The Weave05's page

I want to make the Lorax into a fun, playable character for myself. I'm picturing an orange haired, bare-chested, massively-moustached gnome harboring an excess of body hair with a spunky, in-your-face attitude and a voice like Danny DeVito's. Yes, I recently saw the Lorax. No, I wouldn't recommend it, but different strokes for different folks (a cute kids movie, at least). Regardless, the thought of a fiery, over-moustached gnome greeting people with "...and I speak for the trees" tickled some strange fancy of mine.

I want to go with a druid/monk build, figuring the Lorax would be a fairly minimalist person when it came to equipment. I also picture him trying to take on things much larger than him and smack them in the face. I can't envision him with an animal companion, but having druidic powers would compliment his nature.

The thing is, I'm not sure how to go about building him. I realize that a gnome monk/druid likely isn't going to be setting any new records in terms of optimization, but I'm just looking to have a little fun with the guy; if he can be made to effectively knock some teeth out in combat, then by all means! My DM typically uses 20 point buy and starts us at level 1. Do you guys have any suggestions regarding ability scores, feats, and all that jazz? Is this character even viable? Thanks for any help. :)

PS: Most paizo products such as the Core, UC, UM, and APG are fair game. Third party supplements are pretty much out, though on occasion we let one or two slide by.

Thanks for the help, you guys. I'll consider my options and figure out what exactly I think it should provide.

Hey everyone, I just have a quick question that I've been wondering about. Next session, my players will be fighting in a barley field (the barley being fairly large, about 3 feet in height), and I was looking at the cover and concealment rules to see if it should or would provide either. I may not be looking thoroughly enough, but I'm not sure what to consider it, if anything. What would you rule it as?

Thanks for your help!

Alright, so I'm DMing a game that revolves around the PCs eventually breaking into the BBEG's mighty fortress and killing him. That might sound boring, but I'm intentionally watering down the plot to its extremely barest bones, so have faith that it isn't that bland at heart.

Anyways, that's intended to be some big, high level dungeon crawl thing; as a DM I need to successfully bring them to that level with scheduled reinforcement through smaller goalposts and rewards, ultimately leading up to the final climactic encounter! Or, so I hope. See, in the past I've done what many of you may already be familiar with: the fetch-quest. For those who don't know, the fetch-quest is exactly as it sounds: "You must collect X items before you can enter the castle," or something akin to that. Now, I love that sort of thing... perhaps a little too much. I've most recently (in another campaign) had them gather 5 artifacts of power before the evil enemy cult could, providing an excellent 'race-aganst-the-clock!' feel, and it was great. BUT, I'd like to sport a little more originality in my latest endeavor, and I seem to be stuck in the mindset of fetch-quests. I was wondering if any of you would be so kind as to help me branch out and learn/try some different methods.

Now, I'm not actually trying to discard the idea of going around gathering artifact easter eggs or something; in fact, I've even been trying to think of a way to involve a sort of 'fetch-quest' anyways, just disguising it well enough so as not to make it immediately apparent that it really is one. I mean, my plot at its bare bones is clearly a worn and unoriginal one, but when I sprinkle the plot back in it's something my players and I really enjoy. I think the same could be said of a fetch-quest... if I could figure out to properly orchestrate one, or maybe even just think of something entirely different altogether! So anyways, I ask if anyone has any advice or suggestions for this sort of thing.

Thanks for any help! I really appreciate it.

[snip] Pits were opened, but the Ninja was able to run over them thanks to Light Step. [snip]

This isn't a complaint per se, and I don't have the ninja document in front of me, but I don't think the ninja could run across open pits simply because they were traps. As far as I know, you could use Light Steps to run across the surface of a pitfall that hasn't been "triggered," (so long as there was some thin layer of debris or something physical covering it that was meant to be fallen through) but not over already opened pits.

Just throwing that out there as something I noticed. All in all, a solid playtest. Thanks for going through the trouble to post it.

If you want to be REALLY mean use 'Blindness', but I don't recommend doing that frequently, else the party will see it for what it is and you may lose a player.

Hah! Unintentional pun is funny.

Anyways, I have a Dwarven Invulnerable Rager in my party with HP through the roof. His AC is terrible, but he can soak up a LOT of hits before he goes down. They're all level 9 at the moment.

He's definitely a challenge, but hey, he does his job damn well. He hits things hard and takes hard hits like they're nothing. Best of all, he has a 6 Charisma and always says things at the worst times.

I, too, only do a few encounters each day, but I've been ramping them up recently. I'd do that first and foremost. Don't make all of them that difficult; as others mentioned, give them some easier encounters mostly just to drain resources and stuff (by the end of the day, that barbarian will be pinching his pennies in rage rounds).

And, as others have said, give the player some fame, wanted or otherwise. My players already have it, and it's proven to be a massive double-edged sword. A lot of enemies know who they are, and some of the time they're better prepared than the players. Not always, of course, but it's becoming more noticeable.

