Sunlord Thalachos

Quintain's page

Goblin Squad Member. 1,566 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,566 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I like the idea of ancestry (depending on how it is implemented) so long as I can do some mixing and matching — like having a damphir that can get elven weapon familiarity without having to jump through tons of hoops to do it.

Yes, you can be staggered while under FoM. Staggered is a mental condition, not a magical effect that slows your movement (which is what is being described).

Does anyone have this hosted publicly for download somewhere?

Never mind, the link above still works

Has anyone put this class into Hero Lab?

No, it will not work. While Bane affects creatures, it does not target them, it is a target less AOE effect.

As long as the sense in question that you awe using is a “precise” sense like sight, you are good to go.

Could a casting of a lesser wish/Wish spell duplicate the effect of an Occult Ritual provided the level of the ritual is equal to or less than the level of a spell that the lesser wish/wish could duplicate normally?

They are still mindless, but have the ability to perform basic tasks like a "bot". They still need to make the check, as no non-AI programming is perfect.

They are still considered mindless.

You gain this ability at the time you gain the archetype. The first sentence of the "Secondary Discipline" is "When the dual disciple chooses his discipline, he also selects his secondary discipline".

So, in most cases, it will be at first level, unless you are retraining .

Yes, you can combine augmentation options 1 and 3 so that you won't take any ability damage when using the power (it is delayed and fades when the power expires).

If the power is dispelled, then it has "faded", and all the ability damage is applied immediately, and only is removed when the power's duration is reached.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
So when I get up in the morning I manifest Share Pain 8 times, and I know take 1/8th of any damage I receive.

You are breaking stacking rules.

kellyR wrote:
I mean, this is all just off the top of my head. If I were *really* trying to break it, I could do worse. But I'm damn hard to kill at this point, unless the DM is building something specifically to kill me. And I still have plenty of PP for tossing Concussion Blast and whatever else I might feel like. And even if I run out of PP I can still use Steal Health for free.

If you really want overpowered healing, try a level 2 vitalist (getting the spirit of many ability) and couple it with magical healing.

Take a mass heal, applied to everyone in your collective, and then redirect that to anyone you want that is also in your collective.

No, unfortunately, it is a deliberate game design decision to make SLAs less flexible (in terms of metamagics) than actual castable spells.

James Risner wrote:
Quintain wrote:
So the underlying answer to this build is whether you think that a untyped bonus from class A and an untyped bonus from class B are considered different sources if happen to use the same ability score or not.
The two sources stack but they can’t stack because both are sourced from Charisma so in the end they don’t stack. We know that is true from an explicit FAQ.

By the FAQ, yes. Personally, I don't see a problem with it.

By the FAQ this build completely eliminates the monk ac bonus and a stat bonus to ac just because the source is a single stat vs multiple stats. It doesn't make it more powerful than a standard build.

s00pahFr0g wrote:
I have a more specific case of this that I have a question about. I've got a Scaled Fist Monk 1/Lore Oracle 1/Flying Blade Swashbuckler 9 character that I've just started playing. Scaled Fist monk makes all monk abilities that go off wisdom instead go off charisma so the monk's AC bonus comes off charisma. The Lore Oracle with the Sidestep Secret Revelation replaces their dex to AC with cha to AC. Do these count as the same source? Hero lab is letting me do this but its making this character rather ridiculous. He worships desna and uses Desna's shooting star and I took noble scion of war as well as osyluth guile. The build as a whole gets charisma to AC twice, and a third time as a dodge bonus, cha to initiative, cha to att and dmg, and cha to saves due to swashbuckler. All of this works in hero lab but I know that is not a valid rules source.

I just did your build in hero lab, and there multiple bugs involved.

In the abilities tab, if you look at the mouse tool tip text, you'll see +A (Cha) and +A (Dex) and dodge bonus in there. Dex should be a 2nd Cha and the dodge bonuses from fighting defensively and osyluth's guile are not stacking. Also, the dodge value is bad and not applying Osyluth's guile properly. (I did a 18 charisma, and it only applied +5 as the dodge bonus -- it should be +6).

James Risner wrote:
Quintain wrote:
I'm not so sure.

