Relixander's page

Not new to the boards, but he'l have a new title now.

James Wygle

He's been serving in the position and finally decided to make it official and I thank him for the help.

A stealth specialist can stealth while being observed, in bright light, trivializing most perception checks and minimizing or eliminating most other forms of detection. Like any other specialist when played as part of the group, and in the spirit of Society play they can be a great addition to a game. When they are played to break scenarios, trivialize other characters, and with out character they are a poor addition to a game.

As a I GM like to reward players that play well with the group, if they use scouting ahead "appropriately" (yes that is subjective and I think others have done a good job of giving examples of appropriate use), I try my best to reward them/the group (sometimes dice do not agree). When players do the opposite, I tend to remind them of the Cooperate part of being a Pathfinder, I start sharpening the pencil, so to speak, on those rules and give situational modifiers a hard look (but again sometimes dice do not agree). As a player I try to avoid that player/character.

Two groups of adventurers, lets says Pathfinders and Aspis Agents are standing at opposite sides of a door (that slides up to open, maybe one or both sides have realized this), both groups have people that heard something from behind the door, a couple or a few on each side ready actions, others don't. The door is opened simultaneously by both rogues (unaware the other was working to open the door, or maybe that's how the door works and they simply did not realize it). Who goes first?

I say you roll (perceptions for surprise if they were unaware of something behind the door), initiative, "readied" actions go off on that PC's initiative count. A GM might feel the desire to award a circumstance bonus in some situations, ok, I might give the archer a +1 bonus for nocking the arrow and crouching (if they realized the door opens up). I would not simply grant a character or npc the first action in a combat due to a readied action, except in some extreme case.

I think energy is fluffy txt to give flavor explain damage. I personally would go with the scenario as it is an actual example of published use of the ability and it is scenario for organized play. until one of the devs say other wise, FAQ or a new adventure printing of adventure show it being used differently.

Although one might think example is a good (should be the best) way to show how rules are intended to be used, I have found it just as probable the author used (changed) the rule to fit a particular need/desire, or applied some "special" situation to modify it.

Ninja'd by SwiftyKun!

My character concept was a Diplomacy user who manipulates the party as readily as the npcs we encounter. I don't personally feel that I have not been contributing to the success of the party. But I recognize that my perception of the situation is subject to my personal bias. That was why I came on here to get an idea of what other player's expectations were and their interpretation of what is acceptable at a Society table.

As a player, I would not look fondly on someone trying to play (manipulate the play of) my character through diplomacy. As a GM, I doubt that I would allow the manipulation of PCs by other PCs through the diplomacy mechanic (except when mutually agreed by players, would this fall under the PvP clause?).

In general, unless you play with the same group of people regularly, the PFS setting may not be the best place to push limits of inter-personal player interactions, whether done through an in-character conversations, or real conversations at the table. Character personalities that push inter-action norms/limits should be well vetted to the group by the player (as John pointed out above), or negative reactions should be expected.

knightnday wrote:

The Morphling wrote:

For the zillionth time, I thank my lucky stars my local PFS crew would rather play Pathfinder than search zealously for ways to prevent people from enjoying Pathfinder.

And the sheer amount of RAAAAAAAAGE in this thread... which is about the word "murderhobo" ...is hilarious. *popcorn*

Yes, it does limit your enjoyment playing Pathfinder to not be able to put down Profession (Whatever Joke I Feel Will Get Me Laughs) on your sheet.

I imagine the amount of rage is almost equivalent to the amount of "It's my RIGHT to do what I want!" that is being bandied about. YMMV.

A GM at my table saying "C'mon man, that profession isn't really appropriate" is not raging.

The vehement arguments and furious debate on a forum proclaiming how righteously they would smite any such hooligans at their table is raging. And is very amusing.

I would much rather have the debate/discussion/argument (however it is characterized), take place here on the forum rather than at the "table" taking away the precious game time. I think this *is* the appropriate place to voice such opinions, vet the reasoning, and get more view points. Sometimes a consensus gets reached, sometimes it does not, hopefully the discussion gets furthered either way, if not hopefully its at least fun to read!

Relixander wrote:

Looking for the post, but as I seem to recall this was not completely true for eidolons (at least in PFS). I seem to recall that the equipment the eidolon has equipped travels with them to and from their home plane.

Nope. Though if you really know of a developer post like that, I'm more than happy to eat summoned crow on the subject.

Of course, there's nothing preventing a GM from allowing it. It begets more issues, of course, such as the eidolon acting as a bag of holding or an impenetrable safe for storing MacGuffins--one that the PCs may lose access to forever if the summoner winds up with a severe enough case of dead.

Called creatures, of course, aren't in question.

I looked and looked, but I could not find. Age and memory sometimes don't mix well...

Relixander wrote:

stuffs

I agree the GM should be allowed to ban offensive things. Although the name of your day job profession is just a name. Using that name for a bonus is up to the GM. I fully support that.

Now if someone is using the day job to offend people than the GM needs to step up and say something.

Although at the same time I bet we all know someone that will say they are offended by something to give them power when they are not really offended. I can not see a way in which murderhobo is offensive to a real human being. Now if you find someone that has a reason to be offended by that then I would ask the player to name it something else in the presence of that person. I feel this is a much better solution than GM fiat and banning something.

Ofcourse this would apply to any dayjob that is offensive.

Now wrecking the fantasy of someone is also a very silly reason to ban something. Look at the gunslinger suggestion(granted this is something legal). Now you are a shared fantasy. You have robots in the game and a slew of other zany things on golarion. Yet someone that has a day job programming/wiring this robots or androids wrecks your fantasy? The idea of the game is allow people to play their fantasy with your fantasy. If the name of their day job wrecks yours I think this may have to do with the you(as in the person fantasy that is getting wrecked) than the player that brings his innocent fantasy.

In that case when you hear that day job a few times ignore it and move on. There is always a solution that helps all parties.

