In your option, would we be using the standard rules for ability increase?
The way wolfman set it up, we would have to hoard point-buy points to advance our abilities. Would be a little bit of a record keeping hassle.
|Gunser of Biston|
No objections to the new point buy.
As for the other, well, sorry to dissapoint. Valerio (cad that he is) won't kill downed opponents (see my first post about Akari). He would fake being unconcious long enough to take the upper hand against some other "do gooder" though!
|Gunser of Biston|
Kill the eagle before he heals it, then he'll be easier to catch. :) I'm kidding, I don't think we chase them. I do think we should put on heavy hurt and misinformation, if we can. And learn what we can. Playing it by ear now, maybe we have to run away, but not before the traditional looting.
Mel, you have got to get you some Charm Person. They can't attack you, and you can just talk them into stuff they'd never do. For a first level slot? Isn't there a hex, too?
Aleks, please at least witness Val's gonna kill the half-elf because his good friend the gnome said to. Because that stuff is 'needs killing as first-strike' degree of evil, and the prison scene suggests we're gonna lock horns on that.
Seriously, way too much mind control here, they all need killing ASAP, before they get Jelani.
Pursuit would be hampered by the green stuff. Arrows probably not.
The question is: Can the lawn ornament get around a corner, before Taurven can draw his bow?
The eagle is just an animal, far as Taurven knows. So there is no real reason to kill it. It could even be an ally if one of us is good at animal handling.
|Gunser of Biston|
Aleks, you're on the far side of the entangle.
Val, I feel your pain, here. Since your good buddy didn't say how to kill the helpless dude, just notice that he's bleeding out, and decide he's not worth the effort. If you actually have to do something hostile, begin to beat him to death, 1d3 at a time, which might give us time, though I doubt it, he looks kinda weedy. If you have to Coup de Grace, use your wimpiest weapon. Or (I like this best) catch sight of Jelani's hammer, and decide it's the right tool for the job, and try to get it from him. That'll take a while.
If you come for Gunser's oar, I can promise you lots of words. :)
Not to be contrary here, but Charm person is not a Dominate spell. See below:
Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yes
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw. The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person’s language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.
Bolded text negates any order that is harmful. Killing helpless people in front of my friends would be a harmfull act. Also, notice there is no language that allows others to understand the character is enchanted. This spell is 1st lvl, and good for many things, but not combat. It's excellent for avoiding combat. The only way Valerio would obey that command (RAW) is if he had an evil alignment, and therefore felt no compunction about coup de gras in broad daylight. Charm Person is an awesome spell when used in a subtle manner. It's meant for making positive relationships and gaining favors, not control.
Saving Throw W ll negates; Spell Resistance yes
You can control the actions of any humanoid creature through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject’s mind. If you and the subject have a common language, you can generally force the subject to perform as you desire, within the limits of its abilities. If no common language exists, you can communicate only basic commands, such as “Come here,” “Go there,” “Fight,” and “Stand still.” You know what the subject is experiencing, but you do not receive direct sensory input from it, nor can it communicate with you telepathically. Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it continues to attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth). Because of this limited range of activity, a Sense Motive check against DC 15 (rather than DC 25) can determine that the subject’s behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect (see the Sense Motive skill description). Changing your orders or giving a dominated creature a new command is a move action.
Notice how much stronger the language is in this spell. It leaves no room for misunderstanding, the target = your puppet. It's also 5th lvl, and there is language added so everyone can tell you are enchanted (DC 15 sense motive is childsplay at 7th lvl). That part is crucial for balancing this ability. Dominate is one of the most stressful spells in the game because it removes control from the player/target. Charm person is not a dominate spell + charisma checks. If it were, the entire world would be run by enchanters.
I let the first attack slide, because I could do it in a non-threatening manner. I took a risk though, because rightfully, Taurven would never trust Valerio again. I could always say I'm not a fan of new Metallica!
For everyone elses sake I made the roll for you in the gameplay thread. Valerio will bow out of this story without a retcon. He's very distraught about murdering people, and needs to go drink heavily.
|Gunser of Biston|
It's not our bard, it's the geek who was a horsey. Me, I would stagger worriedly toward my superbestest good friend on his burning bird, and get tangled in the weeds. Or not want to mess up my flail, and go for one of the fallen guard's weapons or Jelani's hammer. I'll avoid whether the spell works as strongly as it's been used. But I will say that however well it works, people still get in their own way all the time. And that losing Val over this is pretty dismal.
I'm not making my final decision at this time, but I am seriously considering dropping out of this campaign.
There have been a couple of recent events that made me feel that this isn't developing into a good match for me. The interpretation of Charm Person as save or puppet is close to the last straw. This interpretation gives way too much power for a GM to turn a player character into his tool.
