Coriolis Storm's page

For myself, the greater difficulty is game balance...and what that means to players and GM.

The GM(me), feels that there should be some element of danger for you to gain.

Party(or vocal members thereof), feel that encounters should be a cakewalk, until or unless they run into a "boss monster". See also random MMORPG/RPG.

Talking through the specifics as to what the group wants before the game starts, and what the GM is willing to accept, helps a great deal.

*chuckle* and also can lead to someone GMing for awhile when you absolutely refuse to do X as a GM...unless someone else wants to prove you wrong.

Specific difficulties I have while GMing:

Teleport. Remember all of the books where the party had to fight their way to the adventure? Nope! One quick scry spell, and the party skips all of the exposition. And if they missed a crucial clue? Why that's the GM's fault for not putting it where they could find it! (Not bitter..nope not me.. ;) )

Treasure by level. Remember folks if the party is fighting monsters that have no treasure, a treasure should spontaneously generate when the party levels, otherwise it's not "fair" to treat them as a higher ECL for encounters. (Please note the fact the group is regularly crushing ECL +4 encounters without any player dropping below half hps!)

Balancing encounters against specific players. So you've got the Dwarven zen Archer who is making pincushions of your encounters, and who has read the boards/planned enough that the rest of the party is hoping to "steal a kill from the monk!" every combat. Working out how to generate an encounter that is a challenge to every member of the party, without having specific bad guys who specifically counter that player.

Glad to see others are having their own challenges at least.. ;)

As stated, the pool of acid is the "classic example" back in 3.5.

With that said Hyla, when could you reasonably use it by your definition? That guard might well know that leaving his post will cause him to lose his job and ability to support his family.

In my games, having multiple players who mess with bluff, intimidate, charm and compulsion abilities there is a very fine line to walk and that's something that I clear with the GM or players depending on which side of the fence I walk.

Specifically, I ask how much are we using the intent behind the wordings vs. the literal words. And once we agree (prior to the game start) we hold to it. So for us, the statement of "throw the bow off the edge" would be presumed to have, with the greater Charisma of the Rakshasa vs. GM, spoken it in a more reasonable manner. And when we later did the same to random badguy later, the GM wouldn't hold it against us when we said "I tell the stupid ogre that he wants to take a bath in the acid."

For me the primary limiter is the passive vs. active nature of suggestion. The direct request can't be an immediate/active damage. Taking a dip isn't direct damage, dropping a key item isn't direct, the cleric remembering he needs to deliver a sermon at home...not direct.

Whereas with Dominate... you have your own little puppet.. :)

From the information provided, I will say that I agree it looks like the GM was looking to wipe out the party. Mainly because of the bridge being out, and therefore cutting off your escape. The rest could have been an encounter he expected you to pull back from once you realized how deep you were in!

FYI on the Worg encounter I described. The Paladin of the group charged the "rustling in the bushes with the yellow reflected eyes staring back".

As they engaged, the worgs killed 1 horse, and 1 riding dog....who had no other equipment on them. So while admittedly they did lose a couple hundred gold in mounts...it was hardly a tragic loss of equipment.

This difficulty has been an ongoing discussion with the group, and one member in particular who described how a "perfect" game would be in terms of MMORPGs. In any case, I discussed it again and in the middle of the continuation of that argument, one of the players apparently translated what I was saying (I swear it sounded like the exact same words) and suddenly there was an epiphany from the loudest detractor.

So...long and short...death is painful once more, and equipment loss happens. However, for those players who have lost eqiupment/experience, they have the option of a "side quest" to regain the lost exp and equipment that is tailored to the specific character history.

Which gives more storyline for the party, and allows more capacity for building of the party loyalty.

Thank you all for your suggestions and thoughts!

Thanks for the input guys...and to answer some questions.

Case in point for the "Mega encounters"
Party, at that point 4th level average, encounters a group of rabid wolves (effectively Worgs). The worgs attack, taking out a couple horses. The Worgs stop to eat the horses as the party regroups and heals. I tell them that they can see what the forces of chaos are doing to the area..(ie plot device)...and that it's equally obvious that the wolves are hungry enough to ignore them if they don't engage again. I then point out Out of character that this isn't an encounter that they should engage on, but if they want to take the risk knowing that, I won't hold back and the dice will determine the outcome.

