BiggDawg's page

The Advanced Race Guide is a tool for GM's. The race creation rules are not balanced for players to make a race, there is no structure to keep them from making silly unbalanced races. It is simply a guide for the GM or others who are earnestly trying to make a race for a setting and want some guidance. Even for that purpose the guide is more of a yardstick as the bonuses are not balanced in any way really and at best it is a way to compare a new race to existing ones. I would highly recommend not letting players make races as part of character creation, it really is not designed for that in my opinion.

Sounds like your GM has fallen prey to the story trap and is misunderstanding his role. The GM does not control the story and attempts to do so will result in things like this occurring. This is not a novel or tale, RPGs are their own medium. The role of the GM is to create, control and adjudicate the setting, and allow the story to develop from the choices of the characters.

The GM's job is to create exciting and evocative settings, not control the story because the GM lacks something that authors have, total narrative control. The players have narrative control over their characters and thus the GM must allow the characters to utilize their agency within the setting so that the story can be created from this interaction. The GM puts interesting setting elements into play which the characters then get to make interesting decisions about how they act towards them. This interaction is what gives rise to the story, no one controls it, it is cooperatively created at the game table.

Any time the GM finds themselves tempted to force a prescribed outcome they are straying outside the role as GM. The GM should focus on the setting and make it as interesting, exciting and adventure worthy as they can. Fill it with interesting situations, people and events that the characters get to make decisions about how to interact with and let that be the story. Don't try to tell a story to your players, they aren't interested if they were they would read a book or watch a movie, instead create a story with your players and you will have an endless supply of fun and you will all tell stories about the great game sessions you had together.

What makes a successful gaming experience?

I have been pondering how to talk about this subject for a while now and I finally just decided to blurt my thesis out. Part of the difficulty with role playing games is that they use terminology from literature, but use them in slightly different ways, changing their true meaning. The reason for the variation is that they are games with several people involved, not a single person writing. This division of power and responsibility leads to the need to change the definition of the literary elements. There are three main elements to a game experience; the characters, the setting and the story.

The characters are created and controlled by the players. The creation of the characters is limited by the setting, but within the parameters of that setting the choices are entirely up to the players. The most important part of characters is their agency. The characters are the only part of the game that has agency, meaning they are the only ones that can take meaningful action. All action is only meaningful as it relates to or includes the characters. Anything outside of this is part of the setting.

The setting is everything else in the game that is not the characters. This includes rules, people, places, and things. From NPCs, to monsters, to the Gods, to different cultures, to locations on a map, to nuances of the monetary system everything outside of the characters is part of the setting. This includes the GM being the neutral arbiter of the game rules as the rules are the foundation and give rise to the setting. Events or things the GM plans to have happen are also part of the setting, they are not story elements.

The story is what happens when the agency of the characters interacts with the setting. The story is what happens when you and your friends sit down at a table and make interesting choices and roll some dice. The story is not told by any one person sitting at the table, it can only be told in retrospect when you and your friends reminisce about the time the Monk used stunning fist on the Spider lord and it rolled a 2 on its Fort save when it needed a 3. Or the time when the Barbarian told the assembled council of nobles "I'll marry the whore" when they tried to decide which character should marry one of their daughters to forge a new kingdom. The story is experienced, not told. It is in the memories of the shared experience that the story lives. It is the responsibility of all people involved to help create the best story they can by playing their role.

It is by these definitions that I present the formula Characters + Setting = Story. This formula has served me well in my 30 years of being a GM, and it has lead to a lifetime of great memories that my friends and I still share. Hopefully sharing this concept will give a new GM a good foundation so that they and their friends can create memories of their own to last their lifetime.

Won't work, at least for PFS:

Mystic Past Life (Su): You can add spells from another spellcasting class to the spell list of your current spellcasting class. You add a number of spells equal to 1 + your spellcasting class's key ability score bonus (Wisdom for clerics, and so on). The spells must be the same type (arcane or divine) as the spellcasting class you're adding them to. For example, you could add divine power to your druid class spell list, but not to your wizard class spell list because divine power is a divine spell. These spells do not have to be spells you can cast as a 1st-level character. The number of spells granted by this ability is set at 1st level. Changes to your ability score do not change the number of spells gained. This racial trait replaces shards of the past.

As a Druid spell, Barkskin is divine.

It is on the Summoner spell list, so it is also Arcane.

The threatening rules say "can make an attack" meaning if you had an attack could you attack that square. It is a question of reach not whether you actually have an attack available. It does not say "must be able to attack". That is my reading of the RAW.

Lemmy wrote:

Does Inquisitor count as martial class? What about Magus?

