Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

The Plot Hole of Gozreh


Adventure Feedback


…Or why players asking "Why didn't s/he post a warning sign?" will ruin suspension of disbelief.

Now the basic plot (p.49), defend a god's worshipers from a rival god, is perfectly sound. The problem comes from the preventability of crisis. It seems Gozreh has been beaned with the idiot ball and forgot to post a minion to tell woodcutters "Oi! Axes off this tree! It's sacred to Gozreh." This is a reasonable expectation since Gozreh has plenty of minions to attack the village.

My solution isn't to scrap the whole sample adventure but rather to have the plot hole addressed in the final document. Exactly how to address it, I don't know right now. If I think of something then I'll post it in this thread.

Qadira

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Fickleness? For all we know that tree could of been made "sacred" just 20 minutes prior to it getting chopped down. Gozreh is known for his/her fickleness... probably why Erastil is so quick to interfere to protect the fledgling community.


Because Gozreh is an a%&$$*~ and so is pretty much every NPC who follows him (that I've met).

Often a pretty amusing a&@!%~+ but still one all the same.

Taldor

Same reason you don't wear a sign around your neck every day that says "Don't murder me." It's so obvious that you don't want to be murdered that it would be utterly ridiculous to even think it. To Gozreh, god of Nature, a mighty oak that has struggled to survive, quite successfully, for over 100 years would be such a triumph and a thing of natural glory and beauty that cutting it down must surely be unthinkable, even to Men. Apparently it wasn't.


We're talking about a god of Storms and Natural Disasters... one could argue he salts the entire planet with little things that will precipitate heavenly vengeance because "Hey! we put hot and cold fronts around that when they collide cause horrible storms, and this is how I've worked it into the system that my righteous fury purges the weak and unbelieving"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Gozreh is an a%*$!*$

Whoa. Whoa. I think we all need to cool off a bit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

Because Gozreh is an a+#+%~+ and so is pretty much every NPC who follows him (that I've met).

Often a pretty amusing a!@~*!@ but still one all the same.

My players have the same opinion about Abadar.


You think she'd stick at least his holy symbol on it so people at least knew they were about to do something immensely stupid.


Perhaps the woodcutters could have simply ignored the signs or fought off some seemingly annoying wolves. I didn't have any concern about it.


It's very simple.

Gozreh wanted to get rid of the community so he didn't bother frightening anyone off. They worshiped a god other than him, so they needed to be dealt with - the opportunity arose, so he dealt with them.

Then those pesky PC's and their little dog too came by....


That's the problem with neutrality. Neutrality can be apathy or balance. You can't be apathetic/apathetic and be a god, therefore Gozreh must perforce be focused on balance.

Balance on the law/chaos axis is conceptually easy. There's a spectrum between strictly regimented life and complete anarchy and someone can believe any point along that spectrum is optimum without being obviously nuts. The problem is that nature is naturally chaotic. Gozreh as a nature god is mis-aligned.

If Gozreh is really Chaotic than apathy on the good/evil axis is acceptable, which is a good thing because good/evil balance is a really creepy ethic.

CN Gozreh can mete out arbitrary punishments for violating capricious and undeclared taboos without violating his alignment because CN is the alignment of capricious %expletive1 heads.


I don't know. However it breaks down in terms of alignment mechanics and what it would actually make sense for a personified god to do, it fits very well as the kind of thing that pissed gods off in myth and legend.


Atarlost wrote:
The problem is that nature is naturally chaotic. Gozreh as a nature god is mis-aligned.

Nature isn't really naturally chaotic, as the dichotomy of Law and Chaos is a dichotomy that was created by the modern world (so to speak; NOT counting Outsiders, who throw this whole argument out of every window), not the natural one. Animals and other natural creatures cannot comprehend the difference between Lawful acts and Chaotic acts, as they have no moral compass; all they know is instinct and the actions/reactions of doing certain things. Gozreh as a True Neutral deity still fits.

