Yes Mr. DM, I think you are right about the 'Gygaxian' model, (Though I've never called it that before!) And I agree with your 'disconnect' theory.
@Dreamer~ I think it's great that you are good at puzzles! (I like them ok, I just stink at them!) Scrabble is about the limit of my personal skill range,... (OK, I'm being silly, but you get the idea!) :)
One of my college buddies, who usually ends up being our DM, is really good at puzzles. Both putting them into games, and solving them.
(Which is really pretty ironic, because I'm usually the most 'logical' one of the group!) ;P
Meanwhile,... back in the tunnel! :D
Tetris, sudoku, crosswords, logic puzzles, Burning Monkey Puzzle Lab...
Now that I think about it, the type of puzzle I often have the least patience for is the variety that requires assembling a picture out of interlocking die-cut cardboard pieces. That's weird.
I'm not as "logical" as some, but I figure that there's a reason and/or explanation for just about everything. Or an overriding story or theme at the very least. I'm not as obsessive or expert as, say Will Shortz, but I refuse to be outsmarted by a puzzle that is obviously meant to be solved.
Sometimes intuition is more powerful than explicit knowledge.
Hey, sorry I haven't posted much in the IC thread. I'm not especially good with puzzels and therefore have little to add to the current discussion and also for some reason I've been having a hell of a time writing a post that actually sounds like Mal's supposed to these last few days. Hopefully I can come up with something tomarrow.
Conjugation, Admiration, Prestidigitation...
Is Frustration a school of magic? :)
Well, we were just hit with a fire effect, so I would normally think evocation. Although some are conjuration - crazy hold-over from 2E...
So, I would theorise that she was an evoker (lends itself to wrath); would casting an evocation spell at the door open it?
Well, we were just hit with a fire effect, so I would normally think evocation. Although some are conjuration - crazy hold-over from 2E...
So, I would theorise that she was an evoker (lends itself to wrath); would casting an evocation spell at the door open it?
That's what I was thinking too. Probably evocation, although it could've been Transmutation (which includes spells any war mage would want).
|
If that is how you are going to play it... Maybe Vesh can step up again - now that his brain has unscrambled.
Assuming that Vesh's player doesn't have a considerable amount of catching-up to do. I'll try to post this afternoon, but may not get to it until tomorrow or even Tuesday. Sorry, I'm headed home tomorrow (Northern Cal.) for a friend's memorial service.
yep, working backwards, making harder than it needs to be, that's me alright!
And Ol' Sli does have an Evocation spell up his sleeve, albeit a 0-lvl one! (But I doubt that ol Alzanist would want to waste a 9th lvl Meteor Swarm just to open a door now, would she?)
Sorry, I'm headed home tomorrow (Northern Cal.) for a friend's memorial service.
santinj@ - I'm so sorry to hear about your loss. Please accept my sympathies on your friend's passing. Travel safely.
Sorry, I'm headed home tomorrow (Northern Cal.) for a friend's memorial service.
I comPLETELY missed that part last night.
Prayers, best wishes, etc. to you and all involved.
We'll be here when you get back.
Wow! I was right. I'm quite stunned.
|
|
Thanks for your kind thoughts. It was a quick trip (flew down to Sacramento and back in one day), and I'm glad to be home.
Some thoughts/questions:
1. I'm only taking 100xp for Monday, so I'm putting Vesh at 3090xp just to make it legit since we kind of fudged the level-up. From now on, do we take 150xp per week? I can't remember.
2. Have any of you had a chance to look at the Pathfindet RPG Alpha .PDF yet? I've been able to skim it. If you have, whaddya think about it or Paizo decision to stick with 3.5?
~sj@
|
|
Tactical thoughts:
1. Let's not move around too much. We need to avoid having to make those pesky Balance checks, so no one move more than 1/2 speed. One character falling prone would suck for the whole group.
2. If we do need to move during combat, and since we're limited to half-speed, we should attempt to move as a unit. Think Roman soldiers, here. This'll mean delaying actions until we're all roughly on or near the same initiative count. If we do this, I'm wondering if we can use the slope to our advantage and push the buggers off the ledge!
3. The only exception to moving as a unit that I can see is if an opportunity opens up to flank them. Especially for Mal and Vesh with any sneak attack opportunities. Remember, if Vesh lands a sneak attack, he can steal some of their magic resistance.
