No. I'm not using hyperbole. I also know you are incapable of noticing because it's appears as a relatively common quirk. That and symptoms tend to be all over the place. At the table it was just severe short term memory loss. I never really asked beyond that because it was also really depressing because you aren't wrong. Especially, since its not the first time I've known people in PFS with the exact issue to the point where they needed help. The only difference as far as I could tell is the symptoms manifested in other ways.
As a player with disabilities, I find these comments patronising and bullish. Which does a disservice to the people the arguing is purportedly defending. Not being the only one saying this, and the previous one to get the same idea has been blatantly ignored in this posturing ?
Seems the word " compromises " starts to be an empty word. Thinking of being right first before engaging into a positive discussion is a wrong approach.
Well it is because you can't actually figure out what is wrong with the person looking at them. And at that point it does make you a jerk. That was my original point and why I told you you were rubbernecking. You can't tell when people are physically incapable of doing something. And its not really something that should be up to arbitrary whim which is why I said its exclusionary.
Hence the need of explanation. It is poor form to call someone a jerk for something they don't have a clear idea about, but trying to get the bottom of it. The problem is that the GM not verifying things are in order would be in the wrong.
More random character audits should be conducted ... and there was the case when I saw a player couldn't justify the crunches of his character under a minute. And I might discover more surprises down the road.
Protecting a group is fine, but that's not what a GM is supposed to do. It is also to make sure the players play within the rules of the game.
Depends of the course of action of the party.
If the escape was possible in one single round, better that than seeing the prisoners escape.
That case would allow the GM to modify the tactics of the monsters. But clearly if the first fight already have been solved, in all cases the GM should have written the reward from the first fight at least. If it didn't happen like what written in the spoiler, it's difficult to predict how the party would have fared in that fight and the last one (no guarantee of success so would depend on the VO's decision).
James Anderson wrote:
In effect, what they think as the right thing might end up being the wrong thing. Their logic isn't bad, but not always adapted to that specific case. It is not inherently bad/evil to fight it, not being needed for the balance of the area nor I would miss a delusional individual, but that depends of the mood of the group. If only viewed on the lens of the Society's goals, it even might be better if the dragon is removed, incapacitated or pidgeonholed to surrender.
But I would take pains to help Nalu to get out.
Without clear instructions written in the scenario's text, that can go both ways. The GM is not bound to completely accomodate parties trying to go stealthy. It can go well as expected, or it can go ugly, inside the lion's den under disadvantageous conditions. And there will be little to complain about.
The Creative solutions part of the guide allows to bypass some of the hurdles and getting their coins, the GM is not bound to give everything in that case. It can be reasonably ruled that as some things have been completely skipped, these rewards being cut. The party accepts the overall gamble or doesn't.
Depends on if the party can succeed on a DC40 Diplomacy, Bluff or Intimidate check. While there are circumstances allowing for bonuses, even then in 3-7, it's still hard to reach. There might also be penalties given by the GM because of the timeframe limit given in the scenario's text, and getting past it by even the slightest, worse if by a mile.
If you don't reach the DC, the party is arrested (or part of it if an invisibility has been dropped with Emilio Bucsa and at least one PC under.
I wouldn't be against creative solutions, but it would have to stay under that rather strict time. If not, it's directly harmful to the mission. The case explained by Matt2VK might already turn ugly during the 4-6 hours spent to scout. In the case someone managed to bluff but spent too much time inside and Irel coming back, I don't need to draw the picture.
That's unfair, but that's not exactly what some players do ? Lots of players might not be happy, but as a Magic player, I can say I saw much worse like decks winning Turn 1 or 2, or combos piecing the opponent up in one round. I play something, I know the risk. This is a similar situation.
Players shouldn't expect to be always able to fight back. They should be ready to have to fight under more unfavourable conditions than they might stomach. I dislike that, but that's the randomness of playing PFS, other scenarios being much friendlier on that point.
The Human Diversion wrote:
It might be great on a personal standpoint, but unless at least 50 percent + 1 customers of Paizo do the same thing, it's unlikely to have a lasting impact. Not a judgment, merely a possible consequence.
Some unfairness is still better than an overall anarchy the move might provoke. Especially when some Pathfinder agents are able to level entire countries by themselves and who are possibly the least concerned by these needs. The Ten are sometimes already superseded, and should an international organization be governed the same way as a local country ? Comparing with Nirmathas, and the difference is glaring.
The last thing I want to see is the Society turning into a ragtag band of idealists, though. The fact the Shadow Lodge cares even less than the Decemvirate about collateral damage is what makes me unimpressed. At least Ambrus Valsin isn't being dishonest while sending the Pathfinders to dangerous missions. Grandmaster Torch do care about Pathfinders, but how many bystanders do he hurts in the process ? (cf Assault on Absalom)
That still theoritically falls under the last minute thing considering he size of the convention. It is not like the weekly event at the shop when it might be possible to organize Singles or couples would easily be prioritized over a group of 4, or the group might be asked to play separately off each other.
To get a GM available in that late notice is a low probability the same way. Some of the staff was probably a little optimistic about finding a table, but even when showing every day, expecting not to is more accurate than hoping to be able to play together. I would myself expecter the latter I warn, the latter I'm attended to in all cases.
