Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rerednaw 06-13-07, 04:40 PM	I don't get this why is it necessary to have very high skill checks at low APLs? More recently I've encountered (3 different mods, regional, meta-regional and 1 core I think): APL2 Survival DC40 APL2 Diplomacy DC40 APL2 Search DC40 APL2 Knowledge (forget which one) DC40 And there are others. I don't get it. For the most part, these weren't 'optional' checks, these were 'succeed or fail the mod' checks. Thoughts?
kenobi65 06-13-07, 04:54 PM	Boy, that's kinda nutty. I know that some diplo-monkey builds can get very high modifiers at low levels, due to synergy bonuses, etc., but a DC 40 requires a +30 modifier to be successful even half of the time, and I just can't see how any 1st-3rd level PC is going to be able to come anywhere close to that.
Howie23 06-13-07, 05:19 PM	And there are others. I don't get it. For the most part, these weren't 'optional' checks, these were 'succeed or fail the mod' checks. Thoughts? So you failed the mod? David
King Kashue 06-13-07, 05:20 PM	Boy, that's kinda nutty. I know that some diplo-monkey builds can get very high modifiers at low levels, due to synergy bonuses, etc., but a DC 40 requires a +30 modifier to be successful even half of the time, and I just can't see how any 1st-3rd level PC is going to be able to come anywhere close to that. It can actually be done for diplomacy, but not the others (as far as I know). A 3rd level Marshal can be at +23 pretty easily. 18 Cha: +4 Cha Aura: +4 Max ranks: +6 All three synergies: +6 Skill focus (Diplomacy): +3 If he can make out a cloak of cha +2, that's +25. Those DCs are insane though. Even the maxed diplomonkey marshal only succeeds 25% of the time.
kenobi65 06-13-07, 05:34 PM	It can actually be done for diplomacy, but not the others (as far as I know). Yeah, I figured that, if it were possible for anything, it'd be Diplomacy. But, even so, you'd need to be at the upper side of the APL range to get there. At 1st level, you wouldn't be getting any of the synergy bonuses, for one thing.
Mattastrophic 06-13-07, 05:53 PM	On a different note, I personally would love for the kid gloves to come off when it comes to skill DCs, especially at APL 12+. I grow tried of auto-making all those DC 25 or so Diplomacy checks or DC 30 Gather Infos. Come on, writers, skill-based characters need to be challenged just as much as combat characters!!! At least grant us some sort of extra bonuses for making ultra-high DCs. -Matt
Lupo 06-13-07, 06:10 PM	On a different note, I personally would love for the kid gloves to come off when it comes to skill DCs, especially at APL 12+. I grow tried of auto-making all those DC 25 or so Diplomacy checks or DC 30 Gather Infos. Come on, writers, skill-based characters need to be challenged just as much as combat characters!!! At least grant us some sort of extra bonuses for making ultra-high DCs. -Matt fine at APL 8 or 10, but needing any "vital" skill check, even a search-for-a-trap check above 25 for an intro or maybe 30 (and then there should be options to get it done included in the adventure) for true APL2 is a sign of bad writing or editing. and everyone knows that diplomacy is one of the poorest modeled skills out there ;) way too many synergies and a flawed mechanism :rolleyes: ciao martin m.
MatteBlack 06-13-07, 06:42 PM	On a different note, I personally would love for the kid gloves to come off when it comes to skill DCs, especially at APL 12+. I grow tried of auto-making all those DC 25 or so Diplomacy checks or DC 30 Gather Infos. Come on, writers, skill-based characters need to be challenged just as much as combat characters!!! At least grant us some sort of extra bonuses for making ultra-high DCs. -Matt I'd be hesitant to too heavily cater to tweaked out high level characters. Powergame if you like but, I'd rather not see the game require you to have more than max ranks to be able to succceed at skill rolls. My preference is for a game that rewards well rounded characters over optimized ones.
ShinAkuma2 06-13-07, 06:54 PM	Why should it get so difficult to just gather some information? Do the NPCs say, "Oh, he's higher level, he'll REALLY need to pry to get me to talk"?
solbergb 06-13-07, 07:04 PM	On a different note, I personally would love for the kid gloves to come off when it comes to skill DCs, especially at APL 12+. I grow tried of auto-making all those DC 25 or so Diplomacy checks or DC 30 Gather Infos. Come on, writers, skill-based characters need to be challenged just as much as combat characters!!! At least grant us some sort of extra bonuses for making ultra-high DCs. -Matt The problem (if you see it as a problem, I don't - powerful heros can just do stuff all the time with no chance of failure) is that most skills have fixed DC's, and it doesn't make sense to "scale" them with level. A wall can't be harder than DC27 or it isn't climbable at all. Stormy seas are DC20 swim, it doesn't get any harder. Gather info 25 pretty much gets all the information there is to gather. Stuff like balance and tumble top out when you can move around with accellerated balance/tumble all the time (although those who can do accellerated tumbles THROUGH enemies are usually people who can "take 10 in combat" with them). If there are EL's tied to overcoming a challenge, you can scale it somewhat (wall is easy to climb at APL2, fairly challenging at APL12) but after about APL6, most challenges of that sort can be easily bypassed by magic or brute force (lockpick vs power attack+silence vs knock spell vs disintegrate vs dim door, blah blah) The only place higher DC's make sense is in opposed checks - a 12th level ranger is going to be harder to see than his 2nd level counterpart, the 12th level con-artist harder to sense motive on, etc.
King Kashue 06-13-07, 07:16 PM	I'd be hesitant to too heavily cater to tweaked out high level characters. Powergame if you like but, I'd rather not see the game require you to have more than max ranks to be able to succceed at skill rolls. My preference is for a game that rewards well rounded characters over optimized ones. I don't associate high skill checks with "powergamers"... Power gamers are the ones with 1 skill point per level and +38 to hit on their second iterative attack :D
Lomiat 06-13-07, 07:19 PM	Personally, I like it when an author actually sets the skill DCs according to what they ought to be, and then they remain there across the APL divide. This may result in some DC 40+ skill checks at APL 2, but it also results in those DC 25 skill checks at APL 12 to which Matt referred. The idea, here, is that high-level PCs are meant to be rewarded with the feeling that they have actually mastered those skills. The challenge for the author then becomes to write the adventure so that the APL 2 table can still (as Howie implied) complete the adventure without succeeding at that skill check. And that the APL 12 table might still be challenged by other aspects of the situations other than the skill DCs. I don't mean to imply that the APL 12 table that survives at its Track check DC 45 Survival roll gets penalized by following the tracks into the red herring; rather, they might gain some cool insight into the villain's actual machinations (and, in a series, into the direction of the series), whereas the APL 2 table will be happy just to get back on task and fight the immediate threat. The APL difference, here, is that the high-levels feel like their confronting the threat head-on while the low-levels are simply trying to continue damage control. There are, of course, other ways for authors to work these skill checks into the stories, but APL + X skill DCs are among my pet peeves.
Mattastrophic 06-13-07, 08:19 PM	On the other hand, how can a module justify granting experience at both APL 2 and APL 12 for making a non-scaling DC 25 Gather Info check then a non-scaling DC 20 Diplomacy check? Don't encounters have to become more difficult in order to continue being eligible to grant experience? -Matt
MatteBlack 06-13-07, 08:41 PM	I don't associate high skill checks with "powergamers"... Power gamers are the ones with 1 skill point per level and +38 to hit on their second iterative attack :D For the record, I use "powergamer" as a largely neutral term for players who build characters for efficacy as oppose to bringing a character to life. While I don't like powergaming, it has its accepted place in our game. It has more to do with "building to win" than where the obnoxious bonuses end up. I powergame myself but, try to do so with some moderation. I don't take every optimal choice and actualy RP my shortcomings as opposed to trying to avoid or minimize them. I try to make sure my characters will pull there weight on the board and if I accidentally overbuild them for the challenge, I got no right to whine about the mod not being scaled to my powergaming. Honestly, many powergamers would be fine being unchallenged. What I hate about skill DC inflation is that it, in many cases, forces players to powergame there character build in order to be functional. I think it makes more sense for the proverbial bar to be set to a DC a reasonably built character can handle and let the powergamer have an easy go of it. If he doesn't want to be bored he can diversify his character or pump the APL instead of locking out a non-optimized fully formed character from completing what should be an appropriately scaled mod. Essentially, writers need to decide what sort of player they want to encourage in LG. I'd opt for catering to the more realistic characters and leave the powergamer the option to be unchallenged or adjust than cater to over optimized bonuses and doom the guys who are more likely to actually roleplay to failure. Whose more likely to leave LG? The un-powergamed character that can't make his DCs or the overbuilt character who breezes through mods?
Hariman 06-13-07, 10:30 PM	It can actually be done for diplomacy, but not the others (as far as I know). A 3rd level Marshal can be at +23 pretty easily. 18 Cha: +4 Cha Aura: +4 Max ranks: +6 All three synergies: +6 Skill focus (Diplomacy): +3 If he can make out a cloak of cha +2, that's +25. Those DCs are insane though. Even the maxed diplomonkey marshal only succeeds 25% of the time. A cleric dip (Rao) gets domain boost that grant another +4 (+2 each). That's +30 at level 5. The Negotiator feat gets that to +32. Aid another actions can get this to +42. BUT WAIT, THERE'S A FLAW! Some mod writers tie key items to defeating key opponents. So making that DC 40 Skill Check might Skill Check your character out of success. As for Scaling DCs? It depends on what is at stake. "Make the Check or Fail" checks should probably be adjusted for APL. Trap DCs, Search DCs, Vital mod ending (Failure or Success) DCs, etc. Other DCs need to be high, as they represent something that low level characters would never be able to do. The trick is mixing it up so nobody gets too grumpy. And not applying absurd DC at low levels.
solbergb 06-13-07, 11:42 PM	On the other hand, how can a module justify granting experience at both APL 2 and APL 12 for making a non-scaling DC 25 Gather Info check then a non-scaling DC 20 Diplomacy check? Don't encounters have to become more difficult in order to continue being eligible to grant experience? -Matt They don't. EL's are almost never tied to skill checks in the templates I've used for module design - anything like that is a "Story award" tied to an overall objective. The XP comes whether you scried the kidnapped person, tracked the kidnappers, captured a kidnapper and interrogated them, befriended the kidnappers and betrayed them or did a sting with the ransom - as long as the kidnapped person was rescued alive, the XP comes. Almost all of the XP (80 or 90%, forget which) has to be from combat encounteers or traps, under the current guidelines. Winning a skill check doesn't defeat the EL unless it somehow also cleverly defeats the combat encounter (or not so cleverly....traps can be disabled etc). Those situations aren't much different from a case where the party has a radiant servant vs an undead encounter featuring many enemies (and thus not a zillion hit dice per monster) or a case where the BBEG is a normal spellcaster who is promptly grappled and silenced. Much more commonly, what a skill check does is make a combat easier, rather than eliminating it. (ambush is spotted out of sneak attack range, fragile plot device is stolen by party stealth expert before fight begins, knowledge checks+gather info expose vulnerabilities before encounter when party can prepare, etc). EL's aren't adjusted for that, because skills are part of the total resources a character brings to the table. Highly skilled characters made tradoffs that usually result in some directly combat-focused thing they might have taken not being present. The most typical example of how that works is we have party A which has skills/class abilities/spells/etc to scout successfully and avoid ambushes and party B that has skills/class abilities/spells/etc only focused on winning a straight up combat. Both defeat the EL+3 encounter. Party A in a straight fight isn't as effective at damage/per/second, sticking save/die spells, controlling the battlefield etc as party B, but party A doesn't start the encounter being ambushed and on the wrong side of whatever the bad guys can do with a round and a half of actions. To me a good adventure rewards the noncombat abilities by putting the party in a better position when the (inevitable given module writing guidelines) battles begin. It may also reward the noncombat abilities by letting the party figure out what is going on, where the party of 6-8 intelligence, 8 wisdom barbarians and sorcerers may not have a clue, but muddle through the obvious threats and objectives. A good adventure accomodates both the "combat optomized" and "combat+skills" characters (LG doesn't really reward "useless in combat" characters, ever, when the bulk of the XP comes from combat encoutners). Ie, your "Hulk smash" types and your "Batman" types can both contribute if they're present, and a full party of "Hulk Smash" or "batman" types will struggle compared to a more balanced party, but still have a path to success. (smashers start out disadvantaged all the time, but are so tough it doesn't matter, batman types will pool their abilities and resources to get a huge advantage before the first init die is rolled)
solbergb 06-13-07, 11:47 PM	or to be less long-winded. "fail this DC and you're done" skill checks should be avoided, as should plots that require a tracker in the party, or a specific spell or whatever. You can't make any assumptions about parties in LG aside from the idea that they can probably win three EL+2-3 combats in a single day. "fail this DC and your task is now harder or will consume more resources" DC's are just fine, but they should be driven by the plot and conform to the core rules and enemy statblocks.
