. . .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.
I hate to play detective here, but it's necessary.
Happened to stumble into? Prepared for physical combat? Let's dive into that possibility.He posted this May 1st which gives us an approximate of when this encounter was completed.
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.
It's the attitude that turned me off, or rather on, to this.
but the alchemist was literally in game taunting him and dancing around and making goofy faces (she had no magic weapons).
OK where am I going with this.
How about here - on March 24th, in the Nerfing the Splatter Man Encounter Thread:. . . Even our typical group is usually: A witch, a magus (usually ftr/sorc going for EK until magus came out), a barb or ranger, and a bard or rogue.
That's two characters that can cast shield, and If either the witch or the magus is carrying his spell book he wont attack.
There you see him a few weeks ago discussing the strategy of using Shield to nerf this encounter, so he was clearly aware that this was the trick to get through this encounter. And clearly he was not "prepared for a physical fight".
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.
+1
|
He posted this May 1st which gives us an approximate of when this encounter was completed.
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.It's the attitude that turned me off, or rather on, to this.
but the alchemist was literally in game taunting him and dancing around and making goofy faces (she had no magic weapons).OK where am I going with this.
How about here - on March 24th, in the Nerfing the Splatter Man Encounter Thread:
There you see him a few weeks ago discussing the strategy of using Shield to nerf this encounter, so he was clearly aware that this was the trick to get through this encounter. And clearly he was not "prepared for a physical fight".. . . Even our typical group is usually: A witch, a magus (usually ftr/sorc going for EK until magus came out), a barb or ranger, and a bard or rogue.
That's two characters that can cast shield, and If either the witch or the magus is carrying his spell book he wont attack.
+1!!!
I'm with you Ullapool, at my table a Player who did this would not be playing again. Cheating is not fun for anyone.
--We will, we will Vrock you!
To move away from the personal, I'm curious whether any of you have let any of your players read ANY parts of the modules -- articles, fiction, etc. I have one player who is an adventure path subscriber, he has apparently read all the previous adventure path modules (which I think was a little short sighted, since now he can't be a player in any of those), and he has asked to read the fiction and articles in this AP (such as the article on the Order of the Palatine Eye). I said no, but I'm curious if any of the rest of you have encountered this.
I'm playing in Carrion Crown and own and have read the first two modules in various degrees of completion. Pretty sure some of the other people I'm playing with have read through it. Everyone's having fun, people are pretty good at not using out of character info.
As a DM, I ask my players before hand if they've played in something before I run it, just so I know. I'd still let someone play if they'd read through something, though I change so much anyways it wouldn't do them a lot of good.
Ullapool...yeah, you are being a dick. Pendagast isn't playing the wrong way, you're not playing the right way. Different people enjoy playing the game different ways...it seems to me that someone shouldn't have to explain this to you...If you're honestly getting worked up because the way someone you've never met is playing an imaginary game, you either need to set back and take a breath, or look into councling.
albeit a legit tactic, it seems to be a loophople still, If the shield spell can't be used int he manner by anyone else, why then specifically can a shield spell be used this way by the alchemist? seems weird.
Either way.
MM is a supra common spell for mages. So it's knowledge of being on a spell list isn't exactly "meta gaming". It's a common first level spell. Like I said, I had no idea, that, as it turns out literally his entire spell list was magic missile... a little odd, but whatever.
In several places 'in game' your told TSM was a spell caster, we carried his spell book WITH us, after we found it in the vault, along with other things that belonged to the other inmates, perusing the spell book with a simple read magic will tell you what spells where in there, and it is a pretty simple spell craft roll to identify them as wizard/sorceror spells.
Seeing as wizards are the only ones that actually use a spellbook (well now magus) we could rightly assume that he was a wizard.
Knowing right where he was? Simple. 1) research, we knew from reading at the library and some things we found while in the prison it's self, exactly where each inmate was 'housed'. Their cells were a matter of record. 2) via hide from undead we wandered nearly the entire dungeon before TSM made his will save and "saw" us. Since we knew we were about to scout TSMs cell, we buffed just in case we got 'caught'. Which, is precisely what happened. Being a 'powerful spellcaster' it was likely he had some way of detecting us (even if it was a will save).
