PDA

View Full Version : Buildup to one evil session...



Thajocoth
2009-04-24, 12:47 PM
In one session in my campaign...

The players recently arrived at the small Halfling town of Pell. They're looking for certain people for their main quest and quickly discover those people are not in this town. The town has, however, been fighting Sahuagin who keep coming out of the lake each sunset, and are down to 6 town guards. If the party helps them for a single fight, they believe their mage can scry and figure out what's happening. If they don't, and the mage has to help fight, they won't last another week before the town is overrun.

The players decide that the main quest is more important, so they move on, leaving the Halflings to their fate. Then they approach the Gnome town of Zipdar and get ambushed by a trio of Gnomes and some arcane traps. They decide to knock the gnomes unconscious instead of killing them... Then kill them anyway while unconscious.

The in-game effects of this session are: The Wizard reduced her alignment to Unaligned, if the party ever visits Pell again, there won't be any Halflings left, and the Gnomes of Zipdar will consider them kill-on-sight criminals.

-----

I discovered, however, that the players made a few bad assumptions...

A - They believed the main quest to be time sensitive, which it is not. They believed this because they've seen two towns devastated by war as a result of the main quest... But that was supposed to just be flavor, not a way of rushing the PCs.

B - They believe anyone they try to tie up and interrogate will refuse to talk and escape within 5 minutes. This is because they've only ever tried on this one zealotous elite guard who was trained specifically to stay silent and unknown, who was told he was guaranteed a resurrection if anything happened to him, so for that one guard, they really couldn't get anything out of him.

C - The party's cleric hates 4th Edition. She's constantly complaining about any tiny mechanics change citing them as "unrealistic", and really detracts from the game. She was in a particularly bad mood that day too. She's the same one who the party had to convince her it was a bad idea to call the Dragon they just defeated back in to kill off all the Dwarves, who I decided not to change the alignment of purely because she didn't go through with it. (Also, every point she makes makes me glad I never tried 3.5.)

The sorts of things she complains about are all "Why isn't this unbalanced? It's not realistic and realism is more important than balance because I lose immersion too easily." Yeah, throwing fireballs at your enemies isn't exactly realistic either. The real problem is that she's used to GMing. She hasn't been a player in a long time. Her teammates are usually her players, and everyone is new to 4E.

-----

So, I dealt with A & B by simply explaining it to them. I can't do anything about C. (Well, technically, if I dropped half a dozen magic items only she could use on her, she'd be placated, but I'm not doing that.) It seems that if the party knew A & B ahead of time, they would've acted differently. The Wizard (Deva), who was not in the party the only time they ever tried to capture somebody did the throat-slitting, but no one else in the party objected.

-----

When I started writing this post, it was going to be about the session itself, and I was going to ask what to do about that, but in writing, I realized the answer, and realized a better question...

Any ideas on fixing the remaining player issue? (I'm not gonna kick her out.)

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-04-24, 12:56 PM
The sorts of things she complains about are all "Why isn't this unbalanced? It's not realistic and realism is more important than balance because I lose immersion too easily." Yeah, throwing fireballs at your enemies isn't exactly realistic either. The real problem is that she's used to GMing. She hasn't been a player in a long time. Her teammates are usually her players, and everyone is new to 4E.Replace 'Realism' with 'Versmillitude'. Yeah, she doesn't object to Fireballs because this is fantasy and they're magic. A Rogue being able to only move an enemy in a particular fasion once per day, though, makes no sense. A square room being a circle, similarly, makes absolutely no sense, as do enemies who are downright immune to some abilities because they're weaker.

Thajocoth
2009-04-24, 01:11 PM
Replace 'Realism' with 'Versmillitude'. Yeah, she doesn't object to Fireballs because this is fantasy and they're magic. A Rogue being able to only move an enemy in a particular fasion once per day, though, makes no sense. A square room being a circle, similarly, makes absolutely no sense, as do enemies who are downright immune to some abilities because they're weaker.

