|
So, looking at the tatzlwyrm's tactics, once it has a creature grappled, it should use its breath attack next, rather than going for the kill. This will do ability damage, but won't down Baradim. This is a bad strategy, at least if he knows how low Baradim is, but it should be how he behaves, given his description. Given that they didn't go for Illiam's offer (and it wasn't because they didn't believe him, because there was no sense motive check), I don't see how they could be intelligent enough to realize that the breath attack is a bad strategy. If that doesn't happen, the tatzlwyrm is going to down Baradim, hopefully not permanently, but at least Baradim succeeded in occupying him for another round (presumably).
Kanga's attack should have put tatzlwyrm 3 (blue) down, so it's safe for Dolok and Chillel to approach it. They should focus on damaging spells and on making room for the others to charge in and gank tatzlwyrm 2 (purple). Baradim will also get an attack if the tatzlwyrm acts the way it should act. With everybody but Illiam attacking (not enough actions to draw and load the sling, get a line of sight, and attack), the tatzlwyrm should go down before it has another attack.
Everyone should charge to get the attack bonus. The AC penalty shouldn't matter except maybe for Kanga, who will take the next hit if it moves on from Baradim because the other attackers will be using reach weapons. The tatzlwyrm can do enough damage with a full attack and good rolls to down Kanga, but it would basically have to roll a crit on everything AND almost max damage on top of it to have a chance of killing him. If it goes for another target, there should be more than enough AoOs to drop it. Fleeing will also be a distinct possibility at that point, but Chillel's web bolt should prevent it from taking a withdraw action (full-round), so either AoOs will kill it or it will take a 5-foot step and get ganked next round.
So, the question at this point is whether or not Baradim will die. If the tatzlwyrm follows it's listed tactics, Baradim might get some ability damage, but he'll survive. If not, there's a good chance that Baradim will die.
|
|
There have to be some conditions under which he would use the breath weapon, otherwise why give it to him? The description reads like that's intended to be his primary attack, and all the rest, though devastating to first-level PCs, is only done to try to achieve a grapple so that he can use the breath weapon. If it says he does it when he starts his turn in a grapple, I think that has to be what he'll do this turn, which means that Baradim will live.
Your tactics seems sound enough Illiam.
Hopefully you are right and tatzlwyrm 3 is down and we can all pound on no 2 a lot before it kills Baradim. If we do get through this without a PC death it will have got about as close as you can without.
Chillel is reduced to trying to do 1d3 with a ranged touch attack. :(
|
|
Yeah, just make sure you get clear for people to charge. Kairon's charge probably has to end in the square you're standing in, with Scipio just to the right. Kanga might actually have to step on Baradim to successfully charge.
Alternatively, depending on how you count, Kanga might have just enough movement to get behind it and flank with out receiving an AoO. If he's willing to take one (after all, Kairon will have to channel energy once these things are all dead, so the heals would be free), he could definitely get there.
Fair enough. If I am in melee all I will do is get killed, so I will get well out of the way. I don't get to act for a bit.
It depends on how much you care about a PC death, I guess.
I am going to be as clear as I can be:
I do not appreciate the insinuation.
The bits and pieces of the rant are here redacted.
EDIT 2: By the same token -- where's our wizard's ray of frost?
Don't worry Syrus, I know you care <3
Also, I'd like to imagine it as "stand over my body protectively" rather than "step on me". :P
I'll start prepping stabilize. Not too big a deal, I reckon.
Goosfraba, indeed.
