Search Posts
There isn't a rule for spells just straight banned from play but from the other page where people talked about the situation it seems you just eat the loss. Ouch... Well, thanks for the heads up. Maybe we'll luck out and they'll reverse their decision, but I'm not gonna hold my breath on that one. I can't really recall instances of decisions like these being overturned during my time as an active player.
Well crap. Come back to Pathfinder after a little over a year long hiatus and find out my necromancer has been rendered non-functional. Wasn't the most powerful build -- animate dead specialists are pretty much always doomed to suffer in other areas -- but I did rather thoroughly enjoy it all the same. The destruction of Blood Money is.... wow. That sole spell made quite a few things viable for PFS that would normally have been impossible due to how the campaign is set up, especially dedicated necromancers. It didn't actually serve to really increase the spellcaster's overall wealth at all, if one thinks about it. I'd be lying if I said I didn't expect this for years, though; there has always been a very vocal minority wanting to get rid of the spell. Looks like they won. So, being as I literally just got back into the swing of things tonight, can someone tell me what the rules are pertaining to the change? Are people being allowed to restructure their characters that might be extremely reliant on this spell, or are they simply expected to eat the loss and move on to another one?
My usual group had somebody playing in a Rise of the Runelords game as a wolf with class levels. Suffice to say it was rather humorous, though regrettably short lived. But if you think about it, it's not that hard of a thing to accomplish. Just slap awaken on the animal and hope you don't get terribad rolls and bam. Well, assuming you're doing things outside of PFS, after all. Doesn't exactly fly here.
My GM kill rate? Is probably too damn high. My philosophy is that the GM should not cheat, just as the players do not cheat. It is for this reason that I allow the dice to fall where they may, at least after the party has enough levels to survive. Critting someone to death with a pick wielding kobold at level 1 isn't fun for anybody, after all. Add my "the dice fall where they may" attitude with the fact that I generally roll hot while GMing (too bad I can't do it while playing, eh?) and you wind up with a pretty huge pile of bodies. While I cannot provide an exact number, I would estimate around a hundred character deaths over the last year of me running games.
Was his character's name Rincewind? Clearly their name was Edward. Ten points for anyone that catches the reference.
Party asks for empowered fireball despite that it will hit the cavalier. Cavalier agrees, having forgotten (the rest of us, GM included), had as well. Makes his save. Fireball does around 80 damage total. Cavalier miraculously makes save, which is good, because that would've outright killed him. Nobody expected such a good roll. It is only after this that someone in the party remembers to mention his mount (it was one of those boon companions you have to get revived to keep). Mount rolls 1. Fried chicken jokes for the next four hours.
Lots of people missing the point here. OP was trying to cause an attitude shift using intimidate. DM is well within his rights to require that this is roleplayed. A demon might not be intimidated by a mere mortal. Especially if he has no idea what the guy is saying. Did the PC have knowledge planes sufficient to know what language to speak in. Does he know Abyssal? All these are relevant details. The DM is actually not well within his right, however. Succeeding on the check is succeeding on the check. I will concede that it wouldn't work in the cited instance if the demon could not speak common (or the intimidating individual could not speak abyssal), but otherwise it should function so long as the DC is met. Now, if this was an instance where the demon is an NPC the party was supposed to fight, I believe it would fall under the creative solutions clause. PFS GMs are expected to be sufficiently fluid as to roll with what the party does (so long as it's supported by the rules). That being said, most creatures you attempt to intimidate prior to a scripted combat are just going to react by attacking you. They may begin with the shake condition because of it, but they will probably still attack. Even considering these things, it's not appropriate to simply decline for it to have any effect at all when it's clear the DC was met or beaten.
Pass check at start of a scenario, explain to the party why they shouldn't attack the caryatid pillars in front of them. Further explain that on your turn, you can neutralize them (and will indeed act before the creatures). ...... Observe as the hunter goes up and breaks his weapon on a caryatid pillar. Observe further as said hunter proceeds to stop right on the edge of your created pit, almost falling in the pit with the group of caryatid pillars you trapped inside it.
