Stormfriend's page

Yes that's true, but with one opponent you *might* get away without the battlemat. We always use it in Pathfinder regardless, just to avoid confusion.

The only games I've played of 5e dispensed with it completely and combat went really fast, although how it fares at high level remains to be seen. 4e at low level (1-3) wasn't bad at all, its how it scaled that let it down.

If we're going to compare old v new then we need to compare them RAW. In 3.5/PF/4e the battlemat is essential unless you only fight one enemy. Most of the rules require accurate positioning, distance and movement and would be impossible without it. In that respect 5e is very much a throwback to older versions.

Brother Fen wrote:

...where anything is possible.

As long as you have the appropriate feat. :P

and are willing to spend 20 minutes working out how to use it.

Part of the difference may also be down to the way Save or Die spells got phased out and the impact those had on combat duration. Lets take Sleep:

Rules Compendium (Basic) 40' radius, 2-16 HD, 40-160 minutes, no save
AD&D 2nd ed creatures within 30' of each other, 2-8 HD, 50 seconds / level, no save
3rd ed, 15' radius, 2-8HD, 60 seconds / level, SR, Will save
3.5/PFS, 10' radius, 4HD, 60 seconds / level, SR, Will save
4e, 2 square radius, all creatures, creatures are slowed in the first round and only fall asleep at the end of their next turn if they fail a save (and they get to keep making the save each round to wake up).

I'm not commenting on the power of Sleep as a spell, just the fact that in Basic it ended the fight and the adventure moved on. From AD&D onwards it still shortened the fight but it became progressively less effective and more of a typical attack spell as the rules changed. By 4e it was just a temporary debuff. I know PCs don't like getting hit with SoD spells, but they sure speed things up.

Until going through that in detail I used to laugh at Basic D&D wizards getting their one spell per day, but boy is it powerful. Even the Light spell, which is now a cantrip, used to be able to blind an enemy for a minimum of 70 minutes (albeit with a save).

To me, this sums up the Old School vs. New School quite well as a metaphor. The old school play demands that a certain intangible quality escapes the game rules. Players must rely on their own, imperfect vision of events. This necessarily creates a communication obstacle that can lead to disagreements, but it also grants a ton of flexibility and whimsy.

For all the right reasons, New School games try to create more and more accurate and efficient maps of the game space. Not just literal maps, but the "maps" of how given actions are executed, how you measure and interpret the entire game world. This reduces the communication problems, but sacrifices the whimsy.

That's a good metaphor. I think (hope) the old school revival looks to fill in the obvious blanks (the metropolis over the hill) in the rules, whilst leaving what lies beyond open to possibilities.

I've been following this thread with interest and will throw my own hat in the ring by saying the difference between old school and new comes down to how much time is spent in combat vs how much of the session is spent exploring.

Looking at my old D&D modules I'd say the maps take up more space than the stat blocks and that seems right to me. I find the modules interesting to read just in themselves and they speak of mystery and danger. The modern game variants have drifted away from that approach and the stats now seem to matter more than the environment. Not only that but the maps are little more than a warehouse here, or a tavern there. They're more colourful now, but too encounter specific. Mazes have become skill challenges; exploration gets glossed over ready for the next fight. A dark corridor leading into the unknown should be something in itself, not just a link section.

The other thing that killed the mystery for me was the introduction of world maps available to players, particularly human(ish) dominated worlds where there wasn't any space for the monsters. Looking at the map of Golarion the Mwangi expanse feels a bit like a nature reserve where occasionally adventurers go exploring. Discovering Greyhawk had a world map was just as disappointing. When I first started playing the world seemed huge and exciting because it had no limits. World maps impose limits on my imagination and that's a bad thing.

So old school for me is limitless exploration. Modern is bounded, encounter focused challenges. And yes, I know how old the Greyhawk map is, but I found it long after I'd switched to 3.0 - decades later.

Now we all know the player doesn't have an alignment, or a clearly defined moral code for that matter, but trying to kill a subdued, unarmed, bound person is not "good"; no matter how you spin it.

What other options are there?

Hand them over to the authorities, who will kill them for you? That makes you complicit.
Hand them over to the authorities, who will sell them into slavery? That makes you complicit.
Hand them over to the authorities, who will imprison them in a flea encrusted dungeon until their will is broken and they starve to death? Is that better than a clean execution?
Let them go, so they can go and murder other people? That makes you either complicit or negligent.
Force them to convert to a nice god like Sarenrae? That breaches their human rights and freedom of religion.
Hand them over to the authorities who will imprison them in a decent building, look after them, and present them with an opportunity to change their ways? Not going to happen in Golarion!

