I think he is going with option 2.
We just played again today, and I get the impression that he thinks we are getting too much gear, so he's ruling to try and get us to sell more.
Enchanting the weapon seems like it would be a good idea, though. But that also seems like beyond the scope of the core rule book.
I was wondering if there are rules about changing the size of a weapon. My group fought a Sarcesian and took her sniper rifle. The GM said it was large, and according to the rules medium characters take a -4 to hit with it.
So, since almost every character in our party has engineering trained, we wanted to resize the gun so one of our medium characters could use it.
The core rulebook does not seem to say anything, and after a search on the forums here, I see that nobody has talked about anything like this.
Have I missed something? Are there any rules that deal with this?
I have read through a few different threads so far on the cost of star ships, salvaging, and how BP work. I don't think any of those actually address how much it costs a group to actually repair a ship after a battle.
Under Engineering skill, it says you can restore HP to an item using UPBs, but I am pretty sure they are talking about personal items. However, I suppose a similar system would make sense for star ships.
The reason I ask is because our group recently had an encounter with a Corpse Fleet ship, and were defeated (reduced to 0 hp). Then, a group of Ysoki salvage ships came in and drove the enemy ship away, and towed us back to Absalom Station.
I imagine you could say that the crew fixes the ship over time. Abstract the system and say you acquire the necessary materials during downtime. I just wish they had addressed this somewhere. (Or did I miss something?)
Ran this last night. The players really enjoyed the story, and the Halloween theme. Was a pity I was not able to run it last weekend.
Unfortunately, most of the players in my local PFS are of the min-maxer type, so they were able to blast through the skill checks quite easily, and the combats were super trivial. We actually finished the whole scenario in just under three hours, including wrap up and extra dialogue I added at the end with Venture-Captain Petalungro.
Jared Thaler wrote:
Awesome! I look forward to the new language
Core is fairly strong here. We have several players that play quite steadily, and they would have almost no scenarios to play without core. I mean, part of that was because we have a lot low levels, so there are a lot of 7-11 tier we haven't done.
Before core, I was running APs and Modules, because I couldn't find any scenarios that weren't already played.
I have a question about playable races. In this thread, and in Mike Brock's original post it says:
“When the Guide is updated to add a Core mode info section, it will clarify that. To clarify, only races in the Core Rulebook may be chosen at character creation.”
In the recent version of the PF Guild Guide, under character creation it says:
1. CORE OR STANDARD MODE
And then, it says under playable races:
2. RACE AND AGE
(I'm trying to post just the relevant parts, hopefully I haven't cut anything important)
So I have some players in my local PFS that are saying that the guide is now updated, so Kitsune and whatnot are legal for Core.
I can see that the guide has been revised, but I don't believe that is a true update. And I while the players have creatively found a potential loophole, I would rule that they are not allowed to do this. However, before I slam the door on this, I thought I'd post here and see if anything has been said that would allow these races in Core.
Maybe I've overlooked something, there may has been a release statement, or something discussed at Paizo.con, etc.
Rigby Bendele wrote:
If I ever get a chance to play at your table, I'll roll up a super munchkin barbarian or archer so I can eat all the chocolate!!!
Sean Ennis wrote:
Ah, I thought there might be a special limitation for that list.
My friend just ran Port Godless the other day, and there was a bit of controversy.
He was running the end boss - wizard with summoning spells. The wizard was invisible, and summoned a vargoulle. Then the next turn summoned a tiger (with infernal template).
Apparently the tiger is on an alternate summoning list, but the GM had the AP module where it came from (#53 Tide of Honor). According to additional resources, that is allowed for players.
The players protested that the tiger was illegal, and eventually my friend changed the summon to a celestial lion.
I would like some clarification about whether or not what my friend was trying to do was illegal, and specifically why.
A few things to note:
If you think the players are being cheap, you can always dissuade them a little by dragging the process out.
"Ok, you cast detect magic, and begin concentrating... There are magical auras present..."
"Round two, you continue to concentrate, hang on while I determine how many auras are present...."
"There are 1,224 auras present... 112 of those auras are strong... Which one do you want to roll for first?"
I've been systematically GMing every level 1-5 scenario I can get my hands on, because I didn't want to use up my replay. (I only have one star, and I am not sure if my replay would get automatically used if I re-run.)
What is frustrating is that at my local PFS we have added several new players over the last year, and it seems like we are perpetually running 1-5 scenarios. This is compounded by the fact that most of these new players are playing several different characters.
I've run a few series - Shades of Ice, City of Strangers, Devil We Know - that the players absolutely loved, and they tell the others, and they ask me to run it again.
