I use a simple 1 always makes a cured item 20 makes something special rule. Forces a roll so you can't take 10 for an auto success. Also failure by 5 or more makes a cursed item as well. I roll behind the screen. The first item that the 1 trigger, it was for a wand of invis...the "curse" was that it was a wand of glitterdust. It was hilarious when it got used on the party rogue :) .
Since there ae no rules for deliberately making cursed items, and Hama is supposed to be a master of curses, my GM allowes me to make cursed items (or rather, she will once I have the proper feats). If I botch the spellcraft check however, I end up creating a different cursed item than I intended, or possibly a normal magic item. Has a lot of potential danger. I could end up giving what I believe to be a necklace of strangulation to an enemy only to find it is an amulet of natural armor +5.
|
I use a simple 1 always makes a cured item 20 makes something special rule. Forces a roll so you can't take 10 for an auto success. Also failure by 5 or more makes a cursed item as well. I roll behind the screen. The first item that the 1 trigger, it was for a wand of invis...the "curse" was that it was a wand of glitterdust. It was hilarious when it got used on the party rogue :) .Since there ae no rules for deliberately making cursed items, and Hama is supposed to be a master of curses, my GM allowes me to make cursed items (or rather, she will once I have the proper feats). If I botch the spellcraft check however, I end up creating a different cursed item than I intended, or possibly a normal magic item. Has a lot of potential danger. I could end up giving what I believe to be a necklace of strangulation to an enemy only to find it is an amulet of natural armor +5.
See my system is quite easy for making cursed items on purpose...you pay to make the item that the cursed itm is based off...then you take 1. You can ALWAYS take 1.
Umm you specifically said that the 4 druids and archers were the SAME encounter. Now your changing it. That is not a clarification.
Enclosed cabin = full cover = nobody on your side can attack if they all hide there. Which means I get to set fire to your boat without any harry. If anyone stays above deck, they die. Then I set fire to your boat. So any other things you wanna change up? Or you wanna relent on the DM used bad tactics to let you all live? Because honestly, she did.
We did encounter 4 druids and several archers in a single encounter.
I later started talking about a second encounter that involved the same types of archers and you jumped to conclusions by thinking I was talking about the same encounter. That's your mistake, not mine.
Also, since Hama was the only one in any real danger, she was the only one who took the advantage of total cover in the boat. The cleric and archer on the other hand benefited from cover from the low wall on the edge of the boat.
The others were seriously injured during the fight, but ended up coming out on top because the half-celestials ran out of smite (much of which was used to destroy the hydra).
|
|
Actual main topic:
I think your friends are just messing with you RD. From the comments on the agreement and the fact that you have all played together long term and are friends, I doubt they would break that to kill you
You know that's what I assumed at first which is why I didn't really chime in till page 4 or something...but I don't know...it feels like there maybe more then that. It's kinda hard with just one person chiming in...but I'm not so convinced that it's all happyville that RD keeps insisting it is. Shurg, what the hell do I know...I never met any of the people involved in real life. But my gut reactions tend to be pretty good and I'm good at digging things up, even over the net ;) .
|
|
Umm you specifically said that the 4 druids and archers were the SAME encounter. Now your changing it. That is not a clarification.
Enclosed cabin = full cover = nobody on your side can attack if they all hide there. Which means I get to set fire to your boat without any harry. If anyone stays above deck, they die. Then I set fire to your boat. So any other things you wanna change up? Or you wanna relent on the DM used bad tactics to let you all live? Because honestly, she did.
We did encounter 4 druids and several archers in a single encounter.
I later started talking about a second encounter that involved the same types of archers and you jumped to conclusions by thinking I was talking about the same encounter. That's your mistake, not mine.
Also, since Hama was the only one in any real danger, she was the only one who took the advantage of total cover in the boat. The cleric and archer on the other hand benefited from cover from the low wall on the edge of the boat.
The others were seriously injured during the fight, but ended up coming out on top because the half-celestials ran out of smite (much of which was used to destroy the hydra).
Well THAT encounter is the one that I'm saying should have killed you...not some random piddly archery fight that talking about. And WHY are you talking about a random archery fight instead of the 4 druid one that was orginally the one that was suppose to TPK you?
In anycase, half celestial, they fly. Flight ignores the boat walls as cover. The hydra and barb/monk become non threats. The cleric only a minor one. And they didn't do this because? Oh yeah, because they were played badly...right? You can't honestly say that them stayon on the ground when they had flight capability was a GOOD choice...because at that point, you've lost ALL credibility.
RD was making his case as a general statement or at least that is how I took it. As a general statement I can't agree with him. If he was arguing it is ok for his group, that is different.
Of course I was arguing for my group. Had I been the GM I would be seriously considering enforcing a level delay too.
I think the only general stance I've taken related to LA is that it is seriously flawed and there are usually better alternatives.
|
Nah, I just have delusions of grandeur from time to time. And a sense of humor.
I hear that brother. I don't have much room to point fingers though. My style of DM'ing borders on griefing my players. Characters rarely die but bad things are always just around the corner.
For instance, right now I have a cursed Wand of Cone of Cold ready to be found on a conspicuous corpse of a tortured nobleman. When you activate it, it shoots out in a random direction. That with an attachment curse causing you to keep it and use it as your primary weapon.
Well THAT encounter is the one that I'm saying should have killed you...not some random piddly archery fight that talking about. And WHY are you talking about a random archery fight instead of the 4 druid one that was orginally the one that was suppose to TPK you?
In anycase, half celestial, they fly. Flight ignores the boat walls as cover. The hydra and barb/monk become non threats. The cleric only a minor one. And they didn't do this because? Oh yeah, because they were played badly...right? You can't honestly say that them stayon on the ground when they had flight capability was a GOOD choice...because at that point, you've lost ALL credibility.
I brought up the other fight because it related to what was being said at the time.
What exactly are you getting out of continuing this line of discussion anyways? I don't see why you keep pushing the issue as it doesn't really relate to anything else in this thread. If you are simply trying to find ways to attack my credibility, than stop. That's trolling, or baiting, or something close to it.
