Mummy

Taffe_Lord_Of_Crypts's page

Organized Play Member. 9 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


RSS

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
DmRrostarr wrote:
I'm kinda partial to rogue/druid with maxed out use magic device... Kinda of funny when your opponent realizes that a badger just did sneak attack damage to you... :)

Can you explain why/how this works? Maybe I'm just missing something...

Scarab Sages

anthony Valente wrote:
roguerouge wrote:


CHARISMA IS LUCK: It's personal magnetism, social skills AND luck, I mean. Any time I can't decide who a monster would fight or what watch gets the wandering monster... have the table make a charisma check and the lowest roll gets the bad thing.
That is a great houserule! Woe to the PC who dumps CHA too much!

+1!!! (must have missed it the first time)

A few months ago I was decided to create a system that incentivised high Charisma scores, since I think that realistically charisma is a very important attribute to have. I wanted to give Charisma an effect beyond skill checks (and spontaneous casting).

I ended up with an action point system in which the amount of points you get is based off your Cha bonus. Right now PCs get (1/2 level + double Cha bonus) points per level. They can spend a point before any roll (save damage and HP) to add 1d6 to that roll.
I am considering also allowing them to spend 4 points and reroll any roll (save damage or HP).

I'm not sure exactly how well it works yet, since it hasn't seen much play time. In my current group, no one has more than 12 Charisma either; I get the feeling that giving out double Cha bonus points would work far less well if, say, I have a 20-Charisma Sorc in my group. Then again...it certainly does give a benefit for having high Charisma!

What do you guys think?

Scarab Sages

Spes Magna Mark wrote:

My current campaign's house rules are here. Enjoy!

Mark, is it all right if I use some of these rules for my current campaign? (I don't want to rip you off or anything)

Scarab Sages

Kakarasa wrote:
In the games I run we treat lawful as loyal or disciplined, chaotic as independent, good as selfless, and evil as selfish. We use an alignment point chart to let the players actions move their alignment. That said, chaotic stupid usually ends up chaotic evil. Just my 2 cents. If anyone wants a copy of the chart, let me know.

Kakarasa, I would also like to see a copy of your chart, whether you want to PM/post a link or whatever.

I have a friend who is really into playing CN characters. He is currently playing a neurotic CN Alchemist in my homebrew campaign. The char escaped from a mental asylum and all of his experiments have led his mental stability even further downhill.

His character spices things up and gets the party in quite a bit of trouble (he's been arrested 3 times over the past 4 sessions) but it doesn't seem to disrupt the game too much, and it provides fodder for the other players. His actions are both supported and constrained by his backstory, and this keeps him from getting out of hand.

I have to agree that most or all CN problems originate with the player. Generally these players don't know how to play *any* alignment, and/or are immature RPers or people in general. LG, CN, NE, doesn't matter. I've played with several people who are simply there to test everyone's limits, or use the game as some sort of adolescent catharsis. Those people are always going to be there; you just have to figure out whether or how you want to deal with them.

Scarab Sages

Christopher Vrysen wrote:
Scipion del Ferro wrote:

I would use the rules for dealing damage with a falling object

** spoiler omitted **

Oh! That's much better!

Awesome; thanks Scipion. I must have forgotten to check the "falling objects" table in the heat of the moment.

Scarab Sages

Hi everybody:

So, my party of 5th level PCs was getting beaten up by a gargoyle the other day. The Druid, Ranger, and Wizard were standing on a catwalk 30 ft above a cavern floor. The gargoyle had knocked the Paladin off the edge and the two were engaged on the cavern floor. The Druid then declared that he was going to use Tree Shape to transform into a tree and attempt to fall onto the gargoyle.

I had him make a ranged touch attack (using his normal Dex since he was "aiming" himself before he actually transformed) against the gargoyle, and he hit. I couldn't decide what to do for damage (a tree levering downwards from 30 feet above), so I had him do 8d6, which is the listed damage for a cave-in, IIRC. Then, since the Paladin was adjacent to the gargoyle (and the Druid was a Large tree) I had the Paladin make a Reflex save DC 15, which he failed, so I made him take full damage from the tree as well.

My reading of Tree Shape does not prohibit this use of the spell in any way, and I don't necessarily want to prohibit it myself (although I will if it begins to affect encounter balance). I'm just wondering if there is an easier way to resolve the attack.

Thoughts?

Scarab Sages

wraithstrike wrote:
Taffe_Lord_Of_Crypts wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Taffe_Lord_Of_Crypts wrote:
This is slightly tangential, but what do you guys think about having a passive perception stat (10 + perception skill bonus) and using that for times when the players (or NPCs) aren't actively looking for things (read: almost all of the time)?

When you are moving at your regular speed it is to easy to miss things. If they don't call for the check they don't get the check.

I will add that my checks cover the entire room/hallway, while some other DM's only allow the check to cover a 5 ft square.

Rolling for every square just waste too much game time for my taste.

Are you saying that you don't give them *any* chance for Perception unless they call for it?

In that case, would you say that passive perception is holding their hand too much?

Yep.

Well, I guess I should explain. If the enemy is hidden before they come into the room his stealth DC is already set, and if they don't look for him(actively) they won't find him.
Now if he tries to hide while they are in the room he may have stepped on something or not been able to hide well enough in a short amount of time.
Traps have to be searched for also, since they are normally well hidden.

These are just examples though. If something is out in the open like foot prints in a dusty room, or something similar that may or may not get noticed by someone passing through, but not really looking for anything I will ask them to roll.

It just seems to me that some skill checks, notably Sense Motive and Perception, should NEVER be requested by the GM, and from that point of view, having a passive trait for that stat seems like a good idea.

Don't get me wrong—I love that you don't give them any check for hidden enemies or traps, and I'm going to start running my game that way.
Things that "may or may not get noticed," though—that seems like a bad place to call for a check because then my players KNOW that there is something to notice, and if their rolls don't allow them to notice it, they get frustrated.

Scarab Sages

wraithstrike wrote:
Taffe_Lord_Of_Crypts wrote:
This is slightly tangential, but what do you guys think about having a passive perception stat (10 + perception skill bonus) and using that for times when the players (or NPCs) aren't actively looking for things (read: almost all of the time)?

When you are moving at your regular speed it is to easy to miss things. If they don't call for the check they don't get the check.

I will add that my checks cover the entire room/hallway, while some other DM's only allow the check to cover a 5 ft square.

Rolling for every square just waste too much game time for my taste.

Are you saying that you don't give them *any* chance for Perception unless they call for it?

In that case, would you say that passive perception is holding their hand too much?

Scarab Sages

This is slightly tangential, but what do you guys think about having a passive perception stat (10 + perception skill bonus) and using that for times when the players (or NPCs) aren't actively looking for things (read: almost all of the time)?