|
from the FAQ which is pfs legal
Bonus Spells from a High Ability Score: Can I use these even if my spellcasting class level isn't high enough to give me access to those spell levels?
No. You only get the bonus spells if your class level grants you access to those spell levels. You can't even use them for lower-level spells. See page 16, Abilities and Spellcasters section: "In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of a high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level. "
For example, a 1st-level wizard with 18 Intelligence has (according to table 1–3: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells) 1 bonus spell at spell levels 1, 2, and 3. However, he can only use the 1st-level bonus spell because as a 1st-level wizard he only has access to 1st-level spells (his class-based number of 2nd- and 3rd-level spells per day are "—", meaning "no access to spells of this level"). As soon as he becomes a 3rd-level wizard, he gains access to his 2nd-level spell slots and can use that bonus 2nd-level spell slot from his high Intelligence, and likewise for 3rd-level spells and bonus spells at wizard level 5.
Basically, ignore the columns for higher-level spells on table 1–3: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells until your class grants you access to those spell levels.
posted July 2011 | back to tops legal
https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9o91
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi Altaica, welcome to organized play.
I had a bit of trouble understanding this post, but I think I can help a bit.
The main point I have to make is that Pathfinder is a Roleplaying Game and their writing does not have the aim of delivering rules that offer a seamless experience and cover all the possible interactions.
The general approach is to write options (classes, feats, spells) that are easy to read, but usually not ironclad.
So after quite a lot of releases, there are a lot of corner cases, fortunately in RPGs, we have the GMs to interpret those ruled and deal with any unforeseen corner cases at the table.
To compare Pathfinder with something like Magic the Gathering shows you a game with a much more structured world, extensive use of keywords and a version of the rules that goes quite deep.
---
Considering your character in question:
That is not how bonus spells from a high ability score work, you don't get access to those spells before you unlock that spell level:
Abilities and Spellcasters
The ability that governs bonus spells depends on what type
of spellcaster your character is: Intelligence for wizards;
Wisdom for clerics, druids, and rangers; and Charisma for
bards, paladins, and sorcerers. In addition to having a high
ability score, a spellcaster must be of a high enough class
level to be able to cast spells or use spell slots of a given spell
level. See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.
If you are curious, just look at any published Oracle (or any spontaneous caster) stat block, I just checked the pregen Oracle and her listed spells per day look correct.
At level one:Oracle Spells Known (CL 1st; concentration +5)
1st (4/day)—bless, command (DC 15), cure light wounds
0 (at will)—create water, detect magic, light, sparkAPG (DC 14)
So she can cast her level 0 spells an unlimited number of times, and her level 1 spells a total number of 4 times in any combination.
Here are the level 4 and 7 versions:
Oracle Spells Known (CL 4th; concentration +8)
2nd (4/day)—cure moderate wounds, resist energy, sound burst (DC 17)
1st (7/day)—bless, burning hands (DC 16), command (DC 15), cure
light wounds, obscuring mist
0 (at will)—create water, detect magic, guidance, light, sparkAPG
(DC 15), stabilize
Mystery Flame
-
Oracle Spells Known (CL 7th; concentration +12)
3rd (5/day)—cure serious wounds, dispel magic, fireball (DC 20),
searing light
2nd (7/day)—align weapon, bear’s endurance, cure moderate
wounds, resist energy, sound burst (DC 19)
1st (8/day)—bless, burning hands (DC 18), command (DC 16), cure
light wounds, obscuring mist, protection from evil, shield of faith
0 (at will)—create water, detect magic, guidance, light, mending,
sparkAPG (DC 17), stabilize
Mystery flame
-------------------
I suspect that you are still going to be able to have a good time even without those bonus spells you can't get.
It totally understands the appeal of planning a character that is very effective and can potentially perform extremely well, potentially solving encounters/scenarios.
Be aware that some groups might encourage that behavior, and even delight in the chance to utterly destroy a scenario without trying really hard, but others might resent you for ruining their fun by trivializing everything.
Fortunately, you can always hold back and give others the chance to shine, but learning when to do so is not easy.
In general, I would caution about trying to abuse errors and loopholes.
EDIT: Jeff ninjaed me by finding the perfect FAQ, well done ^^
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
from the FAQ which is pfs legalCould you provide a link to that FAQ and Why hasn't to been merged With Pathfinder Society Frequently Asked Questions?
https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fq
Bonus Spells from a High Ability Score: Can I use these even if my spellcasting class level isn't high enough to give me access to those spell levels?
No. You only get the bonus spells if your class level grants you access to those spell levels. You can't even use them for lower-level spells. See page 16, Abilities and Spellcasters section: "In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of a high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level. "
how is "You get your bonus spell slots when you get a regular spell slot of that level" not the more obvious way to say it. what are we paying Paizo for? They treat it as if they make PF as a hobby and release it for free. That's why I don't sport Paizo by buying there produces. Paizo's Writing is right up there With World's Largest Dungeon.