So all the knowledge I used was all in game knowledge. My character is, specifically trained undead hunter, and in a world full of spells, and magic, one would know the common things about the common arsenal in that world, just like a new recruit knows the maximum effect range of the common weapons in the battle field today.
From the information given, in game, we were told TSM was 'trapped' where he was at and could not get out. This is basically what made me think he was 'physical'. As a trained undead hunter, I would have been told about the different kinds of undead, and the threats the pose.
Hence why inquisitors have the class ability "monster lore". May not have ever fought a vampire, but i would know enough (if I made my check) to know weaknesses, capabilities etc.
Would you say every adventurer in 1e that had a 10' pole in their starting equipment was metagaming?
To move away from the personal, I'm curious whether any of you have let any of your players read ANY parts of the modules -- articles, fiction, etc. I have one player who is an adventure path subscriber, he has apparently read all the previous adventure path modules (which I think was a little short sighted, since now he can't be a player in any of those), and he has asked to read the fiction and articles in this AP (such as the article on the Order of the Palatine Eye). I said no, but I'm curious if any of the rest of you have encountered this.
I have a player who owns the hardback of Shackled City, but he is also a GM. I was about to GM it just to get it finished. We are both good at not metagaming. Of course if we were not the other one would be calling the metagamer out. I would not trust all players that much though.
As an example a player asked me to run an epic level adventure for the group that he found in a dungeon magazine. The group took a break while I stayed inside the house. He was telling the group about all of the encounters. I switched many of the encounters out, and he wanted to say something, but couldn't. :)
I'm playing in Carrion Crown and own and have read the first two modules in various degrees of completion. Pretty sure some of the other people I'm playing with have read through it. Everyone's having fun, people are pretty good at not using out of character info.
As a DM, I ask my players before hand if they've played in something before I run it, just so I know. I'd still let someone play if they'd read through something, though I change so much anyways it wouldn't do them a lot of good.
Ullapool...yeah, you are being a dick. Pendagast isn't playing the wrong way, you're not playing the right way. Different people enjoy playing the game different ways...it seems to me that someone shouldn't have to explain this to you...If you're honestly getting worked up because the way someone you've never met is playing an imaginary game, you either need to set back and take a breath, or look into councling.
I do think the assumption that he metagamed should stop. He said the group had enough clues in the game to know what to do. Maybe the GM gave him a few hints to even things out.
With that aside I think the anger is due to the fact that Pendagast made it sound like everyone who thought the encounter was over reacting, and it was a walk in the park. In turn those of us that know about the encounter are doubting the story. The fact that he was in a thread about the last boss before the fight gave people reason to think he cheated and is now saying that was easy, is akin to someone saying I did X, but did not do X to the same standard that others did. I understand the antimosity, but I don't think it is worth getting worked up over. I am not taking it that seriously since he is not a player in my game, which makes it not my issue to deal with. If he played fairly he did, if he didn't then he didn't.
99% of the time I'm the DM.
Not like I really want to be...just no one else usually does.
My wife asked if she could be the DM. This is her first time.
She doesn't know most of the rules, she hasn't committed monster stats to heart, and more often than not I have to remind her A) stop reading that, we wouldn't know that, or I ask her , erm is there anyway we could really find that out? and B) I have to remind her that monster X can do this or that, or wait Player N can't hit him because he's incorporeal and she doesn't have a a magic weapon. (I hate incorporeal monsters in general by the way, big pain in the butt)
one out of five encounters, I have her hand me the module, because something didn't/doesn't seem right and I read the monster stat block, (either after the encounter or in the middle of it if it seems to be going wrong) because she doesn't/forgets to read a special ability or understand how it works. Since I do't have any idea or can't remember what it is, if I have seen it, I need to see it again to help her.
