How about a classic case of you not having all the information.
(GM in question here).
We run a lot of games. As a GM I try to make them feel unique and different. CommandoDude just came off of a Kingmaker Campaign with unlimited crafting and absolutely no purchase restrictions. The next campaign will likely still have limited crafting, but purchase restrictions will be relaxed or open.
In this campaign crafting feats ARE NOT banned. I encourage crafting. The only feats that off the table are Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft Wonderous Item, Craft staff and Forge Ring. The rest are open and available for use.
All of this was very openly explained BEFORE the campaign ever started.
And I am the opposite of a control freak. The party has complete freedom to make purchases up to the city limit, and the item is always available (allowing for purchases to be done away from the GM - ie not at the table). Also we did the random loot early on and the TABLE AS A GROUP decided that they would rather have items be always available instead of wasted time and effort with randoms for sale.
I wanted a specific feel for Rise of the Runelords. I wanted more consumable use. I wanted a lower top end on purchased power items (+4's being the likely purchase top). I wanted more use of found items. And I wanted character creation choices to matter. All of this was explained to the players at the beginning, and most of this has actually worked out.
I love having CommandoDude in my game, but he does have a reputation as a powergamer (And the character in question is FAR AND AWAY the most powerful melee in the group, he really does not need any help.) He was also the spotlight most powerful melee in the last game too.
I have never "cock-blocked" him. I have bent rules, been very accommodating, and provided special advancement opportunities unique to his specific characters. At the start of the adventure I laid out the specific limitations I wanted to play with this time around, and to plan your characters accordingly. He made choices (and not even hugely nerfy ones) But, now that it matters, to suggest that a player should have one last chat (ie demand he get his way) or leave, is highly immature. BiggerClub, you seem to have the mistaken picture of me as one of those "my way or the highway GMs" (and I agree they are often not fun to play with), what CommandoDude failed to mention was that I encouraged him to get feedback from the boards because I AM willing to work with him. We already have ideas.
My reason was never "Just Because", but was always "Challenge Balance". If I let CommandoDude get a +6...the entire group will be in +6's overnight. They already are wiping the floor with the bad guys (with occasional swingy fights being very challenging).
I know that I am not a perfect GM (I think I do OK), but I felt I should speak up as the conversation was being framed as me not working with CommandoDude, which is not what is going on here.
1) I established parameters for THIS adventure
2) Told players to plan accordingly
3) Played for levels 1-13 (book 5)
4) CommandoDude feels his character is "gimped" without +6 items that he feels the rules state should be openly available.
5) I say I don't plan to change the established limitations for this game, but I am curious what other gamers have to say. Instructed to go on the boards and gather information. Report back, and we will continue this discussion.
6) Discussion is in progress....
As the GM in question, I can tell you it is exactly the unaccounted for bonuses that caused me to not allow this specific item to be backward downgraded. Magic item pricing being as much an art as a rule, paired with Celestial Plate (armor) having some special abilities outside the norm make it a tricky item to price. I was willing to allow the player to build toward the item, using “mithril full plate +1” as a base (yes I know it is not mithril but I wanted to work with him), but he wanted the free auxiliary benefits now. So I ruled that if he didn’t want to go that route, it would be best to wait until he could buy the item outright (most likely 2-3 more games or so).
Hence the Sunder Truce. We don't have it written down but it is understood that the DM won't sunder your equipment if you agree not to use it either. Exception: If there is a monster or bad guy who specifically have that as an ability or tactic. That adds the possible threat of having equipment broken but it makes it rare enough that is does not foster ill will (or sunder arms race) between the DM and the PC's. So far there has been threat of equipment lost to a babau and a black pudding (If I remember correctly the Black Pudding broke some items that needed magic to repair). So broken equipment does occur in my game, but I tend to mostly take Undone's position.
no no no no no no....boosting the other characters would be very bad. The Slumber witch needs no buffing. The Reach Cleric hits VERY hard. The Fighter/Ranger will be destroying [giants] very shortly. But all those are manageable. The archer is the problem child right now (in terms of combat balance). The Goblin is just pure monk (I could buff him, but he is holding his own currently - He is almost a defender as he occupies an opponent but his AC is approaching crazy unhittable). The party is pretty much where I want them (minus the archer). I want them to earn their "heroes of Golarion" status with a "little" work (I don't want them to curbstomp every encounter).
