Just ban weapon cords, for pity's sake


Pathfinder Society

451 to 500 of 507 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Matthew Trent wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Matthew Trent wrote:
trollbill wrote:
It spoils the fun for DMs by making them feel like they can't provide a challenge to the players.
Providing a challenge is not the job of the GM and should not be tied to their fun.
For most players, challenge IS part of the fun. Though how much challenge is needed to keep the game enjoyable will vary from player to player.
I can't speak to most players (as apparently you can). I only ever speak for myself (and my friends when I know opinion).

I am speaking from nearly 40 years of D&D experience having played with 100s of different people. In all that time I have never run into a player who thinks that having zero challenge (at least with any regularity) in a combat situation is enjoyable. Given that, I do not find my statements presumptuous any more than I would find stating "most people do not enjoy being thrown off of cliffs" presumptuous.

Quote:
I actually have a lot more fun roleplaying my characters personality than being beaten over the head with encounters that have been designed to challenge a super-cheese monkey. In fact I'd say that most of my unfun experiences have come during 'challenging' encounters.

I don't think you are understanding what I meant when I said "challenge" the players otherwise you would not have just provided me with proof of my statement. When I say "challenge the players" I mean challenge them "appropriately." What you are stating is a case of players being overly challenged by the fact that there are power gamers throwing off the power curve. If you recall, my initial statements where a response as to why DMs should care if a particular character is over-powered. And your statement is exactly why they should.

Let's say you have two players. Each player desires a particular challenge level in combat in order to maximize their enjoyment of it. Let's say Player A likes to have a challenge level of 1 while Player B likes to have a slightly higher challenge level of 2. However, Player A is a much more skilled power gamer than Player B. So what constitutes Challenge level 1 to Player A may constitute Challenge level 4 to Player B. So if the DM wants to give Player A the appropriate challenge level then he is giving Player B an excessive challenge level, and you get the no fun example you stated. Toning down the power gamers is one way to help ease this discrepancy.

To be sure, appropriate challenge level is only one part of being a good DM, just like appropriate RP level, appropriate puzzle level, etc. In a home game this is difficult enough but in organized play it is even more difficult. In organized play you don't get to write or change the mods based on the players at your table and you may not have any initial idea what challenge level the players that just sat down at your table find most enjoyable. And the only thing you can do to effect the challenge level is monster tactics, which may also be limited by the author. Making player power levels more homogenized makes it easier for both the authors and the DMs to supply the optimal challenge level that the players find most enjoyable.

As to why all this matters to the DMs? Well, part of their enjoyment comes from the enjoyment they give at the table and the knowledge of having done a good job. Supplying appropriate challenge levels in combat is a part of that, though definitely not the only part.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

David Bowles wrote:


I have to agree with the above poster. The GM is really supposed to be more of an adjudicator I thikn; the author sets the difficulty. A lot of it is really out of the GMs hands.

The idea of the GM supposed to be providing the challenge seems to lead to "mistakes" or "misread stat blocs" in my experience.

I understand what you are saying and you are correct that most of that is out of the GMs control in a PFS environment. However, that does not mean that if the players did not enjoy the adventure because it did not provide an appropriate challenge level, that the DMs do not in some way feel they let the players down. It is their job to make sure everyone enjoys the game as much as possible (including themselves). So when something decreases that enjoyment for the players, it effects the DMs as well. Sure, they can tell themselves it wasn't their fault and blame the author, but that doesn't mean they still don't feel bad about it. Hence, things that tend to effect authors, like power creep, also effect GMs.

The comments were originally as to why it decreases a GMs fun and this is why. You can argue it "shouldn't" effect their fun, but that doesn't mean that it "doesn't" effect their fun. YMMV.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West aka JohnF

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Wraith235 wrote:


I remember a report of someone using a Monkey belt to alleviate the need for Weapon Cords reading the Item though I'm not 100% Sure how that was done

thats what I was refering to

From monkey belt

and hold or manipulate objects about as well as the wearer’s normal limbs

All you need the extra hand to do is hold the gun so you can reload it, so once you have the tail holding the handle your other hand can reload it while your other hand is holding the other gun.

