I am inclined to agree, personally, and if i was also inclined to remove the item that would be the reason why.
While you ideally should know what all of your PC's can do it is unreasoanble for you to be expected to remember every in and out of your PC's abilities.
When they make a new item, such as this one, they need to come and tell you what its for.
"Hey DM, I'd like an item of +5 sense motive for my character. Other skill increasing items are cheap and it fits with him being kinda paranoid, always looking out for liars."
"Sounds good, 2500 is the going price."
*mwahahaaa he fell for it!"
That just doesn't go over well with me.
Full Disclosure is an important part of custom magical item design.
"Hey Bob, I know I said that +5 was ok but.. its really turning out to be a much greater problem than we initially thought. Lets cut it back to +2 for now. Maybe in a few levels you can upgrade it to +4 or so- we'll see how it turns out by then."
While you Can reorganize the campaign to fight against one character- if the problem is just one item then its far easier to just talk to the player and remove/adjust it.
You Have the right. You Have the authority.
The DM says:
"Does anyone speak X language?"
Everyone checks their sheets.
If Yes then the DM tells us what the guy says. (under the valid assumption that we're going to just translate it to the rest of the party anyway).
If No, then he tells us they are whispering/speaking/yelling in a language and we don't know what they are saying.
The same is true for written things- though if their is a handout he tends to give it to the one(s) who speak the language first. (who then reads it and passes it around to everyone else).
Killing Big T as a construct of forum debate isn't terribly difficult.
The real challenge in killing Big T is in taking a group of characters who are actual characters (not forum constructs) who've been "organically grown" through a campaign from first level to last and then give them say.. 18 hours notice, ingame, that they'll be fighting Big T.
Therein lies the real issue. Big T is easy to kill here on the forums but is he so easy to kill with a group of characters who were just characters in a campaign with feats, spells, and magical items that they acquired (or made) for the general purpose of adventuring rather than the specific task of killing him?
I don't think so.
Get off the message boards. :\
Ignore people who tell you not to take a feat because its a "trap".
There are way too many armchair quarterbacks around here who delight in telling everyone the "right" way to play. I suggest finding your own way to play- that way that gives and brings you enjoyment.
Also, welcome to the game :)
Curse you all! :p
I first came across this thread at 3am and thought "hmm whats the SCP?".
As to the OP.
The line betweeen creepy and dangerous is a thin one. Once you cross it the PC's will try to murder it and then its just another combat encounter.
In our ROTL campaign my character died. When I made his replacement the DM just told me to use the appropriate WBL from the table. I did.
I came to the table with a great deal more wealth than the rest of the party, as a result. (8 people in the campaign with little adjustment made to wealth). We, the group, had been handling things fine- the death was a mistake on my part.
But now my new character was out of whack. The DM decided to "impart" wealth to the rest of the group so everyone would be at the same wealth level.
If I was your DM I would adjust your wealth to be equivalent to that of the group's average wealth. If this means you get more cash, you get more. If it means you get some gear chopped, you get some gear chopped. Whether or not this number was anywhere close to the WBL in the book though would largely be happenstance.
If you watch someone actually using a shield (SCA or otherwise) you'll find that the shield survives NOT by being struck like a door stuck in the frame but rather by being something the weapon hits to deflect it.
That is to say- the shield isn't a wall. Its a moving object to deflect the weapon coming at it. You strike the shield and it moves your weapon away. The shield isn't taking "a hit" like you would use your weapon to strike the door to sunder it.
This is why the shield doesn't take damage unless you are aiming to damage it. The same reason the opponents weapon doesn't take damage unless you aim to damge it.
An axe readily sunders a block of wood. Chop some wood and try it out- its tiring but hardily difficult. Using that same axe against a piece of wood strapped to someone's arm though is an entirely different affair.
Anything the PC sends into combat is fair game to be murderized.
This goes for mounts, henchmen, animal companions, eidolon(s?), familiars, or whatever.
If a Player wants it safe from harm they need to figure out how to keep it out of harms way.
So definately- if he rides Bob the Horse into combat then you should factor Bob into who gets hit during the fight.
To me, Hard Mode is every encounter at APL+4 or greater without much- if ever- a chance to rest or recooperate. Such would grow annoying to me very quickly.
On the other hand, not fudging the dice to me is just.. playing the d20 system.
By all means, if you and your players enjoy *however* you are playing then keep it up! Don't let anyone on the boards come and tell you all you are doing it wrong.
For me though? I want the dice to tell the tale. Did the bad guy get 1 shotted? GO PC's!. Did the PC get one shotted! Go NPC!
