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. 2,784 posts (6,837 including aliases). 3 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 20 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,784 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

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

Is it? Is it ok for them to attack with other weapons?

Sovereign Court

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

The guy is talking about a monkey. Monkeys have tails.

Where did a tiefling come into play?

Sovereign Court

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

One player giving up some or all of their turn to assist another player's action economy is fine. But to try and completely circumvent the action economy system by finding some "tail end" (pun intended) loophole, is simply trying to game the system. The balance of combat is largely based on action economy. You break it, you break the game.

While having your monkey tossing flasks or stowing wands, doesn't seem like a big deal, it certainly sets the precedent for larger, more egregious infractions. And a ruling shouldn't read, "you can do this as long as its minor and no big deal." Either you can or you can't.

For the sake of game balance, I would hope people would stop trying to find "tail end" loopholes of circumventing the limitations of action economy.

Sovereign Court

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

Xbows take two hands to reload, thus are two handed weapons. As such, a tiny monkey could not reload a medium-sized xbow.

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

Except the rules never said you get the gold from the sub-tier closest to your level.

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

Welcome Stuart!

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

Nice!

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

Welcome!

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Awesome job!

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

John Compton wrote:
UndeadMitch wrote:
Blackfoot wrote:
On the Liberty's Edge Card the second task reads:
Quote:
Adventure in two of the following locations: Andoran, Cheliax, Okeno, Numeria, or the River Kingdoms.

There are 2 boxes there..

Does this mean adventure in 2 of these places twice or 1 of these places once and 1 of these places another time?

IE... I go on a Mission to Andoran... do I check a box? Or only if I go on a mission to Andoran and Cheliax (or some other combo of places)

I'm not sure I've seen too many scenarios with that much travel in them... so I'm wondering. The two boxes 'seem' to represent the two places.. but it could also be read the other way.

I'm pretty certain it's one location once and another location once. It seems to me to work like the Grand Lodge objective, only with fewer boxes (and without the ability to check off a second box).
Yes, that Liberty's Edge faction goal has one box for the first adventure in one of those locations and a second box for the second visit to such a location. You don't have to travel to both in the course of a single adventure.

But if you travel to the River Kingdoms in two different scenarios, do you get to check of both boxes, or can you only use River Kingdoms once on that card?

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ShadowLodgeAgent wrote:
This is the place to tell other players why they don't need a high Initiative modifier in PFS. Go nuts.

PFS is most often balanced in such a way, that you don't need to win each encounter before the badguy's go.

Building your character so that you can end the encounter before it really ever begins actually can rob other players and the GM of the entertainment of the meat of the actual scenario you are playing.

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

If it doesn't explicitly say you can, in any source, then there should be no reason to believe you could. Based on how the AR works, lack of exclusion absolutely does not mean inclusion.

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

My Ifrit has +13 without a feat or class bonus.

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

kinevon wrote:


@DM Beckett: Not sure what you are reading, but what Andrew says it was meant to say is, indeed, what it says. If the class information says that they don't have to have a deity to get their divine powers, then the Guide rules state that they don't need to have a deity chosen.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure DM Beckett was the only one insisting that it wasn't clear.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alex McGuire wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
They already do not require one per the line "unless otherwise specified" and the fact that the book they come from specifies that they don't need one.

There was a pretty long thread on it a few weeks back where no conclusion was found (and yet everyone agreed that Shaman shouldn't need one) so putting an extra two words in the Guide wouldn't be a terrible idea. Remember that Druids, rangers and oracles are also pretty explicit in their class descriptions, yet are listed in the guide.

My idea:

I think we should add the web enhancement's traits to the guide, so that all available traits for Core mode are in one place (and maybe toss in some of the non-campaign traits from the APG that didn't make it in too).

We certainly want the guide to be as inclusive as possible. However, at some point, it just has to be accepted that some rules are going to be written for future compatibility, and time can't be taken to constantly update every list that's created.

While this is a singular class, and the task doesn't seem that onerous, it does set the precedent that lists will continue to get longer. Instead, I suggest we train our fellow players how to read the future compatibility into some of these rules.

In this case, I know with 100% certainty, that the Shaman does not require a deity. The future compatibility of the rule (which I helped write by the way) is fairly clear. The shaman class itself states otherwise quite clearly.

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

LucianC wrote:
Can one forgo a day job check if one is not trained in Perform, Craft or Profession?

