It still doesn't hurt to be a little forgiving of players their first time in a campaign (mechanics-wise, mainly so they're aware of everything, not in terms of extra stuff or other kinds of help).
As others said, the rule for wizards needing a prescribed amount of sleep/rest usually isn't done with the degree of specificity you used, so it isn't that unlikely a thing to miss.
I'd probably kill them without malice. Then have a bit of a discussion about the game with drinks and food.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It still doesn't hurt to be a little forgiving of players their first time in a campaign (mechanics-wise, mainly so they're aware of everything, not in terms of extra stuff or other kinds of help).
As others said, the rule for wizards needing a prescribed amount of sleep/rest usually isn't done with the degree of specificity you used, so it isn't that unlikely a thing to miss.
For groups that don't play as strictly as we have in the past, sure, this group in particular should better, that's the whole point, they were told in advance. Being a little forgiving is one thing, but granting amnesty for making a bad decision because you aren't properly prepared to play a class after being advised not to is not something that merits a little forgiveness in my opinion. The other players didn't use up their spells in the night conflict, because they knew better, the other players are the ones who told him that he screwed himself, not me. I just said that he had interrupted rest, and didn't get enough rest to prepare his spells. My exact words were "You are still tired from the previous night, still groggy, and you find it too difficult to prepare spells." Again, the other players knew the rule, so it's not like I was just pulling something out of nowhere to punish him for no reason.
I'd probably kill them without malice. Then have a bit of a discussion about the game with drinks and food.
This is my plan.
If you told him specifically that he couldn't prepare spells, without also saying that if the group wanted to wait an hour he'd be able to, I can understand the group being mad.
Also, if you go into the next session with the intention of killing them, with malice or not, they're likely to get fairly angry. I certainly would.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if you go into the next session with the intention of killing them, with malice or not, they're likely to get fairly angry. I certainly would.
Having read the entire thread I suspect this group will manage to get themselves killed without any problem or help required.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you told him specifically that he couldn't prepare spells, without also saying that if the group wanted to wait an hour he'd be able to, I can understand the group being mad.
Also, if you go into the next session with the intention of killing them, with malice or not, they're likely to get fairly angry. I certainly would.
I never kill with malice, the dice fall where they may.
If you told him specifically that he couldn't prepare spells, without also saying that if the group wanted to wait an hour he'd be able to, I can understand the group being mad.
Also, if you go into the next session with the intention of killing them, with malice or not, they're likely to get fairly angry. I certainly would.
I'm not going to kill them with malice, and after speaking to my players, at least one of them, they are okay with whatever consequences fall onto them.
I've also ruled that if they die and other characters come back to the same place, I an willing to let them loot their old characters bodies assuming something worth finding was left behind.
The point wasn't that you were doing it with malice. The point is that you're intentionally killing the party. That's not something most players would enjoy. You aren't going to let them learn from their mistakes?
The point wasn't that you were doing it with malice. The point is that you're intentionally killing the party. That's not something most players would enjoy. You aren't going to let them learn from their mistakes?
Unless they execute players with their dead characters where you come from they will learn from their mistakes regardless...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's always the chance that they could win I suppose, or more likely, that only some of their characters will die. And I am not doing the party any more favors at this point. Maybe after this encounter that they are still in the middle of, but not now. Furthermore, I am not going to 'throw out' the last session because it went poorly for my players. I told them it would go poorly and they said "no, we'll be fine, we're wizards!!!"
In either case, the majority of my players have accepted what happened, and some are turning on their partner for being too whiny and they even said to him that he should have known better, and that it is his own fault for playing a wizard when he was under prepared.
This thread really has no more reason to exist for discussion of my actual campaign, but more along the lines of when it is okay for a DM to stop doing his players favors.
Never seen a barb 2 wiz 2 party, that might be really sweet.
