mrspaghetti's page

I still find it hard to believe that a paid GM can do much better than break-even (Matt Mercer doesn't count). Especially for Pathfinder, since it's so easy to find a free game.

If I can get two small groups going for weekly games, then I can meet my family's most immediate and important needs.

Regardless of the social acceptability of pay-to-GM, if you're really struggling to meet the basic needs of your family, this is not what I'd suggest as a solution.

stuff

Anyway, I think I've made my point. If people want to read it as hostile or whatever, then so be it.

BTW, I don't personally think that truth can exist only in a textbook, nor do I think that textbooks always contain truth. Good for you with the degrees, lots of us have those. Bad form in my opinion to credential-drop like that though.

Hmmm, I dont think capitalism and gravity are all that similar, seeing how one is an intrinsic property of the universe and therefore trillions of years old and would exist with or without humans and the other is arguably 600 years old, not even practiced in every country in the world, is created by humans, and practiced differently all over the place.

Just cause something is old(ish) doesn't make it a law of physics and doesn't make it right.

Besides that, GMing is still playing a game and while some people get paid millions to play games, that's entirely based said games ability to be sold as an entertainment product to people not playing. Also, while most of the time people are paid differently based on their roles, I doubt you could get away with making most of the players pay and only one (no matter how hard they work) getting paid.

GMing for pay and critical role are only similar on a surface level, especially since the players arnt paying Matt, they are absolutely friends having a good time together, and the product being sold is being sold to an audience for basically free (supported by ads and donations)

Supply and demand are absolutely operative in every country, and also were operative everywhere before there were countries. It is not created by humans, it is simply a consequence of limited resources. Where there are laws or conventions that attempt to ration scarce resources, if those rules defy a significant supply-demand imbalance then they will be ignored or circumvented.

BTW, if you read Freakonomics you will note that even animals partake in resource rationing, not so unlike humans as you might expect.

This isn't politics, it's economics. I'm not arguing that nothing can be done and nobody should try to influence things, I just think anger at "capitalism" is totally unproductive and misplaced. It's not right or wrong, anymore than gravity is right or wrong. That was my point.

To address the comparison of sports officials being paid for their work, I'd point out that it's not the players who pay them. That would be weird.

I think the dragon possibly being able to use its breath again on its next turn is better for the game than the players knowing that it cannot use its breath again on its next turn.

That is a good point.

I'd argue that casting a spell non-Silently cancels the Avoid Notice activity.

Yeah, I mean the party could have easily let the caster go first in that situation by just delaying to let her cast her spell. I'm not sure what reason anyone had to be upset, if the barbarian ran into the room knowing the wizard wanted to cast a spell first then they have cooperation issues.

I would. IMO, casting a spell should not be treated any different than sneaking along, drawing a weapon, etc. Granted verbal components are meant to be announced loudly, but a cautious caster could try to mask those sounds with other ambient sounds, depending what they are. Would I always allow the stealth check? No, but neither would I never allow it. A heavy wood door between me and the enemy plus any ambient sounds from the enemy's side of the door, I could be persuaded to allow a stealth check albeit with a penalty. Perhaps with the hard or very hard adjustment.

Except that there are specific feats for casting spells stealthily. So allowing anyone to do it renders those feats worthless. Conceal Spell and Silent Spell.

I definitely would not let the wizard roll Stealth if the spell had a verbal component unless Silent Spell was used. Probably not Arcana either, though that would depend on which spell was being cast. I usually allow Arcana for initiative when the caster's exploration activity was Detect Magic, but I'd also probably consider it appropriate if they were using other divination spells like Clairvoyance.

It won't work out anyway. Gnomes are too flighty & half-orcs like it too rough.

Might as well break it off now.

I hate online gaming but its becoming more and more necessary, sadly.

Roll20 has never worked for me - I've always struggled to understand why its so ubiquitous. Fantasy Grounds was too difficult for me but I might give foundry a try.

Thanks for all the perspectives!

What browser do you use? As a rule, everything works better in Google Chrome.

Themetricsystem wrote:

Round 12. You spend 10 full rounds after the one you have used it being unable to use it, the logic is no different, until the full duration of "the cooldown" has elapsed you cannot use it again.

1 - Use the Ability: Start cooldown, at the end of the turn, counter at 0
2 - At the end of the turn, counter at 1
3 - At the end of the turn, counter at 2
4 - At the end of the turn, counter at 3
5 - At the end of the turn, counter at 4
6 - At the end of the turn, counter at 5
7 - At the end of the turn, counter at 6
8 - At the end of the turn, counter at 7
9 - At the end of the turn, counter at 8
10 - At the end of the turn, counter at 9
11 - At the end of the turn, counter at 10
12 - You can use the Ability

So, you can't use 10 times in 10 minutes an ability with a cooldown of 1 minute?

