Weren't the gold box the first person ones where you could only turn in 90 degree angles? I remember those!
My favorite D&D video games were Dark Sun: Shattered Lands, Baldur's Gate, and Planescape: Torment
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Produce flame doesn't "turn all his melee attacks into fire-added touches". It can be used as a standard action to make one touch attack that deals its own damage and no other. That also means no other attacks (or casting any spells that round). And the maximum damage (for a caster of level 5 or higher) is 1d6+5.
What was this GM doing? Or did I misunderstand your description?
It can turn one of his claw attacks into fiery damage.
Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
I think what people forget for that fight is that the summon swarm spell requires concentration, or it only lasts two rounds.
With as sophisticated as video game storytelling has become, I'm not sure "video game mentality" is even an insult anymore. I hope my DMing reminds folks of Baldur's Gate. I'd take that as a compliment.
I guess as long as it didn't remind anyone of Gauntlet: Dark Legacy...
It can turn one of his claw attacks into fiery damage.Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
I think what people forget for that fight is that the summon swarm spell requires concentration, or it only lasts two rounds.
Well and it doesn't bother me that spells get adjudicated wrong sometimes, as long as it's that and not just Pathfinder Scenarios in general being unwinnable. Honestly I don't care if your ruling on a spell is totally wrong so long as it works the same for PCs and NPCs and you don't give me a hard time for turning it right around on you in the form of a wand or a potion or a new character build.
|
|
Well and it doesn't bother me that spells get adjudicated wrong sometimes, as long as it's that and not just Pathfinder Scenarios in general being unwinnable. Honestly I don't care if your ruling on a spell is totally wrong so long as it works the same for PCs and NPCs and you don't give me a hard time for turning it right around on you in the form of a wand or a potion or a new character build.
There is a LOT going on in that fight. The one guy has himself, his animal companion, and a swarm that most people don't know the fine print on. DM's are only (in)human.
|
I don't normally drag up old posts, but I didn't see anyone respond to this post directly...
I tweaked a bunch of the encounters to make them more dramatic and fun--and it was a riot. Then I found out later that if one of my players had reported me I could have been banned from running Society games again. I was so startled I quit running them. That was my only experience with society until now.
The part I've bolded isn't true. I suspect the worst that could possibly happen is a VO (or Mike) e-mailing you, advising you to run scenarios as written, and probably offering some other new PFS GM advice as well.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Who's Walter Sheppard? We do our game at Cave Collectible Gaming here in town, Tuesdays at 6 p.m. though--open invite.
Howdy Grim!
I'm the organizer for the games that happen over in the Pullman Moscow region of WA. And, as of a few hours ago, the VC for this side of the state. Sounds like you've got some good games happening in Wenatchee!
I'd love to get to game with you guys, but my current work schedule of Monday through Friday makes it difficult to make such a momentous drive midway through the week. Presently we have games Wednesday and Sunday here in Pullman, at 630 as well, so having you come out here and play for a night might be more viable? If you're open to the idea., of course.
My perspective on difficulty - the way the game runs has to match the players at the table. Sure, run the fights with the written tactics, and don't change any of the NPC stats, but feel free to improvise. Maybe that power attacking antipaladin wants to spend a standard action intimidating the rogue after he one shots the fighter. Heck, maybe he doesn't take the AOO as the cleric heals the fighter back up. "Yes! Rise again, fool, let me butcher you a second time!". There's a lot that can happen between the lines on the page.
The part I've bolded isn't true. I suspect the worst that could possibly happen is a VO (or Mike) e-mailing you, advising you to run scenarios as written, and probably offering some other new PFS GM advice as well.
Which is probably all true, but when I heard that originally it scared the crud out of me. That and all the paperwork for a roleplaying game just struck me as surreal. It was like doing taxes once a week for fun. Now that I understand it better and why it'd done I think I probably could run sometime. I just don't want to look like I'm trying to yoink the game away from the store owner. I've made an offer to run an non-Society module on the side sometime if there's a week when we don't have enough players to do an official game for credit. So far the interest has been negligable.
Howdy Grim!I'm the organizer for the games that happen over in the Pullman Moscow region of WA. And, as of a few hours ago, the VC for this side of the state. Sounds like you've got some good games happening in Wenatchee!
