crmanriq's page

I disagree with your interpretations of Scent.

It is not automatic.

the operative word in the quote of the rules is "can".

The same way I "can" see something 1,000 feet away in a low light situation.

They still need to make a perception check.

In this case, the OP is correct, the +20 to stealth would not apply, and the +8 racial bonus to perception would, because Scent can easily "observe" someone within 30' (or modified based on wind condition.)

The perception DC to "Notice a visible creature" is 0. The modifier for perception due to distance is +1 per 10 feet. So a creature 1000 feet away has a perception DC of 100. Low light adds +2 to this DC.

The scent ability makes creatures within 30' "visible" to the perceiving creature. Even if you apply the same modifier for distance, the perception DC to "see" a creature with scent at 30 feet is only 3.

Jiggy wrote:

Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:

Generally a GM initials that purchase.

Wait, what?

Yep. Purchases can only be done in the presence of a GM, even always available stuff. The GM has to make sure the correct item is written on the chronicle sheet and the correct amount of gold is spent and subtracted from the characters total gold. Basically, anything written on a chronicle sheet has to be witnessed and initialed by a GM if the GM is not the one who wrote it on there, otherwise it is probably not legal.

Under the actual rules, the only thing in the Items Sold/Conditions Gained or Items Bought/Conditions Cleared boxes that are to be initialed are the rolls to train animals or to write spells into spellbooks, and to note afflictions, and to note rebuilds due to changes from playtests.

Sometimes a player must have you witness

a roll to verify she successfully scribed a scroll into her
spellbook or trained an animal companion to do a new
trick. Write your initials next to any such entries in these
sections to show that you witnessed the roll and that the
PC was successful in the attempt.

If,

however, a character is unable to resolve a condition
before moving on to the next scenario, you will need to
write the condition in the Items Sold/Conditions Gained
box on that player’s Chronicle sheet and initial next to
what you wrote (see below).

When rebuilding your character in any way, you must

describe all changes on your next Chronicle in the
Equipment Sold/Conditions Gained section, and your
GM must initial that section.

There is no other mention of initialing those boxes.

While it might be a good idea to review and initial players purchases, the lack of initials in no way makes those purchases illegal or invalid.

Lets not confuse something some GM's do for what the actual rules are.

If it's supposed to be an heirloom gift, why is Dad charging me top market rate for a 50 year old sword?

"Son, as you head off into that great wide world out there, I can't help but think you need to have this sword by your side. Your great-grandfather first fought with it over 70 years ago defending Lord Throckmorton in his battle against Lord Stone. Your grandfather carried it in the Denver campaign. And I used it to repel borders on that cruise that your mother and I took when we were first wed. Now, it is your time. Carry it well, my son. And when you earn your glory, think of your family."

"Why gee, thanks dad! I'll always remember you and mom, and what it means to be a Quantrill."

{starts walking towards door}

"Uh, son."

"Yes dad?"

"That'll be 28 gold pieces."

I currently play a 6th level Cleric (Necromancer) of Ydersius. I have sat down at the table with a Paladin, and resolved the issue this way:

Paladin: "I cannot abide with these undead abominations in my presence. I am going to kill them." (or words to that effect)

Cleric: "Ah, Paladin. I see that you carry the symbol of Iomadae upon your chest. That symbol is an affront to me, and I too feel that I should not have to abide by its presence. Shall I then sunder it to remove the offense? But that symbol is your property, and for me to destroy it would be an unlawful act, and even more, an affront to the camaraderie that we Pathfinders should hold for each other, no matter our personal religious beliefs."

Paladin: "Unlawful...hm." (skeptically)

Cleric: "These creatures are the tools of my trade. They will help to see us safely through what lies ahead. I will offer you this: endure their presence until our goal is complete. At which time, I will gladly allow you to destroy that which you view so horrid. The choice is yours - unlawfully destroy my property, or respect the law and my property and in the end I will grant you the pleasure of destroying them with my blessing. Hopefully some time before the stench becomes too unbearable."

(Rolls Diplomacy d20+15) [Not as "mind control" on fellow PC, but more to allow the PC the role play that the cleric made a convincing case.]

Paladin: "On your word?"

Cleric: "I give you my word. Come, let us slay our enemies together."

yadda yadda yadda.

Brother Elias wrote:

Thea Peters wrote:

MisterSlanky wrote:

Stormfriend wrote:

That's why I'm posting :-)

I'm still trying to visualise a garden weasel...

