neferphras's page

interesting ok .... My next GM Baby has been born.

So it says in the Spirit Guide... that the Oracle can only use spirits appropriate for there character. Is that enforced in PFS in any way?? I mean using lets say Bones ... when your CG.. doesnt make a lot of sense. So is there a ruling regarding this anywhere. I dont think it should go table by table that would be too disruptive.

well they were holy so not really designed for just undead.. just anything evil. Back then it was not 5 or 6 grit...so maybe it will make a difference. Again i will have to see if the numbers in the area have thinned.

I dont disagree btw that a fighter could do that. Fighters can be pretty awesome, but at least they actually have to hit and hitting the Lich's relatively high AC would have been at least a significant roll whereas the GS just killed it...at a distance. It literally never stood a chance. Playing with a gunslinger makes, or perhaps made, the game pretty boring for everyone else (as everyone at the table commented). But hey maybe with this nerf it wont be so bad I will have to check. The number of GS in my area playing PFS is one of the reasons i stopped going, i might have to give it a try again.

Quote:

They are still downing that lich in round one. It would not have changed that result.

Again, I'm pretty sure this didn't happen.

A Lich has 111 hp. As Sundakan pointed out, 7 attacks at 2d6 wouldn't even bring him below half.

it did happen pathfinders society play with a 5 star judge. Gunslinger was a Pistolero up close and deadly with 2 holy weapons hasted. dex was around 26 if i recall rapid fire so it was 5 or 6 shots with a +4d6 on each and there was 1 crit in there. Its really not hard at all for that to get to 111 hp. That same judge followed by mapping out how a 12 gunslinger (we were 9th) could average 256k damage a round all touch attacks. It was at that point that the 'hate all gunslingers' issued in my mind until recently. The point is that at 9th level even hurting the lich should have been difficult if not impossible before we started to get hurt. GS killed it before it even got to move.

humm you can still hit even if you miss and deal an extra 2d6 or 3d6 per hit. Not seeing that as much of a nerf. They are still downing that lich in round one. It would not have changed that result.

As i mentioned its been a while and.... i used to hate gun slingers i dont anymore. But you mentioned some things have been nerfed... Do tell. Last time i checked they could hit always (touch ac) and with the right feats and deeds reload for free forever (yeah try reloading a musket at the same speed as drawing an arrow...i would love to see that but anyway... its magic right) and Even if by some miracle they missed, with the right feats they were still doing 2d6 per shot..at around 7 shots a round at 9 level. So what got nerfed?

ah i see thanks

So in book one section D there is the opportunity to get a Shadow Lamp from one of the survivors. So myself and others popped to the OCG site and the Archives to see what the heck that is and nada. There is Lantern with the word Shadow in it but thats a pretty high priced item for 2-3 level players. (Lantern of Dancing Shadows 41k item). So what was that intended to be ...does anyone know???

Wow its been a long time since i last was on this site. Anyway been running campaigns and in one of the campaigns i had a player that REALLLY REAAAAALLLLLLY wanted to play a gunslinger. I have always disliked board line hated this class since it release. Seeing a 9th level gunslinger gun down a 18cr lich in one round in pathfinder society play made me dislike the class even more. And... in talking to others... this seems a pretty common thing. A gunslinger makes life boring for all other players. In fact many of the other players all but refused to play because this one person was going to play a gunslinger. So i got together with my eldest son and started throwing ideas at him to fix this.

The core issue was always this... you shoot a bear with a musket and what do you get... a pissed off bear and you best get to stepping. Now extend this to a Dragon, there is no way a gun should just flat ignore the natural armor of a dragon, or plate mail because especially a musket ball just doesnt do that. But...taking away the touch mechanic makes the Gunslinger a somewhat broken fighter.

How we solved this was to do a true hit concept. So gunslinger fires and well in all likelihood hits because high touch ACs are really pretty rare. Now if he also hit the creatures base AC....cool roll full damage. But..if you only hit the monster touch AC the damage is halved. This represents the ...poke a bear concept. Did the musket ball hit the bear yes, but unless you also hit in a place that would have downed the critter the same way a spear would its still coming for you.

This change seems to have made everyone happy. Other players still get their turns to do something because the GS damage, while almost always occurring, does not keep pace with fighters vital strike and what not.

