Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Chained Spirit

Sitri's page

RPG Superstar 2013 Star Voter. FullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 883 posts (885 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 9 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 883 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I am pretty sure they do have rules against using multiple accounts.

*

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.


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.


Yes. I recommend casting into your familiar before combat. It is a touch spell so he can hold it. On the first round, it delivers the spell and doesn't cost you a standard action.


The duration refers to how long the spell will replace arrows, bullets or whatever. Your arrow does not get teleported back into your target at the end of the duration. The same is true for bullet fragments. The replacement is permanent.

*

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.

*

This data should be in a spreadsheet....

*

3/9 PFS

cleric 1/Gunslinger X (after 5 will start advancing cleric again)
rogue (thug) 1/inquisitor X
oracle 1/sorcerer X

my wife has

3/5 PFS
barbarian 1/rogue X
ex barbarian 1/paladin 2/fighter 1-2?/Living Monolith 1/Hellknight X
ranger 2/witch 1/barbarian X
and
(RotTL) mobile fighter 5?/wizard 1/arcane archer X

*

ShakaUVM wrote:
kinevon wrote:
Also, I believe that there is a spell specifically designed to let you, or maybe only a witch?, possess the body of her familiar...

Familiar Melding.

Not a great spell from an action economy perspective.

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 just recently started using Invisibility Sphere, but I found that keeping a couple party members inside of it was rather awkward. I suggested everyone ready an action to move with me as I moved, but this seems very clunky and inefficient. Is this how it is supposed to be done?


I am not sure if this is exactly what you are looking for, but both me and my melee comrades love telikenetic charge.

Also, I have read about Dragon Clan Cavaliers being outstanding for teamwork.

*

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 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

*

Finlanderboy wrote:

It is all about property.

If you own the property you have rights to that property.

In your home you can ban anyone you want from your home.

In drogons store he can limit people from his store with in the federal and local laws(usually this just means you can not discriminate against the forms of illegal dsicrimination[sex, religion, ect]).

Now the site where you post your event is also owned by someone. If you own it you can post what you are legally allowed to post on it. If not the owner has the right to restrict usage of that site. If you post events in a manner the owner does not want, said owner can bar you for using it.

Generally what you own you control.

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.

Arestes wrote:


...However, in order to host these sessions I have to use the local societies meet-up.com group in order to advertise these sessions....

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 could get up at 5:45 but 6 just seems like a nice even number.

Sitri: I didnt realise you know this gentleman outside of the messageboards. Im now starting to get stressed :)

Back to the original topic!

I dont think its fair or good table etiquette to think you will get a seat at the table if you cannot stay the full duration of the game.

But again i dont think its fair or good table etiquette to run 4 hour con slots either so what do I know? :)

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:

Sitri: Not to mention all those Demons and spells and .. other bad stuff going down ! :)

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:


Hey, if he wants to play and his folks are onboard with it, then good on him.

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 dont game Weeknights because I get up at 6 to join the ratrace to work each morning)

I am 5:45 most of the time.

*

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

*

The Beard wrote:
The alcohol consumption appears to be strong in this one.

I am glad you mentioned this. I was trying to read this thread and thought I must have had more to drink than I realized.

*

Drogon wrote:
-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.

*

2 people marked this as a favorite.

...your party doesn't have a tank and your wife starts emasculating a table full of guys for not wanting to play hard mode.

Two people died (three if you count one saved by breath of life) and we were one round from failing the mission.

*

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.

*

Dragnmoon wrote:


There is a difference between your character lying about your faith and actually being of a faith.

-snip-

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.

*

@Pirate Rob

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.

confused wrote:


A confused creature is mentally befuddled and cannot act normally. A confused creature cannot tell the difference between ally and foe, treating all creatures as enemies. Allies wishing to cast a beneficial spell that requires a touch on a confused creature must succeed on a melee touch attack. If a confused creature is attacked, it attacks the creature that last attacked it until that creature is dead or out of sight.

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.


