BNW - everything you say is true, and everything has a counter arguement. It's all opinion, subject to Judges calls and table veriation. You say: "Its not an assumption its a conclusion." and I say, it's a faulty conclusion then. Perhaps gained from a limited test sample?
Do you want me to offer counters for your points above? as Dorian Grey says: "We could be at this all night".
Can you dump CHA? SURE!
Can you dump any other stat? Sure!
Singleing out CHA as the default dump stat is a mistake. It limits the players creativity. And limits PCs options during play.
and that's my point.
There are viable builds with any stat being a dump stat. Some Players consider a 10 to be dumping a stat.
Everyone needs enough strength to carry their armor and bag of holding.
very few people like taking a penalty to ac from dex
Everybody needs con at some point
Dumping int costs skill points (but once you drop to 9 on a 2 point per level class you may as well go for broke)
Wisdom controls will saves, which are a lot of SODs
And charisma.... if you're not a party face you only don't need it, you don't need ANY Of it. The difference between making a diplomacy check with a 10 charisma and a 7 is pretty negligable, especially when you factor in the odds of you having to be the one to make the check.
Gather information - everyone aids the check.
Clerics are not often the "Party Face" (short on skill points) and yet need CHA (Channel anyone?).
Druids handle animal.
"So kid, whatcha doin' here?" Roll your bluff... wait, what do you mean you're swinging on a city guard?!
Skills? there are:
2 Str skills,
7 Dex skills,
0 Con skills,
4 Int skills (not counting the 10 Knowledge skills),
4 Wis skills,
7 Cha skills.
CHA is as improtant as any other stat.
I've seen a melee PC with a 7 strength (maybe it was a 5?). Halfling Dawnflower Dervish. A real terror in melee (Bonus to hit & damage is DEX based). He planned to get Muleback cords as his first magic item (I think).
It is rather that many people assume that CHA is the logical dump stat - and so you end up with parties of adventurers where the AVERAGE CHA at the table is 7. Out of 6 PCs.
The statement "And charisma.... if you're not a party face you only don't need it, you don't need ANY Of it. " could easily be one of the following....
"And strength.... if you're not a melee fighter type you not only don't need it, you don't need ANY Of it. Replace it with magic."
or
"And wisdom.... if you're not a perception monkey, or a ranger you not only don't need it, you don't need ANY Of it. "
or
"And Dexterity.... if you're not the party scout you not only don't need it, you don't need ANY Of it."
or
"And INT.... if you're not a Mr. Professor you not only don't need it, you don't need ANY Of it."
or
"And CON... " wait, even I can't keep a strait face for the CON one. Though I have seen PCs with an 8 CON, even higher level ones... I normally work with a CON of 10. But that's just my opinion.
But I'm sure you see my point by now.
It's all opinion, what is and isn't "optimized"... or as I'd rather say, "specialized". Every one of my PCs are designed to be "optimized". "Optimized" to provide me with fun.
I rarely start with a stat higher than 17 and nearly always start with a 14 CON regardless of class.
The exceptions are my kyton-spawn summoner (16 CON with racial mod) and my elemental fire sorcerer with a 20 CHA but only 7 INT and WIS (Who needs brains or common sense. If anything(anybody) causes a problem, set it on fire.)
just had to chime in with this...
I rarely start without at least one stat higher than 17 and never start with a 14 CON regardless of class/race (most of my PCs have 10 CON).
Well, I was picturing the decision being made based on past commentary from the players. Maybe *you* liked playing with Jo, but maybe some others at the table were grumbling last time.
Or perhaps you're right and it should all be player-managed, I dunno.
My son plays overpowered combat types sometimes. Last game we played, we got 6 of us together and played a 5-9 scenario with his 9th level grapple specialist... and yeah, he nerfed most of the combat. But we knew that going into the game, and we picked PCs to play around it. We didn't worry about combat, 'cause he had that covered. It would have been an entirely different game if the judge had said. "I decided to bump him from the game...." ... I'm not sure how I would have felt. I know I'd have been a bit put out if my wife's rogue or my friends 5th level Oracle had died in the game after loosing our front-liner due to a decision by the judge to pull him, because the judge had the impression we'd have more fun without him.
The players now control only a few things. This is one of them. Don't take it away from them.
Come to think of it, I almost wonder whether it would solve the stated problem (or a good-sized chunk of it) to simply empower GMs to take a player aside before a scenario and say "Hey, I've had multiple local players comment that your tendency to solo entire scenarios makes them feel like they shouldn't have bothered to show up. I'll give you a chance to be a team player, but if I get the impression that other players are starting to feel sidelined again, we'll be finishing the scenario without you."
What impact might that have, and what would still need to be addressed?
(Could be a terrible idea; I'm just brainstorming here.)
bad idea.
the players police this now the same way we always have. If the guy is a jerk, we don't play with him. Each time we sit at a table, we look around and see... is there anyone here I'd rather not play with?
I do not want the judge to take that ability away from me. Perhaps I like playing with Jo and her over-the-top combat machine... perhaps I don't. I sure as heck don't want to judge to make that decision for me.
Judge before the game: "I've decided to bump Jo from the table... you guys didn't want to play with her."?!!
It's been my experience in this and many other threads that in the end, once someone has gotten to the point of finally reading and grasping all the relevant text, their final interpretation of light/dark issues depends on a single point: what assumptions they make about sunlight.
If someone makes the assumption that it's what darkness is talking about when it says "Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns"; then they have that line shutting down the sun and always defaulting to total darkness and making the "down 1 step" function meaningless, so then they go and try to reinterpret other things to make that not happen.
If someone makes the assumption that the sun, being undefined, does not fall into either of the categories described by darkness, then you get a different result entirely.
actually, I have my final interprtation - but it does not fall into the bolded part above. I feel that darkness effects will effect lights and light sources in it's area of effect. Light sources outside of the AOE are what creates the "background" light level.
darkness has two effects:
1) It supresses light sources.
2) It reduces the light level.
It does these two things inside it's area of effect.