I am truly surprised that no one has ever had issue with wizards having interrupted sleep. It seems pretty straight forward, you need this much sleep, which is why the wizard can't be on guard. The wizard is a high maintenance class, just like a paladin. At least, that's how I read it when I learned how to play one a few months ago. It seemed like a good balancing factor in that, "No, wizards can't do everything better."
On that side they created a puddle of grease that was later caught on fire, completely blocking the kobolds from entering without taking some serious damage. .Ah, "a few months ago', well, that does explain a lot, I only learned to play a wizard about 4 decades ago.
Yes, the rest thing was done incorrectly.
Next- Grease doesn't burn like that. Read the spell. It does not mention anywhere it is flammable.
Perhaps you need to play a few more years before you DM.
Although I understand some of your comments, as a fellow "4 decades" player, I find your tone pretty high-handed. I think the OP unknowingly brought some of his, and his group's, frustrations on himself, and probably does need to look first to what he can do to make the game better, his players were not helpful in creating a fun game environment. With time, he will learn more tricks of the trade, however, bashing him for being inexperienced is kind of petty in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well-paced, gritty campaign. Unfortunately, those are not for everyone. Sounds like the players (with the exception of battlefield controller) wanted a more coddled campaign in their favour. Some are not ready to accept that the actions of their characters have consequences and the dice land where they land. They just wanted a safety net straight from the get-go. I'm sure they are alright friends but as far as gamers go, I'd recommend either hashing out the issues or scrapping the game if that doesn't work. Simply because nobody seems to be having fun. Also, the player controlling the battlefield with their caster should be in a group which can work well together. Not stuck in the role of keeping the other self-entitled characters alive.
|
...Speaking of confrontational manner...
Yeah and? I'm a jack ass. Funny thing however...I still manage to convey my issues quite well and can formulate a logical response. MM is STILL playing footsie with how he handles the rest issue. He even admits that he did it because he was getting even with them and he doesn't see an issue with this? Seriously, the players fraked up royal...but the DM ain't exactly clean on this one either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This all seems like a "Knights of the Dinner Table" game.
Honestly,from all I've seen in this thread, it seems to me like your players and you aren't suited for a highly codified, detail-oriented game like Pathfinder. You would probably be better off with a simpler game like Jaws of the Six Serpents or Dungeon World. Or failing that, have you considered shuffleboard?
|
As a GM running my first campaign, this was a really interesting thread. Here's my thoughts on it.
1. Rest issue:
A horse beat to undeath, no further comment.
2. Doing favors for your players:
I'm in a slightly different boat than you because my players are new to d20 gaming, so not at all the "strictly RAW" crowd. If I can't remember or look up a rule I try to rule on a side that reasonably helps the player and then mention a clarification at the start of the next session.
If it's obvious that a player forgot/doesn't know a rule I like to let them know what's going on. (e.g. "your groggy and don't feel like you can prepare spells. You can sleep in, but it will cut out of your travel time for the day...") If they do know the rule, it also never hurts to check to make sure their actions are intentional.
3. Encounter design:
I think you're perfectly reasonable in your encounter design for this point in the campaign. I assume that designing your kobolds to hold up against strong physical damage means that they don't have as effective defenses against spellcasting (CR tradeoff). If they survive this encounter/quest I would suggest you rebalance further encounters according to what will make things run better. This doesn't mean pulling punches, it means finding the right balance within the range of plausible so the characters have a decent chance.
I would also second the idea of having the Barbarian come in and save the day, but make sure the player wants to play him. I would hate for one of my players to be forced to not play a character they wanted just because the party "needed" it. I think with the right GM/Player rapport, any party is feasible.
I wouldn't plan on killing the players in your next session, at the same time with no pulled punches. I would try to offer them a way to escape that very clearly shows they're running with their tails between their legs.
