Bigger Club's page

Note I was ninjad by multiple people, I started the message after theJeff's post.

Yes that is it. Some people are into rpgs for the essentially co-written story/improv acting, or whatever you want to call it. Of coarse those personality types love the idea of just ignoring the games rules for benefit of the story for lack of better word.

On the other side you have people who get large part of their enjoyment from game part of rpg. And if the the dice are not sacrosant, well then it is not really a game anymore.

Still with either it is a whole package, otherwise rpgs would have never formed and stayed as wargames, and the other group would be just doing freeform rp.

Just speaking for myself, but the visceral reaction against fudging comes from the fact that you were told that you would be playing an rpg. Instead what you got is something you don't even consider an rpg anymore. To top it off this was done intentionally.*

*It has been stated multiple times in this thread that as long as the cards are on the table no harm no foul. Everyone can then decide if that activity is something they would like to do.

In general, it is case by case. It matters if it makes sense. However if it was written by paizo, double for anything golarion related, it likely won't.

Fighting styles or martial arts(including weapons) are a simple matter of bio-mechanics. Unless the feat has a clause that it is supernatural ability, then any hard preq is silly.(Assuming the style uses same basic body as the person trying to learn it)

Ashshar, don't mean to be backseat gamer, but you might want to consider using surge. It is immediate action, and adds 1d6(unless one has something that modifies it or higher mythic tier) to any roll, costs mythic though.

Yes, it might not be the first time you fudge the dice or second but they will notice at some point of campaign. And some players will notice the first time. I have played with people who played poker at competitive level. I would wager such people would see through the average GMs bluff. On the other hand you got people like me who have used the 3rd edition chassis when it was still 3.0, it is very unlikely that fudging goes unnoticed.

Now rest of the post is purely about changing the outcome of the dice. Some people me included value integrity of the 'game' part of the rpg. Changing the outcome to something else is never worth the price of making that integrity anything else than absolute. Some have differing views but I am hardly the only one.

Second point is that, if GM can't* run a game without fudging, well quite frankly that means that their skill as GM is not all that good. It might be just not grasping the mechanical side of things or inexperience, reason does not matter. It is simply lack of skill, nothing else.

*Note I said can't not won't.

Regarding the swingyness of the early levels, solution is simple just don't play at the lowest levels. Personally I see it as waste of time anyway to start lower than 4th level, but everyone has their preferences, I am sure some people like how at first level the d20 is all that really matters. It really is no different than the fact that some people do not want to play at the high levels since it is practically a different game at that point. Of coarse there are other solutions as well, as the mentioned not using higher than x2 crit weapons. But if certain level range plays in a way that is an issue it can simply be ignored.

All that said fudging is perfectly fine way of playing as long as everyone is informed of this matter. And not informing people and then getting caught is sure fire way to get people walk from the table.

Bigger Club wrote:

Every single GM that fudges, is not playing rpg anymore. It is a game no longer it is just interactive storytelling at that point.

This does not compute. Roleplaying games are nothing more than interactive storytelling and never have been. The rules are just there to prevent "bang, you're dead"/"no I'm not" arguments which could always be prevented through a correctly drafted social contract anyway.

I mean, Gary Gygax wrote the rules and he was a notorious fudger ("A GM only rolls dice because of the sound it makes"- Gygax) so it's not like "GM fiat" hasn't been part of this exercise since the very beginning.

You can say "I would prefer to play with a GM who is little more than a referee" and that's a valid desire, but people who play the game in a different way aren't "doing it wrong."

The emphasis of the statement is JUST, rpgs are interactive storytelling GAMES, there is that G in RPG.

As far as I am concerned Gygax was a horrible horrible GM, just because you can desing a game does not necessarily mean you are good at running said game.

Referee is also not what I am looking for, yes that is an aspect of GMing but hardly the only one. You desing the enviorement and also act as all the NPCs.

Bigger Club wrote:

Every single GM that fudges, is not playing rpg anymore. It is a game no longer it is just interactive storytelling at that point. So if you advertised the activity as playing rpg, well then you are liar.

That is all fine and dandy if that is what you do for fun. It isn't what I do, and not being upfront about it(as in telling without anyone asking) in my opinion makes you horrible GM.

You're referring to a referee, not a Game Master. If you regard fudging as lying, you need to make your GM and fellow players aware of it. I, for one, regard that as an extreme view I would not want at my table.

The GM is an entertainer, not a computer. He or she should be free to create the most fun possible within the social contract. I'd be uncomfortable with a GM who frequently fudged rolls, because at that point, why roll dice? But I'd regard as either lazy or extremist any GM who -never- fudged to create a better story.

I only very rarely fudge, but when I do, it's in the interests of the GAME. Also, for many years I ran a diceless game. Trust me, it was still a game.

Let me clear. I'm not saying a GM should invalidate the story result your dice are telling. But consider the following situation: It's late, but all the players have stuck around to finish a battle that is now going quite long. It's clear that the monster is just about to fall, but the fighter hits it for just enough damage to leave it at 1 hit point. Is it really more satisfying to make everyone stick around for another ten minutes to play another round than to simply say the fighter took out the monster? Your players...your FRIENDS... are going to be happier with the shorter result and will never know you could have dragged it on several more anticlimactic minutes. I'd fudge that one in a heartbeat.

How about when the module I'm running calls for three monsters in a room, but this week we're playing with one less player than usual. I know the remaining characters can handle those three monsters, but I also...

I am quite aware what GM means, so no need for the condescending tone. I said if you advertise the activity as RPG then you are lying because it simply does not qualify for that term. Fudging in itself does not make you liar.

