Sitri's page

Try going to your organized play page and refreshing.

That did the trick. Thanks Robert!

I left Pathfinder for a few years. Recently I started running a few small games for my wife and kids. Despite it being just us, I have been reporting them because it has been ingrained into me that is what you do when you finish a game. On the boards, I noticed I no longer had any GM stars. I think I either had two stars or was a few sessions short of two stars when I took a hiatus. Do those expire or did they get reset with PF2 came out?

More of a gee wiz question than anything.

Thanks

There has been a lot that has been said in this thread since I last posted. While part of me wants to respond to a lot of them individually, it just isn't going to happen.

Other than simply not liking it, I don't think I have seen an opposition opinion that has lacked hypocrisy.

People cry for more sexy men, there are many threads comparing what that means to different people and what they look like. Everyone seems to support it or stay silent. Many exposed men with what I imagine to be sex appeal get printed in the new iconics lineup.

People have threads wanting more instances of homosexuality. Most people on the boards are supportive of the idea, the few that aren't have the decency to be honest and say they can't really argue why they don't like it other than the fact that they don't. Material gets published with homosexuality in a positive or neutral light.

People want more transgender material. Material gets published.

People say they want sexy women. A flood begins where claims are made of being sexist. This is evidence of a horrible society. There are claims of women being subjugated. Women who share this want of material are ignored while people keep spouting off that this is a desire of piggish men. A high ranking staff member comes in and sarcastically dismisses the concern. Nonsense about realistic battle gear is cited as evidence the women should be dressed in their massive, frumpy layers, despite the same standards not being expected of the men.....or the 32423143 other things in the game that split from realism.

Who exactly is the group of privilege here? I really couldn't hope to count the number of hours of enjoyment I have gotten out of this game. But I can safety say as a matter of principle, I have never been more disappointed by it.

I didn't even notice anything of the sort until the thread was brought up. I've enjoyed the art thus far and have felt the clothing has worked out for the characters, but I haven't felt like anything was being overly restricted in anyway. Overall all the iconics are pretty well covered with the exception of Crowe, but none have really made me feel like they should be wearing less.

I will admit that I have become hyper-vigilant on the matter after reading some of the threads here lately. Had I not read them, I likely wouldn't have thought there was a conscious effort for this change. I also probably wouldn't have realized that the three other games I have bought since that time all have heightened sexuality in their art.

It is worded kind of odd. Here Mike clarifies it a lot.

Shining Fool. I think either would work in this context. I can do a copy and paste from a dictionary if you like, but in my experience most people don't.

Kevin Mack. I know this is the desire of several board members and at least some Paizo Staff. One staff member was pretty hostile about the subject a few months back. Again, the art could be a coincidence, but I doubt it. There are a lot of things pointing in that direction.

Not really seeing the censored thing maybe people are seeing intent in the artwork thats not actually there?

If memory serves Paizo tend to be fairly hands off with fine details about the iconics (They provide race/ethnicity/gender and basic armour/weapon but thats about it) letting wayne have a pretty free reign with the art and since he dosent seem to frequent these forums all that much I doubt any of his desicions were based on any threads on them.

I saw a similar post, but I wouldn't expect them to openly say they made a request to sterilize female art after the recent outcry against sexy women on the boards. It is a very poor marketing decision that couldn't be defended objectively.

Of course it is possible that this was all a coincidence and the artist(s) just happened to take this route at this time, but I don't think it likely.

Sitri wrote:

I restricted the statement to the females because they are the new iconics who seem to be censored.

Women being fully clothed = censorship? I'm wearing jeans, a tee and a light running jacket right now. I'm more or less covered up. Have I been censored?

Strawman

Marketing explicitly uses sex to sell. Fantasy and sex have extreme overlaps.

People complain about one aspect of sex and that aspect disappears from future marketing and fantasy. That looks a lot like censorship to me. This is especially true when they are pushing borders in new avenues of sexuality for other demographics that are on the party line.