From the full BAB ones, I'd say Paladin = Barbarian, but with different focuses. Ranger is a very close second, followed by Gunslingers (who have higher DPR, but are very one-dimensional). Fighters are the runt of the litter... And I have no idea where Cavaliers fit, since I never cared about the class, but if I had to guess I'd put together with Fighter.

no offense, but did you read my post or just the title?

No offense, but maybe you should read your own post since you violated your own parameters right off the bat.

Advocating for a Priest class in a future release is one thing, coming into the play test and saying it should be Priest instead of Warpriest is another. I can totally get behind a Priest class, but this is not the proper forum or way to go about promoting it.

I think the new classes are a great start and I love the direction they are going in. Multiclassing is a legacy weight on the system, it just doesn't work as we'll in the current pathfinder paradigm. Merging multicast concepts into single classes is brilliant. This allows the flavor of the multicast combo to have solid mechanical support. I like that they use components of the parent classes because they are familiar and understood abilities which lessens the learning curve, but they each get new mechanics to help bring them up in power with single class characters and express the unique combo of two classes.

Sure the classes need some work, but this is a play test for a reason. I love the direction and the reasoning behind it, very savvy Paizo. This new multi class single class paradigm will allow Paizo to pump out more classes without increasing unique mechanics by a metric ton. This will combat the rules bloat issue that comes along with expansion.

While a GM can do a lot of things, the real question is what is appropriate when dealing with other people you respect in a social setting. A true leader, and the GM being first among equals should be the leader of their group of people, doesn't have to rely solely on a claim to his/her position, but instead inspires others to follow the path they are blazing.

As soon as some starts pulling a Dexter as a GM, "You dare defy my whims? I am the game master. You are my pawns. I have created the world you see before you. I CONTROL YOUR FATE!" You know they have proven that they are a poor leader.

Yes if the GM takes that approach then I agree they are a poor GM. However having a specific idea for a setting and wanting to explore that with your players is not the same thing as believing your players are pawns.

Of course the DM should work with the players to incorporate their ideas, but the players also need to work with the GM. If the GM comes to his players with a specific idea and pitches it to them they should endeavor to work with that idea so that everyone can have fun. Not every idea will work and as the GM is the editor of the setting in the end the GM will have the final say.

This doesn't make the players the GMs slaves, it makes them contributors. Once the game starts the players get to control how they interact with the setting. Prior to the start of the game the GM controls the design of the setting. Since everyone is there to have fun the GM needs to design something the players will have fun interacting with and the players need to interact with the setting in a way that is fun for the GM. It is a symbiotic relationship and both sides benefit from cooperation in the form of having fun.

It may be a game but my time is not a joke.

It is important to define what a special snowflake character is. To me it is someone that goes outside of the games normal character creation rules in order to support their concept. Now this can be good or bad depending on the creation. I have seen munchkin special snowflakes and I have seen cool snowflakes (and allowed them). Usually the less mechanically rigorous the snowflake the better.

As long as the concept fits within the theme of the campaign and the other players are okay with the concept I allow the snowflake, but if they happen to die I generally don't allow a replacement snowflake. I also try to have only one snowflake at a time so they can actually be sort of special. Though with my groups these types are pretty rare anyways since we all prefer standard fantasy tropes.

What is appropriate criteria for a snowflake character will vary from group to group as it really is all about that groups preferences. Allowing all snowflakes or disallowing all snowflakes doesn't make anyone a better gamer or a better group they just have different preferences. Each group must decide how their preferences align and how best to have fun playing the game. Fun isn't the most important thing, it is the only thing.

BiggDawg wrote:

When the two sides disagree whose like wins out, the player or the GMs?

I've tried to be consistent and clear in pointing out my belief that (with the exception of a small number of 1-on-1 games), there are generally more than two people involved (ususally ~5 people, including some players and 1 or more DMs) -- and, therefore, decisions affecting the group should be made by ALL those concerned, not just two of them. If a clear majority emerges (and it usually does, after discussion), then that should probably carry the most weight, unless specific circumstances contra-indicate that.

BiggDawg wrote:

The setting purity argument is bunk in the sense that believing a player could never contribute positively to your setting is ridiculous because the whole point of making a setting is so players can play in it. However this doesn't mean that every idea a player comes up with is good and the GM isn't obligated to include every idea into their setting.

This is a very good summary of my thoughts.

BiggDawg wrote:

In this sense the purity argument is a good one, the GM should endeavor to imagine the best setting for his players to play in that they can within the context that the setting is sort of the GMs character and they need to find enjoyment in the process to. This means saying no when the GM believes they should say no to preserve the purity of their idea for the setting which is kind of like a character for

...

I agree that everyone involved in the game should have input into the game. When I ask who should win out when it comes down to the player and the GM disagreeing I agree that what the other people involved think is probably what is going to decide it, but sometimes the other players don't have a strong feeling either way. In that circumstance I think the person with the like should give in to the other persons dislike because a like can be replaced with another like where you can't just change something you dislike.

