Abra Lopati

CathalFM's page

Organized Play Member. 204 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 Organized Play characters.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paz wrote:
Why do you keep starting these generic threads in the PFS section of the boards?

1) This, you should probably start the generic threads outside PFS forum

2) Pathfinder Movie IMDB Page

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Mortika wrote:

Cathal, and FoC, the issue isn't the technology, but rather the uses to which you put it.

A couple weeks ago, I walked past a PFS table where one person was playing a video game during a game. I passed by again an hour later and he was cruising sexy pictures on the internet, during combat. That's well and different from taking a call from your family.

The next morning, he was hoping to stop by and play at my table. (I was full-up, but he was hoping there's be a no-show.) If you were in my place, how would you feel?

Now, he could just as well have pulled out a deck of cards and played Solitaire, or opened a copy of Maxim at the table, and it would have been just as rude. It's not the technology that's at the heart of the objection; it's the sort of use.

Which is why both of us quoted DragonCats rule which singles out phones as something which should be banned at the table. I think I (might be possibly able to?) speak for FoC when I say that the rule should be more along the lines of:

"You are there to play PFS, you should not be entertaining yourself in other ways like checking facebook on your phone or reading that book you can't out down"

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragoncat wrote:
5. Don't bring your phone to the table, and especially don't text people in the middle of the game.

I'm guilty of this and don't particularly feel bad about it, I bring my phone because although gaming is my hobbie and interest I have a life outside of it. I don't mean that "hey I'm so cool I need to be on twitter and facebook with an update every five minutes", what I do mean is that if my Wife needs to know where I hid the TV remote this time or my Mam and Dad need help with something or Work rings asking about the latest project, then I will text them back, if needed I will even apologise and step away from the table to take a call.

It's not ideal, but I try keep it to a minimum, I don't do it just because I am bored with the current box text, and if I feel I am being disruptive I always apologise.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fromper wrote:
That said, very few GMs will argue with you if you've got a tablet with an internet connection and just show them something on the prd. But do you really want to take the chance of being at a table with a GM who enforces the letter of the law and won't let you play your character?

Eh, to be fair I think you are misusing the term "letter of the law" here.

If I had bought a book, pdf etc and used it to create a character but then accidentally left that at home and had to make use with the PRD but the GM said no (despite me actually owning the material but just having forgotten it) that would be a GM enforcing the letter of the law, as he is correct about the technicality but the spirit of the law was actually to ensure people owned their own copies of additional resources items, which in this case would be incorrect.

But for a player who wants to use the PRD without owning the actual additional resources and a GM enforced it then that GM would really be upholding the spirit and the letter of the law. (Because we support PFS with our money)

I agree that there are not many GMs (I have seen) that call people out on this too much (unless its a HUGE part of the character), but I think its highly unfair to those who do call people on it, if you are to make out like they are blindly following the letter of the law.

Of course as always that's just my take on it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My Pirate Captain Killian Jones is gonna buy himself a nice Ship with his PP in his next game does that count?

As I thought a ship was TOO much fluff without anything to back it up I made his backstory for the first few levels that he had lost his ship and that was his main reason for joining the Pathfinders, money and the chance to travel on someone else dime for now!

He has funnily though played through three different scenarios with ships in them, all of which he claimed. I have assumed in all three cases that he had to begrudgingly part with them when asked by the venture captains. But the last one he confiscated will have just been examined for evidence and will be returned to him (at a cost of 10pp).

He is looking forward to this :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow didn't know that, that's a real pity especially on this particular topic. People can't take down their trade if it's no longer on offer. You can't even delete your post.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:

@The Fourth Horseman & @CathalFM

That has to be the most genteel internet fight I've ever witnessed. :P

Oh, You think you can come waltzing in here with your awesome forum name and just sling accusations like that around? Well you can sir, because you are completely entitled to your opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No my apologies, I mistakenly assumed that you meant this would be your first action if the GM didn't act.

