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. 8,498 posts (9,671 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 33 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 1,079 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've surprised people with an Alchemist as Healer... Alchemist (Chirurgeon)...

I get Breath of Life as a 4th level Extract - which I put in poisoners gloves and can hand off to other PCs (like the Barbarian in the party). It's something else to see the party barbarian charge across the battlefield and punch a Breath of Life into someone that just went down.

or if I'm close enough, I can punch a body with a BoL, and take my second attack to punch it again...."Clear!... AGAIN! CLEAR!"

makes a great RP event...

Then Healing Bombs can just get ... interesting. Not Channeling, but an AOE that heals living creatures and hurts undead and does both AT THE SAME TIME...

Plus all the other things Alchemists do...

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:

The is just thread discussing what I call table ETIQUETTE.... right? Or is there some activity that we are trying to ban?

We're all friends here at the table right? So, if your friend is doing something that bothers you - ask them nice to stop it.

...snipping a bunch of my first post to save space....

table ETIQUETTE.

Play nice. Let's be friends. Have fun....

Just an attempt to push this back into the original track... Feel free to ignore me if you want...

The Exchange ****

6 people marked this as a favorite.

The is just thread discussing what I call table ETIQUETTE.... right? Or is there some activity that we are trying to ban?

We're all friends here at the table right? So, if your friend is doing something that bothers you - ask them nice to stop it.

If someone at a table asked me to stop doing something because it was "being disruptive to play" or that it "bothered him" I'd try to stop doing it. I often do or have done things that might bug someone, without me even noticing it. If I was rattling dice on the table top (something that I ask other players to PLEASE not do when I am talking) and someone asked me to stop - I would.

Some things I've been asked to stop doing or change at a table-

If my "silly voice" bothered someone (something I was asked to stop doing more than once), I'd switch it.
If my Take 10 T-shirt upset anyone at the table - I'd switch it. (I bring an extra shirt just for this).
If I'm jiggling my leg (nervous habit) - I'd quit.
If I'm crunching ice (my bad habit) - I'd put it back in the cup and TRY to stop.
If my PC is "hitting" on someone's PC and it's "creeping me out guy" - I'd stop right away.
If my cross-gendered PC is bothering someone - I'll switch the gender for one game (maybe she's in "disguise" for the adventure).

Heck - this is about ETIQUETTE - about "playing nice" together.

If anyone at the table asks me to stop some easily controlled thing - like singing, I DON'T CARE WHY IT BOTHERS THEM - I'd stop as soon as I could. Maybe she feels it's to much like cheating. Perhaps there is trauma there, I don't know, and frankly I don't care. WHATEVER the reason. I wanna be her FRIEND. I want her to have fun too. If it helps her have fun, and doesn't hurt my fun, why not stop doing it if she asks nice (or heck, even more it she asks upset)? This does require her to ASK... even non-verbally. If someone at the table flinches everytime I use my "Halfling Voice", maybe I should not do it?

table ETIQUETTE.

Play nice. Let's be friends. Have fun.... it's what the game is really about.

edit: heck - we often hear what habits other people have that bother the poster. How about if we chime in on this thread with things we do that sometimes bothers other players? (like my list above of "Some things I've been asked to stop doing or change at a table"). What are you working on changing in yourself - for Table Etiquette sake?

Scarab Sages ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fromper wrote:

As others have mentioned, I'd say character intros are one of the keys. As a GM, I always ask my players to introduce themselves and their characters, and leave it to them to tell us as much or as little as they want.

As a player, I frequently have to ask "Can we do character introductions before we start?", which bugs me, since the GM should be leading that. But more often than I'd like, they don't unless I ask.

Bah! Don't wait for the judge to say ok - just jump right in an introduce yourself while they are busy with the setting up...

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?" By this time the judge will have noticed my In Character speach.... So 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?"

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hmm wrote:

That sounds like a character concept to me!! But then again, my local lodge shares much in common with the Hall of Drunken Heroes.

Hmm

My wife just gave out a number of engraved mugs to our gaming crew... (glass 16 oz. mugs)

they say "Mugged by Cayden Cailen" ... (yeah - she missed the spelling error when she reviewed the Proof from the engraver... so now she's going to have another bunch done.)

