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. 3,099 posts (7,152 including aliases). 3 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 20 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,099 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court ***** RPG Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

1) yes, more than one is OK. But you could only redirect two in the same round as it takes a move action to do so.

2) No, I would not allow a feebleminded character to redirect a spiritual weapon.

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

FLite wrote:
I suppose you could just say "the party feeds you and waters you" but I would have expected that to require some sort of heal check.

Coma patients die all the time,while under the best health care in the world. And they often die of blood poisoning, infection, or dehydration as complications of the reason they are in a coma. And this happens even when being watered and fed by a nurse.

So non-con diseases should be resolved.

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

Luke Parry wrote:

Agreed, the diseases are a condition (like most conditions) that do need to be resolved by the end of the scenario.

However, I am not suggesting that they should be hand-waived full-stop, but only at the end of the scenario. If you have managed to get to the end of the scenario, with a few specific exceptions, the only diseases that can actually kill you, are the ones that deal Constitution damage.

For all (most) of the others, even if they have reduced an ability to zero, once outside the bounds of a scenario, there is (effectively) no penalty for this - even if you are paralysed (Strength zero), eventually, you will roll enough successful Fortitude saves to cure the disease, and then the damage that it has caused can be healed naturally.

To put it another way, say you contracted Devil Chills or Red Ache (both of which deal Strength damage). Once you reach the end of the scenario (having suffered the effects of the disease throughout the scenario), there is no penalty for continuing to fail Fort saves (apart from being reduced to Strength zero) - eventually, you will pass enough Fort saves to cure the diseases, and then you heal naturally. Resolution of such a disease can, effectively, be hand-waived (effectively 'taking 20' on your Fort save - yes, I know that is not actually a thing).

However, for something like Blinding Sickness (which says that if you take enough Strength damage, you will be permanently blinded), since it can actually have a permanent effect (i.e., blinding you), you can't hand-waive that - you need to resolve whether or not it blinds you.

Similarly, for something like Filth Fever, which does Dex and Con damage, since the Con damage can actually kill you (if you hit Con zero), that also needs to be specifically resolved, and not glossed over.

(This is the last comment that I will make on this thread.)

If you don't require them to at least pay the cost for a remove disease, then the disease has zero effect, and thus its challenge is nothing. And the challenge of a disease should not be nothing.

And sorry, but a non-con ability score going to zero isn't meaningless. You go into a coma and can easily die of starvation or dehydration, even if you have someone caring for you.

And the guide to organized play specifically says these things should be resolved before the end of a scenario. Which means you should actually resolve it. And if time is short, and you can't wait for a poor rolling PC to roll another 100 times, then the purchase of spell casting may be necessary to enforce.

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

andreww wrote:
Paz wrote:
There seems to be some information that has been cut out or missed off the VC briefing. One of the sample questions that the PCs can ask the VC is 'What’s Poppo’s message?', but there's no clear reference to Poppo sending a message to the Society (or how Olandil came to the attention of the VCs at all).
Yeah, that is in the GM summary at the start but not the briefing. Honestly, the more I prep this thing the more annoyed it makes me.

My wife is prepping this, and she brought this issue up immediately. Any feedback on how to handle this, as it seems quite important, would be helpful.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The only thing I'd say about handwaving diseases and insanities, is that those things are included as part of monsters and helps create that monster's CR. If you handwaved it due to the nature of organized play, then you are negating that part of the challenge. As such it needs to be resolved before the chronicle is handed out.

And if there isn't time, then some gold needs to be spent on remove disease (or whatever works on insanity.)

It's part of the challenge and if no resolution is required, then that aspect of the challenge is nullified.

If there is a cleric with the group, then I'll handwaved it, under the assumption that they have the spells to resolve eventually.

