Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Finlander: There is no logical choice for a player which will mitigate the killing power of an X4 heavy pick.Ohh yes there is. If I had a mod with a x4 crit weapon I would alert the PCs that thing will kill them with a crit. That going toe to toe with that type of weapon is a risk of death.
Now there are ways to mitigate that risk. That is up for the PCs to decide and what their characters can do. Focus fire and avoiding them hitting you is a good option almost every table should be able to do. Or going total defense. If someone can boost their defense so a nat 20 is needed to hit them, well then that is a 00.25% chance they will be critted. 1 out of 400.
Making characters aware is what allows them to remove the risk.
In life and in D&D there are infinite solutions. The only thing that is holding people back is creativity to think of a solution and/or the courage to follow through.
This is something like darkness/poison/DR PCs should be prepared to deal with.
What makes dice fair, is that they are not plannable. You can manage and adjust, but thats what those slight chances are for. It is unfair the PCs can crit things in one hit, but a PC can't because of DM intervention.
For a level 1 character with 150 gold, the max AC appears to be 22 (10 base + 5 DEX, +5 from Scale Mail and +2 from a Heavy Steel Shield. If the enemy is hitting at a +3, a 19 will hit. Most characters, however, can't afford to buy a 20 dex. Most don't wear medium armor. Many people don't want to completely maximize their character because it will make the later adventures too easy.
Furthermore, it is not unfair that the PCs can crit but the enemy can't. The game is not supposed to be a level playing field between enemies and PCs. Not all enemies are built on a 20 point buy, the vast majority don't have as much gold in equipment, and others are hampered by poor printed tactics. Not allowing them to crit is another appropriate adjustment to make sure that stupid stuff doesn't happen on a regular basis.
No one likes to find out you've been faking it.I'm always faking it.
I don't have three stars for nothing!No one likes to find out you've been faking it.I'm always faking it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For a level 1 character with 150 gold, the max AC appears to be 22 (10 base + 5 DEX, +5 from Scale Mail and +2 from a Heavy Steel Shield. If the enemy is hitting at a +3, a 19 will hit. Most characters, however, can't afford to buy a 20 dex. Most don't wear medium armor. Many people don't want to completely maximize their character because it will make the later adventures too easy.
Furthermore, it is not unfair that the PCs can crit but the enemy can't. The game is not supposed to be a level playing field between enemies and PCs. Not all enemies are built on a 20 point buy, the vast majority don't have as much gold in equipment, and others are hampered by poor printed tactics. Not allowing them to crit is another appropriateadjustment to make sure that stupid stuff doesn't happen on a regular basis.
First off I think it is noble to decline Dming an adventure VS cheatign dice. I respect that choice over fudging.
Ways to raise AC, total defense, shield of faith, fighting defensively, prot evil, reduce person, aide another and there are more. Becuase of these your max armor example is irrelevant. Since a team has the option of blasting past what examples one person can do. If a team encounters one scythe weilding tough guy and the casters order the fighter to meath shield, even me as a DM tell the fighter that the team should help with that.
These adventure are built so we can win. Even bonekeep and the hard mode advenutres. Despite 30 point builds of monsters. That includes allowing crits.
I had a guy in my local area claim he would kill my character. He said he would DM agaisnt me and make sure I die. I said bring it. I am not against you. I am against that mod that was written by one person and I have a team of people with me to out think him. If you wanna cheat and add to the mod ofcourse you can kill me. But you would be a cheater.
Trio omega is right when he says stay from him. Yes, fall back.
As a Dm with new players I ALWAYS give advice. I tell them things and show them how to overcome problems. New players need to know things are a threat too. Often times backing out and having the fight not bottlenecking you at the door is an easy way to win the winless fight.
I always say smart play beats smart builds.
You saw me contain that monster with a level 1 illusion. When I DM I try to teach my new players to think like that.
