+2 DRaino's page

I've known my item was good since I hit the submit button. I believe in myself, but honestly don't know if I am a muscle car (superstar) or a dependable sedan. At this point, there is definitely excitement and hope for my item.

But more importantly, I think I might flip out and rant for hours if my favorite picks don't make it and some lame ones that I saw do instead. The certainty of my own worth is established, but [expletive], if those folks who made the stuff that I love don't win, how will they ever know they are awesome?!

I'm sure they know, but I think my point makes sense anyway.

A personal favorite and often overlooked tactic of mine is the delay initiative action. Players in general tend to have a desire to rush into combat to get there first and do all the damage. In PFS, this escalates into almost a player against player race to the combat. But if you are fighting melee foes, and you wait for them to approach you, you have the advantage. Maybe it is indicative of something that so many enemies have a single salvo of ranged attacks or round of buffs at their disposal. Maybe its a good idea not to be there first to get beat on by the enemy thugs. Maybe its just me.

Another one that I personally like is the drag maneuver or reposition to pull the squishy caster out of the way from an enemy without provoking attacks of opportunity. In my home KM game, it has become a foregone conclusion that if our Sorcerer gets pinned down in melee, my Ranger will yank him out to a safer distance.

Okay, so there has been a little bit of chatter about this in the past, and I have yet to see an official ruling on this one:

Bronze weapons are basically identical to steel, except they have the fragile quality. So we will focus on a bronze short sword.

Now under the Fragile heading, we get this line (emphasis mine):

Masterwork and magical fragile weapons and armor lack these flaws unless otherwise noted in the item description or the special material section

Bone items have some specific rules that remove the fragile trait, and those imply the second option, but nothing in the fragile description or the description of bronze (or short sword for that matter) says that the fragile trait is removed, only that the item lacks "these flaws", which as a plural, leads me to believe that it is referring to the flaws conferred by the fragile trait, not the singular flaw that is the fragile trait. And of course the fact that the sentence actually starts with the phrase "magical fragile weapons", which seems to be the wrong wording if ruling 2 were used. In that case, I would assume that the language would read like this instead:

Items that are masterwork or magical do not possess the fragile quality, unless the description of the item or special material reads otherwise.

Still, the first option makes the special text in the bone section somewhat pointless.

I tried this thread out in the rules forums, but its enough of a "when would that ever come up?" scenario that I didn't get a very useful for PFS reply, just a pair of conflicting answers as to how they do/would run it.

I can see a good argument for both rulings, but the language used does not actually give me anything solid enough to tell me whether or not I should sink my character's loot into a +1 fragile weapon. Will I still be able to use the feat Disposable Weapon, or at that point I am just doing it as a by the rules way to re-skin my character as an ancient Greek hero instead of a high fantasy hero?

Okay, so there has been a little bit of chatter about this in the past, and I have yet to see an official ruling on this one:

Bronze weapons are basically identical to steel, except they have the fragile quality. So we will focus on a bronze short sword.

Now under the Fragile heading, we get this line (emphasis mine):

Masterwork and magical fragile weapons and armor lack these flaws unless otherwise noted in the item description or the special material section

Bone items have some specific rules that remove the fragile trait, and those imply the second option, but nothing in the fragile description or the description of bronze (or short sword for that matter) says that the fragile trait is removed, only that the item lacks "these flaws", which as a plural, leads me to believe that it is referring to the flaws conferred by the fragile trait, not the singular flaw that is the fragile trait. And of course the fact that the sentence actually starts with the phrase "magical fragile weapons", which seems to be the wrong wording if ruling 2 were used. In that case, I would assume that the language would read like this instead:

Items that are masterwork or magical do not possess the fragile quality, unless the description of the item or special material reads otherwise.

Still, the first option makes the special text in the bone section somewhat pointless.

Aside from quoting material from UC and the UEG, can anyone offer insight into this?

Edit: And while I am not trying to be a total rules lawyer about this, it is ultimately for PFS, so while either works fine as a personal ruling, I am actually looking for a hard set of rules so I don't waste money on my PFS character.

Or instead of shuffling ties back to the deck, both get just 1/2 vote (as opposed to 1 vote for the winner and 0 for the loser). That way, the overall number of votes is the same regardless of which button you click, and you don't have to view the same items over and over again.

That isn't how Condorcet voting works though. Condorcet voting creates a set of A>B values and uses those values as its mathematical input. Though it seems like it would be easy to also apply A=B, the system doesn't work that way. Voting for Item A does not give it a +1, and voting against Item A does not give it a -1. It only establishes a relationship of A>B or B>A. Voting neither is like saying "These are too close to tell. It is beyond me to compare them, and I need someone else to do it."

To be entirely honest, I think that including the tie button has only led to confusion and less optimized sorting.

Keep in mind that if an item loses in future pairings, that means that every item it beat gets bumped down the list with it. And if an item wins in future pairings, every item it lost to gets bumped up on the list with it. If we were voting initially on items that had made a cut and were all good, then this would become gritty fast, and one bad vote could make things ugly. But we have enough filler and junk items in there, that any links we form are only going to help pull the great things to the top.

I'm getting to the point where I am seeing new pairings of old items, and to be honest, I am getting impatient. Not with the voting process as a whole, but when I see Item A for the 5th time and Item G for the third time, I only need about 10 seconds to decide which is better.

Then there is that pesky timer at the bottom, making sure that I don't spam through voting just to upvote my own item. I get why it is there, and I do appreciate the intent, but I have seen Item A and Item G enough times now; my decision is made... sigh. I guess I'll watch that clip of the kitten doing something cute while I wait for the timer.

In future years, if its possible to allow a 'voting memory' that reduces the timer when we have seen the items already, that would be awesome.

9) Consider world that the item is supposed to fit in (High Fantasy) and try to pretend that you care.

Items with a backstory are awesome, and anyone who tries to perpetrate otherwise is missing a lot of the legendary aspect of RPGs. That being said, a backstory, like any story is part of a narrative universe, and that narrative universe is something that Pathfinder considers very unique to a campaign. Paizo has tried to keep Campaign world and rules as separate as possible, whenever possible. Look at the Core Rulebook and you will see almost nothing in there that informs the player about the specifics of Golarian. The only part of the CRB that even hints at a specific setting is the gods section of the cleric class, and even then, we get almost no detail about them at all, just a paper cut-out of a divine patron to show what they mechanically look like.

To be entirely honest, I am a little surprised that entries referencing the broad strokes of religion and nationality in Golarian are considered acceptable. That being said, I am happy that we have the chance to use that toolbox of setting to inform our items.

Items should have backstory, but not wondrous items without a campaign. Wondrous items don't fit into the game with enough uniqueness for a wondrous item to need its own backstory. Either this specific version of the item gets a backstory (GM responsibility), or the item is too big to not deserve a generalized backstory (and thus is probably not the right fit for a wondrous item).

By including a backstory for an item, you are telling the player something about the history of the GMs world, which is never fun when you are the GM trying to port rules to your homebrew campaign, or even playing with published material in a non-native campaign setting.

Woot!

Your version is definitely more appropriate and balanced than the magical version. When we used it for the festival, it was far more of a thematic effect bringing waves of peace and joy and such, but I can clearly see why having a HUGE radius of calm emotions can get problematic for tactical use.

I am enjoying this project of yours, and look forward to seeing what else happens in this crazy christmas adventure!

We actually had our item crafter make a less elegant version of this item for our Kingmaker game when we held a Seven-veils festival.

Snowfall Skycandle
Aura Strong Transmutation; CL 13th
Slot none; Price 4500 gp; Weight 3 lbs.
Description
This, otherwise nondescript skyrocket is slightly cold to the touch. It launches like any other skyrocket, but it does not explode in the same fashion. Instead of bursting loudly and brightly, it makes a muffled puff sound, and creates a misty cloud at its apex.

