@TL175
So 3x 18's, and 3x 16-17's
Odds of rolling an 18 on 4d6 drop low IIRC are around 1.85%...
Odds of doing it 3 times AND have the remaining three be 16+...
That I see people, on the font of credibility that is the internet, make claims like that is why I say again, Point Buy.
Paizo was BRILLIANT for making that the new default.
The random roll is fine they did it in front of me and i will have to adjust what they are fighting.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose that the fighter uses the lance to deal damage when mounted on the charging AC.
If such is the case, then they have to choose at which range they stop the charge :
- adjacent to the enemy so that the horse can attack (no reach)
- 1 square away from the enemy so that the fighter can attack with the lance (reach weapon)
In other words, the horse and the fighter using the lance cannot both hit the target after the mount charged.
Knee jerk reaction: OMG! Playerz hackzors!
A little time on reflection: one of your players is an effing genius! Oracle levels the mount up and a straight fighter backs it up with mounted combat feats? I cannot believe I never thought of that!
Seriously, even though their system mastery is a bit off you have at least one clever player in your group. That makes this group worth gaming with. You have a handful of mistakes on the players part. That's fixable. You have some mistakes on your part, also fixable.
Finally, you have an adventure that is not optimized for the current rules or options available. I only have one suggestion and you may not like it. Remake the encounters. Use completely different monsters, give the NPC's completely different class levels and make sure everything is one or two CR higher than the encounter you'll be replacing. It requires a lot of work on your part, but long term you can better tailor the encounters to better utilize your player's strengths and to, at times, exploit their weakness'.
It sounds to me like one character got really lucky rolling stats (it happens, I once saw someone roll 18, 18, 17, 17, 16, 10 while rolling 4d6 drop lowest, {there's a joke about Han Solo saying never tell me the odds here somewhere}) and that they are really good at optimizing their characters. There are some wonky things going on, but I would think the GM looking back over and making sure there are no erroneous feats, etc, and fixing them will solve that. Then look over some spells (like web) and make sure you know how they are supposed to work. No problem.
Two solutions.
1) Ask the characters to remake characters using different guidelines.
2) Increase the difficulty of the encounters.
I would lean toward #2, as most people don't like making new characters when they are enjoying them.
so im running the shattered star ap and im having a problem with 3 of my Pc's trivializing every encounter. i got a sorcerer that is full into CC spells, a nature oracle that went for the mount and got feats to make it a lvl 8 celestial horse with dragon style (they are lvl 5) and then a fighter with mounted combat. what effectively happens is the sorc casts web making a giant area of difficult terrain and then the fighter riding the horse charge in, the fighter does minimum 70 damage and the horse deals minimum 18 on that charge. then if anything actually survives that, the horse does 5 attacks the next round dealing at least 12-15 damage with each hit and the fighter deals at least 20 with two attacks. at this point i don't know what to throw at them that isn't an auto kill or that they wont steam roll it is stupid to have a horse just charge though dungeons ignoring terrain.
Set the web on fire, then fly away.
I'm kind of curious as to how the other two players in the party are feeling about this situation, also.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh I've been carefully watching this thread since its make-up. I am the player of the Oracle and gladly would like to clear up any real issues/knee-jerks you may have.. I will say one thing, This is not even anywhere near close to optimized for me AND the fighter is still new to Pathfinder.. the result of their choices is simple deduction and fighting style One weapon+Power attack + Mounted = damage. That really is it, and they player was not even around when we first created characters nor did they know I had a mount.
So, List some question.. I'll answer.. so that the conversation isnt one-sided and also not visibly incorrect.
Thus demonstrating the problem with rolling ability scores...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh I've been carefully watching this thread since its make-up. I am the player of the Oracle and gladly would like to clear up any real issues/knee-jerks you may have.. I will say one thing, This is not even anywhere near close to optimized for me AND the fighter is still new to Pathfinder.. the result of their choices is simple deduction and fighting style One weapon+Power attack + Mounted = damage. That really is it, and they player was not even around when we first created characters nor did they know I had a mount.
So, List some question.. I'll answer.. so that the conversation isnt one-sided and also not visibly incorrect.
If the shared mount was your idea then Kudos! good sir. My PC's will soon be facing an anti-paladin riding a synthesis summoner. With tentacles. It'll be awesome!
Back on track. Is everyone having fun? Do you believe your party is overpowered? Do you agree that the system mastery on both sides has been lacking? What would you like to do to fix that (if there is even a problem)?
Many of the people above have had some extreme reactions, others only know what the OP has said. I am infinitely curious about your side of this gripping tale.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I said that IF she didn't roll in front of the DM, the high rolls were most likely the result of cheating. Since it's been confirmed that she did, my conditional is shown to be counterfactual. However, to the extent that it felt like an accusation to the player, I apologize for that.
