Who do I complain to?


Pathfinder Society

51 to 89 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 2/5 *

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gisher wrote:

I think that it is often difficult to join a group of people who have played together for a long time. When people have spent a lot of time together they inevitably create protocols for the game and set boundaries on personal behavior, but these are normally unspoken rules which are created through a complicated process of signalling that takes place over many small conflicts.

For a new person, the awareness that everyone else has this shared experience can be alienating. The feeling that you are lost and/or being judged isn't usually a pleasant one.

And for those already in the group, the presence of an outsider can feel uncomfortable and even a bit threatening. A new person can shift the balance of power established over those long hours of shared experiences, and sometimes their judgement can make previously established boundaries seem inadequate.

It can take a lot of hard work and empathy on both sides to make these experiences pleasant for all. And sometime even that fails.

Which is all fine and normal in a private group; but in an open-to-the-public PFS game in a games store?

5/5 5/55/55/5

Darrell Impey UK wrote:


Which is all fine and normal in a private group; but in an open-to-the-public PFS game in a games store?

Yes. Being in public is going to limit it a little, but the people around the table are generally what set the tone, especially if its just you and the magic players in there.

Dark Archive **

Having seen both sides presented, I think what happened is a longstanding group's in-jokes clashed with a new player's expectation of PFS play. It's something to be mindful of when it comes to a public facing game. When I GM as a VA, I try to put the kibosh on it because I don't want to create a false impression. When I GM side events not geared for public consumption, be as silly as you want as long as we are following the rules and you are making an effort toward completing the scenario.

1/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Randy Saxon wrote:
Having seen both sides presented, I think what happened is a longstanding group's in-jokes clashed with a new player's expectation of PFS play. It's something to be mindful of when it comes to a public facing game. When I GM as a VA, I try to put the kibosh on it because I don't want to create a false impression. When I GM side events not geared for public consumption, be as silly as you want as long as we are following the rules and you are making an effort toward completing the scenario.

Not everyone has had the life experiences to understand the nuances of a public environment versus a private one in terms of gaming, and if there are excesses in any of a number of directions, it's good to discover areas where one can shore up their GM'ing and playing styles, and also build the community as a result.

If the original poster came away with the originally posted impression, then there's probably some work that could be done to make things work better.

However, being outside of the picture this is at best speculation. I hope it resolves well for all parties, and that there are no hard feelings or ostracism for someone raising a concern. That would have a crippling effect on building a community.

Silver Crusade 4/5 Co-Owner - Games +1

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Aaron There's a great store that does a lot of PFS in Davenport Iowa. It's about 40 miles away. You should give them a try. The run games each week and have some great GM's there. It's name is Games +1. Call ask for Dave.

Dark Archive 1/5

Just wanted to say, as the "animated backpack" that I was not literally a backpack. My character is a small gnome with a 5 strength, while in armor I literally have to be carried like a sack, and my first magic items were bags of holding. I would however like to apologize and both explain myself. I am terribly sorry if I offended anyone at the table as that was not my intent by claiming the inn keepers wanted to capture us and bring us there, secret place. However, for the women stabbing us repeatedly, it was quite literally their end goal to bring us back to their underground dungeon that we had just found. These same women were as well the second combat following minutes after a rather fierce battle with a river drake, they were less fierce not having a strength score high enough to do lethal damage. So I will apologize as a healer and another player, making the game less fun for others is the opposite of my goal. Sorry for being long-winded but I felt at least the right to explain where I, as the offender was coming from.
But I am a little excited that I am currently the highest result for pathfinder animated backback as i was actually trying to find a way to animate my bag of holding.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How were you able to make the concentration checks for casting spells while mounted in a backpack. How on earth were you able to put on armor if you're not strong enough to walk in it. Can you even cast spells wearing too heavy armor riding around in a backpack.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

Yeah, I have to admit that I share captain yesterday's questions. Indeed, while I know it's legal under the rules, I am also a little bit irked when I see somebody with a 5 strength. (Or, really, a 5 in any stat.)

