Bow Guardian

Ten10's page

85 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

FowlJ wrote:


This is a really weird hill you've decided you have to die on, especially now that you've backpedaled to agreeing that Pathfinder is a primarily combat focused game (which it pretty transparently is), which was the entire point in contention in the first place.

Show me where I backpedaled.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:


One question.

Did you miss the part in my post where I specifically said the word "untrained" or are you being obtuse on purpose?

No.

I added the part you are deliberately ignoring.

Ascalaphus wrote:

I feel like bickering is missing the point.

Is PF2 primarily a combat oriented game? Yes - easily visible from the class-level system, which is set up to make sure characters remain in the same ballpack for what they can deal with in combat.

Does that make PF2 bad for running non-combat things? No, that conclusion does not logically follow.

---

In fact PF2 has a good framework for designing and running non-combat challenges. You have the very customizable victory point minigame framework from the GMG which can be used in many different ways. And you have a scale of level-appropriate DCs that allows you to pit skills against saves against Perception against attacks against spell DCs and get sensible results. If someone proposes an unorthodox approach, it's not that hard for the GM to improvise a way to roll a check for that.

Exactly.

I wish Paizo would utilize these other avenues way, way more in their AP/PFS products.


Arachnofiend wrote:
You're completely ignoring my second post here. None of those things are necessarily increased by level; a Fighter may stay untrained in all social skills, while a Sorcerer may always be pitiful at trying to open heavy doors. Both characters will always get more powerful in combat - hell, the Sorcerer will even get better at hitting things with a stick! You have to choose to opt-in to any non-combat stuff you take, but you can't opt out of combat boosts.

One question.

Do you're trained skills increase with level even if you never use them?


Captain Morgan wrote:
You basically just said the same thing Arachnofiend did but drew a very different conclusion. This tangent is feeling more and more like semantics.

No, I reversed what he said.

"Winning a social encounter makes you better at combat in this game, the game is expected to lead to initiative eventually.
Because I defeated something in combat I, also, am now able to win more debates, see things more clearly, jump higher, know more about stuff like; religion, or magic or Klingon Lore, climb a wall, jump on tables, survive in a city...and so on.

See winning in combat also make you better in a social encounter. So why does things always lead to initiative eventually? It doesn't, that's a Players/GMs issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
There aren't many rpg systems in this world that are worse for someone who doesn't like combat than Pathfinder. Winning a social encounter makes you better at combat in this game, the game is expected to lead to initiative eventually.
You're describing the level based system design.
The thing is that winning a combat doesn't necessarily increase your ability to win a debate. It's entirely possible to create characters that do nothing but fight, while it is basically impossible to create a player character that can't fight at all.

You're ignoring that even in PF you are able to gain multiple levels without using combat, yet your combat skills increase. So why is winning a debate automatically increasing your combat skills?

Because PF is a class/level based system design.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Combat isn’t a “sacred cow” for PF, it’s the main part of the game. There’s other game systems that aren’t combat simulators.

Sounds like you are going by number of pages spent on a particular aspect to the game. By that logic wouldn't PF be a spellcasting game?

Combat is the lowest hanging fruit in PF.

It is by far the easiest encounter in the game, it is the easiest to write in an AP/PFS. When looking through the AP/PFS it is not hard to realize it is what they use as filler.

I'd certainly say combat is a core part of the game. The system can support either kinds of encounters quite well, but there's a reason we those were basically defined in the GMG while the CRB focuses so much on combat. (I'd also argue Pathfinder IS a spellcasting game. There is a reason we refer to the genre as swords and sorcery.)

I certainly agree that combat is a core part of the game, never said it wasn't.

Arachnofiend wrote:
There aren't many rpg systems in this world that are worse for someone who doesn't like combat than Pathfinder. Winning a social encounter makes you better at combat in this game, the game is expected to lead to initiative eventually.

You're describing the level based system design.


For my initiative tracker, I use clothespins on my GM screen. Each PC has a unique color all baddies are black(with numbers on my side). I slide up whosever's turn it is, so at a quick glance everyone is up to speed.
I do group initiatives, I limit group size to 3.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arcaian wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Combat isn’t a “sacred cow” for PF, it’s the main part of the game. There’s other game systems that aren’t combat simulators.

Sounds like you are going by number of pages spent on a particular aspect to the game. By that logic wouldn't PF be a spellcasting game?

Combat is the lowest hanging fruit in PF.

It is by far the easiest encounter in the game, it is the easiest to write in an AP/PFS. When looking through the AP/PFS it is not hard to realize it is what they use as filler.

I'm in agreement with Rysky here - the game is built around combat. The victory point mechanics, 4 stages of success, and skill feats make for more interesting non-combat gameplay than many d20 ttRPGs, but the game is still built around combat at its core. I think an effective demonstration is to look at what characters you can build. If we're starting at level 11 for the new AP, can I make an expert diplomat who chooses to gain no knowledge in anything related to combat? Or a master trapsmith and thief who can get in and out of anywhere, but has no expertise in fighting? It's impossible to make these characters, because the game is built around the assumption that you're adventurers who fight enemies and get better at it as you level up. I've run nearly entire books of an AP without a combat! It's fun, and PF2 supports it fairly well, but it's not designed around it.

No the APs and PFS are built around combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Combat isn’t a “sacred cow” for PF, it’s the main part of the game. There’s other game systems that aren’t combat simulators.

