Ghoul

Black Moria's page

Goblin Squad Member. Adventure Path Charter Subscriber. 366 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.



1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I have a real problem with the map of area F. Alaznist's Armory on page 22.

The Churlwood map on the same page show the locations of areas B, C, D, and E in relation to Roderic's Cove. We know that area B, Hallen's Ferry is 5 miles from Roderic's Cove. Using a ruler, that makes area D. Bramblewood Den about 3 miles from E. Stonehouse Camp.

However, D5 (Bramblewood Den map) states the tunnel exiting to the east goes south for 100 feet before opening to area F1 (Alaznist's Armory map). Ok... but area E6 (Stonehouse Camp map) spirals directly down to F11 (Alaznist's Armory map).

That makes F1 and F11 approximately 3 miles apart if the Churlwood map is accurate. Which is it clearly not by looking at the Alaznist's Armory map. There is nothing on the map to indicate the western part of the Armory map is geographically separated from the eastern part of the map. The collapsed west-east tunnel almost directly below F7 has no symbols or text to imply that 5-10 foot tunnel collapse actually is 3 miles wide and most people will simply consider it a collapsed tunnel of 5 to 10 ft dimensions. That may satisfy most people to retcon the paradox the way I have...that 5-10 feet of collapse is actually 3 miles, or some powerful ancient magic makes it that people using the passage from D5 and the stairs from E6 down some 80 feet to think just that but in reality, they travelled 3 miles somehow.

Because the Bramblewood Den and the Stonehouse Camp simply can't be co-located side by side... the Churlwood map makes it clear the two locations are separated.

Any comment from Adam Daigle to how best to resolve this?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Having played and DMed since 1974, one tends to see it all. For the most part, 95% of the players and DMs have been fine. A few rough edges sometimes but otherwise fine.

But I have had the occasional 'nugget' to enliven my game sessions. Like the player who was repeatedly told by the other players to stop charging into every combat before the rest of the party acted and allow the spellcasters to soften up the opposition first or who would attack every NPC we met. Despite repeated warnings, my wizard had enough and would fireball the group of enemies this guy would charge into. And if I couldn't finesse the targeting to exclude him, I would include him in the fireball radius. He rage-quit after I had killed him with friendly fire a few times, despite my repeated warnings not to charge into the room first because I will be dropping a fireball into the room on my turn.

Or the DM who was so enamored with the Deck of Many Things that the exit of every dungeon level required us to pull from a Deck of Many Things. Every..Single..Dungeon..Level...

Or the socially inept or anti-social player who would have an issue with the girl at the table, or the visible ethnic minority at the table and then would proceed to in-game or out of game to sexually harass or show racial bias against said individuals. Always grounds for a quick kick to the curb.

Or the rager types, who upon having their character die or if they didn't get their way or had a string of bad luck, would throw their books and dice all over the room or at people in a fit of rage.

Or the individual who wants the game to be all about them and the rest of the players are the 'supporting cast' with that individual the 'star' of the show. And is indignate if the other players don't go along.

Still, the problem children have been a very clear minority in 40+ year of playing for me. Which is a remarkable record when I consider the number of campaigns I have played or DMed over those decades.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

When I first heard about this AP, my reaction was largely negative.

My group doesn't do evil in the usual sense - raping, murdering, burning orphanages to the ground, selling one's mother into servitude, kicking puppies. Absolutely will not fly with them doing evil against good.

Then I thought more on it - what if this AP has a Cheliax civil war for the backdrop? More of a evil fighting evil theme than evil fighting good. That is something I think my players could go for.

And I think that may be where this AP is heading. Hell's Rebels and this AP happening at the same time and Erik Mona's statement that House Thrune may be on the outs with Asmodeus definitely sounds like a setup for a Cheliax civil war breaking out.

Goblin Squad Member

6 people marked this as a favorite.

While I applaud your sediment, Savage Grace, the PvP aspect of the game isn't there yet for me to enjoy PvP so I eschew it when I can. Let me speak as one of your 'target' audience.

One on one bandit style ganking isn't my thing, hence I don't participate in that and despite assertions by the PvPers, it doesn't contribute meaningful content to the game IMO and I consider it a poor training tool to learn PvP except within a narrow spectrum of doing one on one battles.

I reject the notion of attacking characters to force the community to the realization that this is a PvP game and to force players to adapt.

Really?

I got jumped by two known Golgothans two days ago. At the time, it was my Level 4 Wizard with T1 + 0 gear. I got jumped by two Golgothans in T2+ gear, which I can recognize as T2+ gear. I lasted all of two seconds as expected.

Just what was I supposed to learn from that?

Get better equipment? Yeah, I didn't need that lesson in brutality to know that this game is about equipment and getting it as soon as one can.

That two on one is bad? Yeah, didn't need to get ganked in two seconds flat to learn that. Any fool knows that 2 on 1 is a bad situation, especially when the two are better equipment, better trained and better tactically situated (ie attacking from surprise)

Learn to PvP? Yeah, that two seconds of me being essentially stun locked into ineffectiveness was a valuable lesson. I essentially couldn't do a damn thing until I was downed, so that two second 'learning' window to PvP. Yeah, valuable. <rolls eyes>

Learn about conditionals? Already knew that. Totally irrelevant in the situation above. Zero time to shake off negative conditionals. Full to dead in two seconds. Just what was I supposed to learn?

What did I take away from experience? That there is a bunch of goons in T2+ armor ganking newbies and low level characters in the six hexes around Marchmont. There is a segment of the PvP crowd that consider that 'meaningful' PvP and that is the problem right there. Those situations become very negative to the community. Since when does two Level 9+ with full T2+ gear attacking by surprise a relatively new 4th level character 'meaningful' in by any metric?

It wasn't meaningful for me in any way. Any 'lessons' about PvP I either knew already or the context of the situation make any 'lesson' totally pointless. There was NO 'meaning' to this PvP at all. It would have been more meaningful for the two goons to square off with each other.

Let me sum it up if the above wasn't clear. They kicked a puppy. Pure and simple. And most people don't like puppy kickers, whether in real life or in a game.

Personally, I joined this game knowing the risks. I don't care if I lost inventory. Part of the game. I lost durability on T1+0 eqipment. Totally inconsequential. I am not anti-PvP per se but lets just say that the my experience from the other night was not positive to me in any way and wholly negative in my view to a part of the community that I consider 'puppy kickers'.

