Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Numataro-Sama

Andrew Christian's page

Goblin Squad Member. RPG Superstar 2013 Dedicated Voter. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul. 2,049 posts (6,101 including aliases). 3 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 13 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,049 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Congrats!

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think you did fine. Treat it as a learning experience. The players had fun. Nobody died cause of the action. The action actually likely saved a TPK. No excessive amounts of consumables were used because of the action.

Feel blessed that a mistake turned out so well.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
a mission for the LG "holy warrior" arm of pfs that had players go and take part in a slave auction. they were told the optimal outcome would be that the slaves would be bought and no trouble would be had. for many people, this could have been their first taste of pfs. a slave auction.

Did you actually play that mission? I did, and it was NOT the "go buy some slaves" idea that you paint it as. It was "Go rescue these victims who are about to be sold into slavery, and do so without causing a riot or a bloodbath or anything because that's not good either". The whole idea was that the slaves were victims and the PCs were supposed to rescue them without murderhobo-ing the whole place.

Maybe do some fact-checking next time, eh?

the problem is that the first solution is to take part in the auction. they could have given you an item to create an illusion that you are meant to switch out with the slaves while in transit, or sleep gas, or any sort of magical deus ex. the first line of the mission after questions is in fact: "after the PCs agree to attend the auction and bid for the enslaved..." with no hint for the gm on what to do if the players want to avoid going to a slave auction.

in regards to my fact checking, i assume you simply misunderstood me and you had no way of knowing i had in fact prepped the mod to run at gencon. this sort of ad hominem attack in response to genuine concerns does not reflect well on the community either.

Ironically, you complain about too much murder-hobo'ing, and then you complain when a mission is set up that doesn't include murder-hobo'ing.

I'm confused.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JurgenV wrote:
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
in regards to my statement about the gencon playroom being a see of white faces, this was more to point out that i feel pfs is not doing a good job at branching out and diversifying its player base. if society play is meant to be welcoming to gamers of all types, why bother including an element that is so often seen as being racist?
Yet you went with the rather racist sounding accusation of them being "privileged" instead of questioning WHY there are far more white folks and it is mostly cultural. RPGs tend to spread friend to friend, most people tend to have friends similar to themselves. There is little advertising in mass media. There is a social stigma to being a fantasy fan and historically the fantasy genre was aimed at and mostly consumed by white males. It takes time for those dynamics to shift, i mean this hobby has only really existed for how long now? There is no racism in PFS if few minority folks choose to play it. No sexism if few women choose to play it. If you have any evidence that the game or designers are excluding those folks i would love to hear it. Yes pulp fantasy often DID have elements of racism/sexism, but those should be elements wrong with society for the heroes to stand up to. Without evil we can have no heroes.

We have a large following of PFS in culturally diverse areas of the world, including Turkey, the Middle East, Israel, South America, South Africa, Mexico, etc.

The fact that Gen Con happens to be in Indianapolis, where a large portion of the roleplaying base is founded upon the midwest, where the majority of the population are white, could be why this particular venue seemed to be mostly white.

However, let me tell you what I saw:

I saw thousands of people of all colors, creeds, sex, ethnicity, sexuality, et. al. join together to play a game we all love. Were there some in the minority? Yes. But I personally did not notice, hear of, or see any racism or bigotry during the show.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Finlanderboy wrote:

I dislike the feat because if I want top particpate ina good chunk of the skills for season 6 I have to buy that book. That seems a bit forced to me.

You should reward people with new content, not punish other people.

This is false. John HSS already stated that Season Six is not going to be filled with Tech and that outside the first 3 scenarios that only a handful will be tech related.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

If the pregen dies, it doesn't matter what level it is and when you'd apply it to the character you gave credit for it. You need to resolve the death and negative levels immediately.

I.E.: If your 4th level character with 15 PP and 6,000gp was having a 7th level Pregen credit assigned, you'd normally wait until your 4th level character was 7th level to assign the credit. But if the pregen dies, you must resolve that death immediately. You may sell the gear the pregen has to help resolve the death. You may also use the PP the character has, the PP the pregen earned, and any gold the character has to resolve the death and the negative levels.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Kyle Baird wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
If 6-03 has none of these circumstances, then exclude it from my commentary. But let's not assume that I'm just assuming Kyle.
You're right, I made the poor assumption that if you had already played the scenario you wouldn't be making the statement that it's unplayable without being able to identify one (mook) monster and a couple of pharmaceuticals. Clearly it's easier to lump every scenario together to help make an argument.

