Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Ban the "Wild Rager" archtype, and do it quick


Pathfinder Society® General Discussion

51 to 100 of 236 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge *

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Lab_Rat wrote:
I would say that players need to think before playing this archetype and try to build in safe guards against killing your allies (ditch your Char, bump your will, get a will re-roll, etc).

The problem is that people who choose wild ragers, just like frenzied berserkers before them, don't care about the other players. I am specifically referring to organized play mechanics where you may never see the other players again. Home camapigns prevent you from becoming too obnoxious because you have to game with the same group every week.

Andoran ***

sieylianna wrote:
The problem is that people who choose wild ragers, just like frenzied berserkers before them, don't care about the other players. I am specifically referring to organized play mechanics where you may never see the other players again.

This is probably one of the best reasons to ban it.

Andoran ***** Venture-Lieutenant, California—Fresno aka Sarta

Andrew Christian wrote:

Many of these new archetypes and prestige classes (why weren't there any in Ultimate Combat?) are clearly meant for the GM's to create NPC's out of, and not for PC's.

That being said, in PFS, there isn't a way for a GM to explain as much.

Yeah, Undead Lord is another archetype I've been trying to wrap my head around as legal within PFS.

The entire idea of a character with an undead companion working with paladins, Andorans, followers of Pharasma, and any other good character duty-bound to destroy all undead just doesn't sit well for me.

Obviously you don't have the direct threat of pvp character death a wild rager introduces, but channeling becomes problematic. Folks not only have to worry about the negative energy channeled, but the undead lord player could consider positive energy channeling pvp.

Far worse (in my opinion) is that other players in the group will feel their hands are artificially bound by being forced to work with this person they would normally want to fight.

****

K Neil Shackleton wrote:
sieylianna wrote:
Depending on your PFS DM, you may have problems casting any offensive spells including Hideous Laughter and the Slumber hex on party members due to the no PVP rule.
Should not be a problem if it is clearly a way to disable a character who is not in control of themselves. Might be different if you were then stealing all of their stuff or something :)

Yeah, pretty much. The PvP rule restricts against player versus player combat from occuring. As long as the players are fine with the effects being thrown at their character, be it hideous laughter or fireball I think that it is perfectly fine.

Silver Crusade **

Blazej wrote:
K Neil Shackleton wrote:
sieylianna wrote:
Depending on your PFS DM, you may have problems casting any offensive spells including Hideous Laughter and the Slumber hex on party members due to the no PVP rule.
Should not be a problem if it is clearly a way to disable a character who is not in control of themselves. Might be different if you were then stealing all of their stuff or something :)
Yeah, pretty much. The PvP rule restricts against player versus player combat from occuring. As long as the players are fine with the effects being thrown at their character, be it hideous laughter or fireball I think that it is perfectly fine.

Exactly, the way its always been run out here is if the wizard wants to have a fireball fiesta and singe a few pcs, he needs their permission to cast while they are in the aoe. I cant see a way to let this archetype in without neutering it or accepting the havoc it will cause.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Sarta wrote:
Obviously you don't have the direct threat of pvp character death a wild rager introduces, but channeling becomes problematic. Folks not only have to worry about the negative energy channeled, but the undead lord player could consider positive energy channeling pvp.

Keep in mind that channeled energy only affects either living or undead creatures (chosen at the time of channeling). So if you neg-channel to heal your undead buddy, you're not going to accidentally damage your living friends, and vice versa.

Qadira ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As someone with an Undead Lord PC (indeed, a Dhampyr, who would have taken damage from positive channelling no matter what class he'd chosen to follow), designing a character who could get along with nicer PCs was one of my goals. His corpse-animating chum often takes the body of an animal rather than a humanoid, and he doesn't draw attention to himself when he casts death knell. He's also happy to help heal his living allies, either by temporarily inverting their postive/negative energy affinity, or through infernal healing.

Having said that, the Pathfinder Society isn't a good-aligned organization. We do things like intrude on active temples, kill the inhabitants, and steal their priceless artifacts. (We're multicultural vikings!) We're sometimes sent out to simply kill one of the Society's enemies. (We're assassins!) If you're thinking about designing a PC who would have an irreconcilable problem with those missions, or with standing shoulder-to-shoulder with a cleric of an evil deity, maybe you should consider a more broad-minded PC.

