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. 2,574 posts (6,627 including aliases). 3 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 20 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,574 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Michael Eshleman wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Half Orc Rogue
I made this character the day the Core Campaign was announced. :)

Yup, I just statted him up today. He should be fun.

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

Half Orc Rogue

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

Aaron Motta wrote:

I can't speak for everyone, but I know the VOs in Arizona are absolutely committed to responding to player demand. We'll schedule what people say they want -- both directly and via sign-ups. In other words, my personal affinity for Core as a GM or player has no bearing on my actions as a coordinator.

If I had to venture a guess, I'd say Core will likely remain secondary to Normal when it comes to scheduling, but time will tell.

Ditto.

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

Ah, you are correct. I did not see that until now. We are all learning as we go it seems.

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

It was reported as normal mode, so no.

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

DrParty06 wrote:
Speaking from experience, if a person creates a character as a Normal Mode character (that has not been played) prior to playing it in their first Core Mode game (which will create a reporting issue), it is possible to remove the reporting of that session for them, have them delete the Normal Mode character, create a new Core Mode character and report with the same number. This may be a niche problem/solution, but it does work in case anyone else runs into the same problem.

I'm not understanding the question.

Are you saying that you haven't played the character at all? If not, then I don't believe the character has been assigned core or normal until something has been reported for them.

If you are talking about GM credit on the character, then technically no, you can't remove that credit once its been assigned. I'm not sure how the reporting system works. Whether its hard coded that once any reporting (GM credit or play credit) has been assigned as normal, that core is no longer an option, ever, or if you move those GM credits off the character, that Core then becomes an option.

if moving the GM credits is an option, then you might be able to ask your V-C to do so.

Although, if the character hasn't been played, and you want to move the credit off of the character, it might just be worth it to make a new character exactly the same way (but with Core only options) and play under that new character number.

And then you have a normal character option, that you can rebuild to whatever normal campaign options you want, since you haven't played them yet.

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

Undone wrote:
You asked for a solution and I gave you literally the best solution. It's the best of both worlds. The only reason it's not being done is because it would cost money. If this is a good long term idea it stands to reason that spending money to make it work instead of driving groups to extinction it would be a good idea.

Stop with the hyperbole please. You are already ringing the extinction bell before this even starts.

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

David Bowles wrote:

We'll see. The local VOs seem super happy, but I'm not sure about the players.

" And I know, should this option not work as intended, that they will do whatever they need to to fix it."

You have way more confidence in this than I do. I hope you're right, because I dislike 5th ed DnD quite a bit.

Your VOs have been VOs for quite some time. This means they have Mike's confidence that they are doing a good job. I'm sure if the player base shuns Core options, they won't continue shoving them down the player base's throats.

That would not be a solid solution.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
Quote:

2) Hyperbole (see bolded above) is especially not helpful.

I don't see this as hyperbole at all. Dividing the player base is the first step to self destructing PFS.

As to 1 the solution is literally a tech solution. Mike has already stated the only reason Core Only is one direction is because the reporting system cannot handle it. I assure you it could be made to do so. If that was fixed I'd have zero issues with this and would think it's a good idea.

The solution to the problem is hire a better tech guy because if you don't know how to include an additional radio box on the sheet and log it to a new variable I'm not sure what to say. As a coder adding a variable and tracking it is not a terrifyingly hard task.

Calling for the impending doom of the campaign before an option even really sees the light of day is the very definition of hyperbole.

Secondly, without seeing the code they currently use for their website and database, you really have no basis for that claim. None.

Yes, I know many tech guys who could write a new web-based and database code to do whatever they wanted. But in many cases it would require more than a patch, but rather an entire overhaul, which would have many unforeseen potential side-effects.

Like breaking the reporting program entirely, erasing or seriously corrupting the player and character database, damaging their web store.

So before you see what state their current code is in (I've seen many situations over the years where the state of a particular program is nearly unfixable or modifiable by even the best of programmers, because its been programmed and patched and parsed together with several different programming languages by several different programmers with a different dialect and signature.

So lets leave comments about things we don't know out of the conversation please.

