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

FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 1,071 posts (1,228 including aliases). 5 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 18 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,071 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court ***

I was expressing agreement with Brian as well.

I suppose a GM could insist that the pregen refuses to allow her resources to be milked in such a way. I've just never seen the GM do so.

(but now that you put that Idea in my head...)

Sovereign Court ***

Game Master wrote:
If my lodge has a Core day and a PFS day, that'd make me feel a whole lot better about all this. I'm just worried organizers will feel pressured to include Core options at the same time as non-Core, which will make it harder to fill tables.

As a store coordinator in my area, I don't view this concern as invalid.. but I do see it as being a challenge no more daunting than scheduling incompatible level tiers has been inside Vanilla PFS. Either way it's a one dimensional problem, and we've been dealing successfully with one dimensional scheduling problems for a good long while. For example, we have managed to get by without seperate 'low level' nights and 'high level' nights.

Of course, if/when Core becomes so popular that it too has characters beyond level 5, then we'll have two dimensions (mode AND tier) to work through.. but until then, I see incorporating mode OR tier as mox nix. And of course by then, coordinators will have some inertia to provide at least some direction as to what's been popular lately.

Sovereign Court ***

Brian Lefebvre wrote:

Allowing a pregen at any table would throw the average wealth level of PCs off.

Pregens would be raided for consumables, so PCs wouldn't need to use their own. Pregens could also be used as a throw away character to eat a death instead of a PC. Saving the PC the need to spend money/PP on a raise dead, etc.

"No, it's ok, don't use up Kyra's wand first, here use mine."

- Said no Pathfinder Ever.

Sovereign Court ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm currently prepping this.

I can't resist but pointing out that the writer missed an obvious gem.

While the PCs are having their social encounter with Praetor to convince him of their worthiness, Amersanus should have totally reminded him Pathfinders are called "murder hobos" for a reason...

Sovereign Court ***

David Bowles wrote:
Interesting. I've never seen anyone charged a move action to use a tool.

Action economy when switching equipment is another thing GMs commonly don't enforce.

Round 1: I shoot it with my bow!

Round 2: I thwack it with my sword!

Round 3: I cast a spell and use my (insert ability here) rod!

Round 4: I shoot it with my bow again!

ad nauseum. This isn't a rare case, I see players expecting that to work all the time. (I blame video games, but that's another discussion entirely)

Stuff you need for whatever you want to do doesn't begin the turn already in hand unless it was already there to begin with.. and thus we're looking at extra move actions (at least) to change weapons/tools in combat, not to mention additional move actions on top of that to stow stuff if you don't want a pile of equipment accumulating at your feet.

Sovereign Court ***

Dhjika wrote:
andreww wrote:
Dhjika wrote:
andreww wrote:
DesolateHarmony wrote:
I know my druid (in a home game) invested in charisma to avoid missing handle animal on low rolls. She'd be much more powerful with charisma as a dump stat.
Why? At level 1 even with charisma 7 you can hit dc10 on a 2. 1 rank -2 charisma +3 class skill +4 to handle your own pet +2 training harness.
training harness is core?
Masterwork Tool then. Even without it you only need a 4 to pass at level 1.

Once your animal gets injured you actually need a 12 - but yes the chance is not too bad - but still bad enough you have to roll.

And expect GM variation on the masterwork tool, as to whether they will allow it.

And even when they will allow it, expect to spend a move action (or more, depending on where you store it) to equip it prior to use.

Sovereign Court ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Mortika wrote:

So, are people inviting friends to "come back to Pathfinder Society" and focusing on Core Mode?

There are a few grognards in my area that I'm hoping the replay benny will attract back to active play.

But what I'm more looking forward to is my expectation that more people will be willing to take a stab at GMing b/c of the shorter learning curve involved.

Players who learn to GM in Core are only going to benefit Vanilla PFS.

Sovereign Court ***

Undone wrote:


I'd just like to point out that this makes it essentially irrelevant. You effectively get to take a 20 on known tricks by RAW since you're not limited to free actions.

actually...

PRD wrote:


Taking 20: When you have plenty of time, you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, if you roll a d20 enough times, eventually you will get a 20. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.

I'm gonna go ahead and wave the flag on insisting take 20 is appropriate for combat situations, by RAW.

