How are the weight/price listings of special materials supposed to be read in Ultimate Equipment?
Take adamantine, for example: It costs 850gp and weighs 55 lbs.
Er...is that 850gp per pound of raw adamantine? 55 lbs. per ingot (or cubic foot or nugget)? 850gp for 55 lbs. of raw adamantine?
How is this supposed to be interpreted?
I've noticed, from time to time, that people assume you can stack the same template over and over again. Normally, this is only done as a thought exercise, or as an abuse by GMs to crap on their players, like here. However, a great many people believe that this is RAW and RAI. Where is this belief coming from? I've seen nothing published by Paizo that even hints that you can have a twice young creature or a three times giant behemoth.
I personally don't think doing such a thing is at all legal.
Do your players pull this kind of crap on you? Or do I just have a unique blend of emotional sadists in my group?
Recent Text Conversation*:
RD: No pirate game this weekend. Not enough pirates.
Bill: Hey RD, I just wanted to let you know I’ll not be able to participate in Pirates anymore. :( Sorry man.
RD: How come?
Bill: So I have time to host Kingmaker. Also, Rick will be dropping the campaign to make time for Kingmaker as well. We both love Pirates, but the truth is your player basis is very weak. Rick and I seem to be the only ones interested and dedicated. Charles hardly has time and your brother would rather play his video games and hang with online friends, also school stuff. So seems like our options are limited. Awesome campaign, but what good is a great campaign if we can’t play ya’ know?
Bill: What’s that mean?
RD: It’s a sad face.
Bill: Sorry man, I talked to Rick about it a lot and we think it would be the wiser decision to focus on the game with dependable players even though we’d rather play Pirates.
RD: Sounds sensible. I will be expecting a kickass Kingmaker game though.
Bill: I can’t make promises, but I will try. Also, let me make it very clear: you are invited, your brother is not.
RD: Kinda’ figured.
Bill: You figured correctly.
Bill: Hey man, hope you aren’t too upset about last night.
RD: It sucks balls, but I’ll get over it. Being excited about Kingmaker helps a little.
Bill: Did you talk to Charles?
RD: Not yet, was planning to though.
Bill: He’s pissed. He blames your brother.
RD: I’m sure you spun it towards that outcome. You guys always do. ~pissed~
Bill: No I didn’t, actually.
RD: Well, I still plan on talking to Charles in any event. He was out this weekend too, it makes no sense to blame my brother.
RD: Doesn’t make sense for anyone to blame my brother. He is no more or less reliable than any of the rest of us: Charles with his family, you with your girls, Rick with his ‘alt’ groups, me and my laziness, my brother and his studies. No, not going to let you put it ALL on my brother. No way.
Bill: Also, my room mate bought the Skull and Shackles modules [that you are currently using] and says he can host it instead of Savage Tides. He has invited you to play if you don’t give away secrets. He’s letting us play our current characters so that’s pretty cool.
Bill: I don’t think it’s about this weekend man; I kind of had plans anyways.
RD: I wasn’t planning on dropping SandS yet, but I will consider it. No way am I going for it if it’s just a means of phasing my brother out.
Bill: Dude I didn’t say anything about your brother. Calm the [expletive] down. You talk to Charles.
RD: Alright, I will.
Bill: What’s SandS?
RD: Skull and Shackles. :P
Bill: Well, I guess that’s that, man. I’ll let my room mate know. At least you will be able to play Kingmaker. ;)
Bill: If it hasn’t occurred to you yet, we are totally [expletive] with you.
RD: I figured it unlikely that you guys were such ‘asshats.’ SO. NOT. FUNNY.
Bill: I know. ;)
RD: Why do you two insist on tugging on my heart strings so? I am not a harp to be played.
Bill: Yes you are, and I’m a player. To me you are an instrument to be toyed with and make noises … Muhahaha!
RD: Guess you were just bored for lack of a game today. Thanks for wasting my morning with a bunch of useless drama.
Bill: And last night too.
This is the second time they've pulled a stunt like this--all to get a rise out of me, one that is recorded and can be easily shared with the rest of our friends for a laugh. I'm clearly upset at the blatant emotional manipulation, but just how pissed should I be really?