In any case, the hydra DID become useless after the first round of ambush (other than to soak up a bunch of arrows afterwards that could have been meant for us).
The cleric WAS only a minor threat.
The barbarian/monk jumped at a few of the archers (he's a grappling specialist, kind of hard to shoot somebody with a bow when they have you in a headlock).
And with that, I'm going to bed for now. By posting so early in the morning without a clear head, I only serve to give the naysayers more ammo.
Isn't that kind of like being the biggest a@##!~# in the room?
Pfft. Sir, I am a System Hack. I once tried to convert Rifts to HERO to achieve some sort of character balance (Rifts main book only); turns out you can do most builds on 250 points, so long as equipment isn't paid for with points. I statted up the (at the time) complete character lineup of Gold Digger (comic book) for the HERO forum at one point - for kicks. I've designed spaceships for Dream Pod 9 (Jovian Chronicles Mechanical Catalog Two: Civilian Equipment and Spacecraft - go buy it, the podlings can always use the cash). I can take a system apart and put it back together again six ways from sunday - and you'll agree that it's better than it was before.Munchkinism? Too. Damn. Easy.
Nah, I just have delusions of grandeur from time to time. And a sense of humor.
This is why finding a group to actually enjoy RPing with is such a challenge. There're too many guys just hanging around trying to ruin the game in an attempt to be clever.
Ya know that does not even factor in unless you have the feats, down time and spell needed to craft any item you want. you simply do not. So that I could have 240'000 gp of magic items is BSBut that's the thing. In order to become a lich, I need 120,000gp, Craft Wondrous Items, and nearly 6 months.
If I can get that, I could also choose to make that 120,000gp into 240,000gp worth of magical items INSTEAD.
If not, then I can't get a bunch of cool loot OR become a lich. Since we are doing a theoretical balance comparison, however, we ARE assuming that I WILL have the time to craft either a phylactery OR a bunch of phat loot (because otherwise the whole discussion becomes moot).
Even if the lich still comes out on top, I think I've proven that it isn't AS powerful as everyone is making it out to be once you factor in the costs and other variables.
That's not strictly true. From my own experience of running a crafting based character, you don't get to turn the value of your loot into twice that value of magic items. You have to sell the loot to get the gold, and that halves it's value. You end up with the same value as you started with, only this time it's stuff that you want.
As for the becoming a lich option ... I will point out that 240,000gp worth of kit isn't worth anything to someone who is dead, and at her age your character will be that way before very long at all.
Age is the price you paid top get your mental stats up that high.
Immanent death is the price you pay for advanced age.
120,000gp, feats and a possible level adjustment is the price you pay for becoming a lich and avoiding death from old age.
As for your friends, they have every right to be worried. A familiar is the closest friend a caster can have, and you sacrificed yours to a devil to get a better one. When you did that you pinned a big label on your own character that read: "I will sacrifice anything and anyone to get myself greater power." Now, if your rite to become a lich begins with the words 'First, take your three closest friends and sacrifice them to Asmodeus ...' then they are devilled kebabs. Naturally, this has them very worried ...
RD was making his case as a general statement or at least that is how I took it. As a general statement I can't agree with him. If he was arguing it is ok for his group, that is different.Of course I was arguing for my group. Had I been the GM I would be seriously considering enforcing a level delay too.
I think the only general stance I've taken related to LA is that it is seriously flawed and there are usually better alternatives.
I dont think LA is a bad idea. The issue is that it's more of an art than a science. I also reduce the LA if certain features become less useful later on.
As for you game if your DM has ways to curb your power then by all means drop the LA. I would like to hear about it though(not for debate purposes). It might be useful to me as a DM.
|
Ravingdork, if Hama manages to create and use 240k worth of magical items, your point it made. If she doesn't, then it isn't. What she could do in an ideal situation is only a valid argument if you have a DM who regularly presents you with ideal situations. Your DM doesn't sound like the type.
The wealth system is a sloppy guideline. It's fun for vicarious players to parade it around like a gospel of game theory, but it's trumped by the vagaries of an active campaign.
Ya know that does not even factor in unless you have the feats, down time and spell needed to craft any item you want. you simply do not. So that I could have 240'000 gp of magic items is BSBut that's the thing. In order to become a lich, I need 120,000gp, Craft Wondrous Items, and nearly 6 months.
If I can get that, I could also choose to make that 120,000gp into 240,000gp worth of magical items INSTEAD.
If not, then I can't get a bunch of cool loot OR become a lich. Since we are doing a theoretical balance comparison, however, we ARE assuming that I WILL have the time to craft either a phylactery OR a bunch of phat loot (because otherwise the whole discussion becomes moot).
Even if the lich still comes out on top, I think I've proven that it isn't AS powerful as everyone is making it out to be once you factor in the costs and other variables.
That's not strictly true. From my own experience of running a crafting based character, you don't get to turn the value of your loot into twice that value of magic items. You have to sell the loot to get the gold, and that halves it's value. You end up with the same value as you started with, only this time it's stuff that you want.
As for the becoming a lich option ... I will point out that 240,000gp worth of kit isn't worth anything to someone who is dead, and at her age your character will be that way before very long at all.
Age is the price you paid top get your mental stats up that high.
Immanent death is the price you pay for advanced age.
120,000gp, feats and a possible level adjustment is the price you pay for becoming a lich and avoiding death from old age.As for your friends, they have every right to be worried. A familiar is the closest friend a caster can have, and you sacrificed yours to a devil to get a better one. When you did that you pinned a big label on your own character that read: "I will sacrifice anything and anyone to get myself greater power."...
+1, especially to the sarificing the familiar. I am a druid in another campaign, and if ever I have to choose between the pet and a party member we will be needing a party member soon. Hopefully it never comes to that.
You should be dead
Nuh uh
Yah huh!
NO I shouldn't!
YES you should!!