Over the next ten minutes, the misty cloud grows thicker and heavier, until the shadowed, silvery cloud covers the sky in a 2 mile radius, and snow begins to fall softly, no matter the season or climate. After one hour hour, a foot of snow blankets the ground under the area of effect. No further snow accumulates, even though the snow continues to fall for 12 hours. For a full week, this snow remains white and does not melt unless exposed to a direct source of heat, after which period it becomes normal snow.

Unlike normal snow, exposure to the the snow created by a snowfall skycandle is not cold enough to create hazardous climate conditions. Furthermore, as long as a creature witnesses the snow falling during the first hour, it is affected by the spell calm emotions, with the exception that positive emotions are not suppressed.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, calm emotions, control weather, endure elements, prestidigitation, 5 ranks in Craft (alchemy); Cost 2500 gp

Unfortunately, our item crafter had to make a few shortcuts to get around the control weather prerequisite, so our version was a little less peaceful, and we almost evacuated the town because we weren't sure if it was going to snow, or kill us all at first... but then the snow fell, and our characters had snowball fights and made snowmen in the castle courtyard.

Since its seems to be coming up a lot in response to the item, Liar's Mask was a belt buckle to fit with its own theme of deception. At first it was a mask, fitting right over the face, where you'd expect it. Then I decided that keeping the name, but changing the location was just another element of its deceptive nature. Price was a ballpark when it started, but since I dropped the Swiss Army Spell in a Can anyway, didn't make too much sense to try and get a better bearing on its cost.

In general I like the other items posted here, but feel its important to remind folks giving critiques that these items were rejected by their creator already. If something about an item sparks as significant for good or ill, by all means, share that part, but can we spare the full on critiques? It seems like a good incentive not to post your bad idea if someone is just going to tell you how bad you already know it is.

This item was a lot of fun, but at the end of the day, its a conglomerate set of items that are already there, with a little SIAK/SAK thrown in to boot. Terrible superstar item, but entertaining to think up.

Liar's Mask
Aura never did full write up, feeling lazy; CL 12th
Slot belt; Price 10,000 to 15,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.
Description
This unpolished brass buckle can be affixed to any belt or sash, and is always under the effects of a magic aura (to appear non-magical), while worn. A liar's mask grants a +3 competence bonus to all of its wearers charisma-based checks, except bluff, for which the bonus is +5.

At will, a creature wearing this buckle may change her appearance as per the spell disguise self.

Three times per day, the wearer may cause another creature to forget the events of the last round as per a memory lapse spell, by speaking the command word 'nevermind'. This ability has a saving throw DC of 14.

Once per day, after touching another creature of the same type (humanoid, etc.) the wearer becomes a perfect likeness of the touched target, gaining all the benefits of disguise self and misdirection, masking herself as the creature touched in both appearance and aura. Using this ability may require a touch attack in combat, or a slight of hand check to remain unnoticed, and lasts for one hour, or until the wearer uses the at will disguise self ability again.
Construction
Requirements stuff here, again, not finished, lazy

Okay, I will leave with this final statement of intent and vision:

The murder of innocents is almost always evil, but the purpose for doing so will greatly influence the severity of this action. Killing an innocent because a superior told you to is meaningfully less evil than doing so for the lulz, as some have implied characters are doing. Killing an innocent on orders is still evil, but its a different caliber of evil entirely, and the argument against evil seems to ignore this completely. Not to mention the fact that these evil missions to not target innocent people at all. They targets may not have committed any crimes directly against the PCs, or at all, but they are not wonderful and wholesome people in the least. I am greatly bothered that these specific cases of 'bad guy says to be evil to other jerk' is somehow being misconstrued as torture an innocent man.

Furthermore, I believe that the cry against this evil is actually a cry against non-good. Though I will cede that the poison example is clearly evil, and likewise the Sewer Dragons mission for Sczarni, I will stand by my claim the typical kill quest is not evil.

I have never made argument that a character should be permitted to wantonly commit evil actions, certainly not in front of the good characters, without repercussions. The specifically horrible missions in question are specifically ones that are designed for subtlety for a reason. As Dennis Baker said, the DC for the task that sparked this debate was intentionally lower so that the character was more able to perform it alone and quietly.

I have however made the argument that the paladin contingent seems intent on holding neutral characters to a lawful good standard. I am not saying that they have no place to oppose evil, but I am saying that for a multitude of valid reasons, they have no place to oppose neutral.

This concern of mine, coupled with the immediate turn around, which instead of addressing the disruptive nature of one group, blames the victims of said disruption, sickens me. Because Cheliax is listed as evil and Sczarni are a crime family, the conclusion seems to be that any mission either of these factions sends a player on is intrinsically more evil than the exact same mission for another faction. Furthermore, it becomes acceptable for a paladin to scrutinize one of these faction members and disrupt play.

My genuine concern is that responses of GMs have indicated that not only would they be happy to ban characters for completing too many faction missions as written, but that they would allow blame to fall on a player of a Sczarni character for the disruption caused by a paladin in the party.

It further infuriates me that there seems as well to be a complete hand-wave to the consequences of mercy. Mercy and justice are great and wonderful things. But the reason that they are supposed to be rare in a fantasy setting is because they aren't easy. If mercy was easy, there would be no neutral characters. Good should be the hardest alignment to play. Then and only then can it be the most rewarding. By allowing characters to ignore the consequences of actually being just and merciful, it shifts the entire tone of the game into a good/not good dynamic, cheapening the entire alignment system, and leaving people who wanted to play neutral characters feeling like they have been morally lectured every time there character does something that is well within the lower end of his alignment.

----

On the subject of this hyperbole:

I have had problems at a game table, and when I came to the forums to have my concerns alleviated, instead I got lectured on not playing an evil character, and heard from GMs that they would make effort to have my characters removed from play if I completed faction missions.

The only thing about this thread that keeps me from quitting PFS OP right now is that I know who the GMs are that I will stand up and leave table to get away from.

And with that, I am done with this entire line of discussion.

First of all, let me say that my real issue here and the reason I continue arguing is that to me, you are clearly favoring good characters, and penalizing the neutral ones for not being as good.

Well, that's a pretty easy assignment for this scenario--the Lawful Good authority is the only one universally respected by all other organizations in the city...that's not disregarding the setting material, it's using it. In scenarios without a viable authority, the paladin gets to keep a prisoner until they get back to civilization. Recall again, I don't believe paladins get the easy way out.

If the table has enough time and the players enjoy it, I'll happily delve into the details of a trial. If not, I'll summarize the results and move on just like I would any number of other situations. That's what is required in organized play sometimes.

In this first section of quoted text you failed to name a single LG authority.

You then further announced that you would expect the character to do the 'right thing', but would hand waive the entire process if the players don't enjoy it.

I do agree this faction, especially in combination with Cheliax and the Sczarni, is a ripe situation for conflict. That specifically illustrates why I believe PFS needs to take care in crafting faction missions in order to minimize this. If they took out every kill/torture mission it wouldn't hurt the campaign in my opinion. Not if they are going to continue prohibiting Evil characters at least.

I would like to point out that when challenged with the argument that the Silver Crusade is prone to table conflict, you responded by basically saying that if other factions weren't naughty, then they wouldn't have to reprimand them. This is a clear example of shifting the blame from the perpetrator to the victim. You can easily say that in the game world, the Sczarni and Chelish agents are the bad ones, but at the play table, their players are the victims of Silver Crusade bullies.

And the second bold portion of the quote is simply ridiculous. It is your opinion, but it is still ridiculous. Did you support the editing of E.T. where they replaced all the guns with walkie-talkies? Because that is pretty comparable to your stance on removing the kill missions. I will cede that the torture missions can go, but if the Sczarnis, a known crime family stop having their dudes kill people, they would look more like care-bear villains than an actual crime family.

