Joko PO's page

So how does Double Slice interact with resistances?

For exmaple, My playtest Ranger is wielding a Short Sword and a Light Mace. He Double Slices a Skeleton. Both attacks hit for 4 damage each. Double Slice clearly combines this into 8 damage. However is the Damage both Slashing and Bludgeoning? And does the skeleton with Resist 5 to Slashing, get to apply the resistance or not?

The problem here is that many people either forget, do not understand or do not care about the concept of dynamic party characteristics. In Society play it is almost guaranteed that whatever your characters beliefs and personality you will at some point encounter another character that rubs them the wrong way. Everyone should play the game with the mindset that at some point you will have to make character concessions in order to help the game be fun. Never make an uncompromising character! It is fine to have characters that do not like each other. So here is a radical idea, use that as a chance to be creative with your role-playing. We have a local player who played a Taldan (retired character now) that was well known to constantly insult everyone around him and was universally lauded as one of the most fun characters at the table. He would say things such as…

“Your plan is terrible. Something I would expect from such low breeding. Even the servants in Taldor could come up with a better plan. I shall go along just to see you fail.” And when the plan succeeds. “Well of course we succeeded. I was along to save your miserable lives. Were it not for me, you would have died the terrible deaths you likely deserve. You should thank me and offer me your shares of the treasure!”

Now at no time would he ever actively work against the party or hinder any player. He just simply insulted them more. “Though I should leave you to die in pox infested torture, I have healed you so that you may always remember the day you have been touched by greatness!”

In the extreme cases, there is nothing wrong with addressing the party out of character and working out a solution. “Hey guys I don’t want to be a pain, but I just don’t see a way my Paladin can go along with this. Does anyone have any ideas hoe we can make this work?” While I am of the opinion that there are far too many judges who think that Paladins have to be Lawful Stupid or the fall immediately, but I digress……I have come across very few situations that could not be worked through rather easily.

Bottom line. You character being a jerk in not an excuse for you to be a jerk.

For Order 3602645 the Ranger Class deck had been opened. The Agna card is missing and a few other cards a mangled on one corner. I would like a remedy to this situation.

Order 3602645 was placed on June 9th and is listed as still pending. Is there problem with the order?

Joko PO wrote:

Summoning/Companion Party - Everyone is focused on using summoned monsters or animal companions to fight for them. We call it "Flooding the Battlefield"

Wow, how do you manage to actually finish games?

Rather quickly in most situations! We have our tactics down and know our summons. It keeps things moving. Summoner App helps a lot as well.

Our local PFS group has several themed parties.

Pirate crew - Everyone is a member of a pirate crew. Lots of profession (sailor).

Summoning/Companion Party - Everyone is focused on using summoned monsters or animal companions to fight for them. We call it "Flooding the Battlefield"

Deviant party - Ummm well we have a lot of fun Roleplaying this group but ummm..... we can have some rather dark humor. This group doesn't see much play time at conventions.

Ifrits: This is our newest group. Everyone is an Ifrit Gunslinger/Paladin with various builds. We are holy warriors sent to cleanse the world from evil with fire and bullets.

My LN Wizard Maldoren worships Asmodeus. Maldoren believes in order. To his mind Chaos is the enemy of all and is the cause of most strife. Asmodeus is simply the best example of Law and Order. Maldoren may not be as willing to go as far to achieve Order as Asmodeus, he understands the motivations and necessity. Asmodeus has no moral restrictions in his quest for Order, while Maldoren through his friendship with his fellow adventurers has always maintained enough morality to be considered neutral.

So basically just because he does not always agree 100% with the teachings of Asmodeus, he still maintains enough fervor to follow what the characters consider the best option to achieve the Order the worlds needs.

This thread makes me sad.

Let me attempt to add some logic.

The problem with much that has been said is that the usefulness of all spells is subjective to the situation in which it is used. Almost all caster build strategies revolve around trying to be prepared for as many situations as possible. Class features/feats/abilities can be used to help mitigate this problem.

So inherently the usefulness of any given spell is going to be directly proportional to the play style of the GM running the game and/or the authors writing the scenario/module/AP. For example Magic Missile will become more useful if Incorporeal creatures are encountered more frequently.

Thus someone of the opinion that MM is "Useless" may have played games in which situations typically downplay its usefulness. Maybe lots of villainous caster who cast shield as a buff regularly.

