Sometimes during a session things come up and are dealt with on the fly. I thought it would be nice to have a place to ask our community what they would have done or how they would have dealt with it. With that in mind, I’ll be posting questions I have for everyone here. I invite others to do the same.
Here’s a couple things off the top of my head to get things going.
How would you deal with door jams? Character puts one(or several) under a closed door to keep it closed.
Character carries couple slabs of meat to toss at guard dogs or other creatures.
Carrying weapons around in town. Do you allow it? What about casting?
I look forward to reading replies as well as other questions.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
How would you deal with door jams? Character puts one(or several) under a closed door to keep it closed.
Easy. Increase the DC of the Strength check needed to open the door by 1 for each jamb. Max it at +3.
Character carries couple slabs of meat to toss at guard dogs or other creatures.
Sounds like a clever player. If the animals are just ordinary animals, give them a DC 12 Wisdom check. If they succeed, they don't fall for it and continue to bark/attack/whatever. Creatures with Intel scores above 2 are not affected by this ploy. Give the critters a +2 bonus on the check if they are well-fed. Give them a -2 if they are extra hungry.
Carrying weapons around in town. Do you allow it? What about casting?
Depends on the town. Most established campaign settings will make a note if there are special restrictions. For the most part, assume that characters can carry weapons and cast spells in town unless they harm someone with those weapons and/or spells. Then the guards show up. If the town is located in the midst of a nation that has recently suffered massive losses at the hands of a magic-user, then you might adjust the attitudes accordingly. This is really a case-by-case kind of thing, but its usually safe to allow weapons and spells in town as long as no one gets hurt.
How would you deal with door jams? Character puts one(or several) under a closed door to keep it closed.
Character carries couple slabs of meat to toss at guard dogs or other creatures.
Carrying weapons around in town. Do you allow it? What about casting?
Agreed with Fatespinner on the first.
On the second: Fatespinner's comment makes sense, but how often is the player getting fresh meat? Wouldn't it start to smell after a few days?
I like his response to the last question also.
I have another one:
How do you deal with a player who carries around a bag of flour to throw at invisible foes. If it makes them visible what is the point of Dust of Appearence?
Here’s a couple things off the top of my head to get things going.
"How would you deal with door jams? Character puts one(or several) under a closed door to keep it closed."
This depends on how well crafted the door is; if there is a lot of slop and the door jam is hard wood or steel and is pounded into place with a hammer I would increase the difficulty of opening the door by +5 or more depending on what the door openers attempt; on a well made door where you can't really jam it effectively; I might just add a round of time to the open attempt.
"Character carries couple slabs of meat to toss at guard dogs or other creatures."
This sort of thing really depends upon the training of the guard dogs; for instance, many guard dogs are trained to only take food from their master; I have for instance, trained my rl dog this way. An untrained dog would eat it; a trained dog should get a fortitude save or something with bonus depending upon his training and how well treated he is (which might be overcome by wild empathy); different creatures of course would have different modifiers; the Egyptians used peacocks because they are skittish and are easily alarmed and will cry very very loud of disturbed (don't go by the ones in your zoo; if they aren't around people they are very skittish and make excellent guards).
"Carrying weapons around in town. Do you allow it? What about casting?"
This depends on the civilization rating of the city; the more rural or wild depending on culture this stuff is normal; in highly developed cities with lots of trade and merchants; weapons and spells are controlled and often licensed or outright not permitted to most groups.
I look forward to reading replies as well as other questions.
as for the flour thing; I dont let it make things invisible; but I do let it give a huge; like +10 modifier to tracking as invisible doesn't stop footprints. This can be overcome by invisible characters in a host of ways; could give your some ideas if you need them.
How would you deal with door jams? Character puts one(or several) under a closed door to keep it closed.
Character carries couple slabs of meat to toss at guard dogs or other creatures.
Carrying weapons around in town. Do you allow it? What about casting?
Agreed with Fatespinner on the first.
On the second: Fatespinner's comment makes sense, but how often is the player getting fresh meat? Wouldn't it start to smell after a few days?
I like his response to the last question also.
I have another one:
How do you deal with a player who carries around a bag of flour to throw at invisible foes. If it makes them visible what is the point of Dust of Appearence?
Well I would say the flour becomes a part of the invisible creature... so it would become invisible with the creature.
It might leave a few outlines, but difficult to spot depending on how the flour was thrown...
If it was thrown in a general direction, either a reflex save or a To Hit roll, not sure which. But it'd give MAYBE a bonus for spotting (+2 or so) but that's only if the flour is still floating around, and the creature is standing (or moving) in the flour cloud.
If it was thrown straight up to fill the room or an area, it's be much more difficult to spot the outline...
I like the footprints idea above.
I live in Texas. People carry weapons around town here, so I suppose it's no problem in D&D! (Then again, in medieval Japan a peasant could be executed for even having a weapon... or from being in town in the first place, if he was supposed to be back in his village.) Dunno if there's a Greyhawk "default," though.
Throwing flour/water at the area occupied by an invisible target should allow everyone in the room to know where it is on that round. IMO when the flour/water hits the target it becomes invisible also(it becomes part of his items if it helps to think of it like that), but the flour/water that didn’t hit the target is still in the area of effect so you can ‘see’ where the target is by seeing where the flour isn’t. On the next round the target is effectively invisible again since it has probably moved. Dust of Appearance would render the target visible period, that’s the difference.
I’d like to hear various ideas for getting around the flour on the floor.