Dr.Cornelius 06-13-07, 11:57 PM	For the most part, these weren't 'optional' checks, these were 'succeed or fail the mod' checks.Well written mods should generally contain more than one way to complete the mod. A predetermined, single path - especially one that relies on a single roll - is a recipe for an unsatisfying experience. And mod writers should be conscious that LG tends to have more random parties than home game. Especially at a convention with random mustering a party is fortunate to have the "basic four" BDF, Healing Cleric, Arcanist and Skill Monkey represented much less anyone with huge ranks in a specific skill. Failing the key skill check should make the mod more difficult but not impossible.
MatteBlack 06-14-07, 12:41 AM	or to be less long-winded. "fail this DC and you're done" skill checks should be avoided, as should plots that require a tracker in the party, or a specific spell or whatever. You can't make any assumptions about parties in LG aside from the idea that they can probably win three EL+2-3 combats in a single day. "fail this DC and your task is now harder or will consume more resources" DC's are just fine, but they should be driven by the plot and conform to the core rules and enemy statblocks. Two big obstacles are when fights begin in the narration and players who forget(ignore) that their character is not as wise, smart or convincing as they want to play them.
wooti 06-14-07, 02:48 AM	On the topic of skill checks, they don't all need to be huge. I tired of "Sorry I don't know recognize the symbol of Pelor, my god, because I don't have knowledge religion to make that DC 15 check". Many knowledge checks I've seen should be 10 or less so anyone could make them or even better just given to players.
Madfox11 06-14-07, 04:55 AM	On the topic of skill checks, they don't all need to be huge. I tired of "Sorry I don't know recognize the symbol of Pelor, my god, because I don't have knowledge religion to make that DC 15 check". Many knowledge checks I've seen should be 10 or less so anyone could make them or even better just given to players. I try to be alert when reviewing adventures on Knowledge DCs, and instead of expecting the author to note down all common exceptions, I expect the DM to use some common sense. Obviously a worshipper of deity X (and don't mean Pelor, recognizing a modern symbol should be automatic) or a member of MO Y recognizes a modern symbol automatically. I have also seen it happen the other way around where recognizing a regional famous NPC/symbol was DC 10 even though nobody outside the region would be expected to know it. These I tend to change in DC 15, +5 circumstance bonus to characters from the region and they can make it untrained. I also try to make the DCs as per the PHB, and only when the check is opposed would it become APL dependend. One thing to keep in mind as a player is the 'aid another' action.
Timlagor 06-14-07, 11:30 AM	Strength checks are the ones that really annoy me: "Yes you can lift that over your head on any other day but this time you need to make a very hard strength check to even push it an inch". grrr!
LGMoses 06-14-07, 11:11 PM	i can't say which mod it was in because its still legal, but I encountered one mod where to get search checks up for particular npcs up really high the mod writer gave them master work tools (fine tooth combs). It was a great mod but the entire group cracked up when they found those combs and I explained.:D
King Kashue 06-15-07, 12:19 AM	players who forget(ignore) that their character is not as wise, smart or convincing as they want to play them. That is my single biggest pet peeve in role-playing... If your character is a Cha 6, why are you being eloquent? If you character is Int 6, why are you doing all sorts of complex tactical manoeuvres? Dump stats are dump stats, but not playing your dump stats is bad roleplaying... Several folks on this board can attest to the fact that I definitely play my Bear Warrior's Int 6 in game, in and out of combat :D
Gallaway 06-15-07, 02:26 AM	the one that amuses me is the knowledge nature checks :) Players: ooh .. more orcs like the ones we fought in the last room GM: no they might look identical .. but for all you know they are gnolls .. knowledge nature check please
Britt 06-15-07, 02:38 AM	If you character is Int 6, why are you doing all sorts of complex tactical manoeuvres? I agree with playing your stats in general, but this is a point I get into arguments with people about. When you have 16 levels of fighter, that means you've spent a lot of time learning what to do in combat. You may not be very smart, you may not remember names or complex things like beans work, but flanking, readied actions, delaying for spellcasters and buffs, not blocking charge lanes or getting others to not block yours, PAing for an appropriate amount, those are all things they've been teaching you in fighter school for all those years.
King Kashue 06-15-07, 02:55 AM	I agree with playing your stats in general, but this is a point I get into arguments with people about. When you have 16 levels of fighter, that means you've spent a lot of time learning what to do in combat. You may not be very smart, you may not remember names or complex things like beans work, but flanking, readied actions, delaying for spellcasters and buffs, not blocking charge lanes or getting others to not block yours, PAing for an appropriate amount, those are all things they've been teaching you in fighter school for all those years. Yeah, but innovation shouldn't happen. And I'd dispute the more complex things (like mathematically optimizing PA...I personally just do whatever low number makes my math easy, since I'm often rolling six attacks in a round ;)). With my Bear Warrior, I use simple but effective tactics in general and I have a sort of checklist of things my Bear Warrior knows. He can follow instructions, so if someone tells him to do something (either in combat or ahead of time) he'll do it. There's also the basic stuff learned from experience, wait for haste, flank = good especially for halflings with daggers, etc. But I always make sure he learns things in-game before knowing them. On his last adventure he learned that unlike the normal fly spell (which he had experience with), mass fly ends if you go away from other folks. Long ago he learned those pointy things on barbed devils hurt...alot...:D I've actually had other players get upset with me because I didn't do some complex thing they expected me as a player to do (even though I tell people out of character at the beginning of the adventure "Kor is stupid, you have to tell him to do things"). As to the question of "why didn't you do that thing I wanted you to do?", my answer: "Because you didn't tell me to". ;) But for every person who's upset over something like that, I have five more who think it's terribly entertaining and fits the character perfectly. I rarely do anything to serious tactical detriment, but I have a "combat IQ" for all my characters. My occult slayer has an int of 16 and is highly educated, I take any and all advantages I can get and try to think well ahead in the combat. Kor (my Bear Warrior) has an int of 6 and a Wis of 8. He's brutally effective, but he's not savvy and he's not clever. He's a moron, and I play him as such (and he remains the character people tell the most stories about)...:D
Britt 06-15-07, 03:08 AM	Oh, I don't mind you doing it, and I applaud you for roleplaying. I just minded people telling me that I shouldn't know how to flank and do other tactical things, despite all my combat training. Mentally retarded people, which is what a 6 INT really is, can be taught how to do things. I agree that synthesis is well beyond their abilities, but standard combat tactics is ok. And to avoid derailing another thread, I do pretty much what Pieter does with skill DCs. I scale them when they are opposed and use flat DCs based on PH guidelines when they are not opposed.
cycloptic_squirrel 06-15-07, 03:12 AM	Several folks on this board can attest to the fact that I definitely play my Bear Warrior's Int 6 in game, in and out of combat :D I'll congragulate you and agree to your superiority in roleplaying if you've spent half your gold on something silly like magic beans. If you're truly playing up that 6 Int and Wis, your magic item inventory is full of shiny things and half your potions are going to be flasks of pond water labeled Potions of Awesomeness that you actually use in combat occasionally.
King Kashue 06-15-07, 03:56 AM	I'll congragulate you and agree to your superiority in roleplaying if you've spent half your gold on something silly like magic beans. If you're truly playing up that 6 Int and Wis, your magic item inventory is full of shiny things and half your potions are going to be flasks of pond water labeled Potions of Awesomeness that you actually use in combat occasionally. If I got AR access for "magic beans", do you know how fast I would buy those? :D
cycloptic_squirrel 06-15-07, 04:05 AM	If I got AR access for "magic beans", do you know how fast I would buy those? :D You and me both, though I might have a difficult time justifying it with the high wisdom cleric. I think an author could seriously reduce excess cash floating around of a great many people by giving AR access to magic beans.
Lomiat 06-15-07, 08:16 AM	You and me both, though I might have a difficult time justifying it with the high wisdom cleric. I think an author could seriously reduce excess cash floating around of a great many people by giving AR access to magic beans. You and I both know that your gnome would not only buy those magic beans but would end up selling them at an inflated price... Phase 3 = Profit!
_metz_ 06-15-07, 08:16 AM	You and me both, though I might have a difficult time justifying it with the high wisdom cleric. I think an author could seriously reduce excess cash floating around of a great many people by giving AR access to magic beans. As DM i managed to use a dodgy merchant to sell a low int and wisdom character a magic Blue rock that kept tigers away (cos there were no tigers around...) as well as a bunch of other trinkets. But when same said character got in a fight he knew what to do. Instincts, cunning, experience and training actually DO mean a lot. The training is represented by the levels in Fighter, etc, the experience is in how you play the character and its background. On a more important note. I want Magic Beans.
MatteBlack 06-15-07, 09:41 AM	That is my single biggest pet peeve in role-playing... If your character is a Cha 6, why are you being eloquent? If you character is Int 6, why are you doing all sorts of complex tactical manoeuvres? Dump stats are dump stats, but not playing your dump stats is bad roleplaying... Several folks on this board can attest to the fact that I definitely play my Bear Warrior's Int 6 in game, in and out of combat :D I have the quintessential low mental stat wood-elf fighter barbarian but, I actually enjoy playing his low stats. I try not to overdo the "active idiocy" but, I try make his decisions based on very simple terms. That doesn't mean you don't know how to fight with basic tactics or function with your class abilities. At the same time, you shouldn't be automatically picking just the right weapon or spell for a given creature type or using involved stragtegies. If you have your fighting levels you take advantage of flanks but, might not work someone into a disadvantage over a series of moves. In short, you should probably be pretty direct in your strategies and take most scenarios at face value. I play with a fairly regular group of players and characters who know that if they want me to do something other than dive headlong after the nastiest thing on the board (based largely by size and ferocity) they should give me a quick direction on what to do. If you are an experinced player employing all sorts of advanced strategies and player knowlege of spells, creatures and tactics. You probably need to be ready to turn alot of your brain off or stat your characters mental faculties higher.
