Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Maesto 04-16-07, 09:49 AM	Hi all, I've heard that APL 16 is starting to get scratched from core modules: as of COR7-07, no core module will contain APL 16. I know that this is out of the league of a number of players, but I'm wondering why this is occuring, and if such will start happening to core special, regional, and meta-regional modules also. What's wrong with APL 16? For one, I'll vote to keep APL 16 in - if the players want to play at that level, let them have fun and be stupid =) As has been pointed out elsewhere, an EL+5 encounter will kill an APL 2 party, but an APL 14 party will likely treat it as a tough, but doable combat. Besides, I'd love to see some of the higher CR monsters make appearances. If we want to have a challenge, please let us =) Keep APL 16! Jolyon
smerwin29 04-16-07, 10:12 AM	If that is true, it is news to me. I am putting together the outline for my next Core adventure, and it contains APL 16. Shawn
copper_wyrmling 04-16-07, 02:09 PM	If that is true, it is news to me. I am putting together the outline for my next Core adventure, and it contains APL 16. Ooooh, is that the next (last?) part of Windows to the Serpent's Soul? Yes yes, APL 16 please! I know where Maesto got his information and I'd consider it a fairly reliable source, but if it's not true, I'll be very happy too :)
Lomiat 04-16-07, 06:18 PM	I haven't heard any such rumor, but that's not saying much. All the same, I'd prefer to keep APL 16 among the available options.
Ariante 04-17-07, 04:05 AM	I haven't heard any such rumor, but that's not saying much. All the same, I'd prefer to keep APL 16 among the available options. I'm afraid it's true. I don't usually frequent the boards (I think they're horibly clunky compared to a mailing list), but a friend pointed me here. Anyway. I'm the author of COR7-07 Storm Harvest, which was supposed to go APL6-16 and was written as such -untill HQ ordered APL16 to be removed. The reason given was that APL16 is no longer supported (in Cores at least). Greetz, Maya Deva Author of COR7-7 Storm Harvest
Puggle Halfwine 04-17-07, 04:09 AM	Sadface. Vote #1 APL 16.
gomeztoo 04-17-07, 07:45 AM	That would make Luke Pitcher's (COR7-06) and my scenario (COR7-01) the last APL 16 Core scenarios? Hmm. A dubious honor. I have to admit that writing for APl 16 is difficult (and DMing even worse), but it is a pity. Even if we fase them out, I suggest to include APL 16 in any series-closing scenarios (such as, I guess, Taking Flight).
smerwin29 04-17-07, 08:19 AM	Thanks for all the information. I am in intense negotiations (i.e. me weeping and saying, "Pretty please") to see if we can include APL 16 for "Taking Flight" since it is the end of a series spanning 4 years. That said, I can certainly understand the rationale for removing APL 16 from adventures. They are tough to write, tough to edit, tough for many DMs to run, and some rules break down at those levels. Thanks to all who posted! Shawn
Madfox11 04-17-07, 08:58 AM	APL 14 and 16 have not been allowed in Regionals for years now. I know that one round per year is excepted for this, but still the change is not very big for regionals. Note though that I heard of this change only through unofficial channels - it is not like I need to know in case of cores. So I assume in theory it is still allowed for meta-regionals and regional specials. More news is sure to follow...
pedr 04-17-07, 11:13 AM	Um, if you only heard about it through 'unofficial channels', who made the decision? Why would anyone but the Circle acting collegiately make such a decision? I suppose I could understand Creighton making that decision on his own authority, but even that would be something I'd have thought would be discussed among the Circle. I don't see any reason why HQ (Ian and/or Chris, I suppose) would have any interest in whether APL 16 exists for cores or not. But perhaps I'm missing something!
Redfist 04-17-07, 11:18 AM	Well - they phased out APL 18. Now they're phasing out APL 16. Maybe next, they should just phase out all double digit APLs followed up by the "I hate 8" push leaving us with just APL2-6. :weep:
solbergb 04-17-07, 12:36 PM	Each region gets to have one adventure that goes all the way to 16, and interactives are unrestricted. Metaregionals can go up to 16 if written for it, no limit. I don't know why they'd want to restrict cores to 14. Some tables muster to 16 with just 14s and 15s, if they have 6 characters. They should be allowed to play at that level, if the mod is a 10-16 type. Maybe it's just a time thing - they don't have the bandwidth to adequately edit the cores other than core specials for the highest level of play. Or maybe core specials are the equivalent of interactives/the 'one mod per year' for the "core region".
Genghis Cohen 04-17-07, 01:26 PM	What I don't like about this is that there are still 15th level characters in the campaign. A table with 3 or 4 optimized 15th level characters at APL14 won't be much of a challenge.
copper_wyrmling 04-17-07, 01:39 PM	Maybe it's just a time thing - they don't have the bandwidth to adequately edit the cores other than core specials for the highest level of play. If they're already checking statblocks for APLs up to 14, is adding 16 that much more trouble? I know Storm Harvest had complete statblocks at APL 16, because I helped Maya Deva write them (after I playtested it at APL 12). Good luck with the weeping and pleading, Shawn - I would love to play Taking Flight at APL 16 :weep:
Howie23 04-17-07, 01:43 PM	I don't know why they'd want to restrict cores to 14. Some tables muster to 16 with just 14s and 15s, if they have 6 characters. They should be allowed to play at that level, if the mod is a 10-16 type. 3 13s and 3 14s calc to 15 and can choose APL16, if they were so inclined. 6 9th level characters can play APL6 in a mod that caps at APL6. The issue isn't whether there are tables that can muster for the APL, it must stem from some other point w/respect to mod length, editting time, campaign focus, etc. Having recently been looking at the wealth curve stuff, it makes it hard for the upper level guys to keep up with the character wealth expectations though. David
Mattastrophic 04-17-07, 02:34 PM	...WTF?!? -Matt The reason given was that APL16 is no longer supported (in Cores at least).
Madfox11 04-17-07, 03:58 PM	I don't see any reason why HQ (Ian and/or Chris, I suppose) would have any interest in whether APL 16 exists for cores or not. But perhaps I'm missing something! They have to proof read and accept them. As far as I know this though is definitely a call from high up.
just_be_glad_now 04-17-07, 04:59 PM	As someone who has absolutely no real information whatsoever, I feel obligated to speculate :D Possible rationales for removing core APL 16: 1. Too wide a variety in skill of judges to make them feasible. 2. Too much wealth disparity between parties that can consistantly play 16 because they have 6 people and people who can't get to 16 because they don't have 6. 3. Editting time/number of tables too high to be worth the labor cost. 4. Delays round starting at cons because they require more effort to muster. 5. In character, there are just not that many challenges on Oerth that only 16th level people could handle. They should be rarer and more special than ordinary modules. I would suspect that at least one of these five came up for discussion in this decision. PS: I'll throw out my support for Taking Flight; my 15th level PC is awaiting its release and will be playing it regardless of whether it ends up topping out at 14 or 16. I suspect it is one of the most highly anticipated cores of all time. jbgn
Mattastrophic 04-17-07, 05:03 PM	Wow, this is a blow from left-field. We really could use some details on this, 'cause from the sound of it, assuming it's all true, APL 16 is being removed entirely. And at the risk of sounding paranoid, the natural progression of removing APL 16 entirely would be setting retirement level to 14th. Uh-oh. -Matt
smerwin29 04-17-07, 05:09 PM	I'll throw out my support for Taking Flight; my 15th level PC is awaiting its release and will be playing it regardless of whether it ends up topping out at 14 or 16. I suspect it is one of the most highly anticipated cores of all time. Dude, you know it is going to be caravan guard duty, right?! :tiphat: Shawn
pedr 04-17-07, 05:34 PM	They have to proof read and accept them. As far as I know this though is definitely a call from high up.Oh. OK. I wasn't around 'back then' but I thought I'd read somewhere that this was no longer the case - that Creighton was the final level of approval etc for Core modules, and that all HQ did was upload them to the database. If I was wrong about that, and there's still an HQ aspect to the process, then I suppose this makes more sense. As my highest level PC is 8th, it's not something which concerns me, personally, though locally we've got a bunch of 15th level PCs who might just be hoping for an APL 16 game sometime!
Drezden 04-17-07, 06:52 PM	It makes no sense to me that they would just unilaterally decide not to "support" APL16, especially for modules already in the works where the author had already written it! Frankly, it is also quite frustrating that HQ continues to make decisions like this without even mentioning the possibility to the players. I had thought the new Circle was getting better with things like that, but this defintely a step back and really annoying. It is often tough to get an APL16 table, but as a player of a high level character I like having that option. As someone else mentioned, when 2 or 3 good 15th level characters get together APL14 is not very challenging. I don't know why they would take away the option of playing APL16. I think this also might be broader than just Cores too. I was at MVC this past weekend and 2 VTFs we were going to play at APL16 (and that were advertised as such), now only went to APL14. Daren
solbergb 04-18-07, 12:00 PM	As a judge, it's not so much that APL16 is harder to prep than APL14 but removing it chops the time of the typical APL10-16 mod by about 1/4 to 1/3 in the playtest/review/edit/judge prep steps. They've offered a lot of these core this year, maybe they really are trying to lower workload. I think we'll still see 16 in the core specials and there are no such restrictions on metaregionals that I've heard of (until the above post), nor on interactives or the one regional mod/year that breaks the APL12 limit.
Mattastrophic 04-18-07, 12:21 PM	What I'm wondering about, though, is that if APL 16 is removed from all levels of play, then that means retirement will probably be set to 14th. It would be silly to have someone's final level of play be entirely playing down. Also, assuming this is true, silently removing APL 16 is entirely the wrong way to go about it. Take my own case, for example. I have invested a large portion of my characters' resources in preparation for APL 16, the APL that everything else leads up to. The pinnacle of challenge, where you bring your A game and leave nothing behind. It would be a shame if it were all for naught, doubly so if I'm going to suddenly be looking at retiring in February. And on top of that, take a look at the builds on the character board, just about all of them have progressions out to 15th. It would be a shame to have to tell these people "Sorry, but you'll have to cut your build off at 13 now" without so much as a whisper of warning. But, all that assumes that it's all true and APL 16 really is going away. The Circle could be just putting a limit on it. Either way, we the players need to know. -Matt
Mattastrophic 04-18-07, 12:27 PM	As a judge, it's not so much that APL16 is harder to prep than APL14 but removing it chops the time of the typical APL10-16 mod by about 1/4 to 1/3 in the playtest/review/edit/judge prep steps. Well, of course that's true. When a module offers four APLs, then removing one-fourth of them would cut away one-fourth of the workload. If they wanted to do that, then by that logic we wouldn't have any APL 2-12 modules, as that's six APLs of workload. Is APL 16 that hard to stat for? Probably not. (Notice I said "stat for," not "write for.") Does APL 16 require a more experienced stat-block writer than for APL 2? Yes. Though on a side note, after a few months of working with the terrible "APL+4" rule, I've become of the opinion that we should have only mods that are 2-6, 8-12, and 14-16, with strict level requirements, i.e. an 6th level character can ONLY play 2-6 modules, and a 14th level character can ONLY play 14-16 mods. It would lead to a sense of graduation from one module "grade" to the next, a sense that imo is lacking in the current system. -Matt
Madfox11 04-18-07, 12:58 PM	Frankly, it is also quite frustrating that HQ continues to make decisions like this without even mentioning the possibility to the players. I had thought the new Circle was getting better with things like that, but this defintely a step back and really annoying. Oy... RPGA HQ and Circle are not the same thing. In this case we were taken by surprise just as much as you were. So no talk about us taking a step back ;) Pieter Sleijpen, who certainly doesn't tell everything he knows about this campaign (you wouldn't even want me to), but doesn't like to be acused of holding things back when he wasn't doing so.
Timlagor 04-18-07, 02:07 PM	Can you tell us what the current situation is Madfox?
Britt 04-18-07, 02:19 PM	It looks like Cores are being limited to APL 14 in the future. I don't know the list of reasons, but it likely involves the amount of work put in compared to amount of play seen. The higher APL you go, the more work has to be put into writing an encounter. Taking out APL 16 alone is possibly enough time saved to write an entire APL 2-6 mod. Considering that probably less than 10% of the players in the campaign even could play that APL, and even fewer actually would, that's not a very good time investment.
pedr 04-18-07, 02:36 PM	I'm still intrigued to learn that HQ still has a role in approving Core modules. This is something I didn't know - is this really necessary? Of course, if supporting APL 16 is such a significant burden then this makes a lot of sense. Nevertheless what I find most disturbing is that this appears to be a diktat from HQ, rather than a decision of the Circle. While I completely understand that from time to time HQ has to act to protect WotC interests about which the Circle might well be unaware, this really seems like a campaign-level decision which only affects those in the campaign and which ought properly be made by the Circle, not by HQ. As an aside, the openness shown by the Circle lately, particularly via Madfox and Britt, is much appreciated - I'm sure none of us expect to be told everything. In fact I am primarily discussing this so that the Circle isn't unfairly maligned for decisions they didn't make!
Britt 04-18-07, 02:53 PM	It might have been Creighton's decision, or a mutual decisions between Creighton and HQ, not sure. In any case, I don't think it's a bad decision. I probably won't do anything similar in the IUZ metaregion, but it's not as much of an issue as it is for Cores. Metaregions only have 1 mod per region and 8 metaregionals that could possibly go to 16 per year; there are 20+ Cores a year that could go to 16. Plus, I don't have to put as much direct, personal work into those as Creighton has to for Cores. Based on the structure I have laid down, I won't really have more than four metaregional mods in a year that could reasonably get to APL 16, and that's if the author wants to write that high (my guidelines are in terms of minimum APL, not maximum, though I question any spread of more than 4 APLs).
gomeztoo 04-18-07, 03:30 PM	What I'm wondering about, though, is that if APL 16 is removed from all levels of play, then that means retirement will probably be set to 14th. I am pretty sure it won't. You can easily retire from 15th to 16th with APL 14 mods. Not ideal for some, but it is possible. I, at least, wouldn't mind. And there is possibly still APL 16 in Core Specials and such.
Mattastrophic 04-18-07, 07:29 PM	I am pretty sure it won't. You can easily retire from 15th to 16th with APL 14 mods. Not ideal for some, but it is possible. I, at least, wouldn't mind. And there is possibly still APL 16 in Core Specials and such. But that wouldn't make any sense. Your final level of play, the pinnacle of your character's career, being entirely composed of playing down? But let's hear some more information. I'm just confused at this point. -Matt
pedr 04-18-07, 07:43 PM	It would probably make more sense for retirement to be at an odd-numbered level, rather than an even one. If there were no 15th level characters in the main campaign, having a table full of 14th level characters playing APL 14 would make far more sense than a table full of 15th level characters playing APL 14. This isn't a recommendation that the retirement level drops, of course, but I'm not entirely sure why it is 16, not 15 (or 17, but that would require APL 16 to come back, of course!)
