Acedio wrote: In that case, PMs to campaign management may be the best route. I hope that talking about the rules issues was productive, but there's nothing productive in accusing the GM from being bloodthirsty. AFAICT it was an honest mistake. Jeff Merola wrote: In which case the people involved should contact campaign leadership. What Jeff and Acedio said. Nothing said here will change anything.
Acedio wrote: AFAICT it was an honest mistake. It likely is but once people make a choice they are often invested in being right.
I'd simply contact leadership.
The further up the chain you get the less they care about a single stores issues. I was truly trying to get a consensus of what is normal in other locations or some advice. I thought the boards was a place to get feed back from other players, my bad. Apparently it is just a place for GM's to argue rules.
I personally would never use such a combination. It results in a very lack luster game and causes needless grief.
To be fair this originally started as a discussion about what happened and is it legal, however it evolved into more.
I like the people who ran this game however I disagree with the tactics and the rulings so I posted the experience to see what other peoples thoughts were and hoping to get their experience in a very open and anonymous way. You will even see I don't have a profile filled out so it doesn't show what area.
Now I feel like it has gone the other way (which I am not blameless for) so I apologize for my blood thirst comment and will delete it after this post. (apparently I can't I flagged myself hopefully they will take it down)
However sticking to the tactics I feel that unless you were 100% optimized for that specific encounter you have 0 chance of success. Your to hit is too low with 0 help from any magic Items to deal with a creature with 15 foot reach anti-magic radiating the whole room but the stairs and the ability to pounce and kill anyone less then 100 hit points (minus your con belts/stones). It made it impossible not hard mode which I think goes against the very essence of PFS.
To respond to Bonekeep 3 rules are in affect ( I have only played bonekeep 1 so bonekeep 3 rules means nothing to me so I am assuming it is extremely difficult not un-winnable because that is what Bonekeep 1 & 2 are).
3 of the 6 players at the table are likely to stop playing as it was the last straw.
I feel the adventure spirit was compromised to use limited wish to make an un-winnable fight that destroys your character IE 25k of prep meant nothing the last 32 games means nothing as you have 0 magical items you are all lvl 5 fighters some without full bab.
Rules used to make it viable were edge case at best and only using the most generous (to the GM) interpretation of the rules.
Here is what I fear. Reprisal. I have a feeling I will need to duck away from society for a while because I have a feeling I will not be welcomed. It makes me really said to sink so much into a hobby and have to worry about that but I think it is a fair assumption.
Secondly, if I take it up the chain like most people have said I will cause a person who I like and don't want to cause issues for (the reason for anonymity) will have to deal with it.
Finally, This is a problem that I feel that has to be addressed. I will send it to those needed at VL level and hope that they respond. If I need to I will send it again up the chain because if this becomes common place and a good story for others to tell new GMs they may think it is ok to alter tactics/use edge cases to make the game harder because they want to be in the cool crowd. I know I did until the first kill presented itself. Thankfully I didn't alter tactics and we found away for him not to die.
Anyway this ends up. Thanks for the games.
I'm surprised no one asked about this before but did you guys talk to the GM about this before posting here?
Muja wrote: I'm surprised no one asked about this before but did you guys talk to the GM about this before posting here? Most of the things we couldn't know till after the game was over but things came up during the game and after the game and we were told it was how it was suppose to be run. After reflection and research I found that it was uniquely hard for us. So I posted the experience and here we are.
Velsa-IronRage wrote: Muja wrote: I'm surprised no one asked about this before but did you guys talk to the GM about this before posting here? Most of the things we couldn't know till after the game was over but things came up during the game and after the game and we were told it was how it was suppose to be run. After reflection and research I found that it was uniquely hard for us. So I posted the experience and here we are. That sounds like a no.
Well I didn't read it before the game and I posted here originally to get a take on the experience others had with the game. I think it was impossible and if someone said well I had the same thing and we were able to get through it and that is a common tactic I was going to drop it. However after some responses I have sent a email to those who are involved to correct the issue. It is hard for us peons to argue with a pair of 5 star and 4 star GM at the game. I don't have everything memorized and need to do research and get a consensus.
