Ability damage in PFS


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages 5/5

Lynn Elster Jones wrote:
Tallow wrote:


Also, while I agree that Strength damage does not affect encumbrance, there is a decent argument that the FAQ that says temporary changes to abilities have the exact same effects as permanent changes because they didn't have the word count to list everything for every ability would actually cause Strength damage to affect encumbrance.

This is wrong.

"Diseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal damage directly to your ability scores. This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability."

Ability damage does not change abilities nither temporary, nor permanent. It is just danage. And penalties are applied regardless of characters ability score, but depending on the amount of damage, the same way hp damage do not change characters max hp.

I think you missed my point. I'm well aware how diseases and poisons work.

The list that lists what things are affected by ability damage is the same list as what things are affected by temporary ability modifiers. The FAQ says that temporary ability modifiers affect everything that permanent ability modifiers affect, even if it isn't on the list, because the designers said that the list is not exhaustive and they just didn't have enough wordcount to write everything.

I'm not saying I agree with it, necessarily, but I do believe there is a valid argument for saying that the list is also not exhaustive for ability damage.

EDIT:

FAQ wrote:

LINK Temporary ability bonuses should apply to anything relating to that ability score, just as permanent ability score bonuses do. The section in the glossary was very tight on space and it was not possible to list every single ability score-related game effect that an ability score bones would affect.

The purpose of the temporary ability score ruling is to make it so you don't have to rebuild your character every time you get a bull's strength or similar spell; it just summarizes the most common game effects relative to that ability score.

For example, most of the time when you get bull's strength, you're using it for combat, so the glossary mentions Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, Strength-based weapon damage rolls, CMB, and CMD. It doesn't call out melee attack rolls that use Dex instead of Str (such as when using Weapon Finesse) or situations where your applied Str bonus should be halved or multiplied (such as whith off-hand or two-handed weapons). You're usually not using the spell for a 1 min./level increase in your carrying capacity, so that isn't mentioned there, but the bonus should still apply to that, as well as to Strength checks to break down doors.

Think of it in the same way that a simple template has "quick rules" and "rebuild rules;" they're supposed to create monsters which are roughly equivalent in terms of stats, but the quick rules are a short cut that misses some details compared to using the rebuild rules. Likewise, the temporary ability score rule is intended as a short cut to speed up gameplay, not as the most precise way of applying the bonus.

A temporary ability score bonus should affect all of the same stats and rolls that a permanent ability score bonus does.

Core Rulebook, page 554, Special Abilities wrote:

Ability Score Bonuses

Strength: Temporary increases to your Strength score give
you a bonus on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack
rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The
bonus also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you
are Small or larger) and to your Combat Maneuver Defense.
Core Rulebook, page 555, Special Abilities wrote:

Ability Score Damage, Penalty, and Drain

Strength: Damage to your Strength score causes you
to take penalties on Strength-based skill checks, melee
attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on
Strength). The penalty also applies to your Combat
Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and your
Combat Maneuver Defense.

By both lists, which are both in appendix I of the core rulebook, blinding sickness which does strength damage and bull's strength which grants a strength bonus neither affects encumbrance because neither is on the lists. However, the FAQ above indeed says that bull's strength should affect encumbrance.

I'm just saying there is a valid argument to be made that neither list is actually exhaustive. I was slightly incorrect before when I said they were both on the same list. Both lists are in the same section of the Core Rulebook though.

Dark Archive

Tallow wrote:


Ghoul fever is not really a great example of what you are trying to say:

Ghoul Fever wrote:
Bite—injury; save Fort DC 13; onset 1 day; frequency 1/day; effect 1d3 Con and 1d3 Dex damage; cure 2 consecutive saves. The save DC is Charisma-based.

It does Constitution damage, and you don't actually naturally heal the ability damage from a disease if you still have the disease. You can also die if you take enough Constitution damage.

Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe I'm in the minority when it comes to Constitution damaging diseases.

Once the disease is cured, then there is no condition anymore and the ability damage will heal naturally.

That's it. This thread is not about cureing disease. This all is about ability damage and only ability damage.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Lynn Elster Jones wrote:
Tallow wrote:


Ghoul fever is not really a great example of what you are trying to say:

Ghoul Fever wrote:
Bite—injury; save Fort DC 13; onset 1 day; frequency 1/day; effect 1d3 Con and 1d3 Dex damage; cure 2 consecutive saves. The save DC is Charisma-based.

It does Constitution damage, and you don't actually naturally heal the ability damage from a disease if you still have the disease. You can also die if you take enough Constitution damage.

Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe I'm in the minority when it comes to Constitution damaging diseases.

Once the disease is cured, then there is no condition anymore and the ability damage will heal naturally.

That's it. This thread is not about cureing disease. This all is about ability damage and only ability damage.

It is highly relevant since diseases cause ability damage on a daily basis.

And there are obviously two schools of thought about what to do with a disease in which the ability damage wouldn't actually kill you.

EDIT: ghoul fever would actually kill you if you don't resolve it. It is not just ability damage you are dealing with. you are dealing with a condition that continuously causes ability damage until you've cured it. Ghoul fever was your example.

Dark Archive

Tallow wrote:


I think you missed my point. I'm well aware how diseases and poisons work.

The list that lists what things are affected by ability damage is the same list as what things are affected by temporary ability modifiers. The FAQ says that temporary ability modifiers affect everything that permanent ability modifiers affect, even if it isn't on the list, because the designers said that the list is not exhaustive and they just didn't have enough wordcount to write everything.

I'm not saying I agree with it, necessarily, but I do believe there is a valid argument for saying that the list is also not exhaustive for ability damage.

Ok. I'm just saying ability damage do not change the ability score. This still means penality is applied to statistics.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:


It is highly relevant since diseases cause ability damage on a daily basis.

And there are obviously two schools of thought about what to do with a disease in which the ability damage wouldn't actually kill you.

EDIT: ghoul fever would actually kill you if you don't resolve it. It is not just ability damage you are dealing with. you are dealing with a condition that continuously causes ability damage until you've cured it. Ghoul fever was your example.

The point is that this thread is about "character must pay for healing ability damage or be reported as dead". Even if he had removed disease, but still have ability damage. Or if he got not disease, but just ability damage.

Cure disease is 1 PP spell, both cure disease and 2 lesser restorations are 3 P.P.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Lynn Elster Jones wrote:
Tallow wrote:


It is highly relevant since diseases cause ability damage on a daily basis.

And there are obviously two schools of thought about what to do with a disease in which the ability damage wouldn't actually kill you.

EDIT: ghoul fever would actually kill you if you don't resolve it. It is not just ability damage you are dealing with. you are dealing with a condition that continuously causes ability damage until you've cured it. Ghoul fever was your example.

The point is that this thread is about "character must pay for healing ability damage or be reported as dead". Even if he had removed disease, but still have ability damage. Or if he got not disease, but just ability damage.

Cure disease is 1 PP spell, both cure disease and 2 lesser restorations are 3 P.P.

If you have ability damage that is not due to an ongoing effect, and you are capable of naturally healing it, then there is nothing to resolve at the end of a scenario. Since time is ambiguous between scenarios, you just assume it naturally heals before your next adventure. No condition has been gained.

It works the same as hit point damage. Simply having damage is not a condition. And that includes ability damage.

Having a disease that has gone uncured, however, that causes ability damage on a daily basis, you cannot naturally heal that ability damage taken until the disease has been cured. If a player doesn't want to play it out and just wants to pay the PP or Gold expenditure to remove the disease, then that's fine.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Lynn Elster Jones wrote:
Tallow wrote:


I think you missed my point. I'm well aware how diseases and poisons work.

The list that lists what things are affected by ability damage is the same list as what things are affected by temporary ability modifiers. The FAQ says that temporary ability modifiers affect everything that permanent ability modifiers affect, even if it isn't on the list, because the designers said that the list is not exhaustive and they just didn't have enough wordcount to write everything.

I'm not saying I agree with it, necessarily, but I do believe there is a valid argument for saying that the list is also not exhaustive for ability damage.

Ok. I'm just saying ability damage do not change the ability score. This still means penality is applied to statistics.

I never claimed otherwise. Read my edit above and I think you'll see what I'm saying.

Scarab Sages 5/5

For all those who say that non-life threatening diseases should just be handwaved, how do you deal with blinding sickness?

If you take more than 2 strength damage you become permanently blind. That is certainly a condition that should be resolved, despite not being life-threatening, don't you think?

Shadow Lodge 5/5

It also does not heal naturally, unlike other diseases.

Scarab Sages 5/5

TOZ wrote:
It also does not heal naturally, unlike other diseases.

That's the problem, diseases themselves do not heal naturally. Unless you are referring to the making of a saving throw(s) over time as natural. I could see that argument.

But just because the disease itself is not immediately life-life threatening because it isn't doing Con damage, does not mean it isn't life threatening if you exist in that diseased state for long enough to go into a coma.

