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

Chris Mortika's page

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16. Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 9,271 posts (11,970 including aliases). 18 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 10 Pathfinder Society characters. 12 aliases.


1 to 50 of 740 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That seems kind of pedantic, Andrew.

I have a simpler metric: is there an outside force interfering with my ability to devote my attention to a routine application of the skill check?

Am I maintaining a detect magic effect, keeping me from Taking 10 on an Identify roll?

Is there bad weather, where the unpredictable high winds are keeping me from Taking 10 on a Acrobatics check?

Are there ogre children throwing rocks down at me as I'm trying to climb out of a well?

--

That's clearly different -- at least, to me -- from Taking 10 on a Disable Device check to defuse a bomb.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kevin Willis wrote:


I have seen a character deliberately cherry-picking scenarios. The player started during season 5 and purchased all the previous seasons, then went through and picked out the ones that gave him the biggest mechanical advantages to sign up for. I sat at a convention table with him and he made no bones about what he had done (though he did claim he hadn't read the scenarios, just the chronicles)

I would refuse to GM for such a player, and I wouldn't be shy about it. I don't care how much of a scenario you've read, if you've read any of it, and the Chronicles give away enormous spoilers, any you didn't have a good reason (GMing is a good reason), then you've cheated, and I don't want cheaters at my table.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Medieval scribes knew him well: Titivillus.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I would request that the Campaign Leadership review this policy.

Right now, a character with 3n+1 or 3n+2 experience points, playing through something like the Emerald Spire or Dragon's Demand, cannot change gears either to slow progression or out of slow progression, unless he jumps out to play through some scenarios, or deliberately aborts a module mid-way, to get less XP. Neither of those is ideal.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nefreet, I think your description is technically wrong.

So, you play a fighter through Shades of Ice. It has 3 XP and is ready for 2nd level. When you play that third game, you apply the Chronicle and level the character up.

Then, in June, you GM several levels of Thornkeep, and apply 9 XP to the character. At the time you apply the new Chronicles, I believe you implement the experience points. If he stays a fighter, or gets a free rebuild to slayer, that has to happen before you apply the 9 new XP. Let's say you decide to rebuild him as a sorcerer, then apply the new XP. He's now a 5th-level sorcerer.

In July, you play a 7th-level pre-gen and apply that experience to this character. There's table variation here: some GMs require you to announce which character is receiving the experience before the game starts, and if the NPC dies, then that kills off the PC as well. You don't get to transfer those GM-credit experience points to a different character.

In August, a new book comes out and has cool options for monks and sorcerers. You cannot freely retrain to monk, nor can you retroactively say that the sorcerer you built in June has chosen options that weren't available in June.

As I understand the rules.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Mike,

I think that the in-campaign Pathfinder Society as it has become established is too large and too powerful. you're exaggerating a little when you mention 20,000 magic items in the basement, but that's something that makes the organization enormously powerful.

This addresses the question about Grandmaster Torch and why the Decemvirate would tolerate him in the Society, messing things up with his agenda. As it stands, there's not much need for someone of Torch's modest talents. Any information that his network of informants can find out, there are probably a dozen divination items that can do the job better.

As a participant in the campaign, I think the storylines would be better served if the Society were weakened substantially. (A team of Aspis Consortium operatives breaks into the vaults under the Grand Lodge and lets loose a sphere of annihilation; the Society is blamed for the disaster and loses a great deal of its luster amid the rulers of Absalom. Meanwhile, a member of the Decemvirate is revealed to be a murderous Ustalav noble who runs a demonic cult on the side; that'll end the cosy relationship the Society has with Mendev.)

It might force the Ten to look for allies or strike deals they can just barely live with.It would make for some fun stories.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Running this for pfs , likely in a timeslot, means its unlikely you'll be doing anything in town. I don't have the scenario (refused to buy it after a debacle) but how would heraldry tell you redacted rather than your run of the mill other redacted?

