Ways to act in a surprise round:
1) Put your hands in front of your face and scream, "Don't hit me."
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Nah, it's going to be like PFS Goblins. All the game day mods designed to recruit new players with a fun to play race will let you play Skittermanders only to disappoint you when you join the Society and find out you can't play one unless you were one of the lucky few to get a boon from a special event that already happened so you can't participate but might be able to get someone to sell you one for an arm and a leg online.
On a side note, I do not know if Paizo has decided on what standardized nomenclature they will be using for describing non-binary characters. If they have (or when they do) I would recommend a side-bar in adventures this is relevant to explaining the nomenclature as there are plenty of individuals out there who simply do not know much about the culture.
1) I was not speaking in terms of individual choice, but rather a generalized group choice. Some form of standardization everyone in the community can mostly agree upon. Something that can be put in print and everyone knows what you are talking about.
2) Both the name 'Crystal' and the thing 'crystal' are well known enough that there is usually no confusion. If I say, "I am Crystal," most people will realize I am saying, "My name is Crystal," and not "I am made of crystal." On the other hand, if there are multiple people in a room, and I say "They' want you to do something for them," it is unclear if I am referring to an non-binary individual or a group of people. We are talking adding new nomenclature to the general masses, and the less confusing you make new things to the general masses the less resistant they are to it.
Yes, in the end, it is their choice. But they are asking for the masses to make changes on behalf of a minority. And while their is nothing wrong with such a request, the easier you make it for the masses, the less resistant there will be to that change. It just seems like the best way to accomplish the given goal.
Besides, languages change and words change. As a former IT helpdesk, I will occasionally get confused when someone says “window” to refer to a pane of glass in a wall. Never mind the playing this game and the overuse of the word “level”. As we as a society are becoming more accepting of nonbinary folk, our language is going to grow, and it’s going to sound weird to people who aren’t used to it at first. It will become natural with practice.
I admit that eventually our language would adapt to the new use of 'they.' My point is that it would likely adapt quicker and smoother if a completely new word was used. Which, again, I would think would be something that community would benefit from.
My problem with the use of 'they' has nothing to do with grammar. The problem with 'they' is that it already has a well defined meaning that most people will default to when they hear the word. All this does is ADD to the confusion surrounding gender identity issues. Not to mention, confusion of what is going on in a game that relies heavily of verbal descriptions. Anything that causes confusion over the issue is just going to make people more resistant to the subject. As such, I would argue it is better for all involved to come up with a new word that can have a clearly identifiable meaning.
Part of the problem with Tran characters is that many GMs simply don't have enough familiarity with these types of characters to feel comfortable running them. What's worse, glossing over the tran nature of a character or running it so badly because you don't understand them that it becomes insulting? I recently had to explain to a GM what a Non-Binary Gnome was as she had no clue (thought it was some special sub-race she hadn't heard of). GMs that do not feel comfortable about a subject matter in a mod tend to either ignore them or skip over them. I have seen this happen, for example, with mods that are heavy in the gore/horror department as some GMs simply get too uncomfortable describing the scene and tend to skip over that aspect.
Thank you for the input. Sounds like it'll be worth a feat... Didn't even think about the fact that it could be used offensively via using area attacks in melee.... :) Thanks Bill.
Heh. You know. The more I think about all of the times my characters have been hit by Fireballs in the course of my 40+ years of playing D&D, the more I think more of them have come from allies than enemies. And more than a few of those at my own request.
"I don't care if I'm in the middle of the blast zone! I can survive the 10d6 damage from your Fireball. I can't survive the 3 8d8 Cones of Cold those 3 Ogre Magi are going to cast if they survive to their turn!"
Also note it can come in useful when you volunteer to get caught in an allies' AoEs.
A mithral buckler has 2 big advantages over a darkwood buckler.
First, is that a mithral buckler is actually a buckler while the darkwood buckler is a light shield, so your hand is still free.
Second, is that a mithral buckler has no spell failure chance while a darkwood buckler has a 5% spell failure chance.
Both of the above, combined with no armor check penalty, make this item ideal for arcane casters.
I think John's intent was clear. Don't penalize a sizable portion of the player base due to technicalities that do not have a fix that is both simple and fair.
My decision would not actually be based on the rules.
I would allow it until such time as a clarification states otherwise.
GM OfAnything wrote:
I thought that was exactly what we were trying to do with this thread?
N N 959 wrote:
The Campaign Clarifications are not clarifying Paizo rules. They are clarifying how PFS rules on Paizo rules, i.e. they are making house rules for the campaign and these may or may not match future Paizo rules.
I didn't post the rest of it because I pretty much agreed with the rest of it. I pulled that one line out because it was the one concept I disagreed with because it was based on a false general assumption about the nature of gray area players.
If you insist on playing in the gray area, you must deal with the consequences that sometimes you either will play that character as less effective or play a different character.
And what if the character wasn't in a gray area when you built it but became gray area after updates and FAQs?
You are assuming that people are deliberately building gray area characters. My experience with most people who have gray area characters is that they had no idea they were gray area when they built them.
It's fine if they clarify the legality of both of those. But until such time as they do, then the character isn't technically illegal and you can only rebuild characters that are illegal. Which means we are still stuck with the table variation problem.
Wayne Bradbury wrote:
Yes and no. Regardless of whether the archtype combo is legal and regardless if using Dervish Dance with Spell Combat works; there appears to be a fair portion of the PFS population that built characters under the honest belief that these two things were legal. And, unfortunately, this is not as easy to fix as just picking a different feat.
Wayne Bradbury wrote:
That's a whole separate discussion.
