So... I want to make a Dragoon type character like from FF. I figure I can get a cape of fly and something to negate falling damage. What I need help with is can I charge down from the air? and also how do I calculate damage from flying down.
Ex. I fly up to 200ft and then fly down. I know falling 200ft is 20d6 damage but i am flying down so do I move faster and do more damage? I know this is kind of weird but I want to know if there is a way to do this.
It is not Pathfinder updated but I've actually played this character in a high level 3.5 game (Started at 6 and went to 19). I had a kind Dm who allowed most of the custom items and allowed the use of the Vassal of Bahamut class, your mileage may vary.
If your not comfortable with Psionics or want to stay pure pathfinder this won't work for you. I can tell you from experience though, this is an amazing build to play.
About what I figured, though I really don't consider myself dexterous. The second one seems much less exaggerated and closer to what I see a normal person as being stated. Many of those questions where taken from or are very similar to the MENSA test, so at least a good basis.
I like the first one for the class distinctions but, the ability scores are exaggerated and I hate assigning alignments even if it was just stolen form the hero builder's guidebook.
The second seems more realistic but, has no class distinctions and could stand to be longer.
While interesting, historical figures are generally disconnected from anything beyond what makes them known and was worth remembering.
Since I haven't met any of the thread's posters, I feel more disconnected from the list of scores they assign themselves. Since I've no person to associate to them, they seem largely random to me. A well known person offers a common point of reference which we can all judge for ourselves and discuss however.
Good point. Though it seems like more of an attempt to establish what an 18 means to the poster.
So for me,
Jackie Chan had an 18 Dexterity or higher, the man feel down a building on a tumble check and survived.
Bill Clinton as potrayed in Family Guy has an 18 Charisma. I love that episode.
It's for the same reason as Lastknightleft posted, to keep people honest.
If you are truly exceptional, then ignore it, but, most people are either going to be exaggerating or underestimating themselves.
I think that's what throughing people off. I wouldn't say I am exceptionl, though I honestly don't think that 10 point buy can honestly cover many people, (though highly doubt anyone has higher than 15 in anything, and 14 in Int specifically) (no insult intended).
Does the fact that I can hit a target at 750 meters fairly consistantly, unaided mean I have I high Dex, a high is, proficiency and BaB, or skill ranks?
I put a Con of 12 for a 6+ mile run, but what does it mean for those who can run marahons (I swearI saw someone mention that here)? 12 is just above average, but I don't the marathon runner can hold their breath for 3 minutes or so.
There is no wrong answer.
As more people post you will notice how people see themselves, their highs and lows. But, it's an exercise. I wanted to give myself all 16's or higher when I first did it but, I've scaled it back since then. The baseline of a 10 point buy is based on the absolute minimum point buy system for pathfinder; the least heroic possible but also the closest to average. If you don't think 10 points is enough try anyway, then if you need to add some feel free.
This is why I've avoided giving exact guidelines; Am I wiser then my friend who has studied philosophy all his life, probably not, but, I am wise and I have things i can teach my children that aren't from books. This is where I base my scores, the exceptional people in my life. Who better than them.
Try not to feel like you are comparing yourself to others because you will always see yourself differently then others will.
It's for the same reason as Lastknightleft posted, to keep people honest.
If you are truly exceptional, then ignore it, but, most people are either going to be exaggerating or underestimating themselves. A 10 point buy will cover even a genius level intelligence (14 or higher with racial bonuses) that works out in his free time (12 or 13 in STR and CON).
Its easy to underestimate yourself but, unless you have a permanent injury or a debilitating illness, your physical stats will be close to average or higher. Building a computer requires dexterity; Slapping a pizza requires strength; running errands all day requires constitution. They may not be particularly exceptional but, you will have average or better.
Sorry, I forgot to list my adventurer classes.
Sorcerer, not sure what bloodline, then Bard, with the swashbuckler archtype, I don't like to sing or play music but I love boats and Dramatic acting.
Ambrus wrote:
I'd be more interested in seeing how others would stat up modern or historical personages. It'd be informative to see how others judge what the six ability scores conceptually represent when assigned to real people.
The problem with historical figures is that they are, for the most part, defined by a single aspect of their personality.
How much could Einstein bench press?
Was Washington able to juggle?
Did Cesar get short of breath easily?
While interesting, historical figures are generally disconnected from anything beyond what makes them known and was worth remembering.
Modern celebrities or Political figures tend to be controversial and thus lead to arguments and flaming.
