I have run a 1st to 20th level Pathfinder campaign. Out of dozens of high-level fights, I can think of maybe three against serious opposition that lasted less than three rounds.And you think that the only reason for this is that rocket tag does not exist? It couldn't possibly be one of:
1. Social contract. Your players want to be challenged so intentionally choose not to make use of all of the options available to them and so you don't need to up the ante.
2. Incompetence. Your players are simply not very familiar with the rules and so you don't need to use much more than base bestiary opposition.
...
All of these are perfectly reasonable responses to rocket tag which doesn't mean that it does not exist. Many people probably never come across it but plenty of us have. Pretending it doesn't or cannot exist because you haven't experienced it doesn't really help anyone.
Or- perhaps the DM in the rocket tag games is the one that is incompetent, rather than all those other players out here? Hmm?
Does it exist? Sure. I have no doubt. But so far- who here has said that their IRL table-top games ARE plagued by Rocket tag?
But in my three games, it's not a issue. In RJGrady's games it not a issue. Many other well known posters have said the same. And here's the important thing- in the Developer's own games- it's not a issue.
And, that's the point. Every game is different- players, DM, etc. I am sure that for some "Rocket tag" not only occurs, but it's the way they WANT to play. Nothing wrong with that.
However, since so many have said here is not a major issue- and clearly it's not a major issue in the dev's very own games- it's not a serious "problem" with Pathfinder. Most don't have it, and for others they like it that way.
So what you have to show is that for the preponderance of players it not only occurs, but they don't like it. And, that somehow the very guys who wrote the game don't know how to play it.
And i don't think there is any evidence of either.
who here has said that their IRL table-top games ARE plagued by Rocket tag?
Me. Especially at higher levels. Varies depending on who I have at the table, but it does become more difficult not to insta-gib players and I do see more use of mass save or lose that comes with the spell selection. Melee martials don't get the chance to do it often, but archer DPR tends to be pretty high. I mean its not every single person every game, but its pretty easy to happen. I've also seen one round games at low levels(color spray ftw?), and I've seen one spell that last for several rounds take out the entire encounter(black tentacles always makes a mess). As I said earlier, there's a difference between me playing a wizard and using a dazing fireball or color spray, and the guy to the left of me who thinks his 3.5 monk had the best damage in the world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, since so many have said here is not a major issue
That's called Confirmation Bias.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find myself suspicious of both of the extreme positions in this argument.
I disagree with Anzyr and anyone who insists that rocket tag is unavoidable and if you don't experience it as a problem you're a statistical outlier who is playing the game wrong.
On the other hand, I also disagree with Deth and anyone who insists that rocket tag is an illusion and if you do experience it as a problem then you're a statistical outlier who is playing the game wrong.
I kind of think that it is most likely a problem for some people sometimes, but not for all the people all the time.
I know that has been the case in my group. It has been a problem at high levels, sometimes, and not always.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, moving past the "rocket tag" discussion, I'd like to touch on something about encounter design. You know how the game assumes PCs are a mix of classes, including ideally at least three of frontline fighter, skirmisher, defensive caster, and offensive caster? Well, when it comes to bad guys, a similar thing applies. If you design completely uniform encounters of identical creatures, the encounter will be easy, until it reaches a numeric tipping point, when it becomes relentless and punishing. It's much easier to build balanced encounters if you build a "team" of bad guys. 4e basically had this built into its DNA, but it's something that can be applied to Pathfinder.
So, for instance, if you planned on having the PCs go up against six frost giants, considering making it instead four regular frost giants, plus one frost giant fighter with Iron Will and Improved Iron Will. Put a goblin adept in the goblin lair. Add a hobgoblin sorcerer to the orc raiding party. Throw in a couple of young griffins in with the encounter with mama griffin. The idea behind one "gang boss" monster is that they can be slightly stronger, putting them just ahead of certain encounter thresholds, without completely changing the encounter. So, the one frost giant is slightly more likely to make a Will save or save vs. fireball or survive a hacking by the barbarian. The idea behind throwing in a caster or ranged attacker is that no one particular tactic can finish an encounter; even if the mage swamps the mounted attackers, the spellcaster or archer can plink at the PC caster. The idea behind adding junior monsters is to add, essentially, movable terrain that is more interesting. Lower CR monsters aren't inherently threatening, but by increasing the number of monsters, you rule out certain "go for broke" tactics that can be inordinately effective. They can also slow charges (and pounces). And they give the players reasons to conserve resources while fighting; dropping a fireball on the weaker monsters can make a lot of sense, for instance, instead of focusing on the alpha strike.
