Search Posts
That is the general choke point of the argument. One side says charm person = sudden and free willed buddies, and the other says charisma check = do what I say. at least that's how I perceive it. I say give me Unnatural Lust any day. At least it's 6 seconds of awkward moment with the GM/table and then it's over. edit: I mean, charm person is already a no-matter-what-you-suddenly-like-me magic spell. The expanse of possibilities is so large as it is, why does it need to become a level 1 domination spell. You're trying to use a veil of silk as a ball peen hammer.
Odd, because I thought ioun stones were only activated once they were set spinning in your aura. If they're just active on you at all times, that means having them implanted is just an odd step to the process. But, this gives me wiggle room for embedding that magic missile wand in my forearm like I've always wanted. Edit: on the other hand, the GM in me says "'ere now, wot's this? Someone's got a pretty..." (bandit drawing dagger with evil glint in eye.)
again. common sense, simple solution: Player uses charm person > target npc fails, is charmed. (hereafter referred to as the 'charm-ee' > person using charm person (hereafter the 'charm-er') says "kill your family." > charm-ee, capable of full free will says "what on earth would I do that for?" (Said statement being charm-ee giving charm-er benefit of doubt, being friends and all (said statement being the fulfilled maximum of spell description)). > Whereupon Charm-er squeals "CHARISMA CHECK". > Whereupon Charm-ee says no, that's a sick, disturbing request no true friend would ask of another. > Whereupon Charm-er squeals "BUT I MADE MY CHARISMA CHECK!" Whereupon the GM steps outside the PC-NPC interaction and, with reference to common sense, says that it is not and never will be down to a successful charisma check in this instance. The reason it is given to the gm to 'discrete' all over your 'I WIN' command, is because you as a player made the tacit agreement to recognize this person as a judge specifically for these instances. A charisma check isn't the be all, end all to the situation, the GM is. There has been no wiggle room for a long time and to argue over the small details even after you've gone up to the "head guy" for a ruling and it's gone against you as an argumentative player for this spell (and I do mean you in the pejorative, not singling any single player currently trying to argue against this simple train of thought).
you're getting tooled. First off, when you get down to the "what's your schedule like" game, of course everyone's going to be different. And, of course they're all going to say yea to some magically nebulous date in the far future. second, if someone's not communicating, it's because they're nowhere near as committed as you are. I would take that as a sure signal to count him out on gaming. It doesn't take much to plan ahead, like you said. You're best bet is to harden up about dates, draw a calendar up if you have to and lock into that schedule. a regular thrust will be easier to remember and stick to. Get everyone together, and don't rely on anyone to show. Have a backup game (alternative quests that may tie in or give an extra boon to regular players) if you can't fill out ranks. It's important to keep your and your friend's morale up about the game, so treating a missing person(s) situation as a calamity can be just as destructive. Knowing that showing up isn't going to be a downer can be as big an incentive as the game itself. Know when to give in too. If this keeps up, it isn't going to happen. Keep your ear to the ground for alternative players to replace the one's you have a problem with and get them going right away. There's nothing quite like a kick in the fork when you show up late, unprepared, and 30 minutes to close, and the group's just moved on without you. Run about 5 or 6 people, and you should have a guaranteed showing to keep the game going.
I only see complaints because there have been thousands of attempts to bend the rule, and because the people bending the rule don't win, they rally and just try again. It's a simple perspective. Take your friend. your best friend. Ask your friend to help you in a fight.
Now common sense would dictate a range of "normal" responses to these questions. If we ignore the trolls and terribly bright wits with the smartass remarks, we can answer these few questions and create a guideline for charm person. Yes, he might help you in a fight. Yes, it becomes more complicated if it's against other people who are his friends. No, they're not going to just jump in and play tonsil hockey. They like you for some reason, but don't automatically lust you, get over it. If they're going to murder their family because you asked him, then you likely deserve being next on your friend's To-Do list anyway, so, problem solved, no more player trying to bend the charm person rules. Charm person is not a dominate spell. Just because they like you does not mean they're going to jump at your command. It takes, surprise surprise, your influence to still get them to agree.
asking if it's possible is not the same as asking for a ruling. It's PFS. I'm going to ask for the sake of form; Did you refer to a GM, or are you trying to get this in before you take it to a GM? My answer would be that both are controlled 'special' attacks, making them no longer a melee attack for the purposes of either feat, which changes a normal attack.
what does someone's opinion mean to you? If it works for you, then do it, don't try to fit it under someone else's label. I'm sure there are millions of people who's diet is exactly the same as you....albeit because they can't access the food like you do. I don't hear them complaining about being labelled.
