Yeah, I'm of the thought that with this particular party makeup, we go for a straight-forward assault, getting a surprise round either by (a) making it stealthy to them with the bonfire cover, or (b) with Hama and Nick providing distraction for Kressle and the rest. Hama has done a great job with peeling off the sentry...I'm assuming she can figure out how to keep him distracted whereby he's not part of the fight ("hey check out our horses so we can bring them into camp in a bit" or something fun).
Maybe on a surprise round, entangle the back or south part of the camp to allow us to get in there where we can range/hurl and ready to intercept those getting out? Our close range (aside from Rosetta) isn't stellar, but it'd be nasty if their dealing with entangled condition fun.
I'm a little uncomfortable with detailed tactics discussions when we are already engaged. I think if you want to give tactical advise at this point you need to do it IC.
Ravingdork, I agree it can be complicated to play a paladin. But I have to say by now everyone knows in general how Beorn is going to react. So its equally fair to say don't do anything you might regret in setting up a scenario in which Beorn cannot participate. That said, I am happy to hear ideas on how you think a Paladin should react to some of these grey areas.
For instance Beorn is not going to attack in the surprise round (he will demand surrender and ready) against a bandit that might be redeemed but he might, with enough information, decide that Kressle needs to be put down. Unsure he has that level of info at this time. Perhaps the interviews with the captured bandits could have yielded that though. I'll have to ask the DM what we learned about the bandit leader.
Roger that, Skorn. Let us at least entangle, THEN demand surrender. At least then they are less likely to scatter and get away. It also gives us a position of strength, which decreases the chances that you will be forced to take any more lives.
Last thing we want is for someone to slip away and rally a larger enemy force.
As for delivering in-game tactical advice, that'd be a little tricky with Nick so close. It's probably safe to assume our characters discussed several possible scenarios or plans of action while riding up this way. I'll be more mindful of your desired play style in the future.
I like your plan, Vorduvai. Hama will continue to distract the guard, attempting to keep him out of the fight.
Wow. Not a good round for Hama.
Unless I'm REALLY lucky, Nick will likely know she cast a spell, though hopefully, he won't know what. Maybe Hama will be able to continue the deception regardless.
Ignore the quick mount attempt. Apparently you can't even attempt it without a move action, which she used to move to the horse in the first place.
Hama is supposed to have a much higher intelligence (like 14), but I was limited by the low point buy of this particular game.
As a result, I feel like I'm playing her as much cleverer than her stats might otherwise indicate.
At least the background skills help make up for it some.
Yep. 15 point buy is lean. Beorn would have liked to have either an 18 strength or a 16 charisma, but that would have taken a 20 point buy. Not sure which way I would have gone if I had the choice.
I am enjoying Hama's play. She routinely does the unexpected - and that is fun for me. And OOC I appreciate her coming back to the battle.
IC Beorn is less than thrilled with the entangle as it is preventing him from riding in and finding the leader. I doubt he can even see here from where he is. I would have preferred to take a mores southern route into the camp but I think that would have used more knowledge that the player had so he stuck near Kas.
OOC I think the Entangle will work fine. It does slow things down. I just hope that the leader does not try to slip away in the confusion. Maybe too overconfident for that. :)
It just occurred to me that we might have a burgeoning forest fire on our hands...
...and it was started by the druid! lol!
Is the weather/environment particularly dry this time of year? :O
Entangle is also a dismiss able spell, so as long as the fire doesn't spread beyond the entangle's radius, don't have to worry about burning the stolen lands down.
I should have been making a 50% chance of the fire spreading, I will from now on. Always learning.
Yeah I've been playing pathfinder for 6-7 years now and not once have I done a 15 pt buy, its always 20 points or more. I wanted to see what this game was like with a 15 pt buy.
Not sure I would have the fire spread out of the fire pit through living grasping vines and grasses. They really don't burn that well. Of course its cool and adds to the chaos. lol.
Yeah I've been playing pathfinder for 6-7 years now and not once have I done a 15 pt buy, its always 20 points or more. I wanted to see what this game was like with a 15 pt buy.
