Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
The Green Faith

Andrew Christian's page

Goblin Squad Member. RPG Superstar 2013 Dedicated Voter. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul. 3,139 posts (7,192 including aliases). 3 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 21 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

He may be on his way already, and so may not be able to respond.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Thanks Linda!

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

See the various acg errata threads.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

I agree Mark.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

You don't feel that needing an atonement to continue playing with that character would be considered a condition?

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is the intent.

Essentially, you must update your character to be legal before you play again. Any allowed rebuilds must be done before you play again.

So if you are playing before the season 7 guide comes out, and you want to do a rebuild, you will need to do so with the season six rules.

But if the play session happens after the season seven guide hits the street, and you do the rebuild after the guide hits the street, then use the season seven guide.

In other words, it doesn't matter which guide is in effect when the errata comes out, but rather which guide is in effect when you do your rebuild.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

I would say that's correct Chris.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Because many higher level scenarios have boons that are inappropriate for low level characters.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why can't another player have thier character say, "Well part of our job is reporting. And I'll be jotting this down in my notes, so you won't be getting away with it smarty pants."

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) Yes, I would say that the pregen could gain the item for the character in question.

2) The condition (and getting turned evil requiring an atonement I would consider a condition) must be cleared before the scenario ends. Note, the item doesn't turn you evil.

3) It makes you move one step closer to evil. As long as the character is not LN, N, or CN (even if an atonement would be required to regain class abilities), then an atonement is not necessary immediately.

4) It costs only 500 gold for an atonement unless you want to recover lost powers. In which case it costs 3000gp. My inclination is if you have lost powers, you don't have the choice which type of atonement to use.

5) Kyra's equipment, if sold at half price, would be worth, oil of align weapon 150gp, oil of daylight 375gp, potion of eagle's splendor 375gp, scroll of comprehend languages 12gp 5sp, scroll of lesser restoration 187gp 5sp, scroll of magic circle against evil 187gp 5sp, wand of cure light wounds 375gp, antitoxin 25gp, thunderstone x 2 30gp, +2 breastplate 2,225gp, +1 scimitar 1,157gp 5sp, ring of protection +1 1,000gp, cloak of resistance +1 500gp, phylactery of positive channeling 5,500gp, and about 90gp in other items and actual gold. The armor and scimitar could pay for the atonement with 225gp left over, to help pay for a raise dead with the phylactery.

So in short... He would only have needed an atonement if he started at LN, N, or CN. Even losing your class abilities would not have required an atonement to continue playing the character. He can definitely get the boon the pregen earned, once the character reaches the level of the pregen. And he can use the equipment of the pregen to help pay for the atonement, should he need one.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

I'm curious about the final encounter.

Spoiler:
Anyone have any idea on how to keep the players on task with following the script of how the final encounter is supposed to go? In general, I prefer a more free-flowing conversational type thing. But this almost requires that they proceed from part 1 through part 3 in order. What happens if they start asking to make Perception and Sense Motive and Bluff checks and such that are totally off script or part of a later part of the script?

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Chris Mortika wrote:

Andrew,

The issue of the day job is hypothetical, but I've tried "writing notes for future GMs" on other topics.

Here's a big ol' can of worms: marking an evil act on Chronicle sheets does not work. GMs don't check.

How do I know? Because, since Gen Con 2013, when I mark a character as evil, here's what I write:

"Future GMs: This PC has committed an evil act without atonement. If you are a GM reading this, please notify Chris Mortika at ... " email address.

Perhaps all those PCs immediately retire. Or perhaps the player just removes / replaces the Chronicle sheet. Or maybe other GMs think that's a hassle. Or maybe I'm the only person to regularly check the Chronicle sheets of the PCs at the table for just such messages. But whatever the reason, I've never gotten any responses.

I see two issues with this.

1) why do you need to be contacted? If another mark is made later, you'll notice when you look again the next time the player does something evil at your table.

2) by not marking evil a few times first, and going straight to atonement or evil, you aren't following the guidelines in the guide. If they truly don't work, then lets try to fix them. But ignoring them isn't really the answer.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Chris Mortika wrote:

I agree with BNW that it would get a warning. I would be a little harder-nosed.

"I'd like to roll my profession (assassin) day job.

"Fantastic. What do you get. and oh, by the way, who's your target?"

"I get a 23. And I dunno. Just some guy."

"Killing just some guy for 20 gold would be an evil act, requiring an atonement. Did you want to follow through with that assignment?"