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

Luke Parry wrote:

Well:

Madness wrote:

Curing Insanity:

All insanities have a DC that represents the insanity’s strength. An insanity’s DC indicates the Will save you need to roll in order to resist contracting the insanity when you are initially exposed to it, but also the DC you need to make to recover. Recovering from an insanity naturally is a lengthy process—once per week, you make a Will save against the insanity’s current DC. If you succeed on this save, the insanity’s DC is reduced by a number of points equal to your Charisma bonus (minimum of 1). You continue to suffer the full effects of the insanity until its DC is reduced to 0, at which point you are cured and the insanity vanishes completely.

Lesser restoration has no effect on insanity, but restoration reduces the current DC of one insanity currently affecting a target by an amount equal to the caster’s level. Greater restoration, heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish immediately cures a target of all insanity.

So, in the same way that a disease which doesn't kill you (i.e. a non-Con-damaging one) can effectively be hand-waived as automatically being fixed between scenarios (because there is no set period of 'down-time' between scenarios), I would say this sort of insanity can be as well. Alternately, just pay for a Heal spell.

Non Con damaging diseases cannot be handwaved. The Guide makes it clear that it must be resolved.

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

Dhjika wrote:
Jack Brown wrote:

Agreed. When I've faced such a situation, we've always done what we could to neutralize the dominated PC non-lethally. There are a few thing you can do... Attacking with nonlethal attacks (at -4 to hit), spells like Hold Person. Hmm... murderous command would be interesting in this situation!

Grappling and/or disarming works, among other things. Try casting Protection from Evil (though the target gets a save in this case).

metamagic rod of merciful is very cheap - and handy for when you need to take someone alive - merciful fireballs sound a little strange but when you absolutely need to deal damage - but not kill - it is there

Also - if a character has a low wisdom or int - and the dominatrix said "take care of the rest of the party" why would one assume that means to murder them? There has to be reasonableness on the part of the dominatee. If the GM gives an out in words, one should take it.

even "kill them all" might allow a minion to be attacked, or one could go for animal companions and eidolons or high AC types.

Eh... Playing it like you are parsing a legal document reminds me of my high school days when we would spend a week writing our wish with our best teenage legalese.

It really invites the player vs GM attitude. Although it does teach the GM to be tighter with thier language.

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

Welcome and thank you!

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

Core is probably where you'd like to play, but you still need the Core Rulebook.

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

Congrats!

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

Yeah, not sure why the other 20 times people basically said what nefreet said wasn't good enough. Maybe nefreet said it in a way the OO could understand. And if so. I'm glad he finally understood the answer manybof us already articulated.

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

The answer is not yes or no.

There may be things players did, that you don't think changed things that the GM did.

But in a vacuum, no, a GM is supposed to run as written.

And no, whether GM error or purposeful modification, this does not invalidate the session.

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

jtaylor73003 wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
jtaylor73003 wrote:

There is no side of the story. Can you change the location of an encounter that is specifically written in the scenario or not?

This is not harping on the GM. This is finding out how PFS as whole sees these events in contrast to the material being put out. I am not concern why the GM did this, which I stated before. I am concern on a whole if it is legal to do so, and if so why.

I apologize if you feel I throwing the GM under the bus, and you feel a need to protect them, but those feelings are on you. Not me. Please don't accuse me of things I haven't done.

I'm pretty sure my last post answered yours quite directly.

But in no uncertain words.

It depends.

If the GM is doing it for their own reasons, to increase the challenge or make it more interesting, the answer is no. Run as written.

If the players make choices that make it impossible without forcing actions on them, then do the best you can to wing it while making sure you do your best to maintain a reasonable facsimile of the challenge of the original encounter.

I gave some scenario specific examples above on why this one might not take place in area C.

I apologize. I failed to read you spoiler since it said part 2 and I am speaking of part 3.

Your example shows how the players might change the location, and I understand that. I said the GM changed the location, because none of the parties decision effected why he changed it. The GM literally decided to have it take place in one area over another area. Nothing the players did would caused this change during our game, hence the common thread of the player decisions changing location does not reflect on what I am asking. Is it okay to change the location or not?

Read the entire post you just responded to, and you'll have your answer.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.
jtaylor73003 wrote:

There is no side of the story. Can you change the location of an encounter that is specifically written in the scenario or not?

