How rigid are the "Tactics" supposed to be?


GM Discussion

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

In several instances, I've looked at the "tactics" entries for modules and thought of more interesting or appropriate strategies for the enemies to use. As a GM for PFS, am I required to run them exactly as described in their Tactics entries, or can I intentionally deviate from that?

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey there, Morphling. That's a terrific question. I can't speak for everybody, but as I see it, there are good reasons and bad reasons for deviating from the tactics that the scenarios outline for the opposition.

Good reasons include: the PCs' tactics provoke different responses from the villain, like stealing an archer's bow. The PCs' actions start the combat closer, or farther, than the scenario writer expected. The party impresses the opposing guards that it is far more powerful than they are.

Bad reasons include: the GM thinks it would be more fun if the bad guys were tougher. The PCs have already blown through two encounters without raising a sweat, and they have to be challenged by something. The PCs have already cast resist fire outside the bad guy's awareness, so it's stupid to lead off with a fireball.

Which category seems more in line with what you're thinking?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

I agree with Chris.

The only time you are really allowed to deviate from written tactics is if the players do something that completely negates those tactics. Or if the BBEG knows that what they would do would be feckless.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would just be careful deviating too much. Some of the tactics for scary monsters are dumb down on purpose to lower the CR of the encounter. Sure some of the guys aren't fighting towards their full potential but that could be the difference between a CR equivalent encounter and a TPK.

Point in case, take a situation that a gm ran me through. Does contain spoilers to two encounters in this scenario:

Spoiler:
A group of harpies waiting to ambush the PC after they finish a fight with some giants. Instead of following the tactics as written the gm figured that the Lead Harpy is intelligent enough to know that her best chance was to attack while the PC were still fighting the giants. Using the scroll of wall of stone on Area D instead of E trapping the party with the giants while having the harpy minions kill everyone and demanding surrender from the lone survivor.

In this instance the group of baddies used an excellent tactic possibly above their int of 9. Turning two hard fights into one near impossible fight causing a TPK, paid recoveries, raise deads, and total mission failure.

So be careful when editing tactics, sometimes they are explicit for a reason.


Especially "NPC X is fanatical and fights to the death."

The Exchange 5/5

16 people marked this as a favorite.

The reason the campaign has drawn a red line on tactics & 'run as written' is to prevent examples like The Porter Kid pointed out. Sometimes GMs mean well and just want to 'challenge' the players. Sometimes the GM's motive is not so kind. The point is, it degrades trust between the players and the GM. If players come to the table believing the GM will bend the rules against them, the game suffers. Metagaming becomes more justifiable for players. Role-play takes a backseat to game theory.

I'd like to think that as a 5-Star I understand how much challenge is enough challenge for my tables. Time after time, the predictions I have made turned out to be wrong. I am notorious for (honestly) telling local players, "Oh you guys will be fine, this fight is a cakewalk." Then the slaughter commences. The only thing I have learned is to keep my big mouth shut. So if I can't predict success/failure in normal situations, I'm really flirting with disaster (and the fallout of angry players) if I try and change the tactics or adjust the encounters.

If players can always expect the GM to run the scenario as it's intended, they will eventually relax and role-play may blossom. But all it takes is one rogue GM who burns a player and they become jaded metagamers. Examples of this are all over this messageboard. Players become paranoid and build min-maxed, untouchable characters instead of organic concepts. There will be many who disagree with that assessment, but that's my view.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

+1,000,000 to Doug Miles.

1/5

The Morphling wrote:
In several instances, I've looked at the "tactics" entries for modules and thought of more interesting or appropriate strategies for the enemies to use. As a GM for PFS, am I required to run them exactly as described in their Tactics entries, or can I intentionally deviate from that?

In cases where a GM is forced to deviate, per examples by Chris, the GM should endeavor to not change the mission difficulty. If the NPC's were written to do something sub-optimal range, they should do something sub-optimal in melee. If a spell on the list is not called for in the tactics, that shouldn't change.

And while the PFS reps stated that the primary reason for the GM as written rule is to avoid exactly what Doug addresses, it works both ways. It's not fair to have some GM's removing or dumbing down NPC's on their own. Many encounters are not meant to necessarily challenge the players, intead, they are aimed at consuming resources.