Those aren't even what she complains about. It's stuff like:
- Different forms of combat advantage don't stack.
- If she grabs a target, they get to try twice on their turn to escape the grab.
- She has no 2[W] attacks. (She won't take attacks vs AC because she thinks she'll always miss.)
- There's a weapon attack that targets Fort (It hits them with divine thunder from her weapon. I think it makes perfect sense.)
- The picture for a Morningstar is a stick with a spiked ball on it, instead of having a chain between the ball & the stick.
- Mundane gear costs more than any peasant could reasonably afford.
- She has no reflex and all attacks against her target reflex. (It's really only about 1/4 of attacks against her that target Ref. Most target AC.)
- It's a standard, not free, to try to drop a mug of beer on somebody who's invisible to try to break their invisibility.
- She doesn't get CA for standing on a table.
- She can still be hit by an enemy on a table if she drops prone (but stays next to the table).

Typewriter
2009-04-24, 01:13 PM
I always create a world that is completely separate from the players actions. Or the world is created by the actions of the players from a previous campaign.

Whenever they do something like this I think it's really cool, because they are adding their own depths to the world. Do the gnomes just hate them, or are they now more wary of strangers? Perhaps more vicious? The city that gets destroyed - were they important in any trade routes?

And for the 'main quest' - Mine are always 'time sensitive' meaning that the world is operating regarldess of their actions. I have a calendar for the world, so I always know what is going on, and I update it whenever the players do something to affect it. Like stopping a scouting party, preventing the army from attacking at the opportune time.


Sorry for my rant, on to answer the question you actually posted:

Just say that you understand she's not a fan of this system, and that you know there are differences, but for you and hte players it's a lot of fun, so you're going to have to ignore the little things.

I personally hate fourth edition, but that's not to say it doesn't have its merits. Just say "Sorry you dont like that, we're not playing 3.5 though"

Nero24200
2009-04-24, 01:16 PM
I'd speak to the Cleric player in question. Not liking the edition is not an excuse to cause trouble.

And this is from someone in a similer situation. I personally can't stand PFRPG, yet it's all my group plays now, playing antagonistic character's isn't going to change that.

If she persists in her comments about the game not being realistic, simply remind her that it is just that - a game, not somthing that's supposed to be realistic. As you said, being able to throw fireballs isn't realistic, but neithers being able to take 3 or 4 direct hits from a monster five stories tall, or fall from a 20ft drop with only a scratch. The basic principles of D'n'D are unrealistic, so if lack of realisim get's her annoyed I wonder why she likes 3.5.

kyoten
2009-04-24, 01:31 PM
Those aren't even what she complains about. It's stuff like:
- Different forms of combat advantage don't stack.
- If she grabs a target, they get to try twice on their turn to escape the grab.
- She has no 2[W] attacks. (She won't take attacks vs AC because she thinks she'll always miss.)
- There's a weapon attack that targets Fort (It hits them with divine thunder from her weapon. I think it makes perfect sense.)
- The picture for a Morningstar is a stick with a spiked ball on it, instead of having a chain between the ball & the stick.
- Mundane gear costs more than any peasant could reasonably afford.
- She has no reflex and all attacks against her target reflex. (It's really only about 1/4 of attacks against her that target Ref. Most target AC.)
- It's a standard, not free, to try to drop a mug of beer on somebody who's invisible to try to break their invisibility.
- She doesn't get CA for standing on a table.
- She can still be hit by an enemy on a table if she drops prone (but stays next to the table).

I think you're confusing Morningstars and Flails.

Now in regards to her complaint about the cost of mundane gear. That could be explained by two observations. Money isn't the only way to make deals; there's this nice little thing known as Bartering. Also, is it not feasible that someone somewhere just might be able to build some of those mundane items.

Heck maybe there's a charitable organization in town that helps out those less fortunate.

Thajocoth
2009-04-24, 01:34 PM
I'd speak to the Cleric player in question. Not liking the edition is not an excuse to cause trouble.

I talk to he out-of-game more than any of the other players. Some of those complaints are probably from those convos and not actually complained about in-game... Hard to remember which were said when. She 100% thinks she's not a problem. The other players have told me that it's because she's normally a GM, not a player.

Also, the other player's tactics of "Divide themselves all across the battlefield to deal damage equally to every enemy" gets in the way a bit of her being A - Guarded or B - An efficient Cleric.