Anyway thought i would share this house rules. Its worked out really well, and everyone seems happy with it.

I may be missing it somewhere so thought I would ask. Base form drake companion seems to be listed with a zero natural armor bonus make them much much easier to hit than any animal companion out there. I have player wanting to try the druid template allowing for drakes but he is very hesitant due to this. Was that a misprint????? If not
I can see his consern.

I'm not aware of anything official. That said, WotR more than any other AP would be highly personal. When you've got a handful of people who escalate to demigod power levels, "what happens next" is: "whatever they want."

In the case of my PC (human psion), he's made Drezen his home and runs the place, while starting a family with a certain female NPC, after having arranged a certain female NPC couple to be crowned Queens of Redeemed Sarkoris.

Meanwhile, his faery dragon Leadership cohort has kept her special job working for Iomedae, and is very likely involved in the chaos that's beset Chelliax recently... because faery dragon.

Point is... what happens next is up to the players and DM.

That would be a good thread on it own. What did your PCs do after wrath of the righteous. In my case

1. NG cleric of Serenrae. Married into the Osrian royal family and eventually ascended into godhood.
2. LG Fighter. Started a mercenary band and well... yeah Cheliax effectively lost the rebellion
3. LG Paladin. Married Galfrey, Rules a now much larger Mendev
4. Alchemist CG. Wanders the world causing evil critters nightmares
5. Drow Slayer. Married a certain NPC and started a drow rebellion. Did many bad things to Ustalav.
6. Kitsune Hunter. Opened a portal to the fey realm in the stone forest and 'fixed it'
7. Assamir Arcanist LN. Took over Threshold and turned it into a wizard collage. Recreated wardstone like dimensional anchors. Did whatever he could to get Nethys to pay attention to him.

so nothing official, sort of thought that was the case. In other APs, like rise of the rune lords, there is some cannon as to how that was resolved, at least from a global perceptive. I was just curious if anything was out there. In particular it has relevance to the current AP because of any of the PCs are still around.... the way the evil campaign is going simply does not happen. They make some references to most of the Iomedea faith still being involved with clean up in book one, but that was really it and i was wondering if there was more out there.

So i just concluded running Wrath.... it was fun (despite my party being waayyyy to big). We even ran through the future years for the character and the world for a bit. My question is... what is the official post mortem for that campaign? has anyone written that and if so where. Just curious. I assume they took the "Hero's quickly vanish from the world" option because otherwise the rebellion in Cheliax would become an afterthought for the 20 level 10 mythic tear worshiper of good god x. But what happens to Medev....what about the left over Demons not in the campaign, at least 2 of which were written as mythic. Just curious if anything has been said or published on aftermath...officially.

Just curious because i am updating a character. Has this topic actually been officially addressed anywhere. By that i mean which evolutions from past books are unchained summoner legal. If so i would love a link.

This question came up while playing with some friends in Florida on Vacation.

Unchained Summoner fixes summoner in a lot of ways
it recosts and re writes many evolution, which is good

no where does it say that an unchained summoners Eidolon only has access to those evolutions.

So what about the shadow evolutions from the advanced race guide. Are those barred from the unchained summoner.

Or the evolution not from the original APG, but from Ultimate Magic. I could not find a distinct ruling on this, but am curious. Since it was a home game i let it go, but would not mind knowing the official stance. There were some evolutions that have come out in books After the Unchained book release...are they legal?

Its seems then that we are in agreement on Invis sphere, which is fine

and the question is what i asked above, and why i create the FAQ request.

Does target, with regards to potions, mean the spell has to have "target" as a header or does it mean a creature is a target as in
Area: 10ft emanation around creature touched"
again a creature touched is clearly a target, but does not have the 'target' spell line. Potion ok yes or no..... developer please comment.

(PS i am ok with either answer just want a clear ruling)

neferphras wrote:

But there are others in the PFS thread that are saying otherwise.

Haven't read the thread in question, but being in PFS (or even being a 5-star GM or a Venture Officer) means nothing about how adept a person is with the rules. There's just as many folks who do and don't know what they're talking about in PFS as in the community at large.

Quote:

What about Magical circle which does not out right say 'functions as' but certainly implys it

In my view any spell that says
'Area 10-ft.-radius emanation from touched creature'

Qualifies as well because of the 'touched creature' line. Again it would make sense, but rules lawyers abound.