For those that mentioned it. I regularly adjust the CR of all the encounters. I have 5 players so I commonly add a combatant or two, sometimes add a class level, give some extra HP etc…to compensate. The fights have been tough so far (X..….!!!), the players are not rolling the mod by any means. I would say that my players feel that this is the toughest AP yet & the combats are the most exciting I have run. I have the pressure up (and I want to keep it that way). I absolutely do not want to kill my PCs, but I want the fights to be challenging (most of em anyways)…I try to be a good DM and throw easy fights at them to make them feel powerful and successful (as most DM guides suggest). But I fear what is coming. As I saw it in my last campaign.
We are very aware of cover and use it in every fight. The archer often has -4 to hit from it. But honestly the ACs they are dealing with in non boss fights are trivial. I don’t think I will change any rules or nerf archery. I think I will follow the above suggestions and use MORE environment, get MORE badguys next to him (a 5’ does not help when baddies have reach!) Probably add a caster in key fights, and a few potions of Invis. (The archer does have the see invis racial from his Aasimar heritage, but it would burn a round to turn it on) Also they use monster knowledge in every fight (I come from PFS so…that is kind of drilled into our playstyle). We track ammo. The one thing I won’t do is sunder. I DO use all the other maneuvers, but breaking a PCs hard earned equipment is dirty pool. We have a game “sunder truce” I don’t break equipment unless the opponent is supposed to tactically do that (ie black puddings…slimey demons…etc..).
I sounds like I am doing most things right and just need to add some more counters (like when I add a bit of iron will to counter sleepywitch, it does not screw her…just makes it tougher to always rely on it.)
Like, for example, we are in Hook Mountain and the book mentions LOTs of rain for some reason ( :-) ) weather effects would be good to play up.
A little background. I am running a Rise Of The Runelords Campaign. One of my players is playing an archer (inquisitor specifically). We have just finished Book 2 and are moving on to Hook Mountain. He has saved up his money and before he left Magnimar he purchased a +1 Adaptive Corrosive Composite longbow (9400 gp) well within his wealth by level and available for purchase in that city (they are closing in on 8th level). We are not a super Min/Max group, although the players do try and find effective options. I have DMed an archer before and was able to challenge the player at higher levels with some windwalls/fickle winds and quite frankly I also just resigned to having the archer machine gun most encounters.
This time around, I don’t really have a lot of casters coming up
Very Light RotRL spoilers:
there are a few in the rest of book 3), and looking at book 4 there is not much there either (ie just a few). Without inserting a bunch of casters (and I do adjust the books to suit, but I try not to change them too much (ie Mammy was a witch..etc..)
Does anyone have any suggestions?
Given time to prep (buffs), most of my players will be doing around 20-40 points of damage a round, the archer will be doing about 50 - 70) in another level he will be doing about 140 round due to manyshot + iterative and he has taken a level of cleric to take advantage of Litany of Righteousness to burst for 1 round to around 280) ummm I don’t see anything coming up that can stand before that.
The player has not done anything too fancy (other than the level of cleric) and has simply progressed down the archery feats. We are paying attention to cover/concealment. He has a +2 equivalent weapon (not to unusual by 8th level). Not sure what to do. I will try and catch them unbuffed, but given the “assault” structure of books 3 - 4 that will happened only occasionally.
1) I can let the archer dominate combat.
2) I can add lots of casters with archery defeating spells.
3) I can change the core rules to nerf archery.
Currently he is just a very powerful force. In one more level he will so outstrip the other players in terms of power they will become nothing more than his support. From my past archer experience this problem gets worse at high level (except in highly magic boss fights).
Eventually I will be able to throw some casters at them, but I see A LOT of dead ogres and giants before we get there (and probably 10+ game sessions. Ie. 5 months of play). What do other groups do about archery? Archers in this AP? Perhaps I should let him shine, as something is coming up that I am not totally aware of (I have read it but don’t have all the encounters prepped yet). Perhaps their own party makeup will be their undoing (I have taken note they are VERY weak arcane wise.)
FYI the party make up is:
A Slumber Witch (yes, problematic too but can be challenged by high will, Improved Iron Will, immunities, helpers…etc..)
A Reach Cleric (a pretty good heavy hitter too)
A Goblin Monk (hilarious and fun as heck to have had in this AP)
A Tanky Fighter/Ranger
The Inquisitor Archer
Any general suggestions/comments are appreciated, but my concerns are mainly aimed at what to do about archery without resorting to a lot of magical shenanigans.