The other ting to consider is that due to action economy players tend to bring out theirs best spells first. As a caster raises in level this typically translates to their highest level spells slots. In very few situations will a 9th level caster be looking to cast a 1st level spell straight out of the gate. So it is difficult to compare 4th level spells to 1st level spells for their usefulness.

Side thought:Which is more useful Cure Light Wounds or Breath of Life? BoL has saved many an adventurers life, but so has CLW by making out of combat healing to full to full hit points a rather trivial cost.

So in conclusion, anyone trying to make definitive statements on such a subjective matter is likely guilty of gross generalities and/or situational bias.

In my own experience most casters keep a handful of Magic Missiles around to cover the proverbial bases. It is a great spell for when the combat is going in the party's favor and the caster does not want to use a more powerful spell that might best be saved for another fight. Then they toss out a MM or two to try and be somewhat useful.

I agree with Sitri. While cheaters are often the ones who pick up dice, they also usually do it very quickly. If the player rolls in an open area where everyone can see and pauses a second before snatching them up, most people would not be suspicious. Especially when picked up dice seem random. Not always a 19 or 20. Cheaters are usually obvious.

Also be proactive and mention it to the GM before hand.

Dervish Dance says nothing about requiring a free hand. "You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand."

When you cast a spell are you carrying a shield or weapon in that hand?

If you are going to argue RAW you should really pay close attention to what is actually written.

flutter slightly, almost as though a draft were blowing over them."

was presented to us as "Like there is a secret passage behind the books in the case - which is attached to the wall and you can't see behind it" - so we figured we had found a secret door with the hi perception check. We checked for magic and traps - and finding none, we opened the case. At the time it felt kind of like we were being punished for the high perception - if we hadn't noticed the flutter, we wouldn't have gotten the monster. Which caused me to wonder if that was why people were saying this scenario might have no combats - that to miss this combat you just had...

As the judge for this table I would like to point out that I read verbatim from the modules. The players made there own incorrect assumptions as to what the flutter might mean. I made no reference to a secret passage, only the flutter and possible draft. It was a player who suggested the secret passage.

The reason why I made the comment afterwards that "the combat is basically unavoidable" is because most PFS players are unlikely to leave an area unsearched without good reason, especially after a perception check yields a curious result.

Monk 12
Paladin 12
Magus 10
Witch 7
Wizard 8
Ranger 3
Barbarian 2
Oracle 2
Fighter 4
Sorcerer 1
Gunslinger 1

Brother Justice:
Gunslinger (Mysterious Stranger)1/ Paladin (Sacred Servant) 2

I will be taking 3 levels of Fighter (Weapon Master) next then back to Paladin.

The two other people playing ifrits in our group:

Brother Vengence = Gunslinger (Mysterious Stranger)1/ Paladin (Divine Hunter) 2. Vengeance will be taking 3 levels of Fighter (Weapon Master) next then back to Gunslinger.

Brother Wrath = Gunslinger (Mysterious Stranger)1/ Paladin (Divine Hunter) 2. Wrath will be taking 3 levels of Fighter (Weapon Master) next then switch to Sorcerer.

So far we have been having lots of fun with the builds. Little feat starved at low levels, but have proven very versatile.

One question about the caretaker: How could she point stuff out to us/aid in research when she was blind? She was blind, right?

Well "Point out" is a turn of phrase. If you read her background, she was not always blind and in fact was blinded after she was caught reading from some of the books that she was not supposed to read from.

Besides, blind does not mean incapable and/or incompetent. A blind person living years in a library is still going to know a lot about it. She may not be able to be able to point to specific texts, but she is going to understand the layout of the library and know some general locations.

** spoiler omitted **

I was the Judge for this game. It was a great table with some fun people. Thanks to all the players, who did very well.

I will address some of the comments under the caretaker spoiler.

Again thanks for a fun table and the post-mordem.

Joko PO wrote:

TimrehIX wrote:

Are you honestly saying that holding someone against their will and forcing them to work for you is not evil as long as you are nice while you do so?

You just described the modern justice system. Stop by any US prison work area and ask how many inmates feel they are being held against their will and are being forced to work.

Point = Context is everything.

Context is everything and the context shows that your comparison is invalid. Criminals, by virtue of their committing crimes, voluntarily/intentionally give up their rights. So no, the penal system isn't "slavery" be because the individuals no longer have the right to freedom. In addition, the use of criminal workers is deemed as a method of allowing the slaves to pay back a debt to society.

To equate the incarceration of someone who is a legitimate murder/rapist/kidnapper/child molester with that of a completely free individual is a failure to understand context.

