I can relate, GODS can I relate...
I never found a way to stem the off color joke that just dragged out the game. Trying usually led to ticked off PCs.
1: Controller (battlefield control, debuffs), Striker (high damage, low targets), Support (healing, buffs), Expert (skills, trapfinding) There are bard and ranger archtypes for trapfinding, maybe alchemist, I'd have to double check.
2: It varies on the setting. There were regions in both Faerun and Ebberron that supported necromancy. In the end, It's up to you and how the player runs it.
3: Good F-ing luck.
Three questions, bear with me. Keep in mind I'm working with only the basic Pathfinder sourcebook.
1. What does an adventuring party absolutely need? All I know for sure is that you need some form of magical healing, and probably a rogue as they're the only ones who can find traps to my knowledge. I need to know because I'm forming a group and one member in particular always loves to play monks, even though they seem doomed to fifth wheel status.
A typical group consists of a fighter-type, a rogue-type, cleric-type and mage-type. That said, the DM has alot of power to make adjustments to accomodate the group. If the party doesn't have a rogue, don't put traps everywhere, and when you do put a trap, make it something that isn't impossible to bypass by other means. There are also other ways of dealing with traps if the players are willing to be creative, such as by sending summoned monsters to set them off or using something like dimension door to bypass them, etc.
If the party lacks a healer, you can give out more potions and other curative items to help make up for the difference. This option is more effective at low-mid levels, but probably not sufficient at high levels. I've played in several level 6-10 games without a dedicated healer and got by just fine with things like wands of cure light wounds. If your group lacks a healer, I strongly suggest that someone have the Use Magic Device skill.
The lack of a mage type can also be dealt with in large part with magic items. If a particular spell is needed in an adventure, let the players find a scroll, or have an NPC available to cast that spell for them.
The lack of a fighter-type is the easiest to overcome, as any character can fight. Summoned monsters, animated dead, animal companions and even melee-focused divine characters can make up for the lack of a dedicated warrior.
A balanced group is always nice to have, but it isn't necessary.
2. What do various alignments, good-aligned in particular, think about necromancy? What about society at large? Another player wishes to be a wizard specializing in it, and is interested in summoning minions. I know the energy is described as "foul" and a few spells have the [Evil] descriptor, but I'm concerned with how that could affect party cohesion, as well as how it could throw a monkey wrench into an otherwise normal adventure.
Alot of this depends on the attitudes of the players. I suggest talking with them and making sure they're all okay with it. Most people, IME, don't really care. It is just a game, after all.
From an in-game roleplaying perspective, how people react to necromancers is a matter of culture and individual beliefs. Most people consider necromancy to be creepy, if not vile, but alot depends on the necromancer and his actions. Is he just animating the dead monsters he slays, like ogres and other evil creatures, or is he raiding the village graveyard for corpses? Is he creating intelligent undead, which involves enslaving and tormenting souls, or is he sticking to mindless zombies and skeletons? Alot of people wouldn't really care about a necromancer that rasies the occasional skeleton, especially if he uses this power to do good and help others. When I play a necromancer, I tend to either disguise my undead or leave them outside when I go into town. As for the rest of my party, I've been fortunate to play with people that aren't bothered by it.
The real problem arises when someone plays a Paladin, since their code of conduct prevents them from tolerating anything "evil." But then, the person playing the paladin is the one who is being disruptive to the group by restricting the other players' choices. Like I said, this is really something you just need to talk to the players about and try to resolve any conflicts before the game even begins. The DM also can help resolve such conflicts by using house rules (i.e. mindless undead are N alignment, as in 3.0 and previous editions, so raising them isn't "evil").
3. The same friend likes to get his kicks. He finds griefing videos funny and I suspect his prankish humor might seep into the game too.My problem isn't about him specifically so much as it is about how to maintain a serious atmosphere while not being a stuffy DM. I don't know what it is about D&D, but every game I've been in generates enough in-jokes to last a lifetime. But I'm not in it for the comedy, I'm in it for the fabled emergent storytelling. RPGs (actual ones) have great potential in that respect, and it seems difficult to really tap into it while someone goes on about how they urinate on their vanquished foes.
The best way to deal with these kinds of situations is to talk to the person and let them know your concerns. Alot of times, people aren't aware that what they're doing is offending others, and will stop if asked to. If talking to them doesn't work, find different people to play with. That said, don't be too serious. Laughing and having fun is part of the experience.
The real problem arises when someone plays a Paladin, since their code of conduct prevents them from tolerating anything "evil." But then, the person playing the paladin is the one who is being disruptive to the group by restricting the other players' choices.
