I didn't take anything out of context. Taking them out of context would be applying them somewhere you didn't already do so yourself.
I didn't include the entire post because the readers have opposed thumbs and the ability to use a scroll wheel.
You brought both posts here referencing the same position you have on the same subject. IF you didn't want them here, you shouldn't have mentioned them.
Anything wielded as a weapon is a weapon. If I beat you with a table leg, would you say I was unarmed?
Better yet - "butcher knife" doesn't appear anywhere on the weapons list, either, deadly though it can be.
Yet "knife" does - only if it is made of brass? So a butcher can wield a +1 knife, but not a +1 butcher knife?
EDIT: There is another argument for improvised weapons being weapons. Characters using improvised weapons do not provoke AoOs like fighting unarmed does. Therefore, IWs do appear to be weapons, even with the applied penalty.
I made two direct quotes, both in-context.
Feel free to rule as you like at your tables, but leave the misrepresentation of those who disagree with you out of it, alright?
No misrepresentation made nor intended. You used game balance (the application of penalties, as you said) as a direct supporting argument to your position. If you didn't want them connected, don't connect them.
If they aren't related (as you now say) then they don't belong here, so in either case, don't blame the messenger.
Incidentally, your mention of game balance also attempted to speak to the motivations of the creators of PCs in this situation, but I'll stop there.
To Matthew - I disagree that there is a consensus.
To Chris - Every chance I have witnessed, the CS refuses to make a ruling until enough players jump onto the bandwagon and essentially force their hands into doing so.
"Expect table variation" appears more often than not.
Requiring such a ruling from campaign leadership is a cop-out. Just take responsibility for the ruling and leave it at that - no one is faulting you for that.
To all: I maintain that an improvised weapon is a weapon by its very name and that fact alone means any argument to the contrary is an attempt at disallowing something via semantics and it is a weak position at best. IMO the entire reason for rough and ready (or catch off guard) is to allow for this type of flavor in the game.
But I am not in charge of every game. Therefore, some GMs will rule it one way and some will rule it another. This will give players like myself an opportunity to find another table when the need arises.
To Jiggy: Stacking the feat/trait and MW/enchantment, as has been used as the primary argument against the whole "MW/enchanted improvised weapon" thing - by Jiggy and others, appeals to game balance. Yet, on previous posts there was a denial that game balance had anything to do with it.
Jiggy: "Power level does not determine legality," etc..
Now that improvised, enchanted weapons have been shown to exist within the rules (the aforementioned enchanted arrows used in melee) we are back to discussing game balance:
Jiggy: "If it were really about roleplaying, you'd be willing to use actual improvised weapons — and all the mechanical drawbacks thereof. The only thing getting shut down here is trying to gain the mechanical benefits of two mutually-exclusive combat methods."
First of all, they are taking a significant drawback mechanically, using feats and traits to do less damage than any real fighter with a real weapon.
Roleplaying eventually has to give way to the combat engine, if the PC wishes to fight. Being completely helpless against certain types of creatures with DR until you conform to an artificially applied rule (in lieu of official ruling) is not seeking a game advantage. It is a desire to not nerf the PC even *further* by not only having to waste feats, skiil points and traits, but also money in weaponry, both "real" and "improvised."
Secondly, the combat styles are not mutually exclusive. You are *reading* it that way. There is a big difference.
Thirdly, nothing is "shut down here" until we have a campaign ruling. In which case, see above.
Chris Mortika wrote:
If the players at the table cannot come up with a reasonable explanation for ANY PFS legal PC combo with the help of the GM, I say they are being lazy.
The undead creator/animator looks at the paladin and says "these creatures are serving their punishment in a more positive role than their prior existence before I send them to their eternal rest."
If pressed, the cleric can tell the paladin to take it up with Hanspur. The paladin's player does not need to make it an issue, nor does the paladin PC have to forego the mission because of his distaste.
This isn't that difficult. If you are creative enough to come up with a PC that might be offensive to some other PCs (not players - I think the problem with the fake outrage is that players act like their PCs) then you are certainly creative enough to be able to explain your motivations and role towards the mission and/or greater good to that PCs diametrically opposed alignment, role, whatever.
Thanks - didn't know about which creatures are immune to nonlethal.
The PC I am targeting for this tactic is an elemental bloodline (air) sorcerer, so I can have a rolling electric sphere too.
I was also going to keep the aqueous orb for putting out fires and other things that water would be useful for. But since it won't be a good dazing spell I will likely leave the slot open for something else.
