Thank you for updating us. As long as we get the occasional smoke signals I'm good.
No worries monkey!
I'm just glad that THIS time the 'interruption' is for a GOOD reason!
:)
Is this the regular deck, or the Harrow deck of many things, or a custom deck?
The Harrow deck has proportionately less "you die" effects.
Then it's the regular one :P
That makes the decision much, much, much, much easier.
Hmm... does augury work on a deck?
That makes the decision much, much, much, much easier.
Hmm... does augury work on a deck?
[Public affairs persona]Good question! I do not know the answer at this moment, but I will research it and get back to you[/Public affairs persona]
Then it's the regular one :P
:P indeed!
;)
Ah, Deck Of Many Things. How do I hate to love thee, or is it love to hate thee? I get those confused.
Let me count the ways,
Draw 1 card,
Draw 2 cards,
Draw 3 cards,... ;P
SO many possibilities! SO many goodies to claim!
So many chances to draw that ONE card that you KNOW will kill you! ;)
Speaking of which, the Interwebz seems to think augury could not be used reliably on a deck. I tend to agree.
I'd agree, the 'original' Deck was actually listed under Artifacts if I recall correctly, pretty much the rule of 'more powerful magic cancels weaker magic' would count there I think! ;)
Even if the newer versions are 'only' minor artifacts, I'd still have to agree that would apply.
Maybe, MAYBE an 8th or 9th lvl spell may be able to even the odds? (Especially if it was an answer from a Power?) But that would pretty much be it.
I don't even know what lvl Augury is, I'm just thinking out loud,
and being glad I'm able to type on my PC again! :)
Augury is level 1. It only gives "Weal", "Woe", or "Weal and Woe". I saw a lot of people who thought that that was okay.
But if there's nothing to prevent soul death, then I won't be partaking. I probably would for some of the other decks where you actually have more than a 2/3 chance of surviving.
Which, I think, was the original intent of the deck. It is a temptation, but one with consequences. If you feel like gambling, then you take the risks. If you feel that the risks are too high, well, then the deck can be left alone....
LOL!
GM: "Make Will save vs the shiny, harmless looking, artifact that only wants to give you power, and items, and castles, and stuff!"
All players, ever: "Well,.... S#*%. Just ONE card can't hurt, right??!?"
:P
Which, I think, was the original intent of the deck. It is a temptation, but one with consequences. If you feel like gambling, then you take the risks. If you feel that the risks are too high, well, then the deck can be left alone....
Heh, did not even need to open the link to get that reference!
LOL,
I'm taking to long to craft my responses, and we are cross-posting!
THAT hasn't happened to me in a while! :)
Paladin wants to shoot sexy undead in face before someone has a weak moment.
Doing undead!
OW!
sexxay sexxay
LOL!
Whoops! Too late! ;P
Justin doesn't do necromancy, (Not counting his recently-added False Life spell) :) so maybe I should have crafted his reactions to reflect this more. (I certainly will when I FINALLY get to this point in the journal)* But he also realizes that not all undead are automatically evil, (even though the majority seem to be inclined in that direction) and after that near-debacle with the necro-ooze, he is certainly inclined to accept help with these encounters. The fact that she might actually be healed by the encounters primary damage dealer (negative energy) is a plus to him! ;)
*(I AM working on the journal's next chapter, I swear! Some write themselves, and some need to be gently beaten massaged into shape. :)
Nothing like Barbarians on Philosophy to make for interesting conversation when confronted by a creature right out of Clive Barker stories! I mean, what else would we talk about?
Yeah Cenobites aren't as scary in a high fantasy setting as in a modern setting, but they do make interesting antagonists.
Oh and Rags, when did you get the idea that the mask tried to get you to put it on?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh
That was from when I first picked it up I think, WAY back when. :)
Or it may have been the second time we fought those things, I remember that Justin had an idea to build a golem with parts he was collecting and use the mask for the face. After the 2nd time he gave up on using the mask very quickly! ;P
As I vaguely recall, Justin was examining a second mask, and asked to make a save roll, (which I did) and I just presumed that I dodged a bullet there because the mask was trying to get me to put it on.
