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

PaizoCon 2014!

I issue the Pathfinder community a challenge


Advice

151 to 182 of 182 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

I've been keeping up with the Killer Touch Gladiator matches and I feel sorry for all the people who are getting screwed by Sean Connor AKA Outsider with his mediocre understand of the Pathfinder rules and character control.

Lets keep in mind before someone says "Sean Connors, is running 20 characters how can he keep up with all of them." Well he's not running 20 characters at the sametime he's running 2 low level characters at the sametime which would be easy to learn and maximize there abilities the same way a DM runs an encounter with multiple monsters against a party.

Fight 1 - Shyne Vs Samual - Extended Durations on Shynes spells and it did not even look like he was rolling the critical damage. These small details don't even require you to understand the character just the basic rules of the game and spell duration's. If Shyne was worried about Samual's bow than why would Shyne cast Fly the following round aside from another spell or just move straight into the coup de grace, and the following round Shyne moves into combat. It might not of been a good move, but his reasoning kept changing. I thought he was just wasting rounds so Samual could break out of hold.

Fight 2 - Henri Vs Rain - While not a rules violation this fight was to short and "fair" rules wise, to really say anything except "Walls" or make the arena a little bigger and let the players start a little more inside the arena so they have a chance to enjoy the "fight" after all Henri did spend sometime thinking up a character.

Fight 3 - Mr. Min/max Vs Khan - This was so far the only fair fight, but after finding out that Khan had shot on the run as a feat tells me that Sean Conner's did not even bother to read his character sheets. Shot on the run lets you make an attack anytime during your movement. Which means Khan could of moved 15 foot shoot his bow which he did and than moved another 15 foot around the statue blocking a charge. This felt like he either gave up on Khan or doesn't have much experience as a DM or player.

Fight 4 - Doln Vs Villain - His BLATANT lack of understand of the charging rules, and his shocking attempt to defend his "Charging House Rules" instead of apologizing and saying "I messed up, and this can only be called a house rule. His claim is Charging is a special full round action allowing him to move away and than make his charge attack. I have new player's that have a better understand of the charge rules than this "Dungeon Master".

Fight 5 - Johnny Vs Marlowe - Only thing here is small lack of strategy, and you can't withdraw and drink a potion in the same round not really a huge thing and easily passable. He should of made a 5 foot step back, pulled out his potion and take a drink of his potion would of been the correct way to handle this.

Fight 6 - Ser Rodric Vrs Unnamed Hero - The only thing exciting about this fight was waiting for Sean Connors to add or overlook something in this fight. When Unnamed Hero stunned Ser Rodric he would of been stunned until just before Unnamed Heroes next turn. Preventing Ser Rodric from acting before Unnamed Heroes next turn "hence he would not of picked up his weapon and make an attack when he is suppose to be stunned". Once again Sean Connors shows he doesn't understand the Cast of Defense, by rolling a cast on defense with his spellcraft skill in a nonthreatened square. I don't even know how to really start with that using spellcraft and cast on defense action when neither check were needed. He makes a funny comment about losing the will to live I think he lost the will to use the Player's Guide is what he really meant.

Fight 7 - T-Bag Vs Georgio (Rematch) - First I'm going to congratulate Sean Connors for fixing one of his messed up fights. He missed Georgio attack of Opportunity at the end of the fight when T-Bag approached him while that attack might not of done anything I still wanted to see Georgio go out full swing, and once again Sean Connors shows he doesn't get strategy in his play style or Dungeon Master style.

I think Sean Connors needed to read his Player's Guide, Study his character sheets and get a seasoned Dungeon Master to run these matches along with him. He's visually offered the community a low-grade Dungeon Master. I would grade Sean Connors a "D" as a Dungeon Master, but that is because I don't think any Dungeon Master Deserves in "F" for trying there best.

I'll be keeping an eye out for further fights. Good night or Good day everyone.