If all the other players love the character and want to play with that character then the GM should include it, and either change their setting or use a different one. Or if the other players don't like the character concept and want to play in the GMs setting as envisioned maybe that player shouldn't play in that game.

My players are all my friends and we play 2 or 3 times a week in different games so a person opting out isn't that bad. I realize others don't have this option and in the circumstance that an excluded player wouldn't get to play at all then it should be given extra consideration (by the player as well).

The process is a give and take, sometimes the player should cave to the GM, they may find that they have a great time if they roll with it, and other times the GM should cave to the player, they may find a great new piece of their setting which makes it better. In the end everyone is on the same team with a unified goal of everyone having fun. As long as everyone involved is dedicated to that goal (Player and GM) then everything else will work itself out.

Give me a good reason an experienced enough GM who can make the concept work, shouldn't as I am genuinely curious.

An experienced player could and should for an inexperienced GM, but there's no reason for them to change for an experienced one. unless as above there is some good reason that you could fill me in on.

Because he and the other players dislike the concept and its presence in the game would be an impediment to their fun.

So the problem boils down to "Some players aren't mature enough to play despite there being a a lot they would enjoy if there is something they don't agree with." Seriously, there's a lot of things in well... everything that most people are not fanw of, but that doesn't stop them from enjoying the parts of well... everything that they enjoy.

Hama: An Awakened Pony Wizard makes just as much sense as your avatar... just saying.

Yes the problem is that you aren't mature enough to accept that other people may have different preferences then you and may not find fun what you find fun.

BiggDawg wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

No one is making anyone else eat (play) the Surf and Turf (mix and match character concept), they just have to watch you eat (play) it and getting offended over that is the definition of petty (to say the least), since they knew it was a menu item at Pathfinders before they agreed to go there.

Playing is a collaborative process and everyone at the table is playing with and interacting with all the other players. The final result is a collective experience that everyone in the group shares together. How and what character you play does impact my character and experience. Your analogy that the character is an individual entree that no one else has to experience is false because everyone at the table has to experience that character. This is why the analogy of the shared meal that everyone partakes in is better.

Likes and dislikes are not petty, they are the reason we are all at a table together looking to play a game. If those likes and dislikes don't align to everyone's satisfaction then maybe we shouldn't play a game together. It has nothing to do with ability or skill, it is all a matter of preference.

No one is making you eat (play) the entree Steve brought. If you can't handle having something like Surf and Turf (mix match character concept) on the table, just because you wouldn't enjoy eating (playing) than that sounds rather petty.

I get it, you really like your character but your like doesn't necessarily trump the dislikes of the other people present. Everyone eats everything at the table because everyone has to imagine and interact with everything in the game, therefore everyone consumes all parts of the meal. The character you play does impact the experience of the other players as their characters have to interact with your character in a shared experience.

Is it really so hard to understand why someone would not want to spend their free time imagining something they dislike? That isn't petty, it's just common sense. You don't have the right to force other people to endure something they dislike just because it is something you really like.

It may only be a game but my time is not a joke.

I like to spend my free time doing something I enjoy. My likes and dislikes are foundational to what I enjoy. Therefore what I like and dislike is important to the game because I spend my time on it. This is not being petty, our likes and dislikes are an important part of who we are.

Since this is a group endeavor we need to try to align our likes and dislikes so that everyone can have fun. Usually this works as we all agree on playing a game using the Pathfinder rules in an agreed upon setting. Everyone has the option to opt in or out of this social contract and to request certain aspects. The group agrees upon whatever arrangement of likes and dislikes works best for them and if a compatible arrangement can be agreed upon then the game proceeds. You have to accept that the group may impose restrictions on you so that the likes and dislikes of everyone can be made compatible. This is true for players and GMs.

Imagination and experience are not necessarily involved because this is not a question of how but why. Because we are all seeking to have fun peoples dislikes are generally going to hold more weight as a single dislike, if it is strong enough, can ruin that persons fun. Where a persons likes are a bit more flexible as people generally have multiple things they like so if they have to exclude something they like as long as there is something else they like they can still have fun.

The group should endeavor to include as many likes of its members while mitigating the presence of dislikes. Again this has nothing to do with immagination, it is arranging preferences so that everyone can enjoy themselves. This is done in order to create an environment where everyone present will find value or fun in spending their time in the group activity. This process will be different for every group as each group will have their own unique combination of likes and dislikes and no one arrangement will work for everyone. Sometimes this means that certain people have incompatible likes and dislikes and they may not be able to play together. Usually a middle ground can be reached but not always, and that is okay and it is not petty.

Not everyone has fun imagining the same things.

