Ok so Lastnight, I'm role playing my 2nd level Inquisitor of Pharasma, Big Bad undead slaying dude.
We run into Vesrorianna. She is clearly undead.
Now my character knows (almost for certain) it's her name that was being written on the monument (we got as far as V-E-S-R-O-R-I) before stopping gibbs and having him shout something like "she will die again" not in his own voice.
I had detect undead going, and knew she was undead (like I needed that for the glowing blue lady) and detected evil and she wasn't.
So being as this is my wife's first attempt at DMing, I went along with it and didnt try to smash the undead's face in.
But...
Devotees of Pharasma as supposed to feel undeath is an abomination. So it struck me as a little weird trying to go along with/cooperate with an undead spirit.
I'm not really sure how or why she is trapped like this, or for that matter if I would try to help her, or destroy her.
Story line goes along basically like she is going to continue in this current existence to protect the world from the evil undead, if I/We can defeat them.
Wouldn't Pharasma/Followers of, have a deep deep problem with this?
I'm an Inquisitor, and I can operate outside of the normal parameters of the church to suit my feelings that this course of action would suit the greater good, and we got a good solid adventure hook/story background from her.
But wouldn't I want to release her or something? Not allow the spirit to linger?
My character is Chaotic Neutral.
Hey Pendagast, I've had a pretty similar experience, but it was during CotCT. Have you played/GMed that AP yet? If not, I won't bother going into it, otherwise I'll use spoilers for other folks.
This might not mesh to well with your characters alignment or temper, but seeing that she is not an evil abomination, but rather a victim of tragic circumstances I would think that a Pharasma worshiper might want to end her misery by breaking the curse that binds her her, thus allowing her spirit to go peacefully and willingly to her afterlife.
Quote on Pharasma:
They view putting the undead to rest as a holy duty.
As I see it, you have two RP options here. (1) put her to rest the way she asked or (2) put her to rest via combat. The DM can run her as a combat encounter, the information is definitely in the module to do that. Might want to bring along your 4d6 though. I'd RP option 1. You could alternatively do #2, find it's too difficult, pay to get the dead ressed, and then decide that option 1 would sufficiently satisfy Pharasma. :)
Well it just seemed weird. She's an "abomination" because she IS undead. But she is not evil.
My character is basically chaotic neutral, not because he is one step away from chaotic evil hack and slash, but he is chaotic in that he is dirty harry/charles bronson and goes out of line to get the job done, and neutral because I'm an Inquisitor of Pharasma and it's basically required.
I generally prefer True Neutral as an Alignment. But It didn't seem to fit the class as written, so blow some stuff up, intimidate some people during interrogations and ruffle a few feathers, so that makes me chaotic.
So far, RPing with her, she gave out no information that said "this will release me" so she can go on to the afterlife.
Which means, as far as I know, she will always linger.
She certainly should give out enough information for you to know that she is trying to keep a much more powerful and malicious haunting in check. I think all the but the most fanatically dogmatic Pharasmans would be willing to work with her against the more pressing undead menace, and leave the question of getting her to shuffle off the mortal coil for later.
Ya, we got that part, but it sounds like, when things are all said and done, she intends to "linger" to keep them from every coming back or gaining power again once they are defeated....
Ya, we got that part, but it sounds like, when things are all said and done, she intends to "linger" to keep them from every coming back or gaining power again once they are defeated....
Go ask her. The ghost, not your DM/wife.
A Pharasman would prefer a scenario which puts all spirits to rest. But if ever one would approve of an undead's existence, it would be if that spirit was acting as a barrier against other undead manifestations as Vesorianna plans to--and, as you pointed out, your character, as an Inquisitor, is not bound to astrict construction of Pharasma's law; arguably, the point of the Inquisitor is to be the one with the wriggle room to navigate gray areas in the god's doctrine.
Certainly, Vesorianna is the lowest priority undead to put to rest in the place. I don't think there should be any issues with going along with her for now--though you'll be trying to devise a method which can put her to rest without letting the other spirits loose the whole while.
Creative Director
|
Sometimes... OFTEN... we put things into adventures to cause difficult role-playing quandaries. This is certainly one of them.
Just as there can and should be fights that are really tough for a party to win, there should be tough roleplaying challenges. There's not really a "right" answer for this one, as far as the faith of Pharasma is concerned—since finding the most "right" answer for your character is the whole point.
Ya, we got that part, but it sounds like, when things are all said and done, she intends to "linger" to keep them from every coming back or gaining power again once they are defeated....
The problem seems to be that you want to attack her right now.
You understand she's here to hold back something more evil. You understand that she might linger afterwards.
Maybe you should talk to her more, and see what she wants to do, what would release her?
Maybe you should come back to her after the great evil is taken care of, and deal with her then?** spoiler omitted **
So, yes, if you are a smash-all-undead fanatic, then she is a problem for you to roleplay.
