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

Jiggy's page

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32. RPG Superstar 2013 Marathon Voter, 2014 Dedicated Voter. FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 17,084 posts (18,544 including aliases). 16 reviews. 3 lists. 1 wishlist. 13 Pathfinder Society characters. 15 aliases.


1 to 50 of 2,672 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
a good GM needs to feel confident in that they are making the right call

Why?

What gets hurt if you instead trust the players to make the right call for you, in the areas in which you're uninformed?

Speaking of trusting players to make the right call...

Quote:
Trusting your players is not the issue, they can be 100% honest and do everything above board but you not knowing or understanding how any of this works...

"I believe you're not cheating" is only half of what "trust" means, and frankly, it's the easy half. I think most GMs act on the assumption that no one is cheating until they encounter evidence to suggest otherwise.

Then there's the other half of trust: "I believe enough in your competence that I'll let you handle it." This is the bigger part of trust, and the one that I think way too few GMs are willing to engage in.

You say that trusting your players is not the issue. But if you're not willing to let THEM tell YOU how something works, if you're not comfortable with character options unless you know them well enough yourself that you'll be able to spot any errors, then you do not trust your players.

Trust does not just mean "I don't suspect malice". It means "I think you can handle this." If you don't think they can handle it, then by definition you do not trust them. Whether it's a GM and his players, a parent and their child that's just learned to drive, or any other situation of risk or vulnerability you can think of; if you're not willing to put them in control of the thing in question (in this case, their own PCs' mechanics), then no, you DON'T trust them.

Discomfort with not knowing your players' mechanics better than they do is ABSOLUTELY a trust issue.

Quote:

Unless you can gauge what is and isn't a challenge or whether a party can or cannot overcome a challenge based on their abilities you are either going to have a cakewalk session or a frustrating slog.

No one wants either option so a good GM studies and learns the new rules and then the next book comes out with even more crazy new rules that conflict with other older rules and you just want to scream.

Well, there's part of your problem: you mistakenly think that part of the GM's role is to produce a specific type of experience with a specific challenge level.

If so, you're wrong.

Your role is to present the setting, then step back and see what happens when the PCs are added to the equation. Maybe they lack crucial thing X and struggle, or maybe they have perfect solution Y and succeed with ease, but either way they're getting the chance to help tell the story. If you try to enforce a certain difficulty level instead of letting it be a product of setting plus characters, you've stolen something precious from the players.

I can't speak for everyone, but I loathe tables where I realize the difficulty is always going to be approximately X no matter what abilities I do or don't have. At that point, I'm just watching a bad movie disguised as a roleplaying game.

Quote:
But really the worst thing is nearly ALL of the new material is all about giving players more and better options while really giving the GM next to nothing to challenge those options with.

This is one of the most disturbing GM comments I've read in a long time. I've sometimes suspected that this or that GM had nasty "GM vs Players" attitude, but to have someone literally just come right out and complain that they're losing the arms race... Wow.

Quote:
How many coordinators have had to just stop scheduling season 0-1 (and sometimes season 2) stuff simply because the players will just waltz over it in 45 minutes and ask is that it?

I just had a table of newbies finish a Season 1 in about 2 hours, and they had FUN. For three people it was their first PFS experience, and I daresay they're coming back.

Quote:
Finally, and this is the big one, some GM's just really don't like the new options. They find them overly complicated, powerful or just distasteful and the only option they have is to suck it up and watch it drain their fun out of the hobby or walk away and only do home games and ban huge swaths of material.

Taste is taste, so I'll give you this one. :)

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Majuba wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:
Jiggy wrote:


What bad things would happen if, on matters not super-serious, the GM just accepted the player's assertion and moved on, even if they suspected it was incorrect?

I read this.

I scratched my head.
I worried a bit.
I thought about it some.
I mulled it over.
I looked at it from both sides.
I came up with only one word to describe it.

Epiphany.

I call it Blasphemy myself, but to each their own.

*half-wink*

I expected no less.

*half-wink*

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Would this sort of mandatory process give players more confidence that they can correct GM errors, without forcing GMs to just trust everyone at their table carte blanche?

I think if we accept "don't force GMs to trust players" as a goal, we're already doing something wrong.

What we need is not for players to have a process by which to appeal the GM's ruling. What we need is for GMs to identify as the players' peers, open to equal-footing dialogue on any topic and with both parties having equal authority to assert their own ideas and equal responsibility to consider submitting to each other for the sake of the table's fun.

We need for GMs to act like normal people, who can be approached normally with normal disagreements by other normal people.

If we formalize a method for players to appeal a GM's ruling, that fosters a mindset (on both sides) that the GM is on top, is in charge, is someone the lowly player must approach differently than they would approach a fellow human being.

