Vaarsuvius

Cold Napalm's page

**** Pathfinder Society GM. 3,060 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 12 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,060 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay...so it sounds like you want the level of proficiency to be a big deal...but ultimately they are adding +1 to +3 bonus...while levels add 1-20. That seems odd from a design stand point of what you want the flavor to be. It would make WAY more sense if you changed it up so level add say only 1/2 level to the bonus and each level of proficiency adds say +1/3/7...which makes the legendary bonus +21...which is comparable to the numbers you have now. With this math, it means you get roughly half the bonus from levels and half from proficiency. The DC should probably stay at the +1-3 levels...but without more numbers...it's kinda hard to tell. It also gives freedom in NPC building if they don't have to follow those level restrictions. Having a level 1 legendary swordsmith now has a better bonus to make swords than your level 20 barbarian.

Grand Lodge

Studded leather could feasibly exist as armor if you took small plate (about an inch by inch) and stuck them on the inside of the leather and attached them with studs. You could also make Cuir Boillie small leather plates and attach them to the outside and make it a workable armor. Both would look like the picture of studded leather. The small plates on the inside version did exist historically...but to call that light armor is almost laughable. The thing weights more than most plate armor. The leather version has no example in history, but from me playing around with it using real swords, it does make for a pretty decent armor. It won't stop a full on straight up blow, but against anything else, it is pretty protective. And it is flexible and pretty light as well.

Game rules wise...yeah it's both metal and non metal according to two different books. So the way I see it, it's metal if you are using metal plates and non mental of you use leather plates. Players choice of how their studded leather is made.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

Humm...this is gonna be great since we have a big con coming up this weekend...

Yeah I just found the issue as I was working on reporting before con...sigh...

Grand Lodge

Max HP causes WAY too much HP disparity to balance encounters well 100% of the time. This can happen with random rolls as well...but it will not happen 100% of the time. The PFS half +1 makes for some pretty standardized HPs without people going into massive system mastery (like cao phen's 40 something hp level 1 character)...but I personally find it TOO standardized. The difference between a level 20 fighter vs a wizard barring feat and ability difference is only 40. That's less then one hit at level 20. So I prefer max - 2 so that there is a difference of 2 hp per level between the dice jumps and not 1.

Grand Lodge

Hiramaki is a primarily metal armor. The protection comes from the metal woven into the silk. It's like brig armor (both the large plate or the small plate which studded leather is probably suppose to be since soft leather with JUST studs isn't armor at all...it's a fashion statement for the living challenged...and fans). That is why studded leather in the GMG is listed as metal armor for special material.

Grand Lodge

You could run an AP book in campaign mode and apply the chronicle sheet to a character that way...we are planning to do that at my next PFS session after we tried the play tests in thronekeep 1 for level 1 characters...just have them be created using PFS rules.

Grand Lodge

Okay so me and notadrow have a method of basically ripping through this mod like nobody's business so we decided to try this out with some of the new classes. It did not go as smoothly...partially due to forgetting reach weapons...but in anycase, the hunter making an awesome animal companion and taking the tank role seems to work out well. The blood rager at low levels seems pretty dang devastating and at higher levels it will have less issues then the run of the mill none UMD barbarian or fighter. Power wise, I think the blood rager is fine even if the magus spell list seems wrong for higher level play...but then again that was not tested. The brawler was able to do decent damage and the move to get a feat thing actually makes this class pretty dang interesting and versatile. I like this one. And now the war priest.... This class REALLY needs full BAB. No seriously. With the 3/4, all this class is a cleric that just sucks.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually, I make great use of reach weapons with just one feat...quick draw. You take your AoO, the drop your reach weapon and free action draw your primary weapons out. If you do sword and shield, use a quickdraw shield.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

I like my EKs...PFS is easy enough where they are viable...mostly...

