Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

pauljathome's page

FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 1,269 posts. 22 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 42 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 1,269 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The timing of things matter too.

If you spring some weird thing in the middle of combat, especially something not crucial to your build, the GM is perfectly within their rights to say "uh, no. I haven't time to look at this now, so right now you can't do that. We can discuss it later".

If you follow enough threads, you'll also realize that just about literally NOTHING is 100% clearly legal.

Note: both comments above are general comments NOT talking about a whip bladebound kensai magus.

Silver Crusade

Gisher wrote:

Yes it does, thanks. :)

I'm thinking that PFS might be a fun thing to try in a few years when my kids are a bit older and I have more free time.

One of the main attractions of PFS is that you don't have to commit a large chunk of time. Show up when you can manage a session ( about 4 hours long in general)

Silver Crusade

Nigrescence wrote:
Gisher wrote:
It seems to be a secret. There is some adventure that grants the boon, but I guess it is supposed to be a surprise. The oldest mention I can find is this thread. It is apparently "a season 4 scenario" whatever that means. (I don't play PFS.)

Wouldn't that conflict with "If a product does not appear on this list, then it is not considered legal for play."?

Kind of bull, to be honest. I should have an expectation of what is available to me as a player.

Things explicitly listed on chronicle sheets are exceptions to the normal rules.

Some things are given out as boons, often (but not always) boons for playing or running at conventions.

Others are earned as rewards for playing specific scenarios. The Faerie Dragon is earned in this way.

The PFS team does NOT want people to know which session sheets have which boons as they wish to discourage boon fishing and also encourage people to GM.

As an example of why, there have been reports of sessions of the faerie dragon scenario having 6 familiar owning characters who all want the boon. That is bad for several reasons. I have been at a table with 2 of the (supposedly unique) faerie dragon.

Silver Crusade ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:

I gotta admit I'm one of those people who has strongly mixed feelings about diplomacy. I think it's a great skill to get neutral NPCs on your side, but I kinda get bent out of shape when people use it to convince monsters and bad guys not to fight. I always play combat oriented characters and while I really enjoy RP, I love combat as well.

When I'm playing a "will try and defuse ALL combat" character I try really hard to remember to tell the table that at the beginning of a session and ask them if they mind if I do this. If I've been succeeding in defusing a lot of situations I'll try and remember to ask the fighting sorts if they mind before I defuse the next one.

As a GM, if the players come up with a good plan to avoid or trivialize a combat I give them the option of that plan failing so that they can have the fight anyway. Usually they refuse but sometimes they want the fight.

Silver Crusade ****

Hmm wrote:

Is Minnesota odd? Locally, it seems that every table is mostly humans with a scattering of half-elves and half-orcs.


Up here we currently have mostly CRB races. But back when Aasimar and Tieflings were freely available we had a LOT of them. I've sat at tables where all 6 characters were one or the other. They are still fairly common at the high tier tables

Silver Crusade ****

Mirza of Osirion wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Uh, this is PFS. The vast majority of scenarios with haunts give no information to the GM on how to destroy the haunt.

Don't believe you. Haunts tend to have a small section towards the very end of their entry that talks about how to destroy them.

You may well be right. I checked a couple of scenarios and they DID have that section. It comes up so infrequently that I hadn't realized it.

Don't confuse "lack of interest in haunts" as "poor roleplaying" though. T

Silver Crusade ****

FLite wrote:
James McTeague wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Or the horizontal slash is meant to represent doubling the number?
Sure. Why not?

I have a vague recollection that there is a tally system out there where a number is denoted by a horizontal line, and it's value is the number of lines on each side. This allows you to count quickly by twos. (a line across is a two, a line that starts at the bar and goes down is a one.)

But I have no clue where I am remembering that from.

I find it rather strange that my future self would use a tallying system that doesn't make sense to my current self

Silver Crusade ****

Mirza of Osirion wrote:

If you want to be gentle with players and not create a headache. Give them a Knowledge check like Religion, Local, History, Nobility, etc to determine how to destroy a Haunt.

If the GM and players are willing to roleplay. They can conduct seances, play charades "knock once for yes, knock twice for no", have the ghost write words with blood on a wall, etc.

Also don't forget that Speak With Haunt is a 4th level spell for Priests/Witches and a 3rd level spell for Shamans.

