Jack R Brown's page

"Hello! I am Angelo Gaius Cassius Fierro, Conjurer Extraordinaire, Master of All Things Arcane! I know more than you do, so if you are confuse just ask me. Oh, and don't mind the tale, it has a mind of its own!

"I've slain dragons, solved mysteries, and ended more than one arena battle with a single spell! Why I..."

Hopefully he'll be cut off at this point, because he will talk... incessantly, whether you want him to, or not. Especially in "diplomatic" situations. He'll even claim to be trained in diplomacy (Ok, this is true, but even after his single rank, he is still at a -1)

------
A Garundi man, wearing a leather duster and a wide-brimed hat and carrying a richly decorated musket nods and says, "Munny. Lawman of Abadar. This is Vera, my constant companion. Don't make her mad, or she may shoot you in the face."

---
A man dressed in black robes with red trim, wearing an iron mask looks you all over. "I am Faustus Sulpicious Voralius, Inquisitor of Asmodeus. Do you have any crimes to confess before we head out in this mission?"

(others may come later)

Midnight Madness? Sounds... spooky?

I know I am in for the CotN... plans include GMing 4 slots (Wardstone Patrol, Frostfur Captives, and two not yet released scenarios)... playing both Bonekeeps (with the same character... required per Mr. Dehning)... and playing the special!

Sounds like a GREAT weekend (and if we add in lack of sleep, etc)...

Derek, I am sorry to hear that. Doesn't sound like being a GM is all that fun to you.

I know that I really enjoy playing, and I really enjoy GMing.

Maybe we should morph the discussion, slightly...

What do I like about GMing?

Well, for sure, especially with the way that PFS scenarios are done, I really do like knowing the whole story. A lot of times, partially due to table variation, partly due to bad die rolls, and partly due to scenario design, as a player you only get to know part of the story.

But that's only a small part. I like telling stories, playing a variety of characters, and trying to challenge a group of adventurers. Sometimes the latter is easier than others... which makes the real challenge trying to challenge them to a level that is appropriate to the players and the scenario!

Sometimes I'll push them to the brink of death, but also keep an eye out for an "out", in case I am not really looking for the TPK!

One of the hardest things I have been learning is to handle the issue where the party "curb stomps" the encounter. The difficulty here comes around that as a GM, I try and prepare myself to run each encounter, to make it challenging. When the group pounds the Ghoul Worm into dust in the first round, it is hard NOT to be frustrated (as all that time prepping feels like it has gone to waste)! However, in reality, as a GM you are an entertainer. If the party is entertained, then you have done your duty.

Jiggy, I really loved your comment about all scenarios not being a "climax". You are right... occasionally it is good to know your characters are good at what they do, and can survive adversity. Not all encounters (and adventures) have to be climactic... some will be cake walks... and that's probably a good thing.

I know there is at least one character in our lodge that prefers calk walk adventures (her fighter helps make things cake walks, but that's another story altogether). So when they curb stomped the scenario I ran this last Sunday, she had a blast! I really tried hard not to get frustrated and keep it all upbeat. But, I will say, it is hard when you are a competitive person. :D

Still, I had fun... and I also realize that this is something that will be happening more often with the Season 5 play up/down rules. Also, this was probably fate getting me back for what Munny (my Gunslinger/Inquisitor read "Lawman of Abadar") did to the evil dudes in Elven Entanglement (that is, after being reduced to 2hp from DEAD DEAD in the initial round of combat in the initial encounter).

So... I hope some of this helped, Derek. I know I babbled a little there, but...

I'd agree that it would be nice to be able to apply GM credit to a new first level character. I'd far prefer that than applying a 5-9 or 7-11 to a character in most cases (I've done it, but I am now thinking that I'd rather play my characters once they get 3rd or 4th level).