Because the DM has the ability to make decisions and ban things does not mean you should. FInd a way to make it work. Before you wreck someone elses game. Espcially over something so trivial.

Now if there is a jerk at the table putting somethign offensive to poke at someone that is something different. Someone innocently putting something silly. Well this is were your judgement comes in.

There is a day job vanity...

So in essence you agree, but your fear is of abusive GMs not players. Fair enough, and agreed, my point there would be the GM *should* know better and act better, hopefully those GMs that don't will get filtered out by the players and VOs. That is why we have GMs to make those judgement calls, and is is assumed they will do it to the best of their ability and without prejudice, in the attempt to make the game fun for all.

Edit: I did forget about the Thieves guild vanity, is there an Assassins guild vanity? (although I was speaking more in general than specifically as a dayjob)

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

Profession (MurderHobo)

i Treat that as Either Profession (Soldier), Profession (Secret Operative), Profession (Mercenary), Profession (Bouncer), Profession (Bounty Hunter), Profession (Sweeper), Profession (Assassin), Profession (Church Inquisitor), Profession (Secret Agent), or Profession (Enforcer) depending on the description given.

Profession (what does it really matter, you get to roll for some cash and this is an open PFS game and I'm here to have fun with the rest of you and not to stand around arguing and getting stressed out over a couple of words on a character sheet), if I'm 100% honest.

It matters because I can think of dozens of (made up) professions that actually are *highly* offensive. I don't want GM's to be powerless to do something about it at their table (which some already believe to be the case). The slippery slope is usually greased, with rolling pins on marbles, when taking about PFS. Even if the campaign leadership comes out and specifically allows MurderHobo as a profession, I would still have the same arguments about GM discretion and determining the level of offensiveness and/or disruption at their table, which includes both the character and the player.

Relixander wrote:

Luckily for me, to date every call I have made has been been supported by my players, GMs, and VOs.

What does that have to do with anything? Its anecdotal and biased. Most people who have a problem with you won't tell you actually, that's human nature. Its an appeal of sorts; Accomplishment? It doesn't actually assist the conversation though. I have no idea how good you are, but that's why its anecdotal and doesn't serve much.

More importantly, you might want to ask who's legitimately being hurt by two words on a sheet. In particular its more of an inside joke than one meant to hurt others, and one other people might see. Its also a stretch to think that the mention of the word Murderhobo drives people into a fit or rage. I've always been of the mind that if its not really hurting anyone may as well let someone have their fun. This isn't the guy burning down orphanages and cursing and trying to scare away business,(though they could be they are not mutual), and on the other hand putting down their fun for personal idealisms is very possibly being the jerk in the situation. Best to say murderhobo is fine but if they are legitimately going out of their way to be disruptive you've got a problem that needs to be dealt with through your coordinator and definitely not passive aggressively or through abusing your GM position.

My apologies it would appear I was mixing ideas/thoughts in two posts.

Relixander wrote:

If I decide someone is being disruptive at my table I can kick them on the spot, if they report me (and I would encourage them to do so) I will then suffer any consequence for being in the wrong if it is so determined. Again the rules have never and never will be in place to defend jerkish behavior. So is not playing within the campaign setting being a jerk? Depends on the GM, the other players, and the environment, will he get suspended, reprimanded, or kicked out of PFS GMing for considering not playing within the setting as being a jerk? Maybe some GM will, fortunately all of my calls to date have been backed up by my players, GMs and VOs.

Fail to see how it's disruptive, it's just a word on the character sheet. As other posters have previously noted, very few people make a big to-do about Day Job rolls.

It typically would not be, but a player could make it so. It is then up to the GM to determine if the level of disruption reaches a point of action, and then what action is taken.

some personal attacks

Yep, the GM can, if you offend him, kick you from the table. That player certainly has recourse and could possibly get the GM booted, but its well within a GM's right to not be offended.

I can undertand your frustration as you seem to be implying that the GM (specifically me), will take every opportunity to be a "jerk" and impose this rule at any whim or fleeting thought. Not the case, and I hope it would not be the case for any GM, however if you'd like to sling personal attacks, please take it to private messages and keep the board discussion a bit more on the polite side. I will not take your statements and hyperbolize them, so please don't do it to me.

Killing things...
If a character were on a mission from the Society, they are the ones taking the responsibility (usually, however there are scenarios that the Society will deny involvement, leaving you on your own again), by sanctioning the exploration of the citadel, whether you committed atrocities in doing so or not. If you are on a Society mission in (name any country) and are caught violating their laws you most certainly could face jail and or punishment, hopefully the society will help you out...

Pickpocketing is *not* allowed, it is stealing and as far as I know is not specifically *legal* anywhere in Golarion, so yes getting caught while pick-pocketing could also lead to repercussions from the authorities.

I did not "reach" for rules, my intent was not to "fight" anyone, I was taking part in a discussion about the rules of PFS and how they pertain to certain customized choices. I believe I also took extra effort to try to make my posts non-directioal avoiding terms like "you". I did not make up any rules, if we go by typical PFS standard a GM could make the argument if its not listed its not allowed (I'm unaware of a statement in PFS that allows for the creation of custom Professions). If there is no rule for it, it by default is left to the discretion of the GM. Ruining other peoples fun can also be an argument used from the other side. "Well, his stated profession breaks the verisimilitude of the campaign and ruins my fun." It is subjective, is it not?

Luckily for me, to date every call I have made has been been supported by my players, GMs, and VOs. I don't run the largest game day, nor have I been a society GM as long as many around, but I have never received any indication that I am the Jerk GM you would like to imply. So even if me arguing for leaving it up the the GM to determine if something is offensive, at his particular table, is offensive to you, then I guess you'll just have to report me and hope the Campaign leadership sees it your way and kicks me out!

Relixander wrote:

In addition a GM could make a valid argument that since murder is illegal, the character would then go to jail and face murder charges after rolling the day job check. I would additionally point out that the Society, would most likely, not only side with the authorities, but use their resources to make sure the character faced charges and punishment for the murders committed.

