|
|
Post by Rabbit on Mar 9, 2010 11:41:20 GMT -5
Herzog is standing near the tower door and smoking a cigar. That's fresh. |
|
|
|
Post by reefwood on Mar 9, 2010 14:44:32 GMT -5
War Stories: Taking the Tower
Just a reminder that we're playing tonight. 7pm in the basement.
Prep time is complete, so we can get rolling right away. Sir Grolton just needs to place himself somewhere on the wall, and then, the session will begin.
*Actually, I may have players place the remaining siege unit soldiers on the map. They would only serve as "invisible" soldiers, so they wouldn't have any affect against "on-screen" enemies, and players will have no control over them, but I think it might be neat to have them on the map to help display the ability of the threats on the wall (i.e. if a fireball hits the wall, you'll see how much it hurts your side). And since this will in no way affect the point/victory system, I don't want to spend more than a couple minutes on placement.*
I have updated the map. Or rather, made a new one. It's the same wall and same specs but has a better view of the tower and its potential levels. The tower goes up and down, but the PCs will be assigned to take out the threats on the upper levels. Also, there is now a side view of the tower/wall/siege engine to give a better perspective of the scene and also help determine any climbing/falling that may happen.
Scrolls
I have a minor but potentially important question that I want players to weigh in on. Especially since I could go either way with it...
How many hands need to be free to use a scroll?
My default thought on this was that you just need one free hand to use a scroll. That hand holds the scroll so it can be read.
Then, I got to wondering about the somatic component. If one hand is holding the scroll, it would seem that another hand is required for the somatic component (if the spell normally has one) because it would seem difficult to read a scroll while waving it around with the same hand. Handling scrolls like this means that most scrolls would require two hands (since most spells have a somatic component).
However, the "activation" part of the scroll section says that you just need to see and read the writing on the scroll. It also says that no material component is required (since it was already used to make the scroll), but there is nothing directly stated about somatic components. It would seem that they do not come into play with scrolls. Only the last sentence about arcane spell failure makes me wonder otherwise.
At the very least, I feel safe saying that a spell without a somatic component doesn't have to worry about arcane spell failure when read off a scroll. But what about a scroll for a spell with a somatic component? Arcane spell failure, yes. But do actual gestures need to be made with a hand that isn't holding the scroll?
Again, I could go either way on this, so it's pretty much up to you guys at this point. And of course, this would affect NPCs as much as PCs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rabbit on Mar 9, 2010 15:34:50 GMT -5
How many hands need to be free to use a scroll?My default thought on this was that you just need one free hand to use a scroll. That hand holds the scroll so it can be read. Then, I got to wondering about the somatic component. If one hand is holding the scroll, it would seem that another hand is required for the somatic component (if the spell normally has one) because it would seem difficult to read a scroll while waving it around with the same hand. Handling scrolls like this means that most scrolls would require two hands (since most spells have a somatic component). However, the activation part of the scroll section says that you just need to see and read the writing on the scroll. It also says that no material component is required (since it was already used to make the scroll), but there is nothing directly stated about somatic components. It would seem that they do not come into play with scrolls. Only the last sentence about arcane spell failure makes me wonder otherwise. At the very least, I feel safe saying that a spell without a somatic component doesn't have to worry about arcane spell failure when read off a scroll. But what about a scroll for a spell with a somatic component? Arcane spell failure, yes. But do actual gestures need to be made with a hand that isn't holding the scroll? I see what you mean regarding somatic components for a spell, but I do not think it was the intention of the writers to have different requirments for somatic and nonsomatic spells (dealing with that might just slow game play down.) I would prefer to say that scroll reading takes one free hand, as a universal rule. And even though the scroll description omits it, perhaps the somatic gestures also were done as a part of the scroll creation process... infusing the parchment with arcane energies and all that. |
|
|
|
Post by reefwood on Mar 9, 2010 15:46:33 GMT -5
I see what you mean regarding somatic components for a spell, but I do not think it was the intention of the writers to have different requirments for somatic and nonsomatic spells (dealing with that might just slow game play down.) There are different requirements for spells based on their components. Each component has its specific benefits and drawbacks, and there are ways to get around them. It is part of the game, though, it rarely comes up in our games. I just wonder whether this particular component matters for scrolls. |
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 9, 2010 16:42:54 GMT -5
I also think scrolls were intended to be able to be used in one hand. If they were meant to take two, it probably would have been mentioned in the rules. As for explaining why there's still an arcane failure chance, perhaps the scroll itself has to be moved in a certain way while it's being cast.
