Philippe Lam's page

Getting reported twice for obvious errors rather than deliberate attempts at screwing up the party clearly had a chilling effect on my willingness to GM, for quite a bit of time.

Now that I know that there's some level of leeway allowed with that rewording (without abusing it, it's obv to be said), I might be able to return to GM something higher than level 11 (it's mostly tier 12-18 who are the sticking point in PFS1 in my case), and I might finally do the jump towards GMing PFS2 and SFS (1 or 2)

He wasn't expected to get called up, happy at his semi-retirement at the Grand Lodge on a modest but reliable salary to be a dedicated sparring-partner for fellow Pathfinders who would get on the adventure, so he was a bit surprised when he received an active assignment to the Spire of Nex, and with an interplanar trip to boot. Time to dust off his weapon, his full plate, his shield and all the remaining adventuring items he might need.

" Hello hello, Dan here ! I hope we can get that one with the least amount of fights possible, but if we need to, I certainly won't be the last to butt heads. I can mostly take care of myself, but I might need the occasional healing if I take an errant hit. "

He wears a holy symbol, but while he does not hide it, he prefers to not spell the name of his deity out loud. But he does not mind to show he's a divine caster if need be.

Good point. I'm not as worried about the Core table, because they already have a few people playing up, but the Standard T3-4 table is kind of squishy. The T1-2 table is less so but could still use a sixth.

ETA: if any of you have the bandwidth, you can play and GM (and a couple of you are already).

I think I'll join the 3-4 table. Wasn't thinking of playing, but yeah this one is needing some tanking capacity. Never really played PbP on the Paizo websites so I'll get to grips with that

GM Redelia wrote:

I will need backup coverage September 20-23 due to family travel.

Philippe, will you be able to provide that?

Yeah, I can no problem - do I need to warn the players beforehand or I just drop by the table and continue as if usual ?

I'll just need to know beforehand which table I'll have to deputize on, so I can prepare on my side (I preferred to be a sub rather a main GM)

You could try asking the GM to customize the race you took, although I'd bet there's no guarantee. Technically it wouldn't be that difficult since race traits are categorized by their Race Points so there's only need to keep the sum of that switch/deletion to 0.

If it could be applied also to wizard spellcasting, it should have been explicited. As it isn't I'd take the opposite logic. RAW it doesn't apply, and a generous reading is RAI.

Expanding on what ErichAD said, the fact that Child of Acavna and Amanzen exists is enough proof that not having specific wording for the Antiquarian doesn't mean the spell failure applies to everything.

What? Why I mean even if you don't think it deserves a discount (as most posters seem to agree) why would you prevent a PC making an item that can only be used by a specific family or even one person? How is it any different to making a sword +1 if you make a sword +1 that only Jake can use especially since that would mean its resale value is that of a normal masterwork sword?

It's simply not covered by the rules. It depends then on the GM goodwill about it. Some are open-minded about it, others are strictly by-the-book. In any case, I wouldn't allow for any cost reduction either, adding the reason that only crafting ones apply there and that every other character than the target should be able to use it as the other side of the problem : would the other players around the table be okay with that or not.

Thank you for all the advice guys - in the end I went with Resist Energy and See Invisibility. Will update you on how it goes ;)

I'd just go for the communal version of Resist Energy but otherwise sounds fine

I think going Dex-based is better in the long run because of the better Reflex saving throws, better ability score split and ultimately better potential. But on the early sessions, you'll suffer more than with strength, especially with the feat tax - which is something fine with fighters and similar classes, but with an inquisitor, not as much

Philippe Lam wrote:

TxSam88 wrote:

Sounds like everything worked itself out, BTW, being "selfish" falls under the Evil alignment, not "Chaotic Neutral"

Selfishness isn't inherently evil - it's how the player portray the character could lead that perceived "negative" to be. Kicks in everybody having a different morality and conflicts appear.

Being selfish is pretty much one of the actual items used in the Evil alignment descriptions...

Neutral Evil
A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is <out for herself>, pure and simple.

Out for herself = selfish....

This is seeing it through a moral lens rather than a strictly materialistic one. Blanket statements like the general alignment description aren't accurate as it's a case-by-case basis. GM call ultimately.