Darkness:
School evocation [darkness]; Level bard 2, cleric 2, sorcerer/wizard 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, M/DF (bat fur and a piece of coal)
Range touch
Target object touched
Duration 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
This spell causes an object to radiate darkness out to a 20-foot radius. This darkness causes the illumination level in the area to drop one step, from bright light to normal light, from normal light to dim light, or from dim light to darkness. This spell has no effect in an area that is already dark. Creatures with light vulnerability or sensitivity take no penalties in normal light. All creatures gain concealment (20% miss chance) in dim light. All creatures gain total concealment (50% miss chance) in darkness. Creatures with darkvision can see in an area of dim light or darkness without penalty. Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness. Magical light sources only increase the light level in an area if they are of a higher spell level than darkness.
If darkness is cast on a small object that is then placed inside or under a lightproof covering, the spell's effect is blocked until the covering is removed.
This spell does not stack with itself. Darkness can be used to counter or dispel any light spell of equal or lower spell level.
Bolding mine.
"Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness." is the important line.
I feel that this applies only in the area of the darkness. This does not require a new type of light to be invented, or to class all light sources as one of two or more types.
Light sources are either magical, or non-magical. They are either 'A' or 'not-A'. They are not 'A' or 'not-A' or 'not A and not not-A'.
The Sun is either magical or non-magical and the light from it is reduce one step by the spell darkness and two steps by deeper darkness.
Simple. And it doesn't require a judges call on each light source to determine if it is 'A' or 'not-A' or 'not A and not not-A'.
A darkness effect does two things:
1) It supresses light sources.
2) It reduces the light level.
It does these two things inside it's area of effect.
"Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness."
I beleave you are reading this as saying...
"Nonmagical sources of light, no matter thier location, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness."
I on the other hand am reading this as "Nonmagical sources of light in the area of the darkness, do not increase the light level."
The first reading requires the sun to be classed as 'not A and not not-A', thus opening the gate for other sources of light that are not magical and not non-magical. Requireing a judges call for each.
The second reading requires no judges call, and works for all cases I have seen quoted.
I believe that Paizo switched it to 5, but it has basically always been 4, if that. In the last 2 years or so, PFS went from a standard of 4+ players to 6 as the norm.
enter old gamer dude
heck, some of us remember when it was just 3. Then they added that pesky class (Thief) and all them silly hobbitesse and things went down hill from there...
nurses come to grab the old guy and drag him back to his room
I tell you! I was playing when Druid was a Monster! when we played with lead figures we had to paint oursel....
door shuts
Please clearify the fate of the earlier Chronicle "Boons".
I have for example several characters who have the Chronicle for "The Worldwound Gambit". On this is one of the selections "Demonic Scholar: You gain a permanent +1 bonus on Knowledge (planes) checks when making checks regarding demons."
Do I remove the current chronicles for Worldwound Gambit when the new chronicle comes out? Does that mean my PC looses the "...+1 bonus on Knowledge (planes) checks when making checks regarding demons."?
Several PF Tales chronicles have permanent bonuses, and as I have a number of PCs, and own all the PF Tales so far published (except "Pirate's Honor" - but I'll get that soon), this will effect a number of my PCs.
If you ask that question of me, I'll quirk my eye-brown and continue on with the scenario.
Why? Because frankly that's meta-gaming and its lazy.
and yet we are fine with saying "your PC is too 'slow' to pick up on this" and then fall back to "everyone roll an Int. check" and giving the guy who rolls a 20 a hint.
I can "smooze" with the best of them in character. I have been doing this longer than many of my judges have been alive. (I found out that my VL's father was 3 when I started playing RPGs... makes me feel old). I enjoy it, and do it for fun, and like to think I'm good at it. I have tons of practice playing "Slow" PCs, or in explaining why my PC is "Socially challenged" (in a way that the PLAYERS enjoy and find funny). I have a PC with a 30 INT now. And another with a 28 WIS.
So, can we really say - "your PC doesn't know that! You're meta-gaming!" because he has a 7 INT and then turn around and say "...Because frankly that's meta-gaming ..." when the PC is a 30 INT guy and the player says "he knows more than I do"?
The subject of this thread is "Character Audit at large Conventions - a proposal"...
here's a proposal from me.
List the Audit like a scenario. Give some sort of boon for it - maybe even just a Tax day boon. Run it like a scenario - the judge gets a chronicle/boon for running one table, the "players" get a chronicle/boon for "playing" and everyone is happy. I could even sit thru this table more than once (once per PC... but I have 10 after all).
I could even do this "in character" - playing it up as a tax audit in Absalom... in the Grand Lodge with my faction head.
Some time back, I was sittig in on a game with strangers (this happens to me often, I like to travel around some). In the scenario, some of the PCs get dumped into water and have to fight a monster with several attacks. As luck would have it, my PC ends up in the water with another players PC, and the strangest thing happened...
.
The other PC is a bard, and mine is sort of a meat shield. The monster moves to attack the bard and swings once (due to moving, only one attack). I move next to the monster, and swing. The bard withdraws to behind my PC. I figured the monster would swing 3 times on me but instead it swims around my PC (giving me an AOO) to attack the bard again. I swing, the bard withdraws behind me and again the monster swims around me (my guy gets another AOO) to go after the bard with one attack. The Bard player rolls her eyes and we repeat this several times. Looked crazy to me, but I didn't know what the monsters tactics were so (shrug). What do I know, maybe the judge is playing the monster crazy to give us a better chance.
After the game as we are heading out the door, I told the bard that I was sorry my guy didn't hit harder and drop the monster sooner, as she had to suffer the extra attacks. She said something that put it into an entirely different light... "yeah, he's upset with me, I killed him a while back, so he's been going after my PCs sense then. And if he'd dropped me in the water, I'd have drowned before someone could fish me out. Thanks for blocking for me." With this she shrugged and headed out.
Wow - I'm glad that I don't normally play there. We were playing at Sub-tier 3-4 I think, so a dead PC would likely have been perm dead...
Apart from animal companions and mounts, I see no reason why we should actually have purchased exotic animals adventuring for a party of Pathfinders in the first place.
yeah, I can relate to you (At least I think). Except I'm on the other side of this coin.
this thread is a real downer....
starting rant now - feel free to skip the following if you want
I have played a lot of PFS games, in a lot of different places, with a lot of different people. the strangest creature I have seen at the table was a PC. (There was that one PLAYER, but I'm pretty sure he was human...). The strangest animal was an animal companion. I have seen people with Ax beaks that were not ACs... oh, and dogs. But I guess we are in a fantasy setting right? I mean, I've never seen someone in real life ride an Axbeak - but I have seen someone ride a bison. With a saddle.
