Flying Melon |
I don't really have a specific topic-I just want to rant a bit and maybe get some feedback. I'm currently running the Jade Regent campaign and we are in book 4. I have a couple of players who pride themselves on some really well thought out character builds-along with excellent craft item checks. One of them is a Cleric negative energy channeler that requires a DC 25 will save from everything in a 30 ft radius or they take 8d6 dm-that he then heals-and he can do this at least 12 times a day. (he sucks in everything else-I was only able to take him out with an army of archers-that were specifically targeting him).
I've also got a player Witch that can cast Icy Tomb Hex with a DC Fort save of 31. They were up against the Swine Shogun and the monster failed the save (I rolled a 1-it happens) in the second round of combat-and with dead minions-courtesy of the channeler-it's game over. I'm not trying to kill the players or be malicious, but I do get frustrated especially when I plan an exciting combat and it's over with a Hex that I think is broken (the boss would have had to roll a 20 to pass the save.)
So now the player (who's a good friend) is pissed off-I'm irritated with his legal and legit HeroLab builds and I don't know what to do. I'm not a newbie GM by any stretch-but I don't want to adjust the module to break the players because it's not fair-I pride myself on not too much metagaming and having the monsters have knowledge of the players that they shouldn't is just as bad as the opposite IMHO-but I'm not having a huge amount of fun and I don't want to adjust the module-I want them to feel challenged and come out victorious because of good roleplaying and exciting combat-not a "save or die" roll.
They player of the Witch did point out that I do have a bit of me vs. them mentality-that I want to "win" as the GM by killing players, so maybe that's part of it too-but I'm really just looking for feedback. Thanks for reading. I love the game and always have-I'm just wondering what to do-beyond sitting down with my buddy over a beer.
Fake Healer |
6 people marked this as a favorite. |
2 choices....deal with it or start swinging the nerf hammer.
When I used to DM back when it was "can the DM craft a good story or describe a good story for the PCs" and that was the most important aspect of DMing. Players would see exploits and for the most part (in my experience) not use them because it was not sporting between friends. Now it seems like everyone wants to WIN. I don't know if video games, or movies or whatever has made this the all-encompassing goal of people or not but I was never out to "win" D&D back in the day. My goal was to help create a story with a bunch of friends who all wanted to be an equal part of the story with a DM painting the pictures.
Now it seems to be all about DPR and how well X build can single combat a tassaraque/dragon/demon/etc.
I wish I had an old-school group to game with sometimes, I don't like banning rulebooks, classes or feats and I feel like now a days if you don't you have to seriously tweak written adventures to even scratch the PCs.
Oh well....guess what I am saying is that I feel you....
MTCityHunter |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They player of the Witch did point out that I do have a bit of me vs. them mentality-that I want to "win" as the GM by killing players, so maybe that's part of it too
I'm just wondering what to do-beyond sitting down with my buddy over a beer.
You've kind of answered your own question. There's not really much in the rules to help you. The wording of that hex is such that it doesn't really provide a way out short of passing the fort save (unless the BBEG has minions/allies around to break the ice).
You've got to sit down and hash it out, then come to some kind of compromise. Explain to him how its proving problematic to provide appropriate challenges and suspense to the party with optimized mechanics like this in play.
Players like this must tone down their gimmick for the good of the game, or the game will die. Once people (especially GMs) stop enjoying things, the game doesn't have long to live.
In return, you've got to stop trying to "win" as well. Adversarial GMs are a nightmare, and tend to indirectly encourage this type of character building and behavior. Its a natural selection-type phenomenon, in that those who don't all out optimize die out. It is ultimately pretty ironic though, in that you're likely encouraging the very types of PC behaviors that drive you crazy by being adversarial in the first place.
Talk. Meet in the middle. Keep the game fun.
Guy Kilmore |
The Channeling will not scale as well as NPC's HP as time goes on, at least from what I have seen. How does he heal himself and hurt people at the same time, you can usually only do one or the other?
It would be nice to see builds as sometimes there are ways to approach the situation that are not always readily available.
Or, take your friend out for a beer, buy a pizza, congratulate him on his great character build and asked if he could tweak his character because you have no way to challenge him and his build has won your pathfinder campaign.
