|
I had a situation last week. We were going through Crypt of the Everflame and we meet a Shadow. My character, 1st level so don't have much invested in it is crited and takes 11 points str damage one round and another 2 points the next round, leaving me to a 1 str.
I recognise that I am dead meat or should be dead meat and try to to coup de grace my character so he doesn't become a shadow. GM makes me do a will save (fair enough) and then lets me do 1 point of damange to myself. It's evident the GM will not let me die that way (and I could see it taking a little while considering I'm at 1 str) but then the shadow doesn't finish me off, choosing to turn on the other characters. I send him a note requesting that he let me put myself out of my misery.
Instead my character is rescued, tied to a donkey and gains the nickname, 'donkey boy' and is basically a joke (that I smile and laugh because, well, it's a game and good manners and yes, a little funny even to me). But I'm still mildly annoyed that the GM didn't let my character die somewhat heroically rather than become a joke. Basically, the death was appropriate, tactically the right thing to do (either from my standpoint or the Shadow's).
But I'm a little annoyed at the GM for not playing it straight and protecting the character than if he had let me die. I wonder what people's various feeling are in such situations?
|
|
My first thought did your PC know that death by the shadow would have caused you to become a shadow or was that player knowledge?
I rolled privately (bardic knowledge) and got a 17. Also, the GM described me as becoming translucent. SO overall, I'd say it was a combination of player knowledge, private roll, and GM hint.
I'd have to agree with the GM. It takes a lot for a person to become suicidal enough to kill them self. Why didn't you just tell another party member to kill you?
|
|
I'd have to agree with the GM. It takes a lot for a person to become suicidal enough to kill them self. Why didn't you just tell another party member to kill you?
I did, they refused. Also, like I said, the GM made me make a will save (which I did, and felt was reasonable) to go through with the act. What bugged me was that I then only did 1 HP and it was apparent that the GM wouldn't let me off myself no matter how many saves or attacks I made.
I think that is the heart of the matter. No matter what I did, I got the feeling that the GM would come up with mechanical reasons not to let me die, and that's why in the end, the character's survival felt cheap.
|
You weren't a threat any longer, so the shadow moved on to bigger, more immediate threats is how I would've viewed it. Don't play the character again, say he was blown up miraculously by Tarrasque or something crazy as backstory fluff for fun.
Personally I love characters with a less than glorious history since it is more realistic and colorful. We aren't all super awesome riding away in the sunset on golden dragons. Donkeys are cheaper.
The shadow leaving you and moving on to more dangerous targets makes sense, since a shadow is not a mindless undead like a zombie and would not stop to feed on you right away.
As for you trying to kill your character, you have a 1 strength, making you majorly encumbered and not moving from where you fell unless you are wearing nothing more than clothes. I am not sure a 1 strength is even enough to be able to cut or puncture your own skin to begin with.
|
The rules seem to be a bit unclear about what happens if your Strength drops so low that your current encumbrance exceeds your maximum load. At minimum, you should be restricted to taking a 5ft step as a full-round action. It might have to be a GM decision if you would be forced prone due to the weight.
If a character wanted to commit suicide, it is not reasonable to expect you to roll for damage. As long as you have a dagger, it should be a pretty simple thing to draw it across your throat or other vulnerable place. At minimum, that should cause the Bleed condition and as long as your companions do not interfere, death is inevitable. As far as I know, you can choose to fail a check so a save or a Con check to stabilize shouldn't matter.
As far as the Shadow goes, with only an Int of 6, its not that bright, but probably smart enough to know that one more touch and you'll be rising as a Shadow in 1d4 rounds. That, IMO, would be enough to attack you again.
I guess the GM could have had reservations on how to introduce a replacement PC if your first one died, but IMO, if a player wants a character to die, you let them. It doesn't have to be justified IC. Who cares if the character would really do that, the player no longer wants to play that character. Why force them?
