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

pauljathome's page

FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto. 1,840 posts (2,881 including aliases). 31 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 46 Pathfinder Society characters. 11 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,840 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

claudekennilol wrote:
Think we'll get anything today?

Magic Eight Ball says "Not only no, but HE?? no"

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Jack Brown wrote:


Personally, I don't think that's so bad.

And my main purpose in starting this thread was to let actual experience be heard, as opposed to theorycrafting (on EITHER side of the debate).

Its very possible I'm in the minority. Its very possible you are.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Terry Thambipillai wrote:
I'unclear on the point you are making. You might have cared more if you assigned the credit to character 99 deady mcdead ?

Hilary explained it well, but in a nutshell

Prior to the ruling : Nothing to lose, something to gain. I was well engaged with the character.

After the ruling : Nothing to lose, nothing to gain. I found it much harder to get engaged with the character, especially in terms of caring about the Secondary Success Condition

Silver Crusade

A Champion of Irori is quite effective, far more so than the more recent Iroran Paladin archetype. If you're willing to live with the role playing restrictions of a Paladin it is probably better in straight combat than a Sacred Fist Warpriest too.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I am NOT trying to reopen the discussion as to whether these rules should be changed. We know that the rules stay as they are for at least 6 months.

But the Blog certainly implied that the PTB are interested in feedback. So, I'm starting this thread to give actual feedback from experience, not theory crafting.

I played in The Serpent's Ire yesterday. Having heard that this could be fairly deadly and having seen how questionable my character build was I decided to assign credit to a brand new PC.

I was the only player out of 5 to do so. The other 4 were assigning it to real characters.

The one thing that I really noticed was that I found it very, very hard to care about the secondary prestige for the character. I wanted to complete the mission successfully and I enjoyed the little bit of role playing the character that the scenario allowed.

But I almost completely ignored the "mission letter" and its hints as to what I was supposed to do. I just couldn't bring myself to care when there was NOTHING on the line for me and it seemed like an in character diversion (my character was supposed to put the main mission first).

Knowing that there was NOTHING on the line made character engagement worse. So, for me at least, the attempt to make me care by putting character resources on the line had the exact opposite effect.

Edit: I should explicitly point out that I have experience with other scenarios where I have played pre-gens (eg, Serpent's Rise) and so am comparing actual play experiences before and after this ruling

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

MadScientistWorking wrote:


What scenario was it because if it is what I think it is that wasn't the players fault?

I agree that the primary fault for that particular scenario was the scenario itself. But it is just a particularly egregious example of the basic problem.

Scenario:
Karma Reclaimed

As to people saying "It is a player issue". Of COURSE it is. And OF COURSE one cannot come up with rules to completely solve the problem.

But the problem is significantly exacerbated by the rules system. When the rules allow such a HUGE power discrepancy between two characters that, on the surface, are essentially functionally identical (lets say mid level characters designed to blast their foes into oblivion with area of effect damage) there is a fundamental problem in the rules.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Andrew Christian wrote:


There is a chart in the bestiaries that helps a GM create a CR appropriate monster. Where thier to hits and AC and damage and saves should be to present a good challenge but not be overpowering. This chart could work as a guide for PCs too.

[Total Aside and Rant]I REALLY wish that Paizo would consult that chart more often when assigning CR numbers to monsters. There are SO many outliers where the listed CR is just obviously wrong. In a recent scenario the CR 12 monster was in almost all ways weaker than the CR 10 monster. And they were both monsters of the identical type published in the same bestiary.[/Total Aside and Rant]

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Thomas Hutchins wrote:

Why are GMs only having fun if the players are getting hit by stuff, failing saving throws, or doing less damage than the enemies?

As a GM you're there to run the scenario and bring it to life. Your fun should be in seeing the players win or in telling the scenario. The players are heroes against X difficulty. If they want that difficulty to be easy mode why would that decrease your fun at all?

A few reasons

On the monsters turn is a large part of when you get to do stuff. If you're stun locked, dead, or one shotted you can't do anything.