However, that still doesn't change the fact that Gozreh made that tree sacred and didn't tell anyone. No Druid to watch over it, not a holy symbol, nothing.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Great feedback, folks! Exactly the kind of feedback I wasn't expecting but was REALLY hoping we'd get. Making the adventure fun and internally consistent with the world and the personalities of our deities is as important to me as getting the rules right, and if we end up including this adventure in the final book or offering it (or an extended version) as a PDF, this feedback will absolutely be considered.

AKA: Making Gozreh's interest in the sacred tree more obvious, and making the acts of the villagers who chop it down more actionable, and (my biggest concern) making the adventure still work if there happens to be a druid or a worshiper of Gozreh in the party would be SIGNIFICANT things I'd like to develop into the adventure in its final form.


James Jacobs wrote:
and (my biggest concern) making the adventure still work if there happens to be a druid or a worshiper of Gozreh in the party

Damn, I hadn't thought of that. How WOULD you resolve that situation? I mean, I know Gozreh has a tendency to for mood swings (as typical with nature and the weather)...

Maybe Gozreh worshipers and Druids would see this as some unnecessary backlash? Sure, they could see it as bad and something that should be atoned for, but also that maybe Gozreh is taking it a bit too seriously?


James Jacobs wrote:
Great feedback, folks! Exactly the kind of feedback I wasn't expecting but was REALLY hoping we'd get.

Wow, and I thought I was just nitpicking when I started this thread.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Harrison wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
and (my biggest concern) making the adventure still work if there happens to be a druid or a worshiper of Gozreh in the party

Damn, I hadn't thought of that. How WOULD you resolve that situation? I mean, I know Gozreh has a tendency to for mood swings (as typical with nature and the weather)...

Maybe Gozreh worshipers and Druids would see this as some unnecessary backlash? Sure, they could see it as bad and something that should be atoned for, but also that maybe Gozreh is taking it a bit too seriously?

I'd remove the Erastil element ENTIRELY from the adventure and make it all Gozreh, all the time. Gozreh is already a dualistic deity; feminine and masculine, air and earth, wind and wave, etc. The adventure would change from Erastil vs. Gozreh (which isn't really something that exists in Golarion really anyway) and to something where Gozreh decides to punish the village while simultaneously offering a chance for the village to redeem itself by proving themselves able to withstand the fury of nature and so on. Doing so helps to remove the "you must be lawful good in order to enjoy this adventure" element that making Erastil the overwhelming good guy adds as well, which helps to make it a better introductory adventure for all character types.


James Jacobs wrote:
I'd remove the Erastil element ENTIRELY from the adventure and make it all Gozreh, all the time. Gozreh is already a dualistic deity; feminine and masculine, air and earth, wind and wave, etc. The adventure would change from Erastil vs. Gozreh (which isn't really something that exists in Golarion really anyway) and to something where Gozreh decides to punish the village while simultaneously offering a chance for the village to redeem itself by proving themselves able to withstand the fury of nature and so on. Doing so helps to remove the "you must be lawful good in order to enjoy this adventure" element that making Erastil the overwhelming good guy adds as well, which helps to make it a better introductory adventure for all character types.

As Creative Director, can't you just make that happen or is someone else in charge of making that decision?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Harrison wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
I'd remove the Erastil element ENTIRELY from the adventure and make it all Gozreh, all the time. Gozreh is already a dualistic deity; feminine and masculine, air and earth, wind and wave, etc. The adventure would change from Erastil vs. Gozreh (which isn't really something that exists in Golarion really anyway) and to something where Gozreh decides to punish the village while simultaneously offering a chance for the village to redeem itself by proving themselves able to withstand the fury of nature and so on. Doing so helps to remove the "you must be lawful good in order to enjoy this adventure" element that making Erastil the overwhelming good guy adds as well, which helps to make it a better introductory adventure for all character types.
As Creative Director, can't you just make that happen or is someone else in charge of making that decision?