No, just like you couldn't use an ability 3 times in 3 minutes with a cool down of 1 minute. It would be twice.

I recently played a PFS game where a level 2 cleric tried to cast a second level spell.

My point is that characters created by new players who are unfamiliar with the rules should have their characters checked by someone who is familiar with the rules. Even a quick once-over. That is regardless of whether the character was created using tech or not. If absolutely nobody at the table knows the rules, then nobody is likely to notice mistakes, tech or no.

mrspaghetti wrote:

I'm distrusting of technology to implement complex sets of rules (unless I wrote the program myself). I've seen too many people with wrong builds resulting from using character builders.

Relying on those can affect game balance quite a bit, which will in turn negatively affect enjoyment of the game. If you don't know the rules then you'll never notice if a rule is being implemented wrong by the tech.

On the other side of the coin, I have seen dozens of examples of people handwriting their Character over the years who have their sheet littered with mistakes when even the most rudimentary piece of software would have warned them that they were not following the rules. In my experience people who aren't using some tools rarely are able to turn in a completed and legal Character without sitting down with a GM for a full build audit or someone else who does have access to actual tools.

Beyond that, I don't understand how you think you can somehow more easily audit a sheet that was written by someone without the help of tools versus one that was already assessed by a piece of software custom-built to handle the rules... skepticism is fine and all but your argument makes no sense at all and discounts a huge segment of players who use builders as a means to help with accessibly to the system. If 100% of people had to read the game rules from cover to cover and really understand them before actually creating a character and getting to play the product would never have been printed in the first place because it wouldn't have enough of a following or momentum to add new customers and players to the hobby.

Well nothing can be audited, regardless of the source, if nobody at the table actually knows the rules. So if the players and the GM are all relying on technology alone, I think that's a bad idea.

I'm distrustful of technology to implement complex sets of rules (unless I wrote the program myself). I've seen too many people with wrong builds resulting from using character builders.

Relying on those can affect game balance quite a bit, which will in turn negatively affect enjoyment of the game. If you don't know the rules then you'll never notice if a rule is being implemented wrong by the tech.

And let's not forget the humorous possibilities for stowing things using the Iron Gut spell.

"What's that? You're hungry? Hang on, I have an extra muffin... PHLAAaaaarf!
Here you go!"

Too bad the heightened version doesn't increase the number or bulk of the items you are able to store that way, only the duration.

Ravingdork wrote:

Roll20 drag and drop works great with feats, gear, and spells. Saves loads of time!

If I drag and drop a armor, shield, or weapon, it automatically updates my AC and attack listing. It also calculates all the bulk for me.. If it's a feat with an action, it creates an entry in the action section of my character sheet as well, so I don't have to switch tabs to activate the feat.

It's totally great. My guess is that earlier posters simply attempted it before the features were ready (been up for at least a month insofar as I can tell).

Just got on to test the compendium. Still doesn't work with classes, backgrounds, ancestries. You know, the most important first steps of any character creation.

If you're making a character and start out with those steps and they don't do anything, what's the likelihood you're going to continue?

I'm not sure most people use the VTTs for creating their characters, as you apparently do. Personally, I create my character the old-fashioned way and then put the info into the VTT sheet.

Even those that rely on drag-and-drop functionality I suspect are mostly interested in spells, feats and gear. I guess your bar is a lot higher than mine.

A point which won't matter to many, but will be critical for a few, is that Foundry and Fantasy Grounds don't work natively with Linux. That's why I've not used either of those, personally.

Because you only have to set up your character sheet once, and you can't click a button on a pdf to roll for attacks, spells, damage, saves, etc.

I am just providing a counterpoint to your assertion that Roll20 "doesn't work". I have played dozens of games on it as a player, and several as a GM and my experience has been that it works just fine. To get started for $0 it is a great platform IMO. It is true that there is a fair amount of manual entry, but that doesn't bother me and didn't take that long. Once the sheet is set up it is trivial to maintain and level up, and play is smooth.

The ability states you are unable to use the breath for 1-4 rounds after using it. Which means that you cannot use the breath for 1-4 rounds after you use it. Using it the round after you just used it means you have not had a round (or more) where you have not used it, which means you break the restriction by doing it this way.