The spell has a more limited use because there is no way for the caster to force the corpse to tell the truth. NPCs having the useful info often have big will saves, and underlings are unlikely to have that info.
Nor the ability nor the spell comes often so don't expect a GM or a scenario to plan for this (even if the GM should improvise without too much difficulty)
I don't mind but I can gamble on her being set up as over-chatty by default, and some GMs not toning that down even if the scenario invites so if the players show disapproval.
I have seen worse, but some could even walk out and I won't blame these. The Wounded Wisp and The Consortium Compact don't have this "problem".
If it was the clergy of Abadar, as a GM I would shrug but that happens. There's a need for every alignement in a society. But while the general alignment of the organization is the same, Hellknights have some goals which are contrary to those of Milani.
I would be lax if the player takes steps to not display the symbol, even if they speak quite tactlessly. If they keep it on display even randomly then Hellknights would start with more misgivings due to the current fight of the Milani clergy against Abrogail Thrune II, and the organization deeming her the ("far") lesser of the two evils.
A -2 penalty sounds fair even if I think it should generally be ruled harsher.
Order of the Cockatrice probably, one of the abilities being +1 to damage against the creature challenged every 4 cavalier levels and Dazzling Display as a bonus feat. So everything activated, it would amount to a +13 (tier 7-8) or +17 (tier 10-11) to damage on a successful hit as there's also the +1 damage per cavalier level.
Normally a first-time offense would only entail a warning as there's no point to get immediately too harsh. But free murder is on another level of infraction and warrants a higher level of sanction. If the alignment shift results in an evil alignment :
- The character pays an atonement, but there is grounds to insist on the 8PP version for major fault instead of just 2 for minor. Even then I would warn there won't be another chance and a similar later act will result in asking for permadeath.
- A report should be made up to the chain of command, so the Venture-Lieutenant or the Venture-Captain of your area. A meeting of several of them will be convened to decide of the case of yes or no. The player will be invited to defend the case. If unhappy with the result, an appeal might be lodged to the RVC (someone correct me if I'm wrong), and ultimately the Campaign Coordinator (there Tonya Woldridge), but then the decision is final.
Now I would monitor closely in a couple of games to see if the player might be inclined to repeat a similar thing. If not it's possible to take this as a frustrated one-off, but if repeated later, following the process as I said before.
Every time I come here to try to post something, I'm finding the needlessly hostile responses from the League Of Replay Prevention make it so difficult to try to participate in this discussion that I instead just close the window. I would be sad to see the argument lost in the back of caving to bullying.
One extreme fuels the other. As nobody will attempt to stop, it's bound to explode.
If it takes two sessions to complete the scenario, I'll take the time. But if the scenario could be reasonably finished within the timeframe of one session and the players not doing so, I'll skip some things if the players played properly, but if they suffered some delays due to their actions, nope I won't rush and accomodate them.
- In a home game Milani could be reasonably taken, but not in an Organized Play. A GM could be entitled to refuse the player at the table until class change or deity change as the latter is expected to not ignore that. Given it's a class with divine powers, enforcing a 8 PP-sized atonement would hardly be blamed as harsh (and I don't add the alignment infraction, even with good intent).
- For the diplomacy checks, the Hellknight has a fair chance to recognize that kind of aura. Unfair as it is, for lots of them CG will be included in the same bag as the CEs and CNs. "Slap in the face." Talking could still succeed but much more difficult.
The attitude would probably be set up as hostile by default, so 25. Add next some charisma bonuses. In the case the opposite number is already hostile, I'd throw a situational +5 to the DC of the check, same thing with a set DC from a scenario's text.
The player also has to be careful on how to RP this, bonuses or penalties could be given for that too.
A check of 28 is probably going to succeed anyway.
So no it's not always probable success. Now most of the times as long the player doesn't chain errors like pearls, there won't be that many penalties.
That's pretty much the point. I respect the opposite point of view despite disagreeing strongly, some have valid reasons and are moderate in their requests. But unluckily, others are intently spoiling it with unrealistic wishlists.
Some will always protest, ask for more or etc, when it's better to grab what they can but not wasting more breath. Short and blunt, because I'm fed up to always hear the same protagonist(s).
Adventurer's League is bad because of the unlimited replay. But some are oblivious to the dangers of that, obviously.
It is also bad form to be judgemental, to pidgeonhole or shame a player into being more versatile. That's the main motive behind my POV. I'm perfectly fine being an OTP as long I do the part during the session and not feeling bored nor frustrated. When being told how to play happens during a game, and it happened several times, it's disruptive.
Agree to disagree is the best to depict the situation given no one will budge off the stance. Big or small money, and I'm not condoning bad actions during a game.
I don't see why being a one-trick-pony would be considered a F-word by that many people. That's a problem. Also the unhealthy urge to act when it's perfectly fine to sit back when it's not the character's expertise. If I think I can get some use of a secondary style, good but if a player tries to push me to, it's a casus belli.
There's a lot of different backgrounds there.
Infinite replay devalues the interest of playing a scenario.
EDIT : reply to the post below
Gary Bush wrote:
If it's the case, it would clearly be against the spirit of the game.