Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
So you think APL 2.5 party with no level 4-5s in a 1-5 should be facing a CR7 big bad?
Or an APL 4.5 party with no level 6-7s in a 3-7 facing a CR9 big bad?
Here's an example offense line from a CR9 encounter that you suggest these levels 4s and 5s should face: +1 greatsword +16/+11 (2d6+22/17–20)
Not a chance.
2.5 and 4.5 don't have to play up. They can choose to play up or down.
|
seeing how much confusion there is over both the encounter and the playing up/down rules definitely calls for some slack towards the dm, given as how people deliberating overnight can't all get on the same answer you can hardly expect more from someone about to run a scenario in a crowded hall.
Why does Big Norse Wolf always seem to be right? A voice of reason amidst the chaos...
Again, this might be more of an issue with scenario construction and clarity than it is about the particular abilities of the average GM.
|
2.5 and 4.5 don't have to play up. They can choose to play up or down.You round to the nearest whole number, 3 and 5 in this case, putting them in the situation to be annihilated that you insist on.
According to the guide x.5 has the option to play up or down. x.6 rounds up to the nearest whole number
The only glaring error I think is that the 4 player adjustment wasn't given for a party of 5+ playing up tier
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
BNF: Again, I'm not upset at the DM or anyone. Slack is given in ample amounts.
This is altogether different than believing it was handled correctly.
Mark: But 4.6 (such was the case here) doesn't get that choice? I think you may have avoided plaidwandering's question.
No, I don't believe it gets that choice. 4.6 rounds to 5, which Puts it between the 2 subtiers, and based on the number of players at your table, would play subtier 6-7 with the 4 player adjustment.
|
|
Actually, the question (which has been posed several times) is whether or not you believe that level 4s (or even 3) are intended to contend with CR9 bosses.
I understand basic arithmetic as I believe everyone here does. We know how rounding works. But as plaidwandering said, "Anyone 4.6-5 is in the same boat and likely wiped out without any chance at all." Or as William Boyle put it, "I can see the DCs and some full strength monster SAs (which are often toned down in 1-2) etc. in a 4-5 being a bit much for PCS with 6 XPs so I would not lose any sleep if there was some flexibility."
I can understand and respect your opinion whatever it is. I do, honestly, find it hard to believe that you think actually think that level 4s are intended to contend with CR9 bosses. I think it is more likely you are repeating your interpretation of the way the rules read for the sake of argument rather than actually believing the words you are saying. But if you tell me you believe that then I will let the point drop and put you on that side of the disagreement.
It is a minor point in the overall discussion and I am not trying to alienate someone who helped me and supports our situation being resolved in a very amiable way.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
I can understand and respect your opinion whatever it is. I do, honestly, find it hard to believe that you think actually think that level 4s are intended to contend with CR9 bosses. I think it is more likely you are repeating your interpretation of the way the rules read for the sake of argument rather than actually believing the words you are saying. But if you tell me you believe that then I will let the point drop and put you on that side of the disagreement.
To be clear, and without getting too far into the spoilers:
If a group of players sits at a table and the tier isn't acceptable to the group, then a player can choose to play a different character (and in this case, the person playing the bard knew what his level 5 character would do to the tier calculation - at least, that's what I understood from your original post.)
Another item:
The reason the option to play low exists for seasons 0-3 is that those seasons were written without an adjustment for 4 players. Now, maybe you think the 4 player adjustment wasn't enough in this scenario - we won't know because your GM didn't apply it. But it's there.
If the guide is changed so that every table that ends up between tiers gets that choice, then 4 player adjustments will no longer be necessary - groups will likely just choose to play down (without the 4 player adjustment, I imagine.) Maybe in this case it was both an issue of encounter design and the fact the GM did't apply the adjustment (and I'm not trying to knock the GM - all of us who sit behind the screen make mistakes.) Encounter design, as best I can tell, is far more an art than it is a science.
