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. 910 posts (1,067 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 18 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 910 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Zhayne wrote:
Phasics wrote:


If you could change one thing about the Rogue what would it be.

Its existence.

Remove it from reality, replace it with the Slayer retroactively.

Despite the pooh-poohs this comment has received, I agree wholeheartedly.

Much like the PrCs in the CRB, the Rogue is a relic of 3.5 that unfortunately hasn't aged well/remained relevant.

The slayer is what a combat oriented rogue should have been all along. Currently, the rogue class is deadwood. The only point in playing one is to do a slayer/investigator multiclass without the pain of multiclassing.

Rogues aren't thus COMPLETELY pointless, but that's not much of a reason for the class to continue to receive time & energy from Paizo. It'd be far easier to just rename either investigator or slayer to "Rogue" in order to honor the legacy of continuity the class.

Sovereign Court ***

Bali wrote:

The one issue I would see with allowing a party to drop into initiative at any time (which was my first thought on how to handle this kind of situation) is that it would negate the party every being flat footed or surprised (since initiative would have already been in place).

I'd thought there was a section discussing new combatants entering an ongoing battle but either I just can't find it or I'm thinking of another system/version.

I make players at my PFS games roll initiative right after character introductions. They've rolled initiative before they've even gotten their VC briefing, so if one is going to insist that the act of a d20 being rolled for initiative "starts the combat music" then my players routinely spend their first few hours/days/weeks of legwork and travel "in combat".

No, I wouldn't say they're avoiding being flat-footed for when an inevitable battle takes place. In my view, flat-footedness is linked to whether or not you're aware you're in danger rather to whether or not an initiative roll has been made.

It's all about that awareness, if the players get "a bad feeling" that somethings about to attack them, and I have forgotten to have them pre-roll their initiatives, I'd let them do so on the spot. But they're still flatfooted if they're surprised by some attack (despite their precautions)

To link it back to the readied actions and doors discussion, yeah I'd totally allow the players (or the monsters) to 'enter combat' and ready actions if they hear someone trying to get through the door. That's the key, they have to know someone is coming. You don't go on overwatch indefinitely. And yes, that means the ambushers aren't flat-footed, even if beaten on initiative. They've already acted for the last X rounds, delaying/readying all the while. (of course, to be clear, if the door scratchings was a distraction and the enemy pops in from somewhere else, there IS still the potential for the would-be-ambushers to be surprised/flat-footed.)

Sovereign Court ***

thejeff wrote:
Apparently they have to roll initiative at the start of the fight between A&B, since they might get involved in it.

What if they decide not to? What if they're not even in the vicinity when it began? The rules for what can happen in 6 seconds don't change because metaphysically some d20 dropped and a godlike being called a GM announced it's for an initiative roll. The entire adventuring day can broken down into 6 second increments, but initiative is only rolled for handling the order in which people act for very small smidgens of that time.

Crisis situations should often (arguably always, if actions on the 6 second scale are meaningful) use initiative. Fighting spreading fires, negotiating an obstacle, swimming across a hazard, helping an ally succumbing to a fast acting (1 round) poison, etc, are all crises that aren't "combat" yet all CAN be resolved in initiative order.

Just because the rules for combat saying it starts with an initiative roll doesn't mean initiative rolls are impossible for crises that don't involve someone trying to kill you.

Sovereign Court ***

claudekennilol wrote:


I'm not aware of any other place in the rules on how to start initiative, can you show me where it is?

That's besides the point. You said that:

Quote:
At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check.

means effectively:

Quote:
You can't go into initiative outside of combat.

I pointed out the logical flaw. Just because there aren't formal rules about using initiative for times other than when someone is trying to kill you doesn't mean your logic isn't flawed.

If you don't see the flaw, I'll point it out again.

2 parties fighting. 3rd party joins the fight after that fight begins. In light of those actions of the 3rd party prior to entering the fight there is either there's a paradox that annihilates the preexisting fight when the 3rd party joins the preexisting fight, or the actions of the 3rd party can happen inside initiative order but outside of (their own) combat.

In order for a 3rd party to join a fight after the fight has begun, its actions have to be tracked in initiative order before it enters the fight. Those actions may be pre-combat buffs, overcoming an obstacle like opening a door, whatever. But despite the 3rd party not (yet) "being in combat", they're very much in initiative order.

Sovereign Court ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
claudekennilol wrote:


PRD, CRB, Combat wrote:

Initiative

At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check.
You can't go into initiative outside of combat.

Actually, that's not what that means.

What that means is you can't go into combat without an initiative roll.

That's a fairly important distinction, since you appear to be saying combat can't happen until after initiative rolls happen.