But wait…
Is a person who is swimming in the water and invisible visible? Example. Party is fighting X on a boat. Mage casts invisibility and the next round is knocked off the deck into the water. Is he/she now visible to anyone on the boat wanting to target them because their invisible body has pushed water out of the area and this makes them ‘visible’, or does invisibility make it so that the area the character occupies appears as if it is water?
If we say that invisibility makes the mage appear invisible in the water by masking his/her presence within it, then would it not do the same if water or flour were thrown at a character in a room?
As far as invisible characters swimming, I would allow a very high DC spot check to notice where water is being displaced by an invisible swimmer. It would only last for that one round, however.
Flour would give away an invisible creature until they take a move action to wipe it all off. They may still leave tracks, but it would require a track check to tell. Justification being that it's tough to keep track of the footprints in combat and a hapless character may rub away some of the tracks just by moving around.
That's how I would run it, at least.
Is a person who is swimming in the water and invisible visible?
This is covered in the core rules, actually. (Dungeon Master's Guide, in the environment section, near a picture of a combat scene with a kuo-toa I believe - too lazy to look it up at the moment)
Invisibility
An invisible creature displaces water and leaves a visible, body-shaped “bubble” where the water was displaced. The creature still has concealment (20% miss chance), but not total concealment (50% miss chance).
How would you deal with door jams?
I would increase the break DC by +2. I don't see that multiple jams would help much, though.
Character carries couple slabs of meat to toss at guard dogs or other creatures.
I'd have them make a handle animal check (or Charisma check, if untrained), with a +2 bonus, opposed by the check result of the dogs' handler (basically, how well HAS he trained them to ignore distractions).
Carrying weapons around in town. Do you allow it? What about casting?
In general, I allow it, because if the players are forced to give up their weapons and walk around in an antimagic shell while in town all the time, they'd get a tad grumpy. Exceptions, of course, make for good flavor. It all depends on the DM and where the characters are in his world. Perhaps the Holy Throne of Vemmet prohibits obviously lethal weapons within the city walls with the exception of its inquisitor-priests. Or maybe the Thrallherds of Klesh rigorously prevent the corruption of magic within a mile of its gates.
Carrying weapons around in town. Do you allow it? What about casting?
Generally the problem lies in larger cities and metropolis. In small rural regions this shouldn't be a problem unless the particular nation has strong laws against it. Then again they might not have enough soldiers to enforce this law in sparsely inhabited regions.
In large cities, on the other hand, the PCs have to go through the city gates and are required a special permit (that costs some money) to register a weapon so that they can carry it within the city. The amount should reflect the strictness of the laws concerning weapons within the city, and the potency of the weapon (if it's magical, carries special abilities, etc).
If you really want you could have guards at the gate have a ring of detect magic, or even a low level wizard or sorcerer to check for magic that enters the city.
Then again, weapons are restricted only if they are found ;)
As for magic...it's obviously much more difficult to control. In that case have someone inform the PCs about magic use within the city and its restrictions.
Generally the only restrictions should be on destructive magic, such as fireballs and such...casting those (and being discovered for doing so) might result in a fine, incarceration, or even exile depending on damages done to the city. Other types of magic are difficult to be detected (really, who is going to notice if you cast unseen servant in your room?
Alternatively, if magic is really of everyday use (like in Eberron) and you visit a magic rich city, you might consider some bracelet that your magic user have to wear that register magical activity from the user and when the character is to leave he has to pay a "licence" depending on his/hers magic use within the city. Obviously teleporting characters might have a way to avoid this...unless the city is protected from teleportation, or better might require a special device to teleport in.
I hope I gave you some ideas...but really...let the PC try to overcome these "obstacles" and allow them to do so if their methods are really ingenious...or make them pay a hefty fine for trying to avoid the licence.
Or even use it to your advantage...a character is being fined a high amount of money...and someone pays this for him, in exchange of a service...really...the more color you add to your campaign the more you add to endless possibilities of fun and interesting events...
How would you deal with door jams? Character puts one(or several) under a closed door to keep it closed.
+2 to the break DC for the door. Multiple jams don't do anything, unless the door is very thoroughly nailed shut, in which case a +5 applies.
Character carries couple slabs of meat to toss at guard dogs or other creatures.
+2 bonus on their Handle Animal roll to get past the animal. (They may need Animal Empathy to even try that - I would have to check the PHB, and don't have the book easily to hand.)
Carrying weapons around in town. Do you allow it? What about casting?
Depends on the town. Usually, anything smaller than a city allows weapons to be carried. In a city, weapons will need to be peace-bonded, or not worn. In general, in a town or larger, spellcasting is illegal, as is the wearing of armour (wearing armour says you're spoiling for a fight; wearing a blade just says you're ready for one if you need to be).
Naturally, exceptions abound.
I have another one:
How do you deal with a player who carries around a bag of flour to throw at invisible foes. If it makes them visible what is the point of Dust of Appearence?
As with a character who is underwater, this changes the total concealment to standard concealment, so applies a 20% (rather than 50%) miss chance.
Note that flour will settle fairly quickly, and negate this (you need a lot in the air to render the invisible visible). Note also that lots of flour scattered in the air like that is explosive...
|
This is a good thread.
My dilema/question?
What have you done as DMs to curtail players from using their prejudiced biases as players to influence their characters actions etc, when it comes to Diplomacy, Bluff and Sense Motive.
Here is a recent situation: PCs had "stolen" a very big and expensive spell book from a rival wizard. Said wizard hired a band of goblin rogues led by a wizard on a dire wolf to track down the party and retrieve said spell book.
