Mistah Green wrote: <snip> I did in fact mean that the '2nd party' was optimized and built 'well'.
I purposely set up the 'classic 4' in a way that is a common trope, knowing that I was screwing with optimization. However, you didn't answer the question of how you thought the 1st fight would play out... just that it was an instant lose.
I foresee a fight with that party, against that foe, working like this (because I assume that the DM plays at the same level as the players):
Party sees dragon, gets surprise round. Cleric buffs the party. Wizard blasts the dragon with a level 4 damage spell. Rogue shoots arrows, full round action. Fighter shoots arrows, full round action.
1st round, roll initiative. Dragon wins, wings in and breathes, catching two people in the line, landing in melee range. Fighter drops bow and attacks/charges and attacks. Wizard blasts. Rogue shoots into melee. Cleric buffs, debuffs, or heals, depending on the damage taken, but is up front with the fighter.
Round 2, Dragon attacks the fighter and cleric, possibly the rogue or wizard as well, spreading the attacks out. Cleric channels to heal, wizard blasts, fighter full attacks, rogue full attacks...
By this round, the DM can look at the situation, see what resources have been expended, and decide if this fight is going to end with a dead dragon, or a dead party. If the party is going to die, the dragon grabs a horse and flies off... giving the party the opportunity to prepare/track later. If the dragon is going to die, then the dragon can still flee, or stand and fight, depending on if the DM wants a dead dragon right now or not.
Either way, the fight will likely go on for a long while, unless HP for one side or the other are dropping too fast. The dragon will disengage to come back around for another fly-by breath weapon, giving the party a round or three to heal/buff before the next sweep. Everyone will be hurt pretty badly by the end of the encounter.
Conversely, via the 2nd party, I expect a wave of save or sucks, with the dragon focus-firing down one party member at a time. Individual party members will either be dead or untouched if the dragon stands up to the initial onslaught. Either way, the battle will likely be over much faster, with limited movement... just pure application of the most efficient attacks from each side in the purest concentration possible.
I do not believe the first party is playing the game 'wrong' by relying on Armor Class and Hit Points and BAB and save-for-half. I don't think the 2nd team is playing wrong either. However, to get back to the concept of fudging:
Party 2 is looking at 'End this fight now'. A DM presented with a fight that is focused on mass save-or-sucks with no defense other than 'KILL IT NOW' has very little room for fudging. The players are going all-out to insta-gib a foe, and conversely, it is going all out to take them down too. In this case, fudging is something that has significant consequences. A failed save that the DM fudges for the dragon means a PC is likely to die. If the DM fudges the other way, then the encounter is over. Blah.
However, in the 1st party's case, the encounter isn't so much 'kill a dragon' as it is 'encounter a dragon'. The encounter is based on a big scary thing coming in and ripping them apart, hurting everyone, while taking licks... it flies off, killing horses and crashing through trees to show off how awesome it is, and to make the encounter cinematic. In this case, the players and the DM are interested in *experiencing* a surprise dragon encounter. It wouldn't occur to the wizard or cleric to save-or-die the dragon, because they aren't built for it. The DM doesn't want to breathe on and full-attack the rogue or wizard until they die, then move to the next enemy, so maybe the dragon does a couple points less damage than was rolled to keep someone standing.
This is why fudging is seen in two lights. One game is basically Player-vs-DM, beat the encounter, maximize efficiency, go go go. The other is Player-and-DM, and they want to play a cool, trope-filled game where the fighter takes the breath weapon on his shield and cuts down the dragon.
Both are fine. One fo them has fudging as verboten cheating. The other may or may not fudge (depending on the DM's skill at establishing proper CR encounters for the optimization level), but has fudging as a tool, so that players and DM can experience the encounters that they want to experience.
Mistah Green wrote:
Because evokers tend to make other mistakes, which make them be actually bothered by SR.
I'm still not seeing the angle by which the example's 8th level wizard is throwing Enervation against SR 22 and isn't bothered by the SR. Give him two feats into Spell Penetration and that's still about a half and half chance to cast ineffectually.
Not that I'm arguing that any other 8th level character is better off in that situation, mind you.
Mistah Green wrote:
Core Rogues can SA with flasks, and they can get you flat footed with Grease at low levels and Blink at higher levels.
That's a nerf.
Eh, sure.
But equally displacement makes you immune to 3.5 sneak attack, but not PF sneak attack. That's a buff.
We could go back and forth like that all day. I don't see anything you listed as being so overpowering it overbalances all the things that PF rogue gained.
Mistah Green wrote:
Core Fighters have a better PA and Improved Trip.
Same kind of thing here, although in this case I agree that PF PA vs. 3.5 PA is a lot to overcome.
I find this:
Marshall Jansen wrote:
(because I assume that the DM plays at the same level as the players):
to contradict this:
Marshall Jansen wrote:
However, in the 1st party's case, the encounter isn't so much 'kill a dragon' as it is 'encounter a dragon'. The encounter is based on a big scary thing coming in and ripping them apart, hurting everyone, while taking licks... it flies off, killing horses and crashing through trees to show off how awesome it is, and to make the encounter cinematic. In this case, the players and the DM are interested in *experiencing* a surprise dragon encounter. It wouldn't occur to the wizard or cleric to save-or-die the dragon, because they aren't built for it. The DM doesn't want to breathe on and full-attack the rogue or wizard until they die, then move to the next enemy, so maybe the dragon does a couple points less damage than was rolled to keep someone standing.
Unless we're assuming the players are also going to lie about their damage to make it less and pick sub-optimal tactics because they don't really want to kill the dragon.
I mean, anything can survive anything if the Mercy Train rolls through the station hardcore. If I tried that in one of my games, my players would make mocking "choo choo" noises until I stopped.
Dire Mongoose wrote: Mistah Green wrote:
Because evokers tend to make other mistakes, which make them be actually bothered by SR.
I'm still not seeing the angle by which the example's 8th level wizard is throwing Enervation against SR 22 and isn't bothered by the SR. Give him two feats into Spell Penetration and that's still about a half and half chance to cast ineffectually.
Not that I'm arguing that any other 8th level character is better off in that situation, mind you. I think one of the issues is that there were two casters tossing enervations. Even if one gets stopped, the other is likely to get through.
Marshall Jansen wrote: I did in fact mean that the '2nd party' was optimized and built 'well'.
I purposely set up the 'classic 4' in a way that is a common trope, knowing that I was screwing with optimization. However, you didn't answer the question of how you thought the 1st fight would play out... just that it was an instant lose.
There's not a whole lot to say. The dragon outclasses them. It does more damage than they do, and healing will not keep up. It's not a question of if but when, barring DM incompetence.
Quote: I foresee a fight with that party, against that foe, working like this (because I assume that the DM plays at the same level as the players):
Party sees dragon, gets surprise round. Cleric buffs the party. Wizard blasts the dragon with a level 4 damage spell. Rogue shoots arrows, full round action. Fighter shoots arrows, full round action.
So the entire party manages to see the dragon and get a free round but the dragon (who by the way, has very keen senses) doesn't? Really? At least try and be realistic here.
Quote: Round 2, Dragon attacks the fighter and cleric, possibly the rogue or wizard as well, spreading the attacks out. Cleric channels to heal, wizard blasts, fighter full attacks, rogue full attacks... Remember what I was saying about DM incompetence? You're having to deliberately play the dragon stupid to not tear them apart. 14 Int is not stupid. 14 Int is near genius levels.
Quote: By this round, the DM can look at the situation, see what resources have been expended, and decide if this fight is going to end with a dead dragon, or a dead party. If the party is going to die, the dragon grabs a horse and flies off... giving the party the opportunity to prepare/track later. If the dragon is going to die, then the dragon can still flee, or stand and fight, depending on if the DM wants a dead dragon right now or not. The dragon wants to kill the party (what you said) but it leaves when it's winning? Now you're just being absurd. I can see the dragon trying to make a break for it if its losing. Retreat, lick its wounds and hunt the party down later. But now you're metagaming so hard to protect them the only way it could be more blatant is if the dragon started talking directly to the players. Not the characters, the players.
And whatever happened to it not having room to fly?
Quote: Conversely, via the 2nd party, I expect a wave of save or sucks, with the dragon focus-firing down one party member at a time. Individual party members will either be dead or untouched if the dragon stands up to the initial onslaught. Either way, the battle will likely be over much faster, with limited movement... just pure application of the most efficient attacks from each side in the purest concentration possible. Ok now I can buy this, with the stipulation the dragon would need multiple rounds to kill anyone, including a Wizard. Mostly because PF was nice enough to make them even less squishy than they already were.
What would likely happen is a surprise round where only the Druid and the Dragon get to act (no one else has the high Perception required to see something 300 feet away). Chances are nothing too big would come of this.
Then initiative. Dragons have poor initiative. We all have good initiative, which means four save or sucks go before it. Once it's debilitated, finish the job. It isn't a sure thing simply because it's a level + 3 dragon, but no babysitting or artificial stupidity is required.
Quote: I do not believe the first party is playing the game 'wrong' by relying on Armor Class and Hit Points and BAB and save-for-half. I don't think the 2nd team is playing wrong either. However, to get back to the concept of fudging: Hate to break it to you, but they are. Not because of some falsified one true wayism, or whatever meme is being used to dismiss my points but because those concepts don't work. You will be hit, monsters will do a lot of damage but PC melees won't without heavy optimization, and Evocation does around 25-50% of the damage it would need to do to make you care about it.