I never claimed that the GM can't fudge. If the players have been told before hand and they are fine with it, go have fun. I just do not consider them to be playing an rpg anymore. Someone else defination of the term might be broader.

As to your examples.

1) Well you are making the assumption that the players would actually enjoy the shorter one more. Even if that is the case, you are sacrificing the integrity of the game(and I do mean the game part of the hobby spesifically) which to me personally matters more than minor inconvenience that is momentary rather than the former that is permanent. Likewise opponents are at full power at 1 hp, that means the monster still gets an action(assuming it is next in initiative), that might very well have big effects and if nothing else likely at least cost some resources of the party. Also if the monster is at 1 HP most likely it will not even be 1 round delay but untill the next players turn.

2) I do not run modules, so I am bit out of my territory here, but don't they usually have actually different encounter for different sized groups? At least they had in pre PF days. Also I would call that modifying the adventure not fudging. I personally also find that way of handling missing players to be 'bad' but I know there are large number of views on the matter.

3) Since this is how I handle all aspects myself I do not see a reason to comment on it.

Only bad GM cheating that I said was when the players have not been informed of it beforehand.

Anyone that suggests fighter for anyone much less a new player, well I assume that at best they went ahead and listened to someone who was talking out of their ass without passable level of critical thinking.

Fighter commits the biggest cardinal sin that one can in a form of entertainment, it is boring.

Second issue is that fighters are weak, horribly horribly broken levels of weak. So you want to give the guy who has the least knowledge about tactics, genre savyness etc. the weak ass class? I am sure the new player will enjoy being street cop #43 when rest of the guys are doing justice league. Fighter doesn't even have a niche so that rest of the guys could try to keep out of the same area of influence.

Then there is the issue of feats, either the new player will have to look through hundreds of feats or listen to rest of the players. And the latter comes with the problem that the new player is not learning and possibly they will feel like they were handed a pregen instead of making a character.

I would agree with some of the posters that say paladin is not a good idea. Paladin is a rather advanced roleplaying challenge unless you do the whole cardboard cut out. One of the major appeals of tabletop that is freedom is also stiffened, then there is the fact that due to the code it will influence the rest of the party. And I don't think a new player needs that additional concern on top of everything.

All that said, when I am introducing a new guy/gal, every single class is on the table, but I will be brutally honest with them about what they are getting into. Assuming non child players without a mental condition, everyone is perfectly cabable of absorbing the information needed to handle any class. If didn't, they weren't putting in the effort needed.

Robotism

Got the moves(Ex): As a fullround action, you can do a killer robot dance move granting you +5 competence bonus on your perform(dance) skil for 1 round. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.

You got the bling(Ex): At 6th level, you will start imbuing shiny things into your flesh. This grants you 1/2 your cleric level sacred bonus to profession(pimp)

Bad-Assery

Flex them(Ex): You can as a fullround action flex your muscles, this allows you to use intimidate to demorilize every foe within 30ft. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.

Spontaneous combustion(Sp): At 8th level. After all foes have been killed in the encounter, you can turn your back and walk off wich causes all the corpses to explode, but only if you do not look back.

Asymmetrcial and unfair are two totally different things. All the examples you gave still give the players the excat same treatment.

That being said you can have fun despite unfairness, but it will affect the fun negatively.(and as a GM is only a human they will in some form will always be unfair on objective level.)

On the larger topic, changing rules or tageting a single player* is never cool. People doing that should stop GMing and never return to it, because it is clear that they do not have the personality/maturity for what the position requires.

*Player and character is important distinction here. NPCs reacting to actions in the game is justified. If the wizard is the biggest threath and they have opportunity to meaningfully target them, of coarse the wizard should be targeted, provided the npcs in question have the mental faculties to make such tactical choices.

@Tormsskull: There is a line somewhere that when you cross the idea of majority does not apply anymore. Not as you put it anyway. Naturally this is an opinion. But if there are 6 guys and 5 of them insist on using a wrench as a hammer while 1 is using an actual hammer, and they are working at construction. So due to construction at least over here is often paid by how much you get done, the one using actual hammer gets paid more. Now would the other 5 really have any justifiable reason to be jeolous of the guy using the hammer or more so demanding the union make the guy using a hammer to use a wrench too?

Though in this case it is more 5 people using toothpicks and one guy using a screwdriver to hammer the nails in.

Now while the goal of PF is to have fun you can still be bad at the game. And this is certainly what is happening, and due to the information gained it is not a case of simply casual vs. power gamer or even anything close. Only way the other people can be(incuding the warpriest) this horrible is that they do not put effort in at all regarding the mechanics of the game. Yes were all new at some point or another but this is the sort of level that I would have had to TRY to make that bad of characters when I sat down for the first time at a table.

I am sorry but this group should pick up the rulebooks and actually read them with some attention. Yeah that sounds harsh but it is true. PF is a very rules heavy system that has heavy emphasis on the game part of rpg and mostly combat at that. If the situation is like it is I can almost guarantee that their gaming experience will improve a lot when people actually understand the game they are playing.

Note: This is going by the information so far presented by the OP in the thread. Unless further info comes along I will base my messages on that information.

Considering what has been revealead about the character so far. Even the warpriest is by far suboptimal, not even sure I would call that build even if it was legal competent.

There are 2 major issues neither of wich are on the warpriest.

1) Rest of the party seemingly can't build a decent character to save their lives or just flat out don't care.
2) Published adventures are more or less cake walks with few and far between hard encounters. That is assuming certain level of competence in building characters.(and I am not talking some real optimization just the common stuff like barbarian wielding a falchion and using power attack) This coupled with more people in the party makes it even easier.

