Damagecrab's page

Is it just me or do some of the rooms in The Crooked House simply not have doors? It looks like there are a couple of rooms solely surrounded by walls.

Damagecrab's situation is not entirely unique. I lost 5 players out of 8 between The Brinewall Legacy and Night of Frozen Shadows.

My players and I had finished the Rise of the Runelords adventure path and decided to continue with the same characters in The Witchwar Legacy and up to 20th level. I needed time to order The Witchwar Legacy and homebrew some adventures past that module, so in the meanwhile, I ran The Brinewall Legacy as a single module from September 2012 to December 2012 with 8 players. We returned to Rise of the Runelords with The Witchwar Legacy in January 2013 and finished in August 2013. Afterward, three players wanted to continue with their characters in Jade Regent. This awkward situation was my fault.

I needed advice, so I started a thread, Amaya of Westcrown. That thread now contains the chronicle of the adventure from Night of Frozen Shadows to the end of The Empty Throne..

The summary of restarting the campaign is:
(1) Due to the oversized party sharing experience points, the party had finished The Brinewall Legacy at 3rd level. With the party dropping down to four (we had recruited a new player), I told them to level up to 4th level, the stated starting level for Night of Frozen Shadows.
(2) One of the missing PCs had been the party healer. I declared that exposure to the Amatatsu Seal had awakened oracle powers in Amaya, Ameiko's half-sister, so that she could be the new party healer.
(3) We said the missing five player characters had not wanted to travel to Minkai so they returned home to Sandpoint in Varisia.
(4) The party met the new PC, Jao, on the road to Kalsgard. Two weeks later, a fifth player joined (we played in a game store, and new players could join in at any time), and the party met his character, Lu, in Kalsgard.

As for the Amatatsu Scion status granted by...

First, I appreciate your input. I read the other thread you mentioned and skimmed Module you mentioned in that other thread. You put as much effort and though as I do and it inspired me to do the following:

*If* I have to bring in new characters, I'll make them current caravan members (hirelings). I could even replace Belevek and Vankor with the new PC's. They've always known the NPC's and we can quickly RP some interactions to build their relationship scores to similar levels with the current PC's. Since we are currently at Brinewall but haven't found the seal, they should arrive just in time to become scions.

Again, I REALLY appreciate your input. Quite valuable!

I have what I hope is unique situation. I'm running Jade Regent for 5 players. 3 of them may leave. 2 of them want to continue the game. I have worked very hard on this game and I don't want to just throw it away. We're currently exploring Brinewall castle. If I have to replace half the party. Do I start over or do I integrate them into the game where we are? If I integrate them, how do I get them invested in the NPC's? If I start over, how do I prevent my two remaining players from metagaming?

I appreciate any advice. Thank you.

According to their descriptions; the Lodestone Arrow does half damage and the Thistle Arrow does its damage over 1d6 rounds. What damage modifiers are included in these calculations? I have a rogue who uses a composite shortbow with a +1 STR bonus. Here are his current damage modifiers:
1) Comp SBow, +1
2) Point Blank Shot
3) Sneak Attack

Here are damage enhancements he may get in the future:
1) Deadly Aim
2) Bracers of Archery
3) +1 Weapon Enchantment
4) Vital Strike

Thanks for your input!

Actually. I'm the GM in this particular game though it will probably end tonight. I just don't want to make a random ruling that I can't back up with some sort of reason. I'm using the summoner as NPC Party Support. It looks like there aren't any hard and fast rules so I'll just do what makes sense in the moment.

I do appreciate the input. You both made a lot of good points.

Darrell Impey UK wrote:

They wouldn't stack, as each template would, effectively, be coming from a different plane.

And? You do know there is a Chaotic Good aligned plane, just like there is a Lawful Evil aligned plane?

A Fiendish creature comes from an evil-aligned plane, a Resolute creature comes from a law-aligned plane. A Fiendish Resolute creature comes from a Lawful Evil aligned plane, like Hell.

Ok, so a creature summoned from a CG plane could be Entropic and Celestial, but if I then take the Shadow Summons, could I add a shadow template as well? Shadow creatures have alignments too, right?

They wouldn't stack, as each template would, effectively, be coming from a different plane.

OK. That makes sense. So would all my creatures just be entropic or can I just choose between Entropic, Celestial, or Fiendish?

