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

nosig's page

FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 8,370 posts (9,464 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 33 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 1,033 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I need BNW to chime in on this thread so I can figure out what my opinion should be...

Sovereign Court ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

you know, I've read several posters reference "...Those who don't need equipment..." implying that Martial PCs need more equipment - and thus more money. ????

is it just that they haven't run non-martial PCs?

Just because I run a bard, doesn't mean I don't need an AC boosting item. In fact, getting my AC up is often harder (and more expensive) than that of the PC who can use better armor.

Just because I run a Cleric, doesn't mean I need LESS equipment, or cheaper equipment.

Just because I run a Wizard (or other unarmored spell caster) doesn't mean I don't need items to improve my combat performance.

and I'm getting a bit miffed when people just off-handedly assume that my PC "...should pick up the greater share of consumable costs, to justify getting an equal share of the loot." just because she doesn't "swing a big sword"...

Sorry if that offends you - but I find that view kind of elitist... "Us nobles deserve better armor, we're more important than those peasants...". Maybe I'm showing my Andoran (something I didn't realize I had in me).

The Exchange ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I can see both sides of this.

(The following is the pessimist in me coming out - seeing the potential bad parts of such a change).

I also realize that there are people in this game who feel that everything players can do in game should be splint into "Prohibited" & "Required" categories. "If it's not Required, then we need to Prohibit it." Sometimes I call them Type 1 gamers.

I often run alchemists who hand out LOTS of consumables. It's kind of a trademark of mine. I've even printed up cards (business card size) of several different types to hand out to other players. For example, my current "Crawl Pack" has a vial of Anti-Toxin, Anti-Plague, Sooth Syrup, Stillgut, as well as a pot of Alchemical Grease and a dose of Vermin Repellent. Each item has a couple lines discribing it's effects and a check box. After the game, I collect back the cards and mark off anything used... The total pack would cost 185gp, but as I'm an alchemist able to craft all that (DC25 for the hardest), I craft the entire pack at one third cost.

Players that game with me have started calling them "party favors". Players give me the cards back at games end and that way I have a list of what got used. (I've even encountered other players doing the same thing! Talk about a complement!)

Just before starting a "crawl", I'll often (in Character) instruct everyone to pull the "crawl pack" (not the grenade pack, the other card) and "drink the first three, and smear the last two over your body, put the 4th in a spring wrist sheath." This leads to the expected comments about "lube" and "oiling up" etc. Sometimes, when fighting a monster my Alchemist (who just made a Knowledge check) will yell something like "The Blue Bottle from the Grenade Pack! Hit it with the Blue Bottle T.S.!"

Every now and again, it means I get to point out "hay T.S., did you count the +5 alchemical bonus on that save?"... Sometimes it saves lives, or keeps someone in the fight...

(And I get to call everyone by the same first name..."T.S., for Test Subject") -

This is a fun thing that I like to do for my party - and it allows me to "Buff" in a unique way...
But I can see a New Rule that would REQUIRE the other players to re-pay me for my items - at the full cost to them. Even if it isn't written in the rules, I can see some judges requiring it (after all, what isn't prohibited is compulsory). Yeah, that's going to be fun....(sorry about the sarcasm)

Should we be allowed to replace something someone used for us? Yeah, that would be nice. I just fear it becoming REQUIRED (even if it's just required by "social pressure" from the group).

Silver Crusade ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Low CON player races in PFS?"

Most of the players I've seen in PFS are human - there was that one guy at GenCON a few years back... But I'm pretty sure he was human...

Wait... Were you asking about PCs races or Player races? Never mind then....

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Bah. No one plays rogues.

What? You don't see us? Guess you don't have enough ranks in perception then... (Wink!)

Scarab Sages ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Kitty Catoblepas wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
Kitty Catoblepas wrote:



  • There's a good chance that an Aboleth can't tell a human from a Pit Fiend... or an Aboleth.

    Ehh the DC to recognize common things like humans and orcs are 5. The int modifier is enough to get that. DC 10 or less can be untrained.

Ehh the DC to recognize common things like humans and orcs are 5. The int modifier is enough to get that. DC 10 or less can be untrained.

Depends on whether the human/orc is under level 7 and/or a common creature from where the skill checker comes.

Also, your average Orc gets a -2 to his knowledge roll, identifying your average Orc on a roll of 7 or higher. Of course, this is consistent with how Orcs are usually portrayed.

Well, high CRs due to levels aren't really handled properly.

<Rolls 9 on Knowledge(local): "Well, the militiamen are human and their sergeants are too, but I've got no idea what race the lieutenants and captains are, even though they look just the same."

that's because Talden noblemen are clearly a different race! ;)

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Finlanderboy wrote:
Kitty Catoblepas wrote:

I like it when RAW gets silly like this.


  • 20% of humans have no idea what dogs are.

  • If you have ranks in Survival, but not Knowledge: Nature, you can avoid hazards, but not identify them.
    Guide: We should walk 10 feet to the left! I have no idea why!

