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. 16,504 posts (17,659 including aliases). 14 reviews. 3 lists. 1 wishlist. 12 Pathfinder Society characters. 14 aliases.


1 to 50 of 2,448 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, what happens when a PC completes a scenario with a faction-specific boon for a faction that no longer exists? Does being a member of the corresponding new faction count? Is the boon unattainable?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

That was a playful jab at all the folks who look at that weird feat and think "Oh yeah, I totally know all the ins and outs of what this means" and declare the matter settled. Definitely using Bluff in place of Knowledge. ;)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Anyway, the answer to this issue is HERE.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I don't understand; are you asking whether or not your interpretation is correct, or are you just preaching to us on the (lack of) moral fiber of those who might disagree with you? Is there an actual rules question to this thread, or is it just "Look how bad someone might be"?
I may be wrong, but I got the impression of neither. Despite the original use of the word "cheese", the fact that he'd likely allow it, as GM, made me instead suspect that he's just pointing something out. Along the lines of, "Huh, look at that." rather than what you're suggesting (though utilization of the "cheese" term, made me at first feel as you do, too).

No, he never says he'd allow it, he says it probably wouldn't break the game if it *were* allowed.

And I'm not just looking at "cheese" in the thread title; his very first sentence says "misinterpret on purpose". He then goes on to say things like "take advantage" and (in his next post) "bend the wording". I think that says a lot about his opinion of those who would dare to disagree with him.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Two reasons the GM is wrong, and they both relate to the fact that he took one phrase out of context.

Look at the entire sentence:
"Each round at the start of your turn, if the bonded creature is wounded for 5 or more hit points below its maximum hit points, it heals 5 hit points and you take 5 hit points of damage."

1. If "is wounded" referred to an event rather than a condition, then not only would it only apply to damage that round, but it would also only apply to damage taken "each round at the start of your turn". So unless someone readied an attack for the beginning of Lamontia's turn, then your GM's interpretation causes Life Link to do absolutely nothing.

2. It says "is wounded for 5 or more hit points below its maximum hit points". If this is referring to an event rather than a condition, then that means that the amount of damage you have to take that round is defined as "5 or more hit points below your maximum hit points". This would mean that, since your max HP was 84, then Life Link only works if you take 79 or less damage, while taking 80+ damage won't trigger it because the damage amount isn't 5 or more below your max HP.

Your GM was wrong.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Having one or more low stats is not a problem for which you need "recourse". Their effects are already built into the game. Beyond that, everyone gets to roleplay to the degree to which they're comfortable. If you asked the question you proposed, were you planning to also ask the wizard, "Besides boring numerical bonuses, tell me what effects your high Intelligence places on your character's behavior?"

Because if your concern is really about people roleplaying their stats, then that question is just as important to you. If those questions aren't equal to you, then your motivations are something else entirely.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.

@Odraude - I think we're getting lost in examples here. The core issue is this:

As the game progresses, you face bigger and badder foes. As a result, this is inescapable: You need sufficient X to overcome the increasing challenges.

In theory, X could be anything: levels, magic, gear, whatever. But the reason you're able to defeat now what you couldn't defeat before is because you've now acquired enough X.

Now if this is going to be a game where you can choose how you approach (such as by choosing a class), then for the game to be as fun as it can be, the following also needs to be true: Every class needs access to X.

X could still be anything, just as long as it's the same X. If continuing to advance requires sufficient poodles, then every class needs access to poodles. Or from the other direction, if the only thing you want every class to have access to is rhubarbs, then rhubarbs had better be capable of letting you advance.

Whatever you pick for one, you need to pick the same for the other.

Currently, Pathfinder fails in this regard: the only thing that everyone has access to is levels, but the thing you have to have in order to advance is magic.

The fighter MUST acquire magic in some form in order to keep playing, no matter what else he has. The wizard (or other PC with magic) can keep playing with relatively little regard for what other (nonmagical) things he lacks.

This is a flaw in the system: there's a mismatch between what you need and what you can access.

For Pathfinder to improve, it needs to align the two: either change what lets you advance from "magic" to "levels" (letting everyone gain tools to keep playing the game, as a function of level, independent of other factors); or else take the thing that's required to advance (magic) and make it more evenly accessible.

Either path is fine, as long as where we end up is that what's required to keep playing the game is readily and evenly accessible to everyone.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

9 people marked this as a favorite.

A 20th-level fighter and a 20th-level wizard/sorcerer/whatever each wake up naked on the beaches of separate islands. The fighter encounters a CR 3 incorporeal creature, while the wizard encounters a CR 3 creature that's immune to magic.

