|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
If he lets the dice settle for a second in an open area before examining it, it should put everyone else more at ease. There was a player I haven't seen for a while that would lift the dice the instant they stopped rolling, and the trip to her face didn't always look strait. Several of us thought it very suspicious. However, someone who legitimately can't see and is giving others time to see shouldn't be an issue.
[PFS] Is it safe for an offensive caster to have less then a 20 in their casting stat post racial in PFS?
2/3 of my characters are save or suck specialist and I try to squeeze dc for all I can get. Think of the other feats/items that you will get to boost this. Think of what else you would give up to boost this if you could. I am certainly willing to sack another stat or two that I don't specialize in.
Is it dangerous? no, but i wouldnt do it.
While I couldn't make it through this whole thread, it seems like a rather slippery way of making a claim and passing the burden of proof at the same time.
If you want specifics, there are many threads where people have outlined them. You seem to want someone to take all of those myriad specifics and roll them into one. As long as no one gets any more specific than you, or you can find a perceived chink in the armor of the specifics given, everyone else loses?
These are both fairly complex classes to be a first character, but with that in mind I should point out that your familiar won't be able to deliver your touch spells until you get 3 levels of wizard or you take boon companion. You can cast it on your own from the get go, but losing a standard action at the start of every combat kind of stinks, especially for a dedicated damage dealer.
As far as your character based bonuses are concerned, see Table: Character Advancement and Level-Dependent Bonuses
EDIT Important Note: I didn't know what a burrowing bullet was until just now. I looked it up and saw that it is magical. Abundant Ammunition works on non-magical bullets. Cartridges are good, silver bullets are good, adamantine bullets are good, etc, but magic bullets are not replicated unless the magic was put on them after you cast AA.
I remember this under discussion a while back when my character started to feel more chaotic than I had originally planned him (for a brief time I thought drugs were PFS legal; when I found out they weren't I fluffed his day job roll that he was a seller [caravan] to keep with the concept.) While there was never any official word, the overwhelming opinion expressed was that unless you were trying to cheese your way around paying for an atonement, just do it.
cleric 1/Gunslinger X (after 5 will start advancing cleric again)
my wife has
My witch lives in his imp and it is one of the most fun characters I have played. I did it just to do something interesting, but I starting finding a lot of combinations and tricks that really feed well into this. It takes the lion share of my spells each day just to maintain buffs, but I am almost unkillable. The closest I came was in a confusion cycle with the elvish paladin with a holy bow. I barely lived by outlasting the confusion spell.
I am no blacksmith and haven't held a real battle ax, but if you are looking at density, I would be willing to bet it is primarily metal.
If you are looking more at the spear...probably not. Is there some reason to put a logical restriction why this boon can't be placed on it? I don't think so. Is there some reason Smine can't put some metal plating on the shaft? Again I don't think so.
1) Feat argument-I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am inclined to err on the side of the player here as well. This alone isn't really enough to leave the game in my opinion, but you do raise some other decent points.
2) Faction argument-I liked every faction having something to do every mission also. I also didn't like all the stupid "here is something to find" missions. I have mentioned before that multiple factions could share goals, good goals, in a scenario. They could regularly swap who they share with and their motivations could be different. I really think this could solve a lot of the current problems.
3) Staff argument-I think both John and Mike do a really good job of keeping an even tone, even when people are being belligerent. However, I would say your concerns are very accurate with some of the other staff. I have both seen and been the recipient of some very inflammatory language and accusations both out of the blue and while trying to politely disagree with staff.
Sure that website owner can legally make restrictions based on whatever he wants, just as Drogan said that Arestes could stop someone from entering his house because he didn't like his haircut. But actually feeling justified in and making demands that someone relinquish rights on what is most likely their most valuable and private possession needlessly for using your $100/yr (or whatever a meetup site costs) digital resource, displays a lack of respect and judgment I don't feel befitting of anyone acting in an any official capacity.
While Drogon may have set up his own site, I do not believe a VO would stop advertising publicly on another site for his store if Drogan banned a single player. This VO is trying to strong arm Arestes out of his own private residence, when I do not believe it would be done to a public store. A house should have more rights than a store, not less.
I guess it depends on how literal this statement is.
Additionally, as someone stated earlier, paid members of Paizo have stated that organizers do have the right to remove problem players.
And yes physical property rights are more important than virtual ones.
I think this mystery VO is speaking way out of his/her pay grade.