But if the players voiced concern and the gm just can't do anything (fear of confrontation etc) then I definitely understand where you're coming from.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will state this much (which is probably obvious), I imagine that one of the biggest reasons you find online play so different is time constraints.

I know when I'm playing at a venue and there tends to be a time limit that even though a lot of us would like to stop and smell the roses (or make cool battle plans) that we also don't want to finish our slot without finishing the scenario.

This can lead to people not taking the time to really get to know other characters and formulate plans etc. Is it ideal? No, but unfortunately its a reality. Obviously online play does not have these time constraints, there is no venue and you can type out a nice battleplan while other people are still doing things, ie there is no worry of "talking over people".

Now I don't suggest you give up, maybe just try and lower your expectations of planning;

For example if you try and coordinate a surgical strike that would make the special forces proud then other players will probably get annoyed at the time slipping away and be less and less likely in future to listen to ANY plans. "Right Joe, you take up this position then wait for me to hoot like an owl three times, John you are going to stand here with a readied action, while Susan stands on the ledge over here, right thats the first 6 seconds, now then we....."

On the other hand if you just try and get the team to settle on vague tactics, then they will be more likely to at least try it, and if it works out well they well listen more and more; Ok, guys I don't know what we are going to find, but if we see them bunching up lets try get the casters to blast off first while the fighters delay and then step up to defend them after the initial volley, then just take it from there"

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

Erm... I'd go off what has been hashed out in the other threads like this. Threads like this tend to turn nasty.

If a player is violating the "don't be a jerk" rule, the GM should take the responsibility into his or her own hands to do something about it, and not rely on other players to do it for them.

Very much this, if the player is being Jerkish the other players can (IC) talk to him ask him to stop etc.

If the behaviour continues and is disruptive it is (IMO) completely the GMs responsibility to enforce the Don't-Be-A-Jerk rule. I know a lot of people dont like to be the authoritarian bad guy, but sometimes you need to.

EDIT: Also any PVP even if its to alleviate the dont be a jerk rule can be a slippery slope.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd be instantly suspicious, this waitress introduces you to the wonderful world of PFS AND brings forth the pancakey goodness???

Too good to be true, she must be some form of Demon trying to tempt you!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing to note, is that in Pathfinder as opposed to previous versions of DnD, is that large is a standard 2x2. There is no 1x2 large or 1x3 etc, everything is abstracted so they use a square area (2x2).

Large creatures can squeeze through areas with a width of 1, but they take squeeze penalties (unless they have the Narrow Frame feat).

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Patrick F wrote:
We need to stop allowing six people to show up for a table.

Six people is allowed though by the rules of PFS, yes you are entirely welcome to state to your VC your opinion on the matter and that you personally don't want to GM to tables of 6, but I would urge you not to try and impose this on other GMs as this just results in less players getting a game.

Patrick F wrote:
With that said, I don't think GMs should bother to post suggestions for harder scenarios modifications. That's not what the Society wants, obviously.

This just isn't fair, I again don't mean to be rude, but at this point you are coming across as the kid who is taking his ball and going home because he didn't get his way.

1) The "society" is all of us, and from the posts in this and other threads you are not the only one who would like to see a hard mode.

2) If you are talking about the society administration (ie the likes of Mike) then again you assume they a)aren't working on a way to increase difficulty (who knows?), b)don't care about the issue (the fact he posted in this thread says otherwise), and c)haven't done anything so far (most people agree season 5 is more challenging).

Also just read BNWs post, and "eisegesis", what a cool word!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:
CathalFM wrote:

C)-Someone will have a problem with the free reign their GM takes and reports it
TBH, some problems can never be probably addressed until there's been an explosion to prove the circuit really *was* faulty.

Yarp, that was why I recommended letting it die. At this stage it looks like thats what it will take to conclusively rule this one way or the other.

