|
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.
I do agree that failure happens, and it should from time to time. Also note that the PFS guide, (in regards to this) has changed significantly since then, and actively encourages DM's to fudge a bit in cases like this. But, I do also think that a scenario shold offer multiple ways to succeed, (and also understand that this was the first scenario out).
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.
I appriciate that. I'm not sure I can agree with you on some minor points (the constant resaving against Illusions, without a very ood reason), but I apologize if I took things the wrong way.
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.
The issue is that there was no Rogue in the party, and no Disable Device (or a few other Trained Only Skilles). This was also long before all the extra classes and Archtypes offered it to others as freely, and in PFS, you can not be assumed to have a Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and a Wizard. I do feel, in general, that most classes and types are very well represented in PFS. My issue with Severing Ties, so far, is that my character is just not contributing at all to the story or plot, and kind of needs to drop his faith, Good Alignment, and dedication to a patron deity to really have anything to do with it, (so far, things could change). I can easily see most Paladins have just as many issues with it. aguely similar issue in ToEE, (not Elemental Evil ha ha) where it seems like a Positive Channeling Cleric and a Ranged attacker are basically required, (but that's also a well known issue scenario), and there is a lot of things that if the DM doesn't kind of hand out, can really screw over most divine characters or those with a special code.
So as long as you are eligible to Aid Another, the DC is only going to be 10.
Your right. I was thinking (now, not during the game) it was DC 15 for some reason.
I always fully embrace PvP where it comes up in story. Society doesn't allow it, I think, for the same reason they don't allow evil characters (something else I embrace with relish). Then again I'm also pretty cool with having my characters die--I mean I roleplay to see where my character's stories go, and death is one possible end to that story.
|
|
The difference is that when a character dies in a home game, you can get a new character from the story and jump right back in. In PFS, you start back at level 1, and don't have an alternative XP progression to work with.
But, that's why people get rezzed and rezzed and rezzed when their characters die at the higher levels. :p
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
The issue is that there was no Rogue in the party, and no Disable Device (or a few other Trained Only Skilles). This was also long before all the extra classes and Archtypes offered it to others as freely, and in PFS, you can not be assumed to have a Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and a Wizard. I do feel, in general, that most classes and types are very well represented in PFS.
These are good points. I have to say, however, that the fact that it was the first ever scenario for Paizo also forgives the situation. They had never written an adventure meant for organized play, and I think they were trying to figure out how to work every class in, while not necessarily realizing that if a piece was missing, life would be difficult for said party.
My issue with Severing Ties, so far, is that my character is just not contributing at all to the story or plot, and kind of needs to drop his faith, Good Alignment, and dedication to a patron deity to really have anything to do with it, (so far, things could change). I can easily see most Paladins have just as many issues with it. aguely similar issue in ToEE, (not Elemental Evil ha ha) where it seems like a Positive Channeling Cleric and a Ranged attacker are basically required, (but that's also a well known issue scenario), and there is a lot of things that if the DM doesn't kind of hand out, can really screw over most divine characters or those with a special code.
This, I think, needs to be chalked up to the fact that, if you play a character with strictures, you should expect those strictures to be tested every now and then. Personally, I'd be bored playing a paladin that never had his ideals challenged. I wouldn't walk away from this table if I were playing a paladin. I'd be working very hard on figuring out how to work within my strictures, or (better) how to work the solutions so that they made up for the "damage" I was doing by using subterfuge.
The Society is pretty specifically stated to not be a "good" organization. No, it's not "evil" either, but it is not unwilling to crack a few eggs to make omelets. If a paladin IS unwilling, he's going to have to figure out how to work within the group in some other way.
Could have done it more softly, though. Sorry. :(
The way you approached it was fine. Definitely something I appreciate actually seeing on the boards once and a while. The culture of this board breeds thin skins.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Could have done it more softly, though. Sorry. :(The way you approached it was fine. Definitely something I appreciate actually seeing on the boards once and a while. The culture of this board breeds thin skins.
No, the culture of these boards breeds personal attacks and arguments. Being more circumspect in your approach avoids that.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I think the design of forums in general breeds personal attacks and arguments. These are among the most friendly forums on the internet...
Very true, actually. I *should* have said, "The culture of the internet, in general, breeds personal attacks and arguments. The culture of these boards breeds respect."
These boards are certainly better than most due to how we seem to get along with each other. And I think being aware of what we say and how we say it goes a long way toward that. I appreciate that Jiggy is aware of the fact that he set that aside, briefly. Being told he was catering to someone who was thin-skinned is incorrect.
Kyle notwithstanding, of course. And I refuse to look at your spoiler, sir. (;
No, the culture of these boards breeds personal attacks and arguments. Being more circumspect in your approach avoids that.Could have done it more softly, though. Sorry. :(The way you approached it was fine. Definitely something I appreciate actually seeing on the boards once and a while. The culture of this board breeds thin skins.
