| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, the checks and balances in the game are not written in stone, and every monster can be reformatted by the GM. I find it particularly amusing to see people post about rules-lawyering how to GameMaster, like that ever works. I agree it would be unfair to "Evolve" to suit the parties strengths and weaknesses. As a pre-pathfinder GM I find that most higher level encounters are not "Epic". They tend to last 4-5 rounds at most, require extensive dice rolling and rules lawyering, and are not designed within the ruleset to be typically challenging especially in a Party vs Single BBEG challenge rating fight. The CR is usually set at reducing the parties daily output by 25-30%, so they can have multiple fights throughout the day.
For example, in our recent game we faced a CR25 BBEG with 1 CR20 lieutenant & 6 CR17 helpers against a CR15 party of 6. Five rounds of combat and the fight is down to the enemy lieutenant alive and one temporary party casualty due to a crit. Our GM certainly didn't pull any punches and he had a custom made BBEG. Everyone in the group could have gone another 5 rounds of similar combat.
I think the people who say "quit the game" are living in a paradise of plentiful players, not a longterm group of friends. It can tough to manage a write up weekly to amuse for 4-6 hours, and if your GM likes a particular theme, suck it up buttercup.
Edit: I do think your GM is a %^$#% for taking away dragon loot, thats cheap. My GM motto is "Crunch all you want, I'll make more..."
Good friends dont always make good gaming partners.
Source:Real Life Experience
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good friends dont always make good gaming partners.Source:Real Life Experience
Ain't that the truth.
Some friends are terrible to game with. Still my friends though.
Sort of works out in reverse as well.
I have people who I never hang out with, except to game with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In which matter does it make a difference to what I am wrote above?
Ok, I throw 25 skeletons into battle - you won
Next time 50 orcs... and then 100 boars?It is nothing different to making 1 monster harder and harder.
Next time you will kill 50 enemies and complain about the other 50 still standing.
As gm, I can create encounters that tpk easily.
To create interesting encounters is hard, with highly specialized characters even harder.
Players should recognize this. Sometimes they have to cut back to have more fun.Just talk with your whole group
Since the gm seems to have no problems with the others characters and the other players seems to have no problems with the gm, you should start talking. Maybe you can rebuild your character
It makes a difference. Highly optimized characters can easily curbstomp creatures WAY above their APL. +6 is not unreasonable, unless the creatures has AoE save or Die.
They can't handle Multiple creatures nearly as well. Suppose an optimized party of six lvl 4s get into a fight with a stone giant. The likely have 2 or 3 martial guys who deal ~25 damage per turn and can hit that AC 22 on a 12.
This means that while the hill giant can deal scary damage, it only takes 4 good hits from the martials before it goes down. It can expect to survive 2-3 rounds.
But suppose you made a CR 8 encounter consisting of a lvl 2 bard with sleep, cha 17, spell focus(enchantment) & lingering performance, and paired him up with 11 3rd level warriors with reach weapons & weapon focus. They could have ac ~15, ~22hp, and +7 to hit before inspire courage.
This battle will be more interesting than the hill giant, and it's still an apl+3 encounter. They'll probably win it, but one of their casters might just die, and their martials will take a good beating.
Edit: +1, wraithstrike, +1.
It makes a difference. (...)
They can't handle Multiple creatures nearly as well.Your suggestions includes the same problem.
Instead of powering up one monster, you suggest to bring multiple monsters. Adapt and escalate the encounter until the party will have real problems.
No difference.This arms race is boring. For the gm and for the players.
Ahh, you're not asking how to challenge your players, you're lamenting the fact that there's no real difference in being optimized or unoptimized, since the fights will just become tougher, whether you use a higher CR or trickery like 3 cr 1/3 spellcasters making them take a save every round.
I know this one.
The thing to remember is that optimized characters can handle a greater opposition. This is not a problem. This is an opportunity to raise the stakes, make the campaign more epic. Sort of like the mythic rules. In fact, exactly like the mythic rules.
It can fall very flat if you don't do it properly.
A good example of a campaign(or at least a module) run with optimized pcs is the avengers movie(s). It should give off the same impression, except perhaps with more uncertainty. The amount of jokes being told is about right for a game of d&d, in my experience at least :)
Your suggestions includes the same problem.
Instead of powering up one monster, you suggest to bring multiple monsters. Adapt and escalate the encounter until the party will have real problems.
No difference.This arms race is boring. For the gm and for the players.
Ahh, you're not asking how to challenge your players, you're lamenting the fact that there's no real difference in being optimized or unoptimized, since the fights will just become tougher, whether you use a higher CR or trickery like 3 cr 1/3 spellcasters making them take a save every round.
I know this one.