You don't even need the belt to be that good (just in case you run into a particularly hard-nosed GM); all it needs to do is free up a hand (just as gloves of storing can) so that you have one hand free to reload a firearm being held in the other hand.

It's still possible, under the new ruling, for a TWF gunslinger to get off the same number of shots as was possible before. The big difference is that the cost of entry has gone up; either Gloves of Storing (10K) or a Monkey Belt (9.4K). Using a Monkey Belt also takes up the slot you'd want for a Belt of Dexterity.

Shadow Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Wraith235 wrote:


I remember a report of someone using a Monkey belt to alleviate the need for Weapon Cords reading the Item though I'm not 100% Sure how that was done

thats what I was refering to

From monkey belt

and hold or manipulate objects about as well as the wearer’s normal limbs

All you need the extra hand to do is hold the gun so you can reload it, so once you have the tail holding the handle your other hand can reload it while your other hand is holding the other gun.

thats right ... and with quickdraw alreadying being a part of the build pulling a weapon from the tail its a free action

Silver Crusade

trollbill wrote:
David Bowles wrote:


I have to agree with the above poster. The GM is really supposed to be more of an adjudicator I thikn; the author sets the difficulty. A lot of it is really out of the GMs hands.

The idea of the GM supposed to be providing the challenge seems to lead to "mistakes" or "misread stat blocs" in my experience.

I understand what you are saying and you are correct that most of that is out of the GMs control in a PFS environment. However, that does not mean that if the players did not enjoy the adventure because it did not provide an appropriate challenge level, that the DMs do not in some way feel they let the players down. It is their job to make sure everyone enjoys the game as much as possible (including themselves). So when something decreases that enjoyment for the players, it effects the DMs as well. Sure, they can tell themselves it wasn't their fault and blame the author, but that doesn't mean they still don't feel bad about it. Hence, things that tend to effect authors, like power creep, also effect GMs.

The comments were originally as to why it decreases a GMs fun and this is why. You can argue it "shouldn't" effect their fun, but that doesn't mean that it "doesn't" effect their fun. YMMV.

Well I don't let it affect my fun because I view some of the scenarios as comedies, and just laugh right along with the players. Whomever thought that "tiering up" should just consistent of more of the same mooks in the lower tier, really messed up the first couple season. D20 system has always powered up non-linearly, so linear increases mooks are never going to cut it. This mistake is NOT the fault of any given GM, and they should never feel bad about it. It's just comedy at that point.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

David Bowles wrote:
Well I don't let it affect my fun because I view some of the scenarios as comedies, and just laugh right along with the players. Whomever thought that "tiering up" should just consistent of more of the same mooks in the lower tier, really messed up the first couple season. D20 system has always powered up non-linearly, so linear increases mooks are never going to cut it. This mistake is NOT the fault of any given GM, and they should never feel bad about it. It's just comedy at that point.

Having written and edited adventures for both LG & LFR, I have found the adding more monsters scaling option to be a simple one, but one also fraught with potential problems. Adding more of the same when you are scaling for party size rather than party level seems logical, but even that has problems. One particular problem I have seen is when you add additional creatures with AoEs. When the entire party goes from taking 20 points of damage in a round from AoEs, to taking 40 points of damage from AoEs, then that extra guy you brought along doesn't really balance that out.

Silver Crusade

Yes, just "hit them in the head" mooks are different than things like, say, twigjacks. This is why I use the CR system with a rail car load of salt in my homebrew games. But clearly, adding more schlepp goblins into an encounter to tier it up to 4-5 from 1-2 is a hollow gesture, as the PCs are far, far more capable. The goblins should be replaced with something like fighter templated hobgoblins to keep it competitive. Make the PCs at least think.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm glad that a simple and effective errata to weapon cord is made.

Keep a useful and logical item in the game, while preventing its abuse.

Liberty's Edge 2/5

Delbert Collins II wrote:

*** RANT

My gunslinger is a musket master, but my youngest plays a pistol guy. So let me play devils advocate here.

So lets say weapon cords get banned. My son decides his character is still going to have his pistols attached via a strap to the wrist. So is the rule then going to be: It requires a what ??? move action to recover? Because now its like picking up an item? OK I am certain he can live with that.