As a GM, I'd be more than willing to let you a. find a devil's name. b. Find a scroll to summon and bind that devil. c. make the trade, seems fair. d. spend my every waking moment plotting to reap that soul asap.
sounds like an attempt to bend the rules to me. The spell is permanent, you can't fudge the penalties and keep the bonuses.
I don't know if this has been brought up, but I favor the Xenomorph. adaptable, formidable, and exponential casualty possibilities. For the most part environmentally compatible, and minimal asset destruction. I've extrapolated ideas about the intent and possible functions the xenomorph can serve (my own theory/imagination and details drawn from the prometheus/aliens movies/novels) and see not only a foot soldier but a bio-terraforming potential. The xenomorph can reduce/eradicate a population ( I favor reduce, because part of reproduction will require hosts) and their genetic code could likely alter for specific tasks, say, upping or lowering the carbon dioxide content by some type of 'respirator' alien to make the environment satisfactory for my own race. Also they're known to make 'hives' which might also serve as temporary shelters for the 'master' race while they build more permanent structures for themselves.
I know people are probably going to throw troll responses at this, maybe you that do or want to should take this to heart. (I kind of lump rules lawyers, jerks and power gamers in one category) You know what this is, Jeff? This is a guilt slap. It's the same steps as "I know 95% of you won't share this, but.." from little internet turds who only want shares to validate their existence. And like those statements, my "respect this guy's opinion because I don't know anything about him" first reaction goes right out the door. Yes you have a problem that I fully agree with, but I don't need to be told to feel guilty before I even know what your rant is about. You also have to look at the bigger picture, and realize that some people validate their social existence with their character (build, attitude, etc.) and PFS is a platform for them. Maybe instead of getting wound up about it, you should discuss this with the people you have the problem with. Flaming it over the discussion boards (like there hasn't been several other such threads already), does no one any good. You're being vague and generalizing about specific issues and people. You come across as yelling at everyone under the assumption that some guy or girl who fits your description will magically have an epiphany after reading your rant.
I don't think you should be referencing the Tiger prd creature for your druid companion, check to see if the stat progression matches the list of available companions under the druid class.
show me the birth certificate!
I like the majority theory that many authors have put forth, tongue in cheek as it were. Humans are intentionally isolated from the galactic community. As a whole, humanity is most easily compared to by galactic races as a multi-celled, sentient megavirus, only capable of infecting and destroying everything they touch. Kind of like the CDC, humans are allowed to fester on one planet as a petri dish for innoculation, should the galaxy need it.
Grok make fire from smashing two stones. Grok smartest human alive.
the primary response to every sexual innuendo attempt made by a male player in a game I've GM'd: Yeeeeaaaaa, no. I am not going to roleplay you having intimates with my barmaid npc. I am not going to tolerate 'in character' attempts to hit on the female player in the group. If you want a relationship, especially a really weird one played out before other people, go to a bar. No, a real bar in real life.
If it's an item on the chronicle, it may be under the stipulation that you had to complete a certain event/action in the mod. However, if he's saying that you specifically (have others received the item) cannot use it only in his groups, I'd grill him as to his reasoning, then if his answer doesn't satisfy you, bring it up with the VL/VC of your area. My own experience is that there's nothing on the sheets I couldn't handle as a GM, but it's good to ask first rather than get uptight about it.
In U.S.S.R., elves own means of production, not bourgeois father figure!
you seriously open up a can of worms on this subject. Basically, you're only going to get posts from three different groups. Smartass/trolls, who see this as a chance to whip out their internet wit on you for all to glory in. They're also the ones who're going to nitpick everything you posted, even though you've said it's a second language. Which, by the way, you're more coherent than most people I've seen posting anywhere. The people who've justified it. They usually swear they're posting from their mobile phone, or my favorite, 'I play this game to get away from grammar nazi's like you.' And people who completely agree with you and do their best to do the same. There's the rub. You aren't going to reach anyone with this post who needs to get the hint. They're inured to criticism, and think communication is what you hash out in 140 characters on a phone. They're going to mock you, deny what they're doing, and then pat themselves on the back for the win when they log off.
