Campaign design to bolster than importance of lower-tier classes


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 529 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Kirth Gersen wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:
Said this, 30% failure when you are near a Balor is not that low. At all.
+1
30% (or more likely 10%) fail for 9th level spells only. If you simply dimension door out of threat range first, or caster (a different one of your gazillion spells per day at that level), the failure chance is 0%, even without the feat.

The wizard "wasting" his turn DD away is fair game then? :D

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
james maissen wrote:

As to your other post, there is no detect class ability or spell. You should not have your monsters have this non-existent ability.

If you have two humans in full plate wielding longswords, wearing holy symbols and having a spell component pouch on their belt. What class are they?

If you have an elf in a mithril chain shirt, holding a bow, again with holy symbol and spell component pouch.. what class is the elf?

Which one of the three is higher level than the other two?

-James

I roll my Knowledge: Religion check. Followed by my Knowledge: Arcana check.


james maissen wrote:
If you have two humans in full plate wielding longswords, wearing holy symbols and having a spell component pouch on their belt. What class are they?

If one holds up his symbol and chants (or even keeps his hand near it), whereas the other one's hand keeps subconsciously edging to the sword hilt, even I can deduce the first one's a cleric or paladin and the second is a fighter or paladin. And I have lousy Wisdom and only mortal-level Intelligence.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
james maissen wrote:

As to your other post, there is no detect class ability or spell. You should not have your monsters have this non-existent ability.

If you have two humans in full plate wielding longswords, wearing holy symbols and having a spell component pouch on their belt. What class are they?

If you have an elf in a mithril chain shirt, holding a bow, again with holy symbol and spell component pouch.. what class is the elf?

Which one of the three is higher level than the other two?

-James

I roll my Knowledge: Religion check. Followed by my Knowledge: Arcana check.

You find out that they all worship the same deity, and that those pouches that I told you were spell component pouches indeed are spell component pouches.

Now your answers?

-James


TriOmegaZero wrote:
james maissen wrote:

As to your other post, there is no detect class ability or spell. You should not have your monsters have this non-existent ability.

If you have two humans in full plate wielding longswords, wearing holy symbols and having a spell component pouch on their belt. What class are they?

If you have an elf in a mithril chain shirt, holding a bow, again with holy symbol and spell component pouch.. what class is the elf?

Which one of the three is higher level than the other two?

-James

I roll my Knowledge: Religion check. Followed by my Knowledge: Arcana check.

Notsureifkidding.jpg

On the miniscule chance that you aren't kidding (who am I fooling), the chances that some GM would allow knowledge checks to determine the class of a generic NPC or PC seems more than a little dubious.

Otherwise PCs would be able to detect the classes of any NPC they meet given a high enough knowledge check :|

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
vuron wrote:


On the miniscule chance that you aren't kidding (who am I fooling), the chances that some GM would allow knowledge checks to determine the class of a generic NPC or PC seems more than a little dubious.

Otherwise PCs would be able to detect the classes of any NPC they meet given a high enough knowledge check :|

I never said I was going to identify their classes or that you even could determine classes by skill check. I was going to determine what order of the faith they are part of, and what traditions they follow. This would tell me if they do or do not cast spells.

james maissen wrote:


You find out that they all worship the same deity, and that those pouches that I told you were spell component pouches indeed are spell component pouches.

Now your answers?

-James

As I did not roll high enough to determine their ecclesiastic traditions, I cannot determine which one is more likely to cast spells. And if all you give on Knowledge checks is stuff I can determine with my own eyes (same holy symbols, component pouches) I will stop putting ranks in those skills when we play.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
If one holds up his symbol and chants (or even keeps his hand near it), whereas the other one's hand keeps subconsciously edging to the sword hilt, even I can deduce the first one's a cleric or paladin and the second is a fighter or paladin. And I have lousy Wisdom and only mortal-level Intelligence.

Clearly you would be accused of metagaming for using such methods.


TriOmegaZero wrote:


I never said I was going to identify their classes or that you even could determine classes by skill check. I was going to determine what order of the faith they are part of, and what traditions they follow. This would tell me if they do or do not cast spells.

So a generic holy symbol attached worn around the neck is going to indicate whether I'm a cleric, an oracle, a paladin, or a member of the laity?

In virtually every game I've ever run generic peasants in the field are likely to have tokens of their faith (just like members of real world faiths).

I really don't think I could tell is someone wearing a cross is a priest or a layman at a glance without other significant tells.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
vuron wrote:
I really don't think I could tell is someone wearing a cross is a priest or a layman at a glance without other significant tells.

So someone having trained and studied the religions of the land (points in Know: Religion) doesn't know what those tells are?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
james maissen wrote:
If you have two humans in full plate wielding longswords, wearing holy symbols and having a spell component pouch on their belt. What class are they?
If one holds up his symbol and chants (or even keeps his hand near it), whereas the other one's hand keeps subconsciously edging to the sword hilt, even I can deduce the first one's a cleric or paladin and the second is a fighter or paladin. And I have lousy Wisdom and only mortal-level Intelligence.

So the NPC whose constantly touching a necklace of prayer beads and saying the fantasy equivalent of the rosary is always a cleric in your setting?

You don't have warrior priests that settle things using a sturdy sword in your setting?

Short of looking in the pouch, what is a visual indentifier that indicates a spell pouch is distinct from any other pouch that someone might carry on a belt? Is it beaded like a purse? Or does it have a glowing neon sign that says "Spell Component Pouch- Plz don't target".

I figure any setting where the existence of the supernatural and the divine is readily apparent just about everyone will be loaded down with all sorts of trinkets, symbols, wards, charms, etc.

Some will be magical, some will be class equipment, but plenty will be because the person just believes.

In short it's like Warhammer fantasy or 40k where every member of imperial society is likely to have some outward sign of their faith.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
vuron wrote:

So the NPC whose constantly touching a necklace of prayer beads and saying the fantasy equivalent of the rosary is always a cleric in your setting?