That's demonstrably not the case. Example:

Party A and Party B are fighting. Party C is in the next room attempting to gain access into the room in which parties A and B are fighting. All Party C is doing at this point is attempting to open a door.

While Party C is attempting to gain access, some of Party A decides to go on overwatch and thump whoever is coming in through the door. This is completely within the rules, and combat doesn't "reset" just because party C has joined the combat. Party C is just rolled into the preexisting combat.

Some appear to be arguing that characters in Party A cannot have overwatch going on while party C is attempting to open the door unless Party B is also there fighting them. That's obviously ridiculous.

So, if one is going to stick literally to the rule that readied actions cannot happen "outside of combat", then what is "combat" must include a very broad definition that is more akin to "crisis situation". And that's not opinion, that's really a Must.

Sovereign Court ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I ran Paths We Choose for a party that was all 7th levels, with one 3rd level Magus who was an (ex) Scarnzi.

The poor 3rd level magus was thrust into the Exchange's faction quest geared to challenge the 7th levels. Not only did he survive, he shone.

Being the only player who's character was in that faction(s), the other players took the opportunity to zone out and let him struggle through the puzzle to find Gueril.

Once they did locate the ambush, he won initiative and was the first to escape the rowboat and get aboard the shipwreck to join Gueril's side. The devilfish went next, and stymied the rest of the party from immediately joining him.

Thanks to the programmed tactics, the NPCs ignored the level 3 and focused on Gueril, eventually dropping him. But by then the rest of the team began to get aboard, and proved much more dangerous than the magus and drew attention.

It still took the magus' player to coordinate the team (focus on the $%^& damn caster, people!) to turn the tide, all while he kept reviving Guaril and subsequently peeling assassins back to re-knock the scarnzi faction head below zero HP.. and staying close enough to prevent cheapshot coup-de-grace's (or rolling him overboard into the water to drown)

The magus even kill-stole the doomspeaker with a chintzy ranged hit (after the 2 zen-archer monks did the heavy lifting) and then bravely provoked an AoO from the last assassin in a futile attempt to grapple him and prevent an apparently coming suicide CDG. But eating the AoO allowed Guaril (who was delaying at that point, prone, weaponless, and staggered at 0 HP) to snatch back up his dagger and do an attack from the ground while benefitting from flank from the magus' position after surviving his brave grapple attempt.

TL;DR: Level 3 magus not only survived the high tier Exchange encounter in Paths We Choose, he was an MVP. And I wasn't even pulling punches on him, either.

Sovereign Court ***

O.J. Pinckert wrote:

I'm preparing to run HotFE, and in the Cannibal Castaways encounter there is the opportunity for the PCs to converse with the Kuru Barbarians. It states that there is a -8 penalty on the Diplomacy check if they are unable to speak Kuru.

This is the first time that I've heard of this language. Is it a dialect of another language? (Perhaps Polyglot?)

Given that this is a low level game, it seems like a significant penalty for a language that the PCs are unlikely to know.

I'm thinking of allowing the players to try using Polyglot in place of it with only a -2 penalty. What does everyone else think?

Even higher level characters are virtually guaranteed not to speak Kuru.

However, Comprehend Languages is a first level spell and can, if used, allow the lowest levels of parties some chance to negotiate. (with the -8 penalty if they only understand it but can't speak it, as with Comp. langs)

So, no. I would not allow a substitution for Polyglot. I don't recall if the text allows for a sense motive to realize the cannibals can be reasoned with after the link is down, but that is something I'd probably allow if it isn't there.

Sovereign Court

The slayer outdoes the combat role of a rogue.
The investigator outdoes the rest of the roles for a rogue.

The existence of those two classes leaves the rogue obsolete. It's bandied and trite, but it's true. The class now exists to fill a niche 'between' investigators and slayers, and there's "not a lot of there there". Whenever Pathfinder 2.0 comes about, the rogue should probably be retired (or have investigator and/or slayer renamed to "Rogue" to provide that nod of continuity through the editions)

Sovereign Court ***

Readied actions outside of combat:

There's nothing stopping the GM from saying the NPCs (or PCs, for that matter) are "in combat" even though there's not yet any opposition.

It's not an alien concept. Actions can (and IMO, should) be done "in combat" when they are time critical, like fighting fires or seeing if you win the race in stabilizing your buddy before he dies.

So, along those lines, if someone opens a door, there's no reason to say the people (again, NPC or PC) on the other side can't have readied actions all set to go. Those people behind the door were already in combat, and they were simply delaying/readying until the door openers joined that combat.

