I'm working on a horror campaignin which fear and terror will be huge elements and, knowing my player's, as soon as I mention this I just know that they'll all decide to play paladins. So I was thinking of chaanging the Aura of Courage ability to something similar to the Aura of Purity ability that the Oath Against Corruption Oathbound Paladin archetype, which is as follows.
At 3rd level, you gain a +4 sacred bonus on saves against spells and effects from creatures of the aberration type. Allies within 10 feet gain a +1 sacred bonus on these saves. This ability functions only while the paladin is conscious, not if she is unconscious or dead.
This ability replaces aura of courage.
One additional change I would make to that ability is instead of just aberrations, I would allow each paladin to select from either outsiders with the evil subtype, evil-aligned dragons, or an undead creatures, and allow the +4 bonus to apply to their choice.
i feel that undermining player choice and class abilities for the sake of story is bad story telling its like making the elf fall asleep from magical sleep even though they are immune to such things because the story calls for it like if your going to be messing with it you would just be better off baning the class all together
I'm way to much a fan of the paladin class to just ban it all together, this change is more to curb the munchkinism of my players, because as I said, as soon as I talk to them about fear playing a part in the campaign they'll announce that they're playing paladins3/some other classX.
there are like at least like 7 other ways to be immune to fear unless you are going to ban all of them your players will find a way if your claims to how munchkiny they are
I was planning on changing any immunity to fear ability to either +4 bonus to savings throws against fear or allowing a reroll if the the player is affected by a fear effect. But I'm sure I'll miss a few and if they discover it I'll handle it then.
Let them have their immunities to fear. Then throw in some Antipaladins (Aura of Cowardice) . . . I could have sworn something else has a similar ability to bypass immunity to fear, but I can't remember what it is. If your players rely too much on Paladin's (or similar) immunity to fear, they may not have very good other defenses against fear in case their immunity gets bypassed.
I think that your players will never buy your horror campaign no matter how much you change the rules, if they are as munchkin as you claim. Playing a horror campaign requires buy in from the players, otherwise it doesn't work. No amount of removing fear immunity will fix that.
still leaves a sour taste in the mouth
I guess that's in the eye of the beholder, playing something counter to the campaign ethos feels in poor taste to me. Anyway perhaps it's fair to give the paladin something else to compensate? Like a free feat of some sort?
would you also feel that way if the campaign was only orcs and they wanted to play rangers with favored enemy orc? or the campaign called for 10 point buy and they all went sad casters who also had access to pets?still leaves a sour taste in the mouthI guess that's in the eye of the beholder, playing something counter to the campaign ethos feels in poor taste to me. Anyway perhaps it's fair to give the paladin something else to compensate? Like a free feat of some sort?
Your example isn't the same, I mean there's a certian level d-baggery there, but the fear/paladin thing is basically, at least the way I look at it, not saying it's right or wrong just an opinion, a dedicated way of saying F you to the GM and totally finding a way to completely negate something that will be a huge element of my campaign.
still leaves a sour taste in the mouthI guess that's in the eye of the beholder, playing something counter to the campaign ethos feels in poor taste to me. Anyway perhaps it's fair to give the paladin something else to compensate? Like a free feat of some sort?
What I was planning on doing is replacing Aura of Courage with this:
At 3rd level, you gain a +4 sacred bonus on saves against spells and effects from creatures of the aberration type. Allies within 10 feet gain a +1 sacred bonus on these saves. This ability functions only while the paladin is conscious, not if she is unconscious or dead.
This ability replaces aura of courage.
One additional change I would make to that ability is instead of just aberrations, I would allow each paladin to select from either outsiders with the evil subtype, evil-aligned dragons, or an undead creatures, and allow the +4 bonus to apply to their choice.
I added a temptation mechanic to it. Every time something messed up happened, I would have the paladin make a save or gain temptation stacks. Temptation stacks reduce range and bonuses of his class features (I had a chart somewhere) and eventually, when he had more stacks than max HP, he would sin and pay the price as described in the class.
Actually it works for any divine class, but i tested it on a paladin. If you keep it somewhat fair and give fair enough chances to relieve said stacks (Such as hot meal and good rest, acts of faith, or encouragement from clergy) it is a fairly nice way to give them their own issues.
In campaign design, remember that Paladins suffer from few skill points and a limited ability pool. Multiple encounters in a game day with no rest can destroy a paladin, so can traps and Neutral monsters. Definitely put traps in. Painful ones.
There is a reason that Paizo campaigns have six distinct parts. No campaign should have a vast majority of one challenge. Horror campaigns are a bit different as evil creatures are basically a must, but still, vary your challenges and one class will lose its carry potential.