Sometimes executing prisoners is the only reasonable course of action. It happens in almost every game I've played or run, regardless of character alignment, and no-one bats an eyelid. This is a brutal medieval world, not the modern USA. The looks of confusion come from the fact that most GMs are perfectly happy with it and they're surprised you're not.

This may have been mentioned earlier, but the players have some responsibility in determining how tough the scenarios are. When I started playing my local group wasn't sure what to expect so we created a well rounded group of optimised adventurers and played tactically. When it became obvious we were walking through every encounter our second and third PCs ended up as weird and wonderful 'characters' instead, with some decent capabilities but nowhere near the same level of optimisation. The game became a little more difficult as a result. The only player who went up in power had been playing the least effective character in the first group. In other words we adjusted to suit the game, or our experience of it.

The problem I have now is if season 4 is as hard as everyone says then all my weird and wonderful characters are playing the wrong game, because my expectations are wrong. With both the players and Paizo adapting at the same time there's little chance of us finding an equilibrium. So I'd suggest that Paizo find a certain difficulty level, with some variance to mix it up, and then stick with it. Let the players work to that level according to taste. I don't mind what the difficulty is, I just want a rough idea of what to aim at before designing my characters.

GM credit only encourages more selfishness and GMing just to get credit. GMs like that are useless to me as a coordinator because they are not helping my area grow.

On the contrary, GMs like that are absolutely what you need to help your area grow. They increase the number of tables, and so long as they're professional about it and run every table to the best of their ability they're just as valid as a GM motivated by sheer virtuousness.

We're not talking about players who refuse to do their bit, meaning they take from the community without giving anything back. We're talking about GMs who've run scenarios before - who've stepped up and done their fair share already. Anyone who's willing to do that already has my thanks, and if we can find a way to encourage them to run even more games then we should consider it.

Stormfriend, while I see your point about the motivation for some GMs, the fact is that there has to be a balance between player and GM. Right now we have that balance and it was a hard fought road for a lot of us to get to that balance. And as GMs is was a hard fought road to just to get the credit we have now coming to us. That is why you see a lot of us naysaying this idea.

I'm not asking for anything new or outrageous. I'm just asking that running the same scenario twice provides similar rewards to running two different scenarios, and that the rewards themselves be simplified to cut down on paperwork. If that encourages a few people to run extra games, or makes event coordination easier, then we all benefit.

There are no balance issues as GM credit characters will generally have more appropriate WBL than standard player characters; and although they may have slightly higher Prestige they won't get as many boons.

In terms of turning and burning scenarios to get credit that's actually more likely if a GM has to run different scenarios to get the credit. If they can just keep running the same scenario as long as they have new players then they'll get to know the story almost by accident as they've invested so much time in running it - and that's more fun for the GM as well as the players. Maybe my suggestion will even reduce the number of GMs providing poor experiences, whilst maintaining the same number of games?

A rule could be implemented whereby instead of gaining a scenario credit for GMing you could get a special credit that adds 2PP to any one character but no gold or xp. This could be taken multiple times and be assigned to the same character if desired, though you couldn't exceed a maximum of 2PP per XP (including PP already gained, so you wouldn't regain PP spent on consumables).

I can't remember which one is PP and which one is fame, but it should be obvious what I mean.

A Charisma penalty should count as a bonus to Stealth, as no-one pays any attention to you; and a Charisma bonus should be a penalty to stealth as people find you interesting.

Min-maxing is also playing the game in 'easy' mode. A well rounded character not only gives you more to do, but also increases the difficulty level to 'normal'.

Robert Duncan wrote:

That's part of the fun! Working outside your element, having to adapt and overcome.

I disagree. That's not fun. If you get thrown in at the deep end by some stressed-out VC because you're the only resource at hand, and the only companions you have for the mission are woefully unprepared, it's your (character's) life that's on the line. If you're telling me that my options are to walk away from the table there and then with an 0XP chronicle, or to take on a suicide mission, that's a pretty easy choice.

I disagree, intense missions like that are exactly the kind of fun I want from PFS! I would suggest everyone quietly puts the character they *want* to play face down on the table. When everyone has done so they turn the characters over and see what kind of insane party has come together. No-one gets to change, you have to make it work as best you can; philosophical disagreements are roleplaying opportunities and combat weaknesses will test your ingenuity.

If you're an elf then the Breadth of Experience feat from APG is worth looking at as it gives you +2 to all knowledge and profession skill checks and lets you make them untrained. Handy for a sage, who likely has an opinion on everthing. :-)

I can think of a number of character builds so complex that I wouldn't be able to interpret them whilst sat at the table:

1. Magus, specifically how Spell Combat and Spell Strike inter-relate. Before running an infamous scenario I had to read that section three times, then sit down and think about it for a while, then go online and double-check my interpretation and then wade through hundreds of posts about using cantrips with it, before I got to the point that I was comfortable running the NPC. There is no way I could have made a valid judgement call if faced with those rules for the first time in a convention setting, under time pressure and with players waiting.

