I think my GM unintentionally "cheated" and TPKed, what do I do?


Pathfinder Society

51 to 97 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Well when it comes to the robot(s), think the GM made a simple error, the robot subtype mentions that critical hits stun or stagger them. He might have misread that as "instad of extra critical hit damage". In any case constructs (including robots) are still subject to critical hits even if they are swarms.

Regarding the fascinate effect, one a particular player gets attacked, the fascinate effect should end (at least for that player, arguably for all).

Other than that, I can't nail any specific mistakes the GM allegedly made. Whether those changes resulted in the TPK is hard to tell, if they lost characters to it, it might have resulted in the TPK.

This adventure "just" happens to be quite hard for an unprepared group. I had little problem when I played it (even if the skeletons almost killed me, that charge/energy combo is quite nasty).

I would not recommend this as the first adventure for new characters, but once they have a chronicle or two under their belt....

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Fascinating. The longer this thread goes, the fewer things the GM actually got wrong; if the posted references the stats/tactics/etc are to be believed, then the players have made far more errors than the GM did, and all because they chose to make their declarations without fact-checking first.

I agree. Despite the fact that people have verified that he used the wrong stats, ignored the rules about criticals and sneak attacks on robots, didn't tell us what the monster was with a successful knowledge check and stun locked pcs for multiple rounds because he didn't know the rules for fascination and gaze attacks... We were at fault.

The Exchange 5/5

Koujow wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Fascinating. The longer this thread goes, the fewer things the GM actually got wrong; if the posted references the stats/tactics/etc are to be believed, then the players have made far more errors than the GM did, and all because they chose to make their declarations without fact-checking first.
I agree. Despite the fact that people have verified that he used the wrong stats, ignored the rules about criticals and sneak attacks on robots, didn't tell us what the monster was with a successful knowledge check and stun locked pcs for multiple rounds because he didn't know the rules for fascination and gaze attacks... We were at fault.

"#1 - Talk to the judge to express the issues."

really, you will find very little comfort on the internet. It is often the way of the web... The people here were not there, and can only guess at what was involved...

"...leave this burden at the river grasshopper."

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Koujow wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Fascinating. The longer this thread goes, the fewer things the GM actually got wrong; if the posted references the stats/tactics/etc are to be believed, then the players have made far more errors than the GM did, and all because they chose to make their declarations without fact-checking first.
I agree. Despite the fact that people have verified that he used the wrong stats, ignored the rules about criticals and sneak attacks on robots, didn't tell us what the monster was with a successful knowledge check and stun locked pcs for multiple rounds because he didn't know the rules for fascination and gaze attacks... We were at fault.

Well since you are in a position to give us more details:

How many players and at what level where present at the various stages of the adventure (since the final fight was only against one enemy I assumed that the GM lowered the subtier once characters died).

Did his mistakes actually result in deaths, or would those have happened anyway? Without more details it is pretty much impossible for others to judge the situation.

Did he make mistakes, yes but other than that stupid attack on the spirit animal (doesn't this work like a familiar? What was it doint in combat?), I can't find him deviating from the adventure too much, based on the information provided.
There is certainly room for improvement here.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wanted to address the title of the post.

You can't "unintentionally" cheat.

Cheating means that you are purposefully not following the rules. This may also be considered malicious.

If you "unintentionally" don't follow the rules, that's called a mistake.

Silver Crusade

Were any mistakes made in the favor of the players? If not, that's a really bad sign. Just this Sunday, I made a couple of mistakes in a battle, but one helped the PCs a lot more than the one I made in favor of the NPCs.


Andrew Christian wrote:

I wanted to address the title of the post.

You can't "unintentionally" cheat.

Cheating means that you are purposefully not following the rules. This may also be considered malicious.

If you "unintentionally" don't follow the rules, that's called a mistake.

I agree with this.

I think I was coming off unduly harsh.

I didn't intend to disparage the GM he sounds new, young, and inexperienced. Cheating is not the right word. He may have made a mistake, the game is complex and we're all humans. That doesn't diminish the validity of attempting to not get TPK'ed because of a GM mistake.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Koujow wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Fascinating. The longer this thread goes, the fewer things the GM actually got wrong; if the posted references the stats/tactics/etc are to be believed, then the players have made far more errors than the GM did, and all because they chose to make their declarations without fact-checking first.
I agree. Despite the fact that people have verified that he used the wrong stats, ignored the rules about criticals and sneak attacks on robots, didn't tell us what the monster was with a successful knowledge check and stun locked pcs for multiple rounds because he didn't know the rules for fascination and gaze attacks... We were at fault.

I find it funny that, in reply to post about how people aren't fact-checking, you even demonstrate ignorance of the contents of the post you quoted.

(Specifically: I didn't say anything was your fault.)

Silver Crusade

Koujow wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Fascinating. The longer this thread goes, the fewer things the GM actually got wrong; if the posted references the stats/tactics/etc are to be believed, then the players have made far more errors than the GM did, and all because they chose to make their declarations without fact-checking first.
I agree. Despite the fact that people have verified that he used the wrong stats, ignored the rules about criticals and sneak attacks on robots, didn't tell us what the monster was with a successful knowledge check and stun locked pcs for multiple rounds because he didn't know the rules for fascination and gaze attacks... We were at fault.

All I can say is what I said before. The time to deal with it is when the mistakes are happening, not after the fact. Because this thread is what happens. Don't let the GM keep going on making mistakes for the sake of keeping things moving. You don't know when his/her next mistake is fatal for your PC.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Trial by Machine:
To be fair, the stat block for the tech based scarecrow doesn't give you how the scarecrow abilities work. Its an easy mistake to make when, for whatever reason, I have to look up a statblock so that I know how the statblock presented to me works.

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
Koujow wrote:
I agree. Despite the fact that people have verified that he used the wrong stats, ignored the rules about criticals and sneak attacks on robots, didn't tell us what the monster was with a successful knowledge check and stun locked pcs for multiple rounds because he didn't know the rules for fascination and gaze attacks... We were at fault.

No one has verified he used the wrong stats, some of us think he may have, but without knowing the exact levels of the group and full details of what happened we don't know. Both you report and the original report have conflicting information.

No one said he ignored the critical hit's rule, in fact you even said that you pulled out a rulebook and got through to the GM. So it seems like he fixed his mistake when it was brought to his attention. GM are human and they can make mistakes, no matter the age.

As for your knowledge check, the GM can set the DC. As a rare monster that is unique to the scenario...

