lowericon's page

I'm building a dwarf fighter and want him to specialize in either the Pickaxe (2H weapon) or the Heavy Pick (1H weapon) plus a shield. Both weapons have a 4x crit multiplier, so I want to be critting often.

How should I go about building him?
Any Archetypes to recommend?
What about 2H-weapon vs. sword(pick) and board?

have you considered the hunter archetype packmaster?

I had not! Now I have a third option that's also extremely similar.

I can see how a hunter would be awesome from an optimization perspective, but it doesn't really fit the flavor I had imagined for this character. Animal Focus is very primal and I imagined this character coming from a civilized society and upbringing. A Lord's kennelmaster, or a Sheriff, or something like that.

I want to create a character that works as a bounty hunter and has a pack of hunting dogs. At least 1 dog should be an Animal Companion, but 2 or more would be nice. I'll supplement the pack with regular trained dogs, not bonded in any special way.

To accomplish this, there seem to be 2 obvious paths:
1. Cavalier with the Hunter Archetype
2. Ranger with the Beastmaster Archetype

Both allow you to split your animal companion levels between multiple beasts. By using Boon Companion and a few other tricks, this means you can eventually get 2-3 solid Animal Companions.

But which is better?

The cavalier gets an animal at 1st level, so will have more total levels to divide among his animals, but the ranger has bonus feats and favored terrains and all that other good ranger stuff, which might be worth the trade-off. The campaign begins at 5th level and will probably go all the way to 20th.

are you getting an animal companion or a familiar?

Animal Companion. I hadn't thought of the dragonfly, but you're right they have excellent stats. I guess my only hesitation is that neither mantises or dragonflies live underground. From a role-playing angle, it wouldn't make sense for a Duergar to have one. Not at 1st level, at least.

I'm building a Duergar Druid for a campaign that will take place 90% underground. I need an Animal Companion with Darkvision or Blindsense to find its way around. A Climb speed would also be nice.

What are your suggestions?
Virtually all of the Vermin familiars (slug, centipede, spiders, scorpions, cockroaches, etc.) would work, but they're so rarely used I can't find much info on how to optimize them. Dire Bat and Giant Mantis are also strong contenders.

I'm entering an underdark campaign and want to play some kind of earth-based character. I'm looking at sorcerers, druids, oracles, clerics, witches, etc. Anything that can be based on the element of Earth. What are some of the most interesting options?

Starting a new campaign soon in which I and the other PCs are playing a coven of witches. There will be 3 or 4 players, all Witches, and I'm looking for advice on how we can best work together to overcome some of the inherent weaknesses of a one-class party.

What Archetypes/Patrons/Hexes/etc best complement one another? We'll be using the Coven hex for sure. That one's obvious.

What we don't want to do is try to build a tank witch, healing witch, dps witch, and all those other roles that are found in a normal mixed-class party. What we're after is some unique Witch-specific ways to be powerful and successful, not just ways to make a Witch into another class.

Thanks in advance for your ideas.

I’m building a new Witch character and I want to use the Revenge patron. Because it’s from the Horror Adventures expansion book, it’s not addressed in any of the common Witch Guides. Several of its bonus spells improve your melee attacks or shape change you into a melee attacker. These are the spells:

Revenge: 2nd—magic fang; 4th—slipstream; 6th—rage; 8th—moonstruck; 10th—beast shape III; 12th—vengeful outrage; 14th—phantasmal revenge; 16th—seamantle; 18th—storm of vengeance. Source PZO1135

So my question is, how do I go about building a melee witch? They are not generally front-line fighters. What are your suggestions for feats, archetypes, and other things that would mesh well with this patron?

I'm GMing an upcoming game where one PC will be dueling an old rival in a Trial By Combat. It's a HUGE deal for this one character and has been building for the past 15 levels.

My question is: What should I have the other players do? This fight could very well take the entire evening by itself, and I don't want them to be bored.

- Rescuing him is not an option. He intends to fight this battle and win it fair and square.
- Helping him is not an option. It's 1-on-1 and the PC does not intend to cheat.
- It doesn't make roleplaying sense for them to skip this event and go elsewhere because it's so big and important.

So...suggestions? It doesn't have to be combat, I just want the RL players to have something to do other than watch.