* Names have been changed for reasons of privacy.
One of my friends has started his Rise of the Runelords campaign. He also decided to lay down a few house rules before play started. Pretty much all of them sounded reasonable to us, the players, and we all agreed to them. Nevertheless, I wanted to post them here in the hopes of uncovering any unexpected ramifications of said house rules well in advance.
What do you think of the following?
- You do NOT have to move in a straight line while taking the run action, but if you don't, you can only run at x3 your speed (or x4 with the Run feat).
- You may make a Strength check to break down a door as a free action when using the run action. This does not apply to other obstacles, such as walls--not even while polymorphed into a very strong, huge creature (I asked).
- Spring Attack and Vital Strike may be used in conjunction with one another.
- You cannot create or modify a magical item so that it is essentially two magical items in one slot (GM thinks this unbalanced, even with the higher costs).
- You (or at least the GM's wife) may play a homebrewed medium-sized harefolk race with 40-ft. base speed, +2 Dex and Cha, +1 natural armor, Run as a bonus feat, and is always treated as though it had a running start when jumping.
- Massive damage, traits (2), and Hero Point rules are in full effect.
- Though not a hard rule stated outright, the GM implied he was heavily against switching characters mid-game. I intoned that I might play a fighter throughout the low levels, then switch to a spellcaster later as I thought that would be more fun for me. He gave me a stern look and said "you best to make and play that spellcaster right now then if that's what you want." Not sure how this will work out in the event of naturally occurring (for an adventurer) character deaths.
I've been playing a halfling axe and board fighter for two levels now, but the more he sees combat, the more verisimilitude weakens for me. I just can't seem to rationalize away the durability of his "heavy" wooden shield, which is every bit as effective as its medium counterpart, but only weighs one half the amount.
How is it that it is not shattered every time it is pitted against the metal weapons of medium creatures?
I know the game is abstract and simplified, but being able to rationalize certain things makes the game more fun for me.
Please help me come up with something that makes sense and rationalizes this problem away.
Does the natural armor bonus under the skeleton and zombie templates REPLACE the natural armor bonus of the base creature, or does it modify it? Both templates read differently, and both are somewhat vague on the matter. (And the example base creature used in each, the human, is of no real help.)
Skeleton template excerpt wrote:
Zombie template excerpt wrote:
For example, say I animated an owlbear skeleton. Would it have +2 natural armor, or +7? What if it were a zombie rather than a skeleton?
How does the charge mechanic interact with multi-target single attacks like Cleave or Whirlwind Attack?
Is it possible for a magus to whirlwind as many as 8 targets with his held empowered intensified maximizing shocking grasp charge? Considering the resources it would take to pull off, it would hardly be overpowered, but is it RAW or RAI?
Why or why not. Please explain your answer.
Our GM is going to start up his Rise of the Runelords campaign soon. He has asked us, his players, to come up with a list of questions for him. Things like...
"Can we expect magical lightning to conduct through water and metal, and if so, in what manner does this happen?"
"Can you use blood money if the accompanying spell has a long casting time?"
He hopes to avoid rules disputes and reduce the need for in-game clarifications and the like by heading them off well in advance.
Seems like a fruitless task if you ask me, as I'm always asking questions, and I never ask them until they come to me. Anyways, he's expecting a list of some kind.
What might you ask in this case? Questions about rules? The campaign? What?
If it helps to form more appropriate questions, it looks like our party is going to consist of a halfling axe and board fighter, a halfling rogue (investigator/scout), a human fighter (unarmed fighter) that uses a polearm and plans to multiclass into monk, a druid whose race I do not yet know, and a bunnyfolk (homebrew) bard that plans to go into loremaster.
*Hops on the entitlement bandwagon*
(Since this is only a theoretical topic for the purposes of debate, it has been posted in General Discussion rather than Advice.)
Now, say a player were to create a celestial bloodline sorcerer. Said character is wholly evil and regularly binds powerful fiends to her service to do her bidding. The character background says something to the effect of "she gained great power through pacts with powerful celestial creatures, whom she then betrayed to their deaths in order to keep the power she tricked them out of."
