|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Requiring everyone to play by the same rules, once they're made aware of those rules, is being a douche? But it's okay for you to state flat out that you aren't going to follow the rule even when it's linked for you?
It blows my mind that so many of my posts are hidden for "being a jerk", but people are able to flaunt other rules and everyone just says "oh well."
A PC is considered "newly created" until it is played for the first time at higher than level 1. If you have a boon, such as a race boon or the retirement arc boon, that can only be applied to a newly created PC, that PC is still eligible under the retrain rules. This is the same reason people with GM Credit summoners had to retrain if they had never actually played higher than level 1 as an APG Summoner.
Mike Brock wrote:
What's more disruptive: "I'm mounted, so my speed is 40ft." or "You can't have an eidolon and a mount. There's a rule. Well, not a rule, a FAQ. Hang on, I'll pull it up. It will just take a minute. Okay, no. Wait. Here it is. Yeah, it does say and, but that's not what it means."
Reid Richter wrote:
It still amazes me. Mike Brock is fairly consistent about things like this. One poster will ask why something is not legal and the response will be "it doesn't fit the flavor of Golarion." Then, every time, someone else will say "But what about this? It's got the same flavor, and is legal." And then everyone is surprised when Mike says "Okay, I should probably ban that too, then."
Maybe folks should quit poking the bear.
Well that's not correct (Edit: referring to Michael's post). And as for the nice folks in the rules forum directing you here, that wasn't correct either. Putting "PFS" in a rules question doesn't make it a PFS question. Crits work the same in PFS as they do in regular Pathfinder.
The allegation that VOs are discussing rules in the VO boards, getting them wrong, and then using their status as VOs to spread these wrong interpretations is troubling.
You can't play an "Unchained Ninja" because it doesn't exist. There are already rules for retraining a character because "I'm tired of playing it." Those retraining rules have a cost, as well they should. Retraining for free is for new characters (never played at level 2) or characters who have the rules changed out from under them.
"I'm bored" is neither of those.
Proposal: Please fix the "XP / PP / GM star credit" disparity between scenarios and Thornkeep / Emerald Spire
GM Lamplighter wrote:
(Although - because this is an issue with the system, everyone *has* experienced it, they may just not have identified this as the cause. How many people have played with a person who has no idea how to play their 9th-level PC? I'd be interested in seeing how many of those issues correlate with how many levels of Emerald Spire/Thornkeep/Free RPG Day modules the person has played, but that sort of evidence is unlikely to be available. Of course, it's hard to disentangle the various factors at play, and local issues would likely dominate anyway.)
Alright, I'll bite. I know of two players who never really developed an understanding of their characters who leveled up to 7 with Thornkeep. One was playing a white-haired witch based on a build he found online. He eventually stopped playing the character because he never could get it to do what he wanted. The other was a Wizard whose spell list might have been composed solely of Magic Missile for all I ever saw cast. Neither of these, in my opinion, were really the fault of Thornkeep itself. Both were newer players playing characters they were new to, in a convention environment where the games tended to be back to back to back. Tell me you wouldn't stumble a bit going from level 2 to level 7 in 72 hours.
I myself am playing my first ever witch in Emerald Spire. I'm having so much fun playing my witch, I think I'm going to make it my "Eyes of the Ten" character. I would love to be able to play her more, but not if it meant having to break immersion and play other things in between levels. We play once a week at most (usually more like 1-2 times a month) so I don't have to rush to level her up between games. I think the time crunch at a convention, or general player inexperience is where the problems come in.
The table of credit issue is not going to be fixed. The system recognizes only two types of adventures: Scenarios (worth one table of credit) or Modules (worth two). Paizo decided the resources to fix the system issue weren't worth it compared to the relatively minor problem of some GMs getting two tables worth of credit for a scenario length module.
Proposal: Please fix the "XP / PP / GM star credit" disparity between scenarios and Thornkeep / Emerald Spire
The Fox wrote:
Well shucky darn. And here I thought that not having a Target line to go along with the Area line meant it didn't have one. Guess I have to look up Invisibility to see how Invisibility Sphere works. Really hope they clean things like this up if they ever put out Pathfinder 2.0
To be fair, in this particular circumstance... we'd been fighting primarily things that either died before I got a chance to do anything but cast haste, or things that were 100% immune to most of my sorcerous tricks. So when this guy showed up, I saw my moment to shine and I took it!
