Private Avatar Bob

TwilightKnight's page

Goblin Squad Member. 8,279 posts (8,385 including aliases). 24 reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 39 Organized Play characters. 5 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 8,279 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

IME, "shenanigans" is usually used to describe actions that appear to be or are arguably legal, but are generally looked upon as exploiting loopholes or rules combinations that result in what is considered by many to be broken or over-powered.

Grand Lodge

This comes down to the question, does the attack of opportunity occur before the action that triggered it, or not. It would seem that it does, since a critical hit will disrupt said action. In that case, I would say the moment the rogue declares an action with the move trait, they provoke the attack. It is only after that, that they can attempt the Stealth check to become undetected.

That's how I understand the order of operations, but I admit I am not confident enough to argue the point if another GM rules otherwise. It is just how I would rule it at my table. YMMV

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Stratton wrote:
...the implication is that people with high level characters are the ones who love the game is flipping arrogant

I don't think someone expressing an interest in more high-level options suggests that they are any more/less a lover of the game than those who prefer low-level content. Seems to be a rather large leap there. This isn't a zero-sum issue.

UllarWarlord wrote:
...y'all certainly have a right to your opinion (exclusionary and elitist as it is)

Yep, nothing like labels and insults when someone expresses a difference of opinion. Sheesh. There is no intent to exclude anyone, merely an attempt to promote more high-level play. There is nothing Machiavellian going on here.

UllarWarlord wrote:
...how many of the folks who share your fringe belief

No one, not even Paizo knows the distribution of the personal preferences of the community. They probably know what the authors/developers prefer since they are there and can be asked about it directly, but to suggest they know the predominant game-play preferences of the greater community is wrong. That data simply does not exist.

Mark Stratton wrote:
Years ago, tickets for the interactives were not sold by tier. You just bought a ticket and showed up with like 1,200 other people, waited in the hall and then within about 45 min or so you got seated. A few years ago, we changed from that model to selling tickets by Tier. And you should have heard the outcry: “That will never work!” “It will be too confusing!” “Why would you make such a change? Why not just improve the mustering process?” And the change was made and it WORKS.

This is a good point and an example of our demonstrative experience. We know from the past few years, at least those prior to the Covid issue, that if the community is given unrestricted access to a special, the largest interest (generally speaking) will be for levels 5-10. Often times, the lower tiers do not see significant registrations until they are the only ones left. Given the opportunity, the general player-base WILL gravitate towards mid-high levels for specials. The data is undeniable.

Mark Stratton wrote:
Will it work?

I am quite sure the new special will work. Players adapt to the options and if the options only include levels 1-6, then that is what they will do. At the end of the day, playing is almost always better than not playing but that is not the same as selecting based on preference.

The simple fact is that the restrictions to the level range for specials has nothing to do with player interest. It is primarily because of the challenge to producing specials and making it easier on the authors/developers. Secondarily, it will encourage new players, at least theoretically. There has never been an adequate analysis of whether or not specials actually do promote new player participation to any meaningful amount.

It is important to note that this change is not based on community preference, but campaign convenience. I am not saying that is necessarily a bad thing. Having an appreciation for the challenges the authors/developers face is only right.

All I am suggesting is that there certainly is a significant portion of the community that would like to play high-level specials, someone will even prefer it. That is not to say there are people with the opposite preference, but given the current trend, we are only catering to the later and IMO that is not the "best" solution for the widest swath of the community. Again, this is not a zero-sum issue. Having a lower-level special does not mean we cannot have a higher-level special or vice-versa.

It is no secret that the specials with the widest level ranges are/were incredibly hard to pull off. Encounters that work at 1-4 do not at 9-12, and vice versa. Anyone who played in those knows first hand that low-level parties are primarily responsible for the success because they can resolve challenges so quickly. High level play simple takes longer and is rarely resolved in the time allotted. So, I can certainly agree with tighter level ranges. I just do not think it is the best solution to simply eliminate higher level play. We should be looking to provide special quality content, not at the expense of lower-level content, but in addition to it. I hope that the more restrictive special works in all the ways the staff want it to and that they take that experience and apply it to high-level play as well.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.
UllarWarlord wrote:
...to write an interactive special that actively prevents new players from participating is gatekeeping, plain and simple

Balderdash

Given my history and experience, I know quite well what is required to both produce and organize a special and I disagree with your assessment. I know there are those who would agree with you and that's fine. Y'all are entitled to your opinion. OTOH, I know there are plenty of people who agree with me and likewise, we are entitled to ours as well.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I have never been one to suggest that writing/developing is easy (I am published and have worked with and observed a number contributors). Quite the contrary in fact. However, it IS true that the mid-high/high level content volume for PFS2 is lacking compared to what we have come to expect. The comments by staff seems to indicate that will continue to be true.