Constructive criticism is a personal attack? Also, do you mean that all arguments are bad? Or is there a certain type of argument that is bad?
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Constructive criticism is a personal attack? Also, do you mean that all arguments are bad? Or is there a certain type of argument that is bad?No, the culture of these boards breeds personal attacks and arguments. Being more circumspect in your approach avoids that.Could have done it more softly, though. Sorry. :(The way you approached it was fine. Definitely something I appreciate actually seeing on the boards once and a while. The culture of this board breeds thin skins.
I'm not interested in being baited. I've seen how you approach conversations, and how you yourself respond to criticism. I can guarantee that this will be the only personal response you will ever get from me.
:]
/edit I'd ask for examples but since I used up all my Drogon responses in this lifetime I won't hold my breath.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Constructive criticism is a personal attack?
There's a third category: just plain "criticism", neither constructive nor an attack.
I voiced criticisms (or "critiques" if you prefer) of Beckett's experience running that scenario, in which I corrected some errors he made. I assumed he wanted the best experience for his players, so I gave him information that he could use to provide that.
But I didn't present it "constructively". I dropped it in his lap like a well-intentioned anvil to the face. Had I presented the same information more softly, he'd likely have felt less defensive/attacked and reviewed the information more thoroughly. But as it stands, his need to defend himself from my improperly couched facts resulted in dismissing some of that information entirely, leaving very little of it to "stick".
Thus, his players will see less benefit than they otherwise might have, and it is at least partly my own fault.
Constructive criticism is a personal attack?There's a third category: just plain "criticism", neither constructive nor an attack.
I voiced criticisms (or "critiques" if you prefer) of Beckett's experience running that scenario, in which I corrected some errors he made. I assumed he wanted the best experience for his players, so I gave him information that he could use to provide that.
But I didn't present it "constructively". I dropped it in his lap like a well-intentioned anvil to the face. Had I presented the same information more softly, he'd likely have felt less defensive/attacked and reviewed the information more thoroughly. But as it stands, his need to defend himself from my improperly couched facts resulted in dismissing some of that information entirely, leaving very little of it to "stick".
Thus, his players will see less benefit than they otherwise might have, and it is at least partly my own fault.
Agree on your definitions. Still don't think your comments were wrong. I was just puzzled seeing Drogon refer to your tips in a negative light.
Touch spells are defined in the Magic chapter as being spells with a range of "touch", which that spell is not.Specific citation?
Core Rulebook, Magic Chapter, Range section, Touch: "You must touch a creature or object to affect it...."
Core Rulebook, Magic Chapter, Duration section, Touch Spells and Holding the Charge: "In most cases, if you don't discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely."
Core Rulebook, Combat Chapter, Touch Spells in Combat: "Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action...."
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.
It doesn't take severe mental gymnastics to read the rules. Produce Flame is not a touch spell. The touch attack function works like a touch attack, not a touch spell.
You might be surprised to learn that Elemental Touch is also not a touch spell, since it has a range of personal and a duration of 1 round/level. And, it turns out that's the way the spell was intended.
The difference is that when a character dies in a home game, you can get a new character from the story and jump right back in. In PFS, you start back at level 1, and don't have an alternative XP progression to work with.
True and in a home game you don't burn through scenarios the same way. By the time you've leveled a Pathfinder Society character much, you've probably burned a lot of scenarios that you'll never be able to use again. You can't do that too many times without finding yourself without modules to play.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
:]
/edit I'd ask for examples but since I used up all my Drogon responses in this lifetime I won't hold my breath.
This one's a clever one, folks. I always knew that I'd eventually be bitten in the butt by the "Owner - Enchanted Grounds" label that Paizo gave me. Makes me sad to have been nailed by this one, though.
Be on your toes around him.
:]
/edit I'd ask for examples but since I used up all my Drogon responses in this lifetime I won't hold my breath.
This one's a clever one, folks. I always knew that I'd eventually be bitten in the butt by the "Owner - Enchanted Grounds" label that Paizo gave me. Makes me sad to have been nailed by this one, though.
Be on your toes around him.
QBE
Quote before edit, sort of like QFP. I knew I shouldn't have used an initialism.
|
|
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.
He was not dominated. He was charmed. Grease or web would have been equally effective at keeping my PC occupied for a round. The raging barbarian 2 / battle oracle 4 / rage prophet 4 didn't take any damage from the black tentacles, but not only was he attempting to do direct damage to my character, he was also burning up party resources which could be needed in later encounters.
|
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.He was not dominated. He was charmed. Grease or web would have been equally effective at keeping my PC occupied for a round. The raging barbarian 2 / battle oracle 4 / rage prophet 4 didn't take any damage from the black tentacles, but not only was he attempting to do direct damage to my character, he was also burning up party resources which could be needed in later encounters.
Answer me this, then: if he was charmed, what reason would he have to not fulfill the task as well as he could?
|
|
Answer me this, then: if he was charmed, what reason would he have to not fulfill the task as well as he could?
