Jagyr Ebonwood's page

LINK

(But I do feel that the rule for dying could be altered so that higher leveled characters take a little more time to die than lower leveled ones)

What about, instead of Dead= -Con, you use Dead= -(Con+Level)?

Put me down as one more for instantaneous death. However, I will say that my GM follows the "not dead until end of round/their next turn" houserule, and it's saved many characters. It even saved one of my favorite PCs once, and I was a bit upset - I felt it would've been better to die to a fair roll then survive due to a "softer" houserule.

However, I will admit that there are many players who disagree with me on that point and are very attached to their PCs (my wife falls into this category). I have implemented the discussed houserule on a case by case basis in my games - if a player seems upset that their PC is about to snuff it, I'll offer: "if someone can heal you before your next turn, you'll survive."

Here's what I'm currently considering:
Each PC gets 1 Plot Point at the start of each session, and can earn more by roleplaying well or contributing to the game in any significant way (sharing food, making a good joke, etc).
PCs can spend points before a roll to add an extra die to the roll. One point adds a d2, two points adds a d4, all the way up to a d12 for six points (going to a d20 breaks the pattern and gets too swingy). You can spend them after a roll too, but in that case each point only adds 1 to the total. You must spend the points before you know if you've succeeded.
You may also use plot points to influence the plot or break the rules in some way, but that's entirely up to GM discretion.
At the end of each session, unspent plot points may be cashed in for 10 xp each. Either way, they disappear and you start again with one point at the beginning of next session.

This is very similar to the system used in the Cortex System RPG by Margaret Weis Games (my favorite non-d20 system). By making the effects of the points less powerful, I'm free to be more generous with them, and by giving little incentive to hoard them, my players are more likely to use them rather than save them up for a big blast.

I've been inspired to try out an action points system in my games, and I'm trying to decide which one to use. Basically, it comes down to how they are acquired, how thy are spent, and what they do.

Versions I've seen:
- How acquired -
1) Fixed amount gained each session/day
2) Fixed amount gained each character level
3) Gained as rewards for roleplaying
4) Gained by taking specific feats or items

- How Spent -
1) Before a roll only
2) Before and/or after a roll
3) Before and/or after a roll, but are more effective before than after

- What they do -
1) Reroll (or roll twice) and take the better result
2) Add +20 (or +X) to a d20 roll
3) Add +1d6 (or +1dX) to a roll
4) Roll a d30 (or other large die/dice) instead of a d20
5) Allow non-die roll effects, such as gaining extra uses of spells/abilities, or breaking/bending the rules in a thematic way, or slightly altering the plot of the game.

What version do you use/have you used in the past? Which has worked best for you?

<emergence stuff>

Okay, that is kinda funny.

I would rather see a heropoint/action point system put in place

This entire thread has inspired me to look into action point systems for my games.

I think the most important part of this is that it's discrete. For example in the case where my paladin would have one shotted a major badguy in an encounter the dm had worked hard on, and I fudged it against myself, if the dm was aware of it it would have cheapened the experience for him.

Emphasis mine. This is exactly why I disapprove of cheating, benevolent or otherwise. It breaks trust and cheapens the experience of playing by the whims of chance.

The only thing i find odd about this conversation is the disposition of opinions between players and dms. As if they are some kind of different breed of people.

As has been pointed out, there are two main differences:

1) GMs are (the majority of the time) in charge of many more characters than the players, are privy to much more info about the game than the players, and are expected to act as arbiters in any situation where the rules aren't 100% clear.
2) It's assumed by most gamers (IME) that many GMs fudge rolls occasionally, and GMs will often state up front, at the beginning of a game, their stance on the fudging issue, so it is known to the group. When players "fudge", they obviously don't announce it to the table, and it is almost never SOP for players to have free reign over what the results of their dice are.

There is a reason that we make distinctions between GMs and players - it's because the game itself makes a distinction between them.

And as I mentioned before, if you're playing in a group where everyone is expected to fudge their die rolls, or everyone has equal responsibility and control over every game element, then you are an exception, not the rule. If you break the rules after everyone agrees that the rules don't apply, then you aren't cheating.

If a dm fudges a roll it must be to further the story or make sure everyone is having fun.

