Dr. Guns-For-Hands wrote:
They already knew I was looking for work, and that the hiatus was initially about that. I mentioned it even before things blew up at the end of last game session.
Thanks for the job hunting advice. Though I'm finally employed again, I'm not well-employed, so I'll be keeping at it.
How have you presented yourself? Are you capable of receiving criticism and reacting appropriately? If the whole group is unhappy with your game, your game needs to change, even if you're technically correct.
I like to think I'm a pretty calm and reasonable person, capable of taking criticism. However, I think most people involved in arguments see themselves as more reasonable and the other as less reasonable, so I can't say for sure. Having said that, I'm an INTJ and while the MBTI has it's problems, I think it is fairly descriptive of me. I tend to be dispassionate and logical most of the time, though I have worked to develop my empathy.
In this case, the artifact takes the form of a large basin, several squares in size. A small elemental can't drag it under ground. Also, the floor was stone, so earthglide didn't work anyhow. In the end, they realized why they couldn't do what they wanted, but it did prompt an argument at the time.
I actually did find a thread on this where SKR said it was "basically cheating." But even this didn't stop the argument, which was between games at least.
There's actually long threads on this in the rules forum. It has never been resolved. The last time I saw it, both sides agreed it could be interpreted either way, so it was up to the GM in the absence of an official ruling.
Not entirely true - there's also the gp limits of the community itself. Technically, that only applies to magic items, but I'll admit it was a houserule to include expensive nonmagical items as well. (Masterwork mithril/cold iron weapons and armor for example.) Though I did allow these items to be crafted at 1/3 cost with the relevant skills at high enough levels (since you only pay 1/3 for materials when using crafting skills) which still made plenty of them affordable.
It was actually beer for a drunken brute barbarian, but yes, it was an attempt to cheat the action economy and get infinite free rage.
A character got a bonus to saves against supernatural abilities, but not extraordinary ones. (I think it's a barbarian rage power, but I'd have to double check.) They rolled right at the point where they'd fail against an Ex, but succeed against an Su. I actually started a rules forum question about it after the game, because I wasn't sure myself. I could see it being either. Someone in that thread did point out that in the 3.5 version, ghoul paralysis is Ex, not Su.
Detect Magic wrote:
(good friends don't necessarily make good players).
Never considered that before, but you are right.
(You were playing with both a summoner and a gunslinger!?)
Luckily, not at the same time. I had an original party that included a summoner. One of my players wanted to change her character, which prompted others to want to change theirs. In the end, 4/5 players decided to change. The summoner was lost and the gunslinger/paladin was one of the new characters. I don't think the gunslinger is much of a problem except for the revolver, but to be fair he's only got one level of it - he's primarily going paladin.
I think part of what's getting to me is that we already did talk about it. Or at least email about it. I thought things were resolved, that they'd talk about their problems between games. Instead, apparently they went from arguing during the game to resenting me without communicating, which is ultimately why I'm at the point I'm at now.
As for the ruling list, it wasn't so much to focus on specific rulings as to give an idea of the quality of them so that if I'm making bad calls, someone can say, "Hey, it might be because you suck as a GM." It would give a reason for them not to trust me.
I appreciate all the advice. I think, ultimately, I'll probably double check with the others on what Bob said after the game, and if true, I probably will end things and find a new way to spend time with my friends.
Trying to make a decision, and since I'm pretty ticked and don't want to make decisions while angry, thought I'd ask some advice before I did something, which also gives me time to cool down.
Since I moved to my current area, I have been running a RotRL game for some friends back where I came from using Roll20. They are all in the same physical location (but using different computers). This is the only game I'm involved in right now, while they had other games going as well.
Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
We are all experienced roleplayers, so of course we hit our fair share of corner cases and rule ambiguities. In general, of course, they always take the interpretation that is most favorable to them. We'd have to keep stopping the game to lawyer out a given interpretation. Now, I'll admit I can be a bit stubborn. However, I also don't hold to the "rule of cool" and I'm disinclined to allow them to easily bypass every single challenge. After they started complaining about how long things were taking, and how things were getting bogged down in rules arguments, I basically instituted the following policies: One, if you don't like the way I run the game, quit, because I'd rather not sacrifice a friendship over a game (it really was getting that bad with arguments); and two, if it comes to it in the game, I'm going to make a judgement call, I have final say as the GM, and we can discuss it between games.
