Laser—Boards's page

I find that I only really care about balance within the group. Things outside of that aren’t so important so long as the players are all able to contribute and the DM isn’t overwhelmed. Initially class balance in the 3e era systems was something that bothered me since those systems seem to give the impression that all the classes are roughly balanced with each other. But soon enough I became apparent that this wasn’t the case and with that knowledge insuring that the group was roughly on the same level became much easier. In fact, once I came to the conclusion that a balanced group is what really matters I found that the lack of class balance in the 3.0 based systems was actually beneficial in some ways. Having a large spread of power levels among the classes allowed for making quite different campaigns by merely choosing a power level and having everyone make something around there. One could play a high powered game of universe shaking heroes by choosing the powerful classes or a more down to earth game by choosing a lower power level set of classes.

Nothing to do with theory-crafting, it's simply how the game is designed, presented, and generally played.

Though, at this point, I think there is something else going on, so probably best to leave this exchange before it gets even more absurd.

But like I said that's not how it's generally played. So even if we say that being grid focused is what one might expect in theory that's not how it works out in practice.

Yeah, based on the repetitive nature of the last few posts neither of us seem to be getting our points across so it's probably best to end here. It's been nice talking with you.

Laser—Boards wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Laser—Boards wrote:

Without that everyone is just making unsupported assertions as to how wargameish or narrativly each edition was run.

Not really, wargaming, narrative, and how things are run at specific tables, aside, 3rd and 4th Ed are more grid-focused than Basic and AD&D.

Nah, that's just bad luck on your part.

Not at all, it's simply part of that edition, just crack open the PHB (especially 3.5).

While I did already address your response, allow me to reiterate. Theory crafting doesn't really matter when the games doesn't actually play that way in practice. So like I said, just bad luck on your part.

Laser—Boards wrote:

Without that everyone is just making unsupported assertions as to how wargameish or narrativly each edition was run.

Not really, wargaming, narrative, and how things are run at specific tables, aside, 3rd and 4th Ed are more grid-focused than Basic and AD&D.

Nah, that's just bad luck on your part. For the majority 3e was the least grid focused edition. While it might have seemed more grid focused to you that's just theory crafting/anecdotal experience and not what really matters which is how the games were actually run. Though I will agree with 4e relying heavily on having a grid.

Laser—Boards wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

So?

Anyway, yeah, I see that response from a lot of 4th Ed fans (in defence), but the whole point of D&D was to not be Chainmail/a war-game, hence why they started a new game. I am not saying miniatures/grids were never used in pre-3rd Ed D&D, but 3rd and 4th Ed certainly made their use default.

I had a very dissimilar experience when it comes to D&D through the ages (except for 4e being very grid reliant). The various campaigns run in 3e and company were generally played gridless and honestly pretty imprecisely when it came down to things. Maybe some rough diagrams when the terrain was really complicated. Whereas the campaigns that used other editions had the grid as mandatory for all but the simplest of combats or explorations. What a strange difference in our experiences.

Definitely, but on the internet there's the whole "I have never seen a green gorilla." and someone will inevitably pipe up with "I see green gorillas all the time, and so does my wife."

Sure we could take that position, but if we do that then that rather undermines both sides of the discussion unless someone happens to have the data for an appropriate random sampling of DM styles over the various editions for us to analyze. Without that everyone is just making unsupported assertions as to how wargameish or narrativly each edition was run. And if someone had that info they probably should have led with it in the first place.

Ed Reppert wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

3rd Ed is without a doubt what brought the grid front and centre, you can play without, but it heavily favours grid/minis; there's even a 3rd Ed Miniatures Handbook (which lead to DDM, then 4th Ed).

2nd Ed, as originally designed, was to be played more coffee-house style, sitting around in armchairs, couches, all TotM, per David Cook. Player's Option went back to focusing on the grid, and some of those ideas/rules carried over to 3rd Ed. 4th Ed is even more grid focused than 3rd Ed (especially 3.5), which says a lot.

5th Ed defaults to TotM (like 2nd Ed AD&D), but has rules for grid/miniature play.

IIRC, the direct ancestor of the original D&D was Chainmail, a set of rules for miniatures battles.

So?

Anyway, yeah, I see that response from a lot of 4th Ed fans (in defence), but the whole point of D&D was to not be Chainmail/a war-game, hence why they started a new game. I am not saying miniatures/grids were never used in pre-3rd Ed D&D, but 3rd and 4th Ed certainly made their use default.

I had a very dissimilar experience when it comes to D&D through the ages (except for 4e being very grid reliant). The various campaigns run in 3e and company were generally played gridless and honestly pretty imprecisely when it came down to things. Maybe some rough diagrams when the terrain was really complicated. Whereas the campaigns that used other editions had the grid as mandatory for all but the simplest of combats or explorations. What a strange difference in our experiences.

