Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Harmor 06-27-04, 07:08 PM	The GM has the BBEG have Contingency + Teleport without Error and as a result we get NO LOOT. Last night we were playing and we killed this really hard to kill dwarven paladin who had alot of kewl equipment... Well after he died his body disappeared. Spellcraft checks revieled that it was Contingency + Teleport without Error!!! Arrg... The dam dwarf sundered both my shield, my weapon and took my potion belt and we have nothing to show for (he was a good grappler/sunder/disarmer...). I told the GM how lame that was and all. The general mood of the group was pretty discusted after that. This is not the first time he has done this. I think he does this whenever we fight someone we're not supposed to win against because it might screw-up hit story-line or plot. We're all level 10-13 in the party...I think he was level 18 (he failed a DR 19 fortitude check which was the reason we where able to kill him). Am I just playing Lawful greedy or should we expect this to occur more as we fight higher level creatures/opponents?
the Horc 06-27-04, 07:11 PM	First off, Teleport without Error is beyond the maximum level a Contingiency can hold. Second, how exactly did he cast that spell? It's not like he's an arcane spellcaster.
Harmor 06-27-04, 07:18 PM	PS: For those who are not familiar with these two spells I'm refering to: Contingency Evocation Level: Sor/Wiz 6 Components: V, S, M, F Casting Time: At least 10 minutes; see text Range: Personal Target: You Duration: One day/level (D) or until discharged You can place another spell upon your person so that it comes into effect under some condition you dictate when casting contingency. The contingency spell and the companion spell are cast at the same time. The 10-minute casting time is the minimum total for both castings; if the companion spell has a casting time longer than 10 minutes, use that instead. The spell to be brought into effect by the contingency must be one that affects your person and be of a spell level no higher than one-third your caster level (rounded down, maximum 6th level). The conditions needed to bring the spell into effect must be clear, although they can be general. In all cases, the contingency immediately brings into effect the companion spell, the latter being “cast” instantaneously when the prescribed circumstances occur. If complicated or convoluted conditions are prescribed, the whole spell combination (contingency and the companion magic) may fail when called on. The companion spell occurs based solely on the stated conditions, regardless of whether you want it to. You can use only one contingency spell at a time; if a second is cast, the first one (if still active) is dispelled. Material Component: That of the companion spell, plus quicksilver and an eyelash of an ogre mage, rakshasa, or similar spell-using creature. Focus: A statuette of you carved from elephant ivory and decorated with gems (worth at least 1,500 gp). You must carry the focus for the contingency to work. Teleport, Greater Conjuration (Teleportation) Level: Sor/Wiz 7, Travel 7 This spell functions like teleport, except that there is no range limit and there is no chance you arrive off target. In addition, you need not have seen the destination, but in that case you must have at least a reliable description of the place to which you are teleporting. If you attempt to teleport with insufficient information (or with misleading information), you disappear and simply reappear in your original location. Interplanar travel is not possible. Teleport Conjuration (Teleportation) Level: Sor/Wiz 5, Travel 5 Components: V Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal and touch Target: You and touched objects or other touched willing creatures Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: None and Will negates (object) Spell Resistance: No and Yes (object) This spell instantly transports you to a designated destination, which may be as distant as 100 miles per caster level. Interplanar travel is not possible. You can bring along objects as long as their weight doesn’t exceed your maximum load. You may also bring one additional willing Medium or smaller creature (carrying gear or objects up to its maximum load) or its equivalent (see below) per three caster levels. A Large creature counts as two Medium creatures, a Huge creature counts as two Large creatures, and so forth. All creatures to be transported must be in contact with one another, and at least one of those creatures must be in contact with you. As with all spells where the range is personal and the target is you, you need not make a saving throw, nor is spell resistance applicable to you. Only objects held or in use (attended) by another person receive saving throws and spell resistance. You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination. The clearer your mental image, the more likely the teleportation works. Areas of strong physical or magical energy may make teleportation more hazardous or even impossible. To see how well the teleportation works, roll d% and consult the Teleport table. Refer to the following information for definitions of the terms on the table. Familiarity: “Very familiar” is a place where you have been very often and where you feel at home. “Studied carefully” is a place you know well, either because you can currently see it, you’ve been there often, or you have used other means (such as scrying) to study the place for at least one hour. “Seen casually” is a place that you have seen more than once but with which you are not very familiar. “Viewed once” is a place that you have seen once, possibly using magic. “False destination” is a place that does not truly exist or if you are teleporting to an otherwise familiar location that no longer exists as such or has been so completely altered as to no longer be familiar to you. When traveling to a false destination, roll 1d20+80 to obtain results on the table, rather than rolling d%, since there is no real destination for you to hope to arrive at or even be off target from. On Target: You appear where you want to be. Off Target: You appear safely a random distance away from the destination in a random direction. Distance off target is 1d10x1d10% of the distance that was to be traveled. The direction off target is determined randomly Similar Area: You wind up in an area that’s visually or thematically similar to the target area. Generally, you appear in the closest similar place within range. If no such area exists within the spell’s range, the spell simply fails instead. Mishap: You and anyone else teleporting with you have gotten “scrambled.” You each take 1d10 points of damage, and you reroll on the chart to see where you wind up. For these rerolls, roll 1d20+80. Each time “Mishap” comes up, the characters take more damage and must reroll. Familiarity On-Target Off-Target Similar Area-Mishap ======================================== ================== Very familiar 01–97 98–99 100 — Studied carefully 01–94 95–97 98–99 100 Seen casually 01–88 89–94 95–98 99–100 Viewed once 01–76 77–88 89–96 97–100 False destination (1d20+80) — — 81–92 93–100
Harmor 06-27-04, 07:20 PM	Originally posted by the Horc First off, Teleport without Error is beyond the maximum level a Contingiency can hold. Second, how exactly did he cast that spell? It's not like he's an arcane spellcaster. Hmm...you're right. He was a dwarven paladin and he can't cast Contingency on himself. Its a PERSONAL spell!!!! You can't do that right?
cheesegrater 06-27-04, 07:42 PM	If this dwarf had ranks in use magic device and the right scrolls it would be legal, I think. But probably a screw-up by your DM, yeah. You still had fun playing the game, right? Who cares if you didn't get all the dwarf's stuff as well?
Arcuna 06-27-04, 07:52 PM	I dont think your DM thought his plan through. As was already stated, he probably was extremely confident in his BBEG and did not expect him to die. So, at the last moment, he has an idea to save his BBEG. You should, without a doubt, ask him the following two questions: 1: How can a paladin use Contingency? Since it is a personal range spell, you cannot have it cast upon you. 2: If, in order for a contingency spell to work, the spell in question has to be of a spell level no higher than 6th level, then TwE is out of the question anyway, considering Teleport without Error is lvl 7. (EDIT: accidentally asked a question twice :D )
The Master Weaver Is Warped 06-27-04, 07:53 PM	Villians that pop off are a constant bane in our campaign. It became such a pet peeve of my rogue, he got his rapier embued with dimentional anchor. Never had a dead villian pop off, but one of our spell casters did when he got fried. That was a nasty surprise for the allies he returned to as a burnt bisquit. The situation you describe is not right, according to the spells. Ask your DM to replay it, or at least leave the body. The DM may feel free to ajust the loot however.
RAMAUL 06-27-04, 07:56 PM	You got played your DM.He wasn't gonna let his pet NPC die thats about it.
Harmor 06-27-04, 08:12 PM	Could the BBEG have an item that does this? We didn't have time to search his body when he died...we were kinda busy with his level 15 Wizard friend... NOTE: the spells did not come from the Wizard friend, but from him. Our wizard makes a DC 30+ spellcraft check twice to notice the effects.