A formalized, mandatory method for how a player can disagree with a GM is as preposterous as a formalized, mandatory method for how my wife can disagree with me.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:
My experience, though, is that players not really knowing the rules is distressingly common. It doesn't happen every game by any means, but in a non-insignificant number of the games I've played in, players have come in and tried to do things that they shouldn't be able to do. This is exactly what pauljathome mentions-- they don't always get it right, and when things are ambiguous, they haven't necessarily tracked down to find out the forum, FAQ, or errata rulings (if there are any).

Sure, sometimes a player thinks they can do something they can't. Just like sometimes a GM thinks a player can't do something they really can (ex: "Spell Combat + Spellstrike = two attacks" is still attacked by some GMs as "obviously unintended cheese"). When the GM makes their version of this error, players are supposed to just accept it and move on unless it's like PC-death-serious. Would it be the end of the world if GMs took the same approach to the player version of this error?

What bad things would happen if, on matters not super-serious, the GM just accepted the player's assertion and moved on, even if they suspected it was incorrect?

Shouldn't the "I think you're wrong, but it's not a huge deal so I'll just hold my peace and get back to having fun" thing go both ways?

rknop wrote:
F'rinstance: I once avoided a TPK because the Sorcerer in the group didn't realize that UMD was a trained-only skill. Had the player known that, *or* had I remembered to ask about it, that player wouldn't have been able to use the CLW wand that saved the entire party. (I only found out that UMD was untrained at the very end of the session, when the player asked for advice about levelling up.) (In retrospect, I'm kind of happy that this happened, since I don't want to TPK people, but it *was* a rules violation.) This is but one example; I've seen *lots*.

I would point out that your example has absolutely nothing to do with the expanding volume of player options. It's not even related to a Core class, let alone a splatbook class.

Similarly, I made an error in my most recent GMing session: I thought you could use the "first aid" function of the Heal skill to give 1HP back to a 1st-level PC (which is what was needed to get the only guy who could use the CLW wand conscious again). I let it work, then found out later that the only HP-recovery Heal effect is "treat deadly wounds", which requires a healer's kit (dunno if anyone had one).

I'd have made that same mistake even if it were a CRB-only game. I'd hazard a guess that most real rules errors have to do with Core mechanics, like trained-only skills, the T10 rules, determining cover, interacting with illusions, and so on.

rknop wrote:
And I'm guilty of this too. I had a minor error in one character once (two traits that were both "Magic" traits), but other than that I'm not aware of a character error. But I have made errors as a GM, which either went uncaught, or that were caught by a player who knew the rules very well. Again, nothing terribly major, for the most part (except for that avoided GPK), at least as far as I know, but it happens.

Exactly! They're usually very minor! So minor they might not even be caught! So why not just let it be, and not sweat the small stuff? Like I said at the top of this post, this is already the expectation when a GM makes an error; why not treat player errors (and even suspected errors) the same way?

Quote:
As the number of rules expand, this will only happen more often. Which leads me again to think that perhaps that only a particularly well-versed subset of current PFS GMs should really be expected and encouraged to continue doing it.

First, I'll reiterate my assertion that most real issues/errors are with the Core rules. There's usually lots of hubbub and drama with new books, but in my experience it usually turns out to be a matter of a class/spell/feat/etc letting players do something cool and innovative that's not just a re-packaged presentation of a comfortable staple, and then certain players/GMs scream that that can't be how it works, but then it turns out it really is. (Spell Combat + Spellstrike = two attacks; SLAs for early entry to PrC's; I could list a lot if I wanted to spend the time.)

But actual genuine errors? They're usually Core, and usually minor.

rknop wrote:
It's also fairly common to have players who have carefully read the rulebooks and think they can do something, but who aren't familiar with the errata and so don't realize that what they think they can do they can no longer do. The expansion of errata was already painful, and as the expansion of the rules on which errata are based occurs, it will cascade.

In theory, yeah, but let's be honest: most errata comes with a lot of heated debate and fanfare. Someone is going to know about it, 99% of the time. I'd say that makes this a small enough issue to not worry about.

rknop wrote:
I believe in most players' honor. Yeah, some cheat, but that's a tiny fraction not worth worrying about. The real worry is the players who mean to be honorable but don't remember something or don't know all the rules. Ideally, as GM, we can catch them and keep things straight. But it's getting harder and harder to do so.

For Core rules, that's a good goal. I sometimes wish more GMs invested deliberate time in improving their grasp of the underlying mechanics that form the core system. But again, this has nothing to do with more books being released; like I said, most errors are Core.

rknop wrote:
If my experience had been that by and large the players all knew the rules for what they were doing and always did it right, I wouldn't worry quite as much. However, my experience is that a not-ignorable minority of players come to the table trying to do something that they can't actually do.