The tricks are not that hard. The goal is not to kill the party, just to stack the odds that the encounter, for whatever reason, makes it to that third round. If you can get that far, your players are generally going to be satisfied that something happened. You don't have to cover all weaknesses or run a pack of words like they were headed by general Rommel, just come up with interesting tactics, and vary the monsters. Just throwing in one giant word in the middle of a pack of ordinary worgs means the battlefield is less uniform, and hence less boring.
On the other hand, I also disagree with Deth and anyone who insists that rocket tag is an illusion and if you do experience it as a problem then you're a statistical outlier who is playing the game wrong.
I kind of think that it is most likely a problem for some people sometimes, but not for all the people all the time.
I know that has been the case in my group. It has been a problem at high levels, sometimes, and not always.
But that's just the opposite of what I have been saying. I know some groups play with Rocket tag, and some even enjoy it. That's fine, the PF universe is there for many styles of games. Heck, not even a "statistical outlier" but it does seem they are in a minority. And wrong? Are they having fun? if so, then they are not playing it wrong. If they are not having fun- then maybe so.
We agree-it is a problem for some people sometimes, but not for all the people all the time.
But that "sometimes" doesn't mean the game is broken.
The math of the game says that past level 11, 1-2 rounds of attacks will kill an opponent. That's on a basic core only fighter. If being able to kill level appropriate things in 1-2 rounds (as a single character to boot) at high levels is what you would call "rocket tag" (I do) then the math of the system itself forces the game towards rocket tag. The math is really pretty hard to argue with and I feel pretty confident that games that do not conform to that basic mathematical model are indeed outliers.
This is a problem (assuming you don't like rocket tag) because this is the result of the math of system.
The math of the game says that past level 11, 1-2 rounds of attacks will kill an opponent. That's on a basic core only fighter. If being able to kill level appropriate things in 1-2 rounds (as a single character to boot) at high levels is what you would call "rocket tag" (I do) then the math of the system itself forces the game towards rocket tag. The math is really pretty hard to argue with and I feel pretty confident that games that do not conform to that basic mathematical model are indeed outliers.
This is a problem (assuming you don't like rocket tag) because this is the result of the math of system.
Important contingency that was discussed earlier, but tactical decisions can stop the fighter from being hit and assist him in delivering his. Of course, the best source of options is magic, and they have a lot more options than just buffinating the fighter, they can killinate whatever your fighting too, or keep that thing your fighting from killinating the fight by protectinatin'.(or you know, more clearly, spell casters have a variety of options that range from not only assisting your martial of choice reach the target, but also preventing the death of everyone involved and killing/debilitating your foes. Easily demonstrated with glitterdust and fly in assisting your martial reach the foe, haste and protection spells for protection, and mass confusion and color spray for killing. They have a much wider variety of options, but those are all core and have been used in demonstrations I've seen)
The math of the game says that past level 11, 1-2 rounds of attacks will kill an opponent. That's on a basic core only fighter. If being able to kill level appropriate things in 1-2 rounds (as a single character to boot) at high levels is what you would call "rocket tag" (I do) then the math of the system itself forces the game towards rocket tag. The math is really pretty hard to argue with and I feel pretty confident that games that do not conform to that basic mathematical model are indeed outliers.
This is a problem (assuming you don't like rocket tag) because this is the result of the math of system.
That's my experience as well. If I didn't increase hit points drastically (1200 hit point hydra), nothing would last more than a few rounds without magical protection. Regular hits commonly exceed 50 points and crits spike damage much, much higher. Even dragon's hit points are a joke to a high level party. 1 to 2 rounds and dead if I don't increase them.
If you allow the Leadership feat, you just multiplied your problem.
Y'know... there is a size limit on trip. Anything bigger than a large creature rolls up, that flowing monk isn't tripping crap. Sure, he could try, but it would be an automatic failure regardless of the roll; yes, even on a natural 20.
Quit Schroedinger's again.
Fire giants are high end size L, so he's in his safety zone and posted correctly.
Enlarge Person and other spells/feats/devices can also increase the range/effectiveness of Trip. No, it's not as utterly dominating as it was in 3.5, and that's a good thing.
==Aelryinth
But that's just the opposite of what I have been saying. I know some groups play with Rocket tag, and some even enjoy it. That's fine, the PF universe is there for many styles of games. Heck, not even a "statistical outlier" but it does seem they are in a minority. And wrong? Are they having fun? if so, then they are not playing it wrong. If they are not having fun- then maybe so.On the other hand, I also disagree with Deth and anyone who insists that rocket tag is an illusion and if you do experience it as a problem then you're a statistical outlier who is playing the game wrong.
