Ubercroz's page

Gator the Unread wrote:

By the strength of my arm and the skill of my mind." The wizard and cleric both have taller piles of fallen foes, but they had to rely on power outside them selves.

And then the sorcerer looked down upon them from his mountain of dead enemies and swooning men and women and goes. "That's cute."

And the druid is cuddled up with his animal companion, softly stroking it's fur as they stare deeply into each others eyes... Oh, on a pile of dead bodies.

Just tossing out my 2 cents on the whole debate.

Excellent points being made in that post.

I think it summarizes the issues nicely.

As an aside - I have played a number of wizards, many to high level. I have been both the most valuable and least useful character at times. When my wizard was in the right spot at the right times with my spells, there was nothing better. But when I am facing something that I just didn't anticipate I was left looking at all these spells and nothing to do.

I certainly think casters are a very potent force. I would never argue they are not. I just think that people underestimate martials inside of these strange theoretical constructs we make, when in game things usually work out nicely.

Ubercroz wrote:

The argument that I COULD have a caster do all these things does not mean you will. Anymore than me saying that I COULD have a fighter with an 18 CHA mean I will.

That is my argument. You can't do everything at once..

That was not the argument being made. The point was that casters can do certain things that martials can't if they choose to do them.

As an example I have a caster in my game with his own demiplane. He can teleport, fly(on his own), and do many of the other things that came up in this thread.

That was not the argument being put forth, as I understood it.

My response to that is: If it can go on a scroll the martial could do it.

The question I understood being put forth was: Can martials have the same narrative impact that a caster can?

In my opinion the answer is yes, Martials are more likely to be able to do certain things (especially at lower to mid levels) that can have an equal impact on the game.

The response I have seen is: Casters can do all that stuff too, if they wanted to.

My response to that is: Then why can't I say a martial could have a scroll and do all the things a caster could do too?

I think the bottom two arguments are both silly.

Ubercroz wrote:

Nicos wrote:

Not needing to recover spells is the only thing in your list than caster can not do.

Then martials can do everything a caster can as well, except they never have to recover spells.

Just get a scroll. Done and done.

My apologies, but if the way to make my martial character perform awesome feats equitable to what casters can do at the same level is "use spells", then I am not satisfied with the way this character was designed.

It's the response to "I could have a caster who can do all those things too" argument.

Wizards, Sage Sorcerers and Witchs will end up having more Skill points then any other class. Druids and Oracles have good base skill points. Your argument is evidently that "not everyone can do everything at once". That's a bad argument. The Rogue and Cleric who both work on perception will find that the Cleric is better at spotting traps (that half level bonus takes a while to catch up to a +5 stat and may never catch up at all.)

The problem is you are taking one comparison like pickpocketing, and then comparing it to the guy who has perception. You need to compare them one by one and in every case they are something anyone can do. Anyone who puts in point can pickpocket. Anyone who puts points into Perception can find traps. Your argument is weak because you aren't actually saying anything meaningful. All you do is make an invalid comparison and then declare you've "won" when it's shown to be invalid.

Whoa!

Yeah, that is my point.

I am saying exactly that not everyone can do everything at once.

You can't have a wizard that can be ultimately prepared for all situations in and out of combat at the same time.

You can't have a cleric that has knowledge and can climb and has perception

INT based casters get lots of skills, but are not likely putting them in perception because they have better things to do (things that match their skills).

My point is exactly that not everyone can do everything. All of the characters have a way to impact the narrative of the story. Some of them are flashy. But a rogue scaling a wall and dropping some untraceable poison into the kings cup while wearing a disguise is a pretty powerful narrative tool.

If the cleric has a 20 WIS (why does he have a 20 WIS?) then he won't be good at other things (like not dying).

You can call my argument "bad," but I think its valid. Arguing that casters are this infinite box of tricks because there are lots of spells they could use is silly. I could have a rogue with a 14 wis, well now that cleric isn't quite so much better.

I could have a fighter with an 18 CHA, I could have, I could have, I could have....

Just because a thing COULD happen does not mean it will or is likely to happen.

The narrative power of a character is determined by his character level and the circumstances. Just because a wizard can create a demi-plane doesn't really mean anything. A fighter could sunder an artifact with his adamantine greatsword and have a huge narrative impact. The bard could charm the fair maiden, the rogue could slip in information into someones pack, whatever.

The argument that I COULD have a caster do all these things does not mean you will. Anymore than me saying that I COULD have a fighter with an 18 CHA mean I will.

That is my argument. You can't do everything at once.

Not needing to recover spells is the only thing in your list than caster can not do.

Then martials can do everything a caster can as well, except they never have to recover spells.

Just get a scroll. Done and done.

The body itself is nonsense. Anyone can find Magical traps. And it is not needed to be able to disable them all day long. Casters are actually even better at finding magical traps since they have detect magic.

Your still only commenting on the one thing.

I was asked to come up with things that martials could do that casters couldn't.

I put together a list with some caveats.

I am told that there is one thing on that list that everyone "could do" (if they have perception... you know with all those skillpoints).

I point out there are other things on there.

I am then being dismissed as saying it's nonsense.

Thanks for the discussion fella's.

Yup, casters win.

