Ability damage does not change your ability scores in Pathfinder at all. A character with a 17 Constitution that has taken 10 Con damage still has a 17 Constitution. He just also has a -5 penalty on all Con-related things, and lost 5xlevel hit points (both maximum and current).
That would of still taken him to -23 hp and death.
...You're an oracle and you had no magical means of healing him? You must have been completely out of spells then, since Oracles get the appropriate Cure spell for free each time they get a new spell level.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I may have indirectly caused the death of a fellow party member via the rarely seen cause of CON damage.
So, our party's summoner has been knocked down to 7 HP by a single attack from a stone giant. The party's oracle (me) figured that this would be the perfect time for a spell. Compassionate ally!
Now, this is where things get interesting. The GM had apparently written out various bits of giant society, just in case they were needed. As such, since the giant had no magical means of healing our summoner, the spell indicated that the giant would simply make a heal check on him.
Apparently, giant medical practices involve giant dire leeches that do 1d8+2 CON damage immediately. And the 1d8 was an 8. And the summoner was a Halfling, thereby only containing approximately 1/2 of the amount of blood in a standard human.
This brought his CON down to 7 from 17.
It also brought his HP down from 7 to -23, since he was level 6.And so he died. Horribly. Of exsanguination.
Admittedly, the GM gave him the chance to break out of the grapple, as well as a Fort. save to take half damage, but neither of those tend to be a summoner's specialty.
What should I/we do? Should he get another chance, or should we let the dice fall where they may? Did we mess up in determining that a reduction in CON also changes the negative HP value the character dies at? Is it even reasonable to come across a leech capable of doing 1d8+2 Constitution damage? Should I get the player something to apologise?
You didn't screw up - the GM did. No, it's completely unreasonable for the GM to have done what he did. His adjudication of the spell was that the giant gets to attack instead of healing? That's preposterous. Also, did the GM go through the grappling rules properly? Was there an attack of opportunity, a CMB roll, a round where the summoner could try to escape, and then another CMB roll to attack with the leech?
I didn't think compassionate ally was the caster's ally, I thought it was the target's ally. If this were the case, the giant never would have helped the summoner.
...You're an oracle and you had no magical means of healing him? You must have been completely out of spells then, since Oracles get the appropriate Cure spell for free each time they get a new spell level.I cast Compassionate Ally on the giant.
The giant's turn was next.
The summoner was dead before my next turn.
Ahh, right, I misunderstood.
Yeah, seems like it was just some awful luck for your Halfling ally. If the player is attached to the character you might want to make a point of trying to get him revived but this is just an instance of "$#!% happens".
EDIT: Woops, Nawtyit is correct. Yeah, the Halfling should not have been engaged at all when Compassionate Ally was cast, let alone killed. GM messed up here.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently, giant medical practices involve giant dire leeches that do 1d8+2 CON damage immediately.
A Giant Dire Leech is something addressed by the core rules and they do not do 1d8+2 CON damage immediately - they would do 1 point of strength damage and 1 point of con damage at the end of a round of attachment.
Here's Giant Leech: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/vermin/leech/giant-leech
Here's the Dire template: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/dire-creature-c r-2-tohc
Sounds like your GM was just being a jerk to be a jerk, honestly.
I didn't think compassionate ally was the caster's ally, I thought it was the target's ally. If this were the case, the giant never would have helped the summoner.
Huh - I always took that to be the caster's ally. Either way, attacking a with a super powerful leech doesn't seem to be helping.
If I am correct about the spell:
Nawtyit is correct. Yeah, the Halfling should not have been engaged at all when Compassionate Ally was cast, let alone killed. GM messed up here.
If I am incorrect about the spell:
A Giant Dire Leech is something addressed by the core rules and they do not do 1d8+2 CON damage immediately - they would do 1 point of strength damage and 1 point of con damage at the end of a round of attachment.
Either way, beer, and they are still alive.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
This GM needs to get over himself.
Why would you use such an eye-roll-inducing conceit? And have it result in a character death.
If this really came out of left field as it seems, that basically announces that the GM was out to kill the PC in question.
And honestly, that's bad GMing. Good GMs ought to be impartial, and it's actually quite easy to kill PCs through legitimate use of challenge. And the players feel a lot better about that kind of death.
