Dragon

Saern's page

3,789 posts (3,873 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 aliases.



1 to 50 of 218 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

As mentioned in another thread about finding cheap miniatures, I will soon be attempting to transfer my gaming to skype. I've moved away from my group, but none of us wish to abandon the game we are currently in. The thought of drastically decelerating the game by switching to PbP didn't appeal to the players. Rather, they want to try effectively video conferencing our games.

The plan is to have all the players gather at someone's home with a good internet connection, with their sheets and books. I will DM from the other side of the connection, with the battlemap and all my supplies. I'm a little worried about what will happen when they are effectively sitting around in a room with only a disembodied voice to DM for them. I'm also somewhat worried about using my webcam (which isn't very good) to try giving them an image of the battlemap (which will mean even less visual contact between them and myself during combat). I'm also worried about the lack of sound: I've been making playlists of Grooveshark to add background music to our games, and think it has improved the quality of our sessions dramatically. However, I'm not sure that it will work well over skype if I simply play music on my end and hope my microphone and their speakers are good enough to transmit it somewhat faithfully. Trying to get them to copy or share, and then coordinate our playlists sounds clunky, too. On the other hand, I should be able to show them a lot of visual aids without having to print anything off, and keep a lot of windows open on my computer to switch between stat blocks, etc., quickly and without the typically page flipping that accompanies and slows down a game. Keeping notes should be cleaner as well. I will also have the PCs' stat blocks, allowing me to see their abilities and make secret rolls for them without tipping anyone off so easily.

What I'm looking for in this thread are thoughts and suggestions. Does anyone here have experience playing D&D in this way? What tips do you have for running a good game? Alternately, what about pitfalls and problems you may have run into, and any suggestions you may have to avoid them? Even if you don't have direct experience with this, feel free to throw your two cents in!


Until this point, I've been fortunate enough that one of my players has always had miniatures to supply for our D&D games. However, I have moved away from my group and plan to continue our games through skype. Part of this will involve using a webcam to let them see the battlemap. Of course, this means I have to get some kind of markers or miniatures. My players and I have, in a pinch, used various knick-knacks from around the home of whoever was hosting our game; spare coins, spools of thread, paper-weights, etc. However, I think with the webcam, they would really benefit from having some actual miniatures that were easier to discern and keep track of over a video connection; I feel that they may get confused by the brick-a-brack approach. However, I have little interest in collecting and (especially) painting pewter miniatures; nor do I wish to wade through the random assortments of figurines which WotC sells (or used to?). I looked for a few e-bay deals but didn't find anything particularly well-priced for the selection offered. I even considered lego figures, however they appear to be nearly (if not equally) as expensive as normal plastic pre-painted miniatures. Does anyone have any suggestions about how to build a serviceable (not exhaustive) miniature collection quickly and cheaply? Thanks!


I'm planning to run the second installment of the "Shards of Eberron" campaign arc, an adventure called "Temple of the Scorpion God," from Dungeon #124 (the same which launched the Age of Worms adventure path). The campaign is just beginning and that adventure is intended for 7th level, so I have some time, but always enjoy brainstorming with Paizonians. I am converting the adventure to the Realms, and making "temple" the ruins of a Netherese flying city which crashed into the Nether Mountains. As the adventure is written in Eberron, the party is supposed to reach the location via airship and the various modes of quick transport which exist in Eberron. But do not in the Realms. Which is okay by me, because I believe journeys are great occasions for adventures and detailing a world and shouldn't just be skipped over.

The party will be traveling east from Silverymoon. I've done some research on the Nether Mountains (by which I mean whatever I could find in the 3.0 FR Campaign Setting book and the Forgotten Realms wiki, since I am not a master of Realmslore by any means) and found some promising material. I've read that there is a mountain in the east of the range called Dragondoom, home to a family of blue dragons, served by a tribe of hobgoblins in a nearby fortress called the Doomspire. I don't see why there should be blue dragons in the Nether Mountains, though, so I'm making them reds. The adventure features surface-dwelling drow and a dragon guardian in the "temple," which will now become a Young red dragon and his hobgoblin minions.

However, I want something to build an adventure out of for the trip between Silverymoon and Dragondoom. The Forgotten Realms wiki says that the Moon Pass, between those two points, is plagued by two warring orc tribes, the Thousand Fists and the Ripped Guts. I'd love to create an encounter which put the players between these two orc tribes, either fighting both (but somehow understanding that it's not just one homogenous band of orcs) or, better, interacting with them in some way to pit the two against each other, with the goal of safe passage for the party through the pass. They should be 6th or 7th level when they get to this stage of the campaign. I'm interested in plot points, monsters to consider using, exciting locations for battles, etc. And... go!


Yesterday, my 10th level PCs went through two separate fights, and the events of each raised questions about the other. First, the party fought a bone devil. The group's sorcerer used enervation a few times and drained about 4 levels from the monster. In a ruling, which I am more than willing to reverse if there seems to be a consensus I was in the wrong, I said that while it's caster level, and therefore duration, etc., of its spell-like abilities was affected, its access to them was not. I made this ruling because it has always seemed to me, in 3.x D&D and its derivatives, that there is a disconnect between whether a monster has a spell-like ability, and the caster level it uses for said ability. For example, a quasit can cast commune as a spell-like ability, but its caster level is only 6th instead of the 9th a PC would need to cast the spell. So the fact that the osyluth was drained of caster level seemed, at the time, to indicate it shouldn't necessarily lose the ability to cast any of his spell-like abilities.

Fast forward to the boss fight, against a vampire. The vampire gives the sorcerer a taste of his own medicine with a level draining slam, and the sorcerer is afflicted with two negative levels. I tell him he therefore loses access to his 5th level spells (which at 10th level he only has one of: forcewall). Later in the fight, while flipping madly through his player's handbook and, subsequently, the conditions section at the rear of the dungeon master's guide, he says there is nothing in the energy drain or negative level descriptions which indicate he should lose access to said spell. He said that the write ups for the status effect in both books indicate he simply loses a spell slot and the effects derived from his caster level as applicable to the spell, not that he lost access to the spell itself. He referenced my call earlier in the night with the bone devil. I told him I was sure enough of my interpretation that I didn't want to break momentum at the time, but would raise the question here after the game.

I did, however, say that he had access to the spell slots, and could use them to cast more of his lower level spells (which, as it turned out, were all necromancy, mind-affecting, and fire-based spells; since the vampire had scryed the party in action and knew their penchant for fire, one protection from energy rendered all of the sorcerer's spells useless except for magic missile, which he proceeded to empower and maximize out the wazoo through the rest of the fight).

Upon reviewing the descriptions, they are somewhat ambiguous. They do say that you lose a spell slot, or a spell, of your highest level (player's choice if more than one spell or spell slot meets the criteria). Which is clear as mud. If he loses the spell, then I was correct in my ruling. If he loses the spell slot, I was diametrically opposed to what the rules actually say. This also raises the question of, if he loses the spell or spell slot, is that just a feature of gaining negative levels, of losing a caster level regardless of the source, or would both those things stack? (i.e., loses a spell or spell slot from the negative level, then loses more from re-calculating his caster level at a lower point; which I doubt is the case because it seems needlessly compounded)

Additionally, I swear I have repeatedly read that if you lose the prerequisites for an ability, be they ability score, level, another feat, etc., then you lose all dependent and derivative abilities as well. However, that rule could not be found in the mad shuffle of last night's combat, and I have no idea where to look for it now. It seems directly relevant to the energy drain and negative level question at hand.

Finally, there is the lingering question of whether a bone devil drained of caster levels loses access to his upper-tier spell-like abilities as a character would (?), or is the fact that a quasit can cast commune with an inappropriately low caster level an implicit indication that monsters' spell-like abilities don't operate under exactly the same rules as spellcasting PCs?

Thanks for wading through that long post and its questions. I look forward to your interpretations!


I've been following Paizo since just before the Age of Worms adventure path, but I'm afraid that I must request suspending my subscription after Kingmaker, if possible, and canceling if not. I'm about to move and don't know that I'll have the time for RPGs in the foreseeable future. I realize that it is customary to wait until the last product has shipped and the next is pending to make such a request; however, my shipments often arrive several days late due to the local postal service, and with the move, it may be difficult to anticipate exactly when the request should be made. Apologies if this creates any extra work, and for having to give up receiving your excellent product for the time being!

Many thanks.


Hello again, Paizonians! I've been away from the boards for a while, but come back now as I prepare to finally launch a RotRL campaign (it takes me a while to get around to these kinds of things, obviously). A player of mine plans to run a paladin, which he recently declared would be an aasimar. That's wonderful as far as I'm concerned: it opens up all kinds of role-playing goodness potential with Nualia. Every time I've read Burnt Offerings, I've thought there would be a very good chance Nualia herself could go almost completely undeveloped and unappreciated by the players because they would lack any real connection to her. This is obviously a way to solve that problem.

