|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Crimson Jester wrote:
It wouldn't matter one whit. You can make all the impossibly high standards for studies you want. When those studies say something people don't like you'll still get the exact same amount of grarg and counter factual arguments that make up the vast majority of denier claims.
The idea that the key to winning this is better evidence has worse than no evidence.
Yes. PFS is a little hard on low level casters.
This is one of the reason that its usually choc full of melee.
You will probably have 4 "the scenario plans combat" encounters. You never know when the party is going to turn the tea service into a mosh pit or have a character belly rub a colossal ooze into submission instead of hurting it.
Cross bow may not be a bad idea for a few levels. Most people have played casters. They understand.
Odin took him. Providing care... maybe.
Arsenic is a healthy snack, pure and simple.
You can defy gravity with a superman cape, pure and simple.
Pepsi is the best cola, pure and simple.
Adding the words "pure and simple" to a statement increases its truthiness. It does not make an argument for them.
The overall "fact" that the global temperature has actually cooled by a fraction of a degree (Celsius? or Farinhiets?) seems to be either ignored or discounted.
Or is something else you've made up. Citation please.
The Email controversy has poked a serious hole in any discussion about "Man Made" climates and put the issue further into a joke status.
The only thing that has reached joke status is this argument.
Point to something in the emails that actually does this. You cannot just angrily hand wave at "Climate gate!" and say that it shows that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a hoax because people, comedians at that, have angrily said that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a joke.
Hurricane Katrina changed a lot of the weather pattern ten years ago, warping the Jet Stream as it made New Orleans into a giant swimming pool. Anyone forget that the tragedy could have been lessened if the levies would have been built to spec to be able to divert water around the city? Those were not built because it would have impacted some tree frog or cricket or something, so it was made into a worse situation because of the very same type of folks that wring their hands and pout about "global Warming" and how man is causing it.
Citation needed. The levies suffered from poor construction and lack of funding. What you're talking about sounds awfully expensive.
I am not small norse wolf.
I am trying to be not quite so large norse wolf. Took a walk on the local bridge, like I do every once in a while. Muscles felt a little weak today for some reason, so i was making more stops than usual.
walk walk walk. Lean on railing to rest. Walk walk walk lean on railing to rest.
police called because people think I'm going to jump despite that...
A) Pretty obvious the I needed a break after a few miles. Honestly looking at me you'd wonder how I got out that far.
B) No way I'm getting over that railing.....
Go into a persons house and take someones stuff you're a thief.
Get a whole bunch of people together, put on the same uniforms and some badges, march into the neighboring country kill them and take their stuff and you're a proud warrior of your tribe/city state/country.
Lawful people are weird.
Not remotely what was said.
The hell it is. Replace the player (if he leaves in protest). Or just ignore them (if they keep whining)
The only way the game doesn't happen is if he leaves (his choice) or gets thrown out (probably the DMs choice) AND you were down to 3 people to start with.
I don't understand why someone putting a lid on their own crazy or tolerate something they don't like is treated as such an impossibility. If someone goes into a mouth foaming range at the presence of other classes and playstyles PFS is not for them. If you are allergic to cashews, avoid bags of mixed nuts.
Kryssa Lightbinder wrote:
I believe these have been largely replaced with the faction cards.
Baba Ganoush wrote:
A bit off topic... but I wish non-gamers were familiar with when the phrase, "it's what my character would do." It's the easiest way to shorthand my feelings when a corporation talks about, "maximizing shareholder value." (also known as sticking it to the employees and customers simultaneously.)
VIVA LA GALT!
Replace your character? Sure, that's an option.
The hell it is. Replace the player. Or just ignore them. The odds of needing to do that ina situation where it ends the game are infinitesimally low. (3 players)
Other people do not get to determine if you get to play your character. They don't get to pick what dice you use. They don't get to pick what actions you take. That's your decision, not theirs. If they have a problem with that then they are THE problem and need to be eliminated or ignored.
Not putting any more thought into the situation than two people fighting both must be at fault and siding equally against both just enables the worst behaviors. Don't do it.
The jeff wrote:
Derailing the game over a conflict with a jerk doesn't make the game more fun for anyone. It might well be less fun for you than if he hadn't been a jerk, but that's not happening in our hypothetical.
If it goes further than that you're not derailing the game, they are. I got enough detentions in highschool for being punched in the head to know that it does not in fact take two to fight.
Maybe you're not the jerk for doing any of those things and maybe the other guy is being the jerk for complaining about it, but holding fast to your insistence that you're not the problem doesn't make the game any more fun for anybody, so why do it?
Because that statement is objectively wrong and insulting.
You are somebody. You are not a no body. Your individual happiness and enjoyment of the game matters.
When you say that no one's enjoyment of the game is diminished by having someone micro manage your persona decisions you're saying that you're nobody and the person ordering you around is someone.
