|
I will be running part 2 of bonekeep in a couple of weeks.
One of the players will be running a staggeringly broken build, which basically involves playing an alchemist's homunculus familiar. The actual alchemist is not generally present, as he uses skinsend and leaves his body elsewhere. The homunculus then caries the skin in a backpack.
The player is argumentative to the point of making me consider if I want to run the subsequent sessions. The other players are great, however, so I don't want to screw them over by dropping out, nor is it really fair of me to ask another GM to take over and have to deal with the cheese monster.
Skinsend has some limitations, namely that it has a CL*hours duration. The character in question is level 7, meaning he has 7 hours. Bonekeep is 12 miles away from Absalom and the party includes dwarves, so their overland travel rate is 2 miles per hour. He therefore has to leave his body in the wilderness somewhere if he's to return to it in time.
Other than that, the build is legal, if incredibly broken.
The party starts Bonekeep 2 with no memory of their first venture in to level 2 of bonekeep, but they were in fact captured per the adventure.
I need to figure out what this means for the homunculus and alchemist.
The party was captured. Those of them not immune to mind effecting had their memory wiped.
If the party was captured then skinsend would have ended before the skin returned to the alchemist's body. This means that his body would have been left at 0 HP, helpless, in the middle of the wilderness.
There's something of a question of what I, as the GM, can legally say happens at this point. Does a wolf come by and eat him? Does he starve to death? Does he just have to pay the body recovery cost merely for sitting down at the table? He needs a regeneration at this point due to skin send, but again, that's just for sitting down at the table.
What happens to the homunculus, which has all his gear? Is it released too? It seems more likely to me that being focused on the mind, the enchanter would have just destroyed it, but that seems quite harsh.
If the homunculous is still captured, then given the context of the scenario it seems odd to allow a body recovery on it or it's gear; the players are explicitly being sent back in to figure out what happened.
Does the mind wipe still effect the alchemist, even though he's remotely operating his skin? If not, what does he remember about the dungeon?
|
|
The skinsend itself is just something that I need to deal with as a consequence of the party being captured. The horribly broken part is his homunculous itself.
The player claims that he does this as something of a self-nerf as his homunculus is so powerful itself that to add an alchemist as well would be too much. The homunculus really is that broken and could likely have soloed the entirety of bonekeep 1, given time.
|
Note, I definitely tend towards punishing players for using cheesy builds, so take this with a grain of salt.
There's something of a question of what I, as the GM, can legally say happens at this point. Does a wolf come by and eat him? Does he starve to death? Does he just have to pay the body recovery cost merely for sitting down at the table? He needs a regeneration at this point due to skin send, but again, that's just for sitting down at the table.
Unfortunately "rocks falling" the PC in this situation (though justified) is a bit outside the your power.
If the PCs succeed and the Alchemist told the PCs where his body is, then they could simply go and retrieve it (negating the need for a recovery.)
However, if the party wipes (a very real possibility given the Ogre fight), it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that he dies of starvation/thirst/wolves/whatever.
What happens to the homunculus, which has all his gear? Is it released too? It seems more likely to me that being focused on the mind, the enchanter would have just destroyed it, but that seems quite harsh.
That or holding the thing hostage would make sense in the context of the story (especially given when the BBEG is); but, again, that that kind of punitive measure might be outside PFS GM's power. Do what you think is best, but be prepared to defend your decision if you go this route.
Does the mind wipe still effect the alchemist, even though he's remotely operating his skin? If not, what does he remember about the dungeon?
The method by which their minds are wiped is never really brought up, so that falls under the realm of GM discretion. Personally, given the statement about "consciousness" in skinsend, I would rule that the mind wipe still works.
Even if he regained his memories, it wouldn't matter if the PC is helpless and unconscious outside the dungeon. There's no way to communicate anything to the party.
|
|
to be clear, this is not a simple homunculus. it's the one from the promethean alchemist archetype.
The skinsend is an issue because the first time the party went in they explicity did not succeed and were captured. This would mean that his body would have been left somewhere, which I need to deal with.
|
I'm not understanding how the homonculus is broken. Unless he's built it wrong it isn't particularly powerful for (most) scenarios. Is he claiming that the skin is fighting (normally) while being carried by the homonculus? Because that 3 strength is usually a huge problem if you intend to have any gear at all on.
However I do see the problem that skinsend presents for this scenario. The construct type, traits, and immunities are really powerful.
