Search Posts
The Warhorn site for Cincycon 2015 is now open for GM resistration. Unfortunately, Robyn, there is no choral group of GM's. But, if you come in from California to GM for us, I'll sing the song from We Be Goblins for you. That's all I got. Remember to go to the Cincycon 2015 page to register: Cincycon.org Then go to the warhorn site to sign up for GM slots. Thanks
I did not allow "I use diplomacy" as an answer there. You can jump and say how horrible I am, but the action is more complicated then jsut that simple phrase. Many PCs have specific ticks that penalize or reward you for using. If you want to say how horrible i am. go ahead. I think you're swell!
Sometimes yes (for DR or such) - but not for the attack roll and in fact, I could easily say in most cases no. Did the PC hit? Yes? what damage (amount and type) did he do... Many games I can easily say I have run without knowing what weapon the PCs are using... "You hit AC 12? Damage? 8? next!" I say, always yes. Sometimes though, the impact of knowing is negligible. The same with knowing what will be discussed in the social skill check. The effect might be negligible but the GM still needs to be aware. Why you ask? For the times when it's not negligible. Perhaps this is less frequently than I think, but I warrant it is more often than you think too. (EDIT: what other skills do you give penalities to if the player does not discribe what they are doing when they attempt the skill check? Climb? Disable Device? Fly? Heal? Sense Motive? Slight of Hand? Use Magic Device?) Easy, none. If they take an action to help the skill check in game, they can get a bonus. With social skills, they can get a bonus by demonstration (which is just showing me their action in game) or by taking action in game (like dressing for the part, bribing the target, etc).
purely curiosity, but are you indicating that you would give a penality to hit if he used a different weapon? Where in the world did you get that idea?
No. You don't have be as good as your PC is. I'm not asking for the role-played conversation. Just general points. Since I made this example out of thin air, I can't link to a real scenario. But in every scenario that I've run, I can't recall where there would not be knowledge checks or gather information (diplomacy) checks that would yield what to say and what not to say. My point has always been, Diplomacy is just another skill. Is it possible to Role Play it? Yeah, easily. But then it is possible to role play every skill in the game. But this skill - in fact all the CHA skills except Use Magic Device - seems to have some people feeling that the players HAVE to role play them. Why? It's a skill check, just like any other. We agree, it is a skill check like any other. In any check, certain information must be conveyed to the GM. What weapon you use in a combat scenario is needed by the GM, yes or no? The target, yes or no? The intent, (lethal or non-lethal damage) yes or no? With picking a lock, the information is usually understood by both the GM and player but it is still understood (the lock on the chest, MW, normal or improvised tools, opening the lock being the obvious goal). With diplomacy, the GM needs to know the subject (person being influenced), yes or no? The goal, yes or no? The words used or topics brought up, yes or no? I know you don't approve my use of GM fiat for social skills. That's cool. I use it in other things too, just not the ridiculous ways you like to imply. If a player took time to grease door hinges to make them less squeaky, I would give a +2 to stealth in trying to open the door quietly. Combat rules are fairly well developed, not much need for the GM fiat there.
are we past ""You need to tell me what your PC is saying, not just make the skill check, or you suffer a penality to the skill check."? which is what started us down this path... No.
Still no. spoiler:
The Wardstone Patrol: In the discussion of influencing Sir Ilivan, "If the PCs instead insult, denigrate, or belittle Sir Ilivan—including using Intimidate on him—they might win his brief compliance but otherwise earn no Empathy Point for the encounter"
The Hellknight's Feast: When trying to influence Lady Dyrianna, "Lady Dyrianna is partial to the plight of elves, and elves receive a +2 bonus on checks to gain Influence Points when dealing with her. She is also cautious about her espionage services and is affronted by any mention of her network; a PC who tries to broach the subject takes a –4 penalty on checks to gain Influence Points when dealing with Lady Dyrianna." What would you do in these cases then? Convince me that I don't need to know the content of the social conversations in these instances.
I am confused about the position that some people are expressing here. I think I've seen where my confusion with your confusion is. Let me refine my statements from before (and yes, this constitutes changing what I've said). In a combat situation: Player A: I attack. I rolled a 12 plus 8 is twenty. Did I hit?
In diplomacy: Player A: I use diplomacy. I rolled a 12 plus 8 is a 20. What happens?