Sounds like you are going by number of pages spent on a particular aspect to the game. By that logic wouldn't PF be a spellcasting game?

Combat is the lowest hanging fruit in PF.

It is by far the easiest encounter in the game, it is the easiest to write in an AP/PFS. When looking through the AP/PFS it is not hard to realize it is what they use as filler.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:

Because my players skip encounters or handle them differently, let me describe how I give out experience and treasure. I will use Trail of the Hunted, 1st module of Ironfang Invasion, as an example. In Part 2 of that module, the 2nd-level PCs and many villagers who escaped the invasion of their village are hiding in the dangerous Fangwood forest.

Receiving experience points for doing nothing works only in a milestone leveling system, where the party ought to be at a certain level at particular points in the story. My players alter the plot too much for milestones. Instead, I view each dangerous encounter as a problem to be solved. If the party solves the problem, by any means, then they earned the xp. Treasure is harder to provide, since that comes from the setting, but I find ways to tuck extra treasure in places if the party needs it.

This is why I stopped using XP 20 years ago.

X amount of Players either spend too much time chasing XP or worrying about XP, instead of enjoying the game.
So I ditched it.
Sure, there are some who bow out when they find out I don't use XP, s'okay.

Lucy_Valentine wrote:
Calybos1 wrote:
We don't want to enroll in a military academy and become combat specialists; we want to make combat go away faster.
Well, if you know what you want (less/no combat), that's good! But maybe the solution is not to be playing a combat-focussed game? Pathfinder, and D&D more generally, have a lot more rules devoted to combat than anything else, because combat is expected to be important. If you don't really want the combat, I suggest talking to your GM and getting a new setting and system with less of it.

Nah, combat has become a sacred cow for far too many PF/D&D players/GMs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Quote:

It's terrible because it's out of place.

It's seeing 1,000 flightless birds running around, but I'm not supposed to think the 1 ostrich is any different then the 999 chickens.

This reads as "it is terrible to have variety in encounters." I'd sure hope there's an ostrich somewhere to break up 999 chickens. I'd be so bored with chicken.

Maybe I missed your point, but I can't really see how this is supposed to be a response to what Squiggit said.

There was a theme to the dungeon except one room....

Of course no-one should be suspicious of that one room...
If that room had the same trappings of all the others and the Lie told, would there be any reason to be suspicious?

Ravingdork wrote:
Ten10 wrote:

I don't see where the OP tried to improvise or integrate anything, looks and reads like they where just reading straight from the module.

This thread is a perfect example of why GMs should read, reread, and skim the module before attempting to run the module.
Because then an adequate GM should be to improvise or integrate.

In my defense, I read the relevant sections at least twice before every game, once no less than a week in advance, and then again the day before/of. Oftentimes, I also have time to skim relevant sections a third time. Sometimes, the skimming takes place while the players are talking to one another about simple things that don't need a GM to adjudicate (such when taking care of inter-party healing for example), or during a game break.

I'm not the most adaptive GM, but I definitely do my homework.

If you are not adapting to what the players are doing, well, you get this thread

Ravingdork wrote:

Also, had I skipped the encounter altogether, the party would not have been able to obtain crucial details that allow them to get to Chapter Two of the Adventure Path. Furthermore, it would have prevented them from EVER seeing an adversary who--up to this point--is literally responsible (both directly and indirectly) for ALL of the hell the PCs have had to go through.

I sure wasn't going to deny them the satisfaction of seeing the face of what was essentially the BBEG of the early campaign.

This is why I am not a fan of Paizo APs as is.

Odd though, that you were more distraught over them not believing the Lie.
Did they obtain the crucial details?
So this is the actual boss encounter?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

It's only terrible if you're assuming the encounter is designed around the expectation that the succubus is supposed to be credible and successful.

Given the way the scenario is written, the opposite seems more likely. The various context clues in the room provide a counterbalance to the succubus' overbearing deception modifier that would otherwise pretty much guarantee their success.

It's terrible because it's out of place.

It's seeing 1,000 flightless birds running around, but I'm not supposed to think the 1 ostrich is any different then the 999 chickens.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Ten10 wrote:

After reading through Unicore's account of the encounter, I am of the opinion it is a ridiculous encounter that is totally out of place and the OP didn't do a good job GMing it.

The encounter is horrible(without wholesale changes) nothing would make even new gamers not think something was up.

I don't think it is necessary to say that anything went horribly. The Encounter was not "encountered" in the order the story was written for, as our party was backtracking through a dungeon where the bosses were already defeated, so Raving Dork was already in a position of trying to improvise and integrate the initial intention of the encounter with where our party was at. I also have no idea what role the succubus could have continued to play in RDs version of this campaign, but it seems like he was not really interested in having it develop into a long term NPC, meaning that combat was probably inevitable and the deception was primarily about what the circumstances were going to be when combat occurred.

The key to good encounter design as a GM is in learning how to give up narrative control of the story durning the encounter, and how to adapt and anticipate that the PCs are going to do completely unexpected things and not get overly attached to any potential outcome that might result. I think the point of this thread was not to create the correct answer for how the GM or the players should have handled this situation, but just to learn from what did happen and see how other GMs would have reacted to it.

And this is why I said I am of the opinion it is a ridiculous encounter that is totally out of place and the OP didn't do a good job GMing it.

