Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Member of Church of Razmir

TOZ's page

7,335 posts. Alias of TriOmegaZero.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,335 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
The theme here? I like creative solutions to problems that aren't too unbalancing. These all fall under it, though it harms others' suspension of disbelief of sense of 'proper' rules interpretation.

Your FACE harms proper rules interpretation. :D

Shadow Lodge *****

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
I cannot help but think that supporting this is a bad idea as a player

Okay. So don't.

Shadow Lodge

No Game No Life. :D

Shadow Lodge

RJGrady wrote:
It is obvious a new kind of spellcasting

...

Shadow Lodge *****

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:
Instead, I think we will see long term participants that had drifted from PFS coming back to participate in the Core Campaign, and we might see new players that would otherwise be turned away from PFS (from the financial burden they might feel) be instead directed to Core Campaign.
How would those who don't PFS even learn of this? Those individuals are largely long gone.

You don't seem to be paying attention to the rest of the discussion, with numerous GMs chiming in on their eagerness to jump back into the Core campaign.

Shadow Lodge *****

Lou Diamond wrote:
I already don't like not being able to use Pazio produced material that I have bought in PFS, now the PFS staff wants to further restrict what I can and cannot play. You can count on me never playing in core only Campaign.

If the PFS staff wanted to further restrict what you can play, they would have just converted the current campaign to the Core Campaign instead of giving you the choice.

Shadow Lodge *****

10 people marked this as a favorite.
RoshVagari wrote:

The novelty of this will wear off quickly compared to just simply making a blanket one replay of everything for everyone.

Hashtag: not fawning, mostly yawning.

Methinks you are underestimating the GMs who are tired of gunslingers and summoners.

Shadow Lodge *****

Mattastrophic wrote:

This is great! I suddenly want to rejoin and play and GM PFS again!

-Matt

I thought you might. ;)

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
A Medium-Sized Animated Object wrote:
Do you want to argue semantics, now?

Oh boy, can we?

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
gran rey de los mono wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
has interns do Wunian snow dance
*goes all kinds of Tonya Harding on Freehold's interns*

That's cold.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:
Off topic, but since it was mentioned, one significant issue about poverty is how rich people and poor people view money.

You know, I bet we agree for completely different reasons.

Shadow Lodge

Tacticslion wrote:

You... do realize we're playing mythic, right?

;)

You don't apply the mythic rules in a way that makes sense for the game? You just yell "YOU'RE MYTHIC" and they win the game?

Shadow Lodge

Marroar Gellantara wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
The ability says you can cast spells.
It says you can spend a point to cast a spell without expending a slot. It doesn't say "you gain the ability to cast a spell". You still need to be able to cast spells in the first place.
I don't see how you could read it that way.

I've noticed.

Shadow Lodge

This will only end in tears.

Shadow Lodge

DominusMegadeus wrote:
I apologize, it shouldn't be relevant.

That is certainly an opinion.

Shadow Lodge *****

Protection domain clerics.

Shadow Lodge

Oh snap.

Shadow Lodge *****

deusvult wrote:
Identifying the creature also identifies its type

Only if the GM determines that is a useful piece of information.

Shadow Lodge

Mythic is b!*!*#! insane.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't I count? :(

Shadow Lodge *****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
Undone wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

You are the first table I have ever heard of encountering a bandersnatch simulacrum in this scenario.

Were all those other tables (my own play through included) 'run wrong'?

I've heard of other TPK's in the Kurshu encounter using a different tactic for limited wish.
Have you heard of another group which survived a magicbane bandersnatch?

No. But why does that matter? They were playing hard mode. GM made a choice.

End of story.

Indeed. The GM made a choice.

As long as the GM takes responsibility for that choice, and doesn't try to use excuses like 'the scenario said best use' and 'it isn't against the rules to use a magicbane bandersnatch' to imply he didn't have alternatives, I'm fine with it. I make decisions about how to handle scenarios every time I run. Sometimes those decisions lead to or away from TPKs. And obviously, I would have made a decision away from this particular TPK. Perhaps towards another one, perhaps not.

Shadow Lodge *****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Three hole punched paper does not survive the bag dun dun duuuuun

Well, that's your own fault for using Gorbacz to carry your gear.

Shadow Lodge *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It a game this complex, it really can't be.

Shadow Lodge *****

Christopher Rowe wrote:
I don't know, man. It seems analogous to an archer having not thought to buy arrows to me.

Most archers don't have to deal with over a hundred different bows, half of which don't require a specific arrow purchase.

Shadow Lodge *****

Quadstriker wrote:
Is putting everything for PFS in a binder really that hard?

Not at all.

Of course, when you bury the binder under a blanket and forget where you left it...

I really thought I was going to have to jump through hoops to regenerate all those chronicles.

Shadow Lodge

I dunno, I never have the time to read them.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Digitalelf wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
You know, when you're in a hole, you should at least stop digging.
You are reading far more into my posts than is actually there.