FYI the witch in question (I am the DM) does not cackle to extend Slumber Hex (that is always a function of level). He does cackle to extend evil eye and misfortune. Yes, the witch's spamming of slumber can occasionally be a problem and the witch class in general can be a BBEG killer if the target does not have a high will save. Fortunately most high level-high value baddies tend to have high saves. Also I tend to throw Improved Iron Will on the really tough baddies (I have only had to use it once...so it has not come into play often.) One target has had Hex Ward...so that had been in play. Maybe it is because this is the 3rd campaign I have DM'ed this players witch in, but I don't find the class unfun or unbalanced, so much as boring in combat. He has done a great job of developing his character's personality in this iteration though.
It seems that every class has had it's sweet spot...they all have times where they seem overpowered.
Mulet, no one has run into this because the situation you contrived is not in the module.
Your party has not TPK'd, they have not "lost" the game...you can keep it going...and if your table desires it, it is kind of your job as the DM to do so. Yes your PCs made some very poor choices, but given that, the more I read about your situation in the other tread (about the village) the more clear it is that your intent was to trick them (and you went to great lengths to make sure they lacked the information to make informed decisions).
There is no "correct" way to run Burnt Offerings. It is your story, do with it what you want. But if you as a DM contrive a situation that is impossible for the PCs to overcome, then your players have not failed. The DM has.
This is not meant as a put down or to be mean (really!!!). Just some firm constructive criticism.
You have taken Burnt Offerings way off the rails (again...NOT a bad thing) and your question as to how others have handled your very specially designed situation seems odd.
In my game for example there is a nearby abbey (Windsong) to the north, that is particularly accepting of different peoples (even evil faiths). A cleric of Sarenrae there is investigating the concept of inherent evil and our 2 baby goblins were left in his care as wards. He will raise them and see if goblins are inherently evil, or if they can be taught and redeemed. Yea, it may not go well. But that is what we did in my game.
Best of luck with your game. It shows that you have put a lot of work into it, and I see above that you already have some ideas of what to do. Let us know how it plays out.
I also like (besides restoring the village) that the Pally loses all abilities UNTIL he can come up with the money to have atonement cast on him. That will make him think twice. yea...I like it....hardnose oldschool!
If he can get the resources, raise dead is cheaper....but given the time involved, perhaps Resurrection is your best bet. Undoing this wrong could be this players life goal....and I like Valandil's idea too.
Perhaps raise 1-2 of the goblins as soon as possible, and then spend the rest of the campaign "atoning" for his sin. BTW this AP gives you lots of opportunity to play with sin. Read up on the sin points used late in the AP and also your paladin should perhaps get the Wrath tag for Misgivings in part 2.
First off, I don't think your players have "failed" Burnt Offerings. You have modified the AP heavily (which is fine - I do that too) but there are quite a few DM imposed obstacles you have put before them making your job a lot harder. Sure, make the PC's actions have consequences, but don't kill the campaign before it even gets going over a self imposed hard line. Keep the AP flexible, and bend it to your players, let it be their story, but keep folding the AP back in when it gets off track. Nualia might attack the town on Monday, but why does she need to demolish it? Perhaps the attack fails due to some deus-ex-machina that Nualia did not foresee. Perhaps she was impatient and sent an attack against the town without finding a way to release Malfeshnekor (she still needs to do that right - as she has not found the secret door let alone the key?)
Have they met Shalelu yet? One option for you is to send your PCs to Magnimar, put them on trial (also remember that Magnimar has no king and this is important to part 2 (you could always replace Haldmeer with a king and it would still work) and have Nualia attack the town, let her have moderate success, burn some more buildings, kill some NPCs, then have Shalelu show up at the last minute and help the town repel the attack (she is level 6 after all). Your PCs return from Magnimar to an even more desperate town, sure that the next attak will finish them off. Make it clear the town will not withstand another attack...with shalelu in tow (if that is your wish) send your PCs off to Thistletop...campaign back in line. Nualia is back at Thistletop furiously researching Malfeshnekor, now convinced that she needs her Lamashtu sent general to finally destroy the town.
I see. Clear these up for me as I am still learning and I fear I have misconceptions as to how stuff works.
First I didn't think you could use Dragon Totem Resilience as you no longer have barbarian damage reduction class feature (which this rage power modifies - it adds 2 to it for each dragon totem rage power you possess...etc..) When you took Invulnerable Rager you gave up the barbarian damage reduction class feature for Invulnerability (Ex).
