The Waking Rune on Hard Mode - Wish Us Luck!


Pathfinder Society

151 to 200 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge 5/5 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Northwest aka WalterGM

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
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.

This is really all that needs to be said--it's as simple as all this.

Scenarios aren't a simple equation with one correct solution. There are tons of possible right ways to run a scenario, and that's one of the reasons PFS play is great. You get different GMs who have different styles and different players with different PCs.

No two tables will ever be run identically, but they can both still be run correctly.

Liberty's Edge

TOZ wrote:
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.

and they did " uses her mobility, spells, and abilities to best effect"

Since their is the possibility of get 5 natural flight pouncing barbarians. Then you just use the other tactic and bury them.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Velsa-IronRage wrote:
and they did " uses her mobility, spells, and abilities to best effect"

There is a difference between writing "uses her mobility, spells, and abilities to best effect" and writing "simulacrum up a bandersnatch to murder the party".

Liberty's Edge

Walter Sheppard wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
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.

This is really all that needs to be said--it's as simple as all this.

Scenarios aren't a simple equation with one correct solution. There are tons of possible right ways to run a scenario, and that's one of the reasons PFS play is great. You get different GMs who have different styles and different players with different PCs.

No two tables will ever be run identically, but they can both still be run correctly.

Both those tables should have to over come the same challenges. Solve puzzle A. If you decide to make it easier on Table A but not Table B it is unfair to Table B.

Liberty's Edge

TOZ wrote:
Velsa-IronRage wrote:
and they did " uses her mobility, spells, and abilities to best effect"
There is a difference between writing "uses her mobility, spells, and abilities to best effect" and writing "simulacrum up a bandersnatch to murder the party".

Her objective is to murder the party. So how would a 31 intelligence creature do that if it was aware of this tactic? Since this is the most efficient way to murder the party it " uses her mobility, spells, and abilities to best effect".

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

Velsa-IronRage wrote:
Her objective is to murder the party.

Your objective is to run a fair and fun game. That takes precedence.

There are a myriad of ways to murder the party. You are not restricted from picking a different one.

Velsa-IronRage wrote:
So how would a 31 intelligence creature do that if it was aware of this tactic?

You as the GM are the one who decides if she is aware of this tactic.

Run As Written does not absolve you of taking responsibility for making that choice.

No more than 'it is what my character would do' absolves the player of making a particular choice.

You are allowed to make different choices. You are not a machine.

Liberty's Edge

What I am basically saying is that if this is ok to be reported this way and punish the 6 players including 3 GMs who burned a star to play it how can it be ok to not to run it that way for other players?

How can you say that we deserve the punishment and loss but other tables run with less challenge deserve the rewards?

Liberty's Edge

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Velsa-IronRage wrote:
Her objective is to murder the party.

Your objective is to run a fair and fun game. That takes precedence.

There are a myriad of ways to murder the party. You are not restricted from picking a different one.

Velsa-IronRage wrote:
So how would a 31 intelligence creature do that if it was aware of this tactic?

You as the GM are the one who decides if she is aware of this tactic.

Run As Written does not absolve you of taking responsibility for making that choice.

No more than 'it is what my character would do' absolves the player of making a particular choice.

You are allowed to make different choices. You are not a machine.

And if this stands, you are softballing your players. You made a choice to give them an easier time then the optimal way and as such the GMs here locally will say you ran it wrong.

Here is a quote from the GM who ran the Scenario in response to "Run As Written does not absolve you of taking responsibility for making that choice."

"The scenario author gave a very intelligent creature a limited wish. That may well be problematic scenario design but there is nothing in the rules that prevents it from being used this way."

So there you go it isn't the GMs fault it is problematic scenario design.

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

Velsa-IronRage wrote:
How can you say that we deserve the punishment and loss but other tables run with less challenge deserve the rewards?

I have never said you deserve it. In fact, I specifically said I would never do it to any of my players. Where did you get this idea from?

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Velsa-IronRage wrote:
So there you go it isn't the GMs fault it is problematic scenario design.

So we are blaming the tools rather than the workman?

Liberty's Edge

TOZ wrote:
Velsa-IronRage wrote:
So there you go it isn't the GMs fault it is problematic scenario design.
So we are blaming the tools rather than the workman?

Hey, I just went through 30 days of arguing it is the workman and got told it is the tools. That is the Stance of the local VL. So yes it is the tool for sure!