I'd love to get to game with you guys, but my current work schedule of Monday through Friday makes it difficult to make such a momentous drive midway through the week. Presently we have games Wednesday and Sunday here in Pullman, at 630 as well, so having you come out here and play for a night might be more viable? If you're open to the idea., of course.
My perspective on difficulty - the way the game runs has to match the players at the table. Sure, run the fights with the written tactics, and don't change any of the NPC stats, but feel free to improvise. Maybe that power attacking antipaladin wants to spend a standard action intimidating the rogue after he one shots the fighter. Heck, maybe he doesn't take the AOO as the cleric heals the fighter back up. "Yes! Rise again, fool, let me butcher you a second time!". There's a lot that can happen between the lines on the page.
Good to meet you. Sadly I can't head to Pullman for the game. It's only with huge amounts of generosity and understanding that my wife and kids let me duck out once a week to go hang out at the gamestore here. That said, yeah it seems like I just got hit with a couple of the tougher scenarios right up front. No big deal. Thanks for the invite, and hey, you're always welcome if you're in the area.
|
Who's Walter Sheppard? We do our game at Cave Collectible Gaming here in town, Tuesdays at 6 p.m. though--open invite.Howdy Grim!
I'm the organizer for the games that happen over in the Pullman Moscow region of WA. And, as of a few hours ago, the VC for this side of the state. Sounds like you've got some good games happening in Wenatchee!
I'd love to get to game with you guys, but my current work schedule of Monday through Friday makes it difficult to make such a momentous drive midway through the week. Presently we have games Wednesday and Sunday here in Pullman, at 630 as well, so having you come out here and play for a night might be more viable? If you're open to the idea., of course.
My perspective on difficulty - the way the game runs has to match the players at the table. Sure, run the fights with the written tactics, and don't change any of the NPC stats, but feel free to improvise. Maybe that power attacking antipaladin wants to spend a standard action intimidating the rogue after he one shots the fighter. Heck, maybe he doesn't take the AOO as the cleric heals the fighter back up. "Yes! Rise again, fool, let me butcher you a second time!". There's a lot that can happen between the lines on the page.
one time I had the enemy cleric (who was in a pretty good lead against a party of fresh faced youngsters) refuse the "profane healing" that the cleric was channeling (mechanically attempting to save for half healing) . He also got enraged at the sight of an opposing holy symbol and went into melee fit against that cleric, instead of proceeding to channel the party to death. level 3 Negative channeller against level 1 party = unfair lol.
Sometimes you have to make sub-optimal tactical choices to help out newer players in especially deadly scenarios. Sometimes you have a group of highly optimized PCs with experienced players, and you try to trap them in a room, with obscuring mist or deeper darkness and channel them to death while they try to find you... options :D. Same caster, SIGNIFICANTLY different levels of deadliness.
|
I still wistfully remember when I was well known enough around here that when I met Mike McArtor at PaizoCon 1 and was like "Holy crap! You're Mike McArtor!" he looked at my nametag and went "Holy crap! You're Grimcleaver!"I still can't believe SKR didn't punch me when I introduced myself.
He probably doesn't have Improved Unarmed Strike and was afraid of the AoO.
|
|
All this talk about people not using minis and maps for role-play, psh.
I usually like to set up the scene with minis, and I pick out minis that represent certain recurring characters in the scenario/module with a specific one (my favorite one to do that on is Murder's Mark).
I also draw ALL of the maps and sometimes I'll even describe every room, even the ones with nothing in it, to build up suspense (I guess I need to GM Haunting of Hinojai, huh?)
The results are often hilarious. I start drawing a map. A player goes "I cast this, this, and this before going in," and then it's just some NPC to talk to. Also, they sometimes come into places I draw with weapons drawn, thinking there is a fight. They learn rather quickly...
I'm not trying to pull one over on the players, as I like setting up a scene. It does seem to cut out on "pre-buff metagaming," though. I have no problem with buffing up before a fight. Just do so at your own risk. :p
I've had players try to kill non-combatants before because of this (actually, several times). When it says there's actually people in the room, I put minis there to represent them. Sometimes, the results are quite hilarious. It's not up to the minis to tell them which ones are non-combatants, it's their own choices.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
(stuff about Order of the Griffon)You've just described the old "video game mentality" though...
...if only you'd been reared on the Gold Box Series.
:)
Actually, I was "reared" (had my first RPG experience) on EarthBound. After having that as my first impression of RPGs, my conclusion about D&D was "Oh. I guess D&D is for combat rather than story. That's cool, I guess..."