Quote: Party 2 is looking at 'End this fight now'. A DM presented with a fight that is focused on mass save-or-sucks with no defense other than 'KILL IT NOW' has very little room for fudging. The players are going all-out to insta-gib a foe, and conversely, it is going all out to take them down too. In this case, fudging is something that has significant consequences. A failed save that the DM fudges for the dragon means a PC is likely to die. If the DM fudges the other way, then the encounter is over. Blah. And the problem with this is? Now that you mention it, it sounds an awful lot like a good thing. If I am anything but 100% certain my DM isn't a cheater, spam save or lose spells and get the whole party on board. Since he has little room to cheat (you can hide behind sugarcoated words, or you can be honest and call a duck a duck) that means we won't be seeing it.
Yes, the first party can't handle a dragon without blatant cheating.
Quote: This is why fudging is seen in two lights. One game is basically Player-vs-DM, beat the encounter, maximize efficiency, go go go. The other is Player-and-DM, and they want to play a cool, trope-filled game where the fighter takes the breath weapon on his shield and cuts down the dragon. Ok, now you've gone from merely being absurd to being downright offensive. There is nothing player vs DM about beating encounters efficiently. Nothing. At. All. It's an example of great roleplaying at work, as any real person who actually intended to fight a dragon would do so with the abilities and the plans to have a good shot to pull it off. As opposed to the immersion breaking 'Hey, let's go get totally owned by a dragon!' Or forget the dragon a moment and consider any other life or death situation. Since that's what combat is.
If someone pointed a gun at you right now would you:
A: Fight!
B: Flight!
C: Dance the Macarena for the gunman!
Explain your reasoning for your decision.
If you arrived at any conclusion other than 'characters should be taking serious situations seriously' try again.
A real person, and by extension a well roleplayed character would pick A or B. You are playing it as though they would pick C.
There's plenty of player vs DM inherent in cheating. But intelligent party vs intelligent foe? Nothing wrong with that at all.
Dire Mongoose wrote:
Unless we're assuming the players are also going to lie about their damage to make it less and pick sub-optimal tactics because they don't really want to kill the dragon.
I mean, anything can survive anything if the Mercy Train rolls through the station hardcore. If I tried that in one of my games, my players would make mocking "choo choo" noises until I stopped.
This is my point. A party of people who are playing (and presumably enjoying) playing a game of 'Big Stupid Fighter', 'Healbot Cleric', 'Blaster Wizard', and 'Archery Rogue' are already riding the 'Mercy Train' hardcore through the station. The players have chosen to play fantasy tropes that are mechanically sub-par.
This allows the DM to hook his engine/caboose to the Mercy Train, and play a dragon full of tropes instead of one that focus-fires the players down.
I am merely pointing out that you can play D&D/Pathfinder this way, as well as the ultra-optimized game. The ultra-optimized game has no room for anything other than full-caster S.W.A.T. teams. This is a *fun* way to play, but it isn't the only way to play.
The S.W.A.T. players don't want fudging, EVER, because their combat is based on efficiency and optimization. If the DM fudges to make 'epic fights' by making a save vs a save-or-lose, he is cheating the players. If he fudges to save a PC, he's also cheating them, because the game is very much 'testing builds', and if a build isn't viable, it *should* die.
But the trope players aren't necessarily going to see fudging that way, because they may actually want to 'fight' a dragon, and not just see it fail a save vs Baleful Polymorph in the surprise round. They also don't necessarily want the heroic fighter to get eaten in the first round because of a string-o-crits. these players may *prefer* the DM to massage rolls so that climactic fights fall nearer the middle of the bell curve. And... that's ok. Other trope players still want the trope-style encounters, but are ok with anti-climactic fights that end in one spell or with a TPK, and are not interested in any fudge.
It's just a different way to play. I've played both. I can appreciate both. Neither is wrong. It certainly isn't 'lying and cheating' to play with a group that prefers the cinematic over the efficient.
Here's another question... specifically for Dire Mongoose/Mistah Green, but anyone can answer. In your combats, do people verbally describe *how* they do things?
For example, is combat more:
Player: I cast ennervation. 18 on the die to bypass SR, do I need to add in my bonuses? Ok, DC 23 save.
DM: He fails.
Or is it:
Player: I throw off my cloak as the acid eats into it and dive to the side. Chanting words of power, I ennervate the dragon! (Rolls die)
DM: As you pronounce the final word of the spell, the dragon looks at you contemptuously, but then howls in outrage as your spell energy strikes him!
From my experience, groups that tend to play like the first *hate* fudging, and groups that play like the 2nd are ok with it, and even expect it.
Dire Mongoose wrote: Mistah Green wrote:
Because evokers tend to make other mistakes, which make them be actually bothered by SR.
I'm still not seeing the angle by which the example's 8th level wizard is throwing Enervation against SR 22 and isn't bothered by the SR. Give him two feats into Spell Penetration and that's still about a half and half chance to cast ineffectually.
Not that I'm arguing that any other 8th level character is better off in that situation, mind you. Come to think of it, you have a point...
1d20+20 will fizzle on a 1.
But aside from that, I'm not bothered.
Now if you can tell me what spell is giving the +10, you get a cookie.
Quote: Eh, sure.
But equally displacement makes you immune to 3.5 sneak attack, but not PF sneak attack. That's a buff.
We could go back and forth like that all day. I don't see anything you listed as being so overpowering it overbalances all the things that PF rogue gained.
Concealment is not difficult to ignore. It's one of those things that makes no practical difference, just like being able to SA undead and such.
If you don't realize how badly Rogues got nerfed, you don't understand Rogues.
Rogues could barely keep up relevant damage levels if they were able to sneak attack full time (grease/blink), had many attacks (TWF/ITWF/PTWF), and took measures to drastically improve their accuracy (attacking as touch attacks, and still sneak attacking).
The moment any of those ceases to be true, they drop off the map.
PF nerfed the full time sneak attack out of the game, and also completely removed flasks as a viable option for them. That leaves them a bunch of attacks that won't hit very well and won't hurt much when they do hit. And they gain... random meaningless fluff abilities.
Yeah. That's a hard nerf.
Edit: Two more things.
1: Epic =/= long. Epic =/= epic. There's a reason why 4th edition doesn't have a monopoly on the market. If epic really did mean long, everyone would be on it like white on rice. Consequently making fights longer does not make them more epic, but can make them less so.
2: False dilemma. You assume there is some sort of conflict between optimization and roleplay, and that optimizers will not roleplay and vice versa. There is no such conflict. We all know this. So while I would pick a different description, A + B would much better describe how both of our tables (PF side game, 3.5 main game) do it. That fills your theory full of holes.
Though those who know how to roleplay but have terrible characters probably would be fine with fudging, because they would never win otherwise. And deep down, they know it.
You don't see me talking about fluff here much because this isn't my gaming group, fluff is mutable, and it's only possible to have a discussion when there is common ground... which means forums are for crunch.
Marshall Jansen wrote: This allows the DM to hook his engine/caboose to the Mercy Train, and play a dragon full of tropes instead of one that focus-fires the players down.
I am merely pointing out that you can play D&D/Pathfinder this way, as well as the ultra-optimized game.
Oh, carry on then. I agree with that completely.
Dire Mongoose wrote: Mistah Green wrote:
Second, a dragon at 3 levels higher sets the bar very high.
I would have said that CR = APL+3 is about the minimum to challenge a party of decent (mechanically) players; otherwise, I pretty much agree with your conclusions. I don't think the "balanced" team even has a prayer unless it's assumed they know this fight is coming and have unlimited time to prep for it. Even then it's touch and go.
Enervation's going to have to go through SR 22, but it still beats most other choices. Assuming the mages are elven (and an awful lot of optimized mages are), and have spell penetration--generally rated as blue by most guildes, they'll punch through at 10+, or a little more than half the time. Hitting with the ray is pretty easy. So 2 mages dumping enervation is likely to produce one ray hit. It's a pretty good opener from range.
Marshall Jansen wrote: This is why fudging is seen in two lights. One game is basically Player-vs-DM, beat the encounter, maximize efficiency, go go go. The other is Player-and-DM, and they want to play a cool, trope-filled game where the fighter takes the breath weapon on his shield and cuts down the dragon. I dont see it in just two lights. I am not against the players, but I don't just hand XP over either. Anything with a 14 int will be played as such, and anything with a 5 will be played as such, even if it means provoking attacks of opportunity. It is very much possible to help the players without having the bad guys lay down for them.
Mistah Green wrote:
Now if you can tell me what spell is giving the +10, you get a cookie.
If it's the spell I'm thinking of, it's not core PF.
I'll readily concede that the pure casters go from being merely the best characters to ridiculous if you allow the mass-o-splat in.
Mistah Green wrote:
If you don't realize how badly Rogues got nerfed, you don't understand Rogues.
And yet you still haven't, IMO, made a compelling argument for it. Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
EWHM wrote: Dire Mongoose wrote: Mistah Green wrote:
Second, a dragon at 3 levels higher sets the bar very high.
I would have said that CR = APL+3 is about the minimum to challenge a party of decent (mechanically) players; otherwise, I pretty much agree with your conclusions. I don't think the "balanced" team even has a prayer unless it's assumed they know this fight is coming and have unlimited time to prep for it. Even then it's touch and go.
Enervation's going to have to go through SR 22, but it still beats most other choices. Assuming the mages are elven (and an awful lot of optimized mages are), and have spell penetration--generally rated as blue by most guildes, they'll punch through at 10+, or a little more than half the time. Hitting with the ray is pretty easy. So 2 mages dumping enervation is likely to produce one ray hit. It's a pretty good opener from range. Elves are a poor choice for any build. The entire party is human. You are correct about the spell pen though, which is why I said 20 and not 18.