If you wind up with a paladin playing it like that, then that might be a case of Lawful Stupid. Talking to the player about finding ways their paladin can deal with it is probably necessary, since paladins are not JUST Lawful Stupid, and educating the player on such would help tremendously. Having the paladin decide to deal with any Evil AL character in the party is as simple as the Paladin deciding to lead and teach by example, in the hopes one day the Evil AL PC will eventually turn over a new leaf after all of the influence by the Good AL Paladin. Or any other reason the players or DM can come up with, really.
While Paladins don't necessarily like it, they can and will team up with an evil person. Most often to vanquish a greater evil. Give a paladin player that option and a greater recurring evil to vanquish the evil aligned pc is key to defeating, and there ya go.
A little off topic, but might actually be relevant depending on his party set up.
For more info on Paladins that AREN'T Lawful Stupid, please read here
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for the urinating on vanquished foes, have one of them only playing dead. As soon as the urination begins, he whips out a knife and...well, you can imagine the rest.
(Penalties for tiny target, of course!!)
My list of group needs is broken into units(Note, this is for a 4 person party)
5 units of damage dealing(1 unit is about 25 damage per round at level 10)
3 units of out of combat healing healing(able to use a wand of cure light counts, a positive energy cleric counts as 2 units)
1 unit of scout(high perception and stealth, trapfinding/disable device is a plus, but not required)
1 unit of know it all(someone with good knowledge checks)
1 unit of face(someone to cover the social skills)
1 unit of tank(someone big and tough to soak up the damage)
1 unit of buffing
2 units of battlefield control(debuffs and controlling the environment)
A good well balanced party would look like this
Figher - 2-3 damage, 1 tank
Bard - 1 damage, 1 buff, 1 face, 1 scout, 1 heal
Cleric - 1 damage, 1 buff, 2 healing
Wizard - 1 buff, 2 control, 1 damage, 1 knowledge
The real problem arises when someone plays a Paladin, since their code of conduct prevents them from tolerating anything "evil." But then, the person playing the paladin is the one who is being disruptive to the group by restricting the other players' choices.If you wind up with a paladin playing it like that, then that might be a case of Lawful Stupid. Talking to the player about finding ways their paladin can deal with it is probably necessary, since paladins are not JUST Lawful Stupid, and educating the player on such would help tremendously. Having the paladin decide to deal with any Evil AL character in the party is as simple as the Paladin deciding to lead and teach by example, in the hopes one day the Evil AL PC will eventually turn over a new leaf after all of the influence by the Good AL Paladin. Or any other reason the players or DM can come up with, really.
While Paladins don't necessarily like it, they can and will team up with an evil person. Most often to vanquish a greater evil. Give a paladin player that option and a greater recurring evil to vanquish the evil aligned pc is key to defeating, and there ya go.
A little off topic, but might actually be relevant depending on his party set up.
For more info on Paladins that AREN'T Lawful Stupid, please read here
"While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code." Core Rulebook p. 64
Since skeletons and zombies are "[Evil]" in Pathfinder, a Paladin cannot willingly work with a player who has such minions except, as the book puts it, "under exceptional circumstances" where they are working together to defeat a "greater evil." And even then, it says that the Paladin should have to routinely receive atonement spells for doing so! I am not making this up!
So please, don't blame me for the "lawful stupidness" that is the Paladin class. I didn't write the rules, and don't follow those rules as written in my games.
I have a bit of a problem with this attitude. In my view, the failure of a gaming group is a group failure, not just that of an individual. For most areas that are anywhere near the norm, you really can't expect to roll into town with a pack of shambling zombies and expect to be treated the same as someone walking a dog. Even if they're not attacking anyone most people find the very sight of them offensive.So in one view, you might castigate a player of a Paladin for putting constraints on the groups actions, but you're not totally immune from the charge yourself. Your public persona will impact the perception of those who associate with you. Your asking players to set aside what would be a natural character revulsion. (this assumes of course you're actually playing with roleplayers and not just munchkins glad for extra cannon fodder.) Most cultures have very strong beliefs on how the dead should be treated. Your necromancer is essentially a walking time bomb that's waiting to be set off by the right cultural group.
You did read the part where I told him to discuss this with his players, didn't you? I said, "Alot of this depends on the attitudes of the players. I suggest talking with them and making sure they're all okay with it."
The problem with Paladins is that they are delibarately restrictive, not just to themselves, but to the other players. It isn't just Necromancers that Paladins have trouble getting along with. So really, when someone decides that they want to play a Paladin, they should be just as mindful of their fellow players and make sure its okay with them as the person who wants to play a necromancer. Both types of characters can be disruptive and sources of conflict, in fact, I think Paladins tend to cause more problems than Necromancers. That's all I meant by that.
