|
Hello paizonians,
It has been quite a while from the last time that I made any topic, but recently, I got shot with a blunt bullet right into my forehead for using „intelligent NPC guerilla tactics“ against the party. Although I was quite insulted for being told that the tactics were „abusive“ from my side, it nevertheless forced me to question the legality of those tactics and if I made something wrong in it so here comes a short summary of the last two fights. Please don't refrain from criticizing both me and the players, but keep it civil:
So long story short, here is the several questions that trouble me:
Did I really, but really abuse tactics against players? In my mind, they made a terrible mistake of rushing into melee, in the 1st fight, by closing in over 200 feet of distance and leaving 2 party members isolated (one almost died though).
Is withdraw + stealth legit tactic in heavily overgrown terrain where finding cover or concealment is easy. In fact, characters benefited from partial cover and 20% concealment during entire 1st fight to represent the terrain itself without drawing every tree or rock.
What could I have done better during both of these fights?
How can enemy escape in this forest type terrain if withdraw + stealth isn't legit tactic. It simply seems unfair if they have 0% of actually managing to escape and when I say this, I say it in spirit of low level play. I have no objections if characters manage to track them down on higher levels through skills or spells, but at least small degree of realism must exist.
I am aware that summaries might be a bit long, but I appreciate any responses, insight and reading over the topic.
Adam
|
The tactics don´t seem too bad to me. Looks like the players failed to adapt to the encounter. Did you by chance remind them that there are terrain to hide behind, running away and regrouping, or that throwing themselves prone on the floor are viable options? Players tend to forget their options when they're used to/ built for different types of encounters.
IMHO you did nothing "abusive". Next time use poisoned arrows and traps here and there. Those players need to know that not every encounter is a straightforward face to face melee fight. And that not all enemies are retarded and will sit and wait to be killed. And that sometimes they need to use their head if they want to survive encounter.
There would be a problem only if those "bad guys" had really low mental stats... Then that would have been dirty fighting from GM side.
Otherwise do everything that is in you best ability to make them feel that their characters can die and will die if they are stupid.
|
|
The tactics don´t seem too bad to me. Looks like the players failed to adapt to the encounter. Did you by chance remind them that there are terrain to hide behind, running away and regrouping, or that throwing themselves prone on the floor are viable options? Players tend to forget their options when they're used to/ built for different types of encounters.
There was little to remind them of such. Their AC was skyrocket high due to constant partial cover and buffs. I did mention it that searching for better Cover was easily accessable option and one of the players used dropping prone tactic in order to gain higher AC. Problem was when half of party started to rush to the forest while leaving two of them behind.
|
|
That was a mistake on the player's part then, it happens. When the left-behind player dropped they probably realized this mistake and became frustrated. People rarely blame themselves though, so it was directed outwards towards you and the tactics used.
If they're about to do something like that again just ask them, "are you sure you want to do that?" This will make them second guess what they´re going to do and at the same time wash your hands of their decisions (they wont blame you for the consequence).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't Withdraw a full-round action? They wouldn't be able to Withdraw and enter Stealth in the same round.
Your tactics otherwise seem fine.
It never hurts to ask your players: "What could I have done differently?" (not "better" but "differently") I am still trying to learn this, but the game is a cooperative game with players and the GM. If they're not having fun, it doesn't matter how reasonable, realistic, smart, etc., your tactics are, the players won't want to play. Asking for their ideas helps, and keeps them involved. IMHO.
The first question I would like to ask is what the team composition is for your players. Party composition can be a pretty important factor when it comes to planning encounters, and if your party does not have easy access to high perception than the tactic may be a tad annoying to the players, hence their reactions.