8 Red Wizards wrote:


Stuff

I wasn't gonna say anything, but since he's been getting bashed so much I want him to know that at least one or two people are on his side. Let's go over this in order:

First: Have you ever done anything like this? If so, OK. If not? You don't know if it's 'easy to learn' or anything. It SOUNDS like that would be the case, but being easy in theory and being easy in practice are two different things.

1: Nothing to say. You're right, and he's responded to some of that stuff already, admitting he was wrong.

2: I already mentioned how 'out of bounds' doesn't necessarily mean 'outside of the walls of the arena'. I don't know how that was the only thing people thought of. I don't think any of us, including Sean, realized how much of a bane fear spells would be, though.

3: Admittedly, most people don't really know how to use shot on the run well. In my short time here I've already seen a couple of threads talking about how it's kind of useless and very situational.

4: It is a little weird, but RAW doesn't say that EVERY STEP has to be going closer to the enemy, just that it has to be in a straight line. It's technical, and a bit cheesy, but true. What he did, as I understand it, is include the moving away as part of the charge. Not taking one action to move, and then another to charge.

5: Not gonna comment 'cause I was in that fight, so I wouldn't be impartial/whatever.

6: Well isn't that a bit harsh? To the first point: Yeah, he was wrong. As to the casting thing... First off, I think he may have just mis-spoke and actually rolled a concentration check. That is, of course, me totally guessing. Second, though, I was under the impression that if you were attacked at all in the same round that you cast a spell, you had to roll a concentration. It makes sense. And since he was attacked in that round, he needed to roll. Of course I may be totally off, but that's my understanding of it.

7: I agree with everything stated.

If you think that he deserves an 'F' or even a 'D' then I envy whatever GMs you've played under. He seems competent enough, but he just makes mistakes sometimes. I think he's an average DM. If you're offering to help him with the running, awesome.

Anyway, I don't mean to sound confrontational at all. I just want him to know that someone's sticking up for him, and thinks he's running something that most people are having a lot of fun with. As long as he stays consistent within his defined ruleset, I think it's OK. It would be much better if he didn't make mistakes, but what wouldn't?

Just my two cents.


DoctorYesNinja wrote:
8 Red Wizards wrote:


Stuff

4: It is a little weird, but RAW doesn't say that EVERY STEP has to be going closer to the enemy, just that it has to be in a straight line. It's technical, and a bit cheesy, but true. What he did, as I understand it, is include the moving away as part of the charge. Not taking one action to move, and then another to charge.

6: Well isn't that a bit harsh? To the first point: Yeah, he was wrong. As to the casting thing... First off, I think he may have just mis-spoke and actually rolled a concentration check. That is, of course, me totally guessing. Second, though, I was under the impression that if you were attacked at all in the same round that you cast a spell, you had to roll a concentration. It makes sense. And since he was attacked in that round, he needed to roll. Of course I may be totally off, but that's my understanding of it.

Not replying to 1,2,3,5,7 because it sounds like we agree

4) on page 198 it says pretty obviously that "You must move before your attack, not after, you must move at least 10 feet and may move up to double your speed *****DIRECTLY TOWARD***** the designated opponent. If you move 10 feet or more backwards you aren't moving "directly toward the designated opponent" breaking the rules of charging.

The definition of "Directly" is Without changing direction or stopping.

6) There are 2 options for casting your spell the actual cast on defense to not provoke which is 15+double spell level, and the only entry for taking damage while casting a spell is the "Injury" which specifically says "If you take damage while casting the spell" not if you take damage in the same round you cast the spell.

I don't think he deserves an F that's why I said D, but if I can offer any help I would be more than willing. I am not involved in any of these fights and I didn't submit a character


8 Red Wizards wrote:
DoctorYesNinja wrote:
8 Red Wizards wrote:


Stuff

4: It is a little weird, but RAW doesn't say that EVERY STEP has to be going closer to the enemy, just that it has to be in a straight line. It's technical, and a bit cheesy, but true. What he did, as I understand it, is include the moving away as part of the charge. Not taking one action to move, and then another to charge.

