|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Michael Brock wrote:
Two points and I'm going to let this go.
I appreciate the reply, and the confirmation of what I had already figured out on my own. As I said, my gut reaction wasn't rational and I've had a chance to think things through. Keep doing the good work you've been doing and don't let posts like mine discourage you. :)
Well, I pride myself on being able to see issues from the "other side" so with that in mind I've waited a while before I replied. There are a lot of comments I'd like to discuss in more depth, but I know that discussion doesn't really belong in the PFS section. The posters who thought I needed to calm down, or wanted to make sure that I wasn't offended by their replies were particularly amusing. Maybe we can revisit the issue on the General boards?
As for the original issue, on the advice of PFCBG and Mike himself, I've taken another look at Mike's post to see if there wasn't something else that prompted my reaction. First of all, Mike, you clearly said
Michael Brock wrote:
Please do not bring any form of firearm to a PFS session.
You may not have meant that as a Ruling from the Global Organized Play Coordinator, but that's what you are. Your word is law as far as PFS is concerned. Even when you think you're posting your own opinion, the weight of your position makes people take your opinion as a ruling. It's not much of a stretch to imagine someone pointing to your post at saying "Mike said so." even if that wasn't your intention. But is that what provoked such a strong reaction from me? If I really stop and thing about it, no.
Over the last few years, you've done an amazing job as Campaign Coordinator. You've grown PFS into something huge, something that I was thrilled to be a part of. I never really "got" organized play until I was introduced to PFS, and it's been a pleasure to help my local VC grow his events while also getting my home group involved, many of whom were brand new to tabletop gaming. But lately you've made some rulings that seemed to me to be knee-jerk, where other issues that could have been resolved quickly were left to linger. As Sior mentioned, perception is reality, and my perception of some of your recent decisions left a sour taste in my mouth that apparently clouded my understanding of your post. To add to that, the fact that you posted in a closed thread struck me as someone who "had to have the last word." Looking back, I'm certain that is not what was intended, but that is what I read into it at the time.
To add to the issue, it seems I'm not immune to stereotyping. Speaking quickly of stereotypes, I actually own a light pick-up that gets a respectable 20mpg. I have a college degree, and still have all my teeth. ;) Sadly, it's been my experience when it comes to the private ownership of firearms, that law enforcement officers like to cite their experience and training as a reason that only they should carry. I brought the weight of my prior experiences and unfairly applied a stereotype to Mike based on his former profession. When I responded to him, I was really responding to every police officer I have ever seen post an unfavorable opinion of gun owners. It caused me to read far more into his words and tone than what was actually there. For that alone, I owe Mike an apology. And speaking of apologies, as an aside to The Fox, I apologize for saying that your thread was in poor taste. I had no right to make assumptions about your intentions. After reading your post, I intend to send you a message regarding your local issues. If you don't hear from me soon, hold me to it.
So, after taking a step back and recognizing the faults in my original post, I'm left with the core of my post. I want to emphasize that I've never made an issue out of my firearm at a PFS event. When I carry to a game session, it's because I was already carrying. I don't think to myself "I'm going to roll some dice, better strap up." I agree that would be ridiculous. As Brandon Cecil points out, bad things happen to good people, and they tend to happen when least expected. I don't carry because I think the people I game with are "out to get me", I carry because I can't know what will happen to me from the time I leave my house in the morning to when I get back. If I was able to predict when and where I would need a gun, I wouldn't need one at all. I just wouldn't go to that place at that time.
As I said before, I always follow the laws of my state, and the policies of the owners/managers of the properties I visit. Thank you, Mike, for trying to save me the trouble of gathering the policies of the cons near me. However, I was already aware. I make a point to find out those sorts of things before I commit to going somewhere so that I can make accommodations. For instance, if I were to ever fly out for PaizoCon I would find out first the laws of Washington, including whether they reciprocate Alabama's permits (for the record, they don't), whether they offer a non-resident permit (they do), if Seattle has any more stringent restrictions, if they are allowed at PaizoCon (they're not), at the hotel I would be staying at (if not, I would pick a different hotel). That is all part of being a responsible adult, much less a gun owner. If a store owner, or the game day coordinator wants to allow or disallow firearms at their store/event then that should be their independently reached decision. As ShakaUVM rightly pointed out, this has nothing to do with playing Pathfinder. I just object to the idea of this going from being one person's opinion, to being a requirement of PFS play. "I'm sorry, we can't sanction your event because you didn't include the firearm disclaimer." It sounds silly, unless you've seen that sort of thing happen. Then you learn to expect it.
