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. 886 posts (1,043 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 18 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 886 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Taldor ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm also indifferent to the ruling, but supportive of it on principle. Down with shenanigans! Munchkins are why we can't have nice things!

Taldor

Without some product like this idea, one is almost forced to look at Golarion through a Westphalian lens since any given point on the map is within the boundaries of one country or another, rather than the possession of any given family.

Taldor

4 people marked this as a favorite.

"I'm gonnna play a Drow Noble!" sounds to most of us just like "I'm gonna play a Cyber-Vampire-Ninja-WereTiger with an Adamantine Katana!"

I don't mean to break out name calling, but Munchkin alarms go off at mere mention of "Drow Noble".

it was suggested upthread that Drow Nobles would be best appropriate as an ALL Drow Noble party. If maturely done, a Menzoberranzan-like campaign would be awesome.

Taldor ***

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Isn't it interesting how we as players espouse rules/RAW when it comes to things like the GM sticking to tactics, not making things up, or adhering to the take 10 (or whatever) rules, but when it comes to things like wearing a shirt to earn a re-roll (RAW), we conveniently ignore it. Seems like sometimes we only like adjudication when its in our favor. Just an observation.

You're not the only one who's observed that about the "RAW IS LAW" component of the PFS playerbase.

Taldor

OldSkoolRPG wrote:
deusvult wrote:


Since the 'less restrictive action can be replaced by a more restrictive action' is allowed at all on part of the scale, it's not wrong to say that RAI the precedent is there to say the writers intended for it to go across the entire scale, they just saved word space by not explicitly saying so. That one can implicitly follow that rules phenomenon to a reasonable inference is all that's necessary for it to be 100% Kosher.

Except they explicitly say you can't:

"PRD} wrote:
You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take.

That's an interesting catch. I disagree about what is the relevant part of the line.. I only bolded what really counts in this discussion. Looks like I have to agree with you in light of that line, however. It does certainly appear to head off exactly what I was suggesting. Still, it's possibly a fair house rule to allow spending a standard action on it.. but that's not what this thread is about.

Taldor

Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
deusvult wrote:

Action classes in order of least restrictive to most restrictive:

Full Round, Standard, Move, Swift, Free, Immediate.

It makes little sense to say that an available action to the left of the action type normally required can't be expended in place of an action to the right is ignoring common sense and is embodying the worst stereotypes of the rules lawyer.

And yet you're wrong when it comes to Swift actions.

You get only one Swift per turn, that's it.

The crux is whether or not one can expend an action that is less restrictive/more expansive in place of a successive Swift action after 1st swift action is already spent. It's not a question of performing a 2nd swift action; it's a question of being allowed to spend a standard action to perform what could be performed in a swift action.

If someone wants to spend a move action to perform a 2nd swift action, what's the harm? It's an extension of the same idea as spending a standard action in place of what normally costs a move action. Why would you ever want to? It doesn't matter. It's the principle. And as a principle, it's quite reasonable to extend that principle beyond standard and move actions.

Ravingdork wrote:
It would be more accurate to say that there is nothing in the rules ALLOWING it.

There are a LOT of things that are agreed upon to be allowed without being explicitly allowed in the rules. It's a fallacy to say (or think) that nothing is allowed unless explicitly allowed.

Since the 'less restrictive action can be replaced by a more restrictive action' is allowed at all on part of the scale, it's not wrong to say that RAI the precedent is there to say the writers intended for it to go across the entire scale, they just saved word space by not explicitly saying so. That one can implicitly follow that rules phenomenon to a reasonable inference is all that's necessary for it to be 100% Kosher.

Taldor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Action classes in order of least restrictive to most restrictive:

Full Round, Standard, Move, Swift, Free, Immediate.

It makes little sense to say that an available action to the left of the action type normally required can't be expended in place of an action to the right is ignoring common sense and is embodying the worst stereotypes of the rules lawyer.

Taldor

The Odyssey would be a phenomenal source for inspiration on how a deity might mess with a mortal without resorting to "you're dead, no save".