Now that's without addressing whether or not the scenario was reasonable for your group. If it was not then I believe that he let you down on a third count.
CotE is a sanctioned module. If this was being played for PFS characters, the GM did not have the ability to modify the encounter if s/he felt it was too tough for 1st level characters. The module is first level and has been described a number of times as possibly being too difficult for 1st level PFS characters. Play it your own risk.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Now, now. Let's all not be on the GM's case. What he did is let you play a character long enough to get some investment in it. THere's nothing wrong with a GM being a little merciful. He might argue that tacitcally the shadow doesn't think much of the threat you pose at Str 1 so he attacks someone else.
Now, me, I'd kill ya, turn you into a shaodw and make you hatefully harass the PCs later on in life. But I'm mean like that.
But in my experience, when a GM chosoes not to kill you, they're trying to be a good sport, or have big storyytelling plans for your specific character. I wouldn't let living bug me too much.
As far as the suicide thing, I wouldn't let a PC decide to commit suicide in the middle of combat. It's one thing to plan out "Don't let me go down like that". It's another thing to decide in the act of combat that this is no good. My ruling would be the impulse to live is strong during combat, and that killing the shadow comes first.
Of course, lots of folk have different ways of doing things. I'm just chiming in on the 'don't be mad that you lived' side.
Steven has a point. Killing a PC isn't always easy. I always feel really bad about it afterwards.
|
|
Outside of the character of a brand new player, I don't understand feeling bad when a PC dies. As long as you approach the game fairly and don't take pride in killing characters, sometimes it just happens. I've killed my share, not a large number, and I don't feel bad, nor do I want a GM to feel bad for me if one of my PC's bites it.
Sometimes characters die, and sometimes players look at you afterwards with their puppy dog eyes :(
Back to the topic at hand, I can see a character take their own life. You see it in monster movies all the time, when a hero knows he's going to die a horrible death or turn into the thing he's facing, he takes his last bullet and uses it on himself
|
|
There you go putting words in my mouth and misunderstanding me.
If the scenario was unreasonable, sanctioned or not, then the DM should simply not have run it.
I misunderstood the intention of your comment. It was not clear what you meant by saying the GM let the players down. And with that, I disagree. The module was written for 1st level characters. It is only the 6th encounter of the module, so it is clearly written with 1st level PC's in mind. Sure it qualifies as "hard" (APL+2), but not impossible. At first level, the randomness of the dice is a much larger impact to character survivability and success that the GM's evaluation of a build or party mix. Sometimes, characters are killed. It happens. That does not mean the GM did anything wrong.
|
|
My feeling is to side with the GM. Since this was played as a Pathfinder Society event, not as your home campaign, the chances are that your GM doesn't really know you well, and was probably just moving the game along.
Most players *throw a fit* when their characters die; even ones that firmly believe that it's a fair thing. Your actions sound, to me, like you were throwing a fit even before you died; you took STR damage, it was unexpected and you were going to throw away your character rather than suffer the indignity of being a cripple. You *argued* for ways to commit suicide.
I'm not surprised that the GM moved on to someone else in the combat. The objective is to involve and entertain several players, not just to kill one and move on. Likewise, if your character survives, you continue to participate. If the party appears to be struggling though this type of encounter adding another monster to the mix may also not fulfill the objective of entertaining the players. Again, most players *throw a fit* when they die. One's bad; a table is a misery.
If you want a deadly campaign, home campaign is the way to go. If you don't want to play that character again, make a new one, put it behind you.
|
|
Your actions sound, to me, like you were throwing a fit
I think its a bit presumptuous to say the OP was throwing a fit without having all the details. Just like we should not judge the GM based solely on what the OP says, we should not make unsupported assumptions about the player.
We have to remember that this is a game, not RL. If you are crippled in RL, you are stuck. You don't get to quit and start over. But in a game, its supposed to be fun. If the player will not enjoy playing a significantly gimped character, don't make them. YMMV.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Whenever I see one of these threads I always wonder what isn't being communicated.
