Indeed, that was where I had the question.
It really came up though because of this:
A creature can walk within or through the area of grease at half normal speed with a DC 10 Acrobatics check. Failure means it can't move that round (and must then make a Reflex save or fall), while failure by 5 or more means it falls (see the Acrobatics skill for details). Creatures that do not move on their turn do not need to make this check and are not considered flat-footed.
Emphasis mine.
They specify a situation here (if you do not move) and list the outcome (you do not need to make the check), and a secondary outcome (you are then not considered flat-footed).
My question is that secondary outcome an negative argument, in that here it specifies a condition where you are not considered something, so is the general case that you are considered something [this case being flat-footed]?
It is too late at night, and my brain is fried...I will try again tomorrow.
|
I considered the interpretation that you're proposing, but thought that being able to lay down a patch of flat-footedness seemed too powerful for a first-level spell. Effectively, that would mean that Origen could take away anything's dexterity bonus and make it vulnerable to sneak attacks. Being prone seemed bad enough as a consequence for failing the save.
Maybe only those who failed the Acrobatics check, but didn't fall would be flat-footed? But I'd rather have a PC be prone than flat-footed in some situations (e.g., anytime that the PC was fighting a rogue). Wouldn't that penalize those who make the save?
No flat-footedness. That last bit is just informing you that the grease doesn't impose any additional conditions (like being flat-footed) on anyone who's just standing still in the affected area. In other words, just because they have something slippery underfoot doesn't mean they're more focused on that than defending themselves. So you can't impose flat-footedness on a bunch of people and grant a bunch of rogues an immense kill-zone on everyone trapped inside it. Eric's correct in that that would be way too much power for a 1st level spell.
Well I agree with both of you, just wanted to make sure I wasn't failing to apply some underlying rule that could have been worded poorly.
If I may ask, what time zones -or even better, what countries- are we posting from?
I'm in North Carolina, USA (Eastern Standard Time).
re: Grease - as a DM, I wouldn't allow this spell to be effective on sand as it would soak into the ground and be useless. Just my opinion. But if it works for our benefit, cool!
Certainly Hedgeknight, but I try to not think too hard...magic not physics.
Also, I am in Colorado, and I work a normal day time job, but really deal with insomnia.
Is there a time where it would be better for me to post, to catch you all earlier? I am more than willing to work around a better time for you folks.
I just asked out of curiosity really and to get a sense of around what time you guys post. I am in Greece myself. :-)
NSpicer is from North Carolina, and I believe that Eric is in Colorado also.
Does anyone know where Sully is from?
Also, F. Castor, what is the weather like there? I always wonder about such things...must be the farmer in me.
These days? Too hot for my liking! Our last few summers have been like this actually. I like my weather a little cooler myself. Heh...
|
|
NSpicer is from North Carolina, and I believe that Eric is in Colorado also.
Curn_Bounder might be, but I'm in San Francisco. I usually post during lunch at work and late at night after classes when I really should be sleeping.
As for Grease seeping into the ground, I would propose that magical grease is hard to drain or wipe away. If not, a PC could clean off a Greased object and use it without penalty, which I think is too easy a way to defeat the spell.
As for Grease seeping into the ground, I would propose that magical grease is hard to drain or wipe away. If not, a PC could clean off a Greased object and use it without penalty, which I think is too easy a way to defeat the spell.
The wording of the grease spell says it has to be placed on a solid surface to be effective. Sand doesn't really qualify, in my opinion. I too would have had it harmlessly seep into the ground or nerf it a bit by giving victims an easier save against it. Same goes for muddy, marshy areas, potentially...though they should be slippery enough already and present difficult terrain anyway. Sand could be viewed as difficult terrain as well, if it's deep enough, but unlikely to call for Acrobatics checks to maintain one's footing.
Regardless, I think the most effective use of grease is on stone or metal objects and surfaces. Extending it to natural dirt is okay...and should still work, as even normal dirt is usually hard and unyielding. I just don't view sand the same way unless it's hardpacked sand that's become much more impermeable. Casting grease in the desert probably wouldn't work. Casting it on the tide plain of a beach should...though incoming waves might cut down on the spell's duration as the salt water helps to wash it away more quickly.