A personal story: in 2013, I played "The Hellknight's Feast" at Gen Con. The GM ran the appropriate tier. In one encounter, my character was killed. I was bummed, but I paid the prestige to get raised, and spent gold to get my restorations. When we were done, the GM realized he had run the high tier version of that one encounter. The manner in which my character died could not have happened at low tier. He offered to issue a new chronicle and allow me to go back and fix my chronicles and ITS to reflect that it had been a mistake. I had such a good time playing, though, I accepted the death and being raised, and moved on. Now, your particular circumstance was vastly different, and as I have said previously, and say again, my opinion is that the failure to apply the 4 player adjustment, to me, was and is sufficient to constitute refunding the characters what they spent to be raised/resurrected/whatever.
It's a mistake. You've been given a few ways to have it corrected, and the fact that your VC has offered to help you is a good sign that others feel the same way.
If you feel that the rule should be changed regarding the ability to play low if no one at the table has a character in tier, then suggest that it be changed in next year's guide. Until then, the rule is what the rule says it is (unless it's clarified by John Compton or the new Campaign Coordinator, once he or she is hired). I personally have found that the rule works just fine, though I will grant that an occasional corner case exists that might cause some head scratching. Those few corner cases aren't sufficient enough to convince me that the rule is wrong or that it needs to be changed.
|
|
Actually Lune doesn't seem to be making that distinction.
You are wrong. Re-read my initial post. I gave the levels in that post.
And while you think that the "fringe" statement is clearly supposed to apply only to tier 0-3 there are plenty of other people in this thread that have a different opinion and have shared it. I do not really care to argue the point. I didn't even bring it up.
Mulgar, Mark, et al: Just so you understand my son and I didn't actually know that we were playing in subtier 6-7 until it was brought up in the middle of the grim encounter that this thread is about. The DM didn't tell the table what tier we were playing in much less give us a choice. So while you are likely correct that the Bard's player was making an informed decision that he knew would affect our subtier, we did not know this. We didn't know we were playing in the subtier so we didn't know to adjust what characters we were playing to bump us down to the lower subtier.
Now sure, it is partially our fault for not being well enough informed about how the subtier calculations work. But saying "IF THE PLAYER CHOOSES TO PLAY" is not really accurate to this situation. Understand that those creatures didn't have a CR hovering above their heads. We didn't know either in character or out of character what we were up against until it was too late. And no, running away wasn't an option. They had us on movement speed, numbers, etc. Outmanned and outgunned and all that jazz.
Mark, you are incorrect on your CR calculations, bud. That is what the encounter CR is before the addition of the extra gnoll and the gnoll boss with the greataxe. Recalculate it and you will see. Regardless I am not only referring to just this 3-7 scenario. There are other scenarios in that tier range that have CR9+ bosses.
Further analysis of the mistakes are not really needed. They have already been identified. No one (at least not myself or my son) is trying to place blame or point fingers so allocating the blame for the identified mistakes isn't needed either. As I said from the beginning, I'm sure there were miscommunications aplenty and the blame finger can go in several directions. Yes, even at me. I understand that ignorance is a poor excuse but that doesn't excuse that it happened and it shouldn't have.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
Mulgar, Mark, et al: Just so you understand my son and I didn't actually know that we were playing in subtier 6-7 until it was brought up in the middle of the grim encounter that this thread is about. The DM didn't tell the table what tier we were playing in much less give us a choice. So while you are likely correct that the Bard's player was making an informed decision that he knew would affect our subtier, we did not know this. We didn't know we were playing in the subtier so we didn't know to adjust what characters we were playing to bump us down to the lower subtier.
Now sure, it is partially our fault for not being well enough informed about how the subtier calculations work. But saying "IF THE PLAYER CHOOSES TO PLAY" is not really accurate to this situation. Understand that those creatures didn't have a CR hovering above their heads. We didn't know either in character or out of character what we were up against until it was too late. And no, running away wasn't an option. They had us on movement speed, numbers, etc. Outmanned and outgunned and all that jazz.
