GM Tyrant Princess's page

199 posts. Alias of Kalindlara.


1 to 50 of 199 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That said: I do support the creation of an official list of all possible actions that can gain a player Infamy. Ideally in the Guide. I want a Guide bigger than Ultimate Equipment. Make it as long as you need to, I'll enforce it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This may come as a shock, but put me down for "The GM should have the right to decide whether acts are evil and/or too unsavory".

I've been at a couple too many prisoner-mutilation tables to really trust players to police themselves.

GM PDK wrote:

In some games I've been, we've seen people walking in from the streets to join us, out of nowhere, and I suspect in some cases just to get somewhere warm for the next four hours and out of the rain/snow.

Pregens were handed out. PFS numbers were given. And somehow everyone survived the experience. Some of these itinerant players were seen again once or twice, without Chronicle Sheets or PFS numbers. The same process was applied. The GM tried to be as inclusive as he/she could, and answered questions patiently.

It sounds like the rules were followed correctly, then, unless I'm missing something here. They showed up with no resources, they played pregens, they had fun. Success.

GM PDK wrote:
If the game is in a store and opened to the public, inclusion trumps enforcement. Plain and simple. We are all human beings worthy of a basic level of respect. Rules and enforcement are there to protect the playing community from abusers and not meant as a wide-ranging, encompassing of the entire gaming population repetition jackhammer.

Do you have anything to back this assertion up, just out of curiosity? Quotes from Leadership, that sort of thing? Because otherwise, it sounds like you're assigning intent where none is provided.

We don't let someone play a 40-point-buy kineticist with the prana ghost template because "it'd take too long to fix the character and he just wants to play". (Actual local example.) While that's a bit more extreme than "forgot Chronicle sheets", I don't really see why we should give repeat offenders a total pass either.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM PDK wrote:
I can't help noting the irony of "A little enforcement goes a long way" and your avatar's name "Tyrant Princess" :P

It started out as a joke, admittedly. Now, I use it more ironically - the idea being that enforcing rules like "have your Chronicle sheets and sourcebooks on hand" or "don't select a religion trait from a deity you don't worship just because nobody ever calls you on it" makes me the most oppressive form of tyrant.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

You're right that it's no reason to "kick or ban" people. It is, however, a very good reason to keep a well-stocked folder of pregens on hand for them to play.

My local store used to work like that before I showed up. Then I started auditing people. Now everyone has their Chronicles on hand and character sheets in order. A little enforcement goes a long way.

8 people marked this as a favorite.

That said? Sometimes it's just not the place for you. If you find the rules of organized play keep you from enjoying what you do, there's no shame in stepping away.

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
No one likes paperwork

...I do. In some ways, it's what drew me to Pathfinder Society. I like the crisp feeling of forms filled neatly out, every box carefully filled out and initialed.

(No, I'm not joking.)

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm always interested to discover that the correct answer to "someone's not following the rules" is "they deserve a pass because it would be mean to enforce the rules".

I have a local guy who shows up with characters that have literal monster templates because of this logic prevailing under the previous local VO.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If he doesn't have the penalties associated with deafness, he probably shouldn't gain the benefits.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Some GMs will be willing to houserule, some won't. Some GMs will have houserules they're not willing to bend on for the purpose of accommodating your character concept, some won't. Some GMs will limit the sources you can use options from, some won't.

Pandora's wrote:
If you don't like it, play in a different group.

As for the tactic of shouting "strawman" at dissenting opinions, I hope your own words don't qualify for that ever-nebulous description.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Pandora's wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Count me against stripping the flavor out. I like the game to be more than "here are some numbers that don't mean anything". Which is what I've seen happen in 98% of cases with flavor-neutral stuff in previous editions.
There's a big difference between stripping the flavor out and providing an optional flavor. I'm advocating for the latter, not the former. Flavor can be a focus of the game without the flavor being exactly identical every time a particular class/specialization/archetype is played.

Sorry, but from my point of view that sound exacvtly as "strip avay the flavor, the give the possibility to add it if you want".

That can be shortened to "stryp away the flavor" and "the GM can add some kind of flavor in".

Wile I can get your position, I fail to see "I don't want any limitation" as something positive.

Alternate routes to get to the final result? Good.
Pick and choose only the positive parts and avoid any drawback? No good.

It's even worse than that. Remember, if the GM has any specific flavor in mind for specific character options, it's oppressing the player and destroying their ability to make any character at all. Having flavor attached to options just turns characters into puppets without any meaningful sense of choice. Or so I'm told, anyway.

For the record, when I ran The Lion's Justice...