Dire Mongoose wrote: Mistah Green wrote:
Now if you can tell me what spell is giving the +10, you get a cookie.
If it's the spell I'm thinking of, it's not core PF.
I'll readily concede that the pure casters go from being merely the best characters to ridiculous if you allow the mass-o-splat in.
Mistah Green wrote:
If you don't realize how badly Rogues got nerfed, you don't understand Rogues.
And yet you still haven't, IMO, made a compelling argument for it. Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Correct, Assay is not core. This still counts as a bonus for casters since non core 3.5 spells were unaffected by PF. We could just spam save or loses at a 30-50% success rate until one sticks without debuffing saves. But the Enervations are there for tough opponents, so why not?
As for the Rogues, if you can't understand how going from barely doing enough damage to taking a huge hit both to the frequency at which you can SA and the frequency at which you can hit does not nerf you hard then we have nothing to discuss, as a basic understanding of math is a prerequisite to even the most basic of mechanical discussions and it doesn't take an optimization genius to realize that losing 75% or more of your DPS is serious business.
wraithstrike wrote: Marshall Jansen wrote: This is why fudging is seen in two lights. One game is basically Player-vs-DM, beat the encounter, maximize efficiency, go go go. The other is Player-and-DM, and they want to play a cool, trope-filled game where the fighter takes the breath weapon on his shield and cuts down the dragon. I dont see it in just two lights. I am not against the players, but I don't just hand XP over either. Anything with a 14 int will be played as such, and anything with a 5 will be played as such, even if it means provoking attacks of opportunity. It is very much possible to help the players without having the bad guys lay down for them. This.
It's how my DM runs. It's how I run when I'm DMing. It's how my 3.5 DM runs. Stand on your own two feet. The DM wants you to win, but you have to work for it. This means among other things that all but the stupidest of opponents understand how and why they should focus fire. Even some animals are smart enough to do this.
There's nothing DM vs player about having credible opposition act like it.
Mistah Green wrote:
Correct, Assay is not core. This still counts as a bonus for casters since non core 3.5 spells were unaffected by PF.
Okay, so you're playing a different game than I or most of the other posters are, one in which we agree casters are stupid overpowered. Not much more to say there.
Mistah Green wrote:
As for the Rogues, if you can't understand how going from barely doing enough damage to taking a huge hit both to the frequency at which you can SA and the frequency at which you can hit does not nerf you hard then we have nothing to discuss,
I don't agree with this premise, is the problem.
Hell, what monster worth spending a round and a scroll of grease on is stupid enough to keep standing in it?
That being said, I've also never encountered a 3.5 DM that would allow sneak attack with flasks, so maybe there too we're just playing vastly different games and there's nothing to discuss.
Dire Mongoose wrote: Mistah Green wrote:
Correct, Assay is not core. This still counts as a bonus for casters since non core 3.5 spells were unaffected by PF.
Okay, so you're playing a different game than I or most of the other posters are, one in which we agree casters are stupid overpowered. Not much more to say there. You'll notice I specified it wasn't required for victory, just what I would do. Core only casters can mock SR just fine by sticking to SR: No save or lose spells.
Mistah Green wrote:
As for the Rogues, if you can't understand how going from barely doing enough damage to taking a huge hit both to the frequency at which you can SA and the frequency at which you can hit does not nerf you hard then we have nothing to discuss,
I don't agree with this premise, is the problem.
Hell, what monster worth spending a round and a scroll of grease on is stupid enough to keep standing in it?
That being said, I've also never encountered a 3.5 DM that would allow sneak attack with flasks, so maybe there too we're just playing vastly different games and there's nothing to discuss. They might not have a choice but to stand in it. But if they move out, then fine. The low level Rogue is screwed. The higher one is still fine though.
If you're playing with a DM who ignores the rules that specifically say you can SA with flasks, you're right. And those same rules specifically say you can't in PF. Nothing ambiguous about it.
And take a step back and look at the bigger picture here.
A 3.5 Wizard could decide to be nice and throw a save or lose that also helps the party in the form of Grease. Before that gave the Rogue SA. Now it doesn't. The Wizard is still awesome, he just gets kicked in the back of the head for not being selfish.
wraithstrike wrote: I dont see it in just two lights. I am not against the players, but I don't just hand XP over either. Anything with a 14 int will be played as such, and anything with a 5 will be played as such, even if it means provoking attacks of opportunity. It is very much possible to help the players without having the bad guys lay down for them. I'm not sure what style of game you run, but here's a question for you.
Your four friends say 'Hey, we want you to DM!'
then they show you their concepts: Blaster Mage, Healbot Cleric, Big-Stupid-Sowrd-and-Board Fighter, Archer Rogue.
The fighter says "I want to slay dragons in hand to hand combat!"
The rogue says "I want to shoot arrows like Legolas! And dance through traps like the Grey Mouser!"
etc..
Do you look at them and go 'No. If you want to kill dragons, you need to be a full caster. And no one dances through traps, you just tank them with summoned monsters. We're not playing some stupid fantasy game, we're going to play real D&D, or you'll all just die to the first CR-appropriate intelligent foe at mid-level. Up to you.'
Maybe you do, if you want to run one style of game, and not the other.
But for the players and DMs who like trope-filled fantasy romps, it is silly to say 'D&D/PF don't support that style of play'. It is up to the DM to create a game where the players get to play the game they want to play, with the characters they want to play, against the monsters they want to fight...
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Real D&D. Where Rogues are relevant only if the Wizard memorized Grease. Real D&D. Not for the faint of heart.
Mistah Green wrote:
If you're playing with a DM who ignores the rules that specifically say you can SA with flasks, you're right. And those same rules specifically say you can't in PF. Nothing ambiguous about it.
It's ambiguous in the 3.5 books, if clarified as you describe in the FAQ. Not all campaigns made use of the FAQ.
That being said, let he who can't find something he thinks is brain-meltingly stupid in the FAQ cast the first stone.
Mistah Green wrote:
A 3.5 Wizard could decide to be nice and throw a save or lose that also helps the party in the form of Grease. Before that gave the Rogue SA. Now it doesn't. The Wizard is still awesome, he just gets kicked in the back of the head for not being selfish.
Or he casts blindness or sleep or glitterdust or greater invis etc. instead.
Which, actually, is pretty much how it tended to happen in our 3.5 games. Rogues were either built to flank and SA that way, or they relied on help from someone else in the party to pour out more damage as a team than either could alone (probably while also doing something else useful.)
Of course, by the time the core 3.5 rogue can realistically expect to burn scrolls of blink to SA, he probably shouldn't expect to encounter something that can be SA'd ever again. If that doesn't seem significant to you, again, we're clearly not playing the same game.
Marshall Jansen wrote: wraithstrike wrote: I dont see it in just two lights. I am not against the players, but I don't just hand XP over either. Anything with a 14 int will be played as such, and anything with a 5 will be played as such, even if it means provoking attacks of opportunity. It is very much possible to help the players without having the bad guys lay down for them. I'm not sure what style of game you run, but here's a question for you.
Your four friends say 'Hey, we want you to DM!'
then they show you their concepts: Blaster Mage, Healbot Cleric, Big-Stupid-Sowrd-and-Board Fighter, Archer Rogue.
The fighter says "I want to slay dragons in hand to hand combat!"
The rogue says "I want to shoot arrows like Legolas! And dance through traps like the Grey Mouser!"
etc..
Do you look at them and go 'No. If you want to kill dragons, you need to be a full caster. And no one dances through traps, you just tank them with summoned monsters. We're not playing some stupid fantasy game, we're going to play real D&D, or you'll all just die to the first CR-appropriate intelligent foe at mid-level. Up to you.'
Maybe you do, if you want to run one style of game, and not the other.
But for the players and DMs who like trope-filled fantasy romps, it is silly to say 'D&D/PF don't support that style of play'. It is up to the DM to create a game where the players get to play the game they want to play, with the characters they want to play, against the monsters they want to fight... Or you just run a simulationist game, where they pick MOST of their own targets and courses of action according to how much risk they're willing to accept. They don't fight 'CR-Appropriate' foes most of the time, and gain XP slower than an optimized party would. Since they have a GM that's willing to allow them to respec one feat every winter (or two if they're a fighter) or every time they take a month out to retrain after having their clocks seriously cleaned (see just about every martial arts movie ever made), they're not even doomed to 'perpetual gimpdom'. They'll manage---in fact I've had parties like that. It even keeps your games in the sweet spot longer sometimes.
Marshall Jansen wrote: The fighter says "I want to slay dragons in hand to hand combat!"
The rogue says "I want to shoot arrows like Legolas! And dance through traps like the Grey Mouser!"
(raises hand) My players did! And I looked at them and said, "If you trust me to rewrite the rules, with your input and subject to vote, then I will make these things possible. Because, playing straight 3.5e or Pathfinder, they are not."
Mistah Green wrote: Marshall Jansen wrote:
I do not believe the first party is playing the game 'wrong' by relying on Armor Class and Hit Points and BAB and save-for-half. I don't think the 2nd team is playing wrong either. However, to get back to the concept of fudging
Hate to break it to you, but they are. Not because of some falsified one true wayism, or whatever meme is being used to dismiss my points but because those concepts don't work. You will be hit, monsters will do a lot of damage but PC melees won't without heavy optimization, and Evocation does around 25-50% of the damage it would need to do to make you care about it.
I hate this. This is where Mistah Green sits there and says I'm playing the game wrong because I'm not playing it the way he wants to.
He wants to play a combat that is nothing but "the party wants the opponent dead and the opponent wants the party dead." He says that you're playing wrong if you're not playing the characters that do nothing but combat.