Now, let's say there is also a GM who, part way through the campaign (or possibly near the beginning) declared that the above PC was (or would be) cursed by the gods for her vile treachery. The curse would take the form of the PC being changed from a celestial bloodline sorcerer to some other "curse-like" bloodline such as aberrant, abyssal, infernal, or undead.
In the context of the game's story arc, such a significant character change makes perfect sense, so the GM goes with it.
In the context of the game, however, the player is distraught. It was not his choice to have such a change occur. It is (or rather, was) his character and the GM has all but taken it away from him. He has lost what little control in the campaign world he had, his character. He can't even use his Flyby Attack feat anymore because his character no longer has Wings of Heaven!
So I ask you all this: Just how much control does/should a GM have over a player's character? Does the amount or form of character control differ during character creation then it does during the middle of a campaign?
In a recent game I was hosting, the party took on a really large aquatic monster with reach while in a rowboat. The giant moray eel lunged out of the water and bit and grabbed one of the PCs. As per this rule...
If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails).
...he moved the PC to his opposite side, effectively separating said PC from his allies and placing him off the boat and into the water, where he became wholly ineffective and incredibly vulnerable to the creature's attacks.
Though the PCs managed to run the eel off, the player whose PC had been dunked called foul.
Did I do something wrong? Or is the player in question just being a sore loser? Is there a rule that specifically states that you MUST move the grappled victim to the nearest adjacent square? Because I'm not seeing anything of the sort.
On a related note, why would anyone ever both investing in the reposition combat maneuver when grapple and reach not only gives you far more options, but essentially lets you do it for free?
I'm a guild leader and interviewer sitting behind a large desk covered in numerous applications, letters, and notes.
You are the enterprising adventurer and interviewee who has come to sign up for the grand quest through the dangerous land in the hopes of obtaining the glorious treasure.
How might you go about explaining your character's mechanical strengths and weaknesses to me, in game, without bringing down the fourth wall?
Please post your in-game response in your post, then post the metagame information in a spoiler, like so:
Good afternoon sir. I am Daren Mott, also known as "the Northern Giant," martial artist and traveling sage. I am as swift as a crane, and as ferocious as a dragon. Like the dragon, I exemplify physical prowess, supernatural cunning, and potent magical ability. I am a master of the quarterstaff and am quite competent in a myriad of other weapons, common and exotic alike. You would not regret hiring me for this venture, as I can serve you and your team as a capable scout, accomplished spellcaster, or fearsome skirmisher. I am equally comfortable in the open field, dark dungeon, or alien demesnes.
I'm hoping this thread will allow people to become more comfortable describing abstract game mechanics in a manner that makes sense within the context of the campaign world. In short, a thought exercise.
Arcane Bond wrote:
...a bonded object is an item a wizard can use to cast additional spells or to serve as a magical item. Once a wizard makes this choice, it is permanent and cannot be changed.
My GM says that I can get the once per day free spell OR what amounts to a (future) free magic item because that's what the rules say here, but I'm not so sure. Is he right?
Is there anything preventing me from making a full attack with a two-handed weapon, then switching my weapon to one hand (holding it rather than wielding it) and then making a secondary attack with one of my claws?
In fact, since switching hands is considered a free action, is there anything preventing me from switching my weapon to my OTHER hand, and then also attacking with my second claw?
Once that is done, could I then regrip my two-handed weapon with both hands, so as to be better armed with it for the purposes of attacks of opportunity when it isn't my turn?
Surely this is frowned upon, but does RAW actually prevent it in any way?
The general rules for rage powers indicate that they only function while raging.
However, several powers (such as Increased Damage Reduction and Swift Foot) say "this increase is always active while the barbarian is raging."
Shouldn't that say "this increase is always active even while the barbarian isn't raging?"
Cause...um...if not, it's already understood that you only get it while raging, making the text extraneous and moot.
Is there any reason why I couldn't use Flurry of Blows WITHOUT the extra attacks? This might be important when hitting at all is more important than getting extra attacks.
