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. 8,606 posts (9,835 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 33 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 1,141 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

spell Full Pouch:

School: transmutation
Level: alchemist 2, bard 2, druid 2, inquisitor 3, occultist 3, ranger 3, sorcerer/wizard 2
Casting Time: 1 swift action
Components: V, S, M (alchemical reagents or herbs worth 1 gp)
Range: touch
Targets: 1 object touched
Duration: instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude negates (object)
Spell Resistance: no
You cast this spell as you draw out a consumable alchemical item to use. The object must be an alchemical item, but not a dose of disease, a poison, a magic potion, or another type of consumable item. The item divides itself into two nearly identical copies and the newly separated one is delivered into your hand. The new item functions as the original in all ways except the copied item suffers a slight reduction in quality. Saves against the new alchemical item's affects use the original item's save DC or the save DC of this spell, whichever is higher.

Ok,... How does this spell work? Am I missing something here? Duration is instantaneous, so it creates a duplicate of an Alchemical item. Often with a better save.

So... Say Al the Alchemist wants to use a 2nd level extract of full pouch to create an extra tanglefoot bag. He reaching for his existing 'bag and ... Casts this extract? Creating a copy which he then puts on the table in front of him. Does he have two tanglefoot bags? One with a different DC?

Can he do this again? And again (if he has the 2nd level extracts to do this)? Until he has a dozen tanglefoot bags on the table?

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
claudekennilol wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Tim Statler wrote:
To minimize Geek Sodoku, we post each month's offering ahead of time on Warhorn.net. That way everyone knows what is offered and when.
Which results in people not showing up, which is a HUGE problem when you have a small group.
I'm confused, how does having people sign up and commit in advance result with people not showing up?

I look and see that there are two things offered that I have played. So I don't bother to show up.

as a result, the 4 "walk-ins" that would have loved to play an evergreen, that I could run in my sleep, don't form a table and maybe don't get seated.

Scarab Sages ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rei wrote:
TOZ wrote:
MisterSlanky wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Welcome to the institution.
In need of institutionalization is the way most of us could be described. Yes.
I'm not locked in here. I can leave any time I want!

"Relax" said the Dreng man,

"We are programmed to receive
You can check out any time you like
But you can never leave"

there are whispers from the shadows of one man who got out. He was a Grand Master...

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
pH unbalanced wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Jeff Hazuka wrote:
Isn't this just going to lead into a "properly filled out chronicles" debate?
My wager is on alignment.

So you believe that any character whose paperwork is clear enough to allow them to replay a 4+ year-ago scenario should be forced into a Lawful alignment?

Got it. I agree.

nah, the PLAYER is lawful, the character... might not even be literate.

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nohwear wrote:
Let's look at this another way, would you be if someone sat down at the table then pulled out a book explaining that since their character is not very effective they are just going to catch up on some reading?

about the same as when the player is in a cell phone and is only "in game" to roll a couple dice and shout numbers at the judge...

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

oh, I don't know. To make any progress with this "issue", I think first we need to define what "excessive builds" are. And in what instance they are "excessive". And decide if they are really a problem - realizing what is excessive in one situation is kind of useless in another.

I played a game last night at Tier 1-2. We had 5 players.
A 1, three 2's and a level 4 (later "discovered" as level 5).

The 4/5 PC... very much needs to be audited. (The judge talked to the VC after the game - so hopefully the "problem child" will be addressed privately, before he walk into another game, in a less confrontational setting, and get some helpful direction about playing by the rules). This guy stated that he had two +2 equivalent magic weapons, as well as other equipment ("I saved my loot to be able to afford them), and relied on Potion of CLW for healing (that he just never seemed to track during the game) and... goodness, to many issues to go over here. But clearly "excessive"

But you know what? The level 4/5 was pretty close to being useless the entire scenario. And worse yet, seemed to detract from the fun of the game - by being useless. The guy was designed to do one thing - melee combat. And the scenario was for the most part RP. And the player had no idea of how to, and appeared to have no desire to, role play. He wanted to discuss how to write a scenario, and ideas for his home game, and ... so many other things that did not relate to the current adventure or even PFS... He was even kind of "extra" in the final fight. It took place in a "restricted movement" area where the lower level PCs carried the fighting to the BBE, (the "Combat Machine" did get the last attack on the BBE... but the 1st level PC actually delayed his attack that likely would have dropped the BBE so that the 5th level would get to take one attack in the combat. Yeah, the 1st level was modifying his play to include the "excessive build" guy - you know, to include him in the game. Even then the judge had to stop play to figure out how the E.B. guy was +12 on his attacks (two weapon fighting, but with his roll he needed a +12 to get that hit)... Yeah, it was during this melee round (the last as the game was ending) that he announced he was actually 5th level (he needed a BAB of +5 to get his numbers to come out close....). (I didn't get the particulars on the attacks - by this time I was trying to ignore the guy as much as possible.)

