|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Jared Thaler wrote:
Jared is correct, but just in case get a parasol and some string/glue and attach it to your sword cane.
Andrew Christian wrote:
I agree with Andrew, the power and WBL argument aside (and frankly I have stated my views on that point), this is very much an issue of table variation.
Just imagine a GM having to tell they your players, that their plan to raise all those fallen party members won't work. Suddenly that GM is in a very ugly situation, either he follows an interpretation of the rules (with all those other consequences the come from it) or he uses his best judgement... which might result in some very serious circumstances ...staying serious.
It gets worse when the same GM has already made a ruling on the very same unclear situation at a previous table, and now would have to rule differently.
And regarding that James Jacobs post, I really like and respect his opinions on a variety of issues, but often mentions that his answers are just his personal view (I assume a big reason, is professional courtesy ie. not his primary department)
Frankly the ban seems justified based on the power of the spell alone an the effect on WBL (there really is no way to farm money in PFS, and avoiding to spend money is quite similar), but the table variation bit is just as troublesome.
Best case scenario for some of in this thread, the spell becomes legal again, but is limited to work with a rather short list of spells.
And to add some more issues, can you use blood money while you are polymorphed ? Do oozes have blood ?
Actually if your BBEG manages to posses the party barbarian for a round (before the group uses their countermeasures) is there anything that prevents the cater from casting blood money to "waste" 24 points of strength damage ? ^^
Blood Money wrote:
For example, a sorcerer with the spell stoneskin prepared could cast blood money to create the 250 gp worth of diamond dust required by that spell, taking 1d6 points of damage and 1 point of Strength damage in the process.
How exactly does a sorcerer have stoneskin "prepaired"? Does he need wizard levels ?
If you are capable of receiving strength damage, but the actually damage is prevented by another effect, does the spell even work ?
Some of those might be more unlikely than others, and frankly the possession trick is a rather nasty surprise, but yeah that is certainly the bad kind of table variation.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Maps Subscriber
Funny thing, that your buddy found my roll 20 avatar pic^^ (Pinterest es kind a evil in that regard, you start searching for a pawn picture, and before you know it 5 hours have passed you have downloaded 100+ pictures).
It should work, nothing in the class description ( or rather the sidebar) prevents weapons over medium size. Katana could work for that picture as well, since they are slightly curved too.
Messy situation, especially considering the status (in the community) of the offending couple, I have had to deal with similar situations before, and it is not pretty. Of course my situation wasn't nearly as bad, the players wanted to learn and get better, even if he had problems applying himself and helping in the scenario.
In this case and from the posts of various players from that region, it seems there are a number of problems:
- GMs need to apply rules equally and fairly to all players, and should strife to be constistent in their application of the PFS and PF rules over a large number of tables. It is great to fix your mistakes once you become aware of them, but you can'T just softball because of a small selection of players. And obviously I players refuse to make required rolls.... there have to be consequences. Obviously there are is an another side of the story, be if I had been the GM in some of those instances, the couple might have received some unsatisfactory chronicle sheets.
- Players need to be vocal too, it is a nice start that they apparently talked to their GMs/Event Organizers/VO, but sometimes another player just has to ask "Why is your character here ? What does your character contribute to this mission? Your presence is making the scenario harder for the other characters, what is your character willing to offset this, in other words, what risk to you take ?"
Please not that I am basing a lot of that feedback on the comment, that they are always the first to run away, and do not risk their safety in combat.
- The event organizer really should have an honest talk with the two players. Just state the fact , that players expressed the wish not to be at the same table as them, and that some players openly stated, that they stopped attenting public events because of them.
- I can see this situation turn very ugly once the other players are feed up with the situation. Ugly tactics like not including them as allies in your buffs (like bardic music), being better at running away, creating difficult terrain in the path of their retreat so the monsters can catch up.... etc. If really don't have to continue listing things that don't touch the "no PVP" rule... but can be covered under "don't be a jerk".
