Yerv Kinkash's page

Organized Play Member. 139 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

The fact that they are using black powder, and being a history major, I would say that yes they would be as good using their weapon as a club as much, if not more so. than using it as a firearm. Often, when using what are in essence one shot weapons a person would fire then, barring a bayonet, would flip the weapon around and go to town on the guy he probably missed in the first place's head with the butt of his gun. Almost every example of a black powder weapon that exist has cracks and fractures from being used in such a way if it has seen actual battle. That is the purpose of the rifle drills in basic training today is to learn to use your weapon as a club. In short it should be a class feature from 1st on.

If one player is cheating then quit, but it sounds like you missed 2 sessions in a row. I my game if you dont come you dont get a share of loot which inturn makes the people who did come much more powerful because of it. Looks like you missed an important session where things were sold and bought You missed it and I feel are a little bitter because of it. Now I tell my players that if they miss they get no loot for the session, but still get xp (to keep party on same level).


DeathQuaker wrote:
Yerv Kinkash wrote:
do something stupid on purpose and die. Problem fixed.

It's an amusing thought, but likely would create more problems than fix (or do nothing).

- It's passive aggressive, and would not engender good relations between the OP and GM. Plus passive aggression is just bad. Sorry. IMO Half of most folks' inability to communicate like sane adults is due to people accepting passive aggression as a legitimate means of communicating, when all it does is breed contempt.

- If the GM is dead set on keeping his character in the game for a certain period of time for story purposes, he might not let his character die. I've known a lot of GMs that won't actually kill your character at low levels even if you die, do the 1 free resurrect rule, etc. And especially if he feels the OP was doing it just to get out of playing the character (which he would be), that's all the more reason he would just refuse to let the character die. (Passive aggression leads to only more passive aggression or straight up aggression.)

- The GM would say, "Fine, your character's dead, so now you can only play the NPC I wrote up. Nyeah." (See above.)

The OP is doing the right thing by considering the options and trying to clarify his position with the GM and discussing it openly. If it isn't getting anywhere, better to get out and start with a clean slate than stoop to underhanded dirty tricks that ultimately won't resolve the situation.

Just seemed the only true fix to th OP's problem. Pc dies you roll a new one. If the GM forces a NPC on him for death then he should quit the game because that is not a good game to play in. Seems like the GM is abusing his power by forcing a player who was only looking out for the GMs game (He did see how the class was gioing to break it and asked for the switch prior to it actually happening) and the other players enjoyment to have a bad time. The player has little control over the game but death is one of the factors he controls. He should not make the death a glaring I hate this PC and want him to die moment but he could fail to drink that healing potion or go into meli aginst a beast that will crush him. Lots of ways to die and the GM does not need to be any the wiser. If his PC is important to the story then it is the idea not the stats and he should be allowed to play the class he wants of ues his options to get rid of said PC. Now because he was looking towards others fun he himself is not having any.

badbak wrote:

Is there enough support for a year's worth of epic rules and product? Probably not, however, why not develop a smaller book with necessary rules with the understanding there would be little to no adventure path support....? I thought the devs said something like this would be way in the future if at all anyway...

This is what I want;just good guide lines for Epic play. I am from the oldschool of gamming and do not mind (Even like) to make up rules to facilitate play but many of the newer players do not like it least it come from the publisher. It is the whole balance idea that erks me to no end That is why I would like to see Piazo make an Epic book. It is a testment to their being the best at what they do that I think they could be up to the task. As for Bporter's statement of the best selling is 1-15; well that is BECAUSE there are no good Epic rules to play by not because that is the area people want to play. Every gamer I have encountered would love an Epic game it is just that no one is willing to run at those levels and the source does not support it. And lets not take Wizards stab at Epic as a guide to what Epic play can be because that was a broken piece of trash out of the box.

do something stupid on purpose and die. Problem fixed.

BPorter wrote:

I'll state the following up front. Game play in the high teens, let alone the levels bolted on by Epic rules, do not appeal to me.

Just curious as to what others think.

