Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Mynafee Gorse

Bill Dunn's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 4,687 posts (5,303 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 15 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,687 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It can be hard to follow all of the new rules and options. That happens when a game keeps expanding. That said, you only really have to keep abreast of the options your players are interested in. Keep in close contact with the choices they're making as they level-up - in fact, make it a collaborative process in which you sit down together to talk about where they see the PC going and why. It'll make it easier for you to manage the world around them. If they choose new stuff, discuss how you could incorporate that into the campaign from your end. That will give them a greater sense of ownership, good for both their own satisfaction and for curbing problem-player behavior.

As far as following the guidelines in the CRB? Keep in mind that they're fuzzy guidelines. Exceptional players were always going to blow CR estimates out of the water anyway. You were always going to have to adjust to your players.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Or find some kind of other server-based game so you can chat. I don't know if there are any card servers out there that are any good, but a bit of Hearts or, considering he's from the Great Lakes area, Euchre or Sheepshead will do the trick.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Do you really play Uncanny Dodge as only preventing loss of Dex to AC in those two situations?

Well, you know how it is. Some people are sticklers about the flanking rules, some are sticklers about Uncanny Dodge...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Lune wrote:


Flanking is two threathening creatures on opposite sides of another creature.

.

And invisible character that's not being detected is not threathening. Therefore he does not meet the condition to be a flanking partner.

That's not necessarily true nor is it really the problem. The invisible character, if appropriately armed, could make an attack of opportunity. He does threaten the spaces within reach. The problem is, if he isn't detected and isn't actually interacting with his enemy, how does that really translate into his enemy having impaired defenses against someone else?

With the normal flanking rules, a creature is flanked if he has enemies on opposite sides of each other. But suppose that creature doesn't perceive one of those other creatures around him as an enemy? Does he count as flanked if he's standing between a known enemy and someone he thinks is an ally (but who really isn't but just hasn't betrayed him yet)? Surely, that erstwhile ally may threaten his location but I don't think most GMs would give the known enemy a flanking bonus just for that. Is an undetected, invisible threat any different from a situation in which the threat is disguised and biding its time?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It has been my experience that a lot of religious group objections to RPGs are tightly focused on D&D. As others have suggested, try another RPG with him and see if his objection to violence is compartmentalized around D&D... a superhero RPG, for example. They're definitely violent (in a comic-booky way) but, depending on his response, you may get a little more insight into the nature of his objection to violence and how broad or narrow it may be.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bandw2 wrote:


we just point out that that's not an excuse, the game shouldn't require an experienced GM to function, maybe some people get a little flustered when it's ignored time and time again, but what can you do.

I think the game works just fine without an experienced GM too. What it really needs is cooperation. An inexperienced GM with good player cooperation can still run a very good game. They'll make mistakes but cooperative players can smooth those over and everybody can learn from the occasion. Moreover, they learn how the game can work best for their group any play style.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It does look like there's a settlement of some kind - a joint venture (SweetPea is listed as being involved) as a mollification measure then rights in Hasbro's hands.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:


Tieflings are okay. I don't love them, but I don't dislike them, either. There's nothing inherently bad about the race.

I dislike the presence of tieflings without the presence of their natural counterpart - the aasimar.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
David knott 242 wrote:

Having the invisible cleric not provide flanking violates the (unwritten but intuitively true) rule that players should not be penalized for having and using good abilities. In this case, the proposal is that a character who fails to perceive the cleric is not flanked -- so he would actually benefit from having a poor Perception and/or lacking the ability to see invisible creatures.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot and say that it's a monster or NPC doing the invisible lurking to flank PCs with his thieves' guild buddies. Only the GM knows where the thing is except that suddenly PCs start being subject to sneak attacks without reason. No feints are occurring. Nobody is apparently flanked. Nobody is flatfooted. And the invisible NPC? He's just standing there, motionless with a dagger in his hand, to avoid being detected but still, technically, threatening.

