Rictras Shard's page

2-3 seconds per door. And time for each section of room or hallway. And that's if it's routine and they don't sometimes have other people check or want to vary the procedure at all.

Plus the glee of blowing them up the one time they forget to mention "I check the door before we go through it!", unlike the last 30 doors. Careless players deserve to lose characters.

Okay, let's presume the party checks for traps sixty times during the session. That takes three minutes of the game.

Paladin tells a bedtime story to his kids.

Falls.

If you are a good DM, players will want to join your game whether or not you are using core only. Also, if a player comes to you demanding that you let him play something, you are likely better off without that player.

I dont like the spellcasting system either but I think in world where magic can be learned, only the stupidist people would not know some form of magic, even commoners would eventually learn a couple of cantrips, farmers would have a couple spelks that get passed down the family, I mean seriously, just look at technology today, even third world countries have significant knowledge of tech, why wouldnt a fantasy world have widespread magic.

And well that is my pet peeve.

The average person knows how to use a microwave, but does not know how to build one.

You mean I can't play my human fighter who wields a longsword and shield?

Dunn- five groups over two years at an open game night, and about 20-30 groups at a local yearly con I went to...

How many groups do I have to go through before I will find one that plays core only, and how many will it take before you will admit playing with core only IS weird?

Wearing a cat on your head is weird. Playing Core only is an uncommon, but legitimate, play style.

"Okay, everyone, now roll for penis and/or breast size."

It might be worse if you took out the /or.

Happiness is mandatory. The computer is my friend. I always trust friend Computer...

Now you're making me feel paranoid...

So again, back to my question, I'm not letting a stranger be in charge of 4 plus hours of my time in any context without a ton of references or personal experience.

You may well be missing some great experiences. Sure, I've had some atrocious games by playing with strangers in charge, but I've also played with some great DMs and met good friends this way.

Karlgamer wrote:

If you can fire 4 arrows a round you can draw 4 arrows a round.

The FAQ wasn't meant to stop Archers from doing what archers do.

This thread isn't necessary.

That's the point though. The FAQ states that Reasonable DM's would limit attack actions based on the number of free actions the correspond to those attacks.

No,it states that it is reasonable for a DM to make limits, not that a reasonable DM would do so.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

You think awakened CAMELs are the problem with druids?

It's the walking, talking, spell-casting TREES that drive me crazy.

Camels are a lot more ornery than most trees.

Yeah, despite having a bigger bark than camels, a tree's reaction is much more wooden.

The FAQ is addressing a symptom not the problem, and in doing so is bringing up legitimate questions about how closely GM's should follow this guideline. A completely reasonable GM in PFS could easily read that FAQ to mean that 3 reload actions is a good limit and then create a table variation where they limit a longbow user to 3 arrows, regardless of BAB, rapid shot, many shot, or haste. That is a completely reasonable way to read that FAQ, and I submit, that is not a good thing.

A completely reasonable GM will do what is best for his or her game, rather than feeling obligated to follow suggestions in FAQs or rulebooks.

I once made a room in which all the walls were mirrors. The characters quickly noticed that none of them were reflected. During a fight with skeletons, and afterwards while looting, they would sometimes see a reflection of a faceless child which would appear to be looking at them, despite having no eyes. When they would look to where the reflection should be, there would be nothing there.

I supplied them with a key to the room's only door, so that they could use the room as a relatively safe resting place. They refused to do so, electing instead to make flimsy barricades in another room rather than sleep with the mirrors.

darkwarriorkarg wrote:

1) Rolling for stats is not an error, it's a play style.

A group could take turns having the player whose turn just ended punch the next player in order right in the crotch every round. That too would be a play style.

Just like random rolling for stats it would be a painful, most often pointless, and an often unfair playstyle... but yes it would be a playstyle, not an error.

That said, if a GMs having encounter problems with APs, point buy is a simple, easy fix to restore some balance, and make keeping encounters in line easier.

[Also, between the two groups I'll take the crotch punching one. Harder for munchkins to cheat at and not get caught.]

Point-buy is perfectly fine, but often it can lead to the tendency to repeatedly make similar characters. Rolling stats once in a while is a good way to challenge yourself.

Give him a magical bow. After a short time, the bow reveals that it is intelligent. It has some kind of goal, like ridding the forest of centaurs, or being covered with exquisite, expensive ornaments. Some such thing as that.

However, the bow considers arrows to be its little buddies, and will not allow them to be possibly killed by being shot at a target, unless the sacrifice furthers the goals of the bow.

Of course, by that point, the bow is bonded to the archer...

Have you tried asking your player to return it?