Solutions:

1) Allow retraining rules, give people some downtime and then as a group look at your characters, if needed look for aid online be that by starting threads or looking at some guides. Though remember that you need to take online advice with a big chunk of salt.
2) Modify the encounters, now as a rule of thumb making the creatures more powerful is not a smart idea, instead add in more enemies of the same or lower power level.

Yeah but if the devs(or in this case a statement made by a devs) actually encourage bad GMing it might result in someone new to learn the habits of bad GMing. And yes arbitary BS is bad GMing, no ifs maybes or buts about it.

No most skill check DCs in fact are not level approriate. They are supposed to at least be indication how hard what ever it is that they are trying to do. I absolutely loathe the GMs who just look at what you rolled at the dice Diplomancy roll 5+97, thought process goes well the total is 102 but they just rolled 5 so I will act this out as they spit NPC in the face. Got off on a bit of tangent there but anyways only skill checks that scale acording to level are opposed ones, that is hardly all or even majority of skills.(some skills fall in both like knowledge)

And good rule of thumb is when the mental gymnastics start why you can't take 10 even in a minor fashion, you are able to take 10. Some people just do not like the fact that you can put in average effort so they conciously or not try to read the rules regarding that in a light that would be most acording to their view of how things should be, this is in my experience at least true for pretty much all rules, I fall into it from time to time I suppose it is somewhat part of human nature.

As to the original questions:

Do the following prevent taking 10 while not in combat?

Swimming

climbing

Perception (to locate a trap)

Perception (reactive check to locate hiding enemy)

Disable device (disarm a trap)

1) Nope, you can take 10. Though do note special rule regarding stormy water that spesifically prohibits this. Wich in itself implies that normally you can.

2) Climbing is pretty much the same excat thing as swimming just drowning versus falling. Consequences of failure are not enough to prevent taking 10.

3) Perfectly fine to take 10. It is routine operation to take 10 in dangerous areas when moving along and start making actual checks when an area that is spesially suspicious comes along.

4) Most likely yes, I suppose there might be some corner case that it is not possible. But the simplest scenario of say a guard standing and someone tryingto sneak past, it is in fact most likely that the guard is just taking 10 all the time unless something suspicious happens.

5) Yes, though some traps might be distracting in themselves.

Bigger Club wrote:

Fudging as in changing the outcome of the dice is something that I do not tolerate from the GM. I do make this clear however before sitting at a table. Improvisation is fine however.(The boss fight that is turning out to not be so epic, well maybe some reinforcements come in another wawe is fine by me.) This also partly explains why absolutely hate playing at the lowest levels, wich highest worth is establishing characters before the real game can begin.

My reasoning is rather simple, now we are roleplaying and that is a big part of my enjoyment of the hobby. That being said RPG has that G in it. And it ain't a game anymore when fudging starts. The game aspect of PF is essentially all about judging probabilities(at least outside of builds) and d20(well on 99% of the rolls) is what determines what those probabilities are. Essentially if fudging is there, there are no probabilities, that means there are no tactics. Magical tea time is perfectly fine way to enjoy things but it is not for me and never has been.

I prefer hero points or villain points version of fudging. Then the fudging as such is a rules based resource that you spend and can take into account at the beginning of the combat and it's in the players Hands as far as whether or not they use it to survive. If they don't use it they might get a little bonus on their next character. Name villans can get a few villain points, which can account for long surviving important villains and 'dramatic escapes'

Absolutely in agreement here in the general sense. I am not too keen on the system regarding the replenishment of the points. But yeah at that point it is just another ability same as improved save feats that allow you a re-roll.

Fudging as in changing the outcome of the dice is something that I do not tolerate from the GM. I do make this clear however before sitting at a table. Improvisation is fine however.(The boss fight that is turning out to not be so epic, well maybe some reinforcements come in another wawe is fine by me.) This also partly explains why absolutely hate playing at the lowest levels, wich highest worth is establishing characters before the real game can begin.

My reasoning is rather simple, now we are roleplaying and that is a big part of my enjoyment of the hobby. That being said RPG has that G in it. And it ain't a game anymore when fudging starts. The game aspect of PF is essentially all about judging probabilities(at least outside of builds) and d20(well on 99% of the rolls) is what determines what those probabilities are. Essentially if fudging is there, there are no probabilities, that means there are no tactics. Magical tea time is perfectly fine way to enjoy things but it is not for me and never has been.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, Bigger club.

How about a classic case of you not having all the information.

(GM in question here).

We run a lot of games. As a GM I try to make them feel unique and different. CommandoDude just came off of a Kingmaker Campaign with unlimited crafting and absolutely no purchase restrictions. The next campaign will likely still have limited crafting, but purchase restrictions will be relaxed or open.

In this campaign crafting feats ARE NOT banned. I encourage crafting. The only feats that off the table are Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft Wonderous Item, Craft staff and Forge Ring. The rest are open and available for use.

All of this was very openly explained BEFORE the campaign ever started.

And I am the opposite of a control freak. The party has complete freedom to make purchases up to the city limit, and the item is always available (allowing for purchases to be done away from the GM - ie not at the table). Also we did the random loot early on and the TABLE AS A GROUP decided that they would rather have items be always available instead of wasted time and effort with randoms for sale.

I wanted a specific feel for Rise of the Runelords. I wanted more consumable use. I wanted a lower top end on purchased power items (+4's being the likely purchase top). I wanted more use of found items. And I wanted character creation choices to matter. All of this was explained to the players at the beginning, and most of this has actually worked out.

I love having CommandoDude in my game, but he does have a reputation as a powergamer (And the character in question is FAR AND AWAY the most powerful melee in the group, he really does not need any help.) He was also the spotlight most powerful melee in the last game too.

