| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It can be done with out relying on magic at all.
Critical and tactical thinking are key to the success of such a party however. You cannot allow the "numbers" to decide the out come before making the attempt.
As the story from my statistics instructor illustrates... Numbers do not tell the full story.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not trying to suggest that numbers are everything. That's actually one of the greatest reasons why spellcasters are powerful, and why at 20th+ level bigger numbers generally don't result in a bigger threat (which was especially true in 3.5 core, but is also present in Pathfinder core as well).
However, the numbers do matter and they matter a lot. That's the whole reason warriors wear armor instead of prancing around in speedos. Especially when it comes down to enemies who are capable of the same quality of tactics as you are, it's important to have defensive capabilities that mitigate incoming pain.
Perhaps it is because I GM more than I play, but I frequently see the level of brutality that NPCs are capable of inflicting on parties who ARE well geared and DO use good tactics, so there's a part of me that is highly suspicious when I hear about parties overcoming dragons while being severely under-geared, unless the dragon is being dumb. :o
I won't pretend to know what the situation was with your dragon. I must have missed the details if they were posted before, but I can try to show you what I see from my perspective and you can show me where my vision needs a bit more focus.
Adult Black Dragon (CR 11)
Our dragon is of human Intelligence (on the pretty high side of human Intelligence to boot) so tactics aren't even a question for this creature. Right out of the gate it has a 32 AC (base AC + mage armor that it has 6/day in 3 hour increments). It has darkness as an at-will SLA and a +20 Stealth modifier, and the darkness doesn't bother it in the least because darkvision 120 ft. + blindsense. The dragon's speeds are land 60 ft., fly 200 ft., swim 60 ft. which means that it's incredibly mobile and hard to pin down (and if anywhere near its native environment is going to have serious advantage as it can enter water to break line of effect and destroy anyone who enters the water with them without freedom of movement active). It's breath weapon is long range and has a very difficult saving throw to resist if you lack magical equipment to help out.
In a normal game the dragon should be wary of getting near a martial character because they can hurt the dragon in melee and might be able to take the dragon's full attacks, which means that the dragon is generally forced to weigh his options and attempt guerrilla tactics to wear down the heroes. In this case however the dragon is mostly rewarded for curbstomping the party with its full attacks.
By Comparison
Let's take a 10th level non-magic-geared martial. I don't really care which one it is, but since Valeros is Pathfinder's whipping boy let's go with Fighter (watching Fighters getting ruined in their own element is an honored tradition).
Starting stats 16, 14, 14, 7, 13, 7. Racial +2 into Strength bringing him to an 18 (because he's going to need as much strength as possible since hitting and dealing damage is going to be really hard for him to do).
At 10th level the Fighter has a +10 BAB. If he began his career with an 18 Strength and invested both of his stat bumps into Strength he has a +5 Strength. If he's fighting with his most favorite weapon and has invested in the weapon specialization / greater focus feats, he gets a +4 to hit, bringhimg him to a total of +19 (40%)/+14 (15%) to hit, with each hit with his favorite melee weapon dealing around 1d8+9 damage or (13.5 average, or roughly 1/12th the dragon's HP). Actually it would be much worse since the dragon has DR 5/magic, which means that his damage per hit drops to 1d8+4 or 8.5, so really only about 1/19th the dragon's HP. Since his to-hit chances are so low, his actual DPR is...
1st Attack = DPR 3.68
2nd Attack = DPR 1.4025
Total Average Damage = 5.0825 damage per round of combat
(So with 10 rounds of the Fighter full-attacking the dragon, he will do about 50 damage out of the dragon's 161 Hp)
Without magic items, his armor class with full plate is 20 (10 + 9 armor + 2 dex + 2 heavy shield) = AC 23. With a tower shield his AC becomes 24 (he gets +2 more shield AC but his max Dex drops to +1 and isn't affected by armor training), but a tower shield would give him a -2 penalty to all attacks while he was using it which would bring his to-hit chances down to 30% and 5% respectively. Since the dragon has an unbuffed +21 to hit with his bite (a 95% chance to hit the Fighter) and a +15 with his other 5 attacks (65% to hit) the dragon's DPR vs the Fighter on a full-attack would look something like this:
Bite = 16.9575
2 Claws = 15.6975
2 Wings = 8.724625
1 Tail = 9.89625
Total Average Damage = 51.275-ish
Since with a 14 Constitution the Fighter will have about 79 HP, the fighter is very likely to be dead on the 2nd round that the dragon manages to full-attack him.
Meanwhile the Fighter's Reflex save sans magic support is +5. +7 with Lightning Reflexes. Against the dragon's DC 22 breath weapon, the fighter takes an average of 35.7 damage (half damage + 70% more damage) whenever of the dragon uses its breath weapon. So the Fighter is actually fairly likely to be dead if he fails 2 saves versus the breath weapon.
So in this scenario our Fighter is essentially worthless. At a distance he gets torn apart. At close range he gets torn apart. He can't keep up with the dragon's movement speeds, and the dragon is just as capable of fighting tactically as he is. The Dragon has access to pretty much anything that the Fighter does since you insisted that the mages aren't required to be buff bots for the fighter and can probably leverage it even better.
