Fanatic Guru's page

2) I highly recommend the use of a blog or google document or something to communicate between sessions. You can write up a scene looking at the players from a common man perspective. It's basically #1, but in story form.

I often use non-interactive cut screens to move the story along between gaming sessions via email.

I even make assumptions about what PCs do. They might get drunk and have a one night stand with the mayor's niece. They might be working as a town guard and get in trouble for playing cards while on duty. They might have been playing dice at the tavern and won BIG against the blacksmith who now owes them a lot of gold he does not currently have to pay.

Some would definitely view this as rail-roading but my group sees it as interactive story telling. I carefully try to keep the PCs actions in line with the PCs characters as the player has played them in the past.

There is an understood rule though that I am not going to screw a PC too bad without the player's control and it helps that sometimes good things happen out of the players control.

Also one of my players really only cares for the tactical combat aspect of the game so I generally don't bother with "story stuff" with him.

On thing though, over the years I have run several adventure stories that revolved around the group of PCs being stripped of there gear for a time. Like prisoners, slaves, back from the dead, etc. Those type stories are generally not liked by players and I would avoid designing or buying any adventures like that.

I am just getting ready to write a cut-scene for the oracle in my group that gets a "vision". They are nearing a pivotal point in the story which I want the oracle to have some mystical insight about. So the oracle is about to get bite by a poisonous snake and fall into a fever pitched coma for the next 18 hours during which she will have a "vision". A long written out vision.

Bitten by a poison snake through no fault of her own with no saving throw which causes a fever induced coma that is totally outside the game rule mechanics all for the sake of story. Next session we play though she will be right as rain, no worse for wear except for some knowledge and two puncture mark scars that never quite fade and ache from time to time.

*adds Boot Soup to the list of things that might be caught from bathing in raw sewage*

Oh, this will not be fun. I hope our latecomer druid knows how to heal. (of course, we should have taken a few levels by the time these actully start showing up, sooo... it shouldn't be too much of a problem.)

And Are there rules for Tetnus and Diptheria Jit?

So now the list is

Filth Fever
Dynestry
Bubonic Plague
Typhoid Fever
Choleara
Firegut
Boot Soup
And if I can find rules
Diptheria
Tetnus

(I may roll up rules for a few exotic illness as well, some with high saves, some with low saves.
this is raw sewage...
and in the case of the elf several monsters including rats and goblins exploding in his face, he used a rather explosive spell to a rat right in front of him, and rolled very high on the damage roll. My call... the rat now looks like beef-a-roni)

I do think that hitting them with multiply diseases for falling in raw sewage is ok. Maybe Filth Fever, Dynestry and Choleara if you want to be particularly rough on your players but that hitting them with that entire list is overkill.

Raw Sewage is not a death sentence. We all have touched raw sewage. It is in our bodies right now.

I once watched a man sit on the side of a septic tank with a hose sucking up raw sewage in one hand and eating a sandwich with the other. I could not stand to be within 20' feet of the stench but he pumped septic tanks every day and had for many years and was not dead.

If you want to cause him to lose his foot I would rule that if his Dex went to 0 from the Filth Fever then he lost his foot.

I think the dragon will be stretched out on a log, with shallow bog on one side and deep bog on the other. It appears to be basking like an alligator, and to casual examination looks asleep. In fact it's wide awake and alert -- it's sulking, and hoping some hapless bird or turtle will show up for it to kill.

The nearest cover is a clump of tall grass 40' away. (Note that this is shallow bog -- half movement!) The dragon is just 5' from the deep bog; if attacked, it will simply dive in and swim away. (Flying is faster but leaves it vulnerable to arrows for at least one round.)

-- Hm. I'm not sure this is crackable by a 3rd level party.

Doug M.

I agree. If the DM plays the black dragon realistically the dragon is going to mostly likely be in a position in which he feels safe either surrounded by water or actually in the water.

The party of adventures are not going to encounter the dragon just lounging around in the middle of a grassy field waiting to be surrounded and attacked.

The party is going to be sludging along through muck or possibly in a boat even to get close to the dragon.

I don't see a group stalking the dragon down and killing it by surprise.

Maybe the group could lure the dragon into an ambush of some sort. The dragon is probably not a genius.

Either use a ruse to befriend it like the kobold worshiper deal and then betray the dragon.

Or use a ruse to appear to be prey for the dragon and trick it into attacking you.

Possibly by staging an argument over gold and gems that erupts into a fight where it appears the party kills each other with only one survivor, wounded, with lots of treasure for the easy picking.

Now if the dragon has no curiosity and is a coward afraid of combat with no interest in treasure that runs at the first sight of a human then that is going to be a hard to kill dragon but then that don't sound like most dragons.

Fanatic Guru wrote:

An over the top Forest Gump.

I'd disagree with that comparison. In my mind, Forest Gump is the perfect example of a very high wisdom but low intelligence character. He's quite mindful, perceptive, capable of profound insight and seems to instinctively grasp the wisest course of action while his arguably more intelligent friends blunder from one bad idea to the next.

I agree that Forest Gump is not a great example in general. That characters was written to always do the right thing no matter how dumb his actions seemed. Sorta an intuition over intellect.

I was referring more to the fact that Forest was told to run when being chased by bullies so he started running and did not stop. Running all the way till he hit the Pacific Ocean, then turning around and running till he hit the Atlantic Ocean. Of course it all worked out great for Forest but that did not seem like a very wise decision and anyone that did that would definitely be seen to have an acute mental problem.

Also when Forest was ask what his purpose was in the Army he replied, "To do what ever you tell me to Drill Sergeant."

If you told Forest to wait on a bench while you went to ask when the next bus was going to run. You get hit by a car and get out of the hospital and come back a month later, Forest would still be sitting on that bench. Of course in that month Forest would have started a national movement, founded the Million Man Sit-IN and met the President in that month.