Recasting doesn't seem to be an option. The spell literally peels the skin off you. If it can't do that, the spell should fail.
|
|
I'm trying to work out an audit with the rest of the local leadership, as I won't personally have time to do it during our next sessions.
The player has been audited in the past, however, and has passed. I expect the same here.
In general, however, he uses the promethean archetype for some advancement, buffs it substantially with extracts, and has given all its gear to it. The skinsend is mainly there to allow the alchemist a means of using the telepathic bond ability while not actually being physically present.
|
To relay my suggestive action:
1) The Homonculus is captured with the rest of the party.
2) The character via skin told the rat where to find his body due to nearly expired skinsend duration.
3) the body was reattached to the skin in time
4) players escaped and memories altered even on the Homonculus (plot device, doesn't say it is magical.)
remember - this is all pre-scenario fluff/plot device.
as much as i want to punish leaving the unprotected body in the wild.. even if wrapped up and camouflaged.. no additional monster encounters allowed in pfs limits retribution to nothing imo.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the "before the adventure" issues:
I would treat him just like the rest of the party. If he complains that his skin is immune to having it's memory wiped simply tell him that there is a valid story reason for him not having a memory and you will explain after the adventure. If he continues to protest, tell him the only other option that fits in with the backstory requires him to pay for body recovery, raise dead, and two restorations as his body expired before the skin was reunited with it.
After the adventure you can explain to him that what happened was the skin was captured and the knowledgeable arcane captors searched out his body outside before it expired then reunited them before wiping his memory.
|
|
is his homunculus large? because otherwise it can't carry his skin, since it starts at tiny and functions as a familiar, which doesn't gain any str. increases.
If it is still tiny, than it's heavy load is: 40 lbs.
but let's set that aside for the moment and come back to his combat style. It's a familiar, so it has half his normal maximum hp. Even if he increases it's Constitution to obscene levels, it still only has half of his normal hp.
Assuming the best possible hp he could have at 7th level is 8+(5*7=35)=43 hp for HD and then assuming a permanent con modifier of +7, favored class for HP, and toughness and we're looking at a total hp of 106, which would mean that his familiar would have 53 hp.
additionally, he can have up to 1 3 point evolution (assuming that he took extra evolution as his 5th and 7th level feats), so no large, meaning that it has to move into an opponent's square, provoking attacks of opportunity to do so, in order to attack. Also apparently dragging the alchemist's skin into melee as well.
I'm not seeing how a tiny creature with a at most 14 strength and at most 53 hp is going to break bonekeep on any floor.
|
|
I wouldn't do anything in particular besides running the adventure without additional encounters and story. There is no reason to waste other players time for the special.
I don't understand how the homunculus is so strong. It isn't a familiar so can't use the rules for the homunculus familiar and the building and modifying construct rules from Ultimate Magic aren't legal. The only customization he can do are the feats he is allowed to select.
It is humanoid so it can wear magic items without issue but is this any better than if he wore it himself?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'd take a simpler approach. Give the player the choice
1) Your body has been lost in the wilderness. Pay 5 prestige for a body recovery to get the dead body back
2) For some reason your alchemist chose to come along on this adventure and you didn't do your normal skinsend schtick.
Pick one. Argue with me for more than a minute or two and I'm picking number 1.
Even in PFS you're allowed to have logical consequences for PC actions. The canonical example (explicitly ok'ed by the PTB is that you can have characters arrested for openly breaking the law).
|
|
In general, however, he uses the promethean archetype for some advancement, buffs it substantially with extracts, and has given all its gear to it.
Right, but the Homunculus has pretty awful stats, even at 7th.
Like, it has 16 Str, 14 Dex, and 58-ish HP (HP which can't be increased by items, spells, etc.), +2 base save, 3 feats, and no class features.
PLUS, it's a construct, so the party can't heal it with cures or channels.
|
|
is his homunculus large? because otherwise it can't carry his skin, since it starts at tiny and functions as a familiar, which doesn't gain any str. increases.
If it is still tiny, than it's heavy load is: 40 lbs.
but let's set that aside for the moment and come back to his combat style. It's a familiar, so it has half his normal maximum hp. Even if he increases it's Constitution to obscene levels, it still only has half of his normal hp.
