|
Random note to self. When Pvping, find a way to get blindsight. And silent spell.
And expect deeper darkness shenanigans
I withdrew my submission because the recruitment thread had gotten rather unfriendly.
But my submitted form had blindsense 30ft,immunity to cold, fire, acid and lightning, evasion,and stalwart(if I pass a fort save or will save) that has partial effect on save, it does nothing to me.
30 ft blindsight would be just one greater evolution surge away.
The silence did screw up everyone using echolocation, though.
I had something like Fort +30,Ref +28,Will +35. Again this is on a 30 point buy, trisalt rules, and not standard pathfinder.
My pre fight buffs would have included trueseeing and I did carry an oil of daylight. Would also have got a scroll of Aroden spellbane to me keyed against anti magic field, greater dispel magic and probably one more spell I can't think off at this point of time. Maybe Blasphemy.
My ac on long term buffs would have been 53 normal, 24 touch, flatfooted 49.
+2 to all of the above numbers if attacker is evil due to magic circle against evil.
I did really to the best of my ability, try to think of everything. But I didn't expect silence.
|
Well, in that case, I suggest taking the Sensing armor upgrade, if you are worried about Silence.
Alternately, build a weretiger-kin Skinwalker, and just have the See In Darkness ability ;-)
The Cheese is strong in this one...
|
|
Problem is I was wearing my suit. I can't use armor.
I don't think eidolon blindsight is blocked by silence since it could be due to acute scent or something else.
Blindsight under universal monster entry.
Some creatures possess blindsight, the extraordinary ability to use a non-visual sense (or a combination senses) to operate effectively without vision. Such senses may include sensitivity to vibrations, acute scent, keen hearing, or echolocation.
Sure, echolocation is one of the ways but not all. Maybe I can see infra red? Lol. Though seeing infra red when the target is undead well, who knows =P
The bad guy, I suspect is functioning under greater invisibility + mind blank. So simple stuff like true seeing does not work and he shut down echolocation via silence pebble. See in darkness wouldn't have seen anything either due to mindblank +greater invisibility.
BTW for the cheese is strong in this one, did you mean me?
*wags tail eagerly*
|
|
I personally think I have more midichlorians then the average pathfinder. It's just for the sake of the world usually I restrain quite some.
But then it leads to occasions that when I want to tap into the unspeakable cheese, I hit mental blocks. Again maybe it's the way the universe is trying to keep me from the unspeakable cheese.
|
|
If you have 30ft blindsense (blindsense evolution) why do you really need 60 feet? I suppose the 5 ft blindsight is useful, but a greater evolution surge gets you 30ft blindsight.
I built my eidolon that way.
I actually did want to do blindsight all the way, then decided that true seeing would probably cover most issues and went for blindsense to prepare for blindsight at need.
Aroden spellbane for AMF was more to prevent me from being separated from my suit.
Rest of you - if this goes over your head, don't worry about it too much. This is really extreme pathfinder science.
|
|
This was original submission but I did have a version for more offense that squeezed in 2 paladin levels for divine grace and 1/day smite evil.
But basically something like that.
Evolutions: Large (4), Shadow Blend (2), Improved Natural Armor (1), Blindsense (3), Immunity Fire (2), Immunity Cold(2), Immunity Acid(2), Immunity Lightning(2), Magic Attacks (1), Bite (1)
I know Leonard is currently asleep, but I'm waiting for him to resolve his conversation with the cook + does the party want a visit to the Stardust Augurs?
Leonard, don't worry you can get to it once you wake up.
Actually, I wasn't asleep, I was awake in bed waiting, since yesterday a one hour nap turned into a five hour nap which apparently means I'm not allowed to go to sleep.
I think it's more because I made a pretty eggregious error while playing Magic: The Gathering which cost me a match. Stayed awake replaying everything that happened and wondering about my self-worth. Maybe a little bit because it's cold and I was having trouble getting warm, too.
Guess I'll make breakfast today...sigh.
I think your build has some pretty low saves, right? What's your defence against dazing blade barrier? Didn't actually look into it yet.
Anyway, let's see what's going on in the kitchen...
|
|
Fort +26, Ref +25, Will +28; +6 v enchantmments
Well that was before I slotted the paladin levels in.. to be honest.