I absolutely CAN make that happen. But the timing of the Mythic Playtest didn't really let that happen, unfortunately (my feedback came while Jason was on vacation, and I was on vacation during Jason's return and the launch of the playtest, which complicated the process of getting my suggestions and feedback into the playtest document, unfortunately.)

In any event, the playtest itself isn't a finished product, so it's not a huge deal. There's plenty of time left to get development changes into the book for rules, flavor, and everything in between

Taldor

I like the Gozreh vs. Gozreh idea much better.


Wildebob wrote:
Same reason you don't wear a sign around your neck every day that says "Don't murder me." It's so obvious that you don't want to be murdered that it would be utterly ridiculous to even think it. To Gozreh, god of Nature, a mighty oak that has struggled to survive, quite successfully, for over 100 years would be such a triumph and a thing of natural glory and beauty that cutting it down must surely be unthinkable, even to Men. Apparently it wasn't.

Seems like the most logical reason to me.

Also, I like Gozreh vs. Gozreh as it doesn't make the tutorial feel like DragonRaid.


How would you set up Gozreh v. Gozreh?

My guys are just about to finish Chapter 3 of Kingmaker, leaving V's tomb, and I could have them run into this on the way back to their kingdom. The group consists of a druid of Gozreh, a ranger of Erastil, a cleric of Saranrae, and a godless heathen wizard.

I am just not seeing how to get them involved with this.....

-- david
papa.drb

Taldor

Well, Gozreh is a duality. It is both male and female and so on...so a part of Gozreh wants to punish the villagers for desecrating his tree, and another part wants to let them redeem themselves by completing his challenge.


Thanks for the DragonRaid link above, I was wondering if those rules were on pdfs by now. :)

Taldor

I'd rather play bunnies and burrows.

Contributor

I don't have a problem with Gozreh being fickle or cruel. That is nature. The Norse prayed to Odin, the sea god, not to gain a boon, but more often to avoid getting smacked by a wicked North Atlantic storm. For anyone who has spent any time on the sea, the "praying not to die" idea is not hard to believe... done it myself.

Also, nature is not chaotic. The natural world is a complex mosaic. You may not be able to see the picture, because you are standing too close. Back up, look at global weather, forest ecology, evolution, the sheer beauty and complexity of food chains and the natural order, and you can imagine that a god who oversaw all this might be a little...odd, but would also be very pissed off if anybody decided they could "paint a better mosaic". Not someone who is cutting wood or killing game to survive, but someone who is simply clearing a forest for "agriculture" or "Development", would definitely be in Gozreh's cross hairs.

I like Gozreh a lot...


it seems odd to me that a village that has worship erastil for what seems a long time, wouldn't have known that the tree was sacred.

Second why would a lawful Good God take arms against Gozreh, when Gozreh was obvously harmed.

The Gozreh vs. Gozreh idea is not much better, even if the God is a duality she/he is not schizoprenic nor does he/she seem to be the type of god to offer such a deal. Asmodeous, more seems the type to do so in this kind of cunning slighly vindictive stick/carrot kind of way.

A better solution is that the villagers somehow misread or were obvious to erastil's warning about the tree.

Instead of fighting Gozreh, he intercedes on thier behalf and works out a deal with Gozreh

Whereby if the PC's can restore the forest (in non literal sense) then by gones will be by gones- which is what you would expect from a nature god. what matters is that the harm is restored not compensation for the affront.

The monsters could simply be animals that have been driven mad by what the villagers have done, and thus wouldn't be direct agents of Gozreh.

1. This is better, because nature is not vindictive, restoring the balance ought to be enough, and Gozreh vs Gozreh is taking the duality a little too literally in my opinion.

2. it's more in keeping with Erastil i think to find a way to work with nature, than attempt to run roughshot over it, esp since the villagers have to expected to continue to live with nature makes more since to me.


ikarinokami wrote:

it seems odd to me that a village that has worship erastil for what seems a long time, wouldn't have known that the tree was sacred.

