Ulu's page

This can just be handled with Role Play.

You could throw some penalties when drunk, but adding mechanics for the sake of adding mechanics, seems a little silly to me.

I generally agree with just RPing, having done it in 3.5 for quite some time. No the rules do not reflect actually alcoholism at all, I never even thought to try. These rules apply in combat only. When fighting drunk I feel this charter should take minuses, note that they would not suffer them until failing two saves at some point. I also wanted to use the addiction rules in case they end up in a place with no booze and can't handle, they Gotland be fighting at full capacity. Outside of rounds none of these rules need apply, unless they want to kick the habit. I was expecting the player to choose again, but she went for it and roles up a 16-year-old so I expect I won't need to encourage them to RP. I considered just asking them to make decisions in battle as if they were drunk, but that seemed like it could get old.

Simple question, as the GM how would you guys facilitate a PC being an alcoholic? There are some addiction rules, but it leaves a lot up to the GM. In my current campaign I had everyone draw character traits out of a hat, one of them pulled "drunkard."

Here's how I was planning on running it...
The player starts at minor addiction, and when they drink they have to achieve drunkenness stage 1 (just a morale bonus). Every day they must take a will save. It starts at 5. If they make the save they increase the difficulty by one. If they fail it their addiction changes, but the difficulty does not increase. Here's a list of how it changes:
First failed save: Addiction becomes moderate
Second failed save: Player must achieve drunkenness stage II in order to avoid withdrawal.
Third failed save: Addiction becomes severe
Fourth failed save: player must achieve drunkenness stage III in order to avoid withdrawal.

Does this seem fair to y'all? How would you do it? I'm curious. I'm hoping that as the this characters addiction worsens the other characters help her kick the habit. If not this could get pretty upsetting.

I'll field these points one at a time.
1) Assuming a cast puts one rank into spellcraft per level I think they should do fine. A druid capable of casting ninth level spells would be level 17. Assuming they have at least 18 Wisdom they should have 38 caster points to spend. OK, so preventing a surge of a ninth level spell takes up 36 of those, but what can you cast at ninth level? In a low magic world, where enemies can rarely use spells against you Storm of Vengeance or Mass Cure Critical Wounds pretty much wins the encounter for you.

Still, I see your point. Someone who has deeply studied the magic through 17 levels should know a lot about how to properly cast. I think I'll add a feat with a prerequisite of being able to cast a certain spell level (seven maybe?), allowing someone to take a spellcraft check at 10+twice spell level to avoid a surge once per day. There's the obvious possibility for an Improved ______ feat allowing for twice per day.

2) Yes healing will be hard. I'm THAT GM who kills characters a lot. I prefer combat to be super brutal and usually offer ways around combat for those willing to look. Scouting ahead, being diplomatic, and working as a team are key parts of this campaign. A character getting hit doesn't just mean they're closer to dying for this encounter, it also means they will likely start the next encounter with the same wounds. I have considered adding a house rule that a healing kit restores some small amount of health (i.e. your wound is patched up so you are less vulnerable), but I might just be mean and leave it.

3) With healing I feel that maximizing would be a lighter sentence than +1d4 caster level. I'd rather get 16 healing - 2d6 than 2d8+6-2d6. I initially didn't like it because it wouldn't do anything to spells with no die roll. For offensive spells disallowing throws would make them pretty powerful whether they benefit from maximization or not. Right now I'm toying with the idea of all three... making surged spells pretty extreme.

... I've been showing this to friends of mine who GM or are interested in game design. One of them suggested a rule in which a caster can use all of their remaining points to automatically surge. This is interesting to me since even one point could lead to a huge upset. Maybe that kind of power balances the every day slog of being a caster in this world.

Any thoughts on tieiing either spellcraft or concentration checks into this? Perhaps a spellcraft check to avoid a surge, or to reduce the cost in 'caster points' to adjust a spell?

My concern is basically that the 'caster points' dont call based on relative skill with magic, a paladin with a good charisma and full ranks in spellcraft can have as many caster points as a sorceror. That seems off to me.

If anything the full casters should probably get some abilities to deal with this. Either make them better at dealing with this random magic then 6 level and 4 level casters, or give them other abilities they can use that are not subject to this. Because even a low level sorceror or wizard is going to run out of points, and if they do, they will have alot of trouble casting spells. The way they contribute to the party is through their spells, if they arent casting their spells they arent contributing, and they will be forced to concerve their caster points (and thus their spells) for when they really need it.

It would seem to me that is part of the goal, to force casters to concerve, but in that case, adjustments to the classes themselves is in order. If a wizard or sorceror cant be reasonably confident at casting all their spells without killing themsleves (IE they have at least a few caster points per spell) they should have fewer spells and more class abilities. The best examples are ofcourse the 6 level caster classes.