Now Forest certainly did not have a 1 Wis, if anything he had a God like Wisdom that made him tapped into the universe on a level where any decision he made was the right one no matter how unwise or stupid his decisions seemed.

Now you could take Forest, ratchet him up to 11, and let a d20 decide his fates instead of a script writer and have some fun with the character until he self destructs or is made immobile by the group for his own safety. Or you could play the character like severe autism with little more interaction with the world than a potted plant. I would brother play the first character even though the second is probably more accurate but either way he is not going to survive without considerable effort from his friends.

Either way with my group it would be about 5 minutes of role playing and amusement then subdued, bound, gagged, blind-folded, and carried around like a sack of potatoes.

Wisdom 1, Wisdom 0, charmed, confused, insane, etc. all fall into the 'immobilize and transport' for their own good category.

I like a lot of ideas in this thread.

• A ring on a hand that will regrow a powerful being.

• A liquid that keeps the hand from growing.

• A jar that hides the hand from a cult that is seeking the hand.

• Removing the hand from the jar grants a benefit at a cost.

• The hand has been removed and ‘revealed’ to the cult and set events in motion.
  

The hand can be removed and grant some benefit but each time it is removed the seekers are alerted to its location. Plus the hand grows and becomes more of a risk of escaping, becoming more and more dangerous to use; kind of like the ‘One’ ring in the Lord of the Rings but an actual mobile creature that could become hard to handle. So the players are tempted to remove it at times but it is risky.

Another wrinkle I would add is that the hand in the jar now moves and points in the direction of something. Some place or something wondrous and world changing. Also the hand could be drawn in the jar and drift to one side of the jar toward the seekers that are coming for it helping the party stay one step ahead. So in effect the hand can point at two things although the second effect might be difficult for the players to figure out. But the finger always pointing in the same direction should be easy to notice.

This hand could be the focus of an entire campaign. It has a lot of potential. To keep it going even if the hand leads the group to a destination that could be only the first step then the hand could point in another direction toward another goal. That is a great story tool to guide the players without introducing an NPC that is always telling them what to do and avoids the whole problem of the players grilling the guiding NPC for reason and whys. The ‘hand’ is not too heavy handed and the players can’t talk back to the ‘hand’.

All characters and creatures with 1 Wis are not going to be the same. So lots of the suggestions here are good ideas for how the character might act.

Another response since he still has intelligence is that he may still function fine but become like a robot, only doing what he is told by pretty much anyone. Probably recoiling from the pain of being hit but doing nothing else unless told what to do.

Another wrinkle is that even with a 1 Wis some of the character's skills might still be quite high. A ranger with 1 Wis might still have the best Survival and Perception skills in the group for example.

I believe it is safe to say this character is going to exhibit some type of acute mental problem and that anyone that interacted with him for a matter of seconds is going to realize that this guy is completely crazy in some way.

I would probably take the characters previous personality and believes and total, total distort them in some way.

An over the top Forest Gump. You might get attacked and tell him to run and then you never see him again.

beamersrq wrote:

Or you can handle it like our newest player did, who happens to be a dragon-born. First time we find something, he took the entire treasure chest and dumped it into a bag of holding because he needs it to start his hoard. Ummm, yeah, that's gonna be real fun for us when you do this with EVERY BIT of loot we discover. I've already been shut down when another player pocketed the money he found (and I'm the rogue) with "first to the loot gets whatever he wants". Any suggestions on how to deal with this?

Heh... my immediate reaction is "play with adults?"

But that's snarky. If the party is an evil party, this sort of behavior can be realistically described as "role playing." However I hate that kind of role playing. But some groups like it. In such a party, the dragonborn would likely discover his "treasure hoard" had a surprising tendency to shrink.

If the party is good, this is totally ridiculous behavior.

Not all that ridiculous even with a good party. I have had really good characters give away group treasure for a good cause or refuse payment on behave of the group. The paladin might have all the social skills and do most of the negotiating but refuses to drive a hard bargain.

I read just recently on the forums about another groups paladin that was carrying the group treasure using it to pay for an orphanage then taking the group members to showing them the building named after them and all the children they were providing homes for. Some of the characters might have become better for it, others maybe not.

If you are a tactical wargamer you might be perfectly happy to kill a dozen wolves to save one child, heck who are we kidding, they would risk their lives to kill the wolves no matter what, the kids is just incidental they are after power. Giving a hundred gold to save a child would make no sense in a wargame. Wargamer is about acquiring power through character ability and equipment with gold being a means to equipment. Giving away gold in a wargame is losing power which is losing. Losing is generally not fun in wargaming.

Roleplaying is about story telling and creating images and ideas that are fun to think about. Losing is almost required for a good story. Stories with no losing are generally not very interesting stories.

Games are often designed to be 'fair' but if you are roleplaying then like live especially medieval live is rarely perfectly fair with everyone having their fair share of resources whether they be good or evil.

But again it is all about how much roleplaying you want mixed in with your tactical wargaming. Everyone has a different balance that is right for them.

Me personally I love a good tactical battle with the battlemap and miniatures but I find I have more fun if when it comes to the loot I don't worry too much about how fairly it is divided.

My group handles items by giving it to the person who can use it best. Anything no one wants we sell and we try to make sure that we share the wealth.

This is basically the Need System.

This is by far the simplest and easiest system. It works just fine as long as no one is too greedy. Even if some players are a little greedy it is ok as long as it is not more than the generous people can bear. It normally works fine if all the players are real life friends.

If you are playing with people you don't know that well, over the internet, volatile friends hyped up on Mountain Dew, etc. You might need a more structured system to avoid conflict.

Kind of like the way we share snack foods in the office break room. People bring stuff, people share stuff, it all works out until someone takes the whole box of donuts and hides it in their desk. :)

But again I generally let the players handle this unless it starts to really get out of hand and a couple of people are ruining everyone else's enjoyment of the game. But that gets into a whole other topic of how a GM should handle player conflict and disruption.