Let's assume all you said was relevant.

It's still two sources adding untyped Charisma to your AC. One from Monk and one from "Dex swap".

The nested source FAQ says that can't happen, so full stop it can't.

Could it before the nested ability FAQ? Yes to most/many. No from James Jacobs and others.

Right, but untyped bonuses from different sources do stack in most cases, do they not? So you have two sources adding a bonus that would normally stack.

Also, I did an edit stating that on the FAQ technicality, they do not stack -- even if they apply differently.

So the underlying answer to this build is whether you think that a untyped bonus from class A and an untyped bonus from class B are considered different sources if happen to use the same ability score or not.

I, personally, don't have an issue with them stacking, as it really isn't "broken" from a balance standpoint. It doesn't really change the numbers.

Hit this guy with CHA damage/drain and he is toast. Touch of Idiocy is this guy's bane.

James Risner wrote:
s00pahFr0g wrote:
monk's AC bonus comes off charisma. The Lore Oracle with the Sidestep Secret Revelation replaces their dex to AC with cha to AC. Do these count as the same source?source.
Report that as a herolab bug. The Monk AC and the Lore Oracle Sidestep don't stack as it is two untyped Cha to AC bonuses that don't stack.

I'm not so sure.

Normally, monk's armor class is calculated from wisdom and then dexterity modifies armor class normally (standard dex bonus to AC).

In your build, your monk uses charisma to calculate his normal armor class and then uses charisma again to give a bonus to armor just like dexterity normally would?

If this is the case, then it's legit. Mechanically, all it does is consolidate what would otherwise be two abilities into one. It just changes you from MAD to SAD.

The monk's AC bonus is different than the dex bonus to AC -- it applies at different times. It is a baseline AC value, as it applies a +1 per 4 levels to AC on top of the normal wisdom bonus to AC. Not really the same bonus -- they stack.

Moreover, the Monk's AC bonus ability is an (ex) ability, and the Sidestep Secret is (su). They aren't the same source.

Edit: However, from a strict technical standpoint, James Risner is likely correct.

I just checked an analogous situation with the zen archer (3rd level) and the guided enchant -- both shift attack bonus to wisdom for ranged weapons -- and even under hero lab these two abilities do not stack.

However, the build you have isn't really game-breaking as you trade off being SAD for AC instead of MAD -- and both Wis to AC and Dex to AC stack, replacing them both with CHA to AC doesn't seem to be game breaking.


When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds his Wisdom bonus (if any) to his AC and his CMD. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC and CMD at 4th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every four monk levels thereafter, up to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.

These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the monk is flat-footed. He loses these bonuses when he is immobilized or helpless, when he wears any armor, when he carries a shield, or when he carries a medium or heavy load.


*Sidestep Secret (Su): Your innate understanding of the universe has granted you preternatural reflexes and the uncanny ability to step out of danger at the very last second. Add your Charisma modifier (instead of your Dexterity modifier) to your Armor Class and all Reflex saving throws. Your armor’s maximum Dexterity bonus applies to your Charisma instead of your Dexterity (see FAQ.)

FAQ: Does an oracle of lore with the sidestep secret revelation use his Charisma to calculate his CMD instead of his Dexterity? If he is flat-footed, does he lose his Charisma bonus to AC?

An oracle of lore with the sidestep secret revelation uses his Dexterity to calculate his CMD since no provision is made in the text to use his Charisma for that statistic. He does, however, lose his Charisma bonus to AC whenever he is flat-footed, since his Charisma modifier is being used in place of his Dexterity modifier.


To boil it to the most simple I can:
What constitutes a "source"?

To boil it to the most simple answer I can:

"It depends".


What if two different allies use Menacing, again one of them would be void as the source is Menacing and conferred on all flanking allies, but invest in basically anything else and it works perfectly fine.

Two different allies using menacing would not stack, just as if you received a bulls strength spell from two different wizards.

They are applying the same enhancement to the same situation.


Menacing increases the normal bonus from a flank by +2. Here is why stacking doesn't work here.

1. They are two untyped bonuses. Untyped is still a typed bonus.

2. They come from the same source. In this case the Menacing Magical Weapon Property. It doesn't matter if it is 2 weapons with Menacing, it is still from the same source, Menacing.