I kind of think that it is most likely a problem for some people sometimes, but not for all the people all the time.
I know that has been the case in my group. It has been a problem at high levels, sometimes, and not always.
Perhaps I parsed your previous posts incorrectly then.
If someone enjoys rocket tag, then clearly they are not experiencing it as a problem, so I got that right.
However, I read back through your last five or six posts in your thread, and the only explanations I could find you presenting for rocket tag were a) a group and DM who enjoy it and work to send the game in that direction, ie, not a problem, or b) incompetence.
If I did miss some nuance, then, cool, we can rescind disagreement. As noted, I do think it sometimes manifests as a problem for people who are not necessarily playing incompetently or wrongly, but it's not like death or taxes.
If you design completely uniform encounters of identical creatures, the encounter will be easy, until it reaches a numeric tipping point, when it becomes relentless and punishing. It's much easier to build balanced encounters if you build a "team" of bad guys.
I've found a similar thing to be true on the other side of the screen. Multiple PCs who focus on the same type of offense become, after a point, much more overwhelming than a balanced party is.
If you design completely uniform encounters of identical creatures, the encounter will be easy, until it reaches a numeric tipping point, when it becomes relentless and punishing. It's much easier to build balanced encounters if you build a "team" of bad guys.I've found a similar thing to be true on the other side of the screen. Multiple PCs who focus on the same type of offense become, after a point, much more overwhelming than a balanced party is.
I can see that. A group of all-pouncing barbarians would have a major Achilles' heel, but they could turn many high CR encounters into mashed potatoes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The math of the game says that past level 11, 1-2 rounds of attacks will kill an opponent. That's on a basic core only fighter. If being able to kill level appropriate things in 1-2 rounds (as a single character to boot) at high levels is what you would call "rocket tag" (I do) then the math of the system itself forces the game towards rocket tag. The math is really pretty hard to argue with and I feel pretty confident that games that do not conform to that basic mathematical model are indeed outliers.
This is a problem (assuming you don't like rocket tag) because this is the result of the math of system.
The math is really easy to argue with. All "the math" shows is that if a dragon (for example) just lies there and takes it, instead of using any tactics at all or even fighting back- it can be killed in 4 rounds. (And, 4 rounds really isn't "rocket tag".)
"The math" shows that such a thing is mathematically possible, not that in any way it's likely or common.
|
Y'know... there is a size limit on trip. Anything bigger than a large creature rolls up, that flowing monk isn't tripping crap. Sure, he could try, but it would be an automatic failure regardless of the roll; yes, even on a natural 20.Quit Schroedinger's again.
Fire giants are high end size L, so he's in his safety zone and posted correctly.
Enlarge Person and other spells/feats/devices can also increase the range/effectiveness of Trip. No, it's not as utterly dominating as it was in 3.5, and that's a good thing.
==Aelryinth
My post in no way implied that you could not trip a fire giant. The point was more to emphasize that anything bigger is out.
Anyway, to the person a few posts back mentioning how gimped trip is, I'm inclined to agree. Being able to trip a storm giant (those are huge, I believe) is no more ludicrous than a tetori monk being able to suplex a great wyrm with minimal effort. I don't see how kicking something in the toe to trip it makes less sense than grabbing its toe and somehow twisting its arm behind its back.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But that's just the opposite of what I have been saying. I know some groups play with Rocket tag, and some even enjoy it. That's fine, the PF universe is there for many styles of games. Heck, not even a "statistical outlier" but it does seem they are in a minority. And wrong? Are they having fun? if so, then they are not playing it wrong. If they are not having fun- then maybe so.On the other hand, I also disagree with Deth and anyone who insists that rocket tag is an illusion and if you do experience it as a problem then you're a statistical outlier who is playing the game wrong.
I kind of think that it is most likely a problem for some people sometimes, but not for all the people all the time.
I know that has been the case in my group. It has been a problem at high levels, sometimes, and not always.
Perhaps I parsed your previous posts incorrectly then.
If someone enjoys rocket tag, then clearly they are not experiencing it as a problem, so I got that right.
However, I read back through your last five or six posts in your thread, and the only explanations I could find you presenting for rocket tag were a) a group and DM who enjoy it and work to send the game in that direction, ie, not a problem, or b) incompetence.
If I did miss some nuance, then, cool, we can rescind disagreement. As noted, I do think it sometimes manifests as a problem for people who are not necessarily playing incompetently or wrongly, but it's not like death or taxes.