This is a very good question. Precedence based on the GM boons, says yes. However that seems to circumvent the intent behind why you are forgoing your dayjob for the faction cards.

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

The point is, when there is a choice, play the pregen thats in the correct sub-tier being played.

In a 7-11 and a 5-9, there isn't a choice as to which pregen to play, so using those scenarios as an argument as to why you should be able to play a level 4 pregen in a sub-tier 1-2 table doesn't compute. For those two tiers, the appropriate level pregen is the level 7 since there is no other choice.

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

ok, 49771 should be fixed now.

I looked at 51341 and it looks like you guys are on it. I'll double check your number John. Ok John, there is a number on that event that is one number off of yours. I made the change.

There is a 35747-14 reported on that event. Changed it to yours. Your wife's 44858-11 is reported on that event.

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

John Francis wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
John Francis wrote:


I believe that the event number for my missing "Blakros Matrimony" table on June 10th, 2013 is 23531.
Fixed. It should show up correctly now.

Thanks, Andrew - I now see it in my "GM sessions" tab for PFS #36747.

My wife, who played that scenario during the same event, still doesn't see it on her "Player sessions" tab. She (PFS #44858-1) wasn't at my table, though - her GM was #35379

I've been checking through both of our GM and player sessions.
My GM sessions now show up OK (except for a couple which I don't think have been reported yet). My wife is missing one GM session.
That was Emerald Spire: The Cellars on October 31st 2014 (Event #49771). I played at that table, and while I do see it on my player tab, the scenario is incorrectly identified as "The Tower Ruins"

Both of us also played "Emerald Spire: Splinterden" a couple of weeks later (Event 51341 on November 14th 2014, at Legends). That doesn't appear to show up at all on either of our player records.

On January 2nd 2015, we both played "Emerald Spire: The Drowned Level" at Legends - event 53889. This shows up on our records as "The Tower Ruins".

Similarly, "Emerald Spire: The Shrine of the Awakener" on February 20th 2015 (event 55038) also shows up as "The Tower Ruins".

We have much the same sort of problems showing up with Thornkeep.
On February 16th 2013 (event 18723) we both played "Thornkeep: The Accursed Halls", but it shows up as "Sanctum of a Lost Age". Then at KublaCon on May 25th 2013 (event 23463) we played "Thornkeep: The Forgotten Laboratory". This shows up as "Sanctum of a Lost Age" on my records, but doesn't show up at all for my wife.

That's enough to be going on with ...

These should all be fixed now. I made the assumption that your wife's character was 44858-5 as per the other Thornkeeps, since thats what she used previously. The record of that session did not include your wife's character at all.

EDIT: Looks like Michael was in doing these at the same time as me. I was wondering why the last couple I checked were correct.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mystic Lemur wrote:

Can a level 7 pregen play at tier 10-11? If so, are they an exception?

Answer that, you answer the OP.

This is not a fair analogy. Why? Because there isn't a level 10 or 11 pregen. In this case, the only legal pregen to play in a 7-11 is the level 7, therefore, regardless of tier, that is the level appropriate pregen.

But that does not mean that a level 4 is appropriate for a sub-tier 1-2 table even though its legal to play at that table. Being out of sub-tier actually means it is not level appropriate, despite being level legal.

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

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
A 4th level pregen is level appropriate for both 1-5 and 4-5. Which does the guide mean?

I'd actually argue that "level appropriate" does not mean "tier legal." That the entire meaning behind "out of sub tier" means that the level is not appropriate for that sub-tier.

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

Chess Pwn wrote:
So if someone is going to play a pregen for a 1-5 scenario which pregen levels can they play as? If it's tier 1-2 could they play the lv4 pregen for out of tier gold? If it's tier 4-5 could the play the lv1 for out of tier gold? Or do you have to play the level that falls in the tier range if applicable?

The language in the guide is not 100% clear on this.

However, as a GM and VC, I advise everyone who asks me, to make sure that the level of the pregen matches the sub-tier otherwise being played as closely as possible. There are too many ways to abuse this if you start allowing folks to play whatever level pregen they want regardless of the APL otherwise.

Your example of allowing a level 1 pregen to play in a sub-tier 4-5, and then get the out of sub-tier gold for their new first level character would definitely be one such abuse.

