|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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).
I can see both sides of this.
(The following is the pessimist in me coming out - seeing the potential bad parts of such a change).
I also realize that there are people in this game who feel that everything players can do in game should be splint into "Prohibited" & "Required" categories. "If it's not Required, then we need to Prohibit it." Sometimes I call them Type 1 gamers.
I often run alchemists who hand out LOTS of consumables. It's kind of a trademark of mine. I've even printed up cards (business card size) of several different types to hand out to other players. For example, my current "Crawl Pack" has a vial of Anti-Toxin, Anti-Plague, Sooth Syrup, Stillgut, as well as a pot of Alchemical Grease and a dose of Vermin Repellent. Each item has a couple lines discribing it's effects and a check box. After the game, I collect back the cards and mark off anything used... The total pack would cost 185gp, but as I'm an alchemist able to craft all that (DC25 for the hardest), I craft the entire pack at one third cost.
Players that game with me have started calling them "party favors". Players give me the cards back at games end and that way I have a list of what got used. (I've even encountered other players doing the same thing! Talk about a complement!)
Just before starting a "crawl", I'll often (in Character) instruct everyone to pull the "crawl pack" (not the grenade pack, the other card) and "drink the first three, and smear the last two over your body, put the 4th in a spring wrist sheath." This leads to the expected comments about "lube" and "oiling up" etc. Sometimes, when fighting a monster my Alchemist (who just made a Knowledge check) will yell something like "The Blue Bottle from the Grenade Pack! Hit it with the Blue Bottle T.S.!"
Every now and again, it means I get to point out "hay T.S., did you count the +5 alchemical bonus on that save?"... Sometimes it saves lives, or keeps someone in the fight...
(And I get to call everyone by the same first name..."T.S., for Test Subject") -
This is a fun thing that I like to do for my party - and it allows me to "Buff" in a unique way...
Should we be allowed to replace something someone used for us? Yeah, that would be nice. I just fear it becoming REQUIRED (even if it's just required by "social pressure" from the group).
that's because Talden noblemen are clearly a different race! ;)
only if the judge doesn't default everything to 10 + CR, which many do. and even then only humans count as common - and to an aboleth? maybe they aren't.... guess we'll have to check with the list - wait, we don't have a list...
a) "This humanoid creature has long, sharp teeth, and its pallid flesh is stretched tightly over its starved frame."
b) "This walking corpse wears only a few soiled rags, its flesh rotting off its bones as it stumbles forward, arms outstretched."
c) "This alluring, raven-haired beauty casually wipes a trickle of blood from a pale cheek, then smiles to reveal needle-sharp fangs."
d) "A hideous monstrosity crafted from body parts stitched together with thick string, wire, and metal staples lurches to horrific life."
yep... easy to mix these up.
But almost all are effected by holy water. Which your PC doesn't know if he doesn't a skill point have Kn: Religion - At least at some tables. "Knowledge checks = table variation"
edit: like I said above, "...there is so much variation here I don't even know how to address this. And I have no idea how to fix this. (so the following is mostly just venting... )". This entire thread is mostly venting... which can be good sometimes.
Knowledge checks = table variation
there is so much variation here I don't even know how to address this. And I have no idea how to fix this. (so the following is mostly just venting - skip it if you like).
I normally say: "I've got an XX, what's the most important thing for me to know?"
Many judges figure I am trying to pull something... when all I am doing is trying to NOT make this a game of Player Vs. Judge where the judge makes me create questions depending on what I as a player know about the monster, while he tries to conceal anything I might get wrong... in other words a Meta-Game Game. Please, just tell me what my PC knows, so I know how to run him for you...
I personally know a lot of important "bits" about Flesh Golems. I can recognize them from their description.... but my wife can't. She has no idea. "Frankenstein's Monster" doesn't mean much to her (she grew up in a different culture - different myths). So, her "questions" are going to be very different from mine. Then add in the judges who give "limited response" answers and we see how useless it is to put points into knowledge skills at some tables.
Player: "I got a 36 on the knowledge check. How many questions do I get?"
N N 959 wrote:
LOL! But I know what to do - did I learn it when I played that scenario? or when I played another? or when I RAN that scenario?
If I "should error on the side of conservatism and assume you didn't learn it" - then we can assume that I only know it if I happen to roll it. But if I actually never learned it, and it's all new to me, but I do happen to roll it (this time), then it's ok to assume I did learn it... at least until I have to roll it again and then miss it. At which point I never learned it...