She's looking forward to us all having them out at a Con - and waiting to see if anyone notices.

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Realizing this is asking for opinions, and everyone is going to have different ones...

What's your favorite scenario from each season, and why is it your favorite? (Perhaps it's the most fun, or perhaps it's the fastest run, or fits the Season's "Theme" the best.)

Season 0:

Season 1:

Season 2:

Season 3:

Season 4:

Season 5:

Season 6:

Season 7:

The Exchange

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I can recall an old home game where I felt bad about the amount of treasure (or lack thereof) that I had given out in an earlier game. So I placed a large gem (a ruby) in the hall for the players to find. I reasoned that another adventuring party had dropped it as they left - and had not noticed it.

So as the players approached a intersection they caught sight of a "red twinkle" on the floor ahead. Out came the detect spell, the rogue checking for traps, the works. Ultimately, even discovering that it was a gem, they elected to bypass that section of tunnel to avoid approaching it, as they could come up with NO REASON FOR IT TO BE THERE. It HAD to be a trap, and one they couldn't figure out, so best to bust a hole in a couple room walls to bypass the intersection entirely...

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
jon dehning wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:

Nosig:

Regarding a circumstance bonus for describing how you are picking a lock. I've definitely done that in the past for traps. The only reason I wouldn't tend to do it for locks is because I personally don't understand well enough how locks work to adjudicate such a thing.

I've also given circumstance bonuses to Acrobatics for clear description and dramatic flair.

Circumstance bonus for Disable Device?

Hmmmmm....

Alchemical grease applied to yer picks; hitting the lock with a can of compressed cold (forget the actual name for this item) or acid to loosen things up in there; having a tiny familiar cast Reduce Person and then go into the lock; using the meditation feat to calm yerslef before making the check.

I think I could be persuaded to give a +2 bonus to any of these.

all of your examples above are NOT Role Playing example, they are example of "Creative thinking". When I ask about a R.P. bonus it would be more like:

Judge: "the door is locked"

Player: (in normal voice): I'll use disable device, my rogue slides forward, drops to one knee and pulls down the lenses that are flipped up on his forehead. As he works, he talks out loud. (in an excited in character voice): "Wow! I haven't see one of these babies sense Locksmith School! An Armstrong and Thornberry Mark IV double pin keyed Lock! these are tough! Good thing I have my number four Fergason L-Pick"-pulling a expanding backscratcher from my gaming kit-"it's just the thing..." expanding it to 18" long, grinning manically as I glance around at the other players "...for one of these locks!" change of voice "I take ten and get a 26, plus any bonus for the role playing.".

that's what an R.P. bonus would be like.

The Exchange

12 people marked this as a favorite.

Detecter PC: "Got a Ping here! Stop moving...concentrating for 2 more rounds..."
Trapsmith PC: "What's this? We're in the middle of ally! Who put's a trap in th...."
GM: "You don't detect anything the second round."
Det.P.C. "Huh?"
GM: "No more magic aura"
Det.P.C. "Oooookkkkay... Hmmm... Continuing to scan."
GM: "You move 10' and pick up magic."
Det.PC: "Stop moving... Concentrating..."
GM: "no more magic again."

(The invisible Imp continues to "toy with the PCs", flying just into detection range and then out....).

Det.PC. "Got a Ping here! Stop moving...concentrating for 2 more rounds..."
Trapsmith PC: "What's this? We're in the middle of tunnel! Who put's a trap in th...."
GM: "after two rounds of detection you pick up magic thru the western wall - but you can't see the source exactly...."
Cleric (the best perception in the party): "checking for secret doors!"
GM: "what's your take 20 perception? 34? You don't detect anything."
Cleric "I pull out my 'limited use gimmick' to boost my perception by +5 giving me a 39! Ha!"
GM: "still nothing - just a solid stone wall."
Players: "We dig!"
GM: "After an hour you have chiseled 11 inches into the solid stone and a small copper coins falls out - it appears to have been encased in the stonework. And it radiates divination magic."
Wizard PC: "I prep Identify and cast it - 15minutes prep time."
GM: "The coin appears to be a Scrying Focus of a spell. You're not sure who cast it though..."
Players: "How the heck did it get in the wall?"
GM shrugs - not saying anything about Druids that might wild shape to Earth Elementals or Zorns or anything else that might have dropped a coin....