It is no secret that there is an ongoing emphasis on low-level content with the expectation that it will bring in new players. To be honest, this is a societal trend. Most companies that have a model that includes ongoing customer commitment cater to new subscribers and tend to diminish the ongoing value of existing customers, sometimes to the point of ignoring them completely. The idea is that it is a bigger hassle to change to the next available option than it is just sticking with what you know. There is a ton of psychological data supporting the concept. No, I am not suggesting that Paizo is ignoring higher-level content, but they certainly demonstrate a greater interest in acquiring new players, than maintaining existing ones.

If it is easier to produce content that covers a narrower level range, then I would encourage the production of two separate specials; one targeted for levels 1-6 as announced above, and the other targeted at something like levels 5-10, assuming you don't think there are enough characters approaching higher levels with the ultimate goal to cover levels 7-12. Yes, I realize it means adding another scenario to the schedule, but we are already seeing a couple/few months only getting one (instead of two) scenarios, so maybe drop one more and fill that slot with the second special.

The point is, don't underestimate the value of your most committed players possessing high level characters. They are often the ones most likely to be bringing in new players, GMing most of the games, and organizing events. Reward them by providing more gameplay options for their favorite characters. After-all playing our favorite characters in exciting adventures is what hooked most of us on RPGs in the first place. YMMV

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't bother with replay tracking and would just replay. Its 1E afterall, so what difference does it really make? Though I admit I am not a fan of replaying and no longer play 1E so it doesn't much matter for me anyway.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Count me as another one disappointed with the lack of higher level tiers. We may/not be ready for 9-10 yet, but we certainly have a growing pool of characters for 7-8. I do not understand the logic that having fewer levels means "easier" organizing. The key to organizing is options, and having more tiers equates to more options. Specials are by their very nature, special. That means most players want to play them with an established character that they are invested in, not the next in a long line of new 1-2s because they are unable to play their higher levels. I hope you plan to offer A LOT of 5-6 tables at Gen Con.

Also, the numbering seems illogical. If the Pathfinder scenario is meant to be the end of season 3, why not either just call it 3-24 or 3-99. If it is meant to be a starting point for season 4, then why deviate from the accepted nomenclature that would call it 4-00? Based on the information available, just seems odd.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
HumbleGamer wrote:
Keep in mind it's about players using weapons as improvised weapons ( it doesn't impact in any way TKP )

It does go to provide insight into how the designers view special materials vs runes which will help to determine their intent with telekinetic projectile

Grand Lodge

Vali Nepjarson wrote:
Logan Bonner has stated in a Q&A session that if you chuck a Warhammer at someone that is silver and has the striking rune, then the striking rune does not trigger because the warhammer doesn't have the thrown trait and so you're treating it as an improvised weapon, but the silver still triggers because that's intrinsic to the object itself and it doesn't matter how you touch the target with it.

That is the closest thing there is to an official rule. Do you have a source for the comments so we can use it to support our own personal rulings?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is no reason for each metal to be its own trait because the precious trait already encompasses all the materials that the rules recognize as special. Anyone who says that the materials listed above are not special materials is factually wrong and intentionally ignoring explicit text. While I admit that the precious word does not appear under special weapons and armor that are specifically crafted from those materials, graystone already demonstrated examples of missing traits from the special weapons so using the listed trait as an exhaustive list is problematic at best. Despite all of that, no one as of yet can reasonably refute the very blatant and direct language for the precious trait that I have quoted upthread, but will one more time.

precious [trait] CRB p635 wrote:
Valuable materials with special properties have the precious trait

In no way is that unclear or ambiguous. Things like silver, cold iron, etc. are by definition special materials with special properties. They gain the precious trait no matter what form they are in: raw, armor, weapon, tool, whatever. From the perspective of RAW, there simply cannot be any question as to its impact on the spell. Telekinetic projectile by RAW does not conveyed special materials.

