I completely understand the predicament you're in. My players do this all the time (or they try to, anyway). The only thing you can do is have the events occur while they're gone, and adjust the adventure path accordingly. After doing this once, I would discuss with the players that this adventure path is on a strict timeline. This is not a typical Sandbox campaign and if they delay, there are consequences. If your players were not aware of this up front, you may want to give them a mulligan - just this once, the timeline of events was delayed - but make sure they are aware it will not happen again. As far as TPKs go, is this occuring due to player tactics, inadequate experience levels, or some other in game situation? If you can provide a reason your party keeps dying off, we can offer some advice to help keep your PCs alive...for a while, anyway...
Why shouldn't the Paladin code be vague? Isn't that the point? Shouldn't there be room for interpretation by the Player and GM of each game? After all, wouldn't a Paladin of a Lawful Good Deity behave differently than a Paladin of a Chaotic Good Deity? Going one further, wouldn't Paladins of different deities have different priorities and codes based on his/her deity's portfolio? After all, if every Paladin had to abide by the exact set of rules, have the same personality, regardless of their patron deity, wouldn't they all act the same? This would mean that the Paladin class is the player's version of a railroady adventure - you can't act how you want to, you must play a certain way no matter what. Why would any player choose to play a Character Class that railroads him/her into playing it the same way each time? This "One True Paladin" debate has gone on for years and years, causing lots of disagreements and aggravation. Moreso than it deserves. However, I've never experienced it first-hand in any of my 30+ years (dear Lord, was 1978 that long ago?) of gaming. Many players (including myself) have played Paladins. In each case, the Paladin had subtle differences in behavior and his/her interpretation of the Paladin code. Never once did it cause an issue at the game table, as the DM/GM always went with the player's character concept and made it work. Variety is the spice of life! Methinks thou dost protest too much. Viva la Paladins! (and their diverse interpretations of codes).
As a Charter Subscriber, I'm proud to say that I've enjoyed the ride through Paizo's growing pains! I've never been disappointed by my monthly shipment. Good stuff all around. If I had to do it all again, I would in a heartbeat! On the other hand, as a wife of a Charter Subscriber, my wife believes I've joined some kind of cult...
I still need to get around to running my "everyone dies in the first session, spend the rest of the story as undead versions of your character" campaign.Right. I'm glad you and I are in agreement.No. Undead are in the category of monsters. They are NPC's, not PC's.Like no one ever plays monsters, right? Check out the Ghostwalk Campaign Setting for 3.5 for this very topic...
Check out Weapons of Legacy from the old 3.5 library. The rules allow for just the scenario you want to accomplish - weapons that start with minor enchantments and grow with the PCs. I've used it in the past to rave reviews from my players.
I agree with MDT. Forbid Action does not prevent you from moving, it changes your thought process so that you do not WANT to move. Freedom of Movement doesn't even come into play, as you will not even attempt to move while under the effects of Forbid Action. While under these effects, there is nothing preventing you from moving but yourself.
Sorry, but my big beef with this entire discussion is that the creature compelled was Undead. To me, this means the ghoul is: 1) Already dead, so there is no moral code regarding its rights as a living creature from a Paladin perspective because it's not a living creature. 2) Inherently evil - They EAT PEOPLE. Anything goes when combating or coercing this menace from a Paladin perspective. In other words, I see nothing wrong with the Paladin's actions in dealing with it. The GM's argument that compelling the ghoul to give up a book is akin to stealing implies that the dead can own property. Lawfully, this is not the case, so compelling the ghoul to hand over the book does not in any way break the Paladin code. Further, compulsion is an acceptable tool when used to promote the greater cause. Some entities will not cooperate willingly, and need a little push to help them do the right thing (Of course, this applies to living beings. As I mentioned before, anything goes with Undead). As others have pointed out, the only issue is that the Paladin left the Ghoul alive, not that he had his minion Command Undead to obtain information the Ghoul otherwise would not have shared. Just my 2 cents. YMMV.
Bold mine. Let me take a stab at this... First of all, since necromancers don't have a cleric level is the limit of how many undead they can control at once their wizard level? Or do they not have a limit. The Necromancy School feature substitutes Wizard level for Cleric level when determining your DC, so you can safely assume that your Wizard level will substitute as your Cleric level to determine how many undead you can control. Second, how long does command undead last? Can it continue as long as the caster wants? Can they dump their undead minions in a cave while they visit a town and then come back for them when they leave? As the Command Undead feat indicates that the undead fall under your control and obey your commands as if under the the effects of Control Undead, the duration of the effect can be answered by referring to the Control Undead spell: * How long does it last - 1 minute/level. For that matter, is their a maximum distance or anything that the undead need to maintain to stay controlled? As far as I can tell they only need to be within 30ft for the initial channel energy, and can then be sent as far away as the caster wants for as long as they want. Maximum Distance is unlimited once the channel is completed, so the controller can go as far from the undead as he/she likes and the controlled undead will perform his/her last order until the duration runs out. Finally, How does the process of disposing of commanded minions go? As soon as the caster's control is over, they revert to their normal behavior. If they are hostile, they will become so again. Per the Control Undead spell, intelligent undead remember being controlled and may seek revenge on the one who controlled them. Does the wizard just say the word and they become hostile again? Since this is not addressed in the Command Undead feat, I refer once again to Control Undead. Control Undead is not dismissible (as there is no D in the Duration section), and does not depend upon Concentration, so the undead remain under your control until the duration ends, or the effect is countered in some way. Can they be ordered to leave without attacking? , Yes - until the duration runs out. can they simply be chopped up while still under the caster's control and not fighting back? Yes. The controller control them, they are not charmed, so they are, in effect, inanimate objects if the controller orders them to stand still. So, they can be attacked with no threat of breaking the controller's control. Hope this helps!