Getting the characters out of 1st (and 2nd) level is the primary goal I have, because I much prefer playing characters once they have gotten out of the "greenhorn" levels. It was fun playing a couple-three character up through 1st & 2nd, but I've gotten over it now ;)

The same would be nice for modules (drop to 1398gp when assigning to a 1st level).

For sure I would use this to create a broader cast of characters, enabling me, as a GM, to become familiar with a broader selection of character classes, and rules.

That's all funny to me, because even though I barely have one star, I would rather play my characters, just usng the GM creds to get off the dreaded 0xp/pp 150gp game.

Maybe if I get to push a quirky design to a min level, but generally I just like to play. I also like to GM.

And not getting my day job will not stop me(since I am thinking that I don't necessarily want to use all te credits, anyways).

Can you use a higher tier chronicle for a lev 1 character like you could for a pregen?

Thinking about all of this, and it all comes down to simple common courtesy.

A few additional points on the teachable moments:
New GMs are both a blessing and a curse... very often, they are doing their absolute best to run the game, which leaves them very little time to help out the greenhorns at their table. Most of the time, we break in the new GMs on the tier 1-5 scenarios (especially sub-tier 1-2), where there is the highest likelihood of being inexperienced PFS players. This can mean that the people that need the most help get missed by the GMs that are struggling themselves. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not blaming the GMs. However, it can really help to have an experienced player at the table in these situations.

Let's take, for example, Andrew's wife's first game as a GM. I had the pleasure of being part of this game, as did Andrew, Jiggy, Jiggy's wife, Andrew's previously mentioned friend (perhaps on a different thread), and my friend, Unklbuck. This was an ideal situation for her, as she didn't have to worry about players not being prepared, or not knowing the rules. In fact, I was 100% impressed by her standing by a ruling at the table when I tried to point out how it was supposed to be read. But, she did, and we moved on.

Had she had a table of novices, she may not have had as easy of a time. The same would be true if she were at table of "non-casual, hardcore" gamers, looking to exploit every little rule, every little misstep of the GM.

What am I trying to say, here?
Perhaps the best thing that an event coordinator can do would be to hand-pick a GMs first table. That's always the hardest one, as we all know. Even if you've been GMing for decades, for some reason it is different when you move into the realm of organized play. So, have an experienced player (who is also a GM you respect... perhaps even yourself) at the table, just to help out with the more mundane stuff, like filling out the tracking sheets, making sure the team has everything they need to survive (or even giving a once-over for new characters of first time players). Make sure the novice GM has a good first experience, so they come back and do it again.

Also, thank you, Andy. I very much appreciate what you've said about me in the above. I try very hard to be the kind of player that I want to game with! It means a lot coming from you. I have to say that you and Earl are among my favorites to see at a table, from either side of the screen.

Andrew Christian wrote:

Actually in this case, we pretty much agree on methodology. You just disagree with my stating that other GM’s have the right to make certain decisions.

That’s fine, everyone has their own opinion, and they are all wonderful, even if they don’t agree with mine.

Or is it my methodology of how I post that you disagree with?

Perhaps methodology was not quite the right word. "Approach" is probably a better one. You seem to approach problems from a basis of mistrust rather than trust, i.e. your solutions assume the worst from the player base, not the best.

trollbill,

Let's just say that I know about the specific example that has been grating on him, and that it was not Andy that was being the jerk in this case. I have also dealt with the same player, and was able to work around the game-breaking pet; but this will not always be the case.

Finlanderboy wrote:

Rules lawyers are great if kept in check.

My rules lawyering etiquette explain your rule once so the DM understand your point. Then let the GM make the ruling. Lastly shut up the law has been laid.

That's the part I have a problem with. The law being laid down incorrectly. And just sitting there taking it. Not fun. Sorry.

Ok, to take an example from tonight's game... with a first time GM running.

The bad guys had cast Bane, and the GM got confused over the burst AE in combination with the duration. I brought it up, and she said that she is running it as she said, and that we would look at the rule when the combat was over.I said, "Great," and let it go at that.