So... which of the PCs were "Excessive"?
The 1st level Occultist who was able to get into combat? And had most of the Knowledge skills we needed?
The 2nd level Bolt Ace who was able to shot the BBE and the other monster encountered in the game?
The 2nd level Kineticist who was able to shot the BBE (and added to the RP with "cute PC traits")?
the 2nd level Bard, who talked us thru at least one combat encounter?

Or the 4/5th level guy with way more gear than he could afford?

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

No.

It was a prod to take your rules-based discussion out of a humorous thread and move it to a more appropriate forum.

Sorry.

Gone now.

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Wu wrote:

What is being described is a player problem.

Not a character problem.

Period.

Players who don't hold back even if it is detrimental to the fun of the rest of the table will continue to be a problem even if such caps are put into place. They'll just find different ways to optimize.

In all cases the solution is NOT more character rules.

The solution is to TALK to the players in question.

Let them know what they are doing is affecting the others. If they still then continue to run roughshod, perhaps they should seek out a different play venue besides PFS.
-j

I think you pegged it.

This is a player problem that the OP is suggesting a rule fix for. It would not have the results he intends...

IMHO (the following is just my OPINION - feel free to skip it) we CAN'T fix this with game rules. Not effectively. We can't as game designers or organizers or even as judges at the table "fix" the way people act.

But you know what? We as players can, and in fact always have. If a player is a real pain to play with - we don't play with him. It's the old "Playground rules." In time he fixes his problem (whatever it is), or he goes and plays Pokémon-Go or something (not meaning to imply Pokémon-Go players are less that fine people - just picking a random other part of the hobby).

It's maybe not real nice when it happens, it might not be pretty, ... and when I encounter it I may out of the kindness of my heart try to "fix the problem" (you know, TALK to the problem - "hey guy, don't cheat on dice rolls - yeah, we can all tell..." or "hey lady, how about toning it down a little and letting the Barbarian get in a couple swings too".). But I don't have to fix it. And I don't expect that something/someone else, some rule/"authority figure" will fix it, or even "control it".

People will be people. In the end, life is to short for bad games. Play with friends. Talk to people. And if you want to pull some great gimmick (like doing 150HP damage in a round), don't keep it a secret, share it with your "friends" at the table. Enjoy. Better yet, enjoy it with them. PLAY!

"If it's not fun, don't do it."

sheesh, now I need to go wash my face... sorry about that

Scarab Sages ****

9 people marked this as a favorite.

"A proposal for limiting excessive builds. "

wait... don't we have this already?

It's call the Core Campaign

The Exchange ****

10 people marked this as a favorite.

I vote no. Please.

So many problems with this...

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ferious Thune wrote:

I have no comment on whether or not it's an appropriate spell for the campaign. I just want to know if I need to stop using it and whether or not I can sell back a wand of it.

I think the PFS FAQ still overrides other rules about using evil spells, but this is something that should definitely be considered for clarification, as I'm sure it will become a major source of table variation until there's some official word from the campaign.

I'm not going to be comfortable telling a player the item they've been using for years will suddenly turn them evil based solely on a sidebar in a book I don't own while there is an FAQ from the campaign stating otherwise.

+1

I like this post... in case you didn't notice.

:)

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

Ok.

What do you propose?

don't change anything. proceed as we have the last 3-5 years.

;-)

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hillis Mallory III wrote:
andreww wrote:
nosig wrote:
Hillis Mallory III wrote:
I tried to use my Wand of Infernal Healing on the Eidolon... Didn't work. Sorry man.

?

Ok, I'll bite. Why didn't it work?

Some people believe that because Eidolons don't heal naturally that they cannot benefit from fast healing.

I am not one of them.

Eh, to each their own. The evolution is a higher level ability and the Summoner does have Rejuvenate Eidolon. Cure spells still work as well as channeling and such.

Just can't add to something that isn't there, thats all.

How would you feel about using the spell Infernal Healing on undead? They don't heal naturally, so by your ruling on the spell and Eidolons ("...don't heal naturally that they cannot benefit from fast healing..."), Undead could not benefit from the Fast Healing granted by the spell. But ... don't some Undead have "fast healing"?

