Werewolf

wolven's page

15 posts. No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist.


RSS


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm loving the discussion here. Some great points have been brought up and have given me a lot to ponder on how I want to handle this situation. Several of the suggestions are things I didn't think about and will definitely be implementing.

I have talked with the Paladin player and she has indicated that in hindsight she should have absolutely got between the Cleric and the party, but at the moment it happened she was conflicted on doing that versus taking up arms against her friends - both from the aspect of the adventuring party and from an out-of-game aspect of her real life friends. There was also some out-of-game thinking around 'Do I want to engage in PVP' Which, as was already pointed out, is a consideration. Though, as others have pointed out, her questionable actions go beyond just defending the Cleric. She should not have allowed the challenge to take place in the first place.

Now it gets to the point of next steps/consequences of these actions. In game this is easy, I, as the DM, choose appropriate reactions for the world at large and implement them. No problem.

It's the out of game aspect that makes it more difficult. At this point their is a huge schism between the Wizard and Paladin and in-game their is absolutely no way they would continue to adventure together. As for the rest of the party the Paladin may or may not be able to adventure with them depending on how they react to the Paladin calling them all out and telling them to do better in the future. I'm willing to play up the redemption part of Sarenrae in order to offer the opportunity to lessen the schism in the party.

Having said that the out-of-game reality is that someone will probably need to make up a new character and at that point in-game morality doesn't really matter. If the majority of the players say 'we didn't do anything wrong, we are not changing' then the Paladin character has to go. While if the majority of the players say ' we did bad things, we will change and do better' then those characters will stay while the minority who are dissenting will have to go.


Thank you for the thoughts. Some excellent points have been made.

To give a little more background and history of the situation.
The Paladin worships Sarenrae. The Swashbuckler does not worship a God.

The Boggard cleric is a cleric of Gogunta, though the PCs do not know that.

The PCs know that the Boggard's are evil (Paladin detect evil) but have not seen the Boggard's perform any evil acts.

The PCs run a small kingdom (Kingmaker campaign) and the Boggard tribe lives in the swamps that are inside the Kingdom's borders. The PCs originally encountered the Boggard's and formed an alliance with them. The Boggard's agreed to not hurt any of the demi-humans in the kingdom in exchange for the kingdom leaving them along.

After that they were approached by another Boggard, called Garuum, they had met, and befriended, a couple of years ago. He had originally been part of this Boggard tribe but had challenge the Cleric for leadership of the tribe. He lost the challenge and was banished from the tribe.

Garuum approached the PCs and asked for there help in taking over leadership of the tribe. He made up a story about him being more trustworthy and thus a better ally then the current Cleric leading the tribe. Pretty much a bunch of BS and the PCs knew it. He just wanted revenge on the Cleric who beat him previously and was using the PCs to get it.

Garuum didn't want the Boggard tribe wiped out, who would he rule if they were all gone, so he suggested that he challenge for the leadership of the tribe again and have one of the PCs act as his champion (a completely legal move based upon the challenge rules of the tribe).

The PCs and Garuum went to the Boggard tribe in peace. Garuum challenged the Cleric and appointed the Barbarian as his champion. Initially the Cleric refused the challenge. He stated that Garuum had already challenged previously and lost so was not entitled to challenge again. But Garuum insisted, and the PCs backed him up. The Cleric, knowing the power level of the PCs, knew that his tribe could not stand up to the might of the PCs accepted the challenge.


Let me start by saying that I'm not looking for a rules ruling or definite answer but more of a discussion around this situation.

Most of the party are Neutral Good (Wizard, Cleric of Cayden Caillean, and a Swashbuckler) but there is one Lawful Good paladin and one Chaotic Good barbarian.

The party agreed to a one on one duel between an Boggard (Neutral Evil) Cleric and the Chaotic Good barbarian. The rules were that this was a one on one combat between the two combatants and no one else could interfere. The battle was for the right to rule the boggard tribe.