Note that none of this assumes the Fighter failed his save vs Frightful Presence (with Iron Will and Bravery he has a 50% chance of avoiding the Shaken condition which gives him a -2 to all attacks and saves, further running his numbers into the ground).
How I imagine this playing out...
Essentially no matter what environment the party encounters this dragon in, it's bad for the party. In its native environment the dragon is a death sentence to this group. In a dungeon environment or anywhere that lacks the dragon's assumed homefield advantage (where it cannot employ its swim speed, swamp stride, and water breathing, and has lots of cover and concealment options to ambush with the +20 Stealth) the dragon is still horrible to face as it's faster, stronger, and just as smart as the party and more than capable of using hit and run tactics, Stealth, etc.
And this is against the badly build black dragon in the bestiary whose feats and spell selection are pretty terrible. Even just swapping a few of its cantrips or first level spells around would make it even more of a threat (replacing dancing lights with ghost sound for example, and alarm with something like shield or chill touch or expeditious retreat would make the encounter even more nightmarish for an ungeared party).
So please, explain to me how superior tactics overcomes this dragon in a way that doesn't result in the spellcasters doing all the work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A long, drawn-out explanation of the finer points of Mathfinder's accounting system and a run-down on why you did it wrong. Then a "proof or it didn't happen" statement which will provide argument fodder for another three pages.
Weee. I wonder how many more people will show up with the actuarial tables and DPR listings before this thread finally dies.
Any fool can look at numbers and say "guys, I think this is a bad idea." Only a real adventurer will say "so what, let's go for it!"
Also the same for all of this is true for the other members of the party. For those with lower hit dice than the Fighter the dragon will likely kill them faster, though in all honesty most of the spellcasters at this level will be better at actually surviving melee with the dragon because of things like displacement, wild shape + barkskin, stoneskin, interposing hand, etc. All of which means that the spellcasters are actually better suited for surviving the dragon.
Same with resist energy (acid) which is up to 20 points of resistance at this level, or protection from energy which can absorb 120 points of damage). So again, as long as the spellcasters are doing the lion's share of everything and leave the fighter-sorts to maybe throwing a tanglefoot bag before fleeing the scene then maybe they could overcome the dragon. In this case the less people that the spellcasters need to waste buffing slots on, the more likely they will be able to both survive the dragon AND manage to hurt it in meaningful ways.
Short of nonsensical things like "we're going to try to turn a tree over on the dragon" which are usually horrible ideas (generally things like collapsing or overturning things on dragons don't really work so well without gratuitous amounts of magic because of things like hardness and object hit points), or "let's hope the dragon is braindead and falls for us dropping this chandalier on his head".
Assuming of course that even doing so would actually do anything other than making the dragon angry (dropping a colossal object on the dragon from from 30-149 feet only deals about 30 damage to the dragon, and if it falls 30 ft. or less it only deals about 12 damage).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A long, drawn-out explanation of the finer points of Mathfinder's accounting system and a run-down on why you did it wrong. Then a "proof or it didn't happen" statement which will provide argument fodder for another three pages.Weee. I wonder how many more people will show up with the actuarial tables and DPR listings before this thread finally dies.
Any fool can look at numbers and say "guys, I think this is a bad idea." Only a real adventurer will say "so what, let's go for it!"
And then die pointlessly, like all "real adventurers do".
Running into an unwinnable battle is not what real adventurers do. It's what turns your party into the pile of bones with loot on them that the actual adventuring party finds later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A long, drawn-out explanation of the finer points of Mathfinder's accounting system and a run-down on why you did it wrong. Then a "proof or it didn't happen" statement which will provide argument fodder for another three pages.Weee. I wonder how many more people will show up with the actuarial tables and DPR listings before this thread finally dies.
Any fool can look at numbers and say "guys, I think this is a bad idea." Only a real adventurer will say "so what, let's go for it!"
And then die pointlessly, like all "real adventurers do".
Running into an unwinnable battle is not what real adventurers do. It's what turns your party into the pile of bones with loot on them that the actual adventuring party finds later.
What I don't understand is the comparison to a character without gear.
I thought the argument was that they wouldn't have the exact gear?
Which that campaign can work; rolled stats, random gear, rolled health. You'll probably have to fight APL-2 encounters though if you want the party to live. Unless you don't. Unless ever sessions is like Attack-on-Titan scouting missions beyond the wall where you can expect at-least 30% casualties. Which even that has its own appeal.
A long, drawn-out explanation of the finer points of Mathfinder's accounting system and a run-down on why you did it wrong. Then a "proof or it didn't happen" statement which will provide argument fodder for another three pages.Weee. I wonder how many more people will show up with the actuarial tables and DPR listings before this thread finally dies.
Any fool can look at numbers and say "guys, I think this is a bad idea." Only a real adventurer will say "so what, let's go for it!"
And then die pointlessly, like all "real adventurers do".
Running into an unwinnable battle is not what real adventurers do. It's what turns your party into the pile of bones with loot on them that the actual adventuring party finds later.
What I don't understand is the comparison to a character without gear.
I thought the argument was that they wouldn't have the exact gear?
Which that campaign can work; rolled stats, random gear, rolled health. You'll probably have to fight APL-2 encounters though if you want the party to live. Unless you don't. Unless ever sessions is like Attack-on-Titan scouting missions beyond the wall where you can expect at-least 30% casualties. Which even that has its own appeal.
