Tagion's page

I appreciate people play the game differently, but anything more than one or two sounds like a meat grinder, and that's just not D&D for me.

I bet the player on his third character didn't bother putting much into the backstory (assuming he even did on the first one!).

Also, I feel gothic horror in D&D should be scary, and a splatterfest with a high PC body count just isn't frightening for me. There are other, and better ways to scare people.

Finally, aren't some of these Adventure Paths kind of dependent on having the PCs tied into the story? I'm thinking Jade Regent and Skull & Shackles. Doesn't it destroy credibility to have such a high turnover? I mean, even if you're killing off one PC per episode, you've replaced the entire party by #4. Fine if you play it as a boardgame or something, but that doesn't sound much like a story I'd want any part of.

Lastly, I've noticed that story-driven videogames (Dragon Age, Mass Effect etc) make death fairly rare, but when it happens, it's permanent. I like character death to mean something, and constant ressurections devalues the story as far as I'm concerned.

I feel the same way to a point. Yes , the characters are suppose to be heroic people tied closly to the story , but you shouldn't reward bad playing with a hand waved pass. If your PCs rush into a situation that they cant win and refuse to retreat they should be killed. The enemys that they are fighting arent suppose to be sitting around waiting to be killed by PCs. They are suppose to be living things with goals and when something goes wrong for the PC they dont say " Man you guys are getting killed....hey guys lets switch to nerf swords and go half strength."

One of the biggest diservises I see DMs giving to thier groups is not allowing a PC to fail. If you take out all the risk and dont let the die why are you even playing, the out come has already been desided for you. If you tell the guy in full plate " I know you just failed your athletics check to walk on the bridge over the gorge but thats to keep going" then whats the point of even having the skill in the game.

Edit - As a PC if I walk up to a bear at level 2 and kick it in the nose I expect it to eat me not for the clouds to part and be saved by deus ex machina. I've been in games like this and its exremely annoying. As soon as I realized I couldnt die I really pushed it until the DM finally killed me. Highlights included , Biting a bear on the ear only to have it "roll" a few fumbles and be scared off by passing gaurds and slapping the local crime boss and being tosses out instead of killed. Its just bad DMing to hand wave everything just so PCs dont die.

This kinda links into my theory of PC building as well. Killing a character teaches players to build a better PC. Your never going to improve as a player if the DM doesnt allow you to learn from your mistakes.

Edit 2 - Also I should probably say the group I play with on a regular basic are kinda insane action junckies. In book 2 they lite the castle on fire because now its more "extreme".

Having a summon monster spell be perm is a 20th level conjuration school ability so I dont think it would be appropriate for a low level character.

Meta-magic extend rod with the conjuration school would make you summons last 2 and a half rounds per level. For instance at level 4 you could have a small earth elemental for 10 rounds.

Other then that there is really only the summoner class that makes them last mins per level.

banned for not using clear eyes.

Why dip wiz for just +1 strength?

The mad badger is banned for being ban several time on the same page.

yes the 180dmg is per-optimized so ya not bad.

Both bleed effects are on the target dealing the same effect (HP bleed). He will take the 5 bleed from your sneak attack until your wounding daggers have built up to 6 or more bleed damage a turn. At which point they would be the worse of the two HP bleed effect on the target and take over.

Bleeding Attack* (Ex): A rogue with this ability can cause living opponents to bleed by hitting them with a sneak attack. This attack causes the target to take 1 additional point of damage each round for each die of the rogue's sneak attack (e.g., 4d6 equals 4 points of bleed). Bleeding creatures take that amount of damage every round at the start of each of their turns. The bleeding can be stopped by a DC 15 Heal check or the application of any effect that heals hit point damage. Bleeding damage from this ability does not stack with itself. Bleeding damage bypasses any damage reduction the creature might possess

Wounding: A wounding weapon deals 1 point of bleed damage when it hits a creature. Multiple hits from a wounding weapon increase the bleed damage. Bleeding creatures take the bleed damage at the start of their turns. Bleeding can be stopped by a DC 15 Heal check or through the application of any spell that cures hit point damage. A critical hit does not multiply the bleed damage. Creatures immune to critical hits are immune to the bleed damage dealt by this weapon.

Bleed: A creature that is taking bleed damage takes the listed amount of damage at the beginning of its turn. Bleeding can be stopped by a DC 15 Heal check or through the application of any spell that cures hit point damage (even if the bleed is ability damage). Some bleed effects cause ability damage or even ability drain. Bleed effects do not stack with each other unless they deal different kinds of damage. When two or more bleed effects deal the same kind of damage, take the worse effect. In this case, ability drain is worse than ability damage.

Just to get the relevent rules in here. My 2 cents is they dont.

Number 8?! Where is the autosave on this merry-go-round. At that point, it would feel like a video game to me.

