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 6 Season Dedicated Voter. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul. 3,636 posts (7,805 including aliases). 3 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 25 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,636 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

What I did to prep this both times I GM'd it, was I essentially did a full audit of the characters. Not to make sure they were correct or to catch the players at anything, but rather to figure out what the characters were capable of so that the enemy could be prepared. There is reasons they might have some insight into what the characters are capable of.

I also had the initial invitation printed out for each player and put in an envelope which I actually sealed with a real wax seal.

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

Yeah, this is a series you definitely don't want to run cold.

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

Hey, we love new players, and you'll have a blast at Con of the North!

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

The major difference, in regards to role-play, in PFS vs a Home Game, is essentially that you don't really get to develop your character into the canon of the campaign world. In a home game, even if you are using a published campaign world, your GM can let you grow into the world. Your characters can become nobles, become movers and shakers, and have an impact on the history of the world itself. And once you get tired of playing those characters, and you start new ones for a new adventure arc, you might even hear information about your other characters, from the perspective of people across the world. Indeed, things your other characters did might have lasting impact that is the focus of the new campaign.

In PFS, your roleplay is limited on an episodic basis. So its more personality roleplaying and interacting with the individual encounters and NPCs presented in the scenario itself. This can be very rewarding, but its definitely different from a home campaign focused on roleplay rather than tactical battle. But I've had very satisfying experiences with roleplaying within PFS. Its just changing gears as to what exactly you are roleplaying and what your expectations of doing so are.

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

GM 101 has some great ideas on how to handle the key NPC dying.

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

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
I guess it all comes down to how you view roleplaying and the job of the gamemaster. I view it as cooperative storytelling. We're all here to tell a story of high adventure and epic fantasy. Of noble heroes, and vile villains. The rules help give structure and decide the results. But at the end of the day, telling the story trumps the rules.
At least one person "gets" my point. Maybe I'm not as crazy as a thought. ;-)

This is how I generally see it too.

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

trollbill wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Let's just not assume that the GM is trying to screw the players and won't listen to reason. I've meet one GM like that in five years of PFS, including at regional and international cons.

1) Let us also not assume that the player is trying to 'get one over' on the GM by playing a gray area character. I haven't met a lot of players like that either. Most issues I have encountered with questionable/illegal builds involves players simply misunderstanding the rules.

2) I have not met any GMs in PFS that are just trying to screw the players over and won't listen to reason. What I have met on several occasions are adversarial GMs whose knee jerk response to any rules question is to rule against the players. You eventually can get them to listen to reason, but this frequently require 5-10 minutes of arguments and rules presentations that most players won't want to deal with. Essentially, the GM is starting with an attitude of Hostile or Unfriendly and you have to make a Diplomacy check to change it to at least Indifferent. Ideally I think a GMs starting attitude should be Friendly.

Agreed, and generally that's how I try to approach tables.

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

Kahel Stormbender wrote:
Serisan wrote:

Given the semi-recent thread about Blackblade whip legality, it's probably more likely than you think. We can all be hopeful about GM behavior, but it's always worth remembering that Pathfinder is an evolving game with roughly 7 years of its own material and many more of its predecessor. As a result, there is likely no single person who completely understands every rule decision that has been made over that time, devs/designers included. Misunderstandings are bound to occur.

Ultimately, the question comes down to how people choose to present information and how people choose to receive it. Most people are pretty chill about it on either side. Others have issues. That being the case, the ambiguity is simply an enabler of a type of behavior and it's fair to question whether there can be a satisfying resolution via campaign ruling.

Not sure why anyone would think a blackblade can be a whip. The archtype specifically states which types of weapons can be a blackblade. I'll give a hint, they're all swords. I'll give another hint, none of them were sword-whips. Which makes sense. How can a weapon be a blackblade if it's not a bladed weapon?

Actually I believe the archetype says any slashing weapon. Which a whip is.

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

Andrew Roberts wrote:
The gray area of that is when a GM doesn't think something qualifies them for something that actually changes their build, such as the Bladebound Magus and Whip thing. Do they actually need to permanently change their weapon for the one GM who doesn't agree with how it is written? I don't agree with that.

In most cases, unless it's an egregious error, a GM shouldn't be forcing a permanent rebuild. There are lots of things that are obviously illegal though. I've had people try to argue something as legal with some really ludicrous justificstions. The most recent was Vestigial Arms getting extra attacks because they also have racial claw attacks and Feral Mutagen.

