GMs - What do you choose not to throw at players?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 182 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

I throw whatever I feel like at them (or, more accurately, whatever seems appropriate for the kind of game I'm doing).

The only things I absolutely don't do are metagame (ie: if the NPC doesn't have a way to know about it, they can't plan with countering it in mind), and I don't fudge die rolls.

I might take into account the party's weaknesses when designing an encounter, making it a little weaker if it seemed particularly likely to mess them up to the tune of giving it an effective +1 CR or something like that. So, for example, counting an Erinyes as CR 9 vs. a party with minimal flight options and no dedicated ranged characters.

And I almost never design characters to target the PCs specifically. I mean, an NPC Ranger will have whatever Favored Enemies seem appropriate, not necessarily the race all the PCs happen to be, and the enemy spellcasters have lists designed to deal with a wide variety of problems (or a narrow variety they're specialized in) rather than one designed to take down the PCs specifically (well, okay, prepared casters who know the PCs are coming tailor their spells, but that's in-world and limited to spells they have access to), people don't have Feats specifically designed to counter the PCs weird and rare abilities, and so on.

That's as far as I go in terms of 'stuff I won't do'.

Now, I'm actually a super nice GM in most other ways...but encounter design? Nope. Bad stuff happens in fights.


LuniasM wrote:
Summoning during combat, mostly because that takes a LOT of time to sort through and just makes turns longer.

Yeah, if anyone's summoning, they should have all the stats for whatever they're gonna summon close at hand, and generally should know how to manage the summons to avoid bogging things down.

Shadow Lodge

I don't think there's anything I won't use, but there's definitely stuff I use very sparingly.

First, penalties that will take more than a session or two to get rid of, whether that's ability drain, negative levels, curses, or sundered gear. These are generally frustrating for players and if overused kill the fun.

Second, save or sit on your hands effects. That's save or dies plus effects that prevent characters from taking meaningful actions, like paralysis or nausea. Other save-or-suck effects like blindness or exhaustion are fair game, but when you might as well just leave the table for three rounds while the status effect wears off it's not fun. Especially in a significant and complex fight where those three rounds might take almost an hour. I find it hard to avoid them completely but try to keep it to quicker fights or effects that at least give you a new save every round (like Hold Person).

Hugo Rune wrote:

Very true, but if adventuring wasn't incredibly dangerous everybody would do it as the rewards are fantastic.

SoDs provide a level of tension and danger that cannot be replicated in normal combat. It's like the tension of a penalty shootout instead of a football match.

I advise my players to perform research before entering a dungeon and to do reconnaissance runs to begin with so they have a good idea about the layout, any nasty creatures and to plan strike missions accordingly.

If the players discover some very realistic statues in strange poses I expect them to plan to face a creature with a petrifying gaze to minimise their risk of exposure. By avoiding the need to roll they avoid the SoD. If they choose to wander around an unknown location swords drawn/fingertips ready then they should expect to become a statue.

There's a difference between a character choosing to ignore well-placed hints that there's a medusa around, and a character fighting a wizard who happened to prepare flesh to stone. The former is careless, the latter probably just unlucky. And while some people do enjoy the feeling that their character could die as a result of one moment of bad luck, others prefer a game where only bad decisions, or at least a string of bad luck, will kill characters.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I think sunder is an OK trick at low levels before the PCs get all sentimental about their gear.

Also, in 5E, where you don't get a ton of treasure.

:-D


Tsukiyo wrote:


Okay, that's a pretty interesting approach. However, I'd say that does limit PC's access to SoDs. If I manage to succeed on landing, for example, suffocation, only to find it didn't achieve what I had hoped, but just weakened the foe, I might well be disappointed.

To be clear, I don't have a strong preference here. I can totally agree with the many who say it sucks to die thanks to a couple of bad rolls. But, then again, I like SoD casters, and can see an argument made that if you want to dish it out you should also be prepared to take it - at least occasionally.

This depends on how we look at things. Statistically, each stage is it's own stat block, with its own hit point total and abilities. So if the GM had you fight three separate creatures you would be performing the same mechanically. Though if you were fighting three separate creatures they would likely all be involved in the fight from the start, so it would actually be harsher on the players that way.

