|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Derek Weil wrote:
Technically the elemental can't move
A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple.
I can see saying the elemental isn't solid enough to grab (especially if it uses whirlwind) . It could also just keep slamming the grappler with its fist.
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
So, the body disappears outside of range of the spell?
The body can't disappear because of the largely narative effect of the porter. I suppose you could have the body left on the ground behind the party at the start of every combat as if one of the other party members were carrying it.
That doesn't seem to square with mike brocks post above about them fading into the background at the start of combat.
While this keeps them alive, I think it makes them poor magic jar holders.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Its happened before. It will happen again.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Then the first election rolls around, and the incumbent arrests his opponent for lying.
I'll agree here, though it sounds like BNW does not agree on this point, but maybe I am not understanding him correctly...which often happens.
The DM needs to know the goal but should be able to figure it out without the player saying it, just as if the melee character is standing next to only one orc and has had power attack activated since this mornings brand muffin.
Bnw, I find it reasonable to make exceptions for the attitude change, and gather info I see being acceptable as a general roll. Making exceptions to adapt to new players I give leeway, but for some, it's time to learn the game, and give me some vague specifics at least.
For which diplomacy check you're doing there's nothing to learn, there's no skill involved, and there's nothing the player can do to get the right answer. Its whatever the mod says it is, and can include any of those three answers or for some scenarios, even their own subsystems.
While I would LOVE the characters to role play everything, you don't really need them to.
I don't understand where you're getting this interpretation with the people who figure an in between is the appropriate method. A general "I use diplomacy" to me is extremely video game like, and makes me cringe at playing a role playing game.
It makes me cringe as well (if its on its own). If its used in addition to actual talking its sometimes good for clarity.
I don't see why the summary method isn't reasonable for you
Its only unreasonable if the DM insists on I use diplomacy to improve attitude, I use diplomacy to aim at a flat DC, or I use diplomacy to gather information- because that's an annoying guessing game.
Ok, and you don't think that this being a discussion on the PFS section of the boards, discussing ways to annoy PFS dms, and PFS is played exclusively with published scenarios/modules MIGHT influence my approach here?
More subtly, In pfs you swap out DMs. As a DM, if you think that "you must announce which kind of diplomacy check you're trying" your players may have NO idea what the heck you're doing. There isn't always time to learn exactly what the DM expects from you. Using a more persnickety system than what the players may be used to leads to confusion.
Generally interactions are more open-ended, with more than one good response possible. And often involve multiple interactions over many sessions. Not just a single Yes/No Diplomacy roll. So the direction the diplomacy takes matters.
There are degrees of success, either written into the scenario or that I can do "ad hoc". If you talk your way through the door with a 20 and the DC is a 20 you get through the door. If you do something ridiculous like get a 40 he might show up to help you or offer to carry your stuff.
As for the menu analogy, your approach seems to discard the menu entirely. Good roll gets the "Success" result, regardless of what the PC wanted to do.
So giving the player what I think they were asking for, which is at least what they were asking for and probably more is bad because... ?
I can see that working well in something as constrained as a PFS scenario. In a longer term more open game, I'd need something more.
Which works great if you have the long term relationship with your players to figure that out, and long term relationships with the npcs. Neither of those exist in PFS.
It's because BNW is running NPC's like they are in a video game RPG.
No, that's exactly what the other side is proposing. "Oh, you tried to use the key on the lock, it didn't work. You needed to JIGGLE the key in the lock to get it to work". Its DMing like you're a computer that can only interpret options off of a menu.
You... backtrack a bit and don't go through the door yet. I've NEVER had this happen, and it would be no big deal if it did, whereas under your system I would have players doing at best a coin flip on every encounter.
Ok, so exactly WHY are you chatting the guard up if you don't want to go through the door? Presumably if there's a listed DC for talking your way through the door the party will be going through the door at some point, the guard is now friendly and when the scenario railroad passes that way, you'll have succeeded. It doesn't much matter if he lets you through because you convinced him to let you through or because he lets you through if he's your friend.
Its incredibly arbitrary on two fronts. For one, I'm pretty sure I've seen that exact situation done both ways. Secondly they're mechanically the same , the player is rolling a diplomacy check either way.
I have three ways I can tell what the character is doing
1) What the player says when I get them to diplomance someone.