[rant] Okay, I'm going to say something here, and I'm hoping that you will take it as a bit of friendly GM constructive criticism. Illiam, you are doing A LOT of backseat GMing. Comments about how you GM your games are entirely pointless here, because I'm not going to change how I've been GMing for years, just because one halfling wizard says he does it a different way. In addition, examining the minute details of every monster entry for every encounter and trying to not only predict, but moreso, to dictate what they would do, is, by my way of thinking, disrespectful, and annoying. If you want to GM a campaign, you go ahead and do that, but I am the GM of this campaign. You've said before that you are good at separating player knowledge from character knowledge, you are, and that's great. What you are not good at is not commenting on what you think should happen, in just about every situation. I don't mind you bringing to mind rules that I may have missed, or helping me to make correct interpretations of the rules, but when you start to comment on how a monster should act, it makes me want to make the monster act in just the opposite way, if only to prove to you that I'll GM however I damn well please, and if you don't like it, you can find another game to play in. There's been a trend in the discussion thread, and that trend has you on the wrong end of a lot of bad feelings. I'm hoping this will squash that trend immediately. Also, you might want to make a perception check for the five other Tatzlwyrms in the treetop above you. Or am I...[/rant]
|
|
It depends on how much you care about a PC death, I guess.I am going to be as clear as I can be:
I do not appreciate the insinuation.
The bits and pieces of the rant are here redacted.
EDIT 2: By the same token -- where's our wizard's ray of frost?
Didn't mean to insult, but if you reread the post I was replying to, I think you'll see where I could get the (perhaps mistaken) impression that you care more about what a PC can contribute to the rest of the fight than whether they survive it.
And I don't know where our wizard's Ray of Frost is. It's certainly not anywhere in his spellbook. Evocation is an opposition school for him, so he doesn't start with it and couldn't prepare it as a cantrip if he had it. If our wizard wanted a reliable way to deal damage each round, it wouldn't be ray of frost. It wouldn't even be Acid Orb (which he does have in his spellbook and could prepare as a cantrip) either. He would go to the gym to get a STR score higher than 6 and carry a sword or a crossbow or something. Our wizard did mention that his usefulness in a fight was severely diminished (on account of saving everybody's asses too many times today already), and the only PC death he is still equipped to prevent is his own.
Syrus may have mixed up the wizard and the witch. I have Ray of Frost which I had indicated I would use. It just came up and it even hit. 1HP is not a lot of damage, but it is a start. :)
Things that make it worse instead of better...
Illiam, I think it might be time for you to do some real hard thinking about whether or not you still want to be part of this campaign. Your posting of late has been leaning toward, if not tipping over, the precipice of disrespectful and contentious. If you don't like how this campaign works, or the way other players play their characters, it might just be best for all parties if you found another game. To be clear, this is not me telling you I want you to leave. It is me telling you that if we can't move forward amiably, constructively, and working towards the mutual goal of having fun (which I think was goal 1), perhaps you leaving would be best for everybody. Please do take some time and think about whether this campaign is fulfilling the goals that you had in mind when you joined, and let us know. Remember, I'm a wall mender, not a wall breaker... :)
|
|
[rant] Okay, I'm going to say something here, and I'm hoping that you will take it as a bit of friendly GM constructive criticism. Illiam, you are doing A LOT of backseat GMing. ...
Sorry. My intention is certainly not to tell the GM what to do. When I say "should", what I mean is that is my interpretation, and if the GM's is different, that is his prerogative, but (goal 3) I do want to understand when there is that difference. I'm not trying to accomplish anything when I say how I GM differently beyond idle conversation. I just thought it was interesting, and if it's not, I'll stop. Likewise, I find the over-analyzation interesting, and it helps me deal with that patience issue that got some of us (me, especially) in trouble early on. In an in-person game, I would only be able to do it between sessions, so you guys see a lot more of it, especially when I know that the GM has gone to bed for the night and there's nothing for me to do but try to guess what will happen next (which involves math, and is fun for me).
Don't worry too much about my feelings. I admittedly have a tendency to respond in kind when I feel attacked, but there's an upside to being dead inside ;)
Sincerely, thanks for frankly pointing out when I'm being annoying. I tend to miss more subtle hints, and It's the only way I'll learn (goal 3!).
I appreciate that clarification, and I do understand having little patience. I appreciate your apology, and I'm sorry if I'm letting my feelings get hurt when you had no such intention. I'm going to stand by my previous post though. Please think about whether this campaign is satisfying all your personal goals, and if it is, please try to move forward treating everyone with the same amount of respect and forgiveness.
Thanks!