The above bolded is at least my take on things; I've played low-to-no-magic games before and they have a certain appeal. My take is rather that you are not guaranteed at level X to get widget Y on your list. You might get it sooner. You might get it later. You might not get the plusses you'd like or the form you believe you should have.
I believe that not everything that might be out there will be straight out of the book -- some might be in a new form, or with hidden benefits or drawbacks.
That said, not having everything fall neatly into place does cause you to have to evaluate your plans and strategies, much like not having someone to deal with traps or someone who wants to cast buffs means you have to change and adapt.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lol metagaming to the max. Let's calculate our dpr and put it in this table vs. The dragon as listed in the bestiary. Guys this is apl +2.
Data: I calculate we have a 13.4% chance of survival.
Ya screw these villagers and orphans they aren't worth losing my uber optimized character.
Outcome 1: Leave to get stronger and/or get help, dragon eats everyone.
Outcome 2: Charge into battle as righteous heroes, die, and the dragon eats everyone.
Because it's not an APL +2 encounter. Your APL is dropped significantly for being below WBL. This is more like an APL +5-6 encounter for someone without the proper gear, and Dragons are strong for their CR as well, so effectively even higher.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I don't understand is the comparison to a character without gear. I thought the argument was that they wouldn't have the exact gear?
Because that was what was presented and thus what I ran with. The conversation went like this...
I am curious to see how frontliners can keep up in AC at higher levels without magic items. It's notable that of the classic "Big Six" magic items fully half of them are AC boosters, (Amulet of Natural Armor, Ring of Protection, Magic Armor). Stat-boosting items can also fill that role, if it's adding to a stat that goes to AC.
As it stands, the only way I can see to get viable AC against an Adult Black Dragon (Which is at +21 to hit) is by focusing on some combination of defensive fighting/combat expertise that would tank the character's offensive ability. If pre-errate Crane Wing was part of the mix, that would help a lot.
Thinking about it, you could do it, but it would pretty much require you to have not one but at least two casting slaves. All of those things could be replaced by a cleric / wizard / druid casting shield of faith, magic vestment, greater magic weapon, and barkskin on the character. Then toss some a few animal affinity spells onto them and it's like having magic items...for a little while.
Unfortunately this has the negative side effect of not encouraging teamwork but instead forces you to have X class on your team to avoid missing out on normal stuff. It shows why full casters rule the school in low-magic worlds (because they have magic and others don't). You suddenly couldn't consider playing any non-casting martial unless you have a party of primary casters or at the very least a buff-slave from Leadership.
It can be done with out relying on magic at all.
Critical and tactical thinking are key to the success of such a party however. You cannot allow the "numbers" to decide the out come before making the attempt.
As the story from my statistics instructor illustrates... Numbers do not tell the full story.
So I was hoping that Damien Magecraft could explain to me what he meant if A) can't have staple magic items, and B) don't need the casters to make up the loss. Since NPCs are just as capable of tactics as PCs are, I'm really excited to see what he's going to respond with, because I want to be wrong on this one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We did not try to fight the thing toe to toe for one thing.
We used hit and run tactics in the forest surrounding the village it was currently harassing.
This being the 10th time we had run afoul of the beast (the previous 9 times we had foiled its machinations); needless to say he was quite cross with us.
The Archer started with those annoying clustered shots of his. when the dragon would move to assault the Elf, the Barbarian would open up with his "dwarven crossbow" (hammers for those who do not get the euphemism) from another direction. I would open fire with my own crossbow. The Spartan Brothers (the two fighters) would use javelins. (all of our attacks were called shots; eyes, wing joints, etc...)
We did this as an attrition and annoyance tactic. We moved the fight to a point of our choosing by striking, fading into cover and reappearing to strike again. Once we maneuvered the fight to the spot we had picked then we opened up with the melee tactics. The Barbarian raged, The elf did his archery thing, The Twins did their 300 imitation, and I did my immovable rock impersonation.
It was not an easy battle that was over in less than a minute but it was a not a forgone conclusion that the dragon would win either.
And the Dragon didn't just use his Breath Weapon and fly out of range of your attacks with Fly-By Attack while laughing at your puny pinpricks because...?
See this is the problem with "Well I'll just use tactics". It doesn't work when the monster you're fighting, who has the power advantage, also uses tactics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And the Dragon didn't just use his Breath Weapon and fly out of range of your attacks with Fly-By Attack while laughing at your puny pinpricks because...?
See this is the problem with "Well I'll just use tactics". It doesn't work when the monster you're fighting, who has the power advantage, also uses tactics.
Dragons are arrogant, quick to anger, vain, etc...
And yes he used his breath weapon. Fly away? from some fleas? no he was going to swat us.Using your logic no party should ever bother to face any threat because the threat would always get away/win.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And the Dragon didn't just use his Breath Weapon and fly out of range of your attacks with Fly-By Attack while laughing at your puny pinpricks because...?
See this is the problem with "Well I'll just use tactics". It doesn't work when the monster you're fighting, who has the power advantage, also uses tactics.
Dragons are arrogant, quick to anger, vain, etc...
And yes he used his breath weapon. Fly away? from some fleas? no he was going to swat us.
Using your logic no party should ever bother to face any threat because the threat would always get away/win.