I still can't think of another RPG with a story of the same caliber as EarthBound, video game or otherwise. (Although I have developed a taste for the "tidbits within a believable world" format of organized play, which has its own pros and cons as compared with the single, cohesive narrative of EarthBound. So no complaints!)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Produce flame doesn't "turn all his melee attacks into fire-added touches". It can be used as a standard action to make one touch attack that deals its own damage and no other. That also means no other attacks (or casting any spells that round). And the maximum damage (for a caster of level 5 or higher) is 1d6+5.
What was this GM doing? Or did I misunderstand your description?
It can turn one of his claw attacks into fiery damage.
(snipped rules for holding the charge)
I think what people forget for that fight is that the summon swarm spell requires concentration, or it only lasts two rounds.
Those are rules for "holding the charge", which if you read the surrounding text in that chapter, you'll find only applies to touch spells.
Produce flame isn't a touch spell and is therefore not subject to any of those rules - no holding the charge, no free-action delivery on the round you cast it, no accidental discharges, nothing.
So no, it cannot combine with claw attacks or any other attack form.
|
|
That was my understanding as well. I've played in the scenario/adventure in question and I do remember a lot of issues I had with it, but these are not among them. Honestly, I would say my main disappointment was that all but that encounter and the swarm where so unthreatening, I blew through every spell (all buffs) in that game without one of them having any affect whatsoever, and the fact that I don't think I could make any of the required skill checks at all throughout. Might as well have been an unnamed NPC tag along until the final fight.
It does partially highlight one of the two major issues I have with a lot of PFS scenarios though. A lot, and I mean a lot of them contain extremely high DC's for way too many skills. Even faction missions aside, (which I find more acceptible, but also feel there should be a much wider variaty of skills presented). Because the way PFS works, in a typical 4-6, (for me 4 or 5 is much more common), these high DC's either rob the players of flavor and actually understading what is going on, bog down the game, and/or make most of the players sit on the sidelines too much.
|
|
Something I do wish that PFS would do is take a cue from the WoD's SAS rating system, and include right next to the Tier and Level Ranges on the front cover a general ranking 1-5 of the following catagories.
Physical/Combat:
Social/RP/Story Elements:
Skill/Specific Class Features:
Scenario Difficulty/Lethal Elements:
1= next to nonexistant
2= uncommon, or easily overcome/avoided
3= average
4= very difficult to overcome, or may require a special knowlege or advantage to overcome for most characters
5= nearly unbeatable, except for in most cases a "nat 20", and should be avoided by inexperienced Players and GMs
|
|
That was my understanding as well. I've played in the scenario/adventure in question and I do remember a lot of issues I had with it, but these are not among them. Honestly, I would say my main disappointment was that all but that encounter and the swarm where so unthreatening, I blew through every spell (all buffs) in that game without one of them having any affect whatsoever, and the fact that I don't think I could make any of the required skill checks at all throughout. Might as well have been an unnamed NPC tag along until the final fight.
It does partially highlight one of the two major issues I have with a lot of PFS scenarios though. A lot, and I mean a lot of them contain extremely high DC's for way too many skills. Even faction missions aside, (which I find more acceptible, but also feel there should be a much wider variaty of skills presented). Because the way PFS works, in a typical 4-6, (for me 4 or 5 is much more common), these high DC's either rob the players of flavor and actually understading what is going on, bog down the game, and/or make most of the players sit on the sidelines too much.
** spoiler omitted **
|
|
Beckett, I'm very curious about your spoiler'd example. I've never seen a PFS scenario literally require even one specific class, let alone three.
See my spoiler above, I'm pretty sure I know which scenario this is based on the clues (and it doesn't require even one single class, though one particular class allows you to circumvent an easy repeatable skill check).
|
|
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Devil Dial - Anyone with even 1 rank in Disable Device is essentially guaranteed success on this one, as an incredibly easy Perception check reduces the Disable Device check to DC 10, and the scenario specifically points out that it can be retried indefinitely with no consequences for failure. So if a PC is capable of making a Disable Device check and has a modifier of –10 or better, they can Take 20 and get it. However, as a trained-only skill, it does require that someone has at least 1 rank.