The encounter is too odd, too out of place with how everything else is. Which means every gamer is on edge looking and pushing to find out why, just like you all did.

I don't see where the OP tried to improvise or integrate anything, looks and reads like they where just reading straight from the module.

This thread is a perfect example of why GMs should read, reread, and skim the module before attempting to run the module.
Because then an adequate GM should be to improvise or integrate.

When players have choice, there can never be "The Encounter was not "encountered" in the order the story was written for" a GM has to be able to improvise or integrate as the story unfolds.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

After reading through Unicore's account of the encounter, I am of the opinion it is a ridiculous encounter that is totally out of place and the OP didn't do a good job GMing it.

The encounter is horrible(without wholesale changes) nothing would make even new gamers not think something was up.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Gonna echo what WatersLethe said.

There appears to be something amiss.


I would have each player run 2 characters.


N N 959 wrote:
IME, it's not valuable. Why? A host of reasons IME playing PFS.

PFS is a completely different game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TwilightKnight wrote:
I don't think these types of discussion take the entire picture into account. Melee martial are almost always evaluated within a single round bubble and from that perspective they will always "win" the mathematical argument about DpR. However, that does not take into account that they spend a lot more time dying than a ranged character and have a might higher average cost because of the all the healing and condition removal that has to be poured into them post-battle. So from a high-level view of the various characters you cannot say one is "better" or "more effective" than another simply because your math analysis does not cover all the variables and is therefore at best incomplete and at worst inaccurate. Not to mention a truly precise assessment would require examining variability aspects in the equation that are challenging to quantify. So at the end of the day, its not that being an archer is a trap, its that these conversations are traps. The only evaluation that matters is, are you happy with and enjoy playing your character? If so, then it is effective as it is. Good luck!

You are explicitly correct.

I wish more would be happy with and enjoy playing their character and not worry if Steve is doing more damage.


It should never be applicable to all encounters.
Whining about range because you refuse to use anything but 1 particular weapon, welp that's the quickest way to not be in the group anymore.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
[That would be a GM problem.

It's not even remotely a GM problem. PFS scenarios typically (if not always) identify the box where PCs start the encounter and where the NPCs are positioned.

PFS allows GM leeway. GMs not doing so is a GM problem.

Thinking PFS is normal play is something else way off the ranch somewhere.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Albion, The Eye wrote:

Not being adversarial but... This means that, for one reason or another, they are indeed less frequent. Right? :D

Frequency plays a relevant role here - the same reason why a good blind choice of Favored Enemy for Rangers is usually 'Humans', and not 'Gnomes'.

Your instincts are correct. After 10+ years of playing an archer in PFS (officially endorsed campaigns created by Paizo), I can count on one hand the number of times I've shot something more than 100 yards (1st range increment) on the longbow. I've never had any encounter start with combatants out of range. Essentially never happens unless there's some specific thing the scenario wants to invoke, point being it's not even remotely common.

Playing PF2 2e since launch, I've never had a combat start out of the 1st range increment for the shortbow. I haven't played them all, so I'm sure there might be some, but we're probably talking about 10% or less.

For all kinds of obvious reasons, published content is going to heavily favor close quarters combat. Real world practicality is the biggest reason. Using a longbow, you've just got to eat the Volley penalty, pay the "feat tax" to avoid it, or use actions to try and get around it, if possible (because it's not always possible.).

That would be a GM problem.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Omega Metroid wrote:

One other thing to note, in regards to the "you're failing your party by not soaking up damage" claim made earlier in the thread:

Depriving an enemy of an action is equivalent to soaking the damage that enemy would have dealt with that action.

If you can consistently deprive enemies of actions, then you're doing your part as a damage sponge, even if you're not actually in melee range taking damage. Even if you're just, e.g., spamming arrows at an enemy to force them to Take Cover, that's still one action not spent on offense; depending on the enemy, this could do anything from keeping that enemy from making a third Strike on its turn so it can Take Cover or retreat after attacking instead (and thus reducing the amount of potential damage it can deal to your allies by an amount equal to its third Strike), to breaking its standard attack pattern entirely (and thus crippling its primary strategy and forcing it to do less damage overall). This is especially true if you can goad the enemy into moving towards you, at which point you're effectively soaking multiple actions' worth of attacks and potentially making it provoke AoOs from your front-liners.

Wonder if allowing the opponent to pass by is the same. I mean they have to use actions to move so it fits your mantra

Depriving an enemy of an action is equivalent to soaking the damage that enemy would have dealt with that action.


WatersLethe wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
The most common fights are at close range with a choke point (in general a door) between you and the enemy. This single choke point is why you can't have "as much melee characters as you want in the front line".
Also known as the Diablo Dungeon Door Defense. Our party utilizes that tactic a lot.

It's been around since the 70s with Gygax.

To this day DMs are still funneling their creatures to their doom, got no idea why.


Unicore wrote:

Longbows are situational weapons in PF2. Using one, especially at low levels, even for fighters with point blank shot is often going to result in a worse attack then using a shortbow. -2 to attack is never worth 1 point of damage, and many lower level APs feature dungeons with 5 ft halls, and 4 square rooms. Honestly, if you run an AP with more than 4 players and you use only the maps provided in the books for every encounter, it is about 50/50 at best you are going to have 30ft and no cover to your enemy. It gets better at higher levels though as larger enemies often demand larger maps.