This is not harping on the GM. This is finding out how PFS as whole sees these events in contrast to the material being put out. I am not concern why the GM did this, which I stated before. I am concern on a whole if it is legal to do so, and if so why.

I apologize if you feel I throwing the GM under the bus, and you feel a need to protect them, but those feelings are on you. Not me. Please don't accuse me of things I haven't done.

I'm pretty sure my last post answered yours quite directly.

But in no uncertain words.

It depends.

If the GM is doing it for their own reasons, to increase the challenge or make it more interesting, the answer is no. Run as written.

If the players make choices that make it impossible without forcing actions on them, then do the best you can to wing it while making sure you do your best to maintain a reasonable facsimile of the challenge of the original encounter.

I gave some scenario specific examples above on why this one might not take place in area C.

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

jtaylor73003 wrote:
Steven Lau wrote:
jtaylor73003 wrote:
The concern is does this violate the PFS rule "run as written" or is this just table variation?

Since Table variation could mean lots of things that I can not be privy to since I or no one here you are asking was there so we can't answer your question.

I have no idea what lead to your GM changing the location, therefore it could be table variation or it could not be.

Your best bet is to ask your GM.

If the GM gives you a reasonable excuse telling you that PC actions lead to the change then it could be table variation, if the GM says she just wanted it to make it more exciting then it is against the "run as written" rule.

The scenario specially states that the last encounters takes place in a certain area no matter what the PCs decision are. The scenario has a subset of rules to handle how the scenario will change based on choices by the PCs, none which effect the location of the final encounter.

To me the GM clearly changed the location only for tactical reasons(making the encounter more challenging) or was severly unprepared. If he was severly unprepared than when he asked if I like to run it and him play then he should explain this.

Unfortunaly I can't bring up to the GM, because I don't game with him at all. The Con was only time I ever met him. I see the Venture Captain on the regular, and I want him to do a GM workshop for our regular group. I was wondering if I should bring this issue up or let it slide as table variation.

You are kinda going in circles here. We understand what you've said. We also understand how player choices can completely change things, and as a GM you can't force characters and players to make certain decisions just because it changes the script.

Scions of the Sky Key, part 2:
The characters get a round to act before the first wave appears, since they are warned by the kobolds. When I ran it, the players convinced the aspis agent that they unstoned to stick around and warn them. So I had her warn them instead of the kobolds.

But in that round, its possible for the characters to move into the hallway or streets, and thus the final encounter would be somewhere in area B. And depending on how far into the city they got, it might make sense for both waves to happen at once.

I find it unlikely they could get to A in one round. But maybe the GM forgot about the encounter and rather than retcon and break emmersion, he chose just to do it where the characters were. If time were running short, it may make sense to combine the two encounters for reporting purposes.

Lots of reasons why, some good, some not as good.

But none necessarily nefarious or egregious. Although it could be he was just changing things for his own edification, which he shouldn't do.

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

nosig wrote:

Sigh....

I've been at more than one table where it was a problem.

Always with the starting round... Either a PC sucks up all the attacks and dies before his friends get to act, or the bad guys all get mowed down before they even get in one shot.

Mostly now all the people I play with either roll individual INIT, or are at least awair it might be a problem and watch for it.... And adjust as needed

That is a problem with the individual GM not understanding how to run a fair table.

Not an indictment of interleaving (whatever that actually has to do with gaming--I still say the word is not applicable to initiative).

My only experience with this negatively, was in the opening round of

Legacy of the Stonelords:
Where the GM didn't clump initiatives actually, but all the badguys went before my wife's character. He had them all jump down, surround her, and sneak attack her in the surprise round, then all 4 did a sneak attack before she got to go, and he wondered how she was dead after he did over 100 points of damage before she got to go. And I'm quite irate at this, but keeping my cool, and look him in the eye and say, "Because she's a 5th level rogue, and you just targeted her alone with every badguy and did over 100 points of damage. What did you think would happen?" He retconned, she lived, and at the end of the session when he asked my advice, I quite pointedly told him he needs to gauge his table, how they wish to play, and all that before he goes all out with a killer strategy.