Trainwreck,
WOW. No pun intended but, surviving that makes you a fighter at the very least.
But, if the opportunity to become an adventurer came upon you, and you had nothing holding you back form it, what class would you pursue?
Is intelligence equal to IQ? If so, how do they correlate to each other?
There was actually a thread about that recently.
They were saying 2 points were a standard deviation of 15 IQ points from average.
So my understanding was 6=70, 8=85, 10=100, 12=115, 14=130, 16=145. Something in that range, but I'd have to find the thread to be sure.
Honestly if you go relative to the 10 point buy you will stay within a reasonable range. 8 is a stereotypical football player; higher than 14 is a MENSA member.
Stabbittydoom,
Friends are going to be nice to each other. They are also going to choose relative to the power level of the game. Try using the 10-point buy for yourself.
If I had to pick a class, (minus magic) I would say either Cleric or Divine Bard.
Try the 10-point buy I suggested, it's great for forcing you to focus in on your strengths and helps you see if something is an actual "weakness" or merely just "average".
10 is average, more than 10 is above average. A good reference is the carrying capacity chart in the core book. 11-13 are decent weights but, are not beyond what a blue collar worker could do. 14 and above is where you start seeing truly large amounts; requiring training and more. Try to keep that frame of reference for other stats.
What are your ability scores using a standard d20 ability score array?
It is honestly a fun exercise that groups I have been in have used to start games. I have tried assigning the scores by my own reasoning and having them assigned by averages of what the other people at the table would assign me, the second only really works if you are close to your gaming buddies.
I'm sure many of you have tried this before, "What would my stats be as a D&D character?", and a few have probably have had a crazy enough GM to try a "Play as yourself" campaign. The fun part for me was not actually playing myself but, in trying to play the version of myself that developed in the game.
What would have to change about my life and my personality to make me an adventurer?
So to get this started I've listed what I see as my ability scores below. I used a 10-point buy to keep things honest and I suggest others do the same. I'd be happy to back up any of the below by my own reasoning if anyone needs a point of reference. I included a human racial bonus in parenthesis as the focus of my personality but, your mileage may vary with that choice.
You know someone did d20 rules for A Game of Thrones, right?
http://www.amazon.com/Game-Thrones-D20-Based-Gaming-Limited/dp/1588469417
The system was the last major project done by Guardians of Order. White Wolf ended up buying the completed system and just published the books for it. The system is interesting if you can find a copy of it, but all of the major characters are statted out.
I ended up finding the deluxe edition linked above in the garbage bin at white wolf... best.internship.ever.
I can understand that many players don't like having to adjust to such circumstances, and for those players, finding a group that handles hit point dice differently than in the example above is probably something to look for. Some players do enjoy that kind of challenge, though, and the fact that they can see their character ultimately develop in a more organic, unplanned manner. For these people, the number of hp is not as important as how they got them, and while most will still be disappointed with low rolls, they simply find ways to minimize the impact and move on.
It may invalidate some concepts, but real life has a way of laying waste to the best laid plans, and for those who like that particular element of life in their games, rolling hp is one of the few truly random things that the game still has. For those that don't like that randomness, or wish to contain it slightly to ensure a particular feel to their character/game, it is simple enough to come up with a quick and easy solution to bypass the issue and move on to what they want to focus on.
Personally, the rolling of the dice is one of the things that makes the game interesting to me, so I enjoy the feel of it and accept that being willing to gamble for the really good results also means the chance of getting the really bad results. It comes down to how willing people are willing to accept and work with the chance of failure. Some people don't really enjoy their successes as much if it just handed to them; others prefer to not have any risk whatsoever. That's why it's important to find a group of like-minded gamers who can agree on what needs house rules and what doesn't.
Challenges happen DURING the game, character growth comes from interactions and experiences DURING the game. The campagin the character is in should have an impact on how that character develops. Leveling represents those experiences, it represents the character's growth by making thier ability to survive greater and thier tools to succeed more diverse. This should take shape with the character's actions and how the player believes they should advance. Reducing a character's ability to survive simply due to a failed gamble OUTSIDE of actual play should not be a part of that experience.
Character will take risks, players are constantly gambling, and everyone at the table agrees to take responsibility for those rolls they make. But, those players need to also be confidant that the system they are using will be balanced in its ability confirm thier success or failures. If you honestly believe that allowing an "average" character to have an average chance of survival for thier class is cheating, then so be it.
But I will never agree.
edit: I may have read too much into the "being handed success" part but, that's how I interpreted it so my respone reflects that.
Let the chips fall where they may, then.