Saerynishar 06-27-04, 08:31 PM	Items are plausible, as is the "Craft Contingent Spell" feat from Unapproachable East, an FR supplement. Not sure if you use that book.
LoricDAHPaladin 06-27-04, 08:56 PM	Your DM may have wanted a recurring challenge. Difficult to do in dnd.
Edward 06-27-04, 09:50 PM	I have high level NPCs pull this type of thing BUT ONLY THOSE THAT ACTUALY CAN. They are normally recurring BBEG wizards with an arrangement with a church to cast true res hen his corps arrives. Of cause never at such a low party level would such a character be considered a reasonable challenge. Edward
Ertai Planeswalker 06-28-04, 02:19 AM	Well level 10-13 is the range where those spells become available. If it is a good tactic, of course the BBEG will use it!! He did not advance all the way to level 13+ by being stupid. You went in without the right preparations and now you're on the wrong end of the stick. Teleport without error might be an error by your DM. OTOH, he could have a wizard ally that you have not heard of yet that researched his own 9th level contingency that can hold one spell up to 8th level or something. Point is, at these levels the game changes. It's no longer simply dealing enough damage. Maybe the Paladin is a gestalt Paladin/wizard, except he does not want to show off his spellcasting capabilities, so he can surprise you with it the next time you meet. Who knows. Your DM can make stuff up. As such, the DM is never wrong. For example, my players know most of the MM cover to cover. Therefore, i change some minor things. Last session i used two 'gray trolls' instead of the normal green (Though it said green in the adventure) I had their unarmed attacks deal an additional 1D4 negative energy damage, if the rended they instead 'infused the target with negative energy ala Inflict Moderate Wounds' for 2D8+3 negative energy damage. Positive energy would deal normal damage to get past their regeneration instead of fire and/or acid, and a turning attempt would deal them 1D6 positive energy damage per HD it would affect. Goodbye metagaming.
jasper 06-28-04, 08:03 AM	3. New spell, or magic item, etc. 4. Invisible whatisit helping bbeg. 5. Dm fiat to make it more interesting so when you do kill the bbeg you happy dance on his body. Plus oh poor baby big bad evil guy ran away with his loot. Who ever said you encounter monster smack them once and gold coins just rain from the sky. Oh Sonic the dm. Never mind
Thegreatmonkey 06-28-04, 01:00 PM	Just a side note here.... But how the FLIP is a Dwarven PALADIN the big bad evil guy????
Thorak 06-28-04, 01:12 PM	Any PC could use the exact same tactic, assuming of course he'd used Teleport and not Greater Teleport as the DM should have. In fact, in the "Mages rule all" threads that constantly pop up, that's always thrown out as the ultimate argument-ender. If the PCs can do it, there's absolutely no basis for saying the BBEG shouldn't be able to do it, or it's 'cheap' or 'unfair'. That smacks of whining because you got outsmarted. Of course, given that GT is level 7, and the range of Contingency is Personal, the DM had better be ready with a reason for that. As noted, a simple "I meant just normal Teleport, and he has ranks in Use Magic Device and used a scroll" answers the questions.
Beamup 06-28-04, 01:30 PM	UMD doesn't explain it too well unless the guy was seriously into it - particularly tough when UMD isn't on the Paladin class skill list. The DC would be 35 - in fact, TWO UMD checks, one DC 35 and one DC 31, unless he had an Int of 16 normally, to use a scroll of contingency. The best straight core Dwarf Paladin 18 UMDer I can come up with would be: +10 Charisma (18-2 to start, +4 levels, +6 enhancement, +5 inherent) +10 ranks +3 Skill Focus +2 Synergy from Decipher Script So +25. He has to make: DC 35: Use a CL 15 (minimum for putting teleport into contingency) scroll DC 31: Emulate a 16 Int to cast a level 6 spell from a scroll DC 29: Use a CL 9 scroll DC 30: Emulate a 15 Int to cast a level 5 spell from a scroll His odds of making all of these are (11/20)*(15/20)*(17/20)*(16/20) = 28%. For all practical purposes, this isn't feasible unless he got UMD as a class skill somehow, then put all his base allotment of Paladin skill points into it. Note that each time he fails costs 3375 gold.
Dravenous 06-28-04, 04:32 PM	Originally posted by Ertai Planeswalker Well level 10-13 is the range where those spells become available. If it is a good tactic, of course the BBEG will use it!! He did not advance all the way to level 13+ by being stupid. You went in without the right preparations and now you're on the wrong end of the stick. Teleport without error might be an error by your DM. OTOH, he could have a wizard ally that you have not heard of yet that researched his own 9th level contingency that can hold one spell up to 8th level or something. Point is, at these levels the game changes. It's no longer simply dealing enough damage. Maybe the Paladin is a gestalt Paladin/wizard, except he does not want to show off his spellcasting capabilities, so he can surprise you with it the next time you meet. Who knows. Your DM can make stuff up. As such, the DM is never wrong. For example, my players know most of the MM cover to cover. Therefore, i change some minor things. Last session i used two 'gray trolls' instead of the normal green (Though it said green in the adventure) I had their unarmed attacks deal an additional 1D4 negative energy damage, if the rended they instead 'infused the target with negative energy ala Inflict Moderate Wounds' for 2D8+3 negative energy damage. Positive energy would deal normal damage to get past their regeneration instead of fire and/or acid, and a turning attempt would deal them 1D6 positive energy damage per HD it would affect. Goodbye metagaming. :confused: metagaming? This has NOTHING to do with what you are talking about! This is talking about a DM gambling with the players and when the players by some miracle won, the DM still took the pot and then some of the players money. This isn't about "Hey! You know the core books like the back of your hands so I gave this Paladin a "Stop you from taking his stuff" ability". This is that the DM didn't want the paladin to die and the group to get his stuff. Yes, the DM is allowed the right to be right all of the time, but this seems to be unfair to allow the party to go against a strong oppenent expecting them to die and then save the BBGG when he gets a bad roll. If the DM was going to do the same thing for the party when they died against this Paladin. That is teleport them out with their stuff when the going got rough. Then I would consider it fair.
Thorak 06-28-04, 05:33 PM	Originally posted by Dravenous :confused: metagaming? This has NOTHING to do with what you are talking about! This is talking about a DM gambling with the players and when the players by some miracle won, the DM still took the pot and then some of the players money. This isn't about "Hey! You know the core books like the back of your hands so I gave this Paladin a "Stop you from taking his stuff" ability". This is that the DM didn't want the paladin to die and the group to get his stuff. Yes, the DM is allowed the right to be right all of the time, but this seems to be unfair to allow the party to go against a strong oppenent expecting them to die and then save the BBGG when he gets a bad roll. If the DM was going to do the same thing for the party when they died against this Paladin. That is teleport them out with their stuff when the going got rough. Then I would consider it fair. Oh, yes. It's so unfair when the DM outsmarts the players. IMHO, the BBEG was just being smart and safe by going into battle with the party while protected like that. And besides; he's the BBEG. It's probably important to the storyline that he not die right yet. How much fun would Star Wars have been if a Rebel sniper had shot Darth Vader in the head right when Vader boarded Leia's spaceship? That would have derailed the entire story right there, pointlessly.
Simetrical 06-28-04, 06:28 PM	His odds of making all of these are (11/20)*(15/20)*(17/20)*(16/20) = 28%. . . . Note that each time he fails costs 3375 gold. ~Beamup So he's spending a bit over 800 gold a day on average to possibly save "lots of kewl equipment" on the off-chance that he'd be killed? Doesn't actually sound too unreasonable. An 18th-level PC, at least, should have about 440,000 gp's worth of equipment, and 800 a day for insurance doesn't sound like a bad idea at all.