6: Well isn't that a bit harsh? To the first point: Yeah, he was wrong. As to the casting thing... First off, I think he may have just mis-spoke and actually rolled a concentration check. That is, of course, me totally guessing. Second, though, I was under the impression that if you were attacked at all in the same round that you cast a spell, you had to roll a concentration. It makes sense. And since he was attacked in that round, he needed to roll. Of course I may be totally off, but that's my understanding of it.

Not replying to 1,2,3,5,7 because it sounds like we agree

4) on page 198 it says pretty obviously that "You must move before your attack, not after, you must move at least 10 feet and may move up to double your speed *****DIRECTLY TOWARD***** the designated opponent. If you move 10 feet or more backwards you aren't moving "directly toward the designated opponent" breaking the rules of charging.

The definition of "Directly" is Without changing direction or stopping.

6) There are 2 options for casting your spell the actual cast on defense to not provoke which is 15+double spell level, and the only entry for taking damage while casting a spell is the "Injury" which specifically says "If you take damage while casting the spell" not if you take damage in the same round you cast the spell.

I don't think he deserves an F that's why I said D, but if I can offer any help I would be more than willing. I am not involved in any of these fights and I didn't submit a character

For number six? Okay. Guess I'm wrong. Whenever I play spellcasters, I just make sure to not get hit. :P

But for number four...

Like I said, it's cheesy and probably not how it's intended, but if you look at the RAW grammatically, it basically means this. "You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least ten feet, and may move up to double your speed. If you move double your speed, all movement must be made directly towards the designated opponent."

The reason for this is because there are no commas around "and may move up to double your speed". I don't have the book with me, and I'm just looking at the SRD, so if it's different in the book then my apologies. And honestly? It sort of makes sense. Backing up to get a running charge at your opponent is obviously possible in the real world, so why not in Pathfinder?

Not the point, though. If you're up for it, I'd say that you should email Sean and see if he'd like any help. I'd offer, but I'm not DM material. I tried a few times and... it didn't work out. At all. :P

On another note: is anyone picking favorites to win, yet? Honestly I'm pretty frightened of Ser Roderick. I really don't want to have to face him, and good on whoever made him.

Cheliax

The only way for Sean to charge like that is to take a 5ft step away from the target, then do a full round charge. Unfortunetly the 5ft step prevents any other movement

SRD:
You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can't take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can't take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance

I still want a rematch with sir rodric.


DoctorYesNinja wrote:
Like I said, it's cheesy and probably not how it's intended, but if you look at the RAW grammatically, it basically means this. "You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least ten feet, and may move up to double your speed. If you move double your speed, all movement must be made directly towards the designated opponent.

Even the SRD says "ALL MOVEMENT MUST BE MADE DIRECTLY TOWARDS THE DESIGNATED OPPONENT. It's on the last line of this paragraph taken from your post and the SRD also the Player's Guide. There is no question on the Book or SRD that the charge was handled badly.

Once again the Dictionary's definition of "Directly" is Without changing direction or stopping.

Now the Dictionary's definition of "toward" In the direction of.

Anyone who continues to read charge as they can move any way they want before the action is not even reading the book. This isn't the books fault.

-----

Edit: I'm tempted to find out what I would need to perform a Youtube gladiator match, because these rules he's overlooking are rules I use as a DM on Monster Vs Player and Monster A Vs Monster B Vs Player

Monster A Vs Monster B Vs Player means

Monster group A attacks Monster group B and Players and Monster group B will attack Monster group A and Player's.

I love doing 3 way fights so much confusion a lot player tactics tend to fall apart, because of the chaos.


The confusion in the rules is quite unfortunate as is the misuse of character actions. It seems like Sean is fairly busy and is rushing through the fights without properly looking over their abilities.

In the 'rematch' my character Theodore saved against Georgio's command spell, and then he cast the command spell (but Theodore doesn't have that spell, he has cause fear).

