GMing Demonic NPCs

[N N 959]

Kyle Baird wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

Kyle Baird wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

One of these days I'll get around to building a PC with a DPR schtick...

...maybe.

So boring...

Roll a bunch of dice, watch NPC die, cheer.

Well, if that were a universal sentiment, then MMORPG's wouldn't have millions of subscribers.

And at what point was that claim made?

Kyle, the difference is that you are a five star GM and now an author of PFS. When you make subjective judgments and voice opinions on what is fun and what is not, it's going to influence other players.

With power comes responsibility. Whether you like it or not, you and other highly decorated posters are viewed as unofficial representatives for PFS, whether you intend to be or not. Like David, I interpret a ton of your posts as an attempt on your part to influence and dictate what PFS is suppose to be based on what is best for you, not on what is necessarily best for the game.

[Chris Mortika]

N N 959, I'll revisit a previous conversation and note that we have very different understandings of what it means to be "a jerk". A GM who is doing his best to role-play NPCs as he thinks they ought to be played, doesn't qualify in my book, even if the NPC he's role-playing at the moment hates the PC passionately.

To me, being a jerk of a GM involves a certain degree of deliberate malice towards the players. Nobody here is advocating that.

[N N 959]

Chris Mortika wrote:

But a creature doesn't have to be real in order to be well-defined or consistent. In fact, fictional characters typically have to be more consistent.

When it comes to fiction, anything can be rationalized. The authors of PFS can justify any demon behavior they want. And as I said in the post above, there are an infinite number of ways you can RP a demon that don't involve destroying expensive gear.

I'll even suggest that at least in the lower levels, I've not seen a single encounter call for the sundering or destruction of PC gear. It's certainly an option for a PFS author to put a disarming swashbuckler on a ship and have them toss the PC's weapon into the water isn't it? Have you sever seen that called for in the tactics of any tiers 1-7?

[N N 959]

Chris Mortika wrote:

N N 959, I'll revisit a previous conversation and note that we have very different understandings of what it means to be "a jerk". A GM who is doing his best to role-play NPCs as he thinks they ought to be played, doesn't qualify in my book, even if the NPC he's role-playing at the moment hates the PC passionately.

To me, being a jerk of a GM involves a certain degree of deliberate malice towards the players. Nobody here is advocating that.

It's been well documented that PC's can act within the bounds of their fluff and still be considered a jerk. Saying this is how my NPC acts doesn't absolve you of your behavior as a GM.

[David Bowles]

Chris Mortika wrote:

N N 959, I'll revisit a previous conversation and note that we have very different understandings of what it means to be "a jerk". A GM who is doing his best to role-play NPCs as he thinks they ought to be played, doesn't qualify in my book, even if the NPC he's role-playing at the moment hates the PC passionately.

To me, being a jerk of a GM involves a certain degree of deliberate malice towards the players. Nobody here is advocating that.

we have very different understandings of what it means to be "a jerk"

This is why the "don't be a jerk" rule is a non-rule.

I might also add that your version of "being a jerk" shields players who use "that's what my character would do!" as a reason for being a jerk at the table as well. It's just that now you're hiding behind "it's what my NPC would do!"

The fact that we are having this discussion makes me much more sympathetic toward the people who want to one-shot every encounter. Leaves less opportunity for this kind of "interpretation" to occur.

"To me, being a jerk of a GM involves a certain degree of deliberate malice towards the players. Nobody here is advocating that."

Sometimes some of the four and five star GMs that post on here really make me wonder.

[WalterGM]

I think we might all benefit from taking a step back from this thread and taking a deep breath.

The one thing we can all agree on is that we want what's best for PFS. Lets use that as a common ground to discuss and share our opinions.

Snide remarks do nothing but clutter the issues we are trying to explore.

[Chris Mortika]

Don't look at me as "a five-star GM", but rather as somebody who's trying to figure out how to help the campaign along. I started this thread in the GM Discussion forums because I am looking for advice from peers. If, as you and N N 959 suggest, I have to post with some Paizo-given authority, then I need to stop posting.

--

Let's talk about jerk behavior for a second, because it's relevant.