Whatever happened was between you and your GM and there isn't much the forumites can do about it. No-one here can really say what they would have done in your GMs shoes because we weren't there.
What confuses me is why are you so anxious for your character to die? You can always just tear the character sheet and chronicles up if you don't like it.
|
|
Most players *throw a fit* when their characters die; even ones that firmly believe that it's a fair thing. Your actions sound, to me, like you were throwing a fit even before you died; you took STR damage, it was unexpected and you were going to throw away your character rather than suffer the indignity of being a cripple. You *argued* for ways to commit suicide.
Didn't sound like a "fit" to me, sounded like a player/PC who was concerned about the party.
1) The PC knew, from a good Bardic Knowledge roll, that he would become another Shadow shortly after dying, and therefore be both unraisable and another threat to the party.
2) The player & PC both knew, again from that knowledge roll, that the damage was temporary, so would be recovered over time or the application of a fairly low-level spell.
3) No explanation was given in the OP's post about any GM reason for changing targets. Now, if there was a Power Attacking Barbarian doing m,assive damage, despit ethe incorporealness, then moving to a different tareget was justified. If nothing else drew the Shadow's attention, then moving on was not, necessarily, what it would have done.
4) One point of damage is not the correct amounbt of damage for a Coup De Gras, even with a -5 from Strength.
Assuming:
Dagger:
1d4-5, x2 for crit, then 2 points of non-lethal, but the attacker was attempting a called shot, and, since the defender was cooperating, I would rule that the Strngth effects might be mitigated by a targeted full round action, in this specific case. YMMV.
I have seen a character strip in this kind of circumstance (but that PC is known to run around naked at the least provocation anyhow), or attempt to crawl away and find a Lesser Restoration. However, all else being equal, attempting to alleviate the issue of getting killed by a Shadow, with all that that entails, when known about by the PC, is not an unreasonable place to go.
But, for the OP, whether the GM was playing softball is hard to tell without the reason the SHadow changed targets.
|
|
Anyway...Not to offend Kerney, but I think most of us are feeling we are missing some details of the event. Unless the GM is question is generally a poor one, I think this is a case of a misunderstanding, dunno. The GM could very well have made the decision about changing targets because that is what s/he felt was right. I am not going to second guess that decision.
In the end, what is your condition? Is the character dead? Were you unable to participate in the remainder of the module because of your ability point damage? Sometimes, a handicap, especially a temporary one can lead to some very entertaining role-playing opportunities.
|
|
In the end, what is your condition? Is the character dead? Were you unable to participate in the remainder of the module because of your ability point damage? Sometimes, a handicap, especially a temporary one can lead to some very entertaining role-playing opportunities.
I was at 1 Str and I spent the rest of the adventure at 1-2 str until I had an oportunuity to get up to a wopping 6 str. I was tied to a mule and earned the nickname 'donkey boy'.
As for the session, it was fun, the GM was fine and I would definately play with him again. I still got the feeling my character was protected. As to whether a foe should turn to other foes when an enemy is helpless, in most cases I agree, that they would. However I see intelligent undead would want to create another target by turning me into a shadow (and two shadows might likely overpower the party). I basically agree with Bob's assertion that finishing me to gain an ally was the logical call.
As for my play. It was a first level character in his first session and I saw him as a Savage Skald character type who would die rather than become an undead type, so my actions were in character. And no, I didn't like having that conception of the character and being reduced to being 'donkey boy'. But one thing. I made a point not to ruin anyone's fun and smiled at jokes at my expense. I was offered a chance to replace the character. I didn't take it because I didn't die. I felt that was fair. I'm not sure I'd do the same thing a second time.
On the other hand, the character wasn't gelling well and had I died I would not have mourned the character.
Character survived, but like I said, I get the feeling the character survived not by its own merit but because of the suspicion that the GM would have protected me with a 'PC halo' regardless of the consequences.