The caster flies into the air and decides, at his leisure, whether he'd rather teleport home, summon a creature to fight for him while he takes a nap, cast transform and win in hand-to-hand combat, blast it with conjured acid/stones/whatever, or even just pick up a club and win the fight based purely on his 20th-level BAB/HP/etc.

The fighter hopes he can outrun the CR 3 creature long enough to find some spare magic lying around so he won't die.

This is a problem.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
Wolfgang Rolf wrote:
I honestly would not mind if the fighter couldn't cut a ghost or shadow, to balance things the GM should introduce monsters that are immune to magic.

Because it's a false equivalence. A fighter can, with magical items, defeat a shadow. Even with doing half damage, a fighter can still put the hurting on an incorporeal creature. So even though it's an immunity, it's one that can be over come without a wizard, since you can buy the magic item yourself or make it yourself with Master Craftsman.

How would you have a mage overcome something that is immune to magic?

Maybe in the gazillion ways they already do? Non-SR spells, summons, just teleport to another continent and not deal with it...

EDIT: And I'd point out that the spellcaster doesn't need to spend 2,000+ gp (or 50gp and the first round of combat to get ready) to do any of this like a fighter does to deal with incorporeals.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:

I don't know. One staple I like from fantasy media is the use of magic items by mundane people to take down creatures. It is something I'd like to keep in Pathfinder. It rewards preparation. Kinda like how Batman can still roll with the Justice League for high powered threats and still use gadgets and cunning to fight them.

Course, fighters need the boost in cunning and manuevers. Not disagreeing with that. I'm just not really keen on adding magic to the fighter.

Usually, as the trope goes, the relationship between the wielder of the legendary magic item and the monster he uses it to defeat is not comparable the relationship between a 20th-level fighter and a CR3 monster.

Also, though I admit I'm not a comic afficionado, it's my understanding that Batman's "gadget budget" is waaaaaay more than that of the supers he's competing with. That's WHY it's a valid edge. But in Pathfinder, everyone has the same budget; it's the equivalent of if everyone in the Justice League got to have all of Batman's toys in addition to their innate superpowers. If you want that comparison to be valid, start having fighters and wizards get vastly different WBL in your games.

Finally, I wasn't aware that anyone was talking about "adding magic to the fighter". I know I certainly wasn't.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Taldanrebel, it's fine if you don't like the gameplay experience that results from the skill rules and choose to do differently in your games. It's less fine to say that others "should" be doing it that way or that those who don't are "lazy".

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
taldanrebel2187 wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
This is what take 10 and take 20 are for.

In my experience, a lot of DMs even run this wrong. You can't take 20 if failure has a consequence (i.e. Disable Device, where you may break the lock or set off the trap). I've seen some DMs even allow taking a 10 on Crafting, which RAW is also not allowed due to the potential to waste the materials.

As a totalitarian DM, I do not allow players to take a 10 when there is a consequence for failure that I deem significant, such as in Crafting. For example failure on a Disable Device may spring the trap. Failure on crafting may waste the supplies. Failure on perception might just trigger a time-lapse trap. Seems some players are used to DMs that don't know any better in Society that let them take 20 on everything, usually as a factor of laziness.

Bit of irony in the bolded part...

You're correct that you can't T20 if there's a consequence for failure.

You're incorrect that this includes breaking the lock you were trying to pick—the core rulebook even lists picking a lock with Disable Device as being a common use of T20.

You're correct that failure would spring the trap, however, precluding T20 for that use of Disable Device.

You're incorrect that the consequences of failure in crafting would prevent T10, because T10 is not T20; T10 is to be used because you want to avoid the consequences of failure. Failure's consequences do not preclude the use of T10.

Also, nice of you to accuse people of laziness for running a mechanic differently when you've got it so jumbled yourself.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I wasn't saying he should gain an ability like that at 3rd level or sooner. It'd just be nice if a 20th-level fighter and a 1st-level fighter didn't have the same degree of magic dependency as each other when fighting incorporeal creatures.

A 20th-level fighter without magic is currently completely incapable of defeating a CR3 shadow. The threat of that CR3 monster hasn't changed since 1st level unless someone gave him some magic.

