I find it hard to believe they would waste two pages for art (or even one). No other PF product has art between chapters, plus Jason's comments indicates they jammed just about every page they could with information. I could see a chart or charts, but not sure what.
Heights, weights, starting ages?
You may be right. I just think it's strange that humans would get 3 pages when they arguably need the least space out of all the races.
You might want to check out "Into the Darklands," then. There's a pretty healthy amount of info about the duergar in there, and while we can't use kuo-toa at all (as mentioned by the previous poster, the kuo-toa are WotC only), we CAN use the skum. They fill the role in the underground realms that the kuo-toa used to fill really rather well.
Can you call them something else? "Skum" is a stupid name for a race of monsters. Unless they're oozes of course.
Creative Director
|
You might want to check out "Into the Darklands," then. There's a pretty healthy amount of info about the duergar in there, and while we can't use kuo-toa at all (as mentioned by the previous poster, the kuo-toa are WotC only), we CAN use the skum. They fill the role in the underground realms that the kuo-toa used to fill really rather well.Can you call them something else? "Skum" is a stupid name for a race of monsters. Unless they're oozes of course.
Quoted from the skum section of "Into the Darklands" ...
Quoted from the "Ulat-Kini" section of "Into the Darklands" xxx
So... yes, in Golarion they have their own racial name, but they're a race in tragic decline that has degenerated to decadence and most of them have lost this heritage to history. There's quite a bit more about the skum (aka Ulat-Kini) in "Into the Darklands," and we'll be exploring them quite a bit more in the years to come, I suspect.
I don't speak French OR Kelesh and it still looks dirty to me!My first language is French, and what you just said sounds like something very dirty.
I bet it would sound even more dirty to someone speaking Kelish... :P
LOL. And thanks, James. I'm pretty new to PF and haven't read anything on the setting. What you quoted sounds pretty good.
True, but a lot of people's experience with Tolkien's elves begin and end with Elrond and Galadriel. Heck, even the wood elves in The Hobbit weren't nearly as nice as the high elves that showed up in The Lord of the Rings.
Yeah. To their defense, they had to deal with dwarves. The Dwarf/Elf hatred in Middle Earth is deep-seated, and for good reason (greedy dwarves killing elves for shiny gems tend to stick in people's minds)
That's dumb. You get an advantage that only comes into effect if you multi-class???
And that's supposed to be your big advantage playing a human?
The old favoured classes were all about multiclassing.
But I'm confused now. Free favoured classes is the big advantage playing a human? Not extra skill points? And an extra feat? And a free +2 on any ability score?
Well currently there is a huge downside to playing humans (and halflings) in that they cannot see in any kind of darkness.
Same with elves and half-elves and gnomes. Low-light vision is nice, but no help really in a dungeon. You'll need light magic or torches, anyway.
Now the downside is ,in addition, that they have abilities that wont kick in at first level at all and more importantly to me that dilute their main class specialty.
Multi-classing is a pain in the rear.
It's one minor advantage. Note that in 3.5, they had the same advantage: More freedom in multiclassing.
And I don't see a problem with something that won't kick in at first level. Not in this case.
Funny how we all look at these things differently... case in point: the thread labeled "Why play anything but a human?"That might be the extra Feat you're thinking about...Well currently there is a huge downside to playing humans (and halflings) in that they cannot see in any kind of darkness.
Now the downside is ,in addition, that they have abilities that wont kick in at first level at all and more importantly to me that dilute their main class specialty.
Multi-classing is a pain in the rear.
Maybe because too many GMs handwave visibility handicaps.
Same with elves and half-elves and gnomes. Low-light vision is nice, but no help really in a dungeon. You'll need light magic or torches, anyway.
At least lowlight helps in wilderness hexes. Humans dont do so good there half the time.
But I'm confused now. Free favoured classes is the big advantage playing a human? Not extra skill points? And an extra feat? And a free +2 on any ability score?
When it comes to favored classes humans had the big advantage (and half-elves).
Only in that aspect was I referring to. Your point (and similar from others) is well taken, but there are still big disadvantages and I feel this cost appeal for the race.Which doesnt strike me as a good move since humans (a.k.a. stumblers, bumblers, or PCs-that-go-bump-in-the-night) are a hassle to play already.
