|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
pH unbalanced wrote:
What I actually want is an atomie riding a fox riding a goblin riding a wolf riding a horse riding a pteranodon. But I'll settle for what I can get.
In a home game we have tiny bat riding a small alchemist riding a medium sized dwarf riding a large druid riding a huge prehistoric rhino. Is that close enough?
Much as I would like the actual retraining rules (the underlying rules, NOT the PFS interpretation) changed I think it is highly optimistic to think that doing so is ever going to get to the top of Paizo's priority list. The current rules kinda sorta mostly work and the really silly edge cases can easily be handled outside of PFS by GM fiat.
There is essentially ZERO chance that PFS will change the underlying rules. For very good reason they just don't do that. Ever.
So, all that really leaves is PFS deciding to change how the time requirements map to the PFS environment where time is (perforce) so Wibbly Wobbly in SO many ways :-).
And, for the various reasons mentioned upthread, I think the 1PP per day cost is about right. Its expensive enough to act as a deterrent, its cheap enough to make retraining still feasible in many cases, and it is simple enough to actually remember at the table when somebody asks :-)
It sounds like the GM went WAY overboard but trying to make scenarios challenging IS part of the job description. I certainly have no issue with a GM deliberately choosing harder encounters if they have a very high tier or very optimized party.
But "making things challenging" is VERY different from "trying to kill".
But, if everybody followed the simple rule: "don't cheat", then GMs wouldn't have a reason to do an in-depth audit on any character
Uh, in my opinion the vast majority of errors caught by audits are NOT cheating but a case where the player made an honest mistake in what can often be a hideously overcomplicated and sometimes quite poorly written game, with a growing set of rules that change over time in ways that most people won't even notice.
Or a place where a player didn't realize that something they thought unambiguous was actually ambiguous.
I play a fair bit online and, as Andrew points out above, that means I've been audited a fair bit (including by him :-)). These audits have several times found issues with my character. None of these issues have been my willfully cheating (I guess you'll have to take my word on that, although some of the issues caught were NOT advantageous to my character).
When I do spot audits a significant amount of the time (less than 50% but way over 25%) I'm doing it because something sounds too low, not too high. Deliberately forgetting your favored class bonus isn't what most people would call "cheating"
Disk Elemental wrote:
In fairness, local people can probably identify the culprit from the Original Post and the rest of us don't know the person and probably don't care who it is (I know that I don't :-)).
Its often going to be pretty much impossible to both post enough information to get an informed response AND to keep the identity of the person hidden from his local peers.
That isn't quite correct. GMs are specifically empowered to add encounters where player action dictates.
The classic example is when the player openly breaks the law. The GM is allowed to have the character be arrested (by fiat or by dice rolling).
Leaving ones body unprotected in the wilderness seems to me to fall into the same category.
I'd WARN the player first, of course, but then would have no problem at all with just killing his body if some made up random roll dictated
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
One could make a second edition by(for example, list incomplete)
Done right, you could come up with a system that was significantly simpler and more balanced while allowing all existing AOs and modules to be run unchanged.
A lot of this could actually be done by JUST selecting existing options. Eg, rogues and barbarians are all unchained, fighters automatically get some of the new goodies, etc
Charlie Bell wrote:
I wonder if Starfinder will be to Pathfinder what Star Wars Saga Edition was to 4th Edition--an experiment with new mechanics as prelude to a new edition of the core product.
I'm certainly hoping it is. If it is, I'll very likely buy it and even run StarfinderSociety (or whatever they decide to call it).
I just ran this for the first time.
I generally run from my tablet. Even though I had pre-determined everything (roll dice? That is for PCs) and had the pdf open in two different windows (as much as my poor old tablet can handle) I still found myself madly scrolling through the PDF. Next time I'm going to make sure to print out more of the scenario (selected monster stats if nothing else).
One issue I had was coming up with vaguely logical reasons as to why the loot and McGuffins were still there centuries later. By the time I realized the problem I had sort of backed myself into a corner in terms of locations and so added something (the old "have to channel positive energy to get past this door" trick). I was very careful to add something that the PCs were extremely likely to figure out AND they could trivially bypass. But I wish I'd given the issue more thought ahead of time.
I think I'd take a simpler approach. Give the player the choice
Pick one. Argue with me for more than a minute or two and I'm picking number 1.
