Tatsua's page

Oi, I know this is way behind and I don't mean to revive a dead horse, I just don't feel like making a new thread.

I was thinking, however, what about a finesse rogue and building Vital strike and feint? Myrmidons were always one of the higher damage dealers. With Dex being your focus stat and the Str and Cha. You'd have a pretty good dodge with a high damage output.

So in my groups current campaign, we're about to go to war against orcs, trolls, giants and evil dragons. They are based in a mountain and have it completely surrounded.

Our forces consist of mostly human armies as well as dwarves and a few teams of the other standard races. I'm trying to think of anything that could possibly help and a lot of our ideas fall short due to the fact that the bad guys have a LOT of dragons and our side is very lacking in that department (we have one).

So I was hoping someone could point out somethings that could possibly help.

So massive damage is dealing 50% of someone's HP with one hit and then they need to pass a fort save or die. That's awesome and all but what if you don't want to kill them?

Overhealing-If a heal spell brings a target to 150% (minimum 50 HP heal) than the target must make a will save not to be knocked unconscious.

Any thoughts, ideas, alterations?

loaba wrote:

ImperatorK wrote:

I'm gonna have to agree with AD. The other players and the DM made a dick move and not the OP is supposed to be the one who compromises/bends over for the sake of everybody's fun? Bull.

So zealot PCs take precedent over their more tolerant companions? Is that what you're saying? Superstitious Barbarians are being jerks when they burn captured spellbooks? LN Wizards are begging for Paladin smite when they seek to retain the spell book that details, among other things, unspeakable evil?

I don't think so. You play your character and I'll play mine. When our characters disagree we'll deal with it like adults. I might have to bend, you might have to bend, but we won't detract from the overall fun of the game.

I could understand if there was conflict right off the bat but the information about the OP's cleric and his beliefs are not new.

Simple question for you: Why shouldn't the ranger with the undead horse not respect the cleric's wishes?

Also, there is that tiny thing that some of us like to call "role playing". Now it sounds to me like the trouble maker players just want to play a numbers game and mesh everything together without caring about the role playing aspect of the game.

If the OP decides to back down then all that does is open the door to people be cautious about actually role playing and playing the concept of their characters for fear of things like this happening.

Another question: Are you new to RPGs?

The ranger's argument is that the horse is hers and my cleric has no right to destroy it, even if he is willing to reimburse her for it.

I do not think that you are in the wrong. I had to do that to a PC in a 3.0 game that got turned into a shadow. As a cleric I killed him since there was no way to bring him back from the state. However, that did not mean that I was in the right though either since party members get mad irl.

Why did you kill the man you cured of being a vampire?

The current ex-vampire is now living it up as a human again.

Well a few members are defending me, several are staying out of it and only three are against me, the problem being that the GM is one of the ones against me.

My cleric has been hired by churches before to exterminate undead and the lich's isle we had visited was of Urgathoa's creation, meaning the horse was created by Urgathoa's followers. So yes, it had been made clear that my cleric is to follow his tenets.

As for compromise...well I've offered a number of alternatives from a Dragon horse to War horse and I even discussed an altered nightmare with the GM.

They player really just wants to keep the horse because it doesn't eat and ever gets tired. While my alternatives do, the player refuses to look past that and the fact that I need to "get" the animal first, which has already proven that the GM is more than willing to help, and has already altered the rules for the animal companion anyways.

Tatsua wrote:

Humphrey Boggard wrote:

Has anyone suggested asking the GM to retcon the horse to a construct made out of a dead horse?

As the ranger gains levels he can advance the horse by *shudder* swapping out pieces for better parts.

The GM's words: "I'm not going to change this animal. It's cool and it's not hurting anyone."

Did you point out that your character would probably be hurt if they lost the favor of their god and became an Ex-cleric?

Your DM sounds like a prick.

This actually was pointed out to the GM. He pointed at the atonement spell and said that would take care of it. Meaning my cleric would have to shell out 2500 gold a day to keep getting it cast on him.