Secondly, remember that while your mercenaries can withdraw from the party and stealth, " If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth." If we take that statement as listed above, they would need to get out of sight of your party before being able to stealth, even in a withdraw move. If they are not out of sight of the party at the end of the withdraw, then they cannot stealth. As for the party making perception "Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action." In this case, I believe for fairness the party should make a perception check at the end of the enemies withdraw and stealth to keep sight of them, as they are looking for an opponent that is trying to go into stealth. If they fail, then the party would make a move action perception from that point forward in order to look for a stealthed opponent
As for solutions to this issue, or how the party has seen this issue, if any of the party had glitterdust this would have been a non issue. Some other things the party could have done would be to cover the enemies in a substance that either gave off light, harsh smell, or something easily identifiable if they really could not make perception. As I do not know the composition of the party that is just a small list of thing they could try to do.
Players are not usually used to fighting opponents that actually use tactics, so if this is the first time that they were given a glimpse of what some creatures can do if they fought intelligently, ease them more into it so they start thinking of it was well.
|
|
@TheTheos
That's kind of what I had in mind. Not every fight can be won face to face. One of the players is also fairly problematic in that aspect. The bad guys also didn't have low intelligence. In fact, they were way above average.
@kestral287
From what I managed to scavenge from paizo topics, it's possible to withdraw + stealth at -5, but the NPC would have to move 5 feet less (at the very least) then his normal speed. NPC with speed of 30 ft. could withdraw + stealth at -5 with 50 ft. speed per round (by wasting a double move action). This was also a minor mistake on my part, but it wouldn't influence the fight I believe.
I will also leave Perception checks to not require actions but simply scale the DC with distance. It would seem fair.
|
Well, in both cases in order for the NPCs to have a chance of using stealth they need to have concealment. From the description you gave they had that. However, wouldn't the terrain they're going through also be difficult in order to provide this concealment? If the PCs started in the open, and advanced into the same terrain, they should catch the ambushers in melee rather quickly.
The ambushers are only moving every other round and at half speed. The PCs are moving at least partly freely the first round (having been caught in open terrain) and then enter the same terrain. But they move every round.
Also, as you noted, Perception isn't a move action. That alone is probably what made the situation feel hopeless for the players.
But beyond this, did the players have a description of the area they were moving into prior to being ambushed? Did they have an opportunity to see the ambushers? Also, how did the ambushers catch the PCs by surprise the second time? Were the PCs camping without a watch? Were they being obvious? Was there no way to see that others were coming, or hear? The main thing to keep in mind is that the players, and the PCs, only know what you tell them. I've found that a lot of times when a GM believes their players are making a poor decision it's very often because those players aren't think of the game world in the same way as the GM. This isn't anyone's fault really. Players need to put in some work getting on your page too.
Your withdraw and stealth tactic by itself is fine. I expect that there were a lot of other factors that led to the players feelings of frustration in this though.
Yeah only withdraw + stealth is even questionable. Even then, withdraw wasn't even necessary. It's a full round action to move double your speed and not count as threatened by melee attacks moving from your first square. Most of the time, the enemy wasn't even threatened in melee. The could have simply used two move actions to move and use stealth. The way stealth is written, the penalty doesn't increase and you're not running. You're merely hustling (double move action).
You certainly shouldn't have made looking for the enemy a move action though, they should have been able to spot them as they moved and got a free perception check. They could have used a move to get an additional check to find them though.
Your players just used exceedingly poor tactics and made incredibly bad decisions.
When set upon by archers and know there are lots of difficult terrain and things that provide cover and concealment the players should have gotten off their horses and hidden. If they had ranged weapons (and they should even if they're not great with them) they should attempt to fire back at them. It's a terrible idea to think the answer to all situations is to ride up to the enemy's face and smack them. And that really seems like your player's complaint, that your intelligent tactic invalidated their single tactic.
|
|
@Icy Turbo
Here is a short description of party. All of them are spellcasters which actually gives them a lot of resources and firepower: oracle of flames lv4, magus lv4, arcanist lv4, druid (melee) lv4, shaman lv4. Players have additional feat to choose, but they cannot choose any traits. They get 1x trait of GM's choice after creation. 20 pts buy regular characters. They also have additional supernatural powers given to them by me due to specific campaign story. These powers are free but minor at the moment.
