Sheppard's page

Let's be very clear about something, I'm not forcing anyone to sit and play at my table. So to claim that I'm "bullying" players is a flat out lie. When APL is calculated the vast majority of the time a very clear sub-tier is established. However; if the group falls between sub-tiers, I will allow as I mentioned before Anyone(and I mean ANYONE) the option to veto playing up. They have just as much risk as anyone else playing. If a player doesn't want to play down they do not have too. No one is forcing them to stay at the table. I wish them well and point out the other various tables in the shop so that they can find a game they might be more suited for.

It sounds to me like people are advocating making players play up because the majority rules, and I'm sorry but that just isn't how I run my tables.
I mean right now we've only said if one person wants to play down, but what about if two people want to play down should the majority still rule at that point?

And I just have to say when 6 level 2 players can qualify for the 4-5 tier something seems off. I know that's heading off in a different tangent but it just seems like a flaw in the system.

I'm going to be a little blunt but I don't mean it in a rude way.

If a player doesn't like the fact that at my table I allow anyone to veto playing up, they always have the option to walk away. I don't think people realize how brutal playing up can be if you have a tactically smart gm with lucky dice rolls, or at the very least they underestimate such a thing happening.

As for a pre-gen new player not getting a vote. Do you realize how insulting that can be to a person? "Oh I'm sorry you don't deserve a vote because you're new and not important." is pretty much how people are going to receive that mentality, and I don't think that is what PFS needs at all. Shouldn't we be trying to attract people to the game by treating them equal and fair?

Also, just thought of this one, which would DEFINITELY need to be a Con boon.

No, no, no, that's not how it happened...: Whether due to excessive consumption of alcohol, a few too many hits to your head, or the use of mind-altering spells, your recollection of one of your adventures isn't entirely correct. Choose one of the following options, crossing the rest off.

- Gain the difference in the amount of gold earned from a particular scenario between what was listed for the subtier you played, and what you actually gained. Once this boon is used, cross this off.

- Gain the difference in the amount of prestige earned from a particular scenario between the maximum possible and what you actually gained. Once this boon is used, cross this off.

- Gain a boon that you did not get access to on a chronicle sheet that was normally available to the subtier that you played. Once this boon is used, cross this off.

And then there should be a line for the player to write in what chronicle sheet this is being applied to and a section for a GM to check the use of the boon and sign off on it.

BRILLIANT!!!!!

Okay so I'm just going to lay out exactly what happened in the hopes that it will clear things up.

In a particular scenario an alchemist npc who is on a pirate ship drinks a potion of levitate and then floats up into the air. He is floating right next to the ship's mast.

An enterprising player then decided to climb up the opposite side of the ship's mast while the NPC was busy throwing bombs at the other PCs. Ultimately the player then climbed around to the side of the mast right next to the NPC and decided to jump from the mast to the NPC Alchemist and Grapple him in mid air. The PC was successful in all the checks he needed to accomplish this.

It is at this point that I was unclear on what could possibly happen. From what I understand the potion of levitate allowed them both to stay in the air as they did not have enough combined weight to sink to the ground.

However, as the Player was in control of the grapple and continued to remain so for multiple rounds, I wasn't sure what the player could actually do in said grapple because they were both floating in mid air.

I mean as it stands grapple has a flow chart for what can be done if a grapple is maintained over multiple rounds. But how can you "pin" or "tie up" someone while you are both in mid air? I'm not sure how that all works and I just want to be clear for the future.

Luckily the other players ended up causing the Alchemist NPC to surrender as per stat block.

I'm not sure what your confusion is, your post is incredibly vague.

If it's about the 'cannot move' restriction and how that interacts with gravity... That is an open question of mine as well.
But given the difference between the grapple wording and e.g. the stronger/anchored version of Entangled ('entirely prevents movement'),
IMHO the grappled wording means that you just cannot move yourself, but outside forces can, e.g. Gravity or Bullrushes.

If one character that is grappling cannot pass the Fly check to Hover, then they would fall (at the end of their turn).
If another character grappling them wants to hold on, they can, but then they suffer encumbrance from the other characters' full weight including gear. Encumbrance (and Grapple Condition's DEX penalty) affects Fly skill.

Succesful Grapple checks moves the target adjacent to you, but nothing keeps them there per se.

Sorry I will try to be more specific. What are the rules for grappling someone who is hovering via a spell or potion of levitate, when you are not hovering nor are capable of flight. Are you still able to perform all possible actions listed in the CRB if you maintain the grapple over subsequent rounds, is the grapple check harder, I'm just trying to figure out how it all works.

