Selgard |
Selgard wrote:There's also the possibility that the "brutal DM's" are actually just trying to get at RD, and that if he tones it back abit they'll become more reasonable since the group *as a whole* won't be as effective.Well RD already noted that at least one of the GMs believes in the philosophy of GM vs PCs, and believes its his duty to try and kill them within the confines of the rules. The other one is just heavy handed, or so I understood. So I had little reason to believe they would ease up regardless of the party.
I know I wouldn't. I want the PCs in my games to succeed. I cheer them on. I congratulate them when they overcome difficult things. I compliment them on their good ideas and bravery. But they get what they get. I don't dumb down the games I run. The world doesn't become nicer just because you're incompetent. There is no welfare for crippled PCs. If you are fighting a dragon, then by god you're fighting a dragon, and you'd best be prepared either to win or have your next of kin in line to collect their inheritance.
Quote:One "solution" to +10 AC to everyone else is a monster who has +10 to hit than it should.This is only the "solution" of a poor/bad GM. That's basic GMing 101 right there. Such people should pick up the 3.x DMG (3.0 or 3.5, doesn't really matter) and read them to learn how to actually GM.
Quote:So if he's really a god at battle field control and self defense, the DM could ramp it up to get at him (leading to TPK's for the group) while he squeaks by.Or the GM could, I dunno, just not care? I'm a big proponent of god-wizards and such, but they are not infallible. It's entirely easy to at least keep them busy while you're mopping the floor with the rest of the party with entirely fair and not overpowered enemies. I use very simple enemies more often than not (sometimes I will tweak for themes, but most of the time basic stuff will work).
I'm not sure how the encounters his GMs use are built, but honestly I have a hard time imagining it...
Totally agree that its bad DM'ing to just add +10 to the attacks and such- but then much of what the "other DM's" for his groups do, would be considered bad DM'ing to me. (adversarial,. running through characters like tissue paper, putting adversaries against them that they can't kill in such manner that they can't avoid them either while making it literally impossible to negotiate effectively.. i.e. rocks fall you all die in the shape of an inescapeable dragon).
Not saying it would be *good* DM tactics, jsut probable DM tactics in light of what all RD said was going on.
PC:"Hey this DM is adversarial he'salways trying to whack my character"
DM: "Well its my job to challenge you and I can't ever even hit yuo, so of course things are going to keep escalating until you are challenged."
Of course- since he's the only PC at "that level" the DM is just smearing everyone else into so much jelly in the efforts to nab this one guy.. The whole thing's resolved by "that guy" lowering his level to that of the other PC's.
If, in fact, that is the scenario.
-S
Selgard |
The problem becomes everything is entwined together in these sorts of situations in general there is only 2 solutions.
Hypothesis A: The "Brutal" GM's are scaling up the encounters to challenge the party + godwizard and are doing so in such a way that the party gets TPKed on a regular basis. This can be done just through changing the monsters tactics to take advantage of the fact that for 2 rounds the wizard is only putting out what is effectively 1 extra attack per PC that survives 2 rounds (as PCs wont tend to get full attacks till round 2)
Solution to A: Scale back a bit and the encounters will drop back to your parties level, rather than just yours.
Hypothesis B: The "Brutal" GM's are trying their hardest to kill everyone
Solution to B: Scale back a bit and you will all get TPKed together, then you can talk with the other players and optimise together to defeat the "Us vs them" GM. But the point is if its going to be an "Us vs the GM" game make sure it really is "Us" and not just "me + my expendable cohorts that I get without needing leadership".
Note that both A and B have the same first step, which is taking a step back yourself and toning your characters back, you have already acknowledged that the majority of your party doesnt care about the game enough to optimise or even discuss the games outside of the gaming days, so maybe they might be just building characters to "have fun" without this whole system mastery thing getting in thier way which is an entirely valid way to play the game.
If the DM is really "you vs Him" mentality and trying his hardest to kill you, my vote is to just leave. I'd rather go play wow for 6 hours friday night than go play "lets make new characters".. cuz lets face it- the DM has every monster in every book in any quantity they wish as well as DM Wand power to just make up stuff on the fly.. If he wants you dead you might as well roll up the sheet and smoke it.
Now "DM likes to challenge the PC"s vs PC's making a cohesive group to try and overcome a challenge" ? that sounds like fun.
But thats PC's vs Challenge not PC's vs DM.
-S
Ravingdork |
Not hypothetical. Those threads read completely differently.
Also, I'll never support escalation. That doesn't get anywhere and will inevitably lead to GM VS PC followed soon after by resentment.