The party comes up with a plan, attacks, and two characters die. Those two characters come back with different characters...same level and XP with all new equipment.

Net net? Party gains a ton of experience for defeating a force significantly above their level, which included the people who died to get the xp.

So where is the risk?

Also, the permanent loss of stats was from 3.5 admittedly, as I foolishly allowed a deck of many things...players drew from it til they got bonuses or negatives. Those who got any negatives immediately created new characters.

Also, I've asked the players if they are ok with being captured and having to regain their equipment instead of death. The response was it would only be "fair" if I left all of their equipment next to where they were captured so they could keep going.

The logic of "death is punishment enough" has been used by my players, at which point I have to ask. If you can come back with the same stats, equipment, etc, and I as GM have to come up with a way for the party to accept you...how is death a punishment?

Right now I'm trying something new in that each player has 5 characters akin to a character tree. They can swap out characters to fit the role they'd like to play in a given scenario...but only in cities. However, if any single player runs through all 5 characters...the campaign is over.

I guess my main frustration is that IMO failure has penalties. Not saying those penalites should be punitive. But even a raise dead costs gold. And currently the choice has been raised, pun intended, as "I can lose money...or I can respawn and lose nothing...why would I use raise dead?".

The situation leaves me with a sense of futility. I can't put anything out there that the party can't defeat...because if they attempt to attack the gold dragon who wants to help...they die and respawn right back again...and potentially try the same thing a different way. And as none of them are willing to GM...

So I've been GMing for my group for quite awhile, and nearly all of that in D&D and Pathfinder.

The group is a mixed bag of roleplayers and roll-players, but the following issue keeps coming up.

A) Party encounters a "Mega threat" that the GM clearly says OOC is intended to push them off. Ie. do not engage, this will kill you. Party engages, because they "think they can do it anyway". Win or lose, party members die.

B) Party encounters a situation where their characters don't die, but lose an item, or take permanent stat loss....etc.

In either case, the player creates a brand new character...sometimes with the same stats and equipment. In fact, the statement has been made by the players that loss of equipment is a valid reason to "respawn" because "Why would I play a character that is $X behind the rest of the party?"

All in all, this results in the party rushing headlong into any situation, as they will either win...or make new characters.

Has anyone else run into similar situations, have any thoughts on how to deal with this?

The situation is, if you know an illusion isn't real you can see through it. From the PRD:

Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief): Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.

A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.

A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.

Thus, a fighter (using the class normally least likely to take it), could see through any illusion. Of course I initially missed the key line being figment or phantasm.

And with the DCs being so low for spellcraft(max DC 24 for level 9 spell), it is easy enough for non-caster to completely defeat any illusion that is cast in your area. As an example,a level 7 fighter with 10 int would have spellcraft of 7, so able to see through a 7th level illusionist's spells 50% of the time. Reducing the shadow evocation or conjuration spells to being spellcraft check, then save. Either success reduces damage to 20%.

Not sure that is RAI, but appears to be RAW.

My question is more of the spellcraft roll.

Similar to that question...

Invisibility is a 2nd level spell (Glamour). I'm a fighter and have a spellcraft of 1 and a 10 int. I see a mage cast invisibility, and due to the gods of luck being kind, I roll the needed 16 (15+spell level). And now the would be invisible creature is revealed.

So...are all illusions auto-disbelieved with that comparatively simple a roll?

Seems to take away any active ability to use illusions, except in advance of the encounter.

So here's a question I've had with my players.

Two spellcasters square off, Evoker and Illusionist, both with (not surprisingly) high spellcraft.

When only using their specialities, the Evoker crushes the Illusionist as each round he makes his spellcraft roll and knows they are illusions, thus auto-disbelief.

Is it really that simple?

If it is that simple, (which I disagree with), does that mean instead of a will save vs. shadow spells I'd get a spellcraft check and/or will save?

