|
But you paid for them, right?My character who worships Soralyon has taken a stone from every ruined shrine she has restored (about five at this point). When she becomes a Mystery Cultist, she will use those stones in the performance her daily obedience.
My character who went through the Wardstone Patrol took a relic from a fallen hero which was later used as the base for an enchanted amulet. This episode was a pivotal moment in her transition from Shadow Lodge to Silver Crusade.
I paid to enchant the amulet, yes. I did not pay for the pieces of ruined stone. How much would those cost?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I paid to enchant the amulet, yes. I did not pay for the pieces of ruined stone. How much would those cost?However much the obedience says they cost.
No cost listed for the obedience. But I must meditate upon them for an hour a day.
EDIT: The idea was that it would be much more meaningful to meditate upon something I had found myself and had personal significance, than something from a random shrine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No cost listed for the obedience. But I must meditate upon them for an hour a day.I paid to enchant the amulet, yes. I did not pay for the pieces of ruined stone. How much would those cost?However much the obedience says they cost.
I'm pretty sure you can use your rocks for flavor and it wouldn't harm anything, I mean supposing any rocks will do. It doesn't really give you a mechanical benefit or change a mechanic so much as pure flavor.
|
I paid to enchant the amulet, yes. I did not pay for the pieces of ruined stone. How much would those cost?However much the obedience says they cost.No cost listed for the obedience. But I must meditate upon them for an hour a day.
EDIT: The idea was that it would be much more meaningful to meditate upon something I had found myself and had personal significance, than something from a random shrine.
Yeah that's pretty cool that you managed to set something like that up. Other than enhancing your role play experience there's nothing game changing about those particular rocks so there won't be any problems.
My gnome, slipped Hammeria Blackros a philter of love during the blackros wedding.
Now I do not expect any DM to give me any game changing effects if my character meets her again, but I would be sorely disappointed if the DM did not roleplay something about it.
Well this has some implications... Does her family know yet? That'd much more fun to roleplay!
|
|
You cannot keep the skeleton because the additional resources does not list a resource that allows bones to be added permanently to inventory.
You do not get the onyx back when the undead is destroyed at the end of the scenario. And command undead also expires once the scenario is over.
There's a considerable balance issue with bringing say a Purple Worm Zombie from one scenario to another where it's not designed to exist. It's easy for a GM in a home game to adjust difficulty to account for the zombie army you have, but a PFS GM does not have that luxury.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh dear.
if you find a normal skeleton in the scenario, and you want to keep it, and the gm writes it into your inventory, you still can't have it?
The GM cannot "add items" to the list of items found in a given scenario. Anything found during the scenario disappears out of player's inventory at the end of the game. This prevents a GM from adding stuff like "10 holy avengers!!!" to a PCs sheet and forcing another GM to deal with the unbalanced situation they have created.
an animated skeleton doesn't have a listed cost? what about the onyx cost to animate it? wouldn't that be its cost? if the permanent effects end, and you lose the minion, do you get the onyx back?
When you use a consumable item, or cast a spell with a component cost, the components are used as part of the casting. You would not get them back.
permanent effects end? so what about command undead spells with duration of days?
There is an indeterminate amount of time between scenarios, effects with durations of days, weeks, months, etc end inbetween sessions. Permeant effect specifically end between society play. Again, this is to prevent complex situations, like the one being discussed up thread, from being "dumped" onto a new GM. It's not fair for GM A to grant something to a player and then force GM B to deal with the rammifications of their "kindness."
what about intelligent undead in your command undead class feature bucket?
I legitimately do not understand this question.
!%% like this is why i will NEVER play society. what are they even trying to accomplish with this sort of stuff? why make a huge book of rules, then say, oh, but this 3/4 of the rules don't count for society play? the whole point of switching from 3.5 rules was to get streamlined system with less splat books clogging up the works with too many optional rules and spells not balanced against the content of the others. basically crippling yourself on purpose for no reason, so i guess it makes sense that the guys responsible for that could be responsible for this.