That said, a couple things to give a little more context...I'm am, at times painfully, transparent about house rules and game hacks I use as a GM, so were you playing in a game of mine you'd know from the start the specifics about a three stage boss fight. Then you could decide if it was worth it to focus on those type of spells. I still believe they would be effective (and frustrating, but not so much that I would ban them).

Also, this is a fairly rare thing that I use, only when an encounter is meant to be truly memorable. One example would be a campaign finale against a massive dragon who'd been extorting local communities and sending out its minions and progeny to harass the PCs for several sessions. In that example, would you, as a player, want that finale encounter to be ended by a single casting of a single spell followed by a bad roll? Granted, I believe it would absolutely be a story told among the gaming circle for years to come...the night you ganked the dragon while the rest of the party just kinda stood there. But it wouldn't be the same kind of story, told with the same level of nostalgia, as the night the party defeated the dragon after several rounds of combat, where it sundered the walls of its lair to knock boulders down on the party, and when it nearly drown then in lava after it it completely cratered its lair and the party had to chase it out into the sky.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I haven't run a Pathfinder game but have played in enough to know that I'd excise Shadows from anything they were in.

I just really hate Shadows.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SmiloDan wrote:

I think sunder is an OK trick at low levels before the PCs get all sentimental about their gear.

Also, in 5E, where you don't get a ton of treasure.

:-D

Pathfinder, with all its gear-based escalating modifiers, is definitely not friendly to gear-loss at higher levels. Losing a cloak of resistance +1 at level 3 is irksome, but survivable. Losing your +5 cloak at level 15 is going to make saving throws substantially more dangerous.

Same goes for offense. The Barbarian level 3 losing his masterwork greatsword is just a slight decrease in accuracy. Take away a high-level Barbarian's +5 Keen Furious weapon and his average damage is going to plummet, especially against anything with DR his sword normally beats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Phoxglove wrote:

I haven't run a Pathfinder game but have played in enough to know that I'd excise Shadows from anything they were in.

I just really hate Shadows.

It seems as though Shadows have evoked your strongest real world feelings in the game. Were the encounters particularly memorable and do you get the same buzz recollecting your encounters with a pack of Goblins? I suspect your answer to that question is No and that is the reason why a SoD have a place in the game - they represent real danger and set the encounters apart from the run-of-the-mill encounter and spice up the game.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:

I think sunder is an OK trick at low levels before the PCs get all sentimental about their gear.

Also, in 5E, where you don't get a ton of treasure.

:-D

Pathfinder, with all its gear-based escalating modifiers, is definitely not friendly to gear-loss at higher levels. Losing a cloak of resistance +1 at level 3 is irksome, but survivable. Losing your +5 cloak at level 15 is going to make saving throws substantially more dangerous.

Same goes for offense. The Barbarian level 3 losing his masterwork greatsword is just a slight decrease in accuracy. Take away a high-level Barbarian's +5 Keen Furious weapon and his average damage is going to plummet, especially against anything with DR his sword normally beats.

I suggest you never ever play Scourge of the Slavelords


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hugo Rune wrote:
Phoxglove wrote:

I haven't run a Pathfinder game but have played in enough to know that I'd excise Shadows from anything they were in.

I just really hate Shadows.

It seems as though Shadows have evoked your strongest real world feelings in the game. Were the encounters particularly memorable and do you get the same buzz recollecting your encounters with a pack of Goblins? I suspect your answer to that question is No and that is the reason why a SoD have a place in the game - they represent real danger and set the encounters apart from the run-of-the-mill encounter and spice up the game.

Getting hit in the face with a cricket bat evokes some strong real world feelings. That doesn't mean that it's a good idea for the GM to break out an impromptu paddlin' session just to make their Pathfinder game a bit more "memorable".


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Hugo Rune wrote:
I suspect your answer to that question is No and that is the reason why a SoD have a place in the game - they represent real danger and set the encounters apart from the run-of-the-mill encounter and spice up the game.