If a GM fudges a roll, yes, it should be to ensure everyone is having fun, and that is often the reason a GM fudges rolls.

If a player fudges a roll the automatic assumption is he must be a cheat.

It's a fair assumption. An average game assumes that players don't fudge rolls, and abide by the numbers on the dice. If a player does fudge a roll, he's either doing it without consent and is therefore a cheater, or he's doing it with the consent of the group in which case it's not cheating at all, it's playing by a houserule.

I'd be interested to know: Kolokotroni, Sean FitzSimon (if he's still reading), since you guys have admitted to "fudging" rolls as players, is your GM or the rest of your group aware that you do this? Do they condone/encourage it, as is the case in LillithsThrall's group?
Or do you do it secretly? If secretly, why do you feel the need to hide your activities from the rest of the group, if they only serve to further the game/story, as you claim?

What the heck is that? It looks like a weird pixelated scribble to me...am I missing a reference?

This is, I believe, one of the things leftover from older editions that didn't necessarily reach for the same level of verisimilitude that we expect nowadays.

You have a few options: you can rule that it's not an actual hand, but a carved piece of wood/stone/bone/etc. Alternately, you can think of a reason why it's acceptable (elves don't have the same cultural view of dead bodies; they view the soul as more important, so they burn the bodies and save certain parts for use in magical research/crafting. Perhaps it's an honor to wear a HotM crafted from your direct ancestor's hand).
Or, change the assumption around and make HotM a black market item, the possession of which is questionable at best, and will earn it's wearer the wrath of elven rangers/wizards at worst.

While you're waiting for something official, here's my take:

I don't tell my players how much HP an enemy has left. Depending on the situation, I'll give them an approximation such as "he's on his last legs" or "he looks to be at about 50%" or "one more solid blow and she's done for" or "it's on its last legs...literally, you've chopped off all the others". Sometimes I have them roll a perception or knowledge check to figure it out, othertimes it seems like it should be obvious and I just tell them.

Also, I'll often write down how much damage an enemy has taken, and this number is usually visible to the players, allowing them to guess at the enemy's status. I have no problem wth this, as it's basically providing them with info that their PCs would have in-game.

As regards AC, I'll sometimes give hints on close misses. If it missed normal AC but would've hit touch or flat-footed AC, I'll say "he just barely dodged out of the way" or "she narrowly deflects your attack with her shield". Once the fight wears on (4-5 rounds in), I'm likely to just let the group know the AC. They've probably got it narrowed down to an approximate number anyway, and in larger groups, this allows the players to save time by just telling me whether their attacks hit or miss.

Most games, as well as the Core Rules, assume that everyone abides by the numbers shown on the dice.  Any place where this isn't the case, it's explicitly called out because it's an exception.  The same goes for any other rule - humans move 30' per round, a longsword does 1d8 damage, etc.  Anything else is either an error, a deliberate exception, or a houserule.

If it's agreed upon in your game that everyone will lie about dice rolls when the story warrants it, then it's bloody well not "cheating".  It's a gorram house rule, and there's nothing wrong with that.  It's obviously working for your group, otherwise you'd play differently.

We're not talking about a game with this houserule though.  We're talking about a game that follows standard assumptions about die rolls, and this player is not someone mistakenly importing an unapproved houserule.  He is a cheater.

Cheating means breaking the rules without consent.  If you're not doing that, you're not actually cheating.  Please don't get offended when we say that cheating is wrong.

I live next door to a bakery.  At the end of the day, they will often set slightly stale bread in bags outside their door with the expectation that passersby will help themselves to it.  I will occasionally grab a baguette on my way past, but you won't see me getting my hackles up when the community agrees that stealing bread from a bakery is wrong, because I'm not stealing in the first place. 

I'm a little "meh" on most of these guys, but I gotta say - those Evil NPCs are sweet. I love the idea of the PCs not being able to trust their allies; knowing that their councilor wants to be king but not being able to replace him.
What about rolling "assassination attempt" as a random event, and seeing the look on the duke PC's face when he realizes he's being betrayed by his own employee in charge of double agents. Awesome.

Thanks for the ideas. >:-D

Jesus, people need to give players a break when they roll high on the random encounter chart!