Someone who is fighting with two weapons normally can still choose to avoid the penalties to hit by not gaining the extra attacks, so I think a monk should be able to do the same (since the ability is based off of two-weapon fighting). I'm just looking to confirm that they can.
In short, I want to be able to use Flurry of Blows for the higher attack bonus (since I am treated as having full base attack bonus), but I also want to avoid the -2 penalty to hit that comes with the bonus attacks.
James Jacobs wrote:
So...er...discuss the topic and hit the FAQ button.
The Donning Armor table says that donning a shield is a move action. However, I've seen many GMs rule that you have to spend TWO move actions, one to draw out the shield, and the other to don it.
Um...where exactly are they drawing the shield FROM? It's not like it will fit in a scabbard or in your backpack. In all liklihood, it was slung over your shoulder onto your back. That's practically already on your arm, you only need to slide it back down.
That sure sounds like it would be only a single move action to me (since it would basically be considered part of donning the shield).
Does anyone know where the RAW stands on this? I've always thought that the move action to retrieve things was to retrieve them FROM A CONTAINER, such as a scabbard, backpack, or scroll case. If the item is readily accessible, as a shield pretty much must be to be carried at all, it doesn't even take THAT long (such as switching a weapon from one hand to another, or drawing ammunition for a ranged weapon--both free actions).
How long does it take to don or remove the following armor? I can't seem to find anything in the RAW covering the issue.
Is it possible to use Whirlwind Attack to trip everyone within your reach and then use Greater Trip to attempt to attack them? (Provided you have Combat Reflexes and enough attacks of opportunity of course.)
I ask because that is the way our group has played it for some time now, particularly with my latest character Macellano Alemander. I know several other people on these very forums also play it that way (though whether that is out of blissful ignorance or choice, I'm not sure).
However, someone in another thread pointed out that this may not work, due to Whirlwind's language, specifically this part:
When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.
I was thinking that would prohibit things like Haste, a speed weapon, or Cleave. For some reason, I never thought to apply it to Greater Trip.
Personally, I'm inclined to believe that it DOESN'T apply to Greater Trip since they are attack of opportunities, not bonus attacks (like Medusa's Wrath, which specifically refers to the extra attacks as bonus attacks). Whirlwind Attack doesn't prevent you from making other attacks of opportunities, so naturally, it wouldn't apply here either, right?
I'm obviously biased on the matter. The more I think about it, the more it feels like I'm really reaching. So I thought I'd see what the community consensus was, and perhaps even get a developer comment if we're lucky.
So, what's the verdict?
If I wake up in my natural form, and resume adventuring (either in my original body or with a new astral one) what happens when my petrified body is cured of its petrification?
This thread is meant to brain storm abuses that adventuring PCs might attempt when they are not adventuring, either for the wary GM on the lookout, for the corrective game designer looking to close loop holes with errata, or for the aspiring player not long for this world.
If you end up with a substantial amount of downtime in between adventures and are not the party crafter, don't waste time making Profession checks to earn piddly pocket change. No, buy a house. Spend, say 100gp/month, to get a wealthy lifestyle. Then search your home for non-magical items of 5gp or less for your entire downtime.
So if you have a month off (30 days), and spend 8 hours a day searching your home for goodies to sell (which takes 1d10 minutes, or an average of 5.5 minutes), then you could end the month with a little over 6,545gp in garage sale profits.
Whoah. I just realized that mind blank isn't a personal only spell. You can cast it on others. Holy cow!
Why on earth would a spellcaster NOT do this for the whole party the moment the spell becomes available? It makes the entire party immune to divination which, among other things, means your invisible rogue can hide from all those outsiders with true seeing and the BBEG can no longer track your movements with magical scrying devices.
It also beefs up your party tank's will saves. What's not to like?
Can't believe I never noticed this before.
Would you do it? If not, why not?
Once had a squad of bandits beat the tar out of the party due to bad rolls and a few bad tactics on the PCs parts. The bandits tied the PCs up, stripped them of all their gear, and left them naked on the side of the road.
Another time the PCs failed to infiltrate a castle and were captured. While awaiting their morning executions, shortly before their interrogations began, they overheard the following conversation around the corner of their cell:
Dimwitted Guard: What shall I do with their stuffs? Put it in the locker?