For a level 1 character with 150 gold, the max AC appears to be 22 (10 base + 5 DEX, +5 from Scale Mail and +2 from a Heavy Steel Shield. If the enemy is hitting at a +3, a 19 will hit. Most characters, however, can't afford to buy a 20 dex. Most don't wear medium armor. Many people don't want to completely maximize their character because it will make the later adventures too easy.
Furthermore, it is not unfair that the PCs can crit but the enemy can't. The game is not supposed to be a level playing field between enemies and PCs. Not all enemies are built on a 20 point buy, the vast majority don't have as much gold in equipment, and others are hampered by poor printed tactics. Not allowing them to crit is another appropriateadjustment to make sure that stupid stuff doesn't happen on a regular basis.
First off I think it is noble to decline Dming an adventure VS cheatign dice. I respect that choice over fudging.
Ways to raise AC, total defense, shield of faith, fighting defensively, prot evil, reduce person, aide another and there are more. Becuase of these your max armor example is irrelevant. Since a team has the option of blasting past what examples one person can do. If a team encounters one scythe weilding tough guy and the casters order the fighter to meath shield, even me as a DM tell the fighter that the team should help with that.
These adventure are built so we can win. Even bonekeep and the hard mode advenutres. Despite 30 point builds of monsters. That includes allowing crits.
I had a guy in my local area claim he would kill my character. He said he would DM agaisnt me and make sure I die. I said bring it. I am not against you. I am against that mod that was written by one person and I have a team of people with me to out think him. If you wanna cheat and add to the mod ofcourse you can kill me. But you would be a cheater.
Trio omega is right when he says stay from him. Yes, fall back.
As a Dm with new players I ALWAYS give...
-tilts head and considers these words-
Though I do agree with educating players to be more resourceful, times will arise when it is an epic moment when the players lose themselves in their characters... and no matter what their build, Murphy glaces up and BLAM! a terrible die roll that oneshots a character T^T No, absolutely not. I won't sacrifice the moment to that roll no matter what the pride is of an individual.
|
|
No, absolutely not. I won't sacrifice the moment to that roll no matter what the pride is of an individual.
I respect that. And as a player if you are able to catch me with that die roll then I deserve it. Althought if I am to clever and cautious to never allow you to get the attempt off. Then you should respect my play as well.
My point also is that for new players. You should alert them the threat ahead so they know what their risk is.
I agree with netopalis in that ruthlessly killing a new player may drive them from the game. If you tell him before hand that his actions have that chance to kill him, well he is putting his own life at risk.
If he is new and does not realize that pick has a chance to one-hit him them I would place some of that blame on the DM.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had a bunch of level 1s play through Rise of the Goblin Guild a few months ago.
When they got to her, I also described how big she was, how big her weapon was, and how she looked capable of ripping one of them apart with her bare hands. No one ended up approaching her, and they finished her off with ranged attacks.
It's not relevant for your inflict creature, but if there's an enemy that is notorious for killing low level people, build them up. Make the PCs fear them, and let them make intelligent decisions based on that. It's a lot more fun than soft-balling.
I roll in the open right from level 1, by the way. The softest I'll usually play is with sub-optimal tactics, or sometimes using saps as weapons if they're provided to the enemies.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
For a level 1 character with 150 gold, the max AC appears to be 22 (10 base + 5 DEX, +5 from Scale Mail and +2 from a Heavy Steel Shield. If the enemy is hitting at a +3, a 19 will hit. Most characters, however, can't afford to buy a 20 dex. Most don't wear medium armor. Many people don't want to completely maximize their character because it will make the later adventures too easy.
Furthermore, it is not unfair that the PCs can crit but the enemy can't. The game is not supposed to be a level playing field between enemies and PCs. Not all enemies are built on a 20 point buy, the vast majority don't have as much gold in equipment, and others are hampered by poor printed tactics. Not allowing them to crit is another appropriateadjustment to make sure that stupid stuff doesn't happen on a regular basis.
First off I think it is noble to decline Dming an adventure VS cheatign dice. I respect that choice over fudging.
