Wereweasel

SabreRabbit's page

Organized Play Member. 31 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

Liberty's Edge

Well, you need to remember something important about wizards and staves. Wizards generally do not cast spells and attack at the same time. Thus, they can free a hand to make the neccessary gestures while holding the staff.

However, the magus is a different story because he is both attacking and casting a spell in the same action. He needs a hand free because of his divided focus. This is simply not going to work with a staff or a double weapon. It would be too unwieldy and imbalanced to work properly.

Thus, it makes perfect sense for the magus to be restricted to one-handed weapons. Now, the magus could use a two-handed or double weapon and still cast spills. They just would not be able to make use of the class feature that allows them to both attack with a melee weapon and cast spells.

Sorry, my friend, it just won't work as-is.

Liberty's Edge

Rageling wrote:


If you're wielding a 1h weapon and have a hand free, you can cast, right?

No, because you are actually casting the spell WHILE you are attacking. That is why you can cast the spell and attack at the same time. Your character is using his or her free hand to make the neccessary gestures. That is why there is an attack penalty and a concentration penalty.

Attacking with the two-handed weapon and casting at the same time is not possible because you must have a hand free to cast the spell.

Liberty's Edge

I don't ever intend to allow any of my players to play as an anti-paladin. However, in my game world anti-paladins will be a Lawful Evil, organized force of tyranny and oppression.

They will make for great NPC villains, but are off-limits for my players.

Liberty's Edge

I run my games in a homebrew world. This lets me have better control over the people and places in the game.

Liberty's Edge

Lazurin Arborlon wrote:
Played a prison campaign that worked this way once, it was fun for a while, but one suggestion. My dm didn't really plan for our lack of equipment at times, so either plan a few good ways to get out of tight spots or be comfortable with the kind of improvisation that comes with having nothing. A more recent dm did a slave escape type scenario early in a campaign with great results because he plans well and let us get creative with what constitutes a lock pick or a weapon...

Well, something like this demands that you let your players be creative. The monk (my wife's character) really was the one who shone in that session.

Liberty's Edge

Spes Magna Mark wrote:

I did the escaped slave bit once with a new group of people. IIRC, I'd DMed for one or two of them, but the bulk of the group was new to me. It was the first and last time I ran/played any game for/with that group. The whining was only slightly less irritating than a dozen dental drills running at once. One player actually threw dice in a mini-tantrum. Another apparently was trying to figure out ELs vs. party level in order to "prove" that I didn't know what I was doing.

I'd've been able to get more cooperation and maturity out of a group of nine-year-olds.

It was a shame. I used my old B1 module as the setting deep beneath the slave pits. I'd carefully placed a full array of starting equipment, magic items, et cetera, throughout the complex. Most of the dungeon's denizens were unintelligent undead, the remnants of the place's original inhabitants.

Would've worked great with a better group of players.

Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games

Heh. Yeah, I've run into groups like that too. Thankfully, I have no trouble walking away.

Liberty's Edge

Well, the rest of you may have had success with this kind of thing, but it has caused nothing but problems at my table.

I cannot even count the number of times men have wanted to play female characters to satisfy some kind of lustful fantasy.

I have gone so far as to ban it entirely from my games. You play your own gender in my games.

Liberty's Edge

A few weeks ago I started a new campaign. The way I drew the party together was that they had all started out as captives on a slaver ship. Thus, they started out with no gold, no weapons, and had to escape with nothing but their wits and whatever abilities they had inherent.

It turned out really well, and gave the party some really good starting cohesion. My question to my fellow GMs is have any of the rest of you started your players out in a situation similar to this?

Liberty's Edge

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Aren't they vermins and thus bad choices for animal companion? (i.e. none of the druid's "animal" spells would work on it...)

Well, I have the power of rule 0 on my side, so that is not really a problem.

Liberty's Edge

Mosaic wrote:
Any reason not to stat it out like the one in the Bestiary?

Hm. I didn't see a companion entry under the giant crab. Thus, the question.

Liberty's Edge

Greetings, all.

I have a player that wishes to have a giant crab as an animal companion, and I wanted some opinions as to how I should stat it out.

So, any thoughts?

Liberty's Edge

Zurai wrote:
I guess that's probably the best possible outcome, since you refuse to engage my points.

Zurai, if you cannot see why animating corpses is evil on your own, then there is no need at all for me to engage your points.

It is a waste of my time and effort that I could be spending doing something I enjoy, rather than attempt to convince you of my points when your mind is made up.

Therefore, we are done. May your games go well, and I hope you enjoy them!

Liberty's Edge

Zurai, I have the strong suspicion that you and I are just going to waste our time and effort trying to convince each other of positions neither of us will ever agree with.

Let's part as friends, and agree to disagree.

Liberty's Edge

Without a healer, your players will have to think smarter, and will be less likely to engage in conflict.

This can be a good thing, as they may try out new and interesting ways to solve a difficult challenge. You should not accomodate them at all with any new rules for this very reason.

Let them stretch their wings, and see what happens. If they all get killed, then they all get killed.