Also shame on you, surely you mean:

"TBH, some problems can never be probably addressed until there's been an explosion to prove the rune really *was* explosive."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Eh, I guess I'm a pretty decent case for average. Only started playing PF (and DnD in general) for PFS, and although I try and make characters effective they invariably aren't anywhere near Powergamer levels.

For me, I have not found most games to be too hard, but neither have I found most to be walk overs. There were definitely some hairy moments, and in the same way there were some scenarios we walked (whether due to luck or writing who knows!)

I guess my point is just that on average the game difficulty is average if you are average :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Patrick F wrote:

"Scenarios are meant to be run as written, with no addition

or subtraction to number of monsters (unless indicated
in the scenario), or changes to armor, feats, items, skills,
spells, stats, traits, or weapons. However, if the actions
of the PCs before or during an encounter invalidate the
provided tactics or starting locations, the GM should
consider whether changing these would provide a more
enjoyable play experience."

I interpret the meaning of the word 'invalidate' the provided tactics akin to someone who invalidates an argument. Basically rendering it weak or ineffective. Either you have sound tactics and arguments or you don't. That simple.

So if the written tactics are weak or the starting locations are ineffective, the GM has a right to consider changing them or not to provide a more enjoyable play experience.

Invalidation of anything doesn't make it weak or ineffective it makes it flat out null and void. If the big bad is supposed to throw a lightning down the corridor but only one pc approaches then that is now a weak tactic but it is in no way invalid. If instead the players tunnel around the bb and pop up behind him THAT is invalid because lightning down the corridor would not be targeting anyone, therefore no benefit, therefore NULL (as opposed to weak).

To me (and this is just my opinion) you seem to be trying to stretch the bounds as far as possible on how much you can adapt scenarios and when.

Apologies for any typos my phone doesn't like posting to forums!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
nosig wrote:
What do we say to the guy who hits 3rd level and still expects to sponge off the girls mom? after all - she's running a HEALER and it's her JOB.

I am loathe to get back into this discussion, but here I am. The problem I have with this anecdote is that her mother isn't necessarily giving her good advice. I touched on this in the other thread and I'll repeat it here. Everyone bringing CLW wand doesn't make the party stronger than when a few people spend those Prestige on something else.

Others have pointed this out and I'll echo that sentiment. Assuming someone is not a team player because they don't have a CLW is simply exhibiting prejudice. I believe a party is better off if the heavy duty front-liners who cannot use a wand per their class/build purchase something other than CLW wands. I believe a party is better and more fun to play with when they leverage things their class/builds are able to do.

When my support characters team with fighters who have CLW at low levels, I find myself wishing they'd spent those resources on something that helped them fight better. The fact that they brought a wand means I might save 30gp if we use a lot of charges. If we don't have any way to beat a devil's DR, we all might lose a lot more than 30 gp.

No, I don't believe in preparing for the worst case scenario where nobody brought a healing wand because in my experience that hasn't happened. If it did, it's probably because no one can use it. In which case, I wouldn't play the scenario.

So I'll ask those who do bring CLWs not to auto-label people who don't bring such wands. Don't form an attitude about someone until you play with them. You might find out that the guy without the CLW was a much better teammate than the guy with the wand.

The "loathe" and the "touched upon" made me lol.

Ok to my actual point, you seem to be arguing for the corner cases and the exceptions to the rule. Fine, not every experienced player who doesn't pick up a wand of CLW will be a drain on resources and not a team player. Thats 100% true, not EVERY one will, but the thing is MOST will be.

You keep arguing that people are tarring everyone with the same brush essentially and I agree with you that in general thats bad (as is most tarring of people), so my advice to all would be, give the benefit of doubt and advice together:

-Continue to advise everyone to buy their own CLW wand because it is a good step to teamwork and is a good way not to be a sponge AND/OR not to be seen as a sponge.
-Dont assume everyone without a CLW is a sponge or not a teamplayer (although if they turn out to be then don't hesitate to point out to them that in your STRONG opinion they could benefit from being more of a team player)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Amaziah Hadithi wrote:
Tarma wrote:

What about something along these lines?

