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. 2,945 posts (6,998 including aliases). 3 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 20 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,945 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

ElterAgo wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lab_Rat wrote:
ElterAgo wrote:


I asked around a bit. Everyone of us assumed the risk of falling and breaking your neck would count as immediate danger.

Not much is immediate about a pit. I can stand there all day and stare at it and my neck never breaks.

I tend to classify immediate as "If I just do nothing, I am likely to take damage in the next round or so." A lot of GMs I know define it by the initiation of combat rounds.

But if you're standing there looking at it you're not making the roll. When you're making the roll you are in immediate danger.

No you aren't.

Just because you roll the dice, and failure could mean damage or death, does not mean you are in immediate danger. ...

A significant number of people apparently see it differently.

As I said, I can see your reasoning and I may actually be starting to agree with you. But that was not what occurred to us when we read it. I don't remember anyone else seeing it that way in discussion at PFS over the years. Everyone who thought it was different and then actually looked at the rule said, 'Oh yeah, there is danger so I have to roll.'

If your interpretation is actually what the designers meant, they did a really poor job of specifying it and not fixing it over the last how ever many years.

I would say it pretty clearly is not quite so obvious and definite as you seem to feel it is.

On the other hand, even when I felt a roll was actually needed, I have often let them take 10 or even just hand waved the thing completely if they described taking care. As others have said, it it's not a major plot point and failure is unlikely/uninteresting let's just get it over with so we can get back to the story.

I admit. I didn't understand it at first either. But one of the designers at the time, specifically Sean K Reynolds, changed my mind with a post that is linked way above.

It shows what the designers intent was. Which in something that was slightly ambiguous was very important to me in how I decided to interpret things from that point forward.

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

GM Lamplighter wrote:

So you're saying that there is only danger after you make the roll, and so therefore there is no danger when you actually make the roll?

If this were how it worked in real life, no one would ever fall down the stairs.

Your skill modifier represents your training and skill, but the dice roll represents the "crap happens" part of the world that isn't explicitly modeled in the game.

I didn't say there was no danger. Danger can be found everywhere.

I said there was no immediate danger. There is a difference.

You can choose to interact with danger, and that's your voice to attempt to jump the pit. It doesn't become immediate until you fail and experience the result of failure.

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

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lab_Rat wrote:
ElterAgo wrote:


I asked around a bit. Everyone of us assumed the risk of falling and breaking your neck would count as immediate danger.

Not much is immediate about a pit. I can stand there all day and stare at it and my neck never breaks.

I tend to classify immediate as "If I just do nothing, I am likely to take damage in the next round or so." A lot of GMs I know define it by the initiation of combat rounds.

But if you're standing there looking at it you're not making the roll. When you're making the roll you are in immediate danger.

No you aren't.

Just because you roll the dice, and failure could mean damage or death, does not mean you are in immediate danger.

Because, regardless what common policy at the table may be, to speed things up, a +11 Acrobatics score will always make a 10' jump barring any mitigating circumstances. I could say, "I take 1 and jump the pit." But you are saying I can't take 10? How ridiculous is that? As a GM, if I don't know what your Acrobatics score is, I'm going to ask you to roll the dice. If you say you'd rather take 10, I'm ok with that. The choice to take 10 has no bearing on what your actual skill bonus is or what the actual difficulty of the check. The choice to take 10 comes before everything else.

In other words, I'm not in immediate danger until I actually fail the check. While I'm staring at the pit, calculating my chances of jumping the pit, jumping the pit, making my die roll or taking 10, and calculating the result of the die roll or adding 10 to my skill bonus, I am not in actual immediate danger. Sure, there is danger of failing, but that's not immediate danger. It is some ambiguous amount of time away from now, based on when the result of my skill check becomes known.

Immediate danger is once the check or take 10 has resulted in a fail. Now I'm falling. Now I'm in immediate danger. Because it is happening right now. The only thing that can mitigate this immediate danger, is another immediate action.

While I'm in the process of making a skill check, I can still take move and/or standard actions and a bevy of free and swift actions dependent upon what exactly my skill check entails. I'm focusing on the task at hand. I'm in full control of my faculties and physicality.

