Marculus's page

One of my players has a level 10 rogue with improved two-weapon fighting. He is telling me that he gets 5 attacks per round on full attack. This doesn't seem right but after reading the feats and rules it is somewhat confusing. It says with two weapon fighting you get an extra attack, but is that an extra after you have attacked with each weapon? How then does that affect iterative attacks?

Broken characters can certainly be a problem that can ruin everyone's fun (except the guy playing the broken character). However, I find that many players and GMs don't have enough system mastery to know what's actually OP and what's simply above average.

The issue is that it's difficult to find consensus on what "broken" is. If you have a table full of people playing sub-par characters, then even an average character can seem broken by comparison.

I've actually had to leave two separate campaigns because the GM nerfed my characters into oblivion, even though most of the players agreed with me that my characters were actually below average performers. Each time it was one or two particular players that cried "OP" and unfortunately they had the GM's ear. The other players did not. When you have a below average character that gets nerfed even more, it becomes unplayable.

Many times I feel like there is an "over-saturation" of new books and rules. It seems like it is hard to really know what is broke because by the time we see it in action for a little while there is a whole new set of issues coming up with the new material. This is what makes it so difficult as a GM. Trying to keep up with all the new rules, materials, and such makes this hobby begin to feel like a part-time job.

I'd love to see Paizo slow down a little bit and reflect on things more thoroughly. But this is a business so that isn't going to happen.

I think much of it comes from simple perspective. My first run in with an "OP" player was after a few months of attending our local gaming store's PFS nights. I was not familiar enough with the rules to question some of the things he was doing, but it sure seemed as though he was "cheating" on at least some level. I understand that Paizo encourages optimization. It is one of the major reasons they sell so many of those weekly books they produce.

However I remember, even though it's been three years, how insignificant that player made mine feel at the table. He made nearly every "challenge" the scenario presented to be of no value. I remember the scenarios being challenging before he attended our games. But after a few short weeks it felt like we weren't even needed at the table. We became "cursory characters" to his story. If I stayed at his table I would likely have quit gaming.

I know this is a hobby, but there are some things to consider. First, Paizo writes modules and scenarios without optimization in mind. This means if you have one or two optimized players at the table, you will miss the intended "feel" of the adventure. I mean, building up to a boss fight only to watch one player wipe the floor with him in a round is ridiculous. Optimization eliminates much of the tension and uncertainty of the adventure.

Second, Pathfinder is a group minded game. When everyone isn't on a somewhat level playing field it takes away from the game. Who would really want to be in a recreational soccer league with David Beckham on your team?

Overall it will never change. OP players will not go away and neither will your casual gamers. It will always comes down to balance. Can your power gamers learn to "pull back" and allow others to be less of a bystander?

I have had my players start the night rolling a D20 twenty times and then writing down the results of their roll on an index card. I then roll a D20 to randomly determine which of their numbers to begin with. When a check happens I ask them what their modifier is and add it to their roll and give my GM responses accordingly. I only use the numbers for individual checks. If the entire group needs to roll, I just ignore the cards and have them all roll.

Example: Michael playing his bard rolls his D20's getting a result of:

12
6
20
17
4
8
16
16
11
19
7
17
5
9
15
8
16
19
10
9

Once he hands me his card I roll a D20 and get a 13. Therefore I start his card at his 13 die roll (which was a 5). After playing for 15 minutes he makes a diplomacy check and I ask for his modifier (which is a +8). So I simply add 5+8=13 and since the DC was 15 he failed to make it and I role-play it as such. A few minutes later he tries a sense motive on another NPC (his modifier is +7) so I simply add his +7 to his pre-roll of 9 to get a total of 16. Once again the DC was 15 so I tell my player that he feels the NPC is hiding something from the group. Rinse and repeat.

I usually just cross off their pre-rolls as they are "activated". When they run out I hand them their card and have them do another 20 rolls when they have a free minute and continue running the game.

So far it has worked beautifully.

I'm in the process of making a grippli rogue with the "Vexing Dodger" archetype in PFS (I have a Grippli race boon), but I have several questions.

1. I've been looking at many of the old forums about climbing an opponent counting as either a move or standard action but haven't found any definitive answer other than ask the table GM. I'm curious if anyone has the "PFS" answer.

2. Is two-weapon fighting legal for the "vexing dodger"? Again I see no clarification on this.

3. When a Vexing Dodger is on an opponent, what AC are they rolling against? I've heard arguments for both normal and flat-footed. Flat-footed seems the most logical because the opponent can't "move away" from you. However, logic sometimes takes a backseat to game mechanics.

