Redjack_rose's page

You could let him take the master craftsman feat but let it work for craft construct.

Master Craftsman feat.

Then he can make things like; Clockwork Prosthesis.

Edit; Oh, and he could try the android race, just more steam punky... or a wyrwood.

I still don't see the issue with roleplaying an insanity. It's a FANTASY GAME! Last I checked, no one is roleplaying a real person.

It's one of those things that can be a touchy subject. For an example, one of the games I'm in one of the character's has an abused/raped story as a key part of their character. Another player who has suffered such trauma in their own life found their portrayal and actions related to the subject not only lacking, but in some ways belittling to the their own experiences. It was painful for everyone.

Off topic. Pfs honestly is nice, but it's no proper substitute for a home game.

I know you're being facetious with the chain shirt stuff, but the examples you used are pretty far fetched. Aside from catching them asleep, most of the others won't work if the Druid is already wearing armor (and suggestion wouldn't work as putting on metal armor is obviously harmful to a Druid)

The larger point is this: yes there are ways to shut down a Druid, but you can do it to the summoner as well. Yeah, it's slightly easier to shut down the Druid due to class issues, but it's by no means hard to deal with a problem summoner (assuming the summoner is even a problem in the first place).

They honestly aren't as far fetched as one might think, and suggestion depends on what you define as harmful. Usually it refers to things that cause bodily harm [aka Hit points]. Either way yes, the details are largely unimportant to the bigger concept.

The point is you can't do the same thing to a summoner. Can you shut down a summoner, yes. But when someone are arguing ''Let me make a super druid and I'll show you how much more OP it is than the summoner!'' They have to account for no matter how strong of a druid they make with however much system mastery, there are two things;

1. The vanilla summoner takes much less system mastery to break and does it much sooner.

2. The druid has an Achilles heel, restrictions, prohibitions, etc... that the summoner didn't. They are not comparable.

Honestly I really don't see that. In fact the more you guys talk to more it seems you guys are "control jerk" that only want an passable in game excuse to be jerks. I just don't see how it's so much incredibly harder to do the exact same things to the summoner. You keep talking about RP restrictions being some god DM tool to "hahaha now you have zero powers tool". Who plays in your games that you constantly do these things to? It sounds awful to constant go against such adversarial gms. I in all my years as DM/Player have never had or been subject to such things, it just seems to counter the point of the...

Let me give you an example from a different system I played last night.

The party was sent in to rescue 3 of their friends from an interment camp. In the process one of them planted and detonated C4 all over the compound to target heavy weapons. Detonating high explosives near a civilian population has consequences and a lot of people died.

After knowing this, he proceeded to set up several more, killing over half the civilians they could have rescued. I'm running a game about hero's and so fate [an in game mechanic] cut him off from his powers for a short period of time.

It was agreed this was acceptable because the character was acting -badly.- He stopped and the character actually started talking about looking for redemption, etc...

Now imagine your typical many-armed flying pounce murder machine and player. They don't care about the story, they don't care about the nameless npc's. They care that they are raking in the damage per round and nothing short of the GM shouting ''rocks fall'' [or specifically targeting them] is going to stop them. Because they have found a vastly OP mechanic with no restriction and no killswitch.

Unchained made that restriction, that kill switch. Now the problem players will probably wander around looking for the next OP thing, sure. Those that like the class will adapt and new, creative eidolons will emerge.

Actually most business decisions are based on the loudest negative feedback not data. In fact even in the face of hard data most people will still hold the false opinion, in most cases hold it even more passionately.

Feedback is data. Feedback generally comes from experiences. The more experiences, the louder the feedback. Companies don't listen to the one angry, yelling nerd. They listen to to the many, many, many upset customers. If a couple hundred/thousand/large number of customers are saying something needs attention, there might just be fire under that smoke.

Edit;

As for those complaining summon monster is disruptive because of stat blocks/unprepared people, that's on the GM/Player, not the actual ability. I always tell people be prepared with your summons and I'm not above skipping someone's turn/delaying their initiative till they get their stuff straight. Has nothing to do with the actual capabilities of the ability.

I think one of the more memorable things I've heard a GM say, was doing Extra Life [a 24 hour game marathon]. We sat down to play a module and he turned to his buddy and said with an evil grin. ''Sweet, I've got two paladins.''

