Adagna's page

Lord Foul II wrote:

hey guys. here's an idea.

what if the vampires and whatnot aren't actually always evil, but the one who judges them (pharasma) hates undead (and she does) and it doesn't matter because she has her hate on

the more learned undead who know this would probably act more evily out of frustration

or not act evil to spite her

Wouldn't the more spiteful thing to do be to be good? Then everyone would be like "what the hell is Pharasma's problem? Those zombies are so helpful and thoughtful. One carried my groceries in the house the other day. I hate Pharasma for hating these lovable little scamps!" That would be epic level spite...

HWalsh wrote:

Why remove it, is my thought.

There are tons of ways to narratively accomplish what you need a character undead for without making it undead?

Do you need it to live forever? There are ways to do that.

Why do you need non-evil undead?

Why do you need Evil undead?

No one needs it... because it's already there. It's written into the game just like all the other rules and procedures, and fluff. It just is the way that Paizo wants it to be.

Why not just homebrew a new monster instead of fiddling with a classic and iconic monster that is always, and always has been evil? I just don't understand the need to complicate this...

I don't understand how this constantly comes up. It is extremely clear in RAW that Lich is evil. it lists them under NE, and then under the creation aspect is says the following:

"Creating a Lich

Lich is an acquired template that can be added to any living creature (referred to hereafter as the base creature), provided it can create the required phylactery. A lich retains all the base creature's statistics and special abilities except as noted here.

CR: Same as the base creature + 2.

Alignment: Any evil."

It clearly states, that all the base creatures stats and abilities are retained except the following... and in the "following" it says alignment... ANY EVIL.

Adagna wrote:

For a curse like this to matter they have to care about something. Someone who is supremely apathetic isn't going to care about any kind of curse. Why would he care about a rug if he doesn't care about innocent children being killed? Your hook here for the curse is to define what this character cares about. Until you do that it's an impossible feat.

What I'm looking for is something like a Geas with an undead component - this guy just wants to sit back and chill, but there are cosmic forces who keep throwing him into dangerous situations that he doesn't want to be in and is incapable of handling, in service to a grand destiny that he wants no part of, as part of a prophecy that he doesn't care about but is doomed to fulfill no matter how hard he tries to ignore it.

And on top of that, he can't die, despite the fact that he's constantly getting the crap beat out of him by people who are trying to prevent or hasten this big destiny that he doesn't give a toss about.

It doesn't sound like there are any obvious existing mechanics to cover that kind of thing, so I may just have to make something up.

For inspiration look at "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" by Stphen R. Donaldson. You are basically describing the premise for the series.

Some good ideas here, but I need to keep this curse personal. Let's assume that this character is supremely apathetic and doesn't give a toss about anyone else, so dying children won't really factor into it.

Just to be clear: this is not for a PC. This is a retired PC coming back as an NPC antagonist.

Okay, if you've seen "The Big Lebowski": Imagine that instead of pissing on the Dude's rug, the henchmen stole it and it got shipped off to parts unknown, and that the Dude was cursed to eternally roam the earth until he got his original rug back, but his immortality was kind of half-arsed and provided all of the bad parts of immortality but none of the good. What would that look like and how would you express it in terms of rules?

For a curse like this to matter they have to care about something. Someone who is supremely apathetic isn't going to care about any kind of curse. Why would he care about a rug if he doesn't care about innocent children being killed? Your hook here for the curse is to define what this character cares about. Until you do that it's an impossible feat.

Then I champion Inquisitor all the way. That class lets you do a little of everything, and have your smashy-smashy face hits too!

Are the inquisitors teamwork feats wasted if you are in a group that does not use or have any of these feats to play off of?

How similar are we talking about here?

You just want a heavy fighter with divine/arcane casting or do you also want stuff like smite evil...?

Smite is a cool perk if possible, but mostly looking at the combination of strong fighting plus some spell casting ability.

Is there such a thing if I want to play a character similar to a paladin ie some kind of divine or arcane abilities, heavy armor/fighter type, but without the slippery slope of morality that the paladin are bound to. I'd rather not have to multi-class but that is an option I suppose.

Are there cleric builds or some other archetypes that could mimic a paladins fighting ability but aren't so morally set in stone?

I think everyone deserves a free-be. He just happened to use his up in the first adventure. I think you did the right thing.