Add 2 for heroism, for 28,27, 30.
Why don't you give it a shot and see where your saves get =)
To be honest - you can't make yourself immune to force damage, your saves are as much defence as you get. Other then that, don't stand within 20 ft of the ground, since one of my long term buffs would have included overland flight.
I did magic the gathering some time ago, but I am NOT going to pay the kind of money it takes to build a proper deck so yeah.
|
|
Lets put it this way:
Base saves of a class that has good saves for everything at level 15 =
Fort 9
Ref 9
Will 9
Cloak of resistance +5
Ioun stone of nice saves +1
Lucky Horseshoe +1
Fates favoured +1
We're looking at:
Fort +17
Ref +17
Will +17
Heroism = add 2 to all
+19/+19/+19
The rest would need to come from stat boosts/class abilities already.
That's the baseline maths.
Just do greater invisible and the feat that let you hide from blindsight etc.
|
|
Greater invisibility is seen through using see invisibility/true seeing, unless you do it in combination with mind blank.
I thought it was a 3.5 feat, but I guess now there's dampen presence.
Tremor sense is fairly easy to beat, just don't stay on the ground. Scent is rather unreliable.
At least you got the comeuppance for acid guy out of your system. Leme know when we continue.
I really wish I did stab him.
Killing him (someone who had done nothing to you) to cover up what you did would have caused an instant fall to evil alignment, and would cause Vincent to be out of the game.
Since on character creation, no evil alignments are allowed.
Are you serious? Cover up what I did? That whole garbage with the winged dude was a matter of perception.
Fact, I charged over in his direction (he didn't know who I was targeting since I fell).
Fact, I climbed out of the acid pit and he freed himself on the same turn (he couldn't know if I would have saved him next round).
Fact, expecting someone to REMAIN IN ACID to save you is stupid.
Everyone knows it's stupid. Vincent isn't lawful good either and he's definitely not going to sacrifice himself for some dingbat npc.
So for full discloser, these are the PM's that have been going on between Mort and I.
Oh my. Vincent wished he finished the guy off in the acid pit. Wow... Score. If that happened you would have killed an unarmed prisoner who had done nothing to you. Instant fall to evil alignment and out of the game.
If someone tried to kill your best friend or lets say your family, would you help them? Probably you'd get a shotgun and say get the fk out of my sight.
ok, I was going to post this in game, but I decided to change my post. While I went to copy-and-paste Seamus' attack I saw this PM So I will share my honest opinion.
I think your being totally petty about it.
I never thought Vincent was attacking the man, I never thought that the 'warning' about the trap was clear enough to be a huge deal. I think both Nestor and the elves would be willing to listen to reason. Even if Vincent is totally and intentionally evil, to punishVincentis wrong.
I think that the way we handled the situations in general in the dreamlands offended your LN sensibilities. So your punishing the team for their general behavior in the dreamland, not this specific behavior.
It feels like your intentionally taking it out on Vincent because of his argumentative attitude. Not representing the NPC's based on this situation. GM's knowledge should be kept separate from the NPC's just as much as 'player knowledge' should be kept from characters.
The mod really said that the Stardust Augurs are his friends. I just stretched it a little more, to be honest.
Do unto others what is done onto you…hey they didn’t dump you into acid pits, they just told you to leave.
I think your justifying your frustration with Howards failure to intervene in other dream sequences and Vincent's lack of proper interpretation of the rules concerning his character.
I can understand Nestor's frustration with Vincent, making him hostile so his friends the stardust augurs, who weren't there, should sympathize and be unfriendly to Vincent.
The party didn't attack Nestor, his attitude toward them should be unfriendly, which should make the elves viewpoint of the rest of the party indifferent.
Seamus rolled a 31, that beats hostile. The didn't bargain, the didn't test us to see if we were evil or not, they just refused us.
That's being petty!
She just sent me this:
They lumped all adventurers together. That being said...I think Strange Aeons will probably end here if the rest assist you since you're about the only one who can take the alignment hit.
I just sent this:
Since Seamus has attacked them he will take the hit. If they attack him back, then the others are just "Supporting their friend" they shouldn't take a hit, supporting your friends apparently isn't evil.
