AM NINJA HAVE KI POOL, USE MAGIC DEVICE, QUICKENED GREATER INVISIBILITY, LOAD OF SKILLS SNEAK ATTACK AND HIDDEN MASTER.
AM NINJA TARGET FLAT FOOTED ARMOR CLASS WITH TWIN WAKAZASHI, MONSTER AM LOSE DEX, EVEN IF HAVE UNCANNY DODGE.
AM NINJA MAY NOT DEAL AS MUCH DAMAGE AS SECOND COUSIN AM BARBARIAN BUT AM NINJA AM UNDETECTABLE, HAVE LOAD OF SKILLS, ABLE TO DISSAPEAR ON A WHIM, AND KILL MOST FOES WITH TWIN AGILE WAKAZASHI.
AM NINJA ALWAYS HAVE UTILITARIAN SCROLL OR WAND FOR JOB
1. Nobody is saying never ever heal your buddy and/or let them die. That is ridiculous.
2. Nobody is saying you will never ever have to heal.
3. What is being said is that the bad guys can put out damage faster than you can heal so the best thing to do is kill bad guys. The less bad guys there are the less damage output there is.
4. Most of the time if you have decent characters and use good tactics you will not have to heal in combat.
5. Once again, most of the time does not mean never.
6. Bookmark this thread if you have too.
I personally like haunts - not all the examples presented and exact execution but I like the thought process behind them.
I come from a horror gaming background (1st and 2nd ed Chill, Call of Cthulhu, etc) as much as starting out with AD&D (Chill was my second game I go into) and I think the Haunting mechanics as a base concept are an excellent tool for a DM who wants to add some horror aspects to his game (without exclusively relying on a creature to do the trick).
That being said I don't run them exactly as written.
The way I run them in my game:
-All haunts are beatable by mundane means. The Means may require some research or investigation to figure plus risk of being exposed to the haunt, but theoretically you above average commoner can beat a haunt (or a Fighter or Rogue for that matter).
So while they are all are potentially defeated by mundane actions it doesn't mean that those actions are going to be easy - or even possible. Also if a haunt has a semi-corporeal form/manifestation (Headless Horseman) then that form is fightable with stats (this is where the party Fighter can shine). Killing the manifestation doesn't defeat the haunt, it just sets it back a bit.
-Haunts do not need to only do damage. They can slowly curse, sicken, disease, weaken, make sleepy, more fearful, slow polymorph/transform, etc, with each trigger or successive trigger (more on triggers next).
-Haunts should not be binary. They don't need to trigger as off (no effect) and on (take damage), but haunts cant trigger and have incremental power or effects (based on time or successive triggers). Triggered effects can start off small and then escalate it without letting on the party that it's a haunt or that steps are being followed.
Sample:
EX: Haunted Trophy room.
1)First Trigger: (enter room) Smell of animal musk (DC check to notice, stays throughout encounter)
2)Second Trigger: Searching room for more than 3 rounds or only one round if they search a specific area - large stuffed chair. Smell of pipe smoke, and then after some time the sounds of various animals (as represented by the trophy game animals) come from outside the room.
4)Third Trigger: Remaining in room 2 rounds after Second Trigger. Outside room (windows) and hall are filled with fog/mist.
3)Fourth Trigger: Staying in room 2 rounds after Third Trigger. Sounds of various animals howling and screaming increases causing panic, damage, insanity, etc (as the GM sets it up), until people leave the room for a few minutes. May reset at second trigger and skip first or second trigger if room is returned to before 24hours. That is, the haunt is on semi-active or alert mode. Triggering the Forth Trigger may set off another haunt located near the room.
Hook: Party must find a keepsake that the vicious lord (the hunter) has hidden in the room.
Defeat: various spells (not going to specifics here, GM can set as appropriate for CR) or take all the mounted and stuffed heads out of the room and burn or bury them.
A mix of spells (multiple silence spells – not on the heads but cast on the PCs) and mundane actions may be facilitated by smart players who do not have all the resources (the spells needed or levels) to defeat this haunted room. It shouldn’t be Spell A or Power B defeats this; it should be detailed enough so that alternate spells can be used or mundane equivalents if spells are not available or prepped.
I think that Haunts are a good mechanic overall, but like many aspects of 3rd edition based rules they are too simplistic and far too binary in function. Each haunt should be a well thought out and customized job, with a few standard (and mundane) tropes for the beating the more common ones.
