BlackOuroboros's page

WHAT'S YOUR OPINION ON DIPS?

Personally, I love dips; especially a fresh guacamole or some smooth hummus!

The rest of your post is some of the best "begging the question" fallacy I've ever seen. Thank you for that. Class dipping is perfectly fine and completely legal under both RAW and RAI; that's why rules for multiclassing exist.

Some players on those forums however frown at this limit, saying it's not normal coming from a DM to bring such a limitation, cherishing their powerbuilding...

This was hilarious, its like you were asking us the old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" line.

Yeah.. thanks but no thanks. Tabletop is already an expensive enough hobby, we don't need more gatekeeping for people who can't afford to go to all over the country to get region locked content.

Why is this even a topic??? In this category or section?? Who cares whether your character lays, stays, preys or does one-handed rummy with there self?? They have and there are communities for that exact purpose. If that's all you want out of this FANTASY GAME played with dice, miniatures, paper and pens.. then you, my friend, have a very serious problem- and it ain't with what your character does. I can ASSURE that during my gaming session I don't want the characters in my party wondering who's looking at their ass or who their thinking of going down on when we're faced with a room full of monster or in dangerous peril. Geezz, get a grip.....

Why not?

Just because this isn't how you want to play Starfinder, that doesn't mean there aren't others who do. Representation is important to some people. This discussion isn't going to impinge on how you run your games, so if this isn't something your interested in then read something else.

No GP limit?

....make sure he has Dangerously Curious, and two of every wand there is.

At these power levels, wands are more useful as tooth picks.

... Why?

This is pretty much in narrative territory, why bother stating it at all?

Actually, it's a very solid rules argument even if you don't like the results.

Pathfinder is a rules permissive system. It tells you what you can do, not what you can't (typically, sometimes it reminds you what you can't do).

Wow... pedantic and abrasive, a twofer!

Also remember that if we are going to go by pure RAW there is no explicit language in Pathfinder that states that once you acquire a condition that strips your agency, such as panicked, that your agency is ever returned to you. Likewise, there is not explicit language that, if you were to go straight from normal to dead, you lose any agency. So, if we are going to be pedantic about it, your character is far more disabled if they are ever scared witless (because there nothing explicitly saying your character can ever to stop fleeing) then if they are crushed by a boulder (because death has no language saying you can't still act while dead).

Wow... I keep thinking "this thread couldn't be more of a dumpster fire" and I keep being wrong.

If you would like to sanitize the inputs on this topic, I suggest checking out two works: first is Eclipse Phase which I seem to remember had a great deal of fluff on this matter because body swapping was such a major component of the game; second is the Neil Gaiman short story "Changes", which explored the social effects a drug what was almost exactly like the Serum of Sex Shift. Personally, my suspicious is that when using either of these products, it would most likely rewire your brain as to alleviate any dysphoria since the brain would be, implicitly, part of an overall biological change but that's just my suspicion.

BlackOuroboros wrote:

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

I'm actually starting to audit my tables, now that you mention it.

It must be nice having that much time before and after a slot.

It is. We've started doing the same thing in our area, and it is nice, and very educational.

You should try it.

I'll pass. Taking the least interesting part of the hobby and turning it into a primary feature of every session is simply so uninteresting to me that it defies words to describe it.

So, I have to ask the obvious question: how long before you want to roll your players dice for them as well in order to prevent cheating?

I'm actually starting to audit my tables, now that you mention it.

It must be nice having that much time before and after a slot.

BlackOuroboros wrote:

If this were my introduction to organized play, I wouldn't have touched it with a 25-foot pole.

Hence part of the reason it took me 4 years to get into PFS after my first table.

I should have specified that I meant the grousing against leaderships, thinly veiled accusations of all-but-cheating and "badwrongfun" against straw-man players, and the desire of forum keyboard-warriors to police the playing habits of the community at large but possessing zero authority whatsoever. From playing and running games both locally and at some of the biggest cons in the hobby, I have never once witnessed the dysfunction described here; I've seen friction at the table but it was quickly and easily resolved and not even close to the level of disaster you would think was common-place based on what has been discussed so far.