Free Perception check followed by move action Perception check if first is unsuccessful seems like a very good suggestion. Concealment and Cover was everywhere in entire forest. At the distance of 60-120 feet, I simply assumed that enemies were far enough to be out of sight, hence the withdraw + stealth tactics were immediately usable. AoE spells would have been ineffective though. Most NPCs were 60 ft. apart.
@aptinuviel
The ambushers aimed to catch PCs in this specific spot. Entire terrain was difficult and forest was overgrown (also difficult terrain). With enemies withdrawing at a speed of 60 ft. (should have been 50 ft probably though) and a potion of feather step spell active, they simply couldn't be catched. Maybe I made it too hard here in this case.
"But beyond this, did the players have a description of the area they were moving into prior to being ambushed? Did they have an opportunity to see the ambushers? Also, how did the ambushers catch the PCs by surprise the second time? Were the PCs camping without a watch? Were they being obvious? Was there no way to see that others were coming, or hear?"
They had crude description of area. Small valley surrounded by trees in this case. They had the opportunity to notice them, but didn't manage the Perception checks in ambush round. Ambushers caught them by surprise 2nd time by moving stealthily through bushes and trees. There was little else to say. Party had watch, but again, they failed on Perception checks in surprise round.
@other posters
From what I see, most agree that it was tactically challenging fight so I will have chat again with players about it. The world is sandboxy however, and they should get used eventually to guerilla warfare. I am just not sure how to teach them because all they ever know is to smack enemy in the face. I also play every enemy appropriately, so mindless zombie will be mindless, unskilled reckless NPCs will be reckless and die, skilled mages won't be eager to fight, etc. NPCs often run and retreat when things have gone out of control. Overall, players are happy with campaign, but this last encounter left them bitter and what's worse, they will continue to get ambushed unless they leave the area or enter into the tower they were supposed to. This is probably one of most merciless decisions that mercenaries will do. Their lives are at stake, but they aren't aware of it enough.
Sounds reasonable. Scale up the danger, but get them used to such "hit & run" tactics and hopefully they'll devise tactics to cope.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well the first fight was an apl 4 party fighting a cr 9 encounter (you forgot that "unfavorable terrain for the pcs," is listed as a +1CR modifier to the encounter). That is +5 over the party's level. According to the gamemastering section on encounter design apl+3 is an epic fight. This fight was 2 higher than that. The CR system is far from perfect, but this is supposedly as challenging as making them fight a frost giant. At level 4. So... yeah, not surprising your players would complain about that.
As for the rest of it, sounds to me like it had nothing to do with breaking any rules. You could have broken a lot of rules or none and they would still be mad at you. Your players were frustrated because you kept throwing annoying tactics at them. I'm guessing you'd been playing for several hours of this, your players were getting increasingly irritated and they finally got fed up with it. If you want your players to have fun, sometimes you need to let them win.
If, in between these two encounters, the players got to do something satisfying then the argument probably never would have happened. It's not always about the game, the rules, or what the npcs would logically do irl. Sometimes it just needs to be about you and your friends and having fun.
|
Their lives are at stake, but they aren't aware of it enough.
It sounds like your PCs need a hint. Did neither of the two defeated mercenaries have paper orders/letters of intent on their persons? Did neither of the two that ran away drop such a paper in their hasty and unexpected retreat?
i.e. specifically revealing that the PCs are to be hounded until they enter the tower or something more in-character than that
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did I really, but really abuse tactics
Ow, ow, ow, ow, oowwww~!
