Forbidding players from my PFS table


Pathfinder Society

301 to 334 of 334 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
There is no magical rule that ordains higher level scenarios being functionally more difficult, seeing as how the PCs have more tools at their disposal. This guy sounds like he isn't good at blending concept with mechanical execution. Most concepts can be made at least "effective", even if they can not be made "optimal" or "elite". Effective is sufficient for nearly all PFS scenarios.

There is a jump in "deadliness" in PFS somewhere around 6th or 7th level. Of course, you also have better access to solutions to being dead, so it could be argued that it isn't actually harder, just deadlier. This is at least partly an artifact of Pathfinder itself due to the fact that while HP & Damage go up significantly with levels, the amount you can go negative before you die doesn't. Getting critted for 1.5x your HP at 1st level means you're unconscious. Getting critted for 1.5x your HP at 6th level means you're dead.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

TOZ wrote:
trollbill wrote:
"What's the point. Paizo would just kill him off again."
I submit it is not Paizo that got his character killed.

I will neither agree, nor disagree with that statement. I was simply stating what the guy said.

Personally, seeing as my character died in the same encounter, I am more inclined to blame the GM who used his ability to decide color details to make the encounter tougher by turning what looked like a 5'x5' table on the map with a few pieces of paper on it into a 10'x20' table covered with papers that couldn't have even got there without someone climbing on the table to put them there.

Shadow Lodge

Michael Brock wrote:
I think I've shown a track record of changing things that need to be changed at the behest of the player base when a solid reasoning is given.

Yes, you have. I haven't always personally agreed 100% with your decisions, but I have found your decisions have always been reasonable, and you have indeed displayed a willingness to revisit issues when presented with clear, logical reasons.

Silver Crusade 1/5

Michael Brock wrote:
Patrick F wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
Patrick F wrote:

Then if that's what you want, please modify the text to state more clearly the parameters thereof -- that other source material is limited in scope to fluff. Which means if people want to forage for food in Worldwound in a Pathfinder Society event, then the food and water will not risk being contaminated, etc. because other source material mechanics are unallowable in a Pathfinder Scenario unless expressly written therein.

Thanks for the feedback. We will consider it when we start making changes in guide 6.0. If you have suggestions on text that would clarify it for you and others, feel free to offer those up. You are the first to express confusion with this specific language in the Guide, so unless we find others with the same confusion, it is unlikely to change.

Mike, you marked as favorite BigNorseWolf's comment "I think that intent was pretty clear in what was written" along with the other comment below it. Please don't ask for my opinion on how the text should be worded if you don't intend on using it and its unlikely to change. You could have submitted your comments at any time to clarify the situation, but you decided to wait until the tonality shifted considerably in this thread before doing so.

I'd rather focus my time on the next gaming session I am running, within the new criteria you clarified accordingly.

I ask for opinions because it is how I form decisions on what is best for PFS. Just because people offer up opinions doesn't mean I'm always going to use them. But, I do consider them. I think I've shown a track record of changing things that need to be changed at the behest of the player base when a solid reasoning is given. But, if only one person, out of 65,000, has expressed confusion about one paragraph in the Guide, then it is unlikely to change. If you don't want to provide your opinion, or feel it would be a waste of time, then don't submit it. It's totally up to you.

And for the record, I did submit my comments back on page 3 of this thread. I didn't "wait until the tonality shifted considerably in this thread before doing so."

Your comments weren't directed towards the original poster's issues. I took the time to try and provide a viable solution to the dilemma at the beginning of the thread, amidst the other sarcastic and negative comments. Regardless of whether or not my interpretation of the rules needed clarification, at least I attempted to help rectify the situation at hand. I have more than adequately provided my opinion on the rules in this thread.

You've made it clear that environmental effects cannot be defined by the GM if not specified in the scenario. However, you have yet to provide practical advice to the original poster. I'm excited about the World Cup and I love Manchester United in soccer -- going to the game at the end of July against Inter Milan at FedEx Field. However, when reviewing your recent posts, your focus was on other topics.

You are correct, my experiences with Pathfinder is limited in scope to the beginning scenarios thus far, because that's what the other GMs have been running as of late. They are underpowered by nature. However, like so many others, I have run tables before and have previous experience in 3.5 and so forth.