That said, I'm going to defer judgment for a day or two. I've got a lot of crap hitting IRL that I need to deal with before I make a serious decision about a game that has me peeved.
|Gunser of Biston|
For what it's worth, I also think Charm Person is over-read, here. The prospect of it being used in the same way on Jelani (would he have just boxed Taurven's ears, or maybe used the deathhammer?) or on Aleks (would he lose paladinhood for the CdG?) is daunting. I don't know where everyone's redlines are, but I imagine they might also be at risk of being crossed.
I tried to roll with it when similar happened with the Unnatural Lust effect on Gunser, but it was a burden. That a revealed math error unmade the event doesn't unmake the possibility. So if the applicants can read this, they should leave space in their concepts for dealing with such. Because these spells are in the game.
And if there's no space in a character concept for dealing with such, then yeah, that character maybe should be written out. Go on a bender in the base, maybe, because you're part of the Eight. Or maybe if you die, your tattoo can be transferred, or similar treknobabble.
I think the campaign's got a good concept, and I'd like to see if we can get over these speedbumps.
You're probably right; I'm sorry if I hadn't made this clear, but I am a novice GM; this is only my second game ever run.
I've probably misunderstood how charm person is supposed to work; I've never seen it used in a pathfinder game so was just using my own interpretation; namely a save-and-then-fail-a-charisma-check-then-puppet. I was also too... brusque? that the right word?... with telling you how to do it.
I'm happy to stop using Charm Person and Charm Monster for quite awhile, MAYBE using it myself after we've cleared some clear rules
@Valerio- Sorry I didn't give you a fair deal man, I hope you reconsider but i'll understand if you don't.
@Mellany- I'd be very happy to discuss some of the issues, in my novicedom I'd been assuming things had been going along okay. Please PM, I'd really like to keep ou in this campaign.
I'm also sorry if it seems like I'm trying to railroad you down some plot direction; I'm really not. I've got some vague plans for a few other NPCs and for the tavern (though I do have a very good write-up for Kore) and all my actions this combat were basically along the lines of 'everyone in this gang hates eachother, and gnome doesn't want you guys to get information; *force mind control* KILL HIM'.
I hope you all can bear with me because despite this I am having fun and I'd like you guys to as well; let me know what you need so you can feel comfortable advancing in this game.
|Gunser of Biston|
I hope to ride along.
My understanding (I guess I'm an old hand, I look like Gunser's avatar, only less pretty) of Charm Person is it makes them think you're their best friend. If you could talk your best friend into killing a dude, you both need better friends. :)
And do me the favor of having any future Unnatural Lust cast on Gunser be for dancehall ads or theatre posters or actual females. :)
New GM? That's a hard gig. Short-form advice: Dice can mess with players, you should not. Figure out if you're 'messing with', by turning the scene around in your mind. Would it feel any kind of cool? If yes, go with it. If no, and it's something you decided, look at it again, real hard, before using it.
And if a player expresses a 'I do not want to have that happen', don't reach for the dice to decide. The player knows about the dice; he wasn't talking to the dice. He was talking to you.
Anyway, take more time to think about things from more sides. And forgive yourself if you screw up, because I still do, and I've been doing this for 33 years.
New GM is a hard gig.
I am apparently unique (or at least rare) on these boards in that I don't think it's evil to kill people who have attacked you. I've run into this problem in numerous games. I think about it the same way I would in real life. If someone tries to kill me, I am well within my rights to end them. Even if it's after I knock them out. I would probably choose not to, but they gave up their right to live when they tried to take mine.
That being said, I'd agree that charm person should not work like Dominate person. The key line in my opinion being "Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell." Since the gnome's allies were threatening us the entire time, the spell should have never worked.
Unnatural Lust is completely different. As long as the "If the target would not normally have lustful feelings toward the designated creature or object, it receives a +4 bonus on its saving throw." is followed, it's just a sh*tty version of hold person. It only lasts one round, and you have to kiss someone. Big deal.
I'm enjoying the game, but if everyone else isn't then there's a problem somewhere. If I'm being too crude or forceful or something and it's ruining anyone's fun I'd be happy to chill out. Just let me know.
Also, as an aside I haven't even been alive for 33 years. Though I have been gaming for about 13 years now. I've only been seriously DMing the last year or two. But I've gone through a lot of games and learning experiences in that time. Main thing to mind is that everyone is on the same page. People come from all different backgrounds and with different expectations. It's especially hard in an all text format.
I was OK with the rulings for Unnatural Lust in both instances. I am so going to have my bard in Jade Regent learn that one when she has a chance. It's kind of a one round Hold Person with the advantages of possibly getting a second victim and social embarrassment!
Furthermore, I have no gripes with the play of anyone who has joined the game.
Sent Arkwright a PM for his perusal.