Stars are great for denoting campaign participation and experience in providing an enriching gaming experience. They are not an indication of authority or rules mastery. Some people who don't have a lot of stars have a lot of experience with the rules and know it better than people who have a lot of stars. Some times people who do have a high rules mastery make mistakes.
Everybody needs to do research to do any kind of consensus. It's just that typically the GM is more knowledgeable about what goes on in the game because they had to prepare to run it, and are privy to some behind the scenes mechanics that you might not have been shown.
You should feel free to question things that seem odd or overpowered. But don't nitpick at things unnecessarily. Try to pick your battles. This seems like it was a good thing to question.
Sorry I didn't mean to sound accusing. It is sad to see players leave society. To be honest I can rather relate. At the very first game at the first convention I went to my partner and I were both 1 shot. We had a party of level 1s and and the GM put us in high tier. 27 damage in 1 hit was more than enough to kill my sorcerer. My partner was done and wanted to leave the con. I kind of had to put my foot down because I wasn't about to waste the money we spent lol. Low and behold I have now been playing society for 5 seasons!
I'm sorry you had an unpleasant game. But we all have good games and bad games. Just try to let it go. I'm sure there aren't many other games that are as hard as this scenario. Best wishes :D
I know it sucks at level 1 ti be insta-killed. However this was designed to be impossible by the GM not the adventure. By using the spell the way it was used (which looks like it was illegal in this case or atleast used in a way that interprets the rules in a very 1 sided way. It is a cr 20 creature that negates all spells and magic items and supress all buffs in a way you can't get out and based on my experience had retained all ac and feats including fast healing 10 which made it impossible. For all groups except those who have specifically built for it. Secondly the way it was done if RAW means that any time you see limited wish you should expect a cr 20 simacrum with just a little less hd.
Finally the difficulty level of this fight is wildly different then everyone else's experience. It is like playing WOW and doing a 5 man dungeon where one group gets the dungeon boss and the other group gets the 25 man raid last boss. How fustrated would you be if you were the second group?
I'm not sure how everyone else went through it so there, but I've seen TPKs in the first 20 minutes of games at the most recent gencon. But that is a seperate issue.
As for the RAW part I don't know of other parts where the GM is given limited wish and are told to use it to the best of their ability. It seems that that is the issue, not the GM. The stronger the player the harsher the tactics, RAW. That seems to me to be a fault Paizo's fault for having a fight have huge difficulty parameters.
And as a raider I know what you mean there. I became a leader for my guild's second group and kept having group 1 steal any competent player making progression extremely difficult. But, as I was saying before, I just had to let it go. I could have quit but I wanted those epics.
Muja wrote: As for the RAW part I don't know of other parts where the GM is given limited wish and are told to use it to the best of their ability. It seems that that is the issue, not the GM. The stronger the player the harsher the tactics, RAW. That seems to me to be a fault Paizo's fault for having a fight have huge difficulty parameters. My real problem is that by RAW we have to do anything (Even on normal mode low tier) to make the limited wish as deadly as possible, merely knowing about this requires us to by run as written rules simulacrum the most deadly monster we can think of which should result in a 100% TPK rate. Simulacrum luckily isn't a legal use of the spell or whenever I'd run it I'd have to do something like a demilich or something absurd from the CR 20+ Category.
Quote: I know it sucks at level 1 ti be insta-killed. I've had this happen twice. Statistically by your 40-50th character at least one will die at level 1 completely out of your control.
Muja wrote: I'm not sure how everyone else went through it so there, but I've seen TPKs in the first 20 minutes of games at the most recent gencon. But that is a seperate issue.
As for the RAW part I don't know of other parts where the GM is given limited wish and are told to use it to the best of their ability. It seems that that is the issue, not the GM. The stronger the player the harsher the tactics, RAW. That seems to me to be a fault Paizo's fault for having a fight have huge difficulty parameters.
And as a raider I know what you mean there. I became a leader for my guild's second group and kept having group 1 steal any competent player making progression extremely difficult. But, as I was saying before, I just had to let it go. I could have quit but I wanted those epics.