MatteBlack 06-15-07, 09:52 AM	On a side note, the Bissel triad has stated in a discussion on their mailing list that puzzles they include in there mods are intended as a player challenge and may be undertaken by players using their full scope of knowlege and mental capabilities. It's not really a DC issue but, does go to how we play our mental stats.
awroe 06-15-07, 10:04 AM	On a side note, the Bissel triad has stated in a discussion on their mailing list that puzzles they include in there mods are intended as a player challenge and may be undertaken by players using their full scope of knowlege and mental capabilities. It's not really a DC issue but, does go to how we play our mental stats. I don't mind player-based puzzles (quite enjoy them actually), provided they don't require players to have character-specific knowledge as well - there is one (I think still active) core that has a number of puzzles that require you to both make skill checks in character and solve them using out of character abilities. Frustrating if you don't have exactly the right characters and players at the table. Skill checks with high DCs should be justified - I've seen some like survival (tracking) where the weather conditions get worse / the targets use dust of disappearance to make the trail harder to find. But I agree the checks should never be the *only* way of succeeding. AW
Timlagor 06-15-07, 10:42 AM	I sislike Player-puzzles. I dislike them even more when no relevant skill checks are specified and will always offer skill checks to get increasingly strong hints on these.
TWG_Prometheus 06-15-07, 11:04 AM	When people start claiming that such-and-such mod had a ridiculous skill check that was critical for the module, this is another time that they should actually check the text of the module itself, or have their Judge do so afterward. Frequently, a set of bonuses are allowed for such checks such that a determined party will succeed eventually. Some tasks are just hard to do, and story-wise sometimes there isn't a way to get around it. When a skill check is needed to proceed, however, there ought to be (and usually is) a provision made for the check to assist tables that would have trouble with it. Frequently there are NPCs that can do better than the PCs with a take 10 hanging around.
thorinXXX 06-15-07, 01:30 PM	When people start claiming that such-and-such mod had a ridiculous skill check that was critical for the module, this is another time that they should actually check the text of the module itself, or have their Judge do so afterward. Frequently, a set of bonuses are allowed for such checks such that a determined party will succeed eventually. Some tasks are just hard to do, and story-wise sometimes there isn't a way to get around it. When a skill check is needed to proceed, however, there ought to be (and usually is) a provision made for the check to assist tables that would have trouble with it. Frequently there are NPCs that can do better than the PCs with a take 10 hanging around. Unfortunately DM's frequently forget that. Players are conditioned to do things on their own resources, so if there is help available the DM should at least hint at it.
JohnduBois 06-15-07, 01:58 PM	If I got AR access for "magic beans", do you know how fast I would buy those? :D One of the first lessons I learned as a Triad member - if you put it on an AR, many people will buy it. The roleplayers will buy it because "it's cool", and the powergamers will buy it because "there must be a reason he put it on the AR..."
solbergb 06-15-07, 02:07 PM	I'll congragulate you and agree to your superiority in roleplaying if you've spent half your gold on something silly like magic beans. If you're truly playing up that 6 Int and Wis, your magic item inventory is full of shiny things and half your potions are going to be flasks of pond water labeled Potions of Awesomeness that you actually use in combat occasionally. My wife's 6 intelligence stonelord spent her "magic weapon savings fund" on a stone of alarm because "it was a magic rock". She has so far missed opportunities to blow all of her cash on ioun stones, as the adventure access has so far gone away before she could do so. There is unfortunately a stone horse favor that she'll probably pay for some day.... Actually the stone of alarm has been hilarious and occasionally useful. It's the loudest noise in D&D...it is guaranteed to wake up sleeping party members, even if camped at a distance from whatever you stuck the stone on. But then she's such a strong character she can screw up on equipment and still contribute...
King Kashue 06-15-07, 02:16 PM	One of the first lessons I learned as a Triad member - if you put it on an AR, many people will buy it. The roleplayers will buy it because "it's cool", and the powergamers will buy it because "there must be a reason he put it on the AR..." I still kick myself for not buying the "Darkvision Dice" from a year 3 Furyondy mod. I didn't have enough on the AR I got access (I had just enough for upkeep for the next mod) and then forgot to buy them later :(
Arvagor 06-15-07, 02:43 PM	You and me both, though I might have a difficult time justifying it with the high wisdom cleric. I think an author could seriously reduce excess cash floating around of a great many people by giving AR access to magic beans.No magic beans, but I did have access to magic cough drops...
pedr 06-15-07, 03:13 PM	It wasn't on the AR, so I think I put it in 'Other Coin Spent', but the more intelligent of my two main characters (Int 10) bought the 'hand' which was on sale in Retribution.
mlund 06-15-07, 03:57 PM	Oh, I don't mind you doing it, and I applaud you for roleplaying. I just minded people telling me that I shouldn't know how to flank and do other tactical things, despite all my combat training. Mentally retarded people, which is what a 6 INT really is, can be taught how to do things. I agree that synthesis is well beyond their abilities, but standard combat tactics is ok. I'm getting kind of tired of some people killing off all team-work and player-support at tables by whining about "meta-gaming" too. Some players are new, distracted, or forget details of how a DM describes something in an encounter. Some players don't know the exact rules for, say, fighting under water. Some players forget that they used their AOO to inflict 15 damage last round on Monster #4 rather than Monster #5. Their characters know darn well which Zombie their axe took a giant bite out of last turn. Their characters have an idea of which square grants a flanking bonus and which one doesn't. While I don't like people playing other player's character's for them, I despise it were some people at the table try to punish newer and more casual players by denying them information their characters ought to know. When someone gets yelled at for "metagaming" for pointing out to a frustrated player that they can increase their "to hit" modifier by taking a flanking position or charging I just want to throw my dice down in disgust. When someone can't even be warned that if they cast before they move their enemy will get a +4 AC cover bonus I think we've got a serious problem at the table. Why people take pleasure at hitting unaware players with AOOs that their character would've avoided by taking a 5 foot step, I'll never understand. - Marty Lund
Britt 06-15-07, 04:11 PM	For that kind of thing, as a GM, I scale my responses by APL and player experience. At APL 2 with new players, I tell them every tactical advantage I notice and let them do it. If they forget something a couple of initiatives later, I let them do it retroactively. At APL 16 with experienced players, though, I don't give any breaks. By that point, you better know enough to take care of your own flanking, charge lanes, power attack, buffs, cover, etc etc. If you forget to take that free action you meant to take and tell me about it after a few other people have gone, I may not let you do it. Granted, circumstances make for flexibility, like really late at night or a long time between turns causing people to forget what happened last round, etc. But in general, that's how I treat stuff like that.
solbergb 06-15-07, 05:33 PM	Yeah. I'm with Britt on that topic. APL 2-6 the player can be fairly new to the game and I cut some slack. I don't cut slack on level 8+ characters much barring things like sleep deprivation/confusing loud envt/etc because the guy has been playing D&D for at least a year with this character and if he hasn't learned by now he's only going to learn if his character is hammered as a result. Although I will sometimes after the fact explain what he could have done to avoid it so maybe he'll learn. Most cases like this I've seen are players who usually play some other kind of character running an infrequently played alternate. I do get tired of reminding APL12 players that they can't full attack in a suprise round. I don't understand why that is a concept they can't grasp after 3 years of play.
Mommy was an Orc 06-15-07, 06:01 PM	Yeah. I'm with Britt on that topic. APL 2-6 the player can be fairly new to the game and I cut some slack. Ditto. One of my favorite things as a DM at low APL is to figure out a less lethal version of a tactic that the PCs should use, but are not doing for some reason at low APLs. Rogues readying instead of delaying as an example - Rogue 1 should delay until just before Rogue 2 goes, then ready an attack for when the flank happens. Instead, he readies immediately, giving the other PCs a couple of chances of disrupting the sneak attack on the PC.
Hariman 06-15-07, 10:21 PM	Although I will sometimes after the fact explain what he could have done to avoid it so maybe he'll learn. The more experienced local DMs do that for players who make mistakes during mods. It's much appreciated by me and I hope the other players appreciate it. One of my local DMs advised me against using the "Second Wind" (The 1d6 healing version) card to go from 0 HP to positive HP after one mod. It only took going from 4HP to -9 and being lucky enough to stabilize and miss that 90% chance to die to learn my lesson. And about metagaming: Party members coordinating strategies isn't metagaming, and should actually be encouraged as it's good strategy. I've encountered metagaming, and it left an icky "that wasn't as fun as it could have been" feeling. It's hard to describe, but you know it when you see it. Hariman PS: Readying for the Flanking Bonus? It's a great tactic that often gets used when I game. My low HP Rogue/Wizard sometimes does more by providing a flanking bonus than casting! But he's level 6 now, so melee is getting more and more dangerous.
King Kashue 06-15-07, 10:42 PM	And about metagaming: Party members coordinating strategies isn't metagaming, and should actually be encouraged as it's good strategy. Discussing strategy and tactics before fights happen is great... A minute long tactics discussion during combat is most certainly metagaming 9and by far the most common variety). A round is six seconds long. If the players are discussing things out of character about what they should or shouldn't do in-character, it's metagaming (by definition). Personally, I try to be firm on this as a DM and a player. If it's a rules discussion of "I want to do this, how do the rules work?", then we'll take all the time in the world to work it out. If it's a 30 second long laundry list of instructions: "Okay, you delay and then I'll go here, and then you come out of delay to ready, and then he'll move to here and ready also, and then guy #4 will come in and do this and your readies will go off, then..." it's metagaming and not allowed. In combat, instructions and discussion between players happens in character, and in the six second round. If you're saying it out loud to another player, then your character is saying it out loud to his character (and everyone, including the bad guys, can hear it). If you can't say it in roughly six seconds, you can't say it. I do the same thing with my characters as well. My fighter who speaks 15 languages will ask folks at the beginning of the mod what languages they speak, so we can talk and give orders to each other without bad guys understanding, etc...
copper_wyrmling 06-15-07, 11:40 PM	I do get tired of reminding APL12 players that they can't full attack in a suprise round. I don't understand why that is a concept they can't grasp after 3 years of play. My personal peeve is spontaneous spellcasters throwing metamagicked spells in the surprise round, or readying metamagicked spells, or moving / drawing a metamagic rod and then casting a metamagicked spell, even after being reminded earlier in the mod that you can't do that without something like Rapid Metamagic or Arcane Preparation. I've seen several L12+ spontaneous casters do this, in online games and face-to-face play, and some of the players in question have been pretty experienced and generally knowledgeable about the rules - the only conclusion I can draw is that a lot of GMs aren't enforcing the spontaneous metamagic rules, which annoys me slightly since my sorc just spent a valuable feat slot on overcoming that limitation. (I'm not talking about solbergb, btw: I've never seen him forget that rule in the games we've played together.) Re the magic beans, my wild mage found a "hunk of magic junk" at an interactive. She was delighted, even though her attempts to activate it blindly did nothing whatsoever :) I agree with most others re inflated skill DCs - I recently played a mod where the ONLY way to get the best outcome was a DC 35+modifiers diplomacy check, and most of the modifiers were not based on PC actions, but on things they couldn't help (their race and whether they worshipped a specific deity were the biggest modifiers iirc). Only one roll was allowed, no chance to retry. I agreed with the check not being tiered by APL, but I didn't like the way it was set up, any more than I would like a combat where the monster could only be defeated by being critted with a silver scythe wielded by a female Suel worshipper of Wee Jas with Dexterity at least 17 (and no such NPC was present). There should be multiple paths to victory, or if there's only a single path, every party should at least have a chance at it. It's not much fun to read over a module and realize that no matter how smart your tactics or how good your teamwork, your party composition ensured your failure from the very start. EDIT: And note, the "best outcome" wasn't something above and beyond the normal goals of the module. It was required to get max xp/gp.
