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

FullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 2,252 posts. 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists. 7 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,252 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade *

Kyle Baird wrote:
JurgenV wrote:
I like the idea of clearly marking "mostly RP" and "meatgrinder" mods
This often depends more on your GM than the scenario itself.

Not really. The GM can INFLUENCE it, but the author ultimately sets the tone.

Silver Crusade *

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Slavery is acceptable likely because slavery was a acceptable in our own Renaissance period and before. Or, pre-electrical age, if you are an American.

Silver Crusade *

I can even accept failure as long as the reason is something other than "save or you don't get to play anymore".

Silver Crusade *

David_Bross wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Stuff

The last part was overstated, but generally PCs hate status conditions, and real threats of death. Besides Bonekeep, can you think of a particularly deadly scenario that reviewed well?

Most negative reviews for scenarios come from PC deaths and/or being unable to contribute to a fight.

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.

Silver Crusade *

David_Bross wrote:

One thing I'm noticing. People tend to hate scenarios that drop them into combat hot zones via a teleport at the beginning, even if they have good reason to thing they're stepping into trouble.

People also really hate save or suck mechanics.

Putting them both in a scenario virtually guarantees poor reviews.

The only issue I have with this is it is virtually guaranteed only to happen in 7-11s, where we should expect save or suck monsters to exist, and you are the PFS field agents called into to deal with big problems.

People also hate it when they feel a particular NPC/monster is unfairly strong. You can simplify this and say that anytime the threat of PC death is real, players are unhappy about it, particularly if you denied them actions via abilities that they could have otherwise used to save themselves.

So I guess the only way to write a good scenario is when there is no save or suck spells, no sense of urgency for the PCs actions, and no powerful melee combatants on the NPC side of things.

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.

Silver Crusade *

Disk Elemental wrote:
David Bowles 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.

No arguments there. However, even with all that, I still don't believe it's the worst of the worst.

Maybe it's because I had the opportunity to run it, maybe it's because I had the opportunity to watch Baird run it, maybe it's because I'm a masochist that enjoys crazy-hard scenarios.

But, I think the Sealed Gate is a lot more interesting, unique, and, ultimately, more worthy of your time than numerous other scenarios.

David Bowles wrote:
Idiot.
We're all adults here. Act like it.

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? :)

Silver Crusade *

Disk Elemental wrote:

Really? Assault on the Wound and Sealed Gate are really your idea of the bottom of the barrel?

Come on people.

Did the scenarios work 100% of the time?

No, not at all. But at least they were creative, at least they tried something new and interesting.
While I can't speak for anyone else, I know I'd rather play something unique instead of yet another generic dungeon crawl.

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.

Silver Crusade

Page 317 of the PDF does not seem to be scanned in quite right. Any fix for this? Or just live with it?

Silver Crusade *

Lots of early season stuff runs cold just fine.

Silver Crusade *

I don't like to have anything banned if it can be helped. Perhaps an errata would serve better.

Silver Crusade *

Not miniatures games. War games. Like World in Flames, Tactics II, Advanced Third Reich, Ancients Battles, etc. They uses chits and hexes.

Silver Crusade *

deusvult wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Something having hardness does not make it an object.

OTOH there's nothing saying creatures can't be creatures and objects at the same time. But despite that, at least one person with a golem next to his name disagrees.

So my point is, if you don't use the object hardness rules for creatures with hardness, then what rules DO you use for creature hardness? It's not defined in the bestiary at all, or anywhere else as a creature defensive ability. The only rules (that I know of) that cover hardness are those rules for damaging objects in the CRB.
The developers cherry pick object hardness rules to apply to creatures with as far as I can tell, no rhyme or reason. So it's impossible to answer spinoff questions that haven't already been explicitly answered.

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.

Silver Crusade *

Something having hardness does not make it an object.

Silver Crusade *

Tempest_Knight wrote:

David, Why do you keep ignoring the point to complain about the wonkiness of imaginary distances?

The point is ease of path along the greater number radial lines.

-

Hex grids are best in systems that use facing.

Most RPGs do not use facing.

Games like CBT(BattleTech) and Naval combat games work better/best on Hex...

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.

Silver Crusade *

"4e uses 1 square on the diagonal."

That is completely absurd by the way. I can make my PC move faster by a factor of radical 2 by just changing the path?

Silver Crusade *

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.

Silver Crusade *

That's great for easy shots, but if there are very few safe squares available, I think the possibility for mistakes should be there.

