RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Wow, I am impressed that this has gone on so long. I have never required or been required to do 15 point buy. The groups I play with like to feel a little powerful.
@auticus I am glad your rules work for you and your group. I am surprised you have had to defend house rules for so long. It is not like we are talking RAW.
I give bonus XP for one game for writing a background or a journal entry for the last game. Players who are involved just tend to level up faster.
I will admit, what popped in my mind was: "Dear Diary: Today I was pompous and my sister was crazy. [flips page] Today we were kidnapped by hill folk, never to be seen again. It was the best day ever."
That said, I for one like writing journals, gives my characters stronger voices.
I have said this a few times but one player having "18,18,18,17,17,16" and the other having a 12 point buy or so and everyone else rolling about 20 points done me with rolling for good.Shudder....I recall old iron man dice rolling from back in the day. No thanks.No sane person will ever miss the "3d6, you may roll 3 times and then take which block you want" madness.
Being a 14 13 10 8 6 5 right next to a 18 17 16 16 14 8 guy was no fun at all...
This stat rolling is so 1990...
I just rock at dice rolling. End of book 2 of Kingmaker my Archer (Rapid Shots all the time) hasn't rolled one single 20...
The 5PB equivalent roller was always me ^^
Personally, I like both rolling for stats AND having all players within the same point buy range.
So far I do 4d6, drop lowest, pick one of two arrays. Works fine up to now.
4d6 drop the lowest produces insanely high results...
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
ok =)
Player deaths are also something we don't avoid. Player deaths are going to happen. That's part of the game for us.
I also have played at tables where player deaths were actively discouraged and hugely frowned upon. But for our campaign, they can happen and if they happen we roll with it.
I try to avoid player deaths, two are two too many.
Gorbacz, the difference of course, is that the dm would try to run the npc properly, but players which really want their high stats (for spells, or damage, or ac and hp) often don't justify such high stats through their actions.
Seeker, yep some of those numbers are low. And people have flaws and weaknesses, and it can work in a game and add to a game. The raw numbers are of course modified by racial bonuses, by level bonuses, and by whatever other mechanics the game has within it on an individual level (like beefs for skillful prolonged usage).
Equalizer, yes, you have made that low stat monk work. It has taken you a few levels, but that char has come a long way now at level 10.
If the 3d6 isn't good enough, roll out another set. My group end up choosing a set. Tears have almost been shed, as some come limping from what they are used to, but it is not a punishment, that is the setting. Not everyone is supermen/superwomen across all six attributes.
I also try when writing adventures to put in a high risk high reward system. I will drop in a high risk place with a high reward, give them a standard option, or give them an easy option, but the easy option has little reward to doing it.
And yes ... PLAYER deaths should probably be rewarded Matthew you are correct ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly. I would not play most of those rolls. I don't play to be sub average who is killed by a house cat ( again). Its one thing to want to play a flawed pc. Its something else to be forced to play one.
Honestly. I would not play most of those rolls. I don't play to be sub average who is killed by a house cat ( again). Its one thing to want to play a flawed pc. Its something else to be forced to play one.
Different strokes for different folks. On the same token but on the other side of it, I do not like to play where everyone's super human, nor do I want to GM a game that contains that because I have to put in a lot of extra effort to balance out the game otherwise (unless the goal is to make the encounters not really challenging at all then I can leave them as they are)
I also try when writing adventures to put in a high risk high reward system. I will drop in a high risk place with a high reward, give them a standard option, or give them an easy option, but the easy option has little reward to doing it.
And yes ... PLAYER deaths should probably be rewarded Matthew you are correct ;)
Player deaths should be rewarded but only if they do something pretty awesome resulting in their death. Saw a paladin character years back trying to redeem a chaotic evil ogre barbarian. Spared the ogre's life and made many paladin checks along the way (1d20+paladin level +Cha mod). Ogre's alignment was neutral when they were in a labyrinth and had just defeated an evil evoker about to blow a community of neutral lizard-men into the next world. The evoker managed to activate the orb on his staff to explode in an explosive fireball which would cause a cave-in killing almost everyone. The paladin told everyone to flee, summoned celestial mount, Covered the orb with his body and told the mount to lie on top of him. Resulting explosion killed him and the mount but it was weakened enough to give everyone else a few extra moments before the cave-in. The ogre became chaotic good and yes, the player got rewarded.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Theory based on reading about the people who have successful 15 pt characters and those who have TPK's and complain the characters being 'too weak'.