Andoran ***** Venture-Lieutenant, California—Fresno aka Sarta

Jiggy wrote:
Sarta wrote:
Obviously you don't have the direct threat of pvp character death a wild rager introduces, but channeling becomes problematic. Folks not only have to worry about the negative energy channeled, but the undead lord player could consider positive energy channeling pvp.
Keep in mind that channeled energy only affects either living or undead creatures (chosen at the time of channeling). So if you neg-channel to heal your undead buddy, you're not going to accidentally damage your living friends, and vice versa.

Correct, I was referring to situations in which the Undead Lord channels to hurt living or positive energy channelers decide to channel to hurt opposing undead (and also hit the Undead Lord's pet). Not everyone takes selective channeling or has a high enough charisma to avoid hitting everyone.

Silver Crusade **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Mortika wrote:

As someone with an Undead Lord PC (indeed, a Dhampyr, who would have taken damage from positive channelling no matter what class he'd chosen to follow), designing a character who could get along with nicer PCs was one of my goals. His corpse-animating chum often takes the body of an animal rather than a humanoid, and he doesn't draw attention to himself when he casts death knell. He's also happy to help heal his living allies, either by temporarily inverting their postive/negative energy affinity, or through infernal healing.

Having said that, the Pathfinder Society isn't a good-aligned organization. We do things like intrude on active temples, kill the inhabitants, and steal their priceless artifacts. (We're multicultural vikings!) We're sometimes sent out to simply kill one of the Society's enemies. (We're assassins!) If you're thinking about designing a PC who would have an irreconcilable problem with those missions, or with standing shoulder-to-shoulder with a cleric of an evil deity, maybe you should consider a more broad-minded PC.

My Undead lord concept was aimed at playing well with others also. Basically, souls who were destined for a particular afterlife who screwed the pooch at the last second get loaned out to me for a chance at proving where they were meant to go.

Qadira ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Where do you hail from, Alexander? We should get our PCs together some day.

Silver Crusade **

Chris Mortika wrote:
Where do you hail from, Alexander? We should get our PCs together some day.

San Francisco/Bay Area. And I haven't had a chance to play my Undead lord yet, too busy with the Holy Librarian of Abadar.

Qadira ** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor

K Neil Shackleton wrote:
sieylianna wrote:
Depending on your PFS DM, you may have problems casting any offensive spells including Hideous Laughter and the Slumber hex on party members due to the no PVP rule.
Should not be a problem if it is clearly a way to disable a character who is not in control of themselves. Might be different if you were then stealing all of their stuff or something :)

Wait, You can take other people's stuff?!

WOOT!

Andoran

Andrew Christian wrote:
Everyone who is calling out Mike on his cheese of being able to get 4 attacks a round is correct.
First off, it's not my cheese -- it's just what I'd expect a player making one of these monsters to do. And, during creation, he's going to spend 99% of his time looking at the stuff in the class sections and <1% looking at esoteric passages elsewhere in the CRB which he'd otherwise have had no earlier reason to be aware of unless he'd previously played a druid. (Passages which admittedly nerf-down the potential abuse of natural attacks + weapon attacks...at least until the player spends a few moments creatively thinking around it, like taking Quickdraw and then specifying that he's attacking with his claws first, then drawing his weapon. Or trading alchemist or beast-totem for monk[martial artist] to flurry with his feet.)
Quote:

Additionally, for the argument of using a free action to drop your weapon or unwieldy with one hand, then with the other, or whatever cockamamie crap you wanna try to do, would not work.

You cannot split an attack action or full attack with other actions, unless those other actions specifically say you can. You cannot perform a free action in the middle of a full attack action. You would do this before or after your full attack.

<raised eyebrow>

CRB, p181: "Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. ... You can also perform free actions and swift actions...."

CRB, p187: "Full-Attack" ....nothing in passage specifying one cannot perform free actions in between attacks.

CRB, p188: "Free Actions" ....nothing in passage proscribing usage during full-attacks.

- - - - -

Even if a Wild Rager had no additional natural or unarmed attacks, Wild Fighting is still a huge boost in itself (since it lets you use two-handers and is apparently stackable with TWF or Flurry). With Boots of Speed at 7th or 8th, if he kills something with his first attack, he has two left. Barb/Ragechemist for a STR of 30, Enlarged, looking at 3d6+15(STR)+6(PA)+3(enh+Furious) = ~34.5 base. BarbX/Figh4[weapon master] w/Gloves of Dueling is arguably worse as the attack/damage is about the same, and it's full time without having to mess around creating mutagens.