Assuming the best possible hp he could have at 7th level is 8+(5*7=35)=43 hp for HD and then assuming a permanent con modifier of +7, favored class for HP, and toughness and we're looking at a total hp of 106, which would mean that his familiar would have 53 hp.
additionally, he can have up to 1 3 point evolution (assuming that he took extra evolution as his 5th and 7th level feats), so no large, meaning that it has to move into an opponent's square, provoking attacks of opportunity to do so, in order to attack. Also apparently dragging the alchemist's skin into melee as well.
I'm not seeing how a tiny creature with a at most 14 strength and at most 53 hp is going to break bonekeep on any floor.
It's the Promethean Alchemist Homunculus. Medium size with an advancement basically along animal companion lines. The skin has the compression ability, which is what he's using to make the stored in the backpack argument. It's reaching, but I don't see any major reason to disallow it.
|
|
It's the Promethean Alchemist Homunculus. Medium size with an advancement basically along animal companion lines. The skin has the compression ability, which is what he's using to make the stored in the backpack argument. It's reaching, but I don't see any major reason to disallow it.
That's worse, not better. He has at most a 20 strength, 3 max feats, and 45 hp and a 12 ac base (since it has no shield or armor proficiencies). Assuming that he spent a feat into armor proficiency for light proficiency (since he clearly wants this thing to be his tank), that leaves him with 2 feats, which are probably multiattack and power attack.
Assuming his alchemist buffs him and gives him light armor, this 'herculean' beast has 3 natural attacks at +11/11/9 to hit and deal 1d6+5/1d6+5/1d6+2 damage. It has 45 hp, a ridiculously high (+6 armor from a +2 chain shirt, +4 barkskin, +3 ac from shield of faith, +2 dexterity) 25 ac at 7th level, and it's saves are a majestic (+2 base across the board, with a +2 cloak for 2 more to each, and - for con (since it won't need to make fort saves that don't effect objects), +2 for dex, and +1 for wisdom) +4 fort save, +6 reflex save, +5 will save.
Sarcasm aside, I'm not seeing how it takes bonekeep.
All of the above, btw, assumes that he has purchased a +4 strength belt, +2 chain shirt, a +2 cloak of resistance for his pet, which probably leaves him very little to save his own life once he starts hitting area effect damaging spells.
Considering his alchemist has no bombs and no mutagen, I don't really see what he would bring to the table, beside skill and wand use.
|
|
It does say it is a construct in the companion ability. Constructs have construct traits.
Yeah, just parsing the class in detail for the first time right now. It doesn't specifically call out construct as the type but it's the only thing that works.
As for the HP I think it's a base of 53 (6d10 + 20(size)). However because of the Sympathetic Alchemy ability it is a valid target for an extract of false life. Also it looks like the alchemist's heroism works too, even though a construct is normally immune to mind-affecting. Which is amusing considering the skin in the backback is immune to heroism.
I would really seriously audit this thing, particularly when it comes to encumbrance issues, but other than that I don't see too much of an issue. The player is avoiding the many potential harmful effects that are the theme of Level 2 with this build, but it's not particularly awesome.
|
First let me address one of the things you said in the initial post. "The player is argumentative to the point of making me consider if I want to run the subsequent sessions." If that is true, you have grounds for banning him from the table. Without all the details, I am not going to say whether that is/not the best decision, but I encourage you to consult your local organizer and/or Venture-Officer. Banning a player even for a single session can have far-reaching ramifications and should only be done when warranted. However, you are entitled to have a good GMing experience and do not have to tolerate disruptive players.
I disagree with doing anything punitive to counter a player's OP build. You may not like it, but if it has been properly vetted (audited) and is legal, forcing said player to pay additional fines/fees like body recovery simply because you do not like the build is not embracing the cooperate portion of our tenets. IME, sometimes its better to just let the player have their curb-stomping fun and move on.
That being said, you are certainly within your rights to express your concerns with said player and impress upon them your apprehension. In your estimation if the PC can solo the scenario, it will not be enjoyable by the rest of the players. That in of itself can be considered disruptive. So, if he refuses to cooperate with you, see my above comments about banning him from the table.
One point to remember. Bonekeep was designed with the intention of killing PCs. It encourages players to bring their most broken builds to try and survive the gauntlet. You kind of have to expect things like this. Fortunately for you, it sounds like you are very familiar with the build and what it can do. Perhaps it would save your sanity if you just focused on the encounters that can challenge the PC and let him squash the others.