Allowing everything is the least imaginative way to approach something. It would be more imaginative on the players part to find a character that fit into the setting. Restrictions actually enhance creativity as it challenges you to incorporate others ideas and preferences. Now this is a two way street and the GM should try to incorporate players ideas and preferences into the setting, but there is no obligation on the GMs part to sacrifice their own preferences and possibly the other players as we'll just to accommodate a single players preference. The GM makes the setting, the players make a character in that setting, and the game is the story of what happens to those characters in that setting. It isn't a matter of could, it is a matter of like. If everyone likes awakened pony wizards then it's a go, if only one does it is back to the drawing board. Personal preference is a perfectly valid reason and it is not petty. Otherwise why are you even role playing if the reason can't be because I like it.

Anyone can toss a ball up in the air and catch it, it is much harder to toss several balls in the air and keep them from hitting the ground.

OR I could play a game that has rules for running Awakened Pony Wizards along side Paladins and Alchemists already written up for me with no need to change anything. A game like say... Pathfinder.

That is GURPS except you could also use it to play other genres and you don't need to go outside the rules like you are forced to with Pathfinder to get your awakened pony wizard! It really is the perfect system for someone with advanced imagination and experience. No need to change anything like you have to with Pathfinder, just unlimited freedom to use anything you can think of. Just imagine it!

I never claimed Stever could play an Awakened Pony Wizard at level 1. And I would absolutely make him subtract the cost of an Awaken off his WBL.

Really sounds like you are looking for a different system. GURPS seems perfect for you, it can simulate any kind of setting with anything your advanced imagination and experience can come up with!

BiggDawg wrote:

Matt Thomason wrote:

BiggDawg wrote:

Where in the Pathfinder rules is the section that covers making an awakened pony wizard? I have all the books but just can't seem to find where that character option is.

You may have some luck with this :)

Ah so it is in a book that isn't part of the Paizo core Pathfinder rules. So an awakened pony wizard character is not part of the core game rules as suggested earlier.

That's odd, my Core has a section on monsters as PCs. You should check your books again and make sure they aren't knockoffs. My books also have stats for ponies, and a spell called awaken, which has a cost that is listed in my books which should be subtracted from the player's wealth by level, which is also in my books. I would return your copy if you don't have those things in your book.

Edit: Those Monster as PCs are part of the rules of the game, written down in the core rules and everything. Hate to tell you but just because you don't like a rule BiggDawg doesn't mean it isn't one. Maybe you should find a game that doesn't have such rules?

Hmm where does it say that you can have the awakened spell cast on you and then have it subtracted from your future WBL? Wouldn't that come out of your starting cash which would be insufficient? Can I start with level 20 WBL at 1st level cause its creative? It sounds like you are the one who doesn't like the rule that there is no option to make an awakened pony wizard in the character creation section. You are the one going outside the rules. Maybe you should try a different game like the HERO system or GURPS which is more modular and you can come up with your own rules.

BiggDawg wrote:

Where in the Pathfinder rules is the section that covers making an awakened pony wizard? I have all the books but just can't seem to find where that character option is.

The awaken spell + the bestiary stats for a pony + the bestiary rules for advancing a character by adding class levels easily give you one.

That being said absolutely nowhere does it say "this is an option for a PC".

- Torger

P.S. If I were being truly pedantic I would point out that Twilight Sparkle is in fact a unicorn.

Hmm yeah don't see that in the character creation section of the rules. Sounds like it would be playing a different game. Maybe they should look into another game that has character creation options for the awakened pony wizard since they are going outside the rules. After all if its sound advice for people that want to play low magic Pathfinder then it must be sound advice for people that want to play with awakened pony wizards.

Bill Dunn wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

As a long time GM, I view GMs who consider their contribution to be greater or superior to everyone else's with the utmost disdain. Such individuals should really avoid GMing or adopt a better attitude. One of the first things I teach new GMs is to not be the DM of the Rings.

As a long time GM, I recognize this is more of a philosophical statement or political position than reality. The truth of the matter is that a GM invests a lot into a game and is pretty much guaranteed to invest more than any single player in time and effort. As a result, when it's my turn to play, I work with the GM rather than against him if I find the game pitch to my liking. And if it's not but the other players want to play, I'm OK with sitting out. Same goes for when I'm GMing. If the players accept my pitch (and I'm OK if they don't), then I expect them to work with me not at cross purposes. If they can't, then it's clear that it's not time to play that particular campaign.

Having done it long enough, I actually can plan and prepare a campaign setting faster than my players can create characters. Some of my players invest quite a bit of time into creating their characters, certainly far more time than it take me to lay out a solid world foundation. Develop relevant factions, decide a campaign theme, establish starting hooks, and add flavor to it. Furthermore, each player invests time roleplaying their PC in each campaign and planning their characters actions for the next session. I am not arrogant enough to assume that I am investing more time than they are and I would caution others against such folly.