Better to find alternate ways of challenging such a character (or characters), such as by adding a time-based (or similar non-combat) element to the game, targeting a weakness (such as touch AC or Will save), or ignore him completely whilst also making him work extra hard to protect his companions.
Lightbulb |
Personally...I think it's a sort of foundational bias towards "what wizards are known for" and against "what wizards in D&D and PF excel at." When I was playing as a wizard, my party would continually chastise me for not having access to spells such as Magic Missile or Burning Hands while the GM groaned about "the illusions that made it impossible for the enemies to target the PC's in an effective manner"). And, so, I lived under the title of "cowardly wizard who doesn't do anything" until the campaign ended. :/
In any case, I quite like the two different approaches to the same "category" of character concepts (a *cough* Beguiler and a classic, vindictive, enchantress).
Yup. This is my sorcerer too. Why don't you do any damage? I then point out that I do more damage than anyone else as I make 5 attacks a round (haste).
I did eventually take scorching ray to keep them happy but its not that effective.
Dabbler |
Dude, if they think a wizard is supposed to be in the melee mix, and they think he's a coward for doing what wizards do best, they're insane.
I pass no judgements on this. I will also point out that we only have RD's version of events, and while I do not impugn his honesty, there are always two sides to every story.
...its just a symptom of the larger issue that your characters are built better than theirs. and better than they really have the desire to be.
This is pretty much it. It may sound counter-intuitive to tone it down when the DM's are playing the Player vs DM game, but that actually may be what it takes for them to learn that this is not what the game is all about. A few TPKs and disgruntled players and they may start thinking (and so might the rest of the party).
Also, I'll never support escalation. That doesn't get anywhere and will inevitably lead to GM VS PC followed soon after by resentment.
So don't escalate, de-escalate. Tone down your character optimisation and play at the same level as everyone else. Yes, from the sound of things this will cause TPKs, but I think it's the only way your group is going to progress and deal with it's other problems.
Ardish |
Some GM's take it personally if you survive encounters repeatedly unscathed and some players think it makes their PCs look bad. You just make more effective builds, nothing wrong with that. I play casters a lot too and I was told the same thing by this one player, but he was a tool who was terrible at making PCs and thinking strategically.
Ravingdork |
That's the thing though, I don't make super powerful characters, at least not when compared to my friends. There characters are usually quite powerful and optimized well (with a few unusual exceptions).
I just happen to play primary spellcasters most of the time...
Ravingdork |
Okaaay... I didn't say they can, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. O.o
Sorry, I was trying to imply that spellcasters have a leg up in survivability over other classes by default precisely because they can cast things like mirror image, use long term buffs like false life, can heal the entire party simultaneously, or can wildshape into a form with great speed, strength, and natural armor.
In short, it's not me (at least not entirely), it's the class design. I play very typical spellcasters, more often than not.
Ravingdork |
But... how are they TPK'd if their characters are powerful? That's what I'm not getting.
Because they can't defend themselves effectively (touch AC, Will saves, and numerous other "weaknesses by design"). What's more, they are usually on the front lines.
ImperatorK |
ImperatorK wrote:But... how are they TPK'd if their characters are powerful? That's what I'm not getting.Because they can't defend themselves effectively (touch AC, Will saves, and numerous other "weaknesses by design"). What's more, they are usually on the front lines.
Ever heard the saying "Good offense is the best defense"? Kill the enemies before they kill you.
Ravingdork |
Ever heard the saying "Good offense is the best defense"? Kill the enemies before they kill you.
And that works fine in a normal game, as opposed to one with a ruthless GM, one which STARTS the encounters at EL+4 and works his way up from there.
Ravingdork |
RD: Can you tell me what is behind the increased boni for the casting stats of Hama/Niven (3 higher than normal)? Maybe you already answered that and I did overlook it...
Thanks,
Turgan
Circlet of Persuasion. Some characters might also carry luckstones, which modifies the ability modifiers in a similar fashion.
It doesn't effect things like spell DCs and what not, it's merely used as a reminder for ability checks (such as a Strength check, initiative check, or concentration check).
Dabbler |
ImperatorK wrote:But... how are they TPK'd if their characters are powerful? That's what I'm not getting.Because they can't defend themselves effectively (touch AC, Will saves, and numerous other "weaknesses by design"). What's more, they are usually on the front lines.
I get it. They optimise for offence and then ...
And that works fine in a normal game, as opposed to one with a ruthless GM, one which STARTS the encounters at EL+4 and works his way up from there.
...which minces them.