GreatSiron 04-18-07, 08:09 PM	But that wouldn't make any sense. Your final level of play, the pinnacle of your character's career, being entirely composed of playing down? But let's hear some more information. I'm just confused at this point. -Matt I have NO problem playing down. If I get to walk all over everything, all the more fun for me.
copper_wyrmling 04-18-07, 08:55 PM	I have NO problem playing down. If I get to walk all over everything, all the more fun for me. Eh, not for me. I enjoy combats that last more than half a round ;) (mods can certainly be a lot of fun with no combat at all, but sometimes it's nice to have a tactical challenge)
Gallaway 04-18-07, 09:46 PM	My only concern is the possibilty that APL14 cores will be written harder to cater for the fact that percentagewise a lot more people will be playing down than normal. Then again I am renowned for being paranoid about such things :)
Lomiat 04-18-07, 10:55 PM	Eh, not for me. I enjoy combats that last more than half a round ;) (mods can certainly be a lot of fun with no combat at all, but sometimes it's nice to have a tactical challenge) Yeah, not only that, but then you don't feel guilty for removing four out of the six players at the table from participating in the combat at all... ((That was a very lucky spell selection in Abanfyl. Would have excluded the fifth player, too, but he beat me in initiative. Good for him!)) It's kind of sad when you start to think about it... If we turned a solo party member against the rest of the group, a 15th level PC should actually be a CR 17 encounter, given the increased attribute buy and the increased wealth. That means the 15th-level PC playing down to APL 14 should be on even footing with the APL + 3 encounter by him or herself. Throw in the 3 to 5 allies (plus all the potential mounts and animal companions and weird favors collected over 80-100 ARs), and it's not really much of an issue.
copper_wyrmling 04-18-07, 11:06 PM	Yeah, not only that, but then you don't feel guilty for removing four out of the six players at the table from participating in the combat at all... ((That was a very lucky spell selection in Abanfyl. Would have excluded the fifth player, too, but he beat me in initiative. Good for him!)) You played Abanfyl high? :weep: I'm still looking for it at APL 16, but everyone's played it already... The last mid-high-APL game I played, at APL 12, had PC levels of 13/13/12/12/12/10. The L13 cleric never got an action: every combat was over before her initiative came up. It was a two-rounder, too... :( (My sorcerer is embarrassed about the fact that she's almost halfway through L12 - will be rather more than halfway when her playtest AR comes through - and still hasn't used a L6 slot in anger :( Everything dies too fast...)
Maesto 04-18-07, 11:42 PM	Myself, once you hit level 15, APL 14 starts to look weak, and given that your regional modules only go to APL 12 with the exception of a single capbuster (and if you're in Ratik, they only go to APL 8 :weep:), you really start to munch on everything. As others are saying, we want to keep in APL 16 so that we can get a challenge in the combats! I'm considering playing a melee cork with my wizard next time I play down to twelve to get in regional plotlines... It could be fun to use that iterative attack that I recently picked up, and that longsword from AR 1. That way, everybody else gets to do something, too :cheer:
AOSOL 04-19-07, 12:36 PM	I heard something about our regional modules losing APL 16 capablity, but I'm from the dinky dwarven capital of the Flanaess and we can barely handle a war with stinking orcs, but not anything to core modules. I personally think alot of quality story arcs are going to go right into the toliet. When you remove the ability to have epic battles with Balors and the like. It's going to limit writers who think "big" for the most part. Now I realize that APL 14 is still there but that like saving kitty cats from trees compared to APL 16. more or less APL 16 is the tree is a advanced Orcwort and "kitty" is a reduced displacer beast with 18 extra hit dice, spell turning and you need to return it to the powerful warlock of Mt. D-HOOM! All the fun is at APL 16. My vote is to keep it.
taylorj 04-19-07, 01:04 PM	You played Abanfyl high? :weep: It's kind of sad that the Year 6 and early Year 7 cores may be the last chance a lot of people will have to play "with the dial turned to 11".
cycloptic_squirrel 04-19-07, 03:42 PM	Am I missing something? Granted, I am far from being anywhere near APL 16 (Red Hand + a year), but the way I'm reading it, APL 16s are still in, they're just going to be more rare. Maybe a regional, a core special or two, and a handful of metaregionals. On one hand, that's no fun; it means less opportunities for these tables to happen. On the other, though, being more rare will allow the few modules that do scale this high to become very special; people will make it a point to play at this pinnacle of difficulty. Is APL 16 all that special now when you have half a dozen opportunities for it around the corner? If the opportunities are limited and a mod goes to APL 16, you know it is the event, the finale, the end all of all that you know and love! I can't imagine a better way to build tension, excitement, and a general feeling of the grandiose. It has the added bonus of allowing the staff to focus more on the non-APL 16 options (though I do think it's a shame the stat blocks for COR7-07 were already completed; a little advanced warning would have been nice). Another thing I don't quite understand is that many tables of 6 15th level people come together for an APL 16, which flies in the face of every piece of traditional information I've ever heard of regarding table composition and level spread. I've never heard of it being a good idea for 6 5th levels to tackle an APL 6. What makes APL 16 so different?
copper_wyrmling 04-19-07, 04:01 PM	Am I missing something? Granted, I am far from being anywhere near APL 16 (Red Hand + a year), but the way I'm reading it, APL 16s are still in, they're just going to be more rare. Maybe a regional, a core special or two, and a handful of metaregionals. On one hand, that's no fun; it means less opportunities for these tables to happen. On the other, though, being more rare will allow the few modules that do scale this high to become very special; people will make it a point to play at this pinnacle of difficulty. Is APL 16 all that special now when you have half a dozen opportunities for it around the corner? If the opportunities are limited and a mod goes to APL 16, you know it is the event, the finale, the end all of all that you know and love! I can't imagine a better way to build tension, excitement, and a general feeling of the grandiose. They're already special, because assembling tables is so difficult. Reducing the number of modules playable at APL 16 gives a very strong incentive to play the rare APL-16 mods with your highest-level PC, regardless of storyline incentive to play lower-level PCs (meta-org memberships, continuing series, etc) I don't think that's a good thing. Another thing I don't quite understand is that many tables of 6 15th level people come together for an APL 16, which flies in the face of every piece of traditional information I've ever heard of regarding table composition and level spread. I've never heard of it being a good idea for 6 5th levels to tackle an APL 6. What makes APL 16 so different? Because by L15, APL+3 encounters are rarely challenging any more. It's a flaw in the system. Britt (I think) posted some estimates a while ago, which had EL=APL+5-6 being an appropriate challenge at APL 14-16, but LG doesn't do that. I played APL 16 with a party that went 15/15/14/14/12/11, iirc. That's APL 14.5, which qualifies for 16 (just). We got through with no deaths or significant resource expenditure, but it actually felt scary at some points :) (Yolande got to full attack things with Zealot Pact active and it wasn't overkill! Monsters managed to hit Yolande and Maesto! Yolande had to heal in-combat when the entire party took 20d6 with no save in the surprise round!) It was nothing like taking on a moderately tough APL 6 with 5/5/4/4/2/1, though.
cycloptic_squirrel 04-19-07, 04:20 PM	They're already special, because assembling tables is so difficult. OK, so the mod's special due to the difficulty in organizing it. But does the mod itself feel like anything greater is happening? Or is it the same type of storyline, just at a higher tactical difficulty? A good author should be able to instill a feeling of heroic accomplishment, no matter the APL, but the rarity of such an event would surely add. Reducing the number of modules playable at APL 16 gives a very strong incentive to play the rare APL-16 mods with your highest-level PC, regardless of storyline incentive to play lower-level PCs (meta-org memberships, continuing series, etc) I don't think that's a good thing. This is a very good point. But aren't we given the same difficult decisions already when a group is lacking a crucial party role and you have to decide between making the table work well and playing with the character that makes in-campaign sense? I'm not saying the decision wouldn't be gut-wrenching, but it's not as if this would introduce an entirely new conundrum. Because by L15, APL+3 encounters are rarely challenging any more. It's a flaw in the system. Britt (I think) posted some estimates a while ago, which had EL=APL+5-6 being an appropriate challenge at APL 14-16, but LG doesn't do that. I played APL 16 with a party that went 15/15/14/14/12/11, iirc. That's APL 14.5, which qualifies for 16 (just). We got through with no deaths or significant resource expenditure, but it actually felt scary at some points :) (Yolande got to full attack things with Zealot Pact active and it wasn't overkill! Monsters managed to hit Yolande and Maesto! Yolande had to heal in-combat when the entire party took 20d6 with no save in the surprise round!) It was nothing like taking on a moderately tough APL 6 with 5/5/4/4/2/1, though. Doesn't this suggest that we need to up the difficulty of modules at higher levels? I'm not sure how concrete the average of APL+2 encounters must be adhered to, or if indeed it is something possible to change, but wouldn't this be a better way to get adequate challenges for high level characters?
Drezden 04-19-07, 04:44 PM	Doesn't this suggest that we need to up the difficulty of modules at higher levels? I'm not sure how concrete the average of APL+2 encounters must be adhered to, or if indeed it is something possible to change, but wouldn't this be a better way to get adequate challenges for high level characters? Yes, we should allow harder encounter at higher APLs. Eliminating the highest APL just makes it that much harder to do. Because a table with even a few optimized Level 15 characters will walk all over almost all APL 14 mods. So once you make 15 you are done being challenged (at least in Core mods) because APL14 isn't really cutting it. Daren
Mattastrophic 04-19-07, 05:05 PM	On the other, though, being more rare will allow the few modules that do scale this high to become very special; people will make it a point to play at this pinnacle of difficulty. I would definitely hope that APL 16 becomes very very special when compared to lesser challenges. On the other hand, that would probably end up meaning that level 16+ characters have more APL 16+ High Level opportunities than a Level 15 character to play APL 16. That would be just silly. -Matt would be happy with... six-seven totally hardcore, epic-feeling, dial-on-11, crank-up-the-afterburners APL 16 events each year. More opportunities than the High Level Campaign, but not too many as to be too much work.
Japangirl 04-19-07, 05:08 PM	I will certainly miss having more APL 16s available, because as it stands my 15 can barely muster a 16 table anyways. I will miss you, 8d6+148 points of damage hitting AC 50+ in the surprise round (well OK, that was a crit, but only a 2x one! It was a greatsword) and insta-gibbing a person, just because.
gomeztoo 04-20-07, 03:06 AM	Because by L15, APL+3 encounters are rarely challenging any more. It's a flaw in the system. Britt (I think) posted some estimates a while ago, which had EL=APL+5-6 being an appropriate challenge at APL 14-16, but LG doesn't do that. Another thing to take in mind is that the Core rules for the ELs of encounters are now so that they are significantly easier. I personally don't agre ewith them but have to follow it. I have already been told that 'APL+4' encounters are out, for instance. Most encounters should be APL, APL+1 or APL +2. This makes it really dependent on the DM to challenge the players. And that is difficult - I personally don't run APL 10+ scenarios if I can avoid it, because barring an (un)lucky roll I am not very capable in running tough combats.
clannagh 04-20-07, 03:29 AM	Because by L15, APL+3 encounters are rarely challenging any more. It's a flaw in the system. Britt (I think) posted some estimates a while ago, which had EL=APL+5-6 being an appropriate challenge at APL 14-16, but LG doesn't do that. I played APL 16 with a party that went 15/15/14/14/12/11, iirc. That's APL 14.5, which qualifies for 16 (just). We got through with no deaths or significant resource expenditure, but it actually felt scary at some points :) (Yolande got to full attack things with Zealot Pact active and it wasn't overkill! Monsters managed to hit Yolande and Maesto! Yolande had to heal in-combat when the entire party took 20d6 with no save in the surprise round!) It was nothing like taking on a moderately tough APL 6 with 5/5/4/4/2/1, though. But is that because the APL+3 rule is broken at higher APL's or is it just an artifact of the types of PC/parties that opt for APL16. There are a number of extraneous factor coming in here. Generally a character that has survived past 10 is reasonably well built and with the exception of stupid power levelling the player of such a character likely has a few years under the belt. The player has had a long time to get used to his PC's idiosyncracies. Generally, even at a conference, Level 10/12 PC's are likely to have played together at some stage over the history of the characters. Players at higher APL's tend to also be more particular about workable party compositions making sure they have sufficient healing aracane etc before committing to the APL.
Maesto 04-20-07, 12:29 PM	At APL 2, an EL+4 combat is essentially a TPK, barring highly random influences (eg, DM fails their save vs a blindness effect). At APL 16, an EL 19 combat is quite doable. It isn't that the PCs are so completely over the top, it's that the EL system breaks down. The gap between PCs and NPCs, in wealth at the very least, becomes so large. Also, arcane becomes so damn important at the high APLs. They just have the ability to dispense of combats rapidly. The only critters that arcane can't deal with are critters with 300+ hitpoints and good saves across the board, and monks. God damn, I hate monks. Essentially, as other people have said, once you hit 15, you get to the point where APL 14 combats (especially EL 15 or 16 ones) become cakewalks, and it is possible to singlehandedly take out entire combats, which shouldn't be happening. The only APL 16 game I've ever played took quite some organising, and was as copper says, a 15/15/14/14/12/11 table, with a wizard, two clerics, an arcane trickster, a rogue and a fighter mutt (the 12). It was great to actually fail a spell resistance roll, to have AC 40 get hit, to get through a full attack and need more, and to take 20d6 damage in the surprise round of a combat. But hey - that's me. I got an adrenaline rush that has become rarer more recently.
Cardinal Teplin 04-24-07, 07:46 PM	While the idea of keeping certain APLs rare is of interest, I'm more than a little worried about the consequences in practice. If there are twice as many APL 12-14 mods as there are APL 14, what happens to all the characters that play those mods, as they are supposed to, and then rise in level? There needs to be broadly the same number of mods at each level, because the same characters play each level. Unless we're looking at killing off a major proportion of characters at a particular level, limiting certain APLs is just going to lead to a glut of characters at that level. Such gluts will disrupt the character's story, make the illusion of continuity harder to maintain, and generally worsen the play experience.
Japangirl 04-24-07, 10:31 PM	I love monks! Well, except for the whole hitting like trucks part. Their flat-footed AC is hittable (a nice change from a lot of things) and they're generally monsters, which means they're generally sneak-attackable. Also, the wizards can't kill them before I get a chance to, and the archer can't kill monks either because all NPC monks have Deflect Arrows. But then again, I am slightly biased, playing a rogue and all that :).
bitznarf 04-24-07, 11:09 PM	I love monks! Well, except for the whole hitting like trucks part. Their flat-footed AC is hittable (a nice change from a lot of things) and they're generally monsters, which means they're generally sneak-attackable. Also, the wizards can't kill them before I get a chance to, and the archer can't kill monks either because all NPC monks have Deflect Arrows. But then again, I am slightly biased, playing a rogue and all that :). /me idly wonders what this could possibly have to do with Core modules and APL 16...
Japangirl 04-24-07, 11:17 PM	/me idly wonders what this could possibly have to do with Core modules and APL 16... Umm, nothing. Absolutely nothing!
ithardin 04-28-07, 03:03 PM	Did any of you play City of Brass at high APL? Was that "cake-walked" by anyone at APL14 or 16 because I know I was devising escape strategies the whole time playing APL12 and we got our butts handed to us. We lived, but failed :)
Drezden 04-28-07, 03:09 PM	We beat it at APL16 without that much trouble. There was one combat where our BDF would have died without delay death, but even that combat was over in a few rounds. Was definitely a good challenge though - enjoyable. Daren Did any of you play City of Brass at high APL? Was that "cake-walked" by anyone at APL14 or 16 because I know I was devising escape strategies the whole time playing APL12 and we got our butts handed to us. We lived, but failed :)
copper_wyrmling 04-28-07, 04:29 PM	We beat it at APL16 without that much trouble. There was one combat where our BDF would have died without delay death, but even that combat was over in a few rounds. Was definitely a good challenge though - enjoyable. Daren I agree (I was playing the cleric on that table). Note that when Daren said "it was over in a few rounds", what he means is that after the first monster got a full attack, the wizards panicked and forcecaged everything :P (That's not a complaint, just an observation ;) ) We rolled through the other combats without much trouble or resource expenditure, though. Arcane-heavy high-level tables are wonderful :cloud9:
Jilljedin 04-29-07, 02:28 PM	Hi there, going back to the APL 16 discussion. Is there a chance to appeal against the decision ? To be honest, I never played APL 16 dispite having a 15th level wizard, but I do see the possibility of this being the first move of lowering the maximum character level for the campaign. Maybe I am being paranoid, but when I first heard about this change, that was my first reaction. Thxs Martin
Vamroc 04-29-07, 08:26 PM	It easier to write an APL 14 mod and you retire at 16 so that leaves players always playing up. You also can't play down once you hit level 15. So you can not only never make an APL 16 table this prevents players from getting ninth level spells. The only reason 16's are available on mods is so fourteens and fifteens can play more challenging encounters. They would also get the APL 16 swag on the AR. This is why playing up has perks sure you get half exp half gold but the item access is always worth it
Gallaway 04-29-07, 08:37 PM	At APL 2, an EL+4 combat is essentially a TPK, barring highly random influences (eg, DM fails their save vs a blindness effect). Indeed APL+4 in an APL2 intro is an Annis Hag or a chain devil. That would be rather interesting.
bitznarf 04-29-07, 10:21 PM	It easier to write an APL 14 mod and you retire at 16 so that leaves players always playing up. You also can't play down once you hit level 15. So you can not only never make an APL 16 table this prevents players from getting ninth level spells. The only reason 16's are available on mods is so fourteens and fifteens can play more challenging encounters. They would also get the APL 16 swag on the AR. This is why playing up has perks sure you get half exp half gold but the item access is always worth it Most of this post makes no sense to me to be honest. I have no idea why you can't play down at level 15. You can play APL14 mods without penalty, and APL 12 mods if you take 1/2 gold and XP. Also, 14s and 15s playing up to APL16 still get full gold and XP, as they are only 1 or 2 levels off the APL. This being said, that doesn't change the fact that level 15s don't have as many challenging mods anymore.