You don't need anything. I have had some very non standard groups that have been highly effective. Just let people play what they want to play.
+1. That said, don't coddle a group because something is left out. If you designed a trap encounter and they neglected the rogue role, leave it. They have to use their talents to adjust to the situation. For example:
A) a party of tanks can tough it out.
B) a Mage/Druid party can summon critters to trip the traps, which can then be circumvented or destroyed.
C) get creative with rope, dummies, etc
If they're creative enough, and the party isn't TOO focused (all tanks/ no ranged seems like a bad idea), then they should be able to overcome whatever obstacles you throw at them.
Three questions, bear with me. Keep in mind I'm working with only the basic Pathfinder sourcebook.
1. What does an adventuring party absolutely need? All I know for sure is that you need some form of magical healing, and probably a rogue as they're the only ones who can find traps to my knowledge. I need to know because I'm forming a group and one member in particular always loves to play monks, even though they seem doomed to fifth wheel status.
There is nothing that is absolutely needed. It entirely depends on what kind of challenges the dm is going to throw at you. If there are no magical traps a character with trapfinding is unneccessary (by the way there are bard and ranger archtypes as well as I think an oracle type that have trapfinding or its equivalent).
So really talk to your dm, if he is running a 'standard' adventure, then you need a guy who can fight (give and recieve hits), a guy capable of healing/condition removal, a guy capable of dealing with various skill based challenges (talking, traps, knowledge) and a guy that provides utility magic and possibly battlefield control. Now mind you these dont need to be separate characters. A summoner for instance provides great front line fighting in the eidolon, and some significant utility and control magic. An inquisitor can also fight and provide the divine side of casting. So it is still possible to cover all your bases even if someone makes an outlandish or 5th wheel sort of character.
2. What do various alignments, good-aligned in particular, think about necromancy? What about society at large? Another player wishes to be a wizard specializing in it, and is interested in summoning minions. I know the energy is described as "foul" and a few spells have the [Evil] descriptor, but I'm concerned with how that could affect party cohesion, as well as how it could throw a monkey wrench into an otherwise normal adventure.
Depends on the world. This has been discussed and opinions vary. Talk to the dm and the group about the idea, and see what they say. There is no hard and fact rule here.
3. The same friend likes to get his kicks. He finds griefing videos funny and I suspect his prankish humor might seep into the game too.
My problem isn't about him specifically so much as it is about how to maintain a serious atmosphere while not being a stuffy DM. I don't know what it is about D&D, but every game I've been in generates enough in-jokes to last a lifetime. But I'm not in it for the comedy, I'm in it for the fabled emergent storytelling. RPGs (actual ones) have great potential in that respect, and it seems difficult to really tap into it while someone goes on about how they urinate on their vanquished foes.
This is a matter of play style. You cant force people to take a game seriously. Some like a lighter kind of game. Even if you try to impose restrictions on this sort of thing as a dm, you will just create resentment. Have a conversation with your players about the atmosphere and see what they say, but in the end you really need to accept that certain people will want to play a certain way, and there is no way to force them to play differently if they dont want to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So please, don't blame me for the "lawful stupidness" that is the...
I'm not sure we all see what's happening here. A gamer reads the code, and decides--I don't like that alignment, this other one's better. Perhaps they've run into a problem player, or perhaps it's an issue with any lawful alignment.
Because "lawful" feels restrictive. And when it comes down to issues of good and evil, mindsets are highly diverse as to what qualifies as good, or evil. A code of any kind can feel restrictive. And yet, someone fighting against a code may also have their own code, ideals, ideas too.
Sometimes the most difficult thing is to, with these assumptions in place, come to the table with another person. After all, we're sitting down with someone who is actively playing/promoting something we, fundamentally, disagree with.
It is very difficult to let go of an assumption. It is even harder to let go of an ideal--such as what good is, or what evil is, or an alignment preference is. And that is why we see these debates over paladins, over necromancy, flare to life. And that is why we see people arguing one side or the other--because they believe in some form or ideal, and another player, by 'becoming' that concept (playing a paladin or necromancer) is actively going against it.
As one person once said: "I play a paladin because I want to play a hero." One of the worst things a player, or a DM, can do is to fall into the "make a player's life miserable by turning everything into code-based roleplay" trap. It's miserable for everyone, leads to bad feelings on both sides. And yet, it does occur, because there at the table someone's playing something that "symbolizes" an idea or a concept someone else disagrees with at a more fundamental level, and it's difficult for them to budge.
What can be done, then? What can be done is in any situation, broadening our minds.