Lots of things represent danger. If fighting orcs and giants isn't dangerous in your game, it just means the encounter was a lower CR than it needed to be in order to be dangerous. The only difference is that SoD is abrupt danger. Roll a d20. You rolled low? Your soul was devoured. Now the game is more exciting, but not for you, because you're dead.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Hugo Rune wrote:
I suspect your answer to that question is No and that is the reason why a SoD have a place in the game - they represent real danger and set the encounters apart from the run-of-the-mill encounter and spice up the game.
Lots of things represent danger. If fighting orcs and giants isn't dangerous in your game, it just means the encounter was a lower CR than it needed to be in order to be dangerous. The only difference is that SoD is abrupt danger. Roll a d20. You rolled low? Your soul was devoured. Now the game is more exciting, but not for you, because you're dead.

Or look at the flipside, the players will eventually get bored mowing through another load of creature X, with Y hit points and Z amount of damage potential and win or lose through attrition of hit points. Take the labels away and the mechanics are [near] identical with very little variety. Introduce something which represents an abrupt danger and the tension level around the table jumps immediately. You roll low then yes it sucks, but roll high, or better still avoid the need to roll then the encounter will be one that sticks in your memory.


What I try not to throw at my players are situations where character death is nearly unavoidable.

Example: A module had a group of monsters that could paralyze with a scream and kill with a kiss. Vs a group of low level PCs that is instakill. The whole group of monsters screams, the PCs have to make X saves and a failed save means being targeted by a death kiss.

Or magic traps that inflict deadly curses vs groups without remove curse (too low level or wrong classes).

PC death should be possible but not unavoidable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hugo Rune wrote:
You roll low then yes it sucks, but roll high, or better still avoid the need to roll then the encounter will be one that sticks in your memory.

Done right, you can make any encounter memorable, and you can do it without shackling anyone's "time to roll up a new character" waste of extremely finite gaming session time to a single die roll.

Exhibit A:

Spoiler:
The goblin attack at the beginning of Rise of the Runelords.
(GOD that feels like a petty thing to hit with the spoiler tag, but, eh.)

It's not mechanically challenging.
It's not especially dangerous.
It's often criminally easy. (I base this upon running that particular encounter four times, twice as a player, twice as a GM)

And yet my group still talks about it.


Hugo Rune wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:

I think sunder is an OK trick at low levels before the PCs get all sentimental about their gear.

Also, in 5E, where you don't get a ton of treasure.

:-D

Pathfinder, with all its gear-based escalating modifiers, is definitely not friendly to gear-loss at higher levels. Losing a cloak of resistance +1 at level 3 is irksome, but survivable. Losing your +5 cloak at level 15 is going to make saving throws substantially more dangerous.

Same goes for offense. The Barbarian level 3 losing his masterwork greatsword is just a slight decrease in accuracy. Take away a high-level Barbarian's +5 Keen Furious weapon and his average damage is going to plummet, especially against anything with DR his sword normally beats.

I suggest you never ever play Scourge of the Slavelords

Not sure what a 1st edition D&D module has to do with anything. 1E had a very, very different mechanical balance from Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hugo Rune wrote:
You roll low then yes it sucks, but roll high, or better still avoid the need to roll then the encounter will be one that sticks in your memory.

The ones where you roll high on your save and nothing happens usually aren't very memorable. "The creature stares at you. Roll a Fortitude save." "26." "Nothing happens." "I smite it." "It dies."

The ones where you avoid being attacked in the first place usually aren't very memorable. "It's finally his turn, but he's dazed for the next three rounds, so you can beat him to death at your leisure."

But the ones that were campaign ending TPKs stick in the memory.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:


Not sure what a 1st edition D&D module has to do with anything. 1E had a very, very different mechanical balance from Pathfinder.

Ahh those were different times indeed.

Jolt was almost considered a banned substance, if a player was staring at their phone you knew they were -really- bored, not just distracted (a rotary-dial behemoth connected to the wall); everyone knew you were actually trying to summon the devil himself if you played D&D (some hilarious Chick-tracks still out there); and high AC was bad??? But a Nat-20 feels the same no matter when you're playing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SmiloDan wrote:
I don't think I'll ever run the Tarrasque, either.

Ouch!

That hurts, man. Even my armored hide is not impervious to your barbed words. I should C H O M P ! ! ! you for that...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the subject of SOD spells:

I use them, or at least SOS, often enough to make the PCs prepare for them. If I don't, I find level 16 fighters with a WILL save of 2 dishing out a million points of damage every round because of stat dumps and min-maxing their gear for pure damage output.

By making them think about their defenses a bit (a lot) I get more balanced characters who don't break the system.