Like I said, stop building for survivability and these killer DMs will discover that it's not fun any more after the third of fourth TPK. If you don't, you character's continued survivability justifies their killer tactics.
Ross Byers RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32 |
ImperatorK |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like I said, stop building for survivability and these killer DMs will discover that it's not fun any more after the third of fourth TPK. If you don't, you character's continued survivability justifies their killer tactics.
Or he will learn nothing and simply derive pleasure from destroying the PCs. Some people have a hidden sadist in them.
Figuring out who is the biggest Internet Tough Guy is pointless.
Yes, exactly. Especially because the answer is obvious - It's me! :D
Dabbler |
Quote:Like I said, stop building for survivability and these killer DMs will discover that it's not fun any more after the third of fourth TPK. If you don't, you character's continued survivability justifies their killer tactics.Or he will learn nothing and simply derive pleasure from destroying the PCs. Some people have a hidden sadist in them.
They do. However, after several years of no change, carrying on as normal will not change anything and the problems will remain. Trying something different may not work, but what's the worst thing that can happen? Things carry on as before...which is what happens if RD does not change tactics. So worth a try, whatever the odds.
Selgard |
Turgan wrote:RD: Can you tell me what is behind the increased boni for the casting stats of Hama/Niven (3 higher than normal)? Maybe you already answered that and I did overlook it...
Thanks,
TurganCirclet of Persuasion. Some characters might also carry luckstones, which modifies the ability modifiers in a similar fashion.
It doesn't effect things like spell DCs and what not, it's merely used as a reminder for ability checks (such as a Strength check, initiative check, or concentration check).
I realize that this is your game and just a thought experiment to the folks on the boards- but I'm really curious as to the group's response if you really do tone back and it leads to folks dying.
Will they gripe that you didn't save them, while before griping that you did? Will they want it both ways?
I'd even posit the *possibility* that they are just kidding around- though I don't really believe that with the extremes you've said are going on. Still, we kid each other quite abit at our table. (DM can never hit the cleric in melee, such that he does give a good natured cheer when he manages to do so.)
-S
Shalafi2412 |
RD, first let me say that as a DM I love the amount of attention and detail that you have put into these characters. That being said, they are very similar. Both are sorcerers with the arcane blood type. Why not trade up the female to be a witch? This might add to the flavor of the character and make her just a little bit different from the male sorcerer?
Michael Foster 989 |
There is a big difference between effective characters and optimised ones, also note that from a defense perspective your spell list contains very few party defensive buffs, and even from a defensive point of view neither of the mages is particularly hard to hit, (Ac's in the low 20's fully buffed which at 6-11 is pretty much autohit territory which of course means why bother buffing if your an autohit anyway).
I am also confused by what you mean by controllers, your only battlefield control are single target humaniod only mind effecting spells (like dominate, charm, suggestion).
From what I see both those PC's would be classified as Non combat Manipulators with minor control vs humaniod creatures (Nives actually has 0 control spells and 0 party buffs by level 6). You basically built two Solo PCs who cant work well with a party as they provide little to no combat utility.
You may wish to consider building an actual party mage (one with buffs/debuffs designed to work on a variety of targets rather than just humaniods), I could be missing something but what does Hama do vs outsiders?, dragons?, abberations?, undead (command undead is a 1 target spell similar to her effects on humaniods can slightly adjust an encounter towards the party but AoEs that knock out 70-100% of the opposing side in 1 round is a better idea).
The point becomes your playing a single target mage which means all the GM needs to do to completely lock you down for 4 rounds is add 2 more creatures (1st round haste, 2nd round mirror image, 3rd round first control spell single target, 4th round second control spell single target). By which time the party has either won, or died as the average encounter length is about 2-4 rounds (1-3 rounds with a controller mage).
The only reason your character would even need to buff with stuff like mirror image is because you have no AoE crowd controls to end the fight and keep you and your party safe.
So either tone it back or actually build a party focused mage who can provide in and out of combat utility rather than solo mages (few party buffs) who provide great out of combat utility (arguably Hama is one of the better out of combat mages I have seen), but far less in combat utility (single target crowd control isnt effective unless the GM uses very small groups against you).
Charlie Bell RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16 |
TL;DR but if you are a full arcane caster taking hp damage, something has gone badly wrong.
Like if you are playing an archer and get based, something has gone badly wrong.
That's not cowardly, that's mitigating a gaping vulnerability in the party's defenses--not just your defenses, the whole party's. What party wants their arcanist dead?