For the paladin, I'm not clear on how handing a villain over to a Lawful Good authority is supposed to be unusual, and I've previously noted my primary concern with this faction mission being the weird emphasis on killing, with no explanation of why, versus offering other reasonable paths for Good characters. I've already said I'd be offering up alternate solutions. So again, we seem to be going round and round here and I'm not sure what the purpose is.

Find me a lawful good authority with the means to properly hold a trial and I will gladly have every character in that town who is even remotely non-chaotic turn over the villain to them.

LG power structures are rare. Most towns would be lucky to have centralized authorities that can handle prisoners on the scale of what PCs deal with. Combine these two unfortunate realities of a fantasy town, and suddenly its not so easy to just hand off the bad guys. If lawful good authorities existed everywhere, the Andorans would be happily unemployed.

I have heard of one specific group from City of Strangers that would gladly do Andoran dirty work, but what about everywhere else in Golarian?

Do these characters know which authorities will carry out the justice that the Andoran faction deems fit? What if the sheriff decides that he doesn't have the evidence to actually do anything? What if the local law is more anti-pathfinder than anything else, and lets the villains go because they are convinced that the pathfinders are just a bunch of trouble makers? What if the law tries to arrest the characters for their obvious involvement in a near-lethal conflict? How does the constable know that the PCs aren't just a bunch of bad guys who wanted to cover their tracks by setting up the actual good guys?

Offering the cheap and easy solution of "rightful authorities" is in blatant disregard for the hundreds of hours that went into building the setting.

For the by-laws you quote, for some particular reason they got thrown out the window when one faction ordered the Pathfinder to kill another Pathfinder.

Are you referring to a kill quest against a member of the shadow lodge in season 2? Because in less I'm mistaken, the shadow lodge was an insurrection against the pathfinders, and weren't considered a faction at the time nearly as much as spies and traitors.

For some reason, it's okay to break the clause for a faction mission, but not when a paladin sees another character trying to murder random people and tries to stop him. Really? That's your defense here? It's obvious to me that there is expectation of conflict between the factions. It's written into the scenarios and factions themselves (the Silver Crusade is noted as "oppos[ing] factions who would drag the Society’s reputation through the mud in search of glory, and striv[ing] constantly to raise the morals of their fellow Pathfinders." There is a faction specifically noted as opposing others and trying to impose higher morals. I'm not going to suspend that just for the party so some character can be sure his Evil plot gets executed successfully in full view of the paladin. The Faction Secrecy section specifically notes that the Society turns its view from things so long as open hostility doesn't break out. So, if you don't want opposition then abide by the secrecy requirement...

Thank you for pointing out to me that the Silver Crusade is specifically designed to be the faction most oriented toward Player v Player conflict. Its good to know that when enough people whine that they can't be goody-goody paladins and still reap all the rewards, a group antagonistic to the rest of the players is formed just for them. I will be sure not to play at tables with members of this faction if ever possible.

If you think a player is running his character as genuinely evil a GM should talk to him, ask him to stop. If he persists the GM can and should ask him to leave the table. If a paladin player has clearly violated his vows then it's reasonable to put that down on his chronicle.

It is this idea of giving out 'evil points' at a con, or other random PFS event that bothers people. The whole idea is basically tracking an un-quantifiable factor on a chart with no scale and assigning negative consequences to it. If you don't like the way a player is running his character, tell him. Writing something negative down on a chronicle sheet is the sort of passive aggressive thing that just antagonizes people.

Edit: Also, the idea that players should be punished for accomplishing a faction mission is pretty high on the WTF? list.

+1

Dennis is right and we should listen to him. After all, he wrote the adventure that started the debate that this debate spun off from.

Okay, lets play the scenario game:

Paladin Paul is out on mission with Sorcerer Steve. In the course of their adventure, Villain Vanessa has sent 10 thugs to kill these two heroes, disguised herself as Friendly Fiona (a pathfinder) and attacked the town, in an effort to defame the organization, and channeled negative energy through a holy symbol of Zon-Kuthon to hurt the party. After a difficult battle against Vanessa and her minions, Paul and Steve find a note from Vanessa's even more evil Boss, Bob. This note gives a clear and present danger timeline to Steve and Paul, that they must hurry to stop Bob from doing his BBEG thing.

At this point, Steve tries to Coup-de-Grace Vanessa as the party heals itself up for the upcoming last fight. Suddenly, Paul springs to action, stopping Steve from killing a murderous and treacherous monster, protecting her life (that nobody did a heal check to stabilize previously) because "good guys respect life."

If I were running at this table, I would lay into the player of Paul. Not only is he acting in obvious discord with his previous apathy, he is instigating a situation that puts players against each other. The guy playing Paul totally ignored Vanessa's health and well being up until that point, he even took the time to loot her body. Steve may be trying to complete a faction mission, he may just be covering the party from a rescue and return pincer attack. This isn't an action that should need to be hidden from a normal adventuring party. Obviously, a paladin needs a little extra attention, and that's why Steve waited a good ten minutes to make sure that Paul had forgotten about Vanessa. But because the player suddenly realizes that he failed to save a murderous [expletive removed for ratings reasons] from her just reward, he wants to somehow impede the fair and reasonable actions of another player.

This is the scenario that I am complaining about.

----

Scenario 2:

Steve the sorcerer walks into a shop and casts sleep on the shopkeeper, then walks around the counter and slits the shopkeep's throat. Paul says, "hold the door! I won't let that happen"

If this were my table, I'd look at Steve's player and say "Really? Are you stupid or just CE? Next time, use some tact or play a sane character. I'm not going to let your character do that with such obvious opposition."

----

Straw man arguments are easy to make, see. The real meat of this particular post, however, is in the disruptive nature of the paladin in the first scenario.

Cries against 'evil' actions like the one done by Steve in the first scenario are not savvy to the setting, genre, or actual consequences of taking prisoners. And I encourage GMs to consider the ramifications of such 'good' behavior as saving all lives. Trust me, as someone who played through the first Kingmaker module with a total of 2 humanoid kills, the cost of mercy was insane, which made the weight of the good deed itself infinitely more meaningful to us all.

I'm not saying that Steve did a good action when he killed that villain, but allowing Paul to slow or even stop the game over such a perceived crime is silly. Paul is welcome to say a short piece about not taking lives if he wants, but the game needs to move on. If Steve does it again, in plain sight, after Paul said to keep them alive, then Steve is bringing up the conflict, but the first time, its clearly Paul who starts the argument.

Also, if paladins are so intent on saving lives and whatnot, why is it that my Sczarni thug (Neutral with tendencies towards thuggery) has done more non-lethal damage in a single attack than I have seen done by all other players in total from all other games I've played in (Blood Under Absalom not counted for obvious reasons)? Yes, I have mechanical reasons to deal non-lethal sometimes, but easily half the time he hits, there isn't any additional benefit, yet he deals non-lethal anyway. He takes prisoners consistently when the rest of the party is content to leave the perhaps living, perhaps dead foes to rot or worse. Just some food for thought on this "good respects life and dignity" claim.

Woot!! One of the games I ran spawned 3 Threads!! WOOT!!

;)

1. Sczarni and not being evil
2. Removing a character from play for being "Evil"
3. Faction Missions and 'Dont be a Jerk'

Its like we caused a 500 post pile up.

You ran a great game. And thanks for making this an issue that could be on the boards, and not at the table. I'm not happy with the situation, but I was very happy with the way you handled it and let us players handle it as well.

