Maybe it's time for an initiative cap


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 237 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Tarma wrote:
I'm fairly certain you just summoned my venture captain. :P

My spidey-sense was tingling...

Silver Crusade 2/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

No. High initiative is not a problem. High DPR is not a problem. High DC save or suck/die spells are not a problem. Nearly invulnerable characters are not a problem.

People who don't play well with others are the problem.

Silver Crusade 3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You can say to your players:

"Okay, everyone who beat a [monsters' initiative], you may go first in whatever order you want. If you want to use your initiative rolls to determine the order you act, you may, but you don't need to."

Then the monsters go.

Then, all the players go in whatever order they want.

Then the monsters go...

This is simply a streamlined use of the Delay mechanic.

I think a lot of players who have high-Init characters simply want to be able to put themselves in the initiative order most beneficial for them. I don't think they are trying to one-up other players (and if they are, then they can find many mechanics to do that, and need to be talked to about the underlying problem). Often, players forget that they are even ALLOWED to delay. I repeatedly see confusion, even with experienced players, between Delay and Ready.

Remind your players at the beginning of each combat, "You can Delay until after the buff-casting characters act if you'd like. You will still be able to attack the evil wizard before his initiative comes up (so he will still be flat-footed, Mr. Ninja), but you will have bull's strength, bless, haste, and/or fly cast on you if you Delay. Or you can run in first, before the sorcerer casts fireball."

Dark Archive 4/5

The players should have no idea about the initiative order for the first round of combat (as they cannot possibly know when the monsters will act) you will find that having that in place means people now have to gamble should I wait for the haste? or should I move in now as the opponents are flatfooted?, after round 1 the players are all aware of when the monsters act and as such would be able to delay and plan accordingly.

I have a few character with high initiatives like my wizard with +11, my monk who will have +20 something, all of these are just because it synergies with the rest of their kit, I also have PC's with initiatives of 0 to +4 because they had no need to spend resources on it.

Silver Crusade 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caderyn wrote:
The players should have no idea about the initiative order for the first round of combat (as they cannot possibly know when the monsters will act) you will find that having that in place means people now have to gamble should I wait for the haste? or should I move in now as the opponents are flatfooted?, after round 1 the players are all aware of when the monsters act and as such would be able to delay and plan accordingly.

Yes, knowing when the opponents will act is metagame knowledge. I don't mind it as a GM or as a player. If you do, consider rolling for initiative every round. This way they won't have the knowledge on the second round when the enemies are going to act. If that sort of thing adds to your play experience.

Grand Lodge 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope these agents make up for their lack of cooperation by providing exceptionally detailed reports.

The Exchange 4/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Janira L. Gavix wrote:
I hope these agents make up for their lack of cooperation by providing exceptionally detailed reports.

How come I can always identify one of Kyle's characters before I even click to see who the account belongs to?

Sure, the 5 stars help, but the tone is what really makes it work.

3/5

Mark Seifter wrote:
Tarma wrote:


Correct me if I'm paraphrasing this incorrectly, but are you saying that if the character has a slow initiative and doesn't get to participate in combat that it's the player's fault?

That isn't even close to what I'm saying (but thank you for realizing it might not be instead of assuming--that's refreshing on the internet, cheers for that!). I'm saying that there is one of two cases:

Case 1--All characters in your venue are so powerful that they end the fight on their turn. However, some of them have high init so the others never get to act.

Case 2--The high init characters in your venue are so powerful that they end the fight on their turn. However, the low init characters, in addition to having low init, are not

Effect of Limiting Initiative in Case 2: Like the dialogue I posted above, even if the low init character goes first, the high init character annihilates everything and it doesn't seem particularly more fun for the guy who gets to act but is still outshone.

Well, I do aim to surprise. I'm fairly certain everyone in my region was kind of caught off guard by this too. :)

3/5

While it seems really easy to completely vilify the players, I'm not entirely certain that's fair. The one table had questionable actions definitely, but the table where the one character didn't get to go wasn't necessarily because all of the players were out to solo the scenario.

One of the scenarios in question was a 7-11 that had several CR 1's and CR 3's. Fights like that aren't really a challenge for most characters of that tier. But monster initiatives do make it hard for the fights to be more than a nuisance at best. If the guys only have a +3 initiative, there's only so much that can be done.