Heeeeyyyyy~! Stop it! That hurts, man!
|
|
Well the first fight was an apl 4 party fighting a cr 9 encounter (you forgot that "unfavorable terrain for the pcs," is listed as a +1CR modifier to the encounter). That is +5 over the party's level. According to the gamemastering section on encounter design apl+3 is an epic fight. This fight was 2 higher than that. The CR system is far from perfect, but this is supposedly as challenging as making them fight a frost giant. At level 4. So... yeah, not surprising your players would complain about that.
As for the rest of it, sounds to me like it had nothing to do with breaking any rules. You could have broken a lot of rules or none and they would still be mad at you. Your players were frustrated because you kept throwing annoying tactics at them. I'm guessing you'd been playing for several hours of this, your players were getting increasingly irritated and they finally got fed up with it. If you want your players to have fun, sometimes you need to let them win.
If, in between these two encounters, the players got to do something satisfying then the argument probably never would have happened. It's not always about the game, the rules, or what the npcs would logically do irl. Sometimes it just needs to be about you and your friends and having fun.
Unfavorable terrain doesn't exactly bump CR. 8x CR 2 creatures is CR 8 encounter also, so overall, it was APL +4 at the very best, but this is why I mentioned that NPCs followed a specific tactics so the PCs would not feel overwhelmed by them. 1st round, they simply howled to demoralize them; 2nd round, two arrows are shot; 3rd round three arrows are shot; 4-7th four arrows per round; 8th full retreat or finish the PCs if they are low hp. So overall, again, at the top best it's CR 8, but due to tactics, it's fallen on CR 6-7 fight.
Besides this fight, players had plenty of heroic attempts and fights. I am not a GM that will make them miserable 24/7. I'v learned this experience on my own personal skin and it's not pleasant to play that kind of gritty game.
|
@gnoams while the terrain would give a +1 CR bump, the ambushers were not all attacking every round, so their tactics actually would reduce the CR. Calling it a wash seems fine, though with only half the possible attacks going off on any given round, I would probably drop it by 2. There is no hard and fast rule for that though (that is the effect of withholding attacks on CR).
Abusive would have been having the ambushers all hold action to fire once a PC starting casting a spell (since they all started to buff up at the start of the combat, basically identifying themselves as casters).
|
|
I'm curious: did they get exp for surviving that encounter?
No, we aren't using XP. I am rewarding players with Story Points (which players use to improve their unique abilities) and occasionally Hero Points. For this specific fight, they do not receive any. They usually get them by doing good deads, finishing quests and such.
|
|
It sounds like your PCs need a hint. Did neither of the two defeated mercenaries have paper orders/letters of intent on their persons? Did neither of the two that ran away drop such a paper in their hasty and unexpected retreat?i.e. specifically revealing that the PCs are to be hounded until they enter the tower or something more in-character than that
Oh man, that just helped a ton to provide a hint. Paper orders and letters. Why didn't I think of it. Thx a lot!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello paizonians,
It has been quite a while from the last time that I made any topic, but recently, I got shot with a blunt bullet right into my forehead for using „intelligent NPC guerilla tactics“ against the party. Although I was quite insulted for being told that the tactics were „abusive“ from my side, it nevertheless forced me to question the legality of those tactics and if I made something wrong in it so here comes a short summary of the last two fights. Please don't refrain from criticizing both me and the players, but keep it civil:
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **...
Your tactics were not bad, but some rules may not have been applied correctly.
The players get a reactive(free) perception check to notice hiding enemies.Some people think they get another check when the ambush begins, but that is up for debate.
Someone attacking also gives their position away unless they used the sniping rules which apply a heavy penalty. This matters because once they attack they are observed, and you can not restealth while you are observed. Sniping gets around that.
For the 2nd fight they also should have gotten the perception check since this was a new combat.
I do agree that leaving people behind is a bad idea. One of the things that most people know is that you do not split the party.
I am going to assume you mean withdraw as in "move away", not the game term. The game is definitely not legal, but neither is moving away, and making a stealth check for reasons already mentioned.
It is possible, just not easy to do this. Stealth is hard in Pathfinder.