I raided for 6 years in WoW and my example isn't you have incompetence or lower skilled players... this is literally +9 levels above you in PF. So a better example is if you were leveling and played a boss 30 levels above you and when you wipe you lose all your money and all your gear turns grey.
That is the experience when you allow this spell with limited wish.
Thankfully the spells says non-sorcerer/wizard spell for level 5... this is on the wizard/sorcerer spell list at level 7...
Their interpretation is the spell is on the summoners list at level 5 (a 3/4 caster) so they can use it because it is on the summoner list.
If you want to see how cheesy that gets and really get to see that it wasn't the intent then look at what level those casters get access to those spells... The summoner gets it at level 13 and they have to spend 12 hours casting the spell and they have to spend 12000g.
A wizard gets it at level 13 and they have to spend 12 hours casting the spell and they have to spend 12000g.
However Limited wish is a lvl 6 spell (one level lower then the actual spell so why take the lvl 7 one?) it is a standard action (less then 12 hours) and they are wiping the cost because it is a spell like ability.
Not Reasonable.
Planar Allying in 2 12 HD creatures... reasonable.
Casting Anti-magic field on the group and then casting dream cloak staying just outside the field. Reasonable.
Summoning a creature with a normal CR of 20 that negates all your abilities and has reach of 15 and fast healing and has an antimagic field that covers the whole room. Unreasonable.
To be honest if it is allowed then you might as well simucrum a demilich and eat the first persons soul unless they can make a 39 for save.
I see your 6 years raise you three more. Your examples are really weak. You're saying it isn't incompetent/unskilled players but it then you tell me that you lost all your gear and money. That would mean you went into the scenario spending all your resources knowing you had a high chance to die (based off the warning you were given. Did you not have the PA or money to get ressed? If not then it sounds like, as you said, incompetence.
As for cheesyness I think there are enough threads without a response saying cheese isn't allowed to make it illegal. I really wish there would just be a ruling so as to resolve this before it strikes again.
At Undone - If it is legal I'd say we are lucky most people don't know about the combo. I've never heard of the monster before this thread.
Muja wrote: I see your 6 years raise you three more. Your examples are really weak. You're saying it isn't incompetent/unskilled players but it then you tell me that you lost all your gear and money. That would mean you went into the scenario spending all your resources knowing you had a high chance to die (based off the warning you were given. Did you not have the PA or money to get ressed? If not then it sounds like, as you said, incompetence.
As for cheesyness I think there are enough threads without a response saying cheese isn't allowed to make it illegal. I really wish there would just be a ruling so as to resolve this before it strikes again.
At Undone - If it is legal I'd say we are lucky most people don't know about the combo. I've never heard of the monster before this thread.
No we lost all of our money and prestige recovering and you just like wow don't get through Hard Mode raids without Consumables. 25k were spent between 6 players for consumables for this adventure and then I spent my prestige rezzing another after. However, it was illegal by all accounts that I can see except for the most slanted arguments. Also the table consisted of 2 4 star GMs 3 two star GMs and a player with over 100 games to her name. we have played plenty of hard games including the original bonekeep to completion with 0 deaths no one affected by the bad thing and more then 50 mins left. It had nothing to do with skill level it had to do with a thing that should never have happened.
Again if this is the case since Limited wish is in the 7-8 as well then they should all die to what we faced because the tactics say the same thing. If you like you can visit our area and bring a team and I will run the same combat for you as they ran it. We lasted 15 rounds.
So you got your gear back. So your gear didn't turn into to grays.
The tactics say to run the monster to the best of her ability, which is dependent on the GM. I wouldn't be opposed to try the fight out, but it wouldn't be very fair since I now know about the monster, hehe.
QUick side note, MAN! What did 13k go into?! I know you did that summon, but what about the rest of the money?