So this can happen without interleaving. All it takes is a GM who chooses to try and kill characters, rather than provide a good time.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Thank you Mike, for everything you've done to make PFS so awesome. Without you, my wife and I wouldn't have played PFS in Croatia during our honeymoon.

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

congrats!

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

awesome Lucas!

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

GM Lamplighter wrote:
aboyd wrote:
Again, there was ONE person with a problem, and he was so vocal about it that he threw off the game for me and all the other players.
Sorry, I misrembered that... It does change things, obviously. If you have one or a few players in your region who have an issue, then tell them to GM themselves or find a different GM. "Don't be a jerk" trumps all. At the same time, I recommend being cognizent of this issue, and only using it where actually needed. Rolling everyone, and then grouping them as they fall in the order, or rolling everyone and delaying until the lowest, is the bette way most of the time.

Its the better way for you.

I've yet to have anyone complain about how I do initiative, but I make sure to be fair.

Indeed, I often ask someone at the table to run initiative for me, and the common question becomes, "how many initiatives am I tracking?" Nobody complains when the 4 mooks have the sane initiative roll.

So for me, the better way is combining like initiatives in a fair way, and allowing anyone to break up the group through various initiative actions like ready and delay.

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

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

And there is such a thing as ridiculous pedantry and draconian adherence to the rules to such a length, that it no longer becomes fun.

If a GM combines 3 goblin initiatives together, they are not breaking the rules!

Well, yes they are, but most people agree that it is a pretty minor infraction with little or no effect. Please stop saying things that just aren't true.

The OP, though, had all six players call him on it, and express that they were uncomfortable with this short cut. (Granted, they did so in a preety poor manner, so there is an etiquette issue there as well.) Just like nosig's list, if you're doing something that others don't like (*and* that thing is technically against the rules), you should stop.

And to address your example: If a GM can't handle three goblins in initiative and still make the game fun, the solution is practice practice practice, not rules violations. (And again, I'm only talking about the situation where the players have *complained* about the violation. If everyone is fine with it, great.)

Thankfully, this has never happened, but if I have players who make a huge hubabaloo about something that I know ultimately won't matter in the grand scheme of things, then I'll roll my eyes and ask them if they really don't trust me that much. If they don't, I'll ask them to find another GM.

Seriously. This is usually such a small issue, that if folks get uppity about it, I dont want to game with them.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dorothy Lindman wrote:

Having a bunch of bad guys act on a single initiative number is perfectly fine as long as they are still treated as individuals who happen to have the same initiative number.

That means that readied actions will still work as normal, and it lets players delay and jump back into the order between bad guys. They can even switch around which one of them goes first (mechanically, they are delaying to switch order).

To me, the problems happen when you treat all the bad guys as a single creature, and prevent delaying players from jumping in. Most commonly, I see party healers go on delay, so not letting that character jump in between the bad guys is going to get you some complaints.

I agree 100% with this.

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

Chess Pwn wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

Everyone but the most infirm or disabled, can climb a ladder without fail with a bit of care. A ladder is essentially DC zero.

So in almost every case, bar the guy with a -11, or other outside influences, climbing the ladder should be an auto success.

But the 10 Str cleric in chainmail fails 50% of the time without Take 10.

Because he's not taking care. Trying to go to fast, climbing while texting, being shot at, etc... That's when its appropriate to fail.

That's what Take 10 does. It is the abstract for being careful to ensure success on a task you are pretty sure you can succeed on automatically, by being careful.

And those people who have similar views to BigNorseWolf will not allow you the take 10 to climb up the ladder with care because then it's an autosuccess at something you'd have a pretty good chance of failing if you rolled for it. Even his take 5 that he'd maybe allow can't make any progress on this climb.

Then they aren't following the word or intent of the rule.

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

thorin001 wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

Everyone but the most infirm or disabled, can climb a ladder without fail with a bit of care. A ladder is essentially DC zero.