I am understanding of your desires for meaningful PvP and I am all for that. In due time, perhaps, I will walk into your tavern somewhere and call you out for a old fashion one on one PvP on a equal footing. Now, that is meaningful to me.

Golgotha, their ilk and other pro-PvPers need to up their game because IMO, they are going about it all wrong. Several treads have come up on the Goblinworks and Paizo boards about the size and power of EBA, who have made no bones about being against negative PvP. How the size and power of EBA may be a danger to the game for PvP.

How about this - STOP DOING EBA'S RECRUITING FOR THEM!

Every meaningless and negative PvP experience is a potential recruit for EBA. EBA doesn't need to recruit, the PvPers are doing it for them and the PvPers are blind to this.

Now I did engage in a meaningful PvP the other night with another character of mine. A relatively large scale engagement with nearly 30 people total for combatants. Meaningful? Hell, Yes! Did I die? Yes. Did I care? No. Could I enjoy this? YES, but...

The game isn't there yet. My frustration was trying to target the enemy. The experienced PvPers run around like over caffeinated squirrels hopped and jump around like gazelles. Like someone doped up rabid squirrels, put them in the box, kicked around the box and them dumped the squirrels on the ground and said 'Fight'

I spent most of the combat just trying to identify the enemy and then doing a insane click fest trying to target one guy. This is where the game falls down at the moment. It needs to be way better than this if people like myself who are new to MMOs and to PvP are to be won over. Because it is insanely hard right now and frustrating and expecting someone to spend hours doing click fest activities to better target is NOT a way to endear PvP to a new comer. I have high hope the 'Feud' mechanics will make this a lot easier and then I would enjoy it more.

Othewise, kick the puppy too many times, like the activities going on around Marchmont and all you will succeed in doing is turning newcomers off to PvP due to the negative experience and they will either be pushed further into a anti-PvP mindset and never appreciate or they will join the steady growing ranks of EBA as protection from the negative PvP presented thus far in the game.

Truly, I DO GET your frustration, Savage Grace. I want to play YOUR GAME at some point but IMO, the game isn't there and I am not there yet.

In the final analysis, the issue isn't the 'existing community'. The issue is the 'presentation' and 'meaningfulness' of the PvP by certain elements in the game that has worked completely against what they claim is their goals. Carry on with the current state that most PvP is conducted right now and the 'New' community will be the same type of players of the 'Existing' Community and you have gained nothing, except a bigger and more polarized EBA, and settlements and companies who 'bunker down' to protect themselves for the largely negative PvP that has been the norm up to now. And the issue is the game 'tech' has not matured enough to make the PvP fully meaningful and FUN to people like myself.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Stages of a Big Project below:

1. Enthusiasm

2. Disillusionment

3. Panic

4. Search for the guilty

5. Punishment of the innocent

6. Praise and honors for the non-participants

You are now at stage 2. Some people are already at stage 3.

And no, I am not making light of your concerns. It is still early in the process and crowd forging is still going on, meaning little is locked down in stone at the moment.

And yes, we all have our misgivings about aspects of Pathfinder Online, some more or less than others. Which is natural at this stage.

Give it some time and as you say, check back in 6 months.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You guys kill me .... figuratively and literally. ;)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

LOL. So you can gank to your heart's content in the town of Rotter's Hole but don't start a barfight?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If one can't go from point A to point B without a military escort, this game is already a fail at a variety of levels.

A new player may not be joining with his battalion of friends to survive the early days while he learns the game and tries to find a home in one of the settlements. He/she is most certainly not geared up in Tier 2 equipment to survive an outing to see the world and most of the PvPers, by their own admission, are so kitted out.

The predators have every advantage and the new player has absolutely none until such time as the person - either quickly learns and adapts and finds some friends real fast. Or quits.

That is the road I see this game heading towards. What the other players do about the PvPers is a fine statement from Ryan but for a new player, that is meaningless in the reality of their early days of the game where THEY can't do anything and whether they survive the learning curve of the game or not, becomes dependent upon the other players in the game with enough power, gear and numbers curtailing what they want to do to help and protect new players.

I frankly don't see people forming a standing militia to protect Marchmont in this game when they have their own settlements to look after.

This from a player who had three attempted ganking directed at him in the last week upon leaving Marchmont which I ran from.

Now, I avoid everyone I meet in the wilds because they may be a bandit/PvPer.

Is this game truly about 'Trust No One'? If so, that message needs to be louder then.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
<Kabal> Daeglin wrote:
Saiph wrote:
I'm not entirely sure but I'd guess the problem is (at this stage of the game) the consequences for murderers/bandits are far less severe than the victim's. And, as far as I know, that is not at all how it is intended or described.

The primary deterrents are social as reflected by the rep system which will limit trainiing, and gear access (ie. will crafters equip you), the end result being lower powered characters for pvp behaviour that does not reflect appropriate gameplay. Some people feel a bounty system will be a deterrent, but there is nothing to stop bounties from being offered now. There will always be situations where pvp will be able to occur without rep loss (feuds, wars, factions, open pvp windows on towers/holdings), just as the scenario that started this happened in.

Some people talk about consequences as though they are actually supposed to limit pvp. They aren't. Consequences simply attach a cost to pvp. They will not, and are not intended to limit <appropriate > pvp. They will gimp the power and development of characters doing inappropriate pvp through mechanisms that are essentially already in place and being iterated. This thread is a good example of how the in-game settlements will iterate their own individual responses to pvp whether it is considered appropriate by game mechanics or not.

Edit: clarified appropriate pvp

But there is no consequences to PvP outside the windows if that person has multiple characters. The loss of reputation is only a deterrence to a new player with one character.

My understanding is that the modus operanti for most PvPers in the game right now is to gank away their reputation, then park that character and switch to another one of their characters who has recovered their reputation points. Rinse and repeat. For them, there is NO consequence that is meaningful in the context of the loss of reputation system. Can't enter any settlement - change to your other character for a while. That is meaningful <sarcasm>.

Also, I hear that the PvPers are doing gamey things with the flag system as well, so that responders also take the reputation hit as well or possibly even getting off reputation free and their victim take the reputation loss.

