Vycamros Chandler's page

Well, you have the right to be wrong. The very definition of the GM includes rule 0, which none of the player entitlement crowd seems to remember. But even apart from any of that comes the common sense that normal healthy social interaction should have provided, and it has little to do with the GM owning the game (which they do, utterly, since without them their game disappears)

It's important to remember that if you consistently piss off your players you can easily alienate your player base too. Then you have no players and the game you own isn't going anywhere either. Part of speaking up is making the whole group aware there is a problem. Furthermore, in normal healthy social interactions if I misuse a word or pronounce it incorrectly or have my facts wrong about a topic; I'd rather have the people I'm comfortable around correct me so I know for future reference then have them let me go on looking like an idiot. And if I then insist on continuing to be an idiot I expect to be made aware of that too.

The other half is violence!

Thanks for all the responses, I hadn't expected this to get as much attention as it did. I have spoken with a few members of the group I was playing with and I have decided to back out of Pathfinder Society for the time being. I don't think it is a suitable medium for the kind of enjoyment I get from playing tabletop RPGs. And that was my point overall, I think I have a very different agenda at the table than the other players. I'm much more interested in the dynamic between the characters and the potential conflicts there. The group I was running with are very focused on the task at hand. To me, having a group of characters that meshes perfectly hurts my immersion. I would liken it to watching an episode of House where nobody ever tries to reign House in. Or the Avengers movie, which would not have been nearly as impressive if the Avengers all got along at the very beginning. Anyway, with time constraints and the general attitude of the players, it seems very clear that they're not interested in that. And me trying to impose my brand of fun on them is detracting from their enjoyment.

This Brawler would love menacing stance. I guess I was unrealistically hoping for a mix of the MoMS and the Brawler(Archetype), instead of Vanilla Monk and Fighter.

Well, I think a lot of the released classes really do feel like they just took the vanilla classes and combined them. I thought the goal was going to be something like the Magus. The Magus is a Fighter/Wizard, but it's style is so very different from what you would actually get if you just made a gestalt Fighter/Wizard as to stand as it's own unique class. I'm not sure I feel like Paizo really hit that with all the new classes.

I had assumed the purpose of the other Discovery that Saboteur's have access to, Complex Bomb, was designed for use with Bore Bomb and Delayed Bomb. In this way you're setting something like a timed charge. If you're setting multiple charges this way it may be more doable to utilize Bore Bomb as it's presented. You sure are expended a lot of bombs that way though.

Bore Bomb: When the saboteur creates a bomb, he may choose to make it a bore bomb. If a bore bomb strikes a wall, gate, siege engine, or similar large, solid, inanimate structure, it ignores half the target's hardness and deals 1 point of damage per saboteur level. If a bore bomb reduces an inanimate target to half its hit points or fewer, it blows a hole 5 feet wide and 5 feet deep in the target.

Am I interpreting correctly that Bore Bombs only do one damage per Alchemist level? This seems really underpowered. Do Bore Bombs splash? Does the Alchemist get to add Int to damage with the Bore Bomb? Is there some way to get more damage out of a Bore Bomb so as to be able to overcome the remaining half Hardness at an earlier level?

I don't remember the exact circumstances anymore but this came up when we were playing 3.5 edition D&D:

GM: "Okay, you guys wake up the next morning. You set about your morning routine. One of you makes breakfast and you all eat your fill."

Me: "My god! Why would we do that? What are we going to do without Phil?!"

At a later date we briefly had a player named Phil and he was burdened with being the brunt of that joke repeatedly.