Did the DM decide it wasn't a memorable way to die so he fudged the die?
I mean no disrespect. Honestly. I am genuinely confused. If you are going to roll the dice Then decide if you are going to accept them or not- are we even playing Pathfinder anymore? Why bother with all the character sheets and expensive books? We can sit down, make character concepts then sit around on the couch and talk it all out. I could see that being very fun. Again, no sarcasm. It could, depending on the skill of the Storyteller, be very heroic and interesting and cinematic. It could be extremely engaging.
But it wouldn't be Pathfinder.
Pathfinder is a game based on rolling a die to determine the success or failure if any given venture. Want to bluff the guard? Roll the die. Want to seduce the barmaid? Roll the die. Want to murder the High Cultist Poombah guy? Roll the die.
And all that work is for naught if the DM is just going to scratch his chin and say "nah. I don't want you to die yet."
Again I ask.. Why bother with this rules heavy system if the DM is just going to neuter it on a whim? And make no mistake- saving a PC or NPC for any reason at any time is just a whim. You are just deciding when they live or die. (afterall, if you save him now just to "let the die" kill him later on you are in effect deciding when they live or die.)
I truly don't understand that mentality.
I play D&D and by extention, Pathfinder, because I want a die roll to determine success or failure. I WANT to die if the rolls dictate I die. I want to die if its because I got flanked by two shadows in an encounter that no one would have remembered otherwise. (we remember it now, RIP that rogue.) I want to die if its a super cinematic where in an effort to bring the bell tower down on the BBEG we actually bring it down on ourselves, killing half the group in the process only to have the BBEG pick off every single surviving member- save one. (who escaped by the skin of his teeth). (RIP everyone in that group cept the Fighter. And the cleric, who chose to be resurrected and in so doing changed his character greatly due to what he saw would happen to him in the afterlife if he kept on as he had been.)
I've died twice in the current group and I've loved every minute of it. One was not memorable except for the fact that I died. The other was extremely cinematic- the makings of the beginning of a movie the rest of which would involve the surviving member going after the BBEG to make them pay for what they did. (which the fighter did in fact do).
What if the DM had decided to let the rogue live? What if he had decided to fudge the tower so we all laughed and lived and curbstomped the bad guy afterward?
The campaign would be very very different today, thats what. We play a game based on the d20. Whether you die in an unmemorable side quest crypt by a mob -2 your CR to an unfortunate roll of the dice or in a narrow corridor martyring yourself for the survival of the group.
We play a game based on the die. If you are playing d20, let the d20 make the decisions. I truly don't understand why you'd bother with all the books and paper and such if you are just going to ignore them.
The line that they are watching you closely means nothing without the necessary implication that they'll do something about if if you cross "The line".
Imagine as you leave detention the teacher says "I'll be watching you."
What're they saying?
Of course not. They are saying, "IF YOU SCREW UP WE'LL BE MEETING AGAIN".
They Will Be Watching.
They'll be watching and if you are abusing their powers then action will be taken.
As a PC:
I'd rather die and TPK than live because the DM decided to let us live and have the NPC die.
As a PC: I'd rather one-round shot the BBEG before he did anything "cool" than have him live through DM fiat for two, three, or four rounds when he should already be dead.
We're playing dice, folks. Its the point of the game. We live by 'em and we die by 'em. If you aren't going to go by the dice- good or bad- then just put the dice away and have Storyteller Hour or something. I am personally not interested in a game where I say what i want my PC to do, roll some die, and then have the DM decide what happens. Why roll the die? just ask the DM. "I attack the orc. Did I hit it? Ok. i attack it again. Did I hit it? ok. Is it dead yet? No? I attack it again. Ok, that was all of my attacks.".
The game would go so much faster without dice. If you are going to ignore them, then just ignore them.
I TOTALLY get that it sucks to have a TPK. Its alot of work for the players, and its alot of work for the DM.
I also get that its irritating to have the BBEG get one-rounded by the PC's. (note to DM- no more throwing 1 bad guy at the players, eh? 4 full round actions > 1 full round action).
But what would suck worse is for the DM to just arbitrarily decide what works and what doesn't and when things are hurt or die just because of some idea of cinema or something. "But it wasn't a dramatic death!".
Live by the dice. Die by the dice. Put fudge in the oven to enjoy after the game. (or during it, if folks can keep chocolatey hands off minis and books!)
This is alot more about "How do you handle one player disregarding the decision of the group" and alot less about healing or whatever kind of cleric the guy is.
