Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I can not in good conscious recommend this scenario to anyone
That's about how my wife and I feel about it (I've played it at high sub-tier where we survived by running away; my wife played it at low sub-tier where the party survived because they had a level 6 character, playing down, who basically neutralised several potential hazards).
It should be interesting tonight; we've got a 6-player high sub-tier table scheduled, judged by a visiting 4-star GM who really loves the scenario. I'll probably watch to see if I can pick up some pointers.
That's assuming I don't have to step up and judge a table; we've also got three pretty full tables signed up to play Sewer Dragons, with not much room for walk-ins. Last week was our first 4-table session, and it looks as though that's what we're going to have to plan for at a minimum from now on!
|
... how does this lead to "... We'd better take him down!" ? and not to
"can I get invited to the retirement dinner?"Wait, is the PFS one of those organizations you can't just quit from? You know, "you can't just walk away, you didn't expect us to just let you stop did you?".
The last of the 3 lines you quoted plus the guards moving in on us and drawing weapons. And we didn't actually start out as trying to kill him. It was "Well wait a minute if you are quiting you don't need that list. So hand it over and everything will be fine."
|
|
In the meantime, to all you GMs reading this: if an NPC put an illusory wall/box in a PC's path, and they said "I push my hand through it", would you (as Andrew Hoskins suggests) have their hand pass through it and provide "proof" of the illusion, thus requiring no save whatsoever? Or would you call that "interaction", give them a save, and have a failed save mean they stop their own hand where they believe their hand should stop?
Depends on what effect created the illusory wall/box. A silent image is a visual-only figment, so would have zero effect on other senses. Compare it to the more powerful 4th-level illusory wall, which explicitly states, "touch or a probing search reveals the true nature of the surface, though such measures do not cause the illusion to disappear."
|
So you are upset that an NPC with a major NPC plot point had a skill check the equivalent of a bluff optimized PC skill check?Yes...yes I am.
1) As discussed ad nauseam for The Dalsine Affair, being on the sidelines watching the story rather than participating in the story are not fun. Having an "unbeatable" skill check for the sake of having a "cutscene" is not fun. Having the party have virtually no chance (short of a divination wizard who gets initative) to capture Torch simply because the powers that be demanded that to be the end of the story is not fun.
2) Along with other things, is one of the problems with season 4, optimized opponents that we need optimized characters to defeat. Apparently making the combats over the top isn't enough anymore, now the skills have to go there.
** spoiler omitted **
Terrible scenario, TERRIBLE ending to the Shadow Lodge (and one I saw coming a mile away once it was announced that it was a huge "twist"), and one that I'll be glad has no relevance after this month.
I'm sorry to hear you had such a negative experience in Rivalry's End! I would love to trade emails about this, because my experience with Season 4 differs wildly from yours. I've had some close scrapes and there is one Season 4 scenario that, in my opinion, completely crossed the line and should be retired immediately. However, the vast majority of Season 4 scenarios do not require an optimized party to complete successfully, never mind survive.
In fact, most of the horror stories that make it back to me are cases of poor player tactics and falling into the bad habit of simply trying to "brute force" your way through the scenarios. Too often in Seasons 1-3 (out of respect for how close I came to dying under the 3.5e rules I will not judge Season 0 harshly) a party with moderately powerful builds could steamroll an adventure simply by showing up and out-muscling the NPCs. Nobody learned to think tactically, to perform the ad hoc team building that is required by Season 4. Now, because of bad player habits the Season 4 material looks rough.
This can be overcome through smart play and teamwork. Using precombat buffs on your party members, smart combat tactics like choosing advantageous terrain, keeping lines of fire clear, or taking advantage of flanking, and some coaching by veteran players are all that it takes to transform a party from corpses to champions. Casual players who just want to have fun can apply this too; you don't need to be a rules guru or have an optimized build to recognize a choke point, and even the most basic of players needs to learn how spell duration works and how to apply it advantageously by mid-tier play.