Does it work the same way if the player does give more information? If they say "I'm going to use Diplomacy to improve his attitude", but the module only says "Make a DC Y check to ask then to XXXX", do you automatically have them XXXX if he beats a DC Y
Of course!* The roll is the same either way. I might describe it differently (you two pleasantly chat about Galtan politics over coffee and the macguffin comes up in conversation)
*Outside of some rare situational bonuses (like the human druid bonus to shift attitudes)
Or do you ever get a response from the player of "Oh. That's not what I was asking for at all."?
It happens on occasion. Sometimes because the roll wasn't high enough and I threw something irrelevant into the conversation, more often because that particular NPC doesn't know the information they're looking for, sometimes because I forgot what that PCs faction mission was.
Or if the PCs are trying something not on the beaten path of mod and thus not explicitly written down, doesn't it help to know what they're trying?
Not really. Winging dc x is winging DC x.
Can I just go around using Diplomacy on random NPCs until I hit the one that will do X for me?
Time consuming but possible. Probably easy to make a gather info to ask who can do something for you.
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
The problem, again, is that the three different mechanics are so close together and so interchangeably used that if you're asking which version of the mechanics they're trying to use it's an arbitrary guessing game with the player.
Do you really accept a "I use Diplomacy on the NPC. Got 35.", with no indication of what the player wants from it?
I will try to coax the player into saying something for the joy of role playing. This is strictly for fun, I don't need it for anything mechanically.
What favor? Just making the NPC friendlier? Nothing? How do you decide what the result is?
The mod in front of me has that information, and they're (mechanically) no different on the players end. He has a diplomacy roll of x. In front of me is either
Make a DC XYZ check to get bits of information X Y Z
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
X is not a personal goal. X is one of three very subtle mechanical variations that are often interchangeable. They exist to the player, not the character. The character knows what they want to do. the different uses of diplomacy are how the game emulates that.
Diego Rossi wrote:
My character approach the barkeeper and I say "I use diplomacy on him." The GM as no idea of what I am asking to the barkeeper.
Step 1) Try to coax some Role playing out of the player. I have never had this be a problem to get some at least.
Step 2) This is a pretty standard gather info check. I give him the information his diplomacy check deserves. If I think the letter is a separate issue I'll have him make a second roll for it.
To me, how you handle step 1 is infinitely more important than part 2.
Damian Magecraft wrote:
I'm sorry, is this supposed to be witty? Its not. Its snide, smug, arrogant, passive aggressive dreck with an ad hom cheese filling. You're not making your point, you're not demonstrating that people aren't paying attention, and you're making up some absolute baloney about snagging a PFS number and moving to the other side of the screen somehow means you start telegraphing the near indistinguishable uses of diplomacy, which, for some unexplained reason, is essential to the characters actual use of diplomacy.
Which again shows you are making assumptions.
A conclusion. Which your circular "pay attention" blatherskite is doing nothing to change.
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Absolutely not on everything. Not your interpretation, not how you see it, not how you do it, absolutely, objectively, certified wrong.
The ONLY way the player can know what system the mod is using is to have read it. "Paying attention" is NOT , under any circumstances, going to let you deduce whether you're making a flat DC, shifting an attitude, or asking for a favor because they are not used consistently. They are used very interchangeably.
Please explain to me why the player needs to tell the DM x. The only possible conclusion I can come up with is you want to negate the characters skill by nitpicking exactly how they're doing it.
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Incorrect. They know there are 3 options; Because a good GM has made it clear what those three options may be.
No, for two reasons. 1) There's No guarantee of a good DM and 2) There is absolutely NO difference on the player side. They have a d20 + number either way. The diplomacy check does NOT failboat just because they asked for a favor when the mod wants them to improve an attitude.
and if they are standing next to three orcs?
Then you ask "hurt one or unhurt one" or if they're all un hurt you can ask for which one after the damage roll.
Needless specificity is something I see slowing down a lot of games.
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Well here the DM knows better than the player does. There are three used of diplomacy
1) Change someones attitude
The player doesn't actually know which system is in effect, so "I diplomance him!" is all the mechanical information they have available.
I use power attack.On what?
Maybe the orc they're standing right next to?
Can you use magic items to meet prerequisites? For example, if you had an 11 Dex and a wayfinder slotted a Deep Red Sphere Ioun Stone (granting both +2 Dex and Improved Unarmed Strike), would that allow you to take Dodge (prereq 13 dex) and Crane Style (prereq Dodge and IUS), loosing access to all the above if you lost the wayfinder or took 1 point of dex damage?
that's actually how traps work. You have to announce that you're looking for them and spend a move action unless you have the trapspotter talent.