Sovereign Court

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Quote:
We're disagreeing over whether the stats are intended to be absolute except for a couple of cases, or whether the stats are intended to be mainly relative. I'm arguing the latter. If you reject that and insist the former is the case, then we can agree to disagree.
This is the rules forum, not a discussion of our respective houserules. In the rules, Intelligence is an absolute scale of intellectual capacity. Animals are intelligence 1 or 2. A human whose intelligence has been drained to 1 or 2 should behave like an animal, because he has the intellectual ability of an animal. He should drop his weapons and tools or use them poorly, be unable to speak, attack opponents at random or based on which one hurt him most recently, and so on. (It doesn't say this in the rules, specifically -- I'm just giving an example of how I play NPCs of animal intelligence. However you play NPCs of animal intelligence, is the way a human drained to 1 or 2 Int should be played.) A magical beast with an 18 intelligence should have the same cognitive ability as an 18 intelligence elf wizard, and may be better than the wizard at some skills. Said magical beast may think very differently than the wizard, certainly, but is no worse or better at thinking than the elf.

It's not a discussion about houserules. At least, I wasn't having one. (I couldn't help but notice that despite your own insistence the discussion not be about houserules, you state your own) I for one was having a discussion about the meta assumptions behind the rules governing attributes.

CRB wrote:
Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons. This ability is important for wizards because it affects their spellcasting ability in many ways. Creatures of animal-level instinct have Intelligence scores of 1 or 2. Any creature capable of understanding speech has a score of at least 3.
Quote:
There is nothing there that even hints at intelligence being relative. You made the analogy with strength, earlier, and the problem with that analogy is that strength is explicitly stated as being relative to size and number of legs in regards to carrying capacity. Without that explicit rule, we would conclude that an 18 strength halfling (presumably with a belt of strength or level 8 or higher) could carry more than a horse with...

Since we can agree that strength has unassailable exceptions to the absolute values of strength ratings, let's look at that. Are those exceptions nothing more than outliers that violate the paradigm of otherwise absolute values? Or are they inevitable examples of how attribute values can mean subtly different things in different contexts?

Obviously, you say the former. I'd like to think that I've been clear enough that it's just as obvious that I'm saying the latter.

Sovereign Court

The rider is considered to be in all the squares his mount is in, so saying one is "adjacent" to one's own mount is dubious.

The language isn't as mount-friendly as Escape Route, and lots of GMs won't even let that work.

Sovereign Court

blackbloodtroll wrote:

PFS clarifications are not valuable insights into the writer's mind.

PFS clarifications are designed with Organized Play in mind, which may never enter any writer's mind.

Those are not relevant.

If you want to put your head in the sand, go ahead. But that particular ruling can hardly be put in the same category of "No crafting in PFS".

If you don't like that example because it's PFS, consider your own example. The Awaken spell does not allow smart animals; they must change to magical beasts for the spell to work from a meta-rules view.

Quote:

Worse, you still ignore the share experiences, feelings, and thoughts, that the the Wizard and Familiar have.

The Familiar isn't just smart, he has the perspective of a different creature to call upon.

I ignored no such thing. I think you probably missed that I said I agreed it makes sense that a familiar would wake his master after he succumbed to a sleep spell.

I said that the familiar, possessing an essentially alien mind, is going to sometimes do things that the player might think is stupid. The example I gave is the potential (not likelihood, POTENTIAL) for a familiar to mischaracterize a non-dangerous situation as dangerous, or a dangerous situation as non-dangerous and erroneously wake up the wizard, or fail to wake up the wizard.

To go back to the OP: We're answering two different questions.

CAN the familiar wake up the wizard? We all seem to agree yes. But I'm answering:

WILL IT ALWAYS wake up the wizard? I say nope. Sometimes It's gonna think the wizard is better off asleep, no matter what the player wants. No matter how much exposure it has to the human mind. Just as a magical beast's mind is alien to a humanoid, a humanoid's is alien to a magical beast.

Sovereign Court

Gwen Smith wrote:
Where exactly is "that rule for animal companions" that you keep referring to?

Here.

Paladin of Baha-who wrote:
This ridiculous idea that a 10 Int Magical Beast is somehow not as smart as a 10 Int human is simply unsupported by anything in the rules, the setting, or anything anyone has said on the boards.

We're using "smart" in different ways. I think you'd agree that creatures as different as humans and pegasi/sphinxes/etc have very different minds? Even when having identical game stats in Int/Wis/Cha, they might do things that they consider quite reasonable that the other would deem stupid.

I've never said ignore Int/Wis/Cha and take creature type as the primary factor in smartness. I'd appreciate it if you didn't pretend I did.