2. Synthesist, I read those rules twice in detail and still wasn't confident enough to create one as a character. There were just too many ambiguities and in the end I decided it wasn't worth the effort, which turned out well!

3. Gunslingers, I hate guns in fantasy and have no intention of either playing one, running a scenario containing one, or reading the class description. I would never turn a player away from the table or treat them differently if that is what they wanted to play, but neither would I be able to adjudicate whether they were playing them correctly or not. This would equally be true for a GM who hasn't bought the book or seen the class before.

In all of those cases I would just run on the honour system and if something outrageous appeared to be happening I would ask for the details and query it later on the boards. The problem with these builds is that even if the player explained it to me in detail, and I looked at the rules for a few minutes, I would still have no more certainty than if I just accepted their word for it in the first place. In the case of the Magus and Synthesist that would be due to ambiguity, and I wouldn't know what the consensus was without checking the boards. In the case of the gunslinger (or any unfamiliar class) it would be due to a lack of context, such as associated class abilities, and I would feel obliged to read the whole class in detail before passing any kind of judgement.

In both cases I'm not going to waste everyone's time doing that at the table and it's hardly fair to make a snap judgement call based on one quick reading. I do understand why GMs might ask someone to play a pregen instead, but I don't think that's the right call when it's the GMs lack of knowledge that's the issue. The honour system is a much friendlier way of getting around the problem, particularly as every player is a potential GM anyway. We wouldn't be asking them to run games if we didn't trust them, so why not trust them as players?

Bob Jonquet wrote:

To say "punish" implies there is an adversarial relationship between the players and the GM. That should not be the case. The GM is supposed to be an impartial judge, a story-teller, etc. applying the game mechanics and adjusting the story as it progresses.

I agree wholeheartedly. But adjusting the story does not need to adjust anything mechanically. Imposing unwritten penalties and bonuses affects everyone at the table in uncontrollable ways.

I'm an absolute believer in running scenarios RAW, but this is starting to sound like the GM saying "You hit the skeleton and do 3 points of damage to it, but the mod says it has 4hp, so it still has 4hp" and disregarding the actions of the characters. The scenario and all its stats and DCs should be fixed in stone until the PCs start interacting with it, at which point the GM has to adapt and respond accordingly.

If the Diplomacy DC is 20, and the group walk up and start talking to the NPC then the DC should remain 20. There are no modifiers unless the scenario says so. But if they smack the NPC over the head and steal all his stuff, and *then* try to sweet-talk him the DC will go up, a lot! I might allow them to mitigate it by apologising profusely and giving him his stuff back, but otherwise there's no way its DC 20. They've changed the scenario in such a way that Intimidate becomes the necessary skill, not Diplomacy, and the GM is entitled to reflect that.

Thanks for the information and views. I try to act in character at the table but frankly in my case I saw no need to help the character obtain X. Hell we all knew OOC that obviously he wanted the item for a faction mission, but I saw no reason why my character would help to get it. Is that Untrustworthy?

An ally has asked you for a small favour; nothing difficult, dangerous or demeaning, and you've refused simply because you couldn't be bothered. That shows a lack of respect for your ally and makes them question what sort of alliance you have. Once those kinds of questions start being asked then trust becomes an issue.

For some characters it's perfectly good roleplaying to refuse, but I would suggest stating that you never help feeble mortals like them, or some-such comment which makes it clear it's in character. If the other player feels as though it's an OOC refusal to help then that can come across badly, particularly if you don't know each other.

Co-operating on faction missions to help the people who'll be fighting side by side with you seems perfectly normal to me, unless they want you to do something you disagree with or there's a cost involved. Even if you don't know why they want a mcguffin, if you do them a favour now they may return it later. That's not metagaming, its roleplaying.

If a character refuses to help his comrades with small (inconsequential) favours then would you trust him to back you up in a fight? Would you trust him on watch? Would you want him negotiating for the party when he may not have the party's interests in mind? He's showing a lack of respect for the other characters, which will breed division and ill-will within the party.

At the end of the session, I wrote the following on each of their chronicles:

"While in Magnimar, once per session may receive one free portion of Horse-on-a-Stick from *specific vendor whose name I can't remember* per session. (No game effect.)"

You should have seen their faces light up when I handed out the chronicles.

+1

I think there's another thread where Mike is asking what we want to see on our chronicles going forwards. Horse on a stick (no game effect) is far more interesting than a +2 flaming greataxe!