I have yet to be able to kill the horse as the GM is getting really peeved at the entire situation and seems to be leaning further toward punishing my character.

The group itself is split three ways. Some just want this fight to end, some find it bull that my character is getting punished and chased down by cannon golems to save an undead horse(did not know a ranger could take an undead horse as an animal companion) and the rest feel like my cleric is being over zealous with trying to kill this horse.

I offered a fully trained Heavy Warhorse. Then offered to try and catch and get a, with the GM's help, modified Nightmare.

Well according to the GM I have no idea what the silence means. I could mean "do it yourself", "I don't care about the horse", "leave the horse alone", or she just didn't feel like listening to me.

Has anyone suggested asking the GM to retcon the horse to a construct made out of a dead horse?

As the ranger gains levels he can advance the horse by *shudder* swapping out pieces for better parts.

The GM's words: "I'm not going to change this animal. It's cool and it's not hurting anyone."

Tatsua wrote:

Humphrey Boggard wrote:

Has anyone suggested asking the GM to retcon the horse to a construct made out of a dead horse?

As the ranger gains levels he can advance the horse by *shudder* swapping out pieces for better parts.

The GM's words: "I'm not going to change this animal. It's cool and it's not hurting anyone."

Sounds like the undead horse is more of a symptom than the problem. What is the GM like?

He's pretty self assured, assumes he's right. Made a small mistake to call him on favoritism (we've called him on it in the past and he got really bent out of shape) and he actually told me that he would punish my character if I argued my point any further.

Has anyone suggested asking the GM to retcon the horse to a construct made out of a dead horse?

As the ranger gains levels he can advance the horse by *shudder* swapping out pieces for better parts.

The GM's words: "I'm not going to change this animal. It's cool and it's not hurting anyone."

The only other real problem we've had is an argument with the GM about character goals:

I argued that in a fight our party goal is to get everyone to survive.

He argued that we should expect people to die.

OOC talks....breaking down.....getting called idiot....

I've been playing with this party for years now and we've never had this bad a situation, especially over a horse.

ciretose wrote:

loaba wrote:

ciretose wrote:

If the GM didn't want him to play a Cleric of Pharasma, it needed to be addressed at creation. Once the game is rolling, if you let the player concept come in and didn't tell them that the concept was going to be a problem, you can't force the player not to play what they asked to play.

You deal with it in-game. As the DM, you enforce the negative attitude people will have in regards to the mount and the party as well. I promise you, if the mount gets in the way of party business, then it will quickly get dropped.

You let this play out. Be adult about it.

It is in the way of party business. This is it playing out. The undead has been discovered by a cleric of Pharasma, who everyone knows are dedicated to destroying undead.

The person who created the mount is a problem, and the GM who allowed it is the bigger problem.

I'd like to know how the mount was introduced. Did the OP see it coming that the Ranger would get it as a companion, or did the GM and Ranger come to an agreement out of game and the Cleric showed up one session to find a big pile of party conflict waiting for him?

We had just been trapped on a Lich's island filled with undead creatures. After wiping out all the undead, we're ferry'd back to the mainland where my character notices the Ranger had gotten a new mount. One Knowledge (religion) roll later I know it's an undead horse. I approach and re-explain my Cleric duties and offered to by her a suitable mount in recompense. That didn't work, so I prayed to Pharasma to see if she would do something and nothing did. I then go to the Church for help, and they supply me with two crusaders, I go back to find only the rogue friend of the Ranger (another PC, one who my cleric has healed and traveled with for a long while) and ask where they've taken the horse. After some conversation, I learn that the horse is out of the city, but still part of the party. The crusaders don't feel like going after it anymore so I go after it alone. Confronting the Ranger and a PC sorcerer, I try diplomacy again, and they say that if I try to harm the horse they will kill me. I pray to Pharasma once more to no avail and then cast Undeath to Death. The horse makes the save and the sorcerer traps me in a prison of ice. I am eventually freed and being taken away when I convince my transport to turn around. Getting back to the horse I find it guarded by two cannon golems set by the sorcerer. After some chase they teleport me away.