I plan to have the townsfolk react in a variety of ways to the aasimar paladin. He himself doesn't have any connection to Nualia (at least that he knows of or that I've thought of yet): the paladin has been exiled from Cheliax for political reasons (namely his refusal to accept their devil-worship). The way I'm going to run things, this paladin is the first in Sandpoint since Nualia's disappearance, and his presence is immediately distinct and noticeable. I'd like some help thinking of ways to highlight his racial choice within the context of Sandpoint's recent history, as well as draw Nualia's history even more closely into the story. Here are some thoughts I've had so far:

1. Banny Harker. Harker runs the local lumber mill and is (correctly) rumored to be in a somewhat scandalous relationship with one of the townsgirls. Harker is also slated to be one of the Skinsaw Man's victims in the second chapter of RotRL. As written, there is little foreshadowing to this event and little involvement for Harker. My thought is that Harker secretly admired and even loved Nualia, and could have been the one true friend for her which could have prevented disaster. Harker never had the nerve to express himself, however, and therefore history proceeded as the adventure background details.

Harker could meet this aasimar paladin at the Swallowtail Festival. Meeting another aasimar could still be too painful for him and cause Harker to experience sorrow and depression, which would of course interest the player and draw him into Harker's story, and also Nualia's, and set up the impending murder to be even more dramatic.

2. Sheriff Belor Hemlock. I cite Hemlock because I figure it would be a good way to help initiate contact between the sheriff and the party, but really it could be anyone who might be a good further addition to the campaign's cast of characters. Anyway, my thought is simply to have Hemlock express a kind of sad joy at seeing another aasimar come to Sandpoint, which would help further establish the recent history and Nualia's story, perhaps allowing for some back-and-forth between Hemlock and Harker as the paladin's player tries to figure out what has taken place in Sandpoint that makes these people react so strangely to him.

3. Aldern Foxglove. This depends largely on how things play out in the course of the campaign, of course, but since Aldern obsesses over one of the PCs in a secret desire for some kind of redemption, a paladin seems like a good choice. Also, just as Harker's murder would be even more powerfully foreshadowed by his involvement with the aasimar, so would the revelation of the murderer.

I don't want to focus on the paladin so much that it detracts from the "screen time" of the other PCs (I have some other thoughts to counteract this, such as having Shayliss Vinder target the charismatic sorcerer for seduction, which the player would buy right into). However, I'm still interested to hear what other suggestions you might come up with centered around this paladin to help him interact with Sandpoint and make the townsfolk really come alive in the campaign. Also, further developments of what I've outlined above (how the conversation between Hemlock and Harker revealing Nualia might play out; specific ways to adapt Aldern's obsessions, etc.) would be great as well. Thanks, all!


I would like to compare notes with my fellow DMs here on the boards. The last player from my original group has recently left my gaming table, and with him appears to have gone a set of traditions carried on from that first group. These mainly came in the form of extreme precautions. Now, said last player of the old group was by far the most cautious, even paranoid, of that original bunch. Nevertheless, there were certain commonly observed habits throughout the group:

  • Never have a Constitution score less than 12. To my original group, it seemed like there was a Commandment which stated "Thou shalt not lack a positive Constituion modifier." I made a character once with a negative modifier in the score, and everyone else was either horrified or mystified as to why I would do that. Even a score of 10 was considered terrible. 12 was squeaking by; what you wanted was 14 or better. This is, of course, because of hit points and character survivability. It always struck me as odd that the importance of the ability was so weighted. Nobody likes having their character die (okay, maybe some people), but do most of you find that players consider Constitution such an "ultimate" score that their PCs will never have a negative modifier?

  • Never learn or use an offensive touch spell. Why? Don't get into melee, of course. I have always liked spells like shocking grasp, but am the only one who ever takes them (and since I almost always DM, that's a rare occurence). If the spell required a melee attack roll, those guys wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole.

  • Never learn or use a spell with a HD limit. This isn't a self-preservation technique, but it is still a belief that was widely held in the group. I've always loved spells like cause fear and scare, and even the lowly sleep. They are extremely powerful as a 1st level character, and by the time their use is severly compromised, even a sorcerer can switch the spell out for something else. Other casters are even less hindered. However, the group I first played with would never take one of these spells, because they didn't trust that they wouldn't encounter something, somewhere, sometime which might exceed the HD limit and render the spell useless against that one specific creature. Nevermind that they also loved using color spray, which is automatically useless against all undead, vermin, and constructs regardless of HD.

  • Never specialize. Choosing a class was specialization enough. We did have one player who munchkined his characters and would come up with some unwieldy beast of a one-trick-pony. But if it came to, say, a wizard, the players would invariably avoid choosing a specialist school, because of their absolute fear and aversion to limiting their options. I, on the other hand, will often create a character who is centered around what he can't do as much as what he can, specifically cutting off certain possibilities to enhance the character's focus and "feel."

  • Never wear heavy armor. There was one player who liked paladins and clerics, and the correspondant heavy armor. Every other player typically fell to disliking his characters because of it. Once when that one player was absent, I found the rest of them plotting to sell his full-plate for something lighter just so he wouldn't be slowed donw. Note that said player was perfectly fine with his movement limitations. However, it violated the sense and rules these others had about character building and so they couldn't stand it. Nevermind they loved gnomes and halflings, which are automatically slower with or without armor.

    Those are some of the more pervasive ideas which they held as a group. There were others, too; some lesser, some more of one person's idea which influenced the others from time to time. Like I said, the last player from that group has left the table, for good so far as I can tell; and the new group, literally a bunch of RPG newbies, have none of those prejudices or opinions yet. Reflecting back on what was, I'm just curious what other DMs think about these things, what their own experiences with their players have been, and what other strange "rules" your groups decide to operate under.


  • I'm planning to plug D0 and D1 into my campaign, and probably go on to run the subsequent Falcon's Hollow material as well when that's done; but my party isn't of the "appropriate" level. The PCs consist of the following:

    A 4th level barbarian

    A 4th level sorcerer

    A 3rd level rogue

    A 2nd level DMNPC bard*

    This is 3.5, not PFRPG. Though some players are more experienced than others, they are all relative newbies. While, on the one hand, I think their increased level will help offset their inexperience in some of the modules' more difficult encounters, I don't want to make it a cakewalk for them. Considering there isn't a scaling sidebar, like Dungeon adventures used to have, for adjusting the adventure to characters of different levels, I'm curious what other people recommend in terms of alterations for this particular party.

    I'm running these modules because 1) they're excellent and I've wanted to run them since I bought them, and 2) because my players, those rascals, have gone off the beaten path from the homebrew campaign I had planned. Those ideas will have to go on a shelf until some future time, and now I'm scrambling to provide them with replacement adventures. It's a great opportunity to plug in some of Paizo's wonderful products, but I would like to tweak them a bit so the party still has the appropriate level of challenges.

    Thanks!

    *

    Spoiler:
    I've heard it's a cardinal sin to make a DMNPC bard, but he has no ranks in any social skill; he's there for buffing, healing, and knowledge checks. I would switch him for a cleric, but the bardic music really helps them since they are far from powergamers; and bardic knowledge gives me a way to drop in story elements and background none of them would know since nobody bothered taking any Knowledge skills.


    I would like to make the Craft skills more relevant in my campaigns. As it stands, they are only really good for making some non-magical gear which is completely irrelevant by 5th level. They are a very poor choice for PCs, and there's really nothing that the world's greatest swordsmith can do that Timmy the Wonderpeasant can't do if he's also got decent ranks, perhaps a Skill Focus, in the relevant skill. That bothers me. The solution I see can be glimsped in golemcrafting, one of the extremely few areas of the game which actually utilizes these skills. They require checks in woodworking, stonecrafting, blacksmithing, etc.

    My proposal for making Craft skills more relevant is to do a similar thing for magic item creation. To make a magic item, a crafter would need to succeed on a skill check with the appropriate Craft skill. My thought is the formula for the DC might be 15 + caster level; a +5 sword would have a DC of 30. As with normal Craft usage, failure by 5 or more could mean loosing up to 1/3 the gold paid to craft the item in the first place.

    Thus, a 15th level character (18 ranks + an assumed +2 relevant modifier) would be able to craft said +5 sword. That seems about right. A 12th level character would be able to hit the DC with the addition of the Skill Focus feat, but they would lack the caster level required.

    Which brings me to my next inquiry: if I were to implement this, how should I integrate it with the item creation feats? Is it too much to require both a skill check and the feat in order to make a magic item? What if the two elements (feat and skill) could be contributed by different characters? Say a PC wizard has Craft Wondrous Item, but doesn't have Craft (jewelmaking and/or gemcutting), but they want to make a ring of protection. If they were able to go to a sufficiently skilled gemsmith or jewelmaker and let them contribute the check, would that balance the need to have both feat and skill ranks? I would impose a fee for getting assistance, of course, so that there was an incentive to keep the crafting all "in house," if possible.

    Alternately, and let me express in advance that I am extremely hesitant about this option; what if the item creation feats were abandoned all together? What if the skill check were the major prerequisite, instead? I'm thinking about literature in which a skilled smith, no spellcaster in his own right, brings together powerful magical components and uses them in the forging of a blade or ring or amulate or whatever else, and creates an object of great magic as a result. In this case, the item's caster level would only determine the DC for crafting it, as well as the innate power of the item (to determine the caster level of any spell it produces or how it interacts with a dispel magic). The caster level would be otherwise totally divorced from the actual crafting process.

