I haven't found this one in an FAQ yet (if it is in there, a link would be much appreciated :) ), so here goes:
I am running a "Season 0" scenario next weekend. Among the PCs, there are Grand Lodge members, and a Sczarni- however, there are no faction missions for those factions in the scenario.
So, what I am wondering is: what should I do with the Prestige Award here? Is there a way for these players to pick up PP at all, or are they just out of luck?
My advice is not too worry too much: when you play a paladin, just make sure to be considerate and to show scruples: be a good guy, be dependable, and be a teamplayer, and that should be enough, whether your god is NG, LG or LN.
Oh, and about the pantomime check: I think I would ask the player to show how his/her character pantomimes the command, and possibly assign a DC to some roll or other based on that. But again, that's all outside the realm of RAW.
How about a Perform: Pantomime check to communicate one's commands? But against what DC and how would the DC be determined?
Obviously, there is no RAW answer, yes? So expect table variation?
Yes, that might be the best answer: there really is no RAW answer to this question. Which is a good thing, really: charm spells, after all, are roleplaying opportunities first and foremost :-)
Charm Person is easy, it does, after all, not give you full control over your victim. These two lines in the spell description are essential:
"This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly)."
"You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming."
In other words: communicating commands to a charmed person you do not share a language with can be a fun challenge ;-) .
Charm Monster is essentially identical to Charm Person, but with more cases where communication could be a problem. In some cases, a handle animal check (at -5 if used at a "non-animal" with int 1 or 2) should do the trick, but only for the purpose of pushing the creature do do something that it would naturally be able to do.
The description of See Invisible says "You can see any objects or beings that are invisible within your range of vision", and the description of Arcane Eye says "It sees exactly as you would see if you were there".
I would rule that the spells complement each other just fine, can't see why they wouldn't, really (but as always, the GM has the last word!)
Again, what you are proposing is exactly what that rule exists to prevent.
I do get your point (as well as Mike Brock's), in general, GMs arbitrarily winging it will -and I, too, have seen that happen all too often- create a mess more often than not (and in most cases, GM fiat will severely damage a home game as well)
And I certainly would not do something like it at a convention.
But.
In this case... it's an old scenario that will, most likely, never be erratta'd at this stage, and that probably was only playtested properly for the high tier, resulting, for the low tier, in an encounter that could be absolutely wonderful, but probably won't be (as written), since it will just consist of meaningless posing on the part of the monster.
And in such a case, my opinion is that our responsibility to provide players with entertaining situations outweighs the need to stick to rules.
(But again, situations should not become more challenging than described, for precisely the reasons that Mike mentions, I totally agree with you there)
Or maybe not, since that's exactly the kind of changes we're specifically not allowed to make.
Aw, who's going to know ;-)
And as long as the challenge and balance remain unchanged, I wouldn't feel guilty about it either (although it is, admittedly, a thin line to walk). And in this case, it would just add to the atmosphere, nothing else, really.
I know several DM's who have a reputation for lethality- and when I play at their tables, I fully expect (and fear for) them to be harsh on PCs...
How do you feel about playing at their tables compared to other DM's who are less prone to killing PC's? Is the game more enjoyable or less? Do the characters feel more legitimate or less? How do the other players respond to that style? Are these DM's sought out for their games or generally avoided?
They are actually pretty popular, as far as I can assess. But then, so are some of the "soft" GMs I know- and by the same players too- but for different reasons, of course (although they share the common trait of being experienced and very solid GMs)
I suppose it boils down to expectations, really- if a "soft" GM were to severely punish silly actions during his game, I might (possibly) be as dejected as if a "tough" GM were to clearly pull his/her punches (and hey, there is something heroic about surviving, say, Creighton Broadhurst. Feels like a proper accomplishment, there should be T-shirts for that, really ;-) )
Whenever possible I refrain from killing PCs- sure, combat encounters should be exiting and should at least "feel" dangerous, but in any in-game situation, I really only care about how much enjoyment the players might get out of it. And getting killed usually isn't much fun (unless, of course, it makes for a great story afterwards ;-) )
But this is not a "law" for everybody, I know several DM's who have a reputation for lethality- and when I play at their tables, I fully expect (and fear for) them to be harsh on PCs, and if they finish off a downed character... oh well, them's the breaks.
So I suppose it all depends on context: if players know that they are in for a serious challenge, then let it be one. But if they are expecting an evening of light-hearted fun, a "deliberate" character death would be too much of a downer for my taste.
We had a blast with this one. Totally undiplomatic party, lots of severe abuse of the goblins, and in Harvest's End, they straight up picked a fight with the troll and butchered it (with one monk being able to deflect one melee attach each round and one magus with AC 21, they probably could have gone for the high tier even with their five level 1 character, I guess ;-) )
The encounter we enjoyed most was the one with the doll.
this is how it went:
As a monster, the guardian doll was rather silly: one really nasty attack, but after that... just a teeny-tiny knife for 1d2-2 damage? The party never was in any real danger here.
But, after that one inflict serious wounds for 14 damage (18 really, but that would have killed a PC outright, so I exercised my priviledge to fudge), the players were pretty spooked.
The monk succeeded (after two high rolls with the d20) to pull a burlap sack over the doll, preventing it from levitating away. I loved that action, especially since I did not see the point of the doll levitating: its tactics description both says "fights to the death" AND "tries to stay outside of melee range". and note that at low tier, it does not have ranged attacks.
So, who was I to ask where in the world the monk dredged up that burlap sack, and how he, apparently, had it readied- in effect he saved the encounter from becoming a bit of a dud.
In the burlap sack, the doll cast prestidigitation to create a small cloud of green, foul smelling fog. That kept the PC's, frantically trying to prevent the "stinking cloud" (heheh) from the bag, busy for a while. The monk stepped on the bag to make sure it would remain closed- way to catch him flat-footed, for a whopping one point of damage ;-)
Then, the teeny-tiny little knife cut through the burlap, and up levitated the doll, with a maniacally evil look on its face. The players' cries of horror were exquisite :-)
And fortunately, the next round they managed to inflict a ton of damage on it, so the "battle" ended on a nice and heroic note.
But still: to DMs who are planning on running this scenario, I'd advice changing the guardian doll a little- give it 2x inflict moderate wounds instead of 1x inflict serious wounds, make the dagger mildly poisonous (fort save 12 or 1d3 dex damage?), and maybe give it 2x/day dimension door and 1x/day mirror image to give the illusion of several dolls appearing from under the foliage, or something like it.