Ubercroz wrote:

Nicos wrote:

Ubercroz wrote:

- Finding traps in a dungeon ALL DUNGEON LONG

Everyone can max perception.

Magic traps -_-

Everyone can find them too without any special abilities.

okay so 1) thanks, king of semantics, for pointing out something everyone can do.

Ubercroz wrote:

- Finding traps in a dungeon ALL DUNGEON LONG

Everyone can max perception.

Magic traps -_-

And if you only have 2 skill points, what are you doing maxing out perception? Especially if you are a caster - YOU NEED KNOWLEDGE!

The fighter only has 2 skill points as well, but he shouldn't be finding traps either.

Missed a condition that every else appears to be using:

-Casters are just as capable of do mundane, non-spell related tasks as martial characters are.

Here, try this: what narrative powers do martial characters have access to that casters don't?

I can't think of any. The options open only to martial characters I can think of are:

feats requiring a high BaB combat related.

class features that are are combat related.

- Carrying a 50 lb sack

These are all things I have seen that needed to happen in games, or occur on a regular basis. Things that casters couldn't do unless SPECIFICALLY prepared to do so.

Narrative impact? Yeah there was.

Ignoring that there are non-combat situations that occur below 15th level is kind of the crux of the "casters are better" argument. Ignoring that casters aren't always 100% prepared to deal with situations is another tent-pole of the argument.

- The rebbutal is of course "I could have a spell to do all those things."
- My rebbutal to that is 1) would you have it prepared and 2) would it be worth casting, if the martial can do it for free?

Can a caster do these things... maybe, but a fighter could use a wand too.

Now - lets think of scenarios in which a caster has a distinct disadvantage to a martial. He can cast spells, but we need to be reasonable. Turn the argument into how are martials better, not how are casters better, and you can come up with some interesting stuff.

Casters can cast a spell to become immune to antimagic fields, so... casters are still better in an AMF, *A LOT* better in an AMF in fact now that the Fighter has 0 buffs, while the caster has all of theirs. Also, using UMD isn't a good argument for any class. Druids can already outfight Fighters easily *and* use UMD to cure themselves up. Your strawman is made of straw.

Not really making a strawman argument here - I was more or less summarizing the argument as I see it.

My point, my only real point, was that if you frame an argument in a certain fashion, then you have already pre-determined the end result.

By defining the argument as it has been, any point put forth to the contrary will be defeated by the construct of the argument itself.

The argument I have seen, is framed thusly:

1 - Casters are better than martials
Conditions of the argument
- Using magic items doesn't count for the martials
- The narrative power a character has can only be derived from class abilities
- Anything that a caster does is beneficial to the caster argument.
- A Caster has access to his full bag of tricks, and martials may not be in a situation where their feats work.

Once you have established that these are the conditions, the result has already been determined.

Simply saying "A druid can be a better fighter, and cure himself and...." Is vague and misleading. At what level, under what conditions, at... blah blah blah, that's not my point.

However, thank you very much for making my point. You have shown that, once you have the result, you simply have to back peddle your answer to fit. I'm not in the business of setting up scenarios where in I need to be right - though I could probably establish certain conditions where a bard is a better combatant than a fighter, or a fighter is more knowledgeable than a bard or a wizard. Arguing the vagaries of what classes can do is pretty silly, especially in regards to narrative.

The narrative argument is as follows:

Casters are better at changing narrative.

Conditions of the argument.
- only spells can be used to change narrative.

Therefore, casters win.

This argument seems funny:

1: "Martials aren't as good as casters because casters can use magic!"

2: "Well, I can do some similar things with mundane means."

1: "That's not magic is it?"

2: "Right, well I could use a magic item. Then I can do the same thing as a caster."

1: "Oh ho! Well you need a caster to make that item, and then you're no better than a caster because you used magic. Actually, if you use a spell or magic at all - then you're hardly even a martial!"

2: "Umm... okay. So if I do something mundane it's not magic, and if I use magic then I'm not a martial character?"

1: *rolls eyes* "Now your just being a jerk."

2: "Wait, what?"

1: "Casters are better."

2: "... I guess if you frame the argument in a way that doesn't allow for another result, then you are correct. Well.... what if we are in an anti-magic sphere?"

1: "No one uses those, shut up."

2: "Fair enough, I concede that martial characters aren't the same as casters. You win."

1: "Victory!"

Maybe its not the paladin people hate.

Maybe its the player playing the paladin that people hate.

Sometimes I play paladins.

I sometimes wonder if that means everyone hates me.

I think I'm going to grip my holy symbol and ask for atonement.

Consider it like this:

You have a Ford Fiesta. The Speed limit where you live is 65 mph.

You bought a pass to the racetrack - you can drive as fast as your car can go.

You then buy a Lamborghini - the dealer reminds you, as you head out the door "The speed limit is STILL 65 mph."

You still have a pass to the racetrack where you can drive as fast as you want.

When you go to the race track, you are not hampered by the the 65 mph speed limit.

COROLLARY:

You have a 12 STR, you can only add 1/2 your strength damage with an off hand weapon.

You get Double-slice, which lets you add your full STR bonus to both weapons.

You then buy an agile weapon, which reminds you "You can STILL only add 1/2 that to your off hand weapon!"