Stuntman 06-28-04, 06:32 PM	The way I see it is if the DM did not want the players to get any of the BBEG's equipment, he shouldn't have given the BBEG the equipment to start with. Any NPC no matter how powerful has the possibility of being defeated by the PC's. If the PC's succeed, they should be rewarded. As a player, I really hate it when I do something well and/or lucky and have the DM undo it because the DM cannot handle the consequences of a major NPC being defeated by the PC's. As a DM, if my players are clever enough to kill or capture a BBEG, they get the spoils, and the campaign takes on a new direction accordingly.
Dravenous 06-28-04, 07:44 PM	Originally posted by Thorak Oh, yes. It's so unfair when the DM outsmarts the players. IMHO, the BBEG was just being smart and safe by going into battle with the party while protected like that. And besides; he's the BBEG. It's probably important to the storyline that he not die right yet. How much fun would Star Wars have been if a Rebel sniper had shot Darth Vader in the head right when Vader boarded Leia's spaceship? That would have derailed the entire story right there, pointlessly. He didn't outsmart them, he rule zeroed them. It takes absolutely no skill to use rule zero. If they checked before the battle when the Paladin was favored it would be likely that they would not find any sign of the contigency cast by the oh... 27th level caster. Yes, the point of that he is the BBEG (and his items) and that he has a role in the story that would be destroyed if he was destroyed. This is the ONLY good reason I find for the DM doing this, but in most D&D games there is a little thing called true-resurrection. So the main reason for this was to keep his items. But even still there are better ways to react to this than do what this DM did.
Korhal IV 06-28-04, 09:52 PM	Originally posted by Thorak Oh, yes. It's so unfair when the DM outsmarts the players. IMHO, the BBEG was just being smart and safe by going into battle with the party while protected like that. And besides; he's the BBEG. It's probably important to the storyline that he not die right yet. How much fun would Star Wars have been if a Rebel sniper had shot Darth Vader in the head right when Vader boarded Leia's spaceship? That would have derailed the entire story right there, pointlessly. You consider that "outsmarting" the PCs? :eek: I'd hate to be in your game. "Outsmarting" would be a Bluff check to fake dead, followed by a use-activated teleport item. Or it would be an illusion spell over a golem/minion. This is just a DM overreacting to the bad luck of his NPC, and vindictively denying the PCs the spoils because of it. This is a DM breaking several rules just because he can.
Harmor 06-29-04, 02:51 AM	[list=1] This dwarven paladin of Gittergold was at least 16-18th level. There was a level 15+ (he cast Summon Monster VI and got 2 creatures...so he must be able to cast at least 7th level spells) was about 100' away on top of a 5 story tower when he died. My party was hunting him down because he killed several 'innocent' people (mostly orcs) according to our employer. The city we were in was Skullport. Our party consisted of LN dwarven defender (11), LE human rogue/cleric (13), NE human fighter (10), LG human shadowdancer (11) who did not partisipate in this encounter, rather she tried to stop us. We found out that he was brought to Skullport to construct a mansion for a famous adventurer and that he was killing orcs haphazardly while in the area. When we approached a Cleric of Grummish for healing supplies he suggested that if we remove the eye of the dwarf and return it to him the cleric would reward us with a powerful wand of healing (Wand of Cure Serious Wounds from a 10th level caster with 25 charges, 3d8+10). He did not want us to kill him, but rather go around with the deformaty. I being LN was at first hesitant, but he was going around killign 'innocent' orcs (Sense Motive Check of 1...so I believed him). The LG shadowdancer did some research and found that he was a LG dwarven paladin of Glittergold and refused to partisipate, rather she informed him what we were doing. The LG dwarven paladin wasn't scared and happily walked into our trap. He litterally was cleaning our clocks, I took over 30 points of damage in 1 round, eventhough I have an AC of 31. Then our LE rogue/cleric cast a spell that made him goto -8 hp (from The Book of Vile Darkness, forget the spell but it was basically he had a heart attack). I convinced the party that when the LE rogue/cleric did this that we would remove his eye and heal him and take back to the mansion. I being a Lawful Greedy Dwarf (that's what my party calls me), also wanted his equipment since it was magical Adamantite Plate, a nice tower shield and other goodies. When the LG dwarven paladin failed a DC 19 Fortitude save he went to -8 hp. I immeidately healed him so he did not die. An Drow archer, who apparently saw us killing him shot at the dwarf and got a natural 20, killing the LG dwarven paladin. The LE rogue/cleric harvested the eye from the now dead LG dwarven paladin. A supposedly 'retired' mage started casting fireballs and summon creature spells on us from his 5-story mage tower about 100' away - we determined from gather information checks that he does that to anyone 'disterbing the peace' on 'HIS' block. (NEW*)I dragged the body of the LG dwarven paladin to an alley (what was weird was his weapon didn't come out of his hand...I asked the gm did he drop it and he said no...so I figured he had it connected to a locked gauntlet). (NEW*)The mage cast Summon Creature VI and the monsters followed me into the alley and attacked me (NEW*)The LE rogue/cleric cast Bull Strength on me (NEW*)I picked up the body of the LG dwarven paladin and started to run with it, out running the scorptions because I was using my Boots of Speed which doubled my movement rate. (NEW*)While I was running the body disappeared, I think it was about a minute. I made a DC 36 spellcraft check and noticed the spell contingency followed by a DC 25 spellcraft check for the Greater Teleport eminated from the body of the LG dwarven paladin (there were several building in the way between me and the 'retired' mage by this time). We were pisssed. The LE rogue/cleric returned to the Cleric of Grummish who apparently used the eye to make a powerful amulet that I'm not sure what its supposed to do, but we got our reward in exchange for that mission. [/list=1] We were all pretty pisssed what happened that we didn't get his nice stuff that we earned, or at least I was openly. Now we have another enemy to deal with potentially. Now we know that Greater Teleport could not be cast by the spell Contingency so lets say it was changed to just Teleport. Well that would mean he is within 100 miles of that location, and based on the information we received he was no were near 100 miles of his homeland. So if I get the GM to reverse his decision a plausible place he would be would be at the mansion or maybe at a safehouse somewhere in the city because we know he could not teleport into the Underdark/mountain. That's it so far...I'll let you know what my GM says after I confront him with the information. But yeah...Rule 0 for GM. Honestly if its legal then I don't mind and its part of the game, but if this is my GM pulling a lame-o Rule 0 trick then I'll be ******. PS: We know the spell wasn't from the mage because he cast a spell on us the round that it occured (also the spells occured on the dwarf's initiative).
Dravenous 06-29-04, 06:04 AM	Now it seems like this is the way it was supposed to happen all along from the way you just described it. By the way I would be pretty cocky too if I had contingency + teleport protecting my items. But if he didn't want you to get the eye the contingency would have went off when he died or at least unconsious. At least I don't think the contingency would be set for "when my eye is pulled out". By the way, Sense Motive check of 1? Man, ignorance is bliss. I do have trouble understanding he thought you three could take out the Paladin, but I do think he had a plan to save the group when it got VERY BAD. Note: 5 and 9 are confusing me, but I do not want to hear any explenation for them. LG with a NE, LE, and a greedy LN dwarf who believes a cleric of a CE god over a Paladin of a LG god? :confused: LG betraying the party? :confused: You don't hear that one often enough.
Harmor 06-29-04, 06:22 AM	Yeah, that's weird. He teleported about a minute after he died!!! I was dragging his body away and while I was being attacked by 2 huge scorpions. I updated the list above.
Saerynishar 06-29-04, 06:23 AM	Again, Craft Contingent Spell would cost about 10,000 for greater teleport, which is certainly within his monetary range.
Harmor 06-29-04, 06:29 AM	What is this Craft Contingent Spell you're talking about?