It's also true for the casters - their daily allotment of spells isn't all spent on "Wreck the monsters and then wreck the world" stuff when they spend at least part of their allotment on defensive measure to survive the nasty SOD spells that they might face.

In other words, if you coddle the players and never make them deal with nasty surprises and nasty consequences, then they can ignore that and focus on overpowering your encounters and your game.

Shadow Lodge

I find that "suck" covers the motivation to invest in saves just as well as "die" does. You don't even have to take actions away. No one wants to spend several rounds blinded because they tanked their Will save and ate a Glitterdust.

Fraust wrote:
Also, this is a fairly rare thing that I use, only when an encounter is meant to be truly memorable. One example would be a campaign finale against a massive dragon who'd been extorting local communities and sending out its minions and progeny to harass the PCs for several sessions. In that example, would you, as a player, want that finale encounter to be ended by a single casting of a single spell followed by a bad roll? Granted, I believe it would absolutely be a story told among the gaming circle for years to come...the night you ganked the dragon while the rest of the party just kinda stood there. But it wouldn't be the same kind of story, told with the same level of nostalgia, as the night the party defeated the dragon after several rounds of combat, where it sundered the walls of its lair to knock boulders down on the party, and when it nearly drown then in lava after it it completely cratered its lair and the party had to chase it out into the sky.

My group had a dragon botch a save or die. It actually was a lot of fun - but only because the dragon in question was the boss of a sub-quest. If it had been the campaign finale it would indeed have been disappointing.

Which is why as a player I actually avoid using save or die spells in such situations. It's a lose-lose.


The only thing I've really avoided so far are haunts. I'll rarely use them in homebrew and will heavily edit them in APs, having a mechanic that interacts with almost nothing seems really ill thought out to me.

Otherwise everything is open, even the occasional encounter designed to be a deathtrap, because some creatures would build those.


Just a Guess wrote:

What I try not to throw at my players are situations where character death is nearly unavoidable.

Example: A module had a group of monsters that could paralyze with a scream and kill with a kiss. Vs a group of low level PCs that is instakill. The whole group of monsters screams, the PCs have to make X saves and a failed save means being targeted by a death kiss.

Vargouilles, right? ONE of those damn things nearly TPKed our group of three. Thankfully, the one guy who DID make his save fended the enemy off until the other two snapped out of it.

One problem with insta-death stuff is that PF, as a game, generally doesn't allow insta-kills in combat - hit points exist to give an experienced character SOME confidence that they can survive at least a little while. But Save-or-Cry stuff cuts right past that, and you live or die based on pure chance. Rather annoying.


I won't throw color spray gainst a party less than level 5ish, an AP had me use it against a group that was like 1-2 and while they won the encounter one player's character was unconcious the whole time, and that is super boring. They are at this stage completely incapable of using a remove effect so I won't use it anymore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weirdo wrote:
I find that "suck" covers the motivation to invest in saves just as well as "die" does. You don't even have to take actions away. No one wants to spend several rounds blinded because they tanked their Will save and ate a Glitterdust.

Inclined to agree with this. I've found plenty of ways to punish tanked saves without resorting to instant-killing them off. As I once jokingly told my players: "I don't want your characters to die. When they die I can't hurt them anymore."

That said, I do consider Save Or Die effects fairer game if the party has relatively easy access to ways to come back to life or otherwise reverse the effects. It's the same idea as not throwing Blindness/Deafness at the party unless they have some way to get Remove Blindness/Deafness cast on them afterwards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
I find that "suck" covers the motivation to invest in saves just as well as "die" does. You don't even have to take actions away. No one wants to spend several rounds blinded because they tanked their Will save and ate a Glitterdust.

Inclined to agree with this. I've found plenty of ways to punish tanked saves without resorting to instant-killing them off. As I once jokingly told my players: "I don't want your characters to die. When they die I can't hurt them anymore."

That said, I do consider Save Or Die effects fairer game if the party has relatively easy access to ways to come back to life or otherwise reverse the effects. It's the same idea as not throwing Blindness/Deafness at the party unless they have some way to get Remove Blindness/Deafness cast on them afterwards.

