gnrrrg's page

How do you schedule games? Is your local player-to GM ratio such tables fill up leaving people who want to play out?

If you have people sign up for tables ahead of time and people get left out of the game for not signing up early enough then nobody should sign up for a seat knowing that they are going to be leaving early.

Even if their presence is not preventing people who want to play from playing, there is no way around them getting reduced XP, prestige or treasure for playing a partial game. If they find this frustrating as you indicated then it is in their best interest to not play until their schedule will allow them to play a complete game.

If their presence is not preventing people who want to play from playing and they are willing to accept incomplete chronicle sheets then your suggestion of only allowing them to play pregens is probably the best solution. It provides continuity for the remaining players.

But I fear you lost me with #6...

If the player does something objectionable - I'll tell him, I don't punish his PC. If I don't like the way he is playing (because he's being a jerk and "butting in" or talking over another player... I am not going to punish him by doing something in game to his PC, when the problem is the PLAYER.

#6 isn't something that should be done just randomly, but more in line with the example I gave. The game had already started so pulling the jerk aside before the game wasn't an option. Singling people out for private discussions during the game slows things down and may make them act like a bigger jerk depending on their personality. In this case the guy, in character, did something that, despite the rules, would have been more of a hindrance in real life than a benefit - and, out of character, he was dominating the game. The new player had already rolled high enough that the penalty imposed wouldn't hurt their results. It was a subtle way to both tell the new player that they did a good job despite the actions of others and to let the jerk know that he should give the other players a chance to play without other character interference. Also, I was crediting the jerk with the intelligence to realize what I was trying to say (in this case, I had played with him enough previously to think he could figure it out).

To expand on what Aloriel said:

1) Avoid locker room style talk. I know a large number of women that are put off by discussions of male parts, references to male parts, "is she hot?" type comments, or slang references to female parts (calling people a "c**t", or talking about "t*ts and a**").

There is a general impression that all D&D (Pathfinder still isn't as well known to non-gamers) play sessions will include someone who is like Cheeto guy from the skit. "Roll the dice to see if I'm getting drunk! Are there any girls in the tavern? If there are any girls I'm totally gonna do them!" I've never been in a non-PFS game that breaks down to that level of conduct between adventures and there really isn't time in a PFS session to go party at the tavern. Yes, a few bawdy jokes will be told - by both men and women - in some PFS sessions, but the idea that RPGs are solely for people with no sex life to have an imaginary sex life is not true for most RPGers. The world must be told this.

3) Avoid hitting on us. We're here to game, not to find a romantic partner. If, after several sessions of the game, you suggest getting a cup of coffee or going out to a bar (assuming that we're of age and all that)... that would be FAR more welcome. Get to know us first. Also, pay attention to rings on fingers. Married women don't want to date (generally speaking), and neither do lesbians.

This can be a genuine problem, but on the other side of the coin there are going to be some women who interpret any attempt to be friendly or helpful as hitting on them. Women must be informed that sometimes the guy who is telling you about his character just likes to talk about his character.

Additional ideas:

1 - According to GM 101, the GM has final say in what happens at their table including the right to tell people to leave. Use it. If the conversation gets overly crass then tell them to tone it down or leave. Players start being rude to or intimidating other players, tell them to cut it out or leave.

2 - Go round robin if you need to. It's supposed to be a group game. One thing I hate is when I'm at a table where one or two people assume leadership rolls and just blurt out what the group is doing without letting anyone else talk. From time to time the GM just has to go around the table asking, "What are you doing?" to each player. "What are you doing while he ____?" is a better phrasing to allow players to know that they don't have to just follow one person's lead. If you feel round robin will slow the game down then occasionally ask, "Is ANYONE ELSE doing anything?" with emphasis to hint that one or two people have been dominating the game for too long.

3 - Steer new players toward easier to play classes. The spell lists, being spread throughout multiple books, make it harder for someone not familiar with the game to build a good caster, so they either have to put up with trying to track down what spells they want or build a "bad" character and you risk other players criticizing them. Low-level fighter class characters and rogues are fairly easy to play rules-wise.

4 - Along a similar vein, prep extra references for the iconic characters. Print out spells (or at least have book and page number available) for the casters. Any class feature or feat that isn't figured into the character stats should be spelled out as well (I think they have done this already on some of the iconic sheets). Droogami doesn't have any stats listed on Lini's sheet - print something out for him. Basically, anything that isn't going to be obvious to a new player should be made available for them.

5 - Run a CRB only session. More experienced players may not like this, but for a new player creating their first character a lot of the intimidation from veterans will be cut down if they are "handicapped" in their build. Check out the scenario to make sure going CRB only isn't going to be too limiting for success before going this route.

6 - Punish the group and blame it on a jerk. True story, I was running a scenario with a new player who was playing a bard - the scenario had a part where, in order to gain help from a local tribe, a performance check would have to be done (the tribe liked story-tellers). Perfect, the spot light can shine on the new player and they will feel included. That part of the scenario came up and, as everyone turns to the bard and tells her she's on, one of the self-elected leaders of the group blurts out, "and I assist," and rolls a die. I gave the bard a -4 to their check and said it was because the other player's interruptions kept distracting the audience. I did wait until the bard rolled and I noted that their roll was a high one, so the penalty wasn't going to hurt them before saying this.