And that is you. I always run my games into the upper 20s and past. I understand that it can be hard to make the game hard at high levels but Epic Pcs should be able to take on a literal army of mid level orc fighters and swat them like they were little girls. The RP of Epic play is what makes it fun. You can insult that Balor or rob the God of Magic of his book of all spells. You can create your own plane of existance and set yourself up as GOD of that plane. These are the things that I love to have my PCs do and it can only be doe at high level. Yes we are giong to take on the Lords of HelL, Yes all of them. Just because you may not like high level play does not mean others do not want the source for it. I can recall in the hayday of 3.5 people were clamoring for Epic rule that were good. Now I hear that high level play is not the game and that all games should really end at 12-15th. The first game I ever ran had the same PCs in it for nine years and they got to level 37. I had to create alot of source on my own to allow for that type of play because there were no epic rules on the market and the players did not want to retire their PCs. It was one of the best games I have ever ran or played as well. As far as not wanting epic why have 9th level spells the game should end at 15 righ no one will ever use 9th level spells so why bother to create them at all. Sorry if this sounds like i am mad often the internet makes you sound like a jerk when you are not. I just wanted to put in my 2cp on the false idea that the game is best at 12-15. Poeple who say that have never played the Epic under a gm that can handle the pressure.

Fin Samar wrote:
I'm trying to figure out some ways to run a low magic game, but I am having trouble coming up with a way of making magic less common while still allowing playable wizards/sorcerers etc.

Anyone playing one of those classes are the first of their kind. Magic is new to the world and they are some of the first to gain the ability to use it.

I removed the Chaos Law part for a long time now (3.0). I have hard Good and Evil but have never had problems with PCs over using the Detect spells because I have a very regemented system of laws in my game. One of the great failures of those abilities is when Pally X detects EVil NPC and kills him outright. This gets Pallys in my world a close look at the end of the hangmans rope. A crime must be proven in a court of law in my world or my God of Justice will be all over your pc. When a player chooses his alignment I say pick Netural Evil or Good then you can put Law or Chaos as a guide for you to play by but it is not a hard ad fast rule of how the player should act. I like RP and good ideas seen through and not stopped because of an restriction.

W E Ray wrote:


Or Rise of the RuneLords if you don't mind converting 3.5 to Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

a wyrmling red and big rock would work

I have always allowed for taking 20 on trap-finding , but just finding a trap in my game can be a long process even if you roll for it (upwards of 5min). so if they decide to take 20 on the roll it can take a very long time to get through a place. 20*5= 100 min per trap. Traps are hidden and finding a way to safely disarm them would be difficult.

Im only 30 (I now see I am a youngster) but have a wierd history. Started with brown box I got at 10 at a yard sale and could only find people in their 20s to play with. Grewup in a town of only 1200 people including the surrounding farmers. They had been playing since the 70s so I have a very old-school start to gamming. Was very cool of them to let what I now see would be a very little kid play with them. Started GMing at 12.

Had a Pc who did this all the time. He was a tiny (Perm Reduce Person) Halfling rogue with a cloak of spider climb and boots of Stick (3.5 spell of same name), but anything bigger than medium he attempted to get on its back. Gm made me make balance checks to stay on top of the creature and I took allot of falling damage with that PC but It was allot of fun the first time I asked if I could do it. Guess you could make them grapple or use climb checks. I, this was the other GMs rule as well, would not let them climb anything less than 2 size categories larger than they were.

Am playing in a 2nd ED game where for fun we rolled 3D6 in order down the line.

Zotpox wrote:

Hopefully an appology for E4


Name Violation wrote:

They have "hardness" 15, 30 hit points, and a break DC of 30.

escape artist 40

(i just used mithral manacles and upped the escape dc by 5)

Cool. Good that James is a 30th LV Publisher he should be able to make those DCs

On another thread people were discussing that James Jacobs would be in a straitjacket by 2011. What would be the escape and break DCs of a straitjacket.

A halfing that wants to be a monk but does nto have the stuff. Low wis and str. He is very fast though. Take fleet several times and make him a cleric with travel domain. Then give him an item that is perminate reduce person. A tiny halfling that can move at like fifty feet a round.

Austin Morgan wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:
Austin Morgan wrote:

Step 1: Dispel Magic on Con-Granting Item

Step 2: Power Word Kill
Step 3: ????
Step 4: PROFIT!

Or better yet:

Step 1: Quickened Dispel Magic on Con-Granting item & Power Word Kill.
Step 2: Profit!!!

Gahh! Why did I not think of that? :P

Because you need the third step

3. ???

the most improtant of all steps in the profit game. Ask any Gnome

I did not like the class as well when I first played it as a NPC. By taking the spells they made it much harder to kill at any range. I gave them their spell list back and they were the great class they had always had been (Better because of all the pathfinder goodies that were added.) I still use all my 3.5 source though which has several nice spells that allow for death at range and I have found some feats that allow the use of death attack at range.