Taldor

NIghtrider wrote:
Revenge for slights is very big for them, he could be the goddess hand in this for her weaker priests

QFT. Revenge is one of the things you should think of when someone mentions "Calistria". Someone who deals in the currency of payback is EVERY bit as Calistrian as a holy prostitute. Getting on the wrong side of the Church of Calistria should be even more terrifying than crossing the boss of an underworld gang.. and the Church needs characters like Inquisitors to pursue satisfaction for such slights.

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

it does open up the potential for abuse of the foreknowledge and replay rules.

Not sure if such abuse is likely enough to merit a rule addressing it.. but then again there's a reason they had to label coffee cups with a warning about what HOT means..

Taldor

Troops are a fantastic idea for keeping mobs of low level warriors and such relevant.

As for plot reasons to justify bandit gangs that are dangerous enough to challenge PCs of Xth level... Letters of Marque don't have to be restricted to sea-based banditry. Some villain in the next town/duchy/kingdom over might be profiting by fomenting unrest in the land the PCs are adventuring in. If a high priest/duke/you-name-it is behind the banditry, then he could also be outfitting them with what we might today call "military advisors". These could come in the form of healers or battle wizards as well as martial officers to direct and train said bandits.

Taldor

blahpers wrote:
This is getting nowhere. Suffice it to say that I will never play at your table

While that's a regrettable opinion to have, that would of course be your loss rather than mine.

Quote:
and that you shouldn't be surprised if at some point you find yourself legally correct but bereft of players should such things come to light (Rule Negative One).

Actually, I can say that with no exaggeration and complete honesty that with over 30 years of experience behind the GM screen and players both past and present flocking to my tables I would find such the circumstance of not having players wanting to run in one of my games to be highly surprising.

I say humbly that you know not with whom you speak, and for all you know you MAY actually be one of my players past or present. Just because you don't agree with something I'm saying on this website, and especially because you keep (near as I can tell, deliberately) misconstruing the implications of that thing, that you know anything else about my GMing capabilities or style.

Please take it as a learning opportunity. One can disagree with someone else and still come to some conclusion other than "You Suck, I'm Never Playing With You." That lesson has applicability that transcends this thread, but I hope it doesn't further derail it.

For my own part in derailing the thread, I'll try to atone by adding something other than die fudging:

Is dazing metamagic annoying for anyone else?

For me, it's a question of disruption. If the entire table is fine with it, then there's nothing to "fix". if the players enjoy whacking on defenseless monsters at no risk to themselves, then who is the GM to tell them they're playing wrong? And that's not sarcasm, people.

On the other hand, if one player is hogging all the glory and the other players are beginning to resent it, then there IS a problem. That's the point that dazing metamagic would have to cross for me to find it disruptive and become in need of addressing.

Taldor

Orfamay Quest wrote:
deusvult wrote:


So, going with your complaint, the rules about dice fudging and hiding the results are on pages 402 and 403-404. Despite them being there in black and white, you get to decree that it's unfair/bad faith to use said rules without warning people ahead of time?
If you're using the fudging rules to systematically nerf a particular character, it's both unfair and in bad faith.

And if you steal your players' minis when they're not looking, or break their cell phones because you think they're distracting to the game, that's also bad. But those examples of badness don't have any more relevance to the discussion than systematic fudging does. Noone is advocating that.

Yes, there are people who want to play "always let the dice fall where they may", even when it means their own characters won't get mercy. I respect that there are people who like that version of the game, and agree that if the GM has a table full of players who want that then that's what the GM should give them, even if he doesn't share their preference. Communication counts, and if the GM makes such a big mistake as misreading (or not bothering to discern) the players' tastes, the campaign is doomed for failure with or without die fudging anyway.

You don't like dice fudging? Fine, don't use it. There's another thread for house rules, there's probably already at least one for Dazing Spell fixes already. But if you want to moan about how badwrong you think the entire idea of die fudging is, please do everyone a favor and do so in another thread because your opinions don't change that it's both legal in Pathfinder AND has a long tradition going back more than thirty years in the RPG scene.