That's a lot of pathfinders going to jail. Mountain of corpses. Some missions are to straight up assassinate someone! Some have a bit of collateral and aren't just killing demons and monsters, some actually have you kill a lot of humans. Not always good humans mind you, but still people, and in populated areas.

Relixander wrote:

However, since it is subjective a GM can completely disagree and allow it.

You can't tell someone their completely legal choice isn't allowed. If you think someone is being disruptive though, you can contact your coordinator/VC and so on about it.

You completely ignored the part about legal sanctioning. Which counters your statements, completely. And yes if you get caught pick-pocketing your could face charges from the local authorities, again I see no reason the society would defend you, unless it specifically advences the mission (day jobs are not sanctioned by the Society, so your on your own there)

A summoned creature comes with any equipment listed in its entry. When it or its duration expires, it disappears along with any equipment it arrived with--no more, no less.

Even eidolons follow this rule unless your GM decides otherwise. Yes, this may make a summoner's Madge the Marilith idea less practical, but them's the rules.

Looking for the post, but as I seem to recall this was not completely true for eidolons (at least in PFS). I seem to recall that the equipment the eidolon has equipped travels with them to and from their home plane. Eidolons are aspects of the same unique creature each time, not a copy or aspect of a specific type of creature. I'll see if I can find the post. Eidolons don't have creature entries, they are built and have character sheets, and can then equip gear which becomes part of their "entry" (character sheet).

My point being using the Eidolon when discussing summons will do nothing but confuse the issue, I would avoid them as a reference. Hi-Jack not intended...

Edit. Thanks Vincent for the thread references and the ninja!

Relixander wrote:

Truly it comes down to one thing, is the GM offended. If he is you may not get your day job roll, if not you will. That simple.

I am highly offended at bartenders for serving alcohol and courtesans for not being appropriate for a younger age audience. Obviously these people are trouble makers and don't deserve a day job roll.

Not a big fan of that ideal.

The problem being of course that courtesans is already listed as an allowable profession. A bartender is not specifically listed, so sure a GM has the ability to disallow it (I would not), just like the ability to disallow Serial Killer, Murder-Hob, Computer (or Abacus) Programmer none of which are listed. A GM could easily reject any of those unlisted professions, based on them being offensive, not fitting the campaign, not fitting the setting, take your choice. If the setting did not allow alcohol (the Pathfinder setting does not make murder legal), then I would deny the roll as a bartender as well. Again the rules are *not* there to defend jerkiness, regardless of interpretation, so hard line of what offends and what does not could never be drawn it is subjective.

Murder is by definition *illegal* killing (in most cases the killing done in adventures are "monsters" which typically have no laws against being killed, evil doers that have been targeted by authorities, or other sanctioning by higher powers), so although the moniker is funny, and in an obtuse and misleading way descriptive of an adventurers life, it misrepresents nearly any campaign, setting, or adventure that does not play from an evil point of view (and actually misrepresents many of them as well). I would say that profession would be offensive to every Pathfinder (and most adventurers) in Golarion, and any player that actually role plays within the setting in the "real" world. However, since it is subjective a GM can completely disagree and allow it.

In addition a GM could make a valid argument that since murder is illegal, the character would then go to jail and face murder charges after rolling the day job check. I would additionally point out that the Society, would most likely, not only side with the authorities, but use their resources to make sure the character faced charges and punishment for the murders committed.

For specifics
Profession: Bounty Hunter - *legally* pursues and possibly kill fugitives, and return the subject or poof of death fugitives of the law... (there are illegal forms of this profession and if a player were to choose Murderous Bounty Hunter or Illegal Bounty Hunter, I would deny the roll as well).

Profession: Jerk - only if referring to a style of cooking ;) (maybe, how does the money making work for being a Jerk? movie/play royalties? insulting people for tips? or did you really mean Profession: Comedian ;p

Truly it comes down to one thing, is the GM offended. If he is you may not get your day job roll, if not you will. That simple.

I can not find anything specifically banning made-up professions, alternatively if some one came to my table with a profession of "Serial Killer" I would not allow their roll, being a serial killer is evil (whether LE, say the Dexter type, or CE, say the Manson type, or even an NE, sorry no example atm). The term Murder-Hobo (especially as a profession) can be taken offensively for many playing RPGs (another topic all together) and you should expect the reaction you are getting here, some vitriol, some comedy, some indifference. Same as if I were to use a profession of Serial Killer, albeit to a lesser degree (I assume) and hopefully less comedy. I don't think PFS should be a vehicle to test the limits of what is offensive and what is not. If players wish to do so, them make a private game let your offensiveness run wild!

Another example might be Profession: Computer Programmer. No evil side to that (some one will post about evil programmers, just wait...), but it will offend many players/GMs, for numerous reasons....
(although an Abacus Programmer may be a bit more comical, but I'm sure it would offend many of them same people who would feel slighted by Computer Programmer, they just might have a laugh first)

Just because its comical to some, does not make it not offensive to others. I sincerely doubt you'll find a consensus to allow some one to be offensive by citing the PFS rules or lack of PFS rules.

In general, I would not use the eidolon (as any sort of reference) when discussing summons, as they are a special type of summon, which has its own set of rules, in addition to using some of the general rules for summons. Eidolons "break" most summoning discussions as a result because their special rules are often mixed in without the proper context/exclusions. Further, many of the eidolon clarifications are in the messageboards, usually in multiple contradictory threads most without any real conclusion or pointer to the actual clarification.

No.. if you post an open game, you've got to take who comes in until you get the legal limit of 6.

If you want to play with fewer people, then make it private. You still need a minimum of three to report it though.

Yes, please cite a reference. I may need to resign, since I have already banned a couple of players from my public events!

Let's distinguish between a couple of similar situations:

* Three or four jerks at a table, with two or three players who want to play.
vs
* All six players are being doofuses.

