Guide 4.2 changelog


Pathfinder Society

101 to 150 of 206 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Jayne Cobb wrote:
Pain is scary.

What the heck did I do? You leave me and my looks out of this. Comments like that are why I hide in my demiplane.

-Pain


Painlord wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Jayne Cobb wrote:
Pain is scary.

What the heck did I do? You leave me and my looks out of this. Comments like that are why I hide in my demiplane.

-Pain

Thanks Pain now I'm going to go change shirts and throw the soda covered one in the washer.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

@Derek: There's about as many opinions on the subject of what constitutes good and evil as there are players, and the arguments about alignment infractions go back to the first days of the alignment system.

You will never get complete consensus on the issue. Mike has chosen to give GMs in the campaign the authority and responsibility for adjudicating this on the fly. Not making evil descriptor spells automatically an evil act is just part of that.

I, for one, am grateful that he has entrusted all of us (GMs) with that responsibility. Does that mean there will be table variation? Yes. When a player sits down at a table, if he has spells that have the evil descriptor, he should ask his GM how he rules on the subject to avoid complications later.

2/5

Stepping away from the question of evil for a moment...

(1) Great job on 4.2!....

(2) ... except... sorry, I'm a little confused re. pre-gen chronicles:

"Page 29: If you play a non-1st-level pregenerated character, you may apply the credit to your character as soon as she reaches the level of the pregenerated character played.”

and : Under Applying Credit, added the following sentence, “A player who uses a pregenerated character must apply the Chronicle sheet to a newly created 1st-level character or hold the Chronicle sheet until his character reaches the level of the pregenerated character.”

The references to "your character" and "his character" - is that ANY other character (once they reach the correct level) or to a newly created 1st-level character (but you just hold the chronicle until the appropriate level)?

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West aka JohnF

Kyle Baird wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
As a side note, drinking the blood, on a living, unwilling, intelligent creature, is an evil act.
Which is totally legal for a GM to do to his players, correct? >:)

Note that he said intelligent creature ...

Scarab Sages

Derek Rauch wrote:

I rarely talk on these messageboards (but often read them) but this is a time which I just have to put in my two cents.

Casting a evil spell is not a alignment infraction? What is the point of having a alignment system in place? Evil and Good form the basis for moral actions in most FRPG's. We roleplay our characters moral actions based on this system. If my good cleric or wizard draws forth a drop of devils blood and a dose of unholy water to infernally annoint and heal a companion this is a gross violation of the good alignment axis. To annoint in its simplest term means to smear or rub the substance onto something, while another definition includes it in a rite or ritual which would be exactly what spellcasting is.

If you want to make it legal for a wizard to buy a wand of infernal healing and be the party healer just say so. But dont ruin the game by saying that for a good character to cast Infernal Healing is not an alignment infraction is just silly. It is indeed and evil act and a good character that does so should be warned by GM that her action of useing evil to do good are moving her toward the neutral center of the good/evil axis. At the most it should not be allowed for good player use is PFS.

Infernal Healing is one small example. Good Summoners, Wizards, and Clerics should find summoning evil outsiders equally appalling. But that is just my opinion, Summon Monster does not have the evil...

Derek ... I agree with you wholeheartedly ... I cannot understand for the life of me why this has been done. I understand Jon Cary's point that alignment arguements have been made since the beginning of the game, but, like you, I believe that the [Evil] descriptor was put in the game for precisely that reason. Because some things are irrevocably evil, and that can't be gotten around.

I would like to point out though in regards to your last point that Summon Monster *can* be an [Evil] spell ...
CRB wrote:
When you use a summoning spell to summon a creature with an alignment or elemental subtype, it is a spell of that type.

So, if one sumons a demon or a devil (or what have you), then it is an [Evil] spell.

Which is why I don't understand this ruling.

Sczarni

Perhaps summoning an evil creature as a good aligned character could be interpreted as an alignment infraction, but I certainly hope the same wouldn't be the case for a neutral character that views the summoning of a an evil creature as merely using the tools at their disposal, even if it is for the greater good.