"Fast Healing: A bloody skeleton has fast healing equal to 1 per 2 Hit Dice it possesses (minimum 1)."

Does this mean that you would rule that a bloody skeleton doesn't actually heal damage?

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sigh....

I wish someone would put it in the Guide in understandable language. At this point I don't really care how it is - I'm tired of trying to explain it to new players, only to have to change it (again) the next time I'm running it.

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I realize this is silly, but every time I read the title of this thread, I get the image of it being about repairing Clockwork Familiars.

You know, buying tiny gears to replace broken ones...

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I could have sworn there was a book boon to sell an item for more than 50% of what you paid for it. Anyone have any idea what it is/where it's from?

The book is "Song of the Serpent" (a Pathfinder Tale):

The boon is called Kalistrade Appraisal: "you have studied the Prophecies of Kalistrade and worked alongside Druman merchants, and learned a few of their negotiating tricks, thus giving you the upper hand in your own mercantile negotiations. This allows you to sell a single item of treasure at 75% value rather than 50% one time. When this boon is used cross it off your Chronicle sheet."

The Exchange ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Explore. Cooperate. Report.

These are the words that drew me into PFS, and these are the ideals that keep me here. I'm going to agree with Paul, and ask that for the moment we should set aside the question of the unclear writing in this section of the guide. What I want us to do is to look into the heart of what was intended here by these changes, and ask: does it help us explore, cooperate and report?

Pre-Gens and their Usage

If you look through my past posts, you'll find that I'm an unabashed fan of the pre-gens. I have played them multiple times, trying out a wide variety. Pregens have allowed me to taste new classes, and have given me a chance to try them out. I like the current set of pregens, and have read their back stories, and enjoyed roleplaying the ones that I've tried. They're old friends.

In my area, I've often spent time with newcomers who've come in with a pregen. Aside from the jokes about Kyra Clones, the iconics are often treated as celebrities at the tables they sit at. "Oh, Seoni. It's great to see you again! You may not remember me, but we adventured together at Azlant Ridge."

Heck, I know multiple people who've built a character based on the iconics. The only pregen "abuse" that I've ever seen is people using up the pregen's stock of potions and wands first because theirs will magically restock next adventure.

One of the things that I have loved about the Pre-Gens is that they encouraged us to "Explore." Try out this new class. Try out this new game.

They also encouraged us to "Cooperate." When a group of six people discover that they're lacking some key element -- skills, martial combat, diplomacy, arcane power -- I've seen players say, "No problem, I'll bring in a pregen. I've always wanted to give the Investigator Class a try."

Perhaps the only thing they might have been weak upon was "Report" but I've seen people happily diving in, trying new things, and helping their team come home.

Ramifications

It...

This was the best post in this entire thread. In fact, I think it is the best response I have read on the board in months, if not years.

I would like to buy you a beer if I every get to a Con you are at - but perhaps a brownie would be better? Edge or Center?

The Exchange ****

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jeff Hazuka wrote:

I'm not convinced it creates more problems than it solves.

Problems it solves:
-Using a pregen as a buffer for your own character.
-Using a pregen to chronicle fish.
-Using a pregen to conserve your own consumables.

Problems it creates:
More level 1 characters?

Problems it doesn't touch:
Players who will troll. They assign their dead credit to a level 1 before, instead of after.

Problems it creates:

More people just walk away rather than play.

More people never even bother to show up to the table... "No need to show up to the tier 5-9, after all, the highest level PC I have is 4th, and I'm not going to risk it with a bunch of strangers".

And the worst one for some people: More obscure paperwork to keep track of, and more obscure rules to know/find/understand correctly.

The Exchange ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

I'm not planning on ever playing Bonekeep. It's not why I'm in PFS. But I was wondering if Bonekeep was the thing that caused them to push this rule.

If people are already currently not allowed to play pregens in Bonekeep-type scenarios, then I'm stumped about the pregen abuse issue.

Hmm

I have played Bonekeep 1 twice. Once right after it came out, then again a year or two later (in Core Campaign).

Two very different experiences.

Standard Campaign:
Played it in a very adversarial atmosphere, the most memorable thing was being told "of course you are going to get boned, that's why they call it BoneKeep!" - when I asked about a Judges ruling. Not a fun experience. Convinced me not to have anything to do with any of this series for more than a year. The way it was presented was not the way I like to play. (Very much portrayed as a fight between the Judge and the Players. Played at a Con, with 5 players sort of tossed together.