With that said, I had a lot of fun in Rivalry's End. I believe the Grandmaster Torch scene was less than it could have been and I regret that we had to fight the orc bodyguards. I'm also curious what would have happened if the stars had aligned differently and I had been able to play this scenario at 7th, where I would have had Ultimate Mercy available to use on Ouidda. Nonetheless, I don't believe this scenario deserves the harsh rap it has received and I felt I could not stay silent in the face of the harsh treatment I see Season 4 material being subjected to.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, most of the horror stories that make it back to me are cases of poor player tactics and falling into the bad habit of simply trying to "brute force" your way through the scenarios.
Ryan,
We had the following:
- Level 6 Fighter/Oracle of Metal Beefstick
- level 7 Monk/Rogue Trapfinder/high AC "tank" and damage dealer (ignores DR)
- Level 6 Wizard specced for control spells
- Level 6 Pistolero/Mysterious Stranger gunslinger
- Level 6 Pure support cleric with direct damage
- Level 5 Damage dealing sorcerer
In other words we had a nearly perfect group balance. I used my buffs wisely (casting them the best I could to take advantage of their durations), our rogue searched every single hallway twice-over for traps, our wizard thought out good strategies and uses for his control spells brilliantly, our cleric balanced her support and buff spells fantastically and our damage dealers dealt damage when needed. I can tell you we were a thoughtful group that didn't just jump the gun and use a big sword to solve everything.
We still...
This is just absurd. Just as absurd as Way of the Kirin (2-death adventure due to bad guys that were virtually impossible to avoid) which fortunately had an awesome enough story and premise to be not-bad.
Not happy, and I'm not happy the casual gamer is being marginalized the way they are with comments from the Venture Leadership just solidifying the "casual gamers need not apply" issue I'm seeing growing. What Jon said mirrors my feelings perfectly and I wish I had put it that eloquently to begin with.
I suggest taking a step back and take off your "I've played for ages" hat. Take off your "I've participated in Living Grayhawk" hat. Take off the hat of somebody who's hardcore (you have to be hardcore to want to be a VO, I've been there, I know). Now, consider what it's like for a new player to show up for a game, and get slaughtered because their experience, casualness, or even playstyle. Consider that the pregens are just meat sacks now in some of these scenarios. Now imagine how that makes you feel, are you going to show up again? No.
Too much of the game has begun to focus on the vocal crowd here on these forums, those that want the "challenge" of death every scenario. I like a challenge too, but apparently my feeling of a challenge does not involve being unconscious for most of the fight, or being knocked to 13 HP in the surprise round hoping that somebody can hit my corpse in time with a cure light. I'm sick and tired of it, and I'm tired of the few that do come in to complain being told that "no, this was easy" by the group that insists on making the level 6 wizard that can do 6d6+20 points of damage with a fireball marginalizing combats, or the archer that takes down a dragon in a single round of combat, or any other of the absurd builds I'm watching walking around locally. Sure, for them these are easy, but for the rest, frankly they're not.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, most of the horror stories that make it back to me are cases of poor player tactics and falling into the bad habit of simply trying to "brute force" your way through the scenarios
I agree completely. I've seen far too many players walking into AoOs because they think they can take the hit or have too much faith in their AC. Or wasted actions because "I can't get into melee" or "they're blocking my shot." Or trading full attacks with the BBEG. A good rule of thumb is that if something isn't casting spells, it's probably designed to beat you do death. Scaling inversely to the number of creatures in the encounter.
Rivalry's End is almost a laundry list of preparedness checks:
Silver/Cold Iron/Adamantine weapon (or blanched arrows)
AoE and fire for swarms
Protection from Evil and other condition prevention/clearing spells
Dealing with Invisible opponents
For reference, here's a list of tips and tricks we posted for weekly game nights at our FLGS:
-WEAPONS: Do you have both a ranged and a melee weapon? You don’t always choose the range at which you fight.
-HEALING: Do you have self-healing? A Wand of Cure Light Wounds only costs 2 Prestige Points and has 50 charges--even if you can’t use it, someone else probably can. DO NOT expect other party members to provide healing for you.