I want both the party and the opponent to want realistic goals beyond "I kill things, so yay." I want some of my dragons to be so arrogant that they don't always care about finishing the party off. I want to have recurring enemies that can skirmish with the PCs, prove their ability to TPK, but not actually try to TPK until later. I want combat to be an extention of the story, rather than just an obstacle on the way to a goal. I want players who are willing to sacrifice a bit of optimization in order to create a character with a fun backstory and even more fun play-style. I want players to create characters that can utilize the vast reservoir of abilities that are available to characters but don't affect combat. I want my characters to get involved in the story and have their characters' stories get involved in the overall story.
Why is my story-driven game wrong? Why must all my characters be super-optimized for combat and ignore role-play abilities? Certainly nothing in the rules say my way is wrong. In fact, the rulebooks of every edition of D&D I've ever played (and Pathfinder, and White Wolf, and M&M, etc) say there is no wrong way to play. (Emphasis mostly mine.) Combat-only is fine if you enjoy that. Dungeon-crawling only is fine, too.
My fellow players and I enjoy story-driven games with combats that are part of telling the story and stories that grow and evolve based on player actions. And, I'll be darned if Mistah Green or anyone else tells me I'm playing the game wrong.
In fact, I'm so upset about this that I will no longer be posting regarding this point and will consider any future attempts to tell me I'm playing "wrong" to be trolls just stirring up trouble.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
GodzFirefly wrote: My fellow players and I enjoy story-driven games with combats that are part of telling the story and stories that grow and evolve based on player actions. That's also my experience. And I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I enjoy reading these boards because they broaden my thinking and interpretation of the rules in my own game, but this idea that some playing style is better than another is rather foolish. It really depends on what you value in the game and what you find fun. Paizo has done a great job creating a set of rules that will allow for multiple playing styles. And from a business plan point of view--I assume Paizo would like us all to keep playing, even if some of us don't play "the right way." Have you noticed that we never get some official word telling us what's right? Maybe they'd like us all to be right.
So for all those who keep playing for whatever reason: Huzzah! And may you all be fortunate enough to find a DM and a group where you can have fun playing the game you love however you play it.
I think there is plenty of "One-True-Way"ism on both sides of the discussion.
I find it interesting that some would say, "I want a foe that doesn't have to want to kill the party." And yet some of the people that they had been aligned with in the discussion earlier were suggesting that just such an idea was *cue sinister music duh duh duuuuuuuuuuuh!* "badong metagaming".
Mistah Green wrote:
Core Rogues can SA with flasks, and they can get you flat footed with Grease at low levels and Blink at higher levels.
That's a nerf.
Core Fighters have a better PA and Improved Trip. Though they're still unplayable without multiple other sources.
Due to the whole backwards compatible thing you can bring in 3.5 books... but doing so won't help the PF Fighter any, as PA and Improved Trip are still nerfed.
Bringing in 3.5 books does make spellcasters better though, as their foundations were not nerfed. Even without doing so, spellcasters are still better off in PF as they still have > 0 save or lose spells at a given level that work while also getting extra HP for free and various other abilities.
So using PF casters instead of 3.5 casters buffs them up, but using PF non casters instead of 3.5 non casters nerfs them hard.
Again with this? There are a lot of way to negate dex in PF and rogues can sneak more monsters than before, and even if trip needs two feat for the AOO, in a well played team is more effective.
Up to huge enemies there is enlarge person. And there are a lot of stun, blind and similar effects.
At least in my experience, this makes the PCs more enjoyable as a group because if you adapt your tactics to what your party can do, you can be very effective.
Did anyone read my previous post apart from TOZ? (Thanks TOZ btw)
And now I'm proved right as all the anti-fudgers come out as being pro-optimization, or pro-'real D&D' or just impressively fixated on mechanics.
Humph.
Dazylar wrote: Did anyone read my previous post apart from TOZ? (Thanks TOZ btw)
And now I'm proved right as all the anti-fudgers come out as being pro-optimization, or pro-'real D&D' or just impressively fixated on mechanics.
Humph.
Really?
You know up until now things have been quite civil, especially given the nature of the conversation.
Sad that the bar has to be lowered now.
-James
Ok, you started with 'dragon wants to kill the party because they intruded into his swamp' and quickly backpedaled into 'no, just kidding, he wants to smack around and humiliate the party but do everything he possibly can to avoid killing them'.
But despite the fact you shift goal posts about as readily and as drastically as an average politician I am going to respond to you anyways.
Marshall Jansen wrote: I'm not sure what style of game you run, but here's a question for you.
Your four friends say 'Hey, we want you to DM!'
then they show you their concepts: Blaster Mage, Healbot Cleric, Big-Stupid-Sowrd-and-Board Fighter, Archer Rogue.
The fighter says "I want to slay dragons in hand to hand combat!"
The rogue says "I want to shoot arrows like Legolas! And dance through traps like the Grey Mouser!"
"Ok, so you want a game that will stop at level 5?"
If yes, you have a potential campaign. It will be quite one dimensional, but it can at least work. The Fighter will beat up baby dragons, the Rogue will hop around shouting pewpewpew, the Wizard will kite in the other direction shouting pewpewpew, and the Cleric will quickly develop a palm shaped imprint on his face.
If they say no, they actually expect this stuff to work at level 6 and beyond it's time to set them straight.
Dire Mongoose wrote: It's ambiguous in the 3.5 books, if clarified as you describe in the FAQ. Not all campaigns made use of the FAQ.
That being said, let he who can't find something he thinks is brain-meltingly stupid in the FAQ cast the first stone.
Who said anything about the FAQ but you?
Quote: Of course, by the time the core 3.5 rogue can realistically expect to burn scrolls of blink to SA, he probably shouldn't expect to encounter something that can be SA'd ever again. If that doesn't seem significant to you, again, we're clearly not playing the same game. Ring of Blinking. Things that bypass blanket immunities.
GodzFirefly wrote: I hate this. This is where Mistah Green sits there and says I'm playing the game wrong because I'm not playing it the way he wants to.
He wants to play a combat that is nothing but "the party wants the opponent dead and the opponent wants the party dead." He says that you're playing wrong if you're not playing the characters that do nothing but combat.
Or I could just be following the standards set by the person who made the dragon encounter. The same person you are talking to. You know, where the dragon did want the party dead, and the party wanted the dragon dead. So yes, I want to play that because that is what we were talking about. And when you go off into left field with a huge derail of the subject matter you are, indeed doing it wrong.
Quote: I want both the party and the opponent to want realistic goals beyond "I kill things, so yay." I want some of my dragons to be so arrogant that they don't always care about finishing the party off. I want to have recurring enemies that can skirmish with the PCs, prove their ability to TPK, but not actually try to TPK until later. I want combat to be an extention of the story, rather than just an obstacle on the way to a goal. I want players who are willing to sacrifice a bit of optimization in order to create a character with a fun backstory and even more fun play-style. I want players to create characters that can utilize the vast reservoir of abilities that are available to characters but don't affect combat. I want my characters to get involved in the story and have their characters' stories get involved in the overall story. Ok. Don't play D&D.
Quote: Why is my story-driven game wrong? Why must all my characters be super-optimized for combat and ignore role-play abilities? In order: Because it's off topic, and because your statements about there being a conflict between effective characters and roleplayed characters is a giant fallacy.
'No wrong way to play' is a giant copout as there is no such thing as a system that can support everything. Whenever a system tries to, it just becomes a disjointed mess.
Dazylar wrote: Did anyone read my previous post apart from TOZ? (Thanks TOZ btw)
And now I'm proved right as all the anti-fudgers come out as being pro-optimization, or pro-'real D&D' or just impressively fixated on mechanics.
Humph.
I read it. I ignored you as a troll looking for a fight. You also did more to make the fudgers look bad than anything their opponents could have said. You can hear them train whistles blowing already!
james maissen wrote: Dazylar wrote: Did anyone read my previous post apart from TOZ? (Thanks TOZ btw)
And now I'm proved right as all the anti-fudgers come out as being pro-optimization, or pro-'real D&D' or just impressively fixated on mechanics.
Humph.
Really?
You know up until now things have been quite civil, especially given the nature of the conversation.
Sad that the bar has to be lowered now.
-James I'm sorry if you thought I was being uncivil. It wasn't my intent. If I removed the word 'fixated' and instead put in 'involved' or 'knowledgeable' would that make it better? If so that would be showing my own bias on that, for which I hope you accept my apology.
I do think there is a correlation between players who want events to play out exactly as the dice state and those same players examining mechanics in detail and try to make the most out of those mechanics.
And so there's an apposite corollary about those who almost don't care about the mechanics but instead want a flowing, high involvement story who want the dice to not hinder that.
But that's just my opinion, which is why I wanted others input. I take it you don't agree by the 'Really?' comment?
Mistah Green wrote: 'No wrong way to play' is a giant copout as there is no such thing as a system that can support everything. Whenever a system tries to, it just becomes a disjointed mess.
Dazylar wrote:
Did anyone read my previous post apart from TOZ? (Thanks TOZ btw)
And now I'm proved right as all the anti-fudgers come out as being pro-optimization, or pro-'real D&D' or just impressively fixated on mechanics.
Humph.
I read it. I ignored you as a troll looking for a fight. You also did more to make the fudgers look bad than anything their opponents could have said. You can hear them train whistles blowing already!
Not a troll. Honest. And not looking for a fight either.
I'm not trying to make the fudgers look good. My own DM has stated upthread that he doesn't fudge and I'm really happy about that. I do think that there is a connection between interest (or lack thereof) in the mechanics of the ruleset and adherence (or indifference) to those mechanics. Which is what I was trying to allude to in my earlier post. I was also trying to be funny (yeah, not easy on the internet) and also recognizing that there is a vast swathe of people in between too.