The same goes for Increased DR, it is modifying something you no longer have (the Invulnerability (Ex) is a special ability that replaced the "damage reduction" class feature and has special DR that counts double for Non-lethal.) Even if you could take it, it just would not stack, as it is a separate source (as the DR it provides is different from the special Non-lethal double protection that Invulnerable Rager enjoys).
Stalwart/Improved Stalwart: Those seem to work! Thanks!
If I am incorrect about Dragon Totem or "Increased DR" let me know as I would like to take those, if they work differently than I thought.
I had the awesome experience of playing this Mod with both, a flamboyantly gay gnome and cleric of Calistria (two different players). The DM could hardly get out the Box Text that told us our mission was at a Bathhouse without laughing (The two players were already owning the table before our mission location was revealed - At which point it was decided that this mod was written specifically with them in mind). What followed was a full hour of wrong, and some of the filthiest and funniest PFS play I have ever had.
In my game the DM approved mount for the cavalier was a Roc. It was awesome. He did not start with it of course (I think he got it around level 9 or 10ish?....I don't recall exactly). I parsed that paragraph to mean:
1) which mounts are available? The creature must be one that he is capable of riding and is suitable as a mount.
2) how do they work? This mount functions as a druid's animal companion, using the cavalier's level as his effective druid level.
3) what do they start with? A Medium cavalier can select a camel or a horse. A Small cavalier can select a pony or wolf, but can also select a boar or a dog if he is at least 4th level. The GM might approve other animals as suitable mounts (see 1 above).
Flying lance Cavalier after raising the bird captured from a roc nest (it took several years).
Don't forget her Nymph abilities, they are nasty (blinding Beauty and stunning glance). Pick the tough guy and cast Maze on him. Use fickle winds to thwart the archers. Anti Life shell and chain lightning to soften up the pcs. Try a dominate. Or dispel their buffs (actually a clue to beating her) When my PCs faced her she was super tough, it looked dire for a few rounds. They figured out that they needed to debuff her so they tried a few dispels. One anti-magic field later she went from OP to chump. Dropped her the next round.
What I meant was that if any house rules are in play, have you talked to you GM, to see if they have a solution for you (perhaps special training to use your special weapon)? You have not mentioned that you have done that. Maybe add my suggestion to the list of ALL the other suggestions you have gotten from the boards.
If I came off as trying to shut you down, that was not my intent. Happy Gaming!
I just finished a Kingmaker campaign with a sleepywitch. At low levels it was quite effective (and overpowered compaired to what the others could do). But as they raised in level, fewer opponents could be slept. At the end of the game the witch had a KILLER save DC (30 INT - 20 Start, 4 level ups, and a +6 INT item)...so if it could be slept she took it down. But in the last two books I don't remember her sleeping even a single opponent. It was FAR more useful to Evil Eye or Misfortune, and let her allies thrash them. In some of the mid levels I did give key players Iron will/ Improved Iron Will where appropriate. As a GM, I honestly found the high DC saves more of a problem than specifically the Slumber Hex.
Two years ago I found my self in the position you seem to be in now. I was very disillusioned with the direction that “essentials” was taking the game, Pathfinder was new and shiny (and frankly had tons of energy and momentum) so we decided to check it out. I played quite a bit of 3.5 (mainly casters) and I find that your position on the system is pretty spot on. But I played FAR more 4th edition. I loved 4th for what it was. it provided our gaming group with a balanced tactical adventure RPG. It was perfect for us….for YEARS. But something was missing. A bit of freedom, a bit of roleplay, and bit of unbalanced chaos. I don’t buy the argument that 4th edition inhibits roleplay. A group skilled at roleplay will do just fine with 4th. But for groups (like mine) that struggle with roleplay, 4th edition suffers a bit from the “here is your hammer, now wait for the nail” structure. My players felt confined by the “encounter” structure of the system (people rarely used their “powers” outside of combat…some groups do fine here, but mine had issues). And as the DM, I both LOVED and HATED that I pretty much had to plan out encounters. There were WAY more “set piece” encounters under my 4th game. But the world seemed bland (A LOT of this has to do on my own reliance on Wizards provided world books…lets face it…the world books under 4th were horrible). I told stories, but the “campaign” felt lacking. And it never filled that “we are playing D&D hole” that hole that I remember how D&D felt and played when we were in high school.
