Lodan's page

Organized Play Member. 5 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


I just realized my problem, I have been counting forwards when everything I've seen from others says that you're supposed to count backwards.

I'm reading this after a similar reaction I had in a recent gaming session.

If you were to get 1d6 per 2 Caster Levels as a spell states, I would assume by Level 9 you would have 5d6. However the way I have seen the community so far is that you take your total Caster Level then divide by the number and since it states in the Rulebook you always Round Down, then that's what you do here. However I have also read nowhere in the Rulebook that you determine by this method.

Let's say you get 1 apple per 2 days; How many apples do you have on day 9? Logically one would assume through the method provided by numerous people in the RPG Community that you would have 4 apples, however I seem to have 5. How is this possible?

Is my Logic somehow flawed?

I have found the use of Miniatures and a Battle-grid tend to bring people into the game and realize alot more of what's going on. My group has been RPing together for the past 10 years and only recently we started using Miniatures and a Grid (1-inch squares printed on paper or most recently Gaming Paper), and instead of the random question of how many enemies are still alive and which direction, we have a more visual idea of where things are. Also we used to be pretty spread out having everyone in various spots in the living room and side room, and as such we've also tended to sit there doing our own thing (one guy reads a book while playing or fiddles with his tablet pc). But having the table and grid has brought us closer and has sped things up a bit. However I can see how it could cause some people to over-analyze things. Also the type of mini used could cause confusion or bring a sense of personalization to the game (the others did play around with Warhammer and 40k for a while and we also have 20 year old Pewter Minis, which clash in size with eachother). All in all you just have to do test runs and decide if it fits the play-style of your group.

The first thing I thought of when I saw this post was honestly Lara Croft in the Tomb Raider Games (and movies) how she basically fires her guns then drops the clips and reloads from new clips stuck to her hips, but those are not revolvers. It honestly would have to depend on the technology level of the guns in your game, but as far as reloading revolvers, one would have to be holstered or dropped in order to reload the other. However I guess it all comes down to what people believe can be done in a round of combat where multiple people are fighting. Turn based combat is a touchy subject among many people, and everyone has their own opinion of how it should play out, thus everyone will have a different opinion of what actions can be performed in a round.

So I've been arguing with my GM about this very topic (though before I saw this post as I just read it as of this posting), our group is comprised of mainly Ranged and Casters. Our GM has been running the Carrion Crown Adventure Path straight out of the book with almost no modification (extended the Time Frame to allow a trip to Carrion Hill after the first book). Our party setup is as follows:

Cleric of Iomedae who uses a Sword and Shield, but mainly has stayed back to Heal and Channel against Undead

Summoner with a Powerful Eidolon that has dealt major damage but hasn't been able to successfully take a Major Hit

Oracle Tengu using a Katana and a Daikatana that has normally stayed back and casted spells (horrible die rolls to attack = Many Whiffs)

And the GM made a Ranger (Ranged Specialist) to deal with the fact we were missing a "heavy hitter"

In the majority of our adventuring the GM has fudged many die rolls so none of us were significantly one-shot when facing major enemies (though the Eidolon was "killed" once toward the end of an encounter). The problem that I and my friend have not been able to convey to him is that in making the Ranger as a Ranged combatant hasn't quite filled the role of a person that can take the major hits that these major "bosses" have been dishing out. However as we have tried to explain we slip and say Tank, wherein he says he can't see using MMO Logic in a pencil & paper RPG, and brushes off the issue. However he is still not going to adjust the adventure to fit the group, and I just can't see a continuance of fudging die rolls so a character doesn't die as a viable option. He is also pissed when one of us talks about ditching a character to make a new one focused around being able to take hits.

In this respect I can see a definite need to define Combat Roles since there is going to inevitably be alot of Combat, but Challenge Roles are a different matter since they will change depending on the situation you get into (with a vast array of different situations within many different Adventure Paths/Modules/Homebrew).

I don't expect to get my own situation resolved anymore (in writing this reply) as the Campaign will either work itself out or fall apart altogether (if the GM gets too frustrated with the system not working in his favor or refuses to admit to MMO Logic as he puts it).