Rules question that I can't find the ruling for.


GM Discussion

51 to 100 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

John Francis wrote:


That depends on what season adventure they were playing. For an early-season scenario (prior to season 4) if the APL both with and without the additional character falls between tiers, then increasing the party size from 5 to 6 means the party will play in the high subtier if the additional level 1 character is present, but in the low subtier if that character is absent.

My mistake, I was thinking a party of 5 or 6 played up in Season 0-3, but it's 6 or 7 that plays up while a party of 5 plays down.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Can we please quit using the term "toon" in this discussion?

Or, just, in general?

This is not an MMORPG, and some of us want to keep it that way.

Silver Crusade

Okay, here is my second attempt at this character. This time at level 5. (I renamed him Brutus, just because.)

Spoiler:
Brutus the Dull
N human male wizard 5
Init +2
Languages Common, Draconic
———
AC 16, touch 12, flat-footed 14
hp 42
Fort +3, Ref +3, Will +5
———
Speed 30 ft., BAB +2, CMB/D +6/18
Melee mwk quarterstaff +8 (1d6+6), or
mwk quarterstaff +6/+6 (1d6+4/1d6+2)
Ranged light crossbow +4 (1d8/19-20)
Ranged wand of scorching ray +4 ranged touch (4d6)
———
Str 18, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 9, Wis 12, Cha 12
Feats Toughness, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (quarterstaff), Two-Weapon Fighting
Traits Bully, Armor Expert
Skills Intimidate +10, Knowledge (arcana) +3, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +3, Knowledge (history) +3, Knowledge (local) +3, Linguistics +3
Equipment mwk quarterstaff, mwk chain shirt, light crossbow, misc., wand of shield, wand of magic missiles, wand of infernal healing[i], [i]wand of enlarge person, wand of true strike, wand of invisibility, wand of scorching ray

Brutus the Dull is by no means optimized. But he is also not completely worthless. I could easily play this character and be of benefit to the rest of the party. (In fact, I have characters that are level 6 and are less effective in combat than Brutus. They are more effective out of combat, however.) And that is my point.

A lot of people in this thread seem to be of the mind that there are only two possibilities for a character: optimized, or a waste of space. There is a lot of middle ground to be found in there. I don't think we should be bullying players who are happy to play characters in this middle ground. They have as much right to have fun at the table as the rest of us.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

if I shake my keys or wave something shiny, can the OP get a few posts that make sense and/or are based on the question asked

5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Fox wrote:
A lot of people in this thread seem to be of the mind that there are only two possibilities for a character: optimized, or a waste of space. There is a lot of middle ground to be found in there. I don't think we should be bullying players who are happy to play characters in this middle ground. They have as much right to have fun at the table as the rest of us.

No, they aren't, this is about as classic a case of straw manning I have ever seen.

Lots of people are saying that your character should be able to contribute. Brutus fails that test pretty terribly. CR5 opponents have AC's around the 18 mark and about 55hp. You don't qualify for two weapon fighting (Dex 15). Even if you did you are looking at single digit damage per round, less than 20% of the health of a single CR5 opponent.

You could use the wand of scorching ray but you will routinely be taking a -8 penalty to hit due to cover and shooting into melee. Even targeting touch AC attacking at -4 will miss often and then you are screwed against anything with SR (the wand has a CL of 3) or any sort of fire resistance.

Outside of combat you are also pretty terrible. You have some knowledge skills but your modifier is terrible for level 5, like literally terrible. You have an OK intimidate modifier but you aren't likely to be doing much with it. In my experience intimidate is often more a hindrance than a help in social encounters. I suppose you might have a chance of demoralising someone in combat but it is barely worth the action.

So congratulations you have helpfully demonstrated that it is possible to create a terrible level 5 wizard barely able to contribute inside or outside of combat.

It is possibly to create a useful wizard with only a moderate Int of, say, 14, if you are happy to focus on summons and buffs and utility. It is also quite possible to create a wizard or in fact most characters who have a decent out of combat focus and who contribute primarily in that area and who leave a lot of the combat heavy work to others. This character does none of those things.

Silver Crusade 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Well here is my take on the subject:

Stupid Elf:

