|
Andrew-
You're right that I've unfairly boiled down your concerns. So please accept my apology for that.
I think I understand what you and Bob are saying about pushing the envelope. My rejection of that however is that not only is how a GM would rule when the rules are pushed completely subjective to that particular GM, it is completely subjective to that GM when he decides that there even IS a 'rules bending' to be adjudicated.
this thread is a case in point. I don't think I'm the only one that thinks the dhampir+cleric of pharasma+undead domain doesn't even push the envelope, let alone argue about which side of legality it is on. I can see that potentially there's a rules discussion to be had as to whether Seperatists may pick a SubDomain as opposed to a Domain, but near as I've seen it's all been about 'Pharasma wouldn't grant Undead subdomain... her canon is being trampled and if I were the GM it'd be up to me to defend it, the table, and the other players from that player's misuse!' rather than the rule on the archetype itself.
So please 'come on down off the high horse' and leave the 'don't play questionable stuff and you won't have to worry about it' argument in the trash bin where it belongs. Unless I know who my GM is every time, I'll never know what he's going to think is questionable.
I'd be curious as well as to what other seperatists are doing. Apparently making one that is :
a radical cleric, unsatisfied with the orthodoxy of her deity's teachings, forges her own path of defiant divine expression. Though most members of her faith would call her a separatist or heretic, she continues to receive spells from her deity.
...is toeing some grey line and must accept the probability that some Gm somewhere will go "Whoa! Come on now, respect the canon and fluff! I say you're bending that way too far!"
Does the Fire domain toe a grey line due to having nothing to do with Pharasma?
or because it's the opposite of one of her portfolios?
or is that one that no GM in all of PFS would call 'grey line' and is a safe choice for a pharasmin seperatist?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This argument is going around in circles.
I doubt you will convince me that I’m the evil ogre you are trying to make me out to be. That I am trying specifically to make people’s time unfair or unfun. I actually pride myself on providing an enjoyable time for everyone who plays at my table. But I have a responsibility to help maintain the rules set as I interpret them. There are many instances that are not Golarion specific, and are hard crunch rules situations, where the rules are ambiguous and require GM adjudication. The Golarion specific fluff also has some ambiguities that can require GM adjudication.
I didn’t want to pull out the rules-lawyer hat; I wanted to appeal to the better common sense side of folks. That hasn’t worked.
[rules lawyer hat]
A cleric who chooses a subdomain must have access to both the domain and its subdomain from her deity.
Highlighting mine.
A separatist selects one domain from her deity's domain list, and a second domain that is not on her deity's domain list.
Highlighting mine.
Rules as written supports that even a Separatist Pharasmin Cleric could not take the Undeath domain. Roleplay reasons and dogma aside, pure rules as written disallows it.
[/rules lawyer hat]
As for the Dhampir, Undead Bloodline, and Shadowdancer? I’ll make that determination should I ever run into it. Most likely I would keep either on a very short leash as to what types of actions and what ability usage would constitute a need for an atonement.
With that, I will now bow out of the conversation, as I don’t feel it will continue to add to the discussion.
|
|
Andrew-
You're right that I've unfairly boiled down your concerns. So please accept my apology for that.
I think I understand what you and Bob are saying about pushing the envelope. My rejection of that however is that not only is how a GM would rule when the rules are pushed completely subjective to that particular GM, it is completely subjective to that GM when he decides that there even IS a 'rules bending' to be adjudicated.
this thread is a case in point. I don't think I'm the only one that thinks the dhampir+cleric of pharasma+undead domain doesn't even push the envelope, let alone argue about which side of legality it is on. I can see that potentially there's a rules discussion to be had as to whether Seperatists may pick a SubDomain as opposed to a Domain, but near as I've seen it's all been about 'Pharasma wouldn't grant Undead subdomain... her canon is being trampled and if I were the GM it'd be up to me to defend it, the table, and the other players from that player's misuse!' rather than the rule on the archetype itself.
So please 'come on down off the high horse' and leave the 'don't play questionable stuff and you won't have to worry about it' argument in the trash bin where it belongs. Unless I know who my GM is every time, I'll never know what he's going to think is questionable.
I'd be curious as well as to what other seperatists are doing. Apparently making one that is :
a radical cleric, unsatisfied with the orthodoxy of her deity's teachings, forges her own path of defiant divine expression. Though most members of her faith would call her a separatist or heretic, she continues to receive spells from her deity....is toeing some grey line and must accept the probability that some Gm somewhere will go "Whoa! Come on now, respect the canon and fluff! I say you're bending that way too far!"