If one wants to refute the applicability of using the tactic of fudging as an answer to something being disruptive, then I invite you to reread posts from people like Teatime42 and Thac20. Consider how those rebuttals are such a far cry from promises of violence or passive aggressive behavior in response to seeing it in place, or even stubbornly sticking to the (demonstrably incorrect/ignorant) insistence that the very idea is never OK at all.

Taldor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The clerical Curse Subdomain (of Luck) is about the best save penalty ability I can think of. Barring the "roll multiple dice and take worst" abilities out there, of course.

Taldor

Bigger Club wrote:

I can't speak for anyone else. But personally the part that about your statement that I would take offense if I was at the table and GM pulled stunt like that.

1) I was not informed of fudging before hand. Now I can't speak globally but at least around these parts, in any system. It is considered massive offense in the unwrititten social rules regarding to GMing to not inform of such things before hand. You do not hide this sort of stuff.

2) It is bad GMing. Yes in this spesific case I will call bad wrong fun. It is simple instead of adressing the problem, the GM decides to negate the game part of the RPG. If the GM wants to play magical story time sure but count me out and better tell me beforehand, so I can find a GM that I wouldn't be described by words that would be censored on this site.(Granted if I was told no harm no foul.)

Persoanlly in that situation I would stand up leave and never play with that person again and made sure to tell everyone in my rpg circles of his/her dickery, so they will not have to go into that unknowingly.

I've stressed so often that noone is advocating systematic fudgery that I'll choose to assume from here on that the point has been made. Which leaves me fairly surprised at the visceral reaction to anything less than a complete adherence to the "Let the Dice Fall Where They May" school of gaming. That's what pages 402 and 403 are saying... that's a valid way to play but it's not the ONLY way to play, at least within the Pathfinder brand.

So, going with your complaint, the rules about dice fudging and hiding the results are on pages 402 and 403-404. Despite them being there in black and white, you get to decree that it's unfair/bad faith to use said rules without warning people ahead of time? That's pretty incredulous, if not arrogant. Obviously the extenstion of that position is to ask if there are any other rules GMs shouldn't use without your permission.

I presume everyone agrees that, a GM should tailor his game to suit the playstyles of his group. But there's only one veto, and it's not on the player side of the GM screen. You, sir, appear to think (real) RPGs should be run like video games.

Taldor

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
deusvult wrote:
But consider that sometimes you don't have those options. PFS GMs don't have any of those luxuries. That appears to be how we're not on the same page. I'm advocating an answer that is not dependent on "breaking" or altering any existing rules. That might not be a shared consideration.

Considering what little I know about PFS, the idea of GMs fudging the dice seems to run counter to the whole concept.

It also seems like a good reason to avoid PFS.
"Goblin walks up to the party with great cleave and rolls 20000 nat 20s in a row, so you all died, as per the rules."
"Sorry wizard all monsters will be passing their saves because I need a chance to win."

'Oh but you should only fudge in moderation!' Which means fudge only when the witch cast sleep hex or when the wizard uses dazing spell. Doesn't strike me as moderation at all.

Of course, none of those examples resemble what I was suggesting. I never even advocated fudging for EVERY dazing spell (or sleep hex). I advocated only being done to better the game. My example was when the rest of the party is visibly bored because Mr Dazing spell appears he's about to solo the Nth encounter by himself.

That situation might never happen. But if you find yourself running that table, then it's your responsibility to do something about it. If the table is cheering him on and having a blast watching it, then yeah there's no disruption to address.

Taldor

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:


You're not really advocating that though. You are saying dice cheating is the answer to dazing spell and sleep hex.

Actually, I was advocating that sometimes fudging dice is an answer. There's an important distinction. I've agreed several times now that there are indeed other options as well, and when you have a stable group, the ability to make house rules, and/or mold the plot to player choices, then yes fudging just to address disruption is not the ideal option.

But consider that sometimes you don't have those options. PFS GMs don't have any of those luxuries. That appears to be how we're not on the same page. I'm advocating an answer that is not dependent on "breaking" or altering any existing rules. That might not be a shared consideration.