That's unfortunate. We have a great community of dedicated volunteers, GMs, and players that are always happy to introduce people to the awesome experience that is PFS. I understand getting told no is never a fun time, but if you've read this far just stick with me a little more.
The reason why we have all these rules is because we have so many people. We really have a ridiculous amount of people, with all manner of gaming experience that participate in PFS. While this is awesome, it also means that we need to curtail some of the most powerful "shenanigans" in order to have a cohesive and stable play experience from table to table. It's our rules that enable people to fly from all over the world to GenCon to participate in a 160 table simultaneous special event there. And things like that. You need to remove some of the most powerful aspects of end-game Pathfinder in order to make that happen. And permanent spells are one of them. You can't write a scenario that's supposed to be balanced for such a massive play audience without hedging the power curve a bit.
It's a bummer that this is what will prevent you from giving PFS a shot. I guarantee if you played in our area with us, you'd have a good time. However, I understand that PFS isn't for everyone and it's well within your right to have your own opinion. I would recommend playing a homebrew instead, where your GM will have the final say as to what they'll allow as far as an undead army is concerned.
Also, I'd like to ask a favor of you. In the future, please give PFS a shot before commenting so strongly on your opinions regarding it. To me, that you won't even consider playing with us before tearing us apart with your words is hurtful, to say the least. To me, it's akin to walking by your homebrew where everyone is a vampire and telling you that because I dislike vampire PCs, your homebrew campaign is lame and I don't want to be a part of it.
|
|
s$$% like this is why i will NEVER play society.
Walter put it eloquently, but let me just add this: playing PFS is a huge amount of fun. I get to play not just with my home group, but players around the world, and without having to make one-shot PCs when I show up. Yep, it means a few character concepts don't work, and gear etc. is handled in a more abstract way. Small price to pay, seriously. Give it a try, and concentrate on the thousands of legal options instead of a handful that aren't.
|
|
s#$! like this is why i will NEVER play society. what are they even trying to accomplish with this sort of stuff?
To provide a balanced play experience for everyone who sits down at the table. It's not perfect, but then again, What truly is?
why make a huge book of rules, then say, oh, but this 3/4 of the rules don't count for society play?
Because ultimately no campaign, even home campaign, uses all the rules from the core rulebook (just try asking your home GM to let you play a character who has an artifact, especially at the low end of the campaign).
While I can't in any way speak for Paizo, I can say make guesses at the reasons that things have been disallowed. For example, I think that the reason they removed item creation is that it allows a greater item and monetary disparity between those who have the ability to craft items and those who do not. The reason I see them getting rid of having extended duration spells is that it is impossible to design anything approaching balanced encounters into a scenario if players were allowed to bring over undead; not without designing encounters that assume that players will have undead following them around. Those encounters would be highly dangerous in the least.
the whole point of switching from 3.5 rules was to get streamlined system with less splat books clogging up the works with too many optional rules and spells not balanced against the content of the others.
The rules are fairly streamlined, and unlike many rpg brands, a character built using only core rule book rules works just as well as a character built using various "splat" books.
basically crippling yourself on purpose for no reason, so i guess it makes sense that the guys responsible for that could be responsible for this.
Let me ask you this question: How often in home games that you play are you allowed to have undead follow you around without any consequences? Did you feel that your GMs that didn't allow such things were "crippling" you, because it didn't make sense for the setting or the situation?
|
I just played first level as a necro, had a blast but in one adventure where I had no undead I was hosed...I had another necro tell me that with the blood money spell I could take ability damage to create a skeleton to animate. I tried to disagree with him and tell him 1 pint of blood does not create the target of the spell just the gem.
I don't have to worry about it anymore (well unless I'm GMing.) After the level 1 retraining I switched to being an invoker.
Less drama more blasting.