If you just go in with the guy and heal him up after and say "gee what a battle" what you've really done is just had one guy tell the group "See your vote? Screw it. Take that stick and shove it. I'll do what I want, and if you want to be part of my group you'll come with me."
*that* is the issue. And it needs to be solved at the table, not "in game" because "in game" the way you handle it is to let Dipstick the Fighter die, and move on with the group's plan.
In character its "Hey. You. Yeah, YOU, the one bleeding on my shoes. No, I'm not healing you. You know why? Because we took a vote and WE SAID TO NOT GO IN THERE. Yeah. You speak common, right? Good. Next time you go running off by yourself after we said to go a different way? We'll notify your family the general location of your remains. You are either with the group, or not. You Decide."
But players don't tend to like their characters getting ditched, even for good reason.
Deal with it at the table before the game.
The group needs to talk to each other OOC.
And if "well its what my character would do" is the answer, remind him that what the group would do is leave him in town next time.. (i.e. "My character is a jerk" isn't an excuse to be a jerk. You made the character. FIX IT.)
Bill Dunn wrote:
Without incentive, everyone will just use a shield. A flat +2 bonus might seem attractive at extremely low levels but at higher levels folks will just go 1h/shield and be done with it.
at 8-10 and above (maybe sooner), +2 damage is just not gonna do it.
When others are charging 1% less for the same service, that 1% seems exorbitant- especially in the long term.
Given that Paizo makes its bread and butter off of subscription sales (i.e. credit card transactions) I'd wager that the 70 cents per book tends to add up rather quickly. And thats assuming its 1% rather than 1.7%.
In short- if AmEx wants to be accepted in more places, maybe they should get in line with the other CC fees.
I think "don't try to date at the gaming table" is a pretty good rule. Whether you are handsome, ugly, tall short fat rich poor whatever and whatnot, no one came to the table to find a date. They came there to game. If you are sitting there half-drooling over the "chick" at the table (regardless of how they are dressed) then you are the problem. She's there to game. Treat her accordingly.
I've gamed with quite a few women over the year- most of them the wives or GF's of the other gamers. They are there to game too, not get stared at by single guys.
I, personally, disagree with "don't give them your chair, open the door, etc" but thats because.. Thats how I treat women. Its how I was raised and I'm not going to change that behavior just because I'm at a D&D game.
Don't want to be a "creeper"?
2) Don't stare. Regardless of their attire, they are there to game. If you have a problem with their clothing address it before or after. (this goes to guys too. Guys can dress inappropriately too- though defining that is of course up to the group's tolerance).
3) Treat 'em like you treat everyone else. If you aren't a door-holder-opener then don't become one. If you don't usually ask if anyone wants a drink when you get up, don't start just cuz a woman is at the table.
I personally think of "creeper" behavior as "different" behavior.
Longer than I'd originally intended..
On a (slightly) note to the side-
did anyone else notice that "the hill" the eagles put them on was carved into the shape of a bear's head? aka Beorn?
I don't think it was "some random rock with stairs" in as much as it was carrying them (and their wounded dorf) to someone with the ability and possible inclination to help.
(though I don't remember such a rock from the books..)
For me personally:
Metamagic feats are too expensive to both take and in application. You are essentially double penalized- once in a feat slot and then again in spell slots.
The rods basically alleviate this. They take something I won't use (the feat) and turn it into something I will use. (a held item).
"What if they did away with the MM rods". Then I'd go back to not using the feats.
IMO the feats are out of whack due to the double cost, so removing the rods is the same as simply deleting the feats out of existence. (for me personally).
I have no opinion on the pearls.. I'm not sure that I've ever had or used them.
Generally I'm against an edition-overhaul no matter what name they give it.
That being said- I'd like the rogue to be tweaked. How? I dunno. Making rules isn't my forte. Its rather sad though that the rogue is now the ninja, with the red pen taken to the old favorite because he's just not up to par.
The monk likely needs fixing as well.
The rest? I'm not so sure about. Aside from the need for some errata or clarifications on some things I don't see that most classes need to be fixed.
Regardless of the actual intent behind the 3.0/3.5 conversion the actual effect was "go buy more books". I like my books, and don't really want to go around buying new ones. A "path.5" would mean any new books they printed went off the new rules, meaning basically everyrule book they put out prior to now would be invalidated or require the DM and players to sit and have to convert it.
What we have may not be perfect (not that we, the board, could ever agree on perfection anyway) but i'd rather keep it than to have to convert it to some new system and/or buy it all over again.
I have to say, I'm 100% totally and completely against them stealth-errating things the complete opposite of what they've said the rule would be on the boards.
