claudekennilol's page

Stop releasing Foundry modules without specifying which version of Pathfinder the modules are for. It's super disrepectful to everyone that still loves PF1.

I use the Inventory tracking sheet as my actual inventory--I've already got a list of it in one place, why do that somewhere else?

I've been out of the loop and too busy with real life (and SFS) to keep up on this. I signed up for a game tomorrow and decided to see if there was ever anything more said about it. Now it comes out that not only has the decision remained the same, but now the first deadline has moved up. All I've got left to say is that I'm greatly saddened by this decision and I'm really disappointed with the direction the campaign leadership has decided to go. The only bright side here is that there's officially a full rebuild.

The Masked Ferret wrote:

[

Please also include the ranges on the weapons on both NPCs and Starships. Right now, you have to look them all up in the core rule book.

I'd second this request. There is a LOT to internalize in the game (NOT a complaint, an observation) and I'm already doing enough page flipping :-).

While I'm asking for stuff, would it be possible to change the Starship block so the NPC stats INCLUDE the ship stats? One less thing for me to have to do in combat (and the GM already has to do a fair bit in starship combat)

Definitely. Ranges are necessary.

Likewise, I had a heckuva lot of trouble finding the stats for the gun in the desert vs the worm. I couldn't find it on the starship weapons charts at all. Afterwards, it occurred to me that perhaps it was just a regular level four gun. But my PCs crit the worm with it after they'd brought it down to half health so I just told them they killed it.

I mean, if you prep a starship page, then sure, you can already have it in a good place. But that was the only piece of information missing from the stat block that kept me from just running it without having the rulebook in hand.

The key difference here is that it says "threatened space", not something like "threatened square". Any individual only has one "space" that they threaten--that space will include multiple squares (excluding weird layouts/situations) but is still one space.

Just a summary of the aspect of John's update that most pertinently applies to the majority of this conversation.
• Players may now select a boon from either what the house completed or what their individual table completed

A wizard-loving player was crushed when he saw the boons under the crossed off section for missions not attempted.

That's completely understandable and while it was gracious to put it out that way, I also feel like it's kind of insulting to those that had the chance to get it but didn't because of in-game choices with no way of knowing that a different choice would have led to this.

Here's the crux of it.

Lore wardens lost a feat. It's not just that "lore wardens are a finely oiled machine" that other people above have been saying. It's simply that characters are now losing a feat. Effectively, we've been told "push your feat progression back 1 or 2 levels". Now there's a choice involved. For my lore warden, it means that the feat I was looking forward to getting for my level 11 "capstone" no longer exists in my character's playable future. This character that I've been playing for ~2 years is simply dead. No amount of retraining will be able to turn him into what he already was (or was close to being).

When I make a character, I don't just come up with a backstory. I plan out every mechanical aspect to the max. At the big level, I know what classes I'm taking and how those abilities will work together. I know what feats I'm taking at what level. I know where each skill point is going. I know what purchases I'm making and how they affect my character's effectiveness.

This change to the Lore Warden isn't about whether or not the new one is more or less effective, it's about a house of cards I built and someone took a card out of the middle and said "oh, here's a different card, now put it back together." At that point I'm just going to pick up all the cards and put them back in the box and walk away.

claudekennilol wrote:

So for being able to craft stuff, I'd like to create an item that can conjure up a timeless a demiplane on demand so I can hop in, create something, then hop back out with minimal "real world" time loss. Do the crafting rules support making such an item?

No, because the spell can't make such an item. Timeless just means that time stops for stuff on the plane, outside time flows normally and any stopped effects "catch up" with the real world once you go back. The best you can get out of a demiplane is double time (time flows twice as fast as the outside world) or erratic time (and hope you don't get "1 round in demiplane equals one day outside").

Timeless wrote:

On planes with this trait, time still passes, but the effects of time are diminished. How the timeless trait affects certain activities or conditions such as hunger, thirst, aging, the effects of poison, and healing varies from plane to plane. The danger of a timeless plane is that once an individual leaves such a plane for one where time flows normally, conditions such as hunger and aging occur retroactively. If a plane is timeless with respect to magic, any spell cast with a noninstantaneous duration is permanent until dispelled.

Ah yes, that's what I meant. I saw the link at the end "see time" and thought those were all different properties for the "timeless" trait. I did definitely mean "erratic".