Maesto 04-30-07, 01:26 AM	I've just finished Cloud of Darkness at APL 16. We had a rather balanced party (and 6 15th level PCs), but almost every combat we walked into felt for most of the combat that it was going to be a TPK. We had fun exploiting our high level abilities, and we got seriously seriously beaten up for it (three PC deaths, one PC taking two deaths). APL 14 just wouldn't have been the same, or anywhere near it, I don't think.
Maesto 05-01-07, 09:21 AM	I will note that the latest Core Special mod is only APLS 2-14. APL 16 has been cut out of the picture. *is up in arms!* Blurb is as follows, taken from the Origins consupport site. CORS7-02 Rise of the Spider Queen Sterich is once more in need of heroes to stand between it and the rising tide of darkness. Humanoid and giant raids boiling out of the Crystalmist Mountains are again increasing in frequency and boldness. Rumors swirling thickly through Istivin’s shadowed streets speak of the malevolent Spider Queen and her resurgent interest in the sunlit lands of the Flanaess. This adventure is divided into low (APLs 2-8) and high (APLs 10-14) levels of play; a player may only play one of them. A one-round Core Special Living Greyhawk adventure for characters levels 1-15 (APLs 2-14).
Reylance 05-01-07, 11:33 AM	I'm in favor of eliminating APL 16. In general, when I play APL X, I expect a table of individuals of levels X-1, X, and X+1, and rarely X-2 and X+2. However, under current rules, the only way to play APL 16 is with characters of levels X-1 and X-2. As I think I mentioned in another thread here, the average party level* of a group playing at APL 16 is always 15 or a few sixths of a level lower. For some creatures with effects based on level *cough*Blasphemy*cough*, there's a potential serious impact, along with the impact of not having 8th level spells or the resources of on-level characters. That said, I would support it being replaced by APL 15. I'm sure there are authors who would be willing to really trick out APL 14 to challenge a party of 15th level characters. *Note lower case. I mean the literal average of the party levels, not the LG term APL.
just_be_glad_now 05-01-07, 12:48 PM	Reylance said: "I'm sure there are authors who would be willing to really trick out APL 14 to challenge a party of 15th level characters." Ooooohhhh yes. This has the potential to end up just like last time there was an arbitrary restriction put in place on module apls (the region restriction to APL 12, which I agreed with then and still do btw). I foresee irate writers getting together the same APL 16 playtest table that they had before, and using them to "balance" apl 14. The same thing happened when the regional restriction came out, many writers simply playtested their now max apl 12 mods with parties of 15th and 16th level characters out of spite, then used the playtest results to justify the balance of the encounters. Brayden Glad
bitznarf 05-01-07, 12:51 PM	Does anyone have any information on *why* this is being done? Anything at all other then random speculation? I know that having a solid reason, even if I don't agree with it, makes arbitrary changes like this easier for me to swallow.
Mattastrophic 05-01-07, 01:31 PM	Ohhhhh noo.... great, and right when I'm 600XP away from being able to play 16, too. We can pretty much assume that if there's no APL 16 in Core Specials, then there'll be no APL 16 for anything else. Misters Circle, should I just get ready to retire this guy in Feb, when retirement drops to 14th? -Matt I will note that the latest Core Special mod is only APLS 2-14. APL 16 has been cut out of the picture. *is up in arms!*
Britt 05-01-07, 02:29 PM	Retirement level isn't changing and APL 16 is still allowed for metaregionals and the 1/year regionals, at each Circle member's discretion.
Britt 05-01-07, 02:30 PM	Misters Circle And there is a Ms. Circle as well ;)
bitznarf 05-01-07, 03:11 PM	Retirement level isn't changing and APL 16 is still allowed for metaregionals and the 1/year regionals, at each Circle member's discretion. So why is APL16 disappearing from Core mods?
gomeztoo 05-01-07, 03:25 PM	As far as I understood it, Core mods need to be reviewed by RPGA hq, and they either cannot or do not wish to spend the time on it. (Meta)regionals are reviewed by the Circle (not by hq), and are therefor not under the restriction. Iow, (meta) regionals can still be APL 16 because hq doesn't have to spend time on it.
copper_wyrmling 05-01-07, 03:36 PM	I'm in favor of eliminating APL 16. In general, when I play APL X, I expect a table of individuals of levels X-1, X, and X+1, and rarely X-2 and X+2. However, under current rules, the only way to play APL 16 is with characters of levels X-1 and X-2. As I think I mentioned in another thread here, the average party level* of a group playing at APL 16 is always 15 or a few sixths of a level lower. For some creatures with effects based on level *cough*Blasphemy*cough*, there's a potential serious impact, along with the impact of not having 8th level spells or the resources of on-level characters. Sure, but nobody's forced to play APL 16. It's nice to have the option.
Britt 05-01-07, 03:45 PM	As Pieter, I, and others have speculated previously, it's mainly to better focus resources and QA. There really are not that many APL16 characters in the campaign, far fewer than most people would probably expect. The higher APLs take far more work than lower APLs. Higher APLs are more difficult to write well; even if you have the time to do it, it may not come out well.
bitznarf 05-01-07, 03:52 PM	As Pieter, I, and others have speculated previously. So thats all we have then? Speculation?
Britt 05-01-07, 04:05 PM	I've heard various reasons from various people, but I didn't make the call and there's no sentence someone that says "Core modules can no longer have APL 16 because of X." It's like asking why a particular rules option is in a particular classification, like Open or Closed; I can tell you why I thought it should be there, but some others on the Circle probably thought so for different reasons. There's probably no one reason; it's probably a combination decision with different interests for different people, but all leading to one result.
Drezden 05-01-07, 04:07 PM	Hey, having an excellent Cleric played by a great tactical player is pretty nice too. :) Not to mention, Nate's Uber-Barbarian Spiked Chain BDF Death Machine. lol I can't believe that that will be the last Core Special at APL16. I am very dissapointed by that and the larger abandoning of APL16. High level play was already fairly easy for a good party; now it will that much easier. APL14 is just not that much of a challenge - no matter how much the author "tweaks things" - for well built and well played parties of 15th level characters. Oh well, time to focus more on lower level characters. Daren I agree (I was playing the cleric on that table). Note that when Daren said "it was over in a few rounds", what he means is that after the first monster got a full attack, the wizards panicked and forcecaged everything :P (That's not a complaint, just an observation ;) ) We rolled through the other combats without much trouble or resource expenditure, though. Arcane-heavy high-level tables are wonderful :cloud9:
pedr 05-01-07, 04:30 PM	<pointless post ... connection failed as I was posting>
Mattastrophic 05-01-07, 05:00 PM	I've heard various reasons from various people, but I didn't make the call and there's no sentence someone that says "Core modules can no longer have APL 16 because of X." Changing gears here, now that we have the facts on what is happening (though not necessarily who and how...) Has the Circle considered methods for changing the APL boundaries of modules to more properly delegate storylines to the proper level of parties? Myself, I've kicked around a tiering system kind of like this: There would be three "tiers" of modules: APL 2-6, APL 8-12, and APL 14-16. There would be strict entry requirements, i.e. a 6th can ONLY do APL 2-6, an 8 can ONLY do APL 8-12, and a 14th can ONLY do APL 14-16. Thus, when a character levels up to the next "tier" of module, the PC is effectively "upgraded" to a new class of threat. Thus, module authors could more effectively write their modules to their target APL range. APL 2-6, the low tier, could be gentler than the mid-range APL 8-12 modules, and APL 14-16 could be properly scaled to the highest levels of challenge (noobs need not apply and all that.) Also, storylines could be tailored to the audience. For example, "find my dolly" might be great for APL 2, but APL 14 parties have no time for lesser problems, yet with APL 2-16 modules in existance (or formerly?) both low-level parties and high-level parties are faced with the same storylines. Currently, even 1st-level characters are taking on threats that would normally be way above their heads. Also, such a system would lead to less work for authors, as each tier has either two or three APLs to write for. Even better, issues with table-forming and APL-choosing would be relaxed, as every character would sit down knowing which tier he'll be in. Notice how the tiers are divided up so that a 12 can never play with a 2? On top of that, such a system would lead to a sense of graduation from one tier to the next. Currently, levelling up and playing the next APL higher doesn't mean much more than more gold, more XP, and slightly tougher monsters. There's a lack of accomplishment, as well as a lack of character growth that comes with a PC's adventures increasing in magnitude as he or she grows more powerful. The only thing that really changes is the content of the fight scenes, and even that feels forced. I think we've all seen modules in which the final encounter is a showdown with the exact same named bad guys amongst all APLs; their statblocks are just levelled up a notch with each one. Currently, APL 2 deals with the exact same threat, the exact same story, of the exact same magnitude and importance, as APL 14 (assuming the mod goes from 2-14, but you probably get my point.) But anyways, back to my question. What are the Circle's thoughts on the matter? -Matt
Britt 05-01-07, 05:07 PM	But anyways, back to my question. What are the Circle's thoughts on the matter? Personally, if it doesn't involve international litigation, arbitration, or conflict of laws, I don't have many thoughts on the matter right now :) Seriously though, feel free to talk about it amongst yourselves and make proposals before the next LGCS review, but I doubt we'd look into anything like that before then. We have to get through the summer con season and update some internal documents first.
bitznarf 05-01-07, 05:18 PM	Personally, if it doesn't involve international litigation, arbitration, or conflict of laws, I don't have many thoughts on the matter right now :) Heh. Good call and good luck.
solbergb 05-02-07, 12:22 AM	The three tier system works sorta ok for interactives and core specials (I've seen it done for both) but I would not like it much for a main character unless there was some overlap (in the described system, where exactly does a level 7 or 13 character play? Are level 1s supposed to be intro mod only?) I like the current dynamic where one day a character is the "big man" at the table, ie playing down, and the next day he's the "Squishie". That's a lot of the fun of LG, you have to adapt to the party AND whether you're playing up or down, and from a "realism" standpoint, the artificial tiering of all the threats "feels" more random if everything isn't always scaled to match you exactly, the way it is in a home campaign. A LG character playing at full XP every table will experience a range like this: EL+2 playing down by 2 = character level+0 EL+3 playing up by 2 = character level+5 The described tiering system (using 2-6 as an example) has the character playing "up" radically when level 2, is "up" a little at 3, is "at APL" at 4, is "down a bit" at 5 and "down a lot" at 6 Then at 7 (assuming he can play either) he gets the choice of playing "down a huge amount" or "up a huge amount". Ie, he's weak, medium, strong, then suddenly weak again. Every day, every adventure. Kind of like going from high school to college and suddenly being a clueless freshman again. No thanks. I prefer a smooth progression, even if it is more work to author. I don't think the OP on this thought was really saying that, I think he was saying more that mod A is 2, 4 or 6, and module B is 8, 10 or 12. The concept is not horrible, but needs more overlap - a level 6-8 should be allowed to play module A or Module B, by playing up or down. A ,more likely suggestion would be to restrict most modules to a maximum of 4 APL bands. IE, 2-8, 4-10, 6-12, 8-14, 10-16. That would encourage adventures appropriate for the story without some of the weird stuff that happens in a 2-16 module, ease judge preparation, author and editing duties without taking away play options. This approach means for a given character though, less play opportunities than a wider level range, and might cause some problems with completing serieses. But I think a trend in that direction, to 3 or 4 level bands per modules might be a good one and accomplish much the same thing. It is a tradeoff between play opportunities and character/story continuity vs time to create the modules and properly prep them, plus being able to tell stories that are more likely to make sense at all supported APLs. We see this in all recent core specials (at least those I've played - Jungle Lost Ships, Mines of Eye, Pits of Azak, City of Brass) which have a "Low" (2-8) and "High" (10-16) option that are totally different adventures. The nice thing about encouraging tighter level ranges as an author is that it can be a grassroots thing -we don't need the Circle to mandate it. Just as authors, tighten up the level ranges, and as editors, don't insist the author includes more APL's, but rather ensure that there are not all low level or all high level mods...but a mix of stuff so your region/metaregion/etc has play opportunities for all kinds of players.
Timlagor 05-02-07, 07:42 AM	I'm going to chip in to say that while arranging bands for writing might be useful, imposing Matt's cutoffs would be absolutely horrible in terms of organising games. What I would like to see is a move to Odd-numbered APLs (making things much easier for new characters and incidentally offering up an APL15 option... if you're lucky!). If the EL=APL+X encounters are really that much easier at high APL (and I see no reason to doubt it but I'm not quite ready to assert it myself) then it should be possible to relax /change the EL rules for higher APLs.
Mattastrophic 05-02-07, 10:08 AM	I'm going to chip in to say that while arranging bands for writing might be useful, imposing Matt's cutoffs would be absolutely horrible in terms of organising games. Not really... If I catch your drift, what you're suggesting is a situation in which there are, say, five players signed up, a 2, a 4, a 6, a 3, and a 9. The mod goes 2-6. That 9 can't play the mod at all. Problem solved. With cutoffs, the mod dictates the level range of who can play, thus players know at signup whether they can play Mod X with Character Y. And due to the tiering system, they all KNOW that if their PC qualifies for the module, he or she WILL get to play. Re: Solberg's comments on graduation: When a PC is low-level, under this system, he or she takes on low-level storylines with low-level stakes and low-level villains. When that PC "graduates" to the next tier, he or she will be dealing with greater threats with greater stakes, so a feeling of being the big kid at 6 then the little kid when at 8 will of course be there. That 8th is out of the sandbox and playing with the big kids. As for how to handle the "odd men out," the 1s, the 7s, and the 13s: I didn't say anything about it because I'm not sure whether to have them stay down in the low tier or be graduated to the next one. But what I do know is that letting 7s and 13s into multiple tiers would be against the premise. Anyways, there are pros and cons. Let me list them: Pros: -Easy on authors. No need to challenge both APL 2 and APL 12. -Storylines appropriate to character level. No more APL 12 parties playing Find the Dolly. And no more APL 2 parties dealing with planar catastrophes. -Easy table-forming. All characters who qualify for the mod can play with each other. Cons: -Less play opportunities per PC. Not per person, but per PC.