The confusion, I think, from Menacing comes from the weapon providing what looks like a bonus to the character and not to attacks from the weapon itself. This is *slightly* incorrect.

The bonus applying to all attacks and not just attacks from only that weapon is due to the nature of flanking and threatening, which are more like situational bonuses for melee in general. As a result, wielding two menacing weapons are redundant (and thus do not stack), as they provide the same bonus to the same situation -- flanking.

I will agree that the definitions of source are entirely ambiguous and situational and need clarification, to the point of the OP.

CBDunkerson wrote:

I see no reason why it would not work or be overpowered so long as you follow the text as stated.

Specifically, "Once per round, when the wielder of a fortuitous weapon hits with an attack of opportunity, he can make a second attack of opportunity with this weapon against that foe at a –5 penalty."

So, someone triggers an attack of opportunity... which allows you to make a single attack... if you hit with fortuitous weapon one then you can make a second attack with that weapon at -5. To benefit from fortuitous weapon two there would have to be a SECOND triggering event, you would need combat reflexes and a 12+ Dex to take advantage of that AoO, you would then have to hit with the fortuitous weapon two... and only then could you make a second attack at -5 with your second fortuitous weapon.

Any third or subsequent triggering events you could still make AoOs if your Dex were high enough, but the fortuitous enchantments would have no further impact.

This is correct. You can make only 1 extra attack per weapon per provocation per round. You have to keep track of which weapon has made any specific attack when provoked.

Heather 540 wrote:
Tiefling Commoner wrote:
Your first attack is at full BAB. But if it's a natural attack, you have to apply a -5 penalty to the roll in order to use a subsequent attack with a manufactured weapon.
So wouldn't that make both attacks at -5 if the manufactured weapon came after?

If a player tries this, I would enforce the rule for iteratives to natural attacks as well.

Essentially by BAB in descending order -- which would make manufactured weapon attacks first.

Which would completely prevent the entire intent of the player in making hammer the gap useful.

So, proceed at your own risk.

Bill Dunn wrote:

Why do your PC's natural attacks have a high accuracy compared to your unarmed attacks when they're saddled with a -5 penalty compared to the unarmed strike?

Multi-attack reduces the penalty for secondary natural weapons to -2 vs -5.

So, higher "accuracy".

Thanks for all the advice on this, but sadly, the campaign has ended.

Absolutely correct. However, your 3 natural attacks are all going to be considered to be secondary attacks and at -5 to hit.

I think there is a generic mythic template that can be applied to demon lord stat block that would implement this particular rule.

You get to choose which limb you attack with first. There is no rule that says you have to attack with one over the other first.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The other side tends to us an interpreted "RAW". They see it as ignoring known intent (in this case we know it's considered unique deities and not valid), requiring directly addressing the issue which is unlikely (FAQ are sparse), and mocking the rules as flawed.

The problem is that they haven't been proven to be a) unique nor b) deities.

The proof to the opposite is a) a generic stat block, and b) the "deific" ability is available to mortal creatures (specifically mythic creatures, which are by RAW, mortals).

These counter-arguments are being ignored by the "interpreted RAW" group in preference to their preferred conclusions.

It would be more honest to open a FAQ to ask the question of whether green men are able to be used by the plant form spell series or not.

But as it stands now, the evidence weights heavily in the favor of the "strict raw" group.

Note: I'm neither.


So, I hope James didn't actually meant "deities", and that it was more than just a typo. Because if he did mean "deities", then he's just wrong - granting spells does not make you a deity, the same way a mythical PC with the divine source universal path power isn't a deity, even though they may grant spells and access to up to four domains and subdomains.

Moreover, they are expressly not deific because it states in the Mythic Adventures handbook that Mythic Rank 10 is the "height of mortal power". So any mythic ability that deities somehow mimic is well within the realm of mortal power.

The Green Man monster is more of a summoned creature that manifests spontaneously, not a deity.

Powerful, yes. Deific, no.

Subject says it all. Is there any path wherein a improved familiar can be a cohort (and advance as one)?

