That experience was the one that convinced me I would never again run in a party without a positive-energy channeler. It was brutal, and the DM fudged six ways from Sunday.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Characters should be 3rd level early in the exploration Thistletop, or perhaps right after the Catacombs of Wrath", is the advice given in the AP advancement track. They should be lvl 4th by the end of the book.
So, basically, you're fine without a wand of CLW as long as you have someone willing to take on the role of dedicated healer or the GM tosses you a dedicated healer NPC ally to give you free healz?
I have no idea why you would think I think that.
Turn it around: are you saying that if there's no CLW, then someone MUST be a healbot?
Doug M.
Absent Channel Energy (positive) and cheap magic healing items, yes, someone in the party is going to have to spend a relatively large amount of their resources on healing, unless the party is just free to go spend a week healing up in town at any given time.
|
Um...you are just wrong
So again, your assertion about AP's is incorrect.
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I'll have to ask you for a cite.
** spoiler omitted **
Doug M.
You are correct, it was not in the "conclusion" as I remembered. But now that I have the book in front of me...the players know
Tsuto's journal
"Ripnugget seems to favor the overwhelming land approach, but I don’t think it’s the best plan. We should get the quasit’s aid. Send her freaks up from below via the smuggling tunnel in my father’s Glassworks, and then invade from the river and from the Glassworks in smaller but more focused strikes. The rest except Bruthazmus agree, and I’m pretty sure the bugbear’s just being contrary to annoy me. My love’s too distracted with the lower chambers to make a decision. Says
that once Malfeshnekor’s released and under her command, we won’t need to worry about being subtle. I hope she’s right."
So they know they are on a timer. The Chief talks about him, the painting on the wall in the dungeon talks about him.
So yes, Clock. In addition to the other clocks I listed. Most if not all of the APs are on clocks.
I hadn't realized that PF had made red dragons now spew, "You are all stupid video game players. Not worthy of licking my true gaming boots." I can't really say that is an improvement PF.
As for "realism", yeah, first drop that word when talking about flying wizards, bits of bat poop making huge explosions and other such nonsense. Second, a party that thinks they could hunker down and not be found by people who actually live in the base of operations, that is insane. Let's say, I am more likely to find you in my house, than if you are hiding in your house. Because, well, I am more familiar with it.
Guys invade, take over the top level, wipe out half my troops. And camp out on the top level somewhere. (1) load up all goods that we take, meanwhile stack wood, stray, anything will burn around all exits from base. Light and leave to find new base. No more problem-some adventurers.
Big boss: "But you were suppose to stay there, not burn it!"
Hide out mini boss: "Yeah, but after they killed half our guys, I wasn't taking any chances. Don't worry, the new base will be even better, you'll see. And we don't have to worry about THOSE guys bothering us again."
|
|
Absent Channel Energy (positive) and cheap magic healing items, yes, someone in the party is going to have to spend a relatively large amount of their resources on healing, unless the party is just free to go spend a week healing up in town at any given time.
I need to stop taking my Gamer Circle Luck for granted, because -- once again -- I've never played in a game -- including 1E -- where being a healer was despised the way people talk about it here.
It's kinda puzzling to me, too, that folks who are so worried about surviving don't seem to want any effective in-combat healing. Granted, it's not super-efficient, but there are sure plenty of cases in which it can be life-saving or even make the difference in winning an encounter or not.
We've always -- and I mean always -- ended up with either a strong healer or two lesser healers, and we have never had to coerce anybody into doing it, and we've never had anybody grouse about it.
Is this kind of luck really as rare as y'all're making it sound?
|
Except a 48 hour delay is often unacceptable.People keep saying this. But, you know, looking at Paizo's APs and modules? Most of them don't have clocks on them, or if they do, the clocks are very loose. (Harrowstone is a rare exception.) "The Princess is being tortured!" is, while not quite a strawman, not all that strong an argument. Nobody's being tortured in Thistletop, and while the goblins will certainly prepare against your return, there are only so many of them and they have limited resources. (And Nualia isn't going to come help them. She's nuts.)
Doug M.
Fair. House of the Beast doesn't have a direct clock, but has a bit of an indirect one... they receive reinforcements over time, and the PCs are a good week's ride inside enemy lines (so to speak).
Tactically speaking, assuming we're talking an organized force inside a dungeon (or dunegon like complex)... trying to hole up inside the dungeon is damned dangerous, and withdrawing to come back again has its own risks.
With all of that said, I am thankful for this thread if only because I have learned how underrated the heal skill is.
Honestly if you want a more gritty feel. You should probably change spells/day to spells/week or longer. And having an encounter every other day or so. Maybe invading a camp might have 2 big encounters, but then nothing for several days.