  • Orcs may attack a 6th-level (5CR) elf on sight, but not a 7th-level elf, whom they cannot identify. 30% of orcs have no idea what orcs are.

  • Neither a Balor nor Pit Fiend can tell a human from an aboleth (no ranks in Kno:Local or Kno:Dungeoneering). A Pit Fiend cannot remember the carnage that he has caused (no ranks in Kno: History).
    Pit Fiend: You... things... can feel my wrath just as your ancestors... may have the last time I... did... something!
    Player: We're Aboleths. We're eternal.
    Pit Fiend: ...I have no way of verifying that.

  • There's a good chance that an Aboleth can't tell a human from a Pit Fiend... or an Aboleth.

Ehh the DC to recognize common things like humans and orcs are 5. The int modifier is enough to get that. DC 10 or less can be untrained.

only if the judge doesn't default everything to 10 + CR, which many do. and even then only humans count as common - and to an aboleth? maybe they aren't.... guess we'll have to check with the list - wait, we don't have a list...

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

The problem being that one decayed human corpse looks rather like another. is it ghoul, a ghast, a vampire, a fresh zombie, an animated skeletal golem in a meat suit?

a) "This humanoid creature has long, sharp teeth, and its pallid flesh is stretched tightly over its starved frame."

b) "This walking corpse wears only a few soiled rags, its flesh rotting off its bones as it stumbles forward, arms outstretched."

c) "This alluring, raven-haired beauty casually wipes a trickle of blood from a pale cheek, then smiles to reveal needle-sharp fangs."

d) "A hideous monstrosity crafted from body parts stitched together with thick string, wire, and metal staples lurches to horrific life."

yep... easy to mix these up.

But almost all are effected by holy water. Which your PC doesn't know if he doesn't a skill point have Kn: Religion - At least at some tables. "Knowledge checks = table variation"

edit: like I said above, "...there is so much variation here I don't even know how to address this. And I have no idea how to fix this. (so the following is mostly just venting... )". This entire thread is mostly venting... which can be good sometimes.

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Knowledge checks = table variation

there is so much variation here I don't even know how to address this. And I have no idea how to fix this. (so the following is mostly just venting - skip it if you like).

I normally say: "I've got an XX, what's the most important thing for me to know?"

Many judges figure I am trying to pull something... when all I am doing is trying to NOT make this a game of Player Vs. Judge where the judge makes me create questions depending on what I as a player know about the monster, while he tries to conceal anything I might get wrong... in other words a Meta-Game Game. Please, just tell me what my PC knows, so I know how to run him for you...

I personally know a lot of important "bits" about Flesh Golems. I can recognize them from their description.... but my wife can't. She has no idea. "Frankenstein's Monster" doesn't mean much to her (she grew up in a different culture - different myths). So, her "questions" are going to be very different from mine. Then add in the judges who give "limited response" answers and we see how useless it is to put points into knowledge skills at some tables.

Player: "I got a 36 on the knowledge check. How many questions do I get?"
Judge: "Three. And that's one question, so two more."

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Da Brain wrote:

- I glance at my Chronicles and see that he played The Confirmation... which MIGHT have a swarm of spiders in it. So he might have fought them before... with someone who would have told him how to fight them...

So, am I meta-gaming if I pull my flask of Alchemist fire and throw it at the swarm? Am I "reverse-meta-gaming" if I DON'T?

If you, the player, can't remember what your character did or did not do, then you should error on the side of conservatism and assume you didn't learn it, or your character has forgotten what exactly happened during the encounter. After all, PFS operates on the honor system and players should not try to exploit that.

The GM should not give a player info unless the character rolls the appropriate K. check. Whether or not your character would have remembered how to fight swarms or whether your character actually learned how to fight swarms is unknowable by the GM. If the player cannot recall such information unassisted, the GM should not provide it.

LOL! But I know what to do - did I learn it when I played that scenario? or when I played another? or when I RAN that scenario?

If I "should error on the side of conservatism and assume you didn't learn it" - then we can assume that I only know it if I happen to roll it. But if I actually never learned it, and it's all new to me, but I do happen to roll it (this time), then it's ok to assume I did learn it... at least until I have to roll it again and then miss it. At which point I never learned it...

But then, if I DO remember fighting swarms (with this PC), then it is ok to assume that my PC learned the things I, personally, know?

wow... my head is starting to hurt....

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Da Brain wrote:
Jason S wrote:
Z...D... wrote:
But if you fought something before, how would you magically forget that you fought it and forget important things such as, I don't know, what it's weaknesses are?

Your GM is correct, but he should have given you a bonus on the roll (honor system). Just because you remember doesn't mean your PC remembers.

Having said that, the Pathfinder Knowledge skills in general need to be streamlined and simplified more.

(Bolding mine) Wait, what if my PC remembers the monster, but I (the player) doesn't?

I mean, my PC has a photographic memory (mind chemist), but I don't. What if I fought the creature last adventure for the PC - but that was a year of real time for my less than photographic player memory. Can I get information about the beast - if I don't actually know I have encountered it before (but my PC would?)

let's take this even a step farther. Let's set up the situation

- The party encounters a Swarm of spiders.