A time slot, yes, but an 8-hour one, because each level of Thornkeep is a module. (I wouldn't want to try running The Harrowing in four hours, either.) There should be plenty of time to meet the town of Thornkeep, and it's important to do so. Not only are there clues about what's going on, but there are also resources. (The mages have hints about the unpassable door, and there's a cleric who's willing to provide discount healing.)

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Because it's essentially free when working with Prestige Points, Derek. For 2 points, a character can get an item worth up to 750 gp. A (STR 14) composite longbow costs 300 gp. Add $300 for masterwork. So, a plain ol' +2 STR masterwork composite longbow costs 600 gp / 2 PP.

If we could get a little bicycle bell on the thing, and it cost less than 150 gp, then you'd see a lot of little ringing bows of death, rather than darkwood.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm expecting Skye to have a puppy next season.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thank you, claudekennilol.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

9 people marked this as a favorite.

For every "man, I wish we could get X back", there's a chorus of "man, I'm glad we don't have to deal with X any more."

Over the iterations of the game, the profession of adventuring has become easier and easier. Recall the tribulations that parties needed to go through, to identify, and then find the command words for, loot they'd found. The identify spell was prohibitively expensive, and debilitated the caster. Compare that with Pathfinder, where a cantrip and a skill roll allow a wizard to recognize every magic item a foe carries.

(Frankly, I like the feel for older editions, where being an adventurer was a tough job.)

My personal suggestion for a rule I'd like to see implemented, is a soft cap on hit points. In versions of AD&D, a character stopped getting a metric buttload of hit points every level after a certain point. I think that reintroducing that rule would serve the game well; a 14th-level wizard shouldn't necessarily have twice the hit points of a 7th-level wizard. (Or more, since he might have a Constitution-boosting belt by 14th level...)

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are still two siblings to deal with.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Like ZanThrax said, nothing bad happened to the PC, he just suddenly, retroactively, never could have done what he was planning on.

To take a ridiculously extreme example, if they suddenly banned wizards above 5th level (unless you'd already reached 5th level), your 4th level wizard would still be a legal viable PC and you could just multiclass to something else and keep playing, so why fuss about it? It's just the player's choice.

Sure, some player's will be able to roll with it and have fun with the characters. Some will just shrug, put the character aside and play something else. Some will keep playing it but complain all the time. Some will probably get mad and quit.

Why is it necessary? Why not just let anyone who's played past 1st level (and thus can't rebuild) be grandfathered in? No new characters. No race to make new characters and get them leveled up before some arbitrary deadline. Just if you had a character in the works that you can't change, you can keep to your plan.

What's the drawback?

The only reason it has no in-world reason is that the player has not chosen to assign one.

I remember when AD&D went from 1st Edition to 2nd Edition. The game system suddenly didn't allow assassins, and bards were just as suddenly no longer members of a fighter/ranger/druid prestige class. And yet, TSR built an in-world explanation.

I've had characters affected by these decisions before; as one example, my first character changed from a fighter to a summoner when the campaign converted from D&D 3.5 to Pathfinder. A couple year's later, my dhampyr Undead Lord had his archetype pulled out from under him. In each case, I came up with an in-world justification for the character's shift.

In this case, I don't see why the change has to be entirely out-of-character. The PC was intending to join whatever organization teaches the skills of Mystic Theurgy, and his application was put on hold, pending a broader mastery of the disciplines involved.

The example you posit strikes me as exciting, ridiculous or not. What happened to the ability to learn 3d-level spells?? Why are sorcerers and arcanists able to advance, but not wizards? That would be an intriguing campaign.

Why is this decision (to cut off some characters, instead of grandfathering everyone in) necessary? What is the drawback, you ask? The drawback is that every single character in the campaign could claim that he or she was at some point working towards an early-entry Prestige Class. The rule would simply not apply, at all, to the organized play campaign.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

4 people marked this as a favorite.
pH unbalanced wrote:

Does anyone know if the "grandfathering shenanigans" around aasimar and tiefling were all that prevalent, or were more of a messageboard phenomenon?

