|
I am asking this in the GM forum because I want the opinion of various PFS GM's on how they would react to this at their table. If it makes any difference, about 2/3 of my PFS gaming is online PbP. Possibly almost all of it with this character.
I have an idea for a very stupid PC with multiple intelligent magic items that tell him what to do while arguing among themselves. The ring, repaired sword, and large shield. Please note. This certainly not power gaming since almost no one thinks the items are even worth the cost. Plus the build itself is not all that powerful. Also, I am respectful player. I am not doing this as a excuse to disrupt the table. This is just a part of some humorous role-playing and entertainment. I won't take this to the point of interfering with play or anyone else's enjoyment.
Several GM's have said they love the concept and want me to do it. However, there is some disagreement online with how to handle this or if it is even possible.
So here is my thought on how to handle this.
1) Procure each of the items normally.
2) Before the game starts I will discuss this with the GM.
3) If the GM feels that multiple intelligent magic items is just plain impossible or that using one of them is not possible for the character, then during that scenario he will have the Ring and the other 2 will me just a +2 mithral allaying longsword and/or a +1 large shield without intelligence. For the intelligent versions, the PC has obviously spent significantly more than the cost of the non-intelligent versions.
4) If the GM is ok with all the items on the PC I will handle like this:
A] Put on the Ring.
B] Possibly use scroll of Owl's Wisdom &/or Eagles Splendor (and anything else cheap that will stack to increase will save and UMD).
C] Will save vs. ego of sword to equip the sword. If fail, then leave the sword in the Handy Haversack. Obviously I will need a decent backup melee weapon.
D] UMD to emulate LN alignment and will save vs. ego of the shield to equip the shield. If fail either, then leave the shield in the Handy Haversack.
5) If necessary, repeat 4) each in-game hour.
Does this sound reasonable approach to you as a GM?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like a character that will, with high probability, be a spotlight hog and disruptive to the overall mission.
Indeed, it almost sounds like a caricature of mental illness, where you have a character controlled by random "voices in his head" that, literally, change radically at the whims of the dice.
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
For Play-by-Post, the voices in your head thing works great! I did this with a Spirit Guide Oracle.
Unfortunately two of the main intelligent items in PFS have notes specifically in their stat blocks stating that they will not work with other intelligent items. I have not checked all the intelligent items, because I only know of a few.
ALSO, according to CRB page 36 under intelligent items: "No intelligent item wishes to share its wielder with others."
As a result, I think this concept is a no-go for PFS. A non-PFS or campaign mode PBP game can make its own rules, of course.
Hmm
PS If you want to go with voices in the head, really consider a shaman, or some other haunted class.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, you are only allowed one intelligent item per character in PFS. :(
There are some alternatives. Hmm mentioned one! To give you a couple other ideas, you could look at the Relic Channeler archetype for the medium. That way you have six different things you can talk to and argue with starting right at level 1. An occultist could also fit.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, you are only allowed one intelligent item per character in PFS. :(
There are some alternatives. Hmm mentioned one! To give you a couple other ideas, you could look at the Relic Channeler archetype for the medium. That way you have six different things you can talk to and argue with starting right at level 1. An occultist could also fit.
I don't think that is a rule (if it is, please cite it).
Otherwise, I'm pretty sure this text wouldn't exist.
|
|
It sounds like a character that will, with high probability, be a spotlight hog and disruptive to the overall mission. ... literally, change radically at the whims of the dice.
Guaranteed not. Or at least no more than any other PC with a familiar / animal companion / eidolon that is actually role-played with a personality. I won't be using dice to see what he does. I will just be using the various personalities to guide what my character is doing. Instead of my PC making a sense motive check and telling the others that we are being set-up...
Gamin cries, The braggart is a liar. Voices, you must strike him down before he betrays the princess!.
.
.
...
Unfortunately two of the main intelligent items in PFS have notes specifically in their stat blocks stating that they will not work with other intelligent items. I have not checked all the intelligent items, because I only know of a few.ALSO, according to CRB page 36 under intelligent items: "No intelligent item wishes to share its wielder with others."
...
Yes, it 'wishes' not that it can't be done. The Shield says it "urges" the PC to not use other magic items. Neither of the other 2 have any specific text.
