|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Eh, I've had plenty of characters who would turn their back on a so-called-friend in a heartbeat if they took a path said character didn't agree with.
I wasn't talking about characters I was talking about legit friendship [as I personally see it.]
The OP's character seems to care about the Demon-in-training as a friend, hence my comments.
Does your character have an in-game reason to be so emotionally invested in your party member? He is a demon worshipper with a history of killing clergy, after all...
A friend doesn't turn his back on his friend just because he's become evil.
AFAIK there's nothing in the rules to help you here. This is something each group needs to sort out for themselves.
I can see the problem on both sides, the one guy wants to go after the target and is getting antsy that not only does a partymate want to stop him... but they're sitting around looking in rulebooks rather than reacting in the moment. Meanwhile you wanted to stop him but weren't sure if you had the ability to.
For my own games, this sort of stuff happens in the moment on the fly. If you wanted to stop him from going, you could attempt with whatever methods [A spell, tripping, grappling, etc. Were you in reach you could react as sort of a pseudo-AoO type thing.] If you were really serious about it, it could turn into sort of a mini-combat using initiative with each person taking turns, or we might do a sort of Chase Scene with your guy chasing the NPC and you chasing him.
Sounds like an axymoron to me.
Indeed, although I had been under the [mistaken] impression that all the alignment issues aside from LG Paladins and Lawful Monks had been stripped out. [On that note, Lawful Monks is rather annoying as well.] Mandatory non-lawful Barbarians is silly.
Fake Healer wrote:
Fairness. That is what DMing is about and if it isn't done well then the problem isn't in the tool (the DMPC) it's the tool [the DM]
Yeah, but if one of your players trusted him not to fudge, and he did then... technically he betrayed their trust.
Now assuming that conversation never happened, awesome. But if I or Kirth were playing with him, hopefully he would respect our request.
On another note, I can totally respect the top priority of giving the players a good time but... it's not my top priority. It's a priority but my top priority is being fair and impartial. My second priority is being open and honest. Making the players happy comes third during play [first during Game Planning.]
Rare cornercase time.
If struck by a Flaming Shocking Frost weapon, does the hardness negate each energy pool separately, or is it all considered a single instance of 'energy damage' added together before applying hardness.
The thing is, cheating like this has a massive impact on the Player Characters.
Lets say for example, you're extending the combat. [I'm assuming its because the PCs are optimized towards damage output or Save-or-Lose type effects.] Doing so causes the combat to drag on, which puts extra pressure on those character's defenses. Defenses they aren't specialized in and will easily fall if they can't pull off their schtick of Killing-It-Fast.
It's the same story as Energy Resistance. Anything with Resist Fire 5 is basically immune to your +X Flaming weapon, because the two damage types are treated independently.
You would think Hardness would only apply once to a weapon attack though, it would really sucks if weapons that don't penetrate hardness also lose their energy damage to a separate instance of hardness.
It sure as hell bothers me. Now, if he increased the monster's HP in advance and that enhanced creature is what we're fighting, that's fine.
But he just pumped extra HP in it to drag out the fight and keep me away from the rest of the game?
F@+%. That. Noise.
EDIT: that kind of behavior also strips away the sense of achievement players get for wiping the floor with an enemy. It ALSO really screws with game balance, the game expects monsters to fall at X speed, if they take twice as long, suddenly you're either killing PCs or forced to cheat even more to keep them alive.
Sure. But did the GM say dicks weren't welcome at his table?
[I actually find it kind of refreshing to see somebody actually playing a greedy dwarf for once.]
Now, I generally give the benefit of the doubt when it seems a player might be cheating, and I am totally willing to forgive a cheater who owns up to his cheating [although of course I'm watching him like a hawk until such time as I feel I can trust him again] but actual cheating tolerance?
I don't even tolerate cheating from the GM side of the screen, even if it was to my character's benefit.
Except that makes zero sense whatsoever.
xavier c wrote:
The alignment restriction of the Paladin I can respect. Kind of awkward to need to homebrew new classes for Divine Champions with other alignments, but I can respect that a Paladin is a Paladin.
But there's no good reason a Barbarian shouldn't be able to be lawful. Even if we stick to the [weak as hell] default fluff of a Barbarian being a tribal warrior, many tribes have very strong law codes which their warriors are expected to honor.
I can't speak for any of them, but I do battlefield of the mind all the time and keep all of it. Battlefield of the mind is just that... in the mind. I've had far more vivid battles in my own head than on a battlemat, the key is communicating those details in a way that the party can comprehend exactly what is going on and where everything is.
[It also helps if the GM fudges just a little in the Player's favor in regards to positioning. It was your job to paint the scene in their heads and if they're 'close enough' I let it slide. Note however this is coming from a GM who never fudges dice.]
These weren't rotating GMs in the way rotating GMs are normally thought of. They Co-GMd and pretty much rotated session by session running the same campaign.
