From what I saw of the encounter, I can't say I am the least bit surprised....Like I said earlier, I ended up so bored that I ran this with a friend. The end result was a full on TPK. The only monster to drop was Lucretia, and they just used one of the party's potions on her to heal her up after the fight.
I think it ended with Lia, transformed into a zombie by Barl, coup de gracing Grummish who was unconcious due to 0 wisdom from wisdom drain.
Everyone has low AC and nobody can deal damage. Grummish was teaching Lucretia what was what with trips but she finally got a full attack on him and he went down instantly.
Ask your ranger to take deadly aim for me. She could have soloed most of the fight if she wasn't doing such lousy damage.
|
If she was by herself I agree...but when she is with the party...umm no. Why would a group of heavily armored and armed people hang around ONE peasant or pilgrim? That makes no sense...so in a world of magic, it is not unreasonable to assume your more then you seem. Now if you disguised yourself to ACTIVELY look like your not a part of the party, then it becomes a disguise vs perception check. Yes I have had casters who would max out disguise so they really did look like non-casters (at least until they cast a spell that wasn't silent, stilled and echew materialed). And even then a spellcraft check stillc ould find them out. But without an active disguise, yeah you really do stick out.Depending on the encounter, Hama usually starts with a disguise and/or discreet charm person (assuming not immediately attacked).
I don't remeber hama having a high disguise check...and you can't really disguise yourself when you meet something...it's kinda something you plan ahead as you need 10-30 minutes for the skill. I forgot if she had spells to help with this...but casting a spell would pretty much paint her as a caster no wouldn't it :P .
Ask your ranger to take deadly aim for me. She could have soloed most of the fight if she wasn't doing such lousy damage.
Is the feat really so great? At 9th-level a +6 to damage for a -3 to hit is nice, but not really a must-have.
|
|
I forgot about navel combat.Belly button combat? Yikes! I attack the lint!!!
(sorry, I normally let spelling errors and typos go - lord knows I make plenty of my own - but belly button lint is always just too funny to pass up...)
Hehe...well I forgive ya. Belly button lint is funny...stinky, but funny.
I don't remember Hama having a high disguise check...and you can't really disguise yourself when you meet something...it's kinda something you plan ahead as you need 10-30 minutes for the skill. I forgot if she had spells to help with this...but casting a spell would pretty much paint her as a caster no wouldn't it :P .
True. If she does it at all, it's usually an advance setup kind of thing.
Hama once took a 20 on a mundane disguise check AND used magic for an additional +10 to make sure her disguise was absolutely perfect prior to negotiating a treaties with enemies who knew her true identity (but not the new one).
Sheeeeesh, guys, enough already. Isn't it time to let this one die? Haven't we learned all we're going to learn from this thread?
1. Ravingdork is a min-maxer who likes to push the rules to the limit, but he's also a role-player who invented an interesting, if a bit overdone, character with a perfectly viable goal of becoming a lich. His DM is very much OK with his playstyle though his fellow players may not be.
2. His DM is extremely generous, allowing lichdom for virtually free, and allowing his nearly helpless character to survive long enough that lichdom is nearly within her grasp, both of which are somewhat stupefying to most posters here (though some, not so much).
3. Flying paladin swamp archers are deadly. So are submerged zombie hydras. So is Hama - or maybe not.
4. Ravingdork is evidently willing to defend his viewpoint to his last breath, which is certainly his right, but it displays a disregard for the opinions of the others who have posted on this thread. The original tone having been to ask for suggestions (which he received in spades), the ensuing endless justification of his character, his campaign, and his impending lichdom leaves one wondering if this thread was really started just to gloat about how special Hama is (and by all definitions, both positive and pejoritive, she is very special indeed) and how much he has pulled the wool over his fellow players' and his DM's eyes - but we'll never know the answer to that.
5. Belly button lint is funny.
That being said, what's left to gain from this thread other than our undying need to argue over the internet until we feel we've proven that everyone else is wrong?
Ask your ranger to take deadly aim for me. She could have soloed most of the fight if she wasn't doing such lousy damage.Is the feat really so great? At 9th-level a +6 to damage for a -3 to hit is nice, but not really a must-have.
Yes it is. That +6 applies to every attack that hits so if you have rapid shot that is 3 attacks for 18 more points. Even if you can only shoot twice it is 12 more points. Once you get manyshot it applies to both of the first two arrows. The stacking is awesome.
|
|
I don't remember Hama having a high disguise check...and you can't really disguise yourself when you meet something...it's kinda something you plan ahead as you need 10-30 minutes for the skill. I forgot if she had spells to help with this...but casting a spell would pretty much paint her as a caster no wouldn't it :P .True. If she does it at all, it's usually an advance setup kind of thing.