You did notice that I said that the details may be bleeding together and that I may be misremembering, right?

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Brett Carlos wrote:

Played 6-01. Technologist feat unnecessary to fully complete adventure. Adventure seems to take into account no one would have this feat or even Knowledge engineering. No need to worry.

Very enjoyable scenario.

I played this and disagree. You can complete it by accidentally fumbling around or if someone has an adamantine weapon. But not being able to use any trained only skills in this scenario would be highly detrimental to success and fun.

My GM did not use and did not likely know about the feat, so we made several skill checks that helped us to succeed where we otherwise would have had to accidentally succeed or destroy more stuff than we did with my wife's adamantine dagger.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Kyle Baird wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Problem is, it makes these 3 scenarios nearly unplayable (or at least not any fun, as you need to make some skill checks to get past certain parts) if you use that rule.

Using this rule does *not* make 6-03 unplayable by any means and it actually pisses me off that you would jump to such a conclusion.

Hyperbole and assumptions help no one.

I played all three of these at Gen Con, and some of the details may be bleeding into one another. I assure there are no hyperboles or assumptions being made. I may be misremembering about the exact details of 6-03.

But anytime you need to make a skill check to identify something (not just a creature) or disable device to unlock a door, you suddenly can't unless you have the Technologist feat.

There is at least one of the 3 that would be impossible to succeed at without the Technologist feat, and another where you assuredly would have almost no chance to get your second Prestige without the feat.

If 6-03 has none of these circumstances, then exclude it from my commentary. But let's not assume that I'm just assuming Kyle.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Problem is, it makes these 3 scenarios nearly unplayable (or at least not any fun, as you need to make some skill checks to get past certain parts) if you use that rule.

I'm sure that this happened because of parallel development, which often does not correspond with one another.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Well it becomes a major issue if scenarios become impossible to complete because nobody has the feat.
Yes, but that is a scenario design issue, not a knowledge rules issue. Obviously, I see where you're coming from, and it would just be easier to ignore the feat. I guess it was too much to hope that coming across alien technology would feel, you know, alien...

I don't disagree with you. I like the mechanic.

However, if the scenarios were not written understanding this mechanic existed, then we really are doing our players and the scenarios a disservice by feeling constrained by this rule.

This game is supposed to be fun. And it won't be very fun if even the Bards, Wizards, Alchemists and Rogues feel as useless as a 5 Cha Dwarf at Blakros Matrimony because this mechanic was not coordinated between the Technology Guide and the Scenario Authors.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

I'm going to wager that a lions share of the playtesters are and were PFS players.

And while the playtest ended in a month, you still would have a character of whatever level it was when the playtest ended. I know some that were 6th at the end of the playtest. So holding that character out of play for six months would still net the same issue.

Nobody is asking for a blanket rebuild so any ACG classes could get all the new stuff. They are simply asking that the Guide rule apply for the Warpriest. And but for the wording in additional resources, there would be no question that it would apply.

Ideally, Mike allows an adjustment of stats to fit in line with the class. I'd argue that the additional resources would allow this anyways, but without explicit language we remain in the dark at present.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well it becomes a major issue if scenarios become impossible to complete because nobody has the feat.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Doesn't matter if its core assumption or not. Technology isn't core assumption either.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

I don't believe HM discretion, within the rules, allows for a higher than 15+CR.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

I agree nefreet. Except in instances an ability required is modified, and the guide indicates you get to rebuild up to your xp.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Additional resources assumes that no ability changes were made to the classes. That literally it was just modifying how the different abilities worked or swapping out spell lists feats etc.

But the fact that if you used this rule for the warpriest you might end up with a completely nerfed character, it leads me to believe that the rule in the guide is more specific to these circumstances and specific trumps general.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I believe that both rules apply, with the more generous rule in the guide superceding the generic one from additional resources.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

I would look into the rules of the convention/store/city/municipality/county/state/country you are in. Some areas have actual laws that say a child cannot be left unsupervised if they are under a certain age.

Some areas (most as far as I know in the U.S.) require one to have a license to be a day care provider.