Taldor

Chengar Qordath wrote:

This argument does seem to be turning into a loop of "That's bad GMing" "But the book says I can!" "It's still bad GMing" "But the book says I can!"

For what my opinion's worth, fudging is something a GM should use very sparingly, for all the reasons others have brought up. Personally, I'd be a lot more comfortable with something like the spell Undone posted, or tweaking Freedom of Movement to effect dazed as well, or any of the changes proposed to Dazing Spell. Openly house-ruling is a lot better than just fudging around the rules behind the screen.

For what your opinion is worth, how again is it different from my alleged position of "Bad GMing is Legal"? I've stressed in virtually every post that if die fudging is used, it should be used sparingly and responsibly. If your GM can't be trusted to know what is disruptive or what is responsible (or what is "beneficial to the game"), then your group suffers from more important issues than how to deal with a (possibly) disruptive ability.

There are some valid house rule suggestions, but those aren't always feasible (for example, PFS). What's perfectly legal, however, as I've said a BUNCH of times now... is.. you know.

Taldor

Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Whether or not it is legal cheating is more or less irrelevant.

Yes, it is irrelevant. If it's legal cheating, then it's not illegal cheating. And, as the rule itself says, it's better thought of as not cheating at all but "fudging".

Quote:
The GM is the rules. Nothing in the CRB is relevant without the GM saying so. While that is awesome authority, that also means the GM must own all rulings.

So we agree then that if a GM wants to not use the rule it's kosher. The problem is you're not making any sense as to why using a rule that is in the CRB is not kosher. The rule says you can do it, and all I can make of what you're saying is essentially this: "It says cheating is allowed, but cheating is against the rules, so the rule is nonsensical!" Do I understand you correctly?

Quote:
He or she does not have the privilege of blaming the developers for poor game mastery.

I'm not the one saying the rule is nonsensical. The rule is actually quite clear. It says, in other words: The GM, in stark contrast to the Players, is free to ignore or change the result of the dice whenever he feels it is beneficial for the game to do so.

You can alternately look at the rule as being a repudiation of "Let the Dice Fall Where They May" as being the only authorized way to play the game within the confines of the rules as presented.

anlashok wrote:
Yeah, not seeing how you can really argue that lying to your players about core gameplay information and intentionally sabotaging their build choices behind their back is anything approaching good or fair or reasonable.

Because, most likely, you are falling into the trap of thinking I'm saying something I'm not. The rule goes on to specify this, as I did (repeatedly) upthread. Fudging dice shouldn't be done routinely OR lightly.

Once you get past the idea that anyone (me, or the CRB) is suggesting that's how most die rolls should be handled, and you focus on the situation I was applying (where the GM believes an ability is being disruptive) it's actually an elegant, and most importantly completely within the rules answer. Yes, it's not the best answer in all cases, but in some cases, it certainly works. For example, if I'm playing at a table with someone who's soloed every fight due to some ability (be it dazing spell, sleep hex, or even a ranged full attack) and no one else got to do anything meaningful, then I'd get up and walk if the GM did NOT do something about it. I'm there to play, not just watch someone else carry the adventure.

Does that happen all the time? Even a lot of the time? Probably not. We're talking about corner cases here, not every day SOP. That's the context in which I was suggesting shutting down a dazing spell with a fudged will save. If the entire table is having a blast not being challenged, then obviously there's no need to break out page 402. If you see 1 player strutting his stuff and 5 players resenting that they don't get to do anything meaningful, then there's a problem. And fudging is one possible way to address it, at least in the short term.

Taldor

Marroar Gellantara wrote:


You referenced a rule called "cheating" to defend it as not cheating...

No, I said it was legal. If you'd like to argue that the rule itself isn't legal, I'd be amused to hear it....

Taldor

blahpers wrote:
I'm quite aware of the rule and never said that it didn't exist. I'm saying that it's a terrible rule, that the designer that printed that rule should be smacked with a wet noodle, and that the rule should be tossed in the gutter in favor of a more responsible approach. Player do not expect it to be enforced in the manner you describe; they expect it to be used exceedingly sparingly if at all, generally in order to avoid a party wipe. (I'm not in favor of even that, but at least I understand it.)

