paizo.com Favorited Posts by ilovelamp1985paizo.com Favorited Posts by ilovelamp19852023-05-10T19:48:09Z2023-05-10T19:48:09ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Society: Rebuilding after first level?ilovelamp1985https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2od6a&page=3?Rebuilding-after-first-level#1232012-06-29T18:25:38Z2012-06-29T17:31:39Z<p>Stone, have you actually played any PFS yet? Looking at your profile, it doesn't appear that you have and I've seen you do a lot of lobbying for changes the last week or so. There's nothing wrong with asking for changes or engaging in debate, but shouldn't you at least try out pathfinder society for a while and see if these rules really are that big of an issue for your "fun" before lobbying for so many changes all at once. It appears from an outsider rather than just trying out this particular brand of organized play and see how it suits your taste, your going out of your way to change it to something that "you" specifically want before you even get started.</p>
<p>All I'm saying is maybe give it a chance before you go into a lot of debate about what the system needs to do to better accommodate certain players.</p>Stone, have you actually played any PFS yet? Looking at your profile, it doesn't appear that you have and I've seen you do a lot of lobbying for changes the last week or so. There's nothing wrong with asking for changes or engaging in debate, but shouldn't you at least try out pathfinder society for a while and see if these rules really are that big of an issue for your "fun" before lobbying for so many changes all at once. It appears from an outsider rather than just trying out this...ilovelamp19852012-06-29T17:31:39ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Society: Old Ones and the likeilovelamp1985https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2od23&page=3?Old-Ones-and-the-like#1252012-06-28T12:27:12Z2012-06-27T21:18:23Z<p>Stone,</p>
<p>You have a right to disagree with what several VOs, including Andrew are telling you. But you keep asking for someone of authority to give you a definitive answer on the subject. While none of us Venture-Captains or Venture-Lieutenants have the authority to make final decisions on rules and are certainly not infallible, I would think that you should take our opinions as meaning something. We have more direct interaction with Mike and Mark than the average PFS player, and feel it is our responsibility to provide appropriate feedback on these subjects so that Mike and Mark can concentrate on their many responsibilities. Andrew and others have stated that what you are asking about, something such as vestigial wings on a character with no mechanical justification violates the rules against re-skinning. And at our tables (I'm including myself as I also believe it to be against the rules on re-skinning) we would likely tell you that your character does not actually possess vestigial wings. You are welcome to get up and leave my table at that point, and I honestly wouldn't hold any ill will towards you, but I also wouldn't feel bad about doing what I believe is appropriate in the PFS setting. You have made your point that you feel the re-skinning guidelines are ambiguous and/or that they do not apply in this situation, several of us have disagreed with you.</p>
<p>As Andrew stated a while ago, you are welcome to attempt to make the character that you are describing, but I think you are likely to sit down at a number of tables that don't allow you to roleplay the character in the way that you envision. Based on that alone, I would suggest you come up with another concept that you would enjoy that would not be at the GM's discretion to such an extent. There are many character concepts that unfortunately are not compatible with an organized play setting (or specifically this organized play setting) and this may just be one of them.</p>Stone,
