All right here's the deal.
Now, is this just a fluke (they made all their saves and rolled really high), or is it my fault for not healing myself/running away/both? Is it wrong or whiny to want the GM to maybe not throw everything he had at me? I try to be a good and cooperative character, but this seemed like a but much.. Again, my fault?
The last time this happened it was a different character at a higher tier; we were fighting the boss monster who had six attacks with a confusion effect every time one of them hit. He noticed that I had the lowest AC, so he full attacked me every turn until I died. There was nothing I could do about it, because of the confusion effect kept me from moving away or healing myself. No one else healed me, partly because I didn't ask for it. I was trying to move away and heal myself every turn; I just couldn't. It this again my fault for not asking for healing?
Maybe the GM doesn't like me???? I don't know. I've never seen or heard of him killing only one character in a party besides mine, but I suppose he easily could have.
In conclusion, was the GM in the right? Is it my fault? Do I have nothing to complain about? Is there any advice people can give about being a better player?
|
IQuarent:
You seem to have thought quite long and hard on this.
I wont respond to the whole statement just parts:
A) If you need healing ask for it. There is a propensity in Pathfinder society games for people to either ask for healing or not at all. Im not sure what it is, but I find it rare for a Cleric to actually ask around if anyone needs healing. I put this down to the 'Have wand, will ask when needed' effect. PFS and it's 2PP wands have created almost a mindset where at the start of the scenario people will find out who can use them and pass them on.
Obviously this means a Cleric relies less on dumping spells for any curative magic (although we arnt referring to the restoration type ones here), and many clerics now run as Battle Clerics (and woe betide anyone asking a battle cleric to dump their offensive for some curative!).
(I have yet to play a healer Cleric in Pathfinder myself {mine is a Cleric of Mephistopheles who is utility}) He heals (with either a Wand of CLW or infernal healing) when asked.
B) Be prepared to be frustrated. I do get frustrated when I have others on the table telling me how to cast my fireball or who to attack. I consider it a form of metagaming (ie the player telling me may know that monster X has fire immunity so knows my attack wont hurt monster X). However there are exceptions
B1) New players. Players only learn by doing. If a player finds out they need certain weapons to hurt undead for example then the best way to learn is by attacking and finding out that sword did not much at all. You can advise other characters they might want to stock up on different weapons.. thats fine.
Sidepoint on the 'victim' path:
My first PFS character is a Musket Master (a form of the Gunslinger). Gunslingers often get tarnished with the 'overpowered' tag. Some players dont like Firearms in their Germanic Fantasy games and for other reasons people can dislike them. I have managed to get him to level 10 (having died once). There has only been 2 times I thought he was getting purposely singled out by the GM. One of these was where he died to a purple worm. I think its safe to say this GM does not like the Gunslinger. I have no problem with that. It did pass my mind that he was perhaps targeting him.
I do not think that way anymore. I reviewed the battle after the game and found the monster would of done exactly the same thing. I would of done it If i had run the game. I quite like this guy as a GM and while i think he might get a little frustrated when my character and his fighter are playing together, i dont think its a major issue.
|
It is hard in society play where you frequently play with different people to cultivate that feeling of I have your back and I know you have mine. It is much more harder for them to know you need help if you do not open your mouth to say anything. Even if your PC is confused/compelled, whatever makes you think that your PC should not be crying out for help, you the player could still say something like, anyone who sees my PC can see a lot of blood spilling out, he doesn't look like he can handle much more of this on his own.
Sometimes you have to accept, no matter how much people on the boards say healing in combat is tactically unwise, it is sometimes the only way to prevent a death. Everyone should think twice about attacking when so low on HP. Even if you are not a cleric/oracle, anybody in society play can spend 2 prestige points and get a potion of cure SERIOUS wounds.