Painwraith 06-29-04, 08:46 AM	Wish to emulate both spells? that would do it and you can fiddle with the power ranges too
Saerynishar 06-29-04, 08:57 AM	Pages 42, 46-47 in the forgotten realms supplement "Unapproachable East." It's not core, but neither is the BoVD, which makes me think that it is a possibility. It's the only thing that could really do what you are saying; your DM is obviously just making something up ala Final Fantasy, but it happened, and if you're looking for in character justification for something and willing to let it go, use that and move along. That seems to me to be the point of the thread, for us to establish that your DM made an ass of himself and then to figure out a way for it to have made sense in-game.
Thorak 06-29-04, 10:41 AM	Originally posted by Korhal IV You consider that "outsmarting" the PCs? :eek: I'd hate to be in your game. "Outsmarting" would be a Bluff check to fake dead, followed by a use-activated teleport item. Or it would be an illusion spell over a golem/minion. This is just a DM overreacting to the bad luck of his NPC, and vindictively denying the PCs the spoils because of it. This is a DM breaking several rules just because he can. This, and Dravenous' comment before it, is based on the assumption that the DM was blindsided by the death of the NPC, and panicked, and just forced this to happen. Frankly, we don't know that. He could just as easily, as others have shown, used scrolls and/or magical items to set it up beforehand, in which case he did outsmart the PCs. I'm not saying it was a complicated plot, but they weren't expecting that. And, considering the DM has no control over what the PCs do, he has to be ready to improvise anyway. And if it was important that this NPC survive, for the plot line, then he wasn't 'cheating' to pull this. The PCs don't 'deserve' spoils after every fight. And the DM isn't necessarily 'vindictively denying' them anything. It could be that he needs the NPC later. Would the PCs have been as annoyed if they had fought and killed him, only for him to turn out to be an illusion? Same basic effect. The problem seems, to me, to be that they didn't get the chance to loot the corpse, not that the body got teleported away. Which is pathetic; you may as well whine about unfairness when the treasure chest in that open room turns out to be a Mimic with no treasure.
Stuntman 06-29-04, 12:41 PM	Originally posted by Thorak [B]And, considering the DM has no control over what the PCs do, he has to be ready to improvise anyway. And if it was important that this NPC survive, for the plot line, then he wasn't 'cheating' to pull this. Just because it is important that an NPC survive does not mean that it should be impossible for the PC's to kill him. Making an NPC invincible to anything the PC's can do is cheating on the part of the DM. This means that the PC's have no control over the story. If the NPC dies and the plot has to change, then the plot changes. As a player, I find nothing more annoying than to have a certain sequence of events forced upon me no matter what I or the party does. This is what it feels like to me. If the employer lied to the party about the paladin and the party kills them, then it opens up new possibilities. Other NPC's may want to hunt down the party and the party goes on the run. They may have to prove that they were duped into killing the paladin and find the guy that duped them. You can give the equipment to the party. Just make it so that it is easier to track whoever it is that has the paladin's equipment. Perhaps in the end if the party is able to prove its innocence, they are asked to return the paladin's equipment for burial or whaever. I always feel that the PC's should have the ability to alter the course of events in the campaign based on their actions or inactions. Otherwise, the PC's feel that they are just in there for the ride and have no control whatsoever.
Thorak 06-29-04, 03:00 PM	Originally posted by Stuntman Just because it is important that an NPC survive does not mean that it should be impossible for the PC's to kill him. Making an NPC invincible to anything the PC's can do is cheating on the part of the DM. This means that the PC's have no control over the story. If the NPC dies and the plot has to change, then the plot changes. As a player, I find nothing more annoying than to have a certain sequence of events forced upon me no matter what I or the party does. This is what it feels like to me. The NPC wasn't invincible. The PCs did kill him. Then, through a simple Contingency-Teleport, his corpse was removed to somewhere (I assume) he could get resurrected. If they'd Dimensional Anchored him and this still happened, or the DM pushed it through with a "It just does, ok?!", then I'd agree with you. But this seems like a relatively basic tactic that is in no way beyond what the NPC could in theory be capable of. While you talk about not liking to have a 'certain sequence of events forced upon you', that's not what's happened here. All that's happened is that the NPC was smart enough to have a backup plan. And it didn't force anyone to do anything. It just prevented the PCs from looting the NPCs corpse, at least at this point. If the employer lied to the party about the paladin and the party kills them, then it opens up new possibilities. Other NPC's may want to hunt down the party and the party goes on the run. They may have to prove that they were duped into killing the paladin and find the guy that duped them. You can give the equipment to the party. Just make it so that it is easier to track whoever it is that has the paladin's equipment. Perhaps in the end if the party is able to prove its innocence, they are asked to return the paladin's equipment for burial or whaever. I always feel that the PC's should have the ability to alter the course of events in the campaign based on their actions or inactions. Otherwise, the PC's feel that they are just in there for the ride and have no control whatsoever. Yeeees.... But the PCs here aren't being forced to do anything. They have complete freedom of choice. Their complaint is entirely based around a "We beat him, we should get his gear" mentality, which is IMHO ridiculous. Heck, the fact that they killed the NPC could (assuming he's ressurrected) make the NPC treat them a heck of a lot more carefully next time. Was it impossible? No. Was it unreasonable? No. Did it force anything upon the PCs without giving them freedom of choice? No. I fail to see the problem, unless it's a matter of whining about not getting the loot they expected to get.
Harmor 06-29-04, 03:09 PM	It was a full minute of before his dead body left... I doubt anyone would have "One minute after I die I want to Teleport to XYZ so as to give plenty of time to loot my body" vs. Doesn't make sence. If it was "When I die, teleport me to XYZ" then it would make sense. If the NPC had the ladder I wouldn't have been peeved. I'm going to call my GM on it and see what he does.
Dravenous 06-29-04, 03:56 PM	Originally posted by Thorak The NPC wasn't invincible. The PCs did kill him. Then, through a simple Contingency-Teleport, his corpse was removed to somewhere (I assume) he could get resurrected. If they'd Dimensional Anchored him and this still happened, or the DM pushed it through with a "It just does, ok?!", then I'd agree with you. But this seems like a relatively basic tactic that is in no way beyond what the NPC could in theory be capable of. While you talk about not liking to have a 'certain sequence of events forced upon you', that's not what's happened here. All that's happened is that the NPC was smart enough to have a backup plan. And it didn't force anyone to do anything. It just prevented the PCs from looting the NPCs corpse, at least at this point. Yeeees.... But the PCs here aren't being forced to do anything. They have complete freedom of choice. Their complaint is entirely based around a "We beat him, we should get his gear" mentality, which is IMHO ridiculous. Heck, the fact that they killed the NPC could (assuming he's ressurrected) make the NPC treat them a heck of a lot more carefully next time. Was it impossible? No. Was it unreasonable? No. Did it force anything upon the PCs without giving them freedom of choice? No. I fail to see the problem, unless it's a matter of whining about not getting the loot they expected to get. As has been pointed out Teleport without error with contingincy is impossible. The impossible is beyone the capabilities of the NPC. Can you even tell me what the terms of the contingency were? Note that they were not allowed to keep the paladin alive NO MATTER WHAT THEY DID. Was it impossible? Yes Was it unreasonable? Unlikely yes, but not unreasonable Did it force anything upon the PCs without giving them freedom of choice? Yes
Thorak 06-29-04, 04:37 PM	Originally posted by Dravenous As has been pointed out Teleport without error with contingincy is impossible. The impossible is beyone the capabilities of the NPC. Can you even tell me what the terms of the contingency were? Note that they were not allowed to keep the paladin alive NO MATTER WHAT THEY DID. Was it impossible? Yes Was it unreasonable? Unlikely yes, but not unreasonable Did it force anything upon the PCs without giving them freedom of choice? Yes 1> I admitted the Greater Teleport error earlier, with the caveat that a normal Teleport is still Contingency-capable. 2> I can't tell you what the terms of the Contingency were; I wasn't the DM. Something like "When I have died without chance of being saved, teleport my body to XXX" works, though. The one-minute window might be to see if anyone friendly can reach you and Raise you in time. 3> I wasn't referring to anything but the poster's original complaint; that they killed the paladin, and then didn't get to loot the body because of the Contingency-Teleport he thought was 'unfair'. I'm not saying their DM wasn't railroading them. I'm saying having a Contingency-Teleport is perfectly legal, intelligent, and a non-railroading way of ensuring this NPC doesn't get permanently killed and looted too early.
