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

TwilightKnight's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Tales Subscriber. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur. 3,948 posts (4,022 including aliases). 13 reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 9 Pathfinder Society characters. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,948 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Is the change considered a "condition" that has to be cured or make your character unplayable? If you are hit by a polymorph and become a squirrel, you have to fix that. I'm not making a statement regarding the morality or sociological/psychological impact of a sex change, just evaluating it strictly from a mechanical/rules standpoint.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing that concerns me is the number of people saying their were no instructions for the GMs or for players.

Jon Cary, Todd Morgan, and I worked on documents with general instructions for both the GMs and the HQ volunteers that were sent out by email prior to the convention. It was clear to me a number of GMs did not read, or at best skimmed, the document. Did we miss something in the details? Did anyone get anything out of the material? Should we bother to do that next year?

Also, there was a board in front of every pair of doors with instructions on how to muster. Even still, there seems to be a lot of people who claim to have had no idea what to do. My guess is they either couldn't see the boards due to the crowds or just didn't pay attention to them. So, what do we need to do to improve that? Remember that bigger boards, banners in the hallway, or mounting them higher or up on the wall is not an option due to ICC restrictions.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

I did not hear anything about line-cutting being available for volunteers/GMs. That might have been a one-off from one, or a small group of Paizo employees watching the line. I know I went down on Thursday and Friday and tried to get in on a limited break but was told I had to get into the line. I was concerned about the length, but it took less than 15 minutes to get into the booth and others I spoke to had a similar experience.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

I imagine Paizo wanted to debut the new pregen iconics at the show and thus did not make them available for public download prior to GenCon. This week is kind of a recovery week for them so I would expect that sometime next week, we may see the ACG pregens hit the website.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Which usually involve some pretty expensive travel and hotel stays that not everyone can swing.

...unless you GM an online game for a qualifying event. Just sayin'

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Matthew Morris wrote:

I figured out tonight what it was that bothered me about it.

Needing a boon.

I mean, I can understand a GM sheet like the GM boon we've gotten (I've not even used mine yet, to be honest) noting "Matthew's run 200 games, he gets a star back" (99 after tonight actually) or something like that. But *any* GM can use that and apply his stars towards it.

I don't like the idea of "You have to get a specific Con/Game Day boon to activate this."

Honestly? I'd rather have had the decision be 'no they don't recharge' 'yes they do recharge' or 'yes they do recharge 1 per 50 games' or something instead of 'why yes, you can recharge them, you just have to be in the right place at the right time to do it.'

My two C-bills.

I'm curious. If you would have been okay with recharging not being an option at all, then why does it matter?

deusvult wrote:
Benefits only available via convention participation is something of an elitist stance to be taking.

That perspective has been made regularly on these boards with regards to anything that is tied to convention play. We have to remember that those of us that post in the forums are a very small minority of the entire player-base. The fact is, based on the overall feedback that leadership receives, the majority of players are supportive of the convention prize model.

Now, that being said, historically, many of the boons issued at GenCon have been re-released to local conventions and store events, assuming they meet the requirements for prize support. I have no reason to think this will not be the case again this year. I tend to think the recharge mechanic will be included on most, if not all, of the GM boons that will be issued for season six.

Additionally, if (when IMO) the recharge boon becomes available, players in very small PFS communities will still have the option to participate in online events where such boons would be available to them.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The HQ leads (myself, along with Jon Cary and Todd Morgan) very much appreciate your feedback. It is invaluable for knowing what went right and what needs to be improved. I am currently working on a summary report of things that were well-received, or not, to present to Mike Brock. Between word-of-mouth, the post-convention volunteer feedback session, and this thread, we have received a ton of great ideas to consider for next year. Please keep this thread going!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Tales Subscriber

I don't have the actual numbers, but we passed last year's table count in the afternoon slot on Saturday, so we had two full slots of record-count tables.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My highlight is always the people. It was great to meet new friends and re-acquaint with old ones. The staffers at PFS HQ were fantastic and the GM's were outstanding. The level of enthusiasm, even on Sunday was inspiring. The list is very long so I'll just thank everyone who made this my best GenCon to date. Next year's show has some large shoes to fill.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lucas, this is an awesome accessory and I loved seeing the ones colored by the kids at GenCon on display. You sir are the society's Master of Kidz Trak

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Pirate Rob wrote:

According to the products page 5-99 is a season 6 scenario.