Any other things to think about that I'm missing? Does anyone have Molotov cocktails prepared?
|
|
I'm also concerned that the "open playtest" will just lead to alot of shouting and noise, but little real actionable information. I, for one, am not interested in competing with 1,000 screaming hooligans to have my opinions heard.
Ha! We'll have to see how that plays out. Some are saying that they see this kind of testing as preferable to the relatively closed feel that WotC has taken in play-testing and previewing 4e.
I will look over the alpha document and see if there are changes we could/should incorporate in our game. I think there are probably a few that we can adopt - the skill system changes, for example and a few that we might not.
I don't know. I'm pretty happy with what we've come up with. There's a lot of changes in the Alpha doc that look cool, but I don't know if it's worth my time to redo Vesh for the purpose of our game. It might be; I'll have to look more closely.
I read your comments on Hordelings, the stuff about the monster being kind of bland is spot on, but I have to admit that most of the monsters that I've seen in previous editions have struck me that way. I think Monsters are hard to write from scratch and even harder to "bring to life" on paper, no matter how much the author fleshes it out with fluff (ecologies, tactics, etc.).
I am more interested in your take on the underlying mechanical problems. I understand that in 3.5 there are problems with high-level play. I think that you used the word "deterministic." I have personally never taken a character past the mid-levels, so I don't have personal experience with this aspect of the game. I know you probably have as much free time as I do these days (it sounds like you're pretty busy), but I'm wondering if you could write a little more on the underlying math at high levels, and how 4e corrects this.
JSL - if only everyone on this board were as thoughtful and erudite as you. Sadly have to agree on the hooligans comment.
I like some of what I see, but it doesn't go far enough. I'm torn between Pathfinder and 4E - although my rl game group are keen to make an unholy hybrid, I feel :D
|
|
JSL - if only everyone on this board were as thoughtful and erudite as you. Sadly have to agree on the hooligans comment.
I don't know. I think you guys are reversing the 80/20 rule as you characterize the behavior on the boards. Most of what I've seen is pretty level-headed and civil. It's the 20 percent who are yahoos that detract from the civil majority. It'll come down the Jason Bulmahn and Paizo being able to filter the white noise in order to refine the system that they are making.
I like some of what I see, but it doesn't go far enough. I'm torn between Pathfinder and 4E - although my rl game group are keen to make an unholy hybrid, I feel :D
I'm not so hot on some of the changes that I see to the classes in Pathfinder (and in 4e for that matter). Chocking them with more powers and abilities doesn't automatically make them better in my book, but I'll have to take more time with the Alpha file to really be more clear on the changes. Some of the changes to Race are interesting, others are confusing.
This is a discussion that I'd like to keep having here, if that's okay with you all. I find that because you guys (Fabes, JSL, Arct, etc.) play a lot more than I have, I learn a lot about the fundamentals of the game. The whole discussion, above, on the underlying math of the system is a prime example. (BTW, JSL, Stats is often the minimal level class required for graduating college--the other is Trig. In HS, you often don't need to reach a certain level of math to graduate, you simple need to have successfully passed a certain number of credits. Just a random tidbit for $h!t$ and grins.)
I have more to say and ask on the subject, but I appreciate you taking the considerable amount of time necessary to answer my question(s), JSL.
I'm unsure as to whether the noise will now grow in a different direction as the playtest is open. There are indeed some very intelligent and perceptive people here but I suppose hanging around the 4E boards has skewed my perception of even some of them for good (or at least, quite a while... yes, like Ehlissa, I'm really a softy)
I'm not hot on advanced maths (in that I don't really have the inclination for it), but I appreciate the intent of a rule or the 'feel', I think. For me 4E 'feels' more like BAsic D&D - low level characters are heroes from the get-go and can take on a dragon plausibly. 3.5 is in a halfway house of being 'gritty' and 'heroic' - sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't. The gold piece economy fries my brain and really annoys me in play. I would far rather have a Wealth score or some such mechanic. Heroes like Conan and Elric don't have 3000gp sitting in chests at home, nor do they find such on a regular basis. If Conan does, by the next adventure, he's spent it on booze or had it stolen; Elric just doesn't want or need it (and besides he's a misery-guts)
But anyway...
