Common Misconceptions I have noticed at the PFS playing table:

[Dragnmoon]

I will note that I have never seen anything that was immune to Crits that was not also immune to precision based attacks (Sneak attack). I think the swarm is the only thing that left that part out. My guess it was a mistake and should be noted in the erratat thread.

[Victor Zajic]

I'm fairly certain that "no decernable anatomy" = immune to precision damage. Just like "all around vision" = can't be flanked

[Lab_Rat]

I am also pretty sure that "discernible anatomy" is a 3.5D&D requirement of sneak attack that was removed from pathfinder.

Both sides have a case for their opinion. It obviously doesn't say they are immune to it, unlike every other creature type that is. On the other hand, Dragonmoon makes a good case for it being a typo because all other crit immune creature can't be sneak attacked. While swarms may or may not be sneak attack-able, I am pretty sure this has moved beyond the realm of PFS and belongs firmly in a 700+ post thread within the rules forum.

[Bigdaddyjug]

Did you ever consider that the "vital spot" part of the Sneak Attack description is only so much fluff?

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Lab_Rat wrote:

I am also pretty sure that "discernible anatomy" is a 3.5D&D requirement of sneak attack that was removed from pathfinder.

Both sides have a case for their opinion. It obviously doesn't say they are immune to it, unlike every other creature type that is. On the other hand, Dragonmoon makes a good case for it being a typo because all other crit immune creature can't be sneak attacked. While swarms may or may not be sneak attack-able, I am pretty sure this has moved beyond the realm of PFS and belongs firmly in a 700+ post thread within the rules forum.

Sneak Attack wrote:

The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot.

If you don't have discernible anatomy, and you can't be criticaled. What makes you think a rogue could find a vital spot to sneak attack?

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

Did you ever consider that the "vital spot" part of the Sneak Attack description is only so much fluff?

No. Otherwise they wouldn't have followed up "pick out a vital spot" with "and must be able to reach such a spot."

The sneak attack write-up mentions vital spot twice.

This isn't just fluff.

[Lab_Rat]

My swarm's can have vital spots example:
As the rat swarm approaches you notice that its forward motion puts a vast majority of the rats in in one section of the swarm. The rats don't see the vanish trick'd Ninja as they flow past. The Ninja strikes out at the obviously denser section of rats with his morning star. The ninja deals full damage due to bludgeoning and Sneak Attack for targeting the denser section of the swarm and smashing more rats with his attack.

Edit: I didn't say that they removed the Vital spot description just that they specifically removed the discernable anatormy requirement.

3.5
A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.

Pathfinder
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.

Notice how much they cut out of the last paragraph. No mention of discernible anatomy and no such thing as immune to crit also meaning immune to sneak attack.

[Hayato Ken]

Sneak attack follows critical hits, precision-based damage and flanking rules. Swarms don´t take additional damage from critical hits and are not flankable.

It still has that vital spot description.

[Chris Mortika]

If only there were a flag, that we could use to alert the development team to a rules question...

[Lab_Rat]

What?? That takes all the fun out of it! What would tabletop gaming be like with out ambiguous rules and 700+ post argument threads over the definition of vital. Who will feed the rules lawyers?

[Yiroep]

Dragnmoon wrote:

I will note that I have never seen anything that was immune to Crits that was not also immune to precision based attacks (Sneak attack). I think the swarm is the only thing that left that part out. My guess it was a mistake and should be noted in the erratat thread.

Aeon subtype creatures are immune to critical hits but not sneak attack.

[Zahariel]

I can rationalize it thus:

Assume we have a rat swarm. 300 of them. At 16hp, each individual rat would have less than 1hp.

So it's not about killing all 300 rats, but destroying their group cohesion.

So how do you destroy a group? Target the leaders. In this case, if the player has the keen eye to notice that one of the rats is bigger, fatter, uglier and meaner than the rest, and he attacks that one rat, he just landed a hit against a vital part of the swarm.

Think what Mazer Rackham did in the second war against the Buggers. Would you tell him you can't sneak attack a swarm?