Based on nothing but reading through this, the successful 15 point players seem more thoughtful and I suspect, more willing to use indirect or team tactics rather an simply power through the bad guys while many, but not all of the 20+players seem to be saying something along the lines of 'my characters were too weak' or saying 'it was a disaster' and not going into depth.
It seems the differences in experince are also differences in play styles. There is nothing wrong with wanting to power through things. But is not the only way to approach the game.
It's just a matter of the game you wish to play.
That is a great death Equal, maybe I should play paladins more and bandits less.
I feel stats and roleplay are both important. Your stats represent who your character is statistically, however people need to remember that the game is a roleplaying game as well. Not everyone should have basically the same array of stats because that doesn't make a huge amount of sense. I would really like to see a dynamic stat array chart that you role on and choose where you put your stats. That way the stats are relatively different and the power between them wouldn't be that different.
As for what auticus said I have to agree again with the equalizer. In 3.5 or pathfinder you should always consider the threat of death being constantly present. Big rewards for big risks is the life of an adventurer. As for what you said 3.5 loyalist I would really like to see how you handle it in more depth. Like what if someone gets extremely bad defensive scores, do you slightly lighten up on them or do you treat them like everyone else? I like people to have conflict in games, I just don't like the idea of a single character dying because he got bad stats at first then other people.
Honestly. I would not play most of those rolls. I don't play to be sub average who is killed by a house cat ( again). Its one thing to want to play a flawed pc. Its something else to be forced to play one.
You didn't enjoy playing a gimpy 14 Int AD&D Wizard with 1 HP? :D
It was 13 int with 1 hp.
This is what I have done before...
SESSION 1: The players make their characters. We go over the party strengths and weaknesses.
If a player has low defensive stats, we discuss where he'd be best at in a fight.
Using 10/15 point builds, each character has a blatant weakness and we all have discussed where that can be taken advantage of so they can play to shore that up.
Example:
Cleric, Rogue, and Fighter are 15 point builds. Barbarian, druid, and paladin are 10s.
The cleric is the healer and positions himself as such where he won't be on the front line. Enemies tend to seek him out if they are smart because he's healing. The party does their best to block him off. So far they've done well.
The rogue is good at dex based things and horrible at fighting. Her reflexes are good and with her dodge abilities takes no damage for big effects if she makes her save. She is horrible in hand to hand combat but specc'd out to be good at ranged combat, so does her best to stay out of combat, climb a tree, etc... and use the terrain to her advantage to avoid being hit.
Fighter is specc'd to use a tower shield and pursue enemies with advance. He has a very high AC and does moderate damage. As such he wants to be in the middle of the line at all times and the cleric will often hide behind him to get the advantage of his shield's cover.
His weakness would be his reflexes. He's in the front line, the enemies often rush him first, but smart enemies need to get around him. He will be hit hard with area affect, so the rogue scouts to determine which enemies can do this and they try to take him out first to keep their line up.
The barbarian is super strong dump statted with no mental attributes. He roleplays a dumb orc barbarian as well, so he has a leash that the rogue holds beceause he will lunge into combat. His strnegths are if he hits you, you will probably die. His weaknesses are that his defense scores are low so he takes a pounding.
Keep him in the back until its time to spring out and lay the smack down, and it does well. Put him out front and he drops right away. Synergy. Combination wtih the other party members. Unleashed at the right time they can really hurt the monsters.
The paladin is high armor double handed weapon damage build. His AC is moderately high but lacks the shield bonus. He has a decent hit bonus and does decent damage, so he makes a good 2nd tank up front that shields the rogue or keeps an eye on the barbarian, and can dish out the pain as needed and provide minor healing support. His weaknesses are that his armor is only moderate so he can get hit fairly often being up front, and his reflexes are about the same as the fighter.