You don't have warrior priests that settle things using a sturdy sword in your setting?

Are you saying we can't even try to guess?

No, no you are not. And we are not saying what you are ridiculously suggesting in these statements, so please stop.

Edit: More to the point, there are ways to tell what abilities a character has, as there are ways to obscure what those abilities are. Just because you can hide them does not mean characters cannot determine them.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
vuron wrote:
I really don't think I could tell is someone wearing a cross is a priest or a layman at a glance without other significant tells.
So someone having trained and studied the religions of the land (points in Know: Religion) doesn't know what those tells are?

Those tells would be apparent given social interaction, not the initial round of a combat encounter in a dungeon.

Or can you really say that you could walk up to anyone on the street wearing a cross or star of david or <insert generic holy symbol here> and know whether they were clergy or a member of the laity?

That's before we even get into the whole issue of perception and whether you could spot detail like that across a dimly lit room in a dungeon setting.

Once the person starts casting? Sure you know that they are casters (although a rogue with a good bluff skill might be able to convince some primitive humanoids that he's got magical powers), get a successful spellcraft check? Yeah you know he's divine or arcane or whatever.

But unless the PCs are dressed in stereotypical garb I really don't see why monsters would know who has the bad will save or is likely to spam a SoL the first round. And given the apparent level of knowledge concerning who and what are the best targets for full attacks and spells I don't think any adventurer with half a brain would dress in stereotypical garb. That means at least 20% of PCs are liable to be concealing their class ins some way ;)


TriOmegaZero wrote:
vuron wrote:

So the NPC whose constantly touching a necklace of prayer beads and saying the fantasy equivalent of the rosary is always a cleric in your setting?

You don't have warrior priests that settle things using a sturdy sword in your setting?

Are you saying we can't even try to guess?

No, no you are not. And we are not saying what you are ridiculously suggesting in these statements, so please stop.

Edit: More to the point, there are ways to tell what abilities a character has, as there are ways to obscure what those abilities are. Just because you can hide them does not mean characters cannot determine them.

What I'm saying is by RAW knowledge checks don't give you insight into mechanics like a character class.

Quote:


In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster’s CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.

This means you know that with a successful Knowledge:Local check you are facing a Human and that generic Humans have no special powers or vulnerabilities. Individuals might have class abilities and what not but knowledge checks by RAW do not detect class features or abilities.

Now if you want to have it in your game that people can use other knowledge skills to determine clues about a NPC's class then fine (I personally do that as well).

I even have monsters make reasonable inferences about good targets for attacks and SLAs but I don't have them automatically know that Dave is playing a Paladin which has good saves so that's probably not a good target for a SoL effect.

If Dave's actions begin to indicate that hey this guy is a frakking Paladin I better not waste spells on him then okay but opening round? No way, that's completely unfounded.


TriOmegaZero wrote:


As I did not roll high enough to determine their ecclesiastic traditions, I cannot determine which one is more likely to cast spells. And if all you give on Knowledge checks is stuff I can determine with my own eyes (same holy symbols, component pouches) I will stop putting ranks in those skills when we play.

Nah, I just didn't want to pick a deity.

Say you find that they all worship Iomedae.

You might even get (with direct study of the holy symbol rather than casual distant observation) that all 3 holy symbols have been consecrated.

So what are you looking for in your knowledge checks? Their names?

-James


The identity of the holy symbol's deity is pretty important.
See, clerics SOMETIMES spring for heavy armor proficiency, but in my experience they rarely spring for martial weapon proficiencies. But they get a freebie in their god's favored weapon, which most of the time they use, unless its kind of a lame weapon. High level fighters and martials almost invariably go for enhanced crit weapons (falchion, scimitar, falcatta), so they're easy to distinguish from most clerics (excepting, of course the ones who have one of those weapons as god's favorite. Clerics also have pretty high visibility socially in most games, so anyone with a 'know thine enemy' mindset (think Screwtape letters here), is going to pay at least a little attention to the rising stars of the Enemy's faith.


Death Deity Cleric with Scythe.

Two Handed Archetype Fighter with Scythe (DB).


Getting back to the question of "tanking".

Tanking mechanics such as forcing aggro don't work for TT RPGs because nobody wants an NPC using a tanking mechanic to force them to do a specific action.

So either you have to make it so that PCs are exceptional and monsters don't have access to such mechanics (yon direction lies 4e) or you have to accept that aggro will be forced on the PCs.

So given that neither solution is acceptable to the vast majority of Pathfinder players you have to come up with some sort of marking system that impedes movement or impedes the to-hit bonus of the opposition (which still doesn't solve marking on caster types).

3.0 borrowed AoOs from 2.0 Combat and Tactics, but nobody has every really been that fond of the rules and they really don't function quite right.

AoOs plus the fact that full attacks are limited to a 5' step can work for discouraging melee brutes from ignoring the fighter types but we still have a whole class of objects (ranged fighters, spellcasters, SLA monsters) that are only lightly impacted by the current mechanics.

You can go to the 1e school and say casters can't move and cast (Kirth seems to do this) but most people aren't comfortable with that. You can get rid of the defensive casting action so that you cast a spell in melee range you are getting hit (DCs for Injured while casting can get pretty brutal) but that might increase the rate of failure too high for some people. You could also make it so that caster success rates are significantly lower so that melee types are actually a significant threat but some people don't like nerfing spells and if you are CoDzilla that just means mythical monster X would still be able to one-shot you :|

Honestly there really seems to be no consensus in terms of the type of action that people want to simulate. As such concrete suggestions on how to improve the Martial types are going to fail to meet any sort of consensus.


Kaiyanwang wrote:

Death Deity Cleric with Scythe.

Two Handed Archetype Fighter with Scythe (DB).

