Peyote's page

Here is where I draw the line, while we talk about thing like birthing dog monsters, prostitutes and gleeful murder as part of the fantasy game it's specifically rape that is taboo for me and many other people. Especially as how you presented it. Once consent has been removed from the equation, it's no longer mature themed it's just obscene.

What you are trying to do is basically discuss a rape fantasy. I do not believe this is an appropriate place for it. Neither is he discussion on why sexual violence is wrong when murder, burglary and random violence are a-ok.

It seems to me that his message is clear: "You're not allowed to be happy".

It's a no win situation cooked up to be a sadist power fantasy.

If the players enjoy this then fine, I want nothing to do with THAT table.

But the GM seems to have been caught up in the mindset that Pathfinder is a means of forcing people to act out his stories. Pathfinder is a GAME. That means people should have fun.

As some one who works in the event industry in San Francisco, even the cost of simply renting a venue to play a single event is staggering. My best suggestion is to take Bart to Endgame in Oakland or Black Diamond Games in Concord. The commute is not fun but that's the sad reality of living and working in SF.

Everything about your post makes me feel uncomfortable.

I find the whole concept of your focus to be incredibly inappropriate for this forum and your question asking very little, as if you just wanted to brag on how creepy you can be.

Your campaign idea is super low and really belongs on a forum like 4chan where user not only expect pointless debauchery, but specifically go there to partake in such troll baited debates.

There is a line between acknowledging the darker aspects of a fantasy world rife with evil and ----ing with the paladin.

I made a previous thread about a player abusing throwing shields to gain additional attacks.

I've explained to him that while they are society legal and the text is a bit confusing, the throwing shield does not actually grant additional free attacks. It simply allows you to throw is as a free action which can be used as part of a normal attack.

He has built characters around this this misconception.

He wants to have an official word from above in order to fully accept my ruling. He has accepted my ruling for now but he does not want this issue to be put at rest until word of god says otherwise. I have volunteered to consult the campaign organizers on his behalf.

Somewhere there is a rules forum (?) thread about Mithral Unicycles.

I believe someone was trying to justify them as an acrobatics masterwork tool. (Under the "Individual GMs may want to allow masterwork tools for other skills at the listed cost. The circumstance bonus for such a tool should never be more than +2. The tool should either have a limited number of uses (such as the disguise and healer's kits) or only apply to certain aspects of the skill (such as the balancing pole's bonus on Acrobatics checks to traverse a narrow surface or the magnifying glass's bonus on Appraise checks for detailed items")

I believe they were using it for bobbing and weaving to avoid attacks of opportunity. (+2 to acrobatics check to avoid AoO when moving through threatened squares.)

Only certain items give bonuses to skills. There is no acrobatics masterwork tool. In fact, having been part of the unicycle club in high school I can safely say that his character would be flat footed and be getting knocked prone trying that in real life. There are numerous magic items that he can buy, that is just munchkining the rules.

Since players cannot create items, then he cannot have it for PFS. I know this contradicts me buying decorative boxes and being ok with fluff items, but I think there is a difference between role playing and munchkining.

Jeff Merola wrote:

Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:

Spinning saw polearms have a place in the culture.. where to unicycles fit in? lol

I don't see it

There's a module that has bears riding unicycles in it.

** spoiler omitted **

Beat me to it. Not only is there a unicycle in a PFS legal module, but it's ridden by a bear with a hat. That bear is even a possible avatar picture here on the forums, but it mostly just shows the head, so you can't see the unicycle.

A Russian circus taught bears how to play ice hockey. It's not that bears are breaking the rules in PFS, it's that bears are awesome.

But, there is a difference between amusing box text and a player actually buying said item.

If I want to buy a dark wood box lined with 100 gap worth of velvet and and have it inlaid with pearl as a customized case for my ruby encrusted rapier, then I don't see an issue with him spending a reasonable amount of gold on an item for role playing purpose. But It does break immersion for party members when they expect to play in a fantasy world, but are stuck babysitting an idiot man-child half-orc from eating poisonous mushrooms.