All in all, each party must overlap the weaknesses of their buddies with their strengths. Doing so provides a powerful party. Failing to do so opens up a hole in the party as a whole which will be exploited.
If they were 20/25 point builds, they'd have fewer weaknesses and all be basically good at many things, which makes for an entirely different playstyle and a different set of tension (or lack thereof)
Well I've seen some truly bad defensive scores (and am currently running a scout atm with a 7 dex and zen archery). Anyway, this player loved the berserker. Thought it would be a invincible build. Now it sure is strong, and this wasn't a challenge for me to kill it or anything like that. He chose to have a low dex, and berserker took it lower. The situation that killed him was unfortunate. Okay, details
1) When he was injured, he would save or berserk.
2) This had led to party injury.
3) He was extremely easy to injure, being a prime, large target, and with a terrible ac.
4) So that when he flipped, pcs bolted and did combat away from him, leaving him some targets and time to cool down.
5) He was fighting a number of reptilian foes, he was shot via arrow, he harmed a pc, almost killing them, so he was hit with hold person and they bolted.
6) The foes coup de graced him.
7) :(
On a related note, in a lower score game, defence actually becomes very important. Attack is all well and good, but the players shift to being more quick and with higher acs. At the moment the pcs are a fighter dervish, and a very defensive monk. So they adapt, a very human trait, and a trait of successful adventurers.
What is forgotten is that characters all have background stories. Whether the player sits down and thinks this out or not doesnt matter. Although it would add more flavour. What represents their background most of all in a character's stat block is their ability scores. No character starts with a 18 wisdom or dexterity the moment they leave their mother's womb. Having a high wisdom might be portrayed as being raised in a religious society. Swapping philosophy ideas with their peers while growing up. Or the high dexterity swashbuckler who acquires it through training, tumbling onto ships etc. This is largely why I'm not mad on characters starting with 5 ability scores above 14 and one dump stat of 10.
Equalizer, obviously you did not realise, my character is of the "chosen" bloodline.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Equalizer, obviously you did not realise, my character is of the "chosen" bloodline.
Ah yes, destined for greatness and all that. Lol.
What is forgotten is that characters all have background stories. Whether the player sits down and thinks this out or not doesnt matter. Although it would add more flavour. What represents their background most of all in a character's stat block is their ability scores. No character starts with a 18 wisdom or dexterity the moment they leave their mother's womb. Having a high wisdom might be portrayed as being raised in a religious society. Swapping philosophy ideas with their peers while growing up. Or the high dexterity swashbuckler who acquires it through training, tumbling onto ships etc. This is largely why I'm not mad on characters starting with 5 ability scores above 14 and one dump stat of 10.
High Wisdom = religious?
Just............... wow..........
And abilities are inherent in D&D and not trained. Being young just "temporarily" drops them by a fixed amount.
What is forgotten is that characters all have background stories. Whether the player sits down and thinks this out or not doesnt matter. Although it would add more flavour. What represents their background most of all in a character's stat block is their ability scores. No character starts with a 18 wisdom or dexterity the moment they leave their mother's womb. Having a high wisdom might be portrayed as being raised in a religious society. Swapping philosophy ideas with their peers while growing up. Or the high dexterity swashbuckler who acquires it through training, tumbling onto ships etc. This is largely why I'm not mad on characters starting with 5 ability scores above 14 and one dump stat of 10.High Wisdom = religious?
Just............... wow..........
And abilities are inherent in D&D and not trained.
From the DnD perspective, clerics normally have high wisdom. That was what I was referencing. Poor choice I admit. Ability scores are not trained in the sense of knowledge nature, trained only. However, they are cultivated based on where the character puts their time. Thats how it goes up. A fighter who spends all his time training and fighting without stopping to analyze his actions or path they've taken shouldn't have a wisdom or intelligence score above 10. That was the point I was trying to make.
He did say "Swapping philosophy ideas with their peers while growing up".
Hey I'm an anti-religious atheist too, but past all the corruption, the hypocrisy and the controlling hierarchies, there is wisdom in all religious traditions, hidden deep sometimes.
One of my favourite quotes comes from the Talmud
We do not see things as they are.
We see things as we are.
Very appropriate for forum postings.
Buddhism has quite the understanding of the perils of fixation, want and greed. This is veering off topic, but I just had to add alienfreak.
I posted on another thread a while ago saying that I helped make a character with a 5 cha. Even though he didn't have an extensive idea on his back story he still had a general idea. Some people started to whine at me for mid maxing his character or something along the lines of that. My friend likes to play offensive characters, in real life he likes to make fun of people. It made sense for him not only stats wise to have 5 cha but also for his personality as a player. I don't think dumping stats is a bad thing, I think players that don't player their dumped stats is a bad thing. Yeah 3.5 loyalist I've seen that if people get really high stats they somewhat ignore defense and try to bullrush through combat. I think it's more fun to trade blows with enemies, not have fights that snowball because of deaths. I also like it when clever plans get put into action and turn out working rather then just trying to kill the baddie.
Tyrion Lannister!
Does he have a high charisma, a truly low charisma? Is he just good at mockery with a good int and wisdom?
His father sure hates his ugliness, and so do a lot of characters in Game of Thrones.
I'm sure it would be great to have Tyrion's brains in Jaime's body and with his good looks, but now the character seems just less interesting, he has lost his flaws.
Ah but charisma is much more than looks. One can be butt ugly and highly charismatic. One can be very attractive and have the personality of a rock.
Tyrion is an example of high charisma in a low appearance score body. I miss comelyness (sp) scores.
yet people who would make that kind of interesting pc do not need to be forced to do so by a low point buy.
|
The other thing about high wisdom = religious is this: regardless of your religious affiliation (I too am atheist), this is a world of provable gods, so there are no atheists. In that regard, I think of the religious types as "Wise" because they most understand what the gods want of the mortals, and try to lead their friends down that path. Often they themselves embody the characteristics (at least thought patterns) of their gods.
Which is also why the religious tend to stat-dump int... after all, staying with a single god and embodying their whole being means flat-out rejecting any knowledge to the contrary. This removes the advantage of being well-learned... Pallies, Clerics, and Monks find it more easy to embrace their dogma by not learning things to the contrary.
yet people who would make that kind of interesting pc do not need to be forced to do so by a low point buy.
No they don't need it, absolutely correct.
Low point buy vs high point buy affects mechanics largely. Roleplay is typically accomplished without any math though for some, the math can help them in their minds better (if I have a str of 18 that means I'm strong, if I have a str of 10 that means I'm weak (or average depending on who you talk to))
Mechanically speaking:
High Point buy means a character is good at many things, he/she can do more on their own and do not need others help as much, and unless the DM ups the difficulty of combat encounters, will have an easier time in combat (assuming a standard encounter). Poor choices, tactical deficient areas, and the like are largely mitigated. Direct approaches to solving challenges and encounters are more viable because skills are a lot easier to bypass due to a high % chance of success, and enemies are defeated easier with less damage taken in return.
Low point buy means that a character is only good at one or two things, he/she relies on others to help them, and combat encounters will be more challenging (assuming a standard encounter). Poor choices, tactical deficient areas, and the like can cause death more often than not, or at least a good solid thrashing. Direct approaches are usually difficult to achieve because skills are more difficult to pass due to a moderate % chance of success to low % chance of success, and enemies are harder to beat and require alternate ways of dealing with other than direct assault.
Both of these approaches will appeal to groups of people differently.
Well the problem with religion and the encounters we are most familiar with, is that it is not actually with mendicants, nuns, priests or wise men. No, we are more likely to encounter bigots convinced and confident of their opinions. Everyday people with serious prejudices who think they are clerics. Think they are contemplatives, that they are as wise as the most wise members of their belief system. In sum, unpleasant encounters with wannabe clerics, people who heard something and believe it, and will bother you with it.
On Tyrion, he does have a lot of trouble convincing people, he is intelligent and savvy though, well-read, so I more see him as a smart wise chap trying to get by with some real detriments to his persuasiveness. His coin and wit take him far.
Also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYNeT2nzEgA
Failed diplomacy.
Unarmed attacks.
Succeeded at intimidate.
