|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
PFS authors, due to the CR system, often have to resort to what I consider cheap monsters like harpies to introduce threat level. Pathfinder has gimpified NPCs and the authors often compound this by building them poorly. Make stronger fights with other classed NPCs and quit using cheap outs like monsters that have incorrectly assigned CRSs to begin with. At least an enemy wizard has to cast slow to make me suck. They just can't DO it like a harpy. And not every enemy NPC can do it. Every harpy can make you suck. It's obnoxious.
I'll take powerful melee and sense of urgency over save or suck all day long. There are harpies in many different tiers of scenarios, and they are some of the worst offenders. I don't mind dying. I don't want to die to a single die roll in which I made no decisions. Players should die to bad decision, not cold save dice.
Disk Elemental wrote:
No, no. Talking about the NPC VC, not the author. I understand completely what the author was doing. How did he blow that will save again? :)
Disk Elemental wrote:
There's a lot of scenario concepts between "generic dungeon crawl" and the Sealed Gate. Most of them better than the Sealed Gate. Challenging does not necessarily mean frustrating. And that's really what Sealed Gate is. Frustrating. I wanted to kill the VC in question at the end, and had it been a home game where it would have stuck, I would have. Idiot.
I will just treat them as creatures with hardness. And apply none of the object-specific rules. Because they are not objects. The spell animate object heavily implies this as well.
I don't care about ease of path. I care about accurate and reproducible distances. I don't see why hexes are best for systems with facing. Most wargames have no facing and they use hexes.
It's never been a problem. All its ever done at my tables is make arcane casters think harder. And I've been doing it this way since 3.0 came out.
And I have died for others' mistakes in PFS, just not direct damage ones. I didn't get any special shielding from those mistakes. I fail to see why this should be special snowflake.
Same result, though. Which is what matters in the end.
I expect to receive due criticism and I take ownership of my mistakes. Likewise, I rarely spare criticism, because it's better to get problems out in the open.
I just think that the animal companion advancement table just starts the animal off too close to the capabilities of a fighter or other melee with no min-maxing factored in on either side. Yeah, the fighter is better, but the animal is close enough that once you add in the druid on top of the animal, the fighter is a joke. It's even worse with sorcerers and clerics. I hate them more for this than any humiliation heaped on my PCs, although that is a factor as well.
No. The cleric doesn't have to say a thing. There is no possible way to force a cleric to include someone in their channel. I have only considered this once in my entire seeker cleric's career, and even then I didn't do it. So yeah. Pretty corner case.
I've seen several that my fighter would not even be able to hit; ie 32+ AC. Consequently, NPCs couldn't hit them either, making the rest of the party superfluous.
"I keep checking into this thread expecting someone to complain that shotting into melee should give a chance of hitting your friends... or when you shot at an enemy and miss, you should have a chance of hitting friends PAST the enemy. Or that we should have chances of hitting friends in melee with everyone jumping about and all. You know, what "friendly fire" is all about."
That is clearly beyond permitted mechanics even in base Pathfinder. Of course, GMs can always house rule it, and I can always not play in those games, as well.
Good battle healing is brutal against most PFS NPCs. It exacerbates the PCs action economy advantage. This in turn is exacerbated that the PCs can cram enough dpr to handle most scenarios into 2 PCs. Healing for NPCs is almost always a waste of time, however.
No, no. It wasn't them. In fact, I'd feel better if it HAD been them. They can break ANYTHING. What scars me is that animal companions are redonkulous in the hands of pretty much anyone. "Class feature" my ass; more like 2nd character.
"are covered better by the "dont be a jerk" rule."
But that's an unenforceable non-rule, as everyone has a different threshold for "jerk". That's the supposed defense against hypermunchkins, but it doesn't work there either, because GMs have no legal standing to do anything mechanically about hypermunchkins. Other than shut down the whole table. Yay.
I think people are arguably jerks for showing up with animal companions. Does that really get me anywhere? Should it? Other people think that archery is jerkish. We could go on and on. "Don't be a jerk" rulings just degenerate into name-calling in my experience.
Alright, then. I'm guessing that's a "no", then, on the language being expanded on the boards, then. It's been interpreted this way by the vast majority of GMs. A further ruling or changing of the language would clear this up. Something like "PCs may never cause hp damage to each other under any circumstances."
Sorry, was that sarcastic or not? It's unclear to me.
They are not apples to oranges in terms of lethality. Indirect mistakes are frequently MORE deadly than direct damage mistakes. I have been at tables where I got nuked by my own guys. It was better than having a jellohead healer. At least to me.
Mitigating circumstance: "I thought it would miss you." Done. Intent, to me, trumps end result.
"I also think GM intervention can handle the problem you mentioned, too"
Seeing as how I can't legally stop the abuse of animal companions, much less other actual PC builds, I don't see how. But that is another topic.
This is truly of little consequence, because once I explain how it works at my table, I've never had a single PC caught in an AE that wasn't planned. It just seems strange to me that PCs can negate spells legally cast by other PCs that are not intended to harm that PC based off the language in the handbook.
Unless there's some agreement in advance that a caster will pay for the entirety of the raise dead of someone they blow up accidentally (IE caster takes full responsibility for their mistakes), I'm a little hesitant/unwilling to allow the caster to make that mistake without warning given that it punishes the victim, has no downsides for the caster, and can cause hard feelings between players.
I can understand that. But if I were using AEs, I would be very wary of starting a party death spiral. So there is a downside for the caster.
" can cause hard feelings between players"
Players can already do this by playing one-man wrecking crews and not giving anyone else a chance to do anything. And GMs are mechanically helpless to prevent it. Again, I see this as a case of special treatment.
But people aren't shielded from stupid party healers. Or bad dpr builds. Or bad positioning. Or bad spell selection. Or lack of preparation. Or lack of methods of dealing with swarms. Or Kyle Baird scenarios. Just this. It makes no sense to me.
It's not "free permission". But I don't think its fair for the NPCs to allow a tank to engage and then have a caster just lob a fireball in and be able to sample 10-12 squares looking for the perfect spot that won't hit his own guy. Pick a safe spot that does less damage, or be edgier and risk hitting your own guy.
PCs in PFS frequently pay for other PCs' mistakes. Constantly, as a matter of fact. I've seen two TPKs that could have been easily prevented if a cleric had quite swinging and channeled. I don't see why people are advocating for such thorough protections on this one.
Given that there is no threat mechanic in Pathfinder, and many intelligent enemies give up on AC 30+ pretty quickly, I'm not sure what your "tank" is really getting you compared to a system like 4th.
Add in genuine error, imo.
Hex-based systems are, in general, far superior to square-based systems due to the aggravating "radical 2 * side length" diagonal issue. Straight lightning bolts hit 24 squares, but diagonal ones only hit 16? What? Spell areas, in general, would be WAY easier with hexes. But that is not that system we are using.
I really, really dislike the idea of ranged AE casters being able to magically target their spells in the exact perfect place. And if they get it wrong in a case of a very crowded battle board, they get a magical out because someone doesn't consent? I don't see why there is this level of shielding from arcane mistakes, when other PC mistakes are punished at full force.
"Seriously, just imagine yourself as the melee players in this scenario, and everything else will flow naturally."
Maybe there's something wrong with me, but I *expect* to get hit with at least one fireball if there's someone who can cast it in the party. Especially if I am point. Things just sometimes don't go 100% perfectly, and that applies to AE placement as well.
It's a total douche move, however.
There's nothing to stop a cleric from selecting out PCs they don't like from channels in the middle of a fight. At least, not mechanically.