bitnine 06-29-04, 05:03 PM	Originally posted by Thorak I'm not saying their DM wasn't railroading them. I'm saying having a Contingency-Teleport is perfectly legal, intelligent, and a non-railroading way of ensuring this NPC doesn't get permanently killed and looted too early. Ad-libbing in a contigency-teleport, though, does deny the party of any ability to detect or dispel the magic ahead of time. Though I suppose that's kind of the point, denying the party an option or avenue of action so that the DM doesn't deviate too heavily from the structured plot. The little bit of difference between setting up preventions beforehand and on the moment is that the PCs have a legitimate chance of stopping the former, while the later means that the PCs would need to stop anything that the DM could make up on the spot without knowing what he's going to say, which, given fiats, rule zeroing, and nondisclosure of information, is more or less impossible. Particularly given post-creative rationalizations that can be thought of later at leisure.
Harsk 06-29-04, 06:08 PM	Sounds more like Elminster's Evasion, to me. Someone who had never seen that spell might reasonably identify it as a contingency-greater teleport, since that's what the apparent effect is. If you're adventuring in Skullport, you're in the right world. You're chasing after an 18-or-so level Paladin, who might very well be a Harper or other friend of the Chosen. And it would make much more sense for the dwarf to set his E's Evasion to trigger if he were killed and his body were moved/did not receive a particular spell, than if he were simply killed, which does happen from time to time and you don't want to pay to have that spell re-cast too often. It's still cheesy. But there's certainly a way that something could happen that looked like Contingency-Greater Teleport. Whether any spell could trigger a full minute after death is another matter entirely. If you don't like good-aligned adversaries having unfair (borderline cheat-ish) abilities to keep you from winning, I suggest playing in a different world. ~Harsk
Azalin 06-29-04, 06:56 PM	If the contingency was set up to activate when the Dwarf died and it took a min. or maybe a bit longer or under that time, maybe it was from that fact that the Dwarf was not dead yet and was dying and unable to stabilize, though that is unlikely for such a high level character. So when the Dwarf finally did die, then the contingency went off. Just an option though. I'm not familiar with the Elminster Spell, that also seems like a good idea behind what happened. Hopefully when you ask you DM, he doesn't get upset about like one of my formor DM use to when he did things that made no sence.
Skrimshaw 06-29-04, 07:37 PM	I fail to see how a spellcraft check could tell the difference between a teleport spell and Teleport without error spell. Since you didin't see the result of the spell and in fact didn't see the spell cast at all. Know what i think? I think the whole ancounter was an elaborate Illusion and he disapeared when the caster (The shadow dancer?) stopped concentrating. would be really funny anyhoo.
Ogre Mage 06-29-04, 07:38 PM	Quote from pg 45 of the DMG: Bad Structure: Leading the PCs by the Nose: a bad event-based adventure is ... based on events that occur no matter what the PCs do. For example, a plot that hinges on the PCs finding a mysterious heirloom, only to have it stolen by NPCs in dangerous -- if the players invent a good way to protect the heirloom, they won't like having it stolen anyway just because that's what you had planned beforehand. The players end up feeling powerless and frustrated. All adventures should depend upon player choices and players should feel as though what they choose to do matters." There is probably a way, if the world is high magic, for the contingency + teleport trick to work under the rules. However it is just that -- a trick and bad structure by the DM.
Thorak 06-29-04, 07:51 PM	Originally posted by bitnine Ad-libbing in a contigency-teleport, though, does deny the party of any ability to detect or dispel the magic ahead of time. Though I suppose that's kind of the point, denying the party an option or avenue of action so that the DM doesn't deviate too heavily from the structured plot. The little bit of difference between setting up preventions beforehand and on the moment is that the PCs have a legitimate chance of stopping the former, while the later means that the PCs would need to stop anything that the DM could make up on the spot without knowing what he's going to say, which, given fiats, rule zeroing, and nondisclosure of information, is more or less impossible. Particularly given post-creative rationalizations that can be thought of later at leisure. If the PCs had tried to detect or dispel magicks earlier in then fight, I'd agree with you. If they didn't, then there's no way they'd have detected/dispelled the ad-libbed bit anyway, so there's no issue with ad-libbing it in. And, Ogre Mage, this isn't Bad Structure. The PCs probably weren't intended to kill the NPC in the first place. The PC in question described the NPC as 'cleaning their clocks' until a lucky spell took him down. If the DM had cheated to prevent them from being able to kill the NPC, that would be bad structure. Ad-libbing something in to keep them from reaping unexpected and probably unbalancing rewards, however, is not. So long as it's A> believable, and B> thought out. In this case, IMHO it is, if barely (and assuming it's a Teleport, not Greater Teleport).
Dravenous 06-29-04, 09:29 PM	Originally posted by Thorak If the PCs had tried to detect or dispel magicks earlier in then fight, I'd agree with you. If they didn't, then there's no way they'd have detected/dispelled the ad-libbed bit anyway, so there's no issue with ad-libbing it in. Yes there is, if he did ad-lib it in. Would the DM like the players to say they had cast a spell on themselves before the battle, right when their character dies? Well when players die that kind of ruins the story just like the paladin dieing, doesn't it, so why not. Originally posted by Thorak And, Ogre Mage, this isn't Bad Structure. The PCs probably weren't intended to kill the NPC in the first place. The PC in question described the NPC as 'cleaning their clocks' until a lucky spell took him down. If the DM had cheated to prevent them from being able to kill the NPC, that would be bad structure. Ad-libbing something in to keep them from reaping unexpected and probably unbalancing rewards, however, is not. So long as it's A> believable, and B> thought out. In this case, IMHO it is, if barely (and assuming it's a Teleport, not Greater Teleport). Sending PCs on quest to get them all killed by a paladin = bad structure.
bitnine 06-29-04, 11:26 PM	Originally posted by Thorak If the PCs had tried to detect or dispel magicks earlier in then fight, I'd agree with you. If they didn't, then there's no way they'd have detected/dispelled the ad-libbed bit anyway, so there's no issue with ad-libbing it in.Well, that's what I was getting at with the second part of that post:The little bit of difference between setting up preventions beforehand and on the moment is that the PCs have a legitimate chance of stopping the former, while the later means that the PCs would need to stop anything that the DM could make up on the spot without knowing what he's going to say, which, given fiats, rule zeroing, and nondisclosure of information, is more or less impossible.It's pretty much impossible for the PCs to eliminate every possible protection that the BBEG has active, so as long as the DM can name (and thereby invent) a potential deus ad avolo - or better yet, leave it vague so that it can be assumed or later explained with some post rationalization. If they didn't dispel, it's a contigency. If they did, it was a contigent crafted item. If they did and detected magic afterwards it was a contigent crafted item with an abjuration to hide the aura. If that wouldn't have worked, it was a custom remote teleportation spell researched and cast by a wizard ally. If he was in an antimagic field, it was divine intervention from a miracle spell cast by a cleric of his church.
