But you can go ahead and just buy 10 arrows for the cost of 830gp, you can't even get the haversack for that, and a GM that'll let you safely cary around that many gps worth of potions without risk of shattering in a non-magical backpack/sack is just being generous.If you hit your target the arrow is 100% destroyed.That is the best argument I have heard yet for reducing the cost to enchant ammunition. Besides you can not just enchant an arrow to flaming you need to enchant it to +1 flaming.
so the Flaming ammo would cost
8300gp/50= 166gp each
Or dragon bane
8300/50 = 366 each
For those prices you could buy a bag of holding full of healing potions.
You can buy a bag of holding full of heal potions for around 166 gp~366gp?
Damn that's a fine diplomacy skill bonus you have there!
Yes the price to buy 50 arrows of +1 bane giant is 8300gp.
The cost of a cure light wounds potion is 50gp.
Bag of holding is 2500gpFor 8300gp I can buy a type 1 bag of holding and 116 cure potions.
You could get a Hewar's Handy Haversack for 2000 and be able to afford 126 CLW potions but I am not sure if they would all fit.
for 830gp those arrows will last you 2-3 rounds of combat and I did specify a bag of holding (magic).
The time has come when we are all playing a different game it seems. *sigh*
No, same game. Some of us just know enough about economics to recognize how screwed up it is.
If a GM wants to adjust pricing on every item based on his own little supply/ demand curves he fabricates then he can... but the system itself has fixed pricing which is utterly broken.
The idea that every single first level wand sells for the same price regardless of location? Broken.
The idea that CLW potions are 50 GP and CMW potions are 300GP? Broken.
All these ideas are fabrications to simplify gameplay and 'balance' the game system.
|
for 830gp those arrows will last you 2-3 rounds of combat and I did specify a bag of holding (magic).But you can go ahead and just buy 10 arrows for the cost of 830gp, you can't even get the haversack for that, and a GM that'll let you safely cary around that many gps worth of potions without risk of shattering in a non-magical backpack/sack is just being generous.If you hit your target the arrow is 100% destroyed.That is the best argument I have heard yet for reducing the cost to enchant ammunition. Besides you can not just enchant an arrow to flaming you need to enchant it to +1 flaming.
so the Flaming ammo would cost
8300gp/50= 166gp each
Or dragon bane
8300/50 = 366 each
For those prices you could buy a bag of holding full of healing potions.
You can buy a bag of holding full of heal potions for around 166 gp~366gp?
Damn that's a fine diplomacy skill bonus you have there!
Yes the price to buy 50 arrows of +1 bane giant is 8300gp.
The cost of a cure light wounds potion is 50gp.
Bag of holding is 2500gpFor 8300gp I can buy a type 1 bag of holding and 116 cure potions.
You could get a Hewar's Handy Haversack for 2000 and be able to afford 126 CLW potions but I am not sure if they would all fit.
I know, and then you didn't factor in the cost of buying that bag of holding.
2000gp for a bag of holding right?
800gp for 5 flaming arrows or 1660 for 10. You bought that bag of holding you don't even have a potion yet, so who's off in their estimates here? or do you give bags of holding for free?
I thought we were talking low level. I thought your whole complaint was too expensive at low levels. Am I wrong in assuming low levels means less than 10, where a player will have 1-2 attacks in a round, which means 10 arrows will last five-ten rounds. And I can afford 10 +1 flaming arrows way before I can afford an 8300gp +1 flaming bow. and at the higher levels you have disposable income to spare, which means the pricing schema doesn't matter.
Simple question. How much would it cost to heal the damage caused by the arrows in question? At the same rate that the damage is being inflicted?
1d8+1+2d6 * 2-4/ round... maybe spec out a bag that can keep you alive during that barage. Good luck with that.
Just keeping up with the magic bonuse part you could drink a (comparably priced) potion of Cure Moderate Wounds every round and still fall behind.
