Well, there is one clue that the Sczarni may be leaving. If you look at their report, they mention that they are getting a lot of Varisian recruits, but there is no recognition back in Absalom. When the campaign moves away from Varisia, it could very well move away from the Sczarni, too.
I did notice that, so I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out they were one of the ones to go. I know at least one local player who will be horrified, though--I think every single one of his characters is Sczarni.
I know a lot of people have mentioned Osirion, but it's relatively popular here. People seem to really like that "Risen" vanity--I've seen people get dumb just to get killed and then raised with that title.
Seriously, if Cheliax and Osirion are cut, my fiancé will probably just ragequit. Those are her two favorite factions.
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
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.)
Walter Sheppard wrote:
Mike, what are the chances of getting these bullet points answered in some text form after the podcast? Either as a blog or post? For those that aren't connected into the podcasting world.
I am confident that the messageboards will be chock-full of people debating this stuff seconds after it's broadcast.
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
It seems from the mid-season descriptions that Osirion is done for sure and that the other faction is either going to be Cheliax or Taldor, probably Cheliax. All the other factions described mainly successes, whereas Osirion and Cheliax both seemed in serious trouble, with Taldor describing a tepid lack of success.
Keep in mind that a faction head can be replaced; it has happened before. That doesn't necessarily mean that the faction itself is going under.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't.
For PFS play, that is, indeed, cheating. If you want to run Masks of the Living God, and you don't have a character of the appropriate level, you need to use a pregen. Then you can either hold the Chronicle for when your character gets to an appropriate level, or you can start a new character with it.
Way to assume, dude. The guy in question didn't want to actually spend any of his spells or channels on healing us. And he was playing a buff-build cleric. Also--kicker--it was my first session with this character, so it was impossible for me to have that wand.
Hold up, Pathar - I would hold out the opinion that if you're a damage sponge character, it's your job to cooperate by investing some of your WBL in healing yourself. It's perfectly reasonable for a cleric to have an issue with having to use ALL of their play resources for healing up the rest of the party.
So, the fact that I'm letting all the damage be concentrated on me means I have to pay to heal it ... but if I let other people take it instead, then it's not my problem?
So if I stop tanking, everyone wins! I guess I'll let the wizard do it.
Brox RedGloves wrote:
Then you have the unfortunate encounters I have. Like last session. our cleric (of Pharasma) said to me (1/2 orc rogue) "You guys don't know how to treat your dead do you?" I said "What do you mean by that?" Whereupon he cast some spell on me causing me to have horrible visions of the afterlife. No explanation. No nothing. When I asked why he cast these visions on me he said, "Fine, if you don't like it I wont cast 'any' spells on you then".
That seems to fall well within the region of player-on-player unpleasantness. I don't think your GM ever should have let that spell go through--I certainly wouldn't have.
This is a pretty good point. I've had at least one cleric-player try to tell me that it's my job to buy a wand of cure light and loan it to them if I want them to heal me. I think next time I'll tell him it'll be his job to buy me magical full plate and loan it to me if he wants me to tank for him.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Yes, thank you for mocking anxiety disorders. Maybe next you could tell us that if we all just stopped worrying so much, everything would be okay.
Ew. Ew, ew, ew. Thank you so much for giving me that little neurosis to add to the stack I already had. Blej;klrja;slkejff.
Okay, seriously though, now I'm starting to worry about this. Plastic dice are easy to clean, no problem, but I have one little set carved from bone and amber. How on earth to I clean that?
Thanks Pathar. Nothing personal in my comments. I'm sure I'll see you guys again. I just needed to get that off my chest.
No worries on my end. :)
I am a big fan of GM's not allowing laptops at the table, I don't allow laptops at the table. It slows down the game and becomes a rules lawyer fight.
It's tempting, but a lot of people at least around these parts bring their characters pulled up in Hero Lab and use it to track statues, resources, whatever. So you'd have to declare in advance that they can't use laptops, or they'd be out of luck. Besides, we all have access to the PFSRD on our phones anyway. And at least electronic versions are searchable; pulling out books and flipping for one specific rule can take even longer.
Diego Winterborg wrote:
Interesting! So in the case of Red Harvest, I'd get the boon, since that's tier "All," but not any of the equipment, since that's tiers 7-8 and 10-11 respectively.
I can live with that. Although there was once piece of equipment I really wanted to get my hands on after a few sessions of saving. Alas. ;p
I do feel compelled to note that, like it or not, the cleric often finds him/herself in a support role. They heal and they buff, that's kind of their thing. That's not to say that there's no options, but for a cleric to not be a support character, especially in a group with other characters optimized for damage, it requires--and I know you don't want to hear this but here it is anyway--a very deliberate build. You might have more fun with another class.
Hey dude. I was in that game with you, and while I had fun, I can totally understand your frustration. I should note that (at least in my opinion), not all games are like that. Sometimes it's just a matter of finding people you enjoy playing with and making sure you're at their table. (And, you know, the opposite of that procedure, too.)