And, yes...I'm from North Carolina. ;-)
|
I'll post on the Grease spell discussion, although normally I wouldn't.
To simplify things I agree with DM Berwick interpetation of "it's magic" spell definition.
[steps unto soapbox]
Otherwise, since I am a Chem/Physic major with 20 years background in Applied Env Science I'd be having a coniption if I overthought every bit of inconsistent detail. I come here to play not posit "that can't/won't happen" so I shake my head, do mental somersaults of "what ifs", repress the lecture urges and post for fun. Thats my take. BUT if ya'll want to play devil's advocate here on the OOC forum, I can be teased out to play along. ;-)
["Ahem" Taps the podium]
The Grease spell would not work as intended due to the unstable nature of the sand with no solid surface/undersurface. While the grease would coat every grain of sand, the friction of so many particles would merely end up as a greasy/waterproof slush, a semisolid. To slip and fall your mass must overcome the friction provided by the resisting surface. As the there is no "defined" solid stable surface, your mass sinks into the muck until the mass of particles(Friction/mutual attraction) overcome your mass displacement and then you can move. Think about running in very wet sand at the water/sand interface, very similiar but replacing water with grease as the lubricant. Now if this was packed earth, grass (with tangled roots), bedrock or any other surface that was "cohesive with itself" (resistant to intrusion and disruption) the grease would work as intended.
That my two copper (Cu) pieces. And no, I don't think I am better than anyone else (I deal with those folks all too often), just letting you know where I am coming from. I find it more enjoyable to play then to lecture a group of people who also want to play. Rules discussion, sure. Physics and Chem? Wrong forum.
[/soapbox]
Edited: ARgh!!! Got Ninja's by NSpicer! ;-)
The elf pauses for a moment to let his words sink in before continuing, "We were most likely poisoned. And not with a simple sleep-inducing substance, since both... Jonagher, is it?... and myself would be unaffected by something like that."
This raises an interesting question. Here is the immunity that elves and half-elves have:
Elven Immunities: Elves are immune to magic sleep effects and get a +2 racial saving throw bonus against enchantment spells and effects.
So, do poisons bypass this?
As an example:
Oil of Taggit
Type poison, ingested; Save Fortitude DC 15
Onset 1 minute
Effect unconsciousness for 1d3 hours; Cure 1 save
I have understood it that the immunity covered magic sleep effects, such as those produced by the sleep spell and that like.
What say you.
|
|
Nay.
Potion of ZZzzzzzz: yes. (magic based)
Poison, symptoms which are ZZZzzzzz: no. (Biologic toxin based)
Sap or related non-lethal dmg: no (physiologic reaction)
Exhaust/Fatigue etc: no (see above)
Unless you want to include the Assassin PrC? That provides immunity due to "tolerance". Ooooo Ooooo How about an Elf Assassin with Endurance/Diehard feat. Death by exhaustion for his victims. eh nevermind...
Well, though immune to a potion of sleep since it is a magical sleep effect, I actually do not think elves and half-elves would be immune to poisons, since -going by the above description- poisons cause unconsciousness, which is a different condition than actual sleep.
Likewise, they would not be immune to nonlethal damage obviously, because that once again knocks them unconscious, not puts them to sleep.
By the way, what is it that elves do to rest nowadays? Is it meditation or do they actually sleep? I remember something like 4 hours of meditation/rest in every 24-hour period, but with the change of editions, I am no longer sure what is actually considered canon.
If they, as a species, do not sleep, but meditate/fall into a trance, then I would think that exhaustion and fatigue would cause them to need to rest, which for them would mean meditate/go into a trance. Not sleep, but in this case same difference. But, if that is the case, then you could not make them fall asleep because sleep is not a part of their genetic/physiological make-up as a species; unconsciousness is another deal entirely, however.
