cerhiannon's page

From the Knights of Lastwall book.
“DIVINE EMISSARY FEAT 6
UNCOMMON SORCERER WITCH
Prerequisites a familiar, you follow a good-aligned deity or patron”
How do I determine the alignment of a witch patron? Or for a sorcerer without a clear alignment influence in their bloodline description?
As I mostly play Society games “ask your GM” isn’t a good answer.

Or a regular gauntlet, or a spiked gauntlet. Or both for multiple damage types!

But gauntlets spiked or not are Agile not Finesse so they won’t help. Actually almost every weapon listed so far has either ancestry and/or martial proficiencies requirements. Unfortunately even the weapon proficiency feat while opening your weapon choices won’t allow you benefit to from the 5th & 7th level class weapon ability improvements; as I just realized with my rogue. (Uses a filcher’s fork primarily, yes I know retraining a feat…)

Does it make sense to put a light spell on the shield of the person who has darkvision and put her In front of the party? I'm trying to come up with a reasonable marching order for exploration, and to me this doesn't seem to be it.

Oh, the druid has a leshy familiar who has darkvision. And flight.

Since the Light spell targets an object the familiar itself isn’t viable. Also as the light spell casts light in all directions from the object it is cast on I wouldn’t want my entire shield lit up. Turn off all the lights in a room and turn your tablet to full brightness on a white screen facing your direction (okay I know real world vs pathfinder but).

SuperBidi wrote:

and then it's a complete mess to see anything whatever your vision and the overall lighting.

How is that?

Darkvision works perfectly on foundry, and light effects too.

I think they are referring to the shadow effects where you can’t see things based on your position that may change your plans. Like a hallway (wall, door, or the like) you can’t see until you complete your movement, but would be readily visible after the first 5 feet. Or your party moves up to an encounter around a corner, only one PC has sight around the corner maybe they are on the far side of the hallway you are in, maybe the just have an extra 5 foot speed. The GM then end has to describe everything each time a PC gets vision around the corner.

Probably no build options to specifically avoid.

Avoid two weapon fighting builds not based on the way of the drifter gunslinger. You will never have enough actions to actually use your full build without having to request the GM suspend the 3 action limit for you.

That is built into a lot of scenarios, though. Especially ones using Discovery and Influence. Sometimes saying the right thing gives you a bonus, saying the wrong thing gives you a penalty, and saying something irrelevant doesn't even get the NPC's attention.

In 10 years of society play I have yet to encounter any scenario which contains EXPLICIT language that says “the player must use these words” to be permitted to roll this diplomacy or influence check.

I know a lot of players like to make the asocial/silent type for their characters, but then get bored when 1/4-1/2 of some scenarios end up non-relevant for them.

In my experience that comes from having been forced by GMs to come up specific words that your character says just to be allowed to roll a social (diplomacy) skill check. Usually with the condition that if the GM deems the words to be unsatisfactory to them personally then the player isn't even allowed to roll the check. Or is forced to take back the result of the roll when the GM says roll a diplomacy check (die rolls and result is calculated and stated) "but, what SPECIFICly does your character say".

Yes you can as the Treat Wounds action restores HP and additionally removes the Wounded condition.

Requirements You are holding healer's tools, or you are wearing them and have a hand free

If you succeed at your check, you can continue treating the target to grant additional healing. If you treat them for a total of 1 hour, double the Hit Points they regain from Treat Wounds.
The result of your Medicine check determines how many Hit Points the target regains.

Notice the requirements do not list having the Wounded condition

The lists of preadventure society consumables have been moved to the "Additional Character Options" does this mean that:
If a player has not declared their character to be a member of a school, or a Field Commissioned agent, at the beginning of the adventure do they still receive consumables? Specifically do they receive consumables as if they had declared themself to be a "Generalist"? Are the iconic pregenerated characters considered to be "Generalists", or do they not receive any consumables?

We opted not to do that for the PFS Year 3 arcs, but each scenario's web store page is going to spell out which arc it's in, and which part of the arc it is.

Could you also put the previous scenario’s number in the web store page for them?

If there is still space, I would like to join with a level 5 Ranger, or 5 Investigator.

~

My CORE Wizard is currently spreading Corrosive Touch around after picking it up from a fellow Wizard who picked it up from someone else...