So in almost every case, bar the guy with a -11, or other outside influences, climbing the ladder should be an auto success.

But the 10 Str cleric in chainmail fails 50% of the time without Take 10.

Because he's not taking care. Trying to go to fast, climbing while texting, being shot at, etc... That's when its appropriate to fail.

That's what Take 10 does. It is the abstract for being careful to ensure success on a task you are pretty sure you can succeed on automatically, by being careful.

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

Everyone but the most infirm or disabled, can climb a ladder without fail with a bit of care. A ladder is essentially DC zero.

So in almost every case, bar the guy with a -11, or other outside influences, climbing the ladder should be an auto success.

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

TetsujinOni wrote:

Here's one piece of why that's what I won't do: "No, you can't take 10 on that stealth check because of the risk of failure"... to tell them there's a combat about to erupt.

I'm just not sure Take 10 was ever intended for opposed rolls.

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

Take 10 does not stop failure. Its just a tool for the players to try and mitigate it.

However, not sure I'd allow take 10 in an opposed situation. Or rather, the unknown to the PCs might mean immediate danger, and I'd gave to determine on a case by case basis.

I'm pretty sure opposed rolls were not part of the original intent of Take 10. But I could be mistaken.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
graywulfe wrote:

From my perspective it should be about the effort made not how "good" the RP is. What I mean is, if I have a clearly socially uncomfortable player, who gives me a general idea of what there character does, even if they don't come up with exact words that there character says, or stumble through what they do say.

In other words, I should not be required to represent my 18 Cha characters ability to smooth-talk with my 8 Cha self, any more than the Str 8 player should be required to succeed at the actions their Str 18 character performs.

Agreed. If I'm having trouble parsing what a player's intent is, I will ask them what they are trying to accomplish. And usually the attempt to interact and engage with me and the scenario will get at least a small bonus.

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

John Francis wrote:
rknop wrote:
I do give discretionary +2 (or sometimes more) if they roleplay well. Flite makes an excellent point that either just rolling or taking 10 for diplomacy or other social skills undercuts a lot of the potential fun of the game.

Only if that's the way you want to play it. Some people just aren't all that good at role-playing (and don't want to make a fool of themselves in public); for those folks, roleplaying isn't fun.

I hardly ever give out bonuses for good roleplaying - good roleplaying should be its own reward. And I never try to force people at the table to roleplay a social encounter, any more than I ask fighters to physically act out a combat encounter.

The furthest I go is to ask a player to briefly tell me what their character is doing:

"I try and persuade the guards that we aren't the folks they are looking for; they can go about their business." [dice=Bluff]1d20 + 11

What if the scenario specifically tells a GM they can add a modifier for good RP in the RP encounters? Seems those are specifically designed to give a mechanical benefit for good RP, and if you dont grant those, do you think it discourages good RP?

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

jon dehning wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


But:

** spoiler omitted **

So you see, there are plenty of scenarios that have descriptive text that would allow me to use the Table Variation section of the Guide. And those same descriptors that can affect your movement, vision, and other things, could certainly affect your ability to Take 10.

Regarding your spoiler, if one takes the time to read the environment chapter's wording on thunderstorms, then the author wouldn't need to put in extra words about skill checks because the CRB did it for him.

Oh I quite agree. However the section on Table Variation in The Guide to Organized Play allows a GM to choose whether to use the environmental rules or not. Its a whole other discussion on when you should or shouldn't use their discretion in this way.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FLite wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
FLite wrote:

As far as I am concerned, a lot of this is a non issue.

If GMs are abusing their discretion and eliminating all take 10s, the answer is to talk to your VO. If the problem is a VO, take it up with Mike Brock.

Mike Brock has repeatedly said on issues like this that he wants people to be able to use their judgement, and that if the do not have the judgement, they shouldn't be GMing.

An awful lot of this sounds like adversarial GMing, which is against the spirit of PFS.

That's not really fair though. Lots of GM's (including myself about 2 or 3 years ago) were taught that the pit or the chance of falling constituted distraction or immediate danger. So that's how we interpreted it. There is no language that directly disputes that interpretation.