I'm going to bed, I haven't slept in 30 hrs.
As you wish. I'm fine with your decisions.
Even though Seamus has a reason for his actions, and whether you dock his alignment or not, explain to me how taking your friend's side in a fight is an evil act? Whether he is wrong or not? I mean, that's basically the definition of neutral alignment.
Vincent will outright slay anyone who attacks Seamus whether he was wrong or not. That's in character and it's not evil, it's just caring about your friend. If you want to drop me to evil and kick me out of the game, go ahead. Or drop me to evil and don't kick me out of the game, and I'll show you the difference between neutral and evil.
"Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent."
"Characters also risk having their alignment changed if they continually act in accordance with an alignment other than the one they chose. For many characters, this matters little, but in the case of characters bound to a specific alignment for rules-related purposes, an alignment change might mean having to reimagine their entire character. Instead of springing this on a player, make it clear when an action risks violating an alignment-related requirement. Sometimes this will be seen as the voice of the character’s conscience, and allow the player to refrain from the action or suitably justify it to themselves (and you) to bring it into accordance with their values."
Sounds to me like Seamus suitably justified it as he doesn't see this dumb bag of detritis as innocent. And he hasn't been continually acting contrary to his alignment, either.
I will not run a game for evil characters so its an auto boot. It looks like Strange Aeons will end here anyway.
By taking your friends side you're essentially saying that you're willing to kill people who say bad things about you. You basically started the fight first.
All starting because his friends refused to help you.
This was really totally unnecessary.
Escalation of conflict is not always evil. In fact, it's pretty rare for anything to be always evil, instead, the specific and nuanced circumstances of the escalation of conflict must be examined. Was Seamus's decision to shoot the acid guy essentially evil, and if so, does it warrant an alignment shift? By examining Seamus's thoughts, respecting them, and thinking more broadly about the Pathfinder alignment system, it seems clear Seamus's actions do not warrant an alignment shift.
Why did Seamus shoot the acid guy? According to Robert Henry, the player of Seamus, he did so because he felt the acid guy was evil, and had somehow taken control of the elves. Without delving too deeply into real world philosophy that I don't understand adequately, and in any case wouldn't apply on Golarion, we can draw a comparison between Seamus's behavior in this case and his behavior in past cases. We've got a long history of killing people based on somewhat limited evidence that they are evil and having it work out well, not just for us but also for society as a whole. More to the point, these actions have not been seen by any of us as largely problematic or evil, indeed, they've been framed as the correct things to do. Based on this comparison, it seems like Seamus is fairly justified in his actions.
An argument could be made that Seamus's escalation of conflict in this case is essentially different from our past escalations of conflict, thus invalidating this comparison and making his behavior evil, but I think this argument essentially deprives Robert of his agency as a player. Seamus, as has been noted numerous times, has a very low level of intelligence. Even further, he's not fully aware of everything we've been doing (actually, none of us are, but Seamus to a much higher degree). While it might never cross Leonard's mind that the acid guy is not an evil wizard who is exerting mental control over the elves, or even that such a thing could be possible, Seamus could, as a result of his different perspective, be utterly convinced that the acid guy is another evil wizard. Robert makes the decision about whether or not Seamus believes that the acid guy is evil. Robert determines how Seamus's low intelligence affects his perception of reality. Robert, as a player, should be given a high degree of freedom to determine Seamus's actions. By making the argument that Seamus does not perceive the scenario as Robert has described, and is therefore committing an evil act, one is depriving Robert of the freedom to determine Seamus's perception of reality.
If we concluded that Seamus had, in fact, acted evilly, would an alignment shift then be justified? Because an alignment shift requires repeated changes to behavior and not merely isolated acts of evil, it seems that the answer to this question is no. Pathfinder's alignment rules state that a character may have "their alignment changed if they continually act in accordance with an alignment other than the one they chose." In other words, a history of behavior at odds with a character's alignment may, after repeated acts, be changed. In order to shift Seamus's alignment, a case would have to be made that the CN alignment better describes him that his current alignment of CG. As is stated in the Pathfinder rules, "few people are completely consistent," indicating that such a case would need to do more than point to an act which is not described by his alignment. An argument for an alignment shift would have to demonstrate that Seamus's acts taken as a whole are more frequently neutral or evil than they are good. Imagine a scatter plot of Seamus's behavior, in which every morally significant act he has committed is represented by a dot. In order to shift his alignment, an argument would need to demonstrate that these dots generally cluster closer to evil than they do to good.