I didn't get a reply to this so I will repeat.
Can a dazed creature hold its breath? I am guessing yes, since the "take no actions" part of daze likely means actual in-game actions and I can see no reference to deliberately holding one's breath as a type of action.
But, that is just a guess. I'm wondering if aqueous orb would be a decent "roll around and daze enemies one by one" type of spell. It has a reflex like flaming sphere but isn't subject to fire resistance. Also, what would resist the nonlethal dmg?
Don't forget the luck cleric alt. channel ability that allows a sacred bonus to an attack, save or skill roll to everyone in range during the turn following the channel (or a penalty to the baddies if you channel neg., but not sure if the alignment and domains match on that). Also there is an ability (can't remember what it is called offhand) that allows a +3 or higher on aid another (vs. +2) for the cleric standing behind the tank. That plus luck domain rerolls and channel bonuses (and being in range to heal) /add shield other spell is pretty awesome for a buffer.
I am making a PFS PC like this.
My edit button can't be found - but I wanted to add that crafting items in PFS takes place completely behind the scenes. Crafting rules are therefore assumed rather than applied straight out of the book. (We can't be using the game's crafting rules 'cuz they're not allowed.)
We can, however buy items with specific guidelines on item cost. It would seem that with the number of unique and custom items out there on chronicles, as long as a PC has the gold and PP to buy said improvised weapon, it should be allowed.
Also, the measure of the trait "rough and ready" is more than just feat vs. trait. It is feat vs. trait + skill points, something fighter types do not have in excess.
If catch off guard does not apply to the baker wielding the rolling pin in the dungeon setting (why would he be there in the first place, AND I think the hat would throw people off more than the RP, but I digress) then it shouldn't apply anywhere else.
Obviously there is a reason for the feat. An aberration or outsider may not even know what a rolling pin IS so if we are going to say it doesn't apply for one reason, it certainly shouldn't apply for another. But then any GM could argue it *never* applies for one reason or another.
You're a Pathfinder->Pathfinders are deadly-> sorry I ain't buying that rolling pin gag. No feat for you. And...no one wants to play with me as a GM anymore.
Also, I forget who said it with the rough and ready->profession:soldier->WP: falcata.
That would be using the rules to get a bonus beyond what it is believed to be RAI, i.e. a free exotic weapon proficiency.
Someone taking a penalty for using a club at d6 or even d8 over an allowed greatsword at 2d6 is obviously not meant to abuse the rules in a mechanical way like the falcata example.
An improvised weapon IS a weapon. It even says "weapon" next to "improvised." I don't know how anyone on here or anywhere else is going to be able to successfully argue against that one. It is just a crappy weapon, but a weapon nonetheless.
An IW is not listed on the weapon table. It was not designed for combat, even though it could be optimized and enchanted for combat. That is why a rolling pin will only ever do damage as a club at d6 instead of d10.
I don't understand why this is so difficult. Some read the rules one way, others are obviously reading it another.
Honestly, the problem I thought people would have with the folding chair is that they would say it is technically not a TOOL of a trade. I used profession:fisherman for the use of the stool, but profession:milkmaid and profession:competitive drinker should work well too.
I never thought we would be arguing so much about something that makes so much obvious, logical sense. Some GMs wont allow it. NBD.
I just won't play with GMs who want such specific interpretations on rules that don't matter one whit to game balance or outcome. I won't take it personally and they shouldn't either.
And Jiggy, I hope the "personal attacks" thing wasn't directed at me. I don't do that sort of thing on discussion forums. OK, maybe if they really deserve it... ;) but that was not my intent.
@Todd Morgan - With the caveat that his rolling pin no longer interacts with things like the Catch Off-Guard feat, sounds awesome. :)
Clinging to semantics like you and several others on here do is going to legislate yourselves into a CRB that is 1500 pages long and a GtPFSOP that is even longer.
Basing your entire argument on the phrase "not being made for combat" is inherently weak. That could also mean "was never intended for use as a weapon (even though it could function as one)."
People use things for unintended purposes all the time. I just repaired a percussion instrument with my daughter's hair tie. I suppose that ruins the instrument and the performers are now going to take a -4 penalty to play it.