On topic:
Playing a paladin that watches other characters to make sure they aren't being nefarious is being a jerk. Ignoring obvious problems is not reasonable, but not letting the shady guy out of your sight because he is shady, that's just mean. Paladins who can't give other pathfinders a little bit of room are on the short list of soon-to-be ex-pathfinders. Even the paladins are expected to follow the basic rules and order of the organization, and constantly interfering with or harassing other pathfinders isn't a good way to do it. I agree that the player who is up to no good should be making reasonable attempts to do it stealthily, but bringing a character to the table that meaningfully increases the challenge for others to complete their faction mission is just tacky.

How would the Andorans feel if I brought a LN fighter/inquisitor "hellknight" to the table, and said that because it was in my character's code that I would not allow them to do altruistic things if they broke laws? Good is fine, but chaos is right out, and since you look like one of those freedom loving dolts, I'm going to keep my eye on you and ensure that you don't sneak something by me.

Everyone in their right mind would say that my above character is disruptive, because he is. That is why I don't play him. I'm not saying that there is no room for a paladin, but it should be the player of the paladin that makes it reasonable for that character to be present, not everyone else at the table. Not every paladin is going to have time to waste policing their allies, play one of the ones that is busy actually being a hero.

And for the last sentence, I don't currently play with anyone in PFS that wants someone else going around ruthlessly killing captured foes. If a new player came into the group and wanted to do so, I'm not going to throw away the position of every other player to support this one new guy. There is obviously regional and location variation in groups (again, that's my point...and such will be compounded at large national cons drawing GMs and players from all over) and I've stated already that I don't expect every player and GM to conform to my (or my group's) position. Why are you saying I then need to conform to yours? Because giving up a position on what I clearly think is Evil is indeed asking for compromise from my position without compromise from yours. For me it's simple. At my table, don't execute prisoners. Find another solution. At your table, I play by your interpretation (and so would, for instance, not bring a paladin to the table).

So the issue isn't that characters, the society or the game mechanics find something evil at all. The clear issue here is that you find an action evil, and want to prevent other players from having their characters perform actions that you find evil.

When the GM has the certified villain mercilessly kill, it is okay. We know as players that the GM is not a merciless killer. Nobody tries to tell the GM that a monster doing monster things is bad. When a player has a 'hero' end a villains life, it seems to be a problem for you. Do we not know that a the player is just playing a character? Why do we try to tell the player that soldier doing soldier things is bad?

Obviously there can be situations where a particular character is consistently and pointlessly ending others lives, which is evil. But if 10 foes go down the the course of the adventure and only two of them (defined as most evil by the character) are killed, that is not the same situation.

You may feel that killing a fallen foe is evil, and I would challenge you to do research on the process of taking captives, when and where it occurs, and most importantly, the manner in which captives are taken. But the deeper issue that I see here is that a character committing an evil act is neither indicative of a character being evil, nor of the player being evil.

We are playing a game, and characters do things that we would never consider even remotely okay in the real world, but we move on because its what the game is and how its played. I would never kick in the door to someones place and attack them, but that is the bread and butter of roleplaying games. Game morality isn't the same as real morality, and getting upset with players and telling them that they are evil because their characters do things that you find wrong is not okay.

And that is essentially what you have been doing this whole time, and the reason I have gotten drug so far down into this argument. I am getting defensive because you are telling me that an action, which i know isn't evil, is evil. We can pretend all day that we are talking about character actions, but we aren't. This conversation has become about evil and the players. That seems to be why we aren't moving forward at all.

By telling us that you would not bring a paladin to a table where executing prisoners is okay, you are saying that you disagree strongly enough with our views of what good is that you wouldn't play a good character with us. That is not compromise in the least, that is a very painful insult. It tells me that I don't know the difference between good, neutral, and evil.

There are obvious straw men that I can create that would get us nowhere. Instead I'll cite a specific example.

Home game, CG fey sorcerer and NG ranger:

In a briar maze, we encountered a band of goblins. The sorceror cast entangle which began choking the goblins in a thorny mesh of organic barbed wire, which the sorcerer dismissed halfway through because he felt sick for torturing them. Later inside the fort, we found the man who had attacked the town, murdering dozens and torturing an important businessman to death. We had spoken to the next of kin as well as the outlaw's only living relative before leaving town. When we found him he was sleeping. Our characters prayed to Desna and Pharasma, and killed him.

Walking away from that adventure, I felt a little queasy about both these actions. My character had inflicted absolute horror on those goblins and taken a life while it slept. But the goblins were just monsters and there is nothing wrong with using a spell to remove foes from a fight, or deal damage to them. And the outlaw in the fort was marked for death already, taking him back would have just warned the rest of the fort of our presence, upset the townsfolk even more, and emotionally abused the villains sister. It was not a good action in the least. By today's standards, it was evil. But in Golarian, we were heroes, doing something neutral to achieve something good.

The best part of this example is how easily the first half can be overlooked. A CG character created an entangling web of organic barbed wire, which sliced and tore at the goblins who struggled to escape, while the NG character shot them. But, because we were in combat, it was acceptable to use such brutal tactics, and because they were goblins we didn't have to be concerned about the fact that we were killing them. In fact, our characters were concerned about what they were doing, and we as players made sure that the characters acted out that experience as more than just a simple combat encounter.

Both characters in this example are good characters. They do good things, feel compassion for others, show mercy when possible, seek to end suffering, etc.

But if you were to just see them execute a condemned criminal in his sleep, you would call them evil, and by extension, call me evil for not being able to tell that my character was being evil?

For those wanting to know why the Good get to be Good, but the rest can't be Evil (beyond just the PFS alignment rules), consider the following:

other stuff

(emphasis mine)

What is so difficult about the idea that there is a point between good and evil called neutral? Not every action is good or evil. Not everything that a paladin opposes is evil.

Killing a fallen and unrepentant foe is NOT evil. Nowhere in any part of the book can you find any evidence to that beyond the oft quoted scripture about respect for life and dignity of sentient beings.

My character, Nico, is a good guy, he's just not good aligned. The fact of the matter is, that like so many other pathfinders, he makes his fortunes by killing people and taking their stuff. The character experiences a meaningful internal conflict between the good person he was raised to be and the much less than good person he spent years being. The very reason that I am playing him is to explore his growth from neutrality towards good. I have spent a good deal of time working out who he is, why he is, where he is coming from, and what triggered the changes that he has made in his life up to this point.

He is not evil, but he does do some less than great deeds now and then. I do not play him as evil, never have, and probably never will (certainly not in PFS).

My actual argument, which I feel was ignored was asking why the paladin's lawful good gets to be more important than my fighter's neutral? Are you saying that the reason my play experience is less important is because the faction to which my character belongs is most popular?

DRaino; just so you know, I've no argument with you.

Your experiences highlight the problem.
Your Sczarni is asked to carry out what you consider an evil act on an innocent, yet no-one bats an eye. In fact, they all fall over themselves to help you, in defiance of their own factions or class restrictions.
Your Andoran tries to finish off an evil combatant, and you get grief.

Blatantly evil PCs are allowed to write a 'neutral' on their sheet, and carry out sickening acts for their infernal or mobster masters, while the rest of us have bean-counter GMs admitting on these boards, that they intend to continue micromanaging every action, threatening to take good PCs out of the campaign for the slightest infraction. When asked whether they're paying the same attention to the good acts we do, they say no, because apparently no amount of good acts will ever cancel out a single allegedly evil one.
Then in the next breath, we're told we have to help the Chelaxians free some devils, and help the Sczarni cripple some orphans, and anyone who utters the slightest objection is causing PvP upset.

I feel that you missed the specifics of how my Sczarni mission played out.

I did not tell the other players at my table what specifically the character needed to do until I had concluded that there was no reasonable way to enlist the aid of the good characters in the mission, and that the chance of failure was too high to waste the play groups time on.