Andoran

bdk86 wrote:
I played in 3.0 with a Frenzied Berserker PC in the mix at our local RPGA group, and he was asked not to bring the character back around after sitting down and explaining that the cleric had to either prepare calm emotions for most of their second level slots or run the risk of him killing us all.
Exactly. -- Even if careful planning can mitigate the danger, it amounts to one player impinging upon the fun of the rest. I.e., I wouldn't enjoy being told my cleric had to devote half his slots to Calm Emotions for every time the Wild Rager slapped a mosquito.
Blazej wrote:
I would say that their are plenty of other classes that have similar capabilities to do accidental damage to their own parties. Alchemists, sorcerers, and wizards all have the explosive power to "accidentally" hit allies on a regular basis.

None of those classes have specific text in their descriptions requiring them to indiscriminately target the closest creature with additional attacks on the basis of them having successful earlier attacks.

I.e., an irresponsible "regular" barbarian with a dumped WIS score is a destructive loose cannon, but it requires enemy action to set him off. A Wild Rager cooks off all on his own.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

Clearly none of you have ever seen an irresponsible caster PC in action.

Qadira ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Around here, it's been the habit of PFS spellcasting PCs to ask permission of any allies they'd like to include in damaging area effect spells. If they don't get permission, the GMs tend to forbid casting those spells, as violations of the PvP ban.

Having said that, I recall my dwarf agreeing to be caught in a black tentacles spell area, not considering that the caster would then wander off, forgetting about him.

Andoran

Gorbacz wrote:
Clearly none of you have ever seen an irresponsible caster PC in action.

Deliberately (AKA "accidentally") attacking your allies is not the same as being required to by the text of your class' abilities.

****

Mike Schneider wrote:
bdk86 wrote:
I played in 3.0 with a Frenzied Berserker PC in the mix at our local RPGA group, and he was asked not to bring the character back around after sitting down and explaining that the cleric had to either prepare calm emotions for most of their second level slots or run the risk of him killing us all.
Exactly. -- Even if careful planning can mitigate the danger, it amounts to one player impinging upon the fun of the rest. I.e., I wouldn't enjoy being told my cleric had to devote half his slots to Calm Emotions for every time the Wild Rager slapped a mosquito.

Why is the Wild Rager feeling it necessary to begin his rage in order to crush insignificant insects?

Qadira ****

Chris Mortika wrote:

Around here, it's been the habit of PFS spellcasting PCs to ask permission of any allies they'd like to include in damaging area effect spells. If they don't get permission, the GMs tend to forbid casting those spells, as violations of the PvP ban.

Having said that, I recall my dwarf agreeing to be caught in a black tentacles spell area, not considering that the caster would then wander off, forgetting about him.

Wow, your GMs are really nice. Our GMs just ask us where the center of their spell starts and its dimensions. If people happen to be caught in the radius, then the fault lies on the caster. Sucks too, considering taking out your buds can easily lead to a TPK, especially if your squishy caster was incompetent with their abilities.

Cheliax ***** Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

Chris Mortika wrote:

Around here, it's been the habit of PFS spellcasting PCs to ask permission of any allies they'd like to include in damaging area effect spells. If they don't get permission, the GMs tend to forbid casting those spells, as violations of the PvP ban.

Having said that, I recall my dwarf agreeing to be caught in a black tentacles spell area, not considering that the caster would then wander off, forgetting about him.

That was my Cheliaxian wizard who 'forgot'...

In all seriousness, it was a slip of the memory on my part and I still feel badly about it...

***** Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson aka Sir_Wulf

Mike Schneider wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Clearly none of you have ever seen an irresponsible caster PC in action.
Deliberately (AKA "accidentally") attacking your allies is not the same as being required to by the text of your class' abilities.

The text doesn't require that any barbarian "hulk out". If he's in a situation where his rage might make him a menace to his allies, he can forego taking advantage of that ability. If someone repeatedly risks going berserk against his allies, I'd put his behavior in the same category as a caster who doesn't care whether allies are caught by his attack spells. Repeated incidents of "deliberate indifference" can be considered equivalent to deliberately harming/killing fellow PCs and thus are grounds for removal of the offending character.

Andoran

Apples-an-oranges comparison: no caster class is required to attack the next closest thing upon successfully casting a spell. (And if one were, how useful would he be to have around if, in order to not harm his friends, he forgoes casting spells? But that's an absurdity, because he is going to cast spells, and a Wild Rager is going to rage -- because those are the reasons the player desired those classes in the first place.)

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Mike Schneider wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

Additionally, for the argument of using a free action to drop your weapon or unwieldy with one hand, then with the other, or whatever cockamamie crap you wanna try to do, would not work.