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

David Bowles wrote:


My post wasn't intended as such. At the same time, I'm not asking for special accommodations. I'm just saying that if I can't get a normal mode game anymore, I'll go do something else. I think you guys are messing with the golden goose here, but maybe PFS really is a small part of Paizo's business model. In which case they literally don't care.

"Oh, and if you have no interest in playing Core Mode... why are you posting so much in the Core Mode threads?"

Trust me, I won't be after the initial furor has died down.

Understood. And were my opinion the same as yours, I would probably choose another avenue for my favorite hobby as well. I've done it before when I quit playing online roleplaying games. That avenue no longer satisfied me, so I moved on.

I'm not suggesting you move on. But if you are unhappy you'd be doing yourself a disservice if you did not.

As to whether Paizo cares, I think this particular option proves exactly the opposite. Here's why I think so.

They had a huge meeting between Eric Mona, Lisa Stevens, Mark Seifter (you might remember him as Rogue Eidolon), Mark Moreland, Mike Brock, John Compton, and perhaps someone else I am forgetting, for 6 or 7 hours one day to address several serious concerns folks had on the state of the campaign. And they have made several changes to the way PFS works (see Faction Cards) to address some of the biggest concerns people have.

The fact that this particular option seems to be as divisive as it is, shows that they are willing to take a huge risk to do something to help bring in new players and bring back old players who have run out of things to play (or have grown bored with too many options.)

So I know that they care very deeply for PFS. And I know, should this option not work as intended, that they will do whatever they need to to fix it. But its a bit early to be calling for the final curtain before the show even opens, don't you think?

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

Aaron Motta wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Oh, and if you have no interest in playing Core Mode... why are you posting so much in the Core Mode threads?
Don't do that.

It was a legitimate question that I needed an answer to before I could continue to address his concerns. He gave a reasonable response, that I felt I reasonably responded to.

But I can't give him a response worth my time if I don't understand where he's coming from. Now that I understand where he's coming from, he and I can have a reasonable discussion.

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

David Bowles wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Oh, and if you have no interest in playing Core Mode... why are you posting so much in the Core Mode threads?

Partly expressing my concerns, partly letting people who think that it's a fix to "power creep" and "power builds" know that that's likely not the case.

I thought that Paizo might found have found this part interesting:

" Either I'll run them myself, or failing that, stop playing this game and in the process quit giving Paizo money. Paizo needs to be careful with this.

A month ago, I thought nothing could ever make me try 5th ed DnD. But I'd play that over Core Campaign in a heartbeat."

But clearly, I was wrong.

I've found that threats of "I'm gonna quit and take my ball home with me if things don't go my way" type of comments don't go real far.

I hear your concerns. I understand the concern that this would potentially split the player base, and that adding options for a Mode of play you aren't interested in could potentially take away options for a mode of play you are interested in.

I completely understand how people are particularly concerned with small player communities and/or small game days. If only one or two tables are happening just once or twice a month, then you are probably going to run either Core or Normal, and not an equal offering of both from what you were offering of just Normal before Core became an option.

As a Venture-officer and organizer, this is certainly a concern that I need to deal with logistically when organizing game days. I need to take the temperature of my player base and find out what they want as a whole and do my best to accommodate as many interests as I can.

But starting out with, "I just might take my ball and go home if you don't do it the way I want you to do it," isn't going to make me want to accommodate you at all.

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

Undone wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Oh, and if you have no interest in playing Core Mode... why are you posting so much in the Core Mode threads?
If you can't see why Core only effects players who will have nothing to do with it I'm not sure what to tell you except that it will have vast potentially organized play ending impact.

1) If you aren't going to play Core Mode, and you aren't going to be part of the solution to the theoretical problems, then commenting on all the problems you foresee really is not helpful.

2) Hyperbole (see bolded above) is especially not helpful.

If you want to make comments on your concerns, fine. Do so, and campaign leadership and your venture-Corps will hear them, cogitate on them, and try to find solutions or reassurances.

But making comments with no potential solutions, and commenting about not being interested in even trying the new option (therefore no promise of you ever creating potential solutions), and communicating in ridiculous, chicken little, hyperbole, is completely not helpful.