I never had a problem playing humans. Now that you can cast light all day and don't have to bother with torches, it's even less of a problem.
Beyond the very nice racial traits, they seem to have another appeal going for them. Right now, over 50% of all characters I play or have in the party are human. They're more numerous than all the other races combined.
Humans are played 3 times a much as any other race in every game I have ever been in. Eh use a torch, free feat and an extra skill I'll grab a torch.
For fun let me run down the races on the PBP I run
Stap= 4 humans a half elf, a Kalashtar and a warforged
CotCT= 3 humans, a Aasimar a Genasi and a Dwarf
Endless war= 2 humans, a halfelf, a warforged, a changling and a Kobold
so a total of 19 pc's and 9 of them human, almost half
Yeah human is used alot
Humans are played 3 times a much as any other race in every game I have ever been in. Eh use a torch, free feat and an extra skill I'll grab a torch.
For fun let me run down the races on the PBP I run
Stap= 4 humans a half elf, a Kalashtar and a warforged
CotCT= 3 humans, a Aasimar a Genasi and a Dwarf
Endless war= 2 humans, a halfelf, a warforged, a changling and a Koboldso a total of 19 pc's and 9 of them human, almost half
Yeah human is used alot
In a setting where humans are the emerging dominant race, perhaps that's the way it should be...
'findel
I never had a problem playing humans. Now that you can cast light all day and don't have to bother with torches, it's even less of a problem.
You do know that light is a minutes/level spell. Yes you can recast it all day long.
But are you going to stay up all night recasting it? If not, humans make less effective camp guards.Do you actually keep track of when it is supposed to be recast? A sufficiently maliscious DM can have it drop mid-fight on you. Even if you recast it before opening every door it can alert monsters beyond (same as torchlight).
Having an unlimited supply of batteries is less appealing when you have to change them out every few minutes.
That was what I meant by hand-waving the visibility limitations. Your DM is simply nodding and going "Yup, thems free spells" and the issue is solved.
Not really. Not when you consider that most dungeon monsters dont need light, unless it is to show them where their next meal is in the corridors.
Low-light is at least effective in wilderness hexes.
Speaking of practical racial advantages, do elves still only need 4 hours of trance? Because its not in Beta, not under their race anyway.
Is it gone? Or somewhere else?
I'm sure it's still there. Beta didn't have every detail, after all, and didn't sweat the small stuff.
Speaking of practical racial advantages, do elves still only need 4 hours of trance? Because its not in Beta, not under their race anyway.
Is it gone? Or somewhere else?
The other day I was wondering the same thing about the rules for jumping down from a height. The Beta mentions that you can do it, but the actual rules for it magically disappeared...
Well I know the special materials are back in, so their probably all back in pfrpg.
The other day I was wondering the same thing about the rules for jumping down from a height. The Beta mentions that you can do it, but the actual rules for it magically disappeared...
I'll add one of my post from the Errata and Typos thread for the Skills and Feats:
[...] there are:
- no rules for Accelerated Tumbling. (should there be?)
- no DC on using Acrobatics to land your feet when falling (should there be?)
- no DC on using Acrobatics to land your feet when jumping (should there be?)The wording on page 329 is a bit unclear:
"Falling Damage: The basic rule is simple: 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet fallen, to a maximum of 20d6. If a character deliberately jumps instead of merely slipping or falling, the damage is the same but the first 1d6 is nonlethal damage. A DC 15 Acrobatics check allows the character to avoid any damage from the first 10 feet fallen and converts any damage from the second 10 feet to nonlethal damage. [...]"
This could be read as: A DC 15 Acrobatics check when you deliberately jumps allows the character to avoid any damage from the first 10 feet fallen and converts any damage from the second 10 feet to nonlethal damage.
There's no example in the text to follow on just falling and using acrobatics.
So whats the DC when you don't deliberately jump but fall?Balance: "While you are using Acrobatics in this way, you are considered flat-footed and lose your Dexterity bonus to your AC (if any)."
Does those who have uncanny dodge also lose their dex bonus?
So check out page 329.....but there still are no rules on landing on your feet
I never had a problem playing humans. Now that you can cast light all day and don't have to bother with torches, it's even less of a problem.