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

gold yes...prestige no. although one can pay for the raise and others the restorations. gm can not contribute I believe as they aren't actually there

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

Matthew Pittard wrote:

You can still play a Bloatmage. Join us. We generate huge amounts of blood when we need it, my character does drink blood if he can get his hands on it (and it fits the level 10 power of the prestige class to do so) and its pretty.. freaky. Im a little disappointed about the removal of Blood Transcription but It would never be enough to dissuade me from playing as a Blood drinking Wizard type character/ or cleric type.

Besides tea implies that there is actual.. tea in the blood. Which would probably not be usable with the spell anyway as it requires just blood. If I was the dm Id actually would say the use of the spell fails because you have contaminated the blood with a foreign substance.

Ive also just noticed that the spell is range touch, so this could be used by the caster to 'gift' a spell to a different caster?

School divination [evil]; Level alchemist 2, magus 2, wizard 2, witch 2

Casting Time 1 standard action

Components V, S

Range touch

Target one dead spellcaster

Duration 24 hours

Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no

By consuming 1 pint of blood from a spellcaster killed within the last 24 hours, you can attempt to learn a spell that spellcaster knew. Select one spell available to the dead spellcaster (this must be a spell on your spell list); you gain the knowledge of this spell for 24 hours. During this time, you may write it down (or teach it to your familiar, if you are a witch) using the normal rules for copying a spell from another source. Once you have learned it, you may prepare the spell normally.

No...you can't use this to teach other people. Look at the target of said range touch.

edit: Damn it...ninja'd by john.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

MrSin wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
If that is what your character concept is...then it's fine. If you NEED the mechanical advantage, then your going about this argument all wrong.

If you don't need mechanical advantages, you should really just play a commoner and prove it to everyone.

Mechanics help breath life into what your doing. They can also give you inspiration or a reason to do something. As I said, drinking tea for power is interesting, drinking blood because its blood is a little creepy.

Little off topic now though.

NO...absolutely NOT. Mechanics can indeed help with fluff and roleplaying true...but you don't NEED it. Especially for something as minor as blood transcription. So yeah, the concept works JUST fine without the spell. The spell would be NICE...but completely un-needed for the concept. And to say play a commoner is a bit of a strawman.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

MrSin wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
NOTHING is preventing your character from doing that NOW. You just can't use blood transcription...but flavor text, you can do that all you want.
Not much is preventing me from vivisecting or devouring people either. In fact I do the first often enough if I play a martial character, yes we not allowed. Its an awkward thing. I mean, I can save their blood, but that's sort of silly if I have no reason beyond just... drinking blood. That's just creepy.

If that is what your character concept is...then it's fine. If you NEED the mechanical advantage, then your going about this argument all wrong.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

MrSin wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
While I am in the camp of banning blood transcription is silly camp, how does not having access to that prevent your concept?!? It's ONE FREAKING SPELL.

Because I can no longer drink the blood of my enemies in a tea and act like a high society character while gaining power in the process. Its all part of the image of gaining power while being composed and regal. Now I'm stuck with just regular tea and less of a dark pact or vampire feeling, vampirism being able to help create the image. I'm sure there are a number of other things, but ideas between people vary. I've never thought of using it in a disgusting manner myself.

NOTHING is preventing your character from doing that NOW. You just can't use blood transcription...but flavor text, you can do that all you want.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

Baron Ulfhamr wrote:

Well, Mr. Brock has made his appearance, heard my case, and (as far as I can tell) seems unmoved by my argument. My hope was to play a necromancer/bloodmage (NOT bloatmage, I find them silly), and play the character I outlined on Pogrist the Great's profile- an arcane researcher without moral compunctions on his "science", yet tactful enough to perform in society (Society?). I don't want to play an evil character, nor ban anything else. If the gods of Golarion do not favor me and remain silent on this issue, what choice have I but concede and go the way of those banned before me? [/melodrama] lol

But seriously, thanks for taking the time to hear me out.