So many possiblilities....

Or even have them find something...un-expected...
DM: "After 10 minutes of digging into the hillside you brake thru into the back of a nest of ground bees - which come swarming out of the hive - Roll Inititive."
(Or they dig into the bottom of the local sewer... No telling what magic trinket was dropped in the local sewer. To bad they are in a LOWER LEVEL tunnel....and the ENTIRE CITY sewer is going to drain into their little room....)

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hmm wrote:
I want to GM an all-kitsune or tengu table through play-by-post in an evergreen. It would be fun to use Silverhex or Phantom Phenomena for this, if one could actually do those with non-pregen characters. Oh please, please, please... Lift the pre-gen requirement!

off topic... but this line "...an all-kitsune or tengu table through play-by-post in an evergreen..." made something click for me. How about an all Wayang table playing thru First Steps... picture these guys dealing with Auntie Baltwin!

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Had a glorious time running this last night. I had forgotten how much fun this scenario can be...

Had one "old hand" who actually was playing the Experienced Pathfinder (with 1XP and an actual wand of CLW!), 3 Newbies (first or second character, one using an Iconic, all with 0XP), and 1 guy who sort of knew the ropes (could tell how to look up a skill on his PC sheet).

Had a grand time...

The Exchange ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Is there any reason they would not be treated the same as a Prestige Award?

because this is PFS and we never seem to do things predictably?

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Most things in the game allow the player to get their character a +2 bonus by good play/smart play.

In combat, you get that +2 bonus and the like from playing chess with the pieces on the board. Flanks, extra attacks of opportunity from being in the right place, backing people into a corner etc.

Clever use and positioning of spells and spell combinations get you huge advantages. The player has a lot of effect on how effective they are.

In social encounters doing a good job as a player gets you the +2.

You don't get the +2 bonus for doing or describing your breaststroke for swimming, but thats the exception to how the rest of the game works, not the rule. There just aren't enough parts in the game for the playerto fiddle with for that to happen.

But we are talking about SKILLS. Not Combat or Spellcasting ... The social skills (those CHA based) get bonuses for being social? Why? Other types of skills do not. This is like saying "you get +2 bonus flanking when you are using a rapier, because you (the player) are on the fencing team."

We don't give INT based skills bonuses for being Intelligent. "You get a +2 bonus Knowledge (History) because your player has a BS degree is American History."

Or a +2 bonus in DEX skills if you (the player) can juggle - or pick pockets.

Or a +2 bonus in WIS skills because you are the oldest player at the table - and thus clearly the "Wisest Person in the Room".

Yet we think it's a given that someone can get a +2 bonus on Social Skills because THE PLAYER is better at social skills. Yeah, even the "little kid" who get's a bonus because "he's cute when he acts like a grown up". Or the "cute nerdy guy/girl" because they smiled at us (we've all see this too).

Hay! can I get a +2 on all my Social Skill checks if I bring Brownies to the game? How about beer?

edit: and thanks for the quick reply BNW.

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pete Winz wrote:
I have to disagree that giving a bonus for good roleplay is equivalent to penalizing those who don't roleplay well. If the other person fell short and would have succeeded if they'd had a bonus, it's because they didn't hit the target, not because the game was stacked against them. We want to encourage people to roleplay and providing an incentive is a good thing. Sometimes your dice are not with you and despite having a good modifier and giving it your best in-character plea, you just don't hit the mark. Just like a character who specializes in combat sometimes can't hit the broad side of a barn. The random element of rolling dice is part of what makes the game exciting to me. If you'd rather not have that as part of your gaming experience, I understand there are other games out there that do not rely on it.

and your advice would be what? for me to move on to those other games? Clearly I am not understanding this.

Normally in PFS the last few years I have been trying to roll FIRST and then try to match my performance to what result I got. (Because I'm playing a Role...)

Roll the dice (I prefer to take ten), THEN do the role play. How good is my performance? Am I one "Smooth Talk Devil"? or did I roll a "1" and flub it again? I try to make my Role Play match my roll... which means i need to know what my numbers are before I can act in the Role...