I had the utmost respect for this decision... and the Rules Lawyer in me had a REALLY hard time letting it go, but I let her run the game. We did discuss the rule, going over the difference between Burst and Emanations, and what the duration was there for. SO, she was able to keep the game running, and we were able to use it as a learning experience for everyone. What more can you ask for?

Great job, Dianna!!!

If you have a Headband of Vast Intelligence, and it grants a skill which is a class skill for you, do you get the +3 bonus for being a class skill, even if you don't have any ranks in it?

A headband of vast intelligence has one skill associated with it per +2 bonus it grants. After being worn for 24 hours, the headband grants a number of skill ranks in those skills equal to the wearer's total Hit Dice.

On the skills definition:

You gain a +3 bonus on all class skills that you put ranks into.

I am uncertain of whether or not the skill ranks granted count for this.

Thank you for your help.

Quick question about "out of tier"... does this mean below tier as well as over tier, or do we just do the "typical" thing and hold the chronicle until the character hits, in this case, 3rd level?

Just checking... pretty sure i knew the answer already.

Dragnmoon,
I will start by saying that I agree with what you are saying, but also see that this is something difficult to codify.

I think we all will agree that we all get better as GMs by playing under good GMs... we learn lessons from those that do it differently than we do. Cons are always a good place to learn, both from players and from GMs. I agree that you can continue to learn a lot about playing and GMing from home games, there is a big difference between them, and social play. Running Champions (and other) games at the Con of the North has taught me that... it has especially taught me that I am a poor judge of how much can be done in a 4-hour time slot in the way of story telling, etc.

That's where PFS play has been quite enlightening to me. In general, I have been impressed by the amount of story that the authors have been able to pack into a 4-5 hour scenario. In many ways I think it is helping me in the home games that I play, and as I continue to run PFS scenarios, I think I will get better at that as well.

Even though I have been GMing RPGs since 1978 (*gasp*!!!), I know that it is always possible to get better. In the realm of organized play, you continue to learn rules that you don't always focus on in home games (such as grappling, tripping, etc), and, interestingly enough, teaches the value of things like expendables (potions, wands, alchemical weapons). I will say that in my home game, we rarely bought anything other than CLW wands (or Restoration wands at higher level).

It does taking running a good number of games, I think, to really get good. In the realm of PFS games, I cannot say that I am there, though I think that even though I have only run 5 sessions at this point, I am getting better with each one. I've learned how much prep time I currently need to feel comfortable with a scenario... which is a bit more than I started with. I also quickly learned that it is often the little things that can impress a group, and make the gaming experience much better... like spending the hour or so to draw out the theater for Among The Living... or whatever.

I know that I could not currently pull off what our V-C Ryan Blomquist did a few weeks ago... at a Game Day, he was expecting to run a certain scenario (which was a part 2 of a series), but as it turned out, only one of the players had actually played part 1. He then chose a new scenario, which he had played once, but never run, and ran it cold. He did an amazing job of it!! This really showed me how much experience counts in running PFS games, and how good our local V-C really is! (Thank you, Ryan!)

So, what am I getting at with my ramble?

Well, we all know that playing is important as GMing, to be a good GM. Perhaps there should be a minimum number GMs played under to gain a star. This would show dedication to both sides of the screen... and dedication to learning. Perhaps for lower stars (1 and 2?) the aspiring GM should have a certain number of games under 4-5 star GMs (or V-Os), since these are our most experienced GMs. Later, to gain the 4th and 5th stars (maybe even 3rd) you'd need to play under a certain number of 0-2 star GMs. This would be for mentoring purposes... to try and help the less experienced GMs through the early learning phases, and create better GMs in general.

The risk here is that it would tend to penalize players in smaller lodges, as they would by their nature have fewer GMs.

I guess I don't really know how to codify all of this, but just throwing out some semi-stream of consciousness babble on my ideas. ;)

ok... got some clarification from my V-C.