- Initiative is rolled and I go first.

- My PC has no ranks in the required knowledge skill. (Kn: Nature?)

- I have no memory if my PC has encountered swarms before... it's been a long time sense I played him and I'm older than I once was (and I have a lot of PCs to try to keep strait...)

- I glance at my Chronicles and see that he played The Confirmation... which MIGHT have a swarm of spiders in it. So he might have fought them before... with someone who would have told him how to fight them...

So, am I meta-gaming if I pull my flask of Alchemist fire and throw it at the swarm? Am I "reverse-meta-gaming" if I DON'T?

The Exchange ****

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Ran a game last night and added a fun little twist to the "Rolll for Monster Knowledge" thing... The parties "Mr. Knowledge" check - monster ID guy would roll for some monster and get something over 40 on his check... Basicly the PC must have written a term paper on these creatures back in Lodge Training camp. So rather than have him ask me questions, I asked him "what do YOU remember abou (insert monster name)?".

The player, one of those gamers that sleep with the Beastiries under their pillow, proceeded to resite random facts to the other players, with me nodding (or correcting what he was saying - when he was a little off target) until it seemed like he had about the right number of facts, so I stopped him at that point. It was great - and actually much faster than "20 Questions". And let the Player show off, and interact the other PCs the way his "Mr Professor" PC should have been able to.

Great fun. I recogmend it to everyone. Try it next time you have some real experienced player running the Knowledge Weenie. Just correct him when he get's something wrong, and cut him off when he get's to about the correct number of facts...

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason S wrote:
Z...D... wrote:
But if you fought something before, how would you magically forget that you fought it and forget important things such as, I don't know, what it's weaknesses are?

Your GM is correct, but he should have given you a bonus on the roll (honor system). Just because you remember doesn't mean your PC remembers.

Having said that, the Pathfinder Knowledge skills in general need to be streamlined and simplified more.

(Bolding mine) Wait, what if my PC remembers the monster, but I (the player) doesn't?

I mean, my PC has a photographic memory (mind chemist), but I don't. What if I fought the creature last adventure for the PC - but that was a year of real time for my less than photographic player memory. Can I get information about the beast - if I don't actually know I have encountered it before (but my PC would?)

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:
I may have to stop reading the forums altogether if I want to continue to have the motivation to keep playing in PFS.

oh, I hit this every couple weeks. It's a result of the kind of people who post here (wait - I post here... yeah, "I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER" - Groucho Marx.)

The Exchange ****

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's a post with a different outlook on knowledge rolls... something I have noticed at a table before. (I really have no "fix" for it either "problem", I'm just wondering if anyone else has seen this kind of "meta-gaming" popping up in a game.)

I have actually seen players - experienced players, who know as players that you need to hit skeletons with blunt weapons NOT USING blunt weapons because no one at the table had Knowledge Religion - so... a bunch of experienced players felt constrained to try to prevent "meta-gaming"... They knew that the monsters weren't taking full damage, but restricted their PCs, because they knew what to do (as players) - so they didn't do it (as PCs). The player "meta" knowledge constrained thier PCs ...

If the monster had been something called a "Green Wiglet" and they noticed it wasn't takeing full damage they would have switched to different/back up weapons to try to find the DR type. It would have been a "puzzle" they would have enjoyed solving! (I can almost hear the table talk now..."Not Silver Blunt! switching to a Magic Slashing! You got that oil applied yet? Think it might be DR/Good then?").

Heck, these were not low level PCs! They all had blunt weapons! they just were afread to appear to be Meta-gaming....

Scarab Sages ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rei wrote:
Does Europe need to get on this, or are we good?

hay, it would be cool to see the games world wide - even if it wouldn't be all that useful to me (and it's all about me right?).

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a judge I would have no issue with someone using Fire Bolt to light a torch in their possession. Or even an unattended one (say on the wall). I might require a "to hit roll" vs. a stationary (DEX 0) tiny target (say touch AC 5 - don't roll a "1").

But then, I've let people use ray of frost to chill a mug before tapping the beer keg... it added to the RP of the encounter. (Rule of Kewl and all that. Didn't hurt the story and was "fun"...)

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This game of ours is often like "Rock-Paper-Scissors".

When the challenge presented is "Rock" you just need to have "Paper"...

I think I have a totally different approach to this game or something...I read Louis Manko Levite post above and the others like it in this thread (and in others like this one), and I think I'm missing something here...

Why do people consider PCs to be all about combat? Why are they defining their PCs by combat stats only? It makes me wonder is this just a combat game for them? I feel really out of place here I think...

Or perhaps like a feminist turning to a "jock" and saying:
Fem:"Do you think the ERA is important?" (ERA: Equal Rights Amendment)
Joc:"Very important! Many people discount it, but I feel it's very relevant to determining a players abilities.) (ERA: Earned Run Average).