Because we are not seriously going to tell people they cannot tie stuff to their wrists, right? That would be stupid!

We don't want to ban the item just the mechanic that gives people all these extra attacks with a full round action each round with a firearm, because yet again, the item that people are pissing and moaning over are firearms. I see no one complaining about strapping a crossbow to a weapon cord :-)

Lets say we ban the mechanic of attaching anything to your wrist at all, ever. At 11th level the boy will just buy a few extra double barrel pistols and with the quickdraw feat still be able to rain death on a full round action.

This seems to me like this one of those arguments where people are either not thinking about the next step, or what happens when the result is what people want or are maybe pretending like they are not thinking about it. I wonder if this is not some sort of Overton Window.

If weapon cords get banned. I think what happens next is that people are still upset about the gunslinger and the next argument is to ban the double-barrel weapons and then ultimately the class altogether.

So if people are getting so twisted up about the class, just ban the class already and get it over with!

My vote would be ban the double barrel guns and leave the weapon cords and the gunslinger.

END RANT ***

Never have i heard a better case for the idea that gunslingers are, innately, broken. I know thats not what he was trying to get across but that is true. Even the over powered Zen archer could not match the output Andy described and with a little efficient crit use, even if he misses , he hits for grit damage. Still not as broken as a witch, but the class is broken.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

neferphras wrote:
Never have i heard a better case for the idea that gunslingers are, innately, broken. I know thats not what he was trying to get across but that is true. Even the over powered Zen archer could not match the...

Well, let's hope that when they come out with the new class book with more synergized classes like the Magus they don't have a Summoner whose Eidolon can shoot Slumber Hexes from his double-barrel pistols.

Liberty's Edge 2/5

trollbill wrote:
neferphras wrote:
Never have i heard a better case for the idea that gunslingers are, innately, broken. I know thats not what he was trying to get across but that is true. Even the over powered Zen archer could not match the...
Well, let's hope that when they come out with the new class book with more synergized classes like the Magus they don't have a Summoner whose Eidolon can shoot Slumber Hexes from his double-barrel pistols.

Eeek Scary. Two weapon fighting with bombs was not something i had thought of before. I am wondering if that is legal. There is a rule out there that you can not use the same ability twice in the same round. Not sure if that applies to SUs. Maybe with rapid bomb this would work but i can think of worse ways and even with that ... nothing like what the gunslinger can do.

Lantern Lodge 5/5

trollbill wrote:
neferphras wrote:
Never have i heard a better case for the idea that gunslingers are, innately, broken. I know thats not what he was trying to get across but that is true. Even the over powered Zen archer could not match the...
Well, let's hope that when they come out with the new class book with more synergized classes like the Magus they don't have a Summoner whose Eidolon can shoot Slumber Hexes from his double-barrel pistols.

*starts writing Bullet Witch class*

Liberty's Edge 2/5

David Higaki wrote:
trollbill wrote:
neferphras wrote:
Never have i heard a better case for the idea that gunslingers are, innately, broken. I know thats not what he was trying to get across but that is true. Even the over powered Zen archer could not match the...
Well, let's hope that when they come out with the new class book with more synergized classes like the Magus they don't have a Summoner whose Eidolon can shoot Slumber Hexes from his double-barrel pistols.
*starts writing Bullet Witch class*

*the clattering of broken mechanics causes your Pen/Pencil/electronic device to break from sonic damage*

(Like a sundered weapons cord *Giggle*)


neferphras wrote:
Eeek Scary. Two weapon fighting with bombs was not something i had thought of before. I am wondering if that is legal. There is a rule out there that you can not use the same ability twice in the same round. Not sure if that applies to SUs. Maybe with rapid bomb this would work but i can think of worse ways and even with that ... nothing like what the gunslinger can do.

Two-weapon fighting with bombs IS legal and rapid shot too, as long as you have fast bombs to back it up.


David Higaki wrote:
*starts writing Bullet Witch class*

It's already possible, although quite expensive, to pull off Slumber Bullets in the current system.