Scarab Sages

Jonathan Cary wrote:

Mike has chosen to give GMs in the campaign the authority and responsibility for adjudicating this on the fly. Not making evil descriptor spells automatically an evil act is just part of that.

I, for one, am grateful that he has entrusted all of us (GMs) with that responsibility. Does that mean there will be table variation? Yes. When a player sits down at a table, if he has spells that have the evil descriptor, he should ask his GM how he rules on the subject to avoid complications later.

Jon ... not to be pedantic, or be arguemantative, or anything, but, with Mike's new ruling, I am not certain there should be any more table variation on the matter. Though I do not agree with the clarification, it's not something that can be avoided, so long as someone points it out to the judge that is running the table.
Mike Brock wrote:

Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues.

Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. Using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.
I can't possibly define what every evil act could be. That is why I rely on GM discretion. But simply casting an evil descriptor spell is not an evil act in and of itself.
Guide to Organized Pla wrote:

The Pathfinder Society Community

You may not simply ignore rules clarifications made by the campaign leadership, including the campaign coordinator and campaign developer, on the paizo.com messageboards. GMs are not required to read every post on the messageboards, but GMs familiar with rules clarifications made by the campaign leadership (which have not been superseded by the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play or FAQ) must abide by these clarifications or rulings. If it is a significant clarification, it will be updated in the FAQ, and later in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play if necessary.

So, even if the judge is unaware, so long as someone brings it up, that's a binding clarification by Mike. According to that post, there's no spell that in and of itself is an alignment infraction. If they use a spell in an evil manner, that's different. But, GMs should no longer be allowed table variance based on an [Evil] descriptor.

Which sucks, but, playing by the rules is .. well, playing by the rules. I'm certain that you will do a great job in discussing this with our local jusges in the Dallas area to make certain that everyone is up on all the new material in the Guide 4.2 ... you're great with people, and I am certain that you'll help us play well and have fun.

Shadow Lodge

What exactly was wrong with the master summoner? It didn't seem like it needed to be axed.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Under alignment infractions

Alignment Infractions:
Characters who commit potentially evil acts (casting spells with the Evil descriptor, killing or maiming someone, etc.) while following specific orders from their faction or the Pathfinder Society, do not suffer alignment infractions. These are cases where karma applies to those making the orders, not their tools.

Does this apply to paladins?

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

nickaxel wrote:
What exactly was wrong with the master summoner? It didn't seem like it needed to be axed.

It just takes too long. You put out 3 birds each making 3 attacks per round and the summoners turn takes longer than the rest of the parties combined

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West aka JohnF

nickaxel wrote:
What exactly was wrong with the master summoner? It didn't seem like it needed to be axed.

Try judging a table with seven characters, one of whom is a master summoner, running through an encounter-packed combat-heavy scenario.


Honestly, I've never understood why Infernal Healing has the evil descriptor. I get that it fits the feel, but mechanically it doesn't DO anything evil. It even notes that the subject of the spell gets no long-term alignment impact. So it's evil for the caster to .... heal a friend? No comprendo.

I'm now looking forward very much to making my upcoming CN scarnzi magus a Tiefling, instead of a human. And now I can cast infernal healing without taking grief for it! Which makes sense! This is a glorious day.

Sczarni

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Under alignment infractions

** spoiler omitted **

Does this apply to paladins?

To answer your question.

Michael Brock wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:

First, off, Mike: Thanks for the changelog. This is one of the ways in which you have terrifically improved PFS play.

GtPSOP wrote:
Page 34–35: Added the following sentence under Alignment Infractions subheading: “Characters who commit potentially evil acts (casting spells with the Evil descriptor, killing or maiming someone, etc.) while following specific orders from their faction or the Pathfinder Society, do not suffer alignment infractions. These are cases where karma applies to those making the orders, not their tools.”

Does this karmic shift extend to the requirement that paladins who use poison (or lie, or otherwise break their oaths) need to atone to recover their divine powers?

Nope. Paladins are bound by a higher authority than a faction mission. They will still need to decide whether completing the faction mission is worth an atonement.