MW
|
|
Things that make it worse instead of better...Illiam, I think it might be time for you to do some real hard thinking about whether or not you still want to be part of this campaign. Your posting of late has been leaning toward, if not tipping over, the precipice of disrespectful and contentious. If you don't like how this campaign works, or the way other players play their characters, it might just be best for all parties if you found another game. To be clear, this is not me telling you I want you to leave. It is me telling you that if we can't move forward amiably, constructively, and working towards the mutual goal of having fun (which I think was goal 1), perhaps you leaving would be best for everybody. Please do take some time and think about whether this campaign is fulfilling the goals that you had in mind when you joined, and let us know. Remember, I'm a wall mender, not a wall breaker... :)
The stated goals were:
- Goal number one would be everyone has fun!
- Secondarily to that would be the freedom and forgiveness to make mistakes. This is, after all, a place to get everyone's proverbial PBP feet wet, and we all need to be on board with allowing mistakes and being able to laugh at ourselves without hurting each other's pride.
- Goal three would be, obviously, learning. This is going to be a campaign where we all figure out what works and what doesn't, and also figure out if PBP is a medium we enjoy gaming on. I'd rather not have a revolving door of characters, but if some people realize after giving it a go, that this isn't for them, and other people are really enjoying it, we might open up recruitment again to other players. Also, as part and parcel of the learning experience I expect we'll have some solid discussions about rules and their adjudication in the discussion thread. I can already think of a few of my usual houserules that I'll want to run by everyone before we actually start gaming....
I'm doing all three (perhaps 2, especially!), and I hope I'm helping others do them too. Sometimes that does result in a little verbal jousting with other players, and I hope that's taken in the spirit it is intended.
|
|
In the interest of goal 3, would you mind pulling back the curtain a bit on why my bluff attempt didn't work? Was it, as I surmised, that they were not intelligent enough? If I had said that we carried a plague that would kill them if they attacked us, would that have a better chance of working? Was it just not an appropriate time to attempt using that skill? Was I being an annoying jerk by trying to end another encounter before people had the opportunity to fight (the only way I'll learn...)?
|
|
Also, is there a more acceptable (but hopefully not too long-winded) way for me to say what I'm guessing will happen based on my interpretation of whatever rule I'm reading? This isn't the first time I've unintentionally wandered into backseat GMing territory, and I hope there's a way I can continue to analyze situations without making you feel like I'm stepping on your turf. If the answer is to keep it to myself, that's ok too, but I hope at the very least that I'm managing to present you with options you may not have considered, whether you decide to take them or not.
Likewise, when a rule has not been applied the way I understand it and I'm genuinely confused, is there a preferred way to ask about it that won't come off as rules lawyering (which is never my intention)?
As far as Illiam's "tricks" go, I would guess that you have both acid splash and jolt as offensive options. I mention this simply because, since our characters live or die in increments of 1, having something, anything to help eliminate a foe seems better to me than not. We can speculate all we'd like about how the dice might have fallen at each alternate decision point, but I would suggest that, even in the "now" (gametime), a flanking bonus from Illiam and his gauntlet would be a stronger insurance policy for the party.
We're all at the hazard, chief.
And shifting away from combat certainly serves our halfling's backstory and alignment, and may point to some roleplaying lines we've not yet explored (if we survive), but Illiam knows it's a long way back to town. =D
And I would have declared for a bloodrager or barbarian if I didn't care who lived or died. :)
|
|
I do have jolt written down as one of the spells in my spellbook, but given the source and disclaimers on it, I'd want to check with the GM before actually preparing it.
I also built Illiam as a character with a lot of learning to do, and the ability to do it. He doesn't like the idea of trying to directly damage something rather than tricking it somehow, but this fight has given him a lot to consider when he prepares spells the next day. He might be starting to realize that he's not as clever as he thinks he is, and he's definitely gaining appreciation for his party members as more than just meat shields. He's still more likely to go for Daze than Jolt or Acid Orb, though (at least as long as he doesn't see a likely way to use either of them as a utility spell as well as for dealing damage).