It's unmitigated dumpster fires like this thread that make me endlessly grateful for my local lodge. If this were my introduction to organized play, I wouldn't have touched it with a 25-foot pole.

"Do you want to eliminate foes for money? Plunder tombs for valuable artifacts? Convince powerful individuals to work against their own interests? Wield soul-shattering magic ripped from ancient tomes and the lore of dead civilizations? Join the Pathfinder Society today!"

Slops:

1. From my experience, less than half the 7-11 tables made in any given slot, which is a huge waste of volunteer-power. These people are many of your top-notch best of the best GMs, so having them go underutilized is a shame. The simplest solution is to schedule fewer 7-11s.

I think Tonya and Bob mentioned that they had a plan to release tickets in batches to avoid that situation in the future.

Need more prepared GMs. Having to explain what energy drain is to two different GMs, and explain how abilities of monsters work is sort of frustrating.

Otherwise, retool the special wording, because not being allowed to have one og the people I came with use a 7 pregen in the special when three of us had 11's really was a bummer.

In fairness, even the best GMs have knowledge gaps and players having access to energy drain is somewhat uncommon (off hand, enervation and summoning a succubus are what immediately come to mind). That said, as long as they were teachable, I think that is the best we can hope for.

Hey Bob,

A few suggestions:

1.) GM Reviews: I would think getting feedback from the players on how their GM did would be useful. Preferably a system that could be quantifiable and scaleable, like Net Promoter Score (i.e. "How likely would you recommend your GM to your friends from 1-10"). Perhaps including the sheets in the Chronicle packets and giving players who return theirs a token as compensation. I think with this data we can do a good job of identifying potentially problem GMs that need further review.

2.) How-to Videos: Since it seems pretty apparent at this point that some of our GMs do not like receiving information via text, no matter how small of a bite you make it, it might be better to include relevant information is a short video/podcast message. In all fairness, this is my preferred method of receiving information.

3.) Quiet Room: This is a bit pie-in-the-sky, but I noticed there were some Green Rooms behind the Sagamore. It might be nice to have a GM "quiet room" where we can crash between slots and get away from the noise/visibility to recuperate. I know a lot of people thrive on the "always on" nature of GMing back-to-back-to-back slots but I could use 20 minutes to just center myself without a ton of noise and people around and I don't think I am alone.

That's my tips. What are yours?

I really have one thing to add to this and it's about mindset: be professional. That doesn't mean we can't have fun but, at the end of the day, we are the primary face of Paizo to thousands of paying customers every day at GenCon. Fortunately, most of us are driven to make sure we provide a fantastic experience but every year there are some among us who don't seem to realize that when we volunteer we are making an agreement to sacrifice our autonomy to ensure that others get to have an awesome GenCon. When a GM shows up completely unprepared to run a scenario, that's a problem. When a GM has ignored half of the correspondence coming from HQ, that's a problem. When the GM acts like a jerk, that's a problem. When a GM shows up to a slot too hung over to run well, or doesn't show up at all, that's a problem. And when these problems crop up, it falls to others to shore up the failures; it drains resources and reflects badly on Paizo, GenCon and the rest of us. My point is: make sure you are ready to do what you have signed up for. There's nothing wrong with having a fun time at GenCon, but when you are volunteering then others come first.

As long as you calculated the crunch correctly, then it wouldn't bother me. You might use it as a GM credibility test; if a GM is going to get bent out of shape about it that then you might want to cut your losses then and there.

Darius Leroung wrote:

Gary Bush wrote:

How can this character be PFS legal?

House Leroung is the most scholarly of the Chelish noble houses. Makes perfect sense for a few to want to be Pathfinders.

Ok. Still a blood-thirsty back story.

Welcome to Cheliax.

What the point of this?!? Only 4 episodes means they weren't very hopeful of it, but then why bother?? It's literally nothing but the opening chapter of a video game 27 years old on a system most of the people working on probably never played?!?!