John Mechalas wrote:
Quintain wrote:
Instead of trying to shoehorn a cloudkill spell with the merciful feat, why not just research a new spell that does what you want?

Costs, mostly. My wizard will have the Merciful Spell feat, but whether or not she takes Cloudkill will depend on what my GM says. I'll use the feedback in this thread to help make a proposal.

Researching a spell would certainly work, but it would probably sit at L4 or L5 (using Stinking Cloud and Cloudkill as the bounds) and thus cost at least 4-5k by RAW. But it's my plan B ... assuming it's worth that much to me.

You can sell the spell after creation to recoup the cost. You'll have some upfront costs, sure, but it should sell like gangbusters to every LG wizard around, as well as to governments, etc. Anyone that wants to potentially pacify a population without harm. Which is pretty much everyone.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

A non-lethal method of taking out mass targets is a pretty appealing option. I think it stands on it's own merits.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Mechalas wrote:

What about the SoD aspect? That can very easily be converted to "unconscious".

By RAW, I guess it's technically not damage so it wouldn't work. By RAI, though, it might make for a reasonable house rule.

Instead of trying to shoehorn a cloudkill spell with the merciful feat, why not just research a new spell that does what you want?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Poison Dusk wrote:
Viondar wrote:
As to the Green Man being a deific creature or not... It's a bit confusing.
Bestiary 6 wrote:

Deific A green man grants divine spells to worshipers. This does

not require any specific action on the green man’s behalf. The
domains granted by a green man vary according to the green
man’s alignment. Most green men are neutral and grant access
to the domains of Plant, Protection, Strength, and Weather
and to the subdomains of DefenseAPG, GrowthAPG, ResolveAPG,
and SeasonsAPG. A neutral good green man grants access to the
domains of Good, Plant, Protection, and Weather and to the
subdomains of DefenseAPG, GrowthAPG, PurityAPG, and SeasonsAPG.
A neutral evil green man grants access to the domains of
Evil, Plant, Strength, and Weather and to the subdomains of
DecayAPG, GrowthAPG, ResolveAPG, and SeasonsAPG. Regardless of
his alignment, a green man’s favored weapon is the sickle. If a
druid worshiping a green man chooses to take a domain, the
druid must choose the Plant domain, regardless of alignment.
The green man’s holy symbol is that of a masculine face made
of leaves, but the exact expression and appearance of the face
varies by green man, and each is unique in detail.
I believe this is part of what causes the confusion.

As an aside, being "deific" is not a refutation of being generic. or confirmation of being a deity. Mythic creatures can do the same thing.

by RAW this ^

Con damage is always lethal. In order to make cloudkill non-lethal, it would need to have Con damage converted to some other ability score.

What I'm curious about is the level of power that poeple ascribe to Orcus -- he's *almost* a deity -- but still just a Demon Lord in power (Mythic 10 Rank).

As far as I'm aware, there is no power ascribed to knowing what happens to all symbols of their faith that is available.

I think that in the rush to punish actions of blasphemy, GMs ascribe power to beings above their actual power level.


Even so, that doesn't, change the main point that is you are wrong saying a GM holds no autority.

There is no "authority" that a GM can enforce that doesn't have to be voluntarily accepted by the player. This is a cooperative game, not an antagonistic one.

A player or GM can always leave the table.

RumpinRufus wrote:
Quintain wrote:

Funnily enough not over this, but because he found what he thought was a game breaking exploit (see “Catch Free Efreeti Wishes?” thread) relying on a high UMD, scrolls of Planar Binding and Greater Planar Binding to summon a Contract Devil and an Efreeti.
Can someone explain this loophole?

... asking for a friend ...

I assume it's detailed in this thread. Considering what a clustercuss this current thread is though, I'm a little afraid to open that one and take a look.

It really isn't much of a loophole. he's trying to use a contract devil as a contract negotiator when crafting wishes from a Genie.

It's an interesting premise. His wishes weren't really outside the bounds of standard game mechanice -- except maybe granting a template -- which can't be done with polymorph magic -- but can be done via Occult ceremonies.

Personally, I'd let him role play it out. And as a GM, I'd have the contract devil put a bad loophole in the wish and bargain with the Genie to give the devil a wish for giving him info on how to exploit the loophole.