I would suggest those to start, and if for some reason he's still hampering the difficulty level, then try ramping up the encounter dangers. Throw some traps at them. Give them challenges that can't be solved by brute force or endurance alone. Always make sure to still consider the rest of the party, though. You don't want to end up throwing huge damage dealers against the barbarian that can one-shot the party wizard.

If it makes you feel any better, up until a year ago (I've been gaming for 7 years), I figured out that when someone attacks, they don't provoke an AoO from everyone else. I have ABSOLUTELY no idea where that came from, but my group and I had been doing it for 6ish years. Crazy.

I strongly recommend just ignoring coin weight if you're playing a standard Pathfinder campaign.

That's actually the reason why I made this thread in the first place: the PCs had found a rather large cache of gold, and, because gold is effectively weightless in my campaigns, they wanted to take it all, which I expected. Then I realized the absurdity of carrying around that much gold on top of all the other things, and wondered how other people interpreted it. In the end, I just let them get away with it; they're inevitably going to want it all, so going back and forth would just waste gameplay time.

Now, that's not to say I think tracking the weight for gold is inherently flawed, just not my cup of tea. I still keep track of all the weight for characters (I as the DM actually end up doing most of it... damn slackers).

Anyways, its very interesting to hear such varied opinions on the matter... I originally thought most people handwaved it.

I'm just curious since I rarely see any talk of it. Do you make your players write down all the pounds of gear they are carrying, making sure it doesn't exceed their light, medium, or heavy load? For that matter, do you do the "50 gold = 1lb" rule?

For us, we do use the somewhat meticulous recording of equipment weight, but interestingly enough, we don't apply it to gold... we just set a hard limit on the amount you can feasibly carry.

What does everyone else do?

I actually thought of Jack Sparrow more as a good example of a character who's alignment is always changing. Hmm, but I guess that's pretty well within the bill for CN.

My guesses:

charybdis, since its making a whirlpool

wendigo

jersey devil

leviathan

Gary

The last one does look like a Gary to me! Good call ;)

A good site I've been using is excoboards. I'm typing from my phone, so give me a second to link it. They basically give you a whole messageboard that you can make private and everything.

Heh, its funny. I'm no grognard by any means (I started around the end of 3.0 going into 3.5), but what you describe accurately sums up my first many experiences with the system. I was young (well, younger than I am now), around 13 maybe? Anyways, I had my little brother (around 11 or 10 at the time), my little brother's best friend, and my best friend all in one group. We didn't know how anything worked, and I remember spending three days straight jotting down meticulous notes on things I "needed to know" like attack rolls and spells per day and skill DCs. As it turns out, I never used them once. My friend and I were flipping through the Players Handbook looking at races, when my little brother opens up the Monster Manual and finds the Hound Archon, which was, at the time, the coolest thing ever for some reason, so I let him be one. We had no idea how to use Level Adjustments and whatnot, but we just played it by ear and went along. We opened with a bunch of Orcs attacking the town they lived in, and then a huge red dragon flies over and burns the town, them being the only survivors after the attack. Seeking vengeance, they tracked it down as best they could (or as we could manage, given the rules), and encountered their hardest enemy yet: a rope bridge.

The rope bridge broke underneath the weight of the fighter and his equipment, and we had the time of our lives spending 4 hours trying to make the appropriate checks to safely get out of there, all the while ramping up the action with the remaining ropes creaking and groaning, threatening to snap any moment. EXP was never factored into the equation; we just kept playing until we realized that we needed to get some sleep to play some more tomorrow morning.

Spells weren't just "I cast burning hands," they were "Whoa! Your character can shoot fire from his hand?! Awesome!" There was no competition over who had the "best build," everyone was happy when someone did something helpful, even when the hound archon was blatantly superior... the wizard was just happy to have someone keeping him from the marauding orcs on the front lines. There were no miniatures, we didn't know what Attacks of Opportunity were, and everyone was eager to know if "they finally caught up to the dragon." That campaign lasted almost 2 years, long past they had finally found the dragon. I loved it, even though, looking back on it, we were incredibly unaware of the rules or what we were doing half the time... it was just a way of telling a story that you could be a character in. We still have times where we get together and say "Remember that time the fighter got stung by a giant scorpion in his arm and you, the cleric, amputated it your sword because you thought thats 'what doctors would do in the real world'?" or "Remember the time when you threw the petrified Kobold at the Hobgoblin and critted?" Its times like those that I, too, long for, but I'm still playing and I still love it, even if I'm stuck with a bunch of rules lawyers who are convinced I'm out to kill them.

Sorry if I don't quite fit in, but I wanted to share my first experiences since they didn't seem that far off from yours :).

Yup any weapon. Including that huge drumstick you were eating right before the balor popped into the room. It's a great reason to take catch off guard.

This mental image makes me happy.

I am about to start the Serpent's skull adventure path and my player's have asked if they could use the hero point system from the APG. I was wondering if anyone here had any experience with this system. Any input on how this works in game or just general opinions will be appreciated.