Sure... it got picked up for another season... but how many seasons will it actually TAKE before we get to see Belmont vs. Dracula? 3? 4? 10??

Animation is expensive and Netflix wasn't sure this was going to fly so they tested it with what was essentially a pilot. Now that it "tested well", there is already another 8 episodes on the way. If it continues to do well then I would expect a full length season 3.

Eh... He lost me at summoning an army to slaughter all of Walachia. If he had simply burnt that city to the ground, preferably right then and there, I would have 100% backed him up as they were all culpable. The whole country though? I don't think so.

It's still making Undead, which a lot of people take issue with.

Ok, at this point I'm pretty sure this whole thread is going in circles faster then water down a toilet bowl. I'm also pretty sure any semblence of debate is over and the most undead thing here is the thread itself.

No it wasn't. Some of the earlier season missions were pretty competitive I agree but this was nasty from the beginning. Insulting the player right off at introduction with their announcement was the beginning. Setting him into a position to fail in one encounter along with a comment to the effect that he was 'no loss' was another. Actually stealing the mission message to get an idea of it was the last straw. (Caught them tucking it back in my papers on a break)

Oh wow... that is beyond the pale. If I came back to players snooping through my materials, especially after being a pack of jerks, then I would have kicked them out for cheating right then and there. "Heres your 0xp chronicles, your character is dead, if you don't like it take it up with my VO. Please do, I dare you. "

Everyone gets to play their legal character and if you can not play nicely together then maybe you should not play at all.

That was blunt and unnecessary.

No, I shouldn't.

That's unfortunate, and I think you took away the wrong message. I would says that if you are unable to play a certain type of character without coming into conflict with other players, then don't play those characters. There is a vast, vast panoply of available characters to build in PFS, make ones that can play well with others.

And this goes back to something I hate about PFS, your character's don't matter, your roleplaying doesn't matter, it's just builds and getting through missions. What's the point.

To have fun playing 4-5 hour blocks of pregenerated content for a hybrid roleplaying / tabletop strategy game and to do so a smoothly as possible.

Nefreet wrote:

The basic Summoner isn't an option in PFS, so that's a moot argument.

*adds to list of reasons not to play pfs*

And before you ask why I'm here then, because I saw it in the sidebar, and I'm magnetically attracted to undead arguments.

Both arguments about undead and arguments that should be dead but keep getting raised.

Dispite all logic telling me I really should just not click on it.

*Shrug* PFS is good for what it is: an honest attempt to herd a bunch of opinionated cats to a place where they can all play together with a common rule-set and ethos. It's not perfect, but it does a good job and has a lot of genuinely decent folks putting in long hours to make it happen. PFS is not a replacement for a home game; they are two different beasts. PFS has helped me become a more skilled player and GM and I am happy to play it even if I don't agree with all of the decision made for it.

MadScientistWorking wrote:

The problem with your argument is that there are necromancy spells that fit your criteria of not evil but are considered just as evil. It's because of the concentrated evil part.

I was responding specifically to when you said that nothing that I wrote was actually evil. I described animating the dead via create undead and you said it wasn't evil. Which it is. For reasons I've explained over multiple posts now.

Just because you have explained it multiple times, doesn't mean it is a satisfactory explanation. The truth is, it is declared evil because the authors say so. That is a supremely unsatisfactory answer but, hey that's life. Fortunately house rule can override that, as is the case in PFS. The PFS rule is, basically, "It doesn't matter, shut up and play nice." and that's a rule I can live with.

Soul enslavement is quite a bit different than using burning hands or boneshatter to kill an evil orc raiding a village.

Spells like charm person can be evil depending on how you use them, but aren't inherently so. Planar Binding isn't inherently either. Its certainly an inconvience to drag that outsider to you, but not inherently evil. Especially considerring any good aligned caster is going to bargain for its services, not simply try to enslave it.

Basically most of your examples have nothing inherently evil about them and are all about how you use them. Trapping a piece of someone's soul inside a corpse and forcing it to linger on is inherently evil though.

