John Compton wrote:
Bragging rights when your animal companion is more personable than other members of the party[/list]
John, it's hardly bragging rights when the animal companion is more charismatic than 5/6 of the party. ;-)
Don Walker wrote:
Who made up that rule, somebody with Free RPG Day? That has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.
I went to Free RPG Day (Heck I even ran at a Free RPG Day Venue), I picked up my hardcopy of the module, and if I want to run it at Moe's Game Shack down the road, there is zero that anybody can do about it. What are they going to do, send out the RPG police?
Chris Mortika wrote:
First off, fantastic idea Chris. Second off, I concur on Jason's goblins. They are also tremendously over - optimized for the module and I don't like seeing them there.
You get to pick from all of the other normal selections for wizards at level 5 that aren't item creation feats. There are no replacements for lost item creation feats. The general design consensus seems to be that if you have an alternative that is available that is not on the additional resources list, then the powers that be do not provide any other alternatives.
The translator is a druid.
My largest problem with GMs is that they can not take their feelings out of the game. Why should you want a reroll? You are judging the scenario. You are following the script as much as possible. If the script calls for a die roll to decide something then the die roll decides, not you. You lose nothing for poor dice rolls.
I lose the ability to lap up your tears of sorrow.
N N 959 wrote:
I didn't take it out of context. The context is they guy is putting the enjoyment of a newbs over that of veterans. That's what I'm talking about. I'm commenting on something in the context of what it was conveying. Nor was "offended by it." I disagree with it. Please don't try to make this inflammatory.
Yes...yes I am putting the enjoyment of a table of five new players over the enjoyment of a single veteran, and I'm not going to apologize for it.
I successfully ran (and grew) a region for two years, I think the results speak for themselves.
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.
Andrew Christian wrote:
I have no idea where specifically all nine of my characters are. Honestly, when it comes to applying GM credit, I have to either remember to look up everything and decide before hand (not likely), or hope that I can get the GM to report it once I get around to looking things up.
Will Johnson wrote:
I completely agree with one and three. Two to me (while possibly more realistic), still adds to the "kind of a jerk move" territory.
My answer here is never*. I don't care if you're fresh off the vegetable truck or level 19, it's a jerk GM move.
Now you'll notice there's an asterisk. That's because (as I have experienced), there are times it is not a jerk GM move, and in those times I WOULD consider it.
Case in point. At the end of a certain scenario with a ghoul I once had all members of the party paralyzed or unconscious except one. I could either hit the low save party member and TPK everybody, or munch on a downed player (one that in particular had caused the encounter to go awry). I chose to much on the downed character to save the other four people playing. That's about the only occasion I've hit so far where I've felt a need to attack a downed PC.
Mike Mistele wrote:
I absolutely believe you are watching the arms race come to fruition here too (albeit differently). As to why...well the road to hell is always paved with good intentions. In an effort to keep long-term players who complain about the scenarios getting "too easy", the developers have tried a number of fixes all at once (6-player table scenario designs, beefed up encounters using more material). The result is scenarios that can (and do) eat new, and inexperienced PCs alive. The pendulum has swung from one end to the other.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Six of one, half a dozen of another.
This is why it has been proposed that the rules codify where you WILL plat and remove player choice from the equation. If there are flat rewards, and table makeup force playing up or down according to predefined rules, it will be a lot harder for players to game that kind of system.
In all honesty, when I was gambling on what the new system was going to be, the assigned wealth by actual level was what I figured the announcement would be.
Matthew Morris wrote:
Here's a clarification request for Mike. If you have (and have used) the current Tales Boons on your current characters, will there be an option to have the new boons or are we out of luck if we've already used them?
One other thing they mentioned is that if you play a member of those factions in the scenarios where the faction comes to an end, you'll get a special boon. At least, they said that for Lantern Lodge specifically. I was a little unclear about whether or not that also applies to Shadow Lodge. Since my Shadow Lodge PC is already double the maximum level for that adventure, though, I definitely won't be eligible for that one.
Mark and John clarified that you will be able to apply the chronicle as a GM chronicle to a character out-of-tier.
So...John, Mike, and Mark have requested we just have one thread for each of the major topics.
I'm going to jump on this one. Two factions are getting the boot.
Lantern Lodge - which will have their scenario where they end as Way of the Kirin. This will end the lodge as a PC option (they will continue to exist as their own non PC faction).
Shadow Lodge - the specifics are still secret, but they will end with the scenario Rivalries End. They alluded that this will be a significant game changer for the faction (where they may or may not continue to exist as a non-PC option).
They also clarified that scenarios starting in Season 5 will no longer have "faction missions" with handouts. Rather, the scenarios will become much more like this year's Cheliax arcs, where a goal for the faction will be there for the entire scenario and there may be a faction specific reward at the end of the scenario.
One could only hope.
Seriously...if the statement made before about the lack of any real oomph behind the abandoned "faction war" is any indication, to me it means that perhaps the whole faction concept should just go out the window altogether.