I just started using it a week ago, so my experience is somewhat limited, but we really enjoy them. My players were hesitant to implement them, and we had rejected action points years before, so hero points were carefully considered. They saved our resident rogue from failing to a Suffocation spell, and he was really satisfied with that. From a DM's perspective, they provide a new resource to work with, and though I use them conservatively, I find that the promise of reward is often a driving factor that gets the players motivated.

I'm not sure how the paladin ended up owning. 90% of the creatures you fight are usually evil aligned anyways.

My campaigns tend to be more humanoid oriented than monster oriented, and there were a handful of occasions where they just fought off wild animals. I don't necessarily label all the NPCs as "evil" because they oppose the party, they might simply (and usually do) have conflicting goals. As such, I could only say a few opponents that might actually have been "evil," but most of the time they're probably closer to neutral or chaotic. When the paladin could smite whatever he wanted, our resident fighter felt a little outmatched by comparison.

But, of course, I foolishly neglected to mention that I was also only doing one or two combats a day, so his normally quite limited pool of daily smites was basically a nonissue. Hehe, I suppose I shouldn't have left out that crucial detail, my apologies. But in retrospect, I do see your point... so it's quite possible that I should simply revamp my campaigns a little to incorporate more creatures and stylistically "evil" folks.

Thanks for the replies, folks. I suppose I wasn't seeing the trees for the forest; I think I was too focused on stepping so far out of the picture that I convinced myself I needed an alternate system. With your replies Im beginning to think I don't. I was just afraid that one of these extremes would emerge: That the paladin had too few targets to smite, or the reverse, due to a lack of clearly defined rules. I think with my standard campaign style, I should easily be able to label which targets are "smitable" and which are just enemies in your way, and they should be frequent enough to be satisfying.

Thanks for the advice, guys! I'll hopefully have a fun-loving paladin player popping (alliteration!) up in our next adventure.

Or can you? After the recent release of the APG, one of my players has shown clear interest in playing a paladin. As many could guess, the issue is that my campaign world doesn't (and never has before) taken alignment into consideration. It hasn't been an issue in the many years we've been playing, and we've simply avoided spells like "Protection from ______." I personally never liked the concept of it, so I ditched it early on. Unfortunately, the Paladin seems to be totally interwoven into the concept of alignment, and I know there are other DMs out there who play alignmentless games, so I was looking for some advice.

I once before had a player who wanted to play a paladin, but since there was no alignment, I simply let him smite anything except truly neutral creatures, like animals. I soon realized that was a foolish mistake, and the class dominated most everything. Luckily for me, that campaign ended quickly, and we moved on. Now I'm back looking to see if anyone has any suggestions/experience with this kind of situation, and if they could offer any helpful advice. Also, I don't intend to start a debate about alignment, I'm just looking for alternatives is all.

Thanks!

The raging cleric surrounded by undead roaring and sending out a huge burst of energy that obliterates the vile creatures threatening to overpower him?

Awesome.

Exactly. I don't think there's a solid rule clarification on the issue, but flavor and balance wise it seems fine.

I have it on good authority that Flumph herder is in.

Ah, but what of the Giant Space Hamster Rancher?

I actually do max HP every level, like the OP. Consequently, I also max all enemy HP. I've done it for several years now, and I haven't noticed anything out of the ordinary; my group prefers longer combats, so we enjoy it.

It would certainly tilt the scales in the players favor if you just maxed their HP and not the monsters, and it would probably skew the CR system to some degree, but hey, do what you like.

EDIT: Gah, didn't read the last part of your post about giving it to monsters as well. Shame on me.

Beginnings are the best part, for sure.

This summer I'm going down to Cape Cod, Massachusetts with my players. We're starting a new campaign at level 1 in a no-cable, no-internet, beachside summer house where the only source of heat is from the fireplace in the center of the age-old living room. Its in the middle of nowhere, very picturesque, and its gonna be completely awesome. We're staying for four days and I'm bringing my mug that looks like it belongs in a tavern, as well as all the dice, miniatures, character sheets, and books to last us well into each night.

Location, location, location :]

You need Inertia

Many of the posts in this thread seem to imply that there is an almost immediate cause/effect relationship in the world (think of Bradbury's Illustrated Man and the story of the fellow who believed if he wasn't looking at something it didn't even exist, including a person upon whom he'd just turned his back).

I suggest that the universe needs Ideation Inertia ... the premise that changes can happen, but they are slow. Gods do not appear and disappear in a single lifetime. A "forgotten deity" who was once vastly powerful still has an opportunity to manifest physically and attempt to restore their faith before they fade away. "Forgotten relics" (to reference a prior post) do not suddenly disappear once the last person to remember about them dies, but rather slowly "leak" out their power and energy, but could still be found and used and remain (relatively) powerful. References to them in books might keep them around for a time.

I think changes need to happen over the course of generations, or at least decades. It needs to be difficult to nearly impossible for a mortal individual to achieve divine status, and would require a vast amount of faith and veneration over an extended period of time. Achieving post-mortem sainthood or ascension over a period of generations is a more likely consequence.

Without an "inertial" factor, the sheer surreal Wonderlandishness of the world would inherently threaten its stability.