So yeah, immediate danger is not taking an action that could put me in immediate danger. Because evaluating simply what the action entails without looking at any numbers, all you have is a 10' pit with a DC 15 to jump it. And choosing to attempt the jump does not imply immediate danger. It just puts you at risk of experiencing immediate danger should you fail.

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

jtaylor73003 wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

jtaylor,

Lots of folks with tons of experience in PFS have explained to you, at length and many times, how scribe scroll and brew potion are not necessary for Wizards or Alchemists to be extremely viable if not very powerful.

Can you just let it go?

No people have explain how they feel. No one provide any objective evidence to say why Scribe Scroll or Brew Potion couldn't be consider to be used. Everyone ignores that Pazio designed those classes with it, and that CR are consider with those Classes having it. This objectively will not break the Game. Wealth Per Adventure will keep from Players making ridiculous amounts of the items, any more ridiculous than the number they can buy now, so this won't "break the game".

I made a claim and back it up with objective evidence. The responses I am getting are "I feel it will break the game".

I feel I am wasting my time with people who aren't willing to back up their claims. I am letting this go. What I won't let go is to is any responses that state that my argument held no water, while no one present any objective to support their claim. Understand that only reason people are against item creation feats are because they feel, not because there is an objective danger to PFS.

1) People have explained to you why campaign management made the choice when the campaign started. Lots of the reasons have to do with empirical and anecdotal evidence from predecessor campaigns. In other words, they've seen how item crafting has worked in Living City and Living Greyhawk. They have tangible proof that item crafting can really unbalance the game and causes the power creep race to proceed exponentially. You think Scenarios are too easy in the early seasons or too hard in the later seasons as difficulty has been ramped up, imagine what it was like back in Living Greyhawk. It wasn't good.

2) Nobody is ignoring that the classes were written that way. But you do realize that Mike Brock (campaign coordinator), John Compton (Developer) and Linda Zayas-Palmer (Assistant Developer) are the ones in charge of the campaign and they are directly employed by Paizo right? If Paizo had a problem with item crafting being banned, then they wouldn't let these three do so. This is a campaign specific rule that is supported by Paizo at large. So that argument of yours is not valid.

3) You are wasting your time. But not because others aren't giving you proof or whatever. But because you keep arguing this point at all. This is not going to change. Campaign leadership will never say never (yeah I realize the irony of that comment), but the likelihood that item crafting gets implemented into PFS is about as close as scientists have gotten to absolute zero.

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

jtaylor,

Lots of folks with tons of experience in PFS have explained to you, at length and many times, how scribe scroll and brew potion are not necessary for Wizards or Alchemists to be extremely viable if not very powerful.

Can you just let it go?

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

Dylos wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
What's the link to the site? Hard to tell if it breaks rules or not, if we can't see it.
I'll PM you it, but it most certainly is something that is frowned upon.

Thank you.

I doubt it breaks copyright or IP laws as its not copying trade dress and such.

But it certainly violates the spirit if not the actual rules of organized play. I've referred this to Mike, so thank you.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here is something else to consider.

Why when a creature has a swim or climb speed does it say the creature cab take 10 in combat, if you couldn't normally take 10 without the speed and when not in combat.

Certainly implies you can normally take 10 on both climb and swim checks. And since failure in both could damage and/or kill you, it doesn't seem a far stretch that jumping and other similar skill checks be included.

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

claudekennilol wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Qstor wrote:

PRD sections:

"You can retry checks made to open locks."

Right, but keep this in mind from further up in the skill description
PRD wrote:
, Skills, Disable Device]The DC depends on how tricky the device is. If the check succeeds, you disable the device. If it fails by 4 or less, you have failed but can try again. If you fail by 5 or more, something goes wrong. If the device is a trap, you trigger it. If you're attempting some sort of sabotage, you think the device is disabled, but it still works normally.

None of what you just quoted refers to opening locks. It is helpful to both read and quote all of a rule, and not just the part that substantiates your point.

Remember, in many cases, each skill has multiple uses that have slightly different rules.

