|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
GM Lamplighter wrote:
We have folks here planning on running Master of the Fallen Fortress five(!) times in a day to make a bunch of 1xp tieflings and aasimar. While they are cool for RP, both give a net +2 to abilities over any other race. Some players don't want to lose the "best" mechanical option in the game; others have concepts that work well with tor depend on the various mechanical options available to them.
Only aasimar give the net plus two over others. Humans can do this also, on any two stats you want, not just few found on aasimars. Most people don't think it is worth the feat and skill points to do it though.
Is it safe to say the desire is to reduce the accessibility of these races and increase the accessibility of others (presumably selling more books in the meantime)? It isn't like they are trying to remove them from PFS play; they mentioned making future boons for them. Isn't that goal of shifting racial figures achieved by the rules as suggested without trying to create more stipulations on the matter?
If it means enough to someone to back to back play 6, or even 10, level one characters in anticipation of future play opportunities, they are paying time, effort, book cost, and possibly mini cost in order to later get enjoyment out of this game.
Explain to me again who is gaining enjoyment by pulling them aside and telling them they can't or shouldn't do that?
I could be wrong, but I thought enjoyment is the point of playing a game.
EDIT: I know I have never set at a table and lost fun due to someone's race. Class however is a different story. I would be willing to open up every PC-offered race* to everyone but me, if it would mean the ban of paladins at the same time.
*drow noble not included
Thanks for the info.
While a part of me is sad to see native outsiders go, I have wanted to make a kitsune and wayang for a long time (actually got to make a kitsune for a non PFS game lately.) I think that definitely softens the blow a lot.
Also, I am happy they decided 1 exp was enough to keep the outsiders running. I have a level 1 aasimar that I have no idea when I would be able to play again, but I did enjoy this character a lot the one time I was able to play him.
In one of the other threads like this, I saw people disagreeing about what was sexy for men and then showing examples of more "manly men" that looked exactly the same to me as the "feminine males" that were being decried.
A half decent artist can make a female attractive by adding some T and A (or according to some parting their lips or having them stand in a awkward pose; I don't buy it but supposedly this is a big deal.) I don't think there is any simple add on touch that you can add to any male picture and evoke "sexy" across the board.
Trying to do a tally of sexy pictures on both sides says next to nothing about intent or "fairness" in my opinion, and more about how easy one gender can become visually sexy compared to the other.
Reading this it sounds like "GM at cons=get race boons." But I know this certainly isn't enough to do it. I have GMed at Phoenix Comicon 2 years in a row with no boons. Ultimately this irrelevant for me now since I just moved to a very Pathfinder light area and my free time has dropped dramatically. But I do think it still a relevant point for others.
Also Brom, I suggested something very similar probably close to a year ago and it never got much feedback.
Every table I have ever sat at, these type of spells keep trying as long as there are valid targets and the HD limit of creatures with failed saves has not been met. Never once have I heard anyone say anything along the lines of "OMG this overpowered, game breaking, ect..." and I have seen them used on both sides of the table.
I can't see the meaningful difference you are talking about.
Also, as listed in this spell, and reinforced by the holy grail of "save equals affected" arguments I have seen to this point, only not being a legal target (which is different than being immune, making a save, or having spell resistance) does not add to the HD affected pool.
I am not 100% that I have gotten the main idea of your first point. If you were pointing to the idea of who is rolling the dice instead of the language used for the effects, remember that the characters are doing things to prevent themselves from being hit, even if you don't roll the dice. Only a character with no defensive feats, no armor, and 1 dex would would be making no contribution to defending from an attack. Such a person would have an AC equal to a door, spot on the floor, or whatever: 5.
Well a few points about it matter. If only things that are "truly affected" count as affected, you would have to carry a lot of heavier, larger, more expensive animals to ensure your immunity. For the sake of sleep, this might not matter for some characters, but at later levels when you are looking at some of the death spells it certainly will for many more. I have many characters that carrying capacity is a problem for, so it is going to matter for me right out of the gate.
Also it points to the fact that the whole "counts as affected" but isn't "truly affected" argument doesn't make any sense.
And as I stated earlier, if I am having to roll for all these creatures, I am less likely to do it. I don't want to bog down the game. However, if I can use immune creatures, I don't have to worry about slowing down the game, and I am much more likely to do it.
reika michiko wrote:
I didn't realize they did this. But Rieka, in light of a few weeks passing and no official word here, would you be willing to share how you would currently rule this at your table?