For what it's worth, my experience is that the majority of the times that a GM thinks the player can't do what they're trying to do, the GM is wrong.

Here's the tricky thing:
When a player tries to do X and the GM says they can't, the player now has a burden to go find out the truth. After all, they're the one who wants to do X. So most of the time (not always, but usually), it's the player who goes and does the research.

If the player really was wrong, they know about it, because they're the ones who went and looked! When the GM is wrong? It's still the player who finds out. That GM might not see the player again, might never find out the result of the research. So they go on thinking the player was wrong, because they haven't done the research to find out otherwise.

So any given data point of "the player thought they could do X, but they can't" might actually be a data point of the opposite! That is, unless the GM did the research themselves, which is rare.

So when you say that in your experience, X number of players "come to the table trying to do something that they can't actually do", did you verify those instances? Did the players come back and tell you that you were right? Or could some/most/all of the events you're thinking of actually be times when you thought the player was wrong, and you simply haven't been corrected yet? (Please note, I'm not trying to pick on you specifically; just pointing out what I've seen from the other end of the process, where the verification actually happens.)

TLDR:
1) We're already supposed to just go along with possible GM errors when they're minor (and they usually are), and I submit that applying the same philosophy to possibly player errors will relieve a lot of your feelings of being overwhelmed, and do so without a serious negative impact on the game.

2) I submit that most actual errors relate to the CRB, while issues with splatbooks are mostly false alarms. Thus, if you focus on mastering the Core, you needn't be overwhelmed by "splat explosion".

3) There probably aren't as many player errors happening as you think there are, unless you're a GM who goes back and thoroughly researches EVERYTHING that you tell a player "no" about.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoelF847 wrote:
As for Avatar being American, that may be true, but in my perception it's anime regardless (plus aren't there two Avatars out there, one is Japanese?), and perception is reality in this case.

That's okay, in my perception it's basically Tolkien.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoelF847 wrote:
I personally could care less about all of the anime influence on the class, if I ever use it, it will be for a TK superhero/villain type, such as Sylar from Heroes (or many others). So for me it's much more a TK type ability.

Three things:

1) If you "could care less", that means you do care some. You probably meant you couldn't care less.

2) Avatar is an American show, created by a couple of dudes named Michael and Brian. No relation to anime whatsoever.

3) Yes, outside of deliberate Avatar references (which would seem inappropriate in an unaffiliated product), puppet-stuff seems to more naturally fit into TK.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't worry, the players will have gotten familiar with whatever rules they're bringing to the table, so it's no big deal if the GM doesn't know all the latest goodies. :)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Having now finally had a chance to peruse the PDF, I see that my elemental options are the classic four, plus aether. No light/dark. I has a sad. I want to blow up undead with radiant blasts ala Stardust, or envelop my enemies bottomless shadow.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Yeah, there was actually a source listing all the kineses on some occult site, and I was given the names from that. When I check now, it's saying that terrakinesis is more about nature stuff anyway and geokinesis is used for earth movement more often. We will certainly consider going geo. After all, it's all Greek to me!

There's also the issue that "terrakinesis" and "telekinesis" sound somewhat similar when spoken aloud; the former almost sounds like a slurred version of the latter, and could lead to confusion at the table. Add my vote to "geo".

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
"Touch and Scream"

[insert obligatory Zarta Dralneen joke here]

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:

I will tell you all what you need to know:

You must begin by becoming one who knows more than the wisest scholar and less than the raving amnesiac. Then you must purge the end of time from your existence. Only then will you know the way.

Are you really allowed to endorse drug use here on the boards like that?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Faragrim Ironhand wrote:
A side question, how do you handle something like that is plainly allowed in PFS but the GM arbitrarily 'disallows' it? I mean I don't want to round and round with him at a gaming convention table where the time is limited. I would think that would be rude to the other gamers. Any thoughts?

Here's a general guideline:

1) When a GM says something you think is wrong, maybe they just misremembered or something, so simply state very briefly what you believe the correct rule is. If the GM says "Oh, right, forgot about that," then great! If not (like if they say "No, it works like this"), then go to step 2.

2) Assess the importance of the issue. Is it worth pausing the game over? Correcting the GM about the stacking of bless and Inspire Courage might be worth pausing for if it means hitting with the attack that prevents the TPK, but not if you're mopping up mooks and already have a 17 on the die, you know? Be sure to factor in the length of time required for discussion when making this decision; some rules are right there in black and white, while others require discussion or cross-referencing.

2a) If it's pretty significant, either ask the judge to pause for the rule for a moment, or else look it up on your own while it's not your turn (depending on the feel of the table; use your best judgment) and then show the judge the relevant rule. Don't make them do the work of looking it up; politely point to the text so all they have to do is read it.

