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. 1,554 posts (2,097 including aliases). 23 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 46 Pathfinder Society characters. 10 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,554 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

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.

Silver Crusade

You might want to reread the other thread. There are definitely arguments there in support of masterpieces not counting as bardic performance.

Silver Crusade

Fourshadow wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
And I feel the most support for saying they aren't the same was when JJ posted that they were different, but that is negated because he took it back later.
Which is the whole reason we want it revisited and corrected. His revision took the point/purpose right out of the wonderful, new innovation of Bardic Masterpieces. Most are nearly useless due to JJ's revision and it basically nerfs the Bard in a tragic manner.

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

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kahel Stormbender wrote:


As such, IMO the story being told should be the most important thing.

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.

Or ....

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

Nefreet wrote:

The Valet gets Alertness instead of Cooperative Crafting, and [link in a second...]

Edit: ninja'd

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 :-) :-))

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

nosig wrote:


if the Judge feels the need for (insert outcome) to happen for "the sake of story" - I trust them. Just tell me what happens. Tell me the story. Why roll a dice and then lie about it? I don't understand this.

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.

Silver Crusade

I've played this before and don't have enough replay credits to burn.

But if you happen to end up with only 3 players I'd be willing to play for no credit (I could use GM credit to level up to 13 at the appropriate point). Character is a L12 bard.

Silver Crusade

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.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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).

Silver Crusade

Chess Pwn wrote:


Hjoldar wrote:

- Is possible to maintain a Bardic Masterpiece and a Bardic performance at time without using spells like Exquisite Accompaniment?

I guess it depends if Masterpieces are considered Bardic Performances or not.
thread about it Currently not, but we're hoping to get a FAQ on it.

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.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:


so, is our "... knee jerk response to any rules question is to rule against the players." To start by saying "No!"? is our "starting attitude Hostile/Unfriendly" until the player makes a Diplomacy check to change it?

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"

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Akigawa Kobayashi wrote:

Off-topic musing:

Actually, I can think of one way to (legally) make a yellow tengu.

Prestidigitation is the best spell in the game.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

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.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

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.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:


There are a LOT of rules in this game. I don't think any two DMs are going to agree on all of them.

I don't think a GM ever completely agrees with himself from day to day :-(.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

Jared Thaler wrote:

Yes. It should be in the AR

Edit: Found it!

Quote:
A PC can only purchase an animal, mount, or similar creature if its Challenge Rating is lower than that character's level; creatures with a Challenge Rating of 1 or lower are exempt from this restriction, as are horses.

Thank you. Never occurred to me to look there :-)

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

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.

aside:
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 :-)

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

I think that if the player is willing to go to all the work of
1) researching the rule in question enough to show that it is truly a grey area
2) having a second version of the character made up

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.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

James McTeague wrote:

As someone who has a background of helping to teach religion classes to middle-school children, I find this whole thread rather absurd.

The AC feats section says that INT 3+ can take any feat that they physically qualify for. However, since Monkey See Monkey Do clarifies that the AC doesn't gain sentience (sapience, whatever) and still needs to be controlled by Handle Animal checks, they physically can't make the _choice_ to become a worshiper. Therefore, they don't physically qualify to take the feat.

The physically qualify for doesn't just reference having arms/legs, but also what the brain is actually capable of processing. You can't worship a deity if you can't choose to worship it.

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

Silver Crusade

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.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

Bonekeep and other obviously hard scenarios like Waking Rune are something of an exception. I'd consider it a jerk move to bring in an intentionally bad character to these without the rest of the table explicitly agreeing.

Silver Crusade

I just happened upon a site which has some of Paizos products up. Who do I contact to make sure that this is a legitimate use (or, at least, one that it isn't worth Paizos time to fight)? I'm sure that I've seen this information before but couldn't find it

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

Stephen Ross wrote:

I spoke up about the next encounters and was spot on! I had not read nor played the scenario but the GM was sure I had.