Now, this seemed to work well. We still had rules ambiguity. Sometimes I'd call it in their favor, sometimes not. Sometimes I'd find out I was wrong later and apologize; sometimes I'd find out they were wrong and tell them so as not to establish a rule precedent they kept using. TBH, I might be biased in my memory, but I remember many more times I was right than they were.
The problem is, apparently they were still complaining, just behind my back. Remember where I said they were all in the same location? They were complaining about it during the game, and I didn't know it. Apparently one person (we'll call him Bob) was running interference and convincing the others not to bring up this stuff. Except that, since it never got brought up, it just caused hurt feelings behind the scenes. I think Bob meant well, but now I just had a bunch of players who felt I was playing "Dictator GM". One of them has made comments that we aren't playing Pathfinder, we are playing "Derek's Game". This came to a head last night, when I made a ruling that adversely impacted Bob. He decided he was fed up, and ragequit. We played a little longer, finishing up the current fight, and then ended early.
I'm kind of feeling like their attitude is, "Don't argue during the game, and don't make judgement calls against us without research afterwards," which, really, means they are doing the rules arbitration during the game.
Add to this I found out after we started that Bob actually had a copy of the adventure path I was running (he claims he isn't metagaming) and at least at one point they were double checking monster stats on d20pfsrd.com during the game.
Now, because of my job situation, I was already going to put the game on hiatus - I was spending hours prepping for the game that could have gone to job hunting. But now I'm not even sure I want to pick it back up. Should I just drop it completely?
For the record, here are a few of the judgement calls I have made that prompted argument (or made to avoid argument):
Thanks for the input, all!
Nerve Damage. The claws trigger misfires in nervous system causing the victim to lose control of their bodily functions. That's pretty Ex to me.
Yeah, that's kind of how I saw it - some kind of nerve toxin on their claws. The reason they have it is SU but that doesn't make the condition itself SU. But again, I could see it as SU, too.
Also, in vague cases like this, GM's word is law.
Not quite, anymore. Rule 0 according to the core book includes, "Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt." (Emphasis mine.) My players tend to think the second part of the sentence means they should have equal say when I'm making a judgement call midgame, and it has led to hurt feelings in the past on both sides. In fact, after one of my players ragequit last night and later told me that my players had been complaining about my rulings behind my back (we play on Roll20 but they are all in the same physical location) I decided not to keep running a game for them anyhow. :( Maybe, anyhow. I don't want to decide while still angry. But that's a topic for the advice forum.
Paralysis is listed as either SU or EX in the universal monster rules. But the way the entry is formatted in monster text blocks doesn't give an indication of which it is.
Tonight I had a party of 5th level characters fighting a bunch of ghouls, and a ghast. Now, the ghoul's disease is clearly marked SU, but the ghast stench is EX. So there's reasonable interpretation for either, in my opinion. But one of my players, who gets a Fort save bonus against SU effects, rolled right on the cusp where it was a fail against EX but a success against SU. I ruled it as EX, reasoning that the elf immunity was because of the elven nature, rather than the ghoul nature (and thus why the more powerful attack of the ghast could bypass it).
Was I wrong?
I have been looking for a Pathfinder game - most of the Meetup groups I have found tend to run other games, or PFS (which I'm not really interested in). The one game I almost got into fell apart before it began due to inability to coordinate a play time among the already few players.
I'm experienced with the game, and run an online RotRL game every second and fourth Saturday (so I couldn't meet then). But it's getting a little tiring to always run and never play. I'm good with pretty much any day from Friday evening to Sunday afternoons, except as noted the 2nd and 4th Saturdays. Looking for a twice/month regular meetup, maybe weekly depending on the location and day.
I'm 31, I work in insurance, and I'm a grad student at GMU living in Fairfax. I cannot host, for the time being, sadly.