You cannot split an attack action or full attack with other actions, unless those other actions specifically say you can. You cannot perform a free action in the middle of a full attack action. You would do this before or after your full attack.

<raised eyebrow>

CRB, p181: "Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. ... You can also perform free actions and swift actions...."

CRB, p187: "Full-Attack" ....nothing in passage specifying one cannot perform free actions in between attacks.

CRB, p188: "Free Actions" ....nothing in passage proscribing usage during full-attacks.

CRB, p181: "Free Actions ...Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.

At my table, you could not take a free action in the middle of a Full Attack. You do whatever you can prior to starting your attack, start your attack, finish your attack, then do whatever you can after finishing your attack. Dropping your weapon and continuing with claws isn't going to happen at my table. Sheathing your sword as a free action because you have Quick Draw, after attacking with it, so you can then attack with claws, isn't going to happen at my table. As GM, I get to decide what is reasonable, and this is not reasonable in my mind. The rules support my ruling however...

CRB, p182: "Natural Attacks: 3rd paragraph ... You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword...

And this I would read as sacrosanct, regardless of free actions or feats that don't explicitly change this rule, because taking a claw attack with the same arm that just swung a sword, would be the same has having an iterative attack with that limb with the sword because of a high BAB.

Additionally, in the same passage it explicitly explains that you don't get iterative attacks due to high BAB with natural weapons.

Interestingly enough, as I read through these rules, the part about 5-foot steps is interesting, as it explains that you could take a 5-foot step between iterative or multiple attacks.

***** Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson aka Sir_Wulf

Mike Schneider wrote:
Apples-an-oranges comparison: no caster class is required to attack the next closest thing upon successfully casting a spell. (And if one were, how useful would he be to have around if, in order to not harm his friends, he forgoes casting spells? But that's an absurdity, because he is going to cast spells, and a Wild Rager is going to rage -- because those are the reasons the player desired those classes in the first place.)

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

A caster generally has the ability to employ one of several different options: If he chooses an option that nukes his teammates, he's responsible for that choice. Likewise, I refuse to believe that the rager has no other options, just because he can't always responsibly rage. In all likelihood, most fights will let him rage "responsibly". He's only likely to substantially endanger his party in a minority of situations.

"In my defense, Your Honor, I would just like to say that 'A rager gotta rage!'"


Andrew Christian wrote:
Sheathing your sword as a free action because you have Quick Draw, after attacking with it, so you can then attack with claws, isn't going to happen at my table.

Just a FYI. There's nothing in the Quick Draw feat that even hints at sheathing a sword as a free action.

PRD wrote:

Quick Draw (Combat)

You can draw weapons faster than most.

Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.

Benefit: You can draw a weapon as a free action instead of as a move action. You can draw a hidden weapon (see the Sleight of Hand skill) as a move action.

A character who has selected this feat may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks (much like a character with a bow).

Alchemical items, potions, scrolls, and wands cannot be drawn quickly using this feat.

Normal: Without this feat, you may draw a weapon as a move action, or (if your base attack bonus is +1 or higher) as a free action as part of movement. Without this feat, you can draw a hidden weapon as a standard action.

**

You can't have your attacks per round, then draw another weapon and say 'well now I get all my attacks with this too'. Just doesn't work that way.

There is no 'creative' way to get your two claw attacks and then draw your weapon and get all its attacks too. Otherwise you could notionally place five thousand javelins in front of you (tied on with string so they're carried aight?)... throw one, use quickdraw to ready another one, 'oh look! new weapon, now I get my attacks with it', throw that, use quickdraw to ready another one, 'oh look! new weapon, now I get my attacks with it', throw that, use quickdraw to ready another one, 'oh look! new weapon, now I get my attacks with it', throw that, use quickdraw to ready another one, 'oh look! new weapon, now I get my attacks with it', throw that....

@Andrew Christian...

The extra attack I cited earlier about three claws was assuming he was using the Wild Fighting ability

Wild Fighting (Ex)

At 2nd level, even when not raging, wild ragers often fight with reckless, savage abandon. A wild rager using the full-attack action can make one extra attack per round at her highest base attack bonus. Until the beginning of her next turn, however, she takes a –2 penalty on attack rolls and –4 penalty to AC.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Shifty wrote:


@Andrew Christian...