In conclusion, I've decided that my first instinct was right. I probably should take a break from PFS public play. I've been getting unduly frustrated about things that don't really matter, and I've lost some of the drive that I originally had. Maybe some time away from the boards will do me some good. :)
I know, I know. Big whoop. But for anyone who cares, here is my reason.
User "The Fox" just made a thread asking if/why anyone would bring a firearm to a PFS game. I thought the thread was in poor taste and was not intending to reply until I noticed Liz had locked the thread (as I'm sure this one will be). Right after that, Mike Brock posted that he didn't want anyone to bring a firearm to any PFS event at all, ever. And cited his experience as a law enforcement officer as to why he didn't trust us to act as responsible adults around firearms. I can only assume that a rule so far reaching will make it into the next version of the Guide, and that is why I will no longer associate with official PFS events.
I don't know that I have ever carried my personal firearm to a Pathfinder Society event. I carry my firearm so often, to so many places, that I really couldn't tell you for sure "Yes, I had it on that date." I follow the laws of my state regarding open and concealed carry at all times and the wishes of property owners who make their policies known to me. I have never once been disruptive nor been asked to leave a location, and I certainly have never whipped it out and started playing with it or showing it to anyone. Quite frankly, Mr. Brock, you don't have the authority to tell me where I can and cannot carry my legally owned firearm. But, in the interests of cooperation, I will follow your wishes by no longer hosting or participating in a public PFS event. If you want to come to my home or my privately hosted events and tell me that I can't carry there, I will ask you to call first so that I'm expecting company.
With sincere regret,
A character makes a single Perception roll when they "actively" look for something, or whenever the GM calls for a roll, and they see everything around them that they could be expected to notice, modified for distance as appropriate. Say I'm looking for traps in a 60 ft. long corridor with pit traps (say, DC 20) in every other 5ft square. If I look for traps and get a 22, I see the one adjacent to me, the one 15ft. away, the one 25ft. away, but not the one 35 ft. away (22 - 1 per 10ft means my 19 is not enough to beat that trap's DC of 20). I might also see the stirges on the ceiling if I'm close enough (with a stealth of, say, 18, I'd see them automatically as long as I was within 40ft when I made my roll to look for traps). I don't have to specifically look for hidden enemies to have a chance of seeing them, nor do I have to specifically look for traps if I say I'm searching a room.
For example, I walk into a room and want to look for traps. I roll a 35, because my perception is cranked and my dice aren't out to get me tonight. Not only should I be told if there are any traps whose DC I beat, I should also be told if there is a creature hiding in the room with a Stealth of less than 35. If there is any obvious treasure (not hidden away in the bottom of a chest) or secret doors, I should be told about those too. I don't have to make separate checks for each thing that I might see. Now if the room is pretty big, I might not see everything there is to see from the doorway, but if I do a cursory check of the whole room (taking 10) or take the time to do a thorough search (taking 20) I shouldn't have to make more than one roll against all available DCs. Taking 20 should still take longer for larger areas, but probably not more than 2 minutes for every 10ft x 10ft section (100 square feet).
Edit to fix my geometry fail
David Neilson wrote:
After all you are not saying an archer who won inititiative[sic] could full attack by saying "I am starting a full round action and then finishing it on the next round" are you?
That would be clearly against the rules.
The Trample UMR makes no mention of "full attack" merely a full round action. And although it references the Overrun combat maneuver, which can be made against one creature as part of a charge, trample is not considered a charge or a run, and is not limited to one creature.
I have no idea what scenario is being referenced, but I am running one tonight that has trampling elephants that could potentially act in the surprise round. The way I intend to handle it is to have them make a single Overrun attempt in the surprise round (if there is one), and start actually trampling in the first regular round.
Just wanted to point out that the scenario doesn't determine whetherthere is a surprise round. A surprise roumd happenes when not all combatants are aware. As for trample being a full round action, you are alowed to start full round actions in the surprise round and "finish" them using your next standard action.