More importantly, who cares?!? No rule in this game is such that we cannot adapt it to fit the needs of our own campaigns. So what if some designer says, "no, you cannot do that?" What authority do they have at your gaming table? Many here clearly think that the spell should convey special materials, so LET IT! You are not required to follow the dictates of any keyboard warrior here in forumland.

The continuation of this argument is pointless unless your intention is simply to be argumentative for argument's sake.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Stratton wrote:
I don’t see that in the text anywhere
precious [trait] CRB p635 wrote:
Valuable materials with special properties have the precious trait.

Abysium, Adamantine, Cold Iron, Cold Iron Blanch, Darkwood, Djezet, Dragonhide, Grisantian Pelt, Inubrix, Mithral, Noqual, Orichalcum, Siccatite, Silver, Sovereign Steel, and Warpglass are all identified.

Grand Lodge

I wonder if it would be more "powerful" if the United Paizo Workers took a broader position, became the United Gaming Workers (or some such) and brought in workers from Asmodee, Hasbro, etc. though its possible that some of them simply pay/treat their employees better and union representation is unnecessary. Given how many people leave Paizo for Wizards, it might be the case.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

In case you want to "hear" the words directly from the proverbial horses mouth...Jason Tondro's Twitter

Seems there is still a lot of leaving Paizo primarily because of being grossly underpaid.

Grand Lodge

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
But the weapon doesn't have the Precious trait...

It does by nature of the Precious trait language as I post upthread. I think the error that is being made is the assumption that since the word "precious" is not listed under the armor, weapon, other item name that it does not apply. While I would agree that if a trait is listed for an item it does have the trait, I would not agree that if a trait is missing from the list, it cannot have the trait, as has been demonstrated by graystone upthread.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I am asking a rules question, not for a ruling suggestion

We know the following directly from the text...

(1) telekinetic projectile does not convey traits
(2) special materials gain the Precious trait
Therefore, by rule, an item hurled using the spell would not convey the special material's properties to the target. That seems to be clear, though I understand that some people are being confused by the lack of the word precious being listed and that we have been conditioned to look there for all trait inclusions.

I admit that my own personal preference is to ignore the restriction to the spell specifically (and only) with regards to special materials because, IMO, it does not make logical sense. I can only assume that the designers either didn't think about special materials gaining the precious trait and therefore being denied by the spell, or they intentionally wanted to deny it presumably for balancing. I just find that a spellcaster's ability to take advantage of or bypass material-based resistance/weakness is incredibly hard. Much moreso than martial characters. So, I rule in their favor with regards to the exception.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Wageslave wrote:
I'm glad that both Gen Con and Paizo have taken a firm stance on protecting the health of others.

It is interesting to note that a month or so ago, Gen Con's published stance was to leave masking to the individual. I read the rules when I bought my badge and again when I booked my hotel. At some point between then and now, they reverted to a mask mandate position. Given that most public places are relaxing their mask mandates, it is quite possible that Gen Con might change again between now and the actual show. If at the time of the show the city of Indianapolis doesn't have a mask mandate and neither do any of the restaurants or hotels or the mall, it might be meaningless for the actual convention to have one.

However, Paizo said (upthread) they were not planning to change their mask mandate even if Gen Con changes theirs. Though given Paizo's history, it would not surprise me if they changed their position and relaxed their mask mandate after the deadline dates for cancellations at Gen Con.

If the status of masking is a deal-breaker, we should have a fairly clear view of what to expect, though there is a greater than zero chance the rules will change.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arcaian wrote:
cold iron traits

As graystone demonstrated, not all weapons list every trait that applies. Armor, weapons, etc. gain the precious trait by nature of being crafted from a special material as I quoted upthread.

The Raven Black wrote:
...the spell causes the damage. The object does not.

Given the description of how the spell works, that is patently inaccurate.