Case in point: This past weekend, I was running "Siege of the Diamond City".

Spoiler:

The PCs found young Miss Deckland on the streets. At the behest of telepathic voices, one of the PCs was planning to do something fool-hearty, which would have loosed a new evil on the world and which would have killed her almost immediately. The player understood that this was a stupid decision to make, but she explained that her PC didn't have the kind of knowledge skills that would have allowed her to make a more informed decision.

That would have hurt the party -- one fewer PC -- and the room -- one fewer success.

Does that sound like a jerk move to you?

--

Players following through with bad choices because they honestly believe that their PCs would make them is one thing. People just being abusive and using "it's what my character would do" as an excuse, is another.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the former, and no patience for the latter.

[Jiggy]

Chris Mortika wrote:

Players following through with bad choices because they honestly believe that their PCs would make them is one thing. People just being abusive and using "it's what my character would do" as an excuse, is another.

I imagine that David and NN feel the same about NPC behavior, and simply categorize gear destruction as the latter rather than the former. So perhaps the question that we should all be discussing is how to determine which side of the line a given action is on.

[Akerlof]

I think excessively punishing tactics should be reserved for tactics as written. There's precedent for doing so (No coup de graces unless written into tactics, and, I can't find a link, but I seem to remember hearing or reading about a GM who KO'd the party and took their stuff instead of killing them them getting told to give it back.) Also, PFS being an open campaign, we've got to focus on entertaining the median and lower gamers, not just the peple who spend their days on the forums and play 2-3 games a week. You're proposing tactics that would do things like take the most valuable piece of equipment from a PC played by the guy who's currently asking the forums how to deal with 7-11 scenarios and is contemplating quitting, then dropping it in a volcano then telling him there is absolutely no way to get it back. If it's a special or a year end capstone that comes with a disclaimer that all bets are off? Go for it. If it's just your average every day game night? That's simply cruel.

I'd stay away from excessively punishing tactics (unless they're RAW or in a specially identified scenario) for these reasons:

1.) There is precedent (linked above in regards to coup de grace at least) to not use excessive tactics unless written into a monster's tactics.

2.) The tactic currently being discussed (permanently stealing an item) asymmetrically affects the classes who are least able to recover from it: All talk has been about taking weapons. The characters who invest a significant proportion of their wealth in their weapons a.) need those weapons to be effective, b.) also need to invest heavily in defensive equipment and c.) _also_ need to invest heavily in general utility equipment. Taking a fighter's sword may represent taking 10% of his character's wealth while taking a lesser Quicken rod from a Wizard might represent 20% of that character's wealth. But the rod is something that the Wizard will use 3 times a day, is something that she can do without, and she can cover for a lot of consumables and defenses with spells. The sword is something that the fighter uses every round of combat, the fighter has to keep their armor and other magic slots up to snuff in order to survive, and the fighter has to buy consumables rather than cast spells to deal with special circumstances.

3.) Our audience is just as often the person who currently has a post up wondering what to do now that his characters have hit level 7. Taking away the best magic item from a PC run by someone with two characters at level 12+ and at least one at every level from 1-9 is completely different than taking the best item from a person who's just getting up to the high level game, has been beaten around by scenarios, players, and GMs, and is seriously contemplating whether or not to stay with the game. We should keep the latter in mind when we're GMing games.

[Kyle Baird]

It really is amusing to take a step back and think, "wow, a Pathfinder field operative would rather have their head severed from their body (coup de grace) than lose their +3 longsword."

[N N 959]

Chris Mortika wrote:

If, as you and N N 959 suggest, I have to post with some Paizo-given authority, then I need to stop posting.

I think you have misinterpreted my post to Kyle.

Quote:

Does that sound like a jerk move to you?

The context in which Mike talks about this rule suggests that if the player knows this action would harm the rest of the party and chooses to do it anyway, then it could certainly qualify as violating the social contract.

The entire point of the rule is to supersede socially destructive behavior regardless of its rationale. If a player/GM can skirt the rule by arguing the behavior is justified per the genre, then the rule has no power.

I don't care how stupid your PC is, if you as, a player, knowingly decide to destroy the world and kill everyone else's PC, you are being a jerk per the PFS Field Guide.