And at lest in D&D3e specifics trump general. So "this is hoW BS Work for classes" is over Written by "this is hoW bonus spells Work for class X".
since we are quoting phantom FAQs, from the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook Frequently Asked Questions:
"You only get the bonus spells if your class level grants you access to those spell levels."TO me that means when you reach a lvl that makes you capable of learning a spell of that lvl.
I really don't like the Tautology that "You get the bonus spell slots at he level that you get the bonus spell slots" that is RAw
That change should be listed in the Additional Resources like the other changes along with the other changes
All FAQs apply to organized play, the organized play FAQ are just supposed to contain changes that are relevant to organized play, but some other FAQs sneaked in over the years.
Unfortunately some rulings are in a relatively bad place, personally, I would prefer to have all the FAQs and clarifications on a single page, with plenty of hyperlinks so it would be easier to search for specific terms (that might be a nice change for PF2).
what are we paying Paizo for? They treat it as if they make PF as a hobby and release it for free. That's why I don't sport Paizo by buying there produces. Paizo's Writing is right up there With World's Largest Dungeon.
Just to clarify for others who might find this, to play in organized play you need a legal source for any option outside of the Core Rulebook, in your case that would be Advance Class Guide for the Oracle class.
If you don't want to support Paizo overly much, the current humble bundle is a steal and would allow you to support a charity of your choice.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a bit of trouble understanding this post, but I think I can help a bit.Unlike Paizo and everyone else I'm vary good at saying what I mean. THis confuses peopel because people never say what they actualy mean they beat around the bush not attacking it directly. "I can't tell which bush your trying to beat around because that bush is in the way of you beating."
This realy erks me because I but a lot of effect into learning how to make it sound like a mean what I actually mean and people just talk blunder thou conversations saying anything that pops into their head with out a though to what the meaning of what they are saying is.
Sorry, to say this, but while you did lay out your experience with RPGs and personal situation, the fact that you wanted to use an interpretation of bonus spells that is at least controversial in combination with Imbue with spell ability (a spell I haven't seen used in organized play so you might forgive me about not being familiar with the abbreviation), was not clear to me.
English is not my first language, but I have to admit that it took me a moment to realize, that the character you linked claimed to be able to use level 2,3,4 and 5th level spell slots (though I rarely read character sheets in the forum format).
The main point I have to make is that Pathfinder is a Roleplaying Game and their writing does not have the aim of delivering rules that offer a seamless experience and cover all the possible interactions.Right they aren't trying to offer an as seamless of experience as possible. So What type of experience are they trying to deliver? To grief the players?
The general approach is to write options (classes, feats, spells) that are easy to read, but usually not ironclad.You mean 'that are pleasant' to read not 'easy to understand'.
I don't think this is intentional, but while they give players a lot of fun and exciting options, sometimes they lack the word count to explain every assumption and most interactions. I have seen archetypes that could have used twice to word count to explain how some interactions could work.
Since every table has a GM and they can just make a ruling for their table, unfortunately, things are a bit more complicated in a worldwide campaign, where the GM is essentially the organized play team.So yeah, I guess the approach is to write 3 archetypes that could appeal to a number of players instead of extensively adding clarifications that would only benefit a minority of players.
Personally, I would like to see a lot more FAQs and have a better way to represent them, but it seems like those need a lot of resources.
Regarding readability, not sure if I disagree or agree with you here, I have read archetypes and class options were everything was relatively easy to read and the questions only came up when I actually had a character that used the option at my table - or tried to build one myself.
If you are curious, just look at any published Oracle (or any spontaneous caster) stat block,Why don't you? The Pregens don't alloW for casting spells from a higher spell Slot at all. And most people instenctive house rule that you get the cure spells When you learn a spell of that level not as "When you become able to cast them" as described in the class desc. so it's only natural that the people that built th pregens didn't folloW the RAW principal that is core of organised play.
My point was that no NPC or pregen for an Oracle of other spontaneous caster Paizo has published, uses your interpretation of how bonus spell slots work.
So everyone at Paizo is wrong when it comes to creating NPC statblocks, and they never bothered to fix the class description when they reprinted the book, or you are just wrong.Honestly, it looks like a fun character, but the way you wanted to use those spell slots is just not going to work. I don't know many GMs who would allow a level 2 character to cast level 5 spells.
It seems like a competently build character (other than the spells issue) and you could likely have a lot of fun roleplaying that character at the right table. Not every local meta works for everyone, some groups like to do a lot of RP and do a scenario in 7 hours, others are more focussed on the mechanical challenge and do not enjoy the roleplaying aspects of organized play.
Have you considered play by post games, they usually have a lot of chance to roleplay your character, I personally like online games run via virtual tabletop, I like playing offline games at conventions, but it can be a bit hard to find a local game that suits your interests.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Altaica, the only reason I have not yet flagged your posts as abusive is that you have referred to your autism multiple times. I have some familiarity with autism and am well aware that one of the major issues that characterizes autism is difficulties with communication. You should read and be aware of the Community Guidelines.
Because you say that
Unlike Paizo and everyone else I'm vary good at saying what I mean. THis confuses peopel because people never say what they actualy mean they beat around the bush not attacking it directly. . .