The parts that are in bold are analogous to each other. In most combats, the only factors the weapon brings to bear are it's damage die and threat range. However, the GM still needs to know what weapon is in use to apply DR or other things that are more situational. Also, when hitting something with a great axe, the intent to kill it is fairly obvious although there are times in combat when characters go for non-lethal damage. In a diplomacy situation, the GM needs to know who the subject is and what the goal of the check will be. He also needs to know what is being said in case there are any subjects that net a bonus or penalty to the user. I allow players an opportunity to increase their chances at diplomacy success (and increase their and my enjoyment of the scenario) by playing the interaction out. If they do well in my judgment, the get a bonus. If they don't do well, the get no bonus or penalty from me. Or, they can simply tell me what they say out of character for no penalty, no bonus. If however, they want to truncate the conversation above the bolded text, I know who and I know what they want to achieve. Without knowing what they say, they can side-step in game problems (in a past post, I "spoilered" two examples of this at your request). Therefore, I impose a penalty. I use +2, 0 or -2 for these bonuses and penalties. So, telling the GM what your character is saying is necessary to the skill check just as telling the GM which weapon your character is using in combat is necessary. If you don't like how I use the GM fiat for social skills, that's cool with me. I'd listen to your reasons at the table. But, unless you can convince me that you do not need to tell me what your character is saying in the social situation, we might have to just agree to disagree.
Needless specificity is something I see slowing down a lot of games. I'd like to see a poll on this. I find that I agree with most of your stuff, BigNorseWolf, but here, I find exactly the opposite to be true. More, more, more specificity is what I want to see as a GM. Not to overload the players, but to speed up the game. We've been arguing up and back over the difference between three skills (Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate) and all the others for some time in this thread. One common question (and a very legitimate one) is why do these three skills need to be treated differently than others. Or even why do these D20 rolls need to be treated differently. They don't, at least not really. In most cases, such as combat or removing a trap, the check, the modifiers, the DC, the target are mostly understood. Consequently, the check is very straightforward. As an example, a player says to the GM, "I roll a 16 plus 8 is a 24, do I hit?" If the GM knows he is swinging a great axe at the ogre, that information is all he needs. If the GM does not know this information or it's in doubt, he asks. Right? That same player quote in a use of diplomacy (or bluff or intimidate) is OK if the GM knows who is the target, what is being said and what the outcome desired is. If not, he should ask the player. But, make no mistake, that information is necessary just as it's analogous information is in combat. The fact of the matter is, combat, via the tactical rules that exist, is far better defined with much less left open for interpretation. The social skills are far less defined and the situations to use them could not all be covered in the rules. Consequently, you see more variability in these from table to table. But, the information that the GM needs to judge the check is still necessary and very far from obvious in most cases. Andy
I'm not sure if you've changed your opinion or if it was just badly stated originally, but that's very different than the impression everyone got from your early posts on this. If somebody role-plays a conversation and then rolls the diplomacy check, I give a +2 bonus (unless they hit a hot button topic like telling somebody who hates Pathfinders "I'm with the Pathfinder Lodge..." in which case they get a -2). If they role-play poorly, I give no modifier because at least they tried. If they choose not to role-play the conversation, they get the -2 (or a -4 if they hit the hot button) but I explain that as rushing through the conversation, sort of "fast-talking". Or If you'd like to just rush through it and roll without saying anything, you take a -2 for speed.The way you are currently explaining seems much more reasonable. But I suspect people are still confused by the difference between the two. I see what you mean. I could have stated that better, earlier. I consider the minimum role-playing to be a straight up statement of I'm saying X to Y to achieve Z. It's not much of a stretch for most people. That nets no bonus or penalty. But, if a character says nothing so as to avoid the "hot-button" or "land mine", they can't get penalized twice as I said above in what you quoted. If that is a source of confusion, then I apologize. I consider the penalty as analogous to trying to complete the conversation quickly. That is something I tell the players in advance and even at the point of conversation. But that is more of an explanation of the mechanic. Thanks, Jeff. Andy
To your first paragraph: you get a bonus for role-playing a situation well. My call, but I'm the GM. This bonus will be +2 maximum. An attempt at role-playing that is marginal or bad or just giving me the minimum information (check our previous posts for that) gets no bonus or penalty. Trying to beat the system by saying as little as possible so as to avoid "saying the wrong thing" can get a penalty up to -2 maximum. Spoiler:
The Wardstone Patrol: In the discussion of influencing Sir Ilivan, "If the PCs instead insult, denigrate, or belittle Sir Ilivan—including using Intimidate on him—they might win his brief compliance but otherwise earn no Empathy Point for the encounter"