As GM, once, I came across a guy who was playing a halfling swashbuckler with 5 strength. Now, I'm usually not a stickler for encumbrance, as long as it's not extreme. However, while min-maxing is a viable way of making characters that many people accept, too often people who do that do it in such a way that they don't pay the penalties that even their character would have to pay for the dump stats. (Dump charisma to 5? Nobody wants to be around you. Dump wisdom to 5? You should be doing stupid stuff all game long. Dump intelligence to 5? Bow out of any tactics or puzzle descriptions. Etc.)

So, when I see a martial character with a strength of 5, that's when I start to really pay attention to encumbrance -- especially since swashbucklers depend on being mobile. The guy wanted to come in with no clothes. Now, yes, I really wish the rules allowed us one outfit to not count towards encumbrance, but that's not how the rules are. So I told this guy he was going to have fiddly bits hanging out given his character as written. Also, when he had *any* gear other than his armor and weapon, he was encumbered, which not only slowed him down, but would also make a lot of swashbuckler stuff not work. He eventually said he would just drop most of his stuff at the beginning of combat.

My point is, though, that you're probably verging on the edge of cheating if your dump stat is that extreme, and you haven't been really careful about what the consequences of that are. Hell, my halfling and gnome arcane types often will bump their strength to 9 for purposes of carrying capacity, and my Str 10-12 characters are often struggling with being able to carry what they want. This is a serious constraint.

If your character is to the point that he *has* to be carried around, then you are already at the point of having built a character build that is likely to be irritating and annoying, for other players and for the GM. If you don't then think about all of the questions Captain Yesterday asked, and a bunch of others, then you're not really following the rules. This is by itself, regardless of whatever shenanigans at the table annoy new players, a borderline (or past the borderline) disruptive build.

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:
Yeah, I have to admit that I share captain yesterday's questions. Indeed, while I know it's legal under the rules, I am also a little bit irked when I see somebody with a 5 strength. (Or, really, a 5 in any stat.).

pbththththths....

There's a reason my kitsune don't wear pants.
(and have muscle of the society as a trait)

1/5 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
rknop wrote:
Yeah, I have to admit that I share captain yesterday's questions. Indeed, while I know it's legal under the rules, I am also a little bit irked when I see somebody with a 5 strength. (Or, really, a 5 in any stat.).

pbththththths....

There's a reason my kitsune don't wear pants.
(and have muscle of the society as a trait)

It's pantsless o'clock somewhere?

Silver Crusade 4/5

Yeah, my halfling dex based melee PC still has a 10 str, for the sake of carrying capacity. I don't track all the details too closely, but I wanted to be able to wear a mithral chain shirt, carry my primary weapon and 2 or 3 backups, and a handy haversack, while still being light encumbered.

I've never dumped any stat as low as 5. I do have a fighter with 6 charisma, but I play it up appropriately, and he's smart enough to stand in the back, shut up, and "let the pretty boys do the talking" if a social situation is important to the mission.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Before we start dropping sensitive words like "cheating" directed at some one we just met and who gave us a mere couple of sentences regarding what is certainly an extremely unusual character, let's take a moment. The venue and players involved in this issue have immediate supervision from a Venture-Offericer and the RVC is aware of the reported incident. I think it in everyone's best interest to let them do their job and evaluate the claims and perform any necessary character audits. It's almost never helpful for us to speculate on things like possible cheating based on the incomplete information we see in a forum thread.


I was merely curious how it worked mechanically.

No one has said anything about cheating.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East

Well, he said it's a cleric, so it can cast fine. Concentration checks for movement may be a problem, but it's standard motion not vigorous. He had to put the points from strength into something, so probably high wisdom. Proficiency with heavy armor isn't required to put it on, you just take the armor check penalty on a lot more things.

The problem actually comes from the riding rules. Other characters in humanoid form are not valid mounts. For one thing, it messes up initiative. So technically you can not be carried around in combat this way.

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

captain yesterday wrote:
How were you able to make the concentration checks for casting spells while mounted in a backpack. How on earth were you able to put on armor if you're not strong enough to walk in it. Can you even cast spells wearing too heavy armor riding around in a backpack.

Not being the player in question.

He didn't say "Worn in a backpack" he said "Carried like a backpack" That implies (to me) the other character wears a backpack saddle, and he makes ride checks.

If the other character is double moving, that means Concentration check of 10+spell level. That should be pretty trivial past ~5th level. Otherwise that is no problem.