-DARKNESS: Do you have a way to see in the non-magical darkness? Whether it’s a torch, a sunrod, a light cantrip or just plain darkvision, you need to be able to see in unlit areas.
-DAMAGE REDUCTION: Do you have a backup weapon with a different damage type? Some monsters have DR that can only be overcome by slashing, piercing or blunt damage.
-SWARM/OOZES: Do you have anti-swarm weapons or anti-ooze options? Older seasons are notorious for swarms. Even a flask or two of Alchemist’s Fire, Acid Flask, etc. can make a difference.
-DID YOU KNOW: …that a knotted rope reduces a climb check to DC 5? Always have a rope handy!
MID LEVELS (4-7)
-HEALING: Do you have emergency self-healing? A single potion of Cure Moderate Moderate or Cure Serious Wounds can get you back in the fight…or keep you alive long enough to run away.
-DARKNESS: Do you have a way to counter magical darkness? An oil of Daylight or the ability to cast Daylight will help counter Deeper Darkness…very important as not even darkvision will penetrate supernatural darkness.
-DAMAGE REDUCTION: Monsters may have damage resistance that can only be overcome by cold iron/silver/adamantine. Oil of Bless Weapon or Align Weapon are helpful for alignment based DR.
-INVISIBLE/INCORPOREAL: Monsters with these abilities begin to appear. Glitterdust, Faerie Fire and See Invisibility are hard counters to invisibility. Archers should invest in the weapon blanch Ghost Salt for some of their arrows for incorporeal foes.
-DID YOU KNOW: …third level potions or oils such as Fly, Daylight, Remove Blindness, Water Breathing, Gaseous Form, etc. are only 2 PP away. While you can only make a 2 PP purchase once a scenario, you can slowly build up a cache of situational potions!
HIGH LEVELS (7+)
If you have out of combat healing, emergency combat healing and ways to counter darkness/DR/abilities, you are *generally* prepared for most combats at high level. Here are other things to be prepared for:
-FLYING: Melee characters need the ability (by potion, spell or item) to combat flyers that prefer to stay at range.
-GRAPPLING: Caster and ranged characters need options to avoid or escape grapples.
-DID YOU KNOW: …a level 1 Protection from Evil flat out prevents domination by an evil spellcaster. This is very important because it’s one thing when your friend’s MurderDeathKill Machine is attacking foes, it’s another thing when he fails his save against Dominate Person and attacks the party.
IN CLOSING
Be ready and be flexible!
Nothing in that list is powergaming. It's just an acknowledgment of the things you're likely to encounter and how to deal with them.
The high level group I talked about defeated the traps with a stock iconic rogue taking 10 on checks. They beat the clockwork soldiers by switching up tactics once they realized that they couldn't survive full attacks. I don't consider any of that powergaming. It's knowing what you can do and adapting when conditions change.
If anything, I think Season 4 makes it harder for GMs to softball encounters. NPCs have Combat Reflexes and Power Attack. The written tactics direct you to target the healer first. The NPCs just aren't pinatas filled with gold and XP anymore.
EDIT:
Despite all appearances, this is not meant to marginalize the casual gamer. If you're used to playing early season games and you drop into a season 4, it is going to be a very rude awakening. That's one reason I'm hoping the new intro scenario(s) will have an emphasis on teaching basic tactics and gear selection.
|
|
Rivalry's End is almost a laundry list of preparedness checks:
Silver/Cold Iron/Adamantine weapon (or blanched arrows)
Gunslinger had adamantine bullets, monk/rogue can ignore DR, my fighter does 3d6+15 damage a hit. That was covered.
AoE and fire for swarms
Sorcerer has AoEs, Cleric has fireball, monk and fighter have pellet bombs.
Protection from Evil and other condition prevention/clearing spells Dealing with Invisible opponents
Yup. Two clear spindle ioun stones, Unbreakable Heart, and a stack of protection from evil potions.
We did not have bad tactics, we had normal to reasonably strong builds, and we got steamrolled.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was very disappointed by this scenario's sl faction mission.
Loyal sl agents are penalized for remaining loyal to the sl mission, and not betraying the sl in the end to the society.