2b) If it's really not that important, wait until a break or after the game, then show them/discuss it. Again, do the work for them, make it as convenient as possible, and be polite.

3) If, after being shown, they still insist on their version, then you must again gauge the severity: can you just game on? Or is it worth leaving the table for? Maybe it's minor enough that you just make a mental note that this is how X works at his tables from now on. Maybe it's kind of in the middle, where you're fine finishing the scenario but don't want to play (or at least play this character) at his tables in the future. Or maybe it's severe enough that it's not worth losing your only chance to play that scenario ever, so you walk. This is a decision only you can make.

4) Sometime after the game, do some research (much like you did here) to make sure you're not the one mistaken. After re-confirming that the GM was the one in error, repeat step 3 to decide whether to sit at their tables in the future.

5) If the GM was respectful and mature in hearing your appeal and simply didn't agree, then you're probably done. If they behaved poorly (such as getting offended at being questioned), or if they admit that the rule is X but they just run it differently, or are otherwise plainly violating campaign rules (not simply misinterpreting game rules), report the incident to your local VO. If that doesn't help, or if it *IS* your local VO, report to Mike Brock, the campaign coordinator.

Hope that helps!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashkar wrote:
It's that I prefer to end debates with some solid arguments, not just by using GM authority.

For this I applaud you. So since you want to go by the rules, ask them to show you (not just verbally mention, but actually physically show you in the book) the rule stating that they get a save to disbelieve invisibility.

If they have any significant level of rules proficiency, they'll go straight to the disbelief rules that I quoted earlier (because they're probably *thinking* there's a rule that says "if you interact with an illusion, you get a save"), but then they'll discover that those rules don't actually grant you a save. Instead, they tell you when you don't get a save against an illusion that you could otherwise disbelieve.

So if they're good with rules, they'll now realize they need to see a save line in the spell in order to get a save, so they'll open up invisibility (for example), and show you that it says "Will negates".

At that point, have them show you where the rules say what that means. What they'll find in the Magic chapter is this:

Magic chapter, Saving Throw wrote:

Usually a harmful spell allows a target to make a saving throw to avoid some or all of the effect. The saving throw entry in a spell description defines which type of saving throw the spell allows and describes how saving throws against the spell work.

Negates: The spell has no effect on a subject that makes a successful saving throw.

[snip]

Disbelief: A successful save lets the subject ignore the spell's effect.

At that point, they'll need to explain why they think invisibility says "negates" instead of "disbelief". (The correct answer is that the TARGET of invisibility can try to not be turned invisible by attempting a save.)

----------------

So you see, if you and your players actually walk through the rules, step-by-step, and really read them rather than going by memory (which I guarantee they're currently doing), the inescapable conclusion is that the disbelief rules only apply to spells that specifically mention disbelief.

Hope that helps!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

well, bane says to pick subtype.

strictly techically "evil" is a subtype of outsiders as seen in the table.

but i would expect variation because a lot of people, myself included, would rule that subtype for outsiders is more like: azata, angels, devils, demons, daemons, etc.

so evil has 3 subtypes: devils/daemons/demons

i dont run pfs though, so in my table people knw about this beforehand...

Makes me curious how rangers' favored enemies work at your table, because favored enemy says this:

Favored Enemy wrote:
If the ranger chooses humanoids or outsiders as a favored enemy, he must also choose an associated subtype, as indicated on the table below.

And the table lists outsider subtypes as being the alignment subtypes, as well as elemental subtypes and the "native" subtype.

I see no reason to think that bane was supposed to work any differently than favored enemy, since they both say to pick a subtype. And besides that, "subtype" is a defined game term with a specific meaning, and "evil" is absolutely a subtype.

Faragrim, your GM was wrong.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Core Rulebook, illusions wrote:

Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief): Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.

A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.

A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.

I don't see anything in there that automatically grants you a saving throw against all illusions categorically. Therefore, we go by normal spell rules, which means that you only get to make saving throws if the spell description says so.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.

...That sounds remarkably similar to all the masters of western European historical warfare over in the rules forum who totally know which medieval weapons would pierce/not pierce which armors and how fast you can shoot a bow in real life and that's why the designers clearly intended this rule to work in a way that's opposite of what they wrote.

Yeah, they annoy me too.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
xebeche wrote:
I'm a little disappointed that this has been the general feedback. Paizo has released, and will continue to release, unique rules. If this comment holds, few, if any, will be seen in future scenarios. This reduces the value of that content and provides less variability in PFS play.

WARNING: Incoming Rant (not directed specifically at you, xebeche)

Perhaps if fewer GMs responded to clever/creative/unconventional solutions to obstacles with "Trivializing! Against the spirit! Trying to win Pathfinder!", then we'd be able to have lots of memorable "variability" without needing it spoonfed to us in the form of new mechanics.