*shrug* I would say that Dominate Person is more inherently evil then Animate Dead. For example, I can animate an animal (animating humanoids is a suckers bet because they lose their class HD and are really weak) which eliminates this whole "soul" issue; Dominate Person ALWAYS strips a humanoid of their free will and turns them into a slave. It seems odd to be deeply concerned with the sanctity of ones liberty after death but not care all that much about it before death.

they should just ban necromancers in general

Oh cool, we're banning stuff? Let me get my list of problem stuff:

• Paladins
• Summoners
• Slumber Hex
• Mental Stat Boost Items
• Factions
• 4 Player Adjustment
• Non-Core Races
• Boons
• Calistrians

i vote= NO

i prefer less shenanigans in game

CORE is that way ---->

Also, remember that APs are designed for 4 players. If you find they are walking all over tge encounters you should consider adding more fodder so the CR matches the APL at an appropreate rate.

Depends on the level. At low levels grapple builds are pretty good but they fall off quickly. Monster CMD scales WAY faster then player CMB does. Also, spells like Freedom of Movemebt and Supernatual abilities (which do not have concentration checks, don't provoke AOOs, and don't count as spells) make a mockery of grapplers. For example, if a grappler went after either my PFS witch or summoner, I would humiliate them with either 4 save or lose hexes (one of which they are probably going to fail) or just summon my murder eidalon right next to me to maul them.

Let me give you the real-talk version of my answer as a PFS GM. I don't know if the rules allow a NG or LN character can have a Brownie or not based on the text, but if I had a "natury" player arrive at my table and tell me they had a brownie familiar I would shrug my shoulders and move on without a second thought. When I'm getting a table ready, bookish question on whether or not "neutral" really means "true neutral" on an obscure Improved Familiar choice ranks about a 43 on a checklist of 10 items. Make a good faith judgment based on the information available and stick with your choice.

I view temptation as being more of a chaotic strategy than an evil one so temptation and goodness are compatible. After all, people are tempted all the time to do "good" things in the real world:

• Parents tempt their children to follow the rules by offering them sweets if they behave.
• Governments tempt companies to donate their money or goods by granting tax benefits for doing so.
• Employers tempt their employees to invest for retirement by providing matching on retirement plans

Every time somebody in a position of power uses a carrot, instead of a stick, to get their way is essentially a temptation.

Here’s an example that might work in Pathfinder:

Commander Verix shivers in the night air, uncertain if the cause was the chill or the thought of what’s going to happen in the next hour. Fortunately, if his men noticed his discomfort, none of them dared to make a comment. His eyes glanced over the cargo they were guarding: a large cage with huddled halflings within; they were set to head to Egorian in the morning for public execution. A few months ago, Verix would not have cared less about the fate of a few rebellious slips; however, that was before he had met Aluna.

He knew, intellectually, that it was utterly scandalous for Chelish Officer to fall in love with a Halfling; but he couldn’t explain it other than the heart wanting what the heart wants. It was her eyes, it was like they burrowed into his soul and saw the real him. The plan was simple: he would order his men to follow a diversion and then release the Bellflower Operatives from their cage. It would mean the end of him politically and he would need to flee to Andoran, but Aluna would be with him. Besides, he knew he couldn’t do this work anymore; once he realized that Halflings were people just like him, he simply couldn’t continue. He felt Aluna’s mark on his chest, the one she left after their first night, warm pleasantly. He heard her melodious voice whisper in his ear, telling him it was time.

My research isn't the greatest, but I'm pretty sure it would be disruptive at most tables to have a player sitting there role-playing the personality issues of bearing three to four sentient items? That is, in addition to having their own character?

I think this bit is what irritates me the most about this whole debate, largely because it's be echoed several times. I've GMed and played in PFS for several years now and I would say about 80% of the characters I've encountered (mostly at cons, thankfully, and not in my home area) are a sheet full of numbers and a name, with absolutely no personality to speak of. They walk in, kill the targets they need to, roll diplomacy checks when they have to, and generally leave an impression somewhere between tepid oatmeal and wet paper. You have somebody here who wants to make an interesting character, and people are bending rules (or inventing them whole cloth) to stop it. You call it disruption, I call it roleplaying.

