Chris Mortika wrote:
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"
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.
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.
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 :)
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
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.
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"
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.
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).
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!
Matt Thomason wrote:
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."
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 :)
Patrick F wrote:
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!
N N 959 wrote:
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.
Amaziah Hadithi wrote:
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.
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"
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!).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.