|
|
|
|
Post by icnivad on Mar 9, 2010 16:56:12 GMT -5
Yeah, I tend to agree that the writers probably intended scrolls to be single handed across the board. And having nuances to the rule that apply in some situations would just slow the game down.
|
|
|
|
Post by reefwood on Mar 9, 2010 17:44:17 GMT -5
Scrolls - somatic component?
Just about everyone has chimed in, and the overwhelming majority have decided that scrolls only require one hand to cast.
|
|
|
|
Post by reefwood on Mar 10, 2010 4:59:20 GMT -5
Post Game (Siege of Verdas), Part 3
Spoils and rewards from the previous session have been posted in the Siege of Verdas thread, and PCs level up to 6th level. Equipment taken/purchased can be posted in that thread or the Boot Camp thread.
Also, these were the CRs of the defenders:
half-elven caster (CR 7) = CR 6
dwarven caster (CR 5) = CR 4
dwarven axemen (CR 1) x8 = CR 7
elven archers (CR 1) x15 = ~CR 9 CR 8.75
As for Taking the Tower, I will do a post-game to better explain some of the challenges and the point system, and list the CRs too.
Also, I need to make starting packages for 6th-level.
And again, feel free to post any interests for future sessions. Do you want to stay near the big city? Head back out into the country? I need to do some brainstorming but can probably come up with a few different directions to go. Michael mentioned that he likes the strategy combat parts more than the standard adventuring parts, but what do others think?
I can tell you that the Nemedoran army was dealt a pretty big blow on this first day of the siege. Verdas still stands intact and unbreached. Also, after two sessions that were each composed of one long combat, I may be ready to mix it up a bit more. At least for the next session.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rabbit on Mar 10, 2010 9:59:24 GMT -5
Michael mentioned that he likes the strategy combat parts more than the standard adventuring parts, but what do others think?
.... Also, after two sessions that were each composed of one long combat, I may be ready to mix it up a bit more. At least for the next session. I also enjoy the strategy combat aspect of your campaign, though I agree it would be nice to change the tempo for the next session. |
|
|
|
Post by reefwood on Mar 10, 2010 18:35:53 GMT -5
NPC Stats & Equipment and CR
I don't want players to get sucked into meta-gaming, but it seems fair to give you a look into how NPCs are built in this campaign. Especially after all this time and now that I have a better handle on how I like to work it and tweak things at times.
Stats are pretty simple. I used to roll for NPC ability scores in my previous campaign, especially important NPCs, but using static scores helps keep NPCs from getting too over or underpowered. Anyway, grunts usually receive NPC classes while more unique soldiers receive PC classes.
If I want someone to have a lot of HP but not be totally awesome, I usually give them a lot of NPC classes or mix in NPC classes. The mayor of Gharn (Marching Inland) was at least 4 levels higher than the highest PC but an Adept, so he could take a decent bit of punishment and had some nice items thanks to higher wealth but couldn't dole out way more damage than the PCs. Another way to do this would be to add a bunch of Commoner levels to a character built with PC or NPC levels since Commoner adds HP but not much else. And adding levels of Expert is a great way to make an NPC awesome at something that isn't solely combat related (i.e. super tumbler or sneak).