    That has a certain appeal to it, but it complicates the traditional method of requiring a caster of X power (caster level) possessing spells X, Y, and Z to make the item. The complication to spells required is the bigger issue to my mind, as I really like that element of the current crafting system and wouldn't want to see it go; but I also like the thought of having smiths forge items of power without necessarily being archmages themselves. I may have to abandon this approach in favor of retaining the current vision of item making, which is more along the lines of the item's physical creation by a smith, and subsequent enchantment by a wizard, being two distinct and ultimately unrelated events. I do very much want to incorporate the Craft checks into item making, however.

    Like it? Hate it? Let me know what you think!


    Yes, the title is a reply to the recent "Are Goblins Civilized?" thread. In truth, this thread really has little to do with that other thread, other than some coincidental similar, though inverted situations. I expected my newbie players to just hack and slash their way through a goblin den, but after fighting the enemies to a stand-still, they actually managed to capture one of the little greenskins and are trying to negotiate with it (whereas in the other thread, it seemed the players were expected to talk and one ended up committing violence).

    The PCs' hostage demanded the party agree to let the goblin women and children go before the captured goblin would help set up a meeting with the tribal leaders. The party was unaware this goblin warren had noncombatants, and they would have let them go anyway when they found them; but the PCs decided to latch onto the goblin's offer and run with it. They agreed tp let the non-combatants go in return for the hostage's promise to lead the party to bigwigs in the tribe.

    The lengthy specifics of the circumstances are spoilered below:

    Spoiler:
    The ultimate leader of the goblins, a necromantic goblin sorcerer, is in league with a human. The human is an agent of a larger evil network, a pawn who hired the goblins to steal a book needed by the organization. The party is trying to get the book back. The human has made a pretty tight alliance with that goblin leader, and neither would be willing to negotiate with the party. The rest of the tribe, however, is offended by this outsider, this human, who thinks he can come in and be the new boss. The mid-level leaders of the tribe haven't alerted the sorcerer of the party's invasion to their stronghold yet, and these mid-level goblins are the ones who would be willing to speak with the party.

    The party is in not in top shape right now, and won't really be able to rest much before going on to the impromptu negotiations. The subleaders are goblin barbarian, bard, and ranger. There are around two dozen more goblins who will be present, bows trained on the party to make sure there's no surprises. The party is 2nd level, with a barbarian, ranger, cleric, sorcerer, and rogue.

    I figure some of the goblins would be willing to betray their sorcerer leader. They think he has already betrayed them by isolating himself from the rest of the tribe in favor of the human. They would like to supplant him with one of the subleaders and take control over the tribe. They would let the party pass and face the sorcerer, though not taking a direct hand for some level of deniability.

    Another group of the goblins are (whether through duty, fear, or both) still loyal to the leader. They would be resistant to any coup, though being "tricksy" as goblins are, they would likely agree to any plan and then turn on their new "allies" once they had reached the sorcerer.

    A third group is neutral, too afraid to move against the sorcerer now, but willing to act as part of the coup for the right assurances or incentives.

    As a further element, the party also just found a dwarven prisoner of the goblins, unconscious but certainly soon to be awoken. I thought about making him an Expert, but now I'm thinking wizard (specifically a diviner) to give the party some of the knowledge skills and information gathering abilities which they sorely lack. Perhaps even a mystic theurge for some after-combat healing... but definitely NOT another combatant in and of himself. His role might be something to consider... or perhaps not, and he could have no bearing. I don't know, which is why I come to you!

    That's the status of the game right now. It came up quite unexpectedly, and I don't feel like I have the time to coherently throw together all the pieces flying around in my head. I'd like to seize this impromptu oppertunity to run a roleplaying and diplomacy adventure (the party has all the social skills split between them), but am not sure how to combine everything to that end. Help, Paizonians!


    The light was fading into the west, and there had not been much more conversation than that. Geredor whistled and the birds sang, but otherwise there was only the squelching of six feet in the mud. That is until there came a moaning sound from the ferny embankment alongside the road. “Listen!” the half-elf raised his hand, calling the trio to a stop. “Did you hear that?” he asked after a moment. There was a lingering silence, then another moan. The source wasn’t far ahead.

    “Sounds like someone in pain,” the dwarf said, beginning to stomp ahead towards the sound.

    “Wait,” the half-elf commanded, then moved silently into the undergrowth, crouched low, and moved like a shadow towards the origin of the moans. He didn’t go sixty feet before stopping, moving a frond to the side, looking around for a moment, and then waving the other two over.

    “It’s a man,” the half-elf said.

    “It’s a knight!” Geredor explained. The man certainly looked like one. He wore a suit of plate armor. Over it laid a white tunic depicting a rampant black lion. The knight’s great helm was off, lying in the dirt. Beneath the remaining chain coif, the man’s dark skin showed him as one of Zakandrian descent.

    “He’s bleeding,” Geredor continued. “He’s wounded badly.”

    “Help me make a bandage,” Ulfgar said as he knelt beside the knight, tearing a strip of fabric from the man’s tunic.

    “Like this?” Geredor asked, eagerly ripping another strip from the knight’s garb.

    “Sure,” the dwarf grumbled distractedly. He probed around the man, looking for the wound. The knight groaned when Ulfgar placed his fingers on the man’s side, just below the cuirass. “There! Help me turn him,” the dwarf asked. Geredor was only too happy to comply, bending to roll the man over. The gnome began to lift, but he strained and his hands slipped, and the wounded knight fell heavily, groaning again.

    “Oof! He’s heavy!” Geredor complained.

    “Gently! Gently!” Ulfgar commanded. He looked towards the half-elf, leaning idly against a tree. “We could use your help here if you’re not too busy!”

    “Why? What purpose is there in wasting time helping this man?” the half-elf asked with a tone of irritation.

    “Because he’s a wounded man alone in the woods,” Ulfgar snapped.

    “We can’t just leave him,” Geredor complained.

    The half-elf stepped from the tree, rolling his eyes. “Fine. How do you want me to hold him?”

    “Like this,” Ulfgar showed him, then left the man in the half-elf’s hands.

    “Do you know how to treat his wounds?” the half-elf said, looking at the unconscious man.

    “I’m going to try,” Ulfgar told him.

    “You know, I could save us a lot of time and him a lot of pain. I could just put him out of his misery,” the half-elf said smoothly.

    “You wouldn’t!” Geredor exclaimed.

    There was a strange smile on the half-elf’s lips as he said “Of course not.”


    The prince is dead!

    This is the news the PCs will hear when they stop at a small city on a river ford. Obviously, this ties into a larger, over-arching plot to the campaign. For now, it means that certain nobles (including the one of this particular city) allied closely with a (corrupt) Duke are given the right to raise existing taxes and levy new ones. Further, they employ a new group of enforcers answerable only to said royal, the Duke's Dragons. Rather than just introducing all this as background and description to what the party is doing, I'd really like to have an adventure which involves both roleplaying and action centered on these developments, but I'm coming up blank.

    I have a LG human cleric, a NG dwarf ranger, a CN orc (which replace half-orcs in my setting) barbarian, and a CN human sorcerer. I'd love it if the party had to choose between supporting law, by allying with the Duke's Dragons, or chaos, by allying with someone opposed to them. The two potential allies would have to be LN and CN, primarily because the Duke's Dragons are non-good. They're mostly lawful evil (using gestappo tactics), but then the choice for the party is too one-sided. Conversly, if the chaotic NPC(s) is(are) CG, then the choice is again too one-sided. I'd also really like to avoid too much possibility of prison-time for the PCs because of the LG cleric (having him go to jail would complicate things in a way I'd rather not delve into at the moment). It also makes it more of a free choice between law and chaos, since it wouldn't mean gaining a permanent bad reputation for choosing one over the other.

    I've got several different ideas in mind. Perhaps a chaotically-aligned figure, possibly an adventurer, starts a riot in the streets because of the emotion over the prince's death and the outrage of the legal abuses and Duke's Dragons. Perhaps the merchant or some other figure the PCs will be traveling with is chaotic (he hasn't been introduced into the adventure yet, so that's all mutable) and has to be busted out of jail and then escorted from the city. Perhaps a priest of a rival (enemy but not necessarily evil?) church (I use my own homebrewed pantheon) is arrested/persecuted and the party has to choose whether to join the Duke's Dragons or help the otherwise hostile cleric? All these things are spinning around, but just won't congeal. Help, Paizonians, and thanks in advance!


    I'm planning a side-quest for an upcoming game. I have a specific role in mind for a monster, but no actual candidates pop out. I don't have time to look through my monster supplements adequately, so I turn to Paizo!

    The party will need to go underground, where their own curiosity or the treachery of an NPC (if the party proves less curious than the proverbial cat) will trigger an ancient dwarven trap, leaving them stranded in the caverns/previously unknown ancient dwarven tunnels, and looking for a way out.

    What I need is a monster to inhabit these tunnels. There's a treasure down there, so a dragon guarding it would make sense. That party is a little low-level for that, though, and I'd only be able to spring a wyrmling or very young dragon on them (I prefer to save dragons for when I can throw something a little larger at the PCs). Plus, I'm not sure there's going to be much/any food or water down there, so whatever lives in the tunnels would need to be able to get by on almost nothing, or even nothing at all. Constructs and undead would work, but I'd like to go for a cave creature. An ooze might work, but something a little more vicious seems called for. I'm thinking of roars heard echoing through the tunnels, foreboding something with claws and fangs which the party doesn't want to meet. A trapper outsider would do well, though I don't necessarily want the "dwarves who delved too deep" bit again, and my eye is towards the bestial rather than the intelligent. Perhaps a magical beast or some monstrous humanoid, but I've no clue what.