Seems an incredible nerf to illusions and illusionists, though it might explain the need for a high bluff.

Thoughts?

Hey all,

So for my current campaign, there is a "mystic force"/aka GM fiat, that is causing the local gnomes to become lawful.

Depending on who you ask they are getting the following:

Lawful Gnome: This force keeps us from fading. We are working to protect our race.

"Rebel" Gnome: They are destroying what we ARE. We are fighting to protect our race.

So...as my group rarely understands the meaning of diplomacy, I'm prepping two Gnome parties depending which side they choose. Buying into some stereotypes here and game requirements to what type of charater would be on each side.

So as a quick example
Imperial side:
Paladin
Monk

Rebel side:
Bard
Druid (Going for choosing balance/natural order)
Witch
Barbarian(?)

The gnomes will be 7th level, built off 25 point buys. (I've got a group of 8 PCs at 6th) and looking for gnome groups to be from 4-6 people.

Thoughts/suggestions? Looking for a party that can counter/threaten the PCs and make them work hard to win, or even be forced to retreat!

Thanks for what anyone provides!

All will be gnomes, but looking for any suggestions as to what makes sense

Perhaps I missed something (and lord knows I hope I have), but under the description for flurry of blows:

"For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus is equal to his monk level. "

So, why wouldn't the effective BAB be the same between a fighter and a zen archer monk?

On a flip side question, how as a GM do you counter a zen archer who is throwing out this kind of damage? The 6th level archer in my group is throwing out 3-4 arrows a round, doing d8+11+d6 acid each. And +10/+10/+5 per arrow

Anything near appropriate CR for the group is annihilated prior to anyone else in the group even engaging.

Completely agree with the single kill point. The issue came when he was describing how he could decimate the entire dungeon. "It would be tedious, but they couldn't see me or hit me, and with spring attack and lunge, I'd keep killing them...one every 4 rounds."

As for the area, the first CR 16 encounter is 10 Frost giants with 2 levels in Barb. I'm not expecting this to really do more than slow down the group as a whole...but the concept of 1 15th level character being able to kill all 10...and then go on to kill all the way up to the leaders without serious harm...that's concerning.

Was looking for a way that wasn't simply:

"Ok, you spend 3 hours and clean out the Frost giants. You then wait for the party to join you to fight their leader."

The Barb's uncanny dodge is exceeded by the Rogue/Assassin levels...

But I hadn't thought of the readied action...which spring attack wouldn't stop.

I dunno...a combat with 10 Frost giants, each with 2-4 levels of Barbarian on top... Shouldn't be something a single 15th level character, in a dungeon, can handle without significant effort. (CR11-13 each)

But the readied action is a very good idea...thanks..:)

As for his dex and stealth, I guessed based on the information I had when posting this..;) (by throwing together a quick build).

My issues isn't that he's overpowered per-se...but the following situation:

Round 1: He's hiding, he does the instant kill attempt as an assassin.
Rounds 2-4: Watching next victim
Round 5: kills
Rounds 6-8: Watching next victim.

This more came from a discussion where we were jokingly discussing having him and 2 others go through a 16-20th level area..(Many Frost Giants with a few Barb levels)..and he was saying that he could solo it...because with Lunge, the monsters couldn't see him to hit him..and he'd always select the Giant who wasn't covered by all the rest.

And from my understanding of the rules (thus my post), someone who is invisible, you can do the 50% miss chance because you made a perception to know where they are. Someone with a high enough stealth you don't have any chance to attack them...as you don't.

Just don't want to effectively nerf him by having the big encounters throw glitterdust all the time...

Hey all,

I'm running a group of 15th level Pathfinder characters, and one of them has come up with a combo that I don't want to simply nerf, but seems to break the system.

His character, Rogue/Assassin, has taken all the stealth feats, and maxed out his stealth rating. So...with a dex of 20, his stealth is something like +33.

So, having taken Spring attack, he hides in plain sight, attacks, then stealths again.

And most monsters simply don't have the perception checks to see him.

Options/thoughts?