If anything I would have made TSM more powerful/evil but, there wasn't a lot she was missing ,I did have to look at him to make sure he was incorporeal, because it seemed the fight was going too easy... so we had to back damage off once I realized he was incorporeal (hmmm that would have been half, those wouldn't have hit at all etc.. ok continue)
So out of game I did realize that nearly ALL his spells were magic missile (I was looking for something else he could do, since my wife is a one hit wonder kind of player) and I was the one that suggested he do a corrupting touch to begin with.... I didn't read the 'whole' stat block, but I did see that he was a ghost, so I said "try that".... half way down the page, it will give you melee option... should say corrupting touch +x to attack,, with d-something damage.
Now, maximized magic missile from a 7th level wizard (I think thats what he is) would be particularly nasty to a 2nd level warrior prison guard... So I can see the 'in game' reputation for him being super deadly.
But A) the PC's are going to be third or 4th level when they get there, B) it's a 4 on 1 fight (which everyone on these boards agrees, BBEG goes down hard and fast with no groupies to help him) and C) ALL lone wizard battles like this vs. parties Im in , pretty much go this way.
Yea he's incorporeal, but look at that room, it's not exactly the most advantageous for him, The professor leaves enough stuff for you to really become nasty with, and there just isn't alot of places for SM to hide where a party can't get to him every round, especially if he wants to get them too.
He could have been a pain if he was floating in and out of the oubliette but it wasn't even that wide! if it had been a 10-15 radius whole he could have been in the center of it and that could have been a pain, but as it works out, it's only 5 feet, and so anyone adjacent on firm ground could still be hitting him and threatening him.
So there for with silence running and enemies flanking, and his only spell being MM (aside from some nuisance summon spells) he just wasn't that dangerous.
No PC would have built his character that way, no DM would have built his custom bad guy wizard that way. From all the people who argue that wizards rule and are unkillable, they are always talking about who they can do X,Y,Z with their spells, not A,A,A,A, empowered A, Maxmized A, and some more A....
Our party could easily have been a wizard (the barbarian loves harry potter) a Magus (my current favorite class), An alchemist (the alchemist likes 'turning into monsters' and a Bard (the other class the witch player really likes, but has yet to play, but almost did) So using that group. we would have had three self shielder types, and depending on how the bard was armed (carrying a shield or not) might have had him drink an extract, and could have, in theory been a fully shielded party, what then?
My point is, shield is an uber common low level defensive spell, MM is an uber common low level offensive spell, paper covers rock... so DO SOMETHING ELSE, in which case this caster really can't.
In that way the lopper with his stupid high AC (I think it was 18) was harder for us.
Oh I forgot, TSM wont even attack the person who has the spell book! SO if that happens to be your party healer too? (for us that was the witch) then you have a roaming healbot that can't be attacked.
For people who said this was a TPK boss, I think they read the stat block, without reading anything else and just theory=crafted all sorts of "wizards are awesome" nonsense.
I'm seriously think about rerunning this encounter just for amusement, with shield not in the alchemists list this time, just to see how bad it is. But you still have to think it's a relatively small room TSM can't leave, that by the way, in our game, the DM doubled the size of the room, because I called it a shoe box when she drew it the first time.
It shows it being 5x5... thats like a tag team wrestling match with four guys int he ring on you, and no one to tag out with!
If TSM could run down the hallway, get somewhere else, use hide n seek tactics, put some space between the players and himself, he could be really nasty... int his case? It's ye old dragon magazines monster in a box... "insert sword here for xxxxxx experience points.
Oh and my wife just reminded me, it says he won't even target the same character twice in a row, because he wants to prolong the suffering, whose his own??
Any spell caster worth his salt wants to take out as many people as fast as possible, when hes out numbered!
But in this case, as written, he casts summon monster first (presumably to even the odds but what 3-4th level group is going to solely concentrate on the rats first?)
That gives you a whole round to maneuver in order to hound him and prevent casting (in our case my first round was moving in, declaring judgement, then shooting him with a magic bullet, the alchemist moved and morphed into her 'monster', the barb moved, raged and attacked, which was originally alot of damage that we had to back off once I realized he was incorporeal and her claw claw bite would have biffed.