Before 4th level, there is very little reason to carry a Longbow as your primary weapon. However, the shortbow is an exceptional weapon in the tight-nit spaces of low level APs and will easily outpace a long bow for damage as you never have to move to try to keep range. By level 4, if being an archer and using a long bow is going to be your thing, you really need to spec into it with feats, which literally any character can do.

It's not really 1 point of damage. It's a percentage chance to do an extra 1-2 points of damage and that percentage is dwarfed in comparison to the chance you are able to roll the same damage.

Personally I use both long and short when I play archers.


Mathmuse wrote:

Back on September 3, 2020, in comment #80 Ten10 made the statement,

Ten10 wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Agreed reading 6 whole books when you dont even know if the group will make it to the end of the second seems a lot like a waste of time on a GM. All that time that the GM spent reading the 6 books could had been spent working on the parts that they will definitely use.
Reading all 6 allows the GM to make the necessary changes to the AP to fit their group.

I thought that that was a noble sentiment, though too difficult to implement in the chaos of my campaigns.

I view groundwork as detail work. Sometimes the details pay off and sometimes they don't. Sometimes the details give the players a foundation to alter the story.

Ten10 wrote:

This [birthday planning], to me, is small stuff.

I wouldn't plan anything. The players agreed to hold the b-day party, let them figure it out

I guess Ten10 was not talking about detailed groundwork on September 3. I have no idea what benefit Ten10 expects to derive from reading all 6 modules of an adventure path in advance.

I do what Tom Sawyer did, convince others to do the work for me.

In the RPG sense I give a couple nudges and the group will fill in whatever situation to accomplish what they want.
This is what I mean by Knowing my players. I know what they like and what I can use to get them involved(means manipulation).

I don't do set piece battles, It's why I never run an AP as is.
I also don't use XP. I use time as the leveling metric.

In my opinion, information is the number one thing players need to make choices of consequence.
I have a letter that the PCs would probably want to see. How do I get the letter into their hands? I let the playing decide.
It could be:
1.A merchant has the letter
2.Found in the wreckage of a wagon that was attacked recently
3.Found on the corpse of a <insert humanoid here> that is lying next to the road
4.Found in an abandoned backpack in the hollow of a tree
5.Given to them to deliver

All depends on the mood of the group.
If they are a bit peckish that night, 2 or 3 fuels Kerry's protective trait she has.
If they are being smarmy that night, 1 works to fuel Jerry's joy of word dueling.


GayBirdGM wrote:


Yeah, I'm sure my husband didn't expect to have emergency trips to the vet and having to put our dog down suddenly on his birthday under "nothing" or "party".

But sounds like we should've expected it anyway!

Oh wait I see the issue I said on your birthday, I guess I need to be very precise to the nano-letter for y'all. You have two things that may happen for your birthday nothing or a "party".

The dog's death on the birthdate is tragic, but is that what happened for your husband's birthday?

Ventnor wrote:
Haven't you heard? If you didn't anticipate some of your players needing to miss a session due to their house burning down because the entire West Coast of the USA is on fire, you're a terrible GM!

Wha? This doesn't even make any sense. I get your trying to be snarky, but dude...


dirtypool wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:

I was going to say "if your players are really that predictable, maybe they are just boring players."

Because I've had quite a few players over the years that didn't surprise me, and every time it was because they were going to do the same short list of things for the same short list of reasons no matter what scenario I put in front of them. They built a box for the way it was "best" for them to play and really struggled to even see the possibilities outside of that box.

And then I have players for whom when I say the phrase "why am I not surprised?" it is because they have, once again, managed to do something I didn't consider when planning the scenario and thinking of all the "crazy" stuff that player has done in the past, and they've just defied the pattern again.

Sure, I’ve had players from whom a surprise would be surprising. OP is talking as of being surprised by player choices is somehow completely out of the ordinary, which I find surprising in itself - unless those players are provided very few choices to actually make.

I am not surprised because there is a short list of things most Players are going to do. You play long enough you kinda have seen it all.

Perhaps my memory for this type of thing is way better than others.

I also don't sweat the small stuff.
Look back at what Mathmuse wrote

Mathmuse wrote:

Let's put this into practice in a game setting. Imagine that a campaign is set in modern America in Paizo's imaginary new game Bandfinder. The members of the band are taking some downtime between band tours. The GM mentions the date, September 17, because scheduling is important in Bandfinder. Bob mentions excitedly that his character's Bobo has a birthday in 3 days. The other players agree to hold a birthday party next game session.

How should the GM prepare before the next game session?
(1) The GM could railroad. "You have a birthday party for Bobo on the 20th as scheduled. Then on the 25th, you travel to London ...."
(2) The GM could prepare for a quiet party at home by looking up the price of a cake and other party items. That works for both an announced party and a surprise party.
(3) The GM could prepare for a restaurant party for the whole group. Finding a menu for an appropriate restaurant should be enough.
(4) The GM could prepare for a romantic restaurant dinner between Bobo and his girlfriend Highlight. That requires a menu from a different restaurant.
(5) The fan club of the band could get involved. That requires renting a bigger space such as a community hall, but the fan club could provide the food.
(6) And the GM has to consider whether to tie in the birthday party to the overall plot. Does the paparazzi photograph the party? If alcohol is served, then should the GM set up opportunities to cause a ruckus and get arrested? Do Bobo and Prince Purple put their heads together in camaraderie and write a new song?

It is not all the same.