Finlander Boy wrote:
They can not use the words "I use diplomacy" as an action and expect me to read their mind
.. how on earth is any mind reading required? They've told you exactly what their character is doing, mechanically. If you have a problem with the lack of role playing thats understandable, but feigning ignorance is not a solution.
Don't be silly, that skinned new york city rat he's wearing for a toupee is WAY better than what Trump has.
John Francis wrote:
Why is it that people have no difficulty allowing a simple roll of the dice (without a detailed description) for attack rolls, damage rolls, ride checks, climb checks, saving throws, etc., etc., but somehow feel they have special dispensation to demand that players act out social interactions?
Role playing game. You try to get people to well.. roleplay.
I think that people holding the charisma of the player against (or sometimes for) the player is what causes a lot of the "I diplomazice him and maintain my right to remain silent, so my actions are not held against me in a diplomacy check" reactions
I sadly am subjected to negative effects when speaking out my diplomacy instead of just rolling it, because the gm misunderstand my meaning to be something it's not. It's strange to think about how I feel the character in game should have complete understanding to what I'm trying to express, but if my gm was distracted, then I get a penalty to my check which all together makes me want to be lazy like everyone else.
Should be a law. Unless explicitly called out in the scenario my charisma dump shall not be held against my character...
Another annoying thing is when players don't respect when a particular player gets in game knowledge, and they just react to it. I'm told by the gm that in the room I went to alone, a potion was discovered. Suddenly a player who isn't even there says, "I take the potion!"
Keeping mini's on the table is the only thing that i've found that is remotely helpful for reminding characters that they're not all in the same place.
I get annoyed when people get mad at my in game decisions too. There is a creature I can't touch that's killing my party. My character would find an exit and leave. I open the door and another encounter happens. We all knew what was behind that door out of character, but people are genuinely mad at me, even though my character did a logical action.
Keep in mind, if your "what my character would do" is get the party killed then the parties "what our characters would do" is either leave you behind in the bar or turn you into a marmoset.
Always run back the way you came, not strait ahead. Everything behind you either ran away from you once or got killed.
A player goes into stealth to scout ahead, and when the character can tell it's all clear, they expect the party to move forward without informing them. That, or the party metagames by hearing the results of the scout, and just knows every detail and moves forward without any instruction.
Setting up a scouting procedure with a new party is hard. Its probably the second biggest obstacle to effective scouting in PFS. You have to get EVERYONE on the same page and not metagaming, both of which are hard on their own (much less in tandem)
1) Distance. Too far ahead and if the rogue gets made he will be lunch before sir clanks a lot gets there. Too close and they can hear sir clanks a lot.
2) Speed/movement pattern: Is the party moving behind you at a constant 30 feet? Are they moving, stopping, and waiting for your signal/report? Or comming up behind you. If you think they're stopped, and the party thinks they're moving, it looks like they moved up because of metagaming when they moved up because they thought they were moving.
3) How much time before the party assumes you've been eaten. This is a hard one. Advanced Dungeon and Dragons was not the only ADD in many of our lives. Sitting around while the rogue does roguey stuff can get a little boring for the rest of the group. The rogue and the DM need to work together and get in synch to do it fast
4) Communication. Are you coming back to report? Leaving notes? Using a message spell? They all have their own pitfalls. Wandering monsters can find notes, the message spell can be heard, and coming back means the party needs to be a bit further away or not moving.
Nathan Addison wrote:
450 for break enchantment and you'll be fine
Its just a cute lil baby basilisk, I think the PFS de stoner will succeed on a 1
Hopefully your party is at least willing to drag you back to civilization.
You can then pay either 660 GP (6th level spell X 11th level caster X10) or 2? prestige points to have flesh to stone put on you. (otherwise you need to pay 5 pp for body recovery, and be thankful they don't charge by the pound). You don't actually have to be concious to request the transaction: it just means you've pre arranged this sort of thing with your faction as part of the pathfinder HMO.
WARNING: This may cause you to die as you're turned back if you fail a dc 15 fort save. Another option
You can also try break enchantment at 450 gold (or 2 pp)(5th level 9th caster X10) which doesn't seem to have the fort save requirement, BUT will require a caster level check.