Sitri wrote:

But I argue that an across the board opposition to this extremely natural pleasure is putting undue pressure on many of the same people who are claimed to be protected.

Speaking for myself, I'm not feeling any under pressure as a result of the designs of the new female iconics. I'm quite happy with how they look and what they're wearing.

If Paizo suddenly started removing and deleting old pieces of Iconic art and replacing them with more covered up versions, your censorship analogy might make more sense. But they haven't, so it doesn't.

Composition fallacy.

You don't speak for all women. If Paizo is truly the inclusive, progressive company they are made out to be (in fairness I do think they mostly do this well) the shouldn't say that an effort should be made to restrict the sexuality of one group.

And following your logic, if NBC decided that in all future recorded shows women must wear burkas, it would still be censorship. It wouldn't change anything if normal reruns could still be seen.

It’s not at all a bad thing that the new iconics are covered up. Two things.

(1) Covered up in the iconic portrait still leaves plenty of room for more revealing sexiness elsewhere. And that’s a better way to do it. These characters’ primary characteristic is not “to look sexy for the players.” But more importantly …

This is utterly subjective and I firmly disagree. Since there isn't an objective way to determine the truth of this statement, and since people obviously have different opinions, wouldn't a mix in the new lineup be more appropriate?

(2) There are some problematic cultural dynamics at play here, and it’s important to lean against them. Whether you realize it or not, your posts play into those problematic dynamics. I’m not saying this to accuse you of being a bad person or anything. But observe how these posts might read to others. It’s a *great* thing that the game’s iconics do not follow a “practical and dangerous men, sultry and seductive women” rule.

I would agree with your first sentence, but from the opposing side of the fence. I think it is problematic that people claim that women, or men for that matter, should be covered up, and that is the appropriate direction to move.

You recognize, in a follow-up post, that women are sometimes interested in artwork of sexy females. But in both posts, you restrict “sexy” strictly to female characters. But of course there are a great many people—and I’m one of them—that are much more interested in sexy men.

I'm reminded of a thread that was knocking around for a while about why there aren't male gods of love and beauty in the setting. Most of the initial responses were something like, "because females are obviously more attractive, duh!”. Speak for yourself!

What your complaint reads as is the thought that the way things ought to be is that women in the game’s artwork should be depicted sexily for the enjoyment of the players, who are assumed to be straight men.

I restricted the statement to the females because they are the new iconics who seem to be censored. The men as a whole are far more exposed. Whether their art fits "sexy men" or not I really can't say. By reading the thread you referenced it is clear I am not a good judge of that. All I can say is I can see people b&!#+ about sexy looking female art and then in the new release of the Iconic art, it looks like there is a conscious effort to hide bodies of the females.

But of course, women aren't for the purpose of looking sexy for your pleasure. And some of us want sexy men too. Given the problematic dynamics (historical and unfortunately ongoing) surrounding the participation of women and gay men in gaming (and more broadly nerd) culture, this is a bad thing. It sends all the wrong messages. So I conclude that it’s a *great* thing that the game’s iconics do not follow a “practical and dangerous men, sultry and seductive women” rule—Paizo gets major credit for their commitment to diversity in gaming.

If I would say people are for anything, I would absolutely say they are for sex. More specifically, we are gene replicators that are programmed to want to engage in the act which replicates more genes.

Do you feel you were not marketed to in the sexy factor of the new males. Perhaps this is a problem I can't see, but as far as I can tell this is the opposite of the truth. If you can say this is a true statement, I would not fault you for saying you want a little more fantasy in your fantasy game.

It sends the wrong message according to whom? An ex girlfriend of mine, head of the pediatrics and asthma wings of a major hospital, was forced to wear a hijab while vacationing in Egypt because the locals thought the slightly exposed cleavage of her B-cups was sending the wrong message. She likened the experience to having to wear a scarlet letter.

I had another girlfriend, who when talking about why women are more prudish than they would like to be, told me it is because they fear what other women will think of them.