Ok, we agree if the Players LIKE Rocket tag, then it's not a "problem" right? And we agree that Rocket tag is not a common problem right? But if the players and DM do not like Rocket tag, and still are experiencing it, thus are not having fun- then yes- if you're not having fun, then you are doing SOMETHING wrong.
Rocket tag is caused by three issues:
1. Allowing PC's to hyper-optimize. High point buy, allowing magic items, feats, spells, etc from non-core sources, dumping, etc. For example I have seen MANY builds posted here with the Orc bloodline. Where does the orc bloodline come from? Pathfinder Companion: Orcs of Golarion, from a outdated 2010 sourcebook FOR ORCS. Still, it's quite commonly suggested for humans. Now, that's not against the rules by any means, but still, the AP's can't be expected to take every
single source source into consideration. Blood Money is another example- but it's not core, you discover it while playing in the higher levels of Pathfinder Adventure Path: Rise of the Runelords . It's not meant for everyone to have on their spell list. But if that's what makes the game FUN for those players then, great.
But don't blame the game. In fact both of these are banned for PFS. Note that "rocket tag" doesn't happen in PFS that much.
2. Running those hyper-optimized PC's in a standard AP and not making adjustments to the encounters. If the players get a 25 pt build, why are the monsters still using Elite? Why not change around their feats, spells etc to match those the PC's have access to?
3. The DM not using good tactics for the bad guys.
None of these are a "bug" in the game. None are caused by bad game design. The acid test is that the Devs don't have this issue in their own games.
But let me make this clear- if you are having fun, then allowing Rocket Tag is NOT "Badwrongfun". If it's fun, then it's not wrong. Revel in your characters hyper-optimized powerfulness.
If you're not having fun then adjust those three things. Putting the PC's back on a 15 pt buy and allowing only core+ whatever campaign you're actually playing in- may cause some push back from the players- so then discuss the issue.
#3 is gonna be harder. It's just too easy to be lazy or just not have the skills for such tactics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For example I have seen MANY builds posted here with the Orc bloodline. Where does the orc bloodline come from? Pathfinder Companion: Orcs of Golarion, from a outdated 2010 sourcebook FOR ORCS. Still, it's quite commonly suggested for humans. Now, that's not against the rules by any means, but still, the AP's can't be expected to take every
single source source into consideration. Blood Money is another example- but it's not core, you discover it while playing in the higher levels of Pathfinder Adventure Path: Rise of the Runelords . It's not meant for everyone to have on their spell list. But if that's what makes the game FUN for those players then, great.But don't blame the game. In fact both of these are banned for PFS. Note that "rocket tag" doesn't happen in PFS that much.
The orc bloodline is only used for building one type of caster. If you disallow that bloodline, all you do is limit that one type of caster, while not affecting anything else. Blood money does allow for some cheese, but not rocket tag cheese. Blood money allows you to make minions or simulacra for cheap, but it doesn't help much with rocket tag. Most of the save-or-suck/die or damage-dealing spells thrown around don't have expensive material components. Disallowing both of those will not prevent rocket tag from happening.
A more likely reason rocket tag is rare in PFS is that PFS stops at the levels when rocket tag usually starts to appear.
2. Running those hyper-optimized PC's in a standard AP and not making adjustments to the encounters. If the players get a 25 pt build, why are the monsters still using Elite? Why not change around their feats, spells etc to match those the PC's have access to?
I don't run pre-published adventures and I give my NPCs the same point-buy as my players (usually 25), so I have some experience with this. Your suggestions here make rocket tag more likely. By optimizing NPCs, giving them better spell selection, etc., you make it so the party's opponents have rockets to throw back. That only makes rocket tag more likely.
Anyway, I think it's misleading to connect rocket tag and "hyper-optimized powerfulness" in PCs. It doesn't take hyper levels of optimization to make a character who can play rocket tag. A martial character who picks up standard feats and equipment will be capable of rocket tag levels of damage at high levels. Further, the party's opponents' ability to throw rockets isn't dependent upon the optimization level of the PCs.
An optimized party can be really good at rocket tag, but it's wrong to call that the cause of rocket tag.
The math of the game says that past level 11, 1-2 rounds of attacks will kill an opponent. That's on a basic core only fighter. If being able to kill level appropriate things in 1-2 rounds (as a single character to boot) at high levels is what you would call "rocket tag" (I do) then the math of the system itself forces the game towards rocket tag. The math is really pretty hard to argue with and I feel pretty confident that games that do not conform to that basic mathematical model are indeed outliers.
This is a problem (assuming you don't like rocket tag) because this is the result of the math of system.