Absent Channel Energy (positive) and cheap magic healing items, yes, someone in the party is going to have to spend a relatively large amount of their resources on healing, unless the party is just free to go spend a week healing up in town at any given time.I need to stop taking my Gamer Circle Luck for granted, because -- once again -- I've never played in a game -- including 1E -- where being a healer was despised the way people talk about it here.
It's kinda puzzling to me, too, that folks who are so worried about surviving don't seem to want any effective in-combat healing. Granted, it's not super-efficient, but there are sure plenty of cases in which it can be life-saving or even make the difference in winning an encounter or not.
We've always -- and I mean always -- ended up with either a strong healer or two lesser healers, and we have never had to coerce anybody into doing it, and we've never had anybody grouse about it.
Is this kind of luck really as rare as y'all're making it sound?
In the 3.5 games I played in it was very common to have 6-8 players and everyone to show up for the game with, say, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Warlock, Dragon Shaman, Ranger. No primary healer classes.
Honestly if you want a more gritty feel. You should probably change spells/day to spells/week or longer. And having an encounter every other day or so. Maybe invading a camp might have 2 big encounters, but then nothing for several days.
I enjoy 13th Age's approach to this. You get spells/abilities that come back after a rest, but you only get a 'rest' after 4 battles. It doesn't matter if you take a week off from adventuring, you're still exactly where you were in the cycle. It is a mechanic this is very meta, but I think as players/GM's trying to manage resources, having that cycle spelled out and controlled works well.
Oh, also the 'experience' system for the game is based on rests too. You get a level every 4 rests (or modified based on the groups preferences, but I like it so far as a pacing mechanic for leveling).
|
|
So yes, Clock. In addition to the other clocks I listed. Most if not all of the APs are on clocks.
For what it's worth, not only is Jade Regent 3 not on a clock, it's explicitly and emphatically not on a clock. The designer wrote in several places that the PCs can take as much time as they want.
For that matter, there wasn't time pressure in JR 1 or JR 2, either, beyond the normal dynamics of a couple of fairly tough dungeon crawls and the holding of an NPC prisoner.
Dunno about other APs, or even the reminder of JR, as I haven't read them.
Again, play-style: it's difficult for me to understand why any villain would bother holing up in a fortress (dungeon) if it could be completely annihilated in one sweep of an adventuring party. There's absolutely a place for five-room dungeons (and as a GM, I use them pretty often), but there's also a place for significant dungeons that shouldn't be clearable in one sortie, and if those disappeared, I'd miss them.
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I'll have to ask you for a cite.
** spoiler omitted **
You are correct, it was not in the "conclusion" as I remembered. But now that I have the book in front of me...the players know
** spoiler omitted **
So yes, Clock. In addition to the other clocks I listed. Most if not all of the APs are on clocks.
Not only that, but Tsuto's Journal mark a few more clocks:
Of more pressing concern are the next several pages, which illustrate an assault on Sandpoint by a force of what appears to be 200 goblins. None of these are circled, and while many are scratched out as if they've been rejected, the implications should be ominous nonetheless
and
I also checked again Thistletop, and while being a long dungeon crawl (a style that I don't really love), I don't see why it's not doable by a group of the suggested level (3, either right before entering, or right after entering the dungeon), if they max their HP after every encounter with a CLWW.
|
|
In the 3.5 games I played in it was very common to have 6-8 players and everyone to show up for the game with, say, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Warlock, Dragon Shaman, Ranger. No primary healer classes.
Interesting. Other than PFS, I haven't played in a game in which players didn't choose characters in the context of what other players wanted to play. So in that respect, it's definitely not luck, but rather pre-game logistics.
But even if my current group -- for example -- didn't do that, we would almost certainly end up with at least a strong healer or a couple of "half-healers." One player, for instance, currently plays a life oracle -- and it's tough to get closer to "heal-bot" than that -- that he absolutely loves, because he loves playing support characters. (He wants to start playing BSG with us, and I can almost guarantee than he'll pick Tyrol or Dualla as his character.)
But maybe having one or more players like that is lucky.
In the 3.5 games I played in it was very common to have 6-8 players and everyone to show up for the game with, say, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Warlock, Dragon Shaman, Ranger. No primary healer classes.Interesting. Other than PFS, I haven't played in a game in which players didn't choose characters in the context of what other players wanted to play. So in that respect, it's definitely not luck, but rather pre-game logistics.
we make our characters looking what's in the group and what's not too. But back in the days of AD&D, the last one chosing was bounded to play the healbot.
In some groups, we have had people who liked to play clerics. Some of those also enjoyed healing. In the Last campaign I played, Kingmaker, we had a player that played a healer cleric. But in some other groups, we have had none (or a druid who didn't memorize cure spells, except for maybe one or two).