Creature initiatives are fairly low in scenarios and while that may change in future scenarios, there's no way that the PFS staff can go back and adjust all of the previous scenarios. Something like the initiative cap would help with a situation like that.

I'm not saying that it has to be the initiative cap, but I think some discussion about how this could be handled would be fairly productive.

1/5 Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover

MrSin wrote:
Benjamin Falk wrote:
As it seems those two persons want to win the game and behave in a not-to-support way. I wold probably review their characters very hard, ask other players if the are ok with someone behaving like that before every game or ask them not to play straight away probably.

We should take it a step further. No one gets to make their own characters! Pre-gens for everyone. After all, we all have different standarsd so we should all be held to the same pre made one!*

*not all pregens created equal. Harsk players will be given free tissues at the end of every game.

The don´t be a jerk rule applies to tables too. Sometimes it has to be "enforced". So don´t be snarky.

Silver Crusade 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Seth Gipson wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
OK, sure, but how is the monk ending the fight on round 1?
Super-Monk-Grapple/Pin the single bad guy?
They will at most have the enemy in a grapple on their turn and able to do most things. Using all those feats to make three maintain checks a round has to be done on a maintain round (so starting at round 2). Also, even if it's pinned, the other person does at least get an action, the danger is just neutered.

You can use Standard action Grapple, Move Action Greater Grapple and Swift Action all in the same round--even the first round if circumstances bless/curse you with an enemy within a 5' step of you.

James Jacobs on the matter

Silver Crusade 4/5 5/5

Some spoiler involved:
True story. Played 5-09 the other night. Our first fight is the Globsters. PC's figure out after a couple of rounds that ALL their attacks were ineffectual (no one had slashing, except..). My Eidolon steps up (had hung back until that point) and unleashed four claw attacks (b/s). Thanks for coming wished you could have stayed longer. Later on we fight the Eidolons on the cauldron, which were poorly played by the GM, who immediately moved down to melee us (right?). GM says, "Your turn Dr. Strange", at which point the monk (who was ineffectual on the globsters) says, "Yeah, your turn cheater". I look up and raise an eyebrow and he just says, "Eidolons...". I look at the GM and say, "I make one attack with my claw", to which the Monk replies, "Ah man, I was only kidding". His turn he unleashes a flurry with a ki for extra attack power attack, splat goes the bad guy. He says, "Now I feel bad", I smile. As we're running out through the maze (badly played by the GM again) we meet the ghost and it's 1 minute to time-out five hours is about to be over. Paladin smites, crits, dbl damage first hit, ghost divides by two and it's my turn. Evolution surge to eidolon giving Shadowform, unleashes four claw attacks at full damage (all four were hits) scenario complete. Unable to help myself I look at the gunslinger and say, "thanks for playing".
Short version: Knowing the rep of summoners (and gunslingers but not in this case:) ) I chose to hang back and down play the badass which is I-dolon...until he was needed. You can play a badass without being an A$$.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah, I don't see capping initiative as treating the disease.

2/5

Rorary Prisock wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Cool story, but note for next time:

Incorporeal creatures are immune to crits.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Mark Seifter wrote:
Seth Gipson wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
OK, sure, but how is the monk ending the fight on round 1?
Super-Monk-Grapple/Pin the single bad guy?
They will at most have the enemy in a grapple on their turn and able to do most things. Using all those feats to make three maintain checks a round has to be done on a maintain round (so starting at round 2). Also, even if it's pinned, the other person does at least get an action, the danger is just neutered.

My favorite is:

• Move Action -- move up to target.
• Standard Action -- Ki Throw.
• Attack of Opportunity triggered from Greater Trip by successfully tripping.
• Attack of Opportunity from Vicious Stomp triggered by trip completing.
• Swift Action -- Initiate Grapple from Binding Throw.
• Free Action -- Shirt of Immolation erupts upon obtaining the grappled condition.

Liberty's Edge

Castilliano wrote:
Rorary Prisock wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Cool story, but note for next time:

Incorporeal creatures are immune to crits.

Unless he has a Ghost touch weapon.

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think I can sum it up. Mike Brock and several others of very high note have posted early on in this thread, and we keep rehashing the same key points. It looks more like you're just digging in your heels and braying now. We as a PFS leadership do not need to make our ruleset more restrictive than it absolutely has to be. The problem, as I see it,(and I'm really not attacking you personally, just laying out your role as GM)is that you need to man up.