Shadow Lodge

So its okay to ban summoning spells all together then? Also not all summons have 3 attacks. Most have one, maybe two.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Well, Jack, it doesn't apply to alignment but it still applies to the paladin's code. It seems sort of backwards, but there you go.

A paladin can set fire to a town of innocent people if Baron Jacquo gives him orders to do so, but if the Baron tells him to lie and frame Osirion, that will cause an 8-PP atonement.

Shadow Lodge

@Johnf. I have seen players take 5 minutes and more to complete their turn. Do we ban them from the table because of this?

Sczarni

Chris Mortika wrote:

Well, Jack, it doesn't apply to alignment but it still applies to the paladin's code. It seems sort of backwards, but there you go.

A paladin can set fire to a town of innocent people if Baron Jacquo gives him orders to do so, but if the Baron tells him to lie and frame Osirion, that will cause an 8-PP atonement.

I'm pretty sure setting fire to a town of innocent people would still break their oath, regardless of whether or not they lie about it or try to frame someone. Just because of the fact that their faction mission wouldn't break their alignment by the new guide, doesn't mean they don't still have to follow their code.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Jack ... I hate to differ with you ... because I *really* dislike this new alignment ruling ...
But, that's exactly what it *does* mean. If a paladin is ordered to do something by their faction, or the Pathfinder Society, there are *no* alignment infractions, code or not. The justification is that they aren't violating anything because they're told to do it, and it's on their superiors' karma, not theirs.

If you ask me, that's ridiculous. It didn't work for Nazi officers at Nuremburg when they tried to say, "But, my superior officers told me to do it!", and it shouldn't work here, either. Nor did it work for those at Guantanamo when they went overboard with mistreatment of prisoners. A person is responsible for their own actions, and can't get around that, regardless of what "orders" they are given.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

DOH.. thanks jack

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hrm. As I understood it by reading the entry and Mike's response, it was that a character won't be punished for doing their faction mission, so long as it doesn't violate a class feature such as a paladin's code or oath that holds them to a higher standard.

Grand Lodge 5/5

Jack-of-Blades wrote:
Hrm. As I understood it by reading the entry and Mike's response, it was that a character won't be punished for doing their faction mission, so long as it doesn't violate a class feature such as a paladin's code or oath that holds them to a higher standard.

That's basically it. From Mike's posts, The standard 'alignment infraction' stuff is waived if you're doing what you're doing at the express orders of the Pathfinder Society or your faction, but the paladin's code is a separate and higher authority still. Effectively, an 'alignment infraction' does not equal a 'code infraction' - the two must be judged separately, and nothing in the Guide permits you to ignore infractions of the paladin's code.

Silver Crusade

Why are people talking about Master Summoners? Did I miss a rules change regarding them?

Sczarni

Fromper wrote:

Why are people talking about Master Summoners? Did I miss a rules change regarding them?

They're no longer PFS legal.


W. Kristoph Nolen wrote:

Jack ... I hate to differ with you ... because I *really* dislike this new alignment ruling ...

But, that's exactly what it *does* mean. If a paladin is ordered to do something by their faction, or the Pathfinder Society, there are *no* alignment infractions, code or not. The justification is that they aren't violating anything because they're told to do it, and it's on their superiors' karma, not theirs.

Nope. Paladin is the exception. See Mike's clarification here. However ...

W. Kristoph Nolen wrote:
If you ask me, that's ridiculous. It didn't work for Nazi officers at Nuremburg when they tried to say, "But, my superior officers told me to do it!", and it shouldn't work here, either. Nor did it work for those at Guantanamo when they went overboard with mistreatment of prisoners. A person is responsible for their own actions, and can't get around that, regardless of what "orders" they are given.

... I actually agree with you a lot. The Nuremberg comparison was my very first reaction to the announcement, in fact. I understand the ruling: The idea is that players shouldn't be out a PP (or two!) because a faction mission clashes with an alignment. This is especially relevant to, say, Lawful Good Silver Crusaders who are stuck with Andoran faction missions on all the older scenarios.