I'm not certain the players are going to be quite so concerned about being penalized for having and using good abilities as much as they may be irritated about unfair, GM-contrived situations.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Numarak wrote:


In this particular case: maybe designers could study the case of invisibility and portrait a thousand exceptions for the rules so the whole system remains 'realistic', but I can't see why they should do it, because next would be how Fly and Bull-Rush interact on a low gravity plane, and we do not need all those to have fun, and designers do not have that much time.

Of course they don't have time, but GMs do. That's why RPGs have to have space for rulings as well as rules.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No. You follow the multiplication rules on page 179 of the Core Rulebook:

Quote:
Note: When you multiply damage more than once, each multiplier works off the original, unmultiplied damage. So if you are asked to double the damage twice, the end result is three times the normal damage.

Spirited charge does 3x damage with a lance. Lances are a 3x crit. The multiplication rules mean, effectively, that you add the additional damage because of the multipliers. 1x for the base hit + 2x for the spirited charge + 2x for the crit = 5x, effectively.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
memorax wrote:
It is frustrating though. I'm not saying they have to cater to our whims. There a point though where you ask, beg and plead. Yet the feedback is ignored. Speaking for myself if a company rpg or not. Keeps repeating the same mistakes. I don't give them praise. It's not to say I don't enjoy the game I do. I don't see why one can't be both a fan and be critical of them as well.

Certainly one can be a fan and critical. But an awful lot of the criticism coming from the boards lately has been borderline to blatantly insulting. That's less criticism than abuse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This is one of those oddball cases in which the GM needs to use his or her discretion. If there's nothing that has revealed the invisible priest to the target, then it doesn't really make sense for the target to be flanked with respect to the rogue's attacks. I'm perfectly ok with a character bring unable to concentrate on just one opponent and be forced into being flanked, but as I see it, he needs to be aware of opponents to be subjected to flank.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm enjoying Pathfinder a great deal. It still provides much of the D&D-style adventuring I like, particularly when viewed as a toolbox game with options for a GM to include (or not include) in their campaign. That isn't to say I'm not also liking 5e D&D - they scratch different itches I happen to have.

I'm not enjoying the boards nearly as much as I used to though. But that's a function of the community around it rather than Paizo itself.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Redrazors wrote:

I can see your points, and I'm aware how ridiculous it is, but in a way there was no reason for me to not cackle in between combats. No diplomacy checks, no riding, no stealth checks, just walking down corridors.

Sure, you've got a mechanically advantageous reason and ability to keep cackling, but that's not really the same as having no reason to stop. From an in-character perspective, having a constantly cackling person slow-walking the dungeon with me would be irritating as hell. From a metagame perspective, realizing that the problem you are encountering derives from how you are using the cackle hex and not the fortune hex is another.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A blind PC can work pretty well for a home game in which the GM and players are all on the same page about it - including PFS as home games. But, as you might have noticed from this very thread, there are going to be varying degrees of tolerance if you take the PC to a game day or convention. There you're building a scratch group with players you may have never met before and some of them will probably take a dim view of your PC and be vocal about it.


The sound of laughter breaks out again, even louder for a moment, helping Alara find the object of her search. Right at the pile of smelly mattresses against the far wall, she finds the tell-tale sign of a hidden door. Partly obscured by the mattresses, it looks like it may not have seen use in years. It appears to be designed to open out away from your side and into whatever chamber lies beyond.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Brother Fen wrote:

I have a similar occurrence at my table where some of the long time players don't like the way a younger player runs their cleric. I snip it in the bud every time with a quick - "he can play the character how he likes", and that's the end of it.

I have to do that a little bit too in a game I run. I've got 2 parents who sometimes try to jump in to tell their 8 year old daughter what she can and can't do. I had to raise my voice to shut that down one night and told them they can advise, but Zoe needs to make her own decisions.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lostcause78 wrote:

To play devils advocate here; he has every right to rp his character disliking the personality of her paladin.

True, but I think the OP has made it clear that's not the source of the problem, nor has it been limited to the warpriest disapproving of the paladin's personality. It's possible he's mistaken in his assessment, but I doubt it. I've encountered people of the same mold before, who only have one way of understanding how a character class (or race, or other kind of archetype) should be played.