Okay so to answer questions

his intent to rid the world evil by essentially controlling it, Ridding the world of slavery, forbidding torture, anything he views as evil. people under his rule are free to live there lives unhindered with the understanding that his rule is law. In his mind Democracy is a flawed system, that puts the most popular in charge not the most competent that's why he doesn't let the people choose, in his mind they lack understanding. it isn't how a villain views heroes as evil as has been brought up, his morals and beliefs do fall squarely under the good category, it's his ways of doing so that are questionable.

His actions depend and change for the situation, he uses both war and democracy. generally he is respectful to those he considers worthy or trustworthy, he doesn't pillage or destroy nations as that would go against his beliefs. He seeks more to unite them under his rule, nations would be allowed to govern themselves still, as one man cannot govern the world alone. That said they all would still answer to him.

It's world domination yes, but in a way that is different than most typical examples.

Remember that acts of evil for him are an option but they are always his last resort. If he must kill, he will. if he must do something abhorrent to make a point he will, but the justification for doing so must be there.

Given that I would say definitely Lawful Evil. Maybe in a stretch Chaotic Neutral since he is willing to do whatever. But a willingness to do evil acts as a last resort I think requires the Evil tag.

Magic Jar is necromancy not enchantment. Enchantment seems to be a prerequisite for it to be considered a mind affecting spell.

I have used THIS on Thanksgiving.

That's totally "John Dies at the End"! Lol great movie.

My vote would be LE. But it really boils down to intent, and actions.

So what is the intent? which you say is for the greater good, but is dominion really better then freedom? Might be better for your character but I would say worse for many or the people being dominated for the sheer fact that they are not free to choose.

And the actions aspect. How is your character achieving this goal? If by anything other then democratic election of this world domination I would have to say Evil is your only option. If you go the route of diplomacy and convince everyone they need you then Neutral would be an option I think.

One survival tip is to put rocks from a fire into a contained body of water to sterilize/boil it. It works reasonably well for a small amount of water. Get a bigger rock or piece of metal and heat it up even more then a camp fire would be capable of and theoretically it should boil your water but not for the sustained amount of time you are talking about.

Adagna wrote:

A fine sized gun shouldn't be able to hurt anything except other fine sized creatures if even that IMO. The amount of gun powder is a fine sized fire arm would probably be equivalent to a crappy air gun.

True IRL - but that's alo true of any weapons that a fine sized creature wielded IRL.

That is true. Still as a GM I don't think I would allow firearms under small size via House Rule. Or if I did it would be like 1 in a million to find a gunsmith to fix, and or create one of that size.

A fine sized gun shouldn't be able to hurt anything except other fine sized creatures if even that IMO. The amount of gun powder is a fine sized fire arm would probably be equivalent to a crappy air gun.

I believe the "half speed" note is supposed to represent your horizontal movement. For every square you move over, you're also moving one square up. Hence the 45 degree angle. So if your Fly speed is 60' and you wish to ascend at a 45 degree angle, you would move 30' on the game grid (6 squares). You would then note separately that your character is an additional 30' up in the air. It's a little clunky, and limiting at times, but the game wasn't designed with three dimensions of movement in mind. Making more complex maneuvers than a 45 degree ascent/decent, going straight up or down, moving horizontally, or simply not moving at all requires a much more involved rules system, which Paizo elected to eschew for other rules that were more likely to come up.

So to answer the question, the only RAW way to take a 5' step with a Fly speed is straight up, down, or over. I don't think it would be outrageous to house rule that a 5' step is possible at other angles, though.

The 60ft would be the distance traveled up at 45 degrees correct? So the actual linear travel would be 42'. Rounded down = 40'. You would also at that point be 40' off the ground and have traveled 60'.

Rejuvenation (Su)

One day after a graveknight is destroyed, its armor begins to rebuild the undead horror's body. This process takes 1d10 days—if the body is destroyed before that time passes, the armor merely starts the process anew. After this time has elapsed, the graveknight wakens fully healed.

If you don't destroy the armor you don't destroy the Graveknight. He's coming back given your scenario.

However I don't see anything in the description of the Bag of Devouring that would lead me to believe they it spits out inorganics. In fact the description reads "this intelligent cursed item believes it is the favored maw and most important appendage of a fabled creature it refers to as the Eater of All" All means all in my book.