I've done essentially what he wanted to do without the contract devil part. That's largely wasted effort.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Moonheart wrote:

The problem with your "environment where all participant are satisfied" is that is not something always possible. There are always times when players disagree on how some points of the game should be managed and will stand their ground no matter the amount of efforts you attempt to find a middle ground. (Which is the case of the OP's table, visibly)

At that time, someone have to play the arbiter, and the guy who's in charge of it is the GM. That's why he -has- autority, he just -must- have it, or the first occurrence of that kind of situation will immediately sink the game.

It can't be anyone else at the table to do it, too, because the one disatisfied may leave... and while a table can afford to lose a player, it cannot afford to lose its GM.
You can replace a player that left, but the GM have to stay, and thus, in case of a unsolvable disagreement, the option to keep is the one that the GM agrees to, for the sake of everyone else.
If the GM becomes unhappy with the game, the game itself is doomed.


Also, you must not forget an important point: the GM workload.
A GM spend a lot of time preparing a game. Sometimes in a campaign, his total work made between the game sessions can total to more than a thousand hours!

The GM is a kind player who is wishing to do that work...

I can tell you from experience that "losing the GM" is not even close to the death knell of a campaign. It has happened in the campaign that I'm currently playing in -- someone else familiar with the setting and that was a player under the former GM simply took over running the game. Players come and go, and so to GMs. All of them are replaceable. Sometimes GMs burn out and sometimes players want to GM. As long as everyone is flexible in their role, everyone goes home happy.

As for "all participants are satisfied not being always possible" -- of course. But it is still a goal that should be aspired to.

'Cuz you gotta have goals :P


Funnily enough not over this, but because he found what he thought was a game breaking exploit (see “Catch Free Efreeti Wishes?” thread) relying on a high UMD, scrolls of Planar Binding and Greater Planar Binding to summon a Contract Devil and an Efreeti.

Can someone explain this loophole?

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

@ Quintain: Considering most everyone on these forums uses OOC warnings for when a Paladin player wants to perform an action that may lead to their falling (which is something that the player may not realizs), saying that it is in bad faith to enforce a similar concept with something as imperative as this is counterintuitive with the above precedent.

Unless you don't do that sort of favor for Paladin players, in which case I suggest you grab your Umbrella of Protection +1 for all the rain of "badwrongfun" comments that are about to be made at you.

Yeah, I'm not in any way attempting to criticize anything that happened on a personal level -- it sounds like the player was disruptive and that is always problematic.

I don't want to involve myself in that discussion.

I've been gaming for roughly 35 years, and just trying to put forth a suggestion that in character/in game actions should have in character/in game consequences. Introducing non-rules (again barring rule zero) based consequences can destroy campaigns and ruin long standing friendships. Don't make it personal, even if the guy is being a d*ck.

This applies equally well with Paladins as CE clerics -- or any sort of event that can change the direction of a campaign. Often enough, having a player go off script and ruin all the preparation work a GM goes through can cause bad reactions. It's all to human a thing.

The best GMs I've played under all could think on their feet and react to off the wall actions by creating realistic consequences.


Needless to say, I warned him multiple times ...
It was purely the discussion of what Orcus COULD do, that set him off. ...

He believed only CR appropiate "agents" should come after him, and while I stressed this may be the case to start with, the sheer gravitas of what he did merited a more harsher response and he could be very well facing hit squads of Demons or Undead tooled specifically to his demise or to bring him in, make an example of him so this kind of behaviour was never repeated.

His meglomania knew no bounds - he planned to aim for Lichdom down the road or Vampirism if that failed once he gained more levels and he already had a Vampire Cohort (who was pretty weak but a Vampire all the same) who he planned to use to create more thralls ontop of his extensive Leadership following.

Here's the thing -- and I'm not criticizing you in any way. What I'm talking about is simply a method of interaction and what I think (again giving advise -- take it for what you will) --

It sounds like all of this discussion is out of character, from GM to player. What is preferable, IMO, is this discussion should never have happened.

The description of what he said is entirely in character for a CE Cleric of Orcus. Megalomania is entirely appropriate, his reaction to the Bebilith is not out of character.