Clever Guard: No you idiot! The locker is right next to thar' cell. What if they were to get out and grab one o' them their weapons? Where would we be then?
Dimwitted Guard: Well...what shall I do with them then?
Clever Guard: Best to throw them in the moat I suppose. We got no use for 'em. They'd have a hard time gettin' them then! Be a whole lot easier retakin' them too if they got no weapons.
As I imagined they would, the PCs escaped, and went straight for the moat for their gear.
The chuuls greeted the unarmed and unarmored snacks quite happily. :D
Please share your stories of how the sanctity of your heroes' gear was defied and defiled.
An exotic military saddle seems to weigh 40 pounds regardless of size. What if I want my wizard to cast enlarge person on his raven familiar and reduce person on himself in order to ride his familiar? That would require a Small-sized exotic military saddle. Why on earth is it still 40 pounds?
Are there any rules covering this, that I may have overlooked?
Had a moment earlier today that I wanted to share, in which the party's fighter totally channeled Tony Stark's quirky attitude.
The players' characters had gone back to the local inn after a long week of foiling the BBEG's plans.
Just as the PCs had stripped off their armor and put their weapons aside, the trio barged into the PCs' master suite, dropped their illusion and...
..."Wait! How did you get in here?" asked the cocky fighter.
"Er...I uh...we just...uh...just walked in?" stuttered the BBEG in confused astonishment at the question.
"No, really, how did you guys get in here? The doorway is like all of three feet across!"
The monologue I had planned never stood a chance against the players' uproariously loud laughter.
I hear again and again on these forums that at high level play up you better have death ward up or your dead. That if you don't have death ward up, you deserve what you get.
I. don't. get. this.
Death ward SUCKS.
I am continually surprised to hear that this is a common spell at higher levels. I have been roleplaying D&D and Pathfinder for over 15 years, and I have NEVER seen that spell cast. Not once.
Among other problems, it's duration is simply too short. At 1 minute/level, you aren't going to cast it until you witness someone die from a death effect (assuming you can even identify a death affect for what it is).
The only method of having an ongoing death ward effect, that I know of, is to possess a darkskull with the spell attuned to it, but good luck getting a hold of that if you aren't evil.
EDIT: Also, contingency might work if you have a lenient GM.
Can someone with a natural reach greater than 5 feet make a combat maneuver at said distance?
For example, can a troll grapple a PC from 10 feet away? Or could a PC trip someone, unarmed, from 10 feet away while using the Lunge feat?
I always thought that you could use an maneuver against anyone within your threatened squares, whether they were 5 feet away or 30, since they are considered "attacks." However, as someone pointed out to me earlier today, it appears you could make a combat maneuver even when you don't threaten any squares (such as when disarming someone while unarmed yourself). So that's obviously not a good gauge for determining when you can and can't do it.
I'm still inclined to believe that you can use a combat maneuver against anyone within your natural reach, now I'm just looking for rules to support it.
In a practice session I just had a player take a shot at a sahuagin king with his bow, underwater, from 1,000 feet away. He rolled a natural 20 and hit automatically. He rolled another natural 20 to confirm the crit.
The total attack roll modifiers for range and for using a ranged weapon underwater make the sum of his attack roll, and roll to confirm, to less than 0 (WAY less than 0).
A natural 20 is an automatic hit, but is it also an auto-confirmation when rolled on the crit confirmation roll?
Did he just assassinate the king under the sea?
Environmental rules excerpt, underwater combat wrote:
Attacks from Land: Characters swimming, floating, or treading water on the surface, or wading in water at least chest deep, have improved cover (+8 bonus to AC, +4 bonus on Reflex saves) from opponents on land. Land-bound opponents who have freedom of movement effects ignore this cover when making melee attacks against targets in the water. A completely submerged creature has total cover against opponents on land unless those opponents have freedom of movement effects. Magical effects are unaffected except for those that require attack rolls (which are treated like any other effects) and fire effects.
Recently hosted a game for my friends in which they fought a number of aquatic creatures in, on, or near water. In doing so, we all observed the sheer ridiculousness of the above rule. As was pointed out by several players, it makes no sense. How do spear fishers fish? How do you spear or even net something that has total cover relative to you? You can't, according to the rules.
