|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
“I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
“That we were slaves I had known all my life--and nothing could be done about it. True, we weren't bought and sold--but as long as Authority held monopoly over what we had to have and what we could sell to buy it, we were slaves.”
a possible problem, and a suggestion
1st the suggestion:
: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell. You make one dispel check (1d20 + your caster level) and compare that to the spell with highest caster level (DC = 11 + the spell's caster level). If successful, that spell ends. If not, compare the same result to the spell with the next highest caster level. Repeat this process until you have dispelled one spell affecting the target, or you have failed to dispel every spell.
In fact, you might consider picking up a 1st level Pearl of Power and if you adventure with a prepared spell caster that normally runs with a long term buff spell (say mage armor or even endure elements) on himself, have him also cast it on you with the Pearl. Just to pick up some extra Buffer.
2nd the possible problem...
Mitch Mutrux wrote:
"...maladjusted fool..."? checks quoted post OH! BNW! ok, now I understand... ;) he should have taken 10 on his "social interaction roll"...
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
I think embedded ioun stones are covered in rules in Seeker of Secrets...
and isn't there some rule about having more than one wayfinder with Ioun Stones - something about only one of them working?
We had talked about having someone slip an "extra" Wayfinder with a slotted stone onto the big fighter with the "Stone of Preventing Evil Mind Control" - to shut down his protection...
a couple of my characters have Ioun stones that I have then had continual flame cast on - so they look like an Ioun Torch - but are actually another stone with the spell acting as "Disinformation".
I actually had an old thread about concealing Ioun stones... Here..
Heck, I still have people "correct" me about rules that haven't been in place sense 3.5 days (rules that changed for PFS).
33 characters (counting my CORE ones, so figure just 22) here.
Jingasa's = 0
Heck, I want a Handy Haversack in real life! Think about the organization this would give to my gaming supplies... 150 lbs of loose paper, and all I need is reach in to get the one page I need? WOW!
so - here's the next installment of Jo and her continuing (fictional example) attempts to play "Shrine of the Awakener" tier (5-7).
Background: Jo is currently in the 6th level doldrums, almost 7th level, having 17xp.... and she has 3 chronicles gained from 7th level Pregens "banked", waiting for when she get's that 18th xp and 7th level. (a tier 5-9 on the 1st, a tier 3-7 on the 8th, and a third one for another tier 3-7 on the 15th - all played as a 7th level pregen)....
Now (on the 22nd)- because they are mostly 6th and 7th level, her crew has decided to play Emerald Spire level 8, the Shrine of the Awakener (Tier 5-7) and she's available to play...
If Jo were to play, this would raise her XP to 20, that bumps her to level 7.2, and her "banked" chronicles begin to be assigned. The question seems to be, are they assigned in one lump, or one at a time (leveling in between as needed). If it's one at a time, the chronicle from the 1st puts her to level 8.0 with 21xp, which means the games from the 8th and the 15th are now invalid, because she would be outside the Tier for them. Therefore, it looks like she cannot play Emerald Spire level 8, the Shrine of the Awakener (Tier 5-7) with this character, as doing so would render two of her existing "banked" chronicles invalid. (Even though she is solidly inside the tier (5-7), playing her would create a paradox where she would have credit assigned to her she could not have.)
If the player doesn't have another PC in that level range, they would need to run an Iconic and assign it to a PC of lower level... say one of 6th level (like Jo). If assigned to Jo, then later when Jo finally get's her 18th XP and levels she would be able to gain the first three "Banked" chronicles (from the 1st, 8th and 15th of the month) ...but not the one from the Shrine of the Awakener (Tier 5-7), as she would now be 8th level and could not gain credit for it - am I understanding this correctly? We now (before actually playing a game) need to calculate what level a PC will be after assigning any unassigned ("banked") XP they have, so that they do not "level out" of any games they may have waiting to be assigned...
(side note) This is interesting, because if she were to have played the game from the 1st LAST rather than first, and played an Iconic rather than her actual (in tier) PC for Shrine, she would have been able to gain all the credit on that PC? or am I just mixed up?
I'm still kind of wondering, what happens to the chronicles/games that are no longer valid? Can she play them again for credit? or are they just "lost"?
(edit: heck, someone less honest than me would just change the date on the first chronicle from the 1st to the 31st and everything would work fine - except she would have to play an Iconic in Shrine of the Awakener...)
(in "little ol' lady voice")
You can guess the class...yep, witch.