Does the Fire domain toe a grey line due to having nothing to do with Pharasma?
or because it's the opposite of one of her portfolios?
or is that one that no GM in all of PFS...
I can appreciate your argument. And I understand your position.
When told to expect table variation, it makes it difficult to decide whether to even bring that character to a particular convention. And that might be a hard pill to swallow if you were really excited about playing your favorite character in a particular scenario; sharing your creativity with others who you may not already know.
I get it.
And as for the separatist thing about whether just taking the archetype would constitute a gray area…
For some it might, but by and large I don’t think you’ll find much issue, as long as you follow the rules of the archetype. The only time I could see you having issue with it, is if you specifically pick something that the Deity themselves are fanatical about (i.e. Pharasma hating undead). If you choose to be a heretic about that aspect of Pharasma worship, you will most likely be a heretic without spells.
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
For A canon point of view I asked James in the Ask James Jacobs thread
Something I just saw on another thread that has me interested. From a Canon point of view could Phasmara have Dhampir as clerics (or a sorceoror with the undead bloodline who decided to multi class?) Also Would she allow her clerics to have the Undead subdomain (Via the heretic archetype?)She'd probably allow a dhampir or undead-bloodline sorcerer worship her, since both of those are not TECHNICALLY undead and can actually die, she might feel sorry for them but she certainly won't punish them or bar them from worshiping her. Some of her more intolerant followers and specific churches would not be so understanding though.
She would not grant access to the Undead subdomain.
|
For A canon point of view I asked James in the Ask James Jacobs thread
Something I just saw on another thread that has me interested. From a Canon point of view could Phasmara have Dhampir as clerics (or a sorceoror with the undead bloodline who decided to multi class?) Also Would she allow her clerics to have the Undead subdomain (Via the heretic archetype?)She'd probably allow a dhampir or undead-bloodline sorcerer worship her, since both of those are not TECHNICALLY undead and can actually die, she might feel sorry for them but she certainly won't punish them or bar them from worshiping her. Some of her more intolerant followers and specific churches would not be so understanding though.
She would not grant access to the Undead subdomain.
Alright then, spells for the pharasmin dhampir, torches and pitchforks for the rest of the clergy it is.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The bigger issue this is bringing up is one of stewardship of the campaign setting, which, when I've run/played in PFS (not alot, paizocon, some local stuff) has never been the attitude of the GM's. It's not your job to make sure a character makes sense, it's your job to ensure that he's legal mechanically, and to run the game. You're not really an auditor even unless something jumps out that seems unbalanced.
I understand table variance in running style, but I don't think it's right, fair, or even intended for you to enforce campaign fluff as rules. Characters built with the rules, by the rules, should be valid at any table. If there needs to be a rule that supports or restricts something, it needs to be brought into the game in an official manner before armchair campaign managers start dictating things.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
EDIT: I got hardcore ninja'd (by James Jacobs even!), so keep that in mind when reading.
Hmm...
I got partway through the second page of this before I decided to skip to the end.
So forgive me if someone's already brought this up, but has anyone thought to compare "doctrine violations" (i.e., clerics losing spells/powers for violating their deities' edicts) to the established rules for alignment infractions?
I don't have the Guide in front of me (apparently this was removed from the FAQ?), but it talks about not making "one strike and you're out" decisions. To become evil, the PC has to either be running around burning orphanages, or consistently over time be committing offense after offense after offense. And even then, it can be appealed.
Given that precedent, declaring a certain race/class combo to be nonfunctional in one swift stroke seems like a major overstepping of bounds.
Finding out that the cleric of Pharasma is a dhampir and immediately declaring his powers lost is like finding out that the paladin chose the Cheliax faction and immediately declaring a fall. Simply existing (as a legal build) should not be an auto-fall in PFS. Wait until an offense is actually committed before you start punishing.
--------------
You know, I have a druid who doesn't really like animals (his reverence for nature is more centered around the land itself, as per his Menhir Savant archetype). Druids are required to "revere nature" or fall. If I start going to Cons enough, I fully expect to someday have a GM try to turn me into an ex-druid.
Now, I'm going to pick on Andy Christian for a minute (only because he's the only one who both knows my druid and has commented against dhampir pharasmins - not trying to single you out, buddy).
