Tinculin's page

Now that I dwell on it a bit more: I think the issue lie with the contract itself for her (the handout made it seem like when signed, your soul was forfeit, PERIOD, she said her intelligence/wisdom would make her realize signing was a worse idea than dying) trust, as you said, was important so I gave them the heads up before deciding to start this.

It is supposed to be something you tell your players before they make their character.

When I started running my WotW campaign (we're now on book 3), i began with a kick off session where I gave the players information about the campaign and told them what restrictions there were about characters.

I read the handout to them, stressing alignment restrictions (my players were all itching to play evil anyway), advised them of the campaign rules - strictly forbidding players fighting each other, and of course told them they MUST make a character that would sign the contract.

Don't leave ambiguity with your players and be firm from the get go, otherwise players will think they can push you around, you need to be clear that you are the referee so you can all move on and enjoy the campaign (and it really is a great campaign)

A few things here:
1) We all know what its like dealing with a problematic character, reading between the lines (and please don't take offense at this), it seems your friendship is perhaps causing you to be overly soft towards him.

Ultimately you are the GM and while no-one likes a GM who is a tyrant, it is a GM's job to ensure his game moves forward and remains fun. When you are confronted by a disruptive player who is not only disrupting your game but also miffing off all your other players, you sometimes need to be less fluffy/soft and be assertive. 'Just a simple 'No, i'm not allowing you to do that'.

I'd suggest not giving him alot of attention until he starts to tow the line and at least work with the party - plenty of characters have no problem making IC fun jokes and RPing differences between them (plenty of parties have paladin's and thieves and it is never a problem).

i.e. don't spend time on his activities away from the party and when you have to, keep it minimalist. don't award much experience and eventually he will start to get the message. If he objects, just point out that this is a party orientated game and he needs to work with the party and weave a reason to do so into his background.

2) Attacking other players
CAUTION - unless this happens alot in your games and your players are used to it, nothing will cause OOC resentment than allowing this to occur (unless both players give OOC consent).
I'd be extremely hesitant to allow this to happen as it is unfair to all players involved (especially if they are doing nothing to ask for it). If pushed I'd just say a flat 'no, in the interests of the game i'm not allowing you to do that'.

If you don't like critical fumbles and your gm won't budge, play a class that doesn't make attack rolls

It's worth pointing out that someone could have stars and of been gming for only a few years. Equally someone could of been a gm for 20 years across multiple systems and groups and not have a single star, yet would have heaps more experience.

Guy sounds belligerent and ignorant & also is wrong in his ruling, sorry u are stuck with such a gm

CWheezy wrote:

I see you dislike people using written material legally

So tell me, wisest of wise men: Should tier 1-2 scenarios assume that everyone brings a leopard? That no-one brings one? Should all scenarios have animal-removing obstacles?

While I believe anyone can see the balance issues here, balance is not the job of a table GM to enforce or tweak rules to fit. That is upto the campaign management (who i'm sure will errata this at some point).

While in home brew campaigns you can add/remove rules as you see fit, that is not the case of PFS scenarios. One of the core principles of PFS play is that players and GM's can expect consistant rules where ever they go.

Disregarding them is just demonstrating a beligerant approach and completely against the principles of PFS play.

As a GM, all you can ensure is that the player using such a creature has a purchased copy of the appropriate resource with them.

Act like you would if you didn't like a real world group.. If you don't like the online community you are part, just leave it and join another? If the community is as bad as you imply, people will just stop going?

Address it in character creation.

As a GM you should set ground rules for your campaign that you require of your players - including what races, alignments and classes are allowed in the game you want to run.

e.g. a recent campaign i started, players aren't allowed good or chaotic characters, paladins, gunslingers samurai, ninjas and cavaliers were banned and i asked them to stick to core races.

I told them this up front along with some background to the campaign world and the opening scene they would find themselves in. This allowed players to come up with character concepts that fit the campaign world and not create characters that are just out of place.

Paladins can smite multiple targets, each smite takes a swift action.

If I had to ask the players what spells would be okay for me to use everytime I showed up... I'd have a very hard time picking my spells. More so if I had to ask the GM if he would make an issue everytime I cast a spell or swing my sword. That said, don't force it on them, and if they turn it into an issue because you used it while they were out cold and you wanted them to you know... survive, just apologize and move on. Good isn't a good reason to be a jerk to evil people(I see that mistake a lot though), but its easier to move on and drop it.

On the same note, having an evil spell isn't a good reason to be a jerk to Paladins.