You can ask a Haunt some questions without triggering it. You can ask it how it is triggered and one of these questions CAN be "How do we destroy your haunt?" Just keep in mind that the answers it gives tend to be brief, cryptic and/or repetitive.

Uh, this is PFS. The vast majority of scenarios with haunts give no information to the GM on how to destroy the haunt. The rules to use are obscure. The spells that interact with them aren't common. Your suggestions are all great for a home game but a bit much to expect at PFS games.

A couple if times I've had players be sufficiently interested in laying the haunt to rest that I've made stuff up. But most of the time the PCs just channel, run away, or fix up the damage and move on. And I'm fine with that.

Silver Crusade ****

trik wrote:

That said, generally groups that appreciate challenge are so well optimized that they steamroll most encounters.

I believe that this is actually very false.

Players that appreciate a challenge at the table do NOT build over optimized characters. Players with over optimized characters often SAY that they like challenge (and quite possibly think they do) but if they really wanted a challenge in play why would they build their power houses?

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:

The point of all of this, and the point of the thing you quoted, is that animal companions can't just do everything you want them to do if they know the 7 or 8 most useful tricks and you can finagle a net +5 bonus in Handle Animal. It's going to take more than that, and I would argue that if your GM is using common sense about what animals can just do, the ability to push your animal companion sometimes is going to be crucial. And, I would argue that these kinds of limitations are essential because, as many have pointed out, animal companions can easily be "too powerful" class features. These limitations are part of what keeps them in sight of reasonability.

There is a great deal of table variation with animal Companions. Partly because GMs differ greatly with what "common sense" states a particular animal should be able to do.

The rules don't help. While one can trivially do things in game that would be all but impossible in real life it is also impossible to do, in PFS, things that ARE done in real life. Circus animals, sheepdogs, etc are amazing in what they can do. I've seen GMs use "common sense" to disallow things that I have personally seen animals actually do.

As a player, one can get by a lot of the variation by self limiting what you try to do, by having things like block and tackle or scrolls of Carry Companion around, by raising the Companions Int to 3 and giving it a point in linguistics, etc.

As a GM you can help by not always taking the most extreme position, by not constantly demanding rolls for everything, by not playing "gotcha" games.

I had a GM who got very strict on handle animal rules. So I had to take a lot of table time explaining exactly what I was doing, rolling dice to do stuff, holding and delaying actions, etc. Net effect on my Animal Companion was almost non existant. Admittedly, I knew the rules, had the appropriate tricks trained, wasn't being silly in what the AC could do, etc.

As to tricks in the Animal Archive, Mike was explicit that, in Core, it is again expected table variation on whether or not an AC can flank at all and how difficult it is. That Nerf to ACs is now table variation

Silver Crusade ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem is greatly exacerbated by the difference in difficulty in different scenarios.

I gave a scathing 1 star review to Sealed Gate partly because it was so much more difficult than players have been trained to expect and build their characters for. I tell beginning players that PFS is fairly forgiving and they do not need to bring hyperoptimized characters to succeed. That should be more consistently true than it is.

Obviously difficulty is very hard to gauge. It depends so much on the abilities of the characters and players, how well fitted the group is for a scenario, etc. But some of the scenarios seem very much like the author was "out to get the players" by grabbing things overpowered for their CR or by giving them huge circumstance bonuses not factored into their CR (eg, setting up virtually guaranteed surprise attack rounds with high initiative monsters is significantly more difficult than the CR tends to imply, multiple "Save or Suck" effects get very silly as eventually the odds of failing a save become quite high).

We can't change the existing scenarios. But one can definitely hope for a more level playing field in the future.

Its been proposed in the past but part of the solution may be some form of fan grading of the scenarios. Some indication ahead of time that a scenario is going to be more difficult, bring your A game.

I have NO problem with the difficulty level of The Waking Rune, for example. The characters and players know what they're facing (or should). The problem is when the scenario blurb and the opening briefing don't make it obvious that they're in deep waters.

Silver Crusade ****

Talib Aguiye Ironsi wrote:
Unfortunately I'm about the only Paladin in my area that refuses to Smite until after I've detected evil.

Unfortunately, one can't always afford the action to detect evil. And one can sometimes smite things that do not detect as evil (due to various magics such as undetectable alignment).