This realy erks me. . .
I'll tell you directly how I am interpreting your comments.
I had a bit of trouble understanding this post, but I think I can help a bit.Unlike Paizo and everyone else I'm vary good at saying what I mean. THis confuses peopel because people never say what they actualy mean they beat around the bush not attacking it directly. . .
This realy erks me. . .
-"If you are unable to understand me it's clearly your fault."
finding a group of people to play with isn't vary realistic, I would have to first learn how to think like a NTwit
-"I am far smarter than anyone else and would need to think down to the level of you idiots."
It's not the peculiarities of organized play that are erking my it's that it's not the aim of pathfinder to deliver rules that offer a seamless experience.
what are we paying Paizo for? They treat it as if they make PF as a hobby and release it for free. That's why I don't sport Paizo by buying there produces.
-These can two quotes can easily be interpreted as baiting/trolling quotes.
Please think carefully on what you are writing. Those of us responding are choosing our words very carefully. You say that you "have an OCEAN trust." Please trust that the people responding to you are intelligent, kind people who know what they are talking about. Sebastian is an extremely experienced GM and player and an extremely smart person. In addition to explaining the rules (correctly), he also very much wants to help you learn how to navigate the social contract that will help you fit in at PFS games.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My frustration with pathfinder is that the intuitive interpretation for me is not the intended interpretation and I have no way on knowing the intended interpretation and when I ask about every little thing people get annoyed with the constant questioning.I know that my interpretation probably isn't the right one but I can only consider the other possible interpretations and when ask if it's a valid interpretation of the rules they deny the ambiguity of the wordings and insist that because the intended meaning is obvious to NTwits that it's THE valid interpretation.
Sometimes there is something to be said for collective intelligence, while the motivated people that frequent the boards are just a small slice of our community, they tend to be rather steeped in current issues. They might have had research for one of their own characters, to advise a fellow player or they had to interact with the rules option (and all clarifications, FAQs, erratas and discussions on the topic) as part of their GM prep or them having to interact with a player that used that option.
Chances are that if you ask something on the boards and the vast majority have the same opinion, that is usually the right interpretation (especially if there are no dissenting opinions, and even more so if the posters are considerate enough to take the time to post/quote/link the relevant sources).
There are situations where certain questions are hotly debated but those tend to have become rather rare, at least as far as organized play is concerned, and of course, there are also areas where the only thing anyone can agree on, is that the issue is anything but clear cut.
The posters might not always be able to give you long reasonable arguments (with sources) and instead post something like "Well it's pretty obvious" or "no reasonable GM would rule otherwise" while those posts would likely not win them prizes in a debate, they are still taking the time to try to help you with your question.
You can't sell Mechanics in a box you can only sell explanations of them; wizards of The Cost learned that the hard way with the failure of 4e and the success of 5e, 4e focus on delivering a well described mechanics and ignored rule customization and fluff. people that want highly customized cars don't build there cars from scratch they buy a stock base and then add their customization to it.4e was a top shelf beer and 5e was a home brewing kit.
D&D 4 has fans, D&D 5 has fans, the former had a different approach, more standardization of powers and trying to squeeze a lot of effects in a somewhat different mold. I ran it a couple of times and I think it could have been decent fun, but my group was not too interested and that particular game loop.
I haven't touched D&D 5 but from what I have seen and read about it, the mechanical aspects are a bit vaguer and quite a lot of things are left up to the GM. The various RPG options out there differ in theme, mechanical complexity, and dept, and I would suggest everyone to just play what they like.
People don't play organised play in order to have a standardized rules they play in order to socialize and have fun.
Both are somewhat true, I played a number of D&D games outside of organized play, even ran a couple of adventures out of Dungeon Magazine, and my experiences were mixed at best. Having a standardized ruleset is a huge advantage, I could play my archer in Germany, and then visit the Netherlands (as I have done there) and play him there as well. Even more importantly what I gain from the scenarios is also standardized, so the rewards I gained after playing in the Netherlands are still with my character when it gets home. If every group had their own rules I might turn up to learn that the Netherlands have outlawed the use of bows because they are OP, or that my class was not allowed at that GMs table. The rules that limit us also protect us.
For some the standardized rules the cost of getting the opportunity to play Pathfinder or Starfinder at all - in some locations, it really is the only game in town, and its follow the rules, or you don't get to play. Personally, I see the advantages and I enjoy the international aspects.
Most types of game activity involve some kind of rules, though in non-org play tables those rules are established and maintained by the GM with the feedback of the players.
I don't think PFS should try to make everyone play the game like PF's Gygax played it with his friends, but should focus of making sure the player are having fun playing PF.
Fun is highly subjective, having read some of the play reports from Gary Gygax's tables, I personally don't tend to enjoy their particular style of gameplay, but it is also pretty far removed from what I have experienced at organized play tables over the years.