Considering the release date it makes sense.

Although If I were in charge of the universe I would have made Legacy of the Stonelords 5-99 and Paths we Choose 6-00 but c'est la vie.

I agree. There has been a lot of confusion in the community trying to keep the two specials separate. IMHO, 5-99 should have been called 6-00 since it is the season launching special.

The current 6-00 which is the season five conclusion should have just followed the normal numbering scheme and been called 5-26. Or if we wanted it to appear more special and be outside the normal numbering, call it 5-99.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

pauljathome wrote:
One huge problem with this is that knowledge DCs are very, very undefined.

That is certainly true, but guess what, if the GM is gonna "cheat" setting the DC too low so the creature can more easily succeed, they are gonna cheat in other areas as well. Perhaps they ignore the tactics or some other RAW. A "good" GM is able to fairly use the RAW and the creature's stat block appropriately. I also agree with David. If you can make knowledge checks vs. the creatures/NPCs, then the GM can do the same. Thanks for the ideas David :-D

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Acedio wrote:
CDG is definitely a no-no unless it's specifically called out in the tactics

I do not recall this being a hard rule. It is certainly accepted, and logic dictates, that it should rarely occur, but it is a legal, and occasionally, valid tactic. Most would agree that targeting an unconscious or incapacitated target while there are still viable ones trying to kill you is generally illogical, if not vindictive.

In many cases, the printed tactics either don't apply or they cease to be viable based on player's actions. Tactics are a dynamic part of the game and a GM is empowered to examine the current state of affairs in the game and determine if and when a deviation from the tactics is warranted.
There are a few creatures who's use of CDG would certainly make sense. Shadows and wraiths create spawn almost immediately when they slay a target. Being intelligent, they would take advantage of this ability if the situation presents itself.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

FLite wrote:
...And it would be non-stick to boot

Don't do that! I was taking a drink. I'm off to change my shirt ;-)

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

I can see what you're saying Kevin, but I think that is a bit too taxing. Paladins are already short on action economy because most of their class tricks take a standard action while most classes now get their cool stuff as free or swift actions, worst case a move. IMO, it doesn't really hurt game balance to allow a paladin to activate a focused detect evil as a move. Otherwise, it takes at least a round and a half to determine if the target is evil. An evil enemy can do a lot of damage in that amount of time.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Tales Subscriber

Bump

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

ZomB wrote:
You are in the PFS section of the boards

I am well aware where I am. What does this have to do with the topic?

wraithstrike wrote:
It is not being a jerk. It is following the rules. Someone not wanting to ignore the same rules you do, does not make them a jerk or a bad person.

Its not MY rules, its what it says in the CRB. The point is that the spell detect evil clearly provides the option for a non-evil aligned target to ping as evil if their intentions are imminently evil. A paladin's smite evil ability does not specify an alignment requirement, only that the target "be" evil. It would seem illogical to say a creature is manifesting an evil aura under the rules of evil as defined by the detect spell, but not be susceptible to a smite attack. Of course it is up to the GM to decide if the target's intentions would be considered evil. Once that ruling has been made, the game mechanics covering evil seem to be clear.

It is certainly within the GM's perogative not to have a creature ping based solely on its intentions, but it would be poor form, to do it and then screw anyone who used that information to cast a spell or performs an action based on the result.

As far as spellcrafting an SLA with no components, the skill says you have to be able to clearly see the spell being cast, not the spell components. Since a SLA, even one with no components, still provokes an attack of opportunity it stands to reason there is some indication the action is occurring, otherwise, there would be no AoO. Therefore, there has to be something occurring that would allow the spellcraft check.

Relevant text from the CRB...

"CRB, Page 106, under Spellcraft wrote:
"Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors."

Note it says nothing about spell components, just a reference to having line of sight to the casting.

CRB, Page 185, under Cast a Spell, Attacks of Opportunity wrote:
"Generally, if you cast a spell, you provoke attacks of opportunity from threatening enemies."

This establishes that when you cast a spell, you provoke. Again, it does not reference spell components being require.