I wonder if you're using the term "withdraw" correctly?
In the English language, it just means "to leave". If you're using it that way, then that's fine, except it makes us all confuse the English word with the game term. You probably should just say they were running away with stealth, or retreating with stealth, or just moving with stealth as they tried to get away.
But if you're using the game term, and the bad guys were actually taking the "Withdraw Action", then you might have misunderstood the rule. You seem to have archers, out of reach of the PCs, using a withdraw action when they did not need to; they could have just moved.
Not that this is a big deal, but either way (confusing us with your word choice or misusing a Pathfinder rule), I thought you might want to know.
From what I managed to scavenge from paizo topics, it's possible to withdraw + stealth at -5, but the NPC would have to move 5 feet less (at the very least) then his normal speed. NPC with speed of 30 ft. could withdraw + stealth at -5 with 50 ft. speed per round (by wasting a double move action). This was also a minor mistake on my part, but it wouldn't influence the fight I believe.
Where did you get that rule?
You don't have to give up any of your move when you use stealth. A character with a speed of 30' who is stealthily withdrawing can move 60'. Of course, as you noted, he will take the -5 penalty on the Stealth check for not moving at half speed - but nowhere does it say that his movement rate is reduced or that he moves less distance.
I will also leave Perception checks to not require actions but simply scale the DC with distance. It would seem fair.
This is correct. Perception check is reactive to the other guy making a Stealth check (which also doesn't require an action - surely spotting a stealthy guy requires no more effort than actually being stealthy does).
|
|
@wraithstrike
The enemies used sniping rules, but due to keeping large distance (~100 ft.) and +13 on Stealth checks, they had positive chance at succeeding in it. In two initial rounds when arrows were fired, players simply rolled ~10 or less on Perception checks. You are however right that I handled them incorrectly later on.
@wraithstrike & DM Blake
When I used the word withdraw, I meant on mechanical action of withdrawing by not provoking AoO from an opponent. When opponent withdraws, he basically "moves", so I couldn't find anything in rules that would stop the person from using Stealth in the process ifthe conditions were met for person to be able to do so. It seemed logical to me because otherwise I couldn't comprehend how would any NPC in Pathfinder be able to escape. The most accurate way of simulating this could be done via chase mechanics, but it's simply too much work for single encounter.
I know that this topic is in advice section, but I would also love to clarify if Withdraw action + Stealth is possible in Pathfinder. I am currently certain that it is, but I haven't bothered to check every rule text or topic yet.
Yes you can withdraw(rules definition) and stealth, but not in the same round that you attack.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't have to give up any of your move when you use stealth.
Actually the -5 penalty is stated for "greater than half but less than your normal speed." So it would apply to a character with a 30' move who was moving at either 20 or 25, but not 15 or 30.
I tend to think this is misstated, and personally consider it to apply to greater than half but lest than or equal to your normal speed, but that is what the rule says.
In response to the original topic, I do think that enemies that run away and hide and use cover tends to make for very long, very slow, very frustrating encounters. They aren't unfair exactly, but they can be un-fun, especially when overused. One thing I can promise you is that players HATE bad guys getting away.
Also, I'm not sure that just because the bad guys each only fire every other turn the encounter is any easier, especially if they are using the non-firing turns to keep the distance open. You still have to kill just as many, and they will still each do as much damage, just over a longer period of time.
The PC's probably should have withdrawn(dictionary definition) also instead of allowing themselves to be kited.
At level 4 that is not an easy tactic to deal with, but depending on the classes I do think it can be dealt with.
At level 5 someone may have had fireball. I am not saying they should have waited until level 5. I am just pointing out how much easier it is to deal with one level later.
|
|
Yes you can withdraw(rules definition) and stealth, but not in the same round that you attack.