Spoiler:
It's not in fact a burning skeleton, but a plasma skeleton
... he can set the DC. The Core rules suggest a DC of 15+CR or higher for extremely rare creatures. Why the DC was higher then I would set, the GM was by the rules allowed to set it high enough that a 20 wouldn't do it. And abase DC of 20 + CR while higher then what I would do, is not so out of bounds for a monster unique to a tower that's been sealed for 1000 years.

And all descriptions of the end fight have the GM using the rules correctly for the gaze. The GM followed the rules for how gaze and fascinate works with that monster. In addition to the monsters fear effect on slams.

Now, the players have shown that they don't know the rules on gaze attacks, don't know what the rules on partial charges are, and a few other rules issues that show me they are just as inexperienced as the GM was.

Does this mean the GM did everything right? No.

Does this mean this was the player's fault? No.

What it means is that when you have inexperienced GM's and inexperienced players the results are not always the best for everyone. Every GM makes mistakes, and they'll make more when they are starting out.

What I don't like about this thread is how the post from the players have a tone of a character assassination of a 12 year old kid, to the point where despite people pointing out that what few mistakes we can assume were made are being ignored to decry the kid as willingly ignoring rules.

I just don't see what the point of accusing malice from a 12 year old, when ignorance is a more likely reason.

This is the reason why Paizo has Venture Officers, so that things like this can be e-mailed in private and not have a 12 year old kid's job as a GM run through the mud.

If I was treated like this when I was 12 years old and making mistakes as a GM, I would never have stuck with roleplaying games as a hobby for over twenty more years.

Silver Crusade

I had to look stuff up to. When I don't know, I look it up. Is this so hard for GM's to do? That's all most players are asking for.

Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Ottawa aka Mistwalker

Koujow wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Fascinating. The longer this thread goes, the fewer things the GM actually got wrong; if the posted references the stats/tactics/etc are to be believed, then the players have made far more errors than the GM did, and all because they chose to make their declarations without fact-checking first.
I agree. Despite the fact that people have verified that he used the wrong stats, ignored the rules about criticals and sneak attacks on robots, didn't tell us what the monster was with a successful knowledge check and stun locked pcs for multiple rounds because he didn't know the rules for fascination and gaze attacks... We were at fault.

I don't think anyone was accusing you of being at fault.

You are mentioning that people verified that he used the wrong stats? I must have missed that - could you point out where that was.

Spoiler:
From your description, it wasn't that he ignored the rules about crits and sneak damage on constructs, but that he had gotten them wrong originally, and when the players pointed it out to him, he corrected it.

The Players got the surprise round charge rule wrong, and the GM went with the player incorrect interpretation.

You stated that when you got a 20 on the knowledge check that the GM may not have heard them. I don't know if there was any error or not - I know that if I had been running it, the DC would have been 15, so you would have gotten two pieces of information.

The swarming of the PC by the plasma skeletons was in their tactics. I am no longer sure that he was incorrect in the number of attacks and damage to the PC - the two that were next to him would do on average 15 points of damage if both attacks hit, so 30 points, plus another two attacks that if they hit would on average do 8 points each, so another 16 points for a total of 46 points of damage from 6 hits. Even if only the primary hand on each skeleton hit, the average would be 32 points of damage.

It is possible that you misinterpreted what was happening when he rolled damage, as the primary hand did 1d4+2 plus 1d6 damage - I suspect this because you mentioned scimitar and claw damage - but these skeletons didn't have scimitar (1d6 damage) and claws (1d4 damage).

John Compton has confirmed that to learn things about robots and tech items you need the feat Technologist - so having the group press buttons for a while and then move the story along may have been him trying to apply that rule and ruling.

I am not sure that the GM got the rules for fascinating gaze completely wrong - it is a gaze attack - if you are in range and can see it's eyes, you have to make a save - in this case to not be fascinated.

From the Gaze entry in the Bestiary
Gaze (Su) A gaze special attack takes effect when foes look at the attacking creature’s eyes. The attack can have any sort of effect.
Each opponent within range of a gaze attack must attempt a saving throw each round at the beginning of his or her turn in the initiative order.

The OP seems to believe that it is a standard action for the gaze attack to work, but that isn't what I am seeing based on the bestiary entry.

So from what you and the OP are saying is that he got part of the rule wrong, where the attack would have released you from the fascination effect - could the OP confirm that they stayed fascinated or that they became fascinated on their turn after being momentarily released by an attack - I am unsure based on the original post, as the OP stated the he did get to act on round 5.

The biggest thing that I can see that the GM has done wrong is get a couple of things wrong - one that was corrected for a benefit to you (crits on constructs), and one that was wrong but was a benefit to you (surprise round charge).

It is possible that the GM got one ability of the creature from the last part of the fight, but the OP will have to clarify that.

That and the GM appears (based on your descriptions) to have not found a way to engage the players and make the game fun for you even if you did die.

Ninja'd

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

The seemed to be some confusion regarding the gaze rules:

Gaze (Su) wrote:

A gaze special attack takes effect when foes look at the attacking creature’s eyes. The attack can have any sort of effect; petrification, death, and charm are common. The typical range is 30 feet, but check the creature's entry for details. The type of saving throw for a gaze attack varies, but it is usually a Will or Fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 gazing creature’s racial HD + gazing creature’s Cha modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature’s text). A successful saving throw negates the effect. A monster’s gaze attack is described in abbreviated form in its description. Each opponent within range of a gaze attack must attempt a saving throw each round at the beginning of his or her turn in the initiative order. Only looking directly at a creature with a gaze attack leaves an opponent vulnerable. Opponents can avoid the need to make the saving throw by not looking at the creature, in one of two ways.

Averting Eyes: The opponent avoids looking at the creature’s face, instead looking at its body, watching its shadow, tracking it in a reflective surface, etc. Each round, the opponent has a 50% chance to avoid having to make a saving throw against the gaze attack. The creature with the gaze attack, however, gains concealment against that opponent.

Wearing a Blindfold: The foe cannot see the creature at all (also possible to achieve by turning one's back on the creature or shutting one's eyes). The creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment against the opponent.

A creature with a gaze attack can actively gaze as an attack action by choosing a target within range. That opponent must attempt a saving throw but can try to avoid this as described above. Thus, it is possible for an opponent to save against a creature’s gaze twice during the same round, once before the opponent’s action and once during the creature’s turn.