I'm asking those who aren't willing to be part of the solution to please remove themselves from the conversation. If you want to be helpful, then coming up with potential solutions to perceived problems is better than just voicing concerns.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, and if you have no interest in playing Core Mode... why are you posting so much in the Core Mode threads?

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

David Bowles wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Really? No one sees forcing a friend and trusted companion to die for you because you're too lazy to do it yourself as an evil act? There is a mechanic for that...
I've never seen this enforced. That makes it a non-rule. Give the druid some temp neg levels or SOMETHING.
actually, it can make them an ex-Druid.
I see a lot of talky talky about this and never any doey doey. It's fine. I'll continue to hate druids and animal companions will continue to show up my PCs and everything will proceed as normal. Druid population alone makes me not want to touch Core Campaign with a 10-foot-pole.

Its unfortunate that your local community seems to have a prevailing attitude that you suggest, where I haven't experienced this attitude in several regions where I've played, GM'd, or at Paizocon, Gen Con, Gamicon, Gamehole Con, or JimCon.

Doesn't mean your experience doesn't exist or isn't real. I haven't gamed in your region in a long, long time.

But I think your experience is the exception, rather than the rule.

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

David Bowles wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Really? No one sees forcing a friend and trusted companion to die for you because you're too lazy to do it yourself as an evil act? There is a mechanic for that...
I've never seen this enforced. That makes it a non-rule. Give the druid some temp neg levels or SOMETHING.

actually, it can make them an ex-Druid.

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

Imbicatus wrote:

I'm willing to give it time to see how it will pan out. I think most of the other posters who share my concerns are willing to do the same. However I still think it's worthwhile to voice these concerns.

PFS is already competing against 5e for players and game slots. It competing against itself with core mode is a valid concern for scheduling, especially when local tables are routinely cancelled for normal pfs due to not having gms sign up or show up.

Absolutely. Feedback on the problems, issues, and concerns are very important so that we can make PFS, and now Core PFS as successful as possible.

But its a bit early to be touting problems that only might happen. Trust that the leadership of the campaign and the venture corps has well aware of the potential issues. And we are keeping a sharp eye out and will be reporting back to Mike and John the actual experiences from the field. And Mike and John will be quick to make any adjustments as necessary based on those reports.

Furthermore, reports from fellows like yourself will also be extremely important for areas that don't have direct Venture-Officer influence (and even for those that do.)

But lets let the core mode happen for a couple weeks and see what problems actually arise before we start panicking?

I can assure you, and I think I can speak for all venture-officers, that we don't want to let PFS become cliquish based on this new mode of playing the game.

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

Imbicatus wrote:

Choice of words is important. My issue was with the negative nancy comment. I'm not thrilled with this option, but I'm willing to wait and see how this works. But some of the comment here and in the other thread are indicating that some VOs feel that he standard pfs is roll-playing, and if we aren't interested in core mode then we are wrong, while hand waving the fear that people who only want to play one mode or the other will not be able to find games.

I suppose these assumptions are part of the problem with text only as a form of communication.

I can assure you that nobody has actually said, indicated, or even implicitly stated this.

If you don't like Core mode, fine. If you have issues or concerns, fine.

But lets please not start putting words into people's mouths who are only trying to be helpful and reassuring.

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

I rarely play arcane casters. I might actually make a sorcerer.

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

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:

* I have seen, with my own eyes, a half-dozen examples of a new player coming to the local game-day table with a solid, Core-only PC, who watched as a couple of other players with an enormous number of resources and system mastery left the new player's PC in the dust. Core Mode levels that playing field and encourages those players to come back the next week.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

The sentiment of leveling the playing field is a noble one, but since the classes in the CRB aren't exactly balanced, especially considering the challenges PFS tend to throw at the party... well I still think that self censorship is the way to go rather than limiting material.

Sure, but I'm not really talking about the relative strength of legal core builds. Heck, the new player can build a powerful barbarian just as easily as you or I. I'm talking about the new PC needing a move action to draw her wand, while the rest of the table uses spring-loaded wrist sheaths. (Want you character to do that? there's a copy of "Adventurer's Armory" you can buy.) I'm talking about the player building an Eldritch Knight, in the same party as a Kensai Magus. I'm talking about a new player being restricted from improving her character by her limited resources.