Because to some degree you have to empathize with the monsters you're playing to play them.

Because you're telling a story, and if that story has an anticlimactic ending you feel the story wasn't told well.

I agree with all the above.

Take the time where the scenario had an absurdly over complicated end boss using all sorts of rules that I don't know well. I spent well over an hour (likely over 2 hours) preparing that encounter.

And it was a complete cakewalk by the players. Other than knowing Initiative and AC all my preparation was irrelevant.

Maybe you enjoy wasting 2 hours of time but I don't

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
One comment to the OP. It isn't table variation (up to how a GM rules) or a GM being pedantic, for them to follow the rules. That's simply not a fair statement to make. Especially in PFS.

I think its fair to expect table variation. How wild armor applies to shields is VERY badly written, sufficiently badly that I think it quite reasonable for a GM to read it as "obviously, wild armor on a shield preserves the shield bonus. Anything else is ridiculous". I also think a GM is quite within their rights to say "No, it is ridiculously overpriced but a shield only adds the enhancement bonus, despite that being impossible"

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

5 people marked this as a favorite.

One idea that conceivably could help would be to have GUIDELINES stating where approximately characters "Should" be at various levels for various kinds of builds.

Something to at least allow players a chance to self police themselves if they were so inclined.

Not enforced. Just rules of thumb.

At least some of the time the problem is that the player doesn't know whether a +10 to hit at level 7 doing 1d8+6 damage while maintaining an AC of 25 is poor, decent, good, or massively overkill.

Creating any such guidelines would be difficult and filled with disagreements but I suspect the Collective could come up with recommendations. Including suggesting some things that should never be used (dazing fireball would be high on my list, for example :-))

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I completely agree that over optimized builds are a huge problem. They cause lots of scenarios to be ROTFLstomp snooze fests. They have also caused Paizo to raise the difficulty of scenarios so that quite a few low tier adventures are far too difficult for new players (while still being easy for experienced players creating over optimized characters).

I have no clue what the solution is. Core IS a partial solution, I play it quite a bit online and it has made things much more challenging even with experienced players.

But, locally at least, new players don't like Core so it has died. New players want to play with all the toys from their new book. And who can blame them?

But this proposal isn't a solution. Far too many things to police, far too impractical to do so.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Svonar Djaeldsen wrote:
Flutter wrote:
Svonar Djaeldsen wrote:
]I do realize this, but being a hunter, I should try to keep my companion from wearing others to protect herself.
Just make sure he's wearing something! It's dangerous out there.
Oh, no worries there! She has her darkleaf barding to keep her safe!

Oh no. Who will protect the Trees?

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I think that this may have been addressed but, if so, I couldn't find it.

Serpent's Ire uses specified level 8 pregens. Which leads to two questions. Note, I'm not trying to reopen the whole pregen death issue, I genuinely don't know the answers to these questions. And I may have an opportunity to play Serpents Ire this week.

1) Is it still the case that the character that I apply this to must be L7 or lower? On the one hand, the guide says it must be applied to a lower level character. On the other hand, my 8th level character cannot play this scenario so the usual reason for that restriction doesn't apply.

2) If my character dies and I chose to apply the chronicle to a real character how much is that real character supposed to pay? The guide tells me what to pay for a L7 pregen but this is NOT a level 7 pregen.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jeffrey Reed wrote:
Would level 21 even be a legal character level? Nothing in the normal rules allows that.

Well, you can create a L21 character however you want. Given that any audit as to its legallty will come when you try and PLAY him and that you can't PLAY a L21 character then I think the character is in a perfect Quantum Entangled state and is simultaneously legal and illegal.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm definitely not trying to discourage discussion and I didn't intend my posts to come off that way.

But I guess I strongly prefer discussion that is more than a glib "What is the problem?".