One thing I have learned is most(note - most, not all) PvPers will game the system if they can. If that is the case, is any programmed 'limitation/conseqence' even possible?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

BWG was in the worst possible position - in the middle between two large alliances opposed (in principle) to each other. In short, they were doomed because anyone in the middle of a warzone, unless they take a side and develop a militant mindset and develop characters and supports accordingly is not going to last.

I just don't see a 'being Switzerland' strategy working in this game for anyone. In fact, what I do see happening eventually is smaller settlements falling to Golgotha, other settlements by necessity having to align with the anti-Golgotha alliance to survive and then we have a game with two factions - Golgotha and anti-Golgotha.

Why do I think that? Because in this very thread, someone from Golgotha has stated the intention to WIN the game. And I think that will be bad for the health of the game long term. Might as well rename Pathfinder Online the "War of the River Kingdoms" because that is what it will become.

Thousands of players will join once Open Enrollment opens and shortly will be faced with a choice forced upon them. Join Golgotha or join the other side. Anyone espousing neutrality is going to struggle in the face of two behemoth alliances in the game who can leverage resources and manpower.

If a significant number of new players join Golgotha, then they could very well 'WIN' the game as was stated.

I signed up for Pathfinder Online, not a looming never ending war between the PvPers and the anti-PVPers. The day what I say above happens, that is the day I quit Pathfinder Online because it is not the game I signed up for and it sure as hell isn't the vision of Pathfinder Online that Ryan talks about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Well, just jump on him, bite the finger with the ring off, claim the ring and then fall into the volcano, destroying Sauron in the process...

Well, you asked how to get rid of the ring.

Actually, Dave Justus has the best course of action. Rat him out to the paladins and let them deal with it. Your hands are clean.

But there is no limit of options if it is going the ugly route of PvP. Going from the less extreme to the most extreme:

Dose him up with Blue Whinnis or Oil of Taggit. Multiple dose it to increase the save DC and duration. Then take the ring from him while he is unconcious.

Hit him with multiple Hold Person spells (you said he bad Will save modifiers and grapple him/tie him up/beat him down and take the ring.

Worst case, attack from surprise (should get you a surprise round since he is not expecting an attack and catch him flat footed) and beat him down/kill him with force of numbers and better action economy. Take the ring off of his unconscious or dead body.

Ensure, regardless of your choice, that you do whatever by surprise to catch him unaware and away from the paladins. They are such killjoys when it comes to this sort of thing.

Be aware, that unless you follow the advice of Dave Justus about informing the paladins to deal with the issue, there is likely to be hard feelings and consequences, regardless of the success or failure of whatever your choice is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

It is about personal investment in what the individual deems fantasy and science.

You say fantasy and you will get different answers. For some, it is a Tolkien-ese setting. For someone else, it might be something like Game of Thrones or the Shanarra series by Terry Brooks. Or Greyhawk or Blackmoor or the Forgotten Realms or any number of fantasy tropes.

If your fantasy is Tolkien-ese, Game of Thrones, etc like, obviously there is very little science in it so that person is more prone to outright reject the notion of scifi tropes in the game.

Now if your view of fantasy is like Blackmoor or the Forgotten Realms, there is some science elements, like crashed starships, ancient tech for the former and Lantan inventors for firearms and technology for the latter. Now, your more open to having scifi themes in your campaign.

If your fantasy is John Cartier of Mars Barsoom, then you have a whole lot more scifi themes and most likely, for those players, scifi themes would be embraced readily.

So it comes down to what the individual considers 'fantasy' and it will bear on how much science themes will be tolerate by said person.

Main thing is, there is no 'wrong' answer here. Someone who considers Barsoom/Sword and Planet as their ideal view of fantasy is not superior or inferior to someone who prefers a Tolkien like setting as their idea of fantasy.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

And your problem is what exactly?

I don't consider your situation an issue or even odd. My table has always had a few women players and more than a fair share of male players have played female characters.

Our Skull & Shackles campaign had two male characters and 4 female characters. We had fun. As will you, so don't sweat it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Why do I want to play catfolk?

Wing Commander's Kilrathi

Larry Niven's Kzinti

There is nothing cute about my catfolk...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Icyshadow wrote:
Westeros is not a D&D campaign setting, that I am sure of.

A Game of Thrones D20, done by Guardians of Order, release by Sword & Sorcery, a subsidiary of White Wolf Games.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I have played D&D since 1974.

Loved every edition of the game except for 4e, which I tried but didn't really like. Pathfinder is the version of the rules I like best and will stay with, though I will maybe check out D&D Next, if nothing else, to see how the game I've played since '74 has been evolving.

Someone asked me how long I been playing and I said since 1974. They asked how much time does that represent. Didn't really think about it at the time but I was curious just how much time I have spent playing D&D and did a mathematical exercise based on my play habits. I have figure out that as of the last few months, I have played 5000 hours, most of that time as the DM.

And I have had a blast almost the entire time. Sure, there was the occasional game session where circumstances or personalities around the table made the game a chore rather than a pleasure but for the most part, I have enjoyed nearly every moment.

I have played other fantasy RPGs over the years. Runequest, check. Rolemaster, check. Tunnels & Trolls, check. Gurps, check. Chivary and Sorcery, check.

Any one remember Powers and Perils by Avalon? Check. Hands up anyone one who played Dragonquest by SPI? Check.

Some interesting 'facts' about myself.

Most players I have DMed in one play session - 14 (this was 1e/ early 2e where the concept of a party size was not the default 4 or 5 people it is today but how many people you could get around the table, or in this case, into the room)

Number of characters KIA while I was DM - 134. I put skull stickers from a halloween sticker set on the back of my DM screens for each character killed. Not because I am a killer DM and wanted to bragging rights but as a visual reminder to players that my campaigns have consequences. A new player at my table once asked me, upon seeing the skulls, if I was a Killer DM. I told him, no, my game has consequences and my campaign is not run in the land of the Care Bears nor are we playing My Little Pony. Usually defines the expectations right there.

A Original Member of the Rat Bastard DM Club. Yep, I've been around since being called a Rat Bastard was what DMs aspired to. I live for the rolled eyes, the head and face palms, the looks of anguish on faces and the many expletives I have heard over the years. I still get called a Rat Bastard by my players every now and then, so my membership is still in good standing.