This, to me, is small stuff.

I wouldn't plan anything. The players agreed to hold the b-day party, let them figure it out


gnoams wrote:
As for anticipating what your players will do. I reconnected with some old gamer buddies I used to play with when we were young, and we've been playing games together again for the past 5 years. They continue to surprise me with their decisions, and I'm glad they do.

How do they surprise you with their decisions?

gnoams wrote:
It would be an awfully boring game if I knew exactly how everything would turn out before we even started. I run all my own home setting and game. I allow player decisions to shape the direction of the game, and games often turn out differently than my initial plans. (I find published scenarios are less interesting precisely because there are less surprises. The ending is already written, playing the game is just a matter of getting there).

Knowing what the players will do more often than not =/= knew exactly how everything would turn out before we even started.

Let's put this into practice.
Your Birthday. You have two things that may happen on your birthday nothing or a "party"
Of the "party" you have 3 things that can happen; a known party a surprise party or a quiet<family> party.
Congratulations! You now know what is going to happen on your birthday every year for the rest of your life.


TwilightKnight wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Reading ahead can still help
Skimming a book, maybe two ahead in an AP is a good idea, but reading thoroughly especially 3+ books in advance would be an indication of a very prepped GM. That is more a trait of a "great" GM and not an issue of "good" vs "bad." If the author and developers didn't feel it necessary to introduce the BBEG in boon one, the GM should not feel compelled to worry about it.

The authors and developers do not know my group.

I do.

The authors are constrained by the desires of the developers.
I am not.

Remember when mathmuse said

Mathmuse wrote:
As for the story itself, in my Iron Gods campaign, when the players began the 2nd module, Lords of Rust, I was surprised when they decided to enter the shantytown Scrapwall by pretending to be refugees. They tried to seem humble rather than powerful, which derailed the module's plans that the party would gain allies and enemies due to their power. Fortunately, I invented a beer festival to fill in details of Scrapwall life, and the skald in the party decided to reciprocal by holding a concert. They gained allies by being neighborly.

I wouldn't be surprised for two reasons.

1. The authors/developers placing that much of a bottleneck is shoddy adventure design. Reading ahead I already know it's there and have taken steps to get rid of it.
2. I know my players. Meaning I know how they will react(with a very high degree of accuracy) in any given situation.

This works just as well in PFS. It took a couple sessions of watching, listening, and playing to know which players I wouldn't be gaming with and which ones I would be gaming with.
Luckily for me we have sign up sheets for PFS


Mathmuse wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Agreed reading 6 whole books when you dont even know if the group will make it to the end of the second seems a lot like a waste of time on a GM. All that time that the GM spent reading the 6 books could had been spent working on the parts that they will definitely use.
Reading all 6 allows the GM to make the necessary changes to the AP to fit their group.

How am I as the GM going to anticipate what fits my group a year in the future? In my current campaign, I did not anticipate switching from meeting at my dining room table to playing via Roll20 due to the coronavirus pandemic. Nor did I anticipate my daughter who lives 3 time zones away joining my campaign once it went remote. In my Jade Regent campaign, I did not anticipate one player quitting because of a newborn son nor three players moving to another state. Fortunately, we recruited two new players. None of these changes were in the modules.

As for the story itself, in my Iron Gods campaign, when the players began the 2nd module, Lords of Rust, I was surprised when they decided to enter the shantytown Scrapwall by pretending to be refugees. They tried to seem humble rather than powerful, which derailed the module's plans that the party would gain allies and enemies due to their power. Fortunately, I invented a beer festival to fill in details of Scrapwall life, and the skald in the party decided to reciprocal by holding a concert. They gained allies by being neighborly.

They pulled the same trick in the 5th module, Palace of Fallen Stars, and entered the city of Starfall without alerting their enemies in the Technic League by returning to their insignificant pre-adventurer identities. But their ultimate trick was in the 6th module, The Divinity Drive. Instead of fighting their way to the evil villain, they got hired by him. By the time they betrayed him, they had converted half his minions to their side.

I read the introduction to each module but don't read the details...

Fitting the group is knowing your players.

I would hope that you know your daughter well enough to make informed decisions about her likes when it comes to the game.
Not anticipating someone quitting because of a child being born is massive lack of communication on both you.
Three players moving to another state, again massive lack of communication.


Temperans wrote:
Agreed reading 6 whole books when you dont even know if the group will make it to the end of the second seems a lot like a waste of time on a GM. All that time that the GM spent reading the 6 books could had been spent working on the parts that they will definitely use.

Reading all 6 allows the GM to make the necessary changes to the AP to fit their group.


pauljathome wrote:
mrspaghetti wrote:


For example, I am a little disappointed that there is not universal and unequivocal agreement on point #4.
Its a poor trait but it certainly does not make a bad GM.

Sure it does.

pauljathome wrote:


Locally (back when games happened in a store) there was one GM who tried hard to make it on time but generally failed (not their fault. They left their job as soon as they could and came to the store as quickly as possible).

Does that make the GM a bad GM? Of course not. All other things being equal I'd have preferred an equally good GM who could always be on time. Things weren't equal and I (and the other players) were quite happy to have him GM even though a little tardy. It (greatly) helped that he was a reasonably quick GM and so the game nearly always FINISHED on time

Yes, because the starting time is something they are not able to meet. Realizing that is part of being a leader and frankly Gming is a leader type role for the group.