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.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

Murdock Mudeater wrote:


I'm not looking for an excuse to attack allies, it's the opposite. I'm trying to find a way to meld the lawful alignment so it fits within the PFS setting without metagaming. I want to be able to play a lawful character that fits in PFS without creating issues. That is the point of the thread.

In particular, I like the Law Domain, which features this particular Order's Wrath at 4th level.

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.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

andreww wrote:

The essence of the no PvP rule is that we must not kill another PC. There may be many situations where I have little choice but to include an ally within a spell effect based on the situation facing us and the PvP rule shouldn't prevent that if it wont lead to that ally's death.

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

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Murdock Mudeater wrote:


The Lawful alignments are as opposed to chaotic alignments as good alignments are opposed to evil ones.

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

Silver Crusade

noble peasant wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:

Just so you know, I played with a player who played a bard that only used skill checks and sang, and made no attacks and hid when combat started. She annoyed more than half the table and was responsible for a player death.

You can build to buff and use skills and still be effective at combat.

I was hoping to be able to sit back hum a little bardic song and heal well enough to compensate for not ACTUALLY fighting, however if that chanelling thing sucks I probably wouldn't be able to heal everyone quickly enough.

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.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

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.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

G-Zeus wrote:
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.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

Absolutely you can. And sometimes, with some GMs, you may even get a minor circumstance bonus on some check (you should NEVER expect such, but some GMs like to reward this level of focus when appropriate).

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Paul Jackson wrote:
it makes essentially no in world sense that worshipers of evil gods are allowed in the Society. The downsides just outweigh any benefits.
I think you will find some who agree, some that would disagree, and some that will accuse you of "BadWrongFun"

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.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

Fromper wrote:

So a related topic that I've thought about in the past, and this seems like a good thread to ask it.

Why would neutral people worship an evil god and be a member of the Pathfinder Society?

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.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

kinevon wrote:


So, right now, he is a cameo NPC, as anything more would be a bad thing, due to causing PvP in many parties.

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.

Silver Crusade

Uh, gentle poke.

Silver Crusade

The fly skill is an exception in Pathfinder. You need to have the ability to reliably fly to put ranks in.

And soellcraft is a lot less useful without a means to detect magic. Still learnable, mind.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

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.

Silver Crusade

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.

Silver Crusade

Will have alias tonight.

Is there any kind of "ethical" dimension to the war? ie, do we have reason to believe that life will be subtstantially worse for the common man under the new management?

Silver Crusade

In case others had trouble finding the discussion thread (I did :-() it is http://paizo.com/campaigns/PollexiaInvaded/discussion#1

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

Jared Thaler wrote:
bowser36 wrote:
I've had a similar issue with another character with a very questionable your character is evil so you can't use him anymore sorta thing.

I just want to tap in on this for a moment.

I have found a lot of people don't understand the alignment infraction system.

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.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

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.

Silver Crusade

Still interested with Ganterra

Silver Crusade

Faelyn wrote:

Flagbearer + Dawnflower Dervish... or Inspired Blade... or any other one-handed combatant... You're welcome.

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.

Silver Crusade

My condolences on your grandfather.

Silver Crusade

He'sDeadJim wrote:
pauljathome wrote:

Definitely interested.

Edit: hmm. A non evil worshiper of an evil god. Have to see if I can make an interesting character around that
I have a friend who is dying to make a CN priest or inquisitor of Nocticula (Demon Lord- The First Succubus). Evidently there is a portion of her cult (CN group) that looks at her as a patron of "Lost Causes" or something like that as I understand it.

@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.

Silver Crusade

Definitely interested.

boon: 2d30 ⇒ (15, 8) = 23

Edit: hmm. A non evil worshiper of an evil god. Have to see if I can make an interesting character around that

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent aka pauljathome

Digitally. I mostly access it directly but I also keep a mostly up to date copy on my tablet for when I don't have internet access.

Silver Crusade

I like this style, especially for a dungeon crawl where most of the rooms are pretty boring

1 to 50 of 1,554 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.