The math is really easy to argue with. All "the math" shows is that if a dragon (for example) just lies there and takes it, instead of using any tactics at all or even fighting back- it can be killed in 4 rounds. (And, 4 rounds really isn't "rocket tag".)
"The math" shows that such a thing is mathematically possible, not that in any way it's likely or common.
2 rounds.
The math of the game says that past level 11, 1-2 rounds of attacks will kill an opponent. That's on a basic core only fighter. If being able to kill level appropriate things in 1-2 rounds (as a single character to boot) at high levels is what you would call "rocket tag" (I do) then the math of the system itself forces the game towards rocket tag. The math is really pretty hard to argue with and I feel pretty confident that games that do not conform to that basic mathematical model are indeed outliers.
This is a problem (assuming you don't like rocket tag) because this is the result of the math of system.
The math is really easy to argue with. All "the math" shows is that if a dragon (for example) just lies there and takes it, instead of using any tactics at all or even fighting back- it can be killed in 4 rounds. (And, 4 rounds really isn't "rocket tag".)
"The math" shows that such a thing is mathematically possible, not that in any way it's likely or common.
How do you calculate 4 rounds?
Does a colossal dragon that's lived for a 1000 plus years running from a party of medium sized creatures because it has to use hit and run tactics seem like a cool story to you?
It doesn't to me. A fight with an ancient dragon should frighten players even if it decides to land right in their midst and go toe to toe with them in an all out fight, yet it doesn't as the dragon is written.
You don't even need to hyper-optimize. A player smart enough to have enervate and/or calcific touch can render a dragon worthless fairly quickly. It's pretty easy to overcome SR with a few common feats even the least focused player can pick. How hard is it to spam a no save spell that greatly weakens an opponent?
|
|
In fact both of these are banned for PFS. Note that "rocket tag" doesn't happen in PFS that much.
Wait wait wait wait. Since when is blood money banned in PFS? I've seen nothing stating the orc bloodline or blood money are banned, though obviously nobody can know everything. Actually I believe it's the opposite. Both are named specifically in the list of additional resources as being allowed. Both can be used to create very powerful spell casters.
As a bit of an aside, rocket tag is actually extremely common in PFS, where GMs are not at liberty to adjust encounters to match player characters. The party I usually play with kind of makes a contest of it.
The math of the game says that past level 11, 1-2 rounds of attacks will kill an opponent. That's on a basic core only fighter. If being able to kill level appropriate things in 1-2 rounds (as a single character to boot) at high levels is what you would call "rocket tag" (I do) then the math of the system itself forces the game towards rocket tag. The math is really pretty hard to argue with and I feel pretty confident that games that do not conform to that basic mathematical model are indeed outliers.
This is a problem (assuming you don't like rocket tag) because this is the result of the math of system.
The math is really easy to argue with. All "the math" shows is that if a dragon (for example) just lies there and takes it, instead of using any tactics at all or even fighting back- it can be killed in 4 rounds. (And, 4 rounds really isn't "rocket tag".)
"The math" shows that such a thing is mathematically possible, not that in any way it's likely or common.
How do you calculate 4 rounds?
Does a colossal dragon that's lived for a 1000 plus years running from a party of medium sized creatures because it has to use hit and run tactics seem like a cool story to you?
It doesn't to me. A fight with an ancient dragon should frighten players even if it decides to land right in their midst and go toe to toe with them in an all out fight, yet it doesn't as the dragon is written.
This!
What happened to all that juicy dragon arrogance that drips with flavor? What happened to rending these foolish creatures, who dared to challenge the dragon, with his claws? Instead the Dragon ducks behind some cover and pew pews some spells?!
Does a colossal dragon that's lived for a 1000 plus years running from a party of medium sized creatures because it has to use hit and run tactics seem like a cool story to you?
It doesn't to me. A fight with an ancient dragon should frighten players even if it decides to land right in their midst and go toe to toe with them in an all out fight, yet it doesn't as the dragon is written.
Well, Peter Jackson doesn't agree with you.
EDIT: And the thing about epic dragon fights is that, basically by definition, they aren't "fair" CR encounters. They need to be APL+3, minimum, probably closer to +5. Once you get into that range, a 15th level fighter's full attack routine is just the price of admission to be able to do anything, once you get a clear shot at the thing. You won't be knocking it down in 2 rounds unless, firstly, it's not that strong a dragon, and secondly, you manage to ambush it in some fashion.
And the thing about epic dragon fights is that, basically by definition, they aren't "fair" CR encounters.
Epic doesn't mean fair or unfair. You can have a very fair epic fight.
