Yeah, the player probably learned his lesson: Don't play at a jerk Gm's table
By my understanding of the intent, you can only wield (ie threaten) with one weapon per hand at a time. However, there is an FAQ about changing grips. So at the end of your turn you could declare that you've changed the grip so that the spiked gauntlet is effective.
I would rule the same way if someone was wielding a longspear and armour spikes. They can change their grip/stance so one of the weapons is effective, but not both as that would require 3 metaphysical hands to wield simultaneously. (Barring any overriding ability)
I would be wary about this. What happens when another player tries to wield the weapon?
I think to make it work, the player should control a commoner who has been dominated by the weapon.
The major remaining risk is that the character/weapon combo is overpowered at low level and becomes progressively under powered. This could be mitigated to a degree by creating a new wielder every few levels as the weapon changes hands.
I think the time travel idea is great especially if you add some corruptions.
Change the dragon, what about an evil gold dragon Change the kobolds, they're now hobgoblins with draconic heritage. The loot is now heavily invested in a shadow organisation that is looking to covertly overthrow the ruler and place the dragon in ultimate control.
The party will get a do over and hopefully learn from their mistakes. But they will quickly realise that this encounter is different. The invested loot will mean that the party can't buy another wish.
Slightly OT but related. For an Elven realm, I had several noble houses who were each sponsors to several mercantile houses. Each house was then randomly, by dice roll given a relationship level (either allied, friendly, neutral, disliked or hated) with every other house within the same tier. Ones that didn't make sense were then adjusted.
Overall it gave a great dynamic to the players' interaction with the realm's nobility as they had to navigate through a complex web of relationships to get what they wanted.
First up, I agree with everyone who had said this is a dick move. Pathfinder is a team game and PvP is the exact opposite of teamwork.
That said. With the GM's consent. Poison the other characters over dinner when they will be disarmed and unarmoured. Then you and your cohorts, hirelings etc finish the job.
At this point the group can agree whether it is a dream sequence that never happened or carry on or whether they want an alternate PvP match for one session which will also be a dream sequence. (By dream sequence, I mean it never really happened and 5hings go on as if the events never occurred)
IMO, the GM must strive to be a neutral arbiter of events at all times.About the only reason a GM can deliberately metagame is when they are playing the part of a seriously superior intelligence and even then it must be limited to what the creature would be able to deduce or induce.
I've seen accidental metagaming too often and been guilty of it myself. Pre-rolling was my sin. I intended to speed gameplay but found that I would be tempering my actions based on the rolls coming up. So I stopped pre-rolling.
Xaimum Mafire wrote:
Thank you for your replies. As I had said I had widened the definition and included all forms of interrogation and my question is based on is the technique justifiable in the circumstances. Taking the good cop/bad cop example in two different scenarios:
1. A small-time teenage drug dealer is arrested. The bad cop threatens the teenager with jail unless he supplies the details on his supplier; describing how he is going to be gang raped every night. All the while the cops are fairly sure the supplier has coerced the teenager with threats against his family. In the teenager's mind they will be damned if he does and damned if he doesn't and under tremendous psychological pressure.
2. A mob boss is arrested and similarly threatened by the bad cop unless he turns informant. The mob boss's reaction is likely to along the lines of a sneer and to ask whether thinking about it turns the bad cop on. The technique is entirely ineffectual and has delivered the upper hand to the one being interrogated.
This is the same technique, performed by the same people in two different circumstances. In the first, it was unnecessary and cruel (evil in game terms). In the second it was too soft a technique and a different form of leverage is required - perhaps sleep deprivation (lights left on, placed in a cell with a loud drunk, offered food and water just as nodding off etc) and humiliation (ignored, forced to go to the toilet in public, not enough toilet roll, bent cutlery, cold food etc) to generate anger and a lack of clear thought and repeat questioning to catch the mob boss in a lie would be justifiable.
