I do not get why people are knowingly being jerks to other players and the GMs do not put a kabash to it.
Personally if i had a undead hating character and played with an undead loving character. That would be awesome. This is a perfect opposite to yoru character to exemplify what your character is(in literature they call this a foil) to expand the roleplay of your character. You can show how your character stands on the subject by being next to this other guy. But it does not mean you make that players game worse off.
It is inevitable a that two pathfinder agents would be put together that disagree. So this WILL happen to your character as well. The idea is to roleplay this out in an entertaining way for both of you.
When I have strongly opinionated I never enforce my will on others but I always voice their opinions. Then I say out of character, this is what my character believes and tell the other players go ahead and ignore him if you want. You can agree to disagree in a make belief game.
If you know you are building a character that you are unable to roleplay in a cooperative manor then as Mr. Jonquet stated please do not bring it to a PFS table. If you really wanna play it in PFS learn how to make your character cooperative to the polar opposites.
I have a character that steals everything he can. I would tell the law officer PC that I use bluff to try to trick him into allowing me to steal.
I have a PC that refuses to kill living things. Over half a dozen times other PCs coupe de graz. The bad guys i tie up and heal before i can even question them. Yes it is a jerk move on their part, but I just cry in character and then complain about them being murders.
I have a Nagaji Bloorager int of 5 with a Sage figment tumor familiar. His imaginary cancer pet is much smarter than him.
Daedalus the Dungeon Builder wrote:
you said "s Merf" in "Well, there's Merfolk"
If he wants to play a worthless character take that in account on your strategy and just play the game you want to play.
As long as he is not makign demands you have to play a different style there should be no problem.
My second pfs game I was playing withe current VL that had a DHampir. He made abig deal to let everyone know he had a high disguise and appeared human. I did not realize what this meant, and had a character that would take him for his word he is a human. So I did not worry about it.
He jumps a pit and gets ganked by a demon hiding and starts bleeding out. I bravely jump across and make a valiant effort to drop a CLW potion down his throat to try and save him. Oops. Although he made his save and did not die outright.
Even the player sullenly agreed this should have happened. it was pretty interesting when everyone started reacting when I attempted to save him.
Catching on fire has soem weird effects. At low level this will be neat because immediately they take another 1d6, then they need to make a dc 15 reflex each round to see if it goes out. Plus for each flammable item they have out they need to make the save too.
At very low level it is a bit more powerful, but starts to balance out quickly and eventually does a little over half each time.
I find the best variant channels are the save or suck ones, envy, rulership, and ale. They can be game breaking.
on fire rules:
Catching on Fire
Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and non-instantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire. Spells with an instantaneous duration don't normally set a character on fire, since the heat and flame from these come and go in a flash.
Characters at risk of catching fire are allowed a DC 15 Reflex save to avoid this fate. If a character's clothes or hair catch fire, he takes 1d6 points of damage immediately. In each subsequent round, the burning character must make another Reflex saving throw. Failure means he takes another 1d6 points of damage that round. Success means that the fire has gone out—that is, once he succeeds on his saving throw, he's no longer on fire.
A character on fire may automatically extinguish the flames by jumping into enough water to douse himself. If no body of water is at hand, rolling on the ground or smothering the fire with cloaks or the like permits the character another save with a +4 bonus.
Those whose clothes or equipment catch fire must make DC 15 Reflex saves for each item. Flammable items that fail take the same amount of damage as the character.
Criticizing a DM for having a CE creature Coupe de graz is needlessly antagonistic towards that DM.
PRD on CE:
Chaotic Evil: A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
As creatures that thrive on unpredictable violence finishing someone off now while you are mad at them for trying to hurt you seems pretty normal. Especially a beacon of good. Although they may have been stunned by the paladins aura of good may have stunned them detecting him.
Although my complaint to the DM is that the player did not seem to understand the mistakes they made. In my opinion a DM is a teacher. You teach people about the world you build and how you run the rules and characters. As low level characters in your game they are new to you. They do not know how you run things, and you are kind of at fault for that. I am a DM that never takes it easy on people that insist they want to do something, but I will warn and educate them of the risks they take. The player did not expect the type of game you were running, and they left because of it. You did not prepare them in a way they would understand.
My home game I am currently running each players knows when bad things happen to their characters' it is their choices that lead to it. My goal is that no one should lose at my tables, they either learn or win, or both.
There are reasons you may want to. I know I have recruited friends to bring to a certain tier so I can play some scenarios for certain characters.
