At risk of thread necromancy and exposure to flames, as I see it, the issue is that a player might be playing a poorly built, ineffective character for five or six levels. They might realise that they character isn't up to the snuff, and be powerless to stop it.
Meanwhile their friends who they've played their character with for 100 hours or so want to continue playing their characters of the similar level, and a certain amount of pressure is on that player to continue playing his ineffective character. This results in tensions and ultimately an amount of dissatisfaction. Character deaths result in a further skewing of this already weakened character away from the 'appropriate power level'. And with every session the player plays, the harder it is for them to throw their character away and start a new one.
The solution I propose is to be able to approach the player after the session, and discuss with him about fixing his character. To provide a way of doing this legally, Certain People (VCs, VLs, 3-star GMs - exactly who would be determined by Campaign Leadership) would have the authority to allow a player to rebuild their character.
I bring this up because two of my friends have been in this situation. One finally decided to ditch a sixth-level rogue and has only recently brought a new character up to its previous level. The other has showed a large amount of discouragement and does not often play PFS anymore - he only rarely shows up at gamedays.
Pirate Rob wrote:
While a rather extreme example, here is a 13th lvl PFS character with every chronicle sheet listed if you want to see how long auditing it takes you.
Well. In a comfortable environment, with large monitor and most of my resources on-hand, I completed a basic audit in 7 minutes. Issues I found were:
- There's a +2 to charisma that's unaccounted for (I imagine it's from a boon on one of your chronicle sheets)
I did not go over your entire play and purchase history though.
That being said, you don't get that sort of luxury in a con setting.
Challenge Accepted. I went to [url=http://paizo.com/campaigns/PFS0418VeteransVaultTier12/gameplay] and audited the five characters playing.
Granted, these are level 1 and 2 characters, and their chronicle sheets aren't available (nor is evidence that they own additional resources, but that's another bag of worms).
From my six-minute audit of the five characters:
This being said, I can't see this being possible in a convention setting.
I'm sure this has come up before, but it seems that during season 0 and season 1, there was a lot of secrecy as far as factions - and faction missions - are concerned.
In the games I've played and run over the last year or so, all of this has gone away - to the point where players are sharing their faction missions with each other the minute they leave the briefing room, and are asking the other players to "look away" if they need to do their 'secret' faction mission (in the few recent scenarios that have them).
It makes the actual faction you choose feel trivial and cheap, and strains the ability to really identify with the faction.
Should something improve this, I think it will make factions more meaningful, and PFS more enjoyable.
The FAQ entry at http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9ne7 states that "an animal specifically designed to be ridden (such as a horse or dog) could be purchased with Light Armor Proficiency as one of its feats (swapping out Endurance or Skill Focus respectively) for the same cost."
This entry was made in 2010, over two years before the Animal Archive was released.
An official ruling would be appreciated, as this has come up in PFS in the past.
This reminds me of the whole "reach weapons threaten on the second diagonal" issue that I was completely unaware that it had been ruled on until it came up in a game with Mike Brock running.
Several months ago, I wrote a rant about The difficulty of obtaining an [O]fficial ruling...
Any suggestion based on capping equipment-by-level is nigh unenforceable. Anyone who's audited character's sheets would know how hard it is at the moment to audit a 10th level character's sheet.
Trying to trace back and work out if the player violated wealth-by-level back when he was playing tier 8-9s while level 6 is impossible.
I am of the firm belief that if a rule is unenforceable, it probably shouldn't be in place. How many of you can accurately tell me your own character's worth, three levels ago?
As I see it, the "2XP for playing up" system seems the most elegant - it has discouragement (lower fame), doesn't break WBL (the GP/XP ratio goes down), and intrinsically allows a lower-level player to catch up (much better than "force the other players to slow-track for you"). It also doesn't make the end of scenario procedure any more difficult.
A lot of the examples here are with tier 1-5. This seems like it's the tier that can most be aided by creating a new character, and playing at 1-2.
Locally, it seems that the policy on choosing to play up is "if one player doesn't want to, we don't". Given the reports in this topic of bullying to play up, this is obviously not the case elsewhere.
Conjecture 1: A scenario is more enjoyable for the players and GMs the second and subsequent time its run by that GM.
It seems that we can conclude that the current system discourages some GMs from running a scenario that would be more enjoyable for the players.
Perhaps allowing an additional credit for the second (or maybe just the third) time a GM runs a scenario would help with this situation.
Well.. the PFS held in New South Wales, Australia is branded as the "Shadow Lodge"....
Let's see what Venture Captain Al Rigg will do about that...
(my bet's on it retaining its name.)
Other than just making the rogue an NPC class, something I've been toying with is:
- Sneak attack starts at 3d6 and increases by 1d6 each level.
- (optional) Add a rogue talent (or maybe advanced talent) that allows an additional sneak attack per round.
When I was introduced to PFS in GenConOz in 2009, it was clear how much work and effort you have been putting into the game and the community.
It's pretty clear how you've lead this continent into where it is today for PFS.
The whole point of a legal system is to determine guilt. Sometimes it lets the guilty go free in the process, but that's not the intention.