I have never "cock-blocked" him. I have bent rules, been very accommodating, and provided special advancement opportunities unique to his specific characters. At the start of the adventure I laid out the specific limitations I wanted to play with this time around,...

Well first of all I would note that I was working with the information given and untill proven otherwise I think giving OP benefit of a doubt is fair practice.(and that information rang like 4 different control freak alarms) That being said I was most likely projecting some of my own experiences with bad GMs into the situation, while that does not excuse it hopefully it will help explain some things.

But yeah if you talked things through at the beginning and everyone agreed then it is mostly a moot point. I would never have sat down in such a game(gear is tied to PC power and as such huge part of balance and not like PF does not have enough issues on that front already), but if I did it is hard to complain after being told beforehand. I would note on your message though that for all practical purposes you have indeed banned crafting, all PCs can make themselves are consumables or rods.

That being said. I do think you should look into the custom orders things, otherwise this means that as levels progress 90% of the gear every character has is decided by you and you alone. Having crafters available allows some customization and you still get largely control the availibility, people craft 1k/day(usually) so the party won't be getting +6 items overnight as you put it.(granted I do not know how much RotR has downtime) That is about as close to the original while still giving some customization options for the PCs.

I would say that most people in this thread are being far too polite about this.

Classic case of a GM not worthy of the chair.

ok so lets see:

1) Crafting feats are banned
2) Not rolling the items above the limit(or somehow count for their existance I can understand not wanting to use the tables for example cloak of reistance should be more common item than say same priced cloak that only bards benefit from)
3) Can't find someone to commission item from.

The player has tried all reasonable avenues to get the item and has been cock-blocked on every front.

I would give it one last chat, if it does not work out then leave. Control freaks make for horrible GMs, and horrible GMs makes for a bad game, and no game is better than bad game.

Now if you do leave, just state that you are dropping out if asked explain why but do so politely.(mostly to avoid s!~@storm not because it is deserved at this point.)

That is what I have been using too. Now I do have the eberron books but did not come to mind to check if they work differently there. So now I go check and yeah it is different Putting stuff here.

Character Level Action Point Dice (d6) Rolled
1st–7th 1
8th–14th 2
15th–20th 3

Character Action Point
Level Maximum
1st 5
2nd–3rd 6
4th–5th 7
6th–7th 8
8th–9th 9
10th–11th 10
12th–13th 11
14th–15th 12
16th–17th 13
18th–19th 14
20th 15

Special actions:

Activate Class Feature: You can spend
2 action points to gain another use of one of
the following class features that has a limited
number of uses per day: bardic music, rage,
smite evil, Stunning Fist, turn or rebuke
undead, or wild shape.

Hasten Infusion: On his turn, an
artifi cer can spend 1 action point
to imbue an infusion in 1 round,
even if the infusion’s casting
time is normally longer than
1 round.

Stabilize: When your character
is dying, you can spend
1 action point to stabilize at your
current hit point total. Spending an
action point does nothing for you if you’re
already dead

While the GM is being an asshat. No need to respond in kind. Just quit instead of wasting the other players time by going to sit down and waiting death.

And yes quitting is in my opinion the best way to go about it. Assuming the story is correct and I will assume so untill proof otherwise is presented. This GM should have never picked up the task for ANY system. Hell with that kind of attitude I think they should not interact with people socially. No game is better than bad game end of story.

I am one of the players in the campaign, not the Psion player so no own cow in the ditch on this matter.(well apart being in the same party.) Decided to offer some of my thoughts, since at least one fact is missing in the responses.

So the campaign has spell levels capped at 6th. Well let's take Psionic warrior.*(gets up to 6th level powers.) It can normally augment it's powers to 20pp.(Assuming 20th level naturally.) Now compare to bard who casts 6th level spells. The latter does not have any limits on it's spells, so why should the psionic warrior then? And it hardly makes sense that a psionic warrior could augments it's powers higher than a full"caster".

*Heck we could take something like marksman who only gets 4th level powers and even that can augment up to 20pp.

The issues come from the fact that other than duration and range psionic powers don't usually scale freely. This is a problem with de/buffs and blasting mostly.

As an easy example. (There isn't a whole lot of excatly the same spell/power things.)

-Disintegration/Disintegrate: Works the same at level 11, when the wizard gets free upgrades to the damage, psion needs to augment +1pp/2d6 increase in damage. However Psion will gain +1DC for every 4d6 increase. I would say if augmentation is capped at 12th then the wizard is getting the better deal by far. With normal augmentation Psions is better but it will also cost more resources than it does to the wizard.

Well anyways my gut says that sraight up capping the augment at 12th is certainly not the way to go, but then again leaving it untouched is not gona work either. Even if we take out the augments that essentially make the powers equilevant of 7-9th spells, still not perfectly sure it is going to be ok. So perhaps some middle ground is merited. My personal feeling on it is though that it should be lot closer to the untouched than capped at 12th.

Just a random alternative to this.

What if we took a page out of diplomancy's book and had the equal of starting attitude? Because of how the DC works in intimidate the mechanics side of things should look more like in bluff. Anyways this "starting attitude" would work based on the perceived threat level.

The idea is that physical strength is not such a big factor in threat level when it comes to the world of PF. Let's say a 20str half-orc tries to push around a wizard that is considerably higher level. Yes the level increases the DVC but for arguments sake let's say the wizard is 10th level and the half orc is 3rd. The half-orc makes his money by being an enforcer so he is speciliazed in this task and either the suggested house rule is in play or he can add STR but his cha is 10 so no effect there and has skill focus and max ranks. His modifier comes out at +11. Now let's say that our wizard has wis 12 on account of being someone who works with their mind. This 3rd level person albeit very scary 3rd level person has 50% chance of intimidating someone 7 levels higher than him. That doesn't really make sense as even with a crit with a great axe the wizard is likely not going down if they have false life up and why wouldn't 10th level one have? If they fought I would reckon that 5% of win to the half orc is being generous.