The goblin band did an admirable job of seperating the party and wearing them down etc. Two PCs suddenly dropped to unconscious negative hps, a goblin rogue put a blade to one of the throats and the wizard threatened to have the rogue slit its throat unless they handed over the book. (the wizard knew which PC carried the book). That PC countered, Allow me to heal my friends first and then I'll hand over the book. I asked the player to make a diplomacy check - which he had no skilla and a 9 CHA, so it wasnt a great result. I said that he talked the goblin into allowing ONE PC to be healed first. The player balked and said he didnt believe the goblin to be truthful (which makes sense, but I know it is also a player hang-up that he doesnt like to give up, give in, admit defeat, or feel coerced into anything and would resist no matter what - as a player trait - not necessarily a character trait), He finally said, "NO, I'll heal both or no deal."
Goblin wizard said, Fine - no deal. Curtain dropped on one PC.
Goblin rogue moved over to second fallen PC. Meanwhile the other rogue dropped a 3rd PC to unconscious.
Goblin rogue put dagger to throat of 2nd fallen PC. Wizard made same deal, allowing for one PC to be healed if handed over book. The player again said, "I dont believe you - allow me to heal both or no deal."
Goblin wizard said, "No deal." Curtain dropped on PC# 2
Goblin rogue went to 3rd fallen PC. Same M.O. Again player demanded to have him healed. Wizard said "No you have had your opportunity to have the upper hand and leverage - but no more. Hand the book now, or you will lose your third friend today"
The player again said, "I just dont believe him. I wont give in."
End fallen PC# 3.
The battle continued for a few more rounds while the last two standing players fought off the wizard and his last two rogues; they killed the rogues but the wizard survived finally incapacitating the last PC via spells.
He took the book from the PC who refused to give it up. By the time he had it in his possession, the spell wore off the other PC who still had fight in him. The goblin wizard who was almost out of spells, and had no fodder to protect him any longer, simply cast his teleportation spell and left.
The problem I have with all of this is:
The goblin was being forthright and true to his word. The player didnt want to give the book up for multiple of reasons including greed (he was a wizard).
Had the roles been reversed, and the players been the ones making the demands and threats, and I said that the "goblin doesnt believe you" they would have been calling my head and demanding that I give him a "sense motive" check and all sorts of other things to determine via those methods of determining the veracity of the PCs words. It frustrates me that those types of skills seem to only allow the PCs to get their way when it's convenient for them, but regardless of the honesty, the diplomacy or bluff ability of the NPC, the players simply can choose to ignore or act based on their own players beliefs.
That was three worthless and needless PC deaths that day.
Thoughts anyone?
Robert
Robert- If I were another one of your PCs in this game, in this situation, and someone did something similar while my PC was dying on the ground, I would be vehemently upset with that player. You provided ample opportunities to save his "friends" and this PC refused to budge. There are just some situations where a person has to admit to having the disadvantage. And it cost the lives of the characters "friends". For one thing, this wizard is now evil.
As far as the usage of bluff, diplomacy, intimidate and sense motive; metagame thinking prevents the characters from using them constructively. They need to trust their character's instincts in some situations as reflected by their die rolls. If they still refuse not to see every situation as a possible trap, your NPCs should react accordingly.
"Oh, I've heard of you paranoid shmucks. You can either keep those weapons sheathed and those hands where I can see them, or you and my guards and going to get well acquainted."
How are you wording your responses to sense motive checks made by the party? I usually respond with "he seems trustworthy" or "he seems to be on the level" if they get a low check and they're wrong. "Something seems odd about this fellow" is also a good response in the same situation, if they're wrong about a friendly character's intentions. If they get a really high score on the roll and they definitely beat the check, I spell it out more. "You're sure this guy has only the best intentions." or "His words are forthright and honest, but his eyes drip malice and one hand is never far from his weapon." You can adjudicate responses based on their rolls. A very low check provokes a strong but incorrect impression. A middle range check that doesn't quite go over the DC provokes a wishy-washy impression, using words like "seems" or "could". A successful check or very high roll that beats the DC easily provokes a certain and correct response. The wishy-washy response quickly becomes an invitation for further role-playing; if they talk to the NPC longer, they may develop a greater rapport and thus, I may give them a bonus to the check if they take the time to figure out that character's angle.
It's hard to keep metagame thinking from changing how the characters react diplomatically in a role-playing situation; if they know they blew the sense motive check, they will do the opposite of what you tell them. Maybe you want to record their social skills (as well as things like spot and listen) so that you can automatically roll them behind the screen for them and then describe the reaction. That may be a bit more like actual person to person interaction, since some people are easy to read and others more difficult. They would have to trust their PCs instincts as relayed through you and, more importantly, they would have to start trusting you as the DM, which may be the ultimate problem. This wizard's player sounds like the type that still views the game as players vs. DM, which is not a good attitude.
What have you done as DMs to curtail players from using their prejudiced biases as players to influence their characters actions etc, when it comes to Diplomacy, Bluff and Sense Motive.
Here is a recent situation:...
Wow, that is quite the situation. I would have given the player a Sense Motive check, DC 5. Success tells the player "You're pretty sure that he's being deadly serious here."
EDIT:
For one thing, this wizard is now evil.
Agreed. The character acted in a wholely selfish manner, with no real regard to the safety of those he COULD potentially have saved.
Most of this has probably been repeated numerous times.
"How would you deal with door jams? Character puts one(or several) under a closed door to keep it closed."
Whoever is trying to jam it, adds their Strength modifier, as well as their size modifier to grapple checks, to the DC to force it open. If the door isnt even locked, then the break DC becomes 10 + aforementioned modifiers.
"Character carries couple slabs of meat to toss at guard dogs or other creatures."