As such, it may be against the law (or at least the rules of the convention) for a child to not have a parent (or otherwise legal guardian) with them if they are under a certain age.

Normally I wouldn't make an issue of it if it happened to me, but if the child was being disruptive, then I'd ask them to call their parents and have them come get them, as I am not a babysitter or licensed daycare provider.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

FLite wrote:

Well, it shouldn't work, because an on the ball GM should just excuse the misbehaving player, and go on with the game.

(It is also possible that the player was at a previous table that wiped and was retconned for legitimate reasons and now has a very disruptive idea of how the game works)

mulliganing a game is supposed to be reserved for extreme circumstances, and should involve a VC. However the reality is that there is no actual mechanism that physically compels the GM to hand out sheets, so if probably happens more often than people think.

As far as I'm aware, there is no such thing as mulliganing a game. Under any circumstances.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Acedio wrote:

Could you elaborate on what part of the rules this contradicts? As far as I can tell, this post is only valuable for answering the question "is a robot an object" for the purposes of halving energy damage.

I'm well aware that James is not a rules guy, but at the very least it's relatively clear per the text quoted directly from the rule book that energy damage is halved on objects, not for things with hardness.

The reason animated objects have hardness, is because they are objects.

Its a crossover creature, that is both an object and a creature.

That's why they have hardness. It is also why the rules on hardness specifies objects, because except for two very rare exceptions (foo creatures and clockwork creatures) that didn't exist in the original bestiary when the rules for hardness were written, the only creature that has hardness is the animated object.

So the common rule is that hardness applies like hardness is supposed to apply, regardless of where you find that hardness.

To indicate that hardness suddenly works differently because the creature is suddenly not an "object" doesn't make any sense.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Acedio wrote:

Look what I found!

James Jacobs wrote:

As it turns out, robots are not objects—they're creatures. And as such, energy damage is not halved when applied to them. That bit about halving energy damage is a quality of an object, not a quality of Hardness. (And in my opinion... it's a kind of silly rule anyway—the idea that fire deals half-damage to paper is ridiculous.)

A plasma weapon used against a robot subtracts 10 points from the total damage done for its hardness 10. For sake of ease, it's best to say it subtracts 5 from the fire and 5 from the electricity, with any leftover (in a case where something does less than 5 fire or 5 electricity) applying to the other damage type.

And in fact, anything that deals electricity damage (including plasma) is a pretty solid choice against robots, due to their electricity weakness.

Based on this, it sounds like you still subtract the hardness from the electricity damage even though it is vulnerable. But that's ok, because it does 150% damage, right?

EDIT: Summary: Robots are creatures, not objects. You do not half the energy damage, but you still subtract the hardness from the energy damage as normal.

James Jacobs is not a rules guy, and this does not follow common understanding of the rules.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

If a construct has hardness, use the hardness rules. If it does not, don't.

As far as I'm aware, until Robots, there wasn't a construct that had hardness that was not an animated object. Thus the confusion. It became easy to differentiate how constructs dealt with energy damage based simply on whether it was animated or not.

But that is immaterial to the rules.

If a creature has hardness, regardless of type, you apply the hardness rules.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Bypassing or disabling a trap through mechanical means is not a creative solution. Its the solution expected.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Congrats Lucas!

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

You must not have looked hard enough, cause we rolled Bonekeep 3 with 5.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

David Bowles wrote:

I will defend my NG necromancer's right to animate a giant beetle pretty vehemently. It's a BEETLE.

One thing you have to ask yourself is this though:

The standard pathfinder rules indicate that casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor is an evil act. This was confirmed by Sean K Reynolds and James Jacobs.

Pathfinder Society has created a home rule around this to allow for certain spells to be cast like infernal healing and to remove the argument about such that was so prevalent prior to that ruling.

Are you willing to use the PFS home rule in your favor to cast an evil spell and then still adamantly defend your right to say your character is Good?

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As always, I try to discern the intent of the character. If I can't easily discern intent on my own, I'll ask the player a leading question like:

"So let me get this straight, your lawful good paladin is going to murder this non-evil dude in the middle of the streets of Westcrown because he tried to pick-pocket you?"

It allows the player to redefine what he's doing, or define his intent to a point I feel comfortable with it. (yeah, these things are subjective to each individual GM, table variation so to speak).