Noooooo...
Yesssss!!
Kids, stop it, or your mother and I will turn this thread right around and head back home!
But they started it!
No we didn't, you did by being broken!
Nuh uh
Yah huh!
*Edit: THAT was snark
(But Snark for the purpose of eliciting a laugh, not for being mean)
Never apologize for snark! Mr. Fishy believes in saying what you think is right, no matter you you tweak or keep your mouth shut. If you have to apologize then it shouldn't be said.
By the way at venerable, your DM should have been rolling for your death year.
If you check the details, the DM did roll secretly.
Ravingdork wrote:That's because you are looking at it the wrong way. You should be comparing the lich template to 240,000gp worth of magic items, since that's what you could create with 120,000gp. The phylactery rules make it clear that the 120,000gp is the COST, not the MARKET PRICE. So I ask you all to look at it from that persepctive. What would a straight wizard with his many bonus item creation feats be able to make with 120,000gp and 6 months? How does that now compare to the template?
...I'm amazed that nobody has responded to this despite the fact it is, like, the 5th time it's appeared in the thread.
What's to be amazed about? It's a borderline argument. Technically speaking, yes, if a caster with Item Creation gives up 120K they could potentially have made 240K of gear. But, that's only a possibility, campaign time, prerequisites, etc. don't guarantee this. Also, when compared against characters who can't create items, 120 K is 120 K in magic items. So the actual "give" would be quantified as somewhere between 120K and 240K.
That said, earlier in this thread I started counting out equivalent magic item value and I made it well past 120K by only looking at some of the more minor lich abilities. Some of the abilities (i.e. phylactery allowing a continuous and permanent Contingency: Teleport combined with Resurrection) are artifact level in power. Taking the entire suite of abilities and "costing" it out isn't really the best way to look at it, but if you pick abilities that are easily duplicated with magic items you still aren't losing ANYTHING with the 120K you spent. Also, remember the fact that these abilities are intrinsic, can't be stolen, and don't take up any slots makes them more valuable than a comparable magic item.
Actually I do agree with RD here (BTW Hama need craft wonderous before she can become a lich). The phylactery is a 240k since you spend 120k + craft wonderous item to make it. That said, the lich template is STILL worth more then 240k gold. The 120k mark got past even before we got to the GOOD stuff. And BTW the cost for the stat boost alone is worth way more then the example. The items give enhancement bonuses that can be gotten from a lot of sources...hence why they cost less then tomes. Since the +2s stack with EVERYTHING including tomes and enchancements, they should be at least worth the tomes...if not more. That is 150k worth at the very least right there. Considering that it does stack with tomes and items, a 50% sure charge to make 225k seems about right. And it's slotless...for double cost for 450k. Yep that's about what I would charge a player if they wanted +2 to 3 stats that stacked with everything else. So yeah, man up, eat the LA like the guideline says and be glad your not paying the 4 levels of 3.5.
+1000 I think it's been beaten to death that the 120K spent to create a phylactery pays off HUGE in what's gained. So nonone is "paying" for the lich template by the coinage needed for the phylactery.
just a thought, but I'm guessing during combat your well behind the party generally so next combat you let them rush in to kill the bad guys and you cast a spell (and they wont likely see it coming unless the cleric has decent spell craft) but instead you hit them with whatever spell youve got up your sleeve then on the next round you use teleport or dimension door (on a scroll if you have to) to get as far away as possible leaving the enemy to clean up after you. this is assuming that the spell your using has decent range (sorry didnt read the rest of the posts to see if you said what spell you were going to use)
if it has touch range or area affect sorrounding you ect. Next time you teleport the party or buff ect. you unleash the spell and hope for the best.
either way you should defiantly ask your DM about rerolling and starting anew right after.
Never apologize for snark! Mr. Fishy believes in saying what you think is right, no matter you you tweak or keep your mouth shut. If you have to apologize then it shouldn't be said.
Don't think I actually apologized. I was bringing it up because earlier I was told to bring more logic and less snark, and I clarified that it was instead sardonicism. Then, I made a long, drawn out set of fake quotes amounting to "You sound like a bunch of little kids" and said "THAT is Snark" is a Paul-Hogan-Esque "THIS is a knife" sort of tone.
Fake quotes I, and appearantly nobody else, thought were rather funny.
Why are people offended by Hama's ability scores, especially her strength? It's a by-the-books age progression. As a young woman her stats would have been:
Str 8 (–1), Dex 12 (+1), Con 16 (+3), Int 9 (-1), Wis 9 (-1), Cha 20 (+5)
Maybe because it screams munchkinism so badly it tears the paint off the walls? This isn't the stats of a world-conquering witch, it's the stats of a stage dolly. On top of that using the venerable age bracket to dump your phys stats even further to pump up an insane charisma firmly confirms the "M" badge of shame.
That and perhaps it's a insult to to one of the best villains of "Avatar, the Last Airbender." , Hama of the Southern Water Tribe. :)
By the way at venerable, your DM should have been rolling for your death year.
I think he said the DM rolled 2d4 secretly.
By the way at venerable, your DM should have been rolling for your death year.If you check the details, the DM did roll secretly.
I was ninja'd I see, by over an hour.
Never apologize for snark! Mr. Fishy believes in saying what you think is right, no matter you you tweak or keep your mouth shut. If you have to apologize then it shouldn't be said.Don't think I actually apologized. I was bringing it up because earlier I was told to bring more logic and less snark, and I clarified that it was instead sardonicism. Then, I made a long, drawn out set of fake quotes amounting to "You sound like a bunch of little kids" and said "THAT is Snark" is a Paul-Hogan-Esque "THIS is a knife" sort of tone.
Fake quotes I, and appearantly nobody else, thought were rather funny.
** spoiler omitted **
You can't apologize and take it back. Stop listening to the Fish. He is funny, but his advice is terrible.