While I am in the camp of banning blood transcription is silly camp, how does not having access to that prevent your concept?!? It's ONE FREAKING SPELL.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

Nefreet wrote:
I think a lot of us wouldn't mind being paid for that responsibility.

Thing that are fun becomes less fun when you HAVE to do it. So be careful what you wish for....

Grand Lodge

A couple of archers with +3 weapons or cluster shot should make short work of her. As will a gundslinger using grit for touch attack at greater ranges. The casters should be boosting the archers. A good archer at that level should have around +20 to hit before buffs or range penalties. A greater heroism adds +4. Haste is another +1. With those two common buffs up, hitting shouldn't be too much of an issue. I was in a group that dropped her in two rounds. Helps that I rolled a high 30 something on my knowledge check so I knew most of her details.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

0time wrote:

My underlining question here was if there was a ruling to encourage a DM to run a scenario twice. To which the answer is no. Which is fine.

I just thought that it would make sense to have such a ruling as DM's are in higher demand than PCs and this would promote more games.

For example, I just ran a PFS scenario for the first time. I'd really like to run it one more time (instead of playing it as a player) to learn from my mistakes and gives the second round of players a better experience.

Do it because it's fun?!? I have re-run a few games now to accommodate the group's needs. I like GMing however. The sheets are nice...having fun is the main goal however.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

pauljathome wrote:

I think people should cut Eric a little slack.

Up here we have a good community. The experienced players GM, they are willing to play with whomever, etc.

But we still have some groups of players who tend to play together. They're friends, their play styles match, whatever. In fact, in some ways this becomes almost self fulfilling in that they will have played the same scenarios and so sometimes will HAVE to play the same scenario because they've played the others.

One such group is definitely composed of power gamers (I am NOT using that term insultingly)

It most certainly doesn't occur to the same extent as it seems to with Eric's group. But it seems to me to be fairly natural that this happens to at least some extent.

The fact that the local culture at Eric's store is different from the norm most certainly does NOT mean that he is incompetent or not a decent person.

That said, I think that it would be a good idea for Eric to try and slowly change his local culture to reduce how much this occurs for all the reasons expressed above. Cliques (real or perceived) make the game less attractive to newcomers and those newcomers are absolutely essential to the long term survival of any PFS group

There is a difference between tends to play together because they are friends and DEMANDS they do so...which is what it sounds like is happening at Eric's venue. The first is fine and dandy and quite natural thing to happen. The second is unacceptable behavior for a public game day.

As for if he is a decent person...I have no idea, but the fact that he is having trouble dealing with table space when he should have enough GM on rooster doesn't bode well for his competence level. Nor does the fact that he has let a group of his player base get so freaking out of control as to refuse play with others. If he shares said views, then we need a VO involved before he hurts the PFS community in his area...and he is no longer a decent person at that point.

Honestly I have no fraking idea what is actually happening at his store...unless it's a certain store near me...in which case I DO know what is happening and we need a VO for sure. But I do know that the things he are saying are worrisome to say the least. Enough so that I would say his local VO should really be considering a visit.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

Most likely, it was removed not for the blood drinking part, but for the money saving aspect. They have been a real terror in removing ways to for you to try and "get more money" from the game system since the new OOT gold system they put in place.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

IF there is a person who WANTS to do what you say downer...GREAT. I haven't seen somebody like you at the cons I went to however...and I know the con organizers would have LOVED to do less data entry so, it's not like they would turn the help down. You my friend are a rarity and your local area and your local con organizers are lucky to have you...however, other areas are not so lucky...so we muddle through with our week long of waiting for data entry. Hell a good chunk of my games aren't reported at all (some of our local organizers have been bad in the past...or have had some bad luck).

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

There is also a caveat that level 1 scenarios (like first step and the new evergreen) and 1-2 modules (like thornkeep part 1, muder's mark, etc) can be replayed/re-GMed for credit to be applied to level 1 characters. You can't have the same chronicle on the same character however.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

BigNorseWolf wrote:

What kind of optimizer can't go in with the concept characters and then solo the place?

