|
Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Combat
I don't understand why the following is not allowed
....
- Inquisitions for Inquisitor
The reason I believe that the Ultimate Combat inquisitions are not allowed are because they're not scaled to level like domains and the Ultimate Magic inquisitions are. Also, one of them has to do with granting inquisitors Gunslinger abilities, which they wanted to avoid doing. Yet I agree with you on the fact that archetypes granting Gunslinger abilities are appropriate, so it depends on which factor convinced them not to allow those inquisitions.
|
Per Mike's Request
Actually, I thought that with the changes to module play, in your situation you would be required to ignore any XP beyond what levels your character to 12 anyway.I have clarified this with Mike, you are not required to ignore the extra XP. But to play the Retirement Arc you do have to lose the last EXP, or you won't be able to. There are rules for it in the Guide.
If a character reaches level 12 by playing a sanctioned module, any XP beyond 33 points are lost prior to starting the Tier 12 scenarios/events.I am unclear about if you lose Gold and fame as well.
Mike's Reply
Gold and fame remain as earned with no reduction. Can someone add that to my sticky post of changes needed for Guide 4.2 please?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please add clarification on if a GM or player can fudge dice rolls legally in PFS play.
Since the RAW guidelines for PFS are intended to provide all players an equivalent (although not same) experience, artificially changing the dice results would be allowing the GM to dictate success conditions and changing stat blocks.
For example, if you attempted a skill check and failed, but the GM allowed you to succeed, that is the same as changing the DC in the first place. Or if you attack and you would normally hit (or miss) and the GM changes the result that is the same as changing the stat block AC#.
In any of the cases above, it's easy to see it would not be legal.
|
In any of the cases above, it's easy to see it would not be legal.
Non sequitur, Bob.
Neither of those examples are of a GM fudging dice. They're both of a PLAYER fudging dice. And not even I was saying that's PFS-Kosher.
A more accurate gist of what I was saying is perfectly legal and Vinyc wants to see explicitly made illegal is this:
I may not increase a BBEG's bonus to hit or to save by +X or -Y.
I may, however, fudge my dice rolls for the BBEG so that I get that same +X or -Y, with the caveat of a modified 'natural' range of 1-20, obviously.
Disclaimer: 'I may' does not mean that in practice 'I should routinely', 'I must always', or 'I think it's funny to'.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Neither of those examples are of a GM fudging dice.
I disagree. IMO, the GM is the only one at the table with the power to fudge dice. The players roll, but have no control over the success/failure of that roll. It is the GM's decision whether that number succeeds/fails at whatever they attempted. It's not like the player can say, "normally my <roll> would fail, but I've decided to fudge and let it succeed this time."
Whether we are talking about dice the GM has actually rolled or one a player rolled, if the result is different than what should have happened, it is the GM that has fudged. You don't fudge dice, you fudge the results.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is a popular misconception that players want their GMs to fudge dice rolls. In fact, I think some players would be downright offended to know that they got 'kid gloves', especially at higher levels. Bob, how would you feel if Kyle had fudged Sarkorian for us?
I think GMs fudge dice because they don't want to be construed as the bad guy, but sometimes, character deaths are awesome.
For example, at my recent Eyes of the Ten game, I made the statement that the players should expect to die, but not to worry for their deaths would be epic. And you know what? The one person I did kill, didn't appear to mind so much (perhaps a hangover helped that, I'm not sure) and it was because his dice rolled badly. No one's fault and I highly doubt he feels I was picking on him. I would go as far to say that, apart from my disastrous hungover performance for part 4, every one of the players had a great time and felt they all contributed.
Now this is a high level table, with high level players. I may make exceptions for low level tables or brand new players, because sometimes death at that level CAN dissuade a player from coming back.
|
Guys ... I'm not trying to be a party pooper, but we were asked upthread by Mike to not use this as the forum for debate of subject. It will just flood the thread and make it more difficult for them to read the suggestions by having to sort through it all.