You won't get that to fly at very many tables, I'd wager.

Sovereign Court ***

Chris Rathunde wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
GMs, generally speaking, don't enforce the handle animal rules.
Well, they do if they've played a Druid. At least the ones with whom I've played.

Indeed. When I hear complaints about ACs being abusive*, what I hear is "GMs where I am allow players to control their PCs animal companions as if it were a 2nd PC".

Maybe it's not always true, but I suspect it often is.

*= not including those cases where the effective Druid level of the PC in question is higher than the total character level. It's amazingly stupid that particular shenanigan is legal in Vanilla PFS.. at least it won't be legal in Core.

Sovereign Court

Well, most of the cavalier's usual abilities work whether he's on his bonded mount or on any old mount. The only thing coming to mind that requires his bonded mount is ignoring armor check penalty on ride checks. Other than that, I'm not thinking of any difference.

However, if you were asking if the cavalier's mount class ability could somehow apply to enhancing a magically conjured mount as with the Mount spell, then most certainly not.

Sovereign Court ***

There's the chart in the CRB that gives perception bonuses for the various magical sensors involved in traps.

A rogue's player can always point out that he has a shot at sneaking up through the warded area to reach the trap itself so it can be disabled.

Sovereign Court

Meager Rolmug wrote:
Having no speed seems like the best proof its movement doesn't provoke, but how do i connect that to PFS - RAW proof?

That's the wrong attitude to have.

In PFS you don't prove anything, unless it's spelled out in a FAQ. (which, to my knowledge, this question isn't)

Until such time, the PFS GM will say whether it will provoke or not, on a GM by GM basis. If you're the GM you get to interpret that the way you want and you're right whatever you decide. So is another GM who might rule the other way.

Sovereign Court

From the Gm's perspective, the power of infinite chaining cohorts with leadership feats is easy to tamp down.

1) Cohorts are NPCs, and the GM's bailiwick. They won't have leadership if you don't give it to them.

2) Even if you do have a pyramid of cohorts, you can have the PC's direct subordinate look down at the rest of the pyramid, and begin to wonder why he settles for having the PC as a boss when he could instead BE that boss by removing the PC...

Sovereign Court ***

The Fox wrote:

....

The second table on the schedule (normal mode Wounded Wisp) is less likely to fire.

If I am a player in your area who is uninterested in CORE, then your added table has actually taken an option away from me.

I think that is a legitimate concern.

I understand that this schedule is 3 weeks out, and a lot can change. There are groups that ARE exactly 8 players. Every week they run two tables of 3 players each. CORE will potentially be disruptive to these groups.

If the Core Wounded Wisp table doesn't go off, it doesn't necessarily mean it didn't go off because it was Core.

So, it's not sound valid logic to say Vanilla PFS players suffered the loss of an opportunity by including the Core table in that example.

*edit= it is sometimes hard to keep the difference between sound logic and valid logic straight...

Sovereign Court ***

cuatroespada wrote:
Also, you can have a different AC every day if you want, so there's nothing in RAW that necessitates that you view your Animal Companion as anything OTHER than a useful tool granted by your bond with nature. Perhaps some people are reading too much into the use of the term "companion". Technically, if you break bread with someone once, they are your companion.

yes, it's true you can part ways with your AC and show up with a new one every session.

But that's presuming a mutual parting of ways. We were discussing earlier "expending an AC like a tool". That's a whole different ball of wax and there were attempts to twist words "well, if it dies in combat, that's suddenly evil?".

A good rule of thumb is if you're not allowed to do it to another PC, a druid shouldn't be doing it to his AC. And if he insists on doing it anyway, then be prepared for consequences.

Sovereign Court ***

Jiggy wrote:
deusvult wrote:

People who drink Coke can also drink Pepsi; they just obviously don't drink both at the same time. Only the very rare fanatic will turn down drinking brown fizzy sugar water entirely if they can't have their preferred flavor.

I don't know very many PFS members who play only one character. I don't think I know ANY, in fact. There's nothing stopping you from participating in Vanilla and Core concurrently, and in fact the nature of PFS in general gives you every incentive to actually do so.

I don't think you're understanding what's being talked about here.

