|
Maybe I missed something... but if the BBEG hadn't "activated" yet, how did the ninja and ranger know to attack it?
2) You can also get the information, if you're tricky, from the Morlocks.
3) The description calls him thin and bony, not dead. Even if he looked dead, it's not like we ever encounter undead that wants to hurt us in PFS, right? :)
4) It makes sense to check stuff out at a closer range... invisible.
5) When is there ever a good guy at the end of a PFS scenario? At this point the party has seen a minimum of 4 encounters and maybe as many as 9. There's no exit from the room and the minotaur is right there. Pretty obvious.
6) 95% of the time it's a good idea to kill everything you meet in PFS. :)
So yeah, that's what happens most of the time with a competent group and a non-scenario changing GM.
|
6) 95% of the time it's a good idea to kill everything you meet in PFS. :)
Reminds me of an LG player that ran a very aloof elven archer who immediately loosed a volley into the darkness at an unknown target after hearing a noise. (Outdoor setting near but not in a village.)
Sure enough: it was a bad guy. Not a dog. Not somebody's kid. Not an important NPC. A bad guy.
(And LG characters could get penalized with jail-time -- time-unit "TU" cost -- or having Wanted posters go up forcing them to adopt false-identities, if they screwed up and got caught.)
So yeah, that's what happens most of the time with a competent group and a non-scenario changing GM.
If the GM changes the scenario to match the group, such that the encounter difficulty is always the same, then there's no point being a competent group. The players might as well just charge in, having done no reconnaissance, because the GM will make the encounter easier to accomodate their characters and play style. GMs that adapt the encounter to suit the group take away from the gaming experience IMO.
I'd far rather know encounters were standardised, but could be made easier by planning ahead and doing some research, such that less competent groups in combat could make up their shortfall intelligently. Tough groups could wade straight in as normal. Tough groups that were also competent should have an easier time of it, because they're better than average and should be rewarded for it.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
If the GM changes the scenario to match the group, such that the encounter difficulty is always the same, then there's no point being a competent group. The players might as well just charge in, having done no reconnaissance, because the GM will make the encounter easier to accomodate their characters and play style. GMs that adapt the encounter to suit the group take away from the gaming experience IMO.
I'd far rather know encounters were standardised, but could be made easier by planning ahead and doing some research, such that less competent groups in combat could make up their shortfall intelligently. Tough groups could wade straight in as normal. Tough groups that were also competent should have an easier time of it, because they're better than average and should be rewarded for it.
An excellent point.
I still think solos need a little help, as even the average group will one shot them when they get close enough (and the average barbarian doesn't need much time to get close), but what you say makes very good sense.
|
|
TO make the PFS senarios more chalanging I would do te following
1: All non mooks would be built with a 20 point buy
2:Non Mooks would get a WPL the same as a PC of the same level
3: Give the BBG casters depleted staffs and or wands. Depleted means
less than 10 chares. IF BBG is a devine caster give them the chaneling feats to heal/harm
4:Make smart bad guys cast spells like deeper darkness, blindness defeness on PC casters invisibilty buff spells on their minions pre encounter. Worst spell that I have been hit with is power word stun by a demon in an 10-11 mod like it made the enconter good and deadly
5: Make larger rooms by useing ten foot squares on senario maps in stead of 5' squares.
6:Make better use of traps and locked doors gives rouges somthing to do other than stabity stabity.
7:Throw in a summoner BBG and his Eliodon buddy
8: have a Bad guy organization working aginist the Pathfinders in the background.Just a few things to chew on. I am not in any way saying that the DEVS are doing anything less than a stelar job as they provide me with
a very enjoyable tuesday evening every week
1: Not really needed for non-MAD BBEGs. They don't need to handle the breadth of combat & non-combat encounters the PCs have to.
2: No, because that will screw up the WbL for the PCs, or turn into the old LG Overcap mess, which can also mess up the WbL for PCs.3: Some of them do get partially charged items. So far as I have seen, NPC clerics in PFS scenarios do get the appropriate channeling ability. And usually have tactics to use it.
