Rubia's page

Fromper wrote:

John Compton wrote:

Tindalen wrote:

Can we get a reconsideration on the dwarven long axe and dwarven long hammer? These are clearly pole arms as well as axe/hammer, and it devastates my dwarven Phalanx Soldier who now can not use the weapons of his people with his fighter training. (PFS)

Once I add in any Technology Guide weapons, I'm willing to revisit those two dwarven weapons.

As long as the dwarven longhammer stays in the hammer group.

Yes, I was suggesting that they belong in both groups, much the same as how the dwarven maulaxe is in both the axe and hammer groups.

Also, thank you for your quick response and offer to reconsider, Mr. Compton.

There's an issue with another dwarven weapon as well. . . the dwarven double waraxe. It's not actually a double weapon at all, so I'd argue that perhaps it doesn't deserve to be in that group. (The axe group that it's in is fine, of course.)

We need to pay attention to dwarves, because dwarves deserve special treatment. Because they rock.

There is a very big difference between playing a powerful character and using a powerful tactic which actively leaves the rest of your party incapable of acting. The Heavens Oracle may end an encounter quickly and easily with Colour Spray but they may well not if the enemy saves or is immune. The Deeper Darkness using jerk screws over the rest of their teammates every single time.

How do you know that the Deeper Darkness using player (accused of jerkhood) is actually a jerk without talking with the player? Again, I'm not saying that you shouldn't disallow a jerk at the table. I'm actually saying that determining jerkhood involves talking to a player, rather than SOLELY auditing a build.

Banning a build (and therefore a player) violates the most basic principle of an organized campaign: namely that it's organized.

Im not saying it is completely correct, but i guarantee that 90% of these decisions are born of frustration. And if the GM feels impotent to solve their frustration and they keep getting burnt, are you willing to allow the consequences of that?

To be honest, yes, I'd be totally ok with the consequences of that frustration (i.e., that a 5-star GM would quit GMing for some period of time), despite the fact that I understand the concerns raised in this thread from a GM perspective (as I am a GM myself). Here are my reasons why:

1) There is a far more dangerous consequence of allowing GMs to whole hog ban summoners or witches with slumber hexes or bison -- organized play, for all intents and purposes, ceases to exist. If any GM, anywhere, can functionally ban any legal game element they dislike, then there is no longer any meaning to the phrase "organized campaign". At that point, every player is subject to the rulings of their individual GM. Why bother codifying rules for transferring one's character to another GM?

2) The GM in question clearly needs a break, and should probably not be running public games anyway. If that GM can't find a way to enjoy dealing with powerful legal build options from a non-jerk player, that GM needs to stop GMing for PFS.

3) Players are not the only potentially abusive members of the PFS community. Sometimes, GMs and VOs exhibit represensible behavior. Players need a defense against such people, other than to get up and leave from every table at which they are seated. (And it can be intimidating for a player to take a 5-star or VO head on.) That defense is RAW. Some players, therefore, respond with powerful legal RAW options because their past GMs have implemented some of this terrible behavior. Ironically enough, this player response is a mirror of what GMs are doing when they blindly ban build options at their table. And, any GM who doesn't like this player behavior ought not mimic it on the GM side.

These reasons are listed in order of importance, and that first one is central to the issue at hand. If you disagree with the 2nd and 3rd points, do not ignore the importance of the first.

Quick question:

Does this zero challenge = zero XP opinion of yours therefore necessarily mean that a fighter (who could always roll a natural 1 and fail) and a wizard (whose opponents could always roll a natural 20 and resist) are never broken?

It is therefore just the skill specialist who satisfies the "unfun" behavior? Because in my experience, it is the former two that are far more of a problem in PFS than the latter one.

Thanks,

Rubia

It suddenly makes sense why this felt like a killer module. We were lucky to live through it.

Rubia

1) as I said before this is a discussion, not a debate. I don't have to address your 10 point argument.

I'm not trying to be snarky, but positing that you don't have to address any arguments does conveniently sit with your overall position---defending the status quo. You'd be far less able to do so "credibly" if you were arguing for changes. Perhaps that's the thing that's driving these folks crazy.

Also, I don't think it's unreasonable for individuals to ask that rules of any kind (which are usually based on logic rather than idle whimsy) be addressed at a fully logical level. It also seems fair to ask that that the underlying logic for rules be re-evaluated for fallacies, inconsistencies, and bias when such issues come up.

If that level of discussion doesn't appeal to you, perhaps you ought to stop responding rather than antagonizing people by seeming to ignore their arguments. Your position in the hierarchy generates a lot of inferential context and expectations.

Rubia

Mark Garringer wrote:

Please note, consumables are always purchased at the minimum CL unless found on a Chronicle, so it is not perfectly legal for a player to decide to purchase a CL4 Wand of Lesser Restoration (as priced by a Cleric).