To some people, yes, it's basically a flavor choice.

But to some people, they've already played so many PFS scenarios that they CANNOT play PFS unless it's in the Core Campaign.

To others, there are things so objectionable about regular PFS that they WILL NOT play PFS unless it's in the Core Campaign.

And not only do both of these categories of people exist, but they've both been branded as intended targets of this new campaign.

I don't know how you missed that, especially since I told you in the post to which you were replying.

Stay classy, Jiggy.

But, to answer your not-so-subtle accusation I don't know how to read, allow me to rebut.

You bring up two kinds of people: those who have played every PFS thing ever, GM'd same, and run out of replays they're willing to burn (I'll call them group A) and people who refuse to ever play the Core (group B) or Vanilla (group C).

Group A can still play both campaigns; they're just obviously playing more Core. But there's still two scenarios published every month they can play in Vanilla as well. They're not "stuck in Core".

As implausible as group A is, groups B and C are boogeymen. There might be individuals who meet one of those critieria, but there won't be enough of them to throw things out of whack. Eventually people will at least try the other, and few will be so sour as to refuse to participate.

Groups B and C are as incompatible as Home Gamers and PFS gamers are: not at all.

You're insisting on seeing walls where there are none.

Sovereign Court ***

David Bowles wrote:

As I said, I have never even seen this considered. Many GMs I know aren't confrontational enough to do this. Great for you guys, I suppose.

To be honest, I haven't seen a player of a druid treat his AC like a disposable tool. But you're the one who brought it up as being legitimate in PFS and without consequence.

Hence the discussion since.

Sovereign Court ***

Undone wrote:


Quote:

Where's the RAW on that?

The GM is allowed to say you're now, immediately, an ex-druid, according to the CRB.

I'm fairly sure this violates the don't be a jerk rule.

Potentially, sure. If it's done as a "gotcha" because the AC died, obviously.

However it is an option in the GM toolbox for players who are in their opinion legitimately abusing the line delineating what is "druidly".

Sovereign Court ***

David Bowles wrote:
deusvult wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Really? No one sees forcing a friend and trusted companion to die for you because you're too lazy to do it yourself as an evil act? There is a mechanic for that...
I've never seen this enforced. That makes it a non-rule. Give the druid some temp neg levels or SOMETHING.
There is that rather severe "something" he quoted right from the CRB. (you don't get another AC to replace it, oh or any more spells either. Ever.)
Until next PFS session, that is.

Where's the RAW on that?

The GM is allowed to say you're now, immediately, an ex-druid, according to the CRB.

Ah, I get it. Atonement makes it all ok again on the chronicle.

*shrug* As GM Lamplighter said.. if you wanna spend that kind of gold, go for it. There's definitely no justification for a GM to say you can't have your Nth atonement, since you're clearly not *really* sorry and you're just going to do it again.

But OTOH, if you're relying on atonement to just make it all ok, the GM *CAN* mark you down for evil act(s), and that too will need to be dealt with.

Sovereign Court ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Really? No one sees forcing a friend and trusted companion to die for you because you're too lazy to do it yourself as an evil act? There is a mechanic for that...
I've never seen this enforced. That makes it a non-rule. Give the druid some temp neg levels or SOMETHING.

There is that rather severe "something" he quoted right from the CRB. (you don't get another AC to replace it, oh or any more spells either. Ever.)

Sovereign Court ***

We had a saying in the military:

You can do anything once.

Closely related:

You can do anything your career can handle.

Yes, the druid can callously order his trusting AC to a suicide mission. That doesn't mean there are no consequences.

Sovereign Court ***

trollbill wrote:
deusvult wrote:
In a world where rogues are the kings of skills and are the only ones with access to trapfinding... that's a world in which they'll shine.
I think the problem is the number of times you encounter traps in PFS (before you actually trigger them), compared to the number of times you encounter combat, puts a pretty big limit on how much a rogue can shine. It takes a special patience to play a second fiddle combatant until you encounter one of those rare moments when your character gets to shine.