You use double-slice and are not hampered by the off-hand weapon requirement.

Kazaan wrote:

The line in Agile stating that you don't get 1.5x Dex from two-handing the weapon is the exception that proves the rule.

The problem with this is that the line that says you don't get to add 1.5x DEX with a two handed weapon is the exact same line that says you only get to add half DEX to your off-hand weapon. It's all one sentence.

Your leaving out the word "Still." Which means that it normally applies. That is referencing a state that previously existed. Once that state is gone the you cannot "still" only apply 1/2 Dex. The feat is referencing the fact that STR only adds 1/2 STR to off hand attacks. Once that is no longer there, it cannot "still" be in effect.

I first read the thread title as 'Prehensile Body Hair Enhancement.' Which really struck me as funny.

Body hair is funny.

That is all.

I see no rules support for this being allowed, and I think my post using an new feat shows that, but like I said, I would probably allow it because of all the hoops TWF'ers have to jump through so it is not really a big deal.

I looked at the argument and didn't respond because it seemed like a non-sequitir.

IF there was a new feat that allowed you to apply your full DEX bonus to an off-hand weapon I would agree with you. There isn't one.

I think the rules for it working are baked in to the existing rules.

It's like IF there was a feat that said "You can add 1.5x STR damage when using an Elven Curved blade." I would be forced to assume that an Elven Curved blade otherwise does not get that 1.5 STR to damage - even though as it stands I am sure it does. Because there is the presence of a feat, I am forced to assume that the lack of this feat means I don't get to do what I otherwise thought I could do.

The problem with the "new feat" argument is that you can effectively apply it to anything. If there was a feat that said "you can now take a diagonal 5 foot step," I would have to rethink what the rule was, because I assumed diagonal was adjacent.

Based off of the rules that we have, and the way they interact, agile should allow for full DEX to damage if you have double-slice, I think it is 100% RAW (until they make that other feat).

Think about it like when you do taxes.

You take the money you earn, then you take reductions, you add in some special income, and then you have your Income for the year.

Thats how much you get taxed on.

Once you have your income THEN you get credits to applied (and penalties if you are late).

Those credits don't change how much money you made that year, they just effect how much you pay.

Damage reduction doesn't effect how much damage you dealt, it just effects how much damage the bad guy actually takes.

... [B]ut for a real laugh, get your DM to approve an Eidolon with Antagonize.

Guy in a homegame is playing a master summoner, we are still low level at this point. He made his eidolon a small frail coughing, almost skeletal snake. It uses antagonize. The flavor of it is that upon seeing this malnourished horror of a creature, they are filled with a need to wipe it's existence from the world.

I just saw that and thought - yeah... it's pretty funny.

Ubercroz wrote:

Clancy
MOUNT: Horse

leveling bonuses going to STR

FEATS
1. Toughness
B. Armor (Light)
2. Power Attack
5. Spring Attack

How are you getting Spring Attack without prereqs?

GREAT QUESTION!

I probably won't :)

I had written it down, and meant to replace it with potentially Armor (Medium). I have all this stuff written out elsewhere and was kind of working of memory. thanks for the catch.

I think your reading of this is going to be impacted by the order of precedence you apply these two effects in.

Normal: Str to damage rolls, 1/2 Str to offhand
Double Slice: Add Full Str to off hand weapon
Agile: Use Dex in place of Str when rolling damage

If you apply them in that order, then it seems pretty straight forward to apply full DEX.

The question is really:

Does the AGILE ENCHANTMENT treat all instances of STR to DAMAGE as being replaced by DEX to DAMAGE?

Because Double Slice modifies the normal rules for STR to DAMAGE allowing full STR, you should replace the normal off-hand damage rule. That is what the feat does. Once that restriction has been removed (for your character) then there is no half-strength restriction for agile to interact with (the language of the enchantment is the damage is STILL reduced). If there is no reduction, then AGILE no longer has anything for the modifier of STILL to apply to.

Based upon that reading (and I think the English language), if you have Double-Slice and Agile, you deal full DEX damage with your off-hand weapon.

The Illusion section of the CRB says that simply "encountering" an illusion does not constitute "interacting" with it.

If you have a GM who says seeing it counts as "interacting" then point him to the rulebook. In regards to interaction, it says careful study or touching it (I believe).

I don't think there is a lot of wiggle room on seeing an illusion specifically NOT being an interaction with it.

I guess I don't find the Illusions rules as challenging as other folks out there. They seem to be pretty specific. I think it is people being unfamiliar with them that causes the problem.

While the rules do not specify what the action is, it is MORE than just seeing it.

I am playing a Human Cavalier in PFS, actually about to use him for the first time this evening.

He is Taldan, and I plan on getting in arguments with people because he WILL NOT get off his horse. He is the 'Lance of Taldor,' he and Clancy are one, WOULD TELL A CENTAUR THEY HAD TO LEAVE THEIR HORSE HALF OUTSIDE?! I didn't think so.

Going to sword and board, or lance and board depending. I'm not 100% sold on those feats in that order - but I think he should be fine.