Ya , its a harsh world my friend. When you play in our game there is no pulled punches. The bad guys are treated as people that have just as much will to live as the PCs. Some times that ends up as a TPK. None of that "Now that you are down I will stand over you going MUAHAHAHAHA and run off". A creature downs you , you can preaty much expect it to finish the job .

You might be taking it to easy on them....We are on book 6 of the carrion crown ap. So far all 5 players are on atleast PC number 8. Two player are on PC number 14.

To be fair though , I didnt like the listed tactics on lot of the enemys so I changed them , same stats just doing different things. Five , atleast to me , seem like to few.

Edit - The new PCs that come in are from the order. They are very invested in this thing and cant afford for the PCs to fail so they keep sending in more ppl to keep the specialist team at fighting strength.

I wonce played a character similar to this. Storied him as a venerable bed ridden aasimar who made a deal with an outsider. The outsider would give him the power to get out of that bed and even return his physical strength to him for an un-named favor in the future.

Mechanically he was a sythesist summoner that I dumped all physcial stats to 7 and then added venerable to make them a 4. Mental stats got boosted to stupid high levels. I min/maxed my heart out but had a good back story writed up as to why and good role playing to back it up.

I think , atleast for my group , that we have done the player rolls perception always for so long because our players feel like if some one else is rolling a check for them then they are playing thier character for them. The DM might as well roll all checks for the character ( attack rolls , saves and what not. )

Jiggy, I'm having a hard time coming up with any situation where I would actually ASK a player to make a perception check... unless they specifically said they wanted to make one.

The whole point of perception is that if the player succeeds, they notice something, and if they fail, they don't. I can't come up with a way of saying "hey, see if you notice something" that doesn't advertise that there is something to notice.

I can't tell you the number of game situations where we've been in a room or a hallway and the GM says "make a perception check" to one player and within a picosecond every player at the table is saying "I roll a perception check!" The last time this happened we lost 30 minutes of game time because everyone rolled poorly and nobody wanted to leave the area with the mysterious hidden item undiscovered.

The metagame stench was thick that day....

Welcome to my saturday LOL

Taigon, if a player wants to make a deliberate perception check or some other deliberate skill check on their own initiative, I allow and even encourage that.

But I don't penalize the character because the player doesn't remember to say "I check for traps", nor do I create metagame opportunities by announcing every potential situation where a character has some interaction with the game universe.

So I roll passive checks and other checks that I feel are appropriate and just announce the results. I find this makes the game go more smoothly and reduces the "You got nailed by a trap because you didn't say 'I'm checking for traps' this one time. Bwaahahaahahaaa!!! Got your ass!"

I'll keep that in mind. Its honestly one of the only things that irks me other then everyone argueing with me about everything.

We have always had the players roll for anything related to thier character including perception checks. Over the years it has bit me in the @$$ though.

I've had players sit in one room rolling checks because " You wouldnt have asked for one if there is nothing here."

We did the no retry rule but that leads to complaining and " Im not going to re-try my perception. Im going to Take everything out of the room and check the walls , floors and ceilings."

I'm going to switch to the GM makes all passive rolls ( like perception checks for entering an area with hidden monsters or doors ). Players make active checks ( saves or using a skill by saying some like do I see any traps on the chest?)

I figure this way , even with the rogue missed passivly noticing the trapped checks on the way in meening that im not going to tell him about it , he can still get "his check" if he thinks to use it.

So I can just describe the room , make the secret checks and not prompt them to. Hopefully it will work out.

strips

zombie

as

raised

been

had

it

because

missing

That lizard thing is NOT a kobold damn it!....I think all versions of D&D have good and bad points. I really dont miss thaco and "golf style" AC. I do miss the solid rule set and fine tuning though.

I've learn to accept that my adventures start in a bar and end in a cave. As a friend put it , "I'll head to the nearest cave....what? All evil live in caves..."

thats a crap load of charges man! I'm saying if you have the ability to do something for the party , like healing as one example , you should. If I can ill "pay you back" later by letting you use a wand or potion that I have purchased then I will. We could also come to some other arragnements out side of game.

Edit - This is assuming I dont currently have a wand to use of my own. You can take a running total and I will get you back with an equal total value.

I have not talked to the other players yet, but we are playing again this weekend and it looks like I will be playing with at least one of the two other guys from the last game. And I will probably be playing my Druid again, so I will be bringing it up to everyone at the table before we start.

Ya , even though they cant "give you money back" , you can still say some thing like. "Hey guys , last time I had to use up a lot of my wand because you forgot to bring one. This time can I use one of your wands to cover healing." Seems like the easiest way to even everything up if they arent total D-bags about it.

