Forum: Public Forum

Ha, I'm still here!

From what I can tell, I don't think you did anything particularly wrong from a tactical pov. Ultimately, you can only be as good and as organised as the initiative order lets you be, and that's largely out of your hands. From the sounds of it the paladin would have benefitted from making a fighting withdrawal to heal himself before his HP got so low, but otherwise I think you may be overthinking it :p Besides, I need people to go down in combat, otherwise I will feel obsolete ;)

Hey all.

I've been mulling over the tactics we could have used based on what has been said and:

I think the Paladin (Kalos-Eez) and Fighter charging in was the best idea.
However if Kalos had combined his Smite, Power Attack and enchanted weapon of Speed, a larger propotion of hit points could have been dished out. Together with some 'Lay on Hands' in the second round to recover a few hit points, the melee may not have been sooooo messy.

Can someone just clarify that Kalos would have been able to perform these feats all together- taking an extra attack for speed even after a charge.

Also, I'm not sure what you had Kirkas do before combat, but normally and providing I get the chance I will be buffing you all up to the eyeballs, which may have made a modest difference.

Just to add a further layer of complexity to the situation. There's two slightly different ways of dealing with combat, and a grey area between the two (probably the best place to be).

1. Mechanically/logically: work out stats and averages and determine the optimum course of action.

2. Via character: for example is your character cautious, or brave, keep fighting when he's low hoping to get the final blow, or back up, would they save all their spells just incase there's something harder round the corner or use them here and now and deal with other stuff as they come, even if it leaves them running round flailing their arms and crying with nothing to do.

Case in point Almort using ghoul touch, I thought it in character to risk the rest of the group getting sickened to save the paladin and paralyze the giant. It was also a little mechanical, you should have reasonable saves, you been sickened and the only enemy being paralized is a good pay off. If I was a different character, I might never risk sickening the party, even if it was the best thing to do.

My preferred method is number 2. for the sakes of immersion, and also because figuring all that stuff out makes my brain hurt... I think it's reasonable to work on the assumption that your character is fairly intelligent and therefore won't do stupid things and will have a reasonable grasp of their own abilities, but if you start getting into the realm of basing your decisions on the mechanics of the game then you're metagaming, which we all know is a cardinal sin. :P

I'd prefer the second option as well but with a general idea of roughly how the mechanics of the individual characters all work.
If you have an idea of the capabilities of each player does that make for a better game?

I think it's not unreasonable for the characters to discuss with each other their own abilities. And to a certain extent things like saves fit into this. Like, it's fairly obvious when a character has a high reflex save because they are fast like a freak, so it's possible to keep that stuff in mind without getting metagamey. For instance, if there's a rock fall and I have the choice between saving the mage or the rogue, it would be reasonable for me to figure out that the rogue will probably be ok without me.

It also usually works out quite realistically that we learn our companions' strengths and weaknesses as the game progresses and we become better acquainted with each other. Doing this without thinking about the mechanincs enhances the sense of comradery for me.

Hmmmm, I see. When I think about it I would prefer to learn about everyone as we go further into the game like you say more realistic- less robotic and preprogrammed.

I realise that I have a lot to learn taking a jump from level 1 to 7 so appologies now for my lack of understanding but I am very excited about getting on with it, can't wait.

Being level 7 is definitely better than being level 1 ;)

That's just my personal approach to the game, which was encouraged to the point of militancy by my old DM. But I do think that if you're playing an RPG then the RP part is at its best and most enjoyable if you really invest in it. If you're more interested in mechanics than RP, there are other gaming options, like Warhammer. But I like those less for exactly that reason.

Hey Tonbo

Afaik Smite and Power Attack can be combined with Charge but Speed requires a Full Attack to work (and therefore can't). Also if you have a weapon with Speed on it then I am deeply deeply envious (and you are fighting the next Hill Giant by yourself :p)

I don't think it is necessarily 'out of character' for a party of adventurers to be concerned with tactics on a general level. You might even say that playing a Fighter makes it 'in character', though of course whether the rest of the party takes any notice of these tactics is another matter entirely... ("Paladin: Make your stand there! Hold on - where are you going?" and so on.)