The way my group has handled Earth Glide is that the elemental moves through the earth like a ghost. Literally moving through the earth and not effecting it at all unless it so chooses. Otherwise you got a real logic problem with it displacing the earth but not compacting the earth, causing a budge, or effecting the earth in anyway. Not even a tremor or sound per the no 'sign of its presence.'

While it might move through the earth as 'easily as a fish swims through water' it is very clear that it is not like a fish swimming through water. A fish through water does create a disturbance, does create a ripple and does leave a sign of its presence. Even after the water moves back into place after a fish passes, the water's position is changed. There is a trail of turbulence left behind limited in length only by the accuracy of your detection.

At one point we decided that the elemental could only take objects, kind of like how lots of outsiders can teleport but only themselves and objects.

Other times we have played that big enough elementals can take people but the person gets a last ditch effort to avoid being pulled under as per the grapple rule below:

If you attempt to place your foe in a hazardous location, such as in a wall of fire or over a pit, the target receives a free attempt to break your grapple with a +4 bonus.

I guess the logic being that sure you resist all grapples but you REALLY resist the grapples that are going to kill you. :)

• So basically the elemental has to grapple them (Elemental has to win roll).
• Then on the persons turn they get to attempt to break free (Elemental has to win roll).
  
• Then the elemental has to attempt to move with them while grappled (Elemental has to win roll).
• Then as a last ditch effort the person gets a free grapple roll to break free with a plus 4 bonus (Elemental has to win roll).

Loss all those rolls and usually you are dead. Even worse than dead really, dead and buried deep underground with little chance of a Raise Dead.

But no sweat I get 4 chance to survive until you remember that a Huge Earth Elemental, a CR 7 challenge, has a CMB +21 which will beat a 7th level fighter with 18 Str on anything but a 1.

Earth Elementals because like the Nuclear Option.

Players start killing GMs' carefully planned enemies with earth elementals so GMs start killing players with earth elementals. Before long the whole world is buried alive. :)

Martin Ralya suggested a great idea on his blog. Total up the hit points of the smaller guys. When the total loses an amount equal to one guy, someone dies. Don't worry about who has what damage, it will even out.

That is a good trick and I have used it before but only in regards to single target attacks.

Fighter hits one goblin for 5 damage and then the mage magic missiles another for 3 damage then the last one damaged dies and all the rest are still at full HPs.

I have to handle area effects like a fireball differently. If my mage throw a 42 point fireball that hit 20 goblins with 8 HPs each he expects them all to die even if they save for half.

A better example is if the Mage cast Burning Hands on 4 goblins and 2 take 3 damage and 2 take 6 damage. That is 18 damage total damage dealt so 2 goblins drop and you got 2 points of damage going toward the next goblin that gets hurt.

Of course these are ways PLAYERS can be fair to each other. Alternatively the DM can alter the loot (pray he does not alter it further) to drop specific items for players.

Yea, sometimes if I am running a published adventure and there is a magic item that I know nobody in the group will be interested in then I might change it to something else. A +2 flaming light crossbow might become a +2 flaming battleaxe that a couple of people in the group might find interesting. Often I will leave weird weapons in though. A few times I have had characters take an exotic weapon proficiency because of some interesting weapon they found. A magic self-loading drow hand crossbow comes to mind. It was not super powerful but the player found it interesting and started using it as an alternate weapon.

The problem with putting specific magic items in for players is you can end up walking the line of favoritism in the eyes of the players. It is never good if a player says you gave them something better than you gave me. For one thing, I am not 'giving' people magic items. You guys are earning them and finding them due to your own skill and cunning.

Also even if you do put in a magic item for each player, you are not guaranteed that the group is going to find or recover it. And if you just keep looking for opportunities to slip missed treasure into later treasure finds, it starts seeming predetermined and that player triumphs and mistakes do not matter.

All that being said I do occasionally put items in with the intent that they end up in the hands of certain players but I do it sparingly.

I will run across a cool magic item and think so and so character would love that so I put it in an adventure, usually in the hands of an enemy I am pretty sure they will encounter.

Sometimes the group will still miss out on the item for whatever reason. At times like that after the adventure is over and the characters are not going back, I like to tell them if they missed something especially nice. It lets them know their decisions have an effect and they are in control of their destiny. If they would have not let that bad guy get away he had a really cool ring, or if you would have climbed down into that pit trap and search you could have founded this doodad.

Total loot worth (including cloak of resistance): 4,500

Total gold for individual party members: 1,125

Party Members 1-3 get 1,125
Party Member 4 gets: 625 and Cloak of Resistance (His share-500 for the cloak)

Essentially you take the entire loot pile (even stuff you don't plan on selling) and divide it by the party number, people can then use their share amount to "buy" some of the loot off other party members.

It works for
A) The rest of the party gets a larger share.
B) The one (or more) who buy gets an item at essentially half price.

This will take a bit more thought if the group gets multiple items from the loot pile.

This is the Half Greed System.

A problem does arise when two players want to buy the same cloak for 500 gp.

Then you can go to the Bid Greed System to settle who gets the cloak or the players can roll to see who gets to buy the cloak.

For any system there has to be a way to resolve when two players very much want the same item. Bidding or Rolling are the solutions I have seen in the past but even rolling can often cause hard feelings if someone is particularly lucky or unlucky over several rolls.

The plus to the Bid system is that the loser of the bidding gets some comfort in that their share of gold is bigger cause the winning Bidder paid so much. Also if someone bid a lot this time they will not have as much to bid next time.

The Need System is by far the simplest but some will get more than others and it is hard for people not to be greedy.

If they REALLY want to go the route of making the player buy it then why would he pay more than what the group would get for it if they sold it to a vendor... If they can usually only get 500GP for it why would you make the character that wants it pay 1000GP? That is kinda ripping him off IMO.

