Smurfy Hammer's page

Fozzy Hammer wrote:

There is no portion of the guide that allows a GM to remove a character from PFS organized play, yet you assert that there is.

Nope, never claimed that ws in the Guide. That's a post from Mark, instructing GMs how to interpret the Guide.

Fozzy wrote:

There is no portion of the guide that allows a GM to change a character's alignment, against the wishes of the player, you you state that you have done such.

Nope. The core rulebook is the source that allows a GM to change a player character's alignment. As for having done so in PFS, I've never made that claim. Ever.

Fozzy wrote:

There is no portion of the guide that asserts that the completion of any faction mission is an "evil act", or that "evil acts" are in any way, shape or form prohibited in organized play. You you assert that such are.

Nope. That's from Josh Frost.

Seriously, dude. You're being snarky. Request for an apology.

A rules conversation with someone who ignores the rules is by its nature a waste of time, so I will stop wasting my time in this conversation with you. Should you actually wish to discuss rules, and not random blog posts, I'll be glad to re-engage with you.

Stop looking for an apology when you are in the wrong, and I suspect you will be much smurfier.

Fozzy Hammer wrote:

Define "cheesy".

To some, sneak attack and rapid shot is cheesy. But there are a heckuva lot of rogues and rangers built around those mechanics.

What's cheesy to you, is fun to another.

I know a local player, plays archers almost all the time. He and his characters barely speak a word during the entire module. Every module he plays.

But you know what, he seems to get as much fun out of playing his shootshootshoot archer that I do playing my flamboyant scene stealing bard.

Everyone gets something different out of the game. Labeling the parts of the game that they happen to like as something "cheesy" just smacks of elitism to me. I'm not calling you elitist. But I'm saying that pronouncement seems that way to me.

This. I'm sure there are a lot of people (like the good Mr. Jonquet) who aren't aware of how condescending those statements/sentiments can come across.

For comparison, try taking all of your (Bob's) statements - kindly phrased though they are - and reverse them. Make them comments about how "concept-based" characters sometimes "trend toward" being underpowered and not contributing their fair share of keeping the party alive. Even keeping the same diplomatic tone you used, I wager it'd still rub you the wrong way. The nature of the comparison being made is that one thing is somehow inferior to the other.

Just as the wizard should respect the fighter's brawn and the fighter should respect the wizard's brains, so too should Mr. Concept respect Mr. Optimal's ability to keep him alive and Mr. Optimal should respect Mr. Concept's ability to make a good story. Isn't that the kind of teamwork that's central to the genre?

Smurfy good post.

Thanks.

Jiggy wrote:

Um, they did.

As frequently as this misconception pops up, I'd say there is room for improvement.

And Smurfy Hammer declares victory and does a little dance.

The "Rules Deserve Clarity" dance.

He dances quietly*, hoping nobody is watching.

* Note: The IRS and Securities and Exchange Commission have outlawed the "Rules Deserve Clarity" dance in all fifty states, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico.

Andrew Christian wrote:

I think it takes much more work and can be much more fun and rewarding, to create a well rounded, or interesting character. This starts with the stats. If all you are doing is trying to optimize, then you start with the stats, and your mindset is set to build something awesome from a mechanical standpoint. But if you like to create a character instead of a page full of numbers, you create the personality and backstory first. Then try to fit the stats to that. In this case, a Druid based on handle animal would definitely have a higher charisma than a purely optimized handle animal druid might have.

No he wouldn't; he'd have a higher Handle Animal skill.

That's the whole point.
Those who are dedicating their lives, investing in the skill that governs the training of animals, are being trumped by shysters, bunko artists and conmen amateurs who invested one token rank.

Your wolf/cat/bear/shark/wombat couldn't care less how much natural ability you have at dancing, telling stories or jokes.
They don't recognise what a snazzy dresser you are, or know that the girls at school loved the way you parted your hair.
They don't appreciate how well you strum a lute, or blow on the oboe.
They won't look down on you if you use the wrong fork, or if you don't use a fork at all.
If you try to sell them a pyramid scheme, they will simply ignore you.

What they will respond to, is how well you understand them, and how well you display the correct pack-leader behaviour, an ability that is described, in game, via the Handle Animal bonus, which is calculated as a factor of training (skill ranks), professional insider knowledge (class skill bonus), empathic bonding (the +4 bonus), traits, feats, and maybe, maybe, an proportionally insignificant minor modifier from Cha, tagged onto the end as an afterthought, simply because every skill needs to be based on one stat or other, so we may as well take pity on Cha and give it something to do.

What part of
"Civilisation is...

Holy carp!

That was awesome!

Even Smurfy!

Bob Jonquet wrote:

I think we all know what I meant. Do my quotes around re-skinned have any less meaning than the ones you put around misunderstanding?

Re-skinning is my new head explosion! And me explaining why I put quotes around misunderstanding will just get me in trouble. ;)

Are you saying that you are re-skinning his statement to be more technically correct?

Smurfy!

Getting a chance to win a reward is a perk for making the effort to be there. I *do* feel bad for folks (like Military personnel) who really can't make it there due to other obligations or things beyond their control, 'cause GenCon is a blast.

Smurfy Hammer's head asplodes.

(additional content self-removed in uncharacteristic show of restraint)