CRB, page 221, under Spell-Like Abilities wrote:
"A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions like a spell."

Since a SLA functions in all other ways as a spell, it would provoke an AoO if the spell it derives from would also provoke.

CRB, page 221, under Spell-Like Abilities wrote:
"A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally."

So, if there was no physical indication that a spell(-like ability) is being cast and it requires no actions, why would it provoke an AoO? The fact is, it does provoke. Therefore, the caster has to be doing something that would indicate the action is occurring and therefore, permit an attempt to identify it using spellcraft.

I'm not necessarily happy about it, but seems pretty clear to me. As a GM, I would much rather SLA not provoke since most of the time it is benefit to the players more than for their enemies.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chris O'Reilly wrote:
What I see people forget the most is that creatures with evil intent detect as evil potentially leading to a lot of ineffective smites

If a creature has evil intent that is strong enough to ping from detect evil, IMO it would be a jerk move to not allow smite to work against them. Either you're evil or you're not. You don't get to walk like evil, talk like evil, smell like evil, taste like evil, but not be vulnerable to affects that specifically target evil.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Tales Subscriber

Personally, I would allow it. IMO, the "repeating" part of the name is an add-on, but does not fundamentally change the weapon from its base classification. Similar to how a longbow and a composite longbow are essentially the same thing for purposes of feats, etc. But that is certainly not an official answer and I can see how table variation could be an issue.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Quote:
"I always feel softballing does the players a disservice"

Am I the only one that hears Judge Smails when someone says this?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Tales Subscriber

Interesting questions FLite. #2 would theoretically have to work both ways. If you divide a swarm and thus reduce its stat block, it would stand to reason the same would happen in the case to two swarms merging. I'm going to guess that is not the case since we've been told swarms don't stack.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

For those of you who are interested in trying to get some kind of "official" response from the designers on how swarms are supposed to function, I have posted in THIS thread with a summary of the main points of interest. Please take a moment to click the FAQ. If we get enough, we just might get some clarification.

SWARMS

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Tales Subscriber

That's fine except how does it interact with other mechanics? Since DR can be applied against it, what kind of DR/? is effective? Is swarm damage considered slashing/piercing/bludgeoning? It's certainly not energy damage

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Tales Subscriber
Kyle Baird wrote:
(1) it's "swarm" damage. It's its own thing.

That's fine if that is the "official" position of the designers, but swarm damage is not defined in the game so we have no idea how it interacts with other mechanics or with itself

Grand Lodge

20 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Tales Subscriber

Okay, I want a post that can be FAQ'd and puts these questions in one place. I encourage everyone to tag this FAQ.

So with respect to swarms...

(1) What type of damage is a swarm attack?
Is it untyped? Natural(bite/sting/other)? Area of Effect? Other?

(2) Would two swarms (fine/diminutive) be able to damage each other?
If the damage they do is considered a form of natural/weapon attack, that would seem to mean that their normal immunity would kick in and they would be unable to harm each other.

(3) If two swarms wish to attack the same medium (or smaller) sized target, can they? Essentially entering the same space (square)?

(4) Assuming the answer to #3 is yes, do the two swarms continue to function as two separate creatures each with their own attack, resolved normally?
Or do they become one larger swarm? If the latter, how does their stat block change?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Tales Subscriber
Nothing wrote:
They damage every creature in the area they occupy, isn't that the definition of area effect?

AFAIK, Area of Effect damage is a specific game mechanic/term and must be called out by whatever is doing it. Sure, logically speak, you could call what a swarm does area effecting damage, but from a purely rules perspective, I don't think you can call it AoE.

I realize we're arguing semantics, but as we all know, terms/definitions have a very specific function in Pathfinder and don't necessarily have to follow to a logical conclusion.

Nothing wrote:
You are correct that DR does reduce swarm damage, but tiny swarms are only immune to "weapon" damage, which shouldn't include swarm damage (but strangely might also allow unarmed attacks to damage them, which would be odd).

The problem is that swarm damage is not defined. So we have to assume it falls into one of three categories...