Alrondo
Elf wizard 1
CN Medium humanoid (elf)
Init +4; Senses low-light vision; Perception +2
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 15, touch 13, flat-footed 12 (+2 armor, +3 Dex)
hp 7 (1d6+1)
Fort +1, Ref +4, Will +2; +2 vs. enchantments
Immune sleep
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft. (20 ft. in armor)
Melee dagger +4 (1d4+2/19-20) or
. . dagger +4 (1d4+2/19-20) or
. . dagger +4 (1d4+2/19-20) or
. . rapier +4 (1d6+2/18-20)
Special Attacks hand of the apprentice (3/day)
Wizard Spells Prepared (CL 1st; concentration +0)
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 14, Dex 18, Con 13, Int 9, Wis 10, Cha 12
Base Atk +0; CMB +2; CMD 16
Feats Spell Focus (divination), Weapon Finesse
Traits partial protege, unpredictable
Skills Acrobatics +1 (-3 to jump), Bluff +6, Perception +2, Stealth +2; Racial Modifiers +2 Perception, +2 Spellcraft to identify magic item properties
Languages Common, Elven, Goblin
SQ arcane bond (rapier), elven magic
Combat Gear caltrops; Other Gear leather armor, dagger, dagger, dagger, rapier, backpack, bedroll, belt pouch, chalk (10), flint and steel, grappling hook, hemp rope (50 ft.), mess kit, mirror, piton (10), pot, soap, thieves' tools, torch (10), trail rations (5), waterskin, 64 gp
--------------------
Tracked Resources
--------------------
Arcane Bond (Rapier) (1/day) (Sp) - 0/1
Dagger - 0/1
Dagger - 0/1
Dagger - 0/1
Hand of the Apprentice (3/day) (Su) - 0/3
Torch - 0/10
Trail rations - 0/5
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Arcane Bond (Rapier) (1/day) (Sp) Use object to cast any spell in your spellbook. Without it, Concentration required to cast spells (DC20 + spell level).
Elven Immunities - Sleep You are immune to magic sleep effects.
Elven Magic +2 to spellcraft checks to determine the properties of a magic item.
Hand of the Apprentice (3/day) (Su) As a standard action, throw melee weapon (use Int instead of Dex) and instantly returns.
Low-Light Vision See twice as far as a human in low light, distinguishing color and detail.
Partial Protege You are adept at disguising your true talents. You gain a +1 trait bonus on Bluff checks and on Use Magic Device checks made to emulate a class feature.
Spell Focus (Divination) Spells from one school of magic have +1 to their save DC.

Hero Lab and the Hero Lab logo are Registered Trademarks of LWD Technology, Inc. Free download at http://www.wolflair.com
Pathfinder® and associated marks and logos are trademarks of Paizo Publishing, LLC®, and are used under license.

Alrondo was forced by his parents to attend wizard school, and while his parents connections allowed him to graduate... well ...

Now he trying to impress that elven rogue that works as a waitress in her free time, by trying to become a rogue, and while his choice of becoming an universalist seemed insane, it allows him to throw his weapon.

EDIT:Still pretty bad and doesn't scale.

5/5

Once again, you might do sort of OK at level 1 but what is your plan at 3rd, 5th, 7th or god forbid 10-11. Do you think it is fair or reasonable to turn up at an unsuspecting table at a Con with an Int9 level 10 wizard to pretty much any 7-11 scenario? Why should the rest of the table be forced to carry what is essentially dead weight unable to contribute in or out of combat? Why should the rest of the table take a real increased risk of death or scenario failure because you have decided to intentionally create an incompetent and hampered character where you have deliberately sabotaged their primary class feature. How in fact do you justify such a character ever being made part of the society in the first place?

This isn't about everyone having to be hyper optimised or GTFO. It's about actually coming to the table with a character which makes some degree of sense to the campaign.

Silver Crusade 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

andreww wrote:

Once again, you might do sort of OK at level 1 but what is your plan at 3rd, 5th, 7th or god forbid 10-11. Do you think it is fair or reasonable to turn up at an unsuspecting table at a Con with an Int9 level 10 wizard to pretty much any 7-11 scenario? Why should the rest of the table be forced to carry what is essentially dead weight unable to contribute in or out of combat? Why should the rest of the table take a real increased risk of death or scenario failure because you have decided to intentionally create an incompetent and hampered character where you have deliberately sabotaged their primary class feature. How in fact do you justify such a character ever being made part of the society in the first place?

This isn't about everyone having to be hyper optimised or GTFO. It's about actually coming to the table with a character which makes some degree of sense to the campaign.

Oh I agree, I just wanted to throw something together that could work as a base for something that might not be insane. I agree, that it is bad, but I didn't want to argue, that there is not possible build that would justify INT 9.

Silver Crusade

andreww wrote:
This isn't about everyone having to be hyper optimised or GTFO.

It certainly seems that way.

Silver Crusade

Here are some things that Brutus can contribute:

  • Scorching ray. If he uses true strike first, he is at +16 to hit touch, so that is an option if his friends are in combat. Or he can use invisibility first, so his target loses their Dex bonus to touch AC and takes a –2 penalty to boot. Of course, if his target is not in combat, he doesn't need to worry about the penalties.
  • Enlarge person on the barbarian in the group.
  • Invisibility on the rogue.
  • Magic missile on enemies that are far away. Also a good way to disrupt enemy spellcasters.
  • Infernal healing on everyone out of combat.

    As for the Two-Weapon Fighting, you are right. But I can give it to him because I forgot to include his +2 bonus for being a transmuter. Or I can forget that feat, give him something else, and put the +2 into Str.

    Then his Power Attack quarterstaff is +8 (1d6+10).
    (Edit: so his melee attacks will be hitting those AC 18 enemies 55% of the time and dealing about 13.5 damage.)

    I'm sorry, but if you feel that I need to ask permission to play a flavorful character that I enjoy when I sit down next to you, then you are an elitist jerk.

    Again, I will play my character, you can play your character.


  • 4 people marked this as a favorite.
    The Fox wrote:
    andreww wrote:
    This isn't about everyone having to be hyper optimised or GTFO.
    It certainly seems that way.

    Do you really feel that a wizard with an intelligence high enough to cast spells is "hyper-optimized?"


    This thread makes me wonder whether I would get kicked out of several of the posters' groups for showing up with one of my typical characters.