Buuuuut it should end there. Because you get to choose your faction.

Buuuuut then they'd basically have to nerf the Scarnzi missions, because my understanding is those tend to be pretty evil. Which lets you have your moment of evil fun, if that's your cup of tea (and it is mine, occasionally), without becoming "evil" and getting in trouble. And what about those aforementioned Andoran scenarios? It seems like a lot of people get murdered in the name of freedom, you know? And then it's a "greater good" sort of thing, which some GMs love and some others just can't process. So, again, there has to be a ruling.

Basically this is one of those places where verisimilitude has to suffer for the sake of the organization's essential function: To keep everything in relative balance so people can play consistently.

But it still sucks that it has to be that way. ;p

Silver Crusade

Jack-of-Blades wrote:
Fromper wrote:

Why are people talking about Master Summoners? Did I miss a rules change regarding them?

They're no longer PFS legal.

Where does it say that? I just did a pdf search for the word "summon" in the new Guide and couldn't find that anywhere.


With that said, the following archetypes and equipment are being removed from Pathfinder Society Organized Play as legal options effective August 16, 2012:

Archetypes
Gravewalker Witch (Ultimate Magic 84)
Master Summoner (Ultimate Magic 80)
Synthesist Summoner (Ultimate Magic 80)
Undead Lord Cleric (Ultimate Magic 32)
Vivisectionist Alchemist (Ultimate Magic 20

Thats from the blog post.

1/5

Jack-of-Blades wrote:
Hrm. As I understood it by reading the entry and Mike's response, it was that a character won't be punished for doing their faction mission, so long as it doesn't violate a class feature such as a paladin's code or oath that holds them to a higher standard.

I can see why they're doing it, but "I was only following orders" just doesn't sit right...

Dark Archive 3/5

nickaxel wrote:


So its okay to ban summoning spells all together then? Also not all summons have 3 attacks. Most have one, maybe two.
nickaxel wrote:
@Johnf. I have seen players take 5 minutes and more to complete their turn. Do we ban them from the table because of this?

I think the first poster you were responding to was implying multiple birds/summons were involved, which is the intention of the archetype: to field multiple summoned creatures.

The issue is not with summoning creatures to help or that the player themselves are taking too long to complete their turn as I understand it. It is a number of factors surrounding the Master Summoner's core mechanic of conjuring numerous critters in rapid succession: the frequency of creatures they can summon in a given day, that said number of creatures can severely unbalance tables that already have 6-7 PCs (which happens often), the amount of time a turn managing these creatures involves, and that functioning as intended they making combats less than enjoyable for other players when the field is flooded with another PC's minions. These issues and possible solutions have been discussed, at length, on the boards.

If players are taking 5+ minutes to complete their turn, that is a pacing issue the GM can resolve by placing time limits and asking their players to be prepared for their turn. Even with ample preparation, running a Master Summoner who is easily fielding at least two pets (and in optimal conditions, many more) can eat up a lot of time as you have to resolve the actions of 3+ individual 'characters' even with experienced players. A GM is hard pressed to ask the Master Summoner to make their turn very short when they are only taking extended time periods due to the number of "actions" at their disposal.

In short: Master Summoner creates complications for the organized play format (standardized scenarios, 4-5 hour timeslot) that cannot be resolved adequately any other way.

EDIT: Misused a user name. Oops!

Sczarni

bugleyman wrote:
Jack-of-Blades wrote:
Hrm. As I understood it by reading the entry and Mike's response, it was that a character won't be punished for doing their faction mission, so long as it doesn't violate a class feature such as a paladin's code or oath that holds them to a higher standard.
I can see why they're doing it, but "I was only following orders" just doesn't sit right...

I do understand that sentiment, however, there were supposedly GMs out there that were marking characters as unplayably evil for carrying out a faction mission that wasn't even in conflict with their alignment. If it's a good character sent to murder someone for some perceived slight on the part of the faction leader, that's one thing; but a neutral "Hired Blade" sort of character does this for a living.