Typical union bashing at its best.
and for all you that continue with the society we are going to send you to re-education camps to 'allow you to change your faction'.
Pol Pot would be so proud.
Sad.
I am glad that I got to play this, but I will NOT be Gming this foul scenario. It does not measure up to my expectations for PFS scenarios.
|
I played this over the weekend. On the whole, I don't think it was a bad scenario. We played at 3-4, so I think the constructs must have been much easier than at high tier. Thanks to some lucky saves, we didn't have too much trouble with the spider swarm or The Spider. Our barbarian/alchemist got confused, but he was the only one to do any damage to the party, most to my fighter who was keeping him occupied. The Spider basically got one more spell off after Confusion before we hit her with multiple color sprays to stun her for a couple of rounds (she rolled poorly on her saves), and then someone grappled and pinned her.
I'd like to second the confusion in the last scene, though. I'm still not sure what happened. I mean, I know what happened, but it still doesn't make sense. I can completely believe Torch would turn against the Decimverate, but I don't understand why he would throw away the Shadow Lodge. And I don't understand why he wouldn't be less obvious about all of it. Torch is a master manipulator and information broker with a vast network of contacts. Wouldn't he at least try having someone ambush the PCs to steal the list/capture The Spider first, so that he doesn't have to blow his cover with the Pathfinder Society? Or any number of other tactics? Or if something the PCs discovered had forced his hand, I could see that, too. But that's not the case. He had everyone fooled, and the best he could come up with was kill her with 6 witnesses then throw away several hundred (thousand?) followers, many of which would have probably continued to follow him without a second thought.
Which is why it also didn't make sense to me why he wouldn't try to convince the Shadow Lodge members present to help him. Clearly from this thread, many would have. I guess that can be blamed on the no PvP rule, as it could create an awkward situation, but it really took me out of the scene. This didn't feel like the culmination of a master plan through which Torch pulled one over on the Pathfinders. It felt random and rash, which does not seem like the Torch I've seen in any season.
Now, I could see Torch breaking the Shadow Lodge away from the Pathfinders again, convincing members that the deception was necessary to obtain the names of the Ten, and now that he has them, it's time to put the real plan into action. Even having some members remain pathfinders as double agents. Suddenly all former Shadow Lodge members become suspect. Clearly that's not good for the campaign, since the Shadow Lodge became a PC faction, and again, no PvP. But this scenario didn't at all feel like Rivalry's End. It felt like Rivalry's Renewal.
|
|
I was very disappointed by this scenario's sl faction mission.
Loyal sl agents are penalized for remaining loyal to the sl mission, and not betraying the sl in the end to the society.
Typical union bashing at its best.
and for all you that continue with the society we are going to send you to re-education camps to 'allow you to change your faction'.
Pol Pot would be so proud.
Sad.
I am glad that I got to play this, but I will NOT be Gming this foul scenario. It does not measure up to my expectations for PFS scenarios.
You sound like you don't want to be a Pathfinder :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am glad that I got to play this, but I will NOT be Gming this foul scenario. It does not measure up to my expectations for PFS scenarios.
I'm in the opposite camp. I GMed it and almost certainly will not get to play it. I'm glad it worked out that way and not the other. GMing it puts a layer of gauze between the foulness of what happens and my character. I get to decide what her reaction is as opposed to living it.
As somebody stated above, the worst part is how silly the whole set up is. The Shadow should NOT have been caught by the PCs. Torch should just have killed her quietly without the PCs even knowing. Either bad writing or its meant to be a clue that things aren't at all what they seem. Unfortunately, the former seems more likely since bad writing is more common than subtle foreshadowing.
|
|
so... did the PCs take the first swing? or the guards? Just wondering. Back in Absalom when the court starts asking questions... not that it's ever going to come up.The last of the 3 lines you quoted plus the guards moving in on us and drawing weapons. And we didn't actually start out as trying to kill him. It was "Well wait a minute if you are quiting you don't need that list. So hand it over and everything will be fine."... how does this lead to "... We'd better take him down!" ? and not to
"can I get invited to the retirement dinner?"Wait, is the PFS one of those organizations you can't just quit from? You know, "you can't just walk away, you didn't expect us to just let you stop did you?".