So I guess if I could re-run scenarios for credit, that would help me. It would give me an extra incentive, and I wouldn't have to sacrifice my GM star replay.
However, I can also empathize with Andrew's point of view. I am already compiling a lot of GM credits, and starting characters at level 3. I've heard of other GMs starting characters at level 9. To me, that would take a lot of the fun out of the game. I mean, I actually want to play my characters.
I guess overall, I'd have to say I am against unlimited GM replay.
My experience with PFS so far hasn't been that challenging where I needed to hyper optimize to get through.
Consequently, I usually make well-rounded characters. I think it's a bad idea to not be able to contribute outside of combat. I mean, I guess there are some players that are ok with just waiting for the initiative roll, but I like to at least be a factor in the plot development.
I just read through this, as I am planning to run it this coming weekend. It looks to me that the stats for the Advanced Giant Dire Rats in encounter B1 have a few errors.
The ACs are wrong. It says AC 14, Touch 14, Flat 11 (+3 dex, +5 natural armor)
They are also listed as having 19 dex, which would imply +4 dex adjustment to AC.
So I would think it should read AC 19, Touch 14, Flat 15 (+4 dex, +5 Natural)
Also, it says under Dire Rat that the disease dc is con based, and the Advanced Giant Dire Rat lists 20 con. So I guess the DC for the Filth Fever should be 15.
(I didn't notice anyone else bring this up, hopefully I didn't miss it on another thread or something)
You should be allowed to add ranks to any skill by the rules, but perhaps your DM is using house rules? You should talk to your gm and figure out why he is saying that.
I have played with GMs who won't let me add a language with linguistics unless I do something in game (like find a teacher or buy a book) and spend some downtime on learning it. (And some languages are harder to find teachers for, too.)
I realize I may have come across as a jerk, I apologize. Graystone and Isplore both have very good points. And, the way Mojorat used the word can fit what he meant to say using Graystone's definition.
The only reason I brought it up was that I frequently see people use a word that while they may fit the phrase, it seems like the person using them doesn't realize what it means. "moot" is one of those words that seems to fall in that category.
By my reading, and they way I have always ran barbed devils (in Pathfinder), I believe the impale kicks in the next round when he maintains the grapple.
The devil maintains, and if successful automatically inflicts his impale damage. Then he gets to choose whether he inflicts his natural attack or pins, etc.
I've had clerics use them, but they have to be easily exposed, so a birthmark of your deity on your buttocks wouldn't do any good if you're wearing pants or covering up, but on your hand/face/arm would be fairly easy to show. Your chest might be harder unless you plan to run around exposing yourself or go shirtless.
Mooning the undead seems appropriate for a cleric of Pharasma... Maybe get the spiral tattooed on each buttock... @*@
To the OP: Your GM didn't want to see a potentially challenging and cool encounter get thrown down the tube because the NPC he was given would be unable to use an item vital to his class. It's bad on him for not describing the NPC in question as having a holy symbol embroidered on his tabard or etched on his shield/pauldrons or something, but I don't blame him for wanting a climactic encounter to pose something of a threat rather than being unable to use most of its class abilities due to a single 1st level spell with a DC that was likely well beyond a Cleric with a poor save.
That encounter had three other enemies, and the cleric was arguably the weakest opponent. Neutralizing the cleric with a grease spell is hardly (IMO) going to trivialize the encounter. Tactically, I'd rather let the cleric channel for 1d6 damage, and use grease to make the barbarian fall over so he doesn't get both his attacks. (Or grease one of the barbarian's weapons)
Personally, I applaud characters trying to find creative ways to use spells.
I believe that the reader is supposed to read it as:
"The cleric can “lose” any prepared [cleric] spell that is not an orison or domain spell in order to cast any cure spell of the same spell level or lower"
However, this is a perfect example of the type of loophole a cleric of Asmodeus would take advantage of. Therefore, I would probably allow it, especially in PFS.
If your wizard wants to sacrifice Haste to cast a cure serious wounds, that's ok by me.
I am not suggesting tampering with the scenario, but another way a cleric could have a holy symbol on their person is the birthmark trait.
"You were born with a strange birthmark that looks very similar to the holy symbol of the god you chose to worship later in life.
Benefits: This birthmark can serve you as a divine focus for casting spells, and as a physical manifestation of your faith, and it increases your devotion to your god. You gain a +2 trait bonus on all saving throws against charm and compulsion effects."
I have actually ran Shades of Ice Part I twice, both at tier 1-2. Both times the cleric was the first person taken out by the players, so she didn't even get to do anything anyway.