So what i would do is spend gold trying break enchantment until you're down to your last 660 gp/ or prestige, and in the unlikely event that the caster keeps rolling 1's on the caster level check then risk the fort save.
How much are those folios where you are?
Its a balance. Sometimes (especially with strangers) you need to make sure that OOC IC barrier is established.
But that doesn't make them a matter of good and evil. Lawful good is not good plus. Lawful good is not extra good. Lawful good is not the goodest good. Lawful good is not the arbiter of right and wrong.
The prohibition against poison is probably based on the idea that poison is a dishonorable tactic.
But not an evil one.
My point here is that I think the Lawful part is for paladins a means to achieve the Good part. Paladins work according to a code to make sure they don't drift into evil.
Thats certainly one way to do Lawful Good.
And lets apply it to our poor chelaxian. Killing the police because you disagree with them is one hell of a slippery slope to jump down. As is evading the police, committing insurrection, and 100 other things you'd have to do to pull a john brown.
Notice the "might" part. I could've been clearer; I meant that a paladin's creed might condemn such governments.
It also condemns stooping to their level.
When you're playing lawful, you must start by following the code of your own belief.
No, you're following the code of some other authority, of your own choosing, not your own code. The same code that other people are following. It is NOT individualized. Can you show me ANYTHING that would indicate what you're saying is the case?
If your church says that the Slaver Government is evil and therefore illegitimate, then you're being lawful by no longer abiding by the Slaver Government's laws.
A paladin comes with one of those. While a lawful good fighter might have a code that lets him make use of poison a paladin cannot because their code isn't entirely theirs.
But the earlier idea that the paladin code is a Burden, that I disagree with. I think it's meant to PROTECT paladins from slipping down that slope. The idea is that being chaotic opens you up to the risk of corruption into evil. The code tells you not to step on the slipperty slope. And if you absolutely must do so at some point, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
Its a limiting factor to the player. (as are many other role playing choices)
I don't agree with that interpretation. The CG revolutionary is NOT doing the same thing as the LG paladin. CG Guy is trying to overthrow an evil and oppressive government so that people can be free to be good. The LG paladin is trying to remove the evil government so that a good government can be instituted to guide the people.
But they're both overthrowing the evil and oppressive government by the illegal means of insurrection, theft, assault, murder, mayhem, destruction of private property and offenses against nature. In fact with what you're describing the two would look identical until the actual campaign was over and we tried to write the "happily ever after". I can't see something as important as alignment being swept that easily under the rug.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
No, it simply assumes that reason and evidence, collectively applied in good faith, through due process of law, are an acceptably accurate way of making decisions.
And that those in charge are acting in good faith, and that they will continue to act in good faith in the future.
There are quite a few safeguards in place to make sure that the decisions of courts are not unduly influenced by prejudice, delusion, and stupidity.
Make something idiot proof and they will make a better idiot..
In the case of the Irving trial, for example, it was decided that it would be a bench trial long before the trial itself happened -- the reasoning being that the amount of detail to be presented would be too much for a typical juror to handle.
So the check on the governments power to stifle free speech is... the government?
I am REAALLY not ok with this.
If you think that your trial cannot be fairly tried before a bunch of mouth-breathing Fox news enthusiasts
You missed that point completely. Let me try again.
All evidence in the world points to A
The problem is that people, by and large, are NOT rational. Just because all the evidence points to A, and someone spouts not A, doesn't mean that they're deliberately fraudulent. There is a very real chance that they actually believe Not A. I would call it insanity, but thats a hard word to use when most of the human race does it.
Easy example: using the exact same standard shouldn't you be arresting every priest in the country for fraud?
you can similarly ask for a change of venue (a request that is routinely made and routinely granted if you actually have a reason). If you can't get a bench trial and you can't get a change of venue, you still have a chance to remove obviously biased jurors through the jury selection process.
The mere burden of a trial itself is enough to stifle free speech. I would rather deal with the yahoos.
If you really don't think that any safeguards will provide you with the level of fairness you expect, you're basically rejecting the rule of law at all.
What I want is the least amount of imposition on an individuals freedom as can be managed. I have never seen giving the government the power to stifle speech end well. Experimentally, it seems to be a bad idea and very little harm seems to come from the whackos.
And at this point, it doesn't matter what your paper rights are, since you've rejected the only agency capable of enforcing those rights.
If you put the paper rights at C you can only get to C. if you put the paper rights at Z you're more likely to get to R at least.