Having someone in your group that like to play support/healing characters is a boon. But just like not everybody likes to play fighters, or rogues, or wizards, not everybody likes to play clerics. Among the players I've known through the years (which might be 50), "healbot" is the least liked role, by a huge margin.
so Ulysses had cure light wounds wands??
|
|
But back in the days of AD&D, the last one chosing was bounded to play the healbot.
"Bounded" by whom?
I started playing AD&D in 1982 or so, maybe 1981, and nobody was ever -- ever -- forced to play a cleric. (Are we back to me being lucky again?)
I started DMing AD&D in ... 1984ish? From the very first game I ever ran -- and continuing to this day, in games as diverse as Shadowrun, M&M, and PFRPG -- I've told my players that their first consideration should be actively liking the PC they create. That, if necessary, I would adjust if they had a "non-traditional" group. (And of course it's happened a few times; right now, in Jade Regent, they don't have a full arcanist, and I'm actively adjusting for that.)
And, back to speaking as a player, I would rather the GM makes those adjustments than deal with the smelly cheese of spamming wand-casting. (In PFS, I suck it up, because I would imagine GMs simply don't have the flexibility to do that as in a home game.)
so Ulysses had cure light wounds wands??
No. He played with some rule variant that make healing even more easy, as GM Homer thought that sleeping in the ship in a room that monsters never used, made for a such poor epic tale as giving Ulysses ten feet poles.
|
I hadn't realized that PF had made red dragons now spew, "You are all stupid video game players. Not worthy of licking my true gaming boots." I can't really say that is an improvement PF.
I call it like it is, must have hit a nerve on that one.
As for "realism", yeah, first drop that word when talking about flying wizards, bits of bat poop making huge explosions and other such nonsense.
That's right, because it's fantasy so all aspects of everything in-game must be fantastical - from dropping a duce and having it turn into a pixie, to breathing out bubbles shaped like dragons instead of CO2, got it! We must not discuss reality, human thinking, emotion, rational thought, etc. Because it’s a fantasy game after all.
Blanket excuse for in-game stupidity or poor design = IT'S FANTASY!Second, a party that thinks they could hunker down and not be found by people who actually live in the base of operations, that is insane. Let's say, I am more likely to find you in my house, than if you are hiding in your house. Because, well, I am more familiar with it.
Didn't write the module - some areas of the ruins were off-limits because the bandits were scared s#*$less of the monsters contained therein. If they didn't go up topside to clear out the ruins of monsters while they were hiding out during the whole time they were using it as their base why would they do a search and destroy after half of their guys got wiped out? Correction: we did find some dead bandits so they did try to clear out some of the more dangerous part of the ruins earlier on - and failed.
I know you need to argue this to continue defend the new school narrative but it doesn't fly. We hunkered down in the place they were known to not to frequent (previously filled with monsters). Pretty simple tactic really.
Once they realized they couldn't mount an effective counter attack after their searching and that the possibility of a larger force was probably going to hit them from town they shifted to escape mode. Should they have left immediately - no, not if their leader decided to try and find and kill us first. But once that didn't happen they shifted gears - all after 8 hours (they were searching around the ruins and the swamp for a few hours into the night). Ref could have made it more realistic and had them leave after 4 or 2 or whatever, that was his call. Either way I can see the rationale for a decision to stay and search for a while or to leave right away or something in between.
Guys invade, take over the top level, wipe out half my troops. And camp out on the top level somewhere. (1) load up all goods that we take, meanwhile stack wood, stray, anything will burn around all exits from base. Light and leave to find new base. No more problem-some adventurers.
Mostly stoneworks dungeon but they could have torched their own stuff - DM's decision on that one. They did get away with some of the more valuable items after they couldn't find us and felt their hideout was compromised. It doesn't require much brainpower to process that one. Nice commentary without knowing the module but below ground didn’t control access and entry to the aboveground ruins. At best they would be torching their own stuff when for all intent and purposes they:
A) Couldn’t find us, B) We didn’t pursue them below (hit and run) C) Attackers may have left since it was quiet topside - so let’s torch all of our stuff.BTW - we didn't get any magic items because the BBEG and henchman left. That was the trade-off we had to pay for resting 8 hours.
Big boss: "But you were suppose to stay there, not burn it!"
Hide out mini boss: "Yeah, but after they killed half our guys, I wasn't taking any chances. Don't worry, the new base will be even better, you'll see. And we don't have to worry about THOSE guys bothering us again."
And that is pretty much what they did, but instead of burning the loot and creating a smoke column which would be visible to the nearby village they did what most thieving scum do – after trying to hit us one last time they broke off the fight and they bailed with as much important loot they could carry, we weren’t there for the contraband so the decision to torch it would depend on how hard it would have been to do so, how much attention it would have drawn to the ruins, etc...So in the end they left quietly and without drawing as much attention as possible.