Hama once took a 20 on a mundane disguise check AND used magic for an additional +10 to make sure her disguise was absolutely perfect prior to negotiating a treaties with enemies who knew her true identity (but not the new one).
You can't take 20 on a disguise check. In fact you don't even get to roll for your own disguise checks by RAW. You can however take 10.
That being said, what's left to gain from this thread other than our undying need to argue over the internet until we feel we've proven that everyone else is wrong?
I thought that is what all the threads were about. Now if RD can just admit that I am right about everything ever, until the end of time, I can bow out.
Yes it is. That +6 applies to every attack that hits so if you have rapid shot that is 3 attacks for 18 more points. Even if you can only shoot twice it is 12 more points. Once you get manyshot it applies to both of the first two arrows. The stacking is awesome.Ask your ranger to take deadly aim for me. She could have soloed most of the fight if she wasn't doing such lousy damage.Is the feat really so great? At 9th-level a +6 to damage for a -3 to hit is nice, but not really a must-have.
Provided any of the attacks hit of course. Still having the option available should you encounter an easy to hit opponent is nice. Still, if the opponent is easy to hit, you probably don't need the feat to win.
Everyone has low AC and nobody can deal damage. Grummish was teaching Lucretia what was what with trips but she finally got a full attack on him and he went down instantly.
Do you think the encounter would have gone any differently with this guy in the party (a recent recruit to our game)? Perhaps people would have done more damage or had more attacks land with a bard backing them up.
Also, why was the barbarian tripping? Would not grappling and pinning have been the better option?
Ask your ranger to take deadly aim for me. She could have soloed most of the fight if she wasn't doing such lousy damage.Is the feat really so great? At 9th-level a +6 to damage for a -3 to hit is nice, but not really a must-have.
Assuming multishot, that's 3 arrows/round = potential +18 damage. Yeah, that's a must-have IMO.
EDIT: Curses, ninjas in the thread.
Yes it is. That +6 applies to every attack that hits so if you have rapid shot that is 3 attacks for 18 more points. Even if you can only shoot twice it is 12 more points. Once you get manyshot it applies to both of the first two arrows. The stacking is awesome.Ask your ranger to take deadly aim for me. She could have soloed most of the fight if she wasn't doing such lousy damage.Is the feat really so great? At 9th-level a +6 to damage for a -3 to hit is nice, but not really a must-have.Provided any of the attacks hit of course.
He should at least get the first hit in. Weapon focus(whatever bow he has) will up the damage. When he gets manyshot there should be another increase in damage.
Yes it is. That +6 applies to every attack that hits so if you have rapid shot that is 3 attacks for 18 more points. Even if you can only shoot twice it is 12 more points. Once you get manyshot it applies to both of the first two arrows. The stacking is awesome.Ask your ranger to take deadly aim for me. She could have soloed most of the fight if she wasn't doing such lousy damage.Is the feat really so great? At 9th-level a +6 to damage for a -3 to hit is nice, but not really a must-have.Provided any of the attacks hit of course. Still having the option available should you encounter an easy to hit opponent is nice. Still, if the opponent is easy to hit, you probably don't need the feat to win.
Everyone has low AC and nobody can deal damage. Grummish was teaching Lucretia what was what with trips but she finally got a full attack on him and he went down instantly.Do you think the encounter would have gone any differently with this guy in the party (a recent recruit to our game)? Perhaps people would have done more damage or had more attacks land with a bard backing them up.
Also, why was the barbarian tripping? Would not grappling and pinning have been the better option?
No. Not with their CMD. I tried a grapple on the tumble in and failed, so I went for trips. Trip on the first attack, provokes for a second attack on his flurry, provokes from Maynard (too bad Maynard can't hit their AC...) which he can try a stun on (and hope for a 1 since his DC is 11...) His reach weapon or spring attack didn't come up since, well, there was no cover and him and Maynard were keeping the stone giant and Lucretia from getting to Lia and Hama in the back.
I'm very convinced your group is very combat-weak. Like exceptionally. Looking at the stats, and having played the characters for a few hours, I know your GM takes it easy on you, and that's fine. It's just that your GM is really pulling punches in every sense of the word.
I wish I could pull my punches when I GM, but I think I like making the PCs sweat too much for them to ever take Skill Focus: Perception or have their entire spell list be out-of-combat utility.
EDIT: The halfling bard has the highest AC in the party. That says something.
That being said, what's left to gain from this thread other than our undying need to argue over the internet until we feel we've proven that everyone else is wrong?