Any clarifications are greatly appreciated

Makes more sense now. I had no idea there were only 2 people doing all of that work. With all the money Paizo makes you'd think they'd hire more.

I've always wanted to know why it takes so long to get PFS chronicle sheets for the adventure paths. It doesn't seem as though the process should be that difficult and it could easily be done as the module/path is being created. Our group loves to play adventure paths on the weekend and we also play PFS scenarios at conventions and local gaming stores. It would be nice to enjoy the benefits of PFS credit when these adventure paths come out, not months or years later.

I'm in the process of making a grippli rogue with the "Vexing Dodger" archetype in PFS (I have a Grippli race boon), but I have several questions.

1. I've been looking at many of the old forums about climbing an opponent counting as either a move or standard action but haven't found any definitive answer other than ask the table GM. I'm curious if anyone has the "PFS" answer.

2. Is two-weapon fighting legal for the "vexing dodger"? Again I see no clarification on this.

3. When a Vexing Dodger is on an opponent, what AC are they rolling against? I've heard arguments for both normal and flat-footed. Flat-footed seems the most logical because the opponent can't "move away" from you. However, logic sometimes takes a backseat to game mechanics.

Any clarifications are greatly appreciated

I have been a GM for almost 30 years now and have enjoyed doing so. I grew up on the old D&D system and have played several other systems since then. For nearly all my years I have played with friends, friends of friends, military buddies, etc... However my son has recently become very interested in gaming (over the last three years). He is a teenager and I have been taking him to conventions, which I never attended before. So I began going to these conventions with him for some good old fashioned father-son bonding time. It has been great, except for when I GM. I love to Gm, and would consider myself quite an excellent GM. I have a Master's Degree in Literature and teach Lit courses in college. So I certainly know how to weave a tale.

My problem is with the level of Rules-Lawyers that exist in PFS. I simply don't have the time to memorize every new rule that comes out on a consistent basis, and Paizo loves to send out books each month (which I enjoy because it expands the game, yet frustrates me because I can't keep up). I know I could simply just not play PFS or not GM, but it really isn't an option. My son loves the Pathfinder game system and knows it well, and if I sign up just to play I often am asked to GM because I am a Three star PFS GM and they always have shortages at the conventions. Either way it defeats my purpose for attending; having fun with my son.

I guess what I am really hoping for, other than a moment to generally rant, is if there are any tips on how to handle the rules-lawyering at conventions. I have one this Friday and am both excited and dreading this weekend.

Any idea when they will sanction this adventure path? I'd love to get this started but my son will kill me if he doesn't get any PFS credit too.

I want to make an unchained monk for our group's upcoming "Wrath of the Righteous" adventure path. I like the idea of a monk trained by a monastery dedicated to cleansing "outsider evil forces" from the world. Any advice is appreciated.

I'd love to see a "Deep Sea" adventure. Something along the lost city of Atlantis feel.

Sandman Slim

Waiting at the DMV

An earth elemental can stay attached to the earth which means no tripping, and if he grapples you it's earthglide time baby.

I love when the "final boss" encounter is so stressful the players are out of their seat cheering for the dice rolls. Setting the stage throughout the game and watching that payoff is amazing.

The Azata Eidolon starts with Martial weapon as a 4 point evolution. They are proficient with all martial weapons. This is where my confusion lies. Evolutions state "natural attack" but this one does not specifically state that reach only applies to natural attacks. So since this eidolon can use martial weapons, I am led to believe that it should apply to a martial weapon.

Looking at the "reach" evolution it doesn't specifically state that you need to use it for a natural attack. I am building an Azata eidolon using a greatsword and want to apply to my greatsword attack.

I'm using HeroLab but it doesn't show properly so I am now thinking I am missing something. So please help, am I reading this evolution properly?

I had a level three cleric bring an undead dragon from a previous scenario. He claimed you could carry over any one animated creature from a previous scenario. I did not believe that was possible. He also claimed the last GM told him it was possible. He was also flying with the dragon, riding it, using it's 70 move speed and used it's BAB on attacks. It was completely unbalanced, fortunately he was not able to use it due to size constraints, but he also found a spirit later in the game and was controlling that too.