The battle proceeded with no interference and after a very close battle the Boggard Cleric was successful. The Boggard cleric did not kill the barbarian. He stepped away from the barbarian to allow the party to heal the barbarian and while stepping away announced that he had won and that the party should leave.

At that point the party wizard attacked the Boggard cleric in an attempt to take him out. The rest of the party joined in on the attack except the Paladin who tried to get everyone to stop. And once the party kept attacking the Paladin walked away in disgust.

My first thought is that this is probably not an evil act, though certainly not a good act, but is definitely a dishonorable act. It's most definitely, in my opinion, a chaotic act, though there are no Lawful characters, other then the Paladin.

I've long since given up enforcing alignment violations but I do use PC actions to adjust how people react to them. I'm contemplating having the Neutral Good Cleric of Cayden Cailean receive a 'minor sense of disapproval' when praying for their spells. But I'm not even sure about that.

The Paladin is not being judged by her deity as she did not participate in the attack. Though that brings up another discussion point. Should she be in trouble for leaving her party even though they were engaged in a dishonorable act?

Again, I'm not looking for a definite answer on this just curious what other people's views are regarding the alignment/morality of this situation.


Thank you everyone for your input.


My interpretation is based around the fact that Dominate Person does not, in and of itself, force the dominated person to harm an ally. What if the NPC casts Dominate Person on a PC and tells them to go stand quietly in the corner. Would Unbreakable Heart still suppress the spell?


A question has arisen in our group about how Unbreakable Heart works when used against Dominate (or Charm) person.

'Unbreakable Heart':
The target creature gains a +4 morale bonus on saving throws against mind-affecting effects that rely on negative emotions (such as crushing despair, rage, or fear effects) or that would force him to harm an ally (such as confusion). If the target is already under such an effect when receiving this spell, that effect is suppressed for the duration of this spell. It does not affect mind-affecting effects based on positive emotions (such as good hope or the inspire courage bard ability).
A creature can still be charmed or otherwise magically controlled while under this spell’s effects, but if such a creature ever receives a new saving throw against that effect as a result of being ordered to attempt to harm or otherwise oppose a true ally, he can roll that saving throw twice and take the better result as his actual roll.

'Dominate Person':
You can control the actions of any humanoid creature through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject's mind.

If you and the subject have a common language, you can generally force the subject to perform as you desire, within the limits of its abilities. If no common language exists, you can communicate only basic commands, such as “Come here,” “Go there,” “Fight,” and “Stand still.” You know what the subject is experiencing, but you do not receive direct sensory input from it, nor can it communicate with you telepathically.

Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it continues to attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth). Because of this limited range of activity, a Sense Motive check against DC 15 (rather than DC 25) can determine that the subject's behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect (see the Sense Motive skill description).

Changing your orders or giving a dominated creature a new command is a move action.

By concentrating fully on the spell (a standard action), you can receive full sensory input as interpreted by the mind of the subject, though it still can't communicate with you. You can't actually see through the subject's eyes, so it's not as good as being there yourself, but you still get a good idea of what's going on.

Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out. Once control is established, the range at which it can be exercised is unlimited, as long as you and the subject are on the same plane. You need not see the subject to control it.

If you don't spend at least 1 round concentrating on the spell each day, the subject receives a new saving throw to throw off the domination.

Protection from evil or a similar spell can prevent you from exercising control or using the telepathic link while the subject is so warded, but such an effect does not automatically dispel it.

The specific situation we are looking at is a PC who has already been dominated (via the Dominate Person spell) and has been given the command to 'defend me' from the NPC who has dominated the PC. Then another PC cast Unbreakable Heart on the dominated PC.

My interpretation of this is that Unbreakable Heart spell has no affect on the Dominate Person spell until such time as the Dominated PC is forced to attack the other PC's (or any other ally's). At that point the PC is being forced to do something against there nature which triggers the clause in the Dominate Person spell which allows them to make another save and because that action forces the PC to 'harm or otherwise oppose a true ally' then the clause in the Unbreakable Heart spell kicks in which allows the PC to make two saves and use the better result.