Not quite. Both versions of the new guide came out before Gencon, which is why they didn't feel the need to change the version number. The rules in that first release were never active. Replays resetting was in the guide for a few days, but it was never a campaign rule because it was changed before that guide went into effect.
James Risner wrote:
I suspect the same type of individual will silently correct their characters.
Oh hells no. If I ran for someone that used to play that build, and I found out they had illegally retrained, I would mark them as dead when I reported that scenario. Just because I'm irritated about how it was handled, doesn't mean that I'm going to allow actual blatant cheating.
I always wanted to play an Elf wizard with 5 Con, and at the beginning of every session, ask my teammates which one wanted to push him around in his wheelchair.
Build him up to a decent level with GM credit and he'll be fine, because Wizard. Supposedly Raistlin was once a real character with low single digit Strength and Con.
Can be, but IMO shouldn't be. There is a lot of RP potential in Murder's Mark, and you would be doing your players a disservice to skimp on it. Unless they make it clear up front they care nothing for the talky bits, in which case probably better to just run Godsmouth Heresy or Crypt of the Everflame.
I've never had Crypt go longer than two sessions, but I've only run it two or three times.
andy mcdonald 623 wrote:
Except that things that do damage always list an amount. 1d3-4, for instance, is a valid amount of damage. A roll that would result in 0 or less would do 1 point of non-lethal, so there is always damage being done, so DR would apply. If no damage is listed, DR
Is the spoiler section covered by "PFS Mode?" If not, then the answer is easy. If it can be encountered in the PFS Sanctioned portion of the module, then it should be fair game, just like [REDACTED] in regular scenarios.
Edit: Unless you're playing in campaign mode. Then I'd say the only things you have access to are what appears on the chronicle sheet. I say this because your PFS character isn't actually playing the adventure, similar to when you apply pregen credit to another character.
**Most of this is already in Starglim's post, but I didn't feel like editing. :P **
There are no such things as "official" GMs. Anyone with a PFS number can run a game for credit. You get your PFS number from that link on the splash page that says "Join the Pathfinder Society and create your character now!"
1) You have the obligation to run Pathfinder Society scenarios, sanctioned modules, and the sanctioned portions of Pathfinder Adventure Paths "as written" and with appropriate level characters. That means the only adjustments you are allowed to make are when the scenario specifies adjustments for parties of 4 characters, and that you must make those adjustments for parties of 4 characters. It also means that a 6th level character can never play in a scenario designed for levels 1-5, nor a level 1 or 2 play in a scenario designed for levels 3-7. All of the rules/restrictions can be found in the Guide to Organized Play, which you and your players are expected to have read.
2) You create events, and report sessions from those events HERE. Reporting helps Paizo track who is playing which scenarios, and also allows for a backup record if the players lose their chronicle sheets. Chronicle sheets are the absolute record, and as long as you and your players have them, you don't ever have to report. But it's nice to have that record.
3) You already have a Paizo account (or you wouldn't have been able to post here). You just have to "officially" join the organized play campaign and get your Pathfinder Society number. I covered that above, so just click that link and you should be good to go.
Any scenario that isn't specifically marked as retired (just a few Season 0 scenarios, as well as First Steps parts 2 and three, have actually been retired) from any Season can be run/played for credit. My advice is to start with the ones that have the best reviews.
Yes, but Mythic Damage Reduction came about after Paladin Smite Evil.
Then it the burden is on the new rule to prove that it overrides the old rule. If Mythic DR were meant to override Smite Evil, it would say so. Smite Evil overrides DR/- and DR/epic, so why would Mythic be any different?
I would like additional opinions on this, if anyone has time.
You hit them, and satisfy the condition to choose make them frightened for one round. You choose to make them frightened for one round. End result, they are frightened for one round.
You hit them again, and again satisfy the condition to choose to make them frightened for one round. You may choose to do so, but the duration wouldn't stack. You would be overlapping a 1 round frighten on top of another 1 round frighten. The best thing to do, would be to add the 5+ rounds of shaken. End result, they are frightened for 1 round, and then shaken for the next 4. You would not make them panicked, because Demoralize doesn't stack severity with itself. You would not increase the duration of the frightened effect, because there is no language in the ability to allow for that. It is set at a flat 1 round.