The thing to remember is that optimized characters can handle a greater opposition. This is not a problem. This is an opportunity to raise the stakes, make the campaign more epic. Sort of like the mythic rules. In fact, exactly like the mythic rules.
Exactly. It lets me, as a GM, delve deeper into the bestiary earlier than usual. Throw out more difficult/iconic/weird monsters earlier than the character's level might traditionally dictate. It let's me work on a larger scale, have more difficult encounters, and generally do more interesting things than a lower optimization party would.
While I don't like how low the power level is on many monsters in the bestiary, it is also generally easier to build up a monster than it is to make them weaker. Simple things like feat corrections, added equipment, and strategic advantages make a huge difference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not all blasting spells involve evocation. Need I mention the Snowball family of spells which are all conjuration and bypass SR?What options would you suggest I do that doesn't involve SR?I'm pretty much with BigDTBone. GMs sorta gotta learn, eventually, how to balance encounters in pathfinder so that everybody enjoys themselves. Fighting with the GM is always a bad idea.
That said, you could also just do stuff other than blasting next time you fight a dragon. Plenty of things you can do that don't involve SR.
Seems like you're both being a bit inflexible to me. You believe that you should always be able to blast things. He believes that his dragons should be super-difficult to blast.
And then the GM in question just throws a bunch of white dragons into the mix.
Though it is a good idea not to overspecialize to the point of gimping your wizard, the issue is clearly one of a GM who plans his campaign to shut down what he sees as an obstacle to defeating the PCs.
There are many problems with this, but the biggest one for me is that it shatters verisimilitude. By focusing on defeating this character's "trick," the GM is creating a world that has somehow prepared itself to thwarting the efforts of this one, single character.
Lame.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are non-SR spells you can use. Dazing acid arrow (or some other SR:no spell). The archer could get enlarge person potions and large arrows (only giving a 30% miss chance instead of complete negation; with a seeking bow, it would just hit.) What does the archer do if he casts darkness? Or has fog, or goes around a corner? There is tactics on both sides.
Yes, you have strong spell penetration. Dazing spell is a seriously strong metamagic. I have a feeling that your GM wasn't prepared for a scry&fry with dazing spell completely shutting down the dragon. Maybe he could just throw you up against a Red. Negating your fireball entirely. That'd be a lot simpler than saying "all dragons are suddenly more resistant to spells".
Dazing acid splash would go against will, which is I think should be higher than reflex. so while useable, it will be less likely to work.
If the enemy casts darkness, fog, or hides then you respond to it. That's playing smart as the enemy, and as a player you get daylight, fireball the fog, or run around the corner. The ebb and flow of things. And for the sake of the example, you are unable to get large arrows. But even still, you'd need to not have those large arrows affected by the spell.
Oooh! Snowball!
It's a level 1 spell, does 1D6 per level cold damage (max 5 dice) and staggered on a failed fort save. But the damage doesn't get dropped on the successful fort save.Now you can metamagic the crap out of that spell. Throw intensified for +1 spell level now it does 10D6 for you as a level 2 spell. You can either add another metamagic to make it beefier (Like maximized for a 60 cold damage spell) or you can make a wand of infinite uses of intensified Snowball and ping away at anyone without high cold resist/immunity. (Only immunity if you were flinging maximized)
Now I haven't finished reading through the posts, but my general opinion is either get out, or play the game with a DM like that and accept that you're unable/willing to change things to make it better. See, the point is to have fun, and actually I was just reading the the Gamemastery Guide and that kind of DM was actually discussed early on in the book with several of those activities as being uncreative and generally not fun.
That's the thing I can think of to help I guess. If you're not having fun in the end because the DM is being a cheap shot, then you shouldn't be playing. You should not play a game you don't enjoy... that's like hitting yourself in the foot with a hammer: it hurts and isn't fun, so you won't do it.
[EDIT] Aaaaaand everyone already broached snowball... Balls.
You know, this is kind of what high level spellcasting was like back in 1e/2e days. Saves were based on the hit dice/level of the target and couldn't be made more difficult by the PC. LOTS of save or lose type spells failed and left the caster with an unproductive turn. And, frankly, PF could use a bit more of it than it has now.To people defending the GM:
You realize he is basically saying "I demand that 50% of your turns are wasted, no matter what.
<snip>
It's like being under a non-removable Bestow Curse, and also only having half the normal number of spells per day.
No thanks. I'd much rather a system with significantly less save or lose and in return getting save or suffer a degree of badness depending on how well you rolled.
Pathfinder(And most editions of DnD) are far too hit or miss on effects.
And for the sake of the example, you are unable to get large arrows. But even still, you'd need to not have those large arrows affected by the spell.