That is what I am talking about.

I would be kind of upset if my best friend had a nice cold can of unopen Coke that he said he was going to sell to a stranger for 50 cents but I pipe up and say 'Hey why don't you let me buy that Coke. I'm thirsty.'

My friend says, 'Sure you have first dibs of course cause you are my best friend. Since you are my friend, I will let you have it for 1 dollar cause that is what a new can of Coke cost in the store.'

I think, 'So I have to buy a used Coke from my best friend for a dollar otherwise he is going to sell it to a stranger for 50 cents. Hmmm.... I knew I should not have let you carry the can of Coke when we found it.' :/

Lately I've been thinking back at some of the more massive encounters I ran as a DM. A swarm is something I don't like to throw in too often because of how long a large battle take, but when they're pulled off right I find they can be pretty cinematic and fun as hell. I once threw a level 5 party of mine against a small goblinoid village, pitting the poor guys against 20+ goblins (I may have used the advanced template for the goblinoids, I forget), 10 or so hobgoblins and around 4 ogres just for good measure.

The human ranger, human archaeologist bard and gnome alchemist that fought them were able to hold down a couple of choke points and murder everything that lived. IT WAS EPIC! Bomb splash damage was downing guys left and right, the archaeologist was able to cripple the horde with a slow spell and the ranger was at least decent enough to not die.

Have any of you here dealt with very large encounters? Did any DMs find them difficult to balance? For those with experience, do you find that the amount of paper work makes such battles dull?

Battles against lots of enemies are Ok with some GM preparation.

I make a Battle Sheet with basic combat stats and separate HPs for all the enemies in kind of a column layout so I can mark off damage easily.

I have lots of generic plastic figurines in different colors from all types of different board games I have bought over the years. I will assign different styles and colors of figures for different types of enemies. For example some of the goblins might be Barbarians so I will note on my Combat Sheet the red figures are Barbarians, the blue one is a cleric, the green ones are archers, etc.

The main problem I run into is keeping track of is this the Barbarian goblin that has taken 4 damage or the one that has taken 8 damage. When the players kill one it is easy just remove it but keeping track of how hurt each figure is can get difficult.

One solution I saw was a GM I played with had a bunch of little plastic football player figurines that each had a number on their jersey. He would note the jersey number of each monster on his Combat Sheet. He got the football figurines from some football boarded game. They were handy for lots of enemies to keep track of them.

Also sometimes to simulate a large battle the enemies will come in waves or a few a round. The party might kill 50 goblins but there might never be more than say 20 figurines on the battle map at any given time.

It also makes it more interesting to mix a few bosses or bigger enemies in the fight. For example you might decide on round 6 a troll burst onto the scene which causes a lot of the goblins to back up and pause for a round.

Sometimes I use the actual Swarm rules. Later in the fight the goblins might get desperate and release the women and children on the attackers which I might handle as several Swarms. Which often can catch the characters with high armor class that are feeling invincible by surprise as Swarms do pretty much automatic damage each round without having to roll to hit. It can also cause morale questioning as suddenly destroying a tribe of raiding goblins means stomping on babies and beating kids off of your back.

These type battles tend to make the characters feel powerful as the characters are fighting individuals that are weaker then them man to man.

They are difficult to balance and sometimes I will change the pacing that enemies enter the battle if I feel I have miscalculated badly but generally I let the chips fall where they may. The players might have to dig deep into their consumable resources or even run away if things go too badly.

As a rule though I believe the game goes better when players fight enemies that are individually stronger than they are man to man. It is probably cliche but I think a boss and his lackeys is generally best for a dramatic fight, two to four enemies.

One big enemy can be tough to get right also. A single enemy that has the defense to stand up to a full group for very long often has the offense to kill a person in the party very quickly. You kind of need a boss that is stronger on the defense than the offense. If the boss is offensive slanted it is kind of like a gun fight. It is often over very quickly, someone is almost certainly going to die, and luck plays a large part in who wins.

I assume from the OP that the characters are getting jammed up by defenders that meet them at or near the door way.

All the smoke, fire, etc. stuff aside, melees can try what melees do best which is melee with some tactical maneuvers like Bullrush, Overrun, and Trip.

My players use bullrush to create some room for others to move up. They also use Overrun and Tumbling to try to get beyond a line of enemies.

They also just accept that the first one through the door might get a lot of melee and ranged attacks coming at them. It is the high armor class 'tanks' job to be the first one into the breach.

On a side note we play that when you move through a square which is occupied by an ally, the ally counts as an Obstacle. So moving through an ally counts as 2 squares of movement. You can not Charge through an ally so there is some logic to this interpretation of the rules since you can not charge through a square that hampers movement. This is probably not RAI but the RAW below does not specifically specify that there is no penalty, only that you can move through the square. I don't like the idea of a character in the back of the line moving through 5 ally squares with no penalty to get to the front to attack. I am kinda harsh on movement cause I like the characters to have to think about moving in combat and sometimes Delay to let people up front go first. Otherwise movement seems a little too easy and everyone can get just about anywhere they want easily in a typical fight.

Just because the guy all the way in back rolled highest on his Initiative does not necessary mean that he gets to run through everyone else in the party and attack the enemy before anyone else goes. Sometimes the guy in the back is ready to go initiative wise but he still has to wait his 'turn' for the allies up front to move first and engage the enemy which allows him to move up.

Friend: You can move through a square occupied by a friendly character, unless you are charging.

Also I give my players some leeway about moving through (easier to Overrun) or even into squares with prone opponents so they will Trip an opponent to attempt to help make a hole in an enemy line. I don't believe the rules support moving into a prone or ally's square but we house rule that to allow allies to move over a prone ally to protect them or move over a prone enemy which makes it difficult for them to stand up as they must crawl 5 and then stand up. Or attempt some type of combat maneuver to trip, move, or grapple the character standing over them.