Fighter will probably also have a mighty composite longbow, cleric most likely won't.

Some of my players have been known to wear fancy holy symbols and spell component pouches just to confuse their opposition, which I allow to work sometimes, commensurate with just how much uncertainty it creates given the knowledge and training levels of the opposition. INT 10 minions will frequently have orders like; Shoot anyone with a spell component pouch, or anyone who starts chanting and waving in a language you don't understand. Such minions aren't that difficult to spoof.


vuron wrote:
But unless the PCs are dressed in stereotypical garb I really don't see why monsters would know who has the bad will save or is likely to spam a SoL the first round.

That's because -- and I believe I can say this without insulting anyone here -- our IQs aren't 240, nor are we able to see a tick on a blade of grass a hundred yards away, or smell the contents of the guy's pouch or the lingering scent of incense on his right hand from swinging the aspergillum during last week's mass. But that's what a Balor can do, according to the stats listed for it.

Like I said, if you want the balor to be held to human-level capabilities, change his stats to reflect it and drop the CR to match. Otherwise, you're artificially limiting his in-game capabilities in many areas to match your real-life ones. Playing monsters with high physical abilities is easy. Playing villains with mental capacities and skills that transcend human understanding is exceptionally difficult -- I find it the hardest part of the game. But then again, I don't just default dump everyone's intelligence to match mine.

And once the PC wizard or cleric throws a spell in the first round, the cat's out of the bag anyway.


EWHM wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:

Death Deity Cleric with Scythe.

Two Handed Archetype Fighter with Scythe (DB).

Fighter will probably also have a mighty composite longbow, cleric most likely won't.

Some of my players have been known to wear fancy holy symbols and spell component pouches just to confuse their opposition, which I allow to work sometimes, commensurate with just how much uncertainty it creates given the knowledge and training levels of the opposition. INT 10 minions will frequently have orders like; Shoot anyone with a spell component pouch, or anyone who starts chanting and waving in a language you don't understand. Such minions aren't that difficult to spoof.

Yeah, any sorceror worth his salt is going carry around a dummy spellbook.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kamelguru wrote:

Cheap potion. I draw potion (move), I drink (standard), get my reach-poker out with quick draw (free). If something looks really dangerous I smite it with my swift.

Dude, you should know by now that if you spend your whole round not doing something to the enemy, it counts as too slow.

Fixed. And remember, the spell is normally a 1 round action. So have fun not even benefiting until just before your turn on round 2.

james maissen wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
30% (or more likely 10%) fail for 9th level spells only. If you simply dimension door out of threat range first, or caster (a different one of your gazillion spells per day at that level), the failure chance is 0%, even without the feat.

If you ddoor then your turn is over, which is hardly a good solution even when it works.

As to your other post, there is no detect class ability or spell. You should not have your monsters have this non-existent ability.

If you have two humans in full plate wielding longswords, wearing holy symbols and having a spell component pouch on their belt. What class are they?

Most likely Paladins. Certainly not Clerics. Even if they are actually say... Fighters, that still has the same result - ignore.

Quote:
If you have an elf in a mithril chain shirt, holding a bow, again with holy symbol and spell component pouch.. what class is the elf?

Dead.

Now you might kind of get somewhere if you compare say... a Wizard and a Monk. Both have no armor after all. But then you remember the Monk is maximizing Strength, because he is a melee character and the Wizard could care less about Strength, so it's still easy to tell who you should gun for and who you should disregard.


EWHM wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:

Death Deity Cleric with Scythe.

Two Handed Archetype Fighter with Scythe (DB).

Fighter will probably also have a mighty composite longbow, cleric most likely won't.

Some of my players have been known to wear fancy holy symbols and spell component pouches just to confuse their opposition, which I allow to work sometimes, commensurate with just how much uncertainty it creates given the knowledge and training levels of the opposition. INT 10 minions will frequently have orders like; Shoot anyone with a spell component pouch, or anyone who starts chanting and waving in a language you don't understand. Such minions aren't that difficult to spoof.

I just imagine the Balor point the fighter or the cleric:

"you"

PC: (surprised) "are you talking to me?"

Balor: "yeah. dude, turn for a second wanna check if that is a composite bow"

PC: "sure"

What you say can happen, but in the heat of combat I don't see it happening all the times.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
vuron wrote:
But unless the PCs are dressed in stereotypical garb I really don't see why monsters would know who has the bad will save or is likely to spam a SoL the first round.

That's because -- and I believe I can say this without insulting anyone here -- our IQs aren't 240, nor are we able to see a tick on a blade of grass a hundred yards away, or smell the contents of the guy's pouch or the lingering scent of incense on his right hand from swinging the aspergillum during last week's mass. But that's what a Balor can do, according to the stats listed for it.

Like I said, if you want the balor to be held to human-level capabilities, change his stats to reflect it and drop the CR to match. Otherwise, you're artificially limiting his in-game capabilities in many areas to match your real-life ones. Playing monsters with high physical abilities is easy. Playing villains with mental capacities and skills that transcend human understanding is exceptionally difficult -- I find it the hardest part of the game. But then again, I don't just default dump everyone's intelligence to match mine.

And once the PC wizard or cleric throws a spell in the first round, the cat's out of the bag anyway.

The old Int score x 10 = IQ hasn't been relevant in ages Kirth. Yes people still use them but it was built back on a completely different system (and it's completely pants on head stupid anyway).

Apparently the Balor has gone from Highly intelligent (IQ 130-140) to Godlike+ (210+) over the decades ;) Simply put the scores have inflated to the point where the old formula makes no sense (if it ever did).

If you absolute must apply a biased diagnostic tool like IQ to a fantasy setting come up with a new scale because scores of 145+ represent "genius" (in comparison to the AD&D Int of 17+). Of course that requires coming up with some median value and standard deviations and other completely pointless justifications.

