|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
If I were to allow it, it would probably come in the form of a skill check that you couldn't take 10/20 on. Probably a DC 25 know(arcana) or some such that you had to make every round. Or, simply treat it as a standard action every round you wanted to not hit your friends to concentrate and not do the skill check.
Kain Darkwind wrote:
Ok, but saying "Sometimes people aren't on the same page" is not a legitimate argument.
Sure it is. Proper context is crucial to any debate. If someone can highlight that opponents are using different contexts then the debate is moot. I'll point out many political debates where nothing of real substance is worked through but is merely a barrage of accusation, riposte, and retort that looks good. Election periods in the US are notorious for these kinds of debates. The debates that stay on point and actually try to get something done are likely to come from organized forums like a congressional subcommittee.
The context here is a spell that easily says you very likely can get wish consistently far lower than you could cast it yourself and for far cheaper in a way that gains you further free castings. Some guidelines on the scope of what that spell was meant to be used for would be very beneficial. It's not a new rule. It's a clarification on how the current rules work. Thus, an FAQ and not errata.
Certainly. Nothing stops someone wanting to make a simulacrum of an efreet expecting access to wish either. The only thing stopping it is the GM. The thing differentiating the two is that planar binding prescribes many ways a bound creature can potentially escape or have other ramifications. Simulacrum has no such provisions and even the higher binding spells don't modify how the process works at all except for the HD of the outsider you bind. Simulacrum is simply "do this, get this" with no buts or clauses. Thus, when comparing the two, it deserves a set of guidelines for various scenarios.
It is a very reasonable stance to not touch it as a GM given the distinct lack of those same features of planar binding. To say the mind boggles is a bit of a stretch and leads me to think you're not looking at all the variables.
The tempo I'd prefer to things like this is "GM until we clarify" and not just "that's why we have GMs." I'm fine house ruling but dealing with players who bought the materials and clearly see certain options in black and white (beige, rather) do, in fact, have a reasonable expectation to be able to exercise those options. To be told no, it doesn't work that way, you read it wrong, [insert other "no" response here], etc. is frustrating and deflating. They should be fixed eventually.
I don't care what the development team has to say about it or even Paizo as a whole. It's good customer service to explain to people what the default assumptions are to your system so if they buy it they don't need a bunch of clarifications from some other person or to come here and be told "learn 2 read" in various forms by dozens, or potentially hundreds, of people.
I wholly hold that to fix all the rules is impossible is conflation born of a mind that doesn't want to really examine what's wrong. Maybe they feel they're too busy, too tired, etc. But, it's possible and possible to do cleanly and concisely. I know it's possible. Having been in software for the past decade, all I do is develop and fix rules. If I told a client "no fix for you, just use this work around" I'd have not made it this long. Yes, it can be painful. Yes, it can have some ripple effects, but you do it because it's vital to the health of the system and your relationship with your customers.
So, I live in both camps. "House rule 'till FAQ'd/errata'd" is my stance.
Ditto. I have absolutely no concept of measurements without reference. I can't estimate time, distance, weight, anything.
I can understand them and visualize them fine. However, I tend to take things so precisely as described that I've had attorneys tell me I was being too literal. I've found a scene spoken to me or described in a book, even in great detail, can have multiple logical interpretations. Pictures are just so much easier. Else, those games turn into a game of 200 questions (no typo) about things that seemingly don't matter, and really don't, but help me route out logically what can and can't exist in the scene. Essentially, I force myself to draw the scene correctly by scatter shot questions that usually just end in frustration for myself and the GM.
Dotting for interest. I believe the full arsenal of spells and abilities should be open for consideration for GMs. I'd like to see the argument against that.
Re: wish, the GM is greater than the mightiest god. Pharasma bows beneath his heel. A GM lynchpinning something with wish doesn't realize the arsenal they have.
Ilorin Lorati wrote:
It's frequented often. The test of the Starstone would be gone if the stone itself was. So, someone shows up being all hopeful, there's no test, just an empty room, feels had, complains, investigation is made, "zomg it's missing," the call is made for heroes. Go!
In fact, by the time anyone knows otherwise, you're already leaving.
Why not pull me back in? I've revisited places many times. I've never gotten a note from management, none of the servers, no dirty looks, no attitudes, no bad food, and so on. No one except those I've been with may have remarked about it after the fact. In my experience it acts like a thing that others force upon themselves and others rather than being an industry expectation.
One of the areas I've thought about making some house rules around is identifying items. I'm talking about going way beyond just identifying the item. I mean like having a caster concoct a ritual that would reveal the story background of an item that would let me reveal at least bits of the multiparagraph history the AP attached with it. Or letting the party go through those laborious rituals I'm sure most of have read about to gain some nifty powers or different abilities. I'd love to let my player do it but I'm up the air on how to judge things.