Not quite true on the one or two things auticus. I could take a rogue with no stat about 12, and with my feats in skill focus, be brilliant at eight skills. Keep beefing them every level, add focus as they come. The idea that without high stats, you are quite weak and only have a few strengths is an often used argument when it comes to arguing against lower stats.
Okay, I'll take the hellknights my low stat party fought. At level 8 they don't have an 18 ability score (17 str, with some others spread out). Yet, their offence is good, their ac is nice, hp no problems, they have fighter levels and can pull off combat manoeuvres because of feats, they have religious and legal knowledge and intimidate.
In comparison to a higher statted character, they are mechanically inferior.
I didn't say they are gimped weak. I know that a low stat character is still strong, it's how I prefer to play and have no problem with it.
Howerver, they are weak(er) than the higher statted character, so in comparison standing side by side, mechanically the higher statted character is going to have an easier time than the same character with lower stats. In some cases this will be more extreme depending on the builds.
The thing about 15 point buy is that you could choose to beef two of three physical ability scores. The third could be a 14 if you took one or two stats below 10. Flawed characters are interesting. As opposed to 25 point buy, a fighter could have good strength, Con, Dex without any need to compromise on the remaining three scores. Even though the heroes are suppose to be above average, I find that idea that their lowest ability score is 12 while everything else is above 14 is in itself quite laughable. I stated in an earlier post that ability scores are where characters spend their time. Doing strength-beefing stuff to up their strength as they grow up etc. To say they spend time in things which beef everything above 10 especially to hit 14 and above is ridiculous even for heroes-to-be. The higher up a stat is, the more time is spent increasing it during the course of their life. Reading the occasional book doesn't grant an 18 int, neither does occasionally pondering your actions only when someone close to you screams for you to see their point grant an 18 wisdom.
:)
Ha ha, I do recall a power gaming player, who made a wizard, max int. And yet, he rolled so poorly he couldn't pass a single knowledge check.
He had them all.
Good thing the dice is there to keep even the strengths in check.
On mechanics, people get very caught up in the mechanics. Playing a non-superman puts some people right off.
I don't think its about being supermen, but most folks like to be at lest competent. And good at one thing at sucking at everything else isn't competent.
Depends on how you define "competent"
A competent laborer is good at laboring. A competent computer programmer is expected to be a good programmer.
A competent fighter should be good at fighting.
A low stat fighter is still good at fighting. Therefore, he would still be a competent fighter. He would just require more assistance in other areas.
I've already pointed out, you can have below magnificent stats and be good at multiple things.
Strengths come from the focus, the feats, the builds. Classes like rogues are naturally good at a lot of different areas because of all their skills. Rangers are good at tracking, two weapon fighting or archery almost no matter their abilities. You could take your wisdom and dex down and move away from this, but the ability points go somewhere, I liked a polearm ranger I made with powerful charge and a host of professions. Those two focuses came from feats and skill points.
A small penalty isn't a guarantee to suck. 20s can be rolled, or just high rolls. I've seen 8 charisma characters pass diplomacy checks, and 7 dex scouts pass dex checks.
If the GM wants to bump the encounters, that's fine. But it really does suck for the GM to point-up all enemies just to comp; and are you really changing anything? Now both allies and enemies are better on paper. 15-point is the "play out of the box" level.
My 3.5 group woudl get angry at me for bumping enemies up. They wanted to be super heroes (their words) and me bumping enemies up did exactly what you said... made that worthless.
Sounds like they fear a challenge. Too used to easy computer games that don't want to lose consumers?
Sounds like they fear a challenge. Too used to easy computer games that don't want to lose consumers?
To be fair there are a number of reasons why this is. One is indeed not wanting a challenge. They wanted to relax and slay things, and challenging them stressed them.
It is a part of the modern video game designer's toolbox to make games easier to beat. MMOs are like that as well.