So IMO there is nothing left. No loot, not armor, no nothing. It's all gone, down into the stomach of the Eater of All.... or wherever it really goes.

Adagna wrote:

fictionfan wrote:

Lots of religions claim to put mechanics on things. They just fail at it.

Also I did not know about the losing your memory thing. That sucks I would not consider it to still be myself if I lose all my memories. There is only one thing for it. have to figure out how to make everyone immortal. Whatever the inevitables might say.

You are definitely still you even if you don't have your memories. You did lots of things before the age of 3 or 4 or whenever your first real memory exists. That doesn't mean that you were you before that, you just changed and developed more. Well passing on could be the same thing. It's still you but that time when you were alive exists in a part of your being that you just don't remember. You know stuff happened but not exactly what.

Yeah, but I'm functionally not the same person I was at age 3 or 4.

Neither would you functionally be the same person after death. Not a dissimilar transition.

Lots of religions claim to put mechanics on things. They just fail at it.

Also I did not know about the losing your memory thing. That sucks I would not consider it to still be myself if I lose all my memories. There is only one thing for it. have to figure out how to make everyone immortal. Whatever the inevitables might say.

You are definitely still you even if you don't have your memories. You did lots of things before the age of 3 or 4 or whenever your first real memory exists. That doesn't mean that you were you before that, you just changed and developed more. Well passing on could be the same thing. It's still you but that time when you were alive exists in a part of your being that you just don't remember. You know stuff happened but not exactly what.

Again that's why I say it would have to be GM okay-ed. A passive aggressive pissed off GM can ruin any good idea. I personally would welcome the depth of flavor/game-play of a PC taking on an entrepreneurial endeavour.

If it is something your character wanted as an adventurer then the chances of it not selling would be next to zero. Some other adventurer will snap it up. If it is a randomly generated magical item that came out of a chest in a dungeon, and is more or less useless or not that useful then it might sit on a shelf and collect dust. At that point it would make sense to unload it on another merchant for half the value.

thejeff wrote:

Which conveniently would work out to you selling the gear you found to your store at half cost and being able to buy gear from it at full price. Or thereabouts.

Because free money is game breaking.

And because most of us really aren't looking for a rousing game of 'Expenses and Exemptions'

You might be surprised try searching "Acquisitions Incorporated".

The selling your items for half is only assuming you are selling to a retailer who has to make a profit. Or that you are selling on Pathfinder Craigslist "For sale" and so not at full retail. But if you are a character have a full retail shop, and you sell the item it sells for full retail. You would also have to calculate all the expenses of the shop via I think Ultimate Campaign? I could have the book wrong... but at any case, yes you can sell at full retail under certain circumstances. Which obviously would have to be okay-ed by the GM seeing they would have to precipitate the signing of a shop lease or construction of said building etc etc.

Gotcha that makes sense.

I guess this is all the more reason to set up a magic item merchant shop in your local metropolis. Then you can sell your old ring for 8,000 and get your shiny new ring with added abilities for 24,000. But then the next step would just be to employ a magic item mage sweat shop and then you could get the ring at cost and sell the old ring at full value and then you get the shiny new ring for only 8,000... I suppose you would have to factor in the cost of labor/salary for your sweat shop mages...

It clearly references it is carrying the item in their hand/hands. So if the horse is carrying it's rider around in its hand then I suppose this technicality stands. But since horses don't have hands you lose.

Now I might allow it if a dragon or something were carrying off a friend and you disarmed it I could allow the dragon to drop what it is carrying ie the person being carried and not merely just an item.

The PRD disagrees with you.

PRD

Adding New Abilities wrote:

Sometimes, lack of funds or time make it impossible for a magic item crafter to create the desired item from scratch. Fortunately, it is possible to enhance or build upon an existing magic item. Only time, gold, and the various prerequisites required of the new ability to be added to the magic item restrict the type of additional powers one can place.

The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword.

If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character's body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.

This example shows that adding Invisibility (20,000) to a Ring of Protection +2 (8,000), costs the same as the cost of a Ring of Invisibility multiplied by 1.5 (20,000*1.5=30,000) and not Ring of Invisibility plus half of the original ring (20,000+8,000/2=24,000).

/cevah

I am having trouble following your math. They way the rule is written is that in your example when adding invisibility to the +2 protection would be a total cost of 38,000. 8,000 for the original ring, plus 20,000 X 1.5.