May I suggest stop giving them more reading material? They have plenty as it is. :)

Shadow Lodge

Oh noes the hat!

Shadow Lodge *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Will GM For Cookies

Shadow Lodge *****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Velsa-IronRage wrote:

Here is a quote from the GM who ran the Scenario in response to "Run As Written does not absolve you of taking responsibility for making that choice."

"The scenario author gave a very intelligent creature a limited wish. That may well be problematic scenario design but there is nothing in the rules that prevents it from being used this way."

Responding directly to the GM in question.

"The fact you CAN do something does not mean you SHOULD. You still made the choice to run the scenario that way. The fact that the author left that option available doesn't change the burden of responsibility."

Shadow Lodge *****

Velsa-IronRage wrote:
So there you go it isn't the GMs fault it is problematic scenario design.

So we are blaming the tools rather than the workman?

Shadow Lodge *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Velsa-IronRage wrote:
and they did " uses her mobility, spells, and abilities to best effect"

There is a difference between writing "uses her mobility, spells, and abilities to best effect" and writing "simulacrum up a bandersnatch to murder the party".

Shadow Lodge *****

Velsa-IronRage wrote:
2. This is legal and what the writer intended to have happen.

If the writer had intended for it to happen, he would have written it into the tactics.

Shadow Lodge *****

BretI wrote:
Sorry, I can't find a cost or weight for either of these. How much should I pay?

5gp.

Shadow Lodge *****

Velsa-IronRage wrote:
If you don't you ran it wrong.

Run As Written is the rule, but to say that the rules force you to run this scenario using the tactics you have outlined in every game is wrong and against the spirit of the rules. If every table were meant to be run the same, then scenarios would have round by round tactics written into them.

Shadow Lodge *****

Velsa-IronRage wrote:
Please give me a scenario where this tactic is not the optimal.

Why? I never said it wasn't.

GM discretion allows softballing. Hence why I do not understand Undone claiming the rules require him to use your tactic.

Shadow Lodge *****

Velsa-IronRage wrote:
If you didn't get the same tactic I argue you were softballed.

This tactic relies on her tactics being invalidated, giving the GM free reign to do so.

Therefore, I fail to see how Undone is mandated to do so by the rules.

There is also the fact that GM discretion does not mean 'take the most optimal option every time'.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Mythic is like having a capstone at every level...

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:
Guys, can't we just go back to talking about anime?

I tried.

To be fair, they are talking about anime. Just not about 'good shows to watch'.

Shadow Lodge *****

aboyd wrote:
But, maybe I am treating it too seriously and players should indeed be able to ignore the warnings about weather. I don't know.

It's not really wrong or right. Some GMs are more lenient than others in this area. I feel like such things should be planned for by experienced Pathfinders. If they have to take a little nonlethal cold damage to encourage that, so much the better. You can bet my characters get endure elements spells when they see the need for them.

Shadow Lodge *****

I've also had to consider if I was doing it wrong by allowing 5ft steps to be continued into move actions.

Shadow Lodge *****

If the BBEG doesn't have a choice in actions, then it doesn't really matter whether or not he can see a readied action in wait. You're continuing to add more qualifiers.

Shadow Lodge *****

Grey_Mage wrote:
Because I do not metagame as a GM. Readying an action in no way confers to the bad guys what action or what the provoking action is.
Grey_Mage wrote:
A tank seeing lanky dex monkey isn't going to be intimidated, and the readied action prevents both charging and move, attack so your example is still invalid.

I see a change in your tune here from 'the bad guy has no idea what action will be coming' to 'the tank will not be intimidated by the readied action', which is highly specified. Any combatant will at least consider if attacking a readied opponent is wise, and either way it is not metagaming to have the character decide to continue or alter tactics.

Shadow Lodge *****

Grey_Mage wrote:
...leaving the other 5 players to attack the BBEG who is standing there dumbfounded.

This is an added assumption that the rest of the party is available to capitalize on the tactic. This is not always the case.

Shadow Lodge *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

ye gods why did you remind me of this thread

Shadow Lodge *****

Grey_Mage wrote:
This tactic is more powerful than Swashbucklers Dodging Panache and can be accomplished with ZERO investment other than the readied action.

The cost in action economy is the greatest balancing factor in this tactic. You're giving up your entire turn to avoid a single hit. It is not that powerful, it is just good strategy.

Shadow Lodge

Goblins suck!

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dustin Ashe wrote:
Am I the only one who has a lot of fun playing characters with those one or two abysmally low ability scores?

Nope. I enjoy that too.

When I want to play such a thing.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

More and more I just want to tell my players "Pick the stats you want" and be done with it. Rather than waste time with convoluted methods of 'fairness' and 'balance'.

Melkiador wrote:
If you use rolling, you are likely to end up with an array that locks you out of more MAD classes.

If you use point buy, the MAD classes either don't have enough points to buy what they need, or the SAD classes get to have more points to spread around on non-important scores. So, not fair in practice.

Shadow Lodge

Same.

1 to 50 of 7,335 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.