    Further complicating the matter, I want the party to actually be able to fight and, while I want the fight to be hard, win. I've already had them face off against a creature they couldn't beat, and I don't want to make it too common of an event (though, as an afterthought, it would be fine if they had to think outside the box, perhaps using the environment to beat an otherwise overpowering foe; such as figuring out a way to drop a stalactite or dwarven column on the thing). The party will only be 3rd or 4th level when they get to this side quest, so that makes selecting the kind of monster I'd like (bigger is better) hard.

    In addition to the core MM, I have MM2 and MM3 and the Fiend Folio, plus the Fiendish Codices, Draconomicon, Libris Mortis, and the Advanced Bestiary (and others, but those seem the most relevant for mining monster ideas). Thanks!


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    How do people do this? I've never really had a clear mental image in my head of how spell resistance "looks" when it comes into play. Does the spell function as normal, but the creature just isn't effected (emerges from the conflagration of a fireball unexplainably unsinged), or is there some kind of lightshow that goes off, as is typically assumed for any effect dealing with magic in the modern game (or modern splatbook, at least)? I'm a very visual person and have trouble really getting into the game if I can't conjure a mental image of an action or effect, and spell resistance has therefore always bothered me because of the utter lack of fluff or description about it anywhere.


    I'm preparing for what amounts to a low-level dungeon delve. The PCs are going up against a small tribe of goblins in the canals under a city. My main concern at this point is pacing. There are too many goblins, including leveled leaders and monster "pets", for the party to assault all in one go at their level. At the same time, falling back repeatedly (the "fifteen minute adventuring day") is both lame and impractical given the specifics of this adventure (the party cannot go back the way they came due to having disturbed a creature beyond their power to defeat; they escaped, but the monster blocks their way back).

    Being in a sewer/canal, I've placed some levels and gears in the first encounter area which I'll emphasize to the players; the point being that they can turn these to shut some doors and control the flow of the goblins. However, I fully expect the party to then tackle one region of the goblin complex at a time, most likely resting between those forays. The problem is keeping the status quo once the levers are thrown and the wheels turned. I hate having intelligent enemies just sit around and wait for the PCs to come kill them; the golbins would logically set about engineering ways around the doors and (being cunning and clever, at least in my setting) likely would meet with success within a matter of hours (which is far too little time for the PCs to complete the adventure without risking a TPK, I think). It only makes sense, considering this is the goblins' home. If the goblins manage to find a way around those doors, they will either swarm the party (read: TPK) or simply escape (taking with them the McGuffin needed by the party).

    I realize the description is a little vague, but I'm not really sure where to start, and there's still room to change things around in the adventure, as well. I'm more than willing to provide more details as needed. I'm looking for an explanation as to why the goblins cannot get around the doors and either mass an attack on the party or flee off into the urban underworks. I find simpler explanations are usually better, but my class schedule (two concurrent summer Literature courses) have been keeping me busy enough with readings and papers that I haven't had time to think of a solution.


    I just read it again: the explanation that small and light weapons such as rapiers and daggers can penetrate full-plate armor through gaps. Now, I'm no specialist in medieval fighting gear, but that seems really unlikely to me, and I do beleive I've seen other statements to that regard here on the boards before. But before anyone starts accusing me of adding too much realism before, I'll qualify myself by saying that I realize the functionality of the game is not related to realism; rogues and the like need to be able to effectively attack enemies in plate armor. However, the explanation that they find "gaps in the armor" seems like a total cop-out to me. Without altering any mechanics, I just want to be able to offer better descriptions of combat in my games.

    What I would like to know is a bit more about medieval armor and combat. I've wasted whole days before perusing Wikipedia's pages on armor, but still don't know what I'd like. There's a distinct shortage of easily-accessible buffs and scholars on this subject matter in my area, so I turn to the paizonians. What angles and areas were typically actually vulnerable to attack in a suit of plate? What strategies did people actually employ to wound foes so armored? And ultimately, the real reason I'm writing all this, what kinds of descriptions can I give in-game to explain how combatants with smallish weapons actually manage to overcome the protection offered by plate? I'll take anything which sounds feasible, or links to such information off-site. Thanks!


    I'm looking for information about historical knights and knightly orders. I've already browsed wikipedia, and don't have a lot of time between my classes to read lengthy texts (I do that already for my English degree), but any information which can be provided, either posted here or in links, would be appreciated. My main focus is on how orders, such as the templars, interacted with the rest of the medieval world and what role they held in the grand hierarchy of things. I'm also interested in information about the difference between knights who belong to a specific order (again, like the templars or hospitilars), and those who did not (i.e., were knighted by the crown in their respective country, or inherited their positions, but didn't join a larger group). Thanks!

    Spoiler:
    This inuiry was born from both beginning A Song of Ice and Fire and my experiences over this past semester in a class focusing on Arthurian liturature, and therefore knights. I want to portray a more historical and medieval background to this pseudo-medieval game. There are a lot of historical elements that don't make it into the typical D&D game, which I desire to encorporate for the atmosphere I think they'd bring. Knighthood is one of those elements. Most settings include a few "sirs" here and there, and a few knightly orders, but do little to actually ground such figures in the setting and develop the presence of knights within the game world. I very much want to explore the possibility of changing that in my games.

    I'd even like to see players taking vows of knighthood. Of course, historical knights were duty bound to a king, lord, the church, etc., and therefore not really free to adventure. The Arthurian material, of course, provides ample examples of the knight errant, which works well for bringing knight to a D&D game which players might be interested in; but it doesn't do much to inform me about real medieval knighthood. Martin's work feels very real, and provides more wonderful ideas about presenting the insitution of knighthood in the game but is ultimately also fantasy. I'm very curious to learn about the actual medieval realities of knights and knighthood and knightly orders in more detail. Thanks again!


    So, what really happens when you loose control over undead you previously commanded? I am planning an adventure involving a necromancers who has animated the long- and recently-dead bodies of priests and monks at a monastery, mainly just as skeletons and zombies (since it's a low-level adventure). However, in order to make the adventure what I want, I need more skeletons and zombies than what the necromancer can safely control.

    I'm a little pressed for time at the moment, but if I remember correctly, mindless undead who pass beyond control continue to follow out the last orders they were given. So, if the necromancer told them "stand here and attack anything except me," would they continue to do that after he lost control? I.e., could he still safely pass by them, with the only real downside to having lost control being that he can't issue new orders? Or would the emancipated undead attack their former master and animator? Ultimately, it doesn't matter in this case because the necromancer in question will have access to hide from undead; but that only circumvents the question without providing the answer I desire!

    Thoughts?


    It's widely acknowledged that sword-and-shield style isn't simply unpopular in 3.5 D&D, but it's downright underpowered compared to THF or TWF. I love the imagery and the nod to historicism that comes with using shields, and would also love to see their use increase amongst my players. I'm contemplating houseruling either increasing the armor bonus of all shields sans the buckler by +1, or outright doubling it (so a small shield gives +2 AC, the same as the first proposed rule, but a large shield gives +4). I realize this will increase the AC of many characters who choose to take a shield, but it seems to me that increase would be countered by the decrease that comes with not using two weapons or a two-handed weapon. Thoughts?


    I'm looking for a way to change my campaigns to satisfy my players a bit more (and thus myself!). The issue comes from one player who would like to see some court intrigue and diplomacy thrown into the game, politics and power struggles and the mysteries which accompany that. I've never had a player actualy want that before, and as a storyteller and DM, I very much want to develop my ability to run that kind of adventure. He also likes combat and the other aspects of the game, but I believe his connection to both the game world and D&D would be enhanced with a little court intrigue.

    However, I know at least two other people are in it for the hack-n'-slash. They both like roleplaying, though one is more confident in his character and speaks more than the other, but their true bliss in the game comes from kicking in the door and laying the smackdown on the monsters. They won't object to have more complex plots by any means, though I'm not sure they'll always follow them. What I'd be worried about is overdoing the roleplaying encounters to the detriment of the fighting, which would cause boredom in these two.

    So, I'm looking for advice on plot structure and adventure design, pacing, recommendations of published materials to peruse (I've got every Dungeon back as far as 117, and all the APs sans Shackled City), etc. For reference, the major influences on my mindset and world design are Tolkien and George Martin's Song of Ice and Fire; for further reference, the player who wants this intrigue also loves Martin's series and is really holding that up as the standard of what interests him, I believe.

    Thanks!


    I'm about to start up a RotRL campaign for four players, but three of them are terribly inexperienced. I have one gaming buddy from back in highschool who is well versed in 3.5 (I don't have the time to learn the Beta well enough to feel comfortable running it at this point), but everyone else struggles to understand the game. I like to say they are people who play D&D, in that they enjoy the social aspects of the game; but are not D&D players, in that they simply will not commit the time to make this game a hobby, as is necessary to truly be a D&D player. I make this distinction because the group has been together for close to a full year, and they still need constant reminders about how to make even basic attack rolls and saving throws(such as "what dice do I use, again?").