After this my character took a punch and five-foot stepped back to cast a spell (reasonable decision). But the spell he cast was glitterdust. Theodore could have used blindness/deafness as a 2nd level spell instead (a necromancy spell) which, since theodore has greater spell focus necromancy, would have been a wiser choice. Especially considering that Georgio clearly had a good Will save but his Fort save hadnt been tested.

This is understandable tho. Maybe theodore was not convinced that georgio had a good will save. Theodore then took some more punches (high rolls: :s).

Next theodore moved out (even though he is an amazing tumbler due to his versatile performance), didnt take an attack of opportunity somehow and then cast glitterdust (at this point there would be no doubt in theodores mind that blindness/deafness would be a better option) defensively [even though he was 30 ft away from Georgio (note: Theodore is a halfling with 20ft movement and should have only been 20ft away)] using a spellcraft check instead of a concentration check. So he failed to cast at got punched to death.

I literally watched the rematch with my jaw dropped watching the degree of character/rule misusage...

And this is aside from the first match in which theodore cast cause fear when Sean did not include my greater spell focus into the DC (Georgio still would have succeeded but still...)

And just to make it clear, my character's abilities are well layed out on my sheet. I wrote each spell underneath its spell level with appropriate DC, and made a note right underneath that there is a +2 to the DC of necromancy spells.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jarred Henninger wrote:

The only way for Sean to charge like that is to take a 5ft step away from the target, then do a full round charge. Unfortunetly the 5ft step prevents any other movement

** spoiler omitted **

I still want a rematch with sir rodric.

Perhaps an entire "Gladiatorial Arena" setup could be arranged in PbP format?

Not this weekend, as I'm busy with work, but perhaps over Memorial Day or on Tuesday?

I'll look into it.

(Unless you'd prefer to start the PbP thread, to which I'd happily join.)


For number 3, Kahn had a 60' movement. He should have held action and just run from the hasted guy until his potions were all out (;


Incase my DMing comes into question I've been playing for 16 years and DMing for 15 years. Started in Second edition D&D although I have DMed First, second, 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder/3.5 (lovingly called 3.75). Although I refuse to touch 4.0, because I have to much respect for the game to admit it exists.

As the gladiator DM since he is running the characters his job is to look over the character, and learn it as if it was his own character. While still using any tactics the character designer might of passed on to him, and than put on an interesting show. I would of suggested he look over the character before each match and thought to himself how would I run this character?

Even if the player gets Feared outside the arena it's fair, and run correctly you HAVE TO FORGET any idea that it might be cheesy. Which was round 2, and the only round run correctly although when feared there is more than than one way to handle fear. Player could of just run north or south the spell has 1d4 round duration. The player is just trying to get away from the source of the fear effect not mindlessly panicked. Which means he could of run around the arena trying to keep the greatest distance between himself and the opponent.


That is why once I found out someone else running the characters I was hesitant to join.

The other issue was that when someone ask a question he wanted them to email them. If the question is answered publicly then everyone gets the answer. That did not make sense to me. I know this is not a rules issue, but if something does not make sense I become concerned. #Red Flag 1.

His he allows item creation feats, but not familiars. I think getting more gear is going to be a better option at level 5, so why block the weaker option? #Red Flag 2.

No animal companions. #Red Flag 3

As Red Wizard pointed out sorcerers were at a disadvantage due to it being level 5. They can not get level 3 spells.
His reply was "And 8 red wizards get creative there is still a way to get higher level spells?" Red Flag 4

I was thinking "Pep talks don't make characters better."

Another pep talk on the animal companion issue.-->
"32point buy and 10500 gold to spend
Nerf there builds I don't agree.
There are ways to get support I will say no more
Give it a go."

If it was not a nerf he should have allowed it then. What does "ways to get support mean? Surely no caster is going to try to cast a spell that takes 1 round to cast, and hope the enemy is nice enough to let him cast it*. It is not like the druid can turn invisible first like a wizard could.
In short it appeared to be an arbitrary decision, which is almost never good in PF.