For further consideration, I've always read Entangle as effecting plants that are already in the area, but not creating plants. The second paragraph of the spell description can subjected to major abuse if you can create plants with the spell:
If the plants in the area are covered in thorns, those in the area take 1 point of damage each time they fail a save against the entangle or fail a check made to break free. Other effects, depending on the local plants, might be possible at GM discretion.
I can just imagine whiny players insisting that the conjured plants have to have thorns because they can have thorns.
|Gunser of Biston|
I've got no problem with Jelani's depiction. I did think we were collectively a bit too ribald with Mel, but I kind of blame myself for starting that with "I'd look down by the docs" post. I was relieved when she wrote around us, just having Mel not hear us.
I'm glad to be gaming with Jelani, having seen a lot of your tracks on the board, it's good to know what critter makes those tracks. :)
With regard to Charm Person and 'any act ... that threatens ... breaks the spell', I saw that, and then noted that until the gnome had charmed, he had not spoken, and was presumably unseen. And when seen, arguably not automatically apparently allied with the others. Arguably. Capital ARGU. :) Plus the phrase "that threatens the charmed person". I'm not sure he was ever attacked. Even the Entangle missed him. Arkwright looked to me to be surfing the edge, but that convinced me he knew where he wanted it to be.
As for Unnatural Lust, I don't like it. It's way more than Daze on steroids. Some things I'd worry about: Knotholes. Poisons. Traps along the path to your 'beloved'. Heck, just traps. BEARtraps. All of which, sure, it's legal, go ahead. But Gunser's going to kill anyone he catches at it. CG paladin, like. Casters think it's big yucks, Gunser sees it as trespass.
Usually it's more fun if things don't go your way. If you are in fear for your characters life, then the game is being played correctly.
That being said, the use of charm person seemed a bit over. True, the caster is your new best friend, but this does not mean your allies now suddenly become your enemies. Valerio would have probably had to stop and think about it, and take a great deal more convincing. the RAW is not always the best way to go. Usually it is, but not always.
I do find it ironic, that Valerio was OK to attack Taurven, but killing an enemy was too much for him.
|Gunser of Biston|
He was alright with attacking to quiet you, but not with attacking to KILL the other guy.
And the challenge point is well made. You've got to be at risk. But that's what's wrong with the mind control stuff. You're not at risk. You are TAKEN. It's way past 'risk', or 'defeat', it's forced surrender, forced capitulation.
On the spectrum of bad stuff, getting beaten down in a fight (the default, and you get to beat back) is not as bad as getting grappled into submission (lots of chances to break out/reverse) is not as bad as getting slept (useless, but you get a save) is not as bad as hurting your friends (less than useless) is not as bad as being made to hurt your friends (less than useless, plus you're a victim), and all that is not as bad as having changes to the character's concept inflicted.
We expect HP damage, stat damage, stolen stuff, dead friends. We don't expect Gunser gets hot for Taurven (or some might, but I didn't), or Val's low-rent-neighborhood paladin to slit throats (or some might, but Val didn't).
I hope Val's still with us. But I can understand why he might not be.
I dunno. I expect that if I fail a will save I could be forced to do any number of things.
I still say that charm person was mistakenly misused, but understandably so. The spell does say you can force someone to do something they wouldn't do with a charisma check. It's just supposed to be a non-combat thing. Thus the line about threatening. Also, we should have all been getting perception checks to hear to Gnome casting (may have been rolled by DM?), and unless he had cover/concealment should have automatically seen him. Regardless of whether you can see the caster and know if he's allied with someone, the intent of the wording is for the spell to break if you come under threat.
I think it would have been more constructive for Val to state his arguments for something, which Arkwright seems to be entirely amenable to, than to just storm off saying "I quit!" It's just a game, and everyone wants everyone to have fun. Now we are caught in this mire of repeating ourselves and b*tching.
If Val's gone, he's gone. Lets just let the water pass under the bridge and move on?
Thanks for your responses, guys. Sorry I haven't posted all day, had to take a flight.
I also have to admit that I screwed you with perceiving the gnome casting; I figured that as he was 30ft up, poking his head out, you were all distracted by Big Blue and I really wanted his entrance to be a surprise I'd deny you a perception check; former are okay-ish reasons, latter is terrible. Apologies for that, I'll try very hard not to let it happen again.
PLEASE let me know of any issues with how i'm playing the game that come up, just shoot me a PM.
Now, back to Gameplay.
First, sorry Taurven. I have nothing against the bard, it's just that the deafening thing was basically harmless, and I didn't realize it was only charm person being used. Once I realized that it was only Charm person, I had to set it straight.
That being said, I am asking for a Retcon on this encounter, to include attacking Taurven. Under the effects of Charm Person, Valerio would NOT attack a friend. If the Gnome has been using Dominate Person, that's another story. Look out, because Valerio is a monster!