I know I'm being melodramatic, but I'll just add in that I'm super not happy that my 9th level guy isn't allowed to be grandfathered in. The new archetype doesn't do it for me. I know it's similar, but it's different enough in exactly the wrong ways that it doesn't work for me anymore. I guess I'll just see what else I can rebuild it into at this point. He'll probably just sit on the shelf indefinitely.

Signed ~unhappy customer.

Story Time:
** "The Misfortune Revelation says 'you can force a creature within 30 feet to reroll any one d20 roll that it has just made' but he didn't roll a d20, he swung a sword at you, so you can't use that power on him now. You could use it if you were gambling with him." **...

I wasn't asking the monster to reroll his sword, I was asking you, the GM, to reroll that d20. And I've got this handy tape measure because I was trying to see what all the fuss about this "war gaming" thing was. Ah, yes, I was correct, you are within 30 feet of me. So, please, won't you reroll that die now?

I peg the cost of a command word activated, once-per-day item at 104,220.

You actually need two castings of a demiplane-creating spell. One to create it and one to give it the timeless trait. But you can get by with lesser create demiplane to make it and greaterfor timeless.

Oh, two. When I'd first read it I thought it came with a trait on its own and subsequent castings added additional traits. I'll have to add that to my considerations.

What you need is a scroll with enough variations of create demiplane to get the traits you want, a scroll of permanency and an item of plane shift 1/day. This way you get a permanent demiplane with the effects you want. Overall it should be a little cheaper, and it gives you the nice effect of being able to leave stuff at home.

Ah, I hadn't considered an item of plane shift 1/day with just a permanent plane.

I'm not exactly worried about the GM saying no, it's definitely his prerogative, but he's a very lenient GM and this is also a mythic campaign so the standards kind of don't apply here.

Flagged to movement to general forum.

But, sure. It's a "spell(s)-in-a-can" item. The cost is going to be quite exorbitant if you want it to be reusable. If you are willing to limit it to once per week or longer it will merely be very expensive.

Yeah, I meant for this to be in the rules forum. I just had too many tabs open and thought I was in a different one :/.

Kevin Willis wrote:

Flagged to movement to general forum.

I read the OP within a minute of its posting, and was going to write exactly what you wrote, but then I thought to myself "Claude's a regular poster, and he's active in the PFS Forum. I'm sure he'll see what he's done and delete his thread. I'd better not post anything so it can be deleted", and then I see three new comments, Lol.

I just fired off a quick thread before lunch, just wasn't paying close enough attention until I got back and noticed the thread wasn't in the rules forum :(.

I've got two issues with HeroLab. The first is the cost. I've got ~76 physical books--plus pdfs. They do not have a pricing plan that lets me buy what I want in an affordable way. If I want "everything", they don't even have a price plan for that.

My second issue is that it makes pathfinder too accessible without teaching anything--said simply, if a player makes a character with HeroLab, there's nothing that teaches them the mechanics for their character. Now there are lots of other ways to get here (i.e. ways outside of HL), but at least if someone builds their character themselves the old-fashioned way, chances are they're going to know how their character works and what their character does.

The first issue is merely my perspective and is literally just a matter of how much money you're willing to throw it. The second issue is exacerbated by HL, but in no way HL's fault. It can be a good tool, but in my observations, it too easily facilitates lack of knowledge vs other options.

So for being able to craft stuff, I'd like to create an item that can conjure up a timeless a demiplane on demand so I can hop in, create something, then hop back out with minimal "real world" time loss. Do the crafting rules support making such an item?

Nowhere does it say that Sacred Weapon alters the weapon's base damage...

That's the problem with this scenario. We can get a 5, 3, 4, 3,...and a 1. The guy with the 1 has already "played up" on it so he's stuck at level 1.

Or we could get five people that show up with a level 1 and then a sixth person that shows up with a level 5--and apparently at that point I as the gm am supposed to tell them that they shouldn't play the character they planned/brought with them.

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

In addtion, the OPC and team have been swamped enough that last year's Guide was -- to put it mildly -- containing of a few errors. Trying to raise concerns to folks who appear *on the surface* to already be 'behind on their work' doesn't seem like a cool thing to do.

RVCs are not responsible for the guide, so that argument doesn't fly.

He was saying Tonya is super busy and he doesn't want to bother her with stuff. Tonya is not an RVC.

How do alchemists and investigators craft in the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild?”

Alchemists and investigators may use Craft (alchemy) to craft items that they gain access to on Chronicle sheets as long as the Chronicle sheet does not limit to the number of times they may purchase those items.