Later in the module, the big bad guy [surrounded by minions] offers a duel to the party. If he wins, the party has to go away. I realized that his was the reason for his comment. He expected the party to take the duel because the minions [half of who we should have had a chance to kill earlier, so it was more like fighting 2 fights together] would be difficult and a one on one fight might be easier. Of course, once we lost the duel the paladins would have a choice;
Honor the arrangement, thus falling to prevent evil and fall or break the deal, thus acting unlawfully/ without honor and fall.

Now, I might have just been really tired then [and the party opted for don't take the duel any way] but this really, really irked me. I think, mostly because this showed a very GM vs. Player mentality. The GM was going to delight in making two paladins fall in a no win situation by trying to force us into it, hence why the boss had more minions then he ought to. [Not technically against Pfs rules but it was easy to see things had been manipulated. Minions in earlier rooms had either fled early or retreated prior to our arrival when they detected our presence.]

I think a lot of the time it comes down to the Paladin fall is an easy GM vs. Player button to press. In some ways, [especially out of pfs] it's an auto-win.

I'm inclined to agree with Psyren.

I'm personally offended that some on this thread have tried to claim ''oh it's just your perception that the eidolon was blah...'' No, not it's not. In PFS, one of the most annoying thing I have had to deal with is a flying, multi-armed pounce machine. Their easy to make, put most other classes to shame unless that player has flawless system mastery and the summoner does not, and they dominate encounters. Sure, a barbarian can dominate encounters, but he tends to do so by making 1-2 big attacks a round. An Eidolon does it by making 4-5 attacks that do just about as much damage [don't forget the badly written rend!]

Even if by some miracle you manage to kill the Eidolon, you then get introduced to the Summone Eidolon spell that says ''This spell allows you to summon your eidolon even if it has been returned to its home plane due to damage.''

Summon Monster, though it can be powerful at lower levels, isn't nearly as bad as the eidolon. It can be countered, the things you summon aren't nearly as tough as what you're fighting, and honestly it makes the summoner about par with other classes.

And yes, I'm inclined to believe Dev's have a little more access to data than Joe Schmoe arguing on the internets.

I cared about a pet that made many of the other classes at my table look like a joke. Sure, I'm sure they could have done something better, been optimized better, etc... but the summoner player didn't even have to try.

The fluff stuff is things I can fix on my own, but honestly it's easier when you can point to rules and then make exceptions, than point to rules and make restrictive rules over them. People tend to whine about that.

Is it this guy?

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2szdx?Difficult-GMDifficult-Player

That's not what the barb did at all. He asked the fighter for an assist. He could still charge even if the fighter doesn't. Hell, he might even still hit no matter what the fighter does. But he asked the fighter, as a party member, to do something for him. The thing he asked is significantly beneficial to the party. The only detriment to the fighter is not getting his ''glory'' for one attack.

So sure, go ahead and refuse to cooperate. It makes you inconsiderate, but whatever, you're having fun. =P the party just knows who to look at when you all TPK. I'm sorry, is dying what your character would have done?

You don't have the right to decide what is more beneficial for the other players to do, and complaining about their action will be just immature and jerkish behaviour**

** Unless is a very very idiotic action.

You're playing on a baseball team, and you notice your team mate often tries to steal a base. Sometimes he succeeds, but often he get's nabbed or get's out of position for the next batter.

Now, assuming you don't come up to him cursing and swearing but explain to him ''Hey, could you stop trying to steal that base? The team gets a lot more benefit if you stay put.''

His answer is ''You have no right to decide what's more beneficial for me to do. I want to have fun and it's more fun to try and steal the base than back up the team.''

Who's the immature one?

Who defines your character?

You?

or the group?

"Your character"... hrm...

What is that suppose to mean? I didn't say anything about the group defining your character. If anything I've said the group shouldn't define your character.

How you act though, defines your character. If you refuse to act as a team player and give buffs/support/whatever when it would be of significant help to the party, that is the very definition of selfish.

Just because 'Haste' is the best mechanical choice for a caster doesn't mean it is the best choice for the player.

If the Fighter insists on having 'Haste' in every fight, he is being demanding, not a team player.

Or he should buy boots of speed.

I'm not saying people should demand things, That wasn't the OP's question. The question is are you obligated to break from your ''theme'' to give someone something.

If you're being a team player and giving that person something is the best move for the team, then yes, you should feel obligated. Otherwise you or your character is not being a team player.

Umm, the Summoner's "summon monster" ability is "spell-like" so it is also subject to concentration checks.