Sounds like everything worked itself out, BTW, being "selfish" falls under the Evil alignment, not "Chaotic Neutral"

Selfishness isn't inherently evil - it's how the player portray the character could lead that perceived "negative" to be. Kicks in everybody having a different morality and conflicts appear.

I found reference to Gerhard Pentagrast way too amusing x'D I do think scenario does actually make good job of Nigel not seeming incompetent, but I haven't actually seen all of Nigel's performances as I haven't played all Blakros scenarios, so for all I know this wouldn't convince most people.

Nigel isn't inherently bad, but he's most commonly seen as a convenient scapegoat, and running gagged accordingly. I can guess from how the scenario portrays him, which decision has been made in Daughters' Due. (PFS1, #10-18)

Edit: ah, yes another major advantage for the MT Inquisitor: he is actually accepted at the gaming table. How many DMs start with "No Summoner! No Master Summoner! Oh yea, Inquisitor is fine!!!". *sign*

Frankly I'll never understand GMs being paranoid about the summoners. They're far from overpowered. Comparing similar concepts, I would say from experience, an oracle or a cleric with an animal companion is worse because of the bigger spellcasting. The eidolon might still be stronger, but not by much. The only real problem is more on length sessions, having a character, a companion and summon monsters active at the same time don't help.

Otherwise, Summoners are more reliant on the party for their own usefulness, Monster Tacticians are more "selfish". But none are inherently stronger than the other.

So if we assume they always have enviromental seals activated whats the point of having hazards like this. Unless they say they have activated them i assume there off noone wants to walk around breathing recycled farts 100% of the time

To constantly have enviromental seals up when your on a planet with a breathable atmosphere and no visible threat is metagaming, i mean do any of you walk around in hazmat suits all the time.

I would take it the opposite way : those not doing so are exposing themselves to a needless risk.

Note that the secondary objective is for offering to return all treasure bundles. Not for actually doing it.

I think the PCs are expected to keep all the bundles they get, even if they offer them for the rebuilding of Bhopan.

...

But really :
- That PCs get to keep the bundles should have been explicitly noted, or if such is not intended and they are supposed to get 0gp, it should be explicitly noted too.

...

That -> When I played it, there was enough confusion that we didn't do that as we were unwilling to sacrifice budget to get fame. Had it been clearer, it would have been probable we would have reacted differently.

But maybe that being unclear was on purpose, wouldn't be surprised if this is the case.

This might have to do with personal biases, but I am not a fan of Kensai. That inflicing maxiumum damage thing is cool, but the no-armor restriction is really onerous, and so is diminished spellcasting. You can say, no, no: it's fine; Mage Armor. But if your ability to cast Spells is dminished, so is your ability to cast Mage Armor.

I got a bad taste in my mouth for Kensai ever since my first PFS game with my own character when we all made a plan for rushing in and handling a roomful of Goblin Alchemists. The Kensai and I were supposed to run in and beat on the Goblins, while the Wizard cast Sleep. Well, after the plan was executed, the Kensai decided, out-of-the-blue, that his character was too squishy to risk entering the room, leaving me the Goblins' only target for all their Alchemist Fire. They all had Burn! Burn! Burn!, too.

If I was around the table, I would have gotten an immediate after-session chat with the player. I created and played a Kensai a fair number of times, and the damn job of the character is to get in first, dammit. Otherwise where's the purpose of having Int to AC and initiative bonuses ? *Bleep* in a nutshell.

It's not like it's impossible to buffer further - either using Frigid Touch to lower enemy output to vampiric touch them to better deal with pain. Their nova ability is good but given they don't have spell recall, this exhausts way faster.

From my personal experience, I prefer Dex Kensais over str versions given they are better resilient in the long run. Str's are stronger but I don't feel it justifies the tradeoff.

That is an unfortunate way to play.

I happily ignore every FAQ/Errata that subtracts from something's effectiveness or fun... obviously not every table plays the same.

I will see if I can find something else for you.

There's taking it the other way : players were abusing it hence the errata. Given similar spells around these levels, it works now as intended. Sometimes it's on the players to adapt.

This seems to show again that the easiest way to handle this problem is when a save isn't allowed T_T

These effects are often of weaker effect than those allowing one so it's not exactly a go-to move. In any case for the wands to have a decent effect, the player has to raise the caster level because taking the lowest is unlikely tu cut it. The problem is it's more expensive.