Britt 05-02-07, 10:39 AM	As an aside, I am a strong proponent of the theory that the EL system works best at APLs 6 and 8. Below that, a given EL is more dangerous for a party than the DMG indicates; above that, a given EL is less dangerous than the DMG indicates. In either direction from the level 7 point, the predictability of danger in a given EL goes down when you start having hundreds and thousands of different table compositions. IME, An APL+2 encounter at APL 2-4 is equal to an APL+3 or +4 encounter at APL 6-8. An APL+5 encounter at APL 10-12 is equal to an APL+4 encounter at APL 6-8, while an APL+6 encounter at APL 14-16 is equal to an APL+4 encounter at APL6-8. Those are, of course, rough estimates, but it's played out fairly well in the past for me.
Mattastrophic 05-02-07, 10:48 AM	Those are, of course, rough estimates, but it's played out fairly well in the past for me. And interestingly enough, this tiering system can properly handle such differences in challenge, by having the EL-APL difference scale based on the tier. For example, APL 2-6 mods could have EL=APL+2 encounters, APL 8-12 could have EL=APL+3or4, and APL14-16 could have EL=APL+4,5,or6 encounters, to properly scale the EL to the caliber of the PCs. -Matt
Timlagor 05-03-07, 07:52 PM	Matt: How about something like 5 5 5 8? Perhaps you only play at places where there are lots of people for each game but that is not universal (possibly not even normal). I hate your idea but fortunately I'm confident it won't be adopted so I don't need to argue any more :)
Mattastrophic 05-04-07, 10:49 AM	Matt: How about something like 5 5 5 8? As I said in my own example, a non-issue. That 8's player knows that he's not allowed to play the 2-6 mod with his 8, so that situation would never come up in the first place, as the 8's player never could have even signed up for the 2-6 mod with his 8. The solution I present is a natural evolution of the campaign's current leanings towards low-level characters over high-levels. The 597 changes so far to the campaign indicate two things: -There is a perceived problem of higher-level PCs playing alongside lower-level PCs. -There is a perceived problem with the workload created by supporting APL 16. And so, what I present is a solution. Every PC who is eligible to play a mod can play with any other PC who is also eligible. Also, my solution, instead of removing APL 16, instead creates a high-level tier of modules designed exclusively for APL 14-16, the highest levels of play. Workload is reduced because the modules that support 16 are written specifically for 14-16, instead of modules that are written for 2-16 or 10-16, which apparently carry too much work associated with writing them. The solution also fixes several other issues with the campaign. And thus, the campaign is improved. -Matt
copper_wyrmling 05-04-07, 10:55 AM	As I said in my own example, a non-issue. That 8's player knows that he's not allowed to play the 2-6 mod with his 8, so that situation would never come up in the first place, as the 8's player never could have even signed up for the 2-6 mod with his 8. -Matt And Tim's point is: so that means the game can't be played. It's like the situation we have now at the end of the year, where a retiring mod is APL 4-10 and of the four people in the area who haven't played it, one only has TUs left on their L14 PC (or they could make a new L1 character, but everyone else wants to play their L9-10 PCs for series reasons). Atm, that's only an issue when mods are close to retirement (and I still disagree with the ruling that prohibits the L14 from playing down and thus stops a table from forming): your structure would make it far more common in areas where shortage of players is a problem, particularly at the higher tiers where "make a new character" isn't an option.
Mattastrophic 05-04-07, 11:12 AM	And Tim's point is: so that means the game can't be played. And my solution is: yes, it can. The 8's player just can't use his 8th-level PC, and the player knows it long before he even shows up for the gameday. This solution assumes a "stable," and rightly so this time around, as once a character graduates from his tier, he's going to need other PCs if he wants to play his old tier. Under my solution, he can play a 1st with those 5ths, so the mod can be played. -Matt
copper_wyrmling 05-04-07, 01:22 PM	And my solution is: yes, it can. The 8's player just can't use his 8th-level PC, and the player knows it long before he even shows up for the gameday. This solution assumes a "stable," and rightly so this time around, as once a character graduates from his tier, he's going to need other PCs if he wants to play his old tier. Under my solution, he can play a 1st with those 5ths, so the mod can be played. -Matt I'm not sure if it's a good solution if it replaces "we form an APL 6 table with 8/5/5/5" with "we form an APL 4 table with 5/5/5/1". I'm actually more worried about the higher tiers, though - finding players for high-level tables is tough enough already and I think this would make it harder.
Lomiat 05-06-07, 11:39 PM	Did any of you play City of Brass at high APL? Was that "cake-walked" by anyone at APL14 or 16 because I know I was devising escape strategies the whole time playing APL12 and we got our butts handed to us. We lived, but failed :) Our group played City of Brass at APL 12, only, but we took a beating in one encounter (and only one encounter -- the one in which probably all the beatings occured). Our fighters soaked up something like 1000 hps worth of damage, keeping our cleric busy with the Augmented Healing Heals (144 hps a pop). Then, in the final room, as we were succeeding with our mission (but not finding all the treasure), one spell took out the entire room. The time limit was killer, though, especially as our DM wasn't among the quickest, nor was he always dedicated to our table (versus the other people who happened to be walking past).
Lomiat 05-06-07, 11:47 PM	High APL tables can be so ridiculously cracked out, not only with class abilities and wealth, but also with strange access and favors, that some of them are nigh indestructible. At our last convention, I had the "privilege" of running the high-APL table (only APL 10, but it was the highest we had), which consisted of a handful of true powergamers. They're good people and fun players, but the first of the two mods I ran for them wasn't going to offer them a challenge. I knew that in advance and didn't even bother trying to do much with the monsters; I threw them in front of the spellcasters, griffons, lance-wielding griffon riders, and the rest and let them die quickly and spectacularly. The second adventure offered them a couple chances to decide how to deal with untiered encounters, and though they were an APL 10 table figuring out how to deal with an EL 19 encounter, I was a bit surprised they didn't try to fight it. After all, when I'd played with several of the same people at an earlier convention, our APL 10 table defeated an EL 19 encounter. ELs of APL + 5 are not scary for such parties. At all. APL 14 for them when they hit 15th level will feel like remedial school. They'll have been fighting the same CR monsters since 12th level. I don't know that there's much of a point to this, but I suppose it reinforces what Copper says: With APL 16 such a rare thing, these players will have terribly difficult decisions to make about playing adventures for story lines or playing them for the rare APL 16 challenge. I expect we'll start to see a lot of 15th level PCs in interactives, too.
Japangirl 05-07-07, 12:11 AM	I played City of Brass at 16 (Britt ran it actually). It was very difficult, kicked our collective a$$es, and caused us all to run away after a death in the surprise round before the cleric could go and thus Delay Death the poor guy. We also ran out of time; even if we had decided to fight that encounter, we couldn't have because our time was up.
solbergb 05-07-07, 12:26 PM	We did City of brass at APL14. Most of it was fine, although we took enough ingame time succeeding that we kinda did a body recovery instead of a rescue. We did have one wizard burning a huge number of high level scrolls, but as he said "I'm level 15. What else am I going to use my spare cash for? I didn't craft them to not use them." In one encounter we had a death only because the two people who could have prevented it were not in the room for structural reasons (actually not even on the same plane) until a round later. Had my L11 sorcerer stuffed with battlefield control spells not been present though, we would have had a bloodbath in one room and possibly a failure. Wall of force and solid fog can have a profound impact on some kinds of encounters. It's a sign of APL14 power that the guy who died was simply raised after the fight, healed and was able to contribute in later encoutners. Had my sorcerer been level 14 instead of 11, we probably would have had little difficulty with APL16, with the rest of the crew the same.
Mattastrophic 05-07-07, 12:55 PM	We did City of brass at APL14. I missed Theocracy, but from the description my buddy gave me, I proably would have been fine. Quickened Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement + Empowered Maximized Ray of Enfeeblement = situation well in hand. -Matt
Mattastrophic 05-07-07, 12:59 PM	I knew that in advance and didn't even bother trying to do much with the monsters That's your problem. You didn't bother attempting to challenge them. I can't stand DMs who do that to me; might as well just call all the fights and let me roleplay my PC more. On the other hand, I also can't stand DMs who make me take 10 minutes to explain how Empower Spell works, because "(insert result of spell)? That's too good, that can't be right." Just run things right and it'll be an appropriate challenge. -Matt
katrick 05-07-07, 03:49 PM	Matt's system is very good but it won't work outside the U.S., or in smaller more travel restricted areas.(ie 1000 miles between cities, 3000 + miles if your in Perth) A small point that was almost brought up, level 15-16 only has a maximum(without death) of 8 games at APL 16 ( one rounders)which have been quite rare for some time. As per the EL+3/PC thing, in Clouds of Darkness where my character was Confused (15th Sor; EL+3) I could have TPK'd the rest of the party, but the bad guys still couldn't hit me. ( I wonder why they took out polymorph and alter self ??) The last APL 16 we played was The Shwarzestadt Heresy, 15th Sor,13Sor/2Fatespinner, 15th alienist, 15th Wiz/Arcane Trickster, 15th Theurge, 13th Cleric of Kelanin, the only time the cleric drew his greatsword he didn't get to use it and he got fined 150gp/APL for drawing it.( it was not a cakewalk, though fights were over very quickly) The main problem with APL 16 is that the abilities of 15th level characters to destroy whole plotlines changes every aspect of Mod writing.( Clone and Teleport, just one obviuos example). It is so much more difficult to write a mod for APL 16 than any other range (which is why they got rid of APL 18) But to diverge, notice that Green Regent finished at 14, we were ahead of the curve, Mark of Heroes finished at 12th, but we missed the finale. At the moment, there is, in production the Finale to a seven year plot arc, (APL 16) this plot arc is seemingly being forced, so there is obviously something in the wind.(perhaps not campaign wide) Though without a doubt FME there is a declination of impetous for completion in the entire WoTC range, which from prior XP, suggests two things; an entire rebuild of LG or 4th ED, (JME) katrick P.S. anyone who thinks APL 14 is easy should play a Greg Marx Mod(and let the whining begin)
katrick 05-07-07, 03:58 PM	stupid lag!!
copper_wyrmling 05-07-07, 04:56 PM	I missed Theocracy, but from the description my buddy gave me, I proably would have been fine. Quickened Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement + Empowered Maximized Ray of Enfeeblement = situation well in hand. -Matt Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't stack with itself. You could get one bad guy with (on average) -12 to Strength, and one with (on average) -15 to Strength, or hit one bad guy with both to boost your likely outcome. I don't think that would've swung the combat in question, although it would've helped. (My sorc learned the hard way, in a different mod, that when monsters have 40 or higher Strength to start with, bringing it down to the mid-20s is very nice, but often not enough. In particular, Huge dragons WILL still win grapple checks against human sorcerers even after losing 16 points of Strength...)
Mattastrophic 05-07-07, 05:56 PM	Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't stack with itself. Oh, I know. Once again, I wasn't there, so oh well. -Matt
solbergb 05-07-07, 06:05 PM	or to put it another way. -12 strength drops the damage by 9 points a swing. At our table, the most problematic bad guys were doing about 54 damage per swing, and hitting easily even with "2s" on lowest iterative, and yes, they had 16+ BAB. And there were two of them. The -6 to hit might result in only 3 hits instead of four, so 135-180 damage instead of 216. Might save a life in one round, if the person targeted is moderately durable, but doesn't change the basic dynamic all that much, especially if both were still swinging at the same target. It would have helped, but it would not have had the impact that the battlefield control spells had of shutting down the attack entirely after our guys had gotten their licks in. It is a truism of high level play that it is death to stand next to a strong melee for a full attack. That dynamic controls the pace of the combat a lot - a melee enemies respect can channel people away by what he can reach in a 5' step. Those guys...got our respect very quickly :)
Lomiat 05-07-07, 06:31 PM	That's your problem. You didn't bother attempting to challenge them. I can't stand DMs who do that to me; might as well just call all the fights and let me roleplay my PC more. On the other hand, I also can't stand DMs who make me take 10 minutes to explain how Empower Spell works, because "(insert result of spell)? That's too good, that can't be right." Just run things right and it'll be an appropriate challenge. -Matt Oh, **that's** my problem. Thanks for sorting things out for me. :P I did, in fact, know what I was doing, and I pretty much "called" the fights by letting the players walk over them in their quick sequence of actions. This allowed me to spend more time on the fun roleplaying section of the adventure, and my guess is that my players enjoyed it. I've never seen so many people try to Sense Motive a gelatinous cube. Quite droll. Back to the topic of APL 16, though... How much do DMs who have run APL 16 tables "try" to challenge tables, versus running the monsters as they're written? (I recall one particular frost worm in a now-retired Iuz mod that popped out of the frozen north at APL 10 and spent -- no kidding -- ten minutes trying to figure out at which angle it could best use its cone of cold breath. INT 2, right?) If you've run a number of APL 16 tables, in your experience, did the players respond more positively to being challenged (even when the tactics weren't necessarily appropriate to the critter) or to feeling heroic and untouchable? I know that I've certainly seen it go both ways through nearly every other APL.
solbergb 05-07-07, 07:47 PM	I run tactics appropriate to the critter and its motivations. I run also every fight as if the other guy expects to win, and they modify their behavior (if not mindless) based on events, if given a chance to do so. I find this can challenge people at any APL, generally. A lot of high APL is scissors/paper/stone - the side that can get the temp on the other side can do a lot of hurt, but as always, the cards are stacked in favor of the PC's by the way the ELs work, which means mostly they'll win anyway. Sometimes the monsters aren't well placed for their capabilites and the module provides no guidance so the judge has to think a bit to make the encounter plausible. Some encounters are more the equivalent of a suicide bomber, not intended to defeat the party, but merely to drain resources or kill someone. Usually the poor slobs tasked with doing this are unaware that this is the objective and get a very rude shock when exposed to the power of the PC's. This can lead to fast surrenders when they hit the buzz-sw. The largest difference at high APL is the way people are removed from fights. In low APL's it is typically hitpoints, often crits or incapacitating will saves, in high APL's it is typically battlefield control or bad luck with a saving throw that kills or transforms you (as you are immune to most mental stuff between prot evil and hero feast, or have good saves). Not always though. What made that one encounter in City of Brass unusually deadly is it had a low level dynamic in a high level game. It was the equivalent of a level 2 party character battling a couple trolls. Anyone next to them was probably going to die, but if you could blind them or somehow take away one of the claw attacks, it could be managed. You don't expect to be that fragile compared to melee monster damage at APL14-16 most of the time. We had trouble with that encounter because our party was scattered, unable to support each other till about round 3 of the fight. By then the people present at the start of the fight had killed one nasty melee monster and lost one party member. After that we got on top of it, as extra characters used their actions to take away enemy actions while our offense chipped away.
copper_wyrmling 05-07-07, 08:39 PM	Incidentally, in our City of Brass encounter at APL 16, the damage was more like 100/swing. Our GM may have been power attacking more than yours did, or maybe they advance a lot between 14 and 16. I think he did miss one attack, and his target number was only about AC 40 (or maybe he failed to confirm a crit... SOMETHING didn't go through). Our displaced, stoneskinned fighter with ~200 base HP, ~40 temp HP and Stalwart Pact still went down like a ton of bricks - he ended up delay-death'ed in very deep negatives. I agree with solbergb's comments on the change in the nature of challenges between low and high APLs - it was very odd, and quite panic-inducing, to feel that vulnerable to melee monsters at APL 16 ;) Of course, on our table we won the fight with a "high-level caster trump card" trick (barred forcecages on everything)... it maybe would've been more fun to play it out as solbergb's table did.