Sir Torrick VonClamarus and his faithful steed Clancy

RACE: Human
CLASS: Gendarme Cavalier (Order of the Sword)
ROLE: Melee, heavy hitter, with some skills and whatnot
ALIGNMENT: LG

STR 18
DEX 13
CON 12
INT 10
WIS 10
CHA 14
leveling bonuses going to STR, and then again at 8

TRAITS
Reactionary

SKILLS
Ride, Diplomacy, K(Nobility), K(Religion), Sense Motive, and Intimidate

FEATS
1. Power Attack
B. Mounted Combat
B. Ride-by attack
3. Improved Initiative
5. Iron Will
B. Spirited Charge

Clancy
MOUNT: Horse

leveling bonuses going to STR

FEATS
1. Toughness
B. Armor (Light)
2. Power Attack
5. Spring Attack

I've had to run some games cold, and while I think I do a "good" job at it, it's clearly not the same as having fully prepped it.

My advice: Read the summary. Hand out the chronicles at the beginning to have the players put their information on the top part. While they are doing that and filling out the sign in sheet, I quickly skim to the first encounter and get an idea of what I need to do to make it work.

I try and spot something interesting that I can play on to make the NPC engaging right off the bat, and try and convey some useful information to the players.

Once I have read the "Getting Started" part, I have the players introduce themselves. While they are doing that I do a little more fast prep to get the first act ready as best I can.

Once we get going I usually insist on a very quick break after the first 2 hours. This gives me a chance to skim the last part and make brush up on some quick rules, etc., while the players are taking their break. This lets me at least put the final encounter into some kind of order so that it's a decent experience for people.

I improvise as best I can, make things up so that it makes some verisimilitude of sense, and nod and smile a lot at the players.

Additionally, I laugh at everyones jokes, even if they aren't funny. I think that helps a lot.

So I have an idea for a homebrew (non-published) campaign that takes place on Golarian.

After getting ahold of a copy of the Inner Sea World Guide, I remembered an idea I had a while back for a game. Basically the PCs would be hired to start a counter-counter-counter-revolution in Galt with all the evilness and murderhobotry you'd expect.

That sounds like a cool idea for a game. I imagine your players would be down for it.

I don't want to discourage you from running a totally homebrew campaign setting. I do, and I really like it. I'm just recommending what finally worked for me. It took the players about 6 months of playing in the game before they really understood that they got to make meaningful decisions in the game.

We have now been doing it for about 3 years and I have now had 2 other people in our group GM a game in this setting. They pick a chunk of the world we haven't played in and then they kind of flesh it out and come up with a theme and it all works.

It is really neat to see the world take on a life of it's own, but I had to let go of the control before my players cared about it.

(1) The eidolon is super easy to min/max to be an amazing combatant.
(2) the summoner is easy to min-max to be a good support/skill character because it never needs to engage in combat because the eidolon is up front.
(3) The Summoner gets to cast summoning spells as a standard action - which is pretty crazy good.
(4) The Summoner get access to some pretty powerful spells earlier than any other class (Haste, Black Tentacles).
(5) Between the Eidolon and the Summoner they get a lot of Feats and skills, more than most casters and full BAB classes.

It's class that is neat in concept and can be fun to play, but if someone puts in the time they can really make an exceptionally strong and versatile character that outpaces many other classes. I don't mind a Paladin being better than my Fighter, but when a class feature is better than my Fighter I get a little frustrated.

I've seen the OP asking for campaign world building advice. Which, to be honest, I have never really understood. Not just from you but anyone.

What it sounds like you are doing is trying to create a fully fleshed out completely complete campaign setting to introduce your players to. My opinion is that will likely not work.

"Why won't that work Ubercroz?"

Well that's a good question, thanks for asking. It won't work because the players will not know all the information that you know and will be scared to help 'create' in your world because they cannot possibly know all of the rules.

The more information you put together the more restricted the players will feel. They won't know what kinds of characters are okay to make within the confines of the world and will feel stymied.

"But I will give them the information in a player handout!"

Yeah, I know you will. But if this ends up being a 75 page document then the players are going to feel overwhelmed. They won't read it, because they aren't as invested as you are.

"Then what can I do to get them involved?"

Well I say scrap 75% of what you have. Take a few key concepts that really help define the world, the country, the setting.

Write out on ONE PAGE the information your players need to know to make the game work. Make it clear that they get to help make the rest of the world. Then tell them the only stuff in the game that is "canon" is what has happened in the game. Everything else is up for change.

I have done so much stupid work on homebrew campaign settings, but they typically fall on deaf ears because people don't care as much as you do. Once people know that they are making it with you they buy in.

Then, run a short campaign. Then let someone else run a campaign for you in your world. THAT is fun.

It's like improv, when someone asks a question have an answer. If someone asks to do something say "Yes, and..."

I think it is within the scope of this discussion to say that "normal" does not have to mean "generic."

What it sounds like, to me, is that you want to do something outside of the box creative and non traditional fantasy. While your players are really looking for something more along the lines of the traditional fantasy setting.

You can have a story in a more traditional setting that is not "you start in tavern, you fight goblins...blah blah blah." Though, I think there is room for it. Especially if you can do it very well and with a high level of polish.