Would it be fun to encounter someone with a Bison riding animal? You bet! I even own 12 or 15 old Bisonrider figures - so if I know someone was running a guy with a bison I'd plunk out a figure for it. Mounted and dis-mounted. Lots of fun. I might be so impressed I'd give him the figure!
Do the rules allow this? It seems like it.
So why in the world would someone express the opinion that they want a player to "try that at my table" so they "can teach him a lesson"? Guys, this is not Judge vs. Players. This is a game that we are playing together, isn't it? All of us trying to have fun, right? If you think it would be Kewl to have a dancing buffalo - you teach him the tricks, I'll bring the drum. Let's play.
As to the player bringing something that can kill all the PCs at the table if it gets out of hand? Heck, have you seen some of the barbarians people play now?! And I'm expected to sit at the table with this "walking bomb"? waiting for someone to hit him with a confusion effect? (the answer to that is yes by the way). Goodness! what happens when we sit at a table with a judge that wants to "teach a lesson" about having fighters with low Will saves?
If your PC brings an exotic animal to the table, my PC is likely to check to see if it's house broke (like I would for the Barbarian above), and ask if I can pet it (see barbarian above). And be a bit impressed about the exotic feel of the adventure. If I'm the judge, I'm likely to check if your PC has the skills to use it - but I'm sure that will come up in play. So, as to "teaching the player a lesson"? I guess I might. We'll play the rules, and if the player doesn't know the Handle Animal rules, TOGETHER we are going to work thru them. Because that's the way I play, both as a player and as a judge.
I like to play WITH people, not AGAINST them.
sorry about the rant - sometimes the boards just get me down and I need to vent
you know, I don't really care how it's done - I've played thru every change from old D&D till today, and had to shift my understanding of the spell each time I changed games (often each time I changed judges). This is just one more time I need to adapt.
I just wish I knew before I sat down how the judge was going to run it, (and that he will run it the same thru the entire adventure). This is just one of many things that shifts from judge to judge - and results in vastly different games depending on how the judge runs it. One table will have multiple deaths, where the next will have a speed bump. and the outcome is only slightly effected by the actions of the PCs. It often doesn't matter how prepared you are.
rant ... with a minor spoiler maybe...:
I resently played a game where the monsters cast darkness into the center of our party during the surprise round. Does this mean they had gotten an invisible caster in out midst? or were they casting the spell at range? Was it even a spell? (we didn't detect any spell casting, even with a perception check of 35+). The first time this occured it was a bit of a shock, but a daylight, and PCs with darkvision were able to "fix" it. We never did figure out how it had been cast...
The second time it occured (in the same game), it seems the spell was a heightened deeper darkness, and again cast into the center of the party, again during the surprise round. I beleave it was a heightened DD (though it only had a 20' radius) because it overpowered the daylight preventing it from sheding any light, AND blocked the Darkvision of all the PCs (but strangly enough, not that of the monsters). Was this caused by the judge not understanding how magical darkness works? by the author not understanding? by the PCs? or all three?
1) Does a darkness effect light levels for areas that are not in it's AOE?
IMHO: No. It only effects light levels in the AOE.
2) Does a darkness effect light sources that are not in it's area?
IMHO: No. It only effects light sources in the AOE.
(Strickly my understanding of the interaction of Light and Darkness)
Is the light source in the AOE? No? Then it is not effected by the spell.
Any light the source creates is effected in the AOE. It is effected just like the spell says, reducing it's level one or two steps.
Our difference seems to come about when you state that any light created by a source other than the sun/moon/stars is negated in the AOE of a darkness effect. I can see no exception to where the light is created.
For me the procedure for determining the interaction of light and darkness is simple.
1) remove all sources of light in the AOE of the darkness. They are surpressed while in the AOE of the darkness.
2) What light remains? Determine Light Level in the AOE.
3) Reduce it as required inside the AOEs of all the darkness effects.
No special exceptions for where the light came from, or what kind of source is generating the light.
I am hoping that some player tries this at my table.
The animal is an NPC controlled by the GM, with the player getting to make handle animal rolls (I don't want to reopen the Animal Companion discussion, but in my mind a purchased animal CLEARLY falls into this category).
So, your bison goes into the dungeon. Oops. Scary undead. Bison panics. "Accidentally" tramples PC as it runs away from the scary undead.
Problem solved.
As far as I can see the above is totally within my rights as a GM.
Being the softy that I am, I'd actually warn the player in advance of the likely consequences. And might even roll dice to determine what the animal did as opposed to just using pure GM fiat.
If he still wants to bring his tiger or bison that is fine with me.
Even in PFS it really isn't wise to try and beat the GM with some obviously hosey tactic. We have lots of cards up our sleeves if we want to play them. Legal ones like above, focus firing, coup de Gracing, etc. And I've heard rumours that some GMs "accidentally" make mistakes that end up killing a character.
I find the above to be somewhat offensive, and I fear I would have to leave your table if you did that to someone when I was playing for you.
Thank you for at least saying you would "...actually warn the player in advance of the likely consequences."
Just because one player at the table is a jerk, is no call for the judge to reduce the game to "tit-for-tat". Tell the player not to bring the animal if it offends you. I'll support you 100% (or at least 95%), you are the judge. You have no need to resort to such childish tactics. The only result will be to have more "griefers" decend on your table to see if they can "get a rise out of the judge" and brake the gaming session. The people that loose will not be the guy doing it, but the other five players at the table.
When a player does something you find objectionable, don't punish the PC, the fallout will impact the other PCs. I can easily see your "teaching the jerk a lession" killing other PCs, and ruining other players fun. When your (and it's yours now that you "took control") "... bison goes into the dungeon..." results in some kids 3rd level wizard getting stomped into the dirt, that kid is not going to think about how the jerk learned his lession. The kid is going to think about the fact that he just lost 6 weeks of gaming stomped into the dirt. In fact, I can see the guy buying another bison just to see if he can get a repeat performance.
You're the judge for goodness sake! When a player does something you find objectionable, tell the player to stop it. If he doesn't, punish the player, not the PC. Pitch his a$*&^ out of your game. Turn him over to the organizer. (I've been an organizer, it's part of the job. We handle the "problems".)