But assuming your DM describes him as a ghost or incorporeal or something else that lets you know physical attacks aren't going to be effective, that would have given the main fighter a chance to let off a ghost touch arrow that we (or anyone) had gotten for free. In our case, we beat TSM (well most of us) on initiative too, which makes his concentration rolls to even cast really hard if not impossible)
The main fighter is going to have 5+1 arrows, 5 +1 ghost touch arrows and 2 undead bane arrows at his disposal (if he didn't use them somewhere else) if it's a dedicated archer he/she might even have rapid shot by now.
TSM ac is rather high, but against a main fighter with a bab of 4, and assuming at least a dex bonus of 1 and a magic bonus for the arrow of 1, that's a +6 to hit, meaning the fighter is going to get you on a 12 or higher.
A dedicated archer, if the party has one, would have a higher dex, maybe point blank shot and possible weapon focus so would hit anywhere from 9 or higher (maybe better!)
If my inquisitor used the arrows, instead of the barbarian (I have an 18 dex), I would have had a +9 to hit with those arrows (I do have point blank shot) meaning I would hit on a 9 or better... but I was using my pistol assuming it was a physical target and touch ac would have been easier to hit (which in this case it wasn't)
But in case you have an archer that is close if not better than hitting him almost every round... which means he could blow spells failing his concentrate check. Then you have someone else who is likely going to be meleeing him (inquisitor with judgement, a full bab type with the loppers axe, someone with magic weapon cast on them) which ups the chances his concentration check isn't going to be easy, plus if there is a cleric type with silence, even harder to get spells off, not to mention he can't leave the cell so depending on movement, he could get cornered and threatened, again even harder to get spells off!
MY arguement is the party is GIVEN all the tools they need to defeat TSM (and the lopper...the other ones arent that scary) this is hardly a TPK situation... and had I been metagaming, we would have had a lesser rod of ectoplasmic metamagic, which we don't, because we never realized the wardens badge would have been magical that way (never even dreamed of it)... Vesorianna said she wanted it. We brought it to her, why would we think it had 'other value'? It's a old badge!
I didn't realize it was a magic item until I read someone else's post on the subject of the AP being 'light' on magic items (specifically in book 2)
Now running back to the prison at THIS point to get the 'rod'/badge would be metagaming. But heck someone else could have taken it by now, it's gone, it's lost it's not there, and It's not important.
This idea that if you read the module, you can't ever play it is silly. Most people don't memorize modules, now if they actually ran it as a DM? It's be quite a bit harder, because they have gone through it in depth.
But I can't remember how many times I played through white plume mountain or queen of the demon web pits, against the giants or temple of elemental evil. But it was several many, and every time, some dumb trap got me, or whatever.. It's not like I can remember the evil clerics spell list, nor is it really relevant.
For the most part, my character isn't even cooperative with the storyline, It's ROLEplaying... and my character is an egocentric CN pain in the ARSE! He doesn't really want to help people, he wants to be a 'famous' undead hunter. I'm trying to figure out if I should take a level in order of the cockatrice cavalier! Can't wait until the DM tries to convince me I have to help the Beast, I don't see HOW that is going to work! (huge cash reward?? maybe. my character is in debt, in a han solo-y kind of way)
I agree it is possible to separate player and character knowledge, but I definitely would not want to run this AP with a player who had read any significant part of the module. The mystery is a big part of the fun, for both the players and the GM. That's why I think my player who has read every AP except this one has sort of spoiled himself for those APs (and I don't think he even ran any of them as a GM).
Any thoughts on whether players should be allowed to read the fiction in these modules, or the article on The Order of the Palatine Eye?
I agree it is possible to separate player and character knowledge, but I definitely would not want to run this AP with a player who had read any significant part of the module. The mystery is a big part of the fun, for both the players and the GM. That's why I think my player who has read every AP except this one has sort of spoiled himself for those APs (and I don't think he even ran any of them as a GM).
Any thoughts on whether players should be allowed to read the fiction in these modules, or the article on The Order of the Palatine Eye?
Wes Schneider's fiction is great and reading it wouldn't spoil playing the AP at all. The article on the Palatine Eye, I would wait until their characters have accrued sufficient information about the organization in game.