Gaze attacks can affect ethereal opponents. A creature is immune to gaze attacks of others of its kind unless otherwise noted. Allies of a creature with a gaze attack might be affected. All the creature's allies are considered to be averting their eyes from the creature with the gaze attack, and have a 50% chance to not need to make a saving throw against the gaze attack each round. The creature can also veil its eyes, thus negating its gaze ability.

Emphasis mine, this might be the source of some of the initial complaint. The tactics don't mention it in detail, but this (using the attack action) could be the intended tactic.

Dark Archive

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:


Well since you are in a position to give us more details:

How many players and at what level where present at the various stages of the adventure (since the final fight was only against one enemy I assumed that the GM lowered the subtier once characters died).

Did his mistakes actually result in deaths, or would those have happened anyway? Without more details it is pretty much impossible for others to judge the situation.

Did he make mistakes, yes but other than that stupid attack on the spirit animal (doesn't this work like a familiar? What was it doint in combat?), I can't find him deviating from the adventure too much, based on the information provided.
There is certainly room for improvement here.

Going down the line:

Total six players, all level 1. Shaman, Inquisitor, Brawler, Druid with animal companion, Rogue and I am uncertain the final character. At the Construct fight, all six of us. At the burning skeletons, we started with 6, ended with 5 (and missing the AC), then final encounter was the remaining 5. We were playing the low tier, since we were all level 1.

Again, to emphasize, his lack of understanding of how a gaze attack worked led to death of the party. I can understand that my character died because I made a bad tactical decision, although I still feel that more information could have been given. Even if Jeffery Fox is correct, a simple "OMG, those skeletons are on fire" would have helped and changed my tactics a bit.

The GM locked down the entire party with the gaze attack. That seems correct from the posts above. But secondary saves to escape after the fact were not allowed. I can only elaborate so much on this because, like I said, I got this information second hand from my uncle afterwards.

As a side note, people keep acting like refusing to acknowledge that constructs can be sneak attacked and critical'd is just a minor thing. The kid flat out refused to list to a rule and despite rolling a critical twice, I was never allowed to deal extra damage. The rogue was only allowed extra sneak attack damage on the last round. This isn't a minor thing. This lead to more resources that needed to be spent (druid and myself had to use extra spells, etc.) which meant we had fewer resources later on, which we should have had because he refused to learn the rules.

And what was the constructs stats? IDK, I have not read the adventure. But people who have said that he probably used the stats from a different tier. I can tell you at the very least that while power attacking, he rolled a 8 and hit an AC 18 character, meaning a creature in a tier 1 adventure has a +11 attack (+10 when power attacking)? That doesn't seem right to me.

nosig wrote:
"...leave this burden at the river grasshopper."

I already emailed the highest ranking person in our group about the situation so that they can deal with it. My character died in a legitimate, albeit annoying, way and I have to deal with that. But everyone else should have had a better chance and they didn't. That is really the only reason I stuck by it even this long.

Silver Crusade

" because he refused to learn the rules"

Stop the table right there.

Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Ottawa aka Mistwalker

Koujow wrote:

Again, to emphasize, his lack of understanding of how a gaze attack worked led to death of the party.

The GM locked down the entire party with the gaze attack. That seems correct from the posts above. But secondary saves to escape after the fact were not allowed. I can only elaborate so much on this because, like I said, I got this information second hand from my uncle afterwards.

As a side note, people keep acting like refusing to acknowledge that constructs can be sneak attacked and critical'd is just a minor thing. The kid flat out refused to list to a rule and despite rolling a critical twice, I was never allowed to deal extra damage. The rogue was only allowed extra sneak attack damage on the last round. This isn't a minor thing. This lead to more resources that needed to be spent (druid and myself had to use extra spells, etc.) which meant we had fewer resources later on, which we should have had because he refused to learn the rules.

You are changing your story a bit here. Originally you said that

Koujow wrote:
When we began to fight the construct, the GM refused to believe that Constructs could be critical'd or sneak attacked. I do not know if this is in the scenario, but when it was critical'd, he said instead of extra damage it was stunned. We had to pull out the bestiary to prove to him that constructs could indeed be crit and SA. But we got through.

To me that indicates that the GM didn't know the rule at the start of the fight, but once you showed him the rule he accepted the rule and moved forward from there using the right rule. So where is the "he refused to learn the rules" part in this? Or should that have been "he didn't know the rule"?

Koujow wrote:
And what was the constructs stats? IDK, I have not read the adventure. But people who have said that he probably used the stats from a different tier. I can tell you at the very least that while power attacking, he rolled a 8 and hit an AC 18 character, meaning a creature in a tier 1 adventure has a +11 attack (+10 when power attacking)? That doesn't seem right to me.

Spoiler:
When not entangled, the machine soldier’s statistics are Init +2; AC 18, touch 12, flat-footed 16; Ref +3; Melee mwk longsword +10 (1d8+4/19–20); Ranged mwk light crossbow +7 (1d8/19–20); Dex 15; CMB +8; CMD 20

Please note that the mwk longsword attack stats are the same in both the low tier and in the high tier - but the high tier has 2 of them.

So if the attack happened after the entangled condition was gone, it looks like the proper modifiers were used.

If the fascination was done incorrectly, then I can see a case for asking that a VO look into it. However, the OP (who was there) hasn't returned to the thread to clarify how the final fight happened, so there is no way for anyone discussing this right now (including you) to know if it was done correctly or not.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Koujow wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:


Well since you are in a position to give us more details:

How many players and at what level where present at the various stages of the adventure (since the final fight was only against one enemy I assumed that the GM lowered the subtier once characters died).

Did his mistakes actually result in deaths, or would those have happened anyway? Without more details it is pretty much impossible for others to judge the situation.

Did he make mistakes, yes but other than that stupid attack on the spirit animal (doesn't this work like a familiar? What was it doint in combat?), I can't find him deviating from the adventure too much, based on the information provided.
There is certainly room for improvement here.

Going down the line:

Total six players, all level 1. Shaman, Inquisitor, Brawler, Druid with animal companion, Rogue and I am uncertain the final character. At the Construct fight, all six of us. At the burning skeletons, we started with 6, ended with 5 (and missing the AC), then final encounter was the remaining 5. We were playing the low tier, since we were all level 1.

Again, to emphasize, his lack of understanding of how a gaze attack worked led to death of the party. I can understand that my character died because I made a bad tactical decision, although I still feel that more information could have been given. Even if Jeffery Fox is correct, a simple "OMG, those skeletons are on fire" would have helped and changed my tactics a bit.