You have a right to disagree with what several VOs, including Andrew are telling you. But you keep asking for someone of authority to give you a definitive answer on the subject. While none of us Venture-Captains or Venture-Lieutenants have the authority to make final decisions on rules and are certainly not infallible, I would think that you should take our opinions as meaning something. We have more direct interaction with Mike and Mark than the average PFS player, and feel it is...ilovelamp19852012-06-27T21:18:23ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Society: Is magical knack allowed yet?ilovelamp1985https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o81n&page=2?Is-magical-knack-allowed-yet#822012-06-08T15:58:05Z2012-06-08T15:52:08Z<p>I'm sorry, but anyone who simply disregards Rage Prophet and says flat out that it's a terrible prestige class has completely lost my attention. The most powerful and fun character I've ever played in all my years of gaming was in the Rise of the Runelords adventure path that I just finished a while back, and he was a Barbarian2/Oracle4/Rage Prophet9. I'm not going to argue mechanics with you, but I can tell you the character was incredibly effective (over-powered even), and you gain a lot of awesome stuff from Rage Prophet(like adding your constitution bonus to the save DCs of spells at Rage Prophet 7 and adding your Barbarian levels to CL during moment of clarity at 4th) that make up for the inherent multi-classing weaknesses. He did not have magical knack for the record, though I'm more chiming in to stop this blasphemy that Rage Prophet sucks, because it was fantastic!</p>
<p>Also I play a Barbarian1/Sorcerer7 in PFS that does just fine without Maigcal Knack. I'm not saying that I'm against making the trait legal, I really couldn't care less, but the argument that you can't play a multi-classed caster just because the trait is not allowed is false and hyperbole. Will you be slightly less powerful in PFS because of the lack of Magical Knack, sure, does that mean the character is useless, absolutely not.</p>I'm sorry, but anyone who simply disregards Rage Prophet and says flat out that it's a terrible prestige class has completely lost my attention. The most powerful and fun character I've ever played in all my years of gaming was in the Rise of the Runelords adventure path that I just finished a while back, and he was a Barbarian2/Oracle4/Rage Prophet9. I'm not going to argue mechanics with you, but I can tell you the character was incredibly effective (over-powered even), and you gain a lot of...ilovelamp19852012-06-08T15:52:08ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Society: Player wants his animal companion to have Rhino Hide barding, allowed?ilovelamp1985https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o0h8?Player-wants-his-animal-companion-to-have#132012-04-26T19:55:50Z2012-04-26T19:54:41Z<p>I'm glad to see that this issue is as clear as mud for everyone else as well. Or more accurately, it is crystal clear to people, but those people have the exact opposite interpretation of the legality of it.</p>
<p>Any chance of an official ruling from the higher ups?</p>I'm glad to see that this issue is as clear as mud for everyone else as well. Or more accurately, it is crystal clear to people, but those people have the exact opposite interpretation of the legality of it.
Any chance of an official ruling from the higher ups?ilovelamp19852012-04-26T19:54:41ZForums: Pathfinder Society: Player wants his animal companion to have Rhino Hide barding, allowed?ilovelamp1985https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o0h8?Player-wants-his-animal-companion-to-have#12012-07-23T00:47:51Z2012-04-26T17:06:07Z<p>One of my local players asked if his cat animal companion could have Rhino Hide barding. For those unaware of what Rhino Hide armor is, it is a named magical item:</p>
<p><b><i>Rhino Hide</i></b></p>
<p>Aura moderate transmutation; CL 9th
<br />
Slot armor; Price 5,165 gp; Weight 25 lbs.</p>
<p><b>DESCRIPTION</b>
<br />
This +2 hide armor is made from rhinoceros hide. In addition to granting a +2 enhancement bonus to AC, it has a –1 armor check penalty and deals an additional 2d6 points of damage on any successful charge attack made by the wearer, including a mounted charge.</p>
<p><b>CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS</b>
<br />
Craft Magic Arms and Armor, bull's strength; Cost 2,665 gp.</p>
<p>I looked for this answer in the forums and only found an inconclusive disagreement, so I told the player that I would repost the question in hopes of an official answer.</p>
<p>I'm of the opinion that it would not be allowed as it would essentially be altering a "named" magic armor (i.e. crafting) and crafting is not allowed by PFS rules.</p>
<p>Thoughts?</p>One of my local players asked if his cat animal companion could have Rhino Hide barding. For those unaware of what Rhino Hide armor is, it is a named magical item:
Rhino Hide
Aura moderate transmutation; CL 9th
Slot armor; Price 5,165 gp; Weight 25 lbs.