You say this GM has a habit of killing your PC? Yet you go on to say the second death was with a higher level PC. You also said you have been playing for 2years. This means you played at least 6 prior games before playing the low level death game as Way of the Kirin is level 3-7(barring pregens) and even more games with the higher level PC. Unless this guy is going 2 for 2 in games run for you and games killing you, you are premature to say he has a habit of killing you. Even if he is 2 for 2, I still think you are being premature. The damage was a little high, sometimes that happens. I rather face real rolls than just statistical averages every time. If it make you feel any better, I played that same scenario with a heavy armor PC but with so many touch attacks, I was afraid my PC was going to die.
Your not doing anything wrong when you remind a DM that a penalty is gone. If you were the source of that penalty, like a caster doing slow, it would even be responsible of you to remind him it is over. Those players are the type that want to "win" at any cost and obviously don't care if they cheat to do it, that is a character flaw of their own.
You admit yourself that sometimes when people get frustrated with you, they sometimes have good and reasonable reasons to feel that way. When you admit this, you cannot be surprised when you are not on the top of the list of people to invite into a home campaign. When you are perceived as having many personal problems, you cannot be surprised that you are not invited to someone's home, especially the homes of people who have a family. Better safe than risky or even worse, sorry.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you asking this from the perspective of
-did I handle this correctly? What could I have done different/better?
or
-the GM is unfair and I am complaining about it?
No offense, but questioning the tactics/motivations of the GM in the meesageboards helps no one. Address your issues with the GM, or if necessary, the event organizer, local Venture-Officers, or at worst Mike Brock. I'm sorry that you get the unfortunate opportunity to be my target, but I am getting really tired of players airing their dirty laundry on the messageboards. We cannot do anything about it regardless of who is right or wrong, so it just feels like b*tching to anyone that will hear. If your intent is just to illicit answers to the former question, then I'm sorry for pi$$ing in your Cheerios :-)
As for the former question, I think a heavily underutilized tactic is RUN AWAY. If your PC is knocked to less than 50% HP in the surprise round and is more than likely going to be targeted again, its best to seek cover even if that means foregoing a round of action in order to evade. If the enemies are smart and using surprise, good tactics, taking advantage of the environment, etc. you have to be smarter than them.
Personally, I'm not a fan of meta-talk at the table (the player saying/doing things the character cannot) so if your PC is unable to ask for healing, then you shouldn't either. But that's just my view and many would disagree. If you ask for healing in combat, some GMs will use that to select targets. If a smart enemy hears you say you're almost dead, why not target that guy to improve the odds? I would suggest you have a system of code words that the characters can use to warn companions during combat without tipping off the enemy. Whenever my barbarian is damaged to the point that he is running on rage hit points he gloats at the enemies, "Ha, your feeble attacks may drop a lesser man, but I'm invincible," or something to that effect. That is the hint to the party healer I am in serious need for healing. The side effect is that hopefully, the enemy will believe that I am healthier than I really am and move on to squishier meat.
|
I have to add my two cents to this post. I've played 6 PFS games so far with the same GM and I swear to (INSERT DEITY) his dice hate me though he's only killed me once and I blame the two players in the group who played a optimized (READ USELESS!) Witch and Sorcerer.
I'm getting the hang of this GM rolling out in the open and it is making me a far cautious player but I'm up for the challenge and have had a lot of fun (except that game with the USELESS players.)
The argument that NPCs target characters who "look" easier to hit is ridiculous. If that was the case wouldn't NPCs always target monks? I have a mind to build a high AC Wizard and say "Hey Mr GM your NPCs should only attack me because they have no way of knowing my AC is better than the fighter in Full Plate even if it is!" No?
As for metagaming, I don't think it's bad to tell the player playing the Alchemist not to throw his bomb and the Flaming Skeleton who you can actually make the assumption is immune to fire. It's like throwing a bucket of water at a Water Elemental.
For the record I play a Cleric (this is my second one) and I ALWAYS call out if anyone needs healing. For me to survive the party must survive as well. So if there are Clerics not doing that, shame on you!