I'm sure many people have felt they've encountered a situation where they felt the GM was bending over backwards not to kill a character. That's what I felt I had here. I'm curious as to see how others have felt about such situations. Separate that from my situation. How would you feel if you felt a GM was doing that.
|
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
See I see this as a GM taking control of a PC which in most cases is a bad thing. Had I been in your shoes, I'd have thanked the GM for the game and gotten up and walked out. If "you" feel "your character" would do that, I don't see as a GM has a right to force you not to.
I once played an escaped slave/gladiator who got captured again and was going to be forced to fight again. Instead he went berserk and tried to take on a squad of soldiers single-handedly unarmed. He would have rather died than become a slave again. The GM tried to talk me out of it, but it was what he would have done.
If you honestly believe that your skald would have committed suicide, declare him dead. I would. Its your choice, not the GM's.
|
|
I think the best thing to do in these circumstances is to call for a game break, talk to the GM offline, and express your concerns. If the GM continues to marginalize your decisions, I hate to say it, that would be somewhat jerky and I might be influenced to leave the table. After-all, you're probably not contributing to the party's success at that point anyway. In fact, you might be a hindrance. If I understand your "savage skald" concept, I probably would have had the PC leave due to the humiliation of becoming "donkey boy."
|
|
I wonder what people's various feeling are in such situations?
Without reading everyone else's responses,
1) With a 1 str, a heavy load is a maximum of 10 pounds. Most likely, Kerney wouldn't be able to move.
2) Coupe is a full round action
3) You have to be able to use your weapon in combat, it makes sense for the weapon to be within your "light" capacity, which means 3 pounds or less. Unless you just want to roll your face over the weapon, but that's not a coupe. Maybe it takes 2 rounds instead?
4) At 1 str, with a -5 penalty, most likely you can only do non-lethal damage to yourself, so a coupe would probably knock you out, not kill you. Or... it would take several rounds to setup. It's a pretty pathetic situation.
5) I'd probably kill your PC with the Shadow, but I can tell you from a GMs perspective, I really hate killing PCs. Not many GMs like it.
Also, there's the added complication that suicide is a touchy subject for some people. Even in a heroic game. So some GMs might not let it happen at all.
Also, if you died to the shadow, it creates another shadow, which could result in a TPK, because they're tough. Especially for a 1st level group. So I can see the GM also not wanting to do that, it's not just your PC he's worried about, it's the entire session. But that's also why killing you was a reasonable solution tbh.
My last thought is that the penalty for death isn't bad in modules... before the changes. But I'm not sure the changes are in effect. If you died, in the past it was -1 XP and 1/3 gold... which isn't bad.
It's difficult sometimes for the GM! TPK everyone or cheat and let them live. It's no win imo. Sometimes as a GM, I prepare ahead of time for these situations. I think Shadows are very dangerous, especially to a level 1 party.
|
|
Spoiler:Also, you dying creates another shadow, which could result in a TPK, because they're tough, especially for a 1st level group. So I can see the GM also not wanting to do that.
Create Spawn (Su) A humanoid creature killed by a shadow’s Strength damage becomes a shadow under the control of its killer in 1d4 rounds.
Note that commiting suicide will not turn you into a Shadow, even if you are at 1 Strength from Shadow attacks when you kill yourself.
|
|
Note that commiting suicide will not turn you into a Shadow, even if you are at 1 Strength from Shadow attacks when you kill yourself.
Yes, I know.
My point is that it would be very difficult if not impossible for him to kill himself (especially before the shadow hits him again). Further, the players won't kill him. I don't think it's logical for the shadow to change targets, it's smarter to finish him off and 5' step into the ground. Which would TPK the party if they didn't run.