It appears the OP has had limited success in reining Josh, that's unfortunate, but it's not a lost cause either. I think the OP just needs to keep the pressure on him when his out of character prejudices bleed over into behavior at the table. Hopefully the behavior will be less and less of a problem.

Ultimately, the GM has a responsibility to keep players' behavior from ruining the game for everybody. Sometimes that requires a sharp rebuke which can be hard among friends.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
swordfalcon wrote:

Basically standard charge set up

1. Point A is you.
2. Point B is the closest space from which you can attack the opponent
3. The shortest distance between Point A and Point B is a straight line.
4. So the path created by both points A and B will always end up going through the square occupied by the enemy because it is straight line.

No way to argue this. Sorry.

I disagree. If you encounter a rule that seems to invalidate another rule (without directly supplanting it with the "more specific over general" principle) then it's more likely been a failure in communication than intentional. And I think this is the case here. I'd argue that the spirit of step 2 above is met by moving to the closest point on the charge path to the target and attacking from there.

I understand that's now how this has historically been treated, apparently the FAQ for 3.5 handled it by allowing ride-by attackers to shift direction after the attack, but I think it works.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deighton Thrane wrote:

Well, SKR had some great posts about how you don't have to charge directly at your opponent with ride-by-attack that fixed a lot of things. Then he came back and said that he was wrong and that's not how charging works, and now we do need wheeling charge or overrun to use ride-by-attack, unless you can get in the perfect charging lane that allows you to move right beside the target and keep moving.

I don't understand why people think this at all other than being overly pedantic about having to move directly toward the target. All you have to do is draw a line past the charge target. From where you are, you're still pretty much running directly toward them. There's no rule that directly toward requires you to point your center directly at the target's center, mandating an overrun for ride-by to work.

And then you attack from the first square that gives you the opportunity to do so.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bandw2 wrote:


when YOU charge your mount does too(Claxon provided the FAQ earlier), so you get a standard attack as if making a standard charge, which means both of you attack, and then can move which you already stated, means they both move.

Potentially, but the mount isn't required to be able to get an attack (nor the rider if the mount is taking the attack) in order to make that charge. And the feat, being part of the rider's skill set, modifies when he can take his attack on a charge (from the very end of it to nearly any point along it). But I don't really see it modifying the mount's ability to do the same since it's not part of the mount's abilities.


Perception rolls:

Alara: 1d20 + 8 ⇒ (11) + 8 = 19
Ash: 1d20 + 1 ⇒ (17) + 1 = 18
Masamune: 1d20 + 6 ⇒ (12) + 6 = 18
Piper: 1d20 + 6 ⇒ (19) + 6 = 25
Rawnie: 1d20 + 1 ⇒ (18) + 1 = 19
Well, now we know where all the good die rolls are going.

Pretty much everybody hears something - a high-pitched cackling laughter, that sounds like it echoes a bit, can be heard from beyond the door in the southeast corner of the conference table room.

Piper:
Piper's attention seems extra focused because he also heard the croaky squawk of a dire corby just before the laughter. He can also hear the laughter coming from the inner room - the barracks - despite there not being another door out of that room.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

It's the Secret Handshake of the Mysterious Brotherhood of Trolls.

Hard to keep secret, but plenty mysterious.

I'm still a big fan of Wormy.


And there it is! That pesky troglodyte finally goes down.

After a surprisingly lengthy struggle, Alara's blow finally takes the last of the fight out of the last troglodyte standing and measure of quiet returns to the room.

The table that dominates the center of the room is in a bit more disarray for having troglodytes scrambling across it in the fighting, and quite a few bits of paper and old documents and maps have been kicked up by the struggle.

A few of you have a good vantage point into the next room, from which the two other troglodytes emerged. It appears to have been a barracks in its past as several ruined beds like in states of disrepair and moldy-looking mattresses are piled in a heap against the far wall.

Both rooms still stink, badly, but after about a minute, your senses of smell are deadened enough that it will no longer sicken.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jaelithe wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
wow...I don't think I have yet to meet someone who thinks Norton is the best Banner...

I think he's by far the best Banner.