-Matt doesn't like guns in Golarion or Slumber Hex, but he has kicked this around before.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
trollbill wrote:
Having written and edited adventures for both LG & LFR, I have found the adding more monsters scaling option to be a simple one, but one also fraught with potential problems. Adding more of the same when you are scaling for party size rather than party level seems logical, but even that has problems. One particular problem I have seen is when you add additional creatures with AoEs. When the entire party goes from taking 20 points of damage in a round from AoEs, to taking 40 points of damage from AoEs, then that extra guy you brought along doesn't really balance that out.

This is why it would be nice to see, in Pathfinder 2nd Edition, a fundamental change to the CR system such that a monster's Challenge Rating becomes a "one-on-one" value, instead of the "one-on-party" that it is now. That way, the game would be able to handle parties of various sizes, because the CR system would no longer assume a four-man party.

Just a thought.

-Matt

Scarab Sages

trollbill wrote:
Matthew Trent wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Matthew Trent wrote:
trollbill wrote:
It spoils the fun for DMs by making them feel like they can't provide a challenge to the players.
Providing a challenge is not the job of the GM and should not be tied to their fun.
For most players, challenge IS part of the fun. Though how much challenge is needed to keep the game enjoyable will vary from player to player.
I can't speak to most players (as apparently you can). I only ever speak for myself (and my friends when I know opinion).

I am speaking from nearly 40 years of D&D experience having played with 100s of different people. In all that time I have never run into a player who thinks that having zero challenge (at least with any regularity) in a combat situation is enjoyable. Given that, I do not find my statements presumptuous any more than I would find stating "most people do not enjoy being thrown off of cliffs" presumptuous.

A nearly textbook example of the appeal to accomplishment logical fallacy and combining it with a nice red herring. Good try though.

trollbill wrote:
As to why all this matters to the DMs? Well, part of their enjoyment comes from the enjoyment they give at the table and the knowledge of having done a good job. Supplying appropriate challenge levels in combat is a part of that, though definitely not the only part.

I'll assume that I failed to quote a proof by verbosity. There sure didn't seem to be anything about your core assertion that GM fun is tied to player challenge.

The section I actually quoted has a few issues though. You state that GMs enjoyment of the game comes from the players. This is fair enough. Though again you get caught up on thinking that supplying the challenge levels is something GM can and should do in PFS. Here we strongly diverge. I assert that the challenge levels are determined in two places. First by the scenario writers and secondly by the players. I contend that the GM has no place in that equation and should not especially in PFS.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll respectfully disagree with you Matthew as far as providing challenge goes. As a GM, I see it as part of my job to tailor the game to the players I have. I will never make it a cakewalk, but if my players enjoy being challenged I can give it to them, and if they want to be scared I can play harder. If it's four brand new players at my table, I should definitely be able to lower the difficulty of the scenario to make sure they have a good time.

I do this not by changing any of the numbers, but my making tactical or untactical choices. Sometimes Power Attack is often a great idea, but maybe not against someone who has never played and didn't know to avoid the flank. Against the experienced players, following the tactics of 'uses its spell-like abilities', I'll probably use the harsh ones to their maximum effect. Against some new players using level 7 pregens, I might work my way up to them.

5/5

9 people marked this as a favorite.
David Higaki wrote:
*starts writing Bullet Witch class*

Bullet Witch archetype--a light parody of what it would be like to give Pistolero-like advantages to a witch rather than a true witch/gunslinger blend (other than the first ability).

Bullet Witch:
Gun familiar (Su): Instead of a familiar, a Bullet Witch forms an Arcane Bond with a doubled-barreled pistol. Bullet witches often give the pistol a fanciful name like Vera. This ability replaces the familiar class feature.

Double-Barreled Hexes (Su): Starting at 3rd level, the Bullet Witch has learned from double-barreled guns that taking a -4 penalty to something that you always succeed at is worth getting twice as many actions. This mystic knowledge allows the bullet witch to take a -4 penalty to all caster level checks to overcome spell resistance when using hexes in exchange for being able to cast two hexes as a standard action. If the Bullet Witch also has a pre-errata weapon cord, this becomes three hexes, although it also uses the witch's swift action. This ability replaces the Bullet Witch's player's ability to look the GM in the eyes.