I know, in true PFbot fashion they should have launched themselves on our swords so we could get another victory under our belts....maybe we could have "won" if we had access to a CLW wand? Or some assault rifles?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But back in the days of AD&D, the last one chosing was bounded to play the healbot."Bounded" by whom?
I started playing AD&D in 1982 or so, maybe 1981, and nobody was ever -- ever -- forced to play a cleric. (Are we back to me being lucky again?)
Bounded by the rest of the group. You couldn't play without healer, and if everybody had chosen before, you had to take the cleric.
I didn't say someone was forced to play a cleric in your groups. I said people was forced to play clerics in mine. And they were. Sure, we always played with clerics. But exccept in a few campaigns (a guy who took a Mystra cleric/wizard in AD&D 2e come to mind), most the time the guy playing the cleric didn't "choose" to play it.
|
|
I didn't say someone was forced to play a cleric in your groups. I said people was forced to play clerics in mine.
I get that. I'm asking, "Forced by whom?"
I'm not being judgmental, BTW. I honestly find this interesting, because it goes a long way toward explaining why so many people in this thread apparently hate playing healers. (Of course people hate playing something they felt forced to play.) And if they hate playing healers -- and also feel like it's absolutely vital to enter every encounter healed -- that explains why they think cheap, disposable wands of cure light wounds are "required" by the game.
I just never had those experiences.
Didn't write the module - some areas of the ruins were off-limits because the bandits were scared s!++less of the monsters contained therein.
Like every other dungeon and its mother. They always have rooms that "seem to never be used" or stairs that "go to an unfinished level of the dungeon", or some other gimmick that allow the PC to sleep there for a week if needed.
I posted quite a few examples from Pathfinder's AP back in this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
well we dont eliminate anything. The devices exist, they just aren't toilet paper.
IF you go into town, and they have the 3d4 items or whatever, you roll up and see what they have. they might have what you are looking for they might not.
If they don't, you can certainly put in a special order, if you can find/locate the right person and convince them to take you on as a client.
IF it's something the party specifically needs, they will go after it and RP for it. Not just, Oh while Miles was in the john i ran over to get a roll of toil....er i mean cure light wounds wand.
The PC's find treasure, they can keep it or sell it. If they sell it, they must find someone who has enough money first of all....EVERYBODY wants it (providing you can prove it's magic) BECAUSE it's magic. But I usually keep locals on a silver standard, while magic/adventuring equipment etc remains gold standard.
So the PCs can easily unload items they dont want, but might have a hard time buying something SPECIFIC unless they deal directly with the creator.
For crafting feats, I leave potions and scrolls alone. I add 3 levels or perquisite to wands and 5 levels to the others.
This doesn't make the items no existent just much more rare, and not as easy to come by. The major purpose for this is 1) to keep the "whoo Hoo" in treasure, rather than turning it into an episode of Pawn Stars and how much can I get for this. and 2) to keep PC's (or at least hinder) specific builds based on this or that magic item. If they find it great, if they go out of their way to craft it or have it crafted great, it's going to take longer and cost more.
We role play through buying and selling items, no hand wave half the going rate, and buy what you want at face value.
the result is the PC's can pretty much sell everything they want to get rid of, for more than normal value if they go through the efforts to find a buyer. If they just want to 'hock' to the local curio shack, that's easy I give them the standard half it's worth price.
They often get cash flush, which means they have pretty much enough money to requisition raise reads and such, buy a strong hold, hire servants and other things.
And then there is always the side trip in search of the wizard Bocefius the Bountiful to craft X or Y. But it is usually story bound, as they need N to defeat monster A.
What the Pc's don't do is "I need an agile weapon because my dex is high", it really doesn't happen.
The added result here is the characters that DO have magic are more special because of it; and IF they do want to become crafters (at much higher level than normal) then they have a corner market on it, instead of being one of 7, in a town of 2500.
Potions, scrolls, and rings end up being the PCs most common items.
You will frequently see a group with us at 5th to 7th level, not everyone has magic weapon and possibly 1 or 2 magic armors. I havent seen a character with an item in every slot in a long long time.
Didn't write the module - some areas of the ruins were off-limits because the bandits were scared s&&!less of the monsters contained therein. If they didn't go up topside to clear out the ruins of monsters while they were hiding out during the whole time they were using it as their base why would they do a search and destroy after half of their guys got wiped out? Correction: we did find some dead bandits so they did try to clear out some of the more dangerous part of the ruins earlier on - and failed.
If they didn't even know if you were still in the building, looking for you doesn't make much sense. You just finished killing small squads of them. So what do they do? Break up into squads and split up. Brilliant.
What were they supposed to do if they found you? Scream real loud while you slaughtered them all?BTW - we didn't get any magic items because the BBEG and henchman left. That was the trade-off we had to pay for resting 8 hours.