The extra attack I cited earlier about three claws was assuming he was using the Wild Fighting ability

Wild Fighting (Ex)

At 2nd level, even when not raging, wild ragers often fight with reckless, savage abandon. A wild rager using the full-attack action can make one extra attack per round at her highest base attack bonus. Until the beginning of her next turn, however, she takes a –2 penalty on attack rolls and –4 penalty to AC.

Ah, ok, was wondering how that extra natural attack got there.


Quote:
The problem is that people who choose wild ragers, just like frenzied berserkers before them, don't care about the other players. I am specifically referring to organized play mechanics where you may never see the other players again. Home camapigns prevent you from becoming too obnoxious because you have to game with the same group every week.

Um,no.This is basically racism...but with archetypes >_<

Andoran ***

Sir_Wulf wrote:
Mike Schneider wrote:
Apples-an-oranges comparison: no caster class is required to attack the next closest thing upon successfully casting a spell. (And if one were, how useful would he be to have around if, in order to not harm his friends, he forgoes casting spells? But that's an absurdity, because he is going to cast spells, and a Wild Rager is going to rage -- because those are the reasons the player desired those classes in the first place.)

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

A caster generally has the ability to employ one of several different options: If he chooses an option that nukes his teammates, he's responsible for that choice. Likewise, I refuse to believe that the rager has no other options, just because he can't always responsibly rage. In all likelihood, most fights will let him rage "responsibly". He's only likely to substantially endanger his party in a minority of situations.

"In my defense, Your Honor, I would just like to say that 'A rager gotta rage!'"

Umm. Wulf, when can a Wild Rager "responsibly" Rage?

If he Rages, and drops someone, he gets a Will save not to attack the nearest living being.

There are going to be few times, if ever, when an ally is not going to be fairly close to him.

As written, in order to avoid PvP in PFS, a Wild Rage reither has to seldom Rage, end his Rage early (taking the fatigue penalties), or do the worst thing of all: separet the party.

None of those things are optimal.

In order to Rage safely, the Wild rager, literally, has to get himself surrounded by enemies, and end his Rage while there are still enemies left around him. Not a good presciption for a long-lasting character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As a GM when a player fails their self control check (will save) I would ask the person to hand me their character sheet and then leave the room, from that point I would run the character until either the wild rage ends or they regain control of the barbarian. When one goes so wild where they cannot determine friend from foe I would ask an impartial party to run the character, luckily we already have one built into the mechanics of the game; your friendly GM. By doing this you should be able to weed out those motivated by killing players as your taking away their sweet spot (rolling huge damage, crits, and the unabashed joy of screwing the party) which should cause them to get bored and move on before they wipe the party and ruin the game for everyone. And for those rare players who would take the archetype for role playing purposes this offers huge RP opportunities; when they come back to the table/the gory mess that is the dungeon their party mates can fill them in on all the heroic feats/atrocities they committed in their berserker rage! The need for redemption/resurrection quests goes through the roof. My favorite part would be when the barbarian player returns to the table and hears of their fugue actions, their reactions of ignorance are completely sincere, and in all likelihood will be the most attention they've paid to the game all session.

As far as organized play, I would have to agree with the original poster though and say ban the archetype. The archetypes potential for destroying a game is too great, and miring the archetype in errata/removing the pvp would in my opinion gut the character. Let this dog have his bite, but in the home game where he can dig up his back yard and maybe even find a bone or two.

****

Sarta wrote:


Yeah, Undead Lord is another archetype I've been trying to wrap my head around as legal within PFS.

The entire idea of a character with an undead companion working with paladins, Andorans, followers of Pharasma, and any other good character duty-bound to destroy all undead just doesn't sit well for me.

what about chelaxians and oracles of bone forced to work with paladins and andorans?

pathfinders. are. not. good.

If the paladin is not willing to work with the many varied types that make up the society if would not have joined.


tlotig wrote:
Sarta wrote:


Yeah, Undead Lord is another archetype I've been trying to wrap my head around as legal within PFS.

The entire idea of a character with an undead companion working with paladins, Andorans, followers of Pharasma, and any other good character duty-bound to destroy all undead just doesn't sit well for me.

what about chelaxians and oracles of bone forced to work with paladins and andorans?

pathfinders. are. not. good.

If the paladin is not willing to work with the many varied types that make up the society if would not have joined.

guide wrote:

The Society places no moral obligations

upon its members, so agents span all races, creeds,
and motivations. At any given time, a Pathfinder
lodge might house a fiend-summoning Chelaxian,
an Andoren freedom fighter, an antiquities-obsessed
Osirian necromancer, and a friendly Taldan raconteur.
Pathfinder agents are expected to respect one another’s
claims and stay out of each other’s affairs unless offering
a helping hand.