I am not new to GMing but am new to this "animate dead" via channeling stuff. What is the official ruling on carrying undead over between scenarios, how many HD can a cleric control (and is it multiples)? Can a LN cleric channel negative energy or animate dead (it doesn't seem like a LN act)?

-Marculus

I hate when players call out to the healer how much health they have lost. There isn't a freaking health bar bouncing over your character!

Thanks for all the good advice. I've recently gotten back into gaming (been away since 1996) and never played Pathfinder until last year. Been running adventure paths with a group of friends and my son which we don't have to use PFS rules. Still fairly new to the PFS scene, which is why I'm still trying to figure things out. Never had any rules for running games before other than the "have fun and enjoy the game".

Marculus wrote:

I guess I just find it difficult to run an effective scenario when I have a character that hits all the scenario monsters on a two, but the monster needs to roll 18's to hit the PC's. Makes the whole adventure seem pointless.

To which I must ask "is the only point of a scenario the combats?"

Not at all, but it certainly trivialized combat when it happened.

Last thought: this is also a time to evaluate what you like about GMing. If you only enjoy the game when the PCs are dying (or the NPCs are winning), you might need to re-evaluate.

Overall, the PCs are supposed to win on the battle amp. The GM doesn't win on the battle mat, but after the game, when players are talking about how much fun they had, and how the cool NPC was awesome, and how they found out a cool bit of lore that fits their character's motivations, and how we almost died that one time but Billy pulled out a <redacted> that got us through, etc.

Nothing like that....killing PC's is the last thing on my mind. I just want the game to be fun and enjoyable by everyone at the table. The scenario I was running, I ended up roleplaying much more than the scenario had slated. Ultimately the guy was very proud of his overpowered status at the table, and wanted to show everyone how powerful he was. I spoke to him after the game and he just argued until I said, "Well, Good-day sir" and left. I'll likely not run for him again. In a previous module this guy had some funky lore-spirit-something-or-other character that was getting 40+ on all his knowledge checks at level 7.

Well I guess I'm old school and enjoy playing the game and making it fun for all the players, not just one. The entire table barely did anything, and many times couldn't do anything, because the one player stomped everything so quickly. The PFS rule number one is make sure the players have fun, so I gave them a chance to engage at least one creature in combat (which would have been impossible if I left it "as written") Anyway, the players thanked me for trying to make the scenario fun after "that player" left the table.

Marculus wrote:

This player had run the scenario before. and complained when I upped the boss stats

Yeah...about that...

** spoiler omitted **

So instead we should let players "curb-stomp" the scenario and finish early with no challenge at all?

Marculus wrote:

I was recently running a table where someone had some multi-classed halfling melee type, that did nearly 50 points of damage per attack and had an armor class or 40 with a touch AC of 35. I don't know if this was legal or not but had I known this before I would have not allowed him to play that character. That character alone broke the scenario as he could essentially run it himself.

You aren't allowed to do this as a PFS DM unless the build actually isn't legal.

Given the halfling was multi-classed I'm guessing you were reasonably high leveled, in which case those kinds of numbers are not really unreasonable anyway.

As an unrelated player in your game, if I saw you ban another player's character for no reason other than because you didn't like the build, I would be vocally unhappy with you and probably attempt to report you up the PFS chain.

If the player was using that character to be actively disruptive, that's a player issue, not a character issue. Banning the character achieves nothing and makes one look petty.

Sadly that one character was so overpowered that he made everyone else irrelevant. He wiped out a boss in one round by himself. It turned our session into a joke (legal or not).

I have run for players with characters that could solo everything... I have been lucky that those players have taken the position of playing support until the party greenlights the character to shutdown the encounter.

Some of us like playing support and hide in the background of the group.

Some of us like playing the diva and might need to be reminded occasionally that we're playing a team game.

-

In PFS, you cannot ban a legal character.

The GM and other Players are allowed to quit so as to not play with something they dislike. But that is generally not the best way to do it. Leads to bad blood...

The real problem is generally the player, not the build. We have sportsmanship rules in PFS... they can be grounds for disciplinary actions by the VOs. That also stands for problem GMs too.

-

Marculus, that would entitle the player report your violation of the PFS rules.

If you take issue with a PC, first talk to the player. Most of us are accommodating to polite requests to tone it down or even play something else. But you cannot, as a PFS GM, ban a legal character. The PC described might need to be audited to validate everything is kosher, and that is within the right of a PFS GM.

I think the biggest issue is that there are sooooo many rules and splat books that it is nearly impossible to know if a character is legal without looking up a material for what seems like hours.