Don't get the train whistle reference by the way...
Dazylar wrote:
But that's just my opinion, which is why I wanted others input. I take it you don't agree by the 'Really?' comment?
What I read in your prior post (and perhaps just read-into it) was the typical schism of 'roleplaying vs rollplaying'. If I'm wrong, then my apologies, but that's how I was reading it.
The two labels are orthogonal despite what prejudice might wish to otherwise claim.
As to those who want a flowing, high involvement story I would think that they would want the following (some goals overlapping):
1. The story not dictated by one person (whether the DM or a single player)
2. Some way to handle conflict.
3. A way to handle obstacles so that the results are not predetermined.
4. A way to be involved without being subservient to preconceptions and expectations.
5. To be surprised by how the story unfolds.
I think that 'fudging' dice and results is cheating the group out of this experience.
Perhaps the experience includes having all of their characters' lives cut short in a tragic tale, or perhaps it involves them riding into the sunset. In either way it can be a high involvement story that's memorable and enjoyable even if everyone's dreams for their own particular character are not fully (or to any degree) realized.
-James
Marshall Jansen wrote: Lots of interesting stuff This is an interesting take on it. Not sure I buy all of it, but it's interesting and has some good points. Couple of points I would make.
I wouldn't play the dragon that differently against the different types of parties. The dragon's actions should be based on it's own intelligent self-interest, not the party's preservation. If the group couldn't survive the encounter, it shouldn't happen, period. No-win situations aren't much fun.
All that said, every encounter is not a struggle to the death, which too many DMs make them. The strongest drive just about any free-willed, intelligent creature is going to have is self-preservation. If it is taking significant damage or knows it it is being targeted or likely to be targeted with spells it has difficulty resisting, it's going to get the heck out of Dodge, using it's superior movement capability to dictate when and where the fight takes place. It won't stay in a fight it can't win, or even one it's not sure it can win.
I'm also not sure where people get this idea that the dragon will be surprised, or easy to surprise or win initiative on. It's big, not stupid. If this is outdoors, the fact that it is in the air and the party is on the ground, means it is fairly likely that the dragon and party will see each other a long way off, making surprise unlikely (unless the party is under cover, or the dragon is too high to be identified as such). Again, the dragon has the better movement, so he is the one more likely to be able to dictate when and where the fight takes place. I can even see a nasty DM scenario having the dragon glide in silently from behind for a surprise strafe or picking a spot on the party's likely path to set up an ambush. Giving the dragon surprise probably kills both parties, but especially the low-HP casters. If the encounter is not outdoors, it is probably in the dragon's lair. Surprising a dragon in it's lair isn't impossible, but should be devilishly difficult, and the lair should be set up in ways to give the dragon either advance warning of intruders, an advantage in defending, or both. Look at the black dragon lair in Forge of Fury for a good example. I ran two different groups through that, and both had extreme difficulty dealing with that dragon using the water for cover and surfacing at times and places of its own choosing to breathe or attack a vulnerable looking party member. Bottom line for me is that the all-caster group will do better relatively the more advance warning and prep time they have for the encounter. The classic, balanced group is probably relatively better able to deal with surprise and/or little prep time.
One other important factor to consider is when this encounter occurs. If it is the first or only encounter of the day, the caster party has a much larger advantage. If there have already been some encounters, or it is late in an adventuring day, you can assume that a significant number of spell slots and expendables will have been exhausted. In that case the playing field between the groups is more even, and I would even say the balanced group would have an advantage, as HP, high BAB, AC and sneak attack aren't expendables. The casters rule everything crowd will of course not agree, because they never do.
Anyway, that's my analytical take. Has little to do with fudging or not fudging, but it was a fun scenario to look at.
Mistah Green wrote: Ok, you started with 'dragon wants to kill the party because they intruded into his swamp' and quickly backpedaled into 'no, just kidding, he wants to smack around and humiliate the party but do everything he possibly can to avoid killing them'.
But despite the fact you shift goal posts about as readily and as drastically as an average politician I am going to respond to you anyways.
The dragon *does* want to kill the party. In a game with people who are playing BSF, Healbot, FailRogue, and BlasterWiz, though... you can have a monster that 'wants' to kill the party do things like 'be arrogant', and 'lose a round breaking off combat to fly for three rounds before coming in with another breath weapon attack', and 'fly home in frustration/disgust/fear' after failing to finish them quickly enough, being thwarted by healing, taking more damage than expected.
If you have 5 people at a table, and one player is an ultra-optimizer, and the other 4 are not just not optimizing, but *actively and purposely picking non-optimal arrangements* then yes, one person will be astonishingly more effective. If the one optimizer is the DM, and he plays to his ability, then nearly every CR-appropriate fight will result in a TPK.
You clearly believe that the stereotypical D&D party makeup in the stereotypical roles that define them is non-tenable for the current Pathfinder ruleset.
However, there is a vast amount of anecdotal evidence that shows that people are perfectly capable of playing this style of game past level 5. And the reason is because the DM and the players are all on the same page.
You and your DM are on the same page, and play a game that is night and day different from the game I'm describing... I'm not sure why you disbelieve that Pathfinder supports these classic tropes. It clearly does. It just requires players that allow that to happen.
CR1 monsters can kill any level 20 party. CR20 monsters can let a
level 1 party live. The vast majority of players that I've gamed with over the years, in any system, have wanted to play a 'cool' character doing 'awesome' things. Good DMs enable that.
I hate to put words in your mouth, but I see your group as playing D&D the same way that I'd play a wargame, using it as a set of tactical rules with the goal of defeating the encounters. I imagine that your DM sticks very strictly to CR guidelines and encounters-per-day. This is a perfectly valid way of playing, but it is not the only way.
Out of curiosity, what game system would you suggest for BSF, FailRogue, Healbot, and BlasterWizard?
Dazylar wrote: Mistah Green wrote: 'No wrong way to play' is a giant copout as there is no such thing as a system that can support everything. Whenever a system tries to, it just becomes a disjointed mess.
Dazylar wrote:
Did anyone read my previous post apart from TOZ? (Thanks TOZ btw)
And now I'm proved right as all the anti-fudgers come out as being pro-optimization, or pro-'real D&D' or just impressively fixated on mechanics.
Humph.
I read it. I ignored you as a troll looking for a fight. You also did more to make the fudgers look bad than anything their opponents could have said. You can hear them train whistles blowing already!
Not a troll. Honest. And not looking for a fight either.
I'm not trying to make the fudgers look good. My own DM has stated upthread that he doesn't fudge and I'm really happy about that. I do think that there is a connection between interest (or lack thereof) in the mechanics of the ruleset and adherence (or indifference) to those mechanics. Which is what I was trying to allude to in my earlier post. I was also trying to be funny (yeah, not easy on the internet) and also recognizing that there is a vast swathe of people in between too.
Don't get the train whistle reference by the way... The train whistle comment is meant to indicate the presence of railroading.
Yes, people tend to want a realistic grasp of what their characters can and cannot do. That doesn't mean they always succeed, but that does mean they know what is supposed to happen. Fudging, meanwhile takes the game away from that and puts it firmly in the category of 'Does the DM want you to succeed?'
I called this Mother May I on multiple occasions, and it is. And since it is replacing actual rules, it is a very bad thing for the game no matter how you look at it.
The thing is, there is no such thing as a player who is truly indifferent to the mechanics.
There's those who know them, learn them and apply them to be effective. And then there are those who are too lazy to learn them and apply them, but they still want to be effective.
That guy who can't be bothered to learn how to make an attack roll still wants to kill goblins like everyone else, he's just too lazy to learn how.
The guy who is about as effective in combat as an average level 3 character despite being level 10 still wants to handily defeat the bad guy. He just expects you to hand it to him for free because he swung on a chandelier instead of making a mechanically sound character who could actually earn their victories.
And yes, these people do subconsciously want you to fudge for them, and fudge constantly because they cannot succeed otherwise. But much like any other enabler, you are doing them no favors by doing this. The longer they think this will work, the worse they will become about it and the more the next DM down the line will have to deal with problem players that want a free lunch.
Mistah Green wrote: Marshall Jansen wrote: I want both the party and the opponent to want realistic goals beyond "I kill things, so yay." I want some of my dragons to be so arrogant that they don't always care about finishing the party off. I want to have recurring enemies that can skirmish with the PCs, prove their ability to TPK, but not actually try to TPK until later. I want combat to be an extention of the story, rather than just an obstacle on the way to a goal. I want players who are willing to sacrifice a bit of optimization in order to create a character with a fun backstory and even more fun play-style. I want players to create characters that can utilize the vast reservoir of abilities that are available to characters but don't affect combat. I want my characters to get involved in the story and have their characters' stories get involved in the overall story. Ok. Don't play D&D. Uh ? Why ?
Err... Sorry but this is how I play D&D from the beginning... Has a player and has a DM I've always played like that...
When I play my character often has a soft point or another, sometimes an unusually high carac not related to the class just for roleplay reason (yes fighters can have high charisma...), ok I'm a bit less optimized for combat this way but I don't think I'm totally useless either...
As a DM of course my villain always have plot and goal and often this goal is not "kill them all", ok given the example you're right, if a dragon has in mind to kill the party and vice-versa then no problem; go for a deadly fight...
But as a DM a "class dragon" villain will be a very very intelligent being with long-term plot... And some of these plot can involve an encounter with the PC with no fight at all...
Mmmh don't know if I'm really clear on this...