    -Matt

    Silver Crusade

    Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
    The Fox wrote:
    andreww wrote:
    This isn't about everyone having to be hyper optimised or GTFO.
    It certainly seems that way.
    Do you really feel that a wizard with an intelligence high enough to cast spells is "hyper-optimized?"

    No, I'm saying that I should be allowed to build a warrior who can cast spells with wands using the wizard class as my base class if I want to.

    I'm saying that a character who is intentionally underpowered is not the same thing as a waste of space.

    I'm saying that I am allowed to build and play whatever legal character will be fun for me, and as long as I endeavor to uphold the tenets of Explore, Report, Cooperate, then you shouldn't be saying anything about my character.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    The Fox wrote:
    Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
    The Fox wrote:
    andreww wrote:
    This isn't about everyone having to be hyper optimised or GTFO.
    It certainly seems that way.
    Do you really feel that a wizard with an intelligence high enough to cast spells is "hyper-optimized?"
    No

    Then it's not really hyper-optimize or GTFO, is it?

    5/5

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    The Fox wrote:

    Here are some things that Brutus can contribute:

  • Scorching ray. If he uses true strike first, he is at +16 to hit touch, so that is an option if his friends are in combat. Or he can use invisibility first, so his target loses their Dex bonus to touch AC and takes a –2 penalty to boot. Of course, if his target is not in combat, he doesn't need to worry about the penalties.
  • So you are taking 2 rounds to do about 15 damage provided the target doesnt have SR or fire resistance. That isnt contributing.

    Quote:


  • Enlarge person on the barbarian in the group.
  • This takes a round to activate so the barbarian has to waste hus entire go so you can do something because you refuse to actually access your own class features.

    Quote:


  • Invisibility on the rogue.
  • This is an actually genuinely useful thing to di. Well done you. It still doesnt justify setting fireto almost all of your class features,

    Quote:


  • Magic missile on enemies that are far away. Also a good way to disrupt enemy spellcasters.
  • A single magic missile is not likely to disrupt anyone. Actually casting magic missile as a 5th level wizard for 3 missiles

    Quote:


    Then his Power Attack quarterstaff is +8 (1d6+10).
    (Edit: so his melee attacks will be hitting those AC 18 enemies 55% of the time and dealing about 13.5 damage.)

    You forgot to iclude the pa hit penalty. You are averaging single digit damage because you only hit every other round.

    Quote:


    I'm sorry, but if you feel that I need to ask permission to play a flavorful character that I enjoy when I sit down next to you, then you are an elitist jerk.

    Again, I will play my character, you can play your character.

    This isnt a flavourful character it is a special snowflake made without any considerstion for the nature of the campaign or the impact on the rest of the table. I would refuse to seat a player bringing a character which they have intentionally hobbled to the point of being little more than a commoner under the dont be a jerk rule and would avoid them like the plague.

    There is a difference betwen flavourful and non combat focused compared to intentionally shafting yourself to remove your main class features and I see no reason why a group should have to accept such a cbaracter.

    5/5

    Mattastrophic wrote:

    This thread makes me wonder whether I would get kicked out of several of the posters' groups for showing up with one of my typical characters.

    -Matt

    Are any of them a wizard with an int of 9? If not then probably not.

    5/5

    The Fox wrote:
    Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
    The Fox wrote:
    andreww wrote:
    This isn't about everyone having to be hyper optimised or GTFO.
    It certainly seems that way.
    Do you really feel that a wizard with an intelligence high enough to cast spells is "hyper-optimized?"

    No, I'm saying that I should be allowed to build a warrior who can cast spells with wands using the wizard class as my base class if I want to.

    I'm saying that a character who is intentionally underpowered is not the same thing as a waste of space.

    I'm saying that I am allowed to build and play whatever legal character will be fun for me, and as long as I endeavor to uphold the tenets of Explore, Report, Cooperate, then you shouldn't be saying anything about my character.

    you are proposing a character who would never be accepted into the society in the first place as you literally cannot utilise your primary class feature. Frankly it sounds like you would be trolling your table. Its jerkish benaviour of a pretty blatant kind in an organised play environment.

    Silver Crusade

    Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
    The Fox wrote:
    Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
    The Fox wrote:
    andreww wrote:
    This isn't about everyone having to be hyper optimised or GTFO.
    It certainly seems that way.
    Do you really feel that a wizard with an intelligence high enough to cast spells is "hyper-optimized?"
    No
    Then it's not really hyper-optimize or GTFO, is it?

    Just so I'm clear...are you taking the stance that it is okay to bully other players out of the table if their build doesn't meet your approval?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    andreww wrote:
    Are any of them a wizard with an int of 9? If not then probably not.

    According to the Paizo Board Wisdom, I've done worse. I've brought several Rogue1s. I've even made a Rogue/Monk!

    -Matt, troll?

    5/5

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    The Fox wrote:
    Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
    The Fox wrote:
    Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
    The Fox wrote:
    andreww wrote:
    This isn't about everyone having to be hyper optimised or GTFO.
    It certainly seems that way.
    Do you really feel that a wizard with an intelligence high enough to cast spells is "hyper-optimized?"
    No
    Then it's not really hyper-optimize or GTFO, is it?
    Just so I'm clear...are you taking the stance that it is okay to bully other players out of the table if their build doesn't meet your approval?