So using that interpretation is not abuse of GM powers.

I agree.

I was talking (specifically) about abuse.

"Well, if you fail the appraise check you won't realize this is the secondary prestige, so that is a danger, no take ten.

"Well, if you don't make this knowledge check, you won't get +2 initiative when the NPCs turn out to be secretly hostile, and try to eat you, danger, no T10, etc."

People were talking about GMs who dissallow *all* take tens, on the grounds that all checks are dramatic, or dangerous, or distracting. The answer to that is not a FAQ. The answer is to bring it to leadership.

I happen to disagree with you and only allow dangers or distractions external to the check itself. But that is a seperate question that the non-FAQ declined to address, so that just winds up being (apparently intended) table variation.

For the record I actually agree that the check should not represent distractiom or danger. I'm just saying I didn't always have that opinion based on how I was taught.

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

Woo hoo!

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

GM Lamplighter wrote:

Yeah, a couple of Paizocons followed by running the specials and exclusives at my home Lodge and I had my ten specials before I had my third star. It was easier when the exclusives weren't Bonekeep, though - most people who want to play it have played it, and a lot of folks aren't into that style of play.

It was also much easier for Venture-Officers to get their specials, because it didn't matter how many stars we had, we were allowed to run the 4-star exclusives.

I believe this is changing in Season 7.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Adnrew Christian wrote:
Bottom line, it doesn't matter whether GMs clump or not. What matters is if the outcome is fair and fun.

That's not true - it does matter that PFS GMs follow the rules. We have seen lots of threads on how the GM's idea of "fun" results in TPKs or cakewalks.

It's definitely poor form if the players ask about this when there is no issue, but it's also poor form for a GM to ignore the players' concerns. We don't know the OP's situation in detail, so I don't know where any blame may lie. I do know that if all 6 players at a table challenge a GM's procedure, and the GM is in fact breaking the rules, then it's a legitimate issue.

In those cases where the scenario has lots of bad guys (and really, I've heard about 3 scenarios out of the 150+ that would be a problem), roll for everyone, have them delay into a group or three, and you're good. Grouping isn't the problem - grouping and then taking one great roll to give the bad guys a huge advantage, is what the issue is here.

And there is such a thing as ridiculous pedantry and draconian adherence to the rules to such a length, that it no longer becomes fun.

If a GM combines 3 goblin initiatives together, they are not breaking the rules!

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

FLite wrote:

As far as I am concerned, a lot of this is a non issue.

If GMs are abusing their discretion and eliminating all take 10s, the answer is to talk to your VO. If the problem is a VO, take it up with Mike Brock.

Mike Brock has repeatedly said on issues like this that he wants people to be able to use their judgement, and that if the do not have the judgement, they shouldn't be GMing.

An awful lot of this sounds like adversarial GMing, which is against the spirit of PFS.

That's not really fair though. Lots of GM's (including myself about 2 or 3 years ago) were taught that the pit or the chance of falling constituted distraction or immediate danger. So that's how we interpreted it. There is no language that directly disputes that interpretation.

So using that interpretation is not abuse of GM powers.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Bottom line, it doesn't matter whether GMs clump or not. What matters is if the outcome is fair and fun.

One season one 7-11 would require me to roll and track 32 separate initiatives without clumping. That's ridiculous. A season five 7-11 had 7 or 8 discreet creatures, that with out clumping really bogged down combat.

The point is, trust your GM until they prove they can't be trusted. Arguing or calling a GM out on rules minutae is extremely poor dorm.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Interleaving is incorrect word usage. This is not discrete clumping if computer data sets or adding a blank page to a book between printed pages.

While the clumping of data sets us almost correct, it does not apply in this situation. Why can't they just say, no clumping!

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

Dorothy Lindman wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
BNW the issue arises when party A uses T10 as was previously deemed normal for a risky task and does just fine, but then Party B hits the same task is told they can't and end up losing hp/death and use up resources that would not have been used otherwise.