I do admit I agree with the Fish's idea about not saying something then apologizing, but that is not the point. The point is, well, I am not exactly sure where this rambling was going.......
|
|
I brought up the other fight because it related to what was being said at the time.In any case, the hydra DID become useless after the first round of ambush (other than to soak up a bunch of arrows afterwards that could have been meant for us).
The cleric WAS only a minor threat.
The barbarian/monk jumped at a few of the archers (he's a grappling specialist, kind of hard to shoot somebody with a bow when they have you in a headlock).
Umm no it never really did because the point was that the first encounter you listed was the one that should have caused a TPK in your party...nobody even knew about this archer only fight till you brought it up (I still think it's just a changed story).
Wasting arrows on a hydra that is useless is playing the enemies badly.
Letting a grapple monk within melee range when you can fly and avoid it is playing badly.
Hell flying would have let them avoid cover...so yeah you have done nothing to disprove that even the less deadly archer only fight was played badly to allow you and your party to survive.
The point is, you and your venerable tocus is still alive because the DM is pulling the punches. Which honestly is a good thing because you and the barb/monk should so be dead already. Hell the archers should have killed you all if they were played to the teeth.
I hear that brother. I don't have much room to point fingers though. My style of DM'ing borders on griefing my players. Characters rarely die but bad things are always just around the corner.
When I GM, I try to apply logical consequences to actions. People can be excellent at digging their own holes.
For example, in an Ars Magica game I ran, the NPC captain who was sailing them to their new home had a curse: Could not rest on dry land. He usually slept on his boat for that reason. Simple and flavorful, right? Didn't think much of it at the time.
So the magi get aboard and are on their way. One player has a _horribly disfigured_, scary, evil-eyed wizard with the 'spook' factor cranked all the way to 11 (this was, BTW, a terribly munchkin character). He started trying to order the (norse) captain around, something you not only don't do on a ship, but he had zero social skills and so many accumulated negatives that he was basically guaranteed to offend everyone in a 20 mile radius just by walking around. So he starts trying to bully the captain, and lo and behold a fight breaks out - despite the fact that other players calm the situation down SEVERAL TIMES, evil-eye keeps throwing his weight around (for no reason - I was totally baffled). So the captain, badly wounded, escapes to the nearby shore along with a handful of crew, the rest of the crew is either dead on the deck or soon will be, leaving the wizards to fend for themselves.
So badly wounded captain guy is stuck ashore in the wilds of AD 1000 Ireland with no medical attention. Not surprisingly, he dies of his wounds soon after. Oh, but wait, he's cursed! Can't rest on land, remember? Hello vengeful, shambling corpse to plague the magi. It got even stranger later on - involving a priest with a fear of heights and a levitation spell. That's another story.
I certainly didn't plan this. It was supposed to be a '3 hour tour' up the coast to their new home, with a giant turtle attack in the middle (guess who had an enemy: Giant magical turtle? Yup, same character). The captain was 'just a guy' I had statted up for the trip. But an innocent boat trip turned into slasher film nightmare fodder because somebody had to take over a boat that was going where they wanted to go in the first place. Everything just sort of fell into place after that.
Point of the matter, he made a character that was built to fail at ANY social interaction - people literally HATED him on sight. He then (inexplicably) expected to succeed at social interaction because he had PC and 'wizard' stamped on his forehead. That ain't how it works. He chose to make his character that way, and people are going to respond to him in a certain way.
Nowadays I insist on being more involved in the character creation process - to head off the dysfunctional character concepts people sometimes come up with. And when people choose something, I explain the likely consequences and make sure they're okay with it.
I think it's pretty safe to say that RD's GM is extremely generous, based on his admittedly shifting accounts of some of their adventures... "They were Half-Celestial Paladin archers. Well, maybe not Paladins. But they could fly! Oh, um, the druids were with other archers, though. Yeah, for some reason I'm talking about two different encounters now."
Too much loot, easy enemies, and not enough penalties for massive power boosts. Welcome to munchkin land.
That's not strictly true. From my own experience of running a crafting based character, you don't get to turn the value of your loot into twice that value of magic items. You have to sell the loot to get the gold, and that halves it's value. You end up with the same value as you started with, only this time it's stuff that you want.
I guess this thread is moving too fast. People seem to be having trouble keeping up.
I've never once said anything of the sort! In fact I've said otherwise on a number of occasions. Why is everyone assuming I am starting with loot to sell? In the theorized example put forth I have 120,000gp in ACTUAL COIN, not loot to sell at half price.
[summarizes dicussion between Cold Napalm and Ravingdork]
Sums it up well enough.
That and perhaps it's a insult to to one of the best villains of "Avatar, the Last Airbender." , Hama of the Southern Water Tribe. :)
An insult? It's a homage. My character Hama is based off of a number of witches from popular sources and literature including, but not limited to, the following:
Hama the Bloodbender, Avatar
Maleficent, Sleeping Beauty (especially Maleficent)
Palpatine, Star Wars
Queen/Old Crone, Snow White
just a thought, but I'm guessing during combat your well behind the party generally so next combat you let them rush in to kill the bad guys and you cast a spell (and they wont likely see it coming unless the cleric has decent spell craft) but instead you hit them with whatever spell youve got up your sleeve then on the next round you use teleport or dimension door (on a scroll if you have to) to get as far away as possible leaving the enemy to clean up after you. this is assuming that the spell your using has decent range (sorry didnt read the rest of the posts to see if you said what spell you were going to use)
Actually, I have yet to use dimension door my entire career (or a number of other spells such as command undead). Most of the time, it's simply because the opportunity has presented itself (I haven't yet had to flee that far and haven't yet encountered any enemy undead).
Too much loot, easy enemies, and not enough penalties for massive power boosts. Welcome to munchkin land.
Congratulations, you are a true child of the internet (where everybody was raised to be mean and facetious "just because"). You could just as easily have made your point without being insulting.
If anything we are under the loot guidelines for our level. Take a look at the sheets. Hama has the most gold because she has been hoarding it as much as she can in preparation, but it still doesn't come anywhere near what the books suggest for our level I don't think.
