|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Chris Mortika wrote:
So you think that, in world, people have no idea how badly wounded a comrade is? How damaged they are themselves?
While I also don't like people sharing hit point numbers you are going WAY too far. If I ever had a GM tell me that I didn't even know my own characters hit points, that he was going to track my hit points, I'd refuse to play with them (I presume you tell people something that significant BEFORE the game).
As I'm sure you know, deathwatch is a joke. And there is no PFS legal way to know this information. So some meta knowledge is pretty much necessary. Descriptions do NOT work since people are VERY inconsistent
Coming into this late.
In considering how some of my characters would react to the situation :
My CN cleric of Calistra would turn the helpless BBEG over to the surviving villagers for their revenge. They get to decide the punishment. Whether that be torture or freedom.
Most of my Good characters would also do this, but they'd step in and execute the prisoner if the villagers were going to torture him to death OR let him go. He needs to die, but he should die cleanly.
This is one of the few cases where I think killing a helpless prisoner is actually justified. No authorities with jurisdiction to turn him over to, he has shown himself so evil that letting him live to kill again just isn't an option.
Various improved familiars have telepathy. Even some Core ones.
And you can always write in the sand.
I've found that I can get a LOT out of "roar" said in various ways (with a question mark, angrily, with a toss of the head, etc). Combined with the pre agreement of one for yes, two for no.
You could use speak with animals twice. Cast it on yourself, you speak to your animal companion, it speaks to the friendly bard. As an aside, this spell should really be an hour per level duration.
I am a computer programmer and your friends are only partly right.
A GOOD random generator is going to be pretty darn random, certainly WAY more random than dice rolled in a hand the way gamers do. There is a reason when money is involved (eg, craps) dice are shaken very vigorously.
Bad random number generators are still quite likely better than most dice rolled at most tables.
Really bad generators and programmers do, however, exist
GM Lamplighter wrote:
I vehemently disagree.
This is tantamount to saying "if your character isn't totally optimized you are in effect screwing your colleagues".
I may or may not have a social obligation to bring a competent character to the table but I most certainly do NOT have an obligation to bring a highly optimized character using all of his feats to extract the greatest mechanical advantage.
One of my characters is an artist. He has invested considerable resources into his craft painting skill. Far more than just the skill focus - craft painting feat that he has.
He is also a witch WITHOUT the slumber hex.
Despite all that he most definitely contributes and is most definitely more than just competent.
I appreciate it when a GM points out a pattern of alignment related acts. Points out, NOT noting it on the chronicle sheet.
It causes me to reevaluate the character, to see if I think the alignment on the sheet is still accurate.
Alignment is SUCH a fuzzy thing that I really prefer that I just get to decide my alignment. In an ideal world, that WOULD include how evil I am. But PFS isn't ideal, the "no evil PC" rule is necessary, so noting evil infractions makes sense. Noting other infractions doesn't.
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Some of the prestige classes require memberships in organized martial groups. If you're looking for mechanical aspects I'd start with them.
Uh, if the GM wants to win then "rocks fall. Everybody dies". Sounds like that was essentially what happened (assuming your account is basically accurate).
But the level of brutality is very much up to the participants (GM AND players). Different groups differ radically on what level they want.
If the group doesn't come to some agreement the group disbands.
Absolutely agreed. Which is why you can expect massive table variation whenever you go outside the normally defined tricks.
I mostly go by "If the situation is unclear in the rules I go by what makes sense to me, ie what I consider reasonable for an animal of the appropriate type".
Which sometimes means I'm quite liberal (I allow appropriate animals to climb things with no hassles) and sometimes quite conservative (cannot push an animal you can't communicate with to deliberately fail a saving throw).
If you're planning on doing something weird
Nope. I would NOT allow you to push the animal to fail a save. Not without some means of communication at the very least. How are you telling the animal to fail its will save?
The PFS rules can be found in the guide to organized play.
I believe that Ottawa runs fairly regular monthly games using warhorn.
Ottawa previously used the Ontario pathfinders site but I don't think they do any longer. But they may possibly monitor posts there.
Also, this should probably be moved to one of the PFS forums.
Michael Brock wrote:
As long as the goal is to use him to show how SUPREMELY incompetent the Decemvirate and Venture Captains are you're succeeding.
I can't think off hand of a single scenario where he wins because he is smart. He wins because he is scripted to win and because the Society are idiots.
While I wholeheartedly agree with Tetsuji I'd like to add that I don't think that anybody would fault you for taking a chronicle under these circumstances. You did all the prep work (generally the lions share of the work) and, through absolutely nobodies fault, failed to complete the scenario.
At higher levels the power difference between different characters becomes greater. The set of options becomes hugely greater. The effects of differences in play styles becomes greater. The number of broken rules combinations becomes greater ( no matter what your definition of "broken"). The time to resolve a combat becomes greater.