Not counting the actual arrow damage 2 arrows per round:
2d8+3 = 300GP (Potion Cure Moderate)
4d6+2 = 320gp (Bane arrow)
3d6+2 = 320gp (fire arrow versus vulnerable target)
2d6+2 = 320gp (fire arrow versus non vulnerable target)
3 arrows per round:
3d8+5 = 750GP (Potion Cure Serious)
6d6+3 = 480gp (Bane arrow)
4.5d6+3 = 480gp (fire arrow versus vulnerable target)
3d6+3 = 480gp (fire arrow versus vulnerable target)
4 arrows per round:
????? (Potion Cure Ridiculous Wounds)
8d6+4 = 720gp (Bane arrow)
6d6+4 = 720gp (fire arrow versus vulnerable target)
4d6+4 = 720gp (fire arrow versus vulnerable target)
I know, and then you didn't factor in the cost of buying that bag of holding.2000gp for a bag of holding right?
800gp for 5 flaming arrows or 1660 for 10. You bought that bag of holding you don't even have a potion yet, so who's off in their estimates here? or do you give bags of holding for free?I thought we were talking low level. I thought your whole complaint was too expensive at low levels. Am I wrong in assuming low levels means less than 10, where a player will have 1-2 attacks in a round, which means 10 arrows will last five-ten rounds. And I can afford 10 +1...
The price to buy 50 arrows of +1 bane giant is 8300gp.
The cost of a cure light wounds potion is 50gp.Type 1 Bag of holding is 2500gp
For 8300gp I can buy a type 1 bag of holding and 116 cure potions.
Simple question. How much would it cost to heal the damage caused by the arrows in question? At the same rate that the damage is being inflicted?
How much would it cost to heal the damage off the same archer if he used a +1 bow with arrows he picked up for 2gp a bundle of 50 for?
The difference is 1d6 per round. so on average the guy shooting 830gp each round in flaming arrows is doing 18.5 extra damage assuming every shot hits.
For every extra point of damage it costs 47.4 gp
Simple question. How much would it cost to heal the damage caused by the arrows in question? At the same rate that the damage is being inflicted?How much would it cost to heal the damage off the same archer if he used a +1 bow with arrows he picked up for 2gp a bundle of 50 for?
The difference is 1d6 per round. so on average the guy shooting 830gp each round in flaming arrows is doing 18.5 extra damage assuming every shot hits.
For every extra point of damage it costs 47.4 gp
Err... you quoted me but you didn't come anywhere close to answering what I asked.
|
|
I know, and then you didn't factor in the cost of buying that bag of holding.2000gp for a bag of holding right?
800gp for 5 flaming arrows or 1660 for 10. You bought that bag of holding you don't even have a potion yet, so who's off in their estimates here? or do you give bags of holding for free?I thought we were talking low level. I thought your whole complaint was too expensive at low levels. Am I wrong in assuming low levels means less than 10, where a player will have 1-2 attacks in a round, which means 10 arrows will last five-ten rounds. And I can afford 10 +1...
The price to buy 50 arrows of +1 bane giant is 8300gp.
The cost of a cure light wounds potion is 50gp.
Type 1 Bag of holding is 2500gpFor 8300gp I can buy a type 1 bag of holding and 116 cure potions.
If you're buying 50 arrows your wasting your money. No-one should be buying them in groups of 50 unless your trying to outfit a large number of people. I specifically said buy 5 or buy 10, not buy 50. Now you're saying that someone buying 50 arrows should be instead buying a bag of holding and potions, no someone buying 50 arrows of that specific type is a moron who shouldn't be adventuring. If you need that many arrows to have that type of damage, then you get the bow which amazingly enough is priced the exact same, but if you just want that type for when you need it, say you want to have some bane arrows for if you fight a creature of that type, then you buy 5-10, and you only use them when fighting that creature type. What you're saying is if someone is dumb enough to buy 50 arrows of the same type then their wasting thier money, and yeah, I don't think that's a problem, because nothing in the rules says you have to buy magic arrows in batches of 50. But lets say someone in a party does, if they are keeping all the arrows to themselves then yeah they're idiots, but what if they split the arrows amongst all 4 PCs, then you fight something with a vulnerability to that type, that's something you can't do with a sword. You can't distribute a sword to all 4 party members at once when fighting something with a vulnerability to that weapon. Personally as a player, unless I figured out that the campaign was a certain creature type centric, say undead, or demons, then I'd definitely want to have a bane weapon, but if I'm fighting a mix of monsters all the time that changes every few levels then I'm not gonna buy a bane dragon sword, a bane aberation mace, a bane fey axe, and a bane humanoid (goblin) dagger, but I might just be carrying 5 bane arrows for each type, and hey, that many bane weapons is 33,200gp, but that many bane arrows is 3,320 funnily enough, that's way more reasonable than expecting to get anywhere with a bag full of potions. 1-2 rounds of attacking a creature with a weapon of its bane is usually all you need anyways, and since it's only 830gp to restock after the fight then even a low level character is doing it.
