The cases where someone uses it to block line of effect for targets not within the radius of the dome is somewhat troubling and sounds obnoxious.
But otherwise, this is a 4th level spell (there are a great deal of other useful spells at that slot), has a hemispheric shape centered on the caster, cannot be reoriented to be below the caster (so limited use for folks in the air), and still consumes an action from the caster to get out of (even if its a swift action teleport, its still an action). Ultimately, its a defensive spell, and using it to negate effects until they get out of it doesn't seem so bad. There's several other players to interact with, yes?
It's rather useful in higher level play (inb4 "who cares about higher level play").
A save or suck shuts down encounters better than this spell does.
I think we should leave it in, but for the folks using it beyond its "obvious" applications to interfere with encounters in a great capacity, it might be good to remind them that "just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should" and that the GM is also trying to have fun. Ideally, I think it could be rebalanced by increasing the spell level, but I understand the difficulty of errata for splatbooks.
Andrew Christian wrote:
This seems like a very arbitrary inconsistency that is designed to operate against the player, and frankly seems rather hostile. Is the root of the intent to prevent the eidolon from becoming more powerful than what the class feature intends, but also allow it to become weaker?
The logic should follow that if class features cannot benefit from boons, that they should certainly not be impacted by negative boons. Or you allow class features to be impacted by positive boons and negative boons. The approach must be consistent. Inconsistent rulings are inconsistent.
This doesn't change anything about how readied actions normally work, so players should expect to use readied actions as usual.
Agreed on disallowing the carry over of undead. Though I'm not quite subscribed to the example you quoted. There are some very interesting monsters that would be out of place in terms of balance in scenarios from which they don't originate. Right now just saying "undead don't carry over between scenarios" is a very simple and elegant rule that leaves very little room for error.
I think there's also a strong chance that many people don't realize that the animated undead lose class levels upon being reanimated, and that leads to some balance problems and perhaps also contribute to the resentment of this mechanic. I also think with the onyx cost for Animate Dead is well balanced for the scope of one scenario.
That being said, I think opening up some of the variant animate undead options (such as fast zombie) would be good. Admittedly, I had thought they were legal up until I noticed this thread.
Because it lasts a minute per level, and costs your first action in combat to cast (unless you quicken it). It's expensive in a different way.
Except some chronicles have boons on them that are awarded based on decisions made in the scenario. Such information is a spoiler (ranging from minor to major of course). That seems to me like it would not "preserve much of the scenario's mystery."
Because information from it is used in scenarios, reading the Core Rulebook is cheating.
The snark here is unhelpful and doesn't actually advance your argument.
Searching for a chronicle sheet you don't have requires that you read scenarios before you have played them. Reading a scenario in advance is strongly discouraged unless you are going to be running it in the near future. This is because there are players that have trouble managing the advance knowledge they obtain from reading a scenario and wind up spoiling or metagaming (intentionally or otherwise).
Not terribly difficult.
If you want to do it and not impact anybody, be discrete and non-disruptive about it. People won't smile at that practice, though.
To be fair, usually James Jacobs does not want to be taken as a rules source. But in this situation I think it's at least somewhat obvious that he's more correct than the book.
So you say that, but I can't help but wonder whether allowing people to buy this at 5k simply because James Jacobs's recommendation for the correct price is not "a ruling from campaign leadership" is helpful or harmful to the campaign. Do you think that if people are allowed to buy this at 5k, there will be problems and frustration when campaign management inevitably corrects the price to 25k?
I'm not convinced blindly adhering to what is obviously a typo is really the best thing to do. Ambiguous and poorly written rules are one thing, but it is painfully apparent that this is a mistake and anyone denying it (don't see anybody mind you) is simply being obstinate.
As reasonable folks who (I'm assuming) don't like dealing with people who are upset after forced loss of equipment, it's probably easier in the long run if the 25k price is used.
Honestly it sounds like the more sensible thing for people who have this problem to do is to stop buying hard cover books and only buy PDFs.
I know people like hardcover books because they're nice and because it helps supports FLGSs (I usually buy PDFs and hardcovers myself), but if Paizo is not going to make it easier for customers who buy these more expensive books to participate, then people should consider not buying these books.
Vote with your dollars and tell Paizo that you think their support is insufficient. That's really the best you can do.
Complaining here on a yearly basis during convention season has not really helped. The rules as they are address the concerns of the campaign with regards to enforcing rules and proving ownership of sources. At this point in time, book sales are not a problem that needs to be considered with this rule.
EDIT: So no one feels tempted to lecture me about how I can work around this problem, I already buy the hard cover books and the PDFs.