My intent was to get Jeff to give reasons for his opinion, not to dismiss his opinion. I guess I could have gone about that more politely and effectively (:-)) and for that I apologize

Edit: If I come across as even more grumpy than usual I'll point out that I have no air conditioning and the current temperature is 95.4 F ( Humidex of 108) :-(

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Nefreet wrote:
Andrew Torgerud wrote:
technically level 21 is achievable now.

How do you figure?

There's currently only one adventure that can be applied to a 19th level character.

Don't know, but I'm betting that it is related to

Andrew Torgerud wrote:
Only thing its missing is one of the newest gencon boons

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

1 person marked this as a favorite.
claudekennilol wrote:
Paul Jackson wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:


For PFS there's going to have to be a specific ruling to allow it to work that way. That would make the most sense for PFS, but until then, doing it that way is out of line with what the trick actually says.

Completely wrong. The current situation is unclear so the GM HAS to decide.

Please don't reply with a long complicated argument showing that your interpretation is 100% crystal clear. It isn't clear. Reasonable people can disagree.

Have you even ready any of my posts? Please go find a single post of mine where I wrote out a long convoluted response about why something works the way it does. I'm not going to call you names or stomp my feet because you disagree with me. That's just ridiculous. It's obvious we have differing opinions on how it works and that's just fine. I have no problem with there being table variance, just please don't assume that I do.

I apologize. Arguments that seem to hold one readers interpretation of the words up to some holy RAW standard that all players MUST follow get me irked and I thought your post was one such.

I obviously misunderstood you and apologize. I had thought you were saying that one could NOT rule that one could set the targets at the beginning of the session. If you're saying that there will be table variance on whether you can or not then we are in violent agreement.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jeff Hazuka wrote:
Paul Jackson wrote:
Jeff Hazuka wrote:


The new solution seems fine. You play an iconic pregen, if you're afraid of risk, assign it to a level 1. What's the problem?
I take it you didn't bother to read this thread?
All of it. If you're afraid of losing your character, you now have to apply a pregen to a level 1. Why is this an issue?

There are probably literally over a 100 posts (I haven't counted) explaining why people think this is an issue.

Just stating that you don't see a problem without explaining why at least some of those reasons are wrong isn't a positive contribution to this conversation. It comes off as just a dismissive remark, essentially saying that the rest of us are just being silly.

I have no idea if that is your intention, of course.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeff Hazuka wrote:


The new solution seems fine. You play an iconic pregen, if you're afraid of risk, assign it to a level 1. What's the problem?

I take it you didn't bother to read this thread?

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

4 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Remember, the forums are not representative of the tens of thousands of PFS players. The campaign staff through the V-O's have much better data on this than we do here. If they say there's abuse, I'm willing to believe it's a problem.

I'm willing to believe that it exists. Less willing to believe its a problem.

I'm sure they've heard some anecdotal evidence. But I think that there is a very real chance that they've blown the problem out of proportion. Without very rigid analysis that is exactly what people tend to do, blow anecdotal evidence out of proportion.

And, of course, many of us think this solution won't fix the problem anyway.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

I'm not seeing anyone in this thread complaining of the widespread abuse that this is supposed to address.

Where are those people?

There is one person (SinsofAsmodeus, I believe) who said that he has seen abuse.

I'll accept that there IS abuse but it seems clear that it is not common as we now have LOTS of people from LOTS of areas who have never seen any.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

1 person marked this as a favorite.
claudekennilol wrote:


For PFS there's going to have to be a specific ruling to allow it to work that way. That would make the most sense for PFS, but until then, doing it that way is out of line with what the trick actually says.

Completely wrong. The current situation is unclear so the GM HAS to decide.

Please don't reply with a long complicated argument showing that your interpretation is 100% crystal clear. It isn't clear. Reasonable people can disagree.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

KingOfAnything wrote:
You can always "retrain" the trick to a new party member before the adventure starts.

Unfortunately, I don't think that tricks can legally be retrained at all

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mitch Mutrux wrote:


FWIW, when PC's die in my area, the rest of the table can usually be counted on to help out with raising a character. Unless the cause of death was extremely stupid actions taken by the PC that resulted in its death, and even then I've seen the party chip in (albeit rather begrudgingly).

