|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Chess Pwn wrote:
Reading the first two pages of that thread I still only see people saying they HOPE you can do both,
We are seeing very different things, then. In the very first post I see an argument counter to your position. Within the first 20 or so posts CBD, Zaister, claud, all seem to be disagreeing with your interpretation.
I stopped looking at that point.
I am NOT going to rehash the arguments.
The issue is unclear.
JJ is NOT a rules guy (by his own repeated statement). His opinions on rules are just that, opinions. They should be granted exactly as much weight as you'd give to anybody else's opionions
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
That's a perfectly valid opinion. But it is just one opinion.
Other equally valid opinions are that the most important thing is the roleplaying, the story is just the backdrop that allows the roleplaying.
Or the combat is the most important thing.
Or the solving of the intellectual puzzles.
Or the in and out of character joking.
I'd never noticed that before. Damn. Now I have to follow it :-(.
I know that PFS is trying with its new document but I really, really, really hate that things like this are buried in messageboard posts. This seriously affects the flavour of one of my characters (he is completely optimized around being a Painter :-) :-))
Following is more for home games than PFS but does also occur in PFS.
Especially as a GM I am a firm believer in the "Roll dice first, think about things second" style. I find that it speeds up the game a lot. So, if a player makes a convincing argument and then rolls diplomacy I'll look at the result first before deciding what Circumstance Bonus I'm giving. Most of the time it either succeeds or fails regardless.
Similarly, sometimes I think that something is almost certain to succeed or fail but I have the player roll the dice. They roll really high or really low and THEN I think about whether or not it actually COULD succeed or fail.
So, sometimes the player rolls the dice and it turns out to have been unnecessary. But I only went through the thought process that convinced me the roll was unnecessary when I needed to.
Chess Pwn wrote:
It's not unclear, it's asking for a change because people want to do both. But masterpiece are bardic performances and you can't maintain more that one bardic performance at a time.
There are 228 people who have marked it for a FAQ. That is pretty much the definition of unclear.
I know that you think the current text clearly says one thing but many people disagree. When different people read the text differently then it is UNCLEAR. Reasonable people disagree.
I roll my dice openly, mostly to protect myself from the impulse to fudge too much for the players.
I think games are (for most players) most exciting when the players know there is risk. And rolling openly greatly increases that perceived risk. When I roll openly they know that it was honest luck that caused them to be missed.
There are still lots of techniques that I can use to softball a game if I think that is a good idea (new players, compensating for a really bad party make up, etc).
Chess Pwn wrote:
Chess Pwn, would you PLEASE stop saying that the answer is currently no. That is NOT correct.
As that thread shows, the answer is currently "unclear" with cogent arguments for both interpretations.
Sorry, no simple answer. It depends
My default reaction to a player is definitely friendly.
My default reaction to a player doing something unexpected probably depends on the player and on how confident I am in my own gut reaction/opinion.
Some players I know have extremely good rules knowledge and they very definitely get the benefit of the doubt. Some players I know to be lacking in the rules area and my knee jerk reaction is more likely to be sceptical.
Some areas of the rules I know a lot better than others and so I trust my gut in some areas a lot more than others.
That said, if it is no big deal and I'm not sure that I'm right my reaction is very, very likely to be "Ok, we'll run it that way for this game. But I'll be looking it up and may well change my mind for next session"
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Well, your Judge B should look at the Chronicle, where Judge A signed off on the "mistake" being fixed, and not say what you have him saying.
Wrong. If I'm Judge A then that character change was illegal and its my DUTY to disallow it.
Or are you saying that any character rebuild is legal if some GM signs off on it? Didn't think so.
I trust my local player base to be honest and to not consciously be cheating. I trust them to tell me the truth as they know it.
I do NOT trust most of them to be right. I do NOT trust most of them to have carefully read the book, FAQs, additional resources, posts, etc. I do NOT trust most of their math skills.