Let's squish wrathspawn! ;)
I haven't downloaded the Alpha.doc yet nor have I had time to read the forums on the subject. Maybe I'll do that tonight.
I do find myself torn tough. 4e looks like it could solve a lot of things that frustrate me about the game (i.e the economy of D&D and most aspects of high level play) but I've been wrestling with that and two other facts. One, is that I've put a lot of money into 3.5 and I don't want all of my 3.5 sourcebooks to become worhtless were I to switch over to 4e. Also, I have a deep dislike for WotC and I have a hard time with the idea of continuing to support them.
I also like the low-powered lower levels a lot and I wouldn't much care for a system in which characters are immediatley powerful. An edition in which characters who, like Fabes said, can take down a dragon at lower levels, would not thrill me overmuch.
I agree with JSL's sentiments on some of 3.5's mechanics and would like to see them change but at the same time I love Paizo and thier products and want to keep supporting them.
I don't know; I need to see more information on the Pathfinder RPG and 4e before I choose what route to take.
|
|
No, you're right on topic, and I agree. I would rather talk about 4e with all of you than the alleged hooligans described above, whether 80 percent or 20 percent;) You are, after all, my gaming group. Well, you and the Keeper's Dale PbP that I play in. What I'm saying is that I put more stock in your opinions of the forthcoming editions than in others'.
Been reading more than posting here lately. I was hesitant to jump in where I'm not really sure what I'm talking about. (Funny, I don't have that problem in person,... ;P)
I have never actually gotten to play with a character past mid-levels before, and it was nice to have someone more mathematically competent than myself (OK, I could probably do it, but I'm just too lazy!) prove in facts what I've suspected all along about the higher levels of gameplay.
- Does anyone of you have any idea of how the basic problem, so well described above, could be 'fixed', or at least 'made better', without redesigning the entire D20 mechanic? Personally I think the basic system is sound. But how could it be made to work at the higher levels as well as it does in the lower ones?
It IS nice to see calm, rational discussion, whether agreeing or disagreeing, for a change. (Thank you all for that). I have been perusing the threads as much as anybody trying to find out what they are doing to 'my game' in 4E, but it usually degenerates into a verbose name-calling thread in less than a dozen posts. (Obviously more opinions than facts out there right now.)
Also, like @santinj~ I value your opinions above any of the others I would read anyway. (Whether I agree with them or not), Because I have actually spent time with you all, and have a feel for who you are and where you are coming from. So, if everyone is willing to continue this discussion in here, personally I don't mind. I find it an enjoyable diversion.
Meanwhile, back at the game!,...
Slidell is infinitely better prepared for these guys this time. He has a pocketful of scrolls and he's not afraid to use them! (I'd rather not use them all in the first encounter, but hey, whatever it takes!)
I don't know how much the characters may have shared while getting ready and getting into the tunnel, but for instant flanking or emergency movement, I can instantly transfer the positions of any 2 FRIENDLY characters. And that includes any creature I summon, or my familiar. :)
On with the show!
|
|
Thanks, JSL and Sli and everyone else. I appreciate your thoughtful posts on the subject and look forward to the continued discussion.
I have one question (and it might be a stupid one) regarding the thread about the character kicking a table out from under two opponents who were standing on it. (For those of you who don't know what the heck I'm referring to, scroll up a couple of posts. JSL refers to it above.)
If I'm reading the situation correctly, one character under a table is try to kick it over. Two characters are on the table trying to stay on their feet. In the OP, the author was citing the solution (Strength check vs. Reflex defense) as an example of how easy it is to adjudicate these vague situations in 4e (and I know that saves and defenses work differently in 4e). The second OP was asking how to adjudicate this in 3.5. It seemed that the general consensus was that it should be sorted out the same way, that is, the kicker's Strength Check VERSES the table-top character's Reflex Saves.
I think I'm reading that right because it kicked-off JSL's detailed post on Ability Checks, Saves, Attack Rolls, Skill Checks, etc. being scaled differently, thus opposing them doesn't always make sense.
Here's my question: why would this action be adjudicated (in 3.5e) with an opposed roll in the first place? I get the Strength check, but if anything is going to roll an opposed check in should be the table, not the characters standing on it. The way I would a sort this out is to have the kicker make a strength check verses a static DC. Then, if he succeeds, the characters on top have to make a REF check verses a static DC to stay standing.