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

Velsa-IronRage wrote:
That is the Stance of the local VL.

Then why are you arguing with me? I can't overturn your VLs ruling.

Grand Lodge 4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If you feel that strongly, have you escalated the issue to Mike Brock? VOs do sometimes get things wrong, you know.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is actually pretty simple. If you didn't include a dev in this conversation, and a FAQ wasn't produced, then there's no rules guarantee that this tactic is legal. Every rules conversation about it points to the other direction. It is entirely possible that your VO came to the wrong conclusion about the wording. Or not. We don't actually know for sure until a dev issues a FAQ. VOs do not have the authority to make rules clarifications. But like any other GM, they have the ability to make decisions to solve rules ambiguities. So just because your VL thinks this is legal, does not mean it is. Most of the rules topics still say it's not legal.

For now, my keyster is still parked firmly in the camp where this tactic was not legal according to the wording of the rules, and nothing other than a FAQ is going to pry me out.

Additionally, this "tactic" does not ruin the scenario. It is still a very good scenario, it's just that some GMs may have interpretations that make it more difficult than other runs. It's very much the same for every single scenario. If a GM wants to use a tactic that is, well, designed to be nearly impossible to overcome, then that is between them and their player base. A creature's tactics may be for it to try to decimate the party, but people are not playing PFS to lose to impossible situations. The GM needs to have a balanced approach that provides a reasonably challenging game. The ultimate objective is for people to have a good time. This forum thread is evidence that someone forgot that.

Let's also not forget you were running in hard mode.

Hyperbole about the scenario being ruined because now everyone has to follow this tactic is not helpful =\

Lantern Lodge

While I do not see anything strictly wrong in the mechanics of this event, it does touch on some areas that are gray and have been hotly debated before. In no particular order:

1). Using limited wish/wish to duplicate a spell with a longer casting time. Some agree, some don't. It's not strictly spelled out anywhere.

I personally fall into the camp of the casting time of wish being all that matters, as you duplicate the effect of another spell, not cast the other spell.

2). Pretty much anything involving simulacrum, and what elements you retain or lose at half real level or HD.

I personally fall into the camp of the only elements affected are the ones specifically called out: hp, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities. Mostly than means effect ability DC, since access to the vast majority of monster special abilities are not determined by level or HD.

3). Using limited wish/wish to duplicate a spell with different levels based on different class lists.

I personally fall into the camp of if the spell is on a list, any list, you choose the list and level to draw from at your preference.

That said, while I personally see the tactic as rules legal, it's pretty rude in any situation short of the players saying akin to "No no, please Mr. GM, give us the full Monty! We're optimized to hell and back and want the maximum difficulty you can tune this bad boy up too!".

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I guess its legal based on how loose with the wording you want to be. Limited Wish says

A non-sorcerer/wizard spell of 5th or lower.

Despite Simulacrum being on the Summoner's spell list as a 5th level spell, it still is a 7th level Wizard spell.

So I suppose the question is whether you interpret it as "ok, I'm going to cast the summoner simulacrum," or as "yeah simulacrum is still a wizard spell so I can't cast it by routing through the summoner spell list." Not to be rude, but I really think people are introducing ambiguity where there is none by relating it to different, but similar, abilities. SKR made a nice post about why having similar but different rules is bad and confusing, and I think this is a fine example.

I think the way PFS treats scrolls sets a better precedent for how this should be interpreted than "Magical Past Life" (which is what people are using to make this legal). Magical Past Life has different wording, you'll note.

But yeah, the tactic used was certainly an extreme fringe reading that the scenario author could not possibly predict.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Velsa-IronRage wrote:

Here is a quote from the GM who ran the Scenario in response to "Run As Written does not absolve you of taking responsibility for making that choice."

"The scenario author gave a very intelligent creature a limited wish. That may well be problematic scenario design but there is nothing in the rules that prevents it from being used this way."

Responding directly to the GM in question.

"The fact you CAN do something does not mean you SHOULD. You still made the choice to run the scenario that way. The fact that the author left that option available doesn't change the burden of responsibility."

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
Velsa-IronRage wrote:

Here is a quote from the GM who ran the Scenario in response to "Run As Written does not absolve you of taking responsibility for making that choice."

"The scenario author gave a very intelligent creature a limited wish. That may well be problematic scenario design but there is nothing in the rules that prevents it from being used this way."