1. Sit down at the next game session, and AUDIT. By the caps, I mean you stop everyone and everything and say "Bob, gimme your character." have a list of PFS restricted material handy. Obviously handy, with a big red letter title on it. Have Bob sit next to you while you do this. Since initiative is your issue, focus on it. make him tell you where he gets all his numbers from. Be cognitive of things like a 24 dex at level 1-3. I'd lay any money that, like what's been implied at several points on the thread, that something stat-hinky is going on. Maybe the players 'forgot' something. Better yet, you doing so will initiate a cascade of sudden new character sheets with better math and references.

2. You are the GM. again, man up and talk to the players with the issue. It's in your job description to audit gameplay and manage it into a cooperative pleasurable setting for players. I'm getting a lot of "I don't want to touch this without a hard rule-down-from-the-top to back me up" vibe. No one's going to spaz out if you just tell them what you see and ask them to cooperate.

3. As a venue head (again, assuming here) you're worried about driving these players away. Solve this dynamically. Make a drive to get new players in. If there's a flood of new people, then you (and this is me thinking outside of the box, in no refined manner whatsoever) say, "look, Bob, I've got all these new players that I want to keep together. learning curve and all that. What I need you to do is decide who among you wants to GM for your group. For now though, let me get these guys in place and we'll see who can fit into the last spots."

4. Remember ultimately that these players are modding out their characters, and that's their fun. You can't restrict them into waiting between the lines, when they've found the law that permits them to pass cars on the right when they see a left turn signal. Like the recommendation in three, perhaps isolating them to their own group and then stepping up your game with them is a better solution.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

One way of politely auditing one part of someone's character is to ask them how they did it, as you are playing with a similar build but can't get the same modifiers that they are getting. Get them to brag about their character.

I have done so on a few occasions and the result was either a correction (with the player saying something like: I didn't know that) or I have learned something (often saying something like: I didn't know that - cool).

Back on topic: I don't believe that an initiative cap is the way to go. I don't think that it will address what you are seeing, as even if the initiative cap is put in place, the +10 PCs will, more often than not, go before the +3 PCs

Long term, the cap will not allow the low init PCs to before the high init PCs often enough for it to affect the game play that you have been describing. What it will do is annoy those that have spent resources to be high initiative characters, for little or no return.

What you have been describing is very vague. Could you, under spoiliers) add in more detail: What scenario, which fights, what were the PC types, etc... for all of the encounters that you have been talking about?

Grand Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
I have to ask; Is your venture captain is Harsk?

If Harsk had a little less hair on top of his head, I think I could see a resemblence. :P

Liberty's Edge 2/5

Also, important things to note is, surprise actions, actions before combat (enemies hiding behind hard surfaces, casting invis, ect.) I found that a lot of encounters after level 7ish, the enemies are more intelligent. They make more perceptions, they become more aware. They will hide, prepare an action. I have often times had enemies hide or go invis until they see who is the fastest. My thought is, if your the fastest, your the most dangerous, being more maneuverable.

Not many GM's I have met do this. They set up a room, and say roll init.

Initiative is not a major thing. At low levels high init will probablly make characters one shot creatures, that's just low level rocket tag. I also do not know how people can have double digits in init without losing something. The only class I can think of with this possibility is a Gunslinger/Inquisitor. These two classes are damage dealers in general though, and even then they would have to give something.

Grand Lodge 5/5

shadowmage75 wrote:
3. As a venue head (again, assuming here)

He isn't. I am.

The two specific instances he is talking about are:

1) A game in which the party consisted of a level 4 goblin gunslinger, a level 4 goblin alchemist, and three level 1 'other', playing down into subtier 1-2. The other players had been visiting from St Louis, MO area (about 2.5 hours from here) and the goblin pair rotflstomped the scenario without a thought. The other players still come down from time to time (about once a month, since its so far), but they werent scared off. And yes, I talked to the goblin players.
Without going so far as to call anyone a jerk for how they play their character, I think the level difference was the biggest issue here. The level 4 players should have played a pregen, but I wasnt the GM of the table, and was unaware of the situation til it was done.

2) a 7-11 game this past weekend where the Sorcerer of the party got to participate in 1-2 combats only. Not sure on the level situation, though I do know they were playing down. The rest of the party consisted of a high init Wizard, a wildshaping Druid (who likes to become a tiger) with a tiger AC, a Zen Archer, and a Paladin archer. No, the lone player isnt likely to be scared off by this.
Im not trying to say its the Sorcerers fault that she didnt get to go in the combats, but when everyone but one person invests in making sure they go as close to first as possible, the one lone person who doesnt is gonna get left behind. Yes, they could have made a group decision to let her go first at some point, but I dont think they were consciously trying to kill everything before the Sorc got to go.