Its not that the Silvanshee isn't totally awesome without LOH scaling (it is, and I chose it before knowing it scaled) but it totally borks folks who are trying to run by the rules when they say first X and then later sneak in Y instead.
Not cool at all.
Totally not seeing any clause about murdering evil when you find it, or even a requirement that an undead creature must be killed on sight- intelligent or otherwise.
What does a Paladin do who finds a Lich in a pathfinder lodge going about the business of the Pathfinders? Wave, and go on about his or her duty. Sure- they'd certainly keep an eye on 'em just in case they *did* go about doing evil.. but BEING evil doesn't give the Paladin the right to kill them. And being a Lich probably isn't against the law.
Furthermore- there's no evidence in RAW that Liches have to do anything evil. They are "evil" beacuse Undead are evil but the creation of one isn't necessarily so.
The exact methods for each spellcaster's transformation are left to the GM's discretion, but should involve expenditures of hundreds of thousands of gold pieces, numerous deadly adventures, and a large number of difficult skill checks over the course of months, years, or decades
No mention of puppy kicking, innocent slaying, virgin soul sucking or anything. Just expensive, deadily adventures with a number of difficult skill checks.
Is it evil? By RAW yes. Does it ever have to commit an evil act?
The issue with "I make my guys Rp it and to heck with those skills" is that not everyone is as good at it as someone else.
I may have a stutter and not be terribly witty and lack the ability to effect a quick thinking wit, nor do I know the intricasies of the ettiquette of talking to the nobility.
My character though may be an int 14 charisma 27 bard with maxed ranks in all the relevant social skills who by all accounts should be able to talk his way out of an attempted assassination attempt on the king. (well ok not really- skills don't solve everything).
Now should the bard RP social interactions? Abso-freaking-lutely. Dice rolling is no excuse to not Rp. But while I stutter my tongue into a knot and can't remember the name of the King's second cousin's best friend's room mate- my character is a smooth talking, silver tongued, intelligent guy who should have no issue *at all* in that conversation.
So yeah- RP it. But when the Rp is done, roll the dice, and move on.
I, myself, can't possibly effectively Rp being the Crown Prince. Why? Because there are a million things people could ask me that I can't possibly answer.
Using skills is no excuse to not RP the stuff out. But RP is no excuse to not have the skills either.
There are somewhere near 11 bajillionty threads on the Monk and its flaws and such already.
Go read them.
If you still have something to add, reply in one or make your own thread.
Master Arminas- go read your own thread again.. You were really just saying things that you (perhaps) and others (for sure) had already said, repeatedly. There is a multiple-thousand post thread about the issue of whether or not it was a clarification or rules change and whether or not the rest of the design team knew his original intent. While I believe Paizo does welcome honest, polite criticism I don't think they want threads that just repeat the exact same things over and over again.
The thread wasn't locked because they are jerks, or because they don't want to hear from you.. They are locking it because it said nothing that a dozen or two other threads haven't already said and was beginning the downward spiral just like most of those others have done.
Re-read what's already been said, and then wait for Gen-Con if there's nothing *new* to say on the topic..
If the Deities cared, surely somewhere in one of the books it would be mentioned.. somewhere? anywhere?
Folks have talked about using Create Water to solve anything from irrigation problems to dry and itchy scalps but no mention of abusing or wasting the divine power given to them.
There's no mention in *any place* in any book that I know of that talks about or mentions or even hints about "wasting" anything. You are simply tired of your PC not blowing a move action and so you are trying to figure out a way to put the thumb screws to him to force him to play how You want the paladin to play.
Detect Evil isn't a requirement or prerequisite to smite evil. It hasn't been, isn't now, and that shouldn't be changed in the middle of an on-going campaign.
I get that you don't like what he's doing but he's not doing anything incorrect with the mechanics or fluff or even the theme of the class. As long as he's not breaking his vow, code, or alignment to be in the combat in the first place there's not *one thing* that stops him from using smite. Heck, he could smite the same guy over and over and over again and blow them all on a neutral opponent and the rules perfectly support that decision.
If it gets on your goat that much change it for the next campaign.. but I really do strongly advise hosing the guy in This campaign because halfway through you think he's playing a Paladin the wrong way.
If the group/paladin doesn't know the creature is evil- should they be fighting it?
Thats really the underlying question you seem to be having. Whether he smites or Detects isn't really an issue at all- but rather should they be in the combat in the first place.
If the combat is legitimate, then whether he detects or not is entirely irrelevant except as resource management.
If he shouldn't be in the combat anyway then he needs to get a vision from his Deity for being in combats he has no business being in.