Convention boons are good to help encourage/reward convention attendance.
But I think Expanded Narrative is a boon that is not good to limit to conventions. There are plenty of local GMs that can't attend conventions that do enough in their local circle that they would deserve this reward. It should be distributed like the Star Reward Boons Chronicle.
John Compton wrote:
I think the Expanded Narrative boon is designed correctly, because it incentivises and rewards people for GMing more often.
The accessibility is the only problem. Even for people who can attend conventions, I've heard a couple of stories about frequent and respected volunteer GMs in a few gaming communities being disappointed with being unable to get one of these boons at Gencon or Paizocon because of unlucky rolls at the token exchange counter.
This will make a lot of volunteers that help make PFS a better community happy.
Does allowing every character you make to play any scenario, so long as the same character doesn't repeat a scenario count as "unlimited replay"? Just trying to figure out what camp I'm in.
Effectively yes. Among the other reasons why that's bad, there are some scenarios that have particularly strong boons, so there would be incentives to run those far more frequently (honestly, I would not be surprised if people tried to run them once per character every character because some of these are very strong).
Here's a list of some potentially problematic ones:
* Ioun stone that awards an extra feat.
* +2 profane bonus to an ability score for a year.
* Brands that apply moderately useful bonuses.
* A wide selection of boons, one of which is your character dies at HP == -(CON+7) instead of HP == -CON.
I think replay for credit is unhealthy, but I also think that what we have for reopening scenarios for replay is about right (the GM star recharge boon should not be convention only though). Replay for credit is problematic in summary because it removes the incentive to try new scenarios and just run the older, "superior" ones over and over again.
Replay for no credit would be a nice to have, because I think it's important to allow the "hard core players" to continue to participate. But unfortunately there are people out there who are not mature enough to allow people who can play for credit to have precedence when claiming seats. (And again, a lot of this has been solved already with core campaign so it's far less of a problem).
The "Fires of Karamoss" sidebar indicates you ignore hardness altogether. But, as far as I know, that's the only place that rule has shown up. Which makes it very troublesome, because players who know it want to use it, but we don't have an actual reference anywhere other than a single scenario.
Oh ok, it looks like we're talking about different things/I misread your post/I don't know how to read. Sorry! Do you happen to have the wording?
EDIT: Found it (sorry, I'm struggling real hard today)
Cool! Vulnerability precedence! But yeah this should be FAQ'd please.
After a long bout of reading CRB on this matter, the simplest explanation I was able to derive was the following (hope it helps or makes sense):
1. Harness and Energy Attacks (specifically halving energy damage) are properties of objects.
2. Harness and 'Energy Attacks' rules are separate, and are not tied together in one package.
3. A Robot is not an object, it is a construct, so it does not have the 'Energy Attack' rules. It is given the Harness rules explicitly.
Spoiler has the CRB sources.
Rules Quotes and stuff:
Damaging Objects, Additional Rules, CRB, PRD wrote:
At least this is how a lot of us concluded prior to the FAQ that robots didn't halve energy damage.
Edit: Corrected "object" wording.
Edit 2: The thing I have yet to see addressed that I'm still not sure how to rule on is the precedence of hardness and vulnerability to electricity. Do I subtract harness, then multiply damage by 1.5? Or do I multiply damage by 1.5, then subtract hardness? Or do I ignore hardness altogether?
I wasn't making a statement about whether it would increase sales, I was pointing out that this policy is likely having a greater negative impact on people who probably "buy more individually", AKA loyal customers.
* It really is a pretty small fraction of the player base that's having problems finding scenarios. They're here, and there are probably more of them than are posting on this thread. More replay would help them. But, there are many more people out there for whom it's not a problem.
For the sake of fully understanding this particular point, It's important to acknowledge that this "small fraction of the player base" is composed of people who spend more time playing the campaign than other people, and are more likely to be people who purchase more products. (As a side, the counter argument that "it's not designed to be played that much" is dumb, because it's telling people to engage in the product less and to look elsewhere to spend time.)
That's the messed up part of this whole no replay for no credit ruling, it punished people who spent more time with the campaign, which was backwards.
To reiterate before people jump on this, I understand why it's done this way, and that it is less of a problem now than it was then.
Last year, I thought the best answer for this initiative issue was "GM does what makes the game easier to run for them as long as they still provide positive experience for the players."
And a year later I still can't understand why people are so worried about this that it needs to become a campaign policy.
Did the GM clump initiative to create an unfair situation, kill a bunch of PCs and make people mad? That sounds like they did the wrong thing. Did the GM clump initiative and nobody noticed and had a good time? Then what's the problem?