One of the biggest issues in the debate for more level 12+ content is that only a relatively small amount of PFS players have completed Eyes of the Ten. While not getting into why there are issues with EotT, that would be a good way to narrow down potential candidates.

For Example: A new scenario/module is announced for PFS that would include the test of the Starstone. The level cap is set high, 10-12, to limit absolutely everyone from creating a submission. If it's announced early enough, you can give players plenty of time to prepare for the scenario.

Then Paizo can have some sort of contest for those few players that wind up completing the scenario a chance to become a canonized deity.

While still a rough idea, I think that this is something that could be done.


I'm glad someone likes the idea enough to suggest ways it can be done and not writing it off.

Its really appreciated, thanks honestly

Well don't sound like that, the last page is filled with people who said they like the idea they just think its unfeasible. By suggesting only the person who proposed a solution which achieves your goal is the only person who "liked the idea" you do a disservice to those who agreed with the "coolness" of the idea, just because they had reasons to say "I like the idea BUT"

I also think its cool, I'd love to be all goddish, but my liking of the idea is dwarfed by the potential problems and complications it would cause.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

To be fair, on a martial you always seem to feel a little gold starved. I'm always planning the next ac increase, weapon increase (because DR is annoying), or cloak of resistance buy because that's whats going to keep me alive. Budgeting for something that MIGHT come in handy or might sit at the bottom of my backpack for a year seems less attractive.

On a caster sometimes i'm scratching my head going "Huh, when did i save up 10k gold...."

Ha, just imagining this in-character.

Wizard stops after an hours march complaining of sore feet. Pulls off socks and a pile of gems falls out. "Oh I forgot about those things"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
jwtelesio wrote:

You also need to spend 2 standard actions to use it. 1 to conjure it and the other to throw it.

Eh, is this the case? I thought the throwing of it was part of the standard action to cast. I mayyyy have been doing this spell wrong, ah well at leasts my character is just starting out.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, so I figured I would chime in with my thoughts, opinions and experience, everything below is just that, they aren't facts or assertions, just opinions and my own experience.

Disclaimer I am also a MMAM (Married, Middle aged Man)

So I guess firstly regarding the "Talking over people issue", I have seen this done to both males and females, it happens a lot to me actually because I tend to be pretty quiet in groups. It could just be the PFS in this country, but I really havent noticed people talking over any sex more than any other, its more often they will talk over people who dont stop them.

Second, I have seen on this thread a couple of examples of "Well just because you're a guy and you have had a few bad experiences, it doesn't mean that guys have it as bad as girls". This just annoys me, I don't pretend to know who (if anyone) has it better, and everyones situation will be different. But what these statements seem to boil down to is "Hey your experiences are just anecdotal we can't accept them as fact the way we will if a woman says she had bad experiences". That just seems odd to me. Unless anyone here has conducted a study on this (and I'm not ruling that out!) then EVERYONES experiences are anecdotal. (By the way I in NO way mean to say everyone is saying that or even the majority, just a few people and it annoyed me).

Third, and I dont mean this to sound in any way inflammatory, its really just a random thought, but PFS is a social game. I agree that straight up flirting and making people uncomfortable is not part of PFS, (I have seen it done -thankfully outside PFS, and dear god it made ME uncomfortable and I wasn't the target!).
But heres the thing, it is still social, so maybe some of those guys who seem to be more willing to go over the character sheet or "help" a girl aren't doing it because they think they need it, maybe they just want something to talk about. I know I used to suffer from crippling shyness, and was genuinely scared of talking to girls. For me having something in front of you that you both have in common, that you know its "safe" to talk about (ie your not flirting or trying to pry) its a great way to try and talk to people you otherwise wouldn't be able to.

