Philippe Lam's page

FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Venture-Agent, France—Paris 260 posts (266 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 47 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Adam Yakaboski wrote:
Yeah but this goes back to my original question as to whether it not your criteria is actually what PFS uses. It's why I said earlier it's not even a fun type of broken as a +4 weapon isn't going to wreck havoc with scenario balance as having access to teleport or flight which you can do so easily that it often makes me think it's deliberate. I only day this as someone who didn't realize at the time they were casting what were fifth level spells at level 1.

I don't care an eye bat about the circumstances or whether it's fun. An easy +4 for everybody is still a no.

Grand Lodge

There would also be the need to benefit from teamwork feats even without anyone else physically (Fighter's Tactics or Solo Tactics' Inquisitor). Even then, I don't know

Grand Lodge

ShadowcatX wrote:
Im seeing a lot of similarity to the thread where the dude was saying that spell casters got their bonus slots from high attributes all at first level. I recall a post about how sometimes people lock into an argument like that despite nuerotypical (I believe that was the politically correct word used) people presenting an overwhelming amount of evidence that it didn't work that way. I wonder if that is the case here.

Seems it's clearly the case there.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

+4 weapons available for everybody shouldn't even have been there in the first place. Already prepping my grievance paper if I ever GM for such a character. Nerf or bust.

Grand Lodge

Expecting GMs to fly with that interpretation is asking for heavy table variation at best. Where's the " Always align with the worst possible " caution ?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder is an exclusionary game rather than an inclusive by a rule standpoint. Not having a wording doesn't mean it is allowed. Unless something explicitly says otherwise, an item has to follow the same rules as its parents. Hence the Bracers of Armor suffering from the same problem as a non-Wild armor.

If it was to work, the Bracers of Armor should have gotten that explicit wording.

Grand Lodge

Then there's another problem : Coming into a public place without any open-mindedness about being possibly wrong and refusing any debate, then there shouldn't be any posting from the OP. This is directly infringing some aspects of the "social contract".

Grand Lodge

It is not a matter of feeling right and the others being wrong. It's a matter of whether it's feasible for the majority of the players, despite of if it makes some players unhappy or not.

Speaking as someone who has narcolepsia, I don't use the sickness as an excuse to be a D. It's unhelpful, border butterfly effect, to those who try to smooth themselves into a community. Any issue is better explained and more accepted with taking time to explain calmly, rather than taking a bullying approach. I shout at a table ? Not hiding behind that curtain, but trying to behave better later.

I have some autistic and Asperger friends, and they would be appalled if they read that and the now locked topic in the OP section of the forum.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Being adaptive works both ways. Asking the system to bend to one's whims is equal to rob Peter to wear Paul, except there's many Peters, but a single Paul.

If this is not absurd, I don't know what it is. I will only sum up that, because the something more extensive I have in mind is clearly much worse.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Sslyder wrote:

Have: Vanara

Want: Ganzi or SFS Race boons

Thanks!

Shooting you a PM

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

There's taking the problem by reasoning with disbelief : Why the RSP as a motivation to GM ? If it's the only or main reason, there's a problem. Someone has to step up if there's players but not enough GMs, with or without the RSP.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Putting forward the

Spoiler:
"Negotiating with Serpents"
boon from the #7-22 Bid for Alabastrine where it is clearly underlined in the scenario's text the boon is not available for GMs, where the
Spoiler:
"become a god"
there isn't specifically called out as being closed to the GM.

But having a clear-cut opinion on that would be nice, as it's isn't of small consequences (as it could be implied that only PCs who currently played it are eligible).

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

The general Pathfinder Design Team and the Organized Play staff being two separate groups, it wouldn't be completely out of sorts to speculate on the latter

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The dip isn't that overpowered. Parry is clearly an early good thing, but the more the character raises on levels, the more the ability might be negated for various reasons, from size penalties to the need to keep a decent Armor Class. One could parry only to grab the extra AoO, but it is underusing the ability to currently avoid the said hit.

That said, being able to start with Fencing Grace online with an extra feat to spare is never bad. The Lore Warden controversy is precisely why the nerf wasn't such a bad decision. Lots of bad names have been thrown. The following uproar was a little (euphemism) out of proportions. It sounds easy to say from a couch, but is it difficult to find a go-around ? The character being very dependant of that, it indicates something is wrong.

While I do hope the archetype won't ending up banned, I won't lose sleep either if it is.

Expanding about the surge of Inspired Blade dips, while on average I won't dispute there are lots of these, I'm inclined to think it's also about local groups' mindsets. I'm myself not seeing a lot of these in the group where I play. Maybe three or four characters at most out of several hundred, and I'm the only player to attempt (and still currently playing it) an Inspired as solo-classed. What I often hear : " That doesn't erase the fact that the class is one of the worst glass cannons in PF, and being only a dip doesn't completely erase that weakness. "

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm fine with the archetype not being allowed for a number of reasons. While the background of it sounds great, mechanically it amounts to the same obscenity as Virtuous Bravo was as a mix between paladin and swashbuckler, and not wanting to see Bladed Brush allowed either (the rogue having dex-based 1,5x damage is already too much), no to Graceful Warrior.