The GM locked down the entire party with the gaze attack. That seems correct from the posts above. But secondary saves to escape after the fact were not allowed. I can only elaborate so much on this because, like I said, I got this information second hand from my uncle afterwards.

As a side note, people keep acting like refusing to acknowledge that constructs can be sneak attacked and critical'd is just a minor thing. The kid flat out refused to list to a rule and despite rolling a critical twice, I...

Tough adventure even for such a big group, and guessing from your group composition you are unlikely to have access to big weapons and power attack (which should help with the hardness).


spoiler:

But yeah, you should have been playing subtier 1-2, and at that subtier the first enemy is supposed weakened for a couple of rounds. Even without that a +10 with power attack isn't an option, however since the tactics mention that the NPC always uses power attacks, so the GM might have assumed that they were included in the damage.
So at least something went wrong in this part.

The skeletons deserve a better explanation, at least some kind of visual description like "these skeletons look like they are covered in a halo or burning lightning" most players would assume, that this is some kind of fire shield effect, but this would help. .

When I played, I was the lucky player to open the door and was charged by all 3 skeletons, suffering one or two hits and the aura damage on my turn. All I did, was stepping back and sending in my animal companion (which killed almost all of the immediately lots of natural weapons are blunt^^).
The skeletons are pretty nasty, and you might have died either way, they might have charged the group, resulting in plenty of additional damage.

You could complain about the adventure rather than the gm here.

Now the big elephant in the room; I think he understood the gaze attack, but we have some confusion when it comes to fascination.

The monster is effectively a modified
Scarecrow and the problem might come from the stat block.
It could be read, that this particular fascinate ability is not broken unless the creature attacks the particular player. And the fear attacks aren't helping.
I think the description of fascinated

Fascinated wrote:
A fascinated creature is entranced by a supernatural or spell effect. The creature stands or sits quietly, taking no actions other than to pay attention to the fascinating effect, for as long as the effect lasts. It takes a –4 penalty on skill checks made as reactions, such as Perception checks. Any potential threat, such as a hostile creature approaching, allows the fascinated creature a new saving throw against the fascinating effect. Any obvious threat, such as someone drawing a weapon, casting a spell, or aiming a ranged weapon at the fascinated creature, automatically breaks the effect. A fascinated creature's ally may shake it free of the spell as a standard action.

really clashes with:

Fascinating Gaze (Su) wrote:

Target is fascinated, 30 feet, Will DC 14 negates. Fascination lasts as long as the scarecrow remains within 300 feet of the fascinated creature. The approach or animation of the scarecrow does not count as an obvious threat to the victim of this particular fascination effect (although the scarecrow’s attack does count as an obvious threat and ends the fascination immediately). This is a mind-affecting effect. The save DC is Charisma-based.

If the GM came to the IMO wrong interpretation, that only a direct attack breaks the effect on that particular target, he did run this correctly. And yeah a DC16 Will save at level 1 is pretty hard.

Dark Archive

Mistwalker wrote:
Koujow wrote:
As a side note, people keep acting like refusing to acknowledge that constructs can be sneak attacked and critical'd is just a minor thing. The kid flat out refused to list to a rule and despite rolling a critical twice, I was never allowed to deal extra damage. The rogue was only allowed extra sneak attack damage on the last round. This isn't a minor thing. This lead to more resources that needed to be spent (druid and myself had to use extra spells, etc.) which meant we had fewer resources later on, which we should have had because he refused to learn the rules.

You are changing your story a bit here. Originally you said that

Koujow wrote:
When we began to fight the construct, the GM refused to believe that Constructs could be critical'd or sneak attacked. I do not know if this is in the scenario, but when it was critical'd, he said instead of extra damage it was stunned. We had to pull out the bestiary to prove to him that constructs could indeed be crit and SA. But we got through.

To me that indicates that the GM didn't know the rule at the start of the fight, but once you showed him the rule he accepted the rule and moved forward from there using the right rule. So where is the "he refused to learn the rules" part in this? Or should that have been "he didn't know the rule"?

I'm sorry about the confusion. To clarify, the first post was kind of a generalization. He didn't know the rule, we tried to explain, he eventually got it. The second post was a more detailed explanation. I don't want you to think I am trying to slander the guy or anything. I'm just giving the best explanation as I can remember.

Rather than bring the game to a complete stop, when I rolled my second critical and was denied damage, I said ok and looked up the rules in the book. I tried to explain them and a few rounds later, he understood. I did not stop the game because while it was annoying for my character not to get his crit or the rogue to get sneak attack, it would be 10x more annoying for the game to have to come to a complete stop so we could figure it out. Just go with the flow until something changes it.

Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Ottawa aka Mistwalker

Koujow wrote:

I'm sorry about the confusion. To clarify, the first post was kind of a generalization. He didn't know the rule, we tried to explain, he eventually got it. The second post was a more detailed explanation. I don't want you to think I am trying to slander the guy or anything. I'm just giving the best explanation as I can remember.

Rather than bring the game to a complete stop, when I rolled my second critical and was denied damage, I said ok and looked up the rules in the book. I tried to explain them and a few rounds later, he understood. I did not stop the game because while it was annoying for my character not to get his crit or the rogue to get sneak attack, it would be 10x more annoying for the game to have to come to a complete stop so we could figure it out. Just go with the flow until something changes it.

No problem from my end, but can we soften the tone a bit - it doesn't appear to be a case of he refused to learn the rule - he either didn't know it or got it wrong, but when it was pointed out, he corrected it from that point.

I don't know of a single GM that hasn't gotten something wrong, or not known something. For us older GMs, it is often a case of 3.5 rule versus the unnoticed small change in Pathfinder.

It took me a long time to realize that an immediate action uses up your next swift action. And I know several GMs that didn't realize that you can crit constructs - the entry had to be pointed out to them.

Again, could you get one of the players who where there to answer the questions about how the final fight went? This is something that the VO will also need to know to be able to determine if an error lead to a TPK and if the deaths should be reversed.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Fascinated: A fascinated creature is entranced by a supernatural or spell effect. The creature stands or sits quietly, taking no actions other than to pay attention to the fascinating effect, for as long as the effect lasts. It takes a –4 penalty on skill checks made as reactions, such as Perception checks. Any potential threat, such as a hostile creature approaching, allows the fascinated creature a new saving throw against the fascinating effect. Any obvious threat, such as someone drawing a weapon, casting a spell, or aiming a ranged weapon at the fascinated creature, automatically breaks the effect. A fascinated creature's ally may shake it free of the spell as a standard action.