I'm a GM, and one of my PCs is an Orc Ranger. He will soon be returning to his old orc tribe to challenge the Chieftain to 1 v 1 combat for control of the tribe. What should I pick as far as class/feats/fighting style/etc to make the Chieftain a challenging and unique opponent?

The PC is:
- 18th level Ranger/2nd level Cleric/1st level Mammoth Rider
- Two-weapon fighter, wielding a pair of flaming short swords
- Gets 7 attacks per round, from feats and other stuff
- Animal Companion is an Arsinoitherium (neolithic Rhino) grown to size Huge. Will only be allowed in the duel if the Chieftain also has an animal helper of some kind.

The only necessity for the Chieftain is that he should be tough, grizzly, and Orcish in nature. I know rogues and swashbucklers and other flouncy Dex builds make great duelists, but they're just not Orcish enough. Also, the Chieftain is of Evil alignment, so no Paladins. His alignment could be Lawful/Chaotic/Neutral as needed.

Suggestions?

Thanks, everyone. Looks like I have a consistent answer that will work well in the campaign.

I have a NG priestess in my campaign who died and has been brought back as a Greater Banshee. She has retained her NG alignment and all previous powers, skills, and memories through GM fudging and clever use of a Wish* spell.

*(In my campaigns, a Wish spell can do literally anything, but its wording is also subject to GM interpretation that is often disastrous or counter to what the player intended.)

So now I have a NG undead priestess of a good deity. My question is about Channel Energy:

Can she still channel Positive Energy, even though she's undead? Will it hurt her? Or, does she have to channel Negative Energy now that she's undead, which would heal her but hurt her fellow party members?

I have a player using Cloud Shape, which is mostly the same as Gaseous Form except you're a bigger cloud and can move faster.

He wants to drift into the body of an enemy, then turn himself back to normal shape, thus exploding out of the enemy's body and killing it. Should I allow that?

The text of Gaseous Form specifically says they cannot attack while in that form. So would drifting into an enemy's lungs be considered an attack?

And does it make a difference if the enemy is breathing? A live enemy might just accidentally inhale you, whereas with a non-breathing undead enemy, the cloud would have to force its way down.

i preferred the feat in 3.5 that you were still able to cast your spell with somatic component with a weapon instead which seems more logical than a shield, and the prerequisite was i think 5 or 6 ranks in spellcraft

That sounds like just the thing for the character I'm trying to build, but alas it's 3.5 not Pathfinder.

there's a feat named shielded mage, the shield do not prevent you from completing somatic spell components with the hand wielding the shield and you reduce the arcane spell failure of any shield you use by 15% min of 0%

the prerequisite is shield focus, base attack bonus +3 or 1 fighter level

This is also a near-perfect solution. Thanks!

Ok, any info on the shields?

Near as I can figure, it could be pulled off with a light shield but not a heavy. Buckler wouldn't even need to switch hands.

If a wizard's arcane bond item is a staff, wand, or weapon, they have to hold it in one hand to cast. Casters also need a free hand to cast spells with somatic components.

Is it possible for these to be the same hand?

If not, is there a feat or something (other than Still Spell) that would allow a wizard to cast while holding their arcane bond item in one hand and something else in the other hand?

Follow-up question: What if the other item is a shield? Can they put their wand/weapon/staff in the shield hand and cast a spell?

Thanks in advance.

1) In general, an effect doesn't stack with itself.

OK, makes sense. Follow-up question: Do you think it could stack with Grave Touch?

Grave Touch (Sp): Starting at 1st level, you can make a melee touch attack as a standard action that causes a living creature to become shaken for a number of rounds equal to 1/2 your sorcerer level (minimum 1). If you touch a shaken creature with this ability, it becomes frightened for 1 round if it has fewer Hit Dice than your sorcerer level. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier.

This is the 1st-level bloodline power for the Undead Sorcerer bloodline, which does stack with itself under certain specific circumstances. (The exception that proves the rule)

If I had that bloodline and also the Deadhand feat, could they stack?

Deadhand Style is an unarmed combat style feat with the following power:

Benefit(s): While using this style, if you have at least 1 point in your ki pool, you gain a +2 bonus on saves against fear effects, and the DC of Intimidate checks against you increases by 4. As a swift action, you can spend 1 point from your ki pool to empower your unarmed strikes. Creatures hit with your unarmed strikes must succeed at a Will save (DC = 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Wisdom modifier) or become shaken for a number of rounds equal to your Wisdom modifier. This is a mind-affecting fear effect.