Even in a worst-case, bugout or TPK scenario, arcane casters are the most likely to survive. Long after the front-liners have lost the exchange of full attacks, and the healers have died trying to get them up, any decent arcanist will drop a battlefield lockdown like sleet storm and escape via invisibility, flight, teleportation, or some combination thereof.
The best arcanists are the ones who will make the knowledge check to tell you that you can't take this encounter, drop the lockdown, and bug out everybody before s*~+ gets real to begin with.
EDIT: ...or the ones who divined it the day before so you can just bypass it entirely.
Michael Foster 989 |
The issue of course being that his caster doesnt have any AoE lockdowns, he however can invisibility and run, or grab people nearby the dimension door, but anything more than that is beyond the scope of his casters spell lists.
Hence my point that he seems to be build as a solo caster and not as a party member
Shalafi2412 |
The issue of course being that his caster doesnt have any AoE lockdowns, he however can invisibility and run, or grab people nearby the dimension door, but anything more than that is beyond the scope of his casters spell lists.
Hence my point that he seems to be build as a solo caster and not as a party member
+1.
DrDeth |
Question Is this a real question or situation?
And , what offensive or party boosting spells does the illusionist type have? Why should the party give him 1/4 the loot? What does he add to the party? Not damage, not boosting, not healing, not tanking, not battlefield control, etc.
And, he's a real "Richard" so why put up with him if he does nothing to benefit the party?
D&D is a GROUP effort, not a solo game.
Ashiel |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most illusionists I've played or used as NPCs typically screw with the battlefield by creating concealment for their allies, knocking fools unconscious, turning people or objects invisible, making pit traps look like a floor and a floor like a pit trap (leap over the pit and into...the pit). Ducking down a hallway and covering the end of the hallway with an illusory wall. Dropping illusory terrain on the battlefield and fooling enemies into walking around the illusions or otherwise wasting time/actions. At higher levels, illusionists tend to do things like summon monsters and kill stuff. Using spells like nightmare can be pretty useful too (want to find a murderer? Collect a sample of their DNA, such as hair, skin, fingernail, blood, or whatever, then slam them with nightmare spells until they cry uncle). Not to mention that one of the most awesome spells in the game (simulacrum) is illusion.
Michael Foster 989 |
Once again look at the spell lists posted on page 1 for the characters being discussed, for crowd control he has basically nothing to be more honest his characters are enchantment focused manipulators (with mostly humaniod only spells).
They skipped alot of the crowd control enchantments and went straight for single target compulsions, he does have illusion but its limited to major image (nice but limited) and invisibility (unlikely to be effective except for running away), I ignored mirror image as we know thats his round 2 self buff.
For party utility he brings single target humaniod/undead only compulsions (charm, suggestion, dominate person, control undead) and haste, now im not saying manipulators arent useful as they can dominate (literally) many social encounters, but for a combat focused party tossing a few AoE crowd controls like glitter dust, solid fog, wall of X, and other similar spells (all AoE and all multi target delaying spells).
With those your party will suddenly see your worth and not mind you hiding in the back (as if you arent really contributing to the team they naturally will get pissed with you self buffing and hiding in the back while they are getting monstered by actual crowd controling casters).
Ravingdork |
Also, how do you design your sheets?
Microsoft Word.
I'm also a graphic designer who's had a number of layout editor jobs, so I know a thing or two about making things look nice.
If someone would cut me in on some of the profits, I could probably design a killer third party E-book for sale here on Paizo. (Though I'd limit my involvement to layout and design, rather than rules elements.)
Ravingdork |
There is a big difference between effective characters and optimised ones, also note that from a defense perspective your spell list contains very few party defensive buffs, and even from a defensive point of view neither of the mages is particularly hard to hit, (Ac's in the low 20's fully buffed which at 6-11 is pretty much autohit territory which of course means why bother buffing if your an autohit anyway).
I am also confused by what you mean by controllers, your only battlefield control are single target humaniod only mind effecting spells (like dominate, charm, suggestion).
From what I see both those PC's would be classified as Non combat Manipulators with minor control vs humaniod creatures (Nives actually has 0 control spells and 0 party buffs by level 6). You basically built two Solo PCs who cant work well with a party as they provide little to no combat utility.
You may wish to consider building an actual party mage (one with buffs/debuffs designed to work on a variety of targets rather than just humaniods), I could be missing something but what does Hama do vs outsiders?, dragons?, abberations?, undead (command undead is a 1 target spell similar to her effects on humaniods can slightly adjust an encounter towards the party but AoEs that knock out 70-100% of the opposing side in 1 round is a better idea).