The enemies are not easy. We've nearly been killed several times and have come out on top ONLY because of clever tricks/tactics or running away. Regardless of what we encounter, we are always kept on our toes.
There might be power boosts in the future (if I get lichdom without the LA for example), but at the moment there is nothing of the sort.
That's not strictly true. From my own experience of running a crafting based character, you don't get to turn the value of your loot into twice that value of magic items. You have to sell the loot to get the gold, and that halves it's value. You end up with the same value as you started with, only this time it's stuff that you want.I guess this thread is moving too fast. People seem to be having trouble keeping up.
I've never once said anything of the sort! In fact I've said otherwise on a number of occasions. Why is everyone assuming I am starting with loot to sell? In the theorized example put forth I have 120,000gp in actual coin.
We are not saying you have the loot to sell up front. We are saying the 120000 would not double if the GM had given it to you as loot.
If I give you 120000 as loot, and you sell it for half, and then you make items at half price you still get 120000 worth of loot. That 240000 is not valid.If you are saying you theoretically have 120000 gold pieces that is a far stretch. I don't know any DM that only gives out coins as opposed to a combination of treasure and coin.
We are not saying you have the loot to sell up front. We are saying the 120000 would not double if the GM had given it to you as loot.
If I give you 120000 as loot, and you sell it for half, and then you make items at half price you still get 120000 worth of loot. That 240000 is not valid.
If you are saying you theoretically have 120000 gold pieces that is a far stretch. I don't know any DM that only gives out coins as opposed to a combination of treasure and coin.
Thank you for clearing that up. It seems we've been in agreement all along on the matter. Just a bit of miscommunication from the looks of it.
Now, speaking literally instead of theoretically: Hama currently has accumulated 27,155gp in actual coins. She also has a small handful of minor magic items (much of which she was forced to get just to survive coming situations--such as a ring of sustenance and a homebrew bracelet that grants her constant endure elements before a long trek through an unforgiving desert region). The rest of her items aren't worth much in the way of resale value with the sole exception of a magical dagger (which is only worth a lot because it used to be a meteoric dagger in v3.5, then got converted to a close analogue, a +1 flaming returning dagger when we switched to Pathfinder).
Therefore, she has a LONG ways to go before she can become a lich. I like to think positively and am thus aiming to get there shortly after 11th-level, but our GM is stingy with treasure so that may well not happen...for a long, long time.
Also, please note that wealth is not balanced between party members in our party. We assign items where we think they will be best utilized. therefore some characters in our party may actually go a little over the wealth-by-level guidelines, others are substantially below it. When I say "we are under those guidelines" I mean the sum of the group as a whole.
We are not saying you have the loot to sell up front. We are saying the 120000 would not double if the GM had given it to you as loot.
If I give you 120000 as loot, and you sell it for half, and then you make items at half price you still get 120000 worth of loot. That 240000 is not valid.
If you are saying you theoretically have 120000 gold pieces that is a far stretch. I don't know any DM that only gives out coins as opposed to a combination of treasure and coin.
Thank you for clearing that up.
Now, speaking literally instead of theoretically: Hama currently has accumulated 27,155gp in actual coins. She also has a small handful of minor magic items (much of which she was forced to get just to survive coming situations--such as a ring of sustenance and a homebrew bracelet that grants her constant endure elements before a long trek through an unforgiving desert region). The rest of her items aren't worth much in the way of resale value with the sole exception of a magical dagger (which is only worth a lot because it used to be a meteoric dagger in v3.5, then got converted to a close analogue, a +1 flaming returning dagger when we switched to Pathfinder).
Therefore, she has a LONG ways to go before she can become a lich. I like to think positively and am thus aiming to get there shortly after 11th-level, but our GM is stingy with treasure so that may well not happen...for a long, long time.
Also, please note that wealth is not balanced between party members in our party. We assign items where we think they will be best utilized. therefore some characters in our party may actually go a little over the wealth-by-level guidelines, others are substantially below it. When I say "we are under those guidelines" I mean the sum of the group as a whole.
Our group hands things out by usefulness too. If one of us is better then all of us are better-Wraithstrike. If some else said it then they jumped in a time machine and stole it from me.
Back on topic: If you can't find someone to loan you the money you may have to turn to party members. With your craft wondrous item feat you can pay them back easily by making them for them at half price or maybe even a combination of the two.
If you can't find someone to loan you the money you may have to turn to party members. With your craft wondrous item feat you can pay them back easily by making them for them at half price or maybe even a combination of the two.
That's a distinct possibility.
It would also prove/disprove the idea that the other PCs fear Hama's possible lichdom. If they are truly fearful, they will turn down any offer that might support Hama's goal of becoming a lich.
If you can't find someone to loan you the money you may have to turn to party members. With your craft wondrous item feat you can pay them back easily by making them for them at half price or maybe even a combination of the two.That's a distinct possibility.
It would also prove/disprove the idea that the other PCs fear Hama's possible lichdom. If they are truly fearful, they will turn down any offer that might support Hama's goal of becoming a lich.
I did not write that well at all. I am glad you were able to decipher it. Happy Gaming.
I don't think they're kidding. Although they are quite retarded for telling you!
So you either:
1) Kill them first. Your character is probably smart or wise enough to know, in game, what is going on.
2) Make an example of one of them, especially if it's an attempt on your life. Fear goes both ways.
3) Ask the DM if your charisma allows you to affect PCs inclinations in-game.
4) Bloody kill them already , you're in an evil campaign. BWahahahahaaha. (omg this is so high school).
5) Get ready to leave the campaign (if they don't like you in real life) and/or make another character.
For future reference, in evil campaigns, you either want to be meek (and feign weakness, so you don't get killed) or you make everyone fear you and kill one of them (so you don't get killed). Being powerful without fear just gets you killed. fyi.
Btw, how can you wipe them out with a single spell at level 9? Initiative means nothing, if they aren't suspecting you could get surprise on most if not all of them. Or they could be engaged with an opponent. Or sleeping. The list goes on and on...