[N N 959]

Kyle Baird wrote:

It really is amusing to take a step back and think, "wow, a Pathfinder field operative would rather have their head severed from their body (coup de grace) than lose their +3 longsword."

Straw man argument and completely false dichotomy.

[Finlanderboy]

David a while back we had a dicusion on power building in PFS. Reasons like this. If you have a power house character you can always pull back if things are going good for your team. Although if you encounter a situation that is unpleasant you can unleash the big guns to stop it.

I have had horrible garbage DMs that cheat and use the fact I am ignorant of the scenario to change things. Although if you go over the top it is much harder for them to keep this cheating up.

Now with Demon's targeting your team's gear. Well eat my super bow fighter's crazy damage as I now decide to use rapid shot and many shot with my boots of haste, or my double barreled gunslinger with 14 shots. Now you take a great deal of control from a GM and your table sees you as a hero VS the jerk hogging the action.

[Jiggy]

Kyle Baird wrote:

It really is amusing to take a step back and think, "wow, a Pathfinder field operative would rather have their head severed from their body (coup de grace) than lose their +3 longsword."

I think this demonstrates the point that although the player would rather have his PC die than lose the sword, the character would feel the opposite. That makes a big difference in how an NPC would go about causing suffering to the character.

Doing something to make the character suffer without making the player suffer (at least, not beyond their emotional investment in said character) is good roleplaying. Doing something that the character doesn't care too much about but that causes the player agony is metagaming.

[David Bowles]

Kyle Baird wrote:

It really is amusing to take a step back and think, "wow, a Pathfinder field operative would rather have their head severed from their body (coup de grace) than lose their +3 longsword."

I blame the reward system in PFS for this anomaly. Give me back item creation and I'll take the gear loss every day of the week. But as it stands now, cash money is the most precious commodity in PFS, not prestige. Maybe if there was elite gear only available with prestige, that would change things. I don't blame players for being logical.

[David Bowles]

Finlanderboy wrote:

David a while back we had a dicusion on power building in PFS. Reasons like this. If you have a power house character you can always pull back if things are going good for your team. Although if you encounter a situation that is unpleasant you can unleash the big guns to stop it.

I have had horrible garbage DMs that cheat and use the fact I am ignorant of the scenario to change things. Although if you go over the top it is much harder for them to keep this cheating up.

Now with Demon's targeting your team's gear. Well eat my super bow fighter's crazy damage as I now decide to use rapid shot and many shot with my boots of haste, or my double barreled gunslinger with 14 shots. Now you take a great deal of control from a GM and your table sees you as a hero VS the jerk hogging the action.

Well, new data = modification of hypothesis, right? And as I said above, I'm suddenly a lot more sympathetic to the "one-shot everything" crowd.

[Finlanderboy]

You can always hold back.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

N N 959 wrote:

Kyle Baird wrote:

It really is amusing to take a step back and think, "wow, a Pathfinder field operative would rather have their head severed from their body (coup de grace) than lose their +3 longsword."

Straw man argument and completely false dichotomy.

I hate this style of argument. Its a cop out so as to not deal with the point he's made (even if he's done so sarcastically or with humor/irony)

I wish people would stop using "that's a fallacy" arguments. Incredibly annoying.

To the point.

I see where Chris is coming from. He's not necessarily advocating destroying items willy nilly (or but rarely). But of course that one little phrase in his original post has everyone jumping down his throat instead of discussing the issue at hand.

What would a demon do if...

Now I would likely not go after equipment except in particular circumstances where it makes sense. If that gunslinger is shooting me over and over and it really hurts, I'm going to grab his gun and chew on it. If somehow the gunslinger gets his gun back, I'm going to take it again, and put it somewhere where he can't hurt me with it anymore. If that causes misery in the character, all the better. Why? Because I'm a fricken demon.

So while I appreciate your arguments from a polar opposite side of things, you are definitely hyperbolizing what Chris is suggesting to argue your own point.