I'm going to take a liberty, here, friends, and hope that it conveys itself well:
Have you ever seen Sicario, Illiam? Josh Brolin, Benecio del Toro, Emily Blunt?
Whether you have or not, there's a moment in the film where two supporting characters interact regarding a conflict between del Toro and Blunt. Blunt's character's friend begins to move toward the two with apparent violence in mind, and "Nameless Merc" tackles him to the ground and holds him at gunpoint. "Nameless Merc"'s line:
"Just lie back, baby. Let this happen."
I think that this is exactly what Mended is recommending for you, Mr. Cameron, and with far less force (though it, too, could be inferred).
Sweat it less, man. If we need to, we can get a Discussion thread for the Discussion thread going. :)
|
|
I haven't seen it, but I did just hear another recommendation for it, and was meaning to look it up, so thanks for reminding me.
That quote, though, (absent any context, at least) seems to imply a situation where there the person speaking does not intend for the person being spoken to to accomplish goal 1.
I recommend re-reading the last line of my previous post, for starters.
While you may find the "over-analysis" a rewarding endeavor, --
1) The conclusions you reach are by no means definitive, and --
2) Your of said conclusions borders upon passive-aggressive interference.
To which I ask: if an opponent or situation acted/played out in a manner that deviated from your prognostications, would you feel betrayed?
Also: What is the most important part of the game for you?
EDIT: Oh, about Sicario -- I would only recommend it if you liked Desperate Measures and/or No Country for Old Men. Otherwise, don't bother. :D
Yay! My spine isn't ripped out of my body! Kanga will move to try and provide flanking if the thing is not yet dead by the time it is Baradim and his turn. Baradim will stab the mofo and drop in the negatives then, because any half-orc would want to go out stabbing. :D
Thank you Illiam for offering the best ways to keep my character alive, I appreciate it. The gauntlet likely would be safer of an attack and I survived likely because of that. However, I'm also a big fan of living on the edge and having that roleplay for it. Baradim would accept death if necessary, he isn't scared of it (the parts leading up to it are quite unpleasant though). If he can provide even another six seconds worth of distraction, just enough for his comrades to rally so they can persevere, he'll do it. Their mission is more important than his life, hundreds are potentially at risk.
I think that this fight will lead to some awesome roleplay. Perhaps Illiam can ask why Baradim did what he did, put himself in such a dangerous position? I'm interested to see where your alignment goals are, what your growth for the character will be. Will he rise above his originally selfish ideals? Will it take one act of heroic sacrifice after another to show him what he could be doing? Hell, it can even start with just the rewards, the love, and the friendship that being good brings with it that takes him down that path.
For myself, I know Baradim is looking to find out what happened to his mentor who disappeared in these woods and beyond. Yet he also wishes to test himself more, to grow more as a hunter against the other challenges this world has. He realizes he is awfully unprepared for it and will require his pack to survive. I absolutely plan on him trying to convince all the outsiders to stay, to help make Falcon's Hollow better. Especially since Mended is planning on a campaign much further than this.
Well, this became a ramble and a half. I apologize, I'm on cold medicine. I concur with the others, the constructive criticism has bordered really close to that passive-aggressive line. Of course, online messaging like this is the worst medium of communication because there is neither tone nor body language to accompany it.
This still is my first real Play by Post game and I am glad we're able to hash things out with one another. My recommendation to all is, before you hit the submit button, you reread what you wrote and try to interpret it from every emotional standpoint. Make sure your message cannot be interpreted wrongly, or at least do you best.
-puts my two copper pieces down- Now for all that is holy, save me before my face is eaten off. <3
I'm pretty sure you won't be in the negatives by then. :D
Can't believe I misspelled Benicio. Urgh.
lol
|
|
I recommend re-reading the last line of my previous post, for starters.
While you may find the "over-analysis" a rewarding endeavor, --
1) The conclusions you reach are by no means definitive, and --
2) Your of said conclusions borders upon passive-aggressive interference.
To which I ask: if an opponent or situation acted/played out in a manner that deviated from your prognostications, would you feel betrayed?
Also: What is the most important part of the game for you?