Okay. So the rules for replaying scenarios are on page 16 of the guide to organized play. It's long so I'm posting it under the spoiler tag below. I have two questions about interpretation.
blah blah blah long:
Guide to the Pathfinder Society Organized Play wrote:
1. If I GM a scenario I have not already played, I can play it later, as long as the GM at the table is aware that I've run it and doesn't have a problem with that. (I base this off the fact that I don't see any rule against it in the information above.) Is this correct?
2. Regarding the exceptions, does this mean specifically modules that are only Tier 1, such as the First Steps series? What about something like, say, Tide of Morning (#0-23), which has two tiers based on APL? Either way, is there a definitive list somewhere?
Okay, a question came up during our game tonight. I played a high-level pregen, then applied that chronicle sheet to a new character. The rule in the book is as follows:
Guide to the Pathfinder Society Organized Play wrote:
If you play a non-1st-level pregenerated character, you can apply the credit to your character as soon as she reaches the level of the pregenerated character played. You may also opt instead to apply the credit from the non-1st-level pregenerated character played to a newly created character with the GP gained reduced to 500 GP (or 250 for characters using the slow advancement track).
I took it as read that the character I started with this sheet would, once he managed to get some gold together, be able to purchase the items from the chronicle sheet, and perhaps more importantly, use the boon. (The scenario in question was Red Harvest.) A GM at the game tonight suggested that I would get the XP, the PP, and the capped gold, but no other chronicle benefits. Is there an official ruling on this somewhere?
Hey all! I'm starting a new PFS event at Villainous Lair Gaming in Normal Heights, San Diego. It's going to be fourth Saturdays starting in July (June conflicts with the post-FRPGD module plans at Game Empire), and I'm looking for some GMs who are interested in running tables.
I'm already talking to the region's Venture Captain, and I'm hoping to make announcements at both Game Empire and At Ease Games PFS events in the coming month, but I figured I'm better off getting the word out any which way I can.
Obviously I've set up all the usual sites, and I'm getting a Meetup added, but right now I'd like to get a few GMs signed on, so if anyone is interested, please let me know. Thanks!
I disagree, because of the rest of that sentence, which you left out. Here it is, emphasis mine:
eavesdropping on applicants' conversations with my admin staff
He's not eavesdropping on their cell phone calls in the lobby. He's eavesdropping on the way they interact with people who already work for the company. Conversations with employees in the building at the time of application or interview are part of the application/interview process. This has been the case at every place I have ever worked. I assume it is the case at any place I have interviewed where I did not get the job. I will continue to assume that it is the case at any place I interview in the future. I am aware of neither principle nor practice that would lead me to believe Haladir's stated policy in this matter is, as you declared, "dictatorial and irresponsible." It is practical, and more, it's something that any job applicant should assume is happening anyway. (As evidenced by the fact that it is happening, mind you.)
Edit: I'll note further that I presently work for a call center where every communication a potential employee has with the company, starting from the moment they first call to inquire, is considered by the manager either directly (listening to the recording of the call) or indirectly (asking for the opinion of the person who took the call). Everything an applicant says or does in earshot of the employer is fair game for considering the way they present themselves. You don't have to like it, but that's how it's done.
This... seems like you are using your personal judgements of others as a measure when put in a position of control. This is dictatorial and irresponsible with the position you've been given. When in the responsible job of hiring, the quality of the applicant to perform the job at hand should be your only concern (yes, the applicant's ability to socialize with his coworkers still counts as his ability to...
Are you ... are you kidding? Is this a joke? The decision to not hire an applicant who is swearing during the application process and/or interview is "dictatorial and irresponsible?"
If people come in wearing torn jeans and don't take of their sunglasses, is he being "dictatorial and irresponsible" by judging their outfits? Of course not. His job is to screen people who don't present themselves properly.
Paper qualifications do not trump the entirety of a job interview or the interview would serve no purpose.
I was raised that a guest was waited on and made to feel comfortable. If someone is thirsty, give him drink. If someone is hungry, feed him. If someone spills something on his shirt, lend him one while you wash it. We don't care if you're just the plumber, you at least get a glass of iced tea and asked if you want us to make you a sandwich while in our house. Even the first group of gamers I hung around with were like this. We would game around a giant steaming pot of Shepherd's Pie or Chicken n Dumplings, feasting as we played. I think the dice even got lost in the mashed potatoes once.
Guests in your house, yes. Members of your gaming group, not so much. You think the host has an obligation to provide water? Yeah, I'm hip. Claiming that it's my job to feed five players every week because I was generous enough to let my living room be used for the game? That's just absurd.
When I host, the rule is that they can either chip in for a group dinner or provide their own. And if someone forgets and they're trustworthy, we'll let them slide. If they fail to cover it the next week, especially if they expect to be let slide again, I say hell no, you're an adult, and you know what the rules are. And I will (and have) publically shame people who just help themselves to my food without asking. If they have a problem with that, we can always play somewhere else, which is significantly easier for me.