Just telling the PC to 'defend me' does not allow a save vs Dominate Person and thus would not trigger the Unbreakable Heart spell. Once the other PC's attack the NPC and the dominated PC is forced to attack the other PC's then the Dominate Person save would be made and the Unbreakable Heart clause would also kick in.

The opposing point of view is as follows:
Because the Dominate Person spell was already in affect then only the first part of Unbreakable Heart spell applies:

'The target creature gains a +4 morale bonus on saving throws against mind-affecting effects that rely on negative emotions (such as crushing despair, rage, or fear effects) or that would force him to harm an ally (such as confusion). If the target is already under such an effect when receiving this spell, that effect is suppressed for the duration of this spell. It does not affect mind-affecting effects based on positive emotions (such as good hope or the inspire courage bard ability).'

The second part of the spell only applies when the PC is already under the affects of Unbreakable Heart and a Dominate (or Charm) Person spell is subsequently cast on them.

'A creature can still be charmed or otherwise magically controlled while under this spell’s effects, but if such a creature ever receives a new saving throw against that effect as a result of being ordered to attempt to harm or otherwise oppose a true ally, he can roll that saving throw twice and take the better result as his actual roll.'

The upshot of this in our situation being that because the PC in question was Dominated first and then the Unbreakable Heart spell was cast subsequently then the Dominate Person spell was suppressed immediately with no save as it is a spell that relies on negative emotions.

I would very much like to hear input from the community as to how they think these two spells interact. Both in light of the situation I presented but also in general.

Thank you for your time.


Would love get copies of these is possible. adam@ofge.com


trawets71 - Good call on the DC's. Can't believe I missed the initial 10 for them. You're correct it makes it a little bit tougher.

Unfortunately, as you alluded to, with the natural 20 roll or the +20 it's still a guaranteed success for the first round at least. Though he would at least need to use some more mythic power to be guaranteed successful.


Wanted to thank everyone for there input.

It looks like my choices are:

1) Give a large number of the main bad guys immunity to fear.
2) Ban Ancestral Scorn and Dreadful Carnage (Mythic) completely.
3) Modify Ancestral Scorn and Dreadful Carnage (Mythic) is some way. (Thank you Porridge for your suggested modifications)

I'm not a fan of option 1. I hate to have the player put all his feats and abilities into using this options and then basically nullify them against most of the main foes.

That leaves 2 or 3. Time to discuss it with the player in question and decide on a mutually agreeable course of action.


I appreciate the feedback.

Question? Where does it say that the Demon Lords are immune to fear. I looked at all the main bad guys, including the demon lords, and other than the ones I specifically mentioned in my initial post none of them show that they are immune to fear.

My initial hope when I saw the series of feats was that a majority of the big bads would be immune to this tactic but when I read through the stats for them I was surprised to see that very few of them were identified as being immune to fear in there stat blocks.


One of my player's is playing a Tiefling Paladin and is working on an intimidate build using the following feats and abilities. (Spoilered for wall of text)

Spoiler:

Skill - Intimidate
Demoralize: You can use this skill to cause an opponent to become shaken for a number of rounds. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. If you are successful, the target is shaken for 1 round. This duration increases by 1 round for every 5 by which you beat the DC. You can only threaten an opponent in this way if they are within 30 feet and can clearly see and hear you. Using demoralize on the same creature only extends the duration; it does not create a stronger fear condition.

Feat - Persuasive and Persuasive (Mythic)
Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on Diplomacy and Intimidate skill checks. If you have 10 or more ranks in one of these skills, the bonus increases to +4 for that skill.

Mythic - Benefit: The bonus on Diplomacy and Intimidate skill checks granted by Persuasive increases by 2. In addition, you can expend one use of mythic power to treat a Diplomacy or Intimidate check as if you had rolled a natural 20.