If I'm mistaken, we can always chalk it up to Justin's overactive imagination. :D He likely just realized how bad an idea it was to play with a possibly demon possessed mask, and then, because curiosity killed the cat, figured it was trying to get him to wear it! :)
I'm OK with Justin being wrong every so often. I did base part of him on me after all. ;P
That's because we're playing Pathfinder where we get a chance to spot things in our line of sight and not old-school OD&D s%@~e where you triggered the trap because "You only said searched the statue's base but you didn't say you searched the statue's feet." If that's the game you want to play, then expect the game to go on hold for seven months while we hash out our old-school checklists where we go through 37 steps every time we open a door.
And if we are going to do this kind of bullcrap, we need you to to give the full description of the room when we enter and not omit minor details like:
Above them about 20 feet is a giant amalgamation of bodies. Arms, heads, legs, eyes, and organs all sintered together into a vast jellyfish-looking bulk placidly floating above them. Half-a-dozen fanged maws on extended ropey necks contructed of what look to be fused-together spinal columns wave below the main mass. As Justin's eyes widen with shock and horror several beams spray out from the mass, hitting the group.
IF you had actually described this part, we would have likely investigated it. Joking about us not saying specifically that we looked up when you didn't describe any reason to look up is not a joke of any sort. Trying to pass it off as a joke is pissing in the wound. After eating asparagus.
Even if we're not going to go down the old-school "you didn't use the right magic words" route, I'd like to actually get a description of the stuff that's in plain sight. It's kind of important.
For the official record, I am always considering up and down to be potential threats. Especially when we are in a crazy tinkertoy dungeon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok. What I was saying was that you would have spotted it REGARDLESS of it getting a33 Stealth roll, because if you had said "I look around at the ceiling there is no way a creature of that size could have hidden.
I played by Pathfinder rules. It beat all the perceptions rolled. I had it in my mind if anyone had SPECIFICALLY looked up, it cover would have been blown, rules or no.
So tell you what. Assume no one looked up because no one beat a 33 on Stealth. How about that. Disregard my chuckle if it bothers you that much.
And yeah, was I pleased I could get off a cinematic horror scene like that ? Yeah I was. I thought the intro was very cool, and I hoped you all would appreciate it as well. I guess I was wrong.
Hamar will appreciate it if it does not eat Hamar! If it does eat Hamar, Hamar hopes his Barbarian diet causes the creature indigestion for the next Millenia...
Oh and A couple more things:
I started playing AD&D in 1979. I cut my teeth on 'old-school OD&D sh!te'. It infuses my play style. Furthermore, this 'tinkertoy dungeon' is 20-years old from the 2e era. Made by Monte Cook no less. That's the style we're rolling with. I don't kill people out of hand. We've had one death in 91/2 years of play. I do challenge my players, or try to.
So if any of this is a deal-breaker for you, feel free to tender your resignation. There's nothing forcing you to participate.
Ok. What I was saying was that you would have spotted it REGARDLESS of it getting a33 Stealth roll, because if you had said "I look around at the ceiling there is no way a creature of that size could have hidden.
I played by Pathfinder rules. It beat all the perceptions rolled. I had it in my mind if anyone had SPECIFICALLY looked up, it cover would have been blown, rules or no.
So tell you what. Assume no one looked up because no one beat a 33 on Stealth. How about that. Disregard my chuckle if it bothers you that much.
Then you did not describe what sort of cover it has so that it has the capability of making a stealth check. Neither your original description, not your enhanced description mentions anything it could hide behind. Did I miss this? Or did it have invisibility or hide in plain sight or some other exotic ability? If you are in plain sight, you cannot stealth. That's the rules. If you want to change that, then let us know what the new rule is so that we can take advantage of it.
I understand the old-school thinking, but it's a b*%!% to play in PBP. Things slow down drastically when you need to cover all sorts of things that are normally assumed in modern games. "I look up. I look down. I look right. I look left. I look straight ahead. I look behind the door. I look at the desk. I look at the green eggs and ham. I look under the green eggs and ham." You haven't been playing it like this so far. If you want us to declare where we look then, you need to let us know that we need to do this. If you don't tell us the rules are changed until afterwards, it screws us for something we don't know.