If you want to say that Balors are incredibly intelligent and scary then fine but in a setting where a wizard can reasonably expect to hit Int 24 by 8th level I don't think that Int 24 means godlike intelligence anymore.


Kaiyanwang wrote:
EWHM wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:

Death Deity Cleric with Scythe.

Two Handed Archetype Fighter with Scythe (DB).

Fighter will probably also have a mighty composite longbow, cleric most likely won't.

Some of my players have been known to wear fancy holy symbols and spell component pouches just to confuse their opposition, which I allow to work sometimes, commensurate with just how much uncertainty it creates given the knowledge and training levels of the opposition. INT 10 minions will frequently have orders like; Shoot anyone with a spell component pouch, or anyone who starts chanting and waving in a language you don't understand. Such minions aren't that difficult to spoof.

I just imagine the Balor point the fighter or the cleric:

"you"

PC: (surprised) "are you talking to me?"

Balor: "yeah. dude, turn for a second wanna check if that is a composite bow"

PC: "sure"

What you say can happen, but in the heat of combat I don't see it happening all the times.

Fighter is probably carrying the bow across his back, unless it's drawn or he's had time to set it down. It's an awfully large item, something a Balor wouldn't have much trouble instantly (i.e. no action) noticing. Your case is probably among the most difficult to distinguish and most high INT foes would make the right call most of the time anyway.

By way of example, some years back I played Dark Age of Camelot (a MMORG with an emphasis on mass combat). Picking out the healing class was actually an important skill, because they could actually outheal the damage of your 'assist train' in many cases. They used weapons that fighters could also use, small or medium shields, and normally the 1st rate armor of their realm. So it was a challenge much like what you're talking about here. Particularly famous healers got recognized by their 'skins' in many cases, and tank types would occasionally pack small shields just to look more like a healer (and thus a priority target). This sort of trickery generally only worked on 2nd rate opponents---of which there were fortunately many.


CoDzilla wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kamelguru wrote:

Cheap potion. I draw potion (move), I drink (standard), get my reach-poker out with quick draw (free). If something looks really dangerous I smite it with my swift.

Dude, you should know by now that if you spend your whole round not doing something to the enemy, it counts as too slow.
Fixed. And remember, the spell is normally a 1 round action. So have fun not even benefiting until just before your turn on round 2.

We play core. So what is better? Spending one round in preparations to do more damage through the rest of the fight, or smack something once for sub-optimal damage? Of course, I know enough to adapt. If I see an evil cleric or something, I quick-draw my bow and shoot him three times with smite instead, as a living cleric is more of a threat than any given number of mooks. Enemy casters always enter play fully buffed, so the wizard is out of the question until he is hit with glitterdust.

But for most fighting encounters (non-casters) I prefer to get big, obstruct (as we very rarely, if ever, fight in an open field without obstructions) and let the casters do their shtick. My level of monk helps me with this too. "Gotten inside my ranseur reach? I can still kick the ever-loving crap out of you at 5-10'"

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I would go with a gauntlet instead of a monk level for that.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
vuron wrote:
But unless the PCs are dressed in stereotypical garb I really don't see why monsters would know who has the bad will save or is likely to spam a SoL the first round.

That's because -- and I believe I can say this without insulting anyone here -- our IQs aren't 240, nor are we able to see a tick on a blade of grass a hundred yards away, or smell the contents of the guy's pouch or the lingering scent of incense on his right hand from swinging the aspergillum during last week's mass. But that's what a Balor can do, according to the stats listed for it.

Like I said, if you want the balor to be held to human-level capabilities, change his stats to reflect it and drop the CR to match. Otherwise, you're artificially limiting his in-game capabilities in many areas to match your real-life ones. Playing monsters with high physical abilities is easy. Playing villains with mental capacities and skills that transcend human understanding is exceptionally difficult -- I find it the hardest part of the game. But then again, I don't just default dump everyone's intelligence to match mine.

And once the PC wizard or cleric throws a spell in the first round, the cat's out of the bag anyway.

Diving into this discussion to try and split the difference.

I think it is quite reasonable to assume that any adversary of above average intelligence is going to figure out who the biggest threats to it are within a couple of rounds, based on actions taken and the results thereof. Of course that Balor might reasonably think the paladin with the smite is the thing that needs to go away now, rather than the wizrd, to use the same example (which is pretty extreme since Balors aren't likely to be encountered until very high levels, where only a minority of campaigns ever go). The point is that greatest threat is a very subjective term (not to you CoDzilla, I know) and the answer will not always be the same for every critter encountered.

Moreover, I have to say that guessing what character has what capabilities within the first six seconds of a fight should be, while not impossible, impressively difficult. Unless they belong to some order/class that insists upon very distinctive markings or wears them voluntarily (as a dwarven cleric of mine once did - but he wanted to draw attacks), it should be something intelligent opponents can and probably should attempt, but not with any real confidence that they will be successful, and knowing that there will be a false positive pretty often (Oops, that monk with the wand stuffed in his belt and all those pouches sure looked like a wizard). In short, treat the monsters as if they are doing exactly what the PCs are doing after you describe their mob of opponents as accurately as you can. They are guessing. More intelligent monsters are better at guessing, but until they have more evidence in the form of actions taken, they are still guessing. You can't assume success, even for supergeniuses, because this is really hard and complex and it is easy to guess wrong.

Finally, rushing past the fighter and rogue to close on the squishies can, in many cases, be appallingly bad tactics if survival (as opposed to just inflicting the most damage possible on the party) is at all important to the adversary. They are likely to end up at the very least surrounded, and possibly subject to multiple full attacks/sneak attacks, and with retreat cut off, or at least made considerably more difficult. Call me crazy, but I generally play opponents as if their primary motive is survival, with killing the party somewhere down the list. Now, if they've got minions to protect their back, secure their escape route and distract the other characters, then yeah, definitely that dash to the caster makes sense, even if you have to absorb an AoO or two to get there.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I would go with a gauntlet instead of a monk level for that.

