The conditioner.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


thefreedictionary wrote:
One that conditions, especially an additive or application that improves the quality or usability of a substance

Although the conditions (mentioned in the glossary) are mostly negatives they are meant, at least to a certain extent, to improve the quality of combat.

I have put my characters up against Drows that use darkness(Blinded), Will-o'-Wisp(blinded), Alchemist that throw stink bombs(Nauseated and Blinded), and Mind-flayers(Stunned.)

Although my players haven't had much trouble killing these monsters the combats always last long enough that a few of them are sitting waiting for combat to end because they failed a save and obtained a condition.

I hear stuff like "why don't you put us up against something we can fight?"

I truly feel my players have a point but I also don't want to run them through cookie cutter fights where they just run up and hit the guys.

Can I have my cake and eat it too?


No. Pathfinder is one of the only games where players whine while they are winning.

I'd understand their point if you do this a LOT and the same players are getting marginalized over and over. If that isn't the case, than no, they just need to man up and deal with it.


cranewings wrote:
they just need to man up and deal with it.

But... some of them are women.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Being stunned for 1 round sucks, but is acceptable as fun. Being stunned 3d4 rounds in a game where combat is usually only 3 to 6 rounds long on average IS upsetting. People don't play so they can watch other people play.

What I house ruled for mind blast, at least, was they get to try to save every round. At least they get to roll a flippin' die!!!! And if they succeed, they can play again.

That said, I like a lot of the non-"sit there and watch everyone else have fun" conditions, like shaken, sickened, nauseated, staggered, blinded, fatigued, exhausted, etc. etc. etc.

It's just poor design to make a player sit there and do nothing for an entire combat, which can be one or two hours of real time. At least give the dude a mook to fight his friends with if you're gonna incapacitate PCs on a regular basis.


SmiloDan wrote:

It's just poor design to make a player sit there and do nothing for an entire combat, which can be one or two hours of real time. At least give the dude a mook to fight his friends with if you're gonna incapacitate PCs on a regular basis.

While I like those conditions, I do agree with you. That is part of why I'm looking forward to running this E6 game soon. My 8th level party with all of their retainers takes too long to run through combat. A level 5 or 6 party takes no time at all. I think it is really important to try to keep combat under 20 minutes.


I guess you can't tell your players: I know you wanted improved trip but perhaps you should have got iron will?

Liberty's Edge

I'd just make sure to switch it up often - I had a long stint of 3-4 sessions where I spent every combat grappled (and usually then swallowed whole - and after punching my way out, grappled again). That was frustrating. Moreso because it wasn't even like a 50/50 shot; the creatures were all large or larger and had things like Improved Grab such that their CMB was nearly twice my CMD (and this was for a full-BAB class). So, I felt pretty useless.

After my GM sensed that I was growing a tad disheartened (probably from the profuse swearing that started to emerge whenever I got grappled in the first round of every combat) we started fighting some more varied foes, and that made things a lot more interesting - sure, I may have been fascinated for 4 rounds, but at least it wasn't the same dang thing. Plus it meant in some cases I had at least a half decent chase of making my save or maneuver check, whereas other party members might be effected differently.

On the other hand, if your players are falling into the same trap time and again due to a lack of good tactics on their part, then you might go over a past combat with them and show them what other options they had or maneuvers they could have tried. It's a bit of a balancing act, in the end - but if they expect variety out of you, they should be willing to give back the same.

Sovereign Court

Those are some good points! One of my characters (Dwarf Fighter) was recently stunned for an entire combat (along with another frontline fighter) and it did suck. That's the way of the game, we survived becuase the other characters saved our behinds. I like the commment by SmiloDan;

"At least give the dude a mook to fight his friends with if you're gonna incapacitate PCs on a regular basis."

That's classic!

:)


Advice I shall put to use in our next campaign, once I get it up and going.


Karlgamer wrote:

I guess you can't tell your players: I know you wanted improved trip but perhaps you should have got iron will?

Wait, what? Do you mean you cant be awesome at everything in this game. I thought for sure i saw a full BAB class with access to ninth level spells was coming out in UC.

In short tell them just that. Sometimes the game makes you change your 20 level feat / class master plan to deal with what happens in the story. I play a lot more than i GM and i have come to accept that this will happen at some point or that I am going to suck royally against a huge swath of enemies in a campaign.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The conditioner. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion