- Holding up a vial of Antiplague and saying "It's covered!" with a lewd wink is not an appropriate way to reassure someone you are attempting to woo. - It is not appropriate to make lewd comments to ANY Venture Captain, faction leader, or important NPC contact during a mission briefing. ESPECIALLY if they are married and/or their spouse is IN THE SAME ROOM. - Just because the local law states that "Any thief caught stealing will be punished..." is not to be met with a "Challenge Accepted!" from the quick-fingered members of the party.
Well there's already a level of preferring GMs for boons. My friend got a racial boon a while ago for GMing a single game at a con where I played at all tables I could. He got a nifty boon for tian races. I... got a few things but nothing I really wanted and certainly no race boons or anything that was game changing. Also, a minor comment on this... As you noted, your friend GM'd one slot and got a boon, while you played all of them. Consider the fact that if you had also run a slot, you too would have gotten that boon if that was the setup of the con.
Alright folks, simmer down. There's no need to be getting all bent out of shape and just arguing back and forth at one another. The best thing you can do for yourself, your fellow players, campaign staff, and Paizo is to offer suggestions of how to help fix the problems rather than just sniping back and forth complaining about how it's all wrong and needs to be fixed/not messed with/whatever. I don't think anyone has any problem with the playing down and getting extra gold, that's great IMHO. It's the 'I'm out of tier and playing up but getting getting less gold than everyone else but incurred the same amount of risk,' that's getting people's jimmys rustled. I agree, this is probably the big reason people are getting their knickers in a twist because now they can't reap all the same rewards for the higher challenge. Really, I see the people that will be the hardest hit by this new ruling being the store and event coordinators. While players certainly have their two coppers to throw about on the topic of playing up or down, the goal of the tiers/subtiers is to get people to play in the closest to correct range for their character. The hope is that one never has to play out of tier, putting their WBL right on track for what it should be. As it is, coordinators muster tables based on levels and who's played what. Now they're going to have to pay a bit more attention to just what the levels are of the characters they're grouping up; essentially trying to keep everyone within the same subtier. It won't always work, as experience has shown, and every now and then, someone's going to be out of tier. This new ruling will help to alleviate the stress on those characters that are stuck playing out of tier, whether by choice or not, in that there is both a reward for taking on a greater challenge and a reward for helping out your lower level friends. This change really isn't going to stop any of the bullying already present in the places it crops up in, but it will help to throttle back some of the ways that some cheese monkeys are using to game the system.
From what I can tell, to be able to actually ride the boar, regardless of which class you choose, level 4 is the soonest it's going to happen. Ranger would be a legit way of making a martial focused character, though you'd end up having to wait until 4 to even get the companion, though with Boon Companion at 5, it'd be a full level, medium sized, boar. I think Mad Dog Barbarian is also a great way to go, as you get your companion immediately, still have fast movement, and instead of waiting until 4th for the companion, you wait until 4th to get a reduced rage. You still get a martial focused character, with the added flavor of being a wild child, and a full level companion without having to blow a feat on it. If you're alright with a less martial and more caster-y type, there's always the Boar Shaman, which gives you added benefits to wildshaping, summoning, and dealing with boars. Plus, totem transformation is pretty sweet. Add to that, the versatility of a Druid's casting options, and you've got a pretty solidly effective character.
+1 to this. As a general guideline with my characters, I tend to be a "No guts, no glory" sort and will (almost) always vote to play up simply because I love the challenge and want to see if my characters can take it head on. On the other hand, I will never fault someone for not wanting to play up. There have been occasions where I've voted to play down because of a variety of circumstances, not the least of which being left with the choice of playing the low man on the pole or going home. There have been occasions where the GM went with the Majority Rules line of reasoning and forced me to play up. The party assured me they would protect my squishy little lowbie and that they'd help pay for my return should I die. They lied. I was absolutely slaughtered because when combat happened, they all retreated and left me (with the lowest initiative) in front of the big nasty thing with teeth, claws, rend, and other unpleasantness. I was shredded in one round. Not only did they not help protect me, but they left my corpse there, finished the scenario, and then refused to help me with my raise dead because I "Hadn't contributed meaningfully to the scenario, nor had I pulled my weight at any point." Majority rules is horrendously unfair when it's what determines the lethality of a scenario versus potentially making it a tad boring and a unchallenging. You may disagree, but that's just my two coppers.