Many times in the past I've given a speech that would have the Mooks handing over the loot and healing the PCs... only to watch my die roll a "1" and get something like an 11. This is only slightly less disturbing then the player with the social skills of a toad, crassly hitting on the merchants daughter and then saying "I've got a 45 diplomacy check, so I get a discount on this right?"

I like to try it the other way around...

Roll the dice and get:

"1" + "10" skill, and so I leer at the NPC while commenting "I'm a Big Man, if you know what I mean!"

or

"20" +"10" skill, and smile at the NPC while commenting "I'm sure I could be of assistance in this little matter, perhaps we could discuss it over an ale later this evening?"

Heck, I wonder if I play "in character" would my "11" result above get bumped into a success... or at least out of a total failure. Yeah - playing the role would push me out of my "role"...

But you know, that's the way I like to play, and I don't expect other people to play the same way. And I sure don't feel comfortable telling other people how to have fun - or that if they are not doing it my way that "If you'd rather not have that as part of your gaming experience, I understand there are other games out there that do not rely on it."

The Exchange ****

4 people marked this as a favorite.

This topic always hits a "hot button" for me. Sorry for the following (feel free to skip my post - it's just random ranting...)

I'd like to chime in on this topic with something from an older thread.

John Francis was posting on a thread about OOC actions having in game effects... but I think it really fits here. Oh, and my reply to him...then I'll expand on the subject.

nosig wrote:
John Francis wrote:


I try to GM by a very simple rule: out-of-character actions have no in-game effects.

That means that saying "Diplomacy roll: 15 on the die, +6 equals 21" is mechanically every bit as good as the most brilliant role-playing exposition of how you're going to persuade the stall-holder to invite you to the private auction that evening.

Sure, I'd like you to role-play the encounter: it makes for a richer experience (hopefully for everybody at the table). But this is a fantasy game, and players are not their characters. I'd no more insist that you have to play out the social skills of your character than I would insist that you had to take actual physical damage should your character get wounded in combat.

Yes! this!

and you know what, the reward I am getting from "the most brilliant role-playing exposition" will be the fun I get from the DOING it... and the fun I see on my fiends faces when they watch me do it. What I rolled doesn't matter - it's all in the fun of the moment...

I've been playing Role Playing games for more years than many of our players have been alive. I can "smooze the DM" as much as the next guy... but when it comes to the mechanics of the game - it sort of bothers me when the judge gives me a bonus, when the 10 year old girl beside me did just as well on her roll as I did on mine... and I succeed and she fails. The difference? I'm playing the game the way the Judge wants me to (because I'm more experienced at it - and more comfortable acting in front of people). Kind of feels like we are saying to that kid "you're having bad-wrong-fun" - "you're playing the game wrong". I, personally, don't like that aspect of our hobby. Where we are "teaching someone HOW TO PLAY THE GAME RIGHT"....So if it's all the same to you, please don't give me a RP bonus when I "smooze the DM" and "play to my audience" ... the reward I am getting from "the most brilliant role-playing exposition" is the fun I get from the DOING it...

Because you know what? Sometimes we role play, sometimes we roll play. And it's all part of the game.

Players even play different at different times...

I like to see players having FUN their own way. I don't need to force them to do it my way.

Sometime, early in a CON, when I'm really in "the zone", I can play a conman that would pull a bluff on Razmir himself!... other times, I'm down and not really feeling it - in need of caffeine perhaps, and I just need to roll the dice and read off the numbers.

A GM that can play to both, and recognize when he/she needs to do one and/or the other (perhaps with different players at the same table at the same time) impresses me greatly. Often in PFS I'm impressed.

So, when we give player X a bonus for his performance, in a way we penalize someone for being shy, or tired, or young (and shy), or rushed, or ...o many other things... because they do not play the game the way we think they should. They are having fun "the wrong way".

Do we do the same thing for someone who just rolls his climb skill checks? or his swim? Does he have to say "I'm doing a 'dog paddle' over to the wall and try to climb out... ah... using both hands to boost me out of the water and the wall as leverage." Should he take us down to the hotel pool to show us HOW his character does that swim check?