By some definitions, sleep deprivation and humiliation are considered torture, as is waterboarding. I don't think that there is a plain and simple line that says this form of interrogation is universally acceptable and this is universally wrong. There are clear extremes (e.g. offering cookies and painfully maiming people) and a very large grey area in the middle. Where that line sits within the grey area is dependent on the circumstances and motivations of those involved.
Finally at a keyboard, so I can write a full answer.
The point I was trying to make was that although it is very easy to say on the face of it that torture is evil, I think the OP was looking at are there any circumstances where it can be justified. To answer that, I took the widest definition of torture, which included the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques and even underhand and misleading interrogation techniques e.g. "if you don't talk, you're gonna spend a night in the cells and you know what they do in there...so talk".
I fully accept that I have conflated interrogation and torture, as I could not think of any torture reason that was not related to interrogation that could be justified as non-evil. The question is, at what stage does an interrogation technique become torture? The next question would be: is that interrogation technique (whether you consider it a form of torture or not) justified in the current circumstances?
Xaimum Mafire wrote:
I'm not going to disagree that torturing someone for the sake of it isn't evil. But neither do I think that a captured assassin is going to reveal who hired him in exchange for a plate of cookies. I also think your second, blackmail example, sits on the spectrum as the priest would be psychologically tortured.
Isn't that just semantics? Profession (Interrogator) isn't evil. But the interrogation techniques could include thumbscrews and the rack.
One interesting example is the cane. Is a teacher caning naughty pupils engaged in dangerous naughty activities evil? If the teacher enjoys inflicting pain then yes.If the teacher truly believes that they are stopping the chilren from killing or maiming themselves and takes no pleasure from it then they may be good, if misguided by modern conventions.
I'd argue that hurting someone for what may or may not be the truth is evil.
You have a point. But under that definition then any form of interrogation could be considered evil. Getting somebody to confess or reveal information that they do not want to means making them understand that the consequences of not revealing the information would be worse. That could be defined as inflicting psychological pain and therefore evil under your definition.
Whilst I agree that Pathfinder/D&D has objective evil and good. I also believe that there has to be subjective alignment. Otherwise the game would just be about evil mass murderers, breaking into others' homes killing them and looting the place.
As with everything alignment related it comes down to motivation. At its widest definition, incorporating enhanced interrogation techniques such as sleep deprivation, or even tough questioning with misleading statements of consequences; it is a skill intended to obtain information quickly.
If the torturer enjoys inflicting pain then they are evil. If they take no pleasure from it and only use torture techniques as part of an interrogation when the consequences of not obtaining the information are dire and the victim's actions are directly responsible then they may be considered to be good. Anything in between is probably neutral provided there is no enjoyment whatsoever.
In terms of success. It is unreliable as the victim just wants to end the pain and so will tell the torturer what they think they want to hear, which is not necessarily the truth. The torturer has a different response to the one they would have got without torture, but still has to determine whether it is the truth.
Variety is the key. Vary the number of encounters per day, the types of encounter and the terrain the encounters occur in.
The variety will counter hyper specialisation and make some CR appropriate encounters harder than typical whilst others will stroke the players egos. The variety will also lessen the perceived overpowered nature of wizards. They won't be able to pick a perfect spell list for the day, nor will they know whether to cast a useful spell now or save it in case it is really needed later.
Making full use of the terrain will make each encounter more interesting and playing each creature intelligently its full potential will make each encounter more challenging.
I'm perfectly happy to use creatures with save or suck/die abilities against the party.
I expect the party to work as a team and to conduct reconnaissance before blundering ahead. Using the medusa as an example. A medusa's presence in an area would leave many clues (ie lots of randomly placed statues of people and/or creatures in strange poses) and the party should be able to prepare to deal with a medusa. If they blunder in unprepared and add to the medusa's collection then hopefully the players will have learned something and will play their next character more carefully.
Bill Dunn wrote:
I like that differentiation. In game the difference could be whether the character responds to a stimulant or not. Which (thinking whilst typing) could be the difference between making or failing a fort (for a physical response)or will (for a mental response) save.