Responding directly to the GM in question.

"The fact you CAN do something does not mean you SHOULD. You still made the choice to run the scenario that way. The fact that the author left that option available doesn't change the burden of responsibility."

Also if the monster is the one I think it is the author did not give the monster the abilities due to it being a premade monster from another book.

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

Kurshu is a unique creature published only in this scenario unless I am mistaken.

Edit: And I am indeed mistaken!

The Exchange 4/5

My 2 cents again. I think it is illegal, but if Dev's rule it isnt, I dont think I want to GM for any wizards of 13 and above. Using a limited wish to cast a questionable spell is one thing but to use it for AN Already highly debatable spell at that. How was it rebuilt? Can I bring my wizard to your table and do the same? I try to judge by this question, Do I want PC's using this tactic? If no, THan dont use it against them.

The Exchange 4/5

Oh, and still dont think can cast this 0 range spell to create a 20x20x20 creature.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Kurshu is a unique creature published only in this scenario unless I am mistaken.

Edit: And I am indeed mistaken!

Yeah she's from the Shatterd star adventure path Bestiary in the issue which has the god she's a herald of article in it. So basically a monster that was not desighned with PFS in mind at all.

Liberty's Edge

Kevin Mack wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Velsa-IronRage wrote:

Here is a quote from the GM who ran the Scenario in response to "Run As Written does not absolve you of taking responsibility for making that choice."

"The scenario author gave a very intelligent creature a limited wish. That may well be problematic scenario design but there is nothing in the rules that prevents it from being used this way."

Responding directly to the GM in question.

"The fact you CAN do something does not mean you SHOULD. You still made the choice to run the scenario that way. The fact that the author left that option available doesn't change the burden of responsibility."

Also if the monster is the one I think it is the author did not give the monster the abilities due to it being a premade monster from another book.

If it was a demilich it would of been just as bad.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Northwest aka WalterGM

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Velsa-IronRage wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
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.

This is really all that needs to be said--it's as simple as all this.

Scenarios aren't a simple equation with one correct solution. There are tons of possible right ways to run a scenario, and that's one of the reasons PFS play is great. You get different GMs who have different styles and different players with different PCs.

No two tables will ever be run identically, but they can both still be run correctly.

Both those tables should have to over come the same challenges. Solve puzzle A. If you decide to make it easier on Table A but not Table B it is unfair to Table B.

There is more than one solution to Puzzle A though. There are too many variables to have identical combats, especially when there is no specific text laying out what the tactics of this creature are.

Quote:
"Kurshu uses ranged spells to harm intruders, favoring any outsiders with her attacks. If an outsider dies, Kurshu eagerly feeds on its corpse to regain her lost strength. Otherwise she is flexible in her tactics and uses her mobility, spells, and abilities to best effect."

That's a lot different than

Quote:
She casts limited wish to do ______, after that, she casts spell 1... Etc

Her tactics use the line "she is flexible," assuming that GMs are forced to do the same thing each time they run the scenario makes no sense following this description of tactics.

What is considered "best effect" is different depending on the situation--the players, her mood, their arrive, etc etc.

Again, no two tables will ever be run identically, but they can both still be run correctly.

Liberty's Edge

That leaves a vast swath of possibilities that punish good players who end up on the wrong GMs table and rewards less prepared less experience players for ending up on the right GMs table.

You try and run all the games as close to the same as possible so it is fair to all players. If the games says to use the optimal tactic, you should use the optimal tactic. If you don't you are softballing. You are deciding that either A. your players can't handle the challenge B. It isn't a fun tactic and that is more important even in a hard mode game or C. I don't care about fairness.

Being the devil's advocate (as I am the one who complained about this tactic and sending it all the way up to Mike) I am saying that if you allow this tactic and condone the use of edge cases to destroy players because you feel they "had it coming" then it should be used for everyone.

That or you are playing favoritism.

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

Velsa-IronRage wrote:
I am saying that if you allow this tactic and condone the use of edge cases to destroy players because you feel they "had it coming" then it should be used for everyone.

Who is advocating this? Specific examples please.

Liberty's Edge

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Velsa-IronRage wrote:
I am saying that if you allow this tactic and condone the use of edge cases to destroy players because you feel they "had it coming" then it should be used for everyone.
Who is advocating this? Specific examples please.

My VC acting on part of Mike Brock. He says this tactic didn't have malicious intent and recommends that we suffer the consequences of the game.