After I found out how much that group of meddling kids got paid for "investigating" my House of Recovery, I decided there was lots more money, ah, I mean, a better future in becoming an adventurer myself. SO... I joined up. Best thing I've done sense taking in orphans, and a lot less work I tell you!
Mostly standard Witch stuff - OH! I'm good with "face" skills too.
In Giamo's french/italian accent, "I am Giamo Casanunda, Cleric of the god of Love - Cayden. My card (hand out business cards). Tell me, are you currently in a long term relationship? No? Would you like to be?"
I normally get stammers and blushes. Giamo goes on to say "I am a Matchmaker by profession you see, it is my 'day job' (finger quotes) - so if you might be interested in such a relationship, perhaps we might discuss some of my other clients?" At this point I switch to my OOC voice and say ... "Role Play often suffers due to time constraints, and we only have a limited time for this tonight so..." Back in character voice "Sigh... It appears that we have got to save the world again now, perhaps after that we'll find your one true love, yes?"
Giamo Casanunda "Matchmaker"
Whered she get the boon for elephantkin?
Don't make fun of the pregnant lady..
Her PC is one of the original Boon Aasimar:
My wife runs a Pregnant Cleric (she says she's about 6 months along and that explains the DEX of 8) - and at the start of a fight her first action is to cast Bless. You see, we were trying to NOT start a fight, and were practicing non-aggression etc. and it seemed like a non-threatening spell to her... but the BBE responds by casting a create pit spell on her. She rolled a nat 20 Reflex and avoided it (her Reflex was +2 or something).
So she responded by casting blindness him, and someone else hit him with a 1 minute deafened effect (sonic bomb) - and things went down hill from there for him... anyway, after the fight, the captured thug is trying to talk his way out of being captured, saying that we should remove the blindness and free him 'cause we had "started it all!". My PC responds that not only had one of his guards drawn the first weapon (and first blood) HE had tried to throw a pregnant lady in a PIT! This got the response "She's Pregnant? I thought she was just fat!"
My response..."wow dude, I think your chances of getting that blindness spell turned off just went down."
sigh. I would love to see my PCs retire. And every now and again, I'll play them at higher levels... if my son really wants me to play in X-XX scenario with him, or if a friend puts together a Sub-Tier 10-11 game for his Fighter that played mostly with my Alchemist - and just to "get the old gang together. Or if the higher level table where my friends are isn't going to "make" without another player...
But the lower level games? those are the fun ones (for me). Sub-Tier 3-4 where you don't hear someone say, "ah, well, this is why we have PP after all. To pay for the raise dead without braking the bank". Where the danger is to more than just finances. ("Dead again? C*&%$, this costs almost as much as I made this game! At this rate, I'm never going to afford my Wiggit of Ultimate Power!"
So I'd prefer to coast a few of those games. If I had the choice to put a Tier 1-5 on my 2nd level girl (and miss running her one time when she's fun), not take the chronicle this time or put it on my 9th level guy (and let him keep up his twin sister, my wife's PC)... I'd put it on the 9th level.
So, yeah, I guess I could just not take judge credit. It's not like I'm actually judging now just to get the chronicle...
Sigh. The following is just my opinion, so take it as such - just an opinion (and remember what they say about those).
I hate to see threads like this.
On the one hand, I realize that the poster is being serious, and wishing to explore some aspect in RP that is not common place or covered in the rules.
But I've been on the boards long enough, and in fact in the hobby long enough to know that whatever the OP actual reason for asking, some responders will assume that they are trying to "game the system", to "pull something". And that makes me sad.
A thread on LAW again? I thought we weren't due for the "Recurring LAW/Paladin Thread" until Thursday?
Lawful (and to an extent Paladins). (Just my opinion - which I think is as good as any other). What is Lawful in one place is un-Lawful in another. And all PCs come from someplace - so you could be a Chelish Paladin, or a Kellish Paladin, or heck, a Paladin from Nidal (well... maybe.) Each would view "the Law" differently. Because each has different "Laws" built in by their background. (We lost part of this when we no longer have Regional Factions).
Paladins of Abadar, a L/N diety would stress Law above all else... but you can easily have "the Law" on both sides of an issue.
Paladin quote - "I follow the laws of my homeland and serve in her military. That is why I am in you land, bringing Law to the barbarians." some Cheliaxian paladin during the conquest of Nidal (or one of several other countries).