Same as above, I would let them read it after researching it in game pretty thoroughly. Haven't read the fiction yet, so I don't have much opinion there, historically the fiction hasn't had much in the way of spoilers though.
In our case, we beat TSM (well most of us) on initiative too, which makes his concentration rolls to even cast really hard if not impossible)
I don't see this as a significant factor. Did TSM even cast any spells that were a full round action to cast? MM is only a standard action, so he would only need to make a concentration roll in response to a successful attack of opportunity (if he didn't cast defensively).
In our case, we beat TSM (well most of us) on initiative too, which makes his concentration rolls to even cast really hard if not impossible)I don't see this as a significant factor. Did TSM even cast any spells that were a full round action to cast? MM is only a standard action, so he would only need to make a concentration roll in response to a successful attack of opportunity (if he didn't cast defensively).
My group hasn't gotten to TSM yet, but I've made some alterations to the encounter. Primarily, I wanted to optimize the tactics suggested for him to make them more challenging for a veteran party and a little more scary.
First of all, I've added a bleed effect to his magic missiles. Secondly, the bleed actually spells out the characters name, one letter per round of bleed. Once a character's name has been spelled out, he must make a will save or suffer the effects of confusion. PC's get another save each round to break. A successful heal check stops the bleed and removes 1 letter that has already been spelled out.
wrote a whole lot of stuff
But A) the PC's are going to be third or 4th level when they get there, B) it's a 4 on 1 fight (which everyone on these boards agrees, BBEG goes down hard and fast with no groupies to help him) and C) ALL lone wizard battles like this vs. parties Im in , pretty much go this way.
Not when I DM. I of course have don't have beeline straight to the caster either. I am not saying that SM does, but you will have to get past a few summons or something, maybe difficult terrain at least.
So there for with silence running and enemies flanking, and his only spell being MM (aside from some nuisance summon spells) he just wasn't that dangerous.
For people who said this was a TPK boss, I think they read the stat block, without reading anything else and just theory=crafted all sorts of "wizards are awesome" nonsense.
Silence is a mofo. Luckily my players have not caught on to that yet. I normally have a silenced(meta-magic) dispel magic ready though. I know the one time I don't prep that spell they will use it , but I don't think SM is high enough to use it so he might want to stay hidden until it ran out assuming his psychotic nature did not get the best of him.
As far as TSM being easy I agree that if ran as written he is easy. That is why there were complaints when the adventure came out that he was throwing the fight, and that if a GM did not hold back it was a TPK. I did not really see any posts saying it was a TPK as written.
Right now I am more likely to start him off by the book, but if the players get an advantage he will start to use the tactics of a sane person.
In our case, we beat TSM (well most of us) on initiative too, which makes his concentration rolls to even cast really hard if not impossible)I don't see this as a significant factor. Did TSM even cast any spells that were a full round action to cast? MM is only a standard action, so he would only need to make a concentration roll in response to a successful attack of opportunity (if he didn't cast defensively).My group hasn't gotten to TSM yet, but I've made some alterations to the encounter. Primarily, I wanted to optimize the tactics suggested for him to make them more challenging for a veteran party and a little more scary.
** spoiler omitted **
At that point you have created a new spell, and if I were a PC I would try to learn that spell or research it since it now exist in the game world. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but something to look out for.
At that point you have created a new spell, and if I were a PC I would try to learn that spell or research it since it now exist in the game world. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but something to look out for.In our case, we beat TSM (well most of us) on initiative too, which makes his concentration rolls to even cast really hard if not impossible)I don't see this as a significant factor. Did TSM even cast any spells that were a full round action to cast? MM is only a standard action, so he would only need to make a concentration roll in response to a successful attack of opportunity (if he didn't cast defensively).My group hasn't gotten to TSM yet, but I've made some alterations to the encounter. Primarily, I wanted to optimize the tactics suggested for him to make them more challenging for a veteran party and a little more scary.
** spoiler omitted **
I'm treating it more as an SLA that effects an existing spell, then an actual spell. It fits the flavor of the npc and ramps the difficulty up a bit by means of running him as scripted, rather than altering his tactics wholesale. It's altogether not uncommon for me to give "signature abilities" to BBEG's.