Core Campaign, with 5 Pregens:
Played in someone's home, with a judge needing to get his last Special to get his 5th star. So the players figured we'd play it in Core with Pregens, and if we died it was ok - we were all on 1st level PCs anyway. It actually was a lot of fun - and the party was much better balanced and played much better.

So, again, Pregens can have their place. They are another option the players have... But I guess that is the problem some people see with them.

The Exchange ****

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

The message I have gotten from this thread is: clearly someone doesn't want us to play Pregens.

so, when presented with the choice to play a pregen or not play... I think I am just going to start going home.

Life is to short for bad gaming.

I have to agree. Playing with a pregen is never going to be as fun as playing with your real character. And for most people, their real characters are more powerful, and thus less likely to be killed in a scenario. Given those two elements, less fun + greater risk, I see a lot of people just walking away instead of playing the pregen. Which is some cases means that tables may not make and thus nobody has any fun.

nah, mostly the tables will still "make" - 3 players and a Pregen run by the judge. He can use the time he saves from not needing to try to figure out how to record the death of a Player run Pregen to run the Pregen during the game.

The Exchange ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The message I have gotten from this thread is: clearly someone doesn't want us to play Pregens.

so, when presented with the choice to play a pregen or not play... I think I am just going to start going home.

Life is to short for bad gaming.

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MisterSlanky wrote:
To nosig & pH Unbalanceds' point - I think those of us that get to enjoy the fertile plains of Minnesota and our 15+ tables of games every week do not understand the limited replay opportunities of other regions.

and worse yet, some of us are getting old and crotchety and jaded and really selective of who we'll sit at a table with. (yeah, getting to be that old geezer - recognizing a bunch of people I'd really rather not inflict myself on. Or them on me. Or whatever... Life is just to short for "bad games"). Just recently I watched a series of 3 tables on Warhorn go from 5 players to 2, then to 1 after the 6th chair was taken.

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
jon dehning wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Most of the time, a low level character isn't going to have the wealth to spend anyway, so the "you haven't applied the chronicle yet and can't use personal wealth" problem is irrelevant.
More than once I've played a pregen for a 7-11 for a character that was level 6 at the time. Though if all of the numbers stated previously are correct, a level 7 pregen can afford to raise themselves (assuming they finished enough of the scenario to be awarded enough gold to cover it off of that single chronicle sheet (plus their gear)).
Why are you playing a pregen in the first place? Why not wait until your character is in tier?

at a guess I would bet it is because the game is a 7-11 and the choices are:

a) play a Pregen.
or
b) go home.

or some version of that.

Perhaps he wants that chronicle on that PC, and if he doesn't play it now, the likelihood of it being scheduled again is very slim. (maybe the group he plays with only have 5 to 9 members, and if 6 of them play something they can't get enough players who haven't played it to make a table.)

Sovereign Court ****

4 people marked this as a favorite.

ok, time for a silly question....

wouldn't Tengu be at the top of the "pecking order"?

;>

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Luckily, in Serpent's Rise, you can simply sell all of your Pregen's gear to cover your Raise Dead ^_^

as the Pregen is level 7+, wouldn't we also need to bring the PC we are assigning the game to (at least the most recent Chronicle sheet) since the iconic's death will require us to spend 2000 gp? and if we don't have it the PC would be marked as dead right?

Or would it suddenly "become dead" when it reaches 8th level (the level of the Pregen when it died)?

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Has anyone totaled the sell value of the equipment on existing Pregens? Which ones have enough to pay for the Raise Dead/Restorations needed?

Just wondering... it might make a difference if a player was trying to decide between which 4th level Pregen to risk running...

and it would make the "end of game slot" paperwork run a lot faster.

Player: "How much does a +1 Longsword retail for? What's half price on that? What's the value of a wand of cure moderate wounds with ...ah... 5 charges left?"

edit: corrected spelling and language issues.

The Exchange ****

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

looks to me like this rule change was intended to discourage people from playing the Pregens.

Looks like it is going to work. I know I'll most likely not play any any more. I can always just sit a game out.

With this rule in place I cannot imagine I would apply it to anything other than a new character number. This goes double for stuff like Serpents Rise, Serpents Ire, True Dragons etc.

yeah. I'm prepping Serpents Ire now, due to run it 3 times at a Con in the middle of next month. I've already had two of my friends back out of the one of the sessions due to this rule - and my wife is going to assign her game of it to a new first level (not even one game)...