It's also a standard action, not a round cast. It also takes up none of the summoner's spell slots.

I also suggest that PFS also ban the Conjuration school of Magic. As well as Augment Summoning. And Elementsls off Summon Monster list. A Conjurers who specializes in calling Elememtals to me at least can be just as distriptive as the old summoner.

-Sigh-

Look, a Conjuration Wizard with elementals and augmented summons sat at the table.

Wizard; ''I cast summoner monster... it will go off next round''
GM; ''The enemy hits you for 20 pts of damage. Make a concentration check.''
Wizard; ''Sad face...''

Summoner sits down at the table.
Summoner; ''Oh crap, they killed my Eidolon. I summon elementals. Then they pound whatever enemy withstood my pouncing murder-machine into the floor.''
GM; ''They have some loot... yay...''

Let me put it very simply for you.

You don't get mad at the fighter because he didn't breath of life you because he can't. You do if the cleric who can decides not to breath of life you.

-however-

If the fighter has a scroll and the UMD to use it, then yes, you are well within reason to be upset with that fighter.

If someone is capable in the moment of doing something significantly beneficial to the party and won't because it doesn't ''fit their character'' then either that character or that player is a jerk.

@Everyone else...

I do understand there are other play styles, and that no play style is objectively ''better'' than others. However there are some that are generally better than others... and generally, acting to the best of your ability within the confines of your abilities is better than not.

1. Well I'm a blaster caster. I'm assuming that haste on the party is more efficient than my blasts. And that I'm not the most efficient or optimized (since you said you're okay with that) so my blasts aren't all that awesome. Why is it an issue if I play my character as his concept rather than the a buffer?

2.Would you complain that I take fireball rather than haste as my only lv3 spell known?

3. What if Every spell I prepped is a blast? Then are you okay if I blast instead of casting haste or am I an "immature jerk that maybe the table of players doesn't need around"?

4. What if Every spell I know is a blast? Then are you okay if I blast instead of casting haste or am I still an "immature jerk that maybe the table of players doesn't need around" because I can't cast haste?

5. Would you complain at the melee for not going archery since that's "more efficient?" For playing a fighter rather than Barb or Any Spellcaster? As they'd be more efficient to the party than your fighter? Do you complain at my dagger throwing fighter throwing daggers rather than using a bow or a greatsword if those options are more efficient to the party?

1. Why would you assume haste is more efficient? I said -if- it's more efficient. Is haste more efficient in a fight you know is only going to last 2 rounds. No. Is haste more efficient if facing 10 low cr enemies... no. Is haste more efficient when fighting the BBEG... probably.

2. No, I wouldn't. That's part of character creation and fireball is more in line with your concept then haste.

3. Unless you have a really low casting stat, you should have a decent amount of slots and preparing 1 haste for the big fight of the day isn't too much to ask. However, if you absolutely insist on preparing only fireball, maybe you'd be okay bring a scroll with you. You don't even have to pay for it, maybe the group will split it.

4. Once again, if every spell you know is a blast, okay. That's your character. Once again maybe you could carry a scroll.

5. Nope. Character Concept. However I do expect your knife/barb/warrior/whatever to be a team player and run interference for the caster, or flank an opponent if able, or anything else that is an in game team behavior.

I find it interesting you're so focused on the words ''being an immature jerk.'' Have I struck a nerve?

Chess Pwn,

Once more, I come back to the idea of effeciency and using the best case of team work. As Jiggy mentioned in his post;

''Therefore, each individual character will land in a different spot on the continuum between "Help the group by being reliably effective myself" and "Help the group by increasing their effectiveness.''

If your Blaster Caster is more efficient to the party blasting, then hell yes he should blast. If the wizard is truly designed to blast, then such will be the case.

If he isn't more efficient to the party blasting, he can spend 1 round not blasting to cast haste. Is it really too much to ask?

Chess Pwn,

I have stated very clearly that when making character/character concepts, I'm all for people making what they want, even if what they make isn't the most efficient or optimized.

When playing said character, they should work as a team to the best of their ability. In game, to do otherwise is just asking for death and no reasonable party would willing to invite that kind of weakness into their group. Out of game, to do otherwise just isn't being a team player.

[sarcasm kinda] It's really not a hard concept.

I don't believe there are any outside of mythic enlarge person.

Unchained Summoners are required in PFS because they're more balanced. Finally a summoner sitting down to a PFS table doesn't give the GM an impending sense that this session is just going to suck.