I also agree with Jiggy. There are very few and specific circumstances where I can see a Demon specifically going after gear vs. some sort of physical, mental, or spiritual anguish on the character.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

To reiterate:

While I agree that item stealing, destruction, and general throwing-of into volcanoes should be on the table when dealing with demons, a GM must consider the game they are running for before making that choice for the demon. If the circumstances scream for it and make good RP sense for a demon to do so, then sure, go for it. But in most cases, I would advise a GM to make a different (and possibly meta-gamey)choice.

Why? Because in PFS, there is no way to recover that lost wealth. And I feel a GM should keep that in mind when making choices for their NPCs.

Its why a GM cannot have a group of Aspis steal the PCs gear so the survive. Because there is no way to recover that wealth. In a home campaign, a GM can either mitigate future adventures difficulty based on lost gear (or write in new gear into a future adventure). In PFS, a GM doesn't have that luxury, so the character is then essentially SOL.

I firmly believe that we need to balance realistic (read realistic as good RP tactics for the type of creature it is--I am aware if the irony of using the word realistic when discussing how a Demon would act) tactics with the paradigm of the wealth system in PFS.

[Jiggy]

Now the really cool demon tactic is for the glabrezu to take the paladin's epic sword and then two-hand-Cleave the party with it while the paladin watches in horror. >:D

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Jiggy wrote:

Now the really cool demon tactic is for the glabrezu to take the paladin's epic sword and then two-hand-Cleave the party with it while the paladin watches in horror. >:D

Kinda what I was thinking. Rather than waste type teleporting about just to drop a weapon into lava (which really generates no horror from the character--except for the fact that now they don't know where their weapon is or if they will ever get it back), they take that weapon, stab it through the wizard and break it off in his chest.

Use that Holy Vorpal Blade to lop the head off the Paladin's mount.

[John Compton]

Jiggy wrote:

Now the really cool demon tactic is for the glabrezu to take the paladin's epic sword and then two-hand-Cleave the party with it while the paladin watches in horror. >:D

Paladin player: You know the holy property means he takes a negative level, right?

Glabrezu (scream-chanting aloud): What was that, paladin? *decapitates party wizard* I couldn't hear you over the carnage!

[Avatar-1]

Chris Mortika wrote:

If your character's buddy falls wounded in combat against a demon, then it's up to your PC, not the GM, to save his life.

In the example I gave, my character was out of the way, the bad guy surrounded by the rest of the entire party in melee. When the demon came up to me, provoking from everybody, and I wasn't able to escape, I was taken from full hit points to negatives, a party member even came to stabilise me, and then while I was still helpless, I was taken from negatives to death. Then death to undeath, forcing a resurrection I couldn't afford (and I could afford a raise).

The keyword throughout this is helpless - from start to finish. It was so brutal - just like a demon - that there was no chance the PC could save her own life, and not even with the help of the party.

Do you really think there should be no limits?

Chris Mortika wrote:

Then stay away from demons. Play other seasons. I'm sorry the dice didn't go your way, but the GM played the opposition exactly right in that case.

And do you really think it's good for PFS to recommend that players who don't like that kind of brutality should not play an entire season of PFS?

[talbanus]

Speaking of power-building - I stole some lyrics, modified them, and re-assembled them in honor of my power gaming brethren. If you know which song I stole the lyrics from, you'll likely have a smile even if you may not agree with the underlying sentiment.

Here comes the rationalizations again
Falling on my head like last week's gameday
Falling on my head like a thundering earth breaker

I want to walk in the 1337 crowd
I want to talk like hyper-optimizers do
I want to tell you about my build
Is that OK with you

So baby talk to me
Like powergamers do
Walk with me
Like powergamers do
Talk to me
Like powergamers do

Here come the rationalizations again
Raining in my head like a fallacy
Tearing me apart like a demon's coup de gras
Oooooh
I want to breathe in the stale sweat
I want to kiss those delicous exploits
I want to tell you about my build
Is that OK with you

So baby talk to me
Like powergamers do

Here come the rationalizations again
Falling on my head like last week's gameday
Falling on my head like an earth breaker
(Here it comes again, here it comes again)
I want to walk in the 1337 crowd
I want to talk like hyper-optimizers do
I want to tell you about my build
Is that OK with you

[Finlanderboy]

Avatar-1 wrote:

stuff

I understand your point that you are upset your character was removed from play due to certain tactics.

