Search Posts
Are Animal Companions considered NPC's in 2E? They have the "Minion" trait, making them somewhat unique in terms of mechanics. For the sake of my players who (understandably) get as attached to their AC's as they do to their chars, the Devs really need to clarify this question: what happens to an Animal Companion it is reduced to 0 hit points?
Update: I'm not sure what synapses weren't firing when I wrote this original post, but yes, I'm an idiot. Thank you all for contributing.
(I promised I searched the forums before posting this, so if there's am existing thread you want to point me to, I appreciate it). The text for Critical success states: "If you succeed AND rolled a 20 on the die...[comma] OR if your result is equal to or greater than the DC plus 10[comma] you critically succeed." p.292 Now folks, I'm an English teacher, and this is already a huge RAW vs RAI problem. The two commas setting up a separate clause implies this interpretation:
Now the problem with the structure of the original sentence is that it could also be interpreted this way:
Now you can have your opinion on which interpretation is correct, but because of the comma usage, you cannot say 100% that the other interpretation is wrong unless you're a dev and would like to hand down a final ruling from on high. (Which I would greatly appreciate) I promise this all comes from a place of wanting to do right by my players, so any and all responses that can help me understand what does and does not count as a crit for my players and I are greatly appreciated. UPDATE
Update: Thanks for all the feedback! Based on the way the playtest adventure is divided up, the compromise I came up with for my player is he could roll up an evil char for one of the parts (not the recurring char) and we'll see how it goes.
So we're getting ready to roll characters for the playtest, and, true to form, some of my players are already asking if they can roll evil chars. While there are specific guidelines in the Doomsday Dawn scenario regarding character creation, there is no mention of appropriate alignments. I've only banned CE chars in my own homebrew, seeing the other two evil alignments as having traits that can still allow them to function in most group settings, but my own gut says to ban all evil alignments for the purpose of the playtest, so that my players can get through the scenarios with as little in-party stressors as possible, or to keep someone's character from veering wildly off-course because of their less than heroic alignment. But I'd love feedback from other GM's running the playtest, as well, if possible, from the Devs, regarding whether y'all have any opinions on the matter.
Going back to the discussion of RP points, this was something I was considering for a homebrew I was planning, or possibly just giving positive modifiers to rolls for good roleplaying, something I feel zero guilt about since I am openly advertising my homebrew as RP heavy. That being said, going back to the original examples of The Merchant's Wake and The Two-Fold Demise; what would have happened if after all that excellent RPing, the PCs rolled terrible on their social rolls? Would you have allowed the RP to take the place of rolling completely? Would you have nerfed the encounter or given positive modifiers for the fact that the PCs actually composed a convincing argument? And as PFS GMs, can we do things like that when the scenario calls for a social roll? If this is a question that you feel has been addressed elsewhere, please feel free to redirect me.
"Once a day" no longer applies when you can now squeeze 8 hours of sleep into 2 hours. Your "day" has now completely changed. Let's simplify it to say that most people have a waking day of about 16 hours, with sleeping time each night of about 8 hours. A gross generalization to be sure, but stay with me. The owner of a working ring of sustenance could now potentially have a waking day of 22 hours, because the 8 hours of required sleep have been squeezed into 2. But, let's assume he/she still tires out after 16 hours. So on my first day of wearing the fully functional ring, I wake up at 6:00 AM, and go to bed when I'm tired at 10:00 PM. I will next wake up at 12:00 AM and go to bed at 4:00 PM. Now I wake up at 6:00 PM, and my bedtime becomes 10:00 A.M. Wake up again at noon, go to bed at 4:00 AM. On this day I would also need to go to bed at 10:00 PM on the same day. So yes, you would be using your 2 hour sleep more than "once per day," if by day you mean the 24 hour period between 12 AM and 12 AM. Not to mention because 8 hour rests are used to heal, everyone here who's ever played Pathfinder or D&D has been in a party that decided to take an 8 hour rest after a battle, regardless of whether it was "bed time" or not. So we can also assume trauma and fatigue tax the body which requires we get a good "night's" sleep much sooner than we normally would, and thus more frequently than usual. All that being said, there's no getting around the RAW for monks with the whole "each morning" thing. However, it also says "these hours do not need to be consecutive." So the ring of sustenance owning monk with the screwy sleep schedule would just automatically regain ki each morning (dawn?) regardless of what random time of day the last 2 hour rest occurred. Kind of silly, and definitely needing a FAQ, but at least w/ your monk, you know exactly when you're getting the ki back, as opposed to the rage user, who gets it "per day." What does that even mean when you now have the screwy sleep schedule ring user? 24 hours after you used your rage up? 24 hours after the first time you used rage the previous day? (Which would make more sense, because what if you don't use all of your rage in a day?) That one seems much more ambiguous and the source of potentially fierce arguments.