They never did attack. While characters chased two targets who were constantly withdrawing, two other archers sniped them down. So attacking while withdrawing never really happened. They had advantage in numbers.
|
|
In response to the original topic, I do think that enemies that run away and hide and use cover tends to make for very long, very slow, very frustrating encounters. They aren't unfair exactly, but they can be un-fun, especially when overused. One thing I can promise you is that players HATE bad guys getting away.
I am aware it might be un-fun, but I simply felt that PCs have to experience it and boil up the hate against them so later, when they reach final encounter, feel the satisfaction of complete victory over them. Encounter was moderately hard in the end. If PCs stayed on spot and used ranged weapons, they would pass unscathed. Also, if 4 or more mercenaries received 50% hp injury, they retreat from combat, so the less of them are, the less harder it is.
Withdraw and stealth is rules legal, but certainly abusive because there is no practical counter. There are some high level spells that can simulate the effects of Agent Orange and high level parties might have aerial recon, but outside that this is the sort of tactic that armies and gendarmeries have trouble countering.
Using guerrilla tactics when you outnumber the players is abusive to a degree that cannot be described remotely adequately without tripping the profanity filter. Save it for a kingdom building game when the players have enough armies to actually respond with counter-insurgency tactics.
Abusive? To the point you cannot describe it without profanity?
I was looking for the "/sarcasm" quote at the end of your post but there isn't one; was your post serious?
It is NOT "abusive" to challenge players with an encounter. It is NOT "abusive" to have monsters and NPCs care about their lives and try to run away instead of always fighting to ridiculous deaths. It is NOT "abusive" to have enemies use the rules, the basic, core, simplest rules of running and hiding.
Nothing, NOTHING about what happened here was "abusive". Not even close. Calling it "abusive" just about triggers my own profanity filter...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes you can withdraw(rules definition) and stealth, but not in the same round that you attack.They never did attack. While characters chased two targets who were constantly withdrawing, two other archers sniped them down. So attacking while withdrawing never really happened. They had advantage in numbers.
I was just answering the rules question I thought you were asking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Withdraw and stealth is rules legal, but certainly abusive because there is no practical counter. There are some high level spells that can simulate the effects of Agent Orange and high level parties might have aerial recon, but outside that this is the sort of tactic that armies and gendarmeries have trouble countering.
Using guerrilla tactics when you outnumber the players is abusive to a degree that cannot be described remotely adequately without tripping the profanity filter. Save it for a kingdom building game when the players have enough armies to actually respond with counter-insurgency tactics.
Abusive? To the point you cannot describe it without profanity?
I was looking for the "/sarcasm" quote at the end of your post but there isn't one; was your post serious?
It is NOT "abusive" to challenge players with an encounter. It is NOT "abusive" to have monsters and NPCs care about their lives and try to run away instead of always fighting to ridiculous deaths. It is NOT "abusive" to have enemies use the rules, the basic, core, simplest rules of running and hiding.
Nothing, NOTHING about what happened here was "abusive". Not even close. Calling it "abusive" just about triggers my own profanity filter...
I agree. I think it is a valid tactic, even if it is annoying to the PC or player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am aware it might be un-fun, but I simply felt that PCs have to experience it and boil up the hate against them so later, when they reach final encounter, feel the satisfaction of complete victory over them. Encounter was moderately hard in the end. If PCs stayed on spot and used ranged weapons, they would pass unscathed. Also, if 4 or more mercenaries received 50% hp injury, they retreat from combat, so the less of them are, the less harder it is.
In response to the original topic, I do think that enemies that run away and hide and use cover tends to make for very long, very slow, very frustrating encounters. They aren't unfair exactly, but they can be un-fun, especially when overused. One thing I can promise you is that players HATE bad guys getting away.
I don't disagree, except I will point out that a little of this goes along way. Two encounters with the same feel in a row...I can see the annoyance.
Most players primarily enjoy straight up fighting and dishing out the damage. Variation is good, but it should be variation from the baseline of straight up fights, not moving the baseline somewhere else.
