x x 342's page

Why do you think the characters need to rebuild at all?

Because I don't see a RAW way to 'use the reprinted version of the class' without a rebuild.

I think the 'real' problem here is the contradiction between the two documents. I hope that the people who wrote those documents will clarify. In the meantime, I will bring the contradiction to the attention of GMs and play as they rule in each individual Society game.

The Guide to Organized Play states:

Characters created 15 November 2023 or later whose class is reprinted in any Remaster rulebook must use the reprinted version of their class.

This is contradictory to the Remaster document that, referring to classes in Player Core 2, states:

This affects the following classes: alchemist, barbarian, champion, investigator, monk, oracle, sorcerer, swashbuckler.
Characters with at least 1 game reported prior to August 12 may be built using the Core Rulebook or Advanced Player’s Guide chassis.
Previously-existing characters with at least 1 game reported may continue their progression using the Core Rulebook or Advanced Player’s Guide chassis. They may not use the chassis in Player Core 2 without rebuilding.

Characters created after 15 November 2023 whose classes are in Player Core 2 are not eligible for a free rebuild. Therefore RAW Guide to Organized Play, contradicting the Remaster document, requires a rebuild. Is it mandatory for players of characters in those circumstances to spend AcP on Evolving Destiny or Career Change?

The Player Core 2 is FINALLY 'up' on A0N

The description of the Barbarian feat Raging Athlete on AoN does not match demiplane. Both sources are listed as 'official'. Which is correct? How long will it take to make them match?

As currently WRITTEN, the 'one free rebuild' 'granted' under the Remaster requires that the character be played prior to last November. Therefore, as I read it, any character of a class in Player Core 2 that was first played after November 15 and before August 12 does not get a free rebuild. Am I missing something? Is that the way the Remaster 'rules' are intended?

evolving destiny prohibits changing the character's background. However can a choice made as part of the background be changed? Specifically, can the character whose background is raised by belief select a different deity during the rebuild? is the answer to this question documented anywhere or is it just in someone's opinion?

x x 342 wrote:

Master of None wrote:

x x 342 wrote:

Going back to PFS1, I have always and only played clerics of Gorum. So POOP.

Three questions on the 'free rebuild':
1) Can the Core Rulebook chassis be used instead of the Player Core chassis?
2) How much gp does the character get on the rebuild? The 15% tax/penalty on the remaster rebuild is a problem.
3) Will the answers to my first two questions be documented somewhere other than as a post on this forum to establish a Source of Authority?

I think the answers for all of your questions can be found in the remaster section of The Guide to Organized Play.

I think the remaster section of The Guide to Organized Play is specific to the remaster. The 'free rebuild' for clerics of Gorum is not a remaster and the rules may or may not be the same as the remaster rules. I posted my comment hoping to get my questions definitively answered by someone either at paizo or at PFS3.

Gorum's death is still a future event. I'd imagine that when the book that formailizes it is published, Alex and our PFS leadership will tell us how it works.

Well yeah, but .... as I read this thread, my PFS GMs are being 'directed' to not allow my Gorum cleric starting August 1. I may be wrong but I'm not expecting a book in the next five weeks. IMHO an update to The Guide to Organized Play that is specific to the death of Gorum would be 'very helpful'.

x x 342 wrote:

Going back to PFS1, I have always and only played clerics of Gorum. So POOP.

Three questions on the 'free rebuild':
1) Can the Core Rulebook chassis be used instead of the Player Core chassis?
2) How much gp does the character get on the rebuild? The 15% tax/penalty on the remaster rebuild is a problem.
3) Will the answers to my first two questions be documented somewhere other than as a post on this forum to establish a Source of Authority?

I think the answers for all of your questions can be found in the remaster section of The Guide to Organized Play.

I think the remaster section of The Guide to Organized Play is specific to the remaster. The 'free rebuild' for clerics of Gorum is not a remaster and the rules may or may not be the same as the remaster rules. I posted my comment hoping to get my questions definitively answered by someone either at paizo or at PFS3.

Going back to PFS1, I have always and only played clerics of Gorum. So POOP.

Three questions on the 'free rebuild':
1) Can the Core Rulebook chassis be used instead of the Player Core chassis?
2) How much gp does the character get on the rebuild? The 15% tax/penalty on the remaster rebuild is a problem.
3) Will the answers to my first two questions be documented somewhere other than as a post on this forum to establish a Source of Authority?