Ruffalo's acting is more than competent, but there's something brutish about his facial features that puts me off in this particular role. Banner should be bookish, slender and present a weak, almost effeminate appearance, the better to contrast with the Hulk. Mark really does look like a very attractive Neanderthal, and that doesn't really get it done, in my opinion. I suppose one could interpret it as the Hulk straining to be free at all times, but ... that doesn't work for me.

He does make a sharp-looking Hulk, though. And maybe that's part of the problem - compared to Norton. Although, not all artists who drew Banner drew him all wimpy. For quite a few artists, he's fairly athletic-looking.


Nope. That one with the little red heart on him, who has been diligently trying to kill Masamune but failing badly, is still up and fighting.


Oh, harsh. It's like a 1-2 combo of burning hands.
Ref save red: 1d20 - 1 ⇒ (2) - 1 = 1
Ref save yellow: 1d20 - 1 ⇒ (15) - 1 = 14

Both take the full brunt of the flames and die (well, one may be dying, but you get the picture) and the odor of burnt lizard flesh grows stronger.


Not having witnessed Rawnie taking down one of the troglodytes with her shocking grasp, the trog from the back takes a risk and clambers over the table to get at the source of the burning hands, Ash.

If Rawnie has her dagger in hand, that provokes an AoO from her.
Club attack 1: 1d20 + 2 ⇒ (18) + 2 = 20
Damage 1: 1d6 + 1 ⇒ (2) + 1 = 3
He squarely hits but for a relatively weak blow (3 hit points).

The one facing off against Masamune, as badly hurt as he is, presses on. But fails to connect.
Club attack 2: 1d20 + 2 ⇒ (7) + 2 = 9

The third and final troglodyte, deciding between Alara and Piper, takes a swing at Alara because she looks a little more dangerous (sorry, Piper). His blow comes too slowly for the ninja, who deftly keeps away.
Club attack 3: 1d20 + 2 ⇒ (11) + 2 = 13

Rawnie, if you've want to take an action before they're fully in place, let me know.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
... and apparently FF no longer to go to space to get their powers. I'm surprised Marvel is not suing whoever is making this on the grounds that it is damaging their property....

Too late. The origin in the new FF movie is clearly influenced by the Ultimate FF - so the FF haven't needed to go to space, by Marvel's own writing, since 2004.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

When a certain thing happened, we had some interesting reactions in the theater. One small child said "bye-bye" while I heard sobs from two distinct areas of the audience.

Overall, I really liked it. My kids didn't cry, but by the end, their parents sure were.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Castilonium wrote:
I'm going to be the controller/anvil/god wizard for my group. I will be an aasimar shaman grabbing battlefield control and buff spells from the wizard spell list via Arcane Enlightenment, and I'm the only full caster in the group. I'm not so concerned about overshadowing other players because I'm going to be playing a support role, but I am concerned about making the game boring, unchallenging, or frustrating for the DM.

Kudos to you for asking rather than spotting a potent option and demanding to be able to use it like a player with entitlement issues. The metamagic certainly could be trouble for certain campaigns, though I can imagine it not being an issue with certain other campaigns. If you're at all concerned, then it's probably a bad choice for your PC. You'll probably always be second guessing yourself when using it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rub-Eta wrote:
The problem with spell casters are the spells, not the casters them selves or their ability to cast them. Making it eat up more feats/skill ranks doesn't mean anything to them, as they'll go to that length and still be as powerful as they are in the normal system. It's not a fix, just a minor inconvenience.

As a fantasy RPG, I want my magic to do things that are pretty magical. Most spells aren't a problem to me. The problem is in the ease with which magic can be used. It's far too convenient and cheap when it should involve more trade-off. Wands are a primary culprit when it comes to cheap utility. They should be curtailed. Plus, it's too easy to cast in a fight and too hard to disrupt the casting. The standard action is convenient and easy from a game rule and usability perspective, but it contributes to the relative undisruptability of the caster. I'd make a lot more spells, particularly the save or sit spells, full round to cast.

Rub-Eta wrote:

It's not the size of the lists that is the problem, it's specific spells and their effect on the game that casters can create but martials can't. The difference between a caster and a martial is great due to this. This IS the problem and therefore it's what needs to be fixed, not something else surrounding the spells.