Second why would a lawful Good god take arms against Gozreh, when Gozreh was obvously harmed.

The Gozreh vs. Gozreh idea is that great easier, even the God is a duality she/he is not schizoprenic.

A better solution is that the villagers somehow misread or were obvious to erastil's warning about the tree.

Instead of fighting Gozreh, he intercedes on thier behalf and works out a deal with Gozreh

Whereby if the PC's can restore the forest (in non literal sense) then by gones will be by gones.

The monsters could simply be animals that have been driven mad by what the villagers have done, and thus wouldn't be direct agents of Gozreh.

1. This is better, because nature is not vindictive, restoring the balance ought to be enough, and Gozreh vs Gozreh is taking the duality a little too literally in my opinion.

2. it's more in keeping with Erastil i think to find a way to work with nature, than run roughshot over itit, esp since the villagers have to expected to continue to live with nature.

As written in the playtest rules, the village's patron deity is Erastil. Ignorant of the tree's designation as holy, the villagers chopped it down. Gozreh gets upset and attacks the town with terrible weather. Erastil, not liking the fact that Gozreh is being a jerk to his followers, gives mythic powers to anyone willing to challenge Gozreh. If the party wins, Erastil beats up Gozreh and the village is saved. If the party loses, Erastil gets beat and Gozreh is gonna destroy the village.

It's not a bad situation, but given the deities involved and how they work, it'd make more sense if it was the duality of Gozreh in play here, instead of one vs another.


Harrison wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:

it seems odd to me that a village that has worship erastil for what seems a long time, wouldn't have known that the tree was sacred.

Second why would a lawful Good god take arms against Gozreh, when Gozreh was obvously harmed.

The Gozreh vs. Gozreh idea is that great easier, even the God is a duality she/he is not schizoprenic.

A better solution is that the villagers somehow misread or were obvious to erastil's warning about the tree.

Instead of fighting Gozreh, he intercedes on thier behalf and works out a deal with Gozreh

Whereby if the PC's can restore the forest (in non literal sense) then by gones will be by gones.

The monsters could simply be animals that have been driven mad by what the villagers have done, and thus wouldn't be direct agents of Gozreh.

1. This is better, because nature is not vindictive, restoring the balance ought to be enough, and Gozreh vs Gozreh is taking the duality a little too literally in my opinion.

2. it's more in keeping with Erastil i think to find a way to work with nature, than run roughshot over itit, esp since the villagers have to expected to continue to live with nature.

As written in the playtest rules, the village's patron deity is Erastil. Ignorant of the tree's designation as holy, the villagers chopped it down. Gozreh gets upset and attacks the town with terrible weather. Erastil, not liking the fact that Gozreh is being a jerk to his followers, gives mythic powers to anyone willing to challenge Gozreh. If the party wins, Erastil beats up Gozreh and the village is saved. If the party loses, Erastil gets beat and Gozreh is gonna destroy the village.

It's not a bad situation, but given the deities involved and how they work, it'd make more sense if it was the duality of Gozreh in play here, instead of one vs another.

I did read it, and that's why i said most it doesnt make sense.

1. as I said, why would erastil not tell the villagers that the tree was sacred?
2. Erastil is a Lawful Good God, his followers commited a very big Sin affront, why would he attact another god who was rightful in thier vengence?
3. the duality idea is not a good one, because it's making the Gozreh both vindictive and shizopherenic.

4. there needs to be a part where erastil warns the villagers and somehow they miss it, prehaps out of ignorance.

Gorzeh as i said before would only care for the harm to be undone.

It seems more reasonable to that Erastil as a lawful good God would ask Gorzeh, a God that was harmed by Earistil followers, if there were a way for the harm to be undone, rather than compounding the harm by taking arms against Gozreh by proxy.

