kikanaide's page

Hi folks,

Not sure if you're aware of Roll20.net, but it's a fairly excellent virtual tabletop with an active development team. Seems like a place with Pathfinder Organized Play might be played.

They just announced a character sheet engine that allows HTML/CSS character sheets to be created and shared between players. Was wondering if Paizo would be kind enough to give official permission for a character sheet based off of the Pathfinder Organized Play sheet. Ideally, I'd imagine that it would be identical (with the exception of e.g. auto-roll buttons) so that a player could transition between virtual and physical tabletops with a minimum of confusion.

As it stands, the legal issues are sort of fuzzy at best anyway (the system is open, and it's hard to "copyright" the exact layout) but given that PFS play is *supposed* to use that sheet, could we get official permission for it to exist?

Thank you in advance.

Hi folks,

Going to be running a home game by official PFS rules. Planned on doing We Be Goblins first, because they didn't have to make characters for it and also it'll let them have just a touch of spending money for their first "real" scenario. Plus it's awesome.

...Then what? I was thinking maybe "first steps" but only part 1 remains in play. Is it worth playing that by itself? Is it okay to play that with a character with one chronicle?

I've only played a handful of scenarios, and one of my four players has been at a table and received chronicles for each of the ones I've played, so I'd rather avoid those. What's a good list to take people through say 3rd level? I've seen lists back in 2012 with things like Master of the Fallen Fortress or Scenario #1 Silent Tide, but what do people do now?

Thank you in advance.

I've got several players running through WBG using an online virtual tabletop. There's a mix of experience, but most are new to PF and PFS. So far, everyone's been having fun.

Status so far:

As I'm prepping for the second half, I came across two questions:

1) I assume Stomp is not "combat trained" as it's not called out in the description? Probably for the best, as 1.5xSTR would be rough on those hooves.

2) Do people really use the full "advanced" template for Cuddles? It shows the page number for advancement, but an advanced riding dog is CR 2 (not CR 1). As far as I could tell, his stat block would look like this:

Thoughts? Have you ran this and "forgotten" to advance him, or honestly overlooked that word? Or does he just eat the goblins? AC 17 is no slouch for these poor, poor little goblins. People talk about Longtung killing a goblin every time, but honestly Cuddles looks tougher to me right now.

I've been reading a lot of posts on metamagic and spell slots recently, including the horrendous 150+ poster on slots from ability scores.

The consensus is that since metamagic'd spells are not really higher level than their base, a spellcaster who has high-level slots that he can't fill due to a low ability score can fill them with metamagic'd low level spells. I.e. a INT-11 wiz3 could use his single lvl2 slot to prepare and cast a metamagic'd level 0 or 1 spell (assuming the "slot" taken is 2nd level).

This is based off of two quotes from the PRD:

A spellcaster who lacks a high enough ability score to cast spells that would otherwise be his due still gets the slots but must fill them with spells of lower levels.

Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell, so the DC for saving throws against it does not go up.

Now, I have two questions regarding this interpretation. I suspect the discussion will lead to it, despite being the consensus, being considered incorrect.

1) How does this interact with the following quote (also from feats chapter under metamagic, but further down):

In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell. (emphasis mine)

So even though the wiz can't cast a level 2 spell, he can cast one that is "prepared and cast" as a level 2 spell?

2) How does this interact with potions? Using the above rules, let's say I want potions of enlarge for my fighter. I can buy a CL-1 potion of enlarge person (1 minute) for 50 gp. I can buy a CL-3 potion of enlarge person (3 minutes) for 150 gp. Or I can buy a CL-3 extended potion of enlarge person (6 minutes) for... 150 gp? Really? After all, it's "really" level 1, with a CL 3 only so that the caster would have access to the level 2 slot. But once you're at a CL that allows metamagic, there's no reason not to metamagic unless it takes you above the level cap for the type of item...

Perhaps my search-fu is just weak today, but after spending two hours or more looking I can't seem to find a final word on kilts in PFS.

