Wizard

Tragic Missile's page

52 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Well I stand corrected, as a designer stepped in. Although I do have to say it feels like a cop out.

Since we've established that Characters can take "feats that don't work for them" do those feats still function as prerequisites?

For example, a human / kobold could take Draconic Aspect, even though he doesn't have scales, so the feat would be useless.

Could he still use Draconic Aspect to fulfill the requirements for Draconic Glide or would he be disqualified because even though he has the pre-req, he can't use it? Unlike Tail Terror, Draconic Glide clearly states "you grow a pair of wings."

Also, is it just me or does it seem like there are lots of relatively easy ways to gain permanent wings, but very limited ways to gain a tail?


I know I'm late to this, but I figure I'll put in my .02 anyway.

After reading much (but certainly not all) of this thread, I'm fairly certain that racial heritage would provide a human with a tail attack, etc.

I am a firm believer that the flavor text of any feat is indeed just that, flavor. It should not be used when determining the availability of feats. Prerequisites are the only thing required when determining whether a feat is available to a character or not.

I'll start with the Human / kobold / tail terror as it is the most straightforward.

Racial Heritage is very clear in this case. If you choose Kobold as your Racial Heritage, you gain access to any feats, traits, etc. that have "kobold" as a racial requirement.

Moving on to the feat, Tail Terror has only two requirements, BAB+1 and the racial requirement "kobold."

The issue of contention seems to be that folks are under the impression that a human with a kobold heritage doesn't have a tail. In reality it doesn't matter if they have a tail or don't when it comes to working out feat requirements. Having a tail is NOT a requirement of Tail Terror. It is the responsibility of the player and the GM to generate the fluff that accommodates the hard-rules. Maybe it grew slowly over time, maybe it grew overnight? Leave those details to the individual.

Lets look at it another way. What if one of your PC's rolled up a dwarf ranger and wrote a detailed and elaborate background for him. In that background he describes being an orphan, raised by a human hunter. His entire pre-level 1 life was spent being trained in how to hunt and kill little forest animals. Would you automatically deny him the built-in "Hatred" racial trait because his character was never actually "specially trained against those hated foes"?

I doubt a lot of GMs would. Heck, I doubt most GM's would care.

There are plenty of things that aren't clearly stated in the rules or are outright ludicrous that we follow along with anyway. The Draconic bloodline power doesn't say "you grow big ol' juicy glands in your neck that allow you to breath fire" It just says "you gain a breath weapon."

A rogue with martial weapons prof can use a GREATAXE to attack an opponent THAT IS LOOKING RIGHT AT HER. If the conditions are right, she can add XD6 to her attack roll and somehow call it a "sneak attack"!

What I'm saying is, sometimes we just have to overlook the common sense aspect. It is much easier to tailor the fantasy to the rules than it is to tailor rules to fantasy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would like to point out that there is a difference between a new GM and a bad GM. Many folks are quick to judge the GM harshly, but I don't think that's exactly fair. It seems clear that everyone at the table is a new player, if the GM is making mistakes, odds are that the players are too.

If we really want to flesh this out and give you something you can take back to the table, there's a few questions that need to be answered.

My first question is, how many mercs were there and why does it take ALL of them to kill a single downed player? The way I'm interpreting the OP is that there is a medium sized skirmish and when a PC goes down, all of the mercs disengage from their current target to go kill the helpless PC. Would this be accurate? What are the PC's stats like that require so many attacks to kill him once he is already down?

Are the PCs doing the same thing? Our home game follows a strict policy of letting the players dictate how combat flows. For example, we used to ignore downed characters, players and GM both. However, when the players got frustrated that enemy clerics would heal up downed foes, the PCs began killing downed foes and using coup de grace more often. As soon as they started employing harsher kill tactics, so did the enemies. This is not harsh, or bad gm'ing. Higher stakes often equate to a greater emotional payoff. The trick is in the balancing of it and that responsibility falls on both the GM (in encounter/adventure design) and on the players (in character design and cooperative problem solving).

What are the PCs doing during these combats? "An open area where the rest of the party was standing around." sounds more like a buncha guys hanging outside of a gas station rather than engaging in fantasy combat. As new players and GM, did you guys run any practice or did you dive right in?

As it stands, I would recommend talking to your GM. If you aren't having fun, let him know but don't be brutal about it. You are all learning together. Just like you may be feel discouraged at so many fatalities, you don't want to discourage him from creating rich worlds for you to play in.

Run practice encounters. Seriously. Learn the system before diving right in. Before switching from 2nd edition to 3rd, my group got together and ran a variety of practice sessions with disposable pregen characters and we did the same when we switched from 3.5 to Pathfinder. They don't have to be full-blown adventures - they can be single combat encounters, diplomatic encounters, a small dungeon crawl with traps and mixed bad guys that don't belong together. You can learn an awful lot about game play when no one has an emotional attachment to their characters.

Get your GM a copy of an adventure module, preferably a low level one published by paizo. Not only is the adventure already completed for him, but paizo is really great at including notes and instructions for GMs in the adventure that tell them how and why the enemies act the way they do. It can be great inspiration for a new GM.

Lastly, send him here to the forums. Send him to THIS post so he can see the different reactions from different types of players. He should know that the forums are a great resource and that there are people willing to help him. Sooner or later you will develop your own style of gaming as a group and trust me, it will be totally awesome.


I think the problem is that being a healer is not currently a big part of the current build concept.

I could understand that build if the character's plan all along was to gain a better understanding of human physiology in order to exploit it purely for personal gain.

Kind of like a social worker who uses their experiences to figure out ways to exploit the poor.

But that's a far cry from a "good" character, and I don't know what your angle is. As a DM, I would tell a player with that combo to either adjust the story to match the build or adjust the build to match the story.


I'm mostly curious on your choice of archetypes in comparison to your story.

Your background screams "I'm a healer, i love to help people, even to the extent of going into personal debt!" But your archetype choices seem to lead towards "I'm only doing alchemy to further my own goals."

From your background I would imagine the character to be much more of a Chirurgeon than anything else.


The Crusader wrote:

Pick the character you want to play, and nuts to the "holes" you think might be in the party make-up.

There is waaaay more than one way to get through any situation...

I agree with this. Don't let your party force you into a role that you don't want to play. The party may suffer for a while due to an unbalanced party, but people will die and eventually you will end up with a party that is suited to face the challenges thrown at you. I wouldn't necessarily call it survival of the fittest as much as I would call it organic party forming.


I picture the Joker falling into the rogue category more than alchemy.

True, the joker uses explosives on many occasions, but the explosives he uses are a far cry from the explosives of your average PF alchemist.