4/5

I've found that sticking to tactics until the players actions force a change is generally best. And that by trying to stick closely to the tactics even after such changes fights often are just the right edge of tough (I had a recent game where if I had varied the tactics to focus the monster on say a single target at a time vs splitting his attacks I would have likely killed most of the party. Instead he attacked everyone, dropped half of the party to unconscious, charged the surviving archer and died in the zen archer's flurry on the next round with the archer's final arrow.

Very cinematic and tense - and run tactics as written. Had I deviated almost certainly a TPK.

5/5 5/55/55/5

The best plan lasts until you fire the first arrow.

The tactics given are... not the best plans.

Grand Lodge 4/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:

The best plan lasts until you fire the first arrow.

The tactics given are... not the best plans.

No plan survives contact with the enemy. That's why he's called ... the enemy. (Anyone remember where this quote is from?)

And I thought the actual quote was the best laid plans of mice and men gang aft agilely.

Shadow Lodge 2/5

Another thing to remember is that some tactics are designed to be weaker than they could be on purpose- like if an otherwise average monster has Weird as a 1/day SLA. In such cases, the monster's tactics might explicitly rule out use of that ability because it can lead to disappointing one-turn curbstomp fights on the part of the monster. You should definitely give plenty of extra thought before ignoring those kinds of tactics.

3/5 RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sesharan wrote:
Another thing to remember is that some tactics are designed to be weaker than they could be on purpose- like if an otherwise average monster has Weird as a 1/day SLA. In such cases, the monster's tactics might explicitly rule out use of that ability because it can lead to disappointing one-turn curbstomp fights on the part of the monster. You should definitely give plenty of extra thought before ignoring those kinds of tactics.

Case in point, there have been a lot of people complaining about TPK's in the final fight of First Steps Part I. Some were due to greataxe crits from Ledford, but a lot were because the sorcerer knocked everyone out with color spray in the first round. However the tactics specifically said she didn't use it unless she was cornered, to prevent that kind of thing.

The Exchange 5/5

RainyDayNinja wrote:
Sesharan wrote:
Another thing to remember is that some tactics are designed to be weaker than they could be on purpose- like if an otherwise average monster has Weird as a 1/day SLA. In such cases, the monster's tactics might explicitly rule out use of that ability because it can lead to disappointing one-turn curbstomp fights on the part of the monster. You should definitely give plenty of extra thought before ignoring those kinds of tactics.
Case in point, there have been a lot of people complaining about TPK's in the final fight of First Steps Part I. Some were due to greataxe crits from Ledford, but a lot were because the sorcerer knocked everyone out with color spray in the first round. However the tactics specifically said she didn't use it unless she was cornered, to prevent that kind of thing.

agreed... here's one of the threads that talks about it.

Link to First Steps - so this should be spoilered.


And sometimes the "tactics" described make no sense whatsoever. If you read through the module and really question the layout, who the vilian is and what he/she would do.

Sometimes the main problem might be the spells selected for a BBEG, who in their right mind would have spell X and not a single slot to spell Y.

We be Goblins

Spoiler:

Vorka the goblin druid cannibal....
Prefers to summon creatures to fight for her, but at the same time does not have a single obscuring mist memorized.

Anyone who summons creatures with scent knows to have an obscuring mist!

4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Central Europe

KenderKin wrote:

And sometimes the "tactics" described make no sense whatsoever. If you read through the module and really question the layout, who the vilian is and what he/she would do.

Sometimes the main problem might be the spells selected for a BBEG, who in their right mind would have spell X and not a single slot to spell Y.

We be Goblins
** spoiler omitted **

And now we are back at Player vs GM each trying to out-optimize and out-cheese each other :(


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

How exactly does a summonner tell an int 2 creature what the scent of the target is if they target cannot be seen due to mist or fog?

A bit more basic, how to they point out who they want to be attacked if the targets can't be seen?


GreyYeti wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

And sometimes the "tactics" described make no sense whatsoever. If you read through the module and really question the layout, who the vilian is and what he/she would do.

Sometimes the main problem might be the spells selected for a BBEG, who in their right mind would have spell X and not a single slot to spell Y.