The Hellknight's Feast: When trying to influence Lady Dyrianna, "Lady Dyrianna is partial to the plight of elves, and elves receive a +2 bonus on checks to gain Influence Points when dealing with her. She is also cautious about her espionage services and is affronted by any mention of her network; a PC who tries to broach the subject takes a –4 penalty on checks to gain Influence Points when dealing with Lady Dyrianna." Stuff like this is what I was referring to. Andy
Sorry, I've been away for a couple days. I figured I owed you the courtesy of a response. I would simply ask for the missing information in these cases. I don't think I'd levy the penalty at all here. I talked to the players that usually game with me several days ago. We discussed this topic and again, nobody had a problem with it per se (unless of course I had intimidated them in real life). Interestingly, in PFS, we can't remember ever levying the penalty. I do remember the discussions around when we decided to start using it. The penalty was to be used for people who were intentionally vague in the player to GM communications (not character to NPC) so as to artificially avoid potential negative consequences. We had a player who confessed to doing just that although I don't recall what scenario we were playing (Kaer Maga comes to mind). I see the penalty as being for people who are in essence gaming the system by saying too little or nothing, not because they are shy or inexperienced, but because the player knows there is a land-mine and is unable to identify it in game. They try to avoid it by being vague, in essence, meta-gaming by omission. As I said above, a couple of quick questions usually puts everything on the right track. Andy
Yes. In my system, that minimum nets you a regular check, no bonus, no penalty. I knew you'd see it my way. ;-) Andy
All I'm saying is that a player needs to tell a GM what they're trying to do. Let's use your example of combat: I'm using my long sword to stab the goblin. Albeit, in this case the unspoken outcome is fairly obvious: so as to kill him. Let's use your example of picking a lock: I'm picking the lock on the chest. Let's use my example of diplomacy: I'm using diplomacy to convince the old man we need his sword to fight demons in the worldwound. If somebody just rolls a d20 in combat, I as GM, need to know who they swung at, what the swung and actually, in some cases if they wanted to do lethal or non-lethal. If somebody picks a lock they don't need to say they're using disable device because it's the only thing the can use. I do need to know "the lock on the chest" part. If somebody wants to use a social skill, it's a lot more open ended. There could be different modifiers for the NPC, the skill itself or the desired outcome. Hence, as GM I need to know: which skill, who you're taking to, what you're saying and what you hope to achieve. I never said any of the other stuff so I will hold my tongue. Andy
Or: DM: "With your knowledge checks you know it would be a good idea to include information x and not mention information y when you make your diplomacy check" PLAYER: "OK, I'm using diplomacy on X by saying Y in hopes that she'll do Z" These are so very different. Andy And just so you know, I'd accept your example as meeting the requirement as long as you told me the desired outcome.
I just ran a scenario :
the hellknight's feast where the party must influence a number of guests at a banquet using various forms of diplomacy and knowledge. They can gain information using other knowledge skills so that they know what to say and more importantly, what not to say. It was necessary in my judgment to have the players tell me what they said. So, yes, I do need to know what you're saying to whomever and what you hope to achieve. I think I said this only applies to the social skills of diplomacy, bluff and intimidate. And yes, I treat experienced players different from newbies. Andy
Again, you're talking about one instance of a player you know (your wife no less). The rest of the thread is talking about players who annoy GM's and how they do it. No, if somebody tells me or it is obvious that they have an impediment of any kind, I'll work with them. New player, shy player, whatever. I'm talking about experienced players who may (or may not) be "gaming the system" so to speak, I have a minimum requirement. So, to regurgitate: for experienced players, I expect the minimum. For special circumstances, I'll work case by case. I'm still a little baffled here as nobody on the thread has said the have a problem with shy players acting shy. Andy
Hey, just throwing out possibilities. Lots of folks (especially, I suspect, those who would be reluctant to play-act in front of a group of semi-strangers) might not have the courage to tell the apparent authority figure face-to-face that they're uncomfortable. I can't really comment on this as I trust your judgment on how she would respond. Knowing this from you, though, I'd approach carefully. From the GM's chair though, you need to know what a character is going to say when using a social skill. I'm not adding that, that's part of the mechanic. And, my approach is this: "Two problem areas that have cropped up before are: ruling on social skill checks and aiding others on skill checks. Here's how I handle those...Any different ideas?" Andy
Hey, just throwing out possibilities. Lots of folks (especially, I suspect, those who would be reluctant to play-act in front of a group of semi-strangers) might not have the courage to tell the apparent authority figure face-to-face that they're uncomfortable. I rolled a 13 diplomacy with my bonus that's a "whatever". Do I get "whatever" to happen? Dang it! I did it again. Edited for more content! I do this because being so vague as to not mention the content of the conversation allows the player to artificially avoid any potential pitfalls in the conversation. For instance "mentioning his dead wife gets a -4 on this and any future checks". Andy