I'd actually prefer to see PFS mods written entirely as bullet points rather than prose, as it would make finding things easier and speed up prep time. It would also help when running cold, assuming the bullet points were reasonably succinct, and negate the reliance on box text.

Making a scenario up at random:

- Jake is a Pathfinder who seems to be pursuing his own agenda.
- He's holed up in an ancient tower on the outskirts of <place>.
- Some of his experiments are rumoured to have escaped and attacked townsfolk.
- A powerful Lord called Bob has threatened to strike at other Pathfinder assets in retaliation.
- Adram Hestram tells the PCs to get to the tower and end the experiments, one way or another.

Encounter 1
- Edge of the village of <name>. Cold, wet, dark, houses have no lights on, deathly silence, strange flickering light visible at the centre of the village 100 yards away.

etc. The GM can spin that into box text without too much difficulty.

Fred VII won't tell me to stop summoning undead, or prevent me from executing prisoners, so I'd rather have him I think than the Paladin...

The way this thread is going makes it sound like PFS GMs need to toughen up when it comes to warning players about alignment infractions.

Even if you're writing a note about a borderline evil action on a chronicle sheet, it lets the players know that they can't get used to playing Jack Bauer in PFS.

The problem is many GMs don't see this as evil at all, not even slightly. Making notes like that may give the next GM a chuckle, but the random application of alignment infractions will just hurt the game. This needs to be FAQd for the Society.

2. Players don't want to feel like they are at a 'zoo' when they sit down at a table.

With halflings, gnomes, elves, half-orcs, animal companions, familiars and eidolons its a bit late to worry about that...

I should probably add for new GMs reading this thread:

If you're new and not 100% on the rules, just tell your players and they'll cut you some slack. They'll even help you out if you ask.
If you're a GM who got asked to run a scenario with no notice, tell the players and I'm sure they'll cut you some slack.
If you're a GM who thinks that rolling a natural 1 on a d20 means a random character gets stabbed in the back and killed, then no, you're not gonna get any slack on that! :-)

If he gets the message, bring him back into the role-play fold.

What role-play fold is that then? You've just told him to stop role-playing. The only message he'll get is that he's not wanted.

You guys are harsh on the roleplayers! Let them eat their victims or dance naked through the flowers, both are likely illegal in some places and acceptable in others. It sounds like people are having fun so just roll with it.

We have a wizard in our local group who uses the following scale:

100% Not hurt
0%-99% Dying!

Just a question for those of you who roll a PCs dice in secret: if they have an ability to re-roll once they've seen the dice but before the results are determined, how do they do that if they don't see what you rolled, or don't even know that you've made a roll?

Feats like Lucky Halfling allow one character to roll a saving throw on behalf of another and let them choose which result (not roll) to use. They can't do that if you're rolling in secret as they have to know a save is being made to use it. Whilst some saves might be obvious, the feat doesn't place any limitations on when it can be used. That also means that certain characters need to know when another character is making a save, and what kind of save it is, preventing private messages from being handed from GM to player (as far as rolling is concerned).

I just don't think the game supports rolling in secret. It relies on trust, and players separating IC and OOC knowledge. If a player can't do that then they need to learn.

While I still actively play and GM I will say that a lot of the negativity on the boards and rants are probably a turn off to many folks.

Yeah, this had a big impact on the game for me as well. I still play, but the threads along the lines of "If you complete faction mission X you must be evil and will be removed from the campaign" and "If my paladin doesn't like your character you don't get to play at the same table" really sucked. I've never encountered either situation in running/playing about 100 games now, but comments like that appear to take on a heightened significance when they keep coming up on the boards.

Rules bloat, ambiguities, errata that occurs many months after the book has come out and we've invested in characters, official responses that said "just ask the GM" (in an OP environment), 'clarifications' that look more like rules changes; they all chip away at the clear, consistent and reliable bedrock that an OP game needs. Still, I like what Mike's done so far and we seem to be getting some order back again, so things are looking up!

I do agree that anything that encourages players to do actually heroic things and not hunker down into the (at least in my experience) all too common "risk-avoidance/paranoia" mode.

The risk-avoidance/paranoia mode is my preferred style of gaming; I find it the most roleplay heavy, interesting and rewarding type of game. If I'm adventuring with a bunch of gung-ho nutters who don't care if they die then it ruins the game for me. I might as well be playing a computer game.

But then I never raise characters either, so if they die, they stay dead, because raising them feels like reloading from a save game.