Coming from a GM's perspective, I'd say the player's need to give us a break when we roll high on the encounter charts!

GM: There's a rustling in the grass to your right. As you look closer, you realize it's a werewolf ready to pounce. If you run away right now you can probably-
1st level PCs: CHARGE!!!
GM: *facepalm*

(At one point, the mass combat rules were actually a part of the Kingdom/City building article, but the article just got to be TOO big and we had to cut the mass combat element. Since the AP doesn't actually HAVE mass combat until the penultimate adventure anyway, it made sense to cut them from #32 and relocate them to #35.)

FWIW, this makes me sad. I would love to run a game focusing heavily on those two subsystems, but as it is, by the time the mass combat rules are released, I'll be in the middle of moving and taking care of a four-month-old...hardly in a position to invest a lot of time into gaming :(

Also, the idea of having two main stats for your kingdom (Loyalty and Defense) that serve little to no use because the relevant rules aren't available yet really irks me.

I assume you're referring to the bandit camp known as the Thorn River Camp. Yes, that can be a very challenging encounter. There are a large number of bandits that can easily prepare for an incoming party, and if you allowed them to know you were coming, they would've been pretty well prepared for you.

The encounters in the Kingmaker campaign are not always going to be tailored exactly to your level. There are many instances where discretion is the better part of valor, and you'd be wise to use Diplomacy, running away, or at the very least good tactics and planning, as opposed to a frontal assault.

Beware any monster that appears to be a randomly rolled encounter. It is entirely possible for the dice to decide that your 1st level PCs will encounter a gang of 4 trolls. Believe me when I say that you are NOT supposed to fight them.

But don't tell your GM I told you that ;)

Zaister wrote:

I wonder, does the title of this book refer to something specific in the adventure and I'm just not making the connection, or is it just meant to be evocative of the phrase "run red with blood" (and then, why)?

The title does not describe a specific event at all; it's basically just saying that "as the PCs start to tame the land, they'll be fighting enough monsters to make the rivers of this part of the River Kingdoms run red with blood."

Not all of our adventure titles are meant to evoke specific scenes or villains or events in adventures, in other words. Sometimes, they're just meant to evoke a theme or feeling or mood, such as with "Howl of the Carrion King" or "Endless Knight" or "A History of Ashes."

FINALLY got my copy of Rivers Run Red, and there's a part in the beginning that says (paraphrased):

If the PCs cannot overcome the challenges their kingdom faces within the region, then the rivers will run red with the blood of yet another doomed attempt to civilize the Stolen Lands.

There's a nice evocative explanation of the title if I ever heard one. :)

I can't not share this one...

Name: Dave the Warrior; Alonso the Tengu
Race: Human; Kenku
Classes/levels: Warrior 2; Rogue 2
Adventure: The Stolen Lands
Location: The mite lair
Catalyst: Incredible series of karmic critical hits
Gory Details:
The party had just narrowly defeated the giant centipede in the chasm when they entered into combat with the mites and their leader. The party's sorcerer was badly wounded in the fight with the centipede, and had gone to the surface to rest, sending her bodyguard Dave in her stead.

Most of the party enjoyed picking off mites (with low AC and 3 HP, they were "popping them like pimples" (their words not mine)), but with no mites within range, Dave charged the giant tick, Tickleback (whose rider, the chief mite, was felled in the first shot of combat). Dave was quickly snatched up into the tick's mandibles.

The next round, Dave failed in his attempt to escape the clutches of Tickleback. On Tickleback's turn, he made a grapple check to bite Dave, and rolled a natural 20. He confirmed the critical, and Dave's head was chomped off and his body exsanguinated.

Dave's player, already frustrated that he was playing a hireling instead of his main PC, was understandably bummed when Dave snuffed it. To keep him involved in the game, I let him start rolling for Tickleback.

His first roll came up when Tickleback chomped onto Alonso, the tengu rogue. He rolled well, and Alonso failed his Escape Artist check to slip free. The next round, Tickleback's new player rolled to bite the grappled rogue. He rolled a natural 20, followed by a 17 - more than enough to confirm the critical. The whole table watched as he rolled the d6's for Tickleback's bite, one by one. The first one came up 6. If the critical hit wasn't bad enough, now he was rolling high. Breaths were held around the table as the second d6 clattered across maps and character sheets, finally coming to rest...on a 6.