Quote:
Deusvult, if this is something you run in your home games, that's fine, but it is not part of the rules. A 10 Int familiar is just as capable of cognition, planning, and problem solving as a 10 Int human, and will actually have more intellectual resources at its command because of sharing skill ranks with its wizard (or whatever). If a fighter with 7 Int can figure out she needs to wake up the party wizard when he falls asleep in battle, so can the wizard's familiar, especially if they've talked about that contingency beforehand.

The rules I've pointed out are very much a part of the rules. (quibble: Possibly excluding PFS clarifications, although they're valuable as insight to the writers' minds)

We're disagreeing over whether the stats are intended to be absolute except for a couple of cases, or whether the stats are intended to be mainly relative. I'm arguing the latter. If you reject that and insist the former is the case, then we can agree to disagree.

Sovereign Court

blackbloodtroll wrote:
So, no matter how high all your mental scores are, you are still "dumb", unless you have the right creature type?

I didn't say that and I have to assume you both know it and are deliberately trying to pick an argument. In case I'm wrong, here's the explanation again.

Yes, the stats (Int, Wis, AND Cha) all represent the smartness of a critter. However, they are not the SOLE considerations. I gave examples upthread where, for example, creature type can trump a stat value.

Quote:
How do Awakened animals work?

I assume we both know what the rules say.

I will point out that per the spell, the creature type changes. Why would it, if it were not important?

Quote:


Where is the rules for this "always dumb" clause?

Admittedly, in PFS. If you don't play PFS, you don't need to worry about it. Although, putting one's head in the sand about what the authors intended doesn't make me wrong.

Sovereign Court

Zhangar wrote:


The familiar not only recognizes that the master just feel asleep mid-combat and would be worried about it, it quite possibly recognizes that a sleep spell got cast, knows what the sleep spell actually does, and how to specifically deal with it, because that familiar has a spellcraft check.

That's one scenario, and personally I wouldn't quibble with it.

What about another completely different scenario:

Big dumb fighter and Bigger, dumber barbarian are having a disagreement at 2 am about who's turn it is to take watch. Being fighters and barbarians, they don't mind a little fisticuffs to make their points. Does the familiar wake the wizard, especially considering the risk to the master of not gaining enough sleep to regain spells?

The familiar might wake up the wizard even if the player wouldn't have wanted it. Maybe a bona fide fight does break out, and the familiar mistakes it for squabbling. I'm saying, that as a magical beast, its worldviews are inherently different than a humanoid's. It's fundamentally prone to misinterpreting such scenarios. How often? Well, that's up to the GM.

claudekennilol wrote:
I think that disproves what you're saying enough right there. Nowhere does it say that for familiars.

You're a step behind. I'm not saying familiars are animals. I'm saying there's more to "smartness" than Intelligence (and Wisdom/Charisma) stat values. Creature type is one such factor that also must be considered. Animal, Magical Beast. What do they have in common? They're both "other than humanoid". It can matter. Won't always, but Can.

Sovereign Court

claudekennilol wrote:
deusvult wrote:
My point (largely missed, it seems) is that measuring smartness solely by the intelligence attribute value is a fallacy.
But you're making generalizations and assumptions based on one set of rules. Yes--size and legs makes a difference for carrying capacity based off of strength. Are there any examples of that elsewhere at all for mental abilities?

Well, right off the top of my head, there's that rule for animal companions about still being "dumb as an animal" even if you do pump their intelligence up as they level up.

So yeah, if you pump up your AC to 3 or 4 intelligence, it's still not as smart as a humanoid (N)PC with 1 or 2 intelligence.

Sovereign Court

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Are we basing this on type?

To oversimplify down into a single word: yes.

More to the point: Magical Beasts are, as I said, at best *arguably* dumb critters. Obviously it depends on the magical beast. My point wasn't about whether or not the familiar is dumber or smarter than the fighter. Not that it's relevant to what I was saying, but to avoid confusion I'll state that yes, familiars are "fluffed" as being particularly clever critters. As are sphinxes.

My point (largely missed, it seems) is that measuring smartness solely by the intelligence attribute value is a fallacy.* Quite to the point of the discussion at hand however, is that while familiars may have the intelligence and ability to wake a sleeping wizard, they may very well lack the wherewithal to realize that's what the (player) would want. Familiars are, in effect, alien intelligences as we (the real world people) would define them. They ARE still magical beasts, so that doesn't mean that they'd perceive threats the way a humanoid might. Would the master want to be woken up for every little disturbance? A magical beast (familiar) isn't guaranteed to answer that question the same way a humanoid (porter hireling) would.