The rogue class offers the tools to at least be relevant in any circumstance. Combat, Social, Trap, whatever the encounter is, the Rogue can contribute in a meaningful way or even bear the primary burden. Only if you make bad decisions with your character is a Rogue ever caught twiddling his thumbs. (outside Vanilla play, of course, but that's the context of this thread and shouldn't need to be clarified)

"undone' wrote:
Math disagrees with this. Statistically even barbarians will only have about a 50/50 shot to escape once grappled. It's not fundamentals, it's math.

Pretty bad application of fundamentals then, to rely on tactic that has a 50/50 chance of success. Much better to use a potion of gaseous form and up your chances significantly. (by the time grappling is a death sentence, you can afford them, and it's only your own fault if you don't have them) That's just one example. One could also use that smart play I hinted at earlier, and actually use some teamwork in tough situations rather. Much more fun to struggle to overcome a hardship than to never face the hardship in the first place, no? If you don't agree, then that's fine. Stick to vanilla, and stop telling people who like Core they're BadWrong?

Sovereign Court ***

Undone wrote:


Just because a core only PC contributes doesn't mean they solve the major problem of the adventure. Black tentacles for instance. Freedom of movement solves it but so does the teleportation sub school and a ton of other minor (liberating command exct) options gone which means everyone needs to bring a solution or someone has to solve it for the party. That's ONE SPELL that isn't uncommon in later seasons at high tier. Heck any halfway decent PC ( dump his casting stat or 7 STR 7 dex fighter is bad) will contribute but they don't solve the "Solution or die" encounters which are prevalent in higher level play.

My disagreement with this sentiment is that it implies that relying on crutches from post CRB publications absolves a player from remembering the fundamentals.

Even in PFS Vanilla you should be able to escape from Black Tentacles (or other situations) even without your optimized/munchkin trick.

In Core players will have to rely on the fundamentals, and maybe, just maybe, have to play smartly. I don't consider that a horror. Quite the opposite, I think that's phenomenal. I relish that kind of play more than ROFLSTOMP.

Sovereign Court ***

I think people saying rogues are losers in Core don't understand what rogues aren't supposed to revolve around their sneak attack.

In a world where rogues are the kings of skills and are the only ones with access to trapfinding... that's a world in which they'll shine.

Sovereign Court ***

Jiggy wrote:
deusvult wrote:
Jiggy wrote:


Dunno about your venues, but at the ones I skip around between, people usually come in, find out what table they're at, and then socialize with their tablemates. If Alice and Bob are never tablemates, they never socialize with each other. I think that's what BNW's getting at.
I disagree. That fear is only applicable on a timeline of one night; there's no real incentive for those players to remain segregated on successive nights.

The entire premise of CORE seems to disagree with you: it seems to be an outlet for people who either can't (because of lack or replay) or won't (because of being newbies or disliking something about standard PFS) play anything but Core.

Although there will be some players flipping back and forth, all the branding/advertising so far seems to have been aimed at folks who would otherwise not be playing PFS, and therefore are not likely to mix with the standard PFS tables.

So no, it's not a one-night thing, at least if the reality comes anywhere close to the impression being presented.

People who drink Coke can also drink Pepsi; they just obviously don't drink both at the same time. Only the very rare fanatic will turn down drinking brown fizzy sugar water entirely if they can't have their preferred flavor.

I don't know very many PFS members who play only one character. I don't think I know ANY, in fact. There's nothing stopping you from participating in Vanilla and Core concurrently, and in fact the nature of PFS in general gives you every incentive to actually do so.

Sovereign Court ***

Jiggy wrote:


Dunno about your venues, but at the ones I skip around between, people usually come in, find out what table they're at, and then socialize with their tablemates. If Alice and Bob are never tablemates, they never socialize with each other. I think that's what BNW's getting at.

I disagree. That fear is only applicable on a timeline of one night; there's no real incentive for those players to remain segregated on successive nights.

It's the entire point of PFS; you can switch between characters.

Sovereign Court ***

I'm less concerned with abusive options existing than abusive options being played in what I feel are a BadWrong way.

Are you playing a divine caster? If you can't explain anything about your character's patron deity beyond "I found the name in Inner Sea Gods" you're playing it BadWrong because you can't roleplay your character satisfactorily.. religion is a hugely important dimension to a character and especially so to divine casters.

