I think you would have to be a seriously immersive role-player to never allow metagame mechanics to enter your character's thinking. I'm not talking about minutely dissecting the NPC villain's build to target metagame weak-spots, I'm talking about not allowing yourself to realise that a skinny guy in a robe and pointy hat, wearing a quiver of wands and hanging about at the back is likely to be a spellcaster, or that the bald emotionless fellow wearing no shoes and spouting Eastern self-help chants is probably a monk.
I am all for total role-playing in some games, but I would be very surprised if experienced players ever manage to leave metagame knowledge out of their gaming, even if they include it almost unconsciously.
Ah, I wasn't clear enough.
Players can metagame and speculate on class and attack presumably weak saves, because that is part of the gaming system and it is fun. And as a player I do this. Metagaming is okay for players, for both plot and tactics(representing their strategy meetings before and after battle or something).
GMs have concrete knowledge about classes saves and stats. And I try my very hardest not to allow my NPCs to profit needlessly from this. I'm aware of action economy and the power of individual spells and tactics, and I try not to play my NPCs as I play my PCs, because creating overly optimized NPCs is the same(IMO) as throwing higher CR monsters at them.
And I don't make excuses about CR(which honestly is an estimate of power, not power itself) when I kill players. One ranger with favored enemy(PC) is not the same as one rogue, or one druid+pet, even though they all have same CR.
Don't even get me started on what can be done with an appropriate CR, but optimized summoner's eidolon, and that thing has a spellcasting summoner sidekick to boot :)
@bfobar: I don't think so, personally I have a bigger issue with the choice of spell. It sucks to lose control of your character, but it is within reason to use one. Two - on the same character - is not something I would do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@bfobar: I don't think so, personally I have a bigger issue with the choice of spell. It sucks to lose control of your character, but it is within reason to use one. Two - on the same character - is not something I would do.
To each their own. Way I see it is the fact that he already failed one will save in the fight makes him a good and reasonable target for any more will save effects that the bad guy might have left.
Loosing control of your character certainly does suck but if it really bothers a player there are was for them to shore up their will save and make it less likely to happen. I imagine that player will be giving serious consideration to Iron Will the next time he makes a fighter.
I think targeting the same guy twice is totally reasonable. Not only that but I think holding back on targeting the same guy twice when it makes reasonable in character sense to do so is treating your players with kid gloves. Some people like that. It's not for me.
- Torger
At first sight , looks like ok for a four people party.
With three people , a bit of unluck can move into TPK real fastThe points to watch out for are :
* AC 19 et DR 5 Bludgeoning : given your group , I doubt they had knowledge Undead : so when the fight will touch the AC , it would take at least two rounds to do 18hp damage .
* Cleric : The fighter has wounded him . One Channel Energy later he is healed and the group is wounded... At worse he'll sacrifice a second level spell for spontaneous healing
* Scythe : the damage on this can kills the fighter in two rounds and any of the others in one round. Happily he does not have improved trip ....So all in all a really difficult fight which can go either way even with good players tactics .
A single channel can either heal the cleric OR harm the party; it can't do both. DR 5 bludgeoning isn't that big of a deal. This sounds like a tactical problem on the party's end.
EDIT: Looking at the party makeup, any group going into a dungeon crawl without a cleric or some kind of healing plan (e.g. pool gold for a CLW wand for the Inquisitor) is kind of asking for a TPK.
As Mplindustries pointed out, the Fighter wasn't playing to his strengths; Full Defense is a valid tactic for a fighter if you're built for attrition (i.e. sword/board and a lot of HP, with heavy damage in the party to back you up). A 2h Fighter's best defense is to straight-up murder hostiles before his HP runs out. Total Defense in a round when the Fighter basically had a "free" opportunity to hit was silly; even if he was concerned, fighting defensively would have made more sense.
The Inquisitor bears most of the fault here though, IMO. The best he could do is spam Disrupt Undead (a cantrip dealing 1d3/round with a touch attack)? He couldn't manage a Knowledge (Religion) check to realize that the thing was susceptible to bludgeoning?