The Lion's Justice:
I actually ran the Spring Attack tactic as written, rather than by RAW. Since there was conflict between two "absolute rules" (RAW vs. Run As Written), I made my decision based on what would be most fun and engaging for the players at the table. It made things tense and interesting without being overly deadly or resource-consuming.

(That whole part of the scenario was interesting for other reasons. The party split up to look around, and the one investigating the kitchen was a halfling paladin/order of the paw cavalier with some... interesting philosophical leanings.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

watches her thoroughly oppressed players polish her +5 adamantine throne of fiat

...sorry, I wasn't listening. What are we talking about?

Seriously though:

I'm a bit ambivalent about this. I've obviously been a longtime supporter of GM authority, but I understand the feeling of those who've been abused by terrible GMs.

To my mind, the GM's role (especially in PFS) should be to make sure everyone has the most fun possible. If that means letting someone do their awesome thing, so be it. If that means interpreting an ambiguous situation in the enemies' favor to give the PCs a worthy challenge, so be it. If that means having to counterbalance multiple players' differing desires... well, do your best. As long as you're not actively violating PFS rules in the process, Rule 0 really should be another tool in the best GMs' toolbox.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I miss that avatar sometimes.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

In any case, I'm in favor of this whole "GMs being encouraged to judge situations and make executive decisions" thing with the Lore skills. Huge shock, I'm sure.

I believe that the rules about "running scenarios exactly as written" may have been less strict when this thread was first created.

Hm. I'll have to take a closer look at that FAQ at some point. Though it doesn't seem directly relevant.

I agree with Ferious that there doesn't seem to be anything to support the effects of the slivers carrying over from scenario to scenario. It's certainly within the intent of the item, but the same could be said of the spells specifically listed as carrying over from one scenario to the next.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would not consider "a number of people, none of whom possess authority to make rulings, decided that it works in the most beneficial manner" to be "hashed out" to a degree worthy of citation.

At the very least, I recommend citing that with an asterisk that notes that no official ruling took place. Presenting an unofficial discussion in an ambiguous way that could be interpreted as claiming an official ruling (to those who don't pore through the thread) would make me somewhat uncomfortable with taking further claims from the same player on faith.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's been acknowledged before that older sources didn't have those terms. Though I hadn't considered ruling exclusively on the basis of their presence, I suppose I can see why that would be easier.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So, now we can move on (possibly in a new thread) to determining whether all these bladebound kensai magi are legal.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It further bears noting that Accomplished Sneak Attacker was designed by a freelancer (I want to say Alex Augunas), with no relation to the design of the vivisectionist. (Like most game content, as it happens.) I'm not even sure there's that degree of coordination.

It's possible that was the intention back when vivisectionist was released. Off the top of my head, it's the first example of its kind, so they may have been playing conservative or trying things out. The PDT also underwent a major change in the intervening years (SKR > Seifter), so policy shifts may also have played a part.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's noteworthy that none of the (many) archetypes that grant sneak attack printed since then have similar text. None of which, it bears mentioning, stack with rogue levels. So... it's hard to draw that conclusion, and even harder to consider it enforceable.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Vivisectionist has no such thing - it simply describes sneak attack stacking with rogue, and doesn't attempt to suggest a greater or general rule. If you can find another source for this assertion, it would be welcome.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just for completeness's sake, your sneak attack dice wouldn't "go dormant" at all. There's no general rule that restricts your sneak attack dice from exceeding half your level, only a specific restriction placed by the Accomplished Sneak Attacker feat (and thus, only applying to those with the feat).

It doesn't look like it can be #1, at least based on the ifrit racial trait (I haven't seen the Chronicle). Fire Affinity applies to all sorcerer spells and class abilities (logic and design intent notwithstanding).

PRD wrote:
Fire Affinity: Ifrit sorcerers with the elemental (fire) bloodline treat their Charisma score as 2 points higher for all sorcerer spells and class abilities. Ifrit spellcasters with the Fire domain use their domain powers and spells at +1 caster level.

If the Chronicle is worded similarly, it looks pretty certain that they will stack.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Looking at the Archetype Stacking FAQ again... that argument might actually be correct. (Nobody is ever really prepared for how strict that FAQ is.) I'd completely forgotten about that familiar-arcana line.

The text isn't as easily parsed as more recent books, which have made a stronger effort to delineate "altered" class features... but it's definitely something to think about.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, local GMs' opinions are obviously most relevant until (if) there's an actual ruling.

In any case, I think it's perfectly acceptable.

1: No. You can access the pouch, but that don't necessarily make you capable of using its contents.

2&3: No. There's six creature types very carefully listed there, and ooze is not one of them.

Perhaps. Hard to say with the information at hand.

I will note that the masterwork transformation spell is of instantaneous duration, yet the Guide's writers still felt the need to stipulate that you could carry it over from one adventure to the next.