    Just so I am clear do you think it is reasonable to bring what is in effect a commoner to a game, increasing the chance of scenario failure and death because you want to play you special snowflake?

    5/5

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Mattastrophic wrote:
    andreww wrote:
    Are any of them a wizard with an int of 9? If not then probably not.

    According to the Paizo Board Wisdom, I've done worse. I've brought several Rogue1s. I've even made a Rogue/Monk!

    -Matt, troll?

    Rogues may not be the most effective of classes for various reasons but I doubt you are bringing ones with a dex and wis of 7 and no ranks in perception or disable device while claiming to fill the trap spotter role.


    The Fox wrote:
    Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
    The Fox wrote:
    Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
    The Fox wrote:
    andreww wrote:
    This isn't about everyone having to be hyper optimised or GTFO.
    It certainly seems that way.
    Do you really feel that a wizard with an intelligence high enough to cast spells is "hyper-optimized?"
    No
    Then it's not really hyper-optimize or GTFO, is it?
    Just so I'm clear...are you taking the stance that it is okay to bully other players out of the table if their build doesn't meet your approval?

    They didn't bully anybody. They left a table they didn't want to play at. Is your stance they should be forced to play?

    5/5

    Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
    The Fox wrote:
    Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
    The Fox wrote:
    Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
    The Fox wrote:
    andreww wrote:
    This isn't about everyone having to be hyper optimised or GTFO.
    It certainly seems that way.
    Do you really feel that a wizard with an intelligence high enough to cast spells is "hyper-optimized?"
    No
    Then it's not really hyper-optimize or GTFO, is it?
    Just so I'm clear...are you taking the stance that it is okay to bully other players out of the table if their build doesn't meet your approval?
    They didn't bully anybody. They left a table they didn't want to play at. Is your stance they should be forced to play?

    Frankly it sounds like a classic case of geek social fallacy.

    Silver Crusade

    andreww wrote:
    The Fox wrote:

    Here are some things that Brutus can contribute:

  • Scorching ray. If he uses true strike first, he is at +16 to hit touch, so that is an option if his friends are in combat. Or he can use invisibility first, so his target loses their Dex bonus to touch AC and takes a –2 penalty to boot. Of course, if his target is not in combat, he doesn't need to worry about the penalties.
  • So you are taking 2 rounds to do about 15 damage provided the target doesnt have SR or fire resistance. That isnt contributing.

    He only needs to do that if other characters are already in melee with his target. I have several characters who need to do this. I guess they aren't welcome at your table, and you feel justified to bully me out of the table.

    andreww wrote:
    Quote:


  • Enlarge person on the barbarian in the group.
  • This takes a round to activate so the barbarian has to waste hus entire go so you can do something because you refuse to actually access your own class features.

    This is true for every caster who uses enlarge person. Do you bully all of them away from the table?

    andreww wrote:
    Quote:


  • Invisibility on the rogue.
  • This is an actually genuinely useful thing to di. Well done you. It still doesnt justify setting fireto almost all of your class features,

    Thanks.

    andreww wrote:
    Quote:


  • Magic missile on enemies that are far away. Also a good way to disrupt enemy spellcasters.
  • A single magic missile is not likely to disrupt anyone. Actually casting magic missile as a 5th level wizard for 3 missiles

    It is autohit. They probably will make the concentration check, but they still need to roll. Failure is an option. I have seen even high level casters fail such a check.

    andreww wrote:
    Quote:


    Then his Power Attack quarterstaff is +8 (1d6+10).
    (Edit: so his melee attacks will be hitting those AC 18 enemies 55% of the time and dealing about 13.5 damage.)

    You forgot to iclude the pa hit penalty. You are averaging single digit damage because you only hit every other round.

    I didn't forget the Power Attack penalty. First, I added the +2 transmuter bonus to his Str, bringing it to 20. Those stats are correct.

    andreww wrote:
    Quote:


    I'm sorry, but if you feel that I need to ask permission to play a flavorful character that I enjoy when I sit down next to you, then you are an elitist jerk.

    Again, I will play my character, you can play your character.

    This isnt a flavourful character it is a special snowflake made without any considerstion for the nature of the campaign or the impact on the rest of the table. I would refuse to seat a player bringing a character which they have intentionally hobbled to the point of being little...

    At least you are up front about your willingness to bully other players into only playing characters that you deem acceptable. Now if only we can get some hard guidelines as to what that is...

    Silver Crusade

    andreww wrote:
    Just so I am clear do you think it is reasonable to bring what is in effect a commoner to a game, increasing the chance of scenario failure and death because you want to play you special snowflake?

    I think it is reasonable for me to play my character and let you play your character.

    If you want to play a very optimized character, do so.

    If you want to play a moderately optimized character, do so.

    If you want to play an underpowered character, do so.

    If you want to play a very flavorful character, do so.

    If you want to play a bland, boring character, do so.

    Just afford others at your table the same opportunity to play the characters they want to play.

    Edit: I actually have characters that fit into each of those categories. None of them were designed to troll my fellow players. Some came out less powerful than I intended. Some came out more powerful than I intended. Some have a lot of personality and are an absolute hoot. Some are really dull and boring to play. But I'd still like the option of playing any of my characters without needing your permission.


    andreww wrote:


    Rogues may not be the most effective of classes for various reasons but I doubt you are bringing ones with a dex and wis of 7 and no ranks in perception or disable device while claiming to fill the trap spotter role.