Giant killer robot with a glowy screen really ought to come under one of those obvious threats

Dark Archive 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Giant killer robot with a glowy screen really ought to come under one of those obvious threats.

As has been repeatedly stated here, this particular killer robot has an explicit exception to this. It doesn't risk breaking fascination when it approaches, only when it attacks.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

I really want to get access to this scenario already so I can reference how it is supposed to run...

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas aka kinevon

Note: On the 33 points of damage:

If this was dealt from a single attack, which it doesn't sound was possible, that is one thing. If it was done as a composite of 9 or 12 separate attacks, that is a different thing entirely, and just plain something that needs to be covered with the GM.

With claw attacks, which are going to be 20/x2, doing, as someone posted 1d4+2 +1d6 fire, a critical would do only 2d4+4 + 1d6 fire, for a maximum of 12 +6 fire damage. Not good, but not instant death for most PCs, even at first level.

If it was multiple attacks that added up to 33 points of damage, which is what it sounds like, damage should be applied per attack, with the attacks, and damage application, ending when the PC goes down. Especially at low tier. "I hit you 4 times for a total of 33 points of damage." might be okay at 7th or 8th level, but not at first level. At first level, that second hit, bringing the total damage to 16 or so, would end the attacks, and likely leave the PC in the Dying state.

Overall, I think it comes down to a set of bad circumstances:
Fairly new GM
Fairly new players
Difficult to understand scenario

Any one of them, while bad, would be manageable. All together, and it is a recipe for disaster. And it sounds like there may have been some of the "When do you run a scenario cold?" situation in there, as well.

Some scenarios can be done, fairly well, cold. Mists of Mwangi, for instance, should be fairly simple to run, even cold. Some scenarios, and this sounds like one of them, need plenty of prep-work to make work right. Severing Ties, for instance, requires a lot of prep-work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kinevon wrote:
If it was multiple attacks that added up to 33 points of damage, which is what it sounds like, damage should be applied per attack, with the attacks, and damage application, ending when the PC goes down. Especially at low tier. "I hit you 4 times for a total of 33 points of damage." might be okay at 7th or 8th level, but not at first level. At first level, that second hit, bringing the total damage to 16 or so, would end the attacks, and likely leave the PC in the Dying state.

I disagree with this sentiment. In this particular run through, the meleer said he ran into the skeletons and his team got scared off by the flame aura and stayed back. Those monsters are going to butcher you as they are (likely) mindless killing machines bent on ridding the world of life itself. It's perfectly legitimate to kill a player who mindlessly charges into a pack of enemies with no backup. An intelligent enemy who can analyze the threats around him... He would likely stop after felling an enemy to focus on the rest of the threats. Mindless undead? Not so much.

That being said, the players did say they were new to the game. I would not have had the skeletons swarm a single player as they don't have the game mastery to understand that charging like that is a death sentence at level one. But, the GM is also new to GMing, he may have just been following the tactics (which apparently say to swarm a single PC).


I think the bigger question is that even if the GM were wrong to focus the one player does that mean you retcon the death? Do you undo the tpk on a later fight because they were down one? Where do you draw the line on these things? They were all level one characters, unless one of them spent 700$ for an android boon I say you have to let things go.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

GM Bold Strider wrote:
kinevon wrote:
If it was multiple attacks that added up to 33 points of damage, which is what it sounds like, damage should be applied per attack, with the attacks, and damage application, ending when the PC goes down. Especially at low tier. "I hit you 4 times for a total of 33 points of damage." might be okay at 7th or 8th level, but not at first level. At first level, that second hit, bringing the total damage to 16 or so, would end the attacks, and likely leave the PC in the Dying state.

I disagree with this sentiment. In this particular run through, the meleer said he ran into the skeletons and his team got scared off by the flame aura and stayed back. Those monsters are going to butcher you as they are (likely) mindless killing machines bent on ridding the world of life itself. It's perfectly legitimate to kill a player who mindlessly charges into a pack of enemies with no backup. An intelligent enemy who can analyze the threats around him... He would likely stop after felling an enemy to focus on the rest of the threats. Mindless undead? Not so much.

That being said, the players did say they were new to the game. I would not have had the skeletons swarm a single player as they don't have the game mastery to understand that charging like that is a death sentence at level one. But, the GM is also new to GMing, he may have just been following the tactics (which apparently say to swarm a single PC).

Not killing a a downed enemy is one thing (and their plasma aura would take care of it anyways ) but their tactics are crystal clear:

Tactics:
TACTICS
During Combat The skeletons’ simple tactics involve swarming
a single foe if possible. They stay close together so that their
plasmatic death explosions overlap if they are destroyed..

These are pretty nasty creatures for a first level party, having a tank open (and block) the door an be crucial to this fight. Charging in the room seems like a surefire way to get killed.

Not a scenario I would suggest for a group of consisting solely of level 1 characters.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Chris O'Reilly wrote:

I think the bigger question is that even if the GM were wrong to focus the one player does that mean you retcon the death? Do you undo the tpk on a later fight because they were down one? Where do you draw the line on these things? They were all level one characters, unless one of them spent 700$ for an android boon I say you have to let things go.

I think, that the GM deserves good constructive feedback, even and especially if he is indeed 12. A few pointers "focus a bit more in the descriptions", "give players an option to scout of they want to, don't just drop them into combat", "be open when a rule is in question, and a player shows you the rules, everybody makes mistakes".

As always specific beats general, and some of the problems with this scenarios might come from misunderstanding a new type of enemy, that is entirely reasonable.

Apparently that GM is already getting sort of a bad reputation, and this is the perfect time to try to correct some perceived problems.

Grand Lodge 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Koujow wrote:

I am the player that took the 33 points of damage in one round. I wanted to verify the OP's story and expand a bit so that you don't think he is just giving a kneejerk reaction to being TPK'd.

. . .

He rolled a scimitar and two claw attacks for all 4. Keep in mind, 2 of the skeletons had to move to reach me, so they wouldn't get a full attack anyways. And second, burning skeletons get a scimitar and 1 claw OR two claw attacks, not all three. He does the 33 points of damage

Everyone seems to be ignoring this part and it alone should be enough of an error to reverse at least this one death.

He should've been attacked 6 times. Not 12 times which is obviously a huge difference.