If a DM wants to add more details and workarounds (and turns off the binary aspects) I think Haunts can become a viable tool in the DMs arsenal. Anyway, that's my take the matter.
So, what is it? Because the last several weeks a TON of threads keep getting thrown other places when they contain valid PFS related concerns. Are we only supposed to BS in the thread like some do? By continuously tossing them into other forums, they easily get misplace/ignored by those that could answer the questions best, those that actually care about PFS.
I can understand the occasional thread that has nothing to do with PFS, but more and more those that do have something to do with it get moved. Who's doing it and why? Someone new to the boards/PFS could very easily get pissed off at his thread vanishing and not being able to find it and could leave for good. Seems pretty stupid for some small technicality. Just because a rule could be answered by the forum at general, doesn't mean they don't want only PFS members answering.
If we did change it, we run into the problem of everyone who has played it wanting to go back and retcon their character to receive PP.
This is why you should not say why you do things.. ;)
IMO, this is not a very good reason not to.
If the PFS can survive Season 0 Scenarios all of sudden giving more PP then they did before, and GM credit giving more PP then they did at first, then the PFS can handle adding 1 PP for this one module.
I would rather see it retire, then to be different then the other Free RPG day Modules.
Regarding the "service" discussion that is just starting up: Yep. We, as GMs, are in the service industry. You are rendering a service for which people are often paying (be it with time or money or both), and they see our performance as directly responsible for their fun. Thus, we're much like a waiter at a restaurant. This is the psychology of it, and is not something to be upset about. Instead, accept it, use it, and get better at what you do because of it.
In a lot of cases GMs are also paying the same monies and expenses with additional ... We volunteer our time; while that may mean that we are "servicing" the players, that does not mean that we deserve to be treated with disrespect or like servents to their fun.
I don't consider myself a waitress at a resturant. I consider myself a gamer and as such able to circulate in gamer circles. Waiters don't circulate in the same circles as their patrons (generally)
This is my appeal to Paizo to give Michael Kortes more AP chapters to write!
He wrote Haunting of Harrowstone, which is really just about all I ought to have to say. But I'll go on.
From my count, he's written 3 APs and several modules. They all tend to be really highly reviewed -- especially HoH and the old OGL modules Pact Stone Pyramid and Entombed with the Pharaohs.
People always seem to mention Greg Vaughn, Tim Hitchcock, Richard Pett, and a few others as fan favorite authors. I think Michael Kortes belongs on that list!
I hope Paizo can give him a shot at Shattered Star!
It isn't evil to kill evil creatures, it is good... even when helpless.
Chaotic Evil serial killer lives in a town of evil people. He goes around and kills evil women, evil children, evil men, sneaking through the night, slitting their throats and eating their hearts. He makes parents watch as he kills the kids, then he kills the parents.
He's a saint! Evil Serial Killer = Good Saint! He can't be evil, he is committing so many horrible good acts! Spilling so much evil blood!
In other words, killing evil is not automatically good. No more than killing good is automatically evil. WHY you do what you do is the key to whether something is good or evil.
How is the Assassin Vine not at the top of everyone's list?
I've seen that thing end more Pathfinder Society lives than any other creature...toss in what I saw in LG, and we have the #1 killer of adventuring parties everywhere.
I hardly think a Paladin would go on a quest with an imp that doesnt meet the "but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil" because honestly if you as a Paladin dont believe the quest is important why are you even going on it?
Yes atonement would be required for consistant association (such as multiple scenarios in a row) although the ambiguity on time spent between missions could mean you can consider each scenario seperated by sufficient time that the association is merely casual rather than a home games enforced consistancy.
I know this has been said a few times but I think it bears repeating - both players can decide not to be jerks and just get along with each other. That really is the crux of the issue - and like that metallica song, nothing else matters.
Cooperation with others, meeting new friends, sharing adventures... these are the reasons Organized Play exists. Who cares about the rest?
People love to take up the paladin discussion battle-flag and rage about, throwing heavy-handed opinions and interpretations. Why? At the end of the day, if you can't sit at a table and PLAY THE GAME with someone, the game's not the problem - you are.
I know that comes off pretty harsh, and I'm sorry for that, but it's definitely how I feel about the issue - not that anyone should really care about little old me.
Just so you are aware, and you have the proper context there..
That post you quoted was in support of 8 man table and reporting that 8 man table as 2 games, and there fore getting credit twice for 1 game and gaming the GM star system. *He did not do it himself he just supports it being done*
If you ignore all that and make it for 7 player tables, it is a good post.