And if a few bad rolls for hp somehow negate Toughness, Con bonus, favored class bonus, false life, belts of mighty Con, and so on and so forth? Then that says something about the specifics of the group for which that is true -- not something about the game as my group plays it.
...Yes, you could spend an inordinate amount of resources making the guy who sucks into a guy who's baseline competent; or you could spend the same resources turning a guy who's baseline competent into a force to be reckoned with.
And, instead of being "forced" into taking Toughness in order to not suck, the player who does nothing more than roll slightly better can take something actually fun, like Power Attack or Combat Expertise or Improved [Whatever]. Meanwhile, you're still patching up the holes that random chance shot into your character concept.
patryn sums it up nicly, If the player believed that playing an infirm character would be interesting then they would have done so. For a character of average constituation to be put in the same rank of ability to take damage as a Con 7 wizard is not appropriate to any playstyle. Yes, the Player can devote time and effort in to covering the unnecessary flaw for the character but, that means that the player must strive to bring a character back to "average" in their ability to survive simply due to a fault in the system.
An "average" character should not have to focus that much effort simply to have his stats reflect that. Is there any other situation in this system where being average requires that much effort?
No those aren't concepts, their what became of something that developed in game. Maybe we play differently, but my concept only goes so far as the start of the game then I let what happens to my character determine what he becomes. Those are both ways of describing the character the OP was talking about. Hit points are abstract, involving not just the ability to take damage but shifting away from the blade turning a lethal thrust into a knick. Hence a character who's never been sick in his life but has a glass jaw can be exactly what the OPs character described. As rolling a one for every level from one to 5 nets you 32 HP. He can also be a guy who charges recklessly into combat ignoring the fact that his enemy is stabbing him viciously, hence he only has 32 HP so he goes down faster because he doesn't take the time to avoid those lethal thrusts. Another way to look at it is that your character just never learns from his mistakes so that while his skill with the blade improves his lack of learning leaves him still falling in combat as he just never thinks to defend himself the way others with similar experiences would.
Low HP do not invalidate a character, a players rigid unwillingness to adapt to the changes that the game dictate are the only thing that invalidates a character. Now if you go into the game from the time you start playing and you have an exact plan for everything that's going to happen to your character, and you can't change that plan because you are unwilling to, then that's something you can talk to your DM about, but it's not a flaw in the system, and it's not something that invalidates a character.
They sounded like summary concepts for a character, interesting ones honestly. I might have to flesh those out....Back to the point though.
I completely agree with how you describe hit points but, what in the Op's character background made him that way? What choice has he made in-game to support this weakness? Yes, his character can change to meet these changes but, its forced. I can honestly understand that can really take away from the fun of what was obviously intended to be a different character. Consequences during gameplay are great, they keep players involved and keep the world from feeling static. Arbitrary changes are frustrating and detract from immersion.
Your focusing on the low end though, if a player want to make a character of average health and constantly rolls max, his character is changing due to factors outside of those he made in-game. He can have is character adapt to those changes but, like I said above, it's still a forced change.
Low hp invalidates that concept nothing more; please don't make me out to be something I'm not.
I'm supporting player choices and a player's ability to see those choices in the character they make, and the system's ability to aid or detract in that regard. Planning a character from 1-20 is unnecessary and I'll advised for any game I'd ever play in or run. Character growth is good, as i stated above.
On the other hand, I am not supporting "teh best buldz evr" and I am not telling anyone what make a character "viable" or "best".
edit: BTW if you simply misspoke then you can ignore the last bit; hate to be unnecessarily defensive. Otherwise, it stands.
Jim Cirillo,
Please calm down. This is not personal and I have truly enjoyed our discussion up to this point. thank you.
I'm not attacking the way you play, our opinions differ and I am supporting my point of view. Nothing more, I apologize if this was seen as anything else.
Lastknightleft,
It could be but, if those are character concepts for a player, particularly good or bad rolls on hit points will still invalidate those concepts. Where as my examples are ingrained in the players choices for the character, low hit points hurt the first concept and high hit points invalidate the second.
edit:
Patryn of Elvenshae,
Thanks for the support. I was starting to feel alone here. :)
+1 I don't see rolling low HP as a bad thing, more as an opportunity to have a unique character, a fighter that is reckless in combat ignoring others attacks rather than trying to dodge them, or a guy who although he has never been sick a day in his life, has a glass jaw. These are opportunities to have fun with the system, not a flaw in it.
