Samaranthae's page

So if your telling me to jump in the ppol of "water" but you know the pool is full of acid then that's a bluff check. If I know it's acid or I work out that your lying and then learn that it's acid (maybe by dipping my toe in) I would be asking the gm if that constituted a hostile action - hence ending the spell.

Charm person in combat? I'm generally not a fan.

Depending on who I am. I may not stop attacking you and certainly not your friends if we're fighting.
-If i'm a mercenary who has been sent to bring you in dead or alive I may decide that your friends can be brought in dead and that you can be brought in alive. Maybe asking me to stop fighting you in the middle of combat is an opposed charisma check as that's not something i'd normally do.

The ultimate intrigue is really interesting when it comes to things like this. But the concept that people engaged in combat are necessarily hostile is not always true. Some people are ambivalent, some people are proffessionals. Think of civil war, brother vs brother. You don't have to hate your enemy to fight them, unfortunately.

"Don't worry guards, I'm casting prestidigitation to dust off, (proceed to cast charm person) "

In which case the caster rolls a bluff which is opposed by everyone's sense motive. This kind of thing is actually mentioned in ultimate intrigue

"i'm not going to hurt you" turns to the gm i'm rolling bluff and i'm attacking.

So this kind of bluffing can manufacture a surprise round out of nothing in the case of an offensive spell. In the case where everyone believes the caster, non one successfully spellcrafts the spell AND the spell successfully charms the target then theres no reason to enter combat.

This could make charm person a much more powerful spell for the bard or sorcerer than for a wizard

Necro'ing for another question about the mesmerist pregen.

At level 1 the mesmerist pregen who's name eludes me has 1d6 damage for painful stare. But the entry says that the painful stare is 1d6 for every 3 levels which suggests that its not 1d6 until level 3.

So am I reading this wrong? has this been clarified? or is the pregen wrong?

yeah, bomb the spellcrft and you've kill an innocent for casting detect magic. Now in some places that are superstitious of magic that may be ok. But in other places you're up for murder. And I think its as much on sloppy gm'ing than the pc's if this were to happen.

I don't think you can take 10 on a spellcraft if getting it wrong means possibly copping a fireball in the face without suspecting it. Stress= whether or not it matters. I think if the question you're asking is "are we rolling initiative" then its too stressful for a take 10

In the question of whether a mage is using prestigitation to ccool his drink or is about to fireball you. I would also call for a sense motive from all the players. If he's trying to hide his intentions then he is in fact bluffing. If its a genuine cooling of the drink then the GM can say that the players believe the spell is not hostile. The players should take the gm at their word.

I think this would explain to a degree how people would live in a world with magic without stringing up every magic user as a witch. In society I often hear "so your casting a spell" as the gm's gentle warning to get the iniatitive dice. However even without spellcraft people should be able to tell whether or not someones intentions are hostile or not. The wizard at the bar cooling his drink will be concentrating on his drink. The wizard casting a fireball on the party is trying to hide that he's concentrating on the party.

So back to charm person. Yes you cast a spell and people around you know that your casting a spell so I see it as a spell which is useful when you have an NPC alone.

Starts casting-
hey what are you doing?- spell goes off successfully
"oh nothing to be worried about"
oh that's alright then friend"

If it fails, your probably rolling initiative.

I see charm person as a high risk high reward play. But it has its place. I would like to add that just because the npc is now your friend they're still friends with the other people they were friends with. So they may not betray their friends or organization because your friends. And if its dangerous for them to give information against their employer for example then its still an opposed Cha.

On a side note I have a question about the Charm Hex. Charm hex is not charm person, but its a supernatural ability which increases the attitude by 1 step for 1 round per level. Its reward is far less than charm person but my questions.

As a Su can people tell if your hex'ing them?
Can people tell if your hexing a person standing next to them?
and if so is it likely to start a combat the way charm person would?
So if there are 3 guards and a sergeant and in the process of talking to the sergeant you hex them and THEN roll diplomacy to improve your attitude and then it suddenly seems like the sergeant likes you... would the guards blink an eye?