Silver Crusade *

DrakeRoberts wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Lormyr wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I really, really dislike the idea of ranged AE casters being able to magically target their spells in the exact perfect place.

Well, it is magic. . .

David Bowles wrote:
I don't see why there is this level of shielding from arcane mistakes, when other PC mistakes are punished at full force.
The "shielding" is not for the arcanes - they are not the ones who will roast or be persistent DC 30 save or sucked. The shield is for everyone else.
But people aren't shielded from stupid party healers. Or bad dpr builds. Or bad positioning. Or bad spell selection. Or lack of preparation. Or lack of methods of dealing with swarms. Or Kyle Baird scenarios. Just this. It makes no sense to me.
Except not one of those is actively harming your teammates. They may be passively harming by not adequately helping them, but that's not at all the same thing.

Same result, though. Which is what matters in the end.

Silver Crusade *

But druids and animal companions DO come together. Because those buffs exist, perhaps the animal companions should have had a lower starting point. Especially since they get handed out to clerics and sorcerers.

Silver Crusade *

Blazej wrote:
Nick Greene wrote:

I don't know if I would've made the same call as the GM in question. I can't know, because I wasn't there. However, I think the call was reasonable enough, given the circumstances as explained. Two mistakes came together to form a perfect storm in a deadly scenario. These things happen.

Lest you think I am speaking without experience, I was killed by another player in Bonekeep I. The player happened to be 8 or 9 years old, and caught my unconscious fighter in an AOE effect after being warned that the act would probably kill me, as unconscious reflex saves are difficult to make. He completed the action anyway. The GM ruled me dead. I hold no grudges, and in that case, I would've made the same call. The GM is actually one of my best friends in PFS and I have driven 4 hours for a chance to play at one of his tables. It happens.

There are a couple of important things to remember: this is a game. If you find yourself getting too angry over a game, then it's not fun anymore. Also, if we continuously second-guess our GMs, constantly looking over their shoulders and criticizing calls they make in the heat of battle, so to speak, we will very shortly run out of GMs. I've been involved with a lot of volunteering, and the main thing I've learned is that volunteers are a precious resource that should be handled with care. If you criticize one too much, you lose the volunteer, and most of the time, that's bad for the community at large.

I hope you can understand how horrible experience sounds to me. It is vastly different for you because you are best friends with the GM and he knew you very well, but if it was myself (running under the same situation withe little information given) with a GM I was playing with the first time I would come away feeling that the GM was being just as fair as if he said my character died from a random condition at the outset of the scenario just because it would be funny.

It is hard being a GM and it can really be disheartening to receive criticism...

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.

Silver Crusade *

Lormyr wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
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.

Well, this situation of vs. will have varying results depending upon how the parties in question build. From what I understand from your posts, it appears that you are not a min-max sort of player.

That said, if you have a min-maxed animal companion vs. min-maxed fighter, the animal is done. Late game with extremely liberal amounts of druid buffs on the animal companion aside, that is.

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.

Silver Crusade *

Ascalaphus wrote:
David Bowles wrote:


There's nothing to stop a cleric from selecting out PCs they don't like from channels in the middle of a fight. At least, not mechanically.
Doesn't that lean towards the "No bullying" rule?

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.

Silver Crusade *

Lormyr wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
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.
I've only seen one of Jared's animal companions in play so far since he started playing with our core group, and the thing just couldn't keep up with us. Animal companions are certainly strong, but I still have yet to see one that I could not murder with a well-built vanilla fighter.

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.

Silver Crusade *

Charming. I would no longer sit at their tables.

Silver Crusade *

Well as I said, I allow very limited friendly fire and it has still never come up. This seems like a very, very rare issue.

Silver Crusade *

"Square girds have simple(straight) paths along 8 radial lines. (N/NE/E/SE/S/SW/W/NE)"

But the paths aren't equidistant. Hence, the wonky every other square thing, which is only a rough approximation.

Silver Crusade *

To add to the above post, it could certainly be to the over all party's benefit to risk such an AE against, say, equipment-damaging swarms.

Silver Crusade *

LazarX wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
LazarX wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
PCs in PFS frequently pay for other PCs' mistakes. Constantly, as a matter of fact. I've seen two TPKs that could have been easily prevented if a cleric had quite swinging and channeled.
The cleric's player however, should be commended for taking the message board mantra on how one should never heal in battle if they can do damage to heart.
Sorry, was that sarcastic or not? It's unclear to me.
In this venue, You are far more likely to see someone criticizing a player for healing in battle, than complaining of a mistimed fireball.

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.