Oh yes, the highly tactical 'blazing ball of light' coming through the forest, the dungeon, or sneaking up on the enemy position :p
I never had a problem playing humans. Now that you can cast light all day and don't have to bother with torches, it's even less of a problem.Oh yes, the highly tactical 'blazing ball of light' coming through the forest, the dungeon, or sneaking up on the enemy position :p
LOL,
That reminds me of a time we had a wand of light with about 40 charges. We needed to distract some orcs, so the ranger spent two days catching squirrels. Then we spent a day making little harnesses for them, holding stones on their backs. The ranger and rogue hid them in sacks around the woods near the camp that afternoon. About midnight, the the rogue lit out for the bags of ticked off squirrels, casting light on the stones, and releasing them in the woods around the orc encampment to the north and east. We snuck in from the southwest, brained the four or five left behind to guard the prisoners while the rest raced noisly around the woods beating the brush for the 'oomans', freed the prisoners, set fire to the orc camp, and then lit out ourselves.The only injured parties were the highly indignant squirrels. We left the unconscious orcs hanging up side down from tree's with targets painted on their genitals. So I guess you could say the orcs were injured too, in the pride department anyway.
I approve, MDT, I approve.
I approve, MDT, I approve.
Thanks.
We had a cleric who didn't like killing unless it was absolutely necessary. We thought it was necessary to get the prisoners back, but since the orcs weren't hurting them (they were going to sell them to the neighboring kingdom as slaves), the cleric wanted to get them back with a minimum of bloodshed.This caused a bit of a row until someone pointed out how much face the orcs would lose if we could point out they were too stupid to bother killing. That, and the idea of leaving them hanging upside down with all their squishy bits exposed. :)
Ah! So they removed it from the skill description but it's still in the falling rules. I guess that makes sense. Thanks!
The other day I was wondering the same thing about the rules for jumping down from a height. The Beta mentions that you can do it, but the actual rules for it magically disappeared...I'll add one of my post from the Errata and Typos thread for the Skills and Feats:
[...] there are:
- no rules for Accelerated Tumbling. (should there be?)
- no DC on using Acrobatics to land your feet when falling (should there be?)
- no DC on using Acrobatics to land your feet when jumping (should there be?)The wording on page 329 is a bit unclear:
"Falling Damage: The basic rule is simple: 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet fallen, to a maximum of 20d6. If a character deliberately jumps instead of merely slipping or falling, the damage is the same but the first 1d6 is nonlethal damage. A DC 15 Acrobatics check allows the character to avoid any damage from the first 10 feet fallen and converts any damage from the second 10 feet to nonlethal damage. [...]"
This could be read as: A DC 15 Acrobatics check when you deliberately jumps allows the character to avoid any damage from the first 10 feet fallen and converts any damage from the second 10 feet to nonlethal damage.
There's no example in the text to follow on just falling and using acrobatics.
So whats the DC when you don't deliberately jump but fall?Balance: "While you are using Acrobatics in this way, you are considered flat-footed and lose your Dexterity bonus to your AC (if any)."
Does those who have uncanny dodge also lose their dex bonus?So check out page 329.....but there still are no rules on landing on your feet
I never had a problem playing humans. Now that you can cast light all day and don't have to bother with torches, it's even less of a problem.Oh yes, the highly tactical 'blazing ball of light' coming through the forest, the dungeon, or sneaking up on the enemy position :p
Low-light vision doesn't always help in those situations, either, since you still need some light. You're not as picky as a human, but a dungeon still calls for a light source.
Low-light vision doesn't always help in those situations, either, since you still need some light. You're not as picky as a human, but a dungeon still calls for a light source.
Don't need a lot of light though, certainly a lot less than a human.
Mind you, in our campaign we are yet to even SEE a dungeon - so it's working well for the demi-humans, and thankfully our GM doesn't wave off stuff like 'vision' in campaigns :)I'd still like a good write up on how they are telling us the vision actually works? Are we presuming it is like night vision goggles? or are they just good at sucking in ambient light?
Either way, some sight will be better at night than no sight - "In the valley of the blind the one eyed man is king"
If you never adventure at night, it becomes inconsequential altogether.
It's subjective. But the fact is: While human are the worst off in that department, only two races have the best option (darkvision).
