Furious Kender's page

A very good point Jiggy and Nosig raise there, I admit I have never thought of it from that perspective and thank you for illuminating it for me.

Maybe something like asking for bullet points would be an acceptable compromise? Something like asking for the tone? Do you flirt, do you use reason, do you flatter, etc.?

In my experience, when running for someone who doesn't roleplay for whatever reason, you can ask what they are trying to accomplish and through what manner.

In other words, I ask "What are you trying to use diplomacy to do?"
Player: "I am trying to convince the guard to let us past"
Me: "Are you using any strategy, like flirting, blackmail, or your knowledge of the area"
Player: "I will flirt"
Me: "Your charisma is..."
Player: "It's an 18"
Me: "Ok, roll diplomacy"

I then have all the information I need to respond in character on the NPC's behalf and the player doesn't need to act it out.

I've only seen this approach fail maybe once, and that was because the person was clueless, not because they were shy. That guy just kept repeating, "I am trying to make a diplomacy check, you know, a diplomacy check" to every one of my followup questions.

I always ask people to describe their characters, such as what they look like etc, so I can have NPCs react to them appropriately. So after 1-2 players describe how their characters look and act, commonly someone says "I'm a level 5 cleric" or whatever class and then turns to the next player to hear their character description.

Getting some players to describe basic things about their character can be like pulling teeth. When players, after hearing other players give descriptions, still don't get what they need to do, I have learned to ask specific things like, "so what type of armor are you wearing. What race are you. Do you have an obvious accent or culture?"

Another aside, over a year ago I was a GM running at a play day I helped organize. I saw a new PFS player with a Flurry of Maneuvers monk in spiked armor and shield, who had played that character until level 2-3. The character wasn't at all overpowered, but I told them that I didn't think this combination worked, and at best he was going to get table variation.

I never saw him again. I've seen this play out over and over again with different rules. From what I've seen, around 50% of new players who experience rules arguments involving the first character they are attached to simply leave PFS.

Ambiguity hurts. Even in home campaigns, I've just seen it add drama that didn't need to be there.

The other day, one of my players said something along the lines of, "Nobody's using their GM-star replays, because they're per lifetime rather than per season, so they want to save them for just the right moment--I'm not sure they're ever going to get used."

I haven't used mine yet. I was saving them for the "perfect moment" or when I had nothing else to do other than replay a scenario.

It should be per year in my opinion.

So unlikely that is far more likely Lindsay Lohan will be playing Seoni in the Pathfinder Movie.

Well as long as it's a C list movie, I can see it.

ubiquitous wrote:

Let's put it this way:

Dex to damage ALREADY EXISTS in the game.

(Dervish Dance. Agile enchantment. The second isn't core, but is certainly in PFS, and a lot of people play PFS)

Are the classes that use Dex to Damage broken/overrunning the game?

No.

What more is there to say?

Dervish Dance actually is overrunning PFS for all classes and archetypes that need to use one hand, such as magus, and if you search the PFS boards, you will find that some GMs dislike having these super-high-AC super-high-damage magi at their tables due to power reasons (I'm not one of them, but I've seen others post to that effect). One time recently there was a magus who used something other than a scimitar, and people were very surprised.

I am one of those GMs who hate those builds, but only because every one of them is effectively the same scimitar+shocking grasp build. It's like they're playing an iconic, and just changing the name. In PFS, unless some change happens, I expect the swashbuckler to have the same mind numbing sameness. Oh, and if the magus in PFS, which is always a Dervish Dancer, is broken, the 4-8 damage coming from Dervish Dance clearly isn't the cause.

Another example, in PFS, I play with a dervish dancer rogue frequently and he's no where near overpowered even if he were to get his sneak attack off every round. My battle oracle out damages him consistently and easily even in rounds when he gets a full sneak attack off.

I just ran for a competently played level 1 swashbuckler in PFS. He played it well, but he was fairly pathetic due to his inability to do any damage relative to virtually anyone else in the party. I think the level 1 barb did more damage in one round than he did all scenario.

icehawk333 wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

As usual, the contrived situation needed to justify certain positions requires a level of discontinuity only possible in the hands of a player deliberately playing the alignment opposite of what he wrote on his sheet.