I could quote the entirety of the skill and it wouldn't change my point. It either does jam or it doesn't. Opening a lock is a disable device check, if you fail the check by 5 or more, then something goes wrong. So what goes wrong when disabling a lock?

Dunno. But opening a lock is specifically listed, in the book, as something you can take 20 on.

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

What's the link to the site? Hard to tell if it breaks rules or not, if we can't see it.

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

claudekennilol wrote:
Qstor wrote:

PRD sections:

"You can retry checks made to open locks."

Right, but keep this in mind from further up in the skill description
PRD wrote:
, Skills, Disable Device]The DC depends on how tricky the device is. If the check succeeds, you disable the device. If it fails by 4 or less, you have failed but can try again. If you fail by 5 or more, something goes wrong. If the device is a trap, you trigger it. If you're attempting some sort of sabotage, you think the device is disabled, but it still works normally.

None of what you just quoted refers to opening locks. It is helpful to both read and quote all of a rule, and not just the part that substantiates your point.

Remember, in many cases, each skill has multiple uses that have slightly different rules.

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

Minos Judge wrote:
I am not happy with take 20 to spot traps and disable them. There is a very real penalty for failing to do either. You take damage. I feel that this is reason enough to not allow the take 20. Some players in the area feel that taking damage is not a penalty for failure. This confuses me because what is it if not result of failing your action? Which make it a penalty for failure.

In most cases, failing to find a trap is in and if itself not dangerous. There may be a few traps, though, based on either location or construction, where failing perception might set it off. But because Perception no longer requires a square by square inspection, you can stand at the door and try to perceive the trap, and that will 99% of the time have zero way to set it off. So take 20 for Perception should only be denied in the most exceptional of situations.

Take 10 is available anytime take 20 is.

Unless a trap is involved and directly related to picking a lock, taking 20 on a lock should always be allowed. It takes 2 minutes though. Because disable device can be retried without consequence, taking 20 has no repercussions here.

Disabling a trap, however, us completely different. I'd not recommend at lower levels, though, as the base disable device up through level three may not be good enough to ensure success on a trap. But you can do it if you want. Take 20, no. Because the rules assume you roll every possible result for take 20, and some will be a failure, and failure may set off the trap.

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

GM Lamplighter wrote:

See, those responses made me go back and check the rule. Here is the entirety of the Take 10 rule from the PRD:

prd wrote:

Taking 10 and Taking 20

A skill check represents an attempt to accomplish some goal, usually while under some sort of time pressure or distraction. Sometimes, though, a character can use a skill under more favorable conditions, increasing the odds of success.

Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.

I can see how people would interpret the first line to allow taking 10 on a jump check. ("When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. ")

Are you both saying you can't see how I can interpret "immediate danger" as "danger of falling into the pit"? I'm not surprised you rule differently, but I am surprised that neither of you can see any possibility of another interpretation.

Let's use a 1-5 scenario, 4-19 Nightmarch of Kalkamedes as an example.

Nightmarch of Kalkamedes:
The chasm is much more dangerous than it needs to be if you rule that immediate danger includes the danger of failing the action being taken.

The entire point of this scenario is to test a low level party's preparation for standard mundane obstacles. Do you have rope? Just like a chase scene done by the GMG rules sucks, climbing a cliff with no other options suck. T
Paranoid adventurers won't take armor off, and often dont have time to (or put it back on) and as such need to make that climb check with a negative number. They likely won't make it if there is no rope, even if you allow take 20 (which you shouldn't). Rope against a wall is DC 5. If the rope is knotted, its DC 0. Taking ten might still by hard for heavy armor guy if the rope isn't knotted. And the cliff in thus one is 100 feet. 10d6 damage at tier 1-5 is very tough. So why make this more difficult than it needs to be?

Now let's discuss a season zero, Fingerprints of the Fiend.

Fingerprints of the Fiend:
there is two hundred foot cliff you need to scale. I think there is already a rope present. The Erynes waits until you are half way up before attacking. As a GM you want the heavy armor guy at 100 feet. Cause when he gets hit, he now has to roll his -4 climb check every time he's damaged.

My interpretation is that immediate danger or distraction must be external to the action being taken. We want the game to be fun, and if the adventure stalls at a cliff wall because of a GM not allowing take 10, then that's a fail on the GM, not the rules.