Essentially, the game changes drastically. Its a LOT harder to play and LOTS and LOTS harder to run.
I think the surprising thing is how many campaigns make it to and survive high levels :-).
For me, play past somewhere around level 10 starts to feel like superhero gaming. And I think there are better superhero games than Pathfinder.
I do like an occasional high level game but not a steady diet.
What would be wrong with a level one wall of force?
I think that this is one of the rare cases where "if you have to ask the question you won't understand the answer" applies.
Wall of Force is a very useful, powerful 5th level spell, one that can regularly trivialize many encounters at that level (usually by splitting an encounter into several much simpler encounters). At 1st level, just about no opponents will have counters.
I suspect that this has been answered in one of the innumerable threads but my search fu was weak today.
This is for PFS so I'm interested in the Rules As Written answer.
To give an example, Monks robe acts differently for Monks and other classes. Does an Unchained Monk count as a Monk ?
Obviously, they "Should" count as monks. But Hero Lab thinks they don't and if at all possible I wanted an official answer or a rules citation before submitting a bug report.
I'm curious. Is this actually a problem in real life or is everybody just arguing theory?
Up here, our rule is simple. No PVP without permission. And that rule works VERY well.
I've seen fireballing of allies, I've seen opposed bluff and sense motive checks, I've seen characters knock each other out. What I have NOT seen is one player ever getting upset about it. Because the player Ok'ed it.
People only ask to do PVP when it is a really good idea or it would be amusing/in character. People generally agree because of that, only refusing when they know something the other player doesn't.
But we're Canadians :-). Our defining national character is supposed to be to be polite compromise :-) :-). Maybe it really IS different elsewhere. Hence my question
Unfortunately that is not the case. The section on familiars is referring to things like sleep spells etc. The familiar does NOT gain actual hit dice.
The phrase is "weapons or tools". To me a shield pretty clearly falls under that definition. It would be more than a lot silly to allow an ape to use a shield but to NOT let it use a fishing stick.
I wouldn't allow it at a PFS table. Which means that, at the very least, you can expect significant table variance.
Roleplay interesting characters who interact with my NPCs and the world as their characters would. If you let my NPCs talk a bunch I'll have fun.
Come up with truly unusual tactics which make me think about how to handle things. Unusual is NOT "take advantage of some rules loophole" but more thinking outside the box.
Have fun. Fun is contagious. If you're visibly enjoying yourself I likely will too
It varies somewhat by convention, but in general
1) every GM at a convention gets a boon
Don't constantly rules lawyer, ESPECIALLY when it really isn't important. The GM needs to be given at least a little slack in their interpretation. Assume that he is trying to make the game better for you.
On a related note, if the GM makes a ruling that you believe to be incorrect, politely raise your objection and then accept the GMs ruling.
Please don't bring in a wildly overpowered character. Or, if you feel that you must do so, please underplay that character until necessary. Let the GM do at least a bit of damage to you and the party :-).
Keep your head in the game. Pay attention to what is happening, be ready when it is your turn, minimize extraneous conversation, etc.
It also depends a lot on what you mean by "cold". Like most GMs I've played and/or GMed a very large number of scenarios. Even if I've forgotten the details running one that I've run before is a long way from "cold".
And, of course, some scenarios can be run cold much easier than others.
Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
I don't really think a refund is fair.
While I understand your position that seems unduly harsh to me. You're essentially punishing a player for lack of experience and knowledge.
He has ALREADY paid a price in that he was without better equipment for some scenarios. Making him continue to pay that price seems unfair.
I pretty much agree with trollbill.
For example, it is considered nearly universally acceptable to turn away a player with a proven history of being disruptive, cheating, etc.
It is nearly universally considered very bad behaviour to turn away a player because he is playing a <insert class the GM doesn't like>.
The case of a player who refuses to tone down their over powerful character and ruins the fun for everybody else lies somewhere in between.
Other reasons vary greatly by the group, individuals involved, etc.
You seem to be using circular reasoning. Murder == "always evil" implies "There is objective reality because murder is always evil".
If by "objective evil" you mean "some external standard of evil that we do not understand or know anything about" then
If by "objective evil" you mean "universally or nearly universally accepted as evil" then there really isn't such a thing. There are cultures (historical and current) that accept what the vast majority of people reading this would consider to be rape, murder and pedophilia as not being evil.
That Crazy Alchemist wrote:
That isn't correct.
Players can expend limited resources in earlier encounters thus making a later encounter harder. Or they could gain various negative conditions. Those are the most obvious ways that order of encounter s can matter but there are many other possibilities.
To be completely logical, there is no such thing as good and evil. They are false philosophical human constructs that have no place in the universe other than what mortals conjure from their imagination. The universe does not know good or evil, it only knows existence and non-existence. Logical fact.
To assert the non existance of something is most definitely NOT "completely logical".
