Voadkha 11's page

So I've recently been spending a lot of time in the forums and have been using "marked as favorite" to lend some solidarity to comments that I felt particularly drawn to/appreciative of.

I've been using it as a thumbs up feature... in part because I didn't realize it was effectively a bookmark.

Even after I realized it was a bookmark I continued to use it as a thumbs up because I still wanted to show solidarity.

Occasionally, someone posts something that I disagree with so vehemently I'm compelled to respond. Other times, I wish there were a way to simply 'thumbs down' because "that post is just stupid".

Ideally, I'd love to see a mechanism where I could thumb up, or thumb down a particular post (separate from marking something as favorite) but also I'd love for there to be a list of the names of the people I have thumbs upped (and a counter for how many times) and a list of the names of the people i have thumbs downed (and a counter for how many times).

There are a lot of people on the forums that I have a lot of respect for and any time I thumbs up them (because my opinions are in line with their post) i feel good about myself because in some ways it validates that my own opinions are good.

Second, the feat provides bonuses in exchange for completing a specific ritual on a daily basis. Completing the ritual in exchange for bonuses, is, again, not evil nor good, lawful nor chaotic. It is just neutral. This is because the PC is doing it for a gain, it is not merely a show of devotion, as the PC can do this without a feat, it is an exchange. Good behaviour for the promise of reward becomes neutral, just like evil behavior for the promise of reward becomes neutral. They are not doing something to be an alignment, they are doing it for the bonuses. This is no different from completing a quest for the promise of payment/reward. It is not good behavior if you do it for the reward. Good must be done for the sake of good, just like evil must be done for the sake of evil.

My Conclusions:

As a feat, I think this one should be handled no different from preparing spells, regardless of which deity it is for. One hour and a feat is enough to reflect the gains printed in the feat.

I absolutely disagree with this conclusion. Some people choose evil gods because they think it will be fun to RP an edgy character. Completely acceptable (within reason). Some people choose evil gods because it has a mechanical benefit (such as unlocking the ability to channel negative energy). Also completely acceptable. However, there's a reason why most clerics of Asmodeus stress the Lawful aspect of their deity because focusing on the evil aspect is against PFS rules.

According to your argument, as long as someone pays me to do something heinously evil it isn't evil. That is ridiculous.

"I know you might think it was evil for me to go into a hospital and sacrifice the hearts of all the mothers and unborn babies in the maternity ward, but it wasn't. You see, I had a pact with Lamashtu and in return for those 45 hearts she gave me access to an improved familiar. I wasn't doing it to be evil, I was just doing it for a cool familiar. Therefore, it was actually a neutral act. Besides, I'm sure at least one of those babies would grow up to be a criminal, so I was actually preemptively preventing a crime!"

I usually side against people that 'over-react' by suggesting the ban hammer but your argument, makes me want the powers that be to simplify the issue and just ban the feat. Which is sad because there are still people out there that treat a character concept as more than just a collection of game mechanics.

I assume you mean that when the first character dies you've allowed him to bring in a replacement character (with 'appropriate' WBL) that ends up being more than the party?

Alternately, do you mean specifically coins rather than wealth in the form of magic etc?

I ran into similar problems with allowing replacement characters keep coming in at appropriate level (instead of level minus 1) and appropriate WBL. I never solved the problem.

As for awarding the players money you could always give the party as a whole X*Y reward where X is the amount you intended to give each character and Y was the total number of party members not counting the guy that died. If the party as a whole wants to give the recently dead guy a full share they can, otherwise they may choose to give him a partial share.

I would say that if the character ALSO had the infusion discovery then it would work, otherwise it would fail because, I would treat the bottled ooze as an extract (per the bottled ooze discovery) but not elixir/infused extract/poison/potion.

If he had the infusion discovery, I would rule that the bottled ooze becomes an infused extract and therefore becomes an acceptable target for the spell.

That said, I would rule that the 'injected' ooze occupies the touched person's square and that it's first attack automatically hits. If I was feeling generous I'd have the player roll a D20 and if he rolled a 20 the 'automatic hit' was also a critical.

My position is similar to you being invited to a friend's house for some burgers on the grill. You know him to be a good grillmaster and the food is excellent as usual. However, afterwards, he notifies you the meat was not beef as you assumed, it was an all-vegetable, meat-like substitute. Perhaps you had even poked fun at such a food product in the past.

Now, the fact that you enjoyed the meal should not be lessened by the revelation that he had deviated from the "script," that being beef burgers. Prior to the knowledge, you enjoyed it just the same, so what's the problem? Of course, this is a hypothetical so all things must be equal, meaning no food allergies or other unrelated, outside issues that would make the "deception" a health hazard.

Sorry but I imagined the hilarity of a reverse scenario where the "excellent hamburgers" were advertized as all-vegetable patties... everyone (yes even the carnivores) enjoyed them. Then the vegetarian was mislead into thinking the grillmaster had lied and they were actually beef. The vegetarian goes off on the previously mentioned coffee related rampage only to be told afterwards that it was a joke and they were _in fact_ veggie burgers.

Admittedly I am also annoyed by the existence of optional encounters. For basically the exact same reason. Some people just have one less encounter in their adventures (and there for use fewer resources) because they as a group play slower.

I agree with your frustration with optional encounters! As player I want to play the optional encounters because, hopefully, they add to the challenge (although this hasn't been my experience) or at least add an opportunity to role-play (this HAS been my experience). As a DM I want to run the optional encounters because it gives me another opportunity to challenge my players and gives me another opportunity to give them a memorable and fun experience.

I feel that when the optional encounters are removed as a player I've been cheated... particularly if there has been considerable time wasted due to players showing up late/starting late/unprepared players/wasting lots of time looking up rules/out of character conversations about other gaming systems.

As a GM i've managed to include the optional encounters in 3is of the 4ish scenarios I've run.