If you're going to try and kill something anyway then you might as well smite if you can afford the smite.

Where Detect Evil SHOULD be used in many cases is in deciding whether to kill something or pursue other approaches (often non lethal damage).

Silver Crusade ****

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I just want to join the chorus thanking you for
1) having these rebuild rules be available as the errata is released
2) being so generous in the rebuild options you're allowing.

I don't think any of my characters are negatively affected but I still very loudly applaud what you're allowing

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The best that you can do is to start a thread posing a clear, concise question. FAQ it and ask others to FAQ it.

Paizo looks at all such threads but only has time to answer some of them. The more people FAQ a particular thread the more likely it will be addressed.

But even if you're lucky you can expect a significant delay. And lots of questions will pretty much never be answered

Silver Crusade ****

Wanted: Skinwalker Boon

Offer: I've the following. Would be willing to trade multiples for the SkinWalker.

Adopted Weapon Training
Treasure Map
Spirit of the Shadow Lodge
Debt to Society

Silver Crusade ****

James McTeague wrote:

I'm not saying you always have to actively aid the party, but you never have to actively go against the party.

Then we are in violent agreement :-). My paladin would, at worst, walk away.

In case it wasn't clear : I genuinely didn't realize that was your position. I added that caveat to make sure that we weren't talking past each other, NOT as an attempt to put words into your mouth.

Silver Crusade ****

Hmm. Prehensile Hair Hex specifies that it can use objects but not weapons. A RAW case could be made that you could wield Trusty Buddy.

Not game breaking but you could make a quite nice Shaman around that. Basically a full caster sort with a quite nice secondary backup plan. As long as you were happy with table variation (I kinda doubt that everybody would allow this :-)).

Silver Crusade ****

James McTeague wrote:

So I was responding to the idea that those situations would force the PC to act in a certain way or risk atonement. My argument was that there is multiple ways to act in a situation and that you can still follow your religion's tenants without forcing the hand of the rest of the party.

That being said...

Yes, I am saying that not going along with the group is being a jerk.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. There can very definitely be cases where going along with the party (by which I mean actively aiding the party) would require an atonement. The party would have to be acting in an egregious manner and be unwilling to compromise but the possibility very definitely exists.

Silver Crusade ****

Jason Wu wrote:
I also play a Vudrani paladin monk of Irori. On that character I have, in fact, accepted atonement and penance for behavior, due to fact that if he had acted differently the party would have failed, likely imprisoned, and as he saw it other innocent lives would have been imperiled.)

I've played my Champion of Irori to level 15 without ever needing an atonement and without, in my opinion, ever being a jerk.

Obviously this could be just luck (good on my part or bad on yours) but I think that it is definitely also possible that you're being TOO accomodating. Sometimes you really SHOULD stand up for what you believe in. You can do that WITHOUT crossing the line to becoming a jerk.

Silver Crusade ****

Every now and then one runs into a group where nobody has CLW on their class list. UMD can save the party.

Once you can get it to 19 you can use wands with no chance of failure. For a Dex based character you can get there by level 8 or so (class skill, Circlet of Persuasion). Once you get to that point you have LOTS of options.

But its definitely a skill that you want to focus in and not just dip if you can possibly afford the skill points.

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Wu wrote:

I am making absolute statements. Yes.


The only absolute statement about PFS that I'll make is that any absolute statement (probably including this one :-)) is sometimes wrong.


There are simply no situations where you MUST act in a way that discomforts or distresses another player. None. Roleplay is never ever EVER a valid excuse for being a jerk.

I fairly vehemently disagree with that statement. I've seen players distressed or discomforted by too many things that I consider minor.

Note: I'm interpreting MUST above as SHOULD. Obviously, there is no situation where I MUST do anything. Absent a literal gun to my head.

Silver Crusade

Buri Reborn wrote:
If you have TotSaM, do you need Wild Speech to talk Since it's a class ability it's not dependent on form, right?

Expect GM variation. But I'd certainly allow it. After all, we're talking about something acquired at 17th level that is far more flavorful than useful (especially at anything approximating that level)

Silver Crusade

Very definitely a GM call.

Note, however, that Inspire Courage can be done with performances like Dance (even if the Dance is untrained).