Alright, folks, there's no reason to be getting nasty with the discussion here. I understand your sentiment that being a roleplayer at a table that doesn't role-play so much as roll-play can be frustrating and lacking in the fun department, but I do agree with the warning of caution about how you execute it. While I can certainly understand wanting to play the oddball of the party for "teh lolz", you need to make sure that you can still "Explore, Report, Cooperate" with your fellow Pathfinders. You also need to try to ensure that you're not deliberately sabotaging the mission just for the sake of roleplay. Now, I'm not saying playing a "disruptive" character couldn't be done in a way that that would work, but I'll agree with SPCRedMage that you'll need to exercise caution in doing so. Tell your table beforehand that you've got a very uncouth, socially "unacceptable", loony-toon that was raised by intergalactic bears or whatnot, and ask if they're cool with it. If so, all the power to ya and hope everyone has fun. If not, if someone expresses concern in that they're playing a diplomancer and they would appreciate you not sabotaging their schtick, work something out with them beforehand. Come to a compromise. Let their character see your uncouthness right off the bat with the mission briefing so they can come up with ways to get around that issue.
Or, failing that, at least be willing to scale back the disruptiveness in important NPC interactions that are vital to the mission and/or faction missions, then take it back up in the inter-party communications. The thing is, we want everyone to have fun, including you, but if you walk into it with a "My way or the highway" attitude about how you play your character, both you and the rest of your table will be sorely disappointed. We encourage people to play what they want because we want everyone to have fun, but you need to be willing to compromise (as does everyone else!) to get to the mutually assured fun destination.
Another interesting (and wildly successful) party I saw was actually one I GM'd for at a local con. A barbarian, a wizard, a fighter, and a sorcerer all walked into Bloodcove, and... Nobody died. The Barbarian was incredibly diplomatic. The casters ran out of spells, but still continued to meaningfully contribute. It was amazing.
Also, just thought of this one, which would DEFINITELY need to be a Con boon. No, no, no, that's not how it happened...: Whether due to excessive consumption of alcohol, a few too many hits to your head, or the use of mind-altering spells, your recollection of one of your adventures isn't entirely correct. Choose one of the following options, crossing the rest off. - Gain the difference in the amount of gold earned from a particular scenario between what was listed for the subtier you played, and what you actually gained. Once this boon is used, cross this off. - Gain the difference in the amount of prestige earned from a particular scenario between the maximum possible and what you actually gained. Once this boon is used, cross this off. - Gain a boon that you did not get access to on a chronicle sheet that was normally available to the subtier that you played. Once this boon is used, cross this off. And then there should be a line for the player to write in what chronicle sheet this is being applied to and a section for a GM to check the use of the boon and sign off on it.
