|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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.
Brian Lefebvre wrote:
"No, it's ok, don't use up Kyra's wand first, here use mine."- Said no Pathfinder Ever.
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.
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.
Chris Mortika wrote:
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.
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.
Chris Rathunde wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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...
The Fox wrote:
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
*edit= it is sometimes hard to keep the difference between sound logic and valid logic straight...
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.
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.
David Bowles wrote:
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.
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".
David Bowles wrote:
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.
David Bowles wrote:
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.)
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)
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
N N 959 wrote:
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.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
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.
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.
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.
The Human Diversion wrote:
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Human Diversion wrote:
Society play tends to be self-policing. Bad GMs will either improve or be weeded out.
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.
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.
I think you're thinking of the warding special ability for armor.
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.
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?"
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.
N N 959 wrote:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.