In real life terms, while general anaesthetic drugs would probably work since they cause unconsciousness, hypnotic drugs (e.g. diazepam) might not work, since they induce sleep. But this is not real life. :-)
Long story short:
If something causes unconsciousness, it works.
If elves do not sleep and something causes sleep (stated explicitly in the something's description), it does not work, regardless of whether the effect is mundane or magical.
If elves actually sleep and something causes sleep (stated explicitly in the something's description), it works if the effect is mundane, but does not work if the effect is magical.
That is of course my own personal opinion. All in all, I do not mind either way. :-)
|
|
As for Grease seeping into the ground, I would propose that magical grease is hard to drain or wipe away. If not, a PC could clean off a Greased object and use it without penalty, which I think is too easy a way to defeat the spell.The wording of the grease spell says it has to be placed on a solid surface to be effective. Sand doesn't really qualify, in my opinion. I too would have had it harmlessly seep into the ground or nerf it a bit by giving victims an easier save against it. . . .[/quote
Good points, Neil. Sadly for me, the dictionary.com definition of "solid (adj.)" as "firm, hard, or compact in substance" matches your rough classifications.
However, if the grease from Grease spells could seep away so easily, how could a caster grease a suit of chainmail or ringmail? Wouldn't the grease just run off the links or rings? I don't understand why Grease cast on objects would behave differently than Grease cast on solid surfaces.
The friction argument is most convincing to me. However, I'd argue that if a creature sinks an inch or so into loose, slippery sand, the area should at a minimum count as difficult terrain for movement.
Interesting point. Would the effect be deep enough to look at the effected area as quicksand? Difficult terrain at a minimum I would think.
Would you effectively be immobalized for a moment or two (i.e. need to spend a full round action to free yourself) once the grease dissapeared, leaving you partially buried in the sand?
Interesting...indeed!
Berwick
...if the grease from Grease spells could seep away so easily, how could a caster grease a suit of chainmail or ringmail? Wouldn't the grease just run off the links or rings?
In the interests of purely academic discussion and not as an argument, I'd point out that grains of sand are vastly different than chainmail rings...and the whole point of greasing the armor is to make it such that the individual wearing the chainmail can't be easily grappled. The grease is still going to coat the metallic rings. And, collectively, they'll present a slippery exterior for the body beneath...and that's because there's enough solidity to the rings (which are joined together unlike sand) to retain the grease rather than simply let all of it pass through. Thus, sand is much different. Individual grains of loose sand are too small to coat and generate a simliar level of slipperiness. In addition, they aren't joined together to make them into a more unified whole...i.e., a solid surface. And, sand is often used as an equalizer to make slippery conditions (such as ice, etc.) into firmer footing. It's essentially the antithesis of what a grease spell is attempting to accomplish.
I don't understand why Grease cast on objects would behave differently than Grease cast on solid surfaces.
It doesn't. I'm just saying sand isn't a "solid surface." Loose sand (such as that found in the dunes of a beach) shifts underfoot and sinks and displaces all on its own already. Hence, it's not solid enough to support a layer of grease or present something for it to coat. Instead, it acts more like a filter through which the grease can pass until it reaches more solid firmament below the upper layer of sand. By the time the thin layer of grease generated by a grease spell reaches that depth, it's too far removed to make for any worse footing than what the sand itself already presents...i.e., difficult terrain, maybe, but nothing that threatens to topple those walking across it because they lose their balance.
The friction argument is most convincing to me. However, I'd argue that if a creature sinks an inch or so into loose, slippery sand, the area should at a minimum count as difficult terrain for movement.
I agree. In fact, even without grease cast on top of it, I'd suggest that thick, pillowy sand like a deep beachfront sand dune or the middle of a desert should equate to difficult terrain already.
Just my two-cents (and I'm still posting from NC), ;-)
--Neil
|
|
In the interests of purely academic discussion and not as an argument, I'd point out that grains of sand are vastly different than chainmail rings....
No argument? But this is the Internet!