The issue is that very few seem to be sure that it is or is not legal. The ones that seem to be the most sure that it is not legal seem least able to bring a clear reason that it is not legal. On these forums in a few different threads, the split seems to be about 2/3 think it is legal. In my local area, all but one GM that I have talked to about this think it is perfectly legal.

There have been quite a few people on this thread who were SURE that this was full-stop illegal in the campaign, but have been unable to produce chapter and verse to back that up; that tells me that it is almost certainly not specified as being an illegal choice. That said, there are enough downsides baked into intelligent items to make this a difficult character build, and a lot of table GMs do not know how they work. If you wish to pursue this, you are going to have to approach the GMs before play, let them know what you are doing, educate them on intelligent items, and let them know what their options are in game (ego checks, dominance lasting 24 hours, etc.) If they tell you it is illegal, tell them you have done your due diligence and have not found any ruling to that effect, however if they know where multiple intelligent items being illegal is specifically spelled out you would love to see it. If a GM still insists, have a back up character or get ready to walk.

"Why would anyone want more than one intelligent item? I mean, seriously, by the time you take them out, maintain them right, figure out what they're all about, they're practically married to you, body and soul.

What sort of greedy ugly person would want three or more jealous lovers fighting over them?" a handsome Taldan bard opines...

"You tell 'em, Rae! And another thing, what's with it and all the folks wanting a shield or some ring or something when there is the awesome that is Yours Truly, Gamin the TrueForged!" inquires a slightly metallic tone from Rae's hip.

A Calistrian?

That's a pretty s+~$ty way of looking at it. From my kids I say "thanks for nothing"

Not your problem. Please.

I actually find it refreshingly honest. Let's be fair, this is the default position of most people; at least he's up front about it rather then hiding his apathy behind internet slactivism or a silly wristband.

BlackOuroboros wrote:

thejeff wrote:

BlackOuroboros wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Also, I notice that you completely ignore the question of how to deal with the bigotry and misogyny in the atheist community. It exists. Atheists aren't magically immune to such things.

How does a community, any community really, deal with such problems, when any attempt to do so it supposedly outside what the community is based around?

Clearly, the answer is burn them and their families at the stake. Nobody expects the progressive inquisition!

Obviously, that is the only alternative.

I think I missed that section in the Atheism+ manifesto.

Did you bother to check, or are you just talking out of your ass without doing the barest research again?

I think he was being sarcastic.

Also, interestingly, the flaw with do-your-research! based arguments is noted above. I wonder if we all aren't just going on a big wheel back to authority-based reasoning in the grand scheme of things.

There's a difference between being a slave to external sources and "I don't know much about the community or situation, but heres my armchair opinions." I can understand the first position, but the second deserves abject scorn.

Also, I notice that you completely ignore the question of how to deal with the bigotry and misogyny in the atheist community. It exists. Atheists aren't magically immune to such things.

How does a community, any community really, deal with such problems, when any attempt to do so it supposedly outside what the community is based around?

Clearly, the answer is burn them and their families at the stake. Nobody expects the progressive inquisition!

Well, as I understand it, Atheism+ started as a response to sexism (or perceived sexism, I suppose) within other atheist organizations or the larger atheist community. It wasn't a spontaneous "atheists should also fight sexism" thing.

If atheists groups should stay away from any other social justice issues and focus solely on atheism, how should they deal with internal sexism? Or racism or any of the other social justice issues? Just ignore it? Become a safe haven for such things because addressing them isn't the focus?

Because they'll be there. Those things are part of the culture and atheists aren't somehow immune.

Now, if you just mean that's not what you personally want to focus on, so you'll avoid such groups, that's one thing, but the backlash to Atheism+ went far beyond "Meh, not my thing".