Give them a +2 on a Handle Animal check, or Diplomacy check, to calm the doggies.
"Carrying weapons around in town. Do you allow it? What about casting?"
The laws of the city apply here on a case-by-case basis. Some places might allow only weapons or armor. If it is not allowed, they need to conceal their gear to avoid prosecution.
Magic is also case-by-case. Casting a spell might carry heavy fines regardless of what the spell is, or a fine might be levied only on offensive magic. Fines might be low for using defensive magic and higher for enchantment magic to charm people.
In my current game they are well known in a somewhat lawless town anyway, so weapon permits arent an issue.
Wow, that is quite the situation. I would have given the player a Sense Motive check, DC 5. Success tells the player "You're pretty sure that he's being deadly serious here."
Did the player take a sense motive check and fail it, take a sense motive check and succeed and ignore it, or simply never make a sense motive check? A check isn’t mentioned in the post, but the last paragraph about what would have happened if the roles were reversed makes me wonder about that. If he did make a check and ignore the results, I’m not sure what else could have been done.
For one thing, this wizard is now evil.
I agree also. In fact, I’d have this event follow that character in game. As a result of his evil reputation most people shun him and people of good alignment won’t help him. The PC would have a hard time ever getting NPC hirelings to work for him, and some people may deliberately overcharge him for their services. Distraught friends and relatives of the fallen PCs would accuse him of murder and try to have him arrested, or challenge him to a duel, or simply hire assassins to hunt him down.
I’m also really curious about how the other players feel about this. What were they saying at the gaming table while all this was going on? What are their plans now? I know I’d be really ticked if another player allowed my character to die like that.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
What have you done as DMs to curtail players from using their prejudiced biases as players to influence their characters actions etc, when it comes to Diplomacy, Bluff and Sense Motive.
Here is a recent situation:...
Not only does this situation display overwhelming selfishness on the character's behalf, but it also suggests some serious stupidity! I can see how pride might have made him refuse to back down and call the goblin's bluff on the first one, but the subsequent ones? The character has SEEN first-hand that the goblin means business. Why would he think that, after killing one other party member, he would not continue killing them until the character gave in?!?
Was the character convinced that the goblin would continue killing them after he acquired the book? If so, why would the goblin be making ultimatums? I think that this is just some serious RP-blindness. What alignment was this character? If it is ANY type of good, he should suffer penalties to his XP for roleplaying so poorly at the least and should probably lose alignment. If the character was CN or some type of evil, then the actions are (somewhat) warranted.
|
Not only does this situation display overwhelming selfishness on the character's behalf, but it also suggests some serious stupidity! I can see how pride might have made him refuse to back down and call the goblin's bluff on the first one, but the subsequent ones? The character has SEEN first-hand that the goblin means business. Why would he think that, after killing one other party member, he would not continue killing them until the character gave in?!?
This is exactly how I felt when I read this, but Fatespinner said it far more diplomatically than I would have.
In addition to the above suggestions regarding alignment, I feel that you should also change his Wisdom score to a 6 or lower and his Intelligence score to an 8 or lower to reflect the actions of the character.
|
|
This is exactly how I felt when I read this, but Fatespinner said it far more diplomatically than I would have.Horrible roleplayers go to a special Hell in my little corner of the world. This particular incident just happened to push my 'flame' button. :D
Thanks for all the responses:
I typically make all sense motives behind the screen.
The player in this case never seemed to want to attempt one - never brought it up; he knows he has skill at it and figured it's better to not be conflicted with a response like, "well you believe the goblin is willing to let you go if you hand over the book" since he really didnt want to give it up and could continue to argue with a clear conscious that "he didnt believe the goblin."
In the players defense, I do not think as his actions as evil. Other circumstances were in effect. The spell book in question belonged to their arch nemesis who hounded the PCs for a long time. In their most recent encounter with him, the wizard escaped again, but they were able to get access to his home and stole his book - making it nearly impossible to rememorize spells. So he was merely defiant in lot allowing that wizard to re-arm himself. I believe there was an element of greed in there as he knew he could benefit from other spells to put in his own book, but for the most part, I see this as lawful-neutral seeing the death as 'acceptable losses' as a military leader would.
The other players were irritated at the whole scenario but part of their animosity was pointed my way due to my generosity in the coup'de'grace attacks I was handing out. But he paid half of the cost of raising them all. They understood his reasons, so they got over it, but it did irritate them.
The point of my post, however, was not so much in what to do with a player who performed these "evil" acts as you see them, but i'm more wanting to know if other DMs have found ways to make players feel obligated to feel one way or the other.
IN short: if a player wanted to use his diplomacy to make a bar-bouncer overlook the fact that the PC was bringing in a weapon to an establishment with a rule of "no weapons allowed" i am obligated via the rules of the skill to apply a DC act appropriately according to the result.
On the other hand, if a particularly diplomatic NPC wanted to borrow the PCs sword, the player can act however he wants, or believe however he wants even if his sense motive is a +50 and knows he didnt fail against the NPCs assurances that he means no ill towards the PCs and is in fact telling the truth. Furthermore in my example case, the goblin was indeed telling the truth, but the player never bothered to want to believe him, nor give the skill rolls a second thought to try to decipher the goblins veracity - as it would them make him "obligated" to believe one way or another - instead of simply roleplaying via a player-fiat.
Robert
Actually, the Romans used to use geese as alarm animals instead of dogs. Dogs'll be easily bought off with meat or poisoned. Geese won't shut up for anything.
HAHAHAH..LOL.. Thnaks for the info. If I ever need to use a good sentry i'll buy a goose. [Those damn dogs!]...