*This assumes one on one combat, and level 5.

The idea was cool, but I think he was too anxious and needed more rules knowledge to make it work.

If this thing goes into PbP mode I would be happy to GM a match or two.
That way more than one match could be ran at once and people would not be waiting. I would GM the entire thing, but I am running two PBP's at the moment. Once one of them ends, which should be within the next week or two, who knows. :)


Mr. Swagger wrote:

That is why once I found out someone else running the characters I was hesitant to join.

While this was not a red flag for me. I think before you propose this idea you need to have an understanding of the Player's Guide Rules, Ability to DM, a firm understanding of the character classes and races and the ability to spend at least an hour or 2 looking over the character to think how would I play this character to win.

Mr. Swagger wrote:


The other issue was that when someone ask a question he wanted them to email them. If the question is answered publicly then everyone gets the answer. That did not make sense to me. I know this is not a rules issue, but if something does not make sense I become concerned. #Red Flag 1.

This could easily be a question about there character that the player doesn't want everyone else to hear.

Mr. Swagger wrote:


His he allows item creation feats, but not familiars. I think getting more gear is going to be a better option at level 5, so why block the weaker option? #Red Flag 2.

I didn't have a problem with Item Creation feats because it's just letting people sacrifice one of there precious feats removing some versatility, combat ability or saving throw bonus this wasn't a big deal to me and I actually liked it. To many DM's are afraid of item creation

Mr. Swagger wrote:


No animal companions. #Red Flag 3

Not really a red flag a Druids animal companion is like having 2 level 5's against 1 level 5 a Druids animal companion doesn't remove the power of a Druid AKA Wild shape ROAR ROAR. For Rangers there pets are 3 levels lower than them losing your pet doesn't hurt these classes. Although I don't disagree with saying no animal companions. I would of allowed the Animal Companions, and said you have to spend a Full Round Action summoning them like a Paladin summons a bonded mount instead of starting it out in combat right beside you. I would think that would be fair.

Mr. Swagger wrote:


As Red Wizard pointed out sorcerers were at a disadvantage due to it being level 5. They can not get level 3 spells.
His reply was "And 8 red wizards get creative there is still a way to get higher level spells?" Red Flag 4

He made the gladiator match level 5 so no one would get 2 attacks in the same round AKA Fighters, Barbarian, Paladins, Rangers, and the side effect was removing the sorcerer from the fight. I would be willing to bet that every spontaneous caster in the match is a bard. While they don't get level 3 spells they get a decent stack of abilities.

Mr. Swagger wrote:


I was thinking "Pep talks don't make characters better."

Another pep talk on the animal companion issue.-->
"32point buy and 10500 gold to spend
Nerf there builds I don't agree.
There are ways to get support I will say no more
Give it a go."

If it was not a nerf he should have allowed it then. What does "ways to get support mean? Surely no caster is going to try to cast a spell that takes 1 round to cast, and hope the enemy is nice enough to let him cast it*. It is not like the druid can turn invisible first like a wizard could.

Once again I understand why no animal companions, 32 buy in was generous, 10500gp and the ability to take item creation feats and use them was generous shows he's not afraid of item creation feats. I don't think he was "Nerfing builds" I think he was trying to keep the fights fair, and sorcerer got knee-capped, but I don't think he did it on purpose.

Mr. Swagger wrote:


In short it appeared to be an arbitrary decision, which is almost never good in PF.

I don't think it was arbitrary decision it was just lack of rules knowledge, and with a little more practice he'll get it down.

Mr. Swagger wrote:


*This assumes one on one combat, and level 5.

The idea was cool, but I think he was too anxious and needed more rules knowledge to make it work.