I think using common sense with an eye toward the spirit of the rule and the integrity of the game is the best way to go. Anything that could artificially break the WBL without risk to the actual PC getting credit and/or would change the challenge of the scenario significantly, would certainly break the spirit of the rules and the integrity of the game. (i.e. A level 7 Kyra in a party that is otherwise all level 3 or 4 in a Tier 3-7 could significantly change the challenge level of the scenario and is not something that should be allowed.)

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

Rycaut wrote:
How do I resolve that all of my Thornkeep tables show Sanctum? I have actually run that scenario a few times but I've run every level at least once many more than once. But it was also a few years ago.

If you reported them, you'll need to go to the event itself and add all the levels of Thornkeep back in. If they are already there, then still hit Save. This resets the event to actually have access to all the scenarios that are tied to it.

Then go to each individual session and edit that session to be the correct level of Thornkeep.

If you don't have access to reporting the appropriate events, then make a list of what each one should have been, and either post it here for one of us VCs to help fix, send to the event creator who can make the changes to the event in question, or to your VC.

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

John Francis wrote:


I believe that the event number for my missing "Blakros Matrimony" table on June 10th, 2013 is 23531.

Fixed. It should show up correctly now.

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

Victor,

You are pushing personal feelings onto my statements. Why not look at the order of statements before you start impressing feelings upon me that I do not own?

Could it be, that my subsequent statements you are claiming mean I have a personal stake in this, simply be me trying to argue the point? Simply be me trying to add more justification to what I had previously said?

As I said, my initial reaction before I posted was to say, "sure, go for it." But before I posted, I read and re-read the abilities and determined that the word "Must" is meaningful beyond just that single paradigm (the relation between the initial roll and the re-roll).

As far as how the word itself is defined and how the game rules work...

In many cases the rules do not include "extraneous words" because of word count issues. This causes plenty of ambiguity and confusion on how the rules should be interpreted.

So please lets not try to assume that just because the word "must" isn't used in context in such a way that there is a zero percent chance of it being misinterpreted, that therefore it means exactly what you think it means. This is actually circular logic on your part.

In this case, I feel that the word "must" is more meaningful than the absence of qualifying words. You feel the opposite. That's fine.

Table Variation.

I'm ok with that. I would not argue with a GM that allowed multiple rerolls on the same roll. I do not happen to be a GM that would allow a player to choose to do that.

As for other situations where a reroll could be imposed upon the character, I would lean toward any nefarious impositions being allowable simply by the nature of them being nefarious. And negatively impacting things like this often override the rules of absolutes when it pertains to character actions. As for another character choosing to grant a subsequent reroll, that I'd have to give extra thought. But because it is an imposed reroll, rather than a chosen action by that character, I would be initially inclined to allow it.

Now please, your insistence that I'm making this decision based on some personal like or dislike, is really starting to frustrate me. You are calling into question my integrity in being able to make an impartial ruling on this. I have no feelings one way or another, and should any official clarification from the design team tell me I'm wrong, I'd likely shrug my shoulders and be happy that one more instance of table variation was removed from the game.

So stop trying to make this personal, and lets just discuss the merits of the relationship between the abilities.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
felinoel wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Be very careful about doing this sort of thing in PFS play. Because if any of your group ever decide to take that character to a convention, to a different region, or to a public game day in your area, your home-brew created items will not be legal.

We don't and won't.

On that note, making an amulet of Move Earth 1/day should be like 6.5k, I will go this route, thanks all!

I would suggest that you guys aren't playing PFS at all right now then. If you are delving into the world politics more than PFS scenarios do (which you are), creating your own adventure content (which you are), and creating your own magic items (you are), then you shouldn't be granting chronicle sheets at all. It could become confusing for your players if they ever did try to play this character in a legal PFS game day.

Sovereign Court

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

Be very careful about doing this sort of thing in PFS play. Because if any of your group ever decide to take that character to a convention, to a different region, or to a public game day in your area, your home-brew created items will not be legal.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Matthew Morris wrote:
KingmanHighborn wrote:
Perfectly legal, though Silken Ceremonial Armor LOOKS more arcane casty armor.

I always picture the haramaki as looking like a WWE title belt. My witch has silken ceremonial storing armor with bestow curse in it. Nothing ruins a 'grapple the caster moment' than a 50% chance to take no action.

Aside I know the haramaki can be made of adamantine, can the silken armor?