I'm inclined to agree with DM Blake. There is a correct amount of teamwork, and while it does vary a bit from group to group, it is based off a formula. Not an exact formula...

As I said before, if your 1 round fireball doesn't deal a significant amount of damage/effect more than the whole party hasted for 5 rounds, there is no reason [character or otherwise] you shouldn't help the party. If the character won't do it, your character is an immature jerk that maybe the party of character's doesn't need around. If the player won't do it... well same thing.

Notice I say significant damage/effect. If you compare that giving the fighter a buff and giving yourself the buff is about the same. Maybe the fighter will eek just a little bit more out of it but you're playing a battle cleric, go ahead and cast it on yourself.

About the bard/build thing first. I haven't said and want to explicitly state I'm not advocating you should feel obligated to make the best build of whatever your class is. This is why I said said someone shouldn't have to take infusion or specific feats if they don't fit within their character concept. So no... I am not saying a bard should only be a buffer and focus on being Buffy McBuff-Pants.

What I have said is that within the parameters of your character concepts abilities, you should feel obligated to reasonably act in the best interest of the party. Whether this means giving up 1 fireball for a more effective haste or buffing the hulking barbarian over yourself. If there is no significant difference between who gets buff, then go buff yourself.

To go into ''but that's what I want to do!'' fine, but don't call yourself a team player and don't be surprised if someone get's mad at you. It's a bit of an immature attitude honestly because you are part of a team all working to be better together.

Once again, this is referring specifically to playing the character once created and not during its design.

On a side note; Imagine, as this is an rpg, that your character is first starting out. He wants to be Blaster the Red, Blast-o-mancer of Fireballs. It sounds cool and so when he first meets up with his team, all he does is blast. This is perfectly fine rp.

Now as he continues to adventure he has two choices. He may either choose to continue being blasty no matter the situation cause that makes him feel cool, or over time he begins to mature. He realizes sometimes you cast that haste spell you found a few dungeons back to help your friends, or cast fly on the grounded fighter so they can fight the dragon. The team is stronger for it, even if he can't make boasting claims about how his fireball killed everything.

What if your a blaster wizard? Your level 3 slots are gonna be kinda tight with fireballs.

Or what of your a battle cleric? Ypu built him to be a delf buffing melee machine (you know, like the typical warpriest trope). You built him so YOU can be in combat,not so Mr. Fighter can be useful at it while you stand back and watch.

Or say your a self buffing druid. Sure you can expend a spell slot to cast SNA to give your fighter a flanking buddy, but your supposed to be a wildshaping melee bot. Why waste a turn to summon when you prefer to go in and duke it out ypurself.

Or the oh so popular bard. When you take an archetype that DOESNT focus on "spam Inspire Greatness" and your fighter gets annoyed since you are not buffing him (say you took Thundercaller instead for awesomeness).

1st. A simple calculation, is your 1 round of fireball equal to or greater than an entire party under haste for 5+ rounds? If the answer is no, yes you should cast haste.

2nd. Does the buff on you do more for the over all party than on the martial? If no, then cast that buff on the other person.

3rd. That's just a silly question. If you could just flank the thing, go flank it yourself.

4th. Once again, is your thunder call equal to or greater than the entire party receiving bard buffs for 1 round? In this case, the thunder call is probably more effective.

Why is teamwork such a bad thing. This is honestly a two way street as well. The fighter/martial/whatever receiving a benefit from you should either pull their weight with the gift you gave them, or cede the buff/action to you.

Oh no, not the dreaded teamwork! How dare someone expect teamwork...

Sarcasm aside, I wouldn't say someone is obligated to make a cookie cutter build, but they are obligated to try and work best with their team withing their character parameters.

Are you a wizard capable of casting haste? You should be casting it in the first round rather than chucking a magic missile cause you have some witty catch phrase you want to spout off.

Does the buff your casting benefit someone else significantly more than you? Don't be selfish.

Should you have to take infusion or a particular feat that is grossly outside your character's purview because it helps the party? Probably not.

Long story short, if you are reasonably capable of doing so within your build, than yes, you should feel obligated to work as a team.

Paladin alignment/code thing aside, I still think this is an out of game issue to be solved.

If the GM wanted the Paladin to walk the grey line with an evil person in the party, there should have been a warning, if not a fall when he executed the first person. Otherwise, the Paladin's one evil act and you're out/dead policy seems perfectly valid.

