|
djw175 posted:I think I just broke my DM with an evoked Force Salvo. I just ended the fight on turn 1. Maybe Wizards are a bit broken. To elaborate further, our GM may be moving us to 4th edition. And, by maybe, we might be making characters for it as I type.
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:26 |
|
|
i've lost control of my campaign
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
i don't understand how this system works if you have 1 big guy they die immediately because of dogpiling and if you have a bunch of small guys the wizard can just decide to evoke a force salvo and welp all of the enemies are at single digit hp
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
What level did this happen at?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
PublicOpinion posted:What level did this happen at? Level 4.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
Yeah if you used an incremental to take Salvo at 5th level that'd mess an encounter up pretty darn good. e: If you want an encounter to actually be hard, I find the recipe is: two big guys of equal strength, a few normal dudes, and an infinite number of mooks. Whenever it's the biggest guy's turn and there's no mooks, add mooks. The most dangerous mooks are ranged mooks so you can focus fire on the PCs with low defenses. Even more dangerous if they deal ongoing. It's always funny to stack six instances of ongoing on a guy. PublicOpinion fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Feb 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
it wasn't even that she's casting as a level 3 wizard and these were level 5 monsters
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
Raenir K. Artemi posted:it wasn't even that she's casting as a level 3 wizard and these were level 5 monsters Maybe my math is bad at 3AM, but a standard level 5 monster should have close to 80 HP, and each evoked bolt should do 40. This doesn't sound like a fight that would make it past the first couple of rounds with most 13A parties, or is that the point? Longer fights are what is desired?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
Earthorn posted:Maybe my math is bad at 3AM, but a standard level 5 monster should have close to 80 HP, and each evoked bolt should do 40. They had 70 HP, IIRC, and we had managed to hit them hard out the gate as we usually do. By the end of round 1, this final, 5 bolt strike, knocked them all to 5 or less HP. The wizard pulling that off was the shocking moment since it was sudden and ended the battle hard. It wasn't a one-shot, it just was such a surprising, RAW, completely normal thing any Wizard could do (and do better) that it stuck out. See, this has been the thing for a while since the combat system and character optimization really clicked for our group: we just barrel through the fights by round 2. We have managed to take down 2x and 3x encounters (as in encounters that would be balanced for groups twice and three times our size) without anyone dropping to 0 HP and within 3 or less rounds. I don't know if it's us being good, a mistake on encounter building on his part, or how he runs the battles, but this has been the case for the last few months. The campaign started last April, by the way. Edit: IIRC, the encounter today was balanced for a party about 1.5x our size. Covok fucked around with this message at 10:44 on Feb 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 10:41
|
|
|
Raenir K. Artemi posted:i don't understand how this system works if you have 1 big guy they die immediately because of dogpiling and if you have a bunch of small guys the wizard can just decide to evoke a force salvo and welp all of the enemies are at single digit hp A part of it is also the kinds of tactics you use: my experience with a number of different D&D based rulesets is that the PCs will generally have the upper hand if your monsters approach them in a single front from a single direction. Even if you have casters and archers in the monster group, they'll get summarily blasted while the melee guys deal with the monsters' melee guys. My advice: spread out the battles a bit. Have the enemies attack from multiple fronts, or have the archers and casters circle the battlefield from multiple sides so that the PCs can't catch them all in a single AoE attack. Also, if your group is punching way above their weight in combat, start throwing more tough fights at them! From a player's side it's not fun to have every fight be a cakewalk, and 13th Age has lots of built in failsafes for PCs to get out of fights when they find themselves overmatched. Also, related to the advice on spreading out the fights a bit, vary the types of monsters you throw at the PCs. Like, a single mess of mooks (like one per PC), two pairs of normal troops, wreckers or archers, and maybe a single double-strength caster or leader. That gives a nice bit of variety. E: Just saw the bit in the above post about your group already consistently beating encounters way above their size. That being the case, I think it comes down to the tactics you're using. Try to spread out your monsters the next time so the PCs can't catch them all with AoE attacks in a single round. Incidentally, what's your group's spread of characters, mainly in terms of class? Ratpick fucked around with this message at 11:32 on Feb 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 11:28
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:Incidentally, what's your group's spread of characters, mainly in terms of class? I'll pop-in and answer that part. I'm playing a Stalwart (I was originally playing a Rogue, but he died: for the record, that was a very long time ago, I'd say May of last year), another character is a Sorcerer/Wizard (She changes characters: her previous was a Fighter/Defender, before that it was a Avenger, before that it was a Druid), a Bard (he just changed to bard this session: he was Theurge before and, originally, a necromancer), and the last player is a Improved Monk (Originally a Monk). We've had some people come and go: a Wizard, a Defender, a Ranger, a Sorcerer, and a Chaos Mage. Covok fucked around with this message at 11:52 on Feb 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 11:47