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

GM Lamplighter wrote:

The trouble is, the game breaks each challenge down into a discrete event with no effect on or from other events, and real life doesn't work that way. Jumping over a 3' piece of tape is much easier than jumping over a 3' chasm, despite the physics being the same - because our abilities do not depend only on physics. SKR's suggestion is in line with his philosophy of hand-waving the non-adventurous stuff (which I agree with for everything outside PFS).

I generally don't allow taking ten on a jump check over a hazard because of this. In PFS, if an encounter has a CR, then it counts for the "complete 3 encounters to get the XP" rule. So, I feel that there should be some effort to do that, even if it is a minor check.

In other cases, I do assume all PCs are taking ten on Perception (the "passive Perception" concept was one element I really liked from 4E). However, when it's a complicated situation like enemies hiding, distance modifiers, and other things all at once, I just call for a check, and people can take ten if they want.

Taking 20 is well-defined in the CRB, and they use Perception as a specific example of what you CAN use it for, given the time.

Except for, danger does not create distraction by game rule. This is where comparisons to real life breaks down with an abstract designed to loosely represent real life.

Your interpretation here strictly goes against RAW and RAI.

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

BigNorseWolf wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

A 10 foot pit is a bit of a stretch, but SKRs post say the interpretation isn't supposed to apply even if you're leaping over hot lava or something, which is counter intuitive as hell.

Not only are you pretty clearly in immediate danger, but things like that ARE the difference IRL between a balance beam 3 inches off the floor and one over a chasm. People will stroll over the first one no problem but freak out and fall off the second. (I did not put the hikers there as a sociology experiment I just took notes afterwards...)

When you say "the interpretation" which interpretation are you referring to?

Sorry, thought nosig would be here already :)

___
I'm not an athlete, but I can easily to a standing broad jump of 5-6 feet, over and over again without fail. It doesn't matter if I'm jumping over a piece of tape on the floor or a deep pit... I can make that jump. With a running start, it's even easier. If I were an adventurer, a 5-foot-diameter pit would be a trivial obstacle. Why waste game time making everyone roll to jump over the pit? Why not let them Take 10 and get on to something relevant to the adventure that's actually a threat, like a trap, monster, or shady NPC?-SKR

_____

My counter argument to that would be...

There's a park nearby with a lot of 5 foot gaps in between the stones and 20 foot + drops. You really can just step accross them. But every year people wind up falling down da hoooole because people DON"T perform when there's danger the same way they do when there's a nice safe tape on the ground. The adrenaline kicks in and people do reaally stupid things like second guesse themselves and stop at the wrong time, or look down when they should be looking ahead. Its not rational but it IS human nature and is reality.

And without having read the post thats probably what a lot of DMs are going...

Let's Caveat this: Real life really shouldn't be used in game rule/interpretation arguments, because the rule really dont follow real world physics.the rules are largely an Abstract that roughly represents the real world, enough so in most cases, that our verisimilitude is not broken when dealing with magic and dragons.

(Yes I know SKR gave a real life example)

But to riff off both SKR and BNW using game rule jargon, I would say that folks who fall in the hole in BNWs example, largely fall because they are trying to jump across the stones quickly (and mimic American Ninja Warrior) and thus can't take 10 because they are trying to be special and awesome and get the -5 balance checks for moving normal speed instead of half speed. So they choose to roll the dice. While an average person being careful can take 10 and make it all day, because they are taking care and not pushing the limits of their capabilities.

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

Chance of failure should not preclude taking 10.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Protoman wrote:
I think a lot of GMs do it so players don't autosucceed DC 15 to 20 challenges.

As a GM, that isn't our job.

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

Curio, I ran this at Paizocon. My team did very well, and trust me, I did not softball them. There is really only one skill that they dont have to succeed at the mission, and the scenario offers a way around that.

I'm sorry your experience wasn't exceptional, but this is another instance of straying from written tactics where the tactics are less deadly.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Tell him you're taking off your loincloth and handing it to him with a bag of rocks. Congratulations, he has a sling.

They will be scarred for life. And never. EVER forget to get a ranged weapon again.