So honestly, if it were me, I would express my concerns about this kind of bad-genie spell interpretation. If he didn't seem willing to listen and adapt, I would leave the game.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am the GM in this scenario. You were right. To some extent, I DID want to kill the PC. The summoner in question has been disruptive due to sheer impotency.
The PC in question was a summoner with an eidolon that could only do a D6 in combat and did nothing but fly him around. His other (thankfully gone) character was a wizard that was in the same position.
I may or may not have made a bad decision here. I know this.
So... what you're saying is basically, "If you build a character who is ineffective in combat, no matter how interesting they may be otherwise, I am going to invent ways to kill that character."
I have to just walk away from this conversation. Now. The basic tenet of, "To each his or her own style," applies, no matter how heated my desired response.
Well, according to the GM, the only reason it did so much damage was because these leeches are used by giants to heal each other, and the summoner was a Halfling, with easily 1/8 of the amount of blood that a giant has.That's fine...except that giant leeches don't do what he says by the rules are written.
Now there's nothing wrong with house rules. In his custom world the GM is perfectly able to ignore the base rules and create whatever he wants via Rule 0.
So in his world, Giant Leeches do 1d8+2 Con damage instead of what the standard bestiary rules entry state.
Except it wasn't a giant leech. It was a giant dire leech. There is no standard Bestiary entry.
I am the GM in this scenario. You were right. To some extent, I DID want to kill the PC. The summoner in question has been disruptive due to sheer impotency.
This is a basic violation of the GM's mandate to impartiality.
If you work harder to kill a character that you perceive as ineffective, how can you be certain that the character is indeed ineffective?
Anyway, I have serious issues with this kind of behavior from any GM. If you're having issues with a given PC, arbitrarily killing that PC is not really an option. Of course you are empowered to do so, but that does nothing to elevate your game, and will quickly alienate the audience.
Just because you can does not mean you should.
I hope you work this out for yourself.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no "gunning for someone reasonably". Gunning for someone is, by its very definition, unreasonable.
If the problem is with the player, talk to the player. Killing his character fixes zero (0) of the problems with a problem player, because the new character will be just as much of a problem, since it spawns from the payer, who is the problem, not the character.
Though I'm hard pressed to think of what "unfair advantage" being able to speak a f+@*ing language is.
Also you do realize you can use Familiars for combat, right? That's not an "unfair advantage" either. It's a terrible, terrible idea because they suck at it, but it can be done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
umm...no. The character in question has been disruptive to the group across several sessions, occaisionally actively hindering the group. His backstory (where it existed) was cliche and did nothing but give him unfair advantages or reasons for doing things he otherwise wouldn't.
This, I can accept. I've canceled entire campaigns rather than deal with players who are more interested in screwing up what I'm trying to accomplish than in building a character with any semblance of backstory or cohesion.
Unfortunately, as others have said, as a GM, your recourses are to say, "No," (when they ask you permission to do anything with their PCs), and to give them a strict time limit in combat so they're not disruptive.
Actively gunning for them just reflects poorly on you.
Instead, let them be useless throughout the campaign, and simply cut them off if they're trying to use game time to waste everyone's time.
"Are you doing something that the group as a whole would care about? No? Then let's take this offline in e-mail," is a great way to shut such people up, WITHOUT showing a horrific bias of "gunning for them".
I am the GM in this scenario. You were right. To some extent, I DID want to kill the PC. The summoner in question has been disruptive due to sheer impotency. I had my friend the oracle tell me that the compassionate ally spell did what he said it would. I also increased the damage of the leech, owing to the fact that giants use it for healing, and he tried to use it on a halfling. Even so, I gave him 4 rolls, any one of which would have saved him.
1. The giant rolled a 19 on the heal check, which meant that he knew how to apply said leech to a giant, -2 for circumstance penalty due to it being applied to a halfling .
2. A CMD check to avoid having the leech used on him. The character got a 1 on the check, instant fail
3. The damage roll, which normally would have been lower, was a D8 due to the fact that halflings have much, MUCH less blood than a giant. I could have dome a D2+(circumstance bonus), but instead I gave him a chance. instead of applying a large bonus to damage, I rolled a D8. I rolled an 8 for damage, +2, for a 10 con dmg.
