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

deusvult's page

FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 599 posts (756 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 9 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 599 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

A couple of thoughts for the pro-skills camp:

Some of the spells that are commonly thought of as making skills irrelevant actually still involve a check. Exibit A: Knock. It doesn't automatically open locked doors.. you still need to make a caster level check against the Disable Device DC. You can more easily get bonuses to the skill check (morale, equipment, etc) than to the caster level check.

Another thing that often skews in favor of spells over skills is a loosely enforced equipment system. Yes, a scroll of fly or spider climb will render a skill check moot, but should the scroll or potion even still be intact after you were slimed, fireballed, dropped down a pit, or etc earlier in the adventure? Checking for damage to equipment is virtually never done when a PC fails a save vs some nasty fate, and remembering to do that can help reward skill investments.

Skills, unlike potions or scrolls, can't be sundered or stolen.

Skills, unlike spells, can't be turned off via Dispel Magic.

**

Clerics may be preparation-based spellcasters, but they don't need to specify their spells when their spell slots refresh. They can prepare spells into available spell slots at any time of the day.


Agreed with posts above.

Hardness and Damage Reduction are two totally separate rules phenomenae. Golems and other constructs, being creatures, don't have hardness.

A couple things that ARE often overlooked is that the GM is given the prerogative to not only allow certain energy types to ignore hardness (this is the caveat that allows a GM to say Fire can ignore wood's inherent hardness that would otherwise be doubled vs energy damage).

Likewise, a GM is allowed to rule that certain weapon types are ineffective against certain objects. The GM is allowed to say that even an adamantine mace will not ignore a rope's hardness, because blunt weapons are just Bad at damaging ropes..no matter what the mace is made out of.
If, for whatever reason, you don't want an adamantine longsword slicing through walls and doors with the greatest of ease, the rules have your back. You can say the sword, even adamantine, does not ignore such things' hardness.


Never seen one at a carnival?

think of it like a vertical roulette wheel.

I was saying you could use that as an Intelligence-linked game by logically figuring out what sorts of probable bets to make.


A Dex challenge game: shooting gallery with toy gun/crossbow
A Con challenge game: bobbing for some prize that doesn't float (hold your breath!)
A Wis challenge game: Three shells and a pea game
An Int challenge game: Wheel of Fortune game
A Cha challenge game: Pick a lucky duck from the hundreds of them in the flowing trough


*casts resurrect thread*

I'm really curious about something.

There seems to be a discrepancy for medium riders in the rules for 4th and 7th level threshholds for the Exotic Mount ability.

PRD wrote:
Medium beast riders can choose a camel or horse mount at 1st level. At 4th level, a Medium beast rider can also choose an allosaurus, ankylosaurus, arsinoitherium, aurochs, bison, brachiosaurus, elephant, glyptodon, hippopotamus, lion, mastodon, megaloceros, snapping turtle (giant), tiger, triceratops, or tyrannosaurus as his mount. Additional mounts might be available with GM approval.

Most of the critters on that list are still medium sized animal companions until 7th level. How then does a 4th, 5th, or 6th level Beast Rider work with say a Lion or Tyrannosaurus mount that isn't large size until 7th level?

I'm guessing the answer is they just have a melee companion to fight next to rather than a rideable mount, but am I missing something?


Right, but if the paladin declares smite on the CE barbarian, I'm saying he should get the bonus damage whether he's performing a 'white' attack on the barbarian's person directly, or if he's sundering equipment worn/carried by the barbarian, since the barbarian is a legal smite target. Should he shatter the evil barbarian's weapon, the smite doesn't end because the barbarian was the target.

**

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I too 'wasted' a replay under the impression that the replays would refresh the first day of every Gen Con. Had I known at the time that my replay wouldn't refresh, I wouldn't have spent it. I'd have rather played at that table for no credit and save the replay for a special boon or chronicle item for a character that could really make great use of it.

I suppose it's better to use a replay than never use it because you save it forever.. but mark me down as one of those who think it SHOULD refresh every year.


Would a smiting paladin gain the bonus damage when performing a sunder attack upon equipment held/worn by an evil opponent, even if that bonus damage doesn't ignore hardness?

And would the answer be different if the first attack of the smite was the sunder?

Personally, I'd say yes to the former, and no to the latter.

EDIT:
Another question would be does the smite end if the sunder successfully destroys a piece of equipment. I'd say, no.


Cavaliers can be good faces, particularly Cockatrice Cavaliers.