If you use it in round 1, and you roll a 2, you must wait until round 4, where 2 rounds where you have not used a breath, have passed. If you roll a 1 instead, you must wait until round 3, where 1 round where you have not used a breath has passed.

Yeah, it seems pretty simple to me. Bringing in whether something takes 1 action or 2 has nothing to do with anything. If it says you can't use it for X rounds after using it, then you can't use it for X rounds after using it. That you can't use such an ability in the very same round is too obvious to even state, regardless of how many actions it takes.

I'd run it as immediate save upon casting, then saves afterwards only for creatures ending their turn within the cloud. So you could hold your breath and run through it, but if you were in the area when cast, it forms quickly enough that you may or may not have a chance to hold your breath (thus the fort save).

But I can see the other interpretations as valid as well. I think an initial save upon casting makes sense for a third level spell, otherwise it's not practically much better than Obscuring Mist.

mrspaghetti wrote:

Harles wrote:

I have purchased for Roll20, but its implementation on there is pretty bad. The character sheets don't work, spells and feats can't be dropped in, and there isn't a lot of content.

That is not correct, the character sheets for PF2 work fine in Roll20. Maybe whoever set up your games did not specify that it should use the PF2 custom sheets.

Spells and feats can be dropped in only if you pay for the compendium, which I have not done. But some GMs have that enabled and it is easy enough to add things manually, IMO.

I pay for the lowest-cost level of subscription at Roll20 only for the character vault import/export functionality. But that is really not necessary to get started with it and get used to it.

I set it up and ran it as GM. I purchased every rules resource available on Roll20, including the highest tier subscription.

And I can say emphatically that it doesn't work. You cannot drag equipment, heritages, feats, or much of anything else from the compendium. It doesn't put in weapon qualities, calculate bulk, put in AC for armor, or many other things that should be considered basic functionality. Sometimes bonuses are applied from stats and sometimes not, so you have to go through the character sheet with a fine-toothed comb to see what works and what doesn't.
It's not worth what I paid for it. The free, built-in rules system on FG works better than what I paid $50+ to do on Roll20 with its Core Rulebook.

What you describe is a lack of features you want. That is very different from a flat statement that they "don't work". Yes, there is some manual entry, but it most certainly works once you have it set up with the right information.

Well the OP had 3 reasons: 1. Verisimilitude, 2. Balance and 3. Fairness.

#1: Well, anything can fail if you make the assumption of a worst-case scenario. This easily works though, if you assume instead that what is being drawn are two potions (or anything else, really) from the pockets of a bandolier.

#2: Balance is unchanged in any significant way with either interpretation. But with my way there is less standing around after using up all your actions drawing things, so the game flows better, IMO. We've all experienced those totally anticlimactic turns where all we did was get ready to do something in some future turn. Less of that is always a good thing, IMO.

#3: I don't have an issue with fairness at all. As stated above, I see no significant change to game balance at all, just an improvement in the way the game flows for everyone.

I have purchased for Roll20, but its implementation on there is pretty bad. The character sheets don't work, spells and feats can't be dropped in, and there isn't a lot of content.

That is not correct, the character sheets for PF2 work fine in Roll20. Maybe whoever set up your games did not specify that it should use the PF2 custom sheets.

Spells and feats can be dropped in only if you pay for the compendium, which I have not done. But some GMs have that enabled and it is easy enough to add things manually, IMO.

I pay for the lowest-cost level of subscription at Roll20 only for the character vault import/export functionality. But that is really not necessary to get started with it and get used to it.

Where's the best place to find online games? And what's the best VTT to handle PF2? (Roll20 seemed ... lacking?)

My wife especially loved the system, but our in-person game fell apart due to the pandemic, and transitioning it to a VTT had some problems (necessitating in me ending the campaign).
I'm not seeing much in PFS on here. Are there other avenues?

I always use warhorn. There are various VTTs, but Roll20 is by far the most common, and most games use that for the maps/rolls, with Discord open in a separate window for voice.

To clarify, I don't really care and this isn't my thread. Just saying I think the OP has a point and it would make more sense to me if that were the norm. I get it that the majority here disagree.

mrspaghetti wrote:

So the net effect is no change to game balance, just less nonsensical mechanics IMO.

Ok, and in your home game you can run the game without mechanics you believe are nonsensical.

But drawing two things at the same time is something that an average person can't do without training (ie a feat).

You have made your point. But a point still remains that the rule is the rule and the rule is understood how the rule works.

Is there a feat like that? If so, I wouldn't advocate just allowing it for everyone. But since, to my knowledge there is not...