It has to feel natural into the session. If you're making too obvious you want to push them into a puzzle, it won't work.

For me the transition between PFS1 and PFS2 was about better ingame lore transparency. While why keeping this secret makes sense it goes counter to teamworking.

Hopefully this is a typo, but I don't think it is. PFS2 has a similar trend of gating secondary success conditions behind (far) harder DCs from what I'm reading. Whatever the reason it's clearly going to rub things the wrong way.

The concentration bonus only influences how the caster is still able to throw the spell while being threatened in melee, or taking damage. This has nothing to do with how long it lasts. The concentration duration if there's one is directly written in the spell.

I think keeping solo classing is better. Having an extra effect to cold spells are nice but have a lower efficiency than keeping the solo classing.

The oracle can decently control the battle on self. As avr says, any opponent who is resistant to control and/or cold makes the concept weaker, and it's not uncommon. Whichever guide rates it highly should suffer a grain of salt - they often forget to foolproof and often talk theory only. Maximum potential vs keeping a more generalistic but versatile control, I'd choose the latter.

I will admit that I too have gotten annoyed with certain metamagics (both with and without saves) just because they got spammed too much.

Toppling metamagic on magic missile. Rime spell. Dazing spell, despite allowing a save. And especially dazing persistent.

I allowed players to use them some, but also explained that using it often was going to result in the enemies they face also using them.

It's one option, but I don't think it's the only way to deal with repetitive playstyles. It should be a mix of encounters where enemies are vulnerable to it, or do dirty things on their own. The one I use myself in that case is pitting them against enemies who can resist the trick. I'm a personal fan of making them immune, because I'm in a group which mostly says it's fair game. But I don't think in general neutralizing the character's abilities is the way to go.

There's only a limited amount of spellcasting ability at the first levels so I think the character should maximize Intimidate. I could create a controller Cleric. The problem is the class' spell list lacks of aggression, but if for debuffing, it's decent. Calm Emotions, Command/Forbid Action (and their greater versions), Charitable Impulse, (insert). I think a Negative channeler with the Rulership option is nice but maximizing the DC of the save is a bit difficult, and if it works, the daze effect may be a bit too strong.

The good old table variation. In the end the GM is the final judge regardless of any argument there as long the ruling makes sense.

I think this player wouldn't stay long around my tables because I would be very clear from day one : either you accept to compromise, or you're out of the table. This is about the party, this is a teamwork game. No one is above another unless being explicitly agreed upon.

There's moments of epicness, and other times when it's a grindfest. Being so self-centered suits only for single-player games.

I don't hold too much illusions about the effectiveness of KAC/EAC against bosses, but it's still useful if they take penalties for any reason, but lowering the numbers of hits coming from the lesser mobs is the most important there. As long I can survive long enough to outlast the enemies, that's what matters (it helps me to be able to rely on a big stamina pool)

Boons are nice to slot but what's more relevant is what the player does ingame.

Seconded. One doesn't call a cat a mouse, and vice-versa.

Very flexible GMs vs by-the-book GMs, and everything in-between. Saying that those not allowing to equate fauchard to glaives are bad is very disingenuous.

if you can point me to where in the rules it says that I can't call a scimitar or a rapier or even a greatsword a longsword, and have it look like similar to a longsword in the world. As long as I follow the actual rules of the actual weapon I'm using properly I'd be much appreciated.

Even then, I would disagree to an extent.

Reskinning with the intent of getting a mechanical result out of it = the GM can say you have to stick with the base skin and mechanics. And it's on you to not be a jerk about it, not on the GM to allow it or else being labelled badwrongfun.

One can call a cat a cat, but not a a kitchen knife a samurai sword.

The other thing I saw with quests was that GMs like to take time to run the session and many players willing to play slower in response, so while it should take a set amount of time (there 1 hour) it often takes more.

When I played I haven't seen many players complaining about it although I'd suspect some are unhappy about it. It's basically a short session I could play right after work or just after waking up while sipping a coffee. It's convenient enough that I can deal with not exactly having the appropriate rewards.

But from what is been depicted there, it sounds like Little trouble in big Absalom sounds like a worse waste of time for little reward. Even with speed up session, it doesn't sound a good incentive to play it at all.