If they start late, but finish on time something was left on the floor.

pauljathome wrote:


And that is the problem with lists. There are ALWAYS exceptions, even in the (very few) cases where we mostly agree that something is a poor thing

Am exception does not invalidate a list of issues.

Sorry, if I eat a cookie 19 times then eat 1 donut. That doesn't invalidate my like of cookies.


pauljathome wrote:

Some of the opinions on this thread (I'm quite deliberately NOT quoting people) seem to me to come down to

"I the player expect the GM to do more work than the GM is prepared to do, and the GM is being a bad GM for not living up to my expectations"

That is one major reason that this thread is an awful idea. While one possible outcome of this thread may be to convince the GM to do more work, an outcome that seems to me to be at LEAST as likely is that it is going to cause the GM to decide that they're just being underappreciated, that too much is being asked of them, that since they're a bad GM they should just quit and let somebody else GM.

People don't like being criticized, even by strangers. Especially if they feel like they're being criticized for not spending enough time on a hobby.

And flipping it around to positive makes little difference as far as I'm concerned. Telling somebody that they're a bad GM is only slightly worse than telling them that they're not a good GM.

Seems an odd stance. I thought we are on a forum where people are kinda allowed to speak their opinion?


Ravingdork wrote:
Ten10 wrote:

I would suggest loads of caution with this type of character.

There is going to be 3-6 other people sitting around the table, they may find this character annoying. Beyond because Dhaliadraws is playing this character why would they want to be around the goblin?

I would certainly hope that "make sure your character concept works with your group" would go without saying these days.

Unfortunately, not really.


I would suggest loads of caution with this type of character.

There is going to be 3-6 other people sitting around the table, they may find this character annoying. Beyond because Dhaliadraws is playing this character why would they want to be around the goblin?


Saedar wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
Shifty wrote:

Or just leave the Paladin at the local bar and never go back.

There's nothing that says the group has to accept the newcomer.

Or people accept the Paladin and boot the Nethermancer?
Both are bad options because they passive aggressively try to solve what is ultimately an IRL social issue with some kind of in-game contrivance.

That's why when I run games we sit down as a group and make characters together. When there is an open spot the new player has to adjust to what they group already has.

Personally, I wouldn't allow the Necromancer. However if there is a necromancer someone wanting to run a paladin would get the veto.


Shifty wrote:

Or just leave the Paladin at the local bar and never go back.

There's nothing that says the group has to accept the newcomer.

Or people accept the Paladin and boot the Nethermancer?


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
DPR a personal metric in a group game? Damage per Round? Yep says nothing about it being a personal metric.
DPR is a personal metric because your character is personal. Maybe you play in groups where other players have their say about the way you build your character, but I think you are the exception.

Personally, sounds like your in the boat of 6 people sitting around trying to play a group game instead of in the boat of a group playing PF2. I feel for yas. Trust me I've been there. I've played in that boat. It was never enjoyable.

Why would you want to play in a boat where everyone is stepping all over each other trying to maximize their personal damage? Is there a prize awarded at the end by the GM for who was the bestest at their personal damage per round?
...the prize is in having fun in a way that your entire group enjoys. Some people like that level of friendly competition rather than cooperation. If all of them (and by all I include the GM of course) enjoy themselves, who else should get a vote?

Did anyone say "Even if all are enjoying themselves, but DPR = all is wrong?"

Martialmasters wrote:

Dpr's importance is subjective to the player.

If your encounter's are balanced on such a knife's edge that you need to find your theorized optimal DPR at all times... Well I don't know what to say on that.

Are you all having fun and managing to survive?

That's all the DPR I need.

But... Again... DPR importance is subjective. And I like to estimate mine. Privately. For the hell of it.

Either way in 2e I'm much more interested in the cousin of DPR. Action efficiency.

It's why every one of my Gish builds is a monk or ranger base. One action 2 attacks are amazing for action economy. Plus setting up invisibility or mirror image is one of the few times I'm happy with ending my turn next to an enemy.

Of course DPR is subjective. I too ballpark mine, if the character I am playing feels the need to worry about it. When playing a supporting character I don't give a flip about it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
Guess you have no idea what group game means then.

I think you miss one point: DPR is not an important data if you play a Giant Barbarian. However you build it, however you play it, your DPR will be high. DPR is a very important measure for support characters. Because if you don't know from Haste, Bless or Heroism which one will net your party the biggest advantage, you won't be able to properly play your character.

I mostly play support characters in organized play. So I can't use trial and error, as I'll certainly never play with the same characters or same party composition ever. I need to know, beforehand, what spells and what actions to use if I want to properly play my character.
It's true I could badly play my bards. Just throw buffs without taking in consideration the differences between the characters I'm playing with, but it's not part of my fun, sorry.

DPR has always been an important metric for me in that regard. And I've always been considered a very solid buffer. So, I'll continue to be interested in it and ignore gladly when someone considers there's any link between selfishness and DPR :D

Wait....arenchyou the one talking about it being a personal metric, now all of a sudden it's to maximize the group effectiveness?

So it's not a personal metric cuz the Giant Barb doesn't worry about DPR you know cuz they deal damage... wait? what?

DPR is very important to the buffer in a group, but it's not their actual DPR (you know that personal metric you say it is) they are worried about it's the Giant Barb's DPR that the Giant Barb isn't worried about.
The buffer gets the joy of being worried about every other members DPR which implies that the buffer is making decisions for the group which is what is never ever supposed to be happening?