Hey, just throwing out possibilities. Lots of folks (especially, I suspect, those who would be reluctant to play-act in front of a group of semi-strangers) might not have the courage to tell the apparent authority figure face-to-face that they're uncomfortable. I'm not asking for play acting. The minimum I expect is: "My character is saying X to Y in hopes of achieving Z" That's really a burden? Andy
Hey, just throwing out possibilities. Lots of folks (especially, I suspect, those who would be reluctant to play-act in front of a group of semi-strangers) might not have the courage to tell the apparent authority figure face-to-face that they're uncomfortable. Sorry about that, Jiggy. I think you responded before I finished editing my post. Carry on. Andy
I would listen to an argument against this, but haven't heard one at the table yet. The players seem to think its OK or at least no big deal.Or they're afraid to challenge the guy who started the game by (perhaps to their ears) telling them how they'd better behave? If you say so. Andy Sorry, edited for more content. I hit submit too soon! Players argue with me all the time. This should stack. My elemental can do this. You gain the grappled condition from my stirge. On and on. Why would they not argue this obvious yoke that I throwing on them about diplomacy/bluff/intimidate? I don't believe I broke their individual and collective wills with my opening comments. Nope. I'm going with the "it's no problem" school of thought. Andy
Trying to do things quickly is harder. I give a -2 for that unless a stated penalty is present.I don't understand this - the character is not trying to do things more quickly (otherwise they would need to use some rules for accelerated skill usage). The player is trying to gloss over details and not take as much time out of game - that does not mean that the character is acting more quickly. This part is always explained first when I go over the ground rules at the start of the scenario. So, yes, saying "I'm rolling diplomacy" is established as precisely that...rushing through it. I would listen to an argument against this, but haven't heard one at the table yet. The players seem to think its OK or at least no big deal. And keep in mind, I consider the minimum effort to be, "My character is saying X to Y in hopes of achieving Z". That's not really a very high hurdle is it? If you ever play at my table, I'll listen to your point of view. Andy
Why would you penalize the first guy? Why would the second guy get a bonus? How are these actions affecting disable device? Now if a character put grease on a door's hinges to open it quietly, I would give him a +2 bonus to the stealth check. No grease gets a 0. Trying to do it quickly and quietly probably gets a -2. Note the action (putting grease on a hinge) is germane to the action (opening the door quietly) a use of the stealth skill. As would be: talking to somebody is germane to the diplomacy/bluff/intimidate skills. Trying to do things quickly is harder. I give a -2 for that unless a stated penalty is present. Andy
... Of course, I take into account the skill level or age, etc. of the players involved. I give new players lengthier explanations than I give to experienced players. I explain potential outcomes for success and failure to new players in an effort to teach as I warrant most of the people here do. We're talking about things that annoy GM's here. I don't believe anyone here has said they are annoyed by new players or young players who need extra help or coaching for whatever reason. We're talking experienced players here. Regardless, we allow people to take actions that can bolster or penalize their skill checks all of the time. We use the GM fiat to do this. +2, 0 or -2 whenever it comes up. Just like any other skill check. Andy
No, I only do this for the social skills. Nobody has ever complained. I explain the way I run this and everyone seems cool with it. I'd listen if somebody objected. I think you're reading a much harsher tone into what I'm saying. What I'm doing is giving people who want to role-play, a chance to do just that. I give them an incentive of +2 if you're good, 0 if not. If you'd like to just rush through it and roll without saying anything, you take a -2 for speed. Everybody that I've played with seems to like it. Or at least nobody hates it as much as you do. Break it down like this: Player A: "Honored Sir, the blade you keep in your possession was once used by a Taldan Legionnaire to repel the foul invaders from foreign lands. Now, as demons ravage the north at the Worldwound, would not the Taldan Legions of old have brought the formidable wrath of the Empire down on her enemies? Would it not be a better fate for this sword to go to that fight and allow the warriors of this age a glimpse into the might of Taldan of old? Would it not rekindle the spirits of our young to return us to our place of preeminence? I rolled a 13, with my bonus that's a..." Gets a +2. Player B: "My character tells the old man that we need the sword to fight the demons at the Worldwound. I rolled a 13, with my bonus tha's a..." Gets a +0. Player C: "I rolled a 13, with my bonus that's a..." gets a -2. Andy And, I play with players who are not always comfortable playing social stuff. They either let other players do it or try. Similar to the more tactical parts of the game, they get better with experience. I play with other players who hate the social stuff and get ticked off when those situations come up. Even they like how I run things.