Number of characters I have played in one shots, conventions, and campaigns, but mostly campaigns - 67 Yes, I play whenever I can as being the sole DM can get tiresome after a while. At times, I am DMing in one campaign and I am a player in someone else campaign at the same time. Keeps me fresh. And there is some character concepts that I want to play but probably will never get to, since I have so many.

Number of characters of mine that have died since 1974 - 3. Yes, 3, as odd and as unlikely as that is. I play my characters very tactically, with an awareness of my surroundings and a uncanny sense of when I am getting in over my head. I call it playing within my character's capabilities. Others would call it risk management. Gamers in groups that I have played with over the years call me 'charmed luck' or having a horseshoe up my arse.

On that note just above: The Sole Survivor Award - 23. The number of times the rest of the party has died leaving me the sole survivor. In one campaign, I was sole survivor three times. It is not unusual at the end of the campaign for me to be the only original character, with all the other characters having died at least once.

APs completed either as a player or as the DM:

Age of Worms
Savage Tide
War of the Burning Sky
The Drow War
Rise of the Runelords
Curse of the Crimson Throne
Second Darkness
Legacy of Fire
Council of Thieves
Carrion Crown
Jade Regent
Serpent's Skull
Shattered Star
Skull and Shackles

APs that didn't finish due to circumstances or in progress:

Reign of Winter - (In progress)
Shackled City -(early nearly TPK with me as sole survivor. Players didn't want to continue so different campaign)
Kingmaker - (players didn't like for some reason and dropped the campaign halfway through)

This post is probably too damn long as it is. Thanks for reading for those who toughed it out so far with my ramblings. I may post later of some of the more memorable moments I had in 40 years playing this wonderful game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Most APs, I run more or less as is, except for adjusting for party size and composition. I change some encounters to make them more dramatic or interesting, the same as NPCs.

The more sandboxy the AP, the more I switch things up, the worst bring Kingmaker. I just didn't like the side quests in Kingmaker at all. Many of the quests didn't make sense to me on so many levels (like the amount of reward given for returning some ingredient or item that some NPC was interested in, or being some glorified messenger), so I make side quests more appropriate for a party of heroes and rulers, which meant nearly changing all the side quests.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

We can keep going round and round on this.

Blind and Sightless are two different things. You imply they are the same thing but I imagine that Paizo choose their words on these matters for a reason. So it is not as simple as you make it out to be.

There is no RAW right now to clarify or refute either of our points.

That leaves RAI, which the forums are filled with long and lengthy discussions of, with vary amounts of angst.

Since there is no RAW about what blind and sightless are, where does this leave us...

1. Each with a personal opinion about RAI.

2. Everyone considering their RAI is correct.

3. No real means to illuminate solutions to questions raised by the OP since it all opinion.

4. Conclusion - the OP should hammer this out with his DM using whatever pearls he can glean from this thread. If his DM disagrees, he should suck it up because the DM is using his own RAI as rational and is unlikely to be dissuaded otherwise.

I offered my two cents for what it worth. I also realize that this thread is a merry-go-round going nowhere since there is no clear RAW to assist or clarify for us and therefore, I am getting off. Much like a real merry-go-round, one can stay with it too long and not like the end result.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

This is my interpretation.

Spells can have a visual component (to inform viewers a spell has been cast and for flavor) and the actual effects on the targets. For example, lightning bolt can bee seen by all but only targets in the effect take the electrical damage.

Now Color Spray. It is a illusion (pattern) [mind-effecting] spell.

First salient point - you have to have a mind to be affected. Therefore vermin are not affected. Proof - "Mindless: No Intelligence score, and immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms). A vermin-like creature with an Intelligence score is usually either an animal or a magical beast, depending on its other abilities." Therefore , to have an intelligence score is to have a mind.

Second salient point - creatures with the plant trait are immune. Proof: "Plants are immune to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms), paralysis, poison, polymorph, sleep, and stun."

Third salient point - creatures that have the ooze trait are immune. Proof: "Mindless: No Intelligence score, and immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects). An ooze with an Intelligence score loses this trait.
Blind (but have the blindsight special quality), with immunity to gaze attacks, visual effects, illusions, and other attack forms that rely on sight." So oozes are not affected because they are both mindless and it specifically calls out that the blind trait they have means they are immune to illusions.

Fourth salient point - the spell says sightless but sightless isn't defined. Looking through the SRD, the commonality on the search of SIGHTLESS appears to include creatures with the:

1.sightless trait ie. Sea Anemone

2. creatures with blindsight AND the artwork for the creature show it has no eyes or eye analogs or the creature description specifically states it lacks eyes. - ie. Riptide Horror

Therefore, all other creatures can be affected, because they have eyes and therefore a VISUAL CORTEX. Sightless creatures either have no eyes and therefore have NO visual cortex or specifically are called out by the sightless trait.

Now, this is how I interpret how color spray works. Color Spray is cast at three targets in the AoE and a fourth target outside the effect for my illustration. Target 'A' is a normal sighted creature. Target 'B' is his vermin companion. Target 'C' is a blind creature. Target 'D' is outside the AoE.

Now, a spell as a visual effect (to denote a spell is cast) and an actual effect on the target.

Target 'A' sees a vivid cone of clashing colors (the visual effect) and because Target 'A' fits the targeting parameters of the spell and Target 'A' has a visual cortex, the power of the color spray overwhelms the visual cortex, causing blindness and stun. Unconscious can be the result of other brain systems being overwhelmed due to bleed through from the overwhelming of the visual cortex. The effect on 'A' depends on 'A's level and saving throw.

Target 'B' sees the vivid cone of clashing colors but isn't affected because as a vermin, it has no mind to affect.

Target 'C' doesn't see the vivid cone of clashing colors, but because target 'C' has a visual cortex, 'C' is affected since patterns can be perceived within the mind and the visual cortex can be overstimulated. It doesn't matter if 'C' was blind from birth. It has a visual cortex and as real life experiments have show, blind from birth people can 'see' colors when their visual cortexes are stimulated.

Target 'D' sees a vivid cone of clashing color not directed at him and is not affected because he is not in the area of effect of the spell.

Note, lighting levels only change if the visual display of the spell is seen or not, since color spray does not have the Light descriptor. It has absolutely no impact on the actual effect of the spell.