Here too. And the online community (at least the subset where I mostly play) seems pretty good about it too.

Ironically considering this thread, the one time I didn't contribute was when I was playing a Pregen and so couldn't :-). I was REALLY glad that I couldn't, too. The player was new but playing his character like an idiot. He was REALLY upset when his character died. He basically guilted the rest of the group into contributing (my sense of the table is that most of the people thought his character deserved to die). I most certainly did NOT want to contribute to his raise dead, I'd have only done so because of a probably misplaced sense of obligation (I don't think the player ever returned anyway).

That is actually another consequence of this ruling that I hadn't thought of before. Previously, there was almost no social pressure to contribute to the raise dead of a pregen. Now there is. Not sure that is a good thing at all.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Hutchins wrote:
Paul Jackson wrote:


At some real level, paying to save the character who died saving my life is different than paying to save the character who wasn't even at the table.
You'd be chipping in to raise the pregen, that died saving your life. If you felt that the pregen character was helpful and etc... then you pay to raise it. If you didn't then you still don't.

No I'm really not. I KNOW that whatever I do will not affect the chances of my character playing with that character. The pregen survives regardless of what happens. It is the unknown character that dies.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Hutchins wrote:

Like, going the waiting route proposed doesn't really change the dynamic of having a player at the table die."

Yeah, it does. I've been at several tables where people chipped in when a character died. Lots of factors seem to contribute to peoples decision on whether to chip in, including how much the characters like each other and how well built and played the character is.

At some real level, paying to save the character who died saving my life is different than paying to save the character who wasn't even at the table.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Hutchins wrote:

And as I mentioned earlier, with this change I feel the leadership could easily remove the line saying you can sell pregen gear to rez yourself. This would make a pregen death just as expensive as a real death. The only advantage is that you can prepare for it as you get there rather than having it be a surprise.

Nah, that isn't punitive enough. I think that if a pregen dies your character should be killed and then raised as undead AND taken to another plane. So you have to pay for a resurrection AND a body recovery.

That should teach you that this game is only fun if its really, really dangerous.

[Obvious]Given the nature of the net, I'll explicitly point out that the above is sarcastic. There are lots and lots of people who find the new rules far, far too punitive. Making them worse would be, uh, worse[/Obvious]

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

1 person marked this as a favorite.
claudekennilol wrote:
Tessaviri Erisanthe wrote:

Do we know how the Serve command works in PFS? (Sorry if this was taken care of elsewhere in the thread!)

My reading of the Animal Archive suggests that the Serve trick is taught per specific person, not for a generic number of people. For instance, Lini could train her cat Serve (Valeros) or Serve (Seoni), perhaps.

If that reading of the Serve trick is correct, that's...awkward in Pathfinder Society, where you might rarely be playing with the same people. It'd be nice to think that you could get a floating Serve trick that you could assign to another PC at the beginning of the scenario, but it seems like we'd need a campaign ruling for that.

Or maybe I'm just reading the whole thing wrong.

You're reading it correctly. It simply isn't well-suited well for PFS. However, if you have someone you know you'll always be playing with (me and my wife for example), then it can be very handy.

I'd always assumed that, for PFS at least, one picks the character to be served at the beginning of the session. There are similar things (eg, a Mascot Familiar) that work the same way. I've seen it ruled that way a couple of times (including by the author of the PFS Animal companion blog)

I wouldn't be surprised if there is some table variation on that but its not as if a different interpretation of a single trick is going to be a huge deal anyway :-)

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

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


Those conversations are best left outside guide revision suggestions.

First, I'd like to join the people above explicitly thanking you for what you're trying to achieve, especially when you don't yourself agree with all of this change. I understand the goal of making sure that the language is clear.