What I have learned, is that "fun" is highly subjective, what has been fun for another player might have totally spoiled my enjoyment of the session as players or as GM. Just because the GM might be fine with the mechanical options of your character does not mean that the other players will be. Even outside of the mechanical side, some players will not enjoy gaming at a particular GMs table or gaming with specific other players based on roleplaying, communication skills or plenty of other factors.
Unfortunately, you can't mandate fun, and it is also impossible to calculate which mechanical options or lack of options will generate more fun.
My points about my build being legal for play are:
*That it's a linguistically valid interpretation of the rules as written.
With the exclusion of the bonus spells that seems like a fun and reasonably effective character. I am not sure if "linguistically valid"
will help you, the best I would expect is that you get an answer like this "Well I guess you could try to read it if you really try, but that is not how these things work, and I am certainly not going to allow it at my table. Sorry, but I don't find your argument persuasive, it is too unreasonable for me to accept as a plausible interpretation given the context of all the other published material".Jeff Morse provided you with the FAQ and listed the direct link to it at the bottom of his post, while it is not in the organized play section all the FAQs are binding for Organized play. This is as clear as rules clarifications get and 99% of groups are not going to argue with it.
*PFS says to fellow the rules at writen in order that people don't get frustrated with incompatibilities between different group play styles not in order to give every one the official mechanics.
Unless we all follow the same rules, and not selectively choose which rules to apply and which ones to ignore there really is no point to follow rules at all. If you ignore one rule, why should the GM follow any rule he does not like?
There used to be a time in organized play (way before my time) where GMs were allowed to modify scenarios, and the results were apparently bad enough to bring us the current RAW situation. Sometimes situations come up and the GM has to try to find a way to go on while trying to stay as close to the scenario as possible.
I think this is the most relevant part of the guide:
RESOURCES
The Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild requires all
members to have the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook and the
Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide (this document).
Players and GMs are also expected to familiarize themselves
with the official Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild FAQ at
paizo.com/organizedplay/faq and Campaign Clarifications
at paizo.com/pathfindersociety/rpg/clarifications.
When multiple versions of a rule exist, reference the
Campaign Clarification document for further guidance.
If an entry doesn’t exist for your source, use the written
source as presented. If there still is a discrepancy, please
bring the issue to the attention of campaign leadership by
e-mailing organizedplay@paizo.com.
If a clarification or FAQ pertains to your character, you
are expected to bring a copy of the relevant sections to any
Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild game.
While GMs are not required to read every post on the
forums, they need to keep abreast of clarifications. GMs
may not ignore rules clarifications, including posts from
the organized play team on organized play forum threads
that they have seen. Forum clarifications will be added
to the FAQ, Campaign Clarifications document, or this
Guide as soon as possible.
Paizo produces a wide range of books that further
explore the game rules and world of Pathfinder. These
volumes contain a huge variety of options to help customize
your character. You can view the list of all campaign-legal
additional resources online at paizo.com/pathfindersociety/
rpg/additional. In order to use content from sources outside
the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, a player must bring an
accessible copy of the resource that indicates that she owns
the resource. An accessible copy means one of the following:
a physical copy of the book, a name-watermarked Paizo PDF
of the relevant pages, or either a photocopy of the relevant
pages or electronic access to the Pathfinder Reference
Document at pfrd.info along with proof of purchase. Proof
of purchase may include a receipt from a game store or a
screenshot of your My Downloads page at paizo.com. An
earned Chronicle sheet that prints the full text of a rules
option may be used in lieu of an accessible copy. In addition
to the rules themselves, you must bring a current copy of the
Additional Resources listing pertaining to the rule. Inform
the GM that you plan to use additional resource material
before play begins and allow the GM to familiarize herself
with any new rules.
*It works in my group and that if it works in the group should be the ultimate decider if it's legal for play not if it's how the designers intended it to be played.
Sorry but you are describing a home game outside of organized play, where players and GMs decide on the rules, how they should apply and potentially deciding after the session that something should no longer be the case.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, I also run things in Campaign mode, where I really have nearly all the options at my disposal. I allowed my players to play playtest classes, change details of their characters after a long break between sessions and pretty much every rules is subject to discussion or change.
We all decided, that we wanted to play Starfinder and thus it would be really weird to want to change some of the core rules, but in theory it could be done.
That level of freedom just does not work for organized play.
The arguments of "but it works for our group" or "but I would not use that option in a disruptive fashion" or even "I don't want it for the power, I want it for the RP potential"... just don't work in a public campaign. Just because you can be trusted to run around with a flamethrower (since you would just use it to defend the populace against zombie attacks...) does not mean that we can trust everyone.
Rules and laws are written for everyone and really do not allow for exemptions.
-------
I would honestly suggest you drop the issue of the bonus spells and how it applies to the character. It's unlikely to be regarded as a clever way to break the game, people will just assume that you are wrong and correct you.
Many communities have their view and rules - some of them unwritten, which is as far as I understand it, really problematic for people with Autism - fortunately, you mentioned that fact, so we can try to be more direct.