First of all you just moved the goalpost.I quoted and refuted your specific statement.

Second of all, you claim the incarcerated have no rights and are therefore not slaves. But why did they have no rights, who took those rights away? Society did. The people in either scenario unlikely gave away those right voluntarily. So if society can take away rights without being evil, how is one different than the other? Why is one removal of rights Evil and another not?

And you have obviously not been to a prison lately if you think the majority of the people are there for "murder/rapist/kidnapper/child molester" Nearly 2/3 of incarcerated criminals in our system are drug related crimes. Only 1/4 are Violent offenders.

As for Rape, only 14% of reported rapes in the US are prosecuted and only 18% of result in convictions. In the US you are far more likely to be imprisoned for smoking a joint than for rape.

Chris Mortika wrote:

Enevhar,

I can see how abusing slaves would drop someone into evil, but simply owning one?

But we in North America have a slanted view of slavery, because American slavery, racist and inhumanly brutal as it was, was not the norm for medieval slave-holding cultures. The norse had thralls, typically enemies captued in battle, who were integrated into the Norse social structure, and their children were freemen by law. The Roman Empire relied on slave labor, but the lifestyle of servants wasn't significantly worse than that of the freed citizens they worked alongside. Medieval European agriculture was supported by serfs, who were owned as parcel of the land they tended.

Are you honestly saying that holding someone against their will and forcing them to work for you is not evil as long as you are nice while you do so?

You just described the modern justice system. Stop by any US prison work area and ask how many inmates feel they are being held against their will and are being forced to work.

Point = Context is everything.

Ishihari, Nagaji, Fighter(Weapon Master)4/Soceror1/Dragon Disciple1

Brother Justice, Ifrit, Gunslinger (Mysterious Stranger)1/Paladin (Sacred Servant)1 [Next level will be Sacred Servant, then three levels of Fighter(Weapon Master)with Sacred Servant again for everything after.

Note: The last build is a group Gunslinger build that Several of us locals are doing together with our Ifrits.

Brother Vengeance swaps Sacred Servant for Divine Hunter and then goes back to Gunslinger after the fighter levels.

Brother Wrath also takes Divine Hunter, Skips the Fighter levels and goes straight into Sorcerer.

Locally a few of us have ifrits and we are building some messed up Gunslinger/Paladins. The builds are shaping up as follows:

Brother Justice: Gunslinger (Mysterious Stranger)1/Fighter (Weapon Master)3/Paladin(Sacred Servant)7

Brother Vengeance: Gunslinger (Mysterious Stranger)1/Fighter (Weapon Master)5/Paladin(Oath of Vengeance)5

Brother Wrath: Gunslinger (Mysterious Stranger)1/Fighter(Weapon Master)3/Paladin(Divine Hunter)2/ Sorcerer 5

With Vampiric Touch the damage dealt and Temp HP gained are the same. So a level twelve Magus rolls 6d6 when he hits. Lets say the 6d6 roll turns out to be 20. So the creature hit takes 20 points of damage and the Magus gains 20 temp HP's. If the Magus had crit with the attack then the dice are doubled to 12d6.

Stuff

I agree with you. Cross-blooded makes for a great blaster, but it is far from overpowering and as always blaster mileage may vary.

It is +2 per die. So Take one level of Sorc, Mage Tatoo, be a Gnome with the Pyromancer alternate racial trait, An Evoker (or Admixturist) and the trait that makes up the Cl loss..... then at 6th level when you gain that fireball, it does 8d6+18 damage. Not too shabby. Or as I like to do, apply the trait to sorc instead of Wizard. You loose 1 die of damage but you have some low level spells for times when you want to fire something off but do not want to bring out the big guns or waste low level spells slots. I go with Burning Hands for 5d4+12

As mentioned above when you need something other than fire damage, you loose some punch. But with the Admixturist you can memorize all fire spells and then change them when you run into those situations. The above mentioned Fireball would turn into a 7d6+2 "AcidBall", which is exactly what the damage would be without the level dip.

Ok slight derail but at least marginally related to this topic....

This discussion has me thinking about my son. Next year he will be old enough to play PFS at Gencon. He currently plays in my home game and is more than capable, but he uses all my pdf's. Not that it matters for a home game, but it will for PFS. Am I required to buy him his own copy of any pdf he wants to use content from?

People still buy hard-copies? Huh.