A: Your poorly chosen interpretation makes Grease the most powerful, broken spell ever! Archmages will cast it every round!
B: Au contraire! Your ill-advised nerf makes the spell so lame and useless that any wizard would gouge his eyes out with a spoon before putting it in his spellbook!
Now that I've gotten that out of my system, we both agree that (i) grease shouldn't force a save on loose sand and (ii) loose sand should probably be difficult terrain even without grease.
I think the essential difference between our interpretations is that I think the grease is thick, like shortening or lard, but slipperier. Lard would not seep through either sand or armor rings: It would sit on top of it as a layer because it's too viscous to drain away through small pores. The problems with using it on sand would be the friction arguments set forth by Yuuwa.
You seem to posit a grease that's less viscous, like motor oil. I agree that if the grease produced is the consistency of motor oil, it would drain away into the sand. But the problem with the spell would then also be the grease draining away, not just the friction arguments.
My primary basis for preferring more viscous grease is that I think a less viscous material wouldn't effectively coat a possibly absorbant object (like clothing or cloth armor) or an object with holes (like chainmail) for the full, 1 min/level duration of the spell. Instead, the grease would sink in or partially drip off, which would presumably reduce the +10 bonus to Escape Artist and make a puddle on the floor.
Here are some other test questions:
1) Can you grease a stone ceiling? If viscous, yes. If less viscous, arguably not; it'd drip off.
2) Can you grease the bottom of a 20' by 20' metal sieve? If viscous, yes. If less viscous, arguably not, as it would drain away. You could perhaps claim such a surface is more like chain mail, but I'd say that it would be less slippery than a corresponding surface without holes because most of the grease would drain away.
3) What is used to grease pigs for greased-pig-catching contests? I don't know the answer to this, but the effect is to give the pig a large bonus to Escape Artist. By analogy, magical grease might be similar in consistency to what they use.
You ruin all my best spells, you big mean copper dragon! You too, Spice dragon, or whatever you call yourself! I'm not even going to start about that gorilla.
|
|
In the interests of purely academic discussion and not as an argument, I'd point out that grains of sand are vastly different than chainmail rings....No argument? But this is the Internet!
A: Your poorly chosen interpretation makes Grease the most powerful, broken spell ever! Archmages will cast it every round!
B: Au contraire! Your ill-advised nerf makes the spell so lame and useless that any wizard would gouge his eyes out with a spoon before putting it in his spellbook!
Here are some other test questions:
1) Can you grease a stone ceiling? If viscous, yes. If less viscous, arguably not; it'd drip off.
2) Can you grease the bottom of a 20' by 20' metal sieve? If viscous, yes. If less viscous,...
In the intrest of beating this horse ({snicker}, Yuuwa said Beat..), I'd say the variations all depend on the material components. A pat of butter or lard to decrease the viscousness; Olive oil to increase vicosity. Plus or minus the bonus as the situation needs. Which leads to another question to ponder.
If the spell Grease is merely a process of magical coating, can the material component lend itself to superstickyness such as pine sap or tar; Followed by a handful of feathers; Quick, massive and temporary paint job via camo paint; Ohh the fun we can have. ;)
Now that I've gotten that out of my system, we both agree that (i) grease shouldn't force a save on loose sand and (ii) loose sand should probably be difficult terrain even without grease.
A quick check of the "Environment" chapter in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook doesn't turn up any instance where sand is viewed as difficult terrain...except for the possibility of waterless quicksand of fine particles, which obviously is a lot more than just simple difficult terrain in game purposes. Also, for the purposes of a beach, I still think the wave-pounded sand closer to shore can certainly qualify as a "solid" enough surface for grease to work just as well as it would on stone or metal.
I think the essential difference between our interpretations is that I think the grease is thick, like shortening or lard, but slipperier.
I don't think it matters that much. But, you're correct in that I think of its viscosity as more like actual grease than lard. Hence, the name of the spell. Grease isn't thick like shortening or lard unless it cools and hardens. And when it does, it isn't as slippery as it is when its in liquid form.
