tomas rosenberg's page

None Scion: Per the FAQ, the circlet provides its bonus to initiative if you have the noble scion of war feat. This is because you are substituting dex for charisma. Because you are substituting, it becomes a charisma based check. The circlet gives its bonus on charisma based checks.

Towering Ego: Unlike Noble scion above you are not substituting for your charisma bonus. You are simply adding your charisma bonus. In this case, the ability the check is based off of does not change. It is still a wisdom based check and is not aided by the circlet.

It is not the intent of the item to only add to skill checks.

Hope that helps.

Yes, it does. Us old people sometimes take multiple slightly different explanations to understand

Has this been clarified with an FAQ for all of pathfinder or a campaign clarification for PFS?

Noble Scion (War): Does the circlet provide +3 to initiative?
Mesmerist Towering Ego: Does the circlet provide +3 to will saves?

Has it been ruled that the intent of item to provide only +3 to charisma based skill checks?

I play in PFS and will be purchasing this item anyway but I would like to know if I should add it to initiative and Will save

I assume that we will be allowed to sell back the clear spindle ioun stone and any other items based upon or derived from acquisition of the stone we purchased at full cost?

Are we also going to be allowed to retrain feats and traits for free since that is what people are saying we should have done before relying on this item?

Am I correct in assuming that the new guide with these changes comes out at GenCon or is it already out?

In regards to splash weapons, they have abstracted the rules to make splash weapons and AoE spells LESS effective against swarms. A normal splash weapon would do 1 point of splash damage to each and every creature in the square regardless of number. If there are 5,000 creatures in the square this would be a ridiculous 5,000 pts of splash damage to the creatures in the swarm. Burning hands would do up to 5d4 to EVERY creature in the square (25,000d4 in total). This ridiculous damage is realistic since no one would expect a swarm of wasps to survive a direct sweep from a flamethrower covering their entire area.

So instead of making the spells and splash insta-wins, they toned the damage down considerably.

I think people should think about what is a swarm in pathfinder.

It is NOT a single creature but is a collection of creatures who acts as one with a single AC, HP pool etc (probably for ease of play so you do not have to roll 5,000 time). Note, it does not say they are a single entity. It also does not say they are a single object. They are a collection of creatures who, again probably for ease of play, uses a single number for various characteristics which does NOT in any way make it a single entity. Thus, the swarm is only an abstraction of the creature group.

"A swarm is a collection of Fine, Diminutive, or Tiny creatures that acts as a single creature. A swarm has the characteristics of its type, except as noted here. A swarm has a single pool of Hit Dice and hit points, a single initiative modifier, a single speed, and a single Armor Class. A swarm makes saving throws as a single creature."

You cannot target the swarm itself since it is neither a creature nor an object. Instead, it is an abstraction. Since abstractions cannot be targeted, no spell which requires you to target something (such as ray of frost which makes a ranged touch to hit a target) can effect it.

Just curious, has a situation ever arisen in your gameplay where this question needs to be answered? Not conceptual curiosity but an actual in-game situation or in a PFS scenario?

Also remember that your alchemist will need to use UMD for the CLW wand since their extracts do not qualify for spell trigger items

Also remember that your alchemist will need to use UMD for the CLW wand since their extracts do not qualify for spell trigger items

My understanding

ALL composite bows are ALWAYS designed for a particular minimum STR rating (from UE ".. All composite bows are made with a particular strength rating ...). This design is NOT magical

Masterwork quality is also NOT magical, rather it is a particularly well made bow (from UE ... A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon...)

You need masterwork quality in order to to enchant the weapon but the masterwork quality by itself is not a magical enhancement. It is the masterwork quality benefit (+1 to hit) which does not stack with a magical enhancement.

Thus, you could have a masterwork comp bow +2 which would add +1 to hit and +2 damage (assuming you have 14+ str). If you give it a magical +1 enhancement, it would have a +1 to hit (the masterwork and magical enhancement do not stack) and a +3 damage (since the strength and the magical enhancement do stack)

edit - I agree with the above posters about saying something like +1 comp bow (+2 str rating)

That is the major problem in a nutshell from my perspective. The core campaign cannibalizes the DM pool which makes it difficult for participants. Leave aside operational issues such as switching campaign types as the time gets closer and focus on the main issue in my mind.

By design Core created a whole new campaign to accommodate high frequency players who have run out of scenarios and/or individuals who felt that rules and option expansion was too much. This is laudable but now organizers have a much harder time. Instead of having two type of players to organize around, core has created four basic buckets of players to accommodate: Hi Freq (run out scenarios)/Lo Resources(limited options and rules), Hi Freq/Hi resources, Lo Freq/Lo Resource, Lo Freq/Hi resources.
If you have plentiful DMs, then you can be running both campaigns since you can service all four types of players. However, the limiting factor has always been the availability of DMs. So now the organizer has to juggle this extra dimension and squeeze blood from a stone to get more DMs. While it is nice to say that core is wonderful as an option, the reality is that in order for it to be a viable option you have to run it with some regularity which is where the cannibalization of DMs comes in to play.

In order to solve one problem, they created another. Since you would almost always have one of these problems (people running out of scenarios vs groups running out of DMs), the choice was which one was the better choice for PFS.