[nosig]

in any swarm there are vital individuals - the school/pack/herd/flock/murder leaders. Take out the head of a school of fish and they scatter. That's why dolphins/seals etc attack schools of fish from the sides and back, and hunters shoot the last geese in the "V" not the leader. If you shoot the leader, they scatter.

edit: Ninja'd by Zahariel! (glad I'm not the only one to see this).

[The Earl of Gray Park]

Some swarms (those composed of Fine or Diminutive creatures) are immune to all weapon damage. I'd assume such swarms are immune to sneak attack damage, regardless of how sneak attack damage applies to swarms of Tiny creatures.

[SCPRedMage]

I think this swarm discussion should probably be moved over to the rules forum; it's not a PFS-specific question, and it's also been a MASSIVE derail...

[nosig]

The Earl of Gray Park wrote:

Some swarms (those composed of Fine or Diminutive creatures) are immune to all weapon damage. I'd assume such swarms are immune to sneak attack damage, regardless of how sneak attack damage applies to swarms of Tiny creatures.

I know of know way to apply sneak attack damage outside of "weapon" damage (or weapon like spells). Is there any?

[CRobledo]

nosig wrote:

I know of know way to apply sneak attack damage outside of "weapon" damage (or weapon like spells). Is there any?

No, but Ultimate Equipment had to introduce that dumb swarmbane clasp...

Either way, I more than agree that you can take this over to the rules forum. Please.

[nosig]

to bring this back to PFS and away from general rules:

So many times I have seen judges who, in the earlier season scenarios that give 2 faction missions say,
"you get one PP for the Scenario Mission, and one PP for doing either of the faction missions"

this is wrong!

or they say:
"you get one PP for the Scenario Mission, and one PP for doing both of the faction missions"

The correct answer is:
"you get NO (as in zero) PP for the Scenario Mission, and one PP for each of the faction missions you complete"

edit: let us recapture this thread and drag it back to Society topics! Please! go to the Rules board for rules ...ah... discussions.

[MillerHero]

Andrew, asthyril let's take it down a notch. I've shared a room at Gen Con with Andrew and I've shared a drink and a meal with asthyrill. I think the two of you would be friends if you met under different circumstances.

I also think that we all can agree on a few things:
1) A swarm has "no discernible anatomy, so it is not subject to critical hits or flanking".
2) Swarm traits does not include the term "sneak attack" anywhere in the text.
3) This issue should either be included in the FAQ or be included in the errata.

It is acceptable to have differing takes on the issue, but please envision how the other party came to their stance and agree that it could be interpreted different ways.

[Dennis Baker]

nosig wrote:

in any swarm there are vital individuals - the school/pack/herd/flock/murder leaders. Take out the head of a school of fish and they scatter. That's why dolphins/seals etc attack schools of fish from the sides and back, and hunters shoot the last geese in the "V" not the leader. If you shoot the leader, they scatter.

edit: Ninja'd by Zahariel! (glad I'm not the only one to see this).

I don't believe this is true. A swarm of gnats has no "Boss Gnat", a flock of swallows has no "lead bird" and a school of fish has no boss fish.

I certainly don't think this has been scientifically proven and there is (obviously) no game mechanic which speaks to this concept.

[Dysfunction]

nosig wrote:

to bring this back to PFS and away from general rules:

So many times I have seen judges who, in the earlier season scenarios that give 2 faction missions say,
"you get one PP for the Scenario Mission, and one PP for doing either of the faction missions"

this is wrong!

or they say:
"you get one PP for the Scenario Mission, and one PP for doing both of the faction missions"

The correct answer is:
"you get NO (as in zero) PP for the Scenario Mission, and one PP for each of the faction missions you complete"

edit: let us recapture this thread and drag it back to Society topics! Please! go to the Rules board for rules ...ah... discussions.

ok, this is one that i'm actually interested in.

i have seen GMs go so many different ways on this.

where do we need to go to find the actual answer?

