Actually total cover prevents any ranged attack. So you couldn't throw the rock in the first place. Or you could count it as partial cover if you wanted to stretch the rules a little.
Prevents making ranged attacks, or suffering from ranged attacks? Concerned rangers want to know.
Actually total cover prevents any ranged attack. So you couldn't throw the rock in the first place. Or you could count it as partial cover if you wanted to stretch the rules a little.Prevents making ranged attacks, or suffering from ranged attacks? Concerned rangers want to know."Total Cover: If you don't have line of effect to your target (that is, you cannot draw any line from your square to your target's square without crossing a solid barrier), he is considered to have total cover from you. You can't make an attack against a target that has total cover."
So making but essentially both. Then again you almost never run into total cover outside of things being behind walls when it's sort of intuitive that you can't shoot arrows at them.
So then is a chest-high wall, total cover? I get that it's written that way, but it boggles reality so much that I'd have to stick to a common-sense interpretation.
Doesn't sound like it unless both targets had total cover, which in this case a 5ft tall barrier would do the trick for 2 medium creatures. Neither of them could range attack each other.
Post this here for my reference.
Total Cover: If you don't have line of effect to your target (that is, you cannot draw any line from your square to your target's square without crossing a solid barrier), he is considered to have total cover from you. You can't make an attack against a target that has total cover.
Ninja'ed in my slowness D:
The police put me on hold again. What's going on over there?He's fed the corpse to the Smurfs. The cops'll never find it now. You're too late, man. Hang it up.
What's that, Officer Gargamel? You'll be right over? Good, good.
In seriousness, I just want to comment on all the hate for melee wizards: it's a perfectly valid roleplaying choice, especially with half-orcs and the like. I played a hobgoblin wizard (not in Golarion, obviously) who fought with a scimitar. He had a good Con, Dex and Str, though. I didn't make him a magus because he wasn't a magus, nor an eldritch knight--he was a wizard who despised the idea of being too weak to handle melee.
However, if this wizard didn't even have 12 Con, he really had it coming. :P
I suggest that you hide the body in your backyard. You could also use a strong base to break his body down to hide the evidence.Amateur stuff. I suggest purchasing GURPS Mysteries (available in PDF), which has a useful section on body-disposal.
The fact that it was written by my wife is purely coincidental. ;)
If we suddenly stop hearing from you, we know not to bother calling the police. They wouldn't find anything.
I really like this scenario. It's kinda like the 'Hang em High' movie. Something is WRONG with the town and it can actually be one of the villians in your campaign....Devil Worshippers, Undead, Drow or ?? control things and the party will eventually be able to face them
The new character is in the "Stocks" and must beg the party for aid?
Lots of good suggestions. Another thing you could do is have the party bump into the new character while finishing another quest. Maybe one of the captives is the new character etc. Ona side note, I find the idea of melee wizards quite intriguing. Seen it done and it can work. They won't be as great as the barb or fighter in melee but they could be made to do something different. Why should all wizards necessarily have a con of 12+? Or, any other class for that matter?
Party meets new party, new parts gets themselves almost all killed softening an area up for the main party. New char escapes in a tense scene and joins the main party.
I really like this scenario. It's kinda like the 'Hang em High' movie. Something is WRONG with the town and it can actually be one of the villians in your campaign....Devil Worshippers, Undead, Drow or ?? control things and the party will eventually be able to face them
The new character is in the "Stocks" and must beg the party for aid?
New char as a prisoner is awfully overdone. From their perspective, they start off weak and at the mercy of the party. A terrible start.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If he wants to play a wizard, let him. In our group, new characters usually come with one level less than the survivors.
In my opinion that's the worst idea that ever started to spread through the rpg community.
And I for my part stopped playing with GMs who do that, some time ago.
i think you have to make sure the character cmes back as a worm that walks
If he wants to play a wizard, let him. In our group, new characters usually come with one level less than the survivors.In my opinion that's the worst idea that ever started to spread through the rpg community.