I'm treating it more as an SLA that effects an existing spell, then an actual spell. It fits the flavor of the npc and ramps the difficulty up a bit by means of running him as scripted, rather than altering his tactics wholesale. It's altogether not uncommon for me to give "signature abilities" to BBEG's.
I don't know what SLA means, but I don't have any problem with monsters/foes doing things that PCs can't. If we worry about justifying everything in game terms, then how do we explain all the random Ravengro haunting events in this module? If I created an effect like Jon Kines suggests and my PCs asked about it, I would simply say that they have no idea how he did it. If they researched it, they wouldn't be able to figure it out either, unless I did want to give it to them.
I don't know what SLA means, but I don't have any problem with monsters/foes doing things that PCs can't. If we worry about justifying everything in game terms, then how do we explain all the random Ravengro haunting events in this module? If I created an effect like Jon Kines suggests and my PCs asked about it, I would simply say that they have no idea how he did it. If they researched it, they wouldn't be able to figure it out either, unless I did want to give it to them.I'm treating it more as an SLA that effects an existing spell, then an actual spell. It fits the flavor of the npc and ramps the difficulty up a bit by means of running him as scripted, rather than altering his tactics wholesale. It's altogether not uncommon for me to give "signature abilities" to BBEG's.
I dunno. I'm with you, it's an RPG, you are supposed to wave your hands about some. However, for the rules lawyers out there I'd say the "strange events happening around Ravengro" aren't that strange, when you look at the haunt rules:
(A haunt that has an effect not identical to an existing spell is certainly possible, but this requires designing a new spell effect.) A haunt might cause a room to explode into f lames (duplicating fireball or fire storm), infuse a chamber with fear (duplicating cause fear, scare, or fear), or try to frighten a target to death (duplicating phantasmal killer or slay living).
So if a rules lawyer gets in your grill about what spell it is, you can say. Best I can figure, it's sort of like a magical item - the item is created with a spell, but it doesn't exactly duplicate it. During the creation process the spell infuses the entity but the end result is something sorta-different from the spell.
I don't know what SLA means, but I don't have any problem with monsters/foes doing things that PCs can't. If we worry about justifying everything in game terms, then how do we explain all the random Ravengro haunting events in this module? If I created an effect like Jon Kines suggests and my PCs asked about it, I would simply say that they have no idea how he did it. If they researched it, they wouldn't be able to figure it out either, unless I did want to give it to them.I'm treating it more as an SLA that effects an existing spell, then an actual spell. It fits the flavor of the npc and ramps the difficulty up a bit by means of running him as scripted, rather than altering his tactics wholesale. It's altogether not uncommon for me to give "signature abilities" to BBEG's.
SLA = Spell like ability
I don't know what SLA means, but I don't have any problem with monsters/foes doing things that PCs can't. If we worry about justifying everything in game terms, then how do we explain all the random Ravengro haunting events in this module? If I created an effect like Jon Kines suggests and my PCs asked about it, I would simply say that they have no idea how he did it. If they researched it, they wouldn't be able to figure it out either, unless I did want to give it to them.I'm treating it more as an SLA that effects an existing spell, then an actual spell. It fits the flavor of the npc and ramps the difficulty up a bit by means of running him as scripted, rather than altering his tactics wholesale. It's altogether not uncommon for me to give "signature abilities" to BBEG's.
I dunno. I'm with you, it's an RPG, you are supposed to wave your hands about some. However, for the rules lawyers out there I'd say the "strange events happening around Ravengro" aren't that strange, when you look at the haunt rules:
(A haunt that has an effect not identical to an existing spell is certainly possible, but this requires designing a new spell effect.) A haunt might cause a room to explode into f lames (duplicating fireball or fire storm), infuse a chamber with fear (duplicating cause fear, scare, or fear), or try to frighten a target to death (duplicating phantasmal killer or slay living).So if a rules lawyer gets in your grill about what spell it is, you can say. Best I can figure, it's sort of like a magical item - the item is created with a spell, but it doesn't exactly duplicate it. During the creation process the spell infuses the entity but the end result is something sorta-different from the spell.