I'm confused, can they no longer craft things that they could previously cast? Or is this just saying "if a chronicle sheet has something that is not always available for purchase, then you may now craft this item"?

claudekennilol wrote:

Why is everyone so sure that Fitting is going to be effected in some way?

Check Mr. Compton's posts at the start of the thread.

As for the fitting enchantment, I'm looking at what has been a fairly innocuous armor special ability and seeing a very inexpensive backdoor to circumvent the FAQ and design team altogether. That doesn't strike me as right, and it makes me seriously question whether that special ability (entirely sound when published) remains a good fit for the campaign.

Gotchya.

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Kevin Willis wrote:

Look below the introductory text for the link to "download a PDF copy of this document."

How many times is it possible to roll '1' on a RL Perception check?

I can't get the 8 to lay on it's side to answer the question.

∞

• press and hold alt, then on the num pad hit the numbers
• 2
• 3
• 6
• release alt

it is waiting in the que to get pushed out

It's waiting in the what to get pushed out? (pun intended)

p.s. it's queue

I would love to subscribe to the player companion line but it's not any cheaper than I could get it elsewhere (I don't consider PDFs a perk).

While it is a shame it happened in your first game at least it didn't happen in like your 10th. It doesn't feel better dying 50 hours of character time in. This sort of stuff happens and is part of the game.

I had to run Trial by Machine for a group that was a huge majority new people. By the time they were at the end they ran for their lives after I probably fudged at least 20 rolls in their favor. (I would absolutely only do this in the case of many brand new people and because I was asked to go easy by the VO.)

That scenario is unnecessarily deadly. The boss is an absolute nightmare for low tier. Someone missed the point of PFS for that one (maybe I'm the one that missed the point, but that one is cranked up to 11 for absolutely no reason).

Flagged for the rules forum.

I've never had anyone question that Character B gets to attack with his weapon.

I did once have an eidolon put up no resistance to being swallowed whole in order to tear apart a monster from the inside -- but I don't think the Poison Minion trait would inflict further doses of poison on a creature that has already swallowed a character with that trait.

Because the skin was too thick on the outside? Did he single-handedly defeat the beast?

claudekennilol wrote:

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

Answered in FAQ.

FAQ wrote:

Magic Ranged Weapons and Ammunition: When a ranged weapon shares its enhancement bonus with its ammunition, does this count as “true” enhancement bonus or more like a temporary bonus like greater magic weapon? In other words, does the shared enhancement bonus allow the arrow to bypass damage reduction as if it was cold iron, silver, adamantine, and aligned?

No, other than the ways indicated in the Core Rulebook (if the ranged weapon is at least +1, they count as magic, and if the ranged weapon is aligned they count as that alignment as well) the enhancement bonus granted to ammunition from the ranged weapon doesn’t help them overcome the other types of damage reduction. Archers and other such characters can buy various sorts of ammunition or ammunition with a high enhancement bonus to overcome the various types of damage reduction.

What!?

*edited down from a few hundred words to be less inflamatory.

Well, it was how the rule always was, we just got it wrong because it was a specific case over general. No need for such a lack of inflammatory words :Oc

That may be how you always interpreted it, but that doesn't mean that's what the rule always was.

Answered in FAQ.

FAQ wrote:

Magic Ranged Weapons and Ammunition: When a ranged weapon shares its enhancement bonus with its ammunition, does this count as “true” enhancement bonus or more like a temporary bonus like greater magic weapon? In other words, does the shared enhancement bonus allow the arrow to bypass damage reduction as if it was cold iron, silver, adamantine, and aligned?

No, other than the ways indicated in the Core Rulebook (if the ranged weapon is at least +1, they count as magic, and if the ranged weapon is aligned they count as that alignment as well) the enhancement bonus granted to ammunition from the ranged weapon doesn’t help them overcome the other types of damage reduction. Archers and other such characters can buy various sorts of ammunition or ammunition with a high enhancement bonus to overcome the various types of damage reduction.

What!?

*edited down from a few hundred words to be less inflamatory.

I got around it in my worg-riding build by taking a single level of cavalier (added bonus of a free teamwork feat(!), a d10 starting hit die, full bab, free armor proficiency for my pet, and no ACP for ride checks). And 3 more levels of hunter made it a 4th level mount that qualifies for Monstrous Mount. Though specifically saying it requires "Divine Bond(Sp), Hunter's Bond(Ex) or Mount(Ex)" is just wrong. The book doesn't say that.