DESCRIPTION
This +2 hide armor is made from rhinoceros hide. In addition to granting a +2 enhancement bonus to AC, it has a –1 armor check penalty and deals an additional 2d6 points of damage on any successful charge attack made by the...ilovelamp19852012-04-26T17:06:07ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Society: A thought on the Advanced Race GuideGrumph Bronzebeard (alias of ilovelamp1985)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nvzg&page=5?A-thought-on-the-Advanced-Race-Guide#2172012-04-13T23:31:19Z2012-04-13T19:25:15Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Michael Brock wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Also, a determined cheater can only do so much with what he as to work with. Right now, I know no one can play a Drow or the like period. What you guys are asking for is completely opening the book up for use and I'm not adding 20 new races to PFS.</p>
<p>One final point. The majority of players are not clamoring for additional races to be open. A vocal minority of 15-20 are. I talk to gamers everywhere I go, and get feedback from VCs and VLs and the majority of players, from the feedback I have received don't want this. </blockquote><p>I want to clarify my particular stance on this subject as I've posted in here a couple of times and the above statement by Mike does not represent my stance, even though I believe I am in that referred to vocal minority.
<p>I do not want, nor think it is appropriate, to unleash every race published in the ARG to be legal in PFS. I just think that a handful of the non-core races would make perfectly acceptable pathfinders. Based on the race boons, someone in the higher ups thought that they did as well, regardless of the rarity, they thought it was appropriate to allow them to be part of their organized campaign. I am in no way advocating that 15-20 more races be adding to the list of race choices, that is simply absurd. To go from 6 available races to 26 overnight is in no way what I have been attempting to advocate. </p>
<p>What I am advocating is that the campaign organizers take a look at the races being published in the ARG. Select a handful of new non-core races that best fit the setting and make them legal for play. This would probably need to include (and possibly only include) all of the ones currently available as boons. Not every race fits the setting and I understand that, but a precedent has already been set by these racial boons and I think that shouldn't be ignored.</p>
<p>For example, I had no real issue with the limitation of not allowing any of the gun-wielding archetypes for classes other than the Gunslinger class. It was clear that the campaign staff wanted to minimize gun use by making players invest a level in Gunslinger for the benefit of that ability. However, had there been boons available that allowed a fellow player to wield a gun with his Paladin prior to the publication of the UC (persumably with playtest rules for guns), but upon release of that book, I find out I can't utilize the Holy Gun archetype. I would have been frustrated to say the least.</p>
<p>So in short, I'm not advocating that we blow the doors off the barn holding all the crazy race options in ARG, just that the campaign should utilize the book to carefully expand on the current available race options. </p>
<p>As it appears attempting to force a limit on players is currently unavailable due to technology, just be cautious what is made legal, but for the love of Pete, make some of it legal! (and more than just the racial traits and feats for the core races)</p>Michael Brock wrote:Also, a determined cheater can only do so much with what he as to work with. Right now, I know no one can play a Drow or the like period. What you guys are asking for is completely opening the book up for use and I'm not adding 20 new races to PFS.One final point. The majority of players are not clamoring for additional races to be open. A vocal minority of 15-20 are. I talk to gamers everywhere I go, and get feedback from VCs and VLs and the majority of players, from the...Grumph Bronzebeard (alias of ilovelamp1985)2012-04-13T19:25:15ZRe: Forums: Advice: Gnome Barbarian Advice ThreadGrumph Bronzebeard (alias of ilovelamp1985)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nwro?Gnome-Barbarian-Advice-Thread#112012-04-10T08:00:40Z2012-04-09T21:00:27Z<p>Oh and if I take the Unbreakable Fighter archetype, just one level in Fighter gets me both Endurance and Diehard as bonus feats. And Diehard is a great feat for a Barbarian anyways.</p>
<p>I like that a lot. Though it means I may switch the 13 in Dex to Int for combat expertise. I even like the roleplay aspects of being an intelligent tactical fighter, but when the Fey spirits start to swarm his mind he flies into a bloodthirsty rage.</p>
<p>Thanks Ranorel!</p>Oh and if I take the Unbreakable Fighter archetype, just one level in Fighter gets me both Endurance and Diehard as bonus feats. And Diehard is a great feat for a Barbarian anyways.