Matthew Pittard wrote:
I don't, I am just taking from what he said above.
It amazes me that volunteer organizers for a hobby would have the audacity to tell another person who must be admitted into that person's house. I don't think I could take them seriously.
If they didn't host at their own home's, they would be hypocrites. If they did host at their own house, I would go there and party like its 1999.
Matthew Pittard wrote:
I did feel a bit like an old man on this particular soap box....but that isn't going to stop me.
Matthew Pittard wrote:
His grandmother isn't on board with it. But in addition to it being the school's fault for learning at home causing stress, its his grandmother's fault that he can't tell time (or intend to make an effort to), and therefore he is happy to drag an old lady out in the middle of the night and throw his suggested homework away.
Matthew Pittard wrote:
I am 5:45 most of the time.
This has changed from a "Boot this guy because it is best for the game" to "boot this guy because it is best for the kid" issue for me.
Granted playing PFS is much better than out getting drunk and high, but at fifteen I wouldn't wouldn't want my son out at midnight on a school night for any reason........I would also change school districts if he was in one that said they didn't give homework because they don't want to stress out the students.
-snip- So, when your high level PCs start getting uppity -snip-
Little warning, you may want to be careful about this word here. A week ago or so, I had one the Paizo workers come in and tell me that because of the historical use of it I must have meant that people (specifically minorities that didn't even make sense in the context I was using it) were lower class citizens than me. There were then many other customers and another worker that jumped on that bandwagon.
It sounds like the line about atheists is what is really causing these ideas to bleed together. At the risk of sounding like I am trying to speak for a very large group of people, I will say that I don't really think it is very accurate to categorize atheism or agnosticism as a religion, however, I have argued under the pretense of it being one many times because here in the US religions have a privileged position in both law and reasoning for many people.
Edit on your edit on my edit: My son was trying to help me type so it took me awhile to finish. I am still upset that the drugs found under chapter Poisoner's Miscellany of some book I forget are not considered poisons for the purpose of the additional resources sheet.
Only if your GM asks you to roll a bluff check.
However, I do understand your motivation to not risk this happening. Also, I do think that officially sanctioning philosophies would encourage more people to use them and flesh out their characters. But as it stands, if I was wanting to follow a philosophy, I would go ahead and do it without official sanction. I would think it a very rare GM that would say you are not allowed a bit of character developing fluff. I wouldn't want to sit with this type of GM for likely many other reasons.
EDIT: I am also inclined to think that many philosophers would be a little off put by being lumped in with religious leaders.
I think you can act however you want and claim to follow whatever you want as long as you aren't violating the tenants of your mechanically influenced alignment/religion. I have an inquisitor of Norgorber SHHHHH that carries around 100+ different holy symbols (wood holy symbols 1 gp no weight) and claims to follow whatever deity the person he is talking to follows. None of these other gods ever give me any benefit, so no one has ever given me a hard time about it. Most people I have run into (not that many, he is still pretty young) seem to think it is a fun and interesting concept.
I always read the line "causes confusion in the targets" as giving the confused condition. It then goes on to list the effect of confusion so you don't have to cross reference a table every time you use it. You are right though that the spell is mysteriously missing the line of sight line. What the smurf?
Edit: I'm sorry, I saw it in another thread and had to try it.
David Neilson wrote:
I am still trying to figure out the best counter to confusion. I mean other than being a seventeenth level Paladin. Then again I am a fan of just shutting down the other side's abilities. I also think you should put in "Some Way to counter darkness" also when it does come up "Some way to counter extreme enviroments".
After having a witch confused and in a death spiral with the party elvish archer, I did a little closer reading on confusion.
Attack and then run like hell to hide. If you are not the squishy one of the two, this looks like metagaming. If you are the squishy, it just looks like falling back on combat instincts to me.
It is not a full on counter, but it at least counters the death spiral.
I have read this prestige class probably 15 times and never noticed that. I also didn't notice that the bloodmage initiate feat claims to stack with spell focus....but doesn't.
I'm of the opinion that lots of bodies on the field in PFS is not only a nuisance for the time it takes in math and movement, it also is annoying for blocking players out of positioning. I have never seen a PFS player do both of these things well (I am referring more to summoning than animating, I haven't seen anyone animate many things at the same time.)
In home games where the party might routinely be in over their heads, this isn't as much of a concern, but stopping a player you somewhat know from being able to do their thing well, in a situation they could have handled, due to several pets is a little rude in my opinion.