Specifically the book (pdf) says

Prerequisites: Handle Animal 4 ranks; Ride 4 ranks;

divine bond (mount), hunter’s bond (animal companion),
or mount class feature with an effective druid level of 4.

But in the end my character wasn't an oracle. I did consider that to qualify for Monstrous Mount though, and no one had any issues with it when I asked then.

For monsters I love 'em. Oh! you meant for players - that, not so much. I've only ever seen them taken for the power boost (and I include myself in that respect), and it's a pain to balance.

You see, a template adds nothing to RP value, that exists separately from the numbers.

Just quoting this because I have nothing new to add.

If my character wants to know the details about a spell an ally (PC character) casts, can I use spellcraft in PFS to idenify it as it's cast? Or is that caught under the PVP clause because I'm rolling spellcraft "opposed" to their spell DC?

I'm asking from a role playing stance. I, the player, can just look up the spell. But in role playing my character, the character may or may not understand the spell being cast.

I'm often told that I can't use diplomacy "against" other players due to the PVP rule, but I'm not sure how spellcraft works here, since it seems much less offensive/abusive than the effects that diplomacy or intimidate could bring.

And no, not looking argue this. Just wondering, yay or nay, can my character use spellcraft on other players to understand what spells they are casting in PFS?

Have you looked up the rules in question? They make it quite clear.

In keeping with the “cooperate” theme of the Pathfinder
Society, player-versus-player conflict should be kept
to a minimum. While circumstances may arise where
friendly fire occurs, a player must always receive the
other player’s consent before performing such actions.
Deliberate death of a character at the hands of another
character should never occur. This rule does not apply
in situations where a character is not acting of his own
initiative, such as being mind-controlled by an NPC and
forced to attack a fellow Pathfinder.
...
Player versus Player (PVP): Player-versus-player
conflict occurs when one PC attempts, of his or her own
volition, to kill, harm, or otherwise contribute to the
injury of another PC. Player-versus-player conflict is
strictly prohibited. See page 7 for more details.

Nothing in there in any way implies that using spellcraft to find out what another player is casting is illegal.

You can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer characters with a successful check

The people that told you that you can't use diplomacy against other player characters because of pvp are also wrong. You can't use diplomacy against other player characters because of diplomacy.

Let's see, things that haven't yet been mentioned...

Greenwood Composite (+2 Strength Rating) Longbow or Darkwood Composite (+3 Strength Rating) Longbow depending on strength.

Scroll of Carry Companion with 5 charges (depending on if the character needs that).

Wands (most of the above plus a couple more)
Long Arm

And lots of retraining. I always retrain my martial characters as they level up (old feats into new feats usually) and I tend to only play martials so yeah..lots of retraining.

I highly support. Playing Waking Rune with 11 9 9 9 8 8 is not fun.

There is no radius on the spell so it would not rain. It would more likely be a massive bucket of water falling down SMASH on someone's head in one square. The spell needs to be edited for the revised edition to make it clearer, as does the Stone Shape spell, another one I just had a problem with when a player tried to imprison a redcap within stone and I said no. The books are great but just a few things need tidying up and those 2 spells are examples.

Good grief, dude, let dead threads lie in peace.

While no longer a legal source for PFS, I love that the back of the Pathfinder Chronicles: Campaign Settings has phonetic pronunciation for a lot of deities/places/lore stuff.

Obviously it's formatted much better in the back of the book, but this is still super helpful.

What's worse is me and my worg--who can literally speak common (and goblin). I literally don't know what to do with him at some tables. Or rather, I know perfectly well what to do with him, but some GMs don't.

FAQ wrote:

If the non-legal options are an automatic part of the archetype, such as a feat that all characters with that archetype gain, the Additional Resources page often provides a substitution. If it does not, that option is legal for your character. However, if the non-legal options are part of a menu of choices, such as a list of feats that includes one feat that is not legal, the option does not become legal for your character.

The intention of this FAQ is to ensure that when a new sorcerer bloodline pops up, for example, granting access to a banned feat on the bonus feat list, it's not suddenly opening up a problematic option the team restricted earlier—sometimes in that same book. The intention's not to restrict the modest number of Bestiary feats that play into several natural weapon archetypes and other character options (like the natural weapon ranger fighting style). It's likely we'll need to add such a clarification that Bestiary feats (except Craft Construct) made available by special character options are legal under that circumstance—either to the FAQ or to the Additional Resources page.