How dare you. Don't you know your moment to shine is supposed to be a solemn occasion where you do something only marginally better than anyone else can. You're not allowed to bust up in there all fabulous covered in sequins screaming "I'm HERE!" Please try to shine more dully in the future. ;)
From the GM side of things, I can see how frustrating it is to have the "end boss" taken out in the first round. But I try to take a step back and realize that my players put in time and effort to be as good as they are, and it would be selfish of me not to allow them to do the things they worked to be good at doing.
A similar scenario occured when I was a player. 3/6 people at the table could always act in the surprise round. The GMs solution was to have stuff happen in a "pre" surprise round where NPCs got in position for an ambush, and then combat broke out of the subsequent round. The payoff was the scenario ran as written, rather than us stiffling the NPCs attempts entirely as they tried to get in position for the ambush, that would have sent the scenario off the rails quickly.
So, the GM cheated to negate specific player investment in their characters, and you're okay with that? In an organized play environment, especially, if I put in the effort to make my character do something most can't, I certainly wouldn't want it invalidated by GM fiat.
Amazingly good post about Opportunity Cost and Group Dynamics leading to a clear preference for a competing system.
Well, there it is, folks. 5th edition is out and, in at least one part of the country, is kicking our asses. We, as representatives of the hobby, can't just rock along like everything is the same now as it was when PFRPG had no real competitor.
There are amazing PFS groups across the world, and there are some that could use improvement. We should all take stock of our local scene and come up with ways to be more inclusive and friendly to newcomers so we can continue the success of a hobby we all love.
I have to point out that your alignment doesn't dictate whether an action is "evil" (or any other alignment for that matter). An action is either, itself, so blatantly good/evil/lawful/chaotic that it wouldn't matter who did it, or it's such a grey area that the only thing that matters is your intention and the results.
The reason why your character won't accept surrender determines the alignment of the action. If it's "because dragging around a bunch of 'surrendered' bad guys who might make trouble or try to escape is dang inconvenient," then you're looking at the south side of Chaotic Neutral at best.
Generally, it's at least considered bad form to bayonet the wounded, if not a war crime.
In the real world where "the wounded" can be out of the fight for weeks or months, it is pointless and immoral to target them. In a world where that same guy can get a pat on the back from a healer and be back to full fighting capacity in less than six seconds, targeting the wounded becomes an important tactical decision. Again, intention and result are what make the difference in the alignment of an action.
I know I'm late to the party, but I'd like an honest assessment of my item. I was happy to make the cull, but I never expected to get to Top 32. This is a learning experience for me. The first thing I noticed was that I should have added rage as a spell requirement.
Staff of the Beast Within
In addition, if the wielder of the staff of the beast within has her own rage class ability (such as barbarian's rage, bloodrager's bloodrage, or skald's inspired rage) she may spend 10 rounds of this ability to recharge one charge of the staff as if she had spent a 5th level prepared spell or spell slot. A calm emotions spell or effect has a chance to dispel any spell effect originating from the staff of the beast within in addition to its normal effects, and causes the staff to be suppressed as if targeted by a successful dispel magic for as long as the staff is in the area of effect.
Construction Requirements Craft Staff, animal aspect, aspect of the wolf, beast shape ii, savage maw; Cost 20,000 gp
JJ Jordan wrote:
My wife and my mother-in-law make up a third of my home game group. Yep, I'm on good terms with my mother-in-law.
Why do you feel the need to do it? Do you not trust your lodge players?
Tired of seeing this. Following the rules (which require exactly what this GM has been doing, not signing until the sheet is filled out by the player) does not mean you don't trust your players. Yes, many GMs handwave this portion. Yes, I'm one of them.
But when a GM decides to actually follow the rules, I'm not going to get my undies in a bunch because of it. Either I've got my stuff together, or I play a pregen.
Alternatively, the party face is a paladin, and they get directly asked "are you Pathfinders?" at which point either the paladin or the whole party are up a creek...
Paladins shouldn't lie, but they don't have to tell the truth. "Are you Pathfinders?"
Paladin should answer, "Are you kidding? Pathfinders would have to be crazy to show their faces around here."
Speaking as a GM, it makes me uncomfortable when I don't know the rules my player is using. If you want to say I don't trust my players, that's fine. Maybe I don't. Maybe I shouldn't trust the player that keeps asking me how [common rule interaction] works when they suddenly show up with something out of the ACG that I haven't had a chance to look over yet. And that's a common book! What about the myriad player companions that most people just dip one or two things out of?
And before you say "Well that player resource has been out for X monts/years/whatever" let me remind you that there are common rules (light and darkness spells, Take 10 and Take 20, Attacks of Opportunity, just to name a few) that have been practically unchanged since the year 2000. How many people do you trust to know those rules correctly without having to reference them?