I think I wasn't clear. I was saying that the ability to do what I'm suggesting is not a significantly bigger advantage for a Two Weapon Fighter than for anyone else. Any character who happens to have 2 free hands (or is willing to drop whatever is in them) has advantages as well. An alchemist can draw 2 bombs or mutagens, a wizard can draw 2 scrolls, etc. And the enemy can do the same.

So the net effect is no change to game balance, just less nonsensical mechanics IMO.

We will have to disagree on this. I think it would break game balance to allow the drawing of two items/weapons/whatever with a single action. It makes TWF very overpowered because it would allow an attack with both weapons on the first round of combat. Double slice becomes more a "go to" standard.

In the end, it comes down to the GM's call. The rules are clear. One action to draw one "something".

Yes, we disagree on how significant that is for TWFs vs everyone else.

mrspaghetti wrote:

It's what my arthritic grandmother did every time she unloaded her shopping cart onto the conveyor at the supermarket.

Is she doing it while moving and/or in combat under time pressures? Can she grab 2 mini cans of soda off the conveyor and chug them down in 6 seconds? Can she grab her keys and a pack of mints out of 2 different pockets and then use both in 6 seconds? I don't think you're looking at things correctly with this example.

I don't know, Grams was a real badass.

To me the intent is pretty clear that a 1 means it's unusable for one round. So I'd say you can't use it on the round following its first use. The "x" value is how many rounds it's not usable.

Game balance is not affected if everyone can interact to draw an item with each hand at the same time.

And I'm not talking about playing a harpsichord with one hand and transcribing poetry with the other at the same time. Talking about picking up two things, one with each hand. That's not remotely the same as making a Strike at the same time as doing something else, IMO. It's what my arthritic grandmother did every time she unloaded her shopping cart onto the conveyor at the supermarket.

Interesting that the discussion had been entirely focused on drawing a weapon with each free hand. I guess the OP did showcase this as his main issue, but from my perspective it's more generalized.

For example, if a player has 2 free hands and 2 potions in a bandolier, does it take 2 actions to draw both? If yes, then only one can be consumed that turn. If not, both can be consumed.

I'm just having trouble visualizing someone standing there stupidly, only taking one item from their bandolier at a time, as if one hand is tied behind their back.

Perhaps the intent of the Shield Block isn't to have it available all the time, so characters have to make choices about when to use it. The Shield cantrip certainly supports a "once per fight" usage idea.

Honestly, I think a great many more spells should be dismissible.

I mean, Illusionary Object isn't a combat spell as much as it's a spell to do things like:

Hide a secret entrance to your base.
Confuse people who are chasing you.
Swap an object you steal with the illusion.

All those applications would prefer a longer duration if possible, especially the theft part. The writers were probably thinking it would be used for stuff like that, rather than simply summoning walls in combat.

Plus, if it's something you would want gone later just cast it at level 1, nothing is stopping you.

But what would be the harm in making it dismissible?

I never said that the problem was my "regret".

Most recently my character was hassled by the local constabulary for a rather large obstruction in a crowded marketplace.

Ultimately, it just doesn't make sense to me why the spell can't be dismissed.

mrspaghetti wrote:

That is not an unusual example, it is the norm for how I cast Illusory Object. How else would it be effective in combat if not placed someplace it can effectively block enemies?

The wall isn't what's unusual, it's the contrived ramifications of said wall which require (but not really) the wall to be removed afterward. I thought this was obvious.

Not contrived either. Consider anytime combat occurs in a city street, the courtyard of a castle, a crowded marketplace or tavern. That wall is going to be a problem for someone. These are all very common scenarios which I personally have experienced.

It depends whether the enemy has reason to suspect (or outright knows) that there are enemies nearby. If they do, then you'd be undetected. If they don't, then you should be unnoticed.

Obviously this assumes you have terrain to hide behind, are invisible, or some such that keeps you from being observed. If you don't have a way to be at least concealed to start with then I don't know if you can do much with it except use it for initiative. If you at least have concealment somehow then you can first Hide to become hidden and then Sneak to become Undetected.

Really, the only practical difference between Undetected and Unnoticed is that in the latter case, the creature has no reason to even use a Seek action to try to find you. In the former case, he probably would, unless he has other things going on that are more urgent, like being attacked by something he can see which seems more dangerous.

That is not an unusual example, it is the norm for how I cast Illusory Object. How else would it be effective in combat if not placed someplace it can effectively block enemies?

Invisibility is up there with illusions as something players conceptually want to be able to exploit to great effect, but really, really don't want it used against them with the same level of power.

Note that Invisibility, itself, is Illusion magic.