This is definitely looking like a GM that is altering some of the game's core mechanics to what he "believes" they should be. However, this is not permissible while DMing Pathfinder Society games. While there will be table variation, that table variation is not supposed to be of clearly defined mechanics with very obvious ramifications. If in the instances involving these creatures the OP's character exceeded the set DC, both should've succumbed to the intimidation skill; no question about it.
Arcane strike requires that you have the ability to cast arcane spells; monks can do this by burning ki points. It progresses as your caster level, and as per the way qinggong works, your monk level is always treated as your caster level for anything you burn ki to cast. Seems like Arcane Strike would work well to me.
Falchions are only x2. Besides, it sounds to me like this PC could have already killed the entire party in their sleep if it really wanted to. I suspect there is some reason he hasn't. I would say the party might get wasted even if they all attack him if it's an optimizer but uh... OP said it's a rogue. An optimized rogue probably couldn't even kill a poorly made fighter four levels below it.
I've always found it rather silly that you have to choose heal or harm. Where is the logic in it? A burst of negative energy to inflict harm is a burst of negative energy, period. Undead shouldn't magically not be healed by this use--it's the price you pay for using an area of effect ability. I'd say the same about channel positive: Undead should be harmed at the same time as everyone else being healed. A pity Paizo didn't see it the same way. Oh, and channel being targeted? I have never seen anything to indicate that it might be at all. Indeed, the closest you get to it being "targeted" is through selective channeling, and even that is simply choosing to exclude certain organisms. Just like you'll hit them if they're invisible, you'll also be unable to ignore them with selective channeling for that reason.
Well, sweeping someone's punch aside when they try to jaw-jack you IRL would be an immediate action, translated into game mechanics. Calling immediate actions metagamey is pretty much the equivalent of saying that we, as human beings, can metagame real life. Seems like the proverbial bucket has a few holes in it. Fact is, even a white belt in any form of martial arts worth its salt will have instinct enough to try and avoid a hit, and if chance permits, move to drop their aggressor on the follow through.
A witch's familiar should be intelligent enough (and under control enough) not to require any of the above. They are not treated as a normal animal of their type like an animal companion might be. If I were you, I'd show him the familiar growth chart--they aren't a slave to their instincts as clearly indicated by the significant INT boost they get just for being a familiar. Handle animal largely implies simple animal interaction as between a dog and a trainer. Well, your familiar is both sentient and intelligent. Why, then, would you control it with Handle Animal? Likewise you should not require mounted combat just to be able to ride it, although I will say it would make you better able to keep it safe if it became a target. Losing your familiar can be pretty rough. In any case, the basic rules for familiars should be more than sufficient. Take note of the intelligence of the creature and descriptions offered therein.
I've been actively playing and DMing for a long, long time now. Now bearing that in mind let me tell you that I still don't believe in limiting my players. I see no reason I shouldn't reward creative builds or those that otherwise display massive levels of system mastery. Besides, it's a lot harder to just straight overwhelm the content when your GM is also probably the best optimizer you know--let'em min-max all they want. All you do is adjust the playing field to match. Toss CR out the window and take a more direct hand in altering your monsters rather than just "choosing" what to use from a predetermined list.
Why were you looking?... then you realize they aren't wearing underpants under those skirts. Those micro skirts don't hide much. Doesn't matter if you look or not; you will regret being there.
And again, a well built Synthesist might as well be called the Fighter/Wizard/Conjurer/Rogue/Cleric. I think it's banned by organized play for a good reason. The Undead Lord cleric archetype certainly didn't get banned for its level of power, I can tell you that much.
I imagine it was probably weakened from its imprisonment. Generally speaking, people don't do that to them unless they're planning to either drain their powers, extract information through exceedingly painful means, or some other nefarious ends. If not then I suppose there was no reason to head home; still a little odd.
Oh please. My PFS-legal barbarian had an AC approaching 40 at that level while raging and could DPR that summoner under the table. At any rate, he has built his character to specialize. Don't punish someone because they've got enough system mastery to do that, though I will say synthesist is usually iffy. But uh... this guy's synthesist is just "good." It is not "powergamed" by any stretch of the word.