Really the 12k was for the payment the scroll cost money too + channel the gift (used 21 charges) all the lesser restos for blood money short charge wands for the 2 improved familiars (about 3k in those) just that is
13k for scroll + payment for deva
4.7k 21 charges of a lvl 3 wand
3k in short charge wands
3k for planeshift and teleport scrolls
there is 23k of it... the rest are potions of long buffs that aren't level dependant (IE darkvision for those who are human or elf kind)
Our buffs filled a 5x7 note card.
I need to take notes for my Eyes table.
Velsa-IronRage wrote: Really the 12k was for the payment the scroll cost money too + channel the gift (used 21 charges) all the lesser restos for blood money short charge wands for the 2 improved familiars (about 3k in those) just that is
13k for scroll + payment for deva
4.7k 21 charges of a lvl 3 wand
3k in short charge wands
3k for planeshift and teleport scrolls
there is 23k of it... the rest are potions of long buffs that aren't level dependant (IE darkvision for those who are human or elf kind)
Our buffs filled a 5x7 note card.
It sounds like you're implying you cast planar ally...
Planar ally is not negated by antimagic field. Calling magic actually brings the creature to you. It is not summoning. The creature is actually here.
Even if he could simulacrum said creature (He can't) The called creature stays.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
I played and ran this one. When I ran it the party walked through it. I'll admit this may be a result of me just not knowing how to handle some of the high level abilities. This is how it turned out:
In all my time running games I've only killed two players. The first was during The Wardstone Patrol, he got a rez because of a boon he was given by another player. The second was during The Confirmation
Personally, I don't like killing players. When a killing blow is landed, I stop the combat to review the steps that lead up to it. I recently had this happen when running Eyes of the Ten Part 2
Undone wrote: It sounds like you're implying you cast planar ally...
Planar ally is not negated by antimagic field. Calling magic actually brings the creature to you. It is not summoning. The creature is actually here.
Even if he could simulacrum said creature (He can't) The called creature stays.
We did get a planar ally. It was not negated by the AMF.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
I don't remember the details, but it was pure cheese. It was legal too. The life oracle in the group was being played by our local Venture Captain.
I would guess Litany of Righteousness was in there somewhere, but the target has to be evil.
I am in agreement that it should not have been an option. It is a 7th level spell and so no Limited Wishing it. Now lets say I am wrong and it is determined that it is a legal option. I think the surprise round has spelled out tactics "starts with displacement". Argument- was noticed and so alters tactics. So, now unto crazy. Where do you put a 20x20x20 creature in that room? It would have to squeeze to even fit, but to create it- dont think so.
Now, how was it restated?
The Bandersnatch tactic is legal. Here was the ruling after sending the complaint up the chain.
The first part of the complaint:
The nature of the first part of the complaint submitted by Jon centers around the use of a spell like ability of limited wish to cast the simulacrum spell to get a simulacrum of a magicbane bandersnatch.
There is a question around the specific use of limited wish to emulate a spell that is both on the sorcerer/wizard list as well as one a separate spell list.
One interpretation concludes that if a spell exists on the sorcerer/wizard list and is a higher level than limited wish can handle that this spell is not a valid spell for limited wish even if it appears on a separate spell list other than the sorcerer or wizard list.
A key test question for the Paizo developers that would clarify this issue would be “Can limited wish be used to cast the plane shift spell from the cleric spell list?” Plane shift is a 7th level sorcerer/wizard spell and a 5th level cleric spell.
Conclusions on the first part of the complaint:
The conclusion reached at the table by the GM that simulacrum from the summoner spell list was a viable spell for limited wish spell like ability to duplicate is reasonable based on an interpretation of the rules.
After looking at what happened with this table I have come to the conclusion that even if different tactics were used that the table would have reached the same conclusions (PCs being forced to retreat). Giving a genius level incredibly old and very knowledgeable opponent with a limited wish spell like ability to a GM with very high degrees of system mastery would result in significantly more of a challenge to any table (regardless of PC composition) than if that same scenario was run by less experienced GM. This is a case where the more you know about how the system works as a GM the more options you have in your toolbox and the greater the challenge you can bring to bear at a table.