4. A fortitude save, for half damage, that he failed miserably.
The PC in question was a summoner with an eidolon that could only do a D6 in combat and did nothing but fly him around. His other (thankfully gone) character was a wizard that was in the same position.
I may or may not have made a bad decision here. I know this.
I am confused about Step 2. The way I understand combat maneuvers is that the person attempting to do the maneuver is the one to role. CMD is a set amount that must be overcome so the leach would have had to roll at +2 CMB according to that stat block to overcome the summoner's CMD. If said leech rolled a 1, then it failed to get a good bite.
Now if you are saying that the giant used a heal check to apply something to a character, I would still want a touch attack (at the least)to make sure you even manage to touch the character as well as a negative circumstance bonus for someone who is likely keeping their wounded areas away from the giant and who is not laying still for you to attach a leech to them.
I don't understand the issue with using the familiar in combat. They have attack rolls and hit points, do they not?
And in any case, no amount of hassle justifies the kind of reaching I'm seeing in this scenario. You absolutely need to work on your impartiality, or get used to the idea of an empty table.
So, I may have indirectly caused the death of a fellow party member via the rarely seen cause of CON damage.
So, our party's summoner has been knocked down to 7 HP by a single attack from a stone giant. The party's oracle (me) figured that this would be the perfect time for a spell. Compassionate ally!
Now, this is where things get interesting. The GM had apparently written out various bits of giant society, just in case they were needed. As such, since the giant had no magical means of healing our summoner, the spell indicated that the giant would simply make a heal check on him.
Apparently, giant medical practices involve giant dire leeches that do 1d8+2 CON damage immediately. And the 1d8 was an 8. And the summoner was a Halfling, thereby only containing approximately 1/2 of the amount of blood in a standard human.
This brought his CON down to 7 from 17.
It also brought his HP down from 7 to -23, since he was level 6.And so he died. Horribly. Of exsanguination.
Admittedly, the GM gave him the chance to break out of the grapple, as well as a Fort. save to take half damage, but neither of those tend to be a summoner's specialty.
What should I/we do? Should he get another chance, or should we let the dice fall where they may? Did we mess up in determining that a reduction in CON also changes the negative HP value the character dies at? Is it even reasonable to come across a leech capable of doing 1d8+2 Constitution damage? Should I get the player something to apologise?
The way I read the spell is that the giant would go to his actual ally. It does not say you get to designate who his ally is, unless you had another spell such as suggestion that made the him think the summoner was his ally.
Also 1d8 con is a lot of damage for any creature and even giants would not use leeches for that. Since we use leeches that don't do enough damage to harm us I would think giants would do that same thing. Now the GM would probably argue that giants use bigger leeches so at best they would do 1 con or 1d2. However leeches are also used to heal certain things not everything, and using a leech that makes the condition worse is silly. If the giant had ranks in heal he would know this. The GM dropped the ball.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the GM wants to run a more serious game, and the player is not as serious he should inform that player to make a more serious character that can actually contribute in combat. Repeatedly killing someone's character is not going to solve the problem. If the GM and player can not agree on a solution then they may not need to be at the same table.
PS: I am going to assume this party member is a real life friend because otherwise why deal with him, assuming the GM's disruption stories are accurate.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's some more unsolicited advice for "unwanted/disruptive" players.
(1) (The Golden Rule) What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
OK. You have a player who constantly argues with you that, "I should be able to do XX with a DC YY skill roll." You really want to say, "No." Instead, ask the other players. "Do you all want to implement this as a house rule?"
Suddenly, YOU'RE not the "bad guy" any more. You're working with the group to come to a consensus. You're not arguing any more. It's a simple Yes/No question.
If the players allow it, then your bad guys can do it. Ruthlessly. Repeatedly. Until the players themselves demand to revoke the rule.
My favorite ever was the "DC 10 Acrobatics to get over a railing and still get a Move action" rule. Sure, the GM allowed the barbarian to do it... ONCE. When a half dozen drow with posioned crossbows ALL did it, the players cried "Foul!"
There's nothing like sitting back in your chair, smiling, and saying, "Well, you let the barbarian do it with exactly that roll. WHY is it that the bad guys aren't allowed to do it now?"
Once the players learn that you're going to use anything and everything they allow against them, disruptive player loses all support from other players.
(2) Real time is real time.