Oh, no, I understood it that the player of the bard was aware, and that's the person my comment was about. The "chooses to play" was about the person choosing to play the bard, even though he apparently knew what that would mean for the table. He certainly didn't do anything wrong in choosing that character, but it certainly had consequences for the table.
Subtier calculations can challenge lots of players, and even some veterans - I certainly don't expect a new player to know it, but I do expect a GM to either know it or to be able to look it up. In fact, when I run, I always keep that part of the guide up on my iPad, so when I'm making the calculation, I have it in front of me, just in case.
|
Just to be curious, knowing that you play high with a low group, why did you choose the frontal assault, and did't sneak into the Fortress, as ordered by VC?
This would have made these encounters a lot easier.
having just played this on thursday and running out of time my guess is stagnation on the 1st encounter spot or simply saying "Ive had it with the treatment"
I know when we went on the offensive things sped up SIGNIFIGANTLY
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
Lune: It is not that I don't feel your pain here.
I do feel I should clarify though.
I can see that a party of 5 PCs all at 3rd, 5th, 7th or 9th facing encounters designed to challenge four 5th/7th/9th or 11th level characters respectively will have a tougher time. Certainly tougher than the same group taking on something designed for six level 1/3/5/7 characters
But.....
I cannot read the rules so to sever the fringe case from rest of the paragraph it appears in so the sub tier was correctly chosen. Not applying the 4 player adjustment though would be comparable to running at the wrong sub tier and I would apply a common sense solution. Much like my esteemed colleague from Indianna has suggested!
My point was that I would be comfortable enough if (when the rules are reviewed) that some flexibility be introduced but it is not in my opinion an option in the GMs tool kit to offer the fringe case exception in season 4+
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
Andrew,
Both matters are serious ones. I guess we have to balance the need for fairness against the danger of opening the flood gates and every deviation from the "correct" running of a scenario leading to a post facto appeal with players dredging through scenarios looking for grounds.
W
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
What concerns me more than the lack of using the 4 player adjustment, was the coup de grace. The tactics specifically say the gnolls try to capture the PCs to sell them into slavery. The coup de grace was out if line specifically for this scenario.What coup de grace? I don't see any reference to it in the OP or the thread. The OP says that a couple of characters died, nothing about a coup.
Upthread, the OP (in a follow up, spoilered post), mention that his son's character was rendered unconscious, and then a gnoll did a CDG (and he used that abberviation to denote it, so if you were looking for "coupe de grace" you wouldn't see it written out like that.)
I certainly agree with Andy here - in addition to not applying the 4 player adjustment, I believe the use of the CDG was also incorrect.
|
What concerns me more than the lack of using the 4 player adjustment, was the coup de grace. The tactics specifically say the gnolls try to capture the PCs to sell them into slavery. The coup de grace was out if line specifically for this scenario.What coup de grace? I don't see any reference to it in the OP or the thread. The OP says that a couple of characters died, nothing about a coup.
As Mark noted above, it was in a later post.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
I would add that we only have the player's side of the story. There is still the GM's side of the story to be heard.
In fairness to the GM, I'd like to hear his take on it. If what the OP alleges is true, I would stand by my view of how it should be remedied. If the GM were to present something contrary to that, then some sort of evaluation or assessment would need to be made.
I was providing my opinion in the context that the OP was correct (and I don't doubt him - but there is another person's thoughts that would be helpful here, and we haven't heard those yet.)
|
|
Aah, I missed that. Then yes definitely looks like a case of a poorly prepared GM. Mistakes do happen and when they are pointed out the first person to look at fixing them should really be the GM. I have killed the occasional PC when I have made a mistake, if that happens the best solution is to retcon the death and move on.What concerns me more than the lack of using the 4 player adjustment, was the coup de grace. The tactics specifically say the gnolls try to capture the PCs to sell them into slavery. The coup de grace was out if line specifically for this scenario.What coup de grace? I don't see any reference to it in the OP or the thread. The OP says that a couple of characters died, nothing about a coup.Upthread, the OP (in a follow up, spoilered post), mention that his son's character was rendered unconscious, and then a gnoll did a CDG (and he used that abberviation to denote it, so if you were looking for "coupe de grace" you wouldn't see it written out like that.)