Just a funny moment. We played Master of the Fallen Fortress yesterday and my cleric caused the defeat of the BBEG by taking a Move Action!
Players who have played this scenario will know what I'm talking about.
|
|
The argument that NPCs target characters who "look" easier to hit is ridiculous. If that was the case wouldn't NPCs always target monks? I have a mind to build a high AC Wizard and say "Hey Mr GM your NPCs should only attack me because they have no way of knowing my AC is better than the fighter in Full Plate even if it is!" No?
As I GM I do exactly that assuming my baddies are at least semi-intelligent. If your two targets are a heavily armored fighter-type and a squishy plain-clothes guy, the enemy may target the "squishy" thinking that he is the easier target. Remember, perception is reality. That is until the squishy shows he has god-like reflexes and easily evades the attacks. Oh Cr@p, switch targets, hopefully the tin can will be easier to hit.
Players do this all the time. You see two armored guys rushing you while an unarmored guy waits in the back. You immediately assume it is a spellcaster of some kind and the players focus their efforts on neutralizing him. Why, because swapping hit points is not typically scary, but the unknown will scare the bejesus out of the player. Who knows what that guy is going to do so why take any chances to find out.
Some classes may even approach things from an opposite view. For example, a gunslinger knows armor does not help against their attacks (assuming close enough range) so why target the unarmored guy who's AC may be largely mobility-based? A heavily armored guy is probably not very mobile so the odds are you can hit more.
There is nothing ridiculous about these assessments assuming the GM plays the baddies to their intelligence.
|
|
As I GM I do exactly that assuming my baddies are at least semi-intelligent. If your two targets are a heavily armored fighter-type and a squishy plain-clothes guy, the enemy may target the "squishy" thinking that he is the easier target. Remember, perception is reality. That is until the squishy shows he has god-like reflexes and easily evades the attacks. Oh Cr@p, switch targets, hopefully the tin can will be easier to hit.
But in a magical setting how can people use the "real world" concepts of perception is reality? That, like so many "real world" arguments used by players on these boards is sooooo stupid in a high magic fantasy game.
Just saying.For the record I always target whomever looks more dangerous ie Mr Greataxe Wielding Barbarian over the guy with the brown robes and staff. If the guy with brown robes and staff is flying, has flame at his fingertips and glowing eyes I'll go for him first.
For example in the module First Steps our party attacked the lightly armored NPCs and we got smashed by the NPC Barbarian with the big sword/axe. He carved though us like butter. Had we all targeted him we could have won.
Attacking squishy targets first is metagaming IMHO.
|
As I GM I do exactly that assuming my baddies are at least semi-intelligent. If your two targets are a heavily armored fighter-type and a squishy plain-clothes guy, the enemy may target the "squishy" thinking that he is the easier target. Remember, perception is reality. That is until the squishy shows he has god-like reflexes and easily evades the attacks. Oh Cr@p, switch targets, hopefully the tin can will be easier to hit.Players do this all the time. You see two armored guys rushing you while an unarmored guy waits in the back. You immediately assume it is a spellcaster of some kind and the players focus their efforts on neutralizing him. Why, because swapping hit points is not typically scary, but the unknown will scare the bejesus out of the player. Who knows what that guy is going to do so why take any chances to find out.
Some classes may even approach things from an opposite view. For example, a gunslinger knows armor does not help against their attacks (assuming close enough range) so why target the unarmored guy who's AC may be largely mobility-based? A heavily armored guy is probably not very mobile so the odds are you can hit more.
There is nothing ridiculous about these assessments assuming the GM plays the baddies to their intelligence.
I do much the same, the only thing is that I do double check the WIS/INT scores of the bad guys to make sure that they would differentiate between easy to hit targets and closest target.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Attacking squishy targets first is metagaming IMHO.