I dunno. Sometimes it's good to just jump in and roll some dice, but sometimes you can't beat that feeling when you know that we beat the Witch-Lord of Rinky-Dink-Zor because of a cunning plan and that OUR KUNG-FU WAS STRONGER.

Personally I'd maybe see the appearance of a calculator as a sign that things had descended to the level of an unhealthy and disturbing obsession - but seeing as I've spent the last several Saturday evenings either reading RPG rules or testing boardgame scenarios then perhaps that is one horse that bolted from the stable long ago.

Yes I totally agree about tactics, but tactics are different from mechanics.

Also, with regards the calculator, my maths is so bad I use one just to add modifiers to my dice rolls, so I'm hoping this doesn't qualify me for expulsion on those grounds :p

Indeed.

On the calculator front: as long as you aren't working out attack-%-damage-ratio-probability-matrix-grid-type-things then it is allowed!

Actually my maths is not so stellar either. Atm I am trying to design some flowchart sheets for Pathfinder with all the dice and modifiers pre-worked-out on it to reduce brain-strain on the day...

Don't worry, that sort of thing is very safely beyond my expertise.

And wow, that sounds like quite the industrial enterprise. Good luck with that. I'll be bringing my calculator to the next session ;)

On the comment from Ding about the approaches to combat. As a DM the second approach is my favoured approach to combat.
I am of the thinking a turn is 6 seconds of time. Realistically in that amount of time you cannot always work out every eventuality, so you have to take some risks. (Quickly weighing up the pros and cons of either say healing person A or smiting evil guy . You may not always make the right choice. But your character will be able to learn from each encounter.

The discussions we have had on the board post game about "could you have used better tactics in the combat", is the kind of discussions I can see the characters having in the inn (or in camp) at the end of the day.

Random GM to player question.

Would any of you have any issues if I as a GM/DM hand wave the occasional rule for sake of role-play opportunities? (Or for story based reasons)

Generally speaking this would be the kind of thing were there is no "downside" to failing a role.

I do reserve the "privilege" to fudge the odd role here and there to avoid a Total Party Kill even in a combat situation.
An occasional character death I can live with as a GM/DM particularly if a character is doing something they know is risky or silly, but I don't like to see a TPK when the party is doing everything "right".

If it comes down to Story v Rules, then Story has to win out. Imo the rules are there to give the story a framework, not to interfere with it.

When I used to GM Stormbringer I would fudge the dice rolls all the time! But the players got wise to it and insisted that all dice be rolled in full view. 10 minutes later the party is attacked by a Wild Boar, which was intended to be just a bit of local colour. The dice roll over the table: Critical Hit, Maximum Damage - one of the PCs is killed instantly! True story! There is a lesson to be learnt in there...

I say bring as much colour to the story as possible and if that means bending the rules on what you tell us then I have no problem. A TPK sounds horrible especially if everyone has done everything right- is that it then, do you have to go back to te beginning with new characters?

Back to nicer thoughts: So in theory our characters are now in a tavern/inn talking about tactics. I've got a craving for a tankard of ale (is 10am too early? eek!).

In the possible event of a TPK incident, what I tend to do is throw a Deus ex machina moment. In the sense of new characters (or you take on an appropriate, friendly NPC as your character) and carry on from were you left off.

As to were we left the characters at the end of the session you are "paused" having just killed the hill giant. Your characters currently do not know if there is an inn in The Camp, or which building it is in. (In other words.. there is an encounter of sorts in the inn)

Besides, are Paladins even allowed a tankard of ale?

If not then it's a shandy for you! :p

Depends on the Paladin's code. And the god they are Paladins of.

There is a (good aligned)God in the Pathfinder pantheon, that became a god (via the starstone) due to a drunken bet. This god (as a mortal and a god) enjoys a good drink. If the Paladin is a member of that church, I think he'd loose his paladinhood if he didnt have a drink when he could!