*= Actually, that's so true on several levels. Obviously Wisdom and Charisma also have a ton to do with a character's "smartness". In fact, when it comes to "realizing what is the best thing to do", I'd argue that Wisdom is the relevant stat. But that's a chain of discussion not along the lines of what I've been talking about. I meant looking at the attribute(s) values out of context.

Sovereign Court

Val'bryn2 wrote:
Why does the familiar need to be trained? After a certain point, relatively early on, there is a very real chance that the familiar is smarter than the fighter, so do we require the fighter to be trained to wake someone up?

The problem is that Pathfinder *apparently* makes the attributes absolute. Such as, 18 strength means more physical power than 17 strength in all cases and all times. 6 intelligence must obviously involve more cognition than 5 intelligence, right?

Wrong. That's just a faulty impression. Understandably made, granted, but still faulty.

A small sized Halfling with 18 strength still doesn't have the raw power that a large sized horse does at 17 strength, despite having a +4 to his damage bonus rather than a +3. The proof is right there in the carrying capacity rules.

Likewise, an animal (and arguably, a magical beast) with X intelligence is still "just" an animal. It'll never be as smart as a human, no matter how big and dumb he may be.

Sovereign Court

The retraining rules in Ultimate Campaign might be of interest to the OP as well. They can be reviewed in the PRD, and the way they're modified in implementation for PFS is also freely available in the Guide.

It doesn't cost a lot of gold, and the in-universe time investment is moot since PFS already has infinite/undefined time between adventures anyway. The real biting cost for PFS is the Prestige required. At 4 scenarios, the retraining available is going to be limited. But my point is, with the prestige earned in 4 scenarios, there might be some viable options.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gulian wrote:

Why not? You conjure positive energy from the positive energy plane.

Necromancy is the magic involving life and death.

That's pretty much a slam dunk case for healing being necromancy. "White" necromancy as opposed to EEEvil Black Necromancy, to be sure. But still necromancy.

It's bizarre that PF has cure spells as conjuration. One might even accuse Pazio's developers of having made a mistake.

Sovereign Court

Something that has changed for 80s era GMs to keep in mind of in tastes particular to Pathfinder is the game is less about "GM, May I?" and more about "GM, this is what I'm doing."

It's a paradigm distinction modern players likely won't even understand if they didn't play back when you used to. But it's one you'll have to adapt to (for Pathfinder, at any rate).

Sovereign Court ***

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
silverace99 wrote:

I can easily see why replay would be not allowed normally. What has really bothered me is the insistence that GM's who put in all those hours and money to make PFS a success only get one replay per star per LIFETIME.

I hardly think GM's being able to replay on average a couple scenarios a year would ruin Pathfinder Society. I sincerely hope that was discussed in your meetings and that something will be done about it eventually.

That's why they made the Expanded Narrative boon to recharge replays once per year.

Actually, I'd sooner believe that the reason they made the Expanded Narrative boon was to provide a temporary Band-Aid for the problem, not to solve it.

I'm quite curious to see what new replay options come to light. I'd be rather disappointed if none do.

Sovereign Court ***

I make it part of my personal introduction at a PFS table when I GM that my conditions for players playing with foreknowledge is that they are not allowed to suggest courses of action, and if directly solicited for opinions on proposed actions then they are required to have either no opinion or to prefer the option that is already supported by a majority of "unsullied" players. That way they don't spoil the plot and the other players know not to bother trying to get them to spoil the plot.

Those are my terms to play at my table when you have foreknowledge of the scenario. I wouldn't kick someone off the table for a slipup and accidentally blurting something relevant, but if I get the idea that someone is displaying foreknowledge and lied about not having it, I'd have no qualms about booting the player. The rules would back me up if I were to do so.

Season Six Guide to Organized Play, page 20 wrote:


If you spoil the plot for the table, the GM has the right
to ask you to leave the table.

Sovereign Court

Solid information pdf has solid information.

be sure to read up on the fame rub.

Sovereign Court ***

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!

Sovereign Court

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.

Sovereign Court

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.

Sovereign Court ***

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.

Sovereign Court

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.

Sovereign Court

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.

Sovereign Court

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.

Sovereign Court

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".

Sovereign Court

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.

Sovereign Court ***

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..

Sovereign Court

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.

Sovereign Court

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.

Sovereign Court

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.

Sovereign Court

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.

Sovereign Court

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.

Sovereign Court

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.

Sovereign Court

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.

Sovereign Court

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.

Sovereign Court

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.

Sovereign Court

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....

Sovereign Court

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.

Sovereign Court

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.

Sovereign Court

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.

Sovereign Court

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.

Sovereign Court ***

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.

Sovereign Court ***

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?

1 to 50 of 910 << 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.