Seamus, however, has not consistently acted at odds with his alignment. A moral graph of his behavior would likely show a greater cluster of dots located closer to good than to evil. He has been very clear in defining his thoughts and intentions, and as far as I know in every case he has described a character who is behaving in a wholly good manner. As he has stated, Seamus trusts Howard to guide him through morally difficult situations, naively assuming that the smarter man will always take the morally best course of actions. I do not believe that a sufficient case has been built that Seamus's behavior is consistently evil. As a result, it seems incorrect, even if in this case his shooting of the acid guy is evil, to shift his alignment.
I'd prefer if we at least discussed things adequately before making significant, lasting decisions.
You're shooting someone who told his friends not to help you. Is there anything wrong in people opening their big mouth? Arguing back with your big mouth is fine, but you should not be resorting to violence.
Good implies altruism, respect for life. What respect for life do you have if you shoot someone because his views differ from yours?
Has he proven a threat to your life? Did any of them make any aggressive actions to the party? No, they just told the party to leave.
In RL you could probably plead diminished responsibility due to low IQ.
And you're killing someone for slander...
So what value does a human life have? If killing one is murder, does killing 10,000 make it a statistic?
Also, I warn people on alignment infractions and generally I'm pretty easy going about alignment.
And I'll tell you from various forum threads, alignment arguments never end well.
Also my nephew and niece are coming tomorrow so I have no time nor inclination for alignment debates anyway. What is likely to happen with an alignment debate is everyone will have a different view of what is alignment and nothing gets done. Because alignment is subjective to begin with. Like 'do paladins fall thread'
Actually they refused to help a blind man. That's pretty evil. Why? Because their friend thinks people should bathe in acid in order to save them. Because he's an idiot.
They effectively did the same thing they accused Vincent of doing. Eviiiillll.
Either way if a fight breaks out in a bar because your friend hits on someone's wife, no one is going to say it's evil because you joined the brawl on your friends side.
I don't see everyone having a different view on alignment. I see three people all having the same opinion and you forcing an alignment shift and game end because you didn't like Seamus choice of actions. Player freedom?
Ok, Nestor is lying, lying is evil... Seamus was there, Vincent didn't attack Nestor. Seamus may be stupid, but it's still obvious to him that Vincent's motives were not what Nestor is accusing him of.
The elves, who generally are the same alignment as Seamus, are refusing to help based on Nestor's lies. He has obviously cast some sort of evil spell on them...
Face it Mort, your letting your personal bias over how we operated in 'the dreamlands' and your frustration at Vincent to affect how NPC's are acting in game.
The word 'comeuppance' was used. Whether you want to admit it or not, your using GM knowledge and opinion to punish us for not doing things the way you would have.
Suit yourself and just do as you wish on your turn. Which it is now. I'm off to bed and will check in the morning.
And even if Nestor was lying, so you kill people for lying in RL? How...interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting that Vincent is sharing his intent, but all Seamus saw was him running forward. He never voiced his intent, Player knowledge verses character knowledge...
And yes, there are days I wish I could punish people for lying... But I'm not a member of a highly trained magical special ops team who travels multiple dimensions am I?
Seamus' attack is not based on just the lie, it's based on his belief that the evil Nestor must have some form of magical control over the elves. It's the only explenation in Seamus' mind for what is going on.
Both Howard and Seamus made very convincing and diplomatic statements about thier intent. However the elves refused to even discuss the situation or the posibilities of making things right.
Obviously there is some form of evil magic that Nestor has used to sway thier minds. He has taken away the freewill of a normally caring and sympatheitc people. That makes him an evil that must be destroyed.
"Vincent manages to pull himself out of the pit and gets on the forest floor.
The man continues to give muffled yelps as the corrosive spores dissolve him.
Mans acid damage: 4d6 ⇒ (4, 5, 1, 6) = 16
He seems slightly resistant to acid.