No, by my logic a party shouldn't face an enemy that is overwhelmingly more powerful than they are, and more intelligent than all of them combined and expect to win barring the greatest of luck or GM sympathy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And the Dragon didn't just use his Breath Weapon and fly out of range of your attacks with Fly-By Attack while laughing at your puny pinpricks because...?
See this is the problem with "Well I'll just use tactics". It doesn't work when the monster you're fighting, who has the power advantage, also uses tactics.
Dragons are arrogant, quick to anger, vain, etc...
And yes he used his breath weapon. Fly away? from some fleas? no he was going to swat us.
Using your logic no party should ever bother to face any threat because the threat would always get away/win.
There's a huge difference between arrogant/vain and stupid. Underestimating adventuring parties is a very good way for a chromatic dragon to die.
To each his own, of course, but when I run dragons I run them operating at 90-100% tactical efficiency relative to the environmental conditions, every time.
No, by my logic a party shouldn't face an enemy that is overwhelmingly more powerful than they are, and more intelligent than all of them combined and expect to win barring the greatest of luck or GM sympathy.
See, what we have here is a clash - a comprehensible one, but a clash, nonetheless: of playstyles, interpretation, understanding, and so on.
a) "dragons are arrogant, vain, and quick to anger"
a-1) "... thus they presume we are no threat."
> valid conclusion I) "... even as we kill it"
> valid conclusion II) "... until it's too late"
> valid conclusion III) "... until it's seriously or permanently injured or maimed"
> valid conclusion IV) "... until we prove ourselves dangerous, at which point it takes us seriously"
>-> addendum A) "... though it is too desperate to make the best decisions" <requires local reasons>
>-> addendum B) "... though it runs away..." <requires presumption>
>->-> "... because it's a coward"
>->-> "... because it's become clever"
>->-> "... in order to heal and return"
>->-> "... in order to re-think its tactics"
>-> addendum C) "... and then begins using dangerous tactics" <requires interpretation>
a-2) "... thus cannot allow the insult to go unpunished."
> valid conclusion I) "... even as we kill it"
> valid conclusion II) "... until it's too late"
> valid conclusion III) "... until it's seriously or permanently injured or maimed"
> valid conclusion IV) "... until we prove ourselves dangerous, at which point it takes us seriously"
>-> addendum A) "... though it is too desperate to make the best decisions" <requires local reasons>
>-> addendum B) "... though it runs away..." <requires presumption>
>->-> "... because it's a coward"
>->-> "... because it's become clever"
>->-> "... in order to heal and return"
>->-> "... in order to re-think its tactics"
>-> addendum C) "... and then begins using dangerous tactics" <requires interpretation>
a-3) "... but they are also rather wise and intelligent."
> valid conclusion I) "... though we still (can) kill it"
> valid conclusion II) "... until it's provoked <to certain point>"
> valid conclusion III) "... until it's seriously or permanently injured or maimed"
> valid conclusion IV) "... until we prove ourselves dangerous, at which point it goes berserk"
>-> addendum A) "... as it is too desperate to make the best decisions" <requires local reasons>
>-> addendum B) "... though it runs away..." <requires presumption>
>->-> "... because it's a coward"
>->-> "... because it's become clever"
>->-> "... in order to heal and return"
>->-> "... in order to re-think its tactics"
>-> addendum C) "... and then begins using dangerous tactics" <requires interpretation>
What I just wrote right up there? All valid interpretations and play styles. Many of them - even the seemingly contradictory ones - fall in line with each other.
Black Dragon
Adult Black Dragon
14 HD
MENTAL: 14, 17, 14
Rather intelligent, very wise, decently charismatic.
No knowledge (history) or other "in-character" method of for-sure "knowing" tactics and strategy, but certainly clever enough to figure it out, and highly focused on stealth - to the point where it has a +20 modifier. That's like giving a 1st level moving commoner invisibility, though if the entire area was wide and barren, it might have had no where to hide. It does have darkness as a spell-like ability, though, harming archers' abilities fairly well.
It's spell-selection, as-written, kind of sucks, though - mage armor and obscuring mist are useful, but none of the rest of its spells are combat-reliable, and - wait, why in Golarion would it have dancing lights, of all things? ...sorry, distracted for a moment - though it has a really long-range breath weapon.
Lording over the darkest swamps and marshes, black dragons are the undisputed masters of their domain, ruling through cruelty and intimidation. Those who dwell within a black dragon's reach live in fear. Black dragons tend to make their lairs in remote parts of the swamp, preferably in caves at the bottom of dark and fetid pools. Inside, they pile up their filthy treasure and sleep amid the roots and muck. Black dragons prefer their food a bit rotten and will often allow a meal to sit in a pool for days before consuming it. Black dragons prefer treasures that do not rot or decay, making their hoard, full of coins, gemstones, jewelry, and other objects made from stone or metal.
Anyway, I find Damian's story entirely acceptable as a certain style of play - a good one, even - and I think it's entirely in-keeping with black dragons' potential characteristics to feel that way.
That said, I can see the opposing points: if played on a "higher difficulty" setting, the dragon could have been substantially more difficult. Beyond that base premise, though, we don't know how the GM had played the creature, what it's personality was, or what had happened up until then in the campaign, so...
*shrug*
... seems like an awful lot to go through for one guy's story.