So, back to the original thread and the original circumstance, which if I recall, is a phantom fungus on a ceiling and some shriekers nearby.

Color spray does not affect the phantom fungus because it has the plant trait. Because it has a intelligence score, it saw the pretty colors (the visual display of the spell) and that was it.

The shriekers likewise have the plant trait and are not effected if they were in the AoE but they would not shriek since color spray does not have the light descriptor and therefore, is not a source of light per se.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

It is said that one should not speak ill of the dead but only good.

So I will.

Rev Fred Phelps is dead. Good.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I have run nearly all the APs to date so you might find these suggestions helpful.

1. Read through the entire AP. It is not unusual that something that at first blush that is insignificant is an earlier chapter suddenly has relevance or importance in a later chapter. Make a note of these as well as general notes on the story line.

2. Read through each chapter you are about to run several times. This is important because each chapter is laid out sometimes a little different. Understand the flow of the chapter and where to find things to minimize page flipping back and forth for yourself. Keep notes.

3. Don't worry about what the authors intended and what they expect to happen. Read through and YOU infer the intent of the story line and what YOU expect YOUR players to do with the various elements within that story. I have DMed Legacy of Fire twice (two different groups). Because they were different groups, the campaign played out differently - yes, the overall story arc was followed for both campaigns but the campaigns had quite a different 'feel' to them due to the decisions of the players and the dynamics of the group.

I can't emphasis that enough. It is YOUR story, so own it.

4. Anticipate the trouble areas and make contingencies to deal with them. An AP is written by 6 different authors and sometimes, the flow of the story can get rough. Within a chapter, sometimes events and developments can get the party going off on an unexpected direction. Or, your players come to a completely different conclusion with facts presented. You can get completely loss if you don't anticipate these issues coming up so read through the chapter, figure out what most likely your players will do and figure out what you will do if your players completely seem to go 'off script' or to the opposite of what you expected them to do.

5. Don't be afraid to go 'off script' yourself. Players can sometimes do things that mire them into a situation or a single course of action. Don't be afraid to play with the story elements and coax them back into the story line. That might mean such and such encounter must be run sooner rather or later. Or encounter X must be discarded. Or you might have to jump ahead a bit in the story (which is why 1 and 4 above are important) and then back track to the skipped parts somehow. Be flexible.

Have fun! Don't sweat the intent of the authors because it is YOU that takes the story line and encounters from the book and makes it hopefully memorable adventure for your players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

If you have Chrome, the translate plugin works well (I got a near perfect translation of the Russian to English). I will not copy and paste it since it is mainly political (and most likely against the forum rules) but the geist of it is a call for the common people to oppose the ambitions and greed of the oligarchs who are pushing Ukraine and Russia to war.

In short, it is a call to class struggle against the new elite, the oligarches.

Sorry, no mention of including goblins in the call to arms for class war, Comrade Anklebiter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Or, you could just play your character the way you want.

It is the DM's job to ensure people get their moment in the limelight, not yours as a player. Kudos for you to think of your fellow homies and give them opportunities to shine but that right proper is the DM's job.

I am the DM in our group. It is your job to play your character effectively and to the best of your ability and get along with the other characters. It is my job to ensure that characters get their moment to shine, each to their particular strengths and talents.

Of course I have no idea what your DM is like and what the group dynamics are around your table but at my table, I would tell you to do your job and let me do mine.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Your DM announces the new campaign is based on Ponyfinder, the My Little Pony RPG for Pathfinder.

Seriously... be afraid ... be very afraid - because Ponyfinder actually really exists....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Anguish wrote:

I'm not a fan of traps because they're basically boolean. Either you spot them or you don't. If you do, you either disable them or you don't.

I don't find that fun.

Traps lack all the struggle, teamwork, and ebb-and-flow of luck that normal encounters have. They're just little arbitrary packages of damage that you may or may not see coming. Meh.

Yes, to a degree but one can argue that combat is at it core is boolean. You either hit or you don't. You either are hit and take damage or you don't.

To make it less boolean, you can do something like this which I have done to make traps feel more organic and real instead of 'Sucks to be you, take x damage as the ceiling falls on you"

You can do a 'onset time round' as I call it. Obviously, you can make a trap that instantly drops the ceiling on them. Or, you could do something like this for example.

"As you step on the area before the altar, you feel the ground yield under your foot a bit and everyone now hears the start of a growing more loudly stone on stone grinding noise coming from the two doors and from above. Looking up, you see rock panels starting to slide down over the two open door ways, and dust and small gravel particles is falling from the edges of the ceiling where it meets the walls. 5...4...3...2...1"

My players know this protocol before hand. When I start counting down, they have to declare what they are doing before I hit zero. Traps triggering doesn't allow the time for party discussion on a course of action. This forces the characters to take decisive action without discussing it amongst themselves. So using my example, the party can infer that the ceiling looks like it going to fall and the door ways are being blocked to prevent them form escaping the trap.

Now the party members can either run and dive for either door, find a place in the room for cover or do some other action like it was a surprise round. The key thing is they have to decide individually rather than a group, hence the count down and individual declaration of action.

Based on their choices, each individual will either:

1- avoid the trap consequences
2- stumble into a possible 'out of the frying pan and into the fire' situation by diving through the closing door opening they have not explored where another trap, a monster or perhaps nothing awaits
3- do some thing to mitigate the trap effects, allowing me perhaps to allow a bonus on a saving throw or mitigate the damage output
4- take the trap damage like a hero and hope for the best

The former is clinical and boring. The latter allows for some great moments as the party scrambles to avoid getting trapped and crushed, with party members perhaps opting for the nearest door (potentially splitting the party temporary if they go out both doors) or trying something imaginative (like diving under or beside a solid looking room feature like that altar, stone plinths, etc.

Not so boolean now, nor is it boring from a player view point.

Edit: This was a actual trap encounter in a game of mine.

Two of the five characters independently opted to sprint and dive out the door they had come in. They took no damage.

Two other characters, base on where they were in the room, opted independently to go out the door way they hadn't checked out prior to checking out the altar ... and stumbled into a pit trap and took damage for it. Less one think that isn't fair, the party could have check that area outside the doorway before messing with the altar. They most likely would have found it and since my players know I like serialized traps, it would have implied that perhaps the room whey were in was trapped in some way.... Live and learn.