The PDFs of the hardcover books are just $10. For a while, I purchased one or two a month even though I already had physical copies of the books. I keep them on my iPhone so I can produce them whenever a GM wants to make sure I have Ultimate Magic for the mad monkeys summon I just dropped on the BBEG.
Gods, I love that spell.
my wife went so far as to get a bunch of Lego monkeys and a flat Lego piece to put out her "Swarm". Very funny spell!
"I had these Pathfinders visit me at my home for Orphans... and I decided to become one myself. Would you care for some tea?"
"And by 'tea' I mean 'whisky'," Auntie Baldwin says, her fetid breath making you regret sinking so many ranks into Perception.
"Well no, I do tend to add a sip or two to my tea cup" splash-splash "but I assure you" splash "it's just to word off the chill" splash "of the evening." splash.
"I wouldn't expect someone of your age to need this rememdy?" splash.
I love the "ranks into Perception" comment! I'm stealing that!
heck, as a player, I normally mark thru a with a line of big "XXXX" and the note "USED IN CR #14" so that I can tell when I've used them. In fact, I don't think I've ever had a judge mark one out - or even check for that matter.
Kristin I know ... I'm very much needing the break from work .. can't believe that there is snow forcast for Friday tho (at least in Iowa).
I think I need a bit of a break from PFS for a weekend or two, lol.
*Gasp* That's blasphemy, I know. :P
Last weekend: Egypt Wars
This weekend: Cape Comic Con
27th: Rise of the Runelords homegame (Im the GM)
May 4th: Eyes of the Ten in St Louis (Im playing)
May 11th: PFS sessions in Carbondale
May 18th/19th: PFS sessions in Carbondale/ PFS session in Evansville IN
May 25th: Probably Rise of the Runelords homegame
guys... if someone asks: "can I do X in PFS?" why not just answer him and move on? "Yes" or "No, because of special case rule XXX".
.
Telling someone to "Take it to the rules board" means he needs to wade thru the posts that say things like "Well, if you were in MY game I'd make you sit in the corner for even asking it" backed up with "It's actually required in every game I've played" to get to the one that says "you know, those bozos in PFS have some silly rule about that, but I don't remember what it is."
Why not just answer him?
If someone comes up to you at a CON and says "Where's the bathroom?" do you send him out to the registration area to ask at the information booth?
edit: or heck - if it offends you, just do what I do to posters that offend me, ignore him and the thread entirely. "Where's the bathroom?" - "nine sprechen sie English."
I am guessing (but really really hoping I'm wrong) that it's going to be that level 1-2 characters playing in 4-5 are going to get the level 1-2 wealth (and so on for all tiers).
*Crosses fingers that I'm wrong.*
I hope not. It's going to make it that much harder to balance tables--if a Level 5 can get his L5 gold for playing T1-2, there's no reason not to play down and get easy money. Similarly, if a L1 has to face the danger of a T4-5 but doesn't get the reward, there's basically no reason to be willing to play up.
(Note: I don't mean whole tables playing up/down, I mean one or two people playing out of tier because that's how the math works out when the table composition isn't negotiable.)
"Fixing" a system will often have unintended - sometimes harmful - results...
Let's just hope that the fix does not become a greater problem (and I think "restricting money" by PC level would).
Though, you know, I could really RP a PC who always got a lesser reward than the other players at the table... You know, the Serf to everyone elses nobles... Talk about funny. My Cheliaxian halfling servant Brownnose Impmaster being sure that the Andorian Eagle knight in the party knows he got the correct cut, "here's your share of the money from that slaver gov'ner! 60gp, da' nobles cut, and here's my 20 gp. And I'm happy to get it too! Thank yea again for letting me cook breakfast, and I'll try to get to polishing up your boots as soon as we stop for the night." (lord, this would be so funny!).
Picking a scenario most everyone has played to give this some backdrop.
First Steps, Part 3.
The adventurers spend several days moving across country - living, sleeping, eating with each other. And yet, the PLAYERS might not even know the race/sex/name of the guy across the table. You have 5 minutes to tell me everything your PC will have gone over in 5 days travel time. Five days of 24 hours.
"How does a fighter with no knowledge arcane/divine understand what the spells the caster is casting even do? I understand he knows what a fireball does, but what about color spray?" My PC told his PC what spells he normally prepares each day - and how to best use these in combat, how to react when I cast them.
An example of this is when I have a group of my Home game players playing in a PFS game. We're in the middle of the fight, and it's my wizards Init and I say to the Judge - "Twee yells 'Tunafish!'" and everyone at the table covers thier eyes. Even the kid (my son) talking to the guy at the table next over. Doesn't even miss a word of his side table discussion, just covers his eyes and continues talking. Why? "Tunafish!" means pyrotechnics fireworks incoming. Everyone looking my way roll a save or blinded.
Can I take the time to explain how/why to do this in the middle of a fight? heck no! But when we're standing midnight watch, when there's nothing but the snores of our fellow adventurers, and the smoke from the firelight? heck yeah.
So how do I represent this in game? I talk to the Players at the table with me OOC. Why OOC? because IC takes longer.
During introductions at the start of a game, one of my PCs will ask each other PC (starting with any young ladies at the table) "Are you currently involved in a long term relationship?" I get stammers and blushes. my PC goes on to say "I am a Matchmaker by profession, it is my 'day job' - so it you might be interested in such a relationship, perhaps we might discuss some of my other clients?" Can I play like this the entire game? SURE!, but I fear people will become upset when we never even finish the VC briefing... RP suffers due to time constraints. "Sigh... we got to save the world now, perhaps after we'll find your one true love?"
edit: ninja'd and by people who did it better. sigh... I just type to slow.
I am both a role player and a Player. (call me a Roll Player if you want - it does sort of sound odd to call someone a Roll Player who is doing something that doesn't involve rolling dice in any way. You talk of having discussions OOC as if that is Roll Playing. "The problem being people taking time out of the game to talk battle plans." where is there dice rolling in that?)
.
Sometimes I'm in character when this (planning) happens, and somethings (esp. in PFSOP) these things (planning) are done Out Of Character (OOC). Part of the OOC that you are complaining about is due to time issues. You have a limited time to do things in game. If you spend 3 hours discussing the quality of Cheliaxian Red vs. Andoran White wines - then you don't get to finish your mission.