For the sake of party cohesion, and to avoid an arms race in a vendetta war among players, it would be wisest for the group to agree no evil characters.

Goblin-Priest

Unless I read it wrong, the player switched back to the old character [as in literally], he is the same person that was sentenced to death in the first place.

I agree a Paladin shouldn't just smite every evil person they see, but a think a firm warning like ''I can not tolerate evil. If you perform an evil act while in this company I will pronounce judgement upon you and carry out sentencing, as is my right by [God's Name]'' is fair enough to warrant a smiting should they act upon their disruptive alignment.

Did you speak to the problem player or the GM.

If the problem player, speak to the GM.

If you spoke to the GM and he refused to do anything, consider if you wish to stay in a game with a player/GM like that.

If the answer is yes, then Smite away with your paladin buddy and be ready to sleep with one eye open.

I'd still talk to your GM, but first maybe talk to the other players. If you can provide a unified front that says ''hey, we do not like this and it's not fun,'' it may be effective. In my opinion, it is always better to talk out situations like these than try and solve them in game.

It's far to easy for this to turn into repeated evil characters, now with the agenda they must kill the party. Eventually they will succeed.

If after speaking with the GM and if he/she isn't willing to reel in the intentionally disruptive player, you may wish to consider if this is the kind of game you want to play in.

I would talk to your GM first. Playing an evil character with a well established Paladin in the party isn't being conducive to any one's fun and is actively causing drama.

Once you've spoken to your GM, hopefully they will speak to the player, or call everyone to speak and collaborate on a more harmonious party.

Ah I see.

I will have to respectfully disagree then.

The UnSumm gave up too much flexibility imo, for too little return.

Roughly half the eidolon/summoner backstory/builds I have don't work under the new eidolon rules. So I think I'll stick to the old version where possible.

That is a valid option. Have fun!

Why?

I believe it was ultimateagic that had full eidolon builds for what you wanted. Wanted a.angel? Here how. Want a Quipploth? Heres how. Ect ect.

RP restrictions are stupid and alignment restrictions are the.dumbest of all....

I'd avoid broad terms like ''Rp restrictions are stupid.'' Getting told you can't play a robot in a low fantasy setting, not stupid. Picking a god to gain powers from and them having some restrictions, not stupid.

I definitely think single alignment restrictions are dumb [like a Paladin should be any Good alignment]. The alignment restriction here is barely noticable unless you're looking for a reason to be annoyed.

In my experience, with the exception of lower maneuverability, making an eidolon huge only makes the murder machine factor worse [With the +16 to strength adding to it's 5 attacks]. *Shrug* perhaps I have a more jaded view of the previous eidolon.

In comparison at level 13 when the eidolon can be huge, the Unchained Eidolon loses 7 evolution points that it can use as it sees fit. It gains instead several free evolutions or abilities not even on the evolution list.

Just for example, the elemental eidolon, [available to NG, LN, N, CN, and NE summoners], can be Biped, Quadruped, or Serpentine.

It has;

One Elemental Immunity [2 pts]
Immunity Paralysis/Sleep [not listed]
1 extra evolution point
Some form of movement evolution [2-4 pts]
Immunity Bleed/Poison/Stun/Flank [not listed]

It's more than a fair trade.

I understand the argument ''they restricted customization'' but they really didn't. At least not enough for the out cry I'm seeing over it. All that someone has to do is be a little more careful with their selection and they can make all sorts of things... =P and studies show constraints can actually increase creativity.

And I mean come on, an Eidolon with Lay on Hands is pretty damn awesome...

Those should have been evolutions that we could have taken. The outsider forms would have made really good archetypes. Instead it is bull droppings we are shoehorned with.

Honestly, every pet class [and perhaps every class] has some kind choice that is limited. Animal companions don't get to do what ever they feel like. Even improved familiars have alignment restrictions.

Not to mention should all clerics be allowed to take any domain they like, regardless of their god? Or Oracles allowed to take any revelation? Things have flavor...

..Eidolons come from somewhere. They have the flavor of their plane.

Well the earliest you can make it huge is 13th level, which it does cost all 10 of your base points.

If you're a half-elf though, you can have 3 extra points [unless I'm missing the rule where favored class bonuses have changed]. In addition, extra evolution at 1st, 5th, and 10th, gives you 3 more points. That's 6 points to add crazy stuff [including pounce if you feel so inclined].

That's not even going into any of the sub-types that offer extra evolution points, or even better... free evolutions.