Still don't understand why you can't purchase a higher CL wand that isn't on a chronicle sheet if you have the Fame for such a purchase. 22 Fame needed to buy a CL 9 wand of magic missle (it costs 6750 gp).

The chronicle sheet response is lacking anyway, because most sheets don't offer things that you can't buy otherwise (poisons don't count). I know I sound like a parrot, but I find the ruling on this to be as ridiculous as the requirements for a 5 star GM. Hopefully having a new PFS coordinator soon will see these issues cleared up quickly.

In order to earn fame (at a rate of 1.5 per module), you'd need to play about 15ish modules, which puts you at 6th level (if you use the fastest advancement). Buying 50 charges of a magic missile wand at 9th caster level will likely last you throughout PFS from that point forward, assuming you have other things you'd like to do as well.

It's essentially a permanent item within the scope of PFS. And it's underpriced for that setting for that reason for that spell, IMO. Some spells don't suffer from optimality problems, but I would say that spells that have level-based benefits really gain great advantage from this.

Rubia

But sometimes, you cannot ignore the reskin without ruining suspension of disbelief. If the character has been reskinned to represent a draconic background, even without mechanic changes, what happens when it encounters a ranger with favored enemy dragon? Realistically it should impact their social interaction and perhaps influence decisions to enter combat. Granted there will not be a bonus applied, but the damage is already done.

The question is once you open pandora's box for re-skinning, where does it stop? There are a lot of factors to consider. In a home game where the GM has 100% control and can bend the rules to suit their game, it's a great way to add flavor. But in organized play where a GM's control is somewhat nerfed, we should err on the side of caution.

I think the best way is to rule against reskinning. I know that there will be players who will do it anyway. The GM will have the right to review it and decide it s/he can work with it. If so, great, game on! If not, the player should be prepared for it, accept the GM's decision, un-skin(?), and game on!

In your favored enemy case, I'd just ignore the reskin. What damage is done? Do the PCs know what kind of favored enemy that ranger has? Does it matter? Now, one can argue that this ruins the suspension of disbelief, but frankly, so does changing a pig (which was fine for 5 sessions) back to a wolf. It suspends the disbelief *of the player*.

And frankly, what IS wrong with that ranger attacking the character? Haven't we ALL modified tactics in modules? Why is this such a big deal?

And again, I'm not advocating a wholesale "reskin like a crazy mofo" attitude as a campaign-wide plague that threatens to engulf the beautiful princess that is PFS and turn it into evil LG badness.

I'm saying that we should encourage our GMs to be flexible and take some pains to cater to the players on their tables. And they should be more flexible at conventions than otherwise.

I'm finding it hard to believe that on the one hand, we want to refluff this pig, and on the other hand, we don't perform full audits of characters at conventions to spot all those real mechanical errors on character sheets.

We sound disingenuous and petty. "Play in our glorious campaign, but don't refluff! We're scared of the cheater/powergamer/'incredibly uncommon occurrence' in a mod that will ruin things for everyone! And, we're going to take the time to make you fix it now. But, if you happen to make a +1 mechanical mistake on your character sheet, we're not going to worry about that. After all, who's got the time?"

As a campaign, I don't think anyone would disagree with the statement that we want to generate GREAT roleplaying experiences. Why are we hamstringing ourselves by being afraid of the few rare situations that can be easily handled by our capable GMs? (And if we have incapable GMs, let's cull them!)

Strict adherence to rules and regulations prevents the worst errors, but ultimately breeds mediocrity. Why? Those who follow rules never see the value in innovating beyond them. Sure, we've avoided the worst slop.

But we've also removed incentives for the best stuff.

Rubia

True. For GM's, it should be expected that you are familiar with the rules, but not reasonable that they memorized all of them. I often rule "on the fly" with what I believe to be the rule, but I have been playing since OD&D and sometimes I get system-confused :-)

It is just as much a player's responsibility to keep the game within the rules as it is a GM's. But it can be time inefficient to have the GM look up every rule. It is easier on the player who often has "off turn" time to research while others are performing their actions.

I can think of at least one case where the player had the rule in hand, and was attempting to show it to the GM. The GM said simply that he didn't care what the rule said.

I'm not suggesting that GMs should know all rules. I'm also not suggesting that they should look up all rules questions. I've certainly made rulings in the past to keep things moving and delegated a player to check it in the background (if they cared to do so).

Adjudicating in favor of "fun" is something that GMs do all the time, and in many cases, they do this while blatantly ignoring or delaying the application of PF rules. This practice is both well-accepted and desirable for the flow of the game. I don't see the reason to get all "squealish" over the pig issue.

Maybe I'm just entreating GMs to be gentle in such contexts. Doing so only grows the player strength and makes this game better.

Rubia