Spoiler:
edit: I'll go on to say that having played the scenario (and with all the other spoilers in the thread) that the only other issue I see is the critical vs automaton (which could have been resolved immediately but was eventually), but this one thing is definitely a huge error. And while his GM style seems lacking for the first half of the dungeon that was already encountered by others, I doubt it was actually as bad as stated.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

claudekennilol wrote:
Koujow wrote:

I am the player that took the 33 points of damage in one round. I wanted to verify the OP's story and expand a bit so that you don't think he is just giving a kneejerk reaction to being TPK'd.

. . .

He rolled a scimitar and two claw attacks for all 4. Keep in mind, 2 of the skeletons had to move to reach me, so they wouldn't get a full attack anyways. And second, burning skeletons get a scimitar and 1 claw OR two claw attacks, not all three. He does the 33 points of damage

Everyone seems to be ignoring this part and it alone should be enough of an error to reverse at least this one death.

He should've been attacked 6 times. Not 12 times which is obviously a huge difference.

** spoiler omitted **

Without knowing some more details, I can't confirm that this is exactly like it happened, as written the claw attacks are pretty unlikely to connect (-3 on the attack roll).

I am not quite sure how the surprise round went - but with RP quite likely to happen in the room the PCs are coming from, is is reasonable for the skeletons to get that surprise round. If they just moved into position, they could get a couple of attacks on the next turn. And while the 33 damage might have been too much (we don't know how many were able to flank, and the AC of the now dead character), it would most likely still sunk his HP below 0, and then the aura kills him.

Surely something went wrong, but it might not be ultimately responsible for the death (and to be fair some of those rolls might have been critical hit confirmation rolls, some GMs do roll them with the attack roll).

4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
claudekennilol wrote:

Everyone seems to be ignoring this part and it alone should be enough of an error to reverse at least this one death.

He should've been attacked 6 times. Not 12 times which is obviously a huge difference.

I'm not ignoring it, but since they're variant burning skeletons and they don't have scimitar's in their stat blocks it's hard to believe that a GM that got the end boss right would add scimitars attack that weren't in the stat block.

33 damage isn't out of the realm of possibility either for six attacks. Each hit does 1d4+2+1d6 and 1d4+1+1d6. There is also a possibility of critical hits. I also don't know if the player was using natural or unarmed weapons which would factor into damage he was dealt.

Without the GM's side, more in depth player play by play, or a some other way to get a clear picture of what happened it would be hard pressed for anyone to undo the results of that scenario.


claudekennilol wrote:


Everyone seems to be ignoring this part and it alone should be enough of an error to reverse at least this one death.

He should've been attacked 6 times. Not 12 times which is obviously a huge difference.

** spoiler omitted **

I think one of the big teachable moments here is that the GM needs to make sure the players know what's going on. The characters might be in the dark, but the players should at least know that they're facing a puzzle, or how they're being attacked, etc.

In this case, it sounds like the GM rolled a handful of dice and announced damage. That's quick, but it's lead to a lot of confusion and consternation: The player doesn't even know how many times he was attacked. The same thing happened for me the first time I tried that, even with experienced players. It took careful explanations and about two games for them to really start catching on and understanding what I was trying to do, but that teaching time was time well spent and now things flow much more smoothly because not only am I rolling everything at once, so are they.

Also, it sounds like the players didn't understand that their PCs were faced with completely alien, unknowable technology in the security level. If the GM had taken a minute to explain the Technologist feat and how technology interacts with trained-only skills, the players would probably have understood that they were facing a puzzle and their PCs had no frame of reference to understand what they were seeing. Instead, it sounds like the players got frustrated because they thought the GM was simply giving them bad descriptions.

We won't get to the bottom of the specific experiences of these players here on the boards. That needs to be a conversation between the players, the GM, and probably the event coordinator and/or the local VO. We simply can't get the whole story, much less all sides of it, through forum posts: That needs to be a face to face thing. The forums can help hash out specific rules questions that the parties involved run into, but we can't work out the general stuff.

Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Ottawa aka Mistwalker

claudekennilol wrote:
Koujow wrote:

I am the player that took the 33 points of damage in one round. I wanted to verify the OP's story and expand a bit so that you don't think he is just giving a kneejerk reaction to being TPK'd.

. . .

He rolled a scimitar and two claw attacks for all 4. Keep in mind, 2 of the skeletons had to move to reach me, so they wouldn't get a full attack anyways. And second, burning skeletons get a scimitar and 1 claw OR two claw attacks, not all three. He does the 33 points of damage

Everyone seems to be ignoring this part and it alone should be enough of an error to reverse at least this one death.

He should've been attacked 6 times. Not 12 times which is obviously a huge difference.

It hasn't been ignored. I addressed it up thread a bit.

The OP stated wrote:
he rolls a bunch of dice, does some math and says "33 damage.

Spoiler:
I am not sure that he was incorrect in the number of attacks and damage to the PC - the two that were next to him would do on average 15 points of damage if both attacks hit, so 30 points, plus another two attacks that if they hit would on average do 8 points each, so another 16 points for a total of 46 points of damage from 6 hits. Even if only the primary hand on each skeleton hit, the average would be 32 points of damage.

It is possible that you misinterpreted what was happening when he rolled damage, as the primary hand did 1d4+2 plus 1d6 damage - I suspect this because you mentioned scimitar and claw damage - but these skeletons didn't have scimitar (1d6 damage) and claws (1d4 damage) - each of the damage rolls will have a d4 and a d6.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

I agree this seems to be a combination of insufficient explanations and some questionable judgement calls. I assume the detail about the scimitars came from looking up the bestiary entry for burning skeletons.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Benn Roe wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Giant killer robot with a glowy screen really ought to come under one of those obvious threats.
As has been repeatedly stated here, this particular killer robot has an explicit exception to this. It doesn't risk breaking fascination when it approaches, only when it attacks.

And only when it attacks the fascinated character.

Dark Archive

As a fallen of this discussed TPK, I have a few clarifications/statements to make.

First, the GM was not 12. Not that his age should really even be relevant to the discussion. He is a teenager, but does not have a huge GMing experience to back him up. Neither did any one of us back when we began running.