But whatever, you clearly seem to think that it's wrong, change it for your games, however I don't buy your reasons and I think you'll see a lot more magic arrows in your game when you reduce the cost, and quickly see players all gravitating to playing ranged characters and easily overcoming anything you throw at them with the wealth of bonus enhancement they'll be carrying around on them, unless you keep this you can only by 50 at a time argument you seem to use to say the pricing is off.
or show me this rule that says you have to buy 50 arrows if you are buying arrows, cause I'm not familiar with it.
The rules say that enchanting arrows is done in stacks of 50. If your GM stocks band demon slaying arrows at Adventure Mart then you can buy them one at a time.
If I go to a mage and ask him to make me some arrows then I need to pay for 50. If I am expecting to go to a evil fortress of doom reported to be full of demon warriors I will probably need more than 5 arrows.
A level 6 archer can go through 4 arrows a round with rapid shot and multi shot. Even at that low level 50 arrows is only 12-13 rounds of combat.
The rules say that enchanting arrows is done in stacks of 50.
I am unable to find this rule. Can you please cite it to me? Page number or PRD link.
I removed a post. Please be polite and avoid insulting one another.
|
|
or show me this rule that says you have to buy 50 arrows if you are buying arrows, cause I'm not familiar with it.The rules say that enchanting arrows is done in stacks of 50. If your GM stocks band demon slaying arrows at Adventure Mart then you can buy them one at a time.
If I go to a mage and ask him to make me some arrows then I need to pay for 50. If I am expecting to go to a evil fortress of doom reported to be full of demon warriors I will probably need more than 5 arrows.
A level 6 archer can go through 4 arrows a round with rapid shot and multi shot. Even at that low level 50 arrows is only 12-13 rounds of combat.
No it doesn't it says the price is based of of 50, that=/=have to be enchanted in batches of 50.
Just double check the crafting rules for good measure, nope you are 100% wrong, no such rule exists unless they have have it in somestrange place.
You can craft a single magic arrow, or a single magic shuriken. absolutely nowhere does it say that if you make them, they are made in batches of 50.
It says elsewhere that staves need 50 charges each and you can't do less, that wands are likewise 50 charges each and you can't do less, and Rings of the Ram and Chimes of Opening also come with 50 charges, and presumably you can't do less there either.
Since all of those are calculated the same way, it follows that magic arrows follow the same rules. Ergo, batches of fifty.
Though I will admit I can't find this explicitly stated in the Pathfinder rules, but I find it rather heavily implied, since the price for one-shot items is much more expensive.
It says elsewhere that staves need 50 charges each and you can't do less, that wands are likewise 50 charges each and you can't do less, and Rings of the Ram and Chimes of Opening also come with 50 charges, and presumably you can't do less there either.
Since all of those are calculated the same way, it follows that magic arrows follow the same rules. Ergo, batches of fifty.
Nope. Apples and oranges. Staves, wands, rings of the ram, etc are all charged items. Arrows are not. It makes sense that you have to create charged items fully charged. It doesn't make sense (and, more importantly, does not appear to be supported by the rules) that you have to create multiples of a weapon to create any at all.
Nope. Apples and oranges. Staves, wands, rings of the ram, etc are all charged items. Arrows are not. It makes sense that you have to create charged items fully charged. It doesn't make sense (and, more importantly, does not appear to be supported by the rules) that you have to create multiples of a weapon to create any at all.