As far as to the theme and story about the memory loss, you are not obligated to explain how/why that happens to the players. The scenario simply says they start with amnesia, period. If the player chooses to play his familiar as the primary character, then it also has memory loss, period. In a home campaign you could always create a much more immersive story and have the freedom to deal with the nature of the build more organically. However, in PFS, due to its episodic and rigid RAW expectations sometimes the reason is simply, "because I said so."
EDIT--an additional question. Has the player in question played, GMd, or read the scenario? His decision to play this character could be based on meta-knowledge which could also be considered disruptive by some and grounds for a one-on-one conversation.
|
|
Also it looks like the alchemist's heroism works too, even though a construct is normally immune to mind-affecting. Which is amusing considering the skin in the backback is immune to heroism.
I don't think so. Its type is treated as humanoid (meaning Enlarge/Reduce Person would work on it), but that doesn't remove the Construct Traits.
|
|
I would really seriously audit this thing, particularly when it comes to encumbrance issues, but other than that I don't see too much of an issue. The player is avoiding the many potential harmful effects that are the theme of Level 2 with this build, but it's not particularly awesome.
He will survive the audit. Trust me.
|
|
Also it looks like the alchemist's heroism works too, even though a construct is normally immune to mind-affecting. Which is amusing considering the skin in the backback is immune to heroism.I don't think so. Its type is treated as humanoid (meaning Enlarge/Reduce Person would work on it), but that doesn't remove the Construct Traits.
The homunculus is treated as a humanoid or a construct—whichever is more beneficial—for the purposes of what extracts can affect it.
It's an "or" not an "and."
It gets construct traits from the construct type. So when considering the heroism the more beneficial treatment is that it's a humanoid and not a construct.
|
|
I still argue that since he's using corner cases for running the character, the GM is in every right to run corner cases in return.
This build is not that powerful if you go on an adventure and simply die because you don't get back in 7 hours.
Or if it's in an unprotected backpack and have the skin take damage on AoE abilities.
Or if (as has been stated to me on occasion) he wears the skin, which case you just target the skin.
When I play and run multiple games and hear players and GMs say, "Oh he's showing up, I will not play there", there's a problem.
|
|
First let me address one of the things you said in the initial post. "The player is argumentative to the point of making me consider if I want to run the subsequent sessions." If that is true, you have grounds for banning him from the table. Without all the details, I am not going to say whether that is/not the best decision, but I encourage you to consult your local organizer and/or Venture-Officer. Banning a player even for a single session can have far-reaching ramifications and should only be done when warranted. However, you are entitled to have a good GMing experience and do not have to tolerate disruptive players.
I disagree with doing anything punitive to counter a player's OP build. You may not like it, but if it has been properly vetted (audited) and is legal, forcing said player to pay additional fines/fees like body recovery simply because you do not like the build is not embracing the cooperate portion of our tenets. IME, sometimes its better to just let the player have their curb-stomping fun and move on.
That being said, you are certainly within your rights to express your concerns with said player and impress upon them your apprehension. In your estimation if the PC can solo the scenario, it will not be enjoyable by the rest of the players. That in of itself can be considered disruptive. So, if he refuses to cooperate with you, see my above comments about banning him from the table.
Bob,
We don't ban players for their builds. We consider banning them for their attitude(s). We are actively trying to determine how we can not screw over the player for his build. But, this player is one who has been a thorn for a long time yet has his supporters. He is a nice guy! we have tried to talk to him about how his actions impact the rest of the table. In the aforementioned BK I, table he was the only one of six to survive. The other characters all died due to this player pushjing them on. Ok, it happens, but the follow up is the real kicker: He refused to help offset any of the costs to raise the characters and has messaged the GM demanding to have his gold increased because he was able to get a few items from an encounter they didn't finish.
This player has enough system mastery to create powerful characters. Not always do they rely on corner cases or gray areas to work. After discussing the point of contention (Skinsend and a refrigerated body), we want Campaign leadership to ban the use of Skinsend in PFS.
I have always counseled that as a GM it is your right to not run a table for another player if you know you will not have fun playing the game. Do this enough and other players do this enough it will usually sink in to the offending player.
I don't want the group to outright ban him, big lodge problem I know.
|
|
The other problem is that a successful dispel magic will end his skinsend, which given the flavor text of the promethean alchemist, would likely mean that the homunculus would leave the dungeon to go and save his master.
I guess the other thing I would try to figure out is what is his goal for this character? Is it to effectively tell his party that his life is more important than theirs, since they are actively risking their lives to enter the dungeon and he is not? if so, objective succeeded. Is it to try out an interesting build and see how effective it is? if so, objective succeeded.