Drezden 05-07-07, 08:54 PM	Being tactical or running monsters to the best of their abilities only goes so far. At a certain point, particularly at high APLs, the NPCs just don't have the resources or abilities to compete with a well-played, well-built PC Party, except in hard Core Specials or Interactives. I have seen this with my primary party of tactical gamers and also in DMing strong parties. I DMed Pits of Azak Zil last year for a power-gamed APL14 table of people I am friendly with. Despite me trying my best - and running things as best I could think of - it just wasn't close - the party just mauled the encounters. But I found Pits to be an easier Core Special. City of Brass, on the other hand, was a harder one. That made it that much more fun to succeed at APL16. Despite - as Tracy mentioned - our BDF who has about 220 HPs, with Stoneskin, a ton of temp HPs, and more AC buffs than he has ever had - with his AC into the 40s - getting mauled down to over -75. Daren I run tactics appropriate to the critter and its motivations. I run also every fight as if the other guy expects to win, and they modify their behavior (if not mindless) based on events, if given a chance to do so. I find this can challenge people at any APL, generally. A lot of high APL is scissors/paper/stone - the side that can get the temp on the other side can do a lot of hurt, but as always, the cards are stacked in favor of the PC's by the way the ELs work, which means mostly they'll win anyway. [snip] The largest difference at high APL is the way people are removed from fights. In low APL's it is typically hitpoints, often crits or incapacitating will saves, in high APL's it is typically battlefield control or bad luck with a saving throw that kills or transforms you (as you are immune to most mental stuff between prot evil and hero feast, or have good saves). [snip]
Madfox11 05-08-07, 03:26 AM	I am a bit surprised about all this talk about the party being split up in that particular fight. The opponents only appear after a couple of rounds, giving more than enough time for the PCs to enter the room and NPCs in the previous section should warn the PCs about there being some seriously dangerous guardians behind the portal. Are these cases of PCs being overly cautious or DMs doing that wrong (and I have heard parties being forced to flee because the opponents were readying on the other side of the portal against the first appearing PC)?
copper_wyrmling 05-08-07, 03:58 AM	I am a bit surprised about all this talk about the party being split up in that particular fight. The opponents only appear after a couple of rounds, giving more than enough time for the PCs to enter the room and NPCs in the previous section should warn the PCs about there being some seriously dangerous guardians behind the portal. Are these cases of PCs being overly cautious or DMs doing that wrong (and I have heard parties being forced to flee because the opponents were readying on the other side of the portal against the first appearing PC)? Our party wasn't split up. I don't remember getting any specific warning about the nature of the guardians, but we weren't split up. Btw, is the mod retired now, or is it running again? Can we be explicit as to what the monsters were?
ezreal2001 05-08-07, 10:08 AM	Our party wasn't split up. I don't remember getting any specific warning about the nature of the guardians, but we weren't split up. Btw, is the mod retired now, or is it running again? Can we be explicit as to what the monsters were? Best not to get to specific yet, I played that one about two months ago with Wes running it CDM, at the time it was advertised as the only Australian release - of course the circle may still put it out as a home game. Oh as for splitting up, the rest of the party buggered off leaving Swifty to do the last encounter by himself - something of a nail biter - Wes as gm was so not impressed. Jolyon can tell you about it sometime. J
solbergb 05-08-07, 02:19 PM	Incidentally, in our City of Brass encounter at APL 16, the damage was more like 100/swing. Our GM may have been power attacking more than yours did, or maybe they advance a lot between 14 and 16. The people engaging it at our table had fullplate/shield and were glowing with enchantments. Our Judge was playing it "safe". He could have power attacked for more and would have if he'd made it to a squishie. It didn't really matter much. The one guy he managed a full attack on died, so he power attacked for "enough". Those he single attacked could have taken power attacking for more with no change in outcome. Our party was split up because we handled the encounter that got you into that room badly, and an NPC that had fled from an earlier encounter decided to harass the second half of the party before they activated the whatsit. So that half lost a couple rounds to dealing with that threat...and we were then split up when the nastyness began. Had we either 1. prevented the NPC from fleeing after he was walled off from the battle we were fighting earlier- difficult as at the time we really didn't want him around, having our hands full with other stuff 2. dealt with the thingamabob as a team, with everyone risking bad stuff instead of cautiously sending out the more durable members, we might have arrived as a team...only to have the NPC come into the nastiest fight in the module in the middle of the battle. 3. The "Friendly" NPC's turned into a hostile encounter when our arcanist rolled high init, correctly identified the NPC monster types and killed a "always evil" one in a single shot by targeting its vulnerability with a sudden maximized orb....so we did not in fact get any warning. Instead we got an extra encounter (but hey, extra loot too, although one did get away after telling us we were idiots :)) As it turned out, option #2 would likely have been worse than what actually happened, and #1 would have made another fight we were struggling with much more difficult. So a lot of things contributed to the one death we had - the party was split due to earlier choices we'd made, and it was unfortunate that both of the characters who are capable of rescuing a melee from a powerful melee enemy were in the wrong place.
Drezden 05-08-07, 06:02 PM	I think we can be explicit about the Elementals now. The last extended premiere locations were Excalibur and Theocracy by the Bay, both of which were over on April 29th. The scenario is now retired. The DnDXp (formerly WF) Special is never released for homeplay, only the Origins special is. Daren Best not to get to specific yet, I played that one about two months ago with Wes running it CDM, at the time it was advertised as the only Australian release - of course the circle may still put it out as a home game. Oh as for splitting up, the rest of the party buggered off leaving Swifty to do the last encounter by himself - something of a nail biter - Wes as gm was so not impressed. Jolyon can tell you about it sometime. J
copper_wyrmling 05-08-07, 06:33 PM	Best not to get to specific yet, I played that one about two months ago with Wes running it CDM, at the time it was advertised as the only Australian release - of course the circle may still put it out as a home game. Oh as for splitting up, the rest of the party buggered off leaving Swifty to do the last encounter by himself - something of a nail biter - Wes as gm was so not impressed. Jolyon can tell you about it sometime. Jolyon has told me about it :) I notice you didn't mention the Superior Invisibility he gave you before bugging out :P
Maesto 05-08-07, 09:06 PM	Madfox - yes, our DM had readied actions on the other side of the portal. I think we might have had a chance against them if they didn't get the jump on the single solitary wizard who went through first... meep! Of course, there were other issues... What is it with people being unable to read modules?
ezreal2001 05-09-07, 08:53 AM	Jolyon has told me about it :) I notice you didn't mention the Superior Invisibility he gave you before bugging out :P Well spoilers and all, and its was up for pretty much the entire session - almost lost it to a dispel magic.
Cardinal Teplin 05-09-07, 03:42 PM	Madfox - yes, our DM had readied actions on the other side of the portal. I think we might have had a chance against them if they didn't get the jump on the single solitary wizard who went through first... meep! Of course, there were other issues... What is it with people being unable to read modules? Or indeed readying actions before combat starts, which is never allowed.
Lupo 05-09-07, 05:25 PM	Or indeed readying actions before combat starts, which is never allowed. last module i DMed, i allowed readied action although there was a closed door, basically because both groups were well aware of each other AND the module had an ongoing round counter for a certain encounter. so PC group does action X => round counter starts one PC explored a certain door after some rounds, knocks, does a listen check, heard a big creature behind it moving ;) ==> round counter is still running the creature on the other side was alarmed by an effect of the action X AND the silly PC knocked on the door :D ==> round counter is still running PC states he readies an action for anything opening the door ==> round counter is still running creature opens the door to look what has alarmed it and has been silly enough to knock :P readied action of the PC goes of, creature is not impressed, uses its standard action, PC isn't impressed either, all the other PCs were just out of the area of effect - lucky bunch ;). but i agree these were special circumstances ;), normally a closed door should prevent readied actions. ciao martin m.
Timlagor 05-12-07, 11:19 PM	...and you were wrong to allow it in that case too.
Lomiat 05-14-07, 12:26 AM	...and you were wrong to allow it in that case too. Or he ruled that everyone was in a combat situation with a specific obstacle in the battlefield -- a closed door. Let's keep this civil, anyway. There are plenty of other threads devolving into flame wars.
cycloptic_squirrel 05-14-07, 01:27 AM	Let's keep this civil, anyway. There are plenty of other threads devolving into flame wars. Yeah? Well your mother dresses you funny! So there! :mage:
Timlagor 05-14-07, 06:15 AM	Or he ruled that everyone was in a combat situation with a specific obstacle in the battlefield -- a closed door. ..which is not a valid ruling. You can track rounds before combat begins. You cannot begin combat before two opposing sides are able to interact. The situation he described is *exactly* what initiative rolls simulate: reaction speed. Readying does not help your reaction speed at all; it just lets you coordinate your timing with other events happening within the round: you aren't reacting quicker to that wizard starting to cast a spell; you are merely timing your shot so that you fire when he is doing it. In the case at issue you can time your shot so that it coincides with the door opening but everyone else will also be reacting at that time and there is a chance that one of them will react faster (beat you on initative). Let's keep this civil, anyway. There are plenty of other threads devolving into flame wars. I can't think of any way to say he was wrong without saying it. It wasn't uncivil.. merely critical. Certainly wasn't a flame! I suppose I could have softened it by saying that it was a common misruling or an understandable one...
smerwin29 05-14-07, 07:42 AM	I think this discussion leads to a deeper underlying issue: I know that the PHB section on Readying is clear that you have to ready "actions." I have seen DMs deny PCs the right to take actions outside of combat because they rule you have to be in initiative order to take an action. My first question: is there a rule that says you have to be in initiative order to take an action? For example, can a DM deny a dragon shaman PC the right to change her draconic aura (a free action) in the middle of a town because there is no combat and no initiative? (Yes, I have seen this happen.) That leads to my second question: can a DM go into initiative, even outside of combat, to allow PCs or NPCs to ready actions even though a combat hasn't necessarily started yet? And that leads naturally to the 3rd question: why can't a DM, when PCs and NPCs on the other side of a door, call for initiative and allow readying actions, as long as the DM follows normal rules for initiative and readying? Shawn
Lupo 05-14-07, 08:00 AM	I think this discussion leads to a deeper underlying issue: I know that the PHB section on Readying is clear that you have to ready "actions." I have seen DMs deny PCs the right to take actions outside of combat because they rule you have to be in initiative order to take an action. My first question: is there a rule that says you have to be in initiative order to take an action? For example, can a DM deny a dragon shaman PC the right to change her draconic aura (a free action) in the middle of a town because there is no combat and no initiative (yes, I have seen this happen). That leads to my second question: can a DM go into initiative, even outside of combat, to allow PCs or NPCs to ready actions even though a combat hasn't necessarily started yet? And that leads naturally to the 3rd question: why can't a DM, when PCs and NPCs on the other side of a door, call for initiative and allow readying actions, as long as the DM follows normal rules for initiative and readying? Shawn i ruled this way in this situation because both sides were "aware" of each other and otherwise the situation would have become even more silly ;) as the encounter has a continuous round counter ticking away, so the PCs are in combat mode, due to the boxed text. to me "awareness" constitutes an encounter, not necessarily the ability to "interact", otherwise two parties with a wall of force in between wouldn't be able to ready actions like "as soon as the wall of force goes down . . . . ." and what about time stop? and the rules in this case are . . . . "sub optimal" at least. what about: "you see the door knob is turning" would you allow a readied action?:rolleyes: ciao martin m.
chesspiece 05-14-07, 10:14 AM	otherwise two parties with a wall of force in between wouldn't be able to ready actions like "as soon as the wall of force goes down . . . . ." and what about time stop? and the rules in this case are . . . . "sub optimal" at least. The rules aren't as concise as they should be so this is an area that generates more confusion than a set of 3 nut shells. There are reasons why initiative and / or surprise are better than everyone readying actions. If the majority (party and bad guys) are readying for when the wall of force goes down, than who gets to go first? It is hard to drop out of initative (which allows ready actions) if some PCs/NPCs are still fighting - but when no combat actions occur during a round, I'm happy to ask for a new set of initiative rolls. what about: "you see the door knob is turning" would you allow a readied action?:rolleyes: No, I wouldn't. Either the creature(s) opening the door is aware of the party (both sides aware => initiative) or they aren't (party gets a surprise round which is similar to having actions readied). If PCs hear monsters behind the door and then make lots of noise during 2+ attempts to bash the door open, then the rules say "both sides are aware". We're supposed to roll initiative. We aren't supposed to allow either side a surprise round or a ready action. We aren't supposed to penalize the PC that opened the door (by making him miss the first round). I agree that it makes sense for the one opening the door / dismissing or disintegrating the wall of force to be penalized 1 round of actions - but the rules don't say that. If combat is on hold while most of the creatures are readying actions, I'm going to call for initiative. I believe that there might be grey areas where I'd expect table variation. PCs 1 & 2 are fighting BBEGs 3 & 4. They get separated by a closed door. 3 & 4 start laying on buff spells. I'd keep tracking initiative. When PC 1 opens the door, he can still do his standard action. PC 2 can then do his full round. Next 3 & 4 get their full inititives. But if some BBEGs were waiting for the door to open, I need them to roll initiative against the PCs.
Timlagor 05-14-07, 10:38 AM	I think this discussion leads to a deeper underlying issue: I know that the PHB section on Readying is clear that you have to ready "actions." I have seen DMs deny PCs the right to take actions outside of combat because they rule you have to be in initiative order to take an action. My first question: is there a rule that says you have to be in initiative order to take an action? For example, can a DM deny a dragon shaman PC the right to change her draconic aura (a free action) in the middle of a town because there is no combat and no initiative? (Yes, I have seen this happen.) There is no rule precluding actions out of combat/initiative. That is a completely unsupportable position. That I would expect to see overruled every time it went to a Senior/Appeals GM. That leads to my second question: can a DM go into initiative, even outside of combat, to allow PCs or NPCs to ready actions even though a combat hasn't necessarily started yet? No. Initiative is rolled under specific circumstances and is not at the discretion of the GM. And that leads naturally to the 3rd question: why can't a DM, when PCs and NPCs on the other side of a door, call for initiative and allow readying actions, as long as the DM follows normal rules for initiative and readying? Because they can't interact. Because it's thoroughly unhelpful (there is no mechanic for determining the order in which multiple actions go off if they have the same trigger) Because it's also inconsistent with the rules: Initiative is the indicator of how fast you react. Resolving this sort of situation is *precisely* what initative does. Because it penalises the guy who opens the door even though they are the only person who knows precisely when the door will open (and could very well open the door with one hand while casting with the other). Because the rules say so.