    So the issue I'm having comes from my knowledge that RotRL is, like most Paizo products, designed for experienced players who know how to build powerful characte and, know how to use those characters effectively (which these guys don't). I'm worried about this becoming a kill-fest at certain points (the Shadow Clock, anyone?). I've done some research on these boards about which parts have been troublesome for some people and what to do about them (continuing with the Shadow Clock, substituting Xanesha's stats with Lucretia's). I'm still worried that it's going to be too difficult (I still think Lucretia will likely pound them; and even earlier fights, such as with the yeth hounds under Thistletop, may become TPKerific). My previous campaign got them to a whopping level 2 before I simply ran out of time to keep making my own stuff (hence the adoption of a Paizo AP), so I'm letting them keep that extra level, which will hopefully offset some of the difficulty even further. I'm still a little worried, though.

    So, for those who have run or are running RotRL, what suggestions can you give me to help get the party through the AP (more or less) intact (barring freak criticals and other such occurences, of course)?


    I'm in a creativity rut and I need help! The situation is this: I need a replacement character for an elf evoker who just went splat after meeting the lance-end of a narzugon. I want to play another wizard because 1) I'm addicted to them and 2) we need a versatile arcanist, and all the other players are too inexperienced to do anything but sit there going "What?" as they try to figure out how to use spells and the like (they're the kind who enjoy the game socially but can't be bothered to learn the rules).

    But I don't want to play the same wizard. The last one was an evoker trying to be a blaster (though he died before attain the level at which that's really feasible), whose roleplaying side was that he sought vengeance for a slain master. It was really cliche, I know, but this group can't handle things being too nuanced at this point (to my continual exasperation).

    Mechanically, I'm aiming for a generalistt/battlefield control specialist. I'd really like to focus on the latter, as everyone jokingly ribbed me about my evoker running out of spells last time and thereafter being useless until we rest. A well-played battlefield control can cast a spell or two in a combat, conserving the rest for later, and still arguably have the most impact on the fight per action of all the PCs. The save DCs will likely be high, but I really hate enemies succeeding on those rolls, so I'd like to focus on spells which don't allow save or still have a partial effect on a successful save. Outside of that, I'll be relying on the low-but-consistent ranged damage of a wand of magic missile to remain relevant in battle without expending my daily prepared spells.

    For some reason, I'm having trouble thinking of good spell lists for this character. I'm having an even worse time thinking of feats to fill up his slots with, which is a recurring problem when I play generalist wizards. The situation is complicated because we've just switched to Pathfinder Beta, but I don't have the book nor the time to read through it all, so the minute but persistant differences are really bothering me. Help?

    Roleplaing-wise... I've got nothing. Most of my characters' roleplaying aspects have traditionally been quest based ("Wants to accomplish X by gaining Z," or "Wishes to avenge A by slaying B"), because that's what the DM is comfortable handling. I'd like to avoid a quest, as it's beginning to feel like a crutch. It doesn't give me a personallity to get into, and once the quest is completed, I'd better have come up with something else or the character is once more adrift. So I want something for a human generalist that won't rely so much on the DM to facilitate, while at the same time isn't too nuanced for my novice (mechanically and roleplaying-wise) co-players to understand (and thus be unable to interact with). It also needs to be something which can be flexible, grow and endure over the character's career without getting old and burning out.

    That where I've hit a mental wall. I've toyed with the idea of a mage who wishes to become an archmage and might take Improved Familiar and perhaps even Leadership for an exotic flying mount, but it isn't really grabbing me. This aspect of the character has been complicated, as well, because the DM has just shifted us to a homebrew setting which I know zilch about. I use a homebrew as well, but it's a traditional sword-and-sorcery which, if anything, I overload the player on information about. This DM likes exotic settings, which are fine, but harder to understand from the player's seat, especially when he hasn't conveyed much information about it! Help here, too?

    Any suggestions, thoughts, or comments will be greatly appreciated; because, currently, I'm just plain stuck.


    I have the great pleasure to be involved in a small group which is trying to undertake some D&D-themed academic research, with the hope of presenting it at a college conference this March. We're currently looking at two different "theses", and are trying to decide which to pursue based on the reading load we'll be placing on ourselves. We're a little under the gun, time-wise, so I'm turning to the vast knowledge of the Paizo community for assistance!

    A) The first is an examination of some of the reasons D&D (i.e., roleplaying games in general) attract people. The group would like some recommendations to pertinant sociological and psychological books and articles regarding roleplaying games, socialization in small groups, the draws and effects of gambling (because of D&D's heavy use of dice). This isn't so much of an actual thesis yet, as a general area of interest which part of the group would like to explore further. Any suggestions would be a great help, as the members so interested currently have no leads.

    B) The second option we're looking at is tracing the game's history in terms of gamism, narrativism, and simulationism. I'm familiar with the terms from many conversations on these very boards, but if someone could name a central article or text they are delineated in, that would be most helpful. We would also appreciate a list of iconic adventures and sources from across the editions which will represent what the "main" focus of the game (at least in terms of official material) during the time of its publication. Specific issues of Dragon with such relevant information (such as Gygax's rant against people roleplaying too much or otherwise not playing the game "right") would be invaluable.

    Anhd if anyone wants to go ahead and voice an opinion about which of the two "theses" (the term isn't really applicable to option A yet) will require less reading time, we would also appreciate that as well!


    I've recently stumbled upon an idea for my homebrew which could radically change the tone of the setting; it ultimately comes down to a "war against the dark lord," but I think it could go a long way in terms of providing definition, dynamism, and focus to the world. It's made me wonder: how many people with homebrews design worlds with this feature? I'm not talking about a single campaign against some powerful evil ruler, but an ultimately Tolkien-esque struggle in the world set as a sometimes active, sometimes passive background for an entire setting? It's certainly different than the approach in major published worlds: Greyhawk has gone through its wars, but the world is not defined by one single good-against-evil struggle. The Realms have isolated wars here and there, some simmering on and on and others resolving themselves and entering the setting's history. Eberron had the Last War, but part of the setting's "thing" is that's over and now you have to deal with the fallout (literally, in some regions like Cyre). Even in the height of the Last War, my impression is that it was never really good vs. evil, but more along the lines of each nation squabbling violently over who would ascend to the vacant throne. That's far more real-world in it's approach.

    Having a more "peaceful" world, with only some hot spots of conflict here and there, is also a more "real-world" approach. It seems to be what most people opt for. I supposed initially that it allowed for more diversity, in that one could more easily drop in or design adventures that might not otherwise "fit" with the world's "theme." But now I'm not so sure. For example, Azeroth, WoW's setting, is ulimately defined by the battle of Horde vs. Alliance vs. Scourge vs. Legion. There's plenty for adventurers to do there, some dealing with the ongoing wars, but most of it not. Dragonlance and, of course, Tolkien also had their wars which defined the settings. Though the Companions of the Lance and the Fellowship of the Ring ultimately were directly involved in the overall conflict, not everything they did was so directly linked (i.e., the wight in the Barrow Downs; Sturm's "side-quest" to become a Knight of Solamnia).

    Having a setting plunged into conflict makes plenty of ruins and abandoned wildernesses for monsters and treasure to lurk in, and for adventurers to explore. It explains excellently why no one else has done it sooner; they've been fighting for their lives! It creates a huge call for men and women of skill and ability which aren't bound up in the fighting. The PCs can easily become heroes of reknown from directly aiding the war effort, or from doing good on a kingdom's behalf while its soldiers are off fighting the good fight.

    So, ultimately, I'm just kind of curious how many people like to use war-torn settings either published or of their own design. For those who do, what draws you to them? For those who don't, is there something about them which disinterests you? Ready... discuss!


    I've been having an issue for some time now with the Wealth by Level guidelines. Assuming these are in place, and that the party can sell their loot for 1/2 price, then the system seems to have an inherent flaw. Let's say I'm a DM, and the party needs to earn around 5,000gp in the next adventure. I drop in a periapt of Wisdom +2 (4,000gp) and a 1st level pearl of power (1,000gp) and call it a day, right? But then the party decides they don't want either of the things and sell them for half price. Now they only have 2,500gp. It gets worse if, say, a cleric decides to keep the periapt of Wisdom +2 and the mage decides to sell the pearl of power. Then the cleric has the full 4,000gp value of the item on his sheet, while the mage only gets 500gp to trade with out of the pearl's 1,000gp listed worth. A major loss on his part.

    This gets even wonkier if the party uses a communal pool for their wealth, and each character is expected to buy the loot they keep out of that pool. If the cleric keeps the periapt and the pearl gets sold off, then is the pool 5,000gp or 4,500gp? What if both are kept or both are sold off?

    Do you see the problem? The very system seems to defeat itself. The party I'm currently in has some loot that we got in the last adventure (a ring of protection +1, amulet of natural armor +2, and a fully-charged wand of Melf's acid arrow). We're not sure yet as to what will be sold and what will be kept, and we do use a kind of party pool system: we determine which items will be kept and which sold, and then we calculate the total value of the loot based on that, divide by the number of players, and those who are keeping items buy them at full cost out of the pool. Everyone else gets the free cash when it has been divided up and adjusted for whatever debts one may have from this or prior loot sell-offs. The problem is that some people get more and some people get less, through no fault of ours. The system itself is causing the problems.

    Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?