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Michael Hallet wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:

Seriously, Griefers gonna grief.

Here's what I don't understand. If you have a problem player who is purposefully playing pregens in such a way that the party TPKs, why would you ever seat this player?

Because some stores will make it a rule that if you use their space to play you have to seat anyone who shows up as long as there is room.

I know one group who ended up changing venues for just this reason. There was a disruptive player that the organizer tried to ban and the store said let him play or find somewhere else for the game.

That's fine if you have multiple places nearby to play, but what if you don't?

I wonder how many people the player has been driving away?

Edit: I feel the need to expand on this with personal experience.
When I first moved to the city I currently live in, I was very much into PFS (Season 2-3). My wife and I found a store nearby and started going there... and in about 6 months found that most of the players showing up at the store on game nights were people we really didn't want to play with. All the "fun" people had moved on (home games? or ... someplace...). So we "shopped around" and found another store - and found some of the people we had seen when we started at the first store. It took a couple years for the "socially challenged persons" to migrate to the new store. And so we took a group of friends out of that store and started playing in our home (at one point we had 3 tables going at once on a game night in my home). In time, it got to be a bit of work to keep arranging it at home, and we've cut back... but now we'd started looking again, and found a third store.

But you know what? if that first store had "policed" it better, and pushed out the disruptive players, we would likely still be going there.

Or maybe not...

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

looks to me like this rule change was intended to discourage people from playing the Pregens.

Looks like it is going to work. I know I'll most likely not play any any more. I can always just sit a game out.

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Livgin wrote:
andreww wrote:
DM Livgin wrote:

What if, now wait for it... The FAQ and the Season 8 Guide are both current and written as intended...

That would only mean that if a pregen dies you still have the option of assigning it to a new number. Or if you really wanted that chronicle sheet, there are some minimum costs that your PC must pay.

The Gencon Magic 8 Ball suggests the FAQ will be removed.

Also Andrew C was leading the guide revision team.

Sometimes you roll a 1 on your rules-bluff check. Sometimes your bluff auto-fails cause the audience knows better...

sense motive- take 10 - (-2 low wisdom & no ranks) = 8. Heck, I believed the bluff!

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm sure not playing any more Pregens not assigned to 1st level PCs.

Especially after I have prepped Serpents Ire. Wow...

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

wow... this change is troubling.

I am due to run 7-98 Serpent's Ire several times at a local Con... Been putting a lot of work into prepping it in style. (I need to get 6 more specials for my 5th star, and was planning to pick up 3 at this Con... now I'm not sure if anyone in their right mind would sign up for the games...) With this change, I am not sure if I want to run this one. I know I am going to have to talk to several people I regularly run for and warn them to put it on brand new PCs. Possibly warn them to avoid it altogether.

"Hay, come sit down at this table and play! Which of your PCs 7, 8 or 9th level would you like to gamble today?"

Yeah - you can go play one of the regular games, or you can come over to my table and get a random PC, and the only thing you'll be risking is... one of your PCs. Yeah - this is going to be great... :-(

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I most often encounter table variation with rules that are in the CRB. Common things that are hard to predict that the judge/other players will be "playing differently".

here's an example (or several examples) of table variation that occurred at a table I was at last night.

AOOs for moving:

- PC tumbles past a monster. Player rolls one Acrobatics roll and fails (rolls a 3), so the Monster takes an attack for each square the PC moves thru. Judge (and two players) state "this is how everyone in the world does it! Show me in the rules where it only gets one AOO." After the game we looked up the rule - but heck, "everyone does it the other way, ..." implying the CRB is clearly wrong.

Knowledge check to ID monster.:

Judge: "Roll Knowledge XXXX".
Player: "34"
Judge:"Ask 3 questions.",
Player: "What can I ask?",
Judge: "Things like Special Attacks",
Player: "OK, I ask that."
Judge: "No, that's not how that works, you have to ask 3 questions".
Player: "??? ok, whatever. What does my PC know about this monster?"
Judge: "NO! you can't pull do it that way! You have to ask one of the standard questions!"
Player: "What are the standard questions?"
Helpful player: "you know, things like Special Abilities, Special Defenses, Best Save, HP - except you can't ask exact HP..."
Player: "Ok, I ask that"
Judge: "you ask what?"
Player: "what he said" pointing at Helpful Player
Helpful Player: "What are it's Special Abilites?"
Judge: "Robot Traits"
Helpful Player: "So like Construct Traits?"
Player: "What?"
Judge: "Yeah"
Player: "What?"
Judge: "What's your next question"
Player: "???"
Judge: "Ask a question?"
Player: "What does my PC know about this monster?"
Judge: "You have to ask one of the standard questions!"
Player: "... ah... what's it favorite color?"