Actually, a neutral can use holy word if their deity is also neutral. It's still a good act, so you become good aligned through slaughter.

And an actually-neutral-not-just-neutral-on-paper-but-actually-evil PC doesn't actually do that in the first place. Hence, contrived. That's not helpful to any intelligent discussion about the campaign.

I have an actually neutral tiefling oracle of battle that spams prot evil and infernal healing, lies like there is no tomorrow, has a large sense of duty, and follows whatever oath he makes. He is absolutely ruthless against his foes and protects innocents.

He would be true neutral in any form of Fallout style alignment system. When I have explained this to GMs, they tend to just glare at me. I've had GMs tell me I was acting CE because I lie and cast infernal healing, but they were going to let it slide due to it being PFS. It's like nothing else my character did even mattered to them.

It's annoying to put it mildly.

Whips! They shouldn't be just for bards

I would rather have a legal style system that says to be a pathfinder agent, you cannot murder, sabotage pathfinder missions, or intentionally incite the public against the Pathfinder society. Then we can do away with the alignment requirement all together.

I am so tired of the argument that only casting evil spells or doing evil actions changes your alignment. I have gotten flack for my neutral Tiefling Oracle and witch using Infernal healing.

Literally I've been told that one evil spell taints your soul but saving tons of lives, like pathfinders tend to do, doesn't make you good. My only defense has been to say that this was ruled to be OK by Mike brook, at which point they tend to get huffy but eventually drop it.

Honestly I am extremely tired of feeling like actively neutral, mixed motives, and morally flawed characters aren't welcome.

What makes me laugh is look at the Arcanist and then the Swashbuckler. You can tell which one devs were concerned about breaking people's games.

It makes me laugh to think that Dex fighting apparently needed to be nerfed so badly, especially given that speed is more important than strength in real fighting.

In contrast, WOTC is making Dex to attack and damage a feature of light weapons in Next. I would rather prefer that as a solution for avoiding players dipping Swashbuckler.

The problem with throwing builds is the horrible returning power. Fix returning and you fix throwing builds.

Is it worth alienating players on something as silly as this? She realized her mistake, and is making a good faith effort to correct it.

People seem to be of the opinion that modeling your character after examples provided by Paizo's authors in new books is a clear mistake. It thus is deserving of a "Stupid Tax."

As a result, my sense from reading this thread and others is that most people on the paizo boards would respond "yes" to your question.

Happily, most PFS people aren't on these boards.

Atarlost wrote:

Sir Thugsalot wrote:

I just provided an example of how a rogue without a penny to his name could kill a tank fighter and not take a scratch.

Granted, it's situational; but it's a situation the rogue controls. In the right environment, he's the boss.

Unfortunately that environment exists only in your mind.

The rogue has no accuracy advantage. The availability of concealment and cover hurts the rogue at least as much as the fighter.

You need to go back and re-read the example I set for you.

There's a halfling rogue facing off a human fighter in a dimly-lit maze.

-- The human fighter (without low-light vision) is going to *die* because he cannot see the person who is killing him, because that person will continually evade into the gloom after each snipe. The fighter is never within visual range at the beginning of his turn. His opposed stealth score versus the rogue's perception is pathetic. The rogue's opposed stealth score versus the fighter's perception is superb.

In this particular case, the fighter's only real option, if alone, is to run away as fast as he can.

Quote:

Any competent fighter can exchange readied action attacks for your spring attacks or thrown weapons until you do something stupid like try to stay in one place and full attack with thrown knives. Then he walks over to you and trips your sorry 3/4 BAB arse and doesn't even need the feats because your CMD is that much worse than his CMB. Then he full attac--

Typical fighter-think. Always bringing a melee weapon to a ranged assassination party, and then desperately hoping the opponent will "do something stupid".

Actually in your example the halfling would die because both would have concealment from neither having low light vision. The rogue would be more impacted by this, meaning the fighter will eventually catch up and kill him while the rogue does 1d3+0 with his sling.