But what I wanted to say is : You can play D&D has you wanted it to be, the sole factor is the expectation of your group, I think that if players are not satisfied with their current DM they should talk and ask him adventure more suited to them... And yes, I think it's the DM who has to adapt to the players...
And fudging is a way to adapt the adventure to your group of players has a DM... :p
Fudging is a tool in the DM haversack, one in a million, you can use it, or not, depend of your players...
GodzFirefly wrote: Mistah Green wrote: Marshall Jansen wrote:
I do not believe the first party is playing the game 'wrong' by relying on Armor Class and Hit Points and BAB and save-for-half. I don't think the 2nd team is playing wrong either. However, to get back to the concept of fudging
Hate to break it to you, but they are. Not because of some falsified one true wayism, or whatever meme is being used to dismiss my points but because those concepts don't work. You will be hit, monsters will do a lot of damage but PC melees won't without heavy optimization, and Evocation does around 25-50% of the damage it would need to do to make you care about it.
I hate this. This is where Mistah Green sits there and says I'm playing the game wrong because I'm not playing it the way he wants to.
He wants to play a combat that is nothing but "the party wants the opponent dead and the opponent wants the party dead." He says that you're playing wrong if you're not playing the characters that do nothing but combat.
I want both the party and the opponent to want realistic goals beyond "I kill things, so yay." I want some of my dragons to be so arrogant that they don't always care about finishing the party off. I want to have recurring enemies that can skirmish with the PCs, prove their ability to TPK, but not actually try to TPK until later. I want combat to be an extention of the story, rather than just an obstacle on the way to a goal. I want players who are willing to sacrifice a bit of optimization in order to create a character with a fun backstory and even more fun play-style. I want players to create characters that can utilize the vast reservoir of abilities that are available to characters but don't affect combat. I want my characters to get involved in the story and have their characters' stories get involved in the overall story.
Why is my story-driven game wrong? Why must all my characters be super-optimized for combat and ignore role-play abilities? Certainly nothing in the... You are not alone, brother.
Brian Bachman wrote: All that said, every encounter is not a struggle to the death, which too many DMs make them. The strongest drive just about any free-willed, intelligent creature is going to have is self-preservation. If it is taking significant damage or knows it it is being targeted or likely to be targeted with spells it has difficulty resisting, it's going to get the heck out of Dodge, using it's superior movement capability to dictate when and where the fight takes place. It won't stay in a fight it can't win, or even one it's not sure it can win. By the scenario he set, the dragon wants the party dead and the party wants the dragon dead. Regardless of what happens in any other encounter, it's clear what would happen in this one.
Now if the dragon started losing, but had time to react to this then yes it would retreat, lick its wounds and return later. But it would absolutely not retreat if winning.
That's why it's important to be quick and decisive. Advantage = optimized party.
Quote: I'm also not sure where people get this idea that the dragon will be surprised, or easy to surprise or win initiative on. It's big, not stupid. I'm not sure where the surprise bit is coming from either. I see the dragon and those with high Perception acting in the surprise round. For group 1, that means maybe the Rogue and no one else. For group 2 that means the Druid and no one else.
But winning initiative on it is easy for the exact reason you stated. It's big. Not a good initiative mod.
Quote: If this is outdoors, the fact that it is in the air and the party is on the ground, means it is fairly likely that the dragon and party will see each other a long way off, making surprise unlikely (unless the party is under cover, or the dragon is too high to be identified as such). By the scenario he set, the dragon is spotting the party through the trees in his swamp, some distance away from his lair. He also starts 300 feet away, so I don't think anything could really be done by either side in the surprise round.
Quote: Again, the dragon has the better movement, so he is the one more likely to be able to dictate when and where the fight takes place. I can even see a nasty DM scenario having the dragon glide in silently from behind for a surprise strafe or picking a spot on the party's likely path to set up an ambush. Giving the dragon surprise probably kills both parties, but especially the low-HP casters. I don't think either party is going to die from 12d6. Unless being an evoker and a healbot also meant taking a Con of 8.
Since when do casters have low HP? This is PF, where you get +2 HP per level for free on top of everything else you would do.
I think the lowest HP in our party at level 8 was 70.
Quote: I ran two different groups through that, and both had extreme difficulty dealing with that dragon using the water for cover and surfacing at times and places of its own choosing to breathe or attack a vulnerable looking party member. Bottom line for me is that the all-caster group will do better relatively the more advance warning and prep time they have for the encounter. The classic, balanced group is probably relatively better able to deal with surprise and/or little prep time. This is more like I would expect a black dragon to fight. Of course if it is doing that, the weak party dies. Especially if it gets surprised or has little prep time.
Yes, prep time will make the all caster team better, but if they don't get that they can still do fine.
Caster team vs whack a dragon is still likely to win, but the odds are lower than in the outside scenario.
The other team has two liabilities and two weak characters. They'd lose terribly.
Quote: One other important factor to consider is when this encounter occurs. If it is the first or only encounter of the day, the caster party has a much larger advantage. If there have already been some encounters, or it is late in an adventuring day, you can assume that a significant number of spell slots and expendables will have been exhausted. In that case the playing field between the groups is more even, and I would even say the balanced group would have an advantage, as HP, high BAB, AC and sneak attack aren't expendables. The casters rule everything crowd will of course not agree, because they never do. If it's late in the day the optimized team will have few spell slots... the unoptimized team will have even less. Remember, 4 casters use up their individual supplies of spells less than 2, because the load is split more ways and also remember that since save or loses are more efficient than direct damage or heals, you need fewer of them.
So the unoptimized party has little to nothing left when it comes to pewpewpew, or recovering their extremely finite HP. All they have left is a small amount of HP damage vs something better at fighting than them, with 182 HP. The dragon exacts a toll of 1 PC/round for daring to cross into its domain.
The optimized party will have more slots left, even if it's not their best slots. They should still probably get out of there as taking on a CR+3 dragon at anything less than full is suicide. And chances are one of the Wizards still has a DDoor to do that.
But if they had to fight they could still potentially win, it just wouldn't be good odds. Better than no chance in hell, but still bad odds.
Marshall Jansen wrote:
The dragon *does* want to kill the party. In a game with people who are playing BSF, Healbot, FailRogue, and BlasterWiz, though... you can have a monster that 'wants' to kill the party do things like 'be arrogant', and 'lose a round breaking off combat to fly for three rounds before coming in with another breath weapon attack', and 'fly home in frustration/disgust/fear' after failing to finish them quickly enough, being thwarted by healing, taking more damage than expected.
Or you could just put them up against encounters appropriate to their (relative) strength and just play the monsters how the monsters would act.
If you have a group of PCs that is as effective as an 8th level party then throw encounters at them that match that level.. regardless if the members of the party are 8th level, 12th level or 5th level.
That fits with the standard meme of 'appropriate' challenges.
You can go another route where the party could tread on larger/smaller shoes, but that takes more craft imho.
For now I would suggest that rather than have to curb your encounters you design your encounters.
-James
Dazylar wrote: And now I'm proved right as all the anti-fudgers come out as being pro-optimization, or pro-'real D&D' or just impressively fixated on mechanics. On the 1-6 spectrum of fudging I outlined earlier, I'm a "4" -- on the anti-fudging side of the median line. I am not "pro-optimization" at the expense of story.
Therefore, in one (1) example -- the very first one I thought of! -- your "proof" is already falsified.
Maybe in the future you should avoid statements like "all" and instead use "tend to." And maybe you should be a lot more careful throwing around words like "prove."
Marshall Jansen wrote: The dragon *does* want to kill the party. In a game with people who are playing BSF, Healbot, FailRogue, and BlasterWiz, though... you can have a monster that 'wants' to kill the party do things like 'be arrogant', and 'lose a round breaking off combat to fly for three rounds before coming in with another breath weapon attack', and 'fly home in frustration/disgust/fear' after failing to finish them quickly enough, being thwarted by healing, taking more damage than expected. And 'not focus fire his HP damage' and...
He wants to kill the party in the same way that gravity makes objects fall upwards. It doesn't, barring bizarre alternate dimensions.
Quote: You clearly believe that the stereotypical D&D party makeup in the stereotypical roles that define them is non-tenable for the current Pathfinder ruleset. It never has been tenable. Despite the many claims it is.
1st edition: Fighters didn't suck. They couldn't tank at all, because if an enemy wanted to just walk around and attack someone else they did. But Rogues were trapmonkeys that set off the trap 75% of the time. Everyone else was fine.
2nd edition: See 1st edition.
3rd edition: Fighters got significantly worse. They still can't make enemies fight them, but now even if they could they'd just go splat. Rogues are slightly better at traps, and passable at combat with certain specific things. Their only saving grace is that spells like Bull's Strength last 1 hour/level and can be metamagiced so they can save on stat boosting items. Clerics and Wizards went from being gods at mid and high levels to being gods at all levels.
3.5: See 3rd edition, except remember that saving grace? They don't have it anymore.
4th edition: We need MMO roles, because MMOs always had MMO roles. I forget the exact argument, but it was circular and nonsensical. Now they actually tried to make the Fighter a tank. So he can make enemies attack him. But he can only hold 1 or 2 mobs... everyone else can also tank 1 or 2 mobs, and if the Fighter tries to tank the whole encounter he'll die. What you really want is enemies not focusing fire.
Quote: However, there is a vast amount of anecdotal evidence that shows that people are perfectly capable of playing this style of game past level 5. And the reason is because the DM and the players are all on the same page. People turning 5 level games into 20 level games is the leading cause of broken games.