Totally not a problem, at least not as far as I'm concerned. When the spells are game changing, they change the game for everybody, and when that's the case, it doesn't really matter which specific character does it. The whole party ultimately benefits (or suffers).

That said, I think the rules could use more explanation about the pros and cons of certain spells and how they affect the game, like the description of power in Champions (well worth looking into if you have a copy around). And GMs should be encouraged to delete spells from lists that they don't want to have to deal with.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I thoroughly enjoyed it and the different tone it set for the hero. I loved the name dropping when Cross was needling Pym. "Tales to Astonish". That was rich.

I also really liked the variations they took with the story with Hank Pym as the aging former hero passing on the name and tech to a new generation rather than trying to work Pym into the current cinematic Avenger continuity. And, of course, what they're doing with the Wasp.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Snowblind wrote:


How about you describe all the ways AD&D is similar to PF. Then we can all learn something and/or some of us can dispute it and give reasons why (and probably learn from that too). Either way, we can actually discuss things in a discussion forum, instead of shouting meaningless sentences at each other.

Fine. You can see how the game evolved and with a lot of the new structure intended to build upon structures multiple decades old.

Feats build on weapon proficiencies, particularly the ideas introduced in the Celts greenback where weapon proficiencies could buy special maneuvers like the salmon leap. And, of course, there was also the marital arts structures in Oriental Adventures - another close ancestor.

Bonus types, as introduced, were designed to continue the stackability of spells like bless and prayer while continuing the non-stickability of real armor with bracers of armor.

Lots of spells have changed a bit but while leaving their essential core behavior intact. Spell casters usually get them about the same level they used to get them in AD&D (fly, teleport).

And if you don't have your players to craft magic items and buy them on the open market (probably the biggest change to the game's assumptions - but the game's modular enough you can dispense with it), you can play most AD&D adventures in PF with a pretty easy conversion. The Slaver series, Ravenloft, White Plume Mountain, Giant series - play quite well with the 3e-PF family of games. The levels may be a bit higher for giants because giants are a lot tougher, but the play ends up being very similar to when we played these back in 1e days.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PIXIE DUST wrote:


AD&D is nothing like PF...

You know, if you had the experience of some of the old timers, you'd realize this isn't actually true. It's just hyperbolic.

There are substantial differences, but substantial similarities as well.


Wow. How about that die roller? It really has been quite the thorn in people's sides this fight.


Player Name: Bill Dunn
PC Name: Odo the Bold
PFS #: 53494-1
Faction: Liberty's Edge
Email: b d u n n 9 1 @yahoo.com

I played Glass River Rescue at Gen Con. It was fun (and quick). Sadly, I won't make it to Gen Con this year. I'll be in a good friend's wedding instead, so I can't be too sad.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ooooo, you've definitely still got my interest with your shortlist. I'll be watching for your recruitment thread.


Trog 1 Ref save: 1d20 - 1 ⇒ (4) - 1 = 3
Trog 2 Ref save: 1d20 - 1 ⇒ (16) - 1 = 15

The fan of flames may give Piper and Rawnie a bit of a start, but Ash's targeting is sufficiently precise to scorch the two troglodytes that have just entered the room. The one further back manages to partially duck the flames but his compatriot takes the full brunt. And the troglodyte Rawnie electrocuted is well beyond being saved by a last ditch rescue.

Status
Trog(heart): -11 hp (very badly hurt)
Trog(red burst): -3 hp
Trog(yellow burst): -7 hp


The thick stench of troglodyte musk disrupts Rawnie's aim just enough to send the ray wide. The arriving trogs, buoyed by the party's relative lack of success, finish their moves into the room, one of them even hopping up on the table to get to Piper. The injured troglodyte (marked with a heart shape) has a moment of hubris and, rather than retreat, presses an attack against Masamune... but utterly fails to hurt the well-armored samurai.
Club attack: 1d20 + 2 ⇒ (5) + 2 = 7

Party's up!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nick Greene wrote:
I think this one is pretty much talked out. Nobody wins this argument. My only statement is that I don't believe that anybody broke any rules. This is a series of unfortunate events.