Second, thinking back on the evening, truly, the only actual combat error (the crit on construct issue I feel has already been taken care of) that has been discussed was the beginning of the skeleton encounter. The surprise round was non-existent because these creatures grew up out of the ground once we were all in the room, so this effectively nullified anyone being caught unaware. While the initial character charging into combat is not always a great idea, none of us were aware that these were anything different than glowing skeletons forming out of dust. That is where I feel the error occurred. Lack of description. There was no aura effect to any party members until the character made a melee attack, but then it suddenly reached the entire party. Could happen, I do not know the creatures stats. Any way you look at it, full health to twice your way past absolute death in the first round of combat completely sucks. Right or Not.
(The most unfortunate part of this story, however, is that we happened to have had a first time Pathfinder at our table that night that we will likely never see again)

Third, it was this same lack of description throughout the remainder of the adventure that made it more frustrating than, what I believe was intended to be, mesmerizing, confusing and awe-inspiring. I mark that up simply to inexperience.
That will improve. As long as this "kid" is running a scenario that sounds interesting for the character I am playing, I will give him another chance, maybe two.

That being said,
and Lastly, I feel it had more to do with the scenario, by far, than with the GM. I played this one specifically to see how technology acted in the Pathfinder world, and now I have my answer. Truly, if computer screens, flashing buttons and killer robots were my desire, there are hundreds of other RPGs out there. I am a member of the Pathfinder Society. Season 6 scenarios will not be among any of my chronicle sheets.

Silver Crusade

Not all of season 6 will involve this stuff.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Andrew Christian wrote:
Benn Roe wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Giant killer robot with a glowy screen really ought to come under one of those obvious threats.
As has been repeatedly stated here, this particular killer robot has an explicit exception to this. It doesn't risk breaking fascination when it approaches, only when it attacks.
And only when it attacks the fascinated character.

I would argue that attacking my the party healer constitutes a pretty clear threat to me, especially if we are linked by a shield other.

The scarecrow entry only lists that the approach does not end the fascinated state, it does not seem to invalidate the other ways to end it.

Fascinated wrote:

A fascinated creature is entranced by a supernatural or spell effect. The creature stands or sits quietly, taking no actions other than to pay attention to the fascinating effect, for as long as the effect lasts. It takes a –4 penalty on skill checks made as reactions, such as Perception checks. Any potential threat, such as a hostile creature approaching, allows the fascinated creature a new saving throw against the fascinating effect.
Any obvious threat, such as someone drawing a weapon, casting a spell, or aiming a ranged weapon at the fascinated creature, automatically breaks the effect.
A fascinated creature's ally may shake it free of the spell as a standard action.

So at the very least, they should have gotten a new save, but I would argue it would end. Even if you remove the scarecrow from the equation, at the higher subtier, the encounter has another robot that is going to attack. This will definitely end the fascinated condition.

However the scenario writer might have a different understanding of the scarecrow ability, and thus listed the tactics in the scenario.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Nyhdarr wrote:

As a fallen of this discussed TPK, I have a few clarifications/statements to make.

First, the GM was not 12. Not that his age should really even be relevant to the discussion. He is a teenager, but does not have a huge GMing experience to back him up. Neither did any one of us back when we began running.

Second, thinking back on the evening, truly, the only actual combat error (the crit on construct issue I feel has already been taken care of) that has been discussed was the beginning of the skeleton encounter. The surprise round was non-existent because these creatures grew up out of the ground once we were all in the room, so this effectively nullified anyone being caught unaware. While the initial character charging into combat is not always a great idea, none of us were aware that these were anything different than glowing skeletons forming out of dust. That is where I feel the error occurred. Lack of description. There was no aura effect to any party members until the character made a melee attack, but then it suddenly reached the entire party. Could happen, I do not know the creatures stats. Any way you look at it, full health to twice your way past absolute death in the first round of combat completely sucks. Right or Not.
(The most unfortunate part of this story, however, is that we happened to have had a first time Pathfinder at our table that night that we will likely never see again)

Third, it was this same lack of description throughout the remainder of the adventure that made it more frustrating than, what I believe was intended to be, mesmerizing, confusing and awe-inspiring. I mark that up simply to inexperience.
That will improve. As long as this "kid" is running a scenario that sounds interesting for the character I am playing, I will give him another chance, maybe two.

That being said,
and Lastly, I feel it had more to do with the scenario, by far, than with the GM. I played this one specifically to see how technology acted in the Pathfinder world, and now I have my...

The adventure really relies on the descriptions to give it a certain alien feeling, and at worst extreme anachronism. Really not a good adventure for a first time pathfinder player, it bears repeating.

Not mentioning the aura was a mistake, since even the unmodified burning skeletons have a pretty clear description:

Spoiler:

Burning Skeletons from PFSRD wrote:

The pile of bones suddenly stirs, rising up to take on a human shape and bursts into red-orange flame. Its long, bony fingers reach out to claw at the living, burning with an unending fire.

Burning Skeleton CR 1/2
XP 200
NE Medium undead
Init +6; Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +0
Aura fiery aura (1d6)

DEFENSE
AC 16, touch 12, flat-footed 14 (+2 armor, +2 Dex, +2 natural)
hp 5 (1d8+1)
Fort +1, Ref +2, Will +2
DR 5/bludgeoning; Immune fire, undead traits
Vulnerability cold

OFFENSE
Speed 30 ft.
Melee broken scimitar +0 (1d6 plus 1d6 fire), claw –3 (1d4+1 plus 1d6 fire) or 2 claws +2 (1d4+2 plus 1d6 fire)

STATISTICS
Str 15, Dex 14, Con —, Int —, Wis 10, Cha 12
Base Atk +0; CMB +2; CMD 14
Feats Improved InitiativeB
Gear broken chain shirt, broken scimitar
SQ fiery death (DC 11)

SPECIAL ABILITIES
Fiery Aura (Ex)

Creatures adjacent to a burning skeleton take 1d6 points of fire damage at the start of their turn. Anyone striking a burning skeleton with an unarmed strike or natural attack takes 1d6 points of fire damage.

Fiery Death (Su)

A burning skeleton explodes into a burst of flame when it dies. Anyone adjacent to the skeleton when it is destroyed takes 1d6 points of fire damage. A Reflex save (DC 11) halves this damage.

However this doesn't change their damage to a significant extend, and their tactics appear to be identical. But they are definitely very dangerous to level 1 characters, with or without proper descriptions.

I am very sorry that this ruined a player for PFS, but while the GMs descriptive style is in dire need of some better examples, the scenario is actually to blame here.

And I would still argue, that the confusing description of the last creature is at fault for this TPK.

Sovereign Court

Could you include spoilers for the stat blocks? We're in the general forums, so it's a little easier for someone to accidentally stumble on this.