Thanks, I now can't get the idea of a barbarian using a garden gnome as a "tool of the trade" out of my head.

I just had the mental picture of a fighter type wielding an actual weasel and the weasel screaming cause the monster is icky

Hmm, for years now I've wanted to play a goblin bard whose instrument was rat. He'd squeze it and twist it to make it scream in different notes.

(Obviously not a lawful good goblin...)

Just got several odd looks as I'm at work and giggleing all over myself right now at that .. thank you.

You know, a druid in such a party would not be a happy camper.

"Stop That!!! How many times do I have to tell you?"

"Are you saying that you don't want +1 to your attack rolls? Even if I stop, I have lingering performance. So the rats going to keep whimpering for another two rounds, and you'll still get your bonus, because while it deeply disturbs you, he's oddly musical and makes you feel good about yourself. Zall I'm sayin."

I'd go with ONE companion at a time, and the Cavalier's mount MUST be of a size and shape that would allow him to ride from level 1. So a horse or camel is about the only option for a medium cavalier. For a small cavalier, the world widens considerably.

The reason you only get one animal is that the druid rules, (which, being core, supersede the APG rules) state that druid and other class levels STACK to determine your animal companion. This implies that you only get one"companion pool" to draw from, though other classes can add to that one pool. IMO, of course.

In the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play (pg 19), under "How many animals can I have at any given time", it states "This means if you're a Ranger 5/Druid 5, you need to pick which animal companion is your combat animal." (The society limits players to only one combat animal on any given adventure, in order to prevent that player from bogging down combat.) This strongly implies that a character might have animal companions from any number of different classes (Druid, Cleric (animal Domain), Paladin, Ranger).

Given this, and the rule under the Druid Class that states that if you have an animal companion - all of your sources stack together to determine your effective druid level, it seems apparent that a Paladin/Druid would have both a Mount and an Animal Companion, both of which would use the total of both Paladin and Druid levels to determine the effective Druid level for each animal's abilities.

This appears to be the rule as written (and implied by other Paizo Pathfinder materials).

Intelligent items are meant for GMs in home games to add a plot-twist or a funny NPC weapon or what have you. They aren't meant for an org play environment where everyone can just buy one. There's no way in that environment, for example, that a player wouldn't just say, "My intelligent longsword's mission is to make me awesome!"

So, for Pathfinder Society Organized Play, no intelligent items.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

(With caveat that it just occurred to me how fun it would be to simply roleplay as if my character sincerely believed that his masterwork (not even +1) rapier was intelligent and occasionally lost ego-battles to it...)

Blazej wrote:

If, for example, a GM responded a PC in such a way when they were playing through a common scenario that takes place in one of the many areas not antagonistic toward slave owners. I would really try hard to get that GM banned from running tables. Responding to a PC with a slave by destroying a table is not appropriate.

Of course it's not. But neither is getting your role-playing kicks off on slavery.

..and we wonder why there's a perpetual shortage of GM's...

jh

I'm striving to be civil here, but finding that this particular attitude really XXX me off.

"But neither is getting your role-playing kicks off on slavery."

hmm.

Substitute "slavery" with:

"murder","killing members of other cultures"
"grave desecration", "robbing tombs"
"racism","genocide","treating other races as though they should be killed or not just for existing"
"religious bigotry","acting as though your god is superior to any other god"
"trespass" "walking into others homes as though they had no right to live in peace"

I'm not sure what your particular deal with slavery is, but it has existed on this world for most of its history, and continues to exist to this day. Depending on the culture in which it has been practiced, it has ranged from an evil to a social norm. Slavery is not decried as evil in the bible (if you are a practising Christian or Jew and use this as your gauge of morality), nor in the Koran (if you are a Muslim).

Your role-playing is not my role-playing, and what you enjoy in a particular game may not be what I enjoy. As the PSGOP states "The Society places no moral obligations upon its members, so agents span all races, creeds, and motivations."

I play a huge range of characters. I play lawful good clerics who want nothing more than to make the world a better place. I play bards who are motivated by the joy of finding new experiences to form stories for their craft. I play bloodthirsty dwarf fighters who live for the fight. I play thoughtful loners, mourning for their lost loves, who wander the world looking to leave things better than they found them. Sometimes, I even play a hedonistic necromancer from a slave-owning culture.

I cannot help but think what a boring and lifeless role play it would be if we were all only allowed character motivations which none might find morally objectionable. We could all sit around playing Bunnies & Burrows, and complimenting each other on the softness of each other's fur.