The guide to organized play allows for table variation. It allows GMs to add environmental effects that are part of the fluff descriptions of encounters.

Now we have another situation where GNs get to use their discretion. This is a good thing.

I disagree that this level of table variation is a good thing. This level of table variation can completely invalidate a character build.

I have several skill monkeys who spend a large amount of resources bumping skills into high bonuses specifically so that they can take 10 and succeed 80% of the time. They invest in this at the expense of other aspects of the game.

Some GMs have stated directly that they hate the entire concept of take 10 and will never allow it, no matter what. Now I no longer have a rule that tells says "sorry, you have to, even if you don't like it".

Now my character is pointless, because it's all down to dice luck instead of my choices. The high-DPR, barely-any-skills guys can take over my role in the party just because they have better dice luck than I do. (There's a reason I play poker instead of slot machines: I want to have at much control over my destiny as possible. I don't like blind luck.)

Now I've wasted my 750 gp of consumables I took before I found out that this particular GM is an anti-take-10 guy. (Or worse, because this GM said he allows take 10 but then always found some reason not to allow it.)

Not knowing whether my character is an expert or an idiot from table to table is not the kind of variation I consider "good". Now I have to start quizzing GMs about their take-10 rules before the game to decide what character to play or if I think I can play at all.

I think you missed my point.

I'm not advocating table variation for whether take 10 is, or is not, possible period. Rather that environmental effects hinted at in encounter descriptions but not given mechanics, allows me to have that environment affect the characters in some way. Certain environmental effects may cause distraction or immediate danger. Some might not.

This doesn't invalidate your skill monkey, it just makes the environment more potentially dynamic.

The check itself, though, without any environmental or other external factors or influences should not cause take 10 to be disallowed.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rigby Bendele wrote:
thejeff wrote:

If the GM tells you the DC up front, does that mean no rerolls?

If the GM tells you it failed as soon as they see the roll, does that stop rerolls?

Yes, but in those cases, I also recognize that I messed up as the GM by not giving the play time to decide if they wish to re-roll, so I generally allow it.

I have made this mistake as a GM before. So I learned to give a pregnant pause before revealing the results (and often ask if they want to reroll).

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

It is true trollbill, that table variation has existed thus far on Take 10, and the world has not collapsed.

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

Thurston Hillman wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

Not trying to be a wet blanket here, but the amount if stuff they need to Di between now and Gen Con probably precludes any extra sanctioning.

The final two scenarios are due out this week. Then they have six quests, a 1-11 special, True Dragons of Absalom, and the three Season 7 premiers.

My guess is, 12 hour days for the next month with no extra time to read and sanction Iron Gods. My Guess would be around October at the earliest

HUSH ANDY! People aren't supposed to realize that Paizo developers actually do work... ;)

chuckle...

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

I'm not going to argue with you further on this. Its obvious that I'm not going to change your mind, and you aren't going to change mine.

Assume Table Variation.

But suffice to say, that if you are playing an Unchained Summoner at my table, you will have to stick with the evolutions from Unchained or that are specifically called out as legal for the Unchained Summoner.

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

FLite wrote:

Lets continue this logic.

You say unless the class allows it then things relevant to the origional class, published before the new class can no longer be used.

So barbarians lose access to:
Armor of the Tireless Warrior (At targets barbarians and effects their rage, which has changed. Maybe it no longer works?)

I could go through and find a bunch more of these, but I have to get dinner started.

Anything Barbarian-wise that is not specifically listed in Unchained as being available for use as written, is not available for the Barbarian. There is a sidebar in the Unchained book that explains all this.

Please stop arguing things that are patently false to support your other statements.

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

FLite wrote:


(And no, the AR does not say anything about which archtypes are allowed for unchained.)

If it isn't in the AR yet, it was in the unchained blog. Where it said that only summoner archetypes that don't change the base form are allowed.

So for all intents and purposes, there is a PFS rule out there for how to handle summoner archetypes.

Really, if you are going to argue this, you need to get all your information correct. Because so far you've gotten the Rogue Talent and Barbarian Rage Power thing wrong.