I certainly agree with Andy here - in addition to not applying the 4 player adjustment, I believe the use of the CDG was also incorrect.
I agree with this. And I'd add that in all but the most egregious situations, I will not overturn a GM decision. That isn't to say I won't discuss with them later some of the decisions made, though.
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
Not wishing to resurrect the question when a CDG should be used it does raise the question of where we draw the lines. There are some, exceptional circumstances where attacking a helpless PC is a legitimate option regardless of written tactics. There are no circumstances where running the wrong sub tier/adjustment are legit.
If a party gets colour sprayed into oblivion by a caster whose tactics are to stay in a fog bank and cast direct damage would that lead to a retcon? If a PC is particularly nasty to an evil NPC, let's say gloating over slaying a kinsman or beloved pet would I consider it beyond the pale for that NPC to join the fray declaring "To the death, then..."?
It is a tough one and worthy of some thought and discussion amongst the decision makers.
W
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At this point, can we get the web team to put a spoiler tab and the scenario name in the title? This whole thread has become seriously spoilertastic
Or better yet, move it to the GM forum?
Just to be curious, knowing that you play high with a low group, why did you choose the frontal assault, and did't sneak into the Fortress, as ordered by VC?
This would have made these encounters a lot easier.
If you don't do well in the first two encounters, sneaking in isn't an option.
And to echo andrew above,
The gnolls should have been doing non lethal, and a tpk should have resulted in each of you paying 5pp to get the society to buy you back.
|
|
Just to be curious, knowing that you play high with a low group, why did you choose the frontal assault, and did't sneak into the Fortress, as ordered by VC?
This would have made these encounters a lot easier.
Well, it wasn't as if we had the results of both options available to us when the decision was made to abandon the stealth route. Also, we did start out with that intention but another PC (no my son or I) made the choice that they could not tolerate how the slaves were being treated. It was an in character decision (I believe they were Liberty's Edge too) and we weren't about to not backup our team.
My son's character was posing as a "bodyguard" to the "slave trader" another character. That other character made his move and the cover was blown. My son's character also had his horse being a cavalier. Once the cover was blown it went downhill from there. We couldn't really approach the stronghold without the gnoll we had just killed in tow without our cover being blown. In fact, the archer on the tower opened fire upon our approach. At that point it is better to rush in than be a pincushion as the only one of our characters with a strong ranged option was the Arcanist and most of his spells were close range.
Also, my character was the only one among us that was stealthy in the least. And with most of the party lacking darkvision and the gnolls having it the decision was made that a night time approach would favor the gnolls as well.
William: That is fair. No hard feelings here. I seemed to get the impression that you would prefer flexability being allowed in these circumstances. I had thought that a more liberal reading along with the way the rule used to work would have swayed you towards allowing for the "fringe" case under the current rules.
Regarding the CDG and nonlethal attacks:
I have had a recent talk with my son on this topic. It seems that I was mistaken about where the CDG was placed. It wasn't upon his own character, it was upon his mount. I remembered incorrectly, my apologies for the confusion it may have caused.
However, after having read the motivations of what the gnolls goals were supposed to have been I can tell you that they were definitely not played that way. They had the definite advantage throughout that entire fight and it was so obvious even their low intelligence is no excuse for not knowing it. That is worse than the CDG even if it were to have been on my son's character.
That would have turned the game around entirely. My character would have still had a great chance at breaking free with her abilities. It would have allowed the rest of the game to play out as it was intended.
I am actually thinking more now knowing the things that were obviously missed if the GM was purposely being lethal for some reason. I doubt it is the case and I'm probably just being paranoid. I do not recall having any negative interaction with him. It just seems like he took things out of the way they were intended and made things purposefully lethal when they were not meant to be. Like... pretty extremely, honestly. I still am not upset at him, but if they were meant to be as non-lethal as others have pointed out when overpowering the party to the point that they did... well, it is making me think that it may not have been as accidental as I originally thought. It seems like it is too hard to miss ALL of those mistakes.