Keep in mind- evil or the lack thereof has nothing to do with whether or not they have the right to be in combat with them. (i.e. just because you can smite evil doesn't mean its always right to SMITE EVIL!")
You need to determine the underlying reasons for the combat to find out if the guy is in any trouble from his Deity or not.
His desire, or lackthereof, to use detect evil really has no bearing on the situation.
There is nothing in the class, the mechanics or fluff, that says there is such a thing as 'wasting' smites, or spells, or lay on hands or anything else.. Not for him, not for the clerics, druids, rangers, or any other divine casters.
Now if you as the DM don't like that then you are free to change it. I'd advise against doing so mid campaign, however. "hey I don't like how you are using that ability on your 7th level character so I'm introducing this new mechanic to hose you" usually doesn't go over terribly well with the player base.
1) Brand on the forehead.
Societies would not tolerate the abuse of magic and the creation of expensive items to stop it wouldn't really be effective due to the lack of ability to apply it on a large scale.
If t hey were petty offenders, brand then hand then life. If serious offender hand and life, or just kill 'em.
With great power comes great responsibility and with the abuse of that power comes great punishment.
BUT! In the light of what the OP actually asked. lol :)
The hardest part is cost. How much is the gov't willing to spend to stop the guy without just using his head for a bowling ball? Thats the real problem. Cost. Sure Anti-magic field items are all well and good until you price the dang thing. The king says "sure whats the tab?" and then says "HOLY )(@#$()*#. Forget that, OFF WITH HIS HEAD!"
So Lesser Geas seems to work though it doesn't stop the guy from actually *doing* it it just makes it hurt when he does.. and 24 hours later he's not even hurt anymore.
What about a nice handy non-magical means though?
"I sentence thee be BRANTED on the FOREHEAD with a hot iron in the symbol customary to our law breakers and to two years of wearing Splint Mail and carrying a Tower Shield, both of which will be provided by the city and both of which you shall pay for out of your own pocket. If you are caught outside of this armor and or without this shield then you shall have one hand removed. You are excused for one hour each day during which we highly recommend you bathe. If you are caught casting a spell of any kind despite these restrictions you will lose your hand. If you cast two spells, you will lose both hands."
Why? Splint mail is 40% AMF and Tower Shield is 50% AMF. 10% chance to cast a spell. Not just that but they have a -17 to *lots and lots* of checks unless they happen to be proficient in both of those pieces of equipment. I'd probably tack on a "locked gauntlet" and stick the shield to it (and thus, to him) as well just for giggles. Oh and the combo also weighs 90 lbs and restricts the guy to 20ft (just in case he happens to have the strength).
Long story short- sure he can cast non-somatic spells anyway but he's not running anywhere or hitting anyone and if he takes off that armor the brand'll be a pretty good designation that he's a dangerous person to watch out for. Total cost? 250gp plus the nominal fee of having his forehead branded. and he pays for both. (and court costs. ha!)
Not to mention having fun things written on the shield or armor as well- by the guards who provided it of course. "I came to Magnimar and all I got was this lousey tower shield" and other funsies.
And if they are really a pain in the arse make them pay to make it adamantine. Why? Because that doubles the weight and adds 20,000 to the cost. (15k for heavy armor 5k for light- assuming the shield counts as "light".
I personally would stay away from "magic" as the way to fix it- primarly just because of cost. An effective means of solving the problem would necessarily involve it being cheap, otherwise it becomes so impractical as to be worthless.
(of course- the higher level the offender the more wealth they should have to offset it, but also the higher level the harder they are to catch anyway and the more damage they would do- making it more likely that execution was the preferred method of dealing with them afterall..)
Jamie Charlan wrote:
The rule isn't unclear at all. It just requires a DM with the stones to enforce it and players who aren't trying to *take advantage* of the wording of it to get something they aren't supposed to. And when players do that, then the DM just puts his foot down and says "no" and thats that.
Which, incidentally, is all alot of things in the game need to work jus fine. Players who aren't trying to be abusive and DM's who are willing to stand up and say the forbidden word when they try it. i.e. "No."
Sometimes folks just have to understand that Dm Fiat is built into the game. You can hate it or dislike it- but its stil a fact.
Take the Reposition maneuver from the APG.
Its very clear that you can't reposition someone onto a square thats inherently dangerous (the Maneuver's exact wording), but also I think folks would agree that you can't then carry a cat around and "use that maneuver" to detect traps under the theory that a trap is detrimental and as such its an infalliable trap finder.