I don't intend to get into the meat of this again, but I did want to comment on the whole not bringing a cure stick to the table.
I was playing at a low level table with an archery fighter I had never seen who didn't have any healing with him. After a fight, he said rather harshly, "I have taken a some decent damage." Everyone kind of set there for a second not really sure what to say. He then followed with, "I am thinking one of the many clerics at the table can fix this?" I am not really sure who he was talking about. We had a monk with a one level dip in cleric, a druid in the form of a dinosaur, me as an inquisitor, and a sorceress (his wife). The monk ended up using his wand to heal the guy for the session.
To preempt the notion that he was a new guy that didn't know any different, we were all about level 4 and this guy and his wife knew the rules better than many of the people I had played at the con with this weekend.
This guy's attitude made me want to contribute nothing to him. While part of me thought, I don't want the monk to carry all the burden of this guy's healing, I also thought, "This guy is an entitled ass, and I don't want to give him anything." Had he said something like, "I don't have a way to heal, could someone please help me?" I would have been happy to. I probably would have mentioned that wands are dirt cheap, but I would have been happy to heal him rather than making it an expectation of someone else.
1. Why would someone rules lawyer a 10 year old? (or whatever the girl was in the gift story earlier)
2. Could someone please link to the appropriate text that says only Mike and John's posts are binding for PFS? I have always been operating under the impression that SKR and the antipaladin's posts were binding also.
Interesting these are my main three as well. I have never heard anyone outside of my family claim the three of them exclusively.
I have tried to read most of this thread, and correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can tell one side's only argument is "JJ says." On its own, you can't even really invoke RAW with this. Once he was quoted as saying the opposite, it sounds like there is really nothing left to argue. Am I missing something?
If the players accept the social contract that they are all playing together, you don't have to ban anything. It is just when a player is so superior to the others that you can't make a real challenge without TPK if the allstar falls that you run into trouble. If they are not trying to eclipse anyone, let it run.
But blackbloodtroll, it says it works like disguise self but it doesn't repeat that disguising you includes your clothes or actually giving a bonus to disguise checks. Plus this item only cost 800 gold! We have to find some way to make it less useful for that price. At my table this item will only make you look like a small human, halfling, or gnome, and only if you are trying to look like a shopkeeper, blacksmith, or peasant; your normal clothes won't appear to fit anymore if you are medium. And no aasimars or tieflings using this item! Charm person is ok for them because not being humanoid is BS, but disguise self can't make them appear humanoid when they really aren't.
I too thank you for all the work you put into the site.
As far as the subdomains, I have always been under the impression that they were limited, but you raise some interesting points. I didn't realize that JJ was the only one who has said that they are limited (taking your word on this.) He brings some good mojo and is fantastic about replying to people in the Ask JJ thread (not being binding does make this easier for him than others), but on occasion I find his logic quite suspect.
I would love to find out that you were right and someone officially came out and said that subdomains are a suggestion. I am a fan of the more obscure gods. But until then I am reluctant to just bring any sub-domain to a PFS table.
Like the skull I mentioned, it creates a net effect similar to an illusion spell so they opted to go with that spell in the creation without giving a lot of concern to why it works. Since I am sure they write the item and then decide what spell is similar to what makes it, not pick a spell and decide what magic item could I create with this, I would follow the description instead of the crafting reqs. If you are wanting to use crafting reqs to criticize/change how items work, you can create a very large (and very subjective) list.
A soulspeaker head gives off a faint illusion aura. I wouldn't say that it isn't really opening its eyes or speaking a message. The text says these things happen. Had they chose to use speak with dead instead of magic mouth (which I would think more appropriate considering the flavor and descriptions of why the mechanics work) then it would probably glow necromancy instead.
I have heard it said before and have experienced it myself. Many times social skills have a "peak zone" of where they tend to work well.
Player: Bluff = 32
Player: Bluff = 52
I don't think you can change them with command words. Perhaps that is what some of the "oh no players can't buy efficient gear" crowd fail to consider as well. You only choose what the sleeves do when you put them on. So you are probably looking at a full round or two standard actions in combat (with free hands) to get your sleeves to give you some DR from the swarms. I don't know about how most of your combats go, but most of the swarm combats I have seen only last 2-4 rounds. The only reason I would choose to do this instead of dealing damage to them is if I happen to be playing a character that is otherwise useless against them.