I have few problem with the "0 XP, 0 prestige, 0 gold" solution for the second category, but it seems unfair to hand a "you lose" Chronicle to people just because they sat down at the wrong table.

PFS Coordinator: "What are you going to do for the next four hours?"
Innocent Player: "Find another game system."

--

* Players who want to pay attention, but who are playing "screww the authority" characters.
vs.
* Players who are trying to be disruptive.

The ideal situation is to get the players fired up about playing PFS and focused on success. The first type might already be there. Having the in-game Venture Captain put them on potato-peeling duty for the next month might just be the right response. They get to register their iconoclasm, and then the party gets down to bugbear-bashing and treasure-swiping.

The second type might wake up if we punish them for childish behavior, but maybe not.

GM: "Drengle Drang sighs, puts away his papers, and excuses you. The adventure is over. Give me a minute and I'll pass out your Chronicles."
Disruptive Player 1: "I paid $2 for ten minutes of nothing?! This GM sucks!"
Disruptive Player 2: "Hurry! Let's talk to the the coordinator to get in on another group!"

It might be better to STOP THE GAME and level with them.

Just a note from the other side of this. I have had basically the opposite experience. Forcing players to "play" with one or more people being intentionally disruptive/jerkish. The Jerk, even if he tones its down bit, rarely makes the game an enjoyable experience and the other players at the table come away with a horrible PFS experience. While the Jerk is enabled (after all he got the attention he wanted, didn't get kicked, and was still able to be a jerk, just a bot less of one), and will surely return because he knows he can get away with it. I have not ended a scenario at the briefing and the one time I probably should have resulted in a couple of new players I have not seen again, even after apologizing for the game session and the rude player. (I was flat out told, "That was the worst gaming experience I've ever had.") I don't know if ending the session with goose eggs for rewards would have done the trick to "save" the players, but it would have given them a better impression of a society game, and the typical society players.

...And it says free magical treasure, does that mean they pick something for free?

If the chronicle gives out a free item then the GM gets the same access. In general, a GM gets the rewards from the chronicle as though he played it with the character getting the chronicle, and got "maximum rewards" or did everything correctly. So if there are special rewards (boons, free items, etc.) the GM's character receives what a character would receive. If the special reward requires something to happen during the scenario, like befriending a specific NPC, or finding a hidden room, or making a donation to a shrine, killing a specific NPC, preventing the death of a certain NPC, etc., it is assumed it happened that way for the GM's character.

GM chronicles do not grant anything a player could not earn (with the exception of a table credit going towards GM stars), the GM "earns" the character rewards by putting in the time to run the game.

+1 Sense Motive

Woefully under-used skill by most in social situations. Also a great tool for the GM when used by the player, situational bonuses can make the difficulty change significantly. We use it constantly in accessing the people around us, even when we don't know it (which is related to the questions below). Don't forget though you can get the wrong impression as well. Didn't someone equate Sense Motive to Perception for social encounters?

Not intended as a derail, but would social encounters preclude the use of Take 10 for Sense Motive, or would social encounters be treated equivalent to being "distracted"?

I have been caught a couple of times by a higher level PC forcing a group up, (i.e. a party of 6 or 7 with one character in the high tier). Niether ended well.
I have taken it upon myself to advise the players about their group make-up. If you insist on playing the maximum level difference (i.e. a level 1 playing with a level 5 in a a Tier 1-5) expect disaster, or at least death.
The players have some responsibility of their party make-up. The levels, classes, and number of players can be important to the scenario and the party. The GM can, nay should, talk with the party about the group dynamic and how it could affect the scenario.
I think this has always been true though, however since Season 5 "hard codes" the subtier, it is easier to be challenged beyond a party's ability.
The GM knows what is coming in the scenario, he should have a good idea of how a party should do.

There will always be mathematical anomalies when dealing with averages. Sometimes the group has to decide how to change to make things "fair" or challenging. It works both ways, I have seen a group forced to play up because one player would not switch characters, death and failure resulted . So there are corner cases in both directions.

Diplomatic encounters can have "deaths" as an outcome; jail, removal from the society, etc.
Why couldn't there be diplomatic missions that have real consequences for failure, prestige loss, money loss, equivilent to death from combat? Are there any of note, not done by Gm fiat? Is it not as fun to horribly botch a diplomacy, go to jail, and not have the prestige to get out (marked as dead), as it is to die in some combat and not have the prestige to raise?

Typically, a medium sized creature does not actually occupy the entire 5' cube of space. This is also true (perhaps more so) when creatures get larger, a large creature does not usually completely occupy 10' cube of space, the additional space is provided for other game mechanics.
Typical ways to go through enemy square include (but may not be limited to), acrobatic movement, bullrush, overrun, the fact that climbing is involved may change what is available to certain creatures.

I don't know how slow advancement effects when you have a 3 XP adventure/Module that jumps you a level. Do you have to take it all slow XP and thus 'lock' the next level as slow play?

I would assume you would have to take the xp per the advancement you are currently at, thus, if you are on slow track, you would get 1/2 the regular xp. If that levels you with the extra half point, then I would assume it locks you into slow track for the next level. This would be a choice by the player, so the solution is easy, don't play that character.

Its like in law. I am playing the role of the defense (general rule), and you are the prosecution, trying to prove that this is a special case where "You need all of the above from any class OTHER than Hellknight." You gotta prove it. I just gotta sit here and look pretty.

Except the rules were never intended to be parsed like laws are, they are written in common language meant to be interpreted in context and with intent. There is a reason there is "legal ease" and that you need to have a great deal of education to "understand" laws.

Does RAW preclude common sense?

I have have always believed the rules should be interpreted with some intent. The rules are compilations of many peoples thoughts and writing styles, which lead to small variations of RAW, but are often clear when read with intent. Which is why we have a GM, to provide that intent (hopefully). When the rules are parsed and interpreted on strict logic, I think we often lose some of the obvious intent and occasionally allows an logical loophole in what would be common sense otherwise. I think it is common sense to say, "You can not use portions of a class, to qualify for prerequisites of that same class."