I concur. This is the definition of meta-gaming. I also make no judgment on whether its good or bad other than to say it can be both. I will however, say that in a time-crunched environment, which many times is what we have in PFS, this type of meta-gaming is necessary. I use the GM's fiat a lot. If somebody role-plays a conversation and then rolls the diplomacy check, I give a +2 bonus (unless they hit a hot button topic like telling somebody who hates Pathfinders "I'm with the Pathfinder Lodge..." in which case they get a -2). If they role-play poorly, I give no modifier because at least they tried. If they choose not to role-play the conversation, they get the -2 (or a -4 if they hit the hot button) but I explain that as rushing through the conversation, sort of "fast-talking". It does save time at the table though and it really runs pretty smoothly. Also, if a group tells me that they will have the bard do certain checks and others will assist, it tends to make the social stuff feel more like a group effort. I'll ask how they intend to assist and usually get some pretty creative responses, but in the end, they roll, get the totals and I reveal the information. If they choose to meta-game to set that up, so what? Andy EDIT: as I went back and read my post, I want to point out that I am agreeing with Andrew Christian and that might not be totally clear. My take is that this level of meta-gaming is necessary to finish on time in many cases.
I was obviously asking a much less interesting question when I started the thread. No worries. I thought the guy had a mistake somewhere. I did not realize folks would find it this interesting. Carry on.
Everyone seems bent on figuring out the build... He told the DM that his regular damage bonus(no buffs, special circumstances, etc.) was +31 to all of his attacks. He could do six attacks on a full attack. This was during the introduction part of the scenario. +31 seemed really high to me so I asked him about it. I had always run out TWF as inferior to wielding two-handed and +31 damage is pretty strong for wielding two-handed. Not to mention, +31 on every attack seemed strange because I could not fathom him getting there without power attack but there should have been a lower mod for the off-hand. He was a "straight up 11th level fighter" in his words. I assumed he had an archetype and I assumed weapon master but I don't know. He was human. He told me he had a 25 STR and a +3 wakizashi in each hand. After that, we ran into some monsters and had to fight. We never finished the conversation. I hope this helps you. I think Seth Gipson figured it out but as I said, I really don't know. I was obviously asking a much less interesting question when I started the thread. ;-) Cheers,
I'm not really concerned about the build other than to say that three people (including me) thought it was questionable. He has too high of ability scores or too much money spent on magic items or misapplied feats. I don't know differently so I'm calling it an honest mistake. Regardless, the answer I'm looking for is whether or not the players at a table can request an audit for another player. I can see why people might want to do this, but I also see where it feels "wrong" as well. I'm not interested in changing power gamers. They have fun and are entitled to it. I've never seen a useless PC at an 11th level table unless it was a power build that was a victim of circumstance. @Doug Miles, I see where you're coming from (and I agree), but you're responding to something I did not ask. Andy
In the instance I was discussing, we were playing a 7-11 scenario on the 10-11 sub-tier. As far as I know, I'm the only person who asked and was told part of the build before the next part of the adventure came on. I think he would have told me in the end but time was not on our side, so to speak. The other concerned players were not seated close to us and this con can get pretty loud. But, after the game, as we talked, one of the guys asked if players could ask the GM to audit another player. I thought I'd run it by the message boards to see what you thought. Personally, I have no problem if a GM or player wants to audit my sheet, but it feels kind of like being a snitch to request the GM audit somebody else. That's my take. Andy