It would be great if you could get total mastery and understanding of every aspect of organized play by reading all the written products, guides, and rules, but unfortunately, that is not always enough. Interacting with strangers is hard, and it is never easy to put yourself out there and interact with them, not knowing how they will react.
You really don't have to make it harder for yourself by approaching the situation with a confrontational approach to your character, that will likely end with other players being annoyed with you before you had the change to leave a good first impression.
It's ultimately your choice, but unless you always play in the same group (which can happen but it depends on your location) this will be a constant source of conflict.
---
If you are interested to play an oracle at a higher level, there are at least two sceanrios where the players are provided pregnerated characters and one of them is an oracle.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
(I’m on my phone, so excuse the formatting of my post)
Altaica, first off, congrats on taking steps to socialize with people. Stepping outside of you circle of comfort is scary, even more so when you’re unfamiliar with the social ruleset that you are stepping into.
The rules of the game is somewhat explicitly written. However, the rules we use in the Organized Play community is not just paizo’s published works, but also FAQs and erratas publishes on this website. Even clarifications written in the forums counts as RAW.
It can be an overwhelming amount of rules to get to know. Fortunately you are not expected to know them all straight away. And when you’re in doubt, you have done the right thing, which is ask in the forum.
Other people have already answered your question, by guiding you to a campaign clarification regarding bonus spell slots. This clarification is RAW as far as Organized Play is concerned. What you are intending to do is therefore not allowed in Organized Play.
The rules of the Organized Play Community is less explicit. Some social rules are clearly written, others not. One of the clear rules is that we, in Organized Play, are not allowed to discriminate against players, so you will never get told you cannot play as long as you follow the rules. (You can get put on a probation period of no play, but let’s not delve further into that right now)
Another unwritten rule is that we demand everyone to be courteous in their dealings with each other.
It might be because the written word is hard to get the right intent behind, it it may be your autism that causes you to come across in a way you didn’t intend. What you have written is read by us NTwit as very rude. We get the intend that you don’t want to follow the rules that our community is build upon, because they’re “not fun”. The rules are there to make the campaign fair across the globe.
If what you want is to be able to decide on the rules you play with as a group, what you’re looking for is a “home game”. These kinds of games are not a part of Organized Play, and as such are not determined by our rules. You do not have to play home games with friends, or even at home. It is quite possible to find a froup online, perhaps in the pathfinder Facebook group?
I hope this helps, if you still are unclear on anything, let me know, and when I see it, I will try to answer it to the best of my ability.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Altaica: you say you want people to speak clearly, so I will. Sorry if it sounds blunt.
You want to know whether your use of bonus spells is allowed by the rules. The answer is, it is not, as listed in the FAQ:
https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9o91
This is the Core Rulebook FAQ, so that's an answer about how the game works in general. Pathfinder Society uses the general Pathfinder rules, except where it specifically makes an exception. PFS hasn't made an exception for this, so it works the same as it does in the base game.
---
PFS works a certain way (with all those standardized rules) because it has some goals. The people in charge of Pathfinder Society believe those rules are necessary to achieve those goals. They have about 10 years of experience with PFS, and PFS has a couple hundred thousand participants, so it's working fairly well.
The goal of PFS is not to be the only campaign that everyone is playing. The goal is to be a campaign that some people enjoy playing. If you don't like PFS, you don't have to play PFS. But many people do enjoy PFS, so it doesn't have to change just because you don't like it.
PFS aims to be a campaign that does a lot of things that are different from a home group:
- Not everyone has to attend equally often. Some people play twice a week, others every other month. Not everyone has the same amount of free time. So PFS uses scenarios that tell a story in one game session that lasts about 4 hours.
- Making it easy to play with different people all the time. At a local game day where you meet new people for example, but also at a convention in another country. A typical scenario should run in 4 hours. If each player needs to learn the GM's house rules first, then this becomes harder. Also, there's the risk that you travelled quite far to play a game, and the GM won't allow you to play your character because of a house rule. So PFS uses standardized house rules for the whole world. You mention that with new people you always need a session 0, but PFS aims to make that not necessary.
If you're always playing with the same people, then the goals of PFS won't be very valuable to you, and the PFS rules don't make a lot of sense. So why would you play PFS then in the first place? But if you want to play with lots of different people all over the world, then those rules are successful (I know this from my own experience).
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
which is why I keep asking questions. I repeat myself because people keep repeating what already been said and it would be rude to just ignore them.
My suggestion would be that once you find that there is a broad consensus, just move on try to get to play or maybe consider toying with another character concept.
no the only right ruling is a fun one, anything else is greifing.
Sorry, but that this is a misconception, the rules are supposed to be applied as equally as possible to create a fair playing field for everyone. Fun is as I tried to convey, hard to judge and considering the way this Organized Play is set up (including all the advantages and disadvantages) rules enforcement is quite important.
Just because you (or any other player really) does not like a particular choice, does not mean that it is griefing.Paizo really would like to continue making products for gamers, and that also requires them to sell books. If players do not have fun, that is less likely to happen.
