My FLGS, Legends Games and Comics in Towson, MD asked me to run a Pathfinder demo for a "mini-convention" on Saturday. This was to generally show off the Pathfinder ruleset. As far as I can tell, and despite complete moments of ditzery on my part, it went very well, and people went away having enjoyed the system. I ran one long demo game (I had meant to break up into multiple short demos but we quickly got caught up in it, though if someone had asked to join in I certainly would have grabbed them in). It took about 4-4.5 hours, which went lightning fast (everyone was surprised when they realized what time it was).
The 4E Demo-er made the ultimate sacrifice and told two people torn between 4th and Pathfinder to go join my game since I already had a few players waiting. :)
I had 2 3.5 vets, one person with working familiarity of 3.5, one person who had mostly played 2E with only a little 3.x experience, and one person who, if I understand it right, was completely new to tabletop roleplaying (he said, "I understand the basic idea of it because of World of Warcraft and Lord of the Rings"). After getting used to the rules, he was one of the most proactive players, trying to test out skills and abilities to see what they do.
I used "Crypt of the Everflame" as a friend who bought it at GenCon lent it to me, so I could use it for free, and it has nice little side-bars detailing differences between 3.5 and Pathfinder that come up at appropriate locations. I bought the Dungeon flip-mat, because having a pre-made map for a demo is SWEET. The adventure itself was a little too long for a "demo" but I wasn't expecting to get through the whole thing; the parts we went through were more than adequate to show off various game mechanics and different kinds of combat. I wrote up pre-gen characters to use; the players in question chose a bard, cleric, monk, ranger, and rogue. (What they lacked in spells they made up for in versatility, though I think they were wishing they had someone with Magic Missile a few times around)
General gameplay/rules observations:
1. The at-will 0-level spells were helping the Cleric and Bard get a LOT more mileage out of what they could do at first level. The channel energy and multiple rounds of Bard performances were also seeing good use. The players of these two characters were the 3.5 vets, and they really felt like they were much more effective at 1st level than they could have been before.
2. Rogues being able to get sneak attack damage on Undead was very useful for the party. I'm also honestly not sure if Constructs are allowed to be sneak attacked; the statblock in the module wasn't clear and I didn't really have time to look it up, but I allowed it, and he was the most effective against the wood golem in the Crypt (he was one of the few people with a slashing weapon, just due to the particular characters chosen).
3. The monk was getting his flurry of blows off even at level 1, which was nice.
4. We didn't get a chance to really test combat maneuvers well, but the players grasped the core mechanic of it well; the vets liked the concept of it.
Crypt of the Everflame observations that can be extended to other general design observations:
1. Even DR5/damage type is brutal for 1st level characters. Between Skellies with DR/bludgeoning and the Construct with the DR/slashing, combat was slowed down a LOT for 1st level characters, with 1st level character equipment. (DR was also the hardest concept to explain to the newer players, but that may have been my being incoherent.) Mind, there were a lot of bludgeoning weapons in the party, but the skeleton fights still went slowly. 1st level characters just can't do enough damage fast enough. And though difficulty is part of my concern, a greater concern is pacing.
This isn't to say that DR/damage type shouldn't be used at all in a given adventure, but when 1st level adventurers come up against that a lot, it is going to get frustrating for all involved. I'm always sensitive of the difference between "challenging" and "frustrating."
2. That wood golem is waaaaaay too much for a 1st level party. Depending on what the party's done, they might have leveled by the time they get to it, but not necessarily. It was too hard to damage (though the party was doing VERY well working together, letting those with slashing weapons do their thing; another character focusing on setting the wood golem on fire, etc.--but you miss a lot at first level). And its attack and damage -- 2 bashes at 1d8+4, I think? The elf bard, who was perfectly healthy, got killed outright in one blow. (Fortunately, that was toward the end of the demo and it was almost dinnertime, so we just finished the combat and called the game. Now, the party could have retreated, or explored or done other things, and I can think of other tactics they could have used--but they were a group of players who had never met each other before, with varying understanding of the rules, and they don't have DM foresight/hindsight like I do, and frankly, with all these factors they were doing very well to work together and use group tactics like setting up flanks and keeping the healers in a place where they can help everyone, etc. I couldn't have expected more of them, especially under the circumstances. It was just too hard.
I come away from this noting that 1st level characters CAN do a lot more, and characters with special abilities are a LOT more useful and versatile as 1st level characters--but 1st level characters are still very crunchy, with some limited choices for tactics (a -4 to use an improvised weapon or fire into melee is a HUGE penalty for a 1st level character). Effective and non-frustrating design for them needs to be a big consideration.