He threatened our organization's bosses with a smile.
One of us (I don't rmember which but not me) said that's not right, you can't have the list for that.Then 3 guys drew their weapons and moved up to flank the nearest PC.
Our archer started shooting.
...
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Typical union bashing at its best.
A bit of Hyperbole, in the parts I snipped, but I wanted to address this.*
Mother Jones often confronted Union leaders and said that unions have two enemies, the corporations, and their own leadership. Given what I saw my father deal with from the AFL/CIO and Teamsers, I'm prone to agree. Torch just proves this maxium.
Now, I'd have liked to see some way to change the Society's attitudes about the expendibility of their membership. With 'The Price of Friendship' I explained to the other players (after the game) Eando Kline's history, and it also highlights the disposable nature of Pathfinders. I might think PCs are like Doritos, 'cruch all you want, we'll make more'. The PCs OTOH...
Basically the Shadow Lodge is dead as a faction, but its ideals should be able to be promoted by the PCs somehow.
*
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@MisterSlanky: Sorry the game was so rough. I played it at 3-4, so I have no idea what sorts of beatsticks you fought or what the BBEG did. I do have one comment, though:
Any player who says "I'll search it for traps" and then rolls a die deserves what they get (unless the GM mandated the roll). That which the Core Rulebook suggests as standard operating procedure cannot be considered "hardcore" or "non-casual".
As for the rest of your complaints... well, my review wasn't very shiny either. :/
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Too much of the game has begun to focus on the vocal crowd here on these forums, those that want the "challenge" of death every scenario. I like a challenge too, but apparently my feeling of a challenge does not involve being unconscious for most of the fight, or being knocked to 13 HP in the surprise round hoping that somebody can hit my corpse in time with a cure light. I'm sick and tired of it, and I'm tired of the few that do come in to complain being told that "no, this was easy" by the group that insists on making the level 6 wizard that can do 6d6+20 points of damage with a fireball marginalizing combats, or the archer that takes down a dragon in a single round of combat, or any other of the absurd builds I'm watching walking around locally. Sure, for them these are easy, but for the rest, frankly they're not.
This. I'm glad we have MisterSlanky around here as a vocal champion of casual players... it's a very important demographic of PFS that we all should try to not lose sight of.
I like to think that I'm an above-average optimizer, but what I've seen of the season 4 scenarios requires an entire table of optimized characters to complete many of them. This chases away players in multiple ways:
- Newer and casual players will find their characters marginalized in combat encounters at best and stand a high chance at dying. Feeling like you're a detriment to the gaming group is not fun.
- Newer and casual players find a less welcoming environment at tables when experienced players have the perception they are about to play a grinder that requires personal and group skill (and a little luck). It doesn't matter how nice and accomodating to new players an experienced player is (or thinks he/she is); that sentiment will be palpable. Nobody in that situation is having a particularly fun time.
- Experienced players seem to be under even more of an onus than in earlier seasons to help educate the newer/casual player. Your average experienced hardcore PFSer is not a social work or self-help professional, to put it mildly. The middle of a meat grinder where their mental energy is 100% focused on their characters staying alive is not the place for experienced players to be moonlighting as a teacher of mechanics and tactics to new/casual players. Again, it detracts from the enjoyment of most at the table.
As for Rivalry's End in particular:
From what I have seen of the higher tier, it is not well-balanced. A trap combining web and creeping doom spells in tight confines is in no way a suitable challenge for a lvl 6-7 party... that trap is not CR 8. That is on par with tier 1-2 Darkest Vengeance for lack of balance.
EDIT: And I agree with everyone else who found the ending disappointing. It was not a satisfactory ending for a Shadow Lodger (nor was it a well-scripted betrayal by Torch).