The game becomes more difficult, but the stakes are higher. Emphasize the danger by describing wounds taken in combat in graphic detail. Heh. I'm getting my blood up just thinking about it.

Liberty's Edge

Zurai wrote:


Necromancy is not inherently corruptive or evil. After all, disrupt undead and undeath to death are necromancy spells, as are life bolt, spawn screen, and heart of stone. None of those spells have any evil or corruptive overtones at all. This clearly illustrates that there IS room for a White Necromancer.

I actually disagree with the notion that animating corpses is inherently evil, as well. I can't recall if the Pathfinder setting explicitly states what happens to the souls of those raised as mindless undead, but IMO the mindless undead should be soulless undead as well. Thus, there's room for neutral or even good uses of animate dead. For example, a nation where citizens can voluntarily and proactively sell their body to be raised after they die. The state then uses the skeletons and zombies in low-skill, high-danger professions like mining, quarrymen, alchemy servants, etc. This is (with my interpretation of mindless undead) a win-win situation: the commoners who need money can sell something materially useless to them, and the state gets cheap, uncomplaining, perfectly obedient workers for dangerous tasks. This also prevents living beings from needing to work those jobs, lowering the mortality rate in that country.

(For the record, I, too, prefer the 1st and 2nd edition healing spells being Necromancy. Makes much more sense than the positive energy hooey we have now, especially as positive energy is still plenty dangerous to living beings. By rights, a heal...

Okay, in that case, I'm going to dig up your dead relatives and loved ones, put strings on them, and move them around as my own personal marrionettes.

Still okay with that? After all, they are a cheap form of entertainment that never complains.

Necromancy is corrupting and evil because the callous use of such magic shows a disrespect for the dead AND for the wishes of that dead person's friends and family.

Corpses are not resources, they are the former bodies of friends and relatives the necromancer just desecrated, because he or she needed cheap, uncomplaining labor.

Healing is the restoration of life, not the reanimating of dead tissues, and therefore has no business being necromancy. It never did.

Liberty's Edge

Well, I am supposed to run a game for this family of new players on Tuesday. The girls have rolled up their characters, and the father and young male friend of the girls will roll up theirs before we begin.

I am eager to begin. I always enjoy introducing new people to role-playing and watching their imaginations come to life. The old storyteller in me fells very fulfilled crafting a tale with other people.

Liberty's Edge

AngrySpirit, I have mentored many new players, young and old, and I think that so far you are taking the right approach.

However, be certain to reward his good behavior as you punish his bad, either with an interesting event, bonus experience for good thinking, or a nice, shiny item.

As a Gamemaster, you have a carrot and a stick. Use both liberally, but fairly, especially on a younger player, and you will have a lifelong gamer.

Liberty's Edge

Hydro wrote:

At least you're consistant, then. :)

I wouldn't rule either of those that extremely (I don't think that a single vice, even a consistant one, is enough to change alignment); but I'm not here to say that's wrong, either.

My point was just that this ruling can leave you with an "evil" character who is good in all but name (this is the part most DMs are okay with), as well as a "good" character who is evil in all but name (this is the part most DMs balk at).

For what it's worth, I think many DMs in this case would say that the taint on your soul (or cleansing) leads to a change in behavior, ala darkside techniques in Star Wars. However, at that point the alignment system really is controling how you can play your character, which is a little too heavy for some groups.

Well, Hydro, I think that actions, all actions, should have some sort of consequence, both within the game world and on the character itself.

When a character chooses to mess with the forces of the cosmos, sometimes those forces will mess back. I let all my players know this in advance.

Liberty's Edge

You know, it is funny how, in my experience, the most selfish, disruptive players are always drawn to necromancy.

That player then tries to justify desecrating the dead and animating corpses by claiming to do good with their horrible, disgusting violation of the laws of nature.

"Oh, well. That makes it okay, then."

"Really?"

"No."

Liberty's Edge

Heh. DM_Blake, I could not have said it better myself.

Liberty's Edge

DM_Blake wrote:

In light of the vast improvements to the paladin, I am reluctant to start adding additional powers/abilities to the class; paladins seem strong enough that more stuff would tip the balance scales too much.

I also fully believe enemies should fight for their lives and run away when they cannot win - they want to live just like everyone else. Nobody can win all the time, and if a paladin loses a smite attempt every time he faces an evil foe with enough skill, power, or temerity to escape destruction, then the paladin should and would run out of smite ability and will consequently lose his most effective class feature. That would be unduly punishing to the class.

Consequently, I can see no benefit to leaving the power active beyond the scope of the encounter, or at most a series of related encounters. Ergo, I say the ability should last until the paladin himself deems the foe vanguished, or beyond his ability to vanquish.

So, a one-shot encounter with an evil wizard who teleports away, never to be seen again, the Smite ends right there. On the other hand, if they know who the wizard is and where he lives, the paladin may deem that the wizard is still within his grasp, and might leave the smite active while his own wizard ally prepares to teleport them to the enemy wizard's home so they can continue the assault.