I would have to wonder why any of the players he plays with haven't pointed out that this build is not very helpful for the rest of the group.
|
|
It gets construct traits from the construct type. So when considering the heroism the more beneficial treatment is that it's a humanoid and not a construct.
Treating it as a different creature type doesn't remove the traits granted by the other type. It just impacts what spells can/cannot target it.
|
|
But, this player is one who has been a thorn for a long time yet has his supporters. He is a nice guy!
No, we don't want to ban nice people from playing. Nobody wants that.
In the aforementioned BK I, table he was the only one of six to survive. The other characters all died due to this player pushjing them on. Ok, it happens, but the follow up is the real kicker: He refused to ffset any of the costs to raise the characters and has messaged the GM demanding to have his gold increased because he was able to get a few items from an encounter they didn't finish
Case in point. He is not an "nice guy".
I've been told he cheats.
I've been told by multiple GMs now "I will not run for him".
I've been told by multiple players now, "I will not play with him."
This isn't a situation of banning the build, and he is most certainly not a "nice guy".
|
|
Or if it's in an unprotected backpack and have the skin take damage on AoE abilities.
He should definitely be making saves for any area effect spells that his companion is in, as he is a creature, not an (un)attended object. Here's another problem with this build: he should not be riding his companion; he should be walking alongside him.
Or if (as has been stated to me on occasion) he wears the skin, which case you just target the skin.
There are absolutely no rules on one creature wearing another. None whatsoever.
When I play and run multiple games and hear players and GMs say, "Oh he's showing up, I will not play there", there's a problem.
I agree.
|
|
Am I the only one who thinks he was under no obligation to pay anyone's condition costs, everyone had final say on whether their character 'pushes on', and if he did recover the items from an encounter of course the group gets access to them.
I won't pretend I know him or the group but his actions seem reasonable, I'm told he is playing by the campaign rules, and he wants to play this game with a legal character. Everything seems acceptable to me.
|
|
But, this player is one who has been a thorn for a long time yet has his supporters. He is a nice guy!No, we don't want to ban nice people from playing. Nobody wants that.
In the aforementioned BK I, table he was the only one of six to survive. The other characters all died due to this player pushjing them on. Ok, it happens, but the follow up is the real kicker: He refused to offset any of the costs to raise the characters and has messaged the GM demanding to have his gold increased because he was able to get a few items from an encounter they didn't finishCase in point. He is not an "nice guy".
I've been told he cheats.
I've been told by multiple GMs now "I will not run for him".
I've been told by multiple players now, "I will not play with him."
This isn't a situation of banning the build, and he is most certainly not a "nice guy".
THIS!
IMO, when dealing with a player and a master's degree in Pathfinder rules theory, attacking his build and trying to find ways to nerf it will not work. I'm relatively sure he can pass an audit and everything is legit. If you try to manipulate the minor loop-holes to nerf his build it is be perceived by the player (and others) as a personal attack and that is not healthy for the community.
However, it certainly seems that he is using his system mastery to disrupt the table and his ancillary actions certainly points to a NOT "nice guy."
Four-five hours is a large amount of time to invest in something you are not enjoying. IMO, you have an obligation to the local community to take action in whatever form you, your organizer, and Venture-Officer feel is appropriate.
|
|
Am I the only one who thinks he was under no obligation to pay anyone's condition costs, everyone had final say on whether their character 'pushes on', and if he did recover the items from an encounter of course the group gets access to them.
I won't pretend I know him or the group but his actions seem reasonable, I'm told he is playing by the campaign rules, and he wants to play this game with a legal character. Everything seems acceptable to me.
The scenario specifically says that the party is awarded a certain amount of gold if they defeat an encounter. In this case the player used a steal combat maneuver to take the unique necklace that the boss had.
I did not award the gold as they did not defeat the encounter (the player ran down the 5 hour clock by running around the map after every other PC was dead). I did, however, leave the unique necklace on the chronicle sheet in recognition of the fact that they stole it.
The player then proceeded to send me a rather hostile message this morning demanding to be given a portion of the gold for the encounter.
|
|
Jeffrey - you should not have to deal with that kind of response from a player.
To me this is nothing more than bullying of the players (pushing them to continue) and now bulling the GM (demanding gold).