And I disagree, to a point. Until you can see what an enemy can do, all you have to use is your experience and perceptions to guide your hand, especially in a magical world. Is it unreasonable to target the axe-wielder in your example? Nope, but neither is it to target the other guy. It is just a style of gaming and has nothing to do with meta-gaming. As a GM, I don't do it based on what I know about the characters. In fact, I try to know as little about them as I can just to keep meta-knowledge from influencing my decisions.
Targeting the bigger threat is a reasonable response, but so is targeting the "other guy" who presumably will also be involved in the fight. Remember, reducing enemy numbers is tactically sound. Even if the armored guy is the bigger threat, getting rid of the squishy so you can focus on the "heavy" as a single threat can be valuable as well.
I your First Steps example, the same thing could have happened if the guy in the brown robes had save-or-suck spells that could have taken out multiple members of your party in one shot, leaving the barbarian to mop up. I didn't say the perception logic was 100% accurate, only that it gives you a "perceived" place to start when determining how to address your enemies. Sometimes, you'll be right, sometimes, not. Either way, it comes down to the GM playing honestly and not using meta-knowledge the enemies couldn't possibly have to direct their actions.
|
|
I don't think "hey i need some healing over here" is metagaming, its providing information to the player that their character should have visually. If the barbarian is tripping over his spleen or in this case the character is crispier than that toast you made for mothers day when you were 8 then that should be pretty obvious to the other characters.
Concentrating your fire is a valid (and necessary) tactic on both sides of the table. Getting 2 of you to half hit points does nothing in a D&D world where you're as effective at 1 hit point as you are at 100. If you're at half, it makes the most sense for the bad guys to try to hit the other half. The scenario doesn't usually specify tactics to that level of detail, to the DM is usually free to do it if he thinks the bad guys are even remotely tactics savy.
Running probably would have been a better idea, at least around the corner. Entangling a missile fighter like an alchemist probably isn't the best use of your action anyway: the lack of mobility doesn't matter because they can throw things at you and the minor to hit penalty doesn't matter cause they're making touch attacks anyway.
With that said.. it looks a little weird that you get bombs to the face and they get paper-cuts. A few possibilities (besides him not liking you) occur to me
1) Where you higher level than anyone else
2) Did he kill you , and then decide to slow down so he didn't wipe out the entire party?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@The OP: Really not enough info here to say much. Could be the GM was picking on you, could be you were unlucky with high enemy rolls, could be your tactics were sub-par, could be your build was too weak... really can't tell from the available information.
Even so, just in case it's your own build/tactics (since that's all you can really directly control), what's your chosen role? How do you go about fulfilling it? How's your AC? Your CON score? How do you decide when to keep beating on someone versus healing/using consumables/making tactical retreats/etc? We might be able to give you some general advice, but not much beyond that without being at the table with you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP:
This is as far as I needed to read:
I had 8 hit points and decided to attack, figuring the oracle would channel since they were bombs.
I've got 30+ years of playing under my belt and I can tell ya it doesn't matter if its PFS Society play or regular Pathfinder RPG play, if you're in a pickle and you don't retreat or ask for help, you're running a high risk of death. Its just that simple.
Hope that helps,
Keep on gaming; death is quite frustrating I realize, but that's what blank character sheets are for!
Regards,
Pax Veritas
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
In regards to the question of metagaming and hitting squishy characters, I would imagine that, in-game, combatants would generally learn that those in combat and not wearing armor are probably spellcasters. Those in combat and wearing only light armor are likely rogues or rangers. Those in medium or heavy armor are likely to be melee characters. Smart enemies know that they can hit those wearing no or light armor more easily than they can hit those wearing better armor, and further know that those wearing light or no armor can still really, really hurt them - at times, even worse than the guy with the axe in the front lines.
|
|
OP: Seems to me the mistake was on your end, though it is hard to tell without hearing from the GM. With a big hit in HP you engaged the NPCs without knowing when in the initiative order they were. Considering that the other NPCs drew daggers and moved in, your tanglefoot may have shifted the tactics and caused the GM to use bombs instead. ::shrug:: Death happens.