    Well, I've done Wis 7 on a Monk, and I've done no Perception or Disable Device on a Rogue, but I haven't done 7 Dex yet, so you have me there.

    However, I recall having a damage roll of 1d4-2. Those were fun times, critting for 1 point.

    -Matt

    5/5

    Yeah I dont think that word means what you think it means. A wizard with an int of 9 may be legal but it is a jerk move on the rest of the table and I see no reason why you should be able to bully the rest of the table into having to accept it. Either way I am done with discussing this with you as further discussion isnt going to go anywhere.

    5/5

    Mattastrophic wrote:
    andreww wrote:


    Rogues may not be the most effective of classes for various reasons but I doubt you are bringing ones with a dex and wis of 7 and no ranks in perception or disable device while claiming to fill the trap spotter role.

    Well, I've done Wis 7 on a Monk, and I've done no Perception or Disable Device on a Rogue, but I haven't done 7 Dex yet, so you have me there.

    However, I recall having a damage roll of 1d4-2. Those were fun times, critting for 1 point.

    -Matt

    Sure but did you play the rogue while also claiming to fulfill the trap spotter role? The wizard doesnt really have any other class features apart from its spells. I suppose it would be like building a rogue with neither strength nor dex who sank all his skill points into craft basketweaving. Would you consider that a reasonable thing to do? Would it be fair to the rest of the table?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    There are traps in PFS?

    hehe, j/k. That 7-Str Rogue did encounter a single trap in her career.

    Point being, no need to be a hater. It's PFS. Any one of the other players can easily build a hyper-efficient killing machine which can solo the module by itself. Heck, the Easy Mode players should be grateful to have a tablemate who isn't a threat to their combat dominance.

    I'd even go so far as to say that intentionally-underoptimized characters are a gift to the Easy Mode players at the table. So why the hate?

    -Matt can totally see himself doing a 9-Int Wizard as a part of a weird melee build that eventually goes to 11 Int to constantly cycle Heightened Awareness with Pearls of Power.

    5/5

    Mattastrophic wrote:

    There are traps in PFS?

    hehe, j/k. That 7-Str Rogue did encounter a single trap in her career.

    Point being, no need to be a hater. It's PFS. Any one of the other players can easily build a hyper-efficient killing machine which can solo the module by itself. Heck, the Easy Mode players should be grateful to have a tablemate who isn't a threat to their combat dominance.

    I'd even go so far as to say that intentionally-underoptimized characters are a gift to the Easy Mode players at the table. So why the hate?

    -Matt can totally see himself doing a 9-Int Wizard as a part of a weird melee build that eventually goes to 11 Int to constantly cycle Heightened Awareness with Pearls of Power.

    And what about tables which dont have suchcharacters? Most of my play nowadays is conventions and online so I rarely know who I will be sitting with. I would be less than pleased to see an int9 wizard at anything above about level 3 and would probably prefer to go off and do something else than suffer the frustration of dealing with such a snowflake.

    The Exchange

    In regards to the Fox's 9 int wizard discussion and bullying and what not. I think it's a fair character, sure it's not great, it's not bad, I've definitely seen worse characters in my time playing PFS.

    Is it breaking the don't be a jerk rule when people bring over powered characters like pistoleros or zen archers who can almost solo a scenario? Then why should it break the rules if someone brings a slightly underpowered character?

    I've gotten up and left a table for a couple of reasons and none of them have been because of the character some brought. I can't imagine doing that. Sometimes I think some of the challenge/fun of PFS is finding ways to cooperate with whatever group my character is paired with.

    Shadow Lodge

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    I love how Fox's Int 9 Wizard (barely) contributes to the party by *gasp* casting spells. Maybe he could, I don't know, be better at spellcasting if he didn't have to rely solely on magic items?

    I just flat out don't get it. Someone with an 18 Strength and a 9 Intelligence just isn't going to be a Wizard. They just aren't suited to it. They're not going to spend years as an apprentice without learning a single cantrip. The Master isn't going to waste the time on someone clearly not capable of casting the simplest spells. How do they even know that they're a wizard, and just not someone really good at UMD?

    Silver Crusade

    Mystic Lemur wrote:

    I love how Fox's Int 9 Wizard (barely) contributes to the party by *gasp* casting spells. Maybe he could, I don't know, be better at spellcasting if he didn't have to rely solely on magic items?

    I just flat out don't get it. Someone with an 18 Strength and a 9 Intelligence just isn't going to be a Wizard. They just aren't suited to it. They're not going to spend years as an apprentice without learning a single cantrip. The Master isn't going to waste the time on someone clearly not capable of casting the simplest spells. How do they even know that they're a wizard, and just not someone really good at UMD?

    Does this mean you also believe I should not be allowed to play this character? Would someone be justified to say, "Sorry, I don't like your character. Play something else or don't play at all."

    The Exchange

    Mystic Lemur wrote:

    I love how Fox's Int 9 Wizard (barely) contributes to the party by *gasp* casting spells. Maybe he could, I don't know, be better at spellcasting if he didn't have to rely solely on magic items?