Wrong. What I supported was the bold section I highlighted, that IF the players left happy and IF they left thinking good things about PFS and PFRPG, then the mission was accomplished.
I believe that 1000%.
Adding mooks is OK, even if it breaks the rules IMHO, IF everyone enjoyed the adventure and IF everyone leaves thinking PFS and PFRPG is good.
Keeping 7 or 8 man tables up if necessary is OK, even if it breaks the rules IMHO, IF everyone enjoyed the adventure and IF everyone leaves thinking PFS and PFRPG is good.
See where I am going with it. I can pretty much agree with that sentiment about breaking ANY of the "rules", if in enhances the fun for the people involved.
Clarification edit: He being the GM who did this, not GodsDMit
I see it a different way in this example. I see he did what would take 2 tables, and either 2 gm's or 2 slots, and did it in one, made his players happy. I personally don't see the problem since the same amount of players are satisfied, and he gets the same amount of stars for the same amount of players.
I don't look at my slots as another slot. I look at it as X players satisfied and run through a scenario. He satisfied mathematically the same as two tables, so two tables of credit seems fair. If anything, I think by "breaking" that rule, he serviced PFS even greater, than forcing a player out. (Maybe stars should be rewarded by how many players are "serviced" vs how many tables you ran. 4 players = 1 credit etc.)
To break this in marketing terms. A customer with a bad experience tells 10 people about it. A customer with a good experience tells 3. He gained 3 people hearing good things, instead of 10 people hearing bad things. I'm not seeing how this is a loss
in the perception of the Judge at an 8 person table... he felt he did a great job.
realizing that this is just my opinion, and I wasn't there... but I would like to hear from the rest of the table before I pass judgement. Many times in the past (in home games and in OP) I have had to many players at the table. and I have shorted players because of it, sometimes when I didn't notice. I wonder if he would have noticed...
I still have yet to hear from anyone who feels that a 7 player table is better than two 3 play + Iconic tables... and why it's better.
Very well.
I feel a 7 man table is better than two 3man tables + an iconic.
First of all, when you run an iconic, you are either as GM taking time away from the encounter to run yet ANOTHER NPC, one that runs counter to the goals and combat structure of the NPCs you are already running. Sometimes, some people MAY find it impossible to keep GM knowledge of NPC abilities out of the Iconic NPC knowledge...say, taking the cleric for example. Should the cleric Iconic being run by the GM wait to cast the spell in prep for the BBEG/evil NPC's ability, or preempt it maybe by casting a spell? Or not? Seperation of NPCs for integritys sake, IMHO is better.
So, following that rule above then, now I am essentially asking one of my players to take their entire attention away from their character and split their personality to play the Iconic. Can some players do this? Yes sure, of course. But SHOULD they? IMHO it ruins the immersion of the characters.
I don't see that as a win-win situation. Either the GM or a random player now has to split time, but in a 7 man table, you don't have this issue.
Second, I have already mentioned the space concerns. Take my FLGS for example...Monday is the day they let us run PFS. But, its also one of their Magic league nights. (see, the owner/operator doesn't really want to be there super late more than a few nights in a row, so we are kind of piggybacked on a night he is already there late...a common sense approach IMHO.) So, between the small space available for play, and the corresponding necessity of two 3 man tables, now I need to take up twice as much floor space and table space. See, in this situation...not a win. the 7 man table is better.
Third, the spontaneity of sudden GMs. See, I don't really think its very fair to someone i like to call "friend" to just suddenly out of the blue say to them "Oh, yeah..see...now YOU have to run instead of play. So sorry, thems the rules! Or wait, no...SOMEONE could just bow out and say no." A 7 man table wins here yet again.
Fourth, since I am buying my scenarios and this is an out of pocket expense, now in the off chance that I have more than 6, I have to have a second copy on hand ready to go. OR, I can have one that I have already run and purchased, and have that ready to go. OR I can run one of the many low level First Steps series that can be run again and again...but I still have to have it prepped and brought with me. Now, truly this isn't a REAL handicap or limitation...but its easier and more friendly for the 7 man table and we don't have that. Let alone how many of my regulars might have already run or played in one of the adventures that I have brought with me. Or Maybe they didn't bring a second character of appropriate level with them. These aren't things I'm just pulling out of my behind here...this is a very typical scenario. See, my players sign up on Warhorn and expect to play the given scenario...but now, because some people who have the CHOICE to not seat at or run a 7 man table decided for me, I have to face any of these different problems. But NOT if I am allowed to seat 7.