Edit: Thank you Kirth, you explained the difference between systems much more succinctly than I was able to and that is precisely what I was trying to say.

Sounds like you don't put much work into your campaigns or settings and just like to run things off the cuff. Nothing wrong with that. When you get some more imagination and experience I am sure you will be able to put work into your campaigns and settings. Keep practicing I am sure you will get there!

It is possible to not expect special treatment as the GM and to have players that are appreciative of the work the GM has done to set up and run a game.

If one of my players came to me with this character I would bring down the wrath of Zeus on him for having the hubris to challenge my ultimate authority!

Actually I would be happy that a player put extra effort into a character and would do my best to make it work. The character RD has proposed is within the rules and is no where near as powerful as him just taking Leadership and getting another spell caster at -2 levels.

Even if he took Leadership and got a Wizard cohort who was the character RD suggested it would be fine. At the level of play that this character is at the construct is a cool addition that may provide a few highlights but is not going to further unbalance the game. The game is already unbalanced at that point because you are using high level spells, may as well have some cool stuff to boot.

The CR system has always been more art than science. The truth is no simple formula, like the CR system, can make balanced Pathfinder encounters. The CR system is one of many tools you use to make an encounter fun and challenging. If your players are big optimizers you might need to do a little optimizing of the monsters to reflect that. As always it is a balancing act between challenge and killing the party and finding that sweet spot between the two is unique to each group. I take the CR system for what it is, a useful guideline of how the numbers relate to each other so that I can easily eyeball what group of potential monsters to have in the encounter.

People who don't like E6 are just roll players who can't deal with having their OP mechanics taken away. They are always munchkin power gamers with no role playing skills and should go back to WoW and theory craft all the fun out of that game instead of trying to ruin others fun. See how much fun slinging stereotypes is!

Link to house rule thread I created about the magical encumbrance rules I have been using.

Magical Encumbrance

Below is a house rule that I have been using in my Eberron game called Magical Encumbrance. The basic idea is that the Wealth by Level table is an actual in game physical mechanic that limits the amount of magical items that a character can use at any one time. Items take 1 minute to bond and the bond can be removed from an item after resting for 8 hours. The in game expression of this mechanic is that magic items need a bit of your characters life force in order to function for them. You only have so much of this energy to bind to magic items and without it the magic items doesn't function.

You can still carry around a magic item that you don't have bound, but it provides no magical benefit. The item is still magical and it benefits from its magical nature in terms of saving throws and hardness, and any mundane effect of the item is still usable. For example you could wear a suit of platemail +1 that you don't have bound and you would get the benefit of wearing masterwork platemail and if anyone targeted or affected the platemail specifically it is still magical, but you would not benefit from the +1 enhancement bonus unless it is bound.

The major upside to these rules is that it helps to separate gold pieces from magical item power. Under the current rules the more gold you spend on magical items the more powerful you get with no diminishing returns. Spending gold on anything other than magical items is a net power loss as the game encourages you to spend all your gold on magical items. While not removing the connection of gold and magical items this rule does create a point of diminishing returns as you can keep buying magical items, but it is hard to use them after a certain point.

Another byproduct is that you have to be a certain level to make use of certain items. This helps alleviate some of the issues that certain magic items can have on the campaign setting. Something like the Lyre of Building actually needs a decently high level person to bond it so it helps explain some why they are much more common. This also means that certain powerful items can be around in a game without having to worry about the characters getting their hands on it and upsetting game balance.

This rule also encourages different sets of items for different situations. A character may have an adventuring set of gear and a set of gear that they use while they are in town or crafting. So far it has worked great in the Eberron campaign I am running and has helped to keep the Artificer who crafts at .325 cost reasonable. The Artificer can make magic items very quickly and cheaply, but the group only gains so much benefit from it. Consumables are the one area where gold can still be poured into to gain power, but that hasn't really been a problem so far. Below are the rules that I gave to the players as part of the house rule document for the game.

Wealth by Level as Magical Encumbrance
In this campaign for a character to gain the benefits of a magic item they must bond with it in order to activate the magic of the item. This process is a burden on the character and each character can only support so many magic items before additional magic items will not function for them. This burden is referred to as magical encumbrance. The function of this rule is to instead of having the Gamemaster jury rig the wealth of the party behind the scenes each character will have to account for the magical items the character is using and will be limited to the total GP value of these items based on the Wealth by Level table (reproduced below). This will allow gold pieces to be more freely given out based on character/player creativity and ingenuity as they will not upset the balance of magic item wealth and the Challenge Rating system. Not all magic items count against the magical encumbrance value and magic items can be added or removed from the encumbrance. Adding an item takes one minute of concentration while removing an item takes 8 hours of rest.