    I just flat out don't get it. Someone with an 18 Strength and a 9 Intelligence just isn't going to be a Wizard. They just aren't suited to it. They're not going to spend years as an apprentice without learning a single cantrip. The Master isn't going to waste the time on someone clearly not capable of casting the simplest spells. How do they even know that they're a wizard, and just not someone really good at UMD?

    Maybe the character has extremely rich parents and hired a private wizard to tutor, and despite that tutor telling the parents their son is not cut out to be a wizard, they continued paying him. Easy money for that Wizard tutor and not that hard of work. I can see it.

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

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    The Fox wrote:
    Does this mean you also believe I should not be allowed to play this character? Would someone be justified to say, "Sorry, I don't like your character. Play something else or don't play at all."

    Well, I'd rather talk to you first and have you explain how you felt that character could make a meaningful contribution to the party. But if this wasn't the first time I (or the other players at the table) had seen the character, and there was a history of the character not being able to do anything useful to fulfill his declared role, I'd be quite prepared to refuse to seat you unless everybody else at the table understood the situation and was happy to play along.

    It's the flip side of the uber-optimised character problem. I'm prepared to ask somebody to leave my table if the way they play their steamroller character is (IMO) consistently spoiling the fun for the other folks at the table, so why wouldn't I be prepared to do the same when faced with a woefully inadequate character? And if I've asked you to leave my table once, you're going to have to take steps to reassure me that it won't happen again before I'll GM for that character.

    Sovereign Court 5/5 Venture-Captain, Texas—Houston North aka Kageki

    John Francis wrote:
    The Fox wrote:
    Does this mean you also believe I should not be allowed to play this character? Would someone be justified to say, "Sorry, I don't like your character. Play something else or don't play at all."

    It's the flip side of the uber-optimised character problem. I'm prepared to ask somebody to leave my table if the way they play their steamroller character is (IMO) consistently spoiling the fun for the other folks at the table, so why wouldn't I be prepared to do the same when faced with a woefully inadequate character? And if I've asked you to leave my table once, you're going to have to take steps to reassure me that it won't happen again before I'll GM for that character.

    This is a true statement, should one be able to play because they under or over optimize their characters?

    YES, but then again if they are trying to hog the spotlight, then there are options for the GM without refusing the player a seat or kick them from the table.

    One that we use is if there are some who are hogging the spotlight, we tend to actually focus on the other characters at the table allowing them to have a spotlight as well. This will help mitigate the problem, then we usually speak with the player afterwards.

    2/5

    I´m reading lots of answers talking about if it should be allowed, or not, a "crippled" character (change "crippled" to whatever adjetive you prefer. But I think the conversation is going away of the original question

    The OP asked about what to do when, all the players but one, chose not to play with a "crippled" character.

    And I don´t think that nobody had ever thought in force the other players to play with him just beacause it´s a legal character. Or to punish them with 0/0/0 chronicles.

    So even if you think that he should play because it is legal, and there is no reason to ban him, the problem persists.

    I´m my opinion, what should be done is to talk to the player to see why he is trying to play that character, and to see if he wouldn´t mind to change is character a little, so the rest of the table want to play with this character. Help him to fulfill is idea about the character AND to be well recieved in every table.

    Liberty's Edge

    5 people marked this as a favorite.

    What I am having difficulty with suspension of disbelief over is how a commoner with no particular skills was accepted into the pathfinder society, passed 3 years of pathfinder college, and then was selected to be a field agent.

    Liberty's Edge 3/5

    oh a few things chatted to my VL and VO about this

    1) not illegal just a weird idea
    2) not rincewind, Rincewind would actually have low Wisdom, he could cast spells he was just a dull person, which is wisdom not intellect (ie socially inept)

    but I am liking the builds lol.


    The Fox wrote:
    Here's a novel idea: I will play my character, you can play your character.

    The problem here is that what one character does or does not do, affects other characters. It may even get someone else's character killed. Your idea only works if what you do only affects you, however the game does not work that way unless the GM turns a blind eye, which kills immersion for many, and reduces the fun in a different way.

    edit:That is basically what the others were getting at, and why many of us are saying that not playing with that character is justified, and I would say the same thing if the character could solo several scenarios on his own.

    The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I would rather sit next to a good player, with common sense, playing a commoner, than somebody distracted from the game, with little sense of how Pathfinder works, playing a much more capable character. (And The Fox, I wonder if it's possible to build a 9-Int wizard specializing in the "aid another" action, always giving his allies a boost to their attacks or armor class; that's sort of what my 1st-level medium does in the occult class playtest.)

    And, for the record, I *have* had players sit at my table with very weak characters. Back in the day, I had a 5th-level cavalier with 4 negative levels. Last summer, I had a 4th-level witch coming to my table from Bonekeep, who had sold her gear to buy her own raise dead but who couldn't afford to call a new familiar. (So she had no spells.) In both cases, I was happy to have them; they were fun and smart players.

    I've also had players leave my table because they didn't like the legal build that somebody else had brought. (One guy refused to play with gunslingers). Each time, the guy who left could have been sitting with a table of friends who would have left, too. Are you sure that makes the odd-guy-out "disruptive"?


    This reminds me of the bard I sat with.

    He made an assimar bard with every intention of providng no support to the group. His spells was expeditious retreat. Feat was fleet. The player said his character was agorophobic and was too scared to talk to other people of perform if strangers were around.

    He had a strong grasp on the game and wanted to make a worthless PFS character.