EDIT @ Blaphers: How do you think your customer will react when you take the sleeves off to give them to them and they turn back into sleeves?
I looked it up before, and holding to the wording that made the loophole for the quick burnout reading, it would make insects valid for sucking up HD but not for actually being put to sleep. Since it was a bit of a mock point, I haven't bothered to look it up again, but if you would like I would be willing to find the relevant lines of text.
Matthew Downie wrote:
So if part of the name matches with a swarm, you can combine and divide them with impunity to pick and choose what bits of text to use from each regardless of size, HD, or other mechanics? Sweet; I am going to start using swarm skin to have all my diminutive centipedes trample for 1354d6 damage. >.>
Andrew Christian wrote:
It actually says in the description that it is the exact word you are claiming it isn't. I think you would be on firmer ground to claim a person running through caltrops wearing boots of speed really isn't wearing footwear.
I am wondering if there is some more generic fact somewhere that covers it, because I can't see anything under "monk" in any of the obvious spots.
Thank for looking Starbuck II.
A guy has been asking one of my VLs for PFS about this for a while, maybe I will just send him a link to this thread and he can make a judgement call.
Mike Schneider wrote:
This says answered in FAQ but I don't see it. Can someone help please. A local player has been posing this question a lot lately, and if there is a FAQ that would help a lot.
Matthew Downie wrote:
In a home game, this issue doesn't really matter that much, you can rule how you like. In PFS where GMs are mandated to follow the rules, this would also be a violation.
I am not on board with your assessment. As far as I can tell it is entirely possible to read "affected" as those who don't pass a save negates. Some people find that reading unpalatable, but I think it is entirely possible. It is absolutely impossible to include those that make a save negates (or some other similar condition) as being affected in every situation.
The point is, there are enough things that people will argue about here on the boards to easily spend 20 minutes disclosing every possible thing someone might argue about. I know, when I first started playing I would tell my GMs about every little thing I saw an argument about here. I have found that just because some people here think something might or might not work is not a good reason to bring it up to every GM. I find most GMs and players at the table (myself included), really have a bad time when having extended rules discussion at the table.
Your masterwork tool is one little rule in sea of circumstantial rules. If a player is applying it to one use of the skill as it is supposed to be, I can appreciate the fact that he doesn't have to tell me at the start of the game. Just like he doesn't have to tell me some strange spell interaction that he might use, or some magical item contingency, or whatever else might come up that is perfectly within the rules.
If the person is misapplying the rules, as has been said earlier, that is a different story. But I am not prepared to paint everyone with that brush. This isn't really that complicated of a rule.
Like another similar magical item that has been under discussion here, I suspect that many of the people upset about this item are looking for reasons to make it not work. I don't think that GMs should look for (read: make up) reasons to make things not work.
A few times I have tried to full disclose how every uncommon detail of my characters worked and I got the distinct impression that everyone wished I hadn't. I know I certainly don't want to listen to the mechanics of every other character at the table when we are trying to get ready to play. I rarely care to listen to it when we are done playing.
I have one character that uses a masterwork tool. It is one of about 8 different mechanics being used to bump a single stat. Since that stat is so high, I sometimes have people ask me how that happens, but I am certain that by the time I end up going through my list everyone has stopped listening.
I have never had anyone complain about the use of the tool once I explained it. I have heard people repeatedly complain about others going on ad nauseum about their character's mechanics. (In fact, people hate it so much that it is a reason to lose a level in Munchkin.)
I could see this too. But since pfs skirts the line of "I found it" and "I bought it," I personally would err on the side of the player when it is ambiguous.
Obviously my language chosen was meant to be funny. I really don't see this as a fight causing thing. Let me phrase it more seriously. If a person repays consumables people spend on them, others will continue to use them on him. If a person doesn't repay consumables others spend on them, people will not spend them on that person. There isn't really anything to fight about.
It is kind of like the old saying, "If you lend a friend $20 and they never pay it back, you got off cheap."
People are pretending like making it easy to return a favor will open the floodgates to socialism and all hell will break loose.
Correct. For many of us, we have been operating under the assumption you cannot pay someone back, even in item replacement. However, I do like the interpretation that Mark came up with earlier that would mean you could do this under the current rules. I wouldn't be surprised if a GM shot it down though.