Items that do not count against Magical Encumbrance

Consumables
Consumables do not count against magical encumbrance as they are one shot items that are meant to be able to be used or transferred between characters. Consumables include potions, scrolls, or any other item that is entirely consumed and destroyed when used (such as tokens, magical arrows and other similar items). Wands are not considered consumables and have their own rules below.

Cursed Items
Initially cursed items are allocated against magical encumbrance, but once they reveal their cursed nature they no longer count against magical encumbrance and are instantly removed from that calculation.

Artifacts and Intelligent Items
Items that are classified as Artifacts or Intelligent do not count against magical encumbrance as they have their own independent power.

Exceptions for certain items

Wands
Wands count against magical encumbrance, but if a wand runs out of charges and the character has a wand with the same spell and GP value as the one that just ran out they can immediately begin using that wand and it takes the place of the exhausted wand.

The trap inherent to giving riddles is that you are shifting the challenge from the character to the player. This actually is meta gaming since you are expecting the player to solve this in game challenge by using his own wits instead of his characters. As long as you give the option for the character to still succeed with dice rolls and the player answering is a short cut things should work out fine. Be careful not to penalize a player that answers even if his character may not have the appropriate mental stats because by giving a riddle that the players have to solve you as the GM have removed their characters from the equation.

No two of which can be more than 30ft. apart is pretty clearly a circle. If no two can be more than 30ft. that is the same as saying a 15ft. radius circle because if you pick any two people affected (like say the two furthest) they can't be more than 30ft. apart. The main difference to this and a circle is that you don't have to define the center and measure out from it, you measure from the two farthest targets.

Nicola Tesla, dude would have the best props!

That said ... it's an NPC. They don't have to be restricted by the same rules as PCs. You want him to quick D-Door out, he quick D-Doors out.

This is terrible advice. Having your NPCs play by different rules is a sure fire way to aggravate your players. Being seen as an unfair DM is just going to create animosity and resentment which will fester.

There are plenty of ways to have the NPC pull of a Dimension Door without it being quickened. 5ft step as mentioned above or just cast defensively. Maybe he had a contingency spell placed on him from a scroll, or give him a race or a magic item that has the capacity to do that, anything aside from just flat out breaking the rules.

It is a much better idea to be creative within the rules than to break them and alienate your players. Pathfinder is a game where it is set up for the PCs and NPCs to largely use the same rules and is part of the basic social contract for the game. Breaking that social contract is always a bad idea as a GM.

Retraining is a brilliant idea and I can't imagine any reasonable DM not allowing it. This allows a player to change their character naturally over time and avoid the trap of wanting to change their character by either killing their character off or retiring them. Anything that helps to keep organic leveled characters from being at a disadvantage to a freshly created high level character is a great addition to the game. Big thumbs up!

Since this is the Rules section by RAW Detect Magic would reveal the presence of the magic in round 1, and after 3 rounds would reveal the presence of the Illusion spell.

Invisibility is only a 2nd level spell and isn't the be all and end all of stealth. The Detect Magic counter is slow and clumsy. See Invisible is a vastly better means of detecting invisible and this is shown by it being a 2nd level spell.

If you want uber invisibility you will have to wait till you can cast 8th level spells and get Mind Blank. Then you have your uber invisibility and 15th level or so is about the right power level for that kind of ability.

Even with Detect Magic picking up invisible opponents Invisibility is a great 2nd level spell.

It comes down to power ultimately. While the players as a group have relatively equal power to the GM as to whether said game actually occurs on a one to one basis the GM has more power than any single player. If the GM decides not to run the game, the game doesn't happen. If a single player decides not to play, another can be found or they can just make do with one less player. This combined with the fact that the GM does far more work (whether it is enjoyable or not is irrelevant) than any player leads to the GM having the most leverage regarding making ultimatums.

That being said leveraging that power and issuing ultimatums is not generally a great way to go about being a GM. If you have to rely on ultimatums all the time you are going to find yourself labeled a bad GM generally. The GM does have every right to limit what races, classes or other rules that are a part of their game, but in the end it is about a group of people getting together to have fun playing a cooperative game. The GM and the players should both try to make concessions regarding this.

If a player wants to play a gunslinger but there are no guns maybe the class can be re-skinned to use crossbows or maybe the GM can take some time to try to work firearms into the game. Maybe the player should take a step back and analyze why there is only this one class, that happens to be banned, that they want to play or the GM should think about why they only ban this one class.

In the end it is about everyone on both sides of the screen having a good time, and if everyone takes into consideration how each other have fun and enjoy the game then it usually is a simple matter to resolve these kinds of issues. Being selfish and only focusing on your own enjoyment almost always leads to others losing out on their enjoyment, so take a step back and ask yourself "Am I being a selfish t!*#?" If so then try to put yourself in the other persons shoes for a second and realize how being a selfish t*$@ is affecting them. This is not something that our society encourages or generally approves of (speaking of the US), but it actually is the best way to handle things of this nature.