But it sort of feels like you're trying to hijack this thread. This thread seems to me to primarily be a place where people who don't like the new rules are explaining why and arguing with the few who do like it. We're arguing whether this change should be made at all. That presumably has value to Tonya, John et. al. We may be raising points that they hadn't considered OR we may be indicating considerably more antipathy to the change than they were expecting, either of which may cause them to reevaluate their position.

There is what seems to me a secondary set of conversations going on (primarily but not only between Nefreet and you) aimed at clarifying HOW this change should be worded to achieve its desired effect. Obviously, assuming the change continues to happen, a good idea

May I please respectfully suggest that you start a new thread with the purpose of discussing the wording and the implementation of this change while we keep this thread for discussing whether it is a good idea or not.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

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

But for now, a helpful dialogue would include ways to improve the language based on how the rule is currently written.

It is hard to have that dialogue when we don't know what the new rule is intended to accomplish.

I'm NOT picking on you here as I know that you're just passing on what you've heard (and I suspect you don't actually like what you've heard) but you've now given us two different reasons
1) To stop abuse - We've addressed that many times
2) To add a risk.

To address the second I'd like to know WHY they think that there should be a risk .

Let us now assume the far more normal circumstance of a player playing a pre-gen fairly well. Probably they're a newish player. But things go bad and the character dies.

They already have lost the chance of improving their character, they've lost the chance of ever playing that scenario again. Why should they take a higher risk?

I know that many people (rightfully or wrongly) consider it virtually a failure to just come away with less than 2 prestige and/or with less than 100% gold. Now they're paying MORE than that

Up here it is fairly common (and even mildly encouraged) for a new player to play pregens several times before making their own character. Get a feel for the rules, get a feel for what characters they like, etc. That new player now gets to lose ALL their chronicles if one of their attempts fails?

Up here while I try and steer new players to the mechanically better pregens I'll LET them play Harsk or the ninja if they want. With the new change, I think that I'll probably omit them from my pregen binder.

In the case of a scenario where you must play pregens I'd be very, very, very seriously peeved if I played one of the provided pregens in Dawn of the Scarlet Sun or Risen from the Sands only to find that my reward for playing an incredibly badly built pregen was to have my own character die.

My constructive suggestion is to just NOT do this. It isn't a language issue its just fundamentally a bad idea.

If you REALLY want to punish people then give the player a choice of :
1) A chronicle with all the gear sold off for 1/2 price minus enough earned cash to pay for the resurrection, together with whatever PP and XP was earned OR
2) A chronicle with 0 XP, 0 Gold, 0 Prestige

If you want to be more actively punitive make that a chronicle with 1XP, 0 Gold and 0 Prestige.

I can only speak for myself but now I'll be strongly tempted to put my Serpent's Ire etc chronicle on a new character. Hopefully the fact that I now have ZERO incentive to succeed will not make me play more carelessly but, of course, it likely will a little.

And I'll most definitely NEVER play a Free RPG Day Module while assigning the credit to my actual character. Ok, to be honest, I've only ever run these on actual Free RPG Day but I'm betting the experienced players who have made up part of every Free RPG Day table I've ever run will be less likely to show up now and will play more cautiously. Maybe not MUCH more likely but clearly the new rule encourages them staying away or playing worse.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

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

To avoid the abuse of using a pregen instead of a legal character for the purpose of avoiding the risk of death. And so folks won't play stupid or overly risky with a pregen knowing there is no longer lasting risk, and thus unduly endangering the real characaters at the table.

Apparently this has been enough of a major issue in enough regions that a solution was required.

Except as many people have pointed out this solution really doesn't seem to address this problem. If I'm going to play stupid (and I don't think its stupid so much as deliberately being a bad player that is the issue) I just assign to a new character.

Edit: I know that I'm repeating myself but when a thread goes on this long repetition can be a good thing as people tend to start at the end :-)

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

If you ever play or run the module "The Harrowing" (which is wonderful) having an actual Harrow Deck will add immensely to the experience

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

GM Lamplighter wrote:
It doesn't take ten minutes per player, and takes 5 minutes total for the table.