Anil Whitesaber |
Is the cleric both channeling to hurt enemies and heal himself with the same action? How is he doing that?
Quote:An evil cleric (or a neutral cleric who worships an evil deity) channels negative energy and can choose to deal damage to living creatures or to heal undead creatures.
Also, if it is the Death domain, you only heal HP when you target Undead from the way it reads.
RumpinRufus |
Rumpin- if I had to guess, that'd be the Death Domain.
Still doesn't work - the Death domain lets you heal from negative energy as if undead. However, when channeling you have to specify if you're channeling to heal or channeling to harm. A Death domain cleric can channel negative to heal himself, but he cannot harm anyone with the same action. If he channels to harm, he does not heal.
Carbon D. Metric |
If neither of these characters are evil, then something is very wrong if their main approach to any situation is by killing whatever is moving around them. It seems like the Cleric is evil at LEAST, in mechanical actions by channeling negative energy. If this becomes problematic, let some of your worlds higher powers of good know that there is an evil cleric going around nuking everything in sight, without care.
I think these individuals will be able to mount a pretty interesting case against the person. Including political, and legal implications, it is a simple thing to kill everyone you see until a group of party friendly guards, soldiers, or angels come to claim some bounty or hold them to their actions. What if he kills them and walks away? How has this affected the party reputation? What towns and settlements will be hostile to the group? Are you ready to run an (Evil) Jade Regent game?
I dont know, there are questions you need to answer, but my point is you awlays have the power to have the people who are (Or become) their enemies take pre-emptive measures. Make the BBEG send down his Cousin who just happens to be a manipulated governmental Paladin 9, Hellknight 6. He will know what to do to squish your party, the player seems to be trying to win some kind of power struggle against your monsters. If that is what they want, then you owe it to them to show them you GM face and crush them with something creative. It could just as easily be a puzzle to get your game back on track, or a trap that is set juuuuuusst so for the player.
Just my 2c
Weables |
Just out of curiosity, how does the hex DC get up to 31? DC is 10+1/2 lvl+Int mod, I imagine there are feats but I never play Witch.
Actually, as the player in question, it's a DC 30, but only when combined with Evil Eye and cackle.
Level 10 Scarred Witch Doctor, level 1 Urban Barbarian. Ends up with a 28 Con while using controlled rage, and a 26 DC on the save (after the ability focus feat was taken for the hex at level 11)
10 + 5 (half witch level ) + 9 (con mod) + 2 (ability focus) is 26.
Evil eye with cackle to reduce saves by 4, then apply ice tomb. Its technically DC26 with a -4 penalty on the dice roll, requires 2 rounds to do. DC30 is just the shorthand used to help the DM out from having to calculate everything individually.
Aunt Tony |
Simon Legrande wrote:Just out of curiosity, how does the hex DC get up to 31? DC is 10+1/2 lvl+Int mod, I imagine there are feats but I never play Witch.Actually, as the player in question, it's a DC 30, but only when combined with Evil Eye and cackle.
Level 10 Scarred Witch Doctor, level 1 Urban Barbarian. Ends up with a 28 Con while using controlled rage, and a 26 DC on the save (after the ability focus feat was taken for the hex at level 11)
10 + 5 (half witch level ) + 9 (con mod) + 2 (ability focus) is 26.
Evil eye with cackle to reduce saves by 4, then apply ice tomb. Its technically DC26 with a -4 penalty on the dice roll, requires 2 rounds to do. DC30 is just the shorthand used to help the DM out from having to calculate everything individually.
Um. Evil Eye can be reduced in duration to just 1 round with a Will Save, and if I were DM, I would rule that passing this Will Save prevents you from extending the duration with Cackle (i.e., the duration should be capped at 1 round pending a failed Will Save). This interpretation seems perfectly supported by the RAW which are ambiguous about whether Cackle can supersede the effects of the Will Save in the Evil Eye Hex's description.
In any case, no matter what, this does not necessarily mean that the DC for Ice Tomb "becomes" 30 because Evil Eye is tagged as [Mind Affecting]. A great many things can prevent a [Mind Affecting] effect -- undead, constructs, mindless vermin, various buffs and equipment... Evil Eye also has a range of only 30 feet.