Copy-pasted that from the PFSRD. Now I have 2 questions:

1) Does the shaken effect stack? Could this be used to make an enemy frightened or panicked?

2) If you use a ki point to "empower your unarmed strikes" how long does that last?

Later feats in the chain (Deadhand Initiate, Deadhand Master) do not cause fear of any type to an opponent.

Animal Growth works on them.

Just to clarify, I'm looking for a permanent change to the animal's size. Not a temporary spell.

One of the PCs in my game is a ranger and just acquired a Roc animal companion (the giant birds).

Rocs are size Gargantuan, but when they're animal companions they get no larger than size Large. I'd like to find a way around that, to allow the PC to get a full-sized Roc.

I know the Mammoth Hunter prestige class lets certain land animal companions grow to size Huge, but it can't be applied to rocs.

I could just house-rule it to allow Mammoth Hunter to apply to rocs and adjust the powers, but that's dull and clunky. I'd prefer if there were another way. Something I don't have to house-rule.

Suggestions?

Cling to the side is a Ride check (the cover aspect of Ride).

Standing on top has no rule support. Houserule territory again.

Honestly, 'standing' is a bit too specific imo. Are you on the mount? Yes? Then you are mounted and it falls under ride.

Fair enough. I'm always a fan of keeping it simple. Thanks.

lowericon, I think you are misunderstanding the rule.

There is no size restriction for mounting your mount as a move action.

You're right about that, but there's more to the question. When it comes to mounting or dismounting, it will require a Move Action and no skill check. But what if he wants to cling to the side of the animal, or stand on top of it? That's more confusing.

lowericon, there is no rule that I am aware of that requires you to use the climb skill to get on your mount, regardless of the mount's size.

Can you provide the rule?

There isn't one. When dealing with a horse or any mount up to one size category larger than the rider, getting on or off is a Move Action. If you succeed a DC 20 Ride check, you can do it as a Free Action.

In my situation, the rider is Medium and the creature is Huge, so that's 2 categories larger. When something is that big (as big as a real-world elephant) it seems to me like Climb is a more appropriate skill for getting up and down the animal, rather than Ride.

What does it take to knock someone off a wall or the ceiling when they're using Spider Climb? A particular Strength check? Or a combat maneuver of some kind? What are the modifiers?

Also, can someone use Spider Climb to grip more securely to regular ground? If so, what kind of bonuses (if any) would it give their CMD vs. Trip, Bull Rush, Overrun, and other maneuvers?

I wouldn't give a bonus to the ride skill of the driver, but I could give a bonus to the skill (acrobatics? ride? I am not sure) of the passengers. But I would ask for a check only if the mount move very violently.

All good points. I think you're probably right about everything. Acrobatics would apply to someone riding in a howdah or palanquin or whatever.

What does it take to dislodge someone using Spider Climb to stick to a wall? A certain Strength check, or what? Or what if they use Spider Climb to cling to the ground to resist a Bull Rush? If I knew the answers to these things while stationary I could apply them, with modifiers, to moving around or getting knocked off of a moving, oddly-shaped beast.

I have a ranger PC in my game whose animal companion is size Huge, from the Mammoth Hunter prestige class. He also happens to own some Slippers of Spider Climb. He had a couple of questions for me, and I wasn't sure how to answer:

1) Can he use the Slippers to climb up the side of the animal? The creature is an Arsinoitherium (neolithic Rhinoceros) so it's sides are big, flat, broad, with smooth skin. Seems like an ok climbing surface to me, but I don't know.

2) If the Slippers do work against the animal's flesh, then would they give him some kind of bonus to his Ride skill? Because he could hold on tighter, it would be harder to fall off or get knocked off.

you should spit in your hands' face

I have no idea what this expression means. Are you saying claw attacks are good? Seem pretty useless to me.

Wow, ok. First of all, thanks to everyone for weighing in. The answer has proven to be a lot more complicated than I would have thought and I appreciate all the thought and research you've put into helping me. Thank you.