For me I found I didn't enjoy that at all and that's why I'm very selective in what I run or play in now. Another reason I got out of 4th ed... it was just designed to be too easy for my tastes.
|
|
Kinda funny because except for wizards you are illiterate in my game unless you took 1 point in linguistics. Take 100xp for making me laugh. If you write longer I can give you a 10% bonus on next game's experience. Here is a suggestion, write down your character's view of the other characters.Wow, I am impressed that this has gone on so long. I have never required or been required to do 15 point buy. The groups I play with like to feel a little powerful.
@auticus I am glad your rules work for you and your group. I am surprised you have had to defend house rules for so long. It is not like we are talking RAW.
I give bonus XP for one game for writing a background or a journal entry for the last game. Players who are involved just tend to level up faster.
Dear Diary,
BROKE SOME BONES AND SMASHED SOME SKULLS!!!111
Love, BARBARIAN
/me writes down his earned bonus XP :D
I am now imagining an illiterate barbarian keeping a diary of pictures that remind him of what happened. I think I need to play this character. Thank you guys.
Stick figures? ;)
Well auticus, I think you could remind them that the reason why this game is played is to become heroes or villains. Neither route is really easy. The only difference is that villains don't have the restraints of morality present. The game should have some moderately easy things they can take but should be challenging for the most part. Mixing it up can be good. I know a DM who ran rise of the runelords and almost every encounter forced the party to be near incapacitated. The easy battles should be there as well as the challenging. However, it shouldn't reach the point where they can lay back and just "take" encounters. No offense intended.
I am now imagining an illiterate barbarian keeping a diary of pictures that remind him of what happened. I think I need to play this character. Thank you guys.Kinda funny because except for wizards you are illiterate in my game unless you took 1 point in linguistics. Take 100xp for making me laugh. If you write longer I can give you a 10% bonus on next game's experience. Here is a suggestion, write down your character's view of the other characters.Wow, I am impressed that this has gone on so long. I have never required or been required to do 15 point buy. The groups I play with like to feel a little powerful.
@auticus I am glad your rules work for you and your group. I am surprised you have had to defend house rules for so long. It is not like we are talking RAW.
I give bonus XP for one game for writing a background or a journal entry for the last game. Players who are involved just tend to level up faster.
Dear Diary,
BROKE SOME BONES AND SMASHED SOME SKULLS!!!111
Love, BARBARIAN
/me writes down his earned bonus XP :D
He will need a whole lot of pig blood...
My 3.5 group woudl get angry at me for bumping enemies up. They wanted to be super heroes (their words) and me bumping enemies up did exactly what you said... made that worthless.Sounds like they fear a challenge. Too used to easy computer games that don't want to lose consumers?It probably has nothing to do with fearing a challenge or easy computer games.
If you want to feel like you're playing a competent and powerful character, always running into things that are a tough challenge doesn't help. It doesn't really matter what your stats (or even levels) are. If everything scales up with you, you don't feel like a superhero.
It's one reason I do like to occasionally have easy encounters, especially if they can be with something that was hard before. It gives a feeling of progress and power, that really doesn't come from a sequence of level-appropriate encounters.
Their words. "I play D&D to relax and kill monsters, not run from them and get beaten. Having you bump up the encounter difficulties makes my skills and feats useless since the encounters will just be as difficult and I don't want to play a game where my character is getting beaten, that's not why I play"
So it had everything to do with the challenge. Not "fear" of the challenge, they just didn't want the challenge in their game at all. This came after I was annoyed that they were carving through all of the encounters with ease, and had beaten down a dragon encounter in two rounds that was supposed to have been a challenge.
We had a talk, that is what came out of it. This was a good five years ago, it was the last campaign I ran with min/maxed characters and high point builds before 4th edition came out.
Bottom line: that particular group as a whole wanted a game where they knew they weren't going to die and would defeat whatever came across their path, and all had tweaked out characters which were good at a lot of different things.
I am more into games where I know I could be beaten. But please don't think that that means every encounter I toss out is supposed to be uber hard. I throw plenty of soft nerfballs their way.
If I make two Bio (one "real" and one "imagined/perceived", basically a character who is a bit insane) can I munchkin a little?
Human stats: 14, 12, 14, 12, 12, 12 ...
2) Stats rolling:
2)Roll 3D6 six time, reroll ones once.
3)roll 2D6+6 six time.