solbergb 06-16-07, 01:58 AM	With me it always seems to be archers that want to rapid shot in the surprise round. Drives me crazy. There are so many really poorly played archers in the west coast conventions that when I say I'm bringing an archer to the table I have to say "no really, this one actually does his job" when playing with strangers. Although with most, the reason they do poorly in the level 8-12 range is that they made early choices assuming illegal combinations such as "I can manyshot each attack in my rapid shot full attack right?" were legal and thus though they'd do plenty of damage and skimped on strength, feats and equipment that lets you do meaningful damage. The rest are really clerics or wizards that think they're archers - it's remarkably hard to do builds like that which work before level 12 and most leave the bow in the quiver and just cast spells the bulk of the time. Our spont casters, by contrast, tend to be played by experienced players, or if not, were built with assistance from an experienced player to be "Easy to play" which tends to leave out metamagic heavy builds. And yeah, if my spont casters move while doing metamagic, it's because they're riding phantom steeds or something. There's a "I ready a swift action and a standard action" meme too that we've been quashing with some success lately. But it crops up occasionally. Not everybody really gets that readied actions are just one action, not the equivalent of a whole surprise round. The two things are similar in some ways, which adds to the confusion even with experienced players.
awroe 06-16-07, 06:39 AM	Discussing strategy and tactics before fights happen is great... A minute long tactics discussion during combat is most certainly metagaming 9and by far the most common variety). The main issue is that while the characters will have been travelling together and sorting out tactics during that time, the players are rarely allowed a few hours to discuss tactics during a game. I tend to allow generic tactics discussions provided they don't go on too long, though by the second combat most parties are aware of what the other characters can do. AW.
wooti 06-16-07, 10:37 AM	On the topic of magic beans they are out there if you look for them. -Lady Cinna "Liberator"
King Kashue 06-16-07, 02:21 PM	The main issue is that while the characters will have been travelling together and sorting out tactics during that time, the players are rarely allowed a few hours to discuss tactics during a game. I tend to allow generic tactics discussions provided they don't go on too long, though by the second combat most parties are aware of what the other characters can do. AW. Except people aren't usually discussing general tactics, they're having the discussion I described "You go here, then I'll go here, and then Bob will move and ready, then..."...That's a discussion specific to the fight and isn't born of not having an opportunity to discuss abilities and general tactics. And honestly, how long does it take to discuss general tactics? Every table I've ever played at has managed to do it, and we never take more than five minutes. My most tactically weird guy is my light fighter with whirlwind attack and elusive target. It takes me 30 seconds to say "Okay, I'm intentionally going to provoke AoOs from people, so you can usually follow me in without worrying. And I'm going to intentionally get surrounded, since I whirlwind. And don't kill off my flanks. Repeat, don't kill off my flanks. When I'm in a flank, the loser pud is keeping the BBEG from hitting me. Don't kill off my flanks." :D People's tactics, even crazy-odd characters, aren't that complicated. They can be discussed in 3-5 minutes at the beginning while everyone is getting ready to roll.
Timlagor 06-17-07, 01:24 PM	It's not the characters but the wide array of weird combat situations that people might spend hours discussing. This is even more restricted in LG by the need not to 'spoil' other modules still in play. ..and caster tactics are a lot more complicated than your 30second spiel.
King Kashue 06-17-07, 02:03 PM	..and caster tactics are a lot more complicated than your 30second spiel. Only if one believes his/her tactics to be so subtle and nuanced that they require 5 minutes of detailed explanation...Trust me, they're not... I can explain all my casters' tactics in roughly a minute, and surprisingly, nearly every caster I've ever played with can do so as well (and that includes pretty much everyone you play with ;))...
Mommy was an Orc 06-17-07, 07:56 PM	Except people aren't usually discussing general tactics, they're having the discussion I described "You go here, then I'll go here, and then Bob will move and ready, then..."...That's a discussion specific to the fight and isn't born of not having an opportunity to discuss abilities and general tactics. Except it probably isn't. The mere existance of fireballs means that adventurers have to make specific decisions to about what to do in almost any situation. They're probably spending a huge chunk of time to let each other know what they're capable of doing, what they're likely to do, and how to best react to it. If the players were given two weeks to discuss all their various tactics and capabilities(including holding pretend mock battles where they asked each other what they would do), they wouldn't have to discuss it because they'd know to do it. And unless you play together all the time, that's just not practical in LG on a whole bunch of levels.
King Kashue 06-17-07, 08:58 PM	Except it probably isn't. The mere existance of fireballs means that adventurers have to make specific decisions to about what to do in almost any situation. They're probably spending a huge chunk of time to let each other know what they're capable of doing, what they're likely to do, and how to best react to it. If the players were given two weeks to discuss all their various tactics and capabilities(including holding pretend mock battles where they asked each other what they would do), they wouldn't have to discuss it because they'd know to do it. And unless you play together all the time, that's just not practical in LG on a whole bunch of levels. Again, I just don't see it. This isn't a pro football team with a playbook of 200+ plays. The idea that, if given time, people would practice every possible contingency just isn't realistic. It doesn't reflect modern tactical prep, it doesn't reflect medieval warfare, it doesn't even reflect sports or similar activities. Honestly, the biggest reason why this seems to me to be a false contention is that it's been utterly untrue for every single table I've sat at. If what you're saying is true, then every one of my 200+ tables has been an abberation. The fact is that we've been able to develop tactical parameters at the beginning of the module and then modify them dthrough in-character in-combat discussions; this has been the rule, not the exception. If this is all so amazingly complicated, I shouldn't be able to sit down with five strangers at a con and develop sound tactical approaches to combat...Except I have been, repeatedly and consistently. So, either I've had the remarkable good fortune to game only with those rare individuals who are epitomes of both tactical precision and conversational brevity...Or...It's not nearly as complicated as you and Ed are implying :D
Mommy was an Orc 06-17-07, 09:58 PM	Again, I just don't see it. The idea that, if given time, people would practice every possible contingency just isn't realistic. It doesn't reflect modern tactical prep, it doesn't reflect medieval warfare, it doesn't even reflect sports or similar activities. It isn't every possible contingency. Combo of gestures indicating direction + It is 'if medium non-tactical creature is here, you go there. if large, go there, huge, go there. undead, do this. aberration, do that' - you could sketch it out on the dirt, or even bring out a battlemat. ;) Surely, you're not arguing that you, who are not even in game, have a better understanding of how to do tactics than a 26 Intelligence Wizard, right? Or Fighter whose very life depends on how to understand the spells of that wizard where you'll just write up a new character sheet. If this is all so amazingly complicated, I shouldn't be able to sit down with five strangers at a con and develop sound tactical approaches to combat...Except I have been, repeatedly and consistently. That's right - it isn't that complicated. So every character should be able to do it, regardless of whether or not the player is capable of visualizing how to do tactics properly. Just as a 26 Int Wizard should blow through a puzzle trap. The line should be - if a player wants to do something, and doing it won't result in another PCs death, then they should be able to do it. If another player still tells them what to do, then they've crossed that line. That's the normal problem with John telling Bob to go to point X - is that Bob doesn't want to go to point X.
King Kashue 06-17-07, 10:21 PM	It isn't every possible contingency. Combo of gestures indicating direction + It is 'if medium non-tactical creature is here, you go there. if large, go there, huge, go there. undead, do this. aberration, do that' - you could sketch it out on the dirt, or even bring out a battlemat. ;)[quote] And that fine. I've repeatedly said that anything that could be said in combat by the characters can be said by the players. You're not suggesting that somehow a single hand gesture can relay 45 seconds worth of spoken information, are you? If not, then what's the issue? If it can be relayed quickly, it can be relayed in-game. [quote]Surely, you're not arguing that you, who are not even in game, have a better understanding of how to do tactics than a 26 Intelligence Wizard, right? Or Fighter whose very life depends on how to understand the spells of that wizard where you'll just write up a new character sheet. If this was even slightly relevant, I'm sure it'd be a wonderful point. :D The issue is not about a disjunction between player and character, this is about the mechanics of conveying information. It's about me disagreeing that the reason why people generally deliver long drawn out instructions in combat is because they didn't get a chance to discuss them ahead of time. You're welcome to believe that, but I just don't buy it's anything but meta-gaming (at least 9 times out of 10). If I know dozens (if not hundreds) of people who are capable of not doing this, the argument that it's necessary seems rather weak to me. Though to the issue of character intelligence (tangential though it is), if DMs are required to allow extra time and discussion to allow for the disconnect between the 100 IQ player and the 26 Int Wizard, shouldn't they also take lengths to prevent the 165 IQ player from playing his 6 Int Barbarian at the player intelligence instead of the character intelligence? That's right - it isn't that complicated. So every character should be able to do it, regardless of whether or not the player is capable of visualizing how to do tactics properly. Just as a 26 Int Wizard should blow through a puzzle trap. Again, this isn't about the player-character ability disconnect, so I'm not sure why you brought this in out of the blue. My issue is with people having drawn out, situation-specific tactical discussions during combat. Discussions that are not generalized, but born of the situation and which could not take place within the context of combat. You can say it's about ability disconnect, and Ed can say it's about not having time to discuss things, but it's not. I am talking about conversations that have nothing to do with generalized anything, and are attempts by players to give specific instructions to other players which cannot possibly be done in the context of combat. That is what I'm talking about. Nothing else. Other examples of other kinds of discussions aren't relevant. If I'm talking about Labrador retrievers, then your point about Rottweilers is interesting, but atopical. Yes, there are occasionally discussions born from not having time to discuss all tactics ahead of time (or more likely because players forgot to mention it when they did discuss tactics). I'm not talking about those discussions. Yes, there are occasionally discussions born from a player not understanding tactics to the degree their character would. I'm not talking about those either. I am talking about exactly what I've described: Discussions that are situationally specific and involve extensive out of character discussions about specific in-character actions. Discussions that could only take place due to the specific situations of the combat, and which cannot possibly take place in the context of in-character discussion. That is what I am saying is the most common sort of in-combat discussion I encounter (both as a player and a DM), and that is the specific type of conversation I'm saying is meta-gaming.
Mommy was an Orc 06-18-07, 12:35 AM	You're not suggesting that somehow a single hand gesture can relay 45 seconds worth of spoken information, are you? Probably yes. But that's not what's necessary - can a group of highly trained professionals do in six seconds what a group of untrained gamers not in the situation can do in five minutes? I'd say definitely. It isn't metagaming to do something that your character should be capable of doing, even if you, the player, are not.
_metz_ 06-18-07, 12:40 AM	Probably yes. But that's not what's necessary - can a group of highly trained professionals do in six seconds what a group of untrained gamers not in the situation can do in five minutes? I'd say definitely. It isn't metagaming to do something that your character should be capable of doing, even if you, the player, are not. Its also a matter of time. Sometimes in slots you can't really afford to spend 5 minutes discussing EACH round :) I think its best to just do what your DM wants. I occasionally lean either way when I am DMing dependent on the situation, and am happy playing under either. I just devise ways of in character talking tactics as a free action and come up with little codes during modules for my rogue to issue to his fellow party members.