Box of Golden Faces/The Rage Box - This one is incredibly easy. Although a barbarian's rage (or the rage spell) will open it, the necessary negative emotions can be "faked" with (and I quote) "DC 12 Will save, Intimidate check, Use Magic Device check, or Perform (acting) check". Three of those can be used untrained, and all of them could be retried indefinitely. It is literally impossible for a party to be completely unable to open this chest.
The Riddle Vault - This one is of course completely independent of any of the PC's builds.
The Smooth Stone Chest/The Mind Lock - All this takes is a DC 14 Will save, which of course is allowed to be made whenever someone interacts with it - and since they need to open it, they're going to keep interacting with it until they succeed. Another "can't possibly fail" chest.
The Holed Safe/The Song Safe - This one needs a Perform check. Perform checks can be made untrained and can be retried indefinitely. Yet another "impossible to fail" chest.
So the only one of those five chests that "requires" (literally or functionally) anything at all is that the first one needs someone to have 1 rank in Disable Device. All the other "requirements" came from you, not from the scenario.
This is why it's so important that GMs prepare thoroughly and make sure they're familiar with all the mechanics referenced in the scenario. In this case, the biggest issue seems to be not knowing that perform checks can be made untrained.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
EarthBound?(stuff about Order of the Griffon)You've just described the old "video game mentality" though...
...if only you'd been reared on the Gold Box Series.
:)
Actually, I was "reared" (had my first RPG experience) on EarthBound. After having that as my first impression of RPGs, my conclusion about D&D was "Oh. I guess D&D is for combat rather than story. That's cool, I guess..."
I still can't think of another RPG with a story of the same caliber as EarthBound, video game or otherwise. (Although I have developed a taste for the "tidbits within a believable world" format of organized play, which has its own pros and cons as compared with the single, cohesive narrative of EarthBound. So no complaints!)
|
|
** spoiler omitted **...
However, the point I was trying to make is that the idea of having so many skills or class features that are not going to exist in all or many parties, I feel was a bad design decision. It was not that I didn't know what to expect from the game, it was that it was a situation that they literally got to a point they couldn't progress past because they did not have a Bard or someone with the specific skills, and the Scenario already basically says that this is the NPC's last offer to the party, to be able to move on in the game.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is not a "bad design decision" to expect that the GM won't artificially keep someone from repeating an action that there's no logical reason they couldn't repeat. Failing to spell out that someone can keep saying "GRR!!" again and again is not a bad design decision.
With the exception of the ONE requirement of Disable Device, the situation was literally un-fail-able.
Sorry, but the dilemma you experienced was created by you, not the author.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
It was also the very first PFS scenario ever, and I think Paizo can be given a little leeway in that they were still a ways away from figuring out how this whole "organized play" thing worked.
I find it interesting that you read that as restrictive, Beckett. I read it as inclusive; the author was trying to give classes other than rogues ways to open the chests. And, every time I've run the scenario (and I've run it 4 times, now) that is exactly the result. Other classes at the table other than the rogue are excited to contribute to something they wouldn't ordinarily be able to join in on.
|
|
Produce flame isn't a touch spell and is therefore not subject to any of those rules - no holding the charge, no free-action delivery on the round you cast it, no accidental discharges, nothing.So no, it cannot combine with claw attacks or any other attack form.
In addition to providing illumination, the flames can be hurled or used to touch enemies. You can strike an opponent with a melee touch attack, dealing fire damage equal to 1d6 + 1 point per caster level (maximum +5)
So yes, it is a touch spell. The DM made the right call, or at the very least a reasonable one.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Produce flame isn't a touch spell and is therefore not subject to any of those rules - no holding the charge, no free-action delivery on the round you cast it, no accidental discharges, nothing.So no, it cannot combine with claw attacks or any other attack form.
In addition to providing illumination, the flames can be hurled or used to touch enemies. You can strike an opponent with a melee touch attack, dealing fire damage equal to 1d6 + 1 point per caster level (maximum +5)
So yes, it is a touch spell. The DM made the right call, or at the very least a reasonable one.
Touch spells are defined in the Magic chapter as being spells with a range of "touch", which that spell is not. Also, there's the whole "letting him do it for 10 rounds" thing. :P
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I did let them continue to trying to make Perform checks. You can not retry to Disable Device, or Use Magic Device if you have no ranks because they are Trained only skills, and no one had them. You can not remake a failed Will save, (unless you are shown that the illusion is obviously false), but no one made the save, so that's out. The only one your arguement actually applies to is the Perform, which I said originally they DID retry and finally got it.