Secondly, I think I've arrived at a satisfactory answer. It requires a "Point of Origin" that isn't actually a "point" in the strictest sense, but I believe that's possible. The entry for Line of Effect says:

A burst, cone, cylinder, or emanation spell affects only an area, creature, or object to which it has line of effect from its origin (a spherical burst's center point, a cone-shaped burst's starting point, a cylinder's circle, or an emanation's point of origin).

Notice that bursts have a "center point" and cones have a "starting point", but with a cylinder its "origin" is described as its "circle", meaning not just one "point" in the strict mathematical sense. An emanations "origin" is described as "point of origin", which is about as vague as can be - but if a cylinder spell's "point of origin" can be a greater area than a single point, then an emanation's can too.

Here's the rest of my thinking process:

1. Wall of Fire is an Emanation spell. It sends waves of heat that damage people within 20ft of one side of it. That's not an Area covered by the spell itself (the width of the wall doesn't even occupy an entire square), that's heat Emanating from the wall.

2. All Emanations emanate from a Point of Origin.

3. The Point of Origin for WoF's Emanation is the entire wall, not just one point. This is possible because of the interpretation above, and is supported by the following:

- The Emanation effects creatures 20ft from the wall. If it only emanated from a single point, the Wall wouldn't have this Emanation beyond 20ft in length, but it does.

- the wall itself doesn't start in one point and then grow outward like a fence being built one post at a time - the entire wall appears at once. The first sentence in the spell description:

An immobile, blazing curtain of shimmering violet fire springs into existence.

If the wall started in one point and then grew outward in a straight line, I'd call that movement. It's also probably the sort of thing you'd get a Ref save for, but there's no saving throw for Wall of Fire. "Springs into existence" is, in my interpretation, the entire wall appearing at once. Ergo, the entire wall is the Point of Origin.

4. If the entire wall is considered the Point of Origin, then you need Line of Effect to the entire wall. Lorewalker quoted the following a couple times, highlighting the 2nd half of the 1st sentence (which definitely applies, and makes sense), but the sentence right after it is what fully convinced me:

You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on [i]or to any space in which you wish to create an effect.[i] You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.

5. If the "Point" of Origin is the entire wall, then the caster would need to have Line of Effect to every point and square along the length of the wall they want to make.

CONCLUSION:
The caster in my scenario does not have Line of Effect down into the hallway. His vision is blocked by a solid wall. So, the spell cannot extend down into the hallway.

Here's the scenario:

A 10th-level caster is using Wall of Fire inside a small, cramped dungeon room. At his level, he can make a wall up to 200ft long. The room is only 35ft wide, but if he lines up the wall just right, it could theoretically extend into a very long hallway, reach its full 200ft potential, and effect a LOT more people. The caster, however, cannot see into that hallway because of his placement in the room. He can see the 35ft stretch across the room that would start this wall, but he can't see into the hallway where the other 265ft of it would spring up.

Does the spell extend into the hallway? To full length?
How does a constricted line of sight effect this spell?

I've read a few guides on Bloodlines and a few guides on Familiars, but have yet to see this question thoroughly addressed. What do you think about the Bloodline Familiars from the Familiar Folio?

Is the benefit of a familiar worthwhile if you lose a bloodline power and get bonus spells one level later?

For which Bloodlines is it a better or worse trade-off?

Has anyone delved into this and written a guide for it?

Wow, ok. Lots of good suggestions here, but at least 4 of you said Dual-Cursed Oracle. Funny how something "dual-cursed" ends up being the luckiest guy in the game. I think I'll look into that. I always like playing Oracles and Sorcerors anyway because of the flexibility in spellcasting. Thanks everybody!

A half-elf sleuth investigator with a one or two level dip into swashbuckler might qualify.

This is a really good suggestion, except I should have mentioned my DM doesn't allow Hybrid classes (too OP, which I mostly agree with). In any case, thanks.

I've been toying with the concept of a character who has tremendous, nearly unbelievable good luck. The RPing side of this is that he believes himself to be blessed by a Luck deity (but is not necessarily a cleric) and thus feels invincible. Every time he does something foolish and survives anyway, his faith is renewed.

In game terms, I would want to emphasize these 3 things in the character:
1. High saving throws.
2. Opportunities to re-roll things, roll twice, or similar.
3. Bonuses to AC other than wearing armor.

What kind of character would this be? What class would you choose, and how would you spec him?

