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. 8,419 posts (9,555 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 33 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 1,053 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
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."

The Exchange ****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Exchange ****

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

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

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

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

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

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

- The party encounters a Swarm of spiders.

- Initiative is rolled and I go first.

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

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

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

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

The Exchange ****

5 people marked this as a favorite.

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

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

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

The Exchange ****

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

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

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

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

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

The Exchange ****

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

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

The Exchange ****

8 people marked this as a favorite.

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

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

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

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

Scarab Sages ****

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

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

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

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

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Exchange ****

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

What do you like about changelings?

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

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

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

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

The Exchange ****

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

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

Good luck with your "Torch Fighter"!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

Good luck with your "Torch Fighter"!

The Exchange ****

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Exchange ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

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

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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

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

Aug 2011 - 64 posts
Taking 10 and taking 20.

Oct 2011 - 156 posts
Take 10 again.

Dec 2011 - 315 posts
Taking 10.

Feb 2012 - 387 posts
More Take 10 goodness.

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

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

Scarab Sages ****

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

O.O

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

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

Scarab Sages ****

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Exchange ****

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

So let's sum up this conversation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. People like arguing, period.

___

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

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

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
UndeadMitch wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 to 50 of 1,053 << 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.