Thats why you prepare with some ahead of time. Drop them before you drink your potion, then pick them back up, and now you have large arrows that stay large after shooting from your large bow. Yes they have a 30% miss chance now. Get seeking on your bow (a pretty darn good enhancement) and you get it ignore any % miss chance for targets. So now those large arrows go straight through the wind wall.
Think of it as a good ole MMORPG Boss Monster battle, and try to keep your DPS up and not draw aggro. You haven't been playing this character that long, and it might be fun to see what kind of crazy 1,000hp dragons you can butcher.
But I see some potential warning signs right away. First of all, you have a paladin in the party, and the first dragon is neutral? Ugh. Then those stats? 700hp? high ac/saves/SR? Does the GM know how completely this monster forces the game into rocket tag? Why chip away for 20 rounds when you can just save-or-suck the thing with one or two lucky rolls? Melee, ranged, and blasters (the whole party) are going to suck. I sense the GM is attempting to present a challenge when in reality he is presenting a headache for the players. You might well have a long series of bang-your-head-against-the-wall encounters ahead of you.
People make mistakes, and while the GM may be smack talking, he may also be trying to retool for dealing with three specialized high level characters. There are some broken things here and there in Pathfinder (dazing spell for example), and unless you call them out, it can be tough to attempt balancing the game.
Quick rules/guidelines aside:
Treasure/encounters/experience/monster building and may other aspects of the game are guidelines not rules. GM's may ignore these guidelines, but they are not operating under house rules when they do this.
I see no problem with the approach, the DM is simply presenting a challenge. You need to change tactics and expect different things from each encounter. Talk, co-operate, and don't expect the encounters to play to your strengths.
Okay then in your next session you play, put the enemies AC to 20 + your attack bonus and it's SR to 20 + your spell pen level. Now it's a hard fight. if you get a buff to your attack then raise it's AC by that much. That way it'll keep it hard.
I've only read the first page, but I was just wondering, was the dragon invasion common knowledge, or was it supposed to be something that noone was expecting (like skyrim). which would explain why he wanted to increase the spell resistance, since if you didn't know you were fighting dragons would you have put them all into Spell penetration?
Or can someone answer if this post is just completely irrelevant.
I've only read the first page, but I was just wondering, was the dragon invasion common knowledge, or was it supposed to be something that noone was expecting (like skyrim). which would explain why he wanted to increase the spell resistance, since if you didn't know you were fighting dragons would you have put them all into Spell penetration?
Or can someone answer if this post is just completely irrelevant.
The GM told us this was a dragon campaign and to be ready for it. The invasion was known to be coming from legends and we knew the day a month before it happened. The GM said, "Okay next session will be a gargantuan dragon fight, so be ready for it."
But even still, raising the opponents spell res because a player raised their spell pen, that's just rude and mean.
But even still, raising the opponents spell res because a player raised their spell pen, that's just rude and mean.
I didn't mean for it to sound like I was saying it wasn't rude or mean, just was going along the lines of, he might not of been expecting people to prepare specifically for dragons. I know he said it'd be a dragon campaign, but if commoners and adventurers didn't know for sure, they'd probably not focus on it.
I don't know but he might of been telling you so you as a player would know, and thought your character would of just thought the dragons were legend, until 30 days before, which in game would usually not even be a level's worth of time for most.
Again I want to make sure you know, I think just raising the spell resistance is a dick move, there are many other ways to make it a challenge than just increasing the dragon's SR, such as give it a low fast healing, give it a resistance/immunity, give them better tactics, or even have one escape, so they can warn other dragons about what to expect.
He said build our characters for the campaign. The ranger has maxed favored enemy Dragon. And also, It's not like my spell pen is dragon focused. I'm a high leveled mage that doesn't want his spells resisted. I'd probably have had this much spell pen for any high level campaign where the GM wouldn't raise spell res by my bonus spell pen.
He said build our characters for the campaign. The ranger has maxed favored enemy Dragon. And also, It's not like my spell pen is dragon focused. I'm a high leveled mage that doesn't want his spells resisted. I'd probably have had this much spell pen for any high level campaign where the GM wouldn't raise spell res by my bonus spell pen.
Forgot about the ranger. So yeah that's starting to look like just player hate..
Gotchya, I've not played a high level wizard so idk too much about them. I know spell penetration is important but didn't know how much it was.
Spell perfection doubles all numerical bonuses from feats. Do you have spell perfection(fireball), Spell Specialization(fireball), Spell penetration+Improved? Because then you can have a relative +12 to spell pen, on top of items & whatnot.
If you do, spell resistance should be a 100% non-issue. If the DM wants to make it work in spite of that... Well. I guess he doesn't really know/care how that's supposed to work.