I see a rogue build focusing on sleight of hand, poison, and trap making with his major abilities focusing on Charisma, Intelligence Wisdom and Dexterity.

Despite Heath Ledger's quote, "Do I really look like a guy with a plan?", the Joker's primary strength is that he ALWAYS has a plan. Let's face it, in a one-on-one battle with nearly any even-leveled PC, the Joker would be toast.

That's where the henchmen, tricks and traps come into play. In the grand scheme I would say don't worry so much about his numbers, stats or class. Worry about designing the adventures first, then worry about his stats.

Let's face it though, if there is one thing players absolutely HATE, it's an enemy who escapes over and over again, and unfortunately, that is one of the Joker's specialties.

Oh man, but picture it, the players are at some gala event or grand ball. The host of the event stops everyone for a toast and champagne is handed out by the waitstaff (The joker's own men, of course). After the toast, the crowd finds that their champagne was dosed with <i>hideous laughter</i> or a modified <i>hold person</i> that gives the crowd that sinister joker smile. During the ensuing ruckus, the joker comes out and gives his monologue (thanks to the spell of course), and then kills someone in cold blood with an equally sinister flair. Maybe he shoots a hand crossbow that merely pops out a "twang" flag, only to pull out a dagger and brutally stab the person to death.


I just ran a dwarf fortress game last week and it went very well. Dwarf ruins are nice because they offer a lot of versatility.

It gives plenty of opportunity for muscle-bound characters to free up stuck doors, rogues to disable device on traps or even old rusty mechanical devices. Make the ruins old enough and they will certainly appeal to knowledge oriented characters and of course add lots of stuff to let utility casters shine (towers with open centers they can fly up, flooded halls they can water breathe in, etc).

You could of course, easily tie it to their thieves guild story line by stating that "The competing thieves guild is employing the help of (insert monster race here), who are residing in the dwarven ruins east of town."

My number one piece of advice for monsters in a dungeon crawl is "sensible variety." Find a monster you want to inhabit the ruins and then expand on it.

For example, you could populate the dungeon with troglodytes, most would of course be cannon fodder, but there could also be an elite guard, a king and of course, a high priest or other caster-type royal advisor. Along with those troglodytes would come monitor lizards and any other underground nasties that make sense. Gray oozes come to mind as well as all manner of slimes and typical dungeon dangers.

If you are looking for something that will give the players a good variety of challenge, I'd suggest something like duergar. Sentient evil dwarves would have all manner of traps and are smart enough to have a wide range of other monsters under their employ. They could include a small band of mites whose sole purpose is training and maintaining a force of giant slugs, you could also throw in a black pudding or two for good measure. It would also make for great roleplaying if the PCs came across dwarven ruins which had been defaced by the dwarf-hating duergar.

Of course there are tons of unique approaches if you decide to go an aquatic route. Flood the ruins and inhabit them with skum and all sorts of other nasties. Heck, using skum could be a bit of foreshadowing to the aboleths you want to introduce later.


In light of your recent post, why don't you just go to the elves or dwarves? If they were largely unaffected, they should have a number of higher level casters among them who could easily cast the spells you need. I think it would be mutually beneficial to you and the other races to repopulate the continent with wildlife.

Otherwise, I would just drop the sheep idea, it wouldn't be very profitable and the time it would take to amass enough money from wool to outfit an army would be astronomical.

Instead, I would use what money you have to invest in activities that make sense. Mining and logging will not only yield a profit, but will also provide you with the raw materials you need to outfit an army.

I get that "it's magic, not science," but it's still a stretch. Think about the things that it would actually effect in-game. You can't cast any of the early stat buff spells like bear's endurance or fox's cunning because no spell components would be available. Light requires a firefly and darkness requires bat fur. Every single caster would need eschew materials.

You could, as a way to make money, rent out horse services. Use your existing horses for spell components (horse hair) and conjure horses for people who need them to make deliveries or who need to travel only a few hours.

And don't get me wrong here, while I am making light of it, I'm still trying to help. You are apparently stuck in a messed up world and I'm trying to come up with solutions that mirror that theme and fit-in.


Just figured it out!

Get a new friend to join the game. Seriously!

Have him play a Beastmaster Ranger and he can bring along two animal companions. Mate them and you're all set. You might not get sheep but you could get boars or horses and get some leather out of it.

Better yet, get two snakes or two wolves or some predators. With so many rabbits, their population will explode!

I mean, he's going to need some reason in his backstory for getting to the land of "why would anyone move here?" but I doubt your GM would restrict him to having only rabbits for animal companions.

Alternatively, you could also just give up and join the army that you are trying to raise money to fight. It doesn't sound like your land is really worth fighting for anyway.


You need to fund a war on a continent that has no animals besides rabbits? How are there enough people to even have a war? It would have taken a lot of loveboats in undead-kraken infested waters to create that kind of population.

With no sheep or other animals, where does everyone in this continent get clothing? Is everyone wearing rabbit fur?

You said there are only two continents and that the ocean between your continent and the other is FULL of undead kraken. -What about the ocean on the other side of your continent, is that also full of undead kraken? If not, I would travel in that ocean instead.

As far as money making, what are your options, what drives the economy? You might want to consider creating a stock market to trade rabbit futures. Think about it, with rabbits being the only abundant source of food and clothing, you'd be a fantasy Rockefeller.

Invent the lucky rabbit's foot and start a craze where everyone wants to buy one, like troll dolls in the 90's.

Wait, how do you guys get around, do you have horses?


Try introducing creatures with different dynamics after the fight is under way. I've found that it throws the players off-balance and increases the fun when they have to rethink strategy.

For example, place the players inside a walled but open top structure, such as a bandit camp with timber walls, fighting off a large group of low challenge enemies. Include terrain features that they can climb and hide behind.

A few rounds into the fight, have a flying creature enter the fray and watch the chaos begin.

I ran an encounter like this recently and it was great. The ranged characters in our group went to great lengths to get on higher ground for advantageous shooting While the melee guys of course grouped up on the ground and eventually put a little too much distance between themselves and their ranged allies.

By the time the flying creature attacked, in this case a wyvern, the ranged PCs were sitting ducks. The excitement level went through the roof as they scrambled to get down from their perches and the melee guys ran over to try and protect them.


Oh man, this has serious potential for a real campaign driving artifact!

What if the egg-shaped gem is referred to as "The Blankstone," and is an item many scholars believe is just a legend? It is named so because although it is magically charged, it does not register with any clear alignment or elemental properties. Any kind of magical scanning just returns a blank result.