The intent of the feat is clear, but DM fiat is also required for it to work. Fiat, and players who are trying to play the game, and not game the system.
There are always going to be things that require the DM to have two brain cells actively colliding in order to work. Its part of what makes the game work.
Reposition, Diplomacy, Charm Person, they work because of DM Fiat- not in spite of it. Leaving the DM out of the equation when discussing them is leaving out alot of the rule.
he's not trying to avoid the AoO, he's trying not to gain a grit point before he's spent it- so that he can regain it later in the around after he's spent it.
Eerr if I understood correctly anyway.
I disagree that you can't choose not to use a feat. I think it should be all or nothing for the round though- not pick and part as the round goes on (unless, of course, the feat allows otherwise).
I think its not so much that you can't as it is therules assume yuo won't.
Rules wise the books are silent on it as far as I know- but it makes sense that you could choose not to do something if you wanted to.
I'd just draw the line at letting you wiggle aruond it in the manner described by the OP. Not use it for the round? sure. Try to off/on it in the round to get around something or other? probably not.
There's nothing confusing about the write up.
You 1) pick a class to add them to. check the Spellcasting section to see if its arcane or divine.
2) Pick a class to get a spell from.. check the spellcasting section to see if its arcane or divine.
3) if they are the same, BINGO! Pick your spells.
There are no divine spells on the wizard list. There are no arcane spells on the cleric list.
All cleric spells cast by a cleric are divine because its a cleric who is casting them. All spells cast by a wizard are arcane because its a wizard who is casting them.
You are trying to get a benefit from this feat that the feat isn't intending- which is to say "Pick any spell and add it to your list". It doesn't say that.
There are no arcane spells, there are no divine spells. There are arcane caster spell lists and divine caster spell lists. Trying to force this feat to say something it doesn't just isn't going to work.
If "Pick any list and choose spells from it" is what they'd have wanted, then thats what they'd have written. They clearly wanted to match the spells received to the spell list type you are already stuck with.
It has nothing to do with how you explain or fluff it.
You pick a type of casting that matches the class you are attaching the spells to.
So if you are a cleric taking it then you are bound to spells on divine lists, and if you are a wizard (or bard or whatever) then you are bound to use it for arcane spells.
WBL serves two purposes.
For players in the game, its a measure of their relative cash compared to each other, used to compare the group against the CR you are having them fight.
The second purpose is for we forum pundits. if Wraithstrike and I want to compare fighters we can say "we'll be level 10 and WBL" or "level 8 and WBL of a 10th level" or whatever we want- but that puts us at an even level. Both against each other, and so we know how it'll relate to CR.
And all that doesn't even necessarily mean that your PC's should be "at" wbl. I'm in A RotL campaign right now there there are regularly 7 players sitting around the table. It's hard to know for sure but I'd bet we're maybe 1/2 WBL. And we steam roll everything we come across, near enough. Even at half wbl the DM is having to add a ton of things to the encounters just to keep it from being a 2 round fight. He's constantly trying to push the "challenge' line without tripping over the "you are all dead" line.
WBL definately matters- but its just a guideline for determine relative power vs any given CR, and even that breaks down the further you get from 4 PC's.
If you take what they say at face value, it sounds like they were having fun. You asked them repeatedly if they weren't and they said that they were and that nothing was wrong yet yuo still kept stopping the game to ask what was wrong.
Its entirely possible that they were enjoying themselves completely- just not in the way that you wanted them to enjoy themselves.
I gamed with a guy for awhile who painted miniatures all through the session. He sat behind the couch at a table and paid attention to everything that was said and chimed in when it was appropriate. That particular character was a moronic fighter so he didn't pitch in a whole lot except for battle. To a Dm it might seem as though he was bored and disinterested..b ut nothing was further from the truth. He was there, with his buds, playing D&D. Now sure, if I was DM it might have bugged me that he was painting the mini's during the game but he was able to game just fine and didn't need things repeated.
He was having fun. Just not my kind of fun.
It sounds like your two friends may be in that same boat. They were there, with friends, playing D&D. Sure, they may prefer the combat aspects to the RP aspects but that doesnt' mean they weren't having fun. They just weren't having fun to your expectation and requirement of what they had to do in game to prove it.
I don't necessarily think you are taking the game too seriously but you do need to adjust your expectations of what it takes for others to have fun.
Which is what they told you repeatedly when you asked what was wrong, and they said nothing.
The human(oid) capacity for self-delusion is fairly extraordinary and I don't think anyone would have much issue convincing themselves that they are in fact /right/ if not out right /good/ for very nearly any action.