Hello again,
You just described a character with high Con and low Dex and a character with average to low Con and great fortitude. These are choices players made for those characters, they are intended and were something the player was interested in doing.
Very high or very low hit point rolls can invalidate those choices you listed. What fun is that?
An imaginative player can have fun with poor HP rolls as they can with rolling a poor fort save vs. disease. Upthread I had shown examples of how characters have done that in my game.
We roll 4d6 drop the lowest as well. If we have poor rolls we are disappointed at first and then come up with a character that explains it and we play that guy. I've had fun playing less than optimal statted characters, trying to figure out how to survive in a profession they were genetically not pre-disposed to work in.
In the end it's a matter of taste. If others enjoy a different system for HP creation and ability score creation that's great. I'm not going to tell them its bad-wrong-fun. My group is definitely a let the die-fall-where-they-may type of group that likes things difficult.
You have shown examples of good players laughing off a bad situation. They showed maturity not enjoyment, as far as I interpreted the examples you gave.
Poor stats can be very fun to role-play, they create flavor and challenges. I am no fan of power gaming and over-optimization; But, a character with less than 10 in every stat constitutes a re-roll, not a challenge. But, in an attempt to stay on topic I'm going to avoid discussing ability score generation (I try to be flexible in my own games for their generation and happily use a number of different systems). I was using point buy as an example of a core system that allows for flexibility in character generation and avoids the pitfalls of very poor rolling for a permanent aspect of a character.
I honestly think your misunderstanding what I'm trying to get across. Challenges are necessary, difficulty is fun, players who have to think creatively to overcome a challenge will enjoy the game more.
Hit points are a means to an end, nothing more. They are they to allow a character to survive a hit, some classes are designed to survive more hits and they have been balanced around this fact. Forcing a player to use a fighter who's hit points are equal to his class levels through no choice of his own, is taking away something that was intended for that class to function in the rules as written.
If a player wants to play a sickly or weak character, let them. Forcing them to is simply taking away a choice they made for their character.
I'm not sure how you can disagree with actual play experience for my group. Your experience can be different than mine and I have no doubt you've had issues with players being upset about HP rolls but at our table it has never been issue for my group. No one has ever said to me "My 2nd level fighter would have lived if I had rolled better for my HPs this level." We take the game mostly seriously but not ourselves very seriously so leveling is never tainted by a low HP roll.
I disagree with the point you are trying to make through those experiences but, you are correct, I should have been more clear in that regard.
You believe that rolling as per the standard rules adds something positive to your game, I disagree. And many of those who agree to continue to roll for hit points, still need to modify the the rule to suit their game. This is where I see a problem.
Rolling well in this game IS fun; whereas rolling poorly is not always so. During a game rolling poorly can add twists and force positive changes to characters or players. Rolling poorly on hit points does not ADD anything positive to a game. You have said yourself that rolling is exciting for your players but, at best rolling poorly is an outwardly neutral experience. I case its been awhile since you've rolled abilities, I know it has been for me, rolling very poorly on a permanent aspect of your character sucks. It can make playing the character you wanted to play very difficult, if not impossible in some systems.
Point buy has addressed this problem in ability scores; why should the plethora of house rules listed here be necessary to alleviate this problem?
I have a 9 year old and a 2 year old, so believe me i know what game with kids is like.
I'm honestly kind of surprised she wont "allow" him to come. For years now, my wife and I have switched nights out to allow for adult time. She would go out Friday night with her friends and I would watch our son; Saturday night I would game over a friends house; sunday was family day, period. If they have to go out at the same time, lets them see if a relative can stay with the child while they are out. New grandparents love to see grand-kids and they can understand how essential alone time can eb to parents.
Now we have a house so we just game there after the kids are in bed but until then this schedule worked out great. You might want to see if something like this would be appropriate for them. I understand how hard it can be to schedule around a new child but, if they don't have any adult time their gonna go CRAZY! :)
It benefits them because they like rolling dice and having a chance at hitting high numbers with them. To be quite honest with you I've never seen a character die because they did not have class-appropriate HPs. Over a number of levels it seems they are around where they should be in HPs.
I've never had any player come to me and ask for a reroll. Leveling for the most part is a pretty dull affair. They already have in mind the direction their character is going to take in feats, skills, spells, class abilities, etc... About the only thing that's an unknown is HPs. And its never once been a problem at my table.
As should be obvious form my previous posts, I disagree with the above on every count. I have seen many players die simply from bad HP rolls, especially at lower levels. Leveling may be dull but, it is in in-of itself a reward. Leveling is the key reward for players time and efforts on their characters, why taint it. Why allow a single bad roll disrupt what should otherwise be a 100% good event for the players, they have obviously earned it.
