Ogre

trollbill's page

FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne 2,524 posts. 28 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 34 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,524 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Ways to act in a surprise round:

1) Put your hands in front of your face and scream, "Don't hit me."
2) Drool helplessly
3) Yell, "Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!" in your best Jim Neighbors voice
4) Panic
5) Grumble how you hate surprises
6) Remind yourself to put more points in Perception next level

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


Now, if only the race became available as part of the chronicle :)

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.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

CrystalSeas wrote:
While we're waiting for the mythical 'group' to get together and make some decision, it's probably easier to be polite and kind to the individuals you meet, and simply use the pronouns they ask you to.

Not sure why you think anyone here is suggesting otherwise.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

CrystalSeas wrote:
Bill Baldwin wrote:
I am not saying we get to decide. I am saying that choosing something that avoids confusion behooves their cause.

But that's not how the language is working right now. I don't see nonbinary people have "choices" that everyone is comfortable with, unless you try to squeeze them into gendered "he" or "she".

If someone has decided that they want to be referred to by the pronoun "they", that's what you need to use when referring to them. Telling them that they need to make another choice is telling them that you have decided that their choice is invalid and they cannot choose "they".

If I ask you to refer to me as 'Crystal', are you going to tell me that it's confusing because the word also means a type of fine glassware, and it also means a type of mineral?

Does the fact that the word 'crystal' can refer to more than one thing mean that I have to choose a different name for you to use when you address me?

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.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Iammars wrote:
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.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Tallow wrote:
We don't get to decide or tell people how to identify themselves. If they wish to use gender neutral terms, then it is up to us to make that work within our own paradigm.

I am not saying we get to decide. I am saying that choosing something that avoids confusion behooves their cause.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Iammars wrote:

1. Get their pronouns correct. – I don’t care if you think that “they” isn’t grammatical. First of all, proper grammar is crap. Second, respecting people is more important than grammar. Third, consider it practice for when you encounter nonbinary people in real life and risk offending real people.

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.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Starfinder needs to catch up. I've yet to meet a non-trinary Shirren in an adventure.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

5 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

*Thelith wrote:
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!"

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

*Thelith wrote:

Interesting, I was wondering if burning a feat (as we know they are so limited) on something that only applies to elemental area attacks would be worthwhile or if a general use feat would be better.

Great when you can use it, but totally worthless 100% of the rest of the time...

Not planning to neglect saves (ever, unless I want a glaring weakness)

Also note it can come in useful when you volunteer to get caught in an allies' AoEs.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ironically, my character's family name of Orlovsky is the stuff of legend. Just not necessarily in Taldor.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Neither title is landed, though one gives me the opportunity to become a landed Viscount. I'm just trying to figure out which title the character would go by based on its importance until such time as I become a Viscount.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

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.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

So I have a character that has earned both the title of Visbaron and Baronet in Taldor. Which is a higher ranking title in Taldor?

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Woot! 7 Fan Favor Points and 1 Fan Service Point!

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ZᴇɴN wrote:
GM Tyrant Princess wrote:
So, now we can move on (possibly in a new thread) to determining whether all these bladebound kensai magi are legal.
This.

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.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Yes! My Icon Envoy's negotiations with Zo! at the Gala are finally paying off! They'd better make sure they film her good side or she's sicking her Free Captain Ex on them.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Thank you for the clarification!

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

My decision would not actually be based on the rules.

Given that:
A) The answer regarding the legality of this is currently in a grey area (though wasn't always)
B) It is a somewhat common build that many players have used in good faith
C) I do not believe it behooves PFS to rule against players when there is ambiguity in the rules

I would allow it until such time as a clarification states otherwise.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM OfAnything wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Whether DD works or does not work with Spell Combat is not something that should be left to Table Variation as I understand the philosophy of PFS.
Oh, I agree with your sentimentality about what should be. Unfortunately, we must deal with how things are.

I thought that was exactly what we were trying to do with this thread?