Recently, while playing PFS at a con, I was seated at a table with two players who had obviously optimized their character builds. One of them was a fighter using TWF and wielding wakizashis. He told the GM at one point that his attacks (with either hand) did a minimum of 31 damage not counting the die roll. Note that this was not a critical hit. At the time, I was wondering, how is this possible? He had a 25 STR, and 2 +3 weapons. I'm assuming he had power attack, but I don't know his feat selection. I got to +16 damage. He also had six attacks on a full-attack. So, if he "blacked-out" (our term for hitting with each strike in a round)he is at 186 damage without rolling a dice. As you can guess, the human veggi-matic sliced and diced his way to our victory but nobody else had fun. At least, the three of us who discussed things afterwards didn't. But the question I have for you is: can another player at a table request the GM audit a character sheet? Or, is this breaking an unwritten rule like: don't tell the boss when a co-worker is screwing off? Andy
Once the notion of "players against the GM" evaporates from a table, all that's left is a group of people trying to have a good time and collectively find the best way to adjudicate a set of rules that are never defined enough to hedge out specific cases. And in that example, it's never difficult to deal with these sorts of questions. Very true. Whether we agree or disagree on a ruling, dealing with it maturely ensures a good time can be had by all. But the flat existence of damage reduction wouldn't negate the effect. It's the form that DR takes, which is well within the realm of table variation for a group of mature players. I agree here too, but I would find some similarities between the nature of the effects in question and other, better defined effects. For example, DR/piercing would work on a tiger's rake attack but would not stop the stirge as it's proboscis (I love that word) pierces the skin, blah, blah, blah. But, on an outsider with DR/cold iron or DR/silver, they would stop both the tiger and the stirge in my opinion. I know that is not what RAW says for the stirge. But, I'm looking at the big picture and trying to discern "is this how it was intended to be" as several stirges fly towards the pit fiend! By the way, I'm not claiming that my interpretation is RAW, I'm saying that there is an amount of murkiness here and this is how I would typically rule on it. But, if all the other PFS GM's said, "No Mac, you're wrong" as many have, I'd reconsider. Andy
How much higher of a leap of logic would it be to say that a stirge can't get its proboscis through the skin to find an unprotected vein on a character under the effect of stoneskin? @Jiggy: would you agree with Walter's table ruling. I would. But bleed is a HP loss not CON damage? That's another area that I would consider "unclear" per our previous exchanges. Andy
Uhh, I agree. Fun fact: You don't get to have an "RAI". Neither do I. "RAI" means "rules as intended" Should have said "my take on RAI" because I was interpreting what I think is reasonable. If you'll notice, I have been agreement with you for nearly 30 posts! The rest of this is just you and I giving our views on fishing or teaching or being fishers of men or something. ;-)
I don't know, it just makes sense to me. The stirge stabs its proboscis (a natural weapon of the piercing variety) into its victim and starts sucking blood (draining constitution). No damage is given so 0 HP damage. Do you think that's really far-fetched? I mean a tiger's claws (natural weapons, albeit slashing) have to overcome the DR, so does lion's or a dinosaur's. Or a unicorn's horn for that matter. Now granted, I see the difference between stated damage from these attacks and how DR obviously applies. I guess, what's the difference between a proboscis, a horn or a dagger in terms of how they damage somebody? And, I'm not just being argumentative, Jiggy. That is my RAI of RAW for the stirge's attach ability. Andy Andy
Actually, I see the stirge touch attack as a natural weapon that does 0 HP of damage and wondering how it overcomes DR 10/adamantine. I'm looking at a lot of things here. I'm trying to synch up RAW, level differential of a stirge and the stoneskin spell, what a player would do if the tables were turned, etc. Now, I agree that if the stirge bypasses DR, it drains con. And, I agree that RAW says they do or at least it doesn't say they don't. Since it does not mention numerical damage, you say DR vs. attach don't interact. I say the attach does 0 HP damage... And just like every time I come here for advice, I realize I could be wrong. This is another case where I think I am by RAW. Despite how little sense I think it makes. Andy @ Jiggy: I think my lack of clarity comes from how I see the attach as a 0 HP natural attack vs. DR/10 adamantine. My perspective could be wrong, but that was my interpretation.
