Sasuga's page

With the way WotC is heading, I hope Critical Role switches back to Pathfinder.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/siege-engines/3rd-party- publishers/adamant-entertainment/siege-engine-ship-s-cannon/

According to the SRD, it takes 2 full-rounds to clean and load a cannon. But then it says it also takes 2 full-rounds to prepare the ammo.

Huh? What's there to prepare? They're not smithing cannon balls on the deck of a ship, and I suspect it would take more than 2 full-rounds to smith a cannon ball.

So, what does it mean it takes 2 full-rounds to prepare the ammo?

As I understand the classic cannon, you swabbed it after it fired to clean out the soot and any embers that might prematurely fire the thing when you add gunpowder, then you add gunpowder, then you might add some cloth in there, pack the whole thing down, then jam a cannon ball inside and pack it in, and then aim, light and boom!

But after you've added the gunpowder, the cloth, and the cannon ball (and jammed it all down properly) it's loaded. So that should be the end of the two rounds, right?

Clean: 1st round.
Swab; Powder; Cloth; Ball; 2nd round.

So what does it mean "prepare the ammo" and I wonder not only for my sanity, but also because can the ammo be being prepared (I mean, I'm still confused just saying this) while the cannon's being cleaned and loaded (by a second set of people).

How quickly can a cannon be loaded with enough people?

Weird question but something came up with a particular hand cannon situation. Basically, what happens when you decide to toss a handful of silver pieces in a hand cannon as its ammunition? Would it count as silver damage and circumvent the high cost of silver ammunition?

I think it would work like grape shot, and would indeed count as silver because silver pieces (unless counterfeit) are indeed silver. Assuming you're not playing in some strange world, like ours, where the coins are actually made of less valuable metal than they're supposed to be representing. (Pennies are no longer pure copper, nickels are no longer made of nickel, and so on.)

It has been known to happen historically (and also in movies) where ships would fire silverware, or whatever else they could jam into a cannon after they ran out of proper ammo.

I disagree with the statement that it would be -2 to hit, because of the shape of the coins. They'd probably end up flying like frisbees eventually.

If anything, they'd probably have a greater chance of hitting like a shotgun and grape shot.

However, the range might be limited, and the damage against a hull of a ship should probably be lessoned. The damage against people I would, again like I already said, treat it like grape shot.

Grape shot was used to clear the decks, usually just before boarding.

I don't understand why adding PDFs is so expensive, aren't the PDFs basically the blueprints used to created the printed edition? And it's not like they have to be printed. Shouldn't they be free with a printed book?

I was really looking forward to running Pathfinder NEWEST Pathfinder Kingmaker in Pathfinder 1st Edition rules on FoundryVTT.

What happened to FoundryVTT support?

Couldn't we report the player as having played, but not tie it to a character?

I was wondering guys, when a new players tries out Pathfinder Society and plays a brand new character or pregenerated character, and that character dies in the first session, why bother recording it?

Page 21 of Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play version 4.2 states: "There is one exception to these rules: All Tier 1 scenarios and Tier 1–2 sanctioned modules are available for unlimited replay with a 1st-level character for credit."

Why fill the number slot with a dead character?

Mark Moreland wrote:

A GM is not a robot.

Everybody heard it here first. Mark has a prejudice against robot GMs. We know who skynet is going after first, and it isn't me.

Perhaps it is impossible for a forum thread to stay on topic..?

Incidentally, I also believe this has been as productive as it is going to be and thus am no longer going to monitor it.

Despite not going the way I hoped it would, the thread has helped me and I hope it helps others.

See you around,
Sasuga

Sasuga

I think where you did a disfavour yourself is when you added your own personal experience. Part of this helped to create the monster that it became because we started to discuss specifics and not in general what is best to do.

Yes. When I looked back upon the thread, I saw the same thing. I am learning. I guess the trick is to give enough information to not get flamed (although, I'm betting these forums have great moderators) and still not too much information.

=-=-=-=-=

As for coup de grace: Perhaps the adventures themselves (the encounters) could give the NPCs 'general motivation' to the GM, and maybe some guidelines for tactics "not to use".