Let's keep it to merely offering the suggestions for changes and debate the legitimacy of such for other threads.
Developer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some have suggested adding NPC castings of spells to those that end at scenario completion. I vehemently disagree.
Raise dead is impossible under this, as is removing any affliction. Further, permanent NPC afflictions no longer matter. Unless we start carving a ridiculous tapestry of exceptions. You end up with a great deal of dead or diseased characters for which there is no remedy taking this as written.
Of course it won't be taken as written. The rules as they stand are either ignored (players are allowed cast raise, the results carry through, though this is technically illegal), or they end up completely inconsistent (I can't raise you, but John Q NPC certainly can). A lot went into 4.1 in unifying module play with scenario play and to stop carving exceptions. This was an excellent move in making org play more cohesive.
The casting expiration is one of the last bastions of rule inconsistency, and the only way to fix it is either a labyrinth of conditional exceptions, ignoring the rule when it's especially inconvenient (the current practice), or a complete removal of the rule along with a banned spell list (a list you already have). Go with simplicity here, please.
Implementing this is easy. Just allow spells to continue. Track permanent spells as you would items. The time between scenarios is indefinite, anything other than permanent or instantaneous wears off.
Add any spells you think are serious problem spells to the banned list like permanency or animate dead (as those are the ones oft cited to me, and such a list already exists with permanency, awaken, etc).
I see no merit to the fear that removing the spell expiration rule would somehow unbalance things. No rational argument has ever been posed to me that wouldn't be fixed by adding a spell to the same list as permanency currently occupies in org play. This is simple, consistent, and is a rule that can be followed without making death permanent.
|
|
I thought that was already clarified: spells that remove a condition (raise dead removing death, mending removing broken, cure light wounds removing injury) do not suddenly reverse themselves at the end of a scenario.
On a related topic: Should Masterwork Transformation be added to the banned spells list to end the debate over its duration?
|
Developer
|
I thought that was already clarified: spells that remove a condition (raise dead removing death, mending removing broken, cure light wounds removing injury) do not suddenly reverse themselves at the end of a scenario.
And the requirement of that clarification illustrates my point. Simpler is better. Further, not being in the guide, it's technically optional on the part of a particularly cruel GM.
On a related topic: Should Masterwork Transformation be added to the banned spells list to end the debate over its duration?
Personally, I don't think so. There's little room to abuse the spell, given its cost. It just makes Heirloom Weapon viable. You don't want the spell cast? Ban Heirloom Weapon.
|
|
I thought that was already clarified: spells that remove a condition (raise dead removing death, mending removing broken, cure light wounds removing injury) do not suddenly reverse themselves at the end of a scenario.
On a related topic: Should Masterwork Transformation be added to the banned spells list to end the debate over its duration?
Quoted from the Guide 4.1:
"This includes spells with an instantaneous or permanent duration, such as continual flame, create undead, or fabricate."I think that there does need to be a better explanation of what spells do not carry on after the scenario. The way the rule is written, all spell effects end, no matter what. Diseases, curses, poisons, death, etc all come back. This is because as written all instantaneous spell effects go away. The rule does not make sense as written (the instantaneous spell side), no one follows it as written, and should be revised.
Maybe re-write it as something like this.
"This includes all spells with a permanent duration and spells with an instantaneous duration listed in the FAQ."
This way you can specifically list the spells that won't carry over and not waste space in the guide.
|
|
C'mon guys ... really ...
This thread is not to debate changes, just to list them. Thanks for your help.
... Please start a new thread if you wish to ask why something is or why something should change. I just need highlights here so when we get ready to review the new Guide, I don't have to scroll through 400 posts. Please just list what you think should be changed or tweaked and debate it in its own thread. You can even link the discussion like I did above if you like.
I'm going to remove all posts that do not fit that criteria. If you have questions, want to raise issues, etc... please don't do it here. It just makes it harder to use this thread for its intended purpose in 6 months. Thanks for the help.