That is what shouldn't be happening. A high-level character should never have an absolute 100% dependency on a specific item/spell in order to have any chance of defeating a monster whose CR he's already passed.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

At the point where you're fighting enemies with access to incendiary cloud, the PCs are flying, teleporting, hopping between different planes of reality, raising the dead, and so forth. Where exactly is the conflict between that setting and the ability to pass harmlessly through a cloud of fire?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Most everything, because some of those rules elements (like the incorporeal bit) make for balancing factors for monsters. You have NO idea how fast a shadow dies if it doesn't have its incorporeal traits. You might even need to redesign those monsters assuming that your players can bypass this defense at a whim.

All it takes is a 50gp oil of magic weapon to be able to at least hurt it. Or a 25gp scroll (or a 0gp spell slot) if you have a caster to hold your hand.

Would it be so terrible to have one or two classes who, instead of relying on someone else's magic, could just do it themselves?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Does this thread actually accomplish anything? I mean, my wife has a 3XP character, along with a character sheet for a 2nd-level aasimar, but it hasn't been played as an aasimar. To my knowledge, even if she comes in here and says HEY LOOK AASIMAR she's still out of luck unless she can actually get a game in before the deadline.

Right?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Especially if they fall over. ;)

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.

One of the biggest things here is that you need to pick your battles. The GM thinking that the 2nd-level evil cleric's bane spell doesn't grant a save is not something to spend time on. Just a quick "Don't we get Will saves on that?" is as far as it should go. If the GM says no, just go with it.

Similarly, if the "discrepancy" is something that could easily be the result of a feat, template, item, buff spell, etc; then it could be that the GM is actually right, because MWAAHAHAHAAA!!!

The only time you should spend significant time to make sure it's being done right is if it's serious, like if it's the difference between life and death, or causes your character to not function, etc.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

37 people marked this as a favorite.

I haven't read the whole thread, but to my way of thinking there's one big thing that the fighter needs to be "unchained" from that's more important than anything else:

Realism.

"You can't shoot a bow that many times in 6 seconds!"
"You can't jump that far!"
"You can't just cut through a door like it's butter!"
"You can't wrestle something that big!"
"You can't cut something incorporeal without magic!"
"You can't break that world record!"

You can't, you can't, you can't, you can't, you can't... No, you can't. That's why I'm playing a fantasy game starring someone who isn't YOU.

Currently, the name of the game is "if real people can't do it, then fantasy people can't* do it either".

I want my fighter to stop the dragon's bite by grabbing him by the teeth. And then body slam him.

I want my fighter to swing his sword and bat your enervation right back at you.

I want my fighter to get save-or-die effects at the same level your wizard does. Maybe even earlier, since I'm supposed to be good at killing things.

I want my fighter to have things he can do that no magic spell can duplicate.

Unchain the fighter from "realism". Everything else will follow.

*:
Unless there's magic involved.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lamontius wrote:
For 'under-powered' builds, how are they going about spending the gold they have accrued?

Sometimes, they simply aren't. I've overheard players mention "Yeah, I don't really have anything I want to buy, so I've got XX,000gp sitting around."

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

WAAAANNNNT.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hm, I actually like the CRB's idea of hit points, where you literally get tougher and it takes more actual physical damage to put you down. I enjoy that level of badassery in my fantasy, where no, getting bitten by a dragon does NOT kill you, because you're just that damn tough. Perhaps I'm the minority here?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
thejeff wrote:
If you start with the roleplaying concept, you'll often run into characters that just don't work, no matter how much you like the idea. More so, the higher the necessary performance is.
I'd see this more as a failure of the system to support viable character design, not as a player failure.

One of my goals in my rewrite is to remedy this.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dojen wrote:
Do monsters stop attacking them or do they finish them off? Do some creatures start eating instead?

Most creatures, even "mindless" ones, have self-preservation instincts; if something is trying to do them harm, they'll defend themselves rather than sitting down to lunch. Ever approached a dog while it was eating? It's a bad idea, because it will stop eating to fight you.

Quote:
Along the same lines, when you reduce an enemy to 0 do you need to take a turn to finish them off to keep their cohorts from bringing them back to fighting condition? Or do you assume that they are dead once they hit 0?

Well, it's not a binary choice between "attack again" and "houserule that 0=dead". Putting aside for a moment that landing at exactly 0 is somewhat rare, how an intelligent character treats such an opponent will vary by situation.

If the enemy group is seen to have a dedicated healer? Might be good to finish him. But if you have other threats to defend yourself from (remember that if the guy at 0 attacks, he drops to -1) it might not be worth the action to "finish" the guy at 0.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nice to see some acknowledgement of the "hideous can mean high CHA" idea. I once saw a post where someone said that if you've got the CHA of a troll, villagers will mistake you for one and attack you on sight. I asked him what the villagers do when you have the CHA of a snot-coated demon, but he didn't answer.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
heliodorus04 wrote:
I stand by my descriptives and note, to the audience in general, your apparent need to silence me without instead defending your play style.