Marcellus, perhaps it would be helpful for your experience if you shifted your focus from running an 'effective' scenario to running an 'enjoyable' scenario?

We play the games we do because they are fun. This sometimes gets forgotten in the mix.

Problem with that is when the players start complaining that you aren't "staying true" to the scenario. (This player had run the scenario before. and complained when I upped the boss stats).

There are people who will say that all you can do is let him play but that isn't true.

First you can and should audit the character. Just checking that the player has all of the sources the character uses might have solved the problem for you.

Second if you felt there was no point in running with the character at the table you did not have to run. As a GM you are supposed to have fun too. If you know this player is going to ruin your night you don't have to suffer just so he can do his thing. If you as a GM are not enjoying yourself you need to let the players know why not and if they won't make adjustments to let you enjoy running then stop running.

Now ultimately a martial able to do 50 damage per hit at level 11 is pretty vanilla TBH. A decent high level scenario should have had equally buff enemies.

Trouble is that the scenario "Boss" had 168 HP and our fighter was hitting him on a 3, and the boss had a +22 to hit but sadly that fighter had a 40 AC, so I needed to roll an 18 to hit. So with slightly above average damage rolls this character (who also had a +14 initiative) could kill the boss in one round.

Part of the problem is how "vanilla" the scenarios are written, and the other big problem is how much PFS creates an environment for overpowered, ultra-optimized characters. It makes it less about the game and more about who can manipulate the numbers and rules.

I guess I just find it difficult to run an effective scenario when I have a character that hits all the scenario monsters on a two, but the monster needs to roll 18's to hit the PC's. Makes the whole adventure seem pointless.

With so many books, rules, weekly changes, etc... it is nearly impossible to be up to speed on everything this game has to offer. So what do you do as a GM when you have someone playing a character that seems "not quite legal" but there are so many "I got this from this book, and that from this add-on, and this from..." that it would take hours to look everything up? For example,

I was recently running a table where someone had some level 11 multi-classed halfling melee type, that did nearly 50 points of damage per attack and had an armor class or 40 with a touch AC of 35. The character also had several other types of other "special abilities". I don't know if this was legal or not but had I known the details of this character before beginning the adventure, I would have not allowed him to play that character. That character alone broke the scenario as he could essentially run it himself. It made the whole gaming session a complete joke.

So ultimately I am wondering if a GM can just say, "you can't play that character"?

So, I was recently on another site discussing a build that is by the rules 100% legal and it's legal with PFS as far as I can find too. However, one person was like "That wouldn't fly at my table in PFS." and so now I wonder, if your character follows all the rules, can a GM just outright say "I don't care if your character is valid and legal, I don't like it" or does that go beyond 'expect table variation'?

For reference, we were discussing how the whip is a one-handed slashing weapon, and is therefore a legal choice for a bladebound kensai magus. A bladebound kensai magus centered around the whip is going to be so pathetic for the first few levels, and even after that it's a very feat-intenstive build just to be half-way decent. But, it's legal.

I was recently running a table where someone had some multi-classed halfling melee type, that did nearly 50 points of damage per attack and had an armor class or 40 with a touch AC of 35. I don't know if this was legal or not but had I known this before I would have not allowed him to play that character. That character alone broke the scenario as he could essentially run it himself.

Marculus wrote:

I'm just wondering why it is so difficult to add a chronicle sheet to the adventure path book itself. For many of us who are subscribers, we are waiting for the next book. It is very frustrating to have a "new toy and be punished for taking it out of the box".

The short answer is "Because the Adventure Path line is a separate product from Pathfinder Society Organized Play."

** spoiler omitted **

I guess, it would just be nice to enjoy the new adventure path when it comes out and get credit for playing them, instead of either having to wait or getting no credit for the Society. As it stands I am playing old adventure paths now and storing my new paths until sanctioning occurs.

Underwater (deep ocean)

I'm just wondering why it is so difficult to add a chronicle sheet to the adventure path book itself. For many of us who are subscribers, we are waiting for the next book. It is very frustrating to have a "new toy and be punished for taking it out of the box".

What's the most random encounter you've ever come across in a game?

It could be weird a monster, a screwy social encounter, or just something you've never really gotten the point of.

Mine's the fork in the road. ** spoiler omitted **

We were just walking along, and bam there it was.

We were once attacked by gelatinous cubes shaped like gummy bears.

Watch the weather channel in a foreign language.