4: They do. I have seen Darkness/Deeper Darkness used in scenarios almost as much as swarms. And, indeed, I have seen Blindness used by a bad guy in one scenario. You might want to look over some of the spells you are recommending, though. Blindness, as an example, has a duration of Permanent, so it took PC resources to remove that condition after the module was done. And that was at Tier 4-5, IIRC, it was a significant expense.
5: I would vote against this, as those maps in scenarios are pulled out to be used for both online games in VTTs, and by GMs who enlarge and print them for face-to-face games.
6: Rouges just paint their faces. Rogues do get to use their trap-finding ability and diabling, but you have to also keep things available for the many parties who do not have anyone with trapfinding abilities.
7: There is at least one scenario with such an NPC combo in it.
8: Already done, if not overdone. Season 1 (& continuing) Aspis Consortium; Season 2 Shadow Lodge
YMMV, but scenario difficulty depends on a lot of things besides what is actually in the scenario, in my experience.
Party makeup
Party cooperation
Party tactics
GM dice rolls
Party dice rolls
We played a sceanario yesterday, and the result was totally different than the last time I ran it, because of a difference in party approach. Both parties survived and "won", but the second party succeeded at more of the goals of the scanrio than the first party did, simply because one party was more socially oriented than the other, and talked to some of the enemies instead of killing them all.
|
Another action that was brought to my attention is when the GM has all the baddies act on the same initiative and can all flank from movement. I admit I have been guilty of this.
If you have two mooks both moving to flank a PC, only one (the second one) would benefit from the flank in the round they move.
We should run the NPC's under the same runs as the PC's. Just a reminder.
I suppose you could have the first one move, and then ready to strike when he is flanking with a partner. Then the 2nd mook moves in, triggers mook #1's attack, and then resolves his own flank. It works, but stinks of the GM taking advantage of the knowledge that all the mooks are acting on the same initiative. A PC could try the same thing, but might risk the target acting before their flank-mate can get in position.
|
|
why not consider that the NPC's are talking to each other and then coordinating their moves as one
Yes, that makes sense, but since all the talking occurs in the GM's head, the players are not able to react to what they hear. The NPC's (GM) get to hear the players talking to each other, discussing tactics, and adjust. It becomes unfair when the NPC's act like a hivemind. They also typically have an advantage that their actions will all happen in the same initiative order. If a dozen mooks are attacking the PC's they can all delay/ready based on their companions and still essentially act in at the same time.
The player's OTOH, have to wait until the other PC's actions trigger their own readied action and hope that occurs before the enemy gets to act and mess it all up.
|
|
Yes, that makes sense, but since all the talking occurs in the GM's head, the players are not able to react to what they hear. The NPC's (GM) get to hear the players talking to each other, discussing tactics, and adjust. It becomes unfair when the NPC's act like a hivemind. They also typically have an advantage that their actions will all happen in the same initiative order. If a dozen mooks are attacking the PC's they can all delay/ready based on their companions and still essentially act in at the same time.
The player's OTOH, have to wait until the other PC's actions trigger their own readied action and hope that occurs before the enemy gets to act and mess it all up.
This isnt neccessarily the case. If the fight is between PCs and a single type of mook (which there are plenty of those encounters), and all the mooks go on the same initiative, the combat effectively breaks down to 'all of the PCs, then all of the mooks', after the mooks first turn anyway. Really, the players can do the same type of stuff.
Also, and I could be wrong about this, but I dont think Ive ever changed out the bad guys are going to respond specifically to something the players had discussed out of game. If the dm chooses not to talk out loud about what the baddies are going to do, but takes advantage of the players needing to (since they dont share one mind), I think that constitutes metagaming on the GMs part, as odd as that sounds.
Actually I do the voices, (not very well) but I find it helps if the BBEG or leader of the combat is telling people what to do. - sometimes I describe how the 'eyes' flicker between the group [mooks] - other times I will describe how they might move 'like they have fought together before'.
It's easy in combat for everyone at the table to get excited and move things quickly, I start by slowing things down (I have their attention after all). I will go back and cover off a description of the room covering terrain, furnishings, obvious/visible weapons on enemies, height of roof etc.. After I explain all this then I get rolls on initiative and resolve surprise etc..