"Do I get to pick another attempt? Or maybe roll my craft (pottery) skill instead?

Nope. But you do get to be edgy, which I imagine is the point.

Sigfred, The Day Job is a net gain sort of roll. So I imagine someone spending 9980 gp for equipment and informants and bribes to off the Governor of a Razmiran town, to earn the 10,000 gp reward.

So would you go straight to evil for a single act?

Or would you just mark an evil act on their chronicle sheet and then require an atonement once they've committed several of those?

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Fourth Horseman wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
The Fourth Horseman wrote:


I'm also disappointed about the limitation on Rogue Talents that Slayers can take.
Can you clarify what you mean by this? I don't see any restriction.
From the errata, Slayers can now only take one of the available Rogue talents from the list given to Slayers.

Not so. The errata erased the third sentence. But not the second to last, which essentially says the same thing. They omitted sentence three because it was redundant. But the second to last still allows you to take multiple.

EDIT: Ninja'd

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

The Fourth Horseman wrote:


I'm also disappointed about the limitation on Rogue Talents that Slayers can take.

Can you clarify what you mean by this? I don't see any restriction.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Rory wrote:

With the change to Slashing Grace, that devestates the use of the feat Exotic Weapon Proficiency Sawtooth Sabre.

Is that feat also game to retrain for free since you can't use Slashing Grash and a sawtooth sabre in the offhand?

In general I'd say no.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Just a phantasm ur figment of your imagination.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Animal companions like this are only road kill if you treat them as a bag of hit points or the tank.

I've seen a standard ranger AC survive Eyes if the Ten.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

FLite wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
FLite wrote:

I believe there is a recent FAQ or some such:

Reload bow is a "not an action" not a free action.

Drawing an arrow is a free action. He was just using short hand instead if fully explaining the process.

I'm pretty sure drawing ammo is included in loading a bow as a not an action. But my forum foo is failing me. So if anyone cares they can go find the documentation.

It was a big part of the whole discussion about how the FAQ limiting repeated free actions to 3 a turn reigned in duel wielding double barrel gun slingers but didn't cripple zen archers.

You aren't finding it, cause there's nothing to find. The CRB, which was quoted above, says exactly, that drawing an arrow costs a free action.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

FLite wrote:

I believe there is a recent FAQ or some such:

Reload bow is a "not an action" not a free action.

Drawing an arrow is a free action. He was just using short hand instead if fully explaining the process.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


I would be opposed to any suggestion that gunslingers are arbitrarily limited in the number of times they can shoot, if archers are not.

You're insisting that the game treat flintlocks the same way as bows? Have you ever seen one loaded?

Nope. Never seen a fireball get cast either.

Stop inserting your reality into our fantasy.

Or rather just reread my entire post and stop cherry picking sigle lines out of context.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

James Wygle wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
You can't tell me its a musket pistol and have it fire off with the ROF of an ak 47.
Sure I can; whether or not you come over the table to slap the stupid out of me is another story entirely. :P

In this case, even though verisimilitude is completely broken (fireball!), we would need a complete rewrite if the class and entire firearm mechanic, to make a gunslinger viable and also realistic.

So for now, let them have the same action economy as an Archer, for more feats and money.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Ragoz wrote:
Double barreled shots are the same attack action. There's really no reason why free actions be involved there.

It isn't the shooting, its the reloading. Each Barrel is reloaded separatley.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

2 people marked this as a favorite.

They rescinded the FAQ limiting free actions. It continues to be the sole discretion of the GM.

But let's look at this logically.

Archers are required to use a free action every time the draw an arrow. Notching and drawing the bowstring back is considered part of shooting. But archers take as many free actions as they need based on how many arrows they shoot.

So, if the intention was that gunslingers could not use thier feats and iterative attacks, then they never would have allowed them to reload as a free action or allowed rapid shot to work with guns.

I would be opposed to any suggestion that gunslingers are arbitrarily limited in the number of times they can shoot, if archers are not.

That being said, I'd fully support a GM saying that a gunslinger is limited to thier max number of shots a round in free actions, as long as they get to make use of thier full BAB worth if iterative, feats like rapid shot, and spells like haste. What thus means is, double barreled guns only get a double shot in the first round.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

I don't recall needing to train new Int tricks. The only time I'm aware tricks need to be trained is if you are replacing the AC, for any reason.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As for the noodles:

When was the last time a VC briefing including notes on the local cuisine? I don't remember one.