So instead of this we add in modifiers on perceived threat level.

Bluff modifiers: (for comparison)
The target wants to believe you +5
The lie is believable +0
The lie is unlikely –5
The lie is far-fetched –10
The lie is impossible –20
The target is drunk or impaired +5
You possess convincing proof up to +10

Intimidate:
Now way to escape the confrontation +5 (Cornered in an ally)
The target thinks you are on equal ground +0 (Mercanary trying to intimidate a guard)
The perceived inbalance is significant –5/+5 (Guard intimidating a commonet )
The perceived inbalance is massive –10/+10 (commoner threatening king in his throne room)
The target/aggressor couldn't possibly be seen as a threath –20/+20 (City guard trying to intimidate a pit fiend.)
The presence of allies -5/+5 (4 thugs shaking down a lone shopkeeper)
You demonstrate your power up to +10 (Kill another prisoner when interrogating another)

The numbers are from the hip so they will probably need tweaking but the basic idea comes across. Now few notes this is not intended to be used with the demorilize action. Second while all the examples are where combat prowess matters, you can use them when cauging the likelyhood of the agressor being able to gauge their ability to carry out the threath. For example. "If you do not pay protection money we will burn down your store." This has nothing to do with the disparency between the participants ability to harm each other physically.

And again random idea so not sure if it is worth it, but decided to throw my 2 coppers in.

It has been said many times allready but since it seems to be ignored or forgotten by some of the posters. Make whole can at best repair +3 weapon anything above that is beyond the spell. In theory there might be a way to raise CL up to 24 required for +4. And even that +3 weapon needs CL 18, how easy it is to find a scroll like that in most settings? In practice this will mean that sunder is devestating at mid levels and stuff of nightmares at high level play, if you are dependant on make whole to counter it.

That being said is it bad form? No not really, but you really need to know what you are doing before going down that route. In most parties I have played, if the fighter's sword gets sundered that is a group expense, cause it got sundered while doing their job, same way that cleric does not buy wands of CLW. So party will remain in balance wealth wise after the next loot sharing.

On those things you need to know about. DR can be serious problem, if weapon is sundered and because of that they can't overcome DR that they previously could it can make desingned encounter easily 1-3 CR touger than before. Magic weapons and incorporeal foes is a similar issue, mostly at low levels when your backup is masterwork. Another thing to worry about is location and timing. If you have to wait 6 sessions to be at the effective level you are supposed to, you should not use it.

Now in a meatgrinder campaign all that advice can be thrown away, but that is a very distinct playstyle.

Wands, UMD for CLW and Infernal healing, in combat healing is out for that party composition at least any viable ones but out of combat is easily handed. 750gp for 1st level wand is spare change at level 12.

In combat advice:
-Kill things fast. (obviously dead things don't deal damage)
-Hit and run tactics. (To allow for the out of combat healing)
-Summons(expendable hp sponges)

Invidual characters:
-Fighter, pick up a shield even if not part of primary fighting style, sometimes being a roadblock is good enough.
-Rogue, if at all possible have the wizard cast improved invisibility on you, adds both defense and offense.
-Monk, allready a class with solid defenses, depending on build might want to pick up crane style feats.
- Arcane archer, allready hanging in the back if you get into melee you are likely screwed allready. Spell wise, ablative spehere and dimension door.
-Wizard, illusion school is your best friend. You can easily cast false life all the time for HP bumber and in this particular situation Greater version is definetly not a bad idea.

And it seems a whole lot of people ninjad me, oh well just some repeated things.

Note not my work(tweaked Neceros' conversion) also excuse the formatting not being the best. Changes from the PM, I removed most of the spells that were not allready in pathfinder, and changed the Mass, Harm to the one published by SGG for death mage. Also changed the fortification to resist cold and electricity as mentioned. Some wording change too like turn resistance to channel resistance etc.

As to why Q'Barra. It is mostly unexplored area with proof of things lost to ages elsewhere most likely knowledge too. As it is frontier it allows for at least faster if not easier ways to rise in station/power, and he belives true or not that he could do better than most. For now it is means to an end. Another reason is that he did not adjust well to peace time and defend based work as a soldier does not appeal to him so life of wandering was seen as preferable.

I will try to get a full background/personality/statblock today or tomorrow.

I have hard time articulating my case in English so bare with me and ask clarification if needed.

Basicly Animating dead is Evil because in the setting some objective thing(Kind of law of physics kinda thing) has "chosen" so. It does not need to make sense.

This is because in PF moral evil/good and metaphysical evil/good are not the same thing. They do overlap a great deal but those two can be in conflict.

Just to make myself clear.

Moral evil/good: This is what we have in the real world, provided you do not belive in one of the religious or philosophical views about objective morality.

Metaphysical evil/good: These are the forces in the univers that have deemed either by decision or by their very nature that some things are aligned to them. So it is arbitary, and because of that it does not need to make sense.

Problems come from the fact that it feels stupid when those things don't make sense. And that it forces a playstyle that some people me included see as inferior subjectivly. Now I am not saying that as badwrongfun, but as the same vein as imo chess is superior game to tic-tac-toe.

The real problem is that they slapped all this extra baggage into the CRB. They should have just killed that sacred cow ages ago and issue it as optional rules for settings were there is metaphysical good/evil.