Rolling for stats is very fun to do during character creation -- and then ruins the fun for everyone during the actual game. Sorry, but that's the truth. If you stick to the point buy method, you have everyone on a relatively level playing field, with optimization, class strength, and battlefield tactics the only difference. If you roll, you can have one player with superman (or at least batman) and another player with Joe Schmoe from down the street.
Although this may not be necessary. I believe that Endoralis is more then enough to answer all of your questions, but I would like to include myself into this as the post is originally aimed towards the Oracle and the Fighter.
I am the Fighter of this Shattered Star campaign. Shoot us any questions you have regarding any oddities those of you have found, and I'll be glad to attempt to clear any confusion.
Some posters seem to have suspected the Fighter's Ability score. I would like to clarify that the exact rolls were: 18 Str,17 Dex,16 Con,15 Int,14 Wis, and 13 Cha. The human's racial bonus went into Str giving the fighter 20 total Str. The fighter also has recently acquired the Belt of Bull's Strength further enhancing it by 2 more, totaling 22 Str. The fighter's level 4 ability score bonus went into Dex.
Hopefully this is enough to get the Fighter's ability score validity out of the way, and move on to areas or mechanics that viewers may have missed.
Anyway you look at it that is a 55 Point Buy and WAY beyond what this or any AP is designed for. I have to agree these stats and characters are far too out of bounds and the DM should have you recreate your characters using more sane character creation rules. Posters have pointed out various rules issues with the mounts feats and the mechanics in how they were created. Not accusing anyone of cheating, but it seems this group has a lot of issues understanding the rules mechanics of the game. I would find an experienced GM and start over.
I should point out that the same character could still be very effective at a 20 or 25 point buy.
I'm one of the two not-mentioned people and I joined around the same time as the fighter. Anyway, I'd rather not have the game change in a way that affects me in ways such as rebuilding characters, increasing CR, or anything else that will affect me or the other guy because that doesn't seem fair. I don't want to do anything radical either like start over. The only problem I had with this campaign was that it was essentially one big crawl through a dungeon with the most random monsters scattered about. A couple of the things in this thread were spot on I guess.
You can ask me questions too if you want.
Overall I think it's an reaction to a particular recent incident where the party took down a big scary boss monster(a pyrohydra) in three rounds. I think it supposedly had over 100 health or something like that. I'm unsure of the details of this monster but essentially everything mentioned in the OP's first post was used in this fight.
Secondly some of these things mentioned are actually quite recent developments. Namely the fighting style, the web spell, and the mounted combat were not really used until pretty much the last session we had.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright before I address alot of the pointlessness of some of the nonsense being brandied about here I'm going to point out the one thing no one has seen fit to guess.
That being said it's time for a sheet audit all around.
The GM needs to take the time adn carefully go through everything to make sure everything's legit.
If it isn't? Fix it. Move on. Have fun.
If it is? Shrug it off. Move on. Have fun.
You're playing an AP at a home table not a competitive game or even the GM's game where you're making them work necessarily harder.
|
Regarding the horse not having the required number of ranks in Acrobatics, I seem to remember way back when we were still playing the beta version, that the +3 class skill bonus DID count as ranks for the purpose of determining if they qualified for feats or prestige classes. Acrobatics is a class skill for animal companions. I am not sure if they took that rule out of the official version, though. If that is still the case, then the horse would qualify for the Dragon Style feat.
|
|
@TL175
So 3x 18's, and 3x 16-17'sOdds of rolling an 18 on 4d6 drop low IIRC are around 1.85%...
Odds of doing it 3 times AND have the remaining three be 16+...That I see people, on the font of credibility that is the internet, make claims like that is why I say again, Point Buy.
Paizo was BRILLIANT for making that the new default.
I had a player, using the 4d6 dice, drop lowest, rearrange as you wish the stats, roll 3 18, 1 17, 1 16 and 1 15 with the d6 he use normally.
My batting average with the d6 is around 3.2, my characters 10d6 fireballs routinely do less than 30 hp of damage.As in the second example we are speaking of hundreds of rolls during my GM career the they are both highly unlikely. But that don't make them less true.
My group uses the heroic rolls. 2D6+6. This way the fighter doesn't have to be a moron, and the wizard can survive some one looking at him funny. So your lowest roll is 8 and you don't have to be the retarded fish frog with a 3 intel, or whatever dump stat you prefer. Point buy simply makes every one average, let the PCs be heroes and do epic world changing things.
|
|
My group uses the heroic rolls. 2D6+6. This way the fighter doesn't have to be a moron, and the wizard can survive some one looking at him funny. So your lowest roll is 8 and you don't have to be the retarded fish frog with a 3 intel, or whatever dump stat you prefer. Point buy simply makes every one average, let the PCs be heroes and do epic world changing things.
