Richard Southard's page

The problem here is that many people either forget, do not understand or do not care about the concept of dynamic party characteristics. In Society play it is almost guaranteed that whatever your characters beliefs and personality you will at some point encounter another character that rubs them the wrong way. Everyone should play the game with the mindset that at some point you will have to make character concessions in order to help the game be fun. Never make an uncompromising character! It is fine to have characters that do not like each other. So here is a radical idea, use that as a chance to be creative with your role-playing. We have a local player who played a Taldan (retired character now) that was well known to constantly insult everyone around him and was universally lauded as one of the most fun characters at the table. He would say things such as…

“Your plan is terrible. Something I would expect from such low breeding. Even the servants in Taldor could come up with a better plan. I shall go along just to see you fail.” And when the plan succeeds. “Well of course we succeeded. I was along to save your miserable lives. Were it not for me, you would have died the terrible deaths you likely deserve. You should thank me and offer me your shares of the treasure!”

Now at no time would he ever actively work against the party or hinder any player. He just simply insulted them more. “Though I should leave you to die in pox infested torture, I have healed you so that you may always remember the day you have been touched by greatness!”

In the extreme cases, there is nothing wrong with addressing the party out of character and working out a solution. “Hey guys I don’t want to be a pain, but I just don’t see a way my Paladin can go along with this. Does anyone have any ideas hoe we can make this work?” While I am of the opinion that there are far too many judges who think that Paladins have to be Lawful Stupid or the fall immediately, but I digress……I have come across very few situations that could not be worked through rather easily.

Bottom line. You character being a jerk in not an excuse for you to be a jerk.

Ishihari, Nagaji, Fighter(Weapon Master)4/Soceror1/Dragon Disciple1

Brother Justice, Ifrit, Gunslinger (Mysterious Stranger)1/Paladin (Sacred Servant)1 [Next level will be Sacred Servant, then three levels of Fighter(Weapon Master)with Sacred Servant again for everything after.

Note: The last build is a group Gunslinger build that Several of us locals are doing together with our Ifrits.

Brother Vengeance swaps Sacred Servant for Divine Hunter and then goes back to Gunslinger after the fighter levels.

Brother Wrath also takes Divine Hunter, Skips the Fighter levels and goes straight into Sorcerer.

I will not claim to be the best GM in PFS or anything remotely close, but I do try hard to be. My goal it to run a game that is fun for all.

Sometimes I fail.

Sometimes my games run long. People run late or in a hurry to get back home to their families. I have forgotten to sign or initial sheets. I have written down incorrect gold. I have made bad rulings. Incorrectly stated rules. Used wrong stat blocks. Not prepped games as well as I should.

The list goes on and on.

My point is that I make mistakes. With each of these mistakes I try to learn and get better with what I do. Gming is a skill that requires constant improvement.

This is why Kyle is right in calling out some of the people here. A rule has been implemented. If you are unwilling to even try to comply with the new rule, then you are being unreasonable. No one is saying that mistakes will not be made or that the ITS will cure all ills. They are saying that the advantages far outweigh the cost in time it will take to use them.

It does mean that you may have to adjust your GM style to allow for the extra time. I suspect that the impact will be minimal, but time will tell.

My 2 copper.

I will always have a problem with a GM, let alone a VO, who uses the phrase "Not at my table." Especially when referring to a Legal option. Mostly because the statement is hostile and adversarial. It is petty tyranny based an an assumption of authority. Being a VO mean you have more responsibility, not more authority. There are far more respectful and mature ways to deal with a situation than boastful ultimatums.

The opinions expressed in this thread on how to keep a table fun for all have much merit. But if VO's would like to see something banned for any reason, they have a direct resource. Make your case to your fellow VO's and to Mike Brock and see what can be done. Until then if you have a player who is zapping fun from a table, pull them aside and have a polite and respectful talk with them.

Or in other words, how about we all try to act like adults and treat each other with respect. This is a complicated game we play with astounding number of varying personalities. Try and enjoy it.