I thought to make something Mithral or Adamantine you needed a mostly metal weapon or suit of armor.

As such, no, you can't make adamantine silken ceremonial armor.

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

Victor Zajic wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

At some point, a sessation of rerolls needs to happen. Just because I have 5 different abilities that allow rerolls, should not mean that I can take them all on the same roll, assuming the word must is used.

Otherwise, as a GM, I should just give you one auto success per session rather than one reroll.

This is a textbook example of a "personal imposition", if there is confusion about why people are calling you on this.

This isn't an issue of table variation. The word "Must" only modifies what it says in the rules. Which is that you have to keep the second roll, instead of being able to choose the first roll is you wanted to. Absolutely nothing forbids another rule from modifying the results of the second roll, including but not limited using another reroll to change the final value of the second roll. If the second roll is modified in some way, I'm still forced to keep the final results of that roll.

This isn't a divisive issue that the rules don't cover well, with expected table variation. The rules as written are crystal clear on this issue. The word 'must' doesn't mean what you are saying that it means.

If I 'must' run quickly, that doesn't preclude me from running quickly with my eyes closed.

If I 'must' eat scrambled eggs for breakfast, if I eat scrambled eggs with salt and pepper I am not breaking the rule.

Addition words would be required to make the rules mean "what you rolled on the second roll, plus the modifiers on the first roll, and nothing else". Those words are not present. Adding that meaning to the rules is changing them, not interpreting them differently.

Ill reiterate. I have no personal feelings here. I honestly believe that the word must is meaningful. As always specific circumstances and wording of specific abilities may mitigate that on a situational basis.

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

Congrats!

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

Congrats and good job!

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To be clear here folks. There is no personal imposition. I honestly have no feeling one way or another about rerolls.

My initial inclination when I read the OP, was to say, "should work." But I usually like to fully read what's written. I saw the word "must" and it changed my mind. That is my legitimate interpretation that is not colored by any personal preference. So please knock off the integrity impugning attacks.

I still interpret it that way. But I have no problem if someone else would like to interpret it differently.

Table variation.

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

Acedio wrote:

You know, I don't think anybody's going to demonize you for not liking people having tons of rerolls. I sympathize; it is kind of a bummer because they make it that much more difficult to create suspenseful situations.

But the real problem is when you try to twist rules to legitimize your dislike and enforce it.

You may not realize it, but the person at the end of the table who has invested (financially or otherwise) in collecting various means of rerolling out of a bad situation now has to be told that they can't do that because you happen to not like it.

Sounds great for a homebrew where you can very easily establish these constraints and work with your players. In PFS it just creates unnecessary potential for sour situations. Particularly at conventions where you don't know many of the people.

I'm trying not to be sour about this myself, but I'm finding it difficult to not be, because it seems like a trend with many people on the forums. I've said it before: it is fine (and inevitable) to have table variation because of legitimate rules interpretations. It is not ok to introduce table variation by twisting the rules to your whims.

EDIT: Changed wording, the previous phrasing sounded waaaay too personal. Sorry.

How is interpreting the word "must" as [,b]must[/b], twisting things?

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

BigNorseWolf wrote:

-Folio OR shirt

-Helpful halfling
-Rallying cry (yay)
-Faction Boon to reroll on a willsave
-Fortune hex from a witch.

Fortune isn't a reroll. You roll two dice and take the best.

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

The Fox wrote:
Just because you have 5 different attacks per round doesn't mean that I, as a GM, have to sit there and let you take 5 attacks per round.

Let's stay on topic here eh? Your analogy doesn't work. There is no language that says what you are trying to say I'm saying.

@Andrew. The word must is the key.

Expect table variation.

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

Soluzar wrote:

First, I only opened this thread to make sure of what I was doing.

Second, I still think I'm right but whatever. It seems that some people here are "OMG PROTECT THE SANCTITY OF CORE" or "HE DOESN'T AGREE WITH ME". And no it wouldn't allow for something not in Additional Resources, that's a silly assumption.

Third, I'm gonna get a corrected chronicle sheet and call it a day. If you think the character should be removed from Core for this...well you're entitled to your opinion but not much else.

Fourth, I probably sound like a jerk. It's because I just got DOGPILED over this issue.

Fifth, I am no longer going to follow this thread. Have a nice day.

I wouldn't say you got dogpiled. At least until you started calling 100% of those responding to you crazy.