Apparently the other 5 people at the table decided it was okay because he said they had no problem with the tactic.

Liberty's Edge

Here to quote the last 4 lines

here 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

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

Velsa-IronRage wrote:
Apparently the other 5 people at the table decided it was okay because he said they had no problem with the tactic.

I'm curious why that is if 3 of the 6 players are considering leaving the campaign over it.

Liberty's Edge

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Velsa-IronRage wrote:
Apparently the other 5 people at the table decided it was okay because he said they had no problem with the tactic.
I'm curious why that is if 3 of the 6 players are considering leaving the campaign over it.

that is what they told me after the game. Apparently they changed their minds or I am being bamboozled.

Liberty's Edge

One sat on the couch and my wife talked to him upset, My wife is almost done with PFS all together (she didn't get talked to in the investigation), and one is a GM that hasn't been around and he told me at dinner after the game that he is not sure he wants to really play any more after the experience. But as I said the investigation revealed no malice and no reason to change anything.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Northwest aka WalterGM

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Velsa-IronRage wrote:
That leaves a vast swath of possibilities that punish good players who end up on the wrong GMs table and rewards less prepared less experience players for ending up on the right GMs table.

There is always the chance of sitting at a table and not having a good time. What tactics the GM chooses to use can effect this. This particular scenario is incredibly open ended in what tactics are allowed by the creatures. This gives your GM a multitude of options to use throughout the game.

Think of it like a video game where the boss has over 100 possible attack options, reactive and intelligent decision making, and is being piloted by someone that is the final arbiter on the laws that comprise the game's universe.

That sounds waaaaaay more challenging, interesting, exciting, and fun, than a fight where you just die because rocks fall (or bandersnatches happen).

Velsa-IronRage wrote:
If the games says to use the optimal tactic, you should use the optimal tactic.

You do not get to decide what the optimal tactic is at any table you are sitting at except your own. As I said before, there is just too much variation. It's impossible to make a blanket statement stating that this one tactic that you encountered is superior to all others and we should all move in lock step and follow that tactic. Especially when that decision is up to the table GM and no one else.

Quote:
I don't care about fairness

That is unfortunate, as it is a quality I look for in my GMs. If the person that determines how the mechanics of the game world function is unconcerned as to whether or not the rulings they make are fair, I'm nervous about playing at their table.

--------------------
I think that this entire situation stems from one GM presenting a very difficult table to their players. Whether or not those tactics are legal is something for you rules folks to hash out. But telling all other GMs that run this game on hard mode that they have to use identical tactics is honestly one of the most bizarre things I have ever heard.

It does sound like that game was incredibly challenging; I'll keep some of those options in mind if I run it in the future. But I don't need another GM to hold my hand and tell me how to run a fight. This isn't my first rodeo. The tables I ran of Waking Rune were hard enough for my players, and I hope, provided them with a good time--even the ones that TPK'd.


Question.

If the Limited Wish tactic used is deemed "legal"... (and that's a big 'if')

Is there anything preventing a seeker level player from doing this?

Because if not I don't like the potential effects on game balance. I can foresee it being used and abused as often as some players can get away with it.

It is an arms race I would rather not see happen.

-j

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

Walter Sheppard wrote:
Quote:
I don't care about fairness
That is unfortunate, as it is a quality I look for in my GMs. If the person that determines how the mechanics of the game world function is unconcerned as to whether or not the rulings they make are fair, I'm nervous about playing at their table.

That was not actually a declaration on Velsa's part, Walter.

Velsa-IronRage wrote:

You are deciding that either

A. your players can't handle the challenge
B. It isn't a fun tactic and that is more important even in a hard mode game or
C. I don't care about fairness.


Wasn't the Paizo response based on the premise that the party specifically requested that the scenario be run on "hard?" Did the party in question not walk into the encounter prepped to the gills, including with meta knowledge (I believe the comment was that 4 of the 6 players had run the scenario prior to playing it).

Although I do see some problems with casting Limited Wish to cast Simulcram. By the strict wording of Limited Wish it says it duplicates the spell which would seem to include the 12 hour casting time and the powdered ruby material component neither of which the caster in question has available.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jessex wrote:

Wasn't the Paizo response based on the premise that the party specifically requested that the scenario be run on "hard?" Did the party in question not walk into the encounter prepped to the gills, including with meta knowledge (I believe the comment was that 4 of the 6 players had run the scenario prior to playing it).