I think that the correct solution is to allow performances but to guesstimate penalties on range for both visual and auditory performances. It seems logical to me that singing would work better than flutes, that dance would be fine unless the water was quite murky.

Given that spells can be cast underwater SU abilities should be useable as well.

Silver Crusade ****

Jason Wu wrote:

There is no situation where you cannot take an alternate path instead of the one that requires being a jerk. Period.


You're making rather absolute statements. The veracity of which greatly depends on your definition of "jerk".

There certainly are situations where I'll be forced into actions that some players would consider acting as a jerk. For example, if a party member picks a fight with a good aligned NPC for no good reason my paladin most certainly will NOT help him (his vows to the society stop him from directly opposing the PC but they certainly don't require him to help commit an evil act). Whether the other player is acting as a jerk by forcing me into that position or I'm acting as a jerk by not helping him is unclear (and many electrons have been spent on the subject).

Caveat: this is all theoretical, I'm not trying to defend my behavior. I don't think I've ever crossed the "jerk" line and have definitely never been accused of having done so. But I certainly try and act in character and I certainly act in ways that are sometimes significantly suboptimal

Silver Crusade ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quadstriker wrote:
"You chose to make the character that way, and you can choose to change it."

Not always the case. A character can "gell" so that I know what the character would do. At that point I can NOT make significant and radical changes, not without losing all interest in or ability to play the character.

Silver Crusade ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.

While it can clearly be taken to unacceptable extremes I'd hope that EVERYBODY would fairly frequently act in a suboptimal manner because "it is what the character would do". It is called a roleplaying game after all and characters without flaws are pretty boring.

I'm NOT condoning sabotaging the mission or stopping other peoples fun but lets NOT try and claim that acting in character is automatically a bad thing. Quite the reverse.

The big issue is that some players create characters who should NOT be Pathfinders. As long as the character makes sense as a Pathfinder then acting in character should be just fine.

Silver Crusade

Steal from Harry Potter.

Pictures that move, plates that clean themselves, tents larger on the inside than outside, etc.

For things of some actual combat value, things like a flaming sword that does 1D3 additional damage, a shield that can change size from buckler to tower shield, a wand that aallows the caster to change the flavor of a spell ( so a fireball appears as a swarm of biting flies, gives a -2 on spellcraft checks to identify the spell).

Or just go through ultimate equipment and see what grabs your fancy, possibly with toned down mechanics

Silver Crusade ****

Imbicatus wrote:

A friend of mine just played at Level 2 for an Aasimar Bard that was made before the cut-off. The level 2 build was built towards increasing Inspire Courage, and going with Flagbearer/Banner of the Ancient Kings. The FCB change basically makes the concept not work, and he would very much like to change to an archery focus to try to salvage the character.

Unless there was something else your friend was wrong. That concept works VERY well for non Aasimars (I speak from experience as I play this build). In fact, even for non Aasimars the build is arguably overpowered. And Aasimar (musetouched, mostly) is STILL arguably the best race for this build WITHOUT the FCB. This precise build is one of the reasons that I think the errata were a good thing, the drop in power is GOOD.

Silver Crusade ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
jtaylor73003 wrote:

There is no concern about keeping trust and consistency between the player and the GM.

GMs are given free range to do as they see fit including ignoring RAW or even the written scenario.

You should always warn your players to expect table variation for everything even if it seems black and white.


The vast majority of GMs genuinely try and run things RAW. But reasonable people can and do disagree on what RAW means in some edge cases.

But almost all of my characters in almost all of my games under almost all of my GMs see very little table variation except in a handful of well known cases. I've got maybe two characters with enough ambiguity that I ask the GM how he handles something as I sit down.

And in maybe 1 game in 10 I'm surprised at how a GM rules something. And in many of those cases it was because I misunderstood a rule.

Silver Crusade ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:

I have a lot of characters (22 to be exact) and they all have their strengths and weaknesses. If their weaknesses start becoming a burden that affects the chances of not only my character's survival but the entire party's, then I do something about it. Usually by buying some magical item to help.

Ironically, you'd probably approve of most of my characters since it sounds like our personal build philosophies are fairly similar.

But that is totally beside the point.