Although I suppose 'heel' would be a better way to put it.

Still, it's rather fun to do the (arrogant) talking for the party.

**

Normally, by the time the party is ready to face the BBEG you've gotten the chance to see them in action and you know whether they'll smoke the encounter or be challenged by it.

I also chafe at the "no mechanical modifications" rule but page 403 (fudging dice rules) is still legal in PFS and if I have to give in to the urge to toughen up the BBEG, that's my go-to. Why look at that. He rolled a nat 20 on his init. Look at that. He rolled whatever he needed to in order to get an attack to land in his one combat round you guys are going to allow him to live. Hooray! Ok, now you can kill him.

Why do I feel entitled to do this as a PFS GM whenever I deem it appropriate? I can't tell you how many times I've sat on the player's side of the GM screen in PFS and watched the BBEG encounter end before my character even got his/her 1st action. It isn't fun. Not even for the munchkin who more often than not isn't thrilled about breaking the adventure, but is disappointed it's already over.

Here's a moment of zen:
As a PFS GM, you can cheat the players by changing the fight.
However, you can also cheat the players by allowing the adventure to be steamrolled anti-climactically.

**

Here in Colorado, we have a pretty active PFS community and I've seen Bifgoot as many times as I have a Rogue that wasn't the Merisiel Pregen. (for the record, Zero in both cases)

I'll echo what was said above about Cavaliers being playable in PFS. UMD (and a few Druid Spell Scrolls) was all it took to play a nonmunchkin 'normal sized' Cavalier. The advent of Hosteling armor makes it even easier.


Slumber Hex won't unduly change the game so long as PFS still allows the GM to fudge die rolls per the Gamemastering rules chapter in the Core Rulebook.

Core Rulebook, page 402 wrote:


We all know that cheating is bad. But sometimes, as a GM, you might find yourself in a situation where cheating might improve the game."

*clatter*

*ignores die*
"Oh, look at that. He made his save."

It shouldn't be done all the time obviously.. but if you feel that the Slumber Hex is unduly influencing the game experience (and you're the GM), you're the one who's opinion matters most about whether fudging a savings roll is "improving the game"


I know it's late in the product lifecycle for this scenario, but I ran it the other day with a slight seasonal modification to a mural down inside the dungeon. It was a rousing hit with the players so I thought I might share.

Twas the forge before Torag, when all through the city,
Not a worker was stirring, not even a bitty.
The forges were hot and stoken with care,
In hopes that a blessing would soon be there;
The forgesmiths were nestled, all safe from the war;
While visions of hammer-tongs danced from before.
As armies clashed in the passes outside;
Torag’s chosen prepared things inside.
When out at the gates there arose such a clatter,
The High Priest knew he must settle the matter.
Away to the Furnace (forbidden to enter),
The dread genie was stashed, forever and ever.
Yet prophecy stated, inevitably one day:
Into the Furnace, there would be a way
In one hundred cycles of mother to daughter,
For the mad genie’s offspring to resume the slaughter.
With time precious, so slippery and quick,
The guardians of Torag did themselves pick
Those to stay behind, and prevent that dire day.
The High Priest smiled and said: "This plan is OK!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leo_Negri wrote:
Just a curiosity, but why do so many people swear by the Point-Buy system? I understand that it is THE system used in Pathfinder Society, but why would anyone use it outside of organized play?

I'll see your complaint about min-maxing with a complaint about 'lucky' stats.. and raise you a complaint about intrinsic power level-disparity between characters of wildly different stat values.


beej67 wrote:
deusvult wrote:

Are vampire bats evil?

Mosquitos?

Leeches?

Speaking in purely game-speak, they're always neutrally aligned (as in, non-evil) and yet they drink blood every chance they get. So, demonstably, the act of drinking blood does not require an evil alignment.

You can't apply morality judgments to animals regardless of their activities, which means you can't use them as an example in this context. Dingos eat babies, and they're neutral, yet Paladins clearly can't eat babies.

While what you say is true, it's also a non-sequitur. Animals aren't expected to act morally, because they lack the intelligence to HAVE morals.

Obviously, animals do not set an appropriate bar for the ethical behavior of PCs. Let alone Lawful Good PCs. Let alone paragons of Lawful-goodness (paladins).

That being said, the question on hand is this: Is drinking blood (no matter who you are, whether Paladin, Dhampir, or anyone at all) always evil?

Obviously, it is possible to drink blood and not be evil. So, the answer to the question at hand is "No."