And are there any templates that aren't tied to a plane?

I have a CN Summoner. In the description of Summon Monster, it states; "Creatures on Table: Summon Monster marked with an "*" are summoned with the celestial template, if you are good, and the fiendish template, if you are evil. If you are neutral, you may choose which template to apply to the creature. Creatures marked with an "*" always have an alignment that matches yours, regardless of their usual alignment."

At the bottom of Summon Monster, after the last table, it states,
"This creature is summoned with the celestial template if you are good, the entropic template if you are chaotic, the fiendish template if you are evil, or the resolute template if you are lawful; you may choose any if you are neutral."

The reason I am asking is because the first part says I chose and the second part says I it is summoned with the template. If I can't simple templates, then it sounds like being Chaotic Neutral ruins my choice of Celestial or Fiendish. Or maybe I get to choose between the 3?

If I can stack then what stacks? Resistances, SR, and DR don't, obviously. What about the pluses to CR? If I stack Celestial(+1) and Entropic(+1), the Acid 5 won't stack but it will add Fire 5, The DR/Evil and DR/Lawful won't stack but the better one benefits them and it will end up with Smite Lawful and Smite Evil (which obviously don't stack against a Lawful Evil Creature) but shouldn't it then get a +2 to CR?

I'm good either way, I just want to know how to handle this going forward.

Alignment isn't the issue in the second case -- being a jerk towards other players is. I am playing a lawful good Sorcerer in a game where I would happily cast a Burning Hands spell at a group that includes my party's tank -- but in my game, the tank in question is a Bloodrager who has resist fire 10 and a +2 bonus to saves vs. fire. But it appears from your description that the party tank had no similar abilities and that the player could have done just as much damage to the enemy from a slightly different position without hurting an ally.

I wouldn't confront the player over the sleeping person he killed (as it seems like a communication error more than anything else) but I would confront him about unnecessarily hurting his allies.

From Earlier:

Well... here's where it get's strange. The CN Character is a Soulknife 1/Oracle 2 who started the Campaign as Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral. So our first impressions were based on that. Then he "had an accident", the trauma from which caused his Oracle Curse and an alignment change to Chaotic Neutral. The only reason for this change was "flavor". However, he knew after 3 levels (Almost 4) of working with us that we were all good and played that way. The character had no history of cruelty and knew we all abhorred it. Given that context, I would disagree with the validity of "miscommunication". We had captured enemies multiple times in the past. That should have been the expectation.

Let people define their own alignments unless most of their actions are basically the opposite of their alignment. A LG character constantly committing LE actions might be worth a conversation with after the game. Don't get involved with alignment, let players define their own moral compass; everything else is messy and detracts from fun.

If the members of the team question their party member's actions in game is fine. Let them handle it through role play or out of game if it's a huge issue, but keep alignment out of it, just make it about enjoyment of the game.

Normally, I would agree and, in fact, I am going to attempt that in this case. The additional problem (which I didn't originally declare) is that this isn't the first time he has done this.

In a previous game he was playing a CN character and I was playing a LE character hired and therefore under contract with the party. He screwed up something in a fight and my character laughed at him. His reaction to shoot me in the chest with his composite longbow. I personally thought this was out of the purview of CN but I handled it in character by silently declaring the contract breached, swore a vendetta, and working to turn the party against him. Then, after a particularly dangerous fight; I attacked him in revenge for breaking the contract. I had him down to 2 HP but another character jumped in (my Wife, even) and intervened on his behalf. He killed me next round.

That was interesting. This time it's detracting from the game.

Okay and did he step backwards away from the the enemy after casting instead or did he just stand still? Because if he backed away it makes some sense if he stands still not so much.

He stayed still.

Someone up thread said that in the situation there is a reason the women are attacking the PCs but the OP hasn't told us if the characters know that reason yet. As such all they know is that these people have jumped them before and tried to kill them, they're enemies there isn't any reason to keep them alive unless you want to interrogate them.

We knew where the Shard was and that the Tower Girls were here. We expected resistance, to be sure. We didn't know why they were here, though.

The OP also said that the party told the sneaky person to "go deal with them" "deal with them" is very commonly used as a euphemism to kill somebody, without further explanation it would be reasonable for the character to assume they wanted the potential threat dead.