A rolling pin deliberately crafted as a weapon instead of a rolling pin is still not a weapon on the weapon table. That makes it an improvised weapon. And therefore, both qualities which you say cannot exist together. Hence my rock/stick argument. Those are both most certainly weapons and have been used as such, but don't appear on the weapon table. You have even seen it in published events. "The orc children grab sticks (treat as clubs d6)," or somesuch.
Please excuse the astonishment of this post, but holy frijoles already.
First of all, the way some are describing what a true adventurer/pathfinder would be, Bilbo never woulda gone on that trek to begin with. That means evil wins. Both times, 'cuz Frodo and Sam ain't adventurers either.
The "non-adventurer" is the one who saved the day in both stories.
Secondly, if Farmer Bob is deemed illegal, fine. I have other PCs to play. My problem would be with WHY he is being deemed illegal. It has been explained more than once here how the rules could qualify the use and/or purchase of masterwork and enchanted improvised weapons.
If the OCD committee should win out, it is bad for everyone.
I have gone out of my way to build flavor over optimization. Need I remind people of the complaints about ubermunchkin PCs? Well, I can build those too if that is preferable. My experience has been that people don't like me when I blow combats off the map in one round.
(Sorry for the conceit, but everyone knows that with enough time an effort people can build things that are hard to deal with as a GM). In this case, I have avoided being annoying in favor of being fun. Which incidentally, as most people in our group can tell you -- that is rare.
As far as the basis of the argument goes, this isn't rocket surgery.
One can have an improvised weapon and go to the smith and say "put metal studs on this rolling pin. Better yet, make me a cold iron rolling pin with a hollow core for some quicksilver." (natch!) Still not a weapon according to the weapon table. Still improvised, but those studs are awfully durned nice and ouchy. Now he has a masterwork cold iron mercurial rolling pin. Most fighters would still roll their eyes at you and wonder why you don't use a real weapon. Then the same guy turns to the mage and says "hey, enchant this thing."
For those who are now going to remind me that mages aren't a PC class in PFS, and that mercurial weapons don't exist and were stupid to begin with, please go get some fresh air.
The enchantment is magic - magic can be imaginative. A rock is and has been historically used as a weapon, but I don't see it on the weapon table. No, you ad nauseum picky ones, not a sling stone, a rock. I notice that "pointy stick" and "board with a nail in it" are absent as well. Forgive me if I have missed PF Suplement #326.17a2.0004 and I am incorrect on the rock/stick thing.
I wish I weren't the guy with the PC in question. Then I could freely say, "Seriously? The guy is hurting no one, is having fun, the players like the character, and it isn't over (or under) balancing the game AND can be explained within the rules."
My can of sarcasm was overflowing on the kitchen counter and I had to use some of it before it spoiled. :)
The dung fork also serves as a MW tool for intimidate since he uses it to gesture while talking a-la Carl Spackler from Caddyshack (during the "big hitter, the Lama" speech).
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Heck, I think the concept of a flaming dung fork is all kinds of awesome. I guess what I'd really love to see is a holy mackerel.
It would seem to me that munchkining the rules would be bending them to greater, not lesser effect.
If the fun police want to say improvised weapon enchantments are illegal (as above) then I suppose the PCs in question will have to go back to doing 3x the damage with a greatsword. And roll their eyes a lot.
I play a raging hurler barbarian who uses a shovel, rake, folding chair (hey it is in the CRB), dung fork, etc. for his weapons. Maxed out for damage, he still does less than using a "real" weapon.
And on that note, most polearms (and the earth breaker) evolved from farm tools which is why "rough and ready" makes sense in the first place (google ancient farm tools and look at the pics of them). And if you take profession: fisherman you get that net proficiency, too.
In later levels I plan to have him throw anvils (masterwork tools, y'all) when he gets the larger size objects available for hurling. Still not as much damage as a boring old greatsword, which is as it should be, but infinitely more fun.
The bonuses in the prd are exactly the same as the ones given in the spell, first of all. Just because it doesn't specifically use the word "spell" doesn't mean they aren't exactly the same conditions.
I was referring to any invisibility ability on any creature. Is there one that does not eventually reference the spell?
Secondly, using the glossary, the numbers I gave match. The maximum DC given (not including conditions not discussed here) is 40+ stealth, as I stated above. Since being in combat negates 20 of that and stealth doesn't apply when attacking, the maximum is DC 20 +/- distance and conditions.
And as for stealth being impossible while attacking (Oladon), running or charging, the skill states exactly that.
"Check: Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a –5 penalty. It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging."
I'm trying to clarify the intent of the rule here.