The potion rules say "target", so it needs to actually have a target. A target is a specific thing in the spell rules, as per the Magic chapter where it breaks down the terminology.

So based on that... Invis circle is fine because it has "functions as" Invisiblity, which targets

But Magic circle vs x is not because even though it gives the benefits of pro vs x (say evil) it does not have the "functions as" text so since the spell itself does not target its not allowed?

that is seems...err... fairly lawyerish no? It has a range of touch, and a area around a creature touched. Logically thats the same as Range touch, target creature touch, which would definitely qualify. The difference is its creature touch plus something so instead of just saying "target" creature touched they said "area" creature touch. In both cases something is targeted.

neferphras wrote:

The issue is who does Invisibility Sphere target? The spell does not actually list a target.

Wrong. It says it functions as the spell invisibility, and therefore uses invisibility's "Target" line.

Quote:

It's an emanation, pesumably from the caster.

Wrong again. It's an emanation around "the creature", which the description specifies to be "the recipient". That is, the creature you touched. The target.

Quote:

As the listing exists, I don't think it's possible for a caster to target another specific individual other than themselves, so I believe that probably makes it ineligible as a potion.

See above.

Quote:

its something that i really wish we could get a ruling on invisibility sphere acts as invisibility and targets one creature or object then others withing 10ft gain the benefit"

This is exactly how the spell says it works. Why is this even in question?

Quote:

the real question boils down to , in order for a spell to be a potion must it actually have the 'target' literal in the spell tag line description or can it designate/target a 'creature' in the area such as Invisibility sphere or magical circle vs x.

Again, since I.S. functions as invisibility, it carries all aspects of invisibility that it doesn't specifically overwrite: not just the target, but also the casting time, the duration, the saving throw line, the definition of "attacking" for the purposes of breaking the spell, the bonus to Stealth, and so forth.

This is common practice for a lot of spells, listing an incomplete "stat block" and saying "this functions as [spell]". You always carry all the rules of the source spell except what's contradicted by the specifics in the derivative spell.

Its sounds like you are agreeing that it is legal. Great

But there are others in the PFS thread that are saying otherwise. SO i hope you are correct

What about Magical circle which does not out right say 'functions as' but certainly implys it

In my view any spell that says
'Area 10-ft.-radius emanation from touched creature'

Qualifies as well because of the 'touched creature' line. Again it would make sense, but rules lawyers abound.

Wheldrake, i agree with you, completely actually. But we are a community with many fanatical (to put it lightly) rules lawyers so i am looking for an official word/faq update.

This was being being discussed in a PFS thread but its a more general rules question so moving it here

"I'm not sure if the issue with Invisibility Sphere is whether a potion can affect more than the user or not. An Oil of Darkness, for example, can affect someone other than the user by them being in the radius of the effect. The issue is who does Invisibility Sphere target? The spell does not actually list a target. It's an emanation, pesumably from the caster. I'm not sure, but I think that means it can't be a potion, since it doesn't target one or more creatures. If it did target a creature, it seems likely it might be Target: you, but the description is a little vague on that point as well. As the listing exists, I don't think it's possible for a caster to target another specific individual other than themselves, so I believe that probably makes it ineligible as a potion.
its something that i really wish we could get a ruling on invisibility sphere acts as invisibility and targets one creature or object then others withing 10ft gain the benefit"

the real question boils down to , in order for a spell to be a potion must it actually have the 'target' literal in the spell tag line description or can it designate/target a 'creature' in the area such as Invisibility sphere or magical circle vs x.

every ruling i have seen lends toward magical circle vs x being legal as a potion so, invis sphere would be as well. The spell requires you to target a creature so it 'targets' per the potion requirement. Anyway setting this up for the FAQ team to look at

What about Deadly Aim with Bombs? is that legal, i think it is but worth confirming.