I don't mean that to sound like its for "picking people up", but lets be honest here, IF someone had an attraction to someone then, If the first step is trying to talk to them about a mutual interest, is that really that much of a crime? Surely that's how most relationships (of all kind, platonic, romantic, etc) start? (Again I dont mean to suggest that this is the reason for all people to "offer help" Im sure a lot of people do underestimate others, but maybe its just worth thinking, does this person think im incapable, or are they just trying to strike up a conversation).

Again the above is all just one guys opinion, so take it as you will.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starglim wrote:
Kezzie Redlioness wrote:

Point now taken.


If the rabbit is without template or other similar adjustments, Can I take Improved Familiar at 1st and get a rabbit that way?

Improved Familiar wrote:
Prerequisites: Ability to acquire a new familiar, compatible alignment, sufficiently high level (see below)

Can you take Improved Familiar at 1st level - I don't see why not.

Can you get a rabbit at 1st level - This might be a bit more murky, since the rabbit has no Arcane Spellcaster Level defined in the table for the feat. Does that mean level 1 is a sufficiently high level? Perhaps.

I think that this is a yes (for my money anyway).

Improved Familiar gives you access to a list of guess what? Improved Familiars ;) However if you are a winter witch this ability ALSO allows you to expand your usual list of familiars to include all the regular familiars (those available from Level 1 for most familiar classes).

Can you take Improved Familiar feat at level 1 - Yes

Is a rabbit (or regular familiar) available at level 1 - Yes

Can you start with that rabbit - Yes, (you are aquiring a new familiar, you have taken the feat to allow any familiar, and your level (1) is high enough to qualify for a rabbit.)

This is how I read the rules, it seems clear to me (by which I mean I dont think I am interpretting the rules), and it seems to be ok by both RAW and RAI.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This has probably been mentioned before about familiars but I didnt see it, and personally I think its much more thematically in keeping:

The Tattoeed Sorcerer archetype has the perfect template for a "spirit animal" shaman, from the text:

Unlike most familiars, her familiar can transform itself into a tattoo that she carries in her flesh. Transforming into a tattoo or back to normal familiar form is a move action for her familiar. In tattoo form, the familiar looks like a stylized version of itself, but does not count as a creature separate from the tattooed sorcerer. In tattoo form it continues to grant its special familiar ability, but otherwise has no abilities and can take no actions except to transform from tattoo into creature. A familiar tattoo cannot be erased or dispelled.

To me THAT sounds perfect (with tweaking), this way the shaman can protect their spirit animal during battle, but if they need a scout or anything they can "summon" it forth.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Throne wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Okay...for all you Dex damage junkies, we are looking into options that allow you to do it, but they will probably be more like Dervish Dance -- that is options that you feat into.
Yay, more feat tax!

If you are getting Dex to atk for free then I am accepting of having to pay feat tax for that extra step of Dex to damage. And tbf its a significant step on the part of the devs to at least try to implement this. So fair play to them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Galahad0430 wrote:
There are already several ways to get DEX to damage. The class ,as is, is fine with the only real weakness being the lack of a good Fort save. The STR build is definitely not better. I will gladly pit a DEX build vs a STR build anytime. As far as tweaking goes, besides the Fort save issue, I really like Throne's idea for CHA abilities as a level tiered effect.

Which are?

Dervish restricts you to scimitar and results in cookie cutter characters who all use the same weapon.

Agile weapon quality is not an option at levels below 7 or so.

Personally (and I doubt I am alone) I would very very much like to have the option to Dex to damage with any weapon finesse weapon (even if the feat makes you specify a single weapon only) This will lead to a better variety of characters imo and also finally let's the theme of a Dex fighter work.

EDIT: Sorry that sounds more snide than I intended. The question of "which are" is a genuine question. I was just adding my own thoughts about the only two option I knew of.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Benn Roe wrote:
So you want the warpriest to personally drive the final nail into the monk's coffin then? (:

lol, tbf, people have thought monks were underpowered for yonks now, they shouldnt be the reason another perfectly viable class is held back.