Ability Focus is not meant for players to use. It is in the Bestiaries for monsters to use -- if your DM allowed you to take it at all, then he really should just refund the Feat and tell you to pick something else.
I don't personally consider Ice Tomb to be all that dangerous since it causes relatively negligible damage and (this combo) doesn't really do anything that Slow and Hold Monster can't do better. The subject is protected fairly effectively while "entombed" and not in any danger from the effect itself aside from the aforementioned minor 3d8 of damage (Fort for half of this!). Melting ice is left undescribed in the rules, though. I don't see this Hex working on ethereal creatures at all, and the subject's contingencies (if any) can still go off, so a creature capable of teleporting or phasing out of the trap somehow will be able to ignore further attempts from the Hex for 24 hours... It's also unclear how Freedom of Movement (and similar effects) will interact with this Hex.
Basically, the Witch class itself is very poorly designed with most of the Hexes being trap options, poorly defined or outright broken. But what we really have here is a textbook example of an inexperienced or clumsy DM. Remember kids, don't just tinker around with the rules willy nilly or you deserve what you get. And especially don't just allow your players to pick exotic non-standard Feats and exploit vague ability descriptions for their own gain.
I have to wonder why alarms didn't go off in the DM's head when his player wanted to take a monster-only feat to pump the DC for a SLA that was already at-will...?
Weables |
Weables wrote:Simon Legrande wrote:Just out of curiosity, how does the hex DC get up to 31? DC is 10+1/2 lvl+Int mod, I imagine there are feats but I never play Witch.Actually, as the player in question, it's a DC 30, but only when combined with Evil Eye and cackle.
Level 10 Scarred Witch Doctor, level 1 Urban Barbarian. Ends up with a 28 Con while using controlled rage, and a 26 DC on the save (after the ability focus feat was taken for the hex at level 11)
10 + 5 (half witch level ) + 9 (con mod) + 2 (ability focus) is 26.
Evil eye with cackle to reduce saves by 4, then apply ice tomb. Its technically DC26 with a -4 penalty on the dice roll, requires 2 rounds to do. DC30 is just the shorthand used to help the DM out from having to calculate everything individually.
Um. Evil Eye can be reduced in duration to just 1 round with a Will Save, and if I were DM, I would rule that passing this Will Save prevents you from extending the duration with Cackle (i.e., the duration should be capped at 1 round pending a failed Will Save). This interpretation seems perfectly supported by the RAW which are ambiguous about whether Cackle can supersede the effects of the Will Save in the Evil Eye Hex's description.
In any case, no matter what, this does not necessarily mean that the DC for Ice Tomb "becomes" 30 because Evil Eye is tagged as [Mind Affecting]. A great many things can prevent a [Mind Affecting] effect -- undead, constructs, mindless vermin, various buffs and equipment... Evil Eye also has a range of only 30 feet.
Ability Focus is not meant for players to use. It is in the Bestiaries for monsters to use -- if your DM allowed you to take it at all, then he really should just refund the Feat and tell you to pick something else.
I don't personally consider Ice Tomb to be all that dangerous since it causes relatively negligible damage and (this combo) doesn't really do anything that Slow and Hold Monster can't do better. The subject is protected fairly effectively...
Just to respond to a few points here. I'm well aware that Evil Eye is mind effecting, and my Witch was basically useless fighting undead as he had no real options to use other than cure spells. I was explaining how the DM came to the number in the OP vs a humanoid opponent, not talking about a blanket general case.
Second, the feats in the bestiary are there because they more commonly apply to monsters than players. It's not prohibited in the least to take them, something that has been commmented on by the devs.
Range also isnt an issue, as the character in question is generally in melee (hex strike feat using evil eye with his unarmed strike)
You're completely right that this hex isnt particularly more effective than any other save or die at that level, aside from the at will nature. It's also a supernatural ability, not a SLA, which is neither here nor there.
As for evil eye's reduced duration not being able to be extended by cackle, I'm not sure I follow your logic, but I'll certainly take a look at the hexes in conjunction to see.