Another more deadly option would have been use to limited wish to cast soften earth (a 2nd level spell) and stone on the room which was “carved out of stone” to collapse the entire room around the PCs putting them all in a bury zone of a cave-in. With Kurshu’s intelligence score of 31 she could target this spell so as to not include herself in the collapse.
The second area of complaint:
Kurshu would not have the knowledge of a magicbane bandersnatch.
Conclusions on the second area of complaint:
The knowledge arcana check to know about a CR19 creature would be at maximum a DC 34. This is well within Kurshu’s take 10 which gives her 38 (1 higher on hard mode).
The third are of complaint:
The tactics as written were not followed as they state if she is not detected that she casts the displacement spell first.
Conclusions on the third area of complaint:
The combination of
the players request for an ‘extremely challenging game’
with their PC’s actions of having called in a planar ally
the movanic deva is identifiable by Kurshu who would know that the angel
a. has darkvision and would prevent her hiding
b. can cast dispel magic at will
c. can cast an antimagic field once per day
would be things that I would consider sufficient to “invalidate the tactics as written”.
Kurshu is specifically listed as being “flexible in her tactics and uses her mobility, spells, and abilities to best effect”. Combining this tactical flexibility with the force multiplier of advanced system mastery would result in an extreme challenge to any group with a GM that was sufficiently prepared. Casting displacement would have been a wasted action that would be expected to be rapidly countered resulting in no benefit.
Final Conclusions:
There were minor mistakes that were made in the execution of the game (charge lanes interrupted by terrain was one example) . This is something that I would expect at any table and even more so in higher level play.
In all the accounts of this game that I gathered there was no trace of malice on the part of the GM. The players specifically requested as challenge and a challenge was provided to them. All PCs/familiars were brought back to life by the end of the game.
All players were made aware of the seriousness of the challenge before the game began and 4 out of 6 of the player had either played or judged this game previously.
Recommendation for this session:
This is a situation where there was:
· An absence of malice on the part of the GM
· A specific request from the players at the table for an extremely challenging game
· A very in depth warning and confirmation process that this was what the table wanted
· An advanced tactical response from a highly skilled GM seeking to give her players what they specifically asked for
After gathering feedback from as many of the people present at this game as was possible, reviewing the information that they provided, my recommendation no action be taken and that the results of the game stand as reported
So by rules I have to do it. Lovely. That means I can never GM that adventure again. Or perhaps I should schedule the adventure for a bunch of slots at gencon or cons and kill 100% of groups that play it. Especially the low tier players.
Undone wrote: So by rules I have to do it. Lovely. What?
Steven Schopmeyer wrote: Undone wrote: So by rules I have to do it. Lovely. What? It used to her best ability specifically in the text that she uses her mobility, spells, and abilities to best effect. This is by far the best effect for her so why wouldn't she do this every time if she knows it exists. If you didn't get the same tactic I argue you were softballed.
Velsa-IronRage wrote: If you didn't get the same tactic I argue you were softballed. This tactic relies on her tactics being invalidated, giving the GM free reign to do so.
Therefore, I fail to see how Undone is mandated to do so by the rules.
There is also the fact that GM discretion does not mean 'take the most optimal option every time'.
TOZ wrote: Velsa-IronRage wrote: If you didn't get the same tactic I argue you were softballed. This tactic relies on her tactics being invalidated, giving the GM free reign to do so.
Therefore, I fail to see how Undone is mandated to do so by the rules.
There is also the fact that GM discretion does not mean 'take the most optimal option every time'. Please give me a scenario where this tactic is not the optimal.
Secondly, if you have a couple casters I can say displacement is null because displacement has little to no effect. They are going to use spells on me Incoming bandersnatch!
Finally if you don't use the optimal tactic you are now soft balling your table because you are giving them an easier experience then RAW. If it didn't say to her best ability then you are right... However it is states " uses her mobility, spells, and abilities to best effect"
Anything less is softballing.
Velsa-IronRage wrote: Please give me a scenario where this tactic is not the optimal. Why? I never said it wasn't.
GM discretion allows softballing. Hence why I do not understand Undone claiming the rules require him to use your tactic.