Qadira ****

I can't wait to create my gunslinger / magus / wild rager barbarian pregen. :)

Taldor *****

Joseph Caubo wrote:
I can't wait to create my gunslinger / magus / wild rager barbarian pregen. :)

Wouldn't really be a pregen then would it?

But, boy Howdy, you sure know how to clear a table though.

***** Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson aka Sir_Wulf

Callarek wrote:
Umm. Wulf, when can a Wild Rager "responsibly" Rage?

Most wild ragers wouldn't need to be entirely separate from the party. All he needs is enough space that the remaining attacks from his first "wild" round can't be used on an ally. He can unleash his rage when he's in a target-rich environment where his party will be able to get clear if he goes berserk. He can't responsibly do so when his rage is a menace to his own group.

We have a wild rager in our local group. He has taken steps to bump up his Will save, minimizing the risk of him attacking his own party. He also asks the party's cleric to carry a calm emotions spell just in case. Our cleric are also fond of sanctuary.

I wouldn't think that a rager has to eliminate ALL risk of harming allies. He just has to demonstrate some effort to reduce that risk. If a character is as dangerous to his allies than his enemies, he risks being told to pack up his beserksgang and take it elsewhere.

Qadira ****

Todd Lower wrote:
Joseph Caubo wrote:
I can't wait to create my gunslinger / magus / wild rager barbarian pregen. :)

Wouldn't really be a pregen then would it?

But, boy Howdy, you sure know how to clear a table though.

I'll try and get someone to sign off on it as being a pregen. There will be a level 3 version and a level 6 version, so it can play in all scenarios. It will be awesome.


Joseph Caubo wrote:
Todd Lower wrote:
Joseph Caubo wrote:
I can't wait to create my gunslinger / magus / wild rager barbarian pregen. :)

Wouldn't really be a pregen then would it?

But, boy Howdy, you sure know how to clear a table though.

I'll try and get someone to sign off on it as being a pregen. There will be a level 3 version and a level 6 version, so it can play in all scenarios. It will be awesome.

My favorite pregen right now is the Oracle. Whoever built it gave it a necklace of Fireballs.

No better way to beat the big bad guy than to run up to him and throw the whole necklace at your feet! Big fun!

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Joseph Caubo wrote:


Wow, your GMs are really nice. Our GMs just ask us where the center of their spell starts and its dimensions. If people happen to be caught in the radius, then the fault lies on the caster. Sucks too, considering taking out your buds can easily lead to a TPK, especially if your squishy caster was incompetent with their abilities.

Technically, this is not legal play. A character is not permitted to employ PvP actions. Doing damage, even collateral, to other player-characters is prohibited. Granted it breaks suspension of disbelief to say OOC "you can't do that."

I am in favor of players choosing to allow other players to dump AoE on them. In fact, I grant permission in nearly all games.

Of course, if all your local players are okay with it, who's gonna know? But in a convention environment, it is not the GM's decision to allow/disallow PvP actions.

On topic, the VC's/CC are currently discussing the impact of this Archetype on PFS. Thanks for providing player feedback.

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Fozzy Hammer wrote:
No better way to beat the big bad guy than to run up to him and throw the whole necklace at your feet! Big fun!

So they can pick it back up and use it against you? Having that work is highly GM dependent since the wording on the item describes the beads working after they are detached.


Bob Jonquet wrote:
Joseph Caubo wrote:


Wow, your GMs are really nice. Our GMs just ask us where the center of their spell starts and its dimensions. If people happen to be caught in the radius, then the fault lies on the caster. Sucks too, considering taking out your buds can easily lead to a TPK, especially if your squishy caster was incompetent with their abilities.

Technically, this is not legal play. A character is not permitted to employ PvP actions. Doing damage, even collateral, to other player-characters is prohibited. Granted it breaks suspension of disbelief to say OOC "you can't do that."

I am in favor of players choosing to allow other players to dump AoE on them. In fact, I grant permission in nearly all games.

Of course, if all your local players are okay with it, who's gonna know? But in a convention environment, it is not the GM's decision to allow/disallow PvP actions.

On topic, the VC's/CC are currently discussing the impact of this Archetype on PFS. Thanks for providing player feedback.

This appears to be a serious over-interpretation of the rules.