(1) it is area of effect damage...I happen to disagree with this because it is not defined anywhere in any swarm traits. See my comment above

(2) it is natural/weapon damage...I happen to agree with this because logically speaking, that is what is happening. Thousands of bite/sting attacks combining to effectively one damage

(3) It is untyped...which would be weird

Since swarm traits specifically call out that DR would apply, which is essential weapon (including natural) damage, the logical choice seems to be #2.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Tales Subscriber

I see nothing in the traits, etc that defines a swarm's damage as an area affect. In fact, DR would apply vs. their auto-attack so it would seem the attack is merely a non-magical weapon-like/natural attack. Since diminutive/fine swarms are immune to such damage, overlapping swarms would not be able to damage each other.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

andreww wrote:
Personally I rate persistent spell as basically the best metamagic feat in the game

It would seem to be an excellent way to finally get that phantasmal killer to work a bit more often.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I just think that some tweaking should be done by the designers to "fix" a few of the glaring issues with a few of the classes, but that would require a not-insignificant amount of time investment with little return as it would not lead to increased book sales, just FAQ/errata.

In my experience, the most "hated" classes are alchemists, gunslingers, summoners, and witches. All have what abilities that break fundamental game rules and therefore lend them to OP builds. Originally, the designers developed rules that seemed necessary to maintain the balance of the system, only to later develop classes that specifically broke those rules. That makes it extremely difficult to produce ancillary content that is "fair" for core classes, without being manipulated by "advanced" classes.

Other classes like paladin receive some hate, but that is more due to the way players interpret/implement the alignment rules and less to do with the class rules.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Seems fairly clear. If you have the option to rebuild after the deadline it can only be to rebuild out of aasimar/tiefling into something else, but not vice versa. That would include retraining any blood heritages.

Remember folks, we shouldn't have to rule every single possible corner-case. Stick to the spirit of the expectation and you'll be fine.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.

...and if everyone agreed to what "lengthy" is, we'd be better off, but that argument could go on forever :-P

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.

IMO, the biggest challenge is the player/GMs attitude. Too many players want to argue the minutia of the rules, often taking a lot of table time to do so, and then throw a tantrum or act like a jerk for the remainder of the session if the rule does not go their way. OTOH, I have seen plenty of GMs that immediately jump to a defensive position whenever a player questions their ruling, often dialing-up their attempts to kill the PC to punish the player.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

You don't get to order them around anyway. That's not how charm person works. This is not a domination effect. You can make reasonable suggestions that would be inline with their typical attitudes.

As has been said, since you are supposed to be allies and friendly anyway, there should be no reason for this to be an issue. However, it could become a problem if you have an ally who's actions do not align with yours. This is where you need to be careful. Any alignment-required class or a PC with a borderline build could be at offs with you from time to time. In most cases, the other player is going to be really pi$$ed if you try to exert any control of their free will.

Besides, there is no real reason for you to CHOOSE to exercise your charm over your companions just because it is there. Focus on using it to your advantage vs. NPCs and you should be fine.

Also, don't forget you can suppress the gaze if you want to. That might be a good idea generally.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Stratton wrote:
that person should not remain a VC.

I will go further and say that IF* the comments are accurate and represent the actions both the player and the VC intend to do, then both of them should be banned from organized play. I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with people who both know the rules and blatantly intend to cheat.

*in reality, I believe that the player is grandstanding or just having a tantrum because the campaign intends to limit their favorite race option. I also think that the reference to the VC is either, made up, or a gross misrepresentation of what the VC knows and intend to do about it

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Tales Subscriber
Brigg wrote:
Do you prefer creating your own storylines and canons between your characters and figure out the schematics later? Or do you prefer to research strategies and make characters based on them?

Personally, I fall into what seems to be the "old skool" category in that I build the character's personality, theme, etc. first. I need an inspiration before I create a PC. I will typically write a paragraph to a page (or more) of history or background on a character before I grab my CRB. For me, I need to know how or why a character is what they are. Where did they come from? How have their experiences influenced what they have become. And what are their motivations and goals moving forward.

Then I am comfortable building the statistics that make that character come alive. Sometimes that might mean a non-optimized choice, but even though my character is story-driven, I will try to chose abilities that optimize its role so it can adequately contribute to the party's success.