Since this is in the PFS forum, even though Kerney has yet to outright say this was being run as a PFS-sanctioned module and not as just a home game, I should point out that having the shadow finish off the PC so that it would turn into another shadow during the fight would seriously throw off the balance of the encounter and maybe result in a TPK. If this were about an encounter with a shadow in a scenario it would be a simple answer, if the listed tactics for the shadow does not say it will attempt to make new shadows during a fight, then it will not. But the modules do not have that kind of specific info, so we have to rely on the GMs running them to use common sense and not do something that would screw up the balance of an encounter.
I apologize for misunderstanding some relevant facts.
First, let's not go telling folk that Sensei "felt bad" about killing a PC. I get the heebee-jeebies jsut ebing one post away from that comment. If they didn't expect some level of death, they wouldn't play a game with hit points and saving throws.
Second, I missed that this was a sanctioned PFS event, in which ase, I want to say right now, that if there's a chance to kill a PC, I straight up do it. You have to kill PCs to make getting to higher levels an accomplishment in organized play. PCs should be spared for future great storytelling in home games. In the semi-competitive one-off environment of organized play, you are well and truly screwed, and you shouldn't want it any other way. When GMs spare you, they are sparing everyone, and that's not good for the environment. You need to work your way to higher levels, thereby guaranteeing top challenges and memorable games, instead of recycled stuff that happens when PCs become a protected class. Levelling up is a privelege for those who do well, not an entitlement that mitigates success for everyone who acheives it.
On the upside, I promise to make it a good death if you find your way to my table.
Now, I don't run PFS games anymore (not that I'd mind it), and this is only my two cents. But I'd say better attitudes toward the obituary columns will make organized play better for longer than the RPGA.
|
|
I really hate killing players. Not many GMs like itLaw enforcement usually discourages the killing of players as well :-)
I'm very glad about this. I would retire as a PFS if the game required me to kill players.
As for the other points--
1)I could get behind the interpretation that I couldn't do enough damage to myself, has too helpless etc. What happened at the table, after a bit of discussion after I declared my action (most players were also PFS GMs) was that I got the impression, after a will save that I would be able to off myself. Instead I did 1 HP. I do think this was a genuine misunderstanding.
But it did make me feel that my decision was trivial and that there was a bit GM control.
2) However, I also didn't feel at that moment, there was enough to call him on it. There is a line as to being a whiny player, questioning a GM's call, calling out a GM when they are being unfair. I wasn't sure what side of the line I was one and how the other players would perceive it. So I hesitated. Nothing was as blatant as a GM fiat.
However, I have no doubt, based off conversation during the lunch break, that he was pulling his punches, either to spare me or to avoid a TPK and I think the former. The reason behind this is the XP loss came up and he seemed concerned that I got 'my share'. At that point I also gathered that essentially, his heart was in the right place, in that he was sympathetic to a character who would die from essentially an unlucky crit in the first round.
I didn't really want to punish the GM for that by making a scene. I also sent the note saying 'kill me', because I sensed the hesitation on his part. I saw it as saying to a hesitant GM, don't pull punches. He might have seen as 'I don't want to go through the session as a 1 str gimp.'
3) Funny, I didn't even occur to me that players/the GM might have perfectly natural ick factor about suicide. Of course, I was the person who felt at times BSG wasn't grim/dark enough, so maybe my perspective is different from others. From an alignment standpoint, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, which have no analogy IRL that I know of, I guess I would consider my action a good act.
4) Yes, it was PFS, and I knew the GM might have been concerned about throwing off the encounter. It was a meta game decision that influenced my suicide decision.
5) Tactically, the Shadow had taken damage, but there was no major immediate threat along the lines of a barbarian doing massive damage. I think the damage total by the party was one alchemist's fire. Half the party was around a corner and not threatening. A very defensive monk had stepped into my square on the third round of combat. At that point I did all I could to save myself, mainly, crawling away.
|
Second, I missed that this was a sanctioned PFS event, in which ase, I want to say right now, that if there's a chance to kill a PC, I straight up do it. You have to kill PCs to make getting to higher levels an accomplishment in organized play. PCs should be spared for future great storytelling in home games. In the semi-competitive one-off environment of organized play, you are well and truly screwed, and you shouldn't want it any other way. When GMs spare you, they are sparing everyone, and that's not good for the environment. You need to work your way to higher levels, thereby guaranteeing top challenges and memorable games, instead of recycled stuff that happens when PCs become a protected class. Levelling up is a privelege for those who do well, not an entitlement that mitigates success for everyone who acheives it.