.

I wouldn't suggest LARPing that.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dhjika wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:


Yep, sometimes you run into an encounter you aren't 100% prepared for, and then you learn from it. This is actually part of the game, not a problem with the game.

Part of the problem of Pathfinder Society is that you are not allowed to learn from your experiences. If in Game A you learned about how to affect a swarm of spiders, you might not be allowed to remember that knowledge for Game B unless someone again makes a knowledge check.

Eh, that's more or less hogwash. If I played a scenario with a character that met a swarm, I'm pulling out my alchemists fire the next time I run into a swarm.

I'll go so far as to say, that the society teaches what a swarm is and generally how to defeat them. Like Janira Gavix in The Confirmation.

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

Awesome job guys, and thanks!

Sovereign Court

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

So, I was skeptical about the midday break. I typically go to conventions to get in as much PFS as possible over the three or four days. Even my off slots at Gen Con, I try to play PFS or go to the dealer room.

But after experiencing it, I really liked it. I went to a couple seminars. Enjoyed a nice alone time breakfast. Got to chat extendedly with John Compton, Mike Brock, Linda Zayas Palmer, Owen K.C. Stephens, Mark Seifter, Stephen Radney-McFarland, Erik Mona, Lisa Stephens, James Sutter, and Liz Courtz to name a few. I also got a 2-1/2 hour nap in before the special, that was really nice.

I loved it.

How did others feel?

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

Mulgar wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Having a 16, rather than a 14, means something else had to be penalized.

And if it was a point buy, sometimes the +3 mod you'd get from having a 16 means having +2 less in your other ability scores combined.

While that is true, having a 16 in your primary stat is better than having a 14 in your primary stat.

It is better for your primary stat and your primary ability.

But it is not necessarily better for your character or for PFS. That being said, I usually have at least one skill at 16. But If I do have one skill below 10, I rarely exploit the high skill so much that the low skill severely hampers me. I usually will spend significant resources to overcome the weakness.

That's what versatility is. You try to balance your character out to be good at multiple things. And there are many ways of accomplishing that from a balanced set of stats to diverse stats with balancing gear or class abilities, etc.

But a blanket statement that a 16 is better than a 14 does not really discuss all the variables that character will be subjected to. Sometimes, having 4 stats at 14 and two at 10 will be better than having one at 16, two at 14, and 3 at 10. (those arrays assume no racial bonuses).

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

Mulgar wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
calagnar wrote:
The only thing I will add. When building a character pick a focus for in combat actions. It can be combat, or spells. General characters will work up to level 5. After that it starts to become a problem for them. Your focus ability score should be at least 16. Higher is better but not required.
I disagree. I have several successful versatile builds. Many of which are 14+.

You may have many successful versatile builds with a 14, but having a 16 is better.

There is no arguing that.

I'm talking level 14. I rarely only have a stat at 14. But then I also don't tend to drop stats below 10 a bunch either.

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

calagnar wrote:
The only thing I will add. When building a character pick a focus for in combat actions. It can be combat, or spells. General characters will work up to level 5. After that it starts to become a problem for them. Your focus ability score should be at least 16. Higher is better but not required.

I disagree. I have several successful versatile builds. Many of which are 14+.

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

VampByDay wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

It isn't a fallacy when a campaign tells you what it expects (guide gives you the nitty gritty of what its about) and you choose to build your character for a different campaign.

If playing skulls and shackles, would you purposefully build a character (and keep building that way) that sucks at being a pirate? No, unless you want the same problems you suggest above.

So why would you choose to build a character that sucks at being a pathfinder? I mean its your choice, but please dont blame the campaign for your choice.

It's not about building to the campaign, it's about what you expect vs. what the scenario writers expect you to expect.

Let me put it another way:

Me: Wanna play PFS? It's a campaign where you play pathfinders, basically Iniana-Jones style archaeologists that delve into political intrigue to get funding, and ancient booby-trapped tombs to find lost relics of historic significance.

New guy: Cool! I'll build a fighter, basically a tough guy to bodyguard all of the archaeologists. I'll get a trait to get knowledge (history), stuff I've learned while bodyguarding the bigwigs!