Is this really a big problem in PFS? Do we really need a ruling for this? Aren't there more valuable things we could spend time discussing on the forums?
Sometimes I wonder if the incessant arguing here about little things is a deterrent for new people.
Personally I think replay for no credit is harmless for communities with the organizational capacity to handle it.
However, replay for no credit is a workaround/solution to a problem (scenario availability) that already has a few workarounds that do not involve opening replay for no credit. Moreover, it does cause some scheduling difficulty for larger communities. For instance, how do we guarantee that someone who can play for credit is prioritized over someone who cannot? From what I learned from Drogon last time we debated this, it seemed like a substantial risk for his community and I think it's an important one to prevent elsewhere. And because of that disadvantage, and perhaps others, there's not going to be enough of a voice to get that policy changed.
The majority is less interested about the corner case where people don't show and a table gets canceled which results in the people who did show having nothing to play. There are workarounds but there are also situations where you wind up with scheduling conflicts that are impossible to solve for everyone.
Is that problem alone worth opening up replay for no credit? Probably not. But perhaps that might change if there was more data on how frequently that happens. Or alternatively we'd have enough proof to make an informed decision to not address it because of infrequency. Maybe there are also some more draconian community level rules that could help prevent that.
I think if there was better tools in place to help determine if people were eligible for credit for a given scenario, we could then have the scheduling sophistication to open up replay for no credit.
Of course, the other side of that if Paizo were to try and invest in scheduler tools that integrated with their session reporting DB, we could then have scheduling tools that could calculate a playable scenario for a group of people.
That's development dollars though.
N N 959 wrote:
As such I reject your notion that there is a legacy problem as a superficial treatment of the matter. There is no legacy problem because my suggestions align with what the previous and dominant perspective on the skill.
Ok. I reject your notion that this is a problem that needs to be solved with a new policy, so I suppose we just agree to disagree.
Ripple effect is still unmeasurable within pratical bounds.
Previous assumption was that take 10 was within the GMs authority to dictate. The suggested rule would impact every skill check where the author considered a GM might bar take 10. Might be minor in most situations but changes like that cause unexpected problems that are often more cumbersome than the issue they were intended to solve.
Well, Andrew had some examples. I think it's also reasonable to answer your query with "nobody knows," which is an important thing to consider because then to make your proposed (or similar) ruling work, someone is going to have to figure that out, and that's going to cost time and money.
But I think immediately I can point to a couple of things with certainty that they won't be addressed in legacy content:
I can't imagine that many legacy scenarios have explicit stipulations on when to use and not use Take 10 because it's been a non-issue up until this point (in one way it still isn't an issue because of the no FAQ necessary).
4 GMs are required to make an objective assessment on whether the circumstances constitutes a distraction or "immediate" danger.
If I'm Mike Brock, and I get a complaint that a GM did not "objectively assess whether a circumstance constitutes a distraction or 'immediate' danger", how do I prove this? I mean, I understand the intention of the proposed rule and it's a good goal, but the ruling needs to be something 'measurable'.
Yeah I think that's a slightly different context, but still that's a good counterpoint and important information to consider when making a decision about allowing take 10s.
N N 959 wrote:
That might work going forward but that doesn't address the 7 seasons of content that have been previously designed around different assumptions.
It's not practical for legacy reasons.
Andrew Christian wrote:
For Mike or John or Linda to create a take ten rule for PFS, it creates a scenario where they are saying they know better than the design team.
I think PFS Campaign management and the Design Team have different objectives in mind when it comes to the rule set.
For instance, table variation is a very touchy problem in PFS that often turns into needlessly heated arguments. Table variation for a home game (which is clearly what Pathfinder Design Team writes their content for, see any "GM Discretion" rule) is a complete non-issue. In fact, the GM in a home brew doesn't even need to use the rules in the book and can modify them at will because "who cares."
So in the context of adjusting rules to function sanely in a global campaign where at least some degree of consistency is desired, I would say the PFS Campaign Management at the very least is more concerned about table variation than the Design Team and is likely more adept at identifying and dealing with it. Though this is not to claim that PFS Campaign Management is terribly worried about table variation in general.
That being said, I'm not sure if Take 10 is such an issue that campaign management is particularly worried about. I mean, really, what prohibiting take 10 because it "trivializes encounters" says is "I know you have at least a 55% chance to succeed, but I really want to squeeze that last 0%-45% to see you fail."
Sometimes difficulty is important in a game. Other times its unnecessarily irritating. How would PFS Campaign Management practically issue a ruling exactly? There are tons of possible circumstances where the greater population of PFS would see "no take 10" as appropriate, and still there are many others that would see it as fine and not care.