This also applies to adventurers in combat. I had four pirates standing in a jolly boat armed with a spear, trident, harpoon, and net; all ready to skewer and capture the giant moray eel that was trying to tip their boat.
The table exploded when I told them that the creature had total cover relative to them. It just doesn't make any sense. Said rule makes almost any similar encounter a TPK waiting to happen, since they will never be able to hurt the monster unless it comes to them. In the meantime, it attacks the boat from absolute safety, knocking people into the water and placing them in a position where they can't effectively fight it.
In a similar encounter, I had a water naga attacking the PCs, who were all on a dock. They dared not get into the water with it. That would be suicide. In the meantime, the water naga enjoyed a +8 cover bonus to its AC as well as a +4 shield bonus due to its shield spell, making it so no one could hit it but on a natural 20. And those few crits they did get? Negated by mirror image. All the while the naga melts their faces with acid arrow and other harmful spells.
If this particular naga hadn't completely lost its mind, it would have killed them or driven them off easily.
Many Pathfinder modules involving aquatic encounters don't seem to adjust the CR or challenge to account for these things. Sure, a young giant moray eel or a young water naga might be an hittable by a group of 4th-level characters--until you add the total cover or improved cover. Then it's just not even fair.
I want to discuss the balance of the above rules as well as the sense, or lack there of, that they make.
I've had this come up SEVERAL times in our games and it has continuously led to confusion.
We had an instance where my fighter grappled and pinned a powerful wizard in order to keep him from casting spells. The wizard's undead minions then attempted to grapple my fighter. After much debate about how this was supposed to work, if indeed the rules even allow for a daisy-chain grapple, the GM just gave up and had the minions attack normally.
In another game, which I hosted, one of the PCs was attacked by a young giant moray eel's bite attack and dragged off the jolly boat and into the water when it latched on with grab and moved the grapple. They were still at the surface of the water, however, and the other PCs wanted to grapple the eel and (since it was wrapped around their fellow) move the grapple (both the eel and their fellow) back onto the boat--essentially reaching into the water, grabbing them both, and hosting them back onto the boat.
Now, I know the grapple rules say you can make aid another grapple checks to give allies a chance to escape, but that doesn't seem to be what everyone is attempting to do here.
So what do the rules allow or disallow? How should the above scenarios have been run, according to the proper rules?
Before you read any further, please know that the following contains minor spoilers for the Skull and Shackles adventure path, specifically "The Wormwood Mutiny" and the first encounter of "Raiders of the Fever Sea."
I hosted my Skull and Shackles game last night in which we wrapped up the first module and began the second.
The characters had just arrived at Rickety's Squibs, had struck a deal with old Rickety, and were in the process of having their ship squibbed. There was lots of roleplay for the first two days, where they bought and sold supplies, recruited new members, and attempted to increase their Infamy score.
Then the water naga attacked. At first, everything was groovy. The NPCs managed to get their fallen fellow out of the water, and the naga magically "suggested" that another NPC go for a swim. A PC managed to fish him out with a the boarding pike of repelling. Then the PC Captain ordered everyone away from the water's edge. Though he didn't specifically state it at the time, he had summoned a water elemental and was planning to let the summoned creature deal with the threat. Why risk his crew, right? This fit with his LE alignment, so I didn't question the order as GM. Nobody else made any noticeable complaints about the order either.
Another player (who had just brought in his new dwarf rogue at the end of the first module after his bard had been killed) had been cutting the ropes of a hanging boat in the hopes of crushing the naga beneath it. Since he had one more rope, he didn't move away from the water's edge right away. Another new PC, a druid, also didn't move away from the water, but that was fine since his character hadn't yet been recruited to the ship and wasn't beholden to the Captain. The last PC, a gunslinger, was already standing a short distance from the water's edge, not willing to get his powder wet.
Nearly all the NPCs were at the water's edge too (having just fished their buddy out). They remained there for a round longer than they should have because I accidentally skipped their turn.