I'm not sure talking (or threatening) the players again makes any sense, it will just make them act almost immediately. As a matter of fact, you have to set your defenses up (and talk to the DM about it), almost immediately, in case they plan to immediately attack you when the next session starts.
Btw, how can you call yourself "treacherous" and not kill or abuse followers or anyone else? It doesn't make sense tbh. By calling yourself treacherous, YOU in fact, are making yourself the target in the evil campaign. I can hardly blame the others when I really think about it.
Lots of people had good suggestions, no sense in repeating. Several people are trying to treat this problem in-game, but I think the problem may very well be out-of-game or solved out of the game. In my experience, this is not going to be a happy ending to the campaign! Please let us know how this train wreck plays out, lol!
Now that I've read more, I get it. The DM said that at end game, everyone gets to fight each other, the winner is the last guy still standing. And since you can have no in-game fighting until that point, the game is really about "who can make the best powergamed character by level 20". I think you understood what's going on, I think everyone else didn't understand what was going on, until now.
You have a good (powergamed) plan where you're going to be many times more powerful than any other player by that point (by becoming and Lich). Meaning in this type of game, "you win". I'd kill you too, while I still could.
It won't even be an "epic ending" when you get to endgame, you've already won! It's just an epeen stroke.
You made it sound like they had a problem with you being able to kill them with one spell, but the real problem they had was you getting to end game with an unbeatable character.
Well, going back to that encounter you described - the Paladin/Half-Celestial/Flying Archers vs The Boat - the party should have been paste. The fact that the DM played the opposition as poorly as possible made them easier than they should have been. Your enemies routinely ignore your character, when a smart opponent would have ganked her first; due to your character's physical frailty, she wouldn't last a focused attack very long.
When the DM goes easy on you, that changes the game.
Well, going back to that encounter you described - the Paladin/Half-Celestial/Flying Archers vs The Boat - the party should have been paste. The fact that the DM played the opposition as poorly as possible made them easier than they should have been. Your enemies routinely ignore your character, when a smart opponent would have ganked her first; due to your character's physical frailty, she wouldn't last a focused attack very long.
When the DM goes easy on you, that changes the game.
The only thing I can think of that the half-celestial archers could have done better was to have started with the fiery arrows from the very beginning, rather than half a minute into the battle.
Much of what everyone describes they should have done (them staying out of reach, getting directly overhead of the boat to negate some cover, etc.) they DID do--and they all still died.
Also, a SMART opponent goes after (or retreats from) whatever is most threatening to his life during the battle--lest they die horribly chasing some lesser target in the distance. Due to my character's apparent physical frailty and non-combative nature, she is usually one of the last ones to face a focused attack.
Well, going back to that encounter you described - the Paladin/Half-Celestial/Flying Archers vs The Boat - the party should have been paste. The fact that the DM played the opposition as poorly as possible made them easier than they should have been. Your enemies routinely ignore your character, when a smart opponent would have ganked her first; due to your character's physical frailty, she wouldn't last a focused attack very long.
When the DM goes easy on you, that changes the game.
The only thing I can think of that the half-celestial archers could have done better was to have started with the fiery arrows from the very beginning, rather than half a minute into the battle.
Much of what everyone describes they should have done (them staying out of reach, getting directly overhead of the boat to negate some cover, etc.) they DID do--and they all still died.
Also, a SMART opponent goes after (or retreats from) whatever is most threatening to his life during the battle--lest they die horribly chasing some lesser target in the distance. Due to my character's apparent physical frailty and non-combative nature, she is usually one of the last ones to face a focused attack.
You said the archers boarded the boat and engaged a barbarian monk in melee. This is different from staying onshore or in the air and pelting them with arrows out of reach from counter-attacks. Then you said the barbarian swam across the river to the shore. All well and good, but if they could fly, why didn't they?
The unarmored, non-weapon carrying person - particularly if they have a DEMONIC FAMILIAR - in a group of big bads is obviously a caster, and thus a major threat. Any experienced group of adventurers knows this, and reacts accordingly.
You've changed what you said a couple times but either way, your party was thrown a real softball, and it sounds like that's not a rare occurance.
Well, going back to that encounter you described - the Paladin/Half-Celestial/Flying Archers vs The Boat - the party should have been paste. The fact that the DM played the opposition as poorly as possible made them easier than they should have been. Your enemies routinely ignore your character, when a smart opponent would have ganked her first; due to your character's physical frailty, she wouldn't last a focused attack very long.
When the DM goes easy on you, that changes the game.
The only thing I can think of that the half-celestial archers could have done better was to have started with the fiery arrows from the very beginning, rather than half a minute into the battle.
Much of what everyone describes they should have done (them staying out of reach, getting directly overhead of the boat to negate some cover, etc.) they DID do--and they all still died.
Also, a SMART opponent goes after (or retreats from) whatever is most threatening to his life during the battle--lest they die horribly chasing some lesser target in the distance. Due to my character's apparent physical frailty and non-combative nature, she is usually one of the last ones to face a focused attack.
You probably would not be with the group you are with, without a valid skill set. The fact that you look frail makes it obvious that it is not melee. That only leaves you as a caster.
Casters die first.
Yeah, its possible you are just some random hireling, but if that were the case you would most likely not even appear on the field of combat.
PS I am not saying the DM should kill you, only that he is not trying hard enough, if that makes any sense.
Casters die first.
This is rule 1 and always has been. She should have been toast, she was traveling with an evil party they planned to kill, looked like a caster as she was unarmed, unarmored and looked to weak to still be alive if she could not hold her own
Casters die first.
You said the archers boarded the boat and engaged a barbarian monk in melee. This is different from staying onshore or in the air and pelting them with arrows out of reach from counter-attacks.
I said SOME of them TRIED to board the boat. The hydra they were unaware of tore them apart once they were within its reach.
Then you said the barbarian swam across the river to the shore. All well and good, but if they could fly, why didn't they?