Point buy only makes pcs average in comparison to each other. Compared to average NPC and monster stats, they are well above average, especially with the 25 point buy. Although rolling stats is a time honored method, it is also a much more imbalanced method that is often unfair to some players. When you have one player rolling abnormally high stats in a party with another player who was far less lucky, SOMEBODY is going to feel that something isn't fair, namely that 8th level Wizard who is still stuck casting 3rd level spells because his rolls were so bad that even with putting his highest roll in Int, with a +2 Int boost item and 2 points for level boosts, he is still sitting at a 13 Int (I've seen that exact scenario in a group that rolled stats rather than using point buy - his highest of six rolls was a 9). It's just as rare as someone rolling all 16s through 18s, but it does happen, and it isn't fair to the players it happens to.
|
|
The mount has to make an attack. Otherwise it's not a charge, it's just a move action.
The rider will have to make a DC 10 ride check. If successful then he attacks first at range then the mount attacks at its normal distance.
Where are you getting this rule from? The Mounted Combat rules only mention a DC 5 ride check to guide your mount with your knees, freeing up both hands. The entirety of the charging rules under mounted combat say:
When you make your attack, it ends your mount's charge. If your mount can attack as well, great, otherwise, no attack for the mount. If your mount could continue making its charge after you attacked, why would we need the Ride-By Attack feat?
If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).
Read what the lance says in its description. : does double damage when used from the back of a charging mount
If the mount charges, it is making an attack. If it doesn't make an attack it is not a charge there fore no double damage when you attack.
Look up the skill ride. Look up the check for attacking if the mount attacks. Its a DC 10.
Titania, you may want to check the many rules threads about attacks from both mount and rider with a lance in a mounted charge.
The majority supports the idea that any attack happens at the end of the charge and that you need to choose the range at which you strike : reach (lance) or adjacent (most mounts).
Of course, this can be houseruled by the GM, but that then gives a significant boost to the mounted charge tactic which is already pretty strong as is.
|
|
If I understand the rules for charging and for mounted combat, in this scenario, there are actually two charges taking place, not one. The rider can make a charge with the lance, using the mount's movement, as per the mounted combat rules, ending HIS charge at the limit of the lance's range. However, the horse can continue moving the additional space needed to end ITS charge, with the rider making a ride check to stay on, provided the mount has enough movement left. Think of it like the horse dragging the rider to reposition after the rider's charge ends. Technically, horse and rider might even be able to charge two different targets if they're lined up right, with the rider attacking a target adjacent to the mount's path or within reach of his lance at some point between the start of movement and the end of movement, with the mount then continuing on to attack a second target directly ahead of it (which may provoke an AoO from the first target, of course), with both gaining the bonuses and penalties for a charge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People mentioned that the horse was wrong because it has Magical Beast HD and BAB progression, saying that the Celestial template doesn't do that, which is true... but the feat Celestial Servant does specifically say that your mount is now a Magical Beast seemingly in addition to gaining the template.
"Your animal companion, familiar, or mount gains the celestial template and becomes a magical beast, though you may still treat it as an animal when using Handle Animal, wild empathy, or any other spells or class abilities that specifically affect animals."
That makes me wonder if it would indeed get the d10 and full BAB.
Quick post on why the horse does not get the full BAB and d10 HD. Of course, up to GM discretion, but after a quick Google search, it seems pretty clear.
First, Celestial Servant. This gives the Celestial template and causes your Animal Companion to become a magical beast. (As Chaoseffect points out).
Now, this seems that it would cause the companion to gain the benefits of a magical beast. However, a precedent exists in the form of the Awaken spell.
An awakened tree has characteristics as if it were an animated object, except that it gains the plant type and its Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores are each 3d6. An awakened plant gains the ability to move its limbs, roots, vines, creepers, and so forth, and it has senses similar to a human's.
An awakened animal gets 3d6 Intelligence, +1d3 Charisma, and +2 HD. Its type becomes magical beast (augmented animal). An awakened animal can't serve as an animal companion, familiar, or special mount.
An awakened tree or animal can speak one language that you know, plus one additional language that you know per point of Intelligence bonus (if any). This spell does not function on an animal or plant with an Intelligence greater than 2.
So this spell does a very similar thing in terms of creature type. An FAQ exists which clarifies the following.
Only the animal's type changes to "magical beast"--it doesn't gain all the mathematical benefits for this type change (think of it as a "quick rules" version of adding a template to a creature).
The 2 HD it gains are d8s, just like its other animal HD.
An animal trained to wear barding can continue to do so without penalty once it is awakened. Once it's awakened, it can either spend a feat on armor proficiency or take class levels in a class that grants armor proficiency, just like any intelligent creature.