In the absence of a trustworthy, noncorrupt and effective criminal justice system (aka, failing the "legitimate authority" test), my paladin would be more likely to pronounce judgment and carry out the execution himself.
The other options would be to try and send him to the revolving door prison, or take the coward's way out and look away while another party member did the deed.
The question of "What do we do with the prisoners" is interesting roleplaying the first time it happens, but after that it's just a timewasting argument.
The scenario is actually
Scenario 04: The frozen fingers of midnight
Where it specifically says
Special Reward Note: If the PCs fight and defeat Natalya, reward them an additional 357 gp for each Tier. Killing Natalya, however, can seriously impact the end of this scenario. It is up to you to decide how it resolves. This additional 357 gp is not reflected in the “max gold” boxes on the chronicle sheet at the end of this scenario.
I can't see how this could be interpreted any other way...
I've been guilty of this, actually.
Race for the Runecarved Key:
By leveraging a perfect fly speed and high speed, we managed to catch up with the assassin in the first round, and my character was able to finish him off with a Phantasmal Killer that round. When the portal opened, we knocked down all the interlopers with a cloudkill and Dimension Doored out of there. We all pretty much enjoyed this. However...
Fortress of the Nail:
When we faced the final enemy, it managed to breathe once, before my character had a turn. Again, it failed both will and fort saves vs Phantasmal Killer, and died in a very anticlimactic fashion. We all agreed that this was a pretty big downer of the session. It's the time I've most seen my VC visibly annoyed (apologies to you, Daniel Flood)
If I'm trying to charge an enemy, and there's an ally in the way, is it possible for me to use Charge Through to overrun the ally, and give them the option to avoid the overrun, or does the fact that Improved Overrun states:
eschew them the choice to do so?
Vincent The Dark wrote:
Fair enough. I'd complain about that too. I daresay that most of the players would complain about needing to deal with an enemy who can only be hit on a natural 20 too. Sure, the whole thing will eventually be self-correcting, but you are essentially trivialising encounters for the next few levels, assuming you'll be playing at appropriate tier.
It's definitely not cheating, but it does prevent you from having those truly memorable scenarios...
Saint Caleth wrote:
It is definitely a requirement for the GM to hand out chronicle sheets. There's no way you can creatively read the policy to state otherwise.
I play, and run PFS online and offline (I've personally run about 30 sessions online), and I do send chronicle sheet PDFs out to my players. This doesn't mean that I'm not required to print scenarios and chronicle sheets when I play or GM offline.
Saint Caleth wrote:
So instead you'd put the onus on the GM who's trying to audit your character the know-how to use your iPod and whatever type of 7" tablet you're using in order to determine your character's legality? Why create an "extra barrier to GMs who don't know how to use every mobile and desktop operating system?"
Character sheet audits are difficult at the best of times: struggling with unfamiliar electronic devices to try and get them to display the correct information just complicates the issue.
And last I checked, printers are cheap. And over-the-counter printing services are cheaper.
Just taking a Devil's Advocate position here, why is it too much to ask to require players have a paper printout of their additional resources?
In order for characters to be legal, we already require players to bring some kind of folder full of chronicle sheets - it's just a few more sheets of paper.
And we already expect GMs to print out (at the minimum) faction missions and chronicle sheets for the scenarios they're running - it's not that arduous to require players to access a printer from time to time.
To those who do allow character-sheet-on-a-laptop, do you make sure that each character's required chronicle sheets are present?
As an added benefit, requiring the printout makes it a lot more likely that the player actually reads the option he's taking (rather than the brief description of a feat in the table, for example).
I have a cleric of Erastil, who's just reached level 4, and is entitled to an animal companion. I understand that there's a lot of things about animal companions from additional resources not being available to non-druids.
Anyway, I feel that getting a deer would be most appropriate. What's the closest legal choice for this character, or should I give up and find a different animal to bond with?
Summoned creatures and expensive material component limitation for use of spells and spell-like abilities
Actually, there is...
Note that "laptop/tablet with PDFs" is not on that list. I understand that many GMs allow this (I personally strongly discourage laptops - they're fine for reference, but your character sheet at least should be on paper, and the laptop should remain closed unless you're actively looking something up), but if you're making that assumption and it turns out to be false, then you're in no position to argue. We have a lovely Kyra pregen for you.
It shouldn't take too long to transcribe a character sheet from a PDF to a piece of paper in a pinch, regardless.
Actually, you don't need to pay for the services:
This came up in a recent PFS game, but it's a simple rule question.
When a creature is under the effect of a Transmutation [Polymorph] effect, (let's use Beast Shape II as an example), does its TYPE change.
Case 1: A human wizard casts Beast Shape II, assuming the form of a leopard. A colleague then casts Enlarge Person on him. Does it work?
Case 2: A human druid wildshapes into an Earth Elemental. He then dons a Hat of Disguise. Does this allow him to disguise himself as a dwarf? What about as a Water Elemental?
Can I get a reference on this sort of thing?
It's pretty simple. You've hit the nail on the head that these are methods of ESTIMATION, guidelines, not to be used off the cuff.