The shop owner isn't playing a game where we're all assumed to be on a level playing field. A better example would be paying the wrong amount for a property in Monopoly. As a fellow player, I'd insist that the player who made the mistake correct the mistake as soon as it was discovered.

When a mistake is this easy to correct, it should be corrected.

If I pay a listed price for something and then someone tells me I owe them double the price I paid because the listed price was a mistake, I would be annoyed.

Yes is agree. Penalize the player for the player for using the rules in the new book.

Furious Kender wrote:

If SKR is right, then this sort of interpretation is way too strict. However, judging from FAQs and whatnot coming from Paizo, SKR's perspective isn't the dominant one.

Eyup.

Or when the devs are looking at the rules arguments and wondering why people are being that pedantic about their interpretations.. its because sometimes being pedantic has gotten the right answer. In addition to RtrnofdMax's examples, some of SKR's guidelines that would have gotten you the wrong answer on whether or not an oracle can use Cha in place of wisdom for spiritual weapon.
-

I would greatly prefer if Paizo would adopt one philosophy of interpretation and stick with it. This ambiguity about how to interpret rules is annoying to put it mildly, in particular for PFS.

For example, the Paizo's rules forum is one of the least effective rule's forums I've seen. People are using different interpretation systems, proposing house rules, and stating what they would allow in their games. It's a mess.

It's also a turn off for players. I know several who have left because their favorite character turned out to be illegal or had too much table variation, such as a drunken barb who cannot figure out how to draw alcohol consistently or a halfling sling-staff user with rapid shot.

It looks like my suggestion that we stop focusing on why the flaw exists and start focusing on how to fix it was ignored. I'm guessing I wasn't the first person to make that suggestion, either.

But keep in mind, guys, there are different classes of Exotic Weapons. There are the kamas and sianghams, which only monks are really meant to use, and there are the elven curve blades, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers and halfling slingstaves. These are supposed to be at least viable options, if not superior ones. That's why the familiarity is a racial ability and not a racial trap for those who don't know the system.

The sling staff's only real advantage is its melee compatibility, and we all know that's not very useful at all. It's the only one of the racial weapons to truly be a trap. A halfling fighter is better off with a crossbow or, ideally, a composite longbow.

Your comment wasn't ignored. Rapid reload for slings was the main suggested starting point by numerous posters. A Richocet Shot feat (instead of Manyshot) that is similar to the spell would be my other suggestion.

Also, the devs have stated they intentionally made it so that halfling fighters were better off with a xbow or longbow because those weapons are superior. This in and of itself annoying. As a fantasy campaign, slings should have some redeeming characteristic for PCs above level 1 or 2.

What also bothers people is that if you make a halfling fighter slinger, you are better off with the sling than the sling staff. A 20th level halfling fighter cannot even move, shoot once, and reload in the same turn with a sling staff. In contrast, with a sling they could move, shoot once, and reload, or take 4 attacks in a full attack. Hence, for a PC, the sling staff is a trap based on the lure of a DPR increase at very early levels, illusionary melee capability, and illusionary increases in range.

I agree that it sets a disturbing precident. Doubly so because the precident is not applied consistantly. As has already been pointed out there are traits that allow soul drinking that are legal, and deathknell is a magical canibalism that is fine.

I understand that the Society is going from 'murder hobos' to Warehouse 13, but they are still a neutral organizaiton, and as long as it doesn't break the rules (explore/report/cooperate) the, shall we say, darker, aspects of the society members should not be stamped out.

Yep, I agree 100%.

I honestly would prefer if necromancy and similar activities were protected in the society as it is supposed to be based on Paizo's own material, as opposed to being shunned like it currently is being in the campaign.

I already had to redo my freedom fighter necromancer witch from Geb to become a normal witch, which sapped a lot of my interest in the character.

Per the new FAQ, I just wanted to point out that half orcs now qualify for human and Orc stuff and half Elves qualify for Elf and human stuff. Pfs additional resources might want to be updated to reflect this.

My experience thus far with how Mike Brock handles this campaign leads me to believe that any retraining rules that do get opened up will be fair and reasonable. I know nothing of Ultimate Campaign, but I'm not worried.