I've stated before, the player derives his fun from bizarre characters. This is not really an issue with me, except when I have to constantly search for rules.

The sodium bicarbonate, the unicycle and trained animals are not reason to ask him to leave PFS. But his loose interpretation of the rules occasionally becomes a problem. If trained snake is in a PFS module then I cannot fault him for having a trained mammal that can actually learn tricks in real life. But he will be limited to only one pet per day. And I will go over the handle animal rules with him.

The throwing shields have got to stop though. It's not the first time players have tried to abuse them. There needs to be an official correction for them. I think they are a good idea in concept and essential for Captain America builds or fighter who need a quick means of going two handed as I do not agree at all about the rules for equipping shields requiring straps except for maybe tower shields. But a lindybeige style dissertation of shield use and construction is not appropriate in this forum.

The RAW for throwing shields is that it's a free action to loose and throw, but it makes no mention of actually making an attack.

I have a player who is using throwing shields as a means to gain extra attacks. I feel this is against RAI, where it should be a free action to throw it as part of a ranged attack. Not as an additional attack.

Second he is using trained squirrels to automatically open healing potions and feed them to fallen allies. Based on the animal tricks, I do not feel this is at all possible and goes against the multiple minion rules as well but he insists they are not counted as tools.

Finally he purchases items and gear that are not at all covered in any rule books, taking extremely elaborate artistic liberties in repurposing them. Such as a:

Unicycle which he insists does not hamper his monk's move speed at all and insists it being his only means of locomotion.

Bones of undead which I can not find a purchase price he uses to raise undead minions, recycling them from mission to mission.

A flying carriage he made by stapling a magic carpet to the floor of a push cart modeled into a hearse.

Sodium bicarbonate to make fizzy drinks

Multiple trained snakes, if you can even train a snake

And several other extravagant characters with rules questionable items.

This is a player who's means of enjoyment of the game is to be the class clown. I do not have an issue with this as a player of GM, but it's becoming a nuisance to other players who are being off put by his "colorful" characters that seem to always break established lore and the occasional law of thermodynamics without aid of magic.

My question is vague but how do I deal with these points? He has done nothing to warrant being thrown out of society play but I often need to seek out rulings for PFS that have not even been made.

It's called a canoe.

I didn't think you could detect haunts unless you had detect undead or detect evil up and running in advance...at least, that's the way our Carrion Crown GM ran it. I distinctly remember a scorching ray haunt which nearly TPK'd the party with repeated blasts.

Players don't necessarily know when a haunt is going to occur. But they still can blindly harm a haunt by channeling energy. One issue that can potentially happen is a player channels energy in every room as soon as he enters just in case there is a haunt in order to attempt to destroy it.

Peyote wrote:

I perfectly understand how haunts work and how to run them, and I don't see how explaining to my players that a haunt can be as simple as a spell effect or as complex as a recreation of an entire event be misleading them.

That's not what I meant. Explaining the mechanic to them is all fine and good. I regret if I wasn't clear on that point.

Stating that they have to suffer or endure a negative effect in order to be a witness to flavor aspect (and thus "get the story") is in my opinion incorrect.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you wrote?

Peyote wrote:

I'll also be explaining that haunts often have a story to tell, that if they want to actually understand what's going on, sometimes they need to endure them rather than defeat them like they're traps.

The emphasis is mine, of course, but with no intention of cherry-picking.

You see, you can defeat the spell-effect (by running away, or channeling positive energy, and so on) and still get the story aspect. You don't have to stand there and just "take it in the face" just to that two sentence movie.

If I have misunderstood your point, I apologize again.

When a haunt is destroyed, it will cease to exist, meaning that any effects it causes also cease to exist as well and the haunt does not manifest. The rules presented in the CR are simply guidelines. Many haunts take several rounds to resolve and are more than just box text to be read plus spell effect. If you are designing all of your haunts to conform to the rules as written and treating their manifestations as magical traps with "a two sentence cutscene" than that is bad game design.