A major premise of Mage was that only the Awakened knew about the mutability of reality and could interact with it. In order for a society to have any stability, it's probably an important factor. It must either remain unknown to the common people that this is how reality operates, or it must operate very slowly, or both.

Of course, it's still possible for "players" in the world (arch-wizards, high-priests, king-makers and so forth) to know about the mutability of reality and thus take steps to alter it, but this would really...

I didn't realize there was such a title for it, but I wasn't planning on having it be an instantaneous thing. Ideation Inertia sounds splendid, in that case. One of my interests is to think about what effect a nation that utilizes extreme censorship would have on its populace. The world is dotted with sages who scour the world for facts and facets of knowledge to record and keep from being forgotten, so books become a primary way to keep things in fluctuation, or they can take dangerous artifacts and attempt to let them fade away over a long period of time by never recording it.

By the way, thanks for the tips. I was curious if there was some button I couldn't find or if I had to do it the old-fashioned way of copy and paste.

Well, two thoughts...

Do the people of the world know this? IOW, would Golarion's Razmir know that by making people believe he's a god, he becomes one? Just thinking it might be an interesting epic goal for a PC, to have others believe him to divinity.

Do the gods/monsters of the world know they're the result of belief? If people believe enough in the Kraken to conjure it up, will the Kraken cease to exist if it convinces enough people that it doesn't. Will the god of bows cease to exist if people start using muskets?

Who counts (ok that's three) in Mage, for example, it seems that consentual reality was defined by non-awakened humans. It didn't matter that a bunch of Werewolves believed that spirits walk among us, they didn't because the consensus of humans didn't.

Yes, many would be aware of this phenomenon, but not all. Those with a proper education might have knowledge of it, as would many city folk, but the rest would only know of it through others.

Good question. The gods most certainly do, and understand that in order to maintain their power, they need to have people believe in them. As such, a god of bows would fade away if muskets gained popularity (he wouldn't be forgotten, though, he would simply lose enough followers that he wouldn't be able to keep his physical form). I'm honestly not sure about monsters. some of the more bestial ones wouldn't care to know/might be incapable of knowing, but if creatures like trolls are the result of collective fears, then they might be sentient enough to know their existence hinges on maintaining those fears. My only concern would be that this allows people to essentially create new races: should enough people believe in the Drow, then BAM, Drow exist. Not sure how I feel about that.

Interesting take on it. I've thought to question the relativity of people's beliefs... if Elves believe that crops will magically harvest themselves and Human's don't, then which is true? If Dwarves believe Gnomes to be the spawn of hell and Halflings don't, do they each see different things when viewing a Gnome? I'll probably have to come up with certain guidelines as to what beliefs reign above others, like Mage does. Lastly, like you said about werewolves, I would think that krakens wouldn't be able to convince people they aren't real for the same reasons werewolves can't convince people that spirits walk amongst them.

As this develops, it seems to conflict with my older idea: the world is the dreamer, and everything it dreams up emerges from the Labyrinth (the Labyrinth being the "brain-like" structure deep below the plane that "thinks things through." Once a thing has been thought through, it escapes the Labyrinth and enters the upper world). If people can create their own things, then maybe the Labyrinth remains only to create things the world dreams up. For example, if the world dreamt up trolls from the Labyrinth, they might be capable of forming a society and actually developing like other races, but if Humans dreamt them up out of fear, they would remain as beings only capable of spreading their fear.

It's stuff like this that I really like to ponder about. Thanks! I'm still open for any other thoughts or suggestions.

I wonder if you have been reading American Gods? If not, you might want to give it a read.

Old Gods fighting new gods like "TV".

You're the third person to recommend that to me. I think I might just have to pick that up then!

PS: I've seen people do multiple quotations in a single post, how do you do that?

Wow, how strange that this would come up when I was just discussing such a matter with a good friend just a couple days ago. Go go Internet Synchronicity!

I'm not sure if it will be of any use in terms of campaign design, but check out the following Wikipedia article on Yogic Thoughtforms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulpa

** spoiler omitted **

Another thing that springs to mind is what I recall hearing about an RPG that I've never played: Mage, the Ascension. From what I was told, magic is basically the power of imagination. However, if you do something that's too much a stretch from what is considered normal, the disbelief of the mundanes will cancel out the spell.

If our own universe were like that of your dreamscape, then such underlying laws of reality could explain why there are fewer reports of supernatural events the further science develops when as compared to in the Old Testament, etc. At the same time, things like ghosts and such persist because of people's subconscious fears about them — i.e. irrational thoughts that even the reason of science cannot quell.

Thanks! I will check that out when I get the chance. I've heard of Mage, the Ascension, but I know literally nothing about it. I actually really like that spin on it, I may try and adopt that.

If you have belief=power, you don't have forgotten artifacts. If nobody remembers something, it has no juice behind it. But the longsword of the hero who's been carving his way through the goblin tribes of the mountain might have a few plusses. Swords who's stories are still told would retain power long after the deeds that gave then their juice were history. If goblin mothers scare their children with names like Glamdring or Orcrist, when some random adventuerers pull them out of a trolls collection of loot, they are still going to cut a swath through goblin-kind.

