justiceleaguenow's page

Thanks for the insight! Kind of what I figured but just wanted clarification. I guess I could use the Magus Knowledge pool ability to prepare and use the spell I chose from Spell Blending because I only have access to 1 4th level spell (Stoneskin) don't want to give that up.....LOL

The Spell Blending Arcana for a Magus says: Spell Blending (Ex): When a magus selects this arcana, he must select one spell from the wizard spell list that is of a magus spell level he can cast. He adds this spell to his spellbook and list of magus spells known as a magus spell of its wizard spell level. He can instead select two spells to add in this way, but both must be at least one level lower than the highest-level magus spell he can cast. A magus can select this magus arcana more than once.

I'm a little confused on the verbage "and list of Magus spells known" since a Magus casts spells like a wizard. Does It mean he gets an extra spell per day (i.e. instead of 4 1st levels spells per day he gets 5) or does it mean he just adds it to his spell-book and can prepare and add the new spell to his daily allotment of spells per day?

No.

PFS does not use in-game solutions to out-of-game problems.

If a player is cheating, the other players should talk directly to him about it.

Your definition of 'healthy' is nowhere near mine.

I agee you should be able to talk directly to another player and call him out if he is cheating or being difficult within the game Thats my whole argument! However, if that doesnt work and the dm and/or other players dont want to be the "badguy" and correct the situation out of game then why not allow a player to use his character to do so? Im not saying this should be the first, second, or even third options but only the last option. We dont live in a perfect world and things are not always tied up in a neat little package that can be solved by a rule in a book. When you are dealing with people sometimes you have to improvise and sometimes thats not fun but necessary. thanks for your response and I appreciate your take on the subject.

Protoman wrote:

Not about attacking allies, but falls in the PVP topic, I think: Does using the "Drag" maneuver on an ally to pull the ally away from enemy's reach count as PVP? If not, is that even allowed?

You can use any combat maneuvers on allies, and sometimes they are the best way to deal with a PC without damaging them. It's the intent that determines if it is PvP or simply trying to tactically help the PC.

deusvult wrote:

How does the no PVP rule interact with AoE damage? Must a caster get permission of all players whos pcs will be hit by the fireball/negative energy channel/alchemist's fire in order to make the attack?

The rules don't cover this and it's not considered PvP. If you cast a fireball in the middle of the party and kill half the members, it would fall under the fourth invisible rule "Don't be a dick". If you wish to make a character that does AoE like negative channel, have the courtesy to take the Selective Channel feat or something similar. Remember, the point is to "Cooperate" with your fellow Pathfinders, not just accomplish the goal.

justiceleaguenow wrote:

I understand the basic idea behind no pvp in pathfinder society, it helps keep the piece and avoid chaos. However, to me it promotes an atmosphere of tolerance towards player characters who shall I say "fudge" on rolls ,character sheets, etc. what I mean is in my 30 years of playing D&D we used the pvp to police each other and to weed out the cheaters or "fudgers". Players must be able to call out other players when something doesnt seem right or at face value is way off the power base. Another benefit of the pvp is that it provides a healthy competition amongst players to build the best and most powerful character possible because you have to just to be able to hang with the group. player conflict has been and always will be a healthy part of roleplayn games, especially D&D (a.k.a pathfinder)and I would love to see that part return to pathfinder society. just sayn....

I could say a lot of mean...

Actually I have now played in several pfs sessions and have never had any problems with any players and/or characters since I always follow the rule of basic human respect towards other people! Based upon your concept of me as a player you would be able to pick me out from a mile away but unfortunately your wrong...as is most who have responded to my post. Im sorry you feel that being able to have total free will in a RPG is a wierd concept but we will just have to agree to disagree in a calm and dignified way. Being mean doesnt solve anything and as I have said I dont advocate being a jerk, bully, or physical or verbal abuse. Hope I get a chance to play with you someday and you would have a totally different perception of me...Have a nice day!

You can argue your case all you want, but 1) it doesn't make it right, 2) won't affect pfs at all as I don't see them ever allowing pvp, 3) it just makes you sound like a bully to be honest.

Im not quiet following your assessment, "it doesnt make it right" make what right? If you as a player doesnt want one or more players in a game to cheat or totally destroy party and game chemistry by being unrully and your character takes action, in game,to resolve the matter how is that wrong? Yes, you could choose not to play in that group again, which is what I would probably do. However, you guys seem to be defending the concept that other players are immune to being policed just because we should all hold hands and sing camp fire songs, LOL. Im am far from being a "Bully" in fact I always go above and beyond to make all players feel welcome and fully support the game concept of party unity makes for a much better campaign. However, if your definition of being a "Bully" is trying to maintain game balance by not allowing other players and their characters to get out of hand, whether in game or out, then yes I am a "Bully".