[JohnF]

Dysfunction wrote:

nosig wrote:

to bring this back to PFS and away from general rules:

So many times I have seen judges who, in the earlier season scenarios that give 2 faction missions say,
"you get one PP for the Scenario Mission, and one PP for doing either of the faction missions"

this is wrong!

or they say:
"you get one PP for the Scenario Mission, and one PP for doing both of the faction missions"

The correct answer is:
"you get NO (as in zero) PP for the Scenario Mission, and one PP for each of the faction missions you complete"

edit: let us recapture this thread and drag it back to Society topics! Please! go to the Rules board for rules ...ah... discussions.

ok, this is one that i'm actually interested in.

i have seen GMs go so many different ways on this.

where do we need to go to find the actual answer?

You've just seen the correct answer - nosig has it right.

Guide to Organized Play V4.3 wrote:

When running a Season 0 scenario with 1 Prestige Point available per PC, treat this as the sole faction mission, and award a second Prestige Point to PCs who complete the overall scenario goal, as given by the venture-captain at the scenario’s introduction. If a Season 0 scenario has two faction missions per faction, completing the overall scenario goal does not award a Prestige Point. Award 1 Prestige Point for each faction mission completed or 1/2 Prestige Point for characters on the slow advancement track.

Seasons 1 and 2 (Scenarios #29–#56 and #2–01 through #2–26): These scenarios each provide two faction missions. Completing the overall scenario goal in these scenarios does not award a Prestige Point. Characters on the standard advancement track earn 1 Prestige Point per faction mission completed (maximum 2). Characters on the slow advancement track earn 1/2 Prestige Point per faction mission completed (maximum 1).

[CWheezy]

Andrew Christian wrote:

This.

And please don't use the d20PFSRD as your source. Please use the PRD.

I will use the one that is better set up, thanks. Information is the same on both, so it seems like an obvious choice.

Anyway, I decided to see if there is a difference that you guys seem to think there is and:

Critical Hits: When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20 (the d20 shows 20), you hit regardless of your target's Armor Class, and you have scored a “threat,” meaning the hit might be a critical hit (or “crit”). To find out if it's a critical hit, you immediately make an attempt to “confirm” the critical hit—another attack roll with all the same modifiers as the attack roll you just made. If the confirmation roll also results in a hit against the target's AC, your original hit is a critical hit. (The critical roll just needs to hit to give you a crit, it doesn't need to come up 20 again.) If the confirmation roll is a miss, then your hit is just a regular hit.

Misfires: If the natural result of your attack roll falls within a firearm's misfire value, that shot misses, even if you would have otherwise hit the target. When a firearm misfires, it gains the broken condition. While it has the broken condition, it suffers the normal disadvantages that broken weapons do, and its misfire value increases by 4 unless the wielder has gun training in the particular type of firearm. In that case, the misfire value increases by 2 instead of 4.

from reading this, it seems that there is actually no difference between a confirmation roll and a attack roll, since the rules use "attack roll" for both situations.

Also it seems I might misfire if I roll a misfire on my confirmation roll??? That seems awful. I know a natural 20 always hits, BUT

even if you would have otherwise hit the target.

This seems to override that

[Paz]

CWheezy wrote:

Information is the same on both

Not in all cases, especially where Golarion-specific information is concerned.

Anyway, the only purpose of the second attack roll is to confirm the critical. It makes no sense for to have bad things happen as a result of that second roll, when you already know that the attack is a success.

[The Earl of Gray Park]

A common misconception I've noticed again and again? Players believing d20PFSRD and/or HeroLab to be legal sources. Or believing a boon or chronicle sheet counts as a legal source.

[Jason Wu]

Well, boons and chronicle sheets are legal sources for stuff specifically listed on the sheet.

However, if a CS contradicts the printed rules, the CS version ONLY applies for that particular item or boon. Like if a loot item as listed on a chronicle as written does not work like the ones from the books do, then only that specific item purchased from that specific CS works that way, all others work as written in the books.

If this happens, though, there's always a possibility that it's a mistake on the part of the chronicle, so be prepared for errata.

-j

[The Earl of Gray Park]

Jason Wu wrote:

Well, boons and chronicle sheets are legal sources for stuff specifically listed on the sheet.