Especially FLite's last spoiler. Is that true? Is it actually written in the scenario? Why on earth wasn't that followed at least? 2 were captured, 2 (and the horse) were killed. I was made to feel like they were doing a favor by the one guy using his boon and everyone chipping in for raise deads for the two dead. There were no deals made for us. We were worse off than the worst case scenario.
DM's side of the story:
I'm sorry, I don't think that will happen. I'm not sure how often he reads the boards. Even if he did recognize the story I think at this point it would be pretty embarrassing for him to post here, don't you? I honestly don't see what good would come of that for anyone involved. Him, me, the other players or the community as a whole.
Look, I didn't come here to have people judge the GM and any mistakes he made. I didn't come to have people judge my actions or that of my son. I simply came seeking a solution and it has been found. I thank everyone who contributed to helping me on my way to that.
No, I don't think the GM posting would be wise. I also don't know any of the other players that were present besides my son. While I tend to try to keep him out of the drama spotlight, he is quickly becoming an adult so I will allow him to chime in. After all he also has a stake in this.
Also, I support the thread move and spoiler tag if it is appropriate to do so.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Re: my last spoiler.
It isn't written into the scenario explicitly, but it should have been the obvious outcome to anyone who follows the GM forums. Unfortunately, not everyone does. For anyone who does not, it is derivable (barely) from the guide.
I think it might also be in the GM101 docs? Maybe?
There are a lot of philosophy discussions in the GM forums about CdG and TPK and how to keep them serious threats while making the game fun for the players. GM's have some pretty broad discretion on outcomes of defeat.
CdG on incapped ACs and Mounts is a great way to show the players how serious the npc is while wasting their turn and buying the PCs some time to get their act together.
|
|
gnolls sustain, the more lethal they become.
Same text at both tiers
slave uprising, and he switches to nonlethal attacks if it
seems clear that he’s winning the fiht. He barks commands
at his subordinates and tends to get frustrated when they
can’t match his tactical cunning
and
The gnolls follow Farug’s lead and deal
nonlethal damage if he does
Same text at both tiers
leaves quite a lot to gm interpretation IMHO tho if you were getting rolled as hard as it sounds then - yes I agree
Hey, fellow gamers. It's Lune's son here. Just to clarify, here is how I recall the combat going down:
Several shots fired by archer gnoll.
[3 Rounds of Cavalier and barb sprinting up on his horse]
Barbarian (father) starts wrecking the door.
I attempt to climb/jump my way onto the wall, and then onto the tower.
With all my movement being spent, I was at the very rim of the tower.
[Barb continues hitting door while rest of party is sprinting there way to the fortress]
I then attempted to Acrobatics up onto the tower, but I also made a check to the Archer's CMD for no AOO, and I failed. He tripped me and I fell
[Rest of party catches up, Barb hits door again, large sized hyena tries to disarm the barb {through barred door} and fails]
Alch fire gets thrown a few times, horse moves and and HOOVE CRITS, for a mighty 9 or 10 dmg. The rouge with his keen scimitar crits and wiffs. Bard does what bards do. Barb does what barb does.
My honor guard cavalier moves in and Aids the barbs attack.
More Alch fire, and I decide to move my cavalier near the tower's latter to bottle-neck the archer and a few of the other mobs.
Horse get hit. Barb gets hit. Rouge hits with 1 scimitar. Gnolls and hyenas keep hitting and a few wiffs.
The boss gnoll moves up to me and crits me with great axe, makeing my character (the tank) nearly go down to DEAD. Approximately 3 hp away from death.
Horse wiffs, barb wiffs, bard heals me back to consiousness, and we begin to go downhill from there.
I then began to follow the bard around asking for divine magic to heal me (in character)
A gnoll grunt AOOs me because I didnt even think to use Acrobatics to avoid. He hit me, I died.