The Grandbridge Squires
Alignment: NE
Headquarters: None
Leader: None
Structure: League of wealthy businessmen, operating via gentlemen’s agreement
Scope: Regional
Resources: Money, information, trade agreements, legitimate employees, lawyers and tame politicians.
In 4606 Aroden died, the Eye of Abendego formed, the Worldwound opened and storms wracked the Inner Sea for weeks. As the end times had clearly come, a group of businessmen dining in Oppara decided that they might as well enjoy it and play along. Using their combined wealth and influence they quietly spread as much chaos and conflict as possible, whilst profiteering almost by accident. But the apocalypse never came and what started out as a destructive and nihilistic endgame quickly turned into a highly profitable and successful venture. Cooperation on such a scale combined with their skills at intrigue allowed them to punch far above their individual weights and expand across the Inner Sea.
Structure and Leadership
Membership is by invitation only, with members treating each other strictly as equals and accepting majority decisions. Most of their employees are honest workers who have no idea what their masters are planning, although the group’s legal and political teams wield the law like a weapon and are far more clued up on their objectives. Secrecy is vital to effectively manipulate markets, provide each other with alibis, and offer apparently independent advice to their targets. Yet such advice always leads to conflict despite the supposed best intentions of all involved, resulting in bankruptcy, imprisonment, riots, death and any other opportunity to profit.
Goals
The Squires aren’t just interested in gaining wealth and power and having fun in the process, they’ve begun to see conflict as an art form. Plots can hatch over years or decades and the beauty of the plan is as important as the results. Until the apocalypse arrives every well executed feud should be savored like a fine wine. Indeed, the ultimate act of perfection would be to engineer a conflict so great and complex that it ushers in the end of days itself.
Public Perception
Every member takes care to be seen as a fine upstanding member of his community. Their businesses are well run, with good reputations and good people. The few who speak against them are either prosecuted for slander or accused of lunacy and locked away. Those who actively oppose them are crushed: financially, politically and personally.

In short, I put in a ton of work attempting to bring organized PF play to my area.

Awesome, hats off to you sir!

arrived late

Sometimes this is unavoidable, in which case they should have been profusely apologetic. If they weren't then they're just being rude.

left early

A PFS slot is generally run over 4-5 hours and players and GMs may have other engagements outside of that. Did the slot over-run forcing people to leave, or did they fail to provide enough time to play the mod? If it over-ran then it's just something to watch out for when running mods and you can't really blame the players. If they left early because they didn't realise how long the mod was then that's something for the GM to flag up at the beginning of the session, especially for newbies.

insulted the choices of adventures

This is a tricky one as PFS doesn't allow replaying, so choosing adventures in advance for a random group of people is a very hit and miss affair. You could very easily prep a mod to perfection only to find that every player has already played it and the game can't go ahead. I strongly recommend notifying the store which mod you want to run in advance and asking them to get sign-ups. That way everyone knows whether they can play before they turn up.

tried with every opportunity to break the game with ridiculous character ideas

A player's character is his own business and I don't think the GM should ever criticize their choice. Sure, some characters are more munchkinny than others, and some are just plain weird, but that's the way it goes. Organised play allows a huge variety of play and personality styles to mix, and that's part of its charm. Just go with the flow and have fun!

never registered with society

Maybe, but if their characters were unusual and powerful, and they complained about the mod choice, then I suspect they did have PFS #s but didn't give them to you as they were replaying (it was the only thing they could do to get a game but it isn't allowed). If they left early and didn't bother with a chronicle then that may be because they knew they couldn't use it. If you complained about their characters, or their illegal printouts, then they may not have been enjoying themselves either and decided not to stick it out.

used illegally obtained PDF printouts at the table

I don't care about this personally, and certainly don't audit people's characters or references. I just run the game. Every GM is different, but if you're trying to get PFS up and running in a new area then don't worry about this kind of paperwork. If they're new players and get to 5th level but are still using dodgy printouts then tactfully suggest they buy the books. It will keep the store happy as well. :-)

rules-lawyered the game

They definitely sound like existing PFS players! There can only be one set of rules in an organised play game like PFS because changes from table to table can really cause confusion and/or break immersion. When my players flag something up mid game I'll check the rules quickly, or ask them to do it for me if I'm busy. It means you're being fair and it helps the GM and players learn. Sometimes you have to draw the line, but I'm quicker to do that for environmental or NPC questions than with character questions, because the latter deserve a bit more care.

I don't know if they were just a bunch of rude, inconsiderate newbies who didn't know what to expect and failed to plan their time effectively, or if they were existing PFS players who were unable to play the games you prepared and therefore fudged it, coming across as rude or inconsiderate in the process. Chalk it up to bad luck and try again, but I strongly recommend looking at ways to sign people up in advance or else choosing less common scenarios to run. Which games did you prepare out of interest?

I never audit chronicles as I consider it to be disrespectful to the player. It's a bit like accusing him of cheating even though I have no evidence unless I go fishing for it. So long as the character is on a par with my expectations for their wealth and level thats good enough for me. So long as everyone has fun at the table I'm happy.