You can lift far more weight than you can carry, and even with that, I am sure the rest of the party can help him don and doff armor.

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

James Anderson wrote:

Well, he said it's a cleric, so it can cast fine. Concentration checks for movement may be a problem, but it's standard motion not vigorous. He had to put the points from strength into something, so probably high wisdom. Proficiency with heavy armor isn't required to put it on, you just take the armor check penalty on a lot more things.

The problem actually comes from the riding rules. Other characters in humanoid form are not valid mounts. For one thing, it messes up initiative. So technically you can not be carried around in combat this way.

Actually, other character's *are* valid mounts (This has been hashed out ad nauseum in the rules forum.) But you do take the +5 DC to all your ride checks. But yse, the mount goes on the rider's initiative, and if the rider is wearing non proficient heavy armor, you *and* your mount are probably going on initiative -5 or so. Which may hurt some characters very badly.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Jared Thaler wrote:
James Anderson wrote:

Well, he said it's a cleric, so it can cast fine. Concentration checks for movement may be a problem, but it's standard motion not vigorous. He had to put the points from strength into something, so probably high wisdom. Proficiency with heavy armor isn't required to put it on, you just take the armor check penalty on a lot more things.

The problem actually comes from the riding rules. Other characters in humanoid form are not valid mounts. For one thing, it messes up initiative. So technically you can not be carried around in combat this way.

Actually, other character's *are* valid mounts (This has been hashed out ad nauseum in the rules forum.) But you do take the +5 DC to all your ride checks. But yse, the mount goes on the rider's initiative, and if the rider is wearing non proficient heavy armor, you *and* your mount are probably going on initiative -5 or so. Which may hurt some characters very badly.

]

If you're using a sentient character as a mount you've strayed into the "the dm is gonna have to make a call on this" territory because you are way past the normal rules.

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

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jared Thaler wrote:
James Anderson wrote:

Well, he said it's a cleric, so it can cast fine. Concentration checks for movement may be a problem, but it's standard motion not vigorous. He had to put the points from strength into something, so probably high wisdom. Proficiency with heavy armor isn't required to put it on, you just take the armor check penalty on a lot more things.

The problem actually comes from the riding rules. Other characters in humanoid form are not valid mounts. For one thing, it messes up initiative. So technically you can not be carried around in combat this way.

Actually, other character's *are* valid mounts (This has been hashed out ad nauseum in the rules forum.) But you do take the +5 DC to all your ride checks. But yse, the mount goes on the rider's initiative, and if the rider is wearing non proficient heavy armor, you *and* your mount are probably going on initiative -5 or so. Which may hurt some characters very badly.

]

If you're using a sentient character as a mount you've strayed into the "the dm is gonna have to make a call on this" territory because you are way past the normal rules.

So how is the eidolon evolution "Mount" supposed to work then? I mean, it is clearly sentient? And it is clearly intended to be riden by the rules.


Jared Thaler wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
How were you able to make the concentration checks for casting spells while mounted in a backpack. How on earth were you able to put on armor if you're not strong enough to walk in it. Can you even cast spells wearing too heavy armor riding around in a backpack.

Not being the player in question.

He didn't say "Worn in a backpack" he said "Carried like a backpack" That implies (to me) the other character wears a backpack saddle, and he makes ride checks.

If the other character is double moving, that means Concentration check of 10+spell level. That should be pretty trivial past ~5th level. Otherwise that is no problem.

You can lift far more weight than you can carry, and even with that, I am sure the rest of the party can help him don and doff armor.

Thanks! Great answers.

For the record, I approve of the whole using other people as mounts thingy.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Jared Thaler wrote:


So how is the eidolon evolution "Mount" supposed to work then? I mean, it is clearly sentient? And it is clearly intended to be riden by the rules.

Oddly.

But I don't think you want my bat druid pumping his initiative up to +20 and then sitting on someone's head to speed them up.

Its definitely something you can use but it's an exploitable gray area of the rules open to abuse. At some point the DM can say "oh hell no" and the player may have gone past their own personal poiint for that, but it is the DM's call.

5/5 5/55/55/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:


For the record, I approve of the whole using other people as mounts thingy.