The Fighter finds an enemy to solo and uses nothing but Brash Strike... The Ranger & Rogue pair up and flank somebody. The Swordmage picks another target. She usually winds up near the Swrodmage or the Fighter. The Wizard is able to keep her distance and usually has the sense to attack something marked.

It's their first time playing 4E, so I don't expect immediate tactical efficiency or anything... But after the last session, I've discussed some tactical things to keep in mind with everyone but the Fighter (he hasn't been online yet). Oh, right, and I've never seen any of the player's faces. They're all online. We're using OpenRPG 1.7.1. (Updating causes the minis to screw up.)


I think you're confusing Morningstars and Flails.

Now in regards to her complaint about the cost of mundane gear. That could be explained by two observations. Money isn't the only way to make deals; there's this nice little thing known as Bartering. Also, is it not feasible that someone somewhere just might be able to build some of those mundane items.

Heck maybe there's a charitable organization in town that helps out those less fortunate.

Yeah, she thought a Morningstar was a type of flail.

I suggested that most peasants probably pass items down over generations, and likely don't buy stuff all that often.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-04-24, 01:40 PM
Okay, some of that is edition confusion, some of it is 4.x being idiotic, and some is just frustration.
- Different forms of combat advantage don't stack.She should be used to some non-stacking effects. That said, 3.X required stacking effects to get a reasonable bonus to some things and she may be still in that mindset(there were about 6 types of things to boost AC, and you needed all of them to make opponents miss). Tell her "CA is a typed bonus. It doesn't stack with itself. Your opponent can only be so vulnerable." In those words, they're 3.x terms.
- If she grabs a target, they get to try twice on their turn to escape the grab. Not even sure what this means.
- She has no 2[W] attacks. (She won't take attacks vs AC because she thinks she'll always miss.)Leftover 3.x issues. There, you either were a melee brute, or you targetted NADs. Since her attacks v. AC are not significantly more accurate, and monsters do have higher AC than NADs, she's probably gun-shy. Point her towards 2[w] attacks that still work on a miss, and remind her that she's a Leader, not a Striker.
- There's a weapon attack that targets Fort (It hits them with divine thunder from her weapon. I think it makes perfect sense.)And I agree that it's odd. The effect targetting Fort I understand, but it seems like you would have to hit either the AC or probably Touch AC(Reflex now) first. Otherwise you're either automatically smacking the opponent or the effect is hitting the enemy no matter what you do, making the weapon irrelevant. Not sure what to do here, other than WotC writing better powers.
- The picture for a Morningstar is a stick with a spiked ball on it, instead of having a chain between the ball & the stick.That's a history buff protesting the companies inability to research at ALL, it's been standard for D&D since 1e.
- Mundane gear costs more than any peasant could reasonably afford.4.x has idiotic things like that. It ties back to what I said earlier about Versmillitude if it's a month's pay for a peasant to buy a knife. I can't wait to see how 4.x handles Eberron. :smalleek:
- She has no reflex and all attacks against her target reflex. (It's really only about 1/4 of attacks against her that target Ref. Most target AC.)That's probably just what she feels like is happening. You remember the powers that affect you more than the ones you save against and ignore.
- It's a standard, not free, to try to drop a mug of beer on somebody who's invisible to try to break their invisibility.Yeah, that seems odd. At worst it's a move. If it was 'throw' in 3.x, I'd rule it the same as an alchemical weapon(attack action, usable as part of a full attack), but drop seems like a Swift or Move.
- She doesn't get CA for standing on a table
- She can still be hit by an enemy on a table if she drops prone (but stays next to the table).There was a thread on this about a month ago. The end consensus seemed to be that yes, you should get some sort of a boost for being on a table, especially since 4.x encourages use of the terrain, but no one could agree on the actual effects of the high ground.

TL;DR? Give her time to get adjusted to the new system. Try to help, be prepared for her to assume things that aren't true under the new rules, and encourage her to use the new abilities of the system(no cover for being on the ground against an elevated opponent? Really?).

Thajocoth
2009-04-24, 02:00 PM
Not even sure what this means.

She took the Dhampyr feat, so when she has somebody grabbed, she can try to bite them. It deals almost no damage, and heals for very little. She has to successfully grab them, and on the following turn, successfully bite them if they're still grabbed. Escaping a grab is a move action, so the enemy can try to escape twice instead of attacking.