+1 to this. When I first started doing PFS two years ago, I was new to the system (but previously a 3.5er, so...) and not in the least bit comfortable with the idea of GMing because I really didn't feel I knew the rules well enough. After about 6-8 months, however, I'd settled in and gotten to talking to the regular GM's at my FLGS and one thing I was constantly hearing about was how they ALWAYS had to GM and they never really got to play. I offered to start running games, and didn't really get the chance to do so until I took to driving an hour and a half every Friday to go up north and game with a larger PFS group (Not that my local crew isn't awesome too, mind you!). There, after a while of getting to know the crowd, I started prepping scenarios and running them every so often. Now I'm one of the regular GM's and because we have so many people showing up all the time (Which is awesome!) I find about half the time it's a real struggle to see if any of our usual GM's actually gets to play or if everyone's needed just to make sure everyone that showed up gets to game. I can understand the frustration of dieing early in a scenario and not getting to play it again for the experience of it and for credit, but... Are you so obsessed with getting credit for EVERY GAME EVER that you can't replay one you've done just for funsies? There are several scenarios that I just love and have replayed just to fill out a table or because it sounded entertaining. Also, if you're playing and getting credit every single time, what about your GM's? Do they get to play as often as you, or are they stuck GMing for you and those other avid gamers that refuse to GM? What are you giving back to your gaming community on a regular basis that means you should get credit all the time? The joy of having you at a table with them? Sorry, mate, but that's not enough in my opinion to be giving you credit every time.
Alright, two groups, same scenario. Shenanigans in Storming the Diamond Gate:
Group 1:
So, this is my first time GMing this scenario after having played it at Paizocon. They're playing at the upper tier and manage to get down to the room with the holding cells after some... Entertaining encounters above. Due to their own placement in the hall of tablets, caught 4 of them in the explosive runes trap, much to my amusement. They waltzed right past the graven guardians thanks to wearing the amulets. I shock the everloving carp out of the barbarian in the false gate room. Oh the lulz. Anyway, they get down to the room with the aspis guards and their dire wolf. The guards jump to arms and sick the wolf on the party while they stand back pelting them with arrows. Que awesomeness by the hurling focused barbarian and the wacky gnome bear shaman. Druid: I ready an action to wildshape into a dire bear.
Group 2:
Once again, a wacky barbarian causes shenanigans. He went down, ripped the door off the hinges into the holding cells room. Squashes one of the aspis mooks in one hit using the door. Next turn, squashes the wolf in one hit (they played the lower tier) with the door again. The other two surrender after one heck of an intimidation roll (because, really, we were a little low on time and they weren't going to slow the PC's down for long). They get down to face the BBEG. The fight goes on for a few rounds as they PC's figure out what's going on, two bridges are taken out with a fireball, yadda yadda. So. Marion, the librarian barbarian, hucks the door at the BBEG, taking him from a few points away from full health (he got hit by one arrow from the cleric) all the way down to two from unconscious. D-dooring away for fear for his life, the BBEG tries to retreat out of his range. Marion, on his next turn, pulls a book from his bag and hucks it across the room at a -8 to hit at the range penalties. He hits. Marion: *hucks door at BBEG*
Quite probably the most amusing death of a BBEG I've seen in a long time.
TLDR: hurling focused barbarians are the bane of Storming the Diamond Gate's BBEG, and they really do create some of the most hilarious shenanigans.
My issue is entirely with WotC for handing out this reward in the first place. I am disappointed they did this and I think it cheapens the world setting they have worked so hard to establish. They weren't content with warping their own game to the point of being almost unrecognizable, so now they're coming after ours! What a twist! Anywho, some characters are likely to balk at seeing goblins in their team, just as some characters will at seeing fetchlings, tieflings, or half-orcs. Yes, the GM's will have to let the characters play the scenario as per normal, but I'm going to bet that those 37 people are among the best of the best and will likely manage to come up with compelling and fun characters to game with.
Stupid rule or no, it is a rule. And while I'll agree that most of the time players play their characters alignments correctly, if I had a LG Pally selling off the Druid's animal companion, setting a building aflame, then running from the law, I'd have a problem. And before you go on with the snipes at me being ridiculous or stupid, a Paladin in my gaming area DID THIS. Not kidding. The rules exist for a reason.