Oooo ok so this thread ties in well with the ring of seven colors one.

So as a toad (or a raven) I could not cast spells but I can:

Evil eye?
Misfortune?
And slumber if I chirp?

And who would possibly suspect the raven

I agree I wanted to see a great expansion in the use of skills. We saw some though.

In this example requests can now be made to unfriendly or hostile if it's in their interests. I would have liked to have seen more examples of requests and their dcs, rather than request for aid in different circumstances.

But yes I want more utility for skills. Partly so that gms don't feel like the players are trying to "get away with something but also because if you put the idea down the player reading it may think to themselves "good idea, maybe I'll try that"

I also want to see something that meant during skill sections it wasn't one person acting while the rest of the table either cheered on or watched on with bored expressions. I want to know what happens if I write a love letter but the less diplomatic guy reads it out as if it was him ( other than just primary and assist). Can we play good cop bad cop? Can my knowledges inform my diplomacy checks in regards to protocols as well as stimulating conversation in a court situation? These are things I wanted to increase the role play possibilities without it just being "I have uber diplomacy so I can shutdown combats"

Don't get me started on stealth, I'm convinced that not only do most gms play stealth wrong but most scenarios are written with the incorrect stealth mechanics in mind...

So it seems to me that before UI=
You can call a ceasefire or surrender but the mechanic was unclear and dc will be up to gm = much table variation

After UI-
Ceasefire is a request using diplomacy. Dc is based on current attitude (as you don't have a minute to shift the attitude) and the dc will change depending on certain factors, hence no hard and fast number.

With the feat- it's a set dc but you can do it in situations where you otherwise couldn't. Without the feat of they feel its not in their interest they will not listen to your request unless they are indifferent or above.

So the world hasn't ended it has become a bit more clear and it a shown how it can be done without the feat. Its just not easy.

Things which I think should be said.

Yes it's impractical to spend a minute changing attitude, but now charm person or charm hex has a use in combat.

You cannot intimidate a ceasefire. You can intimidate them over a minute and they will act friendly,the request afterwards is still a diplomacy check.

I really think it has been said enough times that the request can be done in 1 round that if people keep refferring to it as taking a minute they are either being deliberately unhelpful or aren't willing to read and therefore don't deserved to be read in turn. So once again, request 1 round. Change attitude with dip or intimidate takes 10 rounds.

I can think of plenty of times where the attitude isn't hostile to begin with. Maybe it is a misunderstanding, maybe they are Mercs and its a job. However of you CDG a couple of their Drnds expect them to be hostile. But maybe if you use non lethal damage or stabalise (and they spellcraft it),they're buddies maybe they are just indifferent. These things give th hm a lot of scope to py with

Ok im all about solutions (well maybe)

I was a little dissapointed with UI as well but mainly as a missed oppertunity. I get what BNW is saying and to a big degree i agree. There are a lot of things in CRB which are just a beginning of an idea and we've had all these other books come and expand on that. What hasnt really been expanded on (outside of unchained) is skills. I'm not about more skills but more uses for the skills we have.

As it stands each of the skills has a description and a couple of actions or examples of actions using skills. Which means that if u want to do something else, like plant an object or call a ceasefire it's kind of up to the GM to set a DC. Depending on the GM this will be different as its going to be based more on a hunch or some equvalent than a set figure. This will make it seem kind of arbitrary or increase table variation etc.etc.

What i would have loved to have seen or would love to see in a future publication is a chapter on skills which isnt about adding new skills but rather about new ways or answers to old questions about using the existing skills. This would mean that its ok to think outside the box and it wont grind play to a halt while 5 people try and research whether thats legal and then if it is what the dc should be etc.etc.

Had this publication included calling a truce as a request action or planting an object as a sleight of hand. Then these feats could have added to the flavour by making you better at it or making it a swift action rather than a move etc.etc.