4 CR 1/2 at night -> CR 4
Assuming rooms were broken up into four groups
3x (2 CR 1 + 1 CR 2) -> CR 4
1x (2 CR 1 + 2 CR 2) -> CR 5
4. On the space-waster and the whiner:
It sounds like they might need help, especially the space-waster. See if you can get some party level conversations going about what decisions they should make. Then you aren't "playing solitaire" and I would hope it builds team cohesion.
5. Rich worlds:
You originally said that your players wanted a deeper, more thought out world to play through than your first attempt at GMing. From your explanation, it sounds like they aren't use to: "enter scene, get general description, search for traps and important clues, ...". You might want to give them a couple "training" sessions with encounters designed to specifically target the exploration patterns the rest of your campaign requires. I'm currently doing the same in trying to help my players overcome the "Charge the baddies! Loot the bodies! Sell the stuffs!" strategy that dominates modern computer-based "RPG" games (I'm looking at you Skyrim).
I any case, I wish you luck and hope both you and your players can have fun at the table.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know that last week, had I as the GM known that our fighter was starting the day down 10 ST, I would have pointed out that the cleric should have memorized Restoration and done something about it. It was the players' mistake and she (and probably he) should have known better, but that didn't make it the frustration it added to play any more fun.
I had a similar situation two weeks ago. Party went from an encounter, where the paladin had been hit by multiple negative channels, into exploring some tunnels, which I described in shorthand, since time was short, and they were uninhabited. We then closed for the night.
Next session, they then decided to teleport straight to another location, where they already expected danger, having previously found a concealed entrance.
Scout went first, described the scene, gave telepathic coordinates to the others, who teleported in, expecting a fight. A Huge statue turned out to be alive, came out of stasis and battered the paladin, who declared himself dead.
I knew he hadn't taken anything like his hp total, so I queried this, and he said he was still carrying injuries from the previous encounter.
This was a case where I felt the need to allow a retcon, as the party was loaded with healing (3 divine PCs, bags of wands, and a fourth PC with obscene UMD), and had spent at least an hour between encounters, during which his character would have asked to be healed, or the others would have offered.
The player had forgotten something the character would not, and the reason for that error was likely to have been because of the way we jumped from tracking encounter rounds, to a description of the tunnels, then packing for the night.
It didn't hold up the game for more than a minute, or argue the point. I just said to assume every charge from the spare Cure Light wands cure 5hp, and cross off as many as needed to heal the old damage.
Had they been teleporting back to a safe house, which had been unknowingly compromised, I might have ruled differently, though there was still no reason not to heal up in the safe tunnel.
But as they were expecting danger where they were going, it simply made no sense not to do so.
2. Doing favors for your players:
I'm in a slightly different boat than you because my players are new to d20 gaming, so not at all the "strictly RAW" crowd. If I can't remember or look up a rule I try to rule on a side that reasonably helps the player and then mention a clarification at the start of the next session.
The situation is that my player was warned, and told not to play a wizard.
Everyone else at the table is okay with, and seems to be enjoying the game despite their dumb decisions.When I have to remind him how his character works every time something happens, it becomes an issue for me. If I let him start breaking the rules for fun purposes but my other players don't want to, or know they should not try and get away with it, it is unfair.
Another thing is, I'm not sure how much he actually doesn't know or is just pretending not to know to see what he can get away with. Most of my group has the mindset of playing by the rules, and not trying to cheat anything, because honestly it is less rewarding when you cheat and less fun.
Choosing to let the rules not apply to him, but making it apply to everyone else just does not sound like the kind of game I want to play, nor most of my players, as they were prepared. Making a rule like that no longer apply would be like punishing the players who "did it right." Because if the need to save spells and not waste memorizations in the night conflict no longer existed, it would have been a lot easier.
Personally, when it comes to the characters resources like spells per day, and number of ammunition pieces, it should be on the players to keep track, and on the players to inform their companions about the situations they put themselves in. The players own the characters, and I really don't want to be the kind of DM that tells them what to do and how to do it, even if it's for their own good. Once you make your character and make your choices it's out of my hands, I have to interpret what happens in the world and let it happen to you. I never intended to come after these guys with malice, I had been doing them favors left and right. But when they kick their own asses so hard that it looks like I'm coming down on them full force, it's extremely frustrating, and not because of how my players are, but because of what implications get put on me for trying to play the game without holding their hands and telling them everything will be alright.