However, if you have some understanding about sending ghosts to where they should go by solving their problem that is holding them there, then you should have no problem with her at all. ANd end up with even more roleplaying than you would have with the smash-all-undead fanatic.
No no, like i said we got ALL that stuff, info about how to get the evils guys, who did what, what she saw, got it all.
It's not that I WANT to kill her, it just seems like there is a "duty" to do something 'about' her.
Yea, the "duty" is to do what she says - then her soul will be at rest and she will go away.
But that's not what she said, she said she intended to stay to prevent the evil entities from ever gaining power again, once they are defeated.
|
Yea, the "duty" is to do what she says - then her soul will be at rest and she will go away.But that's not what she said, she said she intended to stay to prevent the evil entities from ever gaining power again, once they are defeated.
And thus you have a moral dilemma. Firstly she's not evil, a simple detect evil and/or a good Sense Motive check will tell you that. Secondly a sufficiently high Knowledge (religion) check will also tell you that not all ghosts are evil. And finally doesn't Pharasma's Destroy All Undead doctrine have any leeway? I can see a LN Inquisitor saying, But you're Chaotic Neutral! Do you always do what you're told?
--between a Vrock and a hard place
Yea, the "duty" is to do what she says - then her soul will be at rest and she will go away.But that's not what she said, she said she intended to stay to prevent the evil entities from ever gaining power again, once they are defeated.Can't really tell what she is going to do, because your GM is the final arbitrator of what happens. Her game, her rules, her interpetation of the AP.
That being said, I maintain that after the evil has been defeated is the time to revisit the question of her staying or going. You don't have to settle the question the very first time you meet her. After you cleanse Harrowstone, you can bring it up with her again.
yea that's the route i went " I'll deal with you later!"
On another note:
Ran into Father Charlatan last night, Apparently this Haunt was supposed to do stuff... (what I don't know) But I happened to have an active detect undead and see invisible going when he "manifested" so I knew it was there, which I guess was not supposed to be how it worked, but I didn't know what was what (I also had detect secret doors going as well lol) and poof there is this 'thing'.
This played out oddly and it ended up I even helped the DM to try and make it do something.
Apparently, it would do something more sinister in conjunction with other baddies?
anyway, when I found it, I let it have it with disrupt undead (unclear really if this particular spell would work on it really) , oh and I also had a protection from evil going as well, which I guess had certain effects as well.
So the problem we where having is, this critter couldn't DO anything under the circumstances, and it couldn't leave either, so I just kept blasting it with disrupt undead. Til it was gone.
Question is: It's incorporeal, but the spell is magic, I dunno, what happened seems simultaneously kosher, and not. I've never had a zero level spell be so effective??
Yea, the "duty" is to do what she says - then her soul will be at rest and she will go away.But that's not what she said, she said she intended to stay to prevent the evil entities from ever gaining power again, once they are defeated.Can't really tell what she is going to do, because your GM is the final arbitrator of what happens. Her game, her rules, her interpetation of the AP.
That being said, I maintain that after the evil has been defeated is the time to revisit the question of her staying or going. You don't have to settle the question the very first time you meet her. After you cleanse Harrowstone, you can bring it up with her again.
yea that's the route i went " I'll deal with you later!"
On another note:
Ran into Father Charlatan last night, Apparently this Haunt was supposed to do stuff... (what I don't know) But I happened to have an active detect undead and see invisible going when he "manifested" so I knew it was there, which I guess was not supposed to be how it worked, but I didn't know what was what (I also had detect secret doors going as well lol) and poof there is this 'thing'.
This played out oddly and it ended up I even helped the DM to try and make it do something.
Apparently, it would do something more sinister in conjunction with other baddies?
anyway, when I found it, I let it have it with disrupt undead (unclear really if this particular spell would work on it really) , oh and I also had a protection from evil going as well, which I guess had certain effects as well.
So the problem we where having is, this critter couldn't DO anything under the circumstances, and it couldn't leave either, so I just kept blasting it with disrupt undead. Til it was gone.Question is: It's incorporeal, but the spell is magic, I dunno, what happened seems simultaneously kosher, and not. I've never had a zero level spell be so effective??
Detect undead, detect secret doors are both concentration spells, which means you couldn't have both up at the same time.
Adding to that, you can't have a spell with concentration duration remain in effect if you cast another spell. So what you did with disrupt undead could not have happened. Well, I guess it could, but with 50% miss chance (and if I was the haunt I would've swapped 'hosts' immediately). I don't think haunts can be damaged by positive energy rays, but if your DM says they can, go for it, since otherwise the only way to harm them is with channels.
Detect...Yea, the "duty" is to do what she says - then her soul will be at rest and she will go away.But that's not what she said, she said she intended to stay to prevent the evil entities from ever gaining power again, once they are defeated.Can't really tell what she is going to do, because your GM is the final arbitrator of what happens. Her game, her rules, her interpetation of the AP.