Although I do see some problems with casting Limited Wish to cast Simulcram. By the strict wording of Limited Wish it says it duplicates the spell which would seem to include the 12 hour casting time and the powdered ruby material component neither of which the caster in question has available.

We asked for High Level play, we did a blind vote by level and a simple yes/no for hard mode. We all, without discussing, decided high level/hard mode.

We did prepare to the gills, with 4 of us having either played it or run previously. This did include summoning a movanic deva, who remained for the duration of the scenario.

Players did die, but then were brought back with 5 prestige for body recovery and then the application of blood money. The high cost was going into the scenario, not the cost to recover and resurrect people. The GM allowed some pretty cheesy stuff to undo the deaths.

The players were all addressed before the game and the difficulty was discussed. The player who is now posting upset on these boards and his wife even joked multiple times that they expected to die and they "brought characters they really didn't care about".

If Big T would like to discuss this with any of us, he's more than welcome to. So far, the only person I've directly heard from having a problem with this game is you. And the only way I've heard how big an issue is you posting to this thread.

The game I was invited to was, "Waking Rune, Hard Mode". That was how it was phrased when I was invited by the other players, that is how it was presented before we rolled dice and, surprise surprise, that is what we got. We had a crazy buff list. We summoned a deva. We asked for a challenge and we received one.

I'm sorry that you didn't enjoy the game that we requested. We asked exactly for what we got. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to get out of this exercise. You might try sitting down, in person, and talking to the entire group involved to resolve this issue. Just a suggestion.


@Walter

Spoiler:
Acedio wrote:
Hyperbole about the scenario being ruined because now everyone has to follow this tactic is not helpful =\

I just want to point out that if you do follow the rules where she does her best to kill the party with her limited wishes it actually is mandatory. It's not hyperbole. If I know I can kill the party by parking a magicbane bandersnatch on their faces and she knows it in game choosing instead to fireball, black tentacles, or feeblemind is soft balling. The shortest most efficient route to a TPK is her goal. So yes, if you know of this and don't use it this is soft balling.

Quote:
But telling all other GMs that run this game on hard mode that they have to use identical tactics is honestly one of the most bizarre things I have ever heard.

Hard facts are if there is an optimal tactic (and it's really hard to argue this isn't) then choosing not do do so is not running rules as written. By knowing about this you are in fact soft balling if you don't use it. I pride myself on being an arbiter of reality when I GM as such if it's possible for the bad guy to shoot you in the head before you react he should do so. In this case calling in godzilla is far more powerful than anything else she can do. She is supposed to kill them if she can. She CAN KILL THEM so she is supposed to KILL them. This Kills them.

Quote:
Oh, and still dont think can cast this 0 range spell to create a 20x20x20 creature.

Most people don't.

Quote:
Is there anything preventing a seeker level player from doing this?

Yes. The GM will only rule it's illegal from the opposite side of the table.

Quote:
I don't care about fairness.

I do or I wouldn't be involved in this discussion. I prefer to be an arbiter of reality as a GM. "X would do Y in this situation because of Z" is always what I try to do. The long term implications of this being legal are game destroying for seeker tier. If this is legal what's to stop my seeker tier wizard from blood money -> Limited wish -> MB Bandersnatch -> Demilich on a floating disk -> banshee and swarming the adventure without stepping into it?

Quote:
Wasn't the Paizo response based on the premise that the party specifically requested that the scenario be run on "hard?"

The tactic is available on normal mode 7-8 tier. Hard mode is irrelevant to this discussion. The fact that multiple players quit PFS over this is pretty telling that even if not malice it was thoughtlessly/neglectfully malicious.

There are basically two discussions going on here.

1) Is it raw?
I Don't believe so

2) Does this force GM's to run it as written?
It doesn't they can still softball but this is now as written if you know of it.

That's my take on it.

Quote:
I'm sorry that you didn't enjoy the game that we requested. We asked exactly for what we got. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to get out of this exercise. You might try sitting down, in person, and talking to the entire group involved to resolve this issue. Just a suggestion.

Also just as a note I don't care about this specific session. It's of little/no concern to me. What I care about is the broader implications of this. If you can do this so can I, and I will, on both sides of the screen.

5/5

Wraithkin wrote:
The GM allowed some pretty cheesy stuff to undo the deaths.

