Ok, this may have been asked, but when the drakes attack the riverboat and abscond with the old warhorse, the horse is taken off to the drakes cave. Once in the cave the horse is dropped off in the front (unwounded?) while the drake goes into the back of the cave, around a corner, "feasting on a rotting cow carcass" while the horse waits patiently for someone to come along and save him.
So why doesn't the horse just run away out the front of the cave?
Did I miss something?
Without those skills he may not know Specific information, but in a world with Real Magic he would know that wizards use magic and that magic does stuff and some of that stuff is protecting the wizard.He knows it is a wizard be casue of the pointy hat.
Being a warrior he would also know that he has yet to get in a Really Good Hit, so why give up?
Well, you did bring up the 'near miss' arguement but lets leave that for now.As far as the warrior vs barbarian goes, "Well, it takes more than one swing of the axe to chop down a tree" thought the warrior as he continued to nick and scratch the barbarian to death.
Oh but it is, you have not hurt them but they have not hurt you either. So far it sounds like a tie.
The warrior knows wizards have spells that can protect them, he also knows that he has yet to strike a "really good blow" (crit) so why not keep trying.
If an illusionist pumps his save DCs and tricks his enemies into believing a project image spell is actually him, and that he is an invincible god that cannot be harmed by "mere mortals." Then what is to keep his enemies from being utterly convinced short of successful saves or great foreknowledge of magic (such as ranks in Spellcraft and/or Knowledge: Arcana)?
"Maybe it's an illusion, wizards are tricky like that".
Hits are actual blows, not "near misses", with a lot of hit points they are more like scratches and cuts.One would think that the axe wielder would think "Eventualy I'll get a good shot, and so far he hasn't hurt me that much".
In practice, I find this is not the case in most peoples' games. In fact most games are rife with unconscious metagaming. A warrior doesn't retreat because he can't hurt the wizard. He often goes after another target that he can hurt.
In none of the examples do you mention anyone getting hurt by the "invincible" opponents, that in my experience, is when people retreat.
Why isn't he running away?
He has a job to do, or he doesn't want to get hit in the back?
Or reassessing the situation?
One does not have to run away to reassess.
The wizard is no less dangerous for his invincibility. To go after another target is to turn one's back on him, and thus to invite tragedy. No one in their right mind would do this in reality. If an experienced SWAT team member empties a clip into a bank robber, and his bullets do nothing, he's going to fall back and reassess the situation, not reload and open fire on a second bank robber.
Unless his partner happens to have a better gun.
Or there are civilians nearby and by continuing to shoot he gives them a chance to escape.
Or, he knows about body armor and knows that one good shot will finish the guy.
Perhaps the long lost founder of this Cult of Reason passed the Test of the Starstone, and intentionally kept his/her success quiet.
Evil.All the arguments to the contrary fall apart once the question "What happens when the slave doesn’t feel like being a slave anymore" is asked.
what if you spare someone's life on the condition that they become your slave?
Slave = Evil.Prisoner = Not Evil.
The cleric should be opposed; The players should not be jerks and figure out a way to work it out without ruining the game.
for background information on laws of the region, we are doing Legacy of Fire adventure path which is in Ketapesh, soo slavery is totally legal and common, but would a cleric be opposed to it, the cleric in this game is of Sarenrae.
Legal and common does not mean ok, it means Good has a lot of work to do.
Your best bet, find a new group. Perhaps more players would stick around if these two were somewhere else.
So I'm having trouble challenging my party. 3 members, dwarf fighter, human paladin, and a ranger/wizard/arcane archer, all level 10. So far, they just sort of blast through everything I throw at them. I could use some advice on trying to slow them down. Also we've been talking of adding a fourth member, any suggestions would be great.
Really long hit and run combats where they are up against the clock.
Curious as to how a 1st level character is doing 15-40 damage?
As for the other players being bored maybe give them some hints as to things they could do also, don't let them just sit and watch.