So yes, on a practical level I often have to take my players at their word, even when I have cause to believe their word is suspect. It's better than letting my ignorance of their character slow the game to a crawl while I look up everything. That doesn't mean I have to be happy about it.
The Fox wrote:
Does this mean you also believe I should not be allowed to play this character? Would someone be justified to say, "Sorry, I don't like your character. Play something else or don't play at all."
I will allow any player to play any legal build, unless I have specific personal reasons that I would prefer not to game with that player. I will not, however, force other players to play with you if they don't want to. I also will not pull any punches (nor will I specifically target you, as some have said in this thread).
But, if you are so inept that you get other characters killed, I will be the first to suggest that they speak to the Venture Officer to try to get the deaths overturned. Your choices affect more than your own character.
I love how Fox's Int 9 Wizard (barely) contributes to the party by *gasp* casting spells. Maybe he could, I don't know, be better at spellcasting if he didn't have to rely solely on magic items?
I just flat out don't get it. Someone with an 18 Strength and a 9 Intelligence just isn't going to be a Wizard. They just aren't suited to it. They're not going to spend years as an apprentice without learning a single cantrip. The Master isn't going to waste the time on someone clearly not capable of casting the simplest spells. How do they even know that they're a wizard, and just not someone really good at UMD?
Ferious Thune wrote:
I have a character who has been killed once and charmed two more times by harpies. I would hope if someone says the word harpy, by now he'd be allowed to put in earplugs without making a knowledge roll.
But it's not you making the knowledge check to identify the creature as a harpy. You can't put in the earplugs just because you see a flying humanoid creature that starts to open it's mouth. Well, you can, but that could be a gargoyle and a wasted action.
Similarly, if you want to say your character knows that blunt weapons are better against skeletons, that's fine. But is that a regular ole' skeleton over there, or is it a skeletal champion? A lich? Sometimes your characters should make the wrong decision based on past experience. If you're only metagaming when it helps you, you are cheating.
Unless you put your experience into knowledge skills, you haven't retained the information you've encountered. There's a huge difference between playing a pick-up game of football, and watching game tapes and studying playbooks and working out to make yourself the best football player you can.
No one is expecting the Wizard to be better in melee just because the fighter told him how to swing the sword better. Thusly, it is not reasonable to expect the 8 Int fighter to remember more than the DC 5-10 basics just because the Wizard gave him a lecture about the monster in the heat of battle.
I start with the town, and I play it by feel how "into it" the group is. If they're the type that just want to "get down to business" then I usually make it pretty easy to find the entrance and get to it. If they really seem to dig exploring the town, it can be a while before they even remember they're there to delve a dungeon.
I've never had the first part run longer that 4-5 hours, though. And we only came up on that with a fairly "talky" group.
Master of the Fallen Fortress (replayable module), followed by the Confirmation or First Steps (replayable scenarios), followed by the other. That will get all the characters to second level without "wasting" any non-replayable options.
For future characters, there are also several replayable modules that grant a full level (3xp).
But my all time favorite "first" scenario is Silent Tide (Season 0, Scenario 1).
Jeff Merola wrote:
What intelligence score denotes Sentience? 2, 3, or higher? 5 is the lowest a PC could possibly have, so somewhere between 1-4 is okay to eat, but 5+ is right out. Torturing sentient creatures is certainly evil, and I could see ruling that hunting sapient creatures is evil, but eating dead flesh is no more evil than eating dead plant matter. If we weren't meant to be part of the food chain, we wouldn't be made of food.
As for the desecration of dead bodies, desecration is a crime of intent, and the intent determines the alignment. Carving a cow into different cuts of meat is not desecration of the dead cow, unless you are doing it to purposely offend someone, or to express your hatred of cows in general or that cow specifically.
I declare knee-jerk reactions in alignment threads to be evil. I'm making a notation on all of your chronicle sheets. :P
Speaking as a GM, I would rather someone point out the correct rule every time. That way I learn to do better, the player learns to do better, and I learn to be on the lookout for other people using that rule incorrectly. New players are the perfect ones to correct, because you need to get them playing the right way before their mistakes become bad habits, which then become "I know it works this way. I can't find it, but that's how we've always done it."
Everything else, I'm pretty much right with you. In combat may not be the best time to tell your epic tale of victory (unless you're a bard). Contributing nothing to the scenario from fear of spoiling it can be just as bad as spoiling it if the players are truly stuck and your character could come up with a solution.