A combat round lasts 6 seconds. I cannot STAND players who spend 2-3 minutes trying to figure out what to do. Set a timer for something very reasonable; say 1 minute. You take longer than 1 minute to figure out what you're going to do, your PC stands there stupidly and helplessly, unable to decide. Fair enough.
(3) It is not YOUR job to decide whether someone is "effective".
Once you've implemented (1) and (2), your player is no longer a disruption to you. He or she cannot argue your decisions, because they're 'house rules'. He or she has only 1 minute to decide what to do. More often than not, the player ends up standing there stupidly, doing nothing.
The net effect is similar (the problem PC is out of the game), but it is all done using measurable restrictions that apply to everyone in the game -- you're not targeting a single person.
Works wonders to get problem players to keep their peace.
Good luck!
EDIT: In short, NEVER let ANY conflict be seen as, "GM vs. player". Instead, focus on, "Sorry, we agreed to these rules, and it's the rules that are hosing you now."
I'm still struggling with the concept of having these death suckers milling around in ones backpack!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, I think your method somehow manages to be even more childish and vindictive than Wildfire's, Nobody.
"Oh yeah sure we can totally houserule things (but lulz I'm going to passive-aggressively use that thing you might do every now and then against you constantly because I don't have the balls to just say no in the first place)"
|
Here's some more unsolicited advice for "unwanted/disruptive" players.
(1) (The Golden Rule) What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
OK. You have a player who constantly argues with you that, "I should be able to do XX with a DC YY skill roll." You really want to say, "No." Instead, ask the other players. "Do you all want to implement this as a house rule?"
Suddenly, YOU'RE not the "bad guy" any more. You're working with the group to come to a consensus. You're not arguing any more. It's a simple Yes/No question.If the players allow it, then your bad guys can do it. Ruthlessly. Repeatedly. Until the players themselves demand to revoke the rule.
My favorite ever was the "DC 10 Acrobatics to get over a railing and still get a Move action" rule. Sure, the GM allowed the barbarian to do it... ONCE. When a half dozen drow with posioned crossbows ALL did it, the players cried "Foul!"
There's nothing like sitting back in your chair, smiling, and saying, "Well, you let the barbarian do it with exactly that roll. WHY is it that the bad guys aren't allowed to do it now?"
Once the players learn that you're going to use anything and everything they allow against them, disruptive player loses all support from other players.
:-) I love doing this
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would expect the other players to, IC, censure a character that is not contributing to the group rather than the DM censuring the character with a "rock falls, you die" maneuver. If the other players/characters in the group think buddy is not pulling his weight, they need to tell him themselves and create consequences in game and in character, IMHO. Who wants to travel or adventure with some guy that doesn't pull his weight? OTOH, if they think he's pulling his weight just fine by casting Ray of Frost and not much else, what business of it is yours as the DM? God doesn't come to my workplace and tell the malingerers to get busy or they will have a fatal car crash on the way home IRL...Why are you doing this to characters in game?
Remember that the first several levels of a wizard or sorceror are bloody painful. It is not uncommon for a level 4 wizard to cast a whole lot of Ray of Frost and very little else because their resources are extremely limited. Also, some people hold their resources a little too close to the vest and end up with lots of unspent resources when it comes time to camp for the night; your caster may be afraid of running out of options so he's husbanding his resources too cautiously. I am very guilty of this kind of behaviour. If your player is uncertain about expending resources, he may just need some time to get more comfortable with the pace of your game. Or perhaps he just needs a few more levels under his belt to have options and a comfortable quantity of resources before he really starts getting crazy with the cheez whiz. Killing him is certainly not the way to learn what he had in mind.
Resources!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, I think your method somehow manages to be even more childish and vindictive than Wildfire's, Nobody.
"Oh yeah sure we can totally houserule things (but lulz I'm going to passive-aggressively use that thing you might do every now and then against you constantly because I don't have the balls to just say no in the first place)"
Well, I'll say you're taking my post to the extreme, but yes, it CAN easily turn into a childish contest of, "Who's the most passive-aggressive?"
But let's be honest. You're at the table. You have a problem player you can't kick from the table for reason XXX. That player wishes to engage you in a 20-minute debate on every. Single. Rules. Question. That comes up.
I've been there. It's painful.
I gave up GM'ing that person rather than continuing to say, "No," to him. Over, and over, and over again. I just said, "This isn't fun any more," and closed the campaign rather than deal with him.
