Noted. Editing, in my ignorant opinion, is kind of a big deal. Posting spelling errors now won't win you any favors in the long run. Attention to deal...
Right. Ironic?
Sure. ...from the man that wrote the archetype himself. Thanks Cheapy
so much of which is available free through OGL that you don't even need to own a single book to play with just about every option thanks to websites like d20pfsrd.... This. People on forums only ever complain. I'm sure of you looked up the definition of a forum, that would be there. For the same reason no one ever posts a good review... if they're satisfied, they're quiet and content. But if you feel slighted, real or imaginary, you'd want to voice your opinion and feel validated. I like Pathfinder. It's a great system written by passionate people who actually give a damn about what their clientele have to say. And if someone doesn't like it, they can homebrew and houserule until they feel content again.
I raise this question in response to lack of skills for many classes (ie, Fighter, Paladin, Cleric, etc): Should the knowledges (arcana, engineering, nature, religion, etc) require "training" to use? Why does my Fighter, a student of war, suffer in basics tactics and strategy? How come my Cleric, who spent years training under the tutelage of a monastery/temple/church, knows nothing about other religions or even his deity's realm of residence? Now, imagine a world where "bardic knowledge" was applied to every class, to a set of knowledge skills pertinent to that class. Ie, a Ranger would be good at Dungeoneering, Nature, maybe Local, without having to spend skill points; whereas a Cleric would have innate understanding of Religion, History, and even the Planes without letting his Diplomacy or Heal skill suffer. Instead of having to spend a skill point to train in this skill, they would both receive a bonus based on class level (not unlike Bard, perhaps even 1/2 level), and apply other modifiers from there. Here, it can be re-limited: Fighters may only benefit from 1 or 2 knowledge skills, while Wizards and Bards would still receive bonuses to a majority of knowledge checks. Classes like Clerics and Rogues (which have other skills they can allocate their points to) wouldn't suffer as harshly on even the simplest knowledge DCs. TL;DR: why must I spend my precious skill points to "train" in something I should most likely already have access to? Why not make it an innate class bonus? What do the rest of you think? Is this worth play-testing?
Well they could always hire on mercenaries - a trained hireling, like a low-level warrior, costs something like 3 sp/day. Alternatively, I don't insist my players fill certain roles, like 'tank', or 'trap-spotter', but I do assume they have their own way of handling certain obstacles, like summoning spells, especially if such obstacles are to be expected as a majority of encounters, as combat is. These players will do well, in the first encounter. They may even do well in the second encounter. But once they've exhausted all their 1st level spells (shouldn't take long), they'll realize the advantages of having someone there to take/dish the physical damage, especially if you planned a combat-centric campaign. Don't fudge the rolls. Let the dice speak for themself. The players may be excited to play the challenging party they have, or they may get upset that things seem so hard. In the case of the latter, remind them of the path they chose, and let them re-roll a character or two without penalizing their XP/gp. Hope your campaign goes well - we all had to go through the awkward stages of learning to GM. Key is: keep having fun, and make sure your players are, too.
Firstly, I applaud your creativity! But, I'd like to weight in a bit:
I like this a lot more than the original idea. Having them face the "zombies" (while potentially not at full strength, having just woken up on the shore), then meeting the cavalry soon after gives the impression that the cavalry were hunting the same group, and thus exist as some sort of enforcement/hunting party (establishing threat). Maybe diplomacy happens, maybe it succeeds, maybe it fails, it all leads to the players travelling with this organized unit (either as prisoners or as not-so-honored guests)... then introduce the Great Wyrm! Now, the players have a chance to escape/seek shelter - lo and behold, a giant stone complex! you're still keeping the same tone, without too much room for misinterpretation on the players part. They still feel in control, and you've completed your story arc. This all being said, you have to account that things aren't going to go the way you planned. "No plan survives initial contact with the enemy" is a great rule to live by when writing out encounters. What if the players hide from the cavalry? what if the players attempt to fight the Wyrm? Having simple solutions to get the players back on track isn't a bad idea. That Archaeologist/lore-guy could be just inside the "dungeon" entrance. Maybe he did find a way deeper into the complex. You may not even know until the players find out! Just keep it interesting for the players, and don't expect them to follow your written stuff to the 'T'. As long as players get through this to Point B in your campaign, who cares how they got there? EDIT: As to OP question, I'd award XP for every encounter, won or lost. If they manage to get the cavalry to back down without a fight, is that not worth some experience? If they get captured, but manage to take a few down with them, is that not something you learned from? Even if they throw down their weapons and surrender, I'd award them something for progressing the story line! good luck in your adventure! I hope it goes well! |