4)roll 2D6+6 six time reroll ones once.
5)roll 18D6 and aply the result as you see fit, but with min 3 and max 18.
example: result 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6... 63 points, distribute them as you please (not exactly like the point buy system) .
6)roll 18D6 reroll ones once, same as 5 afterward.
7)roll 24D6, discard 6 lowest, same as 5 etc.
8)roll 24D6, reroll ones once, discard 6 lowest, same as 5, bla bla bla...
etc
Well auticus, I think you could remind them that the reason why this game is played is to become heroes or villains. Neither route is really easy. The only difference is that villains don't have the restraints of morality present. The game should have some moderately easy things they can take but should be challenging for the most part. Mixing it up can be good. I know a DM who ran rise of the runelords and almost every encounter forced the party to be near incapacitated. The easy battles should be there as well as the challenging. However, it shouldn't reach the point where they can lay back and just "take" encounters. No offense intended.
I like to make it hard, sometimes very hard, but also with some combats that are easy if the characters get their tactics together.
Yes Equal, on the runelords game, let's break it down:
2) Near TPK from goblins and cavalry hitting us at the same time.
1) TPK save one character that survived the goblin wave and druid and panther.
3) TPK from the advanced greater barghest. Those that didn't die were a pc that stayed back, recovering from the last tpk, and a mad pc that wasn't there.
4) Near TPK from the skinsaw man.
5) TPK, again except for one from the kidnapper of the mayor.
6) Cursed near tpk. Ogress sepllcaster was defeated, but all were cursed and near death.
7) Near TPK from the Ogres and their boss, one character was kidnapped and raped, one was dead (thankfully not raped), everyone else was injured.
So, the above would be a good example of a game that was too hard, and was even on very high ability score generation.
Auticus, "Bottom line: that particular group as a whole wanted a game where they knew they weren't going to die and would defeat whatever came across their path, and all had tweaked out characters which were good at a lot of different things."
Truly a shameful display. If there is no real challenge, there is less benefit. It is playing an easy computer game, on easy. :D
Yes Equal, on the runelords game, let's break it down:2) Near TPK from goblins and cavalry hitting us at the same time.
1) TPK save one character that survived the goblin wave and druid and panther.
3) TPK from the advanced greater barghest. Those that didn't die were a pc that stayed back, recovering from the last tpk, and a mad pc that wasn't there.
4) Near TPK from the skinsaw man.
5) TPK, again except for one from the kidnapper of the mayor.
6) Cursed near tpk. Ogress sepllcaster was defeated, but all were cursed and near death.
7) Near TPK from the Ogres and their boss, one character was kidnapped and raped, one was dead (thankfully not raped), everyone else was injured.So, the above would be a good example of a game that was too hard, and was even on very high ability score generation.
Ouch, did good and bad rolls play a factor?
Ouch, did good and bad rolls play a factor?
Yes Equal, on the runelords game, let's break it down:2) Near TPK from goblins and cavalry hitting us at the same time.
1) TPK save one character that survived the goblin wave and druid and panther.
3) TPK from the advanced greater barghest. Those that didn't die were a pc that stayed back, recovering from the last tpk, and a mad pc that wasn't there.
4) Near TPK from the skinsaw man.
5) TPK, again except for one from the kidnapper of the mayor.
6) Cursed near tpk. Ogress sepllcaster was defeated, but all were cursed and near death.
7) Near TPK from the Ogres and their boss, one character was kidnapped and raped, one was dead (thankfully not raped), everyone else was injured.So, the above would be a good example of a game that was too hard, and was even on very high ability score generation.
Lol. Indeed it did. Players rolling average scores of 9-11 on the D20 even with specialized characters at combat during encounters resulted in them being incapped. AC of sub boss and boss characters started sky-rocketing as did alot of other things. The fighter/barb/berserker rolled the best he'd ever rolled, crits and average of 16 on the D20. Resulted in the 5th point. "5) TPK, again except for one from the kidnapper of the mayor." It indeed played a factor, but from the characters perspective, they didn't seem to be becoming more skilled (gaining levels) as both sides of the coin equated to being just screwed over. The only diffference was whether they survived.