I disagree that no one has given anecdotal evidence of problems with such builds, there are numerous posts on the subject, not just this one. Most of the time people do not like to single out a person or character to "pick on" so they use generalities instead of specifics.

So if we find potential abuse of rules nothing should be done about it until there are what percentage of players doing it? 1% 5% 50%? At what threshold does one then act to correct it? If there is only one build that shows off an abuse to the rules, we should just allow them to abuse the rules because, well its only one character... If there are not many builds like this, then preventing the abuse will be far less disruptive than ignoring it until it does become a problem.

I agree that weapons cords do not seem to be the underlying cause, doubling of attacks is far more troublesome.

Is it overpowering? /shrug haven't done the damage calcs, but again, unless the gunslinger is designed to do about 50% of other damage dealing classes, unless they choose to use a double barrel gun, seems a bit strange. The only way it would work is if the gunslinger was way under-powered with normal iterative attacks (even without evidence, anecdotal or not, this seems unlikely to me).

P1 = Primary Hand

P2 = Secondary Hand

Assume both double barreled pistols are loaded

P1 = Shoot both barrels (attack action with -4 to both shots)
P1 = Reload both barrels (2 free actions)
P1 = Drop Weapon
P2 = Shoot both barrels
...

Not that it ultimately changes anything on the number of shots but the sequence is a little off, you have to drop one of the weapons before you can reload either (unless they are using another source for a free hand).

Meanwhile... (the rest does not directly relate to Andrew's post)

If reversing a FAQ clarification is considered a rewriting rules, then causing weapon cords to interfere with reloading guns is not an option (but it seems like a pretty simple fix, for weapon cords). The answer seems obvious to me then, [sarcasim] start making double bladed swords/axes, Siamese twin clubs, and X-staves to double the number of attacks from those weapons as well,[/sarcasim] or ban double barreled guns, don't double barrel two-hand guns have a similar problem?

The more I read the less I think weapon cords are the major component of the cheese factor, since the same thing can be accomplished other ways. A weapon that allows any character to double the number of attacks (even at a -4 and especially when that weapon targets touch AC) is potentially overpowering, unless the intent of the class was to lag far behind damage potentials unless they chose to use that weapon. Is there any class (besides pure/primary casters) that would NOT take a weapon that gave you twice as many attacks, even with a -4 to hit penalty, especially if you also have multiple attacks from BAB or TWF?

Although if rules were up for debate, reconsidering the ease of subverting the two major drawbacks of guns, the associated ammo cost and the built in fumble chance (misfires) could be an area to make adjustments.

Wow, that rambled on a bit, my apologies.

Rolling a bad number on a random die, is not related to system mastery. Having a string of bad rolls by multiple players is not related to system mastery.
What is your expected will save for a level 7 rogue? he starts with a base of 2...

So with a roll of 2, he only would have needed a bonus of 15.. Which he only would have needed to spend around 75,000 gold, if he could get stacking bonuses.

A bonus of 6-7 to a will save is pretty good for a level 7 rogue (and several other classes), which means he would need a 10 or better to make a DC17, roughly a 50% failure.

It sure is upsetting when things like that happen in a game, but as your other player pointed out, dice are random. I'll point out a DC17 save at level 7 is not quite the auto success being implied.

Has your GM bumped up the difficulty of your oppenents to adjust for your amazing stats, bonus feat, and cash? If so, then "crushing" the dungeon would be relative also.

If you find yourself not having fun, then your should certainly find another group or have a discussion with the group about gaming style. However, getting mad at other players because they didn't make a 17 will save when rolling under 5, seems a little over-reactive, but we all play for different reasons

Why not simply call reloading a gun a "fine" action, thus weapon cords can not be "in use" (i.e. weapon dangling) while you reload a gun.

"... Unlike a locked gauntlet, you can still use a hand with a weapon cord, though a dangling weapon may interfere with finer actions."

I have made this ruling in home games for a while now. Just like I have ruled weapon cords interfere with spell casting with somatic components (although I have only ever seen one spell caster using weapon cords).

Disarm builds are not invalidated by weapon cords, they make it more difficult because now you must work in a sunder or *gasp* rely on a group member for something (like a sunder...)

Although a straight up ban would discourage table variation, so in that way I think a ban is better for the rule set/campaign. I do think the problem could be fixed simply by calling out certain things as "finer" actions. The "out" for reloading cheese and some caster cheese is to enforce the "finer actions" portion of weapon cords.

Well thats stupid. >_< He runs up to me, starts to swing, I hit him 1st, move back, he then recovers, moves and still has time to hit me.

Remember "turns" really are an abstraction that allows us to resolve perhaps dozens of simultaneous actions that occur in a mass of chaos typically. It may help to envision the actions taking place simultaneously for certain siutations and in an actual order for others, "turns" really are for adjudication, not to explain how things occur.

The warrior begins to charge, the fighter sees a quick opening, takes a strike and quickly steps away, the warrior adjusts his charge (since he had remaining movement) and spins to deliver the attack with the same force he had with his original momentum.

The ready, and charge (movement) make sense to see as occurring in a defined order, but the AoO and attack from the charge could easily be seen as occurring simultaneously. Remember an "attack" could be as little as "no time" an AoO or up to 6 seconds worth of "action" (full round), a lot of shifting, parries, ducks, dodges, feints, and ineffective strikes could take place in 3 seconds (standard/move action). It can lead sometimes, to a time paradox, like actions that trigger other actions never actually occurring, but when viewed as simultaneous actions they are far less paradoxical (usually).

