Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wycen" data-source="post: 5900938" data-attributes="member: 13732">Our weekly game has been on haitus for awhile now, the DM had surgery and is recovering.  So, we are in the second module now, Trial of the Beast. We've just driven off the wraith in the abandoned town, and will be heading back for our second day of the trial.Perhaps it would be better called "Trial of the Golem that Wasn't."  This investigation and court case must be tricky for the DM.  Mechanistically it seems some of our evidence is wrong or irrelevant. It is established, at least in our game, that the beast is a golem.  A construct.  It just so happens this one can talk and think.  That's all well and fine, but I pointed out a problem I saw to the DM. The beast is a golem.  Thus he has Damage Reduction.  So, would he really have scars from a crocodile bite?  We don't know the crocodile involved, so maybe.  In this case, we are basically fooling the court by saying "look, no scars from a crocodile bite, it couldn't have been him!"  But in fact, his damage reduction may be the reason he has no scars.Of course you can also point out that being a construct, the beast doesn't heal like normal so if he had scars they would still be there.  Or not knowing this could assume that the wound healed in the time between the bite and being captured.  Ultimately the DM said the nature of the beast was such that if it had been bitten you'd know.  However, I don't know if anyone else noticed this little contradiction, the DM then had an NPC explain to the court the exact opposite, using a snake bite as an example.  I let it pass as I want to play the game and see the story unfold.This is not the only situation which would seem to be difficult to adjudicate.  Our youngest player was excited to point out that the beast could not run, thus couldn't possibly escape through the swamp.  Our evidence of this was based on the beast's own testimony, which probably should not have been allowed, but this is hindsight now.  As is the hindsight that neither we nor the court has seen the beast run or try to. The beast made no attempt to escape and we've only seen him chained up in a cell and later chained inside the court chamber.  We've never seen the guy move (except to drop trou , trow? in court to show he didn't have a leg wound).That particular bit was fun I admit.  But the initial reason I thought that running through the swamp was irrelevant was that he's a golem and thus doesn't get tired.  Not to mention he's super strong, as evidenced by the smashed wall the DM described when we first arrived at the university.  Actually rereading this I suppose becoming exhausted is not the same as being weak or not being able to run.  That testimony is still useless from my opinion but I guess my gut on why is wrong too.When we play next we'll be presenting evidence about how he could not have gotten into a 2nd story room to kill a girl and not left any mark.  Again our evidence points at the brute force involved with smashing a stone wall at the university.  This I'm more confident on.  We manged to get one of the villagers of Morast to exclaim "the only favor the Beast ever did for us was to not smash anything" which was admitted as testimony in court and "verified" by the village elder-eye witness.I think then we'll be off to check out a fire at a 3rd location.  I suspect I'll have some questions about this too, but I'll just be happy to play again.</blockquote>

Verification