Fifth, in a group of 7 players, chances are that SOMEONE will have the skill/ability/feat necessary to give the best chance of party survival, and winning the module. But now, if I split them up...maybe I get a party without a tank, or a group without a dedicated healer. Again, while this may be solved by the addition of an appropriate level Iconic, see points one and two again please.
I can keep going on if you want. These are not "out of the ordinary" type what-ifs. This is not some rambling "once in a while" type occurrence. The cost factor, the fairness factor, the floor space factor, the fun/spontaneous factor...all of these things go into EVERY game that gets run, at least in my FLGS. Do we seat 7 man tables every week? No. But I am damn sure not going to tell someone "no" and potentially ruin someones hobby night all because someone else in a different state maybe feels that they don't like a 7 man table.
Point is, you (and here I mean the proverbial all encompassing you, not Nosig in particular) should not be able to dictate to me what I can or can't do. Paizo yes, some other GM somewhere else at some mythical con, no.
And if Paizo changes this as a hard and fast 6 man table limit, they can count me out as GM, and out of the society.
For a clearer example, the Warrior NPC-class is weaker all around than the Fighter. Is it a trap for players who don't understand the system, or is it a tool for DMs? Maybe both?
The article in question was discussing material, and the quality of it for characters. It was Monte's opinion that someone who did not know the system well enough to avoid feats like that were deserving of those feats.
Sean, coming from his statements on "cloistered cleric" did not seem to have the same opinion but had a similar opinion that putting out subpar options was a valid thing for a developer to do. I disagree, and if you'd like to see the argument look up the final product discussions on the subject.
The difference IMO between Sean and Monte: Monte said he was putting traps in on purpose. Sean believes subpar material is good for the game. Both I feel are wrong. A player should not need to sort through what is crap or not. It should all be "Grade A" quality material. If not, it shouldn't be printed.
Further, regarding a feat or material designed for a NPC or monster should be sectioned and contained in areas specifically for said designs. Particularily the bestiary, or the GM section of the CRB. If they're not, then it's a trap for not as experienced PC's or at the least a poor design concept.
Has your group played all 88 scenarios? It isn't a snarky question. It is me trying to find out why people are running out of options of things to play. If you play the modules at the level they are written for, you can start a level 1 character and advance to 11 level without ever playing a scenario. In Atlanta last year, we ran 3-12 tables of PFS in 49 of 52 weekends at 8 different lcations. We never had a problem finding a scenario for people to play in and rarely scheduled modules. If we ran more than 450 tabes sat year without turning anyone away and no one playing scenarios for free, I need to know why other areas with less reported sessions don't have any options. I'm truly baffled at how some areas have no options left to run and I honestly want to know what is going on thatis leading to this.
I will give you an Example Mike..
Our High Level Scenarios are fully Open, but Because I keep getting new players and the old players keep having to make new PCs to play with the new players, the Old players are running out of Scenarios to play because they can't play the Higher Level ones because I don't have enough PCs of that Level. Which as an example the Old Module rules where good a chipping at.
The Problem is not Running out of All the scenarios to play The Problem is My Veteran players are running out of 1-7 level Scenarios to play and the New players can't play the 5-11 level scenarios.
Edit: It is getting harder to Schedule my Scenarios to pick ones that no one has played.
Edit Edit: My Players have an Average of 3.5 PCs because they keep on having to make new Level 1s. The Highest Level PC is mine at 10 But I have played the Longest, I have 6 PCs about to make my 7th.
Doug: Run multiple. Played 2 (both Godsmouth Heresy and Crypt of the Everflame, both with 2nd-level PCs.)
"We be Goblins" is a fun module. Part of the wackiness is the disposable quality of the PCs. Once players understand that getting your goblin killed will also kill the PC that you've linked it to, I imagine that people will be much more conservative in that module.
I suggest asking your DM privately to adopt your current character as a recurring runaway antagonist, and make a new character.
I think the shortest answer in the thread is actually the best. Have your Pc become an enemy in the hands of the DM and create a new character yourself. This way the other PCs will see the consequences of their actions and you still get to enjoy creating a very memorable NPC, certainly if the DM succeeds in making him a recurring character.
Sorry, but the initial post absolutely reeks of juvenile narcissism. The fact that this question is being asked indicates interpersonal issues inherent to the group. If everyone is great friends and this is all in-game fun, the OP would never have asked this question to begin with.