I definitely understand not wanting to run prepackaged stuff. My favorite games are always my homebrew games. I have played some AP's,
and modules, and do PFS. None of that is as satisfying as the homebrew.

What I have personally found is that an interesting setting can never make up for a good story. Whether it is for the GM or the players.

Make a good story, if your players trust you to do that, then you can get away with a lot. If you need some inspiration, steal heavily from other material or other GM's. I'd be happy to give some of what I have used in making campaigns that I thought were pretty fun.

What I have found has worked best for me in a homebrew game is having fewer details.

Have the broad scope. Put some work into their first location and then maybe 2 or 3 other locations, and then draw a map.

Once you have your map leave lots and lots of blank space on it.

Now, let you players make characters. Whatever they make is right. Your players cannot make a mistake there isn't a something that does not exist in your world, find a way to make it work.

By doing this, you empower your players to help build the world. They get to help decide what the world looks like and how it operates.

I will give an example - about two years ago I was just starting a game and explained that to my players. One of them decided that he wanted to be a salesman from Earth, that somehow got magic powers. I turned that concept into a driving plot point in the game - I never intended for that to ever be in the world I was making. However, he wanted it so I made it work. That character has now showed up in about 2 other campaigns because of his impact on the world we - as a group - have created.

If all you do is try to make a world and then have super tightly scripted rules and don't allow the players to take part in its creation, then you would be better off writing a book.

The more open your homebrew is - in my opinion - the better it will be, and the more fun everyone will have getting to make it with you.

http://paizo.com/products/btpy8zyl?The-Very-Last-Book-About-Alignment

This is a 3rd party book that does a really nice job of explaining alignment and throwing some interesting mechanical options to fit into the game. Like if you are "really good" then you can get some benefits, same as being "really evil."

I really liked it, and while I don't use any of the mechanics, it really helps to address a lot of alignment and morality issues that are common place in D20 games that use an alignment system like Pathfinder does.

@ N N 959: I can see that you are not going to accept any argument on the issue. If someone makes an argument that its a mechanic to simulate something that we can't you are argue it's not real enough to make sense. If someone argues that it's not supposed to represent reality then you argue that it's not a logical system. If someone argues that it is a logical system you say it doesn't do a good job of simulating something that in the game.

Rather than deal with the concept raised you push to a different slant on the argument. I understand you don't like the knowledge check. It doesn't do what you want it to do.

I think it works pretty well, it allows people to use their skills to gain a mechanical advantage in combat.

I appreciate your perspective. However, because any argument I make is going to be distilled to a single line that is dismissed before you alter the argument you make, I will simply state I am likely to disagree with your stance.

Knowledge isn't perfect- but it's good at doing what it is trying to do.

Except that this applies if I fight an aggressive butterfly. It applies when the GM rolls init and we're just talking to the local baker. Every fight a player rolls a 1 on a K check isn't justified by asserting the player is so scared he pisses his pants. Resorting to that rationale further exposes the ridiculousness of the situation. What's more, there's nothing in RAW says failure to know something is attributable to fear when in combat.

You know, if my encountering X creature was the first time anyone had encountered such creature in a 1000 years, then I could see it. But the ridiculousness of the K. system is that I can know nothing about humans...as a human.

I don't think there was an assertion that the character was scared, rather that in combat you may not be focusing on the details of the monster in front of you.

You other examples are pretty preposterous - you will never fight an aggressive butterfly and even if you "roll initiative to talk to a baker" you aren't in combat.

I don't think leaning on the ridiculous is doing a very good job of proving whatever point it is you are trying to make.

The stress of combat really does do funny things to people, and the difference between trying to remember something in conversation and trying to remember something when your life matters are very different.

Have you ever rehearsed what you were going to say to your boss about getting a raise and then when you went in to speak you said something like "I need get more money, now.... sir." When what you really meant to say was "I have been working here for five years and have been an excellent worker, by progress reports show my value and I deserve a 5% raise because of that."

Stress effects the body, no way around it.

Have you ever had problems remembering A WORD. Just a word, no real stress - its on the tip of your tongue and you can't manage to recall that one word... its right there and you can not say it.

When Samuel L. Jackson is pointing a gun at you, it might be hard to answer what Marsellus Wallace looks like. You might say "What?" one to many times.

Honestly, it's the obsession with the rules that I've noticed with PFS players (both on the boards and in real life) that have made me decide not to play or GM PFS. As a GM, I feel that I need the freedom to change things I don't like, or to make ad hoc rules decisions on-the-fly without having to look stuff up in the heat of combat.

I would imagine that my GM style would make too many PFS players get bent out of shape. Looking over the PFS GM guidelines in the Guide to Organized Play, I don't think that I'd be able to abide by the PFS GM rules, anyway-- they feel too constraining to my play style.

I do a lot of PFS and have been running a home game for years now.

I like both games for different reasons. I find the confines of the PFS system forces me to be creative in ways that I don't naturally GM when at my home game.

At my home game, I bend and twist the rules - I don't always even apply the rules equally to my NPCs as I do to the players. It makes it fun, and the players recognize and realize that fudging happens and its all good.

To be fair, regardless of whether its PFS or a homegame, the goal is to have fun. I try and make sure that is what happens no matter what. If the scenario is poorly done in parts, or if something happens that doesn't make sense and everyone is sour about it, I will do what must be done to make sure people have a good time.