FIRST SESSION:

Gm: Okay, you find some scorpions. You don't have alchemist's fire or acid. you can't hurt swarms.

New Guy: I didn't even know swarms were a thing!

GM: Okay, well, you sit there and do nothing while your party fights them off with alchemist's fire and acid.

New Guy: Well, THIS is fun . . . I'm gonna go take a smoke break, tell me when I can do stuff again.

Sure, a brand new player may not know about swarms, which is why it's up to the GM to not be an asshat himself. Let them be creative and try interesting ideas that may not have any rules for them. I mean if I light 10' tarp on fire and toss it on a swarm, that's likely going to do standard fire damage to a swarm. My wife tried this once with a bed sheet, and the GM let it work. She then bought a 10' piece of canvas so she'd be prepared. I blew a door off its hinges and there was a swarm and a fire in the house. He let me purposefully take swarm damage to use the door as an area shovel to put the swarm in the fire.

The point is, as a GM, you should let new players try creativity to solve problems they had no way to be prepared for. But putting a swarm in a scenario in no way is the writers fault for a GM fail like you describe above.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It isn't a fallacy when a campaign tells you what it expects (guide gives you the nitty gritty of what its about) and you choose to build your character for a different campaign.

If playing skulls and shackles, would you purposefully build a character (and keep building that way) that sucks at being a pirate? No, unless you want the same problems you suggest above.

So why would you choose to build a character that sucks at being a pathfinder? I mean its your choice, but please dont blame the campaign for your choice.

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

Apparently I was mistaken. This rule is not in the guide, but rather in the FAQ.

Sovereign Court

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

It recommends them with the caveat to consult with your GM.

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

Interesting, though, that with the absense of specific instructions, that folks didn't default to the guide. And interesting that there are so many experienced folks who don't know how this rule works.

That's kinda the fault of the VO corps that we haven't taught our player bases correctly.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, I was skeptical about the midday break. I typically go to conventions to get in as much PFS as possible over the three or four days. Even my off slots at Gen Con, I try to play PFS or go to the dealer room.

But after experiencing it, I really liked it. I went to a couple seminars. Enjoyed a nice alone time breakfast. Got to chat extendedly with John Compton, Mike Brock, Linda Zayas Palmer, Owen K.C. Stephens, Mark Seifter, Stephen Radney-McFarland, Erik Mona, Lisa Stephens, James Sutter, and Liz Courtz to name a few. I also got a 2-1/2 hour nap in before the special, that was really nice.

I loved it.

How did others feel?

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

Ah, thanks Luke! Well as far as I'm aware, none of the other Free RPG Day modules include that.

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

Curio wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Curio, when the table is reported, send a message to pathfindersociety@paizo.com with the session number and character number. You can request the credit be applied to a new character number and marked dead there, as you are allowed to apply dead pregen chronicles to a brand new character rather than be forced to pay the prestige or lose a current character.
I'll pass it on to my bf, thank you! The thing is, why is this even happening? Why couldn't they have made the scenario without killing a designated character, as we're all used to? Is that even necessary? We can understand how awesome the pathfinder society is, without having our own characters be fodder for that truth.

I'm not sure why you are under the impression that playing We Be Goblins doesn't also result in the death of an assigned character.

Playing a pregen and dying requires you to resolve that death with the assigned character, or re-assign it to a character number not currently under use.

Secondly, all the pregens were more than capable of completing thier tasks.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Glad you guys had a good time. It was a blast running this one, and will be hard to step back and let our 4-Stars run it at our future cons.

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

You also cannot retrain into a different kind of tiefling.

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

I concur.

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

So I'm here. Found Painlord in the lobby after helping set some stuff up in the PFS room.

Now at Jack-n-the-box, which I haven't been to since 2000 when I lived in Bakersfield.

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

Congrats!

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

Awesome, glad you could join us Scott!

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

So far lots of good ideas, thoughts and advice.

The main issue you are going to run into is different ideas about what acts are and are not evil. Some folks (not myself) feel that killing a helpless enemy is evil.

I'm more in line with your thinking though. If you are away from a legit authority, your deity gives you judge, jury, and executioner status.