This issue needs to be adressed sooner than later, and the event organizers, GMs and VO need to have a serious talk with the other players.
I am relatively curious about the gnoll example, something tells me, that the race might not have been the only thing that made the character illegal (point buy, starting wealth etc.)
Personally I would have explained the problem to the player and "fixed" the character by magically transforming it into a legal level 1 human character... or just give him a pregen.
If this is enough to stop a player from comming back, either I failed my diplomacy check, or organized play might not have been the right format for them (nothing wrong about that, some people just search for something decidedly different).
Regarding killing fresh level 1 characters, I did that recently do one of my regular players... it felt bad but at that point I had already rolled openly and the group let the unconscious character drown over 3 rounds....
I suggest reading GM 101 and 201 on this very side, when it comes to this subject.
What is the reason behind preventing Alchemists from using alchemical weapons as, well, weapons? Will this ever be changed?
Sorry, but a a trap that drops alchemical fires is pretty irrelevant here, it doesn't even use an attack roll. And the damage is not consistent with using 12 of them.
Mantle of the Protector - Most overpowered cloak available in PFS, or does it need to be re-attuned after each use?
Yeah nothing PFS specific about this one, but after reading it the only thing I can say with certainty is expect table variation. The item lack a clear limit, but GMs can make reasonable limits when an item or ability is missing that information.
In any case, if you want a PFS ruling, that prevents familiars from using weapons and armor ASAP, this thread is good way to accomplish that.
I advise against it, but consider that you can't war your cloak of protection while you wear this cloak.
In to Judge a Soul Mata Ryu tries to snag a bit of sknin with his fingernails to scry the PCs at a later point. On page 4 of Karma reclaimed this has ben expanded to include him swiping an actual item.
I suspect, that it is only fair to give the players a chance, since the fingernail technique is a bit obtuse and deserves at least a chance for the players to avoid it. Asking the players for a perception check at the start of the scenario is a very neat idea. (Of course I am still going the do the long fingernail bit - my players actually assumed that the long fingernails where some kind of show of wealth).
Up the Mountain:
The Up the Mountain section is pretty impressive and could be a nice way to introduce new players to these mechanics. Actually the penalties, especially the whiteout, are so drastic, that having the Blessing of Malikeen boon, can so drastically change the encounter... groups or individual party members will drastically feel it if they don't have the boon.
This might be intentional to motivate players to play the two scenarios with the same characters (which does crate the chance for some very nice RP moments), but the mechanical effects can be pretty devastating to the wrong party.
I assume, that when yeti shakes the bridge, a failed strength check will deposit the character in the snow below, and that they are not in danger of falling into the water? The Reflex save is pretty clear, but shaken off could potentially mean worse.
A rose by any other name:
I really hope that GMs read the tactics properly, the "does not use defensive spells" bit is pretty critical. A yeti with mage armor and shield would be almost invite a TPK here, at least in low tier.
The yeti is also supposed to hide first, is there a stealth check involved here, or is he just so well hidden (behind the cover, maybe under the snow) that he is just assumed to succeed with a negative stealth modifier? If the whiteout is in effect, this might be a nonissue, but with the blessing in play, players could see him and trigger the encounter an invalidate tactics... which could end up very badly.
The beheaded swarm has the same space listed as a normal beheaded, but according to the swarm traits, it should be 10 ft. unless I am mistaken.
Thea Peters wrote:
I have to agree with Kalindria and Thea, that list is pretty much it. The reason why something is allowed is not publicly discussed, for a number of pretty good reasons.
And sorry to say that, but if you only desire a developer answer, chances are pretty good, that you will not receive exactly what you want.
The PFS community, on these boards and at every game table is one of the things many of us treasure quite a bit. That is the reason why you already received quite a number of helpful posts, despite the fact, that many of those posters have answered almost the same question dozens of times already.