And with that, I'll go sleep my sick off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Expecting to have a functional character and not be screwed by a spiteful DM seems like an entirely reasonable thing to be "entitled" to.False premise.
Items are a part of the game true enough...
But, expecting a specific item just because you happened to think of build that relies...
Wait...
Not handing the player exactly what they asked for when they asked for it is being spiteful? What ever happened to earning what you want?
|
Depending on the size of the city/village etc that the party is visiting and on what items they want if it can be found I usually allow them to buy it. The NPCs get some interesting toys as well. So imo it balances it out. As well unless the group has a secure spot to at to store money they will for the most part not lug it around. Even with Haversacks. It's still a lot of weight. As well while most gamers adventure to have fun and roleplay I have yet to meet any of the non-profit kind. So unless a DM states from the start that it's going to be a low wealth and magic type of game then players imo will expect some sort of reward. Not interested at all in playing any games where I have to save every damn copper piece or beg and plead for even a +1 sword.
As for DMs their world is law within reason. I won't hesitate to walk away from a table of if the DM is being a unreasonable jerk. If I'm in the wrong I'm in the wrong. Or the dm and my style of playing don't mesh. None of that "I am the DM I am god" crap. As soon as I hear that I don't waste time making a character even if it means taking a cab home. I have noticed a lot of people here acting like the dM can do just about anything because they think the core book gives them the right to. All fine except I suggest you better be running games from your own homes. As I will not hesitate to ask a DM to leave my apartment if they try anything rude or abusive. If that means the game is over so be it. I pay rent and pay bills. If anyone thinks to come into my place and start being unreasonable or even worse kicks me out of a game. Why would I allow the game to continue. In my apartment.
|
|
Good thing I didn't say that (hell, no one did!). Refusing to allow a player to pick up an item to keep him competitive is though, yes. Leaving a fighter gimped because allowing him to upgrade his exotic weapon would be too "unrealistic" or making sure the monk can't pick up his amulet has nothing to do with "earning" anything (because, again, no one even brought up the idea of doing otherwise).
The good thing as a player or group one can refuse to go adventuring against opponents that require specilaized magical equipment. I spend time making a character and backstory. I want to play D&D and have fun. Not roleplay Custers last stand.
A long, drawn-out explanation of the finer points of Mathfinder's accounting system and a run-down on why you did it wrong. Then a "proof or it didn't happen" statement which will provide argument fodder for another three pages.Weee. I wonder how many more people will show up with the actuarial tables and DPR listings before this thread finally dies.
Any fool can look at numbers and say "guys, I think this is a bad idea." Only a real adventurer will say "so what, let's go for it!"
And then die pointlessly, like all "real adventurers do".
Running into an unwinnable battle is not what real adventurers do. It's what turns your party into the pile of bones with loot on them that the actual adventuring party finds later.
Hey, if you don't want your adventure to contain any actual adventure who am I to judge?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Expecting to have a functional character and not be screwed by a spiteful DM seems like an entirely reasonable thing to be "entitled" to.False premise.
Items are a part of the game true enough...
But, expecting a specific item just because you happened to think of build that relies...Wait...
Not handing the player exactly what they asked for when they asked for it is being spiteful? What ever happened to earning what you want?Good thing I didn't say that (hell, no one did!). Refusing to allow a player to pick up an item to keep him competitive is though, yes. Leaving a fighter gimped because allowing him to upgrade his exotic weapon would be too "unrealistic" or making sure the monk can't pick up his amulet has nothing to do with "earning" anything (because, again, no one even brought up the idea of doing otherwise).
What would you call this "I'm going to make sure the loot you find doesn't help you and that you can't buy it either" mentality if not spiteful?
And who said that?
Expecting just because you built the character to "need" that particular item for the gm to have it miraculously "drop" on the exact encounter when you reach the level you "must" have it is arrogance in its purest form.Sorry... but like I said in a previous post if you want it; Quest for it. No freebies here. Earn the item through play.
Telling me (the GM) you want item xyz is not setting up the quest BTW. Telling the NPC artisan you are looking for something that will do xyz is however.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, I find Damian's story entirely acceptable as a certain style of play - a good one, even - and I think it's entirely in-keeping with black dragons' potential characteristics to feel that way.
That said, I can see the opposing points: if played on a "higher difficulty" setting, the dragon could have been substantially more difficult. Beyond that base premise, though, we don't know how the GM had played the creature, what it's personality was, or what had happened up until then in the campaign, so...
*shrug*... seems like an awful lot to go through for one guy's story.
Well; as I had stated in the explanation this was the Tenth time we had interfered in the Dragons plans. It was also the first time we took direct action against him. Yes I had said he was "cross with us" I meant that as levity. He was royally ?!$$ed at us.
This is a ROLE-playing game; Monsters/villains are more than just a collection of stats that are to be run with cold logic. They have emotions just like the rest of us. We had managed to push the damned things buttons to point that it fell into our trap rather than the other way around (which was just as likely a scenario given the hotheaded nature of the dwarf and the phalanxs). We were fortunate. Would I want to face that kind of situation again? Not really; but if given no other alternative...
How exactly do you perceive adventurers Simon?
I've always seen them as serious mercenary treasure hunter types who take the job professionally.