7 - Talk to your trouble makers. Before the game if you notice you have several newer players and one or two veterans who like to dominate the game then take the veterans aside before you start and let them know that you'd like the newbs to have a chance to play.

By the rules, absolutely nothing will happen. The druid is still of the Humanoid subtype, no matter what polymorph shape he takes. Wildshaping is putting on a costume, it's not becoming the full animal.

So it's basically druids at a furry convention?

That's kind of a ridiculous argument, you know?

You are confusing dedication with discipline. A wizard is dedicated enough to study their texts and rely on their high intelligence to memorize it. A monk will stand on a post in the middle of a swamp and not swat the mosquitoes which requires discipline.

As someone else pointed out earlier this doesn't mean that refusing to lie makes you punch any better, but a monk's respect for discipline might make them apply to all areas of their lives which would lean more towards lawful than chaotic.

No, alignment has nothing to do with balance. Fluff doesn't balance mechanics.

A paladin is basically a fighter who gets some divine bonuses, in trade they have to behave a certain way. A barbarian is basically a fighter who gets rage powers, in trade they have to behave a certain way. Cavaliers have no alignment restriction, but are expected to live according to their edicts in order to maintain any of the bonuses that they get as a cavalier. If the GM ignores this then it is, as you call it, just fluff. If the GM actually understands how alignment is supposed to work then it is not.

Alignment restrictions exist to try and maintain some sort of balance. You get extra class features but must restrict your actions to get them. Being a monk requires discipline which sort of falls into Paizo's definition of lawfulness.

The martial artist archetype basically gives up everything that would require mental discipline and pours their training time into physical fitness. The master of many styles archetype needs to balance mental and physical control so needs the discipline. It's not a good precedent. It's the guy who wants to take some karate classes at the local YMCA vs the guy who wants to move to Tibet and study under a master. The second one is going to have to be willing to make some lifestyle changes.

Is there a reason why this player needs to remain neutral? If not and they can justify an alignment shift in character then no problem. If they won't do that much then I'd tell them no.

What good does that do to you? In the end, it's still the GM's call. Having your GM read informed opinions on this issue is more useful than you telling him: "Some people on the internet say it works like that in a somewhat similar situation."

In some cases someone might point out something from one of the books I hadn't read. In other cases someone might come out with a rational reason why I shouldn't even bother trying something.

Also, taking advice from outsiders about an currently ongoing situation is a form of metagaming. Our GM is the sort who will allow it so far as we recognize his right to throw an extra curve at us to potentially screw up anything we learned in order to balance things out. Yes, it is still the GM's call, but I'm trying to avoid it being the GM's call plus a surprise.

"Effect: You create a musical tempo that first mirrors your enemies' heartbeats, and then quickens them to dangerous levels. When you complete the performance, all enemies within 30 feet who can hear your performance must save or take 1d6 points of damage as their pounding heart causes them to sweat blood. Creatures that are immune to critical hits are unaffected by this ability.

"Each round that you continue the performance adds another round to the bleed effect. Abilities that extend the duration of a bardic performance (such as Lingering Performance) affect this masterpiece."

The target(s) get a save, but it doesn't say what kind. I would assume it's either fortitude or will. Anyone know which kind they would get?

Also, do they get to try and save every round of the performance or are the effects automatic if they fail the first save? Since lingering performance will extend the efects I would assume that they only get the one save at the beginning, but I want to make sure.

The short version - my GM doesn't like gnomes. He doesn't go out of his way to target gnome PC's, but we've had some discussions about the virtues vs his ill-conceived criticisms of gnome; it's all in the name of friendly banter.

And so it is that I've decided to create the moste gnomish charecter possible, but am not quite sure of the best way to go about this. I'm not talking, "Oh, gnomes make good thieves. Be a gnomish rogue." I'm talking, what would be the best combination of class/traits/feats/etc. that screams GNOME!

So far, the best I can come up with would be a religious class (cleric, paladin, inquisitioner, etc.) who worships Navi Rhombadazzle the gnome god or a summoner whose eidilon is very gnomish in its own right.

Any suggestions on a better way to go?

I want to try making a non-standard race character just so I can se how well I'm understanding the rules. Is there a rule limiting what beasts can be used (i.e. only beasts of a certain type or subtype may be used)?

The Death From Above feat in the Ultimate Combat Manual reads:

"Death from Above (Combat)
You allow gravity to add extra force to your charges.

Benefit: Whenever you charge an opponent from higher ground, or from above while flying, you gain a +5 bonus on attack rolls in place of the bonuses from charging and being on higher ground."

Has this ever been errata-ed?

It just seems to me, in real world thinking, that extra force from gravity would help your damage roll and hinder your attack roll. You'd still be trading the charge and/or higher ground bonus from the attack roll but would roll higher damage if you hit.