It may just be me but each attempt to inject artificial randomness into this system seems to just be a halfhearted attempt to alleviate what is obviously a problem for many players. That regardless of storyline, backgrounds, concepts or themes, having low hp (a 1 on a die roll or even less than average for some) is jarring for players confers no real benefit, roleplaying or otherwise.
Other than those championing "let the dice fall as they may", Each houseruled system seems to be an attempt to ease back from a base system that they deem inappropriate for the game.
Do you think the base system is too harsh? Or is it that heroes with an inappropriate glass jaw do not fit with your views of the setting? Or is it something else entirely for you?
At my table complaining and bargaining doesn't happen with HPs because there's an established social contract that we've had regarding HPs since we started playing. Of course there's disappointment with a low roll but it's usually evened out over time anyways.
Yeah, sadly no social contract for FLGS games. But, those experiences are for another thread...
Quote:
It wouldn't exactly call it roleplaying HPs as coming up with an in-game explanation as to why the character progressed slowly or quickly on the HP track when the roll was made.
Example: Barbarian rolls a "1". Player says "well I guess that disease I contracted a couple weeks ago took more out of me than I thought" or "I've hated the food here in the Mwangi, look at me I'm all skin and bones." Usually it's something fun or silly like that to provide an in-game explanation.
I've seen those at the moment, laugh it off and move on situations but, I've had far too many people come to me after the session and ask for a re-roll. It's an uncomfortable situation for both the Gm and the player.
I have tried many different kinds of rolling systems and static systems for this problem. In my opinion this choice is no different than forcing players to take average. The choice to remove rolling reflects that fact that I don't see this random factor as benefiting my game. Choosing to give them the maximum result allows my crunch focused players to focus on other tactical matters and my more fluff oriented players need not worry about their mighty warriors having a glass jaw.
Does rolling benefit your players? Is this any different than forcing averages or any other system that guarantees higher than average Hp?
Interestingly enough, as a player I prefer games like L5R and WoD for hit point systems. My character's defenses increase but his ability to survive an actual hit never really increase much. Gritty is fun when that is the style of the setting.
I had a DM tell me max HP per level, I went with it because he's the DM, but I hated it, it's lame. The only houserule I've seen that doesn't make me want to vomit is players either choose to roll (and they accept what they roll even if it's one) or take the average (and they make that choice before they roll).
I may play under your houserule for HP but just know that in the back of my mind I think it's terribly lame and pathetic that you can't deal with low rolls. I feel that way whenever I see a reroll ones rule, whether it's for stats, HP, attack rolls, what have you. My contempt will actually grow if the rule increases the #s you can reroll, you say I can re-roll 2s and 3s, well why don't you just pop out the binkie and bib and you can push me in a stroller.
Even if the game is challenging and fun, a part of me will always feel like the character is a cheat that wouldn't have existed in an adults game.
Maybe that comes across inflamatory, and the DM who makes the rule may never know my feelings about it beyond a simple, "can't we just use regular rolls, no? Okay." but that's what I think and how I feel about it.
And I would never commit suicide ingame over rolls, and think anyone who would sepuku a character over something like several HP is too low or I have a 14 as my max stat aren't mature enough. Even if its something I'd never say in game.
You are coming from a player perspective and yes, are coming across as "inflammatory" though I wouldn't have used as polite of a word for it personally. As a player you can tell yourself that playing a minimum HP character with no stat over 14 somehow makes you superior to the other players who "need" to have a 16 or higher and average or better HP but, it is a style preference, nothing more.
Wanting an "adults" game is fine, understandable even assuming you are yourself an adult. Having had the majority of my experiences focused around my FLGS, which had an "all are welcome" policy for games in the store, "adults" have been at a premium regardless of age. No house rule is going to make everyone happy but, this rule choice makes that style of game that I want to run apparent to everyone from day 1. Let the players that don't like that leave, no hard feelings.
I agree with you though that attempting to randomize "we want higher stats" is pointless. Every house rule presented in this thread is trying to address a common player concern, that getting less than average Hp each level hurts your characters chances of surviving in a way that feels permanent. Levels can be regained, ability scores can be restored, curses can be removed but, low hit point rolls are permanent.
Low rolls during the game are exciting, they cause drama and force players to think tactically about a situation that would otherwise be common or even trivial. Hit point rolls are not exciting, I have never seen an entire table stand to their feet to watch a hit point roll.
edit: typing at work sorry. it takes me awhile. please edit away if you need to.