In most cases you are correct! but if that doesnt work or you have a DM that is way too weak in enforcing rules or unwilling to police the players then my definition of "healthy" is the only way players can solve that issue. again, Im not advocating being a jerk, bullying, verbal or physical abuse of any kind. But by allowing character conflict you can eliminate bad behavior because the party will say hey we dont allow BS so straightn up or you die!

justiceleaguenow wrote:

I understand the basic idea behind no pvp in pathfinder society, it helps keep the piece and avoid chaos. However, to me it promotes an atmosphere of tolerance towards player characters who shall I say "fudge" on rolls ,character sheets, etc. what I mean is in my 30 years of playing D&D we used the pvp to police each other and to weed out the cheaters or "fudgers". Players must be able to call out other players when something doesnt seem right or at face value is way off the power base. Another benefit of the pvp is that it provides a healthy competition amongst players to build the best and most powerful character possible because you have to just to be able to hang with the group. player conflict has been and always will be a healthy part of roleplayn games, especially D&D (a.k.a pathfinder)and I would love to see that part return to pathfinder society. just sayn....

Let me see if I understand the position you are advocating.

1) Rather than addressing any suspected issues of cheating, you would rather have the satisfaction of killing the offender's character.
2) There should be an inherent competition among players to make their characters "the best and most powerful" instead of well-rounded, capable of filling multiple roles, or fitting a concept.
3) Conflict between players is healthy.

I am going to have to strongly disagree with all of those positions (which are just my interpretations of what you wrote). I see roleplaying games as cooperative, not competitive, endeavors. Likewise, I have found that players who believe that disrupting the game to serve their own agenda (by cheating, by "policing" other players) are not people I would ever invite to play in a non-OP setting. As a matter of fact, I try to impress upon potential PFS players that there is no place for bullying other players, causing undue inter-character conflict, or general unpleasantness. [/QUOTE

1) Yes, if they cheat in the game then their character should die!
Whether its by another player character or the DM.
2) Yes, competition breeds the concept of making well rounded
characters not only to survive the game but to fill party needs.

3) Yes it is but let me clarify there is a difference between conflict and being a total jerk! I am not advocating physical or verbal abuse in any form or fashion. You have to be able to seperate in game and out of game conflict, which any grounded in reality person should be able to do. I would rather have player character conflict than the game designers take away my free will as a player! You cant attack other player characters, you cant steal (i.e. rogue)from other player characters just examples of too much control by game designers.

Again, let me clarify to all you have replied to my post. I am not advocating being a jerk, verbal abuse, physical confrotations, bullying or any other bad behavior in a roleplaying situation. The point I am making is that if you take away my characters free will to do what he wants, even if its against another character then you diminish my free will and a part of the game that is fun as well as healthy.

I understand the basic idea behind no pvp in pathfinder society, it helps keep the piece and avoid chaos. However, to me it promotes an atmosphere of tolerance towards player characters who shall I say "fudge" on rolls ,character sheets, etc. what I mean is in my 30 years of playing D&D we used the pvp to police each other and to weed out the cheaters or "fudgers". Players must be able to call out other players when something doesnt seem right or at face value is way off the power base. Another benefit of the pvp is that it provides a healthy competition amongst players to build the best and most powerful character possible because you have to just to be able to hang with the group. player conflict has been and always will be a healthy part of roleplayn games, especially D&D (a.k.a pathfinder)and I would love to see that part return to pathfinder society. just sayn....

nope Flurry is a full round action so no flurrying during spring attacks charges or any other single attack type things.

yeah i guess your right wasnt thinkn about it that way but was hoping I was right...LOL

Was takn my Maneuver Master dwarven Monk down the path of having spring attack by 5th level. My question is can you use the additional maneuver that flurry of maneuvers grants during a spring attack? it says you can only make one melee attack but was hoping I can still use the additional maneuver (trip) as well. Please someone shed some light on my question.....

I think im clear on how the Maneuver Master and flurry of Maneuvers work according to most of the responses on the message boards but just to make sure could someone just verify if this is correct?

A) at 1st level a MM can flurry with a (-2) to each attack i.e. -1/-1
and do an additional combat maneuver at a (-2) penalty in the same round as well. that is a total of (3) attacks.

B) or he can perform a combination of the (3) attacks using either melee and/or a CM but still giving him a total of (3) attacks.

C) or is it he can make either (2) melee attacks or (2) CM's or a combination of either. which is a total of (2) attacks per round.

I think these are very clear options and would like a definite Yes and NO answer to these three options.

Thx guys for the input! I have seen on the boards that it says since you are using a full-attack round you can replace a combat maneuver with standard melee attack or vice versa while doing the Flurry of maneuvers ability. Also, another peice of evidence that verifies this logic I found in the text of the monk's flurry of blows. It says "A monk may substitute disarm, sunder and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows". since flurry of blows and flurry of maneuvers have identical wording I would have to say you can substitute.

Im taking the Maneuver master archetype with my Dwarven Monk and Flurry of Maneuvers replaces flurry of blows. My question is can I make a melee attack and a combat maneuver in the same round using this class ability? It says "At 1st level, as part of a full-attack action, a maneuver master can make one additional combat maneuver, regardless of whether the maneuver normally replaces a melee attack or requires a standard action". If not can u choose to keep your flurry of blows and make a combat maneuver followed up by an melee attack since you get two attacks per round, with penalties (-2). Also, I need to know if a monk could use the double-chained kama as his chosen monk weapon since a kama is listed as such a weapon?