The bard, inquisitor, alchemist(not sure if alchemists extracts apply here but im assuming they are) and summoner, have lots of non-spell abilities that allow them to contribute to the party, and thus have fewer spells. The wizard, cleric, oracle and sorceror should be similarly adjusted so they can contribute when they arent casting spells, or just remove the classes and play with the mixed classes only (keep in mind in a low magic world, healing and condition removal without a dedicated divine caster can be a problem).

Also how will this work with spell like...

Originally I was going to make folks take a concentration checks to avoid surges/modify the role. When testing this it seemed like it was generally easier to avoid a surge then it was to change a role by more than one, plus I didn't like that you could do it an unlimited number of times per day (although an obvious solution is to say you can only perform such a check once per caster level or something).

Regarding classes: I have actually removed all full casters. The only caster classes I'm playing with are Alchemists, Druids, Clerics, Paladins, and Witches. Rangers must be skirmishers unless there is a very good in game explanation. Supernatural abilities like channeling or hexing are unaffected. This makes channeling incredibly OP so I also removed the possibility to start as a cleric, but will allow it as a prestige class. Since this does some crazy things to Sorc and Wiz I may role up enemies as higher level PCs with those classes. I want to test that out first.

I feel like there's an aspect of this mechanic that I failed to mention, which is that sometimes it's beneficial to surge. Lets assume that same witch casts burning hands and roles a 0. They could spend 3 to avoid the surge, overcast, and lose the spell, or they can accept 1d4 damage to do an extra 1d4 to each enemy the spell would hit. When this example came up while testing things with my friend he suggest I change the rules to make surges more powerful. Perhaps the spell is automatically maximized, and no saving throws are allowed. That would make it a lot more likely said witch would let the surge happen to heal her ally, and let the surge happen to burn her enemies. It makes a surged fireball extremely destructive. But maybe this is going to far? I wasn't initially a fan of this suggestion but it's grown on me a little.

So I'm a huge fan of low magic settings, I know Pathfinder doesn't support that well, but blah blah I keep trying. What I've found myself doing is what I like to call "volatile magic" because while there is a lot of magic in the game, it doesn't always work well or predictably, and when it goes wrong it goes REALLY wrong. The goal is not necessarily to be balanced- this low magic business is obviously flavor, fluff etc, but I prefer things to be as balanced as possible. Part of the balance is on me: I need to design enemies and environments such that successful use of magic is REALLY powerful, and how exactly I do that on a session by session basis you will not know. Still, I'd really appreciate some folks critiquing these magic rules.

After you declare what spell you are attempting to cast you must roll a d10. If the number on the die equals the level of the spell, the spell is cast normally. If the number on the die is lower than the level of the spell, the spell fails and is lost. If the number on the die is greater than the level of the spell the caster overcasts, and takes damage proportional to the spell level: a first level spell does 1d4 damage, a second level spell 1d6 and so on. If the caster rolls a natural 10 they surge, the effect is proportional to the spell level:
-a first level surge deals 1d4 damage to the caster and the target of the spell
-a second level surge deals 1d6 damage to the caster, anyone within five feet, and the target of the spell
-a third level surge deals 1d8 damage to the caster, anyone within ten feet, and the target of the spell... make sense?

Point of clarification: if the caster is him or herself the target of the spell, yes they take double damage.

Casters have a number of points (lets call them Caster Points because I'm feeling lazy) they can spend per day to help them cast normally. This value is equal to their level plus their casting ability modifier plus the number of ranks they put into spellcraft. They can spend one of these points to modify their d10 role by one. They an also spend points equal to three times the spell level they were attempting to cast to avoid a surge (but the spell is lost, and they still overcast).

Now for some examples to help illustrate how this works. Let's assume we have a second level Witch who has put two ranks into spellcraft and has an intelligence of 16. She therefore has 7 caster points.

Example one: She casts burning hands, a first level spell, and roles a 4. She doesn't want to overcast, so she spends 3 caster points to cast normally.

Example two: She casts cure moderate wounds, a second level spell, and roles a 1. Easy, she spends one caster point and casts normally.

Example three: She casts burning hands and roles an 8. This is a harder decision; she can either chose to spend all 7 of her caster points to cast normally, or she can accept the 1d4 damage. If she has several enemies in her sights, or knows that she can kill one, perhaps its worth it to save those points for later.

Example four: she casts cure moderate wounds on her ally and roles a 10. She will do 2d8+2 healing to the ally, then 2d6 damage, and 2d6 damage to herself and anyone else within five feet. Odds are that she will still heal a little bit of damage, but she takes 1d6 damage herself, and maybe damages some allies. Then again, maybe she'll damage some enemies in the process. But what if she roles poorly? It really depends on her health, the health of the ally, and all the other particulars going on in the encounter. This is the kind of tough decision I'm trying to force on players.