Sticky Pugfoot
Aura faint necromancy; CL 5th
Slot -; Price 8,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.
Description
This tiny mummified foot is taken from a pugwampi gremlin and still twitches on occasion in a desperate bid for sympathy. It comes attached to a weighted leather cord that looks as though it has been inexpertly mended on numerous occasions.

The foot exudes a permanent aura of unluck to a radius of 5 feet. Any creature in this area must roll two d20s whenever the situation calls for a d20 roll (such as attacks, skill checks and saving throws) and take the lowest of the two rolls. This is a mind-affecting effect that doesn't work on animals, gremlins and gnolls. Any creature under the effects of a luck bonus is immune to this aura.

The cord allows the foot to be thrown as a ranged touch attack against another creature with a range increment of 20 feet. If the attack is successful the foot becomes stuck to the target creature, requiring a move action to pull it off. If the attack misses, or the foot was simply thrown away, the foot immediately ends up stuck to the last creature that possessed it, usually wedged somewhere unexpected. The foot can also be put down carefully (but not dropped), handed to someone, or placed in their possession without them knowing (using Sleight of Hand for example). Whenever a creature that is affected by the aura comes into contact with the foot (including having it in their backpack) they become the last creature to possess it. If the foot ever ends up more than 100 feet away from the last creature that possessed it, it mysteriously reappears on their person.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, animate dead, bestow curse; Cost 4,000 gp

That cleric may well have the highest body count of any NPC in PFS history.

I suspect a certain Magus runs her close...

I would be perfectly fine with this and you giving the credits to a dead player, if there were mods for dead players for which you are describing.

Ah, mods for dead players - now that I'd like to see. It means I can play right up to and through my retirement, and then carry on afterwards when I'm on the other side...

but evil people are generally less keen on co-operation than good guys.

I disagree. The evil necromancer isn't complaining that there's a paladin present and is therefore cooperating. The paladin who's objecting to the necromancer's presence because of a minor philosophical difference is the one who isn't. They are the poster children of not cooperating. Which is why a lot of people don't like them.

Oh and with monster templates things get wierd. A skeletal champion nymph still gets blinding beuaty.

Good bone structure?

This may have already been raised but I see it as the following:

You wield a weapon in your right hand and hold a weapon in your left. Any AoOs you take at that moment depend on your wielded weapon, which is the weapon in your right hand. The other is an object.

As a free action you can swap to using the left hand weapon, which is now your regular hand and you are just holding the weapon in your right as an object. Any AoOs triggered at this point have to use the left hand weapon.

Iterative attacks are in sequence so you can swap back and forwards between attacks without penalty, just as you can 5' step between them.

Two Weapon Fighting is using both weapons simultaneously to get an extra attack (or attacks). Doing that is hard and you suffer penalties to both attacks, with one weapon being the regular attack at 1x strength and the other being off-hand at 0.5x strength.

For AoOs outside of that character's go I would ask the character to tell me whether his armour spikes or reach weapon were being wielded, if he had both. If he attacked with spikes in his last go he could switch to threatening with the reach weapon at the end of his turn, he just needs to specify one or the other. A normal weapon in each hand isn't worth clarifying, so I'd just let the player choose when it mattered, but in theory I would ask him to specify one as the wielded weapon.

The rules are a little light on this, so that's just imho...

Help me rationalize that please?

I worked for a retail store as a customer services manager many moons ago and we had a strict policy of no refunds (except where legally required). I was surprised, but as I was a new employee I adhered to that rule as if my job depended on it. When a customer complained to head office they authorised the refund and told me I should have used my initiative instead (and authorised it). What can you do? :-)

I believe LG had a strict limit of 6 players. I saw any number of 7 and even 8 player tables running but the tables were reported as two 4s or the like instead. I'm pretty sure the triad members consented to such behaviour if it got the games played, but that may have varied between regions. It was never official, but that didn't stop it happening.

If you ban 7 player tables I don't expect anything to change, you'll just get an increase in the number of smaller tables reported and GMs at problem venues will gain stars more rapidly than before as they're 'running the mod twice'. LG didn't have a star system so no-one really cared, but if stars mean prizes in PFS then that could cause friction. It also reduces the accuracy of your reporting information, such as average table size, or number of tables.

Assuming someone complains and you find out the numbers are being gamed somewhere then what are you going to do? Ban the organiser from organising PFS and watch them switch to LFR? Ban the GM at the venue that doesn't have enough GMs? Punish them in some way, when they're only volunteers in the first place? I think you'll just make life difficult for yourself to be honest.