Make the player "buy" the cloak. The various loot that no one wants is worth 4k, so add the cloak's wholesale value (1000/2) to that. What you now have is 4.5k, which comes out to 4 equal shares of 1125gp. The guy who wants the cloak can buy it at full retail from the party, leaving him with 125gp. Everyone else gets 100% cash.

Your system looks to be like it would result in:

Player 1 gets 1125gp
Player 2 gets 1125gp
Player 3 gets 1125gp
Player 4 gets 125gp and a cloak

That is 3,500 of gold that has been distributed. There is still 500 of gold to distribute. So the buying the cloak at full price is a little more complicated than you depicted. I guess you could then say the remaining 500 gp gets divided among the top three players or maybe between the whole four. I don't know your intent.

If you have to charge the player full price for the cloak it would probably be simpler to say that Player 4 has to put 1000 in for the cloak making a pot of 5000 which then is divided 4 ways for 1250 each with the cloak player only getting 250 as he had to put in a 1000.

Full Greed System
Player 1 gets 1250 gp
Player 2 gets 1250 gp
Player 3 gets 1250 gp
Player 4 gets 250 gp and a 1000 gp cloak (1250 gp - 1000 gp for cloak)

That is fair and will balance out over time as different members 'buy' loot from the group pot but it does raise the question of why you would sell a cloak to a stranger for 500 gp but would demand a 1000 gp from an adventuring companion.

I prefer selling the cloak to the player for 500 gp (the same as you would sell it to a stranger) leaving 4500 to be divided or 1125 share each.

Half Greed System
Player 1 gets 1125 gp
Player 2 gets 1125 gp
Player 3 gets 1125 gp
Player 4 gets 625 gp and a 500 gp cloak (1125 gp - 500 gp for cloak)

If more than one person wanted the cloak they would bid on it and for example say one player was willing to pay 800 gp it would look like this:

Bid Greed System (4800 gp total)
Player 1 gets 1200 gp
Player 2 gets 1200 gp
Player 3 gets 1200 gp
Player 4 gets 400 gp and a 800 gp cloak (1200 gp - 800 gp for cloak)

In reality it is often a little more complicated than this because you might have 5 magic items that are all up for bid. Which then might look like this:

Cloak won by Player 4 for 800 gp
Boots won by Player 1 for 500 gp
Sword sold to vendor for 1000 gp because nobody bid the minimum that the vendor would pay
Dagger won by Player 1 for 600 gp
Necklace won by Player 2 for 500 gp

4000 gold plus 3400 gp of loot = 7400 gp / 4 = 1850 gp per share

Bid Greed System (7400 gp total, 5000 gp in actual gold)
Player 1 gets 750 gp and 500 gp boots and 600 gp dagger
Player 2 gets 1350 gp and 500 gp necklace
Player 3 gets 1850 gp
Player 4 gets 1050 gp and a 800 gp cloak

This bidding system tends to lessen player conflict and it can be somewhat fun to bid on magic items at the end of an adventure especially if you always dreamed of roleplaying an accountant. :)

I know this is kinda non-advice but with my group, division of loot is a character issue that I do not have to deal with as a GM.

Division of loot is no more an issue that I decide for the players than marching order or guard shifts.

The barbarian might demand that he goes first because everyone else walks too slow. Or refuses to guard in town cause he is tired while the mage berates him saying when in town is when you need to guard the MOST. Or takes the glowing greatsword and claims it as his because he likes it.

I know that is not very helpful advice but if you think about it how a group of adventures deals with each others including dividing loot is very much in the control of the players. A GM dividing loot is very Out of Character.

I remember one interesting session where every character refused to go first. Nobody wanted to go first. Not players but characters were all afraid to go first.

On the flip side multiply times I have had interesting situations where two characters demanded to go first and started a series of one-ups-mans ship of reckless behave in a sort of game of chicken to see who was the 'bravest'.

I can understand why a GM might feel the need to divide loot in order to attempt to avoid player conflict which is generally not a good thing but a little character conflict can be interesting. It just depends on how much roleplaying you want mixed in with your tactical wargaming.

My players have basically used two strategy for dividing loot. Same players but different characters.

One is the 'Need' system where everyone is good, generous, and easy going. Everyone takes what they need then sells the rest and divides the gold evenly. Everyone often ends up with widely different amounts of wealth depending on what is found. Characters often chip in to help buy other characters stuff. The one for all and all for one group. This is the system my group uses the most.

The other system is the 'Greed' system. Every thing is tentatively to be sold to a vendor but any item can be bought by a character at the same price it could be sold to a vendor for. If more than one character wants an item for the price it could be sold to a vendor then they must bid on the item and it goes to whoever will pay the most. So basically every thing is sold either to a vendor or a character then all the gold is divided evenly between the characters. Then there is the added wrinkle of if a character does not have enough gold to buy an item he can carry a debt he owes the group. I have even had characters go so far as to loan money to other characters at loan shark interest rates. This is the fair and square system that tends to prevent the most player conflict. Although it is not full prove at preventing conflict, I have seen people bid on items they do not really want in an attempt to drive the price up and other under handed tactics.

A third system they have used but not in awhile is a 'Share' system where loot is not necessarily divided equally. A standard member of the gang might get a 'full share'. New members, henchman, or general lackeys might only get a 'half share'. The boss or leaders might get a 'double share'. Doing particularly dangerous stuff might call for a reward of a 'share and a half'. This system probably has the most real world foundation but does not sit well with a lot of players.

A rambling post that boils down to my believe that a GM has enough to worry about, let the players through their characters settle the dividing of the loot.

I am not sure about whether a Pearl of Power should work for an Alchemist or not by the rules.

It seems by RAW it should not but maybe by the designers RAI it might.

But if a Pearl of Power did work for an Alchemist the mechanics I would use would be that the Alchemist took one of his vials that he had used an extract out of since his last rest period. He would drop the Pearl into the vial. Swirl it around, and it would recreate the same extract that was used out of the vial.