Andy, you seem to like Dimitri (my druid). Seems you're okay with him not being too fond of animals, even though they're part of nature and a druid falls if he ceases to revere nature. Dimitri doesn't wantonly destroy animals (only in self-defense, like anyone else) or commit any other acts of hatred. He just doesn't really like them.
Meanwhile, if a cleric of Pharasma has the undeath subdomain, you're apparently not okay with it. They may not actually create, control, or even like undead - but you still revoke spells/powers. Why? What's the difference between Dimitri and the undeath domain (or dhampir) clerics of Pharasma?
The only difference I can think of is something you said on page 2 (I think) of this thread: you can't think of any reason to make the character except as cheese.
Dimitri and the dhampir clerics are both treading close to the line. But you treat them differently, and the only apparent reason for that difference is that you see Dimitri as innocent and the dhampir as cheesy.
And if the only visible difference between the fringe case you allow and the one you disallow is your opinion of their respective cheese levels, then how can you honestly expect people to believe you when you say it's not about enforcing your preferences? Because that's sure what it looks like.
Listen everyone: I cannot fathom that it would be Mike Brock's intention that any character option would be "legal but not legal" - everything on it is legal, but that particular combination doesn't work. If a player actually commits an infraction (an evil act, a pharasmin cleric creating undead, etc), deal with it appropriately. But specific combinations of legal options should never be considered an infraction.
|
|
For A canon point of view I asked James in the Ask James Jacobs thread
Something I just saw on another thread that has me interested. From a Canon point of view could Phasmara have Dhampir as clerics (or a sorceoror with the undead bloodline who decided to multi class?) Also Would she allow her clerics to have the Undead subdomain (Via the heretic archetype?)She'd probably allow a dhampir or undead-bloodline sorcerer worship her, since both of those are not TECHNICALLY undead and can actually die, she might feel sorry for them but she certainly won't punish them or bar them from worshiping her. Some of her more intolerant followers and specific churches would not be so understanding though.
She would not grant access to the Undead subdomain.
Yet, still cant make this a rule, till it's been FAQed.
|
|
A separatist selects one domain from her deity's domain list, and a second domain that is not on her deity's domain list.Highlighting mine.
Rules as written supports that even a Separatist Pharasmin Cleric could not take the Undeath domain. Roleplay reasons and dogma aside, pure rules as written disallows it.
[/rules lawyer hat]
While you have a valid point, if you were to stick with that you'd then also have to allow someone to play a dhampir paladin instead, using LoH to heal himself. Yes, you heard right. LoH is perfectly usable to heal dhampirs.
Why?
Because if you go by RAW and ignore all context, lay on hands is not positive energy.
You have to include the 'well, they obviously meant..' factor that it 'should have been worded differently' to tell me that a Lay on Hands can't heal a Dhampir.
I chose a SUBdomain under the same rationale. 'Obviously' they meant "domain or subdomain" but for whatever reason they wrote "domain" in its place.
With that, I will now bow out of the conversation, as I don’t feel it will continue to add to the discussion.
Sorry to part on a sour note. While we agree that a GM can cherry pick words in rules to insist that there is an 'issue' and bring canon or fluff into his rationale, we just disagree on what conditions he should.
|
I asked about how the separatist archetype works in the rules forum where my question seemed more appropriate. You can find it here if you care.
|
|
Yet, still cant make this a rule, till it's been FAQed.
Com'on now, you know better than that. While it's not an "official" rule until it appears in an FAQ, it is still a clarification from a designer. And in this case, a semi-official forum specifically designed for exactly that. Therefore, a GM is well within their right to use that information to adjudicate the issue at the table at deny a Pharasmin cleric (Dhampir or not) access to the undeath domain.
As with most rules clarifications, those who disagree with the "ruling" will use the "not in the FAQ" as a justification to continue to insist on their interpretation. It is bad form, IMO, but YMMV.
I do not think this will be the only occurrence where a separatist's choice of subdomain, assuming that it is permitted at all, is going to be challenged. Perhaps, banning the archtype from PFS would be a better course of action despite my personal dislike of restricting player's options.
|
|
While you have a valid point, if you were to stick with that you'd then also have to allow someone to play a dhampir paladin instead, using LoH to heal himself. Yes, you heard right. LoH is perfectly usable to heal dhampirs.
Why?
Because if you go by RAW and ignore all context, lay on hands is not positive energy.