I've tried explaining most of those things you mentioned to her. She has a good build. (Aside from having taken Cause Fear instead of Healing Strike. Healing Strike is a 2[W] attack vs AC that can allow an ally to heal on a hit. Cause Fear is a no-damage attack vs Will that makes an enemy run away and may provoke AOs. She has 18 Str & 18 Wis. Level 3. Holy Healer's Morningstar +1 (Longtooth Shifter))

I ruled the beer mug thing as a Standard because you're trying to hit them. That makes it an attack imo. There's no actual rule. I said it's Dex vs Ref, though now I think Wis vs Ref might make more sense for it.

I think that table thread might've actually been my thread, relating to this same campaign...

Zhalath
2009-04-24, 04:28 PM
She took the Dhampyr feat, so when she has somebody grabbed, she can try to bite them. It deals almost no damage, and heals for very little. She has to successfully grab them, and on the following turn, successfully bite them if they're still grabbed. Escaping a grab is a move action, so the enemy can try to escape twice instead of attacking.

I've tried explaining most of those things you mentioned to her. She has a good build. (Aside from having taken Cause Fear instead of Healing Strike. Healing Strike is a 2[W] attack vs AC that can allow an ally to heal on a hit. Cause Fear is a no-damage attack vs Will that makes an enemy run away and may provoke AOs. She has 18 Str & 18 Wis. Level 3. Holy Healer's Morningstar +1 (Longtooth Shifter))

I ruled the beer mug thing as a Standard because you're trying to hit them. That makes it an attack imo. There's no actual rule. I said it's Dex vs Ref, though now I think Wis vs Ref might make more sense for it.

I think that table thread might've actually been my thread, relating to this same campaign...

In response to the grabbing thing, grapple rules have been broken for a looooooooooong time. I see that 4.0 is no different. However, in this case, an enemy can't try to escape twice. It should be only once, unless you're playing RAW, and they say you can always give up a standard for a move.
The idea of chugging two potions comes into my head, or drawing a weapon, sheathing it, then drawing another. Double move actions, when not a double move, seem awkward.

Having not played 4.0, I do not understand this "2[W]" that keeps coming up. A source online says that it means "twice weapon damage", but I don't get that.
If the cleric's complaint means what I think it means, she should realize that clerics aren't designed to eat things with weapons. They are capable fighters, but not frontliners.

I've been over the dropping things thing with my party too. I'd go with swift action, as you are just dropping it. Dropping a mug doesn't require the concentration of engaging an enemy with a sword (and I should know, having done both activities). Plus, it is invisible, so you can't aim, so you're not concentrating as much.

I'd say let her get used to the new rules more before passing judgment. If her whininess gets to unbearable levels, well, you may have to let her go.

EDIT: Consider this trope. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TakeYourTime) Your players should remember that one, especially with side quests.

kladams707
2009-04-24, 04:33 PM
I think it means that you double the amount of dice the weapon uses for damage. I.e., 2[w] w/ a weapon that uses a d6 means you do 2d6.

Thajocoth
2009-04-24, 04:45 PM
2[W] means you roll weapon damage twice. So a dagger (1d4) with a 2[W] power would deal 2d4. A Mordenkrad (2d6), with a 2[W] power would deal 4d6. She wields a Morningstar (1d10).

I've explained to her that Clerics are Leaders, not Strikers. Leaders heal and give other players saves & bonuses. Strikers deal lots of damage. Defenders keep the enemy attacking them. Controllers hit lots of enemies and give the enemies penalties. Most classes are mostly one role, with dabs of other roles. Though, Cleric, Warlord & Artificer are pure Leader classes, with Clerics being the best healers.

If she was just dropping the item to drop it on the floor, that's a free action, but it's not going to reveal an invisible enemy. To try to reveal the enemy, you pretty much need to splash it at them, or dump it over the area where you think they are. That takes longer, so it's a standard. Also it requires a roll to hit, and unless something says otherwise, if there's a d20 roll, it's a standard. If I simply allowed it to work with no roll, that would break invisibility's possibility of ever being useful to anyone.