What I wanted is a practical solution to the problem listed at the beginning of the thread other than 'deal with it'.

Advertising four slots available for earlier scenarios at a table and accommodating more if necessary is the only solution to make the scenarios more challenging as the rules currently stand.

That's the answer I was looking for. I'm not the only frustrated person in our group about this topic, but at least now a workable solution is reached.

Grand Lodge 4/5

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Wait, people had trouble with Sarkorian Prophecy?

I think it depends on the party's tactics and initiative. There is one encounter that can be deadly, if the party doesn't dogpile appropriately, or loses the initiative.

To be honest, when I was running The Devil We Know series locally, I wound up killing two PCs in Part 1, no one in Part 2 although tere were some points where the players felt the burn, and TPKed the party in Part 3.

Part 3:
The party made the mistake of basically going to the ghoul in the office, down a narrow passageway, instead of pulling him out to where it was more than a one-on-one fight. As a one-on-one, the ghoul has several advantages, including 3 attacks to most PCs' 1 at that tier, and the possibility of taking a PC out with a single hit via paralysis.

Heck, in another season 0 scenario, the BBEG had 5 out of 7 PCs and companions paralyzed. Four PCs and an eidolon were paralyzed, and the final pair of PCs were a bard and a rogue... Again, part of it was bad tactics, going to the BBEG in a small room with a 5' entrance, part of it was bad dice rolls.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
kinevon wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

My paladin only survived that thanks to a high Fort save on the CdG.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Global Organized Play Coordinator

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Patrick F wrote:

Your comments weren't directed towards the original poster's issues. I took the time to try and provide a viable solution to the dilemma at the beginning of the thread, amidst the other sarcastic and negative comments. Regardless of whether or not my interpretation of the rules needed clarification, at least I attempted to help rectify the situation at hand. I have more than adequately provided my opinion on the rules in this thread.

You've made it clear that environmental effects cannot be defined by the GM if not specified in the scenario. However, you have yet to provide practical advice to the original poster. I'm excited about the World Cup and I love Manchester United in soccer -- going to the game at the end of July against Inter Milan at FedEx Field. However, when reviewing your recent posts, your focus was on other topics.

You are correct, my experiences with Pathfinder is limited in scope to the beginning scenarios thus far, because that's what the other GMs have been running as of late. They are underpowered by nature. However, like so many others, I have run tables before and have previous experience in 3.5 and so forth.

What I wanted is a practical solution to the problem listed at the beginning of the thread other than 'deal with it'.

Advertising four slots available for earlier scenarios at a table and accommodating more if necessary is the only solution to make the scenarios more challenging as the rules currently stand.

That's the answer I was looking for. I'm not the only frustrated person in our group about this topic, but at least now a workable solution is reached.

I didn't provide advice to the OP because I'm not an expert in PTSD and can't advise him of how to handle his personal situation,so I leave others with much more experience in that topic to provide him better answers than I can. Better to not provide any information than to provide bad information that can make the situation worse.

It is good there is no more confusion and you found your practical solution. Thanks for the feedback. We will consider it when we start making changes in guide 6.0. If you have suggestions on text that would make it less frustrating for you and others, feel free to offer those up. I invite the others in your group that are also frustrated on this topic, to come post here.

I tried to send a PM to address your other points because I don't want to be argumentative on the message boards. I also discussed your problems you've advised were present with your VC, but you don't have PMs activated. I can't send any further message and I choose not to post anything further that would be construed as argumentative or might embarrass you on a public message boards. If you wish me to send an email, I can do so. Otherwise, I consider this matter at an end since you advised you found what you were looking for.

Silver Crusade 4/5 5/55/55/5 RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Finlanderboy wrote:

I play and DMed a lot of 4 and 5. I still want it more difficult...

The answer I see best fitting MORE HARD MODES!!!

I would really appreciate seeing this option used more.

If you want more challenge my advice is to play less optimized (heck, even deliberately unoptimized) characters. IMO increasing the difficulty of scenarios past the current point would cause a lot of collateral damage to people who think that the current level of difficulty is just fine (or even too much).

Put another way: if you think that the campaign isn't challenging enough it is a lot easier for you to adjust your characters to make it more challenging for just you than it is for the campaign to adjust its difficulty to make it more difficult for everybody.