But then, if I DO remember fighting swarms (with this PC), then it is ok to assume that my PC learned the things I, personally, know?
wow... my head is starting to hurt....
Da Brain wrote:
let's take this even a step farther. Let's set up the situation
- The party encounters a Swarm of spiders.
- Initiative is rolled and I go first.
- My PC has no ranks in the required knowledge skill. (Kn: Nature?)
- I have no memory if my PC has encountered swarms before... it's been a long time sense I played him and I'm older than I once was (and I have a lot of PCs to try to keep strait...)
- I glance at my Chronicles and see that he played The Confirmation... which MIGHT have a swarm of spiders in it. So he might have fought them before... with someone who would have told him how to fight them...
So, am I meta-gaming if I pull my flask of Alchemist fire and throw it at the swarm? Am I "reverse-meta-gaming" if I DON'T?
Ran a game last night and added a fun little twist to the "Rolll for Monster Knowledge" thing... The parties "Mr. Knowledge" check - monster ID guy would roll for some monster and get something over 40 on his check... Basicly the PC must have written a term paper on these creatures back in Lodge Training camp. So rather than have him ask me questions, I asked him "what do YOU remember abou (insert monster name)?".
The player, one of those gamers that sleep with the Beastiries under their pillow, proceeded to resite random facts to the other players, with me nodding (or correcting what he was saying - when he was a little off target) until it seemed like he had about the right number of facts, so I stopped him at that point. It was great - and actually much faster than "20 Questions". And let the Player show off, and interact the other PCs the way his "Mr Professor" PC should have been able to.
Great fun. I recogmend it to everyone. Try it next time you have some real experienced player running the Knowledge Weenie. Just correct him when he get's something wrong, and cut him off when he get's to about the correct number of facts...
Jason S wrote:
(Bolding mine) Wait, what if my PC remembers the monster, but I (the player) doesn't?
I mean, my PC has a photographic memory (mind chemist), but I don't. What if I fought the creature last adventure for the PC - but that was a year of real time for my less than photographic player memory. Can I get information about the beast - if I don't actually know I have encountered it before (but my PC would?)
I may have to stop reading the forums altogether if I want to continue to have the motivation to keep playing in PFS.
oh, I hit this every couple weeks. It's a result of the kind of people who post here (wait - I post here... yeah, "I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER" - Groucho Marx.)
Here's a post with a different outlook on knowledge rolls... something I have noticed at a table before. (I really have no "fix" for it either "problem", I'm just wondering if anyone else has seen this kind of "meta-gaming" popping up in a game.)
I have actually seen players - experienced players, who know as players that you need to hit skeletons with blunt weapons NOT USING blunt weapons because no one at the table had Knowledge Religion - so... a bunch of experienced players felt constrained to try to prevent "meta-gaming"... They knew that the monsters weren't taking full damage, but restricted their PCs, because they knew what to do (as players) - so they didn't do it (as PCs). The player "meta" knowledge constrained thier PCs ...
If the monster had been something called a "Green Wiglet" and they noticed it wasn't takeing full damage they would have switched to different/back up weapons to try to find the DR type. It would have been a "puzzle" they would have enjoyed solving! (I can almost hear the table talk now..."Not Silver Blunt! switching to a Magic Slashing! You got that oil applied yet? Think it might be DR/Good then?").
Heck, these were not low level PCs! They all had blunt weapons! they just were afread to appear to be Meta-gaming....
As a judge I would have no issue with someone using Fire Bolt to light a torch in their possession. Or even an unattended one (say on the wall). I might require a "to hit roll" vs. a stationary (DEX 0) tiny target (say touch AC 5 - don't roll a "1").
But then, I've let people use ray of frost to chill a mug before tapping the beer keg... it added to the RP of the encounter. (Rule of Kewl and all that. Didn't hurt the story and was "fun"...)
This game of ours is often like "Rock-Paper-Scissors".
When the challenge presented is "Rock" you just need to have "Paper"...
I think I have a totally different approach to this game or something...I read Louis Manko Levite post above and the others like it in this thread (and in others like this one), and I think I'm missing something here...
Why do people consider PCs to be all about combat? Why are they defining their PCs by combat stats only? It makes me wonder is this just a combat game for them? I feel really out of place here I think...
Or perhaps like a feminist turning to a "jock" and saying:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
and it might be too. The only way to know for sure would be to ask the OP (like BNW did).
gag - coming to the support of BNW... now I feel the need to go shower...