But at the same time. That is an EPIC story you have. I would be estatic if that was my character's last adventure.

Died defending the diamond city to a monsterous horror and was brought back as an undead.

Granted that is me and I just want epic tales for my characters.

I see the level you play as the degree of epicness. You are very powerful at this level your enemies and circumstances should be too.

I do not think you should be upset about the season and avoid that, but avoid high level play because that is the threats these things bring.

I am not sure if you get a save with being raised to undead. I think you would.

[Avatar-1]

There wasn't any glory nor fun in being killed quite that helplessly.

[Finlanderboy]

Avatar-1 wrote:

There wasn't any glory nor fun in being killed quite that helplessly.

In understand your point, but disagree completely.

You were not helpless when you stepped out onto the battllefield. Your actions put your character at risk.

There were infite things you could have done on that battlefield you chose X, you built a character that could not take those hits, you were playing a high level adventure agaisnt a chaotic evil creature. Those added up to what happened to you.

Possible solutions depending your team. You could have told them to trip with their AoOs. You could have buffed your self to take/avoid the hits.

Honestly you gamble when you play and take risks. Thats why there are dice. You have a chance to mitigate those risks with proper strategy. Thats whY I say smart play beats smart builds. I think Chris mortika and kyle baird. Both with insane amoutns of expereience would agree with me.

I am sorry you felt helpless, but you put yourself at that risk.

Excluding cheating GMs death is always some PCs fault if you look back far enough. Maybe not always yours, but someone caused something or tookt he wrong risk.

[talbanus]

Finlanderboy wrote:

Avatar-1 wrote:

There wasn't any glory nor fun in being killed quite that helplessly.

In understand your point, but disagree completely.

You were not helpless when you stepped out onto the battllefield. Your actions put your character at risk.

There were infite things you could have done on that battlefield you chose X, you built a character that could not take those hits, you were playing a high level adventure agaisnt a chaotic evil creature. Those added up to what happened to you.

Possible solutions depending your team. You could have told them to trip with their AoOs. You could have buffed your self to take/avoid the hits.

Honestly you gamble when you play and take risks. Thats why there are dice. You have a chance to mitigate those risks with proper strategy. Thats whY I say smart play beats smart builds. I think Chris mortika and kyle baird. Both with insane amoutns of expereience would agree with me.

I am sorry you felt helpless, but you put yourself at that risk.

Excluding cheating GMs death is always some PCs fault if you look back far enough. Maybe not always yours, but someone caused something or tookt he wrong risk.

Or sometimes the dice are against you.

Also, it sounded like by doing what you did (this to the O.P now), you likely prevented other character's deaths? A Pathfinder sacrificing themself to save other Pathfinders did not die in vain.

[Avatar-1]

Finlanderboy wrote:

You were not helpless when you stepped out onto the battllefield. Your actions put your character at risk.

(other pre-battle suggestions to fix this)

You (usually) can't choose what builds your party members have in PFS - tripping provokes. You can't prepare to the level you're talking about. We were in the right setup for our party's grouping as best as we could be.

There's a bit of talk of the dice not going my way - exactly what happened was two rounds of trying to hex (ice tomb) the demon had failed and then the third (misfortune) succeeded, and that was made it angry - my one and only successful roll.

It's fair to say that I could've set myself to take more hits - I actually did buy a belt of con before it, but that wasn't enough. I was perfectly fine with being taken from full hit points to negatives - this to me was the demon being "brutal enough". Message received, by the whole party - it was a big move.

It was what came afterwards that really bothered me - the "be as brutal as a real demon would be" that justifies making sure a player's character stays deader than dead.

This hyper-brutality is what it comes down to. Some people think that's fair game, and that's fine, but others don't see it that way. High level play isn't an excuse - should people who don't like that level of brutality stop playing PFS when they reach level 6?

Ensuring players are having fun in the game should always trump pushing the limits and turning them off the game.

[Finlanderboy]

I agree to a point, but does this mean you should softball games at high levels?

I would say heck no! If someone comes to my high level table with a DM that will not softball. Well that character is a liability to my character.