First of all, you do realize that the implication of the line you quoted is that somebody is about to get raped, right? I've come to the realization that you and I live in very different cultures, but I'd be very careful bringing up that line in polite company, even ironically. Sorry if that sounds passive aggressive.
Second, to answer your questions, no, I would not feel betrayed. If something happened that was neither what I thought most likely nor within the range of other possible outcomes I thought possible (the tatzlwyrm's action, btw, despite the fact that I didn't mention it as a possibility, was well within the latter category), I would hope that the information would come with some previously unknown bit of information to explain it. For instance, if instead of the tatzlwyrm trying to get away, its head popped off and Brickasnurd Hildrinsocks jumped out, revealing that he had been wearing it as a costume, and all the other characters from town stepped out from behind trees and yelled "Surprise!", I would infer that there was some information I didn't have that invalidated my assumptions. The unreliable narrator is probably my single favorite literary device, because it means that I get to reason-out the same situation twice :)
To your second question, Mended was right to put having fun as goal 1. That's generally the purpose of games. I try to have fun on as many levels as possible, and attempting to use the rules and math to predict what will happen several moves ahead is one of them. You would expect it in a game of chess, and if, like in chess, the person I was talking to wanted me to lose the game and would thus use what I say against me, I wouldn't say anything, but one of the fun things about this game is that while the GM is in some sense playing against you, a good GM doesn't try to make you lose so that he can win (and a good GM is definitely what we have here). I've heard that d&d went through a phase, I think it was in the 80s or 90s, when it was common for a GM to actively try to kill all the PCs, and it doesn't sound very fun, especially when the GM has the power to say "make a DC2000 constitution check or die of a heart attack."
"Sir, you persist."
For the record: I do not condone, endorse, support, advocate, allow, or perpetrate rape. No one here is suggesting that, nor is anyone hinting that such is going to happen here.
It is no great feat to conclude that "polite" fails to apply in this situation. And that is, primarily, on my account and yours.
The hints have been there, Mr. Cameron, that you've consistently stepped on some toes. Mended made it more than clear earlier today. I have seconded his expressed frustration, and with much less grace (Warforged did it best, so far, and TWICE.) because I believe a degree of severity is called for at this point.
Nevertheless, if I have your attention and you would prefer to have the thought expressed with rainbows and pixie dust:
(For the record)
"Relax. Run your toon. Excise the speculation, please."
|
|
It's hard to convey tone on the internet, but I thought we were having a polite conversation. Should I feel more offended than I do?
Mended, would you please clarify for me whether all speculation is unwelcome, or if you were just taking issue with the way I said things again. Though I didn't intend to tell you what to do, but I now realize that what I was trying to do could be considered tantamount to talking about you as if you weren't present, which I could see being taken as rude. Syrus seems to be interpreting your post differently than I did (and being the one who's bad at subtext, it's likely I'm wrong).
I do really enjoy playing with you guys and want to continue, even if it means I have to refrain from posting in the discussion thread at all.
Acid orb can be a utility spell! I had an occasion once where there was a prisoner in a cage & we were not able to open it. I just kept using the acid orb over and over until I melted through enough of the bars to get him out! --- As to the rest of what's been going on in the discussion thread, I'll just say I agree 100% with Mended.
|
|
Acid orb can be a utility spell! I had an occasion once where there was a prisoner in a cage & we were not able to open it. I just kept using the acid orb over and over until I melted through enough of the bars to get him out!
Yeah, but Illiam hasn't seen a situation where it would be useful yet. I'm trying to have the character learn for himself.
I've tried to be as polite as possible. I got to a point, though, where I was required to speak; I hope you understand that my posts of the past 10 hours or so have been filtered. I seek to be only as unpleasant as necessary, and that very rarely.
I'm glad you're gaming with us, dude. Seriously. I enjoy sharing a game with debuff/SoS casters.