More of the gnolls wrecking, and then end of that combat. We got destroyed.
After the horse got eaten apparently and I was dead, I just sorta watched and tryed to keep focused at the table. I wasnt too put down at the table until the GM said "You know yall were up against CR 7s?"
My gears finally began to work in my head. It now made sense why we just got our butts kicked. Lvl 4 melees against Cr 7 and 8 gnolls with class lvls. Thats just filthy.
After the discussion at the table about raise deads and restoration, the GM went to HQ and spoke with a few people (specificly Tonya).
He was aware of his mistake now due it just being pointed out by one of the players. He was seeking a solution and so was the table, we just didnt know exactly what to do. My father attempted to contact one of our VCs and the VC didnt respond. WE later found out that it would do no good mentioning our near TPK to HQ or any VOs because we would get the same response or something that would equate to: "Stuff like that just happens."
Now, with the new found info on the scenario I'm pretty annoyed. It's the GM's responsibility to ensure the rules are being followed by him and (in some cases) the party members. They had the upper hand since initiative was rolled, though punches were not being pulled. If the order was to not kill any of the PCs then why did the GM have the boss gnoll order a gnoll grunt to go CDG my mount? I have a feeling the GMs may have been poorly experienced and I can get that. In fact, my first scenario in which I am going to run is in a few days. Though I feel there should be some ways of retconing this unforutnate situation.
|
|
Yeah, I think we can all agree mistakes were made. Unfortunately there is nothing that can be done at this late date. A good general rule to follow is that if the party looks like it is going to be a very likely wipe on by the end of the first or second round of a fight, reread the encounter very very carefully. It is entirely possible that you missed a crucial detail, such as but not limited to:
Monster tactics making them perform very suboptimal actions(hitting non lethally to try and collect slave, not sorcerers trying to get into melee to use claws, ect...)
Some debuff that in on the monsters (I've gm'd several scenarios where monsters had the sickened condition)
That a spell is being run correctly.
A 4 player adjustment: Some 4 player adjustments are meh, and some are extremely significant. My first time running
To reiterate my point, GMs should be aware of when encounters are spiraling out of control and take it as a warning sign that they may be making a mistake. Now some scenarios are just that hard, and sometimes party wipes happen, but a GM should always double check his stuff when he sees one forming, just in case.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Bard does what bards do. Barb does what barb does.
I just got to say, that is some prime Dr Suess rigth there.
bard heals me back to consiousness, and we begin to go downhill from there.
In general, if you get healed back to consiousness in combat, unless you are far from the front lines, stay down. :)
My father attempted to contact one of our VCs and the VC didnt respond. WE later found out that it would do no good mentioning our near TPK to HQ or any VOs because we would get the same response or something that would equate to: "Stuff like that just happens."
That is just not true. If a TPK happened because the PCs messed up, that would be one thing. In this scenario, the battle was made harder because you failed to get in subtly, so that part should not have been reversed. But the death reduced to capture part could be (and in my opinion should have been.) In which case you are out 5 PP and a failed mission.
If the order was to not kill any of the PCs then why did the GM have the boss gnoll order a gnoll grunt to go CDG my mount?
I have found that one of the most common errors when GMs run scenarios cold, is to not read the tactics blocks. I once spent 2 hours fighting an enemy who was supposed to run away 15 minutes into the combat.
|
|
Mulgar, no offense but it really seems like you didn't read the whole thread. Nonetheless, thank you for your sentiment. I assure you, we have not been soured on PFS from a single game. :)
No, I read the whole thread. If you are 3rd level then I expect you should know the rules for tiers.
If you played high tier, then you should have the 4 player adjustment.
The gm should have not cdg'd you.
So yes I read the thread.
Mistakes were made ALL around, as I said.
Glad you're still playing but no offense, maybe you shouldn't have played up.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
By the way, part of why this combat *is* CR appropriate is that:
the gnolls are all doing non-lethal to start, and I don't believe they have the correct feats to negate the penalty, so they are all attacking at -4 to hit, so they should be missing a lot.