This interpretation seems perfectly supported by the RAW which are ambiguous about whether Cackle can supersede the effects of the Will Save in the Evil Eye Hex's description
This particular statement makes little sense to me, as if it's ambiguous, then it's not supported.
I do appreciate the thoughts, though
Flying Melon |
"Basically, the Witch class itself is very poorly designed with most of the Hexes being trap options, poorly defined or outright broken. But what we really have here is a textbook example of an inexperienced or clumsy DM. Remember kids, don't just tinker around with the rules willy nilly or you deserve what you get. And especially don't just allow your players to pick exotic non-standard Feats and exploit vague ability descriptions for their own gain.
I have to wonder why alarms didn't go off in the DM's head when his player wanted to take a monster-only feat to pump the DC for a SLA that was already at-will...?"
Actually-Aunt Tony-I'm neither inexperienced nor clumsy and I trust my players-I'm just going to ignore your smug post and chalk it up to the realization that if you solicit advice on a public forum, sometimes you get solid feedback, and sometimes you get Aunt Tony.
Darkwolf117 |
Players like this must tone down their gimmick for the good of the game, or the game will die. Once people (especially GMs) stop enjoying things, the game doesn't have long to live.
I disagree on this. That seems like an unfair penalty to apply, simply because they made a good build. If a player, or multiple players, make good builds, then they completely deserve to have those builds pay off (one-trick ponies notwithstanding. If a situation arises that they can handle, good for them, but they shouldn't expect it to happen all the time. Adaptability is a good thing too).
That said, there are other circumstances. It's already been mentioned that a lot of hexes are mind-affecting, and that's already been acknowledged as a weak-point for the witch. In addition, they are primarily single-target. If the cleric is able to one-shot all the small minions, and the witch is able to almost one-shot most of the big guys, then you may need to adapt. Give smaller numbers of more hardy enemies to serve as the footsoldiers, and put the boss closer on par with these guys. This way, they can be taken out one by one by the witch, or after a few rounds by the cleric, but a burst/hex combo won't leave the entire enemy side decimated.
Additionally, spread things out some more. 30 feet isn't a far range, and that's what both the channeling and hexes are generally at. Archers, spread about the battlefield, will have no trouble targeting from a good distance away, and makes it a lot harder for them to get hit back by the two tactics in question.
I understand a reservation about metagaming, and I agree that in general, the GM shouldn't do so, same as the players shouldn't. However, you also need to think tactically. Is a group of enemies around level 10-11 always going to charge a single target, with no ranged/magical support, and easily setting themselves up for area effects? If they have any instinct for survival, which by those levels, I'd have to guess they do, I would think they'd be a bit smarter than that (unless they are actually mindless or something. Justifiable there).
As for not wanting to modify the AP, if you want to keep things challenging for the party, that is my recommendation. Yes, you could ask them to limit themselves, but personally, I don't like that idea. If they made a good build, then good job on their part. If you want things to remain challenging though, then you need to up the challenge.
I have to wonder why alarms didn't go off in the DM's head when his player wanted to take a monster-only feat to pump the DC for a SLA that was already at-will...?
I'll also go against this. A monster feat is not a 'monster-only' feat, imo. Again, if the player(s) can develop a great build, then they deserve to have it do well. You shouldn't need to gimp the players rules-wise, you just need to be able to adapt, and have the enemies logically do the same.
So that got a bit longer than I was expecting. Anyway, my 2 copper on it.
Rynjin |
But what we really have here is a textbook example of an inexperienced or clumsy DM. Remember kids, don't just tinker around with the rules willy nilly or you deserve what you get. And especially don't just allow your players to pick exotic non-standard Feats and exploit vague ability descriptions for their own gain.
Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct).
Now hush.
Showtime at the Apollo |
I always consider it rude, counter-productive, and cowardly when a player in question barges in on his GM's thread. It's like kicking down the door to his therapist's office and insisting on sitting in and commenting on anything applying to him.
A teacher of mine was fond of a saying that went, "he who excuses himself, accuses himself."