(Combat ability?):
"I can do 150 HP in a melee round!"
"Yeah, but can you cook breakfast? For a Talden noble?"

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

What do you like about changelings?

You may be able to do the same thing with a kitsune and realistic likeness.

She wouldn't be a Changeling then, though. It may not be that superficial.

and it might be too. The only way to know for sure would be to ask the OP (like BNW did).

gag - coming to the support of BNW... now I feel the need to go shower...

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Friendly "Fire" wrote:

ray of frost or acid splash from a Fire Elemental Bloodline Sorcerer... unless you can't actually light a torch after doing 1d3 fire damage to it... which some judges would rule.

Good luck with your "Torch Fighter"!

Yeah, never equated fire damage to lighting things on fire. Flint and Steel do no fire damage, so I don't think there's an inherent connection between fire damage (in PFS) and things igniting. That's why most spells that ignite things have to specify it. So, no, don't think the other Core Cantrips could ignite things without the GM modifying the rules (not unlike allowing prestidigitation to light cigarettes).

Regarding the Torch Fighter, I don't really like building characters concepts that generate lots of flak from rude players, so I went another direction and took a Druid with the Fire Domain. No access to prestidigitation, but it makes for a fun character.

On a side note, torches are 1 copper piece each. I just bring enough torches for the entire session, refueling in towns if needed, and the GM really doesn't care. If anything, I got praise for the unique character concept. There's nothing unbalanced about how little damage the torches do...though I did get some lucky hits on kobolds.

Mind you, as a druid, I'm not exactly a combat character. Would have been less so as a wizard or sorcerer.

Many spells that do fire damage actually do have a note like this:

"The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area...."
And from burning hands "Flammable materials burn if the flames touch them...."
Many other fire spells have notes like that.

So I really don't think it would be much of reach to say that something that does fire damage could be used to light a torch. The un-modified ray of frost wouldn't have that note - but then it doesn't do fire damage. A ray that did fire damage? Yeah, I could easily see it being used to set a torch on fire. If I were the judge - I'd give it to you with out even a second thought. Setting something other than a torch on fire? Maybe spilled (unattended) oil on fire. Maybe even oil thrown on a creature. But could you use it to set a creature itself on fire? Or a door? Maybe not... Unless the creature/door was made of "Flammable materials..." Which a torch is.

Could I see a judge ruling that you COULDN'T set a torch (in your possession) on fire with a ray that did 1d3 fire damage? (In PFS? In the Standard Campaign?) Yeah. But then I've seen some pretty convoluted rulings before. (My Crypt Braker Alchemist often sets creatures on fire with his Explosive Bomb Discovery - realizing that his bombs do acid damage, not fire.... ). But I think the majority of CORE judges (say 9.9 out of 10) would be fine with you setting fire to a torch with a ray of frost/fire.

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

ray of frost or acid splash from a Fire Elemental Bloodline Sorcerer... unless you can't actually light a torch after doing 1d3 fire damage to it... which some judges would rule.

Good luck with your "Torch Fighter"!

The Exchange ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
It might be a bit theoretically thin, but as a GM I'm fine with glossing over how the party gets rid of prisoners just to keep the main action on the rails. I have enough trouble finishing scenarios on time without worrying about this.

and it is quite possible that thru "glossing over how the party gets rid of prisoners" a lot of hard feelings and un-productive game time is avoided. (this is a good thing). It would mean that three (or more) players will assume that the party handled the "prisoner disposal" the way they each wanted too -

Player A: "We killed 'em dead, like they deserve. And I enjoyed it..."

Player B: "Turned the evil creatures in for a suitable reward. The gold got rolled into the award at the end of the game..."

Player C: "We enrolled them in the Sarenrae twelve-step program of redemption and restitution. So that they can become a useful member of society..."

and they all move on to their next game - happy to have resolved this issue "correctly".

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

33 characters and some are interconnected and some are loners. Two brother Dwarven clerics (different gods/alignments) would be the most connected I think.

I do have an Ifrit Alchemist that often adventures with several other Elemental Blooded Alchemists... Most often with an Oread and a Sylph (yeah, we're Earth, Wind and Fire), and there's an Undine Alchemist that joins us at times.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

...steps in, looks around... sighs and just walks away. Truly defeated...

Edit: Supplying some links to a handful of older threads...

Aug 2011 - 64 posts
Taking 10 and taking 20.

Oct 2011 - 156 posts
Take 10 again.

Dec 2011 - 315 posts
Taking 10.

Feb 2012 - 387 posts
More Take 10 goodness.

Sept 2013 - 25 posts
Take 10 on a Knowledge Skill check.

Edit-Edit - sorry almost forgot this one - the one that retracts all the others - sort of...
June 2015 - 265 posts
Take 10 NonFAQ

Scarab Sages ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bruno Breakbone wrote:
Jessex wrote:
Bruno Breakbone wrote:
Bruno, a handsome and beautiful Tetori monk, realize combat can be chaotic. Bruno make helpful flowchart!
I'm a little concerned about the right side of the chart.
Bruno, a handsome and beautiful Tetori, is very versatile.