I'm interested. I have been looking for a Pathfinder game - most of the Meetup groups I have found tend to run other games, or PFS (which I'm not really interested in). I'm experienced with the game, and run an online RotRL game every second and fourth Saturday (so I couldn't meet then). But it's getting a little tiring to always run and never play. Sunday afternoons would work for me, or 1st and 3rd Saturdays, or even late on Fridays. W/E. I'm 31, I work in insurance, and I'm a grad student at GMU living in Fairfax. I cannot host, for the time being. I have heard a bit about Kingmaker but not much, so no spoilers. ;)
Ah, yep. Sorry - I misread your saving point rules.
Unless I misunderstand, you'll never have anyone get this high!
Had this idea for a sandbox campaign, but my players didn't think much of it when I brought it up to them. Wanted to see if it was just my group, or did a wider audience think it sucked. ;) Note that this will completely suck unless the party has lots of downtime, so I'd recommend combining it with some way of limiting magic items. Also, the party will be a bit weaker than their ECL indicates.
I have been wondering why adventures adventure in a sandbox game after a certain point. If there is no overall plot, and the players (for the most part) get to choose the pacing, and what adventures they take on, what's the motivation? Around, say, 10th level, your character will already have significant wealth and power. Even in terms of causes, it is probably more efficient for them to retire to a command position and train others to fight the good fight. Unless some major threat pops up that only they can beat (which makes it no longer a sandbox game), they really have no reason to go on adventures.
The idea is basically this - rather than having characters gain a bunch of new abilities all at once when they gain a level, instead their *potential* increases but they have to find someone to train them to reach that potential. The trainer must already have that ability themselves. (In some cases, like HP, BAB, or saves, the trainer need not be of the same class.) Most of this could be handled by the retraining rules (or for some classes, spell research rules) - you are just training the first time, rather than retraining. The only things that don't seem to have training times are BAB and saving throws, but those probably shouldn't be that high anyhow - maybe 3 days.
This is easier at first, but looking for someone who can train you on 20th level abilities would be the subject of quests all on their own - this could mean, for example, that your 16th level character might hit 17th level or even 18th level before finding someone who can teach him 16th level abilities. (For this reason, the GM should probably include trainers in the campaign several levels higher than the characters, so they can be used for multiple level gains.
I feel this addresses the problem I mentioned because the character abilities will always be a bit below their actual level, and the effort of just reaching that potential will further boost their potential. It's like trying to catch up to a runaway horse - you can only do it when it finally chooses to stop. (20th level.)
So what do you think? Good idea, or too much work? Does it adequately address the problem I mentioned?
Does a 1HD (evil) tiefling register to a paladin's detect evil? Detect evil normally doesn't work on low-HD people, unless clerics, antipaladins, undead, and outsiders. Tieflings are outsiders, but they are native outsiders. Does this affect DE?
EDIT: Should be noted, a non-evil tiefling wouldn't ever detect. It comes from their actual alignment, not their heritage. So it seems to me it should work as it does with anybody else.
I'm afraid not. In fact, in the three and a half years since I posted this, I have moved out of Louisiana. Sorry.
That said, there is a comic shop in Lake Charles - Paper Heroes. You might ask around there. But most of my friends that play PF now live in Lafayette, and those that live in LC tend to be into World of Darkness LARP now.
How does interrupted rest affect a Mystic Theurge's ability to cast spells in cross class spell slots?
For example, a Wizard 3/Cleric 3/Mystic Theurge 1 can prepare Magic Missile in a 2nd level cleric spell slot, or Bless in a 2nd level wizard spell slot.
Now, suppose the character only manages to get an hour's rest the night before. This affects wizards, but not clerics, in prepping spells the next day. Which does the character lose - the use of wizard spells, or the use of wizard spell slots, or both? In the above example, can the character no longer prepare the Bless, or no longer prepare the Magic Missile, or neither?
Also, if you prepare an orison in a 1st level wizard slot, or a cantrip in a 1st level cleric slot, do you still get unlimited uses per day?
So I'm late to the party, and hope my input is still useful, but...
There are actually TWO issues here, that are related.
The first issue is RD's having the witch make an item she couldn't possibly succeed at. Now, I'm of the school of thought that players should know their own abilities (including cohorts) unless they are fairly new to the game... but I also think at least a warning of, "Are you sure?" is in order when there is no chance of success. That's my verbal cue to tell the player to double-check the rules. However, this all comes down to GM/Group style. So really, that's up to RD and his group.