Timlagor 05-14-07, 10:52 AM	I said "you cannot begin combat before two opposing sides are able to interact". While this is true it may have been misleading. Combat doesn't start until combat starts-ie someone attacks someone else. Initiative isn't rolled until Combat Starts. If you are tracking rounds then combat starts in the round that someone attacks someone else and initiative is rolled for that round. Everyone who is aware of their enemies is aware from their initiative count that they are in combat: essentially they saw someone reach for a weapon/spellpouch/flute/.. i ruled this way in this situation because both sides were "aware" of each other and otherwise the situation would have become even more silly ;) as the encounter has a continuous round counter ticking away, so the PCs are in combat mode, due to the boxed text. Awareness isn't the determinant. Two forces who know they are about to fight can stand around talking for hours perfectly well aware fo each other. If they don't do anything then there is no combat and no Initiative Rolls. Initiative is rolled when combat starts and not before. to me "awareness" constitutes an encounter, not necessarily the ability to "interact", otherwise two parties with a wall of force in between wouldn't be able to ready actions like "as soon as the wall of force goes down . . . . ." Indeed they can't. and what about time stop? What about it? Everything 'in' a Time Stop happens on one initiative count of the combat. It only *seems* like multiple rounds to the person acting. Even if you treat them as real rounds for them the rest of the combat is still in initiative and when the Time Stop ends the combat continues from that initaitve count. and the rules in this case are . . . . "sub optimal" at least. what about: "you see the door knob is turning" would you allow a readied action?:rolleyes: Of course not! "Ready" is a "special initative action": it's completely meaningless if you aren't in initiative. If you aren't in combat then you aren't in initiative. The person seeing the handle turn *might* get a Surprise round. There are cases where it's difficult to adjudicate when to enter initiative but you haven't cited one. If you had two people maneuvering for advantage in interesting terrain then there may well be cause to roll initiative preemptively. There will also be cases where the Initiative-Winners' actions prevent or even preclude the attack that precipitated the Initiative roll: - "I shoot the Wizard". - Wizard wins Initiative - Wizard Teleports away. A GM will have to adjudicate these to the best of their ability but the rpesumption should be that Initiative isn't rolled until someone wants to attack someone else (and is in a position to do so).
smerwin29 05-14-07, 11:22 AM	There is no rule precluding actions out of combat/initiative. That is a completely unsupportable position. That I would expect to see overruled every time it went to a Senior/Appeals GM. I agree with you. But readying is an action that you are denying out of combat/initiative in this case. No. Initiative is rolled under specific circumstances and is not at the discretion of the GM. Is that your interpretation of the rules, or is that written specifically somewhere I am missing? Because they can't interact. I can think of several situations where two sides in a fight cannot interact but initiative would still be necessary. Because it's thoroughly unhelpful (there is no mechanic for determining the order in which multiple actions go off if they have the same trigger) Wouldn't initiative order be a good determining factor for order on several actions hinging on the same trigger? Because it's also inconsistent with the rules: Initiative is the indicator of how fast you react. Resolving this sort of situation is *precisely* what initative does. Why not do this? Two groups are on opposite sides of a doorway. They know each other is there, and both sides are going to want to act as soon as the door opens. Roll initiative. Let either side ready or act as they wish. When the door is actually opened by either side, the readied actions go off in order of the original initiative rolls. For me this doesn't go against either the spirit or the letter of the RAW, it doesn't give either side a significant advantage, and it realistically plays out the reality of the situation. Because it penalises the guy who opens the door even though they are the only person who knows precisely when the door will open. The readying doesn't penalize the door opener so much as the rules of it taking a move action to open a door. If both sides are aware that the door is about to open, I don't see this as an issue. The door opening side of this does have the advantage of being able to trick the people on the other side by opening the door from a distance using magic or a rope, and then having all the readied actions go off with no targets there. Because the rules say so. I still haven't seen a specific rule saying that a DM cannot go into initiative whenever there is a need to keep track of actions. If there is one that is not based on assumptions and preferences, I'd love to have a page number. Thanks, Shawn
JamesMaissen 05-14-07, 05:21 PM	I agree with you. But readying is an action that you are denying out of combat/initiative in this case. Thanks, Shawn Readying an action is a special initiative action. Let's change the field a little bit and see if we can put context on it. Instead of readying, perhaps they just 'delay'? Could they then bypass the initiative system and simply elect to go after the turn of the person who opened the door? There's a difference between initiative and tracking actions round by round. The party triggers an alarm spell alerting a wizard many rooms away that there are intruders. He starts casting spells and taking actions. He does this in rounds, but not in initiative. He has no interaction between himself and the party. When the party does open a door where he happens to be behind THEN initiative is rolled. Based on the number of rounds that have transpired until that point can have impact on spell durations and the like, but doesn't effect the rolling of initiative. Otherwise wouldn't everyone when travelling single move and ready an action? -James
Timlagor 05-15-07, 08:16 AM	I'll look for specific citations later but in the meantime: I can think of several situations where two sides in a fight cannot interact but initiative would still be necessary. Please give some examples. While I see how you might think that Initiative was appropriate in some of the examples given so far none of them can reasonably be said to require it. You can certainly make up systems for breaking ties in Readied actions with the same trigger but no such mechanism exists in the rules.
Madfox11 05-15-07, 08:23 AM	Well, another situation besides manouvering would be when the PCs interact with potential opponents, but are not entirely sure there is going to be a fight. Asking for initiative adds a sense of tension - are the NPCs friendly or aggresive? Will I be the first to attack or not? I agree with Timlagor though that outside of initiative it should not be possible to ready actions. As soon as everybody has a ready action (such as with the wall of force) I always go out of initiative, and it becomes a factor of surprise and new initiative rolls.
smerwin29 05-15-07, 09:08 AM	Please give some examples. The PCs are pursuing a foe, who is carrying another creature that is bleeding out. In three rounds, the foe will be able to pass through a portal. The PCs are currently too far away to interact, and the foe does not want to interact. However, with the proper amount of movement, the PCs may be able to get close enough to interact. Initiative is needed to know where people end their movements, and to know if they can get close enough to attack. A BBEG is holding a sword to the throat of a hostage. The PCs are not within melee distance, but they are within range of missile weapons and spells. Negotiations are taking place. The BBEG has said, "If any of you attack or cast spells or even move, the hostage is dead." This whole situation relies on the BBEG being able to ready an action, even though combat is not taking place at the moment. Either there has to be initiative in place to allow the ready, or there has to be a mechanism for readying outside of combat. A single foe casts a spell that does continual damage to a PC, but then gets trapped in an Otiluke's Sphere. The continual damage risks killing the PC, but the PCs are spread out far enough that they can't get to the PC immediately to help out. Even though the two sides cannot interact, you need to stay in initiative to see if the PCs get to the endangered PC in time. These are just three off the top of my head. I'm sure the imaginative people here could come up with a dozen more. I just get the feeling that "you can't ready outside of combat" is one of those rules that people have heard and recited so much that it has replaced common sense. I agree that it would be impossible for someone to ready an action for 14 hours, or even an hour in some cases. But there are some cases when it is necessary.
smerwin29 05-15-07, 09:12 AM	I agree with Timlagor though that outside of initiative it should not be possible to ready actions. As soon as everybody has a ready action (such as with the wall of force) I always go out of initiative, and it becomes a factor of surprise and new initiative rolls. The problem with dropping out of initiative in this situation is that you are reintroducing "flat-footed" into the equation when it shouldn't be. When that wall comes down, suddenly people are flat-footed again even though they are aware of one another.
smerwin29 05-15-07, 09:15 AM	Otherwise wouldn't everyone when travelling single move and ready an action? Only if they wanted to get there really, really slowly. :D
Mattastrophic 05-15-07, 09:43 AM	-If Legolas can ready his bow to fire on the first goblin he sees peeking through the door in Moria... so can I. -If Jack Bauer can ready to grab the first person who steps through the airplane door (Season 3)... so can I. -If a sniper can ready to take a shot as soon as he gets the order to fire... so can I. These situations are possible in d20. Readying is the mechanism. You guys are trying to say that they aren't. -Matt
Cardinal Teplin 05-15-07, 10:00 AM	Adding to the mix - there is a second problem with readying an action before opening a door. Readied actions happen before the triggering event, not afterwards. What is the trigger of your action? Opening the door? You get to act on a closed door, before it is opened. Being attacked by someone on the other side of the door? Quentin Tarritino style standoff, where nobody moves until someone else has attacked. If everyone is readied, you kinda stick there. The entire point of readying an action is that you are waiting for a specific event to occur, to counter with a specific response. If you are readying just to go first, then we really should be using initiative. I never allow readying actions outside combat. This means 'knife to the throat' situations don't get modelled well, but otherwise everything works fine. Yes, there are places where the DM could have used it to model a situation, but if he gets to use it, so do the players, and the mechanic is just too abusable if you take it out the context in which it was originally presented - a mechanic for use during combat, not a preparation for one.
Mattastrophic 05-15-07, 10:09 AM	What is the trigger of your action? "When I see my target on the other side." What you're basically saying here is that I cannot ready a Scorching Ray for the guy who opens the door... but if I punch my friend in the face and initiate combat, THEN I could. Or if I throw a marble (improvised ranged weapon) at an inanimate object (like the wall), THEN I could. Now that's just silly. -Matt
CSHunt68 05-15-07, 10:13 AM	-If Legolas can ready his bow to fire on the first goblin he sees peeking through the door in Moria... so can I. -If Jack Bauer can ready to grab the first person who steps through the airplane door (Season 3)... so can I. -If a sniper can ready to take a shot as soon as he gets the order to fire... so can I. These situations are possible in d20. Readying is the mechanism. You guys are trying to say that they aren't. -Matt These could all be Delayed Actions, not Readied Actions. Sorry.
CSHunt68 05-15-07, 10:18 AM	A BBEG is holding a sword to the throat of a hostage. The PCs are not within melee distance, but they are within range of missile weapons and spells. Negotiations are taking place. The BBEG has said, "If any of you attack or cast spells or even move, the hostage is dead." This whole situation relies on the BBEG being able to ready an action, even though combat is not taking place at the moment. Either there has to be initiative in place to allow the ready, or there has to be a mechanism for readying outside of combat. No, your logic in that last sentence is flawed, as there is at least one other possibility. Namely, that if someone does something, roll Initiative. THAT'S what happens. It's the old West shootout, all over again. The guy reaching for his gun first (declaring an action and triggering Initiative) does NOT always get to go first (the guy who wins Initiative). Simple. If one of the PCs does something that would cause the BBEG to act, everyone rolls Initiative. Whoever beats him in Initiative better do something good, or he'll do what he says. To do things the way you've laid them out (allow Readied Actions outside of Initiative) would preclude ANY POSSIBILITY of the party taking him out before he does what he wants to do, which, having watched many Hollwood movies, is clearly not the way things work. ;)
pedr 05-15-07, 10:31 AM	The PCs are pursuing a foe, who is carrying another creature that is bleeding out. In three rounds, the foe will be able to pass through a portal. The PCs are currently too far away to interact, and the foe does not want to interact. However, with the proper amount of movement, the PCs may be able to get close enough to interact. Initiative is needed to know where people end their movements, and to know if they can get close enough to attack.Here they are able to 'interact' in that they are chasing someone. There's no rules problem with staying in initiative hereA BBEG is holding a sword to the throat of a hostage. The PCs are not within melee distance, but they are within range of missile weapons and spells. Negotiations are taking place. The BBEG has said, "If any of you attack or cast spells or even move, the hostage is dead." This whole situation relies on the BBEG being able to ready an action, even though combat is not taking place at the moment. Either there has to be initiative in place to allow the ready, or there has to be a mechanism for readying outside of combat.This is possibly not modelled well by the rules. An alternative interpretation is that it is excellently modelled by the rules: the initiative check determines whether the BBEG is quick enough at reacting to the spellcasting/arrow being drawn and fired/etc to follow through with his threat before getting hit.A single foe casts a spell that does continual damage to a PC, but then gets trapped in an Otiluke's Sphere. The continual damage risks killing the PC, but the PCs are spread out far enough that they can't get to the PC immediately to help out. Even though the two sides cannot interact, you need to stay in initiative to see if the PCs get to the endangered PC in time. Here you can stay in rounds but drop out of initiative. Alternatively you can stay in initiative but, essentially, consider the ongoing effect the 'enemy' rather than any creature. I'd roll initiative again when the sphere drops to see who reacts quickest in that precise moment. I don't see a huge problem with re-introducing flat-footed: It's about being momentarily distracted/off-guard/wrong-footed when faced with an enemy. Perhaps you were looking the other way at just the moment when the Otiluke's sphere dropped, for instance.
JamesMaissen 05-15-07, 10:44 AM	Only if they wanted to get there really, really slowly. :D Unless they were planning on hustling on foot then they would be traveling at normal speeds. Double moving is 'hustling' and requires checks for prolonged use. They would be giving up their active spot/listen checks by readying however. As they could otherwise single move and make them. But as they would, as a result, act before anything gets to attack them they wouldn't be flatfooted against anything but an attacker that's not seen by the entire party. And even then only one of them would be so caught. Initiative has a place in things. It is an abstraction as D&D is a turn based system where things are happening simultaneously. So there will be rough spots. Using special initiative actions in this manor is wrong. -James
Mattastrophic 05-15-07, 10:49 AM	These could all be Delayed Actions, not Readied Actions. Sorry. I'll say it again... What you're basically saying here is that I cannot ready a Scorching Ray for the guy who opens the door... but if I punch my friend in the face and initiate combat, THEN I could. Or if I throw a marble (improvised ranged weapon) at an inanimate object (like the wall), THEN I could. Now that's just silly. -Matt
smerwin29 05-15-07, 10:57 AM	I don't see a huge problem with re-introducing flat-footed: It's about being momentarily distracted/off-guard/wrong-footed when faced with an enemy. Perhaps you were looking the other way at just the moment when the Otiluke's sphere dropped, for instance. I'll tell you exactly what the problem is with another example. The PCs are in a battle with a dozen dagger-throwing rogues. The PCs have to break a widget to release a djinni to succeed in their mission. Combat stops as the PCs surround the widget. The BBEG says the typical, "Let's make a deal. Even if you break that, you still die trying to get out. We'll give you this treasure and let you walk out of here if you don't break it." Parlay ensues for a while, but the PCs say, "If any attacks come, we break it." Parlay breaks down, PCs decide to break it. Instead of readied actions, we go back into initiative. Most of the rogues, with their improved initiatives and/or lucky rolls, get to go first. Now I have to tell the PCs that are getting peppered with sneak attack damage that even though they are in this tense combat situation and know exactly where everyone is, they are flat-footed. That doesn't seem right to me. Here's another example: A hidden archer is watching a fighter move toward an object that he does not want the fighter to pick up. However, the fighter has cover or concealment until he reaches the object. So the archer wants to wait until the fighter no longer has cover, but if he simply delays, he won't be able to interrupt the action of picking it up once the fighter gets to the object. What people are telling me is that since you can't ready an action outside of combat, there is no way to interrupt the action of the fighter. Now say the PC is the fighter instead of the archer. What do you say when you try to tell the PC that he just got shoot with an arrow as he moved to the object and picked it up (two move actions) and the player says, "You can't ready an action outside of combat." As I've said before, I have yet to see anyone point me to a rule that says either: 1. You can't ready an action outside of initiative, or, failing that; 2. You can't go into initiative at any time you like in order to allow for readied action. I do think these should be allowed in only specific situations, but they need to be allowed.
smerwin29 05-15-07, 11:00 AM	Unless they were planning on hustling on foot then they would be traveling at normal speeds. Double moving is 'hustling' and requires checks for prolonged use. They would be giving up their active spot/listen checks by readying however. As they could otherwise single move and make them. But as they would, as a result, act before anything gets to attack them they wouldn't be flatfooted against anything but an attacker that's not seen by the entire party. And even then only one of them would be so caught. Initiative has a place in things. It is an abstraction as D&D is a turn based system where things are happening simultaneously. So there will be rough spots. Using special initiative actions in this manor is wrong. And as I said, I would not allow readying actions outside of combat when you are unaware of threats, as a general "safeguard." But you are right that initiative does have a place in things, and I don't see a problem using initiative outside of combat to smooth over those rough spots you mention.
CSHunt68 05-15-07, 11:14 AM	I'll say it again... -Matt I don't know why you felt the need to restate yourself. I think I made my point perfectly clearly. All of those examples you claimed were Readied could in fact just be Delayed. This is the way everyone moves around - essentially, just Delayed (at least as far as combat actions go) until something happens. (Although we haven't resolved who goes before whom by actually rolling Initiative until it's necessary.) Clear now? If you are not aware of anyone on the far side of the door, NO, you cannot Ready an action to shoot anyone who opens the door. They may just get the jump on you. Period. Look, when PCs are rooting around a dungeon, I expect everyone to be "ready" for bad stuff to happen - namely, bad guys busting down doors. This doesn't permit them, in game terms to be _Ready_ for these things to happen. That's just the way it goes. That's what INITIATIVE is for. If you're not actually aware of bad guys, you're just not combat-ready. As a DM, I would not permit you to run around in Initiative count just because you do something ridiculous like attacking your friend or tossing around pebbles.