O.O

Bruno can grapple me anytime! (wink! O.V) I may even have a couple "grapple moves" I could show him myself.

usually that costs extra, but we'll make an exception for Bruno. ;)

Scarab Sages ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nohwear wrote:
My purpose was to find the edges, then work from there to form a happy medium. To take a character in an "extreme" direction that takes a reasonable attempt to not hurt other people's fun.

those "edges" depend on the other PCs/Players at the table, and change each game (sometimes each encounter).

I often play less combative PCs - because when I sit down at a table with strangers I most often find at least one "combat machine" at the table. Someone who plays the game for the combat - and everything else is extra or even a distraction (to them).

But you know what? I don't mind if they have a character who dominates combat. If they can kill the beasties in 0.666 melee rounds, you see, it'll give me more RP time. And I'll try my darnedest to ensure we find those fights for the Combat Machine! I'll run the investigator that does the Gather Info rolls (and try to get them to aid me, to get them in the game there), that removes the traps that warns the BBEG ("anyone able to 'Aid' on disable device?"), that ensures we get the right guy and get paid for it.

So, when someone one shots the current encounters monster (even the final encounters BBE) right after the boxed text - I'll spend the game time saved there in "chatting up the bar-maid" or interacting with the other PCs. This is (at least sometimes) a social game, not just a combat simulation... at least IMHO.

So... if you can't do combat... try to make sure that someone at the table can. And try to support them, you know, kind of like you were on the same team as them...

The Exchange ****

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Hmm wrote:
Hmm wrote:

So let's sum up this conversation:

1. Can I have a brown-skinned elf or half-elf? Absolutely. In addition to the Ekujae there are two other elf tribes native to the Mwangi expanse.

2. Can I pretend to be a drow? Nope. You likely don't know drow exist.

3. Can I emulate Drizzt? Not if it means pretending to be a drow. But if you want to be angsty and weild two weapons as an elf, go ahead. Still keep in mind there are other ideas out there, and this one has become cliche.

4. People like arguing about what an antihero is or isn't.

5. People like arguing about the facts of Robin Hood, a legendary character, whose narrative differs depending on the version you consult.

6. You can get a boon to change your color.

7. People like arguing, period.

___

At this point, I'm doing this summary for my own amusement more than anything else.

it's kind of weird, but I have this desire to argue with your #7...

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
UndeadMitch wrote:

Nosig, you should not assume that only having one death out of 30+ characters is typical. I cringe at the thought of only having two stats above ten, myself, but whatever works for you. I cringe at you drawing such ridiculously skewed results from a handful of people, and using that to back your assertions. Wait, the people in the front protecting the squishies are often the ones that die of HP damage? Amazing! Any other pearls of wisdom to share?

The thing we should take out of this thread is that we should all shut the hell up and let each other play what we choose, without judgment. Also, we should let a character's actions during a scenario decide whether or not we decide to chip in on a raise, and not their build.

Edit: That came off slightly more caustic than I intended. *Shrugs.*

Oh, I don't figure I am "typical" - LOL! I'm far from it. It appears that my play style is very different from other people's.

Oh, and just to correct an impression I seem to have given several people, I often run the front liner who stands in the way of the squishes. I just seem to not build them the way other people do - or the way this thread was saying was REQUIRED. With a CON > 12.

Stating that a PC has to have a CON 12+, and in fact to build anything lower than a 14, will get you killed (and thus we shouldn't waste resources on helping this guy get his PC back alive) is doing the players a disservice. IMHO

Scarab Sages ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Consider that a 10 vs 12 CON is literally 1 HP at first level and only 12 at twelth. The thought is you have less time to stabilize once you go negative. My experience in most character deaths, is that 1 HP per level wouldn't have mattered.
It's also a lesser fort save and such other things. I've never settled for less than a 12 con in any character I've made for PFS or otherwise. There's also no point in maxing out a caster stat when your main role is buffing.

who's buffing?

Hideous Laughter - "please lay down on the ground in front of my friend the fighter..."

Hypnotism, charm person, grease just to name a few.

and the fact that the 20 gives an extra spell available to cast...

hay, I maybe be a CORE bard, but that doesn't mean I'm a BUFFING bard...

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Woran wrote:
Like nefreet...

>.>

<.<

...I haven't commented in this thread yet...

But, now that I'm here, in a 20 point buy system I'd consider a 12 to be average (technically 13, since six stats at three points each equals eighteen). With that in mind, anything below a 12 would be a "dump stat".

So, of my 30+ characters...

  • Zero dumped Con below a 12 (and only six started with a Con of 12).
  • One dumped Dex below a 12.
  • Seven dumped Wis below a 12.
  • Seven dumped Int below a 12.
  • Twelve dumped Str below a 12.
  • Nineteen dumped Cha below a 12.
    -----------------------------------
  • Almost all have taken Toughness.
  • Almost all have HP as their Favored Class Bonus.
  • Almost all have (or will have) a Con-increasing item.
    -----------------------------------
  • Only three of my PCs have ever died.
  • One of them died three times (the one that dumped Dex).
  • I've never had a character permanently die (*knocks on wood*).