I'm not sure if the issue with Invisibility Sphere is whether a potion can affect more than the user or not. An Oil of Darkness, for example, can affect someone other than the user by them being in the radius of the effect. The issue is who does Invisibility Sphere target? The spell does not actually list a target. It's an emanation, pesumably from the caster. I'm not sure, but I think that means it can't be a potion, since it doesn't target one or more creatures. If it did target a creature, it seems likely it might be Target: you, but the description is a little vague on that point as well. As the listing exists, I don't think it's possible for a caster to target another specific individual other than themselves, so I believe that probably makes it ineligible as a potion.

its something that i really wish we could get a ruling on invisibility sphere acts as invisibility and targets one creature or object then others withing 10ft gain the benefit

the real question boils down to , in order for a spell to be a potion must it actually have the 'target' literal in the spell description or can it designate a 'creature' in the area Invisibility sphere or magical circle vs x

every ruling i have seen lends toward magical circle vs x being legal as a potion so invis sphere would be as well.

prayer has a target of you and allies 40ft around you... so it should be fine. it is just not a personal/ you.

check on the deeper slumber.

Prayer

Area all allies and foes within a 40-ft.-radius burst centered on you

i had to take a bit of a rest from PFS and came back to check out this tread.

Did anyone in a blog anywhere get an answer from Michael or John on this topic. Potion of life bubble? PFS legal or no?

Oh yeah btw potion of Invis Sphere... love that one my alchemist uses and abuse that one.

Others out there to consider
Potion of Prayer (double your pleasure if your Fates Favored)
Potion of Deeper Slumber (Very funny when you are an elf)
Daylight another good one

lots of options.

Is there a list anywhere of what the representative Jewel Sages are supposed to be.

We know about the Diamond, Ruby, and Sapphire sages. What others exist?

I think we have reference for Topaz and Amethyst.. what others are out there. Do we have a list of the Gems that have sages? Oddly i am blending concept this into a Wrath of the Righteous campaign.

yeah thats about the only reason i can see it, is if someone is paying you more than the market price to make them. Still.... a crafter would be an idiot to try to make these for profit. If they have the skill to make such items there are far better options. And that being the case these should be treated as all but artifacts in how hard they are to find. No magic 'store' would ever have them

Tomb and Manuels?

Is this a thread about Portuguese adventurers? XD

nope but i bet the answer could be found translated only in those languages.

yep manual of exercises, quick reflex, Tomb of leadership and charisma...etc. Who builds those.

Ok so i searched forums and saw the rules as to why the material costs of Tombs and Manuals are what they are. What i did not see an answer to is... who would ever do that????

who builds these things. There is near zero profit in making them. What wizard or cleric would sit down and spend 9 months making something that they can sell for basically nothing over cost. I am sure they could do something more cost effective like build a few dozen first level wands.

My family and i pondered this reality and the best we can come up with is that there is a bunch of clerics in prison somewhere who have also taken an oath of poverty.

Help... why would anyone build these. they must be so rare that only insane archmages and clerics put the time into it.

! note this was just an observation looking at the prices, none of their characters could actually pull it off !

Ok i did look around and i could not find a ruling on this. Maybe i missed it somewhere

I have an Oracle, 9th level dual class sorcerer 1st level
i want to be able to cast a 2nd level sorcerer spell, as an oracle the spell is not a divine spell.

For a Ring of Spell Knowledge ... do i count that as a 3rd level spell or 2nd for the character. They can certainly cast second level wizard spells from a wand or scroll all day.

So thoughts? I could not find anything addressing this.

Thats FANTASTIC. Its the first season 6 that i am ending up running, vs playing, so first time i have seen it.... my comment stands THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!

now that undersized mount is out there I am surprised we have not seen more. My cavalier uses that and has never had an in scenario issue.

I just downloaded the Test of Kar Tuata and i noticed at the end you include an unmarked version of the scenario maps.

THANK YOU.. THANK YOU.... for the love of god... THANK YOU.

Please keep doing this. I am not a good drawer, being dyslexic, so i tend to print the maps. This will make running this so unbelievably easier. Never stop doing this!!!!!!!!!!

So i am going to be rebuilding on one my summoners to the new unchained rules. He is 9th level so i have an extensive tracking sheet for stuff at this point. So..... what do you do with that? To you go back and re-buy items, some of which may no longer be usable? Never done a rebuild on a highish level character before.

i honestly dont see a issue with the new summoner. is it de-powered. Sure it is, but thats not a bad thing. Summoner was over powered. Nothing about the rework makes me cry and i have 3 summoners active.
I only wish that

1. they dealt with the non outsider variants (plant based, fae based) before releasing this.