Clerics do not get their channel, and, if I read his email correct, they cannot use domain abilities that have been replaced. He seemed pretty frustrated by it... as I am as well.

Guess, I am going to avoid Season 0 scenarios (at least to run...) from now on, unless the rules change.

SIGH

Jack R Brown wrote:

Hope this all makes sense. Keeps the scenario balanced to its original balance, and also keeps the distinct flavor of Pathfinder!

I disagree - this makes the scenario easier than designed in nearly all cases.

And they're already pretty nerfed easy.

Please explain.

In fact, if anything, using the clerics as of Pathfinder (where they have negative energy channel instead of rebuke/control undead), will make them more powerful.

TetsujinOni, I'm not trying to be snide, but I'm concerned: would you run these adventures under the 3.5 ruleset?

(With undead being immune to critical hits, and 8th level PC clerics with the Magic domain being able to use arcane items as if they were 4th-level wizards? Would PC sorcerers lose all their bloodline abilities?)

I'm just concerned that players have some understanding about how their characters work and reasonable expectations about how their enemies work. If they expect that the gnoll who just demonstrated it has Cleave is going to get a free second strike every time it hits, or that the evil cleric is going to be able to channel negative energy, and they make decisions based on those errors, I don't think they're getting a fair shake.

I cannot disagree with all of that, Chris.

The cleave you could hand-wave away, calling it the UC Cleaving Finish, but other stuff would be harder.

In the case of my NPC clerics, I'll be using the Pathfinder class stuff, but just hand-waving the Heavy Armor (as has been suggested more than once from the campaign leadership). I'll probably keep the domain abilities the same, as well, since they are called out in the tactics and stats blocks.

The only change to spells will be swapping Cure Minor Wounds (Orison) to be Stabilize (Orison)... even though this will leave some 0-level slots open. This, because Mark Moreland has commented that this is the legal substitution (sorry, don't have the link).

Other than that, I'll be leaving things pretty much the way they are stated in the 3.5 SRD... but making sure we are using creature templates from Pathfinder (if that makes sense)... example, Undead, Constructs, and Elements will be susceptible to sneak attacks and crits.

Hope this all makes sense. Keeps the scenario balanced to its original balance, and also keeps the distinct flavor of Pathfinder!

EDIT: Of course, assuming I don't hear otherwise from MJM or my VOs.

I am going to keep this generic, so hopefully it doesn't spoil anything. However, I have a few questions on converting NPCs in Season 0...

1) How do we handle a melee combatant with Cleave? Do we treat it as the D&D 3.5 version, or the Pathfinder version?

2) Do NPC clerics get their Channels (negative or positive energy)? Does this replace turn/rebuke undead, or do we just use the 3.5 versions of turn/rebuke undead?

3) On the chronicle, if a magic item listed does not exist in Pathfinder (such as an Amulet of Good Health), what do we do? Convert it to the Pathfinder version, cross it off, or what?

4) If a monster in 3.5 was immune to criticals or precision damage, should we use the Pathfinder or 3.5 rules (undead, elementals, constructs)?

Thank you for your help.

Cold Napalm wrote:

The podcast was neat no doubt...but I think bugley has a point on it not being exactly the best method for dissemination of information.

As was mentioned in the podcast, there will be follow up blogs to the various topics. We thought this was a neat way to give a sneak peak to the audience in advance of announcing changes on a blog. Apparently, we failed in some people's opinions and will try to do better next time.

At the bare minimum, it was kind of cool to see the campaign leadership, see them respond to questions, and the like. In my opinion, people gain a significant amount of empathy when you can actually see those making the decisions.

Based on what I saw and heard, I could tell that there was a lot of thought that went into all of the decisions. In addition, it seems like you've left some room to tweak the play-up/play-down rewards, etc. That's why these message boards exist (and I am hoping that my suggestion about wealth gained by level was the one that Mark mentioned in the podcast ;) )

Good job, guys. Openness is always better!