The issue wasn't at all about chaotic good paladins, but lawful good paladins who've chosen a chaotic good deity. The example you gave us is a rules violation with significant mechanical benefits. Thusly a barbarian/paladin is illegal and against the rules. A LG Paladin worshiping a CG god has been expressly stated to be illegal within the rules of the PFS campaign, and is also a rules violation with significant mechanical benefits. Yes, I realize my example is extreme, but should we allow the LG Pallies to run around worshiping CG gods, we're going to have people arguing that's no different than an LG Paladin worshiping a LE god, like Asmodeus, under the guise of upholding law, instead of promoting good. You start bending the rules to allow some builds, and others will argue until we finally have Paladins running around worshiping Lamashtu "as a hobby".
By all means, please tell me how you'd deal with that player without "Hiding behind the rules". Would you tell them to make a more "Reasonable" character? Or let them blatantly break the rules in the name of "Fun"? Trust me, they take that character to a Con or another location and they're going to be sorely disappointed that their character that you allowed to run is being shot down by another GM in the name of keeping it "Fun" for the other players by making sure they're playing by the same rules that everyone else has to play by. The reason the boards are so full of rules arguments, is because this is where we can bring them to get official answers. Besides, the levels of creativity you can manage while staying completely within the rules is astounding. You don't need a rules-breaking special little snowflake to have a fun and entertaining character to play. EDIT: Spelling error.
So then what should I say to the cheese monkey that wants to play a Barbarian/Paladin of Besmara (CN Goddess of Piracy) and keep all his class abilities while wantonly promoting theft, debauchery, and living by the pirate's code? Yes, it's unfortunate that strict rules adherence stifles creativity, but the rules are there for a reason. That reason isn't to be disregarded when convenient or "fun". It's to keep things consistent so that when one player does something that the campaign staff finds unacceptable, they can say "No" and have the rules in place to enforce the decision. If they just let the "good" players get away with bending/breaking the rules, then the ones that were told "No" have every right to complain about the unfairness of the rulings/enforcement. I'm deeply sorry you can't get into a more flexible home-game setting where you can have CG Paladins, but when you agree to play PFS, you agree to PFS rules. I don't agree with all of the rules in place, but I deal with it because that's what the rules are.
If I am in a boss fight and he has minions. I will kill them first to cut down on action economy of the bad guys. Why can't NPC's think the same way with regard to a tough PC? Let's see, I'm an average intelligence BBEG and before me I see a meat-cube in armor, an elf with a bow in the back, an armored character decked out in religious regalia, and some guy in robes. Now, after hiring my own mooks, I know the meat cubes are hard to hit and can dish out damage, the religious ones heal, the archers nance about shooting their arrows, and the robed ones... Make pain happen. Fiery, explody, death-pain. I want the fiery, explody, death-pain to not happen, so if I can squash the squishy fast, that won't happen. Next up, the healer. After that, it's a tossup between meat-cube and nancy-elf, so we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
As the player of an oracle of bones, I'm hoping they won't be lumped into the ban. The entire character concept is of one who is fascinated by the workings of undead, so it would kind of be killed if I had to take a different mystery. The Gravewalker Witch did get the banhammer, but the rest of the class flavor isn't that outside the feel of the setting. No moreso than Oracles, who also gain their powers through mysterious ways. Also, I'm pretty sure there are more complaints about Gunslingers than Summoners.
I don't really think trying to divide prestige up into fractions is the best way to make things work. I just think that removing the Fame tie to purchasing power would make faction "wars" more feasible, since you could actually have competing factions with conflicting missions without completely gimping the failing party. Of course, I really don't think all missions should be conflicting, since Prestige is pretty closely linked to not losing one's character at lower levels. That, and honestly just because they're competing, doesn't mean factions can't occasionally have similar or linked goals that might encourage cooperation. EDIT: My logic for wanting to remove the Fame link to spending limit and not other things is that, if you don't have the rez cushion of prestige, you can play it safer and be more cautious to try to not die. If you don't have the ability to spend enough gold to buy your gear, you'll be less effective and may catch flack from your tables. For example, to get a +2 weapon right now, you have to have 27 fame. Calculate that at 2 prestige per scenario, 3 scenarios to a level, you can get that partially through level 4 if you get most all of your prestige (as many players expect and achieve currently). If you were only to get half that, say due to failing too many faction missions or, if the faction war were to cause conflicts, were forced out of it by another faction, you wouldn't be able to do that until 9th level. Yes, it's a bit extreme to compare all to nothing, but that's the sort of difference you'd be looking at if someone were to fail too many missions. Now, if spending limit were based on your level, rather than your fame, then once you had the gold from successfully completing the main missions, you'd still be able to gear up even if you weren't very good at forcing others out of their faction missions, or didn't want to do that.