I think PFS players do focus too much on the rigidity of the system, when what they should be focusing on is having fun while they play. Certain sacrifices, I'm just not willing to make - but I think PFS needs some old school good GM's, maybe quitting isn't the right option.

I try to get all my rulings and rules officially approved.

At some point Jason blocked my e-mail though. I think it was after I sent a "My fighter just rolled a 12 and has a +6 to hit, is that officially good enough to hit an AC 18? Thanks in advance for your time."

To be honest, the game would grind to a halt most night while we waited for an official response, but I think it was worth to really know.

It's a myth that the Internet means kids or even adults, know more about the world around them. While an increased amount of information is present, so is the increase in noise. Kids are more likely to spend their time watching DragonballZ or Epic Fail than they are reading CNN, BBC, or any other news station.

Another factor that we can't really understand historically is gossip, traveling minstrel...

With respect to Pathfinder, we're also not concerned with what the Commoner would know. We're talking about people whose livelihoods may depend on what they know about the creatures they face...

I think your argument against my point suffers from the issues my original point did.

You say it is a myth that the internet means that people know more about the world around them. How do you know it's a myth. There are certainly studies on education that would argue people today are substantially more educated. I could argue it's a myth that a 10 year old read a paper front to back every day - the only evidence you have is that your dad told you that one time, not really that substantial of an argument.

You then talk about gossip and minstrels, I kind of addressed that. Gossip, minstrels, stories, etc., may not be that accurate. People tell stories all the time - a lot of them aren't true or accurate.

All that said, the knowledge checks are more to identify the characteristics of the creature than it is to simply know what it is.

Like I said being able to point at something and say "Hey its a golem." doesn't really help, if you don't have a context to put it in.

Once more, setting everything else aside - this is a fantasy game where the rules are trying to simulate something that will provide a mechanical advantage based on the finite resources that you choose to place into the various skills that are available to your character. The purpose of these knowledge checks is to provide that mechanical advantage to the people who place the skill points into those skills that could be beneficial.

Trying to argue that pathfinder isn't like real life is pretty obtuse. It certainly isn't like real life. Like you said, we don't fight monsters everyday. Spells don't exist. We may or may not be able to take a 5 foot step without provoking an attack of opportunity. We can't see 360 degrees around ourselves. We can't fall 50' and make our reflex save to avoid the first 10 feet of damage. I could keep going, but pathfinder is not real life and trying to draw comparisons will ultimately end in feeling that the world of pathfinder doesn't make sense.

Guess what, the world of pathfinder doesn't make sense. But it is still fun, and the rules work within the context of the game.

And if you can identify a bear when you see one, I guess you must have put a couple of points into knowledge bear.

If you want to get nitpicky about words and definitions, you could say that the shield - even as written - does not give you an attack.

someone else said something pretty similar, but the shield says you can unclasp and throw it as a free action. It does not say that you get to make a ranged attack as a free action. You will notice that other feats, items, spells, or abilities that grant an extra attack explicitly state that an extra attack is granted or allowed to be applied outside of the normal rules.

Look at flyby attack, spring attack, haste, speed enchanted weapons, two-weapon fighting, and certainly more if you want an example.

Even AOO's are very explicit in that you get one additional melee attack. It does not say "you can take a swing at someone when they walk by."

Given the items lack of clarity, You are able to unclasp and throw the weapon as a free action. I would probably use the thrown weapon miss rules on what direction the thrown item goes.

However, if you wanted to aim the thrown shield you need to do so as a standard action, or as part of a full attack action.

If someone wants to get hyper sensitive on the language used in an ability, I figure I should probably do the same.

Not entirely related - but I had my players in a campaign fight a clan of hobgoblins. I made several "Hobgoblin Heroes" that they had to fight.

#1 was a spring attacking rogue with a falchion, I remember cheating on the spring attack rules, but it was homebrew so I allowed it. I think I let feint when he wasn't supposed to. I probably made up a reason as to why it was fine.

#2 was a buff heavy cleric with an adamantine mace. He buffed his minions and sundered equipment. He never dealt damage anyone, but had a crazy high AC and lots of HP.

#3 was a wizard who had an earth elemental companion. The wizard wore a Mask of Goz and dropped stinking clouds all over the field. The huge earth elemental was of course unphased and the Mask let the wizard act normally. Lot's of fun.

#4 was an illusionist bard who had several animal companions. He created illusionary fakes of his companions and buffed them all with performance, using debuff or control spells when he had the chance.

The last the Hobgoblin King who had a pet red dragon and wore a crown of blasting. He was a fighter and used a greatsword. I gave him some feats that let him do all kinds of crazy stuff for free actions or swift actions. I would have to pull him out to really remember.

The goal of each of these fights was to make the players reframe how they deal with normal encounters.

The Pathfinder Knowledge skill paradigm has some obvious flaws. One of those is identifying a sense of common knowledge all PC would have growing up with real live monsters. By age 10 the average kid in North America can identify a bear. They may not know black from brown, but they would know its a bear not mountain goat or a fox.

What your saying has some truth to it.