CSHunt68 05-15-07, 11:24 AM	I'll tell you exactly what the problem is with another example. The PCs are in a battle with a dozen dagger-throwing rogues. The PCs have to break a widget to release a djinni to succeed in their mission. Combat stops as the PCs surround the widget. The BBEG says the typical, "Let's make a deal. Even if you break that, you still die trying to get out. We'll give you this treasure and let you walk out of here if you don't break it." Parlay ensues for a while, but the PCs say, "If any attacks come, we break it." Parlay breaks down, PCs decide to break it. Instead of readied actions, we go back into initiative. Most of the rogues, with their improved initiatives and/or lucky rolls, get to go first. Now I have to tell the PCs that are getting peppered with sneak attack damage that even though they are in this tense combat situation and know exactly where everyone is, they are flat-footed. That doesn't seem right to me. Why not? They acted faster than you when it counted, and you're not prepared for their quick reactions. Simple. Or, you could just say that the encounter hasn't ended. Everyone retains their Initiative count, and we will begin combat with the first person who Readied or Delayed when "negotiations" began. You don't really need to drop out of Initiative in that case. Here's another example: A hidden archer is watching a fighter move toward an object that he does not want the fighter to pick up. However, the fighter has cover or concealment until he reaches the object. So the archer wants to wait until the fighter no longer has cover, but if he simply delays, he won't be able to interrupt the action of picking it up once the fighter gets to the object. What people are telling me is that since you can't ready an action outside of combat, there is no way to interrupt the action of the fighter. What?? This is clearly a case of surprise. The archer has surprised the fighter - since he is aware of his opponent and his opponent is not aware of him - and he uses his surprise action to Ready to shoot the fighter when he attempts to pick up the stone. Now say the PC is the fighter instead of the archer. What do you say when you try to tell the PC that he just got shoot with an arrow as he moved to the object and picked it up (two move actions) and the player says, "You can't ready an action outside of combat." I say, "You failed your Spot check, and were Surprised." As I've said before, I have yet to see anyone point me to a rule that says either: 1. You can't ready an action outside of initiative, or, failing that; 2. You can't go into initiative at any time you like in order to allow for readied action. I do think these should be allowed in only specific situations, but they need to be allowed. No, they don't.
Mattastrophic 05-15-07, 11:29 AM	As a DM, I would not permit you to run around in Initiative count just because you do something ridiculous like attacking your friend or tossing around pebbles. What if my friend hits back? Are we in initiative now? Are you saying that we could have an entire fistfight and be flat-footed the whole time, because we never go into initiative? Yes, the example is ridiculous. However, it points out the problem with your point. What it really comes down to is that in the opening-the-door example, initiative has already started, because who-goes-first has already become an issue. -Matt
CSHunt68 05-15-07, 11:33 AM	No, it's simple. I wouldn't let you Ready an action to attack an opponent you weren't aware of, or had no knowledge of. In any situation. If you get in a fistfight with your friend, what does that have to do with throwing a Scorching Ray at an opening door?
Mattastrophic 05-15-07, 11:35 AM	No, it's simple. I wouldn't let you Ready an action to attack an opponent you weren't aware of, or had no knowledge of. In any situation. But I am aware of him; I hear him RIGHT BEHIND THE DOOR! This issue has historically been one of those "camps" issues. So I'm willing to agree to disagree and hold out for the Rules Compendium on this one. -Matt
CSHunt68 05-15-07, 11:41 AM	In that case, I'm really not sure what the problem is. You are in Initiative - triggered because you entered combat - and newcomers enter the fray. The rules for this are on P. 23 and 24 of the DMG. If they are aware of you, and you are not aware of them, they enter at the top of the round, acting before anyone else. If they are not aware of you, they enter with a normal, random Initiative check. If your check permits you to take your action before they actually enter the room, go ahead and Ready what you want. This is a case of two sides entering combat, both aware of each other, right? So, roll Initiative. The fact that you've already been fighting, and have already rolled, is moot. You might get the jump on them opening the door, you might not. There is no need for a ruling on this one - it's modelled as well as anything in the core rules.
Samwise 05-15-07, 11:59 AM	As I've said before, I have yet to see anyone point me to a rule that says either: 1. You can't ready an action outside of initiative, or, failing that; 2. You can't go into initiative at any time you like in order to allow for readied action. I do think these should be allowed in only specific situations, but they need to be allowed. As noted, I don't think you can ready outside of initiative. It is an action that only has an existence within the structure of being in initiative. Page 160: The ready action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next one has begun. As there are no turns outside of initiative, there is nothing to ready. The second one I think is where the discussion should rest. When exactly can you go into combat? Combat can indeed "begin" when one side is unaware of the other. One side gets a surprise round before the regular initiative count begins. I don't think anyone would deny that someone can ready an action during their turn in a surprise round, would they? So however peculiar it might seem with the sniper, one side at least is aware of the other and combat has begun. The problem is in the metagame. Once the DM says roll for initiative, the PCs are fully aware that some threat is present, even if they are completely unable to locate it. The sniper obviously readies to shoot under certain circumstances, but the PCs, alerted by the rules, may now act in what would seem an unreasonable manner, randomly glitterdusting or fireballing or buffing or what not. Unfortunately, I don't see any way around that. The other issue then is what exactly constitutes an end to combat. To be truly absurd, if combat only begins with an attack, let's say we roll initiative, and the buffing cleric somehow goes first, then the bad guys, then all the PC rogues and tanks. Well, that's hardly good. So our cleric simply passes his action, combat hasn't taken place, and combat has ended. The PCs get a complete initiative re-roll. Obviously that can't be right, so I think it should be reasonable to conclude that combat is determined by intent, and not actions. That leaves the special cases: Hostage Situation I would say a hostage situation is a case of the hostage taker being aware of the PCs but the PCs not being aware of the hostage taker. The hostage taker initiates combat, and readies an action in his surprise round. No rules issue exists. Old West Standoff These were caused by codes of honor, not rules issues. You can get something close to it with the rules for dueling in Oriental Adventures, but really what you have is everyone voluntarily readying an action, then trying to use Bluff to make everyone else flat-footed and Intimidate to make them attack someone else first, so their readied action goes off first, and they have aren't targeted by any survivors. Bizarre, but no rules issue exists other than being able to do all of that in one round. Closed Door, Both Sides Aware This is the big problem. The example in the PHB has combat beginning and initiative being rolled only when the door is opened. The thing is, this is typically considered to be the cue to begin round/level buffing for most LG players. I don't think anyone would want that taken away, but if combat can't begin until the door is open, then technically that is against the rules. I think perhaps it might be better to accept starting combat with the door closed than negate buffing.
CSHunt68 05-15-07, 12:09 PM	"The problem is in the metagame. Once the DM says roll for initiative, the PCs are fully aware that some threat is present, even if they are completely unable to locate it. The sniper obviously readies to shoot under certain circumstances, but the PCs, alerted by the rules, may now act in what would seem an unreasonable manner, randomly glitterdusting or fireballing or buffing or what not. Unfortunately, I don't see any way around that." Just don't ask for Initiative until it's necessary. You're not obliged to ask for Initiative rolls for surprised parties. In fact, I don't think they should be rolling, according to p.133 of the PHB. Characters that are surprised don't roll for Initiative until the Surprise Round is over. I don't know what the problem is with the "hostage situation" or the "old west standoff". They're modelled very well by the rules. Roll Initiative. Whoever rolls best has the chance to act first, despite the fact that they may not have "initiated" combat - by reaching for a gun, or threatening to kill a hostage. It really couldn't be any simpler. Your take on the hostage situation is perfectly good, too. The example in the PHB is just that. An example. It happens to be a bad one. ;)
Mattastrophic 05-15-07, 12:25 PM	"The problem is in the metagame. Once the DM says roll for initiative, the PCs are fully aware that some threat is present, even if they are completely unable to locate it. The sniper obviously readies to shoot under certain circumstances, but the PCs, alerted by the rules, may now act in what would seem an unreasonable manner, randomly glitterdusting or fireballing or buffing or what not. Unfortunately, I don't see any way around that." Just don't ask for Initiative until it's necessary. You're not obliged to ask for Initiative rolls for surprised parties. In fact, I don't think they should be rolling, according to p.133 of the PHB. Characters that are surprised don't roll for Initiative until the Surprise Round is over. Except... it is over. As soon as the sniper finishes his "surprise round," we're in regular rounds. One way around it, in my experience, involves pre-rolling initiative, either before the mod starts or at the beginning of a "scene." Samwise, you are so correct. That's two gentlemanly-scholar awards I've given out today. -Matt
Samwise 05-15-07, 01:20 PM	Just don't ask for Initiative until it's necessary. You're not obliged to ask for Initiative rolls for surprised parties. In fact, I don't think they should be rolling, according to p.133 of the PHB. Characters that are surprised don't roll for Initiative until the Surprise Round is over. As Matt said, as soon as the sniper readies, the surprise round is over and you have to ask for initiative. And the rules are oddly contradictory on when to roll initiative. One place says roll immediately, one says before the first round, one says those who are surprised don't roll until after the surprise round. I don't know what the problem is with the "hostage situation" or the "old west standoff". They're modelled very well by the rules. Roll Initiative. Whoever rolls best has the chance to act first, despite the fact that they may not have "initiated" combat - by reaching for a gun, or threatening to kill a hostage. It really couldn't be any simpler. Your take on the hostage situation is perfectly good, too. Because functionally, they aren't determined purely by initiative, especially the standoff. As I noted, those are a very peculiar situation caused by codes of behavior rather than the rules, and are really a lot closer to the dueling rules in OA. (No surprise actually, considering how Leone's genre defining Spaghetti Westerns were remakes of Kurosawa flicks, but I digress.) [quoteThe example in the PHB is just that. An example. It happens to be a bad one. ;)[/QUOTE] *shrug* Maybe, maybe not. Maybe LG players are just being unmutual and insisting on using the rules in a manner not intended or anticipated, and so really is breaking the rules. If we really don't allow starting combat until the "door is opened" (or whatever), then that kind of buffing is in fact illegal, and must not be allowed for anyone. I hope that isn't the rule.
Mattastrophic 05-15-07, 01:36 PM	If we really don't allow starting combat until the "door is opened" (or whatever), then that kind of buffing is in fact illegal, and must not be allowed for anyone. I hope that isn't the rule. I gotcha, because if we're not in rounds unless we're in initiative, thus we can't track rounds/lvl buffs unless we're in initiative because we're not in rounds. I had never thought of that before. Thank you, Samwise. -Matt
CSHunt68 05-15-07, 02:08 PM	Meh. Nonsense. If I'm aware of you fifty-five rounds before you are aware of me, or I make you become aware of me, that's fifty-five rounds of activity I can take before you need to roll Initiative. A round is a round is a round. I can keep track of rounds quite well without people having to roll Initiative, thank you. I can keep track of round/level buffs, minute/level buffs, and hour/level buffs. A round is six seconds. That's all. It all works very well when you get rid of the meta-gaming. As for two guys staring at each other, if one of them reaches for spell components or a weapon, it's Initiative time. Period. End of story. That's why we have Initiative.
Samwise 05-15-07, 02:15 PM	Meh. Nonsense. If I'm aware of you fifty-five rounds before you are aware of me, or I make you become aware of me, that's fifty-five rounds of activity I can take before you need to roll Initiative. As for two guys staring at each other, if one of them reaches for spell components or a weapon, it's Initiative time. Period. End of story. That's why we have Initiative. It all works very well when you get rid of the meta-gaming. Except for the limitation of only one standard or move action in a surprise round. And yes, the meta-gaming is the problem. A reasonable DM can account for it with the NPCs, but will the PCs accept it?
CSHunt68 05-15-07, 02:21 PM	The surprise round takes place as the surprisees are made aware of the surprisers, and not before. There is no limitation on how long (how many full rounds, if you wish) a hidden entity might take before choosing to reveal itself, triggering a surprise round and then Initiative. The text is "a surprise round happens before regular rounds of combat begin". If regular rounds of combat are not going to be triggered by a surpriser, we are not in that surprise round. Both parties may continue acting normally. Combat has not been triggered. There are no Initiative rolls, no full-round or partial round actions (unless it is deemed that multiple surprisers must determine what order they are acting in). Time passes normally. Those who are about to do the surprising are free to buff up until such a time as they choose to surprise their foes, or they are spotted (which would trigger immediate Initiative, as the surprise has been lost). At such time as they jump their quarry, they roll Init and get a surprise round. After that surprise round, the surprisees roll Init and we go into regular combat.
Samwise 05-15-07, 06:06 PM	The rules don't say that. They say after the surprise everyone has initiative and you proceed through the normal round structure. There is no direct provision for multiple surprise rounds. Also note, the unsurprised group would get Spot and Listen checks every round, or possibly every action, to detect the PCs, especially if they are talking to each other and casting spells. The PCs would not know that they had been heard unless they made checks, and unless you want to get into a mess where the PCs are now surprised by the people they had surprised but ignored who suddenly jump them, you must be in initiative.
CSHunt68 05-15-07, 08:31 PM	Actually, the rules say exactly what I posted. That is, "a surprise round happens before regular rounds of combat begin". If you choose to interpret that as meaning that there is always ever only ONE round to act before combat begins, that's your choice. Me, it makes much more sense with _my_ interpretation - because that's what it is, an interpretation. Note that PCs are NOT entitled to free Spot and Listen checks every round, unless the situation is changing - there are NEW things to see or hear. This is what you get with Quick Reconnoiter. Otherwise, making them is an active choice. If the ambushers continue to lay low and are casting Silent Spelled buffs say - nope, no new Listen checks, no new Spot checks. If the original surprisers decide to continue lurking and buffing, but are eventually heard, yes, it may very well cost them their "surprise" - that would trigger general Initiative, and full round actions at that point. No mess, no fuss, everything as listed in the rules.
Samwise 05-15-07, 08:38 PM	Actually, the rules say exactly what I posted. That is, "a surprise round happens before regular rounds of combat begin". If you choose to interpret that as meaning that there is always ever only ONE round to act before combat begins, that's your choice. Me, it makes much more sense with _my_ interpretation - because that's what it is, an interpretation.[/quotes] That's because every time it is mentioned, it is singular. The whole section is named "The Surprise Round." You get one, then you go to initiative. [quote]Note that PCs are NOT entitled to free Spot and Listen checks every round, unless the situation is changing - there are NEW things to see or hear. This is what you get with Quick Reconnoiter. Otherwise, making them is an active choice. If the ambushers continue to lay low and are casting Silent Spelled buffs say - nope, no new Listen checks, no new Spot checks. Casting Silent spells, yes. I have yet to see a party that has every buff spell prepared as a Silent spell, or enough metamagic rods of silence to cast them all that way. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a party with any silent buffs. So as a general concept, the surprised group would get free Spot and Listen checks every round, particularly if the PCs are dicussing their tactics. If the original surprisers decide to continue lurking and buffing, but are eventually heard, yes, it may very well cost them their "surprise" - that would trigger general Initiative, and full round actions at that point. Right. Instead the former surprised guys would move to attack them, and if they didn't make Spot or Listen checks, they would now be surprised. No mess, no fuss, everything as listed in the rules. Well no, it isn't as listed in the rules. It requires meta-gaming.
solbergb 05-15-07, 10:34 PM	I've seen a party with silent buffs, as I enabled it, but it isn't real common. bard casts the following spells while well out of earshot of enemy, but within minutes of slow walking to get to them circle of invisibility harmonize silence joyous noise inspire courage (but no inspirational boost) Other party castesr are now free to cluster around the bard in the 10' bubble of noise surrounded by silence. I think something similar can be done with sculpt sound, but that spell has some weird aspects...zone of silence can certainly do it. Without a bard....not so likely, unless the only party spellcaster buffing is a shadowcraft mage or perhaps unseen seer willing to burn higher level slots.