We be Goblins
** spoiler omitted **

And now we are back at Player vs GM each trying to out-optimize and out-cheese each other :(

Really you see that as optimization/cheese?

Scarab Sages 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KenderKin wrote:
And sometimes the "tactics" described make no sense whatsoever.

I dislike when the tactics have the BBEG spend two rounds buffing/debuffing.

In a fight that winds up lasting two rounds.

On the other hand, changing tactics can break an encounter, so it is usually best to stick to what is printed unless the party forces a change.

The Exchange 5/5

Mistwalker wrote:

How exactly does a summonner tell an int 2 creature what the scent of the target is if they target cannot be seen due to mist or fog?

A bit more basic, how to they point out who they want to be attacked if the targets can't be seen?

While I could be wrong, I was under the impression that summoned creatures just attack the nearest enemy. Often the summoner CAN'T communicate with the creature, and has no need to "point out who they want to be attacked"...


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
nosig wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:

How exactly does a summonner tell an int 2 creature what the scent of the target is if they target cannot be seen due to mist or fog?

A bit more basic, how to they point out who they want to be attacked if the targets can't be seen?

While I could be wrong, I was under the impression that summoned creatures just attack the nearest enemy. Often the summoner CAN'T communicate with the creature, and has no need to "point out who they want to be attacked"...

It has to be a bit more than that, otherwise how would the creature know who to attack when it arrives with both allies and enemies beside it.

I have always understood that when you summon an int 2 creature, that it had the equivalent to combat training, allowing the caster to give a few orders. Anything more complicated should require a handle animal check.

And if the summonner is in mist or fog, how do they know where to have the summoned appear?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

magic

Scarab Sages 1/5

Mistwalker wrote:
nosig wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:

How exactly does a summonner tell an int 2 creature what the scent of the target is if they target cannot be seen due to mist or fog?

A bit more basic, how to they point out who they want to be attacked if the targets can't be seen?

While I could be wrong, I was under the impression that summoned creatures just attack the nearest enemy. Often the summoner CAN'T communicate with the creature, and has no need to "point out who they want to be attacked"...

It has to be a bit more than that, otherwise how would the creature know who to attack when it arrives with both allies and enemies beside it.

I have always understood that when you summon an int 2 creature, that it had the equivalent to combat training, allowing the caster to give a few orders. Anything more complicated should require a handle animal check.

And if the summonner is in mist or fog, how do they know where to have the summoned appear?

There are scenarios where the listed tactic is for the caster to use a fog spell and then cast repeated summons from within it.

1/5

I've always tried to follow tactics as close as I can when things are explicitly spelled out... but what about doing things that make sense but aren't called out directly?

I'll spoiler a lengthy example... I'm running #4-14 - My Enemy's Enemy next week and was looking at the BBEGs' tactics. I'm probably running tier 3-4, but let's look at tier 6-7:

My Enemy's Enemy Spoiler:

So we have Titus Terliss (rogue 9) and Lal Chawda (alchemist 9). The important parts of Terliss's tactics are:

----------------
During Combat Terliss initiates combat with his wand of fireball, then attempts to flank with Lal Chawda, who always threatens adjacent squares due to his natural attacks and threatens at reach with his longspear. If unable to effectively sneak attack his foes, Terliss uses his wand of fireball from range to keep himself out of harm’s way (...)

Morale Titus Terliss is under strict orders from the Spider to tear apart the Pathfinder Society against all opposition. Fearing retaliation for his failure, the Shadow Lodge instigator fights to the death.
----------------

Terliss has two potions of cure serious wounds, but those aren't mentioned in his tactics. It also doesn't say that he doesn't use them. Personally, I'd lean toward having him use a potion if his health got too low.

Now Chawda:

----------------
Before Combat If alerted to the PCs’ presence by the trap in area D5, Lal Chawda drinks his feral mutagen and his protection from energy (acid) and bull’s strength extracts. Just prior to combat, he drinks an extract of bomber’s eye to increase his effectiveness in the ensuing battle.
----------------

Chawda also has extracts of blur and displacement, but the written tactics don't mention those anywhere. It seems like those would be some pretty useful buffs to have (otherwise, why include them in the spell list?). Again, I'm leaning toward having Chawda at least drink blur even though it's not written explicitly.