And Id say that for the "dog question" it'd depend on how well rained the dog is. A DC 12 Wisdom seems too easy to overcome...
|
|
Actually, the Romans used to use geese as alarm animals instead of dogs. Dogs'll be easily bought off with meat or poisoned. Geese won't shut up for anything.HAHAHAH..LOL.. Thnaks for the info. If I ever need to use a good sentry i'll buy a goose. [Those damn dogs!]...
And Id say that for the "dog question" it'd depend on how well rained the dog is. A DC 12 Wisdom seems too easy to overcome...
Dude, this is serious. If you ever go visit a friend in the country, and you drive up to their house, and there's a goose in the yard, that goose will jack you up.
Geese are mean. They don't play. I am not kidding.
I was bitten on the finger by a goose when I was 10. I can still rememebr the pain and shock of being savaged by food.
It's actually pretty easy to train a dog to only accept food from its master - so the old poisoned meat to the dog trick defenitely won't always work.
Another note on guard dogs: if the dogs are there to scare intruders away they bark and growl; if the owners want intruders dead they remove the dogs' vocal cords so they don't bark or growl, they just attack.
By the time you hear the soft padding of paws through the grass it's too late. . .
Here is a recent situation:...Wow, that is quite the situation. I would have given the player a Sense Motive check, DC 5. Success tells the player "You're pretty sure that he's being deadly serious here."
Ermmm...Here what you should do instead:
Players roll a Sense Motive check against the Diplomacy check of the goblin Wizard. If they succeed they find the true intention of the Wizard (let the players live) and if they fail they don't know, and the DM should give the player a random answer (that's because if you, as DM say to one player "You don't know" and to the other "he is telling the truth" then ALL players will know the NPC is telling the truth).
On the other hand, don't forget that PCs in their homeworld have been conditioned to believe that all goblins are evil...and so they were led to believe that it was either "Lose the spellbook & die" or "Die but maybe you don't lose the spellbook", in which case they all chose answer two...the most convenient.
However, there was a doubt...to survive by giving in. Therefore you, as DM, should enforce your character to make a willpower check (or Wisdom check) DCxx. Where xx depends on how difficult is the task (sacrificing your life for a book should have a really high DC, depending on the usefulness of the spellbook to himself).
Otherwise in the real world, everytime you want to do something you just do it. Think about diets, you wanna lose weight, but if your method and motivation is lacking, you get no result. So the PCs, if they want to sacrifice their lives, or make something that requires dedication, they should really make a Wisdom check to see if they follow through.
And if they fail, just tell the PC, "your character knows that sacrificing his life is the LOGICAL thing to do, but his fear of dying is too high". The PCs can then either (1) win time (if they can keep their cool), using a Bluff, a Diplomacy or Intimidate check (they should be able to make 1-3 checks in total, depending on the patience of the NPC), (2) try to escape, (3) Give in.
Also, seeing other PC dying in front of you might make things harder for you (penalties on bluff, diplomacy, sense motive and intimidate are in order).
Just my 2 cents
Here is a recent situation...
I've played with such people before. Two possible penalties occur to me immediately:
[ul][/ul]
Of course these won't do any good, but I can be a vindictive, pissy DM :/
In the players defense, I do not think as his actions as evil. Other circumstances were in effect. The spell book in question belonged to their arch nemesis who hounded the PCs for a long time. In their most recent encounter with him, the wizard escaped again, but they were able to get access to his home and stole his book - making it nearly impossible to rememorize spells. So he was merely defiant in lot allowing that wizard to re-arm himself. I believe there was an element of greed in there as he knew he could benefit from other spells to put in his own book, but for the most part, I see this as lawful-neutral seeing the death as 'acceptable losses' as a military leader would.
He was being stubborn-stupid. By refusing to negotiate when at a disadvantage, he caused unnecessary deaths, not "acceptable losses." At the very least, the lack of concern over avoidable deaths tends toward evil; it's a very short step from "kill them all and let the gods sort them out."
If the character is a military leader in an organization (especially if one of the slain characters is also), roleplay the investigation of his actions (LN organizations in particular would want reports and inquests). A reprimand for negligence would be the least he could be expect, if not having to pay full cost for raising the dead characters.
I can see how the character justified his choice. I think he should have paid more of the raise cost, as it was his decision, but he accepted the deaths of his friends, which to his level is really a temporary problem, and resisted empowering an evil foe. The only real thing i would have asked of him is that he had tried to stop the slayings. Perhaps assaulting the rogue when he tries to coup de grace, but really, he did what he thought was necessary. Even ignoring the question of trusting a goblin, he was willing to make sacrifices to stop evil. not good's self-sacrifice, but sacrifices none the less.
Uncomprimising, but willing to make sacrifices=LN.
I can see how the character justified his choice. I think he should have paid more of the raise cost, as it was his decision, but he accepted the deaths of his friends, which to his level is really a temporary problem, and resisted empowering an evil foe. The only real thing i would have asked of him is that he had tried to stop the slayings. Perhaps assaulting the rogue when he tries to coup de grace, but really, he did what he thought was necessary. Even ignoring the question of trusting a goblin, he was willing to make sacrifices to stop evil. not good's self-sacrifice, but sacrifices none the less.
Uncomprimising, but willing to make sacrifices=LN.
No, idiotic. Only the fact that the wizard was more interested in retrieving the spellbook than killing the two surviving PC's after they were disabled prevented a TPK. Refusal to compromise when negotiating at a disadvantage is dumb; putting others needlessly at risk is an evil act, even when you are fighting evil. The player didn't ask "why should I trust you" or attempt to ensure that the terms the wizard gave would be followed; instead, he demanded that he get his way completely, regardless of the situation.