Quote: I hate to put words in your mouth, but I see your group as playing D&D the same way that I'd play a wargame, using it as a set of tactical rules with the goal of defeating the encounters. I imagine that your DM sticks very strictly to CR guidelines and encounters-per-day. This is a perfectly valid way of playing, but it is not the only way. Or we could be roleplaying our characters properly. You know, as men and women who have a variety of goals, but when it comes crunch time it's do or die. As such when someone tries to kill them, or expresses intent to do the same they take that seriously and react accordingly.
For all the fallacies being batted about about true roleplayers, not a single one of them has stopped to consider that gee, maybe the time at which a huge dragon is staring you down is not the time to goof off.
Quote: Out of curiosity, what game system would you suggest for BSF, FailRogue, Healbot, and BlasterWizard? Assuming everyone was ok with an explicit level cap of 5, D&D is workable but one dimensional. Aside from this you would have to make your own system, or heavily revise D&D to the point where it is no longer recognizable as such. Among other things this would require massive buffs to one handed weapons (enough to make them do more DPS than two handers), to archery, to healing spells, and to evocation. You'd also need to nerf nearly every opponent they fight past level 5 so they don't die every other encounter anyways.
james maissen wrote:
Or you could just put them up against encounters appropriate to their (relative) strength and just play the monsters how the monsters would act.
If you have a group of PCs that is as effective as an 8th level party then throw encounters at them that match that level.. regardless if the members of the party are 8th level, 12th level or 5th level.
That fits with the standard meme of 'appropriate' challenges.
You can go another route where the party could tread on larger/smaller shoes, but that takes more craft imho.
For now I would suggest that rather than have to curb your encounters you design your encounters.
-James
This is good advice, but I'd like to just clarify that I'm speaking from a position of 'hypothetical/generalization' rather than looking for help. I'm an optimizer by nature, however I very rarely play RPGs with that mindset in full force... I try to moderate my min-maxxing munchkinism to the level that prevails around the table.
When DMing, I still play the way I did back in 1st edition... which means 'completely ignore CR, Wealth By Level, etc, and just do what seems fun/cool and that will challenge the party'. I realize this makes me an anomaly these days, but it works for me.
Kirth Gersen wrote: Dazylar wrote: And now I'm proved right as all the anti-fudgers come out as being pro-optimization, or pro-'real D&D' or just impressively fixated on mechanics. On the 1-6 spectrum of fudging I outlined earlier, I'm a "4" -- on the anti-fudging side of the median line. I am not "pro-optimization" at the expense of story.
Therefore, in one (1) example -- the very first one I thought of! -- your "proof" is already falsified.
Maybe in the future you should avoid statements like "all" and instead use "tend to." And maybe you should be a lot more careful throwing around words like "prove."
Well, first off, sorry for using absolute language to describe relatives. Annoying people isn't my intent. I wasn't meaning scientific proof, but I understand that over the internet my text wasn't very good at conveying intent. Plus I get truculent when I'm ignored. My apologies. I'm generally better at non-confrontational posts than that, and I also get ignored a lot more... so this has taken me by surprise to be honest.
Second, I would put you don't in the spectrum of people in between the two extremes I spoke of earlier... in the linked post, I mean. You have a 'fudging' mechanic but it's transparent, and you do a whole bucket-load of rules changes to make characters more... efficient? Especially the martial ones. But like you said, it's not at the expense of story. So you are not at either extreme I was talking of either.
Finally, I never said optimization was against characterisation either, there's a fallacy about that I am well aware of. You didn't mention anything about this, but I think it's worth me putting that out there in case someone else thinks I do.
I hope that this makes my other posts more contextualized, but the internet may well get in the way once more. I'll see I guess.
Dazylar wrote: I hope that this makes my other posts more contextualized, but the internet may well get in the way once more. I'll see I guess. That actually made a lot of sense, and I can understand your viewpoint a lot better now. Thank you.
Mistah Green wrote: Generally pretty good and balanced response to my analysis Just a few points.
Neither the dragon nor the party can know for sure whether they are winning or losing. This isn't a video game in which everyone has visible health and mana bars over their head. My point is that, not wanting to die, the dragon will be likely to retreat whenever he thinks the issue could be in doubt, because he can, and fighting to the death when you have other options is stupid.
Curious why you assume all the casters will have high initiatives. I assume it is because they all have improved initiative, which is a great feat for casters and others who really need to get off first. Even then, that's only +4, and given that 4 different characters are rolling, laws of probability would have at least one of them rolling low. And, of course, the dragon is making just one roll, so he could be extraordinarily high or low, you just don't know.
Even with the change to a d6 from a d4 for casters (which I agree is a huge boon for casters, if not quite as big as 2nd edition to 3.0 change allowing Con scores as low as 12 to give HP bonuses), it's only +1 HP per level, on average, rather than +2 (unless you are also assuming that they are going to take the favored class bonus as a HP every level vs. a skill point, in which case you do get to +2 per level). Even with that, I'm not seeing how you are getting minimum 70 hps for the arcane classes at 8th level, unless you are either roling real well or using generous point buy or rolling methods. I'm seeing average 3.5 HP/level times 8 equals 28. If you give max hit points at 1st level make it 30-31. Add a 14 CON (good score, but doable) makes it 46-47, add the 1 hp/level for favored class and you get 54-55, at the cost of fewer skills. Add some variance for rolls and most arcane characters should fall within a range between the mid 40s and mid 60s for HP at 8th level. What am I missing? All that said, I agree the 12d6 (average 42) probably won't kill anybody, but it will take those who fail saves below half their hit points, and still be significant for even those that make them. If the dragon gets lucky on his damage roll, say something in the 50s, you may have somebody down or wobbling around with less than ten HP. At that point they are going to be seriously tempted to either heal or go defensive (invisibility, blur, displacement, mirror image, whatever) rather than cast a save or suck spell. Changes the odds. In comparison, the fighter, with an average of 16 hp more at that level, isn't quite that bad off. The thief has a good chance of taking no damage, due to evasion.
Not sure I agree that the pure caster party uses less of its spell slots than the balanced party. The caster party has nothing but spell power/expendables to use in their encounters. Each caster will probably be casting a spell every round of combat (unless they are forced into a situation where they can't cast, in which case they are probably dead). In contrast, in a balanced party, the casters can occasionally coast and let the fighter and rogue take things out, particularly in easier encounters, just contibuting what they can as secondary ranged or melee damage dealers.
Brian Bachman wrote:
Curious why you assume all the casters will have high initiatives. I assume it is because they all have improved initiative, which is a great feat for casters and others who really need to get off first. Even then, that's only +4
Initiative is pretty well crankable (especially for casters) in PF; it's one of the changes I don't think was a good idea. Diviners, for example (a specialty of wizard that tended to be my default pick even in 3.5, to be honest) gain +1 initiative per 2 levels (min +1). (To add insult to injury, they also always get to go in the surprise round no matter what.) There are also a few +2 initiative traits that can be chosen.
+10 initiative in PF on a first level wizard is very doable, and even without tossing in a stat bump item or anything else interesting that's an easy +13 at level 8 as in the example. That's not unbeatable, but it's very, very good.
Traits in general I think are a cool idea; traits that give +2 init I think are a bad idea (even if traits are supposed to be about half a feat, which they are, since you can't take improved init twice), unless they're houseruled/errata'd to not stack with improved init, and using traits in general probably should be balanced by giving all NPCs an extra feat. They'll still come out behind PCs in myriad other ways, giving them a possible edge there wouldn't be the end of the world.
Brian Bachman wrote: Just a few points.
Neither the dragon nor the party can know for sure whether they are winning or losing. This isn't a video game in which everyone has visible health and mana bars over their head. My point is that, not wanting to die, the dragon will be likely to retreat whenever he thinks the issue could be in doubt, because he can, and fighting to the death when you have other options is stupid.
Dragon looks around. He's wounded fairly badly. Everyone he's fighting doesn't look that badly hurt. It is likely to occur to him to retreat at this point. He might even do so if they're both badly hurt. But if the dragon is winning, why would he leave?
Quote: Curious why you assume all the casters will have high initiatives. I assume it is because they all have improved initiative, which is a great feat for casters and others who really need to get off first. Even then, that's only +4, and given that 4 different characters are rolling, laws of probability would have at least one of them rolling low. And, of course, the dragon is making just one roll, so he could be extraordinarily high or low, you just don't know. Because high initiative scores are a no brainer for everyone of every class. Combat is fast, being able to act first is literally the difference between life and death. However casters have more resources to boost their initiative than anyone else, and PCs have more resources to boost their initiatives than NPCs. The dragon has 0 or 4, and that's it. I suppose one caster might go second, but that's about it.
I suppose if you really wanted to get technical about it you could make the dragon use Nerveskitter and have a +9. If so it would go before about one or two casters... and the entire party, in the case of the non optimized build.
Quote: Even with the change to a d6 from a d4 for casters (which I agree is a huge boon for casters, if not quite as big as 2nd edition to 3.0 change allowing Con scores as low as 12 to give HP bonuses), it's only +1 HP per level, on average, rather than +2 (unless you are also assuming that they are going to take the favored class bonus as a HP every level vs. a skill point, in which case you do get to +2 per level). HP > skill points, given how few useful skills there are as opposed to how many become obsolete past level 5. So yes it is a given that everyone, even so called skill monkeys will opt for the HP as one more class skill does not justify -20 HP.