In most cases of legit table variation issues, a player and GM should discuss it civilly and try to find common ground for that session. Personally, I do my best not to disallow common table variation issues unless I feel really strongly about it, or I feel the designation of gray area is a dubious one at best.

What is currently off rhetoric table is bringing two builds for the same character based on how a GM rules the table variation issue.

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

Paul Jackson wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Well, your Judge B should look at the Chronicle, where Judge A signed off on the "mistake" being fixed, and not say what you have him saying.

Wrong. If I'm Judge A then that character change was illegal and its my DUTY to disallow it.

Or are you saying that any character rebuild is legal if some GM signs off on it? Didn't think so.

I don't think that's what he said at all.

Assuming GM A helped get a character legal legitimately, then it would be best to sign off on the change. Getting a character legal costs nothing.

GM B would not be correct at all.

In the above scenario, neither would GM B.

Forcing permanent rebuilds is not a good option, unless it's an obvious error or illegality. (E.g. 30 point buy, drow, etc.)

The right way to handle the above, if the GM is positive the character should not get extra bombs, is just disallow that feat. And the player gets to play thier character. Then suggest player does some research on how to deal with that situation.

There is no need to create an adversarial situation at the table.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

None of that is a realistic scenario.

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

Robert Hetherington wrote:
Nefreet wrote:


You've brought a perfectly legal (in your opinion) character to a PFS event, and you encounter a GM who feels differently. Having encountered previous, similarly-minded GMs, you come prepared with a version you know they'll accept. Some minor twerk, like Weapon Focus in place of [that one feat].
I'm not certain that this is either a legal or desirable outcome.

And I'm not sure how this isn't exactly what the guy said he felt was illegal.

You cannot do this Nefreet. You can still play the character though, just without the gray option.

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

Glad that's resolved!

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like to trust players. I rarely look at character sheets. I only really question things when I'm not sure or I'm pretty sure they are wrong.

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

Or.

Release fluffy (or rather just say he doesn't attend the adventure.)

Adventure w/out animal for a time.

During downtime you declare fluffy came back.

Adventure with fluffy once again.

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

The general consensus is that you cannot ready outside of combat.

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

No, you cannot legally permanently change to an Azlanti.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Jared, you've made a lot of good arguments lately. Even changed my mind on a couple. I also was a huge proponent of the FAQ to clear conditions. Even helped write it.

But I absolutely cannot agree that an AC death is a condition that needs clearing.

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

James McTeague wrote:
Paul Jackson wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


There are a LOT of rules in this game. I don't think any two DMs are going to agree on all of them.

I don't think a GM ever completely agrees with himself from day to day :-(.
Nor should a good GM be constantly agreeing with himself. No one knows all the rules, and a good GM should be open to being wrong and learning from session to session.

Absolutely. And everyone from rank newby players to experienced GMs, to five stars, to VC's even all the way to Designers should be allowed to change their mind. Holding folks to things they may have said on a certain topic from 2 years ago, or even 2 days ago (even in the same thread), is problematic. We have to allow for people to change their minds and have different opinions. Otherwise, why the heck are we even having a discussion? If I'm going to be held 100%, forever, to everything I've ever said, and a change in tone or opinion on a certain topic is not going to be allowed, then all these huge threads are pointless and feckless drivel that solves nothing.

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

I agree, that a firm ruling from on high is not a good idea. Anytime you get a binary ruling, it always screws over outlier circumstances.

I'd much prefer leave this in the GMs hands.

But one such decision I'm going to make, is that you can't have two versions of the same character. You either take the risk of not being able to use gray area issues or you don't. I'm fairly adamant on that point.

I am however not going to say never. Because there may come a day and a special set of circumstances, where I will feel its ok to allow such.

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

BigNorseWolf wrote:

I don't think there is any one answer to this. You may have different solutions depending on

1) HOW illegal is the character? You can let a 19 point character build slide for a session , the 40 point " i rolled all 18s" vampire monk not so much

2) How integral is it to someone's build? If someone's entire character relies on an ambiguity thats a lot different than say, a swashbuckler using a buckler who can just take it off and drop an AC point or three.

3) How powerful is the option. There's no point in arguing with a yellow tengu. If someone has rules lawyered their way to instadecapitation thats something you need to address.

4) How gray/technical is the ruling? For example, Elemental spell technically doesn't change the descriptor. Someone may have chosen their elemental focus based on that technicality, or they may have decided that a wall of cold is actually a [cold] spell.

Exactly.

I once had a new player bring a 30+ point buy Drow to my table. They tried to argue, "But the book lists several options for rolling stats and doesn't say I can't be a drow." That's obviously not a gray area even though they tried to argue that.