Also, as an aside, if I ever run that module again, or give it back to my friend to run, I'll tell him to change the wood golem encounter around. My thought would be to make it a puzzle or riddle to take the shields off the statue (which itself would not attack), maybe based around the words inscribed on the shields it holds. But I'll hold other thoughts on that for a review of the module, maybe.
Anyway, back to the rules demo itself--everyone as far as I could tell seemed to have fun. The 3.5 vets were very enthusiastic about many of the changes made (they liked that sneak attacks were more effective, and liked most of the changes to races and classes), and are hopefully bringing their enthusiasm back to their college gaming group. The others seemed to enjoy themselves; I think the monk player was a little frustrated at not getting to use some of his special abilities more (he had the stunning fist feat, but didn't think to use it until they were fighting undead, where it wouldn't be much help). The player new to tabletop roleplaying said something along the lines of, "I like this. I get this. It's fun." Enough said!
Hurah for getting people away from world of warcrack!
Glad to hear things went well with the demo. Here's hoping my first game running Pathfinder goes as well.
|
Also, as an aside, if I ever run that module again, or give it back to my friend to run, I'll tell him to change the wood golem encounter around. My thought would be to make it a puzzle or riddle to take the shields off the statue (which itself would not attack), maybe based around the words inscribed on the shields it holds. But I'll hold other thoughts on that for a review of the module, maybe.
At a minimum, there should be some handy flasks of oil (or even a barrel of it!) nearby to use as grenade-like missiles. That would be yet another opportunity to demonstrate the rules. For the vets, they would've nodded their heads and said "yep, just the same", while the newcomers could get a feel for the cinematics that throwing a Molotov cocktail would allow!
I think the monk player was a little frustrated at not getting to use some of his special abilities more (he had the stunning fist feat, but didn't think to use it until they were fighting undead, where it wouldn't be much help).
Actually, if rogues can sneak attack undead and constructs, I see no reason not to allow the monk to use stunning fist on them. IMO.
Also, as an aside, if I ever run that module again, or give it back to my friend to run, I'll tell him to change the wood golem encounter around. My thought would be to make it a puzzle or riddle to take the shields off the statue (which itself would not attack), maybe based around the words inscribed on the shields it holds. But I'll hold other thoughts on that for a review of the module, maybe.At a minimum, there should be some handy flasks of oil (or even a barrel of it!) nearby to use as grenade-like missiles. That would be yet another opportunity to demonstrate the rules. For the vets, they would've nodded their heads and said "yep, just the same", while the newcomers could get a feel for the cinematics that throwing a Molotov cocktail would allow!
That was a staple in an old 1e adventure, we called it the Gary rule. If there was a need for something to beat an encounter that the party would likely not have with them, it would be in the room with the encounter. I still recall overturning a coffin in a level 1-3 adventure because we were attacked by an undead that was immune to non-magical weapons and well I just hoped there would be one in the coffin. And of course there was and a magic longsword came sliding out for me to pick up and hit him with it.
At a minimum, there should be some handy flasks of oil (or even a barrel of it!) nearby to use as grenade-like missiles. That would be yet another opportunity to demonstrate the rules. For the vets, they would've nodded their heads and said "yep, just the same", while the newcomers could get a feel for the cinematics that throwing a Molotov cocktail would allow!
They did use the oil tactic, but they'd used up one on the bombardier beetle earlier, one didn't light, and the last did light and, indeed, did help do a lot of damage to the wood golem. (I should note the party did kill the construct; it just took awhile.)
I didn't have a lot of time to tweak the module beyond what was written, so they got what was included as written, which was 3 flasks of oil they found somewhere.
I think also someone wasn't reading their character sheets as a few characters should have had alchemist's fire, but it's possible they picked the characters that didn't (which is then my fault for not distributing items evenly enough).
I think the monk player was a little frustrated at not getting to use some of his special abilities more (he had the stunning fist feat, but didn't think to use it until they were fighting undead, where it wouldn't be much help).Actually, if rogues can sneak attack undead and constructs, I see no reason not to allow the monk to use stunning fist on them. IMO.
I thought stunning would be a "mind affecting" thing a Skeleton would be immune to. That was something I should have confirmed in the rules beforehand, and will remember to do next time.
|
|
I thought stunning would be a "mind affecting" thing a Skeleton would be immune to. That was something I should have confirmed in the rules beforehand, and will remember to do next time.