I agree. I am not worried either way.

I had a player about cry this weekend when I pointed out that they took a couple feats that they misread/misunderstood and clearly could not benefit from as they thought they could.

Reebo Kesh wrote:

Attacking squishy targets first is metagaming IMHO.

And I disagree, to a point. Until you can see what an enemy can do, all you have to use is your experience and perceptions to guide your hand, especially in a magical world.

I also disagree strongly that acting on appearances is metagaming. When I DM I always ask for the appearances of the character, such as what armor they are wearing. NPCs and intelligent foes choose their targets based on how they look, just like players choose their targets based on how the monsters look. Players target the glass canons, like arcane casters, so do the intelligent enemies.

With that said, in a different campaign I had a high defense monk and a GM attacked me once and only once in a 8 hour mod. He said, oh you're really hard to hit, and then ignored me completely the rest of the mod. Monsters we'd never seen before would literally walk past me to attack other party members. It was metagaming at its worst and I promised myself I would never do the same.

The Toaster wrote:

OH! and in reply to your comment "Good luck the first time you get hit with a claw/claw/bite routine", my reply would be the community nt "Don't get hit."

How do you just "don't get hit"? I tried asking nicely, but it didn't go over well. I've gotten hit with two crits in the surprise round, and if I had 10 CON instead of 12, I would have been dead. I've taken a full-attack in the first round before I even had a turn, and if I'd had 10 CON instead of 14, I would have been dead instead of still standing at 1 point (it still ended up being a TPK, but whatever). So other than cowardice, what's the secret to not getting hit?

First some gms make mistakes and let monsters full attack in the surprise round.

As far as not getting hit, for bombers stand in the middle of the party or use stealth. For melee make sure to pump Ac. For example my level 2 bomber has a 19 Ac unbuffed and a 25 buffed with reduce person and shield. This is with no magic items.

With that said I agree melee alchemists should be having a 14 or so con. Bombers can fly with a 10 or 12 con.

As for carrying capacity, just use ant haul and a haversack. By level 5 a small creature with strength 7 can carry 51 pounds for 10 hours no problem.

Overall I like the direction this is going. Less than 20 percent of my gaming group goes to cons. They also enjoy race boons.

Overall it would be a big plus over the current system.

Then they'll revisit for the 3rd-5th time those 1st edition modules we knew and loved, and we'll realize how much we like the original gaming system: which is best represented by Pathfinder and it's Gygaxian disciples, Jacobs/Mona/etc.

Gygax is responsible for as many of the faults of the original systems as he is for the positives. He was the one that wanted system mastery to be a major part of play, which is why we still have "how much optimization" arguments every week and major issues with balance between players at the table. He literally and intentionally made trap choices to reward players with system mastery.

Cook is very much in that tradition as well. However I did see an interview where Cook conceded that martial characters shouldn't act primarily as the caster's caddies in later levels as Gygax envisioned. I honestly got happy by that comment.

Simply put, there is a reason that PFS normal play ends just over halfway through the game laid out in the books. I.e., simply cut off play before differences in table system mastery and inter-player balance problems get too large. This was a nice solution to the problems created by the faults in the system inherited from Gygax. This is also why people complain about season 4, which assumes decent player system mastery.

Some responses to this thread make me wonder why some people play roleplaying games. Seriously, if how a character gets past a challenge is annoying to people, then they need to be running their own game with their own friends. Stating over and over again what is bad wrong fun simply ruins the experience.

True stories:
I've seen people annoyed when diplomacy was used to get past a challenge.
I've seen people annoyed when combat was started when no one wanted to use diplomacy.
I've seen people annoyed that people were good at beating things to death and/or have good defenses.
I've seen people annoyed that charm person wrecked an encounter before it started.
I've seen people annoyed that various save or sucks and wrecked an encounter during combat.
I've seen people annoyed when crafty tactics were used to negate encounters.
I've seen people annoyed when players suggested simple tactics, such as focusing fire in a near TPK.
I've seen people annoyed when others scout ahead.
I've seen people annoyed when others use stealth.