The writ sheat thing and wands actually bothers me, I can carry a bandolier and craw thrown weapons as I use them, but I can't manage to draw a wand in combination with a move action (like I can draw a weapon). I am tempted to start arguing that I draw the wand as an improvised weapon, but I digress.

Certain newer options are just better at what they do, if someone wants to go into melee and attack with a weapon magus is the way to go, if the just wants to use rays and high level spells eldritch knight is decent (and the higher HD is welcome too).

There are plenty of examples where new options are just a more interesting sidegrade rather than an upgrade, the arcanist is a decent...

Not sure why Core Mode changes how a wand is drawn. Unless you put them in your backpack, Wands can be drawn as a weapon-like object.

A shortsword in your backpack, is recovered as a move action that provokes. A shortsword in its sheath on your belt is drawn as a move action that doesn't provoke.

Replace the word shortsword with wand, and the sentence is still true.

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

Undone wrote:
Here's the other problem no one has addressed. GM's who will refuse to GM anything but Core Only when players want Normal games.

This is a coordinator issue. Game Day coordinators will have to deal with the logistics of organizing a game day. Will adding this extra element add a complexity to the logistics? Yes.

Will it be insurmountable? No.

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

Wraithcannon wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
And wraithcannon's assertion that you can use Bestiary 2 for Elementals is incorrect. You can only use Elementals from the Bestiary.
That was established 3 hours ago by the post with the link to the nearly three year old year old post by Mark Moreland that hasn't been updated and apparently still stands, and re-affirmed by Mike B. an hour ago.

Yup, I got ninja'd.

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

excellent question Drogon:

Mistakes obviously can happen. Technically this table is a non-core table, but you don't want to penalize five people for one person making a mistake (or gods forbid maliciously forgot).

I personally wouldn't see a problem, especially as we all get used to this new mode of play, of reporting the game without the non-Core character.

So:

1) that non-core character never gets reported, but gets to keep his chronicle.
2) that non-core character doesn't get the chronicle and never gets to replay in non-core.
3) if its a new character and hasn't played non-core yet, you let the player adjust the character to core this one time.

But Technically, RAW, you report it as non-core and the 5 core characters become non-core.

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

Jiggy wrote:
Wraithcannon wrote:

What about core spells that use other resources?

RAW, Summon Monster allows you to summon Elementals from Bestiary I and II.

Polymorph spells like Beast Shape, Plant Shape, and Form of the Dragon also allow you to transform into creatures that are from all 4 current Bestiaries.

It's been clarified that if the CRB points to the Bestiary for something (like with summon monster) then you can use that thing from the Bestiary. Not sure if that includes 2-4, though.

It includes the Bestiary only.

And wraithcannon's assertion that you can use Bestiary 2 for Elementals is incorrect. You can only use Elementals from the Bestiary.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not true Lazarx. Many (I'd say over 70%) gave some ethnic language that could be important if you don't want to be forced to murder hobo through a scenario. And season 3 scenarios aren't going away, so Tian Xia still exists.

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

Remember that most RP prerequisites of both Feats and Prestige Classes are handwaved in PFS.

Just like you can take the Wheeling Charge feat, even though 90% of people have no idea what Lastwall Affinity is (you basically spend about a month in Lastwall--easily done during ambiguous downtime.)

In this case, taking the Scarred Tattoo feat (or the feat from the Realm of the Mammoth Lords needing to be a member of a Following), requires you to be a member of a Quah as well.

So as far as I'm concerned, as long as you are being sincere in your RP and choices as a Shoanti, and aren't just claiming it (along with a dozen other RP ethnicity choices) just to gain a bonus, then I'm good with your choices.

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

I think you should be fine as long as you dont also try to claim other ethnicities too.

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

Angel Hunter D wrote:
the brawler thing would matter if it was a brawler, but we're using rangers. he also said you can't make more than one attack with a shield a turn without taking a -2 because it isn't a weapon, but i have no idea where that is written, if at all

It isn't written anywhere. Again, he may be thinking they aren't a weapon. And the -2 would be for an improvised weapon. But they are listed on the chart for Martial Weapons and thus are considered weapons in every sense of the word. You can enchant your shield as both a weapon and a shield.