.

Skill usage:

- Perception to locate traps. "You can't see the trap until you are in the room. The trap triggers when you enter the room. So, you can't avoid triggering the trap."

- Disable Device to remove a trap. "How are you going to remove the Gravity Trap? There is no way to disable it from inside the room it is in - maybe you can disable it elsewhere in some other room?" and "You have to be beside the lasers to disable them - so they shoot at you while you are there."
.

Take 20:
on a Perception check. "That take's 20 minutes."
.

Take 10:
on a skill check "You can't take 10, you might fail." And after a roll of '3' succeeds, repeating the check get's the comment. "You can't take 10, you might fail."
.

Drinking a potion, and AOO:
Drinking a potion gives the attacker an AOO, and if the attack hits, damage is dealt and action of drinking is interrupted (action is lost, and potion may be destroyed).

I really don't often see a problem with BUILDS, that is something I have control over, that I can expect. If I have a build with something that I know might have issues - like the Healing Bomb discovery for example - I will ask the judge how he will deal with it in play. So as not to waste game time later. Having a printout of the "rule" and any other examples I can find. Maybe some questions I need to know the answers to see how it works at that table.

Healing Bomb Questions:

An Ally is involved in melee with several undead. So I throw a Healing bomb targeting my ally.
1) Does my friend HAVE to count his DEX at part of his touch AC?

2) Do I count my INT in the splash damage to the undead?

3) Do the Undead get 1 or 2 Saves? And what type of saves? Will or Reflex or Both?

4) If I used a Potion for the Healing Bomb, how do I calculate the DC for the Save/Saves? From my Bomb DC? or from the Potion DC? or from Both (Reflex for my Bomb DC, and Will for the Potion)?

The "table variation" I have trouble dealing with would be when something in the CRB works different at this table, different from every other table I have played at. (I don't like to have rules discussions when I am trying to PLAY).

The Exchange ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have posted the following list before, but I always find it awesome, and presented in a very novel way...

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

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

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

Then AFTER you leave the venture captains office...

Yeah... made me laugh!

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Guys, we appear to be stumbling into the areas where we don't really need to bother to go.

If a player shows up at the table where I'm setting down and says "My PCs got XXX" that effects his movement, I might ask her how she deals with whatever the possible problem might be. If that happens to be Peg Legs, or a Bloat Mage, or an Andoran, we'll work that out during or before the game.

Of corse it's to be expected that if you come onto the boards and say ANYTHING about your PC, you are going to get one or more posters objecting to it. And insisting that your PC should not be allowed to do it. This is sort of the nature of the boards...

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Most PCs interact with VCs only during briefings... so our views toward, and reactions to, VCs will be created from the way those briefings appear to be handled.

Here's an old thread on something that I think was/is a
Problem-with-mission-briefings.

Quoted from that thread:

For once I would like get a briefing kind of like in the movies. You know, the team enter a briefing room with a set of desks facing a raised platform where two or three aides prepare a seat and some flip displays for the Venture Captain who rushing in and looks the team over. "Your team is the best available from the pathfinder agents in town." Be that good or bad...
"Here's what we know of the situation." Hand out for the players detailing the instructions "to go to location 'A' and do 'B'. Along the way you way you will encounter 'C'".
The judge now looks over the party and makes a note of what types of characters he has available. Checks his additional notes and says:
"Your team has been assigned Sigmond as we are expecting you to need someone adapt at the arcane arts. Grod and Tarrick the Bazerk should supply any... forceful backup you need, and Lord Patterson should be able to get you thru any Diplomatic entanglements you encounter. Jane the Knife was assigned - well Jane why don't you tell them what your special skills you bring to the group are?" Perhaps have each of the players supply why they think they were assigned this mission.
"Blackson here" pointing to one of his aides "from Scrolls can provide our current update on the situation"
The Judge then provides the answers to expected questions. Now we can get to all the off the wall questions that the players will ask. And perhaps let the players do some Knowledge rolls to see if they know anything the Society might not have on file.

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

so...
The important question is - does detailing this out "in game" add to the enjoyment of the people at the table?

Yes? then let's be sure and cover it.

No? then let's push it behind the curtain and only pull it out when it will "Add To The Game".