It may have started that way, but it shifted into a purity movement almost from the word "go". Like most purity movements, they refined themselves through waves of external and internal purges until they self destructed. Unfortunatly they did some serious damage to the community on their way out. One small consolation was that the Richard Carrier saga was pretty hilarious.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

meatrace wrote:

OK so there is no evidence for an afterlife, thus it is irrational to behave in this life as if there were another beyond it.

On the other hand if this is the only life you have, than it should be that much more precious. It should give you that much more incentive to do it right.

That's why I'm perplexed that Atheism+ faced such a backlash.

A lot of athiests are anti-authoritarian by nature and Athiesm+ quickly developed a patina of authoritarian moralizing self-righteousness. This was not a recipy for widespread acceptance.

Thomas Seitz wrote:

All I know is rich people apparently think they're different.

I think when the comet hits, their riches won't feed them.

And as they see that giant rock of ending fall from the sky, this is roughly what they will think...

"Ah, well, all good things come to an end. Since it wouldn't have mattered either way, I'm glad I got to live like a god for a few decades."

Will you have the luxury of thinking the same?

Money only grants you power when there is a system to back it up. When the chips are down like that, the poor will eat the rich.

Her most recent comment?

But we're discussing the feasibility of implementing the Horror Adventures sidebar anyways, so it'd be easy to implement her idea as well.

I even incorporated it into my sample FAQ suggestion up thread.

I was actually in the middle of drafting my post when she posted that. Tablets do not make an optimal forum device.

Serisan wrote:

graywulfe wrote:

SCPRedMage wrote:

James Anderson wrote:

My first interaction with her was as the GM on Night March, where she's trying to help a retired pathfinder.

That was my first interaction with her, as well, and she did not make a good impression.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

Probably rope

... Seriously you don't have rope on every character... I am at a loss to how to react. This seems like a straight forward purchase. Every character I have has rope.

Especially Dark Archive characters.

Honestly, I don't respect most of the VCs because they don't do anything respectable; honestly, most of the time they don't do anything at all. Frankly, a vast majority of them I couldn't care less about one way or the other because they are one note and don't add any anything meaningful other then a bit of exposition at the beginning and, maybe, at the end; they could easily be replaced by "Biff the Understudy" for all that they add to the game most of the time.

Off the top of my head, I can think of three that I actually care about in any appreciably way: Zarta (because she's a cool and interesting character), Aram Zay (because I love to hate him), and Grandmaster Torch (because I thought he had some real points until events occurred...). All of them I interacted with OUTSIDE of the normal briefing, so I got an actual look at their character and interacted with them as individuals instead of mouthpieces. The worst example of this is the Ten, who as near as I can tell are so completely fifth-wheel irrelevant that I don't think I've seen them do a thing once in the two years I've played PFS.

So why should I respect these guys? Almost all of the characterization they receive comes from community memes. Now, I'm sure that these characters are, in fact, fully fleshed out; however, as a player, I've never seen it in game because it's likely hidden in some backstory paragraph that is totally irrelevant because it never comes up.

So, how do we fix this? One option would be to give them a more active role in scenarios but I think that might be difficult to do without overshadowing the PCs or eating up a lot of time. I think a better option would be some web fiction through the eyes of some of the characters so we can get some sort of insight into them. I would LOVE to read a Zarta short story or two.

If there was ever a better argument to gut alignments once and for all then this thread, I would struggle to even imagine what it would look like.

Well, the forumites have been pretty consistent on their analysis of the spell: it's a baby wish spell and it is overpowered.

Now, the real question is "should you allow it?" The answer to that is: "we can't answer that." Not for the trite reason of "it's your world", but because you haven't told us anything about the player who wants it. I have players in my group that I would trust with this spells, ones who have shown restraint when it comes abusing powerful options. Then I have players in my group who I absolutely wouldn't trust with a spell like this, ones who almost can't help but mercilessly use the most optimal option in a given situation. There is nothing wrong with being in that second group (Lord knows, that's where I would put myself), but you need to know who you are dealing with.