That being said, I really like controlling and animating undead, I just believe in keeping one at a time. This is true if I am the necromancer or the observer.
EDIT @The All Seeing Eye Thank you. I hadn't seen this before and I am glad I read it.
Apparently the political ideas on the gaming forums are like the pop news, individuals are much happier to jump on a sound byte of someone saying something they want to agree with rather than bothering with the veracity of the claim.
In the interest of simplifying my posts down to an earlier sound byte I can identify with, I will repeat part of that post.
Sigh. More jumping to conclusions. I don't know her level of education or what field. Perhaps I am wrong on the matter, but in all honesty I expect experts in a field to be very meticulous with the language used within the discipline. There has been a very loose use and interpretation of words flying around this topic. All I saw was that she either was going to go to or did go to law school at one time. I saw a lot of gender inequality words with links to posts talking about gender inequality issues. My web sleuthing was limited to about 10 minutes. I am getting a hard time from my wife about how much time I have spent on the computer tonight as is. EDIT: I have tried looking again, and I still can't find any credentials that should lead me to that conclusion. Talking about something a lot doesn't make one an expert in my book. This is not to say she doesn't have those credentials, but I am saying that I don't see any reason for you to think I was willfully reducing her status.
Whether someone is an expert on a subject or not, they can have hot buttons. You are the one that reduced it to a "hot button issue." Also, I have never once said she was uppity.
Additionally, I haven't disagreed with SKR on anything here but I would call him out if I thought he was wrong about something I was talking about, especially if it was a characterization of me. I have seen many others here do so repeatedly and Sean posts tend to run in rules circles, there he is more or less the final authority.
I feel like I have been fighting words in my mouth for hours now.
Jessica Price wrote:
And herein lies the start of this misunderstanding. You are putting words in my mouth. Of course women are entitled to opinions about whatever they want. However, I do disagree with the notion that if their opinions are condemning other people, no one should argue the contrary.
Jessica Price wrote:
Seriously go back and look at the paragraph you pulled my sentence from. You are making claims about the context of things, but removing a sentence from its paragraph and then using it to describe groups which are different than the groups being described in that paragraph. This sounds a lot like quote mining to me. I have said nothing to paint women, blacks, or children as you think it sounds.
Jessica Price wrote:
So you are claiming this word has a history (of which I doubt it does but would be open to being disproved) in which it meant something other than its definition, and therefor that was what I was implying? If you have some credible reference for this, I would be very interested. It would make me more mindful of it in the future. As it stands, I see your comparison as a false analogy.
Jessica Price wrote:
If you don't understand it, then please reread it or at least not jump to conclusions about what it is saying. It sounds like you haven't understood a lot of what I have been saying. I have no problem with someone saying they don't like this artwork. I also think that it should be fair game to suggest that talking down to staff and customers because they do is unmerited.
I think you are very quick to make broad strokes. When I made reference to this term, in that paragraph I said "The two groups that I see most opposed to sex appeal are those that profit from guilt and those that feel an unwanted need to compete on this metric." If I must be talking about groups beyond the definition of the word, those would be the groups you could charge me with. While I think that some posts here obviously fall in different spots along the continuum of humility and sanctimonious condemnations, I couldn't hope to place a person in one of the groups described based on a few posts. The sentence itself using the word "uppity" described the odd way that some thoughts here can sit next to some very contradictory thoughts without anyone ever noticing; the point of which seems to be completely lost on you.
Looking on your homepage, I see that gender inequality is something you devote a lot of time writing and thinking about. I am sorry to have pushed a hot button with you, but I do think you are finding sexist condemnations in my words where I have not actually expressed it. Every word you read in my posts to be demeaning to one gender, I would be willing to endorse describing individuals of the other as well.
Lord Fyre wrote:
A later part of my post was more applicable to what you were looking for. I admit to having ran through several different thoughts in one post.
If I were to make this thread examining the differences between the iconics and more recently released art, I would phrase it in the terms of the newer art being too boring, safe, and PC. I can still remember the lamia pictures from monster manuals I haven't seen in a quarter of a century, but I couldn't tell you what I ate three days ago. That sounds like successful art to me.
Jessica Price wrote:
Clearly we both use this word differently and categorize people differently as well. Please allow me to clarify.
I used the term "uppity" to refer to someone who is quick to claim moral superiority over others without an objective standard. Rather than implying the person's position is below mine, it is simply stating I find their assertion of others being below them to be unmerited.