Interesting, Andy... this is definitely something that I missed with the changes to Pathfinder. But, per the PRD:

Ability Score Damage, Penalty, and Drain

Diseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal damage directly to your ability scores. This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability.

For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability. If the amount of ability damage you have taken equals or exceeds your ability score, you immediately fall unconscious until the damage is less than your ability score. The only exception to this is your Constitution score. If the damage to your Constitution is equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you die. Unless otherwise noted, damage to your ability scores is healed at the rate of 1 per day to each ability score that has been damaged. Ability damage can be healed through the use of spells, such as lesser restoration.

Some spells and abilities cause you to take an ability penalty for a limited amount of time. While in effect, these penalties function just like ability damage, but they cannot cause you to fall unconscious or die. In essence, penalties cannot decrease your ability score to less than 1.

So, perhaps most importantly, you do not lose hit points for CON Damage or Drain... until you die, that is. This is an interesting change. However, this does not mean that your Fort saves are not going to get worse as a poison keeps adding CON damage.

Just as it sort of ruins mine when a player jeapordises the success of a mission because they can only possibly do things a certain way, like refusing healing so they can lay there on the ground instead.

Where's the middle ground?

The middle ground would be that if you have anything other than a brand new character, you make sure that you either have some potions of Cure Light Wounds and a wand of Cure Light Wounds. Make sure your party members know this, when you are discussing group tactics, healing, etc.

Then, if you, as the Paladin/Cleric/General "Good Guy" don't want Infernal Healing cast on you, you make sure that the others know that you have alternative healing available.

Other than that, I would go with what Mike Brock did in his example. I could seriously see my own Paladin (Magnus) taking on the sickened condition like Mike Brock's did... in fact, that's probably what I will be doing in the future.

As for my other characters, Silbeg (a Rogue), may think about not taking the healing (he is CG), but in the end would probably accept it. Jayne Munny, my Gunslinger, has accepted the spell, and would again in the future (of course, he is Lawful Neutral). It would all depend on the individual character. Magnus, for sure, would not want to be the recipient of such a spell, but will be making sure he has alternatives available.

Yeah, I would say he sort of missed it, a little.

CHA 7 is bad for a Cleric (Channels are based on CHA, right?

STR 10 and DEX 10, not as bad... When you say "roll" Cranefist, does that mean you were actually rolling, and not using the point buy system?

Also, is this character still at 1st level? What are his domains? I'd say there is a lot more to describing a cleric than just stats...

This is a Good Thing, BTW. Clerics are much more "fluffy" than ever before in PF.

But, I would say that the 10 STR is not a Bad Thing. He needs better armor, for sure (if this is his initial foray into the world of adventuring, why isn't he in Scale Mail?) Remember, if you are in medium armor, you are already effectively in medium encumbrance.

Also, as GM, do you realize that a CR3 creature is going to be amazingly tough for these characters? What sort of creature was it?

The CR system basically says that if you have 4 characters of level 1, a single CR1 creature should be a good match. A CR3 creature would be a battle of epic proportions, and would likely be taking out a character per round.

Yeah, we ran late. Way late, all the way to the hard stop, and didn't finish the adventure. Sigh. Kind of wish we'd used that "review" time for more gaming...

That is why locally most of the games are scheduled for an hour before the game really starts... so that GMs have time to set up, review characters, and the like.

On the other hand, I can see how frustrating that can be.

Off the top of my head, maybe I can offer a suggestion, based on what I've done with complicated characters of my own in home games...

As an addendum to the printed character sheet, add in pages which contain the cut-and-pasted descriptions of the various feats and other abilities.

Creating a "spell book" (either from one of the sites linked to from D20PSFRD... I know, sacrilege ;), or by creating it yourself with cut-and-paste from PDF books or the PRD). With this, you'll have a handy-dandy reference to use while playing, so that you don't have to dig through dozens of tomes, plus you could have a second copy to hand to the GM!