Covid put a lot of 'us' 'on vacation'. I recently (2 weeks) ago found another game (online) after 3 years away. So .... I'm now looking over my PFS Session log and seeing two problems (as if I should care?):

1) only 79 of my 111 sessions are logged - I DO have the chronicle sheets but until I identify the specific missing sessions I won't guarantee that I can read all the GM's PFS#s.
2) I've already noticed that some of the logged sessions are assigned to the wrong characters.

Is there a practical way for me to request fixes? At least for the 'wrong character' reports, I assume that I can click the 'Report a problem' link.

Unless you have a high charisma or spend a trait to make UMD a class skill, this isn't going to be useful investment.

You need a minimum of a 20 to activate a wand you can't take 10 with it.

At level 12 assuming you don't have a positive charisma modifier or have UMD as a class skill via trait you only have a 60% chance of success.

Every level below that decreases the chance of success by 5%.

Scrolls are even harder than wands to activate.

The end result is you will probably not be able to activate the item on the first try and there is a good chance someone else will be able to do it, and your chance of success is really low until moderate levels.

Agree that my character "will probably not be able to activate the item on the first try" and "chance of success is really low". And in instances where "someone else will be able to do it", my character wouldn't need to try. But there are rare instances in PFS play where the party composition is such that are no characters who have any Spellcraft. The point of my post with its numerous questions is to get opinions about whether it is legitimately within the RAW AT ALL.

I am posting this for feedback. I'm going to lay out a case for a game mechanic that I wish to play. Ultimately the decision will be up to the GM at the table. But I am posting it to see if and how other players would "poke holes".

Background: In PFS I am playing a Barbarian with UMD. The original intended game mechanic was/is to activate wands that he (a male character) has purchased. It is assumed that because the wands are purchased the command word is known so no property identification is needed. Under the UMD RAW if he rolls a 1 on a UMD check to activate one of these items he has failed so badly that he can't activate that wand that game day.

I want him to be able to activate wands and other magic items found during the adventure. In order for him to do a UMD check to attempt to activate such items "someone" has to identify the wand and determine the wand's function and command word. If another character can identify the wand, all good and I move on to the activate attempt.

But what if he is left on his own to identify the item? He can cheaply buy a potion or scroll (or several of each - they're cheap) of Identify. But can he and, if so, how can he use these potions or scrolls?

The potion game mechanics RAW say the target of the potion is the imbiber. But the RAW for Identify is not explicit about what the "target" is. If he drinks an Identify potion has he imbued himself with the ability to Detect Magic to identify properties at +10? If yes, all good and this is one way for him to attempt to identify a found item.

What about a scroll of Identify? In PFS, magic items can be bought between scenarios with "lots of time" to do "whatever" with them. For example if a Ranger or Paladin buys a scroll it is assumed that they have plenty of time to take Read Magic on a non-scenario game day to decipher the scroll. The UMD Try Again RAW described a "penalty" for Activation but not Decipher. Can it be assumed that a PFS character using UMD to Decipher has plenty of time before the scenario and will "eventually" get that scroll deciphered?

Assuming the scroll is deciphered, on to Activation. My Barbarian will have to both Emulate an Ability and Use the Identify scroll with UMD. Is there a chance for a Mishap? I think not because the mechanics for UMD scroll activation are sufficiently different from the mechanics for activation by a true caster that it appears to me that Mishap is not "in play". But this is another place for you folks to "poke holes". Will a roll of 1 to Emulate an Ability fail that scroll for the game day? Again I think not because the UMD Try Again restriction is RAW to only deal with item activation. Is another roll to Emulate an Ability required for every roll to Use the Scroll? I think not because the UMD RAW describes Emulation actions to only be needed to repeat once per hour. I agree that once the ability is emulated a 1 rolled on the subsequent Use the Scroll attempt makes that scroll unusable by that character for the rest of the game day. But, if all is good so far AND he has plenty of those 25gp Identify scrolls, my Barbarian will "eventually" Emulate an Ability and Use a Scroll of Identify to ATTEMPT to identify a found item. Of course at that point his Spellcraft roll may fail and it will be "back to square one". And, oh yeah, he will need a rank in Spellcraft since Untrained characters can't attempt Spellcraft Tasks.

There you have it. Hopefully I didn't lose too many of you to TLDR.

