|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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.
Luke Parry wrote:
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.
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.
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.
Luke Parry wrote:
Non Con damaging diseases cannot be handwaved. The Guide makes it clear that it must be resolved.
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.
Read the entire post you just responded to, and you'll have your answer.
I'm pretty sure my last post answered yours quite directly.
But in no uncertain words.
If the GM is doing it for their own reasons, to increase the challenge or make it more interesting, the answer is no. Run as written.
If the players make choices that make it impossible without forcing actions on them, then do the best you can to wing it while making sure you do your best to maintain a reasonable facsimile of the challenge of the original encounter.
I gave some scenario specific examples above on why this one might not take place in area C.
You are kinda going in circles here. We understand what you've said. We also understand how player choices can completely change things, and as a GM you can't force characters and players to make certain decisions just because it changes the script.
Scions of the Sky Key, part 2:
The characters get a round to act before the first wave appears, since they are warned by the kobolds. When I ran it, the players convinced the aspis agent that they unstoned to stick around and warn them. So I had her warn them instead of the kobolds.
But in that round, its possible for the characters to move into the hallway or streets, and thus the final encounter would be somewhere in area B. And depending on how far into the city they got, it might make sense for both waves to happen at once.
I find it unlikely they could get to A in one round. But maybe the GM forgot about the encounter and rather than retcon and break emmersion, he chose just to do it where the characters were. If time were running short, it may make sense to combine the two encounters for reporting purposes.
Lots of reasons why, some good, some not as good.
But none necessarily nefarious or egregious. Although it could be he was just changing things for his own edification, which he shouldn't do.
That is a problem with the individual GM not understanding how to run a fair table.
Not an indictment of interleaving (whatever that actually has to do with gaming--I still say the word is not applicable to initiative).
My only experience with this negatively, was in the opening round of
Legacy of the Stonelords:
Where the GM didn't clump initiatives actually, but all the badguys went before my wife's character. He had them all jump down, surround her, and sneak attack her in the surprise round, then all 4 did a sneak attack before she got to go, and he wondered how she was dead after he did over 100 points of damage before she got to go. And I'm quite irate at this, but keeping my cool, and look him in the eye and say, "Because she's a 5th level rogue, and you just targeted her alone with every badguy and did over 100 points of damage. What did you think would happen?" He retconned, she lived, and at the end of the session when he asked my advice, I quite pointedly told him he needs to gauge his table, how they wish to play, and all that before he goes all out with a killer strategy.
So this can happen without interleaving. All it takes is a GM who chooses to try and kill characters, rather than provide a good time.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Its the better way for you.
I've yet to have anyone complain about how I do initiative, but I make sure to be fair.
Indeed, I often ask someone at the table to run initiative for me, and the common question becomes, "how many initiatives am I tracking?" Nobody complains when the 4 mooks have the sane initiative roll.
So for me, the better way is combining like initiatives in a fair way, and allowing anyone to break up the group through various initiative actions like ready and delay.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Thankfully, this has never happened, but if I have players who make a huge hubabaloo about something that I know ultimately won't matter in the grand scheme of things, then I'll roll my eyes and ask them if they really don't trust me that much. If they don't, I'll ask them to find another GM.
Seriously. This is usually such a small issue, that if folks get uppity about it, I dont want to game with them.
Dorothy Lindman wrote:
I agree 100% with this.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Then they aren't following the word or intent of the rule.
Because he's not taking care. Trying to go to fast, climbing while texting, being shot at, etc... That's when its appropriate to fail.
That's what Take 10 does. It is the abstract for being careful to ensure success on a task you are pretty sure you can succeed on automatically, by being careful.
Take 10 does not stop failure. Its just a tool for the players to try and mitigate it.
However, not sure I'd allow take 10 in an opposed situation. Or rather, the unknown to the PCs might mean immediate danger, and I'd gave to determine on a case by case basis.
I'm pretty sure opposed rolls were not part of the original intent of Take 10. But I could be mistaken.
Agreed. If I'm having trouble parsing what a player's intent is, I will ask them what they are trying to accomplish. And usually the attempt to interact and engage with me and the scenario will get at least a small bonus.
John Francis wrote:
What if the scenario specifically tells a GM they can add a modifier for good RP in the RP encounters? Seems those are specifically designed to give a mechanical benefit for good RP, and if you dont grant those, do you think it discourages good RP?
jon dehning wrote:
Oh I quite agree. However the section on Table Variation in The Guide to Organized Play allows a GM to choose whether to use the environmental rules or not. Its a whole other discussion on when you should or shouldn't use their discretion in this way.