Are you playing a character with a optimized/munchkin capabilities, AND hogging all the glory at the table? You're not just BadWrong, you're a jerk. Let other people at the table have their fun too. It won't kill you to not dominate every fight. PFS scenarios are literally written from the assumption that you're going to win all the encounters to begin with; it may not matter to you who carries the fights but it certainly might matter to the people you're leaving with nothing to do but ride your coattails and twiddle their thumbs for 4 hours.

Sovereign Court ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It'd be easy enough to add appropriate languages as being always available in the PFSGOP.

If they want to get Core running before season 7 and the next guide, it'd even be easy enough to add an erratum to the current guide to that effect.

It's so obvious it should be done, and so easy to do, this should be a non-issue.

Sovereign Court ***

N N 959 wrote:


If a GM thinks he's the "boss" of someone, then I'll argue that he or she has got the wrong attitude.

Administrative fact has nothing to do with attitude. GMs hand out chronicles, GMs (typically) handle the burden of reporting. Players not only "do not" handle the responsibility of filling out chronicles, they May Not.

Players don't have a choice about refusing to accept a chronicle. Yes, you can refuse to pick it up, but it doesn't mean you get to pretend it was never given nor that you cannot replay the scenario without burning a star (or using whatever form the Core campaign replay will work out to). Only if a PFS member can convince a VO to do so will a GM's decision(s) be overturned. The "player", as a position, is essentially powerless- the rules have primacy and the GM interprets them. The player, as a person, yes has power via appeal and the power to decline to participate. (participate in PFS entirely; the player can't just say "that session didn't count" if the GM reports that it did.. only going over the GM's head can undo that)

Yes, the GM doesn't get to boss you around and yes the GM is subject to oversight. But let's not get hung up on verbiage or argue for the sake of arguing.. the position of the GM outranks the position of the player. In PFS it's still true; the GM is still a GM despite some authority (namely, "house rules") being reserved only for VOs and Paizo staff.

Sovereign Court ***

Another thought: The thead is TL;DR for me to bother reading every post.

Has this question been asked and answered:

Can an existing character with 1 or 2 XP be "blobbed" into Core Only?

Sovereign Court ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
deusvult wrote:

I get that Paizo has to keep publishing products to stay in business, but I really don't like the creep the game has seen. New options doesn't expand variability; it just introduces a treadmill of a fairly static number of ever more powerful optimized builds/munchkin templates.

A thousand times yes for the option of a "Core Only" reset.

I agree that with more material you get more nasty combinations, but a lot of the new material is really nice, and promises a smother experience than the old material.

Isn't going back to square 1 (the CRB, the source of 95 of my problems with pathfinder) like throwing the baby out with the batwater, just because it just happens to be on fire?

Can't we find an old tough sheriff (preferably only weeks before retirement, and too old for this) to clean up this town, and downright ban/fix some combinations?

If a baby is still on fire despite being submerged in bathwater, it's clearly a demon baby and yes it should be thrown out.

But seriously, attempting to "fix" combos is an option that will please no one. Mike Brock was wise enough to see that, I think. All in or all out are about the only viable ways to adjudicate what's in and what's out.

Sovereign Court ***

When an NPC retreats with loot, the heroes still get the value towards the chronicle.

If an NPC hits his "run away threshold" called out in tactics, the players shouldn't suffer any downsides for failing to murderhobo the fleeing slob... other than not having said gear actually in hand in play. Even if the GM forgets to have a chest magically inserted in the plot that "coincidentally" has duplicates of all the gear the defeated NPCs had, the players will still have access to the items when the chronicle is handed out after the game.

Sovereign Court ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I get that Paizo has to keep publishing products to stay in business, but I really don't like the creep the game has seen. New options doesn't expand variability; it just introduces a treadmill of a fairly static number of ever more powerful optimized builds/munchkin templates.

A thousand times yes for the option of a "Core Only" reset.

Sovereign Court ***

The Human Diversion wrote:

I'm not sure of this, but I believe PFS is similar in that the chronicle sheet is always the authoritative source, so a GM can threaten a TPK on you, but you can always refuse to accept the chronicle sheet. In addition a whole table full of players reporting a horrible GM would stand a better chance of being ruled in the player's favor by a Venture Officer than the GM's ruling.

I think the sentiment of the post this quote was clipped from is generally correct, but I do feel that this specific part is very incorrect.