Every adventure already written is already what it is, but perhaps future adventures? The players will not know what the NPCs motives are (although some adventures do give hints), and thus on an adventure by adventure biases the GM's hands could be tied or not on such things?

Thoughts?

I've created a monster!

This thread has gone in many different directions, and apparently all at once.

It is also clear to me that some people don't actually read entire posts before commenting.

=-=-=-=-=
I wish I had never posted what happened. For one thing, I didn't have all my details strait (thanks Tom for hashing and re-hashing how it went down to clearify. I felt you did nothing wrong and I now also know it with certainty.) And for another thing: Most of the posters are focusing on how the character died instead of whether or not "CDG" should or should not be limited.

The facts are in, so the opinion of whether or not the GM's actions were wrong no longer matter. His actions were in the legit.

As for his motives: He told me his motives but I wont share them because they contain spoilers.

Also, everyone who thinks I'm crying over this lost character: I'm not. I felt a little shock and found I was a little attached to the character, but I'm a big boy and I can handle it. I just couldn't handle it if a GM was using this sort of thing abusively and thought it should be discussed.

I thought about answering the questions about the stats of my character, but decided it would be off topic. This wasn't meant as a pity party, or a player tactics discussion. I wanted to discuss whether or not NPCs should use this tactic when ever possible, or if there should be some rule that says they should try to kill or disable the standing PCs first.
=-=-=-=-=

My concern is/was (which someone stated in a form far better than I had) that this sort of thing could be abused. It certainly can be a party killer.... Apparently there are a lot of party killers in the game, and oh well: So be it.

=-=-=-=-=
As for my opinion on the topic (since I started it): I don't like to kill player characters before they reach level three. (In home brew games.) I am generally more forgiving to new characters and new players when it comes to these sort of things.

Here are some questions I think help bring the discussion on topic:

If an NPC is concerned about not dying (as most rational human intelligence and higher creatures are), should the NPCs worry about killing the guy who's going to be asleep for a minute or killing the guy who's going to swing a sword or axe in the next six seconds?

Basically, who's more of a threat? The guy who wakes up one minute from now, or the guy is five feet away and brandishing a weapon?

If the NPC is not intelligent, the NPC may go for the warm blood closest to them. If the NPC is not afraid of the guy with the sword five feet away, or the guy 30 feet away with the bow, then the NPC (in all its 'god complex') may go for the immediate kill.

...

I've seen some people mention some decent guidelines they go by. I've seen people weigh in on their opinions.

I don't want to remove CDG from the game (on either side)...

What do you guys think?

Guys & Gals,

APOLOGY & DISCLAIMER:
I've often had a difficult time expressing myself in short and concise messages. In the past when I would only express my main idea without back-story and my reasoning behind it, and then I would get flamed. Someone would always take my meaning incorrectly, either because they wanted to cause trouble or because they simply didn't understand where I was coming from in what I was saying. So, yes, I'm sorry, my posts tend to be very long.

TRANSITION:
Still, I can see that even when I go to great lengths to explain myself things can be misunderstood.

CLARIFICATION (What this post is about):
My first post was meant to start a discussion on the idea of limiting coup de grace. (And a discussion we have!)

That is, I want(ed) to discuss changing the rule, or making a rule to limit its use.

TANGENT:
I appreciate the sympathy I've received from those who gave it.

I've lost characters before, and I'm sure I'll lose them again. I was attached to this one a bit more than I usually am, and it did hurt a bit when I lost him. I see some of that hurt came through in my post, I did not mean it to, nor was I seeking pity or to reverse what has happened.

BACK ON TOPIC:
I was seeking to discuss the 'law', not to imply the 'judge' was wrong in using or enforcing it.

TANGENT:
I had planned to ask Tom to clarify for me how exactly it did happen according to the rules after reading some of your posts. (Since, I was ignorant as to the exact details.) There is no longer any need to check to make sure the rules were followed, since he has posted above how it happened. It is clear the rules were followed.

Still, if I had asked Tom about the rules, as I had planned to, it would be out of hope that he might have accidentally forgot something, because I never had any doubt in Tom's fairness or objectivity. Also, the hope would have been slim, because I believe Tom knows the rules very, very, well.