Maybe. But it also may be a series of unfortunate events that stemmed from dysfunctional behavior and that's a little more concerning than simply a series of unfortunate events. That would be just bad luck, the jerk behavior, if jerky it was, adds an element of "asking for it" to the misfortune.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Fox wrote:


Just reposting this.

I said that he would not be welcome at my table.

If a player cannot play the game without griefing other players, they are not welcome at any table where I am sitting. I will tell them that.

That does not make me a door mat.

Jessex, your method of standing up for yourself seems rather passive aggressive to me. I prefer a more direct approach.

If I was a third party—the dwarf's player, say—sitting at that table, I'd probably be uncomfortable sitting at a table with either player in the future. But if the inquisitor's player had said, "I'm going to stabilize your character this time, but don't grief other players in the future," then I—as the dwarf's player—would say, "yeah, I agree with this guy. You are getting off lucky by him saving your character. If you play games in the future the way you played today, you will be unwelcome at my table too."

It gives the necromancer's player an opportunity to change his behavior.

Your solution does not do that. Instead, he is just pissed off, and so is everyone else, and that kind of poison can be very bad for a lodge, especially smaller lodges.

That may be a consequence for a group that meets with a smallish pool of players, but it really is no consequence when playing with more transient players like at a convention or with larger groups.

Perhaps the best solution would have been for the GM to see that the dwarf had a number of rounds to stabilize the necromancer and then hand wave the stabilization roll. But again, the griefing necromancer player, if the OP's assessment is correct and he was griefing, faces no real consequence of that.


Masamune badly injures the yelling troglodyte, but the ruckus he is making bears fruit. The door behind him opens and a couple more troglodytes, brandishing clubs can be seen beyond the threshold.

Rawnie can try to get her licks in before troglodyte movement occurs...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The ones I would personally bow out of, because I'm running or have recently run games based on them, are:
Age of Worms
Jade Regent
Skull and Shackles
Council of Thieves

Just about anything else I'd be interested in trying, especially with 5e.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'd love to give some 5e a try from the player's perspective. I'm running 5e, starting up an Age of Worms campaign with it, but I haven't had much play on the other side of the screen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The game can be approached with quite a few styles of play and if you're in reasonable agreement with your players over style, then Pathfinder works just fine with long term planners as well as non-planners. The problems arise, as you might have noticed in this thread, when the styles conflict. Hopefully, with good communication, you can work through any conflicts in your game better than gamers can over the internet message boards (where the tendency to dig in is highly observable).


The remaining troglodyte starts hissing in a higher pitched tone as he fights back.

Piper:
He's crying out "Help! Intruders!" in Draconic

Club: 1d20 + 2 ⇒ (11) + 2 = 13
He swings his club at Masamune, but the samurai deftly defends himself.
Then he backs off to try to keep his enemies more in front of him than surrounding him.

just a 5' step, so no opportunities arise for an AoO
Party's up again!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So far, as players (I haven't read any of the adventures), making deals has been a positive tactic for us in Skull and Shackles. We could be setting ourselves up for betrayal, but I'm cautiously optimistic. There are some enemies we're really gunning for, though.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
You wrote:
1. Get rid of small weapons and 3.5's irritating weapon sizes. Sure, it added an element of simulationism, but it's the only edition that did it and it's a pain the the butt for small characters. PF doesn't need to follow that path.

Weapon sizes is so inconsequential, though. Removing them hurts martials more than helps them, in light of buffs like enlarge person. Nobody really cares if the longsword does 1d6 instead of 1d8.

You ever play a halfling fighter? It doesn't feel very inconsequential because not only are you a die smaller but you're also at -1 on strength modifiers compared to your medium-sized peers.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
You wrote:
11. Boost evocations by getting rid of dice caps, keep at standard action. Most other spells go to 1 round casting times, particularly the save or sit spells.
I do like this. It really forces the casters to lean on the martials for protection, like it's supposed to be. Of course, they'd just summon allies to protect them.

True, they could. But they take time to deploy - adventuring companions are there right away. This is somewhere the full round casting time is already doing its job because of the 1 round casting time of summon monster.

1 to 50 of 4,687 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.