Wait, my playstyle? When did my playstyle get mentioned? Because what we were talking about...

Earlier, you wrote:
min-maxers are looking for something that non-min-maxers detest 'competitive playing'; the idea is how much better can I do this than anyone thinks it can even be done

...was (1) not a playstyle, but rather an assumption of the motives behind a playstyle, and (2) not descriptive of me in the least.

Which is of course why I didn't "defend" it. I don't defend things that I don't actually do, especially not because some guy on the internet made up a motive for the folks who do.

It would be like if I came out of nowhere to say that non-min-maxers are just looking to cover up their below-average math and critical thinking skills. Can you imagine if I responded to you requesting that I not make comments like that by saying "I stand by my descriptives and note, to the audience in general, your apparent need to silence me without instead defending your play style"?

Because that's where you're at right now. You're the guy who ascribes undesirable (and completely fabricated) motives to others, then responds to being called out on it by implying guilt ("without defending") and playing the martyr ("oh, they want to silence me!"), all while believing yourself to have an "audience" to whom you seem to think you're displaying something.

Play the game however you want, but your "anyone who plays this other way must be doing it because of X" crap to yourself.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
heliodorus04 wrote:
min-maxers are looking for something that non-min-maxers detest 'competitive playing'; the idea is how much better can I do this than anyone thinks it can even be done.

After reading this statement, I'd like to request that you stop talking like you have any idea what "min-maxers" are looking for.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

For reference:

John Compton wrote:
From there, we drew up a fair window to allow players to lock in another native outsider or three and resolved to require only 1 XP on those characters--the aim being that most participants would have the opportunity to create and play at least one new character in that time.

(Link to full post)

Now, let's zoom in a little, adding some bolding:

John Compton wrote:
From there, we drew up a fair window to allow players to lock in another native outsider or three and resolved to require only 1 XP on those characters--the aim being that most participants would have the opportunity to create and play at least one new character in that time.

I think it's safe to say that it's fully within the intent for players to intentionally "bank" more than one soon-to-be-restricted PC. Somewhere there's a blurry upper limit, but I think it's very reasonable to say that "bank more than one on purpose" is definitely within the spirit of the grandfathering rules.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
2. Hit Points are abstract. It is completely narratively possible for you to go from 200 HP to 1 without taking a lick of physical damage.

I personally really dislike that version of HP. It really screws with healing magic, injury poisons, bleed effects, failed saves on AoE damage, being on fire... a host of things in the game are predicated on the assumption that HP damage is actual physical harm. Not only that, but the Core Rulebook actually says:

"What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one."

So Pathfinder's hit points actually really do represent physical health/injury (even if the author of UC's "Wounds and Vigor" system missed that memo).

I prefer it that way. To me, it's less immersion-breaking to just say that my flying, dragon-slaying, world-altering fantasy heroes are just that tough that to try and work around all the bajillion things that just don't work with nonphysical HP. YMMV.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
It really depends on how you view stat points. I consider every 2 points to be 1 standard deviation. Therefore, 16% of the population has lower than an 8, and ~18% had 8 or 9, in any given stat.

Make sure you communicate that prior to character creation, because that's not what someone would get just from reading the Core Rulebook:

Core Rulebook wrote:

Basic NPCs: The ability scores for a basic NPC are: 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, and 8.

Heroic NPCs: The ability scores for a heroic NPC are: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8.

So in default Pathfinder, the bulk of the population of the planet (i.e., anyone not unique enough to be custom-statted by the GM), just about everyone, has an 8 somewhere.

A normal person is someone whose stats (before race) range from 8 to 13. A heroic person is someone whose stats range from 8 to 15.

8 is normal.

This also means that, if you assume random/even distribution of these scores and start looking at racial adjustments, then...

Fully one-sixth of dwarves have 6 CHA. Somewhere between half and two thirds (depending on the basic/heroic ratio in the population) have CHA somewhere in the single digits.

They still function as a society.

Same goes for halflings' STR, nagaji's INT, etc.

For humans, an 8 is normal. For certain races, even a 6 can be normal in certain stats.

Anyone who wants stats to be different than that in their game world needs to communicate their preferences to their players in advance, and not judge those whose characters would have matched the default world prior to that clarification.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:
Do any of these things, admit to it, and find out why you're a terrible person. The Internet is a wonderful place.