PUBLIC NOTICE:
I never believed Tom was being a jerk when my character was died. I blame(d) myself a lot more than I blamed the rules or the dice, and I the rules and dice more than I blamed Tom.

Sure, I wish he had decided to have the NPCs use a different tactic. I never thought he did so to spite me, nor that he was breaking the rules, nor that was wrong in doing so.

BACK ON TOPIC:
I made the post with the hope we could make a new rule that said under certain conditions coup de grace couldn't be used on PCs. The _Hope_ was to get a new rule... The _intent_ of the post was to discuss the possibility of a new rule.

FINALLY:
Well, we discussed the possibility a bit. I actually now hope to discuss it a bit more. However, Howie and TwilightKnight have managed to change my view a bit on the topic. Also, there is already a rule of "Don't be a jerk" and that seems to cover what I was really concerned about in the first place. I saw this as a potential for abuse, but the "Don't be a jerk" rule seems to be there to prevent abuse.

FOR THE RECORD:
I never thought Tom was being a jerk. I also wish I was able to get a post in that said so before he made his post. (Although I wouldn't have used his name.) I hope he hasn't taken any misunderstanding away from my original post, because I like Tom and wouldn't want any uneasiness between us.

THANK YOU:
Thanks for reading and writing,
Sasuga

Sleep is a one (1) round cast. It can't be used inside a surprise round which limits you to either a standard or move action only. It would only work in a surprise round if started as a standard action and completed with another standard action on the caster's next turn. This leaves him blowing in the wind as any disruption is going to force a concentration check and possibly blow the spell.

Coup de gras is a full round action also. You can't "run up and coup de gras".

Without knowing more details about the combat I can't fairly backseat your GM, but on the surface it sounds like some rules were forgotten. I think I know which scenario you are describing and you should ask the GM if he followed the tactics included in the act.

Both these actions are game-enders, and that's why they are designed as more than a standard action. If a GM is using this tactic against tier 1-2 players I suggest you don't play under him or her any more and send them a message. The game isn't about a GM building a body count. I know they call me "Massacre Miles" but after 237 PFS sessions I would argue I'm going to have an odd TPK or two.

My initiative was really low that round. I think it all happened in surprise round, but even if it didn't, it all happened before I or anyone else in the party could act.

I'm betting it was ** spoiler omitted **, based on my Mark-Moreland-like recall of every Act of every Scenario in PFS. Actually it's a head-scratcher, cause no scenario really fits the OP's description unless his GM really went off the script. Some party tactics do cause the GM to have to re-write the encounter, but I agree that a GM knows coup-de-gras is going to cause a lot of angst.

It was:

I don't know what the tactics were supposed to be for the scenario, or the battle.

Losing the character does suck. I'm not here trying to get sympathy for my lost character, or bring my character back. I'm not saying the GM was a bad GM (maybe he was, even when my character died I didn't think he was).

I'm not trying to change the past. I just wanted to discuss the possibility of (as several of you have worded better than I) a rule that states unless the tactics call for it (your better wording) that the NPCs go for the players who are still standing.

I did state in my post, some NPCs are just going to go for the kill. I don't expect an assassin vine to do anything that would allow a PC to live. As was said above: Some monsters are just there to cause the players pain. Some monsters are not very smart. The races that players can play though, on the other hand, are usually more worried about self preservation.

I guess it turns out there is already a "Don't be a Jerk" rule? Is this really a rule in writing, or just one of those common sense rules?

Greetings,

I would like to discuss the possibility of getting Coup De Gras against player characters officially limited or virtually eliminated in Pathfinder Society Organized Play.

I usually play a elven spell slinger type, and I didn't have to deal with the issue of the sleep spell personally. However, recently I started playing a Dwarven Fighter (the first Dwarven + Fighter I've ever played), and I often find myself completely asleep for the final battles.