A king might be a mighty warrior because people believe he is, and their faith gives him a little extra juice. You might end up with god-kings, eternal heros of legend. As long as people believe, they live. Bards would be very powerful, in a long-term metagame sense. The worst punishment would be having your name stuck from all records and shunned and forgotten.

I have given thought to setting up a world like this, and it has a lot of potential. A few odd quirks, but they add a bit of character. You can make it go a lot of ways by tweaking some concepts.

I have a unique race of beings called The Forgotten, an anomaly amidst my world. They break the Law of Remembrance in that they still exist as shadowy entities, who turn invisible when they don clothing, so it appears as though the clothes are hanging on nothingness. They may once have been a certain race, but for one reason or another, were forgotten by the world yet still remain.

There are also towers set up around the civilized realm so people can observe the landscapes, making sure they don't shift around when someone isn't watching. A lot of the world has yet to be explored, and sometimes an unmarked mountain might go missing and appear somewhere else. Its uncommon, though.

I do like the idea of god-kings, though. I'll might take that idea for a spin.

I have a setting that I've been developing for several years now thats based off a sort of Jungian dreamscape. Its one of my prime enjoyments because I have to purposely think outside of the regular scheme of how things might work, which is surprisingly tough. One of my latest thoughts regarded the "gods" of the setting, which are essentially the physical manifestation of cultural memes. As in, they're created from humanoid kind's collective thoughts. It would take an immense amount of collective thought to give a meme a physical appearance (to prevent there from being millions of memes for every small group of like-minded thinkers), but then I wondered: why should this stop at memes?

So from there I've been contemplating the repercussions of allowing whatever is collectively believed to be, well, made true over time (like the gods). For instance, because the vast majority of sailers believe in the tales of the kraken, the kraken thus becomes a real thing.

I've been giving this some thought and I don't think I can work it all out on my own without creating some guidelines... I understand that things can get crazy real fast with this idea, but it nonetheless interests me.

So I ask, would anyone be willing to help me with this? Give some scenarios where this might be interesting, or where it might get crazy? This isn't set in stone, but I see it as a sort of creative thought exercise for myself. What do you guys and gals think?

EDIT: Also, I wasn't sure where to post this, but I apologize if its in the wrong forum.

Plot is defined simply as a series of events that occur over time. This describes game play at the game table in real time. So plot "happens" at the game table every session as all of us at the table watch it unfold.

When running large epic campaigns over long periods of time I don't necessarily plan for key dramatic moments or plot twists though I recognize areas for potential (and set NPC stories and goals to help create these). Instead I learned to watch carefully to take advantage of key moments, to enhance drama that surfaces spontaneously at the game table, and to spin an unusual or random occurence into a diabolical plot twist.

This has allowed me to provide something very close to a large planned over-arching epic plot but turns out a lot more organic, derived directly from player choices, and isn't hinged on any single player character (though each PC has contributed to and has brought their own spin on the elements of that "plot").

I was happy to see someone mention B5 as it is an excellent example where the writer designed the skeletal framework of the story arc and fleshed it out as they went, altering the plot as key characters stories abruptly "changed" (i.e. a character death, losing a player altogether, PC turns into an evil NPC, etc.) such as the Talia Winters big reveal (where the actress asked for too much $$ to stay on and so left the show) and subsequent replacement by another telepathic character. Not to mention the leaving of the main character of the show after the first season and how his story changed into something even more amazing, the next actor taking over where his first character left off. Always feel free and flexible to re-write bits of the story that have yet to be revealed, even large re-writes because often you will find entirely new possibilities for the story you didn't see when thigns started.

An example from my current Eberron campaign. At some point it may be pivotal to the events of the campaign that one of the character "bonds" permanently with an artifact....

I like the way you put that. I think that's largely true for what I would do, but back in the day I had a hard time keeping myself from really binding the PCs to the plot (this was many years ago, when I first picked up D&D), to the point where they would be so important that a single death could throw a monkey wrench into the plot. Luckily, I've moved past that.

It all stems from the fact that I want to see their characters thrive, but not to the point where I remove the fear of death. I actually use character death as an important plot-propelling device, something that can be truly heart-wrenching and/or incredibly satisfying. As a result, I keep revivals few and far between, though I've never introduced any hard mechanics to sidestep resurrection (my players rarely play divine casters for some reason). Likewise, death is made very real and palpable to my players. I've handled PC funerals in game and it was actually quite sad (a good kind of sad, where the players actually thank you after the session). I like that, a lot.

Recently, while wrapping up a campaign that I've been at for about 4 years, I realized that as the levels got higher, so too did death become more of a threat. If one of my players beloved PCs died, they would throw a monkey wrench into the plot, so to speak. One character carried a secret with him that was pivotal he kept hidden until the right moment, and should he die early, I'd really have to scramble to get things back in order.