In the following round, when he saw that nobody had obeyed his order, the PC Captain thought to intimidate everyone into doing it. So he used his Dazzling Display feat and targeted EVERYONE: NPC, PC, and snake monster alike. I gave minor protest, warning him that, that was essentially PvP play, which was something I made clear that I didn't want in this game LONG before any of the players signed on.
We proceeded with the game, with everyone being debuffed for no less than three rounds due to their intimidating Captain. The NPCs all but fled, the dwarf rogue moved back to the boat house entrance to "guard the door," the druid pulled back fearing the naga would kill his animal companion, and the gunslinger simply obeyed orders.
Then the captain went back inside to continue the fight, as did all the other PCs (I think the dwarf got bored and was the first back in). Throughout the rest of the encounter, the dwarf's player continued grumbling about being debuffed by a fellow player. The player of the Captain repeatedly responded by telling him that he should just have obeyed orders. That didn't help matters. Their argument escalated slowly until we finally finished the encounter and I called the game (it was about 1am at that point and we were clearly tired/cranky).
After the game, the Captain's player (who I will now refer to as "the upset player" or "UP") said that he was going to make a new character, that he didn't want to be captain anymore. We discussed it briefly with no real resolution before I went home (the game was held at UP's apartment). I figured he was just overreacting and I was hoping it would all cool down enough that we could all get together and discuss/clarify what it was we wanted out of the game in a few days.
I contacted UP earlier this evening (the day after the game) to ask a quick question and the following conversation ensued. (The OOC text is not part of the conversation, but my comments to you, or changes made for my players' benefit.)
WARNING: The following transcript contains vulgar language as well as words that were improperly used to the point of being offensive. Also, it contains bad spelling and grammar which may also be offensive to some. I beg that the moderators not edit or remove the conversation, lest the point of this post become entirely meaningless. Hopefully, such action won't be necessary due to my clearly visible warning and spoiler block.
ME: What was the name of the ship again? The new name.
UP: The Moist Wench.
ME: Okay. Thanks. I'm appending it to the ship's stats now. It won't officially be named that in the game until its christening at Rickety's Squibs though.
UP: Also, I need to make a new character.
ME: Do you really think that necessary? I honestly don't believe anybody will make a better captain than you (in game or out), and I'm not putting an NPC in that position. [An NPC would defeat the whole point of the adventure path, which is having the PCs be master of their own ship, their own destiny.]
UP: morgana can be npced then apparently the players cant handle a captain or follow orders so im dne with her
ME: That seems less like a problem with the character then it does with the players. Just talk to the others. Clarify how you guys want this game to move forward so that everyone can continue having fun; some out of game guidelines or some such.
UP: I did im done with it
ME: You keep saying that. All that does is shut everyone else out. I really don't think "my way or the highway" is a good way to approach it. Just sit down and talk to the other players. Find out what they are okay with as far as you roleplaying captain. It will also give you the chance to clarify what you need of them as players for you to actually feel like you're a captain.
Everyone just wants to have fun. So let's work towards that.
UP: we talked about it nobody cares about the position and when its enforced everyone threw a fit
ME: [The dwarf rogue's player] threw a fit. Then you threw a fit. There was never any discussion. Just a lot of fit throwing.
UP: ok im not having fun im done with the character
ME: Please just think on it for a while and try to open up some dialog with the other players first. If you guys truly can't work anything out, I'll support your making a new character.
ME: I just want you all to try, rather than everyone throwing their hands up in the air in exasperation. Cooperative play takes a little work sometimes. Give and take and all that. Especially a game with as complex a dynamic as Skull and Shackles.
UP: no it f%!#ing doesn't it takes players that aren't f$&$ing retarded
UP: examples fight in the water, staying in the waters edge, conjuring billows to mve fog
Nobody got into the water in the naga encounter, but two PCs did get chewed up pretty badly by the giant moray eel in module #1 (one of which jumped in the water before he knew the eel was there, and the other having been dragged off the jolly boat by the eel against his will). During the battle with the naga, the dwarf turned his traveler's any-tool into a bellow in a futile attempt to blow the naga's obscuring mist away.