I totally agree on your assessment, but now I want to know if the rest of the party knocks off old Hama or not....
No. Not with their CMD. I tried a grapple on the tumble in and failed, so I went for trips. Trip on the first attack, provokes for a second attack on his flurry, provokes from Maynard (too bad Maynard can't hit their AC...) which he can try a stun on (and hope for a 1 since his DC is 11...) His reach weapon or spring attack didn't come up since, well, there was no cover and him and Maynard were keeping the stone giant and Lucretia from getting to Lia and Hama in the back.
Don't you need to beat their CMD in order to trip? If you can't grapple due to high CMD, you can't trip either.
I'm very convinced your group is very combat-weak. Like exceptionally.
We don't really HAVE to be too strong. We usually roleplay these characters as diplomats. Getting into combat is unusual for our gang (and when it DOES happen and we lose the advantage, we simply run away).
Tell me, do yo think the encounter would have gone any differently if you had tried talking, negotiating, or something of that nature? Or is the encounter not set up to allow for such an opportunity?
The halfling bard has the highest AC in the party. That says something.
Yes. It says the halfling, being created at 9th-level, gets the benefit of the wealth by level guidelines, whereas the rest of us have been stymied by the GM's lack of treasure-giving since level 1.
Are there any volunteers willing to determine the party's effective wealth? I suspect that, that is a large contributing factor to our meakness.
Yes. It says the halfling, being created at 9th-level, gets the benefit of the wealth by level guidelines, whereas the rest of us have been stymied by the GM's lack of treasure-giving since level 1.
Are there any volunteers willing to determine the party's effective wealth? I suspect that, that is a large contributing factor to our meakness.
Well I won't do this for each of the characters but simply glancing over the character sheet for the archer Lia, she has about 20,000 gp less than what a 9th level PC should have according to the WBL table.
My inquisitor is 108k gp below the wealth by lvl table. (Curse of the Crimson Throne sucks for treasure) But i am still a killer of people. Hell i still wear non-magical breastplate. Gear is great but if your DM is stingy you need to make the feat and gear selections to be as beneficial as possible.
If RD can win this with his four PCs, I'd say they could take pretty much anything level appropriate easily.** spoiler omitted **
Like I said earlier, I ended up so bored that I ran this with a friend. The end result was a full on TPK. The only monster to drop was Lucretia, and they just used one of the party's potions on her to heal her up after the fight.
I think it ended with Lia, transformed into a zombie by Barl, coup de gracing Grummish who was unconcious due to 0 wisdom from wisdom drain.
Sweet--you rock Ice Titan. Sounds like a fun run.
I think RD doesn't have to worry too much that his group lost that one, since it has a slightly higher EL than a normal boss fight should for PCs of that level (two CR 10s, 1 chumpy stone giant who doesn't count for much, and the always-questionable-what-his-real-CR-is monster with 8 non-associated class levels).
I was more saying if they win that fight, which was the hardest fight my PCs ever won (and I'm super hard on them), that no one could say they were coddled. They lost, as I expected.
It sounds like they are a little bit weak in combat areas, but maybe not too much, and they focused more on RP this time around. I mean, we all know RD is good at designing an optimised character--so it's surely not that the players have an inability to make powerful characters, they and the GM just decided to focus more on RPing this time around. The GM might not be coddling them with bad tactics at all--maybe she's throwing encounters that are a little lower in EL at them and then using sound tactics. That report of the archer battle sounds like they could have just been very weak archers compared to the party who had reasonable (not super optimised because their Int wasn't too high and they didn't have good knowledge of the PCs, but reasonable) tactics.
I think RD doesn't have to worry too much that his group lost that one, since it has a slightly higher EL than a normal boss fight should for PCs of that level (two CR 10s, 1 chumpy stone giant who doesn't count for much, and the always-questionable-what-his-real-CR-is monster with 8 non-associated class levels).
The Erinyes alone was CR 10 to 12. That would be a fairly difficult encounter for any 9th-level party (she could just teleport to extreme range and pick everyone off with her bow starting with anyone possessing long range capabilities). Not being optimized for combat, I'm not surprised our party would lose if it came down to combat.
Still, I think we would have a great chance at making her into an ally if she doesn't try to kill us from the start.
It sounds like they are a little bit weak in combat areas, but maybe not too much, and they focused more on RP this time around. I mean, we all know RD is good at designing an optimised character--so it's surely not that the players have an inability to make powerful characters, they and the GM just decided to focus more on RPing this time around. The GM might not be coddling them with bad tactics at all--maybe she's throwing encounters that are a little lower in EL at them and then using sound tactics. That report of the archer battle sounds like they could have just been very weak archers compared to the party who had reasonable (not super optimised because their Int wasn't too high and they didn't have good knowledge of the PCs, but reasonable) tactics.