Turns are an abstraction that allow us to orderly resolve a chaotic situation, like combat. Don't forget that really everyone's turn occurs simultaneously, and the game simply allows us to resolve them in a specific order. Secondly, although we may roll a single melee attack, in game terms, that could actually play out as several "swings", its a matter of how you look at combat. It is left to the story telling to say what happens, in one situation it could be a rope hanging down from the ceiling in the fights that allows the disarm, or a banana peel, or a truly amazing feat of dexterity.. it really doesn't matter, each fight, each situation can and will be different and should be left to determine during each specific case. Resolving the AoO as described does not seem to far fetched, really.

Brainy readies to disarm
Brawny charges
Brainy attempts the disarm
Brawny seeing the attempt to attack his weapon, spins, or turns, or ducks, or jumps, or turns, or sidesteps, or whatever, and while doing so takes a swing at Brainy (the AoO) as Brainy leaves an opening
After taking the quick opening provided by Brainy, Brawny finishes the charge

The AoO does not "have" to take place "as the axe is coming down from the charge action". Although as shown in the previous post, even that interpretation can be handled with a simple explanation. IMO this is part of the GMs (or players creativeness and to what happens when some one swings a [weapon] would not only take away this point of creativity, it would cause more problems with interpretations.

Certain interactions are a bit more challenging (like resolving AoOs) to explain than others, but so far I don't think I have ran into a situation caused by the rules that I was unable to resolve with at least some "real-life" plausibility, besides when a wizard does it.

...

I can create the tables for other Tiers if there is interest and you feel it will be useful.

I do think expanded tables could be useful to a lot of GMs. Using total party level is easier than APL (removes a calculation), APL is the way Pathfinder wants to express it though. I was hoping a single table could express it concisely.

I added an image to the Helpful Resources folder of the GM Shared Prep drive, if anyone finds it useful, it is formatted a little better and a couple of small edits.

SubTier Chart.png

Not quite right, as I understand it.

A party of more than four players, of APL a little than 'X' (so the APL rounds up to X) is not always forced to play high (sub)tier; if none of the charactiers is of the level to play in the high subtier they can choose which subtier to play

I ninja added a note before seeing your post John, I swear ;p

Oh and the relevant section:

Determining Subtiers
In order to determine which subtier a mixed-level group of PCs must play in, calculate the group’s average party level (APL). Divide the total number of character levels by the number of characters in the party. You should always round to the nearest whole number. Starting with Season 4, scenarios are designed for six characters and contain instructions on how to adjust the scenario for four-character parties. When the APL of a table is between two subtiers (like APL 3 for a Tier 1–5 scenario), a party of four characters must play the lower tier without any adjustments for party size. A party of five to seven characters whose APL is between two subtiers must play the higher tier with the four-character adjustment.
For scenarios written in Seasons 0 to 3, when the APL is in between subtiers, a party of six or seven characters must play the higher subtier. Parties with four or five characters must play the lower subtier. In the fringe case where there are no players that are high enough to have reached the subtier level (such as a party of six 3rd level characters), the group may decide to play down to the lower subtier.

Its a little late so I wanted to double check this chart before I sent it to another GM, can some one double check for me.

_______________Season 0-3____________________Season 4-5
APL_____4-5 Players____6-7 Players____4 Players___5-7 Players
<X_________Low Tier_______Low Tier______Low Tier*___Low Tier
=X<X.5_____Low Tier_______High Tier______Low Tier____High Tier*
=X.5_______Choice________Choice________Choice______Choice
>X.5_______High Tier_______High Tier______High Tier*___High Tier

Where X is 3 for Tier 1-5, 5 for Tier 1-7, 5 for Tier 3-7, 7 for Tier 5-9, and 9 for Tier 7-11
*Scale the encounters for 4 players
Note: If no players are in the High Tier *(all are <=X) the group has its Choice of which Tier to play.

grr formatting, its so much easier in a spreadsheet (oh and everywhere its says Tier it should say SubTier, not fixing the formatting again...)

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Unarmed strikes are a finessible weapon. "your body" is not a weapon.

What does this term 'your body' have to do with anything? You use your hands to grapple as explained in the grapple rules. Hands are considered a close weapon(actually, any part of the body is, despite your claim to the contrary). A grapple is an attack role. Finesse allows you to sub dex on attack roles. Any distinction between disarm & grapple is purely arbitrary and I don't really see a reason to slap another feat tax onto a dex build just so they can try to be a dexy grappler, who will never actually hold anyone pinned, or do any damage once in a grapple...

I don't see in the grapple rules where it states hands are the only way to grapple, it makes sense that a "grapple" could actually be done without the use of hands at all (although if your hands are not free you'd take a -4 penalty according to RAW anyway), legs locks, body blocks (effectively restricting the opponents movement enough to give the grappled condition). I could not find specifics on how a grapple occurs outside of specific abilities. Couldn't one essentially "trap" (note I did not use pin.. as that is a different condition ;) a person against an adjacent wall/pillar/obstacle restricting their movement to the point of a successful grapple, but never actually "grabbing" the opponent?

edit* Bah ninja'd by BNW and ayronc!

I'll take a shot at a "logical" argument against.

When making a grapple attempt with hands/limbs, as stated previously by the developers feats/skills/abilities are written with humanoid characters in mind, you are not attempting to strike with your unarmed attack (which gets the bonus from weapon finesse), you are attempting to control the other person in some way by grabbing them or restricting their movement in some way (which means you may not be using your hands, exactly how a grapple occurs is highly dependent on the situation at hand). I agree there is some logic with dexterity being used for the initial grab, but part of the grapple is holding and controlling the person. Although a highly dexterous character may be able to wriggle and writhe out of a grapple more easily (as seen with escape artist), to actually hold and control a grapple without some specialized training (represented by agile maneuvers) is strength based.

This is definitely more in the lines of RAI than RAW, but I think it gives an adequate reasoning.

I think under some special circumstances however the weapon finesse could be applied to the roll, for example: If a character/NPC has an ability that grants a free grapple attempt upon a successful strike (similar to the monster ability Grab) then I would allow finesse for the attempt if it was applicable to the strike (not to maintain, just for the initial strike/grapple, it would still be strength based to maintain unless agile maneuvers is present). But I doubt all GMs would see it this way.