I vote for the fiction being replaced by something that is related to the adventure path, if not maps then something detailing the story of the AP more, troubleshooting, or more detailed background. The fiction is good, but if I am buying an AP I want as much content related to the AP as possible.

The problem isn't people going to college for 12 years for a philosophy degree, the problem is that the cost of college has out paced the value of the education. Instead of demand falling off naturally because people can't afford it, the government and predatory lending institutions are propping the high costs of college through loans which in turn allow the institutions to raise costs. This issue is not about "responsibility" it is about near criminal exploitation of a vital national resource, the education of our children and young adults. The cost of college is criminal, and the scam to lure people in is very good, supported by a whole culture regarding what college is and how it benefits you. People should not be "sold" on going to college, but that is exactly what happens. Education is the most important thing in society these days, it should not be a commodity to be trade on the stock exchange casino.

The problem with the current education finance system is very similar to the problem with the mortgage crisis. It is the lack of verification of the borrowers ability to repay. Students are sold on college as the means to make more money over their lifetime and in return you may need to pay some of those extra earnings back as loans. This is a fair set up, if getting a college degree actually leads you to making more money so that you can repay the loans. The problem is that these days a college degree does not necessarily make you enough extra money that paying back the student loans is feasible. The money loaned out is based on speculation and is equivalent to doing mortgages with stated income (so called liar loans).

The other problem is that the very existence of certain college financing rules (like 90-10) pushes the costs of college upwards without an equivalent increase in the value of having a college loan (you don't make more money over your lifetime because college costs more). The whole system is just another bubble, like the mortgage crisis, waiting to explode.

That said the current system does have a lot of support built in and the companies servicing your student loans are pretty good about working with people through tough times. Education is vitally important to the future of our country (id go so far to say it is a national security issue) and how we finance the education of our youth is extremely important. This is something that needs serious intelligent reform so that our future workforce can have the education needed to succeed.

Just walk away people, its obvious that Ciretose and Shallowsoul are trolling. This thread has gone to absurd lengths to explain the obvious and even after the FAQ request went against them they still will not give it up, because they are trolls. Any new players that come here please ignore their posts about this subject the majority have the right ruling in this case.

The rules state that spell resistance is like an armor class, not an attack roll. It then goes on to explicitly state that overcoming spell resistance is a caster level check. Caster level checks do not have any language that makes them fail on a natural 1. So the spell resistance is the target DC (like an Armor Class) that you have to equal or exceed with your caster level check (which doesn't fail on a 1 or succeed on a 20).

I just hope Paizo keeps doing exactly what they have been doing as it has produced a great game and game company. I think the internet distorts the magnitude of any rules issues as the vast majority of customers never come to this forum. Out of the 20 or so people I play with I am the only regular reader of the forums and there are two other people I know that will come here to look for information on certain builds from time to time.

I do believe that Paizo is dead serious about quality and supporting their customers and I trust that they will deal with issues as they can. In a perfect world they would be able to do this easily, but I am sure that there are plenty of things I as a consumer am unaware of that make it much harder than it appears (just like all industries). The dedication that Paizo demonstrates here on the forums is admirable (you don't see this from many other companies) especially given that the majority of their customers never come here.

While we wait we have the power of Rule 0 and the fact that none of these inconsistencies is game breaking so even in the case of sanctioned play it's not like these inconsistencies make the game totally unplayable. Sure it would be nice for certain builds, but you can still play the game use Vital Strike, Spring Attack, and other game features as is and be successful in the game.

But monsters don't deal damage in averages. The result of one roll doesn't determine the result of subsequent rolls; that's the Gambler's Fallacy. If the hydra has a 1 in 3 chance of hitting it doesn't mean it's only going to hit 1 out of every 3 rounds. 37.5 damage is putting a big hurt on a 4th level character.

Rolling four 20's in a row on a d20 sounds improbable but it has the exact same probablity as rolling a 5, then a 12, then a 2, and then an 18. And if a I roll four 20's in a row four times in a row, my chance of doing it a fifth time is exactly the same as it was the first. This is why I hate all of the hyper-optimization average-analysis based threads that pop up all the time now. Games don't flow based on midpoints and arithmetic means. Well, they do if you decide to continue with the trend of removing as many random influences from the game as possible because, for some reason, randomness restricts creativity and is badwrongfun. :/

Each incident has the same chance, but over time things progress towards the average which is why when talking about the game in general referencing averages is useful. Sure a single Kobold could walk up to the party and roll nothing but 20s and the party could all roll 1s and the Kobold would have TPK'd the party, but does that make the Kobold some mega-monster? Obviously not because the rolls in that one single incident were skewed. Instead you ask how likely is that to happen on average and the answer is not likely at all.