I know of three cities in the upper midwest where dozens of players ran through "The Confirmation" or "First Steps 1" with an aasimar / tiefling. Nobody considered it cheating or shenanigans.

for the sake of perspective, loads of people played their Lantern Lodge and Shadow Lodge characters through the respective retirement scenarios before the season end / deadline, and nobody considered that to be shenanigans. Years ago, lots of people ran their PCs through the announced-to-be-retired Season 0 scenarios, before the deadline, and they weren't accused of cheating, either.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I run PFS a lot, and so I have a little spiel that I use to explain the Take 10 rules to players.

"Pretend that Taking 10 were much more common, that rolling while out of combat was unusual, and look at a Bomb Disposal agent. There are bombs she knows how to defuse, and does so all the time, and there are bombs that are above her paygrade. Then let's imagine rolling her Disable Device check. That's like saying "Let's cut the red wire. That's often a good idea. Let's see if it works here." It might allow her to defuse much more complicated bombs, or it might not. It might dispose of bombs she would disable with a methodical procedure, or it might be a really bad idea.

"Taking 10, people climb ropes they can climb, and there are some situation under which they can't. Rolling, in that case, is thinking "I've seen circus acrobats try to climb rope. They fling their legs out in front of them and climb hand-over-hand really fast. I'll try that." And you might succeed, and climb pretty fast and look slick doing it. Or you might roll low and fall on your butt. And your friends are calling down "Quit screwing around and climb the damn rope." But you can't take 10 if you're trying to climb out of a well and there are ogre children at the top, throwing rocks down at you."

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Emerald Spire is a module, not a scenario, and wasn't written with Pathfinder Society as its primary venue. For modules, the Guide instructs GMs to run them as written, even if that violates some standard PFS-campaign rules.

For example, if you run Society characters through the "Ruby Phoenix Tournament" module, use the rules for Performance Combat, even though they aren't used in regular, scenario play. And yes, if you're running something like "From Shore to Sea," use the random encounter tables, even though regular scenarios don't have wandering monsters. That's part of the environment for that sort of module.

Emerald Spire has notes on scaling up to 6 players. Use them.

--

If access to all the bells and whistles of the robust Pathfinder environment is making the adventure too easy, have you considered running it in Core Mode?

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I were running this in an adventure, I'd want to introduce it first through a possessed thrall, maybe a traveling companion or a merchant buying exotic wares. The thrall gets attacked, and as he drops dead, his eyes pull themselves out from his body and flee to safety.

Eventually, the party can run into the monster itself, and they'll be wary about eyes. (Do magic items in the eyes / goggles slot offer any protection against critters gouging your eyes out? I'd think so.)

And ever afterwards, the GM can give the party a good scare. "There's a horse tied up outside the inn, with ... 1d20 + 7 ⇒ (7) + 7 = 14 unusually human-looking eyes."

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is indeed! So, play it, and don't worry about the Chronicle sheet.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As an aside, the players in my home campaign liked the idea of a competitor organization, but hated the name "Aspis Consortium." They thought the name, well, sounded like loose bowels. I don't know any nicer way to put it. I still kept those scenarios in play, but we just called them "The Consortium".

Me, I remember the old ant-folk, yes. And I'm wondering if, at the top of the Consortium, we find out that the bosses are indeed formic.

Sorry. Just an aside there. Back to evil.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A reminder that someone could play a scenario in Core Mode first, realize the boon or available item would be good for a particular Standard Mode PC, and replay the scenario in Stnadard Mode.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Replying to what I wrote:

...If someone were to get accepted as being a mature player, and decides to run a chaotic evil warpriest of Rovagug under brand new GMs and sits back and watches as the monster kills the rest of the party, how many sessions would you let that player play that character before pulling the plug?

Once you have them set that PC aside, how many more evil characters would you let them run?

If a gal sat at your table with her neutral evil poisoner of Norgorber and set about killing the townsfolk around the cave entrance of the dungeon for her Day Job, and you only later found out that she wasn't really a mature player, what would you do?