Indeed. When we elbow our way uninvited into another person's conversation to defend our position, we are revealing that we might not consider ourselves so innocent in the equation.
Weables |
To me, a hex would qualify as an "ability that requires patience or concentration." which barbarians, even urban barbarians cannot use while raging. Controlled rage only removes the restriction on skills, not anything else.
After rereading it, you're absolutely right. Thank you
Weables |
I always consider it rude, counter-productive, and cowardly when a player in question barges in on his GM's thread. It's like kicking down the door to his therapist's office and insisting on sitting in and commenting on anything applying to him.
A teacher of mine was fond of a saying that went, "he who excuses himself, accuses himself."
Indeed. When we elbow our way uninvited into another person's conversation to defend our position, we are revealing that we might not consider ourselves so innocent in the equation.
Fair enough, you're probably correct. and with that, I will take my leave.
DM Carpe |
First off kudos to Weables for a polite and articulate response to what I felt was a rude post.
Flying Melon, I'm not familiar with the module in question, but once I get to high levels big bosses tend to have some legitimate means of gaining a refill. I don't think it stretches credulity for say the last three big bads, to have a luck blade, an oracle minion with misfortune, and I know there are a few other options, aside from a well worded contingency. I don't mind my players getting hold of such refills either. Should be easy enough to sub out a bit of treasure, etc.
The other thing I'd suggest is actively trying to think of yourself as a referee rather than as the other team. I have similar tendencies as a DM I think, and often need to tell myself thiat I'm a ref not an adversary. Don't think I've failed because they've won in two rounds, think yay they won what next. I know it sounds kinda hokey, but it really helps me.
sowhereaminow |
Question: do all the players have well optimized characters? If so, you might want to up the power of a few of the bad guys. The AP's are designed with an average build party in mind. You will need to increase the abilities of key encounters to keep the game challenging and fun.
Note I said key encounters. The PC's should steamroll most encounters if they are a well built party. Let them. They get to have fun being powerhouses, an you get to watch them burn resources knowing the challenging encounter is yet to come...
As far as the BBEG (or significant minions), he or she should be at least somewhat prepared for the party and their common tactics. The game doesn't occur in a vacuum - information can and should get back to the BBEG, allowing him or her to prepare and adjust somewhat. Unless, of course, you party is insanely paranoid, and is scorched earthing everything when they fight while wearing amulets of nondetection.
What it gets down to is, you as the GM, have to adjust parts of the adventure to make it fun. AP's are a great starting point, but they aren't the end all and be all. There's no way for the designers to account for every party combination, especially when you approach higher level play.
Hope that helps.
Kthulhu |
My advice: If a particular tactic / combo is effective, then why are the PCs the only ones using it? I've found that most PCs tend to rethink breaking the seal on the Cheese-O-Matic 9000 if they know that the bad guys might use it as well. Cos as much as they can pump up DCs, etc...the GM can do so even more.
Rathendar |
My advice: If a particular tactic / combo is effective, then why are the PCs the only ones using it? I've found that most PCs tend to rethink breaking the seal on the Cheese-O-Matic 9000 if they know that the bad guys might use it as well. Cos as much as they can pump up DCs, etc...the GM can do so even more.
My table embraces this philosophy.
Azaelas Fayth |
Aunt Tony wrote:But what we really have here is a textbook example of an inexperienced or clumsy DM. Remember kids, don't just tinker around with the rules willy nilly or you deserve what you get. And especially don't just allow your players to pick exotic non-standard Feats and exploit vague ability descriptions for their own gain.Monster Feats wrote:Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct).Now hush.
Seconded.
Simon Legrande |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, so it sounds like the real problem is a party of 20-point-buy, splat enhanced characters vs an AP designed for 15-point-buy moderate characters. As the GM, it's not really your fault you got rolled since the encounters are not geared to the party you're facing. As others here have already put forth, the easiest thing to do is just amp up the power of the encounters. It may take a few to adjust the power level properly but it should be doable.
David Haller |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I play both PFS and a completely non-PFS home game.
PFS, of course, is pretty close to "anything goes"; there are restrictions (no words of power, no permanency, and so on), but mostly one can use any feat or spell, and there's a wide-open magic mart. My PFS characters - I admit - are comically powerful. I mean, I have an 11th level ranger who can make a DC 90 perception check... what does that even mean.