This seems like a fair description of the party and campaign.
I think RD doesn't have to worry too much that his group lost that one, since it has a slightly higher EL than a normal boss fight should for PCs of that level (two CR 10s, 1 chumpy stone giant who doesn't count for much, and the always-questionable-what-his-real-CR-is monster with 8 non-associated class levels).The Erinyes alone was CR 10 to 12. That would be a fairly difficult encounter for any 9th-level party (she could just teleport to extreme range and pick everyone off with her bow starting with anyone possessing long range capabilities). Not being optimized for combat, I'm not surprised our party would lose if it came down to combat.
Still, I think we would have a great chance at making her into an ally if she doesn't try to kill us from the start.
IceTitan ran my encounter rather than the Erinyes one, so the enemies were mainly up-close-and-personal types. Also, the most powerful NPC has tactics that require him to waste a turn casting Animate Dead on the first PC to die. Based on the general prejudices and motivations of the NPCs involved, they would be unlikely to join you. The highest CR enemy there is from a race that previously listened to honeyed words of evil-aligned human spellcasters and then were tricked and became slaves for milennia, which motivates much of their current discontent with humans and their ilk.
It sounds like they are a little bit weak in combat areas, but maybe not too much, and they focused more on RP this time around. I mean, we all know RD is good at designing an optimised character--so it's surely not that the players have an inability to make powerful characters, they and the GM just decided to focus more on RPing this time around. The GM might not be coddling them with bad tactics at all--maybe she's throwing encounters that are a little lower in EL at them and then using sound tactics. That report of the archer battle sounds like they could have just been very weak archers compared to the party who had reasonable (not super optimised because their Int wasn't too high and they didn't have good knowledge of the PCs, but reasonable) tactics.This seems like a fair description of the party and campaign.
Yeah, I think your GM knows your group, and the high-EL encounters she gives have roleplaying avenues, and the ones where you basically have to fight are probably lower EL for a standard group. That's savvy GMing.
I, for instance, know that my PCs are extremely powerful because they have two Paladins, one of which is an Archer Paladin, and they have another Archer too, so they're good at ranged or melee. Thus, they faced the encounter that TPKed your group when they were mostly level 8, with moderate resources lost going in (they had previously been in several encounters, one of which used two of the Cleric's 4th-level spells). For a normal group, I might have tried not to combine encounters like that, or at least I would have found a source of XP to get them up to level 9 first.
|
To quote the book of Firefly:
Saffron: Are you gonna kill me?
Mal: What? What kind of crappy planet is that? Kill you.
Saffron: In the maiden's home, I heard talk of men who weren't pleased with their brides...
Mal: Well, I ain't them. And don't you ever stand for that sort of thing. Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back.
So betraying or killing them before they kill you seems to be in order....
No. Not with their CMD. I tried a grapple on the tumble in and failed, so I went for trips. Trip on the first attack, provokes for a second attack on his flurry, provokes from Maynard (too bad Maynard can't hit their AC...) which he can try a stun on (and hope for a 1 since his DC is 11...) His reach weapon or spring attack didn't come up since, well, there was no cover and him and Maynard were keeping the stone giant and Lucretia from getting to Lia and Hama in the back.Don't you need to beat their CMD in order to trip? If you can't grapple due to high CMD, you can't trip either.
I'm very convinced your group is very combat-weak. Like exceptionally.We don't really HAVE to be too strong. We usually roleplay these characters as diplomats. Getting into combat is unusual for our gang (and when it DOES happen and we lose the advantage, we simply run away).
Tell me, do yo think the encounter would have gone any differently if you had tried talking, negotiating, or something of that nature? Or is the encounter not set up to allow for such an opportunity?
The halfling bard has the highest AC in the party. That says something.Yes. It says the halfling, being created at 9th-level, gets the benefit of the wealth by level guidelines, whereas the rest of us have been stymied by the GM's lack of treasure-giving since level 1.
Are there any volunteers willing to determine the party's effective wealth? I suspect that, that is a large contributing factor to our meakness.
Rd we have been talking about the combat effectiveness of the group the entire time we said the DM was holding back. If you know they are not combat ready then all you had/have to do is say they are not made to survive most people's game, but they work in your game because diplomacy is the normal method to solve things.
Sometimes you can't diplomacy yourself out of a situation because there is nothing you can offer to make it worth it to the enemy not to kill you.