NPCs get a piddly amount of equipment when compared to PCs, and sometimes I give them items that are meant more as treasure than useful in combat since they may not get a chance to use them, or the one time they get to use them doesn't compare to a PC that gains the item and can use it over and over again. An example from Chapter 5 is that the flying caster had a metamagic rod of lesser extend. This didn't affect the combat with the PCs because he used it on buff spells that would have lasted way longer than the combat anyway, but he had this item because in the big picture, he may have been fighting all day, so having something last twice as many hours or twice as many 10 min/level mattered to him as part of the overall defense effort, but even without the rod, these spells would have been in effect before and after the combat at the tower. A simpler example is healing potions found on enemy soldiers who never got a chance to drink them.
Anyway, the equipment table is staggered based on Heroic vs Basic stats. A 1st-level Hero has the same starting wealth as a 2nd-level Basic, and 2nd-level Hero has the same starting wealth as a 3rd-level Basic, and so on. Also, NPCs receive income pool just like the player PCs.
And I adjust the difficulty by mixing up the stat & equipment combos. A few examples would be:
1) NPC with Heroic stats but Basic equipment
2) PC with Basic stats & equipment
3) PC with Heroic stats and Heroic equipment for one level higher
Income pool is never tweaked, and NPCs need to be of a high enough level to receive certain ranks in Profession (military). Especially grunts, but heroes can advance a bit faster/higher in rank.
Another a way to boost NPC equipment is to lump together wealth. For example, 10 grunts each have 100 gp leftover, so that's 1,000 gp that can be added to the wealth of their big bad boss. Although, this I reserve for the toughest challenges, so it's not common. And sometimes NPCs just wind up with leftover wealth that isn't spent on anything. In a standard adventure, this is the gold that would find on their bodies.
The basic breakdown is that the party level usually equals the level of the characters, and that determines an appropriate CR. The CR for a common race NPC with PC classes is character level -1, and with NPCs classes it is character level -2. Therefore, an epic challenge for APL 5 is CR 8, so an epic challenge would technically be a 9th-level Fighter or a 10th-level Warrior, but the Fighter would definitely have more abilities and just as much wealth, so this isn't a perfect science. Of course, based on the make up of the party, either challenge could be equally difficult. Party A might have an epic time against the Fighter, but that might be too hard for party B, so the Warrior would be their appropriately epic foe.
As a side note, the total CR for creatures in Chapter 4: Siege of Verdas was CR 11, and the total CR for creatures in Chapter 5: Taking the Tower was just above CR 13 12. Obviously, a lot more factors came into play, such as Chapter 4 giving you lots of NPCs allies but the siege engine was where all the defenders were focused, whereas in Chapter 5, you were on your own but not the sole target of the enemy and not worth bothering unless you were getting in their way. More details will be posted later.
|
|
|
|
Post by reefwood on Mar 11, 2010 1:17:24 GMT -5
Taking the Tower, Post-game #1
This option was designed to present the greatest risk, so it was a very difficult challenge. Not impossible, nor leaps and bounds beyond previous challenges, but it definitely took things to the next level.
Originally, I thought Storming the Beach might have been too hard, and more recently, was worried that the Siege of Verdas was even harder. And yet, these wound up being your best victories. Perhaps relevant or not, they were both similar in style (get to the wall) and had the most well-defined overall objective (take out the stakebow & get the ladders up). Regardless, creativity and teamwork both played an important part in those successes, but I don't think they were quite as abundant in Taking the Tower, and I think that contributed to the loss. For example, when old tactics didn't work as well and new terrain hampered movement obstacles were faced, there seemed to be difficulty adjusting at times. Which isn't surprising, but it seemed to be moreso than in previous sessions.
Somewhat related is something that usually happens after every session, especially when using a new system, and that is the realization of rules that were forgotten or used incorrectly. And using them correctly the next time often sometimes means that the related task is more difficult to perform. One example is remembering that anytime you take damage while climbing, you make a Climb check against the DC of the slope or wall.
Of course, this was a very difficult challenge. On multiple levels. Which made poor choices or wasted time have an even greater impact than in previous sessions. There seemed to be a bit of going back forth with tactics and movement early on.
