The battlefield isn't the only place you meet your enemies.
+1 to Story Archer
What you have is a player problem and you shouldn't try to solve player behavior by punishing their characters. You have to address the player directly. Your problem is with the player, not his character. Killing his character is no guarantee that he won't be just as disruptive with his new PC. And killing players is frowned upon in most gaming groups.
The point of sitting down at the table together is for everyone involved to have fun. If you can't get him aligned with that way of thinking, you don't need him at your table.
From Stone Giant stat block (Beastiary):
From Skull Ripper stat block (RotRL Anniversary):
Question is this, if the attack line does NOT contain an "or" does that mean the monster can use all melee attacks as a full round attack?
The phrase "I move to where I have a clear shot" completely negates the need for Improved Presice Shot. "I get behind them without AoO's" negates mobility. Precise shot, maybe, but the most you'll be down is -4 since cover is never an issue if you use the phrase above.
Saying phrases doesn't negate the rules. Saying you move to get a clear shot doesn't mean you can. A clear shot will still be a factor of the scene and how the DM handles it. Same thing with flanking without AoOs. You can't just say that and assume it will happen. It all has to flow from how the scene is described.
Izar Talon wrote:
I hate playing with a grid and miniatures and everything associated with that. It reduces the game from a role-playing game to nothing but a tactical skirmish wargame
I don't see having tactical aspects a "reduction" - it's just a difference. My group is full of players who love RP and who love tactics. Using the grid means we get both in one game.
WAY back when I was playing Basic & 1e I always wished for minis to use with my games and love using them now. However, for simple fights, I frequently go gridless.
This is the first time that I've used an adventure path and I'm running into a bit of a challenge. Everyone is having fun, so no problem there, but there’s so much story that goes with Burnt Offerings (and the other modules as well, I’m sure) that can serve to make the experience richer, but little comes to light following the encounters as written.
Any suggestions on revealing more of the backstory without forced monologues? They will likely face Nualia this week and ideally they will have a pretty full understanding of what’s going on with her.
I'm more accustomed to homebrew, where this isn't a problem, and I'm sure is less of a problem for those more accustomed to using pre-written material. Suggestions?
So . . . launching this soon and we had a character generation session this week. I let everyone roll stats (best of 4d6 method). I have since learned through these forums that this AP (all APs?) is balanced for 15pt buy PCs. Did this change with the anniversary edition? Of the 5 players, 3 ended up with the equivalent of a 20/21 pt buy, but a couple got really lucky and are well above that.
I hate to tell everyone "You're OP! Re-roll!" But will that ultimately be more fun? Incidentally, it will be unusual for us to have all 5 pcs present.
Reasonable concerns. Fortunately, he understands the "No Alignment Is An Excuse To Act Like A Jerk Rule." We'll be having a session 0 next week so this will be covered. I know that he was thinking LE. I'd provide more on the character concept, but what I posted is about all he's shared with me. I think that in part, this concept was a reaction to his experience playing a LG dragonborn paladin of Bahumut. He loved to find creative ways to execute bad guys after interrogating them, which displeased Bahaumt but attracted the notice of Tiamat. Created some interesting scenes with that. I like the Dexter analogy, btw. I may bring that up.
I'm in 100% agreement on this. However, I don't want to rework a mechanic as I'm introducing my players to a completely new rules system. (We're moving from 4e.) I view alignment as a descriptor, but will use alignment RAW. I won't "punish" players for acting outside their alignment except in rare cases in which a deity is involved.
Am I correct in concluding that there are no GameMastery maps to go with APs? I'm aware of the RotRL Map Folio, but my understanding is that it contains no actual grid battle maps.
If this is true, Paizo is missing out on a solid revenue opportunity. What's the point of beautifully illustrated maps that only the DM looks at? Not that I don't appreciate having nice looking maps in my source material, but I'm not coming close to that when I start scribbling on our battle mat.
Or are some of the map packs based on AP encounter maps?
My group has a strict "If no one owns the book, you can't use it" rule... In addition, basically anything NOT in the Core book is usable at DM discretion only and must be OK'd for the game. This could mean your PC has to research/study/train to get a benefit or they may just be flat out allowed, or it may just be prohibited. Depends, case-by-case.
Thanks for the reply. I was thinking about the "someone in the group owns the book or it's out" approach, but the material is easily accessed online.
To clarify, I have no problem saying "no - we're sticking with Core." My questions is more, as a new group, SHOULD I say we're sticking with Core?
So . . . played Basic & 1e way back when and jumped into 4e a couple of years ago, about to make the switch to PF.
First question: is there a GM forum here? If so, seems I can't find it.
Second: About to launch RotRL and I'm stoked. As we are new to this rule system I'm inclined to limit source materials to Core. However, one of my players really wants to play a Magus. I'm all about empowering players to be awesome and maximize their fun, but I'm concerned about opening up access to too much material right off the bat.