I agree with Kobold Cleaver, I think Jack should have given the game the old "college try". Play the game a few sessions, and then if you really disliked the experience, quit gracefully.
I played a game where I rolled a background, and got "palace eunuch". I grumbled, but accepted it. The thought of not having junk was awful, but like a professional I RPed it well, and my group was well entertained.
I actually rarely get into such conflicts with my players. I am usually pretty easy going, and when I run a game the goal is to build dreams.
However, I have the luxury of having over 20 players to choose from. (More if I lower my standards) If a player doesn't want to play in my game, I'll just find someone else. If I put a restriction on something, and a player whines, well too bad...
When I GM, I like to take on the persona of the GM on the cover of the Cyberpunk supplement "Listen Up, You Primitive Screwheads"
I did this once with the Palladium RPG waaay a long time ago.
I had the players roll their character's stats behind my screen, and then I described their characteristics. I asked the players what they were doing, and rolled for them behind my screen. I would describe how wounded they were, that sort of thing.
It was pretty good, but it was quite a bit of work.
Simon Legrande wrote:
Exactly! And it wasn't like the GM was saying "Ah-ha-ha! You can never use a falchion ever again! From now on, your character can only use great clubs!"
It's one powder and one bullet per shot. (Yes, that's 11gp per time you fire) However, I believe if you put one skill point into craft: alchemy, you can make powder for half price.
At level one, you really have to manage your ammo. You should probably pick up a sling or something as a back up, and use that on weak enemies.
I've had this debate with various friends of mine for a few years now.
I have very ambivalent feelings about this. I can somewhat agree with everyone's point of view here.
I had one game where the GM randomly rolled treasure, and because we were in the jungle we had to make due with what we had. After a few levels, we were struggling because we are hauling around a wagon full of masterwork weapons, but only had a few items that actually help. Then the GM tells us that we are over character wealth by level, so he is going to start cutting back on treasure...
In that situation, a wish list would have made the game much better. I also ended up arguing with the GM about the concept of character wealth by level. In his mind, a 4th level character with 6000gp worth of salted fish is just as powerful as a 4th level character that bought appropriate gear...
In another game, I was in a party with a half-orc paladin that focused on using a falchion. During thew course of an adventure, we came across a +4 holy, flaming, ghost touch greatclub. Our paladin refused to touch it, because it wasn't a falchion. I tried pointing out that it was much better than his masterwork falchion, but he would not use it. (It was later revealed that the weapon was a plot device, to kill the BBEG, and then our paladin would have been compelled to return it to the church of St. Cuthbert)
To me, the paladin was just way too focused on his concept.
Maybe your players really like Order of the Stick!
In my case, I have learned not to go too overboard with the descriptions because my players tend to tune it out. Either that, or they focus on a word like "sepulcher", and then I have to explain that it's like a tomb, and then they say "well why didn't you just say it was a tomb?" In the meantime, the mood and the immersion sort of fade...
Is anyone reading the thing about being clean and smelling nice and changing their hygiene habits?
I think I may have encountered a few players that would actually benefit from that advice.
I actually met a guy at PFS that PICKED HIS NOSE, AND ATE IT!!! And... My girlfriend almost fainted!
Maybe Nephril should include a point about not picking your nose!
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
Oh no! You don't want to do this! Next thing you know, players are going to want to roll up flumph characters... In fact, I'm already starting to think of a build for a flumph gunslinger...
But what happens if the two players don't want to be named Jake and Elwood?
One question about this Monktopus... I am not very clear on the Pathfinder druid wildshape ability. If you turn into the Giant Lake Octopus, do you gain the Aquatic subtype? If so, then you might need to deal with being able to breath out of water.
So much hyperbole here...
I believe the OP was looking for a way to get two of his players more involved in the game. Not marginalize the bard, or give the fighter abilities beyond his statistics through "role playing".
It could even be something along the line of: as an adventure hook, a rogue tries to steal the fighter's coin purse. The rogue maybe targeted the fighter with the low charisma because he thinks the fighter is a jerk or something. After the fighter catches him, and the fighter and the monk have pounded on the rogue, the rogue tells them where they can find loot in exchange for being let go. The fighter calls the bard over, because the fighter is not allowed to talk to NPCs, and the bard deals with the rogue and figures out the particulars...
There! The fighter and monk get involved and feel like part of the story, and the bard was not marginalized. You can make the bard roll a diplomacy or intimidate check, or whatever feels appropriate, so as to not hand wave any mechanics.