    I'm planning the introductory adventure to a new campaign which I hope to start in another month or so. Part of this adventure will involve the party descending into a sewer/ruin complex underneath an ancient library, pursuing goblin thieves who have just raided a precious scroll. The scene should be thus:

    The goblin band passed through the long-forgotten passage and used a (for them, not-so) secret entrance to get into the library to steal the scroll for their boss. While passing through the passages, the goblins disturbed a spirit of the ancient past, which had been laying in near dormancy for over two-thousand years. By the time the raid was over and the goblin band returned to the tunnels, the phantasm had reached the upper passages where the goblins were traveling. Some of the sneaks (including the one with the scroll) managed to escape; but only be running while the spirit savaged their brethren.

    I selected the allip for its Wisdom drain. Though the damage won't heal (because it's drain), it also won't kill any party members outright (such as a wraith's attack might). Further, this will lead to what I hope will be an interesting and unusual encounter with several of its goblin victims. As the party enters the passages, they will see some of the goblins laying unconscious on the floor, but seemingly unharmed. (These are the ones that have been reduced to Wisdom 0; they may be rolling in the fits of a nightmare for effect). Next will come several which I will treat as being confused.

    But of course, the allip itself must also be encountered. This baddie is going to be somewhere in the CR 6-8 range, thanks to advanced HD and perhaps the Evolved template from Libris Mortis. This obviously isn't going to be a combat encounter. What I'm looking for is an elegant way to allow them to overcome this problem. Simply telling the party that running may be a good idea won't suffice because:

    1) It's an incorporeal undead. I doubt running would work at all.

    2) It's heavy handed and poor DMing.

    3) They need to get past the allip, rather than run away from it, to continue the adventure.

    I, however, can't think of how to accomplish this at the moment. I don't want the solution to be so long that it takes up an entire adventure in itself; nor do I simply want them to go to a local priest (the adventure will be in, or rather under, an urban setting) and effectively have an NPC take care of it. Since there's still a long time for preparation before the campaign begins, I though I would appeal to the minds of the Paizo community for assistance. Thoughts?


    The SRD wrote:

    Buckler

    This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a -1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you don’t get the buckler’s AC bonus for the rest of the round.

    (Emphasis mine)

    So, for clarity, can you use a buckler with a crossbow without a penalty to your attack rolls while simultaneously retaining the buckler's AC bonus? Or do you take the penalty and/or lose the bonus?


    Now to totally flip the tables on the alignment discussions:

    A powerful Chaotic Good ranger is walking through his forests near a small town with a well-established and very capable legal system (i.e., it has a good jail). He comes across a nefarious group of bandits. A fight follows, and the ranger easily dispatches all the bandits... save one: their leader, the Bandit King. Fearing for his life, the Bandit King drops his sword, falls to his knees, and offers his seemingly totally sincere surrender to the Chaotic Good ranger.

    What's Nature Boy do?


    One of my ultra-novice players (see "On Newbs, Part One") has created a bard for the group's Eberron campaign. He is at the stage of character experimentation where he listens to the available options we tell him and he picks one that grabs his fancy (again, without understanding what in the world it means). This has resulted in a very strange combination of abilities for a bard. The exact details are irrelevant because, after some consideration, I came up with a backstory/mechanical theme for the character that would require some changes anyway, and he decied to go with it because he liked my suggestions. I had never heard of nor contemplated this character concept before, but here it is: a demonic bard.

    This bard is possessed by a powerful demon, possibly the spectral remnant of a balor. We've come up with a suitable explanation and list of roleplaying tips and quirks, but the mechanics could use some fleshing out. This bard is going to be warrior first, singer second. The reason for the mention of a balor is that he's going to try to do two-weapon fighting with a shortsword and a whip (both flaming when he gets the funds to enchant them so).

    However, the party already has a rogue/fighter using a spiked chain and a warforged fighter with the greatsword/Power Attack build. I'm pretty sure the player will notice his lack of combat power next to these people very quickly and become dissatisfied with the character.

    So, what would be a good set of options for this extremely inexperienced player? Right now, I'm thinking Combat Expertise and Improved Disarm and Trip for his whip, then two-weapon fighting a bit later. Weapon Finesse is also highly recommended, of course. Potions of enlarge person would probably help him overcome the lower damage potential, but it can be an expensive resource to continually maintain (we just hit 3rd level in the campaign). So, what suggestions do you have?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    So at the start of this past summer, I had the immense pleasure of establishing a new playgroup after not having one for almost two years. Only one member of the old play group is in this new one, and everyone else at the table was absolutely new to D&D, and tabletop RPGs in general for that matter. They all liked fantasy and/or had experience with a variety of fantasy video games, and have come to love playing D&D.

    But they won't learn the damn rules! One of them barely (and I stress barely) knows how to make an attack role. None of them are very clear on the difference between a skill and a feat, if they have any clue at all. Don't even ask them what the difference between a light and a one-handed weapon is, or a simple vs. an exotic weapon, or what armor check penalty does. We've been playing for months now. I've variously suggested, begged, and outright stated that, if they plan to continue playing D&D, they need to both acquire a copy of the 3.5e PHB and read it. To date, none have.

    Now, my friend and I are living, breathing, walking encyclopedias of D&D 3.5 knowledge. Both of us are more than happy to continue dispensing said knowledge on their behalf indefinitely... but they don't even understand it when we do, let alone know enough to ask the right questions of us. We've already had several new characters created, and each time, I or my friend end up making the character for the player, and the player has no real concept what most of the stuff on the sheet means or what he or she is capable of. My friend and I might as well make our own characters and say, "Here, play this."

    In combat, anything outside a basic attack roll creates utter confusion. The sorcerer's player has learned a little bit about what casting a spell entails, and the barbarian's player kinda knows how to work Power Attack. The druid is totally lost when it comes to preparing her spells, when she does it, and how; particularly if I suggest changing her prepared spell list for an upcoming adventure when, say, entangle isn't likely to be very useful (such as going underground with no plant life).

    Anytime one of these non-routine situations arise, it falls to myself or my friend to tell them what we would do (i.e., what they should do), and they do it, making the rolls we tell them to and accepting their success or failure without any understanding of what just happened. It's like we're playing their characters for them.

    I know it takes people a while to learn the game, but again, we've been playing for months now. They aren't showing any signs of progress. If it was a single player, that would be different, but it's basically the whole group.

    Has anyone else here ever been in a similar circumstance? What can I do to help them learn the rules? They all really do love the game, but seem to have no desire to actually get and read the PHB. I can understand them not having the time; we're all college students and the fall semester has just begun. I know most of them worked over the summer, but they still had more time than they do now and yet still didin't get the books. I'm not asking them to become experts, but if they could at least understand what the difference between a free and a full-round action is, that would be supertastic. Ten minutes of the PHB a day would do wonders, and with the release of 4e, 3.5 books have never been cheaper!

    So, suggestions, thoughts?


    I'm about to run "Final Resting Place" from Dungeon 122, and it occured to me that I'm not sure what to do about the grafts possessed by the troglodytes. My base inclination is that they aren't treasure, as they have been bonded to the creature. It's not like they'd function if you ripped them off; they'd just be useless and gross. But some of the baddies have weapon grafts. Some are masterwork, and one is even magical. So, are these put there purely for the statistical boosts they give to the trogs, or should I let the players take these things as treasure?

    The magical graft in question is a +1 vicious weapon. I don't think the party would want to use it, simply because of the lovely vicious property, but if, in theory, they decide to hack off the trog's arm and start wielding it, what should be done?


    I was wondering if anyone knows of a comprehensive Realms calendar out there anywhere, specifically one which details the special days of the year. I'm really wondering if the high ceremony of Talos, Calling Down the Thunder, has a set day or not. Considering that "[Talos] rarely has [his clerics] stick with the same time of day [to pray for spells] for more than a tenday" (FRCS 252), I would think the ceremony's date would vary. However, the entry for Talos also describes his ceremonies as "annual," which indicates a more regular cycle.

    Considering that I have similar questions for all the holy days of the various deities, I'm curious if anyone ever wrote such a thing down and put it up to share online. I went to the Candlekeep site of heard so much about (I'm pretty new to seriously running the Realms, so I haven't had a reason to visit before), and was pleasantly surprised to find they don't have a search function. Seeing as I can't spend the next three years of my life rooting around there for this bit of trivia, I came to the next logical choice: Paizo!


    This weekend, I'll be running a game in which the party is going to have to cross the territory of a gnoll tribe. Their first encounter will be with an outpost, and the gnolls have about a 95% chance of getting a signal fire lit. This will alert the rest of the tribe to intruders.

    After another small skirmish, I'd like to introduce a gnoll hunter, either a ranger or a druid, who heads a band of his tribesmen in pursuit of the party. I'd like to make this into an overland chase in which the party is trying to get away from the gnolls for a couple of days. But I'm not sure how to pull it off. I've done shorter chase scenes in urban environments, but I've never pulled off an overland wilderness chase as well. Several issues confront me:

    1. How do I let the party know they're being pursued by this hunter and his brethren? There will be an NPC with the party, and I think I'm going to have him know a bit about the gnolls to help the party out in some other areas. But what other options would there be for setting the scene, as it were? If I simply had the enemy attack them, there's a chance the party wouldn't run (rather, dying themselves or killing the villain and obviating the chase element), which leads me to...

    2. How to I make the party run, rather than staying and fighting? I'm pretty sure this group would respond if I gave them hints that running is not only an option, but a good one (their pretty cautious), but I've never tried conveying that message before and I'm not sure how to go about doing it without being too blunt.