Edit: To be honest cranking up the difficulty by a full 5 APL is probably proof that something is up.
And the thing about epic dragon fights is that, basically by definition, they aren't "fair" CR encounters.Epic doesn't mean fair or unfair. You can have a very fair epic fight.
Edit: To be honest cranking up the difficulty by a full 5 APL is probably proof that something is up.
Proof that the CR system generally works as advertised? APL +0 is supposed to be a cakewalk. APL +4 is even money. If you want balls-to-the-wall, everything-you-got epic battle, the system says APL+5.
Proof that the CR system generally works as advertised? APL +0 is supposed to be a cakewalk. APL +4 is even money. If you want balls-to-the-wall, everything-you-got epic battle, the system says APL+5.And the thing about epic dragon fights is that, basically by definition, they aren't "fair" CR encounters.Epic doesn't mean fair or unfair. You can have a very fair epic fight.
Edit: To be honest cranking up the difficulty by a full 5 APL is probably proof that something is up.
That's not what its says at all. +0 is even, +1 is challenging, 5 isn't even on the chart.
Difficulty
Challenge Rating Equals…
Easy APL –1
Average APL
Challenging APL +1
Hard APL +2
Epic APL +3
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Average isn't "even," by any stretch of the imagination. The PCs are expected to win.
Ten "even" encounters means a 99.9% chance of a TPK.
Average isn't "even," by any stretch of the imagination. The PCs are expected to win.
Ten "even" encounters means a 99.9% chance of a TPK.
Even higher chance, actually, since that doesn't take into account the expenditure of resources from one fight to the other. Then again, we're also not considering the possibility of retreat. But, yeah, fights are heavily weighted towards the players, because otherwise PCs would drop left and right.
Average isn't "even," by any stretch of the imagination. The PCs are expected to win.
I define average as even in a game your expected to win.
Your game clearly happened, but because the playstyle involved is so... unique, it is best discarded as an outlier, as it is far from representative of the average game.I think this very thing every time I read your posts. Perhaps one day I'll get to play in a game where these assumptions I can only read about hold true.I'm talking about the consequences of the math of the Pathfinder system. If you would like to play in that kind of game you need only take the following steps:
Step 1: Play Pathfinder.
Step 2: Make sure your group of 4-5 people invests in their most important stat, keeps up with WBL, and takes 1-2 critical feats.
Step 3: Get to high level. 12+ (Though Cheapy's thread indicates it really happens at level 11)There you go have fun.
How droll. I suppose it is like Hawking said, 'The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.'
As Coriat said, rocket tag is neither impossible nor certain. Suggesting either is asinine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Average isn't "even," by any stretch of the imagination. The PCs are expected to win.I define average as even in a game your expected to win.
Well, don't expect to communicate when you use incromulent flutzpahs. It tends to norpricate your emfozzleship.
That's not what its says at all. +0 is even, +1 is challenging, 5 isn't even on the chart.
That's because the chart isn't that helpful for telling you exactly how many PCs you want to wager killing. As I said, APL +3 is about the minimum, and that *is* on the chart. If you want a possibly career-ending, or -making, encounter with a dragon, that's where you start. APL +3 is the lowest encounter the book considers "epic." If you want more epic, you gots to add more epic.
+0 is cakewalking. +2 is a little spicy, but you can wash it down with a glass of water. If you don't have at least +3, there's not any high risk of PC death, and if there's no significant risk, it's not epic.
A group of four to five PCs attacking a parallel dimension copy of one of the members of the party is an even CR encounter. Not. Epic.
2 rounds.The math of the game says that past level 11, 1-2 rounds of attacks will kill an opponent. That's on a basic core only fighter. If being able to kill level appropriate things in 1-2 rounds (as a single character to boot) at high levels is what you would call "rocket tag" (I do) then the math of the system itself forces the game towards rocket tag. The math is really pretty hard to argue with and I feel pretty confident that games that do not conform to that basic mathematical model are indeed outliers.
This is a problem (assuming you don't like rocket tag) because this is the result of the math of system.
The math is really easy to argue with. All "the math" shows is that if a dragon (for example) just lies there and takes it, instead of using any tactics at all or even fighting back- it can be killed in 4 rounds. (And, 4 rounds really isn't "rocket tag".)
"The math" shows that such a thing is mathematically possible, not that in any way it's likely or common.
Jiggys "math" back on Monday, 08:16 PM is what he's quoting over & over and to quote "So with average rolls, you're hitting twice a round for about 100 damage. You need 7 hits to kill the dragon. That means the first hit of round 4 drops him" That's 4 rounds, and not counting a round to get up to him.