My primary basis for preferring more viscous grease is that I think a less viscous material wouldn't effectively coat a possibly absorbant object (like clothing or cloth armor) or an object with holes (like chainmail) for the full, 1 min/level duration of the spell. Instead, the grease would sink in or partially drip off, which would presumably reduce the +10 bonus to Escape Artist and make a puddle on the floor.
I think greased clothing, cloth or leather armor, and even chainmail, would still retain enough residual coating, even from liquefied grease (as opposed to viscous lard) to effectively grant the Escape Artist bonus. In essence, I believe the spell grease would generate enough volume of grease to completely saturate the cloth and even penetrate down to the skin. So, still just as effective as you're imagining.
1) Can you grease a stone ceiling? If viscous, yes. If less viscous, arguably not; it'd drip off.
Sure you can, even if less viscous. Even water dripping from a cavern ceiling would pose a slippery enough surface to impose a problem on anything attempting to crawl over it (such as a spider)...
2) Can you grease the bottom of a 20' by 20' metal sieve? If viscous, yes. If less viscous, arguably not, as it would drain away. You could perhaps claim such a surface is more like chain mail, but I'd say that it would be less slippery than a corresponding surface without holes because most of the grease would drain away.
Certainly. Yes, just like chainmail. Assuming you're trying to keep your balance on the metal sieve floor by standing on it, moving quickly across such a surface of grease-covered metal wires would run the risk of losing your balance. Would it be less slippery than a fully solid surface without holes? No. I don't believe so. That's because the surface area beneath your foot doesn't matter as much as the fact that you're supporting your weight on top of something. And, in the case of the metal sieve, every component with which your foot maintains contact is still coated with something super-slippery. That's all that matters to pose an equal threat to your balance.
3) What is used to grease pigs for greased-pig-catching contests? I don't know the answer to this, but the effect is to give the pig a large bonus to Escape Artist. By analogy, magical grease might be similar in consistency to what they use.
A quick Google search indicates a variety of substances are used, including shortening, vegetable oil, and "other lubricants"...any of them work.
stupid post monster...didn't even have the common decency to eat that last one...just played with it's food and left the table!
|
|
Some questions for DM Berwick:
1) How long does the Diplomacy check to improve NPC morale take?
2) Can one party member with high Diplomacy (i.e., Torden) do checks for all the NPCs?
3) Can another PC use an Aid Another action to help? If so, how many can Aid Another per Diplomacy attempt?
4) Why is Origen eating sand and running from monsters while Frik and Jonagher banter with an attractive redheaded woman? (I know the answer to that: Origen has 8 Wisdom.)
4) Why is Origen eating sand and running from monsters while Frik and Jonagher banter with an attractive redheaded woman? (I know the answer to that: Origen has 8 Wisdom.)
|
|
4) Why is Origen eating sand and running from monsters while Frik and Jonagher banter with an attractive redheaded woman? (I know the answer to that: Origen has 8 Wisdom.)
Ah, but Intelligence is effectively constant for the comparison (14 for both). Thank you for pointing out the "W" term, which I hypothesize is directly proportional to 100/(the square of the 3rd party's Charisma). ;-)
1)There is not much said in the adventure booklet about how long it takes, so I would say as long as a standard Diplomacy check. Which, from a recent re-reading is about 1 minute of "continuous interaction" so...chit chat over breakfast?
2)Certainly.
3) Certainly. I would allow at least one more, but all of you could do it depending on how it was RP'd I suppose.
4)Because Origen was a wizard...and old habits die hard?
|
|
4)Because Origen was a wizard...and old habits die hard?
Harsh, but fair. When Origen finishes his Charles Atlas Blaster Sorceror Training, he won't have to worry about sea scorpions kicking sand in his face.
More seriously, I suggest that we designate Torden as morale officer, and then have many or all of us try to Aid Another.
Also, we should figure out what the prisoner has done and decide if we'll unshackle him. Detect Evil and Detect Law spells might be helpful in identifying how much we should trust him and his word.