In that spirit, here is one:
Paraphrased From page 579 of the Trade Paperback the Dead of Paksenarrion:
Most think being a holy warrior means gaining vast arcane powers, that they would be nearly invincible against any foe. But truth is that while Paladin are skilled at fighting, that was the least of their abilities. A quest might involve no fighting at all, or a battle against beings no steel could pierce.
Above all paladins show that courage is possible. It is easy enough to find reasons to give in to evil. War is ugly as many know. But we do not argue that war is better than peace; paladins are not that stupid. It is not peace when cruelty reigns, when stronger men steal from farmers and craftmen, when the child can be enslaved, or the old thrown out to starve, and no one lifts a hand. That is not peace: that is conquest and evil.
Paladins do not start quarrels in peaceful lands, never display their skills to earn applause. But we are the sword of good defending the helpless and teaching by our example that one person can dare greater force to break evil's grasp on the innocent. Sometimes that can be done without fighting, without killing, and that is best.
But some evil needs direct attack, and paladins must be able to do it, and lead others in battle. Wonder why paladins are so likeable? It is important, we come to a town, perhaps, where nothing has gone right for a dozen years. Perhaps there is a temple there and sometimes there is not. The people are frightened, and they have lost trust in each other, in themselves. We may lead them into danger, some will be killed or wounded. Why should they trust us?
Because we are likeable, and other people will follow us willingly. And that's why we are more likely to choose a popular adept as a candidate rather than the best fighters.
In the spirit of necromancers, Paizo recently offered a "white necromancer" in their magazine. This might be more to taste of some ideals as well, or a different approach. Find out what the player intends, or wants. Discuss what it means in the game setting. Speak with the person playing the cleric, the monk, the druid. Does it go against the druid's view of natural cycles? Do they want that conflict? If so, go with it.
In any case, come to the table, not against it and discuss intent, and broaden minds. Discuss intent, comfort, and playstyle beforehand. A disruptive player is just as guilty as a disruptive GM, and we all hold assumptions and hold them dearly. No one likes to feel those assumptions are being attacked, told that they're wrong, and so on. And so, that can make a necromancer, just like a paladin, difficult to swallow.
Just to remind that in pathfinder any character can find any kind of trap, the trapfinding ability is needed for disabling magical traps and if you go just one step from the pathfinder core book you will find it handed out like candy.
...If you wind up with a paladin playing it like that, then that might be a case of Lawful Stupid. Talking to the player about finding ways their paladin can deal with it is probably necessary, since paladins are not JUST Lawful Stupid, and educating the player on such would help tremendously...
I have a bit of a problem with this. I would not consider myself LG let alone lawful stupid. But I would have a serious problem working with someone who was stealing bodies form graveyards to create undead monsters, just because he says he is doing good with them. Defiling the dead bodies and the ick factor would be pretty much a stopper for me. I think it would for most people.
Now, as another poster said, if he was only animating fallen enemies (or allies that gave him permission before they died), only creating mindless undead to use against evil, and putting them back down after they are no longer needed; then I could probably deal with it. But I can easily see how many would not. And I don't think that makes them stupid.
Again, if the GM helps by creating a culture that allows neutral animated undead (there was some necromancy book that detailed one). I can see that as another possibility. But the base sytem in most campaign worlds does not have this.
@Kydeem de'Morcaine
Same here, i played a NG (and later LG) ranger in Kingmaker and wouldn't allow anyone to animate the dead, well to be more precise the only time he would be able to accept as a term solution would be during the final book where it becomes apperant that the world is about to end/invaded.
Mage/Druid party can summon critters to trip the traps, which can then be circumvented or destroyed.
Hey I think you may have stumbled on a ‘Good’ use for summoned undead – assuming you use the corpses of evil creatures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real problem arises when someone plays a Paladin, since their code of conduct prevents them from tolerating anything "evil." But then, the person playing the paladin is the one who is being disruptive to the group by restricting the other players' choices.If you wind up with a paladin playing it like that, then that might be a case of Lawful Stupid. Talking to the player about finding ways their paladin can deal with it is probably necessary, since paladins are not JUST Lawful Stupid, and educating the player on such would help tremendously. Having the paladin decide to deal with any Evil AL character in the party is as simple as the Paladin deciding to lead and teach by example, in the hopes one day the Evil AL PC will eventually turn over a new leaf after all of the influence by the Good AL Paladin. Or any other reason the players or DM can come up with, really.
While Paladins don't necessarily like it, they can and will team up with an evil person. Most often to vanquish a greater evil. Give a paladin player that option and a greater recurring evil to vanquish the evil aligned pc is key to defeating, and there ya go.