Something to set the mood :P

As Viorel notices the new threath there is an onslaught of curses in every language the mage knows. Shrigging of the frustration he starts again with the overcharged spell and the same fireball from moments ago explodes above the reptiles head. Seeing that his spell resulted more in water changing to steam than any major damage he frowns. "It's fire resistant." He notes to his companions bit of bitterness in the tone. Fire won't work fast enough I need to find alternative tactic.

Knowledge check if it happens to fall under Arcana(pretty sure not) or Planes1d20 + 15 ⇒ (6) + 15 = 21
SR check 1d20 + 9 ⇒ (20) + 9 = 29
Reflex save DC 20 1d20 + 10 ⇒ (13) + 10 = 23
Damage 15d6 + 30 ⇒ (4, 4, 5, 5, 1, 3, 2, 3, 5, 3, 2, 6, 6, 1, 2) + 30 = 82
82/2-15= 26 damage :/
Buffs: Mage Armor.
Debuffs: Disease(unknown effect), Shaken -2 on checks, attacks and saves.
Spells: 1st: 4 2nd: 8 3rd: 3 4th: 1

1)Well at one game originally there were two groups that adventured at the same time.(Merged later because of players dropping out.) But we were responsible for forming out the team. So knowing this OOC I suggested IC something in the vein of "Would you not agree that at this point group of this size would be diminishing returns? Why don't we split into two groups with some agreement of cooperation or at least non hindurance between them." Total metagame since 12 people when going into demon infested area is hardly overkill, but the premise was two groups. Also some of the characters that would be more selfish downplayed that aspect to get about the same strength teams.

2)Picking up adventure hooks, so even if the character you are playing would not really be that much on board on pursuing what ever the quest is, it is better to just play along since that is what the GM has prepared. Of coarse exceptions apply if the character would actually be opposed to doing anything of the sort and would feel strongly enough about it.

3) Now from the GM POV, sometimes it's good to not play the opposition to their full potential. This could be because of inexperienced players or because sometimes it would result in some characters mostly sitting out the encounter. One good reason is that it would make the encounter boring, for example enemies with half decent stealth cababilities just using hit and run tactics over and over, mind you that has it's place but if every goblin in the tribe and such each encounter in the whole adventure is doing it, time to mix it up.

4) Another from the GM chair. Loot, okay perhaps it doesn't make that much sense for the enemies X to have item Y that character Z happens to use in it's loot, but if buying that item is not an option it's okay to put it there.

Well late to the party but let's go.

Alchemist, Well it is not bad, but I think it tries to cover all the alchemist tropes at the same time instead of allowing you to concentrate on distinct parts of it. I also don't like how Mutagen is huge thing with the class, Jekyl and Hyde should not be the standard.

Cavalier, I would never roll one up, but only actual problem I have with it is that it's very underwhelming, even at it's big stick of mounted combat it's not really anything special.

Gunslinger, the class itself is not the problem. It's the way Paizo decided to do guns, I have no problem with guns in fantasy if it fits the setting. The mechanics are just about as stupid as left foots boot. First of all even in RL with early firearms there was armor that could stop the bullets(only in the thickest parts but still), now let's take +5 Adamantium Fullplate, you really think that the bullet will go trough that unaffected. Not to mention from gamist perspective Touch AC is horredous on most things in the beastiary, and that is because there wasn't this mechanic in place when they were made, the CR system does not take this in to account. Not that the CR is good anything more than ballparking the challenge anyways, but still. But like I said it's not the class it's the guns that are the problem.

Inquisitor, I am actually quite fond of the class it fills a niche that was not covered and it has interesting mechanics. Also it seems like it would be fun to play.

Oracle, spontaneus divine caster, with some nice things added to make it stand out from the cleric. Only gripe really is that there is not enough variation of the mysteries and curses.

Summoner, it's problematic to say the least. Well one is that all pet classes share, if playing at a table multiple critters means long turns. But the reason I really hate the desing process is it's spell list and how it effects magic items, potions, wands, metamagic rods.(Give it full casting and just less slots nobody said you have to give at least 4 slots per spell level to them.) Also the Master summoner type of summoner and eidolon based summoner would deserve different classes. Synthethist I don't like because it brings back the mechanics issues there were with polymorhp.(Ain't calling it OP just that I don't like that mechanic to exist) That being said like all characters it can be played in reasonable manner, you just don't be "that guy". There are so many ways to brake the game(well the standard expectations of it) it is not really a cocern for me.

Witch, I like it but I think they missed an opportunity here. Imho they should have ditched spell casting all together and made hexes much bigger thing, and use warlock type of way that you can use them to allow for little more umph in them.

Antipaladin, Just a waste the paladin class should have alternative rules for all alingments in the first place.

Ninja, Rogue is a f@!@ing joke(the changes in pathfinder just killed it), and this is a direction in the right direction. I don't give a damn what name of the class is I can reflavor it to fit my needs.

Samurai, suffers from the underwhelmingness of the cavalier base. The swordsaint archtype is good for it's purpose I guess. Same thing as with cavalier just feel meh.

So in the end apart from Alchemist and Summoner I think they are decent enough bunch. I have gripes, but then again that goes for each and every class in the game, Delayed access to spell levels with sorcerers, no meaningful choices apart from feats after level 1 to the cleric etc. Anyways I think most could have been done better.

EDIT: I forgot the Magus, it's pretty good one of the best gish classes I have seen. Only big problem with it is that there really is just one way to make one the "best" way. I mean with fighter you could make two-handed, archer or shield and board and they would all be in the same league. With magus not so much.