4. Gozreh is a nature god/goddess, all things in nature have a purpose, the tree was not there as an aethestic symbol which would be common for other gods, it most likley served a particular purpose/function that ceased. restoring that function should be enough for Gozreh.

It makes more sense to me, that these creatures have been driven mad and are attacking the village and have become "mythic" because of the imblance.


ikarinokami wrote:

1. as I said, why would erastil not tell the villagers that the tree was sacred?

2. Erastil is a Lawful Good God, his followers commited a very big Sin affront, why would he attact another god who was rightful in thier vengence?
3. the duality idea is not a good one, because it's making the Gozreh both vindictive and shizopherenic.

4. there needs to be a part where erastil warns the villagers and somehow they miss it, prehaps out of ignorance.

Gorzeh as i said before would only care for the harm to be undone.

It seems more reasonable to that Erastil as a lawful good God would ask Gorzeh, a God that was harmed by Earistil followers, if there were a way for the harm to be undone, rather than compounding the harm by taking arms against Gozreh by proxy.

4. Gozreh is a nature god/goddess, all things in nature have a purpose, the tree was not there as an aethestic symbol which would be common for other gods, it most likley served a particular purpose/function that ceased. restoring that function should be enough for Gozreh.

As for:

1) It's not Erastil's tree. If Gozreh didn't want the tree cut down, she should have done something to tell people it was off limits, but he didn't.
2) Because she's attacking his followers and Erastil would be going against his own morals if he didn't try and protect them.
3) That's kind of the idea. Gozreh IS natural duality; "feminine and masculine, air and earth, wind and wave, etc." as James Jacobs says. It would make sense for one part of him to want to seek retribution for the affront, but for another part of her to want them a chance at forgiveness.
4.1) See #1.
4.2) I do kind of agree with that idea. If the devs do remove Erastil from the equation (to make it a bit more accessible to players who don't play LG Erastil followers) and I kinda hope they do, one part of the mini quest could be getting a sacred tree seed to the place where the old tree was so it could be restored (though the vengeful part would still probably throw monsters at them).

Paizo Employee Lead Designer

Just as a quick note here folks,

The plot for this adventure was really just developed to give you a sense of the type of events that mythic characters deal with, it was not intended as a canonical look at the deities of Golarion. This adventure will not be appearing in the Mythic Adventures book, although another with a more well rounded and developed story might make an appearance.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Which of these is not like the other...

James Jacobs wrote:
Great feedback, folks! Exactly the kind of feedback I wasn't expecting but was REALLY hoping we'd get. Making the adventure fun and internally consistent with the world and the personalities of our deities is as important to me as getting the rules right, and if we end up including this adventure in the final book or offering it (or an extended version) as a PDF, this feedback will absolutely be considered.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Just as a quick note here folks,

The plot for this adventure was really just developed to give you a sense of the type of events that mythic characters deal with, it was not intended as a canonical look at the deities of Golarion. This adventure will not be appearing in the Mythic Adventures book, although another with a more well rounded and developed story might make an appearance.

So the Creative Director explicitly says he wants more feedback on the adventure because it may be used, and then the Lead Designer says he's not interested in this feedback because it won't be used.

This
1) Is really confusing for me as a feedback-provider, because there are direct conflicting messages from high level staff about what Paizo is looking for.

2) Makes it look like Paizo staff are not communicating with each other or vetting communication with the public to make sure messages conveyed are consistent and are saying what Paizo as an entity is sure they want us to hear.


Or the passage of time has changed the circumstances :). That's how I read it, James was considering this adventure with modifications, and after discussing with people, Jason is clarifying it won't be used.

I was also reading it as Jason letting us know that TOO much thought on this is probably wasted since it is not being included.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

DeathQuaker wrote:

So the Creative Director explicitly says he wants more feedback on the adventure because it may be used, and then the Lead Designer says he's not interested in this feedback because it won't be used.

This
1) Is really confusing for me as a feedback-provider, because there are direct conflicting messages from high level staff about what Paizo is looking for.