Also, words can't describe how disappointed I am in the heavy repeating crossbow decision :P
"Treating your players with kid gloves." I don't believe I do that. It's about appropriate challenges; it's extremely easy to kill players, it's extremely easy not to kill players, it's slightly more difficult to almost kill players.
I don't mind enemies putting up a fight, but turning the game into a spectator event is IMO not a great idea. But you're right, it's about play style, and I prefer to challenge players in different ways than not letting them play.
And watching other people play the game, while your character is forced to run away or just can't do anything and is then killed isn't the kind of hardcore I'm looking for - I'm not even sure if I would call it hardcore.
There were suboptimal choices on both sides in this case, that happens to all of us.
EDIT: by players I mean their characters...
*whistles innocently*
Now the mistakes: sounds like there were a few rule mistakes that benefited the NPC. This should be rectified, and explained to the players.
1. Orisons/Cantrips. In PF these do not run out, thus the sorcerer could continue to cast disrupt undead if he had it, round after round after round without issue.
2. 1 round casting: This takes a full round action, but also has the caster continue casting during the subsequent round. At this point he does not threaten squares and damage he takes will force concentration checks. Thus the spell could be lost.
3. Riding Dog errata: They were removed from summon monster 1 as they were too strong for it. Essentially you threw a 3rd level spell at them rather than a 2nd. You witnessed essentially fireballing them.
Yes, these three things while minor, likely did turn the tide, especially with poor tactics. Tell them you found you made a couple of mistakes, ask them if they want a mulligan.
Players can metagameI think that this word is having a meaning different from the one with which I am used to ascribing to it.
A person roleplaying a character, and making judgements for that character's default reasonings is metagaming if he is using outside information (i.e. personal knowledge vs character knowledge).
In this case the character in question (the undead cleric) is making a reasonable assumption to use one of his will saves to target a 'thug' rather than trying to thug it out with them. That is perfectly reasonable.
In fact, if the human 'thug' in question were a paladin with wonderful saves, I would cry foul if he did NOT use one of his will save spells but rather immediately resorted to melee.
And I'll echo the other poster, once this NPC found something that worked, then sticking with it is only reasonable. At this point, the DM is roleplaying the NPC very properly... including using the memorized death knell spell.
I'll go further and say that the memorized spells should also be in character for the NPC in question, as they have personal control over that. It would be metagaming to 'gimp' the NPC artificially based on outside reasonings (of the person roleplaying him rather than the NPC in question).
Now the real issue of 'should I throw this at them' and the like is something where the DM can make these calls. But he should not make them after that fact.
I again, will stress that a party of 3 loses FAR more to any scenario where only a subset of the party is able to contribute. A party of 5 placed in that situation loses a 1/5 of their ability, but a party of 3 loses just too much. The combination of the fighter not initially carrying his full weight, coupled with the creature taking him out of the equation is what you are seeing as a result here.
So in the design, you would either value creatures with such capability as much higher than normal (which is difficult to do), or you might wish to include NPCs that would become part of...
I agree with most of what you're saying, and that is also metagaming.
Except the spell selection part, I don't like the idea of every NPC preparing spells as if to fight a small group of adventurers. They must be doing something besides waiting to be attacked by small bands of highly professional individualists - aka. the Murderous Hobos.
Preparing spells for combat is fine when raiding the nearby village, but not for staying at home working on personal projects with a cup of undead tea.
Adventurers go out looking for a fight and prepare accordingly.
And the "thug" just stood there. He was the only one not attacking.
If your party dies because they made stupid decisions then they died because they made stupid decisions. That cleric isn't as dangerous as he thinks he is since the fighter should have had a big two-handed weapon of each damage type, preferably at least one that does more than just one type, as well as a silver and a cold-steel of the weapon type he focuses in. He should also have power-attack and be using it constantly for the +3 damage from two-handing. If he doesn't then he isn't playing a big two-handed fighter correctly.