It seems sleep is a popular choice for bad guys in the Organized Play adventures, and why wouldn't it be? The heroes are almost guarenteed to be effected by it, so why would it not be a top choice? (The other way around though, as a player the sleep spell is rarely... Undead, plant types, elven enemies, constructs, and so many other enemy types are not effected by sleep that a wizard of mine who relied on the sleep and color spray spells a bit too much got killed, and we lost half the party because that wizard couldn't pull his own weight in combat.)

For enemies of the party, sleep is a great spell! Only elves among the player's choices of race are unaffected by sleep, and the strong fighter types often have a low will save. Sleep is a party killer! (I've seen it happen, personally, twice... and I've heard of it happening a few other times in Organized Play. In 3.5 sleep and color spray were my two favorite low-level spells.)

So, why not eliminate sleep?! Multiple reasons. First, removing sleep from the bad guys bags of tricks seems like cutting off the nose to save the face. Second, there are adventures with baddies who already have sleep, and they may not work without it or may need rewrites.

So, why LIMIT or "virtually eliminate" coup de gras? Because it, combined with sleep doesn't give a player a chance to put up a fight.

=-=-=-=-=
Let me explain to you what has happened to me twice:
We're a low level [1-2] party: We reach the main bad guy, and the new players decide to all bunch up (despite advice to the contrary). Some bad guy surprises the party with a sleep spell, all the fighters get knocked out, and then before anyone else in the party can act another bad guy runs up and Coup De Graces the fighter types that are laying on the ground. My fighter takes 11 points of damage, and with a 14 on the die misses the fortitude save of 21 by 1 point. Instantly dead! That's it! That gave my fighter only a 1/4th chance of survival, and no decision I could have made after the adventure started could have saved him (except quit the adventure and go home). I could have decided to not go on the adventure, but then I wouldn't be playing would I?

=-=-=-=-=-=

It is the fighter's job to be in the front of the pack, in order to protect the weaker spell throwing types who stay towards the back or middle. Knocking the fighters out with sleep certainly creates chaos and causes the party a problem... The party often fails the mission... But at the expense of the fighters, who's job it is to knock down the door.

Now, if this were all real life the fighters are of course expendable. The fighters are the grunts, and grunts go in first, and grunts get killed... However, this isn't real life and the fighters are controlled by players who may never wish to play a fighter in organized play again (like myself) because the chance of survival is much higher as an elven wizard than it is as a dwarven fighter. (If the fighters die, the elven wizard simply runs away. Too bad for the fighters, they're dead.)

So, the whole party loses the final boss battle... The wizards get away with their XP and the loot, but the [non-elven] fighters never stood a fighting chance. The [non-elven] fighters were killed in a Surprise Round BEFORE ANYONE IN THE PARTY COULD ACT. No chance to get woken up, no chance for another player to step in front of them, pull them back, or do anything in an attempt to rescue them. The [non-elven] fighter is just dead before he gets to swing a sword, curs at the bad guy, or anything. Elves are unaffected and can attempt to run away, those with high will saves like clerics, wizards, and monks usually pass the check and can also attempt to flee, but the fighter does not get that opportunity. The fighter just gets put to sleep and then immediately dies.

=-=-=-=-=-=

Now, now... You may say that traps can kill a player character, and that is true. However, traps can be avoided. Rouges in a party can disarm traps, fighters who kick in a door without it being checked for a trap know take it upon themselves while the rest of the party stands clear, or even if injured badly in a trap the party can bring a fighter back from negative hit points... And, besides... Most traps don't do enough damage to kill a fighter out-right.

=-=-=-=-=-=

Now, before anyone tries to say I'm the type of person who would suggest eliminating anything that could kill a character, I would like to say that statement would be wrong.

It is not that the characters can die that bothers me. Pathfinder Society Organized Play points out many great reasons why characters are and should be allowed to die. Without the risk of death, there is no adventure. Dying is apart of adventuring.