Even in PFS you're allowed to have logical consequences for PC actions. The canonical example (explicitly ok'ed by the PTB is that you can have characters arrested for openly breaking the law).
Bob Jonquet wrote:
That is only partly true.
I had a Lion Shaman Druid with the summoning feats. Despite being quite organized it still slows down the game to roll 4 pussy cats (3 summoned, 1 pet) each with 4 attacks (haste). I had a VERY strong tendency to only summon when things got really pear shaped because summoning can be so antisocial.
One combat where I DID summon (things were rapidly going from bad to TPK) I spent the entirety of the round (all through the other players actions) rolling dice. When my turn came up I could just say "33 damage to that one, 60 pts off its stone skin, 25 to that one and 30 off its stoneskin).
But the only reason that I did NOT slow the game down to a crawl was because the GM trusted me enough (both to be honest and accurate) that he just told me the bad guys ACs and I could roll all those dice unsupervised.
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
I think it is very arguable that a parrot can talk (since it uses the raven familiar stats). That is certainly the way that I've seen it played before. And I think the vast majority of GMs won't care enough to give you grief.
The bard sea singer archetype says the following to strengthen the argument :
a sea singer acquires an exotic pet—a monkey or parrot (treat as raven)
So, personally I'd take a parrot, and point it out to the GM at the start of the session. If the GM isn't convinced, then for that session the familiar is a raven (up to you if your character is insane enough to still think of it as a parrot :-)). But, at least around here, I'd guesstimate that it would be a parrot somewhere over 95% of the time (and quite possibly 100% of the time).
Walter Sheppard wrote:
I think we seriously disagree about the definition of "creative thinking". Or maybe you've never had a player who'd try and bust charm person out at damned near every opportunity.
There is magic out there to help diplomacy. Charm person isn't it. Charm person is a mental attack, it is taking away somebodies freedom of action. Some players try and use it in a very abusive fashion
Ah. Thank you
I don't understand. Could you expand on this please (especially saying what happens to the bard at 6th level and what prestige class you're talking about)?
to be clear, charm person is not giving minions. At most it's making the diplomacy check a little easier. Giving it more utility is usually a misinterpretation of the spell.
While I personally agree with that interpretation it is unclear. The issue is how exactly to interpret"You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do."
I've seen GMs who pretty much allow it to work as dominate person if the opposed Cha check is made.
On the other hand, I've seen GMs (including me) make it all but useless under some circumstances. For example, in a home game I played a VERY honourable rule bound samurai and the GM and I agreed that charm person would be no use against him quite often. He'd genuinely believe that you were his friend and genuinely regret having to kill you but if his duty required he'd kill you without hesitation.
Minos Judge wrote:
I want to know would a caster be able to disguise this with a good bluff or slight-of-hand skill? I am asking because they do not spell out how the manifestation should be represented. They flashing blue lights of the psychic, the enlarged eyes of the mesmerist, etc.
Look at Ultimate Intrigue. It has the rules (and some feats) for this kind of thing.
Player starts to cast spell, we generally go to initiative (depending on result of sense motive or perception check). I do not allow PCs to automatically surprise a NPC by casting a spell any more than I allow NPCs to automatically surprise a PC by casting a spell.
So yeah, charm person usually leads to combat.
There are ways around that in (I think) Ultimate Intrigue.
Also, if a charm goes off Charm plus opposed Charisma modification is NOT dominate person, at least in my games. The person views you as a friend, not as their master.
I think that the rules change may have gone too far. Its turned Charm Person from grossly overpowered (at least as some people interpreted it) to arguably underpowered. But it can still be useful to gain information or against opponents with laughably low will saves.
Euphoric cloud, snowball, wall of thorns, shapechange
While there are LOTS of great druid spells a wizard does have a better selection overall. But druids also have lots of advantages over wizards. If you don't take advantage of some of those (animal companion, ability tp be competent in combat, wild shape) you'll be worse off (although not hugelyvworse off)
As an aside, I haven't been following the Starfinder discussion at all. Does anybody know if they're planning on taking the opportunity to essentially create Pathfinder version 2.0? Simplify lots of things, try and bring various characters in line power wise, etc.