How about in combat? should we penalize someone for just rolling the attack - without stating HOW they are attacking? Does a player who is a fencing master (or at least LOOKS like one) get a bonus if he pulls a rapier and flourish's it about?

Diplomacy (all the social skills in fact) is just another skill check - to say "If they role-play greatly, I give a modifier because they entertained m. If they choose not to role-play the conversation, they don't get the bonus, and will likely fail" or "If they dance poorly, I give no modifier..."...

Sorry for the Rant... Returning control back to you

(edited slightly to clarify a couple points)

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Hallet wrote:
nosig wrote:
Michael Hallet wrote:

That's how I would run with it also.

My mistake was when reading that paragraph in the rules, somehow I misinterpreted it as "anything that is PFS legal other than dragonhide is always available" which is clearly not what it says.

So I have a bunch of PCs that purchased darkleaf cloth armor when the did not have to fame to do so.

About half of them now have enough fame, so I assume the easiest thing to do would be to say "oops" and just keep playing the character as is.

But the other half still don't have enough fame for the armor. So what would be the easiest remedy? Just "cancel" the purchase and take back the gold? Should I note that on a chronicle?

crud - I'm going to have to go thru my lower level crew and check this also...
Unless I really need the Dex bonus, darkleaf leather lamellar is pretty much my go to light armor. Cheaper than a mithril chain shirt and almost as good (+5 max dex instead of +6).

same here - and I like that "Eastern" look.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Jane "The Knife" wrote:

the term "slave" is itself "tricky and complicated".

I (personally) trace it's roots to the "agricultural revolution" and the introduction of class distinctions in humanity. Everyone not in charge of their "group" is (to some extent) in servitude to those persons who are (in charge). We are all "slaves to the state". Some of us just notice it more than others...

I agree that it's tricky and complicated, but if you extend it that far, it becomes meaningless. If everyone is a slave, then you lose the distinction that made us come up with the term in the first place.

There's a difference between the plantation slave owner and the field slave. And it's a qualitative difference, even if the owner still has to follow laws and pay taxes.

and a difference between "Convict" and "Trustee"...

Is a "Conscript" a "slave"?

Is someone in bondage for 7 years a "slave"?

Is someone working a field in North Korea a "field slave"?

Janissaries were paid a salary and given a retirement after service... but the "free" (conscript) troops were given neither (and still required to serve in the army, often in much worse conditions). Yet Janissaries were slaves (taken from their families at an age of about 7).

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have very mixed feelings about some of the the responses on this thread. (could be I am just a little sensitive about it and am reading into responses things that are not there... if so, SORRY!)

Please, let's all of us realize that every player is different. Sometimes we role play, sometimes we roll play. And it's all part of the game. Different in the way we approach the game, different each time we sit down, and sometimes even different from round to round in the game.

Some players play different at different times...

Sometime, early in a CON, when I'm really in "the zone", I can play a demagogue that would rouse Andoran to a second revolution!... other times, I'm down and not really feeling it - in need of caffeine perhaps, and I just need to roll the dice and read off the numbers.

A judge that can play to both those moods, and recognize when he/she needs to do one and/or the other (perhaps even some of one and some of the other, often with different players at the same table) impresses me greatly.

"Do you tolerate or punish Gamers for not roleplaying?" Huh? I fear the question is missing something...

"Sometimes we Role Play, and sometimes we Roll Play. It's all part of the game."

Let's just play... have fun, and sort it out some other time...

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Jane "The Knife" wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Can we please lose the false equivalence?

I know, government and taxes are horrible evils, and Roman slavery was so much better than living in the modern US.

Except for the parts where that's all b+!+%!!~. Why would a Roman slave buy himself free, since he's still be "working for the state" anyway?
Other than the whole parts that actually make him a slave - the whims of his master, the punishments, the rape, all the other abuses that even privileged Roman slaves could suffer.
Not to mention the non-privileged Roman slaves.

Please define "slave".

1. thralldom, enthrallment. Slavery, bondage, servitude refer to involuntary subjection to another or others. Slavery emphasizes the idea of complete ownership and control by a master: to be sold into slavery. Bondage indicates a state of subjugation or captivity often involving burdensome and degrading labor: in bondage to a cruel master. Servitude is compulsory service, often such as is required by a legal penalty: penal servitude.