I like the idea of doing fancy scenes, but if those fancy scenes only work if the PC's are wearing neck braces, then it's not very cool. If you'd have said it fades in or it comes out of a hole, then I would have been impressed.
While I am upset, I am really enjoying this game. I will admit that I have some issues that come from some really bad old-school GM's. A couple who would change the rules back and forth to their advantage with no consistency. And one GM who wouldn't describe stuff, but expect you to react to it. I don't have a problem with you changing things, I just want to know what's changed, and keep them consistent.
The point is that a perception check represents everything your character does IN GAME to inspect the area. Low perception means you're distracted, or it doesn't occur to you to look up.
High perception, you leave no stone unturned.
Rolling low and then going, "well I look here, and there and up and down," just to generate additional perception checks and another chance at success if metagaming.
While it might actually make sense to you to look up, roll bad on perception and it means at that moment, it didn't occur to your character.
Why doesn't that apply to "you just forgot to look left"?
This appears to be a room where the only features are the ring of blood on the floor and the 20' pile of corpses apparently hovering in midair.
This explains what I'm getting at.
If it was on the wall above the door, and it attacked that round, no problem. If it sits around for a while after we get into the room, then it gets back to not having cover or anything else that would let it roll a stealth check.
If there were a lot of bodies all over the place, I'd be fine with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok. What I was saying was that you would have spotted it REGARDLESS of it getting a33 Stealth roll, because if you had said "I look around at the ceiling there is no way a creature of that size could have hidden.
I played by Pathfinder rules. It beat all the perceptions rolled. I had it in my mind if anyone had SPECIFICALLY looked up, it cover would have been blown, rules or no.
So tell you what. Assume no one looked up because no one beat a 33 on Stealth. How about that. Disregard my chuckle if it bothers you that much.
Then you did not describe what sort of cover it has so that it has the capability of making a stealth check. Neither your original description, not your enhanced description mentions anything it could hide behind. Did I miss this? Or did it have invisibility or hide in plain sight or some other exotic ability? If you are in plain sight, you cannot stealth. That's the rules. If you want to change that, then let us know what the new rule is so that we can take advantage of it.
I understand the old-school thinking, but it's a b!!$+ to play in PBP. Things slow down drastically when you need to cover all sorts of things that are normally assumed in modern games. "I look up. I look down. I look right. I look left. I look straight ahead. I look behind the door. I look at the desk. I look at the green eggs and ham. I look under the green eggs and ham." You haven't been playing it like this so far. If you want us to declare where we look then, you need to let us know that we need to do this. If you don't tell us the rules are changed until afterwards, it screws us for something we don't know.
I like the idea of doing fancy scenes, but if those fancy scenes only work if the PC's are wearing neck braces, then it's not very cool. If you'd have said it fades in or it comes out of a hole, then I would have been impressed.
While I am upset, I am really enjoying this game. I will admit that I have some issues that come from some...
It was not in plain sight. It was above you. 20 feet above you. Perception is there to simulate looking around. If you had beat its Stealth roll, then yes, you would have seen it, no problem. You seem to have a problem with the fact that it was floating above you. Why does perception automatically assume you look everywhere? Perhaps the failure of making a Perception check simply means you forgot to look up. It's a common movie trope. Missing the monster because you missed looking in the one obvious place.
And yes, IF by some weird coincidence someone had mentioned they specifically look up, then Stealth wouldn't have worked. Because it was depending on you not looking up to use Stealth. Which, I adjudged , no one did by reason of their perception rolls. There's nothing that says perception means you automatically look everywhere. Failing a perception check is actually simulating missing some place to check.
So, I'm sorry if you somehow feel cheated that this monster got a surprise round. Or somehow you feel like I'm out to get you. I am more than happy to change rulings that are challenged if I feel I was wrong. This isn't one of those times.
And, in the future, you want to contest something I've done, I'd appreciate either a PM or a slightly-nicer worded rant. You don't pay me, I'm not your employee. We're all here to have fun, and you just fncking ruined my whole afternoon with your pis$y rant. I do this because I enjoy GMing. Im not enjoying it right now.
Why doesn't that apply to "you just forgot to look left"?
This appears to be a room where the only features are the ring of blood on the floor and the 20' pile of corpses apparently hovering in midair.