Rd we have been talking about the combat effectiveness of the group the entire time we said the DM was holding back. If you know they are not combat ready then all you had/have to do is say they are not made to survive most people's game, but they work in your game because diplomacy is the normal method to solve things.
Sometimes you can't diplomacy yourself out of a situation because there is nothing you can offer to make it...
Early on, it wasn't a discussion about combat effectiveness insomuch as it was me defending my GM against accusations that she was going easy on us.
Even when it became more of a kinder discussion, I guess I remained a little defensive still.
Rd we have been talking about the combat effectiveness of the group the entire time we said the DM was holding back. If you know they are not combat ready then all you had/have to do is say they are not made to survive most people's game, but they work in your game because diplomacy is the normal method to solve things.
Sometimes you can't diplomacy yourself out of a situation because there is nothing you can offer to make it...Early on, it wasn't a discussion about combat effectiveness insomuch as it was me defending my GM against accusations that she was going easy on us.
Even when it became more of a kinder discussion, I guess I remained a little defensive still.
I think part of it, which I discovered from the 15 Point Buy thread, is that Cold Napalm sometimes comes across more accusatorily than he means to, I think (he wasn't meaning to say the GM was bad at what she does when he was talking about coddling, for instance).
I can count on my fingers the number of people who I've seen consider the other person's side and then change their mind or mollify their position on an internet forum, and to his credit, in that thread he did, even though he came on strong in some posts. That's probably just what happened here--For the record, I would also be defensive of my GM--in a thread I posted about the Council of Thieves starting hook, she was attacked a bit unfairly. I think your GM is obviously very skilled to run a sandboxy campaign like this with such an unusual dynamic, and she knows what she's doing in terms of the party setup and throws encounters accordingly (even if that means some must be weaker). That's better than a lot of GMs I've seen.
Rd we have been talking about the combat effectiveness of the group the entire time we said the DM was holding back. If you know they are not combat ready then all you had/have to do is say they are not made to survive most people's game, but they work in your game because diplomacy is the normal method to solve things.
Sometimes you can't diplomacy yourself out of a situation because there is nothing you can offer to make it...Early on, it wasn't a discussion about combat effectiveness insomuch as it was me defending my GM against accusations that she was going easy on us.
Even when it became more of a kinder discussion, I guess I remained a little defensive still.
You are right. The combat effectiveness did not come up until you posted the party's character sheets.
For the record, I would also be defensive of my GM--in a thread I posted about the Council of Thieves starting hook, she was attacked a bit unfairly. I think your GM is obviously very skilled to run a sandboxy campaign like this with such an unusual dynamic, and she knows what she's doing in terms of the party setup and throws encounters accordingly (even if that means some must be weaker). That's better than a lot of GMs I've seen.
Thank you for the kind words.
Can we be friends? :P
No. Not with their CMD. I tried a grapple on the tumble in and failed, so I went for trips. Trip on the first attack, provokes for a second attack on his flurry, provokes from Maynard (too bad Maynard can't hit their AC...) which he can try a stun on (and hope for a 1 since his DC is 11...) His reach weapon or spring attack didn't come up since, well, there was no cover and him and Maynard were keeping the stone giant and Lucretia from getting to Lia and Hama in the back.Don't you need to beat their CMD in order to trip? If you can't grapple due to high CMD, you can't trip either.
The problem with that is that is that grappling is a stop or go maneuver. Her CMD is 34 and he has a +19, meaning he needs to roll a 15 to grapple her. If he fails, he's done. If the trip fails, he keeps flurrying and can try a trip again the next roll. If he grapples her and pins her, he has to roll 15 and 15 on the dice. Yeah, it would remove her and him (effectively not helping much), or she could get tripped, provoke from him, and get hit for his d10+8 and a possible hit from Maynard for 2d6+4.
I'm very convinced your group is very combat-weak. Like exceptionally.We don't really HAVE to be too strong. We usually roleplay these characters as diplomats. Getting into combat is unusual for our gang (and when it DOES happen and we lose the advantage, we simply run away).
Tell me, do you think the encounter would have gone any differently if you had tried talking, negotiating, or something of that nature? Or is the encounter not set up to allow for such an opportunity?
They want to kill you.
One thing I would say to the DM is that it's unfair for you guys to play the campaign to 9 and be 20,000gp behind, and the halfling to jump in with full cash. Usually the party is 20,000gp _ahead_ and the halfling jumps in with full cash.