EDIT: that being said, may I inquire the specific details of why they're an exception? Is it assumed the other GM will keep them in check or something?
Sissyl... I don't think anybody intended it to come out that way.
GMPC's being used poorly is bad GMing. Knowing whether or not you can pull it off is a sign of being a good GM.
I can't do it, but I still consider myself a good GM because I refrain. I'd say that - assuming you do well in the standard GM fields - you're a good GM as well despite the inability to GMPC.
Rules for making an effective DMPCThis doesn't sound like a GMPC to me KenderKin, it sounds like a tagalong NPC.
1. The DMPC should be un-optimized, and possibly multi-classed, one of those classes should be support focused.Nope, the GMPC should be optimized to whatever level the party is, just like any other PC should be. When one party member is either the star OR the dead weight its not fun.
2. THE DMPC should not be allowed to take any loot/glory from any of the playersTake from other players? Definitely not. Share with other players? Definitely yes.
3. The DMPC should solve/plan 0% of anything happening in the gameNOPEnopenope. The GMPC should participate in the solving/planning unless said character's personality says otherwise. He shouldn't take an overt leadership position unless the party's requested it of him but participation is important!
....I further have a rule that a GMPC's initiative is always 10 I don't even roll it!I can totally respect anything saving the GM from rolling, but it would be better to take his average initiative [10+modifiers] than a flat 10.
4. The DMPC is there to keep things moving forward, such as asking another player, what should we do about this?Preferably not. That's really not a role any one specific character should get pinned to their back, but as a last resort to keep things moving the GM can do so with the GMPC.
5. The DMPC is not protected from being targeted by or potentially killed by enemies.Total agreement here ^_^
I use a random attack roller including the DMPC for who gets attacked....Druid/Wizard DMPC nearly died from a grim-lock greataxe to the chest!
Whatever works for you dude. I'd imagine a GM who plays the opposition tactically without respect for whose character its dealing with would be a bit more realistic than random dieroll, but at least you are still being fair.
If it's getting special boons or somehow sidelining the party, its no longer a PC. A PC is exactly in line with the party.
What you're talking about is an NPC the GM's gone on a power trip with.
EDIT: to use a Lord of the Rings example [since people on these boards love to use them :P], Gandalf is the type of NPC you're talking about, while either Gimli or Legolas could be a GMPC. Aragorn and Frodo'ss position in the plot is a bit too strong, they're clearly standard PCs. Sam etc are tag-along NPCs
I'm not sure whether you read my post, or if by chopping those two posts up and using little bits and pieces of them I destroyed the message.
First Paragraph in my above Quote wrote:
Stuff about NPC'sYou're right. What you're talking about there are NPCs. We're in agreement.
But when a GM wants the thrill of playing his/her own PC... a lot of this breaks down.When a GM is playing his/her own PC, none of it breaks down. Because a PC is not an NPC.
The GM becomes invested in the specific character.Sure. I get invested in my PCs too, and I don't even PC while GMing :P
It takes part of the spotlight, yes, but that is a minor problem, compared to the rest of it: The GMPC, with the emotional investment of the omnipotent GM, will invariably (in my experience, this is an absolute) become the real focus of the game.Thankfully your experience is not absolute, you just had unfortunate experiences. Otherwise five separate campaigns I've participated in, and all the fun I've had sharing the table and my adventures with PC's the GM was legitimately playing as his character are all lies.
A mature GM will realize the problems with it, and refrain from using GMPCs.
Funny story, that very first campaign I participated in that I mentioned - with the Fighter and Cleric - were with GM's who were both Sophomores in Highschool.
You've had bad experiences with GMPCs and I'm sorry to hear that. I lucked out, out of 6 campaigns I've been in that used them, only one went badly. The others were all wonderful experiences I cherish.
Experiences wherein the GM was a player with a PC. Not 'an NPC that travels with the party.' These were legitimate player characters 100% in fact, that player just happened to be the GM. And 5 out of 6 of these games were pure awesomesauce.
If the setting you're playing in is high/epic fantasy maybe everyone would recognise a wizard/witch/etc, but for most settings they just look like people
To expand on this, if you've been dressing up in iconic gear for mages. The robes and pointy hat give it away to the NPCs.
Haramaki costs 3gp, weighs 1 pound and grants +1 AC and is obviously armor to observers, but has no Spell Check failure.
If you value AC over mobility [I sure as hell don't] and have the strength to handle an additional 10 pounds you could add an Armored Kilt to that Haramaki for +2 AC
And when used poorly and well, was that in any way related to the GM rooting for the GMPC as THEIR CHARACTER IN THAT GAME?
...rooting? What the heck do you mean by that?
Regardless, I'll quote a few posts I made upthread to answer your question about having positive experiences with someone else's GMPC
Tons of fun and the GMPCs really contributed to the party's dynamic, while being 'just another party member' in combat.
In short, these two characters were no different from my own, the Rogue or the Druid. They were just a Personal Character of a player at the table.