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Many spells that do fire damage actually do have a note like this:"The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area...."
And from burning hands "Flammable materials burn if the flames touch them...."
Many other fire spells have notes like that.
So I really don't think it would be much of reach to say that something that does fire damage could be used to light a torch. The un-modified ray of frost wouldn't have that note - but then it doesn't do fire damage. A ray that did fire damage? Yeah, I could easily see it being used to set a torch on fire. If I were the judge - I'd give it to you with out even a second thought. Setting something other than a torch on fire? Maybe spilled (unattended) oil on fire. Maybe even oil thrown on a creature. But could you use it to set a creature itself on fire? Or a door? Maybe not... Unless the creature/door was made of "Flammable materials..." Which a torch is.
Could I see a judge ruling that you COULDN'T set a torch (in your possession) on fire with a ray that did 1d3 fire damage? (In PFS? In the Standard Campaign?) Yeah. But then I've seen some pretty convoluted rulings before. (My Crypt Braker Alchemist often sets creatures on fire with his Explosive Bomb Discovery - realizing that his bombs do acid damage, not fire.... ). But I think the majority of CORE judges (say 9.9 out of 10) would be fine with you setting fire to a torch with a ray of frost/fire.
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
It might be a bit theoretically thin, but as a GM I'm fine with glossing over how the party gets rid of prisoners just to keep the main action on the rails. I have enough trouble finishing scenarios on time without worrying about this.
and it is quite possible that thru "glossing over how the party gets rid of prisoners" a lot of hard feelings and un-productive game time is avoided. (this is a good thing). It would mean that three (or more) players will assume that the party handled the "prisoner disposal" the way they each wanted too -
Player A: "We killed 'em dead, like they deserve. And I enjoyed it..."
Player B: "Turned the evil creatures in for a suitable reward. The gold got rolled into the award at the end of the game..."
Player C: "We enrolled them in the Sarenrae twelve-step program of redemption and restitution. So that they can become a useful member of society..."
and they all move on to their next game - happy to have resolved this issue "correctly".
33 characters and some are interconnected and some are loners. Two brother Dwarven clerics (different gods/alignments) would be the most connected I think.
I do have an Ifrit Alchemist that often adventures with several other Elemental Blooded Alchemists... Most often with an Oread and a Sylph (yeah, we're Earth, Wind and Fire), and there's an Undine Alchemist that joins us at times.
...steps in, looks around... sighs and just walks away. Truly defeated...
Edit: Supplying some links to a handful of older threads...
Aug 2011 - 64 posts
Oct 2011 - 156 posts
Dec 2011 - 315 posts
Feb 2012 - 387 posts
Sept 2013 - 25 posts
Edit-Edit - sorry almost forgot this one - the one that retracts all the others - sort of...
Bruno Breakbone wrote:
Bruno can grapple me anytime! (wink! O.V) I may even have a couple "grapple moves" I could show him myself.
usually that costs extra, but we'll make an exception for Bruno. ;)
My purpose was to find the edges, then work from there to form a happy medium. To take a character in an "extreme" direction that takes a reasonable attempt to not hurt other people's fun.
those "edges" depend on the other PCs/Players at the table, and change each game (sometimes each encounter).
I often play less combative PCs - because when I sit down at a table with strangers I most often find at least one "combat machine" at the table. Someone who plays the game for the combat - and everything else is extra or even a distraction (to them).
But you know what? I don't mind if they have a character who dominates combat. If they can kill the beasties in 0.666 melee rounds, you see, it'll give me more RP time. And I'll try my darnedest to ensure we find those fights for the Combat Machine! I'll run the investigator that does the Gather Info rolls (and try to get them to aid me, to get them in the game there), that removes the traps that warns the BBEG ("anyone able to 'Aid' on disable device?"), that ensures we get the right guy and get paid for it.
So, when someone one shots the current encounters monster (even the final encounters BBE) right after the boxed text - I'll spend the game time saved there in "chatting up the bar-maid" or interacting with the other PCs. This is (at least sometimes) a social game, not just a combat simulation... at least IMHO.
So... if you can't do combat... try to make sure that someone at the table can. And try to support them, you know, kind of like you were on the same team as them...
it's kind of weird, but I have this desire to argue with your #7...
Oh, I don't figure I am "typical" - LOL! I'm far from it. It appears that my play style is very different from other people's.