My preference is to have a character that is really good at a couple of things, good at a few more, and average on most others, with a couple of weaknesses they have to overcome. For me, that gives a character, well, character.

In my experience, this approach is more prevalent in home games where there is more cooperation amongst the players to have a cohesive group with a common story. I see it much less in the environment of organized play where you are an individual thrown in with others for a brief moment in their adventuring career and less able to blend game mechanics. Not to mention, due to time restraints, a character's background is more difficult to bring out.

Persoanlly, I don't care if form follows function or vice versa as long as the player knows what the character can/not do and is prepared to contribute to the overall fun of the game. Regardless of your approach you have a responsibility to not dominate the game such that the other players cannot contribute and you need to be able to carry your weight so not to be a burden on the party.

It has been said ad nauseam, Role-Play is not mutually exclusive from Roll-Play.

Explore! Report! Cooperate!

EDIT--one thing I recommend, regardless of your build preferences, is to have a good intro for your character. Much of your time will be spent will players who do not know you or your character. Initially, all they will know is what you tell them. If you describe your character strictly from a statistic perspective, it won't sound alive. Avoid saying things like, "I am [fighter] with an 18 strength and a greatsword." Try to be more descriptive of their appearance, attitude, and demeanor. You can include stat-based material, but try to do it descriptively rather than simply with numbers and mechanics. YMMV.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

3 people marked this as a favorite.

There are thousands of aasimar and tieflings out there already, why do you care if there are a few more? How does it affect you? Its not like a player suddenly banking a dozen aasimars is gonna make your character or play experience any different than it was last month.

Do I personally think a player should bank a stack of a/t? No, but that kinda feels like accusations of badwrongfun and we need to stop short of that. At this point, there is no harm, no foul. Just let people play as they see fit.

Explore! Report! Cooperate!

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Reynard de' Bonaire wrote:
May as well start this now...:)

UGH! I need to floss my brain

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Finlanderboy wrote:
Snorter wrote:
I have a much easier time accepting fox-folk and snake-people, than I do accepting that so many PCs have a grandad who f***ed an angel.
In blood of angels is explains that this is not always the case. It could be someone who's family was blessed by them. They were birthed in a very sacred area. Or a plenthera of other reasons.

I think he was referring to the fact that sooo many players used that as a backstory for why they have celestial blood.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well if they are late upwards of an hour and you are scheduled to be the GM, I would just leave. The GM puts WAAAY to much effort into preparing a game to be disrespected like that. Maybe showing up a few times only to find the game is cancelled because of them will have an impact.

In the meantime, I would discuss this issue with the organizer and or primary GMs. Behavior like this should not be tolerated. Additionally, discussions should be had with the players concerned. If they do not correct their behavior, the organizer should take action up to and including banning them from play until they can adhere to the "don't be a jerk" rule.

If the organizer fails to take action or is in fact one of the culprits, you should consult your regional coordinator (Venture-Officer) for assistance.

If none of that helps to your satisfaction, you might have to seek out another group to game with.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pirate Rob wrote:
If you've got some extra time, do you have any other examples...

Only in so far as it not being resolved at the table by the GM and the players. In an ideal world, the players and the GM would discuss whatever issue they are having and come to a solution. Sometimes that would just be the GM saying, "that's the way it is. move on."

But, in the real world, not everyone can compromise. In just about every walk of life, there is a hierarchy of leadership which you can escalate appeals. Both players and GMs deserve somewhere to go for arbitration. Brock cannot possibly directly oversee 40,000+ members, so he appointed Venture-Officers to be his buffer. Organize games, answer questions, direct new players, expand into new play-spaces, and yes, arbitrate disputes in your region.

I'm not a search-fu guy, but I know that Brock has said in the past for issues, like PC deaths, to be escalated the Venture-Corps. It may not be specifically called out in the Guide, but IMO, it shouldn't have to be.

And in the end, if you don't like what the VO decides, you can still appeal it to Brock.

Sometimes, I just think we get too bent out of shape over the exactness of the text on the page. Some things should be intuitive. If people would just remember that this is a game and we're all just here to have fun, we wouldn't have nearly the complaints we see.

Explore! Report! Cooperate!