So, a paladin who enters a dungeon and finds it populated with undead might encounter the boss vampire in room #1, but the vampire flees deeper into the dungeon. The paladin may decide to keep his smite active on the vampire, certain that they will see him later as they clear out the undead, room by room. Maybe they will even encounter this vampire a half dozen times before they corner it in its lair - the one declared smite could be valid for that whole time.

This would be okay, as long as the paladin was unable to smite anything else while maintaining his or her smite for that one foe.

Liberty's Edge

I think a little common sense would have to be applied here. The smite evil would end once the conflict is over, either through vanquishing the enemy or causing that enemy to flee.

Once the danger is over, no more smite evil. It would make little sense for a paladin to have his or her power active all the time, just because the enemy the paladin attempted to vanquish is still around.

Liberty's Edge

Thanks for the information everyone. I'll take a look at the titles ya'll mentioned.

Liberty's Edge

Hm. Interesting stuff. I never read any of Zelazny's writing, but it looks like something I might like.

Can any of you give a good reccomendation as to where to start if I wanted to pick up any of his works?

Liberty's Edge

Hydro wrote:
Quote:

No, Hydro, because the only reason you are casting that spell is because you want to go to heaven.

You are attempting to infuse your soul with positive energy for selfish reasons.

That's not evil, it's good.

All other factors asside, attempting to change your alignment good-wise is a Good act because you are depriving the lower planes of one more soul or minion. Just because something is in your own best interests too doesn't mean it's evil.

Quote:
And unless it's cast on other people for their benefit, a good wizard casting protection from evil on himself is far from altruistic; he's just looking out for Number One.

And you can cast Protection from Good for altruistic reasons as well.

However, it's been suggested that casting [Evil] spells has a corrupting effect (strong enough to eventually change your alignment, according to some) REGARDLESS of what the spell is used for. I believe how Sabre put it was "corrupting energy flows through you, tainting your soul."

If that is the case, then casting [Good] spells should have a faint cleansing effect as well.

Hydro, if you seperate the action outside of the context in which it occured, then yes, changing your alignment by infusing yourself with positive energy is a good act.

However, in your example the evil wizard had no real change of heart, no repentance, no desire to be good. He just wanted to go to Heaven. Therefore the motivation behind his actions was a selfish attempt to manipulate the energies of the cosmos for his own benifit so that he could avoid any divine punishment for his actions.

That would be at least a chaotic act, if not an evil one. Especially since he was using positive (good) energies to do it, corrupting the very purity of the cosmos.

Liberty's Edge

Aldoth wrote:
SabreRabbit wrote:

Hm. Well, I just brought an entire family into role-playing. (13F, 11F, 12M, and their father, 38M.)

Of course, it helps when you own your own store and know every product in it.

Saber that is awesome.

I wish that we could add a logo to your profile. The best I can do is bestow a honorary title of "Order of the Gamer" unto you for services to the future of gaming.

Thank you, my friend. I am glad to accept such a title. After all, I always wanted to join an order of knighthood.

I find that the more "normal" people you bring into the game, the easier it is for others to accept role-playing as a legitimate hobby, and not something that social deviants in dark robes do.

Liberty's Edge

Joana wrote:

Honestly, the protection from spells shouldn't budge your alignment at all. Due to the nature of Chaotic Evil, there's all kinds of reasons an evil wizard could cast protection from evil; it's just common sense. And unless it's cast on other people for their benefit, a good wizard casting protection from evil on himself is far from altruistic; he's just looking out for Number One.

Mechanically, the mere accretion of [Good] or [Evil] tags in one's spell-casting history shouldn't be enough to change alignment; it would depend on the specific spells cast and for what purpose.

Hm. That is an interesting point about the Protection From (X) spells.

I have to agree with your approach on the spells and alignment as well. The type of spells and the context in which it was cast is very important in determining a shift in alignment.

Liberty's Edge

No, Hydro, because the only reason you are casting that spell is because you want to go to heaven.

You are attempting to infuse your soul with positive energy for selfish reasons. Congratulations, you are still evil and you just wasted your time.

Furthermore, you just casted Protection From Evil on yourself. Now everyone else is protected. From you.

Liberty's Edge

It is good of the OP to try and accomodate his player, but it is not feasible.

I would have to tell the player no. There is no such thing as "White Necromancy."

Magic that deals with things like stealing souls and animating other people's friends and loved ones like puppets on strings is inherently evil.

If a character is attempting to strive for good, then he or she should avoid corrupting forces. Necromancy is pretty high on that list of corrupting forces.

Liberty's Edge

Well, let's see.

You know the spell is evil.

You know that it involves your character exerting his will into the material plane, forcing Something That Should Not Be into existence.

You also know that as you cast this spell, corrupting energy flows through you, tainting your soul.

You know this, and you do it anyway.

Yeah, I'd say that it at leat points you towards evil, and continued use of said spells will eventually make you evil.

Liberty's Edge

Hm. Well, I just brought an entire family into role-playing. (13F, 11F, 12M, and their father, 38M.)

Of course, it helps when you own your own store and know every product in it.