However, the second issue is the player's behavior. And frankly, it is unacceptable *even if RD is in the wrong on the first issue*. The player is throwing a tantrum! And honestly, I would take the player aside, tell him we are still friends, and I'd still like to hang out with him... but I wouldn't GM for him anymore. He'd be out of the game, because the way he's behaving is simply unacceptable.
Now, RD has chosen to overlook it, and that's his decision. But I'd keep a close eye out, and take a zero-tolerance stance on future outbursts.
While there are no official rules, a few 3rd party products have discussed this. Sadly, they tend to be adult in nature since the rules are a subset of those used to get pregnant, if you catch my meaning.
It can lead to some interesting options for the next generation. One of my favorite characters was the child of two high level adventurers, and he was conceived and carried for a fair time on Mabarr, the plane of Shadow and Negative Energy in the Eberron setting. I made him a shadowcaster, with negative energy affinity, and a severe case of schizoid personality. But that's getting ahead of things.
For the genetics, remember that planetouched don't always have a pure line. They can show up to human parents (or actually, any race). This would also imply that one of the parents had lineage back to the outsider, which further implies planetouched can have nonplanetouched children. So presumably one of two things will happen - either the child will gain the outsider influence, and just be a sylph, regardless of parent races, or they won't gain the outsider influence, in which case it would essentially be the same as a human/half-elf hybrid. I'd say give it 50/50 on whether that makes it a full half-elf, or a human with some lingering elf traits/features.
As for pregnancy... I seem to recall a magic armor ability in those rules based on Bag of Holding enchantments that let the inside of armor hold more than the outside, and a spell that reduced the negative effects. Net result was a pregnant woman who suffered from no debilitating conditions, not even a change in balance from carrying the extra weight up front.
Socialist Good alignment? Isn't that, like, Chaotic Lawful or something? :D
The problem with this is that the modern, largely urbanized, economy is very different from the agricultural economy in a D&D game. This is tied to the reason money was invented in the first place - to make trade easier and avoid the coincidence of wants.
Consider a druid hermit far from any settlement. He has essentially 0 need for money. His living standard is completely independent of that. A farmer isn't as independent, but he still lives largely off his own land and products. He needs some money, but not much. In a city, people are highly specialized, and can't survive without trading with others. The greater the need for trade to survive, the greater the need for money. That silver piece, then, actually represents a lot more than the minimum wage in an agrarian society, which is what most of Golarion is.
I tried to avoid including methodology into my roles. The skirmisher and the charger do the same thing, essentially, just in different ways. Much like the cleric or the paladin can be a healer, but one uses more spells and channeling, while the other uses lay on hands and mercies. This means a greater variety of classes can fill the role, and not always just the traditional list, which allows for more party diversity and less typecasting when a player wants to play a given class.
And yes, I would expect people to take on multiple roles, since most groups don't have 13 different characters. ;)
Derek Vande Brake wrote:
EDIT: Also, from that thread, I thought Record Keeper, Assassin, and Transporter were good idea.
The downtime rules in Ultimate Campaign allow you to make earnings checks yourself, your buildings, and your organizations. They also allow you to add modifiers together, or break them apart, for different kinds of capital. My question is, why would you want to add them together? The fact that there is a dice roll involved for each would make it seem that it is ALWAYS better to divide checks as much as possible.
Let's assume you take 10 for your checks, for simplicity. Let's also assume you are getting +6 on your profession checks, total. Again, for simplicity. Now, let's say you have a Tavern. The sample one is listed as: 1 Bar (+10, gp or Influence), 1 Common Room (+7, gp or Influence), 1 Lavatory (no bonuses), 1 Office (no bonuses), and 1 Storage (+2 gp). If you spend a day running the Tavern, you'd make a Profession check as appropriate, and the building rooms would add a total of 19 to earn gp. You also get +10 for running it yourself. That's a 45, so you can earn 4.5gp per day.
Now, suppose you decide to separate them, so the Tavern earns separately from you? Your check is then only 16, while the tavern's is 29. That's 1.6gp for you and 2.9gp for the tavern, so your net income is 4.5gp. No problem yet.