I am not Simon, but in my gaming circles characters are rarely, if ever, mercenary treasure hunters. Dungeon crawls and treasure raids on monster lairs are almost,if not entirely, non-existent. In my own games, it is ,usually, a bunch of people with skills and abilities thrown together by circumstances or uniting against some evil. My last campaign involved the following:
1. A young clan priest/diplomat setting out on his first diplomatic mission to secure the release of a young "noblewoman" abducted by wizards.
2. A warrior that volunteered to be a bodyguard to the priest in order to begin building his reputation as a great hero among his people. His long term goal was to leverage his reputation into marrying the "noblewoman" and becoming leader of his people.
3. A knight that abandoned his post and duties to seek out the bandits that ambushed and slaughtered the rest of his border patrol.
4. A paladin who leaves his temple in search for his missing sister.
5. A "street rat" with dreams of escaping an island ruled by wizards. He joins the group hoping for a reward and, after things go sideways, finds himself seeking protection among the group from said wizards.I used the above backgrounds to build the party's first adventure which centered on the rescue of the noblewoman while incorporating everyone else's backgrounds. The results of the first adventure and other characters' backgrounds/goals became the basis of the campaign's direction.
yeah this is pretty much how most of the games I have ever been involved in went as well...
Crawls were made to find information or to sneak in undetected.Never for looting and desecrating the final resting places of the allegedly dead.
Anyway, I find Damian's story entirely acceptable as a certain style of play - a good one, even - and I think it's entirely in-keeping with black dragons' potential characteristics to feel that way.
That said, I can see the opposing points: if played on a "higher difficulty" setting, the dragon could have been substantially more difficult. Beyond that base premise, though, we don't know how the GM had played the creature, what it's personality was, or what had happened up until then in the campaign, so...
*shrug*... seems like an awful lot to go through for one guy's story.
Well; as I had stated in the explanation this was the Tenth time we had interfered in the Dragons plans. It was also the first time we took direct action against him. Yes I had said he was "cross with us" I meant that as levity. He was royally ?!$$ed at us.
This is a ROLE-playing game; Monsters/villains are more than just a collection of stats that are to be run with cold logic. They have emotions just like the rest of us. We had managed to push the damned things buttons to point that it fell into our trap rather than the other way around (which was just as likely a scenario given the hotheaded nature of the dwarf and the phalanxs). We were fortunate. Would I want to face that kind of situation again? Not really; but if given no other alternative...
1) I'm actually really impressed with having made that post. I was, seriously, actually, entirely delirious. I woke up (sort of) later half-convinced I'd given a lecture with all that stuff written in chalk on a board behind me, after sorting out three students' arguments/questions (among other impossible things). I'm reasonably pleased at the coherence up there.
2) I'm pretty sure that I accounted for what you said exactly within the list of things. Your story's good with me, bro. Makes sense - not all dragons would succumb that way, but the fact that yours did doesn't phase me. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is very often dms run aps as is so the result is optimize or die. Its like having ready made poptarts instead of having to bake so they just read it over and go instead of adding stuff and adjusting things. It saves time for busy dms but can definitely be a problem.
Uh... to the best of my understanding, the APs aren't very optimized. About as optimized as the iconics... which, you know, aren't very.
That's not to say that people who die in them are doing it wrong - different APs have different levels of lethality, as do different encounters in different APs... and the same encounters run by different GMs!...; but rather it's not supposed to be super-optimized for high-murder combat in the APs. In fact, often I've heard of builds that are so optimized that they simply walk through the AP encounters like nothing - builds that were, effectively, accidental discoveries.
ALL THAT SAID, I find absolutely no problem with optimization, or with builds that presume certain equipment, for APs or otherwise. (I could be wrong, but I think I've heard that PFS tends to be more lethal?)
In terms of whether or not a player on the boards receives advice, the real trick to all of these builds is presuming an "equal chance" at acquiring any given items.
The game generally presumed items are available.
Many parties have a crafter of some sort.
PFS presumes magic item purchase.
Obviously, the first two statements are gross generalizations with lots of players, tables, and groups that function very, very differently; the second is clearly only a specific instance... but the presumption of magic item availability in general doesn't strike me as odd or strange.
If it's in the rules, it makes sense to desire it as a character (for the most part).
If, on the other hand, builds are made around items that are strictly GM controlled (such as artifacts), beyond the basic rules (crafted by guidelines, but not GM-approved), or similar, well... they're still not invalid, but the likelihood of the (slim) majority of players having access to said items is even more slim.
Of course, it should be clear, never expect all of this at any given table. The general advice presuming a default "sure it's available" is exactly that: default advice presuming things are available.
Sometimes that's not how it works. Damien's is one of those - makes fair enough sense to me. It's a good and valid style.
Different than the "presumed norm", but totally awesome to those that enjoy it.
And that's one of the great things about Pathfinder - it's extremely variable. Pit Fiend need an AC in the fifties? Done. Dragon need to be more emotional than coldly rational? Done. T-Rex battling a Froghemoth in the background? Done. Magic items restricted from the base presumption? Done.
Whatever you need, you can do, for your group and your playstyle. It's all up to you and your table's social contract.
Many people wouldn't enjoy others' styles. That's cool. It just means we're different. I like that!
Yeah, APs do tend to reward people being somewhat well rounded, at least for the first half of them. By high levels well roundedness is obsoleted by spells and people can super specialize.