Doing it from scratch all at once would cost 20,000 + 8000x1.5 = 32,000

Cevah wrote:

Read that again, please.

"each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price"

Nothing indicates a later addition has to be a lower priced addition.

That is why you add a Heavy Load Belt (1,000) to a Belt of Strength +2 (4,000) for a total of 5,500 rather than add a Belt of Strength +2 to a Heavy Load Belt, which would be 7,000.

Actually, I believe the 'multiple different abilities' text is meant to refer back to the 'multiple similar abilities' text where it IS stated that the most costly ability goes first;

"Multiple Similar Abilities: For items with multiple similar abilities that don't take up space on a character's body, use the following formula: Calculate the price of the single most costly ability, then add 75% of the value of the next most costly ability, plus 1/2 the value of any other abilities.

Multiple Different Abilities: Abilities such as an attack roll bonus or saving throw bonus and a spell-like function are not similar, and their values are simply added together to determine the cost. For items that take up a space on a character's body, each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price."

The two bolded phrases seem to be referencing the prior section. At which point, "additional power" would seem to mean 'after the most costly' and the order you add the abilities doesn't matter... the price is the same (5,500 gp in this case) either way.

I'd have to agree with you're reading and understanding of this rule. They are referencing the previously stated convention of ordering the enchantments by value. This is obvious when you look at the bolded text. It is referencing the discount given in the previous rule with similar enchantments. it is not creating a new rule/convention, but adding to it.

I have personally played in a couple of games where the GM would set the diplomacy DC based on what you actually said. If he liked it then you would get a lower DC if he didn't or it went down the wrong path you got a high DC. I guess that is what I mean by being penalized by not knowing the right words to say.

Until I started to analyze some of the new players at the PFS tables who were inexperienced or just not as mature as their character would be, they end up being penalized IC.

I started to think, we don't ask our players to actually scale a sheer wall, so why do we ask them to actually talk the NPC off the ledge...

I do agree the more descriptive a player can be the better, but not everyone is as good at that as others. We can't all be best selling authors/story tellers.

I think the issue more at hand is peoples obsession with "what is an evil act".

For example last weekend at a PFS game We were presented with a combat with 6 Ninja. 3 of them were either put to sleep or Dazed so that they were prone, and no longer an immediate threat. My rogue took the opportunity to slay an enemy while they were vulnerable and to simplify things I said "I'm going to coup de grace them". To which the entire table erupted with a resounding "That is an evil act!!!". So I proceeded to take a full round two weapon sneak attack and actually did more damage then I would have if I coup de grace probably. To which the table had no issue... because somehow it was no longer an evil act because it was simply an attack... I was and still am super confused by this but I rolled with it.

So long story short I think peoples obsession with what is and isn't an evil act is really what is wrong with this mechanic rather then simply being a Paladin problem. They just suffer more directly from it because it holds an immediate negative consequence for them and not so much for everyone else.

So I have noticed both in reading, video, and real life playing that many GM's myself included often "force" players to dialogue out any interaction with NPC's for diplomacy and intimidation etc. This is always justified by immersion or role playing. However I just got to thinking about this from another perspective.

We don't ask our players to describe in detail how they will disarm that magic trap, or what exact techniques are being used to extract an alchemical poison etc... something they likely would not know how to do in their personal OOC life. But many players are equally challenged on how to actually speak diplomatically or in an intimidating way. Yet we expect our player to actually be able to speak in the way their character would speak even if they are not personally skilled in it.

This seems like a double standard. A player should theoretically be able to pull the "disarm magic traps" card and say "I don't personally know what to say, but my character would, I want to speak to the unruly mob diplomatically to calm them down" and then roll a diplomacy check, just as they would if they said "I want to disarm the magic trap". I see so many example of GM's who stop and say "well what are you actually saying to them?". I think if you as a player know what you would want to say you should be able to, and maybe reward them with an additional +1 or something if it is really good. But players shouldn't be penalized for not being good at what their PC is good at IMO.

Chengar Qordath wrote:

Ashram wrote:

Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:

"Slashing doesn't do full damage to the foe in full plate!"

"Well, greatswords actually do more bludgeoning damage anyways as they were meant to be heavy enough to do blunt force trauma through the armor of their time!"