The time the pregen rogue used Core Rulebook mechanics to...

Voice in the Void spoilers:
...climb the gate and look in the canister, and then used his common sense to say "Oh, it's a brain? Can't I just stab it?" and ended the boss fight right then and there...

...THAT is a fun, memorable experience that didn't need any special mechanics (in fact, it entirely bypassed some existing unique mechanics for that scenario).

You know what wasn't a unique and fun experience? Spending 20 minutes on special rules in Assault on the Wound just to end up with what was effectively "You all get to play pregens today".

Sorry, but giving me a new set of lines that I still have to color inside of and telling me that it'll make today's game different or special just doesn't work most of the time. The decades-remembered stories are enabled by GMs who let the players tell different stories than they expected, not by special mechanics that let the GM tell the same old story in a differently-labeled box.

/rant

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am fully in support of reducing complicated, unique-to-this-scenario rulesets down to "once in a blue moon if it has a very special reason" or even "none".

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think once you get into "it depends on how this particular lock/trap arrangement is set up" territory, most players would be satisfied. It's the "you can't take 10 unless you can succeed on a 1"/"I'm 'interpreting' T10 such that you'll never encounter a situation where it's actually beneficial" crowd that's the problem.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay. So then the topic is basically about people who get fed up with someone who keeps playing similarly anime-inspired characters repeatedly? Maybe if I ever see someone roleplay a second kind of dwarf, then I'll consider whether to get annoyed with repetitive anime-style characters. :/

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I came into this thread thinking "weaboo" referred to a type of character concept. Now I'm all kinds of confused. Where can I get a solid, concise definition?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How about plots focused on the Society itself?

Maybe they acquire an artifact that changes their assumptions about how to interpret history (or even the nature of other specific artifacts) and now they want to accumulate a bunch of archives/artifacts that suddenly got a lot more interesting to them.

Maybe they acquire an artifact and have no friggin' clue what it is, and the plot centers around seeking out legendary libraries/experts (maybe Old Mage Jtembe or whatever his name is?) to uncover its secrets.

Maybe the Aspis Consortium approaches the Society with a tempting-but-suspicious offer of some sort (artifact exchange, cooperation on a project, etc) and the plot focuses on simultaneously honoring our end of the deal and investigating possible motives/risks/etc.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hm, slight disconnect between the title and the text... I'll start with the title, I suppose.

I play for a combination of customizability and shared storytelling.

By customizability, I mean the fact that I can bring a character with a set of strengths and weaknesses and personality that I chose, that's different from previous characters I've played, and is different from any character I've played alongside. Getting to bring something to the table of my own creation, and also see what everyone else came up with, is fun for me. I'll probably cry tears of joy if I see someone play a second kind of dwarf.

By shared storytelling, I mean creating stories that can only be created with a group, without one author deciding what happens. Do you ever watch movies and think "Why didn't she just do X?" or "Gee, how convenient for the plot that right when X happened, everybody with capability Y was somewhere else..."? I know I sure do. Things like that have always jumped out at me. In an RPG, I can do those things that seem like obvious-but-never-used solutions. In an RPG, I can bring in at least one or two of the types of capabilities that solve certain types of obstacles. I can have a real impact on how a story unfolds, and watch my tablemates do the same. One of my biggest pet peeves is a GM who blocks ideas or fudges dice to make sure things pan out the way they planned; if your fun is ruined when you don't have total control over which obstacles are or are not the nail-biters, you might be a good author but you're a bad GM.

As for the issues of traps, Diplomacy, and so forth... well, the system has some issues. For instance, the idea of "if it's a trap, a single Disable Device check can overcome it" is right there in the book. That's part of the very definition of "trap" in Pathfinder. If you don't like it, come up with a new system; I know I'm sure trying to.

Diplomacy is in an awkward position. On the one hand, some people fear that letting a check do the trick shafts roleplaying. On the other hand, trying to insist on in-character dialogue for Diplomacy checks to work has two nasty side-effects: one, that someone can dump CHA and roleplay up some circumstance bonuses to compensate; and two, that people (particularly those not terribly outgoing in real life) aren't allowed to tell stories about heroes who are different from themselves.

So on the one hand, I want a mechanic to enforce the consequences of stat decisions as well as to enable more storytelling; but on the other hand, I like a certain degree of "in-character immunity" where it's okay to roleplay without accidentally screwing yourself over. Similarly with puzzles, it seems weird for the 22INT wizard to be stumped while the 7INT barbarian solves it just because that's who's playing what; but puzzles are also fun to engage as players. It's a dilemma.

I'm honestly still trying to figure a solution to that for my own games. Let me know if you have ideas.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I still giggle about the time I jokingly speculated that the little girl in a recently-announced (but not yet available!) scenario is probably a villain who should be killed on sight, and I was swiftly chastised for not using spoiler tags.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.