No amount of care is going to 100% of the time keep someone alive that is in a coma due to a disease.

EDIT:

Blinding Sickness wrote:

Type disease, ingested; Save Fortitude DC 16

Onset 1d3 days; Frequency 1/day
Effect 1d4 Str damage, if more than 2 Str damage, target must
make an additional Fort save or be permanently blinded;
Cure 2 consecutive saves

I'm confused. If any disease could be healed naturally, why wouldn't blinding sickness heal naturally? Sure, being blind wouldn't heal naturally, but that's just a side effect of the disease, not the disease itself.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Tallow wrote:
No amount of care is going to 100% of the time keep someone alive that is in a coma due to a disease.

This is incorrect in Pathfinder. If the PC is being cared for, they will eventually recover from non-Con damaging afflictions.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Tallow wrote:
No amount of care is going to 100% of the time keep someone alive that is in a coma due to a disease.
This is incorrect in Pathfinder. If the PC is being cared for, they will eventually recover from non-Con damaging afflictions.

I am not aware of a rule that actually states this. This may be a house-rule that many GMs use. But I don't believe this assertion is actually supported by the rules. I'm willing to be proven wrong however.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

You will need to show the rules that would cause a stable character at a 0 non-Con ability score to perish and explain how other characters could not prevent that.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
You will need to show the rules that would cause a stable character at a 0 non-Con ability score to perish and explain how other characters could not prevent that.

Dehydration rules, starvation rules, etc. are all rules sets that could cause someone to die if they are in a coma.

If they are under care, then those conditions might be offset for awhile. But there are no rules for feeding and watering an unconscious (comatose) creature either.

In this case, as a GM, you come up with the best, fair rules you can for what's happening.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

And that is still you choosing to have the character die.

Feeding a potion to an unconscious character is a full round action.

5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
If they are under care, then those conditions might be offset for awhile. But there are no rules for feeding and watering an unconscious (comatose) creature either.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that an unconscious character receiving care and attention from their fellow pathfinders in the safety of a lodge will die from starvation, thirst or some other mysterious cause. Because if so this is the point where you start sounding like a dick.

Scarab Sages 5/5

TOZ wrote:
And that is still you choosing to have the character die.

Why does it have to be your way or I'm being a dick? Why can't I get the benefit of the doubt that I can make resolving a disease interesting and not contentious?

I never "choose" to have a character die. I do my best to work with the player so their character doesn't die... while dealing with the disease.

Quote:
Feeding a potion to an unconscious character is a full round action.

I suppose you could extrapolate that to feeding solid food too. But there are no rules for creating liquid food that's enough to stave off starvation. There are no rules actually for specifically caring for a comatose creature.

As a GM, you have to use other rules sets, including feeding a potion, dehydration and starvation, to extrapolate what happens when someone goes into a coma.

The expedient thing to do is pay the 150gp or 2pp and just not worry about it.

As always, circumstances trump general ideals. The fun of a player and helping them to not lose their character usually trumps rules for me.

That doesn't mean, though, that I just ignore non-Con diseases.

Because after all, unless the scenario is spread out over more than 1 day or there is some effect that causes immediate onset, a non-Con disease is pointless to have in the game if you are going to just ignore it otherwise.

Scarab Sages 5/5

andreww wrote:
Tallow wrote:
If they are under care, then those conditions might be offset for awhile. But there are no rules for feeding and watering an unconscious (comatose) creature either.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that an unconscious character receiving care and attention from their fellow pathfinders in the safety of a lodge will die from starvation, thirst or some other mysterious cause. Because if so this is the point where you start sounding like a dick.

People in the real world, with far better technology and care than Golarion has, die while in comas. Please don't bring magic into things here, because magic costs resources to use (i.e. spellcasting services) and if they were going to use magic, then just spend the gold or PP for spellcasting services. If you want to roleplay the disease out, then we can do that and have fun while doing so. And then you might have a cool story about how you contracted leprosy and managed to survive despite almost losing an ear and a little toe.

But whatever, make me out to be a dick for actually using the game mechanics to you know, play the game. And represent the challenges and dangers presented in a scenario, as you know, actual challenges and dangers.

Scarab Sages 5/5

diseases are part of the game.

If you choose to ignore them, then you are ignoring part of the game. If that works for you and your players, then good. That's why we are here, to have fun.

But lets call it what it is. You are choosing to use a house rule in a PFS environment.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

2 people marked this as a favorite.

No, you are rules lawyering to get the result you desire.

You're also becoming far too involved in this tangent and should probably step away.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
But lets call it what it is. You are choosing to use a house rule in a PFS environment.