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

At some point, a sessation of rerolls needs to happen. Just because I have 5 different abilities that allow rerolls, should not mean that I can take them all on the same roll, assuming the word must is used.

Otherwise, as a GM, I should just give you one auto success per session rather than one reroll.

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

Not so. Just because one happens after, it doesn't change that you "must" use the reroll.

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

Soluzar wrote:

Apparently everyone responding doesn't seem to get the idea. There are no limitations listed. It says "any number of spells." But everyone here wants to interpret it in the most punitive way possible. This boon was written long before Core was considered. To me it seems like people wanting to keep any and every non-Core option out of the game no matter what (just look at Kevin Willis' post). The idea behind Core is earned access, people seem to be forgetting that.

I just asked the question to test the feasibility but I guess it doesn't matter. I already scribed the spells anyway (all three of them...so game breaking). I will hold to that definition until someone higher up says otherwise.

If you were playing in a home game, and your GM said his campaign only used the core rulebook and some set of 3rd party campaign books, would you insist you could use the Advanced Players Guide for spells?

Would you insist you could use all 3PP spells?

The point is, in Core, those spells simply don't exist except under specific circumstances. This book doesn't create one if those.

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

As with all rules in this game, there is never 100% coverage on how they interact with one another.

So you use your best common sense,previous rulings as precedent, and what's actually written to inform your decision.

I agree with Mark.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No. Because both say, "they must use the reroll result, even if lower."

The word "must" disallows any subsequent rerolls.

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

I've never had the problem of my computer not being able to use the pull-down menus of the reporting system before. But within the last 3 weeks (once before the big update and once after) I could access the sessions of various events, but I couldn't make any changes to any of the events.

When I rebooted my computer, I was able to make the changes.

So I have updated both of the Blakros sessions I remember GM'ing, and updated all the Thornkeep, Dragon's Demand, and Emerald Spire that I have been a part of so they are reported correctly.

I believe my GM credits are back where they should be, but at most, I may be missing 1 or 2 credits, which isn't a huge deal for me at this point.

For those of you still having issues, a little experimentation in the event in question can work to fix the problems. If it isn't an event that you have access to updating, then your V-C can likely help.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Eric Brittain wrote:

jtaylor73003 a whole lot of stuff has been thrown at you in this thread and I will add my voice to the chorus that states that the experience you had is not the norm for most Pathfinder Society (PFS) play.

The flavor of each local community varies as you move from region to region, judge to judge, and table to table. In general areas tend to have a reasonably consistent style/flavor. I would strongly suggest reaching out to your local venture captain to let them know about the experience you had with this game. Such feedback is incredibly valuable and helps the local community improve by highlighting any potential 'bad actors' and allowing the early mitigation of their impact.

I would also echo the others who have suggested trying to find a game with a different GM in your area. If this is the only GM in your area please consider investigating online play or play by post. Both of these options allow you to connect with other wonderful members of the larger PFS community.

I sincerely hope that you give PFS another chance. It is a great way to meet a bunch of amazing new people and have a great fun time.

If you need any help in connecting with your local venture officer, finding other games in your area, or getting connected with the PFS online community please drop me a private message and I would be happy to help out.

It really is a fun ride to be part of this vast, diverse, and thriving community of gamers.

Eric is exactly correct.

I also want to point out something else. It really amazes me the amount of people trying to invalidate the OP's feelings in this.

Are you saying that if you had a limited income, and you went to a movie you'd be looking forward to for weeks or months, and new you wouldn't be able to afford one for at least another couple months if not longer, that if not only the movie ended up sucking, but the popcorn was cold and soggy and the soda was flat with no syrup, that you'd be ok with that? That you wouldn't be disappointed?

I don't think the OP is so much upset at the fact that his character died, but rather how everything went down. Heck, I understand there are always two stories to every situation, and the truth, but to the OP, this is how he perceived it. Lets have a bit of empathy here. If things went exactly as he said (he spent significant cash and time prepping for his first every RPG experience of this kind and in this system, the GM and other players were unhelpful to a beginner, rules of PFS were enforced particularly stringently and outside the scope and intent of the no PvP rule, the GM used the "as written rule" as an excuse to be purposefully deadly in actively trying to kill a PC of a brand new beginner at an advertised game for beginners.