Run with it. Your PC has gotten a taste of evil and liked it. Work your way to evil this will put a stop to align changes by the DM because one evil PC in a group of Good pcs can be difficult.

I feel that it is difficult because gamers tend to be (in my experience) very shy people. There are allot of people who would like to play but some are so shy that they can barely converse with those they know let alone allot of strangers. Also there is a stigma involved in RPGs that it is a dorky or geeky way to spend one's time. This deters allot of would be gamers that think it looks like fun but are afraid of what others would think of them for playing a RPG. These are the reasons that I have found that make it hard to find players and GMs. My suggestion is to put a very detailed flyer in your gaming store stating what kind of game you enjoy and your personal style of play. BE HONEST in the flyer. IF you are a Roll and not a Role player state that. If you enjoy a good mix of the both then state that. IF you are going to GM then give a brief synopsis of the game you intend on running. As much detail as is possible will help to ensure that you get the players that you want and the game that you want. Also a little color in the flyer is nice to catch the attention of those walking by the flyer. I like putting pictures of dragons on mine. Hope the advice helps.

Fatman Feedbag wrote:
Yerv Kinkash wrote:
My question is: When did the player gain as much power over the game as they seem to have today?
For the record, I started in 1983 with the "Red Box".For me, while I think as a mechanical system 3.X is more honed, the actual gameplay of 1E was far, far better. Why? Less rules means more interactive storytelling and interactive storytelling is what tabletop games are best at.

this is what I think I have been trying to put into words for years and have not been able to do so.

This is how I would do it. Give him split personalities both with separate and different classes. Make both of the personalities aware of each other and have them work together. This would give you a way that you could justify the two turns in one round and could free the Baddy if the PCs get a pesky hold person or similar spell because there are two of them in there and only one would be effected. You could even back story that he was born a twin and one absorbed the other but the absorbed twins power, even as a fetus, was great enough that it carved a place inside the other being and caused it to become the corrupted wretch that they see before them. Wait.... this is a great tactic I am going to use it.

KITS! GD I miss Kits.

Thanks for the responces and glad to know I am not the only 30+ person still playing> ;)

Dabbler wrote:

I remember those days ... back then the rules were so bad that we HAD to house-rule everything. As such, you depended much more on the DM to adjudicate everything and in effect to make the rules up a lot of the time. A lot of the supplementary material was released for DM's, rather than for players, and they had the handle on it.

Since then rule sets have improved a great deal. With 3.x they were clearer and better written and more sensible. Players had a better idea of the rules and what was expected. On top of that, a lot of supplements were being made for players rather than DM's. Splatbooks are player-fodder, in effect, a way to offer the largest number of people new toys to buy. I'm not saying that's why they are written, but it's the way it's come across. As such, when a player buys new toys he wants to use them - after all, they are written for the game, right? Hence you get more of a 'sense of entitlement' from some players.

This is true. The older books were for the GM more than the player. Also the splat for 3.0 had alot more player options and the rules set was vastly improved. I have gotten adjusted to the way that younger players play and if anything it has forced me to learn the rules better to keep game flow and arguements low. I was just wanting to see if others could see where the shift occured for the average gamer.

When I began playing back in the mid-eighties there seemed to be a far greater reduction on the players use of RAW the game. In fact I had never run into a "rules Lawyer" till 3.5. When I began play the GM was god of the game and you never questioned a call made during play and often it never happened after the game. Also, there was far less talk of "broken" classes, builds, spells, ect. When someone in a party rocked it was a good thing (not something to be mad about) and the GM's job; as GM, to balance the party/challenge so that it seemed equal.
My question is: When did the player gain as much power over the game as they seem to have today? Was it the rise of the internet that caused the shift in gaming? Or was it the invention of RPG video games that pushed it in that direction? Or was it a reslut of the introduction of the 3.x games? Or maybe was it is the MMO effect that caused this type of style to arise? This post is mostly for those who started their gaming carrier during the early years of DND. The 1.0/2.0 crowd. My first system was the brown box chainmail that I bought at a yard sale with the knight on the cover. (If you know what I am talking about then you are an old-school gamer.)

Craft a glove of Spectral Hand.

KenderKin wrote:

Or go back to first edition and let a fighter can only be granted land and build a keep at 9th level.