I had forgotten about the prisoner. I am guessing Isandril could perhaps have some insight into the matter? After all, he was a member of the crew and probably used to guard the prisoner from time to time.
Certainly.
Yuuwa and Isandril know that he has been aboard for awhile. The name currently escapes me, but I will post it asap. All anyone really knows, except for the Cpatain maybe, is that he is to be delivered to the Sargavan government in Eledar. There was no discussion about what he did, he was just escorted to the hold and chained to the wall down there.
|
|
Thus Yuuwa priority list of looking at Ship logs, Capt quarters and keys. Besides poisoning and then marooning a select group; why was a prisoner released from the brig but kept in chains? Majority of crew and one passenger remain missing? Why did Capt change direction? All these questions and more will be answered in the next episode of "As the Serpent's skull turns."
What are your thoughts on this?
Not particularly fond of gods intervening out of the blue because of some donation, even in such small ways as the article seems to refer to. Of course, it is supposed to happen rarely and under the right circumstances and even then it is a matter of the dice cooperating, so I suppose that limits its occurences quite a bit. And a character could always attribute what just happened to luck or some such and not necessarily think he has been saved by the 'hand' of a deity. All in all, never seen it in action, so I am ambivalent about it.
I love it! In my campaigns, the gods are "real" and sometimes show themselves to the PC's either by means of an avatar or in a vision or by a voice in their mind - of course, this only happens to the most devout PC's, but it happens.
I'm all for this type of intervention.
When putting it that way hedgeknight, I like it as well.
One of my favorite pen 'n' paper experiences was a Dragonlance campaign where the gods tend to be a bit more involved with mortals and their matters than other settings.
I am just not sure I would like divine intervention saving a character because that character happened to donate a gold piece or ten to the relevant temple; if he or she happened to perform some duty to help the deity's faithful or cause, however, or if the character in question is particularly devout, then sure, I am for it. At least as long as it does not happen all the time... :-)
Well, see this is my take on it.
That article is a rough framework for something I have been thinking about for a loooooonnnnnngggggg time.
I see this more as a way to encourage RP, as there are sometimes where characters donate gold, and I don't see it as a measure of coin, but more a measure of power, and put themselves at a disadvantage for it.
There are really good arguments on both sides of the coin, pardon the pun, but the basic framework of pathfinder is that your equipment is part of the equation of power, along with class abilites, and so on.
And certainly there is an argument for saying that if you choose to spend money on RP, rather then new eq, then "oh well for you".
One can certainly view it as donating GP, or making a few skill rolls and donating those and time to some cause, but I feel that there is no reason you can't be rewarded for that behavior. Just because it is "charity" doesn't mean you can get something back for it. Especailly since this is a game.
Anyway, think this all over, and let's have a discussion on wether or not this something we can use for this game.
One can certainly view it as donating GP, or making a few skill rolls and donating those and time to some cause, but I feel that there is no reason you can't be rewarded for that behavior.
Well, as a player, I always leave things like this to the GM. Basically, I trust him to dispense such "good karma" from behind the screen in however he sees fit. I'd prefer not to have a mechanical in-game system for defining exactly how much "karma" you get for a donation of coin or time spent on a deity's behalf. If you're a good roleplayer, that kind of action just flows naturally from portraying your character's faith. Whereas, if you're a roll-player, that kind of stuff is generally a means to chase another power-up in exchange for "losing something" by foregoing the selfish act of spending your gold on yourself all the time.
Secondly, as a GM, it's also my preference not to define such a system of quid pro quo with the divine beings of the universe. Plenty of people donate their life's savings and hard work to a religious cause...and get back nothing but misery, suffering, and persecution in return. Others donate nothing to charitable causes and still reap one blessing after another. Thus, it's a lot more freeform and shouldn't really be locked down into a game mechanic that's black-and-white, in my opinion. But then, I've always been first and foremost a storytelling GM. So, many of my in-game solutions for this kind of treasure-spending discrepancy is based on adapting or altering the story of the game itself to compensate players with the foresight to do that kind of thing. I always look for ways to reward great roleplay. I just don't require an underlying game mechanic to define how I do that.