    3. What would be a good final encounter? If the party can take the hunter and his band themselves, why would they run from him in the first place? I'm currently considering having whatever bridge or pass they come to be held, so the PCs would have to fight their way through that opposition before the pursuers catch up. But I think it would be cooler to actually involve the gnoll who's after them more directly.

    The party is very wilderness-savvy: they have a barbarian, druid, and ranger, all with max ranks in survival. The party is low-level, so I can't use anything too lethal on them. They are passing through this region, a rocky and barren stretch of hills, on their way to an abandoned dwarven settlement. They will eventually return along this same path, but are likely to be a couple levels higher.

    Thanks in advance!


    I've developed a new feat for the spellcasters of an evil organization in my homebrew. Note that this will not be available to any foreseeable PCs. Please let me know what you think of it, i.e., too much, too odd, unclear wording, alternate ideas, etc. I feel like I've heard the name used somewhere else before, but I can't remember where. Luckily, I don't really care if it has!

    Shadowfire Adept
    You have learned the secrets of the dark magic known as shadowfire.
    Prerequisite: Spellcraft 6 ranks, any nongood alignment, must be capable of casting at least one spell of the fire descriptor and one spell of the darkness descriptor as arcane spells
    Benefit: You cast spells fire and darkness descriptors at +1 caster level. Further, half of any damage dealt by your fire spells comes from the raw arcane energy of shadowfire. This energy bypasses any form of energy resistance or immunity a subject may have. Finally, your darkness spells are considered one level higher for the purposes of interacting with spells of the light descriptor.


    The PHB, page 174-5, wrote:
    Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive a saving throw to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or iteract with it in some fashion. For example, if a party encounters a section of illusory floor , the character in the lead would receive a saving throw if she stopped and studied the floor or if she probed the floor." Them later, the PHB also says "A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. A character who falls through a section of illusory floor into a pit knows something is amiss, as does one who spends a few rounds poking at the same illusion

    The other night in a friend's campaign, the party removed a gem from an altar and the room started sealing a la Indiana Jones. My wizar and the cleric, who suspected a trap and stayed in the hall, were cut off from the rest of the party. Each of the divided groups yelled for the other, but were told that they heard nothing through the "stone" door. Physical probing followed. I think the DM rolled our saves and we blew them. The ones in the room then had a fight with some animated statues, but halfway through my wizard realized his staff passed right through the door. I informed the cleric it was an illusion and we rejoined the others and easily won the fight. I'm guessing the DM kept rolling our saves, and I happened to make that one.

    I'm not sure if this encounter was handled right or wrong. I think our hands and probes should have passed right through the door, and certainly our voices, even though we failed our saves (as opposed to the door acting in all ways as a real stone door because we failed our saves). But wouldn't that count as proof the illusion wasn't real, and therefore cancel any need for a save? Or would it simply entitle us to a save in the first place? The wording in the PHB is unclear.


    What happens to favored enemy bonuses if the creature becomes undead? Say there is a ranger with Favored Enemy (magical beasts). He then fights a hydra skeleton. As per the RAW, the hydra's type is undead and not magical beast; I don't believe the ranger gets any of his favored enemy bonuses... does he?


    I've been mulling over a character concept for a rather atypical bard. I'd like him to focus on two things: mounted combat and throwing weapons.

    Specifically, I'd like him to be mounted on some large creature, use war drums for his bardic music, and have throwing axes as his weapon of choice. (He would hail from a barbaric culture).

    I was thinking of using Leadership to get the mount, but the feat stipulates that it cannot attract a mount with an intelligence of less than 4, and I'd be more interested in dire animals with this character. Are there any options around this, or should I just work with my DM to make an altered version of Leadership that works the way I want? (I'm not interested in the followers, anyway- just the mount).

    As for the physical combat, I'd like to be able to chuck as many throwing axes as possible in a round. Rapid shot only works for bows and crossbows and the like, as far as I can tell, so I was thinking about Two-Weapon Fighting along with Quick Draw. Is this the best way to go for this combat style? I'd also look into other feats, such as Arcane Strike, but haven't given them much thought yet. Right now, I'm just wondering how to best pull off the core idea of throwing a lot of axes.

    I have no idea what level I'd start this character at, or even if I'll get to use him. I've already got a wizard who will start at level one (the campaign begins in a couple weeks), but I just got this idea for another PC and was thinking about keeping it as a possible replacement character (since 1st level wizards always have a foot close to the Bucket That Is Often Kicked).


    I was statting up a wizard NPC recently, and I wanted to give him another top tier spell known in his spellbook, but I'm a bit confused about how this affects his wealth-by-level.

    On page 54, Under 'Wizards and Treasure,' the DMG wrote:
    If you're designing an encounter with a wizard, subtract the value of a spellbook and material components (see Selling a Spellbook on page 179 of the Player's Handbook) from the average treasure value before you start rolling up treasure. Alternatively, you can add up the value of all the components and the spellbook and compare the total value to Table 3-3: Treasure Values per Encounter. Find the level that most closely approaches that total, and subtract it from the level of the encounter. Use that new level to generate the rest of the treasure.

    Okay, what this all boils down to is that the cost of the spellbook and components is taken out of the NPC wealth-by-level total. But how much does it cost the NPC wizard to have an extra spell in his book? I usually just allot my NPC wizards with only the spells they would have gained through leveling up, just to avoid this very question!

    Does the wizard have to pay for the scroll he presumably got the spell from, and the cost to scribe it into his spellbook? Does the wizard only have to pay the cost to scribe it into his book? He has to pay something, or NPC wizards can effectively have as large a spellbook as the DM feels like for free, which doesn't make sense. I'm thinking since the wealth-by-level guidelines are intended to monitor the amount of gear NPCs have for the purposes of determining CR and how much loot PCs get off them, the rule doesn't care about where the wizard got his spell. Thus, he wouldn't pay for the assumed scroll he copied the spell from, but rather only the 100gp/page to have the spell in his spellbook. Correct?


    I'm designing an adventure that's essentially a dungeon crawl through an abandoned dwarven mine. I'd like to have a section centered around a forge whose heat is magically powered and still active many, many centuries after the mines were deserted. I'd like to have some fire-based creatures inhabiting the area, particularly some fire elementals. But then I got to thinking- what exactly would they be doing on a daily basis? What does any elemental do for that matter? When they're being used as servants, the answer is easy: they're master's bidding. But what about when they're free-willed, and particularly when they're inhabiting a relatively small spot on the Material Plane? I don't want these things just standing around waiting for the PCs to come turn them into XP.


    D&D is the biggest money maker in the table-top RPG market, as we all know. I've often even heard it said, and believe it to be true, that D&D makes more money than all the other table-top RPG brands/products combined. I'm currently writing a paper dealing with RPGs, and I need a citable source for this information. Could someone please provide a link or other directions? Thanks!


    So I'm finally going to get to be a player for the first time in the better part of a year. It will be a bit unconventional- I'm going to be the only player, but running three characters (I feel like giving myself a roleplaying challenge). I'm thinking about trying an arcane archer for one of them. I've looked at the class before, and never really been impressed with the cruch. The fluff interests me, however. The race will be elf (no fancy subraces or anything; just a plain ol' elf). I'm looking at ranger as the martial class leading into it. It's not likely to matter, but in the interest of disclosure, I'll be trading the animal companion for a rogue's trapfinding ability. I think I'd like to use sorcerer as the spellcasting class; another of the characters I'm creating will be a wizard, a conjurer loosely based on the warlock class from WoW. I'd like to avoid roll and role overlap as much as possible.

    What's a good build given these parameters? What are good tactics as far as equipment to buy, spells to learn, and feats to take? As previously stated, the crunch has never impressed me. But I've heard pretty good reviews from other people a number of times, and I'm curious what they see in the class as so appealing. Aesthetics are as important as mechanics and stats here; cool character concepts (such as themes for equipment or spells or fighting style) are also welcome and encouraged in your posts!


    I automatically fail saves versus puns and rhymes; so sue me. Also, I guess everyone knows how I pronounce "drow" now (rhymed again!).

    Anyway, a friend of mine has requested a solo campaign in which he'll be playing two characters. Both of them will be drow. As astute and long time posters will know, my drow are substantially different from the norm. The major differences are as follows:

    Surface-dwellers. My dark elves do not live deep beneath the ground, but dwell on the surface just like normal elves. However, you're not likely to mistake a drow-held land with an elven land. Anywhere the drow inhabit is a frozen hellscape. Though they are certainly comfortable in naturally frozen lands, the drow are more known for using power magic to enchant and curse their territory with supernatural cold.

    Necromancers. The drow have unrivaled power over the dead. They are completely enamored with curses, as well. From bestow curse to ray of enfeeblement to feeblemind; anything that can be construed as a hex of some sort is attractive to the drow.

    Gift-givers. The drow's standard operating procedure is to keep a cadre of allies at all time, allies whom they have bribed and subverted with magic such as rings and enchanted weapons. Intimidation also certainly plays a role, but later in the process.