Yeah I would so do all of those things if this was a home game, but seeing as this is a Pathfinder Society game, I have to strictly abide by the stats for the encounters as written. Unfortunately, the barbarian and paladin are twin brothers new to Pathfinder, and they had an experienced veteran help create their characters for power-gaming, so they are more like fourth or fifth level characters instead of level two, but I'm still restricted to the "Tiers 1-2" monsters. They're power gaming without even realizing it, and since they're so new, they don't think of it as a bad thing. But the other two players were pretty much useless, since the monsters were already dead before the fight began.
Having a spear and hitting someone before they hit you is power gaming? Really?
Here is my advice if this situation comes up in the future: Let Them, that is what spears are for after all.
One thing you could try is do occasionally (all of the time would be heavy handed) have something “Interesting” happen to the rest of the party while the Druid is off on his own.
Another idea would be to put something other than dirt and stone in-between rooms, an underground spring or two every now and then could at the very least slow the druid down a bit. Also, dungeons don’t always have to be made of dirt/stone.
All that said, sometimes its ok to let a character do something well.
4.“...and let her move in with you and/or find her another home with a landlord who is less of a jerk”Dont forget Good.
That would depend if it is a Lawful Good law.
Nope. If your Chaotic Evil lord starts telling you to go out and do Chaotic Evil things, then the proper response is to not do them.
I would say no in most cases. Unless the slave is a convict serving off a sentence there could be some merit to this argument, but if it was your stereotypical chattel slavery, not a chance.
Did you ask about the Paladins motivation?
If it was “I like to kill things” then yeah, that’s trouble for the Paladin. If on the other hand it was “Kobolds are dangerous, if we let them go they will whole tribe will be down on us. A quick, clean death is best” then no, that’s perfectly acceptable Paladin behavior.
Maybe the Evil guy has some other motivation other than money. What if the known bad guys happen to be a group/race/things that the evil guy has a grudge against? Maybe the Evil guy just likes killing things?
If the character is Lawful Evil it’s even easier; “Sure they are a bit sentimental but you have to stick together, besides I am sure that they will come around with me here as a good example”.
The BBG isn’t trying to kill them for whatever reason. Perhaps the BBG is just toying with them for fun, or wants slaves or a fresh food source. Maybe the characters don’t even make it to the BBG, killing a minion or two but using up everything they have to do so.
They were already dead, right? How is chopping someone up post mortem (quite likely as an object lesson for those who find them) worse than chopping them up while they are alive while trying to kill them?
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
I’m going to go against the general consensus and go with either LG or NG. Trying to work within the system (by the barmaid being dead at the hands of the guards) has been shown not to work so someone has to see to it justice is served. What really matters is the motivation of the character though, and it sounds like the motivations could be either NG or LG.I wonder though, would those go say Evil change if the guards in question were Orc or Goblin guards?
I wouldn't say that. Sparticus was a slave who didn't care for being a slave. Nothing Chaotic or Lawful about not wanting to be a slave.
What would be the problem with this? Being really good at "blasting skeletons and haunts" is a great way to support the group (unless the group is made up of skeletons and haunts) and balances out quite well when facing things that are neither skeletons nor haunts.
Unless they are on a strict time table, there is no reason they can not stash the bulky stuff and come back for it later, with some horses or a cart.Of course, once they start to acquire bags of holding this quickly becomes a non issue.
Except ‘In Game’ Good and Evil are actual measurable forces in the universe. Sure , regular folk can sit around and argue about morality and what the definitions of Good and Evil are, but once you have access to Detect Good and Detect Evil any argument goes out the window.Of course, Good and Evil have little to do with right and wrong and I can see that argument going on quite often.
I have always seen CN as personal freedom first, everything else second. Don’t go out of your way to help people and don’t go out of your way to hurt people either.
That said, Killing a sleeping Evil creature in the "layers of hell" is not Evil, it's smart. IMO the Paladin could have walked up and done the same and not had even so much as a blemish on their Paladinhood.