In both my Andoran mission and Sczarni mission, the GM was supportive and helpful of me as a player (offering a skill check in the Sczarni case to know that the actual deed required a skill check).

The difference was in the players, which were totally different groups. I got no impression from the first group that they would have been able to cope at all with a Sczarni in their party completing a mission. The second group seemed far more understanding, and though they insisted that their characters would have no part in evil acts, they as players tried to help me come up with a solution.

Knowing how blatantly evil of an act the mission was, I dropped it myself because I knew that my character would not be able to get the help he needed to complete it.

While I believe that the arguments in favor of documenting evil actions are well intended, I have a slight hangup on the faction missions.

I agree wholeheartedly that in a normal, single GM campaign, following some of these missions would undoubtedly shift a character towards evil, but this is Organized Play, where evil is banned, and thus its not a good story to tell.

The story of a neutral fighter who slips towards evil as he completes mission after mission without contemplating his own actions in the process is a great one, but far more suited for a private game, where such a tale can be seriously addressed. In PFS, it would end up more like tallying a scorecard and less like moral decay.

I am specifically concerned that by allowing faction missions to push a character from neutral into the realm of evil, certain factions will become functionally crippled.

My specific knowledge of faction missions from season 3 is quite limited, so I don't know if the Sewer Dragons mission for Sczarni is an exception or the start of a trend, but it is certainly evil.

While I am more than happy to see a paper trail of being a 'good' Sczarni lead to characters loosing the title of good aligned, I am distinctly against the idea of being stuck with three choices:

1 - Stop playing by 5th level, when you've hit your evil quota.
2 - Miss out on a good number of mission awards.
3 - Play every game on hard mode in terms of Prestige gain.

I completely understand that a good character should not be considered remotely good if they toe the faction line regularly, but being told consistently that you have to come up with another solution or you will eventually lose your character seems harsh.

If the intent is to have the 'bad-guy' factions harder to play, then it seems that they would have outlined that in the same part of the guide that warns you not to play a paladin of Cheliax.

The Pathfinders are not a LG organization. Paladin's consistently disrupting the works of other Pathfinder's in the field is not tolerable.

Why do so many players seem to think that because Paladins are 'the good guys' they should be able to police an organization that is in no way beholden to the same tenants or morals?

Sure its a secret mission, that nobody is supposed to know about, but if that guy with full plate and a holy symbol interrupts my business, he is still interrupting my business.

Non-good characters compromise all the ****ing time! When the bad guys go down and the Paladin won't let anyone mercifully kill them, but instead insist the the group waste hours, sometimes days or even weeks for a so called fair trial (you think that as the only witnesses, the party just walks away from such a trial?). When there is an obviously icky individual offering help that the Paladin must refuse. When a little intimidation and threatening will get the info, but the Paladin insists that the captured foe be treated as an equal, brokering deals with someone who by all rights owes his life to the party that chose not to take it.

Just because the less than noble characters are more willing to cede the minor points and follow the paladin's step most of the time, doesn't mean that they aren't compromising.

I like paladins; they are a fun role-playing challenge, but if a paladin can't compromise and insists constantly on lawful good as some absolute mandate, maybe he is the one who has no place in the Pathfinders or PFS. They more than likely would either give up and leave, or get kicked out for being pushy all the time.

----

And NEVER have I mentioned killing an even remotely innocent character. Back in the OP, I told about how much trouble I had as an Andoran trying to kill two villains, one of which was the faction mission and another of which was a Chelish priestess with enough negative energy to share with us all. After these non-surrendering-type foes fell in battle, using their last ounces of strength to hurt us even more, my character attempted to coup-de-grace them. Furthermore it was the players who threw the conniption fit about my character's actions. If players can't handle coup-de-grace against a fight-to-the-death cleric of Asmodeus, how ugly will things get when they witness a Sczarni mission?

If a player was using Cheliax or Sczarni as an excuse to kill innocents, I would be appalled at both their lack of concern for other players and for the fact that they were ignoring their alignment and PFS restrictions on stuff. That is not the scenario in question, nor would it ever be. At that table the GM would quickly stop the idiocy either with a reprimand or a kick from the table.

----

I keep hearing the paladins out there make arguments against killing surrendered foes and innocents and how bad and evil it is and how a paladin must stop it. But what about the actively violent foes who make no attempt to surrender? Some people have it coming. I know how villainous that sounds in our modern reality, but in a fantasy setting, where vigilante hobos call many of the shots, its okay to kill bad guys. And sometimes its okay to kill people who aren't evil. As shocking as it may sound, there are even instances in a game, where its morally acceptable to kill a good sentient being (though each situation is unique and obviously not indicative of a norm).

OP here, reminding everyone that NIETHER of characters is lawful or good. And that none of the to be executed foes have EVER surrendered.

A halfling from the River Kingdoms, whose parents were taken by Chelish slavers and susequently died, was on a mission against the shadow lodge, wherein his Andoran backers wanted an agent of Cheliax villain taken down. Fighting right along side this mission target was a Chelish woman channeling negative energy.

My character chose to attempt a coup-de-grace to end the lives of these two UNREPENTANT foes that had fallen in battle. No member of the party made any mention of stabilizing either target.

So it is a good action to let a character bleed to death slowly and if they happen to somehow survive, then you can do more good and turn them over to an intermediary to execute them for you? They can have a sham of a trial, wherein all their failings are drug out into the light, and your intermediaries defame and humiliate them publicly before finally giving them the deathblow that you could have just as easily administered without degrading them first?

For actual info on this sort of thing

I am not arguing that Nico (my halfling) was doing a good deed. He was doing a selfish and vengeful thing, driven by fear and anger. He hated what that woman stood for, what she had done to him and his allies, and what she was trying to do to the Pathfinders. But he had more respect for her life and dignity by acting in her dying moments than everyone else at that table, who was more than happy to let her bleed to death slowly, or face a sham of a trial. Would Nico kill any Chelaxian he met? Absolutely not! But when an obvious foe of person, party, society and city has fallen unrepentant in battle, he would let his prejudices be the tipping point. Prejudices, which mind you, are well based according to setting material.

Lawful Good and especially Paladin-hood are not an excuse to leave your conviction at the door. In fact it is the Paladin's role to act with conviction and justice. Look at the names of his aura abilities, none of them are titled Aura of Imposing the Unpleasant Work of Taking a Life on the Poor Schmuck Who Thought Civil Service Was Better Than Adventuring (Su):. Paladins should not kill for convenience. But not killing because you lack the righteous conviction to do so is not only un-paladin-like, but just plain weak. If there were reasonable suspicion that the courts would let the unconscious man live, then taking his life then and there is blatantly in disregard for proper authority. But sending someone to a certain death sentence and not just killing him yourself is not good, its cowardice.

I have been drug down into the depths of alignment squabble now, no escaping it.

Respect for all life and dignity for sentient beings or whatever this oft quoted verse is says NOTHING about ending life. Where does it say that a good character is prohibited from ending a life? Don't quote the respect for life at me, because I've heard it, and I get it.

I personally have respect for life, but having spent more than a few weeks living on a farm, I learned very quickly that life, as sacred as it may be, is transient, and that I would have to end a life or two while I was there. They weren't sentient by most standards, but they were lives. There was nothing even remotely evil about it, and in the case of the mauled rabbit that the cats were torturing, I think it was good.

Obviously, killing a dying rabbit is different than killing a murderer, but its still ending a life that can't defend itself.

Respect for all life means respect, it means carrying with you the weight of the action, and trying to protect life if reasonable to do so. In the specific case of the Andoran missions, the Andorans have done their research and concluded that the target is a horrible blight upon the people of a land. Killing that target is the most reasonable way to create a greater good, and trying to save the monsters life, or redeem them carries too much of a risk to the people who have already suffered enough under such a monster.