Hex Training (Ex): Starting at 5th level, the Bullet Witch has learned from the gunslinger's ability to use Dexterity for nearly everything and can now use Intelligence for one of the following of the Bullet Witch's choice--instead of Dexterity to determine AC, touch AC, and CMD, instead of Constitution to determine hit points per level, instead of Charisma for all Charisma-based skills, or instead of Constitution, Dexterity, and Wisdom for saving throws. At 9th, 13th, and 17th levels, the Bullet Witch can choose one more of these substitutions. This ability replaces the Bullet Witch's player's ability to go on the messageboards without being dogpiled.

Signature Spell (Sp): At 11th level, the Bullet Witch learns from the gunslinger's ability to unleash powerful abilities such as Up Close an Deadly at-will with no cost and gains the ability to choose any spell that the Bullet Witch can currently cast to become an at-will Spell-like Ability. This ability replaces the Bullet Witch's player's ability to sleep soundly, particularly if the Bullet Witch retrains the Signature Spell into one with a particularly expensive component cost.

No More Misfired Hexes (Su): At 13th level, the Bullet Witch learns from the pistolero and musket master's ability to completely ignore misfires, the single most important balancing factor for their entire class, on which the entire system of cartridge and gun selection depends. The Bullet Witch's hexes now no longer offer saving throws. This ability replaces the Bullet Witch's player's remaining friends.


I would say you have to name the gun "The Emperor".

Or, named like a Southern Belle, such as Mirabelle

Grand Lodge

Mark Seifter wrote:

Bullet Witch archetype--a light parody of what it would be like to give Pistolero-like advantages to a witch rather than a true witch/gunslinger blend (other than the first ability).

Never has so much satire and rules critique combined as one. Bravo good sir.

Dark Archive

trollbill wrote:
neferphras wrote:
Never have i heard a better case for the idea that gunslingers are, innately, broken. I know thats not what he was trying to get across but that is true. Even the over powered Zen archer could not match the...
Well, let's hope that when they come out with the new class book with more synergized classes like the Magus they don't have a Summoner whose Eidolon can shoot Slumber Hexes from his double-barrel pistols.

... You mean they don't already?

PS. If summoners, magi and gunslingers are any indication, there's a bunch of people looking at "Bullet Witch" right now like: "Dang, that's the most fair and balanced archetype I've ever seen! Clearly this should included in the next update. I think we should give it to both the Witch and the Gunslinger. However, they need to add the ability to use slumber hex as a free action regardless of what hexes you choose."

Dark Archive

Mark Seifter wrote:
David Higaki wrote:
*starts writing Bullet Witch class*

Bullet Witch archetype--a light parody of what it would be like to give Pistolero-like advantages to a witch rather than a true witch/gunslinger blend (other than the first ability).

** spoiler omitted **...

I like the class a lot, but is it compatible with the scarred witch doctor archetype? I really think that making the bullet witch constitution-based would be best.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

Please take the discussion of custom created classes to the appropriate forum.

Scarab Sages

Adam Mogyorodi wrote:
I do this not by changing any of the numbers, but my making tactical or untactical choices. Sometimes Power Attack is often a great idea, but maybe not against someone who has never played and didn't know to avoid the flank. Against the experienced players, following the tactics of 'uses its spell-like abilities', I'll probably use the harsh ones to their maximum effect. Against some new players using level 7 pregens, I might work my way up to them.

This doesn't surprise me. Nor do I ever intend to play at a table you run.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Matthew Trent wrote:
This doesn't surprise me. Nor do I ever intend to play at a table you run.

Why not? If you're the experienced kind, he'd throw full-bore challenges at you all the time. Not need to work up to it. So you'd get exactly what you want, right?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Matthew Trent wrote:
Adam Mogyorodi wrote:
I do this not by changing any of the numbers, but my making tactical or untactical choices. Sometimes Power Attack is often a great idea, but maybe not against someone who has never played and didn't know to avoid the flank. Against the experienced players, following the tactics of 'uses its spell-like abilities', I'll probably use the harsh ones to their maximum effect. Against some new players using level 7 pregens, I might work my way up to them.
This doesn't surprise me. Nor do I ever intend to play at a table you run.