That is why I have the ego check to try and equip them in step 4) above..
.
.
Since you 2 don't agree with the concept. Would you two have a problem with me just using the non-intelligent versions of the items if I sat at your table with the PC per item 3) above?
.
.
.
...
PS If you want to go with voices in the head, really consider a shaman, or some other haunted class.
...
To give you a couple other ideas, you could look at the Relic Channeler archetype for the medium. That way you have six different things you can talk to and argue with starting right at level 1. An occultist could also fit.
I will give those a look see this weekend. Thx for the additional ideas.
Take this idea to your home campaign, not to one that requires each Judge to break rules for you, and more to the point will no doubt annoy every player on the random tables that are part and parcel of PFS.
There is no way a Judge can allow you this without breaking multiple rules of the campaign. Plain and simple. Even if the Judge would allow it, it's patently unfair for you to hog table time at the expense of other players. In a home campaign you may find players willing to give you the bulk of stage time. It's patently rude to expect it in PFS.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whoa. Let's not call others rude, please. It was an interesting question. I just earnestly believe that the current rules for how intelligent magic items work, as laid out on Page 36 in the CRB, make this build impossible for PFS.
I will note that the original poster did say that this would be a Play-by-Post character. Play-by-Post is the one place where a character like this (with multiple voices and other things going on) would not be stage-time stealing hog. I played a mwangi Spirit Guide Oracle in a PBP home game who heard the voices of her ancestors. They were all there. Her crazy nudist uncle. Her philandering uncle Shivaji. Auntie Deepa, who was very old-fashioned and threw bread rolls with mage hand at the other characters when they acted out of line. It was great fun. A lot of work, but good fun, and the chorus of voices in my oracle's head was always interesting. Sometimes their advice was good. Sometimes they demanded that another player pay the price of 20 cattle for the honor of kissing Rataji.
Play-by-Post is also the only medium that I have seen other normally unworkable builds like the 'strong silent type' work for PFS. Everyone expects really detailed posts, back story and internal monologues in Play-by-Post. You can really bring out a character's inner motivations and thoughts without slowing game time down at all. It's a wonderful medium for gaming.
It might also be possible to play this character as in a campaign mode PbP game. Take it into a home game or an AP or module series played in campaign mode, and it could work, because then normal campaign rules might be suspended. The other players and GMs would have to sign off on it though.
Frankly, I love the idea of a doing a Relic Channeler or an Occultist instead.
Hmm
Venture Lieutenant in charge of PFS PBP Play Online
|
Take this idea to your home campaign, not to one that requires each Judge to break rules for you, and more to the point will no doubt annoy every player on the random tables that are part and parcel of PFS.
There is no way a Judge can allow you this without breaking multiple rules of the campaign. Plain and simple. Even if the Judge would allow it, it's patently unfair for you to hog table time at the expense of other players. In a home campaign you may find players willing to give you the bulk of stage time. It's patently rude to expect it in PFS.
Citation needed.
He's talking about items specifically granted on chronicle sheets. If you have actual pieces of evidence to back up your claim, instead of just the bold tag, this would be a good time to show them.
Take this idea to your home campaign, not to one that requires each Judge to break rules for you, and more to the point will no doubt annoy every player on the random tables that are part and parcel of PFS.
There is no way a Judge can allow you this without breaking multiple rules of the campaign. Plain and simple. Even if the Judge would allow it, it's patently unfair for you to hog table time at the expense of other players. In a home campaign you may find players willing to give you the bulk of stage time. It's patently rude to expect it in PFS.
Citation needed.
He's talking about items specifically granted on chronicle sheets. If you have actual pieces of evidence to back up your claim, instead of just the bold tag, this would be a good time to show them.
No he's not he wants to start a character with multiple intelligent magic items. There was no initial mention of chronicle sheets, furthermore the only items listed as intelligent items on chronicle sheets are ... extremely expensive. So you're talking about crafting items... which is not allowed in the game.
|
|
For Play-by-Post, the voices in your head thing works great! I did this with a Spirit Guide Oracle.
Unfortunately two of the main intelligent items in PFS have notes specifically in their stat blocks stating that they will not work with other intelligent items. I have not checked all the intelligent items, because I only know of a few.