And I for my part stopped playing with GMs who do that, some time ago.
losing a character from bad dice rolls is hard enough. Forcing a player to lose a level on top of that is just adding insult to injury. If you feel the need to have some sort of "don't die for stupid reasons" punishment, I would suggest a new character wealth reduction, since usually the party cannibalizes the fallen member's gear anyways.
On a side note, melee caster is quite doable. I have personally been wanting to try out the Orc witch variant that uses con for casting.
They are not forced to lose a level though, there is no level to lose, their old character is dead.
The new char is close to the level of the adventuring party, but not quite there.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If he wants to play a wizard, let him. In our group, new characters usually come with one level less than the survivors.In my opinion that's the worst idea that ever started to spread through the rpg community.
And I for my part stopped playing with GMs who do that, some time ago.
I disagree. I was in a game where we started with 3 players and added two later. Our DM didn't necessarily provide the magic items the players wanted. So when two players joined the game at level 4 using the PC wealth chart and free choice of items they were significantly ahead in terms of useful gear for their level. Then two of the original charaacters died and came back at the same level with their choice of equipment.
Characters should not be better off for dying.
1) Most of the time the dead PCs items don't disappear completely, so the remaining chars can share it out before the replacement joins.
2) The GM can tell the new PCs how to spend their money, or at least give guidelines.
3) If a PC dies and is resurrected the party is even worse because they lose money and get nothing for it.
4) If you like the system of new chars starting lower you can use it. I think it's worse to play in such a game than not playing at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or you could instead phrase it as the new character is inherently weaker than the rest of the party. Creating internal power disparity is a problem there was a bajillion post long thread about that which you were in this is just one of the many ways you can create power disparity and that usually results in people being unhappy.They are not forced to lose a level though, there is no level to lose, their old character is dead.
The new char is close to the level of the adventuring party, but not quite there.
There are several good reasons for reducing the level by one.
1. It makes resurrection a much more attractive prospect.2. It discourages the players from getting bored with their characters and intentionally getting killed.
3. It also prevents cloning.
4. It's not a crippling blow. The new PC will catch up shortly. They just have to spend a short time getting into the swing of things (which fits, since that should be what they're doing roleplaying-wise, too).
However, I would not impose the level limit if the PCs were 3rd-level or lower. And especially not if they died far too early on or due to GM foolishness.
All in all, it really depends on the campaign and the players. Sometimes I use it, sometimes I don't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, you do catch up--effectively. You will level up much quicker than the others and hit their level in no time. They'll be a small step ahead for a short while, but a couple levels later and the XP difference ceases to have any meaning. Especially if the GM lets you start out a bit ahead, XP-wise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on the type of game and the GM back in the days, you can have 6 level 1 characters before the first game is over. The one that survives might make it to level 2. Lol.A level 1 wizard vs 2 dogs? Just a couple of 12+ rolls along with near full damage rolls would kill the wizard.
Sure and one 12+ roll and near full damage with a crossbow drops a dog per round, you're not really supposed to kill people at level one because they're all stupidly pathetic to begin with, and was the rest of the party just sitting there twiddling their thumbs?
For that matter you're in a city generally speaking lawkeepers frown upon the whole murdering travelers because you're crazy thing so anyone who makes a habit of it ought not be around in the long term.
+1. Way back in 1e I played a thief in our little quartet of heroes and we were on our way back from the dungeon when we encountered a cave with a trio of owlbears in it. Long story short, we finished off the owlbears just as they finished off everyone but me. I got all of the exp as the surviving character, not to mention an armful of loot. Woot!
Edit: changed rogue to thief, we weren't afraid to call 'em thieves back in the day!
If a player is so bored with his character that he wants to replace him, I think the player should be free to say so. Perhaps there'll be a discussion that results, whether he truly thinks nothing could bring the life back into the current character, followed by how he wants to retire him.
If you aren't enjoying the character you're playing anymore, you shouldn't have to suicide him into the nearest owlbear nestden, and you shouldn't have to start at a lower level with your new character.
Of course, I don't really like party members looting their fallen. It's certainly practical, but it can throw the WBL out of whack when the new PC joins with gear.