This is an interesting attitude since I would say that the best of the best GMs use the same tactics that Adam describes


Andrew Christian wrote:
Matthew Trent wrote:
Adam Mogyorodi wrote:
I do this not by changing any of the numbers, but my making tactical or untactical choices. Sometimes Power Attack is often a great idea, but maybe not against someone who has never played and didn't know to avoid the flank. Against the experienced players, following the tactics of 'uses its spell-like abilities', I'll probably use the harsh ones to their maximum effect. Against some new players using level 7 pregens, I might work my way up to them.
This doesn't surprise me. Nor do I ever intend to play at a table you run.
This is an interesting attitude since I would say that the best of the best GMs use the same tactics that Adam describes

I always love the, "I'm never playing at your table" talk.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Better stay away from conventions then. You never know who you'll run into!


If someone wants to have absolute control over who is their GM (or just the GM style), then why are they playing Pathfinder Society? The whole point of PFS is to have a world-wide community of players all playing the same thing that allows everyone to go anywhere and play with anybody and have a great time.

The Exchange

I'm never playing at Kyle Baird's table again.

/Until I have another opportunity to play at Kyle Baird's table.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West aka JohnF

Joseph Caubo wrote:
I'm never playing at Kyle Baird's table again.

Well, certainly not with the same character ...

Dark Archive

Methinks this thread may have finally run its course. With the recent (wise) changes to weapon cords, the gunslingers will have to resort to one of the more expensive avenues of making their class do things it probably wasn't originally supposed to. Overall, I have to say that the change was a good one. The weapon cord is still functional, as you can readily retrieve weapons without difficulty. We just won't be having gunslingers spend a handful of silver for game breaking DPR anymore.

Sure, it will stop people from recovering a weapon and full attacking in that same round, but I really don't see that as being anything even remotely resembling an issue. You lose one round of full attacking. Oh teh noes.

Dark Archive

Next Gen Con I can make, I'm tracking down the list of Kyle's scenarios so I can lose a character to him.

Who do I pass bribes to, incidentally?

Dark Archive

Adam Mogyorodi wrote:

Next Gen Con I can make, I'm tracking down the list of Kyle's scenarios so I can lose a character to him.

Who do I pass bribes to, incidentally?

.... I am accepting bribes at this time. I have no authority in anything at all around here, but I'd love to take your bribes. Large quantities of deer meat are also an accepted form of currency with me.

Shadow Lodge

Matthew Trent wrote:
Adam Mogyorodi wrote:
I do this not by changing any of the numbers, but my making tactical or untactical choices. Sometimes Power Attack is often a great idea, but maybe not against someone who has never played and didn't know to avoid the flank. Against the experienced players, following the tactics of 'uses its spell-like abilities', I'll probably use the harsh ones to their maximum effect. Against some new players using level 7 pregens, I might work my way up to them.
This doesn't surprise me. Nor do I ever intend to play at a table you run.

Am I to understand that you would refuse to play at a table where difficulty was adjusted to the player's level? Please do feel free to demonstrate your protest by removing your person.


Adam Mogyorodi wrote:

Next Gen Con I can make, I'm tracking down the list of Kyle's scenarios so I can lose a character to him.

Who do I pass bribes to, incidentally?

I almost always post my Gen Con schedule here on the boards. I'll probably be running #5-08 the entire convention though. I love having zero prep.

5/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
Adam Mogyorodi wrote:

Next Gen Con I can make, I'm tracking down the list of Kyle's scenarios so I can lose a character to him.

Who do I pass bribes to, incidentally?

I almost always post my Gen Con schedule here on the boards. I'll probably be running #5-08 the entire convention though. I love having zero prep.

Nooooooo! Not the poor fresh-faced newbies!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TeaMinion wrote:
Am I to understand that you would refuse to play at a table where difficulty was adjusted to the player's level?