Hmm, true enough. It appears that the arrows are simply priced by the 50 count, with no specifics about them having to be made in batches.
I also checked the 3.0 books to see if there was any different text there. Still the same.
And since you can create Feather Tokens separately, it makes sense that you could make bane arrows individually.
Prices are based on 50 missiles by rule 0 if the GM let you you could enchant a single arrow or make a wand with a single charge.
I am not sure what good only having enough ammunition for one round of combat would do you.
Prices are based on 50 missiles
Which has nothing to do with how many you have to make at a time.
I am not sure what good only having enough ammunition for one round of combat would do you.
Exactly how many +1 ghost touch evil outsider bane arrows do you expect to need over the course of a campaign?
Side Note: Staves only have 10 charges in pathfinder, but are rechargeable.
Prices are based on 50 missilesWhich has nothing to do with how many you have to make at a time.
I am not sure what good only having enough ammunition for one round of combat would do you.Exactly how many +1 ghost touch evil outsider bane arrows do you expect to need over the course of a campaign?
Not many.
But I would use up a quiver or two of the evil outsider bane arrows. That an undead and construct bane would be high on my list to stock up on. Some Ghost touch arrows would be nice but I would need at least 20 of them to be effective.
Once the players in my game get a few levels I expect they will start to take advantage of the 1050gp/50 arrows. It will be a good cash sink for the game with decent rewards.
|
|
Prices are based on 50 missilesWhich has nothing to do with how many you have to make at a time.
I am not sure what good only having enough ammunition for one round of combat would do you.Exactly how many +1 ghost touch evil outsider bane arrows do you expect to need over the course of a campaign?Not many.
But I would use up a quiver or two of the evil outsider bane arrows. That an undead and construct bane would be high on my list to stock up on. Some Ghost touch arrows would be nice but I would need at least 20 of them to be effective.
Once the players in my game get a few levels I expect they will start to take advantage of the 1050gp/50 arrows. It will be a good cash sink for the game with decent rewards.
Are you serious, you'd need twenty to be effective? What kind of game are you playing. My combats last 3-6 rounds when the PCs have no natural advantages over the monsters. If a character has a weapon keyed to the weakness of my monsters combat lasts a whoping 2-3 rounds. You must play in exceptionally challanging games, because needing 20 just to be effective, hell my archers tend to be effective without using magic arrows at all, just a magic bow with regular arrows, add to that 5 arrows keyed to kill a specific monster, say a silver, holy bane outsider (evil) arrow which only costs 3,200 as opposed to a 32,000 for a holy bane +1 bow. I think the problem is you think that if you're firing one arrow keyed to the weakness you have to fire nothing but those arrows to be effective. My players when they have magic arrows mix them in with regular arrows in a full attack, they'll fire one, maybe two arrows of a magic type and the rest as regular arrows, unless they are fighting something that their normal arrows can't hurt at all, which if the DM is throwing stuff like that at them regularly where they need to shoot a keyed arrow every single shot just to damage, then thats the DM hosing that player and intentionally making sure that player has to waste all of his gold.
Especially since as you pointed out it makes much more sense to have a magic bow then to invest constantly in magic arrows, that's why you don't invest constantly in magic arrows, you get a few for extra oomph, and mix them in with the regular arrows in your full attack so that you get some really impressive damage output.
none of this makes magic arrows pricing senseless.
Are you serious, you'd need twenty to be effective? What kind of game are you playing. My combats last 3-6 rounds when the PCs have no natural advantages over the monsters. If a character has a weapon keyed to the weakness of my monsters combat lasts a whoping 2-3 rounds.
All of his thoughts are based on the idea that players are going to burn burn expensive arrows every round regardless of the target. At one point above he suggested a character might use a flame arrow versus a red dragon...
Maybe your players are a little cannier than his *shrug*
My combats last 3-6 rounds when the PCs have no natural advantages over the monsters.
Just curious, are you playing with stats greater than a 15-point buy? (Because that's a natural advantage over the monsters.)
My players are playing with very high stats and I am throwing CR+2 encounters at them on a regular basis. If the players don't come out of the fight feeling lucky to survive I start to wonder what the point of the combat is.