Additonal resources re a complicated issue, and with out the option to measure something objectively, something people have to make judgement calls. When you decide what is available to thousands of players worldwide, the wants of few unfortunately have come after the needs of the many.
I am quite surprised that this happened to your several times Incendiaeternus, in any case (and as others have mentioned) running out of printed copies of a GM boon is no reason, to deny them to GMs.
This is the 21th century, if we can't manage to distribute signed paper, something has gone very wrong.
Pathfinder Rule #68745-2: Don't antagonize the giant egg.
Funny you should say that, the whole mess started when the boy called the Psychic (Tabitha Thrune, trait princess) something pedestrian, and she proceeded to slap him. Since that only dealt 1 damge the half orc clerc of DESNA showed her how to do it properly and slapped him properly. It all went downhill from there, but the players are mostly happy with their actions.
It was quite entertaining to watch from the other table, where I was running the excellent school of spirits.
Ferious Thune wrote:
My personal experience with ranged magus characters does tend to color my opinion here. I usually ended up investing just as much into AC as my melee builds, since enemies had an uncanny ability to come dangerously close, and when the two weapon fighting ettin is standing right in front of you, using your ranged weapon wasn't an option.
Participating in melee allows the GM to attack you too, which is sometimes quite welcome if it means, that not everyone attacks the same character.
So yeah, since I am buffed and protected to a similar extend, melee doesn't seem to have the same downsides, the higher crit chance, spell storing weapons and the ability to provide a flank for your friendly neighborhood rogue usually seem like a good trade.
Of course this depends on the party composition and the enemies.
Nice post, but there are a couple or issues:
A kensai spends his life focusing his training and meditation into a rapturous perfection of the use of a single weapon, which is usually but not always a sword, channeling his arcane might through it in a dizzying and deadly dance beyond the abilities of even the greatest of mundane warriors.
What you wrote about the Hexcrafter is correct, but I would like to add that with the right feats a melee focussed magus can deliver a hex with after a successful attack with an unarmed strike (as a swift action). The ranged magus has no such option, and since hexes require you to be within 30 ft. of your target, chances are pretty high that you will find yourself in melee combat after using a hex.
After playing two ranged myrmidarch magus characters for quite some time, I can attest, that running out of spells can be a real problem, and that problem will become even more obvious with spell combat. Even with my focus on ranged attacks I found myself regularly in melee and had to use spell combat with a backup weapon . the eldritch archer gives up that ability (and even if it did not, since I have hold my arcane bond bow, I will usually lack the free hand to use spell combat).
The comparison with a Zen Archer is rather unfortunate, since they can actually ignore quite a number of the issues associated with using a ranged weapon, their bonus feats even give them early access to Improved Precise shot (difficult to get for a ¾ BAB class like the magus).
Most of your other points, are dead on though, especially the loss of access to high crit range weapons, and the fact that you can’t hold touch spells if you miss.
I should be able to post some sample character builds for comparison later.
That sounds pretty great, especially since it could allow access to some nonmagical exotic weapons.
John regarding, the missing limit of skirmisher tricks for hunter pets. You could argue, that the description of the rapier is missing a "2" in a couple of places. http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rmwz?How-Are-GMs-Ruling-Hunters-Animal-Compani on#2
John Compton wrote:
I`ll try to find other similar posts later.
It is an obvious mistake. I haven't checked occult adventures recently, but if it has a spell with a typo (e.g. 14d6 per caster level, instead of 1d6 per caster level) I expect every GM who becomes aware of the situation to correct the issue.
While other miss priced items might be subject to argument, a +3 weapon at that price completely breaks the pricing guidelines.
I am curious, what players, who would want to get the item at the unfixed price, would do after they die to a typo.
"Sorry guys but the attack clearly states, that it deals 1d10+200, yeah it is pretty obvious, that it should be +20 but I really can't contradict the official source now can I ? ^^ "
GMs have brains and I expect everyone to use the resources at their disposal when it comes to situations like this one.