One thing that changed to make this harder is that there were more NPCs made up of PC levels. The most ever thrown at you at once before was the trio of heroes outside Gharn [Chapter 2: Marching Inland], and they were all of a level equal to the highest player. The Mystery at Longtree pitted you against two that were both one level higher. The Siege of Verdas had one equal to your level and another two levels higher. All these challenges also included NPCs without PC levels. Taking the Tower did the same, but there were two sets of NPCs with PC classes. The first set was made up of 5 with one level less than yours, and they were multi-classed to make them better at defense but worse at offense. The other set was made up of 2 with three levels more than you. Single-classed with one focused on offense and one focused on defense.
Another difficulty was the point countdown to retreat. This challenge would have been easier if you had all the time to take things slow and victory came down to the last soldier standing. Looking at it like this, the challenge was not nearly as difficult, but of course, that easier version wasn't the challenge presented to you.
The format of the point system also presented a new type of challenge. It didn't matter so much what you did. It mattered what you stopped the enemy from doing. Looking back at this challenge, the objective reminds me of a snowball effect but sort of in reverse. The snowball came out of the gate at almost maximum size, so it couldn't get much bigger, and your job was to whittle it down. The longer it took to neutralize a threat, the bigger impact it had in the long haul. An archer could only score 1 point, but over 10 rounds, that was 10 points. Double for each wand-wielder and a bit more for the ballistas.
One important thing about this campaign that I have reiterated before but still forget at times is that this is a war. This isn't a campaign where adventurers are expected to go from levels 1-20 or even one-quarter of that. You are soldiers, and sometimes sacrifice must come for the greater effort to succeed. This campaign has been intentionally set up to make it easy for players to bring in new characters - whether its for a change of pace or death. This isn't to say that challenges should always be this difficult or that you should expect to die (and in The Mystery at Longtree, surviving to make your report was necessary). But I think we might have a hard time wrapping our minds around the unfamiliar concepts that living doesn't mean you win and dying doesn't mean you lose. Because usually that's how it goes in D&D. Maybe you bungle up an adventure, but hey, at least you lived. Not to say that living is a bad thing. That is still something. And this may have not played a big factor in this outcome, but I think it's an important point to bring up in general, and I did hear talk at the table along these lines. Dying fast would not have earned you victory, but if the death occured while distracting the enemy until others could do more or even taking out some enemies, it could have been very helpful.
Anyway, a lot of factors contributed to how things played out. I don't think any particular part of the challenge was terribly difficult on its own, nor was players struggling at times the only reason for the loss. But everything combined, plus some bad luck, meant that victory was not to be.
Next time I'll break things down by specific challenges.
|
|
|
|
Post by reefwood on Mar 11, 2010 16:15:34 GMT -5
Taking the Tower, Post-game #2
Before going into detail, I want to mention that a lot of the challenges were simply an inherent part of the locale. I do keep PC abilities in mind, but a lot of the overall setting and objectives get created first on their own for what makes sense. Afterward, if it seems like the PCs will need some extra help, I try to provide it within reason. Examples from the previous session were the scrolls of dispel magic that 3 PCs could use to earn points and making sure there was room for a horse in the siege engine.
Also, I will try to mention things I adjusted in game to make this session easier and things I forgot that did the same.
1) Doors/Hatches
A stone tower on a stone wall around a city with many dwarves. It made sense that the doors/hatches would be made of stone too. Especially in a defensive structure. It also worked for the "very difficult" aspect of this challenge and why ordinary grunts couldn't get through. Additionally, it seemed reasonable that the ceiling/floor hatches could be latched on both sides to prevent invaders from getting through no matter which way they came, and the door to the archers would be latched on the archer side. There were two standard ways to get through a door/hatch - Strength check or Disable Device check.