It is my understanding in the CORE game of "Chronicle Sheet Access" is limited to what is expressly included by Paizo. In other words access is limited to Printed items, spells, and so on. Explicitly this means that you can't learn a spell from another PC.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Gisher wrote:

Just curious. Would Half-Elves have access to Human and Elven racial spells due to Elf Blood?

i believe not, since they're actually different species

Hmm. From this FAQ, I thought they would count as fully Human and Fully Elven for racial spells. I'm not clear why those would work differently from the racial archetypes, racial traits, racial FCBs, and so on.

I have been wondering something similar regarding full Elves or Humans learning Half-Elf spells. [For that matter Orcs, and Half Orc spells]

Pink Dragon is correct.
As for selling back the enchantment:
If you haven't played since getting the weapon enchanted, just line it out (or erase it if you used pencil) and correct your coin total.
If you have played since purchasing it; you would need to sell the entire weapon back, and purchase a new one including enchanting it at the usual costs.

Additional Material Components are an OPTIONAL enhancement to the spell being cast. Dependent on the specific spell, and the additional effect desired by the caster; additional components are treated as Material components and thus consumed in the casting, others are Focus components and not consumed.
Outside of PFS rules as GM I would interpret the meaning as follows:
The spell consumes the poison in the casting. As such you would need to provide the poison, and the False Focus feat would not apply.
If the poison were used as a Focus then I would say that yes the False Focus feat would apply.

Within the PFS specific rules as GM I would rule the same way. But you should expect significant table variation, and speak with your GM before each session.

Yes a spell caster could use both feats; the Core Rulebook FAQ forum has two complementary clarifications on this. That said most Spells that require an attack roll attack touch AC which typically is 1-4 or more lower than full AC. In most campaigns and PFS play most Player Characters have vastly more feats they "want or would like", than they will have feat slots for.

Okay I have a few issues with the title of this thread.
By the simple act of showing up to an event an sitting down to a table and participating you are RolE-playing. All I need to do to Roleplay a diplomatic character by doing nothing more than rolling a d20 for every interaction.

So a few definitions here:
Roll: To pick up and cause a die to tumble onto the table.
Role: Caster, healer, archer, melee combatant, diplomat, craft( )er, Perform( )er.
Acting: Putting specific words in your character's mouth.
This is the one thing that a GM can do that will really irritate me as a player is as follows: "Make a Diplomacy check"; player picks up their d20 rolls it and adds their modifier; GM: "What is your character saying" and will refuse to accept any check result without specific character words. This GM has committed one of two errors: They have asked for a check roll too soon, by not having enough information to evaluate the check result. More commonly they are attempting to force the player to ACT (as in: performer on stage, actors in TV or Movie filming); and see themselves as being able to replace the game's built in system with their own judgement.

Scrivner lets you use Profession (Scribe) and gives a +1 bonus. It does not let you use Linguistics for day job rolls.

Burning Hands, or another level 1 area effect damage spell for the inevitable swarm. Bless Weapon, for dealing with evil outsiders and undead. Maybe a generic party buff like bless.

Azullius Koujou wrote:

How High would decent be?

And can you use a wand including a spell not on your spell list?(or was it just you get a bonus or something like that if it is)

10 would be decent for activating a wand out of combat.

The DC to activate a wand of a spell not on your spell list is 20.

The answer to your second question is "no, unless." The unless is unless you use the Use Magic Device skill to activate the wand.

The DC to activate a wand in or out of combat is 20, and you "can NOT take 10" on the check per the Use Magic Device description. But yes a 10 is a decent bonus at least you would have an even (50/50) chance of activating the wand. Remember thou you are only increasing the damage dice by one size category so unless your base damage is 1d8, 1d10, 1d12 you would be better off with the flat +1 damage from a Magic Weapon spell by gaining the +1 to your attach roll. Otherwise you really only marginally increase the max damage but increase the possibility for lower damage by more.

Not at first level, the spell is cleric paladin only. If you are looking for the bonus to attack rolls, at least one combat per day you should be using Aspect of the Bull for Melee builds and the Cat's Grace equivalent for ranged. Back them up with either Lead Blades (ranger/hunter only spell) or Gravity Bow respectively, both increase your damage as if a size category larger so 1d8 goes to 2d6.

Paizo,
Thank you very much for fixing your latest trend of making characters need only one or at most two ability scores needed. I would be extremely pleased to see even more attention paid to editing class power balancing, and feat text wording.

@OldSkool Toxophilite Rangers have a skill that allows hitting enemy ammo, "Intercept Arrow (Ex)", so the ruling that hitting enemy ammo cant be done is crazy, second it you cant hit enemy ammo you cant deflect arrows, as per deflect arrows requiring you to hit(automatically of course) said projectile out of the air.