[Edit]: My DM doesn't allow Hybrid classes, Alchemists, or Gunslingers. He says the former are too OP and the latter two aren't fantasy enough - which I more or less agree with.

equivalent to that of a dragon one size larger.

That's certainly more reasonable. Thanks for the suggestion.

So this isn't so much a question, but rather somebody b!!*%ing about something they don't agree with. Gotcha.

My hope had been that I was misreading it, or had missed something, and someone would point it out to me.

*shrugs* They don't want to hand out too much free crafting material on dragons on top of their loot?

You're probably right about their motivation, but I still think it's a stupid rule. They should factor in the hide and body parts as part of the loot.

If the total value of body parts + loot = TOO MUCH, then they should reduce the amount of loot instead of trying to convince you a Huge dragon only has enough skin to cover a Lizard (size Tiny animal).

Since the PCs killed this dragon out in the wild and aren't going to get his horde loot anyway, I'm just going to wave my magical DM wand and drastically increase the amount of available hide and scales.

Look at what a Dragon Scale Breastplate would be. It is one scale that would cover you from collar to belt. Basically a breastplate is a large shield that someone decided to wear on their chest. Even full plate allows smaller individual pieces. It works from a logical point of view but does break the fantasy idea pretty bad. :/

A breastplate doesn't need to be made out of a single scale. But even if it did, am I supposed to believe only one scale from the entire dragon survived the fight? Yeah, they damaged it during the combat, but they didn't shove it down a garbage disposal.

You fought a Huge dragon which means you get a choice of the following:
large mwk hide + a shield
medium mwk banded mail + a shield
small mwk half-plate + a shield
tiny mwk full plate + a shield

Yes, I understand that's the rule, but the rule is DUMB.

From the Special Materials entry for dragon hide:

"By selecting only choice scales and bits of hide, an armorsmith can produce one suit of masterwork banded mail for a creature two sizes smaller, one suit of masterwork half-plate for a creature three sizes smaller, or one masterwork breastplate or suit of full plate for a creature four sizes smaller."

My PCs just killed a size Huge dragon. Are you telling me they can only get one breastplate for a Tiny-sized creature from all that hide? Because Tiny is four size categories below Huge. That makes no sense at all. Could someone please explain this to me?

The Mammoth Rider prestige class

I think this might be the perfect answer, thanks. It would require a Druid to reach 9th level to meet the BAB requirement, which I think is a fair amount of time. Start with a baby elephant, he grows to Large at 7th, then Huge at 9th.

Elephants are Huge creatures in the Bestiary, which makes sense. As Animal Companions, though, they start Medium and grow to Large. Horses are Large. Elephants should be bigger than horses.

How could a druid character go about getting his elephant companion up to size Huge? And I mean permanently, not just temporarily with a spell.

OK, lots of sensible advice here. I think I'll proceed with a combination of someone learning the language and taking the Leadership feat.

Weirdo your idea about the Ioun stone was good. I had only ever thought about it in one way before - the PC learning Vegepygmy - but getting the Thorny to learn Common would work just as well. Thanks!

I have a PC who has recently captured an intelligent plant and he would like to domesticate it and train it as a useful companion. The creature in question is called a Thorny. It's the same size and shape as a dog, moves around and acts like a dog, yet it is technically a plant and not an animal. I put a link to it at the bottom, but the important points are here:

- Thorny is a Plant, not an Animal.
- Thornies have Intelligence of 6.
- Thornies cannot speak, but understand the language of Vegepygmy.
- Both Thornies and Vegepygmies are created by Russet Mold.
- The PC in question is a Barbarian, so no chance of an Animal Companion or Familiar.

How should I adjudicate this? Having the creature with him would be fun and really fit his character. He's covered in spikes, much like the Thorny; it's his "thing". Also, he's a great role-player so I really want to be nice and let him have this.

The way I see it I have 3 options, but maybe some of you can suggest others...

1. Do it with Handle Animal skill, just like rearing a wild animal, teaching it tricks, etc. Give him some kind of penalty to the skill check (-4?) because it's a plant instead of an animal...yet, wouldn't the Thorny's higher intelligence make it easier to train? Hard to say. Perhaps I could use Knowledge(Nature) to make the checks instead of Handle Animal? (The PC has points in both skills, but is not extraordinarily good at either)

2. Get the PC to learn the Vegepygmy language. This would require a side-quest where they seek out the vegepygmy and/or some kind of magical item that would enable him to speak that language. Once he's able to talk to the Thorny, it's just a matter of brokering a deal to work together. Int 6 is high enough that the Thorny could be convinced to work with him, rather than being "trained". More like allies than master/pet.