Reading the rule, I don't see anything that says you can't push your target into a pit, off a cliff, or through a Wall of Fire. The key phrase is "the target must end his move in a safe space it can stand in" - it says nothing about what happens between the time he starts his move and ends it. Thus, you can infer that: - Wall of Fire - you can kick your target through the Wall, as he will end his movement on the other side of the wall, where he can safely stand. Damage is done prior to landing in his final space. - Off a Cliff - you can kick your target off the cliff as the space they land in is a safe one where they can stand. Damage is done as he enters the space, so he takes damage before ending his movement. Because of this, technically, this is a valid use of the maneuver. - Into a Pit - you can kick your target into a pit as the space they land in is a safe one where they can stand. Damage is done as he enters the space, so he takes damage before ending his movement. Because of this, technically, this is a valid use of the maneuver. I am aware this is a stretch, but I believe this will work RAW. In any case, I cannot imagine the maneuver was intentionally designed RAI to prevent you from using it in these ways.
I like the premise! I might link different parts of the Lycanthropy curse to each moon. Assuming the moons are different sizes, the curse can have more or less severe effects: Largest (Dominant) Moon: Controls the transformation itself. - When Waxing, the Lycanthrope can only transform into his Hybrid form.
Medium (Medial) Moon: Controls the powers and abilities attached to the transformation. (This moon has no effect on the Lycanthrope if the Dominant Moon is New, as the transformation could not occur). - When Waxing, the powers and abilities are as indicated in the template.
Smallest (Bantam) Moon: Determines the level of control the Lycanthrope has over his actions when the transformation takes place.(This moon has no effect on the Lycanthrope if the Dominant Moon is New, as the transformation could not occur). - When Waxing, the Lycanthrope controls his actions out of combat, but reverts to Full Moon form whenever combat occurs.
This would make it interesting for Lycanthrope hunters, as there would definitely be more benefit to hunting their prey during New or Waning Moons, and much more danger if all three were full at the same time.
I disagree. I have made several Rogues who were not combat oriented, and they managed to get along just fine. In any case, the OP did not want a combat oriented Rogue. He wanted a "traditional" Thief. Don't assume he's playing the same way you are.
Tomorrow's Thanksgiving and I just want to take a moment to say that I'm thankful for Paizo, Pathfinder, and all of the folks on these messageboards. All of you make my gaming life better in a variety of ways (Plus, it's rare to find a place where a Lich can be accepted). Thank you from the bottom of my undead, unbeating heart! (And my real life, beating heart too!) Happy Thanksgiving from Larry Lichman (aka, Scott St. John and the St. John family)
Here's a build for a first level traditional Thief (Core Rules Only) that may give you a starting point: Rogue (Human) Level 1 Ability Scores (15 point buy): STR: 10
Class Abilities:
Skills: (11 skill points)
Feats:
This is not an optimized build by any means. Rather, this build is designed to fill the Thief's traditional role of trapfinding, lock picking, pick pocketing, and burglary as you requested. Ability scores are assuming a 15 point build, and emphasize the "sneaky" parts of a Rogue - DEX, INT, and CHA. This means you won't be great in combat, but will do just fine as a thief. Skill selection is set so you maximize the skills you will need in your profession, and can continue to add to them as your Rogue establishes his identity. Bluff is a must, as you won't be able to do much in a fight, but you may be able to talk your way out of a difficult situation should you be caught practicing your chosen profession... Feats are defensive by design. These allow you to move around the battlefield and (hopefully) avoid getting hit while positioning yourself for a few well-placed sneak attacks. As you progress, you may want to add Improved Initiative, Iron Will, or some form of Skill Focus. From an equipment perspective, Masterwork Thieves' Tools are a must. Leather Armor is advisable, as well as a basic weapon with a better than normal chance to crit, such as a Rapier, Short Sword, or a Dagger (You won't hit often, but the expanded crit threat allows you a better chance of maximizing your damage when you do hit). Let me know your thoughts, and I hope this helps!
What self-respecting barbarian would use an outhouse? In any case. you're not talking about a "barbarian" at this point. Your talking about Conan. Conan is immune to attacks from anywhere, including the outhouse. He is Conan, the Chuck Norris of fantasy literature.
And, speaking in character has been required by all sorts of RP heavy DMs, it's not "Old School" at all.Old School doesn't have to mean bad, some of the idea's were very good. Only speaking in character is very much old school. I very much agree with this statement. Old School DM does not mean "Bad DM." Some of the best campaigns I've been involved in were with Old School DMs. Heck, to some degres, I'M an Old School DM...
6. You still divide your rounds into segments. 7. No one is allowed to look behind the DM screen. 8. You run more of your own adventures than pre-published adventures. 9. You modify all pre-published adventures you DO run just enough to throw off those players who like to read ahead (but don't admit it). 10. Save or Die is a way of life - Your campaign did not adopt the kinder gentler Pathfinder way of handling these types of spells... 11. You have developed several ways of countering the 15 minute adventuring day.
By the time you are fighting CR12 creatures, I think it is safe to assume that they will more than likely make the saves of a level 3 spell. Exactly. As long as you are facing level-appropriate encounters, Metamagic spells are game-balanced. There are enough defenses, feats, and other options that non-optimized NPCs/Monsters/PCs have available to counter a Metamagic-enhanced spell. It's only when you talk about the abilities granted by stacking Metamagic feats without taking into account the context in which they will be used that they appear to be over-powered. |