Michael Eshleman wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:

I play and DMed a lot of 4 and 5. I still want it more difficult...

The answer I see best fitting MORE HARD MODES!!!

I would really appreciate seeing this option used more.

If you want more challenge my advice is to play less optimized (heck, even deliberately unoptimized) characters. IMO increasing the difficulty of scenarios past the current point would cause a lot of collateral damage to people who think that the current level of difficulty is just fine (or even too much).

Put another way: if you think that the campaign isn't challenging enough it is a lot easier for you to adjust your characters to make it more challenging for just you than it is for the campaign to adjust its difficulty to make it more difficult for everybody.

This works for some. Others find building optimized characters to be part of the challenge (Does my cool build idea actually perform against a real challenge?) and would be frustrated by deliberately building down.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

thejeff wrote:
Michael Eshleman wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:

I play and DMed a lot of 4 and 5. I still want it more difficult...

The answer I see best fitting MORE HARD MODES!!!

I would really appreciate seeing this option used more.

If you want more challenge my advice is to play less optimized (heck, even deliberately unoptimized) characters. IMO increasing the difficulty of scenarios past the current point would cause a lot of collateral damage to people who think that the current level of difficulty is just fine (or even too much).

Put another way: if you think that the campaign isn't challenging enough it is a lot easier for you to adjust your characters to make it more challenging for just you than it is for the campaign to adjust its difficulty to make it more difficult for everybody.

This works for some. Others find building optimized characters to be part of the challenge (Does my cool build idea actually perform against a real challenge?) and would be frustrated by deliberately building down.

It's not like PFS is completely ignoring these players. The Bonekeep series was specifically designed for players to test their mad gamer skilz.


Another issue with building down is the fact that it really HAS to be a group thing, sure you might think hey I'll make this more challenging by building down and everyone will love that.

You get to table and it becomes quickly apparent that everyone else has either optimised or is at least highly competent and you either:
a) quickly begin to feel sidelined or
b) actually get comments about how ineffective you are

I'm not saying everyone should be optimised by any means, but everyones idea of where the "line" is in regards to useless-competent-optimised is different.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

CathalFM wrote:

Another issue with building down is the fact that it really HAS to be a group thing, sure you might think hey I'll make this more challenging by building down and everyone will love that.

You get to table and it becomes quickly apparent that everyone else has either optimised or is at least highly competent and you either:
a) quickly begin to feel sidelined or
b) actually get comments about how ineffective you are

I'm not saying everyone should be optimised by any means, but everyones idea of where the "line" is in regards to useless-competent-optimised is different.

I may be reading into this too much (it is fairly early), so disregard this if I'm interpreting what you're saying incorrectly.

I believe that this is where the GM/organizer/VO needs to step in and say something to whoever is making these comments. It's not proper or tactful for another person at the table to pass judgement about how useful PCs are to the party.

If there are comments that talk about possible improvements people could make, or good spells to select, etc—that's one thing. That's sharing knowledge of system mastery and it's how we all get better at this game. But to tell players that their PCs are essentially worthless in any sort of serious context is a large breach of etiquette. It's just rude.

Silver Crusade 3/5

Michael Eshleman wrote:

If you want more challenge my advice is to play less optimized (heck, even deliberately unoptimized) characters. IMO increasing the difficulty of scenarios past the current point would cause a lot of collateral damage to people who think that the current level of difficulty is just fine (or even too much).

Put another way: if you think that the campaign isn't challenging enough it is a lot easier for you to adjust your characters to make it more challenging for just you than it is for the campaign to adjust its difficulty to make it more difficult for everybody.

This is exactly why I have Wizard (Arcane Bomber), Cavalier(Huntmaster), and my newest challenge Samurai (Sword Saint)/Monk AC build with a 8 Con. I just want to see how long the Samurai lives.

walter Sheppard wrote:
If there are comments that talk about possible improvements people could make, or good spells to select, etc—that's one thing. That's sharing knowledge of system mastery and it's how we all get better at this game. But to tell players that their PCs are essentially worthless in any sort of serious context is a large breach of etiquette. It's just rude.