"Guide 4.0 wrote:

No Player-versus-Player Combat

The goal of Pathf inder Society Organized Play is to
provide an enjoyable experience for as many players
as possible. Player-versus-player conflict only sours a
session. While killing another character might seem
like fun to you, it certainly won’t be for that character’s
player. Even if you feel killing another character is in
character for your PC at this particular moment, just figure out some other way for your character to express
herself.
In short, you can never voluntarily use your
character to kill another character—ever. Note that
this does not apply to situations where your character
is mind-controlled by an NPC and forced to attack a
fellow Pathfinder.

A mage fireballing an area containing a evasive rogue or high hp fighter ally will be unlikely to seriously damage him/her. The idea that another player will have veto power over any action that may adversely affect allies is really not encompassed in this rule.

This rule speaks more to "My rogue backstabs the mage", than it does to "May I pretty please cast a spell?"

Taken just one step further, effects like confusion and color spray which have the possibility of causing indirect damage to other allies, would also require permission.

I will state: A courteous player will make sure that allies have an opportunity to evacuate an area. Things like "Hey guys, I'm going to dump a fireball in that square next round. If you don't want to be in it, I suggest you clear out." But having given that warning, I don't believe the rule supports the argument that one must then seek further permission to cast the fireball.

I've never dumped a fireball into an area containing allies that weren't perfectly fine with it, and I probably never will, but I simply do not believe that the rules says what you are interpreting it as saying.

Andoran *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Fozzy Hammer wrote:
Stuff

I was about to say the same thing.


Dragnmoon wrote:
Fozzy Hammer wrote:
Stuff
I was about to say the same thing.

You see, I am you! Not one of "you guys" :)

Silver Crusade **

Fozzy Hammer wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Joseph Caubo wrote:


Wow, your GMs are really nice. Our GMs just ask us where the center of their spell starts and its dimensions. If people happen to be caught in the radius, then the fault lies on the caster. Sucks too, considering taking out your buds can easily lead to a TPK, especially if your squishy caster was incompetent with their abilities.

Technically, this is not legal play. A character is not permitted to employ PvP actions. Doing damage, even collateral, to other player-characters is prohibited. Granted it breaks suspension of disbelief to say OOC "you can't do that."

I am in favor of players choosing to allow other players to dump AoE on them. In fact, I grant permission in nearly all games.

Of course, if all your local players are okay with it, who's gonna know? But in a convention environment, it is not the GM's decision to allow/disallow PvP actions.

On topic, the VC's/CC are currently discussing the impact of this Archetype on PFS. Thanks for providing player feedback.

This appears to be a serious over-interpretation of the rules.

"Guide 4.0 wrote:

No Player-versus-Player Combat

The goal of Pathf inder Society Organized Play is to
provide an enjoyable experience for as many players
as possible. Player-versus-player conflict only sours a
session. While killing another character might seem
like fun to you, it certainly won’t be for that character’s
player. Even if you feel killing another character is in
character for your PC at this particular moment, just figure out some other way for your character to express
herself.
In short, you can never voluntarily use your
character to kill another character—ever. Note that
this does not apply to situations where your character
is mind-controlled by an NPC and forced to attack a
fellow Pathfinder.
A mage fireballing an area containing a evasive rogue or high hp fighter ally will beunlikely to seriously damage him/her. The idea that another player will...

Well, yeah. Color spray can leave you open to a coup-de-gras when standing next to a nasty enemy. If you can cast spells on allies, where do you draw the line on pvp? The wizard could just cast fireball after fireball, killing PCs at his leisure. Area of effect spells don't exempt the caster. Now, most players will grant permission, but its still their choice.

Qadira ****

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Technically, this is not legal play. A character is not permitted to employ PvP actions. Doing damage, even collateral, to other player-characters is prohibited. Granted it breaks suspension of disbelief to say OOC "you can't do that."

That's completely ridiculous; actions have consequences. I'm sorry, but crap happens from time to time, so move on and learn from your mistakes. I think the more important lesson to be learned is to be mindful of your actions and your surrounding companions - and you're not going to teach that to someone by babying them on how to play their character.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Fozzy Hammer wrote:


This appears to be a serious over-interpretation of the rules.

This is one case where, IMO, you have to rule in favor of protecting the "cooperation" aspect of the PFS tenets and hold to a strict interpretation of PvP. Feel free to disagree, but after participating in dozens of conventions, and GM'ing 140+ tables, I have yet to see a GM let players cause direct damage to other players.

Based on numerous conversations with other GM's, VC's, and both former CC, I am 100% confident that my understanding of the intent of the rule is accurate. If it is determined that the strictest reading of the Guide allows for mis-interpretation, then I will consult Mark for a change in the next version.