If you had children who were sitting at your table when the crazy member of the Old Cults ritually flayed [redacted], what would you say to their mothers?

...

BlackOuroboros wrote:
Do you think you could shove some more straw in this post? First, I think you are imputing malice where there is none. Second, the players you are describing are the exact same problem players who play "detect evil murder paladins" that spend the session berating the rogue PC; it's not the alignment, it's the player.

That's fine. We already have those players in this campaign, BO, and a licence for evil will bring in even more. You're imagining some characters who are "evil, but honorable" like Scorpius or Ra's Al Ghul or Magneto or something. No, we already have those kinds of characters in the campaign. What we will get, with "evil PC" is "really evil PCs."

It's not a strawman at all.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We got to see a lot last night -- background on Dottie, and how she works; some humanizing of the SSR team, and some good detective work for Souza -- but what we really got was Carter, in her element, playing to her strengths.

It strikes me that we meet Carter at the beginning of the show just as she agrees to compromise herself with Howard Stark, and that cripples her as an effective agent. She's either emotionally torn between her duties, or she deliberately sabotages her team and herself in defense of Stark. This episode, she has her priorities clear and her skills unfettered. If this is how she was normally going about her duties, before Stark compromised her, it's a wonder she wasn't running the agency.

So, why the coded message? None of the other messages from Leviathan to his operative were in Russian, nor coded. We assume this Russian boondoggle was a trap? Leviathan was expecting the SSR? That didn't seem to be the case.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

A question has cropped up on another thread.

Liam the GM is not interested in playing in Core Mode, but he's willing to run games in Core Mode for his friends.

In March, Liam runs 5 different scenarios in Core Mode and registers the GM credit Chronicles to a new character. In April, he runs a game in Standard Mode and applies the GM credit Chronicle to the same character.

Liam now comes to a table with his new GM baby. By our understanding, that's now a 3rd-level Standard character. So if his PC were a Human fighter, it could have a teamwork feat (a non-core element) that he selected as the character's 3rd-level feat.

The question is whether or not his PC could have a non-core Trait, or for that matter be a Tengu alchemist, since those options would have had to have been selected at 1st level, which would have prevented more Core Mode chronicles from being applied to the character.

If you'd asked my opinion, I would have said that we don't track GM-credit baby characters from hypothetical level to level, and that coming to the table with any sort of Standard Mode character would be okay, but this is new territory.

Thanks.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's my understanding, yeah. Those Core GM credit Chronicles don't go to waste for GMs who only want to play in Standard Mode.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Silhren Rilbahn,

Your local GMs' arguments don't hold water. GMing a Core Mode game earns them Core GM credits, that's correct, but any Core Mode character can be converted immediately into a Standard Mode character, just by sitting at a Standard Mode table or taking any non-Core elements.

So they can GM Core Mode, apply all that GM credit to a Core PC, and immediately play it as a Standard Mode character.

Their disinterest in playing a Core Mode PC is groundless.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

A conversation from this coming November:

"Does Season 7 seem to be 'the Year of Climbing and Jumping' to you?"

"Aye. And handling animals."

"Aye, that."

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:


It's obviously a no brainer that Perception is more useful in PFS than Knowledge/Nobility or Appraise. I'm making this thread because I'm firmly of the belief that it shouldn't be. I believe that it shouldn't be so obviously true that the two most important skills in PFS are Perception and Diplomacy.

Why not? Those seem wholy within the purview of the Pathfinder Society. Explore. Cooperate.

Quote:
Perception (searches): I don't let the one guy with +23 to Perception "search the whole room" for the party.

Again, I ask: why not?

In literary terms, if you had a detective working with a sharpshootrand a martial artist, and the detective wanted to thoroughly check a crime scene for clues, why would he have to ask the other guys to pick parts of the room and check them with whatever luck they might have?

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Elf Druid.

I appear to be playing Core Challenge on an easier setting.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Andrew,

In general, I agree with you. 95% of the suggestions that this or that should be added to the Core ruleset, I'd agree should be left out.