Also, if particular factions happen to have more "evil" missions than others, it unfairly punishes a character and their player for wanting a different flavor than the "Heroic Adventurer".

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Wait.. pathfinder society has heroic adventurers? I thought it was all grave robbing murderous hobos....


Thats MR. grave robbing murderous hobo to you wolfie!

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jonathan Cary wrote:
You will never get complete consensus on the issue. Mike has chosen to give GMs in the campaign the authority and responsibility for adjudicating this on the fly. Not making evil descriptor spells automatically an evil act is just part of that.

And it is the right call. Part of the appeal of Pathfinder is that it is not all goody-two-shoes adventuring. Almost all of the factions in PFS are led by neutral NPCs. There two good NPCs, and one evil one.

Spells like infernal healing (an Asmodean spell) are part of the flavor of the campaign. If you remove them, or make it an automatic alignment violation to cast them (which amounts to the same thing), then PFS loses a lot of its flavor.

Personally, I think the Undead Lord / Vivisectionist ban is silly for this reason.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Osiric wrote:


Personally, I think the Undead Lord / Vivisectionist ban is silly for this reason.

The vivisectionist at least has the tact to leave their... proclivities in the basement.

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

bugleyman wrote:
Jack-of-Blades wrote:
Hrm. As I understood it by reading the entry and Mike's response, it was that a character won't be punished for doing their faction mission, so long as it doesn't violate a class feature such as a paladin's code or oath that holds them to a higher standard.
I can see why they're doing it, but "I was only following orders" just doesn't sit right...

I agree. Not to get into a Role/roll argument, but certain of my PCs wouldn't go near infernal healing even with a 10' holy, outsider bane pole. Likewise, I know some faction missions won't get completed by me* if my character disagrees with them.

Playing a chaotic good Andoran cleric of peace and mercy who's told to 'gank this merchant because he sold slaves to feed his wife and kids' is going to cause a conflict. IRL I believe I have to stand in judgement before what I do. And I don't get direct proof from G_d every day in the form of spells.** Mayim would have little problem with that mission. Rey and Dex? Oh hells yes. I don't like the cover of "My faction made me do it."

*

Spoiler:
Yes they may get completed by others, and I'll get credit. That happens IRL all the time too.

**
Spoiler:
Just as well. Flame strike on rush hour traffic is counterproductive, but tempting.

Scarab Sages

Jack-of-Blades wrote:
Hrm. As I understood it by reading the entry and Mike's response, it was that a character won't be punished for doing their faction mission, so long as it doesn't violate a class feature such as a paladin's code or oath that holds them to a higher standard.

] oh no! I missed that post. Thank you, to both Jack-of-Blades, and Patrick Harris for pointing it out to me. That was one of my major concerns. At let its not a total loss.

I'm shocked that the only people left that have alignment infractions for this are those with a Code, but, I guess it's better than nothing.
Thanks again, guys .... I appreciate the info.

Dark Archive 4/5

Can someone confirm that a DM running a module ads 3xp and 4pp to the character getting credit for that scenario is a typo? I understand wanting to give DM's incentive to run scenarios, but this seems a little too good.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Cory, that looks about right. We're talking about modules here, not scenarios.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
Can someone confirm that a DM running a module ads 3xp and 4pp to the character getting credit for that scenario is a typo? I understand wanting to give DM's incentive to run scenarios, but this seems a little too good.

Modules are different animals than scenarios.

Scenarios are those 4 to 5 hour adventures you buy for $3.99 (on sale for $2.99).

Modules are those big honkin things that can take up to 13 hours to play and are essentially treated as though they were 3 scenarios.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
Can someone confirm that a DM running a module ads 3xp and 4pp to the character getting credit for that scenario is a typo? I understand wanting to give DM's incentive to run scenarios, but this seems a little too good.

I think you're confusing the term "module" with the term "scenario". Scenarios (Silent Tide, Mists of Mwangi, The Midnight Mauler) are still only worth 1XP and 2PP to a GM. Full modules (Feast of Ravenmoor, Realm of the Fellnight Queen, No Response from Deepmar) are worth 3XP and 4PP (the same that the players earn).