A player who destroys a haunt prevents it from manifesting. A player who runs away from a haunt does not experience it. If the players want to learn about the nature and circumstances of the haunt, they more or less have to endure it or attempt to communicate with the spirit after it manifests, a difficult task that takes a long time which is made even more difficult without knowing the exact specifics of it's haunt. That means running the risk of being affected by it. Players should be aware of this and be left with the choice of how they wish to explore a known to be haunted area, such as a haunted house.

When a haunt occurs, it more or less is a trap to be discovered or accidentally triggered. Unlike most traps they might actually want to trigger it in order to experience it and attempt to understand it. While not all haunts are a dramatic affair that can ruin a game by missing them, they are not tied down to the rules like regular traps.

Peyote wrote:

Whenever I deal with a haunt in a PFS game as a GM I try and take a second to explain how haunts work to my group before the adventure so they're clear.

After a recent debacle in the Haunting of Hinojai I'll also be explaining that haunts often have a story to tell, that if they want to actually understand what's going on, sometimes they need to endure them rather than defeat them like they're traps. Haunt adventures can be frustrating a deadly, especially if the players aren't figuring out what's going on and try and tackle them like they're encounters to be defeated.

That's not accurate. If you tell them that then you're providing them with misinformation. Haunt flavor "speech" is a free action, but the actual spell-effect is a standard action that takes place on Surprise Round Initiative count 10. When that free action takes place is irrelevant, but the when the spell effect happens is set. They can observe the story and then react or run away without penalty (or I suppose if the GM interprets otherwise, they can react or run away before the flavorful free action takes place- but I don't see the point).

This may sound like I'm just making stuff up or adding rules, but I'm not. This is just the Core Combat Rules as written. Flavor behavior is essentially a free action to speak. That's all my haunts are doing- speaking. You just get some pictures with the sound (or even observe the party who is speaking, if that is a simpler analogy). I grant you I suppose I've expanded very slightly on the haunt mechanic, but not by very much at all.

There is no special need to endure a haunt. You can witness what the haunt has to communicate and still defeat it. And even if you rule the the players don't witness it, because they ran away, what they miss really shouldn't deprive them of the story that much. It speaks more to why and how that specific haunting came about.

You mentioned a debacle in your game?...

I perfectly understand how haunts work and how to run them, and I don't see how explaining to my players that a haunt can be as simple as a spell effect or as complex as a recreation of an entire event be misleading them.

Whenever I deal with a haunt in a PFS game as a GM I try and take a second to explain how haunts work to my group before the adventure so they're clear.

After a recent debacle in the Haunting of Hinojai I'll also be explaining that haunts often have a story to tell, that if they want to actually understand what's going on, sometimes they need to endure them rather than defeat them like they're traps. Haunt adventures can be frustrating a deadly, especially if the players aren't figuring out what's going on and try and tackle them like they're encounters to be defeated.

I have to admit, I'm not a fan of the "fancy" script dice. It's not that I don't trust someone, but more that I like to see the die rolls too. Being able to see the rolls, even if I don't check every time is a good way to establish trust. When you stand up from the table saying the GM doesn't trust you, that immediately makes the GM not trust you. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't, if you take that stance Alexander. A simpler, and less confrontational stance if a GM politely asks you to switch dice, is to do it and play on. No drama needed.

I think it's flat out rude to use something that makes it difficult to see your rolls. Even if you payed a lot of money for your micro copper with jade inlay dice, If I can't read it I'm not going to like it. If you must use them, at the very least save them for "important rolls."

Also I refuse to let players use those d10s with Japanese characters instead of numbers.

The topic of a player using a spin down dice came up the other day as I was running a game. One player pointed out that he was not using an "official d20" and needed to buy a real d20. I pointed out that there is no such thing as an official twenty sided dice and that there are no rules indicating that you need to have a particular kind of polyhedral dice to play, nor is there any rule against using random number generators or digital dice rollers.

There is however, common courtesy that should be followed.

I think that players should have a set of normal polyhedral dice, a paper character sheet filled out in pencil and a pencil with them when they play on top of whatever else they bring in case if the GM asks them to put away their toys at the game table.

Like I said earlier for those to work with Master Craftsman they need to be wonderous Items. And then you would see exactly what skill they required.