If they move in from the diagonal, you get the AoO, which is good. If they 5ft step in from the diagonal, you don't get the AoO, which is bad. If they stand in the diagonal and provoke (or move through the diagonal on the way to somewhere not within your reach), you don't get the AoO, which is the way it is meant to be. You don't threaten that square.
5ft step is a move action.
Cite please. My CRB lists 5-foot step as a free action that can be taken once per round if you make no other movement. You can certainly stand up (a move action), take a 5ft. step, and attack (a standard action) all in the same turn. This isn't 4th edition.
In the Core rulebook FAQ, Paizo has specifically stated that a two-handed weapon cannot be used with two-weapon fighting. If you want to allow two-handed weapons to be used in two-weapon fighting, then you are in the realm of house rules.
Hmmm... News to me. Learned something today. Linky, since it wasn't provided by RedDogMT. I, for one, will continue to allow it in my home games.
I don't really see this as any different that using a Greatsword and then using TWF to make an attack with Armor Spikes. Except that you're using the same "hand" twice. I suppose that's a reason to not allow it.
In that case, it's no different than using a Greatsword then trying to use TWF to make an attack with a spiked gauntlet. If you would allow that, then allow the lance thing. If you wouldn't, then don't.
as its moving into combat i assume no attack of opportunity.
Moving out of a threatened square provokes. If the monster leaves the fighter's reach, it provokes no matter if it moves closer to or away from the fighter. The monster can choose to make a 5ft. step or to use the Withdraw action to avoid provoking as normal.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The 3.5 FAQ stated that all feats were (Ex) unless otherwise specified. That is how I would rule in PFRPG unless shown proof that the designers meant to change this.
The item description was meant to be a reminder of the benefits of a bonus to an ability score. The fact that the item didn't mention the bonus language was an oversight, but not a contradiction of the rule that you get everything you would normally get from having an increased score. A wizard would also get an extra spell in his spellbook for every +2 bonus to intelligence, even though that is not spelled out.
I have read all of the Pathfinder Society player documents found here. My confusion is not for lack of reading.
That's fine. I think I was in a bit of a mood the other day at work, and it bled over. To go back to your earlier questions, nothing about a character's inventory "resets." If you drink a potion, it's gone. If you tear your tent into strips, you start the next session with a torn up tent. I know at the end of sessions I just pay the gold to replace the consumables I've expended, but as far as the ITS is concerned, it's a brand new potion of fly that is supposed to get its own line item entry. For characters that use a lot of consumables, it really can turn into pages of extra work.
As for who's idea this was, you can blame the lazy or flat out unscrupulous players who buy a potion once and then use it every session without ever marking it off or paying for it again. The ITS was supposed to be a way for a GM to (more?) quickly audit to make sure the potions/wands/etc that were being used were actually being expended. I don't know how successful it's been, but I know that it hasn't helped me a bit. I was already keeping track of whether I'd replaced items I'd used, but now I have to keep track of in what scenarios I actually used the item in question instead of just whether I paid to replace it. And since it's no longer part of the chronicle sheet, it's just more piece of dead tree to have to carry around.
I don't follow. What makes raising this dead thread better than making a brand new one? He didn't add anything to the discussion that I could tell. How much more "relaxed" can a 4 month dead thread get?
The other thread contained pertinent information regarding the FAQ, namely Mike Brock's original ruling. That thread is relevant in and of itself and should never have left the first page, in my opinion. An opinion I expressed in that thread. Where it belonged. This thread wasn't even originally about that Mysterious Pistolero. How is it relevant?
Am I missing something? (other than "manners").
A PFS specific FAQ could have been put up that day. A note in Additional Resources could have been put up that Wednesday. A post could have been made and stickied that day. A note could have been made in the Guide, which was updated not once, but twice since this ruling was made.
If you want to make a rule change/clarification/whatever then make it. Don't make a reference to someone else possibly making it in the future, and then say you have a month to comply with the rule change/clarification/whatever that might get made eventually. The fact of the matter is that players of Mysterious Pistoleros have negative ten months to comply with this latest FAQ, and face character retirement if they don't comply within negative ten months.