The combat argument : I don't like too much not being able to frontload everything behind Armor Class and saving throws. That was my way to ease the pressure as I could that way avoid most of the damaging threats and if it still gets through, well s*i* happens. They had to modify the system to avoid the cases of demon lords hitting only on a nat 20 and classes avoiding all the effects with saving throws (dex inquisitors with a ring of evasion).

I mostly still need time to get accustomed to it as the inherent pressure makes me overly nervous.

I'd expect him frequently butting heads with Eando Kline, it would be funny to see the dynamic between both. Otherwise I'd suspect he's also Razmir also sent him to the Society as a sort of ambassador or a liaison. After all there's seeing if a working relationship between the two organizations might work or not

The mileage the player will get from the characters will depend as much on the GM's belief on the RP than in the mechanics. The character story is only impactful so far.

Given how the whole schtick is panning out, it's impossible to not be judgemental either way.

Paizo making errors during the process but which often are necessary evil (but sometimes could be avoidable), and on the other hand players need to accept they can't control everything. No one is entirely right or wrong, but on both sides, the whole problem could be handled better.

Everybody speaks in a different way and that's what causes problems. Asking people to be adaptive shouldn't be a F-word. The only real limit is whether any word spoken infringes the PFS guidelines. The fundamental discrepancy between that and the higher overall sensitivity of people is part of why tempers flare (too) fast.

He is already slightly on the nimble side (dex 14) so an AC of 20, this is Amusing to me...

The running gag which often runs at many tables : a good spellcaster is a dead spellcaster. That might be ok for several levels but afterwards, that number will need to be raised.

The fact that it took a year to judge it either way is part of the problem. Given the circumstances, many are growing impatient quicker.

There might also be the need to lower the possible number of hits the summons will receive.

Memorizing several Command (or Forbid Action) spell slots and similar spells at later levels could help. The problem is the lack of guarantee given targets will be allowed a DC, but you can raise your chances by raising it through traits and/or feats :

- Peacemaker feat -> +2 to the DC of spells or other effects intended to force targets to take non-violent actions
- Spell Focus (Enchantment) (and Greater Focus if possible)
- Mediator (social trait)
- Overwhelming Beauty (magic trait)

(I can't give the links to the different options as I'm at work, d20pfsrd or archives of nethys are blocked)

That would only likely work if you consider dipping in a class giving armor proficiencies by default because having to take it as a feat tax might harm the goal. But that would also set the character one class level behind and that might be the more problematic thing.

It's long overdue they should dedicate an employee to update who needs to be informed off on a frequent enough basis. Blogs or other articles can only help so far.

Changes and subsequent disappointement might be warranted or not, but it's more the lack of direct interaction which is innerving in that context.

I think the option to be able to go campaign mode wouldn't be bad to add. This is the kind of adventure I'd sometimes play while casually sipping a cola after work

Deleting the post because I just saw Hmm posted and it's for me a sufficient response for the moment. But still won't hide that parts of what I have read in that topic didn't contribute to the thing at all. (still kept a copy of the post for good measure)

The problem is that tone policing is too quickly used and the " my way or no way ", same thing. (the tone wasn't even remotely incorrect, anyway.)

But given how many things are going now, I'm not surprised.

My brain = broke

This is the kind of response where it's clear the topic reached a dead end. While disagreeing, you don't get to be dismissive no matter how improbable you think it is. Because it does happen and I never rejected the opposite point of view off the bat.

One ruins it when they forget how to argue and focus only on the why when it's a mix of both. Arguing 101.

...

Or are you seriously arguing that merely suggesting being decent to one another is offensively controversial?

What sounds obvious for you might not be the case everywhere. As much as you find it ludicrous that still exists.

The problem is being too assertive about it, like how TwilightKnight is bringing it can be considered adversarial, rather than taking the slow burn approach. At worst anyway there's following the proper chain of command ...

Not everybody is nice by nature. In any case, agreeing to disagree because we have completely opposite point of views on that topic.

I think Destined would be among the better defence-wise. Not a lot is added on offence though so that might not be appealing to many.

But starting from level 4, on the condition to cheese a little bit (not many take Fate's Favored to match with the RP, that depends on the player), the character would get to cancel the penalty to AC (and later having better of it than while in normal status) and getting better saving throws.

