|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In an optimistic situation perhaps, but I've seen plenty of rage induced meltdowns when you starts a sentence with "could you" in regards to someone doing something offensive, with or without their knowing.
If someone is afraid of a rage induced meltdown if they bring it up directly, then they shouldn't bring it up indirectly either, and definitely not in a thread where I might see it.
They always have the option of not bringing it up at all and just Reporting the post to Paizo. That's why some of us use that button, when either we don't have the power to handle it, are uncomfortable wading in, or just don't want to deal with it.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kevin, I’m not sure I understand how the new Death rule makes the game more flexible with regard to NPC death. It only seems more limiting than the PF1ed.
With the understanding that the rules on NPC death have always been "whatever the GM says they are":
A PF1 GM trying to "exactly follow the rules" has to track each individual NPC's hit points even once they are negative. Make stabilization rolls and continue subtracting hit points. In PF2 the GM can just say "these three don't matter, they die at zero. The story-critical woman won't, so they'll have at least 3 turns to save her." (Or, conversely, use the dying rules for everyone if the party likes to bring everyone back for trial.)
Essentially the PF2 rules just codify that it's OK for the GM to assume the mooks are dead and speed the game along. I actually like the Starfinder rule even better, which says the GM can choose to make any dropped NPC dead or stable without rolling anything if he wants to.
The second reason the dying rules are more flexible is that in PF1 - starting about 7th level or so - it is actually pretty hard to keep NPCs alive unless you are focusing on non-lethal attacks and spells. Especially after 10th level. Because PCs do a lot of damage per attack NPCs often go from fighting to outright dead in one hit. Similarly, if you knock an NPC below 0 hp in PF1, then any AoE (fireball) will almost certainly kill it. In PF2 the GM starts the count at Dying 1 and you've got at least a couple of rounds - or a couple of fireballs - to capture the NPC.
|
In an optimistic situation perhaps, but I've seen plenty of rage induced meltdowns when you starts a sentence with "could you" in regards to someone doing something offensive, with or without their knowing.If someone is afraid of a rage induced meltdown if they bring it up directly, then they shouldn't bring it up indirectly either, and definitely not in a thread where I might see it.
They always have the option of not bringing it up at all and just Reporting the post to Paizo. That's why some of us use that button, when either we don't have the power to handle it, are uncomfortable wading in, or just don't want to deal with it.
I was specifically talking about the phrasing of "could you" which has peculiar results, not on bringing it up at all.
Also, "if you think someone will become angry over calling them on saying something bad then you shouldn't say anything at all" is not a good take.
Organized Play Developer
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now that GenCon has started and the Year 2 PFS scenarios have started to creep out into the world, I'd like to add 2-02 Mountain of Sea and Sky to the list, which is an Envoy's Alliance mission and has a heavy focus on diplomacy. It'll be out officially next month!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which Pathfinder Society scenarios have non-violent endings or solutions, or are non-violent or focus on non-violence?
Virtually every scenario can end with a non-violent solution. It depends on the GM and the players if they want to make it happen and are creative enough to make it happen.
Sometimes it means making deals with evil creatures/enemies though. Is that really better than having a violent solution? I don't think so, but to each their own.
I'll give you some examples of scenarios where they assumed you'd have a violent ending and my group (of children age 8-11) turned it into a non-violent ending.
The hag at the end, the party druid (who wanted to save the frogs and crocodiles of the swamp) made a deal with the (evil) hag.
They negotiated the following:
- Cult was disbanded and the hag would no longer attack the people
- They found a nearby village with empty houses that needed residents, and convinced some people living in Cassomir to live there.
- Convinced residents to move to the north and east of Cassomir and spent 2 months (using crafting) building basic housing for them.
- The swamp and Admirals fens was left undrained.
The bounty assumes the party will defeat Tefla, who is evil.
Instead Tefla offered the group a deal, defeat Kareida and help her track down the other refugees, in return for more gold than the rancher was offering. So they took the deal. I ran this 3 times and only 1 group took the deal.
They actually didn't know Tefla was evil (no Religion), Tefla was an authority figure, and they didn't investigate enough to know what was going on (the first location they investigated, they had the skills to track down the refugees). So they didn't knowingly work with evil, it was done more because of ignorance.
Oh this is an old thread, sorry for continuing the zombification.