And it's not as if humans were blind in a starlit night. Elves and the like can see twice as far, but it's not as if that would make humans dead meat.
If you never adventure at night, it becomes inconsequential altogether.
It's subjective. But the fact is: While human are the worst off in that department, only two races have the best option (darkvision).
And it's not as if humans were blind in a starlit night. Elves and the like can see twice as far, but it's not as if that would make humans dead meat.
It is still a serious tactical consideration imo. A common lamp only allows a human to see out to 30'. Which is only a single movement for medium creatures costing humans initiative in many cases. A torch is only slightly better with visibility out to 40'. This is only a single move for large creatures and a double move (charge) for medium.
And consider that these half-actions are all it takes for a creature to evade a humans' counterattack. Oh, sure! You could follow them down the darkened corridor. But dont blame me if they figured you would and set up ambush 60' or 80' down.So you see, simply doubling the visible range we have eliminated much of this tactical disadvantage. Opponents are not able to evade counterattack as easily (especially given the elvish propensity to carry longbows everywhere) nor are they as likely to successfully ambush advancing characters.
I didnt hit on this racial disadvantage from an academic "lookit these numbers" standpoint. It comes from playing and seeing others play humans and the trouble they find themselves in. It is no surprise to me that we have played entirely non-human parties for several sessions at a time. And still groan when someone comes along with their brand new human whatever.
It is still a serious tactical consideration imo. A common lamp only allows a human to see out to 30'. Which is only a single movement for medium creatures costing humans initiative in many cases.
Don't forget the extra 30' shadowy illumination. You don't have to read the fine print beneath the armour's brand logo to notice that ther's something there.
And consider that these half-actions are all it takes for a creature to evade a humans' counterattack. Oh, sure! You could follow them down the darkened corridor. But dont blame me if they figured you would and set up ambush 60' or 80' down.
How can they ambush you when they're in the light? And they will you once you move up to them carrying the light source.
And still groan when someone comes along with their brand new human whatever.
Yeah, obviously they're unplayable. And they deserve the niche they have in most game worlds, including Golarion.
|
Creative Director
|
My opinion: GMs who force players of characters without darkvision to endure lots of darkness is not much different than GMs who force players of characters who can't breathe water to adventure lots underwater.
Part of the GM's job is to make sure that the adventures he runs for his players are tailored to be fun for the players, not excruciating. If your players enjoy stumbling around in darkness and the danger of being caught without light, of course... go for it!
But something like darkvision should be an advantage, not a requirement. Adventures should be designed and adapted for play to support this.
My opinion: GMs who force players of characters without darkvision to endure lots of darkness is not much different than GMs who force players of characters who can't breathe water to adventure lots underwater.
Part of the GM's job is to make sure that the adventures he runs for his players are tailored to be fun for the players, not excruciating. If your players enjoy stumbling around in darkness and the danger of being caught without light, of course... go for it!
But something like darkvision should be an advantage, not a requirement. Adventures should be designed and adapted for play to support this.
DING DING DING!
RPG Design guy for the win!
I spent 3 months working out a giant labyrinhine ruin of dwarf civilization, complete with toxic mushroom growth, degenerate dwarves who carried disease and were mindless scavangers who lived off the mushroom growth (which kept them insane and diseased) and who attacked any outsider for their flesh (ala the creatures at the end of Drakes Fortune), treasure chambers and halls, the whole nine yards.
Then my players went and made a centaur, a woodling catfolk, and a poisondusk lizardfolk. One to big to work underground, one who's immune to poison, and a third who's a forest creature immune to poison and disease.
*le sigh*
Put all my notes away for another story arch, spend 3 feverish weeks writing up a new story arch that involves regaining contact with the civilizations of the southern reaches swamplands instead.
The ironic thing is, 4 game sessions in, the centaur player had to quit playing to go back on the road to work, and his replacement made a duerger. LOL
Anyway, the point is, the GM's job is to design a game that the characters make sense working in, not a game that punishes them for not choosing to all be half-orcs or gnomes or woodling catfolk.
|
My opinion: GMs who force players of characters without darkvision to endure lots of darkness is not much different than GMs who force players of characters who can't breathe water to adventure lots underwater.