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:

So when I played We Be Goblins Free, I got captivated by the singing enemy in that mod, and was one round away from being coup de graced. I needed a 19 or higher to save myself. My GM required us to sing the goblin songs to use our rerolls, and so I sang my heart out poorly, just as a goblin should.

I rolled a natural 20 on the reroll.

Always sing the goblin song. ALWAYS.

wonderful advice.

Bad requirement.

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Comment on Chase scenes....

Link to thread..

and the quote from that old link...

Let people help each other. Do the chase as a team not as a group of individuals trying to get high dice rolls.

Need to get by the locked door? let the rogue pick the lock, the barbarian chop down the door, the alchemist blow it all up. Or the Bard to sweet-talk the guard into opening it and letting her friends by - "see you after you get off sweetie!"

My biggest problem with the chase mechanics is that it splits a social game into a game of individuals. Is your build "better" than the other players? Really? Present challenges to the party.

Got to catch the target? How far can you throw the gnome barbarian?

Though several posters did point out that clearly the problem with chase scenes wasn't in the rules, it was either with the character/player in the chase or the guy running the table....

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

ignore this - just nosig being nosig:
"We did ask about taking 10 at one point and were told that we couldn't and I don't think it came up again."... oh, fun. Yeah. I keep forgetting....

"modifications" that let the judge "control the ...tension of the game"... that "..vary based on the pacing and dramatic needs of the moment".

sigh...

hay, maybe that's why you kept failing at the checks! the judge was "control the ...tension of the game", adjusting "the pacing and dramatic needs of the moment".

Dark Archive ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my area we have a saying, often heard at tables I play at (or judge) - "Don't kill them! They're worth more alive!". Sometimes this results in the Lib.Edge faction PCs swinging with renewed vigor, trying to kill the NPCs before the D.A./Exchange/S.S factions can turn them over to the guard to be sold into slavery.

Have I stabilized monsters? Sure! lots. after all, "they're worth more alive". Where do you think all that fiendish blood comes from? Dead fiends only give up blood once. And Monstrous guards are not cheap!

And if my PC gets a reputation as someone who ALWAYS captures enemies - maybe "what goes around, comes around". Some day that might be my girl bleeding out there.

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have re-reviewed most of the 300 so posts on this and I notice something...

The OP said "I was at a table with four other players and we were told this would be a social scenario. We had a social paladin, a social fighter/rogue another fighter, a sorcerer and a couple others I don't remember. We utterly failed in this adventure because we didn't have the right knowledge skills or profession skills." -

so, if I am reading that right, his judge couldn't have run this correctly. If there were two characters described as "social XXX"... how did they fail the checks? I can only come up with four ways....

1) the judge (incorrectly) restricted checks to only those PCs that first passed the Knowledge/Profession checks - or perhaps only allowed PCs with those skills to make checks. (the "social" characters weren't allowed to make the check)

2) the judge (incorrectly) penalized diplomacy checks made by those PCs or groups that did not first make/pass the Knowledge/Profession checks (the "social" characters using Diplomacy only suffered a major minus to Diplomacy Skill checks)

3) the players rolled poorly. (perhaps because they didn't know/weren't allowed to "Take 10"? - but that's just nosig being nosig).

4) the OP doesn't know what a "social" character is...

I think the most likely answer is #2 - which means this entire thread is about someone (the judge) who doesn't know the (new) rules, enforcing what he thinks they are... Or am I missing something?

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am waiting for someone to come on to this thread and issue a complaint that these rules are turning the Role Playing into Roll Playing....

there, that should get a bunch of people disagreeing with me again...;-)

The Exchange ****

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, here's an interesting thought.

If this scenario uses a rules sub-set that I (the judge) am unfamiliar with, it's kind of nice having a player at the table who knows how it works.

A while back I was running a game with very little prep - and one of the NPCs was a class that I had never run, in fact that I had never even SEEN run. Yeah, I read the book on it (10-15 minutes of my hour prep time in fact) - but when it came to running him in combat? heck, I could read his tactics but understand them? So I came to that moment in the melee where I'm not sure how it works and... just asked. Sure enough, there's a player at the table who's eyes light up. "Hay! I run a guy like that! Yeah, that's a feat, it does XXX". Me: "So when it says he does YY?" Player: "Oh, he should move to here to do that because...". And it made the game much more fun then me trying to stumble thru playing something I had no idea how it worked. And next time I run it - I'll better understand those class abilities.

I can see letting everyone at the table know we're using the "new rule sub-set from XXX"... that means more than one set of eyes looking at it and more than one brain trying to figure out how to run it.