GM: "Tell me exactly what your character says."

Player: "As soon as you tell me exactly what my character knows."

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Awww, I liked Chris' old avatar. :(

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
trollbill wrote:
I would love to know if the author thought that should include moving through solid walls.

No you wouldn't. You're just making a sarcastic attack against anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Originally, I wasn't sure whether your comments/questions about the spell were petty jabs or genuine seeking of understanding, so I asked. You said you were being genuine, but since you're saying things like the above, it's now clear that you've already made up your mind and your only goal in discussing it further is to try to hurt people until they either go away or submit to your beliefs.

I guess, on the bright side, I don't need to spend any more time trying to come up with new ways to explain.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MurphysParadox wrote:
I know GMs that don't allow a take 10 on climbing because there exists a chance of falling.

"The purpose of Take 10 is to allow you to avoid the swinginess of the d20 roll in completing a task that should be easy for you. A practiced climber (5 ranks in Climb) should never, ever fall when climbing a practice rock-climbing wall at a gym (DC 15) as long as he doesn't rush and isn't distracted by combat, trying to juggle, and so on. Take 10 means he doesn't have to worry about the randomness of rolling 1, 2, 3, or 4."

Quote:
There are also the ones don't allow taking 10 with the spellcraft check made while crafting items because there is a consequence to failure there as well.

FAQ: You can take 10 on the Spellcraft check for crafting.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Thing is, I have been asked for such a list.

Point at the Skills chapter, and ask them to elaborate on why that's not enough. Get them to give you their reasoning.

Quote:
I have been straight up told I didn't know the rules, or that I was trying to cheat, when using Take 10 with some skills.

If a GM claims during a game that you're wrong about the T10 rules, and the situation is not serious, just go with it (so as to keep the game going) and bring it up during a break or after the game. Have the book already open to the correct page when you do so. If they respond like an adult, great! If they don't respond like an adult, report their behavior (not their wrongness about a rule, their behavior) to a Venture Officer (or if it's a Venture Officer, tell Mike Brock).

If a GM just straight-up calls you a cheater just for responding to the call for a skill check with an announcement of your T10 result, leave the table and report them to a VO (or again, if it IS a VO, to Mike Brock).

GMs are allowed to be wrong about the rules, but they're not allowed to be jerks. And refusing to look at a book presented conveniently to them outside of a time crunch, as well as calling someone a cheater without checking the rules first, both qualify as being a jerk.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Walter Sheppard wrote:
so I don't have to get it up as much during the game.

Is that a common issue at your tables?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snorter wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
8. Have you SEEN how some people react to being corrected, or even just questioned? I kid you not, sometimes I've clicked "reply" on someone's posted question, copy-pasted the relevant rule, and clicked "submit" without typing any words of my own at all; and then been criticized for making personal attacks. This has happened multiple times, all from different posters. I have told someone they got a piece of information wrong and then been publicly chastised, telling me I have no right to tell someone they're wrong. The list goes on. The thought of how the other party (especially entrenched veterans) might react to being approached can be quite a deterrent.

On a related note; have you seen how some people react to being supported?

I've spoken/posted before, siding with someone, and providing further information to supplement what they said, and had them argue with me, as though I've contradicted them. 0_o?

Them: "The rule is [blah blah]"
Me: "And if you check out Chapter X, there's a table that summarises this stuff..."
Them: "NO! THE RULE IS [BLAH]! AND [BLAH]!"
Me: "...."
Them "SO THERE!"
Me: "I was agreeing with you, in case you didn't realise."

Yeah, there seems to be a trend that when someone states an opinion, they believe that they know what all possible thoughts are on the topic. They've already stated their side, so anyone mentioning a different set of information must be disagreeing. And of course since I know the entirety of the reasons someone might disagree, I don't have to read all the words before I can reply to them; I already know what their position is! You can see this in most discussions on frequent topics, such as alignment, healing in combat, optimization/min-maxing, and everything else that comes up with any sort of regularity.

But that's all kind of a tangent, I suppose.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Hi, my name is... *rolls percentile dice* ...Mike Brock, and I'll be your GM today. I left my Pathfinder PHB at home, so we'll just go with 3.5 rules; I prefer those anyway."

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Why does it seem soo many players/GMs are unable/unwilling to just talk, face-to-face, to the person in question, express their feelings, and get feedback that will proceed to a resolution, or at least an understanding?

Here's some possible reasons:

1. They like the person, and feel like a confrontation would be taken as an attack, so they want to solicit third-party opinions instead.

2. They only see the person once or twice a month at games that are a half-hour drive away and don't have time at events to talk to them, so they go to the more conveniently-approachable internet.