I think the Masterwork costs of ammunition is to high also. I am going to drop the cost for master work ammunition down to the cost of Master work armor 150gp for a bundle of 50.
That will make the cost of a bundle of +1 ammunition 750gp + 150gp = 900gp
18gp a shot.
It will also make it easier for the player who is playing the archer to make Masterwork arrows since craft time is based on cost.
|
|
My combats last 3-6 rounds when the PCs have no natural advantages over the monsters.Just curious, are you playing with stats greater than a 15-point buy? (Because that's a natural advantage over the monsters.)
Rolled stats, but none of my players has a total mod of greater than +6 (I've never had players with extreme luck on witnessed rolls yet) In fact the only 18 in my group came from the player playing human and using the +2 bonus.
My players are playing with very high stats and I am throwing CR+2 encounters at them on a regular basis. If the players don't come out of the fight feeling lucky to survive I start to wonder what the point of the combat is.
I do hope you realize there is a point to combat beyond trying to kill the players right? That the statement above is not your sole guidelines for designing combat for your party.
I do hope you realize there is a point to combat beyond trying to kill the players right? That the statement above is not your sole guidelines for designing combat for your party.My players are playing with very high stats and I am throwing CR+2 encounters at them on a regular basis. If the players don't come out of the fight feeling lucky to survive I start to wonder what the point of the combat is.
Oh man you have found me out. I am trying to make the game easier with lower cost arrows to have an excuse to kill all my players.
Well your statements do tend to lead one to think you are working at cross purposes with your own goals. Which is usually a sign of three things.
Making sure the PCs can die in an encounter is not the same as actively trying to kill them. The sense of potential mortality adds a big extra rush to combat. No risk means no challenge, so yeah: what's the point? Furthermore, when the players know that fights are rarely stacked in their favor, they're cautious and think tactically and provide a bigger challenge for me, too. Keeping them on their toes causes them to keep me on mine.
If the players set up a solid ambush, I let them have their day. If they decide they're in over their heads, I generally give half XP for a successful retreat. And likewise if the players are clearly overpowering a group of kobolds or suchlike, the last few standing will demonstrate the fine art of GTFO (and I award full XP for defeating them, and make a note that there are kobolds with a grudge).
Point is, high lethality does not imply antagonism.
Making sure the PCs can die in an encounter is not the same as actively trying to kill them. The sense of potential mortality adds a big extra rush to combat. No risk means no challenge, so yeah: what's the point? Furthermore, when the players know that fights are rarely stacked in their favor, they're cautious and think tactically and provide a bigger challenge for me, too. Keeping them on their toes causes them to keep me on mine.
If the players set up a solid ambush, I let them have their day. If they decide they're in over their heads, I generally give half XP for a successful retreat. And likewise if the players are clearly overpowering a group of kobolds or suchlike, the last few standing will demonstrate the fine art of GTFO (and I award full XP for defeating them, and make a note that there are kobolds with a grudge).
Point is, high lethality does not imply antagonism.
Gold star to the master GM!
One of the toughest encounters I ever gave my players. They were level 5 with 7 players walking in a swamp. They were ambushed by 30 4hp kobolds hiding in trees with nets and flaming oil. There was much gnashing and spiting.
On paper that would be what? CR2? But the situation setup caused them several tactical problems that ramped difficulty to CR6
|
|
Making sure the PCs can die in an encounter is not the same as actively trying to kill them. The sense of potential mortality adds a big extra rush to combat. No risk means no challenge, so yeah: what's the point? Furthermore, when the players know that fights are rarely stacked in their favor, they're cautious and think tactically and provide a bigger challenge for me, too. Keeping them on their toes causes them to keep me on mine.
If the players set up a solid ambush, I let them have their day. If they decide they're in over their heads, I generally give half XP for a successful retreat. And likewise if the players are clearly overpowering a group of kobolds or suchlike, the last few standing will demonstrate the fine art of GTFO (and I award full XP for defeating them, and make a note that there are kobolds with a grudge).
Point is, high lethality does not imply antagonism.
Gold star to the master GM!