And this is the crux of my problem. Why do you have to "pay for" resting? This is a game. Good play should be rewarded, not punished. You yourself claim you did everything "right", right? Couldn't have avoided resting and safely pressed on? And so you lost out on items.
THe system you advocate forces you to rest, then throws negative consequences (bad guy runs away, enemies set traps, you lose treasure, princess dies, etc.) for resting. No thank you.
|
|
THe system you advocate forces you to rest, then throws negative consequences (bad guy runs away, enemies set traps, you lose treasure, princess dies, etc.) for resting. No thank you.
Why are "bad guys run away, enemies set traps, you don't get treasure, a hostage dies because you failed" negative consequences for the player? Isn't "success" for the player "having fun roleplaying"?
I had a very good friend and fellow player, once upon a time, who became frustrated when he couldn't steam-roll adventures. He shouted at the DM, verbatim, "Some of us don't want any possibility of failing!" He was genuinely upset. (He was also 15 or so years old, but his youth didn't spare him; that breakdown is now legendary among about 30 gamers in the Louisville, Kentucky area.)
I simply don't understand the mind-set. If there were no possibility of failing, for my character -- even if I, the player, did everything I could do -- I would quit playing instantly. Failure is interesting, from a story perspective, and failure is exactly what makes (eventual) success so much fun.
This thread is incredibly interesting.
Now this is why you start EVERY DUNGEON with the door slamming behind them, a Mordenkainen's Disjunction, and a cloud of sleep gas with NO SAVING THROW!!! Then, when the party wakes up, you describe how they're tied to tables and you spend the next hour describing how they're getting tortured and otherwise violated until someone comes up with an escape plan based off an episode of MacGuyver! Then, you kill them with Earth Elementals and start their new characters with no equipment as the next batch of prisoners in the torture chamber!
I swear, these snot-nosed punks who think they should have a chance of SURVIVING a dungeon by pooling their resources to buy sensible adventuring equipment have ruined RPGs for everyone for all time!!!
Sounds like someone failed at part 4 of the Slave Lords saga here. My condolences!
==Aelryinth
|
|
Didn't write the module - some areas of the ruins were off-limits because the bandits were scared s&&!less of the monsters contained therein. If they didn't go up topside to clear out the ruins of monsters while they were hiding out during the whole time they were using it as their base why would they do a search and destroy after half of their guys got wiped out? Correction: we did find some dead bandits so they did try to clear out some of the more dangerous part of the ruins earlier on - and failed.If they didn't even know if you were still in the building, looking for you doesn't make much sense. You just finished killing small squads of them. So what do they do? Break up into squads and split up. Brilliant.
What were they supposed to do if they found you? Scream real loud while you slaughtered them all?
So it would have made more sense if their sent all of them out en force and have the leader leave himself open to attack? I know you are trying to quarterback this but you don't know or you refuse to accept the situation as I am presenting it. They had shifts, they had a topside crew that rotated out with their underground crew. We watched them for a day before we moved in - noting their shift changes, numbers, etc.
So after we wiped their top side defenses they didn't know right away. Keeping in mind that there are shifts, sleeping and waking guards - we killed everyone on top. By the time they had even discovered that fact a few hours had gone by - and we already moved into the monster infested (but cleared) area. We covered our tracks - we hid from their secondary patrol which again was limited because they had finite resources.BTW - we didn't get any magic items because the BBEG and henchman left. That was the trade-off we had to pay for resting 8 hours.And this is the crux of my problem. Why do you have to "pay for" resting? This is a game. Good play should be rewarded, not punished. You yourself claim you did everything "right", right? Couldn't have avoided resting and safely pressed on? And so you lost out on items.
THe system you advocate forces you to rest, then throws negative consequences (bad guy runs away, enemies set traps, you lose treasure, princess dies, etc.) for resting. No thank you.
Oh, because we didn't "win" at gaming, got it.
Well, we would have gotten those magic items because we were going to hunt their leader and his henchmen down and kill them. I'm not a child that needs instant gratification for my efforts - even in a game. The playing, the tension, the planning and the excitement were reward enough. Those items were not going anywhere - the leader of that group was a marked man - we knew where he went and what he looked like, and we were going to go after him.Good play was rewarded - the bandits were stopped - pushed out of the area.
So what are you advocating is a system with no need to rest? No negative consequences? No resource management - just mash buttons and spam abilities with minor recharge times? And people get mad at me when I say this game is on easy mode.
THe system you advocate forces you to rest, then throws negative consequences (bad guy runs away, enemies set traps, you lose treasure, princess dies, etc.) for resting. No thank you.Why are "bad guys run away, enemies set traps, you don't get treasure, a hostage dies because you failed" negative consequences for the player? Isn't "success" for the player "having fun roleplaying"?