I don't know... I mean, I get writing tactics in that tone down the potential lethality of an enemy. It's kind of frustrating to see a PC die only to find out later that the GM was running against written tactics, but in the cases I've seen it's been going against something spelled out exactly (like the color spray example from First Steps I). But on the other hand, I have faith in the game developers and designers and trust that encounters have the CR they do for a reason.


Tactics: "Fights to the death"

PCs: sleep spell (slumber hex)

NPC: fails save..

Tactics: fail!

3/5 RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

osuracnaes wrote:

I've always tried to follow tactics as close as I can when things are explicitly spelled out... but what about doing things that make sense but aren't called out directly?

I'll spoiler a lengthy example... I'm running #4-14 - My Enemy's Enemy next week and was looking at the BBEGs' tactics. I'm probably running tier 3-4, but let's look at tier 6-7:

** spoiler omitted **...

I think in a case like that, you have to judge it on a case-by-case basis. If the party charges in, he may not have time for more buffs before he has to start getting to business. If, like when I played it, the party stays back while the scout (me) is knocked unconscious and dragged into the room for a coup de grace, he has the time and should take advantage of it.

The Exchange 5/5

Mistwalker wrote:
nosig wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:

How exactly does a summonner tell an int 2 creature what the scent of the target is if they target cannot be seen due to mist or fog?

A bit more basic, how to they point out who they want to be attacked if the targets can't be seen?

While I could be wrong, I was under the impression that summoned creatures just attack the nearest enemy. Often the summoner CAN'T communicate with the creature, and has no need to "point out who they want to be attacked"...

It has to be a bit more than that, otherwise how would the creature know who to attack when it arrives with both allies and enemies beside it.

I have always understood that when you summon an int 2 creature, that it had the equivalent to combat training, allowing the caster to give a few orders. Anything more complicated should require a handle animal check.

And if the summonner is in mist or fog, how do they know where to have the summoned appear?

well.... the spell says:

"This spell summons an extraplanar creature (typically an outsider, elemental, or magical beast native to another plane). It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. [b]If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions."[/i]

Bolding mine: and often the creature has no INT, not just an INT of 2.

This is not a new issue. It has been a point of YMMV sense 1st ed. days (maybe even before 1st ed.).

The summoner does not need to be able to detect his enemies at all - the summoned creature needs to. He doesn't need to direct it, it comes programmed to attack his enemies...

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
That Porter Kid wrote:
*spoiler about a crummy game*

I was the GM for his game.

The game was one that I ran to fill a short time slot for some players since we had finished the previous game in record time. I had zero prep time for the scenario, and when I read over it, I didn't notice a key line that expressly disallowed the tactics I used. The group went through, and almost TPK'd (I think their shadowdancer survived). Post-game, we poured over the scenario, but at the time found nothing wrong with the tactics I'd used. They were also the same tactics that had been used when a GM had run the game for me. So I had assumed they were implicitly correct.

Then I saw this post, and so re-read that section of the scenario, and found my error (spoilered below). Had I noticed this during or just after the game, I would have made it right; likely would have just retconned their victory of that fight and chalked it up to my hasty read-through. But I didn't, because we didn't know a mistake had been made.

So I want to thank Porter for posting this. Had he not, I would have likely never noticed that key text. Future tables I ran would have been subjected to a decidedly harder fight, all because of an initial mistake made by the GM that ran the scenario for me a few weeks prior. That brings me to this point that I think we might forget from time to time.

GMs should primarily responsible for ensuring a fair and fun environment for games, but players share an equal responsibility in making sure that everything is kosher.

Without Porter's post, nothing would have changed. I needed that other pair of eyes making sure I did everything correct, especially from another quality GM.

As a player in a game it can be difficult to make your helping not look like you're being overbearing on the GM, especially if they are new. You have to help them out with some finesse. If not following a non-critical rule, wait until there's a pause (when another player is figuring out their action, for example), and then mention it. Never interrupt them, but if it's something really crucial, please bring it up! As long as you're polite about it, GMs shouldn't mind being corrected when they make mistakes about the rules (or the scenario).