Ok so I totally wall of texted. Sorry. If you're still here and want to give me some super harsh feedback please do. I'm likely to defend this system a little since there are nuances I haven't elaborated yet, but I really do want people to pick this apart so that I can turn it into something that works.

TLDR: I want to make all Wizards use Word Magic so the class becomes about designing spells. What say you?!

So I've been an avid Pathfinder player since I first heard about the Beta way back, but I've only been GMing for about a year. I'm a younger person so my 3.5 DMing experience wasn't really as an adult, and I'm still learning the ropes. That being said I've discovered very quickly that I prefer to accompany my own world with some unique rules. Examples of these include: I don't let good players use Summon Monster spells, I require rangers to use the "Skirmisher" features, I don't allow Inquisitors. These may seam extreme, but they were all worked out WITH my players as we explored the world together. The Skirmisher requirement for example, was suggested by a player who wanted to play a Skirmisher and felt they fit better into my world since the setting is somewhat low magic. Obviously there are exceptions to all these rules at times. If a Ranger has a good excuse for knowing magic of course she can use spells! Sometimes a spellcaster will need to summon creatures from the planes to save the day even though it's forbidden by the gods.

I've started work on a document that contains all of my campaign setting's special rules so that I can let players come up with new characters easier, and get newer players up to speed. This includes everything from the background of certain races and kingdoms, to each class's specific alterations, and even a list of feats that I approve of from all books (I know it's bad form to cherry pick instead of just opening up books for use, but I've seen too many broken spellcasters in my day). Right now I'm just hashing out a few of the last rules.

My biggest problem is the Wizard. This setting is low magic (as least relatively), and while I'm content to simply limit upper level spells (6+) for other casters, this seams to nerf the Wizard a bit too much. Their whole schtick is having a wide variety of spells known, and versatility with those spells. My idea, which I have not tested, is to make all Wizards Wordcasters. I like the concept that the Wizard is a true student of magic, and is the only class capable of designing his own spells. Other classes are limited by tradition, but the Wizard is a magical scientist. Does anyone have experience with Word Magic, and if so how do you think this would work out? Are there changes I would need to make? Just so you know, the other classes I allow to cast spells are: Alchemists, Bards, Clerics, Druids, Oracles, Paladins, Sorcerers, and Witches.

1.) Face them with their "evil goatee versions" with NPC gear, perhaps a level or two lower and tactical teamwork.

2.) Noble Efreeti - maybe play up the arrogance and have it burn its full round action monologing in whatever way you deem fit to connect to the next part of the campaign?

I really like your first suggestion. It both accomplishes what I'd like to do and is a challenge for me to pull off without looking silly.

Your second suggestion is good, and I think I'll use it, but I worry it comes a little close to just nerfing. As the GM I can make any fight easier by having my enemies just NOT attack, or make stupid decisions. My goal isn't to make the fight easier, its to prepare the players for how hard it will be, and get them to understand the risks of fighting, and the risks of running.
To elaborate: The Efreeti wants an artifact in possession of ONE of the characters. He doesn't know which one has it, and unless they accidently reveal that, he is arrogant enough to assume no one can escape his carefully chosen battlefield. The players can have one or more characters engage him and send the rest running for the door, but fewer than four characters up against him don't have a good chance of survival. If the players stay and fight, they take a greater risk, but can come out with a better reward (no casualties, more xp, some sweet loots, bragging rights). If they are clever they might combine these tactics. A good strat I can envision is placing debuffing spells on the Efreeti and doing some damage, then having two characters run for the door, while the other two pull all their tricks to try and bide time, and stop/slow him. Then its a mad dash to the door, with dastardly consequences for failure.

Hey, internet, I posted some questions about a game I was GMing here and got helpful results so I thought I'd try that again. There are two requests for advice here so if you think i should make two threads let me know and I'll edit this.

1) I'm beginning to get concerned with the quality of my PCs' teamwork. Since they are APL8 I'm designing encounters that require a certain level of coordination, otherwise it's just high level hack n slash. This party IS relatively new to Pathfinder, and tabletop RPGs in general. One player has been in several campaigns and games with me for the last five years, but of the other three two have only played a few times, and for the fourth this is his first game (I designed a TWF Fighter for him that is quite skilled with Handaxes, so he's doing alright). Last time I came to this forum it was about an encounter with limited light sources. I thought I'd designed that encounter well (it was short and sweet, there were places to hide and regain light, the enemies were weak, they could exploit their sources of light in several ways etc.), but it was a HUGE challenge for them. I blame myself as the GM for that debacle, BUT from my perspective what did them in was a lack of coordination. I put them in a survival-type situation and they all acted on their own; the casters of Light would often leave certain players in complete darkness, the melee fighters would give each other orders to do opposite things ("back up so we can flank them!" "No! Everyone pile into that room"), and at one point the Witch cast Black Tentacles down a narrow hallway, grappling the Cleric. In the next fight they worked together much better and took down a buffed Oni quite skillfully. Maybe teamwork is coming to them naturally, but I'm wondering if there are any tricks to teaching the party to work together, or tricking them into figuring out how to coordinate combat. In case it helps the party consists of a Debuff/Buff oriented Witch, a "healb@*$%" (her words) Cleric of Erastil, a TWF Fighter who uses Step up and Strike, and a THW-Style Ranger with the Skirmisher alternate features.