The single biggest thing that is coming close to driving me from PFS is the power creep. One major reason that I like Core games. Unfortunately, Core is dead locally (yes, I tried. Managed to keep it going for about 9 months before it died) so the only place I get to play is online
GM Lamplighter wrote:
I probably prep less than I should. I certainly prep less than some people on the boards seem to.
But I'm really not going to spend significantly more time prepping. Even as it is I am often close to burning out as a GM.
And my desire to prep REALLY gets lowered when the bad guy is rendered all but helpless by bad tactics, bad placement, or overpowered PCs taking advantage of the power creep (Gallop?)
The more prepping and GMing becomex a chore the more likely I come to just quitting.
The thing is, STR doesnt ever become a dump stat, no matter what you are doing with your DEX.
I'll start by pointing out that I think Dex to Damage is quite fine and NOT overpowered in general.
But one can very definitely create a viable dex based front liner with dumped Str.
I have several. I use Hero Lab which tracks encumbrance for me and I most definitely DO track encumbrance closely. A handy haversack becomes almost essential for such a build and sometimes one has to not have something one wishes or pay more but it works.
Str damage is a major threat but it isn't THAT common. And a dex character will have a very high incorporeal touch armour class and that goes a LONG way to mitigate against it.
The biggest flaw is probably CMD. But almost all characters have a CMD that is too low once you get to the middish levels (9ish) or so as the monsters will just overpower you unless you're a maneuver specialist.
If you can get the swashbuckler parry that goes a long way to defend yourself against CMB attacks.
I'll strongly discourage high tier characters from playing in the low tier (I sometimes all but beg :-)) but I won't disallow it. The person has a right to play their character.
But the wrong high tier character can totally ruin it for everybody else by just completely overpowering the adventure.
But then, often the wrong IN TIER character can totally ruin it for everybody else by just completely overpowering the adventure :-( :-(
Tuukka Kunto wrote:
It gets really bad when an NPC is a variant of something in some book. The appendix has the base form, but you have to remember to apply the different weapon or whatever.
Quite frankly, if the pfsprep site and the paizo GM thread didn't exist I'd either stop GMing or only GM older scenarios.
And there are many scenarios that are all but impossible to run cold. Yeah, one should never run cold but sometimes circumstances conspire to force it.
I think Season 8 has been fine so far. But a lot of Season 7 scenarios went WAY overboard with complicated rules, subsystems, etc.
When a new player offers to GM I try really hard to let them start with low tier early season scenarios. Let them at least get used to GMing before having to face some of the monsters out there.
John Lance wrote:
Just to satisfy my own curiosity, how many psychics, mesmerists, spiritualists, etc... are you seeing in your PFS sessions? Not that many? A lot? I was just wondering, I'm leveling a spiritualist right now, but haven't seen too many others lately, just one or two in the past few months...
Far, far, far too many :-(. And I only have the vaguest idea of what they can do.
I don't own the book and don't feel like spending the huge amounts of time to learn the completely new systems in the book.
I came very close to leaving PFS because of this book, and because of its overuse in Season 7 Scenarios.
In the Rules Forum I define "consensus" as "almost everybody agrees even though 1/2 the posts are from 2 outliers who just refuse to be convinced that they're WRONG. Even when they eventually "win" the thread by sheer dogged determination I count it as consensus for the other side.
If you haven't seen it in action at your local tables then it is probably a bit weird.
If it took you days of effort to find the combination its probably weird.
If it seems overpowered to you its possibly weird.
If you came to the rules forum because something wasn't clear then its weird. If the forum hasn't reached a ckear consenus then its DEFINITELY weird
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
That can't possibly be it. The official Paizo position is that there is no caster martial disparity.
And in a lot of ways permanency would help martials more than casters. They have to psy a bit more but they gain things thry couldn't othereise get
I think that you pretty much have your own answer in the above.
All monsters my character has known things about have been due to successful knowledge rolls, and any location we know about is because a NPC told us about it.
Then, as unconfrontationally as possible, ask them for examples that you have missed.
Then go from there. Have an open and honest discussion
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
(unless the animal has been secretly looking for any excuse to turn on it's friends...).
And lets fact it, if the companion is a cat, it just KNOWS that you haven't been giving it enough attention, you barely feed it, you've been ignoring it for weeks now.