The fact this is a semi-investigative scenario with political intrigue... the idea of a higher up saying something out of sorts like, "Oh and you must try out the noodle cart, they are divine!" is just the sort of code a film noir or spy thriller would use.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

I am fine with the proposal. Makes good RP sense and I fail to find any circumstance where an ethnic language would break a game.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

jtaylor73003 wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
One should not take a single comment as representative of the community as a whole.

Especially since several posts before this one did answer the question quite succinctly.

At this point, I'm not sure what he wants to hear if he feels we haven't answered his question.

I was responding to that individual who made the post. That comment to reflects on the community.

I tried several times to clarify what I am looking for. If you feel you answered the question, then I haven't argued with you. Again I been only responding to individual posts.

Remember what is clear to you is not clear to everyone. I get to decide when I am clear on how to handle the issue, not you.

Ok, so now I'm confused.

If you feel all my posts are relevant to your question, and thus you aren't addressing me directly with your confusion, why are you still confused?

The preponderance of responses have answered similarly to me.

So if you feel that my answers directly answer your question, why are we still trying to get this clarified?

What's still unclear? And what kind of response, exactly, would make it clear for you?

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
One should not take a single comment as representative of the community as a whole.

Especially since several posts before this one did answer the question quite succinctly.

At this point, I'm not sure what he wants to hear if he feels we haven't answered his question.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

The Fox wrote:
The Fox wrote:
"Hey man, that was really uncool. We agreed that your character wouldn't raise undead during this scenario, and you went back on your word. I stabilized your character this time, so you wouldn't lose your character, but if you are going to play like that in the future, please don't sit at the same table as me."

Just reposting this.

I said that he would not be welcome at my table.

If a player cannot play the game without griefing other players, they are not welcome at any table where I am sitting. I will tell them that.

That does not make me a door mat.

Jessex, your method of standing up for yourself seems rather passive aggressive to me. I prefer a more direct approach.

If I was a third party—the dwarf's player, say—sitting at that table, I'd probably be uncomfortable sitting at a table with either player in the future. But if the inquisitor's player had said, "I'm going to stabilize your character this time, but don't grief other players in the future," then I—as the dwarf's player—would say, "yeah, I agree with this guy. You are getting off lucky by him saving your character. If you play games in the future the way you played today, you will be unwelcome at my table too."

It gives the necromancer's player an opportunity to change his behavior.

Your solution does not do that. Instead, he is just pissed off, and so is everyone else, and that kind of poison can be very bad for a lodge, especially smaller lodges.

This is a very adult way of handling what can be a very difficult situation.

If two people cannot be adult about a conflict, and come to some sort of compromise, then both don't get to play that character that day.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Jessex wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Jessex wrote:

So you're giving him power over where you play? You must enjoy being a door mat. I quit letting myself be mistreated like that decades ago.

No. We're giving him power to adjust his play style if he wants to continue participating it our games. It's part of growing a community, be it a single group or a local gameday. If he can't adjust, he gets to find a new place to play.

No, He is telling the jerk that by showing up at a table that Fox won't play at that table. Maybe as a VL you can boot people arbitrarily but most of us can't.

Quote:
Jessex wrote:
I'm waiting.

I must admit you are not making it desirable to engage with you however.

Much like the players the OP referenced.

I must admit that you defending another poster making unsupported assertions bores me to tears.

A GM always has the right to ask a disruptive player to leave his table.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

jtaylor73003 wrote:
Joe Ducey wrote:

I admit I had forgotten to address your clarification about changes due to no player input. But you are looking for a simple check the box answer to a question that simply doesn't have one. Then to further get at the simple answer, you've tried to isolate the question to a situation in a vacuum (or made it into a friction-less spherical cow in a vacuum). The only possibility I can come up with off the top of my head that fits your criteria and is going to be at least nearly univerisally accepted is the GM making a mistake (either mis-running something (it happens) or trying to fix a previous error (again it can happen)) . Everything that happens in a scenario is the interaction of player and GM. Player input affects everything. As has been said throughout the other comments, if the GM is making changes for any other reason, it's at best a questionable choice and at worst out right cheating. So no there is no simple answer, the simplest answer is no don't change anything.

Unless you have to

The reason I pulling it into a vacuum is because that is the way the example went down. That partly why I am confused. Many people telling me that context matters, but won't commit when context is removed or fully define that context.

I admit you are one of those trying, but many others aren't willing to for reasons that seem to overshadow getting a true answer.