One of the toughest encounters I ever gave my players. They were level 5 with 7 players walking in a swamp. They were ambushed by 30 4hp kobolds hiding in trees with nets and flaming oil. There was much gnashing and spiting.
On paper that would be what? CR2? But the situation setup caused them several tactical problems that ramped difficulty to CR6
So wait, because my games tend towards shorter combats, they aren't lethal and I'm not a master GM? ahh, I see, the fact that I've killed two PCs must have been their mistakes as opposed to the challanges. The fact that I had damn close to a TPK and have had players retreat from a fight with barely any injury to the enemy must mean that I'm doing it wrong. I throw mixed fights at my party as well, I use tactics as well, and I mix up the CRs as well. That doesn't change the fact that the standard combat for my group lasts 3-6 rounds. Even my longer combats tend to wrap up before ten rounds, and my players do just fine with normal arrows in magic bows and when they get magic arrows they don't tend to fire every single shot in a round as a magic arrow. And they're still effective. Oh and for the record, I also don't have magic item mega-marts where players can get anything magic they need. They won't be able to get a Bag of Holding filled with potions, they might if I roll for what's available in the town (using paizos rules and charts) but they definitely aren't garunteed to find it. And they operate just fine under current magic arrow pricing when they come across them.
For the record I'm tough on my group, death happens and they've had situations where player action could have wound up with them fighting CR16 encounters at level 4 if they're stupid enough to shoot first and ask questions later. I throw my players tough combats just as often as I throw them easily owned encounters. but I don't see an issue with magic arrow pricing nor do I find it silly or arbitrary, If I made magic arrows that cheap I know I could expect to have to throw CR 4-5 higher than the party level just to challenge them because they'll have plenty of magic arrows for any scenario to exploit any weaknesses if they get the appropriate knowledge check.
One of the toughest encounters I ever gave my players. They were level 5 with 7 players walking in a swamp. They were ambushed by 30 4hp kobolds hiding in trees with nets and flaming oil. There was much gnashing and spiting.
On paper that would be what? CR2? But the situation setup caused them several tactical problems that ramped difficulty to CR6
Nope, not even close to CR2.
I'm assuming 3.5 kobolds, since we don't have a Pathfinder Bestiary yet.
4 Kobolds are CR1, 8 are CR3, 16 are CR5, and 32 are CR7. More or less. And that's assuming a straight up pitched battle with no tactical considerations.
It doesn't exactly work out that way, and the 3.5 DMG cautions against using that formula for creatures less than CR1, but it's close enough.
What the 3.5 DMG does say is that 10-12 ordinary kobolds in an ordinary battle is a match for a group of 3rd level characters. Double that number (20-24 kobolds) should move it into the realm of 5th level characters. Another dozen kobolds, more or less, might add another level, making them a match for 6th level characters.
Of course, that assumes a party of 4. You have nearly double the standard party size. 4 fifth level characters should be around CR5, and 8 fifth level characters should be around level 7, so 7 fifth level characters should be about CR 6.5, more or less.
So, depending on how you look at it, this fight (on level ground with no tactical considerations) would range from being slightly easy to slightly tough for a group of 7 fifth level characters - but a fairly close fight either way.
Then you threw in the tactical considerations, hence the gnashing and spitting.
So wait, because my games tend towards shorter combats, they aren't lethal and I'm not a master GM?
It means nothing of the sort, I imagine.
ahh, I see, the fact that I've killed two PCs must have been their mistakes as opposed to the challanges.
Are you really asserting that your argument for being a "master GM" is your ability to kill off two PCs who didn't make any mistakes?
Either you have no clue how to balance your encounters and accidentally killed them off by making it too challenging, or you deliberately killed them off, which makes me question why you failed to kill off more of them.
Well, maybe it doesn't mean either of those extremes, but either way, I don't see this as compelling evidence of masterful GMing.
The fact that I had damn close to a TPK and have had players retreat from a fight with barely any injury to the enemy must mean that I'm doing it wrong.
Again, any DM can throw a pit fiend at his party of level 1 characters, then boast that they had to retreat without scratching the pit fiend, but that's hardly compelling evidence of masterful GMing either.