Does the definition of slavery include:
a)Conscripts
b)Bondsmen
c)Janissaries
d)Convicts
e)Captives taken in battle

if it does not, what part of the definition excludes them.

In pretty much every case, the answer is "It depends". It's tricky and complicated.

I'd include "serf" in the list of questionables. And throughout much of history "women".

It does not however include "taxpayers" as a general class. At least not in the modern US.

f) serf

g) peasant
h) helot

the term "slave" is itself "tricky and complicated".

I (personally) trace it's roots to the "agricultural revolution" and the introduction of class distinctions in humanity. Everyone not in charge of their "group" is (to some extent) in servitude to those persons who are (in charge). We are all "slaves to the state". Some of us just notice it more than others...

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Can we please lose the false equivalence?

I know, government and taxes are horrible evils, and Roman slavery was so much better than living in the modern US.

Except for the parts where that's all b+!+%!!~. Why would a Roman slave buy himself free, since he's still be "working for the state" anyway?
Other than the whole parts that actually make him a slave - the whims of his master, the punishments, the rape, all the other abuses that even privileged Roman slaves could suffer.
Not to mention the non-privileged Roman slaves.

Please define "slave".

1. thralldom, enthrallment. Slavery, bondage, servitude refer to involuntary subjection to another or others. Slavery emphasizes the idea of complete ownership and control by a master: to be sold into slavery. Bondage indicates a state of subjugation or captivity often involving burdensome and degrading labor: in bondage to a cruel master. Servitude is compulsory service, often such as is required by a legal penalty: penal servitude.

Does the definition of slavery include:
a)Conscripts
b)Bondsmen
c)Janissaries
d)Convicts
e)Captives taken in battle

if it does not, what part of the definition excludes them?

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Fergie wrote:

However, I just read this article in the BBC News, that included this definition:

The 2016 Global Slavery Index, from the Walk Free Foundation in Australia wrote:
situations of exploitation that a person cannot refuse or leave because of threats, violence, coercion, abuse of power or deception.
I think the first definition allows for possible situations of benevolent "slavery" that could exist in a LG society. However the second definition is basically evil any way you look at it.

By that definition, everyone who works in the USA were enslaved until April 24 of this year (on average). Since that's when we finished paying off our taxes for the year. It's the rest of the year that we can actually work for ourselves.

(And just try to avoid paying taxes if you don't think that there are threats/coercion involved.)

That definition is terrible. It sounds evil, but it's so subjectively open-ended that it can easily be stretched to include virtually everyone.

After all, isn't it coercion if they won't feed you if you don't work?

just because you think you are working for yourself (after April 24th), does not mean you are not still a slave...

From Wikipedia article "Slavery in ancient Rome"

"...Roman slaves could hold property which, despite the fact that it belonged to their masters, they were allowed to use as if it were their own.[2] Skilled or educated slaves were allowed to earn their own money, and might hope to save enough to buy their freedom..."

It was not unknown for a Roman slave to buy themselves free... to become freemen thru their own labor. Something we in the modern age cannot do... next year, you'll still be "working for the state".

and to repeat a quote -

“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.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

“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.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

“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.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

a possible problem, and a suggestion

1st the suggestion:
If you are worried about a dispel magic cast upon you dispelling the special "memory" spell, but you still want to have it with you (and thus subject to "Targeted Dispel" effects cast on you), you should try to "buffer" the spell - provide it with some protection. Get other spells cast on you with a higher Caster Level. Preferably only one level higher. That way when someone targets you with a dispel it will roll FIRST against the spell with the highest Caster Level - and if it makes the roll it ends there. More than one of the Higher CL spells would even be better...just be sure that the spell caster casting the "buffer" spells has a higher CL...

Targeted Dispel:
: 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...
you said "...monk had continual flame cast upon his left hand ..." - continual flame has "Target: object touched" which means that your hand would not be a legitimate target. Unless it happened to be detached at the time of casting... or maybe if you were dead when he cast it. Creature =/= Object. Perhaps he cast it on a glove? or a piece of jewelry? or ... something? I have mine cast on a tongue ring... so when I smile flames sparkle between my teeth.