Mythic Ability - Display of Charisma (Su) As a free action, you can expend one use of mythic power to attempt a feat of Charisma, gaining a +20 circumstance bonus on one Charisma-based skill check or Charisma ability check.

Feat - Cornugon Smash
Benefit: When you damage an opponent with a Power Attack, you may make an immediate Intimidate check as a free action to attempt to demoralize your opponent.

Feat - Ancestral Scorn
Benefit: Whenever you successfully demoralize an outsider of the evil subtype with an Intimidate check, it becomes sickened for 1 round in addition to being affected by the normal effects of being demoralized. If you beat the DC by 5 or more, the creature is nauseated for 1 round instead.

Feat - Dreadful Carnage
Benefit: Whenever you reduce an enemy to 0 or fewer hit points, you can make an Intimidate check to demoralize all enemies within 30 feet as a free action. Enemies that cannot see both you and the enemy you reduced to 0 or fewer hit points are unaffected.

Feat - Dreadful Carnage (Mythic)
Benefit: When you use Dreadful Carnage, you affect non-mythic enemies within 60 feet in addition to all enemies within 30 feet. You can expend one use of mythic power before making the Intimidate check to cause enemies demoralized by Dreadful Carnage to become frightened instead of shaken, for the same duration as the normal shaken effect. While frightened by this ability, an enemy takes a penalty equal to your tier on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks.

Condition - Nauseated Creatures with the nauseated condition experience stomach distress. Nauseated creatures are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention. The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn.

Condition - Frightened A frightened creature flees from the source of its fear as best it can. If unable to flee, it may fight. A frightened creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. A frightened creature can use special abilities, including spells, to flee; indeed, the creature must use such means if they are the only way to escape.

With the bonuses the PC gets he will succeed 95%+ of the time with his intimidate checks (I'll show figures below to support this). I am aware that the intimidate check takes a -5 for each addition use but with his numbers this won't really make much of an affect.

The basic result of this is two options that he will have access to:

1) With Cornugon Smash and Ancestral Scorn he will get a free intimidate check on every creature he hits and if they are evil outsiders (which a majority of the creatures in this AP are) he will nauseate them, effectively rendering them useless in the combat.

2) With Dreadful Carnage(Mythic) the first creature he drops below 0 hp's will make every other opponent frightened. Which effectively ends the combat.

These abilities are not just going to to affect the lower level opponents they will affect the top level opponents for each module. I am including detailed spoilers below for the main bad guys in each of the top 3 modules but the same applies for other levels.

The Midnight Isles (AP 4)

Spoiler:
During the final battle of this AP the PC's will be 14th level.
The PC will have an Intimidate check of: 14 ranks + 8(charisma) + 6(feats) + 2(misc) = 30

The main opponent is Hepzamirah. She has 22HD, a Wisdom of 27(8) and is larger than the PC(+5) for a total DC of 35.

So the PC needs to roll a 5 to affect her or he can spend one use of Mythic Power to take a natural 20 (giving him a check of 50, or 70 with Display of Charisma).

She is immune to fear so is unaffected by Dreadful Carnage, though if any other opponents are there they will be affected by it.

She is not immune to nausea, however, so will be affected by Ancestral Scorn. So for the first four rounds she will be nauseated if the PC spends a use of mythic power. In the fifth through ninth round the PC will need to use Display of Charisma (thus using two uses of mythic power) to keep her nauseated. In the tenth round she will be immune due to the +40 bonus. But after nine rounds of being attacked with no way to retaliate she will be dead. In reality she will probably be dead in two rounds without any way to retaliate.

Herald of the Ivory Labyrinth (AP 5)

Spoiler:
During the final battle of this AP the PC's will be 18th level.
The PC will have an Intimidate check of: 18 ranks + 10(charisma) + 6(feats) + 2(misc) = 36

The main opponent is the Herald of the Ivory Labyrinth. He has 18HD, a Wisdom of 29(+9) and is larger than the PC(+5) for a total DC of 33.