The stone has passed through many hands over the years, with many unsuccessful tests performed on it. By the time of the campaign, the bad guys have it and worse, they are starting to understand it.

The players are set with a problem. They need to stop the bad guys from releasing a terrible evil on the world that would last for a millennium and the good guys are willing to lend their help to the players to retrieve the Blankstone.

After retrieving the Blankstone however, the players are presented with a difficult choice. They realize, through a neutral entity, that the good guys have the same plan for the Blankstone, and releasing the ultimate good may not be the best idea. You see, harnessing the blankstone for the power of good would essentially wipe out anything evenly remotely evil for a thousand years. Ever have an evil though or commit even a tiny evil act? ZAP! You're gone in one bright flash!

If the players try to resolve it in a neutral manner, say by destroying the item, it reacts violently with the wild magics and begins merging your two worlds together in an attempt to "normalize" the space around it.

Hell, by the end of the campaign they could be fighting an enormous, semi-transparent, non-aligned starchild (Like in 2001: A Space Odyssey) who has the Blankstone for a heart.

Dude thanks, I think I just wrote a new campaign!


It all depends on your style of play and your players. I prefer a drawn out buildup with a big reveal. So far it's been keeping the players on the edge of their seats.

*It's late and I'm tired, so I apologize in advance if this is all over the place.*

If he truly is big and bad, there is no reason he should be running away from players in early encounters. If the players DO encounter him, they should be running away from him.

Start Small: If you truly want to have a memorable BBEG adventure, it helps to start small. At the beginning your players won't even be a speck on his radar. The BBEG may be in a lair somewhere planning world domination while the PCs are plodding away fighting spiders that have set up nest in a nearby forest.

Build it Slowly: There is no reason the BBEG needs to show himself at all early on in the campaign. At the beginning run only a scant few adventures based on the main story arc, with plenty of in-between adventures that include "favors for friends" or "answering a call on the billboard." As the players increase in level, story arc games will become more common, until they become the focus of the campaign. It feels more organic for the players and they gain a better emotional attachment to the things that happen in the world. It also allows you time to fine-tune the BBEG based on the reactions of the players.

Insignificance: The PCs are the stars of the show, but the BBEG doesn't know that and he certainly doesn't care. In our current game the players were attending an award ceremony when an immense undead dragon unexpectedly attacked the city and killed the royal family (as well as a ton of commoners).

Did I mention that the PCs are only level 6?

They had no choice, they had to run and eventually hid in the sewers. I gave the players control of the court wizard and royal guards so they could play out the fight with the dragon while their PCs ran to safety. They knew the dragon was sent by someone more powerful, but they have no idea who it could be... yet.

Actions, Not Words: Let the BBEG's actions speak for him. Does he send armies to kill the innocent? Does he secretly pull strings and manipulate politics from the shadows? I've never had a conversation with Vlad the Impaler, but I'm pretty sure he didn't get that nickname for his large contributions to toys for tots.

The Big Reveal: The revelation of the BBEG should mean something to the players. It could be an ally, an acquaintance from the past, or a seemingly throwaway NPC that escaped earlier in the campaign. My current BBEG is a former PC from a few campaigns ago.

SBEGs and MBEGs: They don't all need to be BIG bad evil guys. Try small and medium sometimes too. Use their lackey's whenever possible. Let them beg for mercy when they are going down, hit your players with the "I was only following orders" routine as a way to point their anger toward the BBEG.

On that topic, I am a fan of running side-games or as we call them, "optional adventures." These are games that occur in our campaign world but with different characters. While the above mentioned PCs were in the city running from dragons, the people in their hometown were fighting off a small force of invaders from the north.

The town was sacked. Only a few people escaped and our bard's parents were killed. The few who escaped managed to get news to the party.

The "optional adventure" serves a variety of purposes in this instance.

-It allows the players to try different class/level combinations without
having to worry about their "main" getting killed.
-It gives the players a feeling that the world doesn't stop just because their characters aren't there.
-It provides the players with motives for going after the BBEG and his lackey's without having direct interaction.
-It's fun!

Ugh, sorry for writing a book here and sorry to end abruptly. I'm going to bed!


Kazaan wrote:
Tragic Missile wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Dang boy!

You so clever!

Not trying to be, just making the observation. The forum's RAW doesn't seem to have anything on thread reading requirements. Looking over it, I'm pretty sure I could jump into the thread as a free action, skip to the end as another free action and reply as a move action. Heck, I think I could probably even start my own thread as a standard action and use another free action to take a sip of tea. (I have a straw, which reduces drinking from a move action to a free action).

If I took DTP (Dual thread posting) I could double it up and still take a 5-foot step! I'm not sure if it's in the spirit of the forum rules, but it's definitely possible.

;)

More like you rolled a natural 1 and fell off a cliff onto jagged rocks. If your intention was to make a competent and intelligent contribution to the discussion, yes, you need to comprehend the thread as the grievous error of logic you committed could have been easily avoided had you done so. If your intent was to make a complete fool of yourself, however... it was super effective.

Dang dude lighten up! We're talking about RPG's here and it was a joke in good fun. If I had known you would be so sensitive I wouldn't have typed it.

I'd say I would try and refrain from joking around on the forums...

but I'd probably fail my bluff check!


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Dang boy!

You so clever!

Not trying to be, just making the observation. The forum's RAW doesn't seem to have anything on thread reading requirements. Looking over it, I'm pretty sure I could jump into the thread as a free action, skip to the end as another free action and reply as a move action. Heck, I think I could probably even start my own thread as a standard action and use another free action to take a sip of tea. (I have a straw, which reduces drinking from a move action to a free action).

If I took DTP (Dual thread posting) I could double it up and still take a 5-foot step! I'm not sure if it's in the spirit of the forum rules, but it's definitely possible.

;)


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
This post is a perfect example of why you need to read the thread before posting.

I don't "need" to do anything. I read the first page, thought the post was kind of interesting, and read the last page. I then followed it up by asking a question. If the question was already answered earlier in the thread, no big deal. I guess you could say that after reading the first page, I "cut" through the middle and "punched" the link to the last page. See? I'm a man after your own style!

Jeez, no need to fistblade my throat for asking a question my swordpunchy friend.


I know I'm late to the party here, But if using a greatsword to make an attack, then removing one hand to make a second attack is legal, wouldn't it render many of the other TWF rules pointless?

For example, wouldn't this then be possible?

1: Rogue has TWF feat and carries 2 short swords.
2: Rogue is disarmed of one sword.
3: Rogue attacks with main hand, then uses his free action to move his short sword to his other hand.
4: Rogue makes his off-hand attack with the same short sword.