Telekinetic Projectile" wrote:
You hurl a loose, unattended object that is within range and that has 1 Bulk or less at the target. Make a spell attack roll against the target. If you hit, you deal bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage—as appropriate for the object you hurled..."

It is clear, by the description, the spell is merely the power of propulsion and the object is what is doing the damage, the type to be determined by the nature of the object.

Whether or not it affects a golem is a different argument for a different thread and I am not taking a position on that, but since the object is the source of the damage, its another example of it being reasonable for special materials to be conveyed to the target.

As clarity for those who may not have read all the text, I am in favor of telekinetic projectile conveying special materials against resistance/weaknesses and rule as such in my games. However, I am NOT suggesting that is the core rule. The spell specifically does not convey traits to the target and by rule, all special materials gain the precious trait. Therefore, it seems that the official ruling should be that the spell does not convey the special material to the target.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
You are literally proposing that Holy Avengers and any other Cold Iron weapons don't trigger Cold Iron weakness to demons with this interpretation, thereby making Holy Avengers a worse weapon to wield against Demons than any other Holy weapon in the game.

What?!? The description of the Holy Avenger specifically says it is a "+2 greater striking holy [b]cold iron[/i] longsword." It is crafted from cold iron and would therefore count as cold iron vs resistances/weaknesses. The quote I listed above does not change that, if anything it reinforces it.

The comparison between Holy and Cold Iron is irrelevant since they do not interact. Holy does what it does regardless of the weapon's material construction. Cold Iron does what it does regardless of what property runes are applied.

At the end of the day, you rule it however you want to at your table and I will rule it however I want at my table. You are correct at your table (regardless of what I think) and I am correct at my table (regardless of what you think).

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Gary Bush wrote:
It is likely the cap is related to Roll20. If a GM does not subscribe their tables are limited to 5 players.

Not to be argumentative, but this is not accurate. Free accounts are not limited to five players.

HammerJack wrote:
Are you possibly thinking of the limit on the number of players that you can share Compendium access with?

^^^This^^^

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
We already went over this; weapons, armor, and other objects made of special materials don't possess the Precious trait in their statblocks or entries.
precious [trait] CRB p635 wrote:
Valuable materials with special properties have the precious trait.

Seems pretty definitive to me. Unless you want to suggest that special materials do not possess "special properties" when they are used in armor, weapons or other objects in which case, what was the point?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
Silver is not a Trait and never was. It is something else...The technically correct answer for silver and TKP is that it applies.

Anything constructed of silver has the "precious" trait. Telekinetic projectile specifically says it does not confer traits. So, technically, no, it does not apply. However, many of us think it is reasonable for a chunk of silver hurled by the spell to confer the silver. This is not an issue of RAW, its an issue of RAI and how you feel about the text. Myself, I allow it to work, but I stop short of saying that it should be universally true.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think he was referring to the thought that Gen Con might relax their requirements between now and then, but Paizo/Alex is indicating that they do not expect to even in that case. Gary has clearly expressed his dislike for masking and apparently will not participate in org play if there is a mask requirement.

Grand Lodge

The Raven Black wrote:
PFS

This isn't an org play forum group, so I am not thinking about the limitations of that campaign here. That being said, I do play a lot of PFS and to some extent, it still falls to the GM to enforce the rules as they see fit. Ideally, it should be strict and to-the-book, but I've seen way too much table variation, accidental or intentional, to go into a table with a rigid expectation anymore. YMMV.

Grand Lodge

The Raven Black wrote:
There is zero reason...

Sure there is, because I said so. You say that like its definitive. The GM has final say on how all the rules work. If the only qualifier for rule acceptance was "easier" we would have a far different ruleset.

Grand Lodge

Themetricsystem wrote:
Yeah, I'm not interested...

I think your explanation is perfectly reasonable and as the GM if you said as much, I wouldn't argue the point. All I am saying is that IMO there is a significant disadvantage to being a spellcaster vs a weapon-wielder when it comes to material weaknesses and as such it is perfectly reasonable to allow telekinetic projectile to convey special materials.