No. Not with their CMD. I tried a grapple on the tumble in and failed, so I went for trips. Trip on the first attack, provokes for a second attack on his flurry, provokes from Maynard (too bad Maynard can't hit their AC...) which he can try a stun on (and hope for a 1 since his DC is 11...) His reach weapon or spring attack didn't come up since, well, there was no cover and him and Maynard were keeping the stone giant and Lucretia from getting to Lia and Hama in the back.Don't you need to beat their CMD in order to trip? If you can't grapple due to high CMD, you can't trip either.The problem with that is that is that grappling is a stop or go maneuver. Her CMD is 34 and he has a +19, meaning he needs to roll a 15 to grapple her. If he fails, he's done. If the trip fails, he keeps flurrying and can try a trip again the next roll. If he grapples her and pins her, he has to roll 15 and 15 on the dice. Yeah, it would remove her and him (effectively not helping much), or she could get tripped, provoke from him, and get hit for his d10+8 and a possible hit from Maynard for 2d6+4.
I'm very convinced your group is very combat-weak. Like exceptionally.We don't really HAVE to be too strong. We usually roleplay these characters as diplomats. Getting into combat is unusual for our gang (and when it DOES happen and we lose the advantage, we simply run away).
Tell me, do you think the encounter would have gone any differently if you had tried talking, negotiating, or something of that nature? Or is the encounter not set up to allow for such an opportunity?
They want to kill you.
One thing I would say to the DM is that it's unfair for you guys to play the campaign to 9 and be 20,000gp behind, and the halfling to jump in with full cash. Usually the party is 20,000gp _ahead_ and the halfling jumps in with full cash.
Yeah, those enemies have some very high CMDs, and the girls' saves are good too. My PCs have been unreasonably lucky with putting Bestow Curse on Lucy, though. The clincher is the Wis Drain touch. Our melee tank Paladin with Wisdom dumped is known to be afraid of nothing in the whole AP other than that (even the ogre that critted and killed him).
The lack of loot is really unfair, but he is holding back, at least for now. If he intends for Hama to be a Lich he may have plans we dont know about though that will make up for the lack of loot later on.
PS: Did the new player get full loot value?
The lack of loot is really unfair, but she is holding back, at least for now. If she intends for Hama to be a Lich she may have plans we don't know about though that will make up for the lack of loot later on.
PS: Did the new player get full loot value?
Fixed it for you. And yes, the new player got all the starting funds due to character of his level.
|
|
Rd we have been talking about the combat effectiveness of the group the entire time we said the DM was holding back. If you know they are not combat ready then all you had/have to do is say they are not made to survive most people's game, but they work in your game because diplomacy is the normal method to solve things.
Sometimes you can't diplomacy yourself out of a situation because there is nothing you can offer to make it...Early on, it wasn't a discussion about combat effectiveness insomuch as it was me defending my GM against accusations that she was going easy on us.
Even when it became more of a kinder discussion, I guess I remained a little defensive still.
I think part of it, which I discovered from the 15 Point Buy thread, is that Cold Napalm sometimes comes across more accusatorily than he means to, I think (he wasn't meaning to say the GM was bad at what she does when he was talking about coddling, for instance).
I can count on my fingers the number of people who I've seen consider the other person's side and then change their mind or mollify their position on an internet forum, and to his credit, in that thread he did, even though he came on strong in some posts. That's probably just what happened here--For the record, I would also be defensive of my GM--in a thread I posted about the Council of Thieves starting hook, she was attacked a bit unfairly. I think your GM is obviously very skilled to run a sandboxy campaign like this with such an unusual dynamic, and she knows what she's doing in terms of the party setup and throws encounters accordingly (even if that means some must be weaker). That's better than a lot of GMs I've seen.
Umm yeah...I'm not quite sure how the GM pulling punches so the party doesn't TPK became seen as a BAD thing. That's umm kinda her job.
Course when I run APs, I pretty much run them as written so TPKs happen more often with those. We're at 4 so far in kingmaker. Running kingmaker, I think I may have coddled my players a bit TOO much. They TPKed the first encounter because they charged out and attacked everything in sight...including the horses. It was very much a facepalm moment. Course random trolls at level 1-3 tends to also result in a TPK.
And yes, the new player got all the starting funds due to character of his level.
That is really unfair. The new person who has risked nothing gets everything.
And yes, the new player got all the starting funds due to character of his level.That is really unfair. The new person who has risked nothing gets everything.
We weren't going to complain. The party needs as much of a boost as it can get.
Umm yeah...I'm not quite sure how the GM pulling punches so the party doesn't TPK became seen as a BAD thing. That's umm kinda her job.
I think it had a lot to do with word choice. Coddling, among others words that were used, have a negative connotation attached to them.
|
|
Umm yeah...I'm not quite sure how the GM pulling punches so the party doesn't TPK became seen as a BAD thing. That's umm kinda her job.I think it had a lot to do with word choice. Coddling, among others words that were used, have a negative connotation attached to them.