3. Convince the PC to take the Leadership feat at 7th level (he is currently 6th) at which time the Thorny can become his Cohort. Until 7th level is reached he'll have to feed and care for the Thorny, which role-plays out the bonding between them and helps the leader/cohort relationship make sense.

Which do you think is best? Or is there a 4th option I've overlooked? Any insight is appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Thorny: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/plants/thorny

Nonetheless, it's still considered good etiquette to clearly indicate that you are necroing.

I didn't realize how old this thread was, or that it was poor etiquette. Never even heard of necroing before. So, sorry about that.

I was looking for an answer to a Q about immovable rods and came upon this thread. It didn't answer my question, but I did think I had something worthwhile to add to it, so I did.

I have a PC with a climbing harness and an Immovable Rod. What he wants to do is latch his climbing harness and rope to the rod, jump off a cliff, then activate the rod mid-air and catch himself there, hanging in the harness from the rod.

My questions are:

1) How much fall damage would he incur? The normal amount, or does being caught by the harness reduce it in some way? If so, by how much?

2) What check/roll would be used to determine if the rope/carabiner/whatever slides off one end of the rod? As far as I know, there's nothing on the ends of an immovable rod that would stop them from sliding off. If the PC didn't freeze the rod in place exactly level, he'd slide off one end, wouldn't he? Even if it was level, swinging or other lateral movement could cause it to slide one way or the other.

This where the DM is going to have to decide a ruling.

I adjudicated this once as GM and although my answer had no real basis in written rules, all the players were satisfied with this answer:

1) I roll fall damage for you as normal. Let's say you've fallen 40ft. I roll 4d6 and get 2+5+3+4= 14

2) Falling character must now make a DC 14 Strength* check to keep hold of the rod. They will still receive the full 14 damage, but they'll hold on.

3) If they exceed the DC of the Strength check, they can reduce/negate the damage at a 1:1 ratio. So in our example, a Strength check of 16 would mean he only takes 12 points of damage instead of 14. A strength check of 28 would mean he takes no damage.

*in place of a Strength check, and Acrobatics check can also be substituted. The PC has to pick one (can't try the 2nd if the 1st one fails) but they do get to pick. This way both brawny and nimble characters have a chance of success.

Like how werewolves transform at a full moon, perhaps their mutation occurs during something a bit more common and inconvenient.

3/4s hindrance and 1/4 help

I like both of these suggestions a lot. They're already 4th level, so most "common" things have already happened to them. I'll have to come up with a very unique trigger and mutations, but that's doable. I think this is how I'm going to proceed.

As far as everyone who said the players aren't role-playing well, not acting like real gamers, or anything similar to that: they're new.

Of the 5 players in my game, 4 of them had ever played Pathfinder before and 2 of them had never played any kind of tabletop RPG at all. I'm doing my best to teach and guide them, and I'm sure things will improve with time. These are friends of mine beyond just gaming, so I'd rather take the time to help them learn than to just abandon them and find a better group.

Thanks everybody!

I've written myself into a problem that, in hindsight, I should have seen coming:

The PCs in my game are all infected with a monster that will consume their souls when they die and burst forth from their bodies to become servants of an evil god. The PCs were originally united by their common goal of finding a cure for this magical parasite.

However, because the bad stuff only happens after they die, they sort of don't care about it anymore. I thought preserving their souls would be enough of a role-playing incentive, but I was wrong. Now they're way off track from the plot and barely giving a second thought to finding this cure.

My current idea is to have this monster inside them manifest in parts, while they're still alive, instead of just all at once when they die. A gradual mutation. Of course there's two possible outcomes with that and neither of them really satisfy me:

1. The mutations make them weak/ugly and I'm considered unfair for inflicting them. The PCs hate me and feel like they're not really in control of their own actions anymore.
2. They end up liking the mutations (Cool! I'm a monster!) and now they'll never want the cure at all.

What should I do?

Can you think of a better way to make this work? Or a different way I could motivate them to start caring about the cure again?

Thanks in advance.