3. For some people, posting a thread about their experiences is truly the equivalent of showing up at Cheers their favorite hangout and talking to friends about their day, like any normal person would.

4. Maybe they're not willing to assume they're right (a virtue all too rare and vastly underappreciated among roleplayers) and want to crowdsource an answer so they don't have to bother the person unless they can be sure it really was an error.

5. In the case of rules disagreements, usually the other party has already stated they believe X to be the case when the topic came up in gameplay, so they need help finding relevant rules/FAQs before approaching them again. What would be the point in trying to have a conversation about it before being able to bring in new information, since the other party is already convinced of their own position?

6. Sometimes, the guy who just did X to you doesn't seem like the most approachable person in the world, you know? They could go to a VO instead, but (a) that might feel like "tattling", (b) they might not KNOW there's someone else to go to, or (c) the person in question is the local VO.

7. Maybe the person is just shy and doesn't like confronting people directly.

8. Have you SEEN how some people react to being corrected, or even just questioned? I kid you not, sometimes I've clicked "reply" on someone's posted question, copy-pasted the relevant rule, and clicked "submit" without typing any words of my own at all; and then been criticized for making personal attacks. This has happened multiple times, all from different posters. I have told someone they got a piece of information wrong and then been publicly chastised, telling me I have no right to tell someone they're wrong. The list goes on. The thought of how the other party (especially entrenched veterans) might react to being approached can be quite a deterrent.

9. Sometimes they're new, and the messageboards are the first venue they found to try and reach out.

10. Maybe they have a rant that's not directed at one person but there was a recent "final straw" and they've just got to get it out in a (relatively) safe space.

---------------------------------------------

That's all just off the top of my head. There's a lot of legitimate (or at least understandable) reasons why someone would react to a situation in some way other than a face-to-face.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Make a Will save."

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
David Haller wrote:
Cheating needs to be shameful. It really needs to be harshly punished, but the nature of PFS makes that challenging (it's hard to really ban someone from play, for example).
No, it is actually quite easy. We've banned people here in Phoenix before.

Same here in the Twin Cities. It's not hard to say "If you cheat again, you're gone."

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Huh. I just read a post in which a GM declares he hates cheating so much that if he thinks a player is cheating he'll just cheat right back by modifying/lying about the scenario. What an... interesting perspective.

How about instead of that, we first differentiate between having foreknowledge and abusing foreknowledge, and recognize that only the latter is actually cheating. ("No, the cleric has no wands on him - why do you ask?" Because we've been looting the bodies for decades, that's why.) Then, how about when actual cheating genuinely occurs, we acknowledge that calling someone out for their cheating is the adult thing to do while engaging in retaliatory cheating is what kindergarteners do. (And make no mistake, altering the scenario didn't stop being a form of cheating just because "he started it!".)

Cheating is definitely shameful and needs to be handled decisively. But let's be honest about exactly what is and is not cheating, and be better than the cheater in our response.

EDIT: It's also interesting to me that every time a thread comes up about a GM whom a player thinks might have gotten something wrong and the word "cheat" gets mentioned even once, throngs of people jump in with "Whoa whoa whoa, let's not throw around the 'c-word' so lightly!", but when the accused isn't the GM, "cheating" can be the entire focus of the conversation (and even be in the title) and no one bats an eye or cautions anyone against using such a strong word.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
René P wrote:
Player admits to reading the scenario before sitting down to play it. Cool or not cool?
It is cheating. A shameful display.

Oops, I've played scenarios that I'd already GM'd. I guess I'm a shameful cheater.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Guides are guides. Despite what certain folks who don't use them would like others to believe, guides are not proclamations of the only viable way to play a given class. Guides rank the various options so that the reader can make an informed choice; they don't say "here's what you take at each level" and leave out the rest.

This notion that Guides somehow condemn any sort of deviation from a theoretical perfect build is something fabricated by those whose own sense of worth requires that "the other" to which they feel superior be as different from themselves as possible, even if it requires falsification of what "the other" is actually like.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Dafydd wrote:
Please don't say that a light weapon is not a one handed weapon. That argument is just idiotic imho, as it implies that light weapons require NO hands.

No, it implies you've read the Core Rulebook at some point:

Core Rulebook, Equipment chapter wrote:
Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons: This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.

Please don't call people idiots, especially the people who actually did the homework.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@John Lance - I love the idea of versatile heroes instead of hyperspecialized ones. My favorite character I've ever played was a versatile and heroic melee cleric. Unfortunately, it took a ridiculous amount of work (and number of books) to make it happen. Every feat, spell, purchase, class decision, and so forth had to be soooo carefully chosen that it was ridiculous. I dreaded the thought of someone eventually auditing my PC, because I knew it would take forever. And that was just to come up with somebody who could be relevant in multiple areas but never the best at anything.