If no one tells them at level one there character will not work. How are they going to know? They will end up at level 6+ with out the ability to function. As the player wanted it to. This is just a hard fact about how pathfinder works. Without knowledge of the system it is very easy to make bad characters. They work well at low level. However they don't function at higher level. It is best to let new players know early they might want to change there character a bit before it's to late. They take the advice and make a bit better character that will work. They don't take the advice and end up playing a character to where there is no saving it. Then are forced to start a new character that can function. The net result is the same.

walter Sheppard wrote:
It's not proper or tactful for another person at the table to pass judgment about how useful PCs are to the party.

We are human it's just going to happen. If we say nothing or say something. We pass judgments on people all the time.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Walter Sheppard wrote:
CathalFM wrote:

Another issue with building down is the fact that it really HAS to be a group thing, sure you might think hey I'll make this more challenging by building down and everyone will love that.

You get to table and it becomes quickly apparent that everyone else has either optimised or is at least highly competent and you either:
a) quickly begin to feel sidelined or
b) actually get comments about how ineffective you are

I'm not saying everyone should be optimised by any means, but everyones idea of where the "line" is in regards to useless-competent-optimised is different.

I may be reading into this too much (it is fairly early), so disregard this if I'm interpreting what you're saying incorrectly.

I believe that this is where the GM/organizer/VO needs to step in and say something to whoever is making these comments. It's not proper or tactful for another person at the table to pass judgement about how useful PCs are to the party.

If there are comments that talk about possible improvements people could make, or good spells to select, etc—that's one thing. That's sharing knowledge of system mastery and it's how we all get better at this game. But to tell players that their PCs are essentially worthless in any sort of serious context is a large breach of etiquette. It's just rude.

"the GM/organizer/VO needs to step in and say something to whoever is making these comments."

Bah!, the other players need to step in and say something tactful, like "stop being rude dude."


Walter I meant it more in a neutral sense, yes I can also see cases where people will basically be jerks about it and the GM should step in, but as Calagnar says there will be just as many cases where the players may be just trying to help you and not realise, or they may be saying something as a (genuine) joke in characer, you know:

"Ha, don't be so confident, you probably should have used your good spell for that guy"

"ehm, squirm, that was my best spell"

"Oh, eh, good shot man, yeah, I was just kidding"

Its not always gonna be a case of anyone trying to hurt someones feelings it could be genuine innocent comments which may make you feel bad.

I do wholeheartedly agree with GMs stepping in for Jerks though "Rocks fall, only the jerk dies"

The Exchange 5/5

calagnar wrote:
Michael Eshleman wrote:

If you want more challenge my advice is to play less optimized (heck, even deliberately unoptimized) characters. IMO increasing the difficulty of scenarios past the current point would cause a lot of collateral damage to people who think that the current level of difficulty is just fine (or even too much).

Put another way: if you think that the campaign isn't challenging enough it is a lot easier for you to adjust your characters to make it more challenging for just you than it is for the campaign to adjust its difficulty to make it more difficult for everybody.

This is exactly why I have Wizard (Arcane Bomber), Cavalier(Huntmaster), and my newest challenge Samurai (Sword Saint)/Monk AC build with a 8 Con. I just want to see how long the Samurai lives.

walter Sheppard wrote:
If there are comments that talk about possible improvements people could make, or good spells to select, etc—that's one thing. That's sharing knowledge of system mastery and it's how we all get better at this game. But to tell players that their PCs are essentially worthless in any sort of serious context is a large breach of etiquette. It's just rude.

If no one tells them at level one there character will not work. How are they going to know? They will end up at level 6+ with out the ability to function. As the player wanted it to. This is just a hard fact about how pathfinder works. Without knowledge of the system it is very easy to make bad characters. They work well at low level. However they don't function at higher level. It is best to let new players know early they might want to change there character a bit before it's to late. They take the advice and make a bit better character that will work. They don't take the advice and end up playing a character to where there is no saving it. Then are forced to start a new character that can function. The net result is the same.

walter Sheppard wrote:
It's not proper or tactful for another person at the table to pass
...

Having been on the receiving end of lots of advice - there is good ways to give it and bad ways.

Being told that "your build sucks" is not one of the better ones.

Having been repeatedly told that "a PFS character HAS to have a CON of at least 14, or you're just playing dumb"... I can relate to this. Having to repeated justify my PC builds to players who weren't boon when I started playing RPGs...