Oh, and just to correct an impression I seem to have given several people, I often run the front liner who stands in the way of the squishes. I just seem to not build them the way other people do - or the way this thread was saying was REQUIRED. With a CON > 12.
Stating that a PC has to have a CON 12+, and in fact to build anything lower than a 14, will get you killed (and thus we shouldn't waste resources on helping this guy get his PC back alive) is doing the players a disservice. IMHO
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Hideous Laughter - "please lay down on the ground in front of my friend the fighter..."
Hypnotism, charm person, grease just to name a few.
and the fact that the 20 gives an extra spell available to cast...
hay, I maybe be a CORE bard, but that doesn't mean I'm a BUFFING bard...
Now for my turn...
... I'd consider a 10 to be average (technically 10-11, since there is no bonus or penalty for those STATs). With that in mind, anything below a 10 I would call a "dump stat".
So, of my 30+ characters...
So, I'd have to say that avoiding getting hit is important to me. Probably #1. With "acting before the enemy" being a close #2. It's not uncommon for my PCs to have the best AC and INIT at the table (as well as other ways to avoid being hit).
Buy more swords... Or a Blinkback Belt.
I have a guy in the runelords game I'm running. He's a 2 weapon fighter (focusing on longsword) with a 15 str and 15 dex. He has weapon focus longsword, so instead of fighting with a longsword and a shortsword giving him a +2/+1 to hit he's using two longswords so he has a +0/+0 to hit, oh and he doesn't have a ranged weapons because it's not a longsword...
What about thrown long sword?
"One-Trick ponies" also apply to those persons who only consider "combat" as the answer to all situations. Sure you can slice and dice with the best of them. Shot holes into solid stone, and sling AOE damage in all four energy types...
But can you dance?
Can you hide/sneak?
Can you ask (nicely!) where they locals keep their dead?
Can you calm a small child?
I have posted the following list before, but I always find it awesome, and presented in a very novel way. You're #6 is not on that list, but perhaps I should add it...
I had a judge for a game I was going to play send out the following in an email... and I found it very "Awesome!", so I thought I'd share it with my friends here (and the rest of you too!).
(in the email sent to all the players before the game):
Then AFTER you leave the venture captains office...
Yeah... made me laugh!
I tend to like to "look at things from the other side" (so the following is just IMHO, and in fact is also a bit of venting - skip it if you like).
It seems like most everyone is looking at this from the GM side...Let's look at this from the players side of the question.
As a player, for Kn checks about creatures encountered, I normally say: "I've got an XX, what's the most important thing for me to know?" I don't normally even wait for the GM to tell me "you get 3 questions" or whatever...
Many PFS judges figure I am trying to pull something... when all I am really doing is trying to NOT make this a game of Player Vs. Judge - where the judge makes me create questions depending on what I as a player know about the monster, while he tries to conceal anything I might get wrong...(which is sometimes the way it feels the process is being done), in other words a Meta-Game Game. I'd like the judge to just tell me what my PC knows, so I know how to run my girl/guy at this table...
I do this because I personally know a lot of important "bits" about monsters. For example, Flesh Golems. I can recognize them from their description.... but my wife can't. She has no idea. "Frankenstein's Monster" doesn't mean much to her (she grew up in a different culture - different myths). So, her "3 questions" are going to be very different from mine. Then we can add in the PFS judges who give "limited response" answers and we see how useless it is to put points into knowledge skills at some tables.
"What defenses does the monster have?" gets the response "you can't ask that!" so we ask "Does the creature have DR?" which get's the response "Yes. That's one question."
My standard first question - "What's the most important thing for me to know?" My second? - "What's the NEXT most important thing for me to know?"
AH! now I see... (bolding mine).
I was seeing this as a way to prevent DYING and have only used it in those instances when my PC was going to be dead if she/he didn't get extra HP from someplace. You are correct in that the player could trigger it ("As an immediate action when you are reduced to fewer than 0 hit points, ...") just for falling below zero HP. I wouldn't normally - I figure the other PCs are going to save my PC - being below zero isn't dead and I save this boon for those times when HP damage is going to kill my character.
It's other big advantage to me is the Cost. In game cost to the PC is zero. And it can be applied to all my PCs (and I have over 30 active ones now). Out of game cost is the price of a novel (that's actually a good read) - one book covers all your PCs, and often this one is given away as Swag at Cons.