As for the suggestion of auditing the characters in question: Im not opposed to character audits if I think they are necessary (and Tarma, feel free to do a quick one if you feel its necessary when GMing), but all players in question in these cases are near the bottom of my list of whose characters I think might be wrong in some way.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seth Gipson wrote:
1) A game in which the party consisted of a level 4 goblin gunslinger, a level 4 goblin alchemist, and three level 1 'other', playing down into subtier 1-2.

Interesting. The OP neglected to mention the level disparity. L4s outshining L1s in low tier is not going to be solved with an initiative cap.

Quote:
Im not trying to say its the Sorcerers fault that she didnt get to go in the combats, but when everyone but one person invests in making sure they go as close to first as possible, the one lone person who doesnt is gonna get left behind.

Agreed.

Grand Lodge 5/5

Garble wish he could rotflstomp!

Dark Archive 2/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
High initiative isn't the problem. Players who don't realize this is a social experience are.

So completely agree, however there are an increasing amount of encounters as you get up in level that is a showdown to see who can blow who up first. If those types of encounters could stretch on, by all means; and personally I would prefer that they do. However we are starting to have to push a bit of min-maxing in order to blow them up before they blow us up. Hence, the need for crazy psycho initiatives. Thus the existence of Roll/Roleplay.

4/5 ****

I don't think Garble is allowed to use words that big, even if they aren't real.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Over optimisation and poor use of it are the real problem. I like to make an effective character and all but if you are using 10 books with race, feats and traits that make no sense together you might be the problem, rubbing the rest of the players faces in how much "better" you are should get you thrown

4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

People who are being marginalized from playing also need to be willing to walk away from the table once in a while. I've got quite a few super-optimized characters in our region, and I just won't play with those characters any more, since it's not fun for me. I don't demand that the GM "fix" the problem - I just leave. Yes, it sucks that I don't get to play, but I also don't have a miserable time.

If there are 3+ characters who are all optimized, then they get to play together and "win" the scenario. If there are not, then they don't get to play because there aren't enough people at the table.

You can't fix something like this with a rule in public play. All you can do is let people know that you don't want to play with them.

Several of these players have toned down their roflstomping in recent months. I like to think that social pressure from other players had a significant part to play in that change.

Grand Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Jeff Mahood wrote:
I don't demand that the GM "fix" the problem - I just leave. Yes, it sucks that I don't get to play, but I also don't have a miserable time.

This. So much this.

There are certain people I don't enjoy playing with at my local gamedays. When I'm playing, I sign up for different tables than they do. If I'm a GM that day, I grin and bear it for the sake of the other players at the table. If they get to be a bigger problem, I or my VOs speak to them about it.

Doesn't matter if it's someone who always goes first and slumbers the bad guy or if it's the gunslinger that crits the possessed venture captain to negative dead.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jeff Mahood wrote:
Several of these players have toned down their roflstomping in recent months. I like to think that social pressure from other players had a significant part to play in that change.

Jeff hits on a key point in this last sentence. We, too, have seen our share of overpowered PCs that make the game un-fun for other players. I recall one of these players had an extremely well built PC that he used to play in every game. A few players/GMs mentioned it to me, but before I had a chance to address anything, he stopped playing that PC. I was curious, so I asked him about it. The conversation went about like this.

Me: I notice you don't play your ____ any more, why not?
Him: Well, it's really powerful and doing ____ over and over again, but winning every fight makes the game boring for all the other players.
Me: Cool! Glad you figured that out :)

He is now a stellar addition to our area because he quickly learned that this game is more about the experience than "winning." Because of this example, and others I've seen in the past, I think that once players realize that this is a cooperative experience, one where everyone--even the GM--is actually on the same side, optimizing characters ceases to be an issue.

I have overpowered characters as much as the next munchkin, but I think you'd have a hard time finding any players that would say one of my PCs soloed a game they played in. I don't play them that way. Because it makes the game suck for everyone.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Diego Rossi wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
Rorary Prisock wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Cool story, but note for next time:

Incorporeal creatures are immune to crits.
Unless he has a Ghost touch weapon.