EDIT: IMHO PFS should focus on scenarios for the middle-of-the-road and newer players for most of their season story arcs. Significant challenges for hardcore PFSers should be done as sanctioned modules, special scenarios a few times during the season, and possibly something like optional augmentations in rules and tactics for encounters. Optional scale-ups could be listed in encounters without taking up any more text space (and being a better way to increase challenge) than a single optional encounter. It'd let a table full of hardcore PFS players say, "bring it on," to the GM without that level of play being the default scenario rules.
|
|
so... did the PCs take the first swing? or the guards? Just wondering. Back in Absalom when the court starts asking questions... not that it's ever going to come up.The last of the 3 lines you quoted plus the guards moving in on us and drawing weapons. And we didn't actually start out as trying to kill him. It was "Well wait a minute if you are quiting you don't need that list. So hand it over and everything will be fine."... how does this lead to "... We'd better take him down!" ? and not to
"can I get invited to the retirement dinner?"Wait, is the PFS one of those organizations you can't just quit from? You know, "you can't just walk away, you didn't expect us to just let you stop did you?".
He threatened our organization's bosses with a smile.
One of us (I don't rmember which but not me) said that's not right, you can't have the list for that.
Then 3 guys drew their weapons and moved up to flank the nearest PC.
Our archer started shooting.
..."Our archer started shooting."
ah... so the PCs started the fight?
Yes, the archer took the first shot.
But if a guy just told you he was betraying your organization (Note: He did not say he was retiring. He said he now managed to fool everyone long enough to get the information to use against the Decemvirate.) And then 3 of his guys walk up to your friend with drawn knives, are you going to just stand there until they actually stab him?
I would not.
We did not realize they wouldn't do anything if we just let Torch go. We thought they were attacking.
Other groups didn't attack Torch and let him go. That is also a valid reaction.
|
|
When I played it at tier 3-4, it was tough, but not killer. The clockwork guards were tough, but we took them down eventually with no PC deaths. The web trap was surprisingly easy. The Spider was only tough because 3 of us failed our saves vs Confusion (after the rogue disarmed the rug trap).
As for the final scene, we all sat there wondering what happened. Torch dim doored away before we could act. We drew our weapons, watching the guards, but didn't move to attack. They did the same. After a round of initiative with nobody attacking, the GM called it a draw, and no fight broke out.
But I agree with those who didn't like this scenario for the story reasons in the final scene. I don't think I ever want to GM this one.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy, please expand on this statement...
"That which the Core Rulebook suggests as standard operating procedure cannot be considered "hardcore" or "non-casual"."where does the CRB give suggestions for SOP?
It doesn't use the phrase "standard operating procedure", but it lists searching for traps among "common uses for Take 20".
|
|
It doesn't use the phrase "standard operating procedure", but it lists searching for traps among "common uses for Take 20".
Except when for certain (especially casual and younger players), rolling the dice is more fun, so they don't want to take 20 because they want to roll the dice...you know, to have fun.
|
|
It doesn't use the phrase "standard operating procedure", but it lists searching for traps among "common uses for Take 20".Except when for certain (especially casual and younger players), rolling the dice is more fun, so they don't want to take 20 because they want to roll the dice...you know, to have fun.
So scenarios should be written without challenging DC's so that people who don't want to use the rules of the game to their advantage can roll dice and still succeed 50% of the time?
I'm really not seeing the validity in this argument at all.
|
something seems way off... topic that is..
The relative difficulty of 3-4 vs 6-7 is rough. Each time i've gm'd 3-4... it was a cake walk except for the confusion spell... but its one spell with a decent but beatable dc. 6-7 is very brutal and bad composition, bad tactics or bad dice (sounds like Slanky/Jon's table) can quickly lead to TPK.
The final scene: Having the PC's primary skills tallied pre-game, I knew no one could hit the dc even on a 20 so i did ask for a roll at all. It may be unpopular, but I feel it worked out much better with a bit more narrative than dice rolling for no chance.
As for the reactions... The guards don't have to draw weapons... all i had them do was take a defensive stance. My first two tables, I instinctively asked for initiative and that was a mistake. the third time was much better giving the PCs a chance to react without strong-arming into instinctual combat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So scenarios should be written without challenging DC's so that people who don't want to use the rules of the game to their advantage can roll dice and still succeed 50% of the time?