You have to include the 'well, they obviously meant..' factor that it 'should have been worded differently' to tell me that a Lay on Hands can't heal a Dhampir.
I chose a SUBdomain under the same rationale. 'Obviously' they meant "domain or subdomain" but for whatever reason they wrote "domain" in its place.
I could say the same about your position Gideon.
You indicate that RAW says I, as a GM, have to allow you to play a Dhampir cleric of Pharasma (with James Jacobs answer, I will certainly be allowing it now), but you want to then ignore the RAW so you can use a Subdomain with Separatist Archetype?
You tell me I can’t have it both ways…
As for the Paladin deal, I believe in that particular thread one of the developers of Pathfinder chimed in and indicated that Lay on Hands should be considered positive energy.
That’s enough for me. It is no longer my interpretation or opinion.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
and now we have successfully cast this as a case of Judge Vs. Players.
I hate this when our game turns into a confrontation between players (and I like to count the Judge as a player - esp. when I am the judge).
Good thing it mostly just happens on the messageboards. I personally haven't encountered this kind of confrontationalism or suspicion at the table very often.
|
|
and now we have successfully cast this as a case of Judge Vs. Players
I disagree with this position. Anytime there is a question of something being allowed by RAW or RAI or whatever, it can be viewed as the player wanting it allowed vs. the GM being the one saying no. Rarely if ever is the player who wants to do something the one who is actively against it.
IMO, this is just a case of a player (who also GM's) saying no. That applies to both his GM'ing and as a player, would not do it. OTOH, there is a player saying, yes this is okay and not only do I want to do it as a player, but I would allow it as a GM.
Yes, we are all players, but not everyone is a GM. All rules discussions can be interpreted as player vs. GM.
|
|
You could pick just about any of the domains on the list of domains that don’t touch on death or undeath (go with a heresy on one of her other spheres of influence) and go that route.
I’d stay away from subdomains until there is further clarification on whether RAI includes them in the archetype. For now RAW says only Domains can be substituted.
|
|
My last Convention game was one of my top 5 worst. It has me wondering if I am going to play PF at any more Cons.
I hope you don't let one bad GM (we've all had them) influence you to quit going to conventions. I don't know your session history with PFS, but with over 200 sessions as a player/GM/organizer, mostly at conventions, I have had a bad experience less than 2% of the time. That's a strong ratio in favor of convention play.
You don't stop listening to music because of one bad song? Or stop eating because of one bad meal? Or quit school because of one bad grade?
Convention play is an opportunity to meet new friends, reconnect with old ones, learn new gaming styles, and observe other excellent GM's (and steal their ideas). I would hate to see you miss out on it.
Have fun and good gaming!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My last Convention game was one of my top 5 worst. It has me wondering if I am going to play PF at any more Cons. It was easily the worst case sense the judge told me to roll a spot check to see the ground when my PC was falling (I had said I would cast Feather Fall when I saw the ground - so my PC failed the Spot roll and died. Oct 2004). This one had the Judge yelling at me the entire adventure - started when I asked to take 10 on a gather information roll and continued thru the entire 4 hour adventure. Afterwords I just went to my car outside and cried. High points of that mod were when the judge stated that he would not let us find the trap we knew had to be there (Perceptions above 45 for two characters), cause it would ruin the encounter and when he yelled at me for asking a question about the monster (good knowledge roll - what special Vulnerabilities the monster had), and then yelled at me for not asking more questions (he then told the other players to ask other questions, cause I was to afread to talk at that point, and had asked him to "Please quite yelling at me sir").(edited to correct typos - memory of the event still causes me to shake and makes typing hard)
I do have to ask-- why didn't you get up and walk away after the 'Judge' started behaving this way, and gave every indicator that he wasn't going to stop, all adventure long. Personally, I wouldn't have put up with that from anyone, and I would consider it more than enough justification to both quit the game mid-session and file an official complaint with whomever was in charge of the Tournament (or, if it was the person in overall charge running the game, and it was an officially-sanctioned Paizo event-- directly with someone on Paizo's staff who oversees such things nation-wide). No one should be doing that to you at a Convention (not at a private game either-- groups that permit that kind of behavior are, IMO, gaming groups you should walk away from).
For that matter, if there was an abusive player-- even if it's an official event-- if a player were to be continuously abusive to the GM or other players, I'd expect the player to get booted from the table long before the game comes to an end.
|
|
and now we have successfully cast this as a case of Judge Vs. Players.