2. that they had also done an unchained on gunslinger at the same time because if anything was more op than summoner... it was gunslinger for sure.

I am hopeful that the June summoner book will deal with that, but i would love some confirmation of that.

thanks for that i appreciate it. That among the last places i would have looked for that answer.

Ok i did try to search for a tread on this, but could not find it, at least its not obvious if this has been address.

So lets say i have 3 levels of Ranger and want to retrain to Hunter.

Logically that would be a synergy class for retraining, but i dont think that has ever been said... officially. So putting it out there for clarification.

I am yet to find anything official that says the summon of a first worlder is not a standard action. Quite the contrary. The conversations i have had conclude its still a standard action and a min per level per what is normal for the class. I would be glad to share that with you if you like Exguardi. That being said there may have finally been an official ruling i missed out there. If so please post.

i will be glad to redo my summoners to the new one. where possible. I would still love to see a fey , or plant variant to match the more 'wild' summoner archetypes. I dont think that would be hard to do.

i agree its good. I was just hoping for more out of this one. Previous such books cleaned up earlier items that were missing or poorly worded. This one did none of that.

i dont think the unchained summoner works with many archetypes but it would for others
Evolutionist sure
Firstworlder nope

it depends on what changes the Eidolon or the summoner abilities.

I did not find a thread on this one so starting this.

I did not find much benefit to this one, and i was disappointed that they did not clean up earlier archetypes (like firstworlder summoner) as earlier 'Hero' type books had done. I unchained is all the rave, and rightfully so, but this came out a near the same time and i was well. underwhelmed.

I love the summoner debuff, and i have several active PFS summoners that would have to be revamped almost entirely. Still dont care. This was very needed.

i actually hope it all becomes legal. The summoner debuff is great, the rogue buff is great. No complaints. Not sure about the magical items section though.

i dont think pathfinder will 'end' though i do think D&D 5 presents a true challenge to it. I have a number of friends that have given up on pathfinder and moved to D&D5 for really one reason...combat simplicity. D&D 5, fights average 30 mins, Pathfinder can get up to 2 hours easy. The focus move to role playing, vs combat engineering is coming and I see it as pathfinders, especially pathfinder societies, first real challenge in the marketplace and to that a response will have to come.

humm good question on the wording. I will give it a shot below.
Some earlier additions had different wordings, i was able to find threads on that.

Maybe.

All potions, scrolls, wands, and other consumables are
made by clerics, druids, or wizards in Pathfinder Society
Organized Play. The only exceptions are spells that are not
on the cleric, druid, or wizard spell list. For example, a
scroll of lesser restoration must be purchased as a 2nd-level
scroll off the cleric spell list and may not be purchased as
a 1st-level scroll off the paladin spell list. If a spell appears
at different levels on two different lists, use the lower level
spell to determine cost. As an example, poison would be
priced as a 3rd-level druid spell instead of a 4th-level cleric
spell. All potions, scrolls, and wands are available only at
the minimum caster level unless found at a higher caster
level on a Chronicle sheet.

Then if allowed
Spells that are only available as a potion (3rd level or lower) by a class other than cleric, druid, or wizard are legal at the high price (bless weapon, life bubble). No potion can be purchase whose material component cost exceeds 25 gp is available for purchase. (ie stone skin).

If not allowed. Add
Spell that are on the druid, cleric, or Wizard spell list, but are only available as a potion (3rd level or lower) though alternate class are not legal for play.

Again i really dont have a preference here... other than gaining clarity.

PS, i would also be fine with saying summoners cant make potions period. They dont need the help.

Blessed weapon IS actually available as a cleric spell under the glory domain. So there is no reason why a cleric could not make a potion of it if they have the glory domain, which is why i thought the blessed weapon as a first level spell as 'funky'. Remember at the top looking for an official ruling because this is confusing. Hopefully Sean or Michael will clarify. I picked the life bubble example specifically because is is available to druids and is 3rd level for a ranger. Does it fall under the LockJaw scenario or no? I totally get the wanting to prevent the potion of stoneskin, but if thats the reason, just say that and let 3rd level potions for rangers and palidins fall as they may.

ok so neutralize poison yes, but at druid cost, life bubble no, because not at level 3 druid.... yet we can buy a only of bless weapon (paladin only spell at first level) as a first level oil. That is well... funky. Is what it is.