I have characters with wands of IE and do the polite thing - before we set off, I explain to the party I have it and anyone who would rather me not save them with it to speak up.

Gives all the paladins, clerics and other characters that would rather risk death over being saved an informed decision.

That's the polite and respectful in and out of character thing to do.

Thornkeep level 1 - accursed halls.

As a player (not the deceased), at the table, the truth is that the rules around energy drain were not known by DM or players (at least correctly!) and it wasn't clarified until several days later after the event had occured before we reconvened to finish the scenario.

In my humble opinion, this is hardly surprising given players being completely level drained is a fairly rare occurance & the rules around it could definitely be alot clearer in the rulebooks.

Hawk, you did a good job DMing the scenario and kept it fun (which can be very difficult when a player dies) so kudos to you, though i'd not put obscure rule queries down to player skill (or lack of), when we all (players and DM), misunderstood the rules.

I think it's every DM's job to work with players to ensure the correct rules are played to & it's unfortunate in this instance the correct interpretation of the rules mean a player died.

Tinculin wrote:

No, the rules clearly state under Aura of Courage:
At 3rd level, a paladin is immune to fear (magical or otherwise).

This isn't 2nd edition, this is Pathfinder. Not sure if the rules were different for Paladins back in 2nd Edition, but the above is what is relevant today.

Edit: Your example just means your Paladin was not lawful stupid. A good tactician knows when to pick their fights and when to live to fight another day. That's nothing to do with fear, its everything to do with wisdom and good tactical/strategic sense.

If a Paladin is afraid of nothing, how does a DM create tension or fear during the game? What's the point of playing if there's nothing to worry about? Where's the drama of playing a robot?

You create Tension the way you would in any game - good story telling.

Fear is a single condition Paladins are immune to.

It's like asking - how does a DM poison a 9th level druid - they don't, they are immune.

Paladins are not robots - they can laugh, be sad, love and feel loss. Fear is not a pre requisit to playing a character or running a game.

Tinculin wrote:

Piccolo wrote:

No creature is immune to fear or pain, the point is that those are fundamental aspects of being alive and intelligent. You can't disassociate fear and pain from an alive,...

It's not like this is debatable unless this is some home grown campaign you are running and changing core things about the Paladin class. According to RAW paladins are immune to fear at 3rd level.

Immune to pain? no - but again as stated above, with the fear of death completely out of the equation, torture and intimidation have much less bearing.

Immune to magic fear effects, but nothing in the book about what the player might feel if they got spooked. That simulates mundane fear. If you note, almost all sources of fear in the game are magically induced. Paladins are immune to that, but NOT regular fear.

For example, back in 2nd ed, I was playing a Paladin. The dwarven rogue had gone into a sandy ravine to check it out, and since I was sucky at climbing, I just waited for him with the mage. Minutes later, a gigantic djinn appeared. Took one look at it, said "Right!" Spun around, threw the female mage (player wasn't there to run it) and ran for it. When one guy complained that Paladins couldn't run, I said that I might be a Paladin, but I wasn't suicidal.

No, the rules clearly state under Aura of Courage:

This isn't 2nd edition, this is Pathfinder. Not sure if the rules were different for Paladins back in 2nd Edition, but the above is what is relevant today.

Edit: Your example just means your Paladin was not lawful stupid. A good tactician knows when to pick their fights and when to live to fight another day. That's nothing to do with fear, its everything to do with wisdom and good tactical/strategic sense.

A DM has as much power in a game as the players allow him.

If you don't like his rules, talk to him, you can often come to something that fits both your agendas. If he's a belligerant DM (we've all had them), just leave his game and find a more agreeable person to play with.

Tinculin wrote:

Piccolo wrote:

No creature is immune to fear or pain, the point is that those are fundamental aspects of being alive and intelligent. You can't disassociate fear and pain from an alive,...

It's not like this is debatable unless this is some home grown campaign you are running and changing core things about the Paladin class. According to RAW paladins are immune to fear at 3rd level.

Immune to pain? no - but again as stated above, with the fear of death completely out of the equation, torture and intimidation have much less bearing.

And, of course, this is a game and not real life. In real life we aren't granted supernatural powers for adherence to a code.

Absolutely, and it is not a good argument to use real life examples of how to solve fantasy issues. However, morality should persist between the two so I will attempt to answer the readers question.

Can a Paladin lie to a demon, devils undead and other creatures?
The answer is no and there is no single moral reason why he should when there are several alteratives as several posters have raised, but lets pretend there is a binary choice - lie/betray friends or not lie.