So the PC needs to roll a -3 to affect him or he can spend one use of Mythic Power to take a natural 20 (giving him a check of 56, 76 with Display of Charisma).

If the herald fights alone he will be nauseated for the first five to nine rounds. As with Hepzamirah above he will be dead long before that.

If there are other opponents then Dreadful Carnage comes into play so the Herald (and any other opponent) will spend the whole combat frightened after the first opponent is taken down.

When Baphomet himself shows up (He has 33HD, a Wisdom of 29(+9) and is larger than the PC (+5) for a total DC of 47.), he will have two to six rounds where he can do nothing either because he is nauseated or frightened which will probably be more than enough to kill him.

City of Locusts (AP 6)

Spoiler:
During the final battle of this AP the PC's will be 20th level.
The PC will have an Intimidate check of: 20 ranks + 11(charisma) + 6(feats) + 2 (misc) = 39

Opponents are:
Aponavicius - 23HD + 3(Wis) + 5(larger than PC) +2(vs fear) = DC: 31(33)
PC needs a -6(-4) to affect her with Nausea or Frightened and can maintain this for 6-10 rounds.

Mistress Anemora - 23HD + 11(Wis) + 5(larger than PC) +4(vs fear) = DC: 39 (43)
PC needs a 0(4) to affect her. She is not an evil outsider so unaffected by Ancestral Scorn (Nausea). If other opponents are there she can be frightened (for 4-8 rounds) but if by herself she might actually get to fight.

Terendelev - 25HD + 9(Wis) + 5(larger than PC) = DC: 39
PC needs a 0 to affect her. She is not an evil outsider so unaffected by Ancestral Scorn (Nausea). She is undead so immune to fear. We have a battle.

Khorramzadeh - 30HD + 8(Wis) + 5(larger than PC) = DC: 42
PC needs a 3 to affect him with Nausea or Frightened and can maintain this for 4-8 rounds.

Khorramzadeh Reborn - Undead so immune to feat and not affected by Ancestral Scorn (Nausea). We have a battle.

Deskari - 33HD + 10(Wis) + 5(larger than PC) = DC: 48
PC needs a 9 to affect him. So he can be kept nauseated or frightened for 3-7 rounds. More than enough to kill him. There are a number of other creatures here but after the first one is dropped the rest will all be frightened for a number of rounds.

As shown above the PC will need to use some mythic power to affect the main bad guys but he will be able to affect most lower level monsters without having to use any mythic power.

It seems that this combination of abilities will make most combats negligible as the opponents will spend 80%+ of the battle either frightened (running away and not able to take any actions) or nauseated (not able to take any action except a single move action).

Demons can just teleport away if frightened but that effectively ends the combat anyway. Or they teleport back in and the same thing happens over again.

Yes, not every encounter, nor every creature in any combat, will be affected but enough of them (including all the ones against the main bad guys) will be affected to really take any level of challenge out of the campaign.

I'm not a big fan of banning things from the game but if a certain combination takes all of the challenge out of the game that, in my opinion, takes all the fun out of the game. Especially for the other PC's who don't have this ability.

Having said all that, what am I missing? What options do I have to mitigate this?

Note: This combination affects all campaigns (even more so ones with Mythic elements) but has an even greater affect in this AP due to the high number of evil outsiders. Which is why I posted in here instead of in the general forum.


Thank you.


If I am facing 5 opponents and I know that they all have Haste cast on them, can I use Dispel Magic to specifically target the Haste spell and dispel it from all 5 of them?


Thank you everyone for the responses. Definitely brought up some points that I had not considered.

@Maezer - Had not considered Diehard as an option. I will look at in more detail.