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

roll4initiative wrote:
In my neck of the PFS woods (Denver), I had heard and was told by VOs and other higher-ups not to do CdGs unless the scenario specificly says so (which I've never seen).

There is certainly some merit to that. Many players feels that a CdG is unfair or (situationally) cheating. Since we are in the business of providing an enjoyable experience, many err of the side of not using them. OTOH, CdG is a legal mechanic within the rules and just as many players will say it is a viable action. Expect table variation.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Pirate Rob wrote:
I'm asking where in the rules do VOs have the authority to retroactively change the result of a table based on disagreeing with a GM's rule call.

Well, technically there is nothing in the rules that grants Brock or any other Paizo employee the ability to make a retroactive change either. This is an intuitive situation. Paizo has empowered the regional coordinators to take actions and perform routine tasks within their region as they are needed. It is a "rule" based on the hierarchy of the society. Just like GMs oversee their table and can make rulings within that environment, Regional Coordinators oversee their area and can make rulings governing said area. If necessary, a ruling can be appealed to Brock as the next level of oversight beyond the Venture-Corps.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Sarkorian Prophesy:

At one point a Glabrezu appears. My paladin has never had a chance to fight such an evil opponent. I charge and crit-smite with a x3 weapon. High fives and cheers abound! After a tally, 160'ish damage. Again high-fives! Unfortunately, it was not enough to slay the demon. It retaliates with a full attack including two crits and drops me.

During this exchange, my companions were "hiding" and observing the battle from a nearby building...
Player: "Oh sh#t!" turns to the cleric "Go help him!"
Cleric: "Screw that! I'm not going out there." Did you see what it did to the paladin!"
Me: "Thanks guys" Sigh

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Jiggy wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

I don't necessarily disagree with your thoughts, but you seem to be making some assumptions about the player's experiences that may not be accurate. It could be (unlikely, but possible) that they've never had to deal with darkness before. Or at least not to the extent that this scenario takes advantage of it. As such, they would not be aware of how much an advantage it can be and how easily it is countered.

It is not uncommon for GMs to "softball" low level scenarios for a variety of reasons. That said, this scenario is not low-level and at least a couple of the PC are clearly not low-level. They should have known better.

In the end, no GM wants to be told the session they ran sucked and they are a jerk (or other badness). It can be a challenge, especially for new(er) GMs.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Officially, I believe the ruling has been to run the pregens as written.

In general, my experience is that most will correct issues that are in favor of the player and ignore those that aren't. YMMV

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The most important question is did the players have a good time? If the answer is yes, then you did fine.* Sure dying is part of the game, but at the same time, you are responsible for providing a fun gaming experience. Fudging die rolls is (arguably) a legal tactic used by many GMs.

OTOH, the players stern refusal to retreat in the face of a situation that was clearly in favor of the enemy was not the best idea. Personally, I would have had a hard time not letting a tpk happen. If players insist on pushing forward despite the apparent risks, let the dice resolve the situation.

In general, it can be a challenge balancing the needs of RAW and let the dice decide vs. allowing the players to "win" and be heroic. All you can do is what you feel is right and hope that the players are adult enough to understand that in a game of randomness, sometimes things don't work out in your favor.

*Note: I am not saying that fun trumps rules, but in this case, I see nothing that I would consider cheating

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Tales Subscriber

So we're talkin' 21-24 May 2015?

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

John Compton wrote:
Both Mark and I are running this event, and both of our groups chose (by vote) a different scenario. There aren't any plans at this time to publish the updated scenario, but we'll see how the events go. Part of the fun is trying out a clever idea and seeing if it has any traction.

I am really hoping this goes well and encourages new development on other retired scenarios. I was really disappointed when both of Clinton Boomer's scenarios were retired. I was lucky enough to play/GM before the retirement and had a great time!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Tales Subscriber

Is this still on back order since last summer? Is the manufacturer even still in business? I really want to buy 2-3 more sets, but no one seems to have them anywhere.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

When the APG was originally released, there were PFS pregen sheets for the iconics to support the book. When UC was released, the same was done and the APG pregens were removed. It would not surprise me if something similar happens with the ACG. Some or all of the iconics might be released as pregens for PFS in level 1, 4, & 7 versions and the UC pregens could be removed.

1 to 50 of 3,948 << 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.