Perhaps taking a step back from this thread for a bit .... old discussions are just that old and tired and probably left dead for the most part. Rehashing old arguments is a waste of everyone's time.

The campaign staff has deemed the archetype not legal for PFS play, there really isn't more that can be said or that needs to be said.

I am not certain with your attitude that the internet would exist! (Meant as a joke....well sorta, come on you know its kinda true.)

I didn't say they were disruptive.

I quoted the specific ability that was inappropriate for organized play (specifically PFS), since you didn't take my hint and actually honestly look at the abilities a vivisectionist has.

And no, you don't just ban a single ability of an archetype. That doesn't solve anything.

Either the entire archetype is legal, or it is not.

There are already too many exceptions within PFS play, that we don't need to start making exceptions and line-item bans for every archetype or class out there.

To be fair, I was the one that asked for the specific ability you were referring to. I have not replied simply because I am still considering your point and the ability

As to your other point, there is already precedent for altering specific abilities.

I also fear that if you feel that there are already too many exceptions within PFS play then you are in for disappointment. I imagine the list is going to continue to grow.

"A player would have to ditch the default flavor and invent a way to NOT make the character vile and creepy".

Well I would refer you to MrSin's list above or I could just mention Cheliax. You may have noticed that there is plenty of vile and creepy in the entirety of the setting. Have you played much attention to the Decemvirate? There is plenty of evil within the society.

What line does one cross that the others have not?

Having the knowledge to vivisect is not evil. Every surgeon in the world has the knowledge.

Right. But if you are a rogue doing that, GMs are in their right to give you an alignment infraction. If you were a vivisectionist, the player may claim that it's just what their class does.

Regardless, I doubt that vivisectionist was banned for that reason only.

A GM is within his right to give an alignment infraction for using Sneak Attack in combat? Please explain.

Look at all the later class abilities the vivisectionist gets.

Ask yourself if those abilities are good for organized play?

And ask yourself if everyone would make the choice to not use them?

If you answer those honestly, you'll find your answer as to why the class was banned.

What abilities are you referring too?

All I see are Two still legal Rogue Talents and some still legal spells?

MrSin wrote:

The vivisectionist doesn't actually have to vivisect

But that is the default assumption of the archetype. Which means that regardless of how one individual named MrSin might roleplay it, the archetype (if legal) would be allowing people (and expecting by default) to play characters who DO vivisect people.

But banning the archetype does not stop someone from playing a character that vivisects people. I could play a rogue with ranks in heal and explain my sneak attack as using my knowledge of anatomy to slice open opponents in critical areas. The game Mechanic is the same and the fluff is near the same. One is legal and the other is not.

They really need to make the announcement at the beginning of mustering and repeat several times, that anyone with generic tickets must stay outside in the hallway. Only real tickets inside until they are ready for them.

I will not claim to be the best GM in PFS or anything remotely close, but I do try hard to be. My goal it to run a game that is fun for all.

Sometimes I fail.

Sometimes my games run long. People run late or in a hurry to get back home to their families. I have forgotten to sign or initial sheets. I have written down incorrect gold. I have made bad rulings. Incorrectly stated rules. Used wrong stat blocks. Not prepped games as well as I should.

The list goes on and on.

My point is that I make mistakes. With each of these mistakes I try to learn and get better with what I do. Gming is a skill that requires constant improvement.

This is why Kyle is right in calling out some of the people here. A rule has been implemented. If you are unwilling to even try to comply with the new rule, then you are being unreasonable. No one is saying that mistakes will not be made or that the ITS will cure all ills. They are saying that the advantages far outweigh the cost in time it will take to use them.

It does mean that you may have to adjust your GM style to allow for the extra time. I suspect that the impact will be minimal, but time will tell.

My concerns about the tracking sheet.

1. Remembering not to set my Woodchuck Cider on any of my sheets when I stay up Saturday night to fill them all out.

2. Legibility of the sheets in case I have too much of that tasty beverage.

3. Remembering all the things I should have bought and always forgot.

Congrats!

The way I always tell people to look at their characters as they advance is to view everything as an obstacle and a solution. For example Invisible creatures are an obstacle. What solution does your character have for this obstacle? Some obstacles only appear around certain level ranges of the game. Others persist. Even something as simple as, how do you deal with a melee focused opponent that is standing next to you? This is an obstacle that you need plan for. For a Barbarian the solution may be to kill them quickly while relying on a generous amount of hit points to stay alive.

