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

David Bowles's page

FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 2,404 posts. 3 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 7 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,404 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade **

" common sense"

Problem being that common sense doesn't really exist.

Silver Crusade **

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm more than willing to let the Confirmation and Sealed Gate cancel each other out on the scoreboard for Baird scenarios.

Silver Crusade **

Without a target armor class against which their dpr is 100, the above claim is meaningless.

Silver Crusade **

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 :)

Silver Crusade **

All of season 6 won't involve this stuff, just as season 5 wasn't all demons. Plus, I don't think you understand the mechanics well. If I have an adamantine weapon, I don't NEED it to be a great sword.

Silver Crusade **

Most of my PCs are "well-rounded" instead of optimized for murder hoboing, but the martial ones all still have adamantine can openers.

Silver Crusade **

Two of my PCs have grabbed breadth of experience for this, but I was lucky in that I have two PCs with lots of skills that qualify for this feat.

Silver Crusade **

Yeah, there's a difference. The book is not that expensive, and no scenarios require the feat to succeed. Non-skill based PCs aren't affected at all. I agree that perhaps the feat should have been introduced in the guide to society as well.

Silver Crusade **

It makes it harder, I agree. Just as season 4 make things harder. It's this season's equivalent of loading up on cold iron weapons and anti-outsider tech.

Silver Crusade **

Get technologist on a skill monkey for season 6, and then just retrain it away later.

Silver Crusade **

Agreed. There's enough variation that is completely unavoidable that I don't see perfect ever being an option.

Silver Crusade **

I'm saying that there shouldn't be variation. And I think GMs that rule in the more aggressive fashion are breaking the CR system even worse than it already is. I don't ever support table variation.

Silver Crusade **

That's introducing massive table variation. I don't think GMs should be able to arbitrarily modify the difficulty like that. Because I know which one player-griefing GMs are going to do.

Silver Crusade **

PFS needs solutions to cakewalks other than monsters with incorrect CR ratings. Given that a CR 7 encounter can show up in a tier 4-5, I'd say the heat as an offensive ability is completely uncalled for or necessary.

Silver Crusade **

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.

Silver Crusade **

"d if the remorhaz has you grappled you're going to be taking heat damage."

It doesn't say that. The heat is for swallowed whole condition and defensive only. At least, that's how I read it.

Silver Crusade **

Interesting. I think that different groups were better at season 4 7-11's than season 5. I wouldn't call them harder in an absolute sense.

Silver Crusade **

But RAW, the GM must enforce the push the mechanic. It's more than OK.

Silver Crusade **

My mistake then, it seemed like it was rebalanced for five people. I kinda miss season 4, where some of the scenarios are real badges of honor. They're still there, I guess.

Silver Crusade **

I thought season 5 backed it down to a party of five. Season 5 certainly SEEMED easier than season 4.

Silver Crusade **

I'm actually all about saving rolls.

Silver Crusade **

Oh, sorry. You are talking those package deals, then.

Silver Crusade **

Victor Zajic wrote:
Takhisis wrote:
That Tribal Scars feat looks like exactly like the kind of thing I need...however...I must know....how in the heck can an eidolon take that feat when it requires you to be a member of one of the tribes of the north? Does PFS wave the RP prerequisites for feats as well as prestige classes, or where you suggesting it assuming that the whole "My eidolon was a member of X northern tribe who died and now is a spirit-thing bound to my summoner?" kind of excuse would be valid enough to take the feat? If the latter, how would you reconcile the fact it is now considered an outsider and thus no longer a member of X northern tribe? Just curious is all..
You are a crazy person. Summoners are crazy good in PFS.

Seconded, because even further increases in PC action economy break most scenarios like twigs. There are exceptions, but they are rare.

Silver Crusade **

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.

Silver Crusade **

Different tricks have different DCs. Why wouldn't they be individual?

Silver Crusade **

Eidolons lose more HPs by not being full HD, not the average HP at level 1. Put your level 5 stat point in CON, and then the large evolution gives it +4 CON. That's an 18 CON eidolon without trying hard.

Silver Crusade **

That's a very good way of putting it. I really dislike table variation, but in this case, it's inevitable.

Silver Crusade **

You make it work in a homebrew. Which I probably would.