I'm currently in a campaign where we are mostly Chaotics and/or Evils -- with a priest of orcus -- who just became a vampire and who's end goal is to overthrow Orcus. "The son deposes the father" and all that.

It is my impression that his behavior as a player and it's negative effects bled over into what happened in game -- and in a game as personal as RPGs, that can happen. I'm not blaming anyone - I was attempting to stay out of that aspect of the discussion.

As a point of advice, here, is regardless of his behavior as a person, keeping the response to his in game actions in game would be much better in the long run. You don't have to discuss Orcus' response to his actions or even outline what will happen. He was obviously metagaming. Arguing over what the response will be or not be out of character is not something that needed to have happen. Just let it happen over the course of the campaign.

Hound him down. Don't follow the guidelines of a normal campaign (i.e. 4 encounters per day or whatever). But be fair and realistic to the campaign setting.

Anyway. Take it for what you will.


I agree with the sentiment, but there is nothing within raw that defines what constitutes what the smiting should entail.

It is better gamesmanship, imo, for the GM in our scenario to have the smiting take a form of something supported by the rules.

AaronUnicorn wrote:
Quintain wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Yeah, but a game in which a player is being a disruptive dick should give the GM the prerogative to say "Rocks fall, your character is strangely the only one crushed to death".
I was intentionally not commenting on the disruptive behavior of the player, but instead talking about the use of "divine retribution" as a GM Ex Machina device for punishment for actions the GM simply disagrees with for whatever reason.

But that's not even close to what the OP was describing.

This isn't "the guy is annoying me, so I want to have the gods go after him."

This is "The character is a a fairly high-level former cleric of the deity, and is intentionally trying to anger that deity."

Divine retribution should absolutely be used sparingly, but to quote Young Frankenstein "A riot is an ugly thing, und I think it is just about time that we had one!"

In much the same way that it would normally be uncool to have a King and his entire forces be sent after one PC, if the PC was intentionally going around and besmirching the King's name, angering his local officials, beheading statues of the King, etc., that's a time when it's not punishing the player for "actions the GM simply disagrees with," it's a logical consequence of his actions.

A high level character trying to piss off a deity should expect the deity to take notice (otherwise, why try to anger them in the first place?), and for there to be a reaction.

I guess we are disagreeing with the subtext of the initial OP. Any "warning" from the GM about whatever action, to me, is simply a GM using OOC commentary to dissuade a player from using his character in whatever fashion.

The player did what he did, and from the description knew that he would "anger the deity". And the GM agreed that this would do exactly that -- however, the GM then when OOC to warn the player of the consequences -- which amounted to actions not supported by the rules (other than rule zero), which, imo, amounts to out of game punishment.

A better response to player actions of this kind is to allow it to happen without comment and then have the deity notify his worshipers via whatever method and then have them mobilize to ensure punishment is performed. The followers can summon the demons, or whatever is needed.

Note that this completely negates the need to have the GM decide what punishment is appropriate and is completely supported by RAW (action of NPCs in game), and would be a much more fun result for all involved.


In much the same way that it would normally be uncool to have a King and his entire forces be sent after one PC, if the PC was intentionally going around and besmirching the King's name, angering his local officials, beheading statues of the King, etc., that's a time when it's not punishing the player for "actions the GM simply disagrees with," it's a logical consequence of his actions.

I absolutely agree. Here's the difference though. A "divine retribution" from a deity cursing the character for whatever actions is not supported by any rule that I'm aware of (beyond rule zero). There is no crunch that determines the level of punishment for the degree of blasphemy performed. It is completely arbitrary.

What you are describing is what I am promoting -- but using a deity's resources instead of that of a mundane king.

What I am not saying is that the deity would ignore the blasphemy. He obviously wouldn't. What I'm talking about is the method of punishment -- that method should be via the abilities of the clergy/worshippers of the deity in question, not some undefined curse from on high.

Claxon wrote:
Yeah, but a game in which a player is being a disruptive dick should give the GM the prerogative to say "Rocks fall, your character is strangely the only one crushed to death".