UP: im just not down with it makes no f%$%ing sense
ME: You had two PC characters who didn't move away in one round. [The dwarf rogue] had plans too, he just wanted to cut some ropes real quick.
UP: whatever no one payed any attention save the cat
ME: The cat?
UP: [no response]
ME: Is there any reason you couldn't resolve this with a bit of in-game flair? Present a few of them for "bloody hour" for disobeying orders?
UP: if that's an indication of how its going to be on the ship I refuse to waste my time playing captain
ME: Dude, you just became captain. They just got a ship o' their own. Everyone's still new at this form of roleplay. Which is why I want you guys to talk about it. Everyone's still feeling it out.
UP: bloody doesn't exist that's the dumbest f+@$ing thing ive heard
ME: Nobody's going to be perfect with this new style of play right off.
...What doesn't exist?
UP: Bloody hour.
Whatever im playing my le aligned character as shes intended to be played if the others cant handle that she will make her own way an someone else can be captain
ME: Do you mean to say that that's something you as captain discontinued, or are you saying it doesn't matter because two PCs (one who wasn't even a crew member a the time) didn't obey your order right away?
UP: yes if you d smething wrng its dealt with there is not a hour that all punishment happens that's f*ing retarded
UP: I don't want to be captain I was much happier being ships cook
UP: [The dwarf rogue's player]'s character is suppsed to be a salty le experienced pirate but he acts like a f+@+ing noob
ME: So your real problem is [The dwarf rogue's player]?
UP: I didn't say that im done with this convo im getting really pissed
ME: He had a new character he was excited about. He was trying him out. He wanted to use all the new tools and tricks he had available.
If you want to be the cook, just step down as captain and be the cook again. Just because the crew called your name during the mutiny doesn't mean you need to accept the job of Captain.
John Silver wasn't captain, but he still commanded the respect of his fellows. It would be easy for your character to slip into a similar role again.
UP: i like the idea of being a captain of a pirate crew, not a bunch of f+%*ing retards with swords and a ship
ME: So just tell them what you expect of them. In game and out. That seems like the quickest way to avoid more "retarded behavior" in the future.
UP: heres the problem players don't like to be told by other players what a player expects
done with this convo
ME: Everyone knew someone was going to be Captain going into this game. So being given orders is to be expected. Following them or being punished is also to be expected. But, as with all cooperative games, there will still be some give and take. There WILL be things you won't be able to do without ruining someone else's fun. There will also be things that you as captain expect of them, and if they don't perform well, it can hurt YOUR fun. The trick is finding the middle ground where everyone can be happy.
If you think you need to kill a PC to maintain respect, talk to the player out of game. See if they are okay with it. Perhaps you guys can come up with a cool and fun way to have the character exit the stage, such as by feeding him to a known sea monster. Perhaps you two could have a duel as he fights for his life (against you, or you and the rest of your crew). This could be played out with dice rolls and have consequences for either one of you, or simply narrated with a predetermined outcome. Whatever the hell it takes. Just so long as everyone is happy with the result.
That's what I meant when I said no PvP when I started this. You guys can steal from and kill one another and what not if you believe that's what your characters would do. Just come to an understanding about it first so no one ends up with harsh feelings afterwards.
I'll talk to [The dwarf rogue's player] and see if I can get him to take more practical actions in the future.
UP: [No further responses]
I'm hoping people experienced with similar situations might be able to provide me with some advice on how to resolve this one. I don't want UP giving up a character that he was clearly enjoying up until now, nor do I want to replace UP's character with an NPC (which would put all the power on me, the GM, and defeat the entire point of the adventure path). I would also rather not have one of the other players as Captain. They either lack anything remotely resembling leadership potential (in game and out) or are more crazy than UP.
Everyone involved are long time friends. We've had similar spats before, and we remained friends, but it typically ended campaigns. I wish to avoid that here.
Does the Unarmed Fighter archetype from Ultimate Combat retain its simple and martial weapon proficiencies? Or does it give them up for all those fancy exotics?
The text for the archetype specifically says that "the unarmed fighter picks up a weapon only rarely, and when he does, he prefers the weapons of the monk."
The proficiency section, on the other hand, appears to be silent on the matter.