|
|
|
Covok posted:I'll pop-in and answer that part. I'm not quite familiar with the Stalwart (isn't it basically an unarmed tank?) and not sure what the differences between the Improved Monk and the Monk are, but here goes: As a GM, to make interesting and challenging combat encounters, I'd first identify the group's weaknesses. The idea is not to hit all of them at the same time, because then you'll just make an unfair encounter, but to run encounters which force players to rethink their standard procedure on their feet. Stalwarts and other melee based tanky types love it when they can engage multiple opponents in melee at the same time, effectively forcing them into a combat that is essentially a war of attrition. The best way to combat this are monsters with lots of mobility, including various abilities to pop off from combat. On the flip side, it'll be frustrating for the Stalwart if you deny them the joy of being the tank every combat, so sometimes you should definitely let them punch out with a bunch of melee bruisers. The Sorcerer/Wizard is clearly a blasty type, and these characters absolutely shine when they can get their enemies in a single bunch to blast them all with a single attack. As my above advice said, spread out your enemies a bit, but to still let them shine in combat throw in a mess of mooks that they can happily blast away, so that they can still feel like they're contributing to combat. Also, enemies with sneaky tactics for getting close to the character absolutely wreck their poo poo, and if you throw in a single enemy that can surprise attack the Sorcerer/Wizard it might force the Stalwart to switch gears and defend the blaster. Bard is such a versatile class that it's hard to exactly pin down how to mess with them, but since the Bard is also a support class you probably shouldn't mess with them too much to begin with: denying your players the healing, buffs and support they need is really a dick move, so instead of denying those abilities you should try to build situations where the Bard simply has to make hard choices as to where they're needed (if you spread out the combat, the Bard might need to consider whether the Stalwart can survive another round without healing or whether the Monk or Sorcerer/Wizard might need that boost). And yeah, as I said, I'm not familiar with the Improved Monk to give any exact advice, but in general Monks tend to be glass cannons that dish out hurt but can't really take it. Isolating the Monk from the rest of the party really makes things hard for the Monk. Again, if you have your monsters attack using multiple fronts, the Monk can't count on the Stalwart being there to save them. As I said, don't throw all of these curveballs at the group at once: one or two at most per combat. The idea is to add little twists to each combat to screw with the players' standard procedure and force them to think on their feet. That makes for more challenging and fun combats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 12:22
|
|
|
I'm trying to build my first big boss encounter. Fluff-wise, the party will be smacking a giant dwarven golem with the minds of the lost city's nobility uploaded into it. They'll have a giant tower shield and giant hammer, and they'll smash things. That's all fine. However, throughout the dungeon I've been leaving clues about the nature of the golem's construction and the jury rigged spell that allowed them to upload their collective consciousness into the machine. The spell is basically Flesh to Machinery, where something biological can be transformed through a series of painful rituals to have their organs and such replaced with working mechanical parts. The chamber that the boss is in will have remnants of the machine that performed the conversion, and the goal is for the party is to reverse engineer it, allowing them to turn machinery back to squishy, vulnerable flesh. I figured the boss would do typical stupid video game poo poo like get his hammer stuck in walls, giving them the opportunity to turn his arm to meat (hell maybe even the axe) and start hacking away. I have no idea how to represent this mechanically though so if anyone has any ideas it would be very helpful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
The scene from Alien: Resurrection where Ripley #8 meets Ripleys 1-7 comes to mind as a mid-dungeon scene, not sure if that's too dark for your party, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
If you hit someone with a Gathered Power Breath of the Green they take double the ongoing, yes? And can you crit with an attack that only causes Ongoing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:If you hit someone with a Gathered Power Breath of the Green they take double the ongoing, yes? And can you crit with an attack that only causes Ongoing? I might be completely drunk because I cannot, for the life of me, find where I previously read it in the rules book, but I remember that ongoing attacks can crit, but crit/gathered power will only double the first instance of damage on ongoing; any additional ticks of damage will be at normal damage. EDIT: Found the instance on gathering power, still can't find the instance on critical hit: 13th Age Core Rules Book, pg 136 posted:Ongoing damage: If you’ve gathered power for a spell that
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
Ah, that makes Belle's ridiculous poison breath somewhat less insane. Okay, that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:If you hit someone with a Gathered Power Breath of the Green they take double the ongoing, yes? quote:And can you crit with an attack that only causes Ongoing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