That being said, I maintain that after the evil has been defeated is the time to revisit the question of her staying or going. You don't have to settle the question the very first time you meet her. After you cleanse Harrowstone, you can bring it up with her again.
yea that's the route i went " I'll deal with you later!"
On another note:
Ran into Father Charlatan last night, Apparently this Haunt was supposed to do stuff... (what I don't know) But I happened to have an active detect undead and see invisible going when he "manifested" so I knew it was there, which I guess was not supposed to be how it worked, but I didn't know what was what (I also had detect secret doors going as well lol) and poof there is this 'thing'.
This played out oddly and it ended up I even helped the DM to try and make it do something.
Apparently, it would do something more sinister in conjunction with other baddies?
anyway, when I found it, I let it have it with disrupt undead (unclear really if this particular spell would work on it really) , oh and I also had a protection from evil going as well, which I guess had certain effects as well.
So the problem we where having is, this critter couldn't DO anything under the circumstances, and it couldn't leave either, so I just kept blasting it with disrupt undead. Til it was gone.Question is: It's incorporeal, but the spell is magic, I dunno, what happened seems simultaneously kosher, and not. I've never had a zero level spell be so effective??
the witch in the party had the detect secret doors going, she has the familiar concentration feat and the familiar was the one actually keeping the secret door detection going.
I said 'I had' because I'm the party leader, and pretty much delegate who does/casts what utility and when. For the purposes of fluidity and efficiency when moving through rooms etc (which I'm expecting to be trapped or have ambushes set up), so for the semantic confusion.The Haunt specifically states it can be harmed by certain spells (I don't recall which) cure light wounds being one of them.
How is disrupt/cure/and channel different for the purposes of this?
We also had some ghost touch arrows, but it didn't seem (stat block wise) that there was anything 'to attack'? As it seems in as this haunt wasn't a specific 'entity'...kinda confusing as to what to do with it really.
Oh, and protection from evil I guess did damage to it too... according to the Dm at least...
Aid, remove fear, protection from evil and protection from chaos do damage to it because the person who is affected by the haunt is, in essence, possessed by the haunt and goes into a hallucinogenic coma. They believe they have died, but the party can see they are writhing on the floor wrapped in ghostly chains. You cast these spells on the person affected by the haunt, and the bonuses against fear translate into damage to the haunt. Casting protection from evil on the haunt actually does nothing.
Now that I think about it, you can't harm haunts with any effect until they've triggered. Since he hasn't "triggered" yet, you couldn't have harmed him.
There's a lot of wiggle room and confusion about haunts. I really dislike that they put the haunts in here, but not their rules, and are copping out trying to sell us the Gamemastery Guide to play this module. Personally, I'm going to play it by ear, just like your DM did.
Aid, remove fear, protection from evil and protection from chaos do damage to it because the person who is affected by the haunt is, in essence, possessed by the haunt and goes into a hallucinogenic coma. They believe they have died, but the party can see they are writhing on the floor wrapped in ghostly chains. You cast these spells on the person affected by the haunt, and the bonuses against fear translate into damage to the haunt. Casting protection from evil on the haunt actually does nothing.
Now that I think about it, you can't harm haunts with any effect until they've triggered. Since he hasn't "triggered" yet, you couldn't have harmed him.
There's a lot of wiggle room and confusion about haunts. I really dislike that they put the haunts in here, but not their rules, and are copping out trying to sell us the Gamemastery Guide to play this module. Personally, I'm going to play it by ear, just like your DM did.
Well we didn't get to the writhing on the floor part, Everyone in the party had a protection from evil up except me. I picked up a book or something and it picked me. More or less the next thing I did was cast detect undead (there was some talking, walking, searching going on but no 'encounters')
The witches familiar was concentrating on detect secret doors, we were about to leave the level, and I wasn't convinced we had 'finished' and I wanted to make one last sweep.So the witch casts see invisible, and I cast detect undead, to find out I have a monkey on my back.
But it wasn't "doing" anything.
So the witch used a protection fro evil scroll (our last one) and cast it on me to see if we could make it go away/dispel it. It's started screaming.
Ok. So that worked. Since I could detect it, I cast disrupt undead on it. There was no actual mention on whether this would actually work or not. But Cure light wounds would work, which the witch tried as well.
but since disrupt was an "endless" spell, I used that, It didn't "run away" or do anything else, so we just got rid of it.
Apparently, the writhing on the ground thing would have happened if I failed a will save the next time I took damage, but we 'found it' before we got into another encounter.
We went down stairs to rest anyway, which was the next thing we were going to do.
I'm juts curious what would have happened if we had cast hide from undead, which I have used alot already. Would we have basically found it before it found us?
I did alot of scouting int he dungeon tonight, before we had any combat whatsoever using hide from undead. A spell that really never had much success for me before, It was quite unfortunate that we wandered into the room with the main boss, and he had a high will save, so he saw us, and we haven't even fought any of the weaker stuff on this level yet, because we snuck by it.