I'll only audit if something "feels off". Even then its almost always a quick : Could you please break down how you have an AC of 31?. Things feeling too low get checked as well as things feeling too high and are almost as common.
IIRC there are something over 100 entries in the FAQ list. Pretty much all of those are grey areas.
I totally agree with Nefreet. There are LOTS of grey areas that even those of us who spend an inordinate amount of time on the boards don't realize are grey areas.
And those newer players, or the experienced players who don't spend time on the boards? There are way, way, way more grey areas than they realize.
Jared Thaler wrote:
Thank you. Never occurred to me to look there :-)
I apologize for the thread necromancy but it seemed better than starting a new thread.
Did this get resolved? I thought that it did but I can't find the resolution.
The new Campaign Resolutions document is a WONDERFUL start but it needs to have a LOT added to it. I want to be able to look there and the FAQ for pretty much everything :-)
I think that if the player is willing to go to all the work of
then they absolutely should receive the reward of being able to play the version that is legal at that table.
I'd like for this to be limited to the truly grey areas, though. Not to the cases where the rule is 99% clear but there is enough ambiguity that some insanely convoluted argument can be made. Unfortunately, I see no practical way to distinguish the cases.
I agree that altering equipment goes a bit too far.
James McTeague wrote:
I think that I could make a pretty strong argument that a baby that has been baptized would count as a worshipper. Certainly I'd count it as such for any spell effects that are particularly beneficial to followers of a God.
I think that one of the root causes of the issue is that declaring all animals, regardless of interaction, to not be sapient was just WRONG
Orfamay Quest wrote:
(This is how it works in Ars Magica
I'm not sure that you want to bring in Ars Magica as an example of successfully addressing the Caster/Martial diversity. This is the game that totally embraces the Diversity and has built its entire structure (game and world) on the assumption that Mages have IMMENSE narrative and combat imbalance when compared to non Mages.
Its a great game, mind. It proves that you can have a wonderful game WITH a Martial/caster disparity.
Stephen Ross wrote:
NOT a complaint, but after you've played and run enough a fair number of scenarios get fairly predictable.
"Curse you for your unexpected but Inevitable Betrayal" being quite common :-). Plot twists like that very, very often don't come off.
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
The basic answer is : create flexible characters who do not think people who disagree with them are so wrong that you can attack them. Create a character who embraces the fact that they MUST work with people they disagree with on a regular basis. Don't use alignment as a straight jacket.
The particular answer you already have : you can NOT use Orders Wrath to attack your allies except, perhaps, in some very exceptional circumstances. Plan your character knowing that.
Locally, we have a hard rule. It's a combination of the "don't be a jerk," and "no PVP" rules.
"No PVP without player permission". You wanna fire ball the swarm with the other PC in it you need their permission. Doesn't matter if YOU think its their best chance to live or even if you're clearly right.
With reasonable players it works wonderfully. I don't think that I have ever seen a player say no when it is clearly the right tactical decision. More importantly, it means that the question is only asked when it is reasonable, the player has already considered and rejected alternatives
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
I vehemently disagree with this. In canon, the various Good gods and their followers actually get along fairly well in general, the only "kill on sight" reactions occur between good and evil.
More importantly, in play in almost every campaign out there (most definitely including PFS) the War of Good vs Evil is far, far more important than the philosophical difference between Law and Chaos.
There is a reason that the paladin gets Smite Evil and not Smite Chaos
I think I want to play the most mechanically stereotypical bard but I know jack about building bards. Help?
noble peasant wrote:
A buffer bard is VERY viable in PFS. I play several. I've NEVER had any complaints and often am obviously the MVC of the scenario. If anything, it can be TOO powerful, especially in its ability to just avoid fights. You want to grab the flagbearer feat early on and a banner of the ancient Kings at level 7 or 8.
