Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:
It's easy to make all sorts of judgements like these, but you weren't there. The players had fun and were glad there wasn't a TPK. They were all new at the time, and frankly, I'd give up one veteran player's verisimilitude to make sure that a group of five other newbies enjoyed themselves.
That's the key I think people forget (and I hear it all the time from veteran GMs), it's about playing to your table. If your table would rather have the cakewalk, I'll make it a cakewalk, if you want me to grind you down to a pulp, I'll grind you all down to a pulp. To be frank though, I probably saved two to three players coming back that day by killing one player, and for that I am not going to apologize.
To each their own. There are a lot of people who DO want to survive, regardless of the reasons why. My job is to make a game day fun, not realistic.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Six of one, half a dozen of another.
As VC I "officially" had to support the banning of two players. It does happen, and there are often good reasons for doing so.
The most heinous of the two was at a game day I made a surprise "hello, you weren't expecting me, but I'm going to play today." The GM then proceeded to make two racist remarks (one anti East Asian, and one anti Arab which was combined with an anti-Semitic remark). At the time I was still new at the position and didn't bring the ban hammer as fast as I should have, and I still regret that. I should have stopped his game on the spot and taken over GMing the table. The good news, he left our region soon thereafter, but I have his GM number and I do watch our local sign-ups just in case he makes an appearance again.
So while I cannot speak to the situation at hand, nor will I, I can tell you that there are times that a VC can (and should) have the authority to ban players.
Three years ago at a convention when I had a table of the following:
Level 6 Wizard (me)
Because we were a last group arriving we were put at a table where the scenario was going to be picked on the spot. After much asking around we figured out that about the only scenario we all hadn't played that was available in 1-7 was "Voice in the Void".
The GM did the math (APL 5) and asked the table what to do. The Level 2 wanted nothing to do with playing up. I (the level 6) sided with the level 2 player, figuring it was unfair to do that to him. Nosig brought up a good point about playing a different character, but I did not actually have one with me to play, otherwise I would have. The rest of the table demanded that they would play up to 6-7 (again with a group of 4's and a 2). The GM, rather than deciding on unanimous decision went with majority rules.
The only reason we didn't die in...
The room with the huge T-Rex skeleton
I had command undead available on my spell list and used it out of my arcane bond which subsequently ended the fight immediately after the barbarian went from full health to 2 HP in one hit.
The only reason we didn't die in...
The room with the huge black pudding and Gibbering Mouther
I was an evoker wizard with fire spells up the wazoo, since half the party broke their weapons in that fight and had to resort to backup weapons the last module.
We skipped another of the huge major battles by just the happenstance of taking the right path, and the only reason we didn't die in the last fight (having run the fight numerous times I can tell you we would have been murdered) is because we ran out of time and never got to it.
This whole experience was horrible for the level 2, who couldn't hit anything, couldn't contribute, and basically needed to stand in the back in fear of death because he was so underclassed for the scenario. We didn't have a group of six, we had a group of five who got to play a 6-7 scenario because they were jerks to the Level 2.
That one experience put me on the same exact path as suggested by The Gnome above, "If the party APL is in the middle ... I let the table know they have the choice, but that the table has to be unanimous on playing up -- if it's a lower level party and their are level 1s ... I also don't let pregens have a say in the matter as they have nothing to loose." If you don't like it, you can walk.
Andrew Christian wrote:
If you want to be all technical...as a generality, crafting is not permitted. So change my statement to read:
"Crafting is not permitted in PFS*."
*Special exceptions are permitted for wizards (bonded items), gunslingers (ammunition), alchemists (alchemical items/poisons), and poisoner rogues (poisons).
Reading the explanation for the ban, it seems a lot to do with flavor, though. I don't think it was all about power.
I would focus on this. There would appear to be two categories of removed classes - those with mechanical problems (not power mind you, but either game slowing or confusing) and those with thematic levels of evil associated with them.
Michael Brock wrote:
No, people do not get to change ability scores.