4 or 5 rounds. That's 'the math".
2 rounds.The math of the game says that past level 11, 1-2 rounds of attacks will kill an opponent. That's on a basic core only fighter. If being able to kill level appropriate things in 1-2 rounds (as a single character to boot) at high levels is what you would call "rocket tag" (I do) then the math of the system itself forces the game towards rocket tag. The math is really pretty hard to argue with and I feel pretty confident that games that do not conform to that basic mathematical model are indeed outliers.
This is a problem (assuming you don't like rocket tag) because this is the result of the math of system.
The math is really easy to argue with. All "the math" shows is that if a dragon (for example) just lies there and takes it, instead of using any tactics at all or even fighting back- it can be killed in 4 rounds. (And, 4 rounds really isn't "rocket tag".)
"The math" shows that such a thing is mathematically possible, not that in any way it's likely or common.
Jiggys "math" back on Monday, 08:16 PM is what he's quoting over & over and to quote "So with average rolls, you're hitting twice a round for about 100 damage. You need 7 hits to kill the dragon. That means the first hit of round 4 drops him" That's 4 rounds, and not counting a round to get up to him.
4 or 5 rounds. That's 'the math".
I'm citing the rounds it takes to kill a APL +2 encounter, I couldn't care less about the dragon. And really thats 2 rounds for a single person to kill a single creature. Multiply that 4 people and you're really looking at 0.5 rounds to APL + 2 creature death (so 2 a round) or 1 Dragon that you seem keep citing in a single round. Really if it goes to 2 rounds against the parties focus fire the target got very lucky. But evidently you'd rather just ignore the math and then try and apply to it a different scenario. Not sure how that helps your argument, it actually makes your argument seem weak in my opinion, but to each their own I guess.
That's because the chart isn't that helpful for telling you exactly how many PCs you want to wager killing.That's not what its says at all. +0 is even, +1 is challenging, 5 isn't even on the chart.
You keep adding your own definitions and we've gone off from where it started.
To be clear, when I said earlier that you need to make an encounter that's +5 over your APL to help the creature in question survive, then that means something is up. Your response was that it works as advertised, and I gave you what it advertised.
Edit: Not a big fan of talking about killing players either.
the Big problem with APL +3 encounters is if you use them regularly, PCs will minmax themselves to oppose the oppisition as part of an Arms race
the key is to use more reasonably threatening monsters, not to use 1 or 2 bigger monsters that get wiped out in 1 round.
even an NPC with 4ish class levels fewer than the Party can still oppose the party in groups and though they would be killed in one round, can annoy the party through use of items the PCs don't often prepare for, often of the consumable quality. it's not like Armor class scales that quickly, and even then, firearms and alchemical items are a great way to Harass PCs.
Ashiel has listed all sorts of procedures to make it work.
I'm citing the rounds it takes to kill a APL +2 encounter, I couldn't care less about the dragon.2 rounds.The math of the game says that past level 11, 1-2 rounds of attacks will kill an opponent. That's on a basic core only fighter. If being able to kill level appropriate things in 1-2 rounds (as a single character to boot) at high levels is what you would call "rocket tag" (I do) then the math of the system itself forces the game towards rocket tag. The math is really pretty hard to argue with and I feel pretty confident that games that do not conform to that basic mathematical model are indeed outliers.
This is a problem (assuming you don't like rocket tag) because this is the result of the math of system.
The math is really easy to argue with. All "the math" shows is that if a dragon (for example) just lies there and takes it, instead of using any tactics at all or even fighting back- it can be killed in 4 rounds. (And, 4 rounds really isn't "rocket tag".)
"The math" shows that such a thing is mathematically possible, not that in any way it's likely or common.
Jiggys "math" back on Monday, 08:16 PM is what he's quoting over & over and to quote "So with average rolls, you're hitting twice a round for about 100 damage. You need 7 hits to kill the dragon. That means the first hit of round 4 drops him" That's 4 rounds, and not counting a round to get up to him.
4 or 5 rounds. That's 'the math".
*YOU* are the one who has trotted out Jiggy's math on several posts. I am just citing your cite.
An equal CR encounter of commoners with NPC wealth can wipe a party if the GM runs them correctly. It doesn't even matter how optimized the PCs are.
Too many of these forums fights seem to exist in flat open plains, which rarely ever happen in a published campaign. If your GMs are making up campaigns, that's fine, but speaking as someone who's ran campaigns before like that. It is easy to be lazy and make every fight in flat open plains, but when that leads to the game mechanics falling apart that is not an issue of the system.