Actually Rylden you have only quoted half of the Toxophilite archetype ability. The second to last sentence lists a number of things that you can NOT deflect/intercept.

Hunters do not gain bonus spells KNOWN for high wisdom scores, they do gain bonus casts per day. However they DO gain Summon Nature's Ally as soon as they can cast them.

Request Diplomacy DC Modifier
Give simple advice or directions –5
Give detailed advice +0
Give simple aid +0
Reveal an unimportant secret +5
Give lengthy or complicated aid +5
Give dangerous aid +10
Reveal an important secret +10 or more
Give aid that could result in punishment +15 or more
Additional requests +5 per request

In PFS games the DC of diplomacy checks is fixed by the text of the adventure. Effectively removing this second table from applying to a Diplomacy check. But if the GM feels that thy need to sort out which of these modifiers may be applicable a particular check. They should have enough to work with from what occurred BEFORE requesting the check.

kinevon wrote:

But, seriously, if someone just is there to roll the dice, you have no right to penalize him because he has fun a different way than you do. Nor do you have the right or responsibility to say, "You shouldn't be playing a Bard/Cleric/Paladin." Or whatever class the player wants to play.

This is a good point. However, keep in mind, if the encounter calls for a social encounter, and either certain things needed to be mentioned (a name, a race, speak in a particular language, a specific questions, reveal specific knowledge, etc.) or done, then the player needs to at the very least give a mechanical description of what they want to talk about, what they are mentioning, and what they are doing.

"I will talk to the guard and mention that I'm a pathfinder and ask him about the weird gold piece I found."

Is completely acceptable in lieu of having a big huge role-played discussion. But as a GM you can't assume they are saying certain things, or you are either penalizing or giving a reward when the player isn't doing something the scenario specifically calls out.

Fine, don't speak in character with a different voice and have an actual realistic dialogue with the NPC. That's perfectly ok if you aren't comfortable with that. But you gotta tell me what you are doing, how you are doing it, and what you hope to accomplish.

Would you agree?

I do agree Andrew. That as a GM you need to have a mechanical understanding of what the character (player) is doing and attempting to accomplish.

*At this point I think we can agree that the mechanical aspects of the exchange have been covered. It certainly seems that if the GM has said "make a Diplomacy check" that they think they have enough to evaluate the meeting of the scenario's requirements. For me the next requirement of "What does your character say" is now pushing things in to the realm of requiring acting.

Diplomat PCs player picks up their d20 rolls it and starts doing the math.
GM: "What specifically are you saying"
Player: You said make a diplomacy check.
GM: "What exactly is your character saying"
GM won't listen to the result of the d20 + modifiers until given some thing that meets their rolE play requirements. I have actually heard GMs say that they will apply a -2 penalty to the result "unless there is a good reason for not giving me the exact words, because that is just lazy".
When challenged on the validity of that with something like "show me the rule that says you can require that (the exact in character action)". They almost always end up attempting to invoke the "GM fiat" rule; never by name of course.
Now depending on the result of the check [remember this was a roll that was triggered by the GM saying "make a diplomacy check"] one of three things happens.
1) Best case scenario: Result of the check is clear to the table either as success or failure say 30s range or near 10. Okay moving on.
2) Midrange scenario: Player and GM both come away from the (frequently) first or second encounter with their "nose bent out of shape" at each other.
3) Worst case scenario: Player knows they should have succeed at the check and knows the only reason they didn't was that the GM did apply a "laziness penalty"; and an "arms race ensues for the rest of the session on diplomacy checks. Where the player knows the GM is applying a penalty without reason or standing for. Thus effectively throwing out the entire skill check (and d20) rule system. Player figures that since the GM has tossed out the rules they are free to disregard them too and starts applying a +2 bonus to counter the GM's unjustified -2. Each following round of diplomacy checks the "penalty and bonus" get bigger so that by the end of the session the player is "failing" checks with absurdly high results.
So now we have a situation where a player decides they have the viable paths forward:
1) Quit PFS.
2) Only play characters who have no social skills at all; and can this dump their Charisma score.
3) Decide to play characters who are not Charisma based at all; so they don't have to deal with this issue again. Because by its nature Organized play means that if your character has a positive Cha modifier at least 1/4 tables you are at you will be the party's face character. Yes even the completely fire or acid scarred Sorcerer, if that is haw someone wants to depict their bloodline will end up being the "face PC". I've even seen tables where the pregenerated rogue was the face PC.
Unless the player opts to quit PFS entirely; they will likely carry a chip on their shoulder for a while over the whole thing.