As I mentioned earlier, Jack does a great job as an organizer. Organizers volunteer more time than most DMs without any reward. Without him and the other organizers there would be no PFS. However, he is forced to juggle options to satisfy player groups and adding core has further splintered the player pool requests.

Organizers have a thankless job. They do not get credit for the smooth times and if things go wrong, they get the blame. I do not wish you to think that I am irritated at you since without you nothing would happen.

My main point was to let people know that the CORE campaign option has ramifications. The reason for providing my experience was to provide context. I realize I am a rarity in that I sign up and do not monitor the meetup site every day(I check every couple of days so I checked Friday and things were still a go but I was busy Friday night and Saturday with a personal problem).

Again, I thank you for your work and appreciate it

After careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that adding the CORE campaign is a decision that I would not have made. It forces the organizer’s to choose between groups as to who can play in any given week. This impact is not just on new players but for veteran players also. Here is a recent example of why I feel this way.

I am a casual gamer who gets to play every 2-4 weeks. In a recent experience, I signed up for a 1-5 scenario stating my pc levels available. After I signed up somebody requested a core table so the organizer repurposed the 1-5 to core and tried to shoehorn people to other scenarios if possible. A couple of new players had to be turned away since they did not want to play core. I was asked if I could play in a 3-7 and I agreed since I had a couple of L3. I asked later what subtier it was shaping up and the organizer guessed 3-4 (best person since they knew who was signed up). On the day of the event, I and another player with L3, L4 characters were placed into a tier 6-7 subtier scenario (4 other people had previously signed up with 6 and 7s).

My options were to play a character with 20 hp and level 1 spells in a 6-7, run a pregen in a 6 person table, or bow out since they had 5 people without me. While I have played a pregen a number of times when the group is short, I find them to be rather painful to play. In addition, my limited playing schedule means it would be 6 months to a year before I could apply this chronicle sheet to a character. I have DM’ed a number of times (8-10 depending upon whether you go by my chronicle sheets or the official count) which is about 10% of my total scenarios but it was too late to consider that option. If I had known that the previous signups were 6-7 meaning the scenario would be 6-7, I would have cancelled. Thus, I chose the least palatable option to me of bowing out since I knew my frustration could color my interactions with other players badly especially in a mid-tier, 6 player table. I knew that with a 5 player table excluding me, this would not impact their ability to play the game. I thought long and hard about this since I have never previously bowed out of a table, instead sucking it up with a pregen when necessary. {Would I feel this way if the table had been cancelled? No, but that is not the same thing in my opinion)

The impact of CORE on my playing PFS is already decided. Coupling this experience with a number of previous events, I will only be playing PFS when my son is around. Playing for my personal enjoyment is over. I put forth my thoughts since I want to make sure that people know that there are at least some people who feel CORE as a solution to frequent players not having anything to play caused other problems

Wow. I am not sure how my post could be considered as such since I was illustrating my point about the difficulty as to where do you draw the line (trying to pull various examples which share the same qualities). I apologize if anyone was offended and will refrain in the future.

Perceived badwrongfun.

I am unfamiliar with this phrase. What does it mean?

While I appreciate everyone’s point of view, I feel that this is argument has a slippery slope. If I understand your point (please correct me if I am wrong), the issue arises when an individual selects an option that negates a possible game balance condition or that boosts an ability significantly for low cost. At this point they should be prepared for a nerf. The slippery slope arises when you try to determine which option deserves a nerf, which ones are legitimate increases to a character’s powers, and what is sufficient investment to allow the game balance alteration. The argument “I know it when I see it” tends to arise in these situations.

My questions for consideration

There are options to get flight which negates dwarf movement penalties. Does this mean that dwarves should be prepared for a nerf when they get the overland flight spell since it removes a game balance impediment? How much investment is sufficient to remove a game balance impediment without it being considered “cheese?”

Some animal companions are significantly stronger than others. Does this mean that a Druid who takes a much stronger companion should be prepared for a nerf? How would it be if apes, cats, etc were all reduced to a single attack?

Why is the kung fu style to allow charging thru allies shady when used for an animal companion but not when used for a pc? Why is that choice (which requires investing in a feat chain) more problematic than other chains which allow for greatly enhanced attacks?

Mounted feats such as wheeling charge eliminate some game balance conditions in the standard cavalier by allowing turns etc. Should cavaliers be prepared for a nerf? Why is it ok to take a set of feats that allow a cavalier to charge around a corner while other options are problematic?

Why is boosting your channeling via a feat or magic item ok while boosting it thru a FCB is not? Is it because FCB is considered a minor non-typed class ability for all characters (because every character gets FCB as an additional ability to whichever class they select as favored)

My position

I am of the position that if the game designers change something, then a liberal rebuild should be allowed. I would not expect grandfathering but I do expect the ability to effectively compensate for the change. If I make the decision to buy a family of funds and the funds change yielding lower returns, I would not be content to only pick from the new funds. I would want to be able to choose a whole new family of fund since the basis for the initial choice changed. Remember, the choice for the PC was not done based upon a shady interpretation but upon clearly defined rules.