|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I've had more problems with experienced GMs than newer ones. Experience can also mean dogmatic stubbornness and having a mistake ingrained 50 times.
I agree with Silbeg on this mostly. However, I think Pathfinder needs a middle ground in the item hardness regime. I think that mithril should have had the ability to ignore hardness less than 15 or perhaps 12 in order to provide an alternative to adamantine. Because frankly, adamantine has been >>>>>>>>> +1 magic for a long time now.
If I review an adventure, I prefer to have both played it and GMed so that I can see it from both sides of the screen. I absolutely won't review an adventure if I have not GMed it as I don't know whether problems I experienced as a player came from the author or the GM.
I often read them after I've played them. Actual GM experience doesn't matter that much to me. I'm still getting my 1XP/2PP; I don't expect them to be written for GM experience.
I'm not going to ask players to self-nerf. I just really wish that Paizo or someone had thought out the effects of pets in a society where the CR of each encounter is hard coded. The pets are just so dominant; ESPECIALLY when the other PCs are of average optimization (my PCs) or lower.
I focus more on animal companions because they have the very powerful mechanic of stacking barding on top of inherent natural armor class. They often also have access to multiple natural attacks backed up by a high STR score as well as pounce.
An animal companion of equal optimization level can frequently out damage a martial class by taking advantage of the move/full attack dynamic that pounce brings. This doesn't even take into account what the pet OWNER is doing. It's almost like having 2 PCs, neither of which are sufficiently depowered to account for there being two of them.
At the same time, I don't like asking players to not play their PCs. I really feel like Paizo has put us in a weird situation regarding pets in society play. It's not the players' fault so I'm not going to take it out on them in any way. And it's not the GM's fault.
I don't single any player out in my games. In fact, intelligent NPCs often STOP attacking animal companions in my games when they realize they have practically no chance of hitting them. Of course, frequently by the time they figure this out, it's too late and the combat is essentially over because they have wasted resources on a pet they are never going to be able to stop no matter what they did. And even if they do KO the pet, that's resources that weren't used on a real PC. It's a lose/lose/lose for the NPCs.
As a GM I always keep in mind that I'm getting my 1XP/2PP and table credit no matter what happens. I also didn't write the scenario. I don't take things personally at all. I've just had my PCs invalidated by pets and have GMed tables where some players had nothing to do because Fluffy got there first and full-attacked. It makes the session kinda meh.
Assuming the NPC can mathematically hit Pumpkin. Which is not a guarantee the way PFS rolls.
It seems to settles as legal per RAW. The current argument is RAW vs RAI. Since a power named Misfortune is clearly not intended to help. I can yell "Legal per RAW" all I want but I have to get along with the GM.
RAI is a futile argument, since no one can telepathically communicate with the authors. All we have is the written word. GMs can not contradict explicit mechanics that are legal by RAW in PFS. "Getting along" is an issue for your VOs to iron out if the GM persists. It's NOT their home game.
If the barding has an armor check of "0", then you don't need any feats for the animal. Otherwise, you are looking at feats to prevent attack roll penalties. Which would be fine with me as a GM, honestly.
"If it's any consolation, I think that it's dumb. But thems the rules."
I think it's dumb as well, but I'll take any limitation on any animal companion I can get.
PFS authors, due to the CR system, often have to resort to what I consider cheap monsters like harpies to introduce threat level. Pathfinder has gimpified NPCs and the authors often compound this by building them poorly. Make stronger fights with other classed NPCs and quit using cheap outs like monsters that have incorrectly assigned CRSs to begin with. At least an enemy wizard has to cast slow to make me suck. They just can't DO it like a harpy. And not every enemy NPC can do it. Every harpy can make you suck. It's obnoxious.
I'll take powerful melee and sense of urgency over save or suck all day long. There are harpies in many different tiers of scenarios, and they are some of the worst offenders. I don't mind dying. I don't want to die to a single die roll in which I made no decisions. Players should die to bad decision, not cold save dice.
Disk Elemental wrote:
No, no. Talking about the NPC VC, not the author. I understand completely what the author was doing. How did he blow that will save again? :)
Disk Elemental wrote:
There's a lot of scenario concepts between "generic dungeon crawl" and the Sealed Gate. Most of them better than the Sealed Gate. Challenging does not necessarily mean frustrating. And that's really what Sealed Gate is. Frustrating. I wanted to kill the VC in question at the end, and had it been a home game where it would have stuck, I would have. Idiot.
I will just treat them as creatures with hardness. And apply none of the object-specific rules. Because they are not objects. The spell animate object heavily implies this as well.
I don't care about ease of path. I care about accurate and reproducible distances. I don't see why hexes are best for systems with facing. Most wargames have no facing and they use hexes.
It's never been a problem. All its ever done at my tables is make arcane casters think harder. And I've been doing it this way since 3.0 came out.
And I have died for others' mistakes in PFS, just not direct damage ones. I didn't get any special shielding from those mistakes. I fail to see why this should be special snowflake.
Same result, though. Which is what matters in the end.
I expect to receive due criticism and I take ownership of my mistakes. Likewise, I rarely spare criticism, because it's better to get problems out in the open.
I just think that the animal companion advancement table just starts the animal off too close to the capabilities of a fighter or other melee with no min-maxing factored in on either side. Yeah, the fighter is better, but the animal is close enough that once you add in the druid on top of the animal, the fighter is a joke. It's even worse with sorcerers and clerics. I hate them more for this than any humiliation heaped on my PCs, although that is a factor as well.
No. The cleric doesn't have to say a thing. There is no possible way to force a cleric to include someone in their channel. I have only considered this once in my entire seeker cleric's career, and even then I didn't do it. So yeah. Pretty corner case.
I've seen several that my fighter would not even be able to hit; ie 32+ AC. Consequently, NPCs couldn't hit them either, making the rest of the party superfluous.
"I keep checking into this thread expecting someone to complain that shotting into melee should give a chance of hitting your friends... or when you shot at an enemy and miss, you should have a chance of hitting friends PAST the enemy. Or that we should have chances of hitting friends in melee with everyone jumping about and all. You know, what "friendly fire" is all about."
That is clearly beyond permitted mechanics even in base Pathfinder. Of course, GMs can always house rule it, and I can always not play in those games, as well.
Good battle healing is brutal against most PFS NPCs. It exacerbates the PCs action economy advantage. This in turn is exacerbated that the PCs can cram enough dpr to handle most scenarios into 2 PCs. Healing for NPCs is almost always a waste of time, however.
No, no. It wasn't them. In fact, I'd feel better if it HAD been them. They can break ANYTHING. What scars me is that animal companions are redonkulous in the hands of pretty much anyone. "Class feature" my ass; more like 2nd character.
"are covered better by the "dont be a jerk" rule."
But that's an unenforceable non-rule, as everyone has a different threshold for "jerk". That's the supposed defense against hypermunchkins, but it doesn't work there either, because GMs have no legal standing to do anything mechanically about hypermunchkins. Other than shut down the whole table. Yay.
I think people are arguably jerks for showing up with animal companions. Does that really get me anywhere? Should it? Other people think that archery is jerkish. We could go on and on. "Don't be a jerk" rulings just degenerate into name-calling in my experience.