The only good rationale for PVP in-game is that it allows for issues to be resolved. In this case, if the one at the hub of the issues (the CE char) actually lives (but I doubt the GM will let that happen), then the issues will just resurface with the new chars (now specifically built to handle the CE chars attacks) and the cycle will begin anew.
The absolute worst case scenario here is that nothing is resolved and the OP begins a tit-for-tat revenge campaign of pettiness, which will just lead to ever increasing IRL irritation. By then, the GM should have stepped in though.
That seems a pretty harsh judgement for not having actually observed the game or knowing any of the people involved besides me (ande even then you only know what I have posted). Unless you are secretly a person in my group (and if you are I'll see you in a few hours to exorcise Harrowstone Prison!) I have no clue how you'd know what the other players know about my character's true identity. And I'm not sure as to "what problems already exist" are, perhaps you can elaborate?
And how is my character awful?
Your character is a secret sociopath, the GM signed off on this, and the rest of the party has just expressed enthusiasm for the opportunity to kill your character.
This says to me that you don't see the problems with playing a secret sociopath in a social game. That's problem one. (You've also expressed that your character is the most valuable member of the group and that you have no problem with killing everyone else's characters, both of which are terrifyingly antisocial warning flags.)
This says to me that the GM doesn't see the problems with you playing etc. Problem two.
The other players are expressing hostility towards your character in-game, and have expressed enthusiasm for an opportunity to go even further in pushing your character out of the game. This says to me that they know that something isn't right with your character, even if they don't know the specifics. Problem three, and the big one.
The only clear problem I can identify is that you're playing a sociopath and don't see a problem with this and the other players are showing signs that they do, even given your sympathetic-to-yourself narrative. (There are hints of other problems, as well, but without knowing you guys better, I can't really comment on them comfortably.) They seem to want to hash it out in an in-character way, which generally only risks aggravating this we-don't-like-your-character conflict into a I-hate-how-you-killed-the-character-I-liked conflict or a we-hate-how-you-derailed-our-game-with-your-terrible-character conflict. Going ahead with this big in-character fight is going to lead to real-life bad blood all around.
If you really want advice based on what you've said, you are the one who needs to give ground here. Either drop the entire secret-evil-anarchist character trait or switch characters or otherwise make the unilateral concessions necessary to back out of this situation.
houstonderek wrote:
Poor Robert, don't you know? You're Doing It Wrong (tm). You're having BadWrongFun (tm).
Playing a chaotic evil character obviously means you need serious therapy, and perhaps some reprogramming. Why do you hate society so much that you'd play a scoundrel? How do you think that puppy you kicked and starving child you robbed in real life feels now? You dirty, dirty scumbag person!
It wouldn't be a problem (or this sort of problem, anyway) if the rest of the party was on-board with him playing that character. All signs point to him playing that character despite the wishes of the other players. Down that road lies heartbreak.
But you keep on making snarky comments. I'm sure you'll hurt that strawman's feelings eventually.
(also secretly a CE anti-aristocracy anarchist who worships Norgorber)
There is no nice way to put this.
This game is seriously malfunctioning, and I suspect that you are a significant cause. The rest of the table thinks that by letting you get your awful character (and this secret is no secret, FYI) killed, they might exorcise this problem. They are almost certainly wrong. Player versus player combat is the least of this group's concerns. It will not solve anything, and will only aggravate what problems already exist.
GM's increasing the challenge arbitrarily is not the answer. All that does, long run, is ensure that each table plays a different scenario than the last, and that in the name of "fun" (for whom are we referring, the GM who wants to really challenge his players, or the players who want more of a challenge?) characters may die when they wouldn't have if run the way the scenario was written.
** spoiler omitted **...
All in the name of "fun". As if fun is a dirty word. Idk, I have a problem with this attitude towards organized play. Essentially, you're trying to enforce the rules as if this was COMPETITIVE play. So what if characters die in the scenario because of modifications? Does that really matter if they were having more fun doing it? We're not all racing to the top with our characters, if people want a harder/more fun experience I think DM's owe it to players to try and make that experience possible. Instead of just trying to stick to the rules as printed and be chronicle sheet factories.
At some point, you need to trust that your DM is doing the right thing for your table. Because honestly, even a DM that's "following the rules" can totally mess up a table and kill people were another DM wouldn't, even following the same encounter tables. DM's have so much power that its silly to believe that you can build a module that completely removes them from the equation and makes everything "fair/the same".