I had a very good friend and fellow player, once upon a time, who became frustrated when he couldn't steam-roll adventures. He shouted at the DM, verbatim, "Some of us don't want any possibility of failing!" He was genuinely upset. (He was also 15 or so years old, but his youth didn't spare him; that breakdown is now legendary among about 30 gamers in the Louisville, Kentucky area.)
I simply don't understand the mind-set. If there were no possibility of failing, for my character -- even if I, the player, did everything I could do -- I would quit playing instantly. Failure is interesting, from a story perspective, and failure is exactly what makes (eventual) success so much fun.
This thread is incredibly interesting.
You've got my POV backwards. If there were no possibility of SUCCESS, I would quit playing. What if I want everything? What if I want to save, the princess, get all the treasure, and not have to reclear the same room 3 times?
If I make bad decisions or have bad luck and I can't do it, that's fine. But if I use these so called tactics, if I'm Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, and Julius Caesar all rolled into one, I don't want to fail to accomplish that goal anyway because it's impossible.
Imagine this scenario: The party discovers that all the enemies, have only melee weapons. So the wizard casts Fly on everyone and they spend the rest of the dungeon shooting arrows at enemies who can't retaliate.
That's the sort of tactics I feel like would be perfect for this "take no damage" mindset. Is that fun though? Enemies who can't hit you? YMMV.
i don't like impossible tasks, or unwinnable challenges, but i don't like being completely invulnerable either. it is why i would personally never build an archer with permanent perfect flight and greater invisibility if i had the option.
such a flying invisible archer, though prohibitively expensive to set up, would be completely impossible for melee combatants to damage and would negate half the ranged attacks that target it. you need to see it to dispel it, which has miss chances, and to counter it, one would need a properly prepared caster.
the game should provide a reasonable chance of success within the 40-60% window, but shouldn't be unwinnable, nor a guaranteed win.
wands of CLW/Infernal Healing don't make the game effortless, the game assumes the PCs will have a quiver full of them for the duration of a given adventure. it just removes the requirement of a life oracle.
the game assumes the PCs will have a quiver full of [cheap healing wands] for the duration of a given adventure.Can I get a cite for this? Because you're not the first to assert it, and I'll say it again: I do not believe this assertion.
The closest I could find is the WBL guideline that PCs spend "15% on disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands"
This means at level 3, a party of 4 can pool together and buy two CLWW while respecting those guidelines. It also means a level 2 party on their way to level 3 can probably buy one at some point.
Edit: I say 'closest' because I don't agree with the quoted statement. Those are also rules for creating PCs above 1st level, although they are probably also somewhat useful for guidelines on PC wealth. Note that characters who advance via adventuring are expected to have 'consumed' more wealth than WBL in the form of consumables.
the game assumes the PCs will have a quiver full of [cheap healing wands] for the duration of a given adventure.Can I get a cite for this? Because you're not the first to assert it, and I'll say it again: I do not believe this assertion.
i can't get a citation. but i can tell you that the game assumes a group will have a reliable means of healing up to full health between encounters. whether by means of a dedicated healer with access to channel energy or means of a quiver full of cheap healing wands. this is evidenced by the fact that monsters hit so damned hard and hit the tank with 95% accuracy.
it's just that the quiver full of cheap healing wands are the preferred method because it is hard to find a submissive and soft spoken player who enjoys playing a support oriented healbot cleric or life oracle.
the game assumes the PCs will have a quiver full of [cheap healing wands] for the duration of a given adventure.Can I get a cite for this? Because you're not the first to assert it, and I'll say it again: I do not believe this assertion.i can't get a citation. but i can tell you that the game assumes a group will have a reliable means of healing up to full between encounters. whether by means of a dedicated healer with access to channel energy or means of a quiver full of cheap healing wands.
it's just that the quiver full of cheap healing wands are the preferred method because it is hard to find a submissive and soft spoken player who enjoys playing a support oriented healbot cleric or life oracle.
Wow. Not everyone who enjoys playing a healer is a "submissive and soft spoken." Your prejudice there is pretty... silly (yeah, let's use that word).
Also, just asserting things is pointless.
the game assumes the PCs will have a quiver full of [cheap healing wands] for the duration of a given adventure.Can I get a cite for this? Because you're not the first to assert it, and I'll say it again: I do not believe this assertion.i can't get a citation. but i can tell you that the game assumes a group will have a reliable means of healing up to full between encounters. whether by means of a dedicated healer with access to channel energy or means of a quiver full of cheap healing wands.
it's just that the quiver full of cheap healing wands are the preferred method because it is hard to find a submissive and soft spoken player who enjoys playing a support oriented healbot cleric or life oracle.
Wow. Not everyone who enjoys playing a healer is a "submissive and soft spoken." Your prejudice there is pretty... silly (yeah, let's use that word).