How exactly do you perceive adventurers Simon?
I've always seen them as serious mercenary treasure hunter types who take the job professionally or end up dead in the field. If there's a challenge above them, they either crush it or escape it. Gambling with your life is betting with something far too precious (until resurrection magic becomes available anyway)
MattR gave a reasonable estimate of how I like to play my characters.
Why play a game to be a wuss or play it safe? This is your opportunity to be a risk-taker, have balls the size of basketballs and be an epic hero. The only risk is losing a character and likely in a cool or heroic way. If Arthur said, "Later noobs, that army is above our APL" it wouldn't be an interesting story would it?
I find it humorous that people talk about being bad-ass epic fantasy heroes then go about it by playing accountants: breaking out all sort of charts, DPR tables, running stats and numbers, etc. I don't want to be C-3PO, I'd rather be Han Solo. I take all kinds of crazy risks because that is what I want out of the game. Sometimes my characters die, most times they don't. I do put my personality into my characters and have full stories in my head for why they act the way they act. Sure it sucks to lose a character sometimes, but it's just words and numbers on a piece of paper ultimately. It's just a game. If my character dies, I'll know if was doing something crazy and heroic. That's satisfying enough for me. Then I make a new character and jump in from a different angle, trying new things, and making sure what I do is HEROIC.
It's just a game, it's meant to be fun. And I enjoy the @*&# out of playing the way I play. If that's not your style, that's not my business. What rubs me the wrong way is people trying to suggest or infer that the way I play is wrong somehow or if my characters survive adventures it's only because the GM is fudging rolls and playing with kid gloves on. Sometimes fortune favors the bold.
And who said that?One of the first posts in the thread mentioned not giving Monks amulets and not letting Exotic Weapon users upgrade their weapons because it would be "unrealistic"
I just re-read the first 5 pages... where was that said?
Expecting just because you built the character to "need" that particular item for the gm to have it miraculously "drop" on the exact encounter when you reach the level you "must" have it is arrogance in its purest form.Do you ever get tired of putting words in peoples' mouths?
do you?
I don't see what's arrogant about expecting a cooperative effort between DMs and players so that everyone involved has fun. Honestly I don't.and who exactly is saying this is not the case?
What's gained by constructing a game where a DM intentionally tries to shut down the people in it (in a situation where the game isn't expressly built around that idea in the first place)? What exactly does making one of the worst classes in the game even worse by denying them important equipment add? How is "lol no I'm not letting you have that ever" fun for the player? How is it even fun for the DM?
again I ask... who is making this claim? all that has been said so far in that respect is "if you build a character in such a way that it is not viable without item X then it is not a very good build to start with. Never Assume you will get something just because you think it is "critical" to your build.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simon: your way of playing isn't wrong - in fact, it's an awesome way to play.
The way you posted up there? Terrible. You demand that people not denigrate your play style while denigrating the play style of others. Please, stop that.
I get that you feel frustrated by similar treatment - it's wrong, but throwing the same attitude back isn't good either.
If an mechanically weaker character faces a creature who is too powerful, there's a limit to how well that character can or will fair.
This doesn't invalidate your style of play.
This just means that your style of play is different than some others. That is all: no more, no less.
That a creature doesn't use their abilities to their fullest extent doesn't make you or your play-style wrong. If you feel your style is threatened by others' style of play somehow... I'm sorry. Don't.
Playing the game by numbers is a fine idea.
Playing the game by enjoying numbers if a fine idea.
Playing the game by ignoring the numbers if a fine idea.
Now, if you want to argue, "HEROICS" is all it takes, please feel free to begin running a game of commoners sans equipment against dragons. Could be fun. Could even be successful.
If, somehow, you think that's a silly idea, you can see why others feel the same - the only difference is a matter of degrees.
Let me be clear. I've heard of people play the game of commoners. It sounds awesome. It's not the same game, though - either the creatures need to be played "down", or the CRs they face are lower.
Equipment is a part of your power in Pathfinder.
An exact value doesn't matter, but WLB generally presumes a certain amount spent on "semi-optimal" choices.
This fundamentally affects the CR of the encounters you can handle.
Now, terrain, tactics, and planning (or lack thereof; either functions on either or both sides) can also alter the CR of the encounters you can handle.
What this means is PF is a game of many moving parts.
If you presume any sort of optimization on the part of the enemies (if not with items, than with tactics, terrain, or planning) with a CR higher than your own, than if you do not have the equipment you need (and you don't have extra characters), than absolutely, yes, you will fail.
Now, however, here's the thing: the tactics, terrain, and planning are extremely fluid, extremely variable. These are things that can be harder to optimize "in character" - when role-playing a creature, it's easy to (metaphorically speaking) "paint yourself into a corner"... in other words, you can easily describe the dragon as too arrogant, to petty, or too angry to think clearly, and thinking is definitely what's required for those sorts of things. But if so, that's a choice - conscious or not - on the GMs part that the creature is that way.
Let me repeat this: this does not make anyone an inferior player or any style inferior.
But it is entirely true that, "just heroics" doesn't cover it.
Numbers don't tell everything.
But they do tell some things.
I really wish people would get this.
There isn't a bad style of play*. At all. There are different play styles.