Laser—Boards wrote:

EberronHoward wrote:

What do you mean by 'ethical'? I'm all for getting a better balance for how potions are bought and used, but I don't find any method of potion distribution in any version of D&D or PF to be 'unethical'.

It’s probably to cut down on littering. Just think about how many empty bottles and wands high level adventures are leaving all over the place when they burn through a pile of low level consumables after their fights.

Potion bottles can be cleaned and recycled. I assume that turning in tiny empty containers to merchants for a few copper is a not-uncommon way that street urchins make money. Much like they are probably the source for a lot of those oddball spell components that are neatly packaged into component pouches for sale - someone has to catch the fireflies.

And spent wands? Kindling, baby!

I don’t think you’re going to find many street urchins hanging around ancient evil ruins and the like. Well uneaten ones at least.

Yeah they potentially make good kindling, which is bad because that makes them a fire hazard when they build up.

What do you mean by 'ethical'? I'm all for getting a better balance for how potions are bought and used, but I don't find any method of potion distribution in any version of D&D or PF to be 'unethical'.

It’s probably to cut down on littering. Just think about how many empty bottles and wands high level adventures are leaving all over the place when they burn through a pile of low level consumables after their fights.

Actually the guards standing there did not subdue the golem.

Quote:

...Eiab and Zanhanal, two of Quantium’s city guards...

Quote:

If asked, these guards can
relate that members of the Nexian guard had subdued the
berserk golem when their forces arrived after reports of
the attack, but they have avoided taking further actions to
dispose of the construct, wanting to preserve any evidence
of the crime.

They restrained him with a sturdy silken rope (rope has a hardness of 4, lets say silken has a hardness of 5 and +2 for sturdy as the item does not exist in the rulebook), so yeah it is pretty possible that it will break free. Heck the guards even warn the players that the golem is increasing its struggles.

The counter of 1d4 rounds can be used to describe it freeing itself, unless he roled a one then he will just rip it. If you do not want to play it out in encounter mode. But letting your player just run in taking some minutes to research the crime scene when they do not even have a single minute, there is a hostile force present, it might attack so yeah this is in encounter mode!

And of course surprise makes a threat more dangerous, it is a +2 encounter so already a high or sever threat boss, if that is played out as a surprise attack (which I still doubt it is) it could be considered 1 level higher, so extreme which should be very threatening for the group (which it was).

The specific encounter is badly written, very dangerous and the eminent danger was not relayed to the players. Not a systemic problem but a specific problem of this adventure.

Interesting, you'll note that earlier in the scenario the players were told that the workshop is being watched by the Nexian guard. Now that you point it out it's not necessarily the case that the two guards are part of the Nexian guard but you can see where the players could easily make that assumption. Though even if not members of the Nexian guard the Nexian guard was confident enough in their abilities to handle the golem that they were left there without backup from what I can tell. So unless the Nexian guard is renowned for the organization's incompetence the players shouldn't necessarily consider the golem likely to break out, kill the two guards, and go on a rampage any time soon.

Sure the counter could be used to telegraph the encounter to the players thus ruining any potential surprise. But like I said the DM shouldn’t have to ruin surprises by tipping off the players about future encounters. If the game falls apart from the basic unexpected attack scenario that’s a really big problem. And the forced metagaming solution is even worse. Metagaming has its place but ruining surprise encounters to avoid party wipes because the system can't handle a surprise monster very well really shouldn't be one of them.

Looking back over the encounter building rules I didn't notice any advice on how a simple unexpected attack would push the encounter challenge up to potentially campaign ending levels if one is not careful. Maybe I missed it or maybe it's hidden away somewhere else but either way it looks like that bit of information needs to be put front and center in the encounter building rules. It's a good thing playtesting demonstrated this oversight so it can be solved.

Yeah, I'm sure that attacking the players when out of formation is a problem contained only to this one module and will never come up again. But seriously it looks like another piece of evidence that points to a wider systemic problem with the math being improperly designed to the point where it can't handle common scenarios since a simple advantage in positioning or using good tactics causes the lethality to skyrocket.

Guys, what you discussing is a scenario problem, not a system problem.

The guards have no stats, we can't say if they actually could subdue the golem. They are plot devices who tell their stories as if they are "competent enough to deal with the situation", - and useless when fight breaks up. Worse than useless, considering how they waste the adamantine blanche. Very bad way to trick the group into beleiving the situation is under the guards' control.

Trap effect description and golem condition do not match. Would not be much of a problem ina hack-and-slash scenario, but this is supposed to be investigation! The very genre expects the author to check for such things.

When monster starts combat in some unusual circumstances, i would expect its first actions described mechanically for the GM (like, "1 action to break bonds, 1 action to stand up, 1 action to do as it pleases"). Without that, the GM does not have much useful info about what an enemy has to do to start the fight. Instead, the scenario drowns important things in irrelevant and not matching information, like 'what players are expected to do'.