And when I'm not hosting, I bring my own snacks and drinks, I chip in for the group meals, and on the rare occasion that I'm going to hit up my host for a soda or the like, I ask permission. Every. Time. Because anything else is just rude.
It doesn't. Remorse after punishment does not erase the initial issue. And posting in this forum hoping for exoneration then nitpicking people's responses when it's not forthcoming is not making you look any less a bad guest.
If I believe you are guilty based on your side of the story, there's a good chance you're probably guilty. And you know it. You just want us to tell you that it's not so bad. But it is. So learn the relevant lessons and move on.
Yeah ... I think you were. You failed to pay for pizza for an entire year, you drank their milk despite being told not to, and you failed to live up to their social requirements (re: swearing). The only thing you seem be in the right about is the snack situation--unless you were consistently eating snacks purchased by other people, in which case that's also a yes.
We've done this two ways in the past. First, investments: If players want commodities, they can invest early in things that pay them back, like businesses, which allows them to get better equipment at higher levels as well as all the commodities they can handle. Second, land grants: A village gives the wizard an old tower so they can say they have a wizard, the king grants the heroes a villa near his palace so they're on hand for emergencies, whatever.
I'm trying to create a messageboard alias using my real name (Patrick Harris). The system tells me that name is in use. The thing is, when I search "Patrick Harris," I only get four results in the "Users" tab--my profile, my wishlist, and two people who have Neil Patrick Harris listed as their deity. So I'm not convinced my name actually is in use as an alias.
If it is, how come I can't search it?
PS: If an admin reading this can solve the problem by simply renaming my "Patrick Harris 483" alias, please feel free to do so.
Cantrips: Wizards can prepare a number of cantrips, or 0-level spells, each day, as noted on Table: Wizard under “Spells per Day.” These spells are cast like any other spell, but they are not expended when cast and may be used again. A wizard can prepare a cantrip from a prohibited school, but it uses up two of his available slots (see below).
Jal Dorak wrote:
I'm starting to think that the DM is testing the OP. Some of the comments made suggest the DM is not willing to give a direct answer as to what the cleric should do. I'm wondering if he wants to see how committed you are to your character, and maybe he has some sort of reward in mind. The other players might even be in on it.
A great theory, and it had me wondering for a moment, but then I flashed on some of the OP's followup details, like the holy crusaders of Pharasma he'd been loaned who couldn't be bothered to leave the city when the horse's owner decided to take a bit of a ride in the country. At this point, I don't think the DM is encouraging RP.
... but yeah, by that point I was just really confused. I was recanting my original statement and confirming that the quote was accurate; it didn't even occur that the concern was the interpretation.
Long story short, never mind me. ;p
Oh. That's an alias of yours. Derr.
... although yes, you did say that, then.
... also, that would be a very disappointing Thunderdome event.
So zealot PCs take precedent over their more tolerant companions? Is that what you're saying? Superstitious Barbarians are being jerks when they burn captured spellbooks? LN Wizards are begging for Paladin smite when they seek to retain the spell book that details, among other things, unspeakable evil?
But none of these things are HAPPENING. What is HAPPENING is a party that has, for a long time, involved AN UNDEAD SLAYER has suddenly and for no apparent reason GOT TO INCLUDE UNDEAD except it's not even an undead character, it's a MOUNT. There is no reason this should even be a THING.
You're telling the OP - "dude, you're in the right and those other jerks are just all kinds of wrong and they need to bow to your will etc."
But he IS in the right and those other jerks ARE all kinds of wrong. And it's not "bowing to his will" for them to acknowledge that they shouldn't have done something like this in the first place. The GM should have seen--and maybe did see--this conflict coming a mile away. Which means that they're going out of their way to disrespect him and his play style.
Asking him to tolerate that for the sake of fun prioritizes their fun over his. Which shouldn't be necessary, because there are billions of options that would have resulted in everyone having equal amounts of fun.
The OP isn't causing the strife. The strife was dropped in his lap. Asking him to ignore that for the sake of friendship is unreasonable, because that's a crappy friendship.
See also GSF#3.
You're right, they're wrong. I personally couldn't play that character in that party. Options include, but are not limited to:
1) Rolling a new character (easiest, probably, but not the most satisfying).
I would describe this ruling as asinine.
Oh, man. The book basically gives no indication of what happens if the players ...
do the smart thing:... and I was a little worried because I figured my players were way too smart to screw it up.
leave the coffer of documents sealed until they're back on dry land
Not so much.
So ... anybody else notice a similar trend?
It just feels like its us 3 against the DM, and his favorite, but your right..
That would imply that it's 3 to 2 against the current situation. To my mind, that (a) provides external validation for your opinion (times two!), (b) prevents the GM from just saying you personally have a problem, and (c) means that a majority would like the situation to change, and since the situation is a game that you're all playing voluntarily, majority rule really should carry when it comes to things like "having fun" and "not having fun."
I bring all this up because your response, "It just feels like its us 3 against the DM, and his favorite," would imply that was somehow a bad thing, which I'm having trouble understanding.