This is why some of the very first "magic" treasure my groups ever find are potions of "remove or cure X". It free's me up to use a lot more of the possible monsters and if they get hit with blindness/deafness, etc it does use up action economy and resources but adds that additional small layer of complexity to an encounter.

I do find myself sometimes in a combat that's going badly for the party suggesting "everyone take a second - look over your character sheet -both sides-". Its very easy over the course of several weeks of gaming (we go ever other week for a couple hours) to forget some things. But if you were really the adventurer, living that life every day you'd not forget that just a week ago (in game) you picked up those vials of X.

Similar thing can happen with feats and abilities, especially with new players. "hey paladin...remember you have smite evil...and it is -very- good vs dragons. remember? but only use it if you want. ;-)"


Arbane the Terrible wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:

What I try not to throw at my players are situations where character death is nearly unavoidable.

Example: A module had a group of monsters that could paralyze with a scream and kill with a kiss. Vs a group of low level PCs that is instakill. The whole group of monsters screams, the PCs have to make X saves and a failed save means being targeted by a death kiss.

Vargouilles, right? ONE of those damn things nearly TPKed our group of three. Thankfully, the one guy who DID make his save fended the enemy off until the other two snapped out of it.

One problem with insta-death stuff is that PF, as a game, generally doesn't allow insta-kills in combat - hit points exist to give an experienced character SOME confidence that they can survive at least a little while. But Save-or-Cry stuff cuts right past that, and you live or die based on pure chance. Rather annoying.

Yes, that's them. I didn't remember how to spell them so I left the name.

In the module they were modified with less hp but that doesn't keep them from insta-killing the party.

Generally groups of enemies with AOE save or suck abilities are bad but combined with an instakill abilities or the intend to CDG it becomes even worse.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Typically nothing, though I tend to use SoD spells sparingly. My main rule is not to throw anything at the party they don't have a way of counteracting/fixing, whether it's a monster, ability drain, death effects, etc. When I'm designing an encounter, I always keep in mind the party's abilities and send them something challenging for their skills, but not impossible.

Other than that, I don't usually target a single player constantly; I try to spread out the damage/effects a bit. It's no fun if one person is always the punching bag and nothing ever happens to anyone else. Similarly, if the party is really having issues with something, I might make a few less-than-optimal tactical decisions for the enemies.

Although last night I accidentally killed a PC with a phantasm (rolled max on its Con drain after he'd taken two hits; if I'd realized he was that low, I'd probably have switched targets). Fortunately, the party had a ton of healing on hand, so they were able to breath of life him back.


Arbane the Terrible wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:

What I try not to throw at my players are situations where character death is nearly unavoidable.

Example: A module had a group of monsters that could paralyze with a scream and kill with a kiss. Vs a group of low level PCs that is instakill. The whole group of monsters screams, the PCs have to make X saves and a failed save means being targeted by a death kiss.

Vargouilles, right? ONE of those damn things nearly TPKed our group of three. Thankfully, the one guy who DID make his save fended the enemy off until the other two snapped out of it.

One problem with insta-death stuff is that PF, as a game, generally doesn't allow insta-kills in combat - hit points exist to give an experienced character SOME confidence that they can survive at least a little while. But Save-or-Cry stuff cuts right past that, and you live or die based on pure chance. Rather annoying.

Vargouilles usually aren't too bad as SoD effects go. They'll paralyze you for a few rounds, they'll kiss you, and they'll let you go. At this point you have around twelve hours to get hold of a Remove Disease spell. So it's only a death sentence if you're a long way from any level 5 clerics / druids / scroll shops.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread has taught me that I'm a bad, bad person, and nobody should play with me. :3

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
I find that "suck" covers the motivation to invest in saves just as well as "die" does. You don't even have to take actions away. No one wants to spend several rounds blinded because they tanked their Will save and ate a Glitterdust.

Inclined to agree with this. I've found plenty of ways to punish tanked saves without resorting to instant-killing them off. As I once jokingly told my players: "I don't want your characters to die. When they die I can't hurt them anymore."

That said, I do consider Save Or Die effects fairer game if the party has relatively easy access to ways to come back to life or otherwise reverse the effects. It's the same idea as not throwing Blindness/Deafness at the party unless they have some way to get Remove Blindness/Deafness cast on them afterwards.