So in the meantime my solution for a feat like call truce would be to errata a "normal" under the "benefit". So if benefit is that you can do it as a 1 round action with a DC 30+char then the "normal" could be that it is usually attitude (25 for hostile)+15(aid that could result in punishment equivalent)+char. Which equals DC=40+char if their hostile. So in writing the feat you would have been told that hey this feat is going to knock 10 off a combat against hostile combatants, its clarified how to do this without the feat and its strongly hinted that just because your in combat with someone that it doesnt mean they were hostile to start with...

my 2 cents on a forum anyway... let the flaming begin.

Hey guys, i was building a Dwarf fighter to take through the dwarf cleave feats. U know the Goblin cleave, orc hewer, cleave and greater cleave, Power attack and furious focus (so a minimum investment of 6 feats to do really)

And i was building it as a Two handed fighter archtype so that i can use my Str x2.

So i got 3 levels in and no one seemed to blink even though i stated that this was the reason i was a dwarf etc.etc. but then another player said that i cant cleave and have my Str x2.

The way i read it and i will summarise is that the Str x2 was for a single attack. The cleave says you make a single attack as a standard action so i thought i was fine.

So is this the rule and is it in an errata or FAQ somewhere?

So now i'm pretty annoyed at the player cos i feel he's gone and "checked up on me" just so he can spoil my day.
If its ambiguous i'm pretty sure this player will talk the local GM's into his interperetation which will annoy me more and if i can't change my character even tho its been retconned into nothingness i'm going to have to retire her.

a lot of what i've listed is my opinion as to how it should be. But the mechanics i've listed aren't social mores and traditions and this is what i'm saying. If we were talking about a spell duration or casting time or a combat action there would be no "well i think it should work this way but it doesnt really matter- expect table variation" We see talking as something which shouldn't be as set in stone.

Core rulebook 94 "action" using diplomacy to influence a creatures atttitude takes 1 minute of coninuous intersaction. Making a request of a creature takes 1 or mour rounds of interaction etc.etc.

Thats not wishy washy. Thats as concrete and as absolute as knowing that it takes a move action to draw a weapon (without quick draw)

So why the scenario variation?

When asking a specific person specific questions eg. a venture captain who gives you text blocks if you ask him the right question. This is not gathering info. This is making a request =1 round (or more)

You can't just roll and request "the information" you have to know what your asking, you have to show that your engaged. Thats why you cant just roll. Eg. If you have to ask about the wherabouts of the noblemans daughter to get the info about the noblemans daughter. Then thats why its in the scenario as something to look for. Once again thats not gathering information.

Now if this person starts off indifferent and u just ask about the daughter your DC roll is higher than if you had. Introduced yourselves, talked about how horrible it is that his daughter is missing and told him not to worry because now you are here to make it all better. That'd take about a minute and now he might be helpful. But you can just ask him straight off.

There is a single 1 correct way that the mechanics work. It is clearly written in Core rulebook.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

But all that aside the aspect of how much a GM should "make" their players roleplay and whether they should be in 1st or 3rd person isn't fixed.

As someone who's not good at it i:
1-admire those who are and want to learn to be good at it
2-want to have the oppertunity to get better without being made to feel like i am letting everyone down.

So yes in that sense its about mildly challenging the comfort zone, without telling them to play a martial class or pushing them so they burst into tears at the table.

For players if you see someone struggling don't "show them how its done" because theres nothing worse than having the 5cha barbarian start taking the lead because he doesn't think much of your roleplaying. DO offer them pointers afterwards or even during.

So the thing which i think a lot of players and GM's and this thread seems to overlook is the mechanics of diplomacy.

Making a request or trying to talk someone out of fighting you, happens in real time. You can't just roll to make that indifferent guy like you and therefore not attack. What you say is what you say (what what you as a player say that your character says is what is said)

But making people like you is a minute. Its just small talk and polite conversation and it saves a minute by rolling the dice.

Where i see people going wrong is that they "i go up to this guy and i ask him X" So they've skipped the small talk and gone straight for the favour. Try that on a woman at a bar and see how far it gets you (only slightly worse than when i do the small talk first admittedly but i'm low cha)

So the first diplomacy roll is i introduce myself i dont say something obnoxious and we try and settle down into polite conversation. AND IT TAKES A MINUTE.
Then you make your requests one at a time and each one is a different roll.
What you don't do is roll gather information at this time and heres why.