IMO, there is no such thing as RAW in so far as the only rules that matter are the ones your gaming group uses. Its not like suddenly you aren't playing Pathfinder 2E if you allow the spell some material allowances. Call it a house rule or whatever, at the end of the day, what difference does it make as long as everyone involved knows the rule and its applied consistently? Its not like we can tell Darksol they can/not use special materials with the spell. Only the GM can do that. Maybe a strict reading of the spell does say no as themetricsystem indicates, but that doesn't really matter in the scope of how a rules (or lack thereof) is applied in your campaign.

Grand Lodge

The Raven Black wrote:
Does it seem logical that, when you throw an acid flask at a Troll, it deals acid damage, but, when you hurl it using Telekinetic Projectile, it does not ?

I would simply rule that it is not a suitable material component for the spell. I don't have to worry about it in my games because my players generally do not try to exploit allowances I have provided to give they some minor benefits in order to break the game, but if this bothers you so much, then simply don't allow telekinetic projectile to convey special materials.

Grand Lodge

The Raven Black wrote:

If I say okay when a player uses Telekinetic Projectile to propel silver coins and triggers a werewolf's weakness, even though nothing in the spell description's validates this, what can I say when they fling ice cubes at a fire mephit to trigger their weakness to cold ? Or when they fling embers at an ice mephit for the same purpose ?

How can I say no then when I previously said yes ?

Simple. That's just the way it works. The spell does not convey elemental traits. It only conveys material compounds (silver, cold iron, adamantine, darkwood, etc.). It doesn't really have to be any more complicated than that.

Grand Lodge

Errenor wrote:
Well, GMs hardly can limit silver coins, at least. :)

As GM, I/you/we can limit anything and everything as the campaign requires.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sheesh people, if you are worried about someone exploiting telekinetic projectile then just limit how much special materials you give out as loot. Pretty simple really. I'll never understand why GMs are so worried about players breaking the game when they can do whatever they want to correct it, up to and including simply saying, "well, I did not realize this was going to be over-powered when I previously allowed it, but clearly it is, so I'm shutting it down."

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I am incline to allow it since it is incredibly difficult for spell-users to overcome resistances and take advantage of weaknesses. Doesn't seem very logical that if I pick up a chunk of silver from the ground and hurl it at a lemure using telekinetic projectile it will resist part of the damage, but if I throw it with my bare hand it'll ignore the resistance. I think in my games I would allow a chunk of special material hurled with telekinetic projectile to take advantage of any material weaknesses if the player is prepared to lose said item since at that point I would rule it is ammunition and therefore expended or it is consumed by the magic of the spell. Either way, its gone. In the long run its not very cost effective, but at least it gives them some options.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Is there a different Form for Gen Con Online?

Alex Speidel wrote:
There will be, but until we have information from Gen Con about their event, we can't start recruiting GMs.

If you haven't yet done so, I strongly encourage you to join the Discord server. It is org play's official channel for information about Gen Con & PaizoCon and is a live chat as opposed to the very passive blog/forums

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Xathos of Varisia wrote:
It is possible that Gen Con limited Paizo's presence. If so, they need to make that statement up front. I haven't seen that statement. Instead, I see a big wall of silence which indicates bad decision making.

Why do they owe us an explanation? If it was a Gen Con decision, maybe they don't want to fan the flames for a bunch of convention hate for limiting someone's favorite game. If it was Paizo's decision, why would they want to encourage more ire? Org Play participation (completed table counts) had been shrinking over the course of a few years prior to the pandemic. Maybe one side or the other decided it was time to react to that trend. Just because we build it [schedule tables] doesn't mean they [players] will come.

Xathos of Varisia wrote:
If it was Gen Con, then they are idiots for doing so.

First, let's dial down the name calling. Second, why? What insight do you/we have to know why the decision was made. Sounds like you're mad simply because YOUR favorite game is smaller than you want it to be. Given Paizo's history in the Sag, there is no reason for Gen Con to limit their footprint...unless there is a reason.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
4 GMs in each room

Alex confirmed that if/when they assign GMs to a room, it will only be two. If there are three/four in a room it is because they requested it.

Alex Speidel wrote:
If we get to the point where Paizo is assigning rooms, they will be two to a room. You are free to voluntarily take up to four people in your room but we won't be assigning them that way this year.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xathos of Varisia wrote:
We should have the Sag at full capacity...