Then it sounds like you're confused about how I was advocating its use. Feel free to reread my posts.

TLDR: I only advocated its use when the GM feels the ability is being disruptive. is being disruptive. The GM isn't doing his job when he just lets disruptive stuff go on, especially if it negatively impacts everyone else at the table (apparently besides the player being disruptive)

If you can't trust your GM to make that distinction, then there are more important issues going on than what's on any given page of the rulebook.

Taldor

blahpers wrote:
deusvult wrote:

What can I say? It's explicitly legal whether you like it or not. Now that I'm home and can look at my CRB, it is indeed on page 402.

Promises of property damage over a rule one doesn't like is exactly what's wrong with the 'rules lawyer' stereotype.

Everything is explicitly legal by Rule Zero. That doesn't make you less of a jerk for doing it. I'm not the rules lawyer in this case; I'm trying (hyperbolically, I admit) to encourage being upfront about changes to the way players expect their own abilities to work so that everybody is on board for the ride instead of setting up a passive-aggressive, adversarial relationship between GM and player.

Since you appear to refuse to believe me, here's the quote:

CRB, During the Game (page 402) wrote:


Cheating and Fudging We all know that cheating is bad. But sometimes, as a GM, you might find yourself where cheating might improve the game. We prefer to call this "fudging" rather than cheating, and while you should try to avoid it when you can, you are the law in your world and you shouldn't feel bound by the dice."

It's not "rule zero", it's a bona fide rule. Quite literally spelled out in black and white. You can not like it all you want but it won't lessen its legitimacy.

Taldor

What can I say? It's explicitly legal whether you like it or not. Now that I'm home and can look at my CRB, it is indeed on page 402.

Promises of property damage over a rule one doesn't like is exactly what's wrong with the 'munchkin' stereotype you appear to be perpetrating.

Taldor

To expound on what Arachnofiend said, the race boon is applied to a character that is technically already created, but it must be the first chronicle on that character.

Boons are tradeable, but far as I know the goblin boons were only made available once and there's probably not much chance you can get your hands on one that's still available at this point.

Taldor ***

My favorite social scenario is Murder on the Throaty Mermaid, as suggested earlier.

It's not replayable which is a shame, because it has a neat Clue-like mechanic to configure who's guilty of the eponymous murder.

Taldor ***

I don't see anything wrong with correcting scenarios written for 3.5.

In fact, there are some scenarios it'd be even MORE egregious to run as written than to 'fix'. What's more badwrong? Fixing stats, or letting spiked chains still have reach?

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You could have them all beginning the campaign with a geas already placed upon them, worded in such a way to present a puzzle on how to escape w/o violating their geasa.

Taldor

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
deusvult wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
If you know how everything is going to play out, then why are the players there?
Of course the GM knows going in that the players are going to win. But if one player's character consistently steals the spotlight at the expense of the other players, that's what we GMs like to call "A Problem." And fudging dice to allow someone else to beat the monster for a change is something that I'm surprised that people are having difficulty seeing the advantage in.

There are nigh-infinite ways to address imbalance problems. Dice-fudging has to be both the worst and laziest approach.

One of which is just straight up banning the mechanic instead of deluding the players into thinking their actions have any efficacy.

Don't take this as a personal attack, because it isn't. But you do seem to be under a delusion yourself. You appear to believe that in my suggesting dice fudging as an available tool I'm advocating fugding every die roll ever. I'm rather sure if you reread my posts that's definitely not what I was saying, nor is it even reasonably construed from what I was saying. To be fair, it's not just you, but several people seem to have gotten this wrong message.

So, no, "deluding players into thinking their actions have any efficacy" isn't what I was advocating. I even pointed out the very real danger of the tactic as having an opposite effect instead of suppressing the disruptive ability.

Taldor

andreww wrote:
deusvult wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:


If you know how everything is going to play out, then why are the players there?
Of course the GM knows going in that the players are going to win. But if one player's character consistently steals the spotlight at the expense of the other players, that's what we GMs like to call "A Problem." And fudging dice to allow someone else to beat the monster for a change is something that I'm surprised that people are having difficulty seeing the advantage in.