Zhalath
2009-04-24, 06:27 PM
2[W] means you roll weapon damage twice. So a dagger (1d4) with a 2[W] power would deal 2d4. A Mordenkrad (2d6), with a 2[W] power would deal 4d6. She wields a Morningstar (1d10).

I've explained to her that Clerics are Leaders, not Strikers. Leaders heal and give other players saves & bonuses. Strikers deal lots of damage. Defenders keep the enemy attacking them. Controllers hit lots of enemies and give the enemies penalties. Most classes are mostly one role, with dabs of other roles. Though, Cleric, Warlord & Artificer are pure Leader classes, with Clerics being the best healers.

If she was just dropping the item to drop it on the floor, that's a free action, but it's not going to reveal an invisible enemy. To try to reveal the enemy, you pretty much need to splash it at them, or dump it over the area where you think they are. That takes longer, so it's a standard. Also it requires a roll to hit, and unless something says otherwise, if there's a d20 roll, it's a standard. If I simply allowed it to work with no roll, that would break invisibility's possibility of ever being useful to anyone.

So, is the issue she's not proficient with 2[W] weapons, or that she can't get one? If the former, we have feats. If the latter, think about giving her one.

She's the party buff. Sure, she can fight, but her purpose is to help other people. Tell her that.

How do you aim at an invisible foe? The point is that you can't see them, unless they nerfed invisibility in 4.0. If she drops it, you should roll concealment to hit, but not an attack. That might be a better way to do it.
It's like dropping an item, and it randomly could hit the invisible foe. Just make the concealment percentage chance smaller, like 25%.
If she's actively trying to hit, that's standard. If she's dropping, go for swift.

Also, cut your player a little slack rule-wise if she has a clever idea.

Reverent-One
2009-04-24, 06:48 PM
4.x has idiotic things like that. It ties back to what I said earlier about Versmillitude if it's a month's pay for a peasant to buy a knife. I can't wait to see how 4.x handles Eberron. :smalleek:

Wait, why are you criticizing 4e specifically for this? 3.X wasn't any better, in fact in that specific case, a knife costs even more in 3.X than in 4e.

Alteran
2009-04-24, 06:53 PM
So, is the issue she's not proficient with 2[W] weapons, or that she can't get one? If the former, we have feats. If the latter, think about giving her one.

It doesn't work like that, exactly. Every weapon has a set damage die (or dice). It can be 1d4 (dagger), 1d8 (longsword), 2d4 (katar) or something else. This is always considered to be 1[W]. Certain powers allow you to deal multiple [W] in damage. For an X[W] power), you roll the weapon's damage die X number of times and add all of the results. This is pretty simple, except for the fact that certain weapons have multiple dice as 1[W], such as the aforementioned katar.



Also, cut your player a little slack rule-wise if she has a clever idea.

This is something every DM should keep in mind, but I haven't heard him say he's not doing that. The player in question just didn't like the judgment he came up with, which I think is quite reasonable. Perhaps a move action would have been fair just to make it more useful, but standard makes more sense rules-wise.

Starbuck_II
2009-04-24, 07:00 PM
Reverant -one: most 3.X players don't even realize how jacked the economy was.
It isn't there fault: most DMG houseruled the games so much they made the games make sense or made thre players not realize they were elite among the castes.

I mean, really adventurers were like a different caste.
There was the poor (commoners and the warriors)
There was the Middle class (experts)
The rich (aristocrats)
Then the PCs.

Most people don't realize PCs usually have more wealth but it is all in assets (their gear).

That doesn't get into the Wish economy that is supported by the rules in 3rd.

Sstoopidtallkid could have a grudge versus 4th, but he is a reasonable guy in general so I'll assume he is venting about his bad day and misdirecting it to 4th.

The only real issues I saw with the 4th economy I see are plate and scale are so close in price. Mostly because in other editions plate was the very expensive mundane armor (kinda weird for it to be not that way anymore for me).

Zhalath
2009-04-24, 07:31 PM
It doesn't work like that, exactly. Every weapon has a set damage die (or dice). It can be 1d4 (dagger), 1d8 (longsword), 2d4 (katar) or something else. This is always considered to be 1[W]. Certain powers allow you to deal multiple [W] in damage. For an X[W] power), you roll the weapon's damage die X number of times and add all of the results. This is pretty simple, except for the fact that certain weapons have multiple dice as 1[W], such as the aforementioned katar.
I didn't know how that works. In that case, well, I guess that's unfortunate for the player.