@Sammy T - I had not seen the Life-Conduit spells before. They bring up some interesting possibilities. Though with the limited number of spells that a Summoner may know and cast I would initially be predisposed to not using them. Maybe once i get higher level and have more spells to use (4th level right now).

@PhelanArcetus - You bring up a good point about dismissing the Eidolon and bringing him back after the combat when you have the time to heal him properly. I had initially dismissed this idea as it takes a standard action to do and in the middle of combat I generally have other things to do. But the fact that I can summon him back after combat (as opposed to having to wait for the next day if i let him die) makes it a very compelling option.

@Seraphimpunk - Your idea makes most sense to me. That's actually how I was initially playing it. Read through the "Life Link" rule and got it in my head that it was designed to keep the Eidolon up and running at the expense of damaging the Summoner. Wasn't until last session that I reread the rules and realized I was doing it wrong. Which is when I came hear to see if I was missing something :)


Initial Hypothesis: An unconscious Eidolon is a liability to a summoner. Based on that statement the summoner Life Link ability is worthless.

Referenced Rules:

Eidolon: ... Eidolons are treated as summoned creatures, except that they are not sent back to their home plane until reduced to a number of negative hit points equal to or greater than their Constitution score. ...
A summoner can summon his eidolon in a ritual that takes 1 minute to perform. When summoned in this way, the eidolon hit points are unchanged from the last time it was summoned. The only exception to this is if the eidolon was slain, in which case it returns with half its normal hit points. The eidolon does not heal naturally. The eidolon remains until dismissed by the summoner (a standard action). ...

Life Link (Su): Starting at 1st level, a summoner forms a close bond with his eidolon. Whenever the eidolon takes enough damage to send it back to its home plane, the summoner can, as a free action, sacrifice any number of hit points. Each hit point sacrificed in this way prevents 1 point of damage done to the eidolon. This can prevent the eidolon from being sent back to its home plane.

Summon Monster I (Sp): Starting at 1st level, a summoner can cast summon monster I as a spell-like ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + his Charisma modifier. Drawing upon this ability uses up the same power as the summoner uses to call his eidolon. As a result, he can only use this ability when his eidolon is not summoned. ...

Detailed Analysis:
Just like any other unconscious creature an unconscious Eidolon cannot do much. No huge revelations there. The problem is that even though the Eidolon is not of any use in this state he is still summoned which means the summoner cannot use any of his "Summon Monster" spell-like abilities. Which, from my viewpoint, is one of the Summoner's strongest abilities when the Eidolon is not summoned. Based on this it seems like the best course of action is to dismiss the Eidolon (assuming no one is going to heal it in the next round or two). The problem with that is if you dismiss the Eidolon with negative hit points he comes back with negative hit points. You would actually be better of killing the Eidolon so that it comes back with half hit points next time you summon it. Something just seems inherently wrong when the best course of action is to slit your own Eidolon's throat.

The summoner ability "Life Link" feels like it was created to handle this but, as written, generally does not handle this and in fact in most cases makes the situation worse. The only time it can be used is if the Eidolon takes enough damage to be sent back to its home plane and this only happens if the Eidolon takes damage that would put it to greater than negative constitution score. In my experience its a fairly rare experience for someone to be taken from positive HP's to below their constitution (otherwise known as Death) in one round. In that somewhat rare cases Life Link is useful. But for a majority of the cases a creature drops below negative constitution after they are already unconscious, either from additional damage being applied or by failing stabilization checks. In either case Life Link would only bring the Eidolon back to an unconscious state which, as hypothesized above, is not a good state for the Eidolon to be in.

Questions:
1) Am I missing something here? I've played D&D for 30 years but this is the first time I have played a summoner. Am I misinterpreting the rules? Am I making an incorrect hypothesis?

2) Am I misinterpreting how Life Link works? Did I miss a ruling on Life Link that would make it more effective? I did a fairly extensive search through the Paizo site. I found one forum post, from the beta test days, asking basically the same question about Life Link but that one never really got a full answer.