Also, just asserting things is pointless.
the assertion comes from personal experience, few people want to play a healbot, because it is generally believed that testorone encourages violent tendencies, making most gamers gravitate to a desire to play damage dealers and making damage dealing look like a well appreciated choice. the healer is usually either the last player to make their character, or the player whom is so passive that everybody bullied them into playing one. hence the assertion that healers are "submissive and soft spoken." watching allied health bars is generally seen as boring due to how many gamers of both genders have an excess of testosterone. if there isn't such a meek player to bully, it's usually done by a process of round robin rotation, a chance based game of some kind or drawing straws.
the best players to target for bullying into the healbot role are
the shy and quiet player
the generally passive player
the player going through andropause/menopause
the emotional masochist
the new player who recently joined
the player with a compulsive need to please others
the less aware and informed player whose lack of information leads to them being more easily targetable
it's just that the quiver full of cheap healing wands are the preferred method because it is hard to find a submissive and soft spoken player who enjoys playing a support oriented healbot cleric or life oracle.
I like playing full support characters and go out of my way to do so. My most recent character was a Dirge Bard with mega-buffs and one of my currents is a super-healing Oracle of Life. And both were the outspoken faces of the party--the Oracle of Life is actually a fast talking con-man. And out of game, I'm always the party leader--most of the time, I'm the first to speak up and the one that pushes everyone else to take action.
Edit: and waiting in the wings, I have ready a support focused Sensei Monk of the Lotus (with the Helpful/Bodyguard/Blundering Defense stuff) and a Hospitaler healer.
So, yeah, it's kind of crappy of you to assume healing is a job for the quiet loser who can't say no.
this is evidenced by the fact that monsters hit so damned hard and hit the tank with 95% accuracy.
I've not seen this to be the case. After the killer GM I had to deal with wiped the party, I made a Paladin Archer and I've only been hit twice in a half dozen sessions, for less total damage than I could heal in a single Lay on Hands. And again, this is a GM actively trying to kill us--it's not hard to make a tough character.
Anyway, if your GM really knows the game and is not just trying to power trip and kill you, and you (or whoever makes yours character) really understands the game, you can face challenging encounters that are very doable without magic items of any kind--I know because I've run them for years.
the game assumes the PCs will have a quiver full of [cheap healing wands] for the duration of a given adventure.Can I get a cite for this? Because you're not the first to assert it, and I'll say it again: I do not believe this assertion.i can't get a citation. but i can tell you that the game assumes a group will have a reliable means of healing up to full between encounters. whether by means of a dedicated healer with access to channel energy or means of a quiver full of cheap healing wands.
it's just that the quiver full of cheap healing wands are the preferred method because it is hard to find a submissive and soft spoken player who enjoys playing a support oriented healbot cleric or life oracle.
Wow. Not everyone who enjoys playing a healer is a "submissive and soft spoken." Your prejudice there is pretty... silly (yeah, let's use that word).
Also, just asserting things is pointless.
the assertion comes from personal experience, few people want to play a healbot, because it is generally believed that testorone encourages violent tendencies, making most gamers gravitate to a desire to play damage dealers and making damage dealing look like a well appreciated choice. the healer is usually either the last player to make their character, or the player whom is so passive that everybody bullied them into playing one. hence the assertion that healers are "submissive and soft spoken." watching allied health bars is generally seen as boring due to how many gamers of both genders have an excess of testosterone. if there isn't such a meek player to bully, it's usually done by a process of round robin rotation, a chance based game of some kind or drawing straws.
the best players to target for bullying into the healbot role are
the shy and quiet player
the generally passive player
the player going through andropause/menopause
the emotional masochist
the...
And I assert what you said is not true. See how pointless that is?
In truth, I do agree that there is a tendency for certain unassertive players to take on the healing role. Guess what? I don't like playing with those people, I don't know why anyone would.
I don't see any reason a healer has to be passive. I've played very outspoken clerics who led parties to fame and fortune while swinging a mace for Cuthbert. I've played a holy man who was a pacifist who accomplished more with words than could be done with a sword. I've seen players play similarly interesting characters with access to useful healing: a parish priest out of his comfort zone with a group of adventurers, the war veteran who would rather help than hurt, etc.,
Having healing abilities != being a useless lump who just casts healing spells when the party says to.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the best players to target for bullying into the healbot role are
the shy and quiet player
the generally passive player
the player going through andropause/menopause
the emotional masochist
the new player who recently joined
the player with a compulsive need to please others
the less aware and informed player whose lack of information leads to them being more easily targetable
This thread went from battling the moronic to full-on creepy.
I think if you focus on manipulating people into playing a "healbot" based on this criteria you have bigger issues than healbots and CLWW (in and out of the game).
And I assert what you said is not true. See how pointless that is?
In truth, I do agree that there is a tendency for certain unassertive players to take on the healing role. Guess what? I don't like playing with those people, I don't know why anyone would.