Yeah, I get that. I'm still pointing to the spell where it explicitly states that the invisibility bonus is a stealth bonus. I have not seen invisibility as a condition that does not eventually refer back to the invisibility spell. Yet -- if someone could show me where.
If an (greater) invisible wizard is in combat, he does not receive the +20 stationary bonus (or it is negated by the -20 "in combat" penalty, whichever). That leaves the invisibility +20 bonus, plus stealth check. If he attacks or uses an attack spell, he cannot make a stealth check.
Therefore, pinpointing the square should be a maximum base DC 20, modified only by distance and conditions.
Pinpointing by sight (visible) = DC 0
The rules already state that within 5' pinpointing an attacking invisible creature is automatic. The only way to prevent pinpointing the square is if the opponent attacks from reach or range. I'm saying that should be a maximum of a DC 20 perception check (+/- distance/conditions) since stealth can't apply and they are both "in combat" and attacking directly.
Just to clarify - I am not talking about negating the miss chance - only pinpointing the square.
What I am saying is that there does not seem to be any reference to invisibility (as the spell) "without stealth at all" since the invisibility bonus *IS* a stealth bonus.
From the spell, invisibility (bold mine): "Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving. The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe."
The -20 to the perception check, according to the rules on the invisibility spell, is a stealth bonus which is opposed by perception.
Stealth cannot be used if the creature is attacking, also as described above.
From the glossary (invisibility): "The ability to move about unseen is not foolproof. While they can't be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt.
Invisibility makes a creature undetectable by vision, including darkvision."
There is no rule that states PCs cannot detect things using sound. In fact, there are several situations given under Perception that would suggest otherwise. Pinpointing the square is the obvious issue there.
IIRC when I signed up my daughter (who is now 8) for her PFS# the minimum selection for age in the table/field was 13. It was somewhere in the signup process for name/address/whatever. So I lied and signed her up anyway, knowing she would only be playing with us at home, at least to begin with.
I started playing when I was 7 because my older brother was playing with a small group and needed another player. Those family van rides to and from Canada on fishing trips were when I learned the rules. So I think every child should be given a chance if the parent thinks they are ready.
Parents are responsible for their kids. If the parent is a responsible player, you won't have any problems from their child(ren).
That said, any GM has the right to refuse to run a game for people who they deem not ready to handle either the patience OR the themes, some of which can be mature. They are there to run a game, not babysit. Players should let the GM know in advance of the slot wherever possible that "underage" players want to participate.
That may sound harsh, and I am the first person to help out younger players when I see the need. But GMs have enough on their plate and need to call out a parent who shows up with a child who is either not ready or has no intention to sit still/pay attention because they either would not or could not afford a sitter. I have seen more than one table at Gen Con where parents brought infants and toddlers to games (in the late slot no less) who had no interest in the games.
I didn't want to post this in the tactics thread. Sorry if this has all been argued before - I am not a frequent board-er.
By rule, invisibility modifies stealth checks so that creatures are visually undetectable (barring special abilities, spells, etc.)
Also by rule, it is impossible to use stealth while attacking, running, or charging. Therefore, while an invisible (assumed greater, whatever) creature attacks, it cannot have this bonus to stealth because stealth does not apply.
reality (whether or not it belongs is up to you)
Hearing someone walking is a DC10, modified for distance and conditions of course.
A tactic for locating an invisible creature for a party could be everyone immediately holding and readying an action to move to or attack the square from which they hear sounds of the invisible creature when it attacks. This would eliminate the excess noise of combat interfering with the party's perception check to hear the invisible creature.
Break that one up and tell me why it doesn't or won't work.
A stunstone is even better for invis. creatures...
Starting a new thread on invisible creatures since my question will invariably hijack.
Sorry - my PC has the feat. I just assumed one could buy the rod since every other type of rod is available. I have never purchased one, obviously.
Gnoll Bard wrote:
I'm fairly certain that you can't make or buy a heighten spell metamagic rod. No such item appears in any book I know of, and you'd have to come up with new rules for it, or else make it prohibitively expensive, since you can heighten a spell to any level you can cast.
I have a sorcerer with heighten spell and the 0-level light spell. I will use that to counter DD every now and again.
Or even a rod of lesser heighten spell would work with it or CF if you want it to last - how often will it come up?
Wasting a spell slot on CF for a sorcerer just for this purpose = not worth it though, IMO.