Paladin quote - "I am fighting to repel the invaders from my homeland, to remove the foreign blight on my blessed Taldor!" a Paladin explaining why he is involved in the hunt for N/G Sarenrae cultists in Taldor (or fighting the Qadirian invaders in the last big war).
Paladin quote - "I am here to protect those who have seen the light of the Dawnflower among the heathen masses in the shadowed land of Taldor. This is holy work sanctioned by my government, my church, and my god." a Paladin of the Dawnflower, engaged in aiding cultists hiding in the lands of Taldor (or fighting as part of the invasion in the last Qadirian-Taldor war).
All these are paladins engaged in Lawful duties - assigned by Lawful authority - it's just that the authority is different in each case. Heck, the last two could easily be fighting each other!
What is Lawful in one place is Un-Lawful in another. Which Law does your PC support? Please don't say that you support the Law of the land you are currently in, otherwise this means:
- In Cheliax you will turn Pathfinders in to the authorities (they are not welcome in Cheliax).
It's up to you to build your PC in such a way that it can work around these restrictions - yeah, you're lawful. That's why you are killing that slaver (Andoran) first chance you get. 'Cause it's the LAW.
we actually suggested that, and the judge just pointed out that the guy with the scroll would then have no source to buy SLWR in the first place, so he couldn't have it to hand to the Cleric... Catch 22. We needed two copies at the table.
Next time we played we had more than one copy - that's when we learned that the guide says you have to have a copy of the current Additional Resources document (and at the time he required it to be a hardcopy) to use anything. I.E. you have to have a copy of the Source AND a copy of the A.R. document....
We've just started avoiding that judge now (or not bothering with the wrist sheaths when we are at his table).
I have been resisting commenting on this entire thread - having been on "both sides" of this situation (or at least I think I have been on both sides...). But I guess I have missed my Will Save (what I get for dumping WIS I guess), so here goes...
Realizing that I am not there and thus am the perfect person to comment on this (not really knowing anything about the circumstances makes me "the expert" right?), but it sounds to me like there is a conflict in play styles here...
WHY are you playing a game that is no fun?
SO - either the other players need to change... ("... I ask the party to be law abiding...")...
which might happen:
, if they have a good enough reason to change (you bring Pizza, you're cute, you own the building where they play, they REALLY like you, they are so nice they will table their own desires to push yours forward, something else...)
But it doesn't sound like it is happening ("...but they won't stop or the particular adventure cannot be undertaken without massive disregard to laws (especially if the party really lacks social skills).").
OR - you need to change...
either your PC:
1) play something even MORE "them" then "them". Be even MORE "Murder-Hobo" than they are...
2) Be LAWFUL in a different way... "In my home country, we kill these scum out of hand. Step on the bugs before they can swarm..." or "Don't kill 'em, they're WORTH MORE ALIVE! Got to have bodies for the salt mines - there are always demands for able bodied slaves".
3) this is a role playing game... change your role?
OR - the group needs to change...
SO I really hate to put it this way but, you know what? if there are more of them than you, it is easier for one person to change than for 3 (or more)...
Whatever you decide - remember one thing...
"If it's not fun, don't do it."
Spark Monkey wrote:
“Seems to be a deep instinct in human beings for making everything compulsory that isn't forbidden.”― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.”
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).
so, here's a slightly different wrinkle on this - I guess this would be a PRO to most of the CONs I have posted so far...
I at times play with someone who... is a bit creative with record keeping. Someone I am not going to check their paperwork on... When they say they have XXX, I'm not going to check their ITS to see they have it, and track it back to the Chronicle that they say they bought it on, and then check to see they mark it off now that they have used it.
now, when this someone steps up to burn on my PC the BoL scroll that they just happen to have... this rule would make me feel better about taking it. About having it used on me. Because I know I will pay for it, and track it, and my bookkeeping will reflect it. Even if it didn't exist 5 minutes before...
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...
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).
that's because Talden noblemen are clearly a different race! ;)
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...
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.
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?"
N N 959 wrote:
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....
Da Brain wrote:
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?
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...
Jason S wrote:
(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?)
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.)
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....
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"...)
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:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
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...
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
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.
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".
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.
...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
Oct 2011 - 156 posts
Dec 2011 - 315 posts
Feb 2012 - 387 posts
Sept 2013 - 25 posts
Edit-Edit - sorry almost forgot this one - the one that retracts all the others - sort of...
Bruno Breakbone wrote:
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. ;)
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...
it's kind of weird, but I have this desire to argue with your #7...
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