BUT! Let's say you are opening up a chain, and now have two taverns. You run one, the other runs itself. Now, as before, you could just add up all the modifiers (take 10, +6 total profession, +10 self running, +19 for tavern 1, +19 for tavern 2) = 64 = 6.4gp. Or, you could make all the checks individually (16 for yourself, 29 for tavern 1, 29 for tavern 2) = 74 = 7.4gp. A whole extra gp, because you are essentially getting another 10 from rolling another dice. Still, 1gp isn't much of a game breaker.
Let's take it further, and assume we want to generate Influence as well as gp. We are again working ourselves and adding all modifiers together, but this time each tavern is adding +10 to Influence and +9 to gp, and the profession check is still gp. Now, adding all the modifiers, we wind up earning 3 Influence (10+10+10) and 3.4gp (16+9+9). If, on the other hand, we roll the taverns separately, we wind up with 4 Influence (10+10, 10+10), and 5.4gp (16+19+19).
This would only increase with the number of buildings created or number of types of capital earned. This isn't about whether the wealth is game breaking, this is a question of why you should get different results based on method chosen to determine earnings.
A wand of Haste is only 6000gp now, easily affordable by low-level parties. Boots of speed can now be had for 8000gp instead of 12000gp. Summon Monster V can now be made into a wand, and Stoneskin can be made into a potion... there's a pretty big list of stuff that can be had much more cheaply, even at lower levels. And they don't have to spend time crafting it.
Calculate the market price based on the lowest possible level caster, no matter who makes the item.
This means the market price for a lot of items is lowered, not just those the party summoner crafts. Even a party with no summoner benefits from a world where summoners are allowed.
Much thanks to Are, for the math points.
I realize WBL is a guideline, rather than a hard rule, but if you are too far away from it, encounters still have to be tailored accordingly.
Given that Ultimate Campaign pretty much *does* allow you to be a merchant if you desire, I'm less concerned about the game effects of becoming a magic item seller. Even under the core rules, you can manufacture mundane items for 1/3rd value and sell them for half, so you are making a profit of 1/6th the item value. Players will find a way to break the WBL guidelines if they really want to - no system is abuse free. If we use a guideline that the NPCs should generally use the same rules as PCs use, merchants should be getting their markup via application of Profession checks, not inventory management - after all, as noted, the system is abstracted, and NPCs shouldn't be playing inventory games behind the scenes.
The more I think about it, the more I think there *should* be some kind of economy rules even for groups that don't want to play Merchants and Moneylenders.
This is an odd situation. For the record, Vampires do not gain racial HD. They get a CR increase, but no racial HD. So FrodoOf9Fingers is incorrect that this would require breaching level 20.
I'd argue that they are no longer undead, since the class ability came after the vampire turn - a 20th level monk who is turned would become undead (augmented outsider) instead of outsider. But in becoming an outsider, they'd presumably be resurrected - regaining their Con score, for one. Oddly, many of the abilites of the vampire template are implied to be because of the type change to undead, but don't actually say that. So they'd still use Cha instead of Con for bonus hp, for example.
1. There aren't, there are just three, and each do different things so they are all needed.
2/3. It depends on which aspects are important to you. Changing all your derived modifiers on the fly can be simpler... unless you have a computer doing it for you, in which case changing the base stat can actually be easier. You also would have to deal with complications such as number of abilities useable per day when they key on a stat (like domain powers based on Wisdom), Or what happens when an effect drops someone to 0 in a stat when it wasn't intended to totally disable/kill the person.
Ultimate Campaign got me thinking of wealth-by-level balancing, which got me thinking of the sale value of treasure. Just why is it sold for half price, anyhow?
Let's start by simplifying and making some core assumptions, just to avoid derailing the thread *too* much on questions of playstyle difference. That's not an indictment of playstyle differences - it's just not relevant to the question.
1. We are assuming core rules. So magic items sell for one half, and (given sufficient settlement gp limits) you can buy and sell magic items with little problem. The GM is giving enemy NPCs the standard wealth for an NPC of their level, not more or less.
Now, if the GM gives an enemy a longsword +1, the treasure total has gone up by 2315gp. The fighter is happy, and is getting normal WBL for his encounters.