Here is a recent situation...I've played with such people before. Two possible penalties occur to me immediately:
[ul]
make him evil, if he's not already (the second two deaths were caused by gross indifference on his part)
Drop the character's Int to a 5 or 6 to more accurately reflect his limited mental faculties (as evidenced by his repeated inability to predict the next two deaths)
Hmm, I think he was well aware of the consequences of his actions, so it's not really an intelligence fault, but rather a choice. However, as a DM I would have the character roll a wisdom check with a DC that increases with each PC death in order to follow through his intended action.
I mean, we as humans might know what is the right thing, but we don't follow through because of our weak motivation.
No, idiotic. Only the fact that the wizard was more interested in retrieving the spellbook than killing the two surviving PC's after they were disabled prevented a TPK. Refusal to compromise when negotiating at a disadvantage is dumb; putting others needlessly at risk is an evil act, even when you are fighting evil. The player didn't ask "why should I trust you" or attempt to ensure that the terms the wizard gave would be followed; instead, he demanded that he get his way completely, regardless of the situation.
I think it just a classic act of poor roleplaying and metagame thinking.
My tricky situation is a player who, whenever the party fights a large monster, wants his character to get on the critters back. He reckons he should be able to use Tumble for this, I can't decide how I should rule it. Any ideas for the next time the Bard says "I mount the Bluespawn Thunderlizard"?
|
My tricky situation is a player who, whenever the party fights a large monster, wants his character to get on the critters back. He reckons he should be able to use Tumble for this, I can't decide how I should rule it. Any ideas for the next time the Bard says "I mount the Bluespawn Thunderlizard"?
I would say it's VERY difficult to mount a creature that doesn't want to be mounted. Tumble might get him up there, but at a high DC (it's 25 to move through an enemy's square), so I would think 30 to 35 to mount said enemy. The size would also be a factor. Maybe consider instead a grapple check, with the PC using a Tumble check instead of his grapple bonus. So big critters would be tougher to get on, which I think ir reasonable.
Then there is staying there. This would probably bee a Ride check, maybe opposed against grapple as before. Trying to attack a creature as it bucks underneath you would probably mean that it would take a move action, with a successful Ride/grapple check, to stay in place, leaving only a standard action to attack.
And creature mounted in such a way would probably try to scrape the rider off on any handy surface - another Ride v grapple check probably and a standard action for the beast, failure leading to falling damage plus the equivalent of trample damage for a creature of that size to the rider and he would fall in a square of the DMs choice. Lacking a handy surface, it could buck, with the same check but only resulting in falling damage.
You may wish to tweak this as the relative difficulties suggested here don't immediately present themselves (i.e. the checks suggested may be too hard or too easy) but maybe this could be a way out.
Of course, none of this really goes to the heart of the matter - why does he want to mount everything he comes accross. "Fear me, for I am Ragnor, Mounter of Beasts!" It would certainly scare me.....
I don't know if tumble would be my first choice. Cowboys have been breaking horses for a long time, and most cowboys aren't 10th level characters, nor do they have ranks in tumble.
I'd personally give it a climb check (DC 20-25ish) to get on, but provokes for entering the square, with all consequences for getting hit while climbing, but tumble at the standard DC (25) could be used to avoid the attack of opp for entering the square.
After the climb check (tumble is only to avoid the attack of opp), the PC would then be making ride checks, probably opposed by grapple checks on the monster's part. Consider this example:
Bull: Str 18 Large Animal, 4hd (rough estimate) Grapple +11 (size, strength, base attack)
Cowboy: Dex 14 Medium Humanoid, 3rd level (give or take). Ride +10 (max ranks, handle animal synergy, dexterity)
This skilled cowboy has an even chance (roughly) of staying on the bull. If he can beat it two checks in a row, he stays on for 12 seconds. (Course, rodeo riding might involve a -2 for only using one hand, and not having a convienient rope to hold onto might be another -2 or even -4.)
A skilled, acrobatic character who knows how to handle himself on a mount should be quite capable of doing this. Attacking while on it would involve more ride checks, but against the monster's grapple mod (or check) instead of a flat DC.
In the end, it seems to me that it would be cool and dynamic for a character to do this, but ultimately not as purely mechanically "efficient". I like cool more than efficient myself, so I'd let it work, if he can make the checks. And if the checks are easy for him to make, then he's a master mounter. Cool for him. Throw out an advanced giant constrictor snake, or a tauric barbed devil hellcat. If he still wants to mount that, let the dice fall where they may.
|
|
I don't know if tumble would be my first choice. Cowboys have been breaking horses for a long time, and most cowboys aren't 10th level characters, nor do they have ranks in tumble.
I'd personally give it a climb check (DC 20-25ish) to get on, but provokes for entering the square, with all consequences for getting hit while climbing, but tumble at the standard DC (25) could be used to avoid the attack of opp for entering the square.
After the climb check (tumble is only to avoid the attack of opp), the PC would then be making ride checks, probably opposed by grapple checks on the monster's part. Consider this example:
Bull: Str 18 Large Animal, 4hd (rough estimate) Grapple +11 (size, strength, base attack)
Cowboy: Dex 14 Medium Humanoid, 3rd level (give or take). Ride +10 (max ranks, handle animal synergy, dexterity)This skilled cowboy has an even chance (roughly) of staying on the bull. If he can beat it two checks in a row, he stays on for 12 seconds. (Course, rodeo riding might involve a -2 for only using one hand, and not having a convienient rope to hold onto might be another -2 or even -4.)