Because, if it were correct, you'd be free to toss any chronicle you didn't like. "What, I only got 1 prestige!?! F that, I'm crumpling this and playing this scenario again later..."

I think the general sentiment of the post (which was shared by several others) is correct; sic the Venture Officers on the egregiously bad GM that caused you to get up and bail. They can un-report you as dead and potentially even give you a corrected chronicle sheet.

But telling a GM "You're not the boss of me!" doesn't work. Within the campaign hierarchy, he IS the boss of you. Your recourse is with the bosses in turn of him...

Sovereign Court

Tempestorm wrote:

You cannot play Evil aligned characters in Pathfinder Society. It is expressly prohibited in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play.

From the guide (Pg. 9)

Quote:

Step 8: Alignment

No evil alignments are allowed in Pathfinder Society
Organized Play. You may select any other alignment
for your character, keeping in mind the alignment
restrictions of the various classes.

That's all 100% true, but there still are no shortage of shady, unsavory types in PFS.

the OP's basic idea isn't actually out of character for PFS.. he just can't actually be out and out evil. Clerics and Inquisitors of unsavory deities like Asmodeus and Urgathoa are completely legal for PFS, so long as the posts above are kept in mind.

Sovereign Court

Well, ruleswise, any alignment with Evil in the name is verboten.

That being said, you can have your LN character act in what you think is a LE way and so long as you officially call it "LN" you're fine.*

*= Fine, so long as you don't have disagreements with your GM over what is or what is not an evil act. if you want to toe the line, be wary that some GMs won't have the line exactly where you might. I'd review the relevant chapter in the PFSGOP about alignment infractions/evil acts (and especially their consequences) if I were you.

Sovereign Court ***

The way PFS scenarios work, the rewards of the encounters are on the chronicle so long as you satisfactorily conclude that encounter. It doesn't matter if you kill them, bypass them, or sweet-talk them.

You don't even have to Greyhawk your kills unless you think the mooks might have some items that will prove immediately useful.

You can just leave your trail of corpses for the rats and you don't lose out on any lewts. Unless, of course, something is called out as only being found if deliberately searched for. But those cloaks of resistance +1 and such, and the coinage for beating the encounter, you get those so long as you win the encounter. In the end, it doesn't matter how you won.

Sovereign Court ***

Per the reskinning rules, there appears to be no reason why a jingasa could not be a kabuto, or even a western-style helmet of some kind. A jingasa, afterall, is nothing if not protective headwear. I could totally dig a Pickelhaube of the Fortunate Soldier... you just couldn't ask to impale someone with your head because you reskinned your item.

The caveat is that the GM can still insist the jingasa looks like a "funny conical hat" should he or she decide it is relevant in some way. Say, for example, if there were an NPC who might react differently to people or things from Tien-Xia.

Sovereign Court ***

The Human Diversion wrote:

That being said, I have encountered two PFS GMs who feel it is "them vs. the players" and they see DMing as their chance to "get revenge" on players who have DMed before.

Society play tends to be self-policing. Bad GMs will either improve or be weeded out.

Quote:
I've also encountered players who feel like they should be allowed to do just about anything because "without the players PFS wouldn't exist."

Players taking the Pathfinder/3.X player-empowerment paradigm too far in in Society Play are uncommon, but still way more common than bad GMs. In my experience, at any rate.

Sovereign Court ***

I figure that alarm spells could be "disabled" by a rogue by jerry rigging some apparatus* that interacts with the magical aura the way a faraday cage does with electrical fields. If you want to leave the trap active, just "shield" the entire party and they pass on through.

*= doesn't have to be much; maybe something as simple as holding a pair of dowsing rods at a specific angle is all it takes. Something like that.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

With respect to #2:

Welcome to the byzantine world of feudalism and vassals.

Your minion's minions are not loyal to you per se, just as Akerlof asserted. If your minion ends up betraying you, his minions will follow his lead and ignore your orders to seize the traitor.

Sovereign Court

I think you're thinking of the warding special ability for armor.