We haven't finished the fight yet, I've got a silence going on my mace, and two of us have shield up, so he's pretty annoyed with us right now. Not sure which of us is on the ropes yet, him or us.
Since Haunts aren't really there until you trigger them, you wouldn't have found it at all, since it wouldn't know to trigger.I'm juts curious what would have happened if we had cast hide from undead, which I have used alot already. Would we have basically found it before it found us?
It triggered as soon as I picked up the book. The haunt was already triggered, how many times do I have to say that? There was nothing left on that level, we had gotten it all already, and were wandering around using snoop magic to find something we may have missed.
The haunt triggers on either the person who picks up the journal, or the last person who leaves the room, (which I was both) and I was the only person to not have protection from evil up at the time, so I doubt it would have chosen someone else. we just happened to find it, before we went into another encounter (all the way two levels down from us.)Even if we hadn't found it up stairs, we would have gone down stairs next, to rest and regain spells before going into the dungeon (which we did anyway) at which time, we would have cast see invisible, protection from evil, detect undead and hide from undead, and detect secret doors, which we did anyway. so no matter how you slice it, we would have noticed this bugger before he really 'did' anything.
What I'm getting at, is he wasn't really given an ability that could do anything without interacting with another encounter (which the DM clarified later when we were asking what the heck was that thing supposed to do?)
The way things unfolded, the haunt was pretty powerless.
Since Haunts aren't really there until you trigger them, you wouldn't have found it at all, since it wouldn't know to trigger.I'm juts curious what would have happened if we had cast hide from undead, which I have used alot already. Would we have basically found it before it found us?
It triggered as soon as I picked up the book. The haunt was already triggered, how many times do I have to say that? There was nothing left on that level, we had gotten it all already, and were wandering around using snoop magic to find something we may have missed.
The haunt triggers on either the person who picks up the journal, or the last person who leaves the room, (which I was both) and I was the only person to not have protection from evil up at the time, so I doubt it would have chosen someone else. we just happened to find it, before we went into another encounter (all the way two levels down from us.)Even if we hadn't found it up stairs, we would have gone down stairs next, to rest and regain spells before going into the dungeon (which we did anyway) at which time, we would have cast see invisible, protection from evil, detect undead and hide from undead, and detect secret doors, which we did anyway. so no matter how you slice it, we would have noticed this bugger before he really 'did' anything.
What I'm getting at, is he wasn't really given an ability that could do anything without interacting with another encounter (which the DM clarified later when we were asking what the heck was that thing supposed to do?)
The way things unfolded, the haunt was pretty powerless.
You asked if you had used hide from undead, would it have triggered.
The answer is no, it would not.
And when you picked up the book, it would have triggered, but because no one was there that it could see, it would have just gone away again.
You say you did not cast detect undead until later.
If you did not cast detect undead on the round that...
oh i c what u are saying...
so if we had been hiding, then we would never have found it, and we'd never know where to find him and kill him, since it'd be unlikely for us to go back to room we already thoroughly searched...that would have been quite odd.
Welp, we finished harrowstone, The Splatter Man went Splatter, we made a laughing stock of a villain who I had read many people thought was overpowered. Not one character took damage from a single magic missile.
Shield was up on a few characters just for AC factor, and chasing him around with silence on my mace didn't make his day...
The backstory and information you got made it quite clear he was a caster, and from knowledge history, it was easy to discern which was his cell ,and thus likely the location of his ghost, and we were told by the warden's wifes ghost that he was here.
Judicious use of hide from undead let us scout the dungeon level rather nicely. So we were more or less ready for him and more or less ready for what he could do.
Mage armor and shield on the alchemist, and shield on myself pretty much ruined his first two attempts to injure someone, and then silence in the area once I moved up.. the barbarian with ghost touch and undead bane arrows and a hit that staggered him and he was pretty much poof.
The action economy really wasn't in his favor against a party of four.
Funny how one group of people were freaking out about how the Splatterman was a TPK in a bow...
Funny how one group of people were freaking out about how the Splatterman was a TPK in a bow...
I still think he is a TPK in a bow depending on how the DM runs him anyway.
Not trying to sound argumentative, but is there a villain in one of these APs that isn't? My RotRl group walked through the main villain of Burnt Offerings like they were a wet paper bag, but the fight with the named bugbear was a knock down drag out the likes of which I haven't seen in quite a while.
I understand looking at SM why he gets the reaction he does. Personally, I believe it comes down to multiple people having shield. As shown in Pendagast's game, a group with a couple people having shield, as well as a way to harm a ghost, and he's no where near the terror if you don't have those spells and that potential. I think he's a poorly designed encounter, but not because he's too strong, but because it's a paper beats rock beats scissor beats paper issue. I won't say there is only one way to handle him...but there is one way to make him a pushover.