This argument often gets painted in the light of the "majority" or "strait men" putting pressure on women to be how the men want them. But I argue that an across the board opposition to this extremely natural pleasure is putting undue pressure on many of the same people who are claimed to be protected.

Again. This is *not* to say you’re a bad person, or that you intended any of this. But whether you intended it or not, it illuminates the problem here, -snip-

:-)

Likewise

When I started PFS, I got hung up on fluff. I deeply regret that now. I screwed some people over in the name of what I thought was most realistic. PFS takes regular departures from realism. I don't think there is anything in RAW preventing these feats on this dragon.

As stated above, familiars change when you get and unget them. I have never seen his stats, they aren't on the boon and the GM didn't show me the book. But I know at a minimum his skills changed when he became mine, if he is like every other familiar, there were even more changes in the bonding process. If you have to fluff the feats in, there is an avenue to do it.

As far as my rename/repersonality. I fluffed it as if I crushed his old personality (I later saw something like this on game of thrones.) I said that I did this once, rightfully no one cared whether they heard this story or not when I introduced Yogal-Hoth in later scenarios.

The fact that it is a specific Dragon seems like fluff to me. I don't have the specific text in front of me, but I don't remember reading anything that would explicitly block the normal rule of feat swapping.

I hated RiddiWipple. I almost died to his trap; I thought I was dead for about 30 seconds. When I got the boon I got the dragon Nogthletepp....or something close.....that character is long retired now and I forget the exact name I gave it. No one ever thought twice about it.

snip

I doubt you'd argue that my saying "I enjoy pizza as much as the next American" implies that *only* Americans enjoy pizza. Perhaps I'm wrong.

I would argue that you have given them some level of undeserved status in the manner.......But I have to admit that my disappointment in the threads I earlier referenced, and their seeming influence, has perhaps made me a little quick to be argumentative.

I don't think it fair to say "as much as the next male." It implies that only males are interested in attractive female portrayals.

Easily the most sexual characters I have seen were played by female players. I can think of four ladies off the top of my head which each use more innuendo and overt sexuality than the entire sum of male players that I have played with combined. Enjoyment of sex isn't just for men.

@Magnuskn I doubt the same people get so worked up by the lack of helmets or backpacks on all the characters.

I have read several threads somewhat lately where people have been complaining about art where some of the women display some level of sexuality. I can't help but think that contributed to the very sterile looking new iconics. If they pull up the brawler's belt a half inch, the entire female lot is ready to go for 1960's prime time television decency standards. Obviously there are some people that are very happy about this, but does anyone besides me find this a bad thing?

Next thing you know these people will start slow playing these outsiders. Will the horrors never end? >.>

We have folks here planning on running Master of the Fallen Fortress five(!) times in a day to make a bunch of 1xp tieflings and aasimar. While they are cool for RP, both give a net +2 to abilities over any other race. Some players don't want to lose the "best" mechanical option in the game; others have concepts that work well with tor depend on the various mechanical options available to them.

Only aasimar give the net plus two over others. Humans can do this also, on any two stats you want, not just few found on aasimars. Most people don't think it is worth the feat and skill points to do it though.

Is it safe to say the desire is to reduce the accessibility of these races and increase the accessibility of others (presumably selling more books in the meantime)? It isn't like they are trying to remove them from PFS play; they mentioned making future boons for them. Isn't that goal of shifting racial figures achieved by the rules as suggested without trying to create more stipulations on the matter?

If it means enough to someone to back to back play 6, or even 10, level one characters in anticipation of future play opportunities, they are paying time, effort, book cost, and possibly mini cost in order to later get enjoyment out of this game.

Explain to me again who is gaining enjoyment by pulling them aside and telling them they can't or shouldn't do that?

I could be wrong, but I thought enjoyment is the point of playing a game.

EDIT: I know I have never set at a table and lost fun due to someone's race. Class however is a different story. I would be willing to open up every PC-offered race* to everyone but me, if it would mean the ban of paladins at the same time.