Nothing in the writeup of ghost touch indicates that you ignore the immunity to precision damage.

4/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
Rorary Prisock wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Cool story, but note for next time:

Incorporeal creatures are immune to crits.
Unless he has a Ghost touch weapon.
Nothing in the writeup of ghost touch indicates that you ignore the immunity to precision damage.

It's under the incorporeal subtype. Not the incorporeal UMR or the ghost touch write-up. The subtype.

5/5

Did the incorporeal UMR change recently? Nothing in the PRD references critical hits or precision damage...

edit: Ninja'd. That's really weird.

4/5

Seth Gipson wrote:
shadowmage75 wrote:
3. As a venue head (again, assuming here)

He isn't. I am.

The two specific instances he is talking about are:

Seth, thanks for the full version of the stories. All my suggestions were based on taking the OP at face value that there were characters that could end a level appropriate fight in one of their own turns. Now that I see that in the 7-8 case it was a group playing down where it was only one very slow player that was consistently going last and the combination of lots of other players was wiping the map (and even then the sorcerer did get to act once), this is seeming less surreal than when I thought you guys had tables full of characters who could each consistently end any level-appropriate encounter in one turn!

4/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
Did the incorporeal UMR change recently? Nothing in the PRD references critical hits or precision damage...

See my post that ninjas you.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Incorporeal Subtype wrote:
An incorporeal creature has no physical body. An incorporeal creature is immune to critical hits and precision-based damage (such as sneak attack damage) unless the attacks are made using a weapon with the ghost touch special weapon quality. In addition, creatures with the incorporeal subtype gain the incorporeal special quality.

5/5

Mark Seifter wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
Rorary Prisock wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Cool story, but note for next time:

Incorporeal creatures are immune to crits.
Unless he has a Ghost touch weapon.
Nothing in the writeup of ghost touch indicates that you ignore the immunity to precision damage.
It's under the incorporeal subtype. Not the incorporeal UMR or the ghost touch write-up. The subtype.

I was freaked out for a minute. I was on-board with ghost touch weapons being the only way to crit an incorporeal creature and then didn't see the text I was expecting in the UMR.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

I hate how these types of rules are in 3 different places. But the subtype clears it up. Thanks.

4/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
Rorary Prisock wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Cool story, but note for next time:

Incorporeal creatures are immune to crits.
Unless he has a Ghost touch weapon.
Nothing in the writeup of ghost touch indicates that you ignore the immunity to precision damage.
It's under the incorporeal subtype. Not the incorporeal UMR or the ghost touch write-up. The subtype.
I was freaked out for a minute. I was on-board with ghost touch weapons being the only way to crit an incorporeal creature and then didn't see the text I was expecting in the UMR.

I only know that because we recently ran that scenario, and after the game I mentioned this fact, and the other table's GM was shocked and said "I read the UMR back to front and printed it and it doesn't say that." I said "I am 100% certain that it is somewhere, even if it isn't in the UMR", and then he found it the next time I saw him.

3/5

shadowmage75 wrote:

1. Sit down at the next game session, and AUDIT.

2. You are the GM. again, man up and talk to the players with the issue.

3. As a venue head (again, assuming here)

1.) As had been mentioned by Seth earlier, all of these players are players who are the least likely to have something wrong with their characters.

2.) This is always easier said than done. Just because one requests them to change their character or actions doesn't mean they have to listen.

3.) I'm not a venue head, I cause too many problems for Seth as is. It's more fun that way. :)

I'm not a venue head, but I do care for the state of PFS would prefer to be proactive about this issue, rather than waiting 6 months and seeing tables were everyone has figured out how to get 30+ initiatives.

4/5

Tarma wrote:
shadowmage75 wrote:

1. Sit down at the next game session, and AUDIT.

2. You are the GM. again, man up and talk to the players with the issue.

3. As a venue head (again, assuming here)

1.) As had been mentioned by Seth earlier, all of these players are players who are the least likely to have something wrong with their characters.

2.) This is always easier said than done. Just because one requests them to change their character or actions doesn't mean they have to listen.

3.) I'm not a venue head, I cause too many problems for Seth as is. It's more fun that way. :)

I'm not a venue head, but I do care for the state of PFS would prefer to be proactive about this issue, rather than waiting 6 months and seeing tables were everyone has figured out how to get 30+ initiatives.