Oh I'm not complaining or anything, just making an observation. This may well be the first 15-point buy character I've ever played, so I'm kind of curious how it will turn out too.
My normal play groups usually use 25-point buy offline, though I've also used 20-point buy a lot for online games or in PFS.
Yeah, I also weighed that in my head as well, grass doesn't really burn great but I figured if the bonfire was large and hot enough, maybe?
I figured they would have had the hottest fire they could to stave off the bitter cold of the early March Pharast spring.
Yeah its always been 20 pt, 25 pt or 4d6 drop lowest or 1d8+8.
So, just for the sake of discussion lets discuss. A hot fire burning a lot of fuel (most likely chopped or picked up dried wood) might indeed kill and dry out living grasses adjacent to it. And then the fire would spread to those squares and burn up the dried grass. BUT then the fuel in the adjacent squares would be gone in a flash and not have enough energy to kill/dry out other adjacent squares.
Source: I am a scout leader and make 20 fires a year or so outside. I camp quite a bit all season long. Camping this weekend in fact. The only time I do not camp is July/August when its just too hot to sleep outside.
Also a smaller fire can keep you warmer than a large one. With a large one the facing side of you will be too hot while the other side will be cold. Better to have a smaller fire you can huddle around. If really cold I'll also build a reflector of some kind so more heat come my way.
Point Buy: One of my home games is currently using a 15 point buy. We rotate GMing and this GM always uses 15 point. We do fine. Went all the way through RotRL with a 15 point buy.
Luckily these guys only have an 8 wisdom, so their survival is at a -1. They aren't really the brightest bandits.
Been forgetting to account for my arcane spell failure. Will have to be better at that in the future.
I didn't know you had arcane spell failure lol so I wasn't catching it either.
Yeah, this is the first character who has had any ASF in YEARS for me, so it just kinda' slipped my mind. (Sorry.)
Figured her AC would be a little less pathetic with a buckler. Will be ditching it just as soon as I find another means of jacking AC up a bit.
Yay! One less bandit for the world to worry about! :D
Let's see if we can get the turn order straightened out a bit; give others a chance to catch up. The order of events is getting kind of confusing.
Yeah sorry, I tend to do the block initiative style as it seems like the most popular I've seen on here but it has its downsides.
Don't think its anything you're doing wrong, GM. Just seemed to me like Beorn should have gone after Rosetta.
First I've heard of it. What is "block initiative style?"
I was told I was up so I posted... Don't like to hold up the game. Hmm Looking at it I disagree. Beorn was up first at the point the DM called for him to go.
Which reminds me I'll be traveling this weekend (Leaving in the morning) and may not have a lot of time to post. I'll have my phone but will be driving a lot and am unsure about local internet. Might not be back til Monday.
Yeah I'm in agreement that for PbP, holding exact initiative order among the PC's has too many downsides. Either it slows the game down waaaay too much with players trying to post in order, or the gameplay gets really wonky to try and interpret order of actions. I'm all for a "if you're bolded and you go, actions count at time of post" sort of deal. It also reads better that way.
So Kas described the block initiative style well, it helps keep the flow of the game moving.
I am by no means a veteran of PbP but in every game I've played in its always used this style for handling initiative, maybe its more prevalent in Online PFS play but its seemed to work without very little issues.
No worries Beorn, if I have to bot you I don't mind doing it, I think I understand your character's motivations well enough.
Excellent. I trust you to do so completely. I just hope you have my recent luck with rolls with Beorn. :)
I've not had any troubles with standard initiative order in the past with PbP. Guess I was just lucky.
So basically combat will be split into three parts: Before bad guys, bad guys, and after bad guys; you take your turn within your block, but otherwise the posting order becomes the order of events. Am I understanding that correctly?
I can see how that might speed things up a bit, but it cheapens into tiative a bit, and might be unfair to those who don't have as free a schedule as others. I suppose there will always be some give and take no matter which way we go.
I've usually played it where the GM arbitrates a little as needed.
Again Ravingdork, I maintain that at the point Beorn acted he was actually up next in initiative. Do you disagree?
I've usually played it where the GM arbitrates a little as needed.