Stellan Skarsgård
by Amy Winehouse OR by The Smiths (not sure which letter of Vincent Price's name I was supposed to use)
It's too bad he's not a Hunter with teamwork feats. Stealth Synergy would be perfect in this situation.
Absolutely! I was mostly referring to that inevitable part of the scenario when the GM goes around the table and says "So, what kind of characters are we playing today?" :) IC your character will call themselves whatever you think your character would call themselves, but OOC, things like accurately identifying which class you're playing become important. Thankfully, char gender is not important OOC. Anyone remember way back when D&D actually required female chars to have lower starting stats? Gross.
My question is, why is it so important to come up with an alternate term that lets other players know that your fictional character is DEFINITELY NOT A WOMAN? I don't see this debate happening for any other class, or an insistence that there needs to be differentiated male and female terms for Cavalier, Rogue, Gunslinger, etc... If you are playing a male Witch, you start the game by saying "my character is a Witch." If you really feel the need, you start the game by saying "my character is a male witch." If it's really important to you, the first time another player refers to your character as "her," you politely correct them. I was in a scenario where a player thought it would be fun to give their character a name that was about a mile long, and somewhere in the middle of it was "Francine," after his mother. The char just went by Francine, and it took about halfway through the scenario for every player at the table to fully realize that the raging barbarian tanking for us was a male. But it wasn't malicious on our part, just an unconscious case of gender bias, and Francine's player was never offended, as he had named Francine the male Barbarian all in the spirit of creating an interesting and fun character. Hopefully if you want to play a male Witch, it is because you think the character will be fun and interesting to play, and, hopefully, others at the table will join in that spirit of fun. We are playing a game after all. And if for some reason another player can't get into that spirit, or insists that your male Witch should be called something else, then in the end that's really their problem, not yours.
Also note that senses not depending on eyes, such as scent, enhanced hearing, tremorsense etc. are not impacted by invisibility. That's a little broad. Scent would give your opponent knowledge w/in 5' of your location, but you would still have total concealment and a 50% miss chance. I'm pretty sure a GM would rule that way for my Animal Companion w/ scent, and not just let her auto-find and attack an invisible opponent w/out the 50% penalty.
Sign me up! I'd be interested for sure. I've also never played an online AP, but would really like to. Couple of quick noob questions: Is this PFS? Can I use a char I already rolled for PFS (assuming they're still lvl 1) or do I need to roll a new one? If I would need to roll a new char, I'd be happy to roll whatever the party still needed. Thanks!
Got it. Never really designed him as a spell caster, but now I know if I want SNA II, I need to add a Wis point at Lvl 4 or get some other ability buff. Thanks y'all!
Ok, so first of all, the entry on Spells for the Hunter in the ACG is uber confusing. You have sentences like this: "Like other spellcasters, a hunter can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily spell allotment is given on the table above. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Wisdom score." followed by sentences like this: "Unlike spells per day, the number of spells a hunter knows is not affected by her Wisdom score; the numbers on the table above are fixed." And then there is the issue of Summon Nature's Ally: "In addition to the spells gained by hunters as they gain levels, each hunter also automatically adds all summon nature's ally spells to her list of spells known. These spells are added as soon as the hunter is capable of casting them." Here's my dilemma. First of all, "automatically" and "in addition" to me mean that I'm not forced to substitute Summon Nature's Ally for one of the learned spells on the table. i.e. A Lvl 1 Hunter can learn 2 first level spells, but since SNA I is "in addition," he can technically learn three. So my question: If I rolled a Hunter with a Wis of 11, who according to Hunter rules, can only learn up to first level spells ("to learn or cast a spell, a hunter must have a Wisdom score equal to at least 10 + the spell's level"), when I level up to 4, can I still learn Summon Nature's Ally II, SNA III at Lvl 7, etc., because they are "in addition" and "automatically?" If there is already an errata on this that I missed, please feel free to point me in that direction. This is for a vanilla hunter, not an archetype. Muchas gracias in advance. |