I would tackle the 7 player problem by encouraging people to step up and GM at short notice. That comes down to adding incentives:
1. Allow people to gain GM benefit from a scenario more than once (different character each time they run it). Some of us like to create stables of characters and there are more archetypes now than we'll ever get the chance to play.
2. Provide unique benefits based on the number of stars, such as social status for characters, or access to normally restricted items.

And removing barriers:
3. Provide bullet point fast-play summaries in an appendix for people who don't have time to read everything in detail:
i. BBEG was double-crossed by VC Bob and hates the society.
ii. He's now holed up in an old temple after joining an evil cult.
iii. He's activated their ancient golem and set it to defend the hide-out.
iv. On the way there the PCs have to fight an adult dragon, a titan and a jabberwocky.
v. Advise the players this is a tough Tier 1-2.
4. Provide monster details even from the bestiary, as the last-minute GM may not have access to it; and don't use templated creatures unless the stat blocks are pre-prepared.
5. Increase the volume of new scenarios being put out so people are less worried about eating something.
6. Allow replaying when a table has to split due to numbers and you can't get two tables of the same scenario running.

I know there are people who hate replaying, but I have no problem with it personally. There could be any number of other options there, but tackling the "I don't know the mod" "I don't have the books" "I've already played it" and "I've already had credit for it" issues is a good start. Local organisers can offer additional incentives, so Paizo may want to discuss that with them directly.

That's just my ha'penny anyway.

Chris brings up the exact case that causes me problems. If the party defeats an opponent with ease and captures the enemy, and then for the sake of the faction mission the paladin, cleric of Sarenrae, etc. is supposed to kill said person? That's just wrong and I can't see any way of making that something a Good character would do. Ever. This is a violent game at times and opponents can die in the heat of battle. But after the battle is over no Good character should walk over to the helpless enemy and kill him. Nor should the Good characters have to fabricate some scheme in-combat to ensure the target dies. If this were tied to the Sczarni or Cheliax it might at least be expected and part of the Neutral mentality (although it's a stretch even there in not being Evil). But for Andorans to ask their paladins and such to kill targets is entirely unreasonable.

I think it perfectly acceptable for good character to kill an enemy, whether or not he's helpless, but that's because we disagree on the definition of 'good' I guess. I also believe, both as a GM and as a player, that it's up to the player to decide what his character would do (including refusing the mission if necessary) and it shouldn't be some arbitrarily imposed standard which will change with every GM.

If a character wants to kill someone then its on his own conscience, and its up to the player to decide what the outcome of that is. If the player feels it necessary to change their own character's alignment then that's their call. As a GM I'm just there to present the situation; what the character does with it is up to them.

As a GM, I've considered those to be traps: if your PC tries to complete them, I'll note as much on your character sheet. If I already see such a note (or see that you received prestige award in such a scenario), I'll write a note moving your character's alignment one step closer to Evil. If you were already Neutral, your character becomes unplayable.

A PC isn't an automaton. Just because your faction-boss offers you a job and promises rewards, doesn't mean you have to do it. And moral qualms are a valid reason to turn down faction missions.

If a GM removed my character from play for completing a faction mission then I'd be asking Paizo to remove the GM from the campaign, never mind appealing. That's the most absurd thing I've ever seen on these boards, which is saying something!

I'm not bothered what the rule ends up being, but it needs to be clear and consistent in an organised play campaign. The whole point of OP is that everyone plays by the same rules and can play their characters in any game without modification. If one of your primary attack methods changes completely at random depending on who's read what message board, or remembers this or that FAQ, then it starts to become disorganised play instead. It can also seriously affect the enjoyment of a player who never knows what he can or can't do. Do we really want to start every game with a list of "How do you rule X? How do you rule Y? Have you read the messageboard about Z?" I don't want to be in that position as either a player or a GM. I just want one set of unambiguous rules so we can get on with the game.

I want world peace too, but I'm starting small... :-)

I don't think this is in the list:

You can't ready or delay outside combat. If you want to fire immediately after the door is opened you need to have surprise, otherwise the enemy may react faster than you no matter how ready you thought you were.

I’m putting together a PFS character who specialises in Overrun to mix up battlefield control and damage, rather than just power attacking all the time. The character will either be a human or a half-elf and will have stats of 18,14,14,10,10,10 for sake of argument.