Well... here's where it get's strange. The CN Character is a Soulknife 1/Oracle 2 who started the Campaign as Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral. So our first impressions were based on that. Then he "had an accident", the trauma from which caused his Oracle Curse and an alignment change to Chaotic Neutral. The only reason for this change was "flavor". However, he knew after 3 levels (Almost 4) of working with us that we were all good and played that way. The character had no history of cruelty and knew we all abhorred it. Given that context, I would disagree with the validity of "miscommunication". We had captured enemies multiple times in the past. That should have been the expectation.

Damagecrab wrote:

gnomersy wrote:

Lay out the positioning this statement doesn't help at all.

|OXX|
|OOT|
|OOE|

O's being empty spaces X's being enemies T being your Tank and E being your so called evil party member. Was this roughly the scenario?

Sorry, I can't remember. I just remember hearing him tell the player he could've avoided it and the player declined, saying something about his character wouldn't care. I know that doesn't help.

*sigh* Well that certainly sounds like the player is playing an evil character with complete disregard for the lives of his allies.

However, if you look at the layout I changed above, a 5ft step to avoid the Tank would allow for two enemies to attack the caster via their own 5ft steps, staying where he was would only allow one enemy to do so. Alternatively if he cast flaming hands where he was and 5ft stepped backwards he could avoid any 5ft steps and attacks from his enemies.

It's entirely possible that a character values his own life above that of his allies and that's understandable, a little evil but understandable.

I just got the orientation from the DM:

|OOEO|
|OOOO|
|OTXO|
|OOXO|

So he could have stepped to the right (his left as he faced south) and avoided the Tank.

Damagecrab wrote:

He wasn't in danger, nor would he have been had he moved. He would have hit only the 2 enemies had he taken it and chose not too, even after it was explained to him.

Lay out the positioning this statement doesn't help at all.

|OXXO|
|OOTO|
|OOEO|

O's being empty spaces X's being enemies T being your Tank and E being your so called evil party member. Was this roughly the scenario?

Sorry, I can't remember. I just remember hearing him tell the player he could've avoided it and the player declined, saying something about his character wouldn't care. I know that doesn't help.

Absent unmentioned mitigating circumstances, both those actions are evil in my book. Doesn't mean the character is necessarily evil, but I'd warn the player that if they keep it up they will need to change alignment to reflect their behaviour.

The DM warned him of exactly that. He still maintains neutrality. The rest of the Party is CG and my character is going to confront him at the end of combat. My character considers what he did to be murder.

Eh his argument was pretty lack luster but if you find an unarmed woman sleeping in a dungeon full of female thieves who you've been attacked by it's a reasonable conclusion to reach that she is one of said thieves and as such an enemy it's still pretty s~!%ty to not check but you could justify it. Also when you ask someone to "deal" with an enemy what do you think is going to happen?

Was there a reason he didn't 5ft step? He'd have to be casting in threat, or he'd hit fewer enemies, or he'd be in a more dangerous position? If not, is there a valid reason he'd want to in character kill the tank?

Now that being said simply acting in an evil manner occasionally is not a reason for an alignment shift. A chaotic neutral character will act evilly and goodly over the course of his life. Just like a fundamentally good person will have done something scummy over his life either on accident or on purpose. And even a fundamentally evil person is liable to do something good at some point in their lives. It sounds like a few isolated incidents so far and one of which is justifiable if it becomes a constant thing he might have to be alignment shifted but that's up to your DM.

He wasn't in danger, nor would he have been had he moved. He would have hit only the 2 enemies had he taken it and chose not too, even after it was explained to him.

So we have a party with 3 CG Characters and 1 CN Characters. We are in a dungeon to retrieve an artifact (Shattered Star) and come across a sleeping female. We have been fighting a band of female thieves since we arrived. The CN is the only stealthy one. We tell him to sneak over and deal with her. He kills her in her sleep. She was also unarmed and unarmored. He did not attempt any other action. When we protested and asked why, he replied, "She was a threat". When we explained that we could have questioned her, he held up her severed head and replied, "Go ahead and ask her."

In the following battle he cast burning hands into an area containing our tank and 2 enemies. He could have taken a 5ft step and avoided the tank, the GM pointed it out and he declined.

Everyone except the CN character considers his actions to be evil. He considers his character to be perfectly Chaotic Neutral.

Are his actions evil? Has he qualified for an alignment shift?