Being reasonable is a two way street. I like to be rrasonable, compromise, and have fun. But there are sometimes circumstances that require me to just say, No, here is a pregen."

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

Expecting folks to play by the rules, making an informed choice as a GM on a gray area, and disallowing either illegal builds or gray area items is certainly not badwrongfun.

Table variation is part of the game.

And I do not think it unreasonable to expect a player to bring a single build per character and just accept that when they use known gray areas for thier character, that sometimes they may not be able to use those items at some tables.

I'm a reasonable person though. I have to feel really strongly about something that is gray before I disallow it entirely. If it really doesn't matter for game balance issues, I usually let it go. If the player and I disagree on whether it's a gray area or not, the same standard applies. But just because a player tries to claim it as a gray area, does not make it so. You've already shown where in your experience GMs can flat out get things wrong. So can olayers. We aren't discussing those times. Those are irrelevant to the OP query.

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

Finlanderboy wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
But that is way not the norm.

Every Convention I go to I see one silly rule shattered by being stretched so thin. Would you prefer I go on?

Barbarian uncanny dodge is different han rogue uncanny dodge, and you can not take AoOs before you act if you are barbarian uncanny dodge.

Clear spindel slotted is worthless because prot evil only works if cast on you after evil mind effects take place.

Want more?

Uncanny dodge does not allow one to take AoO before you act no matter if it's Rogue or Barbarian.

And not sure how you can make that assertion about protection from evil. That's clearly patently false.

Just because a GM misinterpreting a rule, does not tgen make it table variation. It makes it a mistaken GM. And if they refuse to use the correct rules when pointed out (after the game) then the same procedures are in place to correct that as are in place for players who won't follow the rules.

This in no way impacts a GM from being able to deny true gray area or table variation issues. Let's not conflate GMS being wrong with table variation here.

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

Prejudice is a strong word.

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

But that is way not the norm.

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

Paul Jackson wrote:

I think that if the player is willing to go to all the work of

1) researching the rule in question enough to show that it is truly a grey area
2) having a second version of the character made up

then they absolutely should receive the reward of being able to play the version that is legal at that table.

I'd like for this to be limited to the truly grey areas, though. Not to the cases where the rule is 99% clear but there is enough ambiguity that some insanely convoluted argument can be made. Unfortunately, I see no practical way to distinguish the cases.

I agree that altering equipment goes a bit too far.

I completely and utterly disagree that having two builds for the same character based on GM decision on gray areas is legit.

When you base a build on a legit gray area, you take that risk. I would not allow them to pull out another build.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.

A GM needs to have the authority and right to just say no depending on thier interpretation of the circumstances. Have I ever allowed questionable things I felt were illegal? Yes, when I knew that my interpretation was decidedly not a consensus. I'm more lenient at non local conventions as well.

That all being said, the authority at the table is the GM, and they should be able to reserve the right to make whatever decision they feel is the best for the circumstances. Of course considering a plethora of issues before just saying no.

But if I really feel strongly about the legality of something, and I don't feel it's a legit gray area, in going to ask the player to make thier character legal, permanently, mark it on thier chronicle that I did so, or ask them to play a pregen. Thus type of action should be extremely rare though.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Because choosing a known gray area has drawbacks. Table variation. Making two different characters is not a viable option. Your character is what it is, and you take the risk of not being able to use some options if you choose to use a gray area.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's not really a good reason Nefreet. This campaign largely works on an honor basis in most cases as is. Creating one more rule that expects folks to play by the rules is not a problem. Anyone who chooses to break the rule can be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Using gray areas for your character, you are doing so with the understanding that there will be table variation. So having two different builds should not be an option.

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

TimD wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
To worship requires deep philosophical thought and informed decision making.

Citation? ... because this is obviously not true in the real world... (ex. children often perform acts of worship before being capable of informed decision making, much less "deep philosophical thought" - in case it seemed like I was bashing on religion)

** spoiler omitted **

Many children are more equipped for deep philosophical thought than adults. In any case, PFS differentiates Worship and Venerate.

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

MadScientistWorking wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

To worship requires deep philosophical thought and informed decision making. Any creature, no matter the Int, that requires a handle animal check, does not have the capacity for this type of thought.

Weirdly enough that doesn't mean you can't have a companion that isn't capable of worshiping a god though. Just means that you are severely limited by what you can choose. As far as I am aware of Homunculous is the only companion/familiar that is technically sentient by the rules.

I'd say 95% of the improved familiars are sentient.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

^^Exactly!