Cardinal Teplin 05-16-07, 07:56 AM	That leaves the special cases: Hostage Situation I would say a hostage situation is a case of the hostage taker being aware of the PCs but the PCs not being aware of the hostage taker. The hostage taker initiates combat, and readies an action in his surprise round. No rules issue exists. Hm.. Not sure what you mean here. Hostage taker has a hostage, knife to the throat, etc. The PCs arrive and start negotiating. Negotiations fails, one side or the other becomes impatient. Combat begins as the hostage taker starts to cut the hostage's throat, and the PCs start to pull weapons. I'm not sure why anyone would have a surprise round here. Why would you get a surprise round when both sides are clearly aware of eachother as hostile, and both expecting a fight to kick off at any minute? Without a surprise round, things get sticky. The hostage taker might well slit the vitcim's throat before the PCs get to act, but it's just as likely that sir lance-a-lot, sitting astride his mount, might see the hostage taker start to move his knife arm, charge in from 100' feet away and rescue the hostage before the hostage take could complete his cut. I don't have a particular problem with that, but I have had complaints that it strains the bounds of credibility. Some people want to give the guy with the knife to someone's throat an advantage, but the system doesn't really support that.
chesspiece 05-16-07, 11:08 AM	Here are my recommendations and I’ll reference them in my examples below. 1) Follow the rules for surprise & initiative. They work well. 2) Only allow Ready or Delay when you are in combat / initiative rounds. 3) Only allow going into combat / initiative rounds when actions that are sensitive to order are ongoing between characters. 4) Follow the rules for adding new combatants to initiative. [DMG pg 23-24] I only allow one surprise round. I think the surprise round makes the perfect replacement for Ready actions (both prohibit Full Actions). But a surprise round means that the ambusher’s action should lead to initiative by the PCs (often it is detectable). If not, then it’s probably still pre-combat actions. Closed door? 1) Surprise or initiative depending on awareness before the door was opened. If you heard him before he opened the door (and he didn’t know you were there), then you’ll get to Scorching Ray him. It’s just during the surprise round instead of using a Ready action. This also has the advantage that you can change your action if it turns out to be a Fire Giant or a non-combatant. Buffing before the door is opened? Determine what round the NPCs will open the door (this happens at the end of the round). Go one round at a time allowing pre-combat actions (buff spells, etc.) until one side opens the door (takes place at the end of the round). 3) Now that the door is opened, roll initiative for the next round. Both sides are separated by a wall of force? Finish the round. 2) If no-one is going to remove the obstacle the next round or if everyone is going into Ready / Delay mode, drop out of combat. Use the ‘buffing before the door is opened’ method above to track rounds until someone removes the obstacle – this takes place at the end of the round it is performed. 3) Then roll for initiative. Hostage situation before combat? 1) Comes down to reaction speed. Roll for initiative (no surprise). Negotiations interrupt combat? 2)&3) Everyone needs to stand down enough to allow negotiations. This allows for a new set of rolls for “who’s fastest” and the slow ones are flat footed again. Warning to PCs & NPCs: dropping your guard (for negotiations) is risky. You might get double crossed and be placed at a combat disadvantage. Sniper? 1) Surprise. The biggest hurdle I’ve seen is the Feign Surprise card where a PC can act in the surprise round before they have an opponent to act against. Of course, this is a non-Core rules item so we need to take our lumps here and come up with our own solution. I’d allow the PC to take their combat action (buff, random bombardment, etc.) without revealing the opponent. Or they can Delay / Ready. Caution: if a PC delays or refocuses in the surprise round until normal initiative comes up, they still only have a Standard or Move Action – do not allow them to cheese things out to gain a Full Action before their rolled initiative in round 1 of combat comes up. Sniper with a Ready Action? Why would he do that??? He’s aware and the PCs aren’t yet. He can either shoot (surprise round then initiative) or wait for something (no surprise round until he acts) or he can Ready (using up the surprise round and triggering initiative without giving the PCs a target). 1) Shooting has the advantage of a guaranteed surprise action with the disadvantage that the opponent might not be in the desired position. 3) Waiting has the advantage that you can you’re your surprise round action pretty much whenever you want (similar to Ready) with the disadvantage that if the opponents get closer, they might detect you resulting in a loss of surprise (all PCs making their Spot check can act in the Surprise round). 2) Readying has the advantage that you act when you want to be triggered but the (metagame) disadvantage that it requires everyone enter initiative so all opponents suddenly know something is wrong and can take defensive measures – similar problem mentioned above for Feign Surprise. Example: PCs have line of sight to a hidden rogue at 120’. Their best spot check won’t see him until 50’. If the rogue decided (before the roll) to ambush at 120’ or 60’, he gets the surprise round when he wanted. If he decided to wait until 30’, the surprise round happens at 50’ with the best PC spotter acting during the surprise round too. Also, note that “I’m buffing but you can’t see / hear me,” isn’t a Surprise Round any more than ambushers continuing to Hide while the targets come closer. They can keep that up until they’re detected by the opponents. Then either all aware characters (ambushers and opponents that made the Spot / Listen check) act in the Surprise Round, or everyone became aware and it’s normal initiative. Samwise’s dueling rules? I think those sound fun. I’d love to see something like that implemented on special occasions. Same goes for an LG module that used Sense Motive vs Bluff to gain a surprise round after both sides were aware. I’ve seen (and agreed with) table Judges declaring that 1 PC gets a surprise round even though both sides were aware because he suddenly did something that nobody was expecting “negotiations are going well, why did the quiet guy in the back suddenly scream ‘Fireball’ and throw bat guano at the ceiling?!?” I don’t think these rules are suitable for >90% of D&D situations though, so I would only try them out on rare occasions (as directed by the module or as often as a Home Game group enjoys them). 1) Within Core rules, you can just roll initiative when the standoff breaks down into combat. It’s within the rules and it’s cinematic. “I shoot my arrow.” “I blast him with a Cone of Cold.” DM:“Well he wants to breathe fire at you. Let’s see who’s fastest on the draw – roll initiative.” 100’ cavalry charge vs hostage-taker? Yeah, that’s a little weird. 1) I guess the BBEG lost initiative and then froze in terror or something. Lucky PCs. :) If you feel that a situation warrants it, you can use DM’s best friend a +2 situational modifier on initiative. You might even give the BBEG +4 AC for cover or roll randomly on ranged attacks per Grapple rules.
katrick 05-16-07, 04:57 PM	Re: hostage situation: BBEG has hostage(grappled,lets say Improved Grab, many arms(maralith) has Vorpal weapon to throat(cinematic); "coup de grace" is a full round action not only can she now not coup de grace but she could roll last on init(meaning with Feign surprise the entire party gets to go twice before she draws across the throat), even though her Sorc friend has been telepathically informing her of the party's whereabouts for the last 15 mins, and she has been waiting all that time (buffing, from her evil cleric friend, in her own house that she knows very well, behind the squeaky door with the broken handle, where the Descrated shrine is, that mummy sent her to protect) for the party to arrive exactly when and where she wants them.(in the Anti-magic Field) Miss Maralith speaks to senior GM, but we had Arcane sight,Telepathy, Commune, we were 60' away, they even set off our traps,we waited 478 years, senior GM says dry your eyes Princess, them's the rules?????? Miss Maralith cries desecrated tears that tear holes in others subconscious.. Second obs, anything with the Incorporeal template doesn't give a fat rats whatsoever about doors, even if they are made of lead and 100' thick!! Smae for Githyanki(astral) Ethereal Filchers etc.. Yes it is totally absurd, or not!! The Wall of force should never change init, unless you ready or delay, at least it never has for me since CY592. It has become a standard call in all Core specials to roll initiative once and continue for the whole game( 4 hr session) it is after all one continuous combat and one dungeon, with a Bard singing a lot and five others casting loud spells, and now Marshalls yelling, and random summoned things doing what they do. All of these examples are purely DM's call, and thats what you get paid for, well you know what I mean..... All the other conundrums seem to have been covered very well, with enough odd examples for a newbie GM to be able make a decision on their own, "but" and there always is; personally if the bad guy sees the doorknob turning, then it's now her go(as she becomes the new combatant, straight to the top of the round do not pass go, no need for surprise or init or block text immunity we have a winner, please step forward Miss Maralith. katrick Not trying to annoy anyone i just luurve gameshows!!
solbergb 05-16-07, 06:15 PM	personally if the bad guy sees the doorknob turning, then it's now her go(as she becomes the new combatant, straight to the top of the round do not pass go, no need for surprise or init or block text immunity we have a winner, please step forward Miss Maralith. What you are describing IS boxtext immunity. You do realize that right? You're saying the bad guy gets to go first, period. D&D init works on the gunslinger metagame, not the plot-driven metagame for action order. Higher reflexes+d20 can always pre-empt actions from slower reflexes at the beginning of a fight, and your raw init score breaks ties caused by the d20 random factor.
katrick 05-16-07, 06:39 PM	What you are describing IS boxtext immunity. You do realize that right? You're saying the bad guy gets to go first, period. D&D init works on the gunslinger metagame, not the plot-driven metagame for action order. Higher reflexes+d20 can always pre-empt actions from slower reflexes at the beginning of a fight, and your raw init score breaks ties caused by the d20 random factor. Dude, i wasn't takin' the ****. They were giving it away!! Yes. I realize that. hence the later sarcasm. No i'm not saying the bad guy goes first, cause that could be the PC's.... The last paragraph was a vain attempt at humour(not a flame war). I take it you agree with the rest of my statement(except the funnies) katrick
Haro 05-16-07, 06:57 PM	Dude, i wasn't takin' the ****. They were giving it away!! Yes. I realize that. hence the later sarcasm. No i'm not saying the bad guy goes first, cause that could be the PC's.... The last paragraph was a vain attempt at humour(not a flame war). I take it you agree with the rest of my statement(except the funnies) katrick That's ok Katrick, I got the humour...and I don't know if that's good thing. Too much sitting around the table with you methinks! ;) Haro
solbergb 05-16-07, 07:24 PM	Sorry. Humor and sarcasm are hard to get across in text form. Especially when some other people do in fact argue those positions in a deadly serious way.....
katrick 05-16-07, 07:25 PM	tag-team *****slap!! oh yeah, my sweet little biscuit chunk, what are you just goin to work or are you already there, maybe me should sleep now, hey it wasn't my fault, she touched it first?? And just for those playing at home: i really don't want to see the bad guys go, period. katrick
Timlagor 05-17-07, 03:37 AM	1) I have not seen anything to shake my position that - you don't roll initiative until people want to interact - you can't Ready out of combat - you drop out of initiative any time you can no longer interact (if this period is very brief and people are still acting rather than waiting -readying/delaying- then it may be easier to keep in initiative but this is a short-cut for ease of play and not a correct ruling) - You do NOT keep the same intiative rolls from one combat to another. - every enemy gets their own intiative roll (only group them if there really are lots and never group the whole set of bad guys) -ie group only to the extent that not grouping is impractical and near-irrelevant. I will offer this bone to the people who think that the guy with the hostage should get some advantage: give them a Circumstance Bonus to Initiative. (and you should watch Firefly! ;)) For the party surrounded by Rogues.. don't agree to 'parlay' until the Rogues back off! I have no sympathy for a party that relaxes where they can be targetted by fast-acting enemies.
Samwise 05-17-07, 10:18 AM	- every enemy gets their own intiative roll (only group them if there really are lots and never group the whole set of bad guys) -ie group only to the extent that not grouping is impractical and near-irrelevant. This is the rule in the PHB. If you don't use it then you are ignoring the rule. I will offer this bone to the people who think that the guy with the hostage should get some advantage: give them a Circumstance Bonus to Initiative. (and you should watch Firefly! ;)) A movie is not the D&D game, any more than books are not the D&D game. What happens in another medium does not necessarily translate well into game turns. By that, I could declare as DM that if I roll initiative before anyone else the creatures get a surprise and win initiative. For the party surrounded by Rogues.. don't agree to 'parlay' until the Rogues back off! I have no sympathy for a party that relaxes where they can be targetted by fast-acting enemies. To agree to anything you must be parlaying. Or it allows a DM to have the bad guys offer to negotiate, say that it means you are parlaying and out of combat, and force new initiative rolls with the possibility of the PCs being flat-footed again.
pedr 05-17-07, 11:04 AM	- every enemy gets their own intiative roll (only group them if there really are lots and never group the whole set of bad guys) -ie group only to the extent that not grouping is impractical and near-irrelevant.This is the rule in the PHB. If you don't use it then you are ignoring the rule.I'm not sure which way you're arguing this (are you agreeing or disagreeing with Timlagor?) but here's the actual text from the PH:Monster initiative Typically, the DM makes a single initiative check for monsters and other opponents. That way, each player gets a turn each round and the DM also gets one turn. At the DM's option, however, he can make separate initiative checks for different groups of monsters or even for individual creatures. For instance, the DM may make one initiative check for an evil cleric of Nerull and another check for all seven of her zombie guards.So while Timlagor isn't correct to imply that the rules require separate initiative for different opponents, it is clearly an option open to the DM (and not something from an 'optional rules' sidebar which wouldn't be used in LG) and can, on occasion make a significant difference to a combat. The DM is likely to end up with more than 'one turn' per round anyway, if any 'monsters' ready or delay - and I don't think there's any argument that those special initiative actions aren't available to 'monsters' unless they all ready or delay! I switched to 'every opponent rolling their own initiative' when I realised the significant imbalance of all opponents going first, or even all going together, particulary with synergistic abilities such as 'hold person' and an ally to coup de grace, or rogues who can all move into flank then all attack. Rogues can still gang up like that, readying actions to attack once the flank is in place, but doing that leaves them open to attack or allows a character to move out of the way before the attacks are all resolved.
Samwise 05-17-07, 11:19 AM	So while Timlagor isn't correct to imply that the rules require separate initiative for different opponents, it is clearly an option open to the DM (and not something from an 'optional rules' sidebar which wouldn't be used in LG) and can, on occasion make a significant difference to a combat. The DM is likely to end up with more than 'one turn' per round anyway, if any 'monsters' ready or delay - and I don't think there's any argument that those special initiative actions aren't available to 'monsters' unless they all ready or delay! Perhaps it is more dangerous. What is clear is that the default rule is one initiative roll for all the creatures. Denying that is ignoring the rule, and what I disagree with. This came up once before with people insisting that the rules required separate initiative. It is clear they require nothing of the sort.
pedr 05-17-07, 11:34 AM	It would be more accurate to say that there is no 'rule' regarding whether initiative is rolled once for all 'monsters' or individually, or in groups. A rule is something which is always followed except in cases where it is broken. If you can do something contrary to a rule without breaking the rule then the rule has been mis-stated. So as you can roll initiative individually without breaking a D&D rule, there cannot be a D&D rule that you must not roll initiative individually. The default practice listed in the PH is to roll all 'monster' initiative at once. But there is no rule to that effect, and so it is impossible to 'ignore' it. In fact, one could quote the earlier statement that "At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check" (emphasis mine) as the statement of the general rule, which is then relaxed to give the DM the flexibility the core rules assume he has, in the 'Monster Initiative' paragraph. Note that I'm not asserting that it is wrong to roll all non-PC combatants' initiative together. But it is not 'wrong' to do the alternatives, and many DMs will believe it is better. I am one of those DMs and will recommend it as best practice given the nature of Living Greyhawk encounters.