We switched two years ago to Pathfinder. It has been a blast. It has that “old” D&D feel. And cleans up “some” of the issues with 3.5. The system is far from perfect but our games feel more organic and include quite a bit more role-play ( I don’t know why). Not to say that we have not encountered issues. Our party archer (and archers in general are brokenly powerful), our cavalier has found the mounted combat to be a confusing mess (and he too tops the power curve in most situations). Both of these issues (and any issues in PF) require something to fix. And that thing is an aware DM. Notice that both my problem PCs are not caster classes which is encouraging, however if class balance is a priority for you, you will not find it here. I will say that no player has felt useless though. They have each shined at different times in different situations.
I have thought quite a bit about how my table has approached both PF and 4th and I have distilled it down to a Top Down (DM managed) vs. Bottom Up (Player focused) game approach. I fully realize that any table can run their game however they want. I am speaking in broad generalizations. In 4th the game was fairly balanced (Player focused) and my job as DM was mainly story teller and to describe how the PC’s interacted with the world. In Pathfinder, I find that in order to have a good game, I also have to manage the rules as well. I don’t blanket allow most things at my table (like I did under 4th). I disallow certain classes / races / certain feats / traits / certain combat rules / equipment ... etc. It requires a heavier hand. And here is your balance. If the rules don’t fit with your table, it is up to you to adjust it. Keep it loose, don’t play it like a board game.
And in my opinion the game is better for it. Our world feels lived in. It is messier and more chaotic. It is also more dangerous. When we play Pathfinder it feels less like we are playing a game or playing through a set story and more like we are crafting a world.
To sum up. We found 4th to be a better “game”, but we find Pathfinder to be a better “experience” by a wide margin. Both rule sets are good for different things. I think it ultimately comes down to what you want to play and how you play it. That is my experience.
PS: Either way, even if you keep with the 4th rules (and they would require a fair amount of conversion). Check out the Paizo Adventure Paths. They are amazing!
I am confused as to why they 5' at all? Why didn't they just move again on thier second turn if no one was adjacent to draw an opp from (you said they needed to close distance?) On their second turn, I might have had them charge at that point (if distance was good).
No it is not common for creatures to 5' step each round to close distance. Usually they attack at range, or get right up in your face and then 5' step each round to get better positions and flanks.
That was amazing. My own Armag anecdote is laughable (literally) in comparison. I introduced the info on Armag last game (you bet I will be stealing this poem for our next game), and a conversation about witches and their barbarian king took place. Something like this:
Player 1: What do witches want with a barbarian king?
Player 2: Well a barbarian king would enforce a barbarian lifestyle.
Player 1: Yeah?
Player 2: So most people will be living in tents.
Player 1: Yeah, so?
Player 2: So you’re less likely to be killed if someone drops a tent on you instead of a house.
Most people I know play D&D (aka Pathfinder) to play a character through an epic fantasy story. I realize that people play RPGs for a variety of reasons, so am not trying to point out "bad-wrong-fun", but I am generalizing. Most of the game revolves around leveling and storytelling. NONE of the game revolves around PvP...it is not remotely a part of Pathfinder's structure or language. How much of PO revolves around PvP? Nearly all of it?
Now the fantasy PvP element will surely appeal to some (but now you are subdividing the people who would be intersted in a "Pathfinder game" at all even further - A fraction of a fraction). I was very excited when I heard about PO until I heard about the player pvp driven sandbox elements and my interest dropped to zero. I will never play a pvp focused game. They tend to be havens for jerk-griefers. So far what I have heard about PO has zero in common with the Pathfinder game that I play outside of wrapping the game in a "Golarion skin".
Maybe I am wrong. Maybe things will change. Maybe I need to do more reseach on the current state of PO. Maybe when I see the PvP elements in place it will all "work". But I am beyond skeptical. Definately in the CONCERNED catagory.
I hope I am wrong, because an awesome Pathfinder game would be just that....awesome.
3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trying to figure out if prone stacks with helpless. I am guessing that it does.
1. A melee attack on a helpless target is + 4 to attack. Target is - 4 to AC (prone) and an additional - 5 to AC (zero DEX) for a total -9 to AC. Coup de grace available.
2. A range attack on a helpless target is +0 to attack. Target is + 4 to AC (prone) and - 5 to AC (zero DEX) for a net -1 to AC. Coup de grace available if adjacent and using bow or crossbow.