*drow noble not included

Thanks for the info.

While a part of me is sad to see native outsiders go, I have wanted to make a kitsune and wayang for a long time (actually got to make a kitsune for a non PFS game lately.) I think that definitely softens the blow a lot.

Also, I am happy they decided 1 exp was enough to keep the outsiders running. I have a level 1 aasimar that I have no idea when I would be able to play again, but I did enjoy this character a lot the one time I was able to play him.

I am falling out of the loop here but hoping to find a new PFS group close to my new area. Can someone please link me to rules relating to this?

My imp witch flies into the lodge with a gimp carrying a dead body behind him.

In one of the other threads like this, I saw people disagreeing about what was sexy for men and then showing examples of more "manly men" that looked exactly the same to me as the "feminine males" that were being decried.

A half decent artist can make a female attractive by adding some T and A (or according to some parting their lips or having them stand in a awkward pose; I don't buy it but supposedly this is a big deal.) I don't think there is any simple add on touch that you can add to any male picture and evoke "sexy" across the board.

Trying to do a tally of sexy pictures on both sides says next to nothing about intent or "fairness" in my opinion, and more about how easy one gender can become visually sexy compared to the other.

Reading this it sounds like "GM at cons=get race boons." But I know this certainly isn't enough to do it. I have GMed at Phoenix Comicon 2 years in a row with no boons. Ultimately this irrelevant for me now since I just moved to a very Pathfinder light area and my free time has dropped dramatically. But I do think it still a relevant point for others.

Also Brom, I suggested something very similar probably close to a year ago and it never got much feedback.

Nope. To do that you need lenses of figment piercing (or something close, I am on the phone now). To roll on sight is something like 17k and an eye slot.

Edit: 12k

Or possess object for that matter. On phone now, the name may be slightly different.

Homunculus and familiar melding . Be prepared to retrieve your "dead body" perhaps when the guards dump it.

Every table I have ever sat at, these type of spells keep trying as long as there are valid targets and the HD limit of creatures with failed saves has not been met. Never once have I heard anyone say anything along the lines of "OMG this overpowered, game breaking, ect..." and I have seen them used on both sides of the table.

Bleed (Ex)

A creature with this ability causes wounds that continue to bleed, inflicting additional damage each round at the start of the affected creature’s turn.....p

Sleep

...Creatures with the fewest HD are affected first...Sleep does not target unconscious creatures, constructs, or undead creatures.

I can't see the meaningful difference you are talking about.

Also, as listed in this spell, and reinforced by the holy grail of "save equals affected" arguments I have seen to this point, only not being a legal target (which is different than being immune, making a save, or having spell resistance) does not add to the HD affected pool.

I am not 100% that I have gotten the main idea of your first point. If you were pointing to the idea of who is rolling the dice instead of the language used for the effects, remember that the characters are doing things to prevent themselves from being hit, even if you don't roll the dice. Only a character with no defensive feats, no armor, and 1 dex would would be making no contribution to defending from an attack. Such a person would have an AC equal to a door, spot on the floor, or whatever: 5.

If someone swings at you with an attack that causes bleed damage and their attack roll is above 4 but doesn't hit you, did they affect you?

If not, what about the language makes successfully defending against a spell different than successfully defending against a physical attack?

Well a few points about it matter. If only things that are "truly affected" count as affected, you would have to carry a lot of heavier, larger, more expensive animals to ensure your immunity. For the sake of sleep, this might not matter for some characters, but at later levels when you are looking at some of the death spells it certainly will for many more. I have many characters that carrying capacity is a problem for, so it is going to matter for me right out of the gate.

Also it points to the fact that the whole "counts as affected" but isn't "truly affected" argument doesn't make any sense.

And as I stated earlier, if I am having to roll for all these creatures, I am less likely to do it. I don't want to bog down the game. However, if I can use immune creatures, I don't have to worry about slowing down the game, and I am much more likely to do it.