ALSO, according to CRB page 36 under intelligent items: "No intelligent item wishes to share its wielder with others."
As a result, I think this concept is a no-go for PFS. A non-PFS or campaign mode PBP game can make its own rules, of course.
HmmPS If you want to go with voices in the head, really consider a shaman, or some other haunted class.
The only item that has something remotely close to that in their statblock is the shield, and it's simply an urging. The sword and the ring have no language at all in their stat blocks regarding this.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
Yes, I went ahead and did some rummaging through the forum, and found the scenario that grants the ring. I just read all three chronicle sheets, and you're right... only the shield has that text.
Still, intelligent items are supposed to be the equivalent of rather jealous and needy significant others in your life. I do not think any of the three would welcome the other two. Am I out of line or reading too much into the CRB section on intelligent items, here?
Hmm
|
|
Yes, I went ahead and did some rummaging through the forum, and found the scenario that grants the ring. I just read all three chronicle sheets, and you're right... only the shield has that text.
Still, intelligent items are supposed to be the equivalent of rather jealous and needy significant others in your life. I do not think any of the three would welcome the other two. Am I out of line or reading too much into the section on intelligent items, here?
Hmm
Unless there is specific language saying that it is not legal in an FAQ or campaign guide, then yes. Now an ego check to get a player to leave an item at home might be reasonable, but not a blanket ban. Now, I don't think this is a good idea per ce; but the knee-jerk reaction to "build a fence around the Torah" in an already restricted game is problematic.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Why would anyone want more than one intelligent item? I mean, seriously, by the time you take them out, maintain them right, figure out what they're all about, they're practically married to you, body and soul.
What sort of greedy ugly person would want three or more jealous lovers fighting over them?" a handsome Taldan bard opines...
"You tell 'em, Rae! And another thing, what's with it and all the folks wanting a shield or some ring or something when there is the awesome that is Yours Truly, Gamin the TrueForged!" inquires a slightly metallic tone from Rae's hip.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Why would anyone want more than one intelligent item? I mean, seriously, by the time you take them out, maintain them right, figure out what they're all about, they're practically married to you, body and soul.What sort of greedy ugly person would want three or more jealous lovers fighting over them?" a handsome Taldan bard opines...
"You tell 'em, Rae! And another thing, what's with it and all the folks wanting a shield or some ring or something when there is the awesome that is Yours Truly, Gamin the TrueForged!" inquires a slightly metallic tone from Rae's hip.
A Calistrian?
|
|
Huh. For my part, I was told by a VO I trust implicitly that you can't get more than one. I swear I saw the rule myself somewhere, but memory is an awful thing to rely on.
So now that I'm looking, I of course can't find a ruling. It sounds like people have spent significantly more time than I have digging into the rules for multiple intelligent items, and I hate hate hate searching for PFS rules.
Maybe I misheard, maybe it's a conservative reading of either an early rule on limiting companions or the intelligent items text in the CRB, maybe he was simply looking at [redacted] on the sheet and my brain extrapolated too far. Dunno!
I'd edit my post, but alas, the timer has run out. Sorry to have contributed to the mess!
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
HMM has the page citation wrong. Missing a digit.
All magic items with personalities desire to play an important role in whatever activity is under way, particularly combat. Such items are natural rivals, even with others of the same alignment. No intelligent item wants to share its wielder with others. An intelligent item is aware of the presence of any other intelligent item within 60 feet, and most intelligent items try their best to mislead or distract their host so that she ignores or destroys the rival. Of course, alignment might change this sort of behavior.
In addition, alignment would likely be a problem. I do not know off the top of my head what the alignments of the items are, but found this in the same general area of the CRB.
Any character whose alignment does not correspond to that of the item (except as noted by the asterisks on the table) gains one negative level if he or she so much as picks up the item. Although this negative level never results in actual level loss, it remains as long as the item is in hand and cannot be overcome in any way (including by restoration spells).
Last of all, it would set a bad precedent for others at the table. You are taking three very special campaign items and putting them on one character. Hopefully this is being done by GM credit or GM replays, but it would still make other players seeing it tempted to chronicle fish.
I would strongly suggest the idea be used either in a home game or use one of the other alternatives described above. Be ready to drop it if the table is not amused.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
GAH. I not only cited the page incorrectly, I cited it incorrectly MULTIPLE TIMES. Thanks for catching that, Bret.