A critical hit for max damage, rolled by the player whose character had just been killed by a critical hit from the same beast. The tengu was deader than dead, but it was an incredible moment, and happened right at the end of the session. Dave/Tickleback's player kept apologizing to Alonso's player, but he couldn't keep the smile from his face.

This will be one of those gaming stories that gets told many times. :)

Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:

Of course, if he's optimized around a specific roll like crits or initiative, and he always rolls high on those, then you have a problem. In that case you might want to pretend as if he's a level higher than normal and adjust accordingly (adding a couple extra mooks, giving the advanced template to solo enemies, or even just throwing on 20 extra hp to a BBEG if you know that Steve is going to come up with 20 extra damage somehow).

I would be very careful about this way. If every enemy beats him on the draw and is inexplicably tougher than normal, you're basically punishing him for being effective. Extra mooks that he can drop in one hit are a good idea, because it will give him the reward for being a good combat character.

To clarify: I don't advocate making enemies vastly tougher - just enough to outweigh the cheating. If he's always cheating on initiative and thus getting an average of 7 sneak attack damage that we wouldn't get otherwise, give the enemy 7 extra HP. If he cheats his way into an extra 15 damage every combat by fudging a crit, add an extra 15 HP.

It's not punishing him in any way, it's just negating the effects of the cheating. Besides, if you're playing with enemies from an AP or the Bestiary, they all have average HP anyway. An increase of 1-2 points per hit die isn't much at all.

Point being, there are ways to make sure the cheating doesn't unbalance the game without having to confront it.

I've seen this a couple times before. For the camouflaged dice, ask him to use another set. "Steve, could you maybe use a set of dice with higher contrast? My old eyes can't read those ones from all the way over here."
Similar for dice snatching. "Sorry, that roll was too quick for me, I couldn't see it...could you roll it again?"
Before he rolls for damage, "remind me again which one is first attack and which one is second?"

The point is to not be accusatory, and instead encourage him to roll in a way that you can see each roll. Eventually these habits may stick and he'll stop cheating. I've known GMs who follow a policy of "If the GM didn't see the roll, it didn't happen". That might be a useful houserule to implement.

Another option that I've seen proposed many times: simply don't worry about it. Unless he's truly upsetting the game in some way, just let him fudge. Some people are only happy when they do well all the time, and it's kind of sad. But as long as he's not ruining the fun for everyone else, let him go.

Of course, if he's optimized around a specific roll like crits or initiative, and he always rolls high on those, then you have a problem. In that case you might want to pretend as if he's a level higher than normal and adjust accordingly (adding a couple extra mooks, giving the advanced template to solo enemies, or even just throwing on 20 extra hp to a BBEG if you know that Steve is going to come up with 20 extra damage somehow).

I can only speak to my own games, as I'm not really a rules lawyer type...

That being said, if you were playing that PC in my game, I'd allow you to channel while raging. You're probably not attacking in the same round that you're channeling, so you end up losing most of the benefits of your rage that round, essentially wasting a daily round of the ability. It's not exactly overpowered - it should be a valid option, IMHO.

My Ex pronounced it Pee-Ah-Zo

Is that why she's your ex? :-p

J/K mate. Improper pronunciations do drive me crazy though...

any thoughts on the twf giving an extra attack or doubling the damage of one attack?

I don't think I understand your question.

What it REALLY boils down to is that paladins, perhaps more so than ANY other class, is VERY STRONGLY identified with a single alignment type. A non lawful good paladin, in my eyes, is simply not a paladin.

Agreed. However, I still enjoy the Champion of X concept as seen in Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, and it would be interesting to "alternate paladins" (for lack of a better term) focused on other alignments or causes.

When performing a combat maneuver, you only use your CMB, plus modifiers that add to the weapon.

For example, I'm currently building a 3rd level bard that uses a whip to trip folks. He has:
Str 16
BAB +2
Weapon Focus: Whip
and uses a masterwork scorpion whip

His total bonus for tripping folks is +7. 3 Strength mod + 2 BAB + 1 weapon focus + 1 masterwork = +7.