A skilled, acrobatic character who knows how to handle himself on a mount should be quite capable of doing this. Attacking while on it would involve more ride checks, but against the monster's grapple mod (or check) instead of a flat DC.
In the end, it seems to me that it would be cool and dynamic for a character to do this, but ultimately not as purely mechanically "efficient". I like cool more than efficient myself, so I'd let it work, if he can make the checks. And if the checks are easy for him to make, then he's a master mounter. Cool for him. Throw out an advanced giant constrictor snake, or a tauric barbed devil hellcat. If he still wants to mount that, let the dice fall where they may.
The only comment I would add is that he isn't trying to mount a horse, but probably a purple worm or something (a horse - where's the challenge in that?). People don't generally try to ride hippos or (African) elephants, due to the hideous danger involved. So I am not sure the horse analogy is appropriate. But the mechanic suggested seems reasonable.
Any ideas for the next time the Bard says "I mount the Bluespawn Thunderlizard"?
Fall back on tricky old Grapple. If the character manages to pin a creature large enough for him to ride, then he may use a move action or make a DC 20 Ride check (armor check penalty applies to this) to put himself into a riding position. Note that the character takes a -5 penalty on this and all other Ride checks if the creature is not wearing a saddle.
At this point he and the creature are no longer in grapple, and he can stay on the creature as long as he makes a successful DC 15 Ride check each round as a move action. The character and the creature provoke attacks of opportunity from each other as normal (and may react to them as normal, but the creature takes at least a -4 penalty on attack rolls made against the rider.
While so mounted, the character moves with the creature. Any time the character or creature takes damage, the character must make an additional Ride check (DC 5). In any round in which the creature takes a standard action, the character must succeed on a DC 10 Ride check or lose his next standard action. The character may attempt to use the creature as cover with a DC 15 Ride check (no action necessary). If the character is thrown from the creature at any point, a DC 15 Ride check may be made to negate falling damage (which is otherwise a minimum of 1d6).
The character may dismount as a move action (putting him in a square adjacent to the creature) or a free action if a DC 20 Ride check is made (again, armor check penalty applies to this).
----
So, essentially, a character who mounts an unwilling creature is in for a heck of a ride. If the creature has an Intelligence score of 1 or 2, the character may spend his standard action on a Handle Animal check (DC 25; this DC is increased by 2 if the creature is injured and by 5 if the creature is not an animal). A successful check "breaks" the creature, causing it to cease fighting (though it still defends itself), unless it is actively threatened.
Actually, I think the Black Bard has a pretty good example of how it should work.
Remember: 'people' are generally first level commoners who would be squashed to a pulp by a hippo or elephant when the creature makes its Attack of Opportunity. Also, adventurers are known to commonly do stuff that is generally avoided because of 'the danger involded'
By using the opponents Grapple check, riding big creatures becomes hard; while skill on the characters side (and not brute force, but experience and nimbleness, as it should be) makes it easier.
Maybe as an extra rule, no mounting creatures of your size or smaller (maybe exclude creatures of roughly the same size and type for a different kind of 'ride-check', but that depends on the age of the people involved) and put an ACP on the Ride check to mount the creature.
Other than that, Cool > Efficient indeed. If someone wants to do this, let him. And if he does it too much, present something that shows him you can't mount anything. Something with many flexible heads, like a Hydra.
At this point he and the creature are no longer in grapple, and he can stay on the creature as long as he makes a successful DC 15 Ride check each round as a move action.
Instead of using a static DC here, you could also use the standard DC calculation: 10 + 1/2 the creature's HD + the creature's Strength modifier. The other checks would be unaffected.
Under my system to be a successful monster-rider, you would need to possess: Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple; max ranks in Handle Animal and Ride. Fairly cow-poke-ish, I think.
Under my system to be a successful monster-rider, you would need to possess: Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple; max ranks in Handle Animal and Ride. Fairly cow-poke-ish, I think.
I guess the monster riders wants to ride just about anything from size Large and larger. I agree with the climb check needed to get on a tall animal/monster and a grapple check to maintain your hold on the back. Attacking then would be as simple as getting a penalty on your grapple and attack roll using a small weapon as described in the PHB. My opinion on the Riding skill is that it's redundant here. As a DM I would feel more appropriate the grapple check instead of the riding check in this case, since the Character is not trying to control but only hold the monster/animal.
You could, as a DM design feats that allow you to attack with larger weapons during a grapple, and with less penalties.
Really, your player should consider the Grappler PrC in the complete warrior (can't remember the name) that can kill with grapples. It's very Conan-ish.
How do you deal with a player who carries around a bag of flour to throw at invisible foes. If it makes them visible what is the point of Dust of Appearence?
Flour or other substances would get invisible if thrown on an invisible target, IMHO. If it falls to the floor, you might be able to track the invisible target, but how much floor can you cover with one "throw"? Perhaps a 5-ft.square, I don´t think more. And you have to use an attack to throw it, I´d think, if you want to hit the exact square.
Stefan
How would you deal with door jams? Character puts one(or several) under a closed door to keep it closed.
Character carries couple slabs of meat to toss at guard dogs or other creatures.
Carrying weapons around in town. Do you allow it? What about casting?
Door jams: I think we had this back in second edition - it's what we have hammer and pitons for. Require a full round to hammer in a piton and require a Strength check to knock down a blocked door. Presumably the hammering provokes an AoO, but what madman hammers the door shut when the monster's already inside?