2) I'm a huge fan of very, very powerful enemies that you need to use crazy tactics to defeat, or find a way to evade. One of my old DMs for 3.5 would throw these at us every few games and it was very satisfying to have that "Oh s%#@ we're going to DIE down here" moment and then escape unharmed, or pull out a secret weapon. I know these are hard to run because you often risk killing one or more characters in the process, but I'd like to try some. This past game I threw a (Young) Frost Worm at them. The Worm had limited movement so they could escape easily, but they chose to fight it. It had one-shotted the Cleric on an AOO and the death throw would have killed her had it not been for some lucky terrain (do to new positioning it didn't have line of sight when it died, so I rolled concealment to see if the terrain would block the ice).
At the end of next session I'm planning on making them fight a Noble Efreeti who is CR11 (I will buff it, and also change its existing stats). They will have the ability to run past the Efreeti to escape, but it will be risky. If they fight the Efreeti they are up for a tough, tough fight, but they CAN win, or weaken the Efreeti enough that escape is easier. If anyone has any advice on how to run this encounter it would be much appreciated. Thanks!

Thanks all for the replies about area of effect spells. Makes sense, I just failed at reading. I'm still wondering about ray attacks. Can I cast ray of frost into my Spell Storing weapon and if so must I roll again to hit? My gut says yes/no, but I have nothing to back that up.

Also DreamAtelier's example of multiple targets is interesting. Unless someone disagrees with that interpretation I think I will adopt those rules, although I feel like the target of the spell being the target of the attack explains how the spell becomes a free action.

I'm sure this is written down somewhere so feel free to answer with a link. How does spell storing work with spells that do not have single targets (like cones or radii)? Is the center of the radius/source of the cone the enemy who was hit? What about ray attacks? Must you then make a ranged touch attack for the spell to hit? This came up in conversation with my group and I mentioned if you hit with a spell storing weapon I would probably let a ray attack go off as if you had made a successful touch attack. I just rolled up random loot and the big cheese for one encounter is a Flaming Burst Spell Storing Light Crossbow +1, which my party's Witch will LOVE, but now I want to make sure I get the rules right, even though I've already bent the rules by allowing a spell storing ranged weapon (I've expanded the list of special abilities for ranged weapons).

Another thought, I use lots of minis, sounds like you do as well.

For the dark emitting creatures, pick some especially nasty looking minis for them when you put them down on the tiles. The players will wonder if that is really what is in the darkness, or not. Such as medium sized dragons (is that a shadow dragon coming at me?), or demons, or hulking medium sized golems (or mix it up and send a large shadow skeleton at them, and use an ogre mini for it). :)

EDIT : Sort of let it represent the wild running imaginations of the characters, imagining the worst in the shadows.

I love me some minis, but for this fight I'm going to use plain black chess pawns (yes I have many of them) and a vivid description. I think the players' own imaginations are my best weapon here.

I just want to point out that I love this entire thread. I've wanted to do this kind of thing (not exactly tomb etc.) for years. The glowsticks idea is amazing!

Also, I agree with the above posters on not making the entire tomb this way. Spike the sense of danger as they get closer to the goal. They will settle in with the "regular dungeon crawl" attitude for the first few rooms (or levels) and then be taken aback when their hack and slash world gets weird!

Play up the lichen on the walls though. Allow the PC's to feel comfort from it. Then take it away. Maybe even use a glowing fungus as an enemy?

Maybe it doesn't have to be undead. Just a quick predator in the shadows ala "The Decent" and other creepy dark cave movies. OR undead and quick predators!

Also be aware of weakened floors (yes they are dwarvencraft, but all stone erodes over time) and possibly separate the party to hike the suspense!

A lot of the tricks with creepy cave creatures, fungi, and light I will reuse later during an all-underground session (they will not be in complete darkness this time- their lights will work normally almost all the time).

At first the creatures weren't undead just extraplanar, but I want to give the cleric some undead, and since there are far too many enemies to keep channeling, but enough that she might try, it could end up being an empowering but simultaneously demoralizing fight.

I've played a game where the party got separated and we had to play in different rooms. It was a TON of fun, but since I'm not the most experienced DM I want to try it on another day, when I'm not also juggling darkness rules. I fully expect some PCs to lose their bearings without a full map.