Granted, at higher levels death becomes more of a speed bump than a real problem with spells like resurrection and their ilk, but thats not to say that this could happen at earlier levels, when revival isn't so easy to obtain.

Perhaps this is my flaw, but I was always fond of rewarding characters with intricate backstories by weaving them into the plot as important characters. That's not to say that every time I do it's pivotal that they live throughout the campaign, but there have a been a handful of instances like this in my many years of DMing that would really break my players envelopment in the story to just have another fellow come along and take the dead PCs place.

I know I'm not perfect, but I really like to try and emphasize destiny and other heroic concepts. I'm also not the type of DM who's afraid to let them die; I don't spoon feed the adventure to them or railroad them. They're generally very fond of my adventures, and grow very attached to their characters, especially when they realize that the very world hinges on their heroics (a little bit of an exaggeration, but I think you get my point).

Anyways, I was wondering how other DMs handle this, or even what players think of this. I usually do a single BIG, multi-year long campaign with occasional small but separate campaigns along the way. My big campaigns are known for their epic and grand plots with a high emphasis on adventure and action. Do other people have this sort of problem? If so, how do you handle it? Do you think I'm doing something wrong, or perhaps being too extreme?

Again, this isn't necessarily a problem of mine, but I'm curious to see if anyone else did this like me.

Let the GM know what you want. If you would really be interested in an encounter that encouraged stealth and skillful activity, tell the GM. A good GM is interested in making the players happy, not living out his own pre-scripted fantasy.

If you feel that something isn't going the way it should be, or that something was significantly less fun for you, take the GM aside and talk with them one-on-one. Be friendly, but let them know what it is that was bothering you. A good GM will listen.

Thank them occasionally. After a good session, let them know "that was fun" or something. Its the little things that can really help.

I know this was mentioned before, but I'll echo my sentiments on the matter: When the GM is busy with someone else, don't take out your computer or start chatting about last weekend with the person next to you. GMs can't always deal with everyone, and have enough on their plate already.

Likewise, if a player IS getting blatantly more spotlight time than anyone else, the GM might be playing favorites. Let them know after the session, and while it's happening, nudge them and ask when you're character can do their thing. GMs like to see everyone eager to participate, and will generally be happy to move onto another eager player.

Zone of Truth is sort of a buzz kill for murder mystery campaigns, but I like to think that in a world where such a spell is possible, it is equally possible that the murderer has gone to certain lengths to ensure such magical retorts aren't always as effective.

Naturally, this is always a tough call, since you don't want to discourage players who preemptively picked the spell, but if you want players to get a little more gritty, it might be safe to assume some counter-magic was in place.

Just some food for thought!

I'll comment more on this tomorrow (when I get out of my morning classes), but I just wanted to say that this sounds very cool. I'd love to play in this campaign. Kudos to you and all your hard work!

The Xacksium

Medium sized Aberration
+2 Con, +2 Wis, -2 Cha
Normal Speed 30ft
+2 Disguise, +2 Intimidate, +2 Perception
Darkvision 60ft
Abnormal Anatomy: light fortification 25%

Physical appearance: the Xacksium appear mostly like a human except they have pure white skin yellow eyes and white hair with yellow roots as well as strange markings in the skin appearing as spirals and lines indented in the skin.

Interesting. Unfortunately, I have little to say about it. Could you give us some background on the race as a whole? Why do they have abnormal anatomies? Why the stat bonuses and penalties? Why the Darkvision? Why the associated skill bonuses?

So far, the crunch seems fine. I'm only unsure of the Light Fortification, but I would really have to see it in play to judge it. I think it should be okay as is.

I'd always prefer the human over all the other core races.

Same. Not only are they an excellent race to begin with, I find that a lot of my players relate more easily to their characters if they're playing a race they're already automatically in tune with.

Crystal Frasier wrote:

Oh yesssss....

Any goodies for Evil dwarven librarians? :)

Evil Loremaster......?

That's about it!

Ahhh I'm so excited!!!

In a world with spells such as Regeneration or their ilk, I wouldn't think severed limbs would be a huge problem, but that all depends on what your DMs style of campaign is.

I had a lower magic campaign in which my character sailed a blockade runner pirate ship to deliver goods to and from a besieged island nation under cover of nightfall. Eventually, I got caught and as punishment, they severed my right hand, but said they still wanted me for their own dirty work.

My character had a silver hand forged that he placed over the stump, and taught himself to fight with his left hand (mostly roleplay). I believe I called myself Tavim Silverhand... a good piratey name if I do say so myself...

Anyways, point being: if your DM is cooperative, use this as a chance to dig out some depth to your character. Maybe he finds a way to replace his lost hand. Maybe he seeks vengeance on those who took it. All in all, I would avoid letting it have substantial mechanical impact, at least for very long. My character took penalties at first, but as is the nature of a D&D game, he learned fast and the penalties quickly evaporated (albeit unrealistic, but I don't play for realism).

Now that I think about it, my character must've unconsciously drawn from Jaime Lannister...

When i first seen the thread title I thought it said

Help Me Spend My Stimulus Monkey!