You are the person suggesting people spontaneously die.

Scarab Sages 5/5

andreww wrote:
Tallow wrote:
But lets call it what it is. You are choosing to use a house rule in a PFS environment.
You are the person suggesting people spontaneously die.

That is certainly not what I said and you know it.

But yeah, when the attacks start to become personal, Steven is right, I'm out.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

No, you are rules lawyering to get the result you desire.

You're also becoming far too involved in this tangent and should probably step away.

One last reply. You are assuming you know what result I desire.

Character death is not a result I desire.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

2 people marked this as a favorite.

No, you desire afflictions to be character threatening and are ruling your games to make it so.

This results in increased expenditures of either character wealth or player time, enforced by the threat of character death.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lynn Elster Jones wrote:


Cure disease is 1 PP spell, both cure disease and 2 lesser restorations are 3 P.P.

Its effectively more than a 1 pp spell, which is why it doesn't work. If you need to stop the game for a bunch of rolls anyway, the chicken soup solution is both cheaper AND more likely to work.

Dark Archive 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm sure that the infirmary in the Grand Lodge has a spare ring of sustenance or two that they loan out to those comatose patients while they wait for that nat 20 (or whatever they need). This would reflect the PC getting care during their illness, without worry of starvation or dehydration. There, problem solved, the Society cares for their agents.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alanya wrote:
There, problem solved, the Society cares for their agents.

[shadow lodge]HAHAHAHHAHAhahHAHAHAHAHHA... [/shadowlodge]

3/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Alanya wrote:
There, problem solved, the Society cares for their agents.
[shadow lodge]HAHAHAHHAHAhahHAHAHAHAHHA... [/shadowlodge]

The organization that commits mass murder at will should be the last to talk.

Dark Archive 5/5

There's a huge difference between the Shadow Lodge faction, and the Shadow Lodge run by certain other individuals in season 2. The faction did actually care about their agents; my -1 was heartbroken when they disbanded, and reluctantly chose another faction. Sadly, I never chose a symbol for my main account (I have since), so lost out on the opportunity to show my loyalties to fellow Lodgers. :(

Sovereign Court 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Alanya wrote:
I'm sure that the infirmary in the Grand Lodge has a spare ring of sustenance or two that they loan out to those comatose patients while they wait for that nat 20 (or whatever they need). This would reflect the PC getting care during their illness, without worry of starvation or dehydration. There, problem solved, the Society cares for their agents.

Oh, there's that nice ring of sustenance recovered from the girl who was trapped in a sarcophagus for 10 years and survived...

Silver Crusade 5/5

Alanya wrote:
There, problem solved, the Society cares for their agents.

That we do.

3/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Alanya wrote:
There's a huge difference between the Shadow Lodge faction, and the Shadow Lodge run by certain other individuals in season 2. The faction did actually care about their agents; my -1 was heartbroken when they disbanded, and reluctantly chose another faction. Sadly, I never chose a symbol for my main account (I have since), so lost out on the opportunity to show my loyalties to fellow Lodgers. :(

Its less that and more me poking fun at the fact that it has to be the worst case of not rebranding your organization I have ever seen. The most sympathy I've ever had for that faction occurs long after the faction dissolved because you finally find out what resulted in the creation of the Shadow Lodge.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Actually, you learn that at the end of Season 2, assuming you play in the 7-11 tier.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

People forget that the base benefit of that Clear Spindle Ioun Stone is the same as a Ring of Sustenance ^^.

3/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

TOZ wrote:
Actually, you learn that at the end of Season 2, assuming you play in the 7-11 tier.

That is a heck of a lot different than having the same thing that cursed Torch curse you. It makes it a bit more visceral.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, Tennessee—Knoxville aka tchrman35

It's head-canon for me that the clerics at the hospitals have drawers full of rings of sustenance that they place on the fingers of comatose patients. And that all Pathfinder lodges except the smallest have one or two lying around for just such a purpose.

Honestly, we already have the "mathfinder" moniker. Just like I don't enjoy accounting for every single ration used by the PCs, I don't want to worry with 50 rolls to clear a 2-consecutive-saves condition.

If it's not going to kill you, at my table your going to get better. If there's a permanent condition that results from your disease, we'll resolve that as though after the disease has been cleared. That is, you pay for remove blindness once.

Just my opinion.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

non con damage disease: roll w hole bunch of d20s'... okay those two look consecutive saves you're fine.

con damage disease: how low do you wana go before calling a cleric?

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I think I've been misunderstanding the general consensus here.

