Stewart Towslee's page

I'd absolutely play a witch with a rabbit familiar.

I might not be able to cite specific examples in this case, but I had a gunslinger player in my last campaign. Yes, at lower levels he didn't do a lot of damage, mostly because of his gun. He had to reload and thus could only shoot every other round. But when he fired, he nearly ALWAYS hit, making the damage he was doing consistent. After a few levels though, his character really came into full swing and seemed to do just fine in combat.

The only downside I ever saw was his choice of weapon (musket) in the beginning. But in the end he ended up being very fun to play, and certainly not overshadowed by the rest of the party.

This feats description states that the clerics level for channeling the opposing energy type is 2 cleric levels lower when choosing to channel evil instead of positive energy for example.

What does this mean for Clerics of level 1 & 2. I would assume the opposing energy would stay equivalent to level 1 until 4th level. Or are the rules intending for this not to be taken until 3rd level?

I must say, that despite the numerous bad aspects I have mentioned here.... That I do want him in the game. For what it's worth he is the most dedicated player in the group. He has yet to miss a single game and is truly passionate about the combat when it happens (every gory detail explained to great lengths).

I will certainly speak with him again should some of the more group related issues continue after our last conversation. Not much can really be done if that continues.

However I greatly appreciate the input regarding where to look within my encounters and to help handle a player of this type. Hopefully I'll be able to make changes that everyone can enjoy.

@foolsjourney ~ The first thing we said to him when he joined is that our group plays more to the RP then combat. And he has seen instances where XP is given for excellent role play.

And @Third Mind I do think I could pull that off, it's worth a try. I've been meaning to test out gladiatorial combat anyway. He fights to live, while the others fight for his return to the party. Good workout for both groups.

@bfobar I've actually gone through the trouble of making an entire dungeon and BBEG at the end which specifically exploits his weaknesses while allowing the rest of the party to have distinct advantages throughout. This isn't to say he would be useless, just brutally nerfed. Thus forcing him to rely on the party or die.... I'm reluctant though to throw this at them with the fear of seeming like a vengeful GM.

Sorcerer / Cleric / Mystic Theurge multiclass
Rogue
Witch

Tried flying creatures.... Though the group (excluding this player) enjoyed it. This descended in yet another argument as to the validity of the rule regarding trip and flying creatures. And of course, I'm putting things in the game that he can't hit so therefore I am unfairly stacking the odds against him.

It seems as though I can only satisfy him, or the other players. If they're having fun, he is usually out of his element, which thus far causes an issue 100% of the time.

Hopefully I can get some insight from other DM's on how to deal with this particular player.

I have a member of our group who has optimized his fighter far above and beyond any of the other 3 players, all of which were built around a more thematic and role play design. At level 12 the power disparity is more then a little significent. During battles he almost always kills anything before the other players get a chance to act, and most of the time the other players just have sit and watch him during combat. I could certainly up the stakes when it comes to encounters but in order to effectively challenge him, I would be required to put the rest of the group in a situation where they are very likely to be killed by whatever it is they are fighting.

When talking to him about his character he simply states that "its not his fault the other players chose not to be the battle god his character is to become." And when I introduce scenerios that involve non-combat situations I am told that I am being unfair to his character and not allowing him to do what he is there to do.... Walk through enemy lines and destroy all evil. Which almost always ends up in an argument as to why social skills even exist in the game at all, and how we're wasting time finding our way around a situation that he could easily cut his way through. Adding to this his constant intentional manipulation and arguing of rules (of which he does not actually own a copy of) and general disregard for some of the newer players as "wasting time with looking things up" I'm quite honestly at the point of booting him from the group all together.

All being said, I want to be sure that I'm not just frustrated as a GM at not being able to give a game that is fun and challenging for all involved. So any suggestions on how I might be able to build scenarios that can satisfy his lust for blood, and the others desire to play a game less focused on combat?

I could certainly be wrong, but as I understand it, the changes can be made before you sit down for your next session. I would also make sure that your GM is aware of this change, so they know to leave time before the next session to review any changes.

As far as I am aware the GM does not have to supervise, but does have to approve the changes that were made. This would include verifying that any purchases made were in fact legal, within budget, and something that the character had access to at some point during the retraining.

I would say that the Bard is indeed targeting that specific creature with this feat. And gaining an advantage does do something to the target, it weakens it against you.

As far as if it counts as an attack, in what context? I'm not really sure as to what you are trying to ask?

Based on the rules above though, I could see one good AoE hitting that group in a surprise round and blasting all the little fishes. Being diminutive I can't imagine they would have a lot of damage soaking potential.

I think my eyes just started to bleed.

Will its preferred form be that of a shark? I'm imagining a Finding Nemo type storyline with a rampaging elemental wizard in this particular form as the antagonist.

I should clarify the second item. They receive no ADDITIONAL bonuses from their combined state. They would in effect perform in combat as the rules apply to each as a separate entity.

If I was the GM I would allow this as long as the following conditions were agreed upon by all parties,

1: Each creature may be targeted specifically by any creature able to resolve attacks against them.

2: Neither the octopus or the elemental receive any bonuses due to their combined nature. This includes concealment, AC, DEX, etc...

3: Area of Effect abilities will resolve against EACH creature individually, and separately.

4: Should the water elemental be slain, acceptable means must be provided for the octopus to sustain itself. A new elemental may not just be summoned for the purposes of this as the relationship would have to be developed over a period of time.

5: For the purposes of Attacks of Opportunity only the Water Elemental shall be able to take this action in any given round.