If you go read through numerous alignment threads on these boards those facts bear out- people will rationalize *anything* in order to keep their golden halo status. "Its not evil because X, Y, Z". While those don't hold water in the rules sense they make perfect sense for any given character to *think* they are doing good.
Alot of very vile and evil people in our real world think (or thought) that are/were good and are/were doing the best thing for the world and/or their society- despite that such good things involved the whole sale slaughter of relatively innocent peoples.
The main problem though inside a gaming group however is that most groups are assumed to be friendly to itself and a total nut job who didn't trust anyone wouldn't be allowed inthe group very long.. so all it would really take would be a couple of detect alignments followed by some fun alignment circle spells to not only determine their alignment but to show said individual that they were in /fact/ not goodly aligned. Now delusion is such that the guy would probably just assume they were joking with him or were otherwise wrong.. but handing the guy a weapon thats good only is a pretty effective way of showing what alignment someone really is regardless of their delusion.
I think it would make for a great RP- but could be annoying at some point since alignment IS objective in D&D and since you can use spells and items to *prove* what someone's alignment is.. the refusal of a person to let their character see the light could turn an otherwise interesting RP into a running joke. Which may or may not be fun- depending on the tone of the group :)
"no matter what" is pretty much suicide, imo.
PC's have to be adaptable, in all of their varied tactics. Self-buffing is no exception.
Sure, taking 5 rounds to buff before an imminent combat is prudent- but if you are ambushed or just happen to come across and unexpected event the guy is probably going to be more valuable heading on into the fray than to stand back casting spells on himself. One spell? sure. 5 rounds of spells? probably not.
If the guy has that many self buffs just to keep himself viable he needs to dump some cash into a lesser quicken rod- or the feat itself- and be done with it. (or both.)
I'm not one for math but there has to be some breaking point between what spells you are casting and how effective you are becoming vs time spent not being in battle actually *being* effective.
Dennis Baker wrote:
That sounds awesome until your AC has barding on it and you want to toss a blanket over it to keep it warm.. it can't wear both items on the same "slot".
That sounds pedantic. I agree. But so does saying my AC can't wear a *non magical* item because of *magical item slot* restrictions.
Which is exactly what ruling was just pronounced. By RAW your AC can not have any item on it that isn't in one of those two slots mentioned. Period, end of story.
The item in question in this thread isn't a ring of protection or a ring of the ram. Its a completely 100% non magical 50 gold platinum ring.
This ruling says that in PFS I can't take an appropriately sized platinum ring and slide it onto the tail of a trained AC, or my familiar, or anything else.
Not talking about magic. Talking about a circle of metal here.
Does it impact me? not one bit. Am I trying to be rude to the guy who made the ruling? Not one bit. The guy does a *ton* of hard work and I respect him for it. But I do find myself hard pressed to agree with this particular ruling.
Whether or not you need to heal folks is entirely due to either Their tactics or the DM's style of how he handles critters.
If your folks aren't using effective tactics because they have a healbot to fix it, then you are never going to get things done.
However, some DM's play their foes extremely intelligently (or at least as intelligent as the foe is) and as such your group might just need someone to heal. Myself, I'm going into an AP soon where we've been warned that the DM does just that. He plays smart folks smart. As such, I'm rolling up a healbot.
Now- does this mean it has to be you? no. But because of one issue or the other- it sounds like your group needs one.
Is there a real solution? Not really.
If you think you can accept the healbot role and have fun with it- then I say embrace it. I find it a fun role, myself, but then I'm an oddball :)
What you did wrong was.. fail to run the heck away.
If your group refuses to run away when things look too tough you are going to blow through alot of character sheets.
Learn to evaluate the threat and run away if its too big for you. It'll save you alot of grief in the long run.
hmm Rp it out normally.
"Guys, do we want a personw ith us who can't communicate in battle or stressful situations unless we all stop what we're doing and watch him wave his hands around at us?"
Group: "Not particularly"
Wizard: *sad face*
Group: "NEXT CANDIDATE!"
The fact is- Mr. Mute only gets into the party because 5 folks are sitting around a table and no one wants to tell their buddy that the hindrance they insist is a brilliant idea is really a hindrance.
Why? Because communication in battle is vital and someone who can not do so is more of a hindrance to the party than a benefit.
*every single* 1st level wizard spell in the CRB has a verbal component.
Didn't check all the 2nd level ones but they look to be about the same.
Now granted this wizard is more useless than most characters who are mute- most just can't talk but their abilities can still be used.
Mute is just bad. Its unduly harsh for the rest of the group.