Used to, I could spend hours in H.S. (and collage) discussing what "Katisha and the team" would be doing, so that when we finally got together on friday night, we could pick up right where we left off last sunday night. We could talk in funny voices and complain about the Treaty with the Orcs. Knowing that no matter how long we took, we would be able to pick it up again next weekend. (and discuss it individually all week in school).
NOW - we try to squeeze the weekdays individual OOC discussion into the game time we have. Used to be 5 days of OOC planning vs. 2 days of intense play. Now we have 4 to 5 hours for it all....
It does not seem to me to be Roll Play vs. Role Play you are discussing. It's "In Character" vs. "Out of Character" time you are worrying about.
how do you address it when you have someone who "takes 10"? (I mainly ask as I do, take 10 I mean, whenever I can.)
Then I don't use one of the pre-rolled rolls and let them take 10 if it is a legal situation to do so (yes for searching for traps, no on initiative).
But... how do you keep them from metagaming the check then? I mean, for me, when I'm the Trapsmith in a party I just tell the judge "I take 10 on most checks, 20 at doors and major points of interest like bodies and notes." that way he doesn't need to stop and consult to see what my check is. For example, my PC "Twee" has a Perception of +27 (+30 in dim light), so my numbers would be 37 normally, or 47 if I'm taking a minute. (Plus, I've got trapspotter, which I as the judge to just roll for me without telling me). If "Twee" misses the trap, it goes "boom!", no need to even ask me.
(side note: If the judge requires me to state each round "I'm using perception - I take 10 for a 37" I will. I mean, he's the judge, whatever he feels is needed to do the job I'll do. But it sure feels like we are playing "Mother May I" back in grade skill.)
why are people putting information in this thread that needs to be spoilered? doesn't the title say "for players (PLEASE NO SPOILERS!)"?
I feel like I am repeating myself - wait I am...
"if the information under the spoiler needs to be spoilered - why is it in this thread?"
and
"Everyone, PLEASE do not put information in this thread that needs to be spoilered. Please?"
if it needs to be spoilered, put it in the judge thread....
You bring a tear to my eye. We've come a long way on this issue. I do feel compelled to add though, "unless the judge disallows it." YMMV.
(the rules allow it, the judge might not.)
A GM has full power to be wrong about the rules until corrected.
And perhaps he knows something that I, as a player, do not.
edit:
in re-reading this, I feel a need to add the following.
Don't argue with the Judge. If you disagree, point out the difference if there is time (maybe after the game?), and move on whatever the ruling. Rules arguements are not (often) fun for you, the judge, or the other people trapped in the game with the two of you.
I do kind of get puzzled looks from my VC when he runs up to the table and says "everyone roll a d20!" and I ask if I can take 10. He looks at me odd and explains we're rolling for winning a boon. So I smile and repeat..."Can I take 10?"
he let me do it a couple times, now he just says "everyone roll a d20!" and seeing me at the table he adds "No! you can't take 10!"
again, we appear in this thread to be discussing what I would call table ETIQUETTE....
If someone at a table asked me to stop doing something because it was "hard for him, bothered him" I'd stop doing it. I often do or have done things that might bug someone. If I was rattleing dice on the table top (something that I ask players to PLEASE not do when I am talking) and someone asked me to stop - I would.
Some things I've been asked to stop do or change at a table-
If my "silly voice" bothered someone (something I was asked to stop doing more than once), I'd switch it.
If my shirt upset anyone at the table - I'd switch it.
If I'm jiggling my leg (nervse habbit) - I'd quit.
If I'm crunching ice (my bad habit) - I'd put it back in the cup and TRY to stop.
If my PC is "hitting" on someones PC and it's "creeping me out guy" - I'd stop right away.
Heck - this is about ETIQUETTE - about "playing nice" together.
If anyone at the table asks me to stop some easily controled thing - like casting a spell on them - I DON'T CARE WHY - I'd stop as soon as I can. Maybe she feels it's to much like assault. Perhaps there is trama there, I don't know, and frankly I don't care. WHATEVER the reason. I wanna be her FRIEND. I want her to have fun too. If it helps her have fun, and doesn't hurt my fun, why not do it if she asks nice?
What part of "Please don't do this" do we not understand?
Ask the player. NOT the PC. The Player. If the Player says no... then don't do it.
people...
Using I.H. on someone who objects to it on religious grounds is like feeding pork to a Jew.
Don't do it. It's rude.
It's not cute, or cool, or even sneaky.
Doing it when they are un-awair and unable to object? that would make it even worse in my book. Right up there with doing anything else to them that they would object to "heck, she'll never know, and it'll do her some good!"
It's rude. If she's unable to object, it's past rude.
And the only thing I can do about it is only thing I have control over. If you are rude at a table with me - don't expect me to be at your table again. I try very hard never to play with rude people.
Actually, it's my trapspotter that normally does that. Perception is modified by distance and visibility. Item you need to see is far away? (-1) per 10'. Out of vision? (+20 on the DC for invisible). etc.
I guess the reason this is a "hot button" for me is all the times I've encountered judges who feel that PCs built to find traps "are spoiling my encounter". I have had judges require a skill check for each 5' square, and when they realized that I intended to take them, then ruled that a different Perception check was required for:
Finding traps,
Searching for loot,
finding creatures hiding in ambush,
Locating secret doors (which are not in the 5' square, but are rather in the wall, which requires another set of skill checks),
finding clues such as tracks.
If my guy is the trapsmith and we are doing a dungeon crawl, he is going to search each room to ensure that it is safe for my party to enter. However long that takes, by whatever means the judge rules he has to do this. To do less would be to fail my assigned task. My party job. To reduce the real time devoted to this (a purely mechanical task with no role playing in it at all), I will normally Take 10 or Take 20. That is what those rules are for. So that we can get on with the fun.
First, nobody Takes 10 in my region. It's just not part of the player culture. Second, these are passive checks, not active.
As far as I am aware there is no such rule on distinction of active and passive checks for take 10/20, so I am not sure where you are getting that from. Can you point me in the right direction?
Also this particular scenario I am more concenred about Take 10 on the sense motive and take 10 or 20 on perception checks.