King Kashue 06-18-07, 01:08 AM	Probably yes. But that's not what's necessary - can a group of highly trained professionals do in six seconds what a group of untrained gamers not in the situation can do in five minutes? Untrained? How much time spent doing something before you're trained? I've spent 1000+ hours playing my characters. That's more time than I practiced in a year when I was prepping for minor league tryouts. That's more time than an LAPD officer trains before going on the street. Again, I don't seem to have issues with this, neither do the dozens of people I've played with. Given this, I just can't see it as that huge an issue.
Samwise 06-18-07, 09:35 AM	1. D&D is not a simulation game. It doesn't matter what well trained people can do in 6 seconds or 60 seconds or 600 seconds, we aren't simulating real combat (or real fantasy combat), so there is no reason to expect imposed limits to be functional in simulating a simulation. 2. At four hours of play per session, 50 sessions per year, it would take a new player five full years to have 1,000 hours of experience. That puts it beyond the reach of anyone who started playing with 3.5, as well as beyond the reach of anyone who doesn't go to conventions or play every week with two weeks "vacation" every year. However, with only one play session per week that experience will not be equal to someone playing three time a week 83 weeks, nor will it actually compare to someone engaging in the relevant activities eight hours a day five days a week for six months. 3. You don't practice every contingency. The very definition makes it impossible. You practice as many general principles as you can in the time you have, and instinct does the rest. You don't think where to go, you know where to go. The sticking point with a team is not understanding the contigencies, it is networking the information between "sensor units" to allow the instincts to utilize a wider range of input, experience, and base knowledge. Of course that immediately defaults back to my first point - this is not a simulation. So while people trained in communicating tactical information certainly have an advantage in doing so rapidly in a game, the time delay inherent in rolling dice for attack rolls and damage make it nearly irrelevant, as they usually aren't expected, and sometimes not permitted, to do so during such "downtime." So no, don't take 10 minutes, or even 5 minutes, discussing each round or each action. But don't prohibit players from using more than six words to communicate with each other during a turn. If you go that far, you may as well set up a separate table for each player, and only allow the DM to communicate information between them. Kriegspiel-D&D anyone?
Mommy was an Orc 06-18-07, 09:52 AM	Untrained? How much time spent doing something before you're trained? I've spent 1000+ hours playing my characters. That's more time than I practiced in a year when I was prepping for minor league tryouts. That's more time than an LAPD officer trains before going on the street. None of those situations involve someone getting into a life and death fight approximately every 5 days. Nor does it reflect the amount of time that someone will spend on an actual job. An adventurer is spending 16 hours a day doing what he does - i.e. in your 1000 hours, you've experienced about as much as the average adventurer does in his first 2 months or 8 TUs. Yes, it is lot better when people don't turn D&D into a giant chess match. But I've seen quite a few DMs who are willing to coordinate their monsters perfectly while not letting the players do the same thing. Let me emphasize - I don't do this at the table - all I'll do is say something that is 25 words or less. But the times where I've seen DMs forbid this is usually when there's a TPK about to happen, there's an inexperienced player(s) at the table, and instead of doing the necessary action, the player is doing something stupid(and/or irrelevant)
Cardinal Teplin 06-18-07, 10:37 AM	Again, I don't seem to have issues with this, neither do the dozens of people I've played with. Given this, I just can't see it as that huge an issue. I have an issue with it. I've played with you. My local group regularly spend much much more than 5 mins talking about tactics. The key is not to cover every single contingency, but rather to cover likely categories of contingency, and unusal combinations of ability between characters. I've met plenty of people whose grasp of tactics was sufficiently nuanced that they need more than five minutes of discussion, and I've played with groups that , after having played together for enough mods, get used to eachother's playing style to the extent that they don't need to explain themselves as fully as they do when they are playing with strangers. Most of the tactical discussions I see during play are attempts to match eachother's character capabilities to the situation. When someone asks if you can flank that monster, they know you _can_. What they are asking is whether that's better than something else you could do, and the reason they don't already know the kinds of things you do is because they haven't been adventuring with you for very long.
solbergb 06-18-07, 01:00 PM	Yeah. One of the huge advantages of playing with a wife or someone you've adventured with before is that at least one other person can be counted on to do the right thing to support an action by your character. One of the most common things my monk needs when fighting spellcasters (or blasphemy-monsters) is a silence spell dropped on him. Do this and the encounter is half-over, possibly all over. Neglect to do this and the party might get hammered. I've had parties with three people capable of casting silence who didn't do this, and then we got into blasphemy daze-lock or hammered by the enemy sorcerer. They didn't do this even after I called out for it after getting the bad guy in a situation where he could not have escaped the silence. It works the other way too. When my monk knows that my wife's sacred exorcist can probably win a fight herself if given enough time, he does much more aggressive/flashy things to try to draw attention away from her and toward himself. By the time the bad guys figure out who the real threat is, the fight is over... My sorceress Olivia has stuff she can do to help party members but only if they're willing to wear some equipment out of extradimensional spaces. She also checks for crazy (and moderately lightweight) volunteers to carry some extra arrows and be hurled along with the arrows at some enemy with violent thrust. She has to also tell people that if she says "Trust me, I've got you covered" in combat, to go ahead and keep attacking even if they're only at 1 hitpoint. She DOES have them covered. Many of my characters are simpler than that and it's usually a matter of saying at the beginning what sort of thing they do in combat roughly. (I'm an archer - if I'm not shooting my bow it is because something has gone badly wrong) etc. But one reason you may not see a lot of realistic tactical planning in LG is because even though you may have been at 200 tables, that's 200 tables where you weren't given the time to do it. We all have characters in LG that don't generally rely on complex tricks because there is no time to explain them. (indeed, my sorceress especially has abandoned a number of tactics because they required too much work to explain in a convention timeslot) You don't see complex team tactics in LG because the format discourages it (as it also discourages to some extent divinations, scouting and splitting the party in low threat environments)
King Kashue 06-18-07, 01:32 PM	I have an issue with it. I've played with you. My local group regularly spend much much more than 5 mins talking about tactics. The key is not to cover every single contingency, but rather to cover likely categories of contingency, and unusal combinations of ability between characters. I've met plenty of people whose grasp of tactics was sufficiently nuanced that they need more than five minutes of discussion, and I've played with groups that , after having played together for enough mods, get used to eachother's playing style to the extent that they don't need to explain themselves as fully as they do when they are playing with strangers. The first time I played with Teplin, it took you far less than five minutes to run through your myriad forms, and Teplin may be (or rather, may have been) the most complicated and versatile character I've played with. Perhaps you're underestimated your own capacity for succinctness? :D And evidently people have grown significantly more talkative since I re-emigrated, if folks are spending way more time talking about tactics now than before, I'll just have to take your word on that. Most of the tactical discussions I see during play are attempts to match each other's character capabilities to the situation. When someone asks if you can flank that monster, they know you _can_. What they are asking is whether that's better than something else you could do, and the reason they don't already know the kinds of things you do is because they haven't been adventuring with you for very long. And saying "can you flank or do you have something better in mind" (and a similar length answer) isn't one of the 45 second long discussions I'm describing, so I would have no problems with it.
King Kashue 06-18-07, 01:37 PM	Yes, it is lot better when people don't turn D&D into a giant chess match. But I've seen quite a few DMs who are willing to coordinate their monsters perfectly while not letting the players do the same thing. It's got to go both ways. I put myself on the same "clock" as the players. I also use the "you're on deck" system to let players know their turn is next, since that prompts them to think about their actions and thus have more time without slowing down the combat Let me emphasize - I don't do this at the table - all I'll do is say something that is 25 words or less. But the times where I've seen DMs forbid this is usually when there's a TPK about to happen, there's an inexperienced player(s) at the table, and instead of doing the necessary action, the player is doing something stupid(and/or irrelevant) See, I'm the exact opposite. The close the mung is to the fan, the more leeway I give players. If a player death is imminent, I often find that "all that water I've been drinking is getting to me, I'll be back in a minute or two" :D
Britt 06-18-07, 02:30 PM	If he were six people playing six characters, I would agree it has to go both ways; however, as one person running sometimes more than six characters, none of which he is intimately familiar with, I think the GM is allowed some slack in figuring out tactics in a round or stepping back one initiative to do something he forgot. The PCs, by the time they reach APL 10ish, should know their characters in and out, are only responsible for their characters, and are not responsible for the other characters. The GM has to track all his monsters, scan their abilities each round to check for best actions, follow all the PCs' actions and ensure that they are legal (he's still the GM), track initiative, etc etc. I'm not extremely harsh on time and going back (until APL 14ish), but I have my limits. If someone is taking more than about thirty seconds to make up their mind at a decently high APL, I will usually tell them they have six more seconds to make up their mind or they are delaying.
Mommy was an Orc 06-18-07, 03:30 PM	If he were six people playing six characters, I would agree it has to go both ways; however, as one person running sometimes more than six characters, none of which he is intimately familiar with, I think the GM is allowed some slack in figuring out tactics in a round or stepping back one initiative to do something he forgot. That's not quite what I'm talking about - there are a decent number of DMs who will do the tactics that they won't let the players do. If the monsters roll one initiative, it isn't even necessary to do the tactics - it happens naturally.
King Kashue 06-18-07, 03:36 PM	If the monsters roll one initiative, it isn't even necessary to do the tactics - it happens naturally. That's another huge pet peeve of mine. Unless I've got more than 10 bad guys on the board (or some of the bad guys are puds who are no real threat), everyone's got separate initiatives. That may be the easiest way to cause a PC death, every bad guy attacking without another PC's turn in between.
Britt 06-18-07, 03:39 PM	I usually ask the players if they want me to roll one initiative for similar monster types or roll them separately. It is far easier to roll once for similar monster types, but it does have an impact on battle.
solbergb 06-18-07, 11:09 PM	My rule of thumb on init is I don't want more init rolls than I have players at the table. I need time between inits to think and react to the evolving fight, and it seems to go smoother if I can do it on "player time" a good percentage of the time. Ie, I'll usually roll 4-6 if there are > 3 bad guys, but then group them in a logical way by type. One thing that helps a lot with more complex encounters is that I preroll all the inits and then actually do my prep assuming those initiatives. It frontloads the thinking process, as tactics and options are different if the NPC bard rolls a 20 vs a 2 and no matter what is actually rolled, the options are narrower. As with many things as a GM I do have to firewall the init order a bit - I don't want my bad guys to KNOW in round 1 that the hill giants will move on initiative 10. All they know is that they haven't gone yet. I am careful though to allow actions between their actions (Readies, delays, immediate, blah) - I sometimes have to stop overzealous GM's who move several badguys up at once - many of my characters do things that mess up the first guy and may cause the others to either want to or HAVE to change their originally planned actions.