They WERE flying. The orc had to jump up and attack them. I've said all this before. They could have flown higher, but then they would not have been able to attack the boat due to the tree canopy overhanging the river (the fight took place on a river in a crowded swamp).
The unarmored, non-weapon carrying person - particularly if they have a DEMONIC FAMILIAR - in a group of big bads is obviously a caster, and thus a major threat. Any experienced group of adventurers knows this, and reacts accordingly.
That is some serious metagame thinking going on there. You should be thinking as the NPCs might have been thinking, not as a player with a unique perspective. In addition, you like the others, are making incorrect assumptions. We had just recently entered the region (one of the reasons why we were attacked--we had inadvertently trespassed into their territory). Before the river battle, we were unknown to these people. We had no glowing weapons or obvious magical items (if you recall, the GM has been stingy with the treasure). Nobody had heard of us in the area at that point. There wasn't anything to indicate that we were anything but a well-armed band of traders (at least, not until the hydra made its appearance).
As I said before, Hama might well have died by being peppered with the initial volley of arrows, had the party ranger not spotted the ambush and warned us moments before it started raining steel-tipped arrows.
Since she wasn't, and since she spent most of the time in total cover or with invisibility and/or gaseous form, she wasn't much of a target (not when there were so many other obvious threats).
You've changed what you said a couple times but either way, your party was thrown a real softball, and it sounds like that's not a rare occurrence.
The ONLY thing I have changed is the paladin/not-paladin thing, and that's just because of bad memory (which I've ALSO mentioned having in this thread very early one). That encounter was some months ago, and we never saw the archer stats, so as a player, I can only surmise that they were half-celestials (since they could fly, smite once, among other things).
You probably would not be with the group you are with, without a valid skill set. The fact that you look frail makes it obvious that it is not melee. That only leaves you as a caster.
Casters die first.
Yeah, its possible you are just some random hireling, but if that were the case you would most likely not even appear on the field of combat.
PS I am not saying the DM should kill you, only that he is not trying hard enough, if that makes any sense.
See above. You have fallen into the metagame trap. Also, it is easy for hirelings to end up on the field of battle if the battle is regularly brought to them (despite being evil, we are rarely the ones to attack first). Wizards and other spellcasters often wear ostentatious clothing, or else become obvious once they begin casting highly visible spells. Hama DOES NEITHER.
Would you honestly spend your time shooting the old lady who has done nothing but cower in the distance when there is a raging orc barbarian bearing down on you with murderous intent? Of course you would SAY yes, that's because many of you guys are thinking as players, not as your characters might.
We are fortunate to have a GM who doesn't metagame and keeps things extremely realistic.
Sometimes we DO face enemies who, due to word of mouth from survivors or divination, know the truth about Hama's abilities. There have been many a time where Hama has come close to death because she WAS the first one to be attacked (and then ended up sitting out nearly the entire fight while waiting to be revived). Other times when pitted against such opponents, she wins initiative and gets into a good defensive position (such as total cover) or else turns invisible.
Now, having said all that, I grow tired of defending my GM's methods over and over again due to your stubbornness and unending desire to fault our game and prove me wrong.
See above. You have fallen into the metagame trap. Also, it is easy for hirelings to end up on the field of battle if the battle is regularly brought to them (despite being evil, we are rarely the ones to attack first). Wizards and other spellcasters often wear ostentatious clothing, or else become obvious once they begin casting highly visible spells. Hama DOES NEITHER.Would you honestly spend your time shooting the old lady who has done nothing but cower in the distance when there is a raging orc barbarian bearing down on you with murderous intent? Of course you would SAY yes, that's because many of you guys are thinking as players, not as your characters might.
We are fortunate to have a GM who doesn't metagame and keeps things extremely realistic.
Sometimes we DO face enemies who, due to word of mouth from survivors or divination, know the truth about Hama's abilities. There have been many a time where Hama has come close to death because she WAS the first one to be attacked (and then ended up sitting out nearly the entire fight while waiting to be revived). Other times when pitted against such opponents, she wins initiative and gets into a good defensive position (such as total cover) or else turns invisible.
Now, having said all that, I grow tired of defending my GM's methods over and over again due to your stubbornness and unending desire to fault our game and prove me wrong. I am going to ask you and others to stop accusing my GM of "going easy on us" and then trying to prove it by dissecting the encounters described. It is not on-topic to this thread to begin with. Any further attempts to continue this particular subtopic will be considered nothing less than baiting.
Fair enough since neither will convince the other.
Edit: Yes I would shoot the old lady since if I was shooting(means I have a ranged attack) I would be out of the raging barbarians threat range. If the barbarian is close enough to hurt me I would have to ask myself why dont I have a melee weapon in my hand.
Now I am done.
Edit 2: I don't metagame.
|
|
Now there is jungle canopy...what 2 feet above the boat?!? Because honestly at the realistic 20-30 feet that canopy can become an issue, the jump check that barb need is DC 80 to 120...using only HALF your acrobatics no less as your standing and jumping from a boat. You keep citing realism...and it's not, it really isn't. Now I am willing to say that the DM is probably nerfing the encounters to keep you all from...say a TPK...but yeah, you guys are being kept alive by DM's softballing you all.
And what kind of set up did you have to survive 10 archers with 4 level 11 druids that were half celstials then? Because honestly, a bunch of archers had to be softballed...I'm kinda curious how much you got coddled to live through that one.
And quite frankly, the DM taking it easy on you guys is not a knock against the DM...it means she knows you all enough to balance the encounters so you all get challenged and yet don't TPK, which is a good thing...but you guys are all getting coddled. Don't delude yourself on that point. It also means hama in most other games that don't coddle the players (like say any game I play in or run)...she's toast. Actually everyone but the archer is pretty much toast. The barb/monk is just weak and the cleric is basically being a fighter...only worse and much squisher. The archer with the addition of deadly aim become a low end character for our games.
I still don't understand how the orc barbarian/monk is weak.