    So, I'd have to say that hit point survivability is important to me. Probably #1. It's not uncommon for my PCs to have the most HP at the table. I aim for at least 9 HP/level. Even my 12th level Witch, as an example, had 110hp (4/level, +3 Con, +1 Toughness, +1 FCB).

  • Now for my turn...

    >.>

    <.<

    ... I'd consider a 10 to be average (technically 10-11, since there is no bonus or penalty for those STATs). With that in mind, anything below a 10 I would call a "dump stat".

    So, of my 30+ characters...

  • Zero have a Con above 12 (and less than six started with a Con of 12).
  • Two dumped Dex below a 12.
  • Zero (except the Clerics/Druids) have a Wis of 12 or more.
  • Six dumped Int below a 12.
  • Almost all have a Str below a 12.
  • About half dumped Cha below a 12 (often all the way to 7).
    -----------------------------------
  • none have taken Toughness.
  • Very few have HP as their Favored Class Bonus (unless they have a high INT and get over 5 Skill Point per level).
  • Only one has a Con-increasing item (he's the only one to have died, and he started with a 12 and died the game after buying the CON Belt).
    -----------------------------------
  • Only one of my PCs have ever died in PFS.
  • He was the one with the highest HP.
  • I've never had a character permanently die (*knocks on wood*) - though I have "retired" one.

    So, I'd have to say that avoiding getting hit is important to me. Probably #1. With "acting before the enemy" being a close #2. It's not uncommon for my PCs to have the best AC and INIT at the table (as well as other ways to avoid being hit).

  • The Exchange ****

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Tamec wrote:
    Two-Gun Sam wrote:
    Tamec wrote:
    I have a guy in the runelords game I'm running. He's a 2 weapon fighter (focusing on longsword) with a 15 str and 15 dex. He has weapon focus longsword, so instead of fighting with a longsword and a shortsword giving him a +2/+1 to hit he's using two longswords so he has a +0/+0 to hit, oh and he doesn't have a ranged weapons because it's not a longsword...
    What about thrown long sword?
    But then he wouldn't have 2 longswords to fight with when he closed to melee range...

    Buy more swords... Or a Blinkback Belt.

    The Exchange ****

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Tamec wrote:
    I have a guy in the runelords game I'm running. He's a 2 weapon fighter (focusing on longsword) with a 15 str and 15 dex. He has weapon focus longsword, so instead of fighting with a longsword and a shortsword giving him a +2/+1 to hit he's using two longswords so he has a +0/+0 to hit, oh and he doesn't have a ranged weapons because it's not a longsword...

    What about thrown long sword?

    Silver Crusade ****

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    "One-Trick ponies" also apply to those persons who only consider "combat" as the answer to all situations. Sure you can slice and dice with the best of them. Shot holes into solid stone, and sling AOE damage in all four energy types...

    But can you dance?

    Can you hide/sneak?

    Can you ask (nicely!) where they locals keep their dead?

    Can you calm a small child?

    The Exchange ****

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    andreww wrote:
    G-Zeus wrote:
    When playing with new players i simply ask us all to do a quick intro. In this i get an idea what to expect and i declare what i took them to mean. If they say they are a blaster sorc ill ask if they have fireball or someother evocation, and 90% of the time theyll correct me with exactly what they have. At the end of intros ill run off a quick checkpist of things weve missed and make sure we got them covered. It honestly doeant take that long all in all 5 minutes while the gm sets up.

    I played Mummy's Mask 1 yesterday with a group of experienced players and still went through a checklist:

    1. Do you have a way to attack at range
    2. How are you going to heal yourself if damaged
    3. What do you do if a swarm turns up
    4. How about if we encounter a shadow
    5. We are in a city which was nearly wrecked by plague, who bought an anti plague
    6. How are you going to see in the dark

    Its a useful list even for experienced people.

    I have posted the following list before, but I always find it awesome, and presented in a very novel way. You're #6 is not on that list, but perhaps I should add it...

    I had a judge for a game I was going to play send out the following in an email... and I found it very "Awesome!", so I thought I'd share it with my friends here (and the rest of you too!).

    (in the email sent to all the players before the game):
    I will remind you to be prepared for the basics.

    Disease
    Poisons
    Ability damage (potentially drain)
    Swarms
    Invisible opponents
    Incorporeal opponents
    Extremes in temperature
    Being grappled
    Religious extremists who do not like you
    Travel in an area where Pathfinders are not legal

    Then AFTER you leave the venture captains office...

    Yeah... made me laugh!

    The Exchange

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I tend to like to "look at things from the other side" (so the following is just IMHO, and in fact is also a bit of venting - skip it if you like).

    It seems like most everyone is looking at this from the GM side...Let's look at this from the players side of the question.