I think I can sum it up. Mike Brock and several others of very high note have posted early on in this thread, and we keep rehashing the same key points. It looks more like you're just digging in your heels and braying now. We as a PFS leadership do not need to make our ruleset more restrictive than it absolutely has to be. The problem, as I see it,(and I'm really not attacking you personally, just laying out your role as GM)is that you need to man up. 1. Sit down at the next game session, and AUDIT. By the caps, I mean you stop everyone and everything and say "Bob, gimme your character." have a list of PFS restricted material handy. Obviously handy, with a big red letter title on it. Have Bob sit next to you while you do this. Since initiative is your issue, focus on it. make him tell you where he gets all his numbers from. Be cognitive of things like a 24 dex at level 1-3. I'd lay any money that, like what's been implied at several points on the thread, that something stat-hinky is going on. Maybe the players 'forgot' something. Better yet, you doing so will initiate a cascade of sudden new character sheets with better math and references. 2. You are the GM. again, man up and talk to the players with the issue. It's in your job description to audit gameplay and manage it into a cooperative pleasurable setting for players. I'm getting a lot of "I don't want to touch this without a hard rule-down-from-the-top to back me up" vibe. No one's going to spaz out if you just tell them what you see and ask them to cooperate. 3. As a venue head (again, assuming here) you're worried about driving these players away. Solve this dynamically. Make a drive to get new players in. If there's a flood of new people, then you (and this is me thinking outside of the box, in no refined manner whatsoever) say, "look, Bob, I've got all these new players that I want to keep together. learning curve and all that. What I need you to do is decide who among you wants to GM for your group. For now though, let me get these guys in place and we'll see who can fit into the last spots." 4. Remember ultimately that these players are modding out their characters, and that's their fun. You can't restrict them into waiting between the lines, when they've found the law that permits them to pass cars on the right when they see a left turn signal. Like the recommendation in three, perhaps isolating them to their own group and then stepping up your game with them is a better solution.
My walk-away point is when I have to argue with a sparkle pony for ten minutes because they want to push their 'barely-conceivable', rule-bending, ridiculous ham-it-up maneuver to satisfy their "character concept". Oh, wait player... right, right. Well, I've already hit this one, so I maintain it as my standard. In a game where two of the players were new, and two were old hands, the GM decided to 'throw together' a campaign for us. The beginning of which involved a dual-wield monkey gripping greatsword barbarian/fighter mix to 'help us out'. Then the GM proceded to hamfist on the fly a dungeon (I'm so good even I don't even know where the corner is, much less what's around it) smashing and slashing all the way through with us peon players meekly trotting behind. That wasn't the worst part. It was when we'd come upon a game trope (oh my locked dungeon door with scorch marks in front of it, or dark cavern with many "crags and nooks" you have to walk by). The GM would leave us old hats to it, but if the new players got into it, He'd lunge forward with a "haha! I've got you, how could you be so stupid to walk into it" act. After two sessions I said some extremely rude suggestions and ensured I didn't get invited back. so, for all those people who've posted here about how aaaadamaaaantly they're opposed to a GM with this limit or that GM's rejection, all I can suggest is maybe getting your nose out of your own book and see why the GM, who does expend his time, effort, and money (whether you care or not) to try and adjudicate 4+ people who've decided they're going to go their own way and to hell with rules and other players....well maybe just see that the GM is just trying to hold the group together and keep it enjoyable.
Isn't one of the efreet's abilities is the enlarge person? thus, (and I understand that an ifrit is not an efreet) would it not be construed as castable on the self? why be able to use it in one format, then psuedo-deny it to their descendant?
It isn't like they pore over stat blocks. first: availability. I'm pretty sure even a race like the drow doesn't produce poison in bulk. While likely openly traded, drow still must succumb to supply and demand. not to mention being seen purchasing such would send up red flags all over the place. second. the terrain of the underdark is largely close caverns, not open spaces, so having a handy weapon that's more versatile in close quarters is my drow logic.
As an end user of the product, it's perfectly fine to use non OGL information for your pathfinder. It's just the 'representatives' of pathfinder cannot use them in official format (i.e. PFS, Published works, etc.) I'm all for whatever your gaming choices, but I'll say that if you've ever had to gm a player who's character is built from 8 or more sources from a past edition, you change your mind pretty quick on allowed content.
well, my first thoughts are addressing how the creature is interacting. You call them parasites, but I'd rather suspect you intend them to be symbiotic. I guess I'd see how the two organisms 'share' the body, and does the host have any say in the matter at all. If this is a creature that siphons off vitality for itself, and give nothing in return, then you've got a parasite, and I'd put a base time frame one creature can use its host. I would change the pinned condition to helpless, because there's going to be arguments about whether a host 'qualifies' as a target. Someone lying in their bedroll is hardly pinned. As well, I'd put some mechanism for attacking the host. I'm one in big favor of the least ambiguity interpreting the rules. If you're basically doing a body-swapping brain and personality, I would safely say that your body stats should just be nil for the purposes of any applicable task.