With notable exceptions, it's not especially challenging to play that way; it IS very challenging to judge PFS for the very same reason - dealing with optimally effective (I'm not going to say "overpowered" because that's nakedly subjective) PCs can be, well, disappointing from a GM's perspective.
How different is the home game! We're currently running Legacy of Fire (just starting on the 3rd book) with 15 point builds; typically we have 3-5 players at the table (depending on people's schedules). We are restricted to Core Rulebook and APG only, banning the Summoner and Gunslinger classes (for balance and flavor reasons, respectively), and our magic items are what we find (no magic mart). We have a "soft" ban on the Leadership feat (one player can have it), and pretty much we need to be self-sufficient (for example, several of us are currently suffering from Con drain - I'm down from a 14 to an 8, myself - with no hope of a restoration until our cleric hits level 7 (if he lasts that long - he's down 8 con!))
It's pretty brutal (I'm a player - level 7 inquisitor - not the GM), but it's SO challenging and fun. We actually have to depend on tactics, stealth, and playing smart, not brute-forcing the scenarios with raw ability or power. Do we think of ourselves as nerfed? No, because basically our GM just set Pathfinder back to a pre-power creep level, removed a terrible example of game design (the summoner), and removed something which doesn't fit, narratively (the gunslinger). I can still build a very effective character (notice that I selected an inquisitor, a good choice for a no-magic-mart campaign, since I can pretty well replicate magic weapon enhancements like bane and so on), but it's a very nice change from the complete cakewalk of PFS.
Pathfinder, in toto, is no longer a balanced ruleset; it's heading to where 3.5 was prior to 4E (it's not as bad yet - my last 3.5 character could shadow evoke a miracle with no material cost or xp expenditure, and was in general stupidly broken in a way not yet possible in Pathfinder, but still!) A serious, challenging campaign requires careful consideration by the GM of what will be allowed, refused, or changed. Nearly all mature game systems go through this phase - I'm not demonizing Pathfinder - but it simply doesn't work an an "everything goes" system.
Gluttony |
Still doesn't work - the Death domain lets you heal from negative energy as if undead. However, when channeling you have to specify if you're channeling to heal or channeling to harm. A Death domain cleric can channel negative to heal himself, but he cannot harm anyone with the same action. If he channels to harm, he does not heal.
Just thought I'd point out, this isn't quite accurate. When you channel energy you choose who to target, living or undead. (It's a slight difference that only matters in rare cases, such as the Dhampir which is living, but is targeted as though it were an undead creature. It may well apply in this situation though, can't say for sure.)
johnlocke90 |
Simon Legrande wrote:Just out of curiosity, how does the hex DC get up to 31? DC is 10+1/2 lvl+Int mod, I imagine there are feats but I never play Witch.Actually, as the player in question, it's a DC 30, but only when combined with Evil Eye and cackle.
Level 10 Scarred Witch Doctor, level 1 Urban Barbarian. Ends up with a 28 Con while using controlled rage, and a 26 DC on the save (after the ability focus feat was taken for the hex at level 11)
10 + 5 (half witch level ) + 9 (con mod) + 2 (ability focus) is 26.
Evil eye with cackle to reduce saves by 4, then apply ice tomb. Its technically DC26 with a -4 penalty on the dice roll, requires 2 rounds to do. DC30 is just the shorthand used to help the DM out from having to calculate everything individually.
As a witch, you will be able to one shot most major creatures between icy prison(reflex save) ice tomb(fort save) and sleep(will save). All of which are going to be at high DCs. If you picked the water patron, you can also get a size bonus to con at level 12, increasing your DC by 3.
I think its a good build if you don't enjoy combat though, as it ends fights pretty quickly and you don't have to worry about dying because you have a giant health pool.
johnlocke90 |
RumpinRufus wrote:Still doesn't work - the Death domain lets you heal from negative energy as if undead. However, when channeling you have to specify if you're channeling to heal or channeling to harm. A Death domain cleric can channel negative to heal himself, but he cannot harm anyone with the same action. If he channels to harm, he does not heal.Just thought I'd point out, this isn't quite accurate. When you channel energy you choose who to target, living or undead. (It's a slight difference that only matters in rare cases, such as the Dhampir which is living, but is targeted as though it were an undead creature. It may well apply in this situation though, can't say for sure.)