Yes, I live with cats. How can you tell?
Just a Mort wrote:
I built my witch with the Slumber Hex, planning on only using it when absolutely necessary.
Unfortunately, there were just too many times when I thought it was absolutely necessary when it really wasn't.
Many GMs (myself included) consider a great encounter the encounter where the players THINK they're going to lose but manage to pull out a victory anyway. It is very, very easy to think you're in much more trouble than you really are since there is a very human tendency to concentrate on the negatives (Can't hit him, he just did something nasty as a free action, etc etc etc) without noticing that things aren't really THAT bad (we're not dead yet!)
I found that as soon as the encounter seemed deadly, I used the Slumber Hex. I eventually trained it out so as to avoid temptation.
Obviously, YMMV. Just giving one persons perspective here, NOT trying to denigrate others who take a different position on optimization.
I prefer the masterpieces that allow you to do things that a spell can't do. My favorite is the mass freedom of movement. Stupid helpful to the party as a whole.
I love that masterpiece. But it isn't going to be affected by this ruling, regardless of what the ruling is, due to the fact that it takes 1 round to activate.
I'm not claiming that witches are overpowered when compared to other full casting classes. I have exactly the same reservations with a Kitsune enchanter, well built control wizard, etc etc etc.
Basically, I think highly optimized full casters are too powerful for PFS play.
I also think that it is generally more fun for everybody around the table for the Witch to be helping the fighting sorts by Evil Eye, Misfortune etc rather than either taking out a bad guy OR wasting their turn pointlessly.
You have a choice to make as a witch.
By far the most powerful option is to take save or totally suck hexes (sleep, Icy Tomb, etc). These are, IMO, TOO powerful for PFS. Especially when combined with the usual shenaningans to make saves all but impossible for most characters. They basically shut down a bad guy as soon as your turn comes up. PFS just does not need that level of power (and yes, before you ask, I speak from experience).
The other choice is to take the gazillion flavourful and useful hexes. Flight, Prehensile Hair, Misfortune, etc etc.
When doing the latter, I found that my witch almost completely used just hexes in the normal fights. He kept his spells to either buff the party or as big guns when the situation warranted it. Which made for a character that contributed greatly to success but did NOT over shadow the rest of the party.
Not only the US media. She apparently controls the media in (at least) Britain (I read the BBC on a regular basis) and up here in Canada too.
I mean, they all report the same things as the US media does.
Heck, even Fox News mostly reports the same things :-)
John, thank you for commenting on this.
I admit that you're all probably right, its just one of those things that I should ignore.
But maybe an item on a chronicle sheet. A practice weapon (limit 1 or 2). With the note that it isn't meant for real combat and so breaks after 1 scenario ?
Also probably not worth the bother if I'm honest.
Ok, I'll shut up now :-). Thank you for listening to me vent :-)
Oh, I understand the game balance reasons.
But every now and then the fact that paizo sometimes REALLY seems to dislike their own rules just irks me.
They seem to constantly go "We want to do <something>. Oh, the rules don't let us do that. Lets just ignore the rules and do it anyway. Makes for a better story".
Sometimes its amusing but sometimes it really, really makes me think
Right now, non lethal practice weapons are pretty firmly established to exist in Golarion and be quite common. It just breaks my willing suspension of disbelief that PCs aren't allowed to buy them but NPCs can.
I've played 2 PFS scenarios this week that have practice weapons in them (there are quite a few, but 2 in less than a week finally made me crack).
Practice weapons, of course, do non lethal damage.
Could we please get some way to buy these? At the least, put them on the chronicle sheet? They're obviously VERY common in world
Eric Ives wrote:
It is extremely probable that Chrysalis Black escaped. Being one of our most twisted villains, I would love to know what he, and his mother, have been up to.
I quite liked him in some ways as a villain. Even if his alignment is in the running for the single silliest thing that Paizo has EVER said when describing a NPC.
Thomas Hutchins wrote:
Unless you get a comment from the PTB, I strongly suspect that the answer is "Expect table variation".
I think what you are seeing is a symptom of the fact that there are quite a few people who currently do not fully trust the system to react to things in a timely or reasonable fashion.
I'm far down the food chain but I strongly get the impression that there is a (perceived or real) lack of communication and responsiveness between the top and the grunts.