Most of my buffers max out Cha and get a fair value out of spells but honestly that is more so I have something to do in my turn than for actual effectiveness. Providing +2/+2 to hit/damage at level 1 up to +5/+5 at level 8 iis huge. Not to mention eliminating a fair few combats by diplomacy or bluff.
I once did some back of the envelope calculations for my character who was about level 10 or so at the time. IIRC she had spent something like 50 years in the society. Almost all of it, of course, was the travel time required to get her to a scenario from the previous scenario (particularly egregious with the ones in Tian). But some individual scenarios span months.
John Compton wrote:
If a GM does not feel empowered to honor this more permissive interpretation of these deific obediences without an update to the Campaign Clarifications document, please let me know.
This is fairly important and a fair stretch from the rules as written (Kulald makes a pretty good point above). I'd urge that it be added to the Campaign Clarifications document due to the much greater visibility that has than a post in a moderately obscure thread.
Too many GMs will not read it here
let them k,ow they are either about to lose the extra prestige or even the whole mission state it outright. Let them know that they can still fight but they may: die by his guards, fail the mission, get thrown in jail, lose prestige, and/or shift alignment depending on scenario.
Well worth it :-).
I think you underestimate how much of a bad taste a certain scenario left in the mouths of many characters and/or players.
The ONLY reason Torch has survived further encounters is that I did not want to be a jerk and ruin other peoples fun. Several of my characters would happily take a 0 Exp/0 Prestige/0 Gold chronicle for the sheer visceral pleasure in killing Torch in a way that only True Resurrection would get him back.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Hopefully not the latter. I have no problems at all with players playing followers of Evil Dieties as this is clearly legal.
Its no more BadWrongFun than saying that I don't think Jedi fit into Golarion, purely from a world point of view.
I've long been of the opinion that, with the exception of Asmodeus, it makes essentially no in world sense that worshippers of evil gods are allowed in the Society. The downsides just outweigh any benefits.
I understand why Paizo chooses to allow them in the campaign but I think they made the wrong decision.
Just to emphasize this, LOTS of characters want to kill him. In a couple of scenarios I've asked at the meta level if I can kill Torch, knowing full well that it would cost at least 1 prestige (likely more, depending on the scenario). If any players object I don't push it at all but if they all agreed I absolutely would take a 0 XP/0 Prestige/0 Gold chronicle just for the sheer joy in killing him (and in most cases it wouldn't actually be that bad).
I'm NOT alone in how much some of my characters hate him and in how much I the player dislike what Paizo did with him.
You realize that you're asking us to publicly state that we'd violate the explicit rules, right?
I'll just point out that I'm a Canadian and that Canadians have a fairly well deserved reputation for being polite and welcoming people. And that I'd think it fairly rude and not at all welcoming to force a visitor to play a Pregen.
When the players manage to do something smart enough to avoid combat I sometimes just explicitly congratulate them and ask if they are happy to take their win or if they want the combat anyway.
Usually, but not always, they take the win. Sometimes they want a fight.
But there is nothing I hate more as a player than cleverly avoiding a combat and having the GM negate that victory by fiat.
Jared Thaler wrote:
Note that it is not at all clear that the protections you mention apply fully to declaring a Paladin a non Paladin. They are held to a higher standard and would fall for actions that would not cause a character to become evil.
While I agree with both Bob and Wolf, be aware that there can be table variation.
From your OP it sounds as if you may have had difficulty with one local GM. If that is so, that GM has not only the authority but arguably the responsibility to enforce what he thinks Paladins should be (hopefully biased on the side of reasonableness).
On the other hand, in PFS "I was just following orders", also CAN be a defence.
Note that this pretty clearly does NOT work with the banner of ancient kings. That is longspear only or a buffer character only. And what flagbearer isn't buying that banner :-)?
As you say, flagbearer is probably best with a purish buffer character. Man, though, is it wonderful with a buffer bard and a banner.
@GM Paladin : Are we allowed to "Trade" boon rolls? I don't have an idea yet that is as good as that so I'd happily trade if allowed.