The people making what you and I consider overpowered builds are doing absolutely nothing wrong. They're not abusing rules, they're not going after edge cases. In some cases they're combining features in ways the developers may or may not have anticipated, in other cases they're doing builds that the developers CLEARLY anticipated (Aasimar using FCB to improve a revelation like channel for Life Oracles, for example, HAD to be anticipated).

And therefore, when rules change, every effort should be made to keep them happy. I accept (reluctantly) that sometimes the good of the campaign means that there is no recourse. But, at the very least, we should be sympathetic to them and NOT accuse them of badwrongfun because they built characters more powerful than we'd like.

For what it is worth, I am not intentionally misrepresenting you. I honestly think that I am correctly representing your position.

Silver Crusade ****

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:

In other words, the balance of the game gives classes strengths and weaknesses, and if you manipulate the rules so you have no weaknesses while exponentially increasing your strengths, do not be surprised if a nerf happens at some point.

You do realize that some of the builds severely affected are single classed builds doing nothing more extreme than picking a race for its FCB?

And your description pretty much applies to 90% of multiclass builds?

I reject the thesis that any powerful character should expect to be nerfed without recourse

Silver Crusade

Andrew Roberts wrote:

By virtue of needing that FAQ, that means that it is normal to get sneak attack on every qualifying hit, and therefore every qualifying hit you had should have gotten sneak attack.

No. You can NOT assume that a FAQ was actually necessary to clear up an ambiguity or error. There are several examples where the rules really are clear but some insanely pedantic people try to rules lawyer themselves into an advantage.

Not disagreeing with you about sneak attack, mind.

Silver Crusade ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:

In my opinion, anything that ramps up a class's power to 50% better than the class that originated that power, is a very extreme rule. Specific favored class bonuses are usually to blame for this. Whether it has worked that way for over 2 years or not, really isn't at issue. Its the fact that 50% more power just because you pick a particular race is very extreme.

Andrew : these comments aren't particularly directed at you. Your post was just convenient

I agree that the FCB were overpowered and I'm glad that they were nerfed.

But I think that rebuilds should be allowed. The rules were clear, the people who took advantage of them did nothing the slightest bit wrong. Their characters were sufficiently seriously affected that I can see reasonable people deciding that they are no longer fun to play.

There are LOTs of overpowered options. Expecting people to not use them and punishing them when they do is just wrong. And expecting them to somehow know which overpowered options will be nerfed is just silly

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Silver Surfer wrote:

The archetype via its design puts the cleric out of harms way... but this does cause limbo problems...

I've played a PFS support cleric. By about level 8 or so his AC was pretty much irrelevant except for stopping an occasional iterative. He would have been better as an Ecclesitheurge once he got past the very early levels where flanking/aiding/providing another target were actually useful things to do.

I've got a different L13 cleric in a home game who would definitely benefit from the Archetype. It would change his back story too much for me to consider taking it at this point but, mechanically, its more win than loss.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, as far as I can see it is 100% completely and utterly clear that in the case of TWF, flurry, iterative attacks then you can move after the first attack if you wish.

Does anybody dispute that?

I agree that it isn't 100% clear how mmultishot works. Although I personally would certainly rule that one cannot move after taking a multishot

Silver Crusade ****

The D&D economy is broken (Pathfinder just inherited this). You're not allowed to take advantage of this fact. So, No.

Not that it affects the result at all but you're math is also flawed. 90 cubic feet is a little over 3 cubic yards.

Silver Crusade

Pink Dragon wrote:

2. any ability that requires patience

3. any ability that requires concentration

The things in Item 1 are not abilities, they are skills. Only the things listed in Items 2 and 3 are abilities, and they lack specific definition.

Uh, the language on this is INTENTIONLY vague. Table variation is to be expected.

Jessex has a point. Many things, including dealing non lethal damage, could be considered as precluded by the wording. You are NOT going to be able to pedantically RAW your way out of this, not without simultaneously essentially eliminating those clauses.

Now, I personally think that Jessex is going too far in his interpretation and that non lethal damage SHOULD be allowed but I recognize that he has a point. Those words above ARE part of the restrictions on rage.

Silver Crusade ****

Kaapelikala wrote:

A group of people are playing a special module with pregenerated characters (in this case Serpents rise). Due to reasons the pregen pc:s die. What are the costs for a non-pathfinder character to stay alive and contribute meaningly to the player's chronicle stack? All pc:s are dead.