But, by age 10 the average north american kid also has spent more time on youtube and wikipedia than a normal pathfinder character. Also, what we have in pathfinder is much different than just random animals walking around, the world the game is set in has more kinds of creatures in it than our world does, so there are more things to know and information is not as easy to access.

While you may know that a bear is not a goat or fox, would you be able to tell the difference between a coyote, a long legged silver fox, and a mid sized mutt?

Have you ever seen a breed of dog that you didn't recognize? Could you tell right away if it was a retriever or if it was a shepherding dog?

Could you tell the difference between a male mountain lion and a female Savannah lion?

And when it comes to magical creatures it would be not only likely, but totally reasonable that a character could look at that monster and say "I have no idea what the hell that thing is." Because it has 3 heads, or it kinda looks like a dragon, or it has 6 arms and, or whatever.

Even if you do recognize what that thing is, you may not be able to do anything about it.

"It's a golem."
"What does that mean?"
"That its...um...a golem."
"What hurts it?"
"Probably anti-golem stuff, like anti-golem swords, and anti-golem spells...you know."
"Thanks for the help."
"That's what you guys pay me for."

outside of all of that, I think trying to inject too much reality in this fantasy game can cause a lot of confusion.

Pirate Rob wrote:

What would you do if a player had leveled based on their partial chronicle sheet, purchased equipment or had applied another after it?

Ubercroz wrote:

I don't understand the question.

If it were my question, I would be wondering what you'd do if, between the first session (with the partial rewards) and the second, the player had gone to a different table with the same PC and earned XP or Fame.

By rights, I suppose the answer would be: that player can never play the resolution to the module under PFS rules, without burning a GM star-reroll.

I thought that might be what he was asking, but didn't want to waste time answering something that wasn't useful to the conversation.

I think the "you don't get to finish the module" answer is correct.

It's against the rules to give a Chronicle mid-module. Sorry.

I can see that, I suppose I shifted the topic from "is this legal?" to "why isn't this legal."

I won't be giving out a chronicle at the mid-point of a module (though I have done it in the past when broken up over multiple sessions).

I suppose, my point is that modules are designed with the intent for players to gain a level over the course of the game. I am saying - why not make it an option that the GM could allow players that XP so they could potentially gain a level and reduce the number of tpks?

Certainly there are some issues with this:

(1) it takes people time to level (come with a leveled up version ready to go).

(2) People could potentially "level out" of the module (they don't apply the chronicle until after the module is complete).

(3) They play in another game between module sessions (don't let the do it, and don't let them finish the module).

(4) Other concerns I can't think of at this moment. (Think Damn you!)

since I got the answer to my question pretty quickly I commandeered my own thread to answer a different, but similar, question.

What would you do if a player had leveled based on their partial chronicle sheet, purchased equipment or had applied another after it?

I don't understand the question.

If we did allow mid-level ups, where would it be? It would have to be uniform for each module where exactly gaining the XP takes place so that we can have a uniform experience for all players, and a lot of modules aren't even set up to do something like that. Take Masks of the Living God, as that module can go in wildly different directions depending on what the party does, and really wouldn't have a good "Gain XP" portion of it.

Why? I don't think there is any rule in Pathfinder Society that says the players are supposed to have a uniform experience. I'm pretty sure the Guidebook specifically says that is not the intent of Pathfinder Society.

There doesn't need to be a "portion of the game" where it happens. But I imagine that if you are playing a module for 8 hours, at some point you will take a break. Why not just do it there?

While it's not practical, the Paladin could have decided to keep the boy until they got to civilization, and then see who might be able to care for him.

Or, could have headed straight to civilization to get him to a priest who might be able to restore his sanity.

Or, he could have insisted that the party do something to help this boy, the one survivor of a town massacred and destroyed.

I think the Paladin had a lot of choices to make - and I think killing the kid out of convenience is not a good solution. I might have made him fall for that. The wizard thing is just... meh.

I don't know all the details, maybe there was some kind of time sensitive campaign specific goal that has to happen and that the kid will never survive. If there isn't, then I don't like the players choice. If there is, then the GM was setting the paladin up to fall and maybe you should find a GM who understands how to run a game better.

It could very well be that the GM expected the paladin to try and save the kid and get him to someplace safe. I could certainly see that as a neat adventure hook. Crazy kid, you have to protect him until you can find your way to civilization where he can be saved. It will be hard and require extra work, but you can get him saved... oh - I guess you could just kill the little guy after you throw him a knife and pummel him to death too... never saw that one coming.

I have run a lot of games, and I have played more than 1 paladin. My paladins have never fallen, and I have never made a paladin fall - unless they totally deviated from the mission.

The title of this thread really drew my attention.

Saying you NEED[ED] an official ruling from the Mike Brock struck me as completely nutty.

I am not intending to be offensive, though I certainly understand if it is taken that way.

It just seems very presumptuous to demand that someone - who likely has a full day of work lined up, which probably includes a back log of similar requests, Gencon around the corner, scenarios to approve, Venture Officers to communicate with, and I can't imagine what other items in his list of "to-do's" for the day that may never get done - should drop everything and answer a single, fairly simply, GM level type question.