Then I guess that's my own misconception; I'd assumed that if an item (or feat, race, etc.) appeared on a boon or chronicle sheet and was not a part of the core assumption, one still needed the original source.

For instance, I thought one still needed a copy of the Advanced Race Guide in order to use one of the race boons.

[Sniggevert]

The Earl of Gray Park wrote:

Jason Wu wrote:

Well, boons and chronicle sheets are legal sources for stuff specifically listed on the sheet.

Then I guess that's my own misconception; I'd assumed that if an item (or feat, race, etc.) appeared on a boon or chronicle sheet and was not a part of the core assumption, one still needed the original source.

For instance, I thought one still needed a copy of the Advanced Race Guide in order to use one of the race boons.

You do need a separate source to use some of the boons, such as the races. Also, you would need the additional resource to use anything you purchase off a chronicle that wasn't in the core assumption.

I 'think' Jason is talking about new specific magic items where the item's stat block is on the chronicle itself. I've been seeing more of these in season 4 than any other season. In such a case, the chronicle would could as a source for the item.

[Chalk Microbe]

Dysfunction wrote:

where do we need to go to find the actual answer?

The guide to organized play.

[Lab_Rat]

I am going to throw out one here that I see run different by different GMs.

Lighting, specifically the interaction of darkness, dim light, and normal.

Ex:
Cleric casts darkness. The cleric has darkvision but his ally doesn't. Thus the cleric can see through the darkness and beyond (rest of the room is normal light). The ally on the other hand can't see in the darkness. However, I have seen GMs say that the ally can see the lit area outside of the darkness. That is a darkness effect just prevents you from seeing whats in those squares and does not block line of sight. I on the other hand, rule that the ally can see nothing until he makes it out of the darkness effect and is next to a lighting type that they can see in.

[nosig]

Lab_Rat wrote:

I am going to throw out one here that I see run different by different GMs.

Lighting, specifically the interaction of darkness, dim light, and normal.

Ex:
Cleric casts darkness. The cleric has darkvision but his ally doesn't. Thus the cleric can see through the darkness and beyond (rest of the room is normal light). The ally on the other hand can't see in the darkness. However, I have seen GMs say that the ally can see the lit area outside of the darkness. That is a darkness effect just prevents you from seeing whats in those squares and does not block line of sight. I on the other hand, rule that the ally can see nothing until he makes it out of the darkness effect and is next to a lighting type that they can see in.

(the following is as I understand this):

First - Darkness and Deeper Darkness is different in this case.
For Darkness, consider it the same as being in a darkened room, looking out into a lit room. You can see out of the darkness just fine, but if you drop your keys - you need a light to see something at your feet. An area in Darkness is ... well, dark. Not dim light, dark. But an area of Darkness does not block vision. So if you look from your living room out your door at night, you can see the guy under the streetlight (he's in an area of light) but you can't see the guys in the yard, who are in an area of dark. But they can see both you (in your lit doorway) and the guy under the streetlight, but not each other.

Now, for Deeper Darkness: (I am not as sure of this part).
Deeper Darkness blocks light from passing thru. so if you are in a Deeper Darkness - you can't see out, and other persons can't see thru it.

Does that help? (remember that is just my understanding of the rules)

[CRobledo]

(not touching lighting discussions with a 10' pole)

[Lab_Rat]

CRobledo wrote:

(not touching lighting discussions with a 10' pole)

LOL...

Thats the issue with threads like this. They are asking for controversial / varying aspects of the game. If we are staying on topic we are going to be spinning off side threads into the rules forum on a semi-constant basis. Thanks for the swarm thread by the way.

[Jiggy]

The thread wrote:

(Four pages of stuff)

Cripes. I take two days off to take the wife on a mini-vacation, and come back to find this? Sheesh.

[CRobledo]

Lab_Rat wrote:

Thats the issue with threads like this. They are asking for controversial / varying aspects of the game. If we are staying on topic we are going to be spinning off side threads into the rules forum on a semi-constant basis. Thanks for the swarm thread by the way.