I like that a lot. Though it means I may switch the 13 in Dex to Int for combat expertise. I even like the roleplay aspects of being an intelligent tactical fighter, but when the Fey spirits start to swarm his mind he flies into a bloodthirsty rage.
Thanks Ranorel!Grumph Bronzebeard (alias of ilovelamp1985)2012-04-09T21:00:27ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Society: A thought on the Advanced Race GuideGrumph Bronzebeard (alias of ilovelamp1985)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nvzg?A-thought-on-the-Advanced-Race-Guide#272012-04-07T22:46:36Z2012-04-05T03:45:02Z<p>This entire thread makes me sad, as I appear to be in the minority of loving the idea of non-core races being available to everyone in open play.</p>
<p>The pathfinder society is such an eccletic bunch of adventurers that to suggest they would turn down committed help just because the adventurer happens to be a Tiefling, does more to damage my since of the setting than allowing a Tiefling PC ever would.</p>
<p>Yes there should be limits (I suppose) on what races are available (perhaps no Goblinoid pathfinders running around), but the idea of a Tiefling working for the shadow lodge makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.</p>
<p>I certainly understand the campaign coordinators' right to dictate what is available as race options in PFS play. But limiting non-core races to convention boons is not going to get me to go to conventions (I haven't got the time), it just means I will sadly not get to try out my Tengu Rogue concept or Aasimar cleric. :-(</p>This entire thread makes me sad, as I appear to be in the minority of loving the idea of non-core races being available to everyone in open play.
The pathfinder society is such an eccletic bunch of adventurers that to suggest they would turn down committed help just because the adventurer happens to be a Tiefling, does more to damage my since of the setting than allowing a Tiefling PC ever would.
Yes there should be limits (I suppose) on what races are available (perhaps no Goblinoid...Grumph Bronzebeard (alias of ilovelamp1985)2012-04-05T03:45:02ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Society: Sczarni and not being evilGrumph Bronzebeard (alias of ilovelamp1985)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mo5i&page=2?Sczarni-and-not-being-evil#622011-08-15T22:53:44Z2011-08-08T18:27:29Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">erian_7 wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Andrew Christian wrote:</div><blockquote>The faction mission itself granted them those rights. An entire powerful country basically deputized them. If the faction mission doesn't ask them to kill, then they are not deputized as such and should take the consequences of out of scope or off the reservation actions.</blockquote><p>I don't see this "deputization" referenced anywhere (if there's a citation somewhere, I'd love to see it...). It blatantly goes against the standing regulations of the Pathfinder Society and the sovereignty of other nations—which would get the Pathfinders targeted as seditious/unlawful and thus get Pathfinders kicked out of the nation. Ironically, this is exactly the thing the Andoran missions cites as justification for the killing. It's illogical on all fronts...
<p>And again, this would simply make the action Lawful, not Good. It's a faction mission that forces Good characters to do things outside their alignment when other Good options are available. A Good organization shouldn't be asking Good characters to kill a target by any means necessary. That is not Good. "Bring him in alive, although lethal force is authorized if necessary" is a far cry from "Do everything you can to ensure this person dies, even if he's captured and brought to legal authorities/temple sanctuary/etc." I'm not asking for anything crazy here, at least from what I can tell based on the rules of the game—simply have Good organizations offer Good characters Good/Neutral missions and never ask them to do Evil (and of course, for the thread focus, also don't ask any character to do Evil acts while also forbidding Evil characters—either stop the first or allow the second). </p>
<p>And here's the huge irony—the Andoran mission is the only mission in the scenario that leans so far toward Evil! Their hated rivals in Evil Cheliax, those nefarious foes, look like saints compared to the "Good" Andorans that are encouraged to fake an accident if necessary in order to kill their target.</p>
<p>•• spoiler omitted ••... </blockquote><p>What I find odd is that you keep trying to force your ideals of what good is on the Andoran faction. Andorans are not lawful, therefore they are not overly concerned with accomplishing their goals through the proper channels (i.e. turning over enemiess of the PFS or Andoran more specially to the proper authorities).