Makes sense. My main concern is how much time the player spends not playing as a result of the effect, whether we're talking about death or paralysis that lasts most of a significant combat encounter.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Arbane the Terrible wrote:

Vargouilles, right? ONE of those damn things nearly TPKed our group of three. Thankfully, the one guy who DID make his save fended the enemy off until the other two snapped out of it.

One problem with insta-death stuff is that PF, as a game, generally doesn't allow insta-kills in combat - hit points exist to give an experienced character SOME confidence that they can survive at least a little while. But Save-or-Cry stuff cuts right past that, and you live or die based on pure chance. Rather annoying.

Vargouilles usually aren't too bad as SoD effects go. They'll paralyze you for a few rounds, they'll kiss you, and they'll let you go. At this point you have around twelve hours to get hold of a Remove Disease spell. So it's only a death sentence if you're a long way from any level 5 clerics / druids / scroll shops.

I should've mentioned the dozen or so OTHER evil flying heads that were spitting (weak) elemental blasts at the monk...


Matthew Downie wrote:
Hugo Rune wrote:
You roll low then yes it sucks, but roll high, or better still avoid the need to roll then the encounter will be one that sticks in your memory.

The ones where you roll high on your save and nothing happens usually aren't very memorable. "The creature stares at you. Roll a Fortitude save." "26." "Nothing happens." "I smite it." "It dies."

The ones where you avoid being attacked in the first place usually aren't very memorable. "It's finally his turn, but he's dazed for the next three rounds, so you can beat him to death at your leisure."

But the ones that were campaign ending TPKs stick in the memory.

I fully agree with your examples but when I use a creature with a SoD effect it tends not to be a solo encounter but mixed in with other things. I know my players have enjoyed themselves and have found the way I design and run encounters to be gripping - deciding to miss the last train home to carry on playing another hour is a fairly good indicator. But if it's not fun for you and your group then don't use them.

DM Blake's point above is also well worth observing.


Chengar Qordath wrote:


Not sure what a 1st edition D&D module has to do with anything. 1E had a very, very different mechanical balance from Pathfinder.

The main difference being, game balance was rather iffy. If you wanted to avoid rolling a new character solid tactics and intelligent roleplay were required. Pathfinder is a lot less lethal and it seems the requirement for thinking through a character's actions has diminished in some quarters.

Scourge of the Slavelords plot:
At one point the players are railroaded into a no-win scenario and wake to find themselves chained to an oar on a slave ship with all their gear dumped overboard.

Pathfinder players who couldn't cope with such traumatic event shouldn't play


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Hugo Rune wrote:
If you wanted to avoid rolling a new character solid tactics and intelligent roleplay were required.

9_9

There's not a lot of 'roleplay' involved in searching every 10-foot square like you're defusing a Viet Cong tunnel.

Hugo Rune wrote:
Pathfinder players who couldn't cope with such traumatic event shouldn't play

This highlights one of PF (and D&D's) big problems - characters are excessively gear-centric. A fighter's likely to be specialized in one type of weapon (and needs armor), a wizard with no spellbook (or component pouch!) is a Commoner with a good Will-save, even a cleric needs a holy symbol.

This was LESS of a problem in AD&D because magic items were so random there, but it was definitely still a problem. And AD&D had a certain attitude that PCs could do anything a real human could plausibly do, instead of needing sixty bazillion skills and feats and whatnot to achieve baseline competence.

Blame the game for making this 'traumatic', not the players for being [sarcasm]WEAK BABIES NOT LIKE REAL MANLY ROLEPLAYERS[/sarcasm].

(And getting mad at cutscene railroading is perfectly reasonable for players.)

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait, hold on a moment here...

Spoiler:
They throw all the PCs items overboard? Are they stupid? Why would you do that? Even in 1E, magical gear is rare and valuable as hell. Probably more so than the PCs are as slaves. Throwing it overboard is like saying:

"Oh, we've captured these people to sell as slaves, let's throw their vast quantities of money overboard."

Railroading (which is awful, and shouldn't be done like this) aside, this plot makes no in-world sense either. Unless there's key information I'm missing here.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Wait, hold on a moment here...

Spoiler:
They throw all the PCs items overboard? Are they stupid? Why would you do that? Even in 1E, magical gear is rare and valuable as hell. Probably more so than the PCs are as slaves. Throwing it overboard is like saying:

"Oh, we've captured these people to sell as slaves, let's throw their vast quantities of money overboard."