Heck, if that were the case, but he were using a longsword, could he argue he doesn't get the full penalty on his first attack because at the time of the first attack he is technically wielding a light weapon (only his fist) in his off hand?

Personally, I wouldn't allow Swordpuncher of Fistblade Mountain in my game because the cheese factor is too high for my taste. Sure it,s great to watch a movie where a guy swings a sword then punches the bad guy -once-. But if that was his only move, it would get real tired real fast.


I hear what you are saying about feats, I just find it hard to rationalize a human being getting hit by a boulder the size of a volkswagon and shrugging it off.

Although for the sake of evening the playing field, I think using up feat slots is the way to go.


I didn't see it covered under the topic "Rock throwing," so I figured I would ask here?

It doesn't seem that "rock throwing" under RAW has a built in chance to knock someone down. If I giant throws a medium sized rock at a medium sized creature, it just hits and deals damage normally, with no other effect.

Although I certainly could be wrong.

My question is, if you would house-rule something to that effect, how would you go about it? I would love to have a monster throw things with the goal of knocking players prone. Reflex save based on damage?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I hear what you're saying. Personally, I can't stand the anime stuff that seems to be everywhere nowadays.

That being said, it doesn't really matter one way or the other. Something I like to tell new players is that "everyone at the table is playing a different game." You may imagine your character to be a wafer thin cross between an anime character and a boy-band member with a sword bigger than himself, but the guy sitting across from you might picture him as an average Joe with a standard great sword and a stupid haircut.

We are playing a game of pretend and everyone can pretend what they want, it's great!


kyrt-ryder wrote:

And such a character would still be vastly underpowered compared to a straight-classed character, even if he hadn't had to blow the feat.

Even a Cleric 3/Wizard 3/ Mystic Theurge 5 would still be 3 spellcaster levels (and thus between 1 and 2 spell levels depending on the level) short.

Not a problem.

I don't think "vastly overpowered" is exactly accurate. But this brought up an interesting question for me anyway. Do bonus spells per day apply to the character as a whole, or per class?

Say someone had a Cleirc 3/Wizard 3/ Sorcerer 5 and took spell finesse, applying it to his charisma of 20. How would his bonus spells be calculated? Would he get them for every class? If so, we're looking at a character with 10 bonus spells per day!

I tried looking around but couldn't find an answer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


By the core rules, a Sorcerer who wants to be skillful, or a cleric/wizard who want to be persuasive are pretty much SoL.
No one is SoL if they can't move their casting stat around. What's to prevent a sorcerer from putting his second best stat in Intelligence and picking up more skill points? Or a wizard investing in his Charisma? Nothing except too much emphasis put on combat min-maxing.

Agreed, spell finesse is a prerequisite-free feat very loosely modeled after weapon finesse, although with no limitations and significantly more powerful benefits.

Weapon Finesse allows a character to apply their dex modifier to the attack roll only. This is further hindered by a limit on which weapons the feat applies to.

Spell Finesse allows a character to tie all spellcasting rolls and checks to a single ability score, even if they are multi-classed. Say a group is playing a campaign starting at level ten. The player could create a Wizard5/Cleric5, pour every point he can into charisma and take spell finesse. All of his wizard and cleric spell's would be based off Cha including maximum level of spell you can cast, spell save DCs, and bonus spells per day. Since he didn't have to worry about spreading his abilities more evenly, he also gets the increased bonuses to channel energy and the like as well. All of this from a single feat with no prerequisites.

For spell finesse to be on-par with weapon finesse, the benefit would need to be greatly diminished. More along the lines of "Apply a different ability modifier to the DC of your spells"


Kazarath wrote:
Well, this whole experience has been enlightening. I am simply going to say you don't know the situation, you don't know all of the details, and if I try to set things straight no one will believe me. I apologize to those whose time I've wasted, I apologize to those whose sensibilities I've offended. Anything I say from this point on will only make things worse, so I will exit with what dignity I have left. I will resolve my problems myself, and will keep my 'emotional baggage' out of the forums. I hope one day we can leave this behind us, after all, we all make mistakes.

An excellent idea. There have been plenty of suggestions here to possibly solve your dilemma, I suggest sifting through them and finding one that suits your needs. Good luck with your game!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kazarath wrote:
When I first posted, I didn't realize this was going to be the damn CIA! Do you really have nothing better to do then point out inaccuracies in something someone said when he was upset and obviously not in a sound state of mind?! Really, I may not have much of a life, but at least I don't make myself feel big by picking on people when they can't see you.
Kazarath wrote:

Because I have incredibly low self-esteem, several pre-existing mental and anxiety conditions, am incredibly worried about what people think of me, and obviously don't think before I post.

What I've learned from this whole fiasco is I might as well go crawl in a hole and die.

Kazarath wrote:
I'm only telling you all this because it's cathartic to finally be able to say my friends are complete a$&holes.
Kazarath wrote:
only posted the whole rant because the anger at those two particular individuals had been building up for months. I was just hoping for a place to vent without being judged.
Kazarath wrote:
Yeah, I was kind of chalk full of stupid decisions yesterday. I did kind of have a pseudo-suicidal episode later that night for unrelated reasons, so that can go to speak for my state of mind.
Kazarath wrote:

You know what, I'm not even gonna bother with this thread anymore. The game's tomorrow. I was just looking for a place to vent, and some of you respected that. Others....did not.

So in short, screw you guys, I'm going home.

These are the Pathfinder RPG advice forums, not group therapy. I'm sorry you are having these troubles, I'm sure everyone here is sorry as well. That being said, this is not an appropriate place to check your emotional baggage. Stick to the subject matter and leave the rest at the door.


I would also reject that character as a GM. 'Spell finesse' alone is a laughable and ridiculous feat tailor made for min-maxing.

If you really cant play a core race and want something monstrous, why not go with lizardfolk? They are part of the Mwangi Expanse and have the serpentfolk feel for an 8RP value.


This thread is imploding. Everybody is just kind of picking and choosing what they want the important facts to be and running with it. The OP made it pretty clear in two separate posts that the murlock children were innocent, her GM did not seem to disagree.

What has happened here is that the community has deemed it fit to say "We understand what you are saying, but the book says something different. We are going to ignore what you say and go by the book."

If murlocks in her game world are not evil, or are capable of good, that's up to the GM, not the message-boards. Flavor and fluff provided by the GM always trumps any book ruling. She came asking two questions...

One: What should her alignment be?

Two: With relevant stats presented, should her PC know the fundamental differences between alignment and how they effect the character.