<p>You feel that "good guys" should never kill anyone, but myself and several others disagree with you. In my opinion you keep describing good as being synonymous with lawful good, while at the same time continuing to claim it has nothing to do with lawful. Robin Hood was chaotic good (IMO), do you think he wouldn't have killed someone that was threatening townsfolk. Is he suddenly evil if kills someone for the betterment of the community. I don't think so but you clearly do, and it seems quite obvious to me that the Andoran higher-ups don't see this as evil. It's not that they are asking their members to perform evil acts, it's that they are assigning missions that you personally feel are evil. So you can skip those missions, but if you do it's because you're playing your character as extremely lawful good, not merely good.</p>erian_7 wrote:Andrew Christian wrote:The faction mission itself granted them those rights. An entire powerful country basically deputized them. If the faction mission doesn't ask them to kill, then they are not deputized as such and should take the consequences of out of scope or off the reservation actions.
I don't see this "deputization" referenced anywhere (if there's a citation somewhere, I'd love to see it...). It blatantly goes against the standing regulations of the Pathfinder Society...Grumph Bronzebeard (alias of ilovelamp1985)2011-08-08T18:27:29ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Society: Sczarni and not being evilGrumph Bronzebeard (alias of ilovelamp1985)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mo5i?Sczarni-and-not-being-evil#342013-06-02T06:48:24Z2011-08-08T16:49:30Z<p>I have to say, reading through this thread I'm slightly astounding that everyone (or at least a reasonably large portion) seems to think that a good character would never kill another person. Maybe my thinking of good and evil is somewhat muddied by frequent trips to the 40k universe, but if a evil person dies and can no longer cause harm to the world at large, how is that not good. Granted a lawful good character (i.e. a Paladin) should not be killing a non-combatant regardless of how evil he is as that is not following the moral code of Law (though I'd argue it is legitimately good to snuff out evil-doers). I feel like if it were really the goal and a requirement of Good characters to never kill people then it should be written in that a Good character must always attempt to inflict nonlethal damage to any living creature that they attack (which would be ludicrous but follows with the logic several of you seem to purpose).</p>
<p>Also the statement by a couple of people that an evil act (or two) should push your alignment immediately towards evil is rather frightening and makes me very concerned to venture outside of my local gaming group for fear that I play at one of these people's tables. Are you noting every time that character completes a good act, such as saves a slave boy or completes the PFS mission that saves an entire village, you likely are not, therefore not appropriately weighing his good acts versus his evil ones. Mainly this worries me with regards to playing Neutral characters. Neutral characters WILL commit evil acts, but they will also commit just as many if not more (hopefully more) good acts. Very few major gameplay decisions have a "neutral" option lying in the gray area between good and evil. A neutral character is free to decide what action is appropriate based on the situation, if doing the "good" option brings greater reward to the character or his companions that he cares for then he follows the path of good. However, if killing an enemy that seems to have surrendered is more appropriate, then he has that option, because he's neutral not lawful good (notice I even made sure to include the lawful part there). And again, if the throat he slashes is that of a pirate raping and pillaging the shores of andor, then I'd sure as hell consider that a good deed.</p>
<p>Just my two cents on the topic.</p>
<p>Rabble, Rabble</p>I have to say, reading through this thread I'm slightly astounding that everyone (or at least a reasonably large portion) seems to think that a good character would never kill another person. Maybe my thinking of good and evil is somewhat muddied by frequent trips to the 40k universe, but if a evil person dies and can no longer cause harm to the world at large, how is that not good. Granted a lawful good character (i.e. a Paladin) should not be killing a non-combatant regardless of how evil...Grumph Bronzebeard (alias of ilovelamp1985)2011-08-08T16:49:30Z