Also, while I don't disagree with your statement, my comment was about misunderstanding the rules in general regarding Invisibility. A player who understands and builds for the rules finds himself in an awkward position when he has taken feats like Conceal Spell and Silent Spell with invisible casting in mind, but then GMs routinely grant the same abilities to virtually every invisible creature. Or when that same character invests in Stealth and Deception in order to maximize his chances of remaining undetected, using actions to Sneak, but then finds that the GM treats all invisible creatures as undetected at all times - even after casting spells or attacking, without ever using actions to Sneak or making Stealth checks. Feels like a whole lot of wasted feats and skill investments.

The idea about tutorials sounds good, but I'm starting to feel like all those rules are effectively TL;DR for most people, and I'm skeptical they'll take the time to watch videos either. Frankly regretting my attempt to play an Illusionist in PFS at this point.

I think the inability to dismiss illusory object is a deliberately limiting factor on it

Really? Because Illusory Object is so extremely powerful that it needs to be limited that way? The only way I can think of it being abused is by taking advantage of its long/permanent duration as you describe with your chaos demon. Making it dismissible would not make it more open to abuse or even more powerful as far as I can see.

As an aside to illustrate how little this spell needs to be limited beyond its regular functioning, I had a GM recently who completely disregarded my casting of this spell. He simply had enemies run straight through it without even rolling dice.

At the metabalance level this lack may be an oversight though IMO it doesn't matter much at all. I don't even understand why you insist an illusionist would "really need to prepare and waste a Dispel Magic". Really? How often?

Well, if you've created a wall during combat, at the point where it would be the most significant obstacle to anyone attempting to pass, it just may be possible that at some point after the combat is over, other beings may wish to pass that point who have the right, the need, and the expectation that they can pass that point without hindrance. Sometimes less than ten minutes after combat, and with increasingly higher likelihood as more time passes.

You folks really didn't take that bit about being gentle if there was an answer I'd overlooked at all seriously, did you?

Peace to all!

If my response seems ungentle to you, please know that was not the intent. Written comments can be interpreted a number of ways, I was just trying to understand and answer your questions. I hope you will view my words in that light.

According to Table 11-3: Scroll Statistics at p. 565, which compares spell level to item level, there's no such thing as a second level scroll, hah!

I'm not sure what your point is. Obviously there are scrolls with second level spells, but since a second level spell is something that becomes available to a character only upon reaching third level, scrolls and other items granting access to second level spells and effects are normally third level items, and so on for higher level spells. You may be confused between spell level and character level.

Magical Crafting would allow you to get a free formula for "1st Level Scroll" if you wanted it. If you wanted the formulas for higher level scrolls you'd just have to pay for those formulas.

As for only 1st level scrolls being common, that is just completely wrong. Table 6-12 in the Equipment chapter is a convenient list of items "that a 1st level character could most frequently access." It is not comprehensive in any way. Any spell or item that does not have a rarity tag is common. (See the definition of "rarity" on page 635 CRB).

So you create this illusion, and now you're stuck with it for 10 minutes - unless you cast a heightened version, in which case you're stuck with it for an hour, or even forever. Should an illusionist really need to prepare and waste a Dispel Magic every time they cast Illusory Object?

To add further asininity, there are no exceptions or special treatment for dispelling one's own magic RAW that I am aware of, so one could potentially fail to dispel their own illusion and waste another spell slot in the attempt.

As an aside, expect a fair number of GMs not to have a good grasp of the rules regarding invisible creatures, hidden vs undetected, casting spells while invisible and the effect upon the hidden or undetected status of the caster, the use and effects of Silent Spell or Conceal Spell, etc. At least, this has been my experience in PFS.

@Hammerjack's initial answer is probably the best of the thread.

I can't personally recall Ghost Sound ever being used except for flavor in all the games I've ever played. I have certainly never seen it used to affect the outcome of an encounter in any significant way.

mrspaghetti wrote:

Seriously, I can't think of any circumstances where Ghost Sound would be considered a hostile act. But casting it (or any spell) does make you hidden rather than undetected unless you used Silent Spell with a successful stealth check.

"A hostile action is one that can harm or damage another creature, whether directly or indirectly, but not one that a creature is unaware could cause harm."

Person sneaking by dangerous creature that is asleep when a scream the "volume equal to four normal humans shouting" goes off the the person is RIGHT beside it: the creature then proceeds to maul the sneaking person. Do you count that as "indirectly" causing harm to that person? Wouldn't the caster be aware it could/would cause harm?

Ok, but I can't think of any non-contrived circumstances.