Ways to raise AC, total defense, shield of faith, fighting defensively, prot evil, reduce person, aide another and there are more. Becuase of these your max armor example is irrelevant. Since a team has the option of blasting past what examples one person can do. If a team encounters one scythe weilding tough guy and the casters order the fighter to meath shield, even me as a DM tell the fighter that the team should help with that.
These adventure are built so we can win. Even bonekeep and the hard mode advenutres. Despite 30 point builds of monsters. That includes allowing crits.
I had a guy in my local area claim he would kill my character. He said he would DM agaisnt me and make sure I die. I said bring it. I am not against you. I am against that mod that was written by one person and I have a team of people with me to out think him. If you wanna cheat and add to the mod ofcourse you can kill me. But you would be a cheater.
Trio omega is right when he says stay from him. Yes, fall back.
As a Dm with new players I ALWAYS give...
Generally speaking, I do avoid some of the more combat-oriented scenarios. They're not my thing, and endless discussions of player builds and numbers just sort of bores me. I'm a roleplayer, and I run scenarios that play to that strength.
However, unfortunately, as I said to Chris earlier, it's not always apparent that there's going to be a X4 crit weapon when you're choosing a scenario. You don't always have the sort of knowledge to make that educated decision. Therefore, saying, "Well, don't run that scenario" isn't really helping.
As for staying away from the enemy while he gets blasted, that's a potential idea, but it leads to the caster getting exposed, when that caster is even more precariously placed. You can't keep moving back from an enemy - eventually, you'll have to fight or abandon the encounter.
|
A couple of points on the ISW creature. If it is what I think it is, it was actually used in more than just one scenario.
Something to remember, though, on this creature:
Casting a spell, or using a spell-like ability, provokes an Attack of Opportunity. If hit, the caster has to make a COIncentration CHeck against a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the spell level.
And, if the creature is the one I think it is, it is tiny, which means that, since ISW is a touch spell, it has to actually enter the target's square, which will usually, again, provoke an Attack of Opportunity.
Now, if it pre-casts the spell far enough away not to provoke (and that is a general provoke), then it has to move more than a 5' step to make the attack, which would, then provoke on the way to its target's square.
And, yes, when I ran one of the mods that uses this creature, I was worried about the table, especially since, in that case, it was one of the level 1s who wound up, injured, as the most appropriate target.
He's not describing moving to an adjacent square, he's describing moving to the SAME square,
which is necessary for Tiny 0' Reach creatures to actually touch their target if they don't have Lunge,
and which provokes if they weren't already starting in an adjacent square (and thus can 5' step)
and don't pass an Acrobatics check vs. CMD to leave the threatened square.
If the target is Flat-footed or they are still Stealthed that also avoids the AoO, of course.
Casting Defensively is still fairly easy for PC Full Casters, not necessarily for NPCs with SLAs, particularly this one.
In the case of the Soulbound Doll, they have only a +2 Concentration modifier (9 CHA, CL3)
trying to cast a 3rd level Inflict Serious Wounds spell = 15 + 2*3 = DC 21, or they need to roll a 19 to Cast Defensively. Laugh away.
If they need to roll Concentration vs. AoO/Readied Attack damage, even with 1 damage they need to roll a 12.
(but likely better chances than Cast Defensively, especially considering their DR2/magic )
As mentioned, there is also a Save for Half with that spell, and the DC is only 12 with standard CHA 9 for Soulbound Dolls.
No prob...
I think those factors may well have played a part in justifying giving that SLA to the creature in the first place.
EDIT: If it was reduced to 2 or even 3 2nd level CMW spells as the OP did, the chances of getting those spells off to good effect in one encounter just drops to almost nothing, which makes it not really a fair honest 'trade'. I think with the AoO/Concentration issue and the Save for half vs. DC 12, it's not out of bounds as written.
EDIT2: The strongest tactic for it is probably to pre-cast CSW and wait/ready for somebody to try and pick it up to examine it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
NN: The crit rule doesn't really affect everybody equally. Some PCs get crit, some don't, based on the whim of a die.The outcome is not what determines whether something is fair. It's the unbiased probability of a thing happening. Everybody who makes the same exact choices (and associated circumstances) faces the same probability of getting crit. The game doesn't care who the player is. When we start setting aside outcomes based on who the player is, then we are creating a situation which is not fair.