The answer to 1 is debatable. Basing a judgment off of two encounters is unreasonable. A character's alignment is not based on any one or two individual moments. Without more real information on the decisions the character has made over the course of the campaign no one could make an accurate call as to the alignment of the character.

The answer to number two is a bit easier, and the answer is 'yes'. The character's mental abilities are above average. Even if the "personality" of the character is ditzy, she would still know the fundamental differences between right and wrong. In this case it falls to booth the player and the GM to work together and pay more attention the importance of knowledge and Int based checks.


kmal2t wrote:
you're making my point. I was saying these things facetiously, not because I really do them.

Wait what? Jeez, so you are saying that playing against your stats is bad?

Or that playing against your stats is good?

I'm just getting confused as to who's saying what. I am still of the opinion that it is GM discretion, but in my own games, playing against your stats is bad.

Sorry, I'm going on 24 hours no-sleep at the moment.


Master_Trip wrote:
...we walked through a temple full of Murlocks that were being possessed by evil brain things and seemed to come accross them often...

I know no one seems to care, and I said it earlier, but I really think this has some bearing on the conversation...

She wrote "Murlocks" not "Morlocks." Are we talking 'Video game inspired home-brew monster' or 'by the book baddie with a typo. I think both are reasonable (until she sets the record straight).

Dudes I hope she comes back and proves me right. I swear, I will punch my cat right in his bum face if it happens. (AC18 or not!)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kmal2t wrote:

You make it sound like its such a crazy monkey wrench to use mind-altering affects on a BDF. As if people don't know its coming on Barbarians and the like eventually.

And wrong yet again since the majority of the time in ANY group there is someone that sucks at perception and someone that excels at it. 95% of the time you're together and the guy that passes it warns the group about whats going on.

So yet again when I dump those stats there are some consequences, but they are still outweighed by the pros of the dumpfest...unless I have to roleplay my stats more appropriately instead of ignoring them until it becomes a game mechanic.

It sounds like your GM just needs to shake you out of your comfort zone. This is something that happens often and has become another accepted form of meta-gaming.

Intentionally dumping stats and then pretending they aren't low is not only against the spirit of the game, it it unfair (and inconsiderate) to the other players at the table.

Look at it like this: A barbarian with exceptionally low INT and WIS would realistically make poor decisions in combat - attacking less important targets because they were easier prey, acting impulsively, killing enemies who called you names or even just singling someone out because they look funny. They would not approach the battle as if they were sitting above it with a bird's-eve-view and they certainly wouldn't incorporate sound tactics.

If you 'play against your stats' here, you get a tangible benefit. You can employ strategy, choose high value targets and ignore trash. You might think it's no big deal.

Let's keep going with this. Sorry it's long winded.

Now let's take a gander at your adventuring companion. He's a wizard who took your advice and maxed out his mental stats and dumped the physical. He does not get to enjoy the same liberties that you do as a barbarian. How does he play against his low stats like you do? He can't! Nothing he does will suddenly make his character a viable melee combatant.

While you can ignore your dump scores and get a benefit for doing so, the wizard character can not simply ignore his crummy scores and reap the same reward.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Lumiere, I'm not sure the creepy corpse girl is relevant anymore. We certainly don't need her full stats. We're talking about representing abilities in roleplay, not whether you can max out Diplomacy.

That's my fault, I was interested in the character build and the rationalization behind it. There's a few inconsistencies, but it's irrelevant to the conversation so I'll drop it.

As to representing abilities, I think it should be maintained within reason. If you want to make a character with an 18Dex but also be morbidly obese, you shouldn't be upset when you fall through the roof of a building during a chase. If you want to have a 16Cha but have a useless vestigial twin hanging from you neck, that's fine too, but don't get bent out of shape when folks stay away from you.

Many players only think in terms of their own characters and force rationalization. This is understandable, but not always correct. A night hag for instance, has a 17Cha and +11Diplomacy. Should she be able to walk into a tavern in her true form and just "Diplomize" her way around so that people accept her? Of course not, why should it be any different for a player that chooses to make themselves unattractive or sickly despite their actual scores?

Inevitably it falls to the GM. I wouldn't dare speak for other GM's but I can say in my game that it would have an effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
the nymph-vampire halfbreed can't reach fanatic, but she can make a hostile commoner helpful on a 2 or better.

Unless it's a special situation, you can't shift an attitude more than two steps. Normally a hostile creature could only be made indifferent, regardless of the roll.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I see what you are saying, it was miscommunication. I would be interested in seeing the character's build though. I would be even more interested in seeing the race points/racial abilities for a half fey/half vampire. (feypire?)

Additionally, I do not think any peasant would simply let you drink their blood regardless of diplomacy ranks. It's not a stretch of the imagination to say that peasants are aware that creatures exist in the world that drink human blood and the vast majority of those creatures are evil.

The diplomacy skill includes the text "Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or its nature, subject to GM discretion." for these exact situations. Unless every NPC in the game world has a romantic fascination with vampires, I would say that it is reasonable to think that "letting ANYTHING drink my blood" goes against the values and nature of most commoners.

I could see building a relationship with an NPC over time and achieving it, but not some regular Joe off the street.


Rynjin wrote:
Tragic Missile wrote:
I think the above examples illustrate what I mean about an expectation of compromise. It wouldn't be fair to other players if an element from one PC's background story gave them tangible bonuses in-game without some kind of penalty to balance the scales.
But she's not getting a tangible bonus beyond the usual non-penalty and bonus she would have on a 16 Con character that had skin made of iron.

What I'm saying is that there is more to it than just "the bonus I get from the numbers." I may be mistaken, but it seemed implied that not only was the character being played against it's own ability score, but that it would use that fact to gain additional bonuses.

I understood it to mean that the PC would get the regular bonuses for having a 16Con and also receive the benefits of circumstance bonuses based on the character description, ie. "I look cute and sickly so I should get a +x circumstance bonus to diplomacy when dealing with this NPC."

Imagine if the GM started to do the same thing with NPCs on a regular basis.

You come across a scrawny, emaciated, pimple faced man wearing the robes of a wizard initiate. You ask him if he knows how to get to LocationX. BAM! He catches you unaware and gets a nasty first strike in! From his damage bonus it's clear his STR is in the 18-20 range. He's really a monk assassin sent to kill you! You ask why you didn't get a disguise check to see past his costume. The GM tells you it's not a costume! He is tiny, malnourished and doesn't have any muscle mass, but is strong as an ox solely for the purpose of luring in victims!

You manage to defeat the assassin but are badly injured. You come across a small roadside shrine with a priest of healing lighting candles. She has beautiful long hair and a traditional priestly frock. You tell her of your plight and she offers healing. BAM! She is actually a half-hag/half-nymph and although she is beautiful thanks to her fey blood, she hits you with her "horrific appearance" ability!