You don't solve out of game problems with mechanics, you sit down as a sensible group of friends and discuss what is happening, whether it is a problem and if so what you as a group want to do about it.

That might mean one player scaling things back a bit, the GM changing the sorts of challenges to better engage the others or the other players stepping up a bit.

Fudging stuff behind the screen rarely actually deals with the underlying issues in my experience.

As I acknowledged earlier, yes the healthiest option for a regular group is to just make 'gentlemen's agreements' to reign in use of disruptive abilities (whatever they may be for your group). Another option is to just houserule them away.

Sometimes however, those aren't options. Perhaps you're running PFS where you have neither a consistent group of individuals nor the authority to ban/houserule disruptive abilities. In cases like that, you got good old page 402. (or 403? don't have a CRB with me atm)

Taldor

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:


If you know how everything is going to play out, then why are the players there?

Of course the GM knows going in that the players are going to win. But if one player's character consistently steals the spotlight at the expense of the other players, that's what we GMs like to call "A Problem." And fudging dice to allow someone else to beat the monster for a change is something that I'm surprised that people are having difficulty seeing the advantage in.

Taldor

blahpers wrote:
deusvult wrote:
Fudging dice can easily be misused*, but it's a legitimate strategy in the GM toolkit. If you don't like it, don't use it. But it's still there.
Great. Tell your players before the campaign starts so they have the chance to flip you the bird and walk out.

Why should one have to? It's right there on page 402-403 of the CRB. Players may not fudge dice, but the GM gets to do it whenever he feels like it.* If I don't tell you I'm NOT using that rule, then why get upset?

*= subject to the GM's own sense of telling a good story/furthering fun for the entire table. It might be one player's idea of a good time to find what breaks encounters and defeating monsters at no risk to his or her character. And it's not right for the GM to aribitrarily short-cut that player's idea of fun "Just Because". But, OTOH, it likely isn't everyone else's idea of fun to watch that first player do it so that their characters are routinely rendered moot.

Taldor

Quark Blast wrote:
boldstar wrote:
Old "Grimtooth" trap. A room with 16 foot deep plush carpet.
LOL! The Granddaddy of all Trappers.

Indeed. Pathfinder could use more of the "you die, no save" that Grimtooth epitomizes.

Taldor

Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Consider this:

Hit points are -- by definition -- partly abstract.

They don't represent how badly hurt something is, but rather how close they are to losing the fight.

So it doesn't matter in the fiction if you describe the damage as stabbing through a weak point in the armor, or even just knocking the enemy off-balance.

Lots of people play the game with the literal interpretation that losing hit points equals being physically injured. But whenever people run into cognitive dissonance with huge amounts of damage, or what AC represents, it is worth going back to the book definition of hit points.

This.

In addition to Hit Points, attacks are also highly abstracted. No, you don't "attack" once per combat round.. that's six seconds. In six seconds, you parry and probe numerous times, and even manage to have a few intentional strikes meant to kill in there as well. That's all abstracted into one "attack" per 5 points of BAB you have.

When remembering these (and other) abstractions, it's very problematic to begin to address questions like "where was the monster struck?"

Taldor

Another post supporting Color Spray. Its utility is frontloaded in the levels, to the point that it's essentially too good to not have at low levels.

It does, however, become essentially useless later on in levels (when even the mooks are immune). But in the meantime, a sorcerer will be hard pressed to find a superior option than Color Spray. And as levels accumulate and the effectiveness tapers off/becomes useless, you can trade it out for some other 1st level spell at or after 4th level.

Taldor

Fudging dice can easily be misused*, but it's a legitimate strategy in the GM toolkit. If you don't like it, don't use it. But it's still there.

*= in this case, overuse is the easiest way to misuse. Like so many fine spices, less is more.

But in a longer term view, Ravingdork has a point. if you rely solely on fudging dice to address something you don't like, you're just going to encourage the user of that thing you don't like to double down and increase the DCs. He is right that communication is still a very good idea.