I went back to look at the groups (with disclaimers) that I described in the paragraph you took that quote from. I can't see anything in my post to suggest any overlapping boundaries between the group I described and the groups you have listed. While some individuals from your groups may be inside the group I defined, some individuals clearly aren't, and don't think it would be fair to speak of any on either side of Venn diagram as oddities.
Also, I don't make the connection that any of the characters depicted in the artwork we are discussing portray any actual individuals, let alone those who are voicing their opinions here. To follow that line of thought, I would have to conclude that Veleros or maybe Ezren is portraying me. This wouldn't have crossed my mind prior to trying to make this point because they are clearly meant to be individual fantasy characters that just happen to share some similarities to me, and not an actual representation of myself.
However, I will admit that "uppity" was not the nicest choice of words. I didn't have a lot of time when I was typing and my post got a lot longer than I planned.
Lord Fyre wrote:
By more visible, do you mean eye-catching, attractive, and memorable? I would agree with that, but I consider those things characteristics of both good art and good marketing. As far as quantity, I don't know that I have seen one group more than others.
I think this push to be less sexy is actually a regression. From the time when I was a kid, standards for dress for public, on TV, in magazines, on bill boards, in concerts, and in store windows has become significantly more relaxed.
Most of this increase in public sexiness is largely based on marketing a fantasy. But we want less fantasy in our fantasy art? Keeping sexiness in the art is a wise marketing strategy. Ceteris paribus, if I had the choice to buy/play/get involved in a game that looks sexy and attractive or a game that looks plain, I will choose the former every time. If I were to make this thread examining the differences between the iconics and more recently released art, I would phrase it in the terms of the newer art being too boring, safe, and PC. I can still remember the lamia pictures from monster manuals I haven't seen in a quarter of a century, but I couldn't tell you what I ate three days ago. That sounds like successful art to me.
The two groups that I see most opposed to sex appeal are those that profit from guilt and those that feel an unwanted need to compete on this metric. In either case, I find these motivations much more "impure" and "bigoted" than those of people that embrace sexuality. The double think employed by many people in this country (USA) is often astounding to me. The same people that get all uppity when a woman shows some skin, are often the same people that get all uppity when talking about countries that force women to wear Burqas.
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Yes, absolutely. It's 2014. Why is Paizo clinging to an art style that makes female characters into sexual objects and sends the message that rpgs are only for straight men?
I know/have known several strait women, as well a gay men and women, who not only appreciate the female figure but would take issue with your hasty generalization.
Griffin Rider wrote:
I was admitting that my saying that 'this is old hat' was not a sound argument. I acknowledge its weakness, but I wanted to throw it out anyway as perhaps a little explanation as to why I wasn't going into as must depth as possible.
My first PFS character (now retired 12) was a charmer. He was built from the ground up to have enchantment DCs as high as possible and his charm spells got the best boosts of any of his spells.
I stopped charming person at about level 5? It was an awesome spell at low levels and could be used to break roleplay/story-based scenarios even at some higher levels, but I didn't desire that. But in its power as a low level spell, I don't think it much different than sleep or color spray. Those two are ass-kickers when you are low level, but you hit a point where you just won't use them any more. Charm, is I guess, a little different in that it would still be useful out of combat at times for higher levels, especially if you are unscrupulous with it.
Aspasia de Malagant wrote:
I was actually a little disappointed by my GM that just wanted me to stand still for a while during charm. I expected more.
Your outcome given in the second paragraph almost couldn't be any farther from the outcome described by the Lead Designer as how the encounter should be handled.
Sometimes I have NPCs travel with the party for story purposes. Always when they do, they have what one of my players has coined "cinematic damage." I don't actually roll anything relating to them, I just say that people are fighting with them and everything keeps moving. This way I get to have my NPCs that can grow in depth from the party seeing them more often and in more places, but they never actually seem in competition with the party in any way.
I have found season five causing me to be good with some of my characters more than they would be naturally. I have risked myself and given up resources for NPCs that in character I couldn't care less about, thinking it might be the secondary success condition. One way to think of this is that I am a metagaming SOB, the other way is that the characters just did it for the hopes of public acclaim.
Andrei Buters wrote:
When I played it, everyone at our table but one (if I remember correctly) had some of the boons to backfire. One person was particularly excited by the fact that he was using a character that had every one of those boons on that character. Different people have different motivations and consider different things fun.