And doing a quick search I can't find any ship related Items that you make using item creation Feats. Though their might be some in a book I don't have.

The free Skull and Shackles Player's Guide has several ship modification that require the use of Craft Ships.

So I'm making a Corsair Fighter. The Replacement ability for Armor Training is Armored Pirate. Is says it replaces armor training, and reduces the check for swimming with armor and acrobatic checks to 0 when wearing armor. Light at 3rd, Medium at 7th and heavy at 11th. What happens at 15th level when Armor training 4 comes around? Do I just lose it?

Do you want to build a ship all on your own?

I think when ships were build there were a lot of men required. Some Shipwrights, some carpenters, some rope makers some other professions and a whole lot of unskilled workers.

Mainly upgrades for existing ships. Magically enhanced hulls, rudder, etc...

Looking over making a Corsair Fighter with the Master Craftsman Feat in order to repair and enchant Ships. Since being a fighter in all my skill ranks are quite limited and Craft Carpentry is more appealing than Craft Ships since it's much more general.

I think the goal here is that it's supposed to be a one handed sword or wedge weapon (axe). But technicalities also allow gardening tools and whips as well.

Also I believe that a black blade cannot be a an axe musket since while it technically counts as a battleaxe it is still a two-handed firearm. Also the Axehead and the Musket are two separate weapons technically.

A good solution would to enchant one side normally and leave the other at only a +1. Especially with a divine weapon enchantment you couldn't confer via your arcane pool (IE Holy). That way you have a +1 Holy Staff for evil outsiders and a +1 staff to apply any sort of arcane enchantment via your arcane pool for anything else.

I think what he is saying (please correct me if I am wrong) is that he doesnt see a difference some people's character 'concept' and reskinning.

Right, what I meant is I see your character's gear and abilities mechanically and not the veneer you have to make it look like something else.

I'm not interested in taking away your back story, but all I really care about is the story at hand since it's the one that matters most.

Your character's actions and the story of the module are more important to me than what you want your character to be.

As a GM, as long as it's not against the rules or getting in the way of the game, I don't care.

if the gola is to make your eidolon suit not appear transluscent then a hat of disguise would do that trick.

Another thing is that even though it's supposed to be really obvious that your character is an eidelon, NPCs still have to make those Knowledge Planes checks to figure just what you are or must be familiar with your character to know their abilities.

So the average person has no idea what he's looking at when he's seeing a a regular Synthesis Summoner, other than there's a person inside. The hat of disguise should effectively hide the fact that it's a muppet suit to the average onlooker.

There's still the issue that not everyone will accept the refluffing done to make your concept work. Sure you can say that you're a possessed person who's inner ghost manifests and takes over their body, transforming it into a horrific monster or something, but as far as my character and my self in real life are concerned, you're a summoner pretending to be something you're not.

I think the most valid argument is that the setting itself is the biggest reasons why exotic races shouldn't be allowed except for a few special cases.

Golarion is a very Human focused setting. Most Pathfinder are humans and almost all of the races in the inner sea are human or human-like. Everyone else is scum or ostracized because of their non-humanism.

Fullblooded orcs are outright banned from most major cities, tengu are regarded as filthy scum almost universally forced into slums, tieflings are hated and cast from society except for a lucky few in Cheliax and nobody likes goblinoids, even other goblinoids.

Even humanoids with Assimar or Djinn blood are going to get dirty looks Quadira.

For instance a Synthesis Summoner in Eidelon form. This particular one has limbs, but only has hooves and not hands or claws.

His argument is that the Synthesis Summoner must have limbs according to this line:

"The ediolon must have limbs for the synthesist to cast spells with somatic components."

and thus RAW he can cast spells despite very other spell caster requiring a free hand to cast spells.

That's something no Society Judge should just wash his hands of. Even if it's involving a ruling that would critically threaten a character we've created that we love, no matter how seemingly trivial the rule was at first.

That still does not remove the question whether or not they can cast spells without hands. You are still limited by common sense. Without fingers or even claws to manipulate component items or perform the gestures, it should be impossible to cast a spell with only hooves.