    He made cowardly statements and stayed out of everything.

    I can completely understand if people do not want to play with someone like that.

    honestly you are trolling the other people that happen to sit at the same table as you if you do this.

    Now if you wanna build something zany like the fox did great! But let the table know what you can do and thaT they understand you have a use.

    Silver Crusade 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

    Meadow lark wrote:

    oh a few things chatted to my VL and VO about this

    1) not illegal just a weird idea
    2) not rincewind, Rincewind would actually have low Wisdom, he could cast spells he was just a dull person, which is wisdom not intellect (ie socially inept)

    but I am liking the builds lol.

    Yeah, the reason why we mentioned Rincewind, is that he was a wizard, that could not prepare spells. Of course the Discworld magic system is pretty complicated, but seems to be based on the vancian system.

    In game terms, the wizard class doesn't really work to create a character like this, especially, since his dumpstat is likely to be strength. Some sort of bard would be ideal, since Rincewind has decent bluff, diplomacy, knowledge and linguistics skills.

    Matter of fact is, that Rincewind would not join the Pathfinder Society, since to be honest, plot armor is the only thing that is keeping him alive.

    The Exchange 5/5

    Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
    Meadow lark wrote:

    oh a few things chatted to my VL and VO about this

    1) not illegal just a weird idea
    2) not rincewind, Rincewind would actually have low Wisdom, he could cast spells he was just a dull person, which is wisdom not intellect (ie socially inept)

    but I am liking the builds lol.

    Yeah, the reason why we mentioned Rincewind, is that he was a wizard, that could not prepare spells. Of course the Discworld magic system is pretty complicated, but seems to be based on the vancian system.

    In game terms, the wizard class doesn't really work to create a character like this, especially, since his dumpstat is likely to be strength. Some sort of bard would be ideal, since Rincewind has decent bluff, diplomacy, knowledge and linguistics skills.

    Matter of fact is, that Rincewind would not join the Pathfinder Society, since to be honest, plot armor is the only thing that is keeping him alive.

    wouldn't he just be working in the Scrolls section of the Grand Lodge - and not doing any field work?

    Grand Lodge

    nosig wrote:
    Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
    Meadow lark wrote:

    oh a few things chatted to my VL and VO about this

    1) not illegal just a weird idea
    2) not rincewind, Rincewind would actually have low Wisdom, he could cast spells he was just a dull person, which is wisdom not intellect (ie socially inept)

    but I am liking the builds lol.

    Yeah, the reason why we mentioned Rincewind, is that he was a wizard, that could not prepare spells. Of course the Discworld magic system is pretty complicated, but seems to be based on the vancian system.

    In game terms, the wizard class doesn't really work to create a character like this, especially, since his dumpstat is likely to be strength. Some sort of bard would be ideal, since Rincewind has decent bluff, diplomacy, knowledge and linguistics skills.

    Matter of fact is, that Rincewind would not join the Pathfinder Society, since to be honest, plot armor is the only thing that is keeping him alive.

    wouldn't he just be working in the Scrolls section of the Grand Lodge - and not doing any field work?

    Only if they were being filed in room 3b. Don't worry if you don't understand. It's an unseen university thing.

    Rincewind actually has a decent wisdom IMO. He is wise enough to realize the truth. He's a sub-par lackluster wizard in a world where things eat you and the answer to any problem is answered with the word "run", and when? is always "as early as possible". After all, a man can outrun a horse over short distances given a head start.

    If someone brought this to my table I would allow it. Since he doesn't have a pet mimic following him around (like the Rincewind of fame) his life expectancy will likely be measured in turns or rounds, depending on my dice rolls.

    Worst case scenario: His tombstone will adorn my GM screen as a warning to others in the future...

    The Exchange 5/5

    Grey_Mage wrote:
    nosig wrote:
    Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
    Meadow lark wrote:

    oh a few things chatted to my VL and VO about this

    1) not illegal just a weird idea
    2) not rincewind, Rincewind would actually have low Wisdom, he could cast spells he was just a dull person, which is wisdom not intellect (ie socially inept)

    but I am liking the builds lol.

    Yeah, the reason why we mentioned Rincewind, is that he was a wizard, that could not prepare spells. Of course the Discworld magic system is pretty complicated, but seems to be based on the vancian system.

    In game terms, the wizard class doesn't really work to create a character like this, especially, since his dumpstat is likely to be strength. Some sort of bard would be ideal, since Rincewind has decent bluff, diplomacy, knowledge and linguistics skills.

    Matter of fact is, that Rincewind would not join the Pathfinder Society, since to be honest, plot armor is the only thing that is keeping him alive.

    wouldn't he just be working in the Scrolls section of the Grand Lodge - and not doing any field work?

    Only if they were being filed in room 3b. Don't worry if you don't understand. It's an unseen university thing.

    Rincewind actually has a decent wisdom IMO. He is wise enough to realize the truth. He's a sub-par lackluster wizard in a world where things eat you and the answer to any problem is answered with the word "run", and when? is always "as early as possible". After all, a man can outrun a horse over short distances given a head start.

    If someone brought this to my table I would allow it. Since he doesn't have a pet mimic following him around (like the Rincewind of fame) his life expectancy will likely be measured in turns or rounds, depending on my dice rolls.