Accepting that you are someone and your personal enjoyment of the game is JUST as important as anyone elses is not being a jerk.
You are a jerk when you think that your personal enjoyment is the ONLY thing that matters.
There is an enormous difference between the two and conflating them gives jerks carte blanch to passive aggressively walk all over other players and dictate their whims all over everyone's game.
Compromise. Adapt. Enjoy the game
The golden mean is a logical fallacy. Not a goal.
He's the jerk. He's not going to change, even if he should.
He probably won't, but I'm not going to let him think he can walk over me or the other gamers like that. I'm not going to enable that sort of bad behavior with silence.
So to sum up this thread...
You are a jerk for building an overpowered character
You are a jerk for building an ineffective character
You are a jerk for making a character that is better than my character
You are a jerk for making a character that is almost as good as my character
You are a jerk for interrupting a table through omission
You are a jerk for interrupting a table through inclusion.
You are a jerk for bringing a character that conflicts with the party
You are a jerk for portraying a 2 dimensional card board cut out with no personality
You are a jerk for everything you do.
You are a jerk for everything you DON"T do.
Do you start to see why people get defensive and don't listen when you invoke this rule? The appropriate response when people angrily tell you you are a horrible person because you're not giving them two mutually exclusive things at the same time IS to flip them the bird.
Ferious Thune wrote:
If I am bringing a scroll of Breath of Life to a table in a spring-loaded wrist sheath, and I know that might or might not be allowed by the GM, then I'm going to ask before it comes up in game.
Thats A biggie. That might be worth asking. But how long do you have before the game? How many really weird rules interpretations have you seen on the boards? How long before the dm starts to wonder what you're up to. Are you going to go through them ALL?
Its not feasible. Its definitely not for everyone. Someone may very well assume the worst and play with that in mind.
Ferious Thune wrote:
That's fair enough. I suppose I just don't see the issue with, the first time the situation comes up in the scenario, saying something like, "I would like to try to aid another, but not if there's a chance I could actually hurt the situation." And if necessary, adding, "Will a low roll to aid result in a negative impact?" to be clear it's an out of character question about the rules. The GM will either say, "Yes, you could hurt things," or "No, you can't hurt things, how would you like to aid?" Or some variation or combination of the two.
There's two problems with that.
First is that people learn rules from the dm and other players far more than the rule books. To some extent this is necessary , but it means that if a players usual group does things a certain way they stop questioning it, accepting it as a rule. For example, some local groups do knowledge checks to ID a monster as X number of questions and answers and don't realize that the question and answer thing isn't part of the rules. A player that has always played that way isn't likely to think to ask how someone does knowledge checks. Before this conversation you probably wouldn't have thought to ask about that because you'd never seen that interpretation.
Secondly, try to think about EVERY rule, nuance, or interpretation there is to this game and a player stopping stopping to ask you about every. Single. one of them. works. It really breaks the flow of the game.
Sorcerers get 2+Int skill points and Int is not a necessary stat for them for anything else.
Second if not first most useful skill in PFS, and it fits their stat. Sorcerers can dual major in diplomancy for the price of a corespondents course :)
You're asking in the PFS forums so I'll assume this is for pfs. If not 2/3 still apply.
If you're still level 1 you can rebuild your character and tweak your stats a bit.
When you hit level 4 or 8 you could increase your intelligence by 1. Increasing a lower stat this way is less point buy efficient than increasing a higher stat but its not the end of the world.
You could buy a headband of intelect +2, or get an ioun stone that adds to your int.
The dirty tactics toolbox has a feat that lets you count as having a 13 int for most feats along with some other benefits. The book has yet to be added to the additional resources so you may have to wait for a bit.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
So what do you want them to do? They, by whatever means, get the impression that the antics they would get their character into at a wedding...."GROCK NO CUT CAKE ! Adamantine sword no match for staleness of bakers failures!" would be a detriment to other peoples experience by making them lose out on prestige points, miss faction missions, take the spot light off of their taldan fop schmoozing, or change the tone of the game from drama to comedy.
And if they DON"T do clam up, then they're a jerk for NOT reading that someone really wanted to play a drama/really needed the two prestige points/ had a character that meshed perfectly well with the chronicle boon.
And if they bring in a socialite character with a higher diplomacy mod than anyone else they're a jerk for doing something better than the other guy.
I mean seriously, look at this thread. There is NO possible way to sit at the same table and play a game with all of these people without someone considering you a jerk for SOMETHING.
Or, if you're not willing to invest some effort in an event you're already spending time (and possibly money, depending on convention) sitting at, why are you there?
Didn't read the scenario blurbOnly have 1 character
Only have 1 character in tier
Only game they haven't played in the slot
Only one game tonight
Needed to get character up a level to make tier on the next slot
my friend really really wants to play this one and I'm humoring them
Getting out of the level 6 dolrum
Started role playing my character and got death glares from the
Has played the scenario before, knows there are things you can say/not say for bonuses/penalties and is trying to avoid steering the party. (I made a fox form fighter that doesn't talk just for this sort of thing)
socialites so I dialed it back a bit...