I used your comment to clearly show how I can be confused about the answers I am being given. I understand that straight up yes or no is hard to come by, but in a general sense I thought that I could get such an answer. I know there is many gray areas while GMing, but I thought there might be certain lines you just don't cross or you lose player trust in the Society.

Understand I didn't walk away with nothing with this whole thread. This weekend I helped , with 2 other GMs, a new GM get some experience running Society, so that he be willing to run on our regular nights. Our regular nights can be very...

If you go back and reread my posts, I've done exactly as you asked.

To paraphrase:

In a vacuum, GMs should change nothing, but mistakes happen. We are all human.

In the real world, with infinite input from the players by way of thier actions, changes can, will, and may need to change. It's all contextual and circumstantial.

Hope that helps.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Congrats!

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jessex wrote:


Perhaps, a rebuild of the iconics is in order then? They are uniformly awful to play with. Spell selection is bad, feat and trait selection is worse, equipment selection can best be described as random.

I can't agree with any of that. There are certain pregens that I would certainly suggest a new player not try (Harsk), there are several pregens that are quite optimized at what they do. Kyra is quite optimized at hurting undead and healing.

Just because build choices aren't the standard most optimized choices, does not make them "uniformly awful to play with."

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

In many cases of errata, changes, clarifications, and such, the Guide to Organized play has a rather conservative set of options for retraining and rebuilding. Typically, it has to invalidate (or make them illegal to the campaign) the options you've chosen before you can rebuild them.

But in several circumstances, the rules in the Guide and Additional Resources don't cover or come into conflict with one another, what happens when a clarification, errata or change is made. (e.g. the Warpriest primary ability score changing. Additional resources indicated a certain level of change allowed, that came into conflict with the Guide allowing a full rebuild because of an ability score change. PFS campaign leadership eventually clarified that in the case of the Warpriest you could use the Guide retrain rules rather than the additional resources rule.)

So, in the case of rebuilds, as always, look to the Guide or Additional Resources for how it should work. In some corner cases, those rules don't work well or don't apply, and so asking on the forums for clarification for what is allowed is always a good option.

In this case, you are lucky, that the PFS leadership team felt the change was big enough to allow for a full refund of that enchantment if you so desired.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Andrew Roberts wrote:
John Compton wrote:
The pregenerated characters are also the game's iconic characters, in which Paizo invests a lot of time, art, and attention. We certainly want players—especially newer players—to get to know an iconic character, how she fits into the world, and what that can tell a person about the rest of the campaign setting. Perhaps I'm a little more invested than that, given the effort the editorial and art team is putting into the next batch of pregenerated characters at this very moment.

A lot of pregens are more popular than others around here. Whenever someone tells me "I want to play a ranger," I give a little spiel about how much they would like the hunter, which is almost like a ranger (I do so especially if they want to try out an archer). So far, that has been an extremely effective tactic in getting people interested (They love the bow and the animal companion!). The only reason I do this is because I have had more than 1 complaint from new players about how they felt very ineffective at a table playing as Harsk. When the pregen gets to that point, it is a problem.

Seelah, Kyra, Seoni, Hayoto, Amiri, as well as pretty much all of the Advanced Class Guide pregens, have been well received by veterans and new players alike. If the new pregens are anything like those, I can guarantee you that they will be used and that efforts won't be put to waste. While a great backstory is also required to make a great pregen, if the mechanics fall flat too much, the pregen simply isn't going to get played.

As much as my previous post discussed story over numbers, this is a game that has mechanics surrounding how to play it. And rather than purposefully make a bunch of sub-optimal choices simply to fit a story, I try to make as many optimal choices that fit my story as I can.

So far, the only pregen I have an issue with, is Harsk. Because his story didn't just get in the way of the mechanics, but actually make him an ineffective character at higher levels. At least the original iteration. There was a small rebuild after the NPC Codex came out, that gave him rapid shot at 7th level, which allowed him to at least shoot his bow once a round, instead of once every other round.

But his story essentially says, "He's better with his axe, but uses his crossbow instead." So those of us who care about roleplaying the character's story, want to use his crossbow instead of his axe. Because that's who Harsk is. Those who don't care about the pregen's story, will often choose to use the Axe, because he's quite effective with it.

While I don't expect all the standard optimal choices be made of crossbow mastery, deadly aim, rapid shot, or even the vital strike chain of feats... I would prefer that the build choices for the iconics not only fit their story, but had some optimal choices to use that fit their story.