To be fair, I actually like variance in difficulty. One of the things that makes RPGs fun for me is that some encounters make my party look like a gods while others make us look like commoners. Both of those situations can occur in the same scenario in PFS. If every encounter was adjusted for *my* playing ability, it'd get boring pretty fast.

That said, I agree with Mergy and attempt to do almost the exact same thing when I GM. I leave advanced tactics at home for newbies or if I can tell the table isn't interested in being beaten to a pulp. If I can tell the table is looking to be tested, I'll bust out every advantage I can. FWIW, this usually involves a lot of readied actions (including 5-ft steps), well timed CMBs, delaying to the same initiative for intelligent NPCs, etc. If it's a less than intelligent monster, I try to put myself in mind of the creature (not a far stretch), and focus on its motivations for attacking the PCs in the first place.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
I almost always post my Gen Con schedule here on the boards. I'll probably be running #5-08 the entire convention though. I love having zero prep.
Nooooooo! Not the poor fresh-faced newbies!

I'll learn 'em good!


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Kyle if I ever get a chance to play at your table I want you to test my system mastery as much as you can within he limits of the scenario.

Spoiler:
now to find the easiest pfs scenario


So, People want to ban Firearms and gunslingers beecause they dont like that they do to much damage? What about things like Zen Archers? Or Paladin Archers? They seem to be Over powered quite a bit. Why not ban those?
Let people play their powder and bullets class. Let them have their fun

Dark Archive

hotsauceman wrote:

So, People want to ban Firearms and gunslingers beecause they dont like that they do to much damage? What about things like Zen Archers? Or Paladin Archers? They seem to be Over powered quite a bit. Why not ban those?

Let people play their powder and bullets class. Let them have their fun

Neither of those things even come close to the jank represented by gunslingers at the moment. I believe that is the issue people have. I won't go into a tirade against the gunslinger's class mechanics in this thread, but I will suggest this if you haven't already: Go back and read the first few pages of the thread. You will see people describing the gunslinger jank. It should be sufficient elaboration as to the point of view being represented.


I may be missing some thing here. but i do not see what this issue with weapon cords is. its listed as doing the following
Weapon cords are 2-foot-long leather straps that attach your weapon to your wrist. If you drop your weapon or are disarmed, you can recover it as a move action*, and it never moves any further away from you than an adjacent square. However, you cannot switch to a different weapon without first untying the cord (a full-round action) or cutting it (a move action or an attack, hardness 0, 1 hp). Unlike a locked gauntlet, you can still use a hand with a weapon cord, though a dangling weapon may interfere with finer actions.
so what is the big deal? if a gun user has a cord tied to his gun or a fighter uses it on his long/great sword etc he can be disarmed but you weapon does not go flying far away you still either have to untie ( full-round action) or cut the cord (move action) to draw a new weapon or use a move to pull the weapon back in to your hand. your still disarmed until the start of your turn.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/55/55/5 Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

This is a pretty old thread, Falcon Wolf. I think people have adjusted to weapon cords and moved on. They're still legal, but no one anymore really cares.

Hmm

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

The description you quoted is also the errata'd version. They used to be a swift action to use, which essentially allowed for

Swift Action => Weapon Cord
Full-round Action => Full Attack

Now they're more balanced with what you pay for.

(but yes, please check the dates of posts you're replying to; older threads have probably had discussions since that provide missing context)

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/55/55/5 Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Heh, this thread predates my time in PFS. I wasn't aware that it was once a swift action! That makes them cooler (and in need of that nerf.) Thanks for the history lesson, Nefreet!

Hmm

PS I don't mind seeing these old threads once in a while. This one reminded me of so many awesome people who were around when I first started PFS. Not that the folks now aren't awesome... Just that some of the folks who have gone off to do other things are missed.


yeah i have been a round a while my self but i rarely have had a need to look up in the forums and as i was flipping around and saw that and was like umm what? lol sorry

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/55/55/5 Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

No worries. We were glad to help. Stick around, and join the conversations!

Hmm

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I remember a video clip of one of the designers playing with a wired mouse to scientifically determine that it was clearly at least a move action to retrieve something with a weapon cord.

451 to 500 of 507 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Just ban weapon cords, for pity's sake All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.