Umm...yeah I know...but that negative connotation is to the PC...not the DM. The DM is doing her job...the PC is so poorly made that DM has to coddle them to survive...the DM did nothing wrong...in fact she is doing a GREAT job...the characters on the other hand, yeah not so much. So yes I did have a lot of negative vocab...but none of that was directed at the DM (other then the comment about giving the lich to a PC with no LA is dumb...but then you did clarify later that she didn't say she was doing that, just that is what YOU wanted to happen)...it was directed at the PCs.
Umm...yeah I know...but that negative connotation is to the PC...not the DM. The DM is doing her job...the PC is so poorly made that DM has to coddle them to survive...the DM did nothing wrong...in fact she is doing a GREAT job...the characters on the other hand, yeah not so much. So yes I did have a lot of negative vocab...but none of that was directed at the DM (other then the comment about giving the lich to a PC with no LA is dumb...but then you did clarify later that she didn't say she was doing that, just that is what YOU wanted to happen)...it was directed at the PCs.
Umm yeah...I'm not quite sure how the GM pulling punches so the party doesn't TPK became seen as a BAD thing. That's umm kinda her job.I think it had a lot to do with word choice. Coddling, among others words that were used, have a negative connotation attached to them.
So you are saying it is inherently wrong for us to play the types of characters that we want to play? :P
Umm...yeah I know...but that negative connotation is to the PC...not the DM. The DM is doing her job...the PC is so poorly made that DM has to coddle them to survive...the DM did nothing wrong...in fact she is doing a GREAT job...the characters on the other hand, yeah not so much. So yes I did have a lot of negative vocab...but none of that was directed at the DM (other then the comment about giving the lich to a PC with no LA is dumb...but then you did clarify later that she didn't say she was doing that, just that is what YOU wanted to happen)...it was directed at the PCs.
Umm yeah...I'm not quite sure how the GM pulling punches so the party doesn't TPK became seen as a BAD thing. That's umm kinda her job.I think it had a lot to do with word choice. Coddling, among others words that were used, have a negative connotation attached to them.
We know from a variety of other threads and examples that RD can make powerful builds. I think if the GM is going to be homebrewing the game that it's fair if the players decide to all make weaker for combat characters for a change of pace and the GM throws more scenarios with other options, with combat-only encounters at a lower EL than usual. Now, if some of the players wanted to have the group optimise and be more combat effective (like if you were also a player in this game, or if one or two of the players at my table was there), this could create a big conflict, and if the GM was playing a published adventure, she'd have to do some extra work, but barring either of those, level of power is a matter of taste.
|
|
So you are saying it is inherently wrong for us to play the types of characters that we want to play? :PUmm...yeah I know...but that negative connotation is to the PC...not the DM. The DM is doing her job...the PC is so poorly made that DM has to coddle them to survive...the DM did nothing wrong...in fact she is doing a GREAT job...the characters on the other hand, yeah not so much. So yes I did have a lot of negative vocab...but none of that was directed at the DM (other then the comment about giving the lich to a PC with no LA is dumb...but then you did clarify later that she didn't say she was doing that, just that is what YOU wanted to happen)...it was directed at the PCs.
Umm yeah...I'm not quite sure how the GM pulling punches so the party doesn't TPK became seen as a BAD thing. That's umm kinda her job.I think it had a lot to do with word choice. Coddling, among others words that were used, have a negative connotation attached to them.
You can make the type of characters you wanna play without the glaring weaknesses...that is the whole point of min/maxing. The min is for minimize weakness.
You can make the type of characters you wanna play without the glaring weaknesses...that is the whole point of min/maxing. The min is for minimize weakness.
To be perfectly honest, with the exception of Hama, I doubt any of the other players are aware of the "glaring weaknesses." I certainly wasn't aware of their weaknesses until you guys pointed them out. I have no doubt that if I WERE to point them out, they would take GREAT offense (particularly if I used the words "glaring weaknesses").
I guess we just aren't in the habit of peaking in the Bestiary and making numerical comparisons for the purposes of making tough characters. That, and we are under-equipped. I imagine another 20,000gp would have done a great deal for the orc's AC.
|
|
We know from a variety of other threads and examples that RD can make powerful builds. I think if the GM is going to be homebrewing the game that it's fair if the players decide to all make weaker for combat characters for a change of pace and the GM throws more scenarios with other options, with combat-only encounters at a lower EL than usual. Now, if some of the players wanted to have the group optimise and be more combat effective (like if you were also a player in this game, or if one or two of the players at my table was there), this could create a big conflict, and if the GM was playing a published adventure, she'd have to do some extra work, but barring either of those, level of power is a matter of taste.