Velsa-IronRage wrote: Please give me a scenario where this tactic is not the optimal. Well, since you asked.
I would say it is not optimal in a scenario where the GM wishes to avoid a response like this.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
TOZ wrote: Velsa-IronRage wrote: Please give me a scenario where this tactic is not the optimal. Why? I never said it wasn't.
GM discretion allows softballing. Hence why I do not understand Undone claiming the rules require him to use your tactic. It isn't my tactic first off I think it is BS and should be illegal if it isn't and should get FAQ'd out.
Secondly, All tables should be run as close to the same as possible to give people the same level of challenge. If you softball a group who succeeds easily and the other tables TPKs because they were run RAW then is it fair to the 2nd table? how about the first who won but didn't get any challenge? So the best answer is to Run As Written. In this case it says uses spells to their best effect.
If you don't you ran it wrong.
Velsa-IronRage wrote: If you don't you ran it wrong. Run As Written is the rule, but to say that the rules force you to run this scenario using the tactics you have outlined in every game is wrong and against the spirit of the rules. If every table were meant to be run the same, then scenarios would have round by round tactics written into them.
TOZ wrote: Velsa-IronRage wrote: If you don't you ran it wrong. Run As Written is the rule, but to say that the rules force you to run this scenario using the tactics you have outlined in every game is wrong and against the spirit of the rules. If every table were meant to be run the same, then scenarios would have round by round tactics written into them. It also ignores the fact that not everyone believes the tactic to be legal and in the absence of an actual clear FAQ different GM's can and will rule differently.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote: Velsa-IronRage wrote: Please give me a scenario where this tactic is not the optimal. Well, since you asked.
I would say it is not optimal in a scenario where the GM wishes to avoid a response like this. Fair play.
I think that no matter how challenging the players want the game (barring them asking to kill you) if you devise a strategy that eliminates all their abilities and makes it impossible (not hard impossible) and then not expect pissed off players then you are delusional.
Finally I think that if this is the legal tactic and I saw that someone else went through this process and got this result I wouldn't question it at that point. So now it is optimal because anyone else that goes through this complaint process is just whining.
andreww wrote: TOZ wrote: Velsa-IronRage wrote: If you don't you ran it wrong. Run As Written is the rule, but to say that the rules force you to run this scenario using the tactics you have outlined in every game is wrong and against the spirit of the rules. If every table were meant to be run the same, then scenarios would have round by round tactics written into them. It also ignores the fact that not everyone believes the tactic to be legal and in the absence of an actual clear FAQ different GM's can and will rule differently. Except you have a ruling by a PFS representative. Unless it is FAQ'd then it is legal and shouldn't be part of the argument.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Velsa-IronRage wrote: Finally I think that if this is the legal tactic and I saw that someone else went through this process and got this result I wouldn't question it at that point. So now it is optimal because anyone else that goes through this complaint process is just whining. Even if it is a legal tactic, it is just that. A legal tactic. Not the legal tactic.
I personally will never even consider using it when I finally get to run The Waking Rune. It won't be fun for me, it won't be fun for my players, and THAT is what i GM for.
To see my players having fun.
andreww wrote: TOZ wrote: Velsa-IronRage wrote: If you don't you ran it wrong. Run As Written is the rule, but to say that the rules force you to run this scenario using the tactics you have outlined in every game is wrong and against the spirit of the rules. If every table were meant to be run the same, then scenarios would have round by round tactics written into them. It also ignores the fact that not everyone believes the tactic to be legal and in the absence of an actual clear FAQ different GM's can and will rule differently. Or the fact that Krune and his minions probably don't read these forums.
TOZ wrote: Velsa-IronRage wrote: If you don't you ran it wrong. Run As Written is the rule, but to say that the rules force you to run this scenario using the tactics you have outlined in every game is wrong and against the spirit of the rules. If every table were meant to be run the same, then scenarios would have round by round tactics written into them. It is impossible to run round by round tactics because you can't predict your players moves however there are plenty that give you buffing order and when to cast certain spells.