Silver Crusade **

I keep saying that because is makes it hard to enforce. I don't much care for arbitrary rules, and this is a rule that many posters reference over and over. I find it kind of a non-rule because of the many, many definitions of "jerk".

Silver Crusade **

Other people are using it to trivialize every encounter where they don't think the NPCs can see through it.

Silver Crusade **

Disk Elemental wrote:

Alright so, after 4 pages of discussion, we know the following things constitute PvP and/or violate the basic rules of PFS:

  • Darkness
  • Obscuring Mist
  • Pets
  • Slumber Witches
  • Bladebound Kensais
  • Pets
  • Gunslingers
  • Zen Archers
  • Tieflings
  • Optimized characters
  • Unoptimized characters
  • Pets
  • Any character that's better than me
  • Any character that's worse than me
  • Anyone using bad tactics
  • Anyone using good tactics
  • Pets

    In all seriousness, the fact that you can't determine what's going to be at the table before you sit down, conflicts are inevitable.

    The 5th Barbarian isn't going to be doing a whole lot, but that doesn't mean the other 4 Barbarians are violating any rules, or worthy of punishment.

    If there are two Tieflings, and 4 humans at a table vs. enemies without darkvision, casting Darkness invalidates the 4 humans, but means the enemies can't hurt anyone. From what I've read, some would consider this PvP. However, let's say the Tieflings doesn't use the spell, and someone dies in the resulting fight. Is this PvP? The death was 100% preventable, the players knew the way to prevent it, but they chose not to.

    If someone comes to the table with an optimized character and effectively solos the scenario, is that PvP?
    I mean, they made all the other players feel marginalized, and led to a bad time for some of the players, doesn't that violate the 'Don't be a Jerk' rule.

    If someone comes to the table with an unoptimized character, and the party TPKs because they were unable to contribute, is that PvP?
    I mean, the person chose to make an ineffective character, and that error led to player deaths, and a bad time all around, doesn't that violate the 'Don't be a Jerk' rule?

  • 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? "
    /raises hand

    Silver Crusade **

    nosig wrote:
    David Bowles wrote:
    Or, in my case, take a 1.5 hour lunch.

    if that's what you enjoy... go for it.

    I sure wouldn't do it. My game time is to valuable to spend on ... fast food? but to each his own.

    ;)

    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.

    Silver Crusade **

    Or, in my case, take a 1.5 hour lunch.

    Silver Crusade **

    6.5K ouch.

    Silver Crusade **

    True enough.

    Silver Crusade **

    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".

    Silver Crusade **

    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.

    Silver Crusade **

    Not all of season 6 will involve this stuff.

    Silver Crusade **

    BigNorseWolf wrote:

    There is a difference between stopping other players from killing the bad guys by killing them first, and stopping other players from killing the bad guys by impeding the entire party.

    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.

    Silver Crusade **

    Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:

    Obscuring Mist can be fine, especially with a ranged build and sniper goggles. I have someone who regularly plays an Oracle 1/Slayer 7ish now who does this. She can generally pull off her trick without interfering with the party. It CAN be a very powerful trick, attacking FF'd and getting SA is win.

    By Darkness does the OP mean deeper darkness? Because most people should be equipped to deal with darkness.

    Deeper Darkness is better and means you'll pretty much straight own. The radius is bigger though than the cloud and even a ranged PC would have an issue that being 60 feet. This one is kind of a jerk move and can't really be done USUALLY without interfering with the party.

    That being said both are valid tactics. When a caster drops black tentacles and stinking cloud and most the party can only watch is that legit? Does that combo need to be banned? Or how about sleep hex? I find sleep hex much more disruptive, particularly if the scenario tends to be fewer single enemy encounters. Literally had a witch nearly solo a scenario because of this. Or a heavens oracle, summoner, Kensai/Bladebound Magus, Zen Archer, or any other number of "broken" builds out there thats not regulated.

    Since everyone will find something disruptive I don't see it as as big as a deal. I know when my heavens oracle drops an entire room of baddies I get eye rolls, or when a gunslinger attacks an ac 24 points less, a witch sleep hexes/ice tombs 3 of 4 encounters or a pounce eidilon flying charges and drop 200 damage per round nearly like clockwork, etc. etc. Not saying its not kind of a jerk move (I think it is) but I suspect most people here have at least 1 jerk move PC in their repertoire.