I'm used to GM arbitration too, but it usually comes at the end of the turn after everyone has gone (including the GM as the bad guys). We might not always have posted in initiative order, but that was pretty much always the order of events.
There was surprisingly little slowdown or interrupted actions. Again though, perhaps I was just lucky.
One must wonder though if the traditional method is more efficient in that a lot of time isn't wasted resolving confusion.
Again Ravingdork, I maintain that at the point Beorn acted he was actually up next in initiative. Do you disagree?
It didn't look that way to me, but I may have gotten confused.
The GM was blocking it apart like I described in the above post early on, but then started having PCs before AND after the enemies going at the same time. I think that's where my confusion began.
If you did misstep, I don't believe you did it deliberately or maliciously. I consider it just as likely that I got confused.
*Goes to review previous posts more closely*
EDIT:
SURPRISE ROUND
Hama - Lures Nick into the woods
Rosetta - Stealths up to the edge of the bandit camp
Kas - Casts bless
Bandits - Unaware of impending ambush
Kressle - Unaware of impending ambush
Beorn - Moves up to bandit camp on horse
Saniana - Casts entangle
ROUND ONE
Hama - Casts silent image, moves away from Nick
Rosetta - Fires an arrow at a bandit
Kas - Double moves closer to battle
Bandits - One bandit breaks free, another burns
Kressle - Double moves, climbing onto crate to escape entanglement
Beorn - Announces arrival and makes a warning shot into the flames
Saniana - Double moves, jumping into the creek waters for fun
ROUND TWO
Hama - Hama mounts horse and moves into combat, announces arrival of "centaurs"
Rosetta - Shoots Kressle with an arrow
Kas - Hurls a sling stone at a bandit
Bandits - Burning bandit escapes entanglement
Kressle - Double moves, drawing out axes; orders men to keep fighting
Beorn - Orders horse to attack, fails; moves to cut down Kressle
Saniana - Ends entanglement
ROUND THREE
Hama - Moves around to confront...the unconscious Kressle?
Rosetta - Prepares action to shoot enemies if they don't surrender
Kas - Moves to threaten bandit with polearm; demands surrender
Yep, looks like I was mistaken. Sorry, Beorn.
I don't mind posting out of order, but I would like to assume that things (usually) go down in the order of initiative. If you guys want to do the box thing, that's fine with me too (provided I am understanding it correctly). I can totally understand not wanting to waste time, or having to tiptoe around posts.
Let's at least try and keep the rounds contained though. No making posts for the new round if the previous round hasn't been concluded yet (and yes, I recognize that I messed this up this time around). I figure that will at least help to keep any potential confusion limited to the one round.
I had typed up a large post but figured nah, not a big deal.
We can keep it contained to the current round.
Well I'll defer to how GM Cody wants to do it of course. Generally speaking, however, when I sit down (before work, after work, etc.) to read the game and prepare what I'm going to do, I'm assuming the posts that have already been posted are actual. So they've already happened or are happening when Kas goes. So I'm trying to be consistent with the flow of the combat relative to those posts, particularly on matters of position and spell effect.
Otherwise to me, things get super wonky. If Beorn and Kas both go before the bad guys, but Beorn posts before I do (let's say he moves and attacks) even though Kas beats him in initiative, what happens? Do I move to CLW him where he was and not where he posted he is now...or I move to catch him in a channel energy even though his turn is action is going to bring him in range to me anyway...stuff like that. I'd just rather read the posts in order of posting to get in my head what I need to do at that moment in time that I'm about to write my own post.
Now I've seen some GM's go one step farther to go "average initiative" and always have all PC's-all bad guys-all PC's-all bad guys...etc. in every combat to make the PbP combat even faster. I do think that cheapens combat a bit, and I prefer to let the bad guys break up the initiative order where the rolls land within reason - for example if Kressle is separate from Bandits that's fine with me. Again though, I'll defer and adapt to the way GM Cody wants to do it.
EDIT: Yeah, I do agree that merging PC's to go at end-of-prior round and top-of-next-round can also get wonky, so letting the round "end" before the next set is super cool with me. I've done that myself as a PbP GM, but it did seem to throw the players off (and I don't think the posting got any faster either really).