The fortunate thing is that the corrosive spores dissolve the leaf that was tying the man down, as well as his bonds. He pulls out his gag as he suddenly grows a pair of golden wings and flies out of the pit, into the forest. "Thanks awfully. I was trying to warn all of you of the trap but you charged right into it. I'm outta here."
Just for clarification on how this guy is a lying poopie head. Same round I climbed out he climbed out.
And the one you linked to, I clearly fell before I got near the guy so for all he knew I was just running up to him to help.
Just FYI... Lol
You know how initiative works. Your turn, then his. But have it anyway you like.
Huh? I know how initiative works, and it's wholly irrelevant. But thanks for pointing that out.
I was hoping for some resolution to this situation. Unfortunately I am off today and tomorrow, so I need to sleep and will only be near my computer early in the day and then late.
Having read the posts in Deep 6 FaWtL and being familiar with our PM's, it trouble me greatly that some parts of the AP are played fast and loose while others are not. Whether it's from letting one player do something different in the name of 'science' or from adding penalties for using diplomacy.
It is my intention for Seamus to stay on the bank, to try and hunt Nestor down. I assume this would effectively remove him from the game. I'm looking for reasons to want to continue and frankly what I read just makes it worse.
If I'm going to continue playing there needs to be some kind of discussion or at least 'clearing the air.'
This game has become gangrenous.
I agree.
And Vincent is all for hunting down Nestor... in the name of science.
After reading the posts about me (and others) in the deep 6 fat whatever thread, I'm done. Nice playing with you Howard and Leonard and Seamus. Enjoyed all of your characters.
|
|
The way I see it...
Mort was blindsided by Vincent deciding to charge the bound and gagged Nestor, when we originally encountered him (I am still not entirely clear *why* he decided to, to be honest), and things snowballed from there.
I would assume that if we had rescued him, rather than attacking, the encounter we just had would have been more along the lines of 'thanks for rescuing me', rather than 'you are all horrible bastards'.
Actions *should* have consequences.
That said, this particular issue has devolved into an escalating war between the GM, and several players - on one side, trying to show that 'actions have consequences', and teach the players a lesson (including that, the campaign world does not revolve around them); on the other, refusing to back down, and upping the ante every time the GM pushes back, leading to almost a literal scorched-earth policy.
----------------------------------
I think what we should all take away from this, is that Mort was shocked by how the initial encounter with Nestor went (and by our treatment of NPCs in general, on a number of other occasions); I guess we need to realise that occasionally we can screw up, and consequently, not every encounter can be resolved in our favor with either combat, or skill checks.
I, for one, am hoping to put this whole thing behind us.
I am happy to end Strange Aeons here. It probably is for the best since at this point of time it's clear that our views on gaming diverge to the point of being irreconcilable.
It's not the gaming, it's your attitude and s&%! talking in that other thread. I irritate you, do I? Feeling is mutual.
Next time you have a problem with someone might want to grow up and address it instead of whinging about it on a random thread. I'd have happily bowed out and even asked you if you wanted me to the last time you gave me attitude about botting king of anything.
Remove me from the active players, thanks.
It is done.
The reason why I did not try to explain things. When two parties think they are right - it devolves into a shouting match that ends up no where.
My views on this matter:
Yes, I could have just said ok you diplo your way out - but what kind of signal am I sending players?
Yes its ok to attack people. I roll high on diplo and say oh it's a terrible mistake.
Yes it's ok to murder NPCs. I roll high and say its a terrible mistake.
It's also ok to shoot NPCs who haven't done anything but badmouth you.
At the start I already said I cannot run Way of the Wicked because I CANNOT tolerate the party doing all kinds of atrocities to NPCs.
|
|
For the record, this certainly isn't Way of the Wicked... if it was, I would have introduced you to a PC that viewed the corpses of his defeated foes as a form of loose change (since collectors and medical schools need to get their raw material from *somewhere*), or raw material for scrolls (since vellum doesn't specify its source).
Back to the game at hand, clearly, there have been somewhat different expectations, and assumptions.
I think the adult thing to do would be to acknowledge this, and see how we can move forward.
I know that there has been a tendency to treat the Dreamlands sequences as 'low risk / minimal consequences / nil rewards' (and I know I have been guilty of that), but we shouldn't let that spill over into how we deal with NPCs in general.