You mention you won't be able to properly play your character. If someone in these PFS games isn't properly playing their character do they still get all the buffs from you?


Cyouni wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
Cyouni wrote:


I'm surprised your (possibly changing, in PFS's case) group hands you all their character sheets to put into a spreadsheet and run numbers on them so that they can follow your instructions.

Because mine certainly doesn't.

Guess you have no idea what group game means then.

So while we're going with this assertion, does anyone else hand their character sheets over to one person to optimize them for full party efficiency? Is my group the odd one out for not doing that?

I don't know about you but any group I have been involved in, the person with the sweetest hair cut got to make all the decisions.


Malk_Content wrote:
I dont know why you keep bringing up the fact it's a group game against people who use dpr as a pregame character building tool.

I find it baffling that you are selecting the rental car before you know where you are going and how many people you will be taking along.


Cyouni wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Ten10 wrote:

Who said this had to be about characters played by the same person? That seems oddly specific.

Because most don't need to compare themselves to others. DPR is a personal metric.

DPR a personal metric in a group game? Damage per Round? Yep says nothing about it being a personal metric.

Cyouni wrote:
Ten10 wrote:

Who said this had to be about characters played by the same person? That seems oddly specific.

Cuz you know, as hard as this is for some people to understand, this is a group game.

Sometimes you have to look up from the white room spreadsheet and engage with the others around the table.

Except the others around the table have completely different everything. I wouldn't compare the DPR of the Wis-focused Druid to a AoO-focused Hellknight, because that's like comparing apples to hats.

Except, I know here I go again eyeroll and all of that, but hear me out. Is not Group Damage per Round way the Asmodeus more important then your personal damage per round? Isn't the point to maximize(group) efficiency?

What is better for the group You to do +3.69872456349872345072348 PDPR
or
You deal -3.69872456349872345072348 PDPR, but increase the GDPR by +19.88245234505 GDPR?

I'm surprised your (possibly changing, in PFS's case) group hands you all their character sheets to put into a spreadsheet and run numbers on them so that they can follow your instructions.

Because mine certainly doesn't.

Guess you have no idea what group game means then.


SuperBidi wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
DPR a personal metric in a group game? Damage per Round? Yep says nothing about it being a personal metric.
DPR is a personal metric because your character is personal. Maybe you play in groups where other players have their say about the way you build your character, but I think you are the exception.

Personally, sounds like your in the boat of 6 people sitting around trying to play a group game instead of in the boat of a group playing PF2. I feel for yas. Trust me I've been there. I've played in that boat. It was never enjoyable.

Why would you want to play in a boat where everyone is stepping all over each other trying to maximize their personal damage? Is there a prize awarded at the end by the GM for who was the bestest at their personal damage per round? Are you mocked for taking a "lesser DPR choice" but helping out other members? Why aren't you discussing with the other members in the boat about what choices to take as you level? Does it not seem totally counter-productive to choose your build in a vacuum?

Seannoss wrote:
Can you post the build and the choices of that character to lower their damage by 3 while increasing the group's damage by 19 please? I have several players that would be interested.

Um it wasn't lower their damage by 3. It was lower their damage by 3.69872456349872345072348. Use your spreadsheets and found the solution.


SuperBidi wrote:
Ten10 wrote:

Who said this had to be about characters played by the same person? That seems oddly specific.

Because most don't need to compare themselves to others. DPR is a personal metric.

DPR a personal metric in a group game? Damage per Round? Yep says nothing about it being a personal metric.

Cyouni wrote:
Ten10 wrote:

Who said this had to be about characters played by the same person? That seems oddly specific.

Cuz you know, as hard as this is for some people to understand, this is a group game.

Sometimes you have to look up from the white room spreadsheet and engage with the others around the table.

Except the others around the table have completely different everything. I wouldn't compare the DPR of the Wis-focused Druid to a AoO-focused Hellknight, because that's like comparing apples to hats.

Except, I know here I go again eyeroll and all of that, but hear me out. Is not Group Damage per Round way the Asmodeus more important then your personal damage per round? Isn't the point to maximize(group) efficiency?

What is better for the group You to do +3.69872456349872345072348 PDPR
or
You deal -3.69872456349872345072348 PDPR, but increase the GDPR by +19.88245234505 GDPR?


Cyouni wrote:
Saldiven wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

This is quite possibly the worst application of math I've ever seen.

You don't need two people rolling the same number, unless they're the same person playing two characters at the same table. You only need the chances of one person rolling the number that would improve their roll from a miss to a hit, or a hit to a crit. That's going to be either 5% on each roll (assuming you only crit on a 20), or 10% (if you crit on an anything below that).

I believe that Ten10's argument is based on the concept of DPR comparisons, as in, what impact does a +1 to hit have on the relative DPR performance of two characters, all other things being identical.

But, I could be misunderstanding Ten10's argument, as I haven't really been paying as close attention as I probably should have.

That's accurate, but that's the problem. These are never characters played at the same table that are being compared. The whole point is to compare characters that would be played by the same person - thus, the rolls would be the same as well. Given that, the odds of any particular roll are as I noted.

You don't compare the DPR performance of one character rolling 1s while the other character rolls 20s, after all, you compare them assuming that everything you haven't changed remains the same.

