of having the appropriate minimum ability score.
BNW and TO have convinced me. I think the wording on activating a scroll could be more useful though, by stating you have to pick a class to activate it as. That would clear up the other questions nicely. Sorry for the derail.
If you could make a UMD check to emulate the spell class feature, all you'd need to do would be to make the dc 20 check, rather than the harder dc 20+caster level (just noticed that isn't spell level) That's a good point. Does the 'Spells' class feature give you the spell list, or does having levels in the class give you the spell list?
On the contrary, "Spells" is the name of the class feature that you find under each casting class. The class spell list comes from this feature. If you don't have the feature, you don't have a class spell list to which you can add the scroll spell. For characters without a Spells class feature, I have always seen Use Magic Device require checks to emulate that class feature, the necessary caster stat (if applicable), and the scroll activation, so I wouldn't say that this is a new rules interpretation. I'm stunned. I've never seen UMD ruled that way in all of my years of playing. It's only this thread that caused me to re-read the rules that made me realise the limitations of what the Activate check for scrolls actually does. Very interesting to hear that it's played that way out in the wild somewhere.
Use a Scroll: Normally, to cast a spell from a scroll, you must have the scroll's spell on your class spell list. Use Magic Device allows you to use a scroll as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. This is why I think that if you are not a spell caster you might have to ALSO emulate that class feature to use a scroll, which would indicate whether you were casting it as arcane or divine.
I find it dumb precisely because it's weird from a worldly angle. A wizard cannot aim a spell through a bay window even if the spell has no physical effect that needs to pass through the window, but a stone wall with a 1cm slit that's sufficiently long can give that same wizard impunity to cast any spell in their arsenal, even with spells that project effects that shouldn't be able to fit through a 1cm gap.Assuming it's a bay window with ordinary glass, a lightning bolt can easily destroy said window and then affect whatever is on the other side... including your strawman. I'd probably go with a scorching ray against a strawman.
I agree with BNW. Brock's interpretation would make the Esoteric Linguistics feat useless. How so? I'm not talking about deciphering the scroll. I'm talking about the Fighter having to gain a spell-list for the Activate check to put the spell on so that the scroll can be cast. 1) Decipher a scroll - nothing more to say about this 2) Be a spell caster with the appropriate ability score for your kind of spell casting - one or two Emulate UMD checks might be required here 3) Activate the scroll - if the spell isn't already on your spell list, put it on there by making a UMD to activate 4) You can use the scroll now
"Spells" is not a class feature. As a wizard you have wizard spells. As a cleric you have cleric spells. A wizard doesn't have any easier time using a scroll of cure light wounds than a fighter does. It is indeed listed as a named class feature for all spell casting classes.
Probably, I'm honestly not sure. Like I said, I've always played it with just the one check myself, but I'm not 100% sure that is correct from the wording of UMD as applied to scrolls. Emulating the Spells ability is an easier check than activating the scroll, and has the benefit of providing clarity on whether the scroll is being activated as arcane or divine for PFS.
Erm, no. That's what the first/only UMD check is doing. (unless you count the one at -5 to read the scroll, which he can take 20 on) That's the way I've always played it too, until I read through the rules for UMD and scrolls when responding to this thread. Scrolls: "To activate a scroll, a spellcaster must read the spell written on it." UMD on a Scroll: "Use a Scroll: Normally, to cast a spell from a scroll, you must have the scroll's spell on your class spell list. Use Magic Device allows you to use a scroll as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list." It puts the spell on your spell list. That is all. It doesn't make you a spell caster. So this is for someone who can already cast spells, but doesn't have that specific spell on their list. For someone who can't cast spells, there seems to be the additional requirement to emulate the Spells class ability, which is an additional check. This surprised me, but on reflection it does seem reasonable for a Fighter to have a harder time casting a Wizard spell from a scroll than a Bard would.