This message brought to you by the darkarchives. And viewers Like you

but mostly the dark archives

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/5

Hi! I'm Diggery! I'm a gnome, too! Once, when I was out on a mission, I got frustrated by my tiny little legs and not being able to keep pace with my larger friends. But then, I had a flash of inspiration! I borrowed my buddy's backpack, dumped everything out on the ground, cut off the top flap and cut some leg holes in the bottom. Voila! A gnome pack! I climbed in and my best buddy strapped me to his back and carried me into battle! Our somber cleric of Zon-Kuthon didn't like this tactic one bit and asked that I never do it again. He also said if he were running the mission, he simply wouldn't allow it. So I never did it again. I guess the point of my story is that, as gnomes, it's in our nature to be carried around in backpacks.

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

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jared Thaler wrote:


So how is the eidolon evolution "Mount" supposed to work then? I mean, it is clearly sentient? And it is clearly intended to be riden by the rules.

Oddly.

But I don't think you want my bat druid pumping his initiative up to +20 and then sitting on someone's head to speed them up.

Its definitely something you can use but it's an exploitable gray area of the rules open to abuse. At some point the DM can say "oh hell no" and the player may have gone past their own personal poiint for that, but it is the DM's call.

I'm not sure it is that much more abusable than a druid pumping their initiative to +20 and then riding a pouncebeast animal companion.

We do have a PC here who specializes in riding other PCs. With the other player's permission, he will help them by using "Spur Mount" (Trade 1d3 damage for +10 movement for one round...)

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.

For the record, I still want to see a party of seven dwarves, all with undersized mount and escape route. Bonus points if the top one has a really big trench coat. Extra bonus points if the scenario has a caster with "Create pit."

Now *that* would be past the normal rules!


If they don't let characters make their own potions, they are not going to allow backpacks with an attitude.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jared Thaler wrote:


We do have a PC here who specializes in riding other PCs. With the other player's permission, he will help them by using "Spur Mount" (Trade 1d3 damage for +10 movement for one round...)

For me, that would fall into the "Not at my table unless you can quickly bring clear and explicit proof that it is legal" category.

I allow characters to carry other characters when reasonable but I'm not going to allow something like that which seems very, very, very cheesy to me.

1/5

I played with Backpack (the Halfling Cleric) at our convention in Davenport, IA, back in April. It was my first game in PFS, and Backpack was well behaved on that occasion. There was a teen girl player for our group. There no sexual innuendo or worse, and we were assisting with a prison breakout, so things could have gotten dicey had people not behaved. On the other hand, there were no women among either the prisoners nor among our enemies so far as I recall.

I recall that Backpack was able to get around with only a 5 strength because another character was able to carry him, but only when needed. He either already had a bag of holding or such for gear, or mentioned that was going to get that as his first/next item. I don't recall that he had any armor or weapons.

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

Paul Jackson wrote:
Jared Thaler wrote:


We do have a PC here who specializes in riding other PCs. With the other player's permission, he will help them by using "Spur Mount" (Trade 1d3 damage for +10 movement for one round...)

For me, that would fall into the "Not at my table unless you can quickly bring clear and explicit proof that it is legal" category.

I allow characters to carry other characters when reasonable but I'm not going to allow something like that which seems very, very, very cheesy to me.

Rules proof:

Can you ride sentient creatures? Yes, see paladins mounts and eidolons both explicitly sentient, both explicitly rideable.

Can you use ride skill on a willing sentient creature? Yes, the ride skill even calls out using it on pegasai (Int 10 magical beast.)

Can you use spur mount? Sure. You use your move action and a DC20 (Penalty for not a creature that is "ill suited") check to give your mount more move, so there is a cost. And per the recent FAQs, anything that prevents the damage prevents the benefit.

What happens when the PC you are riding decides to go somewhere you don't want to go? GM gets to use his judgement.

What is your rules based objection to prohibiting it?

((This really has been hashed out in the rules forum many, many times. It really is kosher and legal. It is also really funny when someone tries this and there are pit traps.))

Dark Archive 4/5

As the RVC in question for the region, I just wanted to let people know that it's being handled by local VOs in private and that at this point, I'm considering the forum portion of this matter closed. If staff wants to lock it, that's fine, if not, no worries, but I probably won't be following the discussion any further :P

I do sort of regret that the GMs post got deleted, as I had thought it was polite and had started to address the matter. Oh well!