Rolling for HPs in my group is part of the excitement. The amount of HPs rolled each level is part of who the character is. Barbarian rolls a 1 at level 3, the player usually finds a reason his past experiences in the last few months of gametime has hurt his ability to sustain damage and the opposite is true when that 12 is rolled. Successive bad or good rolls defines the character as much as the other mechanical choices the player makes. A little bit of randomness is fun in my eyes. But every group's different. We've been doing it this way for as long as we've played together (quite a long time). Any other way would seem strange.
I honestly have not seen someone role-play Hit points. They are too abstract. A particularly low or high Constitution, of course, but never HP. It's a necessary component of the tactical simulation that is combat.
I've seen and experienced the highs and lows rolling hit points causes. From my experiences, the joy of a very good hit point roll simply isn't worth the complaints and bargaining that I always end up seeing from the terrible rolls. And the adoption of a houseruled system just causes further confusion.
Having played and Gm'd since 2nd edition I honestly got tired of the random roll system entirely. Having tried standard rolling, re-rolling 1's, best of 2 rolls, average+1, and even 1d4+(difference in hit die)(so for d10: 1d4+6, d12:1d4+8, ect.), none of it really worked. Players still complained, either it was too weak and they wanted to use standard rolling so they could get higher; or it was too powerful and the "purists" complained about the power creep.
So I give them max. No rolls, no averages, MAX. But, any monster of Boss or sub-boss level get the same treatment.
Biggest effects this has had:
No complaints, power-gamers and optimizers are happy; purists have yet to complain as the "real" fights take slightly longer and feel more epic.
I never feel the need to hold back...ever. If they die from stupid mistakes or chance crits at low levels, no one to blame but the dice gods.
Bosses always feel sturdy, even in the face of the cheesed out damage dealer that always shows up in my games.
Yes, normal monsters now are truly cannon fodder. To balance I normally add an extra CR to the encounters, fairly minimal paperwork on my end and resources are still drained as intended. Also, I always stick to the slow advancement track so no out of hand level gains for the extra exp.
Other than the occasional confused look from a new player,("MAX? Really? Ok then"), It has worked great.
So my question is then, Is this really that strange of an idea?
My group, being the completionionists they are, have stayed about a level ahead of the curve throughout the modules. I ended up throwing Kressle a level of wizard and gave her shield and grease. This was mostly to mess with the group's sorcerer who had been abusing the hell out of magic missile and to hamper the hell out of the cavalier.
She still died in short order once the cavalier got off his back and the sorcerer learned he had other spells but, she still is remembered from time to time as their first really challenging fight of the module.
Name:isador (cohort)
Race: tiefling
Classes/levels: wizard 5
Location:what else but the forgotten keep
Catalyst: the dancing lady (with the help of poisons and insanity mist)
The Gory Details: A bad day for the first cohort to join the kingdom's leaders on their excursions. After getting poisoned by the quickling and succumbing to his wost nightmares via insanity mist, the wizard was down 2 dex and 6 wisdom.
Pressing on, the poor cohort was ensnared by the lady's dance (along with the cavalier[tiefling general] and inquisitor [elven marshal]). 3 rounds later the wizard is sitting at 3 Con and surrounded by a web spell thanks to the oracle [elven spymaster]. Hoping to damage his tiefling allies back into consciousness the sorcerer [asamar baron] launches a fireball at the lady. The fireball takes the wizard to exactly 0 hp but an amazing roll for damage on the burning webs deals the 3 damage necessary to end his life.
Proving his darker tendencies, the oracle proceeded to animate the lost companion as a zombie, allowing him to aid in the Lady's eventual death.
First death of the campaign on what was easily the hardest fight so far. Thank you Paizo for a wonderful and challenging AP.
Long story here. MY players,(David, Justin and Richard) don't read.
Spoiler:
Early on in the AP, i rolled up a random encounter with a werewolf. The party proceeded to get beat up and one member got cursed, so they ran.
I took this as a great opportunity for a reoccurring villain. This thread lead me to the rather boring location of Falgrim, so i decided it would make a great conversion.
Needless to say Falgrim is now a 4th level cavalier (order of the cockatrice) and a werewolf lord. His goal, as stated to the players in our last session, is to create his own pack in the stolen lands.
I figure I'll use the werewolf event form RRR as yet another of his calling cards. Not sure where their final encounter will be but, I figured this would be a lot more interesting than a random bandit in the camp.