I still don't understand how the orc barbarian/monk is weak.
His AC is too low, and unless he has pounce he should be killed by any CR appropriate monster.
I do not see pounce
<goes to make monster list>
copy and paste from the PRD:dark naga, dire tiger, efreeti,
erinyes,mohrg, nabasu, ogre mage, sphinx, stone giant
When I do the edit I will see if my ballpark observation was right assuming the monster and the barbarian end up in single combat while the party is fighting other monsters.
Edit:
Barbarian
Init: 2
AC 17
hp 81 (9 HD) 99(HP when raging)
Ferocity; CMD 28 (30 vs. grapple and trip)
Fort +12, Ref +9 (evasion), Will +6 (+8 vs. enchantment)
Speed 60 ft. (12 squares); Mobility, Spring Attack
Melee adamantine guisarme +14/+9 (2d4+9), or
Melee adamantine guisarme +16/+11 (2d4+12) while raging, or
Ranged +1 composite longbow +10/+5 (1d8+5)
My guess is that the erinyes, mohrg, and the stone giant are good choices.
Edit 2: I won't use the Erinyes because that seem like an auto loss for the barbarian
Mohrg
AC 23, touch 15, flat-footed 18 (+4 Dex, +1 dodge, +8 natural)
hp 91 (14d8+28)
Fort +6, Ref +10, Will +9
The morgh wins initiative most likely
It moves up and goes for the paralysis. It needs a 1 to not hit.
The DC is 19, but the barbarian has a +12 to his saves so he only needs a 7 to save which means the barbarian only has a 30% chance to fail. By round 4 the barbarian should fail the save.
The morgh is in the barbarian's threatened area. If I saw a big muscle guy with no armor I would think monk even if he has axes. The morgh is thinking he can take the hits.
14/20 = 60% hit chance for 14 point of damage on the first hit
9/20 = 45% hit chance for 14 points of damage
Hit 1=.6 x 14 for 8.4
Hit 2 = .45 x 14 for 6.3
The morgh just got hit pretty good, but he thinks he can hold out
The party cleric makes the knowledge check and tells the orc if he does not kill the morgh soon he might be lunch
The morgh can won't win the melee battle most but the tongue should still hit. The barbarian makes the save. ...
Edit 3: I just realized this is an Arena fight which does not prove much even though the barbarian was about to become lunch.
AC 17 is for 1st level characters. If I use the stone giant the barbarian dies barring lucky rolls. This of course assumes the giant has buddies to keep the party busy. The low will save might also mean a sleeping or running tank due to a fear spell which I beleive is necromancy.
I still don't understand how the orc barbarian/monk is weak.His AC is too low, and unless he has pounce he should be killed by any CR appropriate monster.
Good thing he isn't alone then. In any case, he used to wear armor and have a higher AC up until recently, when the number of invalidated monk abilities made it not worth keeping.
EDIT: Just looked at some CR 9s. You are quite right about the AC. I guess it's a good thing he has Spring Attack with which to keep those big brutes from ever getting more than one attack against him. Against smaller fair, his ability to grapple and pin in one round tends to keep him relatively safe from retaliation.
Oftentimes, he will Spring in 5 or 10 feet, attack with his guisarme, then spring back behind some cover (so as to spoil an enemy's charge). Though he usually only makes one attack, he relies on his polearm to get a few extra attacks of opportunity to make up for it. If the target is small enough, or if an opportunity arises, he sometimes grapples. His high strength and reach weapon also allow him to deter possible enemies by putting the hurt on all his own.
He may have invested in Vital Strike by now, but much to my surprise he just learned of its existence a few days ago.
Not too surprisingly, it's tactics like this that leave the party cleric as the only easy target in most battles. Hama hides, the ranger stays back and shoots arrows, the orc springs to cover before the enemy's turn, and only the poor cleric is usually left in the melee as an obvious target (especially when he starts healing the rest of us).
I can't count the number of times the cleric needed rescuing. :P
I still don't understand how the orc barbarian/monk is weak.His AC is too low, and unless he has pounce he should be killed by any CR appropriate monster.Good thing he isn't alone then. In any case, he used to wear armor and have a higher AC up until recently, when the number of invalidated monk abilities made it not worth keeping.
EDIT: Just looked at some CR 9s. You are quite right about the AC. I guess it's a good thing he has Spring Attack with which to keep those big brutes from ever getting more than one attack against him. Against smaller fair, his ability to grapple and pin in one round tends to keep him relatively safe from retaliation.
Oftentimes, he will Spring in 5 or 10 feet, attack with his guisarme, then spring back behind some cover (so as to spoil an enemy's charge). Though he usually only makes one attack, he relies on his polearm to get a few extra attacks of opportunity to make up for it. If the target is small enough, or if an opportunity arises, he sometimes grapples. His high strength and reach weapon also allow him to deter possible enemies by putting the hurt on all his own.
He may have invested in Vital Strike by now, but much to my surprise he just learned of its existence a few days ago.
Not too surprisingly, it's tactics like this that leave the party cleric as the only easy target in most battles. Hama hides, the ranger stays back and shoots arrows, the orc springs to cover before the enemy's turn, and only the poor cleric is usually left in the melee as an obvious target (especially when he starts healing the rest of us).
I can't count the number of times the cleric needed rescuing. :P
It is good that the party has a cleric, but if you(barbarian really) only live because of the cleric something is wrong. It is better to not get hit so you can kill the monsters faster. If the cleric started healing I would focus fire on the cleric. No point in beating on someone just to see the cleric undo all of the work. If all or at least half(the cleric would not have fun if he died) of the enemies focused on the cleric he should go down. After that you go after target which would be Hama or the archer if I can get past the barbarian which depends on a lot of factors. Now if Hama really takes no action in combat then it is really 3 against the bad guys since Hama is not participating. If Hama becomes useful at she gets at least on playmate(enemy). Invisibility is also not hard to foil at this level by monsters or humanoids. I would not foil it all the time(takes away from the fun), but it would not work every time.