Mr.Waesel 06-30-04, 05:45 AM	It can be done with Craft Contingent Spell.
roguebfl 06-30-04, 05:56 AM	Originally posted by Harmor Well after he died his body disappeared. Spellcraft checks revieled that it was Contingency + Teleport without Error!!! Have you considered the fact the Spellcrafter check did not exceed the set diffculty to reconsied a unquie/new spell that you did not see cast? and that that info was the characters 'best guess' ?
flexinex 06-30-04, 07:44 AM	well maybe the DM just said that he used Teleport without error ingame, and that just means that that was what the PC belived that happened, who says that he didnt just use teleport, and that the playes just thought he used greater teleport... besides i think that it is a fair thing to do, even if it was just improvised, maybe he has powerfull friends that found out that he was in dire trouble and they helped him out of there... besides you still got a lot from the encounter, your lives, the xp - which i believe have given you all a lvl.... so quit whining
Thorak 06-30-04, 08:15 AM	Originally posted by Dravenous Yes there is, if he did ad-lib it in. Would the DM like the players to say they had cast a spell on themselves before the battle, right when their character dies? Well when players die that kind of ruins the story just like the paladin dieing, doesn't it, so why not. There's a difference. The DM needs to know that stuff to run the game and keep players from cheating. The players aren't supposed to know that kind of stuff about the DM's NPCs. And Bitnine; I understand your point that a bad DM would just keep adding 'features' to his exploit to get away with it. However, in this case, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of features, just a simple Contingency-Teleport (assuming, of course, he changes it from Greater Teleport). If he tried to explain that it was a Crafted Contingent teleport that had been abjured to be undetectable and worked despite being in an Anti-Magic Field, I'd be right by you saying the DM's a turkey. This case, however, doesn't seem too excessive. And, if the NPC is going to be important later on, and given that a PC hit him with a lucky spell, I'd rather see the DM deal with it this way than forcing his NPC to make the save regardless. Sending PCs on quest to get them all killed by a paladin = bad structure. The PCs were tricked into a quest through a really, really bad Sense Motive check. Nothing about what the PC described made me think they were supposed to be killed by the paladin. I'd suspect, in fact, that they were supposed to find out he wasn't a psychotic killer like they'd been told, and so not kill him. They did manage to take him down, though, and 'harvest' his eye for their quest. The DM just threw in a backup plan to keep them from getting too much extra stuff for solving the quest in a way he hadn't expected. Or this was a thought-out backup plan, and it wasn't ad-libbed at all. I don't see anything about bad structure or forcing anything in the PCs description of events, besides the disappearance of the body, which IMHO is justifiable.
Ertai Planeswalker 06-30-04, 10:59 AM	Originally posted by Harmor [list=1] A supposedly 'retired' mage started casting fireballs and summon creature spells on us from his 5-story mage tower about 100' away - we determined from gather information checks that he does that to anyone 'disterbing the peace' on 'HIS' block. (NEW*)I dragged the body of the LG dwarven paladin to an alley (what was weird was his weapon didn't come out of his hand...I asked the gm did he drop it and he said no...so I figured he had it connected to a locked gauntlet). (NEW*)The mage cast Summon Creature VI and the monsters followed me into the alley and attacked me (NEW*)The LE rogue/cleric cast Bull Strength on me (NEW*)I picked up the body of the LG dwarven paladin and started to run with it, out running the scorptions because I was using my Boots of Speed which doubled my movement rate. (NEW*)While I was running the body disappeared, I think it was about a minute. I made a DC 36 spellcraft check and noticed the spell contingency followed by a DC 25 spellcraft check for the Greater Teleport eminated from the body of the LG dwarven paladin (there were several building in the way between me and the 'retired' mage by this time). We were pisssed. The LE rogue/cleric returned to the Cleric of Grummish who apparently used the eye to make a powerful amulet that I'm not sure what its supposed to do, but we got our reward in exchange for that mission. [/list=1] We were all pretty pisssed what happened that we didn't get his nice stuff that we earned, or at least I was openly. Now we have another enemy to deal with potentially. Now we know that Greater Teleport could not be cast by the spell Contingency so lets say it was changed to just Teleport. Well that would mean he is within 100 miles of that location, and based on the information we received he was no were near 100 miles of his homeland. So if I get the GM to reverse his decision a plausible place he would be would be at the mansion or maybe at a safehouse somewhere in the city because we know he could not teleport into the Underdark/mountain. That's it so far...I'll let you know what my GM says after I confront him with the information. But yeah...Rule 0 for GM. Honestly if its legal then I don't mind and its part of the game, but if this is my GM pulling a lame-o Rule 0 trick then I'll be ******. PS: We know the spell wasn't from the mage because he cast a spell on us the round that it occured (also the spells occured on the dwarf's initiative). The Dwarf borrowed all that expensive equipment from a good friend of his, a wizard, which was his party's wizard back in his adventuring days. His wizard friend kept a tab on him through a scry spell so when he saw he would almost lose all his precious magic items to a bunch of adventurers he decided to go in and save his gear, by teleporting there invisible, then taking the body along with the loot, and covering this whole thing up with a spell that makes it look as if contingency + greater teleport was used. Of course, this is an error on the wizard's behalf, since your party's wizard knows greater teleport cannot be used with contingency, meaning something fishy is going on.... See here your new quest. Find out where the copulate your trophy went.
CaoSlayer 06-30-04, 11:05 AM	then you can... 1º dimensional archon in him or 2º antimagic field. both things will make the contigence fail and also there is the little trick to use teleport in him and dont teleport this inventory... (you can do this) this way will be lost naked anywhere you want to if fails the will save (by example a visited elven court or the abysm).