Consider that an Andoran kill quest is indicative not of less good in the Andoran leadership, but that it is a sign of just how terrible the target is, that the good guys would decide that killing him was needed.

Are you happy now? Even I followed this thread off the rails and into the ravine.

On the one hand, I was really hoping for this thread to be about the faction missions for the particularly immoral factions, and finding a way to prevent arguments like this thread from occurring at the table when those factions are completed by neutral characters.

As much as I love to hear banter back and forth about whether or not a good character or a paladin can kill an unconscious foe, neither of the characters I played at GenCon were good

I was not playing a paladin, I was not playing a cavalier, I was not playing a good cleric. I played a neutral rogue and a neutral fighter. According to the chart in detect evil any attempt to discern their alignment would have registered as neutral, no matter what alignment they were.

I don't care (for the purpose of this thread) if a good character can coup-de-grace a fallen foe, paladin or not.

On the other hand, I feel that this argument I stirred up is rather indicative of what happened at my first mentioned table, where my halfling tried to coup-de-grace the unrepentant foes we had knocked out. Maybe we can use this thread as a reference point for the conflict that I am trying to avoid.

(Now, if someone wants to point me to a thread, in which the topic is good alignment and the sanctity of life, I would love to post my opinions on the matter there)

Thanks Dennis for clearing up the intent there. I guess my real issue with this particular mission is that you need to engage in a conflict that is much easier to avoid, and then furthermore have to do something that you can't let others see you do, which would be easy if I didn't have to tell the GM right in front of everyone else.

I'm not too worried about this particular case for my particular character because he lacked the skill to achieve the mission, but as my first experience with a Sczarni mission, it scares me a bit about the difficulty in achieving future mission.

------

PvP was exactly what we were trying to avoid. The rules call for no PvP, but there is huge cognitive dissonance when your good character is forced to watch someone execute a foe (or worse) because you aren't allowed to intervene as such would be PvP. So instead of having another ugly scene like I had in the morning, I talked to the other players about it and worked it out with them how we could resolve it without leaving a sour taste in anyone's mouth.

I personally don't see an issue with PC v PC, but I know that it can come dangerously close to Player v Player, so in any situation where I can see an obvious conflict of Character actions and the no PvP rule, I ask the table how they feel about the specific situations. When running through midnight mauler, a character hit Tyson with a poorly aimed bottle rocket. Tyson was pissed off. So I asked the table, "would you guys be okay with Tyson boxing his ears (dirty trick - deaf for 1 round) after this encounter has resolved, or would that be too close to pvp?" The other players said that he was okay with it as long as it wasn't meaningfully damaging, and the DM said it could be handled as narration, so Tyson boxed the dudes ears and we moved on. No PvP occurred.

/rant about the differences between characters and players fighting.

It wasn't a vote on ruling or on how I would achieve or not achieve my mission. It was a decision that I made with the rest of the table to ensure a fun play experience. No person ever told me that I could not try to complete my mission. I chose not to try because I didn't think my character could make the skill check without assistance. I did ask the other players for input, and chose based on the obvious upcoming conflict between characters, but it was my decision alone as the player to not have my character try the mission. If anything Dragonmoon tried to make the process easier for me to complete the mission, it just wouldn't have been easy enough given what the party had already done.

------

On the subject of this mission v killing and which is more evil:

Killing a foe who falls in battle without surrender or any sign of moral regret is VERY different than what this mission calls for.

Then again, maybe we as players need something like this to challenge our own senses of morality in gaming, and ask ourselves how it is meaningfully different to ensure a person death than to do this mission. But is a faction mission that starts with picking an unneeded fight the right place to challenge those preconceptions?

If people committing Evil acts doesn`t shift their alignment towards Evil SOMEHOW (GMs can and should be precise in saying +1/4 towards next alignment closer to Evil, +1 full step only in stronger situations), then the prohibition on Evil alignment in PFS seems like a joke, since it just means you can`t write Evil on your character sheet from the start, but are free to act as Evil as you want (just no PvP). Since I assume Paizo intends their rules (vs. Evil) to be followed thru on, I can`t see why they don`t expect repercussions for Evil acts. Since there definitely is a hell of alot of gray area about judging aligment, I think it`s good practice for any GM shifting alignment (if only partially) to write down a consise, but informative reason of exactly why the alignment deserved to shift (or partially shift), so that other GMs can see that reasoning down the line.

I DO think that Paizo should address this issue head-on by exactly describing how this works, and how characters who act evil on ocassion (shifting them to Neutral) need to balance that with Good acts if they are to remain PFS-legal... along with guidelines for GMs to indicate Alignment shifts (and partial shifts) on character sheets, since that is a pretty important part of this. Examples/guidelines for what constitutes a full alignment shift, vs. 1/2 or 1/4 for example, would probably be pretty useful as well.

While I think this is a fine idea under most circumstances, it begins to fall apart when you look at factions and faction missions. According to such a ruling, Sczarni would be harder to play than Silver Crusade. You would either have to skip out on Faction awards consistently, or you would have to run around saving orphans with every spare second you had to keep your character from being removed from play by level 5.

Just because Silver Crusade are the good guys, and Andoran were the most good guys previously does not mean that it should be easier to play them. If anything, it should be harder to be good than to be neutral. Creating a rule set that penalizes people for not being good (which is exactly what you described) does the exact opposite of that and establishes tiers of playability among the factions, with Silver Crusade as easiest, since their faction missions are least likely to give you black marks of evil that can eventually make your character unplayable.

And yes, Dragonmoon, I had a headache too, but it had nothing to do with the module.

Thank you all for insight and opinions on this one, especially the arguments about what is and isn't okay to do. My own personal opinion on the matter is that there is absolutely no reference to evil or even any alignment at all on page 197 of the Core Rulebook. And handing someone over to be killed by someone else without any real chance for survival is no more good aligned than doing the deed yourself, though perhaps more lawful. But my opinion or any single person in this thread's opinion isn't going to be good enough to settle arguments about alignment in PFS.

The Sczarni mission that I am referring to is an evil act, no question at all. And this thread makes it rather clear to me that completing such a mission can be divisive for the players at the table. If characters don't want to be okay with it, that's roleplaying opportunity, but if players don't, that's just bad blood.

I loved playing a Sczarni thug, it was a lot of fun. I enjoyed every game I played in, and Sewer Dragons was either my favorite or second favorite game I got into. The game that I enjoyed least of all, was the one where I got lectured about how I couldn't do evil things or I'd lose my other character, the guy from team Andoran.

I'm happy to hear that the DC was lower due to the solo nature of that mission, but there was still too much room, in my opinion, for out of character conflict over the evil nature of the mission. I am not asking for the Sczarni stop being a mob family, if they weren't mobsters, I'd not be playing as a member with this character. What I am asking is that their missions be less antagonistic the the gaming groups good will. If its a challenge at some tables to complete some kill quests without upsetting players and starting a conflict, I really don't see room in the game for more missions like the Sewer Dragons of Absalom one.

Okay, just got back from Gencon, loved playing PFS. Barely had time for anything else.

I ended up playing two characters while there:

Tyson - A Chelish thug working for the Sczarni.

Nico - A Halfing ex-bandit from the River Kingdoms working for Andoran

I get it that the Sczarni are pretty nasty folk, but this mission was just bad for table dynamics. In the future, can we please get faction missions that don't have such a high risk of tearing a table apart?

does this set up make thug / enforcer extremely amusing?

Honestly your talking about a match on a fire at that point. The thug/enforcer build is useful in de-buffing and forcing attacks of opportunity as the foes flee.

It doesn't matter much if you have a shaken or frightened unconscious foe, because they aren't taking any actions but grappling the floor at that point.