Meat: Hungry dogs will go straight for the meat, but trained guard dogs won't be as easily fooled. Two ways I'm thinking you could go about it. Easy way, require the dogs to make a DC10 Will save in order not to be distracted by the meat. More realistic way, require a Handle Animal check to reduce the dog's attitude just as you would Diplomacy checks on a human, with a bonus of +2 for the meat, +2 to +4 if the dogs are hungry or very hungry, respectively, and -2 if the dogs are well trained.
Weapons: Depends on the culture. City guards might require you to tie up your weapons or keep them out of sight, while in villages and small towns you might simply find out the hard way that people are going to be unfairly intimidated unless you unless you've safely wrapped up that greatsword in a lot of cloth and string. Of course, some cities might prohibit weapons entirely, for the safety of the populace.
Spells: It would depend on the spell, peoples' attitude to magic, and how you imagine magic to work. Perhaps in your game owrld each spell glows with a different colour depending on its school, so people learn to recognise which spells are obviously offensive and which spells are merely mundane. A useful idea might be that dangerous spells actually feel offensive - loud crackling sounds, sparks, giving off heat - whereas safe, mundane spells feel safe and mundane (a quiet humming, or soft light accompanied by a slow non-threatening clunk).
|
|
Here is a recent situation...I've played with such people before. Two possible penalties occur to me immediately:
[ul]
make him evil, if he's not already (the second two deaths were caused by gross indifference on his part)
Drop the character's Int to a 5 or 6 to more accurately reflect his limited mental faculties (as evidenced by his repeated inability to predict the next two deaths) Hmm, I think he was well aware of the consequences of his actions, so it's not really an intelligence fault, but rather a choice. However, as a DM I would have the character roll a wisdom check with a DC that increases with each PC death in order to follow through his intended action.
I mean, we as humans might know what is the right thing, but we don't follow through because of our weak motivation.
That is a true assement.
So rolling this Wisdom check would then determine if a) the character continues to act as the player is describing or b) upon failure he gives up the right to describe his character actions and instead I as DM dictate his characters actions via some DM fiat?
Wouldn't this be seen by players to be heavy-handed, railroading, DM fiat - whatever cliche' negative term a player wants to assign it? Dont get me wrong - I like your suggestion, I'm just leary of players revolting about taking such a draconian stance and literally "playing their characters actions"
This is the very reason why those who despise Ravenloft do indeed despise it (aside from not enjoying the gothic theme). The forced roleplaying hinged on failed fear/horror/madness checks is very alienating to a lot of players who resent DMs making character action decisions for the player.
Robert
|
|
Even ignoring the question of trusting a goblin, he was willing to make sacrifices to stop evil. not good's self-sacrifice, but sacrifices none the less.
Uncomprimising, but willing to make sacrifices=LN.
That is exactly the way he has played his wizard character all along. A very detached and seemingly uncaring LN attitude that he makes calculated and pragmatic risks vs rewards decisions. In his mind, "the ends justified the means". So I do not fault him for taking that stand, I merely fault him for ignoring or avoiding the attempts one would realistically take to find out if the goblin was lying simply to avoid any cognitive-dissidence.
That is a more meta-gaming and poor roleplayed aspect that needs to be addressed in a different fashion than altering his alignment.
That is why my question for the board is how do other DMs arbitrarily see to it that the PCs attempt to engage and behave in manions appropriate to situations where sense motives and similar skills should be used.
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a fair way of rectifying this without simply making a DM fiat and arbitrarily force the PC into doing something.
That being said - put yourself in the players shoe - if he was doing all he can to see to it the enemy did not get back his spellbook, and you as DM simply say "Sorry, your mind tells you that the goblin is being honest and no matter how hard you try to convince yourself to let your friends die over this, you can't do it - so you willingly give the book back."
To me that would simply be a DM being very draconian and players would feel that its a DM vs Player mentality and the DM is on a power trip and now as a player I cannot even control my own characters actions.
Most players would be peeved by this and some would probably not even want to continue playing - and I wouldn't blame them.
Robert
Even ignoring the question of trusting a goblin, he was willing to make sacrifices to stop evil. not good's self-sacrifice, but sacrifices none the less.
Uncomprimising, but willing to make sacrifices=LN.That is exactly the way he has played his wizard character all along. A very detached and seemingly uncaring LN attitude that he makes calculated and pragmatic risks vs rewards decisions. In his mind, "the ends justified the means". So I do not fault him for taking that stand, I merely fault him for ignoring or avoiding the attempts one would realistically take to find out if the goblin was lying simply to avoid any cognitive-dissidence.
That is a more meta-gaming and poor roleplayed aspect that needs to be addressed in a different fashion than altering his alignment.
That is why my question for the board is how do other DMs arbitrarily see to it that the PCs attempt to engage and behave in manions appropriate to situations where sense motives and similar skills should be used.
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a fair way of rectifying this without simply making a DM fiat and arbitrarily force the PC into doing something.
That being said - put yourself in the players shoe - if he was doing all he can to see to it the enemy did not get back his spellbook, and you as DM simply say "Sorry, your mind tells you that the goblin is being honest and no matter how hard you try to convince yourself to let your friends die over this, you can't do it - so you willingly give the book back."
To me that would simply be a DM being very draconian and players would feel that its a DM vs Player mentality and the DM is on a power trip and now as a player I cannot even control my own characters actions.
Most players would be peeved by this and some would probably not even want to continue playing - and I wouldn't blame them.
Robert
I'm not really sure what the problem here is - most of the players died. Let them sort it out. The players had choices, they made them and they live with the consequences. Arbitrarily lowing wisdom or immediately changing a characters alignment to Chaotic Evil seems very heavy handed in a place where the DM does not need to intervene at all.