The fifth, being a gnome and rightly deducing that he most likely wouldn't make it to a door in time, opted to dive under the bench-like stone altar. He took minimal damage as the altar protected him from most of the falling ceiling, but he was buried and the party needed to dig him out.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I don't know why these discussions constantly spirals into the sexual/gender identity/lifestyle issues.

People are people and my experience is that people are more complex than any label stuck on them implies.

Cases in point. I've been playing since '74 and in that time, I have had at one time or another the following at my table.

An atheist and a minister playing in the same game. You would think that would be grounds for some out of character 'drama'. Didn't happen. What makes the situation most interesting was the atheist always played the cleric and the minister always played the thief/rogue.

I had a Satanist player (complete with tattoos of reversed pentagrams), who like playing paladins and did a good job of it.

I've had men whose characters were always female. I have had women who only played male characters. Just as I had players who only played elves or dwarves.

What to make of it? In the grand scheme of things, it means nothing - people are more complex than any simple label and I take them as they are. Stereotypes are just that - stereotypes.

I know a gay man who has a Swartznegger physique being a devote weightlifter, has three black belts in different martial arts and is member of the Kinmen and Lions. He did volunteer work at the local library and the women's shelter. Probably the nicest person you can meet. He challenges the stereotype of gay men as being effeminate prancing pansies.

He doesn't have a lick of fashion sense (so much for the notion from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy that gays have innate fashion sense and style).

Pretty much everything that this guy says and does, what he stands for, what interests him is mainstream, so much so that literally nothing about him screams 'Gay'. He is just a normal Joe in all aspects except that when it comes to affairs of the heart, his life partner is another guy.

Which brings me to this point - several years ago, I had a new person at my table who within 15 minutes of sitting down, announced that he was gay. I suspect he did it so he could gauge his acceptance into the game group.

One of my regulars turned to him and said "So? .... No issues here. Pass the chips, please". And that was that. It didn't come up again.

Our group treats people as people. Gay, atheist, minister and satanist alike.

And to address the original question, just what is non-traditional?

I have had women and visible minorities at my table since 1980 until today. So for me and my group, just what would be non-traditional - a table full of white guys only?

Ah, the crux of the issue. Non-traditional is going to vary from group to group and from person to person based on their experiences with people around the table for the duration they are playing this game.

So the lesson from The Matrix is this - there is NO spoon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Amora Game wrote:
Black Moria wrote:
I am trying to pledge, but the connection to Amazon seems to be down, at least for me. Is anyone else having issues?

Black Moria were you able to get the issue resolved?

Yes. Don't know what the issue was but it resolved itself. Pledged.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I am trying to pledge, but the connection to Amazon seems to be down, at least for me. Is anyone else having issues?

Update: Finally working. Pledged.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Eli Hammerlock wrote:
EWHM wrote:

Is the crafter a gimp otherwise? In other words, is his ability to craft a significant fraction of what makes him 'worth his freight' as a party member collecting an even share of the treasure?

Oh nooooo, our GM is terrible at following rules so for crafting. Lets say that it takes 30 days to craft an item, our GM would just be like "30 days passed and he finishes crafting" allowing the crafter to be in combat and claim loot, exp, ect...

Also the only thing crafter did was put 1 feat into craft wondrous items. Which in my opinion is really broken because it allows him to create most items for half the price, all for just one feat.

Btw, the crafter is a wizard so he is like... overpowered in combat...

Jarl wrote:

If you do not like him benefiting from his feats, why don't you sacrifice some combat abilities & spend your feats on crafting?

That'll show him.

Being a non-spell caster, I cannot take the feat, craft wondrous items.

In other words, you wanted items crafted for you for free. My advice - Pay the 10% overhead and be happy.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Maybe you live in a area where racial issues are manifest and are hyper sensitive to it. I don't live in such an area, so your argument is lost on me, cause I don't get it.

In my long life, I have noticed one truism - if you are looking for 'racism' you will find it. I had a disagreement with a person of color once (a fellow staff member). I was called a racist to my face by him for , get this, simply disagreeing with him. He was looking for 'racism' and he found it with my right to disagree with him.

I looked at the exact same poster as you. I don't see what you see and it is not because I am ignorant of racial issues and real world histories. It is because I am not reading anything into it, which IMO, you are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Lord_Krachah wrote:

Based on the Titles the ancient intolerant mummy could be Menedes I.

http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Sky_Pharaoh

I think you have hit the nail on the head.

Secrets of the Sphinx (book 4) is most probably the Black Sphinx, the tomb of the Sky Pharaoh.

And the Pyramid of the Sky Pharaoh (book 6) pretty much speaks for itself.

So Menedes I seems a real good fit for the ancient mummy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I think there is a typo in the adventure description.

"A deluxe urban mystery adventure for 5th-level characters" as the intro.

"Players can expect to reach 16th level by the time they complete this epic adventure ..."

Huh? That is a lot of levels to gain in a 64 pages adventure.

Most likely a copy and paste issue where something got missed in the word smithing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Absalom. The character is inspired by the stories of those like Cayiden and Iomedae who took the Test of the Starstone and became gods. Further inspired by the many who try to take the Test of the Starstone and failed.

Character has come to the realization that if you want to be mythical, you got to act mythical and gear up mythical or you will fail.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

This line from McBeth sums up my feelings on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP wiretaps.

'Tis a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

--McBeth


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Matrix Dragon wrote:
Story Archer wrote:
Perhaps the most confusing thing to me is the 'need' for Mythic rules. It would seem that character progression beyond level 20 would be sufficient.

The main answer to this is that a lot of people don't like epic/20+ rules for various reasons. Some don't like them because they don't scale well. Others don't like them because they never reach level 20 anyway.

In theory, the mythic rules will work around both of these problems. It doesn't really extend the standard stat progression (not in the usual way at least). Also, it gives an option for low level mythic play for people who hate high level games.

I'd say the main reason Paizo is doing mythic rules may be for the people who never see high level play. Allowing mythic to be available at all levels greatly increases the possible userbase of the rulebook. It was both a smart design and business decision in my opinion.

This. The principal reason the APs don't go to 20th level is the research that the majority of players campaigns will never go to 20th level because of all sorts of reasons. The EPIC rules of 3.X done by WOTC basically required one to play at levels beyond 20 because that was WOTC's paradigm for epic play - to extend the rule set to allow play past 20.