Indeed Spiked Gauntlet or Spiked Armor is a good method of doing that.

Monk dip does help with saves though so maybe monk unarmed damage is just a side benefit?

That being said I created a houserule that allows for strikes with the haft so that you can actually be a halberdier and smack people with the butt of the weapon.

Pikes of course shouldn't be able to do this but honestly awl pikes aren't really well simulated currently anyway (and aren't a good weapon for a solo fighter).


CoDzilla wrote:


Most likely Paladins. Certainly not Clerics. Even if they are actually say... Fighters, that still has the same result - ignore.

Could be a cleric, but its reasonable to believe that they are not.

Now if you as the DM know that they are a cleric and elect to use that metagame knowledge then shame on you.

Claims that 'well they are ungodly smart' just don't cut it. If my wizard has a 30INT do I get to ask the DM to see the module for a little bit? No? (Heck a 'yes' would be worse here..)

-James


ohh ohh, i like this game. you're a tenth level party exploring the DUNGEON when you come into a room with 4 dwarves dining on roasted baby ninja (it's a well known fact that eating baby ninja has the same effect as a goodberry spell). the dwarves are all carrying quarter staves, heavy crossbows, and dressed in all black leather made from the hides of my little ponies and care bears. also, they are clean shaven, the only clue you have telling you they might be evil.

what class is each of the four dwarves?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I would go with a gauntlet instead of a monk level for that.

So would I, but the thing is, the GM tends to aim for the MOST powerful party member when setting the bar, and when I am in a party with a Rogue/Wizard/AT, a cleric with con10 and a magus... I need to scale it back a little, or they will all die when he guns for me.

There are also in-game reasons for my choice. My character is a Tian Min noble, and a student of Irori, who has a big hard-on for monks. Also, monk1 gives me +2 to all saves, a feat (paladins are starved), and the ability to flurry with the bow, meaning I circumvent the need for Point Blank and Rapid Shot in order to be a viable switch-hitter.

Suffice to say, if I wanted to optimize, my character would be much much different.


Brian Bachman wrote:
Moreover, I have to say that guessing what character has what capabilities within the first six seconds of a fight should be, while not impossible, impressively difficult.

Difficult for you, maybe, but not hard at all for everyone -- very experienced cops/secret service agents can often tell if a person has a concealed weapon as soon as they lay eyes on him, based on how he moves/holds himself. Even I can usually tell by observing someone do something as mundane as eating dinner whether they've had a lot of martial arts experience. There are ALWAYS telltale signs, if you know what to look for.

Low-level characters and dumb monsters should not know what to look for. Super-genius monsters with base attack and Perception bonuses through the roof would not only look for these things, but would spot them near-instantaneously.

We can split hairs over how many poitns of IQ a 24 intelligence is, but that's focusing on the least important thing and ignoring the elephant in the room. Monsters with superhuman intelligence, perception, and fighting ability should be played to reflect those abilities, not artificially lowered to the DM's own real-life ones. Just because the DM can't imagine how to deduce a character's abilities doesn't mean that a balor can't, or shouldn't. Google the Dunning-Kruger Effect if you want to know why a non-spellcasting, non-combat veteran, non-genius DM almost always underestimates what monsters with high ranks in those things can really deduce.


james maissen wrote:

Claims that 'well they are ungodly smart' just don't cut it. If my wizard has a 30INT do I get to ask the DM to see the module for a little bit? No? (Heck a 'yes' would be worse here..)

If your 30 Int wizard hasn't already scried or legend lored the entire dungeon, he's not using his potential.

And unlike a fairly focused wizard, many high-level villains are not just "ungody smart," but "ungodly smart, perceptive, well-trained, and highly-experienced in exactly this sort of stuff," just to scratch the surface.

When a player has a character with an intelligence that high, yes, I do provide hints that could be deduced, but that the player hasn't. Just as I allow a socially-maladroit player with a high-Cha diplomat PC to roll Diplomacy checks. And I let a weak, scrawny player's super-strong PC carry his full weight alotment and to have giant muscles. Because it's a role-playing game: it's all about the characters being able to do things we can't.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
If your 30 Int wizard hasn't already scried or legend lored the entire dungeon...

Interesting. How does one scry a dungeon?

* I don't intend this as a volley in whatever ongoing conversation there was. Just intrigued by the statement, cuz I'm running a high level wiz NPC at this moment.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
Interesting. How does one scry a dungeon?

1. Once inside, prying eyes, et al. are nice; so is clairvoyance.

2. For a broader view, I consider legend lore, vision, contact other plane, etc. as more or less mandatory as soon as I can get them.

When I play a wizard, intelligence is my #1 priority. That's what enables me to figure out what spells to have ready. Divination is sadly underrated as a wizard's most important school.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Interesting. How does one scry a dungeon?

1. Once inside, prying eyes, et al. are nice; so is clairvoyance.

2. For a broader view, I consider legend lore, vision, contact other plane, etc. as more or less mandatory as soon as I can get them.

When I play a wizard, intelligence is my #1 priority. That's what enables me to figure out what spells to have ready. Divination is sadly underrated as a wizard's most important school.

Prying can be countered by, well, it being dark. And if it isn't dark they only have 1 hit point each. Clairvoyance is equally weak against dark, and add in having to be in long range with 10 minutes to cast.

Legend Lore takes weeks of doing nothing but casting to get fairly vague information, Vision does it quicker but with it more likely vague and you fatigued.

Contact other plane is high risk, low reward.

Nothing wrong with most of these spells, but they are more situation useful then in your regular rotation I would think. Particularly considering the level you acquire them at.


I'm trying to actively abuse divination spells with my BBEG, and I've been frankly quite surprised by how balanced they actually are.