Take 20 is very common on perception checks locally in particular.
ok....
not starting the "when you can take 10 debate" again...
At all my tables, every game, I have the players fill in an Init. Card, part of which is two blanks labled:
Sense Motive _____ (10?)
Perception _______ (10?)
the (10?) I explain is for "if your PC will normally Take 10 on these two skills, please circle this number, if your PC NEVER takes 10 on these skills cross it out".
then along the bottom of the paper are 6 blanks for raw d20 rolls that I use for these skill rolls.
Works great. and I ALWAYS use it, so people who play with me always expect it, and new players see that it is a standard form. No meta gaming....
This game we play is at it's base a story about a group of specialists who each have a part to play. Each PC should have something he really shines doing - be it haveing the knowledge (local) to tell the rest of the party where the bathroom is, or cutting monsters in half, or talking the barmaide into giving up that little bit of information, or finding & disarming that Hot Fudge Death trap, or whatever.
If you walk up to a table I am at and say, "Lord Chopsalot is a good tank, and he can handle the knowledge skills." I am not going to pull a front line fighter out, or a Knowledge weenie. I'm going to leave that to you. Now, if we get into the game and I find that you CAN'T do those things? That your AC is worse than my bards, your melee damage output is worse than the wizards, and the rogue beats you in knowledge rolls?... If we live thru it, I'm going to take anything else you tell me with a grain of salt.
If you are trying to "cover all the bases" and failing to do anything well? ... What? If I sit at the table I'll ask what else we have. After we cover that and I pull a PC out, I'll tell you want I cover, and my worst failings. ("Hi, I'm Katish. Call me Kat or Tish, never Kat-tish. I'll handle all the social skills, and I'm pretty useless in combat.") I am not likely to have a PC to cover an ability/skill/role that someone else said their PC brought that to that table.
I don't care if your PC has a 7 INT or a 20 INT... if you're running "the tank", I expect you to tank. If your PC does that thru smiling at the monsters and offering them Flaming Fudge Death - hey, maybe I'll take notes and build a PC like yours!
Please - just be sure you do your "schtick" the very best you can. I don't expect to be able to tell you how to do this. I am often amazed at how different people build thier PCs. I just need to ask.
Please. You cover your part, I'll cover mine, and together we are MUCH better than if we both try to cover it all (and spread ourselves to thin).
Thank you for your time...
The reason I build very "optimized PCs" - specialists - is that I do not want to be the reason your PC dies. Sometimes when PCs die, the player looses everything they have worked for MONTHS or YEARS on. Nothing would bother me more than knowing that that 3rd level guy of yours, that you ran thru 8 scenarios (about 40 hours of table game time, maybe another 40 or 80 hours of hobby time at home tinkering - easily as much as a year of someones gameing) just got tossed in the trash, because I missed the trap, or let the monster past, or failed a knowledge check - basicly, because I failed my job... :(
This theme of "Optimization vs. Generalization" pops up kind of regularly on the board.
I prefer to think of it more as "Specialization vs. Generalization".
How specialized do you make your PCs?
One of the last "Big Pushes" for generalization was the "Lamplighters" group. The following is basicly what I posted on that thread.
When I walk up to a table and sit down with a group of strangers to play an adventure, one of the first things I do is check to see what the rest of the people are playing. Most people will tell me. (Some don't - but that is a topic for a different thread.) The reason I do this is I run a lot of different PCs. Each bring a different set of skills to the table. I ask so I can run the PC that best fills the gaps in what our team can do. I realize many people do not do this, and I am perhaps a bit of an exception in doing this, but as I am able to do it, I feel it adds to our ability as a group to complete the assignment. We get a better rounded team by my doing it.
.
Basicly, I picture this VC looking over the possible team members and saying, "These guys don't have anyone with Face skills - I'll assign Katisha - she can smooth over the rough edges on the other team members" or "no healer? Ha! I'll assign Giamo!".
This game we play is at it's base a story about a group of specialists who each have a part to play. Each PC should have something he really shines doing - be it cutting monsters in half, or talking a witness into giving up that little bit of info or whatever. Not many players want to run the guy who is second (or third or fourth...) best at everything. An adventurer who is "just along for the ride" - the guy running the back-up character.
The concept of the Lamplighters appears to be an attempt to insure that "all the bases are covered" ... by ensureing that all characters can cover them. What? If I sit at the table and we have no "face" character - I'll pull a PC that owns face skills. I may not have the skill to open a lock, or kill a monster, or even tell what killed the body we just found - especially if someone else said their PC brought that to the table. And how are you going to feel when you fail your primary reason for being there, because you invested in a skill my PC "owns"? If you failed to make that Heal check by one, because you stuck that extra point in Diplomacy? (When my PC takes 10 and does better than you can possibly roll?)
Please - just be sure you do your "schtick" the very best you can. You cover your part, I'll cover mine, and together we are MUCH better than if we both try to cover it all (and spread ourselves to thin).
Thank you for your time...
The "Specialist" often fails (by being less than fun) when several Players all bring the same Specialist to the table. If everyone there is the Arcane Blaster Caster, with massive Knowledge skills, and 17 Languages - then you are all going to be bumping elbows in the Library looking up anchient tombs of knowledge - and no one is asking the barmaid which way the target went.
This is why, if you have very limited playing time, you often want to play with the same people most of that time. You can build your PC to Specialize in unique things (that no one else does).
"Dang! the door is locked!" -
"That's ok, we leave locks to the Archer."
"Huh?"
"Yeah, our Fighter/Archer has a 25 in Disable Devise"
If you play LOTS more than your friends - have a lot of PCs. This lets you "fill the gaps" at whatever table you sit at. (This is my approach.) And you always have PCs that are the same level as your friends (and don't dominate them at the table).
I keep waiting for the guy who says....
"you have a Gather Info of 35? Why do you do that so high? Don't you ever like to adventure in ignorance sometimes."
or
"Don't you like to fail sometimes?"
I do not want to be the reason your PC dies. Sometimes when PCs die, the player looses everything they have worked for MONTHS or YEARS on. Nothing would bother me more than knowing that that 3rd level guy of yours, that you ran thru 8 scenarios (about 40 hours of table game time, maybe another 40 or 80 hours of hobby time at home tinkering - easily as much as a year of someones gameing) just got tossed in the trash, because I missed the trap... :(
Ok, I promaced myself I wouldn't post on this thread again... but I am weak willed (Will save -2 or something).
here's a mix of PCs for an example to work with.