Jiggy is perhaps approaching this a little heavy handed (all my heroes have to have flaws), but his "be prepared" statement I think is the heart of this situation, and what you should take away from the discussion.
Perhaps it's a matter of altering the description, again. Perhaps it's a matter of giving the PC at your table with the noble background an intelligence check to realize that the configuration of the holes look just like a flutist's instrument that she saw at a recent party. Perhaps it's that the chest the fighter is looking at reminds him of the shield a particularly irritating opponent once bore.
Never be unprepared for what this game can throw at you. Recognizing you may have a problem is getting you half way there. Figuring out how to solve it without simply spoon feeding your players is what makes you great.
Don't be restrictive there, either.
Edit:Added spoiler tags.
|
|
I think people are taking this the wrong way compltely. I want out of my way trying to give the players every option and little tidbit I could to get them through this, like giving the Half-Orc Wizard (second best Intimidate check) a bonus for having his more bestial side come out. It wasn't that I was unprepaired for the game or the party, though I was completely unprepped for them to botch pretty much any important roll.
Despite what some seem to jump to the conclusion, I wanted the players to both have fun and to succeed, (but on their own, not going to have an NPC do it for them), and I think that people are taking this absolutly the wrong way. Most of the time, the checks where simply ability checks, and the bad part was that most of the time the DC to actually Aid Another was higher than the actual DC to beat it, so that was no help.
To me, it seems that this Scenario was really designed for a certain group in mind. Ive had issue with others along these lines, as well. For the longest time I was running scenario's unofficially, so don't let the 0 stars fool you. I'm having a similar issue with Severing Ties I'm playing in right now, to the point I might just drop out, it's really not designed for my characters at all.
|
|
Touch spells are defined in the Magic chapter as being spells with a range of "touch", which that spell is not.
Specific citation?
The spell has a range of "0", which is non standard. It then has two uses, either to touch people (which i think requires some severe mental gymnastics to say doesn't work like a touch spell) and 120 feet.
Also, if someone is clawing you in the face with a fistful of fire, you're going to get burned.
If you want every corner case ruling to go exactly as you'd see it, you have to be the one DMing.
Also, there's the whole "letting him do it for 10 rounds" thing. :P
THAT one is not reading the fine print: He should be able to do it for 3? rounds. but its an probably an honest mistake, not the DM trying to kill people.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Never said a word about thinking you didn't want the players to have fun or succeed. Don't put words in my mouth. I just pointed out the mechanics which, correctly applied, would have made it easier for you to succeed at your goal of fun-enabling.
Could have done it more softly, though. Sorry. :(
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I think people are taking this the wrong way compltely. I want out of my way trying to give the players every option and little tidbit I could to get them through this, like giving the Half-Orc Wizard (second best Intimidate check) a bonus for having his more bestial side come out. It wasn't that I was unprepaired for the game or the party, though I was completely unprepped for them to botch pretty much any important roll.
Okay. Different question, then (with some set up): seeing as dice are a part of the game, variance is an expectation. Knowing that, sometimes dice suck, and a table can fail (or TPK) solely due to how they fall. Do you think that the game should always assume success and never allow for failure? If so, organized play is not for you. Even taking the dice out of the situation, success should not always be assumed. If it was, we all may as well sit around the table and simply tell each other stories about "how we won, today." I don't think any of us want to return to kindergarten. So, expect failure every now and then.
Despite what some seem to jump to the conclusion, I wanted the players to both have fun and to succeed, (but on their own, not going to have an NPC do it for them), and I think that people are taking this absolutly the wrong way.
I have absolutely no doubt that you wanted the table to have fun. If you didn't you wouldn't be speaking so passionately about this. Please don't think I'm accusing you of wanting to lord over your table while they wallowed in incompetence, and thus you didn't prepare at all how you should have. No, I'm simply offering constructive criticism based on what we've discussed.
To me, it seems that this Scenario was really designed for a certain group in mind.
And I feel that they were doing their best to include everyone equally. Merely a difference of opinion, which alters how we approached the scenario. Honestly, I think if I had taken your approach, my games would have gone more smoothly, as I wouldn't have been surprised when I got that first table of blank looks. "What do you mean we can't just disable device it? What the hell kind of chest is this, anyway?" I learned right away during that encounter that I was taking something for granted, and I applied what I talked about above. That worked out much better. The subsequent three runs went even more smoothly.