I suspect that if one actually measured the time across several GMs that the time would be more than 5 minutes but WAY less than 10 per player (NOT saying you are misstating anything, I just don't trust peoples subjective estimates of time). AFTER the players were trained to ALWAYS bring at least their latest chronicle sheet all filled in.

But even 5 minutes is significant if the scenario is running at all late which they often do. As the GM I already am often the last person to leave the table since I have to pack my stuff after doing the current bookeeping. I'm tired and want to go home.

And I'm an experienced GM with a reasonable grasp on scenario timing and experienced at doing the bookkeeping. New GMs find the bookeeping confusing.

Silver Crusade

Smoked goggles are an excellent solution. For most characters, the +8 translates to saving on a 2 or higher 50% of the tine.

If you have any reroll mechanism the odds just got much better

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Nefreet wrote:
Luckily, in Serpent's Rise, you can simply sell all of your Pregen's gear to cover your Raise Dead ^_^

No idea about Serpent's Rise but I just want to point out that there are plenty of scenarios where buying a Raise Dead and two Restorations (lets remember those when saying its no huge deal) is NOT as bad as it gets. Some scenarios you'll need a body recovery, some you'll need a resurrection, etc.

Playing with a Pregen (in general, there are exceptions) increases the chances of Party failure and of Party TPK. Serpent's Rise can be difficult with inexperienced players at a 6 player table.

Hmm. I just thought of another wrinkle. Once when I ran Serpent's Rise one of the characters died about 2/3 of the way through the scenario. The players perservered and won. But if they were risking their actual characters in a situation where a TPK would clearly mean a body recovery (As in Serpents Rise) they'd have been very, very likely to have turned back at that point. Certainly, the argument that they weren't really risking anything was made.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

1 person marked this as a favorite.
medtec28 wrote:
Paul Jackson wrote:


Very much agreed. With particular emphasis on how this is supposed to fix the problem

I don't know that we will get that specific answer, nor do I think we are entitled to it. If leadership chooses to make their reasons known, it is their choice. If Andrew felt he could discuss this here, I assume he would have. If Tonya and John say they have good reasons, then they do.

I'm not saying that I'm entitled to an answer or that I expect one. I am sure that Tonya and John had reasons for what they did and I absolutely trust their good intentions.

But I also think that they're human and are known to make mistakes from time to time. And, absent any new information, this certainly looks like a mistake to me. And to what appears to me to be the significant majority of posters to this thread.

Tonya and John have both publicly stated that they WANT feedback from us. This thread has been pretty respectful and reasonable with people posting reasonable arguments why they see this as a bad change.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

1 person marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:
Paul Jackson wrote:
andreww wrote:

If you want the full benefit then you need to take the risk. Mostly it is fine, occasionally a riddywhipple gets chain lightnined to death by a Marut.

Or a poor innocent non wand using fox gets viciously slain by a naaaaassssstttyyy GM :-) :-).
He was out in front when the ambush happened, totally not my fault.

For those who possibly think I'm being serious in my whinging, I should point out that Andrew was being nice and killed my familiar instead of a PC.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
I did get clarified directly from Tonya and John, though, while at Gen Con the reasons and purpose for this change.

I'd be very interested in hearing from the horse's mouth the Whys and Hows of this change - what problem was it supposed to fix, how was it supposed to do that, and why are the side effects worth it?

Very much agreed. With particular emphasis on how this is supposed to fix the problem

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

nosig wrote:

Has anyone totaled the sell value of the equipment on existing Pregens? Which ones have enough to pay for the Raise Dead/Restorations needed?

Just wondering... it might make a difference if a player was trying to decide between which 4th level Pregen to risk running...

and it would make the "end of game slot" paperwork run a lot faster.

Player: "How much does a +1 Longsword retail for? What's half price on that? What's the value of a wand of cure moderate wounds with ...ah... 5 charges left?"

edit: corrected spelling and language issues.