It would get real old real fast.


It's a pretty sweet concept. You could try making the King a fighter/rogue. He would have the brutal fighting ability mixed with cunning. Dropping sneak attacks with a greatsword!

If he's keen on being a "real king," he could have a court present in his throne room. A mockery of a real king's court with goblins and orcs serving as courtiers (and meat shields during combat). Heck, put in a goblin jester!

I would also suggest a goblin cleric as an advisor and perhaps an ogre barbarian kept as a pet.

Imagine it: The giant doors swing open to reveal a mockery of the King's royal court. A multitude of finely dressed goblins and orcs murmur quietly while a colorful, bell-hatted goblin dances before them. At the far end of the room sits the self-crowned Lord Ogroroth in all his glory, casually chewing the last bit of meat from a bone of unknown origin. To his left is the ever rambling sage known as "Mad Morkuk Sizzlebrains" and to his right, the brutish ogre called "Fido", a heavy chain leading from his collar to the green lord's right hand.

I find that the BBEG only words if the NPC is actually BIG. If not, I prefer to do BBEG with friends. In this case you have a bunch of fodder for the players to swim through, plus a bard, cleric, barbarian and fighter/rogue. The sheer number of NPC's allows the combat to play out fluidly. The boss can easily flank for sneak attacks, the cleric can keep melee at bay with the minions in the room and the ogre can run amok.

Geez, I'm thinking about running this myself now!


Each party member gets one item, or the group gets one item to share?


This hasn't been addressed, so I'll go ahead and ask. In the OP's post she says that they were fighting a bunch of Murloks. When I first read it, I thought "Murlocs from Warcraft", then I see everyone else posting about morlocks.

My question is, were the creatures that got fireballed a GM-crafted version of the WoW creature, or a by-the-book morlock?

It might seem silly but it does make a little bit of difference as "murloc's" can most certainly be good creatures, while "morlocks" are generally accepted as evil.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
so the half undead nymph loli who despite looking relatively normal (although a little pale) but has a tendency to cough up blood appears a little ill. she isn't a leper. more like a tiny and emaciated pale nymph who occasionally coughs up blood, cute and has a tendency to manipulate. using her sickness to draw sympathy (half vampire, not zombie.) she isn't rotting, but she shows symptoms of tuberculosis.

I don't know what a loli is, but lets look at the character by the description and theorize just a bit. I understand every game is different, this is just how I would run things, using two examples to illustrate the beneficial uses of the character and the hindrances they could entail. Now other GMs may feel different, and that's ok. Like I said, this is just from my view of maintaining fairness in the game.

Example 1; The Benefits: I'm a paladin who has decided to spread some faith by venturing into the world and healing the sick. I also happen to have a set of keys to the local keep, which the adventurers are trying to infiltrate. I come across a party who has with them an emaciated and sickly woman. They ask me if there is anything I can do to help. I try my "lay on hands" ability to no avail. The woman pleads for help, appealing to my dedication to good. It works! I take her to a nearby abbey and spend every moment with her, hoping the clerics can come up with a cure. During this time, the manipulative adventurer steals the keys from my bag while I am away getting her some water. She then sneaks out during the night and infiltrates the keep with her party.

Example 2; The Hindrance: I'm a 'commoner' running a restaurant and a person comes in with signs of tuberculosis. Now as a commoner, I don't know what tuberculosis is. What I do know is that the person is showing visible signs of illness including pale skin, emaciation and coughing up blood. As a business owner, I look around and see the other patrons getting uncomfortable, perhaps a little nervous. Some are leaving without finishing their meals. I would do everything I could to get that person out of my establishment as quickly as possible. No amount of 'cuteness' will overpower my desire to maintain my reputation among the community as a fine place to eat.

I think the above examples illustrate what I mean about an expectation of compromise. It wouldn't be fair to other players if an element from one PC's background story gave them tangible bonuses in-game without some kind of penalty to balance the scales.

In the end, its up to the Gm to decide. These are just my thoughts on the matter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree that there should be some flexibility between what you're actual stats are and the portrayal of the character in game. I also think the flexibility should be reasonable. The combination of character theme and stats dictates a lot of that.

For example: I want to be a hideously scarred orc barbarian with an 18 charisma! is doable. He could be incredibly intimidating, he could demand respect, or he could even be "the brute with a heart of gold."

In another sense: I want to be a huge, musclebound Adonis that women go crazy for! I'm also a wizard with a 9STR and 8CHA! Wouldn't fly -in my own game at least. It just isn't reasonable.

I find these kind of issues best handled on a case by case basis between the GM and the player. Let's take the half-fey/half-undead sickly character with a 16 constitution for example.

As a GM I would not be against it, but I would have serious concerns to get out of the way before the game starts.

The character is portrayed as sickly and weak to the world at large, even though it isn't the case from a rules perspective. How would that effect the PC, the other PCs and NPCs?

Roleplay has a direct impact on the rules of the game. Should the character be able to use their sickly appearance to their advantage? If so, should there be penalties involved as well?

I'm imagining Kirsten Dunst's character from "Interview with a Vampire." She looked like a small child but had strength and power far superior to mortals. Sure, she could lure people into her traps with portrayals of innocence, but she'd never be able to have a normal relationship. Heck, she couldn't get into an R rated movie!

In this case I would cause the undead and sickly traits have a direct impact on the "nymph" aspect of the character. Sure, nymphs are tempting, beautiful and lure men to do their bidding. But how many men are going to be lured by a temptress who looks like she just came from vacation at the leper colony? Imagine the regular folks on the street saying, "Oh, would you look at that poor thing? I bet she was a real looker a'fore she took ill. It's a darn shame." Would tavern owners tell the PC to get out because they don't want sickness spreading?

I keep a "you gotta give some to get some" policy. I try to accommodate the PCs as long as it doesn't mess up the dynamic of the game or intentionally screw with other PCs.

As the game expands and evolves, I've noticed a growing trend for many players to create what I call "patchwork characters." Sore thumbs that stick out among sore thumbs. I appreciate the creativity, but often these characters are so full of character that they begin to effect the quality of the game for the rest of the PCs.

Stuff like, "I want to be a half-elf/half-demon sorcerer seductress who has a long lost dragon ancestor but she's ashamed of her demonic heritage (but still totally uses it's powers all the time). She tempts men into sleeping with her to get information/rob them but then feels really guilty after it happens (but keeps doing it anyway). Her goal in life is to prove to the world and herself that just because she is half-demon she's still a caring person with a good heart (even though she isn't). Also she has giant curly horns, bat wings and a devils tail which she never hides because they look sexy (even though she's ashamed of her demon heritage)".