Does "use responsibly" or "be reasonable" really not work?
Potential alignment infraction for G-E axis and L-C axis, but there's no catch all and it should be something negotiated with the GM.
Here are some questions to ask:
Lawful-Chaotic: Is killing this person violating regional laws? Does the Paladin's Deity approve of this action? Is the Paladin violating their Code of Conduct?
Good-Evil: Is the kill necessary? What are the motivations? Did the opponent attempt to surrender? Can they present any realistic threat anymore?
CDG is probably not a good action, but it is also contextually not evil. It is also likely not a lawful action, but it is contextually not chaotic.
Hope this is somewhat helpful!
EDIT: Fixed typos.
There's no catch-all for what alignment CDG falls under it is completely within the domain of GM discretion. Trying to box it up is probably unhealthy. The motivations of the OP are a useful piece of evidence that could help categorize it, but unfortunately it's just one anecdote among an infinite number of possible scenarios. So I'm not sure we should say "CDG is evil" just based on the motivation put forward in this thread.
And I don't think blanket declarations about what action it is will help anybody. GM discretion is a simple way to look at it that can be handled on a case by case basis by people who fully understand the situation.
The Fourth Horseman wrote:
Let's also not forget that a PC needs several alignment warnings before a shift to evil alignment is forced. So an isolated incident like this probably isn't the end of the world.
But it is at least an interesting discussion point.
There's no argument being made for it being a good action, just a question of whether its an evil action.
Typically killing helpless opponents who have no practical way of threatening you in the future leans towards evil, but I think an argument could be made for it to be a neutral action if there's the right justification.
I don't think the reasoning of "I want to get the last hit" would really qualify as neutral though.
CRB, PRD wrote:
But this is a fine example of GM discretion.
I think this website suffers from a lack of webdesign and as a result is cluttered and difficult to navigate for new users. Even though I've been browsing paizo.com for a few years now I still find myself stumbling on new links that were put in a place that I didn't expect that would have saved me a bunch of page traversals.
This does not seem to be a PFS problem, because the PFS site is constrained by the web design decisions made for the entire paizo site. I don't think PFS leadership will get very far on their own unless the web team is willing to do a more global revamp (which I would strongly suggest).
The first thing I thought when I started PFS was that the paizo.com site looks like a college senior design project. It's not exactly professional, and more problematic is that its difficult to navigate. There's an apparent lack of planning on how content should be organized (at least from this user's perspective). It could very well benefit from an overhaul especially given how sharp the website of paizo's primary competitor looks.
The feedback sounds harsh I imagine, but please don't view it as an attack on the developers or anyone working at paizo - the criticism is directed specifically at the product. It's difficult to change software that's been around for years because it's hard to justify dedicating a budget towards revamping something that already works.
Overall, I think the product could heavily benefit from some reorganization and great deal of usability testing. Admittedly, it's been a very long time since I've done any web development, so I don't think I can provide any specific advice (not that my opinion was exactly solicited anyway), but web design consultants are aplenty so there should be many professionals available to provide some insight into how to improve the experience here.
For an easy improvement, people also seem to be suggesting that "Additional Resources" is somewhat of a misleading name. I think that's a reasonably sound observation. Naming is a very tricky business, but it is also very important because names are one of the most important tools that users can use to learn about the software they are interacting with.
"Legal Resources" may be a more concise, intuitive name.
Hope that helps, sorry if I offended anybody.
Sure, but while you and some others see a pearl of power not qualifying for that objective as being needlessly difficult, others see it as being too permissive.
Neither point of view is wrong, and ultimately its not that big of a deal either way. Both sides have really well justified opinions.
Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:
I can think of a certain set of rather notorious boons in season 4 that might be abusable with this proposal.
Not to say that this isn't a good start though, just gotta point out corner cases.
The criteria for grandfathering has been relatively easy to meet (4 XP), so there was a small amount of people impacted by the changes.
The people who are impacted seem to feel blindsided and that's most certainly a notable downside of the approach. Though it seems like the benefits of the strategy outweigh the downsides so far, and it's clear (at least to me) that they've been putting effort in minimizing the ripple effects. Can't please everybody, unfortunately.
They teach people in school that "slippy slope" is a fallacy that does nothing to combat a point of view other than distract from the point. This is a fantastic example of that.
If you honestly cannot see the difference between the examples you provided and taking a passive aggressive, spiteful action against another player or character, then it is not worth the time explaining what is wrong with your counter argument. The differences are self evident.
Edit: I stopped reading your post after the first sentence. thejeff's answer was pretty spot on.