My next character will be a sorcerer with heighten spell, to pass out 4th level continual flames to everyone he meets.
I have seen very few errors on HeroLab. Is it perfect? No, but no one's hand written PCs are either. That is what you get with a complex ruleset.
Quite honestly, if every one of your hand written PCs is perfect, you need to get out more.
The three people (GMs) who have criticized HeroLab as inaccurate in my presence and because of my use have been humbled by its accuracy. HL was correct, they were wrong in each case. There were an abundance of stars behind their names, too. I really wish I could remember all the specifics for the inevitable challenge to that statement.
I'm not calling them stupid. I'm saying HL is a great resource and sniping at it because some players use it as a time-saver is silly. It has been endorsed by Paizo and LW does a great job with updates and addressing bug fixes.
Will I occasionally do something wrong because of HL? Sure -- maybe. But HL is vastly more accurate than some people's memories who are just "fer danged sure" things work they way they think they do. And since I use it during the game I have HL and the SRD up in front of me all the time so I can cross reference them when necessary. IF needed, I have all the PDFs too. The difference for me will be I don't have to page through books to find anything - I have every feat, item, spell, etc. in handy pull down menus.
Until someone can show me a chargen that runs even close to HL in terms of functionality and expansions/updates, I will continue purchasing every update HL has available.
Both liberating command and suppress charms and compulsions are VERY useful low level spells and hold their own in HL combats. And that was but one example. There are several others but I am not going to post them here. I like using my ideas at tables before sharing them. :)
As far as the evil master plan goes, those are your words and I was being facetious.
Christopher Rowe wrote:
Funky Badger - not sure what you mean by "picking them back up," but the BBEG had ranged weapons and they were within 30 feet of him. Dragging them out one at a time would have mathematically resulted in a fail. The best chance I had was what I did as far as attacks go. I could have retreated and gotten my 1XP and 1PA and they still would have all been unrecoverable in the BBEG's lair.
Dragnmoon - a brand new player missing one scenario out of dozens available is not a big loss. They did play it - they just didn't get any rewards for it. And no action I could have taken would have resulted in a different outcome TMK.
IIRC we all got chronicles with 1XP and something like 150 gold to go with our deaths. The GM allowed us to be recovered even though none had PA high enough.
RE: buying your way to a better PC. In PFS it most certainly is possible.
Look at the spells in the Andoran book, not to mention some others which I have purchased and use. Some of the resources on the "additional resources list" would be must haves for any true power gamer.
Maybe that is by design, maybe not.
Of course, the chicken and the egg in this discussion for me is 100% due to scenarios like Dalsine and similar.
1) make the scenarios harder
Some of it makes sense, especially from a business standpoint, but when we approach the level of a CCG I'm out. :P
We played this recently at a con. 3 brand new PCs being played by two first time PFS players and myself, one second level paladin played by a somewhat novice player and a 5th level cleric, who left halfway through the event (did not feel well). It didn't affect our tier but would have saved the TPK.
The final fight ended up being comprised of one attack on each PC plus two for the paladin. Nevermind that special ability being used which nerfed the PCs before combat even began.
I saw this TPK coming a mile away when the BBEG hit an AC of something like 26 on his first attack.
During the final combat, I asked the new players (who were already down - paladin was dead) during the final fight if they minded dying in their first adventure -- I explained since there is really no penalty other than the PC's "twin brother" showing up for the next slot if that is what they wanted to do. I did this while stalling on my own turn during the combat -- and made sure it wasn't a big deal for my PC (the only one still up) to run into the combat.
By doing this I was also testing the GM. I thought he had forgotten that there were two brand new PFS players and three essentially level 0s in the party. I thought by reminding him of this fact he would realize what he was doing before the TPK.
So I ran in. I rolled a nat 20 and confirmed the crit, doing 17 points of damage, after the bad guy had already taken damage during the fight (and apparently healed himself when we pulled back to try ranged attacks earlier). I don't know how many HP the bad guy had left, but it could not have been many.
The GM rolled and knocked my PC down as well in the next round. He actually seemed surprised that we were all down after he asked "who is up next?"
After I told him we were all down (and the rest of the table was kind of just staring at him) he actually left the table to go find out what to do and that "don't worry, we're not all dead."
He really felt bad. I tried to warn him. I cared little for losing a first game PC and I think the other players were OK with it - which is why I ran in, but the point is that table awareness needs to be high on every GM's list of skills to take. ;)
I could see a table like this being one that drove players away. The moral of the story after that long diversion is that the GM needs to realize not just what PCs he or she has at the table, but also the level of experience of the players.
