Magnus Fullbright's page

I have a question about the cybernetic tyrannosaurids. Their size is listed as large but their space and reach are listed as 15 ft as though they were huge. Does anyone know which is correct. They are nasty enough with the swallow whole ability so I am inclined to give them the space and reach of large creatures i.e. 10 ft.

I'm a first time PFS GM and need some advice. What are the guidelines for adjusting monster/NPC stats from scenarios from season zero? The reason I ask is that the undead antagonists from The Rising Tide, which I will be running in a couple of weeks at tier 1-2, were built using 3.5 rules. Their charisma is a whopping six, which would give them a -2 HP/die. So what should I do? Mod the charisma to 10, which would mean they still get one less HP per HD? Keep the charisma score as it is and have them take the HP hit? Or not worry about it and run them with their HP as written? The PF Organized Play guide has guidelines for modifying NPC's and monsters, but say that creatures should be unmodified other than to add CMB's and CMD's. I'm inclined to do the last of the three because they, to be frank, are not much of a threat to anything but a 1st level commoner as written and I'd rather not see them take a HP hit. And if anyone knows of an offical revision to this scenario updating it to PF rules please let me know.

I am not sure if this is the proper forum for this issue, but I am not sure where else to post it.

An incident happened in my Age of Worms campaign that I am running has gotten under my skin and I would like some feedback on it. My players, around 16th level or so, were getting ready to confront an advanced elite Nightmare Beast (It’s in the MMII if your interested, basically it’s a big nasty four footed monster with tusks and lots of spell like abilities) in it’s lair, a huge cave with steam fissures in the bottom. This is on the Isle of Tilagos for those of you familiar with the AoW adventure path.

The paladin of the group came up with what amounted to a lure-into-deathtrap plan. His idea was for the party ranger to go into the steam-shrouded lair and lure the monster into chasing him and then have the party wizard throw up a prismatic wall which the nightmare beast would blunder into. The original plan was to throw up a wall of fog to conceal the prismatic wall, but that was ixnayed because of the presence of the steam.

To make a long story short, the plan did not work. The ranger virtually no had no chance of failure when picking his way over the steam crevasses due to his high skill modifiers and could easily outrun the beast with his boots of speed. When he sighted the creature’s glowing red eyes in the back of the cavern, he taunted it and ran back through the steam clouds. I ruled that the beast, this being far from the first adventuring band he’s faced, knew ambush bait when he saw it and instead of blundering through the steam clouds after the ranger started buffing itself with spell-like abilities.

The player of the paladin was extremely unhappy about this turn of events. He basically threw a hissy fit, saying that what I did was a “d**k move” because the creature did not take the bait. His argument was that I should have ruled that the creature charged after the ranger and blundered into the prismatic wall because it made for “good story.” When I explained to him the reason for my decision (detailed previously) he called me a “simulationist,” basically saying that I should have set aside the way I had the encounter planned because it would have made for “cool story.” I could have argued that I disagreed that having the monster blunder stupidly into a deathtrap (automatically failing all it’s saves, mind you) would not have made for a very exciting encounter, but I could see his mind made up, as he was now complaining that they would have to “roll a lot of dice to get the same result.” I ended the session right then and there (it was pretty late anyway) because I did not want to listen to him complaining for the rest of the evening.

Although this player has been a problem for a while with complaining when things did not go his way and telling players what to do and complaining when they did not do the “ideal” thing, this takes the cake. This is the first time he come out and told me how I should run the game. And while it is a group effort, the decision of what will and will not work still (I believe) rests with the DM. I believe that the whole “say yes to everything” mentality that is pushed heavily in D&D 4th edition is at least partially to blame, as it gives some (many?) players the notion that any plan that they come up with will work just fine and if it doesn’t your DM is being a jerk. I believe that is a misinterpretation of the adage, but that is my opinion. As a DM, I will give any reasonable plan a chance to succeed. Other players have come up with plans that have both worked spectacularly and failed miserably, but no one has complained about them.

I would like some feedback on this whole incident, as I am so mad about it I am about ready to quit running the campaign. It is a shame b/c we have put so much time and effort into it (close to 2 years of real time) that I want the players to see it through to the end and have a chance to save the world. However, I know this player is convinced he is right, is not about to change his ways, and I am about ready to tell him that if he is so convinced he is right he can go run his own game.

My party is just getting set to investigate Kuluth Mar and all the monstrosities theirin. The Beastlords (the name they got in the Greyhawk Arena, long story)are 12th level with a human ranger (archery style) with Undead as a favored enemy, a human artificer with a warforged fighter cohort, an elven psion, a human paladin mounted on a griffon (nickname "Harpoon Missle," as he does about as much damage as that particular ship-killing missle on a mounted charge with his lance), and a human cleric/combat medic (think Piffany from Nodwick and you'll get the idea). I am having a hard time not imagining this area as a huge TPK. The Worm Naga passage in particular. I think that being subjected to 1-3 feeblemind attacks every round they descend is going to result in the whole party (with the possible exception of the Psion or maybe the Cleric) being ready for Special Ed by the time they come out the other end of hole. Their saves are pretty good, but asking party members to make multiple saves every round or become Forrest Gump is asking a lot, even with the use of action points. They may not be dead by the time they come out, but they most certainly will have problems getting back to civilization. I am considering nerfing the Feeblemind to a spell-like ability as opposed to a gaze attack. Thoughts? What happened with your groups when they ran this little gauntlet

Any help I could get with this section, and the whole Spire of Long Shadows, would be greatly appreciated.

I have been salivating for over a year to be able to run the AoW campaign, and now that my wedding and honeymoon are done I will be able to. I see a lot of people have already played through the campaign. My question is, can anyone give me any pointers as to running it. In this I mean, any possible TPK's I should be aware of, any encounters in the first 2 installments (Whispering Cairn and 3 Faces) that may be too easy or too hard, or anything else you think I should watch out for. I wish to profit from the experience of others, so if you've run a group through and wish to share your experience let me know.