I was intentionally not commenting on the disruptive behavior of the player, but instead talking about the use of "divine retribution" as a GM Ex Machina device for punishment for actions the GM simply disagrees with for whatever reason.

While there are some examples of direct divine retribution in canon, I see that sort of thing in a game (vs being part of "historical record") is more of GM Ex Machina and far too heavy handed a response to what is perceived as player misbehavior and is too easily perceived as punishment vs a cooperation play environment.

Which is why I would recommend avoiding it.

A DM has no authority. It is as much the player's game as it is the GMs. The players have a role and so does the GM.

A good and cooperative game environment is one where all participants are satisfied.

An environment wherein the GM says "I'm the GM, suck it". Is one where he's going to be GMing an empty table.

Kalindlara wrote:
I suspect that Kleestad and Lamia of Avalos might have some thoughts about that. Even Erastil has been known to engage in such divine retribution from time to time.

I doubt that desecration of a statue would trigger that level of power output, even by one of the flock.

Letting your other faithful do their jobs is much easier.

If you rescind spellcasting from a cleric, is he still one of your followers? Isn't that considered divine retribution?

I disagree. The deities themselves have a compact that they cannot break without the intervention of their enemies -- or retribution in the form of an enemy deity that is just looking for an excuse will intervene -- any excuse will do.

As for authority, yes and no. There is an agreement between cleric and deity - and the deity has every right to rescind that agreement if the cleric breaks the rules -- but he doesn't have to.

He could just simply be amused by said cleric enough to watch the chaos from afar like some television show.

There are plenty of options below direct divine retribution to make thing interesting -- with the ability to continue the campaign and not destroy it.

wraithstrike wrote:

A deity should not be intervening in PC actions. That is how it is in most campaign words. I understand that to the worshippers of <insert deity) it can be punishable by death, but if deities aren't intervening in things that can end the world, and decide to leave it to the people of that world, then they certainly aren't going to waste time over a statue, even if it's made in their image.

If deity intervention is more common in your setting then the players should know about it. I've had paladins destroy alters in more than one adventure, and as a GM I could have said they called a pit fiend or balor to handle the transgression, but it would not have gone over well.


edit: Since he did this to his own deity he is now an ex-cleric. If he wants to worship a new deity he should have to do something to prove to that deity that he can be trusted. They have no reason to grant him powers if he is not going to follow their tenants.

edit2 : I read info that should have been in the opening post. I don't know how good your warning was worded, but if you let him know that the deity would not care about his PC level and come after him with something that is beyond his ability to handle then he made his choice, and should have to deal with it. If you were vague, then you should have been more specific, without telling him exactly what might happen.

I'm not going to comment on the personal issues here.

That being said, I do not believe the desecration of a statue would invoke the wrath of anyone other than the followers of the deity in question. As a rule, if a deity gets involved, the other deities get involved in equal measure. That is why the fight is left to mortals. If you are playing frog god games' world (given you are playing with orcus, it's a possibility), and if you read the source material, you'll find quite a bit of the desecration of good aligned deities by orcus and other evil deities' forces. I don't believe that the source material indicates any sort of deific retribution to the extent that you are doing so.

As for Orcus' punishment -- He's a chaotic deity, so he may allow the cleric to keep his powers, but alert all other Orcus worshippers (not just clerics) forces that killing said cleric will gain his favor - and let the chips fall where they may.

He definately will be hunted, but no direct divine retribution should occur. Deities use mortals as agents for a reason.

Personally, I wouldn't even have given him a warning. Just a lot of heavy hints (like wanted posters with his image), and let him figure it out.

Fantastic. Good to hear.

I came up with a plan to draw the Orcus clerics out into a region outside the town itself, exposing them to hostile action.

Using a necromancer's beacon, I'd draw out all the mindless and some of the intelligent undead to a point outside the town. Surrounding the beacon will be some positive energy elementals.

As the undead are destroyed by the elementals, I'd have some snipers prep'd to take out any clerics that come out to investigate.

Not sure if this is viable, as a 3rd party mercencary troop that is friendly to undead has recently come into town, so I'll need to take that into account in my plan before execution.

Granted this was in a different game system, but I've seen characters die in character creation.

1 to 50 of 1,566 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>