So the lessons people have tried to teach me are: don't use diplomacy, use diplomacy, don't be good at combat, don't use save or sucks, don't negate encounters in any way, don't scout ahead, don't use stealth, don't suggest tactics for the party even if the party is about to die.

Not everyone's shtick works together. Not everyone wants to play the game the same way. People just need to learn this and move on. Crying Bad Wrong Fun all the time simply ruins it for everyone.

I am so tired of the let's ban something!!!!111!!!! threads.

They suck a lot of fun out of the game.

Just faq it and move on.

Have you thought about making a character that can actually function in combat instead of figuring out ways to skirt the system?

It seems strange to make a druid find their companion in the first session. Do other characters have to spend time buying armor and weapons? It pretty much is the same thing.

Dennis Baker wrote:

It's gone now, I think removed when the guide changed over to 4th season.

It's still there. I was looking over how faction missions work after my previous post.

The Guide wrote:

Ten political factions vie for control of the city of Absalom, using the Pathfinder Society to support their various causes and missions...

The leaders of the Pathfinder Society generally frown on their members participating in the shadow war for Absalom...

...most loyal faction members keep their alliances to themselves, sharing faction-related missions and information only with other members of their faction.

I like helping with faction missions. It's a lot more fun than being a grand lodge barbarian doing osirion missions...."runes?!?! I cannot even read!"

The other thing is that PCs tend not to share information, they just state what they need. Not why they need it. As part of the pathfinder credo is to cooperate, it seems silly not to cooperate when someone asks you to help find a widget when you're walking around. Even my Chelish sorcerer has been given missions like "Find some tea." Why would you ever not help your companion get tea, or a gift for a friend's kid (which is common with Taldor)?

90% of these things sound benign. Why wouldn't someone help their companion with something benign.

Also, most factions aren't really opposed to each other. For example, who would oppose helping further the grand lodge, other than maybe the shadow lodge? Who is against the Latern Lodge or Silver Lodge?

If you really want pfs to become a game where it's common to say, "No, I will not help you heal that beggar! Find that tea yourself! And your friend's kid will just have to go without a good present this year!" Then tighten up the secrecy regulations. That will undo the cooperation part of the society however.

To me it would distract from the game, and make metagaming more important. Picking fun combinations like a Osirion barbarian or anything but a bard for Taldor, will be much less likely. As a result, I know the grand lodge and maybe the Andoran faction will benefit if it does.

The single biggest factor that determines whether or not a scenario is deadly is your GM.

If you want to play "deadly" scenarios, find a GM who's capable of giving you that experience.

After thinking a little more I realized that a lot of dms I know can kill characters regularly with any respectable mod. However almost all of them opt for challenging the players without wiping them. Thus deaths are not all that common but near death experiences are. For example I think I saved at least 1 character per mod on average on my last10 or so tables.

I have asked tables with good players if they would prefer me to be ruthless and ive never heard a player say yes. If they ever do say yes in all likelihood some will die.

If you want a deadly experience you should ask for it. Most dms aim to challenge and not kill.

KestlerGunner wrote:

The point is that you're cheating :/

That's a pretty strong accusation. IF he can keep player knowlege seperate from character knowlege, it's fine.

Or is anyone 'cheating' if they've read a scenario prior to playing in it?

Yeah, I agree. I frequently act as backup DM so I end playing mods I've prepped to DM, and play mods after I've DMed them. It's not hard to seperate the knowledge. Of course, I prefer to play and then prep, but that doesn't always happen, especially with the new mods.

It's especially easy if you play a character with very little common sense.

Deussu wrote:

I got the image Miss Feathers looked like this.

I might still run ... Miss Feathers as a comic relief.

I really can't condone running someone's sexuality as comic relief. The very reason Miss Feathers is listed as a woman in this scenario is to avoid going with the "man in the dress" joke. Your picture — and the idea that a transgender person is a laughing matter — are both very inappropriate in my opinion.

Please quit confusing sexuality, gender identity, and being a drag queen.

Miss Feathers is a prostitute. I also assumed she was a drag queen, which is a performance art, not a sexuality or gender identity. It is hard to determine what her sexuality and gender identity actually is, as with drag queens and prostitutes in general.