And what if the 'tip' is added to the bill automatically?
I wouldn't eat there.
A few other questions, does the tip get shared with the cooks, dish-washers, or concierges? Or would that be on an ad-hoc basis?
Many chain establishments split tips which I vehemently hate. If I'm trying to tip the bartender or my server, that doesn't mean the hostess was pleasant to deal with.
I tend to not tip but not out of douchebaggery. I want the wait staff to be angry. I want them to complain to their boss. They deserve a guaranteed fair wage and shouldn't feel like they have to kiss ass to get one nor do I think customers should feel they have to bribe someone to not f!%& with their food or give them poor service. This whole exchange is inherently antagonistic and is unnecessary. I'd gladly pay more for eating out if this were remedied.
When I do tip I tip well even upwards of 50-75% if you really impressed me with your service. I make good money.
It isn't. (Though, as noted by others, good communication - as illustrated in your post - is key.)
I honestly fail to comprehend why a simple 'no' isn't sufficient. Why do I have to provide details about my story that could easily be spoilers in order to justify a decision? If pressed for a reason a mere "it won't work for this campaign" should be sufficient.
If you're talking logistics, I think their trump card is that there is only 4 of them. Demonkind is split into many, many factions. None of them are aligned with another long. Devils don't have this problem as much but they can't sacrifice their other schemes either. Likewise, the empyreal lords focus on things of larger scale than the daemons. As a whole they're a threat but the vast majority keep to their own corner of the multiverse. That isn't a problem.
Having said that, with just 4 of them they can unify an entire realm of existence in a staggeringly efficient manner unseen in most others. Well defended positions can defeat superior numbers without much effort.
Because that's not where they're supposed to go. Pharasma is very good at her job and has done it for countless millennia. If she started picking and choosing where souls go herself that would upset a lot of powers that are. Part of the reason all gods are on an even keel with her is she honors the compacts each of them make for a particular soul no matter how distasteful she finds the destination. If one faction or another got favored treatment, as it were, for "wildcard" souls that would shift the balance of power among the planes.
Keep in mind the 5th horseman, the first one, utters things that even frighten horseman of the apocalypse. I'm sure a few secrets have been uttered along the way that have helped ensure some sort of continued existence.
As far as everyone ganging up on the daemons only Rovagug every got that honor and he's not even dead. The demons are too concerned about infighting. Devils are all about their long term schemes. If it ever become a prudent thing for them to do it would probably be done. The empyreal lords are more concerned about multiverse huge events. A single race whose members individually and occasionally cause havoc on the material plane doesn't fit the bill.
Keep in mind that daemons are the souls of particularly vile mortals alone. There is no corrupting influence of the abyss on them. No weird damnation by hell created them. They're literally the refuse of creation. In a way, that lets them slip past a few cracks and be largely unnoticed as their souls never were consigned to another fate. They're literally all mortals who just wanted to watch the world burn. No one helped them do it. They were the people who killed kids for fun and the like and not because some demon corrupted them into it or as part of some bargain with a devil for power/wealth/fame.
They're the bastards of the cosmos.
But then my style, both as player AND GM is that the story is mutable, it can and will change to fit the characters that the players bring to the table. It's also why I work with my players to make characters that fit.
There's got to be a point where this ends. I agree that the world should respond to the PCs but, honestly, they're no more special than NPCs. This is a mere trick of perception. The table is playing one set of characters usually toward a common goal. There is only one guy playing the NPCs. Everyone can see the PCs and the consequences of their actions (mostly) but only the GM can appreciate the impact of, literally, everyone else. As far as the gaming group is concerned, the spotlight is on the PCs. But, in reality, if you're running any sort of "living" world, they're just a speck in an ocean of change.
If you're building a campaign around a group of characters, that's one thing. It's also a style different from my own. I prefer to see characters birthed into an existing world and see them respond to it. I don't like shaping the universe according to the whims of players. I feel my way has more intrigue to it and leaves a feeling that there are things to be discovered compared to the group knowing there will never be elements A or B because no one wanted to play that or that all elements of the game can be immediately resolved by the current group without much ingenuity or reliance on outside characters. I also heavily prefer the existing Golarion materials. The APs just give a nice starting point but I do enjoy the flavor of the assumed setting.
So, difference in style? Is that what I'm seeing?
Fake Healer wrote:
Why? My GM is letting us play Carrion Crown with monster races but hasn't approved any undead characters. It's Carrion Crown. There's almost nothing BUT undead characters. Is he doing it wrong? Should I tell him '**** you'?
The story is what the story needs to be regardless of your sense of entitlement to a class. Being a thing in the wrong place of the story can have game altering repercussions.