But that's not to say that the current restriction level is perfect. A more robust set of traits strikes me as the same sort of thing as regional languages. It's a part of the setting environment that should be available in Core Mode.

Why? Because when the PFS rules began at the beginning of Season 1, there were already race traits through the Elves of Golarion book. Likewise, religion traits were already intended. The Traits document updated the original traits from the fourth AP into the PFS ruleset, but didn't reprint the ones from race books, perhaps because the race series was still in production.

We don't need a full suite of trait options, but then we don't need traits at all. The better question is: would the Core Mode environment benefit from a more robust set of traits? I would like to see the Traits Document expanded to include two or three race traits for each of the seven core races and one or two religion traits for each of the Big 20 gods.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

I disagree with putting the onus on the players to do the GM's job.

I have no problem with a GM asking for help on the rules at the table. That creates a completely different social dynamic than someone jumping in to point out Kyra rolled a natural 1 vs her fireball save.

I'll tell you right now: a lot of GMs will complain about people who build powerful characters, or people who play silly characters, or folks that make gunslingers / summoners / whatever.

None of that bothers me. I love all those sorts of players.

What gets old is the attitude that "catching players" (like players who "don't notice" a '1' on a fireball save, or a gun misfire, or who won't mark off ammunition or wand charges, or a spell with an illegal target, or who take an extra 5' of movement, or run an animal companion like an eidolon, or ...

They won't press the issue. If I ask them, they'll grin, and say, oh, yeah, that's right. But that means I can't relax and just get into character, or pay attention to how I can make sure they have a good time. Instead, I'm paying attention to dice, and stats, and spell lists, and all that.

And it's this attitude, that the rules are "the GM's job", rather than the communal job of all the people at the table. It's exhausting.

You're right, N N 959. When players help keep one another legal and honest, it really is a completely different social dynamic. One I appreciate.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Please reconsider whether "cheated" is the language you want to use.

"That's two opportunities I missed." seems fairer. Or, more productively: "That's two reasons to sit behind the GM's screen."

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:


Quote:
...there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn. .
There is no limit to the free actions you can take in a turn by RAW.

I don't understand how you can quote a rule, and then turn around and interpret it exactly opposite.

At my table: if a free action requires a roll, a PC can only make that roll once a round. Make other free actions, sure.

---

The topic of this thread is the Core Mode and how it changes the organized play environment. Undone, you and David don't like druids in D&D 3.5 / the Pathfinder RPG. You think animal companions are too powerful, either by the rules of the game, or else because GMs don't follow the rules of the game. In particular, you don't like a particular animal companion, bolstered by two particular spells, after 7th level.

We get that.

This seems to be an issue that you have with the Pathfinder ruleset in general. It has nothing particular to do with Pathfinder Society Organized Play, let alone the changes to the OP environment brought on by Core Mode. (If you think druids are well balanced in Normal Mode these days, but they were overpowered in Season 1, then I guess we know which mode you'll be looking to play. If you think druids are a problem in both modes, then that discussion is even further off-topic.)

--

So, are people inviting friends to "come back to Pathfinder Society" and focusing on Core Mode?

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sean,

You can't have a single leftover point. It's impossible to spend 19 points on attributes in such a way that you can't spend another.

If I audit a character and find that the player only spent (to use a real example) 5 points on attributes, I'm not going to make him continue to play that crippled a character. As a matter of fact, I won't let him continue to play with a 5-point-buy PC. I will have the player spend his attribute points, before he sits at another table, and bring the character up to snuff. I would imagine that any GM would do the same.

And I would suggest that if a player deliberately holds 5 attribute points "in reserve" so that he can spend them at some later time, that is not kosher.

We make people buy feats for their characters when their character earns them. We make characters take hit points and skill ranks when they level.

At least at my table, I apply the same rule to attribute points. A character with a 10-point-buy attribute array is no more legal than a character with 18 XP but only 2 feats.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am hoping that this thread can catalogue the special cases and odd one-off rules for Core Mode. I am hoping that the posts here will contain, for the most part, questions from the player base, and replies from the Venture Officers and campaign leadership.