I watched the next GM just say, "OK, we'll do it YOUR way."
And then, WHEN TACTICS DICTATED IT, her bad guys did the same thing.
And he objected. And tried to argue. And pouted.
But gods, it sure as heck shut him up the next time he tried to argue about what he "should" be able to do...
So if you read my post as, "All the bad guys do it, all the time," then yes, it's childish. If you read it as, "Bad guys can do it when it's reasonable for them to do so," I'd argue it's hardly passive-aggressive, but rather good tactics on the the bad guys' side. And I'd argue for the latter.
I also find it boggling that the giant carries around a giant leech in his pack, and thinks that it's the appropriate response to crushed bones and/or severe blood loss.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless you're in the guy's house and he's physically bolted to the floor, I'm not sure there's ever a situation you can't simply kick the problem child from the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless you're in the guy's house and he's physically bolted to the floor, I'm not sure there's ever a situation you can't simply kick the problem child from the table.
How 'bout when he's a 4th don aikidoka and you're not? :-P
(More seriously, the guy is a major man-child, and kicking him results in kicking his wife and never socializing with either of them ever again. We all make choices in life. We LIKE his wife...)
Call the police and have them kick him out of the house.
Maybe he'll even fight back, and be removed as a problem in the longer term. =)
(More seriously, the guy is a major man-child, and kicking him results in kicking his wife and never socializing with either of them ever again. We all make choices in life. We LIKE his wife...)
Quite honestly there would have to be a threshold where I'd consider enjoying my time with the wife is outweighed by not enjoying time with her husband, and I'd have to tell said wife that she is very welcome, should she choose to come without the attached baggage.
Call the police and have them kick him out of the house.
Maybe he'll even fight back, and be removed as a problem in the longer term. =)
OK, gotta get back to work, but let's be serious for a moment.
What's more childish? Using the rules a player establishes himself to punish the player and "educate" him that playing in a selfish manner sucks, or calling the police to remove a mostly-harmless man-child from your house?
EDIT: And yes. We've canceled every campaign he's in. So you're right. We eventually booted him, after much internal debate about it.
Call the police and have them kick him out of the house.
Maybe he'll even fight back, and be removed as a problem in the longer term. =)
OK, gotta get back to work, but let's be serious for a moment.
What's more childish? Using the rules a player establishes himself to punish the player and "educate" him that playing in a selfish manner sucks, or calling the police to remove a mostly-harmless man-child from your house?
I was speaking more about calling the police to remove someone who's using the threat of violence to stay.
I appreciate the nuance of NobodysHome's house rule suggestion, but it bears emphasizing that this is still a sort of adversarial approach to getting through a rules dispute, and that's bad for the game.
The GM is not playing against the players. The GM ought to take no joy in using an agreed upon rule to devastating effect on the players. Sure "turnabout's fair play", but if that turnabout results in a TPK then all you've done is proven why the ruling should not have been allowed to begin with. And you have to hit the reset button on the campaign. Doesn't sound like fun to me.
The GM is winning the game when they convincingly challenge the players, but those same players are enjoying the challenge. The second part is more important than the first, and if you're not meeting that second criterion, you cannot be described as successfully GMing.
This doesn't mean you need to be santa claus, by any means. It means that your first duty to the game is to make sure the players are having fun. That includes the masochistic kind of fun where you're scraping through by the skin of your teeth. It does NOT include having your PC arbitrarily killed because the GM decided he didn't like it.
It doesn't matter that the spell was misinterpreted. It doesn't matter if the player was annoying, or the character was weak. Nothing matters beyond the fact that your intent to arbitrarily kill a PC is at odds with your most basic mandate as a GM.
I was speaking more about calling the police to remove someone who's using the threat of violence to stay.Call the police and have them kick him out of the house.
Maybe he'll even fight back, and be removed as a problem in the longer term. =)
OK, gotta get back to work, but let's be serious for a moment.
What's more childish? Using the rules a player establishes himself to punish the player and "educate" him that playing in a selfish manner sucks, or calling the police to remove a mostly-harmless man-child from your house?
Accepted. I just think the pat answer of, "Kick him from your group. Otherwise you're a wimp and deserve what you get," is a bit over-used.
Social groups are rarely that simple.