The bit about not being able to attack more than once without taking a -2 isn't even part of the 3.0/3.5/PF game system unless you are two-weapon fighting.

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

The VC may be thinking that you have a non-proficiency penalty to attack with the shield.

I think there is something funky with one of the brawler archetypes that gives you either the shield proficiency or the melee proficiency with shield but not both. Threw a lot of folks for a loop.

But because Shields show up on the weapon chart under martial weapons, if you have martial weapon proficiencies, you know how to use shields as weapons. But if you do not have a shield proficiency, you may only know how to use a shield as a weapon, and not as a shield.

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

Irish202 wrote:

This is probably an incredibly stupid question/point, but I will post it here to at least get an official reference to it should something arise in the future:

The point has been made that GM'ing a game regardless of Core versus Traditional will apply towards GM star accrual. However, does USING a GM star to replay a scenario remain equivalent between systems?

Example:

A: A 3-star GM uses 3 of his stars to replay three different scenarios as PC that he has already played in the Traditional System. He cannot use those stars to replay any scenarios he has already played in the Core System using the Core System, as they have already been used up.

OR

B: A 3-star GM uses 3 of his stars to replay three different scenarios as a PC that he has already played in the Traditional System. He may then replay 3 scenarios in the Core System that he has already played in the Core System, as those stars were not used in the Core System.

Once again, there is probably an obvious answer here, but I'm asking this now just to get out of the way now. Thanks!

Mike answered this above.

You only get your star replays once.

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

Nefreet wrote:

Corner case question (slightly different from the one asked up thread):

I play a Core PC in the Core Campaign and earn 1 Core Chronicle XP.

I then pile on 5 level's worth of Core GM credit.

But, then, I pile on 2 level's worth of non-Core GM credit.

Such a character would normally still be eligible for a complete rebuild.

Am I then allowed to rebuild him into a Magus?

No.

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

He is correct in his ruling. The FAQ is about ability bonuses from the core rulebook.

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

VCs don't have any power to specifically veto anything.

That being said, VOs are often veteran GMs and can be a source of rules knowledge and advice. They also can be a mediator or arbiter in disputes between players and GMs.

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

Level 10?! Go for level 9!

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Michael Brock wrote:
pauljathome wrote:

First, let me join the chorus that thinks this is great.

One question. There are places where new supplements have introduced new rules that limited core only characters. For example, Animal Archive introduced the flank trick which, in turn, meant that animal companions could no longer flank without the trick(at least not without pushing). In the Core campaign does the GM enforce the extended rules or just the Core rules (so, in the flank example, it would be up to the GM if the animal could flank)

Just the Core rules.

This doesn't mean animals can now flank without being pushed. What it means is its back to table variation.

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

kinevon wrote:
Joseph Kellogg wrote:

A nitpicky question here, but can I use the boon that lets me make

** spoiler omitted **
on a Core PC?
Bump, looks like this question got lost in the shuffle.

I'm assuming this is only if you earn the boon while playing a Core Character. In other words someone could not create a brand new core character with that boon, since it was earned in the standard campaign.

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

I prefer real dice. That being said, as long as someone using an electronic roller on their laptop, tablet, or phone are getting a reasonable random assortment of rolls, I really don't care.

But if their electronic roller never rolls less than 12 or 15, then yeah, I'll ask them to use actual dice.

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

trollbill wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
It is likely I missed the 4 round thing on the dancing aspect. If I remember correctly, and it's possible I don't, the weapon had special effects that made its dancing property act differently.

Okay, reeeally getting off topic here but:

Dancing Weapons have to stay in the square of the guy who activated them. You had it fly out and engage my Gunslinger.

Dancing Weapons can't make Attacks of Opportunity while they're dancing. You had it disarm my Gunslinger with an AoO.

I point this out solely because I know you want to be fair to your players and feel you would appreciate this being pointed out for future reference, not because I have any hard feelings about it.

Oh, I do appreciate it. Helps me with further Rules Fu for later. So thank you.

