Stealth Buffing

[CCarter]

Tunnels & Trolls more or less works this way. I have read that one module for it went as far as to allow you a Luck save to abscond from the dungeon altogether, no matter where you were in it, as long as you weren't trapped.

Just out of curiousity, which one was that?

Of course, T&T also had a solo dungeon (Amulet of the Salkti) where leaving the dungeon without completing your mission offends the gods, who come down and permanently reduce your Charisma to 1...

[Hieronymous Rex]

Just out of curiousity, which one was that?

I just looked it up, and as it turns out, it was Buffalo Castle.

[CCarter]

Just out of curiousity, which one was that?

I just looked it up, and as it turns out, it was Buffalo Castle.

Cool, thanks.

[Xur]

Yes, level 10. The only reason they have a cure for ability damage in this vampire+shadow focused campaign, that exceeds two or three memorized spells, is because the adventure dumps stuff like a partially charged wand of restoration into their laps just before entering the vampire shadow-lord's dungeon. They certainly don't go around making or buying anything like such, and not because of a metagame awareness that they'll be provided via loot; unless it's some kind of subconscious idiot savant awareness.

Seems that they just like to roll some dice and do something on the battlemap? Because from reading your posts I don't get the impression anyone of them is really playing a character, processing informations gathered during the adventures, or whatever.

Btw, what about the monk player? Could you convince him to use Tome material? Sorry if you already posted, but the derailing and ranting over the last pages drawed off my attention.

[virgil]

They can do non-combat RP and all that quite well, but that's a different part of the game. They think far enough ahead to get silversheen and either have holy weapons or align weapon, especially since the last part of the campaign involved going into a devil power plant and the BBEG is a cambion (with infernal allies).

Other than that though, tactical foresight is completely beyond them. They have a build/concept in mind which is at best tangential to the demands of the adventure.

I've actively warned the monk player that he's going to have difficulty keeping up and offered to provide an upgraded class chassis (didn't say Tome), but he chose not to capitalize on such. It's actually going to be quite difficult for him to stay dead, because the party's high enough level and definitely rich enough to afford bringing him back from the dead.

The worst part is that this adventure is such a coddle-fest. A large majority of fights are against classed NPCs, are in favorable terrain, and the expected party size in Pathfinder is five (I've got six) without changing any of the math for CR. Even these guys will able to just wade through without much fuss, and they're going to think it's entirely because they're awesome.

[Juton]

I've actively warned the monk player that he's going to have difficulty keeping up and offered to provide an upgraded class chassis (didn't say Tome), but he chose not to capitalize on such. It's actually going to be quite difficult for him to stay dead, because the party's high enough level and definitely rich enough to afford bringing him back from the dead.

What is it about Monk players that makes them actively want to suck? It's different than some Bard players, who basically don't want to do anything in combat. I don't know if it's delusional hope or a passive aggressive need to sabotage the party that makes a player choose monk, they are the only class I've banned from 3.5.

[Maxus]

I've actively warned the monk player that he's going to have difficulty keeping up and offered to provide an upgraded class chassis (didn't say Tome), but he chose not to capitalize on such. It's actually going to be quite difficult for him to stay dead, because the party's high enough level and definitely rich enough to afford bringing him back from the dead.

What is it about Monk players that makes them actively want to suck? It's different than some Bard players, who basically don't want to do anything in combat. I don't know if it's delusional hope or a passive aggressive need to sabotage the party that makes a player choose monk, they are the only class I've banned from 3.5.

There's a lot of people who just don't realize the Monk's shortcomings and don't like when it's told to them. From a quote on the wiki

* ElderBiniChild: dude what is there not to like about a monk?

TK-Squared: What is there to like?
TK-Squared: Multiple Ability Dependacies?
TK-Squared: Lack of proficincy in unarmed attacks?
TK-Squared: Dependancies on magic items like no other?
TK-Squared: A medium attack bonus for a melee class?
TK-Squared: d8 HD?
TK-Squared: Subpar damage?
TK-Squared: Maybe... Maybe... The ability to not wear armour?
*** ElderBiniChild [~7f000001@tundra] has quit [Quit: CGI:IRC]

[magnuskn]

The worst part is that this adventure is such a coddle-fest. A large majority of fights are against classed NPCs, are in favorable terrain, and the expected party size in Pathfinder is five (I've got six) without changing any of the math for CR. Even these guys will able to just wade through without much fuss, and they're going to think it's entirely because they're awesome.

And how is that a problem, then? They're having fun. It seems to me that you are not having fun because you want their characters to dominate the NPC's. Which is a bit strange to me, since when I GM, I am always striving to let the players win, yet have them feel challenged. It seems you are accomplishing that with the current set-up, yet are unhappy nonetheless.

[violence in the media]

The worst part is that this adventure is such a coddle-fest. A large majority of fights are against classed NPCs, are in favorable terrain, and the expected party size in Pathfinder is five (I've got six) without changing any of the math for CR. Even these guys will able to just wade through without much fuss, and they're going to think it's entirely because they're awesome.