Further more, it says you must have limbs, not the limbs evolution. You should still require hands or claws in order to cast.

godsDMit wrote:

Lady Nocturne wrote:

Indeed. But see that's the thing. I've never even heard of people using or intending to use the class like that and I get around let me tell ya. I think it perhaps might be an overanalysis, but still it's within the realm of possibility I will concede. Still I think it's fringe. If anything Synths are MORE distinctive and prone to attention.

If you cannot see the actual character (race, features, gender, etc), such as you seem to want to do with your 'nightmare' idea, then YOU are using it as a disguise.

Also, not to argue the form you choose, but just so you know, it's been ruled that if the eidolon doesnt have arms, then the summoner inside cannot cast spells that require movement.

Actually my friend it reads "The ediolon must have limbs for the synthesist to cast spells with somatic components."

My good friend interwebs, Wiki, dictionary and biology says, "Limb (anatomy), an appendage of a human or animal"

*Holds up hooves* Limbs, check. But whatever I'm more of a hoof to the face kinda horse anyway rather than spells.

But let's not go there, I avoid the rules forums for a reason. Mainly because I'm not pedantic. ; )

There's no need to be condescending about it. But there's another point to be made, just how can a hooved animal make the required arcane gestures? I'm fairly certain that you need a free hand in order to cast a spell, not just a limb. Otherwise what's the point in locked gauntlets, or why should my bard have to drop his sword or go without a shield in order to cast a spell?

A better question is how are you even handling material components without digits?

If you can show me in an offical ruling you don't need fingers to cast somatic and material component spells, fine, but otherwise a synthesis summoner without hands in eidelon form should not be able to cast spells.

I think that we should look at it this way. We're playing in the Goalrion setting and there are certain things you can and can't do in this setting because of how things are.

You can't have a Cleric or Paladin of Aroden even if you want to run that concept, because Aroden is dead. You can't just run a Cleric of Law and Travel and honor his teaching because you need a divine patron in this setting to cast magic as a cleric.

While Pathfinders might be able to summon and command monstrous creatures, outsiders and fey, they cannot be one. Suddenly a class appears that enables you to play essentially what is not allowed, the caveat is that you are unable to look exactly like the creatures you are emulating and it's quite obvious that it's only a translucent suit. Why? Because this is Golarion and that's just how things are regardless of what your concept is.

Imagine a game in Middle Earth and having a player who want to play an orc on the side of the Rider of Rohan by playing an elf inside an eidelon. To him it's a tragic personal story of racial redemption of his fallen brethren, the anyone else who's familiar setting it's a blatant disregard of the established canon.

That is not fluff. It is in the rules under the entry for Fused Eidelon.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/summoner/archetypes/paizo---su mmoner-archetypes/synthesist

"A synthesist summons the essence of a powerful outsider to meld with his own being. The synthesist wears the eidolon like translucent, living armor. The eidolon mimics all of the synthesist’s movements, and the synthesist perceives through the eidolon’s senses and speaks through its voice, as the two are now one creature."

Is should be immediately apparent to anyone looking at an Synthesis Eidelon that it is not a true creature, but rather a husk covering the creature inside.

let them do it. a synthesist modeled after a "monstrous" species is fine.

i had an idea for one modeled after the grim reaper.

Just to be clear, I don't have an issue with the player basing their Eidelon form after something, just they're supposed to be translucent.

You know, no gnomish trojan ponies.

I know a lot of players who play Synthesis Summoners like to use the class as a shortcut to play non-core races and monstrous humanoids (Not in my home games!). My question is how well enforced is this rule when it comes to Society Play? I know there are certain limitations to refluffing things when it comes to PFS, but it seems really cheesy to just be able to say my character is a "human but looks like a hobgoblin."

Also it seems to me that the whole point of the Eidelon being an outsider is that they're supposed to be at the very least startling to look at. A Synthesis Summoner who walks around in Eidelon form should probably freak out the locals, if not find himself chased by an angry mob. Especially in counties like Andoran, and of the Linnorm Kings and Ustalav.