1 HD

Even the non-familiar can't be truly affected by this spell, but according to the logic previously expressed, everything except for illegal targets sucks up the potential HD that can be affected by area spells that care about total HD.

So, I got an official ruling on this issue.

I don't feel its right to state the ruling as it should come from horses mouth.

But in conclusion there should hopefully be a faq produced soon if all goes well.

So keep your fingers crossed.

I didn't realize they did this. But Rieka, in light of a few weeks passing and no official word here, would you be willing to share how you would currently rule this at your table?

I don't intend to get into the meat of this again, but I did want to comment on the whole not bringing a cure stick to the table.

I was playing at a low level table with an archery fighter I had never seen who didn't have any healing with him. After a fight, he said rather harshly, "I have taken a some decent damage." Everyone kind of set there for a second not really sure what to say. He then followed with, "I am thinking one of the many clerics at the table can fix this?" I am not really sure who he was talking about. We had a monk with a one level dip in cleric, a druid in the form of a dinosaur, me as an inquisitor, and a sorceress (his wife). The monk ended up using his wand to heal the guy for the session.

To preempt the notion that he was a new guy that didn't know any different, we were all about level 4 and this guy and his wife knew the rules better than many of the people I had played at the con with this weekend.

This guy's attitude made me want to contribute nothing to him. While part of me thought, I don't want the monk to carry all the burden of this guy's healing, I also thought, "This guy is an entitled ass, and I don't want to give him anything." Had he said something like, "I don't have a way to heal, could someone please help me?" I would have been happy to. I probably would have mentioned that wands are dirt cheap, but I would have been happy to heal him rather than making it an expectation of someone else.

1. Why would someone rules lawyer a 10 year old? (or whatever the girl was in the gift story earlier)

2. Could someone please link to the appropriate text that says only Mike and John's posts are binding for PFS? I have always been operating under the impression that SKR and the antipaladin's posts were binding also.

The druid thinks "BUT HE IS A PRIME APE" is a good argument for why his animal companion should be able to use its climb speed on the ceiling of a cave.

Ipslore the Red wrote:

Parody, possibly.

I'm not sure if it's parody or not honestly. It's funny to me, and it probably comes off as silly to people reading it from my post, but the question itself is just as relevant.

My biological origins are a mixture of a little bit of Irish (not much), German (more), and Native American (cherokee specifically). Over time various amounts of biological features have been exchanged and retooled in my bloodline. I have lighter skin than my grandmother (who has darker skin and super-black hair that turned a beautiful silver shade as she got older, a trait that she inherited being closer to our native American family members), and I have my mother's eyes and my grandmother's hair, my dad and uncle's facial features, and my grandfather's brain (but don't tell anyone).

Where's my god? What if I want to play a Cleric of "slightly darker than pale skin tones with black, brown, and silver hair, green/brown alternating eyes, that is above average height"? What domains should I pick?

Interesting these are my main three as well. I have never heard anyone outside of my family claim the three of them exclusively.

What Raving Dork said. I think that was one of the things they listed in the "How to make a FAQ request" thread.

I have tried to read most of this thread, and correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can tell one side's only argument is "JJ says." On its own, you can't even really invoke RAW with this. Once he was quoted as saying the opposite, it sounds like there is really nothing left to argue. Am I missing something?

You'd look like Elton John. :)

If the players accept the social contract that they are all playing together, you don't have to ban anything. It is just when a player is so superior to the others that you can't make a real challenge without TPK if the allstar falls that you run into trouble. If they are not trying to eclipse anyone, let it run.

But blackbloodtroll, it says it works like disguise self but it doesn't repeat that disguising you includes your clothes or actually giving a bonus to disguise checks. Plus this item only cost 800 gold! We have to find some way to make it less useful for that price. At my table this item will only make you look like a small human, halfling, or gnome, and only if you are trying to look like a shopkeeper, blacksmith, or peasant; your normal clothes won't appear to fit anymore if you are medium. And no aasimars or tieflings using this item! Charm person is ok for them because not being humanoid is BS, but disguise self can't make them appear humanoid when they really aren't.