That's the kind of argument you can expect in "realism" debates.

God, I hate when people imply that swords like greatswords were kept dull and used like big clubs. D:<

A greatsword is only dull if someone is expecting it to be kept a keen razor edge, which would just be impractical if the sword seeing any kind of regular use. It's still sharp enough to ruin someone's day.

Naturally. It would take a lot of work to keep a greatsword at shaving sharp level. But there are people who seriously believe that swords of all types in the Middle Ages were kept either dull or just barely sharpened because "blunt force trauma works just as well".

The only reason to keep a sword shaving sharp is if you are cutting through commoners with no armor. Even then you will likely notch the blade on a rib, femur, or vertebrae. A sword that sharp would not stay that sharp for long unless you spent hours honing it after each battle which could have been done seeing as it was the time of servants and squires and the nobles/knights were not doing it themselves. They weren't dull but I highly doubt they would even pass the simple "paper test". I'm not sure many wasted their time sharpening their swords that much unless they were designed for slashing in fights with mostly unarmored foes. If you look at most occurrences of cutting/slashing weapons they existed in periods of low/no metal armor ie katana or were designed for piecing ie rapier.

Both are not that great, really. If you have some decent Charisma, maybe Skill Focus (UMD) and use a Wand of CLW to heal yourself out of combat.

Is yoou have +0 CHA, with 7 Ranks and +3 from the Skill Focus, you have 55% to activate a Wand. Just don't roll a 1. And UMD will help you MUCH more in your adventurer career.

I have 3 ranks in UMD and a -1 Cha modifier, and UMD is a class skill, so I have a +5 on UMD at the moment.

Skill focus on UMD seems like more of a waste then being able to boost AC or heal myself.

I'm still new to the game so I am still learning the strategy and what not, but how is a +1 AC ever going to be worthless?

I am playing a PFS unchained Rouge. Strangely I end up tanking about half or more of the times I play, mainly due to my AC 18. I spent every last GP I had getting +1 darkleaf lamellar leather. In the last scenario I played this armor is the only reason I didn't die like 3-4 times. That last play put me into 3rd level, and I am debating between dodge for a +1 AC, or Godless healing so I can heal myself if I do get hit. Several times we have had to play with no healer in the group, at best a caster with a wand of CLW. But being able to be more self sufficient with healing would be ideal since I am also usually behind enemy lines flanking.

Is it more valuable to have a AC 19 over an AC 18, and possibly get hit less often or be able recover from a hit since I only have 18 HP.

You say "Give up their souls", not die, pass from existence, etc. That wording is the key to this whole scenario playing out. I'd say that they each have an on-going role in the new deity. Something like a hydra, multiple heads different goals but one being and each with more power then they had separately.

IMO some could be controlled and some could not. The difference is in the intent of the effect. IE the harpy can not choose how her voice comes out, its a constant effect when she signs (it's worded "When a harpy sings", "not if a harpy chooses to activate"...), Medusa is also constant etc. So a succubus can not turn this on or off. It is a constant effect.

You maybe could come up with a way around it, such as a special salve or something that could create a magical barrier to the effect, but IMO a redeemed succubus would have to be chaste or fall.

Otherwhere wrote:

In RL, a garotte would basically coup-de-gras in 1 round.

Only in the movies. In "RL," it takes a lot longer than 6 seconds to strangle someone to death.

Derailing slightly... I was playing a PFS scenario last week and there were two hostages that were hung (standing on a bench, the bench was kicked out). The counter started, I wrongly assumed it was even remotely realistic... they died in 3 rounds... seriously two average grown adult males suffocated to death in 18 seconds? Even if I 100% exhale the air out of my lungs I can hold my breath for twice that. If you cut the standard time a person could hold their breath dramatically for dramas sake it should still take 6-10 rounds to suffocate someone.

That is one of my main grips about the pathfinder system. They seem to apply the 6 second round only to certain things that suit their whims. I have always thought that a standard round should be closer to 20 seconds not 6, based on all of the things that can happen in a round.

How I would interpret it, and put it into practice as a GM is: You're basically making a robot. It doesn't say it can't retain information it just can't process that information more efficiently or in different ways. Basically it can't learn new skills.

In regards to your receptionist it wouldn't learn that if you say this, or do that, you will get more tips. It would remember who came in before, but not how to interact with them differently. She could read a self-help book and retain the information but would be incapable of putting any of that information into practice. She could however recite back the information.