As far as I am concerned, the tactic/opinion from the players in the OP is poison to organized play.
Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide wrote:
Not crazy about the "guild" part, but at least the Core description mentions the old name.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Maps Subscriber
spell combat wrote:
It doesn't look great for the Magus class in that area.
Bucklers should work, light shields are... unclear.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Maps Subscriber
Since I asked this in the other tread already, and I really want to get the printing done in time for my next event...
Can we please get a version without the watermark? I don't mind players seeing my official PFS Email on there, but my private Email accounts gets way to many emails per day, and I would inevitably miss emails from players.
After seven pages, I think we can all agree, that we all should try to avoid ever getting into a similar situation, so:
Necromancers, you have plenty of wonderful spells at your disposal, you don't have to create undead, especially if other party members ask you not to do so.
Followers of Pharasma, try to bring back your party members alive, if you feel that you have to take some kind of retaliatory action, maybe just rip the spell out of their spellbook, they can recover from that, and maybe learn. The same thing isn't possible if you kill them.
GMs: Tell your players the consequences of their actions. If the players want to start a war, they better not try to do it at your table. Warn them that this kind of behavior could result in you banning one of both of them.
Everbody: Be nice and try to respect the other players, intentionally antagonizing others never ends well.
I like most people here, have no idea what scenario and which dead enemies where available, but does everbody forget about the player of the rogue ?
The party could have pooled their resources to buy a raise dead for the rogue. Once you have animated the body as an undead creature, that option is gone.
Unless it was absolutely certain, that the player of the rogue did not want his character to come back, this aspect very much breaks the "don't be a jerk" rule.
And maybe next time instead of letting someone die, just do something foul to their spellbook or something similar.
And unless really necessary, please don't mutilate the bodies of your fallen comrades (there actually is precedent where this is a pretty great idea but that's a rather big spoiler).
All that drama over a lousy 1 hd human skeleton or zombie addition to an APL 4 party.
As The Fox said, neither player is without blame. I am not sure how the players feel about it, but as the GM I would have made it clear that this kind of behavior isn't exactly welcome in PFS.
chad hale 637 wrote:
You come off a little bit strong, it seems you have some longstanding grievances/opinions. But my question was quite honest, some people aks for clarification, some want the PFS rules to be changed and others just want to learn that their GM has misapplied the PFS rules.
chad hale 637 wrote:
Roleplaying and succeeding at set mechanical difficulties is not the same thing.I know quite a number of gamers who are perfectly happy to use the skill system when it comes to a number of subjects (like rolling acrobatics, using handle animal) but want to RP their diplomacy at with the exclusion of any modifier or dice roll.
Since this approach would make investing into social skills a colossal waste of time and resources, I am quite happy that the PFRPG uses the current system of actually requiring the checks.
It is worth mentioning that GMs are not robots, and even the guide mentions the option to use "creative solutions".
chad hale 637 wrote:
Can you please describe the situation in detail in a spoiler tag, some NPCs from previous sessions were a bit antagonistic, like "Oh I could just do it myself, but since it is pretty obviously a suicide mission, I prefer sending you ...."
chad hale 637 wrote:
1. Well kinda, if you have a Scarab Sages faction card, another character of yours could inherit it.And there are some boons that grant benefits to newly created character, you should be able to earn some by playing your current character.
2. Not really, or to be more precise... they don't want to.
3. No, there are plenty of ways to get the effect once combat starts (like a cleric subdomain).
4.No/Yes/Maybe depends on the value you put one additional skill points and the extra feat, balanced doesn't mean, that everybody is equally good at everything.
5. Some classes are better at some things than others, for example fighters and barbarians are pretty good when it comes to the physical stuff like climb and acrobatics, caster types have different class skills and attributes, thus they are better in other areas.
If you find the GMs in your area unsatisfactory in that regard, I heartily suggest you to take up the GM mantle yourself (or stop playing at the tables of those GMs).