/sarcasm

I too thank you for all the work you put into the site.

As far as the subdomains, I have always been under the impression that they were limited, but you raise some interesting points. I didn't realize that JJ was the only one who has said that they are limited (taking your word on this.) He brings some good mojo and is fantastic about replying to people in the Ask JJ thread (not being binding does make this easier for him than others), but on occasion I find his logic quite suspect.

I would love to find out that you were right and someone officially came out and said that subdomains are a suggestion. I am a fan of the more obscure gods. But until then I am reluctant to just bring any sub-domain to a PFS table.

Like the skull I mentioned, it creates a net effect similar to an illusion spell so they opted to go with that spell in the creation without giving a lot of concern to why it works. Since I am sure they write the item and then decide what spell is similar to what makes it, not pick a spell and decide what magic item could I create with this, I would follow the description instead of the crafting reqs. If you are wanting to use crafting reqs to criticize/change how items work, you can create a very large (and very subjective) list.

A soulspeaker head gives off a faint illusion aura. I wouldn't say that it isn't really opening its eyes or speaking a message. The text says these things happen. Had they chose to use speak with dead instead of magic mouth (which I would think more appropriate considering the flavor and descriptions of why the mechanics work) then it would probably glow necromancy instead.

Whatever happened to "specific trumps general?" An item's personal text is obviously more specific than a quick reference table for lots of gear that doesn't duplicate entries in other similar tables regardless of potential overlap.

Quite the contrary, it states very clearly what it does. There is just a population of people who think that if an item cost less than they think it should then it is their job as GMs it instill table variation and nerf items for the session.

I have heard it said before and have experienced it myself. Many times social skills have a "peak zone" of where they tend to work well.

Player: Bluff = 32
GM: Oh yeah he totally buys it hook line and sinker. You have him wrapped around your finger

Player: Bluff = 52
GM: He believes you but doesn't seem to care.

Is there any reason you can't buy a spellbook for 15 gold and then have other wizards or paid NPCs write in it for you?

I don't think you can change them with command words. Perhaps that is what some of the "oh no players can't buy efficient gear" crowd fail to consider as well. You only choose what the sleeves do when you put them on. So you are probably looking at a full round or two standard actions in combat (with free hands) to get your sleeves to give you some DR from the swarms. I don't know about how most of your combats go, but most of the swarm combats I have seen only last 2-4 rounds. The only reason I would choose to do this instead of dealing damage to them is if I happen to be playing a character that is otherwise useless against them.

EDIT @ Blaphers: How do you think your customer will react when you take the sleeves off to give them to them and they turn back into sleeves?

I looked it up before, and holding to the wording that made the loophole for the quick burnout reading, it would make insects valid for sucking up HD but not for actually being put to sleep. Since it was a bit of a mock point, I haven't bothered to look it up again, but if you would like I would be willing to find the relevant lines of text.

Sitri wrote:

Matthew Downie wrote:

Sitri wrote:

If for some reason they rule those that make the save count towards the HP total, my characters are going to start buying house centipedes.

As GM I'd rule that bugs don't have hit dice. Otherwise you'd get situations like this:

GM: The bone mage casts Circle of Death... here! Catching the entire party. You're under 40HD total so you all have to make a save or die.
Player: Ah, but there's a tree there in the middle. There must be hundreds of insects living on and under that tree. Forty of them have to save or die. Everyone else is fine.

In a home game, this issue doesn't really matter that much, you can rule how you like. In PFS where GMs are mandated to follow the rules, this would also be a violation.

A swarm of thousands of centipedes has nine hit dice. Therefore by RAW a jar of dozens of centipedes has less than one hit dice.

So if part of the name matches with a swarm, you can combine and divide them with impunity to pick and choose what bits of text to use from each regardless of size, HD, or other mechanics? Sweet; I am going to start using swarm skin to have all my diminutive centipedes trample for 1354d6 damage. >.>