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
This a question that should be answered by Paizo, not PFS.

If it was possible to get the PDT to answer every ambiguity, we wouldn't need a Campaign Clarifications document.

Since it's rare for the PDT to even issue a single FAQ, we make do with what we can.

Unless they know what Paizo is going to say, PFS should not be in the business of clarifying Paizo rules.

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.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

nosig wrote:

this entire thread just re-enforces the reasons I have basically given up posting on the PFS boards...

crud... missed my Will Save again.

Just think of it as the 'Circle of Life,' only its the 'Circle of Rules Debating.'

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Tallow wrote:
Bill Baldwin wrote:
Tallow wrote:
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.

Just because the player didn't know it was a gray area, doesn't mean it wasn't a gray area. Obviously, as a VO, when dealing with situations like this, you try and figure out what the situation is before making any decisions one way or another. Ultimately, you try to be fair to the player and consider all issues. And this is where you use all the rest of my post that you omitted to cherry-pick this one line out of context.

Keep in mind, that being fair to the player, does not mean you let them play an illegal character. You just do your best to mitigate the angst and difficulty of rebuilding the character so they are legal.

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.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
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.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Tallow wrote:
Bill Baldwin wrote:
Wayne Bradbury wrote:
Bill Baldwin wrote:
Wayne Bradbury wrote:
Bill Baldwin wrote:
The biggest issue is the popular Bladebound/Kensai combo. Both archetypes reduce spell reliance on damage for a greater reliance on weapon attacks and the combo has no way of getting Agile.
There seems to be an argument saying that Bladebound + Kensai is actually an illegal archetype combination, because Bladebound says you can't take the Familiar Arcana (which supposedly counts as modifying the Arcana feature as a whole) and Kensai replaces the 9th level Arcana (which you apparently can't do when another archetype modifies the feature itself).
That's a whole separate discussion.
Kinda. I'm just pointing it out because if that combination IS in fact illegal, then points about whether or not that combination can get DEX to damage reliably if Dervish Dance gets nerfed are pretty much irrelevant.
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.
You know, that's all fine though. It should be quite easy enough, when you realize something was built illegally, to get the permission to just modify your character to not only make it legal, but viable.

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.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Wayne Bradbury wrote:
Bill Baldwin wrote:
Wayne Bradbury wrote:
Bill Baldwin wrote:
The biggest issue is the popular Bladebound/Kensai combo. Both archetypes reduce spell reliance on damage for a greater reliance on weapon attacks and the combo has no way of getting Agile.
There seems to be an argument saying that Bladebound + Kensai is actually an illegal archetype combination, because Bladebound says you can't take the Familiar Arcana (which supposedly counts as modifying the Arcana feature as a whole) and Kensai replaces the 9th level Arcana (which you apparently can't do when another archetype modifies the feature itself).
That's a whole separate discussion.
Kinda. I'm just pointing it out because if that combination IS in fact illegal, then points about whether or not that combination can get DEX to damage reliably if Dervish Dance gets nerfed are pretty much irrelevant.

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.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Wayne Bradbury wrote:
Bill Baldwin wrote:
The biggest issue is the popular Bladebound/Kensai combo. Both archetypes reduce spell reliance on damage for a greater reliance on weapon attacks and the combo has no way of getting Agile.
There seems to be an argument saying that Bladebound + Kensai is actually an illegal archetype combination, because Bladebound says you can't take the Familiar Arcana (which supposedly counts as modifying the Arcana feature as a whole) and Kensai replaces the 9th level Arcana (which you apparently can't do when another archetype modifies the feature itself).

That's a whole separate discussion.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
To be honest, all the hype kinda ruined the band for me and I frankly I am more into metal ^^

Have you tried Abysshead?

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The biggest issue is the popular Bladebound/Kensai combo. Both archetypes reduce spell reliance on damage for a greater reliance on weapon attacks and the combo has no way of getting Agile.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

701 Lashunta Envoy4 - Her personality and a Holy* Calling Membrane Holdout Pistol.
702 Ysoki Soldier2 (Bombard) - Azimuth Artillery Laser, Grenades and Wyrmling Dragon Gland.
703 Human Operative - Still in its gestation tube.