I'm really not seeing the validity in this argument at all.
Riiiiiiight...
So setting a trap DC to 34 (you know, to make it challenging), with a table that always takes 20, on somebody with a +14 to their perception skill, makes that trap 'challenging". Their ability to spot every trap, never set a trap off, and walk through ignoring all traps makes things challenging. Yet for the group with the slightly less awesome rogue (who's not relying on every perception boost known to mankind) with a +13 (equally cool, but not as awesome as the +14 guy), sets off every trap he encounters. That makes it challenging, to take 20 all the time and see them all (unless of course your perception doesn't let you, in which case that must be the challenge).
Or...
You could have a game where your traps are a little easier to spot, most people are rolling instead of taking 20 because they find it kind of fun, and occasionally (proportionally based on how good they are at spotting things), may set off a trap and have to deal with the consequences (that hopefully don't involve 4d6 damage for 4 rounds with no way to react should you fail the three saving throws involved).
I know which one seems like a challenge to me.
|
|
So scenarios should be written without challenging DC's so that people who don't want to use the rules of the game to their advantage can roll dice and still succeed 50% of the time?
I'm really not seeing the validity in this argument at all.
Riiiiiiight...
So setting a trap DC to 34 (you know, to make it challenging), with a table that always takes 20, on somebody with a +14 to their perception skill, makes that trap 'challenging". Their ability to spot every trap, never set a trap off, and walk through ignoring all traps makes things challenging. Yet for the group with the slightly less awesome rogue (who's not relying on every perception boost known to mankind) with a +13 (equally cool, but not as awesome as the +14 guy), sets off every trap he encounters. That makes it challenging, to take 20 all the time and see them all (unless of course your perception doesn't let you, in which case that must be the challenge).
Or...
You could have a game where your traps are a little easier to spot, most people are rolling instead of taking 20 because they find it kind of fun, and occasionally (proportionally based on how good they are at spotting things), may set off a trap and have to deal with the consequences (that hopefully don't involve 4d6 damage for 4 rounds with no way to react should you fail the three saving throws involved).
I know which one seems like a challenge to me.
The DC was 32, not 34 for the web/swarm trap at Sub-tier 6-7. We had an under-optimized level 6 Rogue successfully get this one with a 36 or some such. A casual rogue would probably have a +12 to 14 vs Traps and a +14 to 16 to disable them. A minimally optimized level 6 rogue could add another 2 or 3 to each. An optimized rogue could probably come close to adding 10 to those numbers. An uber-optimized rogue could probably double or better those numbers.
If you want a median challenge, which is what this campaign should go for, you go for the minimal to optimized characters. Basically the average builds.
If you build challenges only to be moderately difficult for casual players (and it seems your assumption is that all casual players have under-optimized characters), then even the average players will consider things too easy. We are back to season 1 easy again.
And if you are purposefully ignoring a game tactic that you know about, because you'd "rather roll the dice", then you gotta take the consequences of your actions. If "rolling the dice" gets you killed, but "taking 20" would have resulted in no deaths...
Sorry Ryan, but this argument really doesn't make any sense.
|
|
As a general rule, traps should not require taking 20 by a dedicated trap-finder within 10' to have more than a 5-10% chance of discovery, unless it is at an adventure bottleneck where the party has a reasonable assumption that they can afford to spend the extra time required by taking 20.
I'm not sure if players should feel confident methodically moving through that part of the adventure at a liesurely pace. I think it's reasonable to see why many parties would think it a risk to spend 2 minutes at that point in Rivalry's End rather than trusting in their trap spotter's skill to provide a solid chance of success on an active/passive combo of two d20 rolls.
The main problem with that trap is not really its DC, but that it probably should be rated at CR10 instead of CR8 and is excessive for a tier 6-7 adventure.
|
|
Why would anyone feel they are under a time constraint at that point? Nothing in the scenario indicates they would be.
You can't sit there and talk about accommodating casual players and then use a term like "dedicated trap-finder".