I have DMed scenarios where all low levels and a guy brings a max level to show off. I tell them they are allowed to, but it is a jerk move. Also I warn them if they start wrecking the game I will mediate. The people that tend to do this do not know how to play their characters well or are not skilled at making them. I remember running traitors lodge for a bunch of 3s and 4s. Someone insists on bringing a 7 Barbarian, and brags about their character. I warn them privately. Then the fight breaks out, they rage and strikes for 7 damage and immediately stopped worrying. They were later eaten.
I prefer not to play with someone that insists on playing high level on a low tier.
I have walked away from tables because people wanted to do this. If someone wants to bring a level 5 with a bunch of 1s wrecks the game for me. Although it is perfectly legal option.
Hugo Rune wrote:
I could not disagree with this more. I feel that they are two radically independent qualities. You can be a high level roleplay and rollplayer, or low in both(people that sit back and roll the dice others tell them too answering with shrugs).
I think it is foolish to lock threads like this until they become filled with attacks. Paizo Great job on handling this!
If you lock a thread that people are passionate about you lock up their emotions. Then they brew and fester and become infections that are much worse later. A coordinator can influence a great amount of people.
You do not deal with intolerance with intolerance because you are then intolerant and a hypocrite. Which is worse. You deal with it by the means Paizo presented here. With compassion and mutual understanding. Ignorance should not be punished but corrected with wisdom.
Although as the majority of people presented this is something you should not make an attack like presented. I do not agree with the OPs means of calling out the person. But because that person made a mistake again does not mean the best solution is to handle with admonishment.
I think Hmm's posts show wisdom of how people should react to these type of solutions as well. Hmm you deserve notice for this and a thank you.
so can detect evil
"Each round, you can turn to detect evil in a new area. The spell can penetrate barriers, but 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks it."
I was thinking about this new feature, and I have figured out why I do not like it.
Pay to win I find abhorrent, but I also believe in putting money into the products and services you want more of. This to me is more pay to win than supporting your store I feel.
I love the initiative Piazo spent on this, but the reward is clunky rules, and power creep. I think a better reward would be boons to reward players for purchases at the store. There are avid complaints about convention only boons and people unable to attend. This is a great fix for that. I would much rather the money system you have in place now match what you have already.
For example if you buy X book you get Y options. If you bought Y dollars of stuff you can you X boon.
If you look at the rules for adamantine they contradict each other
This is from the core rule equipment section.
Adamantine: Mined from rocks that fell from the heavens, this ultrahard metal adds to the quality of a weapon or suit of armor. Weapons fashioned from adamantine have a natural ability to bypass hardness when sundering weapons or attacking objects, ignoring hardness less than 20 (see Additional Rules).
so less that 20 it ignores. 20 or more adamantine has no special advantage
No, from the PRD Universal Monster Rules section
Hardness (Ex) When a creature with hardness takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is subtracted from its hit points. A creature with hardness doesn't further reduce damage from energy attacks, ranged attacks, or other types of attacks as objects typically do. Adamantine weapons bypass hardness of 20 or less.
This says 20 or less. So 21 or more adamantine has no special advantage.
When I ran this I made sure the group was level 2, and I stressed how dangerous it was. As a joke since the party just failed the 3rd quest for perfection I had the VC tell them they were sending someplace "easy" for the bumbling agents since they now have to house so many Tien refugees. Then when they arrived I describe a mound of bodies and broken wayfinders next to them.
I am fine with DMs not letting me do combat actions out of combat, but they must allow me to enter combat when I ask to do these items.
If my character has reason to think something is on the other side of a door, and i want to take full defense and open the door. Well Then let s roll initiative.
Although I agree someone saying they are always in total defense is silly.
I agree with this understanding, but I can see how a Dm would read otherwise.
So I respect anyone how makes this ruling.
I think limiting the amount of help is better than imposing a penalty. As a DM I need someway on how the players are aiding. Usually very easy with social checks. I would generally disagree with this because it gives everyone a chance to participate.
I feel it adversarial DMing to look to interpret the rules in a way you do not feel is correct to make the game harder. If you honestly feel that are how the rules are, great! Run them that way until if ever you find differently.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
If i wanted to make a fuss, I could have complained to the local VO running the games. I could have worked out a solution if I really wanted things different. If I had less options I may have worked on a different solution.
My point was even when I was kind of picked on. I did not demand a player change their legal actions. He took the legal actions to play a game he thought he would enjoy. Because I enjoy it less does not mean I have any say on what he does. The same goes for any legal option someone choose to take. Agree not to play together and wish every fun in the way they enjoy it.