The players won't be in complete darkness btw. They'll be in dim light (20% miss chance even for elves, right?), but for only 20ft. I'm thinking of including a dispell magic in the unhallow to dispell daylight.

Yeah, it's almost better to have it so that special areas are dark, rather than the whole place. It makes the players have an area that "feels safe" and an area that "doesn't". This gives the sensation of trepidation as they have to venture into the unknown.

If creatures radiate darkness, then killing them makes it go away. This gives the whole "oh no, here they come!" feeling, and then a more real sense accomplishment as light comes back when things die.

I wouldn't make every single enemy a shadow creature either. Good to let the players see what they are facing at least once in a while.
In the dark, they only get a sense of what's immediately next to them.
Give that brief moment of light to see that there's actually hundreds of skeletons down that main hall, and you get far more effect out of the darkness you apply later.

*Edit*
Also, it's true.. playing with negatives the entire session can get pretty annoying for some players. Good to keep the darkness a poignant thing (critical encounters) instead of an ever pervasive thing.

I think this is really good advice, and so I'm wonder what your (or someone else's) opinion is regarding some more details for this encounter.

2) The players start in a passageway, and the zombies also start in a passageway. There are rooms with multiple entrances with can be sealed off from the passages. The darkness cannot emanate through the doorways, and after a certain amount of time (or maybe when the dispell Light) the zombies leave.

Do you think this achieves these same effects?

A suggestion if you actually want to do it in the dark.

Get a bunch of those little break open glow sticks. Preferrably all green or blue. Then put the dungeon down, turn out the lights, and set the glowing sticks on the dungeon at various points to represent the glowing lichen on the walls (giving low illumination, say 10 feet for normals, 20 for people with low-light).

Then, you can, as the skeletons come closer, take the sticks off the dungeon, explaining that the glow in the distance is vanishing, and start counting down from ten (and every other number, take off another glow stick). :) Watch them start panicking as they yank out whatever they can get, including frantically casting whatever light spells they have. :)

I like this idea a lot. My main issues with doing this are: 1) I'm using a hex grid, so I'll have to go back and tailor my map to be more straight, and 2) I need to keep very good track of where the zombies are and where the "lichen" was. I think I can do this though. Might make some sort of minimap cheatsheet i can move markers around on to keep track of the horde.

The tomb is going to be VERY confined, so it might make sense to switch to a square grid... maybe...

It would be very challenging to GM without any light at all. How would you see the dice?

Desk lamps + flashlights + using my laptop + GM screen hiding light from the map + I have darkvision. Trufax.

Actually, I think I will simply make the tomb unhallow with no darkness spell. Then apply mdt's "shadow" template and allow daylight to interact as per normal. I'm thinking that a fast zombie with this custom template should be CR2, and that there should be an additional XP bump for the unhallow. Does this seem reasonable?

Ulu wrote:

I actually really appreciate this advice. As a player I've definitely come across situations where the story seems forced by the GM and the illusion of choice is taken away. I figured if I build the encounter based on some concrete rules, with good experience rewarded for it, it would feel a lot less like "I wanted to take away their light" and a lot more like "your characters could not overcome the darkness in this encounter and had to be creative." Do you think I can achieve this or have I already gone too far. If the characters whip out something unexpected like more light spells or an item I will definitely let it happen, but I want them to feel like they managed to overcome tough odds.

Its hard when, behind the scenes, you really did start with 'I want to take away their light' to "find redemption" so to speak.

I would suggest that instead of taking away their light.. have the light attract the enemy in droves. Make having the light on a disadvantage for them. After all it's highlighting and announcing their presence everywhere.

Then regardless of whether they have the ability to cast light at will.. they might not wish to do so.

Add a few (and I mean a few) counters to the low level light spells within the dungeon and I think you'll have a much more memorable 'darkness' than forcing it upon them by deus ex machina.

-James

Haha yeah I'm totally guilty. I'm designing this encounter with one mindset, but hoping my players will see it differently. I think instead of making them attracted to light, I will make them attracted to noise, and then make the place unhallow with darkness, and use the custom "Shadow" template. I think this gives the PCs ample room to invent their own strategy. They could try and sneak in the dark, or use arcane mark, maybe cast silence on themselves. Thoughts?

My take on it, may duplicate some or all answers above :

Apply a custom template to the skeletons, called Shadow.

Shadow Template : This template can be applied only to undead, such as Zombies and Skeletons. Increase the undead's CHA and DEX by 2. The creature also gains 1d4 extra damage to all natural or weapon attacks it makes as shadowy negative energy oozes from it. Finally, the creature exudes a preternatural darkness effect from it's body. This lowers the light level by 2 steps out to a number of feet equal to 5' per hit die the undead posesses, and by 1 step out another equal amount (if it's easier, think of it as an anti-torch). Magical sources of light are resistant to this, and are only affected by lowering the level by one level within hit die * 5' of the creature. This increases the CR of the creature by +1.