The keep and wages offered attract followers over time.

At 9th level the fighter becomes a "lord"

Hey don't blame me it was 1.0.......

OR for real fun have players tell you what feats they hope to gain in the future, or what feat combinations they want to use. I would hate to see a player three feats into a tree to a feat that is banned!

I miss 1.0 the GM was GOD and nobody dare question him!

I ran this type of game recently. First remind them that unarmored they do not have the check penalty to stealth checks. Second do not put their gear very far from where they are currently located. This will help if you have any wizards not crap a brick over loosing that all important spellbook. The next thing I did was nerf the first few enemies they faced. They were drunk. Yes the monk will have an advantage till everyone who does not have a weapon acquires one. Most of my players did not mind the fact that the monk was unbothered by losing his gear in fact they saw the advantage of playing a monk. Also, I allowed any casters to keep their prepared spells (those that were not used in the battle that resulted in their capture that was) Hope this helps.

Themetricsystem wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
As a kind and loving DM, I've added the cateat that spell resistance applies "to spells of which you are not a willing recipient."


The fact that you get SR as a class or race SU ability should not be a burden. Being basically required to take a feat or waste half a round every time you need a heal is asinine.

This is how I do it. SR should only apply to anything you don't want cast on you. Just like some spells (cure light, or any other buff) allow you to make or not make a save. Who ever chooses to make the save?

I have had this come up in one of my games. The new item creation makes it so that a caster can make ALOT of money crafting. The problem is finding someone with the gold to buy said items or that was my fix. Most people could not afford a 50gp magic item let alone one that costs 5000gp. If your world economy works different then I would replace the xp costs on item creation. That way there is an additional cost of that extra gold. Dont forget thet Pathfinder it is not an automatic success either. I kinda miss XP cost in the game they did add some balance in item creation.

I would go with wizard and build him so that everything he does is to keep the party safe from the berserker and separate enemies so the blender can do its job on one or two enemies at a time and the archer can pick and choose from targets. Also, I once played in a game with the frenzied berserker and I soon found out that hold person worked good if you ran out of enemies and at high level force cage would hold that pesky barbarian till she could get herself under control.

You are kind of nerfing an already weak (physically not tacitly) PC and making a class with an already low AC even easier to hit. If your players know this info prior to build I would not expect casters to be their chosen class. I know that I would try out that new fighter build I was saving. If you do not tell them prior to build and spring it upon them expect allot of gripes about the switch and some bitter players. Thematically it sounds great though. I will agree with the Treantmonk on that it is already very hard to cast in combat so by removing it you are just risking player complaints and dead casters if you go with the flat- footed condition.

This happened in a game I ran once and this is how it went: The PCs were taking on a tough challenge and long prior to this I had given them some potent poison DC(30) 2D8 Con. I along with the rest of the party had forgotten about the poison, the group consisted of a Druid, a Wizard, and a Bard. I was playing a NPC Fighter. Close to the end of the battle when the fighter was beaten and the bard and Wizard low on spells when the battle seemed close to finish the druid pulls out a bow stating he was out of spells (a lie which he told me on a note that it was a lie and I rolled bluff and sense motive checks for the group) This got me a little suspicious. The poison was already on two arrows and the Druid on his turn sent his animal companion after the fighter and pegged the bard and wizard with the con arrows. Both failed their saves and died on the spot while the fighter now flanked by the monster they were fighting and the druid's companion went down quickly. The following round the druid and his animal killed the monster and desecrated the corpses of his fallen companions. For the previous two sessions the wizard and bard were threatening to kill the druid because they thought that he was a threat to their PCs. When they asked him why he had done what he had done he said that a preemptive strike was the best solution to threats that his player was receiving. He had never once given them cause to think that his player was going to kill theirs but they had been all too vocal about their intentions to kill his. Never again did I hear, in that group, that one player was going to kill another and we played allot of evil games.

RickSummon wrote:
I would suggest that if a PC makes his own headband of vast intelligence, it would not grant him extra ranks in a skill right away, but would allow him to learn a skill very rapidly, allowing him to store the ranks in the headband that way. If someone else were to wear the headband, it would still grant the skill ranks that the creator stored in it.

I like this

Xum wrote:
I believe tiny creatures and smaller don't occupy a square, so... Imune to flanking? That's how I'd go.

That is how I see it as well. Makes reduce person great for small PCs.