The same goes for the players, sure in any one encounter the dice could fall one way or the other, but over the characters career things will approach the average. Part of the fun of the game is that you don't know what the exact outcome of any encounter is going to be, you have to roll it out. However by analyzing the averages you can determine how likely you are to win the encounter.

From a game design perspective you have to analyze and balance the averages as that is what is going to occur at most tables most of the time. You also want to take the extremes into account as those will happen on occasion and you don't want those to be too extreme either. Each point of analysis has its benefits but it is only with a holistic examination that you get the best information.

Problem with the Eidolon (if it actually is a problem) is that due to the mechanical complexity already mentioned it is an extremely game-able feature. What I mean by game-able is that there is a huge variety in the power of Eidolon's that you can make. If you have poor system mastery you can make a very ineffective Eidolon, while if you have good system mastery you can make an Eidolon that can feel OP (and arguably is). I liken the Eidolon creation system to the Race Creation system, it is a system that was created to allow you to make almost anything you can imagine, not keep you from making something OP. Just like the Race Creation system in the hands of a player can lead to OP races, it can lead to OP Eidolons.

I have a Synthesist Summoner with a level dip of Rogue in a Way of the Wicked game that has the best AC, the highest Hit Points, generally does the most damage, has by the far the best skills and has spells, the best mobility, and the second best saving throws behind only the Anti-paladin (in a party of six). Arguably he is the most effective character in the party and in some respects could solo a good portion of the encounters, though he is pretty good about not hogging the spot light. Having put him through Hero Labs the character is RAW legal, and he has been dominant since about level 3. The player involved has great system mastery and he put a lot of research into making his character. This is the result of having an extremely game-able class.

While it is true that all classes benefit from system mastery, I don't think any other class benefits to the same degree that the Summoner does, and this is especially true of the Synthesist as it opens entirely new avenues for min-maxing.

My advice is to let things play out like they reasonably would. I have no doubt that in my game the Synthesist will become a target of the opposition for entirely in game reasons. His power will not escape notice and those that can will take steps to neutralize it, which will create opportunities for other characters to help save his bacon. However it is vital that this not happen all the time or even frequently. The player put the time and effort into making a strong character and they should be able to enjoy that, the trick is to make sure their enjoyment doesn't ruin the enjoyment of everyone else. That takes careful management of counters on your part, and restraint on the players part. As with all things the best thing you can do is talk to the player about it.

Why do players get to be so demanding of the GM? Several of your flaws are pretty nit picky given that the GM already has vastly more responsibility and work to do than you as a player. Where is your manifesto for players? Is it as long and demanding for them? I doubt it.

I am not always evil, but when I am I prefer Way of the Wicked. Stay evil my friends.

Brain in a Jar >> I think the point of contention is that an Enhancement bonus to attack and damage of a weapon is not necessarily the same thing as an Enhancement bonus to a weapon.

This is exemplified by the fact that an Enhancement bonus to a weapon also increases Hardness and Hit Points of the weapon.

However, if the attack and damage subset properties of the weapon being enhanced is applicable to saying it is an enhancement to the weapon, this is unknown. It's a matter of inclusive sets in wordage.

Where in the rules does it say that an Enhancement bonus to attack and damage of a weapon is not the same thing as an Enhancement bonus to a weapon in reference to penetrating damage reduction? There is no such distinction in the rules, you have to add that interpretation. An enhancement bonus to attack and damage doesn't add to hardness or hit points, but where does it say that is the needed quality to be able to penetrate damage reduction? Again it doesn't ever say that, you add that part. The rules are pretty consistent about calling out things specifically when they don't apply. Following Brain's example you don't need to make these leaps in logic, the ruling naturally follows from reading the rules at face value (in my opinion).

The monks fist is a weapon, the amulet grants it an enhancement bonus, it penetrates damage reduction. The belt is a silly attempt to cloud the issue because their is no direct rules to support the other sides arguments, just supposition. Just like a +4 shield cannot penetrate damage reduction (without feats or being enchanted like a weapon), because it is not a weapon even when used to bash and the enhancement bonus is to armor the belts is to strength not attack or damage like a weapon. Although you probably could enchant a belt like a weapon to give it an enhancement bonus so it could penetrate DR just like you can on a shield, but that is a separate magical property from the strength boost and uses the table for magic weapons for pricing.

As to why the developers would add the extraneous only to attack and damage to the AoMF probably because they didn't want people reading too far into the rules and trying to claim that the amulet of mighty fists gives their monk hardness and extra hit points.

In summation, whether or not the rules are clear to some and not others it is obvious that there is a lot of contention over the wording of this item and the Community needs the FAQ to settle the question.