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

Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Actually, a strict RSVP system works very well. People learn not to just show up. We make sure that all the stores know our policy, so when they suggest people check us out, they point them to our Meetup page. The only reason you have people not RSVPing is because you allow it. Sending them home if there aren't any seats available is a perfectly acceptable option. And it works.

Not really a valid tactic when you're only plopping down 8 or so people.

When sending one person home means that an entire table can't play, it is not an option.
If I had OVERSTUFFED tables, RSVPing would be a great way to handle it.
But that's not my small store experience.

A)We have the few "always there"s.
B)A couple "Will be there unless something comes up, but I'll let you know earlier that day"s.
C)And one or two "I may show up, I may not. It will totally be last second"s.
Some of these guys carpool in, some of these guys drive in themselves, some of them are dropped off by their parents and left with us for a few hours.
A hard RSVP system will drive away the Cs, not just from the session but from the game entirely. It works fine with the As, but falls apart entirely when one of the Bs has something come up. It's no problem to send a self driver home, but a carpool member or a drop off is another story.
In the end, the Sudoku of a small store just cannot handle a rigid system; we need something more flexible, something with wiggle room.
We ended up going over to Adventure Paths, where we can at least play characters out or in as needed.

As I said, I understand the arguments for the current rules set.
I understand that massive Cons and big city stores need to have the replay rules as they are for a plethora of reasons.
I just want it to be understood too just what us folks in small stores have to deal with, and how the current rules affect us.
Ideally, the rules would be modified in such a way as to work for all situations.

It certainly would work. And will be less stressful for the organizer. We only started at 2 tables total in the Twin cities, and many of our game days still only get two tables at a time.

The way a strict RSVP system works, is you set up how ever many tables you think you can pull off. Indicate what scenarios are being run at least 2 weeks in advance so GMs have time to prep. And then let folks RSVP. And if a day out, one or more tables don't have enough RSVPs, you cancel it.

It's about changing the culture of making a commitment to play. You don't allow for folks just showing up. Meetup has the ability to RSVP with guests, so you can RSVP for more than one person.

There really isn't a circumstance where a strict RSVP system won't work. Unless the venue actually requires you to accommodate walk ins.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
UndeadMitch wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
UndeadMitch wrote:
I don't see how imposing penalties for performing a deific obedience that is not inherently dangerous is a matter of table variation. If there would have been a possibility for a drawback, the obedience would have listed it. Imposing a penalty because you think there should be one is outside the purview of a PFS GM's duty.
True, but imposing consequences for a characters actions is well within the purview of a PFS GM. So some of these rituals may require some level of discretion else the public might object in some fashion.
I'll grant you that, a GM can impose consequences for performing obediences when doing so would have negative reprecussions, such as the Rahadoum example. But that is less a matter of the obedience and more a matter of the character being responsible for the choices they make.

Agreed. But it does feel like many posters feel like because they took the feat, they could do whatever, whenever they want. This attitude is not specific to this issue.

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

UndeadMitch wrote:
I don't see how imposing penalties for performing a deific obedience that is not inherently dangerous is a matter of table variation. If there would have been a possibility for a drawback, the obedience would have listed it. Imposing a penalty because you think there should be one is outside the purview of a PFS GM's duty.

True, but imposing consequences for a characters actions is well within the purview of a PFS GM. So some of these rituals may require some level of discretion else the public might object in some fashion.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.

To worship requires deep philosophical thought and informed decision making. Any creature, no matter the Int, that requires a handle animal check, does not have the capacity for this type of thought.

So animal companions could not choose to worship a deity, and thus cannot take the feats that require them to do so.

I recognize not everyone will agree with me, so expect table variation. But be aware, your animal companion will not get to choose another feat at tables this is disallowed, unless you accept this as an illegal option and permanently change your character.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually, a strict RSVP system works very well. People learn not to just show up. We make sure that all the stores know our policy, so when they suggest people check us out, they point them to our Meetup page. The only reason you have people not RSVPing is because you allow it. Sending them home if there aren't any seats available is a perfectly acceptable option. And it works.

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

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

I'm gonna disagree.

I think "need" is a perfectly acceptable word to tie to breathing.

After the crud I've had the past two weeks, I'll respectfully disagree.

Well you are still typing, therefore you have been breathing, even if difficult. The fact your body forced you breath despite being all crudded up, tells me that its definitely a "need".

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm gonna disagree.

I think "need" is a perfectly acceptable word to tie to breathing.

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

Nohwear wrote:
This is why we need sites like Warhorn.