Basically, I have to fight the game - and use a lot of system mastery - to do an effective generalist. Which saddens me, and is part of why I decided to just go ahead and write my own new system. :/

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.
the secret fire wrote:
A straight-up autistic Wizard would actually be a pretty good character concept...it would at least be an honest treatment of what walking around with a bloated INT and a 7 WIS and CHA really means.

Keep in mind that, at least in Pathfinder, a 7 in a stat is not some kind of disability.

The stat spread, before race, for all those billions of NPCs in the world is 13/12/11/10/9/8. That means that any time the 9 or the 8 lands on a race's penalized stat (such as a dwarf's CHA or a nagaji's INT or whatever), which is going to be one third of the entire population of that race, they're going to have a final stat of 7 or less.

So unless you're prepared to assert that one third of the entire dwarven race has a social handicap on the level of autism, then (at least as far as Pathfinder is concerned) you're wrong. Which in turn also means that calling non-handicapped representations of a 7 in a stat is wrong as well.

Maybe you assign different meanings to the stats in your own games, but you don't get to hold anyone else to that.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.
CrimsonVixen wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:

So the last session of my home game took a new spin on the succubus in a grapple. Our wizard decided to telekenetic charge one of the NPCs into the flying succubus to drag her down to the ground so we could all get a piece of her.

It didn't work and I think he should have just tried to impale on his ranseur instead.

And here is an example of why Sorcerers are better than Wizards. Telekinetic Charge is a 4th level spell, Unnatural Lust is a 2nd level spell. I would be surprised if a 7th level Sorceress couldn't match Charisma with a Succubus in an encounter. Why move towards the Succubus when you can make her come to you? And once you're grappling with her, that's when the Rogue sneak-attacks her in the back from behind.

Fixed that for you.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
The thing is if it is an ABILITY check, or another kind of check

Why does the circlet of persuasion care about whether it's an ability check or not? The item description certainly doesn't say anything like that.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For the record, two different developers have commented that the circlet is fully intended to work on more than just skill checks and ability checks, including concentration checks for CHA-based casters.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wish I was able to read someone's thoughts and understand their meaning without having to Google every string of 2-3 words to see if it was secretly the name of a vaguely-related topic rather than actually meaning what the words themselves are.

:(

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fourshadow wrote:
In Dungeons of Golarion, there is a vault with 3 black widow spiders. My sons tripped the release of all three, but surprised me with the idea to step back through the door. As a result, they could took care of these spiders one at a time instead of a full assault. I was pretty impressed as we had only a few playing sessions at this time.

Why does it seem like new players always have the best ideas? Veterans never seem to try interesting or clever things. Heck, I can even see a decrease in clever ideas in my own history of transitioning from "new player" to "veteran"! What happened to me?!

:(

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the one hand, magical equipment is a built-in part of character progression, every bit as much as levels and feats and class features. On the other hand, just like with feats or spells, there's a little wiggle room for less-than-perfect choices. (And really, the sharper of a player you are, the more wiggle room you get.)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheBobJones wrote:
I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how Arcane Mark works. How does that give me an extra attack?

It's a touch spell. The rules for touch spells say that on the turn you cast it, you can deliver it with a touch attack as a free action. Spellstrike (once you get it) says that any time you're able to deliver a touch spell with a touch attack, you can deliver it through a sword attack instead.

So once you have Spellstrike, any time you cast a touch spell you can deliver that spell with your sword.

Now, combine that with Spell Combat, where you get your normal attack plus a spell. Have that spell be a touch spell, and the Core Rulebook says you get to make a touch attack, and Spellstrike replaces it with a sword attack.

So any time you use Spell Combat to attack and cast a touch spell, the touch spell can be channeled through your weapon for another attack. That's not actually unique to arcane mark; you can do this any time you use a touch spell with Spell Combat/Spellstrike. The only special thing about arcane mark is that it's a cantrip, so you're not losing resources when you do it.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wait, you're playing an INT-based class and saying you don't have enough skills? You're playing a magus, and you're not satisfied with damage?

I suggest a little patience. Play through your sessions at 3rd level, enjoying that Dervish Dance you're planning. Also, consider the spell frostbite. At 3rd level, that lets three of your attacks deal an extra 1d6+3 damage, and it keeps scaling up with your level. With Dervish Dance, that means at 3rd you can deal 2d6+7 per hit, three times per spell slot. Then at 4th it's 2d6+8, four times per spell. And so forth.

As for skills, keep in mind that you'll be boosting INT, gaining some more skill points. Also, what are you doing with your FCBs? If you're putting them into HP, consider taking Toughness and then spending FCBs on extra skill points.

Oh, and by the way, what race are you? I'm looking at your stats and having trouble figuring out how that's a 20pt buy...

1 to 50 of 2,672 << 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.