Having heard the situation from Seth, I think the biggest problem is that playing down (and seemingly in older easier scenarios, which exacerbates that problem) with optimized builds is bad for the game. Not that there's a choice nowadays, mind you, so it's not easy for you to fix this. At my venues, I bend over backwards trying to figure out a way to arrange the tables so that power builds never ever play down if we can avoid it. These same characters will surely take at least 2 rounds or so to win the fights when they aren't playing down, which will always give everyone at least one turn to act. Initiative isn't the problem.

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

Tarma wrote:


I'm not a venue head, but I do care for the state of PFS would prefer to be proactive about this issue, rather than waiting 6 months and seeing tables were everyone has figured out how to get 30+ initiatives.

Is having a high initiative the real problem? Or is it having players that don't understand what this game is about?

3/5

Mark Seifter wrote:


Now that I see that in the 7-8 case it was a group playing down where it was only one very slow player that was consistently going last and the combination of lots of other players was wiping the map (and even then the sorcerer did get to act once), this is seeming less surreal than when I thought you guys had tables full of characters who could each consistently end any level-appropriate encounter in one turn!

They weren't playing down. They were all 7-8th level characters playing in the 7-8 subtier.

The 7-11 in Question:

The scenario was No Plunder No Pay, on subtier 7-8.

The first encounter is a Boss jailer at CR 6 with an init of +2, AC 22, and 69 hp. His flunkies are 4 CR 1 guards and 2 CR 1 dogs with similar inits.

Second encounter is a CR 8 with an init of +9 (One of the highest I've seen on a creature encounter) with another CR 2 imp and two CR 1 sailors.

The Optional encounter is a CR8, with the third encounter following as two CR 7s.

The fourth encounter is two CR 3 shadows, with the BBEG being a CR 8 Octopus. (A fight that was ended by the time of the third PC action)

None of the actions taken by the PCs can be seen as extreme power gaming. But these were tier appropriate PC's playing at their correct subtier and these fights were shut down by the first turn in all of these expect the introductory fight, mostly due to distance.

4/5

Tarma wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:


Now that I see that in the 7-8 case it was a group playing down where it was only one very slow player that was consistently going last and the combination of lots of other players was wiping the map (and even then the sorcerer did get to act once), this is seeming less surreal than when I thought you guys had tables full of characters who could each consistently end any level-appropriate encounter in one turn!

They weren't playing down. They were all 7-8th level characters playing in the 7-8 subtier.

** spoiler omitted **

None of the actions taken by the PCs can be seen as extreme power gaming. But these were tier appropriate PC's playing at their correct subtier and these fights were shut down by the first turn in all of these expect the introductory fight, mostly due to distance.

Wow, having played it at 10-11, that scenario is way more interesting in 10-11! Also, the GM was underplaying the two CR 3s in the last encounter in a way that disadvantaged the low initiative guy. They could be in a solid object, and they make no sound unless they choose, so they should have been a surprise addition to the fight while the others focused on the CR 8. It's possible that one of the two CR 3s might not even appear until right before the sorcerer's turn! Heck, those CR 3s are probably the deadliest CR 3s in the game and might have been able to kill a typical wizard with luck. Also based on the fight being underwater, if the underwater rules were active correctly, those two archers should have been completely screwed (-2 to hit for every 5 feet). A lot of the challenge in that scenario was the environment and the monsters' specials. If those are eliminated to "OK, here you guys are and here the enemies are 30 feet away, so roll for initiative", then it kills that (not that Season 0-2s are always that high on challenge to begin with, even if you do emphasize the environment)

3/5

Walter Sheppard wrote:


Is having a high initiative the real problem? Or is it having players that don't understand what this game is about?

The initiatives are starting to get out of hand. I'm just as guilty, as I have a sorcerer at level 5 that has a +9 initiative modifier with DC 20 saves on my cantrips.

But I'm starting to recognize that it's getting far to easy to get monster initiatives and something probably has to be done about the issue.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexander_Damocles wrote:

No. High initiative is not a problem. High DPR is not a problem. High DC save or suck/die spells are not a problem. Nearly invulnerable characters are not a problem.

People who don't play well with others are the problem.

I have to agree. If you have a character that can end an encounter on round one you need to learn when not to do this.