But ultimately, the intent of the action weighs more heavily on my interpretation of "evil" than does the actual action itself.

If you want to execute a murderer in some form of frontier justice, I do not consider that evil. It may be stretching lawfulness a tad sometimes, but in a lawless area, then I'd consider a Paladin the law. They are supposed to be beyond reproach, so if the player can convince me that they have judged the individual appropriately, and as long as I feel the sentence they want to hand down is just, then I'm fine with execution.

As a general rule, cannibalism is evil. But if you are playing a Shoanti who has a different idea of spiritualism than the average person (i.e. the consuming of a dangerous foes organs allows you to subsume their power--a means of respect toward the foe, that you allow their power to continue to live on through you) then obviously exceptions can be made.

As a general rule, slavery is not evil. I don't care what our modern day sensibilities and political correctness tell us. Slavery is not evil. There can be slavers who abuse the power of being a slave owner, and as such their individual institution of slavery is evil. But as a general principle, slavery is not evil.

Defiling a dead body is evil. The problem becomes, what is considered defiling? Certainly perspective can define this differently. I personally try to look at the intent. In Quest for Perfection, Part III: Defenders of Nesting Swallow, you could argue that chopping off he dead bandit heads and posting them on spikes to warn further bandits from harassing the town, is not defiling the dead bodies. While, performing vile acts with a dead body for pure depraved enjoyment would be. A family might consider anything you did to a depraved murderer's body other than giving them a respectful burial as defilement. We see examples of this in our modern times fairly often, where some religious group or other believes that an autopsy is defilement. Ultimately, the intent of the individual that is doing whatever to the dead body is ultimately an important factor in determining if the action would be considered defilement or not.

There is no black and white in my mind. Its full of shades of gray. And a GM needs to really look at the intent behind the action, and not just simply at the action itself.

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Pathfinder Society is not in the habit of rewriting things from published sources. In fact, unless it specifically needs to be changed because of organized play (i.e. Extra Bombs vs. Brew Potion or Spell Focus vs. Scribe Scroll), PFS doesn't change anything.

So the fix would have to come from the developer of the Dragonslayer's Handbook.

We know that it is very unlikely that a companion or campaign book will get any errata or even an FAQ entry. Paizo tends to only do either of those things for their Core line of books.

So for PFS, the two options really are, "deal with whatever interpretation your GM wants to use," or Ban it.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Acedio wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
I do not recall this being a hard rule. It is certainly accepted, and logic dictates, that it should rarely occur, but it is a legal, and occasionally, valid tactic.

Hm, I had always thought that Mike Brock specifically said to not do it unless it was listed in tactics. I could totally be wrong.

The best I could find along those lines was this.

Mike Brock wrote:
Mark and I discussed this. The scenarios are to be GMed as written. This isn't a grey area. I'm more concerned with a GM who thinks he can adequately adjust a scenario to better challenge the party and then kills PCs because extra creatures were added, or harder DCs were assigned to traps, or a coup de grace not written in the tactics, or any number of other circumstances a GM could change.
I mean, seems to suggest to me that CDG should not be used unless called upon, but this isn't exactly the best post for that ruling.

Look further in the same thread. Mike clarifies. It doesn't have to be called out in tactics, but Mike expects GMs to use good and fair judgment when doing so.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Awesome. We will just play the new 5-9 at level 5-6 then so her Druid doesn't level out. Just means I will still be an 8 Slayer.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

My wife has a Druid 9.2 she could bring.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Congratsto you!

Andoran

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

I would not allow it. Reloading a repeating crossbow is an entirely different type of action as reloading a crossbow.

Reloading when the box of 5 bolts has bolts in it, is a free action. Reloading the box of new bolts is a full-round action.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Also don't forget to actually write on the GM chronicle sheet "This character will be a Tiefling when I play it" to get him under the grandfathering.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Paizo is not currently updating Season 0. They will not accept unsolicited modifications either.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Fromper wrote:

What about Bonekeep? It's technically season 4, but I believe it has no 4 player adjustment. Would 5 players averaging level 5 be required to play subtier 6-7 instead of 3-4? What if none of them are level 6 or 7?

And no, this isn't a hypothetical question. Scheduled to play it in 12 hours, and this may happen. I think those of us with multiple characters in range will probably intentionally decide which PCs to bring to make sure we have no more than 22 total character levels (4.4 average).