Scry-n-die is really only even possible at the highest levels (I'd say 17+), or if you have a really permissive GM. I was shocked to find how tough it was to pull off just by reading the text of the spells! The saves, the inaccuracy of teleport, the availability of private sanctum and nondetection...

Which is not to invalidate your suggestion Kirth, but it foes give the PCs a few opportunities to learn just how smart the enemy is, mainly through noticing scry sensors and the like. Once they realize this guy knows their likeness and they don't know him from Aroden, things get fun real quick.

Liberty's Edge

Evil Lincoln wrote:

I'm trying to actively abuse divination spells with my BBEG, and I've been frankly quite surprised by how balanced they actually are.

Scry-n-die is really only even possible at the highest levels (I'd say 17+), or if you have a really permissive GM. I was shocked to find how tough it was to pull off just by reading the text of the spells! The saves, the inaccuracy of teleport, the availability of private sanctum and nondetection...

Which is not to invalidate your suggestion Kirth, but it foes give the PCs a few opportunities to learn just how smart the enemy is, mainly through noticing scry sensors and the like. Once they realize this guy knows their likeness and they don't know him from Aroden, things get fun real quick.

+1

DM's can get overwhelmed and no one knows all the rules for all spells, particularly with so many changes from 3.5. It's easy for a player to get one over (often accidentally) on the DM.

Often there are many more limitations in spells than you pick up on first read.


ciretose wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:

I'm trying to actively abuse divination spells with my BBEG, and I've been frankly quite surprised by how balanced they actually are.

Scry-n-die is really only even possible at the highest levels (I'd say 17+), or if you have a really permissive GM. I was shocked to find how tough it was to pull off just by reading the text of the spells! The saves, the inaccuracy of teleport, the availability of private sanctum and nondetection...

Which is not to invalidate your suggestion Kirth, but it foes give the PCs a few opportunities to learn just how smart the enemy is, mainly through noticing scry sensors and the like. Once they realize this guy knows their likeness and they don't know him from Aroden, things get fun real quick.

+1

DM's can get overwhelmed and no one knows all the rules for all spells, particularly with so many changes from 3.5. It's easy for a player to get one over (often accidentally) on the DM.

Often there are many more limitations in spells than you pick up on first read.

Aye, like the best counter to the level 8 discern location is completely mundane. It's called getting on a boat and sailing out to sea.

BBEG: Discern Location
Discern Location: Sir, they're on a boat
BBEG: Where on a boat?
Discern Location: In the middle of the endless seas
BBEG: (facepalm) ugh. What part?
Discern Location: Sorry can't tell you.
BBEG: F these divination spells. I didn't blow a level 8 spell to have a 1000 mile margin of error.

Liberty's Edge

erik542 wrote:


Aye, like the best counter to the level 8 discern location is completely mundane. It's called getting on a boat and sailing out to sea.
BBEG: Discern Location
Discern Location: Sir, they're on a boat
BBEG: Where on a boat?
Discern Location: In the middle of the endless seas
BBEG: (facepalm) ugh. What part?
Discern Location: Sorry can't tell you.
BBEG: F these divination spells. I didn't blow a level 8 spell to have a 1000 mile margin of error.

Obligatory


Kamelguru wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kamelguru wrote:

Cheap potion. I draw potion (move), I drink (standard), get my reach-poker out with quick draw (free). If something looks really dangerous I smite it with my swift.

Dude, you should know by now that if you spend your whole round not doing something to the enemy, it counts as too slow.
Fixed. And remember, the spell is normally a 1 round action. So have fun not even benefiting until just before your turn on round 2.

We play core. So what is better? Spending one round in preparations to do more damage through the rest of the fight, or smack something once for sub-optimal damage? Of course, I know enough to adapt. If I see an evil cleric or something, I quick-draw my bow and shoot him three times with smite instead, as a living cleric is more of a threat than any given number of mooks. Enemy casters always enter play fully buffed, so the wizard is out of the question until he is hit with glitterdust.

But for most fighting encounters (non-casters) I prefer to get big, obstruct (as we very rarely, if ever, fight in an open field without obstructions) and let the casters do their shtick. My level of monk helps me with this too. "Gotten inside my ranseur reach? I can still kick the ever-loving crap out of you at 5-10'"

It's round 2. The rest of the fight describes something very short.

Brian Bachman wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
vuron wrote:
But unless the PCs are dressed in stereotypical garb I really don't see why monsters would know who has the bad will save or is likely to spam a SoL the first round.

That's because -- and I believe I can say this without insulting anyone here -- our IQs aren't 240, nor are we able to see a tick on a blade of grass a hundred yards away, or smell the contents of the guy's pouch or the lingering scent of incense on his right hand from swinging the aspergillum during last week's mass. But that's what a Balor can do, according to the stats listed for it.

Like I said, if you want the balor to be held to human-level capabilities, change his stats to reflect it and drop the CR to match. Otherwise, you're artificially limiting his in-game capabilities in many areas to match your real-life ones. Playing monsters with high physical abilities is easy. Playing villains with mental capacities and skills that transcend human understanding is exceptionally difficult -- I find it the hardest part of the game. But then again, I don't just default dump everyone's intelligence to match mine.

And once the PC wizard or cleric throws a spell in the first round, the cat's out of the bag anyway.

Diving into this discussion to try and split the difference.

I think it is quite reasonable to assume that any adversary of above average intelligence is going to figure out who the biggest threats to it are within a couple of rounds, based on actions taken and the results thereof. Of course that Balor might reasonably think the paladin with the smite is the thing that needs to go away now, rather than the wizrd, to use the same example (which is pretty extreme since Balors aren't likely to be encountered until very high levels, where only a minority of campaigns ever go). The point is that greatest threat is a very subjective term (not to you CoDzilla, I know) and the answer will not always be the same for every critter encountered.