I'm not so sure about RD's ability to make strong characters. A lot of the powerful build examples I have seen him do tend to break rules...or bend them at least, generally involves houserules, uses high point buys, etc etc. You know how much of a stickler I can be about rules ;) .
As for a more social based game, I see nothing wrong with that either...except that hama seems to be the only one really geared for that. The other characters aren't really good at that. Which kinda explains why hama is such a central character. I honestly don't see the other characters doing much in talk it out situation. Or even a spy and infiltrate situation, two of the 4 isn't really set up for it. The cleric is really irksome in this type of game. Actually the cleric is irksome in general because he is bad as a battle cleric and he is bad in a non-combat based game. Actually with the game geared away from combat solutions, it kinda does become the hama show.
We know from a variety of other threads and examples that RD can make powerful builds. I think if the GM is going to be homebrewing the game that it's fair if the players decide to all make weaker for combat characters for a change of pace and the GM throws more scenarios with other options, with combat-only encounters at a lower EL than usual. Now, if some of the players wanted to have the group optimise and be more combat effective (like if you were also a player in this game, or if one or two of the players at my table was there), this could create a big conflict, and if the GM was playing a published adventure, she'd have to do some extra work, but barring either of those, level of power is a matter of taste.I'm not so sure about RD's ability to make strong characters. A lot of the powerful build examples I have seen him do tend to break rules...or bend them at least, generally involves houserules, uses high point buys, etc etc. You know how much of a stickler I can be about rules ;) .
As for a more social based game, I see nothing wrong with that either...except that hama seems to be the only one really geared for that. The other characters aren't really good at that. Which kinda explains why hama is such a central character. I honestly don't see the other characters doing much in talk it out situation. Or even a spy and infiltrate situation, two of the 4 isn't really set up for it. The cleric is really irksome in this type of game. Actually the cleric is irksome in general because he is bad as a battle cleric and he is bad in a non-combat based game. Actually with the game geared away from combat solutions, it kinda does become the hama show.
We aren't there, so it's hard to do more than guess, but my guess is that they do what I like to do when my group has only one person good at face skills: I let all the players RP their characters and talk out ideas and try to contribute persuasive arguments or thoughts, and then I have the face character roll the check with the others aiding. This lets all the players participate in the roleplaying, even though admittedly mechanically in-game, one character is doing most of the heavy lifting with the rolls. It tends to make everyone happy. For flavour, just before the rolls, I also try to get the aiding characters to summarise the way they are helping out, so for instance in this group, the Cleric could be promising the blessings of his dark god to those who consort with the group.
|
|
We aren't there, so it's hard to do more than guess, but my guess is that they do what I like to do when my group has only one person good at face skills: I let all the players RP their characters and talk out ideas and try to contribute persuasive arguments or thoughts, and...
We know from a variety of other threads and examples that RD can make powerful builds. I think if the GM is going to be homebrewing the game that it's fair if the players decide to all make weaker for combat characters for a change of pace and the GM throws more scenarios with other options, with combat-only encounters at a lower EL than usual. Now, if some of the players wanted to have the group optimise and be more combat effective (like if you were also a player in this game, or if one or two of the players at my table was there), this could create a big conflict, and if the GM was playing a published adventure, she'd have to do some extra work, but barring either of those, level of power is a matter of taste.I'm not so sure about RD's ability to make strong characters. A lot of the powerful build examples I have seen him do tend to break rules...or bend them at least, generally involves houserules, uses high point buys, etc etc. You know how much of a stickler I can be about rules ;) .
As for a more social based game, I see nothing wrong with that either...except that hama seems to be the only one really geared for that. The other characters aren't really good at that. Which kinda explains why hama is such a central character. I honestly don't see the other characters doing much in talk it out situation. Or even a spy and infiltrate situation, two of the 4 isn't really set up for it. The cleric is really irksome in this type of game. Actually the cleric is irksome in general because he is bad as a battle cleric and he is bad in a non-combat based game. Actually with the game geared away from combat solutions, it kinda does become the hama show.
Yes but untimately, it's hama who seals the deal. She is the one that they ally with...and her liege. Not the people who helped. When I said it's the hama show, I didn't mean the player just twiddle their thumb...but that they get no lime light other then they helped.
Maybe it was "the Hama show." Soon after I left, the campaign fell apart. To my knowledge, that group only had one or two more games after I left.
Perhaps the story couldn't survive without Hama's strong leadership to drive it forward? Who knows at this point.
Man this thread is big.