* I really like how Holy can bypass fire resistance in Starfinder.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Nefreet wrote:
TimD wrote:
"clarification" is really just "nerf" for almost every "clarification" Paizo has given
I'm still sour about the 10 foot pit FAQ.

Nefreet, you're an old Grognard. You are sour about everything.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

TimD wrote:
Bill Baldwin wrote:
I love how we have 213 posts arguing about a rule on a thread that specifically asks for a clarification of the rules because we already know we can't agree on it.

Probably because "clarification" is really just "nerf" for almost every "clarification" Paizo has given and some of us are just tired of nerfs. When I first read this thread all I thought was "great another 'please nerf this' thread" and trying to remember if "paladins must all fall in PFS" was the next thread in the cycle or if it was "I'm too lazy to read the other threads, but we need unlimited replays, yo" that was next.

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.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

Guess my character will be naked for his next scenario =|

EDIT: or, actually, for every scenario going forward? I'm not going to spend 1000 credits on clothing.

I never plan on crafting with this character.

Let us hope you don't LARP.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I love how we have 213 posts arguing about a rule on a thread that specifically asks for a clarification of the rules because we already know we can't agree on it.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Philippe Lam wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
You know that there are those of us who play Lawful Good characters and we're getting really, really tired of this Lawful Stupid nonsense phrase.
I’ve played lawful good and lawful stupid characters. Both can be fun in the right type of game.

With the notable problem that not many scenarios are designed to allow the paladins to express themselves. Also the "fanaticism" of a minority of the players piloting them gives a poor view of the class as a whole, and it's not possible to get past nor it's useful like I said before to grumble. Players piloting paladins should be prepared for players making their ingame life difficult even if not being disruptive in that way.

I might myself insist that the paladin follows the agenda of the group before his/her own, provided they don't do something egregiously evil.

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.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Jon-Enee Merriex wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
As someone who is thinking about rolling up a magus, without dervish dance, a dexterity-based magus is impossible, right?

I'm lost as to why people think this... Agile and Weapon Finesse are real things that exist.

As someone who plays a class much more feat starved than the Magus, I'm always amazed that it has become a Dervish Dance or bust class. It is a very powerful class as STR based and with a small nuance of determination it is a very powerful class as DEX based.

So you go a few levels without adding DEX to damage until you pay for Agile, boo-hoo, you get a free attack at level 2. You should be able to swing Agile by level 5 when everyone else gets their extra attack. AND GOOD LORD don't get me started on shocking grasp.

I think many of us roll our eyes at this because of all classes, the Magus and the Gunslinger are the most powerful and those players tend to be the most cheesy and vocal about being denied their cheese.

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.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:

How did this go from "Ways to avoid bad GMs" to "Who's killed more PCs?" PC death is not something to brag about - it feeds the myth of an antagonistic relationship between players and GMs instead of building the idea of a shared experience. I know people are responding to posts and not really publicly bragging here, but I can't help but think that one of the suggestions I'd give the OP is, "avoid any GMs that brag about or revels in their kills".

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).
2) Lucky streaks (either in terms of me rolling very well for multiple rounds or the party rolling very poorly for multiple rounds or both).
3) Players made significant tactical errors
4) Tactical bad luck (the party had a bad makeup for a particular fight, particularly bad starting positioning or other things that were random but not related to combat dice rolls).
5) Particularly tough adventure.
6) GM error (these were reversed when discovered).

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.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

There's some hubbub in the rules forum about the Starfinder cover rules. The problem seems to come from one example (#2) which seems to be in error, since it contradicts the rule it's providing an example for. (It turns "from any corner" into "from every corner" and "through" into "along")

If you ignore that example then the Starfinder cover rules basically apply the Pathfinder ranged cover rules to all types of cover.