It's not hard, it's just not super easy any more to make the unholy murder machine of doom. It's just got a bit of a feat tax.

I'm not sure if there's a rule specifically [other than I believe the advanced familiar feat gives alignment restrictions]...

I as a GM would definitely say yes. As much as players think cohorts/familiars/etc... are theirs to control, their still NPC's and subject to GM discretion.

I love the unchained summoner :-)

The additional abilities added on to the eidolons can be really cool, like the lay on hands, or truespeech, see in darkness... some of the cooler utility abilities of outsiders.

The added story elements are really just the icing on the cake. Also let's be honest, the Eidolon class feature is still pretty strong, even without every summoner on the planet taking pouncing quadrupeds.

well if his deeply held belief is 'only cowards set rules for combat' then I'd say his alignment would be chaotic evil or at least chaotic neutral.

I mean think about the implications of this belief. He not only doesn't play by the rules, but he thinks those who do for whatever reason are cowards. I mean by that logic he's against war crime legislation.

I think Evil is going a little far. Considering the time/technology of this era, the character has probably and will probably never encounter some of the horrific weaponry we have banned from war in our time.

The OP seems to be describing someone who thinks rules like ''Don't attack an unarmed opponent,'' or ''Ranged weapons are dishonorable,'' are stupid rules. Perhaps down right cowardly, since limiting an opponent means you're not confident in yourself to take what they can dish out.

Overall I'd still give him the NG, but he is a character that walks a fine line and could slip depending on how far he is willing to go.

Here's an alternative riddle;

These supreme warriors stand unbreakable save for themselves and a single foe, ever on marching they will go. The first is an even fellow it’s been said, but the rest of them are surely odd in the head.

Is that better?

I think people are focusing a little too much on ''how to avoid being the best and letting others have fun'' and overlooking the GM is behaving poorly here.

Thanks again all that posted. I think tonight's session went well. I ended up imprisoning them for a few weeks as the Devils waged a legal battle over custody of the prisoners.

During that time, their captures took the cost of their imprisonment out of their stuff and gold [which gave me a chance to dial back some of the overly generous loot I'd previously given them. I took great care not to take anything build breaking], like a race of lawyers would have. This included some attorney fees for some counseling on their predicament. They've been informed that some of their gear was cannibalized, so it's not a nasty surprise for later.

During the court proceedings, they got a chance to speak up on their own behalf. This gave Viis a chance to shine that he rarely gets [as the party face]. While they didn't get pronounced innocent, they did get the trial delayed so the judge could test their abilities and determine how dangerous they really were.

During this I had a fun puzzle run, and now they're standing at the final challenge... scrambling for weapons [since they still don't have their equipment back] in a mine field, while fiendish drakes fly overhead.

Should they succeed, the Judge will offer them freedom in exchange for a quest.
Should they fail, a benefactor is waiting to raise them once the commotion dies down. They can pay off their debt to him later...

I may be wrong, but a lot of homophobia is a result of old religious teaching (similar to today!).

In a world of many Gods (including Empyreal Lord's like Arshea) is it really realistic that homophobia is "rampant?" Ancient Greece and Rome had few (if any) of these views, etc... (not 100% sure on all the details, not a history major).

It's why I tend to base most multi-god worlds free of basis unless the tenants of a certain deity specifically call it out. Likewise, almost none of my sci-fi/future campaigns have such basis.

Welcome, Redjack_rose! Glad to hear you like Arshea. :-)

Glad to hear you're all right, cheeseweasel!

Thank you!

The Empyreal Lord's booklet itself is just full of win. My current Paladin follows Dammerich, and I gleefully (as a player, not the character) just righteously executed a mini-boss at a society event for their crimes! Arshea of course has a special meaning for me, and at first I was hesitant to base characters around her. Then I grinned and decided to go for it. Excited to play my Arshea worshipping Magus next Friday.

Josh M. wrote:

I am not a "killer DM." I do not kill PC's "arbitrarily." I simply run the game as written, and whatever happens, happens.

Unless you only play in society games, then as a GM you are choosing what to include and what not to. Even if you are running an AP, the GM still has a lot of leeway on things. Basically, I would hate to see the GM running the game equivalent of a player running a CN rogue who steals from the rest of the party who claims, "I'm just playing my character, it is what he would do."

Actually, I'd argue the only way for a GM to be "responsible for a players death" is for them to change up the rules/guidelines. The books have guidelines even for home games on what makes CR appropriate encounters.