The common point I'd forward is no Crossblooded. Until late in the concept, the -2 penalty to Will saves is a big no-no. If the character was ranged, I'd say you could try it, but not with a melee esp when domination effects aren't uncommon which means there's a possible unwilling PvP.

I'd think the season 2 metaplot should be more self-centered : even with what happens during season 1, the goal of rebuilding the Pathfinder Society isn't yet finished (unless I missed something, which is probable) so targeting Iobaria might be jumping the gun.

I don't need everyone to agree to be reasonable and respectful for me to do it. I'm not going to tolerate the occasional vitriol I have received or I have witnessed others receive because they asked a simply question about boons in good faith.

The reverse is true : You can't always expect others to be as welcoming of that question as you'd want. The only real limit there is whether the language used is in direct conflict with the rules of the Organized Play campaign. From both sides of the problem there could be clear unwillingness to cooperate, and within these limits there's nothing you could do about it.

What is good faith for one could be bad faith for others, and vice-versa. Someone has to analyze first whether the question could be asked, or not. I don't think, given how usually you could see the mindset of the GM or the other players through, this is that difficult. But I won't exclude possible difficulties, and in that case even if one thinks that should be automatic, there's the need of taking time to talk about being more open-minded.

Philippe Lam wrote:

Try to go too fast, and you get a gatecrash.

Tell that to OP and their rapid fire house rules these past 2 weeks... but I digress.

...

On one hand, Paizo doing some trial by error which is bound to divide opinion, and on the other hand, some having legitimate concerns about wanting parts of the community to be more open-minded, but bungling their arguments in the process by being a bit too emotional about it. I can discuss outside of the session in length to adjust the mindset afterwards, just don't BM about it during.

At the very least, it's stretching the goodwill on many corners and can deepen some divides between those who want this extra freedom and the more traditionalist players. Sounds like TwilightKnight thinks his argument is something he wishes everybody should agree with, when in effect this is not entirely true.

Try to go too fast, and you get a gatecrash.

Ironically, for some of us who grew up reading *really* early sci-fi, Numeria and Alkenstar are both callbacks to familiar sci fi tropes from our childhood.

In fact, one of the earliest D&D rule books I owned had a section on incorporating the wild west (via the rules published in boot hill) and sci-fi (via the rules published in Gammaworld) into your D&D games.

For RP purposes it's not a problem. Many might do the same thing so can't blame them, one gets inspirations from where possible.

The yellow flag starts when some players use these tropes are used as in-session arguments over rules or other characters in an often not-so-polite way. Now this is not completely avoidable but that's why I prefer to strictly separate IRL from the game at the best possible.

I couldn't care less if people spoil scenarios for themselves. As long as they don't make the spoiling my problem. Note, making the spoiling my problem is not an issue with the concept it is a problem with the player.

Also, if peeps are buying scenarios to spoil or boon fish, that means that money is going to the PFS2, which is very good. Because I have never seen the "you have to own the book" rule enforced, I have no problem encouraging people to buy the scenarios.

That's the "proper" way to do it, if they contribute otherwise to the PFS2 growing (in that case, financially), what they do on their own isn't my concern. It is if as a GM they ask me these question or as a player I'm witnessing that.

How the game is played now is different now than it was years ago, for the good or bad, but that part is becoming a concern ...

Its certainly not "lazy" to hear about a boon and ask where to find it. Not everyone has access to all scenarios including scenarios, quests, APs, modules, etc. and even if they did, do you really want them going through all of them to find the boon in question? That would create waay more spoilers than just answering the question in the first place.

I have more than once discovered a boon from another player during a game that I had never heard of before and wondered where it came from. If you don't want to share, no worries, but let's not act like we are sharing top secret information. If the developers didn't want us to get the boon, they wouldn't have put it on the chronicle sheet. For some people, knowing about a boon that would fit their character's build can actually encourage more play which is something we all want.

Agreeing to disagree on the fundamentals of the debate.

I'll stick with the reasoning that the player should find that by self. At least even with more spoilering, it shows effort which isn't there by directly asking.

It isn't top secret information but there's where the moral cursor is different for everybody. For me hunting scenarios because of items is morally not acceptable so disagreeing even if it could encourage more play. Not every play is good play.