For my part, particularly concerning your remarks about Kairon's actions and spell selection: Please feel free to ask me about lines of play/spells prepared. Emphasis on: ask me. Reading your remarks, thus far, has given the impression that your conclusions are foregone, which has been unwelcome. Furthermore, I would appreciate some perceptible shift in your expressions of disagreement with my positions. Case in point: the exchange concerning stabilize. I woke up this morning to a post that all but read "You really don't care who lives or dies, do you?". I would hope that my objections to such a suggestion are obvious, clear, and, now, irrelevant.
I should state, additionally, that I did not mean to take your response in the wrong fashion; I did not see (and even now have difficulty seeing) how to take that any way other than I did. As has been said so often: (paraphrased) "Text-based communication is tough." If you meant no offense, none taken.
AAAAAAAAaaaaaaaahhhhhh.
I'm good.
|
|
My recommendation to all is, before you hit the submit button, you reread what you wrote and try to interpret it from every emotional standpoint. Make sure your message cannot be interpreted wrongly, or at least do you best.
I usually end up reading things at least twice, then again after I post them. The problem is, I have an unusual thought process, and have difficulty understanding those of other people. All this process of trying to logically work the game out several moves ahead? That's the same process I require to predict other people's reactions, and they don't have rule books I can check. It doesn't come naturally to me.
Part of the reason I got into roleplaying games was to try help with these issues. It has helped, but this recent exchange is demonstrating that I still have a lot to learn
|
|
Sorry again about that phrasing. I meant something closer to "... at least one of them might want to consider preparing stabilize." Looking back, I can see how it sounded more forceful than I intended.
The line you are referring to was specifically in response to "I think this is what I'm trying to say: stabilize neither hurts the enemy nor puts an ally back in the fight -- not without additional help. Better to do what helps." What if you're out of CLW? You can't run out of Stabilize.
I was just trying to point out that I didn't agree with your logic, given that stabilize has a longer range and is 0-level, so (aside from actions), it's less expensive than CLW, which your post seemed to be ignoring. I was also trying to be pithy, which probably should have included using an emoticon to show I wasn't entirely serious. Would one of these have mitigated the situation (really trying to learn here)? :P or ;)
One thing I've learned (goal 3!) is that I need to spend more time roleplaying (or interacting in general) with people who don't already know me and will call me out on my s#&* rather than just letting it pass because they know what I mean ;)
Edit: Site hiccupped and it ended up making a bunch of duplicates of this post. Deleted now.
So:
Whose line turn is it, anyway?? :D
|
|
While I definitely have some autism spectrum stuff going on, this might at least explain some things for those who are surely wondering how I got this far in life with the issues I have: http://www.mit.edu/~jcb/tact.html
My usual social circles consist entirely of "nerds", while there are obviously some people here who fall into the "normal people" category (at least for the purposes of that theory) ;)
I use emoticons like smiley faces, <3's, and exclamation points and such all the time. It may be a little silly to use but I don't think anyone has interpreted :P wrongly. ;) has had its moments lol. Also, :D is a favorite of mine.
Go go Scipio! Save the hunter!
As for the Stabilize thing, I see both views. Illiam is correct that it can save an ally from bleeding out and dying and help you mitigate how much healing you have to do to counteract the accruing negatives from failed stabilization checks.
Syrus has a good point that a Stabilize spell can be used for a variety of other, possibly better actions. Your blow could be the killing blow, which may prevent a future critical. Or a spell might be just the thing to turn the tide and save the day.
Purify Food & Drink has not been as useful as I was hoping it'd be, so I may switch that one out. I liked it for flavor, Baradim is a scavenger after all. Hell, I even took the racial trait for it. :D
Yes, the :P or similar would have conveyed that much more clearly. lol
Stabilize is seriously offset by the Medicine subdomain ability Blessed Surgery. Heal is, essentially, the *only* skill Kairon has at present that has effective applications. Having the ability to "double down" on a critical Heal check is nothing short of great, while still allowing for the fun of variance (no analysis necessary -- :D ). Once you compound that with the fact that First Aid only requires a standard action, that's a great deal of leeway in which to work once an ally is in the negs. Especially so when the culpable target has its meat minced in a few actions' time.