Railroading (which is awful, and shouldn't be done like this) aside, this plot makes no in-world sense either. Unless there's key information I'm missing here.

Yeah I was thinking the exact same thing. If anything the PCs should wake up to find their gear elsewhere on the ship, with the finer pieces being used by badguys.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Yeah I was thinking the exact same thing. If anything the PCs should wake up to find their gear elsewhere on the ship, with the finer pieces being used by badguys.

Exactly. I mean...what kind of businessman throws away something valuable?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arbane the Terrible wrote:
This highlights one of PF (and D&D's) big problems - characters are excessively gear-centric. A fighter's likely to be specialized in one type of weapon (and needs armor), a wizard with no spellbook (or component pouch!) is a Commoner with a good Will-save, even a cleric needs a holy symbol.

In no attempt to diminish your very correct point, I'd like to note this is why I tend to take Eschew Materials and Spell Mastery on my wizards. Picking a set of general spells that are decent can go a long way towards keeping you from being the flat tire, and you can periodically retrain Spell Mastery to update your mastered spells.

It's also worthwhile to note that simply preparing a lot of low-level spells in higher level slots (a thing you can do) is still quite effective with mages do to free scaling. If you've got metamagic feats, all the better.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Yeah I was thinking the exact same thing. If anything the PCs should wake up to find their gear elsewhere on the ship, with the finer pieces being used by badguys.
Exactly. I mean...what kind of businessman throws away something valuable?

Especially when the gear is likely worth more than the people wearing it. :|


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Yeah I was thinking the exact same thing. If anything the PCs should wake up to find their gear elsewhere on the ship, with the finer pieces being used by badguys.
Exactly. I mean...what kind of businessman throws away something valuable?
Especially when the gear is likely worth more than the people wearing it. :|

A rookie move...probably why the PCs win in the end.

Kind of like the 5th element line after the key bad guy Zorg walks off and lets the Mangalores blow themselves up with the self-destruct,
"Knew I was dealing with fools, first thing any professional would have asked is what the red button was for."

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe "throw all their gear overboard" is a turn of phrase for "sold all their gear back on land, 100 miles away from where they woke up."

Or 10 miles. Rowing is hard.

Well, at least it is the way I do it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"The third section of the adventure moves at a rapid pace in tournament mode, and each room encountered in the level is filled with dangerous creatures. In the final room of the section, the players are captured as a set-up for In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords. If this section is played outside of a tournament, however, it is possible for the players to defeat the slavers and exit the area victorious."

Just a quick note:
A) By today's standards, AD&D modules often well... sucked. Even the best of that era would probably not get two star ratings by today's standards.
B) Many AD&D modules were intended for tournament play, and were NOT intended to work with an ongoing campaign. Insta-death, crazy artifacts, stupid amounts of gold, and more insta-death. Tournament style play was not supposed to be regular play, but that was forgotten in the rush to sell product.

I think any GM who tried to run one of those old modules would find justifiably unhappy players.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
SmiloDan wrote:
Rowing is hard. Well, at least it is the way I do it.

All that whipping tiring out your arm?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like to avoid things that will likely lead to a TPK without due fair warning. I once started a game with the invasion of a city, and the ultimate BBEG of the whole campaign showed up right in front of them. He was a very advanced devourer, far, far out of their league, and they saw him destroy the king (a pretty significant hero-king, might I add) easily - but not before one of them almost suicided.

They were obviously meant to run - and I made it very clear - they'd been told by that king that the future depended on them and their survival, even before the monster showed up, and were hurried to the escape tunnel with their mission. Sometimes, all the warning in the world won't stop one or two, but I always hope a few can get the hint.


I really, really don't throw at them things that drain levels. I avoid things that permanently damage stats.

In exchange i don't have problem throwing them mummy dragons or ETs.

But they like it, as long as they keep growing they don't have issues with what i throw at them.

Maybe i hate to throw level drainers, cause i saw some GMs resorting to them when they cannot manage high level parties. The worst of them never allowed the players to go beyond lvl 5. Hence i developed a hate for experience drainer. Even vampires don't drain levels.