Or if you really really want to show your belly, just ask them straight out: "Do you want me to kill the horse or roll a new character?"

I kinda handed the DM my character sheet and told him that if he was going to kill me for killing this horse that he should just rip the sheet in half....I'm not entirely proud of that action, but my character was about to get attacked by 2 PCs.

http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Pharasma wrote:

Worshipers and Clergy

Many of Pharasma's worshipers are those closely aligned with either burgeoning life or terminating death. These include midwives, grave diggers, and morticians. Her priests are typically clerics, diviners, and necromancers that choose not to create undead. Her followers view the undead with hatred and consider them a great abomination. They view putting the undead to rest as a holy duty. The creation of undead is outlawed, and commanding undestroyed undead is not much liked either.[2]

How can you not destroy it?

Because that is apparently me just being a bully and unfair treatment of other character's possessions.

Thanks for all your ideas. I've offered her a replacement mount, but she doesn't want a Nightmare, even if we could get one she could ride, as it doesn't scale off her ranger levels. *Not sure how undead grow as they're rotting*

In my party's current campaign I play a cleric of Pharasma (Death/Repose Domains) and one party member has acquired an undead horse as a mount. My cleric has made it perfectly clear that he cannot stand undead creatures. Having come across several, he has shown to be fair in his treatment to them by attempting to relieve them of their curse (by means of deity intervention he managed to cure a case of vampirism) before destroying them.

Then this horse comes along and instantly several party members turn against my cleric and claim that he is being over-zealous in his undead slaying as the horse "isn't going to hurt anyone".

My problem is that clerics of Pharasma are suppose to destroy undead they come across, and the Repose domain says that my cleric views them as a mockery of what they hold dear. So wouldn't allowing an undead horse to not only survive, but be around and actively interacting with it risk angering Pharasma?

So am I in the wrong trying to deal with the horse?

In my party's current campaign I play a cleric of Pharasma (Death/Repose Domains) and one party member has acquired an undead horse as a mount. My cleric has made it perfectly clear that he cannot stand undead creatures. Having come across several, he has shown to be fair in his treatment to them by attempting to relieve them of their curse (by means of deity intervention he managed to cure a case of vampirism) before destroying them.

Then this horse comes along and instantly several party members turn against my cleric and claim that he is being over-zealous in his undead slaying as the horse "isn't going to hurt anyone".

My problem is that clerics of Pharasma are suppose to destroy undead they come across, and the Repose domain says that my cleric views them as a mockery of what they hold dear. So wouldn't allowing an undead horse to not only survive, but be around and actively interacting with it risk angering Pharasma?

Try and put ghost touch on a pair of gloves maybe. That is, if your DM allows.

So you're saying that if a rogue makes his stealth check he can move out of cover and stand in front of the person they're attacking and remain hidden *granted they don't attack*

I'm currently having a debate with one of my fellow players. He claims that if a rogue makes a stealth check, he can remain stealthed even if he is standing in their line of sight without cover or hide in plain sight.

I'm trying this as a player. Using eidolon blood as a basis for rapid evolution of the Zerg.

Yeah, the Creep appearing with him works. It now spreads at 5ft a round and gives my zergling a 1HP regen and an additional 5 movement speed. So that's coming along. Now I have to work on replicating my Zergling or at least give him an infection ability. Maybe modify the poison into an infection....that would give cause for different variations of Zerg and then form the hive mind...Guess that's the tricky part.

So I've been trying this for a bit, and yes, I know how it sounds. I'm trying to create the Zerg swarms from Starcraft in a Pathfinder game. This would involve creating Larvae, Creep, not to mention a Hivemind.

I decided to start as a Summoner, making my summon into a basic Zergling. As for the Creep I'm trying it as an off-shoot of alchemy. I'm betting the easiest way to do this is through abberations. Anyone got any suggestions?