For the record I actually agree that the check should not represent distractiom or danger. I'm just saying I didn't always have that opinion based on how I was taught.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
It was also much easier for Venture-Officers to get their specials, because it didn't matter how many stars we had, we were allowed to run the 4-star exclusives.
I believe this is changing in Season 7.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
And there is such a thing as ridiculous pedantry and draconian adherence to the rules to such a length, that it no longer becomes fun.
If a GM combines 3 goblin initiatives together, they are not breaking the rules!
That's not really fair though. Lots of GM's (including myself about 2 or 3 years ago) were taught that the pit or the chance of falling constituted distraction or immediate danger. So that's how we interpreted it. There is no language that directly disputes that interpretation.
So using that interpretation is not abuse of GM powers.
Bottom line, it doesn't matter whether GMs clump or not. What matters is if the outcome is fair and fun.
One season one 7-11 would require me to roll and track 32 separate initiatives without clumping. That's ridiculous. A season five 7-11 had 7 or 8 discreet creatures, that with out clumping really bogged down combat.
The point is, trust your GM until they prove they can't be trusted. Arguing or calling a GM out on rules minutae is extremely poor dorm.
Dorothy Lindman wrote:
I think you missed my point.
I'm not advocating table variation for whether take 10 is, or is not, possible period. Rather that environmental effects hinted at in encounter descriptions but not given mechanics, allows me to have that environment affect the characters in some way. Certain environmental effects may cause distraction or immediate danger. Some might not.
This doesn't invalidate your skill monkey, it just makes the environment more potentially dynamic.
The check itself, though, without any environmental or other external factors or influences should not cause take 10 to be disallowed.
Rigby Bendele wrote:
I have made this mistake as a GM before. So I learned to give a pregnant pause before revealing the results (and often ask if they want to reroll).
Thurston Hillman wrote:
I'm not going to argue with you further on this. Its obvious that I'm not going to change your mind, and you aren't going to change mine.
Assume Table Variation.
But suffice to say, that if you are playing an Unchained Summoner at my table, you will have to stick with the evolutions from Unchained or that are specifically called out as legal for the Unchained Summoner.
Anything Barbarian-wise that is not specifically listed in Unchained as being available for use as written, is not available for the Barbarian. There is a sidebar in the Unchained book that explains all this.
Please stop arguing things that are patently false to support your other statements.
If it isn't in the AR yet, it was in the unchained blog. Where it said that only summoner archetypes that don't change the base form are allowed.
So for all intents and purposes, there is a PFS rule out there for how to handle summoner archetypes.
Really, if you are going to argue this, you need to get all your information correct. Because so far you've gotten the Rogue Talent and Barbarian Rage Power thing wrong.
They are all legal for play for the APG summoner. And there is no reason to say they aren't legal anymore, since there are still legal APG summoners out there.
No, PFS additional resources declares how to determine which archetypes you can still use.
But being quiet on evolutions, you have to default back to exclusiveness.
Unchained doesn't list which evolutions from previous books are still ok to use with the new Summoner, therefore none are.
N N 959 wrote:
I'd add all the time you spent arguing with people about your rules to your time. That's essentially development time you spent refining your rule.
N N 959 wrote:
Now do you see why your 5 minute rules weren't good enough? That you needed to take more than 5 minutes to write them up?
Because I'm not the only one who mistook what you wrote for exactly what I said in point 5. And if I and others misread the way you wrote those rules, then others would too.
And then you'd have players whining that GM's that actually understood your intent, were running things in scenarios against the RAW of what you wrote.
So please, don't think its quite so easy to write a set of rules that does what you mean. Because you tried, and they had some ambiguity issues.
Remember, any new rules you create to obviate ambiguity, shouldn't create more ambiguity. This is why I disliked SKR's 10' circle clarification on 10' reach. It created more problems than it solved.
But PFS and Pathfinder is not inclusive. Its exclusive. In other words, you don't get it unless something says you do.
Unchained would need to specifically include past evolutions (like unchained Barbarian and Rogue both have sidebars telling you what rage powers and rogue talents from other books are still valid as written.) It doesn't include past evolutions specifically, therefore they are not valid for the unchained summoner.
Further, there was a question about the summoner spell list, which redid the APG spell list, but left off summoner spells from other books, and it was determined that those spells were still legal, presumably this follows the same rule. (It is not prohibited, and it is not replaced, so it remains as it is)
Actually it was not determined that those spells were still legal. They summoner in unchained has language that specifically states how to determine if spells from other books are still legal.