Am I smoking something? Isn't what I've described above the most reasonable way to adjudicate this? Didn't this happen during the goblin attack to Vesh? He couldn't flip the table (though the goblin was under it, not on top), and that was the end of that.
I really like the Rogue class, especially the minor and major magic abilities (very Grey Mouser!) - they just seem a more compelling class now.
I agree in not having a Charisma penalty for half-orcs; Charisma isn't beauty/ugliness anymore but 'presence' - I'm amazed how often even designers forget this.
I'm mostly going to abstain from the 3.5e vs. 4e and the Pathfinder RPG debate. I know I don't know enough to have an opinion, and I have neither the history with D&D nor the passion to argue one point or the other. I'll leave that to the experts in our group.
But I do have a question.
What is upper-level play supposed to look like? Is character progression linear or geometric? And what is done (or should be done) to keep the challenge level up when players become nearly invicible and almost never miss? Is it just a longer battle against a meaner, uglier creature with almost inifinite HP? I like to hang concepts on examples, and I don't know of an example in movies or literature of a "20th-level-type" hero. (Superman? Is that the best we can do?) Even our group of heroes in LotR don't end up being that high-level, as far as I can tell. They're just a motley crew doing their best against impossible odds; they don't become more powerful or better fighters/magicians from the first installation to the last (Gandolf may be an exception, but he only goes up one level, right?).
From a "gamist" rather than "rulist" perspective, I guess the question is, where's the drama, and where's the fun when you get to level 20?
I just finished reading Alan Alda's book Things I Overheard While Talking to Myself. In it, he writes about how he illustrated the need for dramatic action to a group of writers. He asked a volunteer to carry a half-filled glass of water across the stage. OK, no big deal. Then he filled the glass to the brim and said, "OK, now walk to that table [on the other side of the stage] and put the glass down--but don't spill a drop." For dramatic effect, he added that "if you spill anything, your entire village will die." It was an imaginary set-up, and it was just a little thing, but the entire audience--and the volunteer carrying it--was focused on that glass of water. The tension rose; they gasped when the volunteer tilted his hand slightly; they cheered and applauded when the glass was successfully placed on the table.
How do you keep that engaging, dramatic feel when the players have out-leveled reality? And then how do you make rules to reflect that and make it work?
@Salome- (And anybody else interested)
Very good description of dramatic tension, (Leave it to Alan Alda!)
As I have never played at those high levels, (Yet, I keep trying) I do not have a good analogy to give you in D&D, HOWEVER,...
I can give 2 other examples of similar games that use different mechanics, spoilered for length.
1st-Star Wars RPG, NOT the WotC version, but the FIRST version, put out by another company using what is now referred to as the "D6 Mechanic". In short, ALL of your stats were referred to in D6 stats. How many dice you had in a stat, or added into a skill BASED on that stat were how many dice you rolled to try to accomplish anything, from hitting with your lightsabre to disarming a bomb to piloting a starship. There were no HP. You rolled the dice of your physical stats as an opposed roll to resist damage when you were hit. If you failed, you moved down what is now referred to as a 'condition track' that represented your health. The further down you slid on the track, the more 'injured' you were and the harder it was to do anything. (You received D6 of Negatives to all your rolls).
The advantage to this system, no matter how much experience you earned, and how high you boosted your skills (you could boost stats too, but it was MUCH more costly), You never became invulnerable. After a while you could certainly take out a squad of 'standard' stormtroopers by yourself if you were a jedi, but if they ever hit you, you had almost the same amount of difficulty in shrugging of the damage as when you first started out. (Jedi powers notwithstanding of course) KNowing that after you gained a few XP, the GameMaster wasn't going to keep throwing 'basic' stormtroopers at you, I never lost that thrill of "Am I going to win this one? Or does the bad guy have my number this time?' Because both us and the villains were both rolling more dice. (And as you know, 6D6 will give you anything from 6-36, so you never really knew who was going to win a roll!)
2nd- The "Hero System', it is a 'generic' system that can be used to simulate almost any level or type of character. Everything, stats, skills, powers, etc, all cost points. (This system also uses a D6 mechanic for combat and damage.) The more points you spend, the more powerful your character becomes. Your 'XP' are points that you can use to improve your character.