Yeah, I still want to use the block style so if we have something like this:
Players 1
Players 2
Players 3
Bad guys
Players 4
Players 5
and Players 1, 2 and 3 are all up, the order they post in determines the order of actions, so if Player 3 posts first and throws out a bless then that benefit is felt by players 1 and 2 for their turns.
In essence players 1 and 2 delayed until player 3 went. that's how I've resolved it in my head when considering the rules that exist with Pathfinder.
Well okay then. :)
But how come I've seen you split the bold players up?
Players 1
Players 2
Players 3
Bad guys
Players 4
Players 5
Are you basically just cycling through to the next round? (So in the above example, players 3 and 4, and the bad guys have already gone, next up would be Players 1, 2, and 5.) If so, doesn't that mean it's possible a quick enough poster might get to go twice before someone else gets to go once?
One of the reasons why I think I would like a clean division from one round to the next--sort of a modified block format. :P
Yeah I was going to address that in my big long post I typed up but figured not but I will.
I am not really sure why that is the way its done but every game I've been in has operated in that fashion. It might be something odd about the PFS community.
I've seen it happen a number of times in PFS games I've GM'd where a player with a high initiative ends up going twice before someone has gone once.
It just happened last week where a combat ended in such a fashion, it sat sour in my mouth at that time as well.
In the future I'll keep it set so I'll wait till everyone has posted in a round before moving on to the next round.
During the week, when I tend to have more limited time for posting, I tend to ignore the discussion thread if there are a lot of posts, as happened this week (17 by the time I got time this morning to read through them). So if you all need me to weigh in on something being discussed, send me a quick PM or make an ooc comment in the gameplay thread.
You might want to peruse either of the APs I'm GMing in PBP. I've only been GMing the Reign of Winter posts since January 1 of this year. I post the initiative order and encourage people to post in the initiative order. The reason is that there is a lot of tactical interplay that depends on the order of events.
However, if a player only has a limited window for posting and he or she doesn't want to wait for an earlier initiative PC to post, he/she can post out of order but with the understanding that when I post the results, I will apply the rolls and actions in initiative order, not posting order. If a player doesn't want to influence the strategy of players who have yet to post but who are earlier in initiative order, he/she can put things under a spoiler. Or the other players can just avoid reading the posts of later PCs until after making his/her own post.
If players want to learn the outcome of actions of PCs earlier in the initiative order, they can just wait for the others to post. For what it's worth, the Wrath of the Righteous game has been making very good progress, so I don't think there is any serious delay of game from running this way.
That said, I've run in PBP games where posting order is considered to be the order events unfold and it's no great problem for me. But I do like the challenge of looking ahead and planning my PCs actions within the limitations of initiative order and I can imagine situations where something I planned to do might be disrupted if the order of action was unpredictable.
There are some situations where it can make a difference to a PC if he/she makes the attack that kills an enemy (see Swashbuckler Panache, for example). If someone acted out of turn and got the killing blow, it might cause disappointment for such PCs.
Earlier in the discussion thread, some comments were made around the topic of how paladins affect group strategy if they are inflexibly reluctant to participate in any kind of deception. I did not have time to comment then, but I once played a number of PFS scenarios with a group of PCs via PBP where a paladin absolutely refused to participate in anything that involved deception or lying.
After a while, it got kind of annoying. For example, we were trying to free some slaves before they got shipped out but we had to find out where they were being held. Some of us suggested we pose as merchants and approach someone as if we were looking to buy some slaves, hoping this would reveal the location of the slaves (we had reason to believe this person was part of the slave trade and knew where the slaves were being held). We weren't asking the paladin to take a role in this but before we could do this, the paladin announced his name, told them we were Pathfinders looking to release captive slaves, and demanded he tell us the location of said slaves. This led to a fight that could have been avoided had he just played along and kept quiet.
I have a PhD in ethics, and I can tell you that if someone can find a way to justify using violence to achieve a good end, it should not be hard to justify deception for achieving the same ends. It's one thing to lie in order to cheat someone out of money or to cover up other misdeeds, but lying as part of a plan that should result in freeing slaves or preventing violence before it happens should not be a problem for a paladin. There is the classic example of someone hiding Jews from the Nazis; if a group of Nazi soldiers knocked on his door and asked if he knew the location of any Jews, the right thing to do would be to lie. Telling the truth in this situation would be to participate in the capture of the Jews, which is a greater sin than to lie in order to protect them.