Paizo's Mythic is a far better paradigm so one can enjoy a epic storyline while low level. Everyone would probably agree that the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit are 'epic' stories about people from humble beginnings doing truly outstanding things during events that impacted most of Middle Earth. Frodo wasn't a 20+ level character by far. But he did a truly 'mythic' thing in bringing down Sauron.

That is how I view the mythic ruleset - to tell epic stories without requiring the participants to be 20+ level to do so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

The NPCs in the Wormwood Mutiny not DM-PCs.

A DM-PC is exactly as it implies - the DM is playing a PC that is a regular member of the PC party. The DM-PC goes were they go, shares in the XP and the rewards that the party receives for adventuring.

Having Sandara accompany the party for a brief section or excursion doesn't make her a DM-PC any more than having another some NPC minion guide the party to some location (a staple in many adventures).

As, a DM-PC as not automatically a 'bad idea' as some people (in past threads) maintain. It is very situational and very much dependent on the dynamic of the DM and the players around the table.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I have a number of rules in place in my campaign to deal with such issues.

One rule is that no one is to read through any module or AP being run by me or be immediately ejected from the game for the duration of that adventure or AP. Now I don't doubt that sometime in the 37 years I have been DMing that someone in my group has secretly read into a module that I have been running but they certainly, very cleverly, haven't made me aware of it.... except once.

A player decided to argue with me about something and basically, short of confessing he had the module, revealed so much of what was going on and how I deviated from it ... that only an idiot would conclude he had not read the module. For which he got kicked to the curb for the duration of that aspect of the campaign.

I also have rules about how disputes are resolved in regard to rules or campaign issues. You can argue why such and such up to point then I make a decision and the matter is closed ... as in don't keep arguing the point or bringing it up session after session. Kicked to the curb for those how wish to push on that point.

By your own admission, you have a 'waiting list' of people who want to get into your game, therefore, the way ahead for you is clear.

Tell your group that you will not tolerate anyone acting on pre-knowledge gained by reading the module. Next person who mentions or even hints of something about the plot, argues that what you did is not in the module, or even tries anything that smacks of him/her knowing what is coming up get to do a timeout for the rest of the adventure.

Where upon, you address the player in question, and tell him that what has been happening ends right now and if he doesn't like it, there is the door...

Life is too short to deal with people with egos and issues at the table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Look at the problem areas and look at the vulnerability of the tactics/spell/whatever they are using.

Case in point - you mention Color Spray with Awesome Display being a problem. Color Spray is a 15' cone so one solution is to start encounters with the foes being spread out and further than 15 feet away at start of of encounter. In that way, even if the oracle goes first, he is only going to get one or a few foes in the area of effect.

Pick foes with good initiative modifiers. Even if the oracle goes first, the oracle will learn real quick that moving forward to cast color spray only for the enemy to move next before the rest of the party and get their licks in on him may teach him caution.

The fact that the wizard only uses diamond spray, scorching ray and ray of exhaustion implies that you thrown the foes at them in a very predictable fashion. Mix it up, change it up and always have ranged attackers whenever possible so that the default spell selection for these two characters isn't going to be a free pass to the next encounter that it has been up to date.

Look for the flaws and weaknesses in the tactics and spell selections of the two players and exploit them. For example, the wizard's spell selection limits him to 40 ft right now based on level for ranged spells. That means control through foe placement, AoE, obstacles and terrain so he can't exploit that range so foes are always outside the 40 ft range and it is these foes which will focus on the obvious threats (namely, the two characters).

Look at the stats of the two characters in question. Assuming point buy, the oracle has dumped the majority of points into Charisma, which means he will be most likely vulnerable in the three save categories so pick the most vulnerable attribute and hit him with something to take him out of the fight for a bit so he can't take advantage of the casting of his spell.

For the wizard, look at his daily spell selection and find what he is expecting and then pull the unexpected on them sometime that day so his spell choice is sub-optimal for that fight.

Since it is spell casters being the problem, don't simply allow the party to rest and recover spells on their terms all the time. Push one or two more encounters more on the party than they normally fight, so the spell casters don't nova and blow all their spells in one fight with the expectation that they will immediately rest afterwards. Do this a few times and the spell casters will be more conservative on using the spells since they don't have the certainty of when they will be able to recover spells. That alone will go a long ways in helping curb the dominance of the spell casters.

You just have to use your imagination, find the weaknesses in their stats, tactics and spell choices and then exploit the hell of those vulnerabilities.

Post their stats up if you want specific ideas on where they are weak and what can be done to limit their dominance over the party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I manage 'expectations' at every campaign start by stating that the campaign is a consequences based. Insult the king and expect to spend time as the king's guest in the dungeon below the castle. Do something stupid that common sense tells you may get you killed and you most likely will die. Not every single monster they encounter will be EL appropiate for the party's level.

My DM screen's back (the side facing the players) has row on row of skull stickers, each one representing a dead character. Every time the players look my way, they are reminded that my game has consequences.

Now, I am not keeping a kill board as my players would tell others but it is a prop at the table to have players be mindful that actions and choices have consequences.

If a player states his character is doing something bozo that endangers the character or the party, I give a reminder about probable consequences and ask if they still want to do the action. If so, so be it. For example using the barbarian running into the wood in the original post...

Player - "I am moving to here and will attack anything I see" (moves fig 100 ft from party and into bandit camp.

Me - "You realize that you just advanced well ahead of the party and their ability to support you. They will need to so a full turn run action just to catch up. Are you sure that is what you want to do?"

Player - "It is what my barbarian would do, given his character"

Me - "The choice and the consequences are yours to make. Final answer?"

Player - "I am sticking with my action"

Me - "It was an audacious move, bold by its very nature. The bandits are unimpressed as 12 of them pour out of the tents in response to the cries of the lookout who heard and saw you charging through the woods. Your arrival in the midst of the camp has drawn quite a reception. I think they are going to hurt you more than you are going to hurt them. Now you know why there is no real old barbarians back home. They tend to die young doing stuff like this."

Player - "But, I don't get surprise?"

Me - "A full charge action precludes any sort of stealth. Plus you full on charged through trees, brush and brambles to get here in one move. There is nothing subtle about that. They heard you coming and they are ready"

Player - "But..But.."