As a GM I usually avoid the tin can unless:
a) The tactics call out that I attack them.
b) The tin can has closed the distance and engaged an NPC/Monster.
c) NPC/Monster doesn't know better (mindless, animal, etc)
It's not metagaming, its perception plus intelligence.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Gulf
|
It's tough to pick who to smack. It's also tough to forget that you know the party capability at the end of the fight, and the BBEG does not.
Of course when people yell after the fireball, I am almost dead, that makes targeting easier.
Everyone can only see a few states, unharmed, wounded, staggered, and unconscious. Bad guys and good guys can act on this.
Knowing who has a good will save when you have two guys with spears in armor, holy symbol aside, is very hard.
Generally, intelligent enemies will tie up fighters with a brute while I interrupt casters and kill clerics.
|
|
As I GM I do exactly that assuming my baddies are at least semi-intelligent. If your two targets are a heavily armored fighter-type and a squishy plain-clothes guy, the enemy may target the "squishy" thinking that he is the easier target. Remember, perception is reality. That is until the squishy shows he has god-like reflexes and easily evades the attacks. Oh Cr@p, switch targets, hopefully the tin can will be easier to hit.
I can attest to this with a lot of GMs and it makes sense. As a monk-player, a lot of times, I will get attacked first, until they realise how hard it is to hit me. Then they are willing to give me AOOs just to get at easier to-hit targets. Same goes with enemy archer attacks. Once the first "hit" arrow is deflected, that's the last one fired at me. :)
As for the OP, all I can say is retreat, ask for a heal. Then ask for a heal again. If you get knocked for over half your hps, then it stands to reason, you go back into the fray with less than half your hps you're asking for trouble.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Attacking squishy targets first is metagaming IMHO.And I disagree, to a point. Until you can see what an enemy can do, all you have to use is your experience and perceptions to guide your hand, especially in a magical world.
I also disagree strongly that acting on appearances is metagaming. When I DM I always ask for the appearances of the character, such as what armor they are wearing. NPCs and intelligent foes choose their targets based on how they look, just like players choose their targets based on how the monsters look. Players target the glass canons, like arcane casters, so do the intelligent enemies.
With that said, in a different campaign I had a high defense monk and a GM attacked me once and only once in a 8 hour mod. He said, oh you're really hard to hit, and then ignored me completely the rest of the mod. Monsters we'd never seen before would literally walk past me to attack other party members. It was metagaming at its worst and I promised myself I would never do the same.
|
I refuse to metagame this as well, but makes for some pretty boring scenarios sometimes. Super high AC is the most common scenario-busting trait I see table to table. There are some others, like Tetori monk builds, that are even worse I think, but they are more complicated.
To me, it is intellectually dishonest in the extreme for NPCs to be able to a priori target the lowest armor class PCs. Unfortunately for GMs, often the NPCs don't get to live long enough to really develop an understanding of what kind of PC group they are up against. So a lot of their attacks end up against targets they are never going to be able to affect in a meaningful manner.
|
So, really, I think that saying someone targeting the least armored person is metagaming really needs some thought here. It has to do with the attack type.
If I have a character who uses touch attacks (say like an alchemist or maybe a character who uses touch spells), I'm going to go after the heavily armored person because I know I have a decent chance of hitting. If I have a character who's melee based, and doesn't have a high attack bonus, I'd go after the least armored person (" I can't crack open that tin can!"). Also keep in mind that scenarios often write in their tactics who a person is likely to go after. If you do RAW, you'll follow those, at least at first.
|
|
So, really, I think that saying someone targeting the least armored person is metagaming really needs some thought here. It has to do with the attack type.
If I have a character who uses touch attacks (say like an alchemist or maybe a character who uses touch spells), I'm going to go after the heavily armored person because I know I have a decent chance of hitting. If I have a character who's melee based, and doesn't have a high attack bonus, I'd go after the least armored person (" I can't crack open that tin can!"). Also keep in mind that scenarios often write in their tactics who a person is likely to go after. If you do RAW, you'll follow those, at least at first.