A 'normal' skilled person can be built for 30-50 points,
A 'Secret agent' level of skilled person costs 75-125 points,
A "D&D type person costs 150-250 points,
A 'Superhero' can cost up to 350 points (Or whatever level you want to set)
The way you get the points to spend is to take 'Disadvantages', they are weaknesses, vulnerabilities, physical or mental limitations, etc, that help to define your character and give you points to spend. (Superman has Kryptonite, Spiderman has Aunt May, etc.)
In short, this system works similar to the above in that if you are facing characters built along the same # of points as you, they will be a 'fair fight'. At higher levels you have more powerful 'powers' or spells, but they have more powerful defenses. Sometimes you hit them but can't hurt them, sometimes you get in a lucky shot and stun them. It stays pretty even (dramatic tension wise) across the entire spectrum.
I don't know if that even comes close to answering your question, but I know from playing these 2 games that there are systems that keep it fairly balanced up into 'higher levels' of play. And I love those 2 games, BUT, they Aren't D&D! If they (or us) can find a way to help balance the mechanic so that there is as much chance at higher levels to hit or miss the bad guy, and thereby help keep the 'dramatic tension' I would love it!
|
|
Cool beans on the Race/Class notes. The Paizo site was down this morning, so I didn't see it until just recently. I don't know how closely I'll be able to look at the alpha, or your notes, this week, but I'm excited to dig in.
Regarding my earlier question a/b the table, etc. Thanks for your considered response. You wrote: "As a DM, I just pick a DC that gives you a 50/50 chance and call it good enough. But maybe you should have had a 60% chance of success and I cheated you. :("
I think you raise a good point that has triggered something that has been rattling around in my brain ever since I read Paizo's announcement. I have two responses to the comment I quoted:
First, to picking the DC that gives you a 50/50 chance. I like it, and it conforms more with reality and some of the points Dreamer raises about LoTR. But it unravels part of what has traditionally made D&D the game that it is. Namely, that certain things ought to get easier as one's character advances in level. So, the DC that gives me a 50/50 chance at 1st level, might very well be 10, 12, or 15 depending on the ability or skill check we're talking about. At 20th level, the DC is probably (though not necessarily) going to have to be much higher.
Second, about your comment regarding the 60 percent chance and cheating the PC. My response is, do players really complain about a ten percent difference? Rhetorical question, as I know that some probably do. I hope they are the minority, and I hope someone smacks my forehead if I ever make such a complaint in-game. I guess that if I have some sense that the DM more-or-less knows what he is doing, than I just assume that his on-the-fly judgements are going to be made in good faith. I'd rather have a DM make a mediocre judgement and keep the game moving than have a DM make to most refined, accurate judgement after the game has ground to a halt.
In the end, I'm not sure that it's going to matter what edition someone ends up playing as it'll all still hinge on the DM. I guess that's what's been rattling around upstairs all this time. Just like Clinton's fabled campaign sign that said "It's the economy, stupid." I think the D&D version war that being waged on the internet leaves me feeling similarly. "It's the DM, stupid."
The Alan Alda example that Dreamer cites is a prime example of just how much hinges on the DM. It's not the system, even during high-level play, that's going to create dramatic tension, it's the DM that raises the stakes. "Stop the goblins, or your entire village will die."
In response to santinj@:
I agree that a good DM, with a good imagination and a solid knowledge of the rules, playing in good faith, can make just about anything work.
So, how do you* teach good DMing?
My impression is that just reading the Dungeon Master's Guide isn't enough; and it sounds like there are plenty of bad DMs out there.
*"You" can mean you personally, a player, an experienced DM, Paizo, or WotC.
|
|
In response to santinj@:
I agree that a good DM, with a good imagination and a solid knowledge of the rules, playing in good faith, can make just about anything work.So, how do you* teach good DMing?
My impression is that just reading the Dungeon Master's Guide isn't enough; and it sounds like there are plenty of bad DMs out there.
Gosh, that's a hard question. Though I actually think that reading the DMG might be a good start that not all DM's actually do. I think that, just like carpentry, there are tricks of the trade that more experienced DM's can pass on to less experienced ones. There are definitely things that a DM can do around the table to automate certain tasks and make his or her job easier. But the intangibles, effective story-telling, building tension, interesting plot hooks and developments ... those things I think can be learned, but they certainly come easier to some than to others.