Yup. Our region uses Meetup, which does a really good job as well.

Just some sort of site that requires an RSVP to guarantee you a spot at the table.

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

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

Quote from behind nosig's spoiler that should not be missed:

nosig wrote:

Mostly it seems to me that this thread is not saying...

"I've played everything, I need to be able to replay to play"

but is rather saying

"I'm having trouble scheduling stuff that everyone can play. If we loosen the re-play restriction it would make my job easier."

This is exactly why organizers need to stop trying to please everyone, and do what is best for their group as a whole. Some people won't be able to play PFS every time, and that's OK. It HAS to be.

So this!

The, "Everyone must be able to play, all the time, no matter what," is a huge fallacy. This is why I really suggest using a strict RSVP system. That way you don't worry about Geek Sudoku. Because people who can't play what you are offering that day, won't sign up to play, and won't show up to play. And that's ok.

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

Alexander Augunas wrote:
Jeffrey Fox wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
2) It sounds like you proclaim a game day, and pick GMS and tables based on who showed up and what you can play. Move to a strict RSVP system. I know all the arguments against, and the idea that players may stop coming back if they can't play. The fear might be founded for a few, but frankly we are better off in our community without players whose play rate is both untenable and irresponsible. The majority of people will shrug and say, "Ah, already played it, see ya next time." Some days you might just get one table. But you'll know it based on who RSVPs for which scenario(s) you've decided to organize that day.

He is using warhorn, with about a month lead on what gets scheduled.

Alex is a bit more organized then the last store coordinator (me) who tended to schedule based on what he felt would be the best choice for the slot.

Seriously though, please no more replay than we already have.

Honestly, I'm not more organized then you are/were Jeff. Instead of having your uncanny memory for what's been played and your patience to sort through four years of Warhorn logs, I pester our regulars for lists of what they can and can't play. :-P

I guess my point really is to not be afraid if someone can't play occassionally. I suggest running new stuff shortly after it comes out (without of course jeopardizing any conventions--we typically hold back 2 months of scenarios for our main convention.) Which should guarantee them at leat two plays per month.

Knowing the release rate and the scope of the finite resources, if a player plays themselves out of stuff to play, that thier own fault. But if you don't tell them of the limitations, they may not know. We told folks early on, and I still repost the info every year or two for reminder and to capture new folks. My experience is people play as much as they want without consideration for the finiteness of the resource.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) chronicle fishing: do you honestly think that will get better with open replay? You consider replay good because it will allow rampant chronicle fishing? That's counter-ontuitive.

2) It sounds like you proclaim a game day, and pick GMS and tables based on who showed up and what you can play. Move to a strict RSVP system. I know all the arguments against, and the idea that players may stop coming back if they can't play. The fear might be founded for a few, but frankly we are better off in our community without players whose play rate is both untenable and irresponsible. The majority of people will shrug and say, "Ah, already played it, see ya next time." Some days you might just get one table. But you'll know it based on who RSVPs for which scenario(s) you've decided to organize that day.

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

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm completely against making replay easier than it is now. I've stated why many times in previous threads.

While we don't necessarily want to come out and say, "play less." We need to effectively explain the finite resource. And if they choose to ignore that and play themselves out of things to play, that really is thier own fault.

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

Everyone has thier own style of play. And generally we should not impinge on that until they've stepped on your fun.

That being said, PFS is primarily a campaign based on cooperation. Indeed that's one of the tenets of v the society. If a character can't or won't cooperate, then that concept is not likely correct for this campaign. I, however, am not saying this is the case with this particular example. But there are certainly some concepts that are inappropriate for PFS.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One has to be careful about how you reskin things. You must make sure that you don't make one thing with its own stats into something else that has its own stats. If a GM allows small and insignificant things. And players see this, then things can and will snowball. I've seen it. Eventually you'll be in a world of reskinning where dogs are pigs and half ords are half trolls.

That all being said, I would not be adverse to allowing you to use the imagery of a parasol for your cane (Penguin) as long as it didn't girlie you any benefits as a parasol (Mary Poppins).

Sovereign Court

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

No. But there are plenty of feats, spells, and class abilities out there that increase your speed, thus allowing you to move or charge longer distances.

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

There already is official wording. Unless there is something specifically giving you access to tech, you don't get it.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am really trying to figure out how alignment is a binary choice system when there are two axis and 9 alignments.

Sovereign Court

Fhlangorn moves to the door across the hall and opens it.

if STR is needed:
Strength check: 1d20 + 3 ⇒ (7) + 3 = 10

1 to 50 of 3,636 << 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.