There is no break DC for a stone door/hatch, so I went with the DC of a strong wooden door +2 = DC 25. But during the session, I lowered it to DC 20 when it became apparent that DC 25 was extremely difficult for those going up through the tower. Also, I expected this challenge to be tackled with finesse by the rogue, but it quickly became clear that wasn't the case, so that was another reason for the adjustment.
Instead of a lock, there was a latch. More for flavor than anything else, but I based the Disable Device check off the lock DCs. A good lock seemed appropriate, but the DC 30 for it seemed too difficult, so I went with average lock DC 25 +2 = DC 27.
There were 2 hatches and 1 door on the way to the tower roof. There were 2 doors that led into the archer area, but only 1 needed to be opened to reach this area.
2) Ladder
There was only 1 ladder, and I ignored this challenge during the session. It was a Climb check DC 0. Not difficult at all for most people, but it made sense that someone in full-plate might have trouble going up a ladder. Also, climbing takes place at one-quarter speed, which would have slowed you down.
3) Dwarven Axemen x4
They were meant to slow you down and did not ever score points. These dwarves were 1 level higher than the dwarves on the wall in the previous session. Seemed to make sense since these guys were one of the last lines of defense to the rooftop. Maybe I should have kept them at the lower level, but based on the damage dealt by PCs, 1 less HD probably wouldn't have made a difference. Either way - with 3 HD or 4 HD - they were mostly able to survive 1 hit but not 2.
Someone mentioned running past the dwarves. Not sure how that would have panned out, but if one person made it, their attacks of opportunity would have been used up to gives PCs a free pass. Getting on the stairs would have provided higher ground and prevented them from flanking. Making it to the next floor up may have even made it so the dwarves could only attack one at a time.
4) Elven Archers x11 (1 pt)
These point-scorers were tasked with taking out ground soldiers and ladder climbers. Not a threat to PCs but still tricky in two ways. First, they only scored 1 point individually, but as a group, that was 11 points per round. Second, they were hard to reach, but on the flipside, they didn't really have room to get away or re-position themselves. And like the dwarves, they were 1 level higher than the archers on the wall, but unlike the dwarves, keeping them at the previous level may have made a difference. At least if they were attacked.
It may have been best to ignore them and head for bigger threats, but a well placed area spell could have taken out half of them easily - fireball, obscuring mist, stinking cloud - and saved about 50 points over 10 rounds. Attacking them throught the arrow slit with a weapon wound have been extremely difficult because of improved cover (+8 AC). The more conventional way to reach them was through one of the doors. Attacking one archer would not have drawn much response from the rooftop defenders, but hitting the group with an area spell might have depending on the effect and if anything could have been done about it.
5) Wand-wielders x5 (2 pt)
These point-scorers had the most likely chance of squaring off against PCs. Their task depended on positioning. Three were attacking soldiers on the wall and two were attacking soldiers on the ground. As a whole, they scored 1 less point than the archers, but taking 1 out was the same as taking out 2 archers. One thing that seemed minor but proved to be quite effective was their wand choice. It shot two magic missiles. Magic missiles always hit, but they have to choose their targets before rolling damage, so it made sense that they would spread their attacks to hit multiple targets as to not waste missiles on targets that fall down with the first missile. This was perfect for defending against Sir Grolton riding up the wall. One missile to Grolton and one to the horse, which resulted in those daunting Climb checks. Not what I planned at all but a great defense in the end. They also managed to slowly take out Lo.
Anyway, reaching them was the hard part, but they couldn't take much damage (1-3 hits depending on the attacker). Though, unlike the archers, they had more room to move. Attacking a wand wielder would have drawn some attention from other defenders on the roof, depending on the effectiveness of the attack, but they were meant to hold their own, even if they couldn't for long, until "flaming hands" could step in.
6) Ballista x3 (3 pt)
These were the mid-range point-scorers, but they could only attack every other round. They were difficult to reach, but once you reached them, the person using it couldn't move and still use the ballista. Taking out the ballista or user nullified them, and attacking one of these would have drawn a fair bit of attention from other defenders on the tower roof. Especially since they couldn't defend themselves against the PCs
7) Flaming Hands
Never got to see this guy in action, but he was the melee defense for the tower roof. He was a serious danger to PCs in melee but didn't score points.