Whether it is appropriate or compatable with a Paladin's class restrictions are two other questions entirely. Another poster mentioned the chaotic aspect of drinking blood- this goes against many cultures' rules about not desecrating corpses. THAT is a bigger hurdle for a Paladin than the question of whether or not it is an evil act.


Are vampire bats evil?

Mosquitos?

Leeches?

Speaking in purely game-speak, they're always neutrally aligned (as in, non-evil) and yet they drink blood every chance they get. So, demonstably, the act of drinking blood does not require an evil alignment.

Less ridiculously:
Drinking blood for sustenance is a big difference from doing it as a part of an evil magical ritual. And let's note that the evilness of drinking blood in an evil ritual is due to the evilness of the ritual, not the drinking of the blood itself.

**

To the Original Poster:

Don't give up just yet. Especially not until you've had a chance to play with some new people/cliques/groups.. not that there's anything intrinsicly wrong with playing with the same group of people, but it sure does color PFS.

And, contrary to many vocal opinions, a PFS scenario is not reduced to being a human-judged MMO instance. For example, the belief that PFS GMs may not fudge dice is common but demonstrably incorrect. (to head off any 'Nuh UH!'s from said believers, check CRB pages 402-403, then show where PFSOP says they are removed from OP rules in any potential replies.)

My advice on reconciling the 'straitjacket' that comes with organized play is this: While you may not customize the scenario itself, you're certainly still allowed to tailor the players' experience of said scenario.

**

14 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought this was going to be a thread calling for an evil-compatible sister campaign to PFS.. ala Aspis Consortium Organized Play.

Put me down for that one.


Check out the Calistrian religion trait.

Oh, and +1 on low Charisma being able to have sexy appearance.. and high charisma not necessarily meaning hot looks.
And +100 on needing wisdom to make money on the horizontal bop as opposed to charisma, anyway.


wraithstrike wrote:

I have been to the PFS boards a few times, and from what I can gather you can not alter the character at all. No changing spells, weapons, feats, skill points, etc...

I did think you had some leeway with tactics, but it seems I might have to check that again.

There are those who believe that to a tee. (I see that labelling that viewpoint after a prominent poster didn't tickle his funny bone.)

There are those that also believe that a slavish, robotic, complete adherence to the module as presented in every way as being incompatable with an enjoyable D&D/Pathfinder/D20 experience. That's another thread however, so I won't belabor the point.

If, hypothetically, a NPC cleric has the chance to reallocate his spells before the climactic showdown with the PCs.. and has the plausabile in character reason to be aware of the one dimensional trip monkey's capabilities, then in my own opinion there's no reason he can't change his spell list the morning before the fight to include Blessing of Fervor. And then the NPCs in that encounter will not be overly impacted by the awesome-O trip monster by standing up as a swift and w/o provoking AoOs.


Depending on whether you consider switching an NPC's spells prepared as being against PFS rules or not..

Blessing of Fervor is a spell that will make a one-dimensional trip-monkey's life hell. And it's appropriate to opposition for an 8th level PC, to boot.


I haven't noticed someone mention it, and it's definately not for everyone..

But a PFS Gm is allowed to fudge dice rolls at his own discretion. If you're there at the table in the heat of action and you can't think of anything better, that die roll you dropped can legally be a 'nat 20' any time you want it to be. 46 AC or not, you can hit the PC any time you feel the need.

Naturally, it's not an option that should be used often, as a player who correctly deduces that you're fudging dice to hit him will not Have Fun. However the odd hit here and there may keep the player on his toes and play his character conservatively.

Another suggestion that shouldn't offend the Jiggies of the board:
Demoralize combat action. It ignores his CMD, AC, and his saves. Sure, it's only a -2 to his rolls, but it's something.


I use willpower checks to see if sentries fall asleep at their posts. Although, so long as players arrange for shifts that I deem resonable, I don't bother. "2 hour watches? No worries. Oh, you plan on staying up all night doing the watch yourself? And you honestly believe that your saying 'I won't fall asleep' makes it so?"

Then again, I use willpower checks for any repetitive thing that players find it easy to declare but characters would find tedious to carry out. Staying up for hours while sleepy, always searching every wall/ceiling/floor for secret doors/traps.. always casting detect evil/magic..

Yeah. easy for you to say "always", not so easy to actually keep focus every second of every minute of every waking hour.

**

I believe this thread gives some interesting and relevant insight onto the topic at hand.