Ah! And never, never, never used shadow wights... I think you'd use shadow wights when you HATE a PC and want to banish it from all planes. I just show the page or link with them to troublemaker players, but without any word. That's enough.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Generally, if I kill a PC I want it to be due to poor tactics, over-ambition on their part, or deliberate sacrifice ("the heroic death") to achieve something they normally shouldn't. PC death from "a few bad rolls" is thoroughly dissatisfying for all involved - including me, as it usually stalls the game while replacements are gathered, and destroys any character-specific prep I had done for them.

This is compounded by the fact that I like my players to become invested in their characters and put effort into fleshing out who they are and who and how they interact with the world and communities around them - I run social heavy games, usually.

They have a measure of how alive they are - hitpoints - and so I tend to use that mechanic to threaten my PCs. Whether I do so via traps, saves, attacks, touch attacks, magic missile etc - it's all good, but the hitpoints are the target I aim for.

Thus I avoid:

  • Save or Die effects
  • Energy drain effects
  • Ability score drain effects
  • Ability score damage effects where possible (I'm not a poison fan)
  • Published 5E content*

*5E is an elegant system but the monsters and published adventure are very... retro. Feeling (almost certainly intentionally) more like 1st or 2nd Ed, where the PCs are generally 1 dice roll from death at any point (in essence, half the encounters are basically save-or-die effects by virtue of the numbers). While I appreciate there's a market for that kind of thing... it's just not my cup of tea.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:
Rowing is hard. Well, at least it is the way I do it.
All that whipping tiring out your arm?

I'm really good at canoeing, but was horrible at crew.


Raynulf wrote:

Generally, if I kill a PC I want it to be due to poor tactics, over-ambition on their part, or deliberate sacrifice ("the heroic death") to achieve something they normally shouldn't. PC death from "a few bad rolls" is thoroughly dissatisfying for all involved - including me, as it usually stalls the game while replacements are gathered, and destroys any character-specific prep I had done for them.

This is compounded by the fact that I like my players to become invested in their characters and put effort into fleshing out who they are and who and how they interact with the world and communities around them - I run social heavy games, usually.

They have a measure of how alive they are - hitpoints - and so I tend to use that mechanic to threaten my PCs. Whether I do so via traps, saves, attacks, touch attacks, magic missile etc - it's all good, but the hitpoints are the target I aim for.

Thus I avoid:

  • Save or Die effects
  • Energy drain effects
  • Ability score drain effects
  • Ability score damage effects where possible (I'm not a poison fan)
  • Published 5E content*

*5E is an elegant system but the monsters and published adventure are very... retro. Feeling (almost certainly intentionally) more like 1st or 2nd Ed, where the PCs are generally 1 dice roll from death at any point (in essence, half the encounters are basically save-or-die effects by virtue of the numbers). While I appreciate there's a market for that kind of thing... it's just not my cup of tea.

Totally agree!

Hit points is the mechanic that tells you the current health of a character and how tough they are. Short circuiting that mechanic is silly, poor game design and contributes to the martial / caster disparity. I have no issue with spells like hold person, but their effectiveness should be based on the targets hit points (how tough they are) not how wise they are.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Yeah I was thinking the exact same thing. If anything the PCs should wake up to find their gear elsewhere on the ship, with the finer pieces being used by badguys.
Exactly. I mean...what kind of businessman throws away something valuable?

If I remember correctly, and I may be wrong as it's been a very long time, this happens very early in the module; at a point where the pc's don't have very much to begin with.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
The ones where you roll high on your save and nothing happens usually aren't very memorable. "The creature stares at you. Roll a Fortitude save." "26." "Nothing happens." "I smite it." "It dies."

I like to give a hint at what might have happened if they had failed. If they save against phantasmal killer, I describe a nightmarish scenario like the Dementors of Harry Potter tearing at the character's soul, but "you shake it off" If they save against dominate person, I let them know that they momentarily felt like a puppet on a string, but they regain control.

Snowblind wrote:
Getting hit in the face with a cricket bat evokes some strong real world feelings. That doesn't mean that it's a good idea for the GM to break out an impromptu paddlin' session just to make their Pathfinder game a bit more "memorable".

Oooh, an ideas thread!

101 to 150 of 182 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / GMs - What do you choose not to throw at players? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.