I know...right? I've done this playing up even.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

Eric Saxon wrote:

Ah, I should explain since some of my comments are hard to understand. Most people in my gaming store don't want to GM. So we were essentially not going to run any scenarios because of a lack of GMs.

My solution was simple. If you've played up to lvl. 5, you get to GM for every 3 games you play. This way no GM is ever burned out and everyone does his share. So, with 20+ people, we've got 10 GMs to run scenarios.

Now why is it only 10-12 people are going for the lvl. 12 PCs when we have 20+ people. The short and simple answer is, some people play every time slot they have a chance to and some only show up to our bi-weekly weekend slots. So, of the 20+ players only 10-12 want the ubber achievement of a lvl. 12 at all costs.

Now, as to why I don't organize two tables for lvl. 12+ gaming. The stone cold killers and hard core Pathfinders will group up in one group, I'm not worried about their chances. They'll succeed and keep going past lvl. 13 2/3 and never look back.

The ones that role-play and create 'cool concept' PCs that have no umph, on the other hand, will be stuck playing together and will probably get TPKed in the first Eyes of the Ten Scenario. And when a GM does it to them, there will be blame as to who screwed up, where and how and there will be bad blood. Poor builds get parties killed, 6 poor builds at the same table, spells disaster for the PCs and anger and hurt feelings among the players. Why would I do this to them?

And the first group will not want to carry any players from the second group, so they are not up for splitting up. They just won't have it. Most of them carried the concept PCs up to lvl. 12, they want the 12-19 to be a breeze where they can focus on the story and not on keeping the party alive due to dead weight dragging them down.

And I know some of you are going to berate me about how they should include everyone. And all I'll say is this "Pathfinder Society is a competitive sport." The Denver Broncos and the Seattle Seahawks aren't putting third string and...

Okay...Where do I start with the mess of WTFs....

First of all, PFS IS NOT A COMPETITVE SPORT. It is a co-operative RPG game. I am completely unsure how you can possibly mix the two up...but you did.

Your the organizer for you venue. You HAVE EVERY RIGHT to seat people as what best works for your game day and EVERYONE who plays in it. That COULD mean you place all the power hungry munchkin at one table and everyone else at another...but YOU are suppose to choose that...not the power hungry munchkins. This is a PUBLIC gameday after all...not the munchkins private play time.

You have 10-12 people who GM 1/3 of the time. That is 3-4 GM...which means you can VERY easily make enough tables for EVERYONE for a group size of around 20...so there should be almost ZERO issue with table space. If there is, make them have to GM every 2 games instead of 3. Although working on a good roster of GM is generally better anyways. Somebody who isn't very good at doing the GM thing being forced to doesn't really help make for great games...and that is what you ultimately should want.

If your group of 6 stone cold killer PFS players think they can waltz through PFS, put them at a table I run for waking rune hard mode in the 10-11 tier (people around here absolutely refuse to let me run that one at all...even not hard mode...something about me being a murderous GM).

I am reading through eyes of ten to get ready to run it...it isn't that hard and I can see some of the concept characters doing some creative things and utterly wrecking this series. The build doesn't tell you ANYTHING other then that maybe they can go online and read some guides. I have seen full martial characters who can only do 1d8+9 damage at level 11 utterly wreck scenarios. I have seen characters that can't even do any damage utter wreck scenarios. I have seen pre-gens do it too...hell I have done it with pre-gens. Then I have seen people use some of the most broken builds there is in PFS and almost cause a TPK due to their bad play. The build isn't what matters...the PLAYER is.

You think that the concept players are a bunch of cry babies who can't handle a character death or a TPK while the power gaming munchkins can...well...I think you are selling half your player base short. And if somebody does have a hissy fit over a death, it is part of your job to work that out. If you can not, the VOs are there as well.