Look at our characters' current situation. We're in a very foreign-looking environment that is dark, sloped, and sinister. Our foes are scary, partly due to JSL's tweaking (as written, he's right, we could sit down and have a picnic and not worry about being hit), but also due to the menacing set-up he's created. We can't move more than three squares without likely ending up on our rears!
So we're full-circle to what I was saying before: the monster-tweaking is certainly version dependent. Or perhaps, the ease and necessity with which monsters can be tweaked is version dependent. But the fluff (setting, set-up, description) certainly isn't. We could be playing AD&D for goodness sake (except that in AD&D, the image on metal door would have had a sphere of annihilation up its nose)!
|
|
Anyway, here are my impressions of the first two sections of the Alpha document: LINK. Please comment here, though. I kind of did this as a fire in the hole kind of...
I'm having a hard time finding your post; they've just minced the Alpha boards today ... they've gotten too much hooligan feedback!!!
Up until it was removed/misplaced, your post wasn't nearly as incendiary as you thought it might be (it had one response from someone who mostly agreed, last I saw). And in the little reading that I've done today, a good chunk of the feedback that I've skimmed isn't as blindly pro-Pathfinder that you might think.
I think some of your experiences on the boards have colored your perception of the amount of Koolaid drinking going on around these parts (I posted to the "torture porn" boards, too, you'll remember--none of that was pretty). The 4e boards might be the exception (I understand that there are some real yahoos posting there), but I have a feeling that some of the WotC, enworld, and other boards are have their share of yahoos as well.
I'm still holding out hope that Jason B. and Paizo can sift the feedback and make a better game. At least it'll be fun to see the different mechanics in PRPG and 4e.
I'm having a hard time finding your post; they've just minced the Alpha boards today ... they've gotten too much hooligan feedback!!!
Anyway, here are my impressions of the first two sections of the Alpha document: LINK. Please comment here, though. I kind of did this as a fire in the hole kind of...
I have too much time on my hands today. For those looking manually through the Paizo nesting system for the post in question it is:
Paizo/Messageboards/Paizo Publishing/PathfinderTM/Pathfinder RPG/Playtest Feedback/Alpha Release/Races & Classes/Comments on Races & Classes
I said I wouldn't do this, but I couldn't resist.
Confidential to JSL:
Except they really did live happily ever after!
|
|
... do players really complain about a ten percent difference? ...It's really a 20% difference as it reduces your chance of failure by 1/5 from 50% to 40%.
Two words. English Major.
Anyway, it's a good thing that I have a white board in my office so that I can draw bar graphs just to understand how the difference btwn, 50% and 60% is a 20% difference in the success rate.
Here's John: "Okay , okay, if I fail two-fifths of the time *dry-erase-squeaking* and succeed three-fifths of the time *dry-erase-squeaking* then ... oohhhh!"
EDIT: Found the thread. Thanks Dreamer! They were probably still porting it when I looked there.
Also an English graduate! :D With a Masters in Drama. ;)
I don't think I did this yet, but 180XP for overcoming the door/trap thingy.
Yea! Level-up for me! Somehow, I'm thinking that an extra 7 HP will come in handy...
P.S. The short-version left brain/right brain answer is that the left brain is more logical/mathmatical/linguistic while the right brain is more intuitive/visual/artistic ("creative?").
The slightly longer version:
There's a correlation (but not 100%) between handedness and left/right brain preference. (Left brain/right hand; right brain/left hand.) Men tend to be more "compartmentalized" and women tend to be more "integrated" (thanks to a thicker corpus collosum, which connects the two hemispheres and allows them to communicate). Left-handers also tend to show a little more left-right flexibility because they have to adapt to a predominantly right-handed world (both culturally and biologically). That said, science is showing that the brain is remarkably adaptive--even into adulthood--and there may even be hope for strokes and other serious brain injuries.
Also an English graduate! :D With a Masters in Drama. ;)
Small world,
3 degrees, ending with a Masters in Theatre (THAT and $5 will get me a cup of coffee at Starbucks!)(I know, I know, don't dis the temple,...)
I'm running through Burnt Offerings in rl and it's very interesting to play it with a different DM and a different PC.
rl= real life, aka "meat-space" :D
Name, rank and serial number. ;)
I'm playing an elf wizard/ranger in a party with a druid/rogue and a rogue. All 2nd level.
Interesting in that we've been to different places and had different encounters to this group.