3. Encounter design:
I think you're perfectly reasonable in your encounter design for this point in the campaign. I assume that designing your kobolds to hold up against strong physical damage means that they don't have as effective defenses against spellcasting (CR tradeoff). If they survive this encounter/quest I would suggest you rebalance further encounters according to what will make things run better. This doesn't mean pulling punches, it means finding the right balance within the range of plausible so the characters have a decent chance.I would also second the idea of having the Barbarian come in and save the day, but make sure the player wants to play him. I would hate for one of my players to be forced to not play a character they wanted just because the party "needed" it. I think with the right GM/Player rapport, any party is feasible.
They effectively no defense against spellcasting, at all. I have already re-worked the boss of the campaign to make him a lot weaker and less straight in your face confrontational, to give my players a chance at survival.
Also, they aren't to the boss yet, they have the option of leaving. The king's son might die, but they are all Neutral and are mostly in this for the money. They have that option, and as players they should know that.
Never suggested you couldn't formulate a logical response; nor intimated that MM was without fault or flaw. Just pointing out hypocritical nature of accusing him of having a confrontational manner.Yeah and? I'm a jack ass. Funny thing however...I still manage to convey my issues quite well and can formulate a logical response. MM is STILL playing footsie with how he handles the rest issue. He even admits that he did it because he was getting even with them and he doesn't see an issue with this? Seriously, the players fraked up royal...but the DM ain't exactly clean on this one either....Speaking of confrontational manner...
The rest thing would have happened regardless, it was an issue because the player made it an issue. Every poster in this thread is telling me to ignore the rule, or otherwise trying to get out of having to face the fact that my player screwed up, and was unprepared to play the class.
Yeah, I stopped giving them things and doing them favors in a confrontational matter, sure. But I did not decide to bring lightning down on them out of contempt. They made a choice, that choice had consequences. Maybe to show them that if they don't want to listen to my advice, and that I'm not a pushover DM that will let them get away with everything I stopped spelling out their options for them. It is their job to know how their class works, and it cannot always be on me to explain to them what should be common knowledge. When you hear the words "you didn't get enough sleep" would any of you players not immediately think to go back to sleep? It's not fun for me or for everyone else at the table if a player who acts like he's prepared clearly isn't.
In any case, I've already talked to my players about it, next time we play we will come up with a solution.
I don't get it.
You warned them not to do an all Wizard/Sorc group but you allowed it anyways.
Now you want to show them?
I would say spare yourself the time and simply abolish the campaign.
I would say spare yourself the time and simply abolish the campaign.
+1
Best advice I can see, don't rise to anything, don't antagonise anyone by killing them off, don't be angry just learn from it and move on. As much as it my bug you and you want to make a point by killing them off and teach them a lesson it will just make things worse for you and them.
Throw in the towel and say you may revisit it another time and do something else instead or have a break.
Don't give in to anger...it leads to the Darkside...
I don't get it.
You warned them not to do an all Wizard/Sorc group but you allowed it anyways.
Now you want to show them?
I would say spare yourself the time and simply abolish the campaign.
I'm not showing them anything.
I prepared the campaign, and told them they would need to able to handle it, and that I expected a team of wizards to know what they were doing.I did not up the difficulty to prove a point to them, I didn't dumb it down either, I left it the same.
As it turns out, after talking to my players, they were just as annoyed as I was with the whiny player.
I feel like people in this forum like to be confrontational without actually reading the thread, or just reading the OP.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get it.
You warned them not to do an all Wizard/Sorc group but you allowed it anyways.
Now you want to show them?
I would say spare yourself the time and simply abolish the campaign.