I am the player in question. I hadn't checked the Rules forum before the session CigarPete describes but having done so I see this question has come up before and apparently not been "officially" resolved. I have played the horse before with other GMs and can paraphrase the "it's okay" camp for the sake of including it in this discussion(with no intent to coopt an official FAQ which I assume we'd all want to see): A paladin's Bonded Mount has several different rules that apply. In the context of the Bonded Mount as an Animal Companion, it's hooves would be secondary if it were ever played as a 1st-3rd level Animal Companion, which it can't because the Bonded Mount starts as a 5th level Animal Companion. GMs who treat the hooves as primary note that the 4th-Level Advancement for the horse Animal Companion includes combat training and apply the horse Bestiary implication that the horse is no longer Docile and the hooves are thus primary weapons.

Rathyr wrote:

Hi JJ, got a couple questions regarding the Grab(ex) ability.

** spoiler omitted **

1.) When opting to use the -20 option, you must decide when you hit with the initial Grab(ex) attack and remain with that option throughout the grapple, correct? ie. You can't switch to and from a regular grapple to the -20 on later rounds.

2.) When you select the -20 option, you do not gain the grappled condition, but your target does. Does this mean you do not have to 'maintain' the grapple on your next turn, and the creature will continue to be grappled? Or does this simply mean avoid the penalties of the grappled condition (You can take OAs, no -2 to attacks, no -4 Dex... etc) and nothing else?

3.) Grab (ex) damage paragraph. Does this damage take place regardless of whether you choose the regular Grab(ex) grapple or -20 option? The use of the word 'hold' in the -20 option and damage paragraph immediately after is throwing me for a loop here, I can't tell if these are referring to each other or not.

1) You can switch to the -20 option whenever you want.

2) You still have to maintain the grapple.

3) The only thing the –20 option does is free up the rest of you to do other things. Grapple rules work the same regardless.

Hello

Hello MS,
I started a topic on a rules question here http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ry2w?precise-shot-and-ranged-touch-spells . As you can see, I was directed to this topic to try to get a designer's take on two specific "problems" with game balance that I perceive with requiring Precise Shot to cast rays into melee without a penalty on the attack roll.
First: do the designers really intend to require casters to take two feats (Point Blank and Precise Shot) to avoid the shooting into melee penalty?
Second: do the designers really intend for the Lantern Archon to always take the penalty when attacking a foe who is in melee (perhaps with the archon itself)?

Thanks for the link to the Mark Seifter thread. I'll cross post there.

I'd say that it is neither "basic" nor "obvious" the reason why the Lantern Archon, whose only attack is a ranged touch, is at a disadvantage attacking a target in melee when the designer(s) COULD have simply given the creature Precise Shot. Rather it is "suspicious" to me that the person who wrote the FAQ answer did not think this scenario through with respect to the RAW. I also question whether the designer(s) really desired to require casters to take Precise Shot and Point Blank, the prereq, in order to avoid the shooting into melee penalty. In any case, I don't want to make this a "he said, she said" among players and would still rather find a way, if it exists, to get the publisher to review this question.

Thanks. I indeed missed that FAQ since I searched on "precise shot". However I still see an ambiguity specifically with respect to the Precise Shot feat. Even if a "ray" is treated as a "weapon", it is still cast and neither shot nor thrown. And the omission of the Precise Shot feat from the Lantern Archon is still unexplained. Did whoever wrote the rule (and the FAQ) intend for the archon to have the penalty when attacking an enemy in melee? Or did whoever wrote the FAQ answer on rays as weapons overlook the implications for Precise Shot? If this question has been answered at that level of detail, I'm still not seeing it. I'd like to get an answer from paizo on this. Can anyone reading this topic advise me what needs to be done to request an answer to a specific question to be posted in a FAQ?

I have been in arguments about this for years.

The Core describes the Precise Shot Feat thus: "You can shoot or throw ranged weapons..." My understanding of the English language is that a spell is cast, being neither shot nor thrown. And a weapon is (or is it not?) a material piece of equipment. A ranged weapon is an item from a specific list of weapons enumerated in a rule book, Ultimate Equipment for example. By that interpretation of the language, a spell is not a ranged weapon nor a weapon of any kind.

Furthermore there is a use case which raises a serious related question. The Lantern Archon's only means of combat is a ranged touch attack. Yet this celestial creature does not have the Precise Shot Feat. Does it "make sense" that the gods of good specifically crippled their minion's combat ability so it is less likely to successfully attack an evil enemy in melee?

Those are my arguments to support my opinion on the question.

My opinion aside, isn't this question ambiguous enough that there "should" be a FAQ answer from paizo with a definitive answer AND an explanation for why the Lantern Archon does not have the feat? If such a FAQ exists, I haven't found it. Should it exist? Does it exist? If so, can someone direct me to where it is?

How do you get 3 Feats at Level 1? The online ARG says Focused Study replaces Bonus Feat.