Is it
a) 5pp for body + cash or bazillion pp for raise
b) cash or bazillion pp for raise
c) something completely different.

Cash is from the pregens sold junk.

I'm pretty sure that you can't sell the pregens equipment to pay for a raise dead of the pregen. That would make the raise essentially free and so make the death meaningless

Silver Crusade ****

John Compton wrote:
UndeadMitch has the right answer. If you don't have the adventure in the next two weeks, please post an update, and I can help push things along.

Just make sure that I get it before the other local 4 Star GMs and I'll be happy :-) :-) :-)

Silver Crusade ****

Terry had to cancel the game

Silver Crusade ****

Walter Sheppard wrote:

Having a hard 4 hour cut off for PFS is terrible.

Its pretty common to have fairly hard limits.

Even if the store is accommodating, lots of players really aren't. People want to get home at a reasonable hour while also wanting to have enough time to get to the game after work (assuming week night games).

I think moving to somewhat shorter scenarios was a wonderful move. I'm glad the policy hasn't changed and that John is aware of the issues

Silver Crusade ****

Andrew Christian wrote:

But if you have a scenario that lasts 4 hours, and you have to be out of the venue in 4 hours, you don't have 3 minutes, right?

. We've been known to go to the locakl McDonalds on occasion to do end of game paperwork


Edit: I guess the point I'm trying to make, is that scenarios can't be designed to only last a specific amount of time. The developers can do their best to try and keep time down to whatever maximum they are currently working from.

I don't see your point at all. Obviously, developers can't be perfect in guaging time. Equally obviously, they can make scenarios longer or shorter and can aim for a particular time. We're just saying that time that they aim for should be 4 hours or perhaps a little less.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Given we now have quite decent attack spells that are divination spells the bonus spell list is also VERY good.


Assume Fate is also wonderful. Target yourself with a harmful spell.

Edit: Just realized it is NOT PFS legal. Thank you Mike.

Silver Crusade ****

There will definitely be a game Sunday. At the least, 7-01 Between the Lines will be run.

Definitely will be at least 2 tables at 401 on Tuesday.

Not sure yet about DG tomorrow. Probably at least one session

Silver Crusade

Channeling has its uses. At low levels, the AoE or reach healing can be useful. Even at mid levels AoE healing is sometimes very useful (generally when AOE attacks are hitting the squishies).

At level 7 (assuming a Phylactery) channeled revival is VERY nice. You're getting a ranged Breath of Life 2 levels earlier than a non ranged version is available. I know that my PFS cleric saved 2 characters at level 7 and 8, once fairly likely stopping a near TPK.

Its certainly not wonderful or fantastic. But its considerably better than worthless garbage. Its probably worth the investment for a caster cleric as they can afford the feats and ability points.

Silver Crusade ****

Nobody else seems to be using the Facebook page right now. For the record, the group is called the Toronto Pathfinder Society Lodge.

Silver Crusade ****

I think that you should consider bringing this up to the local authority (probably VO but possibly store coordinator). Pretty much as you did here, very much NOT accusing anybody.

If such a thing was brought to my attention, I'd probably make a post on our local board mentioning the potential issue but most definitely NOT including any information that would identify any of the people involved (our local site serves 4 separate venues so anonymity would be easily preserved). The post would also reiterate our standing policy on such matters.

Silver Crusade ****

I'd oppose such a change.

In my experience, there is already too much difficulty when lowest level possible and highest level possible characters play together. The highest level character stomps over everything, the lowest level either can't contribute or gets killed by random AoE effects or the like.

In the ideal world the only out of subtier characters who could play would be of the intermediate level (eg, level 3 in a 1-5). I'm most certainly NOT asking for such a change since that would make creating tables a completely impossible nightmare but I think it would significantly improve the tables that ARE run.

Silver Crusade

I'm definitely in the "Masterpieces effects last even if you start another performance" camp. Without that they are almost all pretty much completely useless. Even WITH that most of them are pretty awful.

For what its worth I've never had a PFS GM rule the other way. I like bards so that probably translates to at least 20 GMs at least some of whom are both quite knowledgeable about the rules and reasonably strict on their interpretations.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Snorb wrote:

So let's talk about the moon!

My simpler version is that almost nobody can watch a football game.

1 to 50 of 1,269 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.