Saniana's perspective, as a neutral druid, is that deception is a part of nature and so there is nothing wrong with it so long as one is using it to help insure survival. She would draw the line, however, at killing an adversary who had surrendered, since, as she said in character, that is not the way of nature. She also recognizes that communities draw their survival advantage over lone predators because they cooperate and this means most of the time you tell the truth and behave in other honorable ways.
I've also been in a lot of games that basically did initiative in the way Clebsch73 describes, and it has rarely led to problems or slow down.
The story Clebsch73 tells about the paladin is a perfect example of what many refer to as "Lawful Stupid." It's one thing to be righteous, but you can be righteous and not cause problems for everyone as well. In the above example, the paladin actually caused more harm than good. If all paladins were forced to act like that, then no one would be safe from their plague.
I tend not to tolerate lawful stupid, by any character.
I have a real life Runelords game tonight, we are in book six, so I won't be able to get a post up.
I'll try to get on up after the game but otherwise look for it tomorrow morning.
Just don't expect me to stand by and watch while you torture prisoners.
Torture is an example of something that is evil in and of itself. Some try to say torture is justified to gain information that might save lives, but it is so unreliable that generally, torture is really just punishment and revenge, with the notion of extracting vital information just a cover for sadism.
It's sort of the same argument for using the death penalty as a deterrent to crime. Executions may deter really timid people from a life of crime, but anyone bold enough to be a bandit, probably expects to die young anyway, whether at the hands of another bandit or the executioner's ax. So executing prisoners, while perhaps not evil, certainly would go against a pious LG character's alignment and probably even against a neutral character. And anyone who has seen the Oxbow Incident knows that it's possible the person might not be guilty.
The next few days are going to be busy for me at work (end of term, grades due Friday), but I'll try to keep up with posting. It might be minimal RP, however.
Had my eyes dilated today, I can't read anyone's posts for a couple of hours, sorry!
Had my eyes dilated today, I can't read anyone's posts for a couple of hours, sorry!
Hehe, it's a special kind of fun to drive like that after an appointment!
Oops. Did I misunderstand your previous post?
No big deal. Kas wanted a private word with Beorn. Hama said she was taking first watch. As Beorn was walking away with Kas he said "Glad you are taking first watch. I wanted to talk with you before I turned in." But he is already walking away with Kas to secure the prisoners. I hope he will be right back.
Also, everyone gets 296 xp for the bandit camp encounter, I forgot to hand that out
I really want to do experience, just gotta remember to actually do it!
Not gonna track it unless you start awarding separate amounts for each of us. And I'd rather you not do that. Just let me know when we level. :)
I don't mean to sound lazy. Its just that I greatly prefer the DM leveling us when we get to the part in the AP were we need to level. I do know that in sandbox type APs, which this is, that works a little different.
Yeah that's okay, I just thought it would make sense and reward you guys for exploring as much as possible.
It does make sense for the GM to track it as it reduces the chances of getting record contradictions.
Do continue letting us know when we earn some though. If you get in the habit of doing so, you're less likely to forget yourself that way.
If we are fast tracking we level at 1000?
Absolutely, you guys are currently at 897, so another 403 experience to level up!
Wow fast track is fast lol
Hama doesn't torment prisoners; she saves them.
Well, maybe she torments them a little. :P
Still waiting on Kas. I think he had indicated he' was staying with the prisoners all night. And tormenting the prisoners is what Beorn was going to be speaking to you about, so you are jumping the gun. I really do not wish to spoil your fun Racingdork but there is no way Beorn will put up with any further tormenting of the prisoners. You already stripped them naked in the cold.
Our PCs are going to have to come to some understanding or things are going to come to a head. I predict Beorn will leave the group as he will simply not put up with such behavior. I am open to ideas but at the moment he is willing to physically prevent you from harassing the prisoners. These are condemned men. It's evil, at least in my view, to do what you are doing.