I'm not showing them anything.
I prepared the campaign, and told them they would need to able to handle it, and that I expected a team of wizards to know what they were doing.I did not up the difficulty to prove a point to them, I didn't dumb it down either, I left it the same.
As it turns out, after talking to my players, they were just as annoyed as I was with the whiny player.
I feel like people in this forum like to be confrontational without actually reading the thread, or just reading the OP.
That and they have their personal pet issues to whine about like the folks that think the Dm exists to make everything just for the players and his wants be damned or that your world isn't what they would want so you must be doing it wrong...
The rest thing would have happened regardless, it was an issue because the player made it an issue. Every poster in this thread is telling me to ignore the rule, or otherwise trying to get out of having to face the fact that my player screwed up, and was unprepared to play the class.
Going to weigh in with my mere 30 years of GMing experience. There have been remarkably few people here (if any) who have said "ignore the rest requirement for spell preparation". The point many are trying to make is that by not offering the choice to rest an extra hour to a player who doesn't know the rules for wizards as well as you do, you are behaving antagonistically toward that player (unintentionally, I'm sure, but it's still there). It is not hand-holding or somehow "weak" to help your players. Heck, I offer tactical advice during combat, trying to put myself in the PC's shoes and figure out what makes good sense. I love it when something I've suggested helps the party. Because it's never me against them, it's always us against the situation.
On the other hand, if your players wilfully do something stupid (say, calling out a challenge to a building full of kobolds), then on their own heads be it. I'll help them make mechanical choices, sure (like which feat to use, what spell to cast, where to move to get the best position on the battlefield), but behavioural choices are theirs and theirs alone.
So, just some friendly advice that I'm sure you've seen before:
1) No plot survives contact with the players. Ever. They will do something that throws you off balance.
2) You will make mistakes. GMing is a tough skill to learn, and so easy to screw up it's unreal. Don't worry about it. Learn for next time.
3) Your players will make mistakes. It's unavoidable. They might forget to mark off a spell cast, or forget a feat they have that could have won the battle. Cut them some slack. If retconning it would change the outcome of something else that's already been resolved, tough. But if letting the change slip in doesn't affect anything else, let it slide.
4) The worst kept GMing secret is: you are there to help the players win. Because if everyone dies in round 1 of the first combat, the story is going nowhere. You don't have to make it easy, and they can certainly get themselves killed with stupidity, but as GM it should never be you who gets them killed.
As I said above, restrict your advice to mechanics, but don't be afraid to offer it. Keep all of that in mind and your players will see clearly that you're not fighting against them, but working with them to make the adventure fun.
|
|
It sounds like 4 people believed in the myth of the God Wizard and got pwned. Did MM make some mistakes, seems so. But if that was the campaign and he didn't move things to "get them", the players failed to make a coherent party.
The easiest way to look at this question is to look at a fixed module or AP.
Using the most played example, if you look at first encounter of RoTRL
You have a ton of mooks, followed by mork mooks, followed by less mooky mooks, finishing with a fairly tough guy.
A party full of wizards is going to be in trouble. Sure they will saw through the first group if they have something like color spray, but they are all low AC, low hit points, and few spells. As waves and waves come...
And that is probably the most played encounter in Pathfinder history.
Players need to be smart enough to look at the group and figure out how they can fit in, but some players are kind of selfish and don't think about the group.
You could have an all wizard party handle the above, if people designed characters to have synergies with each other and makes themselves ready, as a group, for what may come. There are many schools of magic, someone could have moved points around to sacrifice saving throws for some melee utility or crowd control.
But apparently they didn't.
The DM should make encounters that are winnable for a party of the level they have. Asking them to hand walk a party through when they won't even work with each other to improve...that is part of what the game is about.
But if everyone wants to be a unique snowflake, you get TPKs.