Drag queens are a celebrated aspect of gay life. Drag queens are frequently supposed to be comical, which is why they do the mix and mingle so much at both gay and straight bars. So protraying a drag queen as comical is perfectly fine, because many drag queens intend to be comical.

Drag queens are not the same thing as being transgendered. Some trans women are offended by drag queens because they hate being confused with drag queens. Other trans women celebrate them as allies in the fight for LGBT rights.

However, I am afraid that the description of Miss Feathers was changed not so much to appease portions of the trans women community, but to appease people who didn't find her to be "family-friendly". Honestly, that bothers me, but then again so does the lack of LGBT NPCs in a world that is supposed to be fairly open-minded.

I still am not clear on whether Miss Feathers is a drag queen, a trans women, or both. And yes, you can be both.

If she is a trans women, the only trans women npc, then having her as a prostitute is somewhat offensive. She should have been a fellow pathfinder or something. Because being a drag queen is performance art, and neither a sexuality nor a gender identity, a prostitute drag queen is a lot more common in the real world and is a lot more socially acceptable, IMHO.

You can get an impressive ac from low levels with battle. Metal doesn't work well with heavy armor, which sucks and isn't obvious at first glance.

Pick up umd through a trait or something. Lead blades, long strider, and shield are awesome on wands

Also saves tend to suck on battle oracles, so make some preperations for that.

Aaron Dullinger wrote:

I was wondering how you guys handle broken characters? by Broken I mean level 4 does 60 damage basically a character that could do the mod alone.

First thing I do is audit. I know it takes time, I know it's a pain in the bum, but when I audit a PC that seems to good to be true, it almost always is. I think it's worth it, because if a single PC is killing everything in 1 round, it's ruining the experience for everyone.

Trouble is, I don't have enough experience with all of the classes to be able to audit them quickly. So I would probably not audit some classes.

True auditing takes a lot of experience and knowledge. I've seen DMs get annoyed at generic barbarians, two-handed fighters, and animal companions starting at level 1. I've seen DMs stop the game exclaiming, "What do you mean you're doing 2d6+13 damage at level 1?!?" and then grab character sheets and stare at it for a couple minutes. And what they're dealing with is generic barbarian #10605.

If something seems overly strong, simply ask them to walk you through it. It should take less than 15 seconds for a player to state "I've got a 24 strength while raging, so +10 damage, and power attack for another +3" Or on the 27 ac at level 3, "20 from +1 plate, 1 from dex, +4 from the shield spell I said I was umding, +2 deflection from shield of faith I cast during last encounter"

I've asked players or been asked to spell out a lot of numbers, but I think less than 5% involved player mistakes with their character sheet. More commonly, players forget situational modifiers or conditions, both buffs and penalities.

Giving reminders like, "is that attack including the sickened penalty?" or "Are you including the cover bonus, or am I?" resolves most of these things.

With that said, you don't want to be overly confrontational as the overall goal is a fun, relaxed game. So be sure to ask about buffs as well as penalties, and try to have fun with it. Because if you're not having fun, the players probably aren't either.

There have always been some hard mods, but I love season 4 so far. I like a challenge. I like having to think tactically. As a dm, I like being able to use control versus the players. Of course, dm quality can change this from a challenge to a easy tpk without a ton of thought in some mods.
A party which can play either tier should get dm advice on difficulty. Tiers are all out of character and its notfun to get completely stomped or walk a scenario. I played two year 3 mods back to back this way. The first was with a compentent group and we had a tpk in round 2 or 3 of the final fight. We never damaged the bbeg. The second was with some of the worst players I've ever seen, and we took 6 damage total in the scenario. Neither was fun. Dm advice on tier could have made both fun experiences

Day Job = RP.

I met a Dwarven Druid with profession Gardener. Yep, I remember that guy. Sold a box of rocks... he made Rock Gardens.

Don't mean to nitpick, but wouldn't that be a craft skill?

I've had too many bad experiences with theatre of the mind to ever play again without a map with a system that is based around tactical play. For example, in 2nd ed, my thief was never ever allowed to get a backstab in. With no maps, the creature had no backs.