But suppose, instead, the GM is cruel - or at least indifferent and using randomized tables. Instead, he gives the opponent a scimitar +1. Again, the treasure total has gone up by 2315gp. But now the fighter is NOT happy. When he gets back to town, he sells the scimitar +1 and buys a longsword +1. BUT... since he only gets 1157.5gp for the scimitar, the rest has to come from his own gp. That means the fighter is now 1157.5gp below his ordinary wealth by level. He'd have done better to get an amount of extra gp equivalent to the price of a scimitar +1 - a treasure of the same value, but with greater liquidity.
Now consider the higher level fighter, who can craft magic weapons. Now he can sell the scimitar +1, and use the funds to make his own longsword +1. Hooray! He's back at WBL! Except... he's really not. He's still short by 1157.5gp, because he *should* be getting that much discount. If the player had been creating a new character at the higher level, he'd have been able to get a longsword +1 at half price from the get-go. Part of the advantage of the crafting feats is to exceed WBL. Again, if the scimitar was replaced by gold pieces instead, he'd be better off.
If the trend of "useless magic items" continues, the fighter will drop farther and farther behind WBL, and the GM will have to (or at least should) compensate anyhow.
On the other hand, if the fighter could sell the scimitar for full price, he could go ahead and buy the longsword and be at his normal WBL. If he could craft his own, he'd be 1157.5gp ahead of WBL, exactly as he's suppose to be. And the GM wouldn't have to worry about whether treasure was useful or vendor trash when determining WBL. There's less need to compensate. So at least for game-balance, it would seem to be better to have items sold at full value rather than half.
Now, you might argue for realism - merchants make money on markup. (Alliteration unintended.) Also, adventures don't take the time to find a buyer, which could take months for some items. Possibly never, if it's some reeking bit of magic hide they pulled off a goblin shaman's corpse. "Well sure, it's made of human skin, scrawled with the symbols of Lamashtu, and smells like the original owner's body cavity, but it's magic hide armor!" These two combine nicely, actually - 100% markup isn't really that much if it takes *years* to find a new buyer. On the other hand, the very mundane equipment is also sold for half price, and there should be no shortage of buyers for that. "Ah, I see you have recovered an animal harness, Mr. Adventurer. But we don't have much call for those in this farming community, so I'll take it off your hands for half price." But wait... remember, we have established that, at least by the rules, there are magic item shops? (Remember, a small city has a base value of 4000gp, which means there is a 75% chance of finding *any* magic item less than that value.) Base values go up with city size. That means trade hubs. A merchant isn't typically going to leave a magic sword on a shelf for 20 years waiting for another rich adventurer to want it. No, they'll sell it to traveling merchants, who will bring it to major trade hubs, and it'll get sold within the year to a nobleman with the cash to spare. Thus, the 100% markup is *still* too high, and it *still* makes sense for magic items to be sold near full value.
If qualifying for prerequisites were limited to the specific named race (ie. qualifying for a Elf feat, race trait, or racial archetype required the specific Elf core race), then it severely hampers people making custom races with the race builder because, even though they might design a race with the type Humanoid(Elf), it wouldn't qualify as Elf for applicable prerequisites if Humanoid(Elf, Human) doesn't qualify for them.
One imagines that if you are creating a custom race, you can also create custom feats and such for that race, so it isn't such a huge deal.
The spell states you can turn inert stone into flesh, but it isn't alive. No problem. But... what kind of flesh?
If I make a statue of a cow, then cast StF on it, does it become beef? If I do the same to a pig statue, does it become pork? Can I make beef from a pig statue? If I made it out of a statue of a human, would it be cannibalism to eat it? Does the meat spoil?
The rules on either are a little iffy. Part of this is the fact that drugs were never included in the core rules for PF or 3.5, but added by supplements later.
From 3.5, as Lathiira noted, one feat gave a save bonus to poisons and drugs, calling them out separately. But as Weirdo pointed out, in 3.5 immunity to poisons also gives immunity to drugs. From a realistic standpoint, there really isn't any difference - poisons are a type of chemical that has deleterious effects, which includes drugs.
Ultimately, we'd need an official Paizo answer, and until then it's up to GM discretion.