So, accepting that DM's have the power, it seems pointless (to me) to try and knee cap them when they try and come up with creative solutions to increase/decrease difficulty so that their players have a more enjoyable time. ESPECIALLY when they actually fully understand the capability of the players and have gamed with them before.
PFS needs to lighten up and accept that DM's are an important part of shaping whats printed. If you follow the print so stringently every time, you're robbing people of your personal creativity and possibly having a much more enjoyable experience.
(added: Sorry for 'attacking' what you wrote. It just struck a cord somewhere).
I trust my GMs and coordinators. Ask any of them in Atlanta. I didn't make appearances at their individual game days for months because I knew I could trust them.
Exactly my point. Although we would have loved to see you more often. You trusted them to make good decisions.
Quote:
A large part of that is I knew they would follow the rules that were in place and I didn't have to check up on them. I just went back and counted over the four rule revision threads and there are multiple instances were people claimed to have already broken the rules as written or will in the future if it is something they don't like. Help me rationalize that please?
I suppose the real question is "what is the purpose of this rule?" If the answer is "to keep things fun" I don't see the point, you should rely on your GMs. If the answer is "because 7 player tables are too easy, there's no real risk involved" then maybe there does need to be a new rule.
Or have Joe Caubo put his "how slight modifications to a scenario can result in an easy TPK" online as required viewing for all GMs.
I would rather deal with a table of 7 (or heaven foreffingbid 8) to keep my society successful.
And this is my other big worry. If the hard cap is currently set at 7, there shouldn't be any thoughts at all of running an 8 player table -- period. I'm not picking on Lady Ophelia. She just happened to be the latest one of numerous people who advised they had run an 8 player table.
So, when do you draw the line? If you have 10 people show up and only have 1 GM, are you going to turn 3 people away or are you going to run a table of 10? What happens if you have 12 show up and only 1 GM? Are you going to turn away 5 players since you have no other GM or are you going to run a table of 12?
There has to be a point when a coordinator takes responsibility to plan ahead, make sign-ups/reservations available, and apologizes to the players that can't be sat for the game.
As a note: I've never run a 8 player table in society, I have done many times in personal games, but in PFS, we have been very lucky to stay at six with the occasional 7th person table.
Does this mean I wouldn't do it if I had to? No, I would for the good of the society. Let's really be real here, we can plan and sign up all we want, but sometimes we have to succumb to the nature of the beast no matter how hard we try to plan ahead. This is an OPEN SOCIETY. Meaning we are going to get drop ins and new players whether we like it or not.
For example: What I would do, if I had a 10 player table, is I would seat six, and then tell the other four to come back or stick around, because if I can find a GM to run, then guess what, they would get first dibs because I could not fit them on my table. Regardless, I would have a "spare" GM in the works to begin with, and we would fit them in accordingly with the spare GM. In our home society, we are lucky to have forced diligence and kicked players to the curb for not RSVPing.
Do I like doing that? No. 99% of people I kick out for dropping in or not RSVPing, don't come back. What do I do then? Why do I get stuck being the bad guy and lose a player or even a potential GM, for a stupid mandatory table rule?
Please do me a favor, leave the rule alone. Let me do my job and figure that out. I personally guarantee, putting a hard rule on us, will be broken. And I will do what it takes to satisfy my society and get everyone playing FIRST AND FOREMOST before invoking some stupid table max rule.
I don't mean to sound condescending or rude, but we really should be talking about something else, like having more modules come out in one month, or helping local societies succeed with a 7 player table instead of condemning them. Or heck, we need to learn how to train more GM's so we never have this said problem.
Come on Pathfinders, let's talk about something a little more helpful to me as a coordinator than a table rule.
Cause we're really not helping ourselves here.
We need to be talking about improving the quality of our tables, not how big or small they need to be.
7 player tables, much as I dislike them personally and would elect to avoid if given a chance, are a necessary evil in organized play to avoid turning away a player.
What a pathetic excuse. We've probably all run into this scumbag, who thinks that he can steal from the party and call it "good roleplaying".
If I make an assassin who kills party members in their sleep, is that "good roleplaying"?
They've chosen a concept that is destructive to the party cohesion, and that is a douche move. Period.
The player needs to be told that when the party eventually discovers his trickery, he'll be stripped of all items, and then expelled from the party (if they don't kill him), so he better have a backup character waiting that has a better concept to take over, since this one is doomed.
Quote:
is this something you need to take care of as a GM?