Scarab Sages

No guarantee the player still wouldn't charge even with burning skeletons. He's 1st level and won't have the knowledge there'd be an aura. If I attack someone with a burning sword, the flame damage only happens if the sword hits. Maybe the skeletons are the same way, unless he hits a knowledge check - any assumption is just metagaming.

Retconning should be saved for serious goofs, not a party of 1st levels where minor mistakes were made.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Benn Roe wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Giant killer robot with a glowy screen really ought to come under one of those obvious threats.
As has been repeatedly stated here, this particular killer robot has an explicit exception to this. It doesn't risk breaking fascination when it approaches, only when it attacks.
And only when it attacks the fascinated character.

I would argue that attacking my the party healer constitutes a pretty clear threat to me, especially if we are linked by a shield other.

The scarecrow entry only lists that the approach does not end the fascinated state, it does not seem to invalidate the other ways to end it.

Fascinated wrote:

A fascinated creature is entranced by a supernatural or spell effect. The creature stands or sits quietly, taking no actions other than to pay attention to the fascinating effect, for as long as the effect lasts. It takes a –4 penalty on skill checks made as reactions, such as Perception checks. Any potential threat, such as a hostile creature approaching, allows the fascinated creature a new saving throw against the fascinating effect.
Any obvious threat, such as someone drawing a weapon, casting a spell, or aiming a ranged weapon at the fascinated creature, automatically breaks the effect.
A fascinated creature's ally may shake it free of the spell as a standard action.

So at the very least, they should have gotten a new save, but I would argue it would end. Even if you remove the scarecrow from the equation, at the higher subtier, the encounter has another robot that is going to attack. This will definitely end the fascinated condition.

However the scenario writer might have a different understanding of the scarecrow ability, and thus listed the tactics in the scenario.

PRD: Scarecrow wrote:
Fascinating Gaze (Su) Target is fascinated, 30 feet, Will DC 14 negates. Fascination lasts as long as the scarecrow remains within 300 feet of the fascinated creature. The approach or animation of the scarecrow does not count as an obvious threat to the victim of this particular fascination effect (although the scarecrow's attack does count as an obvious threat and ends the fascination immediately). This is a mind-affecting effect. The save DC is Charisma-based.

I can see it interpreted either way. Basically the scarecrow fascinates you until it attacks you.

This specifically has slight differences in how it works to the standard way fascinate works.

4/5

Final Fight:
Also note that while the Scarecrow's ability won't break the fascinate, nothing says that the other robot won't give them new saves against the fascinate if it approaches towards the fascinated creatures. This is a fantastic way of breaking people out of fascinate the fight is going poorly (simply reposition the robot to more directly intercede against direct threats to the scarecrow, per tactics)

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Acedio wrote:
Could you include spoilers for the stat blocks? We're in the general forums, so it's a little easier for someone to accidentally stumble on this.

Sorry I though it was established already, I will try to use proper spoilers in future.

Winks Blastum wrote:

No guarantee the player still wouldn't charge even with burning skeletons. He's 1st level and won't have the knowledge there'd be an aura. If I attack someone with a burning sword, the flame damage only happens if the sword hits. Maybe the skeletons are the same way, unless he hits a knowledge check - any assumption is just metagaming.

Retconning should be saved for serious goofs, not a party of 1st levels where minor mistakes were made.

Possible, but IIRC a Knowledge Religion roll was mentioned, in any case their aura should have been quite impressive, since even standing near them causes damage.

Not that it matters all that much, that particular combat only killed 1 player who would have died either way.

Andrew Christian wrote:


PRD: Scarecrow wrote:
Fascinating Gaze (Su) Target is fascinated, 30 feet, Will DC 14 negates. Fascination lasts as long as the scarecrow

...

I can see it interpreted either way. Basically the scarecrow fascinates you until it attacks you.

This specifically has slight differences in how it works to the standard way fascinate works.

spoiler:
Yeah, I think this interpretation makes this monster way tougher than reasonable, since the gaze attacks stays present throughout the fight, so even if you break free, it might not last long.

However the presence of another enemy should warrant at least a save, but of course if the GM comes to the conclusion that the scarecrow is so good... It just seems unreasonable for the lower subtier, especially - depending on your interpretation - the presence of the other robot in the higher tier, actually makes it easier.

I just checked if the second installment of Kingmaker has some more tactics about the creature (it comes form the Tome of Horrors oh what surprise), but no luck there.
And I could not find any other answer on the paizo boards either.
So.... expect table variation ?^^

David_Bross wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Yes, but that would frankly make the higher subtier encounter easier, which seems at the very least unintended.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Winks Blastum wrote:

No guarantee the player still wouldn't charge even with burning skeletons. He's 1st level and won't have the knowledge there'd be an aura. If I attack someone with a burning sword, the flame damage only happens if the sword hits. Maybe the skeletons are the same way, unless he hits a knowledge check - any assumption is just metagaming.

Retconning should be saved for serious goofs, not a party of 1st levels where minor mistakes were made.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have read on here in a very long time. The idea that it is metagaming to think "oh look, that skeleton is surrounded by flames, standing next to it may mean I get burned" is ridculous. Making a rational decision based on observed events in the game does not equate to metagaming.

Most of us learn that fire is hot at a very young age.

5/5 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Slight tangent:

I've noticed that when someone comes to the forums to discuss a game gone wrong, it's very common to describe what the GM/other player did as accidentally cheating or "cheating" with quotes. Are the phrases "made a mistake" and "made an error" really so esoteric?

Liberty's Edge

Andrew Christian wrote:


PRD: Scarecrow wrote:

Fascinating Gaze (Su) Target is fascinated, 30 feet, Will DC 14 negates. Fascination lasts as long as the scarecrow remains within 300 feet of the fascinated creature. The approach or animation of the scarecrow does not count as an obvious threat to the victim of this particular fascination effect (although the scarecrow's attack does count as an obvious threat and ends the fascination immediately). This is a mind-affecting effect. The save DC is Charisma-based.

I can see it interpreted either way. Basically the scarecrow fascinates you until it attacks you.

This specifically has slight differences in how it works to the standard way fascinate works.

.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you, Andrew. Nothing in that suggests that the creature has to attack the fascinated individual for it to count. Simply that the creature needs to attack for the fascinate to be broken.

Just the way I see it.

51 to 97 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / I think my GM unintentionally "cheated" and TPKed, what do I do? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society