Now I kind of want to start a whole series of threads in which I admit to various practices, and compare how bad of a person I am in each one.

But that sounds like a lot of work.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I usually find myself smiling after reading one of Lamontius' posts. I wouldn't be surprised if he has more of my favorites than any other single poster.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I'm trying to figure out the relationship between your post and the one you "replied" to...
As far as I can tell he's just using this thread to get on his soapbox.

About internet access?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:
The truth of Internet messageboards is that almost any behavior you can think of, there are lots of people out there ready to line up and insult it.

Like dumping stats? ;)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pendagast wrote:

The "dirty optimizer" is the guy who CONSTANTLY comes to the table with the IDENTICAL stat array.

...

If you told him 15 its, he'd throw a pitch fit and possibly throw an actual physical item.
It's actually the same guy who lied every time he rolled too, before there was a point buy system.
The point buy system was actually invented FOR/with this guy in mind.
Instead of being called a cheater, today he's called an optimizer.

Unless you're talking about a specific individual you personally know, then you're starting with "person who uses a certain kind of stat array" and making claims about his maturity as a person, his moral integrity, and so forth.

All based on his gaming preferences.

If this isn't a specific personal acquaintance you've just described, then you're the kind of person who judges people's moral character (and publically attacks them) based on how they play a game.

That's who you are. Take a good, long look.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Brigg wrote:
Drawbacks: You aren't challenged because you've probably "cookie-cutter"ed your character off some min-maxing strategy guide and you aren't experience a learning curve because you "Already know how the 'character' works"

I'm sorry Brigg, but it's evident you have no idea what's going on in the minds of the people who aren't you, and can't conceive of goodness that manifests differently than your own.

So probably best for you to not even speculate on other people's playstyles until you learn more.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John-Andre wrote:
(stuff)

1) In my current campaign, PCs had to use the Heroic NPC stat array of 15/14/13/12/10/8, before racial adjustments.

2) I don't care what the stat generation method is, as long as the GM tells me ahead of time.

Although, if a GM tells me that he doesn't like dump stats or that having an 8 is severe enough to be a handicap, I'll ask him where he found the time to custom-stat every single NPC in the game, since the standard arrays all include an 8. If he says that no, normal people are 11/11/11/10/10/10 then I'll ask him if there are any other 3.5 rules I should be aware of in this Pathfinder game.

And I'll have that conversation before I even make a character.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


But if they are paying attention, it shouldn't take more than 30 seconds to tecalibrate.
It depends on what the curveball was. If the unexpected happening was "A demon greater teleports directly adjacent to your caster, with a natural attack and a reach weapon at the ready, plunging your vision into darkness", when previously you were out of harm's way and could see the battlefield, it might take a little while for the caster to decide what to do.

I dunno, it only took me about 7 seconds to decide on "sobbing in the fetal position".

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
SiliconDon wrote:
It gets worse. My VC also just ruled that I do not get to use Flurry of Maneuvers while wearing armor, and that it cannot be used with non-monk weapons.

Wait, so it's not subjected to FoB's FAQs, but it is subjected to FoB's rules?

It might be time to escalate to Mike Brock. Normally that's not the route to go with rules issues, but when a local leader is willing to be internally inconsistent in order to get what he wants, well, I'd be hesitant to assume that attitude will be restricted to game rules.

EDIT: First, though, be absolutely sure that they understood your question and that you understood their answer and this isn't all just a matter of miscommunication.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Once my Sun Domain cleric reached 8th level and gained the ultimate trump card against magical darkness, he stopped encountering it. :(

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
So you still have 3 rounds to get them out of the waterball
I'm curious how you would do so, considering that spell is not dismissable.
Fly /move out of range (ends the spell), dispel magic, yank em out.

Moving out of range doesn't end the spell, it makes the orb stop. Dispel magic is a 50/50 shot that costs a 3rd-level spell, and yanking them out seems like it would carry a risk of getting sucked in yourself.

[PSA voice]Friends don't let friends aqueous orb unconscious teammates.[/PSA voice]

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
That should be good enough for ant concerns.

I never realized that PFS could help with home pest control. The more you know!

;)

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HowlingWolf wrote:

Glad to see my money was well spent on the Blood books.

Well, good news is I will save money in the future by not buying side books. I bought the blood books to be pfs legal. Now that content is being removed from pfs, I dont see the point in wasting money on non core books.

Can we expect these new races to be banned in the future? Should we warn new players to only use content from the core books, just to be safe?