If a rules lawyer "got in my grill" so to speak about an NPC spell-like ability, I'd tell him he was perfectly capable of learning the ability: if, like TSM: he spent a lifetime studying names and their origins, had his mind warped and twisted by a succubus eventually becoming a notorious serial killer, was captured and thrown into the worst prison in the land, while awaiting execution in said prison dies in a tragic fire, rises as a ghost to haunt the prison albeit confined to the room in which he perished. Then I'd give him my sardonic grin and ask what he was waiting for. . .
The bleed effect could be something about TSMs template, as such could just be an altered ghost, rather than a new version of magic missle.
However, it wouldn't necessarily BE a bad idea to have it be a different/custom version of magic missle, it would really make sense, seeing as a) he is a caster and b) this is how he went about killing people, in life.
I don't know what SLA means, but I don't have any problem with monsters/foes doing things that PCs can't. If we worry about justifying everything in game terms, then how do we explain all the random Ravengro haunting events in this module? If I created an effect like Jon Kines suggests and my PCs asked about it, I would simply say that they have no idea how he did it. If they researched it, they wouldn't be able to figure it out either, unless I did want to give it to them.I'm treating it more as an SLA that effects an existing spell, then an actual spell. It fits the flavor of the npc and ramps the difficulty up a bit by means of running him as scripted, rather than altering his tactics wholesale. It's altogether not uncommon for me to give "signature abilities" to BBEG's.
SLA means spell like ability and Jon Kines idea is not rules legal, by the way he worded it. You can't cast an SLA and a spell at the exact same time. His players may not care or know enough about the rules to bothered with internal consistency though. If it did he should just present it as an SLA. It keeps it out of the PC's hands even if they try to research it.
If a rules lawyer "got in my grill" so to speak about an NPC spell-like ability, I'd tell him he was perfectly capable of learning the ability: if, like TSM: he spent a lifetime studying names...
LoL. I am thinking of a player I used to game with. He would try it.
SLA means spell like ability and Jon Kines idea is not rules legal, by the way he worded it.
No, either you misunderstood me or I expressed it wrong, the entire affect as in a MM modified by the bleeding name effect & confusion is a SLA usable x/day (I made it the same as how many he had memed but can't recall off the top of my head). I guess in saying "SLA that modifies an existing spell" I should have clarified an "SLA customized adaptation of the magic missile spell to be thematically consistent with TSM". I always change the BBEG's at least enough to give them something memorable.
The aforementioned rant to the rules lawyer was in response to a hypoethetical about what I would do if a player complained about an NPC SLA that wasn't available as a player spell.
No, either you misunderstood me or I expressed it wrong, the entire affect as in a MM modified by the bleeding name effect & confusion is a SLA usable x/day (I made it the same as how many he had memed but can't recall off the top of my head). I guess in saying "SLA that modifies an existing spell" I should have clarified an "SLA customized adaptation of the magic missile spell to be thematically consistent with TSM". I always change the BBEG's at least enough to give them something memorable.
SLA means spell like ability and Jon Kines idea is not rules legal, by the way he worded it.
I thought was what you meant, but I was not sure. That is why I pointed out the wording.
I figured it was better than some nerd-raging poster coming in.
No, either you misunderstood me or I expressed it wrong, the entire affect as in a MM modified by the bleeding name effect & confusion is a SLA usable x/day (I made it the same as how many he had memed but can't recall off the top of my head). I guess in saying "SLA that modifies an existing spell" I should have clarified an "SLA customized adaptation of the magic missile spell to be thematically consistent with TSM". I always change the BBEG's at least enough to give them something memorable.
SLA means spell like ability and Jon Kines idea is not rules legal, by the way he worded it.I thought was what you meant, but I was not sure. That is why I pointed out the wording.
I figured it was better than some nerd-raging poster coming in.
My bad for not being clear, also I just want to say I wouldn't necessarily recommend such changes for new DM's and players or just those new to each other, but I've played with and DM'd these guys for 20 years and know what they can handle.