Nefreet wrote:
Netopalis wrote:
What about Bloatmages?
I don't believe the Bloatmage specifically says how much weight they must gain, so a human Bloatmage would still top out at 220.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

EDIT @The All Seeing Eye Thank you. I hadn't seen this before and I am glad I read it.

Mikaze wrote:
Tirisfal wrote:
Sitri wrote:
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.

I like how if a man is an expert and well educated in a field that's he's passionate about, he's considered an expert and well educated in that field.

If a woman is an expert and well educated in a field that's she's passionate about, it's called a "hot-button issue" for her, and that she's being "uppity" about it.

How often has anyone started an argument with SKR with "Looking on your homepage, I see that gaming is something you devote a lot of time writing and thinking about. I am sorry to have pushed a hot button with you..."

There's another way the tabletop gaming community is like the videogaming community. :(

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.

Bruunwald wrote:


My advice? Don't try so hard to be insulted. It blocks your brains from actual thought.


Tirisfal wrote:
Sitri wrote:
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.

I like how if a man is an expert and well educated in a field that's he's passionate about, he's considered an expert and well educated in that field.

If a woman is an expert and well educated in a field that's she's passionate about, it's called a "hot-button issue" for her, and that she's being "uppity" about it.

How often has anyone started an argument with SKR with "Looking on your homepage, I see that gaming is something you devote a lot of time writing and thinking about. I am sorry to have pushed a hot button with you..."

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:
Draco Bahamut wrote:
There are many types of man and many types of woman. I heard many women using the same term to describe the same situation. Who has the right to say who is right ? Claiming automatic misogyny for that could be considered misandry.
Saying that it's misogynist to imply that women don't have a right to opinions on the portrayal of women is misandry? That's so far down a false equivalence rabbithole that I'm not going to bother debating it, Draco.

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:
Sitri wrote:
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.
That seems like a disingenuous statement, given that it was made in the context of discussing art of women in Pathfinder and how they're dressed.

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:


Sitri wrote:
Clearly we both use this word differently and categorize people differently as well. Please allow me to clarify.

You can say you use the word differently, but that doesn't really matter. Words have history and connotation, and the fact that you may not want to invoke that history doesn't mean that it's not there when you use a word. For example, if you say that something an African-American said to you made you mad enough to lynch him, it doesn't really matter whether you just meant "strangle." The word in that context has racist overtones that don't go away just because you say they weren't intentional.

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:


Quote:
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.

I'm unclear what you mean here, but it's irrelevant. The point is, you're talking about the portrayal of female characters, and describing people who protest at how they're portrayed as "uppity." That has some deeply misogynistic overtones, suggesting that if women object to how women are portrayed, they're getting above themselves.

On the contrary, women have every right to opinions, and commentary, on how female characters are...

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:


But, that is not what I was asking for.

What I was asking for...

  • Alahazra actually dressing like a Rahadoumi.
  • Amiri actually dressing like a Kellid (not too far off).
  • Feiya actually dressing like an Ulfen.
  • Seoni actually dressing like a Varisian (which can be really sexy).

    I have no problem with scanty attire. But it should be either normal for the world setting (not Golarion any more) or situational.

  • 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.

    Sitri wrote:
    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:
    Sitri wrote:
    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.

    Using the term "uppity" to describe a group of people asserting their opinions about the way other people portray them implies that you think their normal place is beneath you.

    Strangely, the term "uppity" seems to get applied primarily to women, children, and black people. That right there should be pretty telling.

    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.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Lord Fyre wrote:
    Cheapy wrote:
    And for what it's worth, there are more female iconics that are modestly dressed (merisiel, kyra, lini, seelah) than there are ones that are either immodestly dressed or...possibly immodestly dressed. The title of this thread implies that all female iconics are dressed scantly, when the majority aren't.
    True. However, you might also note that the ones I listed are more visible.

    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.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    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:
    Sitri wrote:

    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.