Oh, it very well could be. In fact, it probably is.
But if you're going to let rogues use sneak attack and do umpteen million points of SA damage against undead and constructs, I see no reason to give the monk a little loving.
And it might prove interesting for the monk to run up to the bad guy in order to go toe-to-toe only to find that the undead has an energy drain ability as part of its slam attack. ;)
And its attack and damage -- 2 bashes at 1d8+4, I think? The elf bard, who was perfectly healthy, got killed outright in one blow.
Your tale is an interesting one. And I'm sure that golem was meant for 2nd level characters.
As to the bit I quoted. Either you left something out or you did something wrong.
That bard has at least 8 HP and won't die until -10 (that's assuming he has no CON modifier).
The worst the golem could do in one blow was 12 HP but it would take 18 HP to kill the bard outright - unless the bard had a CON of 6 or less. I hate to say it, but if you create a character with a CON of 6, you had better plan on staying out of melee...
So, maybe the golem got a critical hit? If so, then this would be what you left out. And, even a crit of 2d8 + 8 is only just barely enough on an average roll, to kill an elf bard with a CON of 8 (an average critical hit from this golem kills the bard by 2 more than is needed, assuming the elf penalty to CON and he put no points into his CON).
But without a crit, the bard should need to be hit twice to die, and the first hit would probably render him unconscious, so it is unlikely the golem would target him again while there were threats remaining.
As an aside, it's pretty harsh as a DM to actually drop a critical hit that could or should kill a 1st level character outright. That's the point where the golem fails to confirm (no matter what I roll) or he confirms, but then those 2d8 come up really low, like a total of 3 or 4, maybe 5, assuming I know how many HP that bard has, I leave him with a couple -HP left to stabilize or get a heal from the party's healer.
But that's just me. I don't kill players who are playing well. Non in combat. If they do stupid stuff, take on challenges that they know they shouldn't, resort to hopelessly inane combat tactics, etc., then I have no reservations about killing them.
I just wouldn't do it when they're playing well.
I also wouldn't do it when I'm demoing a product to people unfamiliar with it - I may never see these people again, but I want them to walk away with a sense of elation, of winning, of how totally awesome that game was. Death just doesn't leave the same impression.
But that's just me.
|
I just wouldn't do it when they're playing well.I also wouldn't do it when I'm demoing a product to...
You're such a sweetie ..... ;o)
How is this game called "Hack n Slash and kill the bas***s" or "Teletubbies in wonderland" ? :o)
KILL EM ALL !!!!!!!!!!!!
Hum ... sorry ... apart from that ... well I can agree with you Blake, but since this is only a demo, and it must be quite stressful to run a demo ... I wouldn't be too harsh on him ..... :D
|
But that's just me. I don't kill players who are playing well. Non in combat. If they do stupid stuff, take on challenges that they know they shouldn't, resort to hopelessly inane combat tactics, etc., then I have no reservations about killing them.I just wouldn't do it when they're playing well.
I also wouldn't do it when I'm demoing a product to...
I would, I'd do it again and again and again. It's like having a video game demo where you can't loose. I would hope the challange of having died would be enough to keep them coming back.
That kind of mollycoddling leads to those threads you hear about where a players character died and he throws a hissy fit. Well of course if his character never actually died he'd throw a fit when it finally did happen convinced that it was somehow this new DMs fault because he wasn't doing anything different than he was with his old DM.
I've got two new players in my group, and two veterans, we are just starting module #2 and we've lost two PCs one to a newbie and one to a veteran.
If nothing else, I'd actually step up the difficulty in a demo.
As for your saying the bard couldn't have been killed in one hit, thank you, I've been wondering that myself. I think he may have meant one round (i.e. both slams hit) and that the bard was mostly healthy, but had taken a little damage already.
BTW, to everyone, I'm a "she." Just for the record. :)
Your tale is an interesting one. And I'm sure that golem was meant for 2nd level characters.
I am too, but the particular way the PCs went through the dungeon, they hadn't quite leveled yet (they were close, just not quite there). Which would be easy to do, depending. There are things I could have done differently and either let them level earlier or railroad them a little, but hindsight is 20/20. When you're going hoarse trying to shout rules explanations over a loud room filled with excited gamers and you're trying to push through and show them the cool things in the dungeon, and you're overdosed on caffeine and pizza (and hair salon products, but that's not common and its own story), you might just overlook something at the time. Well, at least, I might. And I did. I am unfortunately fallible. I'm trying to correct that, but I keep failing.