Have you tried running your game the way you want and letting other people run their games the way they want?

For the love of God, read the GameMastery Guide and take its advice to heart, audit the player's characters regularly, and talk to your players about any perceived problems you may be having. Trust me, it will allow you to get back to the fun parts much more quickly.

I would, but one of my players borrowed my GameMastery Guide and I haven't seen it since. I guess I'll have to punish him...

In the first edition Rogue's Gallery, there was a mage whose cat familiar had a permanent unseen servant to open doors for it.

This has 17 Charisma.

For those who insist Charisma = Attractiveness, this is apparently what 17 Charisma looks like.

/em combs hair, checks breath.

Is she doing anything Friday night?

It is truly couragous how he waited until the forum managers weren't around before he challenged them.

And really, no matter how clever you are, a level 1 bard with +8 Diplomacy will do diddly squat to anything CR 12+.

My bard would tell it long, pointless stories until it wandered away in disgust.

Meh. Just gimme a race that grants +2 Int, and I get everything a human could get and more. A feat, just ONE feat, means all of nothing. I don't believe in feat chains, if only because they end up hosing you over in the lower levels when they aren't complete. You people don't plan ANY of your PC's responsively to the game environment, do you?

You come up with these mega feat chains designed to make your PC invincible, and then you whine when you get your butts kicked by something tiny like a saving throw. Meanwhile mine romp through EVERYTHING the DM can throw at them, without giving a damn.

What happens when you don't have enough feats because your level is too low, and you can't complete your combo of doom? Or if you find out...

Flagged. Once again, taking personal potshots. Grow up.

Why is it okay for you to make negative comments toward others, but unacceptable for others to do it to you?

The Ring would work, period. If only because there's nothing in the game that would prevent it.

I have shown you numerous ways it would be prevented, and you haven't given a clear rebuttal for any of them.

A tangent while there are so many people well-versed in 2e Magic Resistance:

Years ago, our party met a rakshasa in a cave. My PC cast earthquake. The DM ruled that NOTHING HAPPENED because the rakshasa was magic resistant and thus couldn't take any damage caused by a spell, even if the spell only caused rocks to fall and the actual damage taken would have been from mundane rocks. He then proceeded to kill half the party with a fireball. All these years, I've remained firmly convinced that the mere presence of a magic-resistant creature in an area of effect shouldn't have prevented the spell from going off. How would you have ruled it?

You were right. Your DM was either not very good or a jerk.

StreamOfTheSky wrote:

I have a strong hunch given this houserule that you can expect a game with extremely below expected wealth, and a generally adversarial DM-player relationship. If you have a spellbook, expect him to steal it. If you rely on swords and armor to fight, expect them to get broken or to never find a good set. Expect traps to be totally random and unfair and way overpowered compared to your level.

Wow, some of this was spot on. We already did our first session actually, and I started at level 1 with about 50g less than the 'average' starting wealth it suggests, in our second fight he said that the house we were in was 'cramped' and so I couldn't effectively swing my weapon and it forced me to draw a smaller weapon that did less damage, and as soon as the fight was over I promptly walked over a trap that did 2d6 damage (all this was at level 1 with my half-normal health).

I would suggest giving him perhaps one more session. If things continue like that, leave the game.

Show it a Uwe Boll movie. That oughta do it.

Actually no, I've full out decked a gm at the end of a session. Like literally he hit the wall before he hit the floor, decked so hard.

You might want to consider therapy.

I would have ruled the attempt is impossible before the character made it, and I would have stated as such.

However, since you allowed him to make the attempt, you shouldn't disallow it after he manages to succeed at it.

Here's a scenario I'd worry about Saltmarsh. You have a party of four PCs. One's a cleric. The other three can be whatever. They get into a tough fight and the dice don't like them that day. They win...but the only survivor is the cleric. Now he's 10th level, so he spends the next day or two raising everyone. The rest of the party is now 9th. So now they're less suited to fighting whatever is ahead of them. But they gamely go on. I could now see those 9th level PCs getting killed again, dropping down another level...and being even more useless. Or maybe the cleric gets killed next time...and the whole party is now down a level as a result of a day's adventuring.

If the dungeon is so tough that almost the entire party dies, and they are now weaker but decide to continue on instead of going home to try to recover and come up with a better plan, I could see why that party is dying.

As you mentioned, you must have HiPS in order to even be able to hide again after you are revealed. That's 2 resources your character has to have just to be able to hide after being revealed.

I would argue that it should be difficult to hide when your enemy is watching you.

I am actually terrified of sheep.

Horrible things they are.

Behold!