The rules don't exist to make you unhappy, they exist to give everyone a fair chance at having fun playing in the Organized Play environment, and this is the best way the Organized Play team has found to enable that. I agree with 99% of the choices and made thus volunteer a lot of my time as a Venture-Captain.
I don't enjoy telling players that the option they consider taking is illegal, or that the race boon they are looking for does not exist, but I trust that those rules were made for a good reason.
Yet I get ban for taking my time to writing the most courteous reply I'm capable of say "Try better, which I know you are capable of, or give up, your just wasting evreybody's time other wise."why? because I end up offending people? well I'm offending by their lack of effort to make a positive contribution to the conversation and just getting the tread closed for degrading into uncivil debate. I even got banned from adult survivors of Child abuse for even suggesting that CSA victims are only victims as long as they allow themselves to be victims and if they wont to move past their abuse they have to take some responsibility to for their continued suffering. If I can't get support there why should I assume I can get support here. I'm a witchchild which mean my intire community decided to use me as an scapegoat and tortuously remove me from it for the betterment of everyone, so needly to say I get vary jumpy when people start down that path again. THat I need to be removed form the community and defend for myself for the good of the community.
Hard for me to comment, about most of that, but unfortunately you trying your best might still be regarded as offensive by others, how you personally view the posts of others is likely, not obvious to the moderators if they see that a lot of people have flagged your posts.
Unfortunately, written communication is somewhat limited, and it can be next to impossible to differentiate someone trying their best from someone who is just trolling (which also happens on these boards, and people are rightfully sick of it).
I heard that PF was bigger then 4e and that PF2e is a response to people leaving PF for 5e.
From the industry figures I have seen( but honestly not trust, considering that large chunks of my players exclusively buy the pdfs and Paizo does not publish sales data) D&D is selling reasonably well, but they seems to produce far fewer (different) books than Paizo.
People changing systems is also relatively normal, and some GMs prefer a less saturated game enviroment. Personally, I had a lot of fun reading 3.0 D&D material, but only really got a chance to play with Pathfinder Society. Of course a lot of the things in Pathfinder are from 3.0 and after what feels like 20 years, I am ready for something new and can't wait for PF2.
D&D5 really has nothing to do with it, I might even pick up a couple of books if I see them on sale or in a humble bundle (though a lot of that is based on their integration with MTG, something they said they would never do, so naturally I am interested).
are you agree with me?
I don't have a qualified opinion about D&D5 but some GMs and prefer games with fewer rules and more GM powers. In the context of Pathfinder and Starfinder Organized Play, a lot of those GM powers are handled by the Organized Play team, and thus the GM is severly limited in their options to alter play.
People that want standardized rules would rather play 4e it's expertly designed to fill that niece
Different strokes for different folks? I had characters I would have liked to play in that system, but some approaches like "Encounter" powers, felt to video gamey for my old group. These days I am far to busy with my current games to go back, but of course, there are groups out there that still enjoy it. I am not sure if the standardized rules is the reason, some people just like how it plays or lets them do special things a limited time amount of times.
t's a come mistake int RPG could, "If we give them freedom then they might make a mistake" so they jump to the conclutiong that A onesize solution in the answer(This is the same argument against classless RPGs) but the one size does a mediocre job of fiting most people. the real solution is to train more tailors.
The problems were that a lof of players and GM have vastly different rules for character creation, assumptions on what constitutes excessive "cheese" or "powergaming". If you offer a convention table for characters between level 3-5, your chances are that someone will turn up with a halfling bard, not significantly dissimilar to Lem, while the next one turns up with the amazing character he plays in his GMs campaign, a gestalt half-dragon, half-elf, half-vampire character with 6 obscure classes and 2 custom artifacts.
In their own campaigns both of those characters are perfectly fine, and fortunately, Pathfinder Society gives you some reasonable expectations of what your missions your characters are expected to perform. You are somewhat trained agents that work for the Pathfinder Society, a mixed group of explorers that sends their agents into all sorts of dangerous or challenging environments.
In individual home campaigns it might be perfectly normal to mostly fight encounter after encounter with limited RP opportunities, while others will mostly spend their time talking, rarely even touching their dice.
Both of those are perfectly viable but Organized Play is something different.
Of course, we are also running pregenerated adventures, some players are perfectly happy to just spend 4-5 hours just RPing and sitting in the bar, while others really want to end the session having accomplished something. You get all sorts of players, though Organized Play scenarios, really aim to have the players experience the bulk of their content within about 4-6 hours.
The old I can play my character in any group lie. you are always going to need session 0 to get every one on the same page and assing party roles. your party need to work together unless your character doesn't matter. Rules help people speak the same language but they don't do the talking themselves. if you char is just a bunch of stats why are they so dear to you the char, I say that it's the fluff of the charactor that matters. can you rember the last villin that your first char fought? how about the first attack roll of the last battle you were in? and in PFS you can't mix levels more than 5 apart so you can't play any char in any group.
That has not been my experience, Slot 0s are entirely unnecessary. As long as the character follows the rules - which in this case also includes having the right level to be in the legal level range for the scenario - you get to play that character.