I hate this when our game turns into a confrontation between players (and I like to count the Judge as a player - esp. when I am the judge).
I have an idea. I am thinking about creating a character that is a Heretical Cleric, a Separatist Cleric. I just finished reading Deaths Heretic and I like the depiction of Salim. So, I'm going with a Pharasma Separatist Cleric. One most worshippers would consider a Heretic, but who gets his spells from Pharasma.
Help me out here. What domain can I take that will get the "correct" response from orthodocs church clerics? What can I do to make my character unique and memorable and fun to play with? Traits/Feats/Race/Faction suggestions welcome.
which of the churchs three aspects should I concentrat on? Death/Birth/Divination? Perhaps I can take Birth and take the domain Strength so I can cast Enlarge person on the mother during a delivery, to ease the birth (smaller baby is easy to deliver, yes?).
Take the Healing Domain, or Resurrection Subdomain... You feel those who Die too young here never given the chance to live their life, make there own choices, thus, being judged by Pharasma in unfair at an early age, So you strive to help the young grow to an age where they cna be held accountable for their actions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't walk for a lot of idiot reasons - and I hope I'll have the guts when it happens again (been in the game long enough to know it WILL happen again. Might be 7years or more again, but if I keep playing with strangers it will happen. Mostly I couldn't believe it at first. Then I realized that my wife was in the game and she'd bail when I did (leaving 3 players in the game). I spoke to the Con organizer, and do not feel that reporting it to Paizo staff will do anything - after all it's just a Judge-Player conflict (and I'm the player). I'd rather just forget it and move on. Try to avoid it in the future.
It might have helped to report the problem. Judge-Player conflict is one thing, but if the Judge resorts to yelling at players after being asked to stop, it *needs* to be addressed. I have reported a GM in the past, and the local VC fixed the problem right up (pretty much blacklisted the GM in question, gave all involved players the chronicle, and any dead players were considered to have survived. Yeah, it was that bad). When in question, report it! That's how things change.
|
|
I didn't walk for a lot of idiot reasons - and I hope I'll have the guts when it happens again (been in the game long enough to know it WILL happen again. Might be 7years or more again, but if I keep playing with strangers it will happen. Mostly I couldn't believe it at first. Then I realized that my wife was in the game and she'd bail when I did (leaving 3 players in the game). I spoke to the Con organizer, and do not feel that reporting it to Paizo staff will do anything - after all it's just a Judge-Player conflict (and I'm the player). I'd rather just forget it and move on. Try to avoid it in the future.It might have helped to report the problem. Judge-Player conflict is one thing, but if the Judge resorts to yelling at players after being asked to stop, it *needs* to be addressed. I have reported a GM in the past, and the local VC fixed the problem right up (pretty much blacklisted the GM in question, gave all involved players the chronicle, and any dead players were considered to have survived. Yeah, it was that bad). When in question, report it! That's how things change.
What Alexander said.
Basically-- Keep this in mind for the futre: if you don't report it, and it doesn't get dealt with-- someone else could suffer the same horrible experience you had. Even if it turns out to be/have been just a one-time "WTF?" issue with that one GM, someone up the chain should be tipped off, look into it, and at least have had a word with that GM about his behavior, to either make sure it doesn't happen again, or to be on guard and deal with it quickly if it comes up again.
|
|
I spoke to the CON coordinator (local VC). He is aware of the problem (and I think one of the other players was a Venture Officer anyway). And I REALLY want to put it behind me, ok? Not a happy time. Should have walked even if it would have got my wife's Aasimar "perm killed" (she says that it wouldn't have mattered to her, but she really likes the PC).
Now really guys - this should not be on this thread (maybe on the 'Walk away from the table thread' but not here.
Hmm... I see why you were starting to paint me with an ogre brush there a few posts ago.
I can assure you, that I would not treat another human being in that way, whether I liked their character choices or not.
Hopefully you'll go to a con again, and enjoy your time.
|
|
To the person who asked "Why do certain players like to ride the fuzzy edge of the rules..."
One of the most creative things you do in an RPG is make characters. Everyone who wants to play something that is uniquely theirs usually ALSO has the urge to say "Hey, look at my neat build..."
Not all of this is munchkining. Not all of this is "Here, let me contort this rules system into a pretzel as envisioned by M.C. Escher on a Baaaaaad acid trip..."