And yes, I realize that I am being a jerk by calling your optimizers power gaming munchkins...but when they refuse to play nice with others...well I kinda feel like being a jerk back to them (yes yes pot, kettle, black...I know).

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

Baronjett wrote:
I don't think you can ready a silence spell since it takes a round to cast.

You don't ready the silence spell. You cast it on the fighter's weapon where he allows it. Then the FIGHTER ready the action to move with the caster...thereby not allowing the caster to just walk away with an AoO and cast a spell anyways.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

Well F* me. Sorry Andrew, I do owe you a freaking huge apology. My bad...seriously, sorry.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

Kurt S wrote:

Aqueous Orb has been great. Lots of scenarios take place on ships. Place BBEG is Orb and launch over the side of the ship (holding him there so you can get his stuff), kill his pals, kill him and fish him out. The Pit spells are also quite effective. They are quite hard to get out of.

We have a cleric in our group who constantly readies silence spells for nasty spellcasters (casting it at their feet; no save and ruining the spell they were getting ready to cast).

At their feet? No cast it on the fighter's weapon and have them ready action to move with the caster.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

Andrew Christian wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

I know it isn't much consolation, but ultimately you gotta fail a few times to learn in this game. I've GMd for nearly 29 years now. But I wasn't always skilled, even 25 years into it, at high-level play or gming. I learned by trial and error. I lucked out that I got to be regular GM and player for a group of 10 with 3 campaigns that all went to 16th+ level.

So I got practical experience to see what works and doesn't. There are GMs with just ad much or more time behind the screen who self-admittedly aren't good at high level play or gming. Mainly its because their experience is not at high level.

So tell those giving you a hard time that you literally have 7 levels of experience gaming, not just in PFS. Tell them where they can stuff their condescension.

You do realize your doing the EXACT same thing right? Just at a different scale? How much or how little experience they have is irrelevant. They should stuff their condescension PERIOD.
Huh? You just tried to slam me here and I reread what I wrote and gave no idea why.

You were condescending to the other players in the OP and used your years of gaming experience to do so. You pulled the my opinion is better then theirs because I have a position of power routine (again) with the 29 years of gaming and 3 16+ campaigns. Then you belittled theirs position with your 7 levels of gaming experience comment (which you don't even know if that is true since you have no idea what their gaming background is...I started PFS less then a year ago, I have run and played in WAY more then 3 16+ PFS campaigns before then). Basically what you said is don't be condescending unless you have years of experience like me...then feel free to talk down to people you feel has less experience.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Mullican wrote:
Is the goal of all your characters and the people you play with to win pathfinder by, in the words of John Compton, be a murder hobo that smashes his way through everything?

Hey, that describes at least half my characters....

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

As for the OP...well...yes, the game changes. I have been saying that we need a module or scenarios to help newer players with this. Set around 5-7. It's not just you. I am seeing some of the newer PFS players at one of my locals reaching 5+ and they are struggling with how the game changes. I suspect many of them will have a character death by 9. I try to help as best as I can. When I run games, I give advice to the newer players along with being a bit more lax with the oh crap I should have done X moments they have. There isn't much for getting better at this then to just DO it. The problem is, it sounds like your don't have a GM/players who are willing to be nice and civil towards you as you learn...much less actually HELP you. So what does the PFS community look like where you live? If there are other venues you can hit, you may wanna try them? Also you may wish to contact your local VO and see they can do something about the toxic gaming atmosphere you have endured. It's not just for your sake, it's best for ALL of us to take care of these situations.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

Andrew Christian wrote:

I know it isn't much consolation, but ultimately you gotta fail a few times to learn in this game. I've GMd for nearly 29 years now. But I wasn't always skilled, even 25 years into it, at high-level play or gming. I learned by trial and error. I lucked out that I got to be regular GM and player for a group of 10 with 3 campaigns that all went to 16th+ level.

So I got practical experience to see what works and doesn't. There are GMs with just ad much or more time behind the screen who self-admittedly aren't good at high level play or gming. Mainly its because their experience is not at high level.