Ferious Thune wrote:
I'm not saying that a player shouldn't get clarification from a GM about how the GM runs their game.
Even in PFS where there are no official house rules there are too many subtle nuances in how each individual dm runs things to ask about them all. People also tend to internalize rules and just take how they usually play and their own culture of gaming as a given.
But you seem to be saying that they should stay quiet no matter what.
I am not only not saying that, i am not saying anything that could reasonably be taken to say that.
What I'm saying is that a player may have very good reasons for staying quiet that do not involve being a jerk or disrupting the table through omission: they may be trying to HELP their party. Or they may figure they get enough spotlight time while bathing int he blood of decapitated orcs they don't need the spotlight now. There are a range of factors including good, positive gaming philosophies that could be what lead to someone clamming up during the role play.
By extension, I'm pointing out a very worrying trend in this thread where people are incredibly quick to label anything different from their own behavior as jerkish.
Again, what you're using as the rules for aiding another seems unnecessarily punitive and a very liberally interpreted version of the rules.
Its not what I use but its something that I've seen used.
I usually use the most permissive "I will take the highest roll and then have all others aiding them"
The weighted chances do make a difference, and you have a point there. Again I would mention that anyone with less than a +4 bonus would be in a similar situation, though to a lesser degree. That means there would be a valid argument for a 16 CHA Sorcerer with no ranks in Diplomacy to keep their mouth shut, too.
Diplomacy as a class skill is only a trait away for a charisma based skill...
Ferious Thune wrote:
There isn't anything to say that it isn't either.
In a shared play environment telling why a person is (or in this case, isn't) doing something is doubly hard because you don't know exactly what rules preconceptions they're operating under. That goes for mechanics (like what happens if i epic fail aid another on a diplomacy check) table etiquite (roll all dice at once on pounce kitty? Roll all attacks individually?) and the very specific way that different groups/dms do things from 'you need to role play talking for a while before you break out the diplomacy' whether the player needs to say "I am attempting a diplomacy check" at some point or whether the DM is going to ask for it.
(12 or better to aid or helping 45% of the time. 7 or worse to fail by 5, or hurting 35% of the time)
35% * -5= -1.75
EDIT: If you're talking about a circumstance bonus or penalty based on the Barbarian's role play, that bonus or penalty should be applied to the Barbarian's roll to aid another, not to the overall roll that another player is making.
And if the player has seen it done the other way?
Ferious Thune wrote:
There are scenarios where the higher the diplomacy roll the more successful it is (any of the social scenarios that use the influence mechanic). You can succeed with a low DC, but the higher it is, the more successful it is. In those situations, I would definitely want to know what the Barbarian is doing to help.
Some DMs are quick to impose a penalty if you role play your charisma.
If you fail a diplomacy check by 5 or more you drop them a catagory, the DC to assist is 10. So by the odds grock and his -2 diplomacy has...
35% Chance to impose what is effectively a -5 on the check by dropping their attitude one step
a 40% chance to roll a 12 or higher and add a +2.
Thats IF the dm is letting that many people assist (how many people can assist a diplomacy and whether you need to be talking is a matter of table variation)
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
That's how you'd do it. That doesn't make someone elses decision to do it a different way anti social , jerk behavior, or some really random tea leaf reading baloney like "disrupting the table through omission"
People have different ways of doing things and GASP your way of doing things is not always going to be so good that it works best for everyone. And that's a lot of the problem with this thread: it assumes that any deviation from me is jerk behavior without acknowledging that changing definitions of me result in different if not contradictory answers.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Ok, but if you have a table of seven and the diplomancer is crackling their acting knuckles and getting his sparkly diplodice out, 3 people shouting about how they assist and 2 people trying to talk to someone.. are you really going to interject how you're not talking adds to the conversation?
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
Thor got in trouble with a southern tiger god for adding a little extra omph to durkons Thors might while durkon was in azure city.
If you're not putting the intent into your words yes its semantics.
If you are intending the insult its an important difference.
Alric Rahl wrote:
You can buy a bunch of them and do the whole prince ali entrance thing...
The DM put a lot more work into it, and skipping level 1 is likely his only reward.
It sounds like there was a little bit of a miscommunication between you and the players. Some players role play it out and then wait for the DM to ask for a diplomacy check. The party WAS diplomacising them, the players just weren't making the checks.
Sounds more chaotic than evil. He surrendered, then changed his mind. Chaotic prerogative.
Elizabeth Corrigan wrote:
I've seen some variation on whether an inquisitor can set their bane to "THAT THING!" or not.
Most humanoids are going to be a DC 10 though.