Well, the big one with lighting is I dont think its a "common misconception" but more of "rules a lot of GMs have problems with"

Lighting specifically has SO many interpretations, and it is such a convoluted system. For example (breaking my rule here!) I don't agree with nosig's interpretation above. All darkness does is lower the light level by one step. In nosig's example, if there was light out, and someone cast darkness it would bring it down to low-light, which WOULD mean you can kinda see the light outside the area of effect. But if you were in low-light and you are now in pure darkness, you cannot see outside.

Real world examples are bad for the lighting discussions, because there is no real-world way to produce a 20ft. globe of darkness. Magic and all that.

And yes, anyone interested in the swam discussion you can feel free to mosey over to this thread in the rules forum. Or just head over there and FAQ it.

[Jiggy]

Dysfunction wrote:

1. Produce flame – is not a touch spell, its a range 0' spell

Correct. Although it grants the ability to perform a touch attack, it is not subject to the rules for "touch spells", such as holding the charge.

Quote:

2. Reach weapons – cannot reach an opponent in a diagonal 10’ square (counts as 15’)

Correct. If points A and B are two squares away from each other (diagonally), they are 15ft apart. Reach is not an exception to this rule.

As per designer Sean K Reynolds, this does not produce a "gap" through which an enemy can advance upon a polearm-wielder without passing through their threatened area.

Quote:

3. 5’ step – provokes an AOO when stepping in from a diagonal square 10’ to 5’ (counts as 15’ to 5’)

Incorrect. Taking a 5ft step never provokes. This statement is the result of taking SKR's above-linked comment out of context; he was talking about normal movement, not declaring that any and all forms of movement through that area will always provoke no matter what. A 5ft step is still a 5ft step.

Quote:

4. Mage armor, shield, or other protection spells that add armor or shield bonus – do not add to CMD

Correct. As per the Official PRD, your CMD includes circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC. Note that the list does not include armor or shield bonuses.

Quote:

5. Move enhancement bonus does not stack with monk’s increase movement

Generally correct. As per the Official PRD, the monk's Fast Movement ability grants an enhancement bonus, so other enhancement bonuses would not stack. Bonuses of other types (or no types) would stack, however.

Quote:

6. Move enhancement bonus does stack with Barbarian’s increased movement

Correct. As per the Official PRD, a barbarian's Fast Movement stacks with pretty much everything.

Quote:

7. Anyone can disable a nonmagical traps if they are skilled in disable trap

If by "disable trap" you mean the Disable Device skill, yes. Chapter 4 of the Core Rulebook.

Quote:

8. Lunge Feat – additional reach only counts on your turn - doesnt threaten squares when its not your turn

Correct. As per the feat's own text, the increase in your reach only lasts until the end of your turn.

Quote:

9. Flat-footed/Dexless characters do not add Dex bonus to CMD

Correct. This is in the same part of the rules as the link in my answer to #4.

Quote:

10. Reach weapons suffer soft cover penalties when attacking through people

Correct. Any non-adjacent melee attacks use the ranged weapon rules for determining cover.

Quote:

11. Aid another only works if the aiding PC can meet the required DC the primary PC is performing

Incorrect.

Per the Aid Another rules in the skills chapter, a PC is prevented from aiding "in cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results, such as trying to open a lock using Disable Device". If this restriction were based on being unable to hit a high enough number, it would apply to every skill, and the line about "cases where the skill restricts" would be nonsense. Relatedly, it gives the example of opening a lock with Disable Device. A simple lock has a DC of 20, which would be achievable by anyone who doesn't have a negative modifier. Thus, if the Aid Another restriction were based on DC, this would make a pretty poor example, as it would not always be true and wouldn't actually tell the reader anything about how to determine when Aid Another would be disallowed. The only interpretation that withstands even the slightest bit of thoughtful scrutiny is that the restriction is based on a skill being "trained only" and/or having other logistical limitations. It is not based on the ability to hit the DC.

Quote:

12. Aid another in combat only works for those that threaten the same opponent

Assuming you mean to aid attack rolls or AC, then yes, this is correct.

------------------------------------------

Any questions?

[Dragnmoon]

Jiggy wrote:

Any questions?