Because he is stopping another friend, not an enemy?
CWheezy: Did becoming the enemy casters ally suddenly change how the character felt about the other PC?
Because if my new friend tells me to stop my best friend, I'm going to try to stop him non-lethally.
Because he is stopping another friend, not an enemy?Did becoming the enemy casters ally suddenly change how the character felt about the other PC?
Because if my new friend tells me to stop my best friend, I'm going to try to stop him non-lethally.
Y'know this is...a really great point.
|
It doesn't take severe mental gymnastics to read the rules. Produce Flame is not a touch spell. The touch attack function works like a touch attack, not a touch spell.
Catharsis: What other rules would it(produce flame) follow instead?
James Jacobs: It would follow the rules for touch attacks granted by spells, which appear on page 213 of the PRPG under "Range."
It's not just like performing unarmed strikes, since a) it doesn't provoke an AoO and b) doesn't require use of Improved Unarmed Strike. It's a spell, and should therefore function similarly to other touch spells like chill touch.
BNW: Chill touch on a claw would let you claw for claw damage and the chill touch (vs the opponents regular ac)
|
|
FWIW, charm spells don't excise mental control which is why you have to use a charisma check to "push" them to do things. Heck, charm is so weak that protection from evil doesn't even prevent it*. Don't forget that in combat the target gets another +4 to their save.
Most often I try to convince charmed targets to stop the fighting, acting more as an "occupier of actions."
The last sentence of the third paragraph of the Protection from Evil spell solves this problem for you. It says, specifically, that it only offers protection from spells and effects created by evil creatures. Also note that not all charm and compulsion effects "excise mental control" over the target. Making a target friendly is not control.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chill touch on a claw would let you claw for claw damage and the chill touch (vs the opponents regular ac)Not unless you have the Spellstrike ability.
A spell as touch attack does not do normal attack damage, it just delivers the spell.
You need spellstrike to do that with a weapon, but its an oft overlooked option for natural weapons and unarmed strikes.
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.
|
|
FWIW, charm spells don't excise mental control which is why you have to use a charisma check to "push" them to do things. Heck, charm is so weak that protection from evil doesn't even prevent it*. Don't forget that in combat the target gets another +4 to their save.
Most often I try to convince charmed targets to stop the fighting, acting more as an "occupier of actions."
** spoiler omitted **
*headscratch* That's odd. The FAQ specifically lists charm person as something exercising mental control.
The latter interpretation is correct: protection from evil only works on charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as command, charm person, and dominate person; it doesn't work on sleep or confusion. (Sleep is a border case for this issue, but the designers feel that "this spell overrides your brain's sleep centers" is different enough than "this spell overrides your resistance to commands from others.")
—Sean K Reynolds, 05/31/11
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I revisted this thread after playing Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment with some veteran players and some brand new, never played an RPG players (See http://paizo.com/products/btpy8qq1)
The Old Salts
These guys wanted to check every room, got whacked by a haunt, insisted on fighting to the death with the BBEG and nearly got a TPK. They loved it because they won, and because it was a hard fought victory.
The Young Pups
These guys got freaked out by the whole setup, spent as little time as possible exploring and trying to figure it all out, did their missions, unmasked the bad guy, realized that they were getting pounded. Once the first PC got taken down to negatives: "I pick her up. We run the f--- away. I throw her into her eddy. What do we need to roll to get away from this?!" They loved it because it was a huge mind game, they felt that they escaped with their lives, and the rush of a close shave with low level characters was engaging to them.
This is a dangerous game but not every scenario is a meatgrinder. Not knowing which is which is half the fun; finding out the hard way is the other half of the fun.
|
Again this is a differnet strokes for different folks thing.
My Eidolon died, so I delayed to right before the rogue, and summoned an earth elemental to flank for him, and the zombies in back would kill the earthy, we so repeated this for 3 rounds until we were able to overpower the 1-2 remaining zombies.
Again this is a differnet strokes for different folks thing.
** spoiler omitted **
Close scrapes make for the best stories!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
My wife has told me that she does not want to be challenged. Not really interested in the possibility of failure.
There are a couple of locals who play summoners, and I was feeling a bit "sidelined" by their power... then on the way home my wife talked about how fun they were to play with because they were so lively and engaging and funny.
So "different strokes for different folks" is perhaps an understatement. :/
|
|
My wife has told me that she does not want to be challenged. Not really interested in the possibility of failure.
These are the hardest people for me to GM for. :( At a first level table I can usually put on a good show, but at mid-high tiers, it's a real struggle to keep the game fun for these types.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
My wife has told me that she does not want to be challenged. Not really interested in the possibility of failure.These are the hardest people for me to GM for. :( At a first level table I can usually put on a good show, but at mid-high tiers, it's a real struggle to keep the game fun for these types.
Fortunately, she plays an archer, so she just listens to the table banter until her turn and then shoots things, and she's happy. :)