The point becomes your playing a single target mage which means all the GM needs to do to completely lock you down for 4 rounds is add 2 more creatures (1st round haste, 2nd round mirror image, 3rd round first control spell single target, 4th round second control spell single target). By which time the party has either won, or died as the average encounter length is about 2-4 rounds (1-3 rounds with a controller mage).
The only reason your character would even need to buff with stuff like mirror image is because you have no AoE crowd controls to end the fight and keep you and your party safe.
So either tone it back or actually build a party focused mage who can provide in and out of...
Hama generally talked her way out of encounters. As for party contributions, she practically drove the story.
It was her who conned several nations into joining together to overthrow their neighbors, essentially creating a schism that (would have) lead to a world war, a war that (would have) left her and her companions as its rulers. Damn their short sightedness!
joriandrake |
Ah ha, I see what you're doing. You've given me a fact that is broadly relevant to my question but doesn't answer it in the hope that I won't dig any deeper and discover that you're a Time Lord who uses a Tardis to spend 168 hours in a week role playing and still manage a day job. I'm calling Gallifrey.
I favorited this, because it mentions Doctor Who related things, multiple times! Brilliant!
Ross Byers wrote:I removed some posturing. Figuring out who is the biggest Internet Tough Guy is pointless.Nothing to figure. Pretty sure it's Chuck Norris.
Chuck can have the Internet, The Doctor has Time and Space!
On Topic: Ravingdork, your group is badly wrong, letting enemy at you then cheering on GM/monster that hurt you is very very wrong. Talk this through with them.
Melissa Litwin |
Ravingdork wrote:-snip-Well, if your fellow PCs can't see how a Black Tentacles, Grease, or Haste contribute far more to a combat than any Fireball ever would (I've never cast the spell in PF. So many better uses for that 3rd level slot), then they don't have a good grasp on what it is that makes a spell caster strong. I'd also quit playing with any person that deliberately contributed to killing off a character like that in game, especially after you tried to do the right thing by explaining what your character could do to his, but didn't.
I like fireball. For groups of enemies, it softens them up (or kills them all, but rarely), making it much faster and easier for the melee types to mow through them. My wizard (level 13) has a lesser rod of quicken, and it's not unusual for her to throw down a chain lightning followed by a quickened fireball in the first round of combat. 23d6 damage (average 80.5 damage), save for half, is nothing to sneer at. It clears out most mooks and does noticeable and significant damage to most big bad guys. And if the first round doesn't kill them off (and it often doesn't), then second round usually does.
Sometimes the best way to end a combat is to kill all the bad guys.
Fleshgrinder |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is optimizing for survival a sign of cowardice?
No, it's a sign of intelligence.
Look, some people run around with these words like "honour" and "bravery" or they call people "cowards"... what this is is them trying to bend a fight to their advantage.
They're probably not good tacticians, or not very smart, so they want a head on fight with no sneaky tricks as they're not smart enough to use them.
Many times, in game and in real life, I've been accused of sucker-punching people/NPCs.
What one man calls a sucker-punch, another calls an efficient use of violence.
Why get hit when you don't have to?
Why throw 10 punches at his face when you can throw one at the back of their head?
Brotato |
Brotato wrote:Ravingdork wrote:-snip-Well, if your fellow PCs can't see how a Black Tentacles, Grease, or Haste contribute far more to a combat than any Fireball ever would (I've never cast the spell in PF. So many better uses for that 3rd level slot), then they don't have a good grasp on what it is that makes a spell caster strong. I'd also quit playing with any person that deliberately contributed to killing off a character like that in game, especially after you tried to do the right thing by explaining what your character could do to his, but didn't.I like fireball. For groups of enemies, it softens them up (or kills them all, but rarely), making it much faster and easier for the melee types to mow through them. My wizard (level 13) has a lesser rod of quicken, and it's not unusual for her to throw down a chain lightning followed by a quickened fireball in the first round of combat. 23d6 damage (average 80.5 damage), save for half, is nothing to sneer at. It clears out most mooks and does noticeable and significant damage to most big bad guys. And if the first round doesn't kill them off (and it often doesn't), then second round usually does.
Sometimes the best way to end a combat is to kill all the bad guys.
Yes, but for your 2 level 3 and 2 level 6 spells, you could instead cast 1 4th level spell (Black Tentacles), still kill most mooks (or keep them helpless to be picked off by ranged at your leisure), and Slowed the ones that make it out of the Tentacles to the point where they'll be nigh ineffective. 1 4th and 1 3rd vs 2 3rd and 2 6th and I've done exactly the same as you, possibly more.