Case in Point: I have a Magus7/Bard1 with a +13 Initiative (and I am thinking of bumping it to +17 at 9th). The biggest reason for the high initiative is that if I have acted in the first round I have a 32 AC. If I haven't acted, I have a 16. Now I could use that +13 to initiative to run up to the BBEG and clobber it with an Intensified Shocking Grasp from a Keen Scimitar and one shot it before it can act. And if the BBEG looks scary enough, I might actually do this. But usually my first round of combat is to use a Swift action to pop a Wand of Shield out of my spring loaded wrist sheaths, cast Shield and enter my Battle Dance. Tactically, it would be more logical to blow away the BBEG before he could act, but if I do my normal routine it gives everyone else a chance to do something while decreasing my chance of dying to the bad guy's response. And since I went first in the first round, there is usually something left for me to do because I still go first in the second round.

Grand Lodge 5/5

Tarma wrote:
[They weren't playing down. They were all 7-8th level characters playing in the 7-8 subtier.

Sorry, yes, this is what I meant.

As for the being underwater, what I had heard from the party after-the-fact was that they all dropped a decent amount of gold in scrolls of various things (freedom of movement?, air bubble?, something else?) to help counteract the hazards of fighting underwater.

The Exchange 4/5 Owner - D20 Hobbies

Seth Gipson wrote:

1) 2x level 4 ... into subtier 1-2.

2) a 7-11 game ... the lone player ... [not invested in initiative] ... I dont think they were consciously trying to kill everything before the Sorc got to go.

This is a knee jerk to "cap init", considering there isn't really a fix for either issue.

It isn't fair to ask the 4th level players to play a pregen any more than asking the 1st/2nd levels to play a 4th level pregens. This is complicated by a rule prohibiting 2nd level and up from taking a pregen if applying to a character that is in the level range of the scenario.

Some times combats are trivial, other times it is a near TPK. Most of this falls down to whether or not the table worked together. I think a worse crime is if the players all delayed in an effort to "allow others time to shine" and in the progress allowed more actions by the NPC/Monsters that caused a death of a PC. I've GM'd a table this exact sequence of events happened.

I really think the best solution is to let everyone play what they want to play (calculate sub-tier properly) and encourage the PC's to end combats as soon as possible to minimize risk of death. I believe more people are happy in this situation.

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

Tarma wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:


Is having a high initiative the real problem? Or is it having players that don't understand what this game is about?

The initiatives are starting to get out of hand. I'm just as guilty, as I have a sorcerer at level that has a +9 initiative modifier with DC 20 saves on my cantrips.

But I'm starting to recognize that it's getting far to easy to get monster initiatives and something probably has to be done about the issue.

What do you mean when you say "get monster initiatives"? Do you mean, look up a monster in the Bestiary or know off-hand the stats of a monster, and then use that knowledge to influence your in game decisions? I would call that cheating if so, which has nothing to do with initiative modifiers.

Also, why is a high initiative modifier out of hand? If you get a 20 on initiative and I get a 21, it doesn't matter if I got a 31 or a 41 -- I still go before you and then you go. It doesn't matter how much of my modifier is in excess.

Going first isn't the issue. It's the decisions players make when they go first that are causing the problem. And I'd argue those decisions are a problem no matter when they go in the initiative order.

3/5

That's true and there were also items given to them in the scenario itself that helps.

group planning:
There was also talk of prepping only life bubble, of which the evil GM in me would have thoroughly enjoyed.

There were a lot of questions about the scenario itself, so I did want to clarify that it was appropriate characters at an appropriate subtier. However, it is a completely different scenario at high tier than low tier as well.

4/5

Seth Gipson wrote:
Tarma wrote:
[They weren't playing down. They were all 7-8th level characters playing in the 7-8 subtier.

Sorry, yes, this is what I meant.

As for the being underwater, what I had heard from the party after-the-fact was that they all dropped a decent amount of gold in scrolls of various things (freedom of movement?, air bubble?, something else?) to help counteract the hazards of fighting underwater.

Freedom of movement will help meleeists enormously, but once that arrow is loosed from the bow, the arrow isn't under FOM so it still suffers plenty of penalties.

That notwithstanding, if the group spent a bunch of money on consumables to deal with the situation, that's smart play. Combining that with an old scenario that apparently is also a lot less interesting in 7-8, and it was a perfect storm. Not the sorcerer's fault he didn't get to go, not the other PCs' faults for having high initiative. It probably won't happen next time!

51 to 100 of 237 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Maybe it's time for an initiative cap All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.