Boiling it down for those who don't want to read 3+ pages of angry posts:

In PFS does a GM have the right to overrule a player's view of what is and is not canon?

If so, SHOULD he?

To editorialize, in my view the GM is no more priveleged than the players. None of us own golarion. In fact, it is only a matter of circmstance that any GM has any referee authority at any given table. The roles between people could and would quite easily be reveresed at another table/slot. So if there's differences of opinion about what is and is not canon, the GM has a duty to consider accomodation first and exclusion ONLY after reasonably ruling out accomodating.

**

As mentioned a bunch of times, the in-character rules AND the organized play rules of Pathfinder Society preclude the possibility of an oathbound paladin killing the imp familiar.

So he needn't worry about falling for lack of killing said imp.

**

To be fair, it isn't that big of a stretch to say your character's father rules Galt. Figureheads there change almost as fast as the weather...


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes.

Half orcs count as both human and orc, and qualify for human-only and orc-only feats/traits/etc.


A witch would lose 1 standard action out of every 10 keeping it active on 1 target, all the way to keeping it active indefinately on 10 targets by spending all her standard actions all the time.

**

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
deusvult wrote:
And that means that the player roleplaying his paladin as having intolerable issues with your imp familiar IS inarguably badwrong. Because he can instead choose to roleplay his paladin as NOT having intolerable issues with your imp familiar.

To be clear, we're not talking about a simple roleplay flavor decision. We're talking about a legal archetype that says "kill every evil outsider you can, or fall".

We're just hell bent to disagree on everything each other says, it would seem.

Oath Against Fiends' wrote:


Code of Conduct: Never suffer an evil outsider to live if it is in your power to destroy it . Banish fiends you cannot kill. Purge the evil from those possessed by fiends

Bold text=emphasis mine.

Banish what you cannot kill is 'clearly' RAI to be more accurately: Banish fiends that you can banish, but cannot kill.

For both in- and out- of game reasons, the PFS paladin MAY not kill the familiar. Important difference from CAN not. I stand by my assessment because either way destroying the imp is 'not within the paladin's power'. He can attempt to persuade the spellcaster from using the imp for the duration of the paladin's presence. He can opt to have nothing to do with the spellcaster. (Passive-aggressive 'PvP' IS still technically legal. "I can't hurt you or your imp, but neither do I have to heal either of you...")

If the paladin can't come to a happy place where he feels he's still in-character while still not trying to kill the imp, he shouldn't be playing the archetype. Perhaps, as you say, thats a 'trap' a new player might fall into. But, the perspective of the OP is 'am I being a jerk by having an Imp familiar'. No, he's not.

**

If the paladin couldn't handle the presence of an imp or someone who'd bind an imp to his will, he can't handle being a productive member of the in-gameworld Pathfinder Society.

And that means that the player roleplaying his paladin as having intolerable issues with your imp familiar IS inarguably badwrong. Because he can instead choose to roleplay his paladin as NOT having intolerable issues with your imp familiar.


If it's a general question of may druids be technological innovators.. obviously something quasi-industrial flies against most interpretations of what a druid should be.

However, crazy inventor types come in all stripes. I could see a druid walking in the shoes of Dr. Moreau.

**

Feral wrote:

In light of Brock's ruling allowing group-level bans

I'm curious where/when Mike said such a thing.


Who's to say internal combustion engines even work in your game world?

Who's to say the aerodynamics of an artificial wing or propeller even allow for flight?

Most importantly, why would a druid (or anyone else) have any knowledge of technologies from the real world?

**

For the most part, a druid is limited to hide armor or light armors.

Not sure what book wooden armor is in, but you can check that book's entry in the Additional Resources to see its legality for PFS.

Ironwood spell is not available, not unless you're prepared to pay for it over and over every adventure. By PFS rules, the ironwood spell expires after every scenario.

**

Since starting to GM PFS Scenarios, I've come to the conclusion that the most positive aspect of faction-quests is to give players a tangible reason to fully explore scenarios.

I'd like to see more faction vs faction stuff going on, but keeping that from denigrating into player vs player is imo largely impossible. At least within a regular, recurring system.

I used to be a big Legend of Five Rings fan, loving the 'what happens in tourneys/games affects the game world' angle. Until I realized that the company wasnt about to have anything actually bad happen, because they didn't want to alienate fans of those factions. The moment that killed L5R for me was when a story arc put up my chosen favorite faction as a potential for 'winning' L5R. Will they rule the empire, or will everyone else gang up to stop them? Let the players decide!