    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.

    Silver Crusade **

    Eric Brittain wrote:

    and yet a party is composed of only of single players.

    There is no entity called a "party" that doesn't include every single person at the table.

    Hiding behind the veil of "it is what everybody wants" while excluding someone at the table is just bullying by committee.

    Without a strong defense of the communal (as in including everyone) aspect of the game a lot is lost and the game devolves into pure tactics and an exchange of rules. It loses the deeper archetypal underpinnings that ties us into myth, legend, and the stories shared late at night that define a group.

    ---
    It seems that we disagree and odds are that our paths will never cross. I truly hope that all of your games are amazIng experiences that other people will talk about for years to come. May only good gaming be yours.

    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.

    Silver Crusade **

    trollbill wrote:
    Artanthos wrote:
    trollbill wrote:
    Artanthos wrote:


    At this point, I refuse to heal the offending party member, and discourage other party members from healing him as well.

    Refusing to heal is not PVP. After he falls down, I can go back to blocking the NPC's line of sight.

    Passive aggressive PVP may not be PVP by RAW but I am pretty sure it is by RAI. To me, it's not any better.
    Are you now advocating taking control of characters away from people who don't play the "right" way?

    No, that is what your doing by saying it is okay to circumvent the intent of the PvP rules on a technicality. There is no effective difference between deliberately killing someone and deliberately letting them die. In both cases, your actions were intentional and your desired outcome was to have that someone die. Just because one method lets you escape punishment on a technicality doesn't make you any less of a jerk. In fact, I would argue it makes you more of one because you know what you are doing is wrong but don't care because you think you can escape punishment for it.

    Quote:
    You've already advocated giving one character the ability to veto usage of spells and abilities in situations where those spells and abilities could mean the difference between survival and an TPK.

    I did? Really? Where?

    Quote:
    Is forcing a party TPK by vetoing everyone else's abilities PVP?
    I don't understand what this has to do with what I have said. All I was trying to say was, is that if it is wrong for your character to deliberately kill another character at the table by action, then it is wrong for you to deliberately kill another character at the table by inaction ('deliberate' being the key word and by your example your suggested actions were definitely deliberate). The fact that you may escape punishment for the latter does not make it any less wrong. There are better solutions than killing off PCs whose actions you don't like. If no consensus can be met then the...

    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.

    Silver Crusade **

    There's a big difference between obscuring mist and dominate person, however. I think that's where your position kind of falls apart. Intentions matter. I don't think a single player should be able to veto party tactics. Ever.

    Silver Crusade **

    Guess we'll have to agree to disagree and hope it never comes up then. I don't think another player should have the right to get my PC bombarded by something unpleasant.

    Silver Crusade **

    Artanthos wrote:
    Eric Brittain wrote:
    As a judge for PFS I feel it is absolutely my right in a situation where a player's PC would be negatively effected by another player's PC's actions where the first PC does not agree with or want to suffer the consequences of that action to deny that action as PvP. This is not only a right but a responsibility to maintain the social collaborative core of the game.

    Even in a situation where other members of the party will be negatively affected if the action cannot be taken?

    You are giving one player the power to veto another players ability to assist the party.

    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.

    Silver Crusade **

    Blindsided? Rarely? It's usually players not knowing the specifics of how their own stuff works.

    Silver Crusade **

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    After digging around, I have found other threads that have pretty much already covered the topic of druids/pets. I'll just discipline myself and use another class feature as a point of reference for comparisons and quit talking about problems no one can fix.

    Silver Crusade **

    Common sense is a myth, since there are 6 billion version of common sense on the planet. There is nothing "common" about it.

    The author should have known better than to try to backdoor a rule into a piece of equipment. Because that's a non-rule.

    Silver Crusade **

    Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
    David Bowles wrote:
    There's no reason to do that. I just wish I could get my sheet and let them win Pathfinder, though, and not have to sit through it.
    Well if it helps, you can ride my tiger any day... once it is large, it would pretty silly otherwise ^^ And yes, this means that players should remember not to hog the spotlight all the time.

    I think in my specific example, two of three pet owners had somewhere to be.

    Silver Crusade **

    Anyone want to bet the designer of potion sponge THOUGHT it was a rule?

    1 to 50 of 2,404 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2014 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.