There's nothing in the RAW. If you wanted to houserule, about the closest existing rule would be the jumping rules in the Acrobatics skill. Shooting up is 4x the range of shooting horizontally. But I would only say that counted for the maximum range the projectile could travel, not the accuracy, which would remain unchanged. The target is still 50 feet away.
For firing downwards, I would say that beyond the maximum range the projectile becomes a falling object
Dave Justus wrote:
This is a good ruling. It may not be rules legal and is open to abuse as the GM is essentially revising the location of the enemy based on the players actions. But the GM is not looking to gain an advantage and unless the PCs are metagaming (and there is no indication that they are) they will be unaware of the change. If the players are metagaming and cast the spell in an attempt to reveal the fighter then the GM has dealt with the situation well by both allowing the spell and keeping the fighter hidden.
I agree with Diego. But you do run the risk of a TPK if strictly following the table, particularly if the party are retreating because they are low on HP and other resources. I would fudge the second roll so that they end up in a similar area in the new demiplane and are able to make camp there. You may wish to add an easy encounter in the similar area that they have to clear first to establish a safe camp.
Out of game, was the player drunk because it's a very stupid thing to do? In game, as GM you must let the consequences of players' characters actions follow there course. In this case the character will be reported for murder and thanks to magic will in all likelihood be found guilty of murdering a town guard.
Changing the character's alignment is irrelevant, it's not going to stop the player doing stupid things.
Alternatively, you could call a time out, describe the consequences and suggest a narrative revision of events so the murder never happened. Then state that next time you will play the consequences through to there conclusion.
One of my favourite 'traps' was a swamp riddled with pockets of quicksand. Easy to spot outside of combat so the PCs knew it was around. But when they were being chased by lizardmen they couldn't afford the action to look for some ahead. The lizardmen knew the swamp and could avoid it easily but the players didn't.
I suspect the problem might lie in you not being tactically aware and are just entering creatures into melee. An intelligent foe will avoid engagement when they can see the chance of success is low. Try some or all of the following
Ranged combat - have the creatures stay out of melee range until they have expended any missiles.
Reach Weapons - the reach advantage has been neutralised
Narrow corridors - if the group are single file and he is at the front he will take the brunt of any attacks. If he is not at the front then he suffers a penalty due to those in front
Staggered formations - Whichever enemy he attacks will leave him exposed to attacks from other characters next round
Mob attack & Grappling - Someone will get through
Disarm or trip attacks
A huge creature with a longspear, 15' reach trumps 10' reach
Traps are expensive to install and in a high verisimilitude environment are unlikely to be scattered around randomly. It is probably worth considering the intended purpose of the trap when designing the dungeon. I can think of several categories:
The sentry and battlefield control examples can certainly add to an encounter. Whilst the guardian and thief killer can be annoying unless their placement adds to the overall tension in the game. Used well, the Guardian trap indicates that the party need to be on alert and are close to finding something worth protecting. The thief-killer should be expected by a cautious party. They should also most often be encountered after a significant encounter and the party may not have the resources to deal with the trap or it's effects if they went nova during the encounter.
To cut a long description short, traps are not an issue if they are logically placed and used to build tension. If they're just random irritants designed to sap resources when there is no time or resource pressure then yes they will be irritating.
Andy Brown wrote:
And would require the Strike Back feat to strike the limb(s) attempting the grapple.
As the Strike back feat is one of the CRB feats it cannot be considered a bloat feat which covers an action that you could previously do without needing a feat.
I think there is a difference between faking a surrender and genuinely surrendering with a plan. In the latter case, the bluff DC is so low given the convincing proof and that you are believed enough to be captured, that it is not worth rolling sense motive. Rather the capturing group leader will follow established protocols, if any. So the GM should have predetermined the precautions that the capturing group will take.