GM fudging rule or ignoring guidelines = Responsible for deaths.
GM playing by RAW = Just playing the game.

^_^

^_^ thank you all.

Going to a thing called Extra-Life in Redmond tonight... 25 hours of Pathfinder, charity, etc... So it's gonna be fun, but also very tiring. Gonna boost my character from 6 to 11... and then start playing my Arshea worshipping Magus.

Also @Cheeseweasel Hope you recover soon, I'm glad to hear you managed alright, and the road to recovery looks bright. ^_^ hopes with you!

I've never really posted in a thread like this (despite viewing quite a few in various gaming communities) but here it goes...

Hi everyone!

^_^ I'm Alexis, and I'm transgendered mtf (and slightly androgynous). I've been on hormones for the last six months only, and things are going great.

I've always been into rpg's, though due to personal issues mostly stuck to mmo's. Playing face to face though is really quite fun and I'm happy to be playing in several home games now and at a weekly Society event. I tend to make tomboy (and usually pretty!) character's, my current society character being a Paladin/Rogue.

Recently got my hands on the Empyreal Lord's book and am quite excited to see a character like Arshea. I'd already planned a magus as my next character, but that magus now worships her (and I made the magus bald, big step for me!). Perhaps I'll make a cleric or inquisitor of her next.

^_^ Nice to be here!

<.< Unfortunately, there is a such thing as too much "tolerance."

Of course, probably sticking my nose where it doesn't belong... but there is a point someone can reasonable ask "why are you even playing this -particular- game?" Sure, people can discuss what they like in a game and come up with a great story, fun gameplay, and experience everyone in that specific group can play comfortably.

Yet if the things you don't like limit the games possibilities enough, don't be surprised that people disagree that your play style is relevant or reasonable for the rule system you (and they) use. For example if you don't like traps, random devastating crits, potential for non-epic deaths, Spells that take away your character control, spells that need a decent counter (invisibility...), encounters/npc's that may need consumable, and halflings... You -might- be playing the wrong game. It's not meant to be mean...

<.< I'd have to say, vehemently demanding your (aimed at no one in particular) playstyle/concepts/fun/Uniqueness be "respected" probably irks people the most.

^_^ Hi all.

Just thought I'd weigh in here. I personally love being invested in a character, and yes their death saddens me. That being said, rolls are rolls and death is a part of the game.

There are a select few times I take issue with a character death:

Inappropriate encounters: By this, I mean the GM (either intentionally or from lack of experience) slams a party against an impossible encounter, with no way the part can avoid it. Think level five 1's vs. CR 16 that just lands on the road they're walking down. This does -not- include when the party is full of idiots that challenge the king in front of his 9,999 elite guard.

Bad calls/making up rules: This one frustrates me the most, if/when a GM kills a character by making a "ruling" that is not in the rules, or is simply against the rules. For example, ruling that 2 allies under confusion passing through each other square triggers the "attack last attacker" reaction, causing the fully buffed level 6 fighter to mash the level 3 squishy. Yes, I almost had this happen, and would have been quite mad as it was clear the GM just wanted the fighter to kill someone for giggles.

Other than that, rolls are rolls, death is part of the game.

People want to give the best advice they can, and some things just aren't reasonably possible. ^_^ Don't get discouraged by it, just look for the pieces that are useful to you (if any). It's a place of advice/collaboration, and not everyone is going to give you exactly the advice you like.

I'm gonna guess people told you to play an Synthesis Summoner if you want to play a Wizard/Close-Range Melee Combatant? It's actually decent advice, but not what you want.

Personally I'd look at the Sorcerer's various bloodlines, or look at cleric (find a deity with favored weapon). But that isn't what you want either (probably). *Shrugs* Can't read your mind exactly, but I'm giving you the best advice I've got for what you wrote (Magic+Mauler).

^_^ sift through the advice and find the thing you want. If you don't get it... perhaps you should consider the concept/idea just isn't viable in Pathfinder.

PS: And to a degree, sub-par builds based on "Personal Concept" can be very selfish and rude to your party. If you are dead weight in your party, not only do others have to do more in combat/play to keep you afloat, they also risk losing gold/xp/items/characters if you get them killed for it.

Could just have them play/dip an Oracle. The less complicated the better, they can play an oracle, perhaps ancestor, battle, or even time.

Generally, the less you twist and bend the rules, the better.