Your two assertions contradict each other.
the DM has the right to invent new things for monsters, which are by their very nature things that the PC's can't do and don't have access to.
Now I agree that if you are saying "the monster has improved crit" then its the same that a PC has.. but the DM can say "The monster has Supreme Crit" and thats just somethinghe made up for that monster, that he PC has no access to. (assuming he even tells the PC how the monster has such a crit range. and why should he? "you don't know thaT' is the Dm's best tool.)
I mean we're all using the same rulebook. the difference is that the DM's rulebook says "Do what it takes to keep the game consistent and interesting" and the PC's rulebook says "Follow these rules unless the DM says otherwise".
Why? Because the job of the PC and the job of the DM are entirely different. Both are playing the same game- but their roles are entirely different. And so they get different tools.
If the cut-scene is something the PC's witness but would have no way to alter the outcome of then I'm generally OK with a verbal cutscene.
Now, if you are talking about dictating what the PC's are doing or what happens to them and you are using a cut-scent to do it.
But keep something in mind:
The CHOICE of what their PC's do is the only thing differentiating this from reading the DM's story and playing in a world. Resist the temptation to take that away from them.
I don't think its "sign of bad DM'ing". I do think its a sign of not realizing what the effect such things will have on the PC's. *especially* if used often.
Whatever it is you are wanting the PC's to do, you should be able to come up with reasons why, ingame, that don't revolve around twisting their character's arms in such a heavy handed fashion.
They might very well lead to a good story line.. but there are many other tools in the DM's box to get to a good story line that don't involve taking the PC away from the Player in order to do it.
My own opinion:
When there is a grey area you have to ask:
assuming a brownie that'd mean:
Thats not abusive- and they are clothed creatures afterall.
Abusive? "lets give the brownie the McGuffin so no one can find it".
Is that a rule? No.
1) food growing areas. Even if the dorfs don't regularly eat fungi and such- they'd have a growing area for it in case of siege.
2) food pens. they likely have some form of livestock goin on. lizards? goats? auroch?(underground cow from FR), or whatever.
3) Mine. Yup, dorfs love to mine. They'd have a shaft leading to extensive mines. Its what they do, gotta love it.
4) Water. Yup, dorfs need the stuff. Whether an underground lake (or several) feeding the upper levels with spiral tube thingies (which are turned using water power themselves) or some manner of water reclamation from the surface- they'll need alot of it.
5) forges. While any given area can have its own forge area there's also the possibility of having a large, community forge. This is especially true if they are using some special source of heat. (lava, geothermal, fire elementals, etc)
6) tha surface. Assuming the dorfs are in a mountain of some kind, it's not unreasonable to assume they'd have surface exits. Terraced valleys and such where they can grow surface food as well as let the critters out to pasture. They are likely both fortified and hidden (on the outside). And quite possibly a way the vamps sneak out to feed at times as well as possible outlets of other creatures. (and inlets)
7) living area. you may have already done this- but for a large delving there would be many, many, living places. Even if they are destroyed and crumbled ruins it'd still be things the PC's pass by/through.
8) Pass through. If the joint is in a mountain they may very well have one huge thoroughfare that cuts right through the mountain. Think Moria. They have the east entrance and the west entrance. They can be as grand (east entrance) or as obscure/hidden (west entrance) as you desire.
9) Chapel/Cathedral. Dorfs, like most races, have their gods. And they'll have places of worship. Whether its a dozen small churches or one BIG one with shrines dotting the delving, the PC's should get a pretty solid idea of the theology in the area when they come plowing through.
10) Meeting hall(s). While the delving is probably too big for everyone to really gather in one place- it'd still have multiple smaller areas for the local rulers to talk to the community. Whether open areas or "buildings" with seating and a podium there'd be places setup for the rulers to deal with the rank and file folks.
Hope it works out well :)
Firstly: DM making a mistake about whether they can fly or not doesn't equate to "out to screw the players" anymore than a player who misreads a spell is out to "screw the DM". Mistakes happen.
Secondly: On to the topic.
If the PC's see 3 Vrocks dancing and the Pc rolls to see what the creatures are- then its really their problem for not being specific. I say this as a player. I don't generally DM. Assuming the Dm told the players that the guys were dancing then its up to the PC's to decide to ask if they know what its about. Its not up to the DM to volunteer information. And, if that group already has its rules setup such so that the DM gives a small piece of info with a successful check then they *knew* that one roll wouldn't be enough for an outsider.
Asking what a creature is and asking whether you can identify the ritual or ability they are currently using are two different things. Folks need to be specific if they want specific information.