And how is that a problem, then? They're having fun. It seems to me that you are not having fun because you want their characters to dominate the NPC's. Which is a bit strange to me, since when I GM, I am always striving to let the players win, yet have them feel challenged. It seems you are accomplishing that with the current set-up, yet are unhappy nonetheless.

Virgil's complaints seem (to me) to stem from the irritation of hearing someone crow about how awesome they are when it is demonstrable that they are objectively bad at the thing they feel awesome doing. It's not the group having fun, or being horrible at optimization, or any combination of that, that bothers him--it's the constant "how awesome are we?" rah-rah-ism.

Correct me if my impression is wrong, Virgil.

[RobbyPants]

What is it about Monk players that makes them actively want to suck? It's different than some Bard players, who basically don't want to do anything in combat. I don't know if it's delusional hope or a passive aggressive need to sabotage the party that makes a player choose monk, they are the only class I've banned from 3.5.

There's a lot of people who just don't realize the Monk's shortcomings and don't like when it's told to them.

This.

There's a guy who played in a game I ran twice. Both times he played he picked monk because he's convinced the class is "broken" because it's so powerful. The first time I actually tried to educate him and he didn't listen. He then proceeded to bring the weakest character to the table with an already established party with a druid, cleric, and wizard/beguiler. "One of these four doesn't belong"

The second time, he made a monk and attempted to abuse Combat Reflexes by not understanding the rules. Three times (even after play had started) I told him Combat Reflexes and AoOs don't work the way he thinks they do and I offered him a chance to change his feat. Three times he turned me down. Again, he brought a bunch of fail to a party with a psion and a crusader. I just couldn't get him to understand, and he's not interested in teh maths.

[virgil]

Virgil's complaints seem (to me) to stem from the irritation of hearing someone crow about how awesome they are when it is demonstrable that they are objectively bad at the thing they feel awesome doing. It's not the group having fun, or being horrible at optimization, or any combination of that, that bothers him--it's the constant "how awesome are we?" rah-rah-ism.

Correct me if my impression is wrong, Virgil.

You've got the majority of that complaint down. One additional problem is that this reinforces their belief in what's 'balanced'. I'm not always going to be the DM, and in fact I'm usually not, so encouraging their tactics is going to make any character I bring to the table look like I'm cheating.

Not every premade adventure is this easy, and in fact the first half of this adventure path used monsters instead of NPCs, & it slaughtered them. Convinced of their own aptitude, they told themselves that the adventure was toggled for hard mode.

With this poor of judgement of how the rules work, they're going to create house rules willy-nilly whenever they encounter hardship one way or the other.
* Party keeps nearly dying from scythe-wielding hill giants? Get rid of crits!
* Wizard did as much damage-per-round (for one round) as the paladin against a plant? Seriously consider banning telekinesis!
* Don't like the visual of Merlin wearing a shield? Ban bucklers!

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I've actively warned the monk player that he's going to have difficulty keeping up and offered to provide an upgraded class chassis (didn't say Tome), but he chose not to capitalize on such. It's actually going to be quite difficult for him to stay dead, because the party's high enough level and definitely rich enough to afford bringing him back from the dead.

What is it about Monk players that makes them actively want to suck? It's different than some Bard players, who basically don't want to do anything in combat. I don't know if it's delusional hope or a passive aggressive need to sabotage the party that makes a player choose monk, they are the only class I've banned from 3.5.

I've noticed that. People who play Bards generally have no misconceptions about their combat abilities, and generally do well.

Although I think a lot of monk players want to play a guy that beats monsters to death with their bare hands, and will play anything that's given to them.

[magnuskn]

You've got the majority of that complaint down. One additional problem is that this reinforces their belief in what's 'balanced'. I'm not always going to be the DM, and in fact I'm usually not, so encouraging their tactics is going to make any character I bring to the table look like I'm cheating.

Ah, now I get it. It's not really a complaint that the players are inept at the rules and therefore are enjoying the game not on your terms, but a complaint that you min-maxing your own character will get it nerfed. Okay.

[hogarth]

What is it about Monk players that makes them actively want to suck?

My two cents: It's because martial arts movies are cool, and because monks have a lot of class abilities. Having a lot of weak class abilities sounds powerful, if you don't look at the abilities too closely.

[Red_Rob]

I'm currently running our group through their first 3rd edition game: Pathfinder's Rise of the Runelords. The party consists of a Tome Barb4, Tome Fighter1/Sam3, Tome Jester 4, Druid 4 and a Cleric2/Wiz2. The players have played a lot of systems and are fairly rules savvy, aswell as being wargamers, so tactical combat is their bread and butter.

I ran the first few encounters out of the book, but after the players utterly stomped through them I have had to rewrite nearly every one since. I keep telling myself its because Tome characters rock and I have 5 players, but when i see enemies like a rogue 2/cleric 1, an aristocrat 4/rogue 3 or an expert 4 I do wonder what their playtest parties were like.