Core Rulebook p549 wrote:
Core Rulebook p549 wrote:
Not all items adhere to these formulas. First and foremost, these few formulas aren’t enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth. The formulas only provide a starting point. The pricing of scrolls assumes that, whenever possible, a wizard or cleric created it. Potions and wands follow the formulas exactly. Staves follow the formulas closely, and other items require at least some judgment calls.
As a GM, you should keep this in mind - a Ring of Force Shield costs 8500gp because that's a decent balance point for it to be at. When creating an item, you should ask "Would I always buy this item at this price", and if the answer's "yes", it's probably underpriced.
The obvious way would be to create "a sphere, total volume 9 cubic feet, of a single rare metal with a density between that of gold and platinum"
Given that there are four elements you'll get (Plutonium, Neptunium, Rhenium, Roentgenium) , three of which will cause a massive nuclear explosion, there'll be a lot of damage output. Naturally, if you end up with Rhenium, simply cast it again, specifying "a sphere, total volume 9 cubic feet, of a single rare metal with a density between that of gold and the previous metal I created".
That's something that an aspiring alchemist, attempting to transmute gold into platinum, might do by accident...
This seems to have gone on for a few years.
A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal (up to a maximum of 9th level). Unlike other metamagic feats, Heighten Spell actually increases the effective level of the spell that it modifies. All effects dependent on spell level (such as saving throw DCs and ability to penetrate a lesser globe of invulnerability) are calculated according to the heightened level. The heightened spell is as difficult to prepare and cast as a spell of its effective level.
Could we please get an official word on this one way or another?
Could a character use Focused Spell with an Illusion (Figment) spell, for example minor image?
Would the caster be able to choose one of the enemies when casting such a spell to have the heightened save DC?
Focused spell says that the spell "affects or targets more than one creature". It seems that "affects" isn't actually defined. Would the fact that there are multiple creatures who might be required to make a save class as them being "affected"?
I extract them from the PDFs using pdftops -eps then load them into libreoffice draw (or Inkscape if I've got a lot of time), then fill in the required fields and extract as PDF. I upload them to my website, and also offer to sign and mail them.
The end result looks like this
It's interesting to note that mailing two chronicle sheets costs more than a chronicle. But that's what you get when you're mailing things 6000km.
As I see it, the intent of the rules is to encourage players who are using Additional Resources to buy a copy of the required resources and support Paizo, and to ensure that the rules for the ability is available at the table.
I often travel about 1600km to conventions, and I completely sympathize with people who supply the required rules and have some evidence to suggest that they paid for the sources. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I would think that if you can show the rules, and have bought the required books, then you should be able to use it. How you prove this really depends on the GM, but I don't believe that Paizo wishes table GMs to take a hardline stance on this.
Personally, I generally keep photocopies of the required pages from with my characters, and try to bring the hardcovers, but I don't always take all of them out of my car. When traveling to conventions, I occasionally leave a book or two at home.
The original post arose after I had GMed a game where a player brought a character that used seven or eight non-core sources copied from d20pfsrd. When I asked if she owned the books, she told me that she didn't. How should that situation be handled?
I've occasionally had a player turn up to the table with an obscure feat, trait or item that is legal, but that they do not have the requisite printout/book at the table, and that I suspect that they do not own them.
What is the correct procedure to deal with this? If it turns out that they do not own the resource, can I allow them to replace the feat/trait with one from the Core Assumption, or from a resource that they do own?
One of the players I've had the pleasure to DM (in Pathfinder Society), has built this character that has an interesting array of abilities.
Basically, it works with using a bladed weapon (often a scimitar) to do nonlethal damage, combined with the Enforcer feat to allow a free intimidate check.
After succeeding the intimidate check (taking into account skill focus and several other things), then use the Frightening ability of the Thug to turn it into Frightened for one round.
First question (aimed at this forum): Is this kosher?
Second question: Should it be?
One of my characters is considering a change of faction. He's currently second level, with 4 prestige and 6 fame.
If, hypothetically, he decided to give Ambrus Valsin the middle finger, and apply for Shadow Lodge membership from Grandmaster Torch, what happens?
"So, I've decided that the Ten doesn't care about the lowly members of the Pathfinder Society. I'd like to help expose the Decemvirate's ploys and work for the benefit of the members /of/ the society."
Torch.. "I'm sorry. It seems that the Grand Lodge doesn't owe you enough favours. You'll need to work for them more before I'll allow you to tear up your membership card and join us. Oh, and you should do it quickly, before you get more experienced in your skills: the membership fee is higher, you see... See you around."
Is this really how it plays out?
I hate to inject realism into this conversation, but there are a lot of common misconceptions about the interaction of electricity and water (and electricity in general).
Current flows from an area of high charge to an area of low charge, by the easiest possible path. It can be surmised that a lightning bolt would create an area of low charge at the end of the 120' line, and an area of high charge at the caster's finger. This would cause the lightning to discharge along the shortest line (creating the 120' line). Underwater, the same conditions are true.
I see no reason why lightning would work any differently underwater.