Should they build high level mods that are generally eaiser? I say ease depends on the DM. So this is not so much a good option either.

What is one person's fun is not anothers. I am ready to accept any of my characters to die at any time. Infact you can ask the furious kender. When he was Dming for me I had to be convinced to use my shirt reroll to save my characters life. I was all about letting my character die, but other people at the table were scared we would be short a person and they might fail or die too.

Granted that is me and the game I like to play, but as I see it high level is a high stakes game. Should they remove disinigrate from the monsters as well?

I am honestly envious about your game and what happened. My jaw dropped at the extremity of it. Those are the great stories you can retell.

[N N 959]

Andrew Christian wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Kyle Baird wrote:

It really is amusing to take a step back and think, "wow, a Pathfinder field operative would rather have their head severed from their body (coup de grace) than lose their +3 longsword."

Straw man argument and completely false dichotomy.

I hate this style of argument. Its a cop out so as to not deal with the point he's made (even if he's done so sarcastically or with humor/irony)

Or perhaps the "cop-out" is pretending people are arguing something they are not so you can avoid the real issue? Or maybe the "cop-out" is to falsely attribute a value to someone that is not at all supported by the discussion?

This discussion is not about people choosing their gear over their PC's life. Asserting as such is disingenuous.

[Netopalis]

Avatar - I'm of three minds regading your story.

In the first count, you were playing Tier 10-11 in the Special. Specials at high tiers are generally harder than other scenarios, to make them, well, special. Additionally, that's exactly how Glabrezu use their wish ability - it was very good on the GM. Very flavorful.

In the second count, I am surprised that your character couldn't afford a Resurrection at Tier 10-11. The Special at Tier 10-11 pays out 7,667. Resurrection costs 10,910. A level 10 character that can't afford 3,243 for a raise is shocking to me. Even more shocking was that your table didn't pitch in to help.

However, in the third count, I think you also raise some good points. There should always be some sort of an answer available, and it feels especially disheartening to lose a character unrecoverably without an opportunity to respond. Especially at low and mid tier, we need to be mindful of the fact that character death, especially unrecoverable character death, can be devastating. It's not fair to make everybody go uber-hard on low-level PCs just because a select group of people thinks that anything less is not challenging. Demons need to feel ruthless, but they may not necessarily need to take such hardball tactics to seem so.

[Avatar-1]

Possibly not a permadeath:

Sorry, I'm stretching it by saying permadeath because while I don't have the prestige to resurrect, I wasn't sure about the gold because the character needed a gold audit to work it out. It was a special, so no expense was spared. I don't think we got full gold because of the early death, but I can't remember for sure - the whole thing really rattled me.

The party did offer to pitch in, but the table TPK'd in the encounter following it (there was 3 of them left and the special doesn't include scaling for 4 players), so they had their own deaths to pay for as well.

I appreciate that specials are tougher-than-usual, but I've seen the same ruthless tactics before used with other bad guys in regular scenarios that aren't demons for the same "but that's what they'd do" excuse in PFS, when I could see other options for the bad guy were pretty clear, even if "realistically" not what they'd do.

So by the earlier reasoning of "don't play scenarios with demons in them", if you can even tell what scenarios have demons in them, you're effectively saying "don't play scenarios with combat in them". It doesn't work. We can't tell softcore players that.

The argument, on both sides I suppose, is that it's unreasonable to play that way - either too forgiving or too unforgiving. I don't think there's a perfect answer here (although a secondary hard mode in waking rune was a step in the right direction, I think) - it's up to GMs to get an idea of their table and adapt to it.

[David Bowles]

Avatar, unfortunately, some of the demon written tactics are "attack PC until they are *dead* and then move on."

[Avatar-1]

That moves the issue from the GM onto development (which is better, but still an issue).

I mentioned earlier that if the tactics say to do that kind of thing, as a GM, I'd still be obliged to follow it, but I wouldn't like it, and if I felt they were particularly harsh, I'd steer clear of running that scenario.

[David Bowles]

Movement and engagement is very tricky with demons, or really any monster with potent full attacks. The Glabrezu is kind of a break point to me in demon lethality. I've seen and heard of several PCs dying to this particular critter.