Warding wrote:
Once per day as an immediate action, the wearer of warding armor can activate it to end all active challenge, judgment, and smite abilities affecting her. This does not prevent opponents from selecting her as a target for these abilities in the future. As a swift action, the wearer can expend one of her own challenge, judgment, or smite abilities to refresh the armor's ability to end these attacks.

Sovereign Court ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's willfully misreading Jiggy's post, fakebrock, and you know it. You saw his clarification that shouldn't have been necessary. Quibbling over gotchas doesn't add anything to the conversation.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

58. Have to talk like a Pirate.

closely related to the classic:

59. Have to talk in rhyme.

obviously both curses are most fun when the player is forced to deal with the curse even in OOC table talk.

Cursed PC's Player "Hey, does the door appear locked?"

GM: "I can't hear you."

Cursed PC's Player "..."

Cursed PC's Player "The door, present before me: Locked, seem it be?"

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like your players are tailor made for railroad storyline adventures.

All aboard the Plot-Train! Whoot-whoot!

Once they begin to get bored of or chafe at structure limiting their options, you can begin to re-introduce decision points, and eventually maybe even getting them into sandbox style adventuring. But sounds like they're either not ready for it right now, or simply not interested in it.

Sovereign Court

One word:

Panopticon.

Then imagine what could be done with that idea in a world where one can bind critters that never sleep, eat, excrete, or even blink to service as guards.

It'll be pretty unbreak-out-able.

Sovereign Court ***

N N 959 wrote:
deusvult wrote:


You and I were disagreeing over whether modifiers or penalties are EVER ok if they're not explicitly pre-presented in the rules.

No. I never said that. Once again, you're attempting to win an argument by intentionally misrepresenting my position.

Actually, you said it here, here,here, and here. If you were somehow saying that modifiers are indeed sometimes ok, just bizarrely never when I suggest it, I misunderstood your posts.

As for implying that I implied that a penalty was in order for not taking a bathroom break during a night watch... What I actually said was:

deusvult wrote:
It's frankly ridiculous to argue that since the rules don't cover going to the bathroom that your character doesn't go to the bathroom, or that the GM cannot impose a circumstantial penalty to your Perception check during your all-night watch due to your bladder pains since you loudly and repeatedly insisted you never go to the bathroom.

Note the difference between punishing someone for forgetting to say they relieve themselves and dealing with a player who insists that relieving oneself doesn't exist because it's not covered by the rules. It's a big difference, where in the former is a lame GM attempting a gotcha and the latter where the GM is exercising a completely authorized "ORLY?".

It's a little ironic that the straw man you were so worried about earlier didn't show up until you brought him out.

As for:

NN 959 wrote:
BNW called your argument "absurd" then said you were doing it to be "a jerk to someone." If that's peaceful disagreement for you, so be it.

That's a little immature to try to get me to argue with someone else. I believe the two of us had a failure to communicate at first, and prefer to believe we understand each other now as more posts were given and other posts were agreed upon together.

At any rate, I think our discussion has run its course. Go ahead with the last word, I've said all there is to be said.

Sovereign Court ***

I took a pipes of the sewers on that chronicle, for a Sentinel of Sheyln.

I felt it was sort of thing you'd never "waste" gold on, yet would be fun to have. Especially on that character.

When I was trying to decide, I think I was also considering a rope of climbing, which iirc neatly meets the price critera while being useful yet something you wouldn't be likely to buy.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My attitude is that a player isn't completely free in what he can do with his character.

The foremost and most unbreakable rule for character conduct is that the character's actions must be furthering the story of the party. No player has a right to break off from the party and hog the spotlight. No player has a right to use "but it's what my character would do" as an excuse for behavior that is detrimental to the party.

When you tell the players that you have those rules, even evil alignments can be rewardingly played.

Sovereign Court ***

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Since the party successfully maintained their cover (barely) I thought they kept the chest with them?, so when they were ready to kick down the door they did it in gear.

I might not have been sufficiently prepared... but the way I saw it the PCs posed as slavers were kept in the bailey, the chest I'm 99% sure is called out as being set down in that circular room with the hyenas, and I'm 100% sure the slaves get locked in the barracks.

I assumed the hyenas would guard the door and chest and not just wait idly by until the post BBEG escape. Maybe they were supposed to ignore at least the chest.. if so I missed that part.

1 to 50 of 1,071 << 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.