In the end we're all just players -- the only difference is one person is playing like 10 characters at once. And that person could use some help from time to time.

So thanks, Porter Porter Andrew Porter, for calling me out.

Spoiler:
So when we ran that, I thought I ran it correctly, following these tactics.

Quote:


If the PCs are lured to area E by her warbird, Lareecan uses her scroll of wall of stone (Use Magic Device DC 25) to wall off the southern cavern, then casts haste on herself and her warbirds and uses inspire courage as a move action to boost her warbirds’ attacks.

No one was lured in to area E when they started singing, so her tactics had to change. I figured she'd just put the wall of stone elsewhere. No big deal.

But just now, I read a section (that's entirely outside of their tactics section) where it says this.

Quote:


When the PCs reach area C, the harpies realize a fight between the PCs and the giants is imminent, and the lure of easy prey tempts the harpies from their cozy perch. When the PCs move into area D—where the high-rising ruins around the stairs block their view of the statues—the harpies quietly fly to the tops of the walls overhead (50 feet above the ground) and hide there.

Once the harpies are settled, Lareecan casts invisibility (or improved invisibility in Subtier 10–11) on one of her warbirds; the invisible warbird lands in area E and waits to use her captivating song ability until she hears that combat has ceased between the PCs and the hill giants in the cave. Once she hears the sounds of battle die down, she begins her captivating song, hoping to lure at least some party members into the southern chamber. When one or more PCs have done so, the queen uses her scroll of wall of stone to seal off area E, trapping some of the PCs there with the lone warbird and leaving the other PCs in area C or D (depending where they position themselves).
With the PCs split up, the queen and her flock rain arrows and spells upon the PCs in the open, and the lone warbird in area E attacks any PCs trapped there.

I didn't see that line when I ran it, so I assumed that they joined in with the giants -- since they're taking advantage already.

Entirely my fault.

1/5

Walter Sheppard wrote:
That Porter Kid wrote:
*spoiler about a crummy game*
I was the GM for his game....

So Walter, will you now go back and retcon the outcome so that the PC's are not still subject to a loss of resources which should not have resulted?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

N N 959 wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:
That Porter Kid wrote:
*spoiler about a crummy game*
I was the GM for his game....
So Walter, will you now go back and retcon the outcome so that the PC's are not still subject to a loss of resources which should not have resulted?

That's a very good question. I'm sure Walter has an answer for how he'd like to handle it.

But for me, I'm not sure how I'd handle it. There are many mitigating circumstances that might change my thoughts.

1) Have the characters been in several scenarios since?
2) Was I the GM? (If its just a complaint to me as V-L, then I would have to say no, I wouldn't retcon the GM's mistake--If the NFL (and other professional sports) can let game-changing mistakes stand that cost teams potentially millions of dollars, I'm not going to change another GM's honest mistakes for a game that is essentially free.)

There are plenty of other things that might mitigate circumstances too.

If I was the GM, and its a simple easy thing to fix, I'd probably fix it.

1/5

Andrew Christian wrote:

Was I the GM? (If its just a complaint to me as V-L, then I would have to say no, I wouldn't retcon the GM's mistake--If the NFL (and other professional sports) can let game-changing mistakes stand that cost teams potentially millions of dollars, I'm not going to change another GM's honest mistakes for a game that is essentially free.)

The NFL example is a disanalogy.

1. The NFL and NCAA do issue statements and demote refs if they fail in their duties as referees. So they do make an effort to correct the mistake.

2. The only thing that matters in a football game, is who wins. There are no extra resources that are expended as a result of a referee failing to read the rule book properly. Failed rulings in an NFL game cannot be attributable to extra Raise Dead or Resurrection spells needing to be cast, the way it can in a PFS game.

3. Assuming that we are talking about a bad call that determines the winner and loser, the end result for the NFL is essentially a wash, the number of winning teams and losing teams does not change. This is not true in PFS. The NPC's are not also represented by PFS. There is no vested interest in seeing the NPC's prevail.