If he lost his whip and bought a new non-masterwork one, his bonus would drop to +6. If he started using a non-masterwork halberd instead of a whip, it'd drop to +5.

He's also a bard, so if he's currently using Inspire Courage, it goes up to +8.

Anything that modifies your attack roll modifies your CMB roll, for good or ill. Similarly, anything that affects your AC also affects your CMD.

Follow-up question: When doing a round Iterative Full Attacks, can you have different weapons in each hand, and attack different targets with different weapons?

For example, I've got a cold-iron waraxe in one hand, and a warhammer in the other. Can I hammer the skeleton in front of me with one attack, and chop the demon to my left with the axe without any

I checked the combat rules, and there isn't anything that specifically prohibits this.

Here's my view:

Let's say you're an 11th level fighter, so you've got 3 iterative attacks (+11/+6/+1). You get one additional attack with the weapon in your off-hand. So, your attacks, before TWF penalties, look like this (with p indicating primary weapon and o indicating off-hand weapon): +11p/+11o/+6p/+1p.

Now, I don't have the rules right in front of me, but at least in my game, I wouldn't have a problem with you varying the order of attacks to go OPPP, PPPO, PPOP, etc.

I think I may be misinterpreting your question though - if you're asking "can you target different enemies with each attack in a full attack" then the answer is absolutely. Taking the same fighter from above, if you had 4 skeletons surrounding you, you could hit each one with a separate attack (or hit one of them with two attacks and two others with one attack each, or whatever other combo you want).

Another useful bit about full attacks - you can make a single attack at your highest attack bonus as your first action of the round. Then, based on the outcome of that attack you can decide to continue with the rest of your iterative attacks, or you can decide to stop attacking and do a move action instead.

Quandary, thanks for the quick response. That makes sense, and makes things easier.

But I can't believe I forgot about a free hand for somatic components! It's been a while since I played a caster of any sort. Thanks for the suggestion of spiked gauntlet, I think I'll go with that (though I still have the desire to write "cutlass" on my character sheet ;)).

A bard pc I'm working on now is focused on using a whip and Dazzling Display during combat to debuff and trip. However, I'd like to have something for him to fall back on if he gets stuck in melée and can't skirmish. I'll probably give him a falchion since he's half-Orc.

However, a thought occurred to me. What if he wielded a whip in one hand, and a short sword (call it a cutlass, since he's a pirate ;-)) in the other. He wouldn't attack with both on his turn, he'd just hold the cutlass in case he's forced into melée or if someone provokes an AoO from him (since you can't AoO with a whip).

That creates a problem though. Say he attacks someone with the whip on his turn. Later in the round, some mook provokes an AoO from him, and he hits her with his cutlass. What happens?
1) He takes twf penalties on both his attacks.
2) He takes an off-hand penalty on just the cutlass attack.
3) He takes no penalties on either attack.

I'm leaning towards option 2 right now, since 3 seems like it might be too generous in light of the twf rules, and 1 seems a little harsh (consider the same situation w/o the AoO happening - should he take twf penalties on just his whip if he doesn't do anyhting at all with the cutlass in that round?).

What are your thoughts?

. One suggestion I do have is to make "measuring sticks", thin lengths of wood cut to specific common lengths to speed up movement. 4" and 6" sticks immediately come to mind for instance. You could use a 1.5" or a 2" stick for reach weapons too.

Use 1"x6" (or 1"xX") lengths of non-corrugated cardboard. I use them as bookmarks, and it's easy to use one to quickly judge the distance between two PCs. Plus, you can write notes on them as well.

If I was going to go gridless and keep the minis, it'd be because I wanted to get full use out of some really cool non-gridded scenery. Unfortunately for me, I don't have any scenery pieces or cool wargaming set ups, so I stick to the 1" graph paper.

Golbez57 wrote:

Just realized I've been reading it as "PEE-tax."

I've been pronouncing it that way too. Hey, when you tax your citizens, shouldn't you tax them for something that they really, really need to do?

And the plot of Urinetown was born.

Yeah, every now and then you've gotta send a gelatinous cube through there to dissolve all the detritus.

Andy -
Thanks for stopping by. :)
Can you say more about the rules - specifically the rules for the magic system? Obviously you can't give away everything, but at least an idea of the core mechanic and such would go a long way towards better explaining the product.