Yes they would. But its Bonekeep. It is supposed to be deadly.

Andoran

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

primary natural attacks only get 1.5 strength if you only have one natural attack.

So for those who have bite/claw/claw as 3 primary natural attacks, your strength bonus is only x1.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
FLite wrote:

1) You are required to move (and to be seen moving? does it work on blind people?)

2) You are able to convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement. (since there is no numerical bonus, this requires further elaboration:)
--2a.) You gain a +4 to Bluff checks (circumstance bonus, specifically)
--2b.) You can use a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based check
3) You get a +4 circumstance bonus to disguise
--3a.) List of examples, as you say, presumably not exhaustive.

Being subclauses, both 2a and 2b are circumstantial on 2. You can't use the +4 from 2a to convince the king the butler killed the chef, likewise you can't use the bluff check to know random facts about random goblins.

Hm, that's an interesting one. It seems (somewhat) plausible when viewed in a vacuum; to check it, though, in what circumstances *does* 2b apply in a way that (A) isn't already part of what the Bluff skill does and (B) is something a reasonable person might try to communicate by writing the text of 2b?

If you've got good answers there, you might be onto something.

My thought on this would be:

Bard: "You see that group of stars there? That's known as Platypus!"

Normally, if talking to a commoner, it would probably be a standard Bluff, but to an Astrologer, it would probably be an impossible lie, so a -20 Bluff.

Astrologer: "You are full of crap, its obvious you know nothing of the stars, because two of them are Aroden's Staff and the other three are part of Callistria's Girdle!"

Bard then starts Pageant of the Peacock and rolls a Knowledge (geography) check using his Bluff at +4. Depending on what he rolls, at the GM's discretion, he might move the lie from impossible to plausible or somewhere inbetween.

Bard: "Ah, to the average person, you are correct, but down in Sargava, the Platypii are very dangerous, nigh unto Gods to the savages. Indeed they believe they come from the stars--those 5 stars to be exact."

Poppycock... but he made his Knowledge (geography) to obviate the penalties for lying.

Without Pageant of the Peacock, I would probably not allow an obvious Lie bluff check to convince an expert you know more than he does.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Well based on what Mark Seifter has said, the best thing I can do is lobby to get it banned in PFS.
Then I believe you should do that, instead of insisting that it somehow lets you make bluff checks that would otherwise be impossible, despite containing no language to that effect.

I won't repeat it, cause its all through this thread.

But there certainly is language that says it lets you make bluff checks that would otherwise be impossible.

Not in those exact words. But it does essentially say that.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

As a reasonable GM, I'm giving you a -20 for an impossible lie. I don't care how creative you get. There are just some people that aren't going to believe what you say unless you are impossibly good at lying.

Pageant of the Peacock allows you to mitigate that.

Your reasonable is my rewriting mechanics. Pageant of the Peacock says nothing about negating penalties.

Edit: I also wouldn't consider "No matter how creative you are some lies will always be impossible" to be reasonable GMing.

Bluff is written so that a GM gets to decide how likely the target is to believe the lie. They assign the penalties.

If you have a special magical ability that makes it easier for you to make crap up that people who know more than you might believe, then as a GM wouldn't it make sense to reduce the penalty for the lie itself?

You don't need mechanics written for everything. You use what's given to you and move on.

But allowing a Bluff Check to actually be all Intelligence based skills for the cost of a feat or 2nd level spell, is way outside the realms of reasonable.

I don't think it's reasonable to take a very clearly written ability and change it because you don't like the power level. Is it too strong? Probably! But so are a lot of other things that I'm not allowed to change because PFS isn't my home game.
I don't believe, based on all the conversation here, that its as clearly written as you think it is.
What I'm seeing is a bunch of people who are doing their best to mangle the wording into something they feel is an appropriate power level, rather than saying it's too strong and working to get it changed from there.

Well based on what Mark Seifter has said, the best thing I can do is lobby to get it banned in PFS.

I mean seriously. If people want everything always run exactly RAW (or rather their interpretation thereof) and clarification or needed change doesn't or can't happen... then the only recourse (rather than let your GM come up with some reasonable interpretation) is to remove it from play.