!?!?!?!
Am I the only one who completely and totally disagrees with that entire paragraph?
Even in organized play, this is a cooperative game. The party works together towards common goals. The factions in PFS may have a minor side competition going, but even that's relatively cooperative, given that PCs sometimes ask their teammates for help with faction missions.
The fact that you would even use the word "competitive" to describe Pathfinder, or Pathfinder Society, makes me wonder how, or even if, you've ever actually played this game. I sure as hell never want to be at the same table as you, as a GM or as a player.
Now I'm not saying that I think GMs should pull their punches or go out of their way to prevent character deaths. I GMed PFS for the first time last week, and three of the four PCs hit negative HP at some point in the adventure. I was a little nervous that I was going to kill off the party, partially because I didn't want to ruin everyone's fun, and partially out of fear that I'd get a reputation as a PC killing GM. :p But the monster tactics were logical and "by the book" from the scenario, and if the die rolls had worked out that way, somebody would have died. As is, they got lucky at the right times, and their cleric kept healing them just barely fast enough to save the day. The fact that it was so tough, and there was a chance that somebody could have died at any moment, ended up making it more exciting.
But like I said, I don't see how you could ever use the word "competitive" for this game.
|
|
I should point out that having the shadow finish off the PC so that it would turn into another shadow during the fight would seriously throw off the balance of the encounter
I disagree. I think part of the creature's CR is based in the fact that it can create minions. I see it as no different than a monster with summoning powers. The designers would have had to take the possibility of additional threats into account when they built the stat block. IMO, by not taking advantage of the minion-building capabilities of the Shadow, the GM marginalizes the CR and makes the encounter easier than it could (should?) be. If the designers didn't want shadow minions to be part of the encounter, they would have made the respawn time much longer, perhaps next day or more. Just my 2cp.
I don't see how you could ever use the word "competitive" for this game
I think, at least I hope, that he meant characters vs. environment, not character vs. character. The characters want to "win" against their challenges, but without the risk of loosing (death) what's the point of the game?
|
|
Something I've noticed that is a common misconception with Pathfinder is that strength damage reduces your carrying capacity. While it may make logical sense, only strength drain will reduce your carrying capacity. Per the rules:
Strength: Temporary increases to your Strength score give you a bonus on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The bonus also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and to your Combat Maneuver Defense.
As for the module itself... it is deadly and perhaps the GM thought that you would appreciate being saved. He made a choice to make the encounter less difficult. In fact I am looking at the section of the Shadow and it implies that the encounter should be easier than normal.
If you do have a problem like this with a GM, my suggestion would be to bring it up with him after the game (or possibly during a break). He may legitimately believe he made the game better for you by not allowing the suicide and by moving on to another character. If you let him know that you want a deadlier game, he can then give it to you.
|
|
Something I've noticed that is a common misconception with Pathfinder is that strength damage reduces your carrying capacity. While it may make logical sense, only strength drain will reduce your carrying capacity.
I think it is more complicated than that and there may be some ambiguity. Under Ability Score Damage, Penalty, and Drain, CRB p.555...
"For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a -1 penalty to all skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability."*emphasis mine*
That seems to indicate that it would apply to any mechanic based on that ability score. It's not too much of a stretch to apply it to encumbrance, and it makes sense thematically. Not that, that is reason itself for a rules justification, just saying. ;-)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Something I've noticed that is a common misconception with Pathfinder is that strength damage reduces your carrying capacity. While it may make logical sense, only strength drain will reduce your carrying capacity.I think it is more complicated than that and there may be some ambiguity. Under Ability Score Damage, Penalty, and Drain, CRB p.555...