Can you imagine what it would have been like if the same stance had been taken with flurry of blows? At least those players were given a real choice: rebuild then with the current ruling, or wait to see what the final ruling would be before rebuilding.
Michael Brock wrote:
Sure. Everyone with this specific build who wants to rebuild it to make sure they stay away from being nerfed in the future have until March 31 to do so.
Keep in mind that this was March 31, 2013. If you created a character combining these archetypes after this date, then you created an illegal character and are now retired. Even though this post was in the middle of a thread that was lost on the nth page and you didn't know to go looking for it to begin with. It's not like there used to be a sticky for message board clarifications or anything like that where this could have been more visible for the last 11 months.
For the record, I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't play gunslingers of any archetype. I just think this whole thing could have been handled more visibly, and more quickly.
As long as the player knows all the modifiers, includes all the modifiers, is consistent, and isn't making those decisions after he sees the result of the die roll, then I'd rather them keep it to themselves. I don't need to know before every attack that you're making a Focused Power Attack with Bless, Bardsong, Overhand Chop, Vital Strike, and Favored Enemy factored in. I need to know if your total attack roll beats the bad guy's total AC, and if so how much damage he takes.
If something seems off, I can always stop and ask you where you get all your bonuses. As long as I can see the result of the die roll, and the number I'm told seems consistent with what I expect from your class, your level, and your rolls so far that night, I just want to know totals.
As a GM, sometimes I'll even speed things up beyond that. If I've gotten a good idea of their bonus, and I see the number on the die is well in the "hit" range, I'll just tell them they hit without waiting on them to tell me the total.
If they would rather kill themselves than do what their "friend" is asking, I think it sufficiently meets the definition of harm so that there would be no chance of them doing it. Succeeding at a Charisma check should not make a charmed person do without question something that a dominated person would get a new save against (Kill your family) or flat out wouldn't do (Kill yourself instead).
Lower level spell should be weaker than their higher level equivalents, or you're doing something wrong.
Pirate Rob wrote:
In what I bet was the same scenario, the Gunslinger walked up and fired point blank. "What's the worst that could happen? He's a Sorcerer." One successful Disarm AoO later, and I don't think I've ever seen anyone so surprised.
IIRC, I had mine statted up as a hedge witch with the healing patron and a taste for Oldlaw whiskey. She was Gilga's sister, Olga, because I didn't want to chance violating the Community Use policy.
She was mechanically sound, and she was fun for a scenario, but I decided she wasn't for me and retrained her before level 2.
Every question that has been asked in this thread can be answered by downloading and reading the most recent copy of the Guide to Organized Play. For someone who focuses so heavily on the RAW in any Rules Forum thread I've seen you post in, I'm blown away that simply reading the current rules never occured to you.
He was wrong*. That dichotomy (kill your loved ones or find a way out of it) has never been how charm worked. That would make it stronger than dominate which only allows a new save against things contrary to the creature's nature and flat out can't make them kill themselves.
*Obviously, he's the lead designer so he can't be "wrong." But I feel it was a bad ruling that caused more confusion than it solved.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
*its strange to say "aligned" undead. I am not aware of any undead that are not evil, but I admit to not digging too deep.
It's a holdover from earlier editions when things without the intelligence to make moral decisions were automatically neutral. All non-intelligent undead were neutral by default.
And, IMO, since alignment is supposed to represent your choices and feelings, unintelligent undead should still be neutral. But it was a design decision to make undead always evil in the PFRPG. Hopefully these sorts of artifacts can be cleared up in the next printing of the CRB, or Pathfinder 2.0 (whichever comes first).
What would your friend do for you? If I asked my friend to help me murder his other friends, best case he laugh it off and tell me I needed to see a shrink. I could try to convince him (opposed charisma check) that it really was a good idea, but even if he fails the check, he's just going to be convinced that I'm nuts.
At least that's how it would go at my table.
I'm sorry a full caster with a second set of actions per turn isn't living up to your expectations. Bear Shaman isn't the best pick of an archetype that isn't the best itself, but the druid chassis is still one of the strongest in the game. And due to a poor case of editing, you still get wild shape starting at 4th. So... not exactly what I'd call "stupid."
Up to a 50% discount would be reasonable. That's the amount you're selling it to the Society for, so there's no net benefit.