So identify the common obstacles and have solutions prepared for them. And feel free to discuss any weak areas with the party before hand. Because knowing is half the battle.

Joko PO wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

Its saying that my empirical evidence is stronger than yours.

Phrase it however you like. You are claiming that you are better than others, me included, and you should be allowed to throw the rules aside and ban whatever you want whenever you want.

And for the record, you have an opinion and anecdotes not empirical evidence.

Linkage. So Kyle can laugh and his eyes glaze over some more.

You can read it however you like. I am not claiming to be superior to you.

I'm claiming I have more experience as a PFS GM than you. That is fact.

And actually, I do have more Empirical evidence than you.

Having more observable experience and seeing more data sets is the very definition of empirical evidence. Having more Anecdotes IS the very definition of empirical evidence.

Umm no. Not even close. Empirical evidence is observed from an experiment most often using the scientific method while an anecdote is just am unsupported claim from a personal perspective. If you took a poll, for example, you would have empirical evidence. You have done nothing resembling evidence gathering. You have unsupported claims.

Secondly, it is a fact that you have GM'd more in PFS than I. But you have not established the frequency establishes any support to your claim. This is the Argument from Authority. A person can GM a hundred tables and still be a lousy GM or even a lousy person. (Btw not an insult directed at you, just making a point.)

For example I have played twice with Kyle. Once he was a fellow Player and once he was the GM. Both games I had a blast at. He seems to be a great player and judge. However a different 5 star GM and VC (that I will not name) is responsible for the worst table I have ever sat at in my life. To the point where everyone at the table met afterwards to discuss our option for recourse.

BTW, the above story was an anecdote.

Its saying that my empirical evidence is stronger than yours.

Phrase it however you like. You are claiming that you are better than others, me included, and you should be allowed to throw the rules aside and ban whatever you want whenever you want.

And for the record, you have an opinion and anecdotes not empirical evidence.

Linkage. So Kyle can laugh and his eyes glaze over some more.

Joko PO wrote:

If the players are having fun and the GM is not, then the GM is the problem.

Please provide peer reviewed data on this statement.

Nice try. You mean to imply that my inability to do so makes my argument invalid. Without noting that you are also unable to do so with your own claims. All any of us have to offer is our own perspective or anecdotes.

I have walked away from more than a handful of tables I didn't enjoy but the players had a good time. That makes me the problem? I've always considered any table where the players have a good time to be a success.

Your statements seem to be at odds. You considered it a success, but did not enjoy it? Please expound.

Some of the most fun tables I've run are were players completely trounced the NPCs. Some of the least fun tables are where the NPCs annihilated the PCs.

AND:

Some of the most fun tables I've run are were players were completely trounced by the NPCs. Some of the least fun tables are where the NPCs were annihilated by the PCs.

Fun doesn't have to be directly related to challenge and/or success of the players.

I believe I made that exact point just a few posts up.

Lets put it another way. If I didn't have fun as a PFS player and PFS GM, I would never have become a V-L. I would have turned it down when offered.

If your estimation is that as a V-L (a volunteer mind you) that I have to just not have fun because its my job, then you do it. You GM 110 tables like I have, and tell me that 10% that aren't fun I should just deal with it because I'm a V-L.

I am sorry I did not realize that I must run a certain number of tables for my opinion to be valid. Your statement is a fallacy called (ironically, or maybe not) Argument from Authority.

You have tons of players complaining on these boards daily about this or that OP thing. The Bison thread was started by a player, not a V-O.

Hyperbole. If your justification is that people complain about it on a message board. Well than I doubt you will ever lack in justification.

If I have tons of players in my community telling me that they won't play with certain players (or those players if they bring a certain character) (and I have), then I can't ignore that.

That's what I consider ridiculous. When the entire community that I oversees complains about it.

Again hyperbole. First of all, no on said ignore it. Just work within the system to fix it. Not use an arrogant usurpation of authority. Secondly, you just moved the goal posts. You just switched from "I have had enough!" to "Other people are bringing this problem to me." Thirdly, entire community? Every single person? Even the offenders? wow its a good thing you do not exaggerate for dramatic impact.

You sir keep putting words in V-O's mouths

Umm no I am not. Shall I go grab the thread quotes?

What many of you are missing, is that the problem is not the GM's making these sweeping statements out of frustration and venting, but rather the fact that the community actually puts up with ridiculousness.

