Zauron13's page

evilnerf wrote:

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

I guess to me the whole hypothetical "Making a Male Lashunta Envoy is mechanically unsound" falls under the same reasoning as "Making a Dwarf Oracle is mechanically unsound" and if anyone was deadset on making one of those for whatever reason something would have to give whether it be class or race/gender (or just taking the suboptimal option).

Okay, so say they had kept things the same, right? Say I want to make a Sorcerer, and I don't like playing female characters. There are many reasons why this could be, including but not limited to: Me wanting to play a character I identify with, my table not being comfortable with me gender-bending, me not feeling confident that I can play a female character in a respectful manner.

So I'm making an engineer. There is basically a whole race that is basically off limits to me for the sole reason that I am a male and want to play a male character. That sucks!

Like I said, I don't see that as any different than the whole dwarf oracle thing or the guy who wants to play a Vesk Mechanic because he really likes Trandoshans from Star Wars and is a bit of gearhead irl but finds the whole race off limits because Vesk take -int or something (Again, don't have the books, so feel free to substitute the proper race/class that don't work). Sucks, but that's the way the news goes the way the game is designed.

I think the main difference is all of us are humans (not Vesk, Shirren, etc.), and we all understand the concept of gender. We all have some form of gender. We might not fully relate to Shirren, Orc, or Dwarf, so it isn't as disheartening to be told "dwarves make bad oracles, don't play them". But we can much more fully relate to the concept of male, female, and other gender concepts. Being told "Your character can't be a good oracle because they are a woman" feels a lot worse than "You can't be a good oracle as a Shirren". One I can directly relate to, whereas I can only theoretically relate to the Shirren.

I like these, especially the "ranks" of ships to get a sense of how powerful the Starfinders were.

My only hope is to get a "Murder on the Throaty Mermaid" type scenario. That ship is still my goto for any naval adventure in PFS.

Hello! I'm thinking you'd want to put questions like these in the general section of the Pathfinder Society forums, instead of the scenario submission section.

To answer about gunsmithing, I'd have to look for the links, but the understanding I have is that, not only do gunslingers not really "craft", but instead have a discount as if they have crafted their ammo. Also, they can't fully make guns, only upgrade their starting gun to masterwork. They can't make pepper boxes to sell, etc.

Even if they could make things in such a way, I would assume, even with a lack of stated rules, that it would follow alchemists so they cannot sell for a profit.

I would be very happy to buy an "Ultimate Society" or whatever it would be called. It would be very convenient, and I already have most of those PFS books on PDF.

The CLW thing is just an unspoken convention, but not a rule, that you help provide your own healing.

Basically, healing in combat is generally a taticly poor choice. Clerics/Druids/Other 9 classes that can use CLW wands are better served with buffs, offensive spells, and so forth.

By providing your own wand for others to cast on you, they don't need to spend either spell slots better used elsewhere, or their own expendable resources. It's mostly a nice thing to do. I never expect players to know about it until level 2. Then I think you should have one, but I'll still heal you anyway.

What I like to do (if taking the player aside didn't help and all), is have the official ending happen. You won, yay, etc. But, if we have time, I offer to run the encounter again, no penalty, just to see how it could have went if the Big Bad made that save, or won initiative, or the other reasons some well-meaning GMS "fudge" die rolls to increase challenge. This way, you get about 75% of the fun, without going too far.

I see a good mix. Personally, I never really build humans anymore, since I hate darkness. A lot. Like, a lot a lot. So Half-orcs forever!

Unless I'm making a real feat heavy build (or one that benefits from DEX, like Gunslinger/Unchained Rogue/Slashing Grace anything) I'll be half orc. I'll use boons when I get them, but after having each one be unlocked the next season, I'm not in a rush to get them either :)

To topic: The idea of unlocking races via a story line of scenarios sounds really appealing, as long as it is kept appropriately in check. If everyone is [Insert Race], it can loose the charm of being unique (in race terms, at least).

#TheSocietyRemembers

So between this and the threads on slavery, how does one even play anything other than a true neutral fighter with no ties. I seriously want to know. I see threads where even the thought of raising the dead should have you kicked out of the game. But having strong religious beliefs could also be being a jerk. Owning slaves is being a jerk and needs to be abolished, but if you press your anti-slavery Andoran feelings to hard its also a problem. Is this more of a board thing or is playing anything with a belief system possibly asking for trouble.

It's mostly the aspect of viewing message boards or the internet in general. I've never played or GMed in a game where a character had any issues with another person. I've had issues with players, which is the problem. Jerks will be jerks, no matter the character. Basically, it all comes down to compromise, and fun party banter/RP instead of issues.

For example, my Inquisitor of Mephistopheles plays up the contract angle and hands players a contract (which I actually made). I never force anyone to sign it to receive healing, as it is pure fluff. When a Paladin adventures with the group, we play up the fact that they would not sign an Infernal contract, we spend a few minutes laughing and having fun, and move on.

Now, a jerk player in the same situation could do the following: Inquisitor : Refuse to heal a player that didn't sign the contract. Push for the contract to be signed excessively and rubbing other players wrong. Etc.
Paladin: Refuse to adventure with the inquisitor. Refuse to protect or heal when needed because of the Infernal angle. Stonewall progress to get back at the inquisitor.

tl;dr
The issue is a jerk player, not any character concept.

You know you're in trouble when the whole table is either fighting off tears, raising a toast, or going into shock upon hearing/seeing today's blog post.

We'll miss you Mike!

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

Awesome! Thank you. ^_^

EDIT: @TimD, I'm waiting for a) Inner Sea Races, just in case; and b) a PFS group anywhere near here. ^_^

Where's here? The actual organization between The society as a whole and the individual places where games take place can be a little patchwork.

warhorn is one place to look. But their search functionality is a little... Nuts.

"Here" is West Michigan. I'll admit I haven't tried looking that hard; I haven't really been leaving the house much at the moment. ^_^

I know there's not currently a group at the games store I'm most accustomed to, although I may start one sooner or later. I've discussed it a little with the owner.

West Michigan!? I'm there!

If you check MichiganPFS.org , under Sign-Ups or Forum, you'll find out where in West Michigan there are games. It won't be your regular store, but you can either start one up there or travel a bit to get a feel for PFS first if you want.

Also, welcome!

I level 1 druid has a more reliable animal than this, I'd think. Even if it comes with tricks.

I can see not wanting a player to use it, but its not the uberpowerful thing you'd expect in my opinion.

I'd vote almost never. Here are a few guidelines of mine, if you'd like to read.

-No one likes a death. Its easier when its "Oh, bad tactics" or "Oh, dice weren't in your favor."
However, I find CdG to be mean. You don't get the arguments above, and people generally (Probably, not sure) walk away feeling like the GM broke Wheaton's Law.

OTOH, AoE stuff is fine if it happens. I just don't feel right CdGing characters.

Yeah, I'm thinking tables will either form as one level tier, or not at all. Mixed tables will not happen, or if they are, people will be unhappy about the after scenario chronicle if not the entire situation.

I see so many issues with this new wealth curve idea...
Looks like I need to have back up characters prepared for high tiers of all events I play at. There is no point in playing up except for the challenge, which I don't care about. If I get less rewards but increased risk, I call shenanigans.

Hopefully, they clear it up in some blog posts or something. My feed is so choppy and crappy. I'm relying on you guys to keep me updated!