How does a Pathfinder identify themselves?

Initiative!

I wanted to get a feel for other GMs and how they deal with the meta-gaming that often revolves around the AoO, combat reflexes, and provoking.

How I deal with the issue:

Real combat isn't static. The combatants don't just stand there and take their one (or more) swipes per turn (as I've seen discussed in numerous threads). So your attack is your "good oppotunity" to land a solid blow (one that isn't parried, or dodged, or glances of his shield as would happen in actual combat).

I read the same thing for combat reflexes. All it represents is their "good opportunity" to stike a creature, not that they won't "try" and hit you going past, even if they've used up their "good opportunity".

So, the first combatant, A1, somehow provokes from B1. Attack gets rolled as normal, but unlike normal attack rolls, I roll my AoOs behind the screen, to begin minimizing meta-gaming. The next player, A2, will often think to themself, and sometimes even verbalize "they've taken their AoO, i'll just walk past them"

This is where, behind the screen, I'll roll again. Of course, if they don't have Combat Reflexes, the roll is moot, but the dice and my verbalization, "He swings as you walk by, slamming into your armour, which absorbs the entirety of his blow", or a "glancing blow, successfully parried" I find can break the meta involved, or at least try to minimize it. I like the surprised look I get when a player thinks the coast is clear but maybe, just maybe, it really isn't.

How do you try to negate this type of meta?

I don't think its meta-gaming. Even the most socially oriented adventurer would have knowledge of minimal combat tactics. Knowing when there is a good opportunity to pass through an area unmolested is a minimal combat tactic (some might even say innate), so its not meta gaming. Its also not a difficult thing to realize that an enemy is quicker than most (combat reflexes) once that enemy has taken more than one AoO. Sometimes characters could even make assumptions based the actions of the enemy, that it might be quicker than normal (combat reflexes) and choose not to take actions to find out.

You also need to keep in mind that there are different penalties for moving through a threatened square versus an opponent's space. Moving through a threatened square provokes an AoO if the Acrobatics check is failed; moving through an opponent's space provokes an AoO and you lose the move action. So, while you might not provoke the AoO from an opponent that doesn't have Combat Reflexes (if it has already taken the AoO from your sidestep), you'd still be stuck in an adjacent square if you failed the CMD+5 check.

I might even let a PC try this...but I'd certainly require a second acrobatics check.
Also also, since you're moving at half speed, that 5 feet of movement sideways would cost you 10 feet of movement, and the diagonals would cost you 15 feet each. You'd be at 40 feet of movement when you got to the other side of the opponent, not 15. Without something that lets you move faster than the 30-foot base speed, you'd need to double move to even try this (and thus end your turn if you fail).

I retract my previous statement and agree. A check to move through the occupied square would still be required, regardless of the ability for a person to take an attack of opportunity. You could not move freely through an enemy square, even if they did not threaten AoOs. You may not take an attack from the enemy, but he could still prevent the movement. This could still work under RAW, simply apply the roll (if taken) from the sidestep to the movement through the square, it is still only one roll. After thinking a bit more on this, it is no different than a high AC mobile character trying to make the enemy waste AoOs before party members approach/run by.

I couldn't find an answer to this anywhere in the forum (used the search button).

1) When trying to tumble through an opponent square it is CMD+5, but through a threatened square it is only CMD (let's ignore additional opponents nearby for now...), since the FAQ clearly states that the check is only once per enemy (not square), and that the check my be done immediately upon leaving the threatened square - why couldn't you just do the following:

Side step opponent (5'), take the CMD check for leaving threatened square.
b) go diagonally through the opponent's square (5') then leave it through the other side (5'). You have thus moved half your movement (15' assuming you had 30' to begin with), and prevented the opponent from forcing your acrobatics with a +5 modifier (since the roll had to be made when you first sidestepped, using only the regular 'out of threatened square', rather than the +5 modifier for 'through an opponent's square'.

2) This is just a clarification - does the +5 only apply to the opponent through square you are moving, or also to any adjacent opponents (meaning, is it CMD + 5 for opponent square, and then CMD + 2 for opponent adjacent to opponent square, or is it CMD +5, and CMD + 5 + 2)?

Many thanks.

1) As far as I can tell this is would be allowed under RAW. I think it's effectiveness will vary greatly on the situation.

2) I think I understand what you are asking, and the +5 is only when you pass through the occupied square.
example: I try to pass through 3 occupied squares in a single round of movement (assume the CMD of the opponent is 10), I will need to make three rolls against the following DCs in order: 10+5, 10+5+2, 10+5+2+2. If I add a fourth opponent who gets an AoO against me at the end, but I do not have to move through their square I make another check against a DC of 10+2+2+2+2.

As a GM there are far too many interactions of the rules for me to be an expert on each class and all its possibilities. I believe I have a good grasp on the core mechanics and some what of an idea of when most classes step outside the rules whether intentional or not.
On a related note, I find it very frustrating when players assume the GM knows everything. They cast or use some ability, and expect the GM to not only know what is does, but also the mechanics as related to their character (DC's). Its even better when they do it in combat and don't have the relevant resource ready. Sorry I needed to vent a little ;p

I wanted to check to see if others are seeing the first map the same way I am.

The lines describing the map are:

"The water varies in depth, from only 2 feet in shallower
spots to 10 feet at the deepest."
and
"...flooded fields sectioned off by raised, earthen
walkways that converge on a larger, dry area."

I assumed the brown portions of the map are "dry" (normal terrain), the light blue are the shallow areas (difficult terrain) and the dark blue areas are the deep areas(swimming).

Although the approach lanes are defined and narrow, and requires a jump at DC10 or a few jumps at DC5, but are not difficult terrain, unless the PC chooses to go through the flooded field(s).