Two-handed fighters just scream HULK SMASH when they run into a single enemy since it means they don't have to worry about flanking: They can just run in and kill it in one or two hits.
It shouldn't be a leap in logic for the fighter to say, "Oh, look walking bones! Hammer time" nor should it for him to say, "Zambambos! This looks like a job for Ye Olde GREATAXE!"
I always tended to have fighters make smart decisions against undead, and VS outsiders he'd use the Silver or Cold Iron Scythe simply because they are out of this world. Then the mage simply says to use the enchanted Scythe so I do.
On the DMing side I tend to always do the following:
Send at LEAST 1 enemy per PC, now while this means the max CR of any enemy is APL-1 this does make it so the party is never flat-out killed by one enemy.
You can send 1x(APL-1), 2x(APL-3), 3x(APL-4), or 4x(APL-5) enemies per character to make an epic (CR+3) encounter, scale them all back by 1CR to make the next step down. These battles are almost always more intense even if the enemies are dying left and right.
Sounds like you played it like a player, not a GM. What GM uses Death Knell on a downed level one? Are you trying to make them never come back?
I had a TPK because I had an evil cleric Death Knell the party's fighter.
As a player I prefer dangerous games, and so that comes down to play style.And why can't the Priest think like a player? "Hmm today I just want to lounge around, maybe make a few gold, and if someone tries to **** with me I'll cut them with my scythe and then steal their essence cause they ain't got no more use for it."
Or do we want to get into Lore here? Because his goddess is allied with the four horsemen, who are ALL about stealing essence and actually have Death Knell as an aura in Book of the Damned vol. 3.
Nah, let's not memorize the church's staple.
|
You handled the NPC well in all regards. I dont play hold hands tickle parting with my players and they know it so i approve.
In concerns to the fight your party messed up badly. If i, or any of my regular players, were in charge of those characters the Priest would be dead. For one the fighter would have charged and closed the gap to attack the priest when it tried to cast. Also, and my players have done this b4, the ranged characters would with hold actions to attack in order to attack during the enemy's turn to up the concentration DC of spells. In all a lot of the mistakes made could have and should have gone there way if they applied basic tactics.
Sounds like you played it like a player, not a GM. What GM uses Death Knell on a downed level one? Are you trying to make them never come back?
There is also the argument of knowing when to tuck your tail firmly between your legs and run away unless there is something stopping you. The PCs can usually just leave the dungeon, go back to town, convince the town guard to send some men out to help them kill this BBEG, and then come back with a larger group of people.
Rule 1: Be able to run faster than the slowest person.
Rule 2: Have some sort of way to heal yourself.
Rule 3: See rule 1.
Rule 4: see rule 3.
|
|
Sounds like you played it like a player, not a GM. What GM uses Death Knell on a downed level one? Are you trying to make them never come back?There is also the argument of knowing when to tuck your tail firmly between your legs and run away unless there is something stopping you. The PCs can usually just leave the dungeon, go back to town, convince the town guard to send some men out to help them kill this BBEG, and then come back with a larger group of people.
Rule 1: Be able to run faster than the slowest person.
Rule 2: Have some sort of way to heal yourself.
Rule 3: See rule 1.
Rule 4: see rule 3.
Agreed but u vergot rule 0, the rule that all rules are applied off, common sense is a supper power and must be used wisely, aka dont press the button stupid.
Agreed but u [fo]rgot rule 0, the rule that all rules are applied off, common sense is a supper power and must be used wisely, aka dont press the button stupid.
Rule 1: Be able to run faster than the slowest person.
Rule 2: Have some sort of way to heal yourself.
Rule 3: See rule 1.
Rule 4: see rule 3.
This is less a problem of the players being stupid and more of a problem that the modern gaming industry has come to the point where you don't have to be smart to win.
The players who died probably played modern day MMOs where the PCs are so overpowered compared to the enemies that common sense doesn't matter anymore.After they die enough times they will realize that they cannot just run in head-long unless they are playing something with Damage Reduction, and even then the enemy might have a weapon that goes through that or they might cast spells.