This explains what I'm getting at.
If it was on the wall above the door, and it attacked that round, no problem. If it sits around for a while after we get into the room, then it gets back to not having cover or anything else that would let it roll a stealth check.
If there were a lot of bodies all over the place, I'd be fine with it.
Where's the top of the bridge in your example? Not in your field of vision? Would you maybe have to look up to see if there's another shadowy figure sitting on the top girder?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Perhaps the failure of making a Perception check simply means you forgot to look up. It's a common movie trope. Missing the monster because you missed looking in the one obvious place."
^^^^^THIS
That's exactly what a poor Perception check represents. Rolling poorly doesn't mean you go blind or deaf. It means you get distracted, you don't pay attention, you forget to look up, or something shiny catches your attention just as you were turning towards the thing you missed.
I apologize for the rant. The rules were interpreted in a way I haven't seen in any other Pathfinder game I've played. The laughter about this made me upset, and I reacted poorly.
Okay, so height is sort of like cover in your game. So noted. I hope that sneaky PC's find some way to climb or fly to be able to use this. Does this extend to other types of facing? If so, a map would be really helpful.
We have already faced flying creatures in this facility, so looking up is part of my standard procedure. Do you want me to specify this every time?
That's exactly what a poor Perception check represents. Rolling poorly doesn't mean you go blind or deaf. It means you get distracted, you don't pay attention, you forget to look up, or something shiny catches your attention just as you were turning towards the thing you missed.
This is not where my issue lies. My issue lies in the stealth rules. You cannot use stealth without cover, concealment or something special. The rules don't say that being higher affects stealth at all. Most games I play in assume that adventurers learn that things can jump you from above and look up as part of their scanning for danger.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Karrin always forgets to look up by the way.
That's because anything that is stupid enough to jump on Karrin from above gets what it deserves! ;P
I believe I understand the point Philo wished to make, but I have to agree that I've always understood that a Per roll meant you simply didn't spot something. I dislike comparing game rules to RL, but I fail a Per roll every other day when I walk into my office at work.
(WHY is it that EVERY college kid thinks their a comedian?!?!?) :/
Other than that statement, I'm going to stay out of any rules discussions, mainly because my rules-fu is weak sauce, and every time I tried to rules-lawyer to my advantage, it ended up biting me in the bum! ;P (Literally, in some monsters cases!) :D
I've always been a more 'Fun & Flavor beats Hard-Rules' kind of player myself anyway.
And c'mon, rules schmules, that was GREAT reveal! :D
Yet more proof that a certain Monkey's writing is much better than my own. ;)
(Justin agrees with Hamar, and Justin will enjoy it much more if he survives to enter this encounter into his journal, but it was still a great reveal!) ;)
And a good question was raised, should one of us bot Ekkur? I think his standard response to a situation like this would be a fireball? (Does the DC to cast include Priest spells? They still require concentration correct?)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I apologize for the rant. The rules were interpreted in a way I haven't seen in any other Pathfinder game I've played. The laughter about this made me upset, and I reacted poorly.
Okay, so height is sort of like cover in your game. So noted. I hope that sneaky PC's find some way to climb or fly to be able to use this. Does this extend to other types of facing? If so, a map would be really helpful.
We have already faced flying creatures in this facility, so looking up is part of my standard procedure. Do you want me to specify this every time?
You want to find high ground and float quietly above waiting to attack, I will certainly give you a Stealth vs. Perception check. No problem. You feel paranoid to call out the you are looking up every time you enter a room? Be my guest.
That's exactly what a poor Perception check represents. Rolling poorly doesn't mean you go blind or deaf. It means you get distracted, you don't pay attention, you forget to look up, or something shiny catches your attention just as you were turning towards the thing you missed.
This is not where my issue lies. My issue lies in the stealth rules. You cannot use stealth without cover, concealment or something special. The rules don't say that being higher affects stealth at all. Most games I play in assume that adventurers learn that things can jump you from above and look up as part of their scanning for danger.
And you know what? The rules agree with you. According to everything I see, just being above your head floating quietly doesn't qualify as cover or concealment. I don't agree with that, but that is RAW. So kudos, you are right. I hope the smug glow of satisfaction warms you.