Well something that should be noted here is that "Best" is determined by the goal. Most people seem to be focusing on the overall damage. While that metric is relevant, having a few options available is very key to being a successful summoner. For example Hogarth lists for SM6 the Dire Tiger. The Dire Tiger can dish out quite a beat down, but at that level of play they can become inflexible. Consider the Erinyes. Not quite the damage of a Dire Tiger, but not horrible either. They also have both good Ranged and Melee so are immediately versatile. Coupled with their Constant True Seeing and their ability to fly, the Erinyes quickly become a very appealing option that can solve many tactical problems that the Dire Tiger can not. Or even a Lilend Azata. If your party already has a good front line, then summon a Bard and make them even better. And don't forget to let them heal up the party before their time expires. Or a Huge Air elemental harassing an enemy caster can be very effective.

Point being that "Best" does not always mean highest damage output. As mentioned above maybe the best tactic for a combat is to summon some Lemurs and have them pin opponents in place. Or as I once did, "Best" means summoning a Celestial Dolphin to take out the Undine who tried to swim away with our McGuffin.

Yes summoning is all about grabbing the right tool for the job.

stuff

I understand your point that many of the Faction missions area a little too "forced". I think it is an unavoidable problem when a writer is forced to shoehorn 10 side quests (quasi-skill challenges) into the time frame of a PFS scenario. That well dries up very quickly.

OK, my two copper.

Factions and by extension Faction Missions were a great idea with some basic flaws that caused them to evolve poorly. While the flavor is inspiring and helps create the "feel" for PFS that has made it successful, the the end result has become trivial.

The primary problem with Faction Mission is one of time. Time is a precious resource for a PFS scenario. Trying to tell a compelling story, advance a meta-plot, engage is exciting and challenging combat while completing so many side-quests is simply too much for the time frame required of a PFS scenario. That is why so many faction missions come off as bland and trivial. The writers are trying to stuff 70 cubic feet of material into a Bag of Holding Type 1. They simply do not have the time to give them all the love they deserve.

So while I love so many things about the Factions and could regale everyone with fun memories of Faction Missions, we simply need to prioritize and decide what is really important to pack into our scenarios. IMHO Faction Mission need to be cut. Or at least morphed into something else.

Ok, now suggestion time.

Let prestige be linked to a Primary and Secondary mission for each individual scenario. Eliminate faction missions entirely as a mechanic and let the inter-faction rivalry rest int he hands of the meta-plot. Since Prestige is already tracked by faction, let this be a tool for the Powers that Be in developing future scenarios. I would love to see a quarterly blog post that helps to outline what is going on. Maybe int he form of a underground publication within the society. A gossip rag, so to speak. Maybe published by an unknown author. (Maybe Shadow Lodge remnants still fighting against the Decemvirate?)

Now to keep the flavor of the Factions, I would love to see a greatly expanded list of uses for Prestige. Link these purchases more closely with the Factions. Give us unique and flavorful options that are different to each Faction. And don't be afraid to have some very nice mechanical effects. With a large list of options Prestige will quickly become a precious commodity. So make these purchases meaningful and they will add flavor and depth to the factions.

Ok enough typing for now. How reads long posts anyway? Hope I have provided food for thought.

So I actually read this beast of a thread. Figured I might as well add my two copper.

1. Thread title could have been better. Even if it was not RD's intention, I cans see why it came across as hostile.

2. RD (and others that followed) make some valid point about internal inconsistencies at Paizo that make their way into finished products. This is far from a huge problem but defiantly not a small one either. While I think it is fair to bring our concern about this and other issues to light, we should all remember to be respectful.

3. This is speculation on my part, but I think this entire issue can best be described as "growing pains". Paizo has seen wonderful and even unexpected growth. While this has been great for them as a company and for us as a customer, it does lead to a certain amount of developer entropy. Some issues fall into the cracks and keep getting set aside with the best of intentions.

In conclusion I would would leave a note for Paizo.

Dear Paizo,

Thank you for your hard work and your wonderful products. I am a loyal customer and will likely be for the foreseeable future. From time to time I am going to bring forth problems that I deem worthy of your time and effort to solve. The inconsistencies mentioned in this thread are such a problem. It is my belief that Paizo needs to address this issue as a whole and not just the individual errors. I apologize but my unfamiliarity with your day to day working makes it difficult for me to offer suggestions. Thank you for your time and consideration.

From a self-appointed representative member of your customer base.