So, assuming the OP's character has NG written on his sheet because his character:

• Does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.
  
• Does what is good and right without bias for or against order.
  
• Excels at seeing both sides of a situation, and they use this ability to inform their actions, doing what they believe will produce the most good.
  
• Seeks to do the most good in the world to make it a better place and to help others when possible.
  
• Gives great consideration to their actions before deeming them correct.

Is that your character?

If not, then did you write the wrong two letters on your character sheet? Is there a better alignment that describes your character?

If that IS your character, then why do you want to cast these evil spells?

Seriously, you should examine that. I'm not saying you can't. Of course..."

With respect to Infernal Healing I can think of one solid reason for an arcane caster to regularly use that spell and not shift from any Good alignment. If the party lacks any other healing spells. Admittedly this is an unlikely situation in home games, in organized play it is not as unlikely.

Yes it seems intended that they be the same level. True adamantine bypasses hardness <=20, but that won't affect the many, many creatures that have DR over come by any of the specific damage types.

So does Magical Knack(your sorcerer class) mean for instance if you have a character who is a level 2 paladin, level 1 oracle and level 3 sorcerer that your cl for sorcerer spells is 5?

Yes exactly that. Your other class levels don't even need to be in caster classes, you could have a Sorcer 3 / (basic CRB no archetype) Fighter 2 for example and your Sorcerer caster level would 5. Even if it was say Sor 3 / Fighter 17, your Sorcerer caster level would still be 5.

Reading the Sarenrae entry I found a reference to the Sun Striker feat as being of possible interest to her followers. Since I have a Whirling Dervish Swashbuckler I was particularly intrigued. Looking at the feat prerequisites I'm confused by the following:
"Prerequisites: Critical Focus, Weapon Focus (scimitar), character level 7th, worshiper of Sarenrae."
Critical Focus has a prerequisite of BAB +9, so why add the Character level requirement to the Sun Striker Feat? Or was it intended to be character level 17th.

From the first (instructions) page of the Faction Journal cards for GMs section: "Err on the side of leniency when ruling whether or not a PC fulfilled a faction objective; ..."
Seems pretty clear to me that both DA and SS characters are to be allowed to Recruit the same NPC. Also the cards are supposed to Increase enjoyment of the PFS system. As opposed to some of the early season adventures where sometimes faction missions directly caused party conflict.

Attacks of opportunity.

They're clunky. Sure, they help mitigate caster/fighter disparity, but they are also incredibly complex and they slow the game down. I never realized how bad I hated them until I ran the Beginner Box scenario, which doesn't include AoO's, and it was so smooth and easy.

My solution: Make AoO's a fighter feat tree. That way the more advanced and tactically minded players can still use them to great effect and they'll actually be cool because that one guy is slicing up everyone that comes near him while the rest of us can move along smoothly.

I like the idea of AoOs as a feat tree, or even as a result of a single feat. AoO are not there to mitigate the caster/fighter(weapon user) disparity that is what the iterative attacks are for.

At level 1-5 adventure table, being GMed by a very experienced GM, or VO: ("He" and "him" all refer to the only bad guy in this case who has 15 HP at the beginning)

Player 1: I stab him with my sword. Rolls d20 hit AC 18, for (1d8+2) 7 points.
GM: It looks like he took (most of) that damage. Player 2 your turn.

Player 2: I cast Magic Missile at him (the guy next to me) for (1d4+1) for 3 points.
GM: It takes 4 points. Player 3 your tur.... wait did you want to cast defensively? ...
Player 2: Cast defensively? What is that? How do I do that? Table flow come to screeching halt as GM needs to find the table on their screen for the DC that needed to be reached to cast defensively, while then also having to explain to the player how to preform the check.
-- what seems like 10 min pass while this gets resolved --
in reality 2 min pass then we get back to GM: Player 3 your turn.

Player 3: I cast cure light wounds (1d8+1) on Player 2 (who just took 5 damage while loosing their spell and nearly died) for 6 points.
GM: Okay Player 2 heals 6 points. Player 4 your tur.... wait player 3 did you cast defensively (as they are being threatened by "him" who just happens to have combat reflexes)...
Player 3: Cast defensively? How do I do that (again)? Table flow come to screeching halt as GM needs to find the table on their screen for the DC that needed to be reached to cast defensively, while then also having to explain to the player how to preform the check.
-- what seems like 10 min pass while this gets resolved --
in reality 2 min pass then we get back to GM: Player 4 your turn.

