|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I've run it with no technologists and it works out fine. They can't identify some of the loot until later. And have to learn enemies by trial and error. It's not much different than not having a detect magic monkey or a knowledge-monger.
My seeker cleric doesn't really know anything other than which buffs people like and to heal when people take damage :)
It's only CR 7. CR 7 monsters should not be able to throw around the dpr that the other interpretation grants them. I don't consider be more aggressive ruling a valid ruling using this kind of logic. Of course, I don't consider griefing players to be valid GM behavior, either. Even the ones with animal companions.
Victor Zajic wrote:
Seconded, because even further increases in PC action economy break most scenarios like twigs. There are exceptions, but they are rare.
Even I draw the line at that point, Rosh. This is not a mistake on the part of the wizard. It's intentional damaging of other players, not just putting some mist in front of them or a legitimate targeting mistake.
"It's even more of the suck when it's a fellow player who drops that kind of thing."
Not if they're good at placing it.
Disk Elemental wrote:
I think this is a well-deserved post. And further serves to highlight he completely arbitrary and subjective nature of "don't be a jerk".
I think to answer your question in all seriousness, most of the more "hands-on" GMs are policing positive actions, not negative inaction. That seems to be their interpretation of the PvP rules. So, casting darkness is prohibited, but a cleric refusing to heal is a-okay. Someone from the GM-intervention camp correct me if I misrepresented their position.
"If someone comes to the table with an unoptimized character, and the party TPKs because they were unable to contribute, is that PvP? "
Oh no, it wasn't fast food. Went to an Irish bar :) It was more entertaining than the triple pet attack. And a quasi-test to see if anyone noticed/cared. Newp.
What? That doesn't make any sense. Nevermind. I see how he is getting that. That's... troubling.
Actually, reading it AGAIN, it seems that the second roll clause is meant for effects that are in place when prot evil is cast. It clearly states that the target is immune to attempts to control while the spell is up. Yes, it uses the word "new", but if no effects are in place when the spell is cast, all future attempts are "new".
I guess it's "permission". I'd rather them not be glory hogs or whatever, but at the same time, the concept of me being to turn off their stuff by GM petition is even worse. I would go as far as to not accept GM intervention on my "behalf". I guess I'm just never going to sync up with the concept of giving other PCs permission. I don't think that's my place as a PC. Nor the place of the GM, really. They're there to run the NPCs.
Seriously, why should I care about the difference if the net effect is the same to me? Because one is more protected by the rules? I'm not petitioning the GM to turn off a darkness spell that some PC can legally cast, even if it completely hoses my PC.
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
Pathetically, I don't. I know the math. I know the builds. I just don't have one. There's always something more interesting for me that doesn't work as well.
Eric Brittain wrote:
It's ironic that I have every only been on the receiving end of this discussion, and yet I never ONCE thought to petition the GM to disallow an action that another PC is legally capable of performing. I stumbled around for entire scenarios in darkness and had a dwarf fighter go five encounters without getting to swing once. To me, that's on the other players and I'm not going to petition the GM to "turn off" their PCs.
This is why I don't like shielding players from bad judgement in general. While this shielding from actions, there is no reciprocal shielding for LACK of action.
Call it wrong all you like, there is no possible way to force a cleric to keep someone up. Keep in mind that PFS in a finite-resource system, and the GMs can not award extra loot to make up for bad luck or new player mistakes that cost other PCs their lives.
I was gonna say that, but figured it had been said already. I personally don't think that a GM should be stopped an obscuring mist that allows a dominate person to go off. Maybe the person being adversely affected by the obscuring mist needs to learn to be more cooperative. So others don't get mind raped.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
I think in my specific example, two of three pet owners had somewhere to be.