Interestingly...my synthesist can become a very effective bard or sorcerer with his synthesist scores (go-go not dumping physical stats!)
I have only played pathfinder for a couple of weeks. Before that it was 3.5 and before that well you guys know the story.. Thirty years later most of my companions have re -prioritized their lives or died. So I have to settle for four hour scenarios once a week that sometimes remind me of get the cheese.......
What Sven said.
Also, be forewarned, knowing 3.5 is sometimes a detriment for GMing Pathfinder. The rules *have* changed, and things are not all the same, especially minor things. Knowing 3.5 (in my experience) is just as much a hindrance as it is helpful).
Joko PO wrote:
That is why I will always call out any PFS GM who says "Not at my table!" As I have said before, It is not YOUR table. There is just simply no way to draw such a line in the sand in a shared campaign and not come off like an arrogant jerk.
Joko, with all due respect, it is my table. I spent the time prepping, I spent the time organizing, and I am responsible for every player at that table (yes, including you, but not just you) having a good time. If I make a rules call at my table, including rules calls about free actions (which are covered RAW), I am not being a jerk, I am being a GM.
Nine times out of ten the cheese brought to the table does not make the table fun. I have had a number of players complain to me about builds like these. Every time (not just sometimes), these rules fall on the edge builds which skirt an RAI, or work off of a rules inconsistency. These kinds of situations cause game days to devolve into rules arguments trying to figure out what's going on and are very un-fun for everybody, especially the other players. If I am able to interject another rule to counter that kind of build and bring the table fun for the other players back into equilibrium, I am not being a jerk. What you see as me interjecting my viewpoint into the campaign, I see as me making sure the majority of players at my table are having a good time. That is, after all, my job as Venture Captain. At the end of the day, I'd rather have those five back playing again, than just the one.
I've said it time and time again. There are legitimate reasons to fall on both sides of the RAW vs. RAI spectrum, but to claim, even for a second that I'm being a jerk for trying to run a table, I'd rather not have you at my table.
Based on my believed "time and effort" required to take out and put away a shield, regardless of it being a quickdraw shield, I believe that in the "reasonable limits" of time, you're going to get it out, or put it away, not both.
Some Random Dood wrote:
So RAW this is legal. But if you take too many free actions in a single round, the GM may limit the amount you can do.
You are sort-of correct - I missed that he had Quickdraw in his original build. So if you just look at that rule, it's legal per RAW.
That said, my new favorite rule?
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
So no...at my table, no it's not legal per RAW.
Deidre Tiriel wrote:
I believe it requires at least 12 tables for a con.
Fifteen (15) tables actually.
Also, running a con does not guarantee a specific (or any for that matter) race boon. The decision on which boons to offer for any convention are determined by the campaign leadership and vary from con to con.
So to make this clear, There are no dumb questions in PFS, only dumb answers... and I have plenty of those... ;)
An addendum then to Dragnmoon's comment is that there are no dumb questions, only Dragnmoon.
Deidre Tiriel wrote:
Unless of course you've never in 35+ years owned a credit card and have no interest in doing so.
As a PFS player (and VC) with a synthesist all I can say is "please don't".
Synthesists are a huge rules gray area. Both you and your GM need to be up on things like Armor stacking, equipment dual use, how healing and conditions work, and a lot of minor rules that players normally don't deal with. As a first character its an awful choice.
Now add these problems to the other half. Synthesist characters (and usually by extension their players) become the pariah of the table. I've watched two tables now where the synthesist, by extension of its power have completely ruined the game experience for the other five players and the table's GM. When the errata came out I used it as a chance to deliberately underpower myself and I still feel like a complete jerk when I run her.
If you like summoner you should play one, but stay far away from the synthesist.
With 175k being the magic number to make a print run possible, it proves otherwise.
It doesn't prove anything other than the folks at Paizo are good at developing incentives.
We know you don't read scenarios you're GMing Dragnmoon, that much is obvious.
My next character is going to spend all his gold on ale and whores. Screw you all and your "cure me this, cure me that" and wanting me to "swing my sword". You're on your own.