This is less a problem of the players being stupid and more of a problem that the modern gaming industry has come to the point where you don't have to be smart to win.
The players who died probably played modern day MMOs where the PCs are so overpowered compared to the enemies that common sense doesn't matter anymore.After they die enough times they will realize that they cannot just run in head-long unless they are playing something with Damage Reduction, and even then the enemy might have a weapon that goes through that or they might cast spells.
Do we need to put big red circles on the ground right before we have our dragon breath weapon them? =D
My point was that those are meta-statistics, and not something characters should be basing their tactics on.
It's from the wandering observational comic that keeps pointing things out.
"What's the deal with people who wear armor never dodging fireballs?" And so on until everyone knows that if they're sneaky and steal you hit them with non fireball spells.
The last TPK I GMed for started with the barbarian running up and drinking a potion in melee range at 3 ogres. This thread amuses me.
My last TPK (which actually was only a partial TPK since most stabilized at negatives and were rescued later by allies) started with the great plan of having the big spellcaster Witch sit 150 feet away from the NPCs, the Archer Ranger stop 75 ft out, and the rest of the PCs close and attack in Melee.
Unfortunately, the Big Bad was a half-dragon witch with a scythe and 10 mooks (none over 3 hd). The BBEG spent the first round casting a spell on the cavalier that made her offensive to animals (so her own mount threw her off), then flew past all the PCs and attacked the lone witch for the first 3 rounds, and slaughtered her. The Archer and melee people split up and while the mooks mostly whiffed, so unfortunately did the players (I think the Cavalier missed every attack).
In the end, the Cavalier's horse ended up being the last thing standing.
The last TPK I GMed for started with the barbarian running up and drinking a potion in melee range at 3 ogres. This thread amuses me.My last TPK (which actually was only a partial TPK since most stabilized at negatives and were rescued later by allies) started with the great plan of having the big spellcaster Witch sit 150 feet away from the NPCs, the Archer Ranger stop 75 ft out, and the rest of the PCs close and attack in Melee.
Unfortunately, the Big Bad was a half-dragon witch with a scythe and 10 mooks (none over 3 hd). The BBEG spent the first round casting a spell on the cavalier that made her offensive to animals (so her own mount threw her off), then flew past all the PCs and attacked the lone witch for the first 3 rounds, and slaughtered her. The Archer and melee people split up and while the mooks mostly whiffed, so unfortunately did the players (I think the Cavalier missed every attack).
In the end, the Cavalier's horse ended up being the last thing standing.
Mount had a scroll of reincarnate, right? >.>
Mount had a scroll of reincarnate, right? >.>
Nope, despite the Cavalier doing everything she could to make sure the horse survived. It had an AC int he mid 30's if I remember correctly. Mithral Full Plate Barding, amulet of natural armor, dodge...
Basically Dudley Do-Right's horse, but with a smart rider.
|
TPK's will happen, particularly with small groups, particularly at low level.
Clerics are a tough call if they get chance to do their thing. They can melee, buff, heal, deal area damage, debuff... Stopping them doing their thing is the plan. Kill it quick, or suffer the consequences.
An AC 21 will be tough for 2nd level characters. I was TPK'd at level 1 by 2 2nd level fighters as we had run out of colour sprays and they had 17AC. Never got a hit in and they did, just luck of the die. Its likely the fighter had a max bonus of +6 or 7, so would need 14 or 15 to hit. The sorcerer was probably wasting their time even running into combat...
18hp isn't that high, but was extended by healing. A lucky hit (crit) from the fighter and the fight would have been over (assuming a greatsword and 18 strength a crit without power attack would average 26hp damage). They got the skeleton to 5hp when they were all standing.
If you play tough, and don't fudge, you will have TPK's, the sorcerer should have realised it was hopeless and run away for another day, or retreated and kept up the disrupt undead from a distance...
The last TPW I DMed was the Zombies in The Crypt of Everflame.