By definition, a casual player is probably not going to have a character that's a "dedicated" anything.
A dedicated trap-finder that is in sub-tier for 6-7, is not going to find a DC 32 worse than a 40% success rate.
A rogue who isn't dedicated to trap-finding (which is likely what a casual player's rogue would be) would probably need to roll an 18, 19, or 20.
That's what we are talking about here. Accommodating a casual player in all scenarios. Doing this, would make the scenario rarely challenging for even average builds.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Nitpick: "Take 20" to spot traps takes one minute, not two minutes.
Active perception requires a move action, so you can do it twice a round if you're not doing anything else. The difference could be important when counting down spell durations.
|
|
A dedicated trap-finder that is in sub-tier for 6-7, is not going to find a DC 32 worse than a 40% success rate.A rogue who isn't dedicated to trap-finding (which is likely what a casual player's rogue would be) would probably need to roll an 18, 19, or 20.
That's what we are talking about here. Accommodating a casual player in all scenarios. Doing this, would make the scenario rarely challenging for even average builds.
Just to throw out a non-hypothetical PC by an experienced player: My Halfling Opportunist with 4 levels of rogue isn't a dedicated trap finder, but I put ranks in perception and disable device just to cover it as needed. He has a +13 to find traps at level 6, so he'd find this one taking 20, but need a 19 on the die if rolling. That's 6 skill ranks, +3 for being a class skill, +2 halfling racial bonus, no wisdom modifier, and +2 from rogue trap spotting.
So I could imagine a casual player who doesn't have that racial bonus, or any additional perception bonuses, only having a +11 even with max ranks in perception, and missing this trap even with taking 20. And given how brutal the trap sounds at tier 6-7, that would be bad. From everything I've heard, I'm glad I played this at tier 3-4 with a different PC instead.
|
|
When the Core Rulebook calls out trap searching as a common use of Take 20, I have to assume that the game is built around that being the norm, not the exception.
The CRB also calls out taking 20 as something a character does when they have plenty of time, are not faced with threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure. I'm assuming the game is built around this as being the norm, not the exception as well.
It's a valid point to keep in mind when talking about trap detection. Was this trap inappropriate in its DC considering its location in the adventure? Not necessarily to me, but I brought it up in my previous post because I can see situations where a party would reasonably feel the place was on alert (they had already activated and fought some of its guards). Personally I would have taken 20 in that situation, but can see situations where some people wouldn't.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@WRoy - That just goes to show that people need to be careful not to alert enemy bases of their presence. ;) If you've created a situation in which the normal expectation is no longer valid then, well, you've created a situation where the normal expectation is no longer valid.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Two questions, perhaps for the author:
1) When I played this, one of the PCs used breath of life on the Spider, bringing her back. (Torch foolishly left before he could stop it.) What can she tell the party?
2) I was talking to a couple of other GMs about this, and we were wondering, what happens if, during the initial briefing, somebody says, "Excuse me, but who are you two to give me an assignment? I take my orders from Venture Captains, and that's not you. I need to check in with Sheila Heidmarch and get back to you."
The thought was that, since at least two Venture Captains were giving faction missions along with the briefing, the Decemvirate were in on this and had given their stamp of approval. But we weren't sure.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
It can't be a coup-de-grace, because it was committed in a surprise round.
If Torch has some level in assassin or Red Mantis Assassin (which would be rich) that could be bad. But he hits her with a dagger, doing nothing more than hit point damage and possibly a couple of points of some ability damage.
|
|
I first played the scenario (3-4), and then ran it (6-7) this past weekend.
Both times I enjoyed it tremendously.
Part of me also finds extra enjoyment in scenarios where the BBEG is an invisible enchantress, so there's that.
I suspect the biggest gripe from everyone is the final scene with Torch. At both tables, this led people to say "WTF?" and "Torch, no!".
Afterwards, to help mitigate, I did pose this question...
Are we certain that was the real Torch? After all, he wasn't in a bath house when folks met up for their mission... :)
If you walk away from the table with a conspiracy hat on, you can get pretty deep in the rabbit hole...