8) Flying Caster (4 pt)
This guy never got a chance to score his own points. His main task was to keep up the wall of fire. He had some decent offense for his level, but his role was defense. Mostly for himself. He had all sorts of protective spells going on against energy and weapons. If he had to use offense, it probably would have been against the PCs, and thus, prevented him from scoring more points anyway.
Ways to deal with this guy were to hamper spellcasting (which you tried), getting him out of the air to make him more vulnerable (which you did), and attacking him unconventionally, such as with a grapple. Sending a stirge after him would have been good if it lasted more than 1 round.
9) Wall of Fire (5 pt)
This wasn't as big a threat in terms of points as I had anticipated, but it would have been more important as the battle went longer if more defenders had been taken out. For example, 3 wand-wielders scored more points than the wall of fire, so when there were fewer threats, it would have been more valuable. Still, it scored 75 points over 15 rounds and was hard to remove. Dispelling it was the best way. The other way was to break the concentration of "flying caster," but this was more difficult because of his protective spells, and even if concentration was broken, the wall of fire would stay up on its own for several more rounds.
10) Point System/Defenders' Objectives
I think this new point system is what turned this difficult challenge into a very difficult one. It also gave you some benefits, but overall, it definitely made things harder - especially since you didn't know who was earning how many points or what amount they needed to reach - and was meant to do so.
One benefit wasn't in the point system itself but in what it represented. The "on-screen" defenders weren't concerned with the PCs at first. Fighting you specifically didn't earn them any points. This gave the PCs a free pass to act unthreatened early on - to buff or heal, to move into better position, to make other preparations, and get them jump on the defenders by attacking them before they attacked you. Granted, the wall of fire hit most of you in Round 1, but you weren't specifically the target, and once you got out of its range, no effort was made to continue attacking you until you stood out. I tried to make this benefit known online by telling players that the end of prep time didn't mean you had to stop prepping once the session started, and then before the session by letting you know that you weren't the target of the defenders. Of course, the flipside to this benefit was the countdown, so you didn't want to spend too much time getting ready.
Another benefit was that all the defenders weren't attacking you at once, and related to that, they also weren't spending all their resources on you. The flying caster was CR 7 (Hard encounter for APL 5, or Challenging encounter for APL 6), but the full force of a CR 7 was not directed at you. Most of his spells were already used up on defense, and some weren't even necessary, but he didn't know what to expect, so he covered all his bases as best he could, and that meant there was less he could do against you. He could have been shooting nasty fireballs at you from the start, but that wasn't his role, nor did I want him to have that ability because then, I would have seen that part of the challenge as too hard and unfair. Additionally, just because you attacked one defender, it didn't mean that they would all come down on you. They had other things to worry about. If the whole rooftop crew was squaring off against you, it would not have been rough. Not impossible, but it would been an even greater challenge than this one.
The other benefit I saw is that you didn't have to kill the defenders to stop them from scoring points. Getting creative here would have been the most useful.
One mistake I may have made with this point system is not having a marker of defeat for the defenders. Although, I'm still not convinced that was necessary. On one hand, maybe the defenders should have lost once they were reduced to a certain number or could only score a limited amount of points per round (i.e. once they could only score up to 10 pts per round, they lost). Because if only a few archers were still standing, would that be enough to turn the tide anymore? On the other hand, the "on screen" defenders were only a small portion of the Verdasian forces, so even if only a few of them were left, it didn't necessarily mean that their side was losing. The point total is what measured the overall progress of Verdas. Even if most of the "on screen" defenders died, if they lasted long enough to get enough points, it meant they did enough damage to turn the tide for their side. So does this mean that you had to kill every defender to win? No. In addition to nullfying them in other ways, you have also seen enemy troops surrender and flee.