    As a player, for Kn checks about creatures encountered, I normally say: "I've got an XX, what's the most important thing for me to know?" I don't normally even wait for the GM to tell me "you get 3 questions" or whatever...

    Many PFS judges figure I am trying to pull something... when all I am really doing is trying to NOT make this a game of Player Vs. Judge - where the judge makes me create questions depending on what I as a player know about the monster, while he tries to conceal anything I might get wrong...(which is sometimes the way it feels the process is being done), in other words a Meta-Game Game. I'd like the judge to just tell me what my PC knows, so I know how to run my girl/guy at this table...

    I do this because I personally know a lot of important "bits" about monsters. For example, Flesh Golems. I can recognize them from their description.... but my wife can't. She has no idea. "Frankenstein's Monster" doesn't mean much to her (she grew up in a different culture - different myths). So, her "3 questions" are going to be very different from mine. Then we can add in the PFS judges who give "limited response" answers and we see how useless it is to put points into knowledge skills at some tables.

    "What defenses does the monster have?" gets the response "you can't ask that!" so we ask "Does the creature have DR?" which get's the response "Yes. That's one question."

    My standard first question - "What's the most important thing for me to know?" My second? - "What's the NEXT most important thing for me to know?"

    The Exchange ****

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    godsDMit wrote:
    nosig wrote:
    godsDMit wrote:

    I know how it works.

    My point is that it very well may backfire.

    how? (really not trying to be snarky here, I just don't understand your statement.)

    the only "backfire" I see is if the Confused PC were to attack a friend (and potentially kill him).

    Otherwise the PC is starting this from "Dead" - if the attempt to prevent this (prevent dying) fails due to bad rolls, it still ends up "dead". Exactly where it would have been if you hadn't used the boon. Are you advising us to re-consider triggering this boon when the PC is about to die, because it could cause the PC to die (1 to 3 rounds later)?

    Like I said in the original post I made...

    godsDMit wrote:

    You also have a 25% chance of hitting yourself, which will likely make your situation worse since you already went below 0. This could even cause you to kill yourself.

    So for example, if you fire this thing off when you aren't going to die from the last hit and you wind up hitting yourself from the confusion, that hit could then kill you once the three rounds are up or you make the will save.

    I know the examples you gave give reasons of how or why that is partially mitigated, but the fact remains that it COULD happen.

    AH! now I see... (bolding mine).

    I was seeing this as a way to prevent DYING and have only used it in those instances when my PC was going to be dead if she/he didn't get extra HP from someplace. You are correct in that the player could trigger it ("As an immediate action when you are reduced to fewer than 0 hit points, ...") just for falling below zero HP. I wouldn't normally - I figure the other PCs are going to save my PC - being below zero isn't dead and I save this boon for those times when HP damage is going to kill my character.

    It's other big advantage to me is the Cost. In game cost to the PC is zero. And it can be applied to all my PCs (and I have over 30 active ones now). Out of game cost is the price of a novel (that's actually a good read) - one book covers all your PCs, and often this one is given away as Swag at Cons.

    The Exchange ****

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Take 10 threads...

    The Exchange ****

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    TetsujinOni wrote:
    Andrew Christian wrote:

    Role-playing does not require one to voice-act out all the dialogue. I like that kind of roleplaying. But not everyone does.

    Your preferred way to roleplay is not the only correct way.

    And then there's the times where I'll start off by voicing the interaction to establish tone and hit the generalities, then use the common technique in books that are going to talk about what they're going to do, and ellipsis off, giving the GM an outline of what further topics I intend to cover in the social interaction, and then generate the skil check (which frequently will not involve rolling if the situation allows for take 10 as it often should)

    Brings a tear to my eye...

    The Exchange ****

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    ...

    what's up with BNW on this thread? ...he's sounding reasonable and not his usual self... has he been kidnapped and replaced with a Pod-Person or something? Quick, somebody cast Petulengro's Validation on him!


    edit: or wait, maybe it's ME! OH-NO! I may have been Doppelgangered!

    The Exchange

    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Balgin wrote:
    Ferious Thune wrote:

    Zyphus! Accidental Death, mildly suicidal Cultists, and a Heavy Pick!

    No Oblivion Inquisition, unfortunately. But their chief weapon is surprise!

    Surprise and fear!

    ok, before someone else drops in with it... or the world implodes and sucks us all into the void..

    "No one expects the Oblivion Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise, fear and surprise; two chief weapons, fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency! Er, among our chief weapons are: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and near fanatical devotion to House Thrune!... eeer, or was that the Grim Harvestman? "

    The Exchange ****

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    (IMHO) part of the problem - perhaps most of the issue the OP is encountering is in the use of the term GM. He knows what a GM is, he has his understanding of the duties and powers of the GM... the responsibilities and abilities, etc. of running the game.

    In PFS we have given up much of that to the lady/guy running the show... and that is not the person at the head of the physical table when we play.

