Caliban_'s page

You could try something crazy, like running the game in a fair and even handed manner.

Without more context, that's the best I got.

A few things I do as a GM to deal with extant scenarios that encourage what I perceive as skill specialization born of meta considerations (in other words, if I have players' characters possessing reasonably rounded skills, these managing techniques aren't necessary):

This sounds like you mean "I arbitrarily change the rules to punish players for investing character resources in skills I don't like players being good at."

Knowledge/Local in pre-adventuring legwork: Even though K/Local usually gives the info anyway, I ask for the other specified knowledge skills first. Only after those are resolved do I admit "ok, everyone with local roll.." to see if a better result pops up.

Meh, as long as you actually let them use the skill, even if you do make them jump through hoops first.

Perception (searches): I don't let the one guy with +23 to Perception "search the whole room" for the party. I encourage each player to pick an area or aspect of the room to search, and only the player(s) who picked the area for a hidden thing even get to roll a meaningful check. I even reward people who cleverly deduce where to search based on the box text to find without even having to roll. Way to go gamer, listen to the clues and don't rely on a skill bonus to do your thinking for you. You automatically succeed even if you had a +0 to Perception b/c you searched in the right place and there it was.

"Hahaha, you invested skill points in Perception, what a fool! I have arbitrarily decided that it has nothing to do with your character's abilities and everything to do with you the player guessing the correct square! The 7 wis barbarian found it because his player is better at guessing than your rogue! Screw the rules, I'm the GM!"

So much for actually trying to do something my character is good at (assuming I'm playing a high perception character). I find heavy handed crap like this seriously frustrating when I'm a player. Just ruins the whole game for me.

Diplomacy: I don't let the dice roll until the roleplay resolves a natural decision point for the NPC, and only people who have been roleplaying even get to touch a die for the test or assist. Sure, some players are naturally introverted and shouldn't be barred from playing faces.. that's a consideration on a case by case basis and is always (not usually, always) obvious right up front.

"You will play the game my way or not at all." Gotcha.

Do you tell players you like to ignore the rules before the game starts, or do you like to keep it as a fun surprise?

kestral287 wrote:

DominusMegadeus wrote:

Murdering people who slight you is not within societal boundaries. On the other hand, he was kind of a jerk for no reason.

Still, you deserve whatever you get.

"For no reason"? Asking for a favor (access to a spellbook-- pretty much the lifeblood of a Wizard) without offering fair exchange, and being rebuffed, is being a jerk for no reason?

"I offered to pay him for the spells he had and he said I wasn't worthy."

Saved the town twice (which the 16 LEVEL WIZARD could have but did not) and offered to pay anyway. Then got denied not for a lack of compensation, but for being 'unworthy'. Yes, the old wizard was a jerk for no reason. Still doesn't excuse OP, but I said exactly what I meant.

Apparently he subscribes to the "NPC's should know their places and kowtow to the PC's" school of thought.

I'm still at a loss as to how he managed to defeat the lvl 16 wizard in the first place.

Limp Lash specifically allows verbal only spells even while paralyzed, and the wizard would have had at least one action before the coup de grace.

Escape via Teleport, use Power Word: Stun (which would also end the Limplash spell ) and teach the lvl 5 wizard a lesson in manners.

Plus any number of other defenses or countermeasures a lvl 16 wizard would normally have available. (Like an Alarm spell or various other wards around his shop.)

I suspect the GM didn't decide he was lvl 16 until after the fight was over.

It seems that the Elven favored class bonus for Arcanist is much better than the similar Gnome favored class bonus for Arcanist.

Elf - Arcanist: Increase total number of points in the arcanist's arcane reservoir by 1.

Gnome -Arcanist: Add 1/6 to the number of points the arcanist gains in her arcane reservoir each day.

It seems like they give a similar bonus, except that the gnome one is much weaker.

Is it supposed to be that the elf FCB only increases your total maximum points without adding to your initial starting points each day, while the gnome FCB increases your initial points without increasing your maximum possible point?

As has been said before - Legacy. When the monk class was originally created (way back in AD&D 2nd edition) there wasn't the variety of character options and concepts that are available today.

All monks came from monastic orders, where they spent long days training and practicing self discipline. They all received exactly the same abilities in exactly the same progression. Very orderly and structured.

Even after character options opened up in 3rd edition, the basic concept of the Monk as someone who gained their abilities from a strict regimen of physical training and self discipline remained.

Later supplements and then Pathfinder opened up many other Monk character concepts and added non-lawful required classes and monk archetypes with similar abilities. Monasteries and monastic lifestyle now only represent a small segment of the total monk population. :p

I really think the Lawful requirement does more to limit the monk than add "required roleplaying flavor" to it these days.

blahpers wrote:

Someone has never been truly panicked before.

Men who have deservedly won the Congressional Medal of Honor have soiled themselves in the conduct of their "above and beyond" duty. That qualifies as Scared ******** and yet they did it.

By definition, they were not panicked. They made their will save and did not run away in fear, they overcame it. They may have been shaken, but they were not panicked.

Being afraid does not mean being confused or otherwise irrational.

Being panicked does.

Personally I don't think a PC should caste Haste or drink a potion unless they could do so as a swift action, or were somehow blocked in their effort to flee and that was the most readily available means of bypassing it. (Yes, I know the panicked condition says you can use spells or special abilities to help you flee faster, but if you have to slow down to use them, I'd rule you have to run instead. You can use them if your progress is being impeded somehow.)

It's not like the Suggestion spell, when you are panicked you don't get come up with plans or reasoned justifications to thwart the compulsion. You just run until you have no choice.

Fear effects suck, and I hate it when they happen to my characters. You are no longer in complete control of your character and you may have to take actions you would normally avoid. But once you fail the save, your options are severely limited. Casting Remove Fear on yourself isn't one of them.

Really, your attempts to justify casting remove fear are the simply the worst kind of metagaming.

The thing that gets me about this type of dilemma, is that it usually seems that the PC's are the first sentient creatures in the game world to encounter it.

Either it just never came up for any other adventuring party, ever, or no one other than the PC's ever had any moral qualms about killing the babies or leaving them for dead.

I mean, if it it's the sort of thing that happens (and it should, unless the PC's are the first adventuring party in the world) from time to time wouldn't there be some sort of custom regarding it?

If "good" people are expected to drop the kids off at a conveniently located orphanage or church, then that implies that there are full blooded orcs (and goblins and kobolds) that have been raised among the core races.

Which begs the question - why can't I play one?

Which in turn leads to the inescapable conclusion:

If I can't play an Orc, then it's OK to kill orc babies.

I've always read it as explicitly allowing you to draw a wand while moving (if you have +1 BAB), and never seen it run any other way.

While I believe that the people who disagree have an honest difference of opinion, it strikes me as an rather unusual way of interpreting the text. Do you usually pull paragraphs apart into individual sentences and divine the meaning of each sentence in isolation from all the other sentences in the paragraph?

Wrist sheathes shouldn't even enter into the discussion - they aren't part of the core rule book, so the rule was written without taking them into consideration one way or the other.

It's a minor 200 gp magic item. It's not supposed to replace thousands of gp worth of mundane outfits, it just gives you an "instant change" option for your clothes. (And still effectively replaces several hundred gp of outfits that are only used for appearance as far as adventurers are concerned).

It would be nice if it gave a +2 circumstance bonus to disguise or something, but it's not really necessary for it's stated purpose (which isn't as a disguise, per se. Just giving you free unlimited outfit changes).