Krelios 06-30-04, 11:43 AM	1. This dwarven paladin of Gittergold was at least 16-18th level.A Dwarven Paladin of a Gnomish god? And he was the BBEG? I guess you're evil. 2. There was a level 15+ (he cast Summon Monster VI and got 2 creatures...so he must be able to cast at least 7th level spells) was about 100' away on top of a 5 story tower when he died.Um a level 15+ wizard I assume? I guess that's why it would matter. 3. My party was hunting him down because he killed several 'innocent' people (mostly orcs) according to our employer.If he really did, he wouldn't be a Paladin anymore. So he'd lose all his powers. That would explain why you were able to defeat him at 10-13th level. 4. The city we were in was Skullport.Okay... 5. Our party consisted of LN dwarven defender (11), LE human rogue/cleric (13), NE human fighter (10), LG human shadowdancer (11) who did not partisipate in this encounter, rather she tried to stop us.Why is there a LG travelling with evil characters? I'm guessing after you murdered the Paladin she's probably gone. 6. We found out that he was brought to Skullport to construct a mansion for a famous adventurer and that he was killing orcs haphazardly while in the area.He's a Paladin, if there are evil orcs running amok, he's got every right to kill them--not to mention dwarves and orcs are racial enemies. 7. When we approached a Cleric of Grummish for healing supplies he suggested that if we remove the eye of the dwarf and return it to him the cleric would reward us with a powerful wand of healing (Wand of Cure Serious Wounds from a 10th level caster with 25 charges, 3d8+10). He did not want us to kill him, but rather go around with the deformaty.So you're already playing Evil and are going to get a nice reward for deforming a Dwarven Paladin. Again, that LG in your party is going to leave you and inform the next group of good adventurers she finds. 8. I being LN was at first hesitant, but he was going around killign 'innocent' orcs (Sense Motive Check of 1...so I believed him).That certainly explains your involvment. 9. The LG shadowdancer did some research and found that he was a LG dwarven paladin of Glittergold and refused to partisipate, rather she informed him what we were doing.Good for her. That means that you deliberately attacked a paragon of justice and good (even if his deity choice was wierd... actually, isn't Garl Glittergold CG? He can't even have paladins if that's the case). 10. The LG dwarven paladin wasn't scared and happily walked into our trap.If I was a 16th-18th level Paladin versus some lvl 10-13 evil guys I wouldn't be very afraid either. 11. He litterally was cleaning our clocks, I took over 30 points of damage in 1 round, eventhough I have an AC of 31.Smite Evil works wonders on your comrades and he can probably hit AC 31 without much trouble if he's equipped properly--maybe even well enough to power attack some too. 12. Then our LE rogue/cleric cast a spell that made him goto -8 hp (from The Book of Vile Darkness, forget the spell but it was basically he had a heart attack).More evidence that the Book of Vile Munchkin and Book of Exalted Munchkin will never be allowed in my campaigns. Especially after they nerfed Harm/Heal. 13. I convinced the party that when the LE rogue/cleric did this that we would remove his eye and heal him and take back to the mansion.So far so good for your plan. 14. I being a Lawful Greedy Dwarf (that's what my party calls me), also wanted his equipment since it was magical Adamantite Plate, a nice tower shield and other goodies.Sounds reasonable. 15. When the LG dwarven paladin failed a DC 19 Fortitude save he went to -8 hp. I immeidately healed him so he did not die.Again, good. 16. An Drow archer, who apparently saw us killing him shot at the dwarf and got a natural 20, killing the LG dwarven paladin.??? Random DM NPC to make sure he died? That sounds fishy. 17. The LE rogue/cleric harvested the eye from the now dead LG dwarven paladin.Good, even if you killed him (which your orc contact didn't want). 18. A supposedly 'retired' mage started casting fireballs and summon creature spells on us from his 5-story mage tower about 100' away - we determined from gather information checks that he does that to anyone 'disterbing the peace' on 'HIS' block.Okay. 19. (NEW*)I dragged the body of the LG dwarven paladin to an alley (what was weird was his weapon didn't come out of his hand...I asked the gm did he drop it and he said no...so I figured he had it connected to a locked gauntlet).Take a standard action to unhook it. If the DM says no it's either cursed or he's cheating. 20. (NEW*)The mage cast Summon Creature VI and the monsters followed me into the alley and attacked meNothing wrong with that. 21. (NEW*)The LE rogue/cleric cast Bull Strength on meGood. 22. (NEW*)I picked up the body of the LG dwarven paladin and started to run with it, out running the scorptions because I was using my Boots of Speed which doubled my movement rate.Quick thinking. 23. (NEW*)While I was running the body disappeared, I think it was about a minute.Your DM panicked and cheated. 24. I made a DC 36 spellcraft check and noticed the spell contingency followed by a DC 25 spellcraft check for the Greater Teleport eminated from the body of the LG dwarven paladin (there were several building in the way between me and the 'retired' mage by this time).Your DM panicked and cheated. 25. We were pisssed.Rightfully so. 26. The LE rogue/cleric returned to the Cleric of Grummish who apparently used the eye to make a powerful amulet that I'm not sure what its supposed to do, but we got our reward in exchange for that mission.So you got everything your DM had planned for you to get and nothing more. He sounds inexperienced and he was obviously not prepared for you to actually kill the Paladin. It sounds like you wouldn't have except for the BoVD spell either--he needs to only allow things he understands the rules for in the future so he doesn't end up railroading you. Chances are he would have no idea what to do with your new wealth since the Dwarf wasn't supposed to die. Like I said, he was inexperienced and panicked--point him to this thread if you want, but don't complain to him, just remind him that players will always do the unexpected and that he should never expect the PCs to not succeed at something. If you plan for the PCs to fail you plot can be ruined if they don't. If you plan for them to succeed nothing destroys your plot if they fail (they just have to make new characters). The real Rule Zero? Expect the unexpected.
Dravenous 06-30-04, 03:49 PM	Originally posted by Thorak The PCs were tricked into a quest through a really, really bad Sense Motive check. Nothing about what the PC described made me think they were supposed to be killed by the paladin. I'd suspect, in fact, that they were supposed to find out he wasn't a psychotic killer like they'd been told, and so not kill him. They did manage to take him down, though, and 'harvest' his eye for their quest. The DM just threw in a backup plan to keep them from getting too much extra stuff for solving the quest in a way he hadn't expected. Or this was a thought-out backup plan, and it wasn't ad-libbed at all. I don't see anything about bad structure or forcing anything in the PCs description of events, besides the disappearance of the body, which IMHO is justifiable. No, only the LN was tricked with the lousy sense motive check. Two members of the party were evil who wanted the stuff. Now we all know how forgiving Paladin's are, but when EVIL characters attack a paladin they are not going to be walking away from that fight. They did not kill the paladin. The DM killed the paladin. They were going to take him alive. A shot from a drow archer stopped that.
roguebfl 06-30-04, 04:19 PM	24. I made a DC 36 spellcraft check and noticed the spell contingency followed by a DC 25 spellcraft check for the Greater Teleport eminated from the body of the LG dwarven paladin (there were several building in the way between me and the 'retired' mage by this time). Ok here you Problem to Identify a spell you know of with out seeing it cast (ie only the effects) is DC 25 + Spell level. there is no way you correctly identifed the teleport spell. then there is a DC modifer from any where from 5 to 10 to identify a 'unknown/unquie' spell so you might not have even got the first one right.
devinmdp 06-30-04, 05:00 PM	First, it's going to be almost impossible to tell whether the DM ad libbed this or had it planned. If it's a big concern, just ask him. Second, I can easily see the minute delay before invoking the contingency, in that if someone could have cast a raise dead spell right away why would he want to blow his contingency? Please note the, probably not coincidentally, a raise dead takes 1 minute to cast. Third, as others have stated....if this happens more than once, then obviously you should invest in dimensional anchor or dimensional lock or some other means to stop the teleport. Greater dispel cast at the start of the fight would pretty much kibosh this thing. Devin
bitnine 06-30-04, 05:21 PM	Originally posted by Thorak And Bitnine; I understand your point that a bad DM would just keep adding 'features' to his exploit to get away with it.You mean 'features' like the fellow's sword being inseperable from his grasp? [Edit: Particularly taken as a whole, the story seems to stink of a mangle of such features. The party uses a near save-or-die (stop heart) and then stabilizes an enemy that the DM didn't expect or want them to beat. (For those who are unfamiliar, stop heart is simply a save-or-die spell that brings a victim down to -8 and bleeding instead of killing them.) A NPC kills the stabilized prisoner, removing the chance of him being captured. Another resident NPC suddenly reacts to the fight and starts blasting with spells and summons a-plenty. Focusing the summons on the fellow with the body, even when out of sight. The player tries to take the sword - but can't. Locked gauntlets aren't mentioned, just that the sword isn't moving from that grasp. The player tries to run off with the body, using some clever magic (his increased strength and speed) to escape the summons and battle. But then the body disappears. The player spellcrafts it (easily making the check to identify a spell from visible effects) and gets the result mentioned above. I suppose you could try to attach PCR to each event: The first NPC obviously wanted the paladin to die for some reason, the second doesn't like fighting in his town (and he focused in on the character with the body because he figured them the major culprit), the paladin had a (possibly special or magical sort of) locked gauntlet that the players didn't see at first, and the paladin also had a crafted contigent item on his body (happening to be triggered after the NPC didn't provide a hinderance, and also misidentified as an unlikely spell combination). So taken as a whole, that really don't strike me as any more believable than the other ad-lib examples that I put forth. And I can't help but wonder how many more odd spell effects or chance NPCs would show up to cement the planned outcome if the characters had thought to, say, dimensional anchor the body or somesuch. All in all, you weren't supposed to win that battle. And so you weren't going to - not completely and not in the way that you wanted. Trying to go against it is more than likely only going to get the DM more and more frustrated and adamant about things. Let it go for the moment, and consider speaking to the DM about his style of play and how he handles unexpected events afterwards - calmly if possible. /Edit]
roguebfl 06-30-04, 05:32 PM	Originally posted by bitnine You mean 'features' like the fellow's sword being inseperable from his grasp? Points to Locked gauntlets
bitnine 06-30-04, 05:47 PM	Originally posted by roguebfl Points to Locked gauntlets As mentioned, its easy enough to remove a sword from a locked gauntlet when the wielder is inert. A bit harder it is when the sword just doesn't budge for reasons unmentioned.