It is not that death exists, it is that I believe every player and his or her character should be given a fighting chance. Players should be able to make decisions (other than to be part of the adventure or not) that effect whether or not their character survives. A player's character shouldn't be out-right ambushed and killed (sure it happens in real life) with no chance to fight back. It is the same as a GM in a home-brew game simply telling the player his character is dead, because the GM feels like the character needs to die. It can happen in real life, and in a home brew game a GM can simply kill a player's character if he wants to, but that doesn't me a GM should just kill a player's character because he feels like it... especially at the expense of the fun to everyone involved.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

What I'm saying is, for the character, the only choice that could have saved their life was to not get out of bed that day. In an RPG, that is wrong... In real life, things happen: People die from air planes falling out of the sky; people get hit by cars or trucks just walking on the side walk; in real life... real life things are unfair. ... Role Playing GAMES are not real life, and they have rules that attempt to make things 'fair'. Role playing games are about having fun... A player shouldn't have had the only choice of "Play in this adventure or not play in this adventure" in order to save his or her character. If that is the only choice, then players will stop playing in the adventures... less people will show up to Organized Play, and Organized Play will dwindle because players will feel they have no chance of survival.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

So, what do I suggest?

No Coup De Gras on player characters as long as someone in the party is left standing... And even then, a chance for those who are left sleeping at the end of combat to be captures and pay a ransom (a cheaper resurrection fee) to bring the characters back into play. A standard ransom can be based on the character's level (in role-playing terms his value would be based on how successful he has been to the Pathfinder Society... Higher level characters have been more successful, and thus are considered more valuable)... Perhaps a simple stripping of all gear from the character, and then a short blurb about how the character escaped from some dungeon or prison cell.

Sure, characters are going to die and death should be part of Organized play. Sometimes your going to be surrounded by a bunch of undead, attacked by a construct, some man eating plant, or some other thing that doesn't care about ransoms. I said it before, and I'll say it for clarity again: I don't want to eliminate death. I just believe players should always be given a fighting chance. If a spellcaster can cast sleep, than that spellcaster is smart enough to want the players for something else... such as a ransom, or to torture, or whatever. The NPCs on that spellcaster's team should also be smart enough to know this, and thus they should NOT WANT to coup de grace a player character. The NPC casting sleep should always want to capture, and not risk the killing... If they NPC wanted to kill the players, than a fireball, ray of frost, magic missile, or some other spell would likely be their choice... and even then a spellcaster who burns a player to near-death might decide to revive and ransom the character instead.

Low-level characters can't afford resurrection, and a bad GM (in a home-brew game) kills his players' characters over, and over, and over without ever letting them reach level 3.

In a society game the GMs are supposed to be more like impartial judges (than in a home brew game - and I believe all of my society GMs have been). The GMs in Society don't write the adventures, they just run them. Their decisions do have an effect and decide the fates of players' character though, and some GMs may feel it is more tactically sound to attempt a kill on a sleeping player than to attack the standing one five feet away, while other GMs may decide it is more tactically sound to attack those standing (and then there is always the lay out of the battle board it's self)... I'm saying we make a rule and tell all GMs that the NPCs will choose to attack the standing, not the fallen when given any choice... And while we can explain that a person is more concerned about the character with the crossbow pointed at them, more worried that a wizard who might cast a fireball than a sleeping fighter swing a sword, and thus not be concerned about the sleeping characters... We can also know that out of game it is to give the players a fighting chance. If the party leaves a sleeping party member, then that member is immediately put into holding for ransom... even if it was only a minute. (The party can't withdraw to allow the sleeping spell to wear off, for the sake of the sleeping spell to wear off. If you leave a fallen comrade, they are removed as a threat to the enemy.)

Characters put to sleep in the surprise round(or even first round) of combat aren't given the chance to run away, aren't given the chance to use diplomacy, aren't given a chance to role-play. Character put to sleep in the surprise round (or first round) of combat aren't given a chance. In a home-brew game the players are at the mercy of a GM, but in society a fair GM and all the players are at the mercy of the adventure. The rest of the party can fight, flee, or surrender. At higher levels you pick feats, gain abilities, and purchase equipment to increase your characters survival. If a high level character dies you can sell your gear or cash in PA to get the character resurrected. At low level you can't prepare for every situation and you can't sell all your gear to get a resurrection. Shouldn't everyone in a role-playing game, at any level, be given a fair chance to survive or a choice to bring their character back into play? Lose some loot, maybe some PA, and get back into the action!?

- Sasuga