I would give characters with high perception a chance to note that the rogue is gaining items that aren't accounted for. I would also change his alignment to evil if the behavior continued.
Out of character I would allow this concept just as quickly as I would allow any other concept which invites party conflict. It does not work well within the game.
Well I'm not sure what maximum movement for the round is. Is that your base speed, your buffed base speed, your speed on a double move, your speed on a charge, your speed while running, your speed while running with the Run feat, the speed you travel when you're tossed by a wizard via Telekinesis, or...some other speed I'm not aware of? >.>
An Acrobatics check to jump is part of another action (rather than its own action) so the 'maximum movement' mentioned is the maximum movement for whatever action you're doing in order to move is. Or, to put it another way, jumping just 'enhances' the movement a little, it doesn't add any distance to it.
So, for example, if you're faced with a series of 10ft square pits, each spaced 10ft apart, you can chose to take the run action, and make an Acrobatics check to jump over each one in turn as you reach them - the number of jumps you happen to make during your run action isn't limited (although the more checks you need to make, the higher your chance of eventually failing and suffering the appropriate consequences).
On the other hand, you can't jump (in any meaningful distance-based sense) when you take an action which provides zero movement.
So yes, jumping is great for avoiding obstacles, difficult terrain, and the like if you happen to be good at it, but it never, ever, extends your movement beyond the normal amount of squares you could cross with the action you're taking.
Oh no -- it's not the randomness that does it in for me -- it's the 4~6 dollars for a single mini that does it for me.
First off it's a waste of packaging, and resources. Bulk is king for a reason and it's not because its more expensive and wastes more paper, shipping weight, and costs more per unit -- which is to say its the exact opposite of selling the product individually.
Then there's the fact that I honestly don't need that many unique minis -- what I need is 10 goblins, 10 skeletons, 10 minotaurs, 10 kobolds... you know generics. And for generic monsters I don't want to pay an arm and a leg for each of them, their role in my game is going to be to get horribly killed.
IF I want a specific mini for a specific character then I don't want to be buying a product made from cheap plastic generically painted as quickly as possible to make a profit -- I want a unique mini for that character. Which means I need to realize I'm going to pay more for quality -- but that's okay since I plan on using that specific mini much more and more personally too.
All in all this new product just showcases everything that is wrong in the current mini's market to me. I'm honestly wondering how it can possibly be a long term smart investment for anyone (including the companies selling it).
If it's honestly a matter of 'less demanded ones won't sell and people will be stuck with them' might I suggest not making as many of the less demanded minis and making more of the minis everyone is wanting to buy?
It's not like you lose the molds after using them.
I don't want to create along drawn out new thread discussing what is and is not evil and how much evil should be considered for removal of a character from play.
What I'd like is to hear from Mark Moreland about whether table GM's, coordinators, and/or Venture-Captains even have the right to make that subjective call.
If they do, I think we need some documentation to add some objective guidelines for said removal.
This isn't a simple question of table variance that should be expected on many ambiguous rules issues.
This is an issue of someone completely losing their right to play their character. Which should not be up to the subjective whims of a GM, game-day coordinator, or venture captain.
I would add the further question:
Is there a distinction between characters being of evil alignment, and neutral characters who consider both evil and good acts to be two sides of the same coin?
If you are removing a character for performing evil acts, aren't you really banning that character for not being good-aligned?
If the logic is that only evil characters perform evil acts, then how can the converse not also be true (only good characters perform good acts)? In that case, where is the room for neutral characters?
pathfinders are adventurers not heroes.
that said I understand people have different GMing styles, but if if yours is significantly different, for instance "I will change your alignment for one evil act" then you should warn your players before the game starts and give them the chance to leave.
Perhaps a GM doesn't have the right to remove a character from the campaign, but they are well within their rights to remove a player from a table for not following the rules of the campaign. The same as Don't be a Jerk, if a player is violating one of the tenants of the campaign, they can be removed.
The Don't Be a Jerk rule applies to the GM as well!!
If a player is a disruption he should be removed from the table.
If a GM over steps his authority, tweaks the enemies, fudges the dice consistantly in the enemies favor, attempts to mark an 'evil act' on a cert ect..
If completing faction missions hurts the character (for example by becoming evil and thus unplayable) or if you blackmail the players in not completing the faction mission and thus deprive their characters of associated rewards, then players will stop choosing this faction. And then you might as well stop writing missions for this faction.