It is in the spirit to run the game as close to the same to give everyone the same experience and challenge if you reduce the difficulty then it isn't fair to those who didn't get that same scenario hence why larger area's have GM 101 where they play the scenario together and go over tactics so they all run it similarly.
If you don't follow the tactics where it says " uses her mobility, spells, and abilities to best effect" then you are running it wrong. We can agree if this is legal it is to the best effect therefore you are softballing your table and running it wrong.
You are the first table I have ever heard of encountering a bandersnatch simulacrum in this scenario.
Were all those other tables (my own play through included) 'run wrong'?
Velsa-IronRage wrote: andreww wrote: TOZ wrote: Velsa-IronRage wrote: If you don't you ran it wrong. Run As Written is the rule, but to say that the rules force you to run this scenario using the tactics you have outlined in every game is wrong and against the spirit of the rules. If every table were meant to be run the same, then scenarios would have round by round tactics written into them. It also ignores the fact that not everyone believes the tactic to be legal and in the absence of an actual clear FAQ different GM's can and will rule differently. Except you have a ruling by a PFS representative. Unless it is FAQ'd then it is legal and shouldn't be part of the argument. No, its not. We have a view of one VO/VC who are far from infallible and are incapable of providing binding views on the rules. They can be and some often are woefully wrong on the rules.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote: You are the first table I have ever heard of encountering a bandersnatch simulacrum in this scenario.
Were all those other tables (my own play through included) 'run wrong'?
I would argue that if they knew of this tactic then yes. Your game and the others were infinitely easier then mine. They didn't " uses her mobility, spells, and abilities to best effect" where my GM did.
I was told my Thornekeep floor 5 table was run wrong because the GM used a different tactic.
I was told that if your table in Bonekeep 3 doesn't get TPK'd then it was run wrong.
How is this any different?
Velsa-IronRage wrote: I was told that if your table in Bonekeep 3 doesn't get TPK'd then it was run wrong.
How is this any different?
This example is absolutely no different than the current situation in that it is patently wrong.
Velsa-IronRage wrote: How is this any different? Because "As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgements, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience."
Was your table a fair experience? Perhaps in the sense that the creature can be argued to have that ability, as evidenced by the final ruling of your complaint.
Was it a fun experience? I daresay no.
"However, if the actions of the PCs before or during an encounter invalidate the provided tactics or starting locations, the GM should consider whether changing these would provide a more enjoyable play experience."
Note that it says "consider". Not "must". Does legalistically following the letter of the Table Variation and simulacrum text provide a 'more enjoyable play experience'? Should we extend this play experience to more tables?
'Run wrong' is a subjective evaluation of a social group interaction. I daresay the only way to run a PFS scenario 'wrong' is to intentionally aim to make it unfun for your players. Be that through actively striving for character death, negating player choices, or any number of bad choices.
Forgetting to use an SLA on a creature does not make your run of a table 'wrong'. Choosing not to take an AoO on a PC does not make your run of a table 'wrong'. Not TPKing the party when you run Bonekeep 3 does not make your run of it 'wrong'.
Jeff Merola wrote: Velsa-IronRage wrote: I was told that if your table in Bonekeep 3 doesn't get TPK'd then it was run wrong.
How is this any different?
This example is absolutely no different than the current situation in that it is patently wrong. These are quotes from my Local GMs. They will tell you to your face you got softballed. Their joke is the only way to win bonekeep 3 is to not play bonekeep 3.
So there you go. This is the embodiment of PFS in my area.
Basically after 30 days of trying to get this resolved my opinion of PFS is that fun is second. Everyone who is a representative of PFS that I have talked to has not been able to show me where it says it is legal or how they justify using the summoner list they just say it is and that this was okay.
So there are 2 choices.
1. this was done in Malice of the players because it is the kobeoshi-maru (sp?) of PFS and the thought was they want a hard game I will just remove all their abilities.
2. This is legal and what the writer intended to have happen. Therefore you are outside of RAW if you give them an easier game.
Velsa-IronRage wrote: 2. This is legal and what the writer intended to have happen. If the writer had intended for it to happen, he would have written it into the tactics.
|