Partially this is simply what players enjoy, but it is also where the system is strongest while things like stealth, and extremely mobile fights are where it is weaker. So not only are you dealing with a general tactic that Players dislike, you are doing it with a system that isn't as good. Once again, use sparingly, to add variety, but don't make it the focus.
You don't have to give up any of your move when you use stealth.Actually the -5 penalty is stated for "greater than half but less than your normal speed." So it would apply to a character with a 30' move who was moving at either 20 or 25, but not 15 or 30.
I tend to think this is misstated, and personally consider it to apply to greater than half but lest than or equal to your normal speed, but that is what the rule says.
So, wait...
You're suggesting that there is no penalty for using Stealth at your normal speed? You apply the -5 penalty for a character moving 20 or 25 but you apply no penalty at 15 and 30?
Really? Or are you just assuming the guy can't move 30'?
The CRB and SRD list 30' as a "walk" for a character with a speed of 30. See this SRD page. And it defines the same character making a double-move to move 60' as a "hustle".
Stealth says:
It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.
That says nothing about walking or hustling.
Yes, I get your point, if you parse the English about "greater than half but less than your normal speed" AND infer that this sentence prohibits moving faster, then I guess you might have a point.
But if you think about it, the Stealth rule itself CLEARLY says what you cannot do: you cannot use Stealth while running. That is clear. No parsing needed. And moving at a walk or a hustle is not running. So interpreting it your way requires parsing and inference. And if you do that, you create a conflict in the Stealth rules: you can and you cannot use stealth at a walk.
Worse, it's a rules conflict in the same paragraph. It's not like you found two paragraphs in two different chapters that are out of sync. It's more like you found two sentences in the same paragraph and then deliberately word-smithed them to be out of sync.
Why go through all the trouble to grammar-police the rule just to create a conflict when there is a simpler solution: RAI. Clearly, the author meant to say what you suggest is a house rule, that the rule should say "less than or equal to...". It's painfully obvious that it should say that. It's the only way to NOT get a rules conflict.
Clearly, you can move your speed and use stealth. No reduction in speed.
I'm chalking this down mainly to bad player attitude. "How dare the GM make things tough for us by using tactics!" I understand how frustrating it can be to fight an enemy who won't stand there and let you pound on him. But not all enemies should be that dumb then they don't have to be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think it might have been a bit much to use that same tactic multiple times in one session. I would've given them some time to think over that encounter and figure out how to handle those sorts of tactics in the future before springing it on them again. That way, ideally, they have time to figure out a solution, think tactically, and can enjoy beating a trick that worked on them last time.
So, wait...You're suggesting that there is no penalty for using Stealth at your normal speed? You apply the -5 penalty for a character moving 20 or 25 but you apply no penalty at 15 and 30?
The -5 applies to those speeds. At 15 (or less) there is no penalty. At exactly your speed it isn't explicitly stated that you can't but the structure of the rules paragraph makes it plausible that you can't use stealth unless you are moving at less than your full speed, with either a -5 or no penalty to the roll depending on how much less.
The stealth rules say, in this order: 1/2 or less no penalty, greater than half but less than full -5 penalty, and that you can't use stealth while running, attacking or charging (regardless of how fast/far you move).
It is a totally consistent to read that as not allowing stealth at full movement. I think that would be kind of a weird rule, and I doubt it was intentional (hence my houserule) however it is perfectly clearly stated and that is what is written. No weird parsing needed. Less than your normal speed clearly isn't the same thing as your normal speed.
I think the APL of the first encounter would be higher. Yes, you reduced the number of attacks that happened in a single round. You also split the enemy so that there was little way to deal with both groups. I also wonder how the two groups coordinated when to start the attack.
Does anyone in your group have ranged weapons?