No I don't think we are missing this point at all. I know I understand it perfectly. As a VO you think your subjective estimation of "ridiculousness" is the only estimation that matters. Have you ever considered that the reason the community puts up with such things is that they have a different estimation. Or that maybe some of us do not let such things ruin our fun.

I, for one, am disgusted by the number of VO who seem to be so concerned about their fun. If the players are having fun and the GM is not, then the GM is the problem. I have found that if the players are having fun than so am I. Regardless of the challenge level. Builds do not create or take away fun. People do. This is the Stormwind Fallacy from a different perspective.

My 2 copper.

I will always have a problem with a GM, let alone a VO, who uses the phrase "Not at my table." Especially when referring to a Legal option. Mostly because the statement is hostile and adversarial. It is petty tyranny based an an assumption of authority. Being a VO mean you have more responsibility, not more authority. There are far more respectful and mature ways to deal with a situation than boastful ultimatums.

The opinions expressed in this thread on how to keep a table fun for all have much merit. But if VO's would like to see something banned for any reason, they have a direct resource. Make your case to your fellow VO's and to Mike Brock and see what can be done. Until then if you have a player who is zapping fun from a table, pull them aside and have a polite and respectful talk with them.

Or in other words, how about we all try to act like adults and treat each other with respect. This is a complicated game we play with astounding number of varying personalities. Try and enjoy it.

Ok, I see it now. Thanks for the assistance.

http://paizo.com/products/btpy8we0?Pathfinder-Society-Scenario-4-20-Words-o f-the-Ancients

I have double checked to make certain I am logged in. The products is listed in my downloads and the product page notes that.

Scroll down to the bottom of the page where the messageboard box is located

That what I would have expected, but no such box appears.

Now I realize I am an idiot that is most likely missing something simple, but I can not seem to figure out how to leave a a product review. Where on the website would I find this feature?

OK to the OP,

Please forgive us for being sensitive to this issue. Your post should not have produced any overly harsh responses. A clear and objective read of your post reveals that you are aware of your plight and were placing no blame on anyone else. However, please keep in mind that many of us put in a great deal of time, effort and stress to secure our Gencon schedules. After which we must endure a bunch of whining from far too many people who complain that their laziness did not pay off. They expect the same result for little to no effort. It, quite frankly makes us a little sensitive and quick to react. Please keep this perspective in mind.

To Mike and the Campaign Staff,

I fully support the rule eliminating the use of Generic tickets for this event.

Well something that should be noted here is that "Best" is determined by the goal. Most people seem to be focusing on the overall damage. While that metric is relevant, having a few options available is very key to being a successful summoner. For example Hogarth lists for SM6 the Dire Tiger. The Dire Tiger can dish out quite a beat down, but at that level of play they can become inflexible. Consider the Erinyes. Not quite the damage of a Dire Tiger, but not horrible either. They also have both good Ranged and Melee so are immediately versatile. Coupled with their Constant True Seeing and their ability to fly, the Erinyes quickly become a very appealing option that can solve many tactical problems that the Dire Tiger can not. Or even a Lilend Azata. If your party already has a good front line, then summon a Bard and make them even better. And don't forget to let them heal up the party before their time expires. Or a Huge Air elemental harassing an enemy caster can be very effective.

Point being that "Best" does not always mean highest damage output. As mentioned above maybe the best tactic for a combat is to summon some Lemurs and have them pin opponents in place. Or as I once did, "Best" means summoning a Celestial Dolphin to take out the Undine who tried to swim away with our McGuffin.

Yes summoning is all about grabbing the right tool for the job.

For the sake of having said it, I agree that Strength enchantments should increase the discussed Damages. Since I mostly play PFS, I am trying to gather my opinion and have my reasoning in order in case a Judge cries foul.

Are the Special Attacks/Maneuvers of Summoned creatures enhanced with things such as Augmented Summoning and Bulls Strength? For example is Rend Damage increased? or Powerful Charge. If so, by what formula? Any rules citations to back up your reply will be appreciated.

I have never been a big fan of of the GM rolling dice for a player. People like feeling they were responsible for their characters fate. Most time taking die rolls away from the players can diminish the feeling of character "ownership".

As far as meta gaming goes, I never worry about trying to prevent or limit opportunities. Kind of see it as a waste of time. Players are either meta gamers or they are not. If they are, they will find way to meta game and if they are not, then you have no problem. I will, however call out meta gamers at every turn.

This is not a hard line for me, just more of general tenor. If you trust your players they tend to be more trustworthy and it avoids heading down the road of GM vs. Player mentality.