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

pH unbalanced wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
That said, I'd get excited about ratfolk, vanaras, grippli and kobolds. I haven't personally seen any vanaras in PFS scenarios yet. I've had civil conversations with the other three in scenarios in S3&6. That level of "you can actually make deals with them" is in my eyes crucial to being a plausible PC race.
Ratfolk also appeared in one of the recent comics, which I think makes them the only non-core race (other than goblins) that have done so. Definitely helps make it easier to visualize their place in Golarion and the possiblity of a relationship with Pathfinders.

Vanarans themselves didn't show up, but an ancient temple did, in a season 3

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

Vanaran fits based on a season 3 scenario.

And Grippli fits based on a season six scenario.

Catfolk would be fun, but we've yet to see how they fit into Golarion let alone PFS.

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

I did at Paizo con 2012 and haven't created mine yet either.

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

Nefreet wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
I'm going to disagree that the onus is on me. The rules are not generally inclusive. They have to explicitly say you can do something in most cases, rather than explicitly disallow.

The Bestiary explicitly allows this combination.

Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type.

One last post, and let's move this.

If you want, can you link me to the rules post you create so we can FAQ it?

That rule is not explicit that you get extra attacks just because you are bipedal.

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

UndeadMitch wrote:
Andy, Nefreet, Jeff: Do you guys maybe want to take this to the rules forums please, instead of continuing to derail this thread?

Consider it done. Sorry bout that.

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

Jeff Merola wrote:
You ignored SKR's clarification on how the scorpion whip worked which, incidentally, was almost exactly how the recent FAQ clarified it to be.

Jeff, I'll trust that you remember all my posts and my stance in each one. I certainly dont. And frankly, two instances (scorpion whip and 20' reach on diagonals) does not refute my 99% claim.

So can we move past this irrelevancy?

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

Nefreet wrote:

Andrew, the problem is that you're going to have to show some sort of evidence that Claw/Claw/Bite/Kick/Kick isn't legal. The burden of proof is on you. Since we both have conflicting posts from a former rules designer, let's call that a wash.

What we're left with is the fact that manufactured weapons can be combined with natural weapons during a (non-Flurry) full attack, so long as they each utilize different limbs.

And, since we know Kicks are a viable use of Unarmed Strikes, that frees up our arms to make claw attacks, just as it allows us to bite or gore if we have those available.

This is a legitimate attack routine.

I'm going to disagree that the onus is on me. The rules are not generally inclusive. They have to explicitly say you can do something in most cases, rather than explicitly disallow.

The onus is on those who think they get two extra attacks based on race, class ability or feat granting some form of natural attack. You'll note that all things granting a bite attack explicitly explain how they can be used as an extra attack. The claw ones do not.

And since flurry is based off two-weapon fighting, it makes no sense that having the two weapon fighting feat would make a monk better at action economy than flurry of blows does. Especially since flurry if blows grows to outstrip two weapon fighting pretty quickly unless more feats are taken.

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

Nefreet wrote:

During that discussion SKR was operating as the PDT. That's why he responded further down with bolded Q&A's. Another poster ever commented "thank you PDT".

For whatever reason it never made it into the FAQ, which I really wish could have happened.

PDT?

There are a lot of things I wish were FAQd. mark Seifter is doing a good job if catching up on some of the large outstanding questions. So I expect this is somewhere on his future radar.

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

Nefreet wrote:

That's not uncommon.

So, what should we do?

Go with the rules we have from the Bestiary, which allow it to happen anyways.

The main point SKR was trying to make, I think, is that the rules should work the same across the board, and weird little things like this should not suddenly add 67% to your action economy.

It is very telling that Paizo published material has no stat blocks that I'm aware of that shows an extra two attacks like you are suggesting.

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

S I'm even more on the side of ETV than I was before. As SKR contradicts himself. I haven't read the full context, as I'm on lunch at work and can't read 380 posts. But, the fact he was quite vehement that you could not do this in at least on of his posts, at the tables I GM, I'll be going with that interpretation.

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

Interesting. So this quote, and the follow up above, by SKR contradict each other.

1 to 50 of 2,945 << 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.