Moreover, I have to say that guessing...

There is no encounter that can go wrong by killing a Giacomo Monk.

Jokes aside, any Monk that draws that much enemy attention will quickly die.


CoP is supposedly unsafe, but in actuality it is a completely safe way to get 88% accurate answers to any question (and the error margin is easily worked around).

Now let's see how many of those here are smart enough to figure out why this is so.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Interesting. How does one scry a dungeon?

1. Once inside, prying eyes, et al. are nice; so is clairvoyance.

2. For a broader view, I consider legend lore, vision, contact other plane, etc. as more or less mandatory as soon as I can get them.

When I play a wizard, intelligence is my #1 priority. That's what enables me to figure out what spells to have ready. Divination is sadly underrated as a wizard's most important school.

I've even seen well-played low-mid level wizards get surprising mileage out of the low-power detect spells like detect evil or detect thoughts. Granted, there you're usually only checking out the next room vs. the entire dungeon.


CoDzilla wrote:

CoP is supposedly unsafe, but in actuality it is a completely safe way to get 88% accurate answers to any question (and the error margin is easily worked around).

Now let's see how many of those here are smart enough to figure out why this is so.

I never thought about it before, but I don't see any reason you couldn't take 10 on the check and autopass it as long as you have +6 INT modifier, which you will if you're a wizard and not a sorcerer.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a post that was somewhere between a personal attack and edition wars bait.


Dire Mongoose wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:

CoP is supposedly unsafe, but in actuality it is a completely safe way to get 88% accurate answers to any question (and the error margin is easily worked around).

Now let's see how many of those here are smart enough to figure out why this is so.

I never thought about it before, but I don't see any reason you couldn't take 10 on the check and autopass it as long as you have +6 INT modifier, which you will if you're a wizard and not a sorcerer.

That's because there isn't.

I even checked to see if it was stealth nerfed before saying that, on the off chance he was correct. Of course, he was not.

After all, it's what? 5th level? So you're 9, minimum?

It's a very gimpy level 9 Wizard who has 21 or less Int. After all you have 2 level up points and a +4 bonus (either headband because you can craft it at this level, or the spell if you haven't yet), and a +2 racial bonus so you'd have to have... 13 or less in your prime stat to not be able to do this. Not even the people here who seem to make terrible builds intentionally screw up that badly.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Brian Bachman wrote:
Moreover, I have to say that guessing what character has what capabilities within the first six seconds of a fight should be, while not impossible, impressively difficult.

Difficult for you, maybe, but not hard at all for everyone -- very experienced cops/secret service agents can often tell if a person has a concealed weapon as soon as they lay eyes on him, based on how he moves/holds himself. Even I can usually tell by observing someone do something as mundane as eating dinner whether they've had a lot of martial arts experience. There are ALWAYS telltale signs, if you know what to look for.

Low-level characters and dumb monsters should not know what to look for. Super-genius monsters with base attack and Perception bonuses through the roof would not only look for these things, but would spot them near-instantaneously.

We can split hairs over how many poitns of IQ a 24 intelligence is, but that's focusing on the least important thing and ignoring the elephant in the room. Monsters with superhuman intelligence, perception, and fighting ability should be played to reflect those abilities, not artificially lowered to the DM's own real-life ones. Just because the DM can't imagine how to deduce a character's abilities doesn't mean that a balor can't, or shouldn't. Google the Dunning-Kruger Effect if you want to know why a non-spellcasting, non-combat veteran, non-genius DM almost always underestimates what monsters with high ranks in those things can really deduce.

I don't think we're that far apart. You say a "very experienced" (read high level, with lots of skill ranks) cop can "often" (read sometimes, but not always) detect someone with a concealed weapon. I agree, but that still sounds like difficult, but not impossible.

Let's also leave the realm of the super-intelligent high-level opponents, anyway, as they represent a very small percentage of gameplay. I'll concede that they are very difficult for a GM to play accurately, as we ain't that old, smart and experienced. However, using extreme examples like that isn't very instructive, in my opinion.

Instead, let's look at a more common and/or varied low-level scenario. Your players (4 3rd or 4th level characters) have a meeting engagement in the woods with a bandit lord 6th level ranger (Int 14 and a few ranks in Knowledge), leading a half dozen lower level bandits (1st-3rd level warriors, Int 10, few knowledge skills), the ranger's pet wolf (Int 2, scent but no knowledge skills), and an ogre (Int 6, no skills) they have incorporated into their band. In this case I would say the ranger would be likely to identify the most dangerous targets within a couple rounds, and dirct his attacks accordingly. The other bandits would largely be waiting for instructions from the ranger, but might notice obviously greater threats and react accordingly, but probably not as quickly as the boss (and they also would be less likely to risk theuir skins doing something heroic). The wolf, unless trained or specifically ordered otherwise, will like attack the nearest and/or most vulnerable looking character instinctively. The ogre will probably attack whatever is closest or whatever he is told to, and might have difficulty interpreting complicated commands. They would all, except perhaps the ranger, be very, very cautious about AoOs, because they could seriously hurt or kill them. How would you play it?


OK, I started this thread more as a thought experiment to try and figure out various ways to make lower tier classes more relevant in games.

As riveting as the Combat Maneuver and Enemy Tactics discussion is, I would prefer that we leave it be.

I have quite a bit of experience DMing in 3.0-3.5, and a modest amount in Pathfinder.

As a DM, you can always adjust a multitude of things to make the game fall into line, anywhere from altering monster tactics so the party's tactics actually work, banning high tier classes and spells, or simply asking players not to step on each others' toes. This much as always been true. A quality DM can see a problem before it develops, and work to eliminate it, sometimes without the players even realizing what was done.

I get it, and many of you do as well.