Its important if you are a living being healed by negative energy. Then you can spam channel negative energy to hurt others and heal yourself.
DrDeth |
I always consider it rude, counter-productive, and cowardly when a player in question barges in on his GM's thread. It's like kicking down the door to his therapist's office and insisting on sitting in and commenting on anything applying to him.
A teacher of mine was fond of a saying that went, "he who excuses himself, accuses himself."
Indeed. When we elbow our way uninvited into another person's conversation to defend our position, we are revealing that we might not consider ourselves so innocent in the equation.
I feel just the opposite. I always like to hear the other side of the story. In fact, I have often asked the DM, etc to bring the other parties into the thread. Usually this brings out facts one side has forgotten to mention.
Cold Napalm |
Umm...4th book...assuming at the start, you are level 9 or 10 ish? I am not seeing the issue with the DC mid 20s saves. Spells DC for the highest level spells should be 10+6(stat)+2(item)+5(spell level). That is 23 before feats or class abilities. And considering that spells have debuffs that kick the living snot out of the witch hex (some with NO SAVE even)...I honestly don't see the issue here. Hell from hearing about how they can't do much else then some piddly 8d6 AoE or a gex, I think they maybe on the poorly built spectrum of builds.
Grimmy |
I always consider it rude, counter-productive, and cowardly when a player in question barges in on his GM's thread. It's like kicking down the door to his therapist's office and insisting on sitting in and commenting on anything applying to him.
A teacher of mine was fond of a saying that went, "he who excuses himself, accuses himself."
Indeed. When we elbow our way uninvited into another person's conversation to defend our position, we are revealing that we might not consider ourselves so innocent in the equation.
That's a pretty crazy comment. It's a public message board not a therapy session. Weird comment.
Gluttony |
Gluttony wrote:Its important if you are a living being healed by negative energy. Then you can spam channel negative energy to hurt others and heal yourself.RumpinRufus wrote:Still doesn't work - the Death domain lets you heal from negative energy as if undead. However, when channeling you have to specify if you're channeling to heal or channeling to harm. A Death domain cleric can channel negative to heal himself, but he cannot harm anyone with the same action. If he channels to harm, he does not heal.Just thought I'd point out, this isn't quite accurate. When you channel energy you choose who to target, living or undead. (It's a slight difference that only matters in rare cases, such as the Dhampir which is living, but is targeted as though it were an undead creature. It may well apply in this situation though, can't say for sure.)
Yes, but those are exceedingly rare. Off the top of my head I can only think of death domain clerics who are targeted as living but healed by negative energy.
AdAstraGames |
Pathfinder starts out very simple.
Players hit things. They go down. When the players find something with DR, or more hit points than they can damage, the players run away.
Players level. The ones that hit things get marginally better at hitting things; after you get to attacks at +12 to +18 or so, the players who hit things are now more surprised by a miss than by a hit. The random variability in "I hit things" decreases because your variable amounts are dwarfed by your static modifiers.
The ones that don't hit things get limited times per day uses of abilities that tell the laws of physics to go hide under the bed until we're through thank you.
And what used to be "The Barbarian has a 10% chance of doing a One Shot Crit!" becomes "The spellcaster has a 70% chance of ending the fight with one spell."
Players hate randomness. They will fight tooth and nail to minimize the impact of randomness on their games. This results, quickly, in snoozefests.
Even worse, there is never an in game cost (or drawback at all, really) towards reducing that randomness.
Gluttony |
Players hate randomness. They will fight tooth and nail to minimize the impact of randomness on their games. This results, quickly, in snoozefests.
Players who are aware of this (and who do indeed consider predictable winning to be boring) will have no reason to strive for pure predictability, as they know the outcome will be negative if they achieve it compared to the fun of spontaneity. These players will thus fight less to minimize randomness when and if they realize that predictability is tedious.