Player #1 has a 2nd level.
Player #3 & #2 have 3rds.
Player #4 has a 5th level.
Scenario is Tier 1-5, season 4.
Everyone is casting this as two choices.
A) Player #1 bullies everyone else into playing down.
B) Player #4 bullies everyone else into playing up.
Play or walk. Thems the choices, right?
Sorry, I don't think so. I'll pick choice C or D.
C) Player #4 runs his NEW level one PC and the party mix is 1,2,3,3 unless one of the 3s wants to play his backup PC also, then it's 1,1,2,3. (After all, he's higher level then his friends/fellow players, he's going to keep hitting this problem if he keeps playing with the same people. Looks like it's TIME to start a new guy).
D) Player #1 runs an Generic. Then the party mix is 3,3,4,4 (not what I'd want to walk into a season 4 with but heck, they are not me, maybe they like a challange - and the "newbie" is really just risking a PC#).
I have seen this so many times, sense the days of LG. A player has just one PC and isn't willing or able to play anything else. It effects what he can play. In the extreme it gets to be something like this: "I came up to the shop today, but there's nothing I can play!"..."Dude - we got 6 tables! we're rocking!"..."Yeah, and not one I can play my 11th level Paladin at!"...
It reminds me of the Barbarian with a greatsword and nothing else. Play another PC guy! If you don't have one - why not start one? That's one of the great parts of Organized Play. Multiple PCs.
The title of this thread is {"Majority rules" for playing up is ridiculous} and several people are casting this as "Us vs. them" with higher level PCs fighting it out with lower level PCs. Each side bullying the other. Me? I don't like to bully people, or be bullied. So yeah, the options often are said to be "play out of sub-tier" (up or down) or "walk" ... but I like to also think there is a third option. Play something else. Just think about it. Saying "They made me play down!" is as bad as "They made me play up!" ... isn't it?
put soap box away, and who knows maybe I made the save this time
Sorry Alexander, anyone who says there is no pressure on any individual to play up or down is just not been sitting at tables I have seen.
.
There's always "pressure" - even when it's mild mannered and silent.
Player One "Hi! I'm Jo and I'm playing my 6th level PeaceKeeper!"
Player Two "Hay! Fred here, I've got my 6th level Mage! oh, or I guess I could play my 3rd level Doopy Gunslinger dude."
Player Three: "Gotchur Healing here. 6th level Life Oracle, At-cher service."
and you have a 4th level barbarian. SO... do you go home or play up? Or pick up a 7th level Valross and loose one game you'll be able to play with your favorite PC when he get's to 7th? That is pressure.
#1 Jo is a cute gamer chic you have been seening for weeks, and this is the first time you'll be at her table.
#2 You really want to force Fred to play his "Doopy Gunslinger" that he hates?
#3 Sure, insult the guy who says he can keep you alive. you going to say "sorry oracle guy - I think this will kill me if I play up..."
And how do you explain to them that your Barbarian is an Archer Barbarian? Not a front liner?
I'm the original poster and I can now report my first player death, it wasn't with out controversy and involved a player being misinformed by other players about the effects of negative levels so he stayed incombat and was hit by a wight for a second time..the party then had to kill the second wight
Is there a reason for which you were not informing the player how negative levels worked?
I don't feel I had to, I certainly don't explain each monster in advance to the players and I am not going to point out flaws in their tactics or their buffing routines. If experienced players flawed plans based on misconceptions about how the game works in don't see it as my job to tell them. It's called player skill or lack of it in his case
Not my style of judging.
I am not an "Them vs. Me" kind of judge, where it's my skill and rules knowledge vs. the players.
I find, as a player, that I do not like to play AGAINST my judge and as a judge, I do not like to play AGAINST my players. I prefer if we play TOGETHER.
As a result, "Gotcha" tactics are something I try to avoid, both as a player and as a judge.
To eject me from a PFS event you have to have a reason beyond disagreeing with my characters play style and build concepts.
Where on earth did you get that idea?!?
Artanthos, you've promised that if I treat your animal companion as an NPC, you will do your best to ruin the session.
I'll state right here: I don't want you at my table, playing that character or any other, so long as you think any player has the right to deliberately wreck a PFS session. I have five other players at the table, and I don't have time for your garbage.
I don't need a better reason than that.
If I ever play with you as a GM at Con and you try to control my AC, we can have that discussion with the people running the event.
GM: "I want to evict this player for casting too many summoning spells."
Me: "I'm built to summon monsters, is there a rule I'm breaking?", pulls out additional resources list, "everything I'm using seems to be legal."
In PFS the rules are just as binding on the GM as the player. You many not like my build or my play style, but you cannot bar it or act against it.
I don't think you'll get that far.
If I'm the con cordinator and one of my judges says "this guy is being a jerk, I can't run with him at the table". No matter what the player says, I'm going to realize that I have a problem and need to separate the two of you. There are 5 other players at the table (who are not complaining - unless you have started the train wreck, then they are likely supporting the judge in this), so if I pull the Judge I make 5 OTHER people upset. If I pull you the game goes on. Which am I going to pick?
Funny animal story.
.
Party is looking at a long dark tunnel that they know leads to a den of thieves. Surely there are traps, and they don't really have anyone to find them, let along disable them. But then one of the PCs says "Hay! I've got a Bag of Tricks!" So he pulls a random animal and (dice rattle) it's a cat (house cat). "Search Phlahphie!" and what do you know - it get's 10 feet in and SPLAT! so they draw another. (This was in 3.5 days, so you could draw creatures 5 times.) Rattle dice and it's another cat. 10 MORE feet and splat. Again, and ANOTHER cat. "Search Phlahphie!" and you guessed it - it get's 10 more feet in and SPLAT! The dice rattle and guess what?, another cat. Which the judge points out stops and looks real accusingly at the player. "It looks like the same cat." Guess what the player did? yeah, sent it down the hall. "It's got nine lives!"
In my gameing area, we have a few Qadirian/Osirion/Cheliaxian PCs who will go out of thier way to take the bad guys alive. Often saying "Don't Kill 'em! They're worth more alive!". Implying they are going to insure these guys end up in the salt mines (slaves). This has caused Andoran PCs to endevor to kill them dead. Thus preventing them from being enslaved. I heard the phrase "Freeing them to their final rewards" or something like that.