This is the fun of adding several dozen updates to the FAQ all at once. There might be some corner cases that were entirely mainstream and legal that now appear to not be legal based on the new wording. Just ask, and give us enough time to get back to the office, confirm our understanding with each other, and assess whether there needs to be a change before assuming All Is Lost.

That's good, I figured that wasn't the intention, but wanted attention brought to it.

When that spell first came out I made a small hunter riding a wolf. We were doing a scenario (well module) that involved festival games. The game was "who can jump over the fire the farthest and I ended up in the middle of the neighboring field. The NPCs wouldn't let me join in any of the other games after that :(.

I'm on my phone so this I can't easily quote the relevant text, but the FAQ about an illegal choice in a list still isn't legal implies that natural combat style rangers can't take improved natural attack. Is that intended?

You know these stories are why some people hate Pathfinder, right? Especially in organized play when one bad roll literally means your character just died.

...you find out the player you killed last week is the GM for this notoriously deadly scenario..and he only signed up to GM because you singed up to play.

Also post #2222 yay me.

Were you thinking of this?

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/cleric/domains/paizo---domains /law-domain

Yes, thanks, that was the way I was thinking of. That's just not super useful on self without Quicken SLA. Anyone have any other thoughts?

Why is rounding necessary at all? Silver exists.

Drow stuff is not allowed. No drow anywhere near PCs. That's been the rule for a long time now.

Just tell them that you can not in any way be a drow or drow-ish in PFS. And anything that looks like an opening to do it after all is probably a clerical error.

Blanket statements are overstatements. I have quite a few PCs that have found drow poison. And there's nothing from keeping someone with a +30ish disguise saying they're a drow and most PCs (and most NPCs barring magic/supernatural abilities) not being able to tell any difference.

PFS already nuked it in this fashion. So I'm used to it. That being said, my warpriest used it up until retirement.

Move action to retrieve the potion from his handy haversack, swift to drink, then standard to vital strike (with greater weapon of the chosen to roll twice) something into Urgathoa's loving embrace with my scythe (usually after my wife had butterfly stinged it up for me).

After PFS already made this change, that just turned into free action -> remove from gloves of storing, move action to drink (and not provoke!), and then hit them.

It's incredibly useful, especially before you get an iterative attack. And don't need to move. Though, the gloves are expensive, so it's less useful now unless you have a way to retrieve items that don't cost a move/standard.

I looked back through the posts and I don't see anyone indicating that Molthuni Arsenal Chaplains only get a "sacred weapons" group. I think you just misinterpreted things. There's three things going on.

1) Molthuni Arsenal Chaplain gets Weapon Training at 5th level. It works exactly like the fighter Weapon Training, including at higher levels.
2) A MAC only gets the benefit of Weapon Training for weapons in with which he has Weapon Focus.
3) (PFS specific rule) A MAC does not qualify for Advanced Weapon Training.

Because of the way the rule in 3 is worded the MAC cannot swap out his 9th level Weapon Training benefit for an Advanced Weapon Training (which John indicated was intentional) but also cannot take the Advanced Weapon Training feat which John is (hopefully still) considering allowing.

This is pretty much exactly how I interpreted it. As written, to me, there isn't anything that implies there are later options to swap out (for free AWT options). I just want to be able to take the feat, which is consequently not allowed for PFS, but I don't see any reason for it to be and would like to be able to.

To be quite honest, I think d20pfsrd may be more accurate than a lot of PDFs

I've never seen anyone claim that before. I can think of two examples off hand where the errata was either missed or willfully ignored. It's been pointed out and nothing has been done about it for years (all of the errata except a very important tidbit was left out). Another is a case where they've intentionally mashed up two items into one entry.

Holy crap why did this thread get brought back up again?

The question is in no way clear one way or the other. I interpreted it the same as James.

I have no idea what Herolab does/doesn't say. The few times I've used it to determine if it was worth it I've found the UI to be incredibly archaic and it handled barely any of the complicated things I could throw at it. For example, it in no way handles someone playing a spiritualist that wants to actually prepare for the day by channeling a different Spirit. The solution from the Herolab employee was to just build different characters (i.e. the same character with a different Spirit prepared).

I also find that it completely enables people not learning how to actually play the game.

Can it be useful? I won't say that it can't be and there are definitely people that are already knowledgeable enough to make proper use of it. But in my experience it actually hinders play way more than it helps.

</soapbox>