—Sean K Reynolds, 10/09/10
In my opinion, the same logic applies. This doesn't lay a big blow to the combo, but it obviously has a pretty detrimental effect on the mount.
|
So essentialy, the entire thread is about a GM with a different playstyle not experienced enough to adapt the AP to his playstyle. The majority of responders accuse the players of cheating (unfounded) and/or belittle the playstyle, telling the GM to abandon the playstyle rather than offer tips on how to adapt the AP and NPC tactics.
And then continue to exclaim badwrongfun
Am I right?
More or less.
|
Regarding the horse not having the required number of ranks in Acrobatics, I seem to remember way back when we were still playing the beta version, that the +3 class skill bonus DID count as ranks for the purpose of determining if they qualified for feats or prestige classes. Acrobatics is a class skill for animal companions. I am not sure if they took that rule out of the official version, though. If that is still the case, then the horse would qualify for the Dragon Style feat.
# of ranks do not include class skill bonuses. You will see the devs use this a lot to set the entry level into PRCs for instance. It requires full allotted ranks (ie-1 per level), not bonus ranks.
|
Erm...not sure how I feel about one character using so much of their character's class abilities and other options only for the purposes for another PC. It has that "recruited olymipic team" feeling rather then a band of adventurers. One character from what little I've seen has a huge investment into something they aren't using which really gives off an odd vibe that I'm a bit surprised other people are praising. There might be a good reason for that ICly that I don't know but on just the screen here I wouldn't allow that kind of thing in a game I was running.
It is a game and everyone at the table is there to have a good time, player or GM. If your not enjoying yourself as they mow through the encounters like they are it is likely time to sit down and have a chat with them about it to try to reign things in a bit so you can enjoy the game more too. Your not punishing your players for something, your asking your friends to tone it down to make it fun for everyone involved.
(As an aside, adventure paths aren't that easy....)
Don't want to derail the conversation too much so I will hide this for those who aren't interested.
Rolling for stats is very fun to do during character creation -- and then ruins the fun for everyone during the actual game. Sorry, but that's the truth. If you stick to the point buy method, you have everyone on a relatively level playing field, with optimization, class strength, and battlefield tactics the only difference. If you roll, you can have one player with superman (or at least batman) and another player with Joe Schmoe from down the street.
We managed to have fun games for twenty years before point-buy became a thing.
We have also had fun games using stat rolls in the years since.
I understand what you both (and a bunch of others) are saying. I tend to agree with both of you to a certain extent.
I've been playing since the blue and pink books and we used rolled stats for years. Yes, we had lots of fun. But yes, it did often seem unfair in one direction or another. It almost always seemed to be one of 2 situations.
1) One of the players has stats way above everyone else's. Most of us ended up feeling like support side-kicks for the superhero. We can't do anything by ourselves, so we will just try to protect you while you do all the important heroic stuff. Ok, maybe not that bad, but headed in that direction. {A few years ago we had a cleric who rolled stats in front of us that were so good he was better than almost every other character at their specialty.}
2) One of the players has stats well below everyone else's. Now he feels like the little brother tagging along with the big kids. You can't do anything, but we tolerate you. Just remember, everything would have been better if mom hadn't made us bring you along. {About 10 years ago I finally dropped out of a game where I was expected to keep playing where my highest stat (single 13) was lower than every other characters lowests stat (min 14). I literally could do almost nothing other than try to survive while getting made fun of for being ineffectual. Lots of fun...}
No, neither one was usually that bad. The players with higher rolled stats were not the gods above and the players with lower rolled stats were not the dirt that is trodden on. But that is what many of us often felt like.
Back when there were no feats, no skill ranks, few spells, few weapons, and just plain few choices; the rolled abilites were almost all that differentiated 1 PC from another. So a point buy did tend to make cookie cutter PC's. Now there are some many working choices that even with identical ability scores PC's are almost always vastly different creations.
I don't mind rolled stats for a short series or one-shot adventure. If one PC makes us look bad or I'm stuck with a lemon for a hort while, that is no big deal. But our campaigns tend to last a year or two. I don't want to be stuck with a lemon or one guy lording over the rest of us for 2 years.
So I am much more in favor of point buy.
Rolled stats can work fine for everyone with modifications to the rules/approach.
A) Several rolled sets of abilites and players pick from those. (But then you have the sameness that you were supposedly rolling to get away from.)
B) The person with the highest abilites and the person with the lowest abilites re-rolls until within the bounds of the others.
C) Various combinations of dice, additions, drops, and re-rolls to avoid the extremes.
Etc...
But point buy is just easier and by default is essentially equal. It is what I always specify when I am GM.