Last Sunday I sat at a weekly PFS for the first time in 6 months. I signed up to play with a GM I know and like, with some players I know I enjoy. I purchase my 3 dollar DM token and turns out I get assigned to a DM that I have a strong distaste for, with none of the people I wanted to play with, and a guy I know cheats(a hige pet peeve of mine). We are deciding what characters to play. The gentleman next to me is askign everyone what they are playing, and we get low tier. So he busts out the max level you can be for the teir. I say object saying I do not find it as fun when one player off balances the game. He blatantly brags about his character and how he plans to destroy the challenge. I politely stand up tell the DM I am not going to play and leave to another store leavign him my game token i paid for.
No hard feelings. They were taking legal options for what they found in the game. I voiced my objection and was made clear he planned to ignore it excessively. If you do not like how someone plays you do not have to play with them. You can find other games. You can still be friends in other ways or things.
I am fully defending that players right to not only pull out a character to ruin the challenge, but his right to ignore my complaint. I am an adult and I understand different people enjoy different things. We should not be forced to hate a game together I hope they enjoyed the game the played. I got to play serpent's Ire with people that enjoyed it with me.
I do not like making builds i see other people use.
I see lots of builds I see:
Dex to damage shocking grasp magus
Now i do not care if people build these, I just will not because it is not original enough for me.
There are some personality types jiggy came up with I totally agree with are over done, but my problem is not that peple build characters like them, but they do not roleplay past that part of their character and break out of character when it comes.
This is an awesome attitude.
I often buy my DM something to wet their whistle. So I do a twofer for appreciation.
I do not mind zealots. You should realize your PC is a zealot and not you.
I have a character that refuses to kill anyone, and asks other players to not kill people too. I would call him a zealot.
But if someone goes all murder hobo it is an opportunity to roleplay. When players are deciding if they should kill Someone I announce out of character my guy will not do it and pester you not to, but will not stop you.
If I had an undead hating zealot and someone wanted to play necromancer, great! Our characters would bicker the whole time, and I would make jokes with the player, and i would enjoy the differences.
I honestly view the hostility towards necormancers the same as telling someone what they need to play.
When i Dm the quest for perfection 3. I have the villagers prepare a morning feast for the players. A large crow appears with a note with the bad guy taunting them. Saying how he will write ballads of him defeating them. I also allow them to write back.
Since the bad guy has an ethos of all about him i see at suiting.
If you have to hand pick the characters because you are metagaming, well then cheating to win is not ideal either.
You have a good attitude. I think if you picked up a low level adventure you would be great with it. You should try it.
As for me, I love roleplaying in all of it's flavors. I do not care if it is organized play, home game, 1st ,2nd,5th, white wolf, or whatever.
PFs has it's place. A home game with a great Dm and that your group can regularly meet is better. But these are often hard to find.
PFS also allows beginner Dms that are new experience in a one off to become better. So what you have to deal with a poor dm for 4 hours. Of my hundreds of games only a small amount are bad DMs.
Why don;t you try Dming PFS and check it out before you make an assumption?
James Anderson wrote:
I disagree. I've looked into making a sunder or disarm build before. Especially against a holy symbol or spell component pouch, it feels like a d*** move, and ruins the day for the GM.
I am cool with this as a DM. I would rather have players surprise me with things that are different. Infact I can not think of a single tactic the PCs as a group could do that would upset me.
The only time I get annoyed is when a player or two is hogging the action from other players.
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
in one game we were getting ripped apart by the channel cleric. So I sundered her symbol, and the Dm said she had another one. So my buddy sundered that. Then he shouts "where's your god now!"
I look for ever opportunity to trade these abilities out. Since you can often trade them out. I do not think it is fare to call them fillers.
You have some many other options available to you that these are massively worthless.
Why i hate them. The do almost no damage. The penalty for not having the feats to shoot into melee are huge. They are elemental and many creatures will ignore them. they provoke twice being spell like. They are easy to find replacements for.
the fact there are tons of these crap shooter abilities it awkward. I would almost have anything else than this.
What about when i play at your table to play with you. And you have to stop being you even though I enjoy it because someone else does not?
Nosig, if i ever get to play with you. I want to play the game with you. not a retrained you. If someone is bothered by you and wrecks my enjoyment of it because they do not like they take the enjoyment from the other at the table that enjoy you.
Etiquette is not appeasing the one person that complains. There are around 5 other people at the table they are taking from.
I have a deeper darkness guy, and I reserve using it.
The effectively blind players might not have fun spending the game in such a state.
This is one of the things you drop when things get real.
It is a jerk move dropping it every fight without a whim for how the other players feel.
I always ask how the other players feel about me dropping it before I do.