Even if they are philosophical human constructs, that doesn't make them false nor does it mean that they have no place in the universe.
It is interesting that you think it a logical fact that universe knows things.
Note - The above is mostly my being pedantic. You'd be best to NOT assume that I hold any particular beliefs based upon it.
I'm going to start with two caveats.
1)Real world morality is far more complicated than Dnd and this makes all the real world questions essentially meaningless. Following answers are for campaign world only
2) The answer varies a lot by campaign, by player and by character. Following are the answers for most of my characters
Game world - Some correlation.
Game World - varies immensely by campaign.
Game World - With rare exceptions yes.
In theory, no.
Absolutely it does. Look at any discussion of alignment on the net and it is very clear that real world player morality affects what is seen as good, evil, etc.
Game World - It depends on the act, the reason for the act, the repentance after the act and the particular campaign. In general, a single act will not make one evil.
It does not relate to real life in any way since morality in the real world is far more complicated
From the comments on the product page, it seems like there are many parts of the book that leave much to the interpretation of the GM. While this is absolutely the right way to go with a book of optional rules it would be highly problematic in PFS.
The variant multiclassing rules sound interesting but there are almost guaranteed to be significant balance issues (the combinations are so numerous that they can't possibly have all been play tested).
My guess is that the classes will be made legal and almost all of the rest of the book won't be. If the variant multiclassing is allowed I suspect the power creep will be quite significant over the next couple of months as new combinations are discovered.
I can't see the new summoner really coexisting with the old one. No idea how they'll handle that. I think the fairest solution would be to grandfather the old one but require new characters to use the new one.
This issue came up today in PFS. I'm interested in the RAW answer.
I'm not talking about the interaction of light and darkness spells, just asking about basic light from a sunrod (so, 30 ft bright light).
In the following example, how far would the light go? How far would the person P standing at the corner be able to see down the corridor? Would low light vision change that answer?
X - corridor
Thank you. I missed that one.
Michael Brock wrote:
Totally understood but man I REALLY wish these had been out a few weeks ago when I played Slave Masters Mirror (my character would have qualified for 4 of the 6 conditions) :-)
These look excellent. Lots of flavor, boons are useful, best of all the boon benefits the entire party. Suddenly all my characters will feel part of a faction again.
Congratulations on this, you have surpassed yourselves
Am I the only one who thinks that this is likely to lead to a LOT of power creep?
Sure, beefing up the ftr is no huge deal. But do druids really need to be able to rage? Do wizards and clerics need more options?
ACG made it very clear that what Paizo considers balanced is very different from what I considered balanced (I think there's a lot of power creep in that book).
At the moment I'm hoping that little of this is made PFS legal. But I expect that the new classes, feats, multiclassing, etc will be legal. And the power level will be ratched up at least a couple more notches.
I've run about 3 Core scenarios and played 1 module, 3 levels of Emerald Spire and 6 odd scenarios. The highest level thing I've played or run was subtier 4-5
I'm finding Core distinctly harder (both as a GM and a player). Its certainly still winnable but its harder. One death so far but that was partly aggressive play and largely bad luck (crit rolling above average against a favoured enemy). The subtier 4-5 could have been a TPK but the GM was softballing a little. One scenario I ran would have been a TPK but I softballed a little.
Core is definitely starting to cause better play to occur in general. People are actually caring about tactics. Poor tactics can doom you.
There is definitely less room for mismatched parties, parties playing up, characters who don't pull their weight, players who don't pull their weight, etc. One or more problems here can really be a problem.
Going through a LOT more expendables. Especially CLW charges.
Almost all of the Core that I've experienced has been with experienced players, not new players. With that group, I like the effect.
But I expect lots of later season higher level scenarios will be quite deadly, especially with a GM who doesn't like to pull punches.
I'm not sure a 4th level barbarian is much more dangerous than a first level barbarian to a L1 or 2 :-).
Joking aside, you're right. Hence my "might" above :-)
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
I might allow a level 4 pregen with 3 level 1s and 2s but only if ALL the players voted for it in a secret ballot. Even then, it would depend on the scenario. It would be more likely the more difficult the scenario.
Andrew Christian wrote:
Sorry, but making an emphatic statement does NOT change the fact that the sentence is ambiguous. English is a context sensitive language and a great many constructs are inherently ambiguous.
I suspect that we could find grammar guides that would state the sentence unambiguously meant one alternative or the other. They'd be wrong. It is ambiguous.
Walter Sheppard wrote:
Which does open up one rather interesting issue. Those tactics largely rely on player ability. Having a smokestick to eliminate sneak attacks is pretty darn advanced (very well done, mind :-) ). Not all experienced players are that good and fairly few beginner players (one of the main targets for CORE) are.
If CORE requires good tactics and good item selection then it IS substantially harder.
Which is arguably a very good thing, mind.