For example, my Paladin-heading-to-Shadowdancer isn't terribly optimized. Nosig's son looked at my 7th level fighter and tried his level best to bite his tongue about the suboptimal choices I'd made in a build...a fighter with Persuasive instead of Power Attack, and no stat lower than a 10 made him twitch at all the lost DPR.
I in turn saw his chakram throwing mobile bazooka with the 7 INT, 8 WIS and 7 CHA and kinda shuddered. :)
That's one of the ways that being creative in an RPG works - it's like programmers saying "Hey, look at this neat solution to problem XYZ I figured out..." where problem XYZ is "Managed to make a thrown weapon fighter who does damage comparable to an optimized archer..." or "Ever seen a Paladin go to Shadowdancer before?"
I've got a Charisma-focused negative channeling Cleric who's fun to play - and she will cheerfully Control Undead when they're present in a module. She's optimizing to max out the DC on her Channel Energy ability...and get more "safe spots" for her teammates.
I personally find DPR optimizations to be deleterious to fun in PFS mods, because once you get past a certain amount of damage per round, you're past the point where the module's combat encounters can challenge you.
I personally find that nosig's Cleric-dar ("My cleric has a Perception roll of +48; just tell me what's within 120 feet of him.") use of the Take 10 rules is legal but...kind of wrecks the fun of certain types of challenges, but not badly enough that I'm going to complain about it at the table or disrupt it; in large part, this is because the way PF handles certain types of skill challenges is a poor design decision....and I still had fun playing with nosig and his son and his wife in Song of the Sea Witch, even if they tend to twist the optimization dial past about 7 or 8 by my personal scale. :)
As for the Paladin deal, I believe in that particular thread one of the developers of Pathfinder chimed in and indicated that Lay on Hands should be considered positive energy.
That’s enough for me. It is no longer my interpretation or opinion.
Actually its been FAQ'd even.
How is the negative energy affinity monster ability (Bestiary 2, page 299) supposed to work?
The intent of this ability is that the creature is healed by negative energy (like an undead) and harmed by positive energy (like an undead); this is automatic and has nothing to do with the intent of the target or the energy-wielder. However, as written, the ability is a bit confusing because of the phrase “reacts to,” which doesn’t have a clear definition. This ability will be changed in the next printing of Bestiary 2.
Update: Page 299—In the description of the Negative Energy Affinity ability, replace the current entry with the following:
Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) The creature is alive, but is treated as undead for all effects that affect undead differently than living creatures, such as cure spells and channeled energy. Format: negative energy affinity; Location: Defensive Abilities.
|
|
I spoke to the CON coordinator (local VC). He is aware of the problem (and I think one of the other players was a Venture Officer anyway). And I REALLY want to put it behind me, ok? Not a happy time. Should have walked even if it would have got my wife's Aasimar "perm killed" (she says that it wouldn't have mattered to her, but she really likes the PC).
Now really guys - this should not be on this thread (maybe on the 'Walk away from the table thread' but not here.
Hmm... I see why you were starting to paint me with an ogre brush there a few posts ago.
I can assure you, that I would not treat another human being in that way, whether I liked their character choices or not.
Hopefully you'll go to a con again, and enjoy your time.
oh I'm sure I'll do a con again, just not sure if I want to play PFS there. I can always go play Battletech or some other off the wall game where the other players are just trying to kill me, and we are having fun doing it.
In RPGs I like to think everyone there is trying to play with each other - not against each other. PFS seems to have more Type A player/judges than LG did... but maybe not. Maybe they are just Judging for me (or maybe it's just me). Either way, one fix would be just to play in shops where most of the persons are known to me or my friends and the judges don't seem to think the question "May I take ten on that?" is a threat to thier athority.
chuckle... give it a try if you are gonna be at Gen Con or Paizo Con, and I'll personally try to get you and yours at a table I'm running, and we'll have a grand time.
|
|
One of the things about con going is that sometimes one has to be willing to put personal preferences and opinions aside and go with a completely open mind. If you go to organized play at a convention with preconceived notions on how people are going to perceive you or what is going to happen at a table then more than likely that is what is going to happen.
I've found going with an open mind allows me the freedom to enjoy what I want and shrug off what I want. When you're in a room with strong personalities, sometimes it's better to be the quiet personality
|
Actually its been FAQ'd even.
How is the negative energy affinity monster ability (Bestiary 2, page 299) supposed to work?