Respect the man's request, and help him use this thread as it's intended.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi there!
One thing I would like to see: Is there anyway we could do what we did for The Beginner's Box, where we had a simplified character building guide just for players? And in doing so, separate the rule book between the character building section that doesn't change very much, versus the GM sections that seem to always change?
Don't panic, hear me out first:
If you really stop and think about it, the player build section hasn't changed since the start of Season 3 and unless we do something major like raise the point buy build or add factions, it's not going to change much more. And the smaller details from other books are already implemented in the "Additional Resources" for us GM's.
The GM's section seems to always change as we are a growing group that is changing all the time. It would be nice to save some paper and not have new players wading through a whole bunch of stuff they are not interested in or using. It would also be a good time to add Additional Resources to it, or utilize erratas between major changes.
I may start a separate thread about this idea, but I did want to at least put it here for consideration in the future.
Thanks for reading!
PS: If you want to put more into this topic, I started a new thread here: Rule Book Changes to Consider
|
|
My suggestion was just to adjust the formatting so the character build section and the faction sections started and ended at page breaks so they could be easily removed and handed to a new player to look through. That would serve your purpose as well, I suppose, and keep us from having to maintain two separate files.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was under the impression from something said way back that this was the direction they had planned to go with Guide v4, but somehow this failed to happen. I think it would be a great idea. The current Guide is daunting to a new player that you are trying to introduce to Pathfinder in general and PFS in particular. Breaking the Guide into a Players Guide and GMs Guide would go a long way toward making Organized Play more accessible.
|
|
*nods*
I have moved this topic to another thread just to keep the space down on this thread: Changes For Future Rulebooks
Thanks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Improved familiar
I see that familiars from bestiaries 1 & 2 are allowed.....but not 3......was this an accidental over site?? I'm looking to have a Faerie Dragon. Any creators please chime in for me.
This line from page 25 of ver. 3.03 of the Guide is missing from ver. 4.0 and 4.1:
Any spellcasting purchased using CPA is cast at minimum caster level.
Was this intentional or accidental and does it need to be added back in? And if this is no longer true, then it needs to be clarified and explained in the Guide, or people will be using PP to get a 1st level spell cast at 20th caster level.
|
|
One thing I liked in the previous editions was the typical alignment of each faction. Especially now that there are more factioms. It was a very small change, but I miss it.
It also made it easier for new players to chose alignments and factions.
That information is in the Pathfinder Society Field Guide, which is part of the core assumption.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a new player to PFS AND Pathfinder in general, my biggest questions when reading the guide were:
1. Differences between modules, scenarios, adventure paths, etc... I would love to see more clarification on which are PFS sanctioned, and just more information on the differences between each.
2. Replaying scenarios/modules for credit. At first, it was hard to notice that the only scenarios you can replay for credit are tier 1 scenarios. But it was unclear that it only includes the First Steps series (currently anyway) and not the SUBtier 1-2 scenarios. Originally, I thought Tier 1-5 scenarios (for example) were re-playable for credit if played at the 1-2 subtier (since it included "1"). This could also be tied to my #1 point above.
|
|
Only found this thread now, but simplify the character level requirements with the following change: regardless of the scenario Tier, allow PCs within 1 level of the Subtier (e.g. lvl 2-5 for Subtier 3-4) to participate, as long as the party APL falls within the subtier.
There was a thread recently about the scenario level limits, but I can't seem to find it now. This was a fairly popular suggestion for a solution.
|
|
Only found this thread now, but simplify the character level requirements with the following change: regardless of the scenario Tier, allow PCs within 1 level of the Subtier (e.g. lvl 2-5 for Subtier 3-4) to participate, as long as the party APL falls within the subtier.
There was a thread recently about the scenario level limits, but I can't seem to find it now. This was a fairly popular suggestion for a solution.
This isn't going to happen.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) increase the PP gain from modules from 4 to 6. These are the most difficult scenarios I've played (including handing me my first death); they should be more rewarding as well.