Yeah, doesn't take a crystal ball to know which way that one was gonna go. Not only can nothing permanently bad happen, nothing permanently good can happen. Not unles you're truly willing to take off the kid gloves.

Knowing your faction (and potentially, more importantly your PA) is on the line and potentially going to be obliterated makes for a different Society than one where you know that whatever bad things happen, the writers won't let my faction/PA go away.

Suggestions for how to run either depend on which sort of game M&M want to run.

**

When I ran it I told them that the real world 4 hour time slot was the in-world deadline for when...

Spoiler:
the BBEG's army would move in. Yes, the army is sooo big the lot of you have no chance to repel them. No, we won't roleplay it if you try anyway.

I didn't tell them this part, but of course the above doesn't preclude the fun three way showdown with said army the PCs get to enjoy with the walking dead.

It did a wonderful wonderful job of keeping the the players focused on the mission goals & racing to keep on track/on time.

**

I honestly thought the events in Dalsine Affair were a prize awarded by faction performance reported in PFS up to that point.

It kind of takes the magic away to realize it wasn't.

So if I were the head of PFSOP, that's how I would do it. Once per year or so, issue a scenario revolving around how the winning faction makes the losing faction suffer.

**

Dan Luckett wrote:
Fair to me means rolling in the open where everyone can see where the dice lay when they're done rolling.

That's a valid view. I wouldn't complain if a GM at my table shared it.

OTOH I believe that there's a Goldilocks principle to aspire for.. If the scenario is proving, for this particular table...this particular time, to be too easy or too hard then something needs to be fudged or nudged to bring the experience back closer to the 'just right challenge level' that was intended by the writer.

This may be another discussion, but it's my assumption that the players are expected to be successful in PFSOP scenarios. Not just most of the time, damn near all the time. As in, players failing to complete the mission or characters suffering a TPK is an even bigger failure on the part of the GM than it was the players'.

To elaborate: In my view, and I'm sure there's those who will gnash their teeth and wail about how wrongbad it is, survival/success isn't pegged to some ratio like rate of PA accrued. No, we don't assume players will get 2.0 PA per adventure, the assumption is closer to 1.5. 100% expectation of success/no TPK is obviously too high, but IMO its intended rate is close enough to 100% to be pointless to argue about how many percentages (or fractions of percents) shy of 100% the expectation is.

**

Girdle of Opposite Gender" wrote:


When this magical belt is put on, the wearer must immediately make a DC 20 Fortitude saving throw or be transformed into a person of the opposite gender. The character's abilities, mind, and spirit remain unaffected; only the character's sex changes. If the character's saving throw is a natural 1, the item actually removes all gender from the wearer, giving him an androgynous, neutered appearance. The change is permanent unless undone with curse-removing magic. Once its magic takes effect, the belt can be removed without effort. A creature can only be affected by a particular girdle once, though other girdles of this type can cause another transformation.

I don't know if the scenario uses a different version, but assuming it's a 'normal' one, there's the rule. Yes, you can take the belt off. No, your gender won't change back. Not without curse-removing magic, anyway.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

+1000 for low charisma = low force of personality.

Watch Rain Man for roleplaying tips.

I can totally see the barbarian raging..

"It's time for Judge WAAAAAAAPNER!!!!"

**

You may make your character whatever age.

However, you may not apply any stat block modifiers for non-standard age bracket.


the x3 is the crit multiplier.

The +4 shows that it gets one attack, at +4.

3 attacks each at +4 would have been annotated +4/+4/+4

However, depending on the feats involved, it IS possible to start getting a ridiculous # of shots per round with a bow. 3 is tamesauce, in comparison to how far it could be taken.

**

Jiggy wrote:
I'd personally never thought about maps when pondering the "run as written" directive. Interesting...

I can't help but get the feeling that had I mentioned editing maps, it would have been automatically badwrong and 'explicitly forbidden'.

**

Bob Jonquet wrote:


In any of the cases above, it's easy to see it would not be legal.

Non sequitur, Bob.

Neither of those examples are of a GM fudging dice. They're both of a PLAYER fudging dice. And not even I was saying that's PFS-Kosher.

A more accurate gist of what I was saying is perfectly legal and Vinyc wants to see explicitly made illegal is this:

I may not increase a BBEG's bonus to hit or to save by +X or -Y.

I may, however, fudge my dice rolls for the BBEG so that I get that same +X or -Y, with the caveat of a modified 'natural' range of 1-20, obviously.