    Worst case scenario: His tombstone will adorn my GM screen as a warning to others in the future...

    I think the Luggage would be a construct rather than a mimic...

    Silver Crusade 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

    nosig wrote:
    Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
    Meadow lark wrote:

    oh a few things chatted to my VL and VO about this

    1) not illegal just a weird idea
    2) not rincewind, Rincewind would actually have low Wisdom, he could cast spells he was just a dull person, which is wisdom not intellect (ie socially inept)

    but I am liking the builds lol.

    Yeah, the reason why we mentioned Rincewind, is that he was a wizard, that could not prepare spells. Of course the Discworld magic system is pretty complicated, but seems to be based on the vancian system.

    In game terms, the wizard class doesn't really work to create a character like this, especially, since his dumpstat is likely to be strength. Some sort of bard would be ideal, since Rincewind has decent bluff, diplomacy, knowledge and linguistics skills.

    Matter of fact is, that Rincewind would not join the Pathfinder Society, since to be honest, plot armor is the only thing that is keeping him alive.

    wouldn't he just be working in the Scrolls section of the Grand Lodge - and not doing any field work?

    That would be preferable, but unfortunately when someone is "the" expert in a particular field, they would send him.

    But your argument actually supports the point of view, that such a character would quite likely never be send on a mission with other Pathfinders unless it was vital... an that is pretty much NPC territory.

    Grey_Mage wrote:
    nosig wrote:
    Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
    Meadow lark wrote:

    oh a few things chatted to my VL and VO about this

    1) not illegal just a weird idea
    2) not rincewind, Rincewind would actually have low Wisdom, he could cast spells he was just a dull person, which is wisdom not intellect (ie socially inept)

    but I am liking the builds lol.

    Yeah, the reason why we mentioned Rincewind, is that he was a wizard, that could not prepare spells. Of course the Discworld magic system is pretty complicated, but seems to be based on the vancian system.

    In game terms, the wizard class doesn't really work to create a character like this, especially, since his dumpstat is likely to be strength. Some sort of bard would be ideal, since Rincewind has decent bluff, diplomacy, knowledge and linguistics skills.

    Matter of fact is, that Rincewind would not join the Pathfinder Society, since to be honest, plot armor is the only thing that is keeping him alive.

    wouldn't he just be working in the Scrolls section of the Grand Lodge - and not doing any field work?

    Only if they were being filed in room 3b. Don't worry if you don't understand. It's an unseen university thing.

    Rincewind actually has a decent wisdom IMO. He is wise enough to realize the truth. He's a sub-par lackluster wizard in a world where things eat you and the answer to any problem is answered with the word "run", and when? is always "as early as possible". After all, a man can outrun a horse over short distances given a head start.

    If someone brought this to my table I would allow it. Since he doesn't have a pet mimic following him around (like the Rincewind of fame) his life expectancy will likely be measured in turns or rounds, depending on my dice rolls.

    Worst case scenario: His tombstone will adorn my GM screen as a warning to others in the future...

    Impossible, with all those lectures, he would not have the time for proper filing, and he is still supposed to sort the rock collection. ^^

    And to be fair, GMs and have to accept quite a lot, this issue is a little bit more relevant when it comes to the other players, after all this could end up killing their characters.

    ---------------

    And on the "he just wants to roleplay" front, GMs are allowed to reward/punish a particular good/bad player performance with a +2/-2, but this doesn't prevent the player actually rolling diplomacy.
    You could be an oratory genius with real life diplomacy to broker a peace in the middle east, but if your character only has a skill modifier of +2...

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

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Dead Inside wrote:
    What I am having difficulty with suspension of disbelief over is how a commoner with no particular skills was accepted into the pathfinder society, passed 3 years of pathfinder college, and then was selected to be a field agent.

    His wealthy parents bought him a commission. Or, perhaps, he was especially adept at being Zarta Dralneen's delectable morsel.

    Shadow Lodge 3/5

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    one of my most famous and enjoyable characters (the one I post under) Shea Hoarfoot... a str 6 halfling raised by barbarian orcs... started as a leperous barbarian ... there was a plan... see she was the dual cursed Bone ORACLE of the neutral goddess of death Pharasma... this manifested on her 2nd level... by level 3 she was 2 levels of barbarian and 3 of oracle. she now had spirit flying around her when she raged... level 4 was back to oracle... by the way she had a wisdom of 10 level 5 was a level of cleric (being neutral she burst for NEGATIVE energy) does someone see the pattern here... Death Touch... Bleeding... Negative energy Spirits... by now she was a VERY powerful highly charismatic half blind Leper was amazing to role play her. to make a long story short by the time she was retired at level 11+ (awaiting next playing of eyes of the ten in our area) she was one of the most famous Characters ever to be played in the Hampton Roads Area... Her younger brother is now my main character... a first level wizard may have a path the person wants to explore similarly...
    I guess what I am saying is... FIND OUT why the person wants to play that character... what is his character motivation... it sounds like there was something OUTSIDE of the game that was really at stake for 5 other players to walk out... if it sounds more like an ongoing dispute and an attempt to tick people off then boot the player otherwise let him play... he most likely will die in first encounter but he could be a reasonable assister and at very least absorb a hit or two keeping someone else alive.

    51 to 100 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / Rules question that I can't find the ruling for. All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.