Gather information takes 1d4 hours- aka it is the amalgamation of a whole lot of conversations. So in the case of a bar which has 20 people sitting on 5 different tables its the fast track way of spending 30 minutes with each of them to ask some less specific requests. And boy does it save time.

So the reason we roll is because imo gathering information is like dueling. Its really fun for the person involved and 3-5 people are literally sitting around watching. So why not get it out of the way as quickly as possible. If you drag out those relatively needless tavern scenes not only do the scenarios go overtime and do you risk derailing it but thats when the martial classes start talking over the top of the high charisma characters because they are justifyably feeling left out at this point.

So i'm going to go against a lot of people here and say that "just rolling" is an essential tool for stopping the game from getting bogged down. But that more GM's and players need to be savvy about its mechanics and how it's supposed to work.

Are we seriously not doing "phrasing"?

Either way i think my alchemist who has access to enlarge person spells has just stumbled onto a gold mine.

Because this is PFS the gm and other players may not have a good repore with the player. I know i shouldn't say "if this was my home game..."

but if this was my home game i would talk to the player. I would talk to all the players and make sure that everyone is having fun. Maybe the player is having the time of his life and so is everyone else. However if their frustrated or if the player is frustrated i would once again talk about options.

I would give suggestions about ways in which the concept of a pacifist can be "more fun" for everyone. Buffing and such can make the player feel like he's contributing and it will make the other players feel less frustrated.

After that the ball is really in the players court they can take your suggestions onboard or choose to ignore you. Either way is fine, but people may stop signing up when they see your name and thats also their choice.

Hi i'm wondering about this in relation to specifically Evil Eye and Charm.

I'm playing a witch who's hex's are basically a wearing down of your will save form of seduction. Remember for each of these hex's the words, actions etc.etc are not stated as being one thing or another but the idea is.

Evil Eye- Stares deep into your eyes. You know the way that makes your throat dry up and your palms go clammy. You feel incredibly self concious etc.etc. -2 will save (all saves really but its the will to say no which we're eroding)

Charm- "hey handsome" yes that is the verbal component of the charm. Sometimes it's followed by "wanna buy a girl a drink?" but thats not the charm component that's just pure oppertunism.

So my query is that at some of the places where i play this. When the hexes start flying the NPC's start getting hostile. Either when the evil eye lands, doesnt land or if the NPC saves his charm save the GM moves the NPC's attitude in the opposite direction of what i'm aiming for.

So does anyone know of an errata or an offical ruling on this.

a- Can hexes be detected via a knowledge or a spellcraft or does the recipient just experience a tingling sensation.
b- Does someone passing a save or having a hex placed on them move for example from indifferent to unfriendly.
c- Would onlookers see something or just the target getting the "tingles"

Couple of questions about PVP from a newbie to PFS (in my home game we WAIL on each other)

Attacking each other is pvp and is forbidden i get that. But...

1- Is it pvp to ues bluffs and diplomacy's to talk each other out of actions?
2- How about spells, spell like abilities, distracting performances or hexes etc.etc.

If it is interpereted that going "against" the party in combat by aiding the other side is pvp.

1- Isn't going "against" the party in conflict resolution by screaming out an insult or just opening fire basically the same thing?

Lastly i see a lot of paladin hate. And don't get me wrong life is easier without morale extremes but I think moreso than a paladin if you create a character whose alignment actually ends with an E then you should be thinking about the degree to which you are evil or what you are doing to hide the fact that your evil.

If you want to roleplay a sociopathic serialkiller you could probably kill enough to sate your characters desire for blood or whatever. But on some level you should trying to hide the "distasteful" nature of your characters inner self. Think of Dexter in a pathfinder society. You could almost make an argument for LE or NE if all your doing is cleaning the streets. But you don't have to do it IN FRONT of the Paladin and you don't get to jump up and down and say "it's my right to do this because i work for the pathfinder society"