Which is probably good: it simplifies the rules. The major consequence for melee is that you no longer want to be standing in the doorway to bottleneck people, but behind it, since hard corners don't provide as much cover anymore.

And it meets what I think is the baseline requirement for a playable cover rule: that someone using a defensible position tends to gain more defense than the enemy he's shooting that's in the wide open. In many cases, cover should not be symmetrical.

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.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Bill Baldwin wrote:


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.

I noticed this trend, too, and it was subverted at least in one campaign by throwing 'beginner tier' stories at 'hardened veterans'.

And ironically, the 'hardened veterans' had the hardest time with it, because the scenario was 'that simple'. They were looking 'for the catch' or 'waiting for the other shoe to drop', etc.

New players (and the GM running) though, had a complete blast because the simple solution *was* the solution.

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.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

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.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

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.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Dan Armstrong wrote:

Now that the No Replay rule has been effectively answered...

What other PFS changes would you like to see?

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.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Tallow wrote:

Agreed on both counts. The game mechanics are so tied to the combat grid, that if you choose not to use one, players may get really confused and frustrated. Not everyone has the ability to fully conceptualize and visualize a combat grid and everything's places.

I know this from experience after trying it a couple times. Heck, some players (including myself on an off day), have trouble knowing what's going on when you do use a combat grid.

Theatre of the mind is particularly difficult when you have a character or NPC built on provoking AofOs.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

andreww wrote:
GM Wageslave wrote:


Tallow: Well Aware.

Paul: So as a GM I could theoretically say my scenario is going to be all 'theatre of the mind' because I didn't have time to draw out maps? And it's legit?

Nope, the Guide requires you to run scenario's as written.

Although I know of a number of GM's who use maps which are "vaguely near what is published" as a time saver. I may occasionally be one of those GMs.

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.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

GM Wageslave wrote:


Tallow: Well Aware.

Paul: So as a GM I could theoretically say my scenario is going to be all 'theatre of the mind' because I didn't have time to draw out maps? And it's legit?

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.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

So they didn't deliberately end dex magi they just wanted them packing the pews of the temple of saranrae?

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.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

andreww wrote:


There shouldn't be any confusion.

Would that it were true. But since I have 2 5-stars telling me diametrically opposed things, that pretty much guarantees I can expect table variation on whether or not I can even play this character in the future.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Subject - 42 wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:

....

Also, tell the organizer and/or Venture-Officer about your experience. They can follow up with the GM and help to mentor improvements. Too often people don't report their particularly good and bad experiences so organizers have no idea if their GMs are "good" or "bad." And, if the GM continues to perform poorly over time, the organizer can stop using them or players will become aware of the GMs quality and refuse to play at their table.
Sometimes telling the VC or organizers about a bully GM can have the opposite effect. I was recently starting a high-level game with a group of players that I have been playing with for a while. We switched to a new GM and the new GM told me that the way I've been using Dervish Dance with the Magus was incorrect and wouldn't allow me to use it. When I asked the VC to come in and try to help with the situation, she came, told the GM that he was being too strict on his ruling, but allowed him to rule it as he chooses. After the VC left, he told me that a VC had no weight on a GM's game and kicked me off the table. (well, first he canceled the game and then decided to run it and kicked me.)

The way that was handled sounds pretty bad, but dervish dance working when slashing grace et all do not would make absolutely no sense. Its not a gray area, its pitch black with a teeeeeny tiny spot of light somewhere off in the distance.

We had this crop up in our local group. How i ruled it was that because the person had made the character pre faqratta, and there was no ability to swap out dervish dance (and their entire stat build... thats a pretty important cog in the watch) like there was and he was stuck with it it would work.

If someone knowingly hopped on the slashing grace loophole after the faqratta i have no sympathy for running into this. They specifically went out of their way to alter something so that a fighting style meant to empower fencing would not empower magusflurry.

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.

1 to 50 of 2,524 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>