If the bad guys are smart then they use tactics, some guys might yell or hiss instructions to employees. Even things like '..take out the Mage!' I find this helps especially if newbie PC's aren't using tactics - it's a learning exercise for them as well. It makes combat more real.. It also throws off metagamers.
Ive been meaning to start doing that. If the group is supposed to have worked together before, you could have them use hand gestures. The PCs get Perception checks to notice them, and Sense Motive checks to figure out what they meant. Could be fun.
If you have two mooks both moving to flank a PC, only one (the second one) would benefit from the flank in the round they move.
Just a thought: first mook moves and readies an attack. Second mook moves to flank. Readied attack goes off with flank bonus. Regular attack goes off with flank bonus. If they are used to fighting as a team of baddies, this isn't a stretch for anyone with an Int 10+.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
For years, I have almost always used group initiative for mooks, reserving individual initiative for BBEG and Leader-types. Not once have I had players complain it was unrealistic or unfair. Most times the player's initiative happens as a big lump of actions together, with maybe two groups of players divided by the bad guys. The one exception I make though is that when I use one initiative roll, I apply the initiative modifier separately. So on a d20 roll of 15, a Druid (Init +1) with an Animal Companion (Init +4) would act at 16 and 19 in the initiative order.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Just a thought: first mook moves and readies an attack...
That works better if you know your flanking partner will be able to get into position before your target can react. If the target will attack you before your partner gets into position, or if your target will take a 5' step away from you, you're much better to take the (non-flanking) shot immediately.
So there really is a material advantage for all the enemies to go en masse.
|
|
Why not? If the players in character give instructions that can be clearly heard by the mooks then why wouldn't the mooks act on that knowledge? It's not GM metagaming - it's real life.
That is fine, if they are speaking in character. Dont know about your tables, but most of the combat chatter at my tables contains words like 'saving throw' and 'attack bonus' and stuff like that which definitely isnt 'in character conversation'.
|
|
That is fine, if they are speaking in character. Don't know about your tables, but most of the combat chatter at my tables contains words like 'saving throw' and 'attack bonus' and stuff like that which definitely isn't 'in character conversation'.
I don't think you need to be speaking in character necessarily. Of course things like you said are not material to the in-game events. However, I hear players discussing their tactics both in and out of turn--where they are going to move, what spell will be cast next, etc. That is pertinent information that could only be relayed in character. Otherwise it is meta-gaming. So why wouldn't a GM take advantage of said information? The enemies would most certainly hear it being shouted right in their faces.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Remember Modesty Blaise? She and Willy would shout out maneuvers in battle, but they learned Arabic to do so.
I suspect the best language to learn for battlefield audibles is Celestial. If your opponents can understand you, you probably shouldn't be fighting them anyways.
You mean like demons and devils, both of which get Celestial as part of their subtype? ;-P
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Mark,
If we're fighting devils and demons, genius-level creatures with teleportation and /or tongues abilities, battlefield audibles are the least of our problems.
--
Bob,
But my characters have knowledge skills! And even if they didn't, they're trained by the Three Masters, who have a vast working knowledge of all manner of enemies.
|
|
That is fine, if they are speaking in character. Don't know about your tables, but most of the combat chatter at my tables contains words like 'saving throw' and 'attack bonus' and stuff like that which definitely isn't 'in character conversation'.I don't think you need to be speaking in character necessarily. Of course things like you said are not material to the in-game events. However, I hear players discussing their tactics both in and out of turn--where they are going to move, what spell will be cast next, etc. That is pertinent information that could only be relayed in character. Otherwise it is meta-gaming. So why wouldn't a GM take advantage of said information? The enemies would most certainly hear it being shouted right in their faces.
Do you have the bad guys have conversations of their battle plans in the middle of the fight so the players can overhear it, or does it all just go through your head? If its the first (which Im guilty of as well), then your not giving the players the same benefit your getting by listening to them talk. That's all Im sayin.