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

It is likely I missed the 4 round thing on the dancing aspect. If I remember correctly, and it's possible I don't, the weapon had special effects that made its dancing property act differently.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Then it sounds like the GM softballed you. could have cast three magicbane bandersnatches.

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

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

Players use gray areas all the time to build nearly unbeatable monstrosities and RAW is thrown in the GM's faces all the time that they have no choice but to deal with it.

I'll leave that comment stand as is.

And here we see the basic flaw in adversarial GMing philosophy. The assumption that, because some players have sometimes been abusive to GMs, then GMs have a right to be abusive to all players.

Don't get me wrong. I can certainly understand the frustration of having to deal with unstoppable cracked out characters. But that doesn't mean GMs have the right to take out that frustration on everyone else.

My reply was not indicative of my GM style. After all, despite it being a TPK for you and your friends, you know I did my best to not be adversarial when I ran you through this scenario.

But Bonekeep and Hardmode sets a particular social contract. It is more adversarial by its very nature, and as such, you find the GMs getting extra creatice and pulling out all stops in deadly tactics.

The warnings are clear. And in this particular situation the GM made it abundantly clear what they were getting into.

The fact they got exactly what the GM promised and were unpleasantly surprised is not the GMs fault.

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

Yeah. Maybe +15 at 1st or second level might be a bit over the top. But hardly crazy even early on. But by 10th level, a character with Charisma as a tertiary stat and otherwise a minor investment, could easily go over 20 without trying hard.

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

I'm not sure how a +15 diplomacy is considered a power build. Level 10 with a 14 Charisma and 10 ranks and class skill bonus has a +15 with no other investments.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Velsa-IronRage wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Undone wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

You are the first table I have ever heard of encountering a bandersnatch simulacrum in this scenario.

Were all those other tables (my own play through included) 'run wrong'?

I've heard of other TPK's in the Kurshu encounter using a different tactic for limited wish.
Have you heard of another group which survived a magicbane bandersnatch?

No. But why does that matter? They were playing hard mode. GM made a choice.

End of story.

Yes and the Choice for the GM was to take it to impossible mode. Limited wish to cast simulacrum I maintain is outside the rules and more powerful then the spells intent. The problem is the way people were killed not that they were killed.

Players use gray areas all the time to build nearly unbeatable monstrosities and RAW is thrown in the GM's faces all the time that they have no choice but to deal with it.

I'll leave that comment stand as is.

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

As always, as a GM, you need to gauge the way you handle things based on the circumstances.

Some GM's have not learned the ability to not run on 11 all the time.

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

Undone wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

You are the first table I have ever heard of encountering a bandersnatch simulacrum in this scenario.

Were all those other tables (my own play through included) 'run wrong'?

I've heard of other TPK's in the Kurshu encounter using a different tactic for limited wish.
Have you heard of another group which survived a magicbane bandersnatch?

No. But why does that matter? They were playing hard mode. GM made a choice.

End of story.

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

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Huh... I guess all those archers who want to carry 50 of every arrow type don't exist then.
One, I said 'most'. Two, archers don't have a handy sack that covers 50% of the arrows they want to use for 5gp.

Well that's certainly true.

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

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

You are the first table I have ever heard of encountering a bandersnatch simulacrum in this scenario.

Were all those other tables (my own play through included) 'run wrong'?

I've heard of other TPK's in the Kurshu encounter using a different tactic for limited wish.

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

That's how I'd interpret the movement rules as well Malag.

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

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quadstriker wrote:

It's always completely laughable to me when someone says they have trouble keeping track of where their characters' chronicle sheets and ITS have gone.

Is putting everything for PFS in a binder really that hard?

1) 1 binder isn't really doable anymore. Its straining 2 of them at this point.

2) the ITS sheet has to come out and be written on, so they tend to wander off a lot more than chronicle sheets that go back in the binder.

This I don't get. I have 18 characters and each have their own 12 clear sleeves permanently attached. Each of my 18 characters, 5 of which are level 13+, fit nicely into each of those folders except for my Wizard, and the printed out spell book tends to take up more pages than I have.

If you put all your characters into a single binder, that's your own fault, not mine.

1 to 50 of 2,574 << 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.