So tell those giving you a hard time that you literally have 7 levels of experience gaming, not just in PFS. Tell them where they can stuff their condescension.

You do realize your doing the EXACT same thing right? Just at a different scale? How much or how little experience they have is irrelevant. They should stuff their condescension PERIOD.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

Eric Saxon wrote:
But our group is coming up in levels and quite a few players have lvl. 9-12 PCs. And only some will go beyond lvl. 12. The table can only seat 7 and 1 GM. That means there is competition for 7 spots by about 10-12 people.

So...just curious and off topic, but if you have 10-12 people, why not split the table and have EVERYONE play? I realize that getting GM can be hard in some areas, but it maybe worthwhile for your area if you spent some effort into getting a backup GM.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

CRobledo wrote:
Mahtobedis wrote:
Lets take for example a boon which gives you a 5000gp item for free. If this boon were applied to a level 3 character they suddenly have a 5000gp item.

The worst I have seen is a boon worth around 3,000 gp. But it is only that exact one. I can't think of a second that would be that problematic.

Here is an alternate proposal: you are allowed to apply pregen chronicle sheets as soon as the character you assigned it to reaches the LOWEST level for the chronicle sheet. Gold and boons are adjusted to match that tier.

So for example, you play a Tier 3-7 with a level 7 pregen, and decide to assign the credit to a level 2 character. When the character reaches level 3, he gets the sheet, applied with the level 3 gold and the level 3 boons instead of having to wait until 7th to apply it.

This would solve the "out of tier boons" problem, would let you apply your pregen chronicles earlier, AND it consolidates the rules for pregen credit and GM credit to the exact same rule! The only difference between the two is that players are only allowed to apply the sheet to a character of lower level than the pregen played.

Simpler, clean, and easy.

I like this one...and I was in fact told wrongly that this is how it worked when I first started PFS (used a pre-gen for my first game).

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.

season 0-3...yes. 4 if your a decent tactician. 5...you have to be damn good.

Grand Lodge

The ONLY thing that make psionics OPed is if there is no magic/psionics transparency. If you use the default ruling that they are the same...then no issues. If you do not...then yes, it is OPed. So if the player is okay with they are the same, it's cool (haven't met somebody who asked for psionics in a game I run who was okay however). As soon as they even hint at they should be different...like a snide comment about how their powers should ignore SR, boot em. No really. It's not worth the headache.

Grand Lodge

This rarely happens...but I agree with RD in this case. If you want to play a concept...then PLAY THE CONCEPT. Course, if I was making a blind swordsman, I would just be a battle oracle anyways.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

MrSin wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Have you ever actually tried recovering a razor-sharp blade (say, a freshly-honed wakizashi) from a two foot cord tied to your wrist?
Have you ever tried shooting a fireball and punching a dragon to death? Or regularly falling 200 feet and living?

Yes, yes, yes and yes. The first is just a plain old bad idea because a razor sharp sword isn't a sword anymore. You just ruined a perfectly good sword by doing that. The second is only slightly less stupid as you have to F up before something bad happens...like say have vaporized fuel leaking while having the igniter spark go off. The third is fine...because puff the magic dragon deserved it when he made my godson cry. And the forth...I mean jumping out of a plane is fun. You have pay oddles of money to do it even. Outside of skydiving, I have fallen 70 feet with just scratches to show for it. Not a free fall mind you, but with a cliff side next to me for me to try and manage my fall. I have fallen 30 feet in a free fall off a cliff on my bike and managed to not break any bones. It hurt...but I could walk away...well maybe limping....

Grand Lodge

no...the trait gives you +2 up to your hitdice. so it does not add +2 to a 4d4 burning hands at level 4 base. if you can't say how your doing what your doing...chances are it's not legal...so explain fully or we can just assume you have an invalid build and you have more then it's a bad idea against you playing this.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vincent The Dark wrote:
RtrnofdMax wrote:
Yes,... Is it to go Mystic Theurge? I don't think you will be happy in the long run with decreased casting progression for either class.
Yes, it is for the Mystic T. I think I will be happy.