6: Attacks that penetrate the Water Elemental (such as impale) will require a Reflex save = the base attack bonus being applied to said attack. Failure to make this save will result in both creatures being struck by the attack. Damage will be resolved against each separately.

Water elementals can come in both types, see the bestiary page 127 for clarification.

Playing devils advocate here, and correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't the vast majority of what we see within this game outside the realm of reality? Magic itself is an inherent part of this world, and dismissing an idea on the basis that it couldn't work here on earth doesn't seem fair to the spirit of the game.

The biggest issue I see with this situation isn't its applicability within a fantasy realm, it's the actual mechanics that support such an existence. And as I said in my previous post, the only real mechanic that I can see being affected by this symbiotic relationship is the ability to resolve effects on the creatures individually.

I would say that would cover the situation in combat, fountain being the option of choice in that situation. Distance from the user being a potential issue, any further then that and you risk knocking it prone and dealing damage to the poor creature.

You could always write something into the backstory of your two characters that involved the octopus being summoned with the elemental and just never had the heart to part them. Their constant training through the years has allowed them to act as a single unit, each knowing how to react to each others movements. This solves that issue, as far as I can see there is no mechanical reason that would invalidate that sort of RP.

The only mechanical issue i can actually see is how does one target the octopus without targeting the elemental first. You have to hit both in order to hit one, does the AC now stack? Is there some other bonus given to the octopus because of its now living watery armor? If I was to give any argument validity as to why it couldn't be done, that would ultimately be it.

Because the materials other properties would still apply to a weapon or other item. So you could purchase a weapon that could repair itself in the event that it becomes damaged.

As written, I don't see anything that would indicate that they would.

I would have to agree with Isil-zha on this one, GM's call.

Several issues with this come to mind; in order for the elemental to retain the appropriate enclosure would be extremely difficult in any stressful situation. At the very least requiring some form of continous DC check (acrobatics?) in order to properly house the octopus. Also, what happens when the elemental is forced to change its shape (dodging an attack for example), if it moves quickly to prevent being injured would the octopus then fall out of its now potentially unacceptable container? Thus requiring it to make a check against suffocation?

Also, I would point out the severe venerability to two members in a party. You're essentially putting all your familiar eggs in one basket. And I have yet to read any situation in which a single character losing his familiar has gone well for them, at least in the immediate setting, let alone two.

Thematically, I love the idea. +10 for creative thinking!

For some reason I can't help picturing a very upset and very confused goblin dropping out of thin air after somehow surviving being eaten.

It says you are only allowed one 5-foot move per round if I am not mistaken, therefore a single 5-foot step would be allowed.

If you check the table at the beginning of combat it falls under a Non-Action, something I had overlooked numerous times when looking into this particular situation. I had always assumed it was still considered a move action, though small enough not to cause an AoO. So looking in the movement section never brought up anything to prove otherwise.

I have run a game in which player vs player conflict was encouraged. This took place in the Werewolf: The Apocalypse setting in which they could fight to become "alphas" of their pack in which I home ruled several bonuses and abilities linked to that status. There were of course rules defining when, where, and how a challenge could be issued. I think it gives credit to the group that this was not a common challenge, and the few times it did happen, everyone had a great time with it. Even those that did not participate would RP their character cheering on, or sneakily assisting their favorite in that particular combat.

I don't think I could pull so,etching like this off with my current game group, because as Lord Pendragon said, I can see several members of the group taking great offense or building an uber character simply for the purposes of ensuring a win every time.

I had looked again after my second post at the full attack section, where it is most certainly explained I was incorrect in my assumption. And it is a non action, so I would certainly accept moves between each attack.

I'm glad I went back and checked, found a few other small things I had overlooked.

That is what I had thought, this particular player has a tendency to read rules in whatever way is advantageous to his character. Thank you for the quick response.

I had a player in our last game insist that after declaring he would be making a full attack with his fighter, he could take a 5 foot step between each attack to move to the next opponent should the previous one be killed. I could certainly be wrong here, but wouldn't that move action (even a 5ft. Step) interrupt his attack?

Page 246 , it's an NPC Class. Human Adept 5 (CR 3) That particular NPC is called an Enforcer.

I am just curious as to what people think about player vs. player conflict within a game when both players are acting in character.

On the same note, what is the general consensus on one player using an ability to impose their will on another character and force them to take actions they would not otherwise take? Even if this is something that would be "in character."

I allow characters to fight in game as long as it is without question something that is viable for their characters (as they have played them) to do. Outside of this scenario, I do not allow direct use of abilities that would intentionally harm another character (AoE attacks hitting another player or other actions similar in effect during combat are allowable, etc...) or cause them to lose control of their character for any period of time.

I hadn't thought of it that way, it's been several years since I actually played rather then ran.... So viewing from that angle never came to mind. Considering that building a backup character isn't too difficult, I'll certainly take the advice.

Thanks to everyone for the input!

So essentially, and this an extreme case, I could strictly GM an never apply any GM credits to any character and this would never be an issue? If I decided only to take credit on characters I create and actually play, the GM rewards would just fly off into nowhere, and that would be acceptable?

Call me odd, but I like the idea, personally anyway, of only applying session credits to a PC that was played and earned it. At least in my own PC collection.

I am looking to start running some PFS games and have a couple questions on getting started.

1: Is the GM required to have a character in order to apply the GM rewards to at the end of a session? At this time it is doubtful that I will actually be running a PC for a good while as no member of my group will even consider being a GM (PFS or otherwise).

2: Do the seasons / scenarios have to be played in any particular order? Such as Season 0 start to finish? Or am I right in assuming that as long as the group meets the requirements for a particular module, that module can be played at any time within the campaign?