Spell perfection doubles all numerical bonuses from feats. Do you have spell perfection(fireball), Spell Specialization(fireball), Spell penetration+Improved? Because then you can have a relative +12 to spell pen, on top of items & whatnot.
If you do, spell resistance should be a 100% non-issue. If the DM wants to make it work in spite of that... Well. I guess he doesn't really know/care how that's supposed to work.
I have spell specialization, spell pen and improved pen. So at lv13 I was hitting spell pen 25. This is why the GM is going to raise the SR of the enemies, because I can hit it too easy. This is what the issue is, that he's raise the SR because I raised my ability to beat SR
You are not going to win this. The GM is basically putting limits on how high your ability to bypass SR can go.
If his issue is with dazing metamagic then you might have to stop using it, and ask him can you get another feat in its place. Personally I think his passive agressiveness is childness. If his problem is just the SR then ask him can you get rid of the SR feats because if he is just going to raise SR to counter you then you are really just wasting resources.
As an aside, against a party like that Maxing HP for their target foe is a tactic I don't take issue with. It allows you to have a reasonable CR creature that doesn't drop in one round. It's more fun to hit the dragon three times, than to have to roll a 16 to hit AC and take three turns to do it. But boosting all the stats is problematic and it would make sense to take the CR up one level instead...
but as for the question at hand. . . If the GM thinks your blowign through his creature and wants to up the CR, you could likely try to talk to him and let you re-spec a little and ask if you can trade out the Kimono. It's a sweet piece of gear, but if he's got a problem with the high SR, i'd bet he'd love to get rid of your No Save maze spell 1/day. That way he doesn't have to raise his SR and you have 67k to spend on something else You will need to buy a cloak of Res or another save-booster, but still that's a pretty fat stack of cash.
everybody is happy (well not happy, but gets something nifty out of it. GM gets what he wants and you get a new piece of gear that will be relevant.)
As an aside, against a party like that Maxing HP for their target foe is a tactic I don't take issue with. It allows you to have a reasonable CR creature that doesn't drop in one round. It's more fun to hit the dragon three times, than to have to roll a 16 to hit AC and take three turns to do it. But boosting all the stats is problematic and it would make sense to take the CR up one level instead...
but as for the question at hand. . . If the GM thinks your blowing through his creature and wants to up the CR, you could likely try to talk to him and let you re-spec a little and ask if you can trade out the Kimono. It's a sweet piece of gear, but if he's got a problem with the high SR, i'd bet he'd love to get rid of your No Save maze spell 1/day. That way he doesn't have to raise his SR and you have 67k to spend on something else You will need to buy a cloak of Res or another save-booster, but still that's a pretty fat stack of cash.
This is I haven't used the Kimono's ability. And I don't think I ever will. See I kinda started to have a feel for what he'd have a problem with. So I knew he'd have a big issue with that. But I didn't think he'd have an issue with me having spell pen.
|
His problem is likely less with you having spell pen and more with Dazing Spell. A fireball wizard doing damage isn't a big deal (especially since he's buffed the HP of his enemies) but being able to keep a dragon daze-locked for an entire fight sure as hell can be.
I also suggest you talk to him about switching out Dazing Spell for something else.
Yeah, Dazing F-Bombs are frikin BRUTAL. 3-rounds of sitting on your hands. especially for Dragons with poor reflex saves.
It is hard to track the effects of certain abilities on a high level party, and he may not have realized that the robe stacked with a munch of bonuses to Spell-Pen woul negate one of the Dragon's main defensive abilities.
I agree that the dragon could just be played better to make advantage of all it's abilities. The GM had contingency teleport to right behind the party if it got low, so it could Ice breath us from the other side. better tactics make for harder fights.
@waiph
While typical dragons have bad reflex saves, this dragon still had a reflex save of 20, I don't know what it's other saves were. But it's hardly the ~10 that most pathfinder dragons have.
I agree that the dragon could just be played better to make advantage of all it's abilities. The GM had contingency teleport to right behind the party if it got low, so it could Ice breath us from the other side. better tactics make for harder fights.
@waiph
While typical dragons have bad reflex saves, this dragon still had a reflex save of 20, I don't know what it's other saves were. But it's hardly the ~10 that most pathfinder dragons have.
What ridiculous thought process is that? "I can teleport back to a place of safety in the chance something might actually kill me or I could just teleport to the other side of the people trying to kill me so I can slightly hurt them a little more before I die..."
I agree that the dragon could just be played better to make advantage of all it's abilities. The GM had contingency teleport to right behind the party if it got low, so it could Ice breath us from the other side. better tactics make for harder fights.
What ridiculous thought process is that? "I can teleport back to a place of safety in the chance something might actually kill me or I could just teleport to the other side of the people trying to kill me so I can slightly hurt them a little more before I die..."