Thing is, that's fine in a competitive game, but RPGs (usually) aren't about competing with your fellow players (and I include the GM in that group.)
One of the GM's jobs is to care about who the player is precisely because the rules don't.
The problem of course is determining where to draw the line. Organized play exists, at the end of the day, in order to promote the game and keep selling product. Driving people away is counter to that aim. On the other hand, you also have to worry about driving away players X and Y because you just fudged a roll to keep player Z alive. Now, if player Z is in their first ever game, one would hope that players X and Y are supportive of ensuring player Z enjoys the game and keeps on playing because increasing the size of the player pool is (generally) a good thing for the game. On the other hand, if player Z just did something really silly like poking the sleeping ogre with a sharp stick, then showing them the consequences of that isn't a bad thing either.
Personally, I find the 50% rule works best here. If the dice give the player a 50% or better chance of survival under the circumstances, it's probably a bad thing to let a newbie die to the result of the roll. I'd most likely leave them at -1 hit points and start having them slowly die*, rather than letting them get away with it completely. That way there's still a chance of them being saved by the rest of the group and they get to experience the danger - and there's also still a chance they'll end up dead. If they die, they hopefully died in a slow, heroic, Boromir-like fashion over a number of turns (I'd even encourage them to ham it up with RP while they die rather than enforce the unconscious thing entirely.) If they live, they know how close to death they came and will be prepared for the real thing next time.
*At least, I assume PFS death works the same way as the normal rules in this manner, my apologies if it doesn't.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
We have different ideas of exactly what constitutes fairness, NN. I hadn't thought about it, but my usage is actually probably a term of art in the legal field - a number of laws talk about "fundamental fairness" referring to the opportunity for a person to have a chance to be heard and to have an impact on what happens to them. In that sense, arbitrary is the antonym of fairness. However, this is a rather pointless discussion and I'd rather move on to the meat of the matter.
My point isn't that the crit rule singles anybody out, or that it is a bad one at higher levels - my point is merely that, at low levels, it is unnecessarily harsh for no apparent reason. This is mitigated in the original setting of these rules, whereby a GM could creatively bring a PC back from the dead fairly trivially, and wherein a campaign might last a few months. Such is not the case in PFS. Your characters' career can last more than a year, and the GM can't easily bring you back. Therefore, on the corner cases like a crit against a low level PC, a bit of fudging makes sense.
Now, let's be clear what I do. Here's how it usually goes...
"Alright, he walks up and attacks - what's your AC?"
"18."
"Right. He raises his pick up high above his head and slams it down...hitting you in the shoulder! 9 damage!"
"Drat, I'm down."
The player had no idea that I negated the crit there. Another way to do it is like this:
"Alright, he walks up and attacks...rerolling to confirm! What's your AC?"
"18."
"Right. He raises his pick up high above his head and slams it down...hitting you in the shoulder, but narrowly missing the confirmation! 9 damage!"
"Drat, I'm down anyway."
Or even a third option:
"Alright, he walks up and attacks...rerolling to confirm! What's your AC?"
"18."
"Right. He raises his pick up high above his head and slams it down...hitting you in the head! Critical hit! 10 damage!"
"Drat, I'm down!"
In none of those three cases will the player feel like I softballed. Depending on the weapon, of course, those numbers would have to change - but you get the idea.
Edit: Oh, and yes, Matt, that's how death works in PFS. Despite contrary opinion otherwise, PFS doesn't change that many rules as compared to regular Pathfinder. The only difference is that you can't play an evil character and a few of the character building options that don't fit the theme aren't allowed. On the GM side, GMs aren't allowed to change the adventure.
|
|
I think it's worth noting here - drawing off the pick-crit example - that "my 1st level character was critted for 40 damage!" DOES make kind of a cool gamer story, once the sadness has worn off :)
Let's admit it: we ALL have a "crit story" - some happy, some sad - or two! It's these unexpected events that make the game memorable.