The intent of this ability is that the creature is healed by negative energy (like an undead) and harmed by positive energy (like an undead); this is automatic and has nothing to do with the intent of the target or the energy-wielder. However, as written, the ability is a bit confusing because of the phrase “reacts to,” which doesn’t have a clear definition. This ability will be changed in the next printing of Bestiary 2.
Update: Page 299—In the description of the Negative Energy Affinity ability, replace the current entry with the following:
Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) The creature is alive, but is treated as undead for all effects that affect undead differently than living creatures, such as cure spells and channeled energy. Format: negative energy affinity; Location: Defensive Abilities.
Just for he record, follow that thread and notice that the FAQ is actually wrong, or rather the portion on Negative Energy Affenity is still up in the air.
It really has nothing to do with Paladin's, Lay on Hands being or not being Positive Energy.
|
|
nosig:
At any table, there are three questions I ask:
1) Do I enjoy playing with this person and their characterization? Enough so that I'd go out of my way to book into a table with them again?
2) Does this person have quirks or play style biases (like removing the die rolls in things because they find them a "break" in the flow of the game, or playing every character as Chaotic Selfish, or...) that I have to go "Sure, it's their schtick and it doesn't interfere with what I like to play?"
3) Does this person make me want to get the hell out of there?
You, Dee and Kevin are about 70-80% in category 1 for me, and the remaining 20-30% is in category 2. Nobody I played with came close to category three at Winter War. Our GM at Song of the Sea With was very very good - so was Rene DuQuesne in the Special - hat tip to both of them!
There are very few people that I play with who get above 90% in category 1. Nearly everyone has a roleplaying quirk or character design quirk that bugs me in some way. :) No doubt I bug them too.
On your incident on Sunday:
I've played with you - you're easy going, you're fun to hang around, and you are pretty good at accepting other people's concepts and rolling with them.
You also have a large personality. So does Kevin. I've met GMs whose response to a tag team of two people with large personalities - especially ones who like to discuss system mastery (more Kevin than you, I think...) is to go "Oh, Cthulhu. They're going to run roughshod over my table."
I could easily see a GM making that impression off of you and Kevin; I think our GM had started in that vein a little bit, but loosened up after the second encounter when it became clear, by your guys' actions, that you're team players, and go out of your way to help other characters shine.
I'm not excusing the person who shouted at you. I am trying to give you a perspective into what was going through his mind, based on having sat a table with you and Kevin.
As to Perception checks and other "passive/active" skills:
I would change how Perception rules work when they're not opposed by active Stealth:
The DC is given as a number; it's also given an AMOUNT OF TIME needed to do this, and an increment.
The players have to specify how much time they're willing to spend looking; every increment they short it by adds +10 to the DC. Every 5 pips they beat the die roll by, they shave an increment off the required time, which will determine how prepared the NPCs are, etc.
Likewise, there's no re-rolls, but there is "Aid Another."
One of the problems with the current Perception system (and it's endemic in a lot of RPG design) is that it's a "fail this die roll and the plot comes to a screeching halt" roll. There are a few others like that as well.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bunny dear - if this was directed at me you missed. Open mind? yes. Strong personality? maybe not so much so. before the "car wreck" in the last slot I was having a great CON. Remember sitting with me Saturday evening and seeing if I was the Ogre (or if I just "posted on the board to incite reactions in people" is how I think you asked it)? That's me. Conflict avoidance. Yell at me enough and I have to go throw up in the bathroom. At least he didn't make my wife cry.One of the things about con going is that sometimes one has to be willing to put personal preferences and opinions aside and go with a completely open mind. If you go to organized play at a convention with preconceived notions on how people are going to perceive you or what is going to happen at a table then more than likely that is what is going to happen.
I've found going with an open mind allows me the freedom to enjoy what I want and shrug off what I want. When you're in a room with strong personalities, sometimes it's better to be the quiet personality
In general, no this wasn't specifically directed to you but more towards the situation. However, seeing as how you have decided to make it about you...
Everyone that attends a convention has a personality and those personalities are going to clash from time to time. There are several ways to deal with it.. you can shrug it off or you can be passive aggressive about it and splat the misfortunes you've faced where everyone can see it.
You had a bad experience at a convention with a judge and I'm sorry for that, however, at some point you have to make a choice to let it go and eventually "get back up on the horse". You're going to have bad judges, you're going to have judges that don't like the way things are approached and you're going to have personality conflicts. It happens and that is the nature of playing at a table with other living, breathing humans.