I made this thread because I'm working on a large module that I would like to be able to hand to another DM I have no experience with and classes of various power and versatility will be able to contribute fairly equally. This could be due to 'buffing' weaker classes, or tailoring the nature of the campaign itself. I was looking for suggestions and feedback on little balance 'tweaks' that make the game fall more in line.

This would serve as a guide for New DM's as well, since the 'tips and tricks' in this thread would also be great resource to help them avoid some common pitfalls. Lets make a list. Here is what I have dug out of this thread so far.

Ways a DM can bolster the importance of lower tier classes
Some paraphrased to keep things concise

Set wrote:
Throw out the spells that infringe on other classes' 'turf' (such as find traps or knock) through world design (Either by outlawing them or via divine intervention somehow)
Kamelguru wrote:
Outright buff the lower tier classes (Such as giving Rogue extra skill points and allowing additional uses of per day talents)
Dire Mongoose wrote:
You actually go ahead and just flat out give the lower-tiered characters more stuff ... Maybe your wizards have to build off 15 point buy but your monks get to have something like 16s across the board.
Kamelguru wrote:
Cause high skill results to replicate the spell results, since the reverse is true, (Beating the Climb DC by 10 grants Spider Climb, etc.)
angryscrub wrote:
mechanically make all full casters pseudo prestige classes with minimal requirements (1 rank in a couple relevant skills)
Karel Gheysens wrote:

Combat the '5 minute workday' that higher level PC's can live with using magical means to rest between every fight (Rope Trick, Teleport, etc.)

Just let the world continue while they wait. (This works best if what they are assigned to do has a clock of some sort, especially if it causes other important NPCs to die)

CoDzilla wrote:
Ban adamantine bolts (or any way to simple 'dig' your way past locked doors)
Fergie wrote:
The easiest is to have a lot of opponents in each encounter. This keeps everyone busy, and prevents a single spell or super-crit from ending the encounter.
Fergie wrote:
Another option is to give the party responsibility for a large group. A caravan, platoon, refugee camp, etc. This forces casters to use their spells for more then just SoS/SoD, and allows characters with social skills a constant background of interaction.
Fergie wrote:
Have the party stalked by something powerful. If the party has to keep something in reserve, and not allow their guard to drop, they will have to play a more strategic, reserved game.
Fergie wrote:
Don't allow characters to buy every magic item in the book, whenever they want. If characters can completely custom tailor their items, it results in overpowered options. Likewise some limits on crafting can go a long way in keeping casters in check.
Fergie wrote:
Also, at higher levels, intelligent enemies with large resources are a must. This way you have a logical reason not to repeat enemy tactics that completely failed in the past. It also provides the GM with much more options to custom tailor enemy encounters that are challenging

------

What else should we add? Variations on these? Some that really just don't belong? Any I missed?

(I apologize if anyone is offended with my paraphrasing of their ideas, but I wanted to give credit where credit is due)


Brian Bachman wrote:
Instead, let's look at a more common and/or varied low-level scenario.

Stay with me here, buddy. I made a big point several posts ago that at low levels, any caster-martial disparity is a lot smaller and is easy to overlook. You can run around stabbing things without analyzing them and the game works as intended. You and I can encounter bandits at 5th level and make a totally different approach to it and still end up with a fun, internally-consistent story. You can spend several rounds sizing up the enemy at low levels because it takes a goblin that long just to finally score a hit on your armored character, or you can run in and color spray all the goblins, and either way is OK. And it's easy for the DM to play goblins, because in real life the DM is smarter and maybe more experienced than a goblin anyway.

It's specifically at high levels when things are different, and when the stuff I'm talking about finally matters. Playing the high-level villains with their full abilities is where things do collapse down to CoD's style of play, because fights don't last more than a round or two unless the villains are being unconsciously neutered by the DM. Then people say "I would never do that!" -- and I have to point out that powerful, experienced, intelligent villains should not be bound by the DM's real-life limitations, or else the DM actually is doing exactly that.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Brian Bachman wrote:
Instead, let's look at a more common and/or varied low-level scenario.

Stay with me here, buddy. I made a big point several posts ago that at low levels, any caster-martial disparity is a lot smaller and is easy to overlook. You can run around stabbing things without analyzing them and the game works as intended. You and I can encounter bandits at 5th level and make a totally different approach to it and still end up with a fun, internally-consistent story. You can spend several rounds sizing up the enemy at low levels because it takes a goblin that long just to finally score a hit on your armored character, or you can run in and color spray all the goblins, and either way is OK. And it's easy for the DM to play goblins, because in real life the DM is smarter and maybe more experienced than a goblin anyway.

It's specifically at high levels when things are different, and when the stuff I'm talking about finally matters. Playing the high-level villains with their full abilities is where things do collapse down to CoD's style of play, because fights don't last more than a round or two unless the villains are being unconsciously neutered by the DM. Then people say "I would never do that!" -- and I have to point out that powerful, experienced, intelligent villains should not be bound by the DM's real-life limitations, or else the DM actually is doing exactly that.

OK, I can buy that to some extent, although I know people vary greatly as to where they think this "high-level style" of play begins, with some claiming it begins as early as 3rd level (I S@#% you not). I also very rarely venture into really high-level play (haven't had a campaign get above 17th level since the 1990s, and only one made it above 14th), so I will not claim any great expertise. From the informed opinions I've heard, including the Paizo development staff, the game gets pretty wonky at high levels in many ways.

Just out of curiousity, how do you pull off making super-intelligent high-level villains be smarter than you? My basic problem is that even though most folks think I'm pretty smart and I agree (all due modesty aside) they have seven brains working on the other side of that screen and I have just me. I try to make up for it with preparation and deeper knowledge of the game world and the adventure, but they still occasionally come up with brilliant stuff that just never would have occurred to me, but perhaps would have occurred to Megamind the villain.

351 to 400 of 529 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Campaign design to bolster than importance of lower-tier classes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.