As to the bit I quoted. Either you left something out or you did something wrong.That bard has at least 8 HP and won't die until -10 (that's assuming he has no CON modifier).
The worst the golem could do in one blow was 12 HP but it would take 18 HP to kill the bard outright - unless the bard had a CON of 6 or less. I hate to say it, but if you create a character with a CON of 6, you had better plan on staying out of melee...
The elf bard had a constitution of 8.
The golem targeted it because the bard had set the golem on fire (before moving into melee).
The golem hit for both slams (did actually threaten a crit, but didn't confirm) and I rolled a 7 and and 8 for damage, before adding the strength modifier. That's a total of 23 damage. 23-7 hit points = -16. She would have been killed even if her Constitution had been higher, and while I agree that the bard should have stayed away from melee to do ranged attacks (though she had one of the highest ACs--the golem just rolled high), ANYONE in the party could have been killed by that. Heck, that would easily drop if not kill a 2nd or 3rd level character.
But without a crit, the bard should need to be hit twice to die, and the first hit would probably render him unconscious, so it is unlikely the golem would target him again while there were threats remaining.
To be honest, that is one thing I didn't think of--switching targets after the first hit. I have a habit of rolling of all my to-hit dice together, to save time. This is also because on a regular basis, the campaign I'm running has characters that just hit 17th level (where two hits to one character might put a slight dent in their armor), and obviously _I_ need to remember do some readjustment for running a low-level campaign.
So yeah, bad call on my part. Will remember that in future.
As an aside, it's pretty harsh as a DM to actually drop a critical hit that could or should kill a 1st level character outright. That's the point where the golem fails to confirm (no matter what I roll) or he confirms, but then those 2d8 come up really low, like a total of 3 or 4, maybe 5, assuming I know how many HP that bard has, I leave him with a couple -HP left to stabilize or get a heal from the party's healer.
But that's just me. I don't kill players who are playing well. Non in combat (snip).
Before you keep running with the assumption that I'm the cruellest, meanest DM ever, I told the bard's player she could choose to be stable at -8, or take a new character. We then realized we'd been playing for 4 and a half hours (it felt like 2) and decided to stop playing anyway, since everyone was hungry and/or wanted to check out what was going on at other tables.
Honestly, as I've thought about it, if I ever do this again, I'll probably design my own adventure keyed specifically toward demonstrating the game, rather than use a pre-designed module or scenario. In this specific case, I didn't have much time for preparation, and the offer by my friend to lend me the module was too good to pass up under the circumstances.
|
|
The golem hit for both slams
The elf bard, who was perfectly healthy, got killed outright in one blow.
I don't think he thought you were a mean DM, but what you just said contradicts what you said in the first post (the second quote) and at the time he was responding to what you originally said which was one blow. Anywho, I don't know why you sound so upset, you had one death out of what 4 players? that's pretty standard fare, and nothing to get worried about.
The golem hit for both slamsThe elf bard, who was perfectly healthy, got killed outright in one blow.I don't think he thought you were a mean DM, but what you just said contradicts what you said in the first post (the second quote) and at the time he was responding to what you originally said which was one blow. Anywho, I don't know why you sound so upset, you had one death out of what 4 players? that's pretty standard fare, and nothing to get worried about.
If I sounded "upset" at the start, that's the impersonal nature of text allowing personal interpretation to muddle things up.
Go re-read my first post--I hope my enthusiasm for what happened as a whole comes through. Everyone had fun and enjoyed the system. The vets like the changes. The new guy found roleplaying enjoyable. I think it was overall a successful event.
I just thought I'd note while I was at it, that now having played through that module, that that encounter was a little tough for a low level party and what I might do in the future to avoid that kind of situation. Future posts were simply trying to clarify what happened. I owned up to where I made mistakes. That is all.
And sorry, I erred toward the "poetic" in the "killed in one blow"--I forgot so many gamers take everything so f%$#%#$ing literally.
I'm now sorry I dared to offer a critical note. Everyone's jumped on the ONE thing that went "wrong" or just being pedantic with everyone who posts (except the one person who was glad the Warcraft player liked it), and no one seems terribly happy about what went right. Sure, NOW I'm upset. Now I'm pretty sure I'm a bad GM and a horrible writer to boot. See ya.
|
|
I'm now sorry I dared to offer a critical note. Everyone's jumped on the ONE thing that went "wrong", and no one seems terribly happy about what went right. Sure, NOW I'm upset. Now I'm pretty sure I'm a bad GM and a horrible writer to boot. See ya.