    I have no reason to not accept a sound argument. I neither play a sorcerer that uses charm spells or utilize this tactic when DMing. Stating that someone didn't want to accept the obvious truth would indicate they have something to gain by not doing so. I have nothing to gain... Do you play a sorcerer that utilizes charm person/monster?

    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:

    For those arguing for the lesser dominate person interpretation (excepting those playing devil's advocate), just remember, if you really want charm person to behave that way, expect the evil spellcasters you face to treat it the same way...

    The evil DM in me starts to think evil things when players try to rules lawyer interpretations that violate the spirit as well as the word of the rules. When that happens, I start to come up with interesting interpretations as well. For instance, the clause about any hostile act directed at the victim, breaking the spell, really gets me thinking that asking the victim to kill his loved ones or do something diametrically opposed to this ethos would constitute a psychological attack (or threat) and therefore break the spell...

    If folks really want to stretch it, the GM is perfectly capable of doing the same. If you don't like it, then perhaps that group isn't for you and you should go find a munchkin game elsewhere?

    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.


    What about a wizard? I haven't seen that build, but you have a high int and a familiar works awesome with gunslingers. Cast abundant ammunition into your familiar before combat and then have your familiar touch your ammunition pouch during the first round of combat.

    *

    The change in skill reqs could be really tough on many melee builds. I could see some people who bought the old book to play this prestige class upset that they no longer could use it.

    *

    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:

    The game rules currently actively rewards neutral characters.

    Holy/Unholy weapon enchantments should probably give negative levels to those darn neutrals.

    The neutral mind-control loophole should probably be patched up at some point. In terms of Golarion lore and it's focus on light vs dark, it doesn't make that much sense that the strongest enchanters are the ones that refuse to pick a side.

    I still haven't had a chance to play Waking Rune, but currently my opinion on the Lissala boons is that they were poorly implemented. If you are going to slap evil on the wrist, don't give evil the opportunity to choose not to play '4-99 The Wrist Slapping'. Because guess what? They will choose not to play it.

    In terms of Season 5, I was surprised to see that a recent awesome magical item was neutral aligned when all the flavour for it seemed to favour good.

    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.


    wraithstrike wrote:
    Sitri wrote:


    wraithstrike wrote:


    And in case you missed the quote.-->but killing loved ones is probably always going to require a check, and might not even work (the creature might take its own life instead, its not your puppet after all).

    Emphasis redistributed.

    Did the character carry out the order yes or no?<--simple question

    If the answer is no then they were not willing, and I don't think they would kill themselves. That was an extreme case.

    PS: What would you consider to be harmful to themselves for the purpose of automatically saying no? Did the book mean just physical harm or psychological/mental harm to themselves.
    Support your reasons.

    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:

    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.

    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.


    Nefreet wrote:
    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.


    Pupsocket wrote:

    A) Stuff you would do for a friend who asks.

    B) Stuff you would never do, even for your best friend
    C) Stuff you normally wouldn't do, but a friend of yours might be able to talk you into it.

    One of these doesn't require a check, one does require check, and one doesn't allow a check.

    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.


    wraithstrike wrote:

    You missed my point. If the GM decides that even failing check will mean the action won't be taken then why roll the check?

    Yes I want you to answer that.

    I already did. Reread the post you quoted, it was rather concise.

    wraithstrike wrote:


    And in case you missed the quote.-->but killing loved ones is probably always going to require a check, and might not even work (the creature might take its own life instead, its not your puppet after all).

    Emphasis redistributed.

    wraithstrike wrote:


    Now if it is not going to work it is because the GM said it is not going to work which goes back to Jason saying it is GM discretion.

    That is supported by this--> "Well, the point here is that it is really up to the GM to decide what is inside and outside a creature's general willingness."

    Now if the GM is deciding what is and is not outside of a creature's willingness does that not mean each GM has to decide what the creature will and will not do?

    Note that what the creature will do after an opposed check still means they are willing to do it, but they needed some pushing. If they are not willing to do it, then they are not willing to do it. Period.

    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.

    1 to 50 of 883 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.