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, New Zealand—Dunedin aka dinketry

I have a question that has nothing to do with alignment!

If a GM (say, me) has run all the parts of a series (say, QfP), and would like to take the boon associated with it, are they now free to do so? Or is this ruling not to be considered retro-active?

Just curious.

-Dink

Grand Lodge 4/5

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
dinketry wrote:

I have a question that has nothing to do with alignment!

If a GM (say, me) has run all the parts of a series (say, QfP), and would like to take the boon associated with it, are they now free to do so? Or is this ruling not to be considered retro-active?

Just curious.

-Dink

It's not retroactive.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
W. Kristoph Nolen wrote:
So, even if the judge is unaware, so long as someone brings it up, that's a binding clarification by Mike. According to that post, there's no spell that in and of itself is an alignment infraction. If they use a spell in an evil manner, that's different. But, GMs should no longer be allowed table variance based on an [Evil] descriptor.

And if he'd come down and said, "casting a spell with the evil descriptor is always an evil act," then GMs wouldn't be free to waive that in the case of an evil spell being used to do good (like infernal healing used to save the life of an innocent bystander NPC). A lot of people were requesting a ruling on this issue, now they have one. Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.

You can't please everyone. This ruling allows for the most flexibility on the part of the GM.

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Jonathan Cary wrote:

And if he'd come down and said, "casting a spell with the evil descriptor is always an evil act," then GMs wouldn't be free to waive that in the case of an evil spell being used to do good (like infernal healing used to save the life of an innocent bystander NPC). A lot of people were requesting a ruling on this issue, now they have one. Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.

You can't please everyone. This ruling allows for the most flexibility on the part of the GM.

Also, none of this changes that good divine casters do not have access to evil spells, right? IIRC, a good cleric can't even use a wand of infernal healing.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Matthew Morris wrote:
Also, none of this changes that good divine casters do not have access to evil spells, right? IIRC, a good cleric can't even use a wand of infernal healing.

Right. Also, it's an arcane spell.

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Jonathan Cary wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Also, none of this changes that good divine casters do not have access to evil spells, right? IIRC, a good cleric can't even use a wand of infernal healing.
Right. Also, it's an arcane spell.

*nods* Which makes sense in a way. This ruling allows good (arcane) casters to summon Fiendish Porcupines as well as Celestial Gerbils. That makes sense, arcane casters aren't as alignment tied. So summoning the Fiendish Porcupine to puncture the evil cultist isn't itself an evil act, summoning the Celestial Gerbils to nibble on the prisoner's feet is.

Grand Lodge 5/5

Jonathan Cary wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Also, none of this changes that good divine casters do not have access to evil spells, right? IIRC, a good cleric can't even use a wand of infernal healing.
Right. Also, it's an arcane spell.

It's both divine and arcane, actually; appears on sorcerer/wizard and cleric lists, among others. Still bars good clerics (and clerics of good deities) from using it, as it's a spell of an opposed alignment.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Also there's no arcane/divine split in PFS (last I heard).

Grand Lodge 4/5

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Ninjaiguana wrote:
Jonathan Cary wrote:
Right. Also, it's an arcane spell.
It's both divine and arcane, actually; appears on sorcerer/wizard and cleric lists, among others. Still bars good clerics (and clerics of good deities) from using it, as it's a spell of an opposed alignment.

Is it? Runs off to check the PRD. Yep, sure is. I don't know why I had it in my head that it was arcane only.

Jiggy wrote:
Also there's no arcane/divine split in PFS (last I heard).

That's for scrolls and wands. It still applies for caster spell lists.

Silver Crusade

Jonathan Cary wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Also, none of this changes that good divine casters do not have access to evil spells, right? IIRC, a good cleric can't even use a wand of infernal healing.
Right. Also, it's an arcane spell.

Not always. It's a cleric spell, too, just not allowed for good clerics because of the evil descriptor. But this rule clarifies that neutral clerics can cast it without alignment ramifications (as they already do very regularly in my local group).

101 to 150 of 206 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Guide 4.2 changelog All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.