I would have a chat with them. You can do that succesfully. Some points to make.

1) I know stuff from your opponents that you are not aware of. Throw in an example like for example while the demon in front of them might be a marilith wich you identified with knowledge check that does not mean it might not have class levels that grant it additional abilities, wich you will not know unless this particular marilith has a reputation and your knowledge check was high enough.

2) These questions kinda make it hard to immerse in to the world, so could you guys keep it down during the session unless it is a big thing, like it might result in character death or something else rather severe. We can talk about all that stuff after session or on a brake or somethiong.

Note on that though, behind the screen you know things they don't so the fact that they get 2 extra damage from X, might look big in a fight that has been hard from player perspective. While GM knows it will have 5/7 hp left anyways so any attack that hits it from the party will kill it anyways.

3) Just say it is kinda downer on your fun so you would appriciate if they would tone it down.

Modify any and all advice to fit the personalities involved. Some folks need to be treated with skilk gloves, while others need a swift kick in the butt.

Interesting read. Well I will throw my two coppers in.

The tittle of the thread? No it has absolutely no difference who the paladin is talking to when it comes to lying part of the code.

Also I would say that deceiving without actually lying is also dishonorable, remember that paladins are not LE or LN who would follow the letter of the code instead of the spirit of it. Mind you this does not include silence and such tactics, just purposfully using deception.

Now would the paladin fall for lying to the demon? No, you see the way I see it there is a scale of offenses and I do not think lying is something that merits instant fall from grace, that said even this would need atonment.(not necessarily the spell of the same name) In my opinion paladins are trying their utmost best to be the exampalary beings of LG that they can, but they are not perfect heck in most DnD/PF setting even the gods are fallable.(No setting comes to mind with all knowing all powerful deity, altough I am not that knowledgable on the subject.) That means that they are allowed to slip as long as they make up for it.

Now I am pretty sure there can be fall or fall situation, but much more likely is braking code or braking code situation. Not each and every transgression results in a fall.

The reason paladin or the alingment system as a whole does not really work is because it is objective morality viewpoint. Don't get me wrong I think the law/chaos and good/evil axis are a fine way to make a simple summary of someone's viewpoint on morality. That being said objective morality only works in black and white and unless you are willing to handwawe the shades of grey it isn't going to work. Huge problem comes from the fact that GM has to decide that objective morality, smarter men and women than anyone that freaquents these boards(My opinion.) have contemplated on morality for eons without coming to a conclusion that even the majority of people can agree, so pushing that on the shoulders of random person is garanteed to make problems.

Now when I am sitting in the GM chair, I have always told anyone that plays a paladin that good trumps law each and everytime, when the two come in to unavoidable conflict. Perhaps not how the rules would tell you to do it, but I think a decent ruling based on the feel for lack of better word of the class.

Immunity to fear subject, I rule that if you have that it means you cannot be coarced with the use of fear. That does not mean you do not feel fear, that ruling basicly stems from the fact it would change persons personality utterly.(Check order of the stick for what I mean, sorry but can't remember the issue number.)

In the situation that the OP was, sure paladin can probably resist the torture, but there is magic in this world that can invade the mind to get the information. Smart paladin would stall for time as long as they can and then kill themselves. There are rules for torture(3rd party Villains: Rebirth. Copyright 2003, Bastion Press, Inc. Author: James Jacobs. Suggestion is not to use them against PCs same reason you don't use diplomancy, but for simulationist gamers it might work.), they are under heal skill and use will saves. Torture does not use only fear, it can be used to brake the mind. Naturally such a thing is risky business since if you shatter the mind it will be awfully hard to get the answers you desire.

Also I would like to point out that the solution it did came to was awesome and would have loved to be at the table when the paladin returned as a villain.

Blargh brainfart. Ignore it people, I did not post before my morning coffee. Nope I would never do such a thing >.<

Not going to go in to alingment issues, since those are ruled different table to table. The reaction of other people however is interesting topic of discussion.

The way I personally see it. Charm person and all spells of similar nature are like violence. Without proper justification it is against my values.(Just my personal opinion but no such thing as evil or good)

But I think unless the person in question has their own cow in the ditch, to use the expression, would have similar views. Mainly thinking about personal opinion of the caster and "victim".

That said it will depend from person to person what is proper justification. So I guess to get the answer we should somehow categorize the parts that form that opinion.

Also there would have to make a decision what is the perception of the situation. Sure enchanter wizard will regonize the spell and understand its limits and workings. Your average commoner probably is at the level of magic can affect mind.

So first decide what is the perception of the npc, then check to see what would be the reaction from the justification thing based on their perception. I would guess that the common opinion would be that if it would not be enough to get the person in to jail, charm person is a no go. That being said, as sad as it is most people are not going to take any notable risk for a stranger.

On the ask directions situation. Yeah if I was in that world and I saw it happen and understood the caster would be getting punched even if they were my friend. Sorry but people have the right to be jerks in my world values. As long as their jerk behavior is not causing actual harm, no need to intervene and more importantly no right.

Now there was the initial question of Torture vs Charm person. Well torture does have levels. Punching a man is not the same as spanish inqusition techniques. But as a general rule torture is the worse of the two. And I would expect most of the people to agree with that. Some of that is empathy thing, everyone has experienced pain, most of the population has never been under charm person or similar spells and in general have poorer understanding of the matter.