On the second encounter, were people in their normal armor or did you catch someone out of armor because they were asleep while someone else was on watch? Ghouls have dark vision. If some of the party have low-light they could see the ghouls before the ghouls could see them (at greater than 60') assuming a moon-lit night and no lights showing in camp. If some of the party are human, that miss chance from darkness can really hurt.
I would suggest you give them an encounter against a stupid opponent soon. Show them that not every creature out there uses ideal tactics.
What a wonderfully idea! Yes, I'll be using this. Maybe some jungle half-elf tribe doesn't like intruders...
|
|
I agree with gnoams, Dave Justus, and Chengar Qordath. This isn't abusive, but guerrilla tactics can be frustrating. Heck, they're designed to be frustrating in order to cause the enemy to make mistakes or give up. Such encounters are best used sparingly or they'll get in the way of the group's fun.
Having two such encounters in the same session was overdoing it.
As for what next, dropped papers are a good way to clue players in to what to expect. Then have a chat with them. I'd explain what you were trying to do, apologize for taking it too far, and indicate that you have faith in their ability to overcome this challenge, especially if they change up their own tactics. Remind the druid and shaman in particular that they have access to their entire spell lists, which include good spells for detecting or setting ambushes. The druid may also want to consider wild shape forms that have benefits other than just raw combat power, and everyone should consider mundane actions such as concealing or fortifying their campsite.
|
|
I do think it might have been a bit much to use that same tactic multiple times in one session. I would've given them some time to think over that encounter and figure out how to handle those sorts of tactics in the future before springing it on them again. That way, ideally, they have time to figure out a solution, think tactically, and can enjoy beating a trick that worked on them last time.
Well, it was only 1 encounter of such type. 2nd encounter was resolved under normal conditions. Mercenaries rushed into melee. A fairly regular combat encounter overall, but two managed to escape via already mentioned Stealth tactics.
|
|
Does anyone in your group have ranged weapons?On the second encounter, were people in their normal armor or did you catch someone out of armor because they were asleep while someone else was on watch? Ghouls have dark vision. If some of the party have low-light they could see the ghouls before the ghouls could see them (at greater than 60') assuming a moon-lit night and no lights showing in camp. If some of the party are human, that miss chance from darkness can really hurt.
I would suggest you give them an encounter against a stupid opponent soon. Show them that not every creature out there uses ideal tactics.
They had ranged weapons but didn't really use them. They always prefer to go melee.
All party members are special snowflakes with darkvision really and they had special spell which enables them to sleep with armor on while being awake. I am still unsure if I like the spell because it's too good for level 2 spell, but in either case, they fought fully armed. Lightning conditions weren't a problem.
|
|
I agree with gnoams, Dave Justus, and Chengar Qordath. This isn't abusive, but guerrilla tactics can be frustrating. Heck, they're designed to be frustrating in order to cause the enemy to make mistakes or give up. Such encounters are best used sparingly or they'll get in the way of the group's fun.
Having two such encounters in the same session was overdoing it.
As for what next, dropped papers are a good way to clue players in to what to expect. Then have a chat with them. I'd explain what you were trying to do, apologize for taking it too far, and indicate that you have faith in their ability to overcome this challenge, especially if they change up their own tactics. Remind the druid and shaman in particular that they have access to their entire spell lists, which include good spells for detecting or setting ambushes. The druid may also want to consider wild shape forms that have benefits other than just raw combat power, and everyone should consider mundane actions such as concealing or fortifying their campsite.
There was but one such strained encounter over long terrain distance. 2nd encounter was resolved normally per PF rules. Perhaps I didn't clarify it enough in my first post. My apologies.
Your suggestion is what I had in mind. I'll suggest several helpful spells and ideas. It's not the first time they will encounter someone ambushing them.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Withdraw + Stealth is an absolutely valid tactic. Stealth is part movement. Not it's own separate action.
Withdraw is movement.
There are penalties, but it's doable.
It even makes sense thematically, carefully withdrawing from battle, to an obscured location.
Do not let anyone here tell you otherwise!