That would replicate the Pearl of Power’s effect for an Alchemist that it has for a Wizard. The logic being that a Wizard can concentrate on the Pearl and restore the magic matrix of a spell in his mind and an Alchemist can use the same power of the Pearl to restore the magic matrix of an extract in his vial.

I would probably prefer the Alchemist to have his own Rod of Reaction that he whirls around in an empty extract vial to restore a previously used extract but I could live with an Alchemist using a Pearl of Power.

I think it would make sense for Paizo to refit their own major 3.5 APs to PF.

Lords Of Madness-like books about inhuman alien aberrations and cosmic monstrosities.

I too would like to see the old Adventure Paths updated to Pathfinder. It seems like it would be cost effective. Not going to sell as much as a new AP but would not cost as much either.

Also I really like aberrations and cosmic monstrosities, especially entire races and organizations that can be used as story arc driving forces.

The Mind Flayers of Thoon were a favorite of mine.

I know Mindflayers are not open source but some equally cool new aberrations in detail would be nice. New creatures that could become as iconic as mindflayers and beholders but not under the thumb of WotC copyrights.

You know, nothing tough, just create some new iconic creatures from scratch like nothing we have ever seen before that in the future will be as prolific in culture as... oh say... Vampires! :)

Comes a point where every GM has to realize that the CRB writers were trying to put a reasonable limit on the word count of that book, and certain statements ("Gravity draws things toward the ground," "Air is transparent," "Unconscious people do not experience emotions") were deemed too obvious to waste ink on.

[SARCASM]

Those statements are not in the Book because they are untrue, false, and lies.

"Gravity draws things toward the ground,"
Untrue, I am drawn to the Sun and circle around it just like the Earth.

"Air is transparent,"
False, I have seen pictures of that nasty haze that hangs around our planet forcing us to put telescopes in space.

"Unconscious people do not experience emotions"
Lies, the Boggyman in my dreams is REAL and very scary.

[/SARCASM]

You can take 10 on Initiative rolls.

Quote:

Ability Checks and Caster Level Checks: The normal take 10 and take 20 rules apply for ability checks. Neither rule applies to concentration checks or caster level checks.

Quote:

At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check. An initiative check is a Dexterity check.

Note: this depends on whether combat has started yet or not. An amusing interaction however, and at the very least, I don't think many people knew about taking 10 on abilities. At least if every group I'm in is any indication.

When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10.

I would say when you are making an initiative roll there are distractions, threats, and/or danger involved that would exclude the ability to Take 10. You do not necessary have to be in combat. The start of a life or dead combat is too chaotic and varied to be considered routine and predictable.

If you are climbing up a cliff and half way up a rock slide occurs then Taking 10 is no longer an option as now a routine situation that you were prepared to face has turned into a non-routine situation.

In practice they might be able to climb that cliff all day long but if anything out of the ordinary occurs that would put their skill to the test a skill roll is required.

Same thing with an ability check. You might be able to kick a door open automatically with no stress and plenty of time to prepare where to stand and where to kick. But when a boulder is rolling down the hall going to crush the entire party if that door is not open THIS round. Adrenaline might cause you to kick the door clean off the hinges with a 20 or miss the door and kick the door frame on a 1.

Perhaps a tail ring could substitute the magic boots and fill the "boot" slot. Sound plausible and easy. This is magic we are talking about.

Oh absolutely as a GM I would allow Merfolks to use magic items that go on their tail/boot slot. I would not allow boots though. It would have to be a non-standard magically item designed for tailfins which I assume Merfolk magical crafters would have developed long ago.

I was only discussing academically what the rules as written state.

Mh, Malfus seems to be a worshipper of the golden apple.

There is a big difference in this game between human shaped and humanoid shaped. A human has a head, two arms with hands and two legs with feet.
Humanoid shaped can mean much more. There can be tentacles or claws or beaks or wings or fishtails.

Also polymorphing back doesnt melt equipment, that is quite clear.

I would disagree that humanoid-shaped can mean fishtails and tentacles.

Now their is a distinct difference between humanoid and humanoid-shaped in the rules.

Humanoid generally means of the creature type Humanoid. I believe the designers purposely did not use the term Humaniod in the section on 'Magic Items on the Body' as that has specific meaning in the game of a specific creature type with all creatures falling into a list of predefined types as defined in the Bestiary.

While a 'humanoid-shaped body' refers to the more general language terms of a creature that is shaped like a human. I would argue legs are a crucial defining element of a humanoid-shaped body.

Merfolk no more have a humanoid-shaped body than a drider. Neither are humanoid-shaped bodies.

It might sound counter-intuitive but from a game rule stand point all humanoid type creatures do not have humanoid-shaped bodies.

Fanatic Guru wrote:

Malfus wrote:

Hayato Ken wrote:

Merfolk have a fish tail. Therefore they do not have a shoes slot, because they don´t have feet.

Maybe there should be another merfolk player race, much like Arielle, with the change shape ability like Kitsune.

I believe if you somehow benefited from alter-self, the temporary amount of time that you could put on boots would allow you to wear them, and then have them meld into your original form when you switch back, effectively giving you benefits of the boots forever (unless you actually have to activate them, then they are useless to you :P).

I was under the assumption that the melding of equipment only occurred when a polymorph spell took effect not when the effect ended.

If you polymorphed a tuna fish into a human and dressed them in full plate, the full plate would not meld into the tuna fish once the spell ended, nor would boots.

As to whether a merfolk has a boot slot is covered in the rules, that entirely depends upon whether a merfolk is "a creature with a humandoid-shaped body". That is the only shaped body covered in the Core Rulebook. Any other shaped body is not covered and left to the GM.