I have played/ran about 300 scenarios worth of tables, and while it is critical to give players about 1-2 minutes to introduce their character, a lot of the interesting roleplay happens during the session.It depends on your GM style but I usually ask something like "You are currently sitting in the waiting room in front of Ambrose Valsin's office. As you sit on the benches that were once upholstered in luxurious red leather but have since then been ben roughed up by the countless agents that have sat here before you, you look around and the other well-trained agents that have apparently been chosen for this mission. Please introduce yourself in about 1-2 minutes and mention what the other characters could have already heard about you on campus. "
Depending on time I usually add an unexpected question after that to help players to get into character like: "What does your character to between missions, and hobbies or guilty pleasures?" or "What does your character to do entertain themselves or the group during the 5d6 days of travel to your mission location?"
Of course, those are just examples, but I can tell you that I have quite positive memories about the player characters of my fellow players, I only played one talble with some of them, but they were surely memorable.
I remember the tough no-nonsense character on of the players visiting from the Netherlands played, I fondly remember a lot of intersting and fascinating characters and plenty of them got more layered with each session.
Of course the interactions are limited compared to a custom home campaign, but for me it works perfectly satisfactory without a Slot 0.
And of course my characters have fluff and a story, my -01 killed Runelords, stormed the gates of the Aspis Consortium and eventually became a Venture Captain, thus far the situations were never dire enough for her to respond to a call to action, but that does not mean that she will not leave her farm if needed.
Organized Play has limitations, but I would not have been able to play that character with dozens of other players and I am not regretting my time playing that character at all.
But how ofter to you run across A group where they ban elves because they don't like that concept but still be willing to play PFS? It's better to keep them to the fringes of the community rather than excommunicate them completely so that people that don't care about elves can still find them.
I vaguely remember an RPG that advertised in Dragon magazine that after all those years their world still does not have elves. ..
To be fair what you describe sounds a bit like a local meta, but if they actually forbid those characters at their public tables, they are not running PFS.It's "one rule doesn't quite fit anybody", to badly misquote Terry Pratchett, but as I posted before the rules apply to all. If you want to lobby for the Organized Play team to change the rules, you are of course free to do so, but I would recommend making a separate thread for that to lay out your reasons for the change. To be fair, you are likely to get a lot of blowback from parts of the community who have had negative experiences with the kind of organized play you are suggesting.
Personally in the next home game was going to offer, I would change quite a lot, spells like mage armor and shield, gunslingers and plenty of others classes would be significantly changed or not allowed at all.
if everybody at the group agrees it would be better is staffs did 1d8 damage why should they house rule it? like I said fun should be the goal not some misguides concept of fairness. It's not the Cure serious wound that made my char out shine the rest of the party when I heal a char from -10HP to Near ful health, in fact the other players shoved three Clw potions down their throat before I got a chance to act. it was the +10 to deplomancy that made me the star of the session.Spoiler:
If a group in a home game want to change the rules that is perfectly fine, in the Organized Play environment only the GM of the Campaign can do that, which is the Organized Play team. The additional resources page and other campaign rules are pretty much specific house rules for this campaign, like no Leadership feat, not archer magus, and plenty of spells, items and options are not allowed. There are a lot of reasons for the bans, but it boils down to "GM said no".
Just because your character would not be disruptive (in your opinion, or at that table) is not a sufficient reason not to follow the rules.
Having a +10 diplomacy can really make a scenario much more enjoyable for the group, but it is also worth that Diplomacy is not mind-control and scenarios regularly overwrite the way the Diplomacy skill works.
Incidentally you are doing spoilers wrong, I think I know which scenario you are talking about, but just writing Spoiler is completely worthless, instead say write something like: Spoiler for PFS #1-87 The Palm Tree Disaster, so readers can make an informed decision whether to click that spoiler button or not.
Don't worry too much about that bit, plenty of people use spoiler tags incorrectly.
I haven't read or played that scenario yet, so I can't say if the GM made a mistake or interpreted the situation differently.
I can see the advantages of rule standardization too I just don't think that they out way the cons. and i don't see the joy in the international aspects of rule standardization. what joy is their in knowing that someone is having a less enjoyable time than they in all rights deserve. yes I know the answer is griefing.
The rules were crafted and are maintained by the Organized Play team and enforced by the VO corps, and table GMs, it sounds like you are claiming that they are all secretly rubbing their fingerless gloves with glee by ruining the fun of individual players.
I can assure you that this is completely wrong, what hear about are unsociable hours and payment that is on the lower end of things (a lot of the very talented individuals could get better-paying jobs in other fields, the RPG industry tends to pay relatively badly from what I hear) and they do it because they have a passion for it.
There are plenty of Venture Officers who spend excessive amounts of time planning conventions and otherwise serving their local community, and I find it unbelievable that it is all for the sake of griefing.
I couldn't have said it better my self!. 4e proved that you can write clear unambiguous rules that put everyone in the same situation. the only thing that matches Paizo's ability to write good adventures is their ability to write beat around the bush and write ambiguous descriptions of the rules. It may be imposable to get everyone to interest the rules that exactly the same way, but piazo is doing a terrible job at geting anywhere close to it.