___
Still, looking at the alignments or all three items and the table, the sword can be used only by good characters without ill effects. The ring and the shield share the same rather specific alignment, and the shield is known to strongly object to the presence of other intelligent items.
This is looking like there is more trouble here than it is worth. Can your character really be portrayed as dumb if he is constantly using UMD and spells to overcome alignment restrictions?
Hmm
I tried this and it was pointed out to me that Glorymane's jealous would require an EGO check until you roll a 1 and it would force you to discard the other intelligent items, for at least 24 hours.
This is how the rules in the core book on pages 535-536 was explained to me.
|
|
I tried this and it was pointed out to me that Glorymane's jealous would require an EGO check until you roll a 1 and it would force you to discard the other intelligent items, for at least 24 hours.
This is how the rules in the core book on pages 535-536 was explained to me.
That would be pretty unreasonable because if an intelligent item could spam dominance attempts back to back like that then they would never lose an attempt because you are guaranteed to roll a 1 on a long enough time line. Once per hour would be a bit much; once a day would be completely reasonable and in-line with the effects of a PC losing a dominance battle.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
No he's not he wants to start a character with multiple intelligent magic items. There was no initial mention of chronicle sheets, furthermore the only items listed as intelligent items on chronicle sheets are ... extremely expensive. So you're talking about crafting items... which is not allowed in the game.
I'm not sure how you got that. I have a bunch of chronicle sheets on a 'GM baby' that I have not yet completely decided the build. I will be running the others (they have already been requested in our area by others). So I am not starting with them at first level. I will have the chronicle sheets. I probably won't be able to purchase all 3 until around 7th level or so.
..
.
...
In addition, alignment would likely be a problem. I do not know off the top of my head what the alignments of the items are, but found this in the same general area of the CRB. ...
...
Still, looking at the alignments or all three items and the table, the sword can be used only by good characters without ill effects. The ring and the shield share the same rather specific alignment, and the shield is known to strongly object to the presence of other intelligent items.
...
The character's alignment would be neutral. That is why I had the UMD to emulate alignment in 4) above. I incorrectly stated that it was for the shield when it should have been for the sword.
If he fails the UMD or any of the ego checks, he just leaves the item(s) in his Handy Haversack..
.
.
In my home group, I am currently the GM for the campaign we are in now. The concept won't work in what is already planned for the next 2 campaigns. So I can't use it in the home group, at least not for several years.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
My understanding is that if something is not legal, the approved remedy is to sell it back at full price. That would be a permanent change to the character. I do not know of anything that would allow you to treat a unique item (of which all of these are) as a lesser item of the same basic type.
In looking a bit closer at what you plan, I do not believe the UMD check would allow you to avoid the negative level that is caused by having a different alignment than the item accepts. That part of UMD is meant for activating items that require a certain alignment, it doesn't actually change your alignment or protect you from alignment based penalties.
|
|
My understanding is that if something is not legal, the approved remedy is to sell it back at full price. That would be a permanent change to the character. I do not know of anything that would allow you to treat a unique item (of which all of these are) as a lesser item of the same basic type.
In looking a bit closer at what you plan, I do not believe the UMD check would allow you to avoid the negative level that is caused by having a different alignment than the item accepts. That part of UMD is meant for activating items that require a certain alignment, it doesn't actually change your alignment or protect you from alignment based penalties.
The issue is that very few seem to be sure that it is or is not legal. The ones that seem to be the most sure that it is not legal seem least able to bring a clear reason that it is not legal. On these forums in a few different threads, the split seems to be about 2/3 think it is legal. In my local area, all but one GM that I have talked to about this think it is perfectly legal.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is that very few seem to be sure that it is or is not legal. The ones that seem to be the most sure that it is not legal seem least able to bring a clear reason that it is not legal. On these forums in a few different threads, the split seems to be about 2/3 think it is legal. In my local area, all but one GM that I have talked to about this think it is perfectly legal.