This isn't a new argument and I have already spent more time with it than I planned. If you don't believe in the idea of free will, rather you think our decisions are the sum of our experiences and processing ability, the difference between charm and compulsion becomes negligible; definitely not a good reason to ignore written rules. As to the power metric, I have spoken to that a little here as well; also not a new argument and also not out of line with how certain other individual spells can outshine others under certain given circumstances.
I know that I personally don't find the arguments of "been there done that" very compelling, but perhaps it does offer insight into why some things seem to have been glossed over. The only compelling argument in this thread for the "just superfriends" position is that Jason has stated in the past that he is not a "rules guy" and he is more of a "creative guy." But in light of the fact that his words were part of the FAQ and they are the only ones we have to go on as far as explanations for this spell goes, the "true rules guys" seem to support his position, which is very clear in my opinion. I honestly think the only reason someone could argue that what he said wasn't clear is because they didn't want to accept it.
You are moving the goalposts here. Just a second ago you said you can blow off checks now you are trying to use my words proving otherwise as points in your favor.
You are right that killing themselves is pretty extreme, but that was the point of the original question. I suspect the original author was trying to think of as outlandish a command as he could to try and see if Jason would tell him, no this is beyond the scope of this spell. Instead Jason pointed to three possible outcomes, two of which were compliance and one of which was suicide in the face of the compulsion. This doesn't enter the stadium, let along the ball park of some NPCs just disregarding the command so it isn't worth rolling the CHA check.
If it doesn't result in hit point loss, I don't call it "harmful." I try to keep my fluff and mechanics as separate as possible for organized play.
The OP was concerned about organized play, and I can sympathize with that concern. Charm (like animate, summon, etc) can be disruptive at a table if a player chooses it to be so. Charm can also bypass major plot lines at times (like many divination spells can). These can be problematic and I would not want them upsetting the game. As a GM I would ask the player not to, explain what was wrong with the proposed course of action and if he didn't follow my request I might either A) Tell him he has completed the scenario but the rest of the party is going to play on as if he hadn't, or B) try to come up with some outcome that could salvage the scenario and still treat the NPC as at least a part of him was driven to accomplish the command and some major steps were taken to prevent this, or C) simply use the fiat you propose. What I won't do is pretend like I have a RAW reading of the spell, the FAQ, or Jason's explanation of the FAQ to back up my ruling.
I am sorry that I am not going to do any future digging. As I said in my first post, I have spent many hours doing this in the past for this very question, and I am not going down that road again. Take that as you will.
Mystic Lemur wrote:
They can choose to harm themselves instead of follow the command, that was the very example given; the harming of themselves just can't be the command.
I have a retired enchanter sorcerer with sky high DCs. With the exception of Kitsune enchanters I have seen theorycrafted, I have never seen another caster that could beat his DCs. But I would never cast charm person on a character instead of charm monster or dominate. The first save just missed way too often to be reliable. Now if you were to heighten a charm with a CHA caster, then yes, I agree it is more powerful than dominate. If you are not heightening or not a CHA caster, I will take the dominate every time.
You're still missing the point that the Charisma check might still not even work. When the GM's discretion says that it won't even work, who do you think decides what happens?
The command may not work as desired. The check was still successful and forced an action. You are reading an "and/or" where there are brackets.
Sorry phone typing.
So if B doesn't require a check, why does Jason's examples of an extreme order have some people doing it without a check, some people killing their family, and some killing themselves to avoid giving in to the compulsion they were unable to otherwise control, but no example of a person sticking his fingers in his ears and blowing raspberries?
The friend clause is an entirely different function of the spell and the only bearing it holds on the charisma check is in giving the spellcaster more room to work before having to use it.
I already did. Reread the post you quoted, it was rather concise.
No. The check is if it is outside their nature. You seem to be adding another step of really really out of nature where they can just ignore things. Again this is not what Jason said. Ignoring the failed check is not an option. Taking extreme alternative actions to prevent themselves from going through with an otherwise uncontrollable compulsion due to a failed check is an option.
While I see what your are getting at and I think your argument has merit, as a player I would rather sit down with the player who has a paladin for mechanical reasons than the one who goes nova on his code. When I see a paladin volunteer to let my imp (which contains my spellcaster) ride on his shoulder, we all kind of laugh about the guy being a knob. When I see a paladin forcing his code and problem solving techniques on the rest of the group, no one is near as jovial.