I've been gaming for 22 years. I totally understand the novice DM thing, and would like to stay in if Mell and everyone else stays too. I like this group.
With that aside, I'll just PM you with my insight if you do not mind. This keeps it out of the discussion/gameplay arena.
I am also liking this game a lot and would love to stay in it. I agree--we can all be mature adults and work through any misunderstandings.
This coming from me, the teenager who's been gaming for maybe five years? Haha.
Charm Person seemed a little overpowered this time around. 1st level spells shouldn't be "save or controlled," but it is the GM's judgment. That's the danger of having a low Will save--it's potentially the worst thing to leave low in the game.
Unnatural Lust seemed alright. Mostly a little comical. One round, nothing harmful, allows a good save... Seemed fine to me.
Huzzah for mercy!
@Valerio- ah great, I thought we'd lost you. Glad to still have you; apologies again for the Charm Person, like I said I overestimated how much control I would have over you and I thought phrasing it like 'shut him up he's being irritating' wouldn't cause as much opposition as 'KILL HIM NOW'. Anyway, I'm happy to retcon, so Tauvren you can now hear again.
@Aleksandyr- he's still unconscious but no longer bleeding out.
@Blast- I've been playing Pathfinder for about eight months and no RPGs ever before that xD
@Mellany- No problem, you were justified in some of your complaints.
I suppose I still see Enchantment spells as useful for designing a difficult encounter; I need to make enemies tricky but not so tricky that they kill you in one blow, and sending some spells to lock a few of you down and divert resources seems to me to be a good way to make it more challenging. But clearly some spells require much more knowledge and judgement than others and I'll hold off on them for awhile.
|Gunser of Biston|
Hadn't meant to break his leg, but you roll dice in this game.
Gunser expects an earful, Aleks. :)
Back now from posting in gameplay.
Sorry for delay in responding to question re: nonlethal. That was the intent. But, them's the breaks.
I hope we can indeed heal him up, if it turns out we favor that option.
I hope it turns out we favor that option. :)
800gp's ain't even money, yet. :)
Good pickins, otherwise. Likely the hat for Blast. I've always been a 'where best used' sort of treasure-divider. In a situation like the Eight, strict value-shares seem silly. Not like anyone's gonna up and leave.
I know I'm gonna get an earful from Aleks. But I'll give him one right back on healing his allies instead of the enemy. I'm down like 15 HP right now >_>*
As I stated previously, I don't think killing people who tried to kill us is evil. If the DM states otherwise I'll change my tune. But I'm gonna do what's practical until then.
|Gunser of Biston|
I'll pass on arguing over evil.
But when the paladin has spent time stabilizing the half-elf, it's definitely a contrary move.
I do have to wonder at our long-term prospects as a group of eight fate-bound souls.
I'm going to go lean on these rules over here:
Coup de Grace is a full-round, and interruptable, action. So everyone nearby gets to decide to interrupt you. Any guesses if and who?
But that would end badly, I think. So I'm going to refer to when I said we leave, and you can catch up. The GM had a question, and I get to answer it. You might find we've gone before you get to start that full-round action.
I don't mean to be a dick, but I expect we're going to lose a player if you do that CdG, and I'd like to go 24 hours or so between ragequits.
I could just attack him (damage would easily finish him). Who's gonna carry the limp bloody half-elf through the streets of the capital city of Cheliax without bringing the Hellknights down on us? If we leave him here he can just tell them all about us. If we can't heal him back to consciousness (which is a huge waste of resources since we already have two captives) he's just a threat.
Edit:Also, our goal is to eliminate the gangs. We're not going to do that by beating them up, healing them back to health and then herding them around like sheep under the threat of death (which we'll never actually deliver because we're too 'good').
Aleksandyr will prevent you from killing the half-elf. He didn't heal any allies because they were not on the ground dying. Aleksandyr is compassionate and a healer of the sick before he's a zealous fist of Iomedae. I understand IC decisions but if allowed, Aleksandyr can and will prevent a Coup de Grace on a helpless enemy.
|Gunser of Biston|
The history of the game so far has the party defend Blast against an attack by the TailCutters. The attackers were all left alive, one healed by magic. So that's our history.
Working with that, since we're all supposed to be the same guys from that fight, we're doing similarly. Well, the rest of us were doing similarly. We've had huge drama over not killing the helpless.
I thought you would carry the half-elf. I'm hopeful like that.
If we leave him we lose nothing, the gnome also knows, and so does the other guard/bard that ran away.
His future threat is the only good point you make. It isn't yet determined whether it's smarter to kill, heal, or ignore him. Who get's to decide? Us. If we carry him off, we get to do it together. The gnome wanted him dead. That's enough for me to want him alive.