What this does is make them faster and harder to take down (AC and health), and gives them a small boost on damage. It also means any mundane light sources won't work within 10 feet of a skeleton with this template, and will only give dim light if within 20 feet. A magical light source (such as their 0 level cantrips) will give off dim light when close to them. This get's you what you want, and since it's a supernatural ability, it can ignore most normal light/darkness spell interaction rules.

Second part is make it a dank musty tomb, with constantly dripping water that flows out through small drains in the floor. The walls are covered with lichen, damp to the touch. Everything in the tomb is damp, including them after 10 minutes. This makes the floor treacherous ground (for them and the skeletons) and keeps everyone moving slow and careful. And nothing burns here for long.

Super helpful. This is very close to exactly what I'll do. Thanks!

Is there any reason you feel you have to mechanically justify the area being supernaturally dark? Maybe the place is so corrupt with the undead that it gobbles up the light from those cantrips until they're only the power of a candle. Maybe it's something the undead are doing, maybe it was a huge darkness trap that went off. Your players will likely just be happy with an interesting and fun darkness encounter and less worried about why specifically it gets so dark.

I don't want them to feel that I used my GM powers to just take away their light. Obviously if they get into character enough they will just accept it, but some of them have problems with meta and rules arguing and the like.

Generally I'm of the philosophy that the more semblance of rules and restrictions on the GM, the more fun for the players. Maybe the illusion would hold even with no actual justification from me. Alternately, even if I "play by the rules" the players could still complain that I arbitrarily nerfed their powers.

Ulu wrote:

The players are all close friends so they're my guinea pigs as I hone my DMing skills. Thanks for the info thus far.

If anyone else has ideas about how this type of thing works please post.

My advice for what it's worth:

Don't try the 'I want them to do without X' scenarios, as they normally are forced and don't work that well.

Rather embrace what the PCs can do and simply give them the backdrop for their story rather than perhaps something that you want to tell.

-James

I actually really appreciate this advice. As a player I've definitely come across situations where the story seems forced by the GM and the illusion of choice is taken away. I figured if I build the encounter based on some concrete rules, with good experience rewarded for it, it would feel a lot less like "I wanted to take away their light" and a lot more like "your characters could not overcome the darkness in this encounter and had to be creative." Do you think I can achieve this or have I already gone too far. If the characters whip out something unexpected like more light spells or an item I will definitely let it happen, but I want them to feel like they managed to overcome tough odds.

I was a player, not a GM, but I believe he got from a module that he had modified. I'd have to ask him which though, if he even remembers (this was several years ago)

Yeah my previous games have all been modified modules for this reason: they offer simple to borrow, intricate, and unique rules. I'm really wanting to build this whole campaign myself just for the experience (pun intended). The players are all close friends so they're my guinea pigs as I hone my DMing skills. Thanks for the info thus far.

If anyone else has ideas about how this type of thing works please post.

One trick a former DM pulled on a party I was in-a small leak in the Plane of Shadows, makes all light sources operate at 50% (10 feet of light instead of 20 for a light spell or torch, 15 feet for a lantern, etc.). Could also give you new area to send the PCs to, as they 'accidentally' slip into the actual Plane of Shadows.

Does this use any RAW, or was it a fluff justification for the magic effect? I'm not familiar with rules for planar "leaks." Either way I like it.

Darkmantles may be the answer. CR 1, can use darkness once per day, live underground. They might have a symbiotic relationship with your undead....they keep the bait darkened, the undead leave some tasty morsels behind.

I actually might use the darkmantle as the template for my undead. Keep all stats the same except give them permanent darkness if 4 are adjacent, make their speed 50, make their health 14, and make their AC 13 (swap STR and DEX and remove natural armor and size mod). I figure this would make it a CR2 or 3 creature. There is a way to stop the tide but it is extremely difficult.

If this is a Tomb that's been overrun by some evil entity, then an Unhallow spell triggered with a Darkness spell effect would not be out of line.

Put these at key points, so the players suddenly lose access to their light spells at certain 40' radius areas.

Though, I think the horror effect of having a Darkness spell precede a wave of undead attacks could create a certain amount of real fear in the players. You could even have fairly weak undead in that kind of environment, and still have a "challenging" encounter, between having a hard time attacking (miss chance, movement, etc), and the players assuming worse than what's actually out there.
Watch as they deteriorate in front of your eyes..

Some additional thematic thoughts:

- There's an inherent time limit of hitpoints and use-per-day effects, but to drive that sense of urgency home, you can always add a little extra effect. Perhaps a well placed knowledge check (the ranger has underground favored terrain) can tell them their air might run out.. faster if they burn things for light!