Silver Crusade *

Lormyr wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I think people are arguably jerks for showing up with animal companions.

Lol Jared and Rod really scarred you for life with those things didn't they? ;)

*Please note, said with a level of humor.*

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.

Silver Crusade *

"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.

Silver Crusade *

Alright, then. I'm guessing that's a "no", then, on the language being expanded on the boards, then. It's been interpreted this way by the vast majority of GMs. A further ruling or changing of the language would clear this up. Something like "PCs may never cause hp damage to each other under any circumstances."

Silver Crusade *

"In short, you can never voluntarily use your character to kill another
character—ever."

Has this language from the guide been expanded via board rulings? If not, I still don't see how it covers genuine mistakes, since that is not "voluntary", it's "unintentional".

Silver Crusade *

LazarX wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
PCs in PFS frequently pay for other PCs' mistakes. Constantly, as a matter of fact. I've seen two TPKs that could have been easily prevented if a cleric had quite swinging and channeled.
The cleric's player however, should be commended for taking the message board mantra on how one should never heal in battle if they can do damage to heart.

Sorry, was that sarcastic or not? It's unclear to me.

Silver Crusade *

Lormyr wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
But people aren't shielded from stupid party healers. Or bad dpr builds. Or bad positioning. Or bad spell selection. Or lack of preparation. Or lack of methods of dealing with swarms. Or Kyle Baird scenarios. Just this. It makes no sense to me.

I find that your examples are strictly apples to oranges. A PC wizard including another PC in their fireball, confusion, black tentacles, ect. is an "apples" situation - one PC has directly afflicted another with a hostile effect.

"Stupid" party healers? Harmful to party victory, certainly possible - but not a directly afflicted hostile effect.

Bad dpr? Same.

Bad positioning? Same.

Bad PC spell selection? Same.

Lack of preparation? Same.

Hard scenario? Now we are into apples vs. oranges vs. mango. Bad guys are supposed to strive to harm you. Your fellow teammates, with whom your tenets are "explore, report, cooperate" are not.

I do not know any sane individual who would consider a fireball to his face cooperation outside of extreme mitigating circumstances.

They are not apples to oranges in terms of lethality. Indirect mistakes are frequently MORE deadly than direct damage mistakes. I have been at tables where I got nuked by my own guys. It was better than having a jellohead healer. At least to me.

Mitigating circumstance: "I thought it would miss you." Done. Intent, to me, trumps end result.

Silver Crusade *

"Bonekeep doesn't excuse the PvP rule. "

But doesn't the rule pertain to intentional PvP? Or is there a ruling that makes it all PvP? If so, why not state that players are straight up immune to all effects from other players?

Silver Crusade *

"I also think GM intervention can handle the problem you mentioned, too"

Seeing as how I can't legally stop the abuse of animal companions, much less other actual PC builds, I don't see how. But that is another topic.

This is truly of little consequence, because once I explain how it works at my table, I've never had a single PC caught in an AE that wasn't planned. It just seems strange to me that PCs can negate spells legally cast by other PCs that are not intended to harm that PC based off the language in the handbook.

Silver Crusade *

"Well, it is magic. . ."

Until there is a auto-target spell, as far as I can tell, they are using mundane judgment and eyeballs. And there is a magical method for making it trivial: selective spell. If you want to be lazy, use that.

Silver Crusade *

Acedio wrote:
Unless there's some agreement in advance that a caster will pay for the entirety of the raise dead of someone they blow up accidentally (IE caster takes full responsibility for their mistakes), I'm a little hesitant/unwilling to allow the caster to make that mistake without warning given that it punishes the victim, has no downsides for the caster, and can cause hard feelings between players.

I can understand that. But if I were using AEs, I would be very wary of starting a party death spiral. So there is a downside for the caster.

" can cause hard feelings between players"

Players can already do this by playing one-man wrecking crews and not giving anyone else a chance to do anything. And GMs are mechanically helpless to prevent it. Again, I see this as a case of special treatment.

Silver Crusade *

Lormyr wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I really, really dislike the idea of ranged AE casters being able to magically target their spells in the exact perfect place.

Well, it is magic. . .

David Bowles wrote:
I don't see why there is this level of shielding from arcane mistakes, when other PC mistakes are punished at full force.
The "shielding" is not for the arcanes - they are not the ones who will roast or be persistent DC 30 save or sucked. The shield is for everyone else.

But people aren't shielded from stupid party healers. Or bad dpr builds. Or bad positioning. Or bad spell selection. Or lack of preparation. Or lack of methods of dealing with swarms. Or Kyle Baird scenarios. Just this. It makes no sense to me.