Well, as it stands now, only the core races are available unless you get your hands on a special event race boon, so I'd take a look over the ones you have at your disposal and pick the one you feel you can best connect with. Next up is class, which is a lot more wide open, as a vast majority of the classes and archetypes are legal for organized play. Do you have a character concept you'd like to work with?
Stuff. This. This right here. I realize a lot of people want to play special races, etc, but how much more enjoyable would it be if you were able to get it for doing something other than just rolling up a character? If race boons are so important, see about getting more events done. Big events draw in new players and make something cool for veteran players to do that's outside the usual PFS weekend. Events like the BBB, YotSL, etc are great and they don't cost the players anything to play/attend aside from getting to the location. *Beginner Box Bash, Year of the Shadow Lodge
Alright, so lemme get this straight. Jewelfox. You want all races to be open to everyone all the time, yes? Ok, fine. So what do I get to replace my race boon? Nothing? Wait! Foul! That's not fair! I don't get anything special for going to a con or GMing a special event? I have to buck up and deal just so you can have your undead/furry/drow/whatever? Wait. Isn't that what you're arguing against? That it isn't fair that only people who go to cons or GM special events get the cool swag? I don't mean to come off as attacking your argument, but the problem I see is that just like you're angry people are wanting to restrict races, others are angry that people want them all open to play with. Sad to say, mate, but life's not fair. Paizo can't make everyone happy all the time always. They try and part of that trying is taking into account everyone's thoughts and feelings on the subject, as well as looking at game balance. Just like a home-game GM can say what races are allowed and what aren't, so can Paizo. I desperately want to play my characters as Lawful or Neutral Evil, but I can't because of the alignment restrictions. Evil doesn't mean always backstabbing, killing, stealing, whatever. It can mean self centered, cowardly, and greedy. But I don't get what I want because Paizo decided it was for the best that they don't allow characters to be evil, just as they've decided not to open other races. YET. Season 4 comes out in August, just over a month and a half away. Are you saying, you seriously can't wait a month and a half to see if they do end up opening all these different races? Really? Have some patience. Mr. Brock and the other developers are apparently considering opening up other races or adding other races to boons. There's also a smaller PFS special event that'll be coming out in Season 4 that might offer a kickass boon for events of much smaller sizes. Also, would you be happy if you could only have one character of an unusual race? Would you be willing to take that compromise? Or must all your characters be able to be whatever? The only way to come close to pleasing everyone is for everyone to be willing to compromise, not just stamp their feet and whine about the inequity of it.
While I highly doubt any races beyond what's already allowed will be available for PFS play (we don't need a huge wave of unusual races to hit the population), I do agree that (minor) rebuilds would be nice. For example, if new racial traits are available, a one-time chance to change to one of those traits would be nice (like we had when the new factions came out). I understand that if a character is already created, allowing a long-standing character a change just isn't (likely) going to happen, but it would be nice. Still, I definitely look forward to seeing the book having things available as future characters can benefit from anything PFS legal and it'll be fun for usage in home-games.
Would using a spell with a casting time of Immediate Action, such as the spell Hero's Defiance provoke an attack of opportunity? If so, it kinda negates the usefulness of the spell in that if something hit you hard enough to drop you while in melee range and you use the spell, they'll get the chance to hit you again, thus likely negating the healing you just did to yourself to stay in the fight and save your companions. |