Little off topic first. Spears are not polearms, reach weapons are not polearms, some reach weapons are polearms and even some polearms do not count as reach weapons.(This is mostly because of the reach is either 5ft or 10ft in PF world where as in the real world it changes considerably) the terms are not interchangable. And polearms were scary ass weapons in single combat too, they saw use in tournaments for a reason. That reason is not represented by the rules. At one point in time armor came so advanced that it was really hard to pierce it in any meaningful way. Now polearms have the benefit of a long shaft, that means leverage and that the hitting part moves much faster with swings which results in much more force. If this was covered by the rules it would mean longer weapons would get added benefit from STR bonus, well those one's that are swinged instead of thrusted.

Note: I am by no means expert or even hobbyist when it comes to medieval weaponry. So this is all second hand information.

Back on topic.

1) Alingment as mechanic. Kill it, kill it swiftly without mercy.

2) Mindless undead having an alingment(even as descriptive), something that is mindless can not have moral viewpoint.

3) Weapons not having enough distinction between them. Also stupidly named weapons, falchion being a prime example.

4) Fighter bonus feats as a mechanic. They should be replaced with rogue like talents, just combat oriented stuff naturally.

5) Overly long feat chains.

6) Stupid prequisite feats, fighting defensively(combat expertise) has nothing to do with maneuvers.

7) Spell slot system. I would love to see psionic styled spellpoint system across the point. We could still have prepared casters, they would just use some of that pool when preparing a spell, how much depending on the level of the spell.

8) Prepared casters getting a new spell level one level earlier than spontaneus casters. The balancing factor should be Spells known. It doesn't help that wizards for example actually have as many or almost as many and sometimes even more spells per day than sorceror for example. In practice that is.

9)Free spell progresion, this also comes from psionics. If you want more powerful fireball you need to put more juice in to it.

10) Full-attack ruining mobility of martials. Now I would like having an advantage of not moving and concentrating fully on the attack but it should not be this monumental difference. Something like -X on attack rolls if you used move action seems about right, or it could be +X when not moving.

11) Enchament bonus bypassing DR.

12) Special materials should have more effect. If adamantium can ignore 20 points of hardness it should do that to DR 20. Of coarse the prices should rise to reflect these things.

13) Size bonuses and penalties. These are way too small. Gargantuan thing takin -3 to touch AC? Really does that make any sense. It would probably better if it changed from one thing to next. Like a big bonus on bull rush and not much anything on disarm etc.

14) Severe lack of synergy in monk class. Also Martial artist(concept) should be the base class and monk an archtype.

15) Guns vs Touch AC. It might make sense in our world, but lead bullet VS adamantium full-plate it does not, not even taking in to account magic coming to the mix.

16) Martial skill never comes in to AC. Meaning that a fighter and wizard should not start at the same base of 10. Something BAB based would be nice.

I could come up with others but I think I got all my major and not so major grips listed.

It's a preference thing. Talk with the players about how they like their game and so on. I myself is in favor of never pulling the punches, heck I am very reluctant to play under a GM who fudges ever.

Taking back what has happened in my opinion should only happen if something was run against the rules or something and it had a major effect.

I like game worlds that are independant of the PCs, meaning that the captain of the royal guard is not level 8 because that would happen to be suitably challenging encounter for the characters he is level 12 because his job is to protect the king and they are going to get the best for the job they can.

I am getting off topic here. It all comes down to what people at the table like, this should be talked before even deciding on what game they are playing.

Oh and I at least try my best to play the npc's according to their personality and abilities. Dragons are old and smart they will act accordingly, luckily for adventurer's they also tend to be egoistical.

To a dedicated blaster Intensified Spell is one of the best choices at high levels when you have the caster levels to support it. Mostly because when playing with metamagic it's pretty much always better to use low level spells as the base.

One nice trick I have been thinking about was using Battering blastwith it. The idea being that you get more out of it when it's not d6/CL but d6/2CL. Because with Intensified spell the spell will get more powerfull all the way to 20CL, well it does normally too but the invidual damage for each orb caps at 5d6 at CL 10. So damage is 310 or using quickened in a round 520 on average. Intensified amount to half of that damage, so I would not call it not high priority. True it starts to come to it's own at mid levels before that it's not much use.

I would pay more attention to the fact that it comes from campaign setting book. More than few published settings has neutral or even good liches. In my humble opinion placing always X in the alignment section to anything that is not outsider is just plain stupid. Liches has free will so nothing is stopping them from being any alignment. even with the asumtion that you have to do things that would change your alignment to evil to become one after that the alignment can change.

Escape situation is at best neutral, Evil would be tripping an ally so "I don't need to be faster than them...". But yeah unless migating circumstances a paladin should not be the first one to retreat, most likely should be the last unless it's just bad tactics(for example the one that was last had movement speed 5 times faster than the paladin).

Sword situation, depends on if they were tasked in returning it if it was lying around it's not their duty to return it and much less free of charge. If it was otherwise Paladin's could not use ANY items they find in their travels, and even would be required to find it's lawful owner or one that would inherit them in case the owner has perished.

Now this does not sound like paragon of LG regardless but even paladins are allowed to slip, no paladin is true paragon of LG(those are outsiders) the important thing is they should always try to be that.

And in my opinion GM should almost always give a warning first before stripping of powers. The exceptions being huge offenses like using the orphans in the orphanage to smack the others to death. Regardless I think your group needs to sit down and talk how everyone sees each alignment. Also problems with Paladin can be solved with actually writing a damn code down instead of using the stupidly vague text in the book.

Well naturally it's not DM, because overheard conversation. "Did you...dungeon...master...was great session." Will get strange looks. :P

The appropriate title would be something like "The one whose mind is more warped than Elder god's, the one who shall torment every character and player alike, the one who shall inflict thousandfold TPKs." But that is a tad too long.

On a more serious note Gamemaster has been the standard term in RPGs for years, I really see absolutely no point making up a word for something that already has a word for it.