I am not even sure what to think about that. :) anyways just thought i would share my weird moment.

You're not alone. I totally saw it, too.

Oh, right, buying stuff. I really liked GM Gems and PC Pearls, if you don't already have those. Actually, if you don't have them, I STRONGLY recommend them.

Diehard is a GREAT feat for a creature that has regeneration.

That said... it's the GM's responsibility to let his players know what's going on; he's the only window the PCs have into the game. It's not fair for a GM to not describe a troll at –50 hit points as "unwounded," nor is it fair to not describe it at all. You should let the PCs know that the troll is still going strong despite HORRIFIC wounds that seem to be healing themselves, and once he should be dead... let the PCs know that. "He's so torn apart he should be dead, but he doesn't care. He attacks again!" That way, the PCs get hints from the GM that they're fighting an unusual foe and that they'll need to take unusual steps to finish him off.

That is a very disturbing and awesome way of describing the fight. Definitely gonna steal this for a horror campaign...

Charender wrote:

Being able to take 10' steps and still take Full attack actions is a bad idea. Combine with reach and it is pretty broken.

1. Fighter charges giant takes an AoO, and gets one attack
2. Giant takes a 10' step back, does a full round attack on fighter.
3. Fighter charges in takes another AoO, and gets a single attack.
4. Go to step 2.

So the giant is getting a full attack plus an attack of opportunity every round, and meanwhile the fighter is getting a single attack per round and can never make full attacks.

well, i believe the fighter should take that feat too. and as for the the giant, i don't believe i read that in the Beastiary...

Just because its not listed as having it in the Bestiary doesn't stop it from taking it should it be available to them.

Regarding the feat, I'll echo what others have said about it possibly being a bad idea.

That aside, I used to play with a player who used the Tactical Fighter from the 3.5 Miniatures Handbook. It had an ability that allowed it two 5-foot steps in a round, and it was actually very enjoyable to the player. Granted, he was far from capable of abusing the system yet, so it played out just fine. In your position, I would daresay to go for it and damn the torpedos; when and if it becomes apparently flawed, then change it. I'm all for self-testing. But from a designing point of view, this isn't something that I would add.

I miss those old days of innocence...

The Weave05 wrote:

I hope this helps!

Very. Thanks, The Weave05! If you ever have the time, could you provide more specifics? I especially like your points on the spellcasters having to be prepared and the teleports.

Sure!

My campaign involved a Wizard/Cleric/Mystic Theurge, a Monk, a Fighter, and an Enchantment specialized Wizard all level 16.

Each class had its own hurdles and difficulties associated with it, so I'll try and go through them and provide some specifics for each.

The Enchanter was the most difficult to DM for, by far. What I mean by this is that he provided me with the largest challenge to make combat and noncombat situations fun for his specialized character. Like I said before, there's a lot of ways to say No at higher levels, and Enchantment characters may be the most vulnerable to this. When they fought the Golems, he had very few things he could do that revolved around his character's specialty: control. Certain monsters may either be completely vulnerable to Dominate, or they may be immune; I found very little mid-ground between the two. Also, solo encounters were terrible: one example was a fight I had prepared with a Planetar who was supposed to provide an epic and climactic fight for them. One critical failure later, he was under the Enchanter's control.

It was only later that I looked up under the Angel subtype that it was said to be effected against Magic Circle Against Evil (which would have given him another save against his Dominate and most likely allowed him to break free). This was my fault, but it goes back to my "Know your stuff" thing, because it really makes a crucial difference at higher level gameplay.

Also, yes, the Enchanter was evil, but everyone else was good, actually. We play at a very mature level, so we don't simply assume paladins will go around yelling "EVIIIIIIIL!" and smiting them. I regularly make simple commoners evil, but they may still help people and seem "normal" or what have you.

The Mystic Theurge would have been much more difficult if he had the full spellcasting potential he would've gotten had he stuck to a single class. In the end, I was quite thankful for this, but his versatility and spells per day were unparalleled. Not once did he run out of spells, and he was fairly impossible to predict with all those spells available to him (he could pick and choose which ones he prepared each day). He usually stuck to evocation and cure spells, because the party needed those most often, but every once in a while he'd throw down a Magic Circle Against so-and-so, an Invisibility, or something else less predictable.

I don't know if I have any really iconic examples of him doing this, because he pretty much threw me off-guard the whole campaign. He was tough, but manageable. Against anything with immunity to magic (like the golem), he was largely countered, since he usually stuck to evocation stuff (things that allow SR), and would only carry one or two spells that might be able to do something to it.

The Monk was next in line for difficulty, but he was far below the Enchanter or Mystic Theurge. He was noticeably worse than any of the other party members, and he knew it. In fact, he kind of liked it! He knew that he could only outshine them in very specific circumstances, where he could use his superior speed, ability to survive most falls, or his ability to punch through solid objects, his immunity to poisons, and their ilk. In one circumstance, he intervened in a King taking a sip from a poisoned drink by switching the cups and drinking it instead. He was happy because he was the only one who could do that, and it made him feel special. At other times, when the enemies were peppering them with arrows or other ranged attacks, he would cover the distance and engage them long enough for the other more fragile members of the party to get into safe cover or cast a wall spell or something. Meanwhile, the fighter would take his turn getting there halfway, and then vital strike the next round, when the Monk, after having taken a beating, could easily tumble (or Abundant Step) out.