Mended gave me a "gimme" with his last Gameplay post, but so long as Kairon is conscious and that wand has charges, our risk is lower than it seems. (I again assert {with no verifiable justification} that if Blue had charged me, he'd have been so impaled upon spear and eviscerated via nodachi that Kairon would have been forced to draw his scimitar and shield.) That's more true for the "hefty" members of the squad than the "squishies", but none of the three of you have been especially vulnerable for long in combat. I dare you to take the risk. :D
To continue: if Kairon had no confidence in being able to care for/preserve the life of his "charges", he'd say so. I've got 6d8+18 worth of wand, 4d6 mass healing, and 1d8+1 worth of spell left -- that's quite a lot. Stack 4 more double-rolls for First Aid in there, well . . . . you see what I'm saying.
Kairon's looking out for everybody -- even the halfling of disappearance. :D
Cool?
Sounds good to me, I was just trying to clear up viewpoints I think. I believe it is Kairon's turn actually, then we're back to the top of the order. Then I can have Kanga manuever for a bite and do my stabbing!
|
|
...
Cool?
You're right. I hadn't realized that first aid was a standard action (what kind of sense does that make?). Stabilize still does it at a distance, but if you're going to invest a lot in the heal skill, it's hard to justify using an orison slot on it, especially at level 1, when you only have 3 such slots. I'd say it's still useful for the reasons I mentioned, but it becomes very situational when the range is the only thing that sets it apart from using a skill that doesn't even require tools/consumables (which, again, isn't very realistic, but that's what the rules say).
Baradim -- don't give up on pf&d just yet!!
Get my turn sorted presently.
Have I said before how much I like this group? I mean, there was a lot of potential here for a lot of viscera and emotional attacks. But you guys all kept (relatively) level heads, and have expressed your viewpoints back and forth and, as I see it now, we're back in happyland. :D Some things I want to address:
@Illiam: My ideas of how to run monsters is not part of what you need to worry about. You just worry about reacting to how they have acted. I think that a major portion of my problem earlier was that your discussions of the monsters made it seem like, logically, there were only so many ways they could react. I'll tell you right now, what I told you earlier, and I hope I don't have to tell you again. Sometimes stuff will happen, and you'll think to yourself "that's not how it's supposed to work!" Or, "if I were running it, I'd run it like this." Or "What?!" The reason that will happen is because I'm the GM, and you are not, and how I think an NPC or monster should act has nothing to do with the way your brain operates. I might have a band of renegade goblins come storming into the party's camp some night with noise makers, and magical balloon animals, just because it would be fun. Then I'll have them drop off some of their orphaned babies with the Paladin, just to see how he reacts. Get the point? I'm not basing every decision I make on what the books say. This may be Golarion, but it is still my world. Man being GM creates the feeling of way too much power, doesn't it?! So, I'll let you behind the curtain here, one last time. Just to accomplish goal three.
The tatzlwyrms believed every word coming out of your mouth. They just didn't care. They were hungry, and it had been awhile since any food of such substantial proportions had been by. They weren't about to let that food get away on the promise that it would happily return. They've got babies to feed man!!!
Next thing. Also for Illiam. I think a part of why your posts cause problems is because you see every choice in the game as part of a chess match. This player should memorize these spells, that player should have taken this feat... etc. I get it. You like to theory craft. That's awesome, but this isn't the place for it. Until such time as we have ourselves a TPK (which BTW I will actively try and avoid, even going so far as to have some deus ex machina if I need to), you should probably just avoid making character decision suggestions to anyone at all.
To sum up, I think the lesson we all need to take away from this is, at least insofar as RPG games are concerned: You worry about what you can control, and that's all you worry about.
I don't think there's anything wrong with making strategy decisions about a combat in the discussion thread. I mean Syrus really wanted input about what to do just a bit ago. That's good, that's what the discussion thread is for, but when those things are happening, it's vitally important to REALLY think about phrasing. "You should," or "I would," are not good ways to suggest. Simply stating your guesses about various outcomes based on previous play, is enough. Something more along the lines of: "have you thought about this...?" Or "this one time I played, this happened and..."