Part of the GM's job is to make sure that the adventures he runs for his players are tailored to be fun for the players, not excruciating. If your players enjoy stumbling around in darkness and the danger of being caught without light, of course... go for it!
But something like darkvision should be an advantage, not a requirement. Adventures should be designed and adapted for play to support this.
This talk about darkness and darkvision and advantage reminds me of a combat encounter in my Beta playtest campaign. The PCs had just finished the adventure and returned to town to heal and sell loot. They were all wounded, and I was a bit worried about the whole encounter (I had assumed they would spend the rest of their healing resources for the day before returning), but decided to run it anyway. Basically, it was supposed to be an ambush at the shrine of the cleric PC's deity, and consisted of a elven swordsman plus several human "minions" (some were archers stationed on two balconies). Well, it wasn't challenging for long, because the cleric's player asked me (on his character's turn): "Elves don't have Darkvision, right?" and then proceeded to cast 'Darkness' on the whole chamber. None of the bad guys could see in darkness, but half the party could... what followed was an amusing (but ridiculously easy) fight for the PCs as the hapless "minions" mostly fought each other in the dark (the PCs slaughtered anyone trying to get out of the room). Talk about advantage and outwitting the GM... *sigh*.
|
Creative Director
|
It's probably a good idea, if you're putting a lot of work and time into generating a campaign that deviates from the standard D&D style campaign, to let the players know the basics about that campaign before they make their characters. While it's fun sometimes to let players make whatever kind of characters they want, sometimes it's more important to focus the often chaotic energy that is a player's mind and give them a little bit of guidance on what kind of characters they should be making for the campaign you want to run. That's the basic idea behind our Adventure Path player's guides, after all.
It's probably a good idea, if you're putting a lot of work and time into generating a campaign that deviates from the standard D&D style campaign, to let the players know the basics about that campaign before they make their characters. While it's fun sometimes to let players make whatever kind of characters they want, sometimes it's more important to focus the often chaotic energy that is a player's mind and give them a little bit of guidance on what kind of characters they should be making for the campaign you want to run. That's the basic idea behind our Adventure Path player's guides, after all.
I always do that, one way or the other. It may still be quite freeform, but there are always guidelines.
Part of it stems from the fact that I run premade adventures, since I don't have the time to make my own (even if I wanted to, which I don't), so there's limits.
Part of it stems from my personal preferences. There's stuff I just don't want at my table. For example parties that fight more against each other than the enemy. Might be cool for some, but I've seen it done badly one time (or ten times) too often to even want to try it again. So beyond a certain bickering, the characters need to get along.
That means that there's the requirement that all characters need to be compatible. I have no problems with extremist paladins (well, I do, but I can get past that), and I have no problems with evil characters. But I have a problem with a party that contains both a paladin with a scrict "no evil party members" policy and an evil party member. They have to decide who has to play something else, or they both play something else.
One of the requirements is always "make an adventurer". The party members must be willing, even eager, to go into situations no sane, average citicen would get into, like taking on a clan of sodomistic, cannibalistic, bloodthirsty giantkin.
I don't want to beforced to waste whole gaming sessions trying to bribe the characters into accepting their mission.
That is not to say that they won't get a reward, or that they can't haggle a bit. But there must be a general willingness to do it.
It also means that they must be willing to follow the plot. If I play Curse of the Crimson Throne, I don't want a character who has no intention of helping Korvosa, and who skips town 10 minutes after the first troubles start.
It might be a bit railroady, but that's the cost for playing premade modules and APs. If they don't like it, they're free to elect a different GM who is willing and able to make his own story and tailor them to the chracter's whims. I'll freely admit that this isn't quite my forte.
It's a nice change of pace sometimes, to let them do whatever they want and only react, and those "campaigns" are usually character-driven rather than story-driven, but it's not what I want to run all the time, or even more than a couple of sessions at a time.
It is still a serious tactical consideration imo. A common lamp only allows a human to see out to 30'. Which is only a single movement for medium creatures costing humans initiative in many cases.Don't forget the extra 30' shadowy illumination. You don't have to read the fine print beneath the armour's brand logo to notice that ther's something there.
Um, that is the shadowy illumination radius.