See, I can be passive-aggressive snarky as well!
I apologize once again for my tone. The situation triggered some bad GM memories about some old-school GMs that would change rules on the fly and laugh about it. I do admit that I have a hard time giving up on things, but I'm done now.
If any other changes come to mind, please let us know.
Glad you are done.
Retcon is up
I will iron out everything else once I am at a terminal again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I'd rather not retcon. Frankly it's my character that seems to be most in trouble as it was and I dont mind and was quite happy with the way it was handled origonally.
Hamar is not a fan of retcon's. Any kind of con enrages barbarians and Hamar is no exception!
I wonder if I should start with Hamar speaking about Hamar in the third person, would probably be a weird switch now, I guess I have been watching too much Grimlock on the Transformers with my daughter lately and the speech pattern amuses me to no end...
I'm just erasing the surprise round. The order of battle and the attacks that hit from the mouths are still in play. We will continue as we were. I will sort through recent postings and resolve this battle hopefully soon.
You know, I'm trying to work up the enthusiasm to finish this battle and I'm having a hard time of it. I was going to go on vacation in Canada, land of no cell service, at the end of the week anyway, I think I might call it a bit early, let myself cool down a bit, get my head together.
So, I'll be back posting on this game 8/15. I'll see you all in two weeks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will also be going on vacation next week, but I won't be back until the 17th and probably not up to posting before the 18th, so please feel free to bot Nari in the interim. That critical miss she just rolled provides ample excuse for her to be a bit useless for a round or two anyhow. :P
I hope you have a wonderful vacation, Patrick, full of lots of rest and fun. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IS all good Pat, I feel like I missed the entire summer myself. :/
(I can't believe that schools are starting back NEXT WEEK!?!) :P
(AND neither can my kids!) ;)
Get some rest, I know you've got moving and stuff to deal with, Go. Do what you've got to do. If you find a store with any Sanity left on the shelves, let me know so I can go and get myself some! ;)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, "We'll be here when you get back!" :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hamar love this game and will want to play no matter how long break take!
Often I find that if I fall behind in updates, I need to make time to simply update a Discussion Thread to inform the PCs of a particular game that I am either going to be posting later in the day or week or will be on a break form the boards for one reason or another.
To save time updating so many damn threads I am going to open this thread and link all of my DM aliases (and PC aliases) to this thread to inform people as to my status. So if I am missing for a time, just go ahead and click on the link in my Avatar and you will be able to ascertain my board status.
My sincerest apologies if this is a bit of an inconvenience where you are waiting on me for an action but posting "I will be away for the next 3 days" 47 times (or more) is just not working for me any longer. Thank you for your understanding!
I don't know how you manage it. You are epic.
I'll keep your thread in mind, that's a great tool.
I don't know how you manage it. You are epic.
I'll keep your thread in mind, that's a great tool.
It's funny cause I thought DM Kludde did it, then I realized he was linking back to his own Profile to inform PCs about his House rules and Uniformity for PC Profiles.
Then it hit me, why don't I just create one thread instead of updating 50! It took a little over an hour but now with all DM and PC Avatars linked to one thread I just need to post once and everyone is up to date. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I'm good with five. I tried your idea of a one thread recruiting tool, but I think at this point I'm going to start going with invite-only to my games.
Yeah I'm good with five. I tried your idea of a one thread recruiting tool, but I think at this point I'm going to start going with invite-only to my games.
On some of the bigger Recruitment's (especially where they were all new games like Ruins of Azlant or the Forgotten Realms Evil Campaign) I needed to break out a separate Thread anyway but for already existing campaigns it works well enough.
I do some invite only Recruiting depending on the game or if a see a newb that needs a game and I want to take a flier on someone whose Avatar name and pic I like ;-)
Some games you almost NEED to do invite only. My Vampire and Star Wars games always get low turn out while APs flood with applications, to be expected as I suppose these ARE Paizo boards but sometimes I am surprised at the absolute lack of interest in some games. Especially Star Wars which is such a hot commodity right now!
Yeah, I only have the five so I don't really need to spread out the call for new players. I know enough people here on the boards that I can find someone I have some history with before I invite them.