20 people marked this as a favorite.

If I may:

(6) I have no preference one way or the other, but I would prefer that it be clarified so that we know for certain whether it works or not.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My thoughts exactly.

Since it has no slot, I would rule that it must be held in hand at my tables, just like a wand. There's no rules for chaining an item to your wrist in that fashion, so I would default to the normal "retrieving an item" action economy.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play, Table Variation, page 13 wrote:
As a Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgments, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder RPG source, errata document, or official FAQ on What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right for your table during cases not covered in these sources.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't have plans for a dervish magus, for this exact reason. I don't like working in this sort of gray area, unless the result is interesting enough to me to justify the potential headache. That said...

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Let's be fair. Having a GM rules against the build does nothing other than remove a few points of extra damage. That is hardly Invalidating a character. Functionally, nothing changes in how the character is played.

I don't think it's quite that simple, for one big reason:

Scimitars aren't finessable.

A magus built around Dervish Dance who can't use it loses access to his attack bonus as well as damage. Even if he had a backup rapier, he can't be expected to invest in it to an equivalent degree. A bladebound magus literally can't have a backup black blade. Unless the GM allows him to pretend his scimitar is an identically-designed rapier for the scenario (which is extremely sketchy for organized play), he's in pretty serious trouble.

I have one confirmed kill and two honorable mentions.

I almost killed a young girl's character with a critical hit from a gearsman. She was down 8 points past her Con... the only reason she survived was because I had bought enough to get the table to the enhanced benefit.

I almost killed my VC in my first game with him. Half-fiend mimic smite good crit, very nasty.
Fortunately, he had shield other

As for the real kill... a fighter ate a one-two punch of forbiddance and blade barrier. What's more, his body was in the blade zone long enough that he needed a full resurrection spell to be revived.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The alternative is getting dragged into an argument on these forums. The only winning move is not to play.

To be fair, I've been known to use "expect table variation" as code for "there's no way in Hell that's legal, but I'm sure you can find someone you can convince to allow it at their table". Perhaps Mr. Thune is doing the same.

Agreed on all other points.

AaronUnicorn wrote:
Oh! One last question. I see that PFS has first level wizards getting Spell Focus instead of Scribe Scroll (because of no item creation, which makes sense). As an Air Elemental specialist, is an elemental "school" a valid target? Or do I need to take one of the traditional schools of magic?

Unfortunately, you will have to choose a traditional school. (Though it would be interesting if, in the future, Elemental Focus were offered as an alternative.)

I note that they both appear at their high-tier level of improvement on the Chronicle, even though the bow is only +1 at low tier. That, along with the language about appearing in the available items below, suggests that they must be purchased as presented.

As for the boon, in the absence of in-text explanation (and barring clarification), I'm inclined to give it to PCs who completed the scenario. This includes the hornbow, even if they didn't experience the optional encounter.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secane wrote:
Add agile weapon property and you get to use dex and damage with anything.

Just because you can gain the benefits of Weapon Finesse with a weapon doesn't make it a valid recipient of the agile weapon property. Expect significant table variation there, if anyone allows it at all.

That's understandable. This is one of the difficulties with the way the SRDs, even AoN, decontextualize game material. (I had to go look it up in the book myself.)


Additional Resources wrote:

Legal character options in this book are accessible to all qualifying PCs, except where noted; those options marked with an asterisk (*) are only available to characters of the associated race. Except where otherwise enabled by another ability, alternate favored class bonuses and racial traits are only available to members of the associated races.

...racial paragon*...

As such, in Pathfinder Society Organized Play, only members of the kitsune race can select the racial paragon vigilante talent.

In addition, this line from the racial paragon talent may be of interest:

Blood of the Beast wrote:
The vigilante must meet all the feat’s prerequisites.

I would not make that assumption, personally. Expect table variation.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is definitely something you should discuss with your GM before beginning the scenario.

The relevant FAQ. Shouldn't be anything else affecting cost - she can proceed from there to making it +1 and eventually flaming.

Cost is calculated before the mithral adjustment, so it should be +1,000 for a Small scimitar.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Deciding that your power for an ex-cleric with the Channeler of the Unknown archetype (or, I believe, an oracle or shaman*) comes from an entity otherwise unsuitable for divine spellcasters in PFS should be fine, as long as you're not trying to justify gaining access to specific game content/benefits/etc. or otherwise "worshipping". The original post was ambiguous enough that it seemed like it might be making a different argument; one which would be pushing the envelope a lot more.

*I'd have to check the Guide again to make sure what is and isn't on the list.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I see it's Expect Table Variation o'clock on the forums again.

1 to 50 of 199 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>