Faced with the so called 'impossible' scenario where a Paladin is threatned with a massacre of thousands of innocents if he does not betray his friends.

A paladin has no reason to believe the demon/whatever will keep his word and EVERY reason to believe they will act on a whim. (except devils, but even those are not prohibitted from lying).

Whether he he betrays his friends or not, will have little to no bearing on whether a demon slays the thousands of innocents.
The moral choice is quite clearly to refuse & remain true to his code. This at least guarantees the safety of his friends and the Paladin can hope that divine forces of similar strength to his captures are not going to stand idly by and do nothing.

No creature is immune to fear or pain, the point is that those are fundamental aspects of being alive and intelligent. You can't disassociate fear and pain from an alive,...

It's not like this is debatable unless this is some home grown campaign you are running and changing core things about the Paladin class. According to RAW paladins are immune to fear at 3rd level.

Immune to pain? no - but again as stated above, with the fear of death completely out of the equation, torture and intimidation have much less bearing.

If players are making items, they fund this mostly through selling items they find for 50% value, so end up roughly even. This isn't an exact science but as long as you don't throw endless items at your party is something you can keep in check.

Certainly does - Would be a heck of alot of feats for a single bite attack.

I'll stick to a simple spirited charge & pounce combination for tons of damage over fancy flying!

Thanks - though i'm not looking to obtain the feat for the PC.

i.e. The Eidolon is a summoned outsider, and is not considered a PC, animal companion or familiar. (so is not in the additional resources list of bestiary exclusions)

It states this on feat selection:
Eidolons can select any feat that they qualify for, but they must possess the appropriate appendages to use some feats. Eidolon feats are set once chosen, even if the creature changes when the summoner gains a new level. If, due to changes, the eidolon no longer qualifies for a feat, the feat has no effect until the eidolon once again qualifies for the feat.

Hi,

Inspired by several novels, I thought to make a Dragon Riding, Lance wielding summoner. (since summoner is about the only class you can have a 'fantastical' looking mount.

I just wanted to check on the legality of Flyby attack for an Eidolon & Ride by attack for it's rider in PFS play.

The eventual idea being is that once the Eidolon reaches level 5, it will be able to perform flyby attacks with it's Lance wielding summoner rider (using ride by attack), preferably charging to gain the lance benefits.

Mechanically, how much of this is allowed in PFS play?

i.e.
Can Eidolons have fly-by attack?
Can it's rider make a single attack at the same time the Eidolon makes its ride by attack?
Can a charge be performed as part of a rideby/flyby attack?

Aranna wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

While I think the rules could be better, I would not say they are proven to be broken. I have never had an issue with them. As the GM I control the time and money available for crafting. I also control any custom items that are asked for.

That is the main point.

You, the DM, have to keep it under control for it to work.

Do you have to step in to keep AC under control?

Wraithstrike said it.

But I think you are confused shallowsoul if you think that a GM controlling time and money is part of the crafting system. These are things you have to keep control of to simply have a well paced and balanced adventure. They are part of a GMs responsibilities period, whether you have crafters or not. As for the GM needing to "control" custom items... yes this IS the design intent of the crafting system, It is a feature not a bug. It allows GMs the freedom to decide for themselves what they wish to deal with or not and price it as they see fit. There is even a big section of guidelines set up to help the new GMs find a good balance themselves.

Do you understand that a crafter can have way more money than he should? He gets to craft his stuff for half price and then he gets to charge his companions anything over 50% and under 100%.

Do you acknowledge this or are you going to remain in denial? The only way a DM is going to stop this is to step in and just say no which is GM fiat and is something that the rules do not rely on.

You can't Rule 0 everything that becomes a problem. If that is your attitude then you never need a second printing of anything.

Of course he could and there is absolutely no problem with this from a rules perspective, and it is upto the players to decide what to do:

Or as is more likely in your usual good aligned campaign, that the crafter will craft items for all the party at cost.

It isn't that the magic items don't work, they do, and for the majority of campaigns they work fine.

Just like players gambing gp with each other is perfectly fine in most campaign worlds.

However, in PFS play, both are prohibited because it causes a book keeping nightmare and is easily exploitable. At a table top, I can give my fighter friend the +1 longsword I pick up and he can have a higher gp value of items than me. However in PFS play this would be exploited massively by friends creating 'alts' to 'twink' each others characters.

If you think a staff of infinite wishes is a problem, as a GM it is your perogative to ban said item, but there are guidelines on working out a gp cost for said item. Similarly, certain rules are not allowed in PFS (I can't play certain races, I can't be evil, I can't make magic items).