The Fighter was the easiest. I knew exactly what he was capable of, how to effectively challenge him without rendering him useless, and keep play fun for him. He was a man of simple tastes: he dealt the damage and soaked up the hits. He liked that. The more epic I made his criticals look, the more he smiled. I have little to say about him... he really had fun all around and was easy to appease. Oh, it should be made known that I allow 4 skill points per level instead of the minimal 2, so he had some skill points to spend on social skills. This allowed him to have more fun outside of combat, being the diplomatic type.

I hope this helped to cover some more specifics... if you were looking for something else, just let me know!

Link to Drakli's playtest

I recently ended a campaign at level 16, and I'll be honest: things got a little swingy.

As a DM, it takes a lot of skill (more than I likely have) to keep the game in check at those levels. If you haven't checked out the playtest with Drakli, I strongly suggest you do... he's a great example of a DM who knows how to handle higher level play and keep it fun and engaging.

One of my primary concerns was keeping the two full spellcasters in check. There is very little they can't do, and sometimes it's tough to balance the limelight between them and the more "mundane" classes, like a fighter or monk (which is what I had). But when it came to combat, unless the spellcasters had ample preparation and warning, the melee classes stole the show. The Fighter is a very solid class at higher levels, able to tank well and dish out damage. The Monk was good too, but I had to work harder to provide him with special situations where he could shine above others (using his incredible jump checks to avoid obstacles, running to catch fleeing enemies, etc.)

I had a tough time keeping track of everything, but I think any DM worth his salt could've done better than me. I was making silly mistakes (messing up initiative counts, forgetting to deal ongoing bleed damage on a turn, misremembering the duration of certain spells, etc.) that could've been avoided if I had taken a little more time to gather my thoughts. Granted, its worth noting as you really need to do that in a high level game: get yourself together. Stay focused, stay on track. When the party wizard can cast teleport so many times per day, sometimes that long trek you had planned for them might not work out (well, if they're familiar with their destination). In other words, know what the PCs are capable of. It's surprisingly tough, even if it's limited to only so many splat/core books (you never know what core spell might sneak by under your nose that catches you off guard!).

There's a lot more ways to say "No" at higher levels, and while this might be a good thing at first, sometimes it works against you. At first I thought it would be fun to challenge my players by putting them up against a Golem to limit their spellcasting prowess, but pretty soon the players were somewhat frustrated at their sudden drop in usefulness. Sure, I could've handled it better, and the next golem fight was sure to include a few humanoid fodder to appease them, but I'm of the mind that you shouldn't be so quick to deny the players their right to have fun. I think this just goes back to my "knowing what your doing" thing, so just be careful to look over the monsters you throw them up against.

As far as player perspectives go, I can't say much. I'm not a player! I never have been (I like to think that means I'm a good DM, but the sad reality is that they're all really bad at it :]). I hope this helps!

Linky

Watch from 30 seconds.

I thought it was amusing at the time :]

Ellington wrote:

The order abilities vary greatly in power. The Order of the Sword, for example, is barely usable as it deals with oaths and old challenge mechanics. I really like the Order of the Shield's abilities as they seem really good for tanking. The Order of the Stick's ability to run away will probably come in handy, too.

We totally need Order of Stick as the official name.

Seconded.

... for purposes of teamwork feats? Most of these feats require you to be adjacent to another character who has the same feat. The cavalier can grant a teamwork feat to his mount, since the recipients of "tactician" don't need to meet the feat's prerequisites. I'm just wondering how to adjudicate a cavalier who tries to use "coordinated defense" and "coordinated maneuvers" while mounted.

Thanks for any thoughts.

I hate to answer this without the rulebook in front of me, but (and please, someone correct me if I'm wrong) if I'm not mistaken, doesn't the cavalier and their mount count as being "in the same square" when mounted? Thus, they couldn't be adjacent to each other by the rules. I thought I recalled reading this somewhere once.

That one that lets you swap places sure would be wonky, though!

Out of curiosity, does anyone know why they changed the spell list like they did? I'm currently withholding judgement until I see it in action, but I wanted to know what might have been the reasoning behind this.

If she floats, she's a witch!

Can we burn her?

I actually really like the new Cavalier. I mean, I liked it before, but I thought the new changes were generally pretty good. Challenge was weird to see without a set of dice next to it, but I like that its more static now and reigned in under the "per day" mechanics rather than "per encounter" mechanics, which was sometimes a little vague.

I also second Quandary's points.

To be perfectly honest, I'll admit that I may not have seen the Cavalier long enough to notice any effect of the Oaths, but I also heard that they were fairly unnoticeable.

I also like Teamwork feats, but thats just me.