Here's why I don't think the stirge being able to overcome DR is logical... In the stirges attach ability it describes "the proboscis penetrates the flesh" of its victim. The spell stoneskin (for example) makes one resistant to "blows cuts or stabs" to the point of mechanically granting DR 10/adamantine until used up. So, I think it odd that a puncture that does 0 HP damage should overcome DR 10/adamantine. But, I concede that RAW is at best unclear and I would rule in the stirges favor. I've played at over fifty tables and GM'ed thirteen more (I know, big deal), and I've played with and GM'ed summoners before. Other than Walter Sheppard on this board, one person has used this seemingly excellent tactic. I found that odd too. Having checked the rules in my books (I should have searched electronically), I could not find anything to say that this guy was wrong. But with all the things I found odd, I decided to check here to see if people could put me on the right track. In my mind, this worked. It appears that despite my initial misgivings, the person in question is right. Andy
Thanks, @BigNorseWolf, that was the rule I was thinking of. Logically, it would apply but by RAW, I guess because the stirge does no HP damage, it's allowed to bypass DR?!? To my second question, people have skirted around at answering this but it seems I need to clarify what I'm asking. Have other GM's had players who use this (summoning stirges onto an enemy that has DR that they (the stirges) can't overcome, but they bypass it by having an attack that does no HP damage) tactic? It strikes me as passing strange that this should work. {EDIT: @Doug Miles, this does belong in the Rules Questions folder} To my unasked question: if the person I talked to was telling the truth, his GM misplayed Krune. If the person I talked to buffaloed the GM with rules lawyering... I did not play that scenario with him so I can't say what really happened. I only reported what he told me to add context to the question. And for more context, I witnessed him buffalo a GM into letting his stirges grapple (as in apply the grappled condition) their enemies with attach. We steamrolled a sub-tier 6-7 scenario all while playing up in a previous season. The GM let it walk during the game and it took me awhile to find that this was wrong because I had to find the PRD on my phone. Regardless, even after we set the player staight on that rule (after the game), players in other scenarios that I was running later reported to me that he was still doing it (applying the grappled condition to his stirges' enemies). I don't know that it's true because I wasn't there for these other "exploits" but I believe that there is some kernel of truth to it. In the end, I just want to put the right rules out there when he inevitably plays at my table. And, despite how it might look, I want him to have fun as long as it does not negatively impact the other players. Andy
I had a discussion with a player who claimed that he defeated the BBEG in Waking Rune Spoiler:
by summoning wave after wave of stirges to drain his constitution. In theory, if they could hit, that could be done. However, I told him that I did not think the stirges could penetrate the DR/10 from stoneskin. He told me that stoneskin was activated. Is there a stated rule that an attack, like the stirge's attach ability needs to be able to do damage or it is ineffective? Anyway, this particular player is a great min/maxxer and usually has a good hold on the rules. I've played at his table before and played side-by-side with him but never as a GM myself. Other players tell me of his "exploits" though (typically summoning stirges) and I find where he is breaking or twisting rules most of the time. As I GM more, we'll eventually wind up at the same table. I want him to have fun and to be able to play his character to the max, but not at the expense of everyone else's fun. So, my two questions are specifically, 1) if an attack like a stirges attach cannot penetrate DR, can it then suck constitution or is it deemed that the touch attack failed. 2) does anyone else know of a player who likes to summon stirges and believes them to be uber powerful? Or, are they?