"For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a -1 penalty to all skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability."
*emphasis mine*That seems to indicate that it would apply to any mechanic based on that ability score. It's not too much of a stretch to apply it to encumbrance, and it makes sense thematically. Not that, that is reason itself for a rules justification, just saying. ;-)
Then by all means, feel free to apply the -1 penalty that it says right before the part you bolded, causing his light load to drop a pound for every two points of STR damage. :D
Oh, you wanted to make an adjustment to a stat other than the -1 penalty that the rule states? As appropriate as it would seem, it's not in the rules.
|
|
That seems to indicate that it would apply to any mechanic based on that ability score.
"For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a -1 penalty to all skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability."
*Changed the emphasis*Ability Damage, probably by design, is much less painful than drain. Ability Drain (such as from a wraith) would affect ALL portions of the ability score. I think the core rulebook is quite clear about this.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It just seems hard to fathom that a character who normally has a 20 Strength, but has been drained to 1, is not encumbrance impaired.
He is.
But we're not talking about someone who's been drained to 1 STR. We're talking about someone who's taken STR damage.
The 20 STR character with 19 points of STR damage still hase 20 STR, whereas the 20 STR character with 19 points of STR drain actually has 1 STR.
|
|
I'm sorry, but IMO, that is ridiculous. The effective strength is enough to impart upwards of a -9 (or more) penalty on attack, damage, skill, and ability checks presumably due to the temporary loss of physical might. However, we resolve that mechanically, to not have your carrying ability effected is just, well, ridiculous.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm sorry, but IMO, that is ridiculous. The effective strength is enough to impart upwards of a -9 (or more) penalty on attack, damage, skill, and ability checks presumably due to the temporary loss of physical might. However, we resolve that mechanically, to not have your carrying ability effected is just, well, ridiculous.
Sure, it's ridiculous. Still the rule, though. :P
|
|
Sorry to have derailed the thread so far, but to be honest I can't think of any good way to explain in game reasons for the difference between damage and drain. However they exist that way in the rules, and that's how it works. *shrug* This is the same reason that Int/Wis/Cha damage does not reduce the number of spells per day, but rather only the DC to spells and skills based off of the ability.
My best way of saying it is that don't think of Ability Damage as an "effective ability score" way, because that's drain; but rather as a reduction in ones ability. Sadly the reduction from Ability Score -1 to Ability Score in damage (I.E. Str 16, and 15 damage vs. 16 damage) is rather drastic. Maybe they'll address that in PFRPG 2.0 :)
|
|
I'm just logged in to report my session of Flame of the Evercrypt. Having run this myself - here is my take as GM:
The way I interpret the background is that the Shadow wouldn't know that if he completely drains a character that this character will raise as a Shadow under his control as well. Off course - this is just my personal interpretation knowing the background of the Shadow and the adventure. It doesn't go into such detail for tactics.
This is a new shadow - just risen 2 days ago. He is a villager who burned to death and this is his very first fight. He has no experience yet that he can raise another Shadow and shouldn't know that.
So as GM with you on the ground more or less helpless I would have attacked someone else as well.
Spending the whole game on Str. 1 is unfortunate. But there are three ways build into the module to cure ability damage. Off course - not enough to get back 11 but enough to get you back walking again.
There is a save room close by. The group I GMed was weakened enough after this encounter to take a rest and carry on next day. This should add +1. I encouraged them to use long term care which brings back 2 points over night instead of one - getting you back up to 3. Not great but likely enough not to be bound onto a donkey. You could argue - RAW that it takes 24 hours of care - but if you really rest 24 hours you even get back 4 points.
There is also a scroll that you can find with a lesser restoration on it. Off course this assumes you have a cleric in the group as only a cleric will get this item in the supply vault.