One adjustment I made during the game was the Verdas point total for victory. It started out at 200 points, and I raised it by 50 points a couple times but decided 400 points (double the original total) was as far as I would go. The original 200 point total was probably too hard. It didn't seem so hard when I set it up because the math said that they wouldn't reach that point until Round 7, but only if the PCs failed to stop any point scorer at all, which seemed so unlikely. Would you have expected to do absolutely nothing effective for 7 rounds? So, I wasn't too worried about that. Especially since 7 rounds seemed like such a long time. Usually a lot happens in 7 rounds, and it takes a while to play out that much combat. Anyway, I figured that if you guys did poorly, this would be over in 10 rounds. That seemed reasonable but still very difficult, which this challenge was meant to be, so it seemed perfect.
What I failed to realize at first is that even if you took out a few defenders before Round 7, they could still win during that round. Enough points may have still been scored that a few lost defenders didn't make much difference when the victory point total was 200. What I better realize now is the impact of a lost defender - not so much in the round he was taken out, but more so as more rounds passed. Because then losing 1-5 points isn't just 1-5 points. It is 1-5 points multiplied for each round they are out. Therefore, taking out a few defenders may have not made a difference in Round 7, but by Round 10 it could have staved off their victory. For example, if 5 points of defenders were taken out by the end of Round 4, it may have only saved 5-20 points by Round 4. Three rounds later by the time you finish Round 7, that lack of defenders saves another 15 points. Maybe not enough to stave off victory. Whereas, six rounds later by the time you reach Round 10, taking out those defenders saved another 30 points on top of the prior 5-20 points. And hopefully in those six rounds, more defenders were taken out, so even more points are being saved to give you more time.
Anyway, if anything made this challenge too difficult, it was the point total. But I saw this as we reached that point. The fix to this problem was simple. Increase the point total. Which I did. Doubled it even. This seemed more than fair. In retrospect, 300 points was probably a good cap for a very difficult challenge.
And here is a look at the point total as it added up over the 15 rounds before retreat. The points saved each round are in parenthesis, and the ballistas (9 pts total) only fired every other round starting in the first round.
35
61
96
120 (2 - wand)
153 (2 - wand)
177 (2 - wand)
208 (4 - wand x2)
228 (6 - wand x3)
260 (3 - ballista)
286 (3 - ballista)
318 (3 - ballista)
338 (3 - ballista, 6 - wand x3)
368 (3 - ballista, 2 - wand)
392 (3 - ballista, 2 - wand)
422 (3 - ballista, 2 - wand)
Well, that was a lot. I could go into other little details, minor mistakes on both sides, etc, but I think this covers all the major bases, and after going through all this again, including adjustments for what you faced in the end, I still feel that this was a very difficult challenge. Not more, not less. This was not impossible or overwhelming, but players had to do great to come out of it with even a halfway a decent victory. So between the difficulty level and not tackling the overall challenge very well as a whole (but I do think everyone had at least one or two good actions/ideas and there was good teamwork at times) and some bad luck, that did not happen.
As always, I do like to receive feedback about what players liked and didn't like. For example, Michael learned that he does not like to dispel magic because it bores him. This is good for me to know, so that I don't give him a duty in the future that centers around this task.
Also important to consider is what you do like. If you want to hack at things with a sword, make your character focused around that. Enric did a good job of that with retiring an old character to create a new one.
Another thing to reiterate is that this is a combat-heavy campaign. There's a big fight every session. Sometimes the whole session. And to keep things interesting, I like to mix it up - changing attacks, defenses, terrain, creature types, etc. Hopefully, each combat is unique in some way. Add to that the fact that all of you can dish out damage but in different ways. What does it mean? It means that your particular big stick may not be useful in each session - whether it just doesn't work at all, or the effort made to make it work would be better spent trying something else. In a more typical campaign, PCs often focus on being good at more than just one thing between weapons, magic, and skills. A Fighter great with an axe and a good Intimidate. A Cleric who buffs allies and knows everything about Religion. A Rogue that can use wands with ease and can look like anyone. I am trying to make non-combat abilities still useful (such as with the Disable Device checks in this last session), but most of what you will be doing is fighting, so having more than one way to do it effectively is probably a good idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 11, 2010 17:24:44 GMT -5
So I know I did seem particularly frustrated Tuesday night, and I just wanted to explain that a bit better.