I see you have been handwaving the visibility rules.(edit: Just to make sure I looked it up. pg 165 PHB3.5. Common lamp bright illumination to 15' , shadowy only to 30'. Unless your just handwaving the rules in which case as long as the heroes have a 0-level spell they can see all night long as far as they want to.)
This talk about darkness and darkvision and advantage reminds me of a combat encounter in my Beta playtest campaign. The PCs had just finished the adventure and returned to town to heal and sell loot. They were all wounded, and I was a bit worried about the whole encounter (I had assumed they would spend the rest of their healing resources for the day before returning), but decided to run it anyway. Basically, it was supposed to be an ambush at the shrine of the cleric PC's deity, and consisted of a elven swordsman plus several human "minions" (some were archers stationed on two balconies). Well, it wasn't challenging for long, because the cleric's player asked me (on his character's turn): "Elves don't have Darkvision, right?" and then proceeded to cast 'Darkness' on the whole chamber. None of the bad guys could see in darkness, but half the party could... what followed was an amusing (but ridiculously easy) fight for the PCs as the hapless "minions" mostly fought each other in the dark (the PCs slaughtered anyone trying to get out of the room). Talk about advantage and outwitting the GM... *sigh*.My opinion: GMs who force players of characters without darkvision to endure lots of darkness is not much different than GMs who force players of characters who can't breathe water to adventure lots underwater.
Part of the GM's job is to make sure that the adventures he runs for his players are tailored to be fun for the players, not excruciating. If your players enjoy stumbling around in darkness and the danger of being caught without light, of course... go for it!
But something like darkvision should be an advantage, not a requirement. Adventures should be designed and adapted for play to support this.
LoL, good one! Reminds me of the rl SWAT teams when they throw in those blinding flash bombs before charging in on the bad guys.
I know I'm really late to the party on this, but my language sense is tingling...
"By the way, “dwarves vs. orcs”? is not derived from Scandinavian mythology. In fact orcs are not derived from Scandinavian mythology at all they don't even exist in our mythology. The whole orc concept is from Tolkien."
The modern orc concept is a derivative of Tolkien. However, he picked up the word and the general evil "vibe" for them from an Anglo-Saxon word that more or less equated to "demon". I think in Old Scandinavian there was a similar word along the lines of giant/ogre. So orc is tied to giant in a way. And as you can see below, they're both tied to necromancy; at least in some source material.
You can see an example in Beowulf, well two actually, but only one of them refers to a monster. "Orcneas" which was like a zombie or something. It's literally translated something along the lines of "hell corpse". The other place where it appears was as a jug full of gold or some such. Don't remember why.
And just because it's a detail from Beowulf I will never be able to forget: Hrothgar's sword was named Hrunting.
Although the roots for those uses of orc appear to be unrelated to the modern "orca" used for certain aquatic animals; there is also some evidence that the original use of orca might have been for great beasts that people found terrifying. Probably just sailors afraid of whales.
It's a reading rainboooooooow...
Part of the GM's job is to make sure that the adventures he runs for his players are tailored to be fun for the players, not excruciating...But something like darkvision should be an advantage, not a requirement. Adventures should be designed and adapted for play to support this.
Conversely, it's part of a Players brief to design a decent character that is capable of dealing with a broad range of situations... getting caught in the dark has been happening to man since creation, so it's hardly some sort of 'punishment', its a forseeable and likely risk.
The adventure is the adventure, and Players should expect any sort of oddball story to come from the GM, and have plans in place to deal with them.
As to your comment on underwater campaigns etc, its more like the GM gives the players $100000 to go buy a submarine and they come back with a Ferrari instead. They have made a pretty stupid choice for their character and they might need to go back and rethink it.
If the GM gives you the heads up and calls his campaign "Into the depths of Oerth" I would expect serious dungeoneering...so I wouldn't be rolling a Centaur (Though I cant see a time when you ever would!) "The Trident of Poseidon" might well be underwater - so I'd be thinking about that.
Players should be asking about the design of the campaign, DM's should tell players that the nice Centaur won't fit.
If your players aren't big enough to deal with that, find new players.
Well, with a name like Dungeons & Dragons you'd think subterranean scariness was somewhat common. Or at least not altogether unknown.
Well, with a name like Dungeons & Dragons you'd think subterranean scariness was somewhat common. Or at least not altogether unknown.