The iconic version of this trope is of course Aahz, the mentor for the bumbling wizard apprentice Skeeve. Aahz lost his powers because they were taken away as part of a joke by his best friend who was killed before he could put them back.

And this is why practical jokes are never funny....

CWheezy wrote:

What if he used to be a level 20 wizard that yolo mages disjunctioned an artifact and lost all his spellcasting.

CWheezy has the right idea. He could have even used a scroll of it.

Mages Disjunction wrote:

All magical effects and magic items within the radius of the spell, except for those that you carry or touch, are disjoined. That is, spells and spell-like effects are unraveled and destroyed completely (ending the effect as a dispel magic spell does), and each permanent magic item must make a successful Will save or be turned into a normal item for the duration of this spell. An item in a creature's possession uses its own Will save bonus or its possessor's Will save bonus, whichever is higher. If an item's saving throw results in a natural 1 on the die, the item is destroyed instead of being suppressed.

You also have a 1% chance per caster level of destroying an antimagic field. If the antimagic field survives the disjunction, no items within it are disjoined.

You can also use this spell to target a single item. The item gets a Will save at a -5 penalty to avoid being permanently destroyed. Even artifacts are subject to mage's disjunction, though there is only a 1% chance per caster level of actually affecting such powerful items. If successful, the artifact's power unravels, and it is destroyed (with no save). If an artifact is destroyed, you must make a DC 25 Will save or permanently lose all spellcasting abilities. These abilities cannot be recovered by mortal magic, not even miracle or wish. Destroying artifacts is a dangerous business, and it is 95% likely to attract the attention of some powerful being who has an interest in or connection with the device.

This could make fore some pretty good back story flavor. Say the rival evil mage was going to unleash some devastating evil artifact. An Armageddon Clock or something that would have wiped out an entire continent. Your character cast the disjunction spell to save everyone and lost their spell casting. To add insult to injury the news of this plot was covered up by the powers that be so that panic did not ensue with the populace. So no one even knows that your character is an epic hero, saved everyone and is worthy of a multitude of bards to write songs about him... and that he sounds like a raving lunatic if he tries to tell everyone that he saved them.

Adagna wrote:

Mana Chicken wrote:

Alright thank you guys. I honestly don't know if I'll be going back to that game or not. I am apparently getting a bad reputation for leaving games in my community but only because of bull s%@+.

My first game I left because the guys refused to smoke outside, knowing that I can't breath around ciggarette smoke indoors. They gave me a bottle of febreeze...the DM from that game still gets pissed at me every once in a while asking if I'm going to just up and leave the current campaign I'm part of for no reason.

My second campaign was canceled by the DM because of a huge argument but I would have left anyways because the DM's wife was a LG cleric but she was NOT acting like her character should. She attacked me (a LG Paladin) over a stupid evil holy symbol I picked up that she wanted to destroy. Then the DM started arguing over how theres no reason for me to want that symbol. I'm sorry, the LG character attacks another LG character in the same party and me picking up a stupid trinket is your problem???

The third game I left because the DM brought in another player to be the boss for a boss battle but I absolutely did NOT like that guy because he was an a*# h+$* so I said I wasn't coming for the final fight. Then when the guy said he wasn't showing up I told the DM I was fine coming back but NOBODY came to the final boss battle and the DM just ended it because he was tired of the campaign anyways.

Now there's this campaign....I have horrible luck with this crap and unfortunetely my future gaming is suffering because of it.

I have to say I would have sided with the Paladin on this one. Standing in the way of the paladin doing her job wasn't very LG of you. IMO you were the one not acting in alignment...

It was the Cleric wanting to destroy the trinket. I was the paladin that picked it up as loot. She started getting aggressive towards me so I made her an offer. She recently did something that made the party not trust her so in order to...

What was your reason for wanting to keep it? Why was it so important to a LG paladin to keep an evil holy symbol? That doesn't sound very in character to me unless it served some greater purpose to thwarting evil and in that case I think it would have been your responsibility to communicate the plan to her and the group. Otherwise as GM I would have required atonement from you for doing it.