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mitch Mutrux wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


The mithral waffle iron CANNOT make pancakes dammit!
What sort of maladjusted fool would even want to make pancakes, much less attempt to do so with a mithral waffle maker?

"...maladjusted fool..."? checks quoted post OH! BNW! ok, now I understand... ;) he should have taken 10 on his "social interaction roll"...

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Lab_Rat wrote:
My barbarian, who currently has 10 ioun stones has them embedded in strategic locations on his body so that they enhance the look of his tattoos (ie his dragon tattoo on his back has ioun stones for eyes).

In that case none of them are working.

SRD wrote:
An ioun stone must be able to orbit freely around a creature’s head (or placed in a specialized matrix like a wayfinder) for its power to be active.
I just buy a wayfinder for each ioun stone I have.

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...

Scarab Sages ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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..

The Exchange ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:

But, honestly, let's think about it from the point of view of a random PFS GM. They probably don't check the errata obsessively, and don't follow the forums. Chances are, they'll do exactly that, not because they don't like the changes, but just because they don't know. A player is less likely to notice, unless she use herolab and gets updates. Most GMs, in order to cope, have to assume that the players know what they're doing.

As such, in reality, it'll probably take at least a year for these changes to percolate through 90% of the PFS player base. Even after that there will be some people doing it wrong who have no idea they're doing it wrong; after all, they're following what the rulebookk they have says.

Heck, I still have people "correct" me about rules that haven't been in place sense 3.5 days (rules that changed for PFS).

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BretI wrote:

Add me to the list of people disappointed by the nerf to the Jingasa.

I had it on exactly one of my characters, was planning to get it on a second. The second now will have to get by with a non-magical jingasa. Neither character had the Fate's Favored trait, they were both looking for the critical hit negation.

The one character that owns it will be selling it back. Still figuring out what I replace it with.

There should be some items that are just better than other options. This happens with a lot of things, both in game and in real life. Although something being popular can indicate an item might be overpowered, that isn't always the case.

To those who evidently poll their players at every table (else how would you know how many Jingasa's there were), how is Handy Haversack doing on those polls? Curious, since that generally allows those who dump Strength to still carry a reasonable amount of gear. I know that I've got the Handy Haversack on more characters than had the Jingasa.

33 characters (counting my CORE ones, so figure just 22) here.

Jingasa's = 0
Handy Haversacks? Something like 10 or 12... (Plus Pathfinder Pouches etc.)

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!

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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...)

Silver Crusade ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

(in "little ol' lady voice")
does the name ring a bell kiddie?

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.

Scarab Sages ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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"
World’s Second-Greatest Lover (I do try harder)
Finest Swordsman Soldier of Fortune
Outrageous Liar Art Critic
Heart Warming Physician Stepladders Repaired

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
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!"

0.0

My response..."wow dude, I think your chances of getting that blindness spell turned off just went down."

The Exchange ****

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


I don't really see it happening, but I'd love it if there were some way to apply those judge credits to higher tier PCs. Even keeping the money/XP/Fame the same...

Why not just not take credit? It sounds like you effectively don't want to use it anyway.

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...

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

The Exchange ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.

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).
- In Irrisen/Geb you will turn in all the humans (Elves/Dwarves/Gnomes etc. all count) as they should all be locked up - food animals aren't allowed to just wonder around, and these guys are feral humans...
- Problems will arise in Andoran, Belkzen, Galt, Katapesh, Mwangi, Nex, Nidal (shudder), Qadira, Rahadoum (any god-followers among you?), Razmiran, The Shackles, heck most anywhere, due to who you or your fellows are.

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.

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

"Pass me a penny

"Why?

"passes over the book.

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).

The Exchange ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.

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?
You say the other players are having a conflict with the way you are playing your PC ("I'm playing a lawful PC and my party just keeps breaking laws."). Sounds like maybe you are running a PC that doesn't fit with the rest of the group.

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."

TANSTAAFL

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...

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Spark Monkey wrote:

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.

...snipping to save space...

“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.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

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).

Sovereign Court ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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...

background info:

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...

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."

1 to 50 of 1,079 << 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.