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jared Thaler wrote:


((This really has been hashed out in the rules forum many, many times. It really is kosher and legal. It is also really funny when someone tries this and there are pit traps.))

Or when an elemental decides to play 'tether-gnome' with the rider...

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

Jared Thaler wrote:

Rules proof:
...

What is your rules based objection to prohibiting it?

((This really has been hashed out in the rules forum many, many times. It really is kosher and legal. It is also really funny when someone tries this and there are pit traps.))

Off the top of my head:

PCs explicitly follow different rules than NPCs. For example, PCs can't make skill checks against each other. The ride rules assume one character is in control of the other. There is no mechanic on what to do if the rider and ridden disagree.

If I allow this what do I do when the PC wants to ride an enemy?

You spring that at the table and my answer is no.

Consensus in the rules forums, even if it exists, isn't particularly compelling to me.

I freely admit that my immediate reaction is influenced by how incredibly hosey this combination could be, especially with a pair of players playing together regularly. The likelihood of my allowing sonething in a rules grey area is strongly influenced by how cheesy the thing being tried is.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jared Thaler wrote:
This really has been hashed out in the rules forum many, many times. It really is kosher and legal.

I'm really not all that interested in this conversation since I find it ridiculous, but I've seen comments similar to this recently and I will ask if Paizo actually commented on the legality of said conversations? Just because something has been "hashed out in the rules forum" does not make it cannon. The opinions of players, even the most insistent and prolific in the forums does not necessarily mean what they "decide" is official anything. Perhaps you could link some sources for those who's search-fu is not that great.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Table variation. Expect it.

Don't expect to ride the table though.

Silver Crusade 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Table variation. Expect it.

Don't expect to ride the table though.

*Wipes single tear from eye and climbs down off of the table.*

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

Paul Jackson wrote:


If I allow this what do I do when the PC wants to ride an enemy?

What do you do when the PC tries to ride a wild wolf that is attacking the party?

As you said, there are no rules for what happens when the mount and rider disagree. The ride rules assume they are working together. If the PCs start disagreeing on where they are going, they get no benefit from the ride skill.

I am not seeing any rules based reason anyone is giving for why this doesn't work, other than "I don't like it, so you can't do it."

Having seen this in action at many tables, I have yet to see anyone do anything terribly game breaky with it.

4/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

... except that a PC can min-max their abilities and have a 5 Str. Come on, this is why the synthesist summoner was banned.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

GM Lamplighter wrote:
Come on, this is why the synthesist summoner was banned.

I thought it was banned because it was not thematically appropriate to Golarion. Jesting aside, my sythesist wasn't min/maxed to high hell and the rebuild was worse than the original.

This topic aside, the idea of a gnome riding a human is hardly unique or novel at this point. I personally know well two people who have had this "idea", and it's one that drives me batty every time I hear it. Even if it were allowed, it's going to require more than just a backpack to pull it off (custom exotic saddle comes to mind), but I'm going to have to board the "expect table variance" train on this puppy.

Shadow Lodge *

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Jared Thaler wrote:
Paul Jackson wrote:


If I allow this what do I do when the PC wants to ride an enemy?

What do you do when the PC tries to ride a wild wolf that is attacking the party?

As you said, there are no rules for what happens when the mount and rider disagree. The ride rules assume they are working together. If the PCs start disagreeing on where they are going, they get no benefit from the ride skill.

I am not seeing any rules based reason anyone is giving for why this doesn't work, other than "I don't like it, so you can't do it."

Having seen this in action at many tables, I have yet to see anyone do anything terribly game breaky with it.

In that case I start scrutinizing the rules for Handle Animal.

I'm not an expert on these rules, but I would expect Ride to have to do with not falling off your mount and communicating your intentions to the mount, and Handle Animal to actually convincing an unwilling animal to follow those intentions.

EDIT: Similarly, If I were riding a PC that was outfitted with the appropriate harness and tack, I would allow a Ride check to nonverbally communicate to it what I wanted him to do -- but the PC would be in complete control of what it actually did.

Community & Digital Content Director

Ack! I thought I had locked this. Folks, let's take the resulting tangents to other threads please!

51 to 89 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Who do I complain to? All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society