This.
And to argue that it is dishonest for the GM to prioritize targets with their NPCs and creatures using the same reasons PCs use to choose their targets, is in itself disingenuous.
If they have the intelligence to notice who’s wearing robes and who’s wearing full plate, they are intelligent to know their own skills and make an informed decision as to what would work out best for them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"And to argue that it is dishonest for the GM to prioritize targets with their NPCs and creatures using the same reasons PCs use to choose their targets, is in itself disingenuous."
I said a priori. Looking at robes vs plate armor is not a priori. That is using observeables. That's fine.
I'm talking about avoiding a monk that has no obvious source of huge AC for an entire scenario just because the monk proved unhittable in the first encounter. The NPC's in the subsequent encounters don't have the knowledge of the NPC's from the first encounter except in specific circumstances.
|
|
Sorry, my PI (principal investigator) uses a priori all the time. It has sort of worked its way into my vocabulary. It's actually a slick phrase in that it sums up a concept very succinctly.
At any rate, my NPCs always work off the knowledge they know. Which, unfortunately, against many groups, gets them taken out quickly indeed.
|
|
My PCs often pick up a Hat of Disguise to take advantage of the "Shot at the squishy" - so my Armored Brick looks like a Wizard (pointy hat and all) and my Wizard often looks like a Dwarven Brick. Good Judges (or good ones in my biased opinion) pay attention to this. Poor Judges just never seem to notice (always seem to just know the poor AC PCs).
.
I've even had a PC with two Hats, so that he could loan one out and then we'd switch figures. One judge got a bit offended by this, as he missed the fact that we and swapped appearances (and figures) and the front-line wizard was really the Paladin...
Nice trick. If you really want to it to work with the dms though, bring 2 minis so your squishie can look like the tank and vice versa.
|
|
An even cheaper alternative to the hat of disguise for an arcane caster would be to wear a suit of Mock armor. Weight is 10 pounds, so many wizards won't be able to wear it without being medium encumbered, but that would really be the only major cost (other than the 90gp). Even better should you be a dwarven wizard, since your movement will be 20' regardless of encumbrance!
For the armored fighter, you could go the other way, and get glamered armor (though that might be a bit* spendy at 2700gp).
Made from leather or thin wood such as balsa or bamboo and painted to look like metal, a suit of mock armor passes as full plate under all but the closest scrutiny. A character inspecting someone in mock armor must succeed at a DC 20 Perception check to identify it as fake.
|
|
My PCs often pick up a Hat of Disguise to take advantage of the "Shot at the squishy" - so my Armored Brick looks like a Wizard (pointy hat and all) and my Wizard often looks like a Dwarven Brick. Good Judges (or good ones in my biased opinion) pay attention to this. Poor Judges just never seem to notice (always seem to just know the poor AC PCs).
.
I've even had a PC with two Hats, so that he could loan one out and then we'd switch figures. One judge got a bit offended by this, as he missed the fact that we and swapped appearances (and figures) and the front-line wizard was really the Paladin...
Nice trick. If you really want to it to work with the dms though, bring 2 minis so your squishie can look like the tank and vice versa.
I’d have no problem with this trick, if you inform me before hand what your intent is behind it.
If you spring it on me in the middle of a scenario, I might forget. Legitimately forget. Just because a judge forgets, does not mean they are ignoring it.
But I like it when players pull little tricks like this. Will it work 100% of the time? No. There are some creatures with that good of a Perception (or true seeing).
But yeah, if you want your wizard to look like a tank or vice versa, go for it. Could be fun to see how it shakes out. And if you make sure I know about it, and understand your intent behind it, before the session starts (and if I do forget calmly and politely remind me), then I’ll play it up for ya.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP:
This is as far as I needed to read:
I had 8 hit points and decided to attack, figuring the oracle would channel since they were bombs.I've got 30+ years of playing under my belt and I can tell ya it doesn't matter if its PFS Society play or regular Pathfinder RPG play, if you're in a pickle and you don't retreat or ask for help, you're running a high risk of death. Its just that simple.