There have been quite a few people on this thread who were SURE that this was full-stop illegal in the campaign, but have been unable to produce chapter and verse to back that up; that tells me that it is almost certainly not specified as being an illegal choice. That said, there are enough downsides baked into intelligent items to make this a difficult character build, and a lot of table GMs do not know how they work. If you wish to pursue this, you are going to have to approach the GMs before play, let them know what you are doing, educate them on intelligent items, and let them know what their options are in game (ego checks, dominance lasting 24 hours, etc.) If they tell you it is illegal, tell them you have done your due diligence and have not found any ruling to that effect, however if they know where multiple intelligent items being illegal is specifically spelled out you would love to see it. If a GM still insists, have a back up character or get ready to walk.
|
|
How many animals can I have at any given time?
During the course of a scenario, you may have one combat animal and as many noncombat animals as you like. Noncombat animals (ponies, horses, pet dogs, and so on) cannot participate in combat at all. If you have so many noncombat animals that their presence is slowing a session down, the GM has the right to ask you to select one noncombat animal and leave the rest behind. A summoner's eidolon is considered an animal companion for the purposes of counting combat and noncombat animals. If you have more than one class-granted animal companion (or eidolon), you must choose which will be considered the combat animal at the start of the scenario. In general, a mount, a familiar or mundane pet, and your class-granted animal(s) are acceptable, but more than that can be disruptive.
I'm reasonably certain I've seen it spelled out elsewhere by campaign leadership, but that one seems the closest to the topic at the moment.
My research isn't the greatest, but I'm pretty sure it would be disruptive at most tables to have a player sitting there role-playing the personality issues of bearing three to four sentient items? That is, in addition to having their own character?
It's never come up in play for me when I've been running, but barring any other information, I'd politely ask that two of the other items remain 'at home' to prevent table disruption.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
C] Will save vs. ego of sword to equip the sword. If fail, then leave the sword in the Handy Haversack. Obviously I will need a decent backup melee weapon.
D] UMD to emulate LN alignment and will save vs. ego of the shield to equip the shield. If fail either, then leave the shield in the Handy Haversack.
One thing that I don't understand: if you lose the Ego battle with either of the items, what makes you think you still have the luxury of stashing it in the Haversack, for later use? Wouldn't they assert dominance, see that you don't value them enough, and force you to get rid of them, or get permanently rid of the other two items?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
In face to face, I would not want such a character at my table. It would be slightly better in PBP because of the slower rate. I still think it is a bad idea.
I've only done a cursory search of the rules. The wording in the CRB clearly discourages but does not appear to outright forbid it. Given that, I would expect it to be the PFS campaign rules that would determine if it is legal or not.
By the rules in the CRB, you would be looking at hourly Ego checks. It appears you would have at least one permanent negative level as well. As a GM, I would find that distracting and annoying. I just want to run the game, and don't really want the additional complication of a character that could spontaneously self-destruct. That is not the sort of story element that I feel is appropriate for a cooperative game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My research isn't the greatest, but I'm pretty sure it would be disruptive at most tables to have a player sitting there role-playing the personality issues of bearing three to four sentient items? That is, in addition to having their own character?
I think this bit is what irritates me the most about this whole debate, largely because it's be echoed several times. I've GMed and played in PFS for several years now and I would say about 80% of the characters I've encountered (mostly at cons, thankfully, and not in my home area) are a sheet full of numbers and a name, with absolutely no personality to speak of. They walk in, kill the targets they need to, roll diplomacy checks when they have to, and generally leave an impression somewhere between tepid oatmeal and wet paper. You have somebody here who wants to make an interesting character, and people are bending rules (or inventing them whole cloth) to stop it. You call it disruption, I call it roleplaying.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a really easy going GM for the most part. I welcome wacky builds and crazy player shenanigans to my tables. I adore roleplaying quirky characters and seeing different and interesting ideas. As a GM, I work to give every character a chance to shine and everyone moments for hilarious roleplay. I'm even pro 'voices in the head' as I really enjoyed doing exactly that with a non-PFS PbP character.
But with this one, I would not feel right letting it play at my table at all. The whole bit in the CRB with magic items being jealous, plus the different alignments of Gamin versus Glorymane and Ring of the Weary Sky... I do not honestly believe that wielding multiple intelligent items is in line with the intent of the rules on magic items.