If the rules (both explicit and implicit) of the game end up creating bad blood between players, it is the rules that need to be changed, not the players.
An example of implicit rules in PFS is that other PCs will help you complete your faction mission. At that time, there is a clear divide opening between the story and the characters on one part and the mission on the other part. It is this divide which allows for good characters of the Andoran faction to make sure that their target dies without them turning evil.
BTW, to the OP : next time, just make sure that no one goes out of his way to heal the target. As we all know, NPCs who went down in combat always die if only because even Good PCs just let them bleed to death without qualms (and without the slightest blemish on their alignment).
Hi all -
To be clear, there are two Pathfinder Societies. There is the Pathfinder Society based out of Absalom and there is the Pathfinder Society based out of Washington. The Society in Washington doesn't condone murder, theft or driving on the wrong side of the road.
The general idea of games/RPG's (D&D any edition, WoW, Modern Warfare) is to defeat the perceived bad guys. That usually entails injuring, maiming or killing them.
The Society to which our characters belong is not good. The mission statement is to go find relics and put them in a vault. In so doing, you may have to fight people, kill them and take their stuff. In year 2, the Shadow Lodge an internal faction of the Pathfinder Society. They are still members of the society, they believe in getting the stuff and instead of putting it in a vault, they feel the items should be used. The Apsis Consortium is not too much different than us - but in the end, they want to sell the stuff to the highest bidder.
In year 3 the Shadow Lodge's goals are a bit different. They still endorse the idea of going forth and getting the stuff the Society wants, but they feel that those that go forth and get that stuff should be better protected should they fail.
In general, the Pathfinders are going out and taking what belongs to someone else. There is a reason they aren't liked in Ustalav. They are not archeologists studying the past. They study the past and take what belonged to those dead guys.
In no way should the Society be defined as a good organization in general. Factions aside, the Society isn't good. Individuals within the Society may be, but the mission statement of the Society doesn't say that they are going forth to get these items to do good - if that was the case at the conclusion of a mission the item would be sent off to the crusades to defeat the World Wound. But then you also have to determine what is good and what is bad and who gets to make that choice.
A player character may do whatever it is that they want, with the Washington based Society declaring that they cannot attack another player's character. Part of what I call the Trump Rule (do what's best for the Washington based Society). As such, if I wish to kill a guy and take off his head, you can attempt to stop me because you are a LG Paladin and you determine that to be evil. If that is the case, you're LG Paladin should be reminded to read the books describing the Pathfinders (Seekers of Secrets, Field Guide and the Chronicles). As such there is much murder and maiming going on. Maiming does seem to be on the evil side of the morality issue - however, morality is a deeply personal thing and what one believes is OK or good another might determine to be the most vile act ever.
In a module that was played a lot this weekend, there is a tribe that has an item that the Shadow Lodge (year 2) wanted. The PFS is sent to go get that item as well, so that the Shadow Lodge doesn't get it. Ignore the fact that the tribe has had that item for many hundreds of years and has done a most excellent job of keeping it safe from the rest of the world. So in either way, the Society will get that item. So fighting the tribe in any way and taking the item seems to be wrong. I cannot see how a Lawful person would see that as anything but theft. Let's say that the Shadow Lodge gets the item - and the players end up stopping the Shadow Lodge - the item should be returned. But your boss at HQ in Absalom did ask you to bring it back. What do you do? Who's laws of the land do you follow? What about going to Whitethrone? Monsters in Issrien are citizens while humans are not. Geb, humans and the like are chattell while undead are the masters. If a lawful character goes into those areas and kills a goblin or a troll or a zombie - he has committed murder in the eyes of the law. In the eyes of general society he has just killed a monster.
I love the grey morality that the Society offers. If a GM were to ever say that maiming a person (faction mission or not) and I was lawful and that I was going to turn evil and therefore I could lose my character, I would ask for an exact list of exactly every law of the land in which I was currently located and what the laws of the land from which I hail and those from where the society was located. If the GM could not produce all these - I would state that I am just following the laws. Maiming and murder is OK. If I were Chaotic or Neutral, the same could apply. If I were lawful good - I would state that for the good of the world, this person needs to be maimed so that they learn a lesson, are able to turn their life around and hopefully become a force in the world that does at least one good turn. Losing an arm seems better than losing ones life.
Maiming might seem evil to many of us (Washington Society), but much of it can be rationalized in a world where Magic, Undead and Trolls walk the streets. We cannot put our personal morality (real world or not) onto another characters morality.
Posts