I didn't even do that, I jumped down the throat of the guy who came down against you saying that you shouldn't have had a character death and if you look at my post you'll see that I even stated what I thought the case was with the bard death.
Before you keep running with the assumption that I'm the cruellest, meanest DM ever,
this is the only reason I thought you were upset (I also misread a different line) I only ususally get that sarcastic when I'm upset, so I maybe was projecting a little. Anywho I don't think you were a bad DM or a horrible writer, I think one poster came off as a bit condescending and you've read his tone into everyone else's posts.
|
Skeletons (and constructs, for that matter) were immune to stunning not because they are immune to crits but because they lack Constitution scores, which renders them immune to any effect requiring a Fortitude save unless it is harmless or also affects objects. The crit immunity is gone, but the Con issue remains. You can't stun undead or constructs, I'm afraid.
|
|
Skeletons (and constructs, for that matter) were immune to stunning not because they are immune to crits but because they lack Constitution scores, which renders them immune to any effect requiring a Fortitude save unless it is harmless or also affects objects. The crit immunity is gone, but the Con issue remains. You can't stun undead or constructs, I'm afraid.
You're correct, of course.
My point was simply that if a rogue can sneak attack an undead creature from 30 feet away, surely the monk can set up some kind of "mini-quivering palm" effect in an undead by hitting it hard -- in such a way as to set up sympathetic vibrations that "stun" it into inaction for one round?
Similar harmonic vibrations should be possible in constructs as well.
I'm not trying to say the rules are anything other than what they are. But I am saying that for thematic and story purposes, I wouldn't have any problem ruling that a monk's stunning fist worked on undead and constructs.
Although now that I think about it, it works better for party dynamics if the monk can use stunning fist on something that rogues can't sneak attack, ie. oozes and plants. Sounds like I need another alternate feat that a monk can choose instead of stunning fist that works similarly on other creature types...
|
|
Glad to hear you and the players had a good time, DeathQuaker!
I might have "tweaked" the rolls a bit since 'Crypt of the Everflame' is pretty challenging for 1st level PCs (especially if they don't retreat to rest at some point).
I don't recall if PF RPG has anything on leveling up in the middle of the session, but I've never, ever allowed that -- leveling up, for me, is linked to the end of the session (preferably the end of the adventure, even) when PCs rest and have some time to think over what they've gone through (sort of reflecting on what they faced, tried and experimented). So, I wouldn't let PCs gain a level as they walk from one room to another, but this is just my own preference as a GM.
Before you keep running with the assumption that I'm the cruellest, meanest DM ever, I told the bard's player she could choose to be stable at -8, or take a new character. We then realized we'd been playing for 4 and a half hours (it felt like 2) and decided to stop playing anyway, since everyone was hungry and/or wanted to check out what was going on at other tables.
Ooh, ouch, I didn't mean for you to take it that way.
There are a whole lot of notches on that sliding scale between "fairly harsh" and "cruelest meanest DM ever".
Heck, "fairly harsh" barely tips the scale.
Nice to hear that you gave options. It probably left the bard's player with a better impression of the game than simply seeing you roll dice and tell him he's dead.
Sounds like a great day for everyone.
I have a lot of respect for anyone who undertakes the role of GM. It's not easy. Mistakes are inevitable, and characters who did everything right sometimes get killed, anyway. Good on ya for introducing the game to some people who are now likely to want to play it again. You had a good time, and that's the most important thing.
I've done every stupid thing possible, I think, at some point or another. Live and learn (or die and learn, sometimes!).
Glad to hear you and the players had a good time, DeathQuaker!
I might have "tweaked" the rolls a bit since 'Crypt of the Everflame' is pretty challenging for 1st level PCs (especially if they don't retreat to rest at some point).
I don't recall if PF RPG has anything on leveling up in the middle of the session, but I've never, ever allowed that -- leveling up, for me, is linked to the end of the session (preferably the end of the adventure, even) when PCs rest and have some time to think over what they've gone through (sort of reflecting on what they faced, tried and experimented). So, I wouldn't let PCs gain a level as they walk from one room to another, but this is just my own preference as a GM.
Agreed, but in a demo situation (if time allowed) it might be a nice showcase of how advancement works and how players get to customize for their vision of the characters.