If this thing goes into PbP mode I would be happy to GM a match or two.
That way more than one match could be ran at once and people would not be waiting. I would GM the entire thing, but I am running two PBP's at the moment. Once one of them ends, which should be within the next week or two, who knows. :)

I do agree he was to anxious without the tools, knowledge and reasoning to pull it off. I think if I haven't destroyed his will to go on than this whole link will improve him if Killer Touch goes on to season 2. Right now I don't think he has the tools to handle this on his own, and since I don't live near him I don't know how I could help. So I would suggest he find a knowledgeable player in his group to co-DM this with him, and once he finished recording the match he should overlay the voice overcast on top of the video.


I understood the private issue for the email, but he kept repeating it even for regular questions. I thought about the other things also, but I chalked it up to lack of rules knowledge.

Even if he would have said the animal companions give too much of an advantage I could have went with that, but he specifically said taking them away was not a nerf, which means taking them away does not make the class any weaker.

The "I won't discuss it anymore" attitude made me not give him the benefit of the doubt.
PS:


Mr. Swagger wrote:

I understood the private issue for the email, but he kept repeating it even for regular questions. I thought about the other things also, but I chalked it up to lack of rules knowledge.

Even if he would have said the animal companions give too much of an advantage I could have went with that, but he specifically said taking them away was not a nerf, which means taking them away does not make the class any weaker.

The "I won't discuss it anymore" attitude made me not give him the benefit of the doubt.
PS:

I agree this didn't feel like it would be done correctly so I opted to not send in a character, but I did watch the matches hoping I'd be wrong. Although I didn't feel wrong watching any of the matches when I saw his usage of the rules.

From what I can tell he just used his Ipad to record the duel and than just transferred it to his PC and than loaded it into youtube. Sounds a lot easier than I thought it was to do.


So... Sean hasn't uploaded a video today. I really hope you guys didn't discourage him so much that he stops uploading. I know it sounds selfish, and probably doesn't mean as much coming from a guy that won his match, but a lot of us were having fun with this, even with all the mistakes. It was fun thinking up optimized characters, and making videos, and getting to share them with the world, ya know? I really don't think the personal attacks were necessary, and I'm gonna be disappointed if a few 'haters' keep him from continuing. *sigh* Just my two cents, I guess.


I'm pretty sure he mentioned in his apology video that he'd be finishing up the 1st round on Sunday.

In reference to what you were saying about discouragement... yes I agree. It would be sad if he were discouraged to the point of not continuing (which I doubt). I do feel like there are some important criticisms to be made. Sean is attempting to do something which does require a certain level of knowledge, experience, and resilience from all the incoming blows. I think that this will help him to realize that when addressing or organizing for a "Community", you need to follow the unwritten rules of the community.

I admire his boldness, and hope that he continues to improve his DMing skills, and continue to produce more fun situations like this that competitively bring the "Pathfinder Community" together.


While I stand by all my critiquing, and I've already done to much of it. I'm finish though, because I already got myself in to way way to much trouble for this.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know, despite the flak Sean is getting, he's doing something many of us wish we could do. While I agree there has been a few errors in rules knowledge, this probably stems from houserules used with the groups he usually games with, so I can understand the sliding. I'm sure however that he's now been seeing these posts and working out the problems everyone has been commenting on. Keep in mind folk that this is a hobby, and he is doing us all a nice service in trying this out with his free time and trying to maintain his own responsibilities. Hopefully he will redress these issues, or at the least in the spirit of keeping the games going moveforward using the corrective measures that he will have come to the conclusion of by following the communities advisement and further research into the material.
That said, if I could find a way to film it, I'd personally would love to try this very experiment with different restriction. But I'd wait till the current tournement was finished as I'm sure there is still a lot more experiance to be gain from seeing this to the end.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just want to make it clear that i dont have any resentment toward sean. He seems like a genuinely nice guy who created a cool concept for a tournament-style match up and he made the matches exciting with his solid commentary. I was just disappointed because I felt I made a solid, well-rounded character who would be a solid competitor based on the guide-lines that sean set. But then the rules werent quite respected so I got the short end of the stick. I am sure many ppl feel the same way...