Of course, again, if its just one set of mooks going all together on one initiative, it really doesnt matter whats said out loud and what isnt.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
I don't think you need to be speaking in character necessarily. Of course things like you said are not material to the in-game events. However, I hear players discussing their tactics both in and out of turn--where they are going to move, what spell will be cast next, etc. That is pertinent information that could only be relayed in character. Otherwise it is meta-gaming. So why wouldn't a GM take advantage of said information? The enemies would most certainly hear it being shouted right in their faces.
Do you have the bad guys have conversations of their battle plans in the middle of the fight so the players can overhear it, or does it all just go through your head? If its the first (which Im guilty of as well), then your not giving the players the same benefit your getting by listening to them talk. That's all Im sayin.
Of course, again, if its just one set of mooks going all together on one initiative, it really doesnt matter whats said out loud and what isnt.
Hand signals, and non-verbal communication between groups used to fighting together are normal with most combat trained troops; why should Golarion be different? And with each group familiar with the normal attack combinations of their partners, adjusting might not even take a form recognized by the PCs. Would the terms "Maneuver A 32!" mean anything to the adventurers? Probably not... yet calling out tactical advice in code is used all the time by fighting forces. I mean, hasn't anyone read an X-Men comic? LOL!
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
Hand signals, and non-verbal communication between groups used to fighting together are normal with most combat trained troops; why should Golarion be different? And with each group familiar with the normal attack combinations of their partners, adjusting might not even take a form recognized by the PCs. Would the terms "Maneuver A 32!" mean anything to the adventurers? Probably not... yet calling out tactical advice in code is used all the time by fighting forces. I mean, hasn't anyone read an X-Men comic? LOL!Of course, again, if its just one set of mooks going all together on one initiative, it really doesnt matter whats said out loud and what isnt.I don't think you need to be speaking in character necessarily. Of course things like you said are not material to the in-game events. However, I hear players discussing their tactics both in and out of turn--where they are going to move, what spell will be cast next, etc. That is pertinent information that could only be relayed in character. Otherwise it is meta-gaming. So why wouldn't a GM take advantage of said information? The enemies would most certainly hear it being shouted right in their faces.
Do you have the bad guys have conversations of their battle plans in the middle of the fight so the players can overhear it, or does it all just go through your head? If its the first (which Im guilty of as well), then your not giving the players the same benefit your getting by listening to them talk. That's all I'm sayin.
|
|
Hand signals, and non-verbal communication between groups used to fighting together are normal with most combat trained troops; why should Golarion be different? And with each group familiar with the normal attack combinations of their partners, adjusting might not even take a form recognized by the PCs. Would the terms "Maneuver A 32!" mean anything to the adventurers? Probably not... yet calling out tactical advice in code is used all the time by fighting forces. I mean, hasn't anyone read an X-Men comic? LOL!
Which is generally the same thing, and something I mentioned in my first post, further up the page.
If you are mentioning to the players that the bad guys seem to be using some kind of hand signals, or give them a Perception check to spot them and Sense Motive to decipher, then everyone has a chance to overhear what everyone else is planning.
If you dont mention it, then its still all played out in your head, then its the same situation.
|
|
About hand signals in combat. I don't think hand signals work very well in intense combat. Unless someone is spending a move action to check with their buddies each turn, nah. If you can see hand signals you're certainly not 100% focusing on attacking.
Even commands that are shouted are often not heard in intense combat. If there are loud effects, even worse.
Seriously, play paintball (or better yet use live ammo), maybe some mass boffer combat and see how well communication works. It's tough! That's been my experience anyway.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
If I were to bet on which side in a combat would be better at coordinating their tactics, my money would be on a pack of antagonists, who've known each other for weeks/months/years, over a quartet of scabby vagabonds, who never met till that morning.
Heh. This was so awesome I had to comment on its awesomeness.
|
|
If I were to bet on which side in a combat would be better at coordinating their tactics, my money would be on a pack of antagonists, who've known each other for weeks/months/years, over a quartet of scabby vagabonds, who never met till that morning.
Hard to argue with this, plus a great visual. :-)
|
|
The deaths were a result of one player - the one who decided the table should play up. The inexperienced player was not about to speak up and challenge him.