In particular, I'm asking that any questions or replies that start creating chains of entries on their own, be pulled out into their own threads.

It's the internet, I know, and these are Paizo's boards, I know, and I'm a naive goob, I know. But, if I can ask you, individually a favor, would you let someone else break that request first?

--

Some modules are tricky.

Can we assign a playing of "We Be Goblins" to a Core character?

What pre-gens can we use for "Risen from the Sands"?

---

Wizards can copy spells from one another's spellbooks into their own. If my Core Mode PC has a non-core spell (from a Chronicle), can another PC copy that spell and use it?

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am willing to bet that, if the introduction of CORE mode were to have substantial negative impact on PFS, the campaign management will (a) notice and (b) try to fix the solution.

Remember when we jumped from 0 replays to 5 (one chronicle per faction)? Remember when the requirements for 5-star GM status went from "4 stars and we like you" to something terrible and onerous? Those changes to the campaign didn't work, and the campaign leadership corrected the issues. On the other hand, there have been changes to the campaign, like full gold on a GM Credit chronicle, and people playing their real PCs at their regular experience levels for modules, that have worked out nicely.

Can those of us wringing our hands and tearing our faction t-shirt garments right now give this project at least a little chance to work? It may not be perfect, especially at first, but it sounds to me like there are more up-sides than down-sides*. And if not, I trust Mike, John, and the VCs to see what corrections need to be made.

(And I'm kind of groovin' with the idea of a half-orc barbarian / stalwart defender...)

* I have seen, with my own eyes, a half-dozen examples of a new player coming to the local game-day table with a solid, Core-only PC, who watched as a couple of other players with an enormous number of resources and system mastery left the new player's PC in the dust. Core Mode levels that playing field and encourages those players to come back the next week.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

David,

You're a cool guy, and I like a lot of the times where you weigh in on a thread. You're smart, and your posts are well-reasoned.

But there are a couple of topics where your experiences are very different from other people's. In your neck of the woods, druids treat their animal companions as disposable class features, and the GMs all are okay with that.

That's not my experience at all. Nor Scott's. Nor deusvult's. Nor the experience of others on this thread. Druids don't act like that, and if they did, the GMs would enforce alignment penalties.

You've admitted that you "hate" animal companions. I'd like to suggest that you talk to your local Venture Captain about this situation. You're obviously bothered by the way certain GMs and certain players are playing the game, and your VC might have some advice.

EDIT: You've expressed your frustration in the general PFS threads as well. I don't think this is unique to CORE mode, and I'd advise us to move this over to a different thread, rather than derail this one further.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would recommend that GMs take particular care in running CORE mode games. Please double-check that everything is legal in that environment. If, halfway through the last encounter, you realize that a PC has inadvertently taken a feat or a character option ("my gnome rogues always take Taunt. What do you mean, it's not in the CRB?") then it's potentially a mess.

(For example, a GM under those circumstances might rule that the character is legal, but not CORE, so the session isn't CORE. Particularly if she used Taunt earlier in the session, without the GM realizing it, and that helped the party during an encounter.)

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Question.

Let's say I attend a convention, and play / GM some standard mode PFS, and some CORE Mode PFS.

When I play a standard PFS adventure, I might get a boon. I should attach that boon to a legal Standard Mode PFS character.

When I play a CORE adventure, I might get a boon. I should attach that boon to a legal CORE Mode PFS character.

If I get a boon for attendance, or for buying books, or for anything else that isn't linked to a scenario play, can I apply that boon to a CORE Mode PFS character?

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mike:

1) Thank you for this opportunity.

2) Thank you for your patience in this thread.

3) Now that CORE environment exists, please consider revising the rules for Silverhex Chronicles, to allow CORE PC's to play through it.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

4 people marked this as a favorite.

NN 959, I suspect that you would be upset in my GMing style. I allow for bonuses and penalties, sometimes substantial, based on situations not covered in the rules, when appropriate. (And in the end, I'm the one who decides what's appropriate.)