(Living Greyhawk, Year 1 (about 12 years ago?), my 5th level fighter, Torvald: party is fighting an Osylith (Bone Devil), a totally overpowered encounter. Everyone but Torvald has dropped, and Torvald has ONE hit point left - TPK in immanent. So Torvald's turn comes, and I decide to go for broke: FULL power attack (it worked differently in 3.0), two handed with my greatsword, and I won't kill it anyway (DR) UNLESS I crit. So I look at the other players, announce "I need a 19 or 20) - and *roll a nat 20*. I confirm, boom, tons of damage, well over DR, Bone Devil dies, TPK averted. I remember it 12 years later!... and the same character was one-shot from a crit by a power-attacking hill giant some time later, for about 130 points of damage. I remember that too!)
|
|
I keep seeing this argument about "what's good for Paizo/PFS".
I don't see how that's a factor *at all*. When I run or play PFS, the *last* thing on my mind is "how does this help Paizo's profitability?"
I think it's perfectly fine for players and GMs to simply enjoy the game with little or no regard given to its "marketing function"!
|
|
Well true Dave, and you've never been known to be a softball GM :). But there is something along the lines of "bringing new players into the game". As a gamer I think it's safe to say we generally get "warm fuzzies" when we are part of the wheel that generates more gamers. At Dragoncon (or most cons really) you don't know your player base and how "new" they are to the game. Introducing them to death this early MIGHT be a deterrant for future play; later it's more handleable (and there's even an "easy enough" way to fix it). Again, we're not talking about the local Atlanta crowd; you're not certain how experienced these players are.
Maybe they need to extend the Osirian Faction boon to everyone (where a player can go into "PP debt" for their first death; Osirins would still be the only ones who would get the discount). That might make the first few levels a little more survivable, especially for newer players.
Regardless, I do take things to heart; based on general consensus, I'm thinking in the future I might use sub-optimal tactics and let these rare instances kill players if they happen. It's just something I'll need to prepare myself for in the future.
|
I wouldn't characterize people who choose otherwise as weak-charactered.
I don't know that else to call it honestly. The GM is assuming that the player will leave PFS if his character dies and therefore refuses to kill the character. What then is the point of playing? No one likes having their characters die. Yet its something we all deal with. I've pitched in more than once to res a character at my table. Must suck to be me, since now my character is weaker than if I'd played at the OPs table.
The OP knows he or she was wrong or else this thread wouldn't have gotten started.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Alright...lots of responses here...
NN: I'm not arguing with you further on the point regarding semantics. It's banal and dull. In regards to whether or not it is "cheating", by your own admission, GMs are permitted to fudge under the rules. Therefore it is not cheating, and that point is moot.
In regards to whether or not we are qualified to make such decisions, the answer is that we all possess a modicum of common sense and empathy. Unfortunately, there is a tendency in RPG circles to do away with that bit of personality, but I think it's very important. Regarding your bit about the trial judges, such variety is not necessarily considered a bad thing. It is an old legal maxim that "the law never requires an unjust result", and it is recognized that judges should always have leeway to do what is right. The same goes for PFS - rules cannot prepare for every eventuality, so we all need to make the best rulings for our table.
David: Any organization exists to perpetuate itself. If PFS is not growing, it is shrinking. That's not good for any of us. Further, the "crit story" isn't appealing to all gamers - it's certainly not appealing to me. I prefer to talk about the time that my gunslinger toppled a shelf full of alchemical items onto a kobold or the time that my gnomish paladin got thrown at a key dangling from a rope while he shouted "FOR SHELYN!" Numbers don't come into the good stories.