Because as you are interpreting it, this ability is WAY outside the scope of what a single feat or 2nd level spell should be able to do.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

As a reasonable GM, I'm giving you a -20 for an impossible lie. I don't care how creative you get. There are just some people that aren't going to believe what you say unless you are impossibly good at lying.

Pageant of the Peacock allows you to mitigate that.

Your reasonable is my rewriting mechanics. Pageant of the Peacock says nothing about negating penalties.

Edit: I also wouldn't consider "No matter how creative you are some lies will always be impossible" to be reasonable GMing.

Bluff is written so that a GM gets to decide how likely the target is to believe the lie. They assign the penalties.

If you have a special magical ability that makes it easier for you to make crap up that people who know more than you might believe, then as a GM wouldn't it make sense to reduce the penalty for the lie itself?

You don't need mechanics written for everything. You use what's given to you and move on.

But allowing a Bluff Check to actually be all Intelligence based skills for the cost of a feat or 2nd level spell, is way outside the realms of reasonable.

I don't think it's reasonable to take a very clearly written ability and change it because you don't like the power level. Is it too strong? Probably! But so are a lot of other things that I'm not allowed to change because PFS isn't my home game.

I don't believe, based on all the conversation here, that its as clearly written as you think it is.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Acedio wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

Bluff is written so that a GM gets to decide how likely the target is to believe the lie. They assign the penalties.

If you have a special magical ability that makes it easier for you to make crap up that people who know more than you might believe, then as a GM wouldn't it make sense to reduce the penalty for the lie itself?

You don't need mechanics written for everything. You use what's given to you and move on.

But allowing a Bluff Check to actually be all Intelligence based skills for the cost of a feat or 2nd level spell, is way outside the realms of reasonable.

That's basically meta gaming. Do you apply a blanket -20 penalty?

If it boils down to using Bluff to make knowledge checks to discern what a monster does, then yeah, its a -20, and then you get the +4 for Pageant.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

As a reasonable GM, I'm giving you a -20 for an impossible lie. I don't care how creative you get. There are just some people that aren't going to believe what you say unless you are impossibly good at lying.

Pageant of the Peacock allows you to mitigate that.

Your reasonable is my rewriting mechanics. Pageant of the Peacock says nothing about negating penalties.

Edit: I also wouldn't consider "No matter how creative you are some lies will always be impossible" to be reasonable GMing.

Bluff is written so that a GM gets to decide how likely the target is to believe the lie. They assign the penalties.

If you have a special magical ability that makes it easier for you to make crap up that people who know more than you might believe, then as a GM wouldn't it make sense to reduce the penalty for the lie itself?

You don't need mechanics written for everything. You use what's given to you and move on.

But allowing a Bluff Check to actually be all Intelligence based skills for the cost of a feat or 2nd level spell, is way outside the realms of reasonable.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Teatime42 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Except that there's no bonus to the bluff check. You can already try a bluff check to pull that off.
But now you're getting +4 instead of -20 or worse.
Except that, mechanically, PtoP doesn't negate any penalties to using the bluff skill at all.

That's where being a reasonable GM and knowing the rules comes into play.

If I'm going to try to convince an astrology expert that some grouping of stars is the constellation Platypus, and he knows that grouping I'm pointing at is actually parts of two other constellations... that's going to be a nearly impossible bluff. That's a -20 to your bluff check.

But if I use Pageant of the Peacock and make a Knowledge (geography) check with my Bluff skill, I can convince him that I actually might know more about that grouping of stars than he does.

Bard: "So my friend, see those 5 stars right there? They are known as Platypus..."

Astrologer: "You friend are full of it. I happen to know two of those stars are actually Aroden's Staff and the other three are part of Calistria's Girdle."

Bard: "That may be so, and you would be correct, if you were not from the small nation of Sargava. In Sargava you see, they have this fearsome beast that is nigh unto a god to them, and they say he comes from the stars. Those 5 stars to be exact."

Pure poppycock... but the Bard was able to mitigate the -20 by making a Knowledge (geography) check with his Bluff skill, and got a +4 instead.

Sometimes mechanics can't all be laid out for you in a nice little package. Sometimes one has to extrapolate things.

Otherwise you get ridiculous things like being able to make 15 different checks for 1 rank with the equivalent of a feat or 2nd level spell. Something that is far more powerful than any single feat in the game, or any single 2nd level spell.