I'm sorry, but I disagree with your assessment. None of the players can really be considered inexperienced. The scenario in question was a tier 5-9. That means at minimum the players had played 12 prior scenarios. And in this case, as I understand it, the players have all played much more than that.
Playing up is often a term thrown around a bit to callously. It has been pointed out that playing up, especially in mid/high tier scenarios can be extremely dangerous. And in addition to this group being sub-optimal (class representation), there were only four players. All are ingredients for a TPK.
Should the GM speak up in cases like this? Perhaps. I have, at times, recommended to a group that they not play up, but that is due to their character choices, nothing to do with my perceived lethality of the scenario. It is after-all the player's choice. The best we can hope for is that they make the right choice.
Perhaps the player who voiced their opinion to play up was an optimized character and confident of success while the others were not. I am not a supporter, or take pride in character deaths, especially TPK's, but assuming the GM followed the scenario, the players have to accept fault when they decide to ask for a greater challenge than what is expected for their level.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
To be clear on the context, I GMed "Sniper in the Deep" (Tier 5-9) at the local gameday last month. Table of four. Highest level PC was a 9th-level cleric. Then two rogues, 6th and 7th level, and a 6th-level cleric. The APL was exactly 7. Two experienced players really wanted to play up. No one else objected.
As a GM, I never offer my opinion as to whether a party play up or down. I don't have a character at risk, and I don't have to decide about gold. I do let the players decide after the venture-captain's mission briefing.
In retrospect, I should have asked for a silent vote (with cards) for playing up or not. But they were all feeling prety confident. Given what they thought they were heading into, they felt they had an ideal party.
One character died twice in the first encounter. That should have been a warning. But, you know, that player has asserted on several opportunities that he had a lot of fun, regardless.
|
Mark and I discussed this. The scenarios are to be GMed as written. This isn't a grey area. I'm more concerned with a GM who thinks he can adequately adjust a scenario to better challenge the party and then kills PCs because extra creatures were added, or harder DCs were assigned to traps, or a coup de grace not written in the tactics, or any number of other circumstances a GM could change. There also is the added consideration that if a GM increases the difficulty of a scenario, you are also burning up more resources of the PCs that other players didn't have to, thus causing the PCs at your adjusted scenario table to spend more gold than they should have had to. It opens a Pandora's Box that just doesn't need to be opened. GM the scenarios as written please.
So if a coup de grace is not listed in tactics - that is not done. Understood.
Does this also apply to non coup attacks on downed PCs? (from another thread where the question has arisen)
TIA
Mark and I discussed this. The scenarios are to be GMed as written. This isn't a grey area. I'm more concerned with a GM who thinks he can adequately adjust a scenario to better challenge the party and then kills PCs because extra creatures were added, or harder DCs were assigned to traps, or a coup de grace not written in the tactics, or any number of other circumstances a GM could change. There also is the added consideration that if a GM increases the difficulty of a scenario, you are also burning up more resources of the PCs that other players didn't have to, thus causing the PCs at your adjusted scenario table to spend more gold than they should have had to. It opens a Pandora's Box that just doesn't need to be opened. GM the scenarios as written please.
So if a coup de grace is not listed in tactics - that is not done. Understood.
Does this also apply to non coup attacks on downed PCs? (from another thread where the question has arisen)
TIA
Dhjika, no. If that were the case then enemies would never use that scroll of levitate that is in there inventory but not listed in their tactics.
What it means to me is, the tactics listed in the scenario should be followed.
It is also a by-product of the fact that campaign staff will never publicly condone GMs Coup de graceing PCs.
RISE FROM YOUR GRAVE, YE HOARY AULD THREAD!
:)
Follow the written tactics, but even within those tactics there should be wiggle room to adjust for the capabilities of the players.
You want to challenge them, but not be so brutal as to discourage them playing again. It's admittedly a fine line sometimes.
On the thread topic, I guess folks complaining about season 0-3 being too easy got their answer, eh?
-j
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
RISE FROM YOUR GRAVE, YE HOARY AULD THREAD!
On the thread topic, I guess folks complaining about season 0-3 being too easy got their answer, eh?