Matthew: There is a lot of risk of failure at my tables. There is a higher risk of mission failure than character death. I've failed tables on The Blakros Matrimony, The Wardstone Patrol and other scenarios where the party just completely forgot their mission. I've also killed 6 PCs. I just choose not to take advantage of every possible kill when such a kill will have long-reaching implications and will hamper the fun of the individual player. I do not negate any kills at levels beyond 5. The player does not feel cheated because I do not let on when this is happening, as per my statement above. If the player made a mistake, I will still kill off their character.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
I think we're talking about two different things here, NN. I don't let my players break the rules - all I do is reduce the total damage on some hits, much like the OP did.
Also, in my opinion, the majority of seasons 0-3 were too easy, with a few notable exceptions.
|
|
I just choose not to take advantage of every possible kill when such a kill will have long-reaching implications and will hamper the fun of the individual player. I do not negate any kills at levels beyond 5.
Wish you had been my judge at Bonekeep.
Except of course then it wouldn't have been any fun.
Edit: Just to reiterate my stance, cirts happen. By mitigating that danger at low levels you just train players poorly for higher level play.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Alright, first of all, I don't think that my statement merits such an insult. Second, Bonekeep is a bit of a special situation - characters go there for increased risk, and you are not a new player. I'm talking more about new players playing something like Among the Living which is extremely, extremely swingy when crits happen. Without crits, it's a modest challenge if you have a reasonable part.
Next...you say that mitigating crits fails to train players for high level play. How? How will having their level 1 character killed off randomly teach them anything other than "be luckier"?
All he said is that it wouldn't be fun, obviously that it wouldn't be fun for him.
No point in arguing that or taking offense, unless you really think you know what is fun for him more than he does.
I believe it's pretty obvious that PFS management is aware of some level of fudging, and as mentioned, they condone it to some extent. Given the number of PFS judges with stars here incriminating themselves here with examples of their extra-legal rulings, if they have a problem with it they will act on it, otherwise nothing much will change. Rather than worry about winning an argument with other posters, I think the most productive response is sharing any problems you actually have (e.g. with GMs cheating, as the OP) with PFS higher-ups, going thru the chain of command so to speak.
As far as the OP's case with the Inflict Serious Wounds, I don't think it's been resolved, but it seems highly likely that said GM either intentionally or unintentionally overlooked several aspects of RAW which may have prevented that situation from happening as it did. In that case, there it's not a matter of cheating but of actually following the rules closely, allowing for saves, AoOs, and Concentration checks as actually directed by the rules.
|
I ran a certain scenario the other night where the Tactics specify exactly who the BBEG focuses on. There was only one target who met the criteria, a level 2 Paladin. Surprise round, he takes an arrow. First round, two more arrows miss him. Second round, he takes a hit, and then a crit. Luckily I rolled low for damage, and only did 20 points putting him at -11 out of a 14 Con. The player took it with good humor, especially when the bard started performing his epic of the Brave Sir Thaddeus.
I roll out in the open, because I prefer that my players do the same. What's good for the goose, and all that. I do, however, occasionally have a hard time with the math when the stakes are high and its a new player. "You said you had an 18 AC? Dang, I only got a 17." ;)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe it's pretty obvious that PFS management is aware of some level of fudging, and as mentioned, they condone it to some extent.
This is the section of the Guide that is frequently quoted by the Pro-PC Lifers/Fudge Advocates:
While we don’t advocate fudging die rolls, consider the experience of the player when deciding whether to use especially lethal tactics or if a character is in extreme danger of death, especially when the player is new to the game. Most players whose first experience in a campaign results in a character death don’t return to the campaign.
Their position (and please correct me if I misrepresent) is that because they mention fudging without outright banning it, it is a tacit approval of using it in "the right situations".
The Dice Truther/PC Killer faction takes the position that "we don't advocate fudging die rolls" means "we don't advocate fudging die rolls", which roughly translates to "we don't endorse fudging die rolls".
I'm in the latter camp, and I think the fact that the next clause in that sentence offers an alternative to fudging die rolls makes a pretty strong case for it: "Don't fudge die rolls; instead balance the combat with tactics."
As Jiggy has pointed out countless times, there is functionally no difference in changing a die roll and changing a stat. An 18 on the die turned into a 15 is the same as turning a +7 into a +4. And the latter is specifically disallowed. You must run as written.
