foxoftheasterisk's page

So one of our party members was mind controlled by an enemy. Said party member uses a living weapon that will mind control anyone not living up to her sense of justice. Of course, once they attacked another party member, the weapon took offense and tried to take control.

So... how does that work? We weren't able to find any rules about contradictory mind control in 2E. The GM ruled that the new one overrode the old one for simplicity, but I'm wondering if there's any actual rules that are relevant.

Hi y'all! As some of you may know, I've been working on a remake of the Skull and Shackles AP in a post-Core environment. It's kind of a huge project but the scope crept up on me and now I'm committed.

While the AP is far from complete, Adventure 1 is mostly complete and ready to playtest!

Playtests will be run through the game Tabletop Simulator (Steam page). Ideally, I'd like to have at least two groups of playtesters: one that I host for and play with, and another which plays the adventure on their own and reports back with notes. If you're interested in joining either group, let me know! I have a pretty open schedule, so I should hopefully be able to accommodate most groups.

This post is also partially to make sure this project doesn't creep past the scope of Pathfinder Infinite since some parts are a bit of a gray area. In particular, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to write story text that parallels the original AP?

In Curse of the Crimson Throne scenario 4D, the storybook contains the following powers:

When a bane from a location is undefeated, banish a boon from that location's totem pile.

and

At the end of your turn, banish a boon from each unoccupied location's totem pile; if you cannot, you lose.

and it just strikes me that that final clause—"if you cannot, you lose"—seems like it might have been intended to be on both these powers? Especially since there's no other reason to care about totem piles after you can occupy all the locations.

Are the rewards for this scenario meant to include the victory piles? It seems like the type that usually would (given that without that clause, the only available boons for deck upgrades will be the plunder cards) but it doesn't say anything about it.

Hey y'all. So I'm currently working on a full conversion of Skull & Shackles to a 2.0 style AP, but I'm running into an issue.

Namely, I've never played Skull & Shackles in the RPG, so I have little-to-no context for why certain things are designed the way they are. Scenarios, story banes, ships, allies, etc - I don't know which are important to the story and which are filler. So, I'm looking for someone who has played, or better yet GMed, who can help me with that!

Obviously you'd be credited and all. While all I need is someone to help explain the story, if you want more creative input, that's cool too. I reserve the right to make the final decisions though, I do still intend for this to be primarily my project.

Post in the thread or shoot me a PM if you're interested, and we can start chatting logistics ;)

The "Build the Vault" instruction for Adventure 7-3 reads:

Build the Vault: Start with all level 0, 1, 2, 3 cards from the Core Set and the Curse of the Crimson Throne Adventure Path, then remove all Level 0 non-Veteran banes and you may remove any Level 0 non-Veteran boons.

Notably, it does not say "non-Veteran, non-Blessing boons" as most higher-level Build the Vault instructions do.

Is this an oversight or are we intended to be allowed to remove the Level 0 Blessings?

So, for those unfamiliar, Ak has the unique trait of using both sides of his role card alternately; each side has the text "When you gain or lose a feat on this card, also do so on the other side of this card."

Meanwhile, the Society rules for Blackjack say "Each time they gain a power feat that appears only on their role, they also gain a power feat on their Blackjack role. Each time they gain a power feat on their role that also appears on their character card, they also gain that feat on their character card."

So... Does this mean that Ak can gain two power feats on Blackjack (or his character card) each time he gains a power feat? That's obviously not RAI, but I'm not seeing any way it's not RAW. (Unless only one of the two is considered "your role".)

So I played Blessing of the Gobs and turned up The Crows, and wasn't quite sure how it worked. I have two questions about this interaction:

1: When I bury Blessing of the Gobs, The Crows is the Hour, so its effect triggers, right?

2: Since Blessing of the Gobs has no check to acquire, is it impossible to succeed? Or does its normal "you may automatically acquire" apply and allow me to succeed in that way? Or... Something else?

So an errata was just released converting a number of characters' powers that allowed them to move after closing a location to the Core Amiri power, "Closing your location does not prevent you from moving." Which is great! Making these character powers work with new locations is awesome.

However, there's one little problem. Another errata says that when using older locations, you don't remove the location or automatically move on closing. So now these powers don't work on old locations! Which is not so great. (I mean, excepting those few locations which continue to have cards after closing.)

So, I'd like to recommend to Vic and the other developers a small tweak to that errata. Rather than "...it stays in play and local characters do not automatically move," instead use "... it stays in play and local characters may choose not to automatically move." And then it works for everyone! :D

Both The Dragon's Demand and Curse of the Crimson Throne include a scenario 1*, which is listed as optional if you've played before. Is this scenario required for adventure rewards in PACS play?

I'm guessing no, but I'd appreciate official confirmation.

I could also ask a similar question about scenario 7A of Curse, which is listed as a "Bonus adventure". Or scenario 3C of Dragon's Demand, but that's not listed as optional despite the odd format so I expect that one is required.

A recent update to the Core Set FAQ clarified that characters that gain the Arcane or Divine skills should also gain proficiency, which is great; however, it also did the same for Melee and Ranged, and granted proficiency in those traits to any older characters with the corresponding skills.

I of course don't know what thought process lead to this ruling, but looking at it without that context, it just seems incorrect. There are tons of characters that have the Melee or Ranged skills without weapon proficiency, or with proficiency only as a power feat, deliberately, for balance or flavor reasons. There's three of them in the Core set, even! (Fumbus, Kyra, and Sajan)

Especially given the post-Core design philosophy for weapons that call for proficiency - where it allows you to activate a secondary power rather than adding difficulty to the check if not proficient - I don't see that there are any characters that are actually improved by this ruling. (Made more powerful, yes; improved, no.) So I would ask the developers to please explain the reasoning behind this change, and also maybe consider reversing it.

As the title - should older cards that refer to "a henchman or a villain" now be considered as referring to "a story bane"?

(This matters for the Danger, and possibly for other circumstances.)

Burglar had the Trigger trait and the effect "When examined, encounter this card."

If Burglar is in your character deck and you use an effect to examine it - Harrower's, say - are you forced to remove it from your deck and encounter it?

Older blessings such as, for example, Blessing of Erastil, say "After you play this card, if it matches [the hour], recharge this card instead of discarding it."

Meanwhile the Core Set rulebook says as part of the Bless rules:

Any card that refers to a blessing of a particular deity applies to any blessing that has that deity’s name as a trait.

Does that rule extend to making these blessings count as "matching" any blessing that has the appropriate deity trait? Or does it still have to be the same card?

RAW my impression is the latter but it seems like it should be the former, so...

As the title says: is there some way to get decent benefits (beyond Day Job checks) from the perform skill in Society, without taking levels in Bard (or archetypes of other classes with bard class features)?

Context: I'm playing an (unchained) Summoner, and for backstory/flavor reasons I'm putting ranks in perform on both summoner and eidolon. I'd like to find a way to make those ranks more useful, obviously because wasting ranks is bad, but also because backstory doesn't really come up much in Society.

Ideally, I'd like this to be something feat based to allow the eidolon to take it as well, but I appreciate that may not be possible. Still I'd rather avoid multiclassing since I get the impression it's not great in Pathfinder and I expect it's even worse for summoners.

I have a chronicle sheet that lists a boon with two effects. The first effect gives a passive +1 bonus to certain rolls; the second allows me to cross off the boon to reroll a roll of the same type.

If I use the reroll and cross off the boon, does this mean I lose the passive bonus?