4. There are no TPK's in the NFL. If there were, I can guarantee you they'd go back and correct rulings when admitted mistakes were made. The closest thing is player ejections in the NCAA which can be overturned and the player reinstated upon review by officials after the game.

***

I can say that based on my own experience with mistakes, I would expect the PFS VO's to fix this situation. Regardless of how many games have past, VO's can adjust chronicles to fix mistakes and it costs them nothing (except some time) to do so.

We all make mistakes. What determines our character is how we handle them and that includes a willingness to rectify the situation.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some of the more annoying scenarios have just the "Fights to the death." under morale. Particularly I found that the boss in Part to Perfection, part 1 was quite nasty in the 1-2 tier.

Spoiler:
Yeti Barbarian. Has two claw attacks that end up averaging something close to 25 damage per round. While he is a glass cannon (under 40 while raging), this guy has the potential to TPK off of two full-attacks. His morale has a little on him randomly throwing things if the encounter starts in certain areas, but just has the "if below X hp, withdraws", leaving me with a very angry, raging, death machine on my hands...

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would bring the issue to the GMs attention, and unless it was an egregious issue of GM malfeasance or cheating, then I would not overturn it. I would let them know what their mistake was, and give them the authority to do any retconning they felt necessary.

But if V-O's start overturning GM's decisions like this, then that will soon make GM's not want to GM in that region anymore.

Furthermore, the NFL is a great analogy.

If a team loses a game, they might sell less game tickets, they might lose out on playoff revenue, etc.

A loss can cost a team millions of dollars.

A raise dead and/or restoration is costly for the character, but it costs the player nothing.

That's my point. Both are games. One game can cost a legitimate business millions of dollars, while the other game costs the real person nothing.

5/5 *

2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:

I can say that based on my own experience with mistakes, I would expect the PFS VO's to fix this situation. Regardless of how many games have past, VO's can adjust chronicles to fix mistakes and it costs them nothing (except some time) to do so.

We all make mistakes. What determines our character is how we handle them and that includes a willingness to rectify the situation.

Having had Walter as a GM recently, I can tell you that he is an excellent and well prepared GM that DOES go out of his way to make sure the table is having a great experience. If anything, it shows that no matter who, or how many stars you have, we can all make mistakes. It happens, and we live with it.

***

This comment is in a vaccumm from Walter's situation.

We locally had a situation where a GM said the players failed a scenario, where the scenario actually has a built-in "deus-ex machina" element where it is virtually impossible to fail. It was not malicious, just the GM misread some of the elements.

The players brought up the event with our VOs, and new chronicle sheets were issued to correct the mistake.

Yes, there are ways to fix it. But it all depends on the feasibility. This was a local game, with a local GM, all local players and just a week or two after it had happened. All these are factors on how and if something like a bad GM call can be fixed.

****

Other side of the coin: the slippery slope. We can't have blanket corrections foe EVERY bad GM call. Someone finds out their GM forgot to adjust the encounter for 4 players and left the advanced template on a creature. The player had to use his potion of CMW to survive, so should a new sheet be issued for the character?

I know none of us want it to get like that.

Bad GM calls happen, and I assure you the majority of them are not intentional. We are all human, and mistakes will happen. Part of enjoying PFS will be to accept it.

1/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
But if V-O's start overturning GM's decisions like this, then that will soon make GM's not want to GM in that region anymore.

How does this make you not want to GM? Walter admitted a mistake. If he were not a VO, you think he's going to be upset if some other VO were to rectify the situation? Are you claiming that GMs who screw players over get upset if those screw jobs aren't allowed to stand? I don't buy it.

Quote:
Furthermore, the NFL is a great analogy.

No, it's not.

Quote:
If a team loses a game, they might sell less game tickets, they might lose out on playoff revenue, etc.

And the other team sells more tickets and gets play-off revenue,etc. As I said, it's a wash. Do understand how the NFL works? You do know there is revenue sharing right?

Quote:
A loss can cost a team millions of dollars.

Which means the winning team can gain millions of dollars = wash.

Quote:
A raise dead and/or restoration is costly for the character, but it costs the player nothing.

Wrong. It costs the players time. 4-5 hours per xp = 144-180 hours at level 12. And that's just game time.

Quote:
That's my point. Both are games.