Unless, of course, the person "tanking" is preventing them from doing so by way of threatening with AoOs, feats that provide consequences for not attacking him, tripping, grappling, dealing massive damage in his own right etc.

Or using the Stand still Feat to prevent them from moving away at all.

Tagion wrote:

Anyway , for the record , I do have a wand on my character.

Lets say the group is fighting a single strong bad guy. I use antaganize to get him in to melee and step up and stand still to keep him on me. As a result I get tore up preaty bad , lets say i've only got 2 hp left by the end but no one else is put into danger or even swung at. Are you saying that isnt worth a charge or 2 from a wand assuming that mine is empty because of my character design?

I'd be willing to split the total charges used among everyone in the party, like Serum suggested. It's a fair and equitable way to handle it, IMO, as long as everyone at the table agrees.

I'm not sure how your wand being empty has any relation to character design, though. And the issue is with people who feel a healing-capable class "owes" them healing of the wand the healer purchased out of their own cash (or PA) reserves.

Ya you dont "owe" me healing. My wand being emepty would be assuming i've used it all up becuase my character is designed to keep things in melee and hitting only him.

ah , sorry only 2 games in. A friend dragged me with him and I havent read most of the rules for it. He hit the highlight , you can only use this stuff for a character , no pvp , stuff like that. Even so I would still want them to pay me back some how. Free charges from there wands after they get one?

Edit - did you talk to any of them out of game about helping you out?

What did they spend thier money on instead? Aynway to address your question , I would never refuse healing to a party member on a mission if I have the ability to heal him. I would expect an explanation after words and maybe some cash though.

Anyway , for the record , I do have a wand on my character.

Lets say the group is fighting a single strong bad guy. I use antaganize to get him in to melee and step up and stand still to keep him on me. As a result I get tore up preaty bad , lets say i've only got 2 hp left by the end but no one else is put into danger or even swung at. Are you saying that isnt worth a charge or 2 from a wand assuming that mine is empty because of my character design?

Tagion wrote:

These responces are all fine but I have another perspective for you. You dont heal me , I dont try to stop those big bad monster from tearing your head off , and when they do I have a nice new wand to use.

Wow. So because a Druid is a caster, they must be all meek and defenseless and need a big bad Fighter to stand in front of them to take the hits, huh? Aside from the fact that in PFS, you don't get to loot the equipment off of dead teammates, I still had the highest AC at 20. I didn't need to use the wand on myself except maybe once or twice. So really, it's more likely for me to say, if you don't want to die, at which point I will return to the Pathfinder Lodge and try to find a more competent group of adventurers to team up with, you had better bring your own healing.

glad you had the highest ac. If I am taking most of the hit for the party ( lets say 75% of the attacks through my placement on the battlefield or feats like antaganize), I dont think its unreasonable to expect some healingfor the service im providing.

Edit - I think im mostly a little ticked because the cleric in my last party refused to channel or use prepared curing. All he would use on me was my wand.... I let him die 3 encounters in. If hes not helping me , im not helping him.

These responces are all fine but I have another perspective for you. You dont heal me , I dont try to stop those big bad monster from tearing your head off , and when they do I have a nice new wand to use.

I'll take a shot at it.

Contributing to the group ,to me , meens are using your classes abilities to advance the story and can include the following.

1. Your character has , and uses , its available skills. For example , if you are a fighter I expect you to have knowledge Dungeoneering as one on the only classes that has it. If you cant tell me what a ooze we run into does your not helping.

2. I expect you to be able to help in combat in some way. Fighters and barbarian help in obvious ways. Everyone else can still do something. Even a wizard with out spells can still aid other or throw a rock or something. If your a bard and you "roleplay" that you played dead and the fighter dies with the enemy at one hit point , that death is your fault and you are not contributing.....you might even lose a hand if you reach for treasure.

Basically if you are doing something that farthers the goals of the party and have a properly built character your contributing. I understand that you cant build some one to be good at everything but you have an option to be doing something to help at all times.

So all I have to do is collect the seven dragon bal....star pieces and I can save the world?

I dont understand why OOC healing via cure light wounds wand is more acceptable then glorious heat and spark.

I think its because the perception is that one costs you gold for the healing and the other is "free" healing. Try to keep this in mind though , gold is a lot easier to come by the feats are.

Edit - One more thing. To heal for as much as a cure light wounds wand can with the glorious heat feat you have to be level 18.....

You know this thread and all like it could be avioded if they could just say that the process of binding the imp to your will forces it to C/N.

No Gold Piece limit?

If so my inner munchkin would begin to cry tears of the purest joy and I would create a homunculos that would make a god die of envy on sight.

If I had to pick one out of a book it would be the one with the highest CR/stats

OMG Y2K IS GOING TO KILL US ALL!!!!.......wait what ones was this thread about again?