I do not believe a merfolk is a creature with a humandoid-shaped body so the body slots of a merfolk are not addressed one way or another by the rules except by the implication that they would be different than those stated for a creature with a humandoid-shaped body. If by implication a merfolk's body slots are different then the most likely difference would be in the Feet slot. That is only implied though and not explicitly stated. It is possible there are other body types that have the exact same slots as a creature with a humandoid-shaped body.

^this

Also, the greater hat of disguise would allow you to polymorph into a merfolk, thus using a polymorph spell to cause the meld. What would happen if you went to your regular merfolk form?

I am not sure I understand the question.

But if a human wears magic boots then polymorphs into a merfolk the boots are not melding into your body because you are not changing into a creature of the animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin type.

So then since the boots did not meld into your form, the boots resize to match your new size. Then promptly fall to the ground if a merfolk does not have a feet slot to equip them as boots are required to be equipped in the feet slot.

Whether merfolk have feet slots is not covered in the rules and only implied by its non-inclusion in the section covering "Magic Items on the Body" which implies their body slots are different than the ones listed.

Hayato Ken wrote:

Merfolk have a fish tail. Therefore they do not have a shoes slot, because they don´t have feet.

Maybe there should be another merfolk player race, much like Arielle, with the change shape ability like Kitsune.

I believe if you somehow benefited from alter-self, the temporary amount of time that you could put on boots would allow you to wear them, and then have them meld into your original form when you switch back, effectively giving you benefits of the boots forever (unless you actually have to activate them, then they are useless to you :P).

I was under the assumption that the melding of equipment only occurred when a polymorph spell took effect not when the effect ended.

If you polymorphed a tuna fish into a human and dressed them in full plate, the full plate would not meld into the tuna fish once the spell ended, nor would boots.

As to whether a merfolk has a boot slot is covered in the rules, that entirely depends upon whether a merfolk is "a creature with a humandoid-shaped body". That is the only shaped body covered in the Core Rulebook. Any other shaped body is not covered and left to the GM.

I do not believe a merfolk is a creature with a humandoid-shaped body so the body slots of a merfolk are not addressed one way or another by the rules except by the implication that they would be different than those stated for a creature with a humandoid-shaped body. If by implication a merfolk's body slots are different then the most likely difference would be in the Feet slot. That is only implied though and not explicitly stated. It is possible there are other body types that have the exact same slots as a creature with a humandoid-shaped body.

really?

strength damage was easy to work out in 3.5...

first know whether your strength is an odd or an even number.

for one handed weapon users with it is -1 to hit and damage for each odd amount for strength damage taken (-1,-3,-5...) if your initial strength is an odd number, and -1 to hit and damage for each even amount of strength damage you take (-2,-4,-6...) if your initial strength is even.

For two-handed users it is the same, but you subtract an extra -1 from damage for every other time you lower your bonus to hit (so every other one gets -1/-2 instead of -1/-1) starting on either the first or second lowering depending on whether your initial strength bonus was even or odd to begin with.

So if your initial strength is a 30 (+10 bonus) a two handed user gets +10/+15 if you takes 2 points of strength damage he gets -1/-2 dropping to +9/+13, at 2 more points of strength damage he gets another -1/-1 dropping to +8/+12, 2 more points of strength damage drops it by -1/-2 and so forth.

no need to do any huge recalculations just some simple subtractions from your total.

I would argue that what you just explained is not 'just some simple subtractions' and is far from simple.

Sure I understand but things like remember to do something every other time or if your initial strength is even or odd, but that is only for one-handed, if it is off-handed do it this way, and if it is two-handed do it this way make it not simple. Are there tricks that help? Can you do it in our head? Sure. But that does not make it simple.

Simple is something I can explain to my young daughters or a friend that has had three beers and just wants to swing.

P.S. Those two groups are never at the same gaming session. :)

By comparison it helps two weapon users. Full temp STR bonus to off-hand?

Yes, under the temporary ability bonus rules an off-hand attack would get 100% temp STR bonus to damage. A two weapon user would get 100% temp STR bonus on two attacks while a two-handed weapon user would get 100% temp STR bonus on one attack.

So the temporary ability bonus rules benefits the two-weapon fighter more than the two-handed weapon fighter. Plus 2 damage to two attacks is better than plus 2 damage to one attack.

But as a small consolation, temporary ability damage hurts the two-handed weapon fighter less. Minus 2 damage to one attack is better than minus 2 damage to two attacks.

Fanatic Guru wrote:

Why else even distinguish between temporary and permanent bonuses.

I can answer this one: it's because a temporary bonus doesn't allow you to qualify for things like feats, whereas a 'permanent' bonus (defined in-game as simply having a temporary bonus for more than 24 hours) does. A Bull's Strength spell isn't going to ever become a 'permanent' bonus, but a Belt of Physical Might can.

True that is what the rule does but that does not explain why the rule would be created.

I do not believe the temporary ability bonus rule would be needed to limit selection of things like feats due to a temporary ability bonus. From a game design point of view allowing the selection of things like feats would be very little difference from allowing their selection from things like a Belt of Physical Might. In both cases the feats would not work when the bonus went away which would be a simplification of the rules which is normally a good thing in game design.

A player would have to be quite bold though to take a feat based on a spell. This is a nice facet of the rule to limit weirdness like this though I don't see it as the primary reason.

More important I believe the temporary ability bonus rules prevent situations like in 3.5 where:

Character sheet says: 2d6+11 damage
Then the character takes 1 STR damage so the player goes back to his STR and starts recalculating everything over.
17 STR = +3 bonus
2-Handed (150%) = +4
Weapon Specialization (+2) = +6
Magic Weapon (+3) = +9
Ah, my new damage is 2d6+9.
But wait, I take 2 more STR damage. So start at beginning and recalculate.
Bull's Strength and Righteous Wrath of the Faithful are cast, recalculate but with more steps. More spells are cast, more recalculations with more steps as more spells are layered on. Each time starting back at STR and calculation all the way through remembering to add everything that might be effecting you at that moment. Remember not just STR adjustments but any spells or effects that add damage bonuses.