Not trying to sound argumentative, but is there a villain in one of these APs that isn't? My RotRl group walked through the main villain of Burnt Offerings like they were a wet paper bag, but the fight with the named bugbear was a knock down drag out the likes of which I haven't seen in quite a while.
I understand looking at SM why he gets the reaction he does. Personally, I believe it comes down to multiple people having shield. As shown in Pendagast's game, a group with a couple people having shield, as well as a way to harm a ghost, and he's no where near the terror if you don't have those spells and that potential. I think he's a poorly designed encounter, but not because he's too strong, but because it's a paper beats rock beats scissor beats paper issue. I won't say there is only one way to handle him...but there is one way to make him a pushover.
Being argumentative is ok as long as you are civil. :)
As to your question I was saying that SM is due to his high power level compared to the players. As an example if I were into challenge the party mode I would have the summons our first so there is no straight shot to my caster. Then I try to kill you from a distance.
I don't have my book open but if a silence spell is in the way I drop out of range(if possible) and summon more monsters beside the cleric or I visit him personally.
There are monsters that won't be a threat due to DM skill if the monster just is not tough enough.
PS:I guess I just don't see a level 3 party getting by so easily if I had a 7th level caster. Of course even with the book tactics he can be dangerous ,but how dangerous depends on the group. For Pendagast's group tactics and research prevailed.
Well we get diddly do help from Grimburrow, seems me being an inquisitor and him being a "proper" clergyman had some grain going the wrong way. Guess I didnt roll to swell on diplomacy. He said something about these matters should be handled by the proper channels. I just said 'hulk smash'.
If you figure things out really, shield, mage armor, protection from evil, and maybe bless and/or shield of faith are low level party members bread and butter as far as buffs. There are tons of reasons we had shield up.. #1 to get our frontline's ac as high as we could... The barbarian rages, and claw/claw/bites as so doesnt use her shield when she does that, so no shield and -2 ac for rage, she is down 4.... shield is the perfect buff, there is no down side to her rage now. Shield for me because I literally was killing most things, so we decided not to shield the alchemist or the witch. The alchemist also mutated, (which gives her +2 AC and she has a discovery from SSG PDF (chitenous mutagen) that gives her another +4 AC, then we mage armored her (which technically only gave her 1 more AC because she was already wearing studded leather) so she had +6 natural, 4 armor and I think 2 dex. so she was pumping 22 ac.
Which left the witch with "come one step closer and I burn this entire spell book buddy!" (which in this encounter was about all she could do except heal)
We had some clue the spell book had a tie to him, because certain things with the other inmates had more power when fighting them (like the axe).
But we weren't really sure 'what' to do with it.
She was seriously thinking of trying to cast on the fly out of the spellbook to see if his own spells had more effect on him than normal.
When knew he was a spell caster, and where we (thought) he'd be located, so I had silence ready.
The haunt with the name writing didn't seem all that tough the witch was rolling a flamming sphere around on the walls burning the letters pretty quickly... didn't seem (mechanically) that bad.
When we met TSM he summoned three dire rats, which to tell you the truth were nearly useless due to our high ACs. Which was good and part of our plan, as the other inmates we fought seemed to be able to hit some pretty high ACs and seemed to have some pretty high ones themselves. (LOPPER had an 18 TOUCH AC...insane!)
So rats were a wasted action (IMO) our hulked out alchemist busied herself with them.
The Barbarian was raging when we went in, ran up and wasted actions trying to hit him with her claws (non magical) hmmm....he's a ghost... oh yea... duh.
I guess that was a brain fart on our end as we were expecting something a little more tangible from the boss boss. Duuno why.
I used my judgement that makes my weapons magic (forgot what its called) and shot him with my pepperbox for 8 (erm 4) damage.
He didn't like that.
His next action was to hit me with a magic missle, but shield blew his most powerful spell, and the whole party laughed.
The barb dropped from rage and swung her mace (+1) at him, he didnt like that and took 5 more damage)
The alchemist was chewing on rats... I really don't remember what the witch was doing honestly, she had healing hex and flight hex... I think she had see invisible going and something else...
TSM next action was to MM the barbarian, who, was also shielded and he blew his second most powerful spell at her. And the party was laughing so hard the alchemist broke out in tears and the barbarian had to go to the bathroom to contain her self after the witch made a comment about maybe we should have gone after him at 1st level...
My next action was to cast silence on my mace and move next to him.
The barbarian, drooped her mace, pulled out her bow and shot him with an undead bane arrow on a crit.
IT did something like 25 damage (which was 12 because he was incorporeal.)
He got mad and cast at her but silence ruined it.
His next action was to move and cast dispel magic to get rid of my silence. he didnt roll too nifty and barely beat me.
I shot him with my pepperbox and got a crit (not his day) x4 damage on that puppy (which was only x2 cuz he's incorporeal) was like 28 damage so 14... (s0 we had done 31 damage)
the barb takes a 5 foot step (there was a wall in the way) and lets him have a ghost touch arrow for 7 all of it gets through cuz of the ghost touch.