[Netopalis]

Well, people dying to demons is hardly anything new.

The Sarkorian Prophecy:

I ran this for a table of 7 at a con this past weekend. Killed one PC outright with a glabrezu. This scenario is no joke. The tactics state that the demon freezes somebody with Power Word Stun, then full attacks them.

[Dave Setty]

Netopalis wrote:

In the second count, I am surprised that your character couldn't afford a Resurrection at Tier 10-11. The Special at Tier 10-11 pays out 7,667. Resurrection costs 10,910. A level 10 character that can't afford 3,243 for a raise is shocking to me. Even more shocking was that your table didn't pitch in to help.

You can't purchase 7th-level spells as spellcasting services. (Nor buy scrolls of them unless you're 13th level.) Prestige is the only way to get Resurrection.

[Netopalis]

Dave Setty wrote:

Netopalis wrote:

In the second count, I am surprised that your character couldn't afford a Resurrection at Tier 10-11. The Special at Tier 10-11 pays out 7,667. Resurrection costs 10,910. A level 10 character that can't afford 3,243 for a raise is shocking to me. Even more shocking was that your table didn't pitch in to help.

You can't purchase 7th-level spells as spellcasting services. (Nor buy scrolls of them unless you're 13th level.) Prestige is the only way to get Resurrection.

I'm not sure if the campaign staff is aware of or intends this.

[Avatar-1]

It's in table 5-2 on p23 of the PFS guide, so it must be an exception.

[Netopalis]

Avatar-1 wrote:

It's in table 5-2 on p23 of the PFS guide, so it must be an exception.

Right, that's where I got the cost from.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

N N 959 wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Kyle Baird wrote:

It really is amusing to take a step back and think, "wow, a Pathfinder field operative would rather have their head severed from their body (coup de grace) than lose their +3 longsword."

Straw man argument and completely false dichotomy.

I hate this style of argument. Its a cop out so as to not deal with the point he's made (even if he's done so sarcastically or with humor/irony)

Or perhaps the "cop-out" is pretending people are arguing something they are not so you can avoid the real issue? Or maybe the "cop-out" is to falsely attribute a value to someone that is not at all supported by the discussion?

This discussion is not about people choosing their gear over their PC's life. Asserting as such is disingenuous.

Then argue your point or ignore what they said. But its incredibly annoying to keep seeing folks use the fallacy argument. Its become so overused now, that it is today's thread ender much like yesterday's "you're hitler" comment.

Argue the point not the way he argues. The irony of that statement is not lost on me.

[David Bowles]

Logical fallacies are useful tools in discussions I think. I'm not sure how classical fallacies can be "overused". Pointing out fallacies is not an argument in an of itself, but it serves as a critique of why an opposing view is not valid. Part of the point of being knowledgeable about such fallacies is that it can be a waste of time trying to argue with someone that put forth reasonable assertions.

[Jiggy]

Or it did, before messageboards got a hold of the idea.

[Kyle Baird]

Andrew Christian wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Kyle Baird wrote:

It really is amusing to take a step back and think, "wow, a Pathfinder field operative would rather have their head severed from their body (coup de grace) than lose their +3 longsword."

Straw man argument and completely false dichotomy.

I hate this style of argument. Its a cop out so as to not deal with the point he's made (even if he's done so sarcastically or with humor/irony)

Or perhaps the "cop-out" is pretending people are arguing something they are not so you can avoid the real issue? Or maybe the "cop-out" is to falsely attribute a value to someone that is not at all supported by the discussion?

This discussion is not about people choosing their gear over their PC's life. Asserting as such is disingenuous.

Then argue your point or ignore what they said. But its incredibly annoying to keep seeing folks use the fallacy argument. Its become so overused now, that it is today's thread ender much like yesterday's "you're hitler" comment.

Argue the point not the way he argues. The irony of that statement is not lost on me.

What's worse is that I wasn't making an argument, I was making a statement. One, I might add, that David picked up on and correctly pointed out that it's (mostly) a byproduct of the rules system. Take your "I win the internet" attitude elsewhere.