Bah, I wrote a book, sorry. Anyway, my point is: Think about the game, the other players and the GM while making characters. Ask yourself the question: Does my backstory and character combo give me an unfair advantage? Finally, ask: If I were one of the other players, would I enjoy playing alongside this character?

Answering those questions honestly can help create a greater roleplay experience for everyone!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unklbuck wrote:

I would do this...

let the Fighter Retire and have her bring in a new character who is an agent of the Imp's Boss so they and the imp can insidiously lead the Oracle to the path of no return to Evil.
Have them do their best to destroy the party and after the ineviatble betrayal and TPK say "And that's wht we don't pick up stray EVIL creatures for pets"

Hahahahaha,

"CURSE YOUR SUDDEN BUT INEVITABLE BETRAYAL!"
Sorry, couldn't help but think it when I read your post!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Saying 'axe' when you mean 'ask': bringing chaos to grammar and phonics everywhere.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

-DMing a 2nd edition game years ago. PCs are on the second floor of a fortress: a few bedrooms, a small armory, etc.

-Orcs are breaking in on the first floor.

-PCs get a bed and break off it's legs. They fashion all sorts of pointy things on it and position it at the top of the staircase. One PC says "This is no bed, it's a juggernaut!" Another PC then dubs their creation "The Bedernaut."

-Orcs break in and rush the staircase. PCs push-off and ride their creation down the stairs, take out some orcs and finish off the rest in melee.

-One PC kicks a dead orc and exclaims "That's right! You 'Bedernaut' **** with us again!

Get it? 'Bedernaut'='better not'?

Comedy gold!


The Silver Prince wrote:

Just stumbled across this thread. I hate to sound like I'm against the fighter, but if she can't at least tolerate evil she is going to have a lot of problems in this AP. If you don't believe me, look at the spoiler below.

** spoiler omitted **

Of course, not only that, but it is a bad decision to make in general, as it spoils the game for all players involved. There is a big difference between roleplaying your alignment and going over the edge with it. And, as stated in the spoiler, there is a LOT in RPGs where you just have to let it go and take the lesser of two evils.

If this problem cannot be resolved by a simple logical appeal to the fighter, then there is a solution. I have the old 3.5 Book of Exalted Deeds and I could convert the Sanctify the Wicked spell to PF for you. Admittedly, the oracle would have to seek someone out for the spell and spend a good bit of gold to do so, but it could give the redemption side what they want, and it would give the no-compromise side what they want as well. It's a win-win.

Or, you could have the oracle buy or find a helmet of opposite alignment!

And, just to clarify, evil outsiders can be redeemed, it just either takes magic or a LOT of patience to accomplish. Anyone remember the old Planescape setting? There were plenty of examples there. And if angels can fall, why can fiends not ascend? They may be two very different classes...

Well said. I agree wholeheartedly.

I'm not sure why so many folks work in absolutes. Loads of stories have diametrically opposed protagonists built right in. Han Solo teams up with Luke/Obi Wan and by the end of the series is a better man for it. Some of Batman's greatest stories are when he teams up with Catwoman.

I also fail to see why "resolve the issue amicably" is not an option for so many posting here. There are plenty of ways to play this scenario out without burning anybody. I offered one possible solution earlier in the thread, and I'm sure if everyone sat down and talked it out we could come up with a ton more!


Tourq wrote:
being smart and witty and helpful in a variety of situations

Have you considered playing a bard? Often new-timers think "sissy with a lute" but bards are far more versatile.

Bards get an impressive variety of skills, spell use with some curative magic, and if you want to stay away from the tunes you could take oratory and inspire courage with witty banter! They are proficient with enough weapons to get in on the occasional scrape too!


I'm glad you posted this because I've run into this problem a few times as a GM.

While there are all sorts of solutions, the one I find most valuable for new but shy players is to remove themselves from the game. Crazy, I know!

I'm trying to word this in a way that doesn't sound too dopey, but I can't seem to avoid it. Ask your players to command their PCs for a few sessions. Don't say "I smash the orc's face with my axe!"

Instead say "Gromthar smashes the orc's face with his axe!"

See the difference? Sometimes that tiny bit of separation can help a player come out of their shell.

Good luck!


You can always go with deception. Members of the clergy who are tricked into evil by an outside influence would still 'register' as good.

Example: A visiting priest/bishop/etc arrives who is evilly motivated. He convinces the local priests in town to participate in a ponzi scheme. (The local priests are trusting of this "higher ranking" guy and/or are low level without detect alignment.) They fall for it, excited about all the good they can do with the interest they'll earn. In turn, these priests convince other clergy at a bigger church and their congregations to participate. Eventually it all crashes and the evil guy escapes with ten years worth of donation baskets!

For a different take on deception...

The LG church has been around forever. Folks travel from all over to visit their largest and most famous cathedral because it houses "The grave of Saint Shiversbegone", a long dead martyr. They go to kiss the stone coffin in the hopes that it will make them well. Unfortunately the coffin is actually empty and it's all been a hoax set-up by the church founder five hundred years ago to get tourist money. All of the current clergy are blissfully unaware of the hoax and as such, aren't evil. Unfortunately someone falls to hard and breaks the thing open, SCANDAL!

Just a couple of ideas, hope they are helpful. Good luck!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Tragic Missile wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
The imp isn't even pretending to be "not Evil with a major E", so I don't see the issue why a lawful good anybody wouldn't want to wipe it from existance.

That doesn't matter though. The fighter can kill the imp and not alter alignment one bit, that's true, but the issue here is party cohesion. The oracle and GM see the imp as a role-play opportunity. The fighter views it only as a roadblock for her character. The OP is looking for a way to resolve it amicably and maintain positive role-play / forward momentum.

"I kill it because its evil" is an understandable reaction, and also very vanilla.

The Oracle clearly has the impression that the imp can be changed. Why not play on that. The imp could "leave" but promise the Oracle that it won't break the contract. The imp could then pop in on occasion to save the party from impending trouble, proving himself to the party and still scheming the whole time. An abandoned puppy with an agenda.

Looking at this dilemma from a "This person is right and that person is wrong." perspective will end with personal animosity and/or hurt feelings from one of the players - at least that's the feeling I get from the OP's posts. It's fantasy role-play, there's always a solution.