2) Let Heirloom weapons be turned masterworked for 300 GP or so. Usually it's for a small CMB trip bonus or Martial Weapon Proficiency; this doesn't seem overpowering.
3) Give an option for "factionless", who essentially get 2 PP if the module is "successful" and 0 Otherwise. You can offset it by disallowing purchases besides resurrection; essentially it is for people who think factions are a time-waster and just use PP for magic item avail.
Just some thoughts; on #3 i'll be interested in what you have in store season 4... Factions seem awkward right now, and while I love the flavor I'd generally opt out of the "fetch/skill roll" missions they amount to right now.
|
|
Thalin, see this post regarding your first point. There are reasons you only get 4 PP for the longer modules.
3) Basically Grand Lodge is "factionless" you just have two objectives needed to complete your "mission". I believe if you want to use your all-or-nothing mechanic, you may certainly discard the 1 PP if you fail to earn both.
|
Add language or clarification to how a double weapon is valued in terms of cost for determining access via Fame. Do you value each half individually or the entire weapon?
Would a +2/+2 Two Bladed Sword be valued at 16,700gp for the entire weapon and require 36 Fame to purchase, or 8,350gp for each half and require 27 Fame to purchase?
Seems like a good thing to address. A two weapon fighter with two individual weapons could get their gear by 27 fame, while a two weapon fighter with a single double weapon who has to enhance both sides has to wait until 36 fame.
if you start out with a mwk/mwk two-bladed sword, and upgrade by adding +1 to one end, and later separately upgrade to +1 flaming on the other end, do you have to wait till you have enough fame , or can you treat each end as a separate weapon for fame.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Consolidate the rules for Pregens into its own section.
2. Consider changing references to scenario/module Tier in the guide to Level Range, and renaming sub-Tier to Tier. This would bring the language in line with the paizo store.
Using Scenario #3-02: Sewer Dragons of Absalom as an example.
Refer to the scenario as level range 3-7 (tier 3-4 and 6-7)
Instead of scenario tier 3-7 (subtiers 3-4 and 6-7)
I am 100% behind this.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure how possible it would be, but hyperlinks in the PDF would be nice, For example this passage:
"For modules below level 9, if you do not have a character in the correct level range, you may use a Pathfinder Society pregenerated character, available on paizo.com."
having "pregenerated character" hyperlink to the pregens on the website.
|
|
Clarification on what happens if a player ‘looses’ an equipment item. I’m not talking expendables; I mean how does PFS deal with a situation where an NPC relieves the session’s Fighter of his +2 Keen Greatsword and he in unable to retrieve it by the end of the session. Then what? Considering that sword may very well be half of that character’s current wealth.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clarification on what happens if a player ‘looses’ an equipment item. I’m not talking expendables; I mean how does PFS deal with a situation where an NPC relieves the session’s Fighter of his +2 Keen Greatsword and he in unable to retrieve it by the end of the session. Then what? Considering that sword may very well be half of that character’s current wealth.Perhaps some consideration for PCs if they fall WAY below expected wealth guidelines for any reason.
-James
Oh, let's not open yet another can of worms.
Why should a character who loses his weapon get a better deal on a fancy sword than someone who has been saving up to buy one? And why special-case equipment - after all, a resurrection can cost you quite a bit more than that sword, but the only break there is you can (perhaps) pay for that using prestige points.
Clarification on what happens if a player ‘looses’ an equipment item. I’m not talking expendables; I mean how does PFS deal with a situation where an NPC relieves the session’s Fighter of his +2 Keen Greatsword and he in unable to retrieve it by the end of the session. Then what? Considering that sword may very well be half of that character’s current wealth.
Assuming your character is able to go back to the location of the lost item, I would say it should be handwaved that he returned after the end of the scenario and got lucky and found whatever it was that was lost. That is, as long as an enemy did not take the item as part of the scenario and then escape with it. Now, if by lost you mean sundered or otherwise destroyed by the NPC, there are spells to fix that.