That is true, but I can't think of a single reason why a Paladin might want to join the Sczarni faction...

I mean what are the odds that the clergy and the mafia would ever have any connection......

@stringburka: I am not saying the player CANNOT do it. from a legal stand point I have not in any way restricted the player from the action... the question is flavor, would the god discourage repeated abuse of the power the god provides.

You have yet to establish that "wasting" a smite is an abuse of power. The god's opinion probably would vary from god to god. But either way the rules in no way account for this beyond GM fiat.

remember when a divine character is using divine magic they are not casting spells of their own power, they are requesting that the god expend divine power at the characters request. A god, especially a paladins god, should expect a certain standard of use. I dont expect the gods would appreciate being asked to smite a bear protecting its cubs any more than they would appreciate being asked to cure a scraped knee with cure critical wounds.

A bear would be neutral and the smite would fail, so the gods have a build in mechanic to "punish" the paladin for "wasting" a smite. And as for god's reaction, as I said above, your opinion becomes GM fiat and not within the scope of the RAW.

@quartar: As an oath of vengeance cleric he can burn 2 lay on hands for a smite. giving him at this point 7 or 8 smites a day (which is the primary reason he chose oath of vengeance) also the players are in an over land travel situation and generally know that encounters are more or less once per day thus no need for resource rationing per battle. (yes I can throw a lot at them but it would seem forced and deliberate punishment)

You should not restrict players form using their characters bcause your campaign design to not account for their abilities. A Paladin going nova with smites because he knows this is likely his only encounter each day is no different than a Wizard going Nova with his best spells for the same reason. It's kind of a jerk move to restrict one of them simply because a plausible flavor excuse exists.

To sum up: Your problem is not the Paladin, but rather your 15 minute work day. You are focusing on a symptom. Come up with some ways to fix the true problem. Several suggestions have been made for this and many more are available if you request them.

Again, Free actions that are already built into other actions don't need to be moderated. such as taking out components for spellcasting, arrows and bolts, or shuriken.

It's the Free Actions which are separate discrete maneuvers that need to be moderated. Reloading a fire arm is a separate discrete action which is not part of shooting it.

A lot of this is just common sense. Calling out a short phrase isn't an issue. Reciting the Gettysburg Address as a "free action" is something to be called on.

And here you give away the game and admit to what others are saying. You claim you allow only one free action a round. Yet here you admit you are CHOOSING to moderate Certain free actions to just one a round and not all. A free action is a free action is a free action. You can not claim that some do not count. Free Action is a clearly defined game term. You are trying to sneak in a back door house rule to nerf a rule you do not like. It is wrong and a clear violation of the PFS guidelines.

Joko PO wrote:

Anyone have any insight as to why the GraveWalker Witch got the axe?

Probably something to do with the flavor, as noted from the text in the PRD.

"Spell Poppet: Each gravewalker carries around a gristly, inanimate poppet stitched from human skin and stuffed with shards of bone, fingernails, and grave dirt. A gravewalker's spells come from the will of evil spirits residing in the poppet, and its ability to hold spells functions in a manner identical to the way a witch's spells are granted by her familiar."

Riiiiight. But I can now play a Chelaxian Tielfing Necromancer who likes to cast spells with he Evil descriptor. You will excuse me if I now go and see if I can listen to the sound of a hair splitting.

What if I told you I'm not interested in shutting it down and don't think it's cheesy?

Begging the question much? Either claim that is the case or not.

You're meta-foruming. You are establishing what you assume my stance and motives are and then interpreting/ignoring my words as necessary to allow you to justify it. A forumite should evaluate posts first and then make a reasonable decision of what the poster is actually saying.

I will grant this is possible. A review of the thread leads to to believe that I may have amalgamated other views into my responses with you. It was not intentional. That does not mean that I may not be right for the wrong reasons. Are you claiming my assumptions were false?

Generally speaking, forums are a poor medium for conveying intention and motives.

Easy there, Joko PO. Sometimes a different interpretation of rules is just a different interpretation of rules, not cheesy jerkishness of houseruling.

Well for the record I do agree that the OP's combination is cheesy in an eye rollingly take a deep breath sort of way. And such blatant stinky cheese annoys me greatly.