- The invincible enemy drives home the feelings of powerlessness. Make them roll a Perception check sometime after combat has happened (especially if they stick around after killing some stuff for a minute or more), and describe to them as the skeletons they killed start to slowly slide back together. Think of it as an "animate dead" effect placed in an Unhallow... 1 year duration, yikes! (Yet another knowledge/spellcraft check to let them in on the terror of this situation).

- Stimulate all the senses. Make it so there's an ever present, low fwumping or beating sound can be heard from all directions. Maybe a slight wind that seems to be coming from changing directions inexplicably (vents in the walls for the knowledge check).
Then, after they are well into the dungeon.. the sound suddenly ceases. Describe the ringing they here as tinitus sets in from the sudden lack of sound.
Perhaps that wind gets stronger and stronger (with the effects of strong wind), or...

Thanks a bunch! I think I'll incorporate a lot of this.

Ulu wrote:

Another factor I'm considering is adding a fear causing effect. I let the party choose one player to roll on a quirk table for two extra bonus feats and the Witch landed my coward quirk which makes it pretty much impossible to make saves vs. fear. If I...

Being afraid or panicked is not going to be fun for the witch's player and if you use nonstacking shaken it won't mean much. There won't be many skill checks and witches don't make attack rolls so that leaves saves and concentration checks, which I think fall under the category of ability checks. I don't think witches will be making many other ability checks though. If the Ranger fails a save against fear, though, the party is down a good fraction of its power.

I've got another problem for your lighting situation though. Dancing Lights. Up to four torch-bright lights within 10 feet of eachother is equivalent to a 25 foot radius of normal light with dim reaching out to 45 feet, and it can be moved at up to 100 feet/turn at will with no concentration requirements. And I just double checked. Unless it's been errata'd since the first printing witches' familiars automatically know all cantrips on the witch list. That makes three cantrip light sources, two of which are linked to objects and one of which can go wherever the witch wants. With a non-scaling one minute duration the dancing lights can run out during a long combat, but for looking around they're a far better solution than tossing around a glowing copper piece, meaning both casters' light spells are available for illuminating the melee-space while the witch's dancing lights scout ahead or provide the cleric light to shoot by (assuming a cleric of Erastil is an archer).

Thanks for the heads up. I'd forgotten about Dancing Lights and the familiar. The Witch is a great RPer and rolled on the table because she wanted the quirk, not the feats (the Ranger actually fought really hard to roll, got "slow" which made him always go last in initiative, and was such a baby about it I let him take it back and give the Witch a shot).

I think what I will do is give these enemies an ability where if a certain number of them are gathered (I'm thinking 4) they emanate 20ft. of darkness. What I'm wondering now is what other stats would make these guys balanced. I feel they should have some kind of weakness. Maybe no DR. My goal is to make them hit consistently and hard, hinder the party's movement, but be extremely squishy. Thoughts?

Your enemy may not be light, but another pair of cantrips:

Arcane Mark
and detect magic. The relevant text is in Arcane Mark alone: they glow and are visible, though possibly not legible, under detect magic. Clever use of arcane mark will let your players mark where they've been and possibly other orienting information as well. Popping on detect magic will let the wizard see the marks without regard for lighting out to 60 feet.

Wait, you've got a cleric?

Forget the concept if they're willing to burn a third level spell on Daylight and have the opportunity to prepare spells before going in. (10 min/level so 1:10; 60 feet bright, and another 60 feet of elevated light (dim if starting from total darkness. Does anyone have low-light vision?) If there's a full day of prep time for the adventure the cleric could also cast continual flame on a few objects unless ruby dust is impossible to acquire under the circumstances.

The use of Arcane mark would be clever enough that I'd be happy with it. I doubt that will happen, but if it does good job, Witch!

The daylight would be a little less fun. They will NOT know this encounter is coming, and will probably be low on spells. They are expecting to travel outside in the wilderness facing extreme cold. I would be surprised if the Cleric took daylight BUT it's possible. I wish there were a way to simply hinder the effects of the PCs magic. Perhaps there is? I could make one up but I'm a little afraid of being unfair.

I should note that the Ranger is an Elf (so he has Low Light Vision) and has favored terrain Underground. If he were to shine a little more I wouldn't mind because it would make sense fluff-wise.

Another factor I'm considering is adding a fear causing effect. I let the party choose one player to roll on a quirk table for two extra bonus feats and the Witch landed my coward quirk which makes it pretty much impossible to make saves vs. fear. If I was able to keep certain members panicked, it might slow them down enough to make working with 30ft of light challenging.

Just remember that darkness imposes some pretty harsh penalties: disallows Sneak Attack and other precision damage, no running or charging, DC 10 Acrobatics check to move more than half-speed, 50% miss chance even if the PCs know what square the enemy is in, loss of Dex to AC plus an additional -2 to AC, -4 on Perception checks and any Strength or Dex check. Your players aren't going to be able to take any CR close to what they could in the light.