I allow it but I feel that the feat is kinda useless to begin with and needs help just to make it an option for a player to take.

TheOrangeOne wrote:
Thank you very much kind Caineach. Might you or anyone else have some existing house rules on poison crafting?

Mongoose's Quid Rogue great poison crafting rules.

legallytired wrote:

A shambling mound rests in a pond with his tentacle-like arms rolled around nearby rotten trees.

Considering it has a strenght of 21 and has a large size and wants to throw a tree, how would you rule such an action?

I'm guessing:
Ranged touch attack at -4 with a 10ft range.
I'm thinking about using the creature's base damage for simplicity's sake but not quite sure yet.

How would you rule it?


Since it is broken I would have it wail as though in pain either when drawn or held or at random times of the day but make it so the bar is the only one that hears the Item in "pain". This should work. When it is fixed have it roar like a lion/bear/dragon whatever fits the theme of the bar or the item

Fake Healer wrote:

They made their bed. Hopefully they don't all die but really they need to learn a lesson here. Don't pull punches here. Maybe fudge a roll(or lower an AC/HPs) or two if it looks like a possible TPK, but if a party member or 2 die, let them.

Changing the encounter is really no different than fudging the rolls....They made a big tactical mistake that should have big consequences.

What he said. They had their fun blasting mooks let them learn from that. There is never a good reason to waste your spells, because evil will always try and get at you when you are not ready for it.

Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Marshall Jansen wrote:
Clearly, your DM is setting you up to get the Hand of Vecna. Be afraid.
Dare i ask?

The major danger is the shift to Evil these items can cause. An unwary good or netural player can go evil quick with the use of these Items, but what you get from them can be alot of power. Once had a GM who played Vecna talking in the head of the CG fighter who got the hand. trying to push his actions towards evil. Was great RP.

King of Vrock wrote:

Besides the normal XP for roleplaying encounters, such as negotiating a truce, talking your way into the Baron's mansion by seducing his daughter/son, etc, etc. I use a mechanic I lifted from Shadowrun, the Player Award.

A (PA) is given by the Players to another Player for some significant action in the game. Now there are some basic categories that define the significant action and those keep players from just giving each other one every night.

The categories are:[list]

  • Overwhelming Bravery - showing uncharacteristic valor while risking dire peril.
  • Extraordinary Drama/Comedy - Creating a scene that captivates the entire table or makes the whole group laugh so hard it hurts.
  • Outrageous Luck - Not only attempting, but succeeding in a stunt so audacious it's deemed impossible.
  • Fantastic Strategy/Tactic - coming up with the perfect plan, strategy, or tactic to win out a major encounter decisively.
  • Impeccable Timing - using a the perfect skill, spell, item, or piece of in game knowledge in the right place at the right time.

    This bonus is usually an XP award equal to an APL award, though in major storyline conclusions (final battle with major campaign arc villain) it could be twice that. These awards I've found are sufficient to encourage even my more passive players to push their boundaries in both RP and Combat encounters.

    --Vrockefeller Center

  • Put it in the hands of the other players I like that. Going to use this in my next game thanks.

    Marshall Jansen wrote:
    Clearly, your DM is setting you up to get the Hand of Vecna. Be afraid.

    Very afraid.

    Studpuffin wrote:

    You have to encourage roleplaying?

    Yes with some of the newer players who only have experience with MMORPGS you need to encourage roleplaying. Not that these people are bad once they start it is just getting them going that seems to be a problem. I love the fact that so many new people are getting into the game it is just that I am very old school RP and want to show the joy of that to those who do not have that backgroud. Sometimes, espically with video game players they need a "reward" for doing something. Just wanted some new ways to reward people and help move the MMO/Final Fantasy/ Crono Trigger;Cross/ ECT... players into world of Role Playing.

    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    Yerv Kinkash wrote:
    I would just like to say thanks.

    This is highly unusual. What is proper response? Ah, yes. *panics*


    It should not be. If we are to be a more civilized society then when someone does something good he should be thanked for that act of goodness. Sorry, studying Aristotle right now and I think he is bleeding into the rest of my life.

    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    I do it by removing XP from the game. I rate their progress on the session as a whole, not individual events. So they don't have an incentive to kill every last rat to squeeze out that last bit of XP.


    ust wanted to say that I have noticed that often your posts are thoughtful and helpful

    I would just like to say thanks.

    1 to 50 of 139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>