Constructive advice is one thing. Passing judgement, and then being vocal about it in the game? That's just rude.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
calagnar wrote:


If no one tells them at level one there character will not work. How are they going to know? They will end up at level 6+ with out the ability to function. As the player wanted it to. This is just a hard fact about how pathfinder works. Without knowledge of the system it is very easy to make bad characters. They work well at low level. However they don't function at higher level. It is best to let new players know early they might want to change there character a bit before it's to late. They take the advice and make a bit better character that will work. They don't take the advice and end up playing a character to where there is no saving it. Then are forced to start a new character that can function. The net result is the same.

walter Sheppard wrote:
It's not proper or tactful for another person at the table to pass judgment about how useful PCs are to the party.
We are human it's just going to happen. If we say nothing or say something. We pass judgments on people all the time.

There's a difference, as nosig mentions, between being told a build is bad and being shown how to make it better. I was talking more about the "you have a bad character" approach to delivering this information, and how that is unacceptable.

Also, I think that the argument of "well, it's human to pass judgement," limits what we're capable of, as we end up relying on it as a crutch to explain away anything we want. We should strive to be better than we are currently, both with our understanding of Pathfinder and ourselves as people. Otherwise, we stagnate and never improve.

I judge people too, but I try and keep it to myself and be polite. And whenever I do it, I try to catch myself and ask why rather than assume about people. Then again, I'm basically a PFS hippy.

"Oh yeah, a charisma based dwarf and a halfling barbarian? Sit down at my table!"

5/5

Walter Sheppard wrote:

"Oh yeah, a charisma based dwarf and a halfling barbarian? Sit down at my table!"

What about a goblin barbarian? 14 STR FTW

3/5

Walter Sheppard wrote:
"Oh yeah, a charisma based dwarf and a halfling barbarian? Sit down at my table!"

Yep, I remember the eyerolls I'd get when my character would deal 1d4+1d6-2 damage in melee. She even critted for 1 damage on multiple occasions!

I did experience CathalFM's sidelining effect too often for comfort, though. I guess that's what I get for being willing to dial it back. The PFS equilibrium converges on the overpowered.

-Matt

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

Kyle Baird wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:

"Oh yeah, a charisma based dwarf and a halfling barbarian? Sit down at my table!"

What about a goblin barbarian? 14 STR FTW

I expect to see that goblin barbarian at my table at Gencon this year!

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
Michael Eshleman wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:

I play and DMed a lot of 4 and 5. I still want it more difficult...

The answer I see best fitting MORE HARD MODES!!!

I would really appreciate seeing this option used more.

If you want more challenge my advice is to play less optimized (heck, even deliberately unoptimized) characters. IMO increasing the difficulty of scenarios past the current point would cause a lot of collateral damage to people who think that the current level of difficulty is just fine (or even too much).

Put another way: if you think that the campaign isn't challenging enough it is a lot easier for you to adjust your characters to make it more challenging for just you than it is for the campaign to adjust its difficulty to make it more difficult for everybody.

This works for some. Others find building optimized characters to be part of the challenge (Does my cool build idea actually perform against a real challenge?) and would be frustrated by deliberately building down.

I agree - part of what I enjoy about Pathfinder is building my character - seeing him grow and become awesome.

However - before I'm lynched - I don't build characters who do 80 damage a swing. Instead - I like to build oddball characters well, often support characters so as not to be 'that guy', as even my oddball characters are above the PFS average power level.

Once in late 3.5 I even built a blind character. Not one of those homebew 'blind but gets blindsight 30 feet' characters. The only thing my DM gave me was Listen as a permanent class skill. (Though of note - I did have blindsight 5' due to the combat focus tree - which is what inspired the character.)


Mattastrophic wrote:
I did experience CathalFM's sidelining effect too often for comfort, though.

Finally, something is named after me. And it's a negative effect to boot.

*wipes tear from eye*

I'm just so happy!

Scarab Sages

Walter Sheppard wrote:

"Oh yeah, a charisma based dwarf and a halfling barbarian? Sit down at my table!"

*sits down* you asked for a halfling barbarian? Have greatsword will rage for gold.

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Eshleman wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:

I play and DMed a lot of 4 and 5. I still want it more difficult...

The answer I see best fitting MORE HARD MODES!!!

I would really appreciate seeing this option used more.