On the other hand, choosing to use Power Attack or not is entirely within the GM's control. As is attacking defensively. Choosing the target is often (but not always) up to the GM. There are so many options that don't involve fabricating numbers.
I personally feel that the problem with fudging die rolls is once you do it, you've crossed a line and said: "I know when the dice should count and when they shouldn't." BBEG going to die too soon? Wait, I guess he did make that save. Now he lives another round and kills a PC with a crit? Oops, now he didn't confirm that crit. The dice have essentially been removed from the game. They only count until they don't.
And that's okay in a home game where everyone agrees to put themselves in your hands and let you have that level of control over every outcome. But not everyone in PFS has signed on for that. Some of us don't want you making the unilateral decision of whether we live or die or fail or succeed.
And I know that many of you think that the players will never know if you fudge. And maybe your Sleight of Hand and Bluff are as good as you think they are. But sometimes we know. If you're rolling behind a screen, and I'm near death, and you ask me my AC after you roll, I'm now left wondering if that near miss was a "near miss." And I personally don't like having that doubt.
YMMV, IMHO, etc.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
I never fudge in favor of the scenario.
More importantly, though, as I've said every time Jiggy has brought it up, there is a fundamental difference between fudging and changing a stat block. When you change a stat block, you change it for every roll. For a fudge, you change one specific roll. There is a huge difference between the two, and I have yet to see anybody take the point and refute it.
|
|
I never fudge in favor of the scenario.
More importantly, though, as I've said every time Jiggy has brought it up, there is a fundamental difference between fudging and changing a stat block. When you change a stat block, you change it for every roll. For a fudge, you change one specific roll. There is a huge difference between the two, and I have yet to see anybody take the point and refute it.
It's the same effect for that single roll. Does that really need to be clarified?
|
|
@redward: How does "changing the tactics" effect a critical hit that will, beyond a shadow of a doubt, kill a 1st level PC of the class and Con and FCB as defined by the player?
Example situation:
New PC, Elf Witch, no points spent on Con, FCB for skill point.
Con is 8
Hit points are 5
Monster has an attack of +X, damage of 1d6+4, x2 on crits
Crit, confirm, 2d6+8
Best case scenario for our news player? 10 points of damage, with 3 rounds left.
Average scenario: 15 points of damage, PC is dead, dead, dead. Don't even need the worse case for this situtaion, since 15 points of damage takes the PC from fully healthy to fully dead in one critical hit.
And, yes, the above situation occurred to me as GM.
|
|
@redward: How does "changing the tactics" effect a critical hit that will, beyond a shadow of a doubt, kill a 1st level PC of the class and Con and FCB as defined by the player?Example situation:
New PC, Elf Witch, no points spent on Con, FCB for skill point.
Con is 8
Hit points are 5
It doesn't. I never said new characters should never die.
If a new player shows up with that character I would suggest that they seriously consider using a level 1 rebuild to pick up a higher Constitution, because they are one strong breeze away from death.
|
Rewritten to remove the 'or':This is the section of the Guide that is frequently quoted by the Pro-PC Lifers/Fudge Advocates:
While we don’t advocate fudging die rolls, consider the experience of the player when deciding whether to use especially lethal tactics or if a character is in extreme danger of death, especially when the player is new to the game.
- While we don’t advocate fudging die rolls, consider the experience of the player when deciding whether to use especially lethal tactics.
- While we don’t advocate fudging die rolls, consider the experience of the player if a character is in extreme danger of death.
Rewriting the second one to remove advocate and consolidate with the following sentence.
It's clear to me that the intent is to leave the door open for fudging, but only in the situation of avoiding killing off the character of a new player.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
It's the same effect for that single roll. Does that really need to be clarified?I never fudge in favor of the scenario.
More importantly, though, as I've said every time Jiggy has brought it up, there is a fundamental difference between fudging and changing a stat block. When you change a stat block, you change it for every roll. For a fudge, you change one specific roll. There is a huge difference between the two, and I have yet to see anybody take the point and refute it.