In the micro view however, if a dazing spell is going to ruin an encounter, then by all means don't let it. Unless you're trying to be a killer Gm the monster is supposed to lose anyway, so if someone is butthurt over the fight lasting 2 rounds instead of one, they're the ones who need an attitude adjustment, not the GM.

Taldor

Dazing Spell has the same "cure" as the Sleep Hex:

A d20 rolled behind the GM screen whos result is ignored and counted as a "nat 20" instead.

Dazing spells only work when the GM lets it. If you think it's getting out of hand at your table, just have the monsters begin to save against it more often.

Taldor

There's a ton of abstraction in combat. Begin to de-abstractize it at your peril... it opens far too many cans of worms to be worthwhile.

If you need ideas on why you can hit Godzilla anywhere besides his toenail, just imagine that he leans down to snap at people regularly, giving opportunities to in turn be hit in places besides his toenail.

Taldor

True Neutral:

I'm willing to go to through some difficulty or to expose myself to risk to help others.... but only when it's to benefit people/places/things that I like/love. For everyone/everyplace/everything else that requires heroes or protection, that's either not my job or it requires some incentive for me to get on board."

This is neither good nor evil, but the Neutral character probably still self-identify as "good" and probably refute anyone proclaiming him otherwise.

This is neither more chaotic nor more lawful as the character is quite willing to see to the good of his community over his own interests, but only with that community he chooses to identify with and not with groups he fails/declines with which to self-identify.

Taldor ***

What was said above is correct, but there's a couple exceptions they didn't mention.

One is GM stars- you can replay (or re run) a # of scenarios for credit a # of times matching your star.* But as with repeatable modules and scenarios, the same character can never get multiple chronicles from the same module/scenario.
*= so, if you have 3 stars, you can replay 3 scenarios or 1 scenario 3 times, or some mix therein.

And the other: if you can acquire one, there are GM boons in circulation that allow you to "recharge" your GM stars and ultimately allow you to reuse your replay ability.

Taldor

Paulicus wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Paulicus wrote:

Hi all,

I've had a player in PFS bring this up a few times, though it's never been a significant factor, but I've never seen a rule on it. Here's the question:

Can a divine caster still cast spells while in possession of another deity's holy symbol?

Example: a cleric of Abadar has in his possession (not necessarily held) a holy symbol of Groetus. It could've been recovered from a cultist, found in a chest/box, or worn as part of an undercover mission. Regardless of the specific deity's, I've heard more than once that a cleric/inquisitor/other divine caster (that needs a holy symbol, at least) can't cast spells if they have a symbol of a different god in their possession. My challenge to the rule forums: find where this rule exists, or where the misconception may have come from. You have 24 hours. Good luck.

That is not a rule. I am sure that whoever told you that can't find it. :)
That's why I turned to the experts (as far as the internet goes). Again, this guy is a very competent friend of mine. Everybody makes mistakes, I know do often.

That's when you tell the guy "just because it doesn't say you CAN'T doesn't automatically mean you CAN." Just because it's PFS doesn't mean the GM's hands are tied to what's in (or omitted) from RAW. The GM can (and indeed must) still adjucate interactions not covered by the rules, for example whether a Cleric can use cleric abilities with the wrong holy symbol. What the GM says is still law.

Taldor ***

claudekennilol wrote:
What the title says. Do maps have to be "the maps" stated in the scenario or can they be equivalent? For instance, I have far more D&D tile sets than pathfinder map packs. If I can piece together something that's close for the encounter is that good enough?

Generally, yes. However that's not strictly RAW and TPTB can't publicly condone anything less than exact sameness because of a slippery slope.

There are some non-golem'd folks who insist everything must be completely RAW and would rather see maps penciled down on paper than something else that doesn't exactly match.

Whether they're contrary on the forums just to be trolls or whether they'd actually put up a fuss in person might remain to be seen. About 99% of the forumites appear to be in support of a cool-looking map that doesn't exactly match, so long as it doesn't change the mechanics of the encounter. And in my experience (3+ years of PFS) that number goes to 100% support when actually at the table in person.