One example where Kayleroth's fake surrender might be relevant is in the case of a split group with the other part failing to reach position (eg flanking) in time. The fake surrender is intended to buy a few rounds for the other group. The problem with this is that without metagaming the original group does not know how long the other group will be. If the ambush eventually occurs then the original group will be surprised along with the enemy and after the surprise round the enemy are likely to deal with the tactically disadvantaged original group first as it will be easier than dealing with the other group and certainly better than being trapped between two groups.
I think the OP's question is related to the fact that the players rely on the GM to describe the surroundings. If the GM fails to provide any clue then the players will feel justly cheated. If something is foreshadowed then the players will be on alert for a trap. The question is how to provide clues without giving away every trap.
Whilst not a complete answer, one contributing factor is proactively rewarding investment in knowledge skills by giving related hints. E.g you notice some unusual architectural features that seem to serve no functional or aesthetic quality but have some commonality with avalanche or rockslide control defences.
The party hasn't found the boulder trap trigger but have a big clue that there is some sort of boulder/rock trap around.
Similarly research into the original inhabitant or architect might reveal some signature trap features that they are known for. That gives some foreshadowing to the players.
Those players that only invest in the tactical skills will find they receive less clues.
The cart's mass is 100lbs per occupant capacity (from Internet)
An average labourer can output an average of 50-150 watts per day (Internet again). Lets assume the power output of a character is 10 watts per point of strength.
The coefficient of friction between the cart's pulley and the zip line is 0.1 and the zip line is perfectly horizontal.
The mechanical efficiency of the windlass is 10% taking into account the condition of the windlass and more significantly the amount of total human power that can be directed into winding.
Mass to wind=Mass of cart×friction as the cart's weight is supported entirely by the zip line = 100 lbs × 0.1 = 10 lbs = 5Kg = 50N per person capacity
Winding power = STR x Power per STR x Mechanical efficiency. Assuming 10 STR = 10×10×.1=10 watts
Power=Newtons × metres / seconds
So an average strength character can move a one person cart at 20 feet per round along a perfectly horizontal zip line.
The formula can be generalised as
I can't really see how faking surrender would be advantageous against any opponent bright enough to understand the concept.
To fake the surrender you would have to declare you are surrendering and make an action that indicates that you are surrendering. Ie you would at best have to take the total defence action if not drop your weapon(s). Attacking and then surrendering in the same round is not going to be taken seriously by anyone.
If the surrender is accepted then you will be required to throw your weapons away and assume a disadvantageous position, such as kneeling or prone. At the same time your opponents will assume advantageous positions and ready attacks.
If the surrender is not accepted then you have lost a round's attacks.
I cannot see how faking the surrender helps as at best you lost a round of attacks and at worst have placed yourself in a tactically inferior position.
Without knowing the mechanics involved it is impossible to say. DM Blake's speed of plot is a good one.
I disagree slightly with some of the other posts suggesting walking speed, having seen how slowly a hand (or electric) winch winds in a trailer boat or off road vehicle. An easy answer would be 5' per round. Which is still faster than the given real world examples but is easy to manage in gameplay.
If there was a counterweight system it could be significantly faster and the windlass system is replaced with a braking system to control speed. In this scenario the counterweight is slightly heavier than the cart but less than the cart plus a notional minimum load.
The Imp would have needed the Strike Back feat to attack you. So the ruling was correct.
As an aside that feat can make Earth Elementals and other creatures with 10'+ reach and earthglide very dangerous. They can hide behind 5' of earth (e.g the floor) and attack with impunity as they have total cover and cannot be hit unless the defender has strike back.
@Dave Justus and Deathless One. I see where you are coming from though several dictionary definitions (Mirriam Webster, Oxford and Dictionary.com) together suggest that vengeance is a cover-all term for revenge, justice and retribution. The common theme is that vengeance is punishment for a misdeed but that the punishment does not necessarily fit the misdeed and is typically, but not necessarily, excessive. Revenge is personally motivated whereas vengeance need not be. It is the typically excessive element, which could be viewed as setting an example/warning to make sure overs do not perform the same misdeed which leads me to consider it chaotic. I.e. it is not bound by a legal code or a moral code beyond that of the avenger. The more refined forms of vengeance - i.e. justice and retribution, I agree are lawful.