What you end up with is not game system testing, it is fighting poor narrative structure and author's wrong assumptions.

I think this does expose a system problem. If we wipe away the fluff, what we have is a simple case where while not in combat the group moved slightly out of position and then they got attacked. That's absolutely a thing that happens and that the system probably should support.

Laser—Boards wrote:

vestris wrote:

As rounds are very important in this particular setting I would have switched to encounter mode right when you entered the house. That would also gave you the metagame cues that something is about to go down. And helped with the rather bad descriptions.

Honestly if the system can’t handle encounters without giving the players time for advanced preparation that’s a failure of the system. You can’t assume every group is going to play super paranoid characters and the DM shouldn’t have to ruin surprises by tipping off the players about future encounters. If the game falls apart from the basic unexpected attack scenario that’s a really big problem.

Have you read any of my posts before?

There was a Golem in berserk mode trying to get free in the room (Nothing what I would call surprise encounter). If that does not tip your paranoia and lets you prepare for some kind of encounter I don't know what tips you.

As I said the wording on the encounter is bad which is not a part of the system.

Letting the fighter observe the creature up close or have the group at least in a decent marching order if something happens is no advanced preparation. Plus both crits where rolled 20's so the new crit system hasn't even been involved in that.

Another addition where is it a stretch to go into encounter mode when you know that the players have 24 seconds at best to search the room before they are attacked, with the attacker already being visibl?

I did, but I just don't see why it's unreasonable for the players to automatically doubt the guards competency. I mean, the guards managed to subdue the golem in the first place which speaks to their competence and the nonthreatening danger level of the golem. Now sure, some characters are going to have a personality that would make them super wary of the tied up golem that two random NPC guards managed to defeat but not all of them. If the system doesn't accommodate more trusting, naive, laid back, confident, etc. characters without risking a party wipe that's a problem.

And beyond the encounter this kind of unexpected attack should be a workable encounter. If the game turns super lethal as soon as the players get in a slightly bad tactical position that's not good. I can think of a variety of situations where the players might get attacked by stuff when out of position. Traitorous allies, mimics, gargoyles, things that are summoned, etc. It's a common enough situation that the game should be able to handle it.

Yeah, going into encounter mode to tip off the players to the impending attack is what I meant by spoiling the surprise. Ideally reliance on such out of character information should be kept to a minimum.

Look, maybe this scenario was supposed to have the potential for an unexpected attack or maybe it wasn't. But regardless the players did end up surprised and that exposed a weakness in the system.

As rounds are very important in this particular setting I would have switched to encounter mode right when you entered the house. That would also gave you the metagame cues that something is about to go down. And helped with the rather bad descriptions.

Honestly if the system can’t handle encounters without giving the players time for advanced preparation that’s a failure of the system. You can’t assume every group is going to play super paranoid characters and the DM shouldn’t have to ruin surprises by tipping off the players about future encounters. If the game falls apart from the basic unexpected attack scenario that’s a really big problem.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Since "this dungeon takes between 8 hours and 8 weeks" is kind of a pain to design a narrative around.

This is the big thing I, as a GM, want to see fixed. The PCs blitzing through the dungeon in an hour is fine and so is the PCs breaking for weeks at a time to heal up. The problem is the unpredictability.

Not all groups use wands or even really realize they're an option. They're taking days to cut through an adventure in PF1. If they don't have a healer, that can jump to weeks.

This means, essentially, time threats in a published adventure have to be "try to convince the party they just got there in the nick of time." Which, even if the GM succeeds at maintaining the illusion, makes the group think they need better healing. So they're spending resources and choosing classes to run faster on the treadmill.

The same unpredictability splits encounter design (because a fully healed party needs a very different set of challenges) and class balance (because daily abilities are tied to the same challenge clock). It even ties deeply into the one encounter adventuring day, because a lot of players eventually realize that the game had ended up running on narrative time.

And the thing that makes me sad about this, as a GM and a developer, is that a lot of the people who want wands of cure light wounds want them because they're trying to do well. They want to not just succeed, but to excel at the challenges that have been put in front of them. But without a set timeline to measure it against, the speed and efficiency they're gaining doesn't actually mean anything. And I'd like to see them getting actual results in the game.

Anyway, I just really think that we need to figure out what people want as a time scale for their adventures (minutes, hours, days, weeks, decades, whatever) before we can have a real conversation about magical healing. Because we don't need wands or clerics to have people heal up as often as the players want.

Cheers!
Landon

As I recall the time variability was to an extent already solved in 4e through healing surges. It has been quite a while since I last checked out 4e stuff, but as I recall they provided both healing between encounters, so that the party didn’t have to spend days resting up every few rooms, and also a cap on daily healing, so that the party couldn’t run through a dungeon in a few hours. They could even be houseruled up or down depending on how quickly groups want to run through dungeons.