You are assuming it was Paizo's decision to only book part of the room. It is possible the convention limited Paizo's footprint. The price difference between booking the entire room, and only most of the room is relatively minor, so there is really no reason for Paizo to choose to remain in the Sag (some of the most expensive floor space), but leave a little piece out for a competitor. Unless of course, its not a competitor, but a partner.

Xathos of Varisia wrote:
There's only 28 rooms which means 112 GMs...

No, it means there is space for 112 GMs who are at the room reward level. There are A LOT of GMs who volunteer for less than that level of reward so you cannot make a direct correlation between room vacancies and total GM headcount. Historically, the average commitment level for Gen Con GMs is just over five slots (roughly 1500 tables vs 300 GMs). That may/not apply to this year given the circumstances of the past two years, but until they process the volunteer applications, there is no way to know.

Xathos of Varisia wrote:
600 tables

So far I cannot find anywhere that leadership has posted the table counts. You are conflating hotel room vacancies to table seat counts which has never been a "thing." Table counts are determined by Gen Con, not Paizo, based on the size of the space. They provide a table floor map and Paizo can request some minor adjustments, but in the end it is determined by Gen Con and ICC. If Gen Con is going to increase the spacing between tables, there will be fewer tables in the Sag. If Paizo has to share the space, there will be fewer tables.

Xathos of Varisia wrote:
What I perceive...

You are certainly welcome to draw whatever conclusions you want, but at this time, we simply do not have enough information to jump to the conclusions you have made.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

3 people marked this as a favorite.

There is no reason to start getting persnickety at each other. If they don't require masks and you think they should, don't go. If they require masks and you think they shouldn't, don't go. Pretty simple really.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does it need to be any simpler than Paizo feels that it is still in their best interest to require masking for the protection of their staff and volunteers? Just because state governments are relaxing their requirements, there are some who feel it is still premature and given that there will be a large group of international travelers in a confined area for an extended period of time, perhaps they feel it prudent to take additional precautions. YMMV

Personally, I am more interested in details like how many tables will be offered for each system and what "our portion of the Sagamore ballroom" means.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Probably because in the past, being a tier 1 GM guaranteed you a room. Now, it is possible to volunteer for 7 or more slots and not get a room provided and if that happens and you bail the last bullet point suggests it will count against you for future volunteering. That's a bit harsh given that (1) it is unlikely that anyone who intended to volunteer even tried to get into the hotel lottery since it has never been needed before, and (2) I sounds like Paizo has received about half as many rooms as they have in the past. But, I'm just guessing...

EDIT--not to mention it heavily encourages volunteers to do 10-slots which is incredibly hard on the mind and body, but since the free room is a deal-breaker for a lot of our volunteers, they will do it rather than miss out on Gen Con entirely and could result in fatigue that will impact the games towards the end of the show. It wouldn't surprise me if some volunteers do 7 slots in hopes of getting a room, and if they don't, will try and "barter" their way into a room by adding more tables.

On the other hand, if this results in a much higher average slots per GM rate than we have historically experienced, it could mean better coverage (no cancelled tables). Though the reference to "our portion of the Sagamore ballroom" could mean that Paizo is not getting exclusive use of the room this year which would mean less demand for GMs. Given that the rumor is tables will be spread out more this year, it will be interesting to see how many tables are scheduled for org and if any of the room is being used by someone else.

Grand Lodge

I admit that I am not an expert on this topic, but I would disagree with the logic that...

Nefreet wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
I am looking at using something like running reload while flying
This is still possible, though, since Sneak allows for using your fly Speed, and Running Reload can be combined with Sneak.

Just because you can Sneak while Flying and you can Sneak while Running Reload, does not mean that you can Running Reload while Flying.

Nefreet wrote:
"[Y]ou can't Step using a Speed other than your land Speed".

I completely missed that. Interesting that even creatures with natural flight cannot Step and therefore cannot withdraw safely from melee. I will probably amend that in my home games and allow creatures with natural flight to Step while flying. It just "feels" wrong that a bird, who is much more agile in flight than walking, could Step if they are stumbling around on the ground, but not when they are flittering around in your face.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Even in cases where the GM is wrong, in a practical sense, they are still right because its their table to run. You cannot "make" them rule differently in the moment. The standard response to situations you don't agree with is:

(1) discuss it with the party in question and try to convince them of your opinion. This doesn't always work, especially if you are not charismatic enough to make the discussion amicable. Too often when someone objects to a situation, it becomes a battle that rarely resolves anything.