Lomiat 06-19-07, 12:16 AM	But one reason you may not see a lot of realistic tactical planning in LG is because even though you may have been at 200 tables, that's 200 tables where you weren't given the time to do it. We all have characters in LG that don't generally rely on complex tricks because there is no time to explain them. (indeed, my sorceress especially has abandoned a number of tactics because they required too much work to explain in a convention timeslot) You don't see complex team tactics in LG because the format discourages it (as it also discourages to some extent divinations, scouting and splitting the party in low threat environments) My fighter picked up Staggering Strike at 9th level. He's now at 14th, and I think I've used the feat in maybe all of 10 mods. "Help your fighter get his sneak dice" is not a terribly complex strategy, but it's hard to implement because, in my experience, each player thinks about how his/her PC stands out and plays to their strengths -- which rarely are about adapting to other PCs' strengths (even buffers and bards; they don't "adapt" so much as they keep following the same patterns of making others better). I think it's more likely that complex team tactics fall apart in LG less because of the complexity of the tactics and more because of the requirements of "team." (And, this isn't about blame, just an observation. I've had my fighter introduce himself as a "bodyguard" for 14 levels, and he *STILL* charges into combat like a barbarian as soon as his initiative rolls around...)
copper_wyrmling 06-19-07, 01:00 AM	"Help your fighter get his sneak dice" is not a terribly complex strategy, but it's hard to implement because, in my experience, each player thinks about how his/her PC stands out and plays to their strengths -- which rarely are about adapting to other PCs' strengths (even buffers and bards; they don't "adapt" so much as they keep following the same patterns of making others better). It's sometimes hard to adapt when you don't know the other PCs, that's the problem. My cleric adapts to table composition in the broad-brush sense of, "Lots of fighters, I take a buffing spell selection, if I'm the main tank I prep more self-buffs". In the game I played on the weekend, we had two melee types (a monk and a wildrunner mutt) and so the two clerics prepped several copies of Righteous Wrath of the Faithful - and then hardly cast it, because it turned out the wildrunner preferred to play skirmisher and the monk didn't have anything like enough AC or HP to stand next to the monsters and trade full attacks. There's really not much point in Righteous Wrath if the targets aren't planning to full attack. That's something our characters might have discussed out-of-combat, but we didn't get the time to do it in-game. My cleric has a gemstone that grants greater invis once / day - she doesn't use it, and will happily lend it out to people with sneak attack, but when the person with sneak attack introduces themselves as an archer or a tank fighter and never mentions their rogue levels, she has no real reason to remember the gemstone (it does take a standard action to activate, so if nobody has sneak attack she usually gives it to the squishiest person in the party as a defensive option). I think it's more likely that complex team tactics fall apart in LG less because of the complexity of the tactics and more because of the requirements of "team." (And, this isn't about blame, just an observation. I've had my fighter introduce himself as a "bodyguard" for 14 levels, and he *STILL* charges into combat like a barbarian as soon as his initiative rolls around...) *shrugs* It does depend on who you play with. I've seen simple team tactics (along the lines of "everyone buffs the cleric's turn check and the cleric blows up the giant undead") work out pretty well, both when playing my cleric and when playing my sorcerer who can activate a lyre of the restful soul pretty reliably.
Cardinal Teplin 06-19-07, 06:36 AM	The first time I played with Teplin, it took you far less than five minutes to run through your myriad forms, and Teplin may be (or rather, may have been) the most complicated and versatile character I've played with. Perhaps you're underestimated your own capacity for succinctness? :D Not at all. That description is well practiced, since I have to give it at every table. But this is precisely my point - Teplin's various forms were character capabilities. They are not, by any stretch of the imagination, tactics. Is this, for example, the same game where Teplin spent an entire combat delaying, because someone wanted to get all the enemies in a single whirlwind attack, and that didn't leave enough space in the room for him to transform? I seem to remember being annoyed that we didn't discuss tactics properly, at least on that occasion... And evidently people have grown significantly more talkative since I re-emigrated, if folks are spending way more time talking about tactics now than before, I'll just have to take your word on that. Not in the slightest. This is the same group that regularly used single-transferable vote systems for decision making. Obviously, in a lot of games there isn't much time for tactical discussions, and if the table is playing down or handling the threat very well, it probably doesn't make much difference. Maybe you only played on tables that were rushed for time? I'm sorry that you apparently misssed all the tactical discussion that did take place, but it did happen, and when it didn't, the table was the poorer for it.
pedr 06-19-07, 07:16 AM	< Highjack>Not in the slightest. This is the same group that regularly used single-transferable vote systems for decision making. We did? We should re-introduce that. Starting with an election for a new organiser ... < /Highjack>
King Kashue 06-19-07, 02:09 PM	I'm sorry that you apparently misssed all the tactical discussion that did take place, but it did happen, and when it didn't, the table was the poorer for it. I didn't miss it...Which is my point... You and I have only played together at a table twice. As for everyone else, it's not like the folks playing Jel or Lyrin or Elysia or Devrin became tactically unsound during random periods and didn't devise complex ideas (especially not Devrin :D) This is my whole point. Complex discussions can happen in shorter amounts of time. I've sat at the tables with long discussions, I've listed to certain people prattle on, or discuss the same thing back and forth. Except those weren't productive discussions. Everything that was said, could have been said in a much shorter period of time, and more to my point, it usually was...;)
mlund 06-19-07, 02:36 PM	The biggest problem I run into are complicated environments (say, like holding your breath and trying to fight under water) and players who just aren't as fast at analysis or aren't very good listeners. I remember an encounter in which the party battle-line got caught by a pair of beasts that could form an electric arc between their horns. The bulk of the party got fried. So during the next sequence the battle line spreads out a little bit and their general position makes it harder to draw a good line through them due to the monsters being Large Size and their being some hard cover they can't stand in. So the last person to act is a fighter run by a casual player. The player moves their character into a position that exposes the whole party to the exact same line of lightning it got fried with last round where moving 1 step higher on the battle mat completely blocked it. "Stop them from doing it again!" and pointing works really well between the Characters in the "Game World." Trying to explain to the Player why positioning is important and how their position limits the movement of the monsters and will otherwise get the party killed, however, is a big production. - Marty Lund
Mattastrophic 06-19-07, 04:19 PM	A very cool solution to in-combat tactics discussion is the spell Rary's Telepathic Bond. When the party can communicate at the speed of thought, a TON of information can be conveyed. Try it sometime. I personally tend to skimp on the tactics discussion, and instead pay close attention to character descriptions as well as what's going on on the battlemat. My main character is a stand-in-the-back "conductor" type who watches for just the right opportunity to place just the right spell. Instead of telling others my tactics, requesting that they adapt to them, I just sit back and adapt to the tactics of everyone else. The way LG is set up, 90% of combats really don't require much in the way of anything but easy teamwork; it's just a matter of covering for the people who aren't up to snuff. Worse comes to worse, the weaker character sucks up a Delay Death while you carry on. After enough time in the campaign, you begin to sense those disturbances in the Force, where just by watching or listening to your fellow gamers you can tell how the session is going to go. So, the lesson to learn here is: just wing it and you'll be okay. You can only control your own actions, not anyone else's. And if you die, oh well, you can rest easy knowing it wasn't your fault. -Matt
chesspiece 06-19-07, 04:58 PM	That's another huge pet peeve of mine. Unless I've got more than 10 bad guys on the board (or some of the bad guys are puds who are no real threat), everyone's got separate initiatives. I’m GMing RHoD and we recently finished a combat that dragged on as creatures in multiple "rooms" joined in the initiative. :eek: A total of 7 rooms joined during this combat and each room had 1 creature or several small identical creatures – so I only rolled 1 init for each room’s creatures. My first 6 modified initiative rolls were in the 9-14 range and wouldn’t you know it – the PCs were either below 8 or above 15. :( It was… interesting. When the attacker from room #7 joined, he rolled a 19 but died after 1 round of actions. Heh. Luckily, the PCs carried the day after 2 KOs and a dead animal companion. ;)
solbergb 06-19-07, 05:08 PM	Heh..yeah, sometimes the initiatives clump. Sometimes unintentionally. I've had nice spread out inits, like 20, 15, 10, 5 and then the party rolls entirely over 20 and under 5. I've also rolled four separate inits and gotten 12 11 11(higher mod) and 10. I don't reroll them in prep, that's just the way the dice fall sometimes.
bitznarf 06-19-07, 05:32 PM	Worse comes to worse, the weaker character sucks up a Delay Death while you carry on. Dangerous assumption there, that you have a cleric that can cast delay death.
Britt 06-19-07, 05:35 PM	Dangerous assumption there, that you have a cleric that can cast delay death. And it's the exact kind of attitude that I have argued delay death will create. It makes people far less concerned about the risk of death. They start doing things they wouldn't have done without the existence of that spell, taking disproportionate risks, and not feeling threatened.
Mattastrophic 06-19-07, 05:52 PM	Dangerous assumption there, that you have a cleric that can cast delay death. And as my own post just explained in detail, that's the cleric's tactical decision to make, not mine. If he lets me know he doesn't prepare Delay Death, or a particular disturbance in the Force indicates he isn't planning to prep it, or if I observe him run out of Close range, or I observe him cast his Delay Death for the day, then I'll just adapt to the current situation. Point being, if you pay attention to what's going on, it's easy to adapt on the fly to the current situation. Too much advance planning can be more harm than good, as it can pull people out of their comfort zones and often lead to a screwed pooch when "the master plan" gets totally messed up because one person didn't do something exactly right. As for the Delay Death quote, change "sucks up a Delay Death" to "sucks up a Divine Warded Cure Critical" or "sucks up an Otiluke's Resilient Sphere or a Benign Transposition or a Dimension Door or a Lesser Vigor or a Potion of Cure Light Wounds" and my point remains: The way LG is set up, 90% of combats really don't require much in the way of anything but easy teamwork; it's just a matter of covering for the people who aren't up to snuff. In other words: "What's the plan, Indy?" "I dunno; I'm makin' this up as I go." -Matt
bitznarf 06-19-07, 06:04 PM	Each of your other examples takes a standard action at a minimum, unless someone has one quickened for some reason. It makes a difference, never mind that delay death is an immediate action rather than a swift. My point is that operating on the assumption that someone else has the time and ability to pull weaker PCs out of the fire is a mistake in my opinion.
Mattastrophic 06-19-07, 06:29 PM	My point is that operating on the assumption that someone else has the time and ability to pull weaker PCs out of the fire is a mistake in my opinion. And again, if you observe the battlefield, you'll know the best tactic for the situation. Sometimes I notice that the best tactic is to Swift Fly+Tumble through the beastie's reach to DimDoor someone out. Or sometimes I notice that the cleric, whom I notice is packing Delay Death and Divine Ward is in Close range, so a Delay Death then a Divine Warded Heal means he's back in action, and I'm free to do something else. Maybe I'll even shoot a quick question to the cleric during my turn if I really have to. "You've got him covered?" is often enough. Point being, I believe in focusing on my tactics for individual scenarios, then switching gears and adapting when the scenarios display themselves. If you like to strategize at the table, that's okay, too. I'm just presenting an alternative. -Matt
solbergb 06-19-07, 06:30 PM	Overwatch takes player skill yeah, more than delay death does (although if you are sensible and don't rule that Delay Death is Close Wounds on crack and thus don't allow it to be cast after the guy has been already killed it still takes some judgement to use). It's a fairly uncommon thing in LG, but it is something some of my characters and some of my wife's characters do. Not everyone has the spells for overwatch - generally it's the medic/support or battlefield control arcanists that do it best. Matt's got a point that a lot of "being a skilled LG player" is sizing up a party and slotting your guy into the missing roles, so you can emphasize team strengths and minimize weaknesses. Most people in LG after the first year or so do this instinctively, but there are always a few who pretty much do one thing and the rest of the party reforms around the ones who aren't adaptable. Overwatch is just one way to do it. My monk, for example, behaves quite differently when the party is one spellcaster, a rogue and 3-4 melee types plus him vs when the party is a couple arcanists and divine casters and an archer. Sometimes this instinctive behavior can backfire if other characters aren't what they seem. If the "archer" is really a mounted combat guy, if the divine casters are "melees with a deity" and the arcanists are a warmage and a themed sorcerer, these characters need to speak up about what they "really" are, as opposed to what they seem to be.