An equal CR encounter of commoners with NPC wealth can wipe a party if the GM runs them correctly. It doesn't even matter how optimized the PCs are.
Would you care to explain how this works against a mid to high level party?
I'm citing the rounds it takes to kill a APL +2 encounter, I couldn't care less about the dragon.2 rounds.The math of the game says that past level 11, 1-2 rounds of attacks will kill an opponent. That's on a basic core only fighter. If being able to kill level appropriate things in 1-2 rounds (as a single character to boot) at high levels is what you would call "rocket tag" (I do) then the math of the system itself forces the game towards rocket tag. The math is really pretty hard to argue with and I feel pretty confident that games that do not conform to that basic mathematical model are indeed outliers.
This is a problem (assuming you don't like rocket tag) because this is the result of the math of system.
The math is really easy to argue with. All "the math" shows is that if a dragon (for example) just lies there and takes it, instead of using any tactics at all or even fighting back- it can be killed in 4 rounds. (And, 4 rounds really isn't "rocket tag".)
"The math" shows that such a thing is mathematically possible, not that in any way it's likely or common.
Jiggys "math" back on Monday, 08:16 PM is what he's quoting over & over and to quote "So with average rolls, you're hitting twice a round for about 100 damage. You need 7 hits to kill the dragon. That means the first hit of round 4 drops him" That's 4 rounds, and not counting a round to get up to him.
4 or 5 rounds. That's 'the math".
*YOU* are the one who has trotted out Jiggy's math on several posts. I am just citing your cite.
And then pretending it applies to a APL +3 or more encounter something I have not claimed. Hence why your argument is weak, since instead of addressing the fact that high level becomes rocket tag once a single character can drop an enemy APL + 2 in just under 2 rounds (2 rounding up), you attempted to change situation rather then admit the math agrees with what I've been saying. Is it really so bad to admit that the math lines up with what I said?
An equal CR encounter of commoners with NPC wealth can wipe a party if the GM runs them correctly. It doesn't even matter how optimized the PCs are.Would you care to explain how this works against a mid to high level party?
Mainly through the use of terrain and leading the party into traps.
If the party doesn't move, the commoners can just snipe with heavy crossbows from 1000+ feat away hoping for 20s.
When the party does move, the commoners can use traps to drop boulders on the party or various other kinds of traps.
Oh sure the party can cast things like protection from arrows and wind wall, but those things do have HP or time limits.
The only recourse for the party is to teleport away and try hit & run tactics to whittle down the commoners. At which point the commoners mix themselves in with innocent commoners and use them as shields. Eventually the party will make a mistake and an innocent commoner will be killed in the cross fire. At which point the commoners can begin turning governments against the party because "they're just commoners. They can barely hurt the PC party. At most the party have taken some HP damage. What right do they have to kill innocent civilians in the name of 'self defense'?" As the governments turn against the party this equal CR encounter spirals out of control into an inevitable death march for the party.
The party could just flee from the commoners, but they could not win the encounter.
An equal CR encounter of commoners with NPC wealth can wipe a party if the GM runs them correctly. It doesn't even matter how optimized the PCs are.Would you care to explain how this works against a mid to high level party?Mainly through the use of terrain and leading the party into traps.
If the party doesn't move, the commoners can just snipe with heavy crossbows from 1000+ feat away hoping for 20s.
I'll make pretend that your scenario is remotely believable (how do the commoners even see the party to attack from 1000' away?) and charitably allow the commoners free access to traps and not count the CR of the traps towards the encounter.
The archer of the party returns fire. She takes a -18 or -20 on attack rolls due to the distance, but high attack, improved precise shot, a buff or two if necessary, and the commoner's low AC means she still hits often enough. PCs win, easily. A few scrolls or spell slots with of protection from arrows, fickle winds, or the like protects them. On the rare occasion that a commoner crossbow bolt successfully hits, someone uses a wand of CLW.
Alternatively, the party teleports into the middle of the commoners. They have line of sight, so this is easy. Or the party casts spells with a range of long (at 10th level, the max range is 800', at 15th level, it's 1200'). A fireball would be quite effective here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Think what you will. Although I doubt that a mid level caster teleporting in the middle of them, setting off ready actions and dying from mundane traps is handling the encounter.
A clever GM is far more dangerous than a GM that haphazardly throws APL+4 encounters at the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, are the commoners readying actions to attack anyone who teleports in (not that the wizard would teleport in alone...) or are they using their crossbows? How does this protect them from the party archer or fireballs? Why are the traps in the middle of the commoners? Won't they get hurt by them too? Also, have you seen how ineffectual traps are in Pathfinder?