He decides to ran after the witch, but she has the spell book and I guess that kept him at bay at the last minute, so he goes "I warned you skinny!" and rips out one of the spells that wasn't on the witch list for her to learn anyway... and it did damage.
We were all crying at this point.... really.
I think he took another 4 from the book rip.
We all started calling him Tom Riddle.
I trot down the hallway to find him shrieking about his book and swat him with my mace, he took another 3 (it was halved because he's incorporeal) (so he's got 45 damage) and we are like, maybe thats why hes so tough he's got endless hit points? (we were starting to think, wait... old wizard = low hit points... whats the gimmick?)
Anyway cold dark and clammy reaches out to grab me and rolls something ridiculously low like a 7, I have an 18 dex (yes I know odd for an inquisitor, but I wanted to see what an amateur gunslinger could do, hence half the reason for this build) so he missed with his nasty mitts.
at this point the alchemist had chewed all the dire rats without taking a single point of damage and was taunting TSM.
The barbarian lets him have another ghost touch arrow for 6 from down the hallway and the witch takes a step back and finds three more spells she doesnt want and rips them all out at once (makes a str check as she only has a ten and rolls stupid high, we all starting making ripping telephone book jokes) she does another 9 damage to him.
TSM flies into a rage and casts MM at the alchemist who is taunting him... oops wait does that trigger an attack of opportunity? why yes it does! mace to da face! I hit him and poof, no more splatter man.
Sure the DM could have had him move, but where he was, even if he took a 5 foot step, i could have AoO'd him and the other place he could have gone the witch (who had drawn a dagger because she thought maybe stabbing the book would do more damage than ripping) could have aoo'd him with the +1 mithral dagger she had.
If he had moved more than that I would have still gotten an AoO.
He could have attacked physically again, but the alchemist was literally in game taunting him and dancing around and making goofy faces (she had no magic weapons).
either way we had him on the ropes. Even running away, i think we would have eventually gotten him, cuz he would have had to retreat toward the barbarian with the ghost touch arrows.
All in all. We took NO damage from fighting him. Although I didn't look, for what I understand, had he rolled well on his physical attack, that could have been nasty.
Just curious but since "Shield" is self only are your front line fighters umd'ing a wand of shield on themselves?
Considering casters cannot cast shield on other party members.
I believe the fight would have been a bit harder with out it.
-Venom
If you figure things out really, shield, mage armor, protection from evil, and maybe bless and/or shield of faith are low level party members bread and butter as far as buffs. There are tons of reasons we had shield up.. #1 to get our frontline's ac as high as we could... The barbarian rages, and claw/claw/bites as so doesnt use her shield when she does that, so no shield and -2 ac for rage, she is down 4.... shield is the perfect buff, there is no down side to her rage now. Shield for me because I literally was killing most things, so we decided not to shield the alchemist or the witch.OK, not to pick on how you play the game, but this has come up before. And I know I've tried to point it out to people who claim the Splatterman is so weak because he can be defeated by a Shield spell.
Shield is a personal spell. Self only.
How does a Barbarian get a Shield spell on him?
How does the Inquisitor (who does not have Shield as one of their spells) get a Shield spell on him?
The Alchemist has the infuse discovery that lets her put her extracts to use on others? seems pretty simple to me. the shields were up before we went in. We were expecting a physical baddie (for whatever reason I dunno) like a wright or something...again I don't know why we got that idea, something about him being trapped down there and him being a ghost didn't ive, figured he'd be out already...as they can fly and move through stuff etc...
How long has shield been self only? been playing the game for 25 years or better and always had shield cast on other people.
If you figure things out really, shield, mage armor, protection from evil, and maybe bless and/or shield of faith are low level party members bread and butter as far as buffs. There are tons of reasons we had shield up.. #1 to get our frontline's ac as high as we could... The barbarian rages, and claw/claw/bites as so doesnt use her shield when she does that, so no shield and -2 ac for rage, she is down 4.... shield is the perfect buff, there is no down side to her rage now. Shield for me because I literally was killing most things, so we decided not to shield the alchemist or the witch.OK, not to pick on how you play the game, but this has come up before. And I know I've tried to point it out to people who claim the Splatterman is so weak because he can be defeated by a Shield spell.
Shield is a personal spell. Self only.
How does a Barbarian get a Shield spell on him?
How does the Inquisitor (who does not have Shield as one of their spells) get a Shield spell on him?
The Alchemist has the infuse discovery that lets her put her extracts to use on others? seems pretty simple to me. the shields were up before we went in. We were expecting a physical baddie (for whatever reason I dunno) like a wright or something...again I don't know why we got that idea, something about him being trapped down there and him being a ghost didn't ive, figured he'd be out already...as they can fly and move through stuff etc...
How long has shield been self only? been playing the game for 25 years or better and always had shield cast on other people.