Clearly, we need to change our style.
I know in Reign of Winter, we made the gritty CG/CN axis work, so I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to do the same, here.
For starters, we need to rebuild bridges with the ship's captain, and take it from there.
What you want to do in Way of the Wicked, I don't give a d@mn since hell will freeze over before I run that AP.
Also - if you really want me to state it here, any rules errors irritate me. If I catch you at it (and I'm pretty meticulous in that regard), I'll pretty much point it out.
And of course each time you make a rules mistake, call out rules wrongly, you add to the irritation meter. Sure, Im mostly on phone but I also think I am more accurate in applying rules then most people I've seen.
If you constantly call rules out wrongly, read rules to your advantage - that falls under dishonesty, and even if it isn't dishonesty, its considered laziness for not checking your information was 100% accurate. And when that happens....it pisses me off because I am an ISTJ, and I expect everything to be done accurately.
I am generally ok about explaining stuff...but there is a certain point where if you don't get it, basically it means the GM and player have mismatch of views, GM makes a ruling, game moves on.
To be honest, Howard, I'm not too excited to try to keep playing. I'm not really able to understand why Vincent and Mort are both interacting so irrationally, or to empathize with the emotion behind the decisions that led to them posting as they did. This experience reminds me a lot of how my parents used to get irrationally angry at me, and now I feel somehow less safe trying to interact in a long term way with the people in this game.
I don't mean to try to judge anyone's character, I generally think that pretty much everyone is a good person, and no one in this game has challenged that perception. I just don't really want to play with you any longer.
I'd love to discuss anything if you like, since arguing is fun and because I'm right eventually I can try to get you to agree with me.
|
|
(Oh no, I am saying what I *did* in Way of the Wicked (before the game folded in, I think, book 3.) I am not asking you to run it, and never would.
I agree, when a GM makes a call, if you truly feel that it is wrong, you can question it / ask for further clarification (for example, just in case they have overlooked something). However, at the end of the day, it is the *GM's* game. Their call is ultimately final, and you need to accept it.
Got nothing to do with your views on that (even if they are wrong). Or on explaining things devolving into shouting matches.
It has to do with crap like this: "For all his complaints about RAW, he does stupid things"
"Yes, some joker had Ib on language list"
"Obviously if there is any grey area…for the irritation you’ve caused me, I’d just rule against you, as a GM.
I’m beginning to wonder if next time he quotes a rule wrongly on me, should I just say that monsters get a natural 20 for every rule you misquote against me?"
"you quote rules wrongly, get your attack modifiers wrong, use the wrong set of stats to make your skill checks on your familiar, use actions you’re not permitted to, then say, oh sorry, I’m on phone, I’m prone to these errors."
"And I suspect that that player just wants to twist rules to his advantage. His claims of RAW are just to get what he wants."
"And you're also pissed at the player on hypocrisy for wanting RAW - as he claims his imp familiar has 18 int as he says the table for familiar intelligence applies to animal familiars and his familiar should get 2 int every 2 levels added to his base familiar stats." (Never said that by the way)
I think you can see where I'm going with that. I hold no grudge against you, but I definitely am not playing with someone who feels comfortable talking about me (and others) that way when my back is effectively turned. Consider it a learning experience, or whatever. Ciao.
Full disclosure - even had I allowed rest + inspiration - it would have made no difference in the long run. You'd still have been blind at the end, I ran the calculations. Basically Vincent would have succeeded in enough checks such that he would have reduced the madness DC by 10 at the end, and Leonard passed enough saves to have reduced the madness DC by 7, but because of Vincent's aid, he would have passed one more, so the madness DC would have been reduced by 8. Which would have still fell short of the DC of 20, so had I allowed inspiration use or not, it would have made no difference (Leonard would still have been blind on the entire boat trip). Just save you some money in the long run as you finish treatment in Cassomir. So at the end of the day, what were you arguing so hard about?
Next: Stardust Augurs - mod as written - they do not have the spells to help you anyway. But since you were attacking them for not helping you - I gave them a massive CR bump.
But the end result would have been the same - you would not have gotten the help you were looking for.
Leonard - sorry about getting you into this mess.