roguebfl 06-30-04, 05:53 PM	Originally posted by bitnine As mentioned, its easy enough to remove a sword from a locked gauntlet when the wielder is inert. A bit harder it is when the sword just doesn't budge for reasons unmentioned. umm inert or not you can not just pull a weapon out of a locked gautlet. I can eaasly se Some DM sayin "when you pull on the weapon it does not come loose" and if the players just give out then he assume the players did not bother to look WHY it did not come loose and well unlock the gaunlet.
bitnine 06-30-04, 05:57 PM	Originally posted by roguebfl I can eaasly se Some DM sayin "when you pull on the weapon it does not come loose" and if the players just give out then he assume the players did not bother to look WHY it did not come loose and well unlock the gaunlet. Ah, I gotcha. The PC in question certainly didn't specifically ask about a locked guantlet. Silly them.
starfire311 06-30-04, 06:03 PM	What I want to know is how in the world did a 18th level dwarven paladin fail a DC 19 fort save ?????? Base save 11 + Con(at least 18) 4 + Chr(at least 16) +3 = +18 this isnt counting anything else. This should be cake for him and if the die came up -10 then I would still fudg it if this guy was so important to my campaign that i feel I need to cheet the PCs... and BTW the correct term for a Dwarven NPC paladin is BBGG not BBEG the PCs are the evil ones.
cheesegrater 06-30-04, 06:04 PM	Where are you guys getting this business about the inseparable sword? I read the thread again, and the original poster never said he tried to take the thing, just that it wasn't dropped when the body was dragged/moved. I mean, there's plenty of evidence of railroading here without making up /more/ stuff. Stick to the facts! :)
roguebfl 06-30-04, 06:10 PM	Originally posted by cheesegrater Where are you guys getting this business about the inseparable sword? I read the thread again, and the original poster never said he tried to take the thing, just that it wasn't dropped when the body was dragged/moved. I mean, there's plenty of evidence of railroading here without making up /more/ stuff. Stick to the facts! :) If a unconouse body does not 'let go' of an item when it's dragged away, that even more support the idea of a locked gauntlet.
bitnine 06-30-04, 06:14 PM	Originally posted by starfire311 What I want to know is how in the world did a 18th level dwarven paladin fail a DC 19 fort save ??????I'd also wonder why an 18th level character would take the take to have a contigent teleport-corpse-a-minute-after-death item crafted for him and completely overlook a death ward item.
devinmdp 06-30-04, 06:15 PM	Originally posted by starfire311 What I want to know is how in the world did a 18th level dwarven paladin fail a DC 19 fort save ?????? Base save 11 + Con(at least 18) 4 + Chr(at least 16) +3 = +18 this isnt counting anything else. This should be cake for him and if the die came up -10 then I would still fudg it if this guy was so important to my campaign that i feel I need to cheet the PCs... and BTW the correct term for a Dwarven NPC paladin is BBGG not BBEG the PCs are the evil ones. I was kinda wondering that myself, since even my little old 6th level paladin wouldn't much fear a DC 19 Fort save (Base save +5, +4 for Cha, +1 for cloak of resistance, +2 for Con). Devin
Skrimshaw 06-30-04, 07:21 PM	What I want to know is how in the world did a 18th level dwarven paladin fail a DC 19 fort save ?????? I still think the whole affair was an elaborate Illusion cast by the Shadow dancer(or her friends)
bitnine 06-30-04, 07:23 PM	Originally posted by Skrimshaw I still think the whole affair was an elaborate Illusion cast by the Shadow dancer(or her friends) Thing is... They didn't say anything about the eye disappearing - in fact, they brought it over to the recipient, right?
Thorak 06-30-04, 09:33 PM	Originally posted by bitnine Ah, I gotcha. The PC in question certainly didn't specifically ask about a locked guantlet. Silly them. The PC, IIRC, just asked if he could grab the sword. He wasn't making a concerted effort to remove it, it was just a quick yank. If he'd taken the time to investigate, if it was a locked gauntlet, that would be the time for the DM to mention it. Until he checks, though, all he knows is he wiggles and it stays stuck. And, going back to the "why a minute after death?" argument, I remind people of the justification I came up with; if he's used to clerical backup, a minute after death might be enough time to Raise him. In which case, he wouldn't have to lose his fairly expensive one-shot Contingency. Of course, this is a justification, and I strongly suspect this was ad-libbed in exactly the bad way people are implying. I'm just playing devil's advocate because nothing, specifically, has been outside the realm of possibility or 'fair play'. It's possible it was, but we need more evidence before we roundly dismiss the DM as a bad DM.
bitnine 07-01-04, 12:50 AM	Originally posted by Thorak I'm just playing devil's advocate because nothing, specifically, has been outside the realm of possibility or 'fair play'. It's possible it was, but we need more evidence before we roundly dismiss the DM as a bad DM. Heh, that's the handy part of giving minimal information - you don't trap yourself, and as long as there exists a single explanation you haven't contradicted, you can go by it. Myself, were I a betting man, I would probably wager that this DM, to give some for instances, doesn't have a clue about contigent crafted items. Can I prove that that's not exactly what he had in mind? Of course not, and that's why dictating events and not giving extra details can be handy and hard to argue with.
Harmor 07-01-04, 01:41 AM	The dwarven paladin rolled a 1...that's why it was a luck that we defeated him. If that twink(tm) spell didn't work we were going to run away and try again. If the body teleported immediately after being killed then we wouldn't have a problem with the situation. The only problem would had been why we detected Greater Teleport instead of just the level 5 Teleport. And even that the GM would had corrected himself and just had the guy teleport using the 5th level spell and still we wouldn't had had a problem with it...actually we all thought it was a good idea and that we would do it too!!! The 'retried' mage got involved, we think, because our LE rogue/cleric cast Wall of Fire and apparently caught his 'favorite Inn' on fire...at least that what we could gather. The DC 36 spellcraft check I made was to notice an existing spell in affect and the way my DM made the 2nd was it was being cast, or eminated from the body of the dwarf and thus only needed a DC 15 + spell level, which I made a DC 25 check. However, inretrospect it should had been DC 30 + spell level because there was no caster actually casting it (see the somantic/hear the voice/see the matierals of the spell). The 'invisible' mage that teleports in and teleports the body away could had happened. I don't have good spot/listen checks so it could had happened. All-in-all we feel that the entine encounter was pretty lame. If we weren't supposed to kill the NPC then why did the GM have us fight him knowing that there's a slim chance that we would kill him? This is the first time in our campaign that this has come up. Previously we had several of our companions just killed or sacraficed to some evil god while the rest of us ran away whenver we lost a battle with a BBEG. The god that the LG dwarf paladin served was probably not Glittergold (a gnomish god)...maybe I failed my Knowledge (Relgion) check? Don't know my GM makes those rolls for us. You're right about the why his warhammer was attached to his gauntlet...I didn't specifically ask why it was attached or asked to make a spot check to notice a chain wrapped around the weapon holding it in place. I just asked, when I was dragging the body, is his weapon still on the ground and the GM said no. Later I fathomed that it was because it was a locked gauntlet, but never verified it (I was being attacked by a mage/summoned creatures by then and didn't have time to dittle dally).