    I use the term "Judge" for the guy (or woman!) running the table I sit at, and save the term GM for the lady/guy running the Campaign. That is the way I learned the terms back in LG days (before that I used the term "DM"). Back in Living Greyhawk days, when I learned them and learned to play in an Organized Play campaign, that is the way the terms were defined. I am sometimes a PFS Judge. In my home game I am the "GM".

    The Exchange ****

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    this happened in a home game, so maybe is out of place on the PFS board, but it makes a nice story.

    Setting is: the Group of PCs (delivery men) shortly after entering an old ruined temple, are ambushed without warning by a group from hiding.

    Player #1:"who the heck are these guys and what kind of people attack without warning?"
    Player #2: "Pathfinders!"
    Player #3: "Damn Murder Hobos..."
    Player #4: "Check the bodies for Wayfinders..."

    The Exchange ****

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    In one game, we ran a bluff that we were an Aspis Team posing as a Pathfinder team - which explained why we had a few Wayfinders with us, and no Aspis badges.

    "It would blow our cover to be carrying our Badges - so we left them back at Base.
    "And we didn't have enough Wayfinders to go around, so we are making do with the ones we could get ahold of. Now, we need you to help with the cover story... remember, a gang of Pathfinders came to talk to you..." {wink-wink} "...totally not an Aspis team."

    The funniest part was one of the players kept getting mixed up and saying she was a Pathfinder and the NPCs would just say something like "Yeah, I got that"...

    Yeah - we were Pathfinders, claiming to be Aspis agents posing as Pathfinders...see we have a couple Wayfinders...

    The Exchange ****

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    ????

    What's with all the tread necro's?

    The Exchange ****

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    heck, I'm just going to repeat what I said on this thread 3 years ago...

    ok... sounds like time to trot out one of my wife stories again...

    My wife is a bit shy. She enjoys playing, and for the right group she can really come out of her shell. When she does, everyone at the table enjoys her PC and her gaming.

    Sometimes she plays a Diplomat. Yeah, a shy Diplomat.

    My wife is a good player. Both role player and roll player (and yes, I know you can be both). But it doesn't come naturally for her. She is a shy person... some times, with strangers this hits her pretty hard. With the right group though, in a welcoming group, she comes out of her shell and can really add to the fun of the table.

    She has practiced the speach "My character is much more diplomatic than I am. I would like her to convense (insert NPC here) to (insert what we need to know here)." She has this speech printed on the back of the table tent for her "Diplomat", where she can read it when she needs to, when she finds herself overcome with shyness.

    I've seen judges "hold her to the task" and say "What EXACTLY does your PC say?" and watch helplessly while a fun game turned into a painful experience for her. Anyone else trying to help her (me, or any other player) was hushed by the judge ("you're character isn't there!") while he stares at her struggle to say anything. Holding her to every word that she utters, ever stutter. With her realizing that every miss step is being reflected in a penility to a roll that she has said she can handle for us, a role she is trying to play. Needless to say, we never played for that judge again.

    This is a lady who can get up in church and sing solo in front of 200 people. The same lady that can brake an entire table up in laughter with a sly comment ("That's going to leave a mark" when the monster charges into the invisible door.) But, sometimes she is shy, and needs to just roll the dice. Sometimes we role play, sometimes we roll play. It's all part of the game.

    ...
    Now for my part to add to the story.

    If you are going to do Role Playing right, you need to roll the dice, figure out what your score is, and then match your performance to that roll. Roll poorly? Spit on the carpet and look guilty. Roll high? Polish up the complements and flirt with the target.

    I have been RP for a long time. I can "smooze the judge" with the best of them. I've had a judge require me to "tell me what you say" and after a rousing performance that got the tables around us interested in our game... I said "I take 10 on the roll for a.." - Judge "you can't Take 10 on a Diplomacy roll, you might fail!" ...so I roll...
    A "4". No problem, my friendly luck cleric gave me a re-roll, which I rolled... a "3". so I took my shirt re-roll and turned it into a "1". Boy did I give the wrong performance!

    (I made the DC by the way - I looked it up later, and the judge was just yanking my chain. He knew I couldn't miss it.)

    Edit: I forgot to add about Aid Another on a Diplomacy roll. "My PC stands behind the bard, like a body guard (or servant), thus adding credability to what he says. He is plainly a person of substance - a 'somebody' to have a large, well armed guard/servant such as myself."
    (yeah, I did say I can smooze with the best of them).

    Dark Archive ****

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Paul Jackson wrote:
    Kahel Stormbender wrote:


    As such, IMO the story being told should be the most important thing.

    That's a perfectly valid opinion. But it is just one opinion.

    Other equally valid opinions are that the most important thing is the roleplaying, the story is just the backdrop that allows the roleplaying.

    Or the combat is the most important thing.

    Or the solving of the intellectual puzzles.

    Or the in and out of character joking.

    Or ....

    This should be a thread all it's own.

    How to finish this sentence "the most important thing is..."

    The laughs.
    The friends.
    The gold.
    The Paracountess.
    The llama...

    Dark Archive ****

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    "Don't kill 'em, they're worth more alive."

    1 to 50 of 1,033 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2016 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.