Please understand. I'm not a RAW person. I could care less about the endless rules debates and grumping that happens sometimes on these forums. However, I care deeply about the setting, and the intent of how the world works. As a GM, I want this world to be an awesome and quirky place that I breathe into life for my players. Ask anyone about how much work and research I put into the settings of my Play-by-Posts.
So when you ask me how I would adjudicate this build at my table, I will tell you that I could not temporarily turn Gamin and Glorymane into non-intelligent versions of themselves. That would not work for me. Those creatures do not turn off or go inactive. They're major NPCs and special companions from this setting.
I feel like my choices if this character came to my table as a GM would be all terrible ones. Ask you to sell back your magic items at full price? Too draconian, especially since you as you say, there is nothing specifically in the rules stating that this is illegal other than the limit on 'in combat' animals. Ask you to leave the other two items behind? Too punitive. It would gut your character.
I think that as a GM, my kindest option would be to ask you gently to please pick a different character to play at my table -- which is a shame, because I would get a kick out of GMing for a character with multiple personalities or voices in the head if you had some other story reason for the condition.
Note: If John, Linda or Tonya comes in and says, "Hey, if he can handle to negative levels, let him go with the chaos," then I would know that I was wrong in my reading of the intent, and I will shrug, and go 'cool!' Under those circumstances I would welcome your PbP character with open arms.
Fair?
Hmm
|
|
I think this bit is what irritates me the most about this whole debate, largely because it's be echoed several times. I've GMed and played in PFS for several years now and I would say about 80% of the characters I've encountered (mostly at cons, thankfully, and not in my home area) are a sheet full of numbers and a name, with absolutely no personality to speak of. They walk in, kill the targets they need to, roll diplomacy checks when they have to, and generally leave an impression somewhere between tepid oatmeal and wet paper. You have somebody here who wants to make an interesting character, and people are bending rules (or inventing them whole cloth) to stop it. You call it disruption, I call it roleplaying.
My research isn't the greatest, but I'm pretty sure it would be disruptive at most tables to have a player sitting there role-playing the personality issues of bearing three to four sentient items? That is, in addition to having their own character?
Except it shouldn't be a debate.
It appears to be the rule that could use greater clarity in this particular instance.
There's no need to incorporate play level or experience level , and *shocking development*, I've seen as much disruption from an individual trying to 'role-play something KEWL' as someone that has a pile of numbers and stats. And this is coming from someone who *loves* to role-play.
Trying to use the defense of 'well, it's just role-playing' is treading dangerously close to the rule of 'respect your fellow players and GM' and not in a good way.
In addition, convention play is VERY different from local play.
There is very little time in a given slot to impart effectively everything about a character for people to understand how a character works, and when things are disruptive, that is what people remember in my experience, not the neat character stuff.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
Looks like my post had come off as too heated. Sorry about that. I will try to do better.
I'll hit the high points, mostly rules corrections or areas where I wasn't sure.
I don't know if it is legal or not, but the CRB shows clear intent that it is to be discouraged. If there is a rule against it, I would expect that to be in the PFS Campaign rules.
I'm not sure what the correct frequency for Ego rolls would be, once/day or once/hour. The text for the UMD skill says:
If you are using the check to emulate an alignment or some other quality in an ongoing manner, you need to make the relevant Use Magic Device check once per hour.
It was based on the above that I thought hourly Ego checks would be called for.
On the other hand, it was pointed out that the section on Intelligent Items says once/day or when something significant happens. I think there would be a fair amount of table variance as to if a failed UMD would count as significant. At this point, I would need to do more rules research to determine how I would handle it.
I still find nothing indicating that the UMD would allow you to avoid the permanent negative level caused by wielding an intelligent item of a different alignment.
Finally, if this were brought to my table I would try to encourage the player to play a different character. I would not feel comfortable as a GM trying to adjudicate what is fair if they lost an Ego battle with one of the items, especially since it could happen during a boss fight. It happening during a boss fight could lead to character deaths.
To the original poster, have you looked at the Spirit Guide Oracle or other alternatives? I would not have a problem with something like that at my table.
Organized Play Coordinator
|
| 26 people marked this as a favorite. |
I took this thread to the PFS team, as it is larger than just the OP and their character concept. We do feel the topic needs a clarification for Pathfinder Society. We will add the following to the FAQ when it updates, but it takes effect immediately.
PFS and Intelligent Items -