For the longest time I was running scenario's unofficially, so don't let the 0 stars fool you.
I hope no one is. That kind of exclusivity is flat out wrong. One of the best GMs I know has not a single star next to his name. One of the worst GMs I've ever played with came with "25 years of experience."
I could not care less how many stars are next to your name when we're talking about this stuff. I simply want you to open you mind a little so you're not running into this:
I'm having a similar issue with Severing Ties I'm playing in right now, to the point I might just drop out, it's really not designed for my characters at all.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
<snip> its an probably an honest mistake, not the DM trying to kill people.
I think a lot more of us need to be aware that in almost EVERY case that a GM makes a mistake (or a player, for that matter) it is an honest mistake. I seriously doubt that anyone ever sets out during any situation INTENDING to make mistakes and screw with people. No one ever went to work thinking to themselves, "I'm going to do the crappiest job I possibly can, today," (notwithstanding those who are truly pissed at their jobs and plan to sabotage it on their final day).
Remember this when discussing this stuff, and I think stress levels and hurt feelings will go down significantly.
Understanding that, remember to see the other side of the coin, as well. Often, people are just trying to tell you how they solved the problem that you are experiencing (or how they WOULD have solved the problem). After all, we're all gamers, and solving problems is in our nature. Get used to being told, "You should do it this way," and realize it means, "I think you're having a problem. What if you were to apply this solution? Would that help?"
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Most of the time, the checks where simply ability checks, and the bad part was that most of the time the DC to actually Aid Another was higher than the actual DC to beat it . . .
From the PRD:
You can help someone achieve success on a skill check by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort. If you roll a 10 or higher on your check, the character you're helping gets a +2 bonus on his or her check.So as long as you are eligible to Aid Another, the DC is only going to be 10.
|
Contributor
|
Most of the time, the checks where simply ability checks, and the bad part was that most of the time the DC to actually Aid Another was higher than the actual DC to beat it . . .From the PRD:
You can help someone achieve success on a skill check by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort. If you roll a 10 or higher on your check, the character you're helping gets a +2 bonus on his or her check.So as long as you are eligible to Aid Another, the DC is only going to be 10.
Yeah, I was wondering about that, too. Maybe the scenario specifically lays out higher Aid Another DCs for the tests in question?
Actually, I was "reared" (had my first RPG experience) on EarthBound. After having that as my first impression of RPGs, my conclusion about D&D was "Oh. I guess D&D is for combat rather than story. That's cool, I guess..."I still can't think of another RPG with a story of the same caliber as EarthBound, video game or otherwise. (Although I have developed a taste for the "tidbits within a believable world" format of organized play, which has its own pros and cons as compared with the single, cohesive narrative of EarthBound. So no complaints!)
So is that Earthdawn? (the FASA fantasy prequel to Shadowrun that takes place in 8000 B.C. but inexplicably feels like Tolkien) Or do you really mean Earthbound (as in the weird trippy final fantasy style game)?
I guess I've never really gotten how D&D is somehow inherantly a game about fighting. There is certainly a huge segment of the culture that plays it that way, but they could do the same exact thing with any other system. Any game is used how you use it. You just have to take a step back from such a white-knuckle grip on RAW and power builds, and take her out of the dungeon for a while and there's some mighty fine stories to tell there.
EDIT: Reading back I guess it really is Earthbound--isn't that game supposed to be...y'know, a big glob of Weird on a Stick? I heard you fight giant evil pencils in that one. And barf. Is that really what soured your view of storytelling in D&D...cause yikes man.
Okay. Different question, then (with some set up) seeing as dice are a part of the game, variance is an expectation. Knowing that, sometimes dice suck, and a table can fail (or TPK) solely due to how they fall. Do you think that the game should always assume success and never allow for failure? If so, organized play is not for you. Even taking the dice out of the situation, success should not always be assumed. If it was, we all may as well sit around the table and simply tell each other stories about "how we won, today." I don't think any of us want to return to kindergarten. So, expect failure every now and then.