.
If the Andorans in this were to make an extra effort to kill the guy? No one would even notice...
Andorans have that rep. "Kill 'em all, Pharasm will sort them out."
sigh. you still don't seem to see the point I am trying to make.
.
if you are trying "to teach the jerk judge a lesson by being a jerk", there are two jerks at the table.
That kind of was my point.
Sometimes though, you have to be a jerk. There are very few ways a player at a random table can stand up for himself, passive/aggressive behavior is the option least likely to give a DM a valid reason for ejecting the protesting player.
It certainly beats engaging in a real life conflict with medieval weapons. (Resulting in a destroyed rubber tree, two hours hiding from police patrols and his wife refusing to speak to either of us for a week.)
Please do not engage in this when I am at the table. Please
I don't want you to ruin 5 hours of my game time, or that of my wife (who games with me often) or 1 or more of my friends. I can assure you that if you do intentionally ruin a game for us by engageing in these tactics, we will try to never sit with you again. And yes, we have gotten up and left a table due to someone we will not play with joining the game. If our only experience with you is you "train wrecking" a game just to "teach the judge a lesson", we are not likely to ever want to game with you again. We try very hard not to game with jerks.
I'd advise: Don't fight with the judge. He's got bigger guns than you. he might just say, "rock fall, PC dies" - or even just "these last summoned creatures all move over there with the others and sit down to watch the fun." If you be a jerk, and he be's a jerk, the ones to suffer are the rest of us at the table. This is Lose-Lose.
Not an option in PFS, which is where the ruling is causing issues.
I agree this leads to a lose-lose scenario. But then, allowing players control of their class features generally leads to a win-win scenario.
actually both are still an option, you'll just have to report the jerk, and then call the organizer, and... all while the rest of us sit around and wonder why we sat at a table with you two.
Or you bump into someone like me, who happily runs every animal you summon (yes, even if they are different creatures) - maybe even "farming control" of them off to other PCs ("Eric, you handle these 4 dogs - Artanthos pass him the write-up for them ok? what do you mean you don't have a write up for something you summoned? shesh! ok, Eric, pull it up on your phone ok?"). Or I just get peeved with you and boot you from my table ("Organizer! Got a troll for you!").
Like I said, the judge has bigger guns than you. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER - cause the people suffering are the other players, not the judge. (or you). We get to sit around and watch you (and the judge) have your little drama - during our valuable gameing time. While you "teach the jerk a lesson". (and fail to learn it yourself). Everyone looses in this case. And the lose was caused by two people, only one of them the judge. Next game slot, the other players will be careful not to get that judge (maybe), and just as careful not to sit with you. Lose-lose for everyone.
I would almost be willing to except this as YMMV and move on, except I am not willing to except YMMV on something that will cost a player his PC.
I have sat with judges who have ruled my Harlot as "Crossing the Line" into evil just for existing... and this ruling would allow them to shift her alignment to Evil (thus "killing her out"). On an opinion. On something that does not happen at the judges table. Because she has profession Courtasaun.
Let us consider this please.
1) Did the player perform an evil act at the table? (Only if you rule that the Day Job roll can be "an evil act" and that the action it does happened at the table. which means that we can rule that "freedom fighter" is an evil act. Oh! and "Slaver" (which I find more offensive than "Assassin"). and a host of other professions.
2) Will one act that is evil in some judges opinion (and not in others) shift a PCs alignment to evil? Or only assign a comment on the CR to be tracked by later judges? (other than as dictated in the write-up of an adventure - I.E. if the adventure says "PC does X and this shifts his alignment" in the write-up).
3) Are all assassinations evil acts? (not some, all - as the day job roll can reflect ANY, so if even one assassination is not an evil act, then the player can point at that one and say "I got paid for my part in this one".)
(Sarcasm alert)
Should I start checking each PCs professions before a game, so I can decide which of them has thier alignment shifted and are booted from the game, or just revoke paladin/cleric/oracle abilities before they play? ("Sorry guy, I think 'Ice Cream Scooper' is an evil profession, you know what that does to my diet? You are killing people slowly! and you specialize in little kids cones?! Horrible!"). Lawyer, Tax-collector, Harlot, butcher, thief, Con man, slaver, enforcer, pirate, scribe, bartender, baker, bookie, bookkeeper, ... heck, I can likely ban profession: PathFinder, this is after all just my opinion - as is all YMMV(end Sarcasm).
(rant alert)
If the player is doing something objectionable at my table - I am not going to ask for an atonement. I'm not going to mark his CR. I am going to boot his a** out. And if it's offensive enough I am going to talk to the organizer and get him booted out of the venue. And if that's not enough, I'll come here and speak to the community to bar him from the game for life.
But I am not going to punish him by doing something in game to his PC, when the problem is the PLAYER. This would be like kicking a guys dog, 'cause he stole my parking spot. And it punishes the other players at my table. You know, the ones there to have fun? Remove the problem quickly and get on with the game.
(end rant)
Sorry about that.
"in my 28 years of GM'ing and playing, I've NEVER seen a GM control an animal companion. Never."
Anecdotal evidence, easily countered by myself having seen this done many times in home brew games. It really cuts back on AC abuses.
I had a DM once that tried to tell me he was running creatures that should have been under my control.
I flooded the game with so many low level summons there was no way he could run them all himself and still have time to keep the game moving.
After a few sessions, he relented and we returned to normal play.
Don't make me build another Conjurer.
In a home game I have run 450 goblins sieging a tower that had 5 PCs in it. Not quite 100 to 1 odds, but we did great. it was lots of fun too! the players still have fond memories of that game. (Best lines from the game - first half hour "we are so dead...", and half an hour later... "so, with 2 quivers of 20 arrows each, we only have 200 arrows... we need more arrows..."
.
If you want to try to overwhelm the judge, the majority of the people who are going to suffer due to your actions will be the players. Yeah, you can make the game really dull. Lot's of people do it now without trying... why would you want to do it on purpose? To "teach the judge a lesson"?! Guy, please do that on your own time. I find my 5 hours of game time is to valuable to waste sitting thru misguided "Lessons".
putting soap box away