I understand the feeling. We had a guy in LFR that lived in a different city but came down and played with our local group about once every 4 or 5 months. LFR frequently issued errata that did indeed mostly nerf things. This guy wasn't a skilled character builder, but he liked having powerful characters. So he frequently used popular builds off of message boards and online guides. Of course, those are exactly the types of builds that get nerfed. His local group didn't keep good track of the errata but as both an organizer for our local group and an administrator for the campaign, I felt obliged to keep everyone updated on the changes, including him when he came to visit. This lead to at least one of his characters getting nerfed almost every time he came to visit. This eventually got him so PO'ed he stopped coming down to play, though I was never sure if he was more PO's at WotC for changing the rules or at me for pointing the changes out to him.
In the end, he just wanted to play his character and have fun with it. He didn't want to go to the effort to create a totally original character. And he didn't want to go to the constant effort of making sure he was compliant with ever changing rules. He just wanted to play the game. And I will certainly admit that there are times in dealing with Organized Play rules and restrictions that I can sympathize.
Philippe Lam wrote:
Unfortunately, players aren't the only problem. I have seen, and been subject to, GMs who insist players play their Paladins in a fanatical disruptive manner.
Jon-Enee Merriex wrote:
The real issue at hand here are Dex-based Bladebound Magi who never hand the option of Agile and no longer have the option of any of the Grace feats.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
I started tracking my kills a while ago, not because I wanted to brag about it, but because I had noticed a marked increase in my kill rate and wanted to see what might be causing it. I found the following to be the most common reasons (ranked by frequency):
1) Crits (especially against low level players).
1 & 2 together made up well over half the kills. The irony here is that I polled my players a while ago about whether they wanted me to roll the dice behind a GM screen (and possibly fudge rolls both in their favor when things were going bad, and against them when they were being particularly successful) or they wanted me to roll the dice out in the open and let the dice lie where they may. The consensus was the latter and that decision correlated with my increased kill rate.
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
That's a major change in interpretation from most people I have talked to. Given how common use of the cover rules are, how major a change this is from the typical interpretation, and the fact that the rules have been out of almost 6 months, I find it hard to believe they wouldn't have issued a clarification.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
I have a friend that writes his own home game stuff. His puzzles and mysteries are almost always pretty simple and straightforward. He gains great amusement from the expert players having great difficulty with them as the players always overthink them.
Jacob Rennels wrote:
The point I was implying was that 75% accuracy from behind cover is a significant reduction, but still good. To elaborate, assuming a 95% success rate in combat with no cover (which no sane person would do under threat of fire) 95% is a reasonable accuracy level. This 20% reduction is comparable to the reduction of d20-4, it is still a 20% reduction of your basic ability to shoot from what you would have achieved without cover.
I get that. My point was that your original post did not include a base-line for comparison.
Jacob Rennels wrote:
FWIW, in my profession, I have to be familiar with and train to shoot a handgun from standing behind cover, kneeling behind and shooting around cover, and prone (as well as other positions). A "normal" person who has undergone similar firearms training will hit 30+/40 rounds center of mass in these circumstances. The only question in my mind is whether or not a Starfinder who is proficient in the use of a firearm has undergone a similar type of training to garner proficiency; my answer is yes. It is highly doubtful that a Starfinder proficient in small arms has never practiced and gained proficiency in shooting said small arm while leaning around a corner in a standing or kneeling position with an appreciable level of accuracy.
How good they shoot behind cover is irrelevant as it is only half the equation. You need to compare how good they shoot when not behind cover to how well they shoot when behind cover to determine if there should logically be any measurable penalty.
Dan Armstrong wrote:
Quite frankly, I would like to see a reboot of the campaign using Pathfinder 2.0 rules.
Currently, the campaign is suffering from 2 problems that are only likely to get worse until this happens:
1) Rules Glut: There are way too many rules out their right now for any GM to keep track of. While I realize it is supposed to be the job of the player to run their character properly, my experience says they often do not. This makes the GMs job progressively harder with each new splatbook. Experienced GMs get worn out faster, potentially new GMs and players alike become intimidated by all the rules. You can argue they shouldn't be, but the reality is that they are.
2) Scenario Complication: A phenomena I have witnessed over 3 organized play campaigns is that the scenarios written for the campaign get progressively more complicated as time goes on. While this may be a boon to players, it increases the amount of work for the GM and thus discourages GMing. And I always have a harder time getting GMs than players.
Theatre of the mind is particularly difficult when you have a character or NPC built on provoking AofOs.
The rules say you can't significantly alter the maps though you can use similar maps. I don't recall a requirement that you must use gridded maps on the table, albeit the game is designed around the concept of doing this, so I am not sure why you would want to do this.
So I don't see why you can't use theatre of the mind. You would just have to use the maps provide to create that theatre.
GM Wageslave wrote:
There is no requirement to use a grid in either PF or PFS. Of course, that doesn't mean your players won't have issue with you doing this and will avoid your tables in the future to the point you can no longer effectively GM. But that's your choice.
They didn't end Dex-based Magi. They simply limited how effective they could be until they could afford Agile on their weapon. But since Bladebound Magi can't put Agile on their weapon, Dervish Dance is the only remaining option they have for not having to rebuild so much it is no longer effectively the same character. Plus, Dervish Dance has been around a lot longer than Slashing Grace and thus has a greater effect on builds. Hence, I assumed the omission was deliberate.
I am confused. I thought Dervish Dance was the ONLY remaining PFS legal way to build a Dex-based Black Blade. I read the Slashing Grace FAQ and assumed the lack of reference to Dervish Dance was deliberate on the designers part so that Dex-base Black Blades could still have a legal method of not completely changing their characters. Now you seem to be telling me that you simply can't have a Dex-based Black Blade in PFS anymore? Guess I get to throw my 5-year old, 10th-level Magus in the trash.