The GM is always supposed to adjust any and all adventures to:
+ the number of players and classes of the group
+ the playstyle of the players
+ the players experience/inexperience
+ the characters power (especially when houserules come into play)
Not doing so will usually lead to frustration UNLESS the players are aware that this is some sort of challenge "how far do we get" campaign, and even then it takes a special breed of players to weather this.
That there is a whiny player is a problem to be handled separately.
|
|
The GM is always supposed to adjust any and all adventures to:
+ the number of players and classes of the group
+ the playstyle of the players
+ the players experience/inexperience
+ the characters power (especially when houserules come into play)Not doing so will usually lead to frustration UNLESS the players are aware that this is some sort of challenge "how far do we get" campaign, and even then it takes a special breed of players to weather this.
That there is a whiny player is a problem to be handled separately.
And what responsibilty do the players have?
This was a group that thought they would be overpowered because they were all wizards.
Should I nerf an AP because players failed at trying to break the game with "God-Wizard"s?
This reminds me of another thread where a noted Min-Maxer was asking why an AP was so hard and his party was having so much trouble when everyone else was confused, as the AP isn't really all that hard...if you do what you are supposed to do throughout the story and have a balanced party.
My experience on here is that the more you delve into games of the optimizers, the more you find they don't play the same style as other people.
My group would be asking the GM how the sleep interuption was effecting their spell prep, and then adjust the plan accordingly. If you charge blindly forth, believing arrogantly that you're party is optimized and awesome, you can find yourself very quickly over your head when you meet encounters not set up for how you are optimized.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My experience on here is that the more you delve into games of the optimizers, the more you find they don't play the same style as other people.
It's a logical result of following the rules and not the conventions.
The GM is always supposed to adjust any and all adventures to:
+ the number of players and classes of the group
+ the playstyle of the players
+ the players experience/inexperience
+ the characters power (especially when houserules come into play)Not doing so will usually lead to frustration UNLESS the players are aware that this is some sort of challenge "how far do we get" campaign, and even then it takes a special breed of players to weather this.
That there is a whiny player is a problem to be handled separately.
The challenge was not unwinnable
The players are usually all about exploration and trying to find secret stuffTwo of the four players have more experience than me, and know what to expect
And I did not enact house rules, the issue is more that the players were expecting some form of house rules and there weren't any
The point still stands, I tried doing them a favor, they kept asking for more, and I'm the big bad DM because they aren't invincible
Yeah and? I'm a jack ass.
Well I still like you. :P
I feel like people in this forum like to be confrontational without actually reading the thread, or just reading the OP.Well, when you choose to rant about your players, it's kind of tiresome to read.
Tiresome? Surely you mean entertaining?
Another thing, when your DM asks you if your character really wants to wake up, and you say "yes" without asking why or what the consequences may be, do I really have to stop him and tell him? It isn't like I didn't give him a chance to not screw up. He made a choice without even asking about what the ramifications might be. It's not like I can tell him what to and not to do, I presented him with a choice, and it should have been obvious. My new goal in this thread is for any wizard player to take this rule into consideration when playing and compensate for it before the DM has a chance to nail you with it. Knowledge is power!!!
That was a lot less funny than I planned....
This thread was a fun read.
One comment after all this hullabaloo? Expecting players of a certain age to RTFM is hardly onerous nor unreasonable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I should be amazed this thread is still going on. But I'm not.
I've read lots of MM's posts on these boards and have had no reason to consider him unreasonable, rude, dysfunctional or anything else before, and this thread isn't seriously challenging my opinion of MM as a GM or human being. (Or elf or dwarf for that matter.)
I do hope this becomes a learning experience for his whole group though. It sounds like a group that needs a good laugh and a few beers before their next session.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One comment after all this hullabaloo? Expecting players of a certain age to RTFM is hardly onerous nor unreasonable.I'm pretty sure that none of us could ace a serious test on the Pathfinder rules system. Even at a lower level, I can't recall a single college class that's actually made it through a textbook the size of the core rulebook in one semester. That's a heck of a commitment you're demanding from people to play the most popular RPG on the market, and I suspect if people were held to it, it would no longer by the most popular RPG on the market.