A little off topic, but might actually be relevant depending on his party set up.
For more info on Paladins that AREN'T Lawful Stupid, please read here
That was the best intimidate speech I ever read/heard.
1. What does an adventuring party absolutely need?
CLERIC.
Every group jokes, some more than others. I don't think it can be helped. RPGs are a big part of my life, but we all must admit there is something absurd about the notion of a bunch of people sitting around pretending to be imaginary people and rolling dice to see how well ten tons of minutia-laced rules can simulate an ogre getting clobbered with a club.
I have had some of the most hilarious, funny, and even disruptive players imaginable at my table. But I have never had a longterm, serious problem with keeping them interested and involved, or keeping the game scary or mysterious.
The thing is you will have to be open to this and find a way to strike a balance. Humor isn't going away, but if you take care to make your NPCs interesting, to throw the unexpected at the party, and to describe in detail the important and serious events, they should be willing to give the serious parts their due.
... RPGs are a big part of my life, but we all must admit there is something absurd about the notion of a bunch of people sitting around pretending to be imaginary people and rolling dice to see how well ten tons of minutia-laced rules can simulate an ogre getting clobbered with a club... Humor isn't going away, but if you take care to make your NPCs interesting, to throw the unexpected at the party, and to describe in detail the important and serious events, they should be willing to give the serious parts their due.
+1 This.
I think all of us that play RPG's are dorks. I definitely include myself with that label. However, most of us realize that the situation is a bit ridiculous and have a sense of humor about it. If we didn't, we probably wouldn't still be doing it. Some story lines it is a little easier to stay on track than others. But I think the absurdity is always going to leak through a little bit. Think about television or movie production. Unless it is a doucmetary (meaning boring to most people) one of the most common interuptions they have is actors unable to stop laughing at something they are supposed to be saying or doing. Similar thing at the gaming table. We try to take the serious storylines seriously, but sometimes we just can't help ourselves.
The real problem arises when someone plays a Paladin, since their code of conduct prevents them from tolerating anything "evil." But then, the person playing the paladin is the one who is being disruptive to the group by restricting the other players' choices.
Erm, so you can make choices that restrict him (You should be able to play a Necromancer, so forcing him not to play a Paladin) yet he can't play a Paladin because that means he'd be restricting you?
And its a 'problem' when someone plays a Paladin because your choices and freedom of class is more important than theirs?
"They can't play good guys because then I can't be a bad guy, so I'm going to play a bad guy then refuse them the right to play the class they want, and if they DO still go down that path then they are being deliberately disruptive"
Thats a pretty cool double standard really!
Your whole view is that Paladins are a 'problem' (you say it a few times), but frankly thats not true, you just don't like them and are finding ways to try paint them as the problem child. Paladins don't restrict much at all.
Three questions, bear with me. Keep in mind I'm working with only the basic Pathfinder sourcebook.
1. What does an adventuring party absolutely need? All I know for sure is that you need some form of magical healing, and probably a rogue as they're the only ones who can find traps to my knowledge. I need to know because I'm forming a group and one member in particular always loves to play monks, even though they seem doomed to fifth wheel status.
Actually specific builds for monks are pretty awesome.
2. What do various alignments, good-aligned in particular, think about necromancy? What about society at large? Another player wishes to be a wizard specializing in it, and is interested in summoning minions. I know the energy is described as "foul" and a few spells have the [Evil] descriptor, but I'm concerned with how that could affect party cohesion, as well as how it could throw a monkey wrench into an otherwise normal adventure.
Necromancy doesn't have to be evil. Using your enemies for the greater good saves lives and doesn't harm the deceased.
3. The same friend likes to get his kicks. He finds griefing videos funny and I suspect his prankish humor might seep into the game too.
Your friend is pretty immature.
My problem isn't about him specifically so much as it is about how to maintain a serious atmosphere while not being a stuffy DM. I don't know what it is about D&D, but every game I've been in generates enough in-jokes to last a lifetime. But I'm not in it for the comedy, I'm in it for the fabled emergent storytelling. RPGs (actual ones) have great potential in that respect, and it seems difficult to really tap into it while someone goes on about how they urinate on their vanquished foes.
Encourage an atmosphere where acts such as that are foolish. Literally have monsters attack them when they have their pants down.
|
In the spirit of necromancers, Paizo recently offered a "white necromancer" in their magazine. This might be more to taste of some ideals as well, or a different approach.
Just reading through this thread and thought I'd correct this ...
The white necromancer actually is not in a 'Paizo magazine'. The class is in the new issue of Kobold Quarterly (issue #19).
It has proven to be pretty popular - check it out here if you like.
I think many in this thread might like the class :)