(2) as indicated above, take your complaint to the event organizer and/or local venture-officer corps. If they agree with you and believe there is a rules violation, they should address the issue with the GM in question. If the GM does not correct their behavior, they risk being banned from running games. OTOH, the leader may decide that the GM's actions are within the scope of "table variation" and you just have to accept it.

(3) at the end of the day, if you object to the behavior and local leadership will not take action to your satisfaction, avoid playing with said person. Life is too short to be upset/unhappy. There is nothing stopping you from organizing your own events, excluding said person, or participating in online events to avoid any local troublemakers.

Good luck!

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Numbat wrote:
The most recent UPW Twitter thread from earlier this month.

Thank you for the link. I do not follow Twitter (or most other social media sites for that matter) and I imagine I'm not alone. Interesting that Twitter would have more up to date information than their own website.

James Case wrote:
These sources will always contain the most up-to-date information...

Does not seem so in this instance as it seems the UPW posted something on Twitter that was not present on their own website. Hence, the appearance of radio silence and the impetus of the inquiry.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, its been more than three months since the last blog update by the UPW, much longer since Paizo shared anything meaningful. Has the UPW lost steam? Has their leadership been determined? Are they in active negotiations with Paizo?
Has Paizo successfully "weathered the storm" and returned to business as usual?

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Is Paizo required to have an official public message on every global sociopolitical event that occurs? Do they need to make a statement about all the occurrences of malnutrition in the world? Do they need to have a public opinion on the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia? How about the treatment of the Uyghurs in China? They are a relatively small nitch-product book publisher who's priority is to run their businesses. No reasonable person should be expecting them to take a stance on anything/everything, especially something that has virtually zero to do with their market, or at least anymore than any number of hundreds of other issues.

If I/you/we want to make personal declarations in support of an event that is meaningful to me/you/us and share ways we can make similar support, that is excellent and should be applauded. However, its not our place to choose for other people (individually or collectively) which global issues they will choose to get involved in or even have a public-facing opinion on.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

I agree that the GM had an obligation to warn the players, but I stop at saying they have an obligation to use the death and dying rules. The warning should be sufficient. I recall running a scenario semi-recently with a similar theme and I did not use the death and dying rules. Though, in each instance, I was fortunate that have players savvy enough to recognize the situation and use nonlethal force without prompting.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kasoh wrote:
Alignment is objective on Golarion

The alignment axis is objective, but what is included under the scope of each box is subjective. Almost no action (only the absolute extremes) is likely to be judged the same by all viewers. And we are rarely talking about or interested in the most extreme of actions which becomes more clear the more extreme they are. We generally concern ourselves with the much more nuanced of actions. If there actually was a Pharasma or an Asmodeus or an Imodedae, we could ask them and have an objective truth. However, we are always making assumptions about those entities as viewed through out own interpretations of morality.

The only real objective truth is that there is good and evil in the multiverse, but where along that line a particular action falls is subjective.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kasoh wrote:

I really want the study of alignment on Golarion to be part of the natural sciences instead of magic research. I bet Rahadoum studies it as part of their anti-religion teachings and there's a conspiracy within the government about how close the country is to tipping into LE over its LN tendencies.

An adventure that could really lean into objective morality certainly seems like one that would be hard to make, given all the table variation we can expect.

While personally I would find this an interesting topic to approach, its probably better we steer clear of it. Ya know, that whole religion thing. It is incredibly difficult to have a meaningful discussion about fantasy morality and religion without drawing on real world understandings and beliefs in an attempt to find common-ground

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
And discrimination

Even moreso than the others listed, IMO we need to steer very clear of this one. Not in a general society sense (where it should be discussed), but within the scope of this game forum. It absolutely will lead to arguments and moderation.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kasoh wrote:
Maybe. But the fiction of the setting has no such ambiguity. Actions are aligned. On Golarion, I can say X is Evil and be right regardless of anyone's opinion or beliefs.