It honestly sounds like the entire game was a cheese festival.

Shadow Lodge

Undone wrote:
Also just as a note I don't care about this specific session. It's of little/no concern to me. What I care about is the broader implications of this. If you can do this so can I, and I will, on both sides of the screen.

Good news, I wasn't actually at any point addressing you. I'm also not the GM that ran this game.


Wraithkin wrote:
Undone wrote:
Also just as a note I don't care about this specific session. It's of little/no concern to me. What I care about is the broader implications of this. If you can do this so can I, and I will, on both sides of the screen.
Good news, I wasn't actually at any point addressing you. I'm also not the GM that ran this game.

I was following this thread fairly closely earlier I just felt I should clarify that point.

I've no problem with krune

Spoiler:
wishing someone to the sun
permakilling them. I've only got a problem because this is an absurd silly way to die that shouldn't be legal, ever.

3/5 5/5

Undone wrote:
Wraithkin wrote:
Undone wrote:
Also just as a note I don't care about this specific session. It's of little/no concern to me. What I care about is the broader implications of this. If you can do this so can I, and I will, on both sides of the screen.
Good news, I wasn't actually at any point addressing you. I'm also not the GM that ran this game.

I was following this thread fairly closely earlier I just felt I should clarify that point.

I've no problem with krune ** spoiler omitted ** permakilling them. I've only got a problem because this is an absurd silly way to die that shouldn't be legal, ever.

By RAW, would a 5PP body-retrieval service be able to bring the body back to the society from that location? XD

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas aka kinevon

Velsa-IronRage wrote:

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).

Just to reply to this one item, out of the whole list of ... ill-advised ... considerations:

If she did not already know of the creature before the combat started, and, just like PCs, she shouldn't have the metagame knowledge, she cannot Take 10 to gain knowledge of it, she has to take a roll, with the possibility of failing said roll.

In general, I back up several other posters here, that the intent of PFS is for everyone to have fun. Something like this, using several ... questionable ... choices, doesn't sound like it was much fun.

It also, as other posters have commented, opens this same ... questionable ... tactic up for any PFS PC of 13th level or higher to use during the higher level modules and AP segments.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

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've heard of other TPK's in the Kurshu encounter using a different tactic for limited wish.

Liberty's Edge

Wraithkin wrote:


The players were all addressed before the game and the difficulty was discussed. The player who is now posting upset on these boards and his wife even joked multiple times that they expected to die and they "brought characters they really didn't care about".

If Big T would like to discuss this with any of us, he's more than welcome to. So far, the only person I've directly heard from having a problem with this game is you. And the only way I've heard how big an issue is you posting to this thread.

Let me address this for you. I will start with yes we brought our first characters we ever built to this game. Yes we in fact in both letters sent that we don't care if we get a 0 and just want the issue clarified and a FAQ because it was a horrid experience for more then just me and I don't think that anyone should be subject to this kind of game. I will argue till I am blue in the face that is illegal because it is not a non-wizard/sorcerer spell. It is on that list and therefore a Wizard Sorcerer spell. If there is a FAQ then I will stop.

The things I cared about is the 36 prestige Sean lost and the fact he is going to be hard pressed to play this character any retirement Arcs because of all the resources lost. The stars burned by Ian, Tony, and Sean some of them doing nothing but sit on the couch for 4 hours because he got pounced in round 1. The feeling of 100% helplessness because you are fighting a CR 20 creature with only a little less HP... ignore the high ac, DC on sicken, chance to hit, high grapple, and a variant that removes the abilities of every player in the game. No one should have to go through that and after a lot research I can not see how you can say casting Simulacrum is legal.

I played bonekeep with Chris and he made it hard. We made it through and worked our way through it... and it was fun. I played Waking Rune with this GM and it was not hard but impossible.

There were 4 players that I know didn't enjoy the game and the other 2 vocalized it to me or Hannah and one on the couch even vocalized it during the game. However, they are friends with s e or j so why would they say anything to them they will just accept it and move on. I on the other hand feel that it has to be addressed because I feel it isn't legal and not with in the spirit of the rules. It was a show of force by a GM and her friends.

As for trying to deal with it face to face. I am not going to go into a screaming match with you, J, Ath, and whoever else decided this was ok. I did however as I stated earlier sent an email. I got the brush off. The answer with no answers.