DuctShuiTengu 06-19-07, 11:37 PM	I find it's a delicate balance in a lot of cases. Most PCs have a few things they do, and do well. In most cases, doing their thing is the best that they can provide for the party. However, some encounters demand things that no-one in the party is really focused, but someone has to step up and do it anyway (no-one in the party is really designed to be a tank, but the cavalier can get do it well enough by not using ride-by attack). And some encounters can turn into situations where non-standard tactics are necessary to keep everyone alive (running through threatened areas to draw AoOs so that other people can get out without taking another hit). The trick is in realizing when something is needed badly enough that it's worth sacrificing what you'd normally be able to provide, and being able to figure out quickly who's best able to cover it.
JamesMaissen 06-20-07, 01:15 AM	Most PCs have a few things they do, and do well. In most cases, doing their thing is the best that they can provide for the party. One of the side-effects to LG's pick up style parties is that a good number of mid level players can tend to be primadonnas (whether by nature or simply pushed into the role by the circumstance). They get used to acting in a vacuum, because the setting (ie party) that they find themselves in is so mutable. The time involved to adapt to the group they wind up in can be longer than the RL time that they are there. They usually provide something positive (in the right coordinated direction or not) and can thereby muddle through. It's by no means optimal, but its an understandable response given the setting they are in. Now some archetypes are more dynamic by nature or need and this behavior is less common in them. Most light infantry can fall here, or should. Sadly a good number of battlefield control casters do not. One of the solutions to this is picking someone at the table that you trust and that falls into the role well and letting them choose tempo. Call it 'party leader' if you will, whose job it is to make sure that everyone is working in the same direction. -James
copper_wyrmling 06-20-07, 06:58 AM	Now some archetypes are more dynamic by nature or need and this behavior is less common in them. Most light infantry can fall here, or should. Hmmmm... is this another difference in the definition of "light infantry"? My dervish is by far the least adaptable of my PCs: like a machinegun archer, the combats where the best thing for him to do is anything BUT "I enter dervish dance, click boots of speed, full-speed tumble, full attack" are going to be few and far between. My spellcasters are a LOT more adaptable, including my two sorcerers.
MatteBlack 06-20-07, 09:29 AM	Alot of the problem is that many people have very powergamed combat styles that require very finicky movement and positioning. The game totally supports it and I like 3.0's move to a grid based system but, the chess board manuvering and multiple skill rolls just to move in and attack can get pretty tedious after the first few times you have seen it done. These styles can be very effective but, can often be beyond the gaming skills of those trying to copy them. If there are more than one such type of character they could be fighting for the same squares and it gets worse once you add in spells or players they aren't familiar with. I wouldn't trade the grid based system but, I hope when a version 4.0 comes out they concentrate more on playability and streamlined combat than on filling splatbooks with intricate combat tactics. -------- If players keep their discussions at the table in game and step away to discuss rules and tactics away from the table while still keeping up with the action sequence I have little problem with it. As soon as play slows down, turns in to a rules discussion and/or characters begin to make decisions that are beyond their abilities then I think there is a problem.
Cardinal Teplin 06-20-07, 10:54 AM	I didn't miss it [tactical discussion]...Which is my point... Yes, you did. That's my point. Seriously, the idea that long tactical decisions can never help is an absurd generalisation, and I'm not sure on what basis you're insisting on it. I've seen it help. I'm happy to believe that you haven't, heck, I'm happy to believe they don't help you, but I'd love to know where you get the idea that they never help anyone. They certainly help me. This is my whole point. Complex discussions can happen in shorter amounts of time. Not necessarily. Oh sure, we've all sat at tables where people jabbered on and didn't really achieve something. Sure sometimes you spend a lot of time you don't need to. That I can agree with. But that's not what you were saying. No, your point was: People's tactics, even crazy-odd characters, aren't that complicated. They can be discussed in 3-5 minutes at the beginning while everyone is getting ready to roll. and perhaps more pertinently: Only if one believes his/her tactics to be so subtle and nuanced that they require 5 minutes of detailed explanation...Trust me, they're not... But I don't trust you on this. Because most of the people I play with do indeed have tactics subtle enough that they require more than five minutes of discussion, and they do indeed benefit from discussing them. Of course it doesn't help that I'm very much in favour of increasing the amount of tactical planning that goes into an LG party, simply because I've seen what a difference it can make to the end result. And it certainly doesn't help that the last table I played with you was one where people were tired, rushed for time, and rather heavily playing down, with the result that we ploughed through the adventure with all the subtlety and flair of a runaway dump truck. We won, of course, but we could have managed it much more smoothly than we did.
_metz_ 06-20-07, 10:54 AM	Hmmmm... is this another difference in the definition of "light infantry"? My dervish is by far the least adaptable of my PCs: like a machinegun archer, the combats where the best thing for him to do is anything BUT "I enter dervish dance, click boots of speed, full-speed tumble, full attack" are going to be few and far between. My spellcasters are a LOT more adaptable, including my two sorcerers. Its all about the TWF Basically Straight Rogue skillmonkey :) Also a Pirate. THATS light infantry :P As in, if hit, will probably go down, but if its sneakable... and I'm in a Flank. Well it starts with 'S' and ends with 'tabbity death'. So tactics can seem pretty standard, but there are lots of tricksy things to do, like acid flask sneak attack Death when hasted before the critter whilst its flatfooted or greased... (yay quick draw!)
Cardinal Teplin 06-20-07, 11:11 AM	I don't know, I've always seen 'light infantry' as meaning a character that can do good damage (possibly only under the right conditions) but can't take the same punishment that a tank or cork can. Thus they need manoevre, cunning, and possibly someone else to take the hits, while they dart in and do their damage. My barbarian marshal was planned to be a front-line barbarian type, with more armour and less hp than usual. Instead he's has ended up much more as light infantry, doing a great deal of damage but only lasting a few rounds. Or so pedr pointed out during one of our regular tactical discussions :plotting: Tank, light infantry, cork, etc are as much roles as they are builds. A light infantry might end up tanking with the right buffs, and a tank might end up doing a light infantry is he was playing up enough that he couldn't take the hits at the APL he was playing at.
King Kashue 06-20-07, 12:17 PM	Yes, you did. That's my point. Seriously, the idea that long tactical decisions can never help is an absurd generalisation, and I'm not sure on what basis you're insisting on it. I've seen it help. I'm happy to believe that you haven't, heck, I'm happy to believe they don't help you, but I'd love to know where you get the idea that they never help anyone. They certainly help me. Well, considering I haven't said anything even close to "Long discussions never help", I don't really feel the need to defend the idea. :D I have said long tactical discussions are rarely necessary. That people who know their characters and their tactics can usually explain those in relatively short order (even if they normally take longer). And once again, my main point has nothing to do with such discussions, but rather with long sets of instructions during combat. But I don't trust you on this. Because most of the people I play with do indeed have tactics subtle enough that they require more than five minutes of discussion, and they do indeed benefit from discussing them. To be honest, that was a "friendly" jab at Ed, who once spent 10+ minutes discussing the tactics of his 3rd level wizard :D (<3 ya Ed ;)) To be serious though, more than five minutes on a single character is usually not necessary. I'm not saying five minutes for all six people and a full discussion. There will always be people who can legitimately take 15 seconds (e.g., the average melee BDF or a buffing sorc), which leaves plenty of time for the more complex folks. And it certainly doesn't help that the last table I played with you was one where people were tired, rushed for time, and rather heavily playing down Um, the last time we played was Sept 4, 2005 at AH's. We played The Rescue, and we played APL 12 with two 9s in the party and LP judging. Teplin was the only player at or above APL with a 13 (You might have been 14, I don't have that noted, but I do know we had two at 9, and were "creative" with the solution). That's the last time I was in the Sceptred Isle, so unless I've been "sleep trans-Atlantic flying and role-playing", your memory must be going in your old age ;)
solbergb 06-20-07, 12:31 PM	Hmmmm... is this another difference in the definition of "light infantry"? My dervish is by far the least adaptable of my PCs: like a machinegun archer, the combats where the best thing for him to do is anything BUT "I enter dervish dance, click boots of speed, full-speed tumble, full attack" are going to be few and far between. My spellcasters are a LOT more adaptable, including my two sorcerers. Most light infantry need more setup than a dervish to do their big damage, and are more vulnerable to counterattack so their main role is to put pressure on the non-melee-type enemies first, then mop up the melee types. Although each combat situation requires some variation in this. The main shifts in role a light infantry has to do is know when they have to be the party tank (and ask pre-emptively for support BEFORE the fight starts), when they have to tank for a round or two for the party to get organized, when they actually DO have to dive into the fight to scare the enemy and draw fire (as opposed to "charge the enemy alone being a bad idea), when they should primarily support some other hitter (flank, aid, grapple, trip, pick up the TWF rogue and set him down in flanking position...) and when they should spend a round positioning and maybe readying instead of doing something more active. With a dervish, archer, rideby guy our pounce-build, most of that finesse is not needed because you can reliably do your full damage, so it is probably what you should be doing most of the time. It's mostly paying attention to when you have to be a blocker instead of a hitter, and for all of those builds, that's usually uncommon. Tanks need mobility support usually to switch to light infantry (eg,a fly+haste spell turns the 20' guy into a 60' move guy who can ignore obstacles, or a dim door can allow him to vaporize the squishie sniper, etc). Tanks mostly need to know when their main thing (close in fighting and durability) won't work in this fight and need to either ask for mobility support or break out some kind of ranged attack.
Mommy was an Orc 06-20-07, 12:32 PM	I don't know, I've always seen 'light infantry' as meaning a character that can do good damage (possibly only under the right conditions) but can't take the same punishment that a tank or cork can. Thus they need manoevre, cunning, and possibly someone else to take the hits, while they dart in and do their damage. I've generally seen the categories as: Cork - light to moderate damage, high to very high AC/Saves, moderate to very high hit points, low to high mobility - Pro: Hard to hurt. Con: Near worthless if the DM ignores him Tank - moderate to high damage, high AC, high to very high hit points, low to high Saves, low to moderate mobility. Pro: Generally useful unless mobility is an issue. Con: Somewhat boring in play especially if mobility becomes an issue. Light Infantry - light to very high damage, very low to high AC, very low to high hit points, very low to high Saves, high to very high mobility. Pro: Can be very useful. Con: People occasionally insist on building a light damage, high AC, very low hit points, very low Saves, high mobility character - i.e. not good enough hit points/saves to be a cork, not enough damage or survivability to serve as a tank. Cavalry - moderate or high damage, moderate to high AC, high hit points, low to high Saves, low or high mobility. Pro: When it can charge, does amazing damage. Con: When it can't, often not built to tank(or worse, player will refuse to tank when the party needs them to do so) Battlefield Control - can apply to any of them - employs Trip/Disarm/Grapple or other such manuevers to make it harder for opponents to manuever around the battlefield.
King Kashue 06-20-07, 12:49 PM	Category summary I generally use similar categories. As an exercise, how would you categorize someone like this: 12th level 42 Str 5-6 attacks per round with haste (2-3 secondary), easily avg in the 100+ range 208 HP 9 AC :D Luckily most folks I've played with (and a surprising number I haven't) know about him, but I've always been at a loss to describe him.