Only if you are the GM. If you are a player and your evaluation differs from that of the GM, then you are in fact wrong within that context.

The Raven Black wrote:
But here we are supposed to be talking about the setting, where Good and Evil are undisputed cosmic realities.

In theory, I agree, but the nature of the game leaves those undisputed cosmic realities to be adjudicated by the GM and therefore, by definition there cannot be undisputed realities. What is evil only exists within the scope of your game. It is not universally true in all games. Morality and alignment is way too nuanced for the designers to be all inclusive/exclusive in their descriptions. Hell, if you study the narrative of all RPG editions you will find contradictions within their own texts. Virtually everything has context/motivation that goes to the degree of which something is evaluated within the alignment system.

Perpdepog wrote:
Surprised nobody's mentioned murder yet.

It is certainly an interesting topic, but probably deserves its own thread and is usually better discussed within the more general topic of killing. Any discussion of murder has to include the topic of motivation which is the crux of alignment assignment.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

We have been arguing about this for more than fifty years and people continue to think they can resolve it. Not gonna happen. If anyone is making definitive statements about what is/not evil or what alignment is/not and thinks that their OPINION on the subject is the "RIGHT" one or is likely to be shared by a large enough majority to be considered prevailing is either naive or narcissistic. We all have our opinions about what is/not evil, how alignment is applied, etc., but those are just individual opinions. If someone tries to suggest that their opinion is a universal truth, they are wrong. Period. Saying, "I think <enter subject matter here> is evil" is true and perfectly reasonable. OTOH, saying, "<subject matter> is always and universally evil," is not true and can be insulting to others in your discourse. Especially in a fantasy world where our characters routinely perform and sanction actions that would be unacceptable in our real world.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
The whole "we will torture the bad guy to get the location of the bomb in time to defuse it" is just a myth that people use to justify torture.

Except that historically there are uncounted times when it did work. If it never worked, it would be much less frequent. Course if it always worked, it would be even more frequent. Like most things, it is not absolute.

Torturing an innocent is probably always evil since there is nothing good that can come from it. However, if there is a bomb and only the subject of the torture knows how to resolve it and you get that information through torture which results in countless innocents being saved, I cannot classify that as evil. YMMV

The reason why it is generally detestable is that no matter how many times it does work, the one time you torture an actual innocent, you have lost your moral position. At least that is how it is generally judged. Similar to how capital punishment is evaluated. Even most people who are against the death penalty are not so because of the act itself. It is because we cannot guarantee that a mistake won't be made and an innocent is inadvertently killed due to human error, faulty science, etc. If we could guarantee only the "right" people were executed, chances are it would be used everywhere and only the most absolutely radical would oppose it on some other grounds (religious beliefs, etc).

Grand Lodge

The Raven Black wrote:
I find it extremely interesting that there is nothing in the game AFAIK that can tell the alignment of a given act (except for those with an alignment trait). You can only detect the alignment of creatures, thanks to their alignment aura.

Agreed, and I thinks its a flaw (albeit minor) in the current system. In older editions there was the idea of 'intentions' such that even if a neutral/good character was about to, in the midst of, or perhaps even just did commit an evil act, they would radiate evil, even if that evil wasn't a strong enough action to force an alignment change. Course, this places a lot of responsibility on the GM, but it does feel more "real" and would eliminate the silly situation where a creature's statblock listed it as CN, even though it was actively participating in a greater evil and thus made it immune to a paladin's smite or a divine character's judgement-like abilities.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
We probably agree that torture is evil

Generally, yes. Universally, no. At least that's true if you believe in the adage the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. Meaning that if the subject of your torturous efforts is aware of an impending evil, but refuses to prevent it, the question of using torture to forcibly extract that information becomes much less certain. Does an "evil" cease to be so if it benefits society? Kind of like killing is generally evil, but there are circumstances when it is arguably not evil (war, capital punishment, self-defense, etc). Course torture can become increasingly unreliable so its use is complicated. By the time you know if the extracted information is reliable, it might be too late to act on and then the torture becomes less justified. Like most things, there is enough nuance to have a blanket morality applied to it.

1 to 50 of 8,279 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>