Either that or drop it down to three factions and re-introduce the war, with real consequences.
Please refer to the Additional Resources page to identify what is permitted and what is not.
In this specific case:
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Race Guide
"In Chapter 2, nothing from the catfolk, drow, hobgoblins, kobolds, orcs, and ratfolk entries are currently legal for play."
I run a Sound Striker Bard, and I have used their Wordstrike power to burst and explode Spell Component pouches or wooden holy symbols. It is especially mean, since it deals 1d4+10 damage to it, no save, no attack roll. Just POOF, goodbye spell component pouch. I don't do it often, as it can shut down a caster flat.
And this is why I carry three spell component pouches.
To the OP though - it's been stated before that the inconsequential material components were turned into the "spell component pouch" because managing and maintaining those components is a pain in the behind and decidedly un-fun. So while I appreciate the desire to interject those kinds of moments into the game, nothing screams "screw over the mage and ruin his fun that game day" like sundering their spellpouch.
Walter Sheppard wrote:
I agree with the ban of dice rollers in games. It was once explained to me by an incredibly gifted software engineer how its impossible to have true randomness in programming, which is the basis I would use for disallowing them at my table.
I work creating and running randomized clinical trials used to have medical devices (often used for implanting in human subjects) approved and made available for the market. A key component of said trials is that you need to randomize subjects to a treatment or control arm of the trial. This is done under the prevue of the FDA which is primarily responsible for making sure that those devices are safe for human use. I am intimately aware of the "limitations" of computerized randomizations as we use them regularly to randomize the subjects for said trials.
If it's good enough for the FDA, it's good enough for the game table.
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.
Your example is years old. Have you changed anything? If it happened again, what choices do you have? Do you have another PC waiting in the wings?
Nosig, I acted as VC for Minneapolis/St. Paul for nearly two years, so yes, I have plenty of alternate characters now. At the time that story happened though, it seriously turned me off to the way that PFS could permit bullying, and I swore I wouldn't allow it at my tables. As a player, I'm actually one of the most flexible when it comes to offering up a character (having 4-stars worth of GM credits and a pretty hefty set of played scenarios).
I personally have major problems about pregens. Players hate them when they show up at tables, and they do not support the idea of PFS and having your own character. My personal feeling is that players should not be using them unless 1) they are new players and show up to a game without a character, or 2) they WANT to play one because they show up, have no characters in-range and really want to play that particular scenario at that particular time. Any option that involves pregens usually gets the stink-face from me.
To Mark's question though. I think that the new Season 4 APL calculation helps (doesn't fix but helps). That +1 to All was one of the reasons really low level characters were being asked to play up in the first place.
But the reasons mentioned are correct. When you're working for that +1 armor or weapon it's very difficult to want to lose 1k gp, and it only gets worse from there.
Nosing, this happened three years ago. Since the scenario was 1-7 it was permitted.
Also...don't get me started on telling people they can play generics, that's another story that pissed me off because of bullying (same place I might add).
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.
Looks like fun...
A Precocious Spellcaster with a Magical Lineage (Human Evoker Wizard, Taldor)
N N 959 wrote:
Well I could say "he was very enthusiastic until that moment."
Anyone have any other data?
We had another local player show up with a horribly built monk (Jiggy, I think I've told you this story). I could tell he was new to the game so when auditing his sheet I made the polite suggestion that perhaps a 7 CON on a monk was a poor decision. I should also note that in his fairly newness he also spent his extra favored class point on skills.
On the first round of combat in the first fight of his first ever PFS game he ran up and one-shotted with a crit a horse (which at the time had a rider). He was pleased with himself and the table was happy for him. The rider had the second action of the round so he stood up returned the favor by critting the monk, and did 15 points of damage with his weapon. The GM at the time was not aware about how poorly built this new player's character was.
I was called over to the table due to sheer stunned disbelief by the GM. We gave him a pregen to play the rest of the game just so he could participate, but we never saw him again. So in a similar situation, we lost a potential local player to a very poor roll. Again, not speaking to whether it's a good idea to fudge or not, but this is a situation where it may have made a difference.
Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:
That's really unfortunate. Was the player disruptive or otherwise upsetting them before that point? Because if they were having fun and then somebody pulled something like that, I can't imagine a dynamic in which the fun would suddenly stop.
It depends on your definition of disruptive I guess. The player is generally well liked and makes some interesting characters. Also to be clear the players requested not to play with that PC, not the player. To your point though, at that point they did go from having fun to decidedly NOT having fun (at least according to a number of players at the table). I was called over to the table to mitigate simply because there was a certain degree of stunned disbelief.
... and if it did, why wouldn't everyone just say, "Okay, well, let's do the boss fight without that, just to see what would have happend!" I've done that before.
Which is what I suggested they do. The character then locked down the fight on the second round of combat (because the character was built 100% around SoS spells).
Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:
I've been pondering this. When you manage to nail the BBEG with a save-or-suck on the first round, it's fantastic. The players all get a kick out of it.
What I am about to write is not a statement on the validity or lack of validity of fudging but I do have to comment to this.
I was VC at an event where a PC sorcerer locked down the final fight with a single spell on the first action of the first round. The table was NOT amused and in fact I was told by a number of players afterwards that given a choice they would rather not ever play again with that PC at the table.
Wow, that's really jumping the gun. The misfortune ability, for all its frustration to GMs everywhere requires that the player know the numeric results of rolls before you as the GM call out the results. Asking to see those rolls absolutely does not make that player a suspected cheater. It also though pretty much requires that you show any roll which the player would have the opportunity to Misfortune (stealth rolls where the player is unaware of the bad guy, perception checks by the bad guy (again where the player is unaware) or anything else like that you could very easily justify keeping hidden.
That being said, there is no rule that you are required to show your die rolls, but a lot of us GMs do (with a couple of notable exceptions why we might not).
You really need to read The Second Darkness AP to understand the backstory of the Drow. Long story short, Drow in Golarion are not Drow in other traditional fantasy games. They are the definition of evil to the point that good elves can "turn into" Drow. They hate pretty much everything living and the reason Half-Drow and the releated feats/abilities are not allowed in PFS is because in Golarion, there is no such thing. There are Drow and non-Drow.
Sometimes I'm a little confused on Additional Resources, as sometimes they are listing what isn't legal and sometimes they are listing was IS legal.
The additional resources is broken up by book, so you need to know which book the class feature you want to use comes from (remember, you have to bring the legal source to the table if it's not a core assumption).
Once you look up the book read the very first paragraph after the book's title. It usually says something to the effect of:
"Everything in this source is legal except"
"Only the the following are legal".
Then read through the list. Sometimes it may break the book down a little more, perhaps by class or chapter, but the statement is always there.
Rogue: The black market connections rogue talent and the driver archetype are not legal for Pathfinder Society Organized Play.
Yes, and you'll notice I quoted the APG section because that's where the bulk of the rogue talents are located. The key is knowing the source, and then looking it up on the list for that source.
Broderick the Butcher wrote:
Geeze, is it that hard?
You go check the additional resources list and look up what you're asking about.
You'll notice that Rogue Talents from the book are listed nowhere, hence legal.
That took me literally 30 seconds to go look up. It's not hard.
Here's my problem: It's all Online. Nowhere in any of the books does it mention anything about rules for organized play. New players have NO WAY OF KNOWING that all the resources they need are online. Nobody told me, and it's not in any of the books. Argue with me if you want, but I'm not the only one this has happened to... it happens quite a lot, when new players make characters for organized play without knowing there are rules outside the books: Again, how would they know that? The books are what are available in stores, not PDFs or other rulings.
The Pathfinder Society section of the website speaks to needing to get yourself a copy of the Guide to Organized play, which is available as a PDF for free and can be printed off very cheaply at home or at your local Kinkos. The additional resources is plainly and clearly called out for in the Guide to Organized Play and is also available for free off the website as a PDF which can be printed off very cheaply at home or at your local Kinkos.
It makes no sense whatsoever to have the Core Rulebook, which was not written for PFS to contain this information (PFS is written using the Core Rulebook). The rules are everywhere, and it's really quite unfair to state that there's "NO WAY OF KNOWING", because it's pretty damned easy to figure out the rules, you ARE playing Organized Play and you had to hear about it somewhere, right?
There are many thing that I don't like about organized play, and the fact that the banned list is unwieldy and only available online is one of them.
I have no idea what is legal as far as races.
If you're playing PFS, in general make sure you've read through the Additional Resources to make sure everything you're picking is legal (Catfolk are not).
(I do realize you said you could use it in a home game too, but I just wanted you to be prepared).
1 - D20PFSRD is not an official source and should not be treated as such.
2 - Per that link from SKR: "So just because the grid has a square for "15 feet away" and a square for "5 feet away," but no square for "10 feet away," using that corner path doesn't mean you're magically teleporting from 15 feet to 5 feet; you are passing through a 10-foot-radius band around the creature, and therefore you provoke an AOO."
3 - The image supports this statement that reach does extend into the 15" diagonal. The primary reason why is that if it does not, it really screws with people trying to game the system and avoid AOOs.
I don't have the time or inclination to go through the whole list, but you have a couple wrong there.
Just on #1 alone, Produce Flame can me used as a melee touch attack or as a thrown weapon against touch AC.
#2 has similar issues, and I remember a time when I agreed with you, but there are good game reasons why it is not the case (there's a great post about it by James Jacobs).
Might want to double check your complaints.
Summoners, even more so than other casters take a major hit by multiclassing. This is mainly because their Eidolon is already reduced in hit dice. Losing even one can be painful. I would not suggest it.