As I said in one of my first posts, maybe your standards when it comes to rules are too high for the output Paizo produces, which nonetheless seems sufficiently concise for the vast majority of their customers.
The GM should follow the rules that the party agrees on not what paizo.we seem to have a different option on what org play means. I view org play from the view on LEgend of the 5 rings it's to arrange play sessions and help develop the rules so that people understand how to play the game correctly(which mean in a fun way).
Different strokes for different folks I guess, I can only talk about Paizo's Organized Play campaigns.
The GM for the Organized Play campaign is the Organized Play team, they decide the rules, public the scenarios craft metaplots etc. when it comes this campaign, your local GM is more like a deputized civilian instead of a propper police officer. Their powes are severly limited, but despite that fact, the quality of your GM can be the different between an extremely enjoyable experience and wasting a couple of hours of your life.
The solution to people agree to play by rule sets that aren't ffun is to teach GM's how make rules set that don't suck, not to force everyone to use the same rules. and all the PFS docs say to use the RAw not use the rules as all the other PFS GMs have agree to and which we won't even atempt to write down yet alone write down in the most accessible way.Paizo has never released a PFS doc that says what the GMs agree on they only write down decisions that GM's disagree on.
Things could be a lot better when it comes to the way GMs and players can find rulings, but the Organized Play Team is usually to busy to produce more content that things like that just don't happen. A lot of the rules clarification you might want are also not part of their area of concern, that is usually governed by the Rules Team, and they are notoriously busy as well.
I can't promise that things will improve, so you might either have to lower your expecation or looks play something like MTG with a very robust ruleset. Of course, I haven't seen the final version of PF2 yet, they might have gotten a lot better (and I already like their use of keywords).
BTw it's bad manors to change the term use to describe The Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild in the conversation. and org play is a poor choice for a nick name for it, ita like saying 'humans' when you mean 'John'.
The term Organized Play covers all the various campaigns supported by Paizo, which include Pathfinder Society, Starfinder Society and the Adventure Card Guild (and Pathfinder Society 2 will also be a separate campaign).
First, I choose hard over imposable any day, and second I only becaome confrontational after people start to get on the lets ban him because he can't help but say things in a offputing way. If I wasn't so sensitive I would be in jail by now I'm proud to say that my confrontational approach lead me to win my defense in a kangaroo court. And in the mental illness community it's call 'Self advocacy' and is encouraged.
In the case of your interpretation hard and impossible are rather close, but I just wanted to try to preview the reaction your approach is likely to cause at tables, it will likely result in a discussion of a certain lenght (if the GM notices it before the game starts) and you either have to leave the table, get a pregen or have to acceppt the GMs interpretation.
I have never succeeded the First impression diplomacy check iRL so I'm not concerned about loosing the opportunity to make it. I've learnedd ot be satisfied that I'm an acquired taste.OT: I don't thing I should have to play the Autistic card in order to guilt people into giving me the benefit of a doubt and not passing a snap judgment about me base of how they intuit my hidden motives for saying stuff. Like most austics I'm an open book and don't beat around the bush. some don't speak unless they have something to say, others say "If you don't have a nything nice to say don't say anything"
My motto is "ghIchwIj DabochmoHchugh ghIchlIj qanob" The unpleasant truths don't come back to bite the ones that hid them they bite the oppressed
I suspect that a lot of people will read your posts as at least a bit confrontational, maybe it is easier in person. Klingon is not necessarily a great combination with the Society's core tenants, but I think the chances of anyone actually speaking Klingon at a PFS table are actually relatively high.
Yeah I made a 1lvl with IwSA because I wanted a high level oracle.:P I wanted a character that gave out CLw spells like the ministry of life gives out ordinations. and I found a RAw way to get it. and pregens don't have IwSA becuase you need to multi class to use it and I've never seen i multiclass pregen.
I would still suggest to drop that approach, that trick is unlikely to work at the vast majority of Org Play tables, and most home GMs are also likely just say no.
My point is that Org play should be about giving the flamethrowers to those that can be trusted, not in not trusting anyone with flamerthrowers and leaving the Zombie problem unsolved.
How do you figure out who can be trusted and how often do you check that this is still the case, taking toys away from people usually ends in tears. Honestly differentiating between those that can be trusted and those that can't will just make a lot of players and GMs very unhappy for little to no benefit.
Customer Service & Community Manager
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The NTwit is a reference to the fact the people that use NT to describe anyone that isn't autistic are idiots not that NTs are idiots. I can see how that can be confusing to people outside the Autistic community. Taken literal it means 'the wits of a NT' toohna.wikia.com/wiki/NTwit for those unfamiliar with the terminology.
It's hard say, "You're pissing me off" and not sound like trolling.
**
|
Customer Service Representative
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I even got banned from adult survivors of Child abuse for even suggesting that CSA victims are only victims as long as they allow themselves to be victims and if they wont to move past their abuse they have to take some responsibility to for their continued suffering.