Stuart,

Please keep in mind that the Paizo Community Use Policy does include restrictions on the art that you may redistribute.

Among the restrictions: "You may not use artwork, including maps, that have not been published in the blog..."

So please limit your redistribution of Wanted Posters to ones that feature art from the Paizo Blog.

On the plus side, more Kingmaker headshots just got posted on the blog :)

Urizen - your review has inspired me to pick up this gem when I get to my home PC. :)

Skill based magic system? Someone elaborate on this please. I've been looking for a good RPG with a decent skill based magic system for awhile now.

Two modules from the middle of a Paizo adventure path might work for you, but I'm not greatly familiar with them all. I haven't found any adventure that really matches up to RHoD yet - that module was by far the best value for my dollar I've ever gotten from a supplement.

It's just a giant caterpillar with tentacles.

. Sounds pretty aberrant to me. :-p

** spoiler omitted **

You, sir, are a right bastard. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Ouch, a troll ambush on a 1st level group. The highest level random encounters I've rolled so far against my level 1 groups were a will-o-wisp and a werewolf.

The will-o-wisp has become a recurring nuisance - it's determined to scare the druid, if it's the last thing it does!

The werewolf was set up in a way that the party easily could have ridden away and escaped, but they insisted on attempting to kill it. They eventually did kill it, as well as starting a brush fire that more or less wiped out several thousand acres of the Kamelands.

Reminds me of a character idea I've been mulling over for a while. A neutral or neutral good rogue who is forced into accepting a Faustian contract (perhaps he's on the brink of death, and accepts to save his own ass). Then he starts getting levels of demonic/diabolic bloodline sorcerer. He knows that his powers by their own nature are evil, and that he will become a tool for the fiend who granted him the powers. So, he starts working to use his powers for good as much as possible, in an attempt to undo all the evil that he's sure he will unwillingly commit. His ultimate goals will be to prolong his death as much as possible, so that he can do as much good as possible; also, he needs time to research a way to kill himself that would obliterate his own soul, ensuring that the fiends never get their claws on it.

I think it would make for an interesting RP character.

Just took a look at the crawler's entry in the 3.5 MM, and I don't see anything that would absolutely need to be converted. It should work just fine as written.

The beauty of backwards compatibility.

Is it a trap?

Yes.

This is you guys.

Name: Speck
Race: Hobgoblin
Classes/levels: Warrior 2
Adventure: Stolen Lands
Location: Grasslands near spider territory
Catalyst: Bad perception rolls on guard duty
The Gory Details:
Random encounter turned up a thylacine on second watch. Some good stealth rolls from the beastie followed by a critical hit spelled the end for poor Speck. The rest of the party woke just in time to find his jugular scattered around the camp.

Speck was a hireling of a player who wasn't there that night. In fact, he had decided to roll up Speck's stats and hire him without any permission or input from me as the GM. It was pure chance that put Speck in the thylacine's path on the night his employer was absent, and it provided me with a very elegant (if gory) solution to my problem.

James Jacobs wrote:

... unless you're worried that they'll obsess over the numbers and forget that they're actually playing an RPG, I guess.

That was my concern :)

What about Jason Nelson's advice from this thread?

Very nice, with one caveat: the last wanted poster has a misleading illustration:

I'm very fond of this alternate masterwork system, originally designed for the low-magic Iron Heroes system:

Chris Upchurch's Alternate Masterwork System

It gives you ten different levels of masterwork upgrades, and lets you add special qualities other than just +1 to hit. It also has options for MW shields and armor.

The prices increase by multiplying the base cost of the weapon as opposed to adding a flat fee, and there are guidelines for crafting MW items under the new system.

Interesting, but...well, not to be rude, but what's the point?

Are you suggesting rules for initiative (perhaps where you take a penalty on Perception and Diplomacy in exchange for a bonus to Initiative)?

Are you giving RP advice on how characters should behave when in hostile environments?

Or is it just on observation on the way d20 rules might apply to real life?

Phaw, washed up outmoded nobility...reclaim this!

(In other news, purple dice with gold lettering would be marvelous :D)

Why does no one like the combat facing system? >.>

Realism is hard?