[For Valor]

yup. I know a guy who was all over a shifter monk. He asked the DM to let him take shifter feats (to extend his shifting) instead of monk bonus feats, and then PrC'd into Tatooed Monk. He was convinced of his OP-ness and declared himself the grappler tank.

For some reason, we lost almost every battle that I wasn't participating in.

[virgil]

Ah, now I get it. It's not really a complaint that the players are inept at the rules and therefore are enjoying the game not on your terms, but a complaint that you min-maxing your own character will get it nerfed. Okay.

It's really hard to not get offended at that and react in the common Den fashion.

Is it min-maxing to play an archery fighter? What if I only use the core PF book with one exception? What if I take max ranks in Diplomacy & Knowledge (nobility)? What if my cohort from Leadership only has levels in expert whose entire build is towards Knowledge checks? What if I also take Alertness and Dodge? What if my one non-core exception feat only lets me make purchases in a hamlet like I'm in a metropolis at the cost of an extra one week delivery time, overcoming a rule even this group frequently ignores, but I took it anyway because it fit my character?

Do you hold the same opinion as this group and ignore everything else, decrying me a rotten min-maxer solely because I can actually pull my own weight and do ~110+ damage at level 10 if I roll well (every arrow hits, every die rolls above average) while also having a 30-odd AC?

[For Valor]

It's really hard to not get offended at that and react in the common Den fashion.

Hush now; he's young and doesn't know his mistakes. It sounds like he was just clarifying.

[magnuskn]

Ah, now I get it. It's not really a complaint that the players are inept at the rules and therefore are enjoying the game not on your terms, but a complaint that you min-maxing your own character will get it nerfed. Okay.

It's really hard to not get offended at that and react in the common Den fashion.

Is it min-maxing to play an archery fighter? What if I only use the core PF book with one exception? What if I take max ranks in Diplomacy & Knowledge (nobility)? What if my cohort from Leadership only has levels in expert whose entire build is towards Knowledge checks? What if I also take Alertness and Dodge? What if my one non-core exception feat only lets me make purchases in a hamlet like I'm in a metropolis at the cost of an extra one week delivery time, overcoming a rule even this group frequently ignores, but I took it anyway because it fit my character?

Do you hold the same opinion as this group and ignore everything else, decrying me a rotten min-maxer solely because I can actually pull my own weight and do ~110+ damage at level 10 if I roll well (every arrow hits, every die rolls above average) while also having a 30-odd AC?

Nope, that sounds quite typical to me and I suspect that every attack hitting shouldn't happen too often. My pardons then, because it suggested itself that you were twinking your character and this doesn't appear to be the case. However, can their characters be really that bad that they cannot hold up to that?

[Lago PARANOIA]

However, can their characters be really that bad that they cannot hold up to that?

Go to a 2E or 3E MUSH or MUX and ask for mid-level (or high-level, but there's not that many) combat logs that have the die rolls pushed in.

You WILL see a difference between characters built 'for flavor' and characters who are built according to cargo-cult min-maxxing.

[virgil]

I usually hit, since my attack bonus was in the 20s, but iterative probability can rear its ugly head quickly; one poor roll on the first attack cuts my max damage in half. While I didn't roll poorly, I never got a critical hit. I kept a tally (important for ammo), and I only threatened a crit once (vs a construct) out of 100 arrows. Although that fighter is essentially the weakest I can make a character without trepanation or drunken bets.

Yes, they are that bad, as described through a good chunk of this thread. I am not spiteful in practice, so I won't crush them, and except for the time spent typing/reading this thread I am generally content with the group in practice. My biggest worries are the rants I'm sure to bring to everyone in the future.

[Xur]

[snip]

Not every premade adventure is this easy, and in fact the first half of this adventure path used monsters instead of NPCs, & it slaughtered them. Convinced of their own aptitude, they told themselves that the adventure was toggled for hard mode.

With this poor of judgement of how the rules work, they're going to create house rules willy-nilly whenever they encounter hardship one way or the other.
* Party keeps nearly dying from scythe-wielding hill giants? Get rid of crits!
* Wizard did as much damage-per-round (for one round) as the paladin against a plant? Seriously consider banning telekinesis!
* Don't like the visual of Merlin wearing a shield? Ban bucklers!

This is at least within the top 5 of the most crazy stuff I have ever read or heard about group behaviour in D&D (counting Pathfinder as D&D). Are they really so short-sighted to come up with crazy housrules (that consists morsly of banning something) every time someone excels at something - maybe just through lucky dice?

[Crissa]

We've discussed here that flavour should not be a trade out for minigame effectiveness. You shouldn't trade one minigame (combat) for another (story, diplomacy, chase, sneak) in standard D&D.

-Crissa

[virgil]

Anybody got a way I can link up one of my player's attempts at houseruling spells for PF so I can get another opinion?

[Juton]

Try google docs?