[David Bowles]

Indeed. Not only does home brew have item creation, I can also go take a replacement +3 weapon away from an NPC potentially. Cost: 0 gp. This is impossible in PFS. It's incredible that the ressurection spell service is cheaper than a +3 weapon. That summarizes the situation here.

[Chris Mortika]

Continuing the digression for a moment: If someone's argument is weak, it oftentimes helpful to explain why. For example, "When you argue against polearm-wielding owlbears, you're asserting that Mark and John agree with you, because they haven't come on the boards to assert otherwise. This is generally recognized as an error in reasoning, arguing from the absence of evidence rather than the existence of evidence. Usually, this is called 'arguing from silence'"

Simply citing the name of a fallacy isn't helpful though. It's a little more sophisticated than calling someone "a dummy."

--

Getting back on track: Several types of demons have telepathy. Can the recipient of a telepathic message tell where it's coming from, or is it more like a phone call without caller ID?

[Kyle Baird]

N N 959 wrote:

Kyle, the difference is that you are a five star GM and now an author of PFS. When you make subjective judgments and voice opinions on what is fun and what is not, it's going to influence other players.

With power comes responsibility. Whether you like it or not, you and other highly decorated posters are viewed as unofficial representatives for PFS, whether you intend to be or not. Like David, I interpret a ton of your posts as an attempt on your part to influence and dictate what PFS is suppose to be based on what is best for you, not on what is necessarily best for the game.

So stop doing this? I'm not forcing you or anyone to take my opinion for more than what it is, one person's opinion. If you want to place more weight on it, go ahead, but don't try to vilify me because you don't agree with my position.

[Kyle Baird]

N N 959 wrote:

Kyle Baird wrote:

Lormyr wrote:

ruthless mode

I'd love to play at your table for ruthless mode, if only to learn new techniques for collecting tears. Kill my character all you want, but how do you plan on making me, the player, cry? :-)

Kyle, glad you posted this. I think it underscores the point I was making earlier and illustrates the disconnect with GM and even players who have sat through hundreds of games versus the weekend warrior and relatively new player which most likely represents the lifeblood of the company. The prospect of your character dying seems to have no effect on your heart rate, but the idea someone might be able to reach beyond the character at get at you seems to pique your interest.

Grant it, maybe you are still able to empathize with that person who just got his first PC to third level, but I wager you have to make an effort to do so.

And I'll also respond to you and others who seems to want to trivialize the loss of equipment into simple modifiers. An 18k sword represents the time and effort a person has put into the game and as sense of value to the person's character. It may be some item that speaks to the identify of the character. It is not uncommon for warriors to put a lot of their identity into their weapons/items/gizmos.

For a GM to decide arbitrarily to extinguish that effort and eliminate PC wealth because they think they are RPing demons in a way that makes the game more fun, shows a gross lack of perspective on why we are all here. There are an infinite nubmer of ways to RP demons to make them cruel and get under the skin of the player. None of them need involve destroying a substantial portion of that PC's sentimental and functional value.

In a house game, I wouldn't care because the GM is going to re-balance the game unwittingly. In PFS, it's a jerk move, plain and simple. The rules of not being a jerk apply to GMs as well as players.

Re: bolded text. No one. I repeat.. NO ONE is abdicating that Demon's use arbitrarily use this tactic. Chris asked what the limits of a Demon's Chaotic and Evil nature should include. Some people have said that it's possible to include destruction of wealth, but no one has said, "DEMONS SHOULD SEEK TO DESTROY YOUR LOOT!" You're arguing against no one at this point.

Lormyr's conversation above has nothing to do with item destruction. It's friendly banter discussing difficult and challenging GM tactics. Why can't it be as simple as that. Why do you need to parse through the words and develop your own subtext?

[Kyle Baird]

Chris Mortika wrote:

Getting back on track: Several types of demons have telepathy. Can the recipient of a telepathic message tell where it's coming from, or is it more like a phone call without caller ID?

I usually say no, unless the source is obvious enough and then may even require a sense motive check.

In a situation that's described as hundreds/thousands of demons sieging a city, any PC within 100-ft. of those demons should be hearing dozens of voices, enough so that it may even cause a mechanical penalty for being distracted (like +5 DC to perception checks).