Cardinal Teplin 06-20-07, 01:19 PM	I have said long tactical discussions are rarely necessary. That people who know their characters and their tactics can usually explain those in relatively short order (even if they normally take longer). Tactics are a team thing, not a character thing. The problem is not just what your character does, or can do, but what you do as a team. The classic example is where you play a role totally at odds with your character capabilities because what your character normally does is already covered by characters who can't adapt as well as you can. But it's also far more than that. It's about working out how to play to an encounter's weaknesses as a team, rather than just concentrating on individual strengths. It's about doing things as a team that just don't work as a individual character. And so on. And once again, my main point has nothing to do with such discussions, but rather with long sets of instructions during combat. Which were justified as replacing the practicing together that PCs would have been doing 'off-camera'. Which you said didn't make sense because tactics aren't that sophisticated - they only take about 5 minutes. To be serious though, more than five minutes on a single character is usually not necessary. I'm not saying five minutes for all six people and a full discussion. There will always be people who can legitimately take 15 seconds (e.g., the average melee BDF or a buffing sorc), which leaves plenty of time for the more complex folks. Necessary? Sure it's not necessary. Nor is a powerful build. But it sure can help. We're probably talking at cross purposes to an extent, since I'm talking about team tactics, and you're talking about individual character capabilities. Um, the last time we played was Sept 4, 2005 at AH's. We played The Rescue, and we played APL 12 with two 9s in the party and LP judging. Teplin was the only player at or above APL with a 13 (You might have been 14, I don't have that noted, but I do know we had two at 9, and were "creative" with the solution). Oh, I remember the mod. I spent a fair amount of time sitting on my hands too, because a certain whirlwinder wanted to take out the enemies by himself, and didn't leave me enough space to change form. Not that you weren't sucessful, mind, or fun to roleplay with, but I thought it would have been better if we'd used more teamwork. (the other mod we played together was that dwarvern regional, no?) To put things into context, given the opportunity I will discuss tactics for hours. There usually isn't that much time during a game, of course, but things like two-round mods split over two sessions, or a game scheduled in advance with people I know, and all sorts of ideas can come out of the woodwork. In LG, there usually isn't that kind of time, so I tend to be more generous in letting talk people out of character during the fight. Yes the talk is generally more focused on the particular situation, but the same kind of ideas emerge.
bitznarf 06-20-07, 01:21 PM	That would be a thug King.
Cardinal Teplin 06-20-07, 01:24 PM	I generally use similar categories. As an exercise, how would you categorize someone like this: 12th level 42 Str 5-6 attacks per round with haste (2-3 secondary), easily avg in the 100+ range 208 HP 9 AC Barbarian. High damage, high hp, low AC. It's not a popular descriptive term though. I tend to avoid using the term 'light infantry' in practice because I don't think it is specific enough to useful. I would, for example, draw a strong distinction between someone who can't take damage, and someone with a low AC but lots of hp, who can take damage very well, but only for a limited time.
solbergb 06-20-07, 03:26 PM	I generally use similar categories. As an exercise, how would you categorize someone like this: 12th level 42 Str 5-6 attacks per round with haste (2-3 secondary), easily avg in the 100+ range 208 HP 9 AC Light infantry. Unless for some reason he's relatively immobile even with haste. Then probably "tank" just on strength of hitpoints.
solbergb 06-20-07, 03:27 PM	I would, for example, draw a strong distinction between someone who can't take damage, and someone with a low AC but lots of hp, who can take damage very well, but only for a limited time. If you can't take damage you aren't generally considered infantry. Most people in this category are archers and spellcasters, but the occasional dervish or cavalry guy might. The difference between light infantry and heavy infantry is the light infantry is usually "done" after one big full attack from an enemy - alive, able to extract themselves, but unable to stick around for another one. Whereas a tank can go several rounds with the big boys and is usually almost immune to the second string enemies or swarms of little guys.
Timlagor 06-20-07, 05:41 PM	To be honest, that was a "friendly" jab at Ed, who once spent 10+ minutes discussing the tactics of his 3rd level wizard :D (<3 ya Ed ;)) I don't remember the particular instance but I can spend more than that on a 1st level wizard if I try :P ..especially with players who don't already understand such things as Grease and Sleep, or the value of Unseen Servant or .... (and since it was my first character I can well believe that I hadn't through it all through well in advance for myself)
Timlagor 06-20-07, 05:47 PM	I generally use similar categories. As an exercise, how would you categorize someone like this: 12th level 42 Str 5-6 attacks per round with haste (2-3 secondary), easily avg in the 100+ range 208 HP 9 AC :D Luckily most folks I've played with (and a surprising number I haven't) know about him, but I've always been at a loss to describe him. Usually he'd be a "Shock Trooper" but in this case I believe "Bear Warrior" covers it pretty well.
Mommy was an Orc 06-20-07, 06:45 PM	I generally use similar categories. As an exercise, how would you categorize someone like this: 12th level 42 Str 5-6 attacks per round with haste (2-3 secondary), easily avg in the 100+ range 208 HP 9 AC :D Light Infantry - a CR 12-15 melee monster that power attacks him for a significant amount is probably going to kill him in two rounds. A tank in the same situation is going to get missed by the iteratives.
King Kashue 06-20-07, 09:10 PM	Oh, I remember the mod. I spent a fair amount of time sitting on my hands too, because a certain whirlwinder wanted to take out the enemies by himself, and didn't leave me enough space to change form. Not that you weren't sucessful, mind, or fun to roleplay with, but I thought it would have been better if we'd used more teamwork. Funny that, because the way I remember it, you spent the whole mod as a carrion crawler attacking eight times a round and forcing eight DC 21 paralysis saves (per round) because LP ruled you got to keep your amulet of health :D I was a 9 playing to 12. You were the big dog at the table (along with AH who was definitely 13, checking old notes) (the other mod we played together was that dwarvern regional, no?) Naw, Hunt for the Rogue...Horrible module. The only fun was watching to try to convince the decamodron to fight you so you could later shift into him :D Necessary? Sure it's not necessary. Nor is a powerful build. But it sure can help. We're probably talking at cross purposes to an extent, since I'm talking about team tactics, and you're talking about individual character capabilities. Tactical discussions for a cold LG table are usually a series of characters describing capabilities and then working out combinations for given situations, what spells will always be cast, what will happen if this happens, who needs flanks, where folks like to be positioned and how people will move in relation to that, etc... The conversations I'm talking about are "Billy, you move here and ready, and then I'll move here and ready, and then Steve you cast X, and Jim you delay until Mary charges to here, then our readies will go off, and then you come out of delay and cast Y, and then Sean, you sweep in and do this..." It doesn't matter how much time is given in advance, those sorts of conversations are specifically because two enemies stepped in a perfect spot, or because of an odd terrain feature, or whatever specific situation makes that plan workable. It's instructions in combat that I have a problem with (as I keep stating)... Giving general guidelines (the sort that could have been worked out in advance) is fine, as is occasionally asking "what works best for you?" (which could also have been worked out in advance) is cool..."Jim move to this square" is not... That's the line I'm drawing between general strategy/tactical approaches, and specific tactical instructions...One can take place out of character, the other must take place in character...
Cardinal Teplin 06-21-07, 11:12 AM	Funny that, because the way I remember it, you spent the whole mod as a carrion crawler attacking eight times a round and forcing eight DC 21 paralysis saves (per round) because LP ruled you got to keep your amulet of health :D And the reason I spent the mod as a carrion crawler was because there wasn't enough space on the floor to change, so I had to find a form that would stick to the cealing. Even then, I got boxed into the corner with the door, just picking off enemy that got past you so I didn't interfere with the big whirlwind attack. As I say, it was fun, it was effective, but it wasn't terribly well cooridinated. [QUOTE=King Kashue;12799841]Naw, Hunt for the Rogue...Horrible module. The only fun was watching to try to convince the decamodron to fight you so you could later shift into him :D I enjoyed playing that one, although the mod as written wasn't that great. The conversations I'm talking about are "Billy, you move here and ready, and then I'll move here and ready, and then Steve you cast X, and Jim you delay until Mary charges to here, then our readies will go off, and then you come out of delay and cast Y, and then Sean, you sweep in and do this..." It doesn't matter how much time is given in advance, those sorts of conversations are specifically because two enemies stepped in a perfect spot, or because of an odd terrain feature, or whatever specific situation makes that plan workable. It's instructions in combat that I have a problem with (as I keep stating)... <snip> That's the line I'm drawing between general strategy/tactical approaches, and specific tactical instructions...One can take place out of character, the other must take place in character... Sure, but the reason why people give eachother these instructions is because the other person doesn't know what they mean when they say something like "Form a line and follow the leader!" They might well mean the kind of sequence you describe above. Jel developed a tendancy to shout 'let's contain them, people'. What that actually meant was that at that point in the combat we should look at taking prisoners rather than killing them, and that in order to do so she was going to drop an appriopriate spell. This meant that, as we approached her point in the initative order, we should start doing subdual damage, withdraw from combat with the hardest people, concentrate on weak flankers or outliers, and form a box around the largest grouping, possibly readying to trip, to stop them escaping the planned area of effect of a subdual fireball, shadowcast leomund's secure cottage, or similar. Now on a table with people who had no idea what she was talking about, it became, yes, a set of detailed instructions. On a table where they did, it didn't merit much more discussion than that. Now obviously there is a subtle distinction between that, and having one person effectively playing someone else' s character, or even all the characters on the table, but I think it is a subtle distinction, and can't be made just on the basis of the complexity of the plan, because people do plan out complicated manoevres in advance.. Sure it may not be realistic to have people discussing detailed plans that their characters couldn't be discussing, but then neither is it realistic to have all the characters with 360degreee vision who never get too distracted to work out exactly where everyone is with geometric precision. It's meant to represent the idea of a competant and well-honed team. I'd put table discussion of specific plans into the same category.
Dr.Cornelius 06-22-07, 12:00 AM	... pick up the TWF rogue and set him down in flanking position...Where are the rules for picking up other characters? We could not find them the other night when a character wanted to pick up a prone (tripped) character. How far can the character be moved? Does being picked up provoke?
solbergb 06-25-07, 12:28 PM	Same as picking up any other object. Provokes an AOO, move action. Free action to "drop them". Encumbrance rules apply, which tends to limit movement unless the guy lifting the PC is either very strong or a size category larger or both. When I judge, it's a second move action to set them carefully on their feet, but there is table variation on that. In general, if the rogue doesn't start out already being carried, this maneuver only moves him a few feet, or a bit further if the lifter is enlarged and has the reach to reposition him. In some circumstances the bull rush mechanics work better for moving an ally, if they "take 1" on their opposed strength check.
draxynnic 06-28-07, 07:23 AM	Well written mods should generally contain more than one way to complete the mod. A predetermined, single path - especially one that relies on a single roll - is a recipe for an unsatisfying experience. Oh, I know all about that. The one, sole, Fiesta slot I've had the chance to play so far (I've been playing since early 2004, and I'm in Australia, so until recently there was only one region that didn't involve crossing a major ocean...), I had that happen. To get into a certain part of the module, everyone had to make certain skill checks. They weren't even particularly hard for the character... but the dice hated me, and while more than one attempt was allowed, there was a limit. (To add insult to injury, I was the first person to actually try doing what you had to do...) I ended up spending half the session watching the people playing miniatures games. Even when I got to participate again when the final fight started, my luck held out and I failed a 'save or be out of the combat' roll. Let's just say that I wasn't particularly impressed...