Covok posted:They had 70 HP, IIRC, and we had managed to hit them hard out the gate as we usually do. By the end of round 1, this final, 5 bolt strike, knocked them all to 5 or less HP. The wizard pulling that off was the shocking moment since it was sudden and ended the battle hard. It wasn't a one-shot, it just was such a surprising, RAW, completely normal thing any Wizard could do (and do better) that it stuck out. This is similar to the experience In our game. Once everybody got used to their characters and the system (after a few months) balanced encounters became way too easy, so the GM has (reluctantly at first, not wanting a TPK) been amping up the difficulty, and we are now back to challenging. On an unrelated note, I've made a few minor changes to Gladiator and Nemesis . I'll be putting them up on Google+ and the 13th Age Vault as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
Pretty much. I actively have to make encounters harder and have a bit more HP to them if I want them to survive to round 3-4, the default challenge rating is probably intended for a party who doesn't 100% understand what they have to work with. On a very related note, I don't think the wraith was very well thought out from a durability perspective, or when taking into consideration that many spells are balanced by HP thresholds, or when considering PCs that have greater capacity than normal to crit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
I think a big part of it is that HP doesn't scale as fast as damage does during the late adventurer, low champion area. HP growth accelerates much more quickly during champion/epic era, while damage only gains a slight boost in scaling, but before that time, it leads to a lot of weird situations where you can nova during that time
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
01011001 posted:Pretty much. I actively have to make encounters harder and have a bit more HP to them if I want them to survive to round 3-4, the default challenge rating is probably intended for a party who doesn't 100% understand what they have to work with. It's not a bad way to design really. It's much easier to balance encounters for a weak party and let the DM ramp it up that need be, than to assume a well oiled killing machine and have a new party or DM be annihilated by what should be a normally challenging encounter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Prison Warden posted:It's not a bad way to design really. It's much easier to balance encounters for a weak party and let the DM ramp it up that need be, than to assume a well oiled killing machine and have a new party or DM be annihilated by what should be a normally challenging encounter. Yeah, I'm finding I have to give monsters new gimmicks or throw in more of them now that my players are getting used to the game (and now that I'm starting to get a feel for how hard I can press) but we're having a good time and I feel like I have a solid guideline for mechanics in the game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Prison Warden posted:It's not a bad way to design really. It's much easier to balance encounters for a weak party and let the DM ramp it up that need be, than to assume a well oiled killing machine and have a new party or DM be annihilated by what should be a normally challenging encounter. Well, right. Having a default enemy being predictably underpowered is better than unpredictably overpowered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Everblight posted:The scene from Alien: Resurrection where Ripley #8 meets Ripleys 1-7 comes to mind as a mid-dungeon scene, not sure if that's too dark for your party, though. Nah, that would actually be perfect, it's a great idea. I'm trying to make them feel very uneasy by invoking a bunch of futuristic/sci-fi tropes in what they figured would just be a regular dungeon. All of us save two have played/loved Dark Souls and explicitly wanted it to be an influence, so we've been having a pretty ridiculous and violent time so far. My group's barbarian actually triple-critted the white dragon they fought, so we all agreed she had hacked off its tail. Which promptly turned into a sword. Night10194 posted:Yeah, I'm finding I have to give monsters new gimmicks or throw in more of them now that my players are getting used to the game (and now that I'm starting to get a feel for how hard I can press) but we're having a good time and I feel like I have a solid guideline for mechanics in the game. The default difficulty is definitely a little on the weaker side, so I've taken to adopting the thread's ideas (mook reinforcements, extending monster HP if necessary) However, my game is only now coming to a point where the PC's can't just rest at their will, so I suppose we'll see how resource management factors into it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Ok, how does this sound for a first adventure:quote:The players are being led in stocks and chains to the Dragon Emperor's chambers for judgement. I'll have each player make it known to the other what they did (whether they actually did it or not will be information only I know). Just before being sentenced, Orc Assassins will appear in the chamber and make an attempt on the Emperor's life. (Another Orc will free them if they don't have a Mage Hand/thief handy to undo their stocks at an appropriate time, exulting them to run, be free of this tyranny)
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
I'd leave it up to the players whether their character is guilty or not, and give them the intro blurb before chargen so they can tie their Icon relationships/OUT/backgrounds into it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