I know how my Qadiran would respond to the lack of a wand by a party member.
"You want healing you owe me a favor - that favor will be collected at a later date, in coin or hide".
Then I'd make them sign my chronicle sheet that they owe me one favor.
I mentioned this weeks ago when the PDF was first released. I was also familiar with the frenzied berserker in Living Greyhawk. I'm surprised that the VC's haven't been more proactive in restricting approaches which have been a problem in previous organized play. However, the only VC I know personally is Russell and while I know he was active in Living Greyhawk, I'm not sure whether he was involved during the 3.0 FB days.
My fellow VC also commented to this, but it's worth repeating. Venture Captains can act as your ears and voice to the campaign coordinator (currently Mark Moreland acting in the interim), but we do not make policy. We cannot turn away a player who has made a legal player any more than any GM can. What we can do is note that there is a concern and pass it along (as Mark Garringer has done).
I'll note that I've seen at least four cases of PvP being built into various modules, usually by some kind of confusion mechanic. Confusion based PvP is not unheard of in PFS and in fact has been used as a major story mechanism in at least one module. It's worth reviewing, and worth noting, but it is incorrect to refer to all confusion based PvP as "against the rules."
If I recall correctly, this was in direct response to the year of the Core Rulebook release. Gen Con officials were none too happy with the state of the wrapping circular line which crowded all the isles around the Paizo booth for a couple hours. Fantasy Flight Games got the same talking to due to their excessively long line. In response, Gen Con stated in 2010 that Paizo and FFG needed to find a way to deal with their excessively long lines on opening day. Paizo's method of dealing with it (and it worked fantastically) was to block off their booth and let in only a certain number of people at a time. Sean stood over to the side with the line entertaining the crowd until it was their turn to enter.
This is moot after noon or so since the bulk of the people wanting first-go at the goodies have moved on and the barriers come down. After that, and for the rest of the con, Paizo's booth is very open, and if you so desire you'll find a whole slew of Paizonians there to chat with (Sean and Lisa make themselves very available). It's easy to blame Paizo on this one, but from my understanding, this edict came down from the Gen Con organizers.
I've expressed my gratitude for Michael's modules in the past, now it's time to do it again. I had the distinct pleasure of running The Mantis's Prey for Pathfinder Society at PaizoCon and I honestly have to say it is one of my favorites to date (with my absolute #1 favorite being Silent Tide, another Michael Kortes original). As with all of Michael's modules, it has a lot to do with a great blend of action and roleplay opportunities. If I were to name the top-10 module/adventure products Paizo has put out, I think Mr. Kortes' name will be popping up on more than one occasion.
So here's my request. Write more! Specifically, write for PFS. Don't let the AP and module players get all the fun (okay let them have some of the fun), but spread the love a little, because honestly, you're one of my favorite module authors to date. Thanks again for the great adventures.
Kyle didn't run Midnight Mauler, I lost the chronicle sheet, so I should know.
Also, thanks to all of you for making my first PaizoCon an event to remember. It was absolutely fantastic getting to actually play with a number of you, and equally cool to get to sit down and talk shop. All jokes aside, Kyle puts out an absolutely tremendous amount of prep work for his events; they make mine look they're being run by a 5-year old with a crayon.
Now that I'm a little more comfortable with this thread's location, here's the list of current Shadow Lodge stories:
Scenarios 1-23 & 1-24: City of Strangers arc
Special: Year of the Shadow Lodge
Scenario 2-04: Shadows Fall on Absalom
Scenario 2-06, 2-07, and 2-09: The Heresy of Man arc
Scenario 2-08: The Sarkorian Prophecy
Scenarios 2-15, 2-17, and 2-19: Shades of Ice arc
Scenario 2-20: Wrath of the Accursed
More of course are likely and/or possible considering we still have 3 months of modules prior to season 3 at Gen Con.
I only have one expectation of my fellow players. I expect that you'll try to have a good time, and respect me desires to have a good time too. Nothing more, nothing less.