Not Evil does not equal stupid and/or suicidal.
A Six-hour con game…
One hour of character creation.
Two hours of GM back-story.
One (and only one) combat where only the NPC could touch the monster (the rest of us ran, hid and healed each other) that lasted for over one hour.
Probably about an hours total worth of breaks.
But rest of the time, not very memorable.
The thing some people seem to be missing here is that Paladins don’t have to be correct all the time; they have to be Good.It’s ok for them to make a mistake once in a while.
If I was sleeping next to my wife and was woken by a delicious cheeseburger walking into my room to check if I was Evil, well it wouldn’t go to well for the cheeseburger is all I am going to say.
Heck, for all he knows it could have been two Lawful Good Arch Angles who disguised them selves as Wyverns. He Should Have Checked!
Or at least Not Evil.(also, not supper)
I guess it depends on how you define Danger. A dog safely behind a fence is not as dangerous a Giant Mobile Carnivorous Oleander or a Wyvern for that matter.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
It’s a give and take on both parts. The GM is running the game and has final say during the game. The players should agree to play in the GMs world and not try to rock the boat too much. However the GM should take care to keep the players happy (note: this does not mean always giving them everything they want), as without players the GM is just a lonely guy with a bunch of books.
I would hope it has little to do with the number of players available. I like to game with my friends and I would hope that everyone involved is able to act like an adult and not be threatened with ‘replacement’.
Ion Raven wrote:
To be honest, in real life I have never experienced any arguments or ‘headaches’ regarding alignment. I didn’t even know people disagreed so vehemently about it until I started reading the arguments on line.
Perhaps it’s just that I like the tradition, but I like the idea of ethical magic and the other associated features of alignment.
In the end though, I guess it really just depends on the group you are with
Is it a giant flying poisonous pit bull?
Easily solved. Before the next game ask, “So guys, just what do you want to do in this game anyhow?”
Reasonable consequences <> Punishment.
Perhaps one of the reason he does these things is due to the lack of consequences?
Also, I don’t see the problem with “Setting up shop” in a dungeon.
Lord Fyre wrote:
The best way to find out takes two steps. Step one, ask yourself "Is my game master a jerk" if the answer is "No" go on to step two. Step Two, say "Hey GM, I want to play a Paladin".
Paladins are no harder to play than any other kind of character, assuming your GM isn’t a jerk that is out to screw with the players.
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
I'm truly enjoying running my Kingmaker AP but I'm expecting to have a few problems working up the players interest in taking the reins of leadership. I know I can simply use the kingdom in the background rules but that kind of defeats the point of running an adventure to build a kingdom.
My best suggestion is to say to the players “I want to run a game called Kingmaker” and then let them come up with reasons why there characters would want to rule a kingdom.If they either can’t or won’t then let a NPC be in charge and send them on missions or just play a different game.
Not official answer, but having to move to be 'stealthy' seems a bit silly to me. He attacks, then makes a new check. Of course there would be, imo, quite a few bonuses to the check to spot the guy attacking.
Darkfire Knight wrote:
The further away from Lawful the law gets the more likely a Lawful character would be to break it.
Thanks, I see this now. My bank changed its online format recently and it looked like a charge.
I was charged $293.31 (the amount with the unreleased books) when the total listed for the pending order is $64.68 (only the released books).
Please fix this.
You could always give him a high bluff and intimidate and a big axe.
“I am a goblin”
“Hmm..him could be goblin..”
*natural 20* “Wait, him no goblin!”
*axe to head*
“Yep, him a goblin, yep.”
It seems that all the items I had on preorder are all shipping (and being charged) this month. Some of the items are not released until December. Shouldn’t preorders send and be charged as they are released?
FYI, here is a list of the products I am supposedly getting in May.
1x Call of Cthulhu: Bumps in the Night
Also, if it is possible, of the four items I somehow managed to order 2 of switched to 1 each?