Player 4: I move behind "him" to get a flank with Player 1 and attack him. Rolls d20 gets a 17, hitting AC 19 for (1d6+1, plus 1d6 sneak attack) 9 points of damage.
GM: Okay he takes 9 more and drops.

The fundamental problem I see here is that the GM is telling the player what class to play and then further restricting the player's options on playing that character to the point that it has become effectively a player controlled GM's character. At best that is a cohort/follower. At worst it is a player controlled Non-PC.

Both of these are bad choices.

If the GM really wants that much control over how the cleric in his game is played and the ability scores/skills and feats of said cleric; then it is up to said GM to build and run the cleric. If he wants a player controlled cleric simply to provide healing to the party then the GM needs to either let the player have free choice on how the cleric is made; OR he needs to create the cleric himself and make it the party's follower.

In the first hard cover version of the world's oldest role playing game there was even an option to create followers for situations like this. Player creates and controls the follower through their own PC. follower gets half XP for adventures because it is making no decisions.

I have an additional question on the cards looking through them, the instructions that were included in the season 7 file. I understand that completing boxes on the new season card do not count towards previous cards. The examples included make that very clear. What I am not so clear on is if previous season card completion count toward the new season.

So if I have completed say one objective on the season six card, and one on the season seven card. Do I now qualify for the 2+ goals on the season 7 card?

Great looking new Season 7 cards. My first thought looking through the cards though is which ones are Season 6 and which are Season 7? Any chance that the new Season 7 cards could be watermarked or (more) clearly marked as season 7 someway?

Advanced Class Guide, Hunter, Precise Companion wrote:

Precise Companion (Ex): At 2nd level, a hunter chooses either Precise Shot or Outflank as a bonus feat. She does not need to meet the prerequisites for this feat. If she chooses Outflank, she automatically grants this feat to her animal companion as well.

Does the granting of the Outflank feat's benefits to the Animal Companion assume that the Animal Companion knows how to flank with the Hunter, or is it up to the master to maneuver into flanking position?

Must the Hunter train the Animal Companion to flank in order to do it on command (using the "Flank" trick from the Animal Archive or "Other Trick")?

I agree with the player, they do not need to teach the AC the flank trick. Here is why:

As long as we are on the topic. What about a Bastard sword or Katana with the related Exotic Weapon Proficiency making it into one-handed weapons; can they be used with slashing grace?

Michael Brock wrote:

DubiousYak wrote:

For Dark Archive, is it safe to assume that an artifact is any magic item we are assigned to procure but don't actually get to keep? This happens a lot in PFS Scenarios and I'm not sure which ones are actually artifacts.

Yes

To clarify this point further, it requires the recovery of an object that is actually an artifact-level magic item (i.e. A minor artifact or major artifact); just recovering a flashy magic item MacGuffin is not sufficient.

Okay John so what makes an item qualify as a Major or Minor Artifact?

On a related note what makes a Text a "Named Text"?
That it appears in the adventure with a name attached to it.
Or does it need to appear on the Chronicle Sheet with a name.
For example party defeats monsters and find a book listed as "John Compton's journal" is that a Named Text?

My reading of "Named Text" parallel's the evaluation of what is a Named NPC. Simply anything that is a text/book/journal ... that has a Specific Name attached to it. A scroll of Read Magic would not be be a named text because it has no name.

You wouldn't even need to drop the bow, since they are held in your OFF-hand, the one that would typically be carrying the shield.

This is up to the GM.

Unfortunately I don't have a GM I can ask, as I had intended this question to be on a Pathfinder Society (i.e Organized play) Thread. So I'm looking for a clarification because it also changes my armor decisions.

I understand from a RaW/RaI that the +3 is to reflect the concept of metal conducts electricity better than not metal. Also at the time of the original inclusion of the +3 bonus to hit with shocking grasp it was pretty much presumed presumable that if you were using a metal weapon you were probably also wearing metal armor. Because your armor choices were Cloth, Leather; and everything else was either all metal, or contained lots of metal (Studded Leather).

I have 1 or 3 weapons I'm particularly curious about:

Pick, heavy
Warhammer
Hammer, Gnomish Hooked

I know that all of them have metal heads, but (usually) have wooden hafts (handles), so I'm a bit unsure.

I think I know the answer to this but I want to clarify:
Being very new to Pathfinder Society organized play; I have 2 normal campaign Chronicle Sheets, from play with pregenerated core characters.
I am about to build my character as a "real" character. Can I build the character as "Core" or do I need to build her as a standard campaign character?

My reason for asking is that I have two character concepts one of which fist completely in the core rules, and one which would probably need some non-core books to fully develop.