Why does no one love me?... :(

[Eric Clingenpeel]

Dragnmoon wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Any questions?

Why does no one love me?... :(

Because you lost your "O"...

[Katisha]

Dragnmoon wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Any questions?

Why does no one love me?... :(

Darling, I do!(as usual, it just costs extra).

[Dragnmoon]

Katisha wrote:

Dragnmoon wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Any questions?

Why does no one love me?... :(

Darling, I do!(as usual, it just costs extra).

Can I take 10 on that Diplo check? ;)

[Dragnmoon]

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:

Dragnmoon wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Any questions?

Why does no one love me?... :(

Because you lost your "O"...

What are you talking about I have 2!

[Katisha]

Dragnmoon wrote:

Katisha wrote:

Dragnmoon wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Any questions?

Why does no one love me?... :(

Darling, I do!(as usual, it just costs extra).

Can I take 10 on that Diplo check? ;)

now the people around my desk know I'm crazy...lol!

Only if I can too!

(with the use of a MW tool (another price increase) - that would give me something around a 40 Diplo check)

Are you sure you can afford me? (if you have to ask, you can't)

;)

[Hayato Ken]

Welcome back Cheapy :)

Just to be sure and avoid foreign language confusion possibilities:

Cheapy wrote:

2. Reach weapons – cannot reach an opponent in a diagonal 10’ square (counts as 15’)

Correct. If points A and B are two squares away from each other (diagonally), they are 15ft apart. Reach is not an exception to this rule.

As per designer Sean K Reynolds, this does not produce a "gap" through which an enemy can advance upon a polearm-wielder without passing through their threatened area.

This means diagonally between the two points are 1 or 2 squares?

It´s confusing me because if i would say 1 square away, it would be 10 feet away, the number of squares i mention indicating the squares between.

[Chernobyl]

nosig wrote:

to bring this back to PFS and away from general rules:

So many times I have seen judges who, in the earlier season scenarios that give 2 faction missions say,
"you get one PP for the Scenario Mission, and one PP for doing either of the faction missions"

this is wrong!

or they say:
"you get one PP for the Scenario Mission, and one PP for doing both of the faction missions"

The correct answer is:
"you get NO (as in zero) PP for the Scenario Mission, and one PP for each of the faction missions you complete"

edit: let us recapture this thread and drag it back to Society topics! Please! go to the Rules board for rules ...ah... discussions.

The situation with prestige points and how to earn them became rather confusing and bordering on absurd in season 4. Compare:

PFSGtOP 4.0 8/4/2011

Quote:

A scenario provides a potential 2 Prestige Points for a character to earn over the course of the adventure. One of these is tied to the completion of the overall mission for all Pathfinders, and is outlined in the “Success Conditions” section of the adventure. The second Prestige Point is gained when a Pathfinder completes his faction specific mission, as outlined in the “Faction Missions” section of the adventure.

When the additional 5 factions were added, the faction missions were reduced to one each instead of two (to make the writers job easier, I suspect, and to save space as well - you'll note they no longer use fancy graphics for these anymore, but simple formatted text). Players in the new factions who played the older scenarios were assigned one of the existing faction missions to perform, and players in general only had to complete one of them, the other now given for the scenario as a whole - the argument being that all that matter for prestige (and thus character power for access to magic items) was the faction mission - PCs had no meta-game motivation to complete the mission.

PFSGtOP 4.2 8/16/2012

Quote:

Each scenario provides the opportunity for you to earn 2 PP over the course of the adventure. One of these is tied to the completion of the overall mission for all Pathfinders, and is outlined in the Success Conditions section of the adventure. The second Prestige Point is gained when a Pathfinder completes his faction specific mission, as outlined in the Faction Missions section of the adventure.

Alternatively, beginning with Season 4, each faction has a specific goal it hopes to achieve by the end of the season. A PC who undertakes a creative approach to forward this goal outside of the prescribed faction mission may earn 1 Prestige Point for doing so in place of the Prestige Point gained for the assigned faction mission, at the GM’s discretion. See page 19 for details on all 10 faction goals for Season 4.