I am not sure but I think they all started with the by the book WBL for their level. So just take 1/2 of that (+- a little if they have cash or used consumables)

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

andreww wrote:

If you want the full benefit then you need to take the risk. Mostly it is fine, occasionally a riddywhipple gets chain lightnined to death by a Marut.

Or a poor innocent non wand using fox gets viciously slain by a naaaaassssstttyyy GM :-) :-).

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pink Dragon wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
The reason this rule was changed was for folks who abused the previous rule and caused deaths or other losses for others.
The part in bold is actually the first cogent reason I have seen for the rule change. However, is it so widespread that it required a change to the Guide, or could not the VO's at the various Lodges simply put a stop to it? A generalized punitive action is a pretty big sledgehammer for a local problem.

I'm repeating what I've said before, but I just don't see how the rule change addresses the issue. Those players just assign the credit to a 1st level char and continue to play like jerks

Silver Crusade

Take the work of art and transform it. Instead of it being an statue to an evil diety, it becomes part of a diaroma where an evil diety is defeated by Shelyn.

Silver Crusade

Andrietta Ebonfeather wrote:
Vralk, master of all wrote:

"Yes. Go home. Or face the wrath of Vralk the Mighty"

[dice=Aid to diplomacy]1d20-1

"Ok, I deserved that :-) :-)

If you are telling someone to 'fear the wrath', that sounds more like an Intimidate, imo?

Probably right. But almost everybody I know allows intimidate to aid diplomacy (the old good PC / bad PC thing). And the modifier is the same :-)

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Davor Firetusk wrote:

First from a risk reward perspective the new guided added the ability to make Day job checks when playing a pre-gen.

Very few pregens actually have a skill that would allow them to make a Day Job, however. And even less are at all optimized in that skill.

Lem and perform is about as good as it gets :-)

Quote:


The other cumulative advantage of playing a pregen is that you get all of those free consumables. Chances of death and condition costs are a part of those consumables. Which is part of the etiquette of being responsible for your own healing. Viewed from that angle the change introduces a more comparable situation in terms of long term resource acquisition and power between playing pre-gens vs. a homemade character. I don't know that that balances the other portions, but it's worth considering.

The free healing is nice but its really no biggy. In non Core my first CLW usually lasts me through most or all of my career. In Core, its a little worse and I think my level 12 went through a little more than 2 wands.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd also like to address the "Well, not all Pregens suck" argument others have used.

1) Very few people bring pregens. So, they generally get to choose from the ones that the organizer brings. As an Organizer, I do NOT bring all 90 odd Pregens to all events. Every now and then I go through and print out more copies of pregens that are missing to replace the ones that went walk about or got written on or got too grubby to use. But I certainly don't do it every week. And I didn't even start from a complete set :-). So, there is not a complete set available.

And I certainly don't have multiples. Not everybody gets to play the L7 Arcanist (which, in fact, I consider SO good that I don't bring it)

2) Even the quite decent pregens generally suffer from a lack of equipment and a narrow focus. This can really hurt in the skill heavy scenarios that we've been seeing a lot of in this season

3) As many people have said, it is the rare player who will play a pregen as competently as they will play their own character. So, the pregens WILL be underplayed to some extent

4) If a character that I built dies because of a flaw in the character build (either a deliberate flaw that I put in or a flaw because I screwed up) then my reaction is pretty much "Fine. My choice/my mistake. I should pay for it". But if my character dies because the pregen doesn't have any way to deal with swarms or because it has a ridiculously low con for its chosen role or for some other reason that seems to me to be basically a badly done pregen then my reaction is pretty much "Darned incompetently built pregen is at fault. That sucks".

Whether that latter is fair or not really doesn't matter. Its a human reaction. I AM going to resent it when what I perceive as an incompetently built pregen dies and MY CHARACTER ends up paying for it.

The Pregens that I've seen for specific scenarios have generally been quite well created. In the hands of an experienced player who understands the class they are fine for the job. Not always, though. The Pregens for Free RPG Day have generally been utterly atrocious for the scenario they're designed to go through.