That's a gross oversimplification. The NFL is an entertainment business. Trying to cite the manner in which the NFL handles mistakes by its referees vs how PFS should handle their rules is fundamentally flawed....and that's ignoring the entire NFL officiating setup.

1/5

CRobledo wrote:

We locally had a situation where a GM said the players failed a scenario, where the scenario actually has a built-in "deus-ex machina" element where it is virtually impossible to fail. It was not malicious, just the GM misread some of the elements.

The players brought up the event with our VOs, and new chronicle sheets were issued to correct the mistake.

Awesome to hear.

Quote:
Bad GM calls happen, and I assure you the majority of them are not intentional. We are all human, and mistakes will happen. Part of enjoying PFS will be to accept it.

Accepting that mistakes will happen is part of being human. Refusing to correct mistakes that are materially significant and that can be corrected, is tantamount to laziness and a disregard for the players.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

You are missing the point of the analogy.

Just because one team makes more money over a mistake dose not make it a wash.

The one team lost because a mistake was made, and lost revenue. But the NFL doesn't overturn mistakes.

5/5 *

N N 959 wrote:
Quote:
Bad GM calls happen, and I assure you the majority of them are not intentional. We are all human, and mistakes will happen. Part of enjoying PFS will be to accept it.
Accepting that mistakes will happen is part of being human. Refusing to correct mistakes that are materially significant and that can be corrected, is tantamount to laziness and a disregard for the players.

We can agree on that. At no point I said significant errors should not be corrected. Quite the opposite in fact. I think sheet corrections should be saved only for significant errors.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

CRobledo wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Quote:
Bad GM calls happen, and I assure you the majority of them are not intentional. We are all human, and mistakes will happen. Part of enjoying PFS will be to accept it.
Accepting that mistakes will happen is part of being human. Refusing to correct mistakes that are materially significant and that can be corrected, is tantamount to laziness and a disregard for the players.
We can agree on that. At no point I said significant errors should not be corrected. Quite the opposite in fact. I think sheet corrections should be saved only for significant errors.

And my opinion is, that you leave it up to the GM to make the corrections.

Unless its something where the player may or may not ever see the GM again (because it happened at a con or out of region).

I will not make a habit of changing a decision the GM made, even if I feel they were wrong. Unless it was obvious that they cheated (added difficulty by adding hit points or extra creatures or whatever), I won't overrule a GM.

1/5

CRobledo wrote:
At no point I said significant errors should not be corrected.

Apologies, I did not intend to imply otherwise.


Enemy fights to the death.

PCs::::: sleep!
BBEG fails save....

DM: BBEG falls his dark eyes burn with hate as they stare into your soul, suddenly his eyes go black, bah-boom, he falls splitting his head open and spilling his brains over the rocky ground....

Thank You!

Shadow Lodge 5/5

and sometimes Tactics flat dont work as they break the Rules of the game

Shades of Ice, Part III: Keep of the Huscarl King:

Melkorka uses true strike and readies her
hand of the acolyte domain power to interrupt an enemy
spellcaster on the first round or to attack the most heavily
armored PC. After that she attacks any character who
presents a religious symbol in an effort to cut the PCs off
from healing magic. If surrounded, she repeatedly channels
negative energy, trusting her selective channeling feat to
shield her allies.

Casting a spell AND taking a ready action especially when it has to be used by the end of the next Round ... and even stipulating "1st Round of Combat"

KenderKin wrote:

Enemy fights to the death.

PCs::::: sleep!
BBEG fails save....

DM: BBEG falls his dark eyes burn with hate as they stare into your soul, suddenly his eyes go black, bah-boom, he falls splitting his head open and spilling his brains over the rocky ground....

Thank You!

or Dismissal - Punch SR / Fails save ... Game over


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
nosig wrote:


well.... the spell says:

"This spell summons an extraplanar creature (typically an outsider, elemental, or magical beast native to another plane). It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions."

Bolding mine: and often the creature has no INT, not just an INT of 2.

This is not a new issue. It has been a point of YMMV sense 1st ed. days (maybe even before 1st ed.).

The summoner does not need to be able to detect his enemies at all - the summoned creature needs to. He doesn't need to direct it, it comes programmed to attack his enemies...