2) Makes it look like Paizo staff are not communicating with each other or vetting communication with the public to make sure messages conveyed are consistent and are saying what Paizo as an entity is sure they want us to hear.

Even though the adventure won't be in the final published book (something that I wasn't aware of when I made my earlier posts), feedback on the adventure remains one of the things I'm the most interested in because I'm in the process of outlining and will soon be developing an entire Adventure Path that uses the Mythic rules for much of its length. I've never developed or written an adventure using the Mythic rules—and apart from this sample adventure... NO ONE has written one yet. In a lot of ways, writing a mythic adventure is kind of like writing an adventure for a new system, since the way in which mythic tiers interact with character power level and XP advancement make it relatively difficult to gauge and create balanced and fun encounters.

So, feedback on how the adventure plays is important to me, but it's AS important (perhaps MORE important) to get feedback on the adventure itself, so that I can make sure that "Wrath of the Righteous" gets things right.

It's not that the Paizo staff isn't communicating. It's that there are several of us watching the playtest results, and each of us are focusing on different parts of the playtest—I'm not all that interested on whether the powers are balanced or fun or too complicated, for example, but I'm VERY interested in how mythic monsters run, how a mythic adventure is constructed, and how to translate a mythic character into something I can relatively accurately challenge using the existing CR system.


I'm completely with you on this, JJ. I'm prepping a playtest for 7 / MT 3 characters to test the APL = avg(CL+MT) theory in the playtest doc. I think the rocket tag factor will definitely be big, but I'm not sure if CR 10 foes are necessarily appropriate for 7/3 characters. My tentative sessions aren't for at least a week and a half, but I think that it will be useful data for you.


James Jacobs wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:

So the Creative Director explicitly says he wants more feedback on the adventure because it may be used, and then the Lead Designer says he's not interested in this feedback because it won't be used.

This
1) Is really confusing for me as a feedback-provider, because there are direct conflicting messages from high level staff about what Paizo is looking for.

2) Makes it look like Paizo staff are not communicating with each other or vetting communication with the public to make sure messages conveyed are consistent and are saying what Paizo as an entity is sure they want us to hear.

Even though the adventure won't be in the final published book (something that I wasn't aware of when I made my earlier posts), feedback on the adventure remains one of the things I'm the most interested in because I'm in the process of outlining and will soon be developing an entire Adventure Path that uses the Mythic rules for much of its length. I've never developed or written an adventure using the Mythic rules—and apart from this sample adventure... NO ONE has written one yet. In a lot of ways, writing a mythic adventure is kind of like writing an adventure for a new system, since the way in which mythic tiers interact with character power level and XP advancement make it relatively difficult to gauge and create balanced and fun encounters.

So, feedback on how the adventure plays is important to me, but it's AS important (perhaps MORE important) to get feedback on the adventure itself, so that I can make sure that "Wrath of the Righteous" gets things right.

It's not that the Paizo staff isn't communicating. It's that there are several of us watching the playtest results, and each of us are focusing on different parts of the playtest—I'm not all that interested on whether the powers are balanced or fun or too complicated, for example, but I'm VERY interested in how mythic monsters run, how a mythic adventure is constructed, and how to translate a mythic character into something I...

Thanks for the clarification, it is much appreciated.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

I've seen "rocket tag" mentioned several times in the threads lately... what sort of new lingo is this that you kids have made up?


I don't feel so bad not knowing what it means either. I did a quick google and found this.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
I've seen "rocket tag" mentioned several times in the threads lately... what sort of new lingo is this that you kids have made up?

As I understand it, it's slang for how the game can become nothing but a race to win initiative and go nova on the opposition with save-or-dies, high damaging-cranked up attacks, or anything else that takes the target out of a fight ASAP, often in a way that devalues the "swing from the chandeliers" kind of play or more subtle tactics, which in turn hurts some classes more than others(especially any that focus on defense).