I can get frustrated with players and their builds all the time (my feelings about the escalation war from several years ago is well known), but this has entered a new level of insanity.
|
But, this player is one who has been a thorn for a long time yet has his supporters. He is a nice guy!No, we don't want to ban nice people from playing. Nobody wants that.
In the aforementioned BK I, table he was the only one of six to survive. The other characters all died due to this player pushjing them on. Ok, it happens, but the follow up is the real kicker: He refused to ffset any of the costs to raise the characters and has messaged the GM demanding to have his gold increased because he was able to get a few items from an encounter they didn't finishCase in point. He is not an "nice guy".
I've been told he cheats.
I've been told by multiple GMs now "I will not run for him".
I've been told by multiple players now, "I will not play with him."
This isn't a situation of banning the build, and he is most certainly not a "nice guy".
He comes across as a nice guy. Away from the table, which I think is what leg'o lamb is referring to. He's just not nice at the table, which is the problem but an important distinction. We aren't in the business of giving nice guys a place to be a jerk.
|
|
I would have heavily considered the creative solution clause which specifically mentions some solutions can bypass an encounter or even an entire scenario without being expressly covered by the scenario.
Defeating doesn't mean you have to kill what you encounter and he could easily 'run off the map' instead of running in circles. He certainly isn't bound to the borders we use to represent the game.
He managed to retrieve the item, this was acknowledged, and I would have expected to see its gold value reflected on the chronicle sheet.
I don't know his tone approaching the situation but I can see the conclusions he drew and probably how he felt. It is also very easy to project a tone that is unintended onto a message. I just hope that all views are considered.
Edit: I also really don't like when people are accused of being bullies and cheaters online when they aren't present to defend themselves. This isn't how I would want to be treated. I think the everything is mechanically in the clear as far as I can tell so that's good enough for me.
|
|
This isn't how I would want to be treated. I think the everything is mechanically in the clear as far as I can tell so that's good enough for me.Well...good thing you're not on this end to deal with it then.
Pretty much this. We have lots of folks who play really strong characters in our region, but are joys to play with and GM for. And a very few who are so disruptive with both build and argumentative nature, that most folks really cringe to GM for them. This is one of the few.
I ran this build through Tomb of Righteous Repose a few weeks ago, and actually stopped the game to strongly tell the player to knock it off. He was being so argumentative about everything, that I just had had enough. His responce, "Well that's youth interpretation."
WTF!
Point is, it's a player problem that needs dealing with. But it's never fun to do so.
|
|
Apropos to nothing else in this discussion except the Bonekeep-money question, I happen to have had a case of running Bonekeep 1 where a rogue sneaked away and stole some of the other encounters' treasure after/while the rest of the party was dying, and after a thorough check of the scenario's wording, some of the rooms do say "if the party finds/acquires the XX, they gain XX gp" At the time, I felt bad for everybody else so I let that count, but it wasn't a sure thing to me; I can see the ambiguity there as well as both sides on it.
|
|
Apropos to nothing else in this discussion except the Bonekeep-money question, I happen to have had a case of running Bonekeep 1 where a rogue sneaked away and stole some of the other encounters' treasure after/while the rest of the party was dying, and after a thorough check of the scenario's wording, some of the rooms do say "if the party finds/acquires the XX, they gain XX gp" At the time, I felt bad for everybody else so I let that count, but it wasn't a sure thing to me; I can see the ambiguity there as well as both sides on it.
In some cases that is what the treasure line reads. Had that been this case for this particular section, I probably would have been more generous. This section, however, awarded treasure contingent on the defeat of the encounter. The encounter was ongoing at the time and was in the middle of making attacks when the time ran out. I can't see how that would qualify as defeating it in any sense, so no gold was awarded.
|
|
Apropos to nothing else in this discussion except the Bonekeep-money question, I happen to have had a case of running Bonekeep 1 where a rogue sneaked away and stole some of the other encounters' treasure after/while the rest of the party was dying, and after a thorough check of the scenario's wording, some of the rooms do say "if the party finds/acquires the XX, they gain XX gp" At the time, I felt bad for everybody else so I let that count, but it wasn't a sure thing to me; I can see the ambiguity there as well as both sides on it.In some cases that is what the treasure line reads. Had that been this case for this particular section, I probably would have been more generous. This section, however, awarded treasure contingent on the defeat of the encounter. The encounter was ongoing at the time and was in the middle of making attacks when the time ran out.
Then in that case, I can only see your side now.