And there is a magic pond near the entrance of the lower level - healing 1d4 ability damage per day. Off course you need to find the room and figure it out. This was the only room my group did not go into.
How deadly is the whole module for low levels? It really depends on tactics and party composition. There are a few encounters that can go badly - this one surely is an example.
I did this module over the last 2 days with my 'junior league' having 4 brand new characters (Dwarf Fighter, Elven Rogue, Kyra Pre-Gen and a human wizard) as well as one level 2 barbarian.
It helped that the group had 5 members and a single heavy hitter with 25 HP who is able to withstand some damage. Could I TPKed them? Off course - this was an inexperienced group of players. Did I pull punches? No - not really. Yes - I also switched target with the Shadow. I did take 6 Str with my first hit from the fighter and didn't want to cripple him and ruin the fun for that player. I went on to pester the wizard instead who was the main thread (and would stay fun even on Str. 3 or 4).
The only help I gave them - I nudged them for a pause when I feared it could go down badly to rather rest for a night two times during the adventure instead of moving on. This gave them back spells, channeling and strengths score.
Oh yes - and maybe it helped in two encounters when I feared the worst for the group that I rolled pretty lousy. But nothing more rewarding than knowing you have a close shave and see the GM roll - but fumble.
|
|
As I recall the loss of spells was a 3.5 mechanic, so I can understand the misunderstanding of that one.
IMO, the difference between damage and drain is simply for "quick" gameplay adjustments. It avoids the break that would occur if you had to readjust your stat block for a reduced ability score. I recall the suckitude that resulted from ability points being lost in 1E/2E. It's just unfortunate, that the designers "forgot" (IMO) to address the issue of encumbrance. Of course, admittedly this is a simulation-based game and perhaps the intention is to just ignore the affects.
|
|
Not to get completely off topic, but we just played this adventure in our group yesterday in a double length PFS session. The GM gave us the New Year's boon for PFS that helps against non-corporeal creatures before the adventure started, and that's pretty much why the shadow fight went well for us. My cleric channeling the heck out of the adventure helped with all the undead, too, though we did have to stop and rest to recover spells and channels half way through.
All in all, it was a tough adventure, but we got through it with no deaths... barely. There were 6 of us, with a paladin at level 2 and the rest at level 1. My cleric was the only caster, with the paladin, 2 fighters, a samurai, and a gunslinger.
|
|
The GM gave us the New Year's boon for PFS that helps against non-corporeal creatures before the adventure started, and that's pretty much why the shadow fight went well for us.
I worked the boon in as a very brief role-play bit as the party passed through a town that was celebrating the holiday (Veil) on their way through. I didn't hint strongly that they would need it- it was just coincidental that the adventure they were going on did indeed have a nasty shade in it. None of the players had magical weapons at this stage in their careers, so it probably did make a *world of difference* in how that fight could have turned out. If I broke any rule in giving the boon prior to the actual encounters, my counter would be that you should have seen the expressions on the players' faces when the light-bulb went on that they had, in their hands, what they needed to save them from one very nasty encounter... priceless.
All in all, it was a tough adventure, but we got through it with no deaths... barely. There were 6 of us, with a paladin at level 2 and the rest at level 1. My cleric was the only caster, with the paladin, 2 fighters, a samurai, and a gunslinger.
The poor gunslinger got zapped pretty bad at one point and then was one or two points away from death at the end... I think the samurai went down at least once or twice (ah, yeah, the second time he pulled the 'fight at negative hit point' maneuver)... those were about the only near-fatalities that could have occurred. Overall, the party played it out rather smartly and avoided most of things that could have really(!) hurt them badly. (In particular, there was one encounter where the Paladin took up a defensive fighting position and meat-shield'ed at a choke-point where a big nasty could effectively be whittled down.
I was worried that the module would be pretty deadly but just played it out... I am thankful because as a GM, I don't like to kill off first level PCs, especially with new folks at the table.