I'm thinking of going with a fighter or barbarian at the moment, but any class that can overrun will do. The [human] builds I have so far are as follows:

Barbarian
1: Power Attack
1: Improved Overrun
2RP: Overbearing Advance
3: Combat Reflexes
4RP: Quick Reflexes
5: Charge Through
6RP: Overbearing Onslaught
7: Greater Overrun
8RP:
9:
10RP:
11:
12RP:

Fighter
1: Power Attack
1: Improved Overrun
1: Charge Through
2: Combat Reflexes
3: Step Up
4: Following Step
5: Improved Bullrush
6: Greater Overrun
7: Greater Bullrush
8: Step Up and Strike
9:
10:
11:
12:

Firstly, is there anything I’ve missed, such as feats, powers, traits or the like which will help this build (apart from the obvious such as Furious Focus, Weapon Focus etc)? By 6th or 7th level I’ll be forcing the enemies to grant me AoOs whilst performing manoeuvres due to the Greater feats, in case that suggests anything.

Secondly, have I figured out the following situation correctly for the barbarian at level 7:

Brb ABC Z

The barbarian is Brb, ABC are three mooks standing in the way, and Z is the caster I want to charge. Assume they're in a long 5' wide corridor.
I overrun A and if I succeed by 5 or more I knock him prone whilst moving through his square.
I deal Strength damage to A and get an AoO against A if he’s prone.
I then overrun B at -2, knocking him prone if I succeed by 5 or more.
I deal Strength damage to B and get an AoO against B if he’s prone.
Leaving B’s square to overrun C (or just complete the overrun against B if there is no C) provokes from A, who may be prone.
I then overrun C at -4, knocking him prone if I succeed by 5 or more.
I deal Strength damage to C and get an AoO against C if he’s prone.
Leaving C’s square to charge Z (or just complete the overrun against C if there’s no Z) provokes from B, who may be prone.
Leaving the next square whilst moving towards Z then provokes from C, who may be prone.
I hit Z at my normal charge bonus. If I can't charge through multiple opponents by combining Overbearing Onslaught and Charge Through then treat the details above as just overrunning multiple enemies and ignore Z at the end.

Think of it as a melee lightning bolt :-)

Questions:
1) Can I overrun Z, do strength damage and take an AoO against Z for the overrun if he's prone, and then make my charge attack against Z too from the right of Z? The description of Overrun in the Combat section makes me wonder this.
2) Where do I end up if I fail any of the overruns? If I knocked prone the previous target who’s square I’m now standing in? If I overran that target but didn’t knock him prone so we’re both standing in the same square?
3) If I replace mooks ABC with allies I’m assuming they can just stand aside (during the Overrun) and I charge Z normally. If my charge at Z is at penalties for doing the overruns earlier does this still apply if the overrun targets got out of the way? Or if I overrun Z during the charge is the overrun attack at -6 even if my allies stepped aside? Same question if I can't combine Overbearing Onslaught with Charge Through, just assume 1 ally or enemy in the way, with the Overrun attack on Z at -2 in that case.
4) If your brain hasn’t melted yet, can I build in Acrobatics checks during the movement that contains Overruns to avoid AoOs from ABC? Can I be using Acrobatics when leaving Bs square to avoid the AoO from A whilst simultaneously Overrunning C? If not, can I use Acrobatics whilst leaving the square to the right of C to avoid the AoO from C? Can I use Acrobatics whilst charging for that matter? The question still applies if not as I can do multiple Overruns even when not charging.
5) Do ABC provide cover against each other for purposes of preventing AoOs against me? What if they’re prone? Would that cover also affect my AoOs if I technically take them in the following square on completion of the Overrun rather than in the square they occupy whilst I’m Overrunning them?

At 6th level the fighter can do something similar, but only with a single target in the way so it’s a lot simpler. The fighter wouldn’t do strength damage on an Overrun but would still get the AoO if he knocks them prone. He makes up for it with the other tactical options such as Step Up and Bullrush. He lacks rage too, so his CMB will be lower.

Any other suggestions?

Having to chop and change your character on the whims of a DM undermines the very principle of a living campaign. Part of the reason for this notification is surely so no-one has to redesign their character whilst sat at the table?

If the rules are optional then the player is entitled to choose just as much as the DM. The DM should certainly notify the player of the ruling, but that's so the player can look it up for themselves or think about how they want to handle it going forwards.

This does need official clarification as the above is obviously just imho.

Why are good PFS players good?

What qualities do they have that makes them good?

-Pain

They're polite and respectful towards others. They pay attention even when it's not their go so they can respond quickly, stay focussed on the story, limit unrelated conversations to the barest minimum and contribute to what the party is trying to achieve.

A good player should also be trustworthy, knows the rules well or is willing to learn them, accepts when they're wrong with good grace, and is well prepared (ie knows their character).

If they can roleplay well then that's nice, but as a DM I'm just as happy with a power-gamer who has a decent attitude and pays attention...

I would say exactly the same applies to DMs as well as players. It makes for a much more relaxed and enjoyable game than an autocratic style. Especially in PFS where there's a chance that all the players at the table are DMs too!

Obviously IMHO, but that's how I like my games. :-)