As far as Confusion-like affects, I do not recall any NPC/monsters in scenarios that employed such tactics. But if they have, I suppose we need to clarify that as well (or ensure they never appear in scenarios).

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Joseph Caubo wrote:


That's completely ridiculous; actions have consequences. I'm sorry, but crap happens from time to time, so move on and learn from your mistakes. I think the more important lesson to be learned is to be mindful of your actions and your surrounding companions - and you're not going to teach that to someone by babying them on how to play their character.

So what did the other players, potentially with dead PC's, learned from the experience? If the punishment was limited to the acting PC, I'm with you, but the rules are no PvP. It's not fair to the other players.

If you want to "teach" the offending player, then let them declare the action, but then cause it to fail (like a failed concentration check) because they included player-characters in the AoE. At least then, the others are not at risk of being killed. I'll bet the player won't make the same mistake again.

I do not like the idea of OOC/meta-gaming deciding IC decisions, but in OP, I think you have to deal with things like this differently than you would in a home-style campaign.

Grand Lodge ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Fozzy Hammer wrote:


This appears to be a serious over-interpretation of the rules.

This is one case where, IMO, you have to rule in favor of protecting the "cooperation" aspect of the PFS tenets and hold to a strict interpretation of PvP. Feel free to disagree, but after participating in dozens of conventions, and GM'ing 140+ tables, I have yet to see a GM let players cause direct damage to other players.

Based on numerous conversations with other GM's, VC's, and both former CC, I am 100% confident that my understanding of the intent of the rule is accurate. If it is determined that the strictest reading of the Guide allows for mis-interpretation, then I will consult Mark for a change in the next version.

As far as Confusion-like affects, I do not recall any NPC/monsters in scenarios that employed such tactics. But if they have, I suppose we need to clarify that as well (or ensure they never appear in scenarios).

I'll back Bob on this.

Andoran *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Bob Jonquet wrote:


As far as Confusion-like affects, I do not recall any NPC/monsters in scenarios that employed such tactics. But if they have, I suppose we need to clarify that as well (or ensure they never appear in scenarios).

There have been scenarios with Confusion used by NPCs/monsters.


Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Fozzy Hammer wrote:


This appears to be a serious over-interpretation of the rules.

This is one case where, IMO, you have to rule in favor of protecting the "cooperation" aspect of the PFS tenets and hold to a strict interpretation of PvP. Feel free to disagree, but after participating in dozens of conventions, and GM'ing 140+ tables, I have yet to see a GM let players cause direct damage to other players.

Based on numerous conversations with other GM's, VC's, and both former CC, I am 100% confident that my understanding of the intent of the rule is accurate. If it is determined that the strictest reading of the Guide allows for mis-interpretation, then I will consult Mark for a change in the next version.

As far as Confusion-like affects, I do not recall any NPC/monsters in scenarios that employed such tactics. But if they have, I suppose we need to clarify that as well (or ensure they never appear in scenarios).

I'll back Bob on this.

Then I would suggest that the wording of the rule needs to be changed to match the intent.

As I said. I support the intent. But the wording does not state this.

Qadira ****

Bob Jonquet wrote:

So what did the other players, potentially with dead PC's, learned from the experience? If the punishment was limited to the acting PC, I'm with you, but the rules are no PvP. It's not fair to the other players.

If you want to "teach" the offending player, then let them declare the action, but then cause it to fail (like a failed concentration check) because they included player-characters in the AoE. At least then, the others are not at risk of being killed. I'll bet the player won't make the same mistake again.

I do not like the idea of OOC/meta-gaming deciding IC decisions, but in OP, I think you have to deal with things like this differently than you would in a home-style campaign.

It's a team-oriented game, and as such, the actions of individual party members attribute to the overall success (or failure) of the mission. It teaches everyone to watch out for where a caster is placing a fireball and to speak up next time something like that happens (as in saying "a helpful reminder, a radius of a fireball is such and such, or a create pit still allows for those standing around it to fall in," etc). If no other party member speaks up at all to question the decision-making process of a player, especially a new player with limited experience in his role, then everyone can shoulder some of the blame.

/By the time you see folks casting fireballs, Raise Deads are well within reach.
//Very rarely (if ever) do I see a table not help each other out when it is within their means, even if it means having to delay the purchase / upgrade of an item by one scenario.

51 to 100 of 236 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / General Discussion / Ban the "Wild Rager" archtype, and do it quick All Messageboards

©2002–2014 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.