Does it bypass dr/magic yet?

Edit - also im sorry you cant walk

42) Nice guys really do finish last.
43) Your not special or unique so you better get your *#&@ together and get a game plan.

Goblins are @$$(*$&#

Treasure chest is trapped with a AoE arcane mark trap. When the PCs open it there is no role to hit , no save , no SR. They each get a visable , glowing phallic symbol on thier foreheads. Kinda like a " ya , you killed me but fu " from beyond the grave......dont worry its fades in a month.

No one said this mean things had to kill people right?

Imp...Now with 100% more vomit

Standard Imp can use a wand of vomit swarm on a UMD check of 13+ can stay invisabile forever. Summoning is not a hostle act.

well a quick look found the jungle druid archtype as well as a few shaman ones as well as the jungle domian and animal domains.

What are you trying to do with the character.

My group is part way in to book 5. Just to start things off your party is going to have a hard time doing anything. Ustalav people are so insular its insane....these guys dont ever tolerate gnomes much less a bunch of monsters. Dhampir MIGHT be able to function but a man sized rat and cat with a winged snake are going to get killed on sight.

1. Advice isnt always bad. Reminding them about knowledge skill would be better. They will let the PCs identify a monster and thier abilities. Give the knowledge skill a good read over.

2. Healing is going to be important but i think that thier are plenty of way to get it. Potions scattered about and what not. Damphir is preaty screwed though. He will have no way to heal in the book other then sleeping. He will not be making it through HoH alive unless you DM fiat him through.

3. I wouldnt worry to much about the bomber. the prison is close quarters and some stuff isnt going to be effected by it.

4. Refer to first paragraph. The cat and rat would be attacked on sight as monsters. The human will do fine as long as he leave the bear out side town. The damphir might be ok if we can stay out of the way.

5. First , If they killed those 6 guys thier trust should be at 0 and the AP is over. At 0 trust they are run out of town and the villagers try to kill them. Since it sounds like that didnt happen ill tell you my party was level 2 when they got inside and level 3 before they went into the basement.

6.I allowed holy water to effect them. It made it a little easier but not to bad. I would say no to the potions. They also have those haunt syphons.

7. dont recall it either. Check the section with his cell.

8. I dont follow listed tactics so I tend to mak every fight harder... I've got a pile of bodys 5 books long with most people on thier 8th characters. The splatter man and lopper are going to be hard. The burning skeletans can be a tpk if they get surounded. Old ember maw is going to kill a guy atleast. There are plenty of encounter that will tpk if they arent careful.

9. New DM advice....hmm. Try to get familar with the rules in general. My first PHB has highlighter and little tabs sticking out all over the place. Read each monster entry and try your best to know what they do. Get good at improvising. My players have that " ya ya ya , but whats over there? " syndrome.

I think they should keep craftable items and drops on the same level. Craftable items will always be better because you can choose what they are and what they do.

It looks to me like the size rules where included to state that a larger creature needs two hands to fire a smaller siege weapon.

Yes but it lists that as an execption to the statement before it. which is you dont use more hands to wield and fire a oversized fire arm.

I can agree though thats its a bit silly to have a giant struggling to use a siege cannon as a huge weapon while the dwarf has a " one-handed" gun that is 2 sizes bigger.

As a PFS GM I would say "No."

I wouldn't go out of my way to "bone the character." I would refuse to allow it at my table. I choose to abide by the rule stated which cites that a weapon of that size is simply too big for the character to use at all.

If the player wants to lodge a grievance with the Venture Captain or with the PFS Coordinator, he can feel free to do so.

Eh , consider me bated lol. The text in the core rule book and UMC are the same execpt in a few regaurds.

You cannot make
optimum use of a firearm that is not properly sized for
you. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for
each size category of difference between your size and
the size of the firearm. If you are not proficient with the
firearm, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies ( appears in both texts )

What really gets me is the difference in the second part of the text. The first one gives on how to handle weapons and was made before firearms came out. It says you cant have a weapon that large. Thats preaty straight forward and no up for arguement.

However , UMCs text deals specifically with firearms only and goes out of its way to state that the size of the firearm and the hands to use it do not change when it is changing sizes ( baring siege weapons ).

This newer printing , which I believe is an addition to the orginal rules and here to clarify specifically how upsizing fire arms only works ,should be taken at its wording and legally allow oversized firearms at the table. I would go as far to say that the very specific language they put in that this might also be RAI.

PS - I can not endorce doing this in any game or accually showing up with a character that is using this concept. Its horrible and flawed. I am simple making a counter arguement for consideration. I do not believe it should work like this.

I would never try something like that , but there is a case to be made. The rules lawyer in me could pick it apart and agrue points for hours. I wont though becuase its really a horrible concept anyway. Ill just wait and see how it turns out.