Are people saying they're just not dealing with disease because of the 1/day saves?

Cuz I definitely make sure people clear all conditions before the end of the adventure.

On the 3rd round of combat you're not going to just say "well, we're halfway through, so I won't worry about this poison anymore".

It should be no different just because the duration is longer.

I thought I read up thread that some GM was being a jerk by forcing players to pay for conditions rather than roll.

I'm totally against that. I see that as extreme. But not even making players clear conditions is another extreme.

I'm against both.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

"I rest in the lodge until the disease is gone."

"Cool, it's cleared."

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

...as long as it's cleared, yes.

Or are you seriously just ignoring diseases?

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Of course not. If they actually take effect during the scenario, I enforce the ability damage during the remaining encounters. If not, I ask them how they want to handle it at the end of the scenario. If it's not Con-damaging, then I don't waste a lot of time rolling dice.

Sovereign Court 3/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

TOZ is effectively taking 20 on the save against the disease.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Nefreet wrote:

I think I've been misunderstanding the general consensus here.

Are people saying they're just not dealing with disease because of the 1/day saves?

Cuz I definitely make sure people clear all conditions before the end of the adventure.

On the 3rd round of combat you're not going to just say "well, we're halfway through, so I won't worry about this poison anymore".

It should be no different just because the duration is longer.

I thought I read up thread that some GM was being a jerk by forcing players to pay for conditions rather than roll.

I'm totally against that. I see that as extreme. But not even making players clear conditions is another extreme.

I'm against both.

I don't "force" people to pay. At least not immediately. But I'm pretty sure that was the take-away folks got from what I was writing.

If time is of the essence, and we don't have time for more than a few rolls or a few minutes of rolls, we can explore other avenues and creative solutions for resolution of the condition. If at the end of the day, no resolution has resulted in all the attempts, then paying is really the only option isn't it?

Scarab Sages 5/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Of course not. If they actually take effect during the scenario, I enforce the ability damage during the remaining encounters. If not, I ask them how they want to handle it at the end of the scenario. If it's not Con-damaging, then I don't waste a lot of time rolling dice.

There is not a lot of difference between you and I on this. But what I'm seeing is a lot of hyperbole in response to what I'm saying. A lot of assumptions that I'm wasting copious amounts of time.

I'd say on average, the resolution takes less than 2 minutes.

Dark Archive

If the disease isnt dealing con damage then the player cant die from it.

He has infinite time to make the checks after the adventure is over. Lets says the dc is so high the character needs a nat 20 to suceeed. And this disease takes 2 consecutive saves.

That is a .25% chance of succeeding. But he will succed sinc ehe has infinite time. Making him roll accomplishes nothing.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Tallow wrote:
I'd say on average, the resolution takes less than 2 minutes.

That's still 2 minutes longer than I take. ;)

KingOfAnything wrote:
TOZ is effectively taking 20 on the save against the disease.

Tallow clearly disallows Take 20, as the character is threatened and distracted. :)

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'm just of the mindset that:

Extreme: forcing anyone to pay when they don't have to.
Expected: having players clear conditions.
Extreme: ignoring long term duration conditions.

It sounds like the people going back and forth on this are in either of the extremes. You're likely to never sway the other person's mind to your POV.

But between Guidance, Heal checks, a third level caster using Bear's Endurance, and/or the availability of Antiplague, it really shouldn't take that many rolls for anyone to clear a disease.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Nah, I'm pretty sure everyone is in the expected group and demonizing everyone else as extremes. :)

1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:

I'm just of the mindset that:

*snip*

Expected: having players clear conditions.

*snip*

But between Guidance, Heal checks, a third level caster using Bear's Endurance, and/or the availability of Antiplague, it really shouldn't take that many rolls for anyone to clear a disease.

My suspicion, hunch as it were, is that this is generally the mindset, and if one is in a 'time-crunch' for a scenario, which is more 'entertaining' for the players and the GM?

A. "Okay, so, ah, everyone got Gamer Funk with a.. .DC 14 Fortitude save with one success or until they bathe" To which most players would ask "So, if we take a bath or shower we clear the condition?"

OR

B. "So, everyone got a DC14 Fort Save disease, but since we don't have time to clear the basic condition, you're going to have to spend gold or PP to have it cleared because we don't have time to roll it out because the store/con is closing/GM has to get up for work in the morning."

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
TOZ wrote:
I'm pretty sure everyone is in the expected group and demonizing everyone else as extremes. :)

I'm fine with that, really.

51 to 100 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Ability damage in PFS All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.