Andy
The only real problem that I've seen at the table is the presence of a character who summons creatures all of the time. In smaller groups, it has not really been a problem but in larger groups (5 or 6 people), it becomes difficult to finish the scenarios in a timely fashion (our local game stores typically give us four to four and a half hours). In addition, the actions of a slew of non-character creatures have too much of the spotlight. That negative impact on the other players has me wondering whether summoning should be outlawed or just curtailed in some fashion. Andy
Two things here: First, the options that people have suggested are for the most part things I agree with. Unfortunately, I think they contradict the letter of the rules. When I say rules, I mean that you pay full price for items and sell them for half-price. This case has obvious extenuating circumstances. Second, I go out of my way to bring people and keep people in the game. I'm fully aware that how I see the remedies for this mistake could be unpalatable to the player in question. I'd love for that not to be so. Your last statement is a great sentiment and I'd like to support it. I do have an honest question though. Why do we audit sheets? Is it only to tell players "you made a mistake here, you should do it this way next time." Or do we correct the mistake. And where do you draw the line at player acceptance? What I intend to do here is talk to my Venture-Lieutenant. I'll abide by his judgement and ride it out. Andy
As I see it, I don't think I have any other options as a GM. I said in my first post on the thread that I don't have any GM stars but why would my perspective not be relevant. You're mistaking a lack of stars with a lack of experience. I realize that mistakes happen I explain what is supposed to have happened and I've not had many complaints from my players. And I've been gaming for 30+ years, GM'ing most of it just so you know (I don't see why that matters). I've played in organized games enough to have seen that different people judge things differently than I would. I don't mind that. As with any judgement, I reserve the right to be wrong. If you take a positive attitude, you'll never lose an argument. If you convince the other person, you are helping them to a better outlook. If they convince you, you now have a better outlook. Or both could have a better outlook in the end. Or you can take a negative approach and be ticked off all of the time. You might take this opportunity to tell me or show me that in PFS, we do it this way... Right now, I see limited options for the OP. Not trying to be a butt-head and ruin the fun. I'm following the rules as I see them. And I could be wrong. Andy
I don't think anyone will give you any flak. Either way. But I beg to differ on why we have the record sheets for purchases over 25 gp. And, why we're asked to go over them as part of the start of the scenario. As GM's, one way we ensure that everyone has a fair and fun experience is to: (a) be a jerk and force them to fix honest mistakes (b) make sure everyone is on a level playing field by correcting errors the players might make. I choose "b". And I warrant, so do you, Benrislove. It's fairly obvious from the posts on the thread that my position is seen as "hardline" by some if not most. I agree. This situation could be extrapolated out in a hundered different directions as to where any one of us draws that "hard line". Somebody suggested letting a young player use an illegal class as an example. Another person used an example of an unusable spell. I gave examples with buying the wrong equipment. To everyone, those examples and how they are ruled on will be seen as lenient or harsh. We're all different. What we have in common are the guidelines in the Guide to Organized Play. My previous stated position is how I interpret those rules. I feel the answer is fairly straightforward. I would not gloat over or demean the player who made this mistake but I can't sign off on the sheet if it's not right. That would not be honest and I think that matters. They can appeal it to the local venture officers and I'd stand by their ruling. Andy
An honest mistake is an honest mistake. And I don't use words like "Stupid Tax". But I won't sign off on your sheet if I know its wrong. Andy
Again, I would love to be able to tell players that they can do what you seem to advocate: return the item for what you paid if you do not want it at the real price. Just show me where I have the permission to do that as a PFS GM. When I find mistakes while auditing charater records, I always assume it was made in good faith. I do not relish the idea of ticking somebody off because they made an error. In this case a frequently made error (I used an F in "frequently". See how I did that too ;-)). As a GM, I know of nothing I can do with the options available besides what I've written. And in over 50 posts on this thread, nobody else does either in that they have not shown me how in the spirit or letter of the rules that I can overlook it. Andy
I understand your dilemma and despite how I've answered above, I am sympathetic. But your original post asks how to remedy the situation and did you have the option to take a full refund in order to buy a different item. And with the guidelines that are in place, I would have to rule that you must purchase the weapon(s) at full price. The only thing that I could allow is if you have not played one or more of the characters since you bought the mithral items, you could sell back the items on those characters for full price. But, if you used it in play, you would have to make that right by paying up to full price. If you do not have the gold, I would suggest that you remove the item from your sheet. Because, by coincidence, you paid half price for the weapon to start with, your character sheet would now reflect what it would look like if you had purchased at full price and then sold it for half. To some degree, this happened to my Monk character. I jumped on an amulet of natural armor when it came on a chronicle sheet. When I later learned that the Amulet of Mighty Fists was a necessity for Monks, I could not sell my amulet of natural armor for full price to get a ring of protection. It was my mistake and it cost me 1000 gp. Now, I would allow you to play the character and hold onto the item in question until ruled on by Paizo, but not allow the item to be used unless you paid in full. In other words, I would not make you correct the error only to have to recorrect it later. As I see it, I don't think I have any other options as a GM. Andy
I thought the question from the OP was How can I fix this (under paying for mithral weapons) and can I retroactively take the money back and buy something else? Your options are acceptable to me if they come from Paizo. But I read this pretty clearly that you pay full price and sell things for half price. Andy
Has anyone considered that until we hear from Mike or John on this, that we assume its grandfathered in? I agree that waiting for campaign leadership to weigh in is a good idea. How long does that usually take? Andy
|