Disclaimer: 'I may' does not mean that in practice 'I should routinely', 'I must always', or 'I think it's funny to'.

**

nosig wrote:

wow - I still can't get over...

"It IS legal to make sure the BBEG wins initiative, and always hits for max/near max damage."

goodness - where did I miss this in the rules?

Nosig, my point was that *I* don't like that option either, and I prefer the option which has a legality that Jiggy and I disagree on.

**

Jiggy wrote:
deusvult wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
That's not a meaningful difference?
In reality? no.

You see no difference between "explicitly allowed" and "explicitly forbidden"? Then there's nothing else to say to you.

We disagree about what falls under "explicitly forbidden." What I say does not, you say does.

**

Jiggy wrote:
deusvult wrote:
And in my case, the way I see it is that if I may fudge dice, there's no meaningful difference between that and padding a solo BBEG's HP total, for example.

One is (as you cited) allowed by the Core Rules and has (to my knowledge) met no resistance from the Campaign Coordinator.

The other has no such rules support and has been repeatedly expressly forbidden by the Campaign Coordinator.

That's not a meaningful difference?

In reality? no.

In your choice of how to interpret the priority of M&M's/PFS rules, you have the following where you think the BBEG needs some 'help' being something memorable and/or more than a yawner of a challenge.

It IS legal to make sure the BBEG wins initiative, and always hits for max/near max damage.

It is NOT legal to make sure a mook or two from earlier in the mod ran to the BBEG for protection and be present for the climactic showdown.

Me, I think that the latter is a ton less offensive to the 'integrity' of the scenario/experience. And more in spirit of what M&M would want from me as a GM.

Jiggy, when we play "guess what M&M Means when they say "Don't do anything *I* wouldn't do..", we draw the line in different places. You're not any more wrongbad than I am.

**

Vinyc Kettlebek wrote:
deusvult wrote:
Vinyc Kettlebek wrote:
According to the campaign rules GMs have as much authority to fudge dice rolls as they do making personal adjustments to combat encounters.

I'm with you so far...

Quote:
They don’t have it.
Reference?

I can start with Mike and Mark posting numerous times in various threads to run modules as written and do not cheat.

Now every time you come across any discussion of rolling dice in any of the rulebooks it follows this general progression. Be it for Ability Checks, Skill Checks, Combat, Spell Casting, etc.

1. Roll the appropriate Die/Dice,
2. Add relevant modifiers to find total
3. Compare total to target number(if any) to determine result
4. Apply result

No where does the rules say that you can alter the results of a given die roll as either a GM or a player. A player altering the totals of his rolls is cheating, and a GM who does the same is also cheating.

Now if I missed a paragraph somewhere in the GtPFSOP saying GMs can alter their dice rolls please make a reference to it.

The difference we have is that you call fudging a die roll cheating, under any and all circumstances, and cite 'do not cheat' as justification for 'do not fudge die rolls'.

I on the other hand, consider occasional fudges good GMing. And there's plenty of posts I could also cite about making sure you're a good GM.

Let's remove 'cheating' and 'good GMing' from the question and just focus on GMs fudging die rolls in PFSOP.

I submit this thread..

Furthermore, this thread.

Let's not forget page 403 of the CRB. I quote:
"Rolling Dice:
Some GMs prefer to roll all their dice in front of the players, letting the results fall where they may. Others prefer to mask all rolls behind a screen, hiding the results from the PCs so that, if they need to, they can fudge the dice results to make the game do what they want. Neither way is the "correct" way; choose whichever you wish, or even mix and match as feels right for you."

And, since that text is NOT omitted from the PFSOP rules, you have it quite literally in black and white that a GM may fudge dice. You're definately not supposed to over-use the tool, but it's a legitimate tool. Even in PFS.

And in my case, the way I see it is that if I may fudge dice, there's no meaningful difference between that and padding a solo BBEG's HP total, for example. Or even deducting from it, if the case warrants. Just because you deviate from script or fudge a die roll, doesn't mean it's to make it harder on PCs.. sometimes they just deserve a break.

"Oooh, wow.. comes down to this.. the BBEG is gonna finish mopping the floor with you guys unless this spell works..

*clatter*

*ignore*

Huzzah! The BBEG falls under your spell..."

**

Vinyc Kettlebek wrote:
According to the campaign rules GMs have as much authority to fudge dice rolls as they do making personal adjustments to combat encounters.

I'm with you so far...

Quote:
They don’t have it.

Reference?

1 to 50 of 599 << 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.