And this is one of the big reasons I really don't like Pathfinder or 3.X. I don't want to have to get a college degree to be able to play a roleplaying game.
It wouldn't be so bad, but every new thing they add, adds new rules, new exceptions, new changes to old rules. It's like playing Star Fleet Battles.
Another thing, when your DM asks you if your character really wants to wake up, and you say "yes" without asking why or what the consequences may be, do I really have to stop him and tell him? It isn't like I didn't give him a chance to not screw up. He made a choice without even asking about what the ramifications might be. It's not like I can tell him what to and not to do, I presented him with a choice, and it should have been obvious. My new goal in this thread is for any wizard player to take this rule into consideration when playing and compensate for it before the DM has a chance to nail you with it. Knowledge is power!!!
That was a lot less funny than I planned....
Yeah. I think that's unreasonable. Especially since they don't actually have to sleep for another hour, they just have to wait for an hour before heading out (citation at the end of the post). Also, few people have perfect biological clocks and power over their bodily function. I did not choose to wake up at 5 AM today, I just did. You're not going to roll dice to determine if a wizard "wakes up too early" or anything like that.
The player might not know that they need another hour of rest to restore their spells. They are not actually in the world, and obviously perceive time much differently than the characters themselves do. The wizard on the other hand knows if they can prepare their spells or not. Did they try to prepare spells and fail? Then they certainly need to wait another hour or more of rest, and they're unlikely to move out until they are capable of preparing their spells.
Rest: To prepare his daily spells, a wizard must first sleep for 8 hours. The wizard does not have to slumber for every minute of the time, but he must refrain from movement, combat, spellcasting, skill use, conversation, or any other fairly demanding physical or mental task during the rest period. If his rest is interrupted, each interruption adds 1 hour to the total amount of time he has to rest in order to clear his mind, and he must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately prior to preparing his spells. If the character does not need to sleep for some reason, he still must have 8 hours of restful calm before preparing any spells.
Another thing, when your DM asks you if your character really wants to wake up, and you say "yes" without asking why or what the consequences may be, do I really have to stop him and tell him? It isn't like I didn't give him a chance to not screw up. He made a choice without even asking about what the ramifications might be. It's not like I can tell him what to and not to do, I presented him with a choice, and it should have been obvious. My new goal in this thread is for any wizard player to take this rule into consideration when playing and compensate for it before the DM has a chance to nail you with it. Knowledge is power!!!
That was a lot less funny than I planned....
Yeah. I think that's unreasonable. Especially since they don't actually have to sleep for another hour, they just have to wait for an hour before heading out (citation at the end of the post). Also, few people have perfect biological clocks and power over their bodily function. I did not choose to wake up at 5 AM today, I just did. You're not going to roll dice to determine if a wizard "wakes up too early" or anything like that.
The player might not know that they need another hour of rest to restore their spells. They are not actually in the world, and obviously perceive time much differently than the characters themselves do. The wizard on the other hand knows if they can prepare their spells or not. Did they try to prepare spells and fail? Then they certainly need to wait another hour or more of rest, and they're unlikely to move out until they are capable of preparing their spells.
It would be unreasonable for the GM to force them to move out before further resting to prepare spells. It would also be unreasonable for the GM to force them to further rest so they could prepare spells.
From what the OP posted, he told them they couldn't prepare spells do to lack of rest, they CHOSE to continue on.
One comment after all this hullabaloo? Expecting players of a certain age to RTFM is hardly onerous nor unreasonable.I'm pretty sure that none of us could ace a serious test on the Pathfinder rules system. Even at a lower level, I can't recall a single college class that's actually made it through a textbook the size of the core rulebook in one semester. That's a heck of a commitment you're demanding from people to play the most popular RPG on the market, and I suspect if people were held to it, it would no longer by the most popular RPG on the market.