I am completely in agreement with you yosemitemike, as long as you view Season 5 as a completely independent set of rules that has had no evolution based upon previous seasons, messagboard posts, Paizo Blog, and other official releases. Viewing the current ruleset in a vacuum without allowing reference to previous rulesets, messageboard posts, and other clarifications is disingenuous at best, especially since many of the recent changes were prompted precisely due to the way "playing up" worked. It is all relevant to determining what the current ruling should be in lieu of a clarification. Without a clear repeal of the way GM credit is rewarded, it makes no sense to, *interpret* otherwise. It is all relevant, especially the entire concept of playing up, why it was discouraged by removing it as a choice...

I also agree a brand new GM with no access to a mentor or internet could rationalize giving higher tier rewards for their GM credit, regardless if the character was in a dead level or not (references the strawman), but I don't believe a GM lacking that newbish ignorance could come to that conclusion. In a year or two from now, I think it would be more relevant as there could be many GM's that had not GM'ed under previous rule sets.

As said before I am in agreement that a clarification is needed to help discourage unscrupulous behavior.

A level 3 playing in subTier 4-5 is still "playing up". The strawman works for dead levels also! I was not presenting this as a strawman intending to trap you into the idea of giving high tier rewards to low tier, it was simply a way to present "playing up" as a concept and reality is still there, the idea, has not been eliminated. Although, it has been discouraged by removing the choice (in most situations) and discussed at length on the messageboards on why it was being discouraged, some by campaign leadership. We can not take rules out of, nor apply them without, context.

The entire concept of choosing to "play up" has been removed entirely so references to "playing up" are no longer meaningful or relevant. Nothing has been done to discourage "playing up" because the concept is no longer a relevant one. You playing according to average level and number of players.

Yep, the entire idea of playing up was removed, so why would you think they would keep it around for a no risk GM chronicle. The concept is still there, it is simply not a choice, except for a few corner cases. A level one playing in Tier 4-5 is still "playing up" the gold reward isn't quite as nice as it used to be though.

Nothing in the current version actively discourages or encourages or addresses one option or the other at all.

Again the entire idea of of interpreting rules based on... " It doesn't say I can't" *is* the bastion of unscrupulousness. I believe the intent is obvious based on previous guides, numerous messageboard posts, and the changes made from season 4 to season 5 is that GM's take the lower tier, by removing the option to play up, in most situations, perhaps they also assumed they could take out the statement due to redundancy or it was simply an oversight. Until clarified I see no reason to make a new interpretation of the rules due to a lack of a previous statement.

The whole "playing up" thing just isn't relevant any more because there is no such thing as playing up. In the one edge case described, the default is playing the higher tier and players can chose to play the lower one instead. Even if were still a relevant reference, the tier an adventure was played at has nothing to do with what the GM receives. That's quite clear.

There is playing up (see first above). IF you are not happy using the phrase, simply substitute "taking rewards from a higher tier". There are four previous seasons and numerous message board posts, and probably some leadership clarification on this topic already. You are right, the tier played has never had anything to do with the GM rewards, the GM *always* took the lower tier (when they got rewards at all). No argument.

This isn't just a matter of unscrupulous players trying to "cheat". There is room for legitimate, actual disagreement here. No one in pH unbalanced's example is trying to cheat. They are simply trying to answer a simple question asked by a new GM by reading what the document says. Reducing other views to simply unscrupulous people trying to cheat is disingenuous.

It isn't *just* a matter of scruples, but acting like that isn't a huge part of it is also disingenuous. If ignorance of previous guides and rules was the reasoning behind pH's group determination of why the GM should get to "play up" with chronicle items, then that is legitimate and why I agree'd that a clarification may be warranted. However, if there were experienced GM's or even players familiar with the rules for previous seasons, or have been to the messageboards regularly, or have been participating in PFS to any significant degree, I think it *is* unscrupulous, regardless of the definition of *is*.

I didn't say cheating, please don't change my wording with the intent to inflame with an opinion I did not express. It wouldn't be cheating, at this time, as you have pointed out, it *is* unscrupulous and the reason that word was chosen. In the real world I can got to jail for cheating (on taxes) but not for being unscrupulous (on taxes).

Gaming the system not illegal, it *is* unscrupulous behavior and should be discouraged. Part of the "playing up" problem was it allowed players to game the system, easily, as well as pressure other players at the table to play above their tier, leading to the the system wide changes to "playing up". Assuming this is an oversight in the guide, GM's and players with previous knowledge of how GM chronicles were awarded, in lieu of a clarification, would be acting unscrupulously by taking the higher tier items. Cheating is unscrupulous, but one can be unscrupulous and never cheat.

If it is not an oversight and the intent was to allow GMs to take higher tier rewards for dead level characters, then I will eat some crow when that comes to light.

The previous way to deal with GM credits between Tiers was they received credit for the lower tier, no "playing up" with a GM credit. With all that has been done to dscourage playing up, I find it hard for any GM to rationalize "playing up" with their no risk GM credit. However, there are apparently a plethora of GMs who will not only take, but will actively argue to receive, credit in a way that has been specifically discouraged by campaign leadership. So the removal of the phrase that appeared in previous guides is being seen as a relaxation of that rule, instead of a statement that is implied by actions of the campaign and other general rules and was no longer needed.
If there are that many GMs out there actually arguing to "play up" with their GM credit because they are using the logic of it doesn't say I can't... Even though it is has been discouraged to the point of making system changes to discourage "playing up", then a clarification statement is probably needed.
I don't believe there is anything, besides absence, to support the idea of "playing up" for GM rewards, but plenty of precedent to support the opposite. "It doesn't say I can't..." tends to be the worst possible way interpret rules, as it will always ignore the intent.
I could be completely wrong, maybe the campaign is going one way with the player base and and doing a 180 with respect to GM characters. Which is why I'll agree that the unscrupulous types definitely need the rule to be clarified.
Although that could be a GM boon idea... "This Boon allows a GM credit to "play up" 1 Tier on the Chronicle that follows."