This. I hate being anywhere near the front lines with single digit HP, at any level. At level 1, it can't be avoided, but at level 2+, I'll always retreat and ask for a heal if I drop that low.
|
|
To the OP:
This is as far as I needed to read:
I had 8 hit points and decided to attack, figuring the oracle would channel since they were bombs.I've got 30+ years of playing under my belt and I can tell ya it doesn't matter if its PFS Society play or regular Pathfinder RPG play, if you're in a pickle and you don't retreat or ask for help, you're running a high risk of death. Its just that simple.
This. I hate being anywhere near the front lines with single digit HP, at any level. At level 1, it can't be avoided, but at level 2+, I'll always retreat and ask for a heal if I drop that low.
Yeah, you generally need to withdraw when you get that low. With that said, I've gotten stuck in melee like that in low level combats. Those were nail bitters, and I was taken to -13hp twice on a character with a 14 con in the same combat that way.
And to argue that it is dishonest for the GM to prioritize targets with their NPCs and creatures using the same reasons PCs use to choose their targets, is in itself disingenuous.If they have the intelligence to notice who’s wearing robes and who’s wearing full plate, they are intelligent to know their own skills and make an informed decision as to what would work out best for them.
I think it depends on the personality and motivations of the creature the GM is controlling. Focusing on just whomever the creatures think may have the lowest AC is also metagaming... if that's not what they would be inclined to do. For example, a tough orc barbarian may be more inclined to go mano a mano with a prestige target, like an opposing warrior of some sort. Going after the lowest AC, in that case, would strike me as metagaming because he's playing to the game's structure rather than his own personality.
|
|
I think it depends on the personality and motivations of the creature the GM is controlling. Focusing on just whomever the creatures think may have the lowest AC is also metagaming... if that's not what they would be inclined to do. For example, a tough orc barbarian may be more inclined to go mano a mano with a prestige target, like an opposing warrior of some sort. Going after the lowest AC, in that case, would strike me as metagaming because he's playing to the game's structure rather than his own personality.
And to argue that it is dishonest for the GM to prioritize targets with their NPCs and creatures using the same reasons PCs use to choose their targets, is in itself disingenuous.If they have the intelligence to notice who’s wearing robes and who’s wearing full plate, they are intelligent to know their own skills and make an informed decision as to what would work out best for them.
Of course, and I take that into account. Indeed some scenario written tactics tell you who to target first as well.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
IQuarent,
I've talked to the GM who ran "Way of the Kirin" about your PC's death and I don't think he unfairly targeted you, nor do I think he has a personal vendetta against you. You decided to stay in the fight after being dropped to less than half hp in the surprise round. You could have backed out and healed yourself, or simply removed yourself from being the most obvious target for the next attack, but decided to remain and present your foes with a target they knew from experience could be hit. I don't believe you were the victim of bad GMing. I think you made a very risky tactical decision (given your current hit points and the proven ability of your foes to dish out at least as much damage as they had done before) and it went against you.
Luckily you had enough prestige to be resurrected so you get to learn from your decision and play this PC again, perhaps a bit more cautiously.
Also, in the future I would ask that you take up these kinds of issues with me in person or via email before taking them to the Paizo messageboards. Airing your criticisms of people you play with here can create bad feelings among your actual community who run games for you. Remember that there's a very good chance that your GMs read these posts as well, and they can tell from your posts which games (and people) you are talking about.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to add my two cents. As you know, the GM in question is my husband. I have sat at his table, more times than I can count and several of my characters have died during those home campaigns. Yes, it stings but I would expect nothing less from him. He plays and fights fair.
The thing is, any one of our GM's could have run Way of the Kirin that night. All of them want you to have fun, be engaged and feel a little danger. However, they are not there to be our best friends. We roll against them, they roll against us. None of us can control what the dice decide, as much as we'd like to. For me, that's the part of the excitement.