An infused extract can be imbibed by a non-alchemist to
gain its effects. Quote for the core rule book, as I under stand that... the barbarian drank the alchemists extract to get the shield... is that not how that works?
How long has shield been self only? been playing the game for 25 years or better and always had shield cast on other people.
Since Pathfinder RPG, at least. :)
An infused extract can be imbibed by a non-alchemist to
gain its effects. Quote for the core rule book, as I under stand that... the barbarian drank the alchemists extract to get the shield... is that not how that works?
That is how I understand it as well.
How long has shield been self only? been playing the game for 25 years or better and always had shield cast on other people.Since Pathfinder RPG, at least. :)
That is how I understand it as well.An infused extract can be imbibed by a non-alchemist to
gain its effects. Quote for the core rule book, as I under stand that... the barbarian drank the alchemists extract to get the shield... is that not how that works?
well #1) it says target of "you" that's kinda of vague. Where is that deciphered at?
#2) since it came from alchemical extracts in the first place, what exactly is the problem?
It also has a range of Personal. I think that, combined with the target of "you" (indicating the spellcaster), limits the number of potential targets somewhat.
I don't think there's a problem. People are just curious as to how you managed to pull off getting shield onto characters who, under normal circumstances, wouldn't be able to get it. At least that's my understanding.
Either way, it seems to be a sound tactic.
How long has shield been self only? been playing the game for 25 years or better and always had shield cast on other people.
Well, quoted from the description of the shield spell from an early version of the game: "By means of this spell the user imposes a selfmoving magical barrier between himself and his enemies."
Shield was a personal spell in 3.5, too, so you have probably been using it the wrong way for 25 years ...
How long has shield been self only? been playing the game for 25 years or better and always had shield cast on other people.Well, quoted from the description of the shield spell from an early version of the game: "By means of this spell the user imposes a selfmoving magical barrier between himself and his enemies."
Shield was a personal spell in 3.5, too, so you have probably been using it the wrong way for 25 years ...
3.5 hasnt been around for 25 years.
And even the DnD computer games Ive played lets you cast shield on others.besides either way, apparently, the alchemist's extract makes for a loophole, since the alchemist isn't "casting" it, but the receiver is drinking..
It shouldn't be a loophole, I wonder if that is intended, or everyone is reading too far into the shield spell to begin with? Is there a FaQ?
Either way the alchemist version works for us by RAW.
3.5 hasnt been around for 25 years.
Shield had a range of "0" in AD&D 2nd, meaning it was a personal spell back then, too. It stayed that way in D&D3. And as far as I can tell, it was a personal spell in OD&D as well, and that has been around for more than 25 years ... ;-)
besides either way, apparently, the alchemist's extract makes for a loophole, since the alchemist isn't "casting" it, but the receiver is drinking.
It shouldn't be a loophole, I wonder if that is intended, or everyone is reading too far into the shield spell to begin with? Is there a FaQ?
It is no loophole, as far as I can tell. The alchemist can just do that.
I do not think that there is a need for a FAQ. The rules are quite clear: shield has a range of "Personal", and its target is "You".
I think it is a bit much to claim the TSM is weak based on your experience. Your strategy was sound (esp. with the inquisitor shield loophole/exception), but it could have gone a lot more badly if you hadn't been so lucky with your rolls. Also, most parties are probably not going to be quite as thoughtful as yours was. I definitely look forward to reading more accounts of battles with TSM.
I think it is a bit much to claim the TSM is weak based on your experience. Your strategy was sound (esp. with the inquisitor shield loophole/exception), but it could have gone a lot more badly if you hadn't been so lucky with your rolls. Also, most parties are probably not going to be quite as thoughtful as yours was. I definitely look forward to reading more accounts of battles with TSM.
It's not that he is 'weak' per se. It's just that we were expecting running away bodies draggin from from the hype. So it was a double take issue.
I don't know if it was a sound strategy so much as that we were trying to get out mainline with as much AC as possible, shield has that 'side effect' of canceling out MM, but it wasn't the 'intent' of it's use.
I do think the alchemists 'version' is a loop hole if no one else can bestow shield on another person.
I've usually played 'gish' types in the past and almost aways 'self' shielded, There has also been scrolls of shield, and I remember more than one case of shield potion.
Range of '0' is the same as touch for healing spells. You had to be right there to heal someone.
Shield is a buff spell, what would be the point of limiting that one, but being able to buff someone up with other spells?
It's not that he is 'weak' per se. It's just that we were expecting running away bodies draggin from from the hype. So it was a double take issue.
What hype? The hype on the forums?
It's not that he is 'weak' per se. It's just that we were expecting running away bodies draggin from from the hype. So it was a double take issue.What hype? The hype on the forums?
When the harrowstone first came out there were thread titles like "holycow super powered splatterman" I can't recall exactly, but there was at least two threads titled about his ultimate power and uber-deadliness. So, out of game we were in 'wince' mode about "this is going to hurt!" and some of the stuff/interaction from the dm/vesrorianna had really played up the "super deadly spellcasting splatterman" We had done some library research and local history rolls too which had basically given us the same 'picture' of TSM.