Only if your happy with causing TPKs....

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

Woot...nice. congratz from another in the golden state.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

Matthew Trent wrote:
Mike Lindner wrote:
Note, I'm not trying to jump down your throat, but I've seen this notion before, and not just with the "because PFS" reasoning. I just want the idea to die. Determining how multiple effects overlap is one of those reasons why the game has a GM. All we can ask is for GMs to make a good faith effort to adjudicate the rules fairly and without malice.
Sadly many vocal DMs on this board are in the GM vs Players camp and get their fun from "winning" sessions by defeating players. Such an attitude makes fair and without malice an unlikely event.

Then the VOs of those GMs need to have a chat with those GMs.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

Drogon wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Drogon wrote:

So, Mr. Compton, is there any chance that this kind of comment would make you reconsider the Devil We Know style adventures? Those would certainly teach lower level players what to do in these situations.

By the way: I think there are a LOT of 1-5s and certainly 3-7s that teach this. But Kyle is right; entirely too many GMs play with the kid gloves on when their players start dying to things they aren't prepared for. All THAT teaches is the idea, "My GM will back off if things get too hairy."

Umm...from what I remember, the 1-2 and 3-4 sub tiers of those were pretty straight forward or the small bumps you run into can easily be brute forced by low level tactics just fine. The 6-7 had a few nasty ones in it...but then again, so does some of the...

You had a nice GM, then. While some of the combats were not difficult, these are incredibly challenging for the idea of an evergreen Tier 1-2, which is what John and I discussed a bit further back.

I ran Parts 1 and 2 back to back over the last few weeks for a group of mixed 1st and 2nd level PCs, and could pretty easily have TPK'd them in either scenario if I had applied pressure in just the right spot. Instead, I taught them their lessons (enemy clerics that channel negative energy and work alongside undead pets are BAD, as are darkness and things that can fight you from out of reach) and "let them off the hook" so to speak. Kyle would call it putting on kid gloves.

The difference is that, at the end of the scenario, I asked what they thought they needed to be prepared for that stuff. Those players now know what to do, and have what is necessary.

Spoiler:
The negative channel clerics were a cakewalk. Seriously, one SoD (witch sleep hex, color spray), one good hit of a hitter (the 1-2 boss has 11 hp and the tougher cleric has 28...A level 1 THF can crit for 28 easily and drop the 11 on a none crit) or heavens forbid an actually good combat build. Unless your in the 6-7 tier that is...and only for the first one since she gets a spectre. The darkness wasn't use to full effect honestly because the in the 1-2 tier it's a lone critter that is easily taken down and in the 3-4 tier, the mooks it has is rather useless. In the 6-7 tier, that whole encounter is pretty much nullified by one good boom spell or two okay ones that you should have at those levels. Even if you have a party of beat sticks, it's still pretty easy since they go down to a hit anyways.

Umm yeah so like I said, small bumps...and ones easily brute forced over. The problem is that these issues at higher levels are not so easily brute forced over. So unless you have some of the really high end builds that are doing 100+ damage on a non crit by level 7, brute forcing stop working and you need to apply the normal counters for things.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Netopalis wrote:
I would feel very uncomfortable sending a new player with a level 7 pregen into a 10-11 scenario. I would feel less uncomfortable having a new player play a level 7 in a 5-9, depending on the scenario. It depends on the out-of-society experience of the character and the difficulty of the scenario. It also depends somewhat on the effect that a level 7 pregen will have on the APL of the adventure.

Generally speaking...a level 7 pre-gen in a 10-11 is just bad news. Doesn't even have to be a new player.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

Drogon wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
CWheezy wrote:
1-5 scenarios are almost too easy and don't really prep for when things get real in 5-9 and 7-11.
A lot of this problem is the GMs essentially not knowing when to pull back.