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

FLite wrote:

and AR say I can use all the evolutions too.

Pathfinder Player Companion: Champions of Purity
Evolutions: all evolutions on page 26 are legal for play;

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Ultimate Magic
Anyone playing the magus playtest version must have updated his or her character as of 5/19/11. The following are NOT legal for play: (No mention of evolutions)

Compare that to the APG summoner entry, which says it is only legal for PCs played before a certain date.

They are all legal for play for the APG summoner. And there is no reason to say they aren't legal anymore, since there are still legal APG summoners out there.

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

FLite wrote:

Except there is also no list for legal archtypes.

So are you saying all the archtypes are illegal?

No, PFS additional resources declares how to determine which archetypes you can still use.

But being quiet on evolutions, you have to default back to exclusiveness.

Unchained doesn't list which evolutions from previous books are still ok to use with the new Summoner, therefore none are.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


And then you'd have players whining that GM's that actually understood your intent, were running things in scenarios against the RAW of what you wrote.

We have players in this thread who couldn't read the RAW for determining jump DCs. Something that was so straight forward and easy to answer the PDT tacked on an extra FAQ because it was that simple.

Your argument that people will be confused by a rule is not compelling.

2. GMs cannot use the environment or the setting as a way to preclude Take 10 unless the stated environmental conditions make it logical to do so.

Ex. The characters are on the deck of a ship in a storm at sea would most likely preclude someone from taking 10.

Problem solved. Six minutes

I'd add all the time you spent arguing with people about your rules to your time. That's essentially development time you spent refining your rule.

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

N N 959 wrote:


Quote:
5) I aggressively and vehemently disagree with you that we should tie GM's hands from using fluff text in a scenario to change the circumstances of whether a check includes immediate danger or distraction. That is one of the few leeways GMs have to modify circumstances in a scenario, and it is one I would hate to lose.

Then you've misunderstood my statement. Let me repeat it:

If the scenario says there's a thunderstorm and lightning strikes while the players are attempting a task, then I take that as the scenario authorizing the preclusion of Take 10, even if there are no circumstance modifiers.

Yes, impactful environmental conditions can be used to preclude Take 10, imo.

Now do you see why your 5 minute rules weren't good enough? That you needed to take more than 5 minutes to write them up?

Because I'm not the only one who mistook what you wrote for exactly what I said in point 5. And if I and others misread the way you wrote those rules, then others would too.

And then you'd have players whining that GM's that actually understood your intent, were running things in scenarios against the RAW of what you wrote.

So please, don't think its quite so easy to write a set of rules that does what you mean. Because you tried, and they had some ambiguity issues.

Remember, any new rules you create to obviate ambiguity, shouldn't create more ambiguity. This is why I disliked SKR's 10' circle clarification on 10' reach. It created more problems than it solved.

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

FLite wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
FLite wrote:

Why?

Barbarian states Barbarian rage powers outside unchained are not allowed

Rogue says rogue talents outside unchained are not allowed unless they are on the list.

Eidolon doesn't say that.

They completely rewrote the Summoner. Eidolon and all. Why would you think the evolutions were still valid?
Because they didn't say they weren't, and they did for the other classes, and because they say in the book that the changes to evolutions were to better fit them to specific appearances.

But PFS and Pathfinder is not inclusive. Its exclusive. In other words, you don't get it unless something says you do.

Unchained would need to specifically include past evolutions (like unchained Barbarian and Rogue both have sidebars telling you what rage powers and rogue talents from other books are still valid as written.) It doesn't include past evolutions specifically, therefore they are not valid for the unchained summoner.

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

FLite wrote:
Further, there was a question about the summoner spell list, which redid the APG spell list, but left off summoner spells from other books, and it was determined that those spells were still legal, presumably this follows the same rule. (It is not prohibited, and it is not replaced, so it remains as it is)

Actually it was not determined that those spells were still legal. They summoner in unchained has language that specifically states how to determine if spells from other books are still legal.

1 to 50 of 3,099 << 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.