I was aware of this and was trying to avoid it. After the suggestions in this thread indicated that the darkness spell was the most viable option, and that PCs would therefore be in complete darkness I was going to make the creatures CR3 with double speed (65ft, but can never run or charge). Should I drop it even more?

Thanks all for the responses. I feel like I've worked out some of the kinks. If anyone has further input feel free to share.
Two things I should note are:
1) This is a low magic setting, so few of them have items other than flint that can help.
2) I'm not expecting this to be particularly hard, but I want to reward the players who do better under these circumstances. I think being able to remember the various passageway locations when you can't see the whole map, and taking risks in terms of using terrain would be a fun way to earn a treasure room.

So I'm a relatively new DM (have DMed three dungeon crawls and part of one campaign before) and I'm currently running a short campaign of my own design for Levels 6-10. We've played one game and everyone in the party is currently level 7. There is a Witch, a Cleric of Erastil, a Ranger (Skirmisher and THW Style from the APG), and a Fighter.

Anyways, there's an encounter I'm designing that I need a bit of help with. The basic premiss is that the players enter a Dwarven tomb, but cannot leave through the entrance. Inside the tomb are waves and waves of squishy, but hard-hitting and fast undead. The party must navigate the tomb, keep themselves from being overwhelmed, and eventually find a way out. The way I WANTED to do this encounter was to actually play in the dark with a flashlight representing either a limited source of light, or limited vision for each player in the darkness. None of the players have darkvision, but both the Witch and the Cleric have access to Light as a 0th level spell. This would not be an issue if there were a limit to the number of times they could cast Light, as I would just force them to stay within a 30ft light source, but if they can cast it as many times as they want it breaks that component of the encounter because they can just cast it on the walls, on various object, on whatever, and light the whole tomb. Is there any way to avoid this and keep them in the dark? Or at least limit their light? Any and all advice is appreciated. Thanks!

Remember that energy attacks (like most rays) deal half damage (before Hardness) to objects - so adamantine's +5 Hardness over Mithral is really a +10 Hit Points per shot net gain. Your average ray would have to do 45 points of damage to inflict 1 Hit Point to a +1 adamantine shield, whereas the same 45 points of damage inflicts 11 points of damage to a +1 Mithral shield. It takes 37 such rays to destroy the +1 adamantine shield, and only 3 to destroy the Mithral shield. You're not taking an adamantine shield for the DR - you're taking it 'cos it's damned tough, and can sunder most other things like a hot knife through butter if you shield bash with it...

... Plus, Captain America has one... sort of... ;)

Ah! I did not know the half damage applied BEFORE hardiness (although it seems obvious now). That does make the Adamantine worth it (and also makes Ray Shield look more viable). Thanks!

Mithral has the same Hit Points per inch as steel - so a heavy shield still has only 20 Hit Points (Core book page 175). Each +1 enhancement bonus (from being a magic item) adds another 10 Hit Points (and 2 Hardness), if that helps at all. Adamantine is a better choice for pure toughness, having 20 Hardness and 40 Hit Points per inch (27 Hit Points for a Heavy Adamantine Shield).

In the CR there is no price modifier for an Adamantine shield. I remember reading somewhere that Adamantine shields are treated as weapons and do not receive the damage reduction benefit (small as it may be).

I try and stay off tabletop RPG forums, because they tend to make me cynical about how much of the game I'm playing is actually broken or breakable and I have zero tolerance for flamewars, BUT I can't seem to find an answer for this anywhere so I decided to suck it up and post.

I'm trying to build a Fighter who balances damage and AC fairly well and supports the party through intimidation (Dazzling Display). Our party is small and consists of a Barbarian, Paladin, Wizard, and myself, and the DM is heavily concerned with RPing. I'm not too worried about optimizing and am just trying to have some fun with this build, BUT because (in my experience) Fighters start to get underpowered around 7th level I want to make sure it's at least somewhat viable.

By fourth level I've taken the feats Bastard Sword Proficiency, Shield Focus, Bastard Sword Focus, Dazzling Display, Intimidating Prowess, and Bastard Sword Specialization. In order to provide some harassment power and defense against spellcasters I'm planing on taking Missile Shield, Shatter Defenses, Disruptive, Ray Shield, Improved Critical, Critical Focus, and then Spellbreaker at 10th Level. I think this build hinges on the effectiveness of Ray Shield to stop one or two Scorching Rays or Acid Arrows if they come my way, or forcing the DM to use cones, which make it hard to him to also flank me. Is Ray Shield at all useful? If I have a Heavy Mithril Shield it has a hardiness of 15 and 30hp per inch of thickness (which I assume is 1, but I don't actually know), so my thinking is that I could shrug off at most two rays before I had to worry about breaking the shield. Thoughts?

AGAIN: I know this build is sub-optimal. I just need it to be functional.