Your ability to throw a challenge at the party that they cannot defeat is not masterful GMing. That's easy. Any DM can do it.
I throw mixed fights at my party as well, I use tactics as well, and I mix up the CRs as well.
Now this might be masterful GMing, or not, depending on how suitably challenging these mixed and or tactical fights turn out to be. You weren't really clear on this point.
A whole bunch of stuff that basically amounts to saying "arrow prices are fine".
Now this I agree with. No need to worry about arrow prices at all, as far as I'm concerned.
Although, I have ruled that the 50% break rules apply to arrows that hit and to arrows that miss. No reason to assume all arrows tht sink into soft pink flesh must automatically break.
But even without that house rule, the pricing is fine with me.
So wait, because my games tend towards shorter combats, they aren't lethal and I'm not a master GM?
Err... you weren't the one being addressed by that little sub-thread. Dulsin replied to me, and I was responding (in what I thought was a non-antagonistic manner!) to this:
I do hope you realize there is a point to combat beyond trying to kill the players right?
No offense was meant any which way.
No offense Tejon, just pointing out there are lots of reasons to have non PC lethal combats.
Examples Include:
1. Reminding the PC's that they are awesome. Sometimes they need to mow through a few mooks with no problems just to remind them that they are moving up in the world, and moving beyond the normal abilities of most people. After all if they are heroes (or villians) they shouldn't have their butts kicked all the time.
2. Rewarding good tactics. This one tends to handle itself, but if the players come up with a way to turn the tables and attack the enemy from an advantage they deserve for it to work (in general). On the same issue but from the other end, if they don't think ahead (at all) and just rush into something well they get what they get.
3. Eating up resources. Of course a party with less resources is challenged more by things than a party with full resources. Maybe that 'boss' fight you have planned is supposed to be a marathon run with the PC arriving with about 1/2 of their normal daily resources left. At that point the 'boss' can be a bit weaker than needed if they were at full resources and still be a challenge. This is good since it means you can give a bit less wealth and exp for the battle without being arbitrary about it.
4. Combat has another goal. Maybe it is an easy fight... but they have to get it done quickly and quietly so they don't alert other monsters to the fact they are there. Taking out some sentries in a hostage situation would be an example. This type of combat challenge means that they have to act fast, and quietly so that the hostage takers don't know they are coming, and don't do something to the hostages before they can get to the point of rescue.
Actually there were several threads during the playtesting where these issues were covered at length.
|
|
So wait, because my games tend towards shorter combats, they aren't lethal and I'm not a master GM?Err... you weren't the one being addressed by that little sub-thread. Dulsin replied to me, and I was responding (in what I thought was a non-antagonistic manner!) to this:
I do hope you realize there is a point to combat beyond trying to kill the players right?No offense was meant any which way.
I was responding to his gold star for the master GM, I didn't think what you said was antagonistic.
What I was responding to was that I said my combats lasted 3-6 rounds on average without any monster weaknesses being exploited, I never once said how challenging my fights are or how difficult, but you posted saying you prefer challenging fights. and he gave you a gold star, as if being longer is the only qualification of whether or not a combat is challenging.
That's what got under my skin.
And DM blake, I'm not out to kill my players, and that had nothing to do with what I was saying. He said the other guy was a master GM because he prefered challenging fights, I never said how challenging my fights were, but it seemed to me that he was saying somehow just by stint of my fights not lasting that long, they weren't in any way challenging. Going back and re-reading I may have misinterpreted what was there, but that's what I was infering at the time.
So in my defense I listed the lethality of my game, not that that's the only representation of challenge, but that's what I used to exemplify that my games aren't unchallenging just because they don't have long drawn out combats.
A level 20 party fighting 100 level one mooks may be long, that doesn't mean it's challenging.
That is what bothered me the implication that somehow challenging = long fights.
No offense Tejon, just pointing out there are lots of reasons to have non PC lethal combats.
None taken, I was just trying to remedy what I perceived as a misinterpretation by lastknightleft as to who was saying what to whom and in which tone. Of course I may have been mistaken myself!
Also, I agree with your points, especially the even-numbered ones. :)