I am willing to bet that had another one of our GM's run that night, the same thing would have happened. Then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But since we are, I will end by saying this. We all have choices to make while playing this game. From how we build our characters, to creating a back story for RP purposes, to making split second decisions during game play that sometimes work out and sometimes get us killed.
The GM has the same kind of decisions to make. Most of the time, they lose. Their PC's die by our hand. But every now and then, we die at theirs. I agree, it sucks but it's part of the adventure.
|
|
I play with several of the same area GM's and I know that most of them do not pull punches. Our dwarven barbarian was killed 3 times in Ruby Phoenix alone (in his case he has really low ac, but loves to run in anyway, so he sort of expects it now).
As Alex suggested, approach the GM first if you feel comfortable, approach the VC next if you do not. In almost every case there was either a strategy written into the scenario to target someone specific (the one with the biggest head, the least armor, the caster) or to target the first thing you hit until it falls (not so common, but I have seen it, and it is... inconvenient to be on the receiving end), or it is due to bad tactics.
I know almost all of our GM's very well, including the one that ran this particular table, and I don't know of anyone who has mentioned either intentionally killing a particular player or heard of someone else telling them they have.
Everyone has peeves, but we've got a pretty outstanding group of players and GM's here... I consider myself quite lucky.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
After analyzing the situation carefully, I realized it was my decision that I led to my characters death. Unfortunately, I had completely forgotten this forum until now.
Regardless, I feel like I made it perfectly clear that it easily could have been my fault. At the end I even said if there was any advice I could take about being a better player, implying that I might not be as good of a player as I think I am. The only reason I even thought about it being a GM problem was two reasons:
-It has happened before
-Sometimes when people play with me, they get frustrated with me, and it could have been that the GM thought it was better for the party to remove me from the game.
Both the characters in question were rogues, neither of which had toughness, in front line combat, in risky situations. I made a bad move; I just didn't see it that way at the time. My fault.
In the end I learned something, and I hope I didn't offend anyone along the way. I always, always, always want to be respectful. I try really hard to be a good player, helpful to the GM, and fun, despite my handicap. I really, really, do.
P.S.
Based on reading the responses, I get that it didn't come across that I was being facetious when I said that "the GM has a nasty habit of killing my characters". Being a GM myself, I know better than to think of them like that. No GM gets in the habit of killing people, or they wouldn't be a GM.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The most common cause of character death is an unwillingness to run away.
Most of the time, when you die it's because you took a hit the previous round, that if repeated, will kill you this round. Which is almost exactly what happened.
A lot of being a good player is creative solutions, knowledge of the rules, and showering. Some of it is a very real awareness of your PCs mortality.
PFS has a tendency to "lull" Players into a false sense of security, as the vast majority of scenario's are just not that dangerous :)
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After analyzing the situation carefully, I realized it was my decision that I led to my characters death. Unfortunately, I had completely forgotten this forum until now.
Regardless, I feel like I made it perfectly clear that it easily could have been my fault. At the end I even said if there was any advice I could take about being a better player, implying that I might not be as good of a player as I think I am. The only reason I even thought about it being a GM problem was two reasons:
-It has happened before
-Sometimes when people play with me, they get frustrated with me, and it could have been that the GM thought it was better for the party to remove me from the game.Both the characters in question were rogues, neither of which had toughness, in front line combat, in risky situations. I made a bad move; I just didn't see it that way at the time. My fault.
In the end I learned something, and I hope I didn't offend anyone along the way. I always, always, always want to be respectful. I try really hard to be a good player, helpful to the GM, and fun, despite my handicap. I really, really, do.
P.S.
Based on reading the responses, I get that it didn't come across that I was being facetious when I said that "the GM has a nasty habit of killing my characters". Being a GM myself, I know better than to think of them like that. No GM gets in the habit of killing people, or they wouldn't be a GM.
Thank you for coming back to post this.