-j
Heh. This makes me happy on so many levels. These two threads really should be all up in each other's grills, shouldn't they?
|
|
Hey if I plan on using lethal tactics on a PC, I announce to the table so they can rush to save him. Everytime I killed someone it is a combination of the party not playing as a team and that one player explosing himself to greater risk. I even have gone so far when I DM to stop the game and say, "you do not wanna do that. you will most likely die or cause someone else to die". Yet people still do it...
|
I've been playing PFS from year 0-present ( three full seasons plus ). During this time, i've found the character death rate to be extremely low. As an estimation, at an average of at least 1.5 tables per week our groups have had less than six character deaths over that period of time, or less than six out of at least 1050 character participations. This is less than a character deathrate of .6%. At times, DM's bend over backwards to assure that characters do not die. And, even when they do die, they are relatively easily ressurected. Maybe i'm very old school; but I think there should be more character risk involved, especially the higher level your character attains and the greater the adventure the character is involved in. (By the way, i've never resurrected one of my own characters). What do you think about this? Should there be a voluntary campaign in which, by player consent, there is a greater chance of character death and/or character reward?
I began playing PFS many months ago, maybe a year now? Unclear on that, but I doubt it's that far back. I play with (and occasionally GM for) an extremely competent group. We've still experienced numerous death and near-death situations over the course of my time as an active player. Now admittedly a majority of these stem from later seasons, with Season-0 posing almost no threat at all. ..... With a few notable exceptions. Pathfinder Society has grown considerably more threatening to characters' lives as the seasons have worn on, with season-4 I'm sure having claimed a massive number of player characters worldwide. And I love it. >_> Hoping to see them jack the difficulty up even higher.
|
|
Heh. This makes me happy on so many levels. These two threads really should be all up in each other's grills, shouldn't they?
Not really. The problem before was the scenarios were so easy that they weren't even interesting. Now if you tune the scenarios so that TPKs become commonplace, they're overtuned. Two extremes, neither of them good. They're both losing situations and if you were GMing a home campaign, you wouldn't want either to happen.
|
|
I play with (and occasionally GM for) an extremely competent group.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I hear that from a lot of players. One thing I've learned from PFS is that many of us are not nearly as 'competent' as we think we are. I've been playing D&D in all of its forms for 30+ years and would consider myself a very good, knowledgeable player. However, I still find cool ideas, character builds, and tactics that never occurred to me when playing with strangers. I'm not exactly sure how many sessions of PFS I've played, probably somewhere around 100 (I GM much more often), but I've experienced five character deaths, none during season four. Not sure if a death rate of roughly 5% is typical, but it doesn't feel excessive. YMMV
|
|
I play with (and occasionally GM for) an extremely competent group.Please don't take this the wrong way, but I hear that from a lot of players. One thing I've learned from PFS is that many of us are not nearly as 'competent' as we think we are. I've been playing D&D in all of its forms for 30+ years and would consider myself a very good, knowledgeable player. However, I still find cool ideas, character builds, and tactics that never occurred to me when playing with strangers. I'm not exactly sure how many sessions of PFS I've played, probably somewhere around 100 (I GM much more often), but I've experienced five character deaths, none during season four. Not sure if a death rate of roughly 5% is typical, but it doesn't feel excessive. YMMV
Indeed. You can be plenty competent and still learn new stuff around every corner. By competent I meant fast learners and good strategists, not necessarily individuals long in the tooth insofar as time spent tabletop gaming. Thus far I can't say I've had any characters of mine die, though I've come close several times. That said, some PFS scenarios do appear to be lacking in the challenge department. 'Course not everything should be a challenge. There are some roleplay heavy scenarios that many people appear to enjoy. I favor combat, but you gotta give some to win some.
|
|
Understanding where you belong is a huge part of survivablity. I cringe when I see summoners stand behind thier tank eidolon and guidance it every turn.
My 12 AC level 8 spell caster rarely gets hurt. The worst he got was when the DM doubled the fall damage on a trap he walked into.
The only time I've had a player die at a table I was playing at was when ignoring my advice and went out and made herself a target by going into fireball formation with other party members.