I then sent it as an official complaint which I was ignored. Other issues were addressed through the group email, I didn't get a I will respond to this after the holiday. Nope I wasn't responded to for 11 days (at which time I remain silent on both forums and PFS) when I had to push the issue where she asked for more days because of the holiday... which then I gave her another 7 days with still no response. I then sent it to Mike Brock and then I get responses (which Eric told me he talked to everyone did he not talk to you?).

If you want to know what I want? I want the FAQ. I want this to be resolved so no other player who gets this doesn't get Magicbane Bandersnatched. I want people to remember the game is about fun not just challenge. Can you tell me that was a fun tactic? Do you think the 2 outsiders might have been more fun? hell if I got blasted because a confused wizard rolled attack the nearest... I am good with that. To be beaten down in a corner without the ability to defend myself is not fun it is not what PFS is about. She should of just buried us with stone to mud because atleast then I wouldn't have had to sit around for 4 hours watching my less then optimized character get beat down.

This was meta'd and designed to be impossible not hard. The game was stolen from me. I will never get to experience that adventure now because of this tactic(not because I can't star it but because I don't want to because I can just see someone who looks up to J and A to use a similar tactic) and you all are so proud. You all seem to think it is praise worthy and that making it impossible was the right choice. Partially that is what keeps me fighting on.

I even talked to you outside about the tactics and how I feel it was meta'd. It was when I saw how it was created and heard the tactics used on most players on hardmode that I was upset. It is at best a (dark Dark) grey area and I maintain it isn't even that.

J even admits she has no character that would survive this fight. I wonder if she was on the other end would she have considered it fun?

Also this whole you were warned it is Bonekeep 3 rules... Ya that is what you guys say on Bonekeep 1... and it was challenging not unwinnable.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is hyperbole. Because that line of logic is supported only by a single, inflexible interpretation of an inherently ambiguous instruction. "To the best of her ability" is up to the GM to decide. Having that mean "be as much of a dick as possible" is not the only way to look at it; it is a statement that allows for flexibility appropriate for the situation. If we follow your logic then people are obligated to use this or a similar tactic in normal mode. And why stop with one bandersnatch when we could have two?

Again. Hyperbole does not help.

Liberty's Edge

Acedio wrote:

It is hyperbole. Because that line of logic is supported only by a single, inflexible interpretation of an inherently ambiguous instruction. "To the best of her ability" is up to the GM to decide. Having that mean "be as much of a dick as possible" is not the only way to look at it; it is a statement that allows for flexibility appropriate for the situation. If we follow your logic then people are obligated to use this or a similar tactic in normal mode. And why stop with one bandersnatch when we could have two?

Again. Hyperbole does not help.

You laugh but she was going to move to the stairs and get another. Till someone tucked in a corner and caught her with slumber hex. ( of course the bandersnatch moved to cover her with the aura again immediately)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
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've heard of other TPK's in the Kurshu encounter using a different tactic for limited wish.

Have you heard of another group which survived a magicbane bandersnatch?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Undone wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
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've heard of other TPK's in the Kurshu encounter using a different tactic for limited wish.
Have you heard of another group which survived a magicbane bandersnatch?

No. But why does that matter? They were playing hard mode. GM made a choice.

End of story.

Liberty's Edge

Wraithkin wrote:


The game I was invited to was, "Waking Rune, Hard Mode". That was how it was phrased when I was invited by the other players, that is how it was presented before we rolled dice and, surprise surprise, that is what we got. We had a crazy buff list. We summoned a deva. We asked for a...

We did ask for hard mode... not impossible mode. I feel it is important to state that. That is what we got. If you can't see that then I can't imagine talking to you in person would do anything.

I will also state that even with the Deva smacking the Bandersnatch 3-4 times it still moved around it taking an attack of opportunity avoiding 2 other players within its reach to catch the paladin on the other side of the pryamid just out of the aura. Meta'd.

Liberty's Edge

Andrew Christian wrote:
Undone wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
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've heard of other TPK's in the Kurshu encounter using a different tactic for limited wish.
Have you heard of another group which survived a magicbane bandersnatch?

No. But why does that matter? They were playing hard mode. GM made a choice.

End of story.

Yes and the Choice for the GM was to take it to impossible mode. Limited wish to cast simulacrum I maintain is outside the rules and more powerful then the spells intent. The problem is the way people were killed not that they were killed.

151 to 200 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / The Waking Rune on Hard Mode - Wish Us Luck! All Messageboards