I'm not usually one to chastise people, and I'm not trying to cause any trouble, but maybe not every individual rule problem/player problem needs to be immediately taken to the highest level for resolution.

You don't see the mid-management guy go to the CEO of his company asking what he should do about one of the guys on the mid-managers team. Instead, either the mid-manager handles it (you can do that you are the GM) or he goes to the next rung up (maybe talk with your VC, or other local GM's).

Sorry, the title bothered me, and the entitlement bothered me. Take my comments with a grain of salt.

What I have done in the past (Potentially illegal I guess) is give the players a chronicle sheet after the first session. Say I am running the game one week and then will be again on the next. That way if the player can't make it back unexpectedly, they still have their chronicle and everything works out just fine.

If they do make it back, I grab their chronicle from their dirty little hands and then hand them a fresh one at the end. While I guess there is no "Mechanic" for taking a chronicle sheet... I kinda just do.

I was talking with my VC recently and he asked if it was legal, I didn't really know - just assumed it was due to the partial credit for module rules. He didn't know either, seemed like maybe it could be.

I get that not all modules allow for purchases midgame - that was really just kind of an after thought - but the xp I think is the more important thing. Given that these modules were designed for the players to gain xp as they progress through it and be at a higher level at the end than they are at the beginning... it seems very backwards to NOT give xp during the game.

You are essentially setting players up to fail. If it's not legal, maybe it should be.

If I was giving someone information on a Dragon when they got a knowledge check, I probably wouldn't include "it has a breath weapon." Some knowledge should be somewhat common.

However, I might tell them the spells it has, or what is good saving throws are, or if it has SR, those are the kinds of things that aren't common knowledge.

Like if you saw a tarresque, it might be common to realize its gigantic and it levels cities. On the other hand, it may not be that common of knowledge that it has an SR, or that it has a specific DR, or what kinds of weapons supposedly hurt it. Knowledge would tell you how adept it is at dodging things (reflex save). Or what has been shown to never hurt it (immunities).

There is some sense in saying that rarity matters, but at the same time just because something is legendary and well known, does not mean the legends are accurate or that the information contained in them will benefit the characters.

I find a lot of GM's do want to hold back information from the players. They then complain that they never got to do the "cool things" that the monster could do.

This is where I love the knowledge checks as a GM. It allows me to put a certain amount of fear and respect into the minds of the players. I prefer to tell people information, rather than asking questions. Once I have told the players what the beast is capable of, it's almost as good as getting to the thing itself. In a certain respect giving the players more details on a better knowledge check will make the characters respect the monsters capabilities AND it gets rid of the times when the players expectations don't meet their results.

For the most part, frustration from GM's comes when player expectations and results don't match. Once you tell the players what their expectations are, then they are less likely to be mad. Transparency is a fantastic tool to running a high quality game.

I will be running a module at the start of next month.

It will be run in two parts, one in the morning one in the afternoon.

I want to give the players a chronicle at the mid-day break for the partial play and then replacing it at the end of the module with the chronicle for the full play.

I think this will help the lowest level people maybe gain a level (given that the end encounters can be challenging in any module) and it will allow the characters to purchase stuff with found treasure in the module.

My question is: Since we are essentially playing it all in one day, is giving that chronicle at the half-way point legal?

Given that there are rules for partial play credit of a module, I think it likely is... but maybe isn't.

A cursory look didn't find an answer to this question. Thanks!

Easy fix: all goblins are evil. They may be technically intelligent, but they are evil no matter what. This means you can never (or maybe only ever have one with a GOOD backstory) a PC goblin.

It also means that goblins, even baby goblins, will try and kill and attack a player if they can. They are literally born evil and are literally a plague. Like wild hogs in the southern US, they are devastating to the land and should be put down even when they are little. It's not evil - its necessary.

Running some monstrous NPC races like that really gets rid of a lot of the moral quandaries that can come up. If those races are always evil, then you don't have to stress about the morality, because those races are evil.

I think its one of the easiest ways to fix the moral problem.

It sounds like motivation is an issue. The player, and the character WANT a reason to become involved, that means he needs a motivation that makes sense to him. If he often DM's, he may have a hard time being on the other side of the screen - so make it fun for him somehow.

One thing that could help is coming up with a story arch, maybe just one or two sessions, that separates the party from towns and people and anything. Put them in a situation that they are stuck in, and have to work their way out of. Give them a common enemy, that will provide that character with a reason to go along. That's what he wants, he wants you to give him a reason to be with the party.

Talk with the player. Ask him what motivates his character, what does the character care about? Then find some way to threaten that with the common enemy. He may not want to be involved with people, but he will recognize that he can't do it alone.

I have found that when there is a character that seems to lack motivation (it happens sometimes even with very good players) that you have to nudge them a little to get them moving.

If you just finished the Hangman's Noose, then maybe you could have a villain who heard about their success at the courthouse and now wants to do the party harm - or sees that they could be a threat. They are now bonded because of they were all involved in that together.

Maybe the next session starts with "You wake up on a cold, slightly damp, stone floor. You see your recent comrades in the room with you, and you have been stripped of your gear."

Or maybe for some reason the everyone in town kicks them out together. they are on their own, and are not allowed back in the city (the villain against them is an influential local).

Just a couple of ideas.