Don't dis on Jack... I hear he's really a good guy, at heart!

Bwah ha ha ha!

Oops.

I think he meant retrieving it provokes once, and drinking it provokes once, for provoking twice. At least that's how I took it.

Correct.

Ok, a couple of things I just realized tonight, perusing the CRB...

1) When you have Two Weapon Fighting, you can drawn two weapons (which must be either light or one-handed) in the time you can draw one. Thus, if you have a +1 BAB, you can draw two weapons with a move... that would have helped me out a lot... 2 full levels drawing the weapons one at a time... sheesh.

2) Picking up an item provokes... as does retrieve a stored item... so, grabbing a potion in melee can provoke twice? Take that 5-foot step!

3) And, though I knew it, there it is on p183... using a SLA provokes! Explicitly.

4) And then, a clarification... a Rogue with minor magic rogue talent can take Arcane Strike? He can cast arcane spells!!! That seems interesting, but also has a little bit of a smell to it... maybe someone can confirm this one for me.

5) Ok, I think I have to check the Gunslinger listing on this, just to be sure... but it seems that Gunslingers won't be able to use Deadly Aim (at least not in the first range band), because " The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks" (PRD). This seems a little counter-intuitive, but I guess I can live with it (would be a balance issue, I assume).

my 2 cents on electronic vs. paper character sheets...

I personally prefer 100% "dead tree" sheets... why?
1) no screens to block sight lines.
2) usually faster to access and fine stuff
3) fewer distractions.

In games that I GM (Pathfinder or otherwise), I have stopped using a laptop as a resource myself, in order to hopefully promote this pro-old-school way (of course, I use PDF print outs, but that is another story).

There are all sorts of issues with computers at the tables, as many of you have pointed out. There are cords, and other stuff, that can, accidentally, result in a $1000+ device being damaged... or worse, people getting hurt.

Now, if the computer is something like a tablet, and the player has a hard-copy version of their character sheet, I may feel different. As a GM, I want to see the printed out version (or even a hand-written one!) I want something that isn't going to be easily changed in the middle of an adventure.

Oh, and I do require physical dice. As a programmer, I know how easy it could be to write a cheating dice program... as a GM, I wanna see the real dice roll!

That all being said, I know that we're eventually going to see a day where the gaming table becomes a HUGE display, with touch screens that can, with a gesture, roll dice, etc. However, when this all happens, I would assume that the characters would get registered with the table, validated, and would be unchanged (save for damage, etc).

Finally, as a player, I want to interact with the other players, and the GM. I do not want to interact with Apple, Dell, ASUS, or what have you. Or worse, the back of said computer. I have found computers to be disruptive at the gaming table... including when I have used them.

But, that's more than enough said... and I apologize for fanning any flames around here.

Ok, is it Light Shield or a Buckler?

Which takes precedence... name or flavor text?

There is one situation, though, that it might help... since Mage Armor is a force effect, it would give a benefit if attacked by incorporeal monsters...

The greater of the two armor bonuses would apply. Example... a fighter in a Breastplate is attacked by shadows and zombies. The wizard casts Mage Armor on him, giving him a +4 armor bonus against the shadows, and a +6 vs the zombies.

Or, at least this is how I understand it.

found another thread talking about the exact same thing.

Pregens and the Grand Lodge

at third level I was able to hit a 32 Craft (alchemy) on a take 10, meaning I get 75gp to replace the alchemical consumables I use in an adventure.

How????

I am baffled by the possibility of getting a +22 Craft: Alchemy check by level 3... would you please mind statting that out for we novices?

I am guessing that he means the sheets that players sign in at the beginning of the game with character name, number, and faction? Of course, this is just used as a placeholder for the GMs to use to create their submissions from. The 1/2 page record keeping sheet.

I assume that these are written for D20SRD (D&D3.5) and not Pathfinder. Not that it really matters, but...