At level 7 it isn't too bad as I can sell enough stuff so that I'm only paying a small price. At least my actual character is reasonably unlikely to actually lose money (still easily can, of course, since a character dying greatly increases the chance that we won't be getting all the rewards for an adventure). But at lower levels I am very, very likely to be losing money.

This change is a bad idea and I'd like to respectfully ask for it to be changed.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I have never seen the pregen abuse problem that people allude to. But I accept that others have and that it is a real issue for some areas.

But I don't see how this solves the problem at all.

[TLDR]The ONLY effect of the new rules will be to make things worse[/TLDR]

If I am the kind of player who is going to abuse the pregen then I'm kinda assuming that I
1) don't care about the other players
2) don't care very much about "winning" the scenario

So, with the new rules, I just assign the pregen to my brand new 1st level character. NOTHING HAS CHANGED

But lets assume that I'm now a slightly different person.
1) I don't care about the other players
2) I DO want to get the rewards for playing the scenario

With the old rules, I had an incentive to play the pregen carefully (more likely to get the rewards for the scenario). Now, I have a choice
a) Assign it to a character I care about and play carefully. Again, NOTHING has changed
b) Decide the risk is too high for the reward and apply it to a new character. In which case, I might as well now play abusively.

So, the ONLY change in behaviour that I see this rule change creating is to make some set of players now play more recklessly.

Edit: Rereading the above, I am overstating things a little, making people too binary. There will be people who were planning on playing reasonably carefully who will now play a bit more carefully. But the people who were really abusing things won't change their behaviour and there will definitely be people who will now not care who used to care (because they now choose a new pregen). I believe the latter category will far outweigh the ones who now play a little more carefully

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Sin of Asmodeus wrote:
I'll be asking to see the certs of the character they are assigning the pregen too before mod starts. If it's a 7 to 11 I'll be assigning it to their highest level character to enforce this new rule.

What the heck are you talking about? You most certainly do NOT get to decide which of my characters I'm assigning the pre-gen credit to.

The more I think about this the worse it gets. There is now a very strong incentive to irreversibly assign the pregen credit to a brand new character. Which means MORE people won't care about the result, not less. Which will tend to INCREASE any abusive play that occurs, not reduce it.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Uh, specific performances ARE arguably visual and others audible.

Countersong : Each round of the countersong he makes a Perform (keyboard, percussion, wind, string, or sing) skill check

Distraction: At 1st level, a bard can use his performance to counter magic effects that depend on sight. Each round of the distraction, he makes a Perform (act, comedy, dance, or oratory

I admit that this isn't crystal clear but it is certainly clear enough for me. Given that I don't believe in RAW I'm not trying to convince you that the RAW clearly support my interpretation.

However, given the question was wrt PFS I'll emphatically state that, at the least, you should expect Table Variation. Because, at any table I'm running,

1) I'm using that list to decide which performances are audible and which visual
2) You use a Wind Instrument to start a performance you can NOT just shift to a different performance as a free action without some other means of switching a performance as a free action

I find the arguments given above profoundly unconvincing. As I stated above, I believe that "A bard is trained to use the Perform skill to create magical effects" means that he is, uh, using the Perform skill.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

3 people marked this as a favorite.
BretI wrote:


One more reason to never play Serpent's Ire.

Or to play it but assign the credit to a new character.

Add me to the list of people uncomfortable with this change. I'm guessing that there were enough people abusing the pregen by playing really stupidly or recklessly but I'm not sure this is the solution.

As people have said, some of the Pregens are quite competent but others are complete trash.

Silver Crusade

Scavenger1977 wrote:
Amrel>> That's true... no full attack in surprise round. Suppose that mitigates somewhat.

Only really a little. Buff, Scry, and kill is a time honoured tactic.

It is broken as all hell (it lets the surprising group punch WAY above their normal level) but it is legal and time honoured.

1 to 50 of 1,840 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.