Good call. Dungeons being DARK and CRAMPED - Hey I'll roll a Centaur!
Well, with a name like Dungeons & Dragons you'd think subterranean scariness was somewhat common. Or at least not altogether unknown.Good call. Dungeons being DARK and CRAMPED - Hey I'll roll a Centaur!
Heh,
It helps if you have the whole story. Up until that point, the PC's had been doing a lot of overground exploration, no dungeon diving. I had decided to give them some classic dungeon delving, but didn't want to ruin the story ahead of time.lol
So the player comes in all excited about his centaur, and all the other players get psyched about having a centaur along. So... I can rain on everyone's parade, or... adapt. :)
Since I'm the DM, I think it's my job to Adapt, rather than force the players into the mold I want, so I did some in-town stuff with them that day, let them get all set with all the equipment they needed for the swamp, and then spent the next two or three weeks working up the swamp campaign.
|
|
Hey, I ran a game once where a character got scared up a tree. It wasn't until five rounds later we (including the player, who'd forgotten her character's race) realized the character in the tree was a bariaur. They were planescaping so I let it go, ruling it was plausible the laws of reality for the plane in question would allow it. Once we realized the mistake we had a pretty good laugh about it. Still it's a good example of being flexible in a game and not spoiling the fun due to realism.
Hey, I ran a game once where a character got scared up a tree. It wasn't until five rounds later we (including the player, who'd forgotten her character's race) realized the character in the tree was a bariaur. They were planescaping so I let it go, ruling it was plausible the laws of reality for the plane in question would allow it. Once we realized the mistake we had a pretty good laugh about it. Still it's a good example of being flexible in a game and not spoiling the fun due to realism.
LOL
That's a good one. I had a group where the scout/warlock was in a tree (poisondusk lizardfolk) firing his warlock blasts at some owlbears that were fighting the rest of his allies (He's CN).
The centaur (same as above) picked up the marshal and the duskblade, one in each arm (he had the str for it) and raced them both up to the stream the owlbears were charging towards. He stopped on the near side of the stream and dropped both the marshal and the duskblade.
The duskblade made his reflex save to land (DC 15) without incident. The marshal bounced (rolled a 1) and splashed into the river... in full adamantine plate. The Lizardfolk lost his action laughing (rolled a 3 on his will save, self imposed).
The druid cast entangle at that moment, cause the owlbears got there, and entangled the marshal too, underwater... Lizardfolk made his will save for that one and managed to get off a shot at a -4 (again, self imposed).
The centaur killed the first bugbear, who fell on top of the drowning marshal. Lizardfolk failed his (self imposed) will check and lost another action laughing.
The third owlbear stepped on top of the first one's corpse (the duskblade was dealing with the second), smushing the marshal further into the mud at the bottom of the stream. The lizardfolk rolled a 1 on his (self imposed) will save, and fell out of the tree laughing and took 2d6 falling damage.
By the time they pulled the two (now both dead) owlbears off the marshal, and got him untangled from the stream bottom, he had taken over 40 hps from drowning, and had only 10 left. As soon as he was up and recovered, he spent 20 minutes chasing the lizardfolk around trying to hit him with his mace (while everyone else butchered the owlbears for saleable bits and pieces).
A grand time was had by all, including the Marshal. :)
Hey, I ran a game once where a character got scared up a tree. It wasn't until five rounds later we (including the player, who'd forgotten her character's race) realized the character in the tree was a bariaur. They were planescaping so I let it go, ruling it was plausible the laws of reality for the plane in question would allow it. Once we realized the mistake we had a pretty good laugh about it. Still it's a good example of being flexible in a game and not spoiling the fun due to realism.LOL
That's a good one. I had a group where the scout/warlock was in a tree (poisondusk lizardfolk) firing his warlock blasts at some owlbears that were fighting the rest of his allies (He's CN).
The centaur (same as above) picked up the marshal and the duskblade, one in each arm (he had the str for it) and raced them both up to the stream the owlbears were charging towards. He stopped on the near side of the stream and dropped both the marshal and the duskblade.
The duskblade made his reflex save to land (DC 15) without incident. The marshal bounced (rolled a 1) and splashed into the river... in full adamantine plate. The Lizardfolk lost his action laughing (rolled a 3 on his will save, self imposed).