Horror Adventures has a suggestion exactly for this. It introduces an alternate 7 tier fear system. Characters with fear immunity instead have penalties as if their fear was 2 tiers lower and 'weak' fear effects (that cause one of the 2 lowest fear tiers) do not increase their fear level.
I have never used that system before though.
Edit: The rules are called "Levels of Fear" and can be found online too.
There is a good archtype in horror adventures to that makes the paladin fit into the horror settings better. but yeah what mimski said.
I think that making some changes to the class so you don't have to ban the class isn't such a bad thing. If you want to allow paladins but think that immunity to fear would ruin the mood of the campaign, having another option seems sensible and the one you mention isn't such a bad option.
Just make sure that the option they choose proves to be useful and powerful anyway so your players don't feel that you are nerfing them a lot. If they feel that they lose something to win something equally useful it wouldn't be problematic.
Killer DM, you might want to check out the 'Fear Immunity' sidebar on page 11 of Horror Adventures. Has rules for your situation. edit: ninjaed by Mimski
Rereading Horror Adventures now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
its like you saying your campaign was going to have fire be very prevalent and your a player finds a class that gives them fire immunity at a reasonable level and your like i'm removing your fire immunity cuz the campaign revolves around you guys taking massive amounts of fire damage so i'm removing your fire immunity and only giving you fire resist 2Your example isn't the same, I mean there's a certian level d-baggery there, but the fear/paladin thing is basically, at least the way I look at it, not saying it's right or wrong just an opinion, a dedicated way of saying F you to the GM and totally finding a way to completely negate something that will be a huge element of my campaign.would you also feel that way if the campaign was only orcs and they wanted to play rangers with favored enemy orc? or the campaign called for 10 point buy and they all went sad casters who also had access to pets?still leaves a sour taste in the mouthI guess that's in the eye of the beholder, playing something counter to the campaign ethos feels in poor taste to me. Anyway perhaps it's fair to give the paladin something else to compensate? Like a free feat of some sort?
I don't really agree. In this case the GM is not just nerfing something a player chose, but designing the campaign rules beforehand so that the players can be challenged, thematically appropriate. (e.g. in your example use hellfire that deals half fire and half unholy damage that can't be reduced)
And your example is a bit exaggerated, since he's actively looking into stuff that'll benefit the player.After all fear IS central to Horror and if the rules a laid out plain beforehand a player can always say "It's not my cup of tea" and don't play in that particular campaign.
And players need to be challenged too. I played a tiefling once in an adventure that as written revolved a lot around dealing cold damage. I was mostly sitting there bored while the party was slowly freezing to death.
Rather than nerfing fear immunity, the OP could do more wis damage and wis drain and use the rules for insanities. After all, Cthulhu has an incomprehensible form that drives those who witness him insane, and he is one of the most famous horror figures, if not the most.
Rather than nerfing fear immunity, the OP could do more wis damage and wis drain and use the rules for insanities. After all, Cthulhu has an incomprehensible form that drives those who witness him insane, and he is one of the most famous horror figures, if not the most.
There's more to horror than Lovecraft.
Rather than nerfing fear immunity, the OP could do more wis damage and wis drain and use the rules for insanities. After all, Cthulhu has an incomprehensible form that drives those who witness him insane, and he is one of the most famous horror figures, if not the most.There's more to horror than Lovecraft.
And then theirs Bye Bye man...(like seriously wtf?)
I always like the ones with the smart pc's (or main actors I guess whatever) That are just in an impossible situation and have to survive. Of course I guess that may not be to horror. I've never been one for straight horror boring really cause it doesn't scare me. ones that are as close to reality as possible do a lot better at it.
If I could believe I could be in that situation an not effortlessly handle it with the appropriate combination of intellect and a baseball bat it goes a long way.
There's more to horror than Lovecraft.
I know. There is also Freddy Kreuger, Jason Voorhees, Chucky, and other horror icons. Horror is meant to be disempowering. Protagonists in a piece of horror aren't supposed to conquer their foes; the most they can hope for is to get out alive with whatever sanity they have left.
And then theirs Bye Bye man...(like seriously wtf?)
Bye Bye Man? Sorry, I don't know what that is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its a horror movie that came out recently. I did not see it. maybe its awesome. I wouldn't ever know cause the name repulsed me that much.
See its easier to dis-empower foolish teens The real trick is dis-empowering intelligent competent people. That would be where the real horror would be.
Also I consider those more slasher flicks then true horror. They just about the blood and gore anymore. Like the first 1-3 (being generous) of their films Did a lot more credit to their genre then like oh everything after.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, and the new fad's jump scares. I prefer the early Silent Hill series and Harvester because I'm always unnerved by how skewed the "normal" world is. That is called the Uncanny Valley.