Well, I ain't one to deny being wrong. I think y'all'r correct about this, though I still think holding PCs back has the occasional bit of merit. Fair enough, broskis.
It depends on the type of game and the GM back in the days, you can have 6 level 1 characters before the first game is over. The one that survives might make it to level 2. Lol.A level 1 wizard vs 2 dogs? Just a couple of 12+ rolls along with near full damage rolls would kill the wizard.
Sure and one 12+ roll and near full damage with a crossbow drops a dog per round, you're not really supposed to kill people at level one because they're all stupidly pathetic to begin with, and was the rest of the party just sitting there twiddling their thumbs?
For that matter you're in a city generally speaking lawkeepers frown upon the whole murdering travelers because you're crazy thing so anyone who makes a habit of it ought not be around in the long term.
+1. Way back in 1e I played a thief in our little quartet of heroes and we were on our way back from the dungeon when we encountered a cave with a trio of owlbears in it. Long story short, we finished off the owlbears just as they finished off everyone but me. I got all of the exp as the surviving character, not to mention an armful of loot. Woot!
Edit: changed rogue to thief, we weren't afraid to call 'em thieves back in the day!
And loot for a thief, was xp. Woot!
So while exploring the town of Relford one of my characters (a wizard) decides he's not going to back down from a local farmer. He winds up dead at the hands (or paws) of the farmers mastiffs and now I'm at a loss for how to proceed. The player will be ok, though he's upset that he didn't perceive in perfect detail the situation. I tell him that's like life - you don't always know what's going to happen or who that guy really is. You never know when that farmer is going to turn out to be a murdering psychopath or that cloth merchant is a decorated military veteran.
Anyhow, now I'm faced with how to bring in a new character. Fortunately they're in a town with a large cast to choose from, so he could simply pick up one of the NPC's and go forward with that. Alternatively he might decide to do something totally different and then I shoehorn that character into the story. I'm against him playing the exact same character but with slightly different clothes, because I think that takes away the drama of death.
Any advice for a new-ish DM dealing with player death for the first time?
First. The adventure you are DM'ing is pretty good. Dagger rock?
Player deaths come with the territory when you DM. My style is not to go out of your way to kill.
Example: The enemy casts hold person on a PC. Same round another enemy coup de grace them! Thats dick.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The farmer tried to run away from his past, his past that was drenched in war and violence. And now he's killed again. Perhaps this is all I'll ever be good for, he thinks, as he looks out upon his land... he loved the land, taking care of it and nurturing it, to see new life to grow and to feel that joy, but now all he sees is another reminder of his past deeds.
|
I use to kill my players too, really it's not a big deal. I would drain them dry of levels till they died, then dump their bodies in the plane of shadow. Eventually though I found it hard to get new players, so now I just stick to killing their characters. Granted I know not nearly as much fun, but in the end less work. :)
Sometimes they die, but the risk is where the fun comes from.
Death is not the end either. Raising or resurrection is possible, and a story can always start with a new character.
Killed one of my players. What now?Decide how you're going to kill the rest of them.
Yes, Dagger Rock. It's awesome
I had a player in my group like your wizard with an axe. I miss him. He no longer plays. His ideal was to play a rogue then pick fist fights with folk in heavy armor. Oh, and never bothered with things like unarmed combat proficiencies. Or just attack random townsfolk for immagined slights.
*sigh*
Good times.
One could look about the table and not a dry eye, due to tearful laughter. And the player not understanding why we were laughing so hard.
Please keep us informed of your player's next bout of insanity.
Greg
|
|
After looking over the posts about level "docking" following player death, I'm amazed at the sense of entitlement that some folks have. When i DM'ed, if the average party level was 7, and one pc was killed, I would routinely let that player roll up a new 6th level character. I think of this as pretty standard practice. I never thought of it as "docking" them a level. Rather, I considered it "giving" them five free levels (as opposed to starting them at level one. Bringing them in at exactly the same level as their previous character provides absolutely NO incentive beyond wounded pride for protecting your character's life, or the lives of your fellow PC's. Those XP's are supposed the be WORTH something. And they are, because the player EARNED them, and because it HURTS when you lose them.