Funky Badger wrote:
1) I use my character folio every game...as a coaster, paperweight, advertising for Paizo, and sometimes even as a character sheet folder. Really! If we are going to be anal about specifying HOW the folio is to be used, then people have way too much time on their hands and priorities that are seriously out of whack.
Get your priorities back in whack, please.
2) Really? The shirt can't be worn in any other way but as a shirt? Sorry, the rules don't say that... :P
Just figured as long as these boards are continuously going critical mass with their logic arguments we might as well do so here, too.
Any GM who says my wearing of my goblin shirt as underwear is not allowable for a reroll is not only incorrect by RAW, but they also risk having me remove said shirt.
Yep, I am fully planning on someone chiming in with "...oh but on Sept. 19th at 8:37 PM on the Paizo site it was clarified in the PFS Discussion board that players can only... blah blah blah"
Please tell me that these regulations some of you keep specifying more and more specifically aren't serious. The clown music just keeps getting louder and it needs to stop.
I have had many of the quick "how did you do that?" or "how does that work?" things come up too, which I believe is how they should all be handled. But I have had some experience with (more or less) "real" audits too.
It has happened to me at a table three times, though none of them on/about my own PC, at least as a catalyst. One of them I pointed out an impossible bonus on someone's PC as another player (a younger player in a lower level game) and the GM (Chris M, I believe) stepped in and did an adjustment for the issue on the spot, with additional information exchanged with the player after the slot.
The other two were not warranted by anything since they occurred at cons and the GM didn't appear to know anyone at the table. Therefore, there was no "probable cause" as they say.
I'd say the average of both times was about 20-30 minutes and they both started at least 10 minutes after scheduled slot start times -- it was a con and it is often difficult to start on time anyway. One audit session left us scrambling in the last encounter. The other essentially prevented us from finishing the event. I'll never sit through audits during the slot again, whether it be mine or others' PCs.
I'd rather leave/find a different table or GM than perpetuate the micromanaging. There are just better uses of time to be made.
Funky Badger wrote:
You and I don't disagree then. But some of the things being listed above for a full table cannot be completed in 4 minutes.
I'm all for accuracy, but even that has a time and place. An "audit" to me is more than simply checking to see that "Hackmaster +12" is not appropriate for character level.
If a GM wants to audit 6 PCs at a table even at only +/-5 minutes per, I'd ask them why they want to waste so much of the game slot doing audits.
We came to play, not do accounting. There is enough wasted time during game slots already without adding a half hour of essentially non-game time.
If something is fishy on a PC, it is obvious through play. A GM asking for clarification on the existence of owned resources or the *existence* of all PC chronicle sheets during a slot is perfectly fine. Anything more than that is wasting the other players' time.
Auditing does not belong during a game slot. Period. If the GM is convinced that a player is cheating so badly that it interrupts the game, then I could see a diversion for THAT PC - but even then not time for a full audit while everyone else waits.
Making players sit for a half hour at the beginning of a slot waiting for the GM to correct everyone's math? I'd rather watch reality TV. (and I hate reality TV)
I also wonder why a GM would want to waste their own time. It is not solely the GMs job to police the game.
The other players are just as responsible for policing other players as the GM is. If something is wrong with a PC, someone will notice and it is their responsibility to point it out to the player (and I have done so as a player more so than as a GM - in fact, never as a GM and only as a player).
The day we start making audits S.O.P. during the game slots is the day I look to another game system or group. See one of my previous posts about playing under suspicion.
If you want to audit everything I have/do/am do it on your own time, not the table's.
An 18,000 lb. object being dragged will stop almost immediately on level terrain when released from the force dragging it.
It also has the respective levels of inertia and friction waiting to stop it.
Unless you put it on ice or wheels, of course. Where's my bucket and my sorcerer with ray of frost?
I realize I am late to this, prolly 'cause I only read these forums about once a month or so, but I'm gonna jump in anyway.
Best quality of a GM? Patience, with a heaping dose of "benefit of the doubt."
Maybe it is the somewhat narrowed view of reading the forums and the avg. level of expertise here being much higher than the PFS at large, but please understand players by and large don't intend to cheat. I see lots of references to how to limit player cheating every once in a while. People don't like playing under suspicion.