+2 DRaino wrote:

Ablative Token

*...This is pretty much DR 10/-- in a can. And a +2 deflection bonus to AC tacked on top. I'm a little surprised that it blocks everything...melee attacks, ranged attacks, energy damage? And the stoneskin spell seems like a strange requirement. Granted, it gives you DR 10/adamantine, but that's with the assumption an attack connects with your body. This device is going full on ablative to slow attacks before they connect. Maybe telekinesis might be a better requirement?

*...At any rate, great execution of the template. They've articulated everything really well. Not sure how innovative the concept or the mechanics are, but I'm not wowed by it. At least it's not overpowered with it only being useful 3 times/day and only against a single triggering attack. If anything, I'm a weak Keep on this one.

*...It's DR-in-a-can. Reject.

*...For 15k gp you may as well get +1 invulnerability armor and have DR/5 all the time. This doesn't really excite me, we have much better items in the keeper queue already. Reject.

Harsh, but quite fair. In my defense, it wasn't supposed to stop energy damage, and was intended more as a caster item, but the critique really outlined the major issue of my item: it lacked awesome. As for the spell req, I should have looked beyond the mechanical comparison and found a better thematic one, but even then, I played to mechanics instead of artistry, I won't make the same mistake again.

Thanks for the feedback, I greatly appreciate the hours you've spent just telling the rejects whats up. (The hours I've spent reading what you've posted gives me a hint of how much time that went into this). And honestly, by this point, reading my own review was almost redundant after the hundred some odd reviews before mine. Still, it helps with closure to see specifically where I went wrong and to know that it wasn't anything glaringly bad, just unglaringly not superstar enough.

Thanks again to the whole judging team!

This is not the exact version I submitted, I lose the exact version to the death of a computer. There were no mechanical changes to it other than perhaps the price was dropped a little bit, I don't actually recall if I settled at the higher (this) or lower price (13,300 I believe). There were some small flavor edits in the first paragraph, and I'm afraid that was my weakest point to begin with, but I'd like feedback in general.

Ablative Token
Aura Moderate Abjuration; CL 7th
Slot Neck; Price 15,300 gp; Weight --

Description
These small adamantine tokens are crafted in a variety of forms, from predictably defensive icons, to holy symbols and geometric abstractions. When a command word is spoken, the amulet lets out a resonant thrum and a pulse of abjurative force that can slow or even stop incoming attacks completely.

Three times per day, as an immediate action in response to an attack targeting the wearer, but before the attacks success is determined, the amulet can be called upon to emit a steely gray burst of ablative energy, which prevents the attack from landing with full force. This burst grants the wearer a DR 10/- against the triggering attack. Regardless of the success or failure of the attack, the damage reduction will not function against further attacks until activated again.

After its initial pulse, the token continues to reverberate and emit a softly glowing abjurative field which slows incoming attacks, granting the wearer a +2 deflection bonus to AC for the next seven rounds. This effect will replace itself and reset the duration if used again before the initial duration expires.

Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, shield of faith, stoneskin; Cost 6,650 gp

Gah! Evil Staring eyey thingy. Begone! you stare the crap out of me!

Fixed it :)

Remember, folks, that the flask only appears to hold 8oz. That number was only included to indicate the outside dimension of the flask. The flask holds much more than that. Really, it would have been best to not use a number there because it has caused a lot of confusion, but the problem is in the description not the design.

I'm genuinely not sarcastic, but remembering one of the basic issues of 'believability' when I reply to this:

Oh yeah, we can stuff a fully laden cart into a bag, and that's okay. Who cares if the measurements seem wonky. I agree that a functional dose count might have been helpful in terms of actual storage capacity, but who cares, the item doesn't bend 'believability' even as much as an efficient quiver.

It's Magic!(tm)

Wonkiness of the execution aside, I like this thing, it works. In the end, its like a potion utility belt, but with that holdout ability that lets you double potion up with a cost. I'm not sure when I would use the double potion option, but I know that it would come up, and as a player, I would be pressed to actually use that ability.

It creates tension and adds another option, both of which are great things to do!

Side note, I'm happy to see you made top 32: A lot of these top 32 look like strangers to me, but in my own short time on the boards, you have been a presence. Its like when that guy who lives in your apartment building gets famous: nothing changed for you, but it somehow feels better.

The best part about this item for me is its power level. It would have been very easy for you to have made this a much higher level item, but you shot it at the lower end, without losing its awesome.

Much lower and I'd have said, "really, that's it?" And much higher would have made the power outshine the activation. Wonderful execution!

Finished the first reading of top 32, and by far, this one is the one that grabs me the most! I absolutely love it. I admit that at first I was a little iffy on the likeness it has to certain other iron bands, but once I got to the description, I started making characters in my head that would use this item.

In time I will certainly love many of the top 32 as much as these, but for now, I'm writing them on my 'why can't this be real and in my possession wish list'.

Great work and congrats!

And, I'd probably skip the part about thanking everyone who helped you until the end of the contest (not just the current round), lest you give the impression that your design contained more than just your own individual work.

Does my cat count, or can I start thanking him right now? He's a really good listener.

I like the flavor of this order, kinda like the stalwart defender but unique.

Mobility penalty? Do you mean the armor check penalty? And does the sheld penalty count as well?

Or the penalty to speed? And if so, how is the competence bonus determined?

Thank you for the compliment!

As far as your questions go: yeah, the mobility penalty should be armor check penalty. The armor was the important part, not the shield. It was a WIP before the rules were released, so its still poorly mechanically realized.

I felt inspired by that warforged demagogue from Eberron, and a highly tricked out 3.5 'paladin'-type a friend played, so I thought I'd get a two-for-one with the cavalier order, and pay homage to them both.

You can bend, twist, and warp the letter of the 'law' all day long, but in the end, ask yourself, am I arguing for this thing, whatever it is, to work as intended, or am I arguing for it to work in a way that I would consider it worth my choice to use.

Basically, feat x says something that can easily be read (as in a hey, pal who isn't lawyering right now, whats this look like it does) as either a tier 1 effect or a tier 3 effect (I personally can't stand tiering). Odds are that the tier 3 effect is the intended one. Just like a t3 vs t5 alternate reading probably means that the t3 is the intended one.

Trying to argue that a feat can turn an already 99% hit rate 5d4+5 into 10d4+10 is a little silly at only +1 spell level. If this were the case, why wouldn't every caster who even heard of spell damage take this feat? Now if it lets you drop a 10d4 burning hands, or a 15d6 fireball, that is still pretty wicked for some casters.

Don't go all "target player loses next turn" = "I win"[/magic: the gathering] on this and think about the fact that its called intensify spell, not multiply spell or nuke em good.

Edit: Back to OP: I'd bet that the player and you are not seeing eye to eye on exactly how SA will interact with the maximization. Talk to him about it, see what he honestly has in store, and work with him to make sure that he picks the feats that work best to achieve his goals within your game mechanics.

Order of the Golem
Cavaliers belonging to the order of the golem are stalwart and determined. Though their specific goals are as fluid as any adventurer, the vigilance to which they cleave unto them is as unyielding as the juggernauts from which they draw their name.

Edicts: The cavalier must remain stoic in all things. He must admit his strength, but must never brag. He must strive always to live as he speaks and speak as he lives.

Challenge: Whenever an order of the golem cavalier issues a challenge, he receives a +1 morale bonus on all saving throws whenever he is threatening the target of his challenge. This bonus increases by +1 for every four levels the cavalier possesses.

Skills: An order of the golem cavalier adds Perception and Knowledge(history) to his class skills. Furthermore, he need never speak to use intimidate, and gains a circumstance bonus on all intimidate checks equal to his armor’s base mobility penalty.

Order Abilities: A cavalier who belongs to the order of the golem gains the following abilities as he increases in level.