Sorry, but that are not the facts as described by the OP in his first post and the acclarations later. It is clear that the OP in his role as the GM has played the imp as being clearly evil and with no intention to reform itself. He has ignored the complaints of the fighter player because he enjoyed playing up the evil imp so much that he lost sight of her problems with the situation and now has to deal with the consequences of this error.

This is a problem of the GM's own making and blaming the female player for being confronted with a situation which makes continueing to play her character and stay consistant with her characters characterization unfeasible is blaming the victim.

I don't have a good solution for this...

No need to apologize, I think you are misinterpreting my suggestion. Sending off the offending NPC, but having it help on occasion serves a few purposes. The imp manages to stay within it's contract and appear helpful, which would keep the oracle satisfied. Fortunately it can fly and turn invisible, making it an excellent "convenient getaway" character.

It would then be separate from the party, not a cohort, and later can be exposed for the villain it is, not only satisfying the fighter, but giving her a good gloating, "I told you so!" moment. It also allows the oracle to resolve the issue with a little dignity, ie, "I was wrong but I learned something."

The GM favored a piece of fluff introduced by a player, that's awesome! I wish it happened more often. The Oracle brought an idea to the table and the GM ran with it. So it got out of control, that's no reason for the arm of GMJustice to sweep in and undo it. Use it as an opportunity, not a roadblock. If every idea was cut whenever a player said "This is in opposition to my character's feelings." nobody would get anywhere. After all, the vast majority of adventuring is morally ambiguous. A Lawful Good player should be prepared on how to handle these situations as they will come up often.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
The imp isn't even pretending to be "not Evil with a major E", so I don't see the issue why a lawful good anybody wouldn't want to wipe it from existance.

That doesn't matter though. The fighter can kill the imp and not alter alignment one bit, that's true, but the issue here is party cohesion. The oracle and GM see the imp as a role-play opportunity. The fighter views it only as a roadblock for her character. The OP is looking for a way to resolve it amicably and maintain positive role-play / forward momentum.

"I kill it because its evil" is an understandable reaction, and also very vanilla.

The Oracle clearly has the impression that the imp can be changed. Why not play on that. The imp could "leave" but promise the Oracle that it won't break the contract. The imp could then pop in on occasion to save the party from impending trouble, proving himself to the party and still scheming the whole time. An abandoned puppy with an agenda.

Looking at this dilemma from a "This person is right and that person is wrong." perspective will end with personal animosity and/or hurt feelings from one of the players - at least that's the feeling I get from the OP's posts. It's fantasy role-play, there's always a solution.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You could try indirect methods such as...

Bogdor the local Magistrate made a deal with a devil in exchange for political success. In exchange he must do 13 favors for the devil.

The devil "cashes in" those favors by having Bogdor send the PCs on a series of quests that become more and more morally ambiguous as time goes on. The devil provides Bogdor with rewards to give the PCs, these rewards are often excessive for the jobs done. Like a drug dealer, start small to get them hooked.

Over time the PCs will become accustomed to unbalanced rewards, that's when the devil turns off the "easy loot" tap and they discover that they've been patsies all along. What do they do once they've found out the terrible aftermath of wheels they themselves set in motion? Do they try to set things right by destroying the devil? He can always pull the old "I never made you do anything, you did it all of your own free will, so what does that say about YOU?" routine to try and turn them to evil.

Just a thought, happy gaming!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ikarinokami wrote:
Pendagast wrote:
Thefurmonger wrote:
Pendagast wrote:

Interesting, this fighter, how much did she have invested into knowledge planes?

How did this fighter know so much about devils and soul corruption?
How did the fighter know what alignment the imp is?

In other words, the fighter was meta gaming like mad.

so the first thing that should have been done as a GM is put a fast stop to that.

The imp can also change shape, so wasn't necessarily in its devil form to reveal it's self to goo characters. Unlike the fighter, the IMP can tell who is good as who is evil.

I dont recall the situation but I do remember the imp being in a cage at the golden goblin and something about "come gamble at the golden goblin and cheat the devil"

As an Imp, he could have just said, well I was captured by this guy vancaskerin, and I'm actually a sprite, see a I actually look like this: poof" Vancaskerin was just forcing me to shape change into that, now that I am freed I'm not forced into that shape anymore, because it was the magical curse of the cage"

Blah blah blah.

They really only have vancaskerins word to go on that "that" is a "devil"

Dude it was a publicity stunt get over it.
He's also hiding drow in the basement, who you gonna believe?

The fighter is totally using out of game knowledge in this situation.

So knowing what something is goes off your knowledge vs its CR.

A black bear is a CR 3, 1 more then an Imp.

So less people can tell what a bear is by looking at then know what an Imp is.

Is this really how you run a game?

If a commoner doesn't have ranks in knowledge Nature they don't know what a horse is? (Cr only 1 less then the Imp)

Not trying to be a jerk, but that just sounds a bit off.

Bear is a common animal as is a horse. therefor situational bonuses to knowledge about animals would be in place.

Knowing the workings, alignment, or functional powers of an IMP, would not be common.

Stating "that's a nasty evil looking thing, I

...

I don't think Pendagast is being silly and I don't think that's a fair judgement to make on him. People think of fantasy worlds in different ways. Let's look at LoTR for example, or Gollum, to be more specific.

He's evil. Sure he's got a "good streak" to him, but he would definitely fall under the "townsfolk would kill him" category. He survived and accompanied the party because he made himself useful. At times, he won over Frodo through deception and trickery. Why couldn't the imp act in a similar fashion? Why couldn't he endear himself to the Oracle (and the rest of the party) and be a jerk to the fighter when no one was looking? It would make for excellent character and plot development.

Sure, a commoner would look at an imp and scream "Evil, kill it!" But I doubt a creature with at-will invisibility would be venturing through towns in full view of the peasantry.

In the end, the monster stuff comes down to the individual GM. Every person on the message board can say "Well, we all agree that devils are evil no matter what." and that means absolute bupkis because every game is different.

My advice to the OP would be to let it ride. If the fighter wants to leave, that is the fighter's decision to make. Since she made it clear that she would kill the imp before doing so, why wouldn't the Oracle (or the imp for that matter?) take precautions against it? The imp has amazing abilities it can use to entice PCs. Use commune, augury and (especially!) suggestion to the best of your ability.

The options are limitless! Does the fighter have long hair? Have the imp suggest she cut it short to avoid complications in battle! If the fighter snaps at the imp, have it pull the old "I was just trying to be helpful" routine. Let the imp scout ahead and find a trap, then stop the fighter right before she steps into it while shouting, "See? I saved you!"

There's all sorts of stuff the OP could do, he came here looking for advice, not orders. I just hope my tidbit of advice helped.

Happy gaming and good luck!

1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>