Well, looks like we may be out of luck. He does mention in the video that worst-case scenario is that he finishes round 1 on monday, and also runs a drawing for round 2. Fingers crossed.


I seem to understand that I passed the round again, even though I still had not the chance to watch the video of the rematch. Good.
Well, since I passed I think this does not bear much weight, but I just wanted to say that, sure, there are a few mistakes and that some results may have been different (it was nice though that Sean redid my and cdogg's match), but in general Sean is entertaining us for free. It's a pity for those that spent time making a good characters, but in the end this is a free service and I think we should keep this in mind and appreciate Sean's effort. Since no prize is involved, I think we should simply enjoy the show.

As a side, I don't think that all the character should be played as best as we could. E.g. mine has INT 8: I put in a lot of tactics but if Sean will decide to go for something more stupid it would be ok for me, since Giorgio is as smart as my right shoe.

cdogg, it has been a pleasure to fight with you, I hope no hard feeling is left for the way it went.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.

2d8+26+8d6
9+26+28
9+54
63

Ser Rodric Vrs Unnamed Hero Remath

Would love to have you DM a few rounds Swagger, our gauntlet should be over soon as well.


I can't open you link, I get redirected to http://paizo.com/paizo#1
What was it?

Sczarni

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

How about This Link?

PbP version of our rematch!

Cheliax

Yes, psionichamster has the right link. Thanks for that, not sure what I did wrong there. The map links next to my name do work correctly though.


Crysknife wrote:

I seem to understand that I passed the round again, even though I still had not the chance to watch the video of the rematch. Good.

Well, since I passed I think this does not bear much weight, but I just wanted to say that, sure, there are a few mistakes and that some results may have been different (it was nice though that Sean redid my and cdogg's match), but in general Sean is entertaining us for free. It's a pity for those that spent time making a good characters, but in the end this is a free service and I think we should keep this in mind and appreciate Sean's effort. Since no prize is involved, I think we should simply enjoy the show.

As a side, I don't think that all the character should be played as best as we could. E.g. mine has INT 8: I put in a lot of tactics but if Sean will decide to go for something more stupid it would be ok for me, since Giorgio is as smart as my right shoe.

cdogg, it has been a pleasure to fight with you, I hope no hard feeling is left for the way it went.

No no. Of course no hard feelings


Jarred Henninger wrote:

2d8+26+8d6

9+26+28
9+54
63

Ser Rodric Vrs Unnamed Hero Remath

Would love to have you DM a few rounds Swagger, our gauntlet should be over soon as well.

Ok. Just inbox me when you are ready to start.


Video up today. Apparently everything he did for the next round(ish) of fights is gone? But he said he'd be more than happy to take volunteer DMs. So now you guys have your chance. :P

Edit: He also mentioned that everything was gonna be delayed until next week otherwise. Curse my wilting intellect.


Ehm, any news?


Awe bummer I missed out, this sounded like it would have been a lot of fun. Though I probably would have the creators play their own characters.

Guess my level 5 cleric will have to watch from the sidelines.


I read through his Youtube videos a while back, and this is what I was able to determine:

1. He's a bit turned off by all the negative talk
2. He's busy getting his "Indiegogo" project on it's feet

He's mentioned that he's okay with giving the project to someone else. If someone steps up to the plate to finish the DMing, I'm sure he would give all the character stats to that person.


Kybryn wrote:

I read through his Youtube videos a while back, and this is what I was able to determine:

1. He's a bit turned off by all the negative talk
2. He's busy getting his "Indiegogo" project on it's feet

He's mentioned that he's okay with giving the project to someone else. If someone steps up to the plate to finish the DMing, I'm sure he would give all the character stats to that person.

A pity.

Yes, there were some wierd houserules, but I liked the way he described combats and kept the things going.
Well, I hope he will change his mind.

151 to 182 of 182 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Advice / I issue the Pathfinder community a challenge All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©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.