If I don't comment on something, it will be because the features are OK enough, not broken so it will count as a positive. I will mostly focus on why it should stay banned.

- Chrysanthemium's Blooming : While the use of it is clearly limited in the scope of the regular campaign, the prospect of allowing Vital Strike to be used with something else already using the attack slot is not something I want to see generalized. There's already Gorum's Fighting Style, that's enough.

- Exodus of Jinin : If it was only selecteable once, no comments but having a natural 60ft. move speed (or more), this is borderline.

- Harmony of the Tranquil Garden : Action economy somewhat limits the usefulness, but still it is Blindsense accessed easily, when it is something that should only be given after lots of expenditure given its strength. (Comparison with the Master of Many Styles with the Blinded Blade Style tree feat)

- Kitsune's Mystique : nothing to add to the previous comment as I would repeat the same thing.

- Wrath of the Heavens : not that strong, but ignoring the prerequisites and getting it too early is a no.

- Graceful Strike : a no-tax damage output similar to a str-based frontliner, seriously ?

- Petals of the Wind : same comments than the previous post.

Unless the archetype is nerfed for some features, I'm against it. The one-level possible dip is opening another Pandora's Box I don't want to see.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

My own POV on this :
- Not finishing the evil act, but willfully attempting so despite knowing the risks so strong warning, but not direct fall. It falls under doing something evil to destroy something worse, which gives some tolerance.
- This is the step further so I might plausibly directly strike
- It would depend on whether the character intends to destroy the power or keep it then
- There's PvP rules but paladins are beholden to a higher standard. They might overlook smaller peccadilloes, but allowing a teammate to possibly become a *bleep* would be a no-no. This is the rare case where I'll probably allow PvP because of an emergency. Otherwise I could make the character fall for doing nothing.

I might need to speak with other GMs to see their takes on it.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

1 person marked this as a favorite.

3pp and homebrew is what I don't want to appear in a standardized setup, on a casus belli level. If it should happen, it should be vetted by the leadership only, not by everyone.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MadScientistWorking wrote:
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.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Everyone should start at the same level 0, so no, I would like but absolutely against the idea. Hard and clear transition is better than a muddy.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

The problem might be the players' expectations on what their actions should do. Sometimes, a scenario goes against these and it's better to just accept it rather than dwelling too much on it.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MadScientistWorking wrote:
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.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Spoiler:
I wrote that knowing there's the pakalchis and Citizen Dread.

Might be in the wrong, but I'm merely supposing what a GM might do, and that would still be defendeable even with chain of command escalation. Now doing it can't be advocated.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Spoiler:
There's also the possibility of breaking the walls enough to create a gap, but I'm supposing it probably wasn't the case as there's speaking about the courtyard.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Depends of the course of action of the party.

Spoiler:
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).

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

James Anderson wrote:

My players were not happy that doing the right thing and not-fighting the dragon got them a negative boon. I came up with a compromise. The dragon's orders were to bring back a scroll of teleport. Which costs 1125. The Grinning Pixie sells anything up to 2500. So before the scenario 'ended' I let them use their existing funds to buy the one scroll and finish their obligation without getting the boon.

Better than EACH of them having to cough up 1125.

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.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

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.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Spoiler:
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.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

That's what I read, too. I can see the GM's logic, while it's lenient for the purposes of time limits, it's still fair. But I might have failed their mission instead if I was the said GM.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Sent them an email, no replies as of yet (I contacted them for Bonekeep 3). Waiting a little bit before going to the forums*

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

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.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

The Human Diversion wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
What will you do if Paizo has taken that consideration and decides to let the removal stand?
I've already taken the action of no longer playing PFS. I've also stopped purchasing Paizo products, and I am strongly encouraging everyone I meet and game with to do the same.

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.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

There's already many ways to have free stuff to not adding this.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not every creative solution produces results. Depends of if it is realistic at that point of the game.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Being disallowed to buy stuff before a mission happens only when it is explicitely written in the scenario's text or if the setting makes it clear otherwise. At the end of the scenario, there's no time limit before the next scenario played so same thing.

I don't see the reasoning if this GM.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Seconded. There's already enough legal menageries that there's no need for even worse.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Picking up the fights I can win, and rejecting the ones when the cost is higher than the expected end result. Zero-sum game or no-win situation, but the idea is the same.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That spreaded to the online group's Discord channel, and I was one of these who had to intervene to make some users understand that mob rule is only hindering the situation when everything has already been said (Finding it irony when knowing my short temper).

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

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.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Sending my swashbuckler trying to exfiltrate him out of Galt. But there will be quite the dirty laundry in private... I have yet to see if Tamrin Credence is any better.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

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)

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

He's certainly not encouraging any GM, even outside of an Organized Play, to do some kind of effort. That works both ways with the player also having to make some concessions, or I missed something ?

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

There's also the problem of having unreasonable expectations. *coughs*

Grand Lodge

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.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

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)

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

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".

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

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.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Spoiler:
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.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

I'm fine with, as long it leads to no modifying behaviour from a NPC. It's probable that some players might attempt to grab a mechanical benefit out of it, and that is the problem.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

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.

1 to 50 of 260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>