I've also seen things like GMs backing spell casters into corners without the spellcaster's consent or knoweledge. "Well, you walked into the room, and didn't stay in the hallway and the room is small, so the owlbear attacks you"

In a system that doesn't involve a ton of tactical play, then theatre of the mind is fine.

The guide grants GM's the flexibility to interpret evil acts as they choose. As players, we need to respect this decision.

So if a gm says, "infernal healing is evil," we need to respect that decision? If so, then what was the point of Mike's statement?

This whole discussion is silly. We do have factions that create undead. Osirion even has a "used to dealing with undead trait." We do have factions that consort with devils.

Saying only neutral and good actions/spells are allowed in PFS doesn't make PFS neutral. It makes it a good aligned society.

Necromancers are specified as allowed in the PFS guide. Changing that into Necromancer that don't practice active necromancy is frankly going against the PFS guide.

Just as a point of clarification, since I can't guarantee that Hellknight Signifier will 100% be added to a Chronicle later this season, I've already updated it to go into Additional Resources in September. I was using it as an example. Everyone will have the Hellknight Signifier prestige class As an available choice in the middle of September.

Mike,

Giving prestige classes access as a boon is awesome, but ONLY if which prestige class is granted is clear before playing the mod. Putting these sorts of things in the available resources (e.g., access available as a boon in 4-10) as well as in the summary of the mod would be a good way to do it. That way people know to play their hellnight wantabes in the hellnight signifier mod. It shouldn't be a surprise at the end, as people will inevitably play it with the wrong characters.

As a dm,I always ask how players look. Intelligent monsters will tend to simply ignore high ac low damage builds. I.e., a tank needsmore than good ac. You actually need to be a threat.

Depends. Does the hobbit in question come from Athas? If so, be afraid. Be very afraid.

No kidding! In Ashes of Athas, I'm part of a halfling group that eats their way across the campaign. I pass out defiler sausage and jerky every time I play that character. Lots of fun!

With the PFS idea that GMs making anything more than fluff changes equals cheating, it somehow doesn't surprise me people are opposed to GMs not exactly replicating maps.

It also doesn't at all surprise me that GMs balk are replicating onerous maps. It already takes a good deal of time to prep a PFS mod without having to spend extra time making maps that don't fall on grid lines.

Have you ever spent hours planning, researching, and building an NPC for a campaign only to have the players destroy it within seconds?

In the last campaign (today) we went up against a possessed mayor. He was possessed by a magical stone. I was told the GM had planned, plotted, and created this npc for over an hour.

I killed the man in one shot. When he rose again it was because the stone was using his body. It realized it had been used by the mayor and now it was free. It recruited us to gather it's brothers...(plot hook, if we don't we die). We agreed and those that didn't...we don't have to worry about them any more.

Welcome to rpgs.

An hour to make an NPC by scratch seems pretty low actually for an important character. I have to spend several hours to prep a module, and at least 30 minutes learning how to run premade NPCs for a single encounter.

I had to restart an encounter this weekend because I killed a player using raw I had seen first hand could kill an entire party. Then I had another player find a comment by mark changing the raw on a thread I didn't check, despite me reading the comments thread in this forum.

If this is how pfs runs, then a better job needs to be done collecting these comments and alerting people to these changes. The prep time to run mods is already too high for dms to be forced to used their searchfu before each mod.

It should NOT be the DMs purpose, on hearing that you are interested ion playing a paladin, to plot how they can manuever you into breaking your vows.

But sadly this is the mindset of plenty of DMs out there.

Yes it is. I have seen several DMs do the non-evil lawful authorities committing miscarriages of justice and then penalizing the paladin either way they respond. Your decisions just determines whether you get to atone for defying/punishing the lawful authority "who was just trying to control his lands" or atone for allowing/not punishing a miscarriage of justice.

It's apparently standard lead in to how to mess with paladins in DMing 101.

The one and only skill I was sure animals had as a class skill was survival. However, it seems that I was quite wrong. Animals apparently spend more time jumping than feeding themselves.

Please fix this.