Throw in lots of enemies with spring attack and trip feats. Trust me, you will make your party come across the table and strangle you. >) Alternatively, you could send them up against some whip specialists that just unload with combat maneuver after combat maneuver from fifteen feet away with lunge.
The "easiest" way is to just ramp up. Make the average encounter APL+5. Boss battles APL+6. This is the approach currently being used by my Carrion Crown GM. Average encounter is anywhere between APL+5 to APL+8 with more HP tossed into the melting pot on top of that for good measure. ... We are still pretty much smoking the AP. We've gotten into a few rough spots but no real deaths as of yet to speak of. As it stands, we are roughly six sessions from completion. So yeah. There are parties out there that look at fights rated "impossible" and proceed to administer the pimp hand.
I see nothing evil going on here. The party chose to release the creature in return for getting the macguffin without risking their own lives. Moreover, the demon was not (at that time) engaging in any particularly hostile action due to having been sealed. Demon proceeds to tear through the city before returning to the abyss and the party, probably thinking also of their own well being (a creature capable of causing such wide spread destruction was probably above their so-called pay grade) in addition to the favor, chooses to let it be for the time being. That's uh... not evil. What's more, agreeing to let it out in return for an item does not constitute entering into a contract. Another thing I'd like to point out is that demons generally don't keep their owed "favors." If anything, I could see one perverting this favor into some terrible, unholy horror to lay upon the party at a later date. Beyond that, why do they believe it's indebted to them? Its debt should have been paid the second it gave them the macguffin in exchange for its release.
There is a difference between someone outvoting you and the GM taking his ball and going home. Again, this is why people need to agree to some terms; it makes everything go a lot more smoothly. It's also a good way to find out if your DM is willing to do evil campaigns or not, and if they aren't, you've got time to find a less disagreeable DM.
Some of those tier listings are pretty far off in left field. Have you ever seen the sorts of things an adequately well made ninja is capable of pulling off, for example? Whole encounters become little more than a laugh by one's mere presence beyond a certain point. A ninja in a setting where the GM can't adapt encounters to limit their abilities is pretty much unstoppable nine times out of ten. Another thing I would point out is that limiting classes by "tiers" would seriously cut into the fun; we aren't here to whip out a ruler and have a measuring contest, though I'm sure some do see the game that way. PFS is not about optimization or absolute victory, but a combination of enjoyment and the social interactions between players that are sure to come with playing the game. Besides that, those tiers are not even remotely close to absolute. There are fighter characters that could feasibly solo some gods with the sheer amount of broken you can milk out of that class, for example. Overall this just looks like you disagree with some long standing mechanics of different classes (and have an abject hatred of anything able to use composite longbows to great effect). Removing all the things you've listed would absolutely destroy the fun of a very, very large portion of the playerbase. Is it really worth doing that just to fix some perceived holes, not that those builds listed (other than gunslingers; we all know those are broken) actually create holes in the first place. Furthermore someone should not be effectively punished because oh hey, their build more effective than X or Y! That is called player diversity and it's a good thing. You shouldn't expect the game to be "fair." So what if someone has a better class or is better at building characters? See it as an opportunity to learn instead of expecting a ban. I think maybe the most confusing thing you're calling for is a ban being placed on composite bows. ... Why would anyone do that? The degree to which it would destroy ranged builds that don't rely on guns is ridiculous, not that some of the other proposed changes wouldn't be equally disastrous. Martials are easily the highest damage dealers in the game; amongst casters only the cross-blood sorcerer has a reasonable chance of keeping up with their magic, and even then only with a very specific build. Wizards happen to be good at battlefield control; they should not suffer for this. It has always been their schtick, being as sorcerers have always outclassed them as damage dealers. The ninja can move undetected in all but the most extreme circumstances, walk on walls, can stay invisible pretty much as long as they damn well please, and generate a wide variety of other, equally powerful effects. Should they be nerfed out of that as well? A good ninja is going to do damage comparable to any barbarian, fighter, gunslinger or sorcerer; it may even go higher in some cases. They can't aim at touch AC but good luck stopping them from hitting you. Unlike the rogue, they have tools to boost their hit chance.
|