I don't really think there is anything wrong with adding damage reduction or something like that to slashing weapons on heavy armor. It makes sense, adds another level of interest into the game and weapon choice. I'd argue for damage reduction or something like that instead of 100% immunity to it since the impact of the blow will still carry over to the person inside the armor even if they aren't actually "slashed" by it. Something like Slashing weapons against heavy armor deal half bludgeoning damage instead of full slashing.

It unnecessarily complicates combat and the game, but I think it's a viable house rule if he feels that strongly about it.

Alright thank you guys. I honestly don't know if I'll be going back to that game or not. I am apparently getting a bad reputation for leaving games in my community but only because of bull s%@+.

My first game I left because the guys refused to smoke outside, knowing that I can't breath around ciggarette smoke indoors. They gave me a bottle of febreeze...the DM from that game still gets pissed at me every once in a while asking if I'm going to just up and leave the current campaign I'm part of for no reason.

My second campaign was canceled by the DM because of a huge argument but I would have left anyways because the DM's wife was a LG cleric but she was NOT acting like her character should. She attacked me (a LG Paladin) over a stupid evil holy symbol I picked up that she wanted to destroy. Then the DM started arguing over how theres no reason for me to want that symbol. I'm sorry, the LG character attacks another LG character in the same party and me picking up a stupid trinket is your problem???

The third game I left because the DM brought in another player to be the boss for a boss battle but I absolutely did NOT like that guy because he was an a*# h+$* so I said I wasn't coming for the final fight. Then when the guy said he wasn't showing up I told the DM I was fine coming back but NOBODY came to the final boss battle and the DM just ended it because he was tired of the campaign anyways.

Now there's this campaign....I have horrible luck with this crap and unfortunetely my future gaming is suffering because of it.

I have to say I would have sided with the Paladin on this one. Standing in the way of the paladin doing her job wasn't very LG of you. IMO you were the one not acting in alignment...

If Sword Coast Legends is even half as customizable/moddable as NWN, it'll be great. Hope the community jumps on that ASAP.

It's too bad that the PS4 version is still over a year away from release.... :(

Magic must have some physical conduit through the human body. Hence why some can master it and others can not.

You could have the loss of magic be due to researching a powerful new spell that he tried to cast before he had mastered it. And due to some kind of epic magical "fumble" he "burned out" his conduit to the magic. Or the rival mage sabotaged his experiment to intentionally cause this damage.

You could have the government confiscate the dangerous artifact to add a wrinkle in the story. They have to figure out how to get it back, either by stealing it, bribing it back, or by convincing the local magistrate that they mean no harm, give details of what they are trying to do or lie about it I guess.

Perhaps that will help the players realize that what they are doing isn't something that should be discussed in open with the local bar maids. and they need to use a little more discretion in their adventures.

I like the idea of removing the artifact to give them a road block, and it would work out to be very realistic without being long term devastating to the campaign.

I don't see this as so much a reward for just saying your character is sneaking everywhere to get extra experience at sneaking. This isn't like Skyrim where you would just sneak everywhere and gain a level. Something like that offers nothing to the game via roleplaying. It would be for describing a particularly epic use of the stealth skill to do something unexpected or heroic or whatever the DM designs as worthy of this bonus. Down time would have nothing to do with this unless you roleplayed the down time.

In the past I have played with a GM who would award skill proficiency/levels or make it a class skill through role playing. In one instance a character I played was constantly coming up with ridiculous stories and excuses for why certain things were happening ie why he had just snuck up into the lady of the house's bedroom through the window.... I was awarded perform:comedy or something similar.

Curious what others think of this house rule. I like the idea and I think it encourages more vigorous role playing since there is possibly a more tangible reward for it.

As a side note, this GM would also award different amounts of XP based on good role playing. Does anyone else do this? I do like this idea but it did start to make a difference since certain players who were better at this did slowly advanced faster then the rest of the party.

There are several things in here that strike me as ironic.

The one who spent so much time and energy protecting others has to take a life to continue on... true the life was offered up in sacrifice, but the accepting of the sacrifice would be truly out of character.

Where would a group so devoted to the denial of earthly possessions and wealth come up with 120,000 GP to build a reliquary? If they came up with 120,000 GP would they not build an orphanage (or some other adequately good thing) instead?

If you substitute rapeseed, or alfalfa for the flax you could make them beekeepers and have some encounters with bee swarms. Perhaps have them command the bees.

Perhaps even have some encounters with the Thriae.