I apologize if I still haven't been clear enough.

I should clarify. I'm not speaking about someone actively flying, I guess I'm talking about someone who is levitating?

Someone who is just hovering in the air via a potion of levitate or something of the sort.

So I'm trying to figure out how grapple works if your opponent is flying while you are grappling them, but you yourself are not flying. This situation actually arose recently in a scenario and there seemed to be a great deal of confusion as to what happens.

Any explanation with sources would be amazing.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Sheppard wrote:

The fact that this discussion even took place really boggles my mind, and now because of it we have a blanket ruling that actually makes things worse for certain people. I'm sorry to those low level characters that this might affect. Perhaps in the future we should all simply stop posting for a moment and take a step back in order to evaluate what it is that we are arguing about.

Did you even read the conversation? At all? People were reading the rules two ways

Part of the guide said all conditions must be cleared, see chapter 5.

A) Some people were reading the The part that said "see chapter 5" as all conditions must be cleared or you're dead before Mike's ruling.

B) Chapter 5 said all conditions must be resolved, not cleared. Please make sure the conditions you haven't cleared are written legibly for the next dm.

I asked which way was right so that people didn't get blind sided by not having enough cash in reserve to come back from the dead and get the restorations in case the DM read it with the A interpretation.

So no, I don't need to stop and think about what the argument is. I don't need to stop posting and reflect on whats being asked.

And your arguing your point to read strict rules as written to completely fly in the face of all common sense is one of the reasons the strict ruling was made. Trying to justify your arguments doesnt mitigate your culpability here.

This pretty much just proves the entire point I was making.

It seems to me that a lot of this stuff could be cleared up by simply having GM invoke fiat when people start acting all wonky.
If a player doesn't want to use common sense surely the GM would be willing to use their common sense and override the player at their table even if "technically" by the strictest interpretation of a grammatically vague set of rules the player is right, but not following the spirit of the actual rules.

The fact that this discussion even took place really boggles my mind, and now because of it we have a blanket ruling that actually makes things worse for certain people. I'm sorry to those low level characters that this might affect. Perhaps in the future we should all simply stop posting for a moment and take a step back in order to evaluate what it is that we are arguing about.

Congrats! Here's to another 1000 days!

Sheppard wrote:

Perhaps it is just me, but I'm actually completely fine with the way race boons work in PFS.

None of the things you had to say after the first sentence had anything to do with the race boons.

Clearly you didn't understand my post. I'll ELI5.

Race Boons are a part of structured play. People have a problem with how Race Boons are structured. But the structured part is what gives opportunity for equal fun. I like that.

Going to the title of the post, "I don't understand PFS'S Appeal", I try to tell icehawk333, the OP, why I find it appealing. I want him to understand there are more reasons than race. I close my post by directly addressing icehawk333 and try to show him possible options so that he can enjoy Pathfinder in one way or another.

I am not trying to argue about Race Boons needing to change. I don't believe they need to change and I think trying to get them to change is futile. I am not even specifically addressing you MrSin with my original post. My post was aimed at the OP in an effort to show him the "appeal".

Perhaps it is just me, but I'm actually completely fine with the way race boons work in PFS. In fact, I think Paizo has done something particularly brilliant in the way they have instituted boons into structured play.

I think the problem people seem to have at the moment is that they simply have a problem with "structured" play, without realizing that the structured part is what allows everyone to have the opportunity for equal fun. I am actually very thankful to have stumbled upon PFS at a con just recently. (Shout out to Jonathan Cary and his Dallas crew for PFS at A-Kon 24).

To me, the appeal of PFS is that I have a character(s) that actually exist in the PFS world, I can take them all over and utilize them at any PFS game I want without having to customize them over and over for variations in rules. I can count on Paizo to actually respond to the PFS community, and to clarify things that might be troubling or confusing. I have a community that is AMAZING and vastly interactive from all over the world. There are so many reasons out side of the race of my characters that I simply can't list them all.

In short what I am trying to say is that, icehawk333 if you don't like what PFS has to offer that is totally fine, perhaps it is not for you and you might want to look into home games or games outside the confines of PFS Organized Play. But, if you can actually give PFS a shot, I am sure you can find multiple reasons to enjoy it.

I'm glad to see that there is still ample time left before EotT is replaced. I am working hard at the moment to reach the necessary level in order to play this particular arc.

Congrats Myron.

Just wanted to drop in to say Congrats.