If you want more challenge my advice is to play less optimized (heck, even deliberately unoptimized) characters. IMO increasing the difficulty of scenarios past the current point would cause a lot of collateral damage to people who think that the current level of difficulty is just fine (or even too much).

Put another way: if you think that the campaign isn't challenging enough it is a lot easier for you to adjust your characters to make it more challenging for just you than it is for the campaign to adjust its difficulty to make it more difficult for everybody.

I want to play the best wizard in golarian going up against the worst it has to offer. Not to the so-so wizard doing a so-so challenge. I appreciate the epicness. I appreciate the strategy of making a character for the worst that could happen. That is how I enjoy the threat level of the game best.

I understand others do not want what I want, and I think hard mode is a great compromise. When I am in a scenario with not uber-powered characters I make excuses to nerf my characters. With my blaster wizard I ready actions until after my teammates so I do not end the fight in one spell. One reason I would suggest not to do what you suggest is when you come with a party of completely un-optimized players you can not protect them or yourself if things get out of hand.

Silver Crusade 1/5

Michael Brock wrote:

I didn't provide advice to the OP because I'm not an expert in PTSD and can't advise him of how to handle his personal situation, so I leave others with much more experience in that topic to provide him better answers than I can. Better to not provide any information than to provide bad information that can make the situation worse.

It is good there is no more confusion and you found your practical solution. Thanks for the feedback. We will consider it when we start making changes in guide 6.0. If you have suggestions on text that would make it less frustrating for you and others, feel free to offer those up. I invite the others in your group that are also frustrated on this topic, to come post here.

I tried to send a PM to address your other points because I don't want to be argumentative on the message boards. I also discussed your problems you've advised were present with your VC, but you don't have PMs activated. I can't send any further message and I choose not to post anything further that would be construed as argumentative or might embarrass you on a public message boards. If you wish me to send an email, I can do so. Otherwise, I consider this matter at an end since you advised you found what you were looking for.

I wasn't aware that my private messages were turned off. They are enabled. You are more than welcome to contact me anytime Mike. I have an open door policy.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

Kyle Baird wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:

"Oh yeah, a charisma based dwarf and a halfling barbarian? Sit down at my table!"

What about a goblin barbarian? 14 STR FTW

Kyle, have you been peeking at my gnome barbarian's character sheet?

(well he started at 14 str. At 8th level he is up to 18 with the help of a belt... And yet people keep telling me he is broken and ovewrpowered. Go figure :) )

5/5

FLite wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:

"Oh yeah, a charisma based dwarf and a halfling barbarian? Sit down at my table!"

What about a goblin barbarian? 14 STR FTW

Kyle, have you been peeking at my gnome barbarian's character sheet?

(well he started at 14 str. At 8th level he is up to 18 with the help of a belt... And yet people keep telling me he is broken and ovewrpowered. Go figure :) )

Garble's 8th level and still has a 14 strength. His prestige (or rather lack there of) has made it difficult to buy effective equipment. At least he has his royal's outfit and small animal cage.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
FLite wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:

"Oh yeah, a charisma based dwarf and a halfling barbarian? Sit down at my table!"

What about a goblin barbarian? 14 STR FTW

Kyle, have you been peeking at my gnome barbarian's character sheet?

(well he started at 14 str. At 8th level he is up to 18 with the help of a belt... And yet people keep telling me he is broken and ovewrpowered. Go figure :) )

Garble's 8th level and still has a 14 strength. His prestige (or rather lack there of) has made it difficult to buy effective equipment. At least he has his royal's outfit and small animal cage.

I assume most of the prestige that he does have was an accident?

5/5

Jeff Merola wrote:
I assume most of the prestige that he does have was an accident?

Not most.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Kyle Baird wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
I assume most of the prestige that he does have was an accident?
Not most.

All?

5/5

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
I assume most of the prestige that he does have was an accident?
Not most.
All?

Wise you are.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I played 2 games as Garble's cage keeper.

I'm still amazed we got full PP.

4/5 *

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Sammy T wrote:

I played 2 games as Garble's cage keeper.

I'm still amazed we got full PP.

I've found it helps to shove Garble into a bag of holding. Preferably with something shiny and without something sharp.

301 to 334 of 334 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Forbidding players from my PFS table All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society