The grey area is spells that appear on both arcane and divine lists, that is where you are likely to see table variation. It really shouldn't be. You need 2 individual UMD checks for that fighter to use the scroll since he is not a spell caster, since the UMD to use a scroll only serves to treat the spell as if it were on your spell list. Since you have to be a spell caster to use a scroll, you also have to UMD to make the fighter a spell caster by emulating the Spells ability of a chosen class. That's the point where you decide if you are casting as an arcane, divine, or other class.
If the rules matter you could just say you have to pick a class you're pretending to be when you use it and stick by those rules. As far as I can tell, that is exactly how it works. There is no difference between an arcane or divine scroll, so the rules depend on the person who is casting it.
Now I presume that using divine scrolls is like casting divine spells and so no arcane spell failure is possible. However in PFS I don't get to presume so I'm looking for clarification as to whether that's a correct assumption, or if the sentence is saying that ALL spell casting off of scrolls incurs spell failure chances. It depends on where the character attempting to use the scroll gets their casting ability from. If the fighter in the above example chooses to UMD Emulate the Spells ability of a Cleric, then he is casting as a cleric. He then needs to UMD Use a Scroll to put the spell on the scroll onto his spell list, and then he can attempt to cast the spell on the scroll as a cleric casting a spell off the cleric spell list. If for some reason he chose to UMD a Wizard to get spell casting ability, then he would have to make an arcane spell failure check for the same scroll, as the scroll itself is neither arcane nor divine, but he would be casting it as an arcane caster.
Now I presume that using divine scrolls is like casting divine spells and so no arcane spell failure is possible. However in PFS I don't get to presume so I'm looking for clarification as to whether that's a correct assumption, or if the sentence is saying that ALL spell casting off of scrolls incurs spell failure chances. You don't need to presume. This is talking about arcane spell failure, which does not apply to divine spells i.e. Using a divine scroll is like casting a divine spell for the purposes of arcane spell failure chance (none).
#1. The bartender will be under direct observation. However the rule for disguise states: "If you don’t draw any attention to yourself, others do not get to make Perception checks." does this require a perception check? I would think yes, since the bartender is interacting with them and attempting to impersonate another race. Yes - perception to see through the disguise. #2. The bounty hunter in the back acting like a customer will not be most likley drawing any attention to himself. However the characters HAVE seen him before. Does this require a perception check? Only one of very low DC to see that there is someone sitting there. No check to see through the disguise unless they interact. #3. The Poison. Should there be any check for this? The characters know it's supposed to be potent, and know it's nothing they ever had before. No check. #4. Should there be any checks to notice people hidden around the establishment if they are all well out of sight? Perception vs Stealth as usual, if they are in line-of-sight.
I might have someone interested in running Games around the Cork region. Do you know of any PFS activities there? If nobody spots your post here, there are contact details, including icons to send emails, for all Venture Officers on this link. Just scroll down past the USA to find the rest of the world including Ireland.
My vote is that no, you cannot enforce setting lore outside the CRB on someone in the Core Campaign based on what the core Campaign is. That would mean that you couldn't run the scenario, since the actions of the NPCs are largely based on the setting lore. There's lots of non-Core stuff in scenarios.
I think I disagree with dragonhunterq - enhancement bonuses to armor add to the armor bonus - so a +4 chain shirt would have an armor bonus of +8, which would be halved for a Tiny creature. If it's next to a table of mundane armour, I'd interpret it as divide the amor bonus given in this table by 2. The enhancement bonus does increase the armour bonus, but it is not itself an armour bonus.
Last time one of my characters saw him, he was being beaten to death in a puddle of his own vomit by a Pathfinder who seemed to have some form of personal grudge against him. Nothing to do with me, I just threw the Ghast retch flask at him.Torchbot. Any time you defeat him it's a torchbot. A shame. The gentleman delivering the pummelling seemed to be finding it incredibly cathartic.
Last time one of my characters saw him, he was being beaten to death in a puddle of his own vomit by a Pathfinder who seemed to have some form of personal grudge against him. Nothing to do with me, I just threw the Ghast retch flask at him. |