Looking at the additional resources, "everything" in the Adventurer's Armory is legal. The armored kilt is "in" the AA, though it requires a stat block from the now-outmoded campaign setting. The resources entry for the outmoded campaign setting says "no kilt," but if, the intent were to allow only the updated AA version, the wording is consistent with that.

I've found people saying "it is legal," as well as people saying "it's not legal."

Could I get a developer/PFS organizer to post a final word here, and then perhaps update the additional resources to make it clear so that people don't have to search for hours figuring out what was intended? For me personally I'm fine with a link to developer post, but it'd be AWESOME if the additional resources page clarified it.

I know there have been threads on this topic before, but I was curious if there is any status update on the pregen characters. I'm going to restrict this discussion to the level 1 pregens, and just the core 4. Note: this is NOT a thread talking about how "unoptimized" they are. It is a thread about them not being legal characters if they weren't pregens, and thus being a poor template to hand new players.

A quick check over them reveals the following issues:

None are wearing clothes. Merisiel and Kyra would be encumbered with most clothing choices. Kyra also has no bolts for her crossbow.

Merisiel, Kyra, and Valeros have too much money - 173.5, 185, and 239 gp respectively.

If the pregens are ever edited, I have some minor suggestions for readability as well. Are there still plans in the making to edit them, or has that fallen off of the to-do list?

Context: I'm prepping modules for a con where I suspect, if I'm very lucky, there might be one player at the table who has played PFS before.

General Question: Is it reasonable to assume that a party of four first-level (possibly pregen) characters could survive either Mists of Mwangi or Decline of Glory? What can I do, as a GM, to increase the odds of survival?

Specific Questions 1: On Mists, there is an encounter with

Specific Question 2: On Decline, I had the opportunity to play through it with a rather experienced GM. He allowed us to sleep before the final encounter, because DAMN were we out of resources. We still almost died, because...seriously...it's a EL 6 encounter (time between only helps if you have resources to use in between). Is this something I can do as well, if and only if it's necessary?

Specific Question 3: I'm getting mixed signals on when XP is given. I've read the Organized Play book - it says (paraphrased) "on successfully completing the mission." But I've also heard a lot about three encounters, though I can't find the rule anyway. Which is it? Can you actually screw up and not get XP? Can you (especially on Mists) successfully complete but not have 3 encounters, thereby getting no XP?

Wow...four questions. Perhaps they should each be a separate topic. But any input would be appreciated.

I've tried reading through old postings on this, but have found conflicting results. I know you can train 1 trick per scenario. I assumed 1 trick was NOT equal to 1 general purpose.

I've got a character in my home group who really wants her gnome druid to ride her wolf animal companion. I assumed she had to start play with the bonus trick (not purpose), and train 1 trick at a time until it's trained for "combat" before it's a combat-ready mount - if she uses the bonus trick as one of the 6, the thing is combat trained after 5 scenarios. RAW, I thought.

But plenty of people (including venture captains) have posts around that say that training for a purpose (which takes just as long as training for all the individual tricks) is fine. So she could have trained it for combat at the end of the first scenario?

Official ruling? How-I've-been-doing-it-and-I'm-a-four-star-DM ruling?

Also, take 10 on the training check? Yes or no? I'm thinking yes, RAW.

I'm certain, if you read as written, that a disabled character (one at 0-hp) can withdraw - and then pass out and begin dying. Is this intended behavior, or should "Restricted Withdraw" be a move action instead of a standard action?

If this is intended behavior, what CAN a disabled character do to get away? 5-ft step one round and hope the opponent doesn't follow?

I will be running two sessions at Penguicon - one on Saturday, 2-6 p.m., and another on Sunday, 10 a.m. - 2 p.m. I currently plan to run two older modules - #24 - Decline of Glory and #5 - Mists of Mwangi.

This is rather last-minute, and won't appear on the official schedule (it will appear on the errata handed out at the con). If you're attending Penguicon and interested in playing, feel free to drop me a line. I'd feel better with at least one or two committed players for each session.