Yes, it is the same effect for the single roll, but changing the stat block isn't. Therefore, they are not the same.
|
|
Yes, it is the same effect for the single roll, but changing the stat block isn't. Therefore, they are not the same.It's the same effect for that single roll. Does that really need to be clarified?I never fudge in favor of the scenario.
More importantly, though, as I've said every time Jiggy has brought it up, there is a fundamental difference between fudging and changing a stat block. When you change a stat block, you change it for every roll. For a fudge, you change one specific roll. There is a huge difference between the two, and I have yet to see anybody take the point and refute it.
One can change the stat block for a single roll. How is this not clear? Would it help if you imagined writing over it in pencil and then erasing it?
Bad Rules-breaking GM
GM: "What's your AC?"
Player: Uh-oh...18.
GM's' Inner Monologue:
GM: "Just missed. 17."
Player: "Phew! I thought I was a goner there!"
GM's' Inner Monologue: "
Good Rules-compliant GM
GM: "What's your AC?"
Player: Uh-oh...18.
GM's' Inner Monologue:
GM: "Just missed. 17."
Player: "Phew! I thought I was a goner there!"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There have been a lot of opinions and such thrown around. I'll add mine, it's all very situational.
At a convention a few years ago, I was running a 1-5, low tier, last slot of the day and the third time that day I'd run this scenario; the player with a wizard was a brand new player (brand new in having never played dnd at all let alone pfs).
This was a 7 player table, and had fairly seasoned players cept for the one. It was also a table of players that nitpicked every blessed thing in the scenario. By the time we got to the BBEG I was fried for the day, the BBEG was supposed to go through a long parlay with the party before the final combat.
I'd been rolling like crap all night, so I didn't expect the turn of events. When the wizard opened the door to the bulding, I immediately attacked. I didn't expect the crit with the greataxe, I didn't expect to roll max damage on that crit. I felt bad, the brand new player was going to die and lose the character because I was being lazy and just wanted to end the scenario.
What do you do?
This is what I did to mitigate my personal ick on this. And spoilering it as it involves scenario specifics....
This was the BBEG from Frostfur Captives...
so crit from the great axe, max damage.. means character was going to be unrecoverable dead....
I moved his hitpoints from unrecoverable to -10 (he still had a chance to die, but he had a chance to save himself as well). He flubbed his stabilization roll. Since he'd been the goblin keeper throughout the scenario, I had the goblins rushed in to try and save him.
I asked him what potions/wands he had on him... 3 alchemist fire and 1 cure light.... on a notecard I numbered them and had him roll a d4, he rolled for an alchemist fire... another d4 roll to see if the one goblin that like alchemist fire recognized it and grabbed it... nope...
Move around in initiative order, healer heals the wizard for 7 points, others do what they need to do and we're back to the wizard. Goblin shoves the alchemist fire down his throat, 6 points of damage. Wizard remembers that he has a cure light wand, that goes in the alchemist potion spot on my list... d4, rolls for the wand... before I can speak a player pipes up with "wouldn't it be hilarious if they shoved it up his butt" me being me goes yeah it would ... roll a d4 (1-2 they give it to someone to use, 3-4 up the butt) he rolls a 3... he ends the scenario face down, a cure want sticking out of his hiney and covered in goblins.
Table thinks it's epic, player is laughing hysterically and even said had he died after all of that that he would have taken it as it would have been an epic death. Every one leaves happy and having had a good time. Potential GM ick mitigated.
Now granted Kyle Baird and Doug laughed at me... but in the end everyone walked away happy and I learned a lesson in not letting my personal feelings creep out onto the table.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Redward: You're being intentionally thick here. You can't look at just the one dice roll. The monster will run at the stat block indicated. In the unlikely event that I threaten a crit with said monster and roll high enough to confirm a hit that would have rarely confirmed otherwise, I drop the number on the die down by, say, 2. That's a big difference from thinking that enemies hit too much and dropping 2 from their to hit for the entirety of the scenario.