In response to requests for a more "living campaign" feel, we now have season goals for each faction, to earn instead of the faction mission.

PFSGtOP 4.3 1/13/2013

Quote:

In each scenario, you have the opportunity to earn up to 2 Prestige Points. For scenarios with two faction missions per faction, you earn 1 Prestige Point for each faction mission completed. For scenarios with only one faction mission per faction, you earn 1 Prestige Point for completing your faction mission and 1 Prestige Point for completing the overall scenario mission. These numbers are halved for characters on the slow advancement track.

...and those season faction goals didn't last long.

So the rules for awarding prestige points change pretty quickly, sometimes within a couple months. Some GMs haven't kept up with the most current rulings, is all.

[Jiggy]

Fun fact: the grid system is imperfect.

If a couple of rogues are flanking me diagonally, they're each 5ft away from me, yet they're 15ft away from each other.

If a couple of rogues are flanking me in a row or column, then they're each 5ft away from me, and only 10ft away from each other.

If an object is 10 squares away from me on a perfect diagonal, we get the following:
• If I take only a 5ft step each round, I can reach it in 10 rounds, for a total of 50ft traveled.
• If I charge and try to reach it in one turn, I discover that it's actually 75ft from my starting location, and I end up stopping after 60ft of movement. It's now two squares (15ft) away from me.
• If I spend a single move each round to travel 20ft each, then after 60ft of movement it's only 5ft away from me.

And so on, ad nauseam.

The point is, the grid system only works if you wipe the slate clean and start your measurements all over again each time you do something that cares about distance. Best to just accept it and move on. :/

[CWheezy]

That is not the grid itself, it is the movement rules being crazy for diagonals.

Other games have 1/1 and it works just fine, without all the terrible reach weapon holes and stuff like that

[JohnF]

Chernobyl wrote:

The situation with prestige points and how to earn them became rather confusing and bordering on absurd in season 4. Compare:

PFSGtOP 4.0 8/4/2011

Quote:

A scenario provides a potential 2 Prestige Points for a character to earn over the course of the adventure. One of these is tied to the completion of the overall mission for all Pathfinders, and is outlined in the “Success Conditions” section of the adventure. The second Prestige Point is gained when a Pathfinder completes his faction specific mission, as outlined in the “Faction Missions” section of the adventure.

When the additional 5 factions were added, the faction missions were reduced to one each instead of two (to make the writers job easier, I suspect, and to save space as well - you'll note they no longer use fancy graphics for these anymore, but simple formatted text). Players in the new factions who played the older scenarios were assigned one of the existing faction missions to perform, and players in general only had to complete one of them, the other now given for the scenario as a whole - the argument being that all that matter for prestige (and thus character power for access to magic items) was the faction mission - PCs had no meta-game motivation to complete the mission.

No - that's the common misconception. (emphasis added by me)

The wording in the guide was, to be charitable, obscure:

PFSGtOPV4.0 wrote:

These scenarios all include two faction missions. [...] One of these should be considered the faction mission and the other the success condition for the scenario, maintaining the 2 Prestige Point maximum.

But what this was trying to say is that the only way to earn prestige points was to complete those faction missions - it's just that one of the two faction missions was (arbitrarily) relabelled as the success condition for the scenario.

The change of wording in V4.2 of the guide - to emphasise that the only way to earn prestige points when two faction missions were present was by completing one or both of the faction missions - was a clarification, not a change to the way prestige points were supposed to be earned.

[Jiggy]

CWheezy wrote:

That is not the grid itself, it is the movement rules being crazy for diagonals.

Other games have 1/1 and it works just fine, without all the terrible reach weapon holes and stuff like that

True, but then you get wizards casting firesquare instead of fireball, and so forth. ;)

You could always switch to hexes, but then you can't walk a straight line in some directions.

Key point: no system is perfect, just do your best to roll with it. :)

[CWheezy]

That is the "Nirvana fallacy"

Fireballs being a square seems fine compared to weird reach and movement issues.

[bugleyman]

Tape measure / measuring stick FTW. :P