I'm not seeing that as anything but a chain of Bluff skills that you could do without PotP.

As a reasonable GM, I'm giving you a -20 for an impossible lie. I don't care how creative you get. There are just some people that aren't going to believe what you say unless you are impossibly good at lying.

Pageant of the Peacock allows you to mitigate that.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

In a home game you can modify the Aasimar however you and your GM agree to.

But in PFS, you cannot go outside of the exact stats and mechanics that are listed for the Aasimar.

You cannot make them small. You cannot make them half any other race.

They are essentially half-human but they don't get the human subtype unless you take the Scion of Humanity racial trait.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeff Merola wrote:
Teatime42 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Except that there's no bonus to the bluff check. You can already try a bluff check to pull that off.
But now you're getting +4 instead of -20 or worse.
Except that, mechanically, PtoP doesn't negate any penalties to using the bluff skill at all.

That's where being a reasonable GM and knowing the rules comes into play.

If I'm going to try to convince an astrology expert that some grouping of stars is the constellation Platypus, and he knows that grouping I'm pointing at is actually parts of two other constellations... that's going to be a nearly impossible bluff. That's a -20 to your bluff check.

But if I use Pageant of the Peacock and make a Knowledge (geography) check with my Bluff skill, I can convince him that I actually might know more about that grouping of stars than he does.

Bard: "So my friend, see those 5 stars right there? They are known as Platypus..."

Astrologer: "You friend are full of it. I happen to know two of those stars are actually Aroden's Staff and the other three are part of Calistria's Girdle."

Bard: "That may be so, and you would be correct, if you were not from the small nation of Sargava. In Sargava you see, they have this fearsome beast that is nigh unto a god to them, and they say he comes from the stars. Those 5 stars to be exact."

Pure poppycock... but the Bard was able to mitigate the -20 by making a Knowledge (geography) check with his Bluff skill, and got a +4 instead.

Sometimes mechanics can't all be laid out for you in a nice little package. Sometimes one has to extrapolate things.

Otherwise you get ridiculous things like being able to make 15 different checks for 1 rank with the equivalent of a feat or 2nd level spell. Something that is far more powerful than any single feat in the game, or any single 2nd level spell.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Bold Strider wrote:

All the pro-modified PotP people seem to be saying is "This lets you Bluff in social circumstances instead of using Knowledge(________) or any other Int-based skill."

The problem with this interpretation is that PotP doesn't do anything then. You can already do this with the Bluff skill. You can already tell people that you are some rich and famous guy from somewhere no one has heard of. You can convince them that your Knowledge is the correct Knowledge. That is what Bluff is. If you follow this interpretation, the masterpiece just gives a +4 to Bluff and Disguise.

This makes PotP vastly weaker than many other options you can take in its place and goes against a plain reading of the text, in my opinion. If the writer intended for it to be a simple +4 to Bluff and Disguise, then they would have just written that.

Sure it does. Bluff isn't just a roll vs a sense motive. There are modifiers, some quite heavy, based on how dubious your lie is.

Pageant of the Peacock let's you mitigate the dubiousness of the lie, by effectively making up info that's believable. So that instead of potentially getting a -10 or -20 on your bluff check, you get a +4 with either no or less of a penalty.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Quest for perfection 1 and 3. Just make sure the final fights of both aren't too much.

Cyphermage Dilemma can also have some very fun encounters and some hilarious wackiness at subtier 1-2.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Disk Elemental wrote:
LazarX wrote:


it dies even sooner when it becomes "give the player what he wants, because he can twist rules language creatively."

There's no twisting of the rules being done.

Peacock Pageantry wrote:


For the duration of the effect, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks, and may attempt a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based skill check.

RAW, the masterpiece allows you to make knowledge checks. Saying otherwise is "twisting" the rules.

Does it make a whole lot of logical sense? Not really.

But it's magic, it doesn't have to make logical sense; according to the description of masterpieces, they are supernatural effects unless otherwise stated.

As always, quoting a singular phrase in the larger context, a rule does not make.

Reading that phrase in the larger context certainly lends ambiguity to it, and as such, allowing it only to fake an Intelligence check, but not actually know something, certainly is a legitimate interpretation.

1 to 50 of 2,049 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.