yea, everything was awesome...back in 08. By the time they actually get this up and running outside of interoffice beta, it'll need a new game engine to compete. I understand that they've gone through some difficult history with the recession, but they're dragging their feet way to hard to get a competitive edge on this day's market. for lord snow: too bloody right. My first thought when someone says MMO, All I can imagine is thousands of gold sellers, trolls, and 12 year old nerd raging. It's going to really ruin what, to now, has been a fantastic RPG for my computer. I'm still reloading VTR: Redemption and Bloodlines onto my computer for an excellent break from fantasy.
Ok, as a GM and a Necromancer player myself I'd have to say a. You said yes. first mistake. that's already showing a slice of favoritism towards the player, if only to keep the peace. You knew how he played, so it isn't a big surprise he's doing the same thing in your campaign. be calm. be authoritative, and be adamant. b. limit access to extras as a GM. If you're playing pathfinder stay pathfinder. why? because one of the big downsides to 3x is the insane power creep, and what you're probably dealing with is a 3pp who was trying to outdo what was there at the time, thus Necrotic Cysts. Now, as a player, I would (and i like to think I'm a good player to gm for) ask you to a. talk it out with me. If I'm being a dick at the table, I need to know. Let me know how you feel. let me know your solutions. b. I'd say that if he's going such large scale murder and mayhem, he's likely to become the focus of a haunt (all the innocents he's murdered) and is now the locus of a veritable storm of dead souls floating in the ethereal. Start rolling chances for, oh say, a single individual to become a ghost template to start haunting him down (hehe hunting). If you need to axe the character, do it in style.
your dad, huh? tough break there. so it sounds like your dad's using a little passive agressive psychology on you. likely not intentionally, either. Remember this statement. "thanks for the advice, but this is how I'm going to run it." You don't need to be confrontational, just let them know that you are the gm. It's hard as hell to run for old hat players, because they have all these expectations and more than a little force of personality (at least for the game). You, as a new gm, are setting your own methods, not dancing for the players, which is a big mistake everyone makes when they're new. It's ok if you admit you can't handle something on the spot. It sounds like you came up with a pretty good story reason, and I'd stick with that. being able to say, to yourself and in front of your players that this thing is not expected, or I don't know how to work that into the storyline is a good way to learning just how to expect it and work them in. If your old hat players are as good as they claim, they'll be more than happy to give you ideas and work with you to promote the story/gameplay. I could relate all the times I got pushed into the corner by a player, but I don't want to scare you off :)
I don't disagree that, on your end, you wouldn't want to work CAD all day on a tablet, but perhaps you don't see the bounty it might provide for production. I'm building a comprehensive report that shows use of mobile tech, travelling along with the object (right now it's practically a ream of paperwork) opens up feasibility and communication. Perhaps there's an error in the print? Instead of going to the supervisor, the supervisor calling the engineer, the engineer having to be available, answer the question back downhill to production, a simple real-time message could be sent, the digital print annotated and revised at a later point when the engineer's available at a desktop environment. As far as homogenizing operating systems, I don't see it too far off simply because we all use the same hardware anyway. Obviously Microsoft thinks they're going to be king of that hill, and I think that's where they're clueless. Apple and Microsoft are literally in operating systems to dumb down computer use for the least capable to do so. The complexity of what computers do, however, is steadily increasing, requiring something more like Linux, where the OS can be modded to support specific operations, appearance, etc.
*would banning wizard and fighter.... gods, the internet has made me such a bad person.
I would add a caveat to the general above opinions that you come back to the thread and tell us of your experiences 'playing what you want'. While I've tried to promote that same attitude at the tables I've run, GM's have only so much control about it if the rest of the players don't make a noticable issue with it. (i.e. while the GM is perusing one character or aiding in purchasing items before the run, and the rest quietly browbeat a player into a certain class.) Hearing your experiences jumping back in would add to my, and everyone's I would think, storehouse to act on in the future, at least.
I do speak a little russian, and its best to just pronounce kosh-chee mainly because getting perfect accented russian from an american is hopeless :)
One where it doesn't end prematurely because of: The inevitable infighting of player "characters". The attempts of one of the players to derail the plot/frustrate the gm with base contrary-ness. The two-episode-because-I've-gotten-bored-with-it GM. The planned for a month game session that fails because of last minute "previous obligations".