News flash: Death HURTS.
The big argument against this practice (the disastrous effects of level disparity) discounts the fact that some level disparity happens naturally in most groups anyway, due to variances in attendance, undertaking or opting out of various side quests, etc. In addition, I feel strongly that a 6th level character can be effective in a group of 7th level characters. All characters are different, and all players have different play styles, and all groups have different dynamics affecting how well they work together. These factors make a much bigger impact than level disparity on a character's effectiveness within the party. The only time I can imagine "level docking" being an issue is if a player kills off three or four characters in rapid succession, in which case, there's something else going on.
To each group their own style of play, but I personally have never had a player complain about my leveling policy. If they did, I'd listen, but in my heart, I'd probably be thinking, 'What a whiner.'
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Sometimes they die, but the risk is where the fun comes in.
I couldn't agree more, and what my players are risking, every time they put themselves into a dangerous situation (which is most of the time), is their hard-earned experience points. They put their XP on the line in exchange for the possibility of fame, glory, wealth, and the opportunity to kick some serious booty. If they weren't willing to risk anything, well, that just doesn't sound very heroic to me,
As to the discussion about cover provided by a 5ft wall - there are 4 degrees of cover:
Partial Cover: more than half visible, +2 AC, +1 Ref
Cover: half or less visible, +4 AC, +2 Ref
Improved Cover: barely visible (e.g. arrow slit), +8 AC, +4 Ref
Total Cover: completely obscured, cannot normally make attacks
I got the impression that you guys were giving either partial cover or total cover, skipping the default "cover" category in between (improved cover omitted since it's pretty rare). Or maybe treating the default as "partial" cover, and missing that this term refers something more specific. Sorry if I misunderstood.
When DMing, I treat all medium creatures as 5ft high for simplicity - this way they occupy a 5ft cube. A 5ft wall in this case would provide total cover and prevent attacks. My rationale is that even tall PCs can slouch 4-12 inches to duck behind the wall. Some might be able to peek over the top, but making attacks over the wall would be very difficult unless arcing something over with indirect fire.
Being able to ignore the cover by being closer to it than your target is specifically under the "Low Obstacles and Cover" heading (specifying a wall no higher than half your height), which I interpret to be mutually exclusive to total cover.
After looking over the posts about level "docking" following player death, I'm amazed at the sense of entitlement that some folks have.
I don't consider it a sense of entitlement (or at least a false one). If I earned my way from level 1 to level 7 on a character, and he dies in some fashion preventing his resurrection, do I suddenly lose the hours (days?) I put into getting him there? My new PC might not have earned all those XP, but I sure did. I would feel punished to be forced back to level 6 on a new character with no way to catch back up. That's the big deal - in the changes from 3.5 to Pathfinder, differential XP gain went out the window along with XP loss due to energy drain / death / magic item crafting / etc.
Now you can argue side questing, attendance disparities, and the like as a way to catch back up, but I wouldn't assume that everyone around here plays that way. When these threads pop up, there's absolutely a sub-population that espouses identical XP gain across PCs since that's what the most recent edition seems to support.
In previous editions, my group always docked a level for bringing in a new character, but I felt like we did that to discourage folks from trying to cheat the raise dead/resurrection level penalty - and you could always catch up, so I never minded... though I find I prefer it the new way. If you don't, that's great, but you may want to consider houseruling the differential XP gain back in.
|
Example: The enemy casts hold person on a PC. Same round another enemy coup de grace them! Thats dick.
No, it's not. It is perfectly reasonable tactical thinking. „look, i paralyzed that guy. Now let's go concentrate on others because there is no wsx that hr will snap out of it and attack him„. I myself consider gms who don't attemp coup de grace on a helpless pc, if the combat is vs intelligent npcs, to be pulling their punches. And also, pcs who do not protect a paralyzed comrade are dicks. Coup de grace is a full freaking round action, and it provokes aoos.