It's not a mode of play I really enjoy, but I can see how some games wind up there and anything to help prevent it from leaning that way is welcome.


To get a bit of "etymology" on the term Rocket Tag:

It harkens back to the days of First Person Shooter games where poorly planned games (or modified games) basically boiled down to everyone getting a Rocket Launcher, in which one hit will kill your target. The game basically turns into "I see you first and shoot first, and was accurate, and I win".
Usually seen in a deathmatch form, where you constantly come back to life, hunting others and racking up a kill count to win. Hence the "tag" aspect of the name.

It was fine for first person shooters, because while they reduced a lot of what the game provided (chucking out 90% of the game's weaponry, defenses, and storyline/plot/etc), it was still a fun way to play the game; some even created mods that specifically set the parameters of the game to this fashion.

Why this is used in a derogatory way here is that most (if not all) P&P RPGing is NOT done in deathmatch form, where you respawn and the goal is to get a high kill count/low death ratio.
Auto-success and immunities can generate this kind of situation or feel. Super-massive bonuses are another. It's part of the issue brought up with post 20th leveling as well (the number disparities creates a rock paper scissors environment where "tactics" are simply picking which person you want to "tag" first).

Taldor

Well, James, i'll be running the small adventure at the end of the palaytest soon, so expect some feedback from me about how monsters run. Also from my players.


James Jacobs wrote:
I've seen "rocket tag" mentioned several times in the threads lately... what sort of new lingo is this that you kids have made up?

The general notion of it is that optimized characters vs optimized monsters is decided by who goes first. In the case of the session I'm planning, I have concerns about a single casting of Black Tentacles essentially wrecking an encounter if I don't place the monsters correctly.

Another example that has come up in theorycrafting is a situation where the party gains a surprise round in which the Rogue or Ninja uses a partial charge, burns a mythic power to get a full attack, and then goes first in the subsequent round to have several Sneak Attacks against the target before they've been able to drop the Flat-Footed condition. In some circumstances, the Rogue might even burn a second mythic power to go again in the first full round, hedging that his initiative is still higher than the monster's to get 3 full attacks + 1 single attack against the target, all with Sneak Attack.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

Yes, similar issues are why we walk a very careful line in our current 3.5e/Pathfinder epic game; we have a tacit agreement to not engage in rocket tag, otherwise the game just sucks. As GM, I really try to avoid all those super-snazzy "I win!" combinations like:

PRD wrote:


Euphoric Tranquility
School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]; Level bard 6, cleric 8, druid 8, sorcerer/wizard 8
Target creature touched
Duration 1 round/level
Saving Throw none and Will partial (see below); Spell Resistance yes

A creature under the effect of this enchantment enters a state of euphoria. The target treats all creatures as dear friends and abhors violence, but may rise up to protect itself if violence is perpetrated against it. Until the end of the spell's duration, the creature's speed is halved, and it cannot make attacks or cast spells. If the creature is attacked, it gets a Will saving throw. If the saving throw succeeds, the creature can make act normally for 1 round. If the saving throw fails, the creature moves half its speed away from the attacker as its next action ...

NO save? Cannot attack or cast spells? Treats every creature as a dear friend? So basically every PC hit with this automatically takes themself out of combat. I dropped this and every character but one (the one with SR) was done. She grabbed the only other PC she could reach and teleported away.

That's a perfect example of rocket tag. Someone goes first, drops up to 4 of these/round with the Archmage's Metamastery ability and Amazing Initiative, and goodbye opponents. You don't even need 3.5-ish feats like Multispell and Automatic Quicken Spell (which is how I got there).

A level 15 sorcerer with 6 tiers, for example, could do this 4/round, and is technically CR20. Give them the full Dimensional Savant tree and greater invisibility and they'll drop those 4 touch spells with near impunity.

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Older Products / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Mythic Adventures Playtest / Adventure Feedback / The Plot Hole of Gozreh All Messageboards
Recent threads in Adventure Feedback
Playtest over!

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.