What annoys me more are GM's that essentially ban things because they do not like it. GM's do not have that freedom in PFS. In this specific case the RAW is very much in the OP's corner. I don't like it either, but I can not deny it. I just can not try to rewrite the rules to fit my personal opinion. That is how shared campaigns work. Sometimes you just have to swallow the stinky cheese and make the best of it.

My first PFS Character is a Monk. Now 11th level. I can not overstate how useful the Feat Ki Throw has been. It is an incredible force multiplier. Dropping your opponent prone into a flanking position and/or a charge lane is an amazing advantage.

So the lesson here is that if Good characters want to kill Evil creatures then they have to find a way to get the DM to declare initiative first.

To play Devil's Advocate, I'd hate to mention it but players do have skill immunity. Sure, you can give a player the shaken condition with Intimidate, but as GM I'll never force a PC to surrender or to tell me exactly what the NPC wants to know, even if my NPC just beat a DC 40 on his Intimidate skill.

"Sorry guys, you break down, surrender and tell Rimetusk all about your mission. The troll just beat DC 40 on his Intimidate check. Everyone hand in your sheets."

The same goes for Diplomacy. Just because an NPC has a +50 Diplomacy, no GM has ever forced a PC to:
1) Provide a service for less or take a lesser cut of the loot.
2) Force a PC to stop interrogating the NPC for information, because he's just too damn nice.
3) Stop an attack. "No, you can't attack him, you like him far too much"
4) Sell a magic item for less money than normal

Players would go CRAZY.

So my point is, "Players are already immune to many skill checks".

Well first off I never said I optimized Intimidate. I did not. I have some ranks in it with a Charisma of 10, With a trait that works out to be +8 at lvl 3. So enough to be useful but far from optimized. I also hav ranks in Bluff and Diplomacy and use those skills as well. but ultimately the level of PC skill is irrelevant to my point.

Second of, regarding the rest of your post, you must play a far different game then I because yeah that happens, a lot. As a matter of fact we totally got hosed by Rimetusk due to HIS maxed out Intimidate. (Oh sure the writers can use Intimidate.) Our great ambitions quickly turned into "Whatever you say Mr. Rimetusk." Mainly because, I don't know, umm that is how the rules work. Do we get to ignore hit point damage as well if it does not fit well into our character concept? "Well that would normally hit my AC, but it would really cramp my style so I will ignore the rules on this one?"

It's like getting upset that your trip-specialist can't trip snakes and oozes.

It is not at all alike. One is a published rule and one is a subversion of one. A trip specialist knows from the start that all oozes can not be tripped. Not just the ones the writers feel like not being tripped.

For metaplots to function, Mr. Camelot, sometimes certain events have to happen (or not happen), regardless of what the PCs do.

So then don't write a scenario where the PC's capture and interrogate an NPC that has information you do not want the PC's to have. Why write a metaplot that only works if the PC's fail?

As for some NPC's not talking... why should they? Why should a 7th level Half-Orc with 7 ranks in Intimidate with feats that enhance intimidate for a total of +20 or whatever, have a chance in hell of subverting an NPC's fear of Urgathoa or some other dark lord?

Now this is ridiculous. Why? Because maybe the PC is talented and intimidation. Maybe they freak them out until they slip up a blurt something out they did not mean to. Intimidation is not just "tell me everything or I will hurt you." Put them off balance, bluff some info, then keep them talking until they mess up. Like I said in my post, give them a modifier if their is a compelling plot reason, but the PC's should have a chance simply because that is what makes the difference between a roleplaying game and reading a script. One you interact with, one you are just a long for the ride.

Once again the traps always have a DC even if it impossibly high. Diplomacy always works has a shot, Stealth is always opposed by a Perception check. So why is Intimidate picked on and just simply hand waived away?

OK my brain is not working well this evening and the portion that does math seems to be on strike so is this correct?

If a 10th lvl Magus casts an Intensified Shocking Grasp (2nd lvl spell) while using the Empowered Magic Arcana (or a Rod of Empower) delivered with the Spellstrike ability wielding a Keen Scimitar.... and crits... the damage would be 20d6 x 1.5 + Weapon Damage? So 30-180 + Weapon Damage.