I think in fairness there's a false dynamic here. We were in a game where as luck had it we were low level (and soon to die) PCs with no super lockpicking guys. We were told to investigate a building that was all locked up--we had no characters skilled enough to pick the locks and only after some crazy long period of rolling to beat down the door did a natural 20 give our fighter guy enough to finally get it open. If he hadn't? Seriously it was like we left the keys in the game by accident and got locked out. That wasn't grown up mature fun. It was kinda' lame.
If I play a game and lose, that's cool. Not being able to play the game because nobody thought to buy the Leapfrog skill...that's frustrating. Especially when you're never allowed to replay a game once you've played it.
That said...how many people actually still report a game where the PCs wipe or ragequit? I wonder if you couldn't just sorta', y'know forget you guys played that one, run something else and then "discover" it sitting around one day...
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Actually, I was "reared" (had my first RPG experience) on EarthBound. After having that as my first impression of RPGs, my conclusion about D&D was "Oh. I guess D&D is for combat rather than story. That's cool, I guess..."I still can't think of another RPG with a story of the same caliber as EarthBound, video game or otherwise. (Although I have developed a taste for the "tidbits within a believable world" format of organized play, which has its own pros and cons as compared with the single, cohesive narrative of EarthBound. So no complaints!)
So is that Earthdawn? (the FASA fantasy prequel to Shadowrun that takes place in 8000 B.C. but inexplicably feels like Tolkien) Or do you really mean Earthbound (as in the weird trippy final fantasy style game)?
I guess I've never really gotten how D&D is somehow inherantly a game about fighting. There is certainly a huge segment of the culture that plays it that way, but they could do the same exact thing with any other system. Any game is used how you use it. You just have to take a step back from such a white-knuckle grip on RAW and power builds, and take her out of the dungeon for a while and there's some mighty fine stories to tell there.
EDIT: Reading back I guess it really is Earthbound--isn't that game supposed to be...y'know, a big glob of Weird on a Stick? I heard you fight giant evil pencils in that one. And barf. Is that really what soured your view of storytelling in D&D...cause yikes man.
What made me think (originally - view's changed now that I have other examples to look at) that D&D was all about fighting was Order of the Griffon. NPCs had names (some of them), but there were no clear motivations for anyone, barely anything to even hint at where I should go next (let alone an actual cohesive plot), and CONSTANT random encounters. You were constantly fighting, nothing made much sense, and trial and error was required to get the sequence of events right ("error" in this case meaning wandering aimlessly for hours until you gave up and started over).
Compared to EarthBound, which aside from being trippy in its presentation, had actual characters with agendas and motivations and differences in personality.
I play EarthBound for the story and Order of the Griffon for the combat. :)
|
|
I think in fairness there's a false dynamic here. We were in a game where as luck had it we were low level (and soon to die) PCs with no super lockpicking guys. We were told to investigate a building that was all locked up--we had no characters skilled enough to pick the locks and only after some crazy long period of rolling to beat down the door did a natural 20 give our fighter guy enough to finally get it open. If he hadn't? Seriously it was like we left the keys in the game by accident and got locked out. That wasn't grown up mature fun. It was kinda' lame.
Sounds like a situation to take 20. The rules cover what to do if you need to repeat a skill/ability score check repeatedly until you succeed, and there are no consequences for failure. Rather than roll over and over, just declare "take 20" and move on. It keeps the story rolling.
|
|
Also, if you are charmed bu an evil muppet into attacking other PCs, that is considered under monster influence, and your party has every right to grapple you or knock you out. That isn't PvP, that is smart playing.
The PVP rules need to be a lot clearer. Had an instance where a charmed (keep him away from me) PC cast Black Tentacles on my Barbarian/Battle Oracle when he could have cast grease or web and the villain was 200 feet away in the midst of a dense forest.
My opinion is that if you deliberately cast a damaging spell when you have alternatives then you have initiated PVP and if the DM lets you, then I am well within my rights to kill your character because you have voluntarily embraced PVP. Everyone at the table agreed with me. Fortunately (for him), he dim doored as I broke out of the tentacles and reached him, but couldn't attack. He eventually made a save before I was able to get to him (running around lots of tentacles and webs in difficult terrain is slow).
|
|
A PC who has been charmed must follow the directions given him as best as he can. The alternative is to have the GM take the character sheet and act for the player. As a GM, I'm entirely alright for the PC to cast black tentacles, he is doing exactly what the spell would have him do, as effectively as he can. He no more voluntarily embraced PvP than a person who gets hit by a save or die spell voluntarily embraced death.