Brings a tear to my eye...
what's up with BNW on this thread? ...he's sounding reasonable and not his usual self... has he been kidnapped and replaced with a Pod-Person or something? Quick, somebody cast Petulengro's Validation on him!
edit: or wait, maybe it's ME! OH-NO! I may have been Doppelgangered!
ok, before someone else drops in with it... or the world implodes and sucks us all into the void..
"No one expects the Oblivion Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise, fear and surprise; two chief weapons, fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency! Er, among our chief weapons are: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and near fanatical devotion to House Thrune!... eeer, or was that the Grim Harvestman? "
(IMHO) part of the problem - perhaps most of the issue the OP is encountering is in the use of the term GM. He knows what a GM is, he has his understanding of the duties and powers of the GM... the responsibilities and abilities, etc. of running the game.
In PFS we have given up much of that to the lady/guy running the show... and that is not the person at the head of the physical table when we play.
I use the term "Judge" for the guy (or woman!) running the table I sit at, and save the term GM for the lady/guy running the Campaign. That is the way I learned the terms back in LG days (before that I used the term "DM"). Back in Living Greyhawk days, when I learned them and learned to play in an Organized Play campaign, that is the way the terms were defined. I am sometimes a PFS Judge. In my home game I am the "GM".
this happened in a home game, so maybe is out of place on the PFS board, but it makes a nice story.
Setting is: the Group of PCs (delivery men) shortly after entering an old ruined temple, are ambushed without warning by a group from hiding.
Player #1:"who the heck are these guys and what kind of people attack without warning?"
In one game, we ran a bluff that we were an Aspis Team posing as a Pathfinder team - which explained why we had a few Wayfinders with us, and no Aspis badges.
"It would blow our cover to be carrying our Badges - so we left them back at Base.
The funniest part was one of the players kept getting mixed up and saying she was a Pathfinder and the NPCs would just say something like "Yeah, I got that"...
Yeah - we were Pathfinders, claiming to be Aspis agents posing as Pathfinders...see we have a couple Wayfinders...
heck, I'm just going to repeat what I said on this thread 3 years ago...
My wife is a bit shy. She enjoys playing, and for the right group she can really come out of her shell. When she does, everyone at the table enjoys her PC and her gaming.
Sometimes she plays a Diplomat. Yeah, a shy Diplomat.
My wife is a good player. Both role player and roll player (and yes, I know you can be both). But it doesn't come naturally for her. She is a shy person... some times, with strangers this hits her pretty hard. With the right group though, in a welcoming group, she comes out of her shell and can really add to the fun of the table.
She has practiced the speach "My character is much more diplomatic than I am. I would like her to convense (insert NPC here) to (insert what we need to know here)." She has this speech printed on the back of the table tent for her "Diplomat", where she can read it when she needs to, when she finds herself overcome with shyness.
I've seen judges "hold her to the task" and say "What EXACTLY does your PC say?" and watch helplessly while a fun game turned into a painful experience for her. Anyone else trying to help her (me, or any other player) was hushed by the judge ("you're character isn't there!") while he stares at her struggle to say anything. Holding her to every word that she utters, ever stutter. With her realizing that every miss step is being reflected in a penility to a roll that she has said she can handle for us, a role she is trying to play. Needless to say, we never played for that judge again.
This is a lady who can get up in church and sing solo in front of 200 people. The same lady that can brake an entire table up in laughter with a sly comment ("That's going to leave a mark" when the monster charges into the invisible door.) But, sometimes she is shy, and needs to just roll the dice. Sometimes we role play, sometimes we roll play. It's all part of the game.
If you are going to do Role Playing right, you need to roll the dice, figure out what your score is, and then match your performance to that roll. Roll poorly? Spit on the carpet and look guilty. Roll high? Polish up the complements and flirt with the target.
I have been RP for a long time. I can "smooze the judge" with the best of them. I've had a judge require me to "tell me what you say" and after a rousing performance that got the tables around us interested in our game... I said "I take 10 on the roll for a.." - Judge "you can't Take 10 on a Diplomacy roll, you might fail!" ...so I roll...
(I made the DC by the way - I looked it up later, and the judge was just yanking my chain. He knew I couldn't miss it.)
Edit: I forgot to add about Aid Another on a Diplomacy roll. "My PC stands behind the bard, like a body guard (or servant), thus adding credability to what he says. He is plainly a person of substance - a 'somebody' to have a large, well armed guard/servant such as myself."
Paul Jackson wrote:
This should be a thread all it's own.
How to finish this sentence "the most important thing is..."