I don't see any reason a healer has to be passive. I've played very outspoken clerics who led parties to fame and fortune while swinging a mace for Cuthbert. I've played a holy man who was a pacifist who accomplished more with words than could be done with a sword. I've seen players play similarly interesting characters with access to useful healing: a parish priest out of his comfort zone with a group of adventurers, the war veteran who would rather help than hurt, etc.,
Having healing abilities != being a useless lump who just casts healing spells when the party says to.
i agree that having healing abilities doesn't make you a useless lump who just casts healing spells when the party says to. and i agree you can have a very outspoken healer. i just haven't yet seen one to game with. most of the time, we (the local groups in my area) search for a random shy player and bully them into mindless healbot duty. but the groups in my area tend to have around 6-12 players and seem to auto accept any newbie who 'willingly' offers to play a dedicated healbot.
the best players to target for bullying into the healbot role are
the shy and quiet player
the generally passive player
the player going through andropause/menopause
the emotional masochist
the new player who recently joined
the player with a compulsive need to please others
the less aware and informed player whose lack of information leads to them being more easily targetableThis thread went from battling the moronic to full-on creepy.
I think if you focus on manipulating people into playing a "healbot" based on this criteria you have bigger issues than healbots and CLWW (in and out of the game).
a lot of the groups in my local area compare playing a dedicated healbot to a combination of prostitution and indentured servitude. it gets you guaranteed acceptance, but with a bad aftertaste.
i don't personally do the bullying, but a lot of the other players do. earning a free slot do whatever role of your choice in a group in my local area generally requires having performed a minimum of 1 completed year or entire adventure path of consistent healbot duty for that group. exceptions are made if the DM likes you as a player.
Sounds like a fun game with enjoyable human beings.
|
|
the best players to target for bullying into the healbot role are
the shy and quiet player
the generally passive player
the player going through andropause/menopause
the emotional masochist
the new player who recently joined
the player with a compulsive need to please others
the less aware and informed player whose lack of information leads to them being more easily targetableThis thread went from battling the moronic to full-on creepy.
I think if you focus on manipulating people into playing a "healbot" based on this criteria you have bigger issues than healbots and CLWW (in and out of the game).
a lot of the groups in my local area compare playing a dedicated healbot to a combination of prostitution and indentured servitude. it gets you guaranteed acceptance, but with a bad aftertaste.
i don't personally do the bullying, but a lot of the other players do. earning a free slot do whatever role of your choice in a group in my local area generally requires having performed a minimum of 1 completed year or entire adventure path of consistent healbot duty for that group. exceptions are made if the DM likes you as a player.
Like I said, creepy.
Might be time to step away from the game or find another group?The psyops angle of manipulation and looking for suitable targets based off of traits is both predatory and unhealthy.
Seriously - if you have a working list of RL qualities you look for in a player you have problems and some misplaced priorities. Many of the qualities you list are reminiscent of what predatory criminals look for in their prospective victims - for ALL types of crime.
that is not my list of qualities, it's the lists of the majority of the few known groups in my area. but yeah, they do sound like traits a serial killer would seek in their prospective victims.
most of our Dungeon Masters are usually the fat white man with a power trip. some of the same few host a lot of groups on different days
and most of the players tend to be neckbeards who fear 'cheese' and 'player entitlement' as well as removal of 'DM authority'. usually their loyalty is bought with more character freedom, and the new guys, if they want to be accepted, have to indenture themselves into a year of healbot duty to be redeemed at any moment. i payed off my year a long time ago.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like I said, creepy.I'm pretty sure that the post listing the "ideal candidates" for playing a healer is the demarcation for when Lumiere decided to start trolling. (Or, to be more charitable, to start indulging his or her sense of humor.)
At least, I sure hope so.
it's not my fault that a disproportianately huge amount of dungeon masters in my area are creepy.
earning the privelege to use a third party class or something akin to Psionics, warlocks or Bo9S requires additional investment of healbot duty each time you play that class. a year for a year.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i'm a young new schooler tormented by neckbeards who cannot afford to move. i learned to get along with them, but we technically usually play a hybrid of pathfinder and 3.5. in other words, pathfinder with all the 3.5. splat stuff thrown in. the only conversion the 3.5. stuff recieves is of skill list and similarly necessary conversions, such as converting the key skills of the 9 disciplines, and stuff like retranslating turn undead into channel energy for the purpose of things like divine metamagic or the nightstick.
for example. the nightstick grants 4 additional uses of channel energy per nightstick per day.
but i have played 3.5. since 2005-2006 with this group.
spell compendium is usually fair game, as are wands of lesser vigor, the unseen seer, and reserve feats.
i got tormented for proving a favored soul with a longspear can be an effective combatant. "But clerics are supposed to be healers." they said. and they considered oracles, shugenja, and favored souls little more than "healers" just like they did clerics.