After all, I'm playing WITH the players, not AGAINST them.

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MadScientistWorking wrote:
nosig wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
DarkKnight27 wrote:

You don't have to say how they're being used, how they relate to the story being told or anything like that, just like the blurb doesn't tell you what monsters or opponents or classes or races you will encounter. It seems like a simple solution that will help the game, I still can't see how this would hurt the game in any way.

So you want to ruin the GM experience by giving the player's the exact tactics they need to run rough shot over the scenario? And yeah before you actively complain that Im exaggerating there are simple hard counters to a lot of newer classes that you wouldn't be able to tell normally and would be easy as all hell to do if you had your goofy warning.

I don't even understand this post...

are you saying the judge needs to NOT tell the players what rules are being used? That to do so would "...ruin the GM experience by giving the player's the exact tactics they need ..."?

Or that the players need to pick the scenario to sign up for without knowing what rules will be included in the game being run?

Please expand on this statement "...there are simple hard counters to a lot of newer classes that you wouldn't be able to tell normally... ". What are you trying to say here?

I also did not understand the statement "...would be easy as all hell to do if you had your goofy warning." I mean other than the part where you felt that "his" warning was "goofy"... I get that you do not like the idea of putting a warning label on scenarios.

Basically, to dictate what monsters are in a scenario is a horrible and kind of obnoxious suggestion to make.

Sorry. I must have missed that post. Where did someone "dictate what monsters are in a scenario"?

All I have seen is some posters saying "I want a warning label when these new rules are being used instead of the (CRB) existing rules" and replies saying "quite whining".

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Jessex wrote:
Which would have been fine. But the scenario completely sidelined the social characters, presumably played by the players interested in that aspect of role playing, which is quite likely the source of the frustration. Maybe something where the character with the knowledge skill could aid the character with the diplomacy or some such would have been better. But a set up where it was just a giant "who has the knowledge skills mechanic" sucked.

That's just not true. The DCs were set so that a generic Diplo-heavy PC could handle them at his own tier. However, each NPC also has specific-interest skills that are even easier, but you need different skills for each one of them.

So in this scenario a classic Face can handle every NPC reasonably well, while other skilled PCs can handle just a few of the NPCs, but very well. An efficient party would allocate the Face to whichever NPC it lacks the special-interest skills for.

I am getting the impression from the OP and several later posters that this is not always the case. Likely due to Judge error - possibly due to the use of new, poorly understood rules, being interpreted in the worst possible way.

Reminds me of a game I played in where the judge ruled that the damage listed on a creatures attack (listed as Melee bite +4 (1d3–4 plus attach)) was clearly a typo, so he corrected it to be Melee bite +4 (1d3+4 plus attach), which turned the Weasel Familiar into a real terror!

To him it made no sense to list the attack damage as 1d3 minus 4, that would mean the creature could never actually do damage right? so it must have been a typo! So he fixed it...

Felt like we were fighting a certain rabbit ... we really needed a Holy Hand Grenade...

I wonder if this is what happened in the OPs game. Clearly these rules should modify the existing Diplomacy rules... and are used to get other PCs into the social interaction - so how best to do that? Make it harder for the Diplomat PC so he needs the other skills! Not saying that is what happened, just that it sounds from the OP that that is what is happening at least some of the time.

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MadScientistWorking wrote:
DarkKnight27 wrote:

You don't have to say how they're being used, how they relate to the story being told or anything like that, just like the blurb doesn't tell you what monsters or opponents or classes or races you will encounter. It seems like a simple solution that will help the game, I still can't see how this would hurt the game in any way.

So you want to ruin the GM experience by giving the player's the exact tactics they need to run rough shot over the scenario? And yeah before you actively complain that Im exaggerating there are simple hard counters to a lot of newer classes that you wouldn't be able to tell normally and would be easy as all hell to do if you had your goofy warning.

I don't even understand this post...

are you saying the judge needs to NOT tell the players what rules are being used? That to do so would "...ruin the GM experience by giving the player's the exact tactics they need ..."?

Or that the players need to pick the scenario to sign up for without knowing what rules will be included in the game being run?

Please expand on this statement "...there are simple hard counters to a lot of newer classes that you wouldn't be able to tell normally... ". What are you trying to say here?

I also did not understand the statement "...would be easy as all hell to do if you had your goofy warning." I mean other than the part where you felt that "his" warning was "goofy"... I get that you do not like the idea of putting a warning label on scenarios.

1 to 50 of 1,141 << 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.