I vehemently disagree with this statement. A GM shouldn't need to pull back in higher tier scenarios. If the GM's at the lower tier scenarios understood that part of their job is to teach the players how to play the game, the whole game, players wouldn't be so ill-prepared for darkness, invisibility, flight and multiattacking brutes who don't die in one hit but aren't afraid to pummel you into oblivion if you let them full attack you.

Pulling too many punches or glossing over certain rules at low levels can lead to players who aren't prepared for the dangers at higher levels.

Except that the 1-5 and even the 3-7 doesn't really teach that...at all. That is why I suggested a while back that maybe we need a first steps part 2 where it takes place in the 5-7 range where you DO learn all these things so new players are prepped for high level play instead of getting murdered by the play dynamics getting pulled out from under them.

So, Mr. Compton, is there any chance that this kind of comment would make you reconsider the Devil We Know style adventures? Those would certainly teach lower level players what to do in these situations.

By the way: I think there are a LOT of 1-5s and certainly 3-7s that teach this. But Kyle is right; entirely too many GMs play with the kid gloves on when their players start dying to things they aren't prepared for. All THAT teaches is the idea, "My GM will back off if things get too hairy."

Umm...from what I remember, the 1-2 and 3-4 sub tiers of those were pretty straight forward or the small bumps you run into can easily be brute forced by low level tactics just fine. The 6-7 had a few nasty ones in it...but then again, so does some of the 6-7 sub tiers in the 3-7. However, running into it a couple of the high level game changers in a 6-7 does not prep new players for high level challenges...not in the least.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

Kyle Baird wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
CWheezy wrote:
1-5 scenarios are almost too easy and don't really prep for when things get real in 5-9 and 7-11.
A lot of this problem is the GMs essentially not knowing when to pull back.

I vehemently disagree with this statement. A GM shouldn't need to pull back in higher tier scenarios. If the GM's at the lower tier scenarios understood that part of their job is to teach the players how to play the game, the whole game, players wouldn't be so ill-prepared for darkness, invisibility, flight and multiattacking brutes who don't die in one hit but aren't afraid to pummel you into oblivion if you let them full attack you.

Pulling too many punches or glossing over certain rules at low levels can lead to players who aren't prepared for the dangers at higher levels.

Except that the 1-5 and even the 3-7 doesn't really teach that...at all. That is why I suggested a while back that maybe we need a first steps part 2 where it takes place in the 5-7 range where you DO learn all these things so new players are prepped for high level play instead of getting murdered by the play dynamics getting pulled out from under them.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

I go through 24 in a MONTH :P...then again...probablly nowhere near normal hehe.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

Todd Lower wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Todd Lower wrote:
Belafon wrote:
rode a hellhound through the Oparra Opera House - 30 Cool Points!)

Damn!

No cool points for me; I used a riding dog instead. Do I get a consolation prize? Please!

No...but you can have a participation ribbon.
Is the ribbon pretty?

No, it's a cheap little blue ribbon with a tacky red sticker on it to look like the old first place ribbons, but it is only a pale imitation of it because there is no value behind it. But the girl who gives you the ribbon will be pretty.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Todd Lower wrote:
Belafon wrote:
rode a hellhound through the Oparra Opera House - 30 Cool Points!)

Damn!

No cool points for me; I used a riding dog instead. Do I get a consolation prize? Please!

No...but you can have a participation ribbon.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Stephen White wrote:
Despite Silent Tide currently being 3.5 rules, I think it is the closest example of a current scenario that could double-purpose as an Evergreen Tier 1 Scenario we have. Something about Silent Tide still makes it a good first run for new players today.

Murder on the throaty mermaid...seriously, if there is a scenario that BEGS for replays, that one is it.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

Alice Margatroid wrote:
Because Ledford is OP. :)

Bah...he's a pushover...fear the sorcerer :P .