Sometimes I even *try* to follow the most updated rulings, etc. and I do stuff that is wrong pretty much all the time. I can only imagine the insurmountable mountain of info. a true casual gamer (who doesn't follow all this stuff) is unable to know due to lack of such time investment.
As far as patience, I am referring to personalities. I am really trying to not sound accusatory here, but I am almost certain some are going to get defensive no matter how I word it, so I guess I will just say it.
There are bubbles and cliques in PFS. There are people in those bubbles and cliques telling each other what they want to hear, which does little but reinforce the bubbles. It drives some other players away (the players that don't "fit" in play style or manner). I'm not going to get into a 14 page discussion about it -- I'm only going to say that after almost 35 years of playing some version of this game, everyone needs to step back outside the bubble and look at things objectively once in a while.
Even in my local game group (which has up to ~40 people who could show to play but we average about 1/4-1/3 of that) we have people who won't/don't/can't play with other people in the group because they don't like "their style of play" read: personality.
The PFS is not so large (at least in my area/experience) that we can afford to be exclusionary. I am not referring to the design of the OP campaign as a whole, but rather the cliquish nature of some of the people in it.
(Don't get me wrong, this is likely the best OP gaming experience I have had and it has at its core people who really love the game itself, as opposed to people who just want power and control, so that in itself is refreshing.)
But the larger point I'd like to make is "please give the players the benefit of the doubt."
This applies everywhere. In-scenario situations would be akin to looting every fallen enemy along the way and searching every corner of every room as S.O.P. and then the GM filling out chronicles later telling them,
"You forgot to mention you were searching area 14d, the SOUTH cavern fissure and that is where this glowy was so I am crossing it off."
It is this "gotcha" style of play I would like to see eliminated.
Table talking during scenarios and time limits on turns is another one. Players are not their PCs. Players do not roleplay the campfire scenes for 2-3 hours before bedtime, nor the 3 days in the caravan or aboard ship where each PC would discuss what they do and where their healing potions are stored, or knowing that a spell caster would like to be reminded when his AoE is going to mess with the Cavalier's charge.
(This is in response to the GMing 101 document rule on "turns by committee.")
Sometimes the only time things like this can be discussed in real time is during the combat. The GM has to give the players the benefit of the doubt that professional adventurers would have discussed these things during the 99%+ of the in game time that we do not roleplay.
There is a difference between telling each other relevant bits of information and abusing the turn sequence. The GM simply must allow that a PC would know instantly what maneuver would work best if something changes a moment before he acts, but the player might take a minute to figure it out, while needing to ask questions of the other players.
Lastly, I am posting this last bit not to start an argument, only to say what my experience has been in some cases.
When the big bad dies, some GMs take it personally. No, I am not going to list names. This has happened enough to be noticeable, yet still in a small minority of games I have played.
Just like the players are not the PCs, the GM is not the NPCs. When a player uses an unexpected "auto win" maneuver and ruins your SUPER ULTRA DEATH COMBO!, as a GM I understand how hard it is to let it go and congratulate the player. I have trouble doing it myself and I have done my share of whining ("but it was gonnna do its big UBER-MASS-, aw, well, you got it") but sometimes that even adds to the players' fun.
Most of the time the GM is *supposed* to "lose." Just because I spent over an hour prepping the final fight at a higher tier and the PCs blasted through it in 4 minutes, it doesn't mean I have to be childish about it or penalize them in their treasure totals later, which I hate to say has also happened to me as a player - I only learned of it after I purchased the scenario and prepped it myself -- the error was obvious at that time and not before which is why I did not bring it up at the table.
Overall, these are fairly minor issues and not system related, but I mention them in the hopes that some might reflect. Back when I was learning to be a DM, one of the persons who taught me (back when GMs were called DMs and were "taught") told me "the Dungeon Master is above all a servant to the players. It is his efforts that determine whether a game is fun or not. Without the players, the DM has no story to tell."
We are GMs now, but the advice still rings true.
I can't seem to find a list of all of the PFS Sanctioned Scenarios and Modules on the site. I see some scenarios for purchase but not all of them and they are in a random order each time I try a different search.
What I need is a link to a list (if there is one) that shows the descriptions and levels for each event. Help?
Giving up higher level slots for the rare opportunity to use them on constructs, especially when some of them are immune to spells that allow SR, might not be optimal slot use. But consider walking around with a golem slave for the rest of the event. :-)
Maybe constructs appear more often than I have seen them, but undead seem to be more common.