Hey, does 4.0 have multiclassing? Maybe a level or two in fighter could help with fighting stuff.

Philistine
2009-04-24, 10:04 PM
How do you aim at an invisible foe? The point is that you can't see them, unless they nerfed invisibility in 4.0. If she drops it, you should roll concealment to hit, but not an attack. That might be a better way to do it.
It's like dropping an item, and it randomly could hit the invisible foe. Just make the concealment percentage chance smaller, like 25%.
If she's actively trying to hit, that's standard. If she's dropping, go for swift.

How can you hit invisible creatures with Dust of Appearance in 3.5? Yes, it's an area effect, but you still have to get it close enough that the splash actually covers the area the creature is in - meaning that at least some degree of aiming is taking place.

Also, I wonder if "drop" is really the right word for what the cleric was trying to do. Unless the invisible attacker was literally right on top of her (and maybe not even then), just dropping the mug of ale wouldn't be likely to reveal it anyway; and if the thing was that close, she might have been better served to just grab it.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-04-24, 10:52 PM
Reverant -one: most 3.X players don't even realize how jacked the economy was.
It isn't there fault: most DMG houseruled the games so much they made the games make sense or made thre players not realize they were elite among the castes.

I mean, really adventurers were like a different caste.
There was the poor (commoners and the warriors)
There was the Middle class (experts)
The rich (aristocrats)
Then the PCs.

Most people don't realize PCs usually have more wealth but it is all in assets (their gear).

That doesn't get into the Wish economy that is supported by the rules in 3rd.

Sstoopidtallkid could have a grudge versus 4th, but he is a reasonable guy in general so I'll assume he is venting about his bad day and misdirecting it to 4th.

The only real issues I saw with the 4th economy I see are plate and scale are so close in price. Mostly because in other editions plate was the very expensive mundane armor (kinda weird for it to be not that way anymore for me).I do dislike 4.x(primarily for issues where the rules put balance before realism or story), but yeah, the economics have always been idiotic. My guess as to why she's noticing it now...this is the first time it's affected her. 2000 GP and a BoH in 3.x and you could carry around every mundane item. From any book. They reduced player ability to buy Bags of Junk, and now she's paying attention to how much random mundane objects cost, and realizing just how much more it takes than a commoner can own.

Thajocoth
2009-04-27, 03:10 PM
How do you aim at an invisible foe? The point is that you can't see them, unless they nerfed invisibility in 4.0. If she drops it, you should roll concealment to hit, but not an attack. That might be a better way to do it.
It's like dropping an item, and it randomly could hit the invisible foe. Just make the concealment percentage chance smaller, like 25%.
If she's actively trying to hit, that's standard. If she's dropping, go for swift.

Also, cut your player a little slack rule-wise if she has a clever idea.

If you attack a space where you believe an invisible foe is with a melee or ranged attack, you roll an attack with -5 to-hit. If it's a burst or blast, it's different... Might be no penalty, I gotta check. If you hit, then the DM let's you know they're there because you just hit something. If you miss or they're not there, you become none-the-wiser.

Also, when attacked, you know the direction the attack came from. That is... The adjacent square it came through. If it was an arrow, that's not all too helpful... But a dagger? Makes it pretty obvious where they are. Assuming they get to remain invisible...

Lastly, most forms of invisibility go away as soon as the invisible entity attacks or is hit. I think there might be some exceedingly rare exceptions...

I have no idea how that compares to 3.5's invisibility... And honestly, the part about knowing the direction the attack came from might even be a houserule, I'm not sure.

So, with an idea of where the attacker was, simply dropping the mug isn't going to cut it. You need to splash it at the square or dump it over the square or some such. That's a standard, imo. She was expecting it to be a free action that automatically hit and revealed the enemy.

Though, I should've said Wisdom vs Reflex because you're guessing where to dump based on your prior knowledge and logically thinking about where the foe should be now. Had I said Wisdom, being a Cleric with 18 Wis, she might not've complained as much, though she probably still would've complained.