Like Baradim so eloquently put it earlier, sometimes a little <3 and a ;), go a long way. :) :D :P O.o <.< >.> >.<
Peace to all!!! Now go kill that darn dragon!!!!
Dude! On another note. I forgot to say, but Baradim's gameplay post earlier was, pardon my French, EFFING Electric! I actually heard his booming voice saying "Kanga Uzbrukums!" and it sounded like a fricken Skyrim power shout! That was awesome man! It's that kind of stuff that keeps me addicted to this game. What a heroic awesome moment. And, I guess, just so everybody is aware, as GM I really like to reward stuff like that. Now I'm off to create a tatzlwyrm treasure hoard. Nothing to see here... Move along.
|
|
That's helpful, thanks. I'll try to keep my predictions to myself, and if I have a suggestion that I think is important enough that I need to say it, I'll make it more clear that I'm presenting an option and not trying to tell people what to do. I'm glad you said that "I would" isn't kosher, because I definitely would have eventually said that otherwise ;)
You're right that I think of player actions, at least while we're in initiative and people have to take turns, like a chess match. Out of initiative stuff is different.
How about this? I'll do my best to refrain from making suggestions (remind me if I slip up) except in the following cases: a. the player asks for suggestions, or b. it's something that Illiam would actually say, and I'll do it in-character (I don't expect this to come up often, particularly in combat). Does that sound fair?
Well, crud. I knew that pseudo-flank would come back to haunt me. Worse, I didn't need the bonus on *that* attack roll! (for once).
I was actually gonna convert shield of faith to CLW for ya, Baradim, but it looks like I gotta get a stab, instead.
Hearkening back to other moments like this, I fully expect a nat 1 die roll, broken spear, prone cleric . . . . :D
That's helpful, thanks. I'll try to keep my predictions to myself, and if I have a suggestion that I think is important enough that I need to say it, I'll make it more clear that I'm presenting an option and not trying to tell people what to do. I'm glad you said that "I would" isn't kosher, because I definitely would have eventually said that otherwise ;)
You're right that I think of player actions, at least while we're in initiative and people have to take turns, like a chess match. Out of initiative stuff is different.
How about this? I'll do my best to refrain from making suggestions (remind me if I slip up) except in the following cases: a. the player asks for suggestions, or b. it's something that Illiam would actually say, and I'll do it in-character (I don't expect this to come up often, particularly in combat). Does that sound fair?
That sounds more than fair, and I know I would greatly appreciate it. I'm certain others would as well. I want to thank you, Illiam, for being so calm during all of this, and having a real desire to adjust your behavior to suit everyone else. It takes a very big man to take constructive criticism in the manner you have all along. Funny that you're playing a halfling!!! :D ;P
Indeed, I concur with Mended entirely about this. I have had games IRL where if this kind of discussion occurred, it would've exploded like a volcano and burned the game entirely. I give props to everyone in regards to that, we've all been really awesome getting to know the quirks of each other, establish our boundaries and communications, and not take anything too personally or at least not hold onto it after it is explained.
No worries man, I got a decent CON and if this guy thinks he can get away by climbing, Kanga has another thing coming for him. Have I ever mentioned how much I -adore- the Animal Aspects for the hunter class?
He's still got to break out of Chillel's web bolt before he can even think about going anywhere, and I SERIOUSLY doubt he'll be alive long enough to do so.
That sounds more than fair, and I know I would greatly appreciate it. I'm certain others would as well. I want to thank you, Illiam, for being so calm during all of this, and having a real desire to adjust your behavior to suit everyone else. It takes a very big man to take constructive criticism in the manner you have all along. Funny that you're playing a halfling!!! :D ;P
Once again, I want to say I agree with Mended 100%! Illiam you have handled this well!
Uhhhhh, help me with the math here. I count 33 lethal damage and 6 nonlethal damage to purple.
39-33=6
When your nonlethal damage equals your current hit points, you're staggered.
Am I right there? So purple just gained the staggered condition...
Edit: All of which might be pointless after Illiam and Baradim take their turns... :D