Juggernaut’s charge(Ex): At 2nd level, the cavalier can make a free intimidate check to demoralize during a charge. The target of the intimidate check must be the same as the target attacked. During this charge, the Cavalier and his mount gain a +4 morale bonus to CMD.

Unflinching(Ex): At 8th level, the cavalier may shrug off some magical effects that would normally hamper him. Once per day, as an immediate action when he would roll a saving throw against a magical effect targeting him, the cavalier may choose not to roll the saving throw, and instead is treated as having SR equal to 15 + his cavalier level.

Without Pain(Ex): At 15th level, the cavalier gains DR 3/-. Against the target of his challenge, the Cavalier increases this DR by his charisma modifier.

With equal levels of optimization, Wizard, Cleric, Druid, and Sorcerer will all by significantly more powerful than Bard, Rogue, and Monk.

While I don't have enough crunch readily at hand, I can absolutely guarantee that there is a focal point in terms of party count that pushes a bard ahead of any other caster.

Using an unreal situation, assume that a bard is nested amongst his 40 closest bow wielding friends, who are instrumental in taking down a BBEG. At first level, assume that the bard is inflicting 11 damage plus the damage equal to the number of bowmen that would have hit without his bardic music. This is obviously NOT a real play scenario, but the point of the bard is that he gets to claim all the damage dealt on account of his hit bonus, as well as all extra damage dealt by his inspiration.

Still, at first level, this bard just tallied... we can say 21 damage in a single action. At 17th level, he gives a +4... so now its over 100 damage from a single use of bardic performance. Did I mention he hasn't acted yet... he could have hasted a handful of these guys... ++damage.

Put a mage in a room alone, he will shine, put a bard in a crowd, he will shine. Tiering strategies tend to be very solo oriented... bards are team players.

Which ties back to the OP. The best way to have a campaign that helps the 'lesser' classes is to let them do their thing, and maybe reduce the caster access to that thing (+1 spell level), or at least make sure that the casters are keenly aware of the time limit in which they can steal everyone's thunder.

You mean the tower shield he isn't proficient with...remember what I said about not playing by the rules....

@Cold Napalm: I believe that you might be missing the problem here. It is not a matter of the exact mechanics of things. There may well be an underlying issue here in the play-style of the 'core' group, but that isn't the issue that was presented.

These guys are a group of people who game more by a set of unspoken rules about how things should interact in their games than by absolute rules written in the official material.

Rather than berate Elven Blades for not running a game that would not meet the criteria that you (and admittedly myself) hold for the rules, we should look at how we can help him reconcile this.

@Elven Blades: Cold Napalm is right. It makes it hard for outside observers to sympathize with your situation, when the information you share makes it look like your game is more open to abuse than the standard rules. You and your 'core' playgroup have clearly figured out what is and isn't okay by your own sense of how it should all work out, and these rotating cast members just aren't as familiar.

I still understand the situation quite well, having played in the disaster I mentioned in my previous post, but we were playing with some HIGHLY abusable house rules, and one guy just didn't get the memo that we were supposed to use an honor system and not abuse them. Maybe you should consider how your house rules (if any) are playing into this.

Or maybe he is just adjusting to the scale of the game and how you like to play. I know that the times I have tried playing with other groups I find myself shocked at how 'poorly' they adhere to the rules and yet somehow, I end up coming across as a power-gamer. This is specifically because I take interest in the nuances of their house rules, and miss the overlying point of how they envision what actual game play looks like.

Maybe ask him what he hopes to gain from playing the character he has rolled up, and let him know what the rest of you hope to gain with your characters. Sometimes the meta-answer will help everyone figure out how the party can fit together well.

Well the only KM spoiler is that it replaces an encounter that I wont say, so I can tell you what it is. It is a Huge wolverine that can breathe fire. I am definitely having difficult terrain up the wazoo and possibly smoke constantly spewing out of his mouth to give him 20% concealment from ranged attacks.

Fire is great! Burn their stuff! [/goblin] Seriously though, if you opt against the massive rainstorm, have this Dire Pyroverine start their non-combat things on fire. Let them know that stopping the fire might be just as important as killing the beast.

The best way to make this fight awesome is to draw it out, which means you need to minimize damage dealing actions that the party wants to do. There is a certain measure of restricting what they can do as well, but the more you make it their choice, the better it will go over.

If the party is attacked on their terrain, make it as much an attack against the location as the characters.

I get the sense, however, that the critter is not visiting town, though.

How fire resistant/immune is this big guy? Could he start an entire prairie/forest fire and walk out of it? Might add a level of tension, and allow you to create non-magical walls of fire to control movement without slowing the baddie.

Avoiding Kingmaker spoilers, so I hope I'm not missing too much...

Weather, and lots of it. Torrential downpour gets this thing riled (encounter excuse). Low visibility, slick (difficult) terrain, wind to punish/check flyers.

Since I don't know what it is, can it knock over terrain? Bury one of them in rubble/a tree that this beast smashes into to remove a pair of combatants for a round and deal damage. Not to mention, terrain to force player movements, or for fun and games with Awesome Blow and cliffs/pits/rivers.

Does it have some sort of natural mobility that can be used/abused?

As a player, I've felt the pain of being in a game with a power gamer. This was a power gamer who was also interested in playing a character, but was still beyond the realm of not okay.

First of all, let me mention that our game had a few BIG mistakes going into it, that left the power-scale wide open to abuse, but for the most part, the majority of us were using the systems in place to fully flesh out our characters. We could all be total, optimized beasts, and still manage to find resources to be other flavorful things.

Well, one guy didn't get the memo. Age of Worms adventure path, Krathanos, one round, his character only. The DM for that game had to work at least six thousand kinds of stat-fu to keep encounters meaningful when a single party member was over-optimized.

I think the point about power-gaming in a group of 'its more about the story' players is that one person, using the rules has the ability to smash through anything and everything, leaving everyone else feeling left behind. So now the GM wants to build better/smarter encounters to face off against the kill-machine and the other players start adjusting towards a more optimized build, and oh look at that, an arms race.

Building specialized encounters to neutralize a threat will make that player feel picked on, but not directly addressing them leaves the other players left out of meaningful combat. The other players could try to reinvent their role such that are full participants in the combats without making the actual killing a part of their job, but that is asking three players to change so one doesn't have to.

In the end, I would try being direct, and telling this problem player that they are disruptive in your group. Don't attack them, just let them know that the way they are playing isn't one with the flow, and offer specific solutions that explore other aspects of their character's role. Don't try to take away, but try to encourage new growth.

[spite]If this fails, have a few rigorously non-violent game sessions. Put character's skills (and not just the d20+modifier ones) to the test, and let their personalities be what makes the scene. A bland, unformed blob of conceptual killing will feel useless here, and the player might feel inspired to give their stat-block some personality (if this is even a part of the issue).[/spite]

I'll add:

In general, whether commenting on an RPG Superstar entry, or replying to this thread, or replying anywhere on the internet:

Before you hit "post," read what you're saying. Then remove your foot from your mouth and read what you're saying again. Does it still seem like a good idea? Is it a helpful contribution to the discussion? Is it a nitpick or derailment of the topic?

If the answer is "no," don't post it.

Something I often find myself doing... not posting, when it seemed like a good idea at first.

A step further on this point though, if all your going to do is post the tenth in a sequence of the same criticism, don't. The tenth "this is flawed here" only wounds the ego, doesn't actually provide meaningful input.

Joel Flank wrote:

LoreKeeper wrote:

Auto-rejected round 2 entries:

• Sorcerous Bloodline: Alcohol
  

Actually, this one sounds like it could be fun, somewhat like a drunken master version of the Sorceror, where their magic gets more powerful the more they drink.

Will they have the power to summon The Green Fairy? or must they be happy with the Fiendish Clydesdale?

They can call forth a golden Stag :)