* Well, okay, there may be bad styles, but those presented here aren't them.
|
I actually wonder what the real meaning of 'earning' an item is here. It keeps being brought up, but it's never defined. It's not like the Magic Shop adventure party is playing in a punch clock world where they slay goblins from 9-5, and then eventually cash in for a Holy Avenger.
So much of this seems more like "As GM I determine what the party gets, so they have to make sure I'm happy."
At the end of the day, making sure there's a +1 Furyborn Greatsword in the treasure of the dragon is important if your player wants it. Not sure what more they have to do to 'earn' it unless you're just admitting you want absolute control of all magical items in your game.
That's cool if that's how you want to run things, and everything like that is a gift from the GM, but having an item centered around one item isn't a bad thing (Agile sword/AOMF), and it doesn't make it a bad build. Make them 'earn' it if you must, but still give it to them if it helps them have more fun.
I actually wonder what the real meaning of 'earning' an item is here. It keeps being brought up, but it's never defined. It's not like the Magic Shop adventure party is playing in a punch clock world where they slay goblins from 9-5, and then eventually cash in for a Holy Avenger.
So much of this seems more like "As GM I determine what the party gets, so they have to make sure I'm happy."
Indeed. A lot of the talk about "Players have to earn it" tends to come across as: "Whenever I GM, all of my players must stroke my ego for 5 minutes per +1 on the item they're asking for."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm very disappointed, but it was worth it to read Tacticslion's posts. :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only if you completely ignore what is actually typed and rearrange it into a convenient straw man ...Indeed. A lot of the talk about "Players have to earn it" tends to come across as: "Whenever I GM, all of my players must stroke my ego for 5 minutes per +1 on the item they're asking for."I actually wonder what the real meaning of 'earning' an item is here. It keeps being brought up, but it's never defined. It's not like the Magic Shop adventure party is playing in a punch clock world where they slay goblins from 9-5, and then eventually cash in for a Holy Avenger.
So much of this seems more like "As GM I determine what the party gets, so they have to make sure I'm happy."
So explain how the players 'earn' their items. At least any more than the magic shop crew earns theirs. Both fight the same monsters, both endure the same trials, both collect the same experiences.
We both beat the dragon, so how did one party 'earn' their item more than the other? If it's not about the GM having absolute control over items, than explain earning since it's not clear by the context of your statements.
It's not entitled to want to play a build that requires a specific item, and for some builds (agile), it's required. If you don't want them playing that build, tell them from the onset instead of calling it a bad build for requiring something to work.
|
|
While I don't expect anything and everything to be given to me as a player. Neither do I want to beg and plead for everything. I think a bit of give and take on both the player and DM is needed. Out of the two imo the DM has to be more careful. Give to much to a player and it's too easy a game. Don't give enough and a group might be TPK by a strong enemy. Sure some might say "well they should retreat". Smart parties will. More often than not they fight to the better end.I play D&D to have fun and kick behind. Not to have to relive the daily worries of real life.
The APS or at least some of them are so underpowered. The NPC design so poor that even a non-optimized party at later levels can do well. I find that I have to upgrade the monsters or the party members just mo through everything. Even with intelligent monsters using tactics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually wonder what the real meaning of 'earning' an item is here. It keeps being brought up, but it's never defined. It's not like the Magic Shop adventure party is playing in a punch clock world where they slay goblins from 9-5, and then eventually cash in for a Holy Avenger.
So much of this seems more like "As GM I determine what the party gets, so they have to make sure I'm happy."
At the end of the day, making sure there's a +1 Furyborn Greatsword in the treasure of the dragon is important if your player wants it. Not sure what more they have to do to 'earn' it unless you're just admitting you want absolute control of all magical items in your game.
That's cool if that's how you want to run things, and everything like that is a gift from the GM, but having an item centered around one item isn't a bad thing (Agile sword/AOMF), and it doesn't make it a bad build. Make them 'earn' it if you must, but still give it to them if it helps them have more fun.
Speaking as a player not a GM now...
If my Monk would be better with the Talisman of Resistance (grants a bonus to all saves... I just made it up, sue me) and I come to realize this. I do not want it just "drop" in a hoard cause I killed a monster, there is no sense of accomplishment to getting the item. It was just handed to me on a platter.When I say "I want to earn it" I mean I need to make sure my character scours through libraries, sifts through rumors, questions the artisans, and traces the legends of the Talisman of the San Ke Lei Wang until he pieces all the clues together follows the trail and after many trials obtains it. That item I will value far more highly than if the GM just let me find it the hoard of the Goblin Warrens we just finished cleaning out, or the one I got from dashing down to the corner Mage~mart and plunking down a sack of gold/gems.
I want A Tale of Glory that justifies the item.
Not a "this old thing? Five ninety eight at Franks Magic Emporium, got it on clearance."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure you can get along just fine without that +3 to your AC.
Sure right up until the enemy keeps hitting you over and over again. It's not required it does help imo. As when I'm a player I want my AC to be as high as possible. You can get by if your a melee class. A rogue going in for a sneak attack without magic is just so easy to hit. If he survives he either is very lucky or the DM goes easy on him.
At low to mid levels one can get by without magic items. At higher levels it's sucidal not to have magic items. I'm sure that fire Giant that a group is going to fight sure appreciates a group with magical items. In any case it's a difference in playing style. I see the merits of both styles. I just prefer my magic items.