The druid cast entangle at that moment, cause the owlbears got there, and entangled the marshal too, underwater... Lizardfolk made his will save for that one and managed to get off a shot at a -4 (again, self imposed).
The centaur killed the first bugbear, who fell on top of the drowning marshal. Lizardfolk failed his (self imposed) will check and lost another action laughing.
The third owlbear stepped on top of the first one's corpse (the duskblade was dealing with the second), smushing the marshal further into the mud at the bottom of the stream. The lizardfolk rolled a 1 on his (self imposed) will save, and fell out of the tree laughing and took 2d6 falling damage.
By the time they pulled the two (now both dead) owlbears off the marshal, and got him untangled...
Stories about jerky warlocks always make me happy!
I used to play a NE warlock in age of worms, he eventually had to bow out due to me taking over as DM. Before that though there's this corridor that gets suddenly flooded with red water, I think it's a dungeon that connects to the underdark or something. Anyway, everyone else is close by a caster who has the ability to either cast water-breathing or teleport. I double checked that it was completely impossible for me to reach help or escape on my own before using what I believed to be my last living action to boldly pronounce: "I have always hated all of you. Except perhaps the halfling." (evil halfling illusionists are funny)
Of course, the water actually pushed us over a large drop into an underground lake. Allowing Ix (the warlock) to drift lazily down on his warlock devil wings, clutching his sides with laughter as everyone else took bashing damage on impact. God, our druid hated me.
Since I'm the DM, I think it's my job to Adapt, rather than force the players into the mold I want, so I did some in-town stuff with them that day, let them get all set with all the equipment they needed for the swamp, and then spent the next two or three weeks working up the swamp campaign.
Depends on the campaign, as you say.
If I was the BBEG and I knew the goodies were coming to get me and they were Centaurs etc, I'd definitely be drawing them out of their element and into a dungeon. If it was just an 'exploration' type campaign through the wilderness and lacked a story driven reason to I can see why they'd avoid a dirty great hole :)
Hey, I ran a game once where a character got scared up a tree. It wasn't until five rounds later we (including the player, who'd forgotten her character's race) realized the character in the tree was a bariaur. They were planescaping so I let it go, ruling it was plausible the laws of reality for the plane in question would allow it. Once we realized the mistake we had a pretty good laugh about it. Still it's a good example of being flexible in a game and not spoiling the fun due to realism.
Bah. That's nothing!
We were once fated to retake a city by night, fighting undead troops, including a vampire cleric who was leading the troops.
Except that we lagged on the way there (we didn't think they'd be that quick to get there), and arrived half a day late.
It wasn't until 10 minutes after the fight against that cleric that any of us realised that we had just fought a vampire in broad daylight.
|
|
Bah. That's nothing!
We were once fated to retake a city by night, fighting undead troops, including a vampire cleric who was leading the troops.
Except that we lagged on the way there (we didn't think they'd be that quick to get there), and arrived half a day late.
It wasn't until 10 minutes after the fight against that cleric that any of us realised that we had just fought a vampire in broad daylight.
Nice. Consistency errors like these make me respect George Lucas, well almost.
Nice. Consistency errors like these make me respect George Lucas, well almost.Bah. That's nothing!
We were once fated to retake a city by night, fighting undead troops, including a vampire cleric who was leading the troops.
Except that we lagged on the way there (we didn't think they'd be that quick to get there), and arrived half a day late.
It wasn't until 10 minutes after the fight against that cleric that any of us realised that we had just fought a vampire in broad daylight.
To be honest, no one noticed it. Not the DM, not the players.
It was balanced out later, when the druid's dire bear animal companion ate some small children playing on the street - at 2 in the morning. :D
There was a moral in that, I'm sure: "Being lax on your duties as a parent will get your child eaten by a dire bear animal companion"
Yeah, obviously they're unplayable. And they deserve the niche they have in most game worlds, including Golarion.
Now dont get me wrong. They are far from unplayable. It just gets me laughing everytime somebody says humans are too powerful. ("Really? Lemme hit the lights"). Especially since they did away with level caps for demi-humans long ago. (and that was the only real reason to play a human back then either). So balancing a race based on their supposed uberbility of an extra feat and a few skill points seems not thought out.