Who said this had to be about characters played by the same person? That seems oddly specific.

Also I said:
Ten10 wrote:

Yes it is super situational.

A +1 to hit only comes into play when two people roll the exact same number and one hits the other misses. And what is the odds of two people rolling the exact same number enough times to make that even noteworthy?
It doesn't kick in to around a +3

Again it's a group game. Multiple dice from multiple people the 80DPR vs 70DPR is absorbed by the randomness of the dice.

I can tell you with the utmost assurance the dice never obey the spreadsheet

Cuz you know, as hard as this is for some people to understand, this is a group game.

Sometimes you have to look up from the white room spreadsheet and engage with the others around the table.


tivadar27 wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
Seannoss wrote:
Sounds like he shouldn't be in the front. You have said that a +1 doesn't matter. Surely he knows this too.

Actually, what I said was:

"A +1 to hit only comes into play when two people roll the exact same number and one hits the other misses. And what is the odds of two people rolling the exact same number enough times to make that even noteworthy?"

Well, the odds of them rolling the exact same number is 5%, since we're talking about d20's here. So...

Um... better check those maths again. So...


Seannoss wrote:
Sounds like he shouldn't be in the front. You have said that a +1 doesn't matter. Surely he knows this too.

Actually, what I said was:

"A +1 to hit only comes into play when two people roll the exact same number and one hits the other misses. And what is the odds of two people rolling the exact same number enough times to make that even noteworthy?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
You didn't tell him to tank. But by your own phrasing, "No matter how many times I told him..." you heavily implied it.

No he demands to be up front because of that 1 better passive perception.

This is what I said
A player does d6+1 with his mace, but does 22% better with his Magic Stone spell at d6+3. He also has the best Perception.
So his turn consists of being in front,to spot things, when combat start he runs to the back to go ranged. You know cuz his Magic Stone spell does 22% better damage. Seeing as how he is a cleric and started with an 18 AC, he moves behind the Warlock(AC 12) and Bard(AC13).
No matter how many ways I have tried to explain to him, "sure buddy you do 22% better damage at ranged you are, however, giving the enemy a +5 to hit"

If the goal is to maximize the DPR of the group....

Temperans wrote:
D&D/PF is a co-op game with team elements, no player should be dictated what to do to "benefit the team". That is something that the player needs to make, and something for the group to discuss

Hmmm. Something for the group to discuss. you mean like "sure buddy you do 22% better damage at ranged you are, however, giving the enemy a +5 to hit"

That is something that the player needs to make... you mean like No matter how many ways I have tried to explain to him
Sure sounds like it has been pointed out, discussed as a group and the player has decided to do what he wants.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
jplukich wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
No matter how many ways I have tried to explain to him, "sure buddy you do 22% better damage at ranged you are, however, giving the enemy a +5 to hit"
So wait... this is a team game, but you try to dictate how other people play their characters? Did this player volunteer to tank? If so there is some merit to the discussion. If not, why assume they would?

He wasn't 'tanking', he was in front because his passive perception is 1 higher than everyone else.

Where did I tell him what to do?

I didn't

I pointed out the consequences of his actions.


tivadar27 wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
In this edition it seems like really most worries about character effectiveness are already fixed and baked in really. It's hard not to make a effective character. still some people might look at an option and say hmm should I go with the one with higher damage or better mobility. It's going to be super situational. doesn't mean that knowing the DPR isn't useful however.

Yes it is super situational.

A +1 to hit only comes into play when two people roll the exact same number and one hits the other misses. And what is the odds of two people rolling the exact same number enough times to make that even noteworthy?
It doesn't kick in to around a +3

Again it's a group game. Multiple dice from multiple people the 80DPR vs 70DPR is absorbed by the randomness of the dice.

I can tell you with the utmost assurance the dice never obey the spreadsheet

This isn't correct for a couple reasons. It comes into play any time one person rolls a number that would have hit, but misses because of a +1. Beyond this, due to the way criticals work, for the first attack in a round it actually comes into play for two numbers on the dice (after that you're likely just critting on a natural 20).

Just some quick math, let's assume you're able to make 2 attacks in any given round, a +1 bonus has a 50% chance of changing a hit to a crit or miss to a hit after 5 rounds of combat. A +2 bonus after only 2 rounds of combat... If you want the numbers for a single attack in a round, it's 7 rounds and 3 rounds. Yes, chances to hit actually do come into play for relatively small values.

It's correct. You may not like it but it is correct.

You keep forgetting it is a group game.

See this
just some quick math, let's assume you're able to make 2 attacks in any given round, a +1 bonus has a 50% chance of changing a hit to a crit or miss to a hit after 5 rounds of combat. A +2 bonus after only 2 rounds of combat... If you want the numbers for a single attack in a round, it's 7 rounds and 3 rounds.
is wrong.
The +1 is not building up equity.

I'm currently playing 5e ravenloft game. A player does d6+1 with his mace, but does 22% better with his Magic Stone spell at d6+3. He also has the best Perception.
So his turn consists of being in front,to spot things, when combat start he runs to the back to go ranged. You know cuz his Magic Stone spell does 22% better damage. Seeing as how he is a cleric and started with an 18 AC, he moves behind the Warlock(AC 12) and Bard(AC13).
No matter how many ways I have tried to explain to him, "sure buddy you do 22% better damage at ranged you are, however, giving the enemy a +5 to hit"

1 to 50 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>