I've had my share of not so pleasant experiences, however, I still go to conventions and I still play and I still have fun because I've made the choice that the bad attitudes of others is not going to affect me and what I want out of this game.
The simple fact is that you always have a choice; you have the choice to stay or leave, you have the choice to let an experience determine if you give up a game you seem to want to enjoy, if you made the choice to stay at the table because of your wife or the other players at the table, then that is the choice that you made. Sorry to seem harsh, but you are taking your one experience out on the entire convention and that is not fair. It was a good convention and so far you're the only one that I've heard saying they had a bad time.
|
|
Lots of friendly players out there, I just got burned and not sure if I want to do it again. I can always play in stores or home games and I get lots of games in as it is (play at least every week, sometimes a lot more). Please realize I do not have a problem with someone who reads the rules different than me (at least no much of one). I have a problem with someone who plays AGAINST me. Who thinks I'm trying to pull a fast one on him when all I'm trying to do is find out how he wants me to play FOR him.Conquest Sacramento is your best friend ;)
I'm a friendly GM, no hard feelings (that I know of) yet! If I am not sure how a rule works, I let it go in the player's favor and check later to see if they were right.
Oh, when I GM, the NPC's are certainly out to get you! Anyways, if you can make it ConQuest, I'd be happy to see you (and that Aasimar cleric I've heard so much about!). We're a friendly lot, even if our VC's avatar is an insane clown and one of our locals is known as Painlord....
|
|
Bunny dear - if this was directed at me you missed. Open mind? yes. Strong personality? maybe not so much so. before the "car wreck" in the last slot I was having a great CON. Remember sitting with me Saturday evening and seeing if I was the Ogre (or if I just "posted on the board to incite reactions in people" is how I think you asked it)? That's me. Conflict avoidance. Yell at me enough and I have to go throw up in the bathroom. At least he didn't make my wife cry.One of the things about con going is that sometimes one has to be willing to put personal preferences and opinions aside and go with a completely open mind. If you go to organized play at a convention with preconceived notions on how people are going to perceive you or what is going to happen at a table then more than likely that is what is going to happen.
I've found going with an open mind allows me the freedom to enjoy what I want and shrug off what I want. When you're in a room with strong personalities, sometimes it's better to be the quiet personality
In general, no this wasn't specifically directed to you but more towards the situation. However, seeing as how you have decided to make it about you...
Everyone that attends a convention has a personality and those personalities are going to clash from time to time. There are several ways to deal with it.. you can shrug it off or you can be passive aggressive about it and splat the misfortunes you've faced where everyone can see it.
You had a bad experience at a convention with a judge and I'm sorry for that, however, at some point you have to make a choice to let it go and eventually "get back up on the horse". You're going to have bad judges, you're going to have judges that don't like the way things are approached and you're going to have personality conflicts. It happens and that is the nature of playing at a table with other living, breathing humans.
I've had my share of not so pleasant experiences,...
Nicely put.
It took alittle digging over several of your posts to figure out to whom you speak. I've known him awhile, gamed with some and you are not alone in your experiences. At times he only knows how to deal with pressure one way, and that is to get aggressive by yelling, where you deal with by holding it in.(did this most of my life)I think he needs to here how his behaviour affected you. he isnt on these boards as far as i know so if you want to email him about it, I am willing to forward it to him. Your call,
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
As to Perception checks and other "passive/active" skills:
I would change how Perception rules work when they're not opposed by active Stealth:
The DC is given as a number; it's also given an AMOUNT OF TIME needed to do this, and an increment.
The players have to specify how much time they're willing to spend looking; every increment they short it by adds +10 to the DC. Every 5 pips they beat the die roll by, they shave an increment off the required time, which will determine how prepared the NPCs are, etc.
Likewise, there's no re-rolls, but there is "Aid Another."
One of the problems with the current Perception system (and it's endemic in a lot of RPG design) is that it's a "fail this die roll and the plot comes to a screeching halt" roll. There are a few others like that as well.
???
Forgive me if there's some context I'm missing (I skimmed the last few posts), but what in the world are you talking about?
If you're talking about running the Perception skill different than it's written in the CRB, well, you're not allowed to do that in PFS.
If you're saying that's how you think Perception already works... well, it's not. :P If a stimulus suddenly happens (sudden noise, flash of light, or other "event"), everyone gets a free Perception check right then (free action/no action). Actively searching for stimulus is a move action and can be repeated as many times as you like.
Where are you getting all this "time increment" stuff?