Silver Crusade *

It's not "free permission". But I don't think its fair for the NPCs to allow a tank to engage and then have a caster just lob a fireball in and be able to sample 10-12 squares looking for the perfect spot that won't hit his own guy. Pick a safe spot that does less damage, or be edgier and risk hitting your own guy.

PCs in PFS frequently pay for other PCs' mistakes. Constantly, as a matter of fact. I've seen two TPKs that could have been easily prevented if a cleric had quite swinging and channeled. I don't see why people are advocating for such thorough protections on this one.

Given that there is no threat mechanic in Pathfinder, and many intelligent enemies give up on AC 30+ pretty quickly, I'm not sure what your "tank" is really getting you compared to a system like 4th.

Silver Crusade *

Acedio wrote:
Lucy_Valentine wrote:
If the player goes, "oops, better do something else" then yay for good intentions. If they go "I still want to do it" then that's intentional pvp.

Haha and what if they go, "sorry, but I'm going to have to get you in my AoE because -INSERT REASON HERE-*, but it's for great justice and will bring us great success" and the other guy says, "yeah go for it, because -INSERT REASON HERE-**"?

Seems like that's less PVP and more Teamwork.

* List 1:

1. Cannot exclude because of positioning or limited range.
2. Cannot exclude from selective feat because they cannot be targeted because of darkness/stealth/invisibility.
3. Cannot exclude from selective feat because limit of excluded targets reached.
4. Cannot exclude because I cannot hit the enemy otherwise.
5. Other

** List 2:
1. I don't care.
2. I'll be fine.
3. I do this for Taldor.
4. It's funny
5. Evasion.
6. You'll heal me later, right?
7. It's good for the party.
8. Other

Add in genuine error, imo.

Silver Crusade *

I am very much NOT a bloodthirsty GM, nor do I seek the death of anything other than animal companions. But I object to AE damage casters getting a free pass as described above.

Silver Crusade *

Hex-based systems are, in general, far superior to square-based systems due to the aggravating "radical 2 * side length" diagonal issue. Straight lightning bolts hit 24 squares, but diagonal ones only hit 16? What? Spell areas, in general, would be WAY easier with hexes. But that is not that system we are using.

Silver Crusade *

I really, really dislike the idea of ranged AE casters being able to magically target their spells in the exact perfect place. And if they get it wrong in a case of a very crowded battle board, they get a magical out because someone doesn't consent? I don't see why there is this level of shielding from arcane mistakes, when other PC mistakes are punished at full force.

Silver Crusade *

"Seriously, just imagine yourself as the melee players in this scenario, and everything else will flow naturally."

Maybe there's something wrong with me, but I *expect* to get hit with at least one fireball if there's someone who can cast it in the party. Especially if I am point. Things just sometimes don't go 100% perfectly, and that applies to AE placement as well.

Silver Crusade *

deusvult wrote:
David Bowles wrote:

There's nothing to stop a cleric from selecting out PCs they don't like from channels in the middle of a fight. At least, not mechanically.

And in that, yes, I would completely agree. What I'm doing is pointing out the inconsistency in allowing passive PvP while simultaneously disallowing consentual PvP.

It's a total douche move, however.

Silver Crusade *

How hard is it to ask about AEs at the start of the scenario, anyway?

Silver Crusade *

Just as Year of the Demon didn't have as many demons in it as one might have expected.

Silver Crusade *

deusvult wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
deusvult wrote:

Another flaw, I hope to prove fatal, to the argument of no "intentional PvP" meaning no harm to any PC ever:

If one cannot even subject a PC to the possibility of harm, say via failed reflex save by being inside an AoE, what allows you to subject YOUR OWN character to the possibility of harm? You might fall and take damage if you try to climb the wall. By the same (imo, unreasonable) reading of no "intentional PvP" equating to "no PC harm by players' hands", you can't even take the daily risks inherent in adventuring.

Reductio ad absurdum much?

Since we're going hipster, I rebut with this.

If you don't get it, consider the implications of what "no harm via PvP EVER" means when you consider that includes action AND inaction.

There's nothing to stop a cleric from selecting out PCs they don't like from channels in the middle of a fight. At least, not mechanically.

Silver Crusade *

Nefreet wrote:
Keep in mind this is the same poster who's rationale for using hex grid maps for PFS scenarios is "the rules don't say I can't!"

Really?

1 to 50 of 2,252 << 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.