If that happened to me, I'd likely question whether I ever wanted to come back too. I'd have been highly disappointed. I think he's shown a great amount of patience for those who are chastising him for reasonable feelings of disappointment.

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

6 people marked this as a favorite.

My view is this:

1) GMs should follow tactics as best they can, until something changes the circumstances so that tactic no longer makes sense. This is often subjective as to when this should happen.

2) GMs have the ability, and I'd go so far as to say responsibility, to "softball" things in the right circumstances (table with brand new players/characters). This is in the guide and has helpfully been posted above.

3) GMs should learn how to run their table based on the temperature of the team taking part that moment. Assume that there is a scale of 0 being cushy, smooshy softball and 10 being hard core. A GM can reasonably stick to written tactics and still make tactical choices for the badguys that are anywhere from a 0 to a 10. And as a GM, part of your responsibility is gauging what the players at your table want. Do they want a easy session with lots of RP, or do they want a tactical and strategic grind? Some GM's have the annoying habit of running on 11, all the time, regardless of who's sitting at their table.

4) In this case, the GM was following tactics as written, by having her channel over and over. But the GM deviated big time from tactics to have her take two AoO's specifically to catch your unconscious character in another 2d6 (almost ensuring death) channel. This is not ok.

5) Typically, even with mistakes like this, I err on the side of sticking up for the GM. GMs need to be able to make decisions at the table without constantly being called front and center to explain themselves or be chastised. That being said, given the circumstances, I'd also be tempted as a Venture-Officer to overturn the death due to the specific circumstances. That isn't to say I would, but I would be tempted.

Andy

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

11 people marked this as a favorite.
DonKeebals wrote:
You abso-freakin-lutely should not return. If you bought any books, see if you can return them or sell them to another new player.

This is a particularly unhelpful post.

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

Things I've noticed:

1) Now that Thornkeep, Emerald Spire, Dragons Demand, et. al. have been separated into their component parts again...

  • All entries show as the 1st one
  • you can change them to the appropriate one
  • You must add each player again and delete their old entry to get rid of the "they've played this before" error.

2) I was able to correct a previous error that showed me playing (-12) and GM'ing (-2) with the same character, even though they were not the same character.

3) Blakross Matrimony was also missing for me. I could have sworn I have GM'd it twice, but could only track down one GM session of it.

  • GM sessions does not show records of this, even if you've GM'd it and its been reported.
  • player record sessions will show this scenario.
  • Event sessions will show this scenario
  • If you have access to report the event, you can edit the session tied to this scenario and you'll find that the scenario is not entered. So enter the scenario, save, and it will add Blakros Matrimony back into your sessions GM'd.
  • Hopefully for the, at least one more, session that I GMd of this, whatever fix that's done to fix Blakros Matrimony will add it back to my list. It isn't a huge deal though, as it would push me from 218 to 219 sessions GM'd.

4) Reporting unregistered characters is now possible again.

Hope this helps.

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

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
Brian Lefebvre wrote:
Eric Clingenpeel wrote:

Brian, only spells/effects don't carry over. Items/tattoos would/should carry over just fine. Unless you're going to argue that all tattoos in PFS mysteriously disappear after every mission? ;)

FurMonger, oh? I thought you guys were in SE Michigan? If so, that'd be Xath's territory. Though I do know players in his area that still think of me as their VO. :)

A tattoo has a listed price in several sourcebooks. A tattoo like any other item (such as a longsword or potion of CLW looted off a bad guy) obtained during a game disappears at the end of the game unless bought.

If a character wants a tattoo that carries over from game to game they would need to spend the full cost listed in the sourcebook used to access it, or find a boon that grants one for free. A character can't buy a tattoo at a discount just because another character at the table had craft(tattoo) or profession(tattoo artist).

I wasn't saying if they didn't pay for it they'd still get it. Of course they'd have to pay for it. I've had a several players buy something in game that had something to do with another player's Day Job and when they roll their day job they explain that the money they got was actually from the PC that bought the thing. No actual gold was transferred between players, but since one player did pay for the item and the other got money for doing their day job it is one way to explain how they got the money from the day job check.

Fluff descriptions of where money comes from and who actually did the tattooing and what not, is perfectly fine.

As long as mechanically, the player pays their own money for the tattoo, and the player who "did the tattooing" didn't make more money than they were mechanically eligible for.

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

Good job!

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

Awesome!

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

Congrats!

1 to 50 of 2,784 << 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.