Other than Harsk, though, I really enjoy most of the pregens. I've seen a confused Valeros kill an optimized barbarian.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

5 people marked this as a favorite.
John Compton wrote:
It has irked me as a campaign participant...

I am largely of this opinion. But seeing as how its perfectly legal, I usually just frown when I see it being done. I might raise an eyebrow, or say, "really?" If I'm advising a new player, I do not advise them to do this sort of thing and I also tell others, who if are in my presence, that is poor form to advise others to do this.

But I suppose that's the purist or old school roleplayer in me. The Grognard. My experience has been, that the character matters, and verisimilitude matters. And if the character changes mid-stream, then its really not the sum of all its experiences. It is a metagame choice made simply for power, survivability and optimization.

What I've grown to realize though, is that this is how a video game plays. I love Mass Effect (all three parts) and Dragon's Age (all iterations so far). But I make the choice not to use the rebuild options in the video game. Because to me, the story of who my character is matters. Even in a video game where nobody but me and the 1's and 0's of code care. But I understand that those options are available in the game, because the consumers of video games like those options. They like to be able to re-optimize their character once they figure out how the game plays. They like to make optimal choices that negate the chance of death, or to some degree challenge, even on hard or suicide mode. For them, the challenge is avoiding the challenge by making the perfect choices before the challenge arrives. For me, I like beating the challenge in spite of the (even mistaken) sub-optimal choices I've made. My first run through of Dragon's Age, I hadn't played a story driven video game in probably 15 years, and did not realize there were all these side quests (or that I couldn't go back to them after completing the primary storyline). So the game was designed to be challenging by reaching the end at 20th or so level at the end. And I completed it at 14th level because I missed all the side-quest experience. I felt both foolish and prideful at that accomplishment.

If we want to get the game to expand and grow with new people, we have to find those people somewhere. And not all groups of people we pull into our favorite passtime are going to come in with the same Grognard attitude that I have. And so I've come to accept that others may have differing starting attitudes. Ones that may never change. And if we want to keep them in our hobby, to keep it growing and expanding, we have to accept that this attitude is going to stay.

I may not like it, I may not teach it, and I may council against teaching new folk who have no opinion one way or another to approach the game in that manner, I'm not going to outright denigrate those who come in with that manner of game play.

Its legal, and by the very nature of how those people learned to play games, that is an accepted method of optimization. To them, the story of the character doesn't matter, but rather the numbers behind the character are what matter.

TL;DR: To each their own.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Nice!

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

xilbus wrote:
Getting a special the weekend before the con is akin to trying to do your homework the night before it's due.

We get what you are saying. And we aren't trying to brush your concern aside.

But this is how Gen Con has worked. If this helps you figure out what you wish to volunteer for in the future, then please do use the information for that.

But the scenarios have basically come out the Friday before the weekend before Gen Con. That's just the way it works.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

As a GM, when the rules aren't definitive, you get to use common sense to rule how something should work.

The guide is quite clear, that conditions need to be cleared.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

1) yes, more than one is OK. But you could only redirect two in the same round as it takes a move action to do so.

2) No, I would not allow a feebleminded character to redirect a spiritual weapon.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

FLite wrote:
I suppose you could just say "the party feeds you and waters you" but I would have expected that to require some sort of heal check.

Coma patients die all the time,while under the best health care in the world. And they often die of blood poisoning, infection, or dehydration as complications of the reason they are in a coma. And this happens even when being watered and fed by a nurse.

So non-con diseases should be resolved.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Luke Parry wrote:

Agreed, the diseases are a condition (like most conditions) that do need to be resolved by the end of the scenario.

However, I am not suggesting that they should be hand-waived full-stop, but only at the end of the scenario. If you have managed to get to the end of the scenario, with a few specific exceptions, the only diseases that can actually kill you, are the ones that deal Constitution damage.

For all (most) of the others, even if they have reduced an ability to zero, once outside the bounds of a scenario, there is (effectively) no penalty for this - even if you are paralysed (Strength zero), eventually, you will roll enough successful Fortitude saves to cure the disease, and then the damage that it has caused can be healed naturally.

To put it another way, say you contracted Devil Chills or Red Ache (both of which deal Strength damage). Once you reach the end of the scenario (having suffered the effects of the disease throughout the scenario), there is no penalty for continuing to fail Fort saves (apart from being reduced to Strength zero) - eventually, you will pass enough Fort saves to cure the diseases, and then you heal naturally. Resolution of such a disease can, effectively, be hand-waived (effectively 'taking 20' on your Fort save - yes, I know that is not actually a thing).