I am willing to agree that the language could have been clearer, and that the summoned creature comes programmed to attack enemies (thought that does beg the question about what if new enemies show up, do they get targeted too? what about an enemy that is dominated, will the summoned creature attack them?).

But I will object to the caster being able to have the creatures appear next to their enemies if the caster can't see them or the target square - when they or the target is in a mist or fog.

And I will object to the coordinated response of summoned creatures if they are not pack hunters and have a way of seeing through the mist/fog.

As you said, YMMV

Liberty's Edge 5/5

If you can't target a square for any reason, you cannot have your summoned creatures show up in that square. They show up next to you, and then go about their business.

Sovereign Court 5/5

Walter Sheppard wrote:
That Porter Kid wrote:
*spoiler about a crummy game*
I was the GM for his game.

GET OFF OUR MOUNTAIN! NO MISTAKES ALLOWED!

2/5

Artanthos wrote:

<…>

There are scenarios where the listed tactic is for the caster to use a fog spell and then cast repeated summons from within it.

I remember summoning a Dog because it has scent when an enemy used a fog spell.

Scenario:
It was when I played First Steps part 1

I also remember a scenario where there was an arcane spellcaster and 3-4 bodyguards/fighter/warrior. Everyone except the caster fall asleep (Sleep spell). Because the tactics of the spellcaster didn’t indicate waking them up, the GM didn’t make him do. I remember thinking the enemy should at least a bit adapt to PC actions. I never read that scenario, there might have been other reasons for those events but I remember the GM indicating “it was not in his tactics”.

I’ve GM PFS just a couple games but I try to adapt tactics to what PC do, while trying to not change the fight difficulty. For example, if the party was firing on an NPC without a ranged weapon, it makes sense for him to take cover. In fact it probably doesn’t always make sense, but I felt it made sense for this one case. I wonder what the players would have thought if he had stood there, ready to be killed. Maybe he could had tried to Intimidate one of the firing PC or took a standard action to Total Defense. I didn’t thought about those options in the game, neither that he could have tried to flee. He wasn’t that much in bad shape (a bit more than 50% hp at that point).

What I mean to say is that changing tactics without changing the encounter’s difficulty is not easy, that’s why it’s better to stick to the tactics as much as possible.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
勝20100 wrote:
I remember summoning a Dog because it has scent when an enemy used a fog spell.

I have a bit of difficulty with the dog using scent to find the enemies in this case - it has no idea which scent belongs to the enemies and which to the allies. It can home in on the caster (or archer or etc.) because it doesn't know who is who.

The dog show up next to the summoner and move into the fog, attacking the first enemy it comes across - yes.
Following that enemy with scent if they move away - yes.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:
That Porter Kid wrote:
*spoiler about a crummy game*
I was the GM for his game....
So Walter, will you now go back and retcon the outcome so that the PC's are not still subject to a loss of resources which should not have resulted?

Without question, it was my gaff. If the players wish it, I'll refund the expenditures, but I highly doubt any will. The game itself took place back in January, with characters that aren't really played.

I believe that Porter retired his character since it's hit 12, the second player is also a good friend of mine and actually doesn't have time for Pathfinder at the moment. If he comes back, I'd refund the death on his chronicle sheet. The third, the shadowdancer, expended no resources (aside from a tree feather token, which was used to escape), but I'll ask him if he'd like 450 gold pieces back at our next game day.

Although I think he'd think the story of how his shadow companion soloed a room full of giants while he escaped by climbing up a tree is worth about 450 gold.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kolossal Ego wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:
That Porter Kid wrote:
*spoiler about a crummy game*
I was the GM for his game.
GET OFF OUR MOUNTAIN! NO MISTAKES ALLOWED!

Ahhhhhhhh..........

casts feather fall

1/5

Walter Sheppard wrote:
NN959 wrote:


So Walter, will you now go back and retcon the outcome so that the PC's are not still subject to a loss of resources which should not have resulted?
Without question, it was my gaff.

Awesome.

I've been continually impressed with the willingness of PFS VO's to fix problems.

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / How rigid are the "Tactics" supposed to be? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.