Taldor

The level two Order of the Lion Cavalier ability is pretty close.

Taldor ***

I'm not going to go to any lengths to defend the RAW IS LAW view since I'm also voicing my disagreement with it, but it's good to see that there are others (at least in this thread) who believe there should be allowable exceptions.

Taldor ***

TriOmegaZero wrote:
deusvult wrote:
He wasn't happy, but the rules lawyers of PFS surely will rejoice at hearing about our pain at having gone through the rules dispute.
You brought it upon yourself. ;)

In this case, you're absolutely right.

Taldor ***

TOZ wrote:
deusvult wrote:
I agree, but a total ban on adding anything statwise is what's RAW. Windows have stats
They DO?! o.O

I actually had your name in there as the posterboy for RAW trumping common sense in all ways at all times, then edited it out so as not to conjure you. But since you're here anyway, I'll just throw that little behind-the-scenes fact out there.

Welcome to the discussion.

Taldor ***

BigNorseWolf wrote:
deusvult wrote:
By RAW, a GM can't even provide a window for players break through to bypass a door they can't unlock/break down.

If a DM cannot adjudicate something as simple as a door they don't have stats for, they shouldn't DM.

I agree, but a total ban on adding anything statwise is what's RAW. Windows have stats, and if you share the RAW IS LAW view, then you can't even do that.

I'd say there is some vague line somewhere between RAW and coming up with grudge monsters, but that's not strictly legal and is theoretically badwrong.

Quote:
The creative solutions section of the guide is also raw.

And to use the rest of RAW, the only creative solutions that can be done are to avoid encounters... not to have new unpublished encounters.

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Why do scenarios 'railroad' players into specific actions or situations with no alternatives?

The legitimacy of the presumption in the OP is debated upthread.

Rather than adding to that train of thought, I'll add another one entirely: PFS doesn't allow for modifying (much less outright creating) encounters.

PFS scenarios, even the sandbox-y ones, are inherently railroad-y because it's PFS. The GM can't just go making up encounters to deal with out of the box solutions players might come up with. A GM can delete encounters due to clever actions that would bypass those encounters, but there's no allowance for creating encounters to permit players to pursue a path not covered by the scenario.

By RAW, a GM can't even provide a window for players break through to bypass a door they can't unlock/break down. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is a discussion worthy of another thread, but for this thread just know that's how RAW goes, and quite a few PFS people insist RAW trumps common sense in all ways at all times and have correspondingly little tolerance for 'creative solutions' from a meta perspective.

Unless/until that changes (not that I'm arguing it should, mind you), every PFS scenario is necessarily a railroad because you're simply not allowed to not railroad. Consider it an unavoidable downside of the nature of organized play.

Taldor ***

When I ran this I had a sound striker bard pre-roll his 8 or 9 attacks on the troop, all ready to go to remind me that these attacks are treated as weapon damage effects which will affect troops.

I ended up having to have a rules argument (not the same thing as a discussion) about troops being flat out immune to effects that affect a specific number of targets, just like swarms are. I was prepared to 'bend the rules' and treat his prolific number of sound strikes he could perform as an AOE rather than strictly by RAW as attacks on discrete targets. He didn't want to do only 1 attack's worth of damage, not even with the +50% adjustment, so I ended up having to not let him use the ability on the troop at all. He wasn't happy, but the rules lawyers of PFS surely will rejoice at hearing about our pain at having gone through the rules dispute.

Taldor

The Genie wrote:


But Extra Grit does this with without needing to add that the benefit increases by 2 every time it is taken. They have dang near the same wording till that last section. (The special notation not withstanding)

We agree that the game police won't come and arrest you for playing the feat where it modifies itself each time you take it. That reading is internally logical, even if I personally believe that it's a less plausible reading than another option.

Hopefully you can also agree that if you come across a GM who doesn't share your opinion that you don't get to brow beat him until he "sees it your way".

Taldor

A factoid is a statement presented as truth but is actually false.

What truth is then held in a false factoid? There's likely more irony in the thread title than is realized by most participants :)

1 to 50 of 886 << 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.