EDIT: just to be clear, although the Co-DMs did rotate 'primary DMship' between sessions, both played their character in every session they were able to get to, including while they were the primary DM.
You do raise a good point. I was thinking more along the lines of the Dragon issues a quest and then goes to chill in his layer between hunts without worrying about it too much. If he notices them again after 'too much time' has past he'll land to 'deal with them' and... considering a dragon's sense of time... they very well may be able to fight back or at least teleport to safety by that time.
Even the 5 ogres mentioned above move 30 feet normally, 40 feet unarmored. A dwarf or somebody in medium or heavy armor isn't going to even maintain distance from that, let alone outrun it.
EDIT: I actually wouldn't necessarily consider the dragon demands thing above railroading... the Dragon can make the demands it wants, that doesn't mean the party will keep their commitment to an evil monster.
While 'ignoring wealth by level' can make for an interesting story, it can also really screw the martial characters in your campaign who desperately depend on gear to accomplish anything at all past a certain level.
These boards do have many homebrew replacements for wealth, some of them quite good. The simplest being to simply push wealth under the story and allow your PCs to 'buy' abilities that are part of themselves with virtual gold appropriate to their wealth by level.
If the scene would have 5 Ogres in it, there are 5 Ogres and it doesn't matter that the PCs are level 15 or 2 or anything in between. If they're 2, I sure hope they run or try and talk.
And hope that the Ogres have no interest in pursuit if any of the party members is in Medium or Heavy Armor, or is a Dwarf. [I figure the party BDF could probably carry a gnome or halfling if it came down to it.]
Sure, that was EGG's intention, but I'm guessing back in those days Lava submersion without some kind of magical protection was an instant-kill?
EDIT: it's kind of interesting though, how EGG specifically calls out the foundations for a Wound/Vigor system, separating 'constitution bonuses' out as physical damage and Hit Dice out as Skill-at-negating-damage.
NOPE. That's way too steep for walking, it would be a climb check, and given how smooth that stuff is... I doubt the oracle would succeed.
Now, I wouldn't have a problem with him coiling a walkway around the inside of the pit walls to walk out. It would consume a lot more movement though.
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
I used milestones instead of experience.This
I don't use XP either when I'm running an Adventure Path but, I'd need to refer to CR and some XP budget to create enough encounters of the right level right?
Nope. Level them up when 'the time is right.' Whether that's some pre-determined milestone in the plot [which is a type of game I tend to shy away from myself] or when the characters 'earn' the next level via some certain level of achievement.
Combat Monster wrote:
Human Wizard, 7 Strength, 14 Dex, 14 con, 18 Int, 8 Wis, 7 Cha
Your math doesn't check out. STAB Fireblast is very very rarely a 1HKO [and fairly frequently not a 2HKO] for an opponent of the same level and evolutionary level, barring Type Vulnerability or using pokemon with particularly skewed abilities.
To be accurate you'd have to take the pokemon damage formula, and substitute Pathfinder Level*5 for Pokemon Level in the calculations, ignoring the Attack x Defense section. Then you might come up with something close-ish.
You'd also need to do something to reduce their HP, since some level 20  pokemon have HP well over 400. Halving it might be appropriate. [Possibly leave the HP intact for the types that are intended to be legendary freaks of nature and higher challenges than their level indicates.]
EDIT: Alright, I went to a pokemon damage calculator and calculated a Stab Blizzard against a Normal Type, both at Level 20 
Came out to between 118 and 141 damage
That's high, but it's nothing that a PF Blaster of the level couldn't pull off.
That being said, given the sheer volume of HPs pokemon have, and the expectation of using type advantage in a match, I could definitely see trimming Damage and HP a bit. Maybe skim 20-30% off the top or so
EDIT 2: Also I think the XX% miss chance and absolute accuracy theories are a bit misleading. Fireblast for example is clearly a ranged touch attack with a -3 penalty.
Surf's an AoE.
Keep in mind the standard 'full accuracy' attacks can be evaded, they just usually fail unless the target has upped his evasion stat somehow [or flew up into the air/dug under ground/dove under water before the attack came.]
I think I'd rather face [or partner with] a Spellcaster with limited castings of many spells than tons of castings of up to 4 spells.
Now, if your talking about a Trainer who has access to 6 Pokemon each with 4 moves, THAT would be scary.
Aydin D'Ampfer wrote:
Oh, and to address the Dodging Panache question, you would trip, disarm, sunder, etc in the new square, but grapple would drag you back as per the grapple rules.
I rather like that visual.
It's more Charm Monster. Pokemon CAN reject your commands, they just generally don't unless either they're too powerful relative to your ability as a trainer[the only explanation in the game] or you abuse them [anime].
And the party's reaction to finding that sort of... tainted loot...
But it's a really hot mudbath in your arms :P
Worse, the AC penalty lasts long after your turn is over, until the start of your next turn, while your reach only lasts until the END of your turn.
Remember, your turn only lasts while you are acting.