Trayce's page

So I'm running Carrion crown for my group, my first adventure as DM. I've had the group running through the town and thrown pretty much every event the book has suggested, bordering on railroading the group from entering the prison proper before they've encountered the bulk of the suggested events. Note that I'm running with a group of 4-5 players. I'm noticing 2 things that are bothering me:

1) I've had to start drastically ramping up the encounters as they're extremely underpowered - even for level one. I'm not playing with min maxers, but 2-3 flying skulls - even in a burning building - is about a half hour encounter that leaves the players board and unfulfilled.

2) Even with ramping up the encounters (and therefore subsequent XP) and borderline railroading them into going through the majority of town events before entering the prison, and despite the fact that the AP mentions that the players should be level 2 by the time they hit the prison, the players are still several encounters short of level 2.

Am I calculating XP wrong? If a monster gives out 200 XP and I include 5 of them, each of the 5 players should get 200XP right? (200 * 5 / 5 = 200) - or am I not supposed to devide it up (e.g. each player gets 1000 XP for that fight)

Or is that AP particularly underpowered at level 1?

EDIT: one last gripe: the XP gains for the research left me particularly angry. Without really trying, they got the main NPC to look it up for them and got a whaktonne of XP for it. While I like that they got the XP, it would have been better if the records actually required some work - like winning over an NPC or something.

I don't think there are any people claiming that there aren't some pretty ugly rule contradictions that Paizo needs to sort out. Even Paizo reps have admitted this and promised response.

The issue is, what the heck is taking them so long?!? In any other company, fixing defects in your current product takes precedence over putting out new product (unless said new product fixes said defects)

I quite enjoy pathfinder, but I gotta agree with RD here. Not as a threat, but as a warning to Paizo: this is the way systems die. This is a good way to kill your company, and a rookie mistake. Make addressing problems in the ruleset the priority, not a priority, or you are leaving cracks in the foundation of your product. And remember: being overly specific with rules is what got 4E.

Haha, I've seen this before, but never to this extreme.

I consider myself an avid roleplayer. When I make a new charactor, I write up a detailed background (usually 3 to 5 pages describing who he/she is, what they look like, and their history/how they got that way.

But then I sit down at the game table and I give the short version. A one minute description explaining a characters appearance and mannerisms and maybe some of the details he'd easily have given out.

Later, I'll go on to act it all out. I wont tell anyone /why/ he was soo freaked out by seeing that weird symbol on the wall, or why he chose to sleep in a tavern rather than get free lodging at the rich family's home. Hopefully, if the GM is actually interested in RP, he'll give me a situation where it'll become appropriate to explore those reasons.

To me: this is how you RP in this type of game: Sit down in advance and figure out the who, what and why's... and then act them out and let people figure it all out from bits and pieces of the story, like a good auther would do when writing a book.

I think I'd rather see him as a god then a playable charactor... sort of seen as a bit of chaotic good god.

Chaotic good? Yes. He always seems to do the right thing, even when he realises that he has to let something bad happen in the short run to have an ultimately good effect.

I'd also make him be seen as sometimes a trickster, sometimes a fixer of problems. Tends to be worshipped by travelers and Gypsies, and outsiders - he (and any symbols relating to him) are considered bad luck by most populations. (Thus the lonely part, and seems to fit the bill)

His agents tend to seem weak and mundane, only showing their true power when absolutely necassary.

Yeah. Depends on the monster. Is it a big dumb monster who wants to eat the PCs? Is it defending itself or its young? is it some sort of demon?

Also, it's worth noting that a round is six seconds - not a lot of time to stop and consider the consequences of carrying out the rest of his attacks.

So, obviously, people have very skewed views on the monk class. I've seen more than one GM try to avoid or ban them because they don't fit the preferred swords and sorcery theme, and more than one player RP them as a looney old man that sputters off goofy sayings and punches things.

Suffice it to say, not particularly fond of this line of thinking.

I'm currently playing a monk/sorc/dragon disciple who will become a natural weapon fighter as soon as his claws start outdoing his unarmed strike. I like to play it as a martial artist of sorts who focuses on discipline and control (RP wise) - I generally picture someone dressed in adventurers robes who is more of a brawler then a swordsmen, rather than a bald headed weirdo who fights while imitating monkey noises.

So, the question is, how do you RP your monk? Any existing fictional characters you tend to get inspiration from?

Trayce wrote:

Sort of right, but wrong in your interpretation. First, natural weapons (including your fists) are a sort of weapon. I don't think the targeting specification was meant to be a strict restriction.

By your interpretation many other spells would work for natural weapons too. Why do we have the spells magic weapon (targets a weapon) and magic fang ? If natural weapons are a "sort of weapon" you can use magic weapon on it , or enchant them like any other weapon.

Sorry but natural weapons (or imp. unarmed strikes) are something completly different. Show me one sentence in the rules that say natural weapons (or IUS) work in the same way as weapons regarding feats, entchantments, spells etc.

I predict that you dont find a single word .. but you will find alot of feats, spells etc. that differ between weapon and natural weapon.

So by RAW you cannot enchant or improve your natural weapons in the same way as weapons. You need special spells etc. directly for natural weapons.

Haha. I could easily turn that around. Find me one sentence in the rules that says natural weapons DON'T work in the same way as weapons regarding feats, enchantments and spells.

The fact is, most feats CAN be used on manufactured and natural weapons interchangeably. I can still take weapon focus (claw) and use natural weapons with improved trip. Enchantments (and spells) tend to have a slightly different but equivalent path, but yes, you're right there. Many specify natural weapons specifically, implying that natural weapons are something different.

But either way, reading the rest of what I said, you'll notice I agreed with you. Never heard of a master-work unarmed strike, although I'm sure that GMs could easily house rule that into the system without unbalancing anything. It'd perhaps be a bump to monks, but a pure class monk kinda needs that bump imo, and everyone else it effects wouldn't really be effected.

Ubercroz wrote:

I think GMs spend way to much time stressing out about how to get the party together. Afterall it really only ends up mattering very little to the overall campaign and in the end the characters are all together...

Problem is that I have seen several gaming groups where if the players make their characters in isolation and don't have a strong reason to be together, they end up just bickering between each other. Because, of course, "It is what my character would do."

Then it is somehow my fault that they didn't have a reason to be together and the campaign fell apart.

It kind of is.

Playing a game of D&D and telling everyone to write their charactors in isolation is kind of like trying to write a book with 5-8 authors in isolation. As a GM, you are responsible for the direction of the story - you're like a head writer. If you don't give the authors enough direction, then it IS your fault when the story doesn't make sense.

It's fair game, although not the wisest move. He's more effective when his friends are around to flank, right?

How about something like this:

Sorry, I think my evil is showing.

Why not just do it? It's not an unreasonable request and every GM runs his table differently. To be honest? If I were your GM I might owe you an apology for being curt, but I'd be incredibly insulted that you want behind his back and started asking how everyone else did it. It's kind of like a kid being told to go to bed at 8pm and responding that 'Tommy's dad lets him stay up till 9!'

Let the GM run his table his way, and don't get insulted by it imo. If you take offense every time a GM has his own way of doing things, you'll just make yourself miserable.