At the beginning of the battle, once I had cast Silence and Spirit Weapon, I'd essentially used up everything I had except healing spells and Dispel Magic scrolls. I had to decide if I was going to follow the party and act as a healer, or sit at the base and dispel the enemy's spells. Generally, I don't like it when my choice of action becomes repetitive and requires little thought, and I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that being the dispeller would be just that, so I chose to follow Grolton and Herzog up the tower. Of course, the way it turned out, the dwarves inside the tower posed very little challenge, and I could just heal on auto-pilot, without feeling like any of us were at risk.
So I had one option which I perceived to be a boring, repetitive task with little risk, and ditched it in favor of another option, which turned out to be a boring, repetitive task with little risk. Post game, it felt like I was trapped into that path no matter what I chose. That's probably not the case, but it's why I was frustrated.
This was in no way a problem with the way the game was set up or run, and I projected onto those unfairly.
|
|
|
|
Post by reefwood on Mar 11, 2010 19:35:40 GMT -5
At the beginning of the battle, once I had cast Silence and Spirit Weapon, I'd essentially used up everything I had except healing spells and Dispel Magic scrolls... So I had one option which I perceived to be a boring, repetitive task with little risk, and ditched it in favor of another option, which turned out to be a boring, repetitive task with little risk. Post game, it felt like I was trapped into that path no matter what I chose. That's probably not the case, but it's why I was frustrated. This was in no way a problem with the way the game was set up or run, and I projected onto those unfairly. I thought that Brion actually performed pretty well. He threw a couple magic attacks at point-scorers (which were ineffective but still a good effort) and kept his soldiers in the fight. But feeling trapped is no fun. Looking back at the game, the only other option I can see after his combat spells ran out was to join in the fight against the dwarves. It would have provided more risk, though, hacking with a sword seems just as repetitive as casting cure over and over again. But maybe the risk would have made it more fun? And it may have taken out the dwarves faster? Which means you could have reached the upper levels sooner. Out of curiosity, did Brion have cure spells prepped in his slots? Because he doesn't need to do that thanks to being able to spontaneously cast cure spells as a cleric. He can prepare other spells and just drop them if he needs to heal someone. I think you know this already, but your post seemed to indicate otherwise. Or maybe you were healing with cure scrolls? For the future, I would think about what else you wish you could have done in this scenario. If you want more attack spells, maybe it would be good to buy a wand of "blow-it-up" or wondrous items that do similar things. Or a wand of summon monster would give you variety and minions in one package.
As a side note... one thing I expected to see because it had been mentioned before was for someone to hop on the back of Sir Grolton's horse as he climbed up the tower. A couple people getting on that rooftop quickly might have made a mess of things if they came up with a good strategy. Although, two people falling off the tower would have been pretty terrible. Especially all the way to ground level. At least one lesson to maybe take away from this is to not stop in a spot where you can fall the furthest.
On other note... I have an idea for the next session. You will all get a night of rest, so you can pick out new spells, but if you were missing a lot of hit points, keep track of the amount. In fact, if everyone could post their current hit point total in here, that would be great. |
|
|
|
Post by Rabbit on Mar 11, 2010 19:56:37 GMT -5
On other note... I have an idea for the next session. You will all get a night of rest, so you can pick out new spells, but if you were missing a lot of hit points, keep track of the amount. In fact, if everyone could post their current hit point total in here, that would be great. I would like to think Sir Sweetwater was in the battle somewhere (as seen in the in-character thread.) Do you want to figure something out for him having HP potentially lost? or should he just start at full HP? |
|