For whatever reason the PCs didn't make it past them only to die horribly not just once but twice. At this point the CR 18 vulpinal cohort of the guy who sent them on their quest from Absalom just killed the zombies, revived the heroes yet again, and disappeared before they woke up. They didn't get XP for it, but at least they progressed.
Try implementing slotless intelligent items that are either given to the party by their quest giver or just find their way into the party's pockets from drops. These should all be different from one another, but at least have the ability to cast raise dead on the current carrier. I prefer them to be able to cast teleport and raise dead, since it means they not only teleport the PC's corpse to their last "Bondfire" but they also raise them there.
They drank, they fought, and they made their ancestors proud--and then they died horribly and probably screaming.
The last TPK I was involved in, as a player, was when a DM running a Ravelonoft module forgot that a Hasted vampire can't give you negative levels twice per round. It was the last fight of a mini campaign, so it didn't really make any sense to go back and rectify things once we figured out what went wrong. The game was finished either way.
The mistakes with Summon Monster are probably what led to the TPK in the OP's game. I'm not sure if the players would find rewinding the game palatable or if they'd prefer to let dead heroes lie and move forward with new ones. Either way, the defensively minded Fighter might want to go sword and board next time or maybe even play a hich Charisma Paladin instead. Being able to heal yourself and fight at the same time can be a lot of fun.
|
Thanks for the feedback. Here is how the fight played out.
The Inquisitor gets a suprise round, because he decides to shoot the baddie with his heavy repeating crossbow while he is still talking to the group. He misses.
Initiative gets rolled. Skellington scores a 24 and goes first, casts Shield of Faith and pulls his scythe from his back.
Fighter moves up to him and does total defense, probably afraid of the scythe.
Inquisitor casts Disrupt Undead. Hurts Skellington.
Sorcerer casts Magic Missile.
Next round Skellington casts Cause Fear on the fighter, who fails his will save and has to flee for three turns.
The casters deal damage with Disrupt Undead, Magic Missile and Heavenly Fire to Skellington who proceeds to heal himself with Channel Negative Energy for two turns in which the party reduces him below five hitpoints.
Then the Inquisitor misses his ranged touch attack and the sorcerer deals only 2 damage.
Skellington feels that now is the time to do something more offensive and casts Summon Monster II to summon 1d3 Fiendish Riding Dogs. 1 gets summoned and attacks the sorcerer.
He proceeds to summon another dog and casts Hold Person on the Fighter as soon as he returns. The fighter gets mauled by dogs and needs 3 rounds to get back into the fight. In the meantime Skellington engages the Inquisitor in close combat and brings him down to -4. Next round the fighter decides to drink a health potion instead of charging the baddie and so Skellington uses his Death Knell on the fallen Inquisitor, who fails his save and dies. Skellington laughs and proceeds to tell the party that they are all going to die. Sorcerer is out of spells and heroically charges Skellington (!) with his masterwork morning star.
Skellington retaliates and brings him down to -7 in on fell swoop. Fighter is the only one left to face him and doesn`t get a hit in before Skellington puts him down.
1. Fail Fighter. You only have one attack at that level, why move and total defense. Charge and power attack.
2. Can't heal and hurt. Either or.
3. Sorcerer is never out of spells. Cantrips FTW.
It was a tough fight for 3, but fail party strategy.
I agree that the fighter did kind of screw things up here.
Charge + grapple would have worked very well. Yes the baddie gets an AoO, but you are supposed to be the tank here.
Charge + attack would still have been good and could have forced concentration checks on the skeleton.
Move and attack while fighting defensively would still have worked and still allowed him to threaten, though the enemy AC would be an issue.
Allowing the skeleton to get summons off right away may have tipped things though.
I don't think that casting will save spells on the fighter is especially 'meta'. You cast will save spells on guys who look 'dumb'. You cast reflex save spells on guys who look 'slow'. You cast fort save spells on guys who look 'frail'. Any offensive caster ought to know that this is the best way to use his spells.
Frankly if the skeleton had simply channelled negative energy offensively twice that could have been a TPK too though.
Peet