For whatever reason ( I don't know why) I think I was expecting him to be a wight or similar corporeal ugly, and so we had our buffs set up for AC.
I had heard about MM, but not a typical high level caster set up. Figured he would have had some other stuff like lightening bolt, or more summons..
He did summon some rats, but out AC was so buff that they were just clutter on the battle map.
I also expected the lopper to be a physical being too.... When they said 'ghosts' in harrowstone i thought it was referring to 'spooks' scary undead, not literal incorporeal ghosts.
If I didn't have that magic weapon judgement, I think we would have gotten toasted. The only magic weapons we really have we either A) got from the baddies that needed to have them used on them or C) some arrows the professor left for us.
Everyone of those arrows was used, either with lopper or TSM, there was the axe which helped with lopper, and The DM did a really good job of pressing home (using vesorianna) that "you have to use those items to beat the 'ghosts'".
Although we never used a) the holy symbols or b) the hammer.
But back on subject, whenever i hear "BBEG spellcaster" and he's the only one (no buddies) I'm usually thinking he's got a template, that also makes him tough physically, like hag, giant, lich,etc.: so instinct wise, I'm assuming there would be some physical combat. Which really there wasn't. He tried to touch me once but didn't make his roll.
While I knew MM was on TSMs spell list, I seriously thought he had more tricks up his sleeve than a 1st level spell. So I wasn't expecting that to be his Ace in the hole. Most of my strategy was being able to wade up to him, and keep him threatened and stay standing long enough to make sure he stayed threatened, and have the barbarian let him have with the undead bane arrows, hoping since we had two that that would be 'enough' (or else we would have had been left more of them haha)
We really didn't have anyway of keeping any other spells at bay. Or being able to do anything about their effects.
I believe he was high enough level to have lightening bolt, and had he let one of those loose it would have been really nasty...
When the harrowstone first came out there were thread titles like "holycow super powered splatterman" I can't recall exactly, but there was at least two threads titled about his ultimate power and uber-deadliness. So, out of game we were in 'wince' mode about "this is going to hurt!" and some of the stuff/interaction from the dm/vesrorianna had really played up the "super deadly spellcasting splatterman" . . .
lol.
While I knew MM was on TSMs spell list . . .
And this is why players should not be reading these forums. Especially those discussing design decisions.
and
He did summon some rats, but out AC was so buff that they were just clutter on the battle map.
As pointed out above, this was either a violation of the rules or an interesting trick from a brand new class. Would that alchemist have spent NUM_MEMBERS_IN_PARTY potions to walk into this room had he not known this was about to be the end big baddie?
whenever i hear "BBEG spellcaster" and he's the only one (no buddies) I'm usually thinking he's got a template, that also makes him tough physically, like hag, giant, lich,etc.: so instinct wise, I'm assuming there would be some physical combat.
Does your level 1 wet-behind-the-ears probably teenager human (or equivalent life-experience other race) have these same battle-hardened instincts? I know you've been playing D&D/role-playing games for 25 years but it's time to separate the meta gaming, man.
So let me get this straight. You're saying the big bad end-boss at the end of a mystery story wasn't so big and badass because you had heavily prepped because you knew he was going to roast your tail with spells because you had been reading the forums?
You know what else is a letdown? Reading the last page of a book to see who dunit.
I assume you're playing a diviner? :)
Your strategy was sound . . .
. . . considering you're seeing the other team's playbook. :/
To any DMs reading this, I strongly encourage you to remind your players not to read the forums and especially to look for queues that they have.
I'm sorry. I know I'm being a d*ck here man but this is pretty frustrating to read.
Let's give the poor fellow a little credit here. As we've established, the Shield spell was perfectly viable; any Alchemist worth his salt takes the Discovery to share his extracts, which lets them share out several Personal spells among the party, albeit at significant opportunity cost. Taking Pendagast at his word, the fact that a boss level monster was waiting was an in-game deduction. And contrary to your assertion, he was mistaken as to the nature of the threat--the party prepared for physical combat, put up a fairly elemental magic protection, and happened to stumble into a situation which diminished TSM's effectiveness.
I don't think Pendagast is trying to spoil himself, metagame, or cheat. However, I do think that hanging around here while being in a game has a significant potential for that, so your larger point definitely stands.
Range of '0' is the same as touch for healing spells.
No, it is not. Maybe you should re-read the rules? Range "0" was personal only. For touch spells, the range was - not surprisingly - "Touch". Cure spells have/had a range of "Touch". Shield is a personal spell in Pathfinder, and was a personal spell in 3rd Edition, 2nd Edition and before.
I fail to see the need to discuss this any further. The rules are clear on this one. And it does not even apply to your game, because your party was able to cast shield on others via the alchemist. A legit tactic and very effective in this instance.