Golarion is a world with magic and gods and treants, but it's also a world with sewers and horses and rope and rainwater. And, unless something is called out as being specifically alien to real-world physics (Dragons can fly; lightning bolt spells behave as described) then things behave the way they do in the real world. Without some way to clean up, people who've been fighting in hip-deep sewer effluvium aren't presentable to a decent couple living in a cottage, let alone a guild master or seneschal.

In almost all these "common sense" cases, the rules are silent precisely because rules are unnecessary. We need a rule to explain how the defending property works on magic weapons, because we have no reasonable way to fall back on how real-world magic swords behave. The rulebook for a fantasy game spends just about all its time describing the rules for the fantasy elements.

If that's going to bother you, if you're going to call it BS and disrupt the table, I'll see you at social time after the tables are run and the games are played.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, the blurb about the adventure strongly hints that this is going to be a dress-up mission. If you decide to send your 6th-level feral barbarian instead of your 4th-level diplo-sorcerer (or the pre-gen bard), then there you go. You've chosen to play a character who's not optimized for this sort of adventure. How entertained you can be is your problem.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:


For me the conversation might have gone something like this....

ME: "Do you have a cold weather outfit on? That would boost your save."
PLAYER: "Yes."
ME: "Good, but I didn't hear you say you were buying one earlier. You got it in an earlier game? If not we'll need to be sure to include it on this one......

The time to do that was back in town, not once you're already in the mountains.

Quote:

"The scenario starts with an overland trip of a month.....

....(after the VC briefing)....
"Did you buy 30 days of rations? No?....
"All PCs died in route due to lack of food.... Easiest TPK I've ever run."

You know, there's a lot of hand-waving, getting characters to and from the adventure locations. (At the end of "Rescue at Azlant Ridge", the party needs to get back from the heart of the jungle, having been teleported in, with no maps of the area.) (The "Quest for Perfection" series takes place on the other side of the world. If PCs are playing other adventures in between, it could mean that they walk across the Crown of the World -- a trek that takes months, and was the subject of its own AP module -- six times.)

And even if a GM were to enforce rations to get you to the adventure, there would be opportunities along the way to buy them, just as the OP gave the characters opportunities to buy cold weather gear. If the PCs continually refused to buy food for the journey, or have the cleric use magic to obtain food, then yes, they would all die.

I don't see that as relevant to this discussion at all.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Indeed, it might be a role-playing opportunity for a Seeker to guide and mentor a senior Agent.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's clear that you've thought about this a lot. Kudos. This will make playing PFS a lot more fun, and it won't burden the GMs overmuch.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Galahad0430 wrote:


Actually, no. At a public event a GM is not allowed to boot you for any reason. He may only boot disruptive players.

Galahad, you have asserted this before. I believe you are mistaken, but I'd be glad to be corrected.

I have in the past "booted" players because they were polite and friendly, but neither they nor I could read their character sheet. Once, I allowed a player to sit at my table with a character sheet drawn up on a collection of scraps of paper, but that was a mistake. (So, BNW, if somebody were to sit at my table with all the important information scrawled on napkins, he would not be welcome. But there's a table over there with some lovely pre-gens.)

I don't believe that a novice GM needs to have the breadth and scope of Society-legal play in her comfort zone, and she's within her rights to say "I just don't understand how [say] Summoners and Eidolons work, and I don't feel comfortable trying to take a crash course in that right now. I am not prepared to give you a good PFS experience." And when I organize game days or conventions, I am ready to move players with "advanced" builds to GMs with a skill set better able to handle them.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Galahad0430 wrote:


No, Nefreet, you do not have that right. In fact, it is against PFS rules.

Galahad0430, could you please cite the rule in question?

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

"My game has gotten a lot better organized since I banned PCs."

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Gauss,

That's because there are only two positions, "Folks who agree with me" and "Folks who are wrong."

We are not a subtle people.

1 to 50 of 740 << 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.