@Darkblood2442. For pre-emptive justice you would need proof that the specific individuals were absolutely going to commit the crime. In the real-world a member of an outlaw motorcycle gang cannot be arrested for the crimes that the gang is known to be involved in unless it can be proven that the individual is personally involved. It would certainly not be lawful or good to incarcerate all Harley Davidson riders with long hair (substituting for a description of a game world Orc) because they superficially match the description of some criminals. A similar standard is likely to exist in the game world. You cannot kill every Orc you meet because some Orcs killed some villagers.
As a GM, I expect the following tenets to be upheld by a Paladin character mainly for the sake of gameplay and should be used in addition to Ragathiel's code:
Now given that vengeance, as opposed to justice, is a chaotic motivation but Ragathiel is a LG God of Vengeance then the distinction between Ragathiel's divine vengeance and mortal vengeance must be made. Ragathiel's vengeance is the delivery of justice (never seeking disproportionate retribution) and the Paladin is the tool that delivers.
Playing an implement of divine vengeance will be hard. You must never overlook wrongdoing but at the same time must never act without proof or act excessively, e.g. killing those that don't deserve it. I can't imagine the God of vengeance will be lenient to those Paladins that have killed those that don't deserve it and a fallen Paladin is the end result.
It's also worth noting that under Ragathiel's code, evil must only avenged against the innocent. Just because someone detects as evil, doesn't mean they've done anything wrong against the innocent. It also asks whether any action need be taken against a dragon that slaughters a band of goblins and steals their treasure when the goblins robbed and murdered to acquire the treasure in the first place. Likewise is raising a zombie from a murderer's body an act to be avenged?
I think Slim Jim's point is well made and Blue Sky's response doesn't alleviate any of the red flags raised.
A player wanting to play an evil character usually leads to a disharmonious table. Unless the evil character's goals and motives are compatible with the party and the player takes extra care not to be a jerk.
Blue Sky has stated he wants the other players to question whether the actions are really evil but has failed to give any examples at all to build upon. Furthermore there is no description of the character's motivations. All he has said is he wants to play an evil character and be able to justify it by saying something along the lines of "it will be alright in the end". With that attitude I can easily see the table having arguments over the actions along the way.
This could get very very silly if one started reading too closely. The Definition of material and sort gives a very wide degree of latitude. Is steel a material or is it a compound of multiple materials? Sort could include terms like organic, heavy, shiny, valuable.
It is a 5th level spell so I think some latitude on the material is justifiable. Clothing with stitching of a different fabric, swords with leather on the handle and boats which are watertight with corking or bitumen should all be allowed. I would also allow bowd and arrows.
@Kayerloth What you say is all true but I think you are missing the point I'm trying to make. For the sake of discussion, lets assume the PCs gain scry and fry at around 9th level and the ultimate BBEG is around the level 20 mark or an equivalent , such as a powerful outsider etc. The PCs up until this point have probably at best damaged one or two of the many plans being masterminded by the BBEG and they are barely on the radar. If all of a sudden the PCs are wiping out significant branches of the organisation then a quick investigation by the BBEG's inner circle is going to reveal the culprits. At this stage the BBEG probably has around three tiers of management for want of a better term who are all more powerful than the party. A combined team picked from those tiers should not have any difficulty finding and teleporting in to the party and massively overpowering them before they destroy any more of the BBEG's plans.
Now it doesn't happen because their is a social contract between the GM and the players to keep the game fun for all involved. Scry and fry is only a problem tactic because there are no repercussions and the party can safely go nova in every encounter and then return to base. If the GM first warns and then demonstrates that he is actually holding back for the sake of fun but could actually justifiably employ far more deadly tactics then an agreement can be reached around the table not to use the tactic.
As an aside, if the party does prove to be elusive to scrying, sending Babau or some other demon or similar to wait for the party, teleport back to base when found and then return with a kill squad would work.