Hmmmm... I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Ace? Test? What? Are you implying that the PHB/Core Rulebook needs to be memorized? If not, what are you saying?
I'm not "demanding" any such "commitment", other than to RTFM - again, NOT onerous or unreasonable. My players did. Hardly difficult. Knowing where to find things can make a significant difference.
It's not like he doesn't have the right to appeal either. I would gladly look up and show my players the rule I'm enforcing. I want asked to, and his co players told him my ruling was correct. I'm not punishing my players on purpose, that's part of why it's so frustrating.
|
|
My experience on here is that the more you delve into games of the optimizers, the more you find they don't play the same style as other people.It's a logical result of following the rules and not the conventions.
I would argue the opposite (I think, we also may be agreeing).
The Goliath in this equation were the players. They bought into the God Wizard mystique and believed that since Wizards are "the best" according to all the "experts" a 4 wizard party would be great.
But it sucked.
It is generally a team game build on synergies and gap coverage.
I read about these uber games, and yet the same players go into APs and they struggle with things that "regular" players aren't even slowed down by.
If you play a game with combat without context, the best combat build wins. Otherwise, context matters with regards to choosing when and where to engage, as well as any number of other factors.
If you are a one trick pony, when that trick doesn't work...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, knowing how your character works is not the same as mastering all the content in the CRB. It's reasonable to expect that a player who plays a human wizard has read:
* The HUMAN section of the Races chapter
* The WIZARD section of the Classes chapter
* The description of any skill they train
* The description of any feat they take
* The description of any item they purchase
* The whole of the MAGIC chapter
Isn't it?
Another thing, when your DM asks you if your character really wants to wake up, and you say "yes" without asking why or what the consequences may be, do I really have to stop him and tell him? It isn't like I didn't give him a chance to not screw up. He made a choice without even asking about what the ramifications might be. It's not like I can tell him what to and not to do, I presented him with a choice, and it should have been obvious. My new goal in this thread is for any wizard player to take this rule into consideration when playing and compensate for it before the DM has a chance to nail you with it. Knowledge is power!!!
That was a lot less funny than I planned....
Yeah. I think that's unreasonable. Especially since they don't actually have to sleep for another hour, they just have to wait for an hour before heading out (citation at the end of the post). Also, few people have perfect biological clocks and power over their bodily function. I did not choose to wake up at 5 AM today, I just did. You're not going to roll dice to determine if a wizard "wakes up too early" or anything like that.
The player might not know that they need another hour of rest to restore their spells. They are not actually in the world, and obviously perceive time much differently than the characters themselves do. The wizard on the other hand knows if they can prepare their spells or not. Did they try to prepare spells and fail? Then they certainly need to wait another hour or more of rest, and they're unlikely to move out until they are capable of preparing their spells.
Rest: To prepare his daily spells, a wizard must first sleep for 8 hours. The wizard does not have to slumber for every minute of the time, but he must refrain from movement, combat, spellcasting, skill use, conversation, or any other fairly demanding physical or mental task during the rest period. If his rest is interrupted, each interruption adds 1 hour to the...
I ruled that being attacked at night and staying awake for a few hours to be in guard duty both count as interruptions, I didn't just say you wake up, haha now you can't prepare spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They bought into the God Wizard mystique and believed that since Wizards are "the best" according to all the "experts" a 4 wizard party would be great. But it sucked.
And if I get four guys who are half-blind and can't shoot worth a damned and give them Glock-9s, and four combat marines beat them with a combination of old one-shot Colts, riverboat gamblers' derringers, and a Glock -- does that "disprove" the "myth" of the superiority of modern firearms?
A party of 4 wizards, run by moderately competent players, will do a lot better than a party of all fighters, and will do as well or better than a mixed party. A party of 4 anything -- wizards, fighters, mixed anything -- won't do as well against the same challenges when it's being run by bumbling novices.