I've no problem with classes that fulfill roles, but with the spread that archetypes give to classes, I can't see what mishmashing class combos is worth to come up with a new class. And that's where I see the problem. We've covered the recognized (and I do consider them pigeonholed) veins that adventurers come in. Given this existing spread, I would rather see more archetypes that fine tune existing classes than waste space with whole classes that piecemeal what's already out there.
If it's fluff, fine but here's my two cents: If he's asking, I would suspect that there's a mechanical benefit the player is working towards if not immediately beneficial or apparent. Gods give their power for devotion. being devoted to someone else is quite literally an inverse to the gift of power a god grants. It's like saying I never sleep around on my girlfriend, especially with my wife. The only examples of cross devotional supplication I know of is between the two gods Lolth and her son Vheraun. The son was willing to grant powers to those planted 'spies' within lolth's organization. It had even gotten to the point of intrigue that loth tacitly approved, to maintain a double agent in the enemy's ranks. Of course this also rides under the caveat that either deity would snuff that spy like a candle when their use was over.
I'm pretty sure the message is pretty obvious when SKR changes the title, but doesn't bother to chime in anything on the subject.
I was looking into it quite the same as you are. It is good to note that Shadowrun supports a live campaign like PFS, so that may help you as well. What I didn't like was that a lot of the rules and regulations are almost cut and paste from PFS, which may or may not have been intentional.
I'd say this sort of thing falls under prestidigitation these days.
my name as the next author.
this is a rehashing of the same thread going around before. After all the bitter arguing was over, I'm pretty sure the powers that be defined what you could or couldn't do. It's a reach weapon. you cannot effectively use it and have your 'convenient' melee weapon ready to attack at the same time. You cannot release it to have a magical extra attack appear out of nowhere. Personally I only see people trying to cheese the rules here (in this situation presented). They continue arguing because they cannot accept the rejection of those attempts to bend the rules. I wouldn't allow it in PFS, and I wouldn't allow it in a home game because it negates the risk/reward factor that players have to chose in their actions wielding a polearm in combat. If we're just going to flaunt the ties that bind us, why not just prevaricate outright and say you can 'choke up' on the shaft and use it as an axe. better yet, greataxe.
I'm pretty sure there's a certain spell that does, yea, actually does state that you need some part of the corpse, even a hair or fingernail to resurrect the person...back to justifying the scissors. And the 'I don't like people who use real life to justify details in a fantasy setting' argument is useless and irrelevant. Much of what is ruled in the CRB is the authors' best efforts to represent actual and factual occurrences. Otherwise you'd spend your game night arguing with the guy who says "what do you mean you cut off my head, I still have hit points." Yes. it's magic. don't worry your pretty little head about that. We're discussing if the OP stated theoretical is valid. We're presenting arguments to support or deny that theoretical.
It's really nice to think these things, I would even prefer to perhaps, pull the stat blocks to the back of the book, in focused tiers instead of encounter (terrible habit of reading the wrong tier, right page) but for one thing. Paizo needs to consider hard costs of material when printing, and they have a page count to follow. It's nice that we have a tech age that puts things into digital possibilities, but as a publishing company, they still have to put things into print. Knowing from experience the target page ranges to be 'efficient' with what they print out, the authors/editors need to mash as much together, coming out with a fine balance of information for you vs. leaving something enjoyable/vital on the cutting room floor. refining stat blocks usually leads to white space on a page, which not only may be wasted area for the publisher, but tends to give the feel of being cheated by purchasers. They might feel that they paid for more empty pages than content.
well, look at the character's class development, and what might mesh from the character's role playing that would mesh with the lords available. I think it would be much easier to identify the deeds he's performing that would trigger a lord's interest. As you've said, the ranger doesn't need to be a goody two-shoes, and vice versa the empyreal lord's not expecting perfection, just an alignment of goals.
I'd disagree with that. per real life reference, a severed body part doesn't die immediately, and would be viable if there was knowledge/technology to reattach it in time. Brain death can occur up to twenty minutes after the body's functions cease. Yes the organism as a whole is nonfunctional, but down to a cellular level, we can keep trucking a surprising amount of time. Not to mention the bacteria we're host to, that becomes our decomposers. I'm of a mind to say that you could do a lot of things to the body shortly after slaying it. |