Quote: Even with that, I'm not seeing how you are getting minimum 70 hps for the arcane classes at 8th level, unless you are either roling real well or using generous point buy or rolling methods. I'm seeing average 3.5 HP/level times 8 equals 28. If you give max hit points at 1st level make it 30-31. Add a 14 CON (good score, but doable) makes it 46-47, add the 1 hp/level for favored class and you get 54-55, at the cost of fewer skills. Add some variance for rolls and most arcane characters should fall within a range between the mid 40s and mid 60s for HP at 8th level. What am I missing? All that said, I agree the 12d6 (average 42) probably won't kill anybody, but it will take those who fail saves below half their hit points, and still be significant for even those that make them. If the dragon gets lucky on his damage roll, say something in the 50s, you may have somebody down or wobbling around with less than ten HP. At that point they are going to be seriously tempted to either heal or go defensive (invisibility, blur, displacement, mirror image, whatever) rather than cast a save or suck spell. Changes the odds. In comparison, the fighter, with an average of 16 hp more at that level, isn't quite that bad off. The thief has a good chance of taking no damage, due to evasion. 6 + 3.5 * 7 = 30.5.
The PF PB system is very friendly to SAD characters. So you take 18 Int, and 16 Con (27 points) and then balance it out with meaningless 7s and 8s until within whatever PB your campaign uses. Since we use 25 that means 8/10/16/18/10/10. If we used less, flavor stats would be lower but we'd be just as powerful. For example 20 would be 7/10/16/18/11/8. 15 would be 7/10/16/18/8/7 or something. Meanwhile anything below 25 PB punishes non casters hard, who can't just get all their stats up to par like that. The DM would have went with a lower number but we reminded him that lower numbers punished non casters.
At level 8, we all had +2 Con items, because it's a given. The PF system is also non punitive to SAD characters as you can get your Con item and your Int item for the same as it would cost in 3.5. It does punish everyone else hard, as Str/Dex/Con has to come from the same slot, at a price hike. So not only does the melee guy need 3 stat boosters instead of 2 (technically 4, but wisdom for will saves is low priority) but he has to pay the cost of 5 (or 6)! He also loses flexibility there - he can't have +4 str and +2 con, it has to be even.
18 Con + favored class = 5 HP/level = 40.
40 + 30 = 70.
Quote: Not sure I agree that the pure caster party uses less of its spell slots than the balanced party. The caster party has nothing but spell power/expendables to use in their encounters. Each caster will probably be casting a spell every round of combat (unless they are forced into a situation where they can't cast, in which case they are probably dead). In contrast, in a balanced party, the casters can occasionally coast and let the fighter and rogue take things out, particularly in easier encounters, just contibuting what they can as secondary ranged or melee damage dealers. The evoker is having to cast every single round to do his tiny amounts of damage. The healer is having to cast every single round to do his not good enough amounts of healing. If they stopped doing this... well no one would miss the evoker, but he wouldn't be helping either. And everyone would be dying.
The all caster party can throw save or sucks until they get everything that matters then let the Druid deal with it with the Cleric as backup. They also have literally double the resources to start with. They also could heal in combat if for some reason it wasn't a waste of a turn, but that's better left for post combat. Once everything is under control, they can 'coast' as you put it just fine.
My way gives you a 5th to 10th level party who often fights things higher than their level (as in more often than by RAW) and still has plenty left after four fights. My way gives you a 3rd to 11th level party who is even more hardcore. My way gives you a party that went from level 8 to 18 before the campaign ended and who only came close to running out of spells because we fought enough encounters to gain more than one full level in a single in game day.
Your way gives you a party who has to DPS race the monsters as your only defensive measure - healing cannot keep up. But it lacks the DPS to do this effectively so every fight is a trainwreck waiting to happen - or everyone boarding said train and riding the choo choo express.
I think it's clear which party is more effective at conserving resources. It's the one who doesn't use 3-6 spells to do the job of one.
Dire Mongoose wrote: Interesting stuff Ah. The specialty class of the wizard in the caster party wasn't specified, so I guess I was thinking enchanter rather than diviner. Also, I haven't played a diviner myself (I actually rarely play wizards), or had to DM for one, so I'm not that familiar with the mechanics. Agree with you that +1 initiative per two levels is pretty hot stuff, given how important initiative is for casters.
Mistah Green wrote: More interestig stuff about how his group rolls with all casters Just two points in response. Or two points and a conclusion.
No game I've played in or DMed recently gives ready access to every magic item the character wants, when they want it. We don't play low-magic, people still get stuff, they just can't necessarily get the optimized stuff they wanted. If I were to play Magic Mart, I'd definitely ensure the dragon had usable stuff, too, rather than stuff just sitting in his hoard. I might do that anyway. I also think they drastically underpriced the stat booster items, but haven't changed it. I agree they are no-brainers if you have a choice.
Players in my game have learned not to min-max stats to the extent you seem to. It will cost them. No stat is unimportant in our games, which a few players have learned to their chagrin.
In conclusion, I think an all-caster party would have a hard time surviving the low levels in my games, unless I fudged or pulled punches terribly. If they could make it to the mid-levels they'd be very strong, and they'd be awesome at higher levels, but it would be the rare group that would make it that far. At any level, I'm pretty confident I could give them CR-appropriate encounters that would give them fits. Spells are a wonderful and versatile tool, but they have their limits, and having every member of a party dependent on spellpower for the vast majority of their power is a vulnerability that can be exploited.
Brian Bachman wrote: Mistah Green wrote: More interestig stuff about how his group rolls with all casters Just two points in response. Or two points and a conclusion.
No game I've played in or DMed recently gives ready access to every magic item the character wants, when they want it. We don't play low-magic, people still get stuff, they just can't necessarily get the optimized stuff they wanted. If I were to play Magic Mart, I'd definitely ensure the dragon had usable stuff, too, rather than stuff just sitting in his hoard. I might do that anyway. I also think they drastically underpriced the stat booster items, but haven't changed it. I agree they are no-brainers if you have a choice. Without mage marts, non casters are even more irrelevant than they already were. Casters say yeah, whatever and take a craft feat or two. It makes no difference to casters, while kicking everyone else in the back of the head. Actually they'd do that anyways, especially in PF where casters got another buff - no XP costs on crafting, just gold and time. Take 4 days off at any point, done.
As for the dragon having items, I certainly agree it should have a thing or two. But at level 11, it can't afford too much.
Stat up items are a no brainer because the game demands you have them to keep up. If anything they're overpriced (good luck gearing a non caster, even if you house rule that physical stat items are back to different gear slots). It is for this reason that magic items not only are not interesting, but cannot be... as you run out of money by the time you get to the part where you're done keeping your numbers up. Only way around that is to increase WBL substantially or lower item costs substantially. Our 3.5 group does the former, our PF group does neither.
Quote: Players in my game have learned not to min-max stats to the extent you seem to. It will cost them. No stat is unimportant in our games, which a few players have learned to their chagrin. With what? Ray of Enfeeblement? It will screw you just as bad if you have 10 Str as it would if you have 8. That's the only dumpstat there, but if there were others...
Wisdom: -1 will save. Why, whatever shall I do?
Charisma: Let the face do the talking to NPCs.
Quote: In conclusion, I think an all-caster party would have a hard time surviving the low levels in my games, unless I fudged or pulled punches terribly. If they could make it to the mid-levels they'd be very strong, and they'd be awesome at higher levels, but it would be the rare group that would make it that far. At any level, I'm pretty confident I could give them CR-appropriate encounters that would give them fits. Spells are a wonderful and versatile tool, but they have their limits, and having every member of a party dependent on spellpower for the vast majority of their power is a vulnerability that can be exploited. Color Spray/Color Spray/Command/Entangle. If we did start at level 1 that's what we'd do. We didn't because at level 1 everyone dies randomly regardless of class, making it impossible to get attached to characters. Some here have accused me of playing a character like a chess piece, but I wouldn't do that unless it was a level 1 game... and doing so would offend myself so much I'd lose interest.
And vulnerable in what way? The only thing that stands up to spells is more spells. Sure, a better caster can win. That's about it.
Honestly, either party is likely toast if they stay and slug it out with the CR11 dragon if I'm GM'ing. I'm exceedingly unlikely to allow a spell like Assay (I generally only allow core spells or spells that I've personally approved). SR is the analog of 1st/2nd edition MR, and I'm unlikely to give you any ways of dealing with it beyond what is available in core, as magi and casters in general have their difficulties with such creatures as one of their balancing factors. Yes, my dragon will focus fire on you probably starting with the squishies, and he'll quite possibly even grab one of you, fly away, eat that PC, and come back for seconds and thirds. Your best bet is to find a way to bug out or try to negotiate. That might work, but it'd be expensive.
EWHM wrote: Honestly, either party is likely toast if they stay and slug it out with the CR11 dragon if I'm GM'ing. I'm exceedingly unlikely to allow a spell like Assay (I generally only allow core spells or spells that I've personally approved). SR is the analog of 1st/2nd edition MR, and I'm unlikely to give you any ways of dealing with it beyond what is available in core, as magi and casters in general have their difficulties with such creatures as one of their balancing factors. Yes, my dragon will focus fire on you probably starting with the squishies, and he'll quite possibly even grab one of you, fly away, eat that PC, and come back for seconds and thirds. Your best bet is to find a way to bug out or try to negotiate. That might work, but it'd be expensive. Core only means we're still Cleric/Druid/Wizard/Wizard, because it's the only choice and we just use SR: No spells on it. SR has never been anything other than a joke. Older edition magic resistance is a different story.
Mistah Green wrote:
Core only means we're still Cleric/Druid/Wizard/Wizard, because it's the only choice and we just use SR: No spells on it. SR has never been anything other than a joke. Older edition magic resistance is a different story.
Eh. Being limited to core SR: No spells that are actually useful against a dragon is not a small limitation.
It's not the game ender some of the people arguing against you are claiming, but it's not a small restriction either.
|