Contrast with temporary ability bonus rules.
Character sheet says: 2d6+11 damage
1 STR damage = no effect regardless of whether STR is even or odd number
3 STR damage = -1 to damage, new damage 2d6+10
Bull Strength = +2 damage, new damage 2d6+12
Spells that add +2 stacking STR and +2 damage = 2d6+15
Bull Strength dispelled = -2 damage so 2d6+13
No need to ever go back to the beginning and recalculate through all your spells, abilities and effects. Every new effect just takes your current damage and adjust it.
Not as accurate but streamline combat calculations at the gaming table.
Save the more accurate calculations for permanent ability bonuses only that are less likely to change.

Ultimately though my main concern is not the reason for the rule design but if I am interpreting it correct.

Several pages are dedicated to the temporary ability bonus and damage rules, they are quite a departure from 3.5 rules with significant ramifications, and they seem mostly ignored by the player base. Maybe it is because they are stuck in the back of the book in an Appendix.

I don't see this as an unforeseen side-effect of the temporary ability bonus rules.

I believe it was intended as a sacrifice of accuracy for the sake of less recalculations during combat in an attempt to streamline spell effects in combat. Coming from a high level 3.5 gaming environment where players could often have 4 or 5 short term sources effecting their strength in combat this recalculation could really become a problem for people getting 50% and 150% adjustments. A couple of my players had pretty extensive charts showing their attack and damage bonuses depending on the common combinations of buffs they might have at any given moment.

Why else even distinguish between temporary and permanent bonuses. They could have just as simply said anytime an ability score changes, recalculate your entire character (which is what D&D did). It would be more accurate and what happens anyway if the ability bonus becomes permanent but it really can slow down play and kill a dramatic combat scene.

It hurts the two-handed combat style compared to the two-weapon combat style in regard to bonuses but on the flip side when taking ability damage two-handed weapons are not effected as much.

Four points of damage to strength would cause a -2 not -3 to weapon damage when using a two-handed weapon.

It is not quite a fair trade as ability bonuses are more common that ability damage but it eases the sting some for the two-handed weapon users.

My very long playing group is switching over from 3.5 to Pathfinder and I want to get some rule basics regarding ability score bonuses and damage right from the beginning. I am comfortable creating house rules but this is a very fundamental rule question that effects all kind of ways ability scores can be effected like spells, magic items, poison, disease, etc. If we go to a convention tournament I would like to be following the ‘official’ rules.

This post is long but only because in my search for an answer on the message board all I found were confusing and conflicting answers that seem to express opinion with little bases from the rulebook.

My fundamental example question is does Bull’s Strength spell add +2 damage or +3 damage when using a Two-Handed Weapon.

My following of the rules says +2 damage but that does not appear to be the popular answer.

My following of the rules is >

What does Bull’s Strength do?

Bull’s Strength

The subject becomes stronger. The spell grants a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength, adding the usual benefits to melee attack rolls, melee damage rolls, and other uses of the Strength modifier.

The pertinent part of that quote is “spell grants a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength” all the rest of it is condensed information that over simplifies which can create confusion. If the extraneous information provided in the Bull's Strength spell confuses the issue with people the Barbarian Rage ability could be exchanged in this example. There are many ways to get a bonus to Strength. They should all work the same.

So what does a “+4 enhancement bonus to Strength” do?

Some spells and abilities increase your ability scores. Ability score increases with a duration of 1 day or less give only temporary bonuses. For every two points of increase to a single ability, apply a +1 bonus to the skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.

Strength: Temporary increases to your Strength score give you a bonus on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The bonus also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and to your Combat Maneuver Defense.

The relevant ability is “Strength”.

So for every two points of bonus to Strength, apply +1 bonus to the skills and statistics listed under Strength which are:

• Strength-based skill checks
• Melee attack rolls
• Weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength)
• Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger)
• Combat Maneuver Defense

So how does this bonus to skills and the listed statistics interact with the Two-Handed Weapon rules?

Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (Strength penalties are not multiplied). You don’t get this higher Strength bonus, however, when using a light weapon with two hands.

The Two-Handed Weapon damage rules have no effect since the Strength bonus is not one of the listed statistics under the rules for temporary increases to ability scores.

So Bull’s Strength does not interact specially with Two-Handed weapons. It adds +2 to Two-Handed Weapon damage. In fact Bull’s Strength adds +2 damage to all Weapon damage rolls, including Off-Hand Weapon, Secondary attacks, whatever, ALL being the key word.

Now some would use real world logic and say that the spell makes you stronger and that does not seem ‘right’ or ‘accurate’ which I would agree with using real world logic. But I assume this is a decision made for game design reasons and tempo during gaming combat. So if a player has four different sources that could increase their strength during combat they do not have to be constantly recalculating even or odd ability scores and how they might round when multiplied by 50% or 150%. They can just cast Bull’s Strength then add +2 to the attack number and +2 to the damage number on their character sheet, then cast Rage and add another +1/+1 to attack/damage for +3/+3 total, Bull’s Strength wears off then +1/+1 total with very little figuring while in the thick of combat. For the same reason encumbrance is not effected. And for the exact same reason the concept of Negative Levels that give a -1 penalty to lots of stuff was created instead of having to recalculate your entire character from true level loss in D&D 3.5 then later it becoming permanent after 24 hours and you can do all the calculating and updating your character sheet hopefully when other players are not waiting on your character to swing. It is the same idea with temporary and permanent ability adjustments; temporary for streamline combat; permanent for updated and reprinted character sheet.

Am I missing something in the rules? Is there errata I don't know about? I don’t want to teach all my players this new Pathfinder concept of temporary ability bonuses and then it not being the official way they might encounter at a Pathfinder Society Organized Play event.

Thanks for any insight that can be provided.