PublicOpinion posted:I'd leave it up to the players whether their character is guilty or not, and give them the intro blurb before chargen so they can tie their Icon relationships/OUT/backgrounds into it. Yeah, that's what I meant. Sorry if it didn't come through that way; the players will (obviously) profess their innocence to each other and to the Emperor. I'm asking the players to write whether they did it or not on a slip of paper and slide it to me, keeping the knowledge of if they're actually guilty secret though. They're also allowed to be accused of any crime they want. You would handwave/narrate the entire Orc attack, everything up to the Emperor's assignment? Thought that could be some neat action with BAMF-ing orc sharpshooters all around the chambers. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
Everblight posted:You would handwave/narrate the entire Orc attack, everything up to the Emperor's assignment? Thought that could be some neat action with BAMF-ing orc sharpshooters all around the chambers. No, not at all. By "the intro blurb" I mean saying "I want this campaign to be about an Orc Lord who wants to participate in democracy and overthrow the divinely-appointed Emperor, does that sound cool?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
PublicOpinion posted:No, not at all. By "the intro blurb" I mean saying "I want this campaign to be about an Orc Lord who wants to participate in democracy and overthrow the divinely-appointed Emperor, does that sound cool?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
I think people are better at separating in-character and out-of-character than they get credit for and I enjoy dramatic irony more than surprise but that's your call. You might want to at least signpost "these Icons are important" before chargen so people get involved in the actual central conflict, and you always run the risk of someone's OUT being "only person to ever escape from an Orcish human sacrifice pit with knowledge of their horrible, awful, absolutely no-good devil overlords and wretched rituals".
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
Everblight posted:Hmm, I was gonna save that for a big reveal, they get to a town that's been taken by orcs, and discover the Orc Lord is actually a "good guy" more or less, and have to choose sides, kinda play with the conventions a bit. Are there risks in not disclosing your over-arching plans that way inherent to 13th age and its icons? Other than people having OUTs that contradict what your plans are (The Orc Lord ate my entire extended family and now I'm super mad, etc), it's nothing 13th Age can't handle. That being said, surprises like this tend to usually not work as well as people hope when they drop them on players without even an inkling of OOC knowledge. These types of stories have a history of going over like a wet fart in church. YMMV, your group may vary, etc. At the very least, warn them that you're not running the icons 100% by the book, but instead putting your own spin on them. You don't have to give every detail, but at least give them some foresight into things not being taken straight from the book and they'll be more likely to at least enjoy the twist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
Anyone got any good advice for turning down combat? I am running a game for new players who are still figuring things out. Our party is made up of a Cleric (who is built to never attack), a Commander, a Paladin, an Occultist, and a Sorcerer. As you may have noticed, it's made up of three support characters, one defender, and one damage dealer. Our introductory ran long for a few reasons, but the biggest of which, in my mind, is the lack of damage. Would not counting the Cleric as a player when building encounters since he never attacks and/or tone monster HP down to 70% make battles go faster while still being challenging?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
If the damage is low and the support is high you might want to use more mooks than a normal person. Mook swarms will degrade in effectiveness from taking damage faster than normal monsters, and their glass cannon nature will mean that the extra healing on the party side would (ideally) feel really important.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Anyone heard of Make Your Own Luck being released as a PDF?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
So my group just ran through their first really challenging fight. After it my tank cleric player asked me if I thought the feat toughness would be a good idea for him to get to increase his survivability as a tank/healer. My only problem is that I'm not sure if I am reading the feat correctly. At adventurer tier it says you get half the base health added. So if my cleric picked that with his stats being what they are instead of having (7+2)*3 = 27 hp he would have 30? or does the extra 3 get added into the base equation ( (7 + 2 + 3) * 3 = 36)? In either case to me it looks like it is either really not worth it, or really ridiculous with how much it gives.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
I believe, RAW, it's the first one (30 hp). So yeah, not really worth it. I think how we houseruled it in one game was to add your con mod to the bonus health? I can't quite remember.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Why the hell couldn't Toughness just increase the base HP mod by 1/tier. That'd be actually really useful and worth a feat. whoops, answered my own question
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Thinking about it: more hp is to let you take more attacks before dropping, but an hp bonus isn't the only way to do that. Maybe instead of giving a bonus at all, Toughness should just give you the power to stay at 1 hp 1/day (Maybe Recharge 12+, or like a Barb's rage where it's 16+ and you add CON to the roll?) when you would otherwise drop.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:26 |
|
|
-Fish- posted:Anyone heard of Make Your Own Luck being released as a PDF? If it comes down to it, I will scan and upload it myself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 02:27
|
|