However, for something like Blinding Sickness (which says that if you take enough Strength damage, you will be permanently blinded), since it can actually have a permanent effect (i.e., blinding you), you can't hand-waive that - you need to resolve whether or not it blinds you.

Similarly, for something like Filth Fever, which does Dex and Con damage, since the Con damage can actually kill you (if you hit Con zero), that also needs to be specifically resolved, and not glossed over.

(This is the last comment that I will make on this thread.)

If you don't require them to at least pay the cost for a remove disease, then the disease has zero effect, and thus its challenge is nothing. And the challenge of a disease should not be nothing.

And sorry, but a non-con ability score going to zero isn't meaningless. You go into a coma and can easily die of starvation or dehydration, even if you have someone caring for you.

And the guide to organized play specifically says these things should be resolved before the end of a scenario. Which means you should actually resolve it. And if time is short, and you can't wait for a poor rolling PC to roll another 100 times, then the purchase of spell casting may be necessary to enforce.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

andreww wrote:
Paz wrote:
There seems to be some information that has been cut out or missed off the VC briefing. One of the sample questions that the PCs can ask the VC is 'What’s Poppo’s message?', but there's no clear reference to Poppo sending a message to the Society (or how Olandil came to the attention of the VCs at all).
Yeah, that is in the GM summary at the start but not the briefing. Honestly, the more I prep this thing the more annoyed it makes me.

My wife is prepping this, and she brought this issue up immediately. Any feedback on how to handle this, as it seems quite important, would be helpful.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The only thing I'd say about handwaving diseases and insanities, is that those things are included as part of monsters and helps create that monster's CR. If you handwaved it due to the nature of organized play, then you are negating that part of the challenge. As such it needs to be resolved before the chronicle is handed out.

And if there isn't time, then some gold needs to be spent on remove disease (or whatever works on insanity.)

It's part of the challenge and if no resolution is required, then that aspect of the challenge is nullified.

If there is a cleric with the group, then I'll handwaved it, under the assumption that they have the spells to resolve eventually.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Luke Parry wrote:

Well:

Madness wrote:

Curing Insanity:

All insanities have a DC that represents the insanity’s strength. An insanity’s DC indicates the Will save you need to roll in order to resist contracting the insanity when you are initially exposed to it, but also the DC you need to make to recover. Recovering from an insanity naturally is a lengthy process—once per week, you make a Will save against the insanity’s current DC. If you succeed on this save, the insanity’s DC is reduced by a number of points equal to your Charisma bonus (minimum of 1). You continue to suffer the full effects of the insanity until its DC is reduced to 0, at which point you are cured and the insanity vanishes completely.

Lesser restoration has no effect on insanity, but restoration reduces the current DC of one insanity currently affecting a target by an amount equal to the caster’s level. Greater restoration, heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish immediately cures a target of all insanity.

So, in the same way that a disease which doesn't kill you (i.e. a non-Con-damaging one) can effectively be hand-waived as automatically being fixed between scenarios (because there is no set period of 'down-time' between scenarios), I would say this sort of insanity can be as well. Alternately, just pay for a Heal spell.

Non Con damaging diseases cannot be handwaved. The Guide makes it clear that it must be resolved.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Dhjika wrote:
Jack Brown wrote:

Agreed. When I've faced such a situation, we've always done what we could to neutralize the dominated PC non-lethally. There are a few thing you can do... Attacking with nonlethal attacks (at -4 to hit), spells like Hold Person. Hmm... murderous command would be interesting in this situation!

Grappling and/or disarming works, among other things. Try casting Protection from Evil (though the target gets a save in this case).

metamagic rod of merciful is very cheap - and handy for when you need to take someone alive - merciful fireballs sound a little strange but when you absolutely need to deal damage - but not kill - it is there

Also - if a character has a low wisdom or int - and the dominatrix said "take care of the rest of the party" why would one assume that means to murder them? There has to be reasonableness on the part of the dominatee. If the GM gives an out in words, one should take it.

even "kill them all" might allow a minion to be attacked, or one could go for animal companions and eidolons or high AC types.

Eh... Playing it like you are parsing a legal document reminds me of my high school days when we would spend a week writing our wish with our best teenage legalese.

It really invites the player vs GM attitude. Although it does teach the GM to be tighter with thier language.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Welcome and thank you!

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Core is probably where you'd like to play, but you still need the Core Rulebook.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Congrats!

1 to 50 of 3,139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.