    But what I don't have worked out yet are the statistics for these dark elves. I don't think the drow in the Monster Manual are the best match for the feel that I've tried to create. Further, I'd like to make dark elves a viable player option, which means no more than a +1 level adjustment. I'm not too worried about any traditions I may be treading on here; I've trampled on so many in creating my homebrew, what's a few more? :P

    So my question to you, Paizonians, is this: what racial statistics should the drow possess aside from the standard elven traits*? I'm thinking that Cold Resistance 5 is a good starting place. Something to make them particularly adept at necromancy spells would be good, too. And perhaps a bonus to Bluff checks, perhaps Diplomacy to boot? Regardless, I think I'd like something a little more creative than "+1 caster level on necromancy spells and effects" or the like.

    Thoughts?

    *I've changed the standard elven abilities, too; but I'm happy with those changes and they are currently beyond the scope of this discussion.


    I was just reading over the thread regarding Vancian magic, and someone mentioned that their ideal magic system would involve counterspelling without readying actions. That got me thinking about D&D's current primary mode of counterspelling: a readied dispel magic. What if dispel magic only took an immediate action to cast?

    Counterspelling would become a much more common option. One could get off a spell in their normal round, plus attempt a counterspell. The question here is "would this be unbalanced?" The answer at a glance is likely "yes." But if the house rule made counterspelling attractive enough to become a common tactic, is it possible that the increased number of spell slots eaten up by dispel magic might actually maintain game balance?

    Of course, dispel magic has other uses besides counterspelling. Making the spell's casting time a mere immediate action would almost certainly unbalance it. But what if the casting time had a clause? In most cases, it would take a standard action to cast, just as it does now. But when used specifically for counterspelling, the casting time could be reduced to an immediate action.

    This option appeals to me, at least initially, because I realize the value of counterspelling, yet rarely (read: never) see it done. Of course, I have only my own experience to rely on, but there also seem to be many accounts on these boards of spellcasters shying away from dispel magic and, more specifically, counterspelling. It seems that a lot of people aren't so thrilled about giving up their action to stop someone else from taking his or her own. It doesn't strike a lot of players as flashy or active enough. Further, there seems to be a feeling that one is trading the certainty of "doing something" by using another spell, for the chance of "doing something" with a counterspell attempt.

    So, Paizonians, what say you?


    WTF?!?!

    Hey, cool! Now I can have the experience of fighting Kyuss without actually having to go through all that, you know, (yawn) adventuring. I was really worried that I'd have to, like, buy that old atrocious thing (Dungeon, was it called?) and read that, you know, story that went with it.

    Brilliant; pure genius! I never would have thought anyone would pull something like this off. But, I am surprised once again. WotC, I salute you.

    Why is he only using one finger?


    There's about a bazillion different threads floating around right now talking about a situation involving a tent, an arrow, a shadow, and a casting of true strike. Everyone is saying that the guy in the tent has concealment. I'd rule this, too. But it's a moot point. As ArchLich so graciously posted in another thread, true strike ignores concealment. Look it up.

    So, the end result is that the attack takes place with no penalty, no miss chance, but rather gains the full benefit of the +20 insight bonus to hit.

    I hereby rename the guy in the tent to Ouchy McPinCushion.


    Male Paizonian 20d5 HD Inside-Outer (If Winney the Pooh ate me, I'd be "a bear ration"!)

    A player has unexpectedly retired from my current PbP, Monolithic Evil. Thus, there is a slot in need of filling. If interested, please head over to the Monolithic Evil discussion thread and let me know!


    A while back, I recieved the holiday card from Paizo. Let me start off by saying kudos for showing such service and care towards your customers. What's even better, they offered a discount on Paizo purchases using a simple code.

    I'd like to apply this discount to my next Pathfinder issue. I'm not completely sure how to do so, however, and in such cases I always think it better to ask than not. So: How do I go about making sure I get that discount on my next Pathfinder issue, if possible (since I assume it will be shipping a while after New Year's)?

    Thanks, and keep up the good work, Paizo!


    Male Paizonian 20d5 HD Inside-Outer (If Winney the Pooh ate me, I'd be "a bear ration"!)

    All right, the game is up and running! You have one round's worth of actions to take, and initiative rolls to make. Also, on your character sheets, I'd like you to post standard tactics and actions in combat. I'm going to run this with a 24-hour policy; you have 24 hours to post. If you can't post within that time frame, I will assume you take your stated actions, resolve them, and continue. If the stated actions are inappropriate to the situation, you will simply be skipped so that the game keeps moving. Of course, prior notice of upcoming absences is appreciated (I myself will be out of town next week for the Holidays, just a couple of days).


    The rain finally stopped around midnight. But the clouds remained. Day had not broken so much as it slowly faded in, revealing a gray-cast world beneath a leaden sky. The low clouds were even closer for the wagon trundling through the high hills, wooded slopes rising on either side of the highway. It was the middle of March, Monday the 16th in fact. Winter would soon be over. But for now, the trees were still barren, skeletal arms with twisted black and gray fingers. And of course, the road was nothing but soupy earth.

    The trees alongside the road seemed to stoop and bend out. Where they sheltering the travelers from some possibility of further rain? Or were they wickedly trying to splatter them with the heavy droplets falling from the leafless branches? It was hard to tell.

    The light and trees were not all that was strange. The sound in the hills echoed oddly. Words spoken mere feet away seemed muted and distant, yet far off sounds sometimes came clearly through the mist. But on the whole, the world was quiet, hushed; expectant?

    It was hard to see what it might be expecting. It was hard to see much of anything. The hills were shrouded in a ghostly fog, the fallen rain rising back to the sky. The world seemed to disappear at thirty yards in all directions. It was a strange morning indeed.

    So perhaps it was appropriate that the six travelers found themselves in the company of such a strange halfling. He simply called himself Faz. To start, he was alone; of course there were the six travelers he’d picked up, one even a fellow halfling (not that they knew each other). But he was not part of a caravan, a clan, he had no family with him. He was traveling alone. He was unusually bright for a halfling, dressed in vibrant yellow with a few splashes of orange. His hair was even odd, a bright dirty-blonde. It had an unusual sheen to it, likely indicating some type of dye.

    Faz had another interesting feature: he couldn’t stop talking. He droned on and on, telling of the places he’d been, the things he’d seen, the people he’d met, and often their life stories to boot. It was hard to get a word in edgewise. The exceptions were his off the wall questions: Do you think humans should dance more? What about singing? How do orcs treat their livestock? Even then, he often simply rattled on about his own ideas, rather than actually letting anyone answer his questions.

    The travelers themselves; they were a strange lot, too, most carrying with them armor and weapons. Four were human; there was the second halfling; and an orc. They had come to be in this place by a strange way; in the telling, they were like a snowball, growing larger with every stop they made. The Ornathi in the group had first seen it come round a bend, pulled by two ribbon-clad ponies pulling a halfling and an orc, of all things. But he felt the gods spoke to him, so the Ornathi climbed aboard. In Dyn, the second halfling asked where the wagon was bound and climbed aboard. On the road again, the wagon came round a bend and in climbed a human with a wide-brimmed hat. When they’d stopped at some road-side inn, the only place to stay in a nearly nameless hamlet, some sort of mage asked to come along. And just a few hours ago, a tired youth had emerged from the brush alongside the road and asked if he could join the procession.

    And so, by choice or chance, the seven strangers rode to Versonton on that quiet morning, the silence broken only by clopping ponies, creaking wagon wheels, and chatterbox halflings.

    Until the somnolent spell is broken. To the right, up the slope of the hill, a flock of crows bolts from the treetops, cawing in panic. Their cries fade into the mist, returning to silence for a mere heartbeat, before an otherworldly cry splits the air. It rings out high and shrill, piercing to the bone. Another follows, closer. Much closer.

    Prepare yourselves!


    Male Paizonian 20d5 HD Inside-Outer (If Winney the Pooh ate me, I'd be "a bear ration"!)

    My schedule has finally cleared up and I’m ready to do some DMing! But, alas, I have no play group. What shall I do? Why, I think a play-by-post is the answer! The first one I tried fell flat due to scheduling problems, but those have been resolved now. I’m eager to start a new one and get some adventuring done!

    But I still need some players! I’m looking for a party of six adventurers, but at least two (and very likely three) spots have already been reserved (by Sexi Golem and another friend of mine who will be joining the boards). That leaves three (possibly four) spots to be filled! I’d love to get a chance to DM for some of my fellow Lords of the Boards (Fatespinner, Fakey, Heathy, Aubrey, just to name a few!), but anyone is welcome to join.

    The campaign will be of my own design, and set in my homebrew, Saern. Characters should be created using 32 point buy and will start at 1st level.

    Rather than listing what options are and aren’t approved, just run ideas by me and I’ll either say yea or nea (probably yea). The only things I’ll ban upfront are psionics and overly setting-specific races (warforged, shifters, etc.). I’d love to see a list of diverse classes and races; my preferences run toward diversity within the classes of the PHB, but if you have an itch to play something from a supplement, just ask!

    There may be some house rules here and there (i.e., I give half-elves +1 skill point per level; orcs are a viable races, but with altered statistics, etc.), but I’ll try to keep them to a minimum and inform players of such issues as they arise.

    I initially posted this in the Gamer Connection thread, but some of the long-term posters here on the boards didn't seem to be checking. I wanted to give them a chance to express interest (or not).

    I'll be posting some more info about the game as we go along (pantheon, basic setting history, etc.)

    1 to 50 of 218 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>