Want to be that blackblooded oracle? Fine. The one that lead an attack on a city has left its people scared and hungry for revenge. As soon as your character shows up and pricks its finger the people mob you and lynch you before you can say sweet potato pie. Make a new character.
Would you be satisfied with that because it makes sense or do you have a perception that PCs are inviolate to the laws and norms of the world they live in?
GMs set boundaries for their games. Like it or not they are likely there for good reason. Reasons that they are not compelled to reveal as that would likely ruin the story. Take your sad bag of entitlement and play at a table where you can be all the special little snowflake you want to be. It wouldn't be welcome at mine.
I think there is an abundance of exuberance around wanting to do cool things around the rogue. Paizo redesigned stealth, afterall. The issue is the efficacy of their already existing materials. It will take a new edition to fix as the current format and content of the CRB is simply lacking. If you have a player with an old version they're effectively "playing it wrong" (see crane wing arguments). The mechanical issues with the rogue go beyond simply adding rogue talents, though that would accomplish a lot. It would take replacing what's already there.
In all seriousness the Ultimate Campaign book has a lot to say on eidolons.
Companions, Controlling Companions wrote:
Eidolons: Outside the linear obedience and intelligence scale of sentient and nonsentient companions are eidolons: intelligent entities magically bound to you. Whether you wish to roleplay this relationship as friendly or coerced, the eidolon is inclined to obey you unless you give a command only to spite it. An eidolon would obey a cruel summoner's order to save a child from a burning building, knowing that at worst the fire damage would temporarily banish it, but it wouldn't stand in a bonfire just because the summoner said to. An eidolon is normally a player-controlled companion, but the GM can have the eidolon refuse extreme orders that would cause it to suffer needlessly.
Companions, Advancing Companions wrote:
Eidolon: Compared to an animal companion or cohort, an eidolon is a unique type of companion—it is intelligent and loyal to you, and you have absolute power over whether it is present in the material world or banished to its home plane. You literally have the power to reshape the eidolon's body using the transmogrify spell, and though technically the eidolon can resist this—the Saving Throw is "Will negates (harmless)"—it is assumed that the eidolon complies with what you want. After all, the eidolon can't actually be killed while summoned; at worst, it might experience pain before damage sends it back to its home plane. This means the eidolon is usually willing to take great risks to help you. If swimming through acid was the only way to save you, it would do so, knowing that it won't die and will recover. The eidolon is a subservient creature whose very nature depends upon your will, so you decide what feats, skill points, ability score increases, and evolutions the eidolon gains as it advances.
Given these, I honestly don't think the eidolon would really care. It knows it's coming back. It depends on you for existence, or, at least, shape and meaning as you pick its abilities. It is subservient to you. Even though it might not understand it likely won't protest.
My level 12 master summoner has a +44 to UMD and has that without sacrificing elsewhere, really. At level 20 that will just be an increase of 8 from levels since I already have the magical aptitude and skill focus feats for it, the headband, and circlet. I'd have to improve the headband to get above a +52. But, really, at level 12 he already outclasses demigods and demon lords with that skill.
Likewise, if you get the same feats and such for sense motive I don't see why you couldn't have similar or more with racial bonuses and class features such as the infiltrator inquisitor.
Just be careful to watch for bonus types. Competence bonuses don't stack.
Issues like this is where a GM can most acutely and most stealthily employ his power. Fudging rolls and adjudicating results is their bread and butter. If he really thinks players are cheating and is fine letting them think they're getting away with something then simply play out combat and skill checks in a more cinematic manner and less of a "you hit/miss"/"you succeed/fail" binary one. Make difficult fights difficult. Ignore die results in order to challenge them. Etc. You don't need to justify the outcomes as all you need to do is relate the events as they unfold in-game. At no point is a GM compelled to tell players that NPC y is power attacking or being defensive, though giving them in-game cues as they make sense is fine and encouraged.
When I read through the AP I had an "lol, oh s$&!" moment but only realized how hard it was when my group encountered it. They were failing their saves consistently. It got to the point where each of them were nearing the permanent insanity bit and I had to deus ex in more wardens and hand waved the rest of the fight.
3 things that make piling on seugathis crazy hard:
My first blush when I started reading into the Virtues had me toying with the notion she may have been good. Then, I saw the strict hierarchical nature of her church and figured that, no, she wasn't good, per se. But, as you say, she wasn't necessarily evil either. Strictness is not evil. Nowhere did I see mandates to kill subordinates who stepped out of line or any such hallmarks of a cruel, corrupt society.
I appreciate her place in the narrative even if it is largely unspoken. But, I also see Xin back in his hay day when he was still full of naivety in entrusting others to rule so he could focus on other things and to civilize all that he saw as fundamentally a good guy. He may be neutral alignment wise but he sought to diminish ignorance and raise up those who actually were little better than apes at that time in history.
The story of Xin is a tale of paradise lost.