Alternatively, you could compare the cost of those books to the amount of table time spent using those options, compare that ratio to, say, the cost/time ratio of going out to a movie, and realize that the sky has in fact NOT fallen.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lamontius wrote:

The Pathfinder Pouch

It may only come in handy a few times, but when it does, it's most likely going to help you get a Prestige Point or two that you otherwise would have lost.

Another nice thing is that it's a lighter version of the handy haversack. People always tout the 'sack as the answer to encumbrance issues, but it still weighs 5 lbs, which can be a lot for a halfling/gnome/kitsune. The PPouch only weighs a pound, but carries the same volume as a backpack (which is usually plenty). If you need more capacity, get a second one. Now you're still only at 2lbs instead of 5lbs.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Welcome to PFS!

Maybe I can help make the constraints of organized play feel a little less... constraining?

Imagine that you started up a new campaign with your friends. They all make brand-new 1st-level characters based on what you told them the campaign is about. You plan to run this campaign for them every week.

Except then some men in suits and sunglasses kidnap you, and inform you that you're only going to be GMing every 8th week or so. For the rest of the sessions, each week will be GM'd by a different random stranger you've never met. You'll be prevented from intervening directly if anything goes wrong, but the players will be told to email you with any complaints they have. You won't know who these GMs will be, so the only way to communicate with them will be to leave behind some written instructions. Beyond that, all you get to do is pick up the pieces afterwards.

The nice men then tell you that you have a little time before the first session to make any preparations. What do you suppose you might do?

Do you think you might write out ahead of time what's supposed to happen in each session and be strict about the GMs needing to follow it?

Do you think you might write down all your houserules and insist that the other GMs honor them and not bring in their own?

Do you think you might make rules about loot and item access and make the GMs follow that instead of your players getting (or not getting!) loot according to what sounded good to the GM of the week?

Do you think you might write out how stats were generated so GMs don't decide your players' stats are too high/low and force changes?

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

I think if you remember that the point of organized play is for a bunch of strangers from different gaming backgrounds to be able to come together as seamlessly as possible, lots of the rules/constraints will feel like good ideas; the rules are there to enable fun. If you feel like you should be able to do X so why won't they let me, just imagine that someone else wanted to do the opposite while guest-GMing your home game; if you wouldn't be comfortable having someone else be free to make that call in your absence, then maybe the rule isn't so bad after all.

Hope that helps! :)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I once saw a thread in the rules forum where a GM wanted affirmation in his belief that his player's idea of having an everburning torch sticking out of his backpack for a hands-free light source was "cheesy".

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

12 people marked this as a favorite.

Player says: "So that's 11 on the die, plus 4 for BAB, plus 4 for STR, plus 1 for my weapon... Oh, and Weapon Focus for another 1..."
Player means: "It has never occurred to me that there are some numbers that stay the same from round to round and I could just write down the total."

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Splode wrote:

Player Says: "I'm very knowledgeable of the rules"

Player Means: "I'm going to break the flow of the session by pedantically correcting your rulings ever few minutes, and I'll only be right half of the time."

To be fair, if half of his "every few minutes" corrections are right, then the GM is doing no better than he is. ;)

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you're a player, know your character. Have your commonly-used numbers (attack and damage, save DCs, etc) already calculated, know your own buffs inside and out (even if that means bringing flashcards), know ahead of time whether an element of your character is a gray area or is affected by an official FAQ and bring all relevant FAQs with you, especially if they're obscure ones.

It's okay to not be familiar with the buffs or effects that other people are throwing onto you, but if you're finding yourself asking people what the formula is to calculate something that you could have written down ahead of time (DC, attack bonus, concentration bonus, etc) or having to ask other people how your feats or spells work, you're doing something wrong.

If you're the GM, trust your players to know their characters. As you so often remind us when you make a mistake, there are too many rules/options for you to know them all. So unless someone is doing something a LOT more suspicious than "KO the baddy in one round", you should be trusting that the guy who built this machine from the ground up has come to a much better understanding of its legality than you will in 90 seconds of reviewing unfamiliar abilities.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Fromper wrote:
People seem to be assuming that they know
rknop wrote:
I suspect...
Christopher Donnangelo wrote:
I believe...
DrakeRoberts wrote:
I would like to think...
I wrote:
My impressions...
Paz wrote:
I think...
Chris Mortika wrote:
I would guess...
David Neilson wrote:
I think...
Fromper wrote:
People seem to be assuming that they know

1 to 50 of 2,448 << 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.