Me - "Taking the beating like a proud, fierce barbarian you are. If you survive, maybe there is a lesson to be learned here."

I remind players that I don't stop they from roleplaying the character the way they want. Their actions and resultant consequences are all theirs. But consequences will come.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I am interpreting the 'rocks falls, everyone dies' literally and the absolute best way to implement it is way I did in a campaign long ago.

Before anyone gets their panties in a twist, it was not a deliberate attempt to TPK but it was a very deadly 'trap' of sorts.

The party was adventuring in a dwarf underground stronghold. After fighting their way deep into the stronghold, the party finds a passage that has numerous traps along its length. Dwarven runes are etched into the wall at the entrance.

Ending in a trapped door with numerous locks. Entering reveals a 10 x 10 room with a lever in the floor. The lever has a lock bar safety in place to prevent the lever from being moved. More dwarven runes are on the wall.

The party deliberates for some time. They search the room throughly and find only the lever. No one can read ancient dwarven (actually, noone in the party could read contemporary dwarven either). After much deliberation, the party thinks better of it and elects to leave the lever alone and leaves....

.... until they reconsider and go back to use the lever. Their reasoning was the amount of problems accessing the lever room. All those traps.... the door with the multiple locks... that means the lever is pretty damn important, right?

They disarm the lockbar and used the lever.

"Rocks fall as the self destruct device operates devices which cause the collapse of the entire stronghold. You are all crushed under tons and tons of rock. You are all dead."

Now, lest everyone thinks this was unfair, the outcome was not arbitary. No one elected to find out what the runes meant even by magic like comprehend languages (The runes basically stated it was a self destruct device). The beauty of the outcome was the party gave in to the temptations of curosity and greed. They could have found out more about dwarven strongholds (in that campaign, all of them had self destruct devices and the party could have found this out). Knowing they were going into a dwarven stronghold, they could have elected to hire a dwarven guide to translate wall writings and explain something about dwarven culture, the 'siege mentality' (dwarves in that campaign were under constant and repeated sieges by humanoid forces) and the dwarven determination of 'If I am going to die, I am taking you down with me'.

And finally, they could have just left the lever alone, as was their original choice. Lesson here is go with your gut (they thought using the lever would be bad, originally) and don't second quess yourself.

Literally "Rocks falls, everyone dies" done right, IMO


30 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

The party had just defeated a frost giant who had a giant sized magical crossbow.

The paladin and the barbarian had a discussion about how it would be a shame to just leave the small ballista sized magical crossbow behind just because it was too large to use.

Paladin to Barbarian - "I have an idea. I can strap the crossbow to my back. Then when we want to use it, I can bend over and you can get behind me and start cocking..."

Room exploded into laughter and it took 15 minutes for everyone to recover enough to continue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I think it was stated that the Jade Regent was another 'proof of concept' AP like Kingmaker was, in that Paizo is gauging the reaction by the fan base to the AP to make choices about future engagement with the concept.

Kingmaker (which introduced the concept of a completely 'sandbox' adventure) by all accounts was wildly successful, which means that some sandbox elements were introduced in Serpent's Crown and the yet to be revealed 'Skull and Shackles' will be largely sandbox-ese, thanks to the success of Kingmaker.

Rather than just jumping completely in with an Asian-themed AP, Paizo hedged their bets by making a AP that started in Varisia and the latter 50% takes place in a orient themed region.

Based on the reaction to Jade Regent and how well received the supporting supplements are, Paizo will likely make a choice on a full Asian themed AP. Just don't expect one anytime soon, since Skull and Shackles and the AP that follows it was announced. That is a minimum of 15 months from now. I suspect it may be even longer, because I think there may be a chance of a off-planet AP if 'Distant Worlds' is wildly successful.

While I would like to see more 'Asian' love in the APs, I would like really like to see a off-planet AP before revisiting the 'mysterious east'


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I have used DMPCs for years and no one in our group objects.

Our group is small and most of the players have some difficulty in running more than one character, so my DMPCs fill in the gap (like if no one wants to play the cleric or the rogue or whatever)

The DMPCs never steal the lime light from the other players. The GMPCs make suggestions (and not always sound ones as I mix 'ideal' suggestions with mediocre if not down 'doomed to fail' suggestions) and the party can heed or ignore those suggestions in their deliberations.

My DMPCs are just like another character in the party which can very effective in one situation, lackluster in another, be the MVP in this situation and the gimp in other. They make brillant suggestions and suggestions that are best ignored. Just like any character being run by one of the players. The only difference is I, as DM, is running that character.

Running a DMPC is an art. Yes, as the DM, I know what lies behind that door, where the traps are, where to find the clue, and who the BBEG is. But my DMPCs are always played as they don't know that info.

The DMPCs never leak hints or try to steer the party towards a course of action. And the final decision in any decision making is always made by the other players, never by the DMPC.

As I said, playing one is a art to 'get it right' - just the right balance of being an effective character without overshadowing the other characters, yet being more than a' Silent George' who just tags along with the party and has no more personality than a robot and is 'seen and seldom heard'


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Dryder wrote:

I just re-installed Baldur'S Gate on my PC, to play it in order to get ideas (or in fact steal them) for sidequest.

Kingmaker rocks!

I wonder how many people are going to put a Noober character at the trading post. The NPC everyone wants to kill after a few run in with him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

My new group is only in TINH but the funniest thing so far is the party rogue doing the Jackie Chan thing with a door under Parrot Island.

The rogue had removed the door off the hinges of the first door (no idea why but that is what he stated he was doing).

During the first zombie attack, the rogue realized he was totally ineffective (he was only armed with piercing weapons against the zombies' DR) against the zombies and pulled back to the party rear.

That is when a second group of three zombies came into the hallway from the rear, trapping the party in the middle.

The rogue grabbed up the door and bullrushed the zombies and though lucky rolls, pushed all three zombie back into the next room. For the next three rounds, while the party dealt with the first group of zombies, the rogue spun and whirled the door around, knocking back zombies and blocking them from attacking the party until help arrived.

When the party was dealing with the second to last zombie, the rogue got a lucky bullrush knockdown on the last zombie, dropped the door on the prone zombie and proceeded to monkey stomp the zombie beneath the door until the party warblade finished it off.