But that's just my two-cents,
--Neil
|
|
I'm all for this type of intervention.
I'm all for subtle intervention. I'd prefer that if you use some mechanic for tracking it, that we not know how it works (or be able to figure it out easily). I agree with Neil that it would present a temptation to work the system.
In a larger sense, if sacrificing possessions or time to a temple always resulted in benefits, it would be like a form of insurance rather than an act of worship. Even in a polytheistic world, I'm not sure that the good gods would be happy about this sort of quid pro quo relationship with followers. It runs the risk of making them a means to an end.
So, yes, have some interventions as hedgeknight suggests, but don't give us the mechanics to reproduce them.
DM Berwick approving, I could take care of compiling a loot list.
Captain's Cabin:
Keys (in overturned desk)
Sea charts and maps (in overturned desk)
Captain's log (in overturned desk)
Masterwork dagger (in footlocker)
Leather armor (in footlocker)
Holy symbol of Nethys (in footlocker)
Spell component pouch (in footlocker)
2 potions of cure light wounds (in footlocker)
Larder:
Rations, 24 days
Supply Room:
Block and tackle
3 large canvas sheets
2 fishing nets
Grappling hook
2 bullseye lanterns
12 flasks of lantern oil
Hemp rope, 150 ft.
5 shovels
|
|
Thanks, F. Castor. For the purpose of consolidation, here are some of the expedition supplies that we brought on board:
Expedition Supplies
antitoxin (2) (2 x 50 gp)
antiplague (2) (like antitoxin, but for disease; 2 x 50 gp)
body balm (4) (+5 alchemical bonus to Heal checks vs. disease or poison) (4 x 25 g)
vermin repellant (20) (20 x 5 gp)
compass (1 gp)
hot weather clothing (8 gp, 4 lb)
iron pot (8 sp, 4 lb)
wandermeal (100 meals worth) (3 gp, 17 lb?)
pavillion tent (100 gp, 40 lb)
books on Polyglot (10 gp, 2 lb)
journal w. 50 p (2 x 10 gp, 2 x 1 lb)
salt (3 lb, 3? gp)
wand of cure light wounds (CL 1; 40 charges; 600 gp) carried by Torden
slate and 100 pieces of chalk
copies of selected papers from the Venn Expedition's records (the most relevant-seeming)
Of course, we may or may not have all of these, depending on what the people who dumped us on the beach took.
Also, Origen has a hat that can provide an endure elements to one person per day. If needed, we can use it to treat heatstroke, though channelling positive energy would be a more efficient way of doing this for a group.
|
|
To quote another thread on the forum regarding loot.
On another previous yet related subject, regarding the logic/science reality imposing on our little fantasy world...
If so much of the vessel is missing (cargo, flotsam, jetsam, bodies etc), we would see it spread throughout the shoreline, downcurrent of course, as well as 'round the spit o'land.
Just speaking as a retired Coastie. Don't mind me distrubing the storyline... ;-)
|
|
I suggest that we establish some form of organization for the group to coordinate the PCs' efforts at surviving. I'd tentatively propose having three leaders, each with authority over a third of the group, and with veto power over decisions (i) by the other two leaders in combination or (ii) by majority (or 2/3 majority) of us all.
We might want to give the leaders responsibility for different areas (e.g., building and managing food/supplies, hunting/exploring, and fishing/gathering). Also, we should mix up the PCs and NPCs and assign one cleric to each group.
Proposed leaders: Yuuwa (healing + knowledge of sailing + ship authority position), Bran (survival skills + toughness), and another PC. Having been burned by party leadership before, I (and Origen) don't want the job. I'd oppose NPC leaders, though: Having an NPC do a PC job is asking for trouble.
What do you think? I don't like the "split the party" aspect of teams, but we don't have to have rigid divisions (e.g., we could send all or most of the PCs out for exploration).