@MikeQ "Summon Pasta: Level 1 Conjuration. Create the basic pasta dish of your choice, enough to feed 2 people. Higher levels increase the fanciness of the dish, but not the amount."
@SPavel That isn't a dragon... it is a DRAGONNE from page 34 of the 1e PHB.
Tattoo suggestions: bulette(land shark), silver dragon, dragon from Holmes box, and rust monster.
@Axoren I had heard that noodles were originally invented in China, but I may have heard incorrectly. For an in game introduction of pasta, have the Flying Spaghetti Monster visit from another plane, and have pasta spread from their temple as it gets more popular. a
You could even make the FSM a GOO Warlock patron. The Pastafarian cult could be included in your plot.
Oh lord, I now have to make a Warlock, GOO, whose patron is the FSM, May his noodly appendages protect me from all harm ,,, eldritch Blast becomes Eldritch Fusilli
Update: I expelled the problem player, some thought I should expel the female; but she was not the problem. He later went on to actually be arrested for attempted armed robbery so... glad we got that knucklehead out of the group. Everything is going good now, thanks! — Hobo_warrior1 hour ago
Dramatic but happy ending to our little drama (or...mostly happy I guess).
OP put a new bounty on the question, but I had to leave a comment telling him he is going to have to award the bounty and/or answer else nobody will get it.
@Yuuki If I remember correctly, this is the same group that had all the issues with hormonal boys that couldn't be around the girl. Things with this primary problem player weren't the only things at play.
@Hobo_warrior I'm not super attuned to the current going rate for retail work, but it might be a bit high to ask for for starting at your age and experience level. But I don't really think they'll askj anyways. They'll likely just tell you the rate.
@Hobo_warrior And I'll tip my age and say that while I really liked the remake, the original holds a special place in my heart (and memories of renting it at the video store.)
@Hobo_warrior Adios kid, glad to hear things worked out safely. And protect your passwords next time!
So, speaking of hard-to-control situations and carnivorous reptiles, my regular GM is on hiatus, so I've volunteered to run a level 20 one-shot for my fellow players in the meantime
@KorvinStarmast sorry for late answer. The thing is: while I agree that I write too much, I really don't think I should remove anything from my question. I wanted to be as detailed as possible so people understand why and how I'm not interested in hearing about loot systems and have the complete picture of my problem. I'd rather saying too much than being unclear about the problem :P
@NautArch That's what I do in my regular games anyway, and it's to make sure I can challenge them. Never been viewed as a mean practice. But I'll give them a very rough description of what they may or may not encounter.
@Yuuki As a concept, I really like iterative attacks: there is a Combat Stat (BAB) that measures how good you are at Combat and having more of it means you can perform more Combat Actions per round
And then it goes: but only if you move no more than 5 feet, also monsters have way more and will murder you if you are 5 feet away from them, also the monsters can move more than 5 feet and still full attack
Pathfinder also runs on the Crawford rules model too much
I'm actually quite happy about the limitation on actions in PF2. So a monster can have 700 claws but it's still limited to the same number of attacks as everyone else.
@HellSaint I think it's a chicken/egg thing. Do you have a world and your players encounter things in it? Or do you tailor your world and encounters to your players and their strengths/weaknesses?
@NautArch Ah, got your point. For me, I try to have the world and they encounter things. But as I said, most of it is made after I know their characters. Once you have that knowledge, it's impossible to completely unbias yourself again. Using that knowledge to intentionally make encounters deadlier could be seen as "mean", but that depends on the expectations of the table - if they want challenging encounters, that's actually something you probably should be doing, imo.
@MikeQ Yeah, usually I'm pretty player-friendly as DM. I like to make them know their choices are useful and have a feeling of "yay I'm helpful", so usually I use the knowledge pretty much as "Greg's ranger specializes in ghosts? Let's put a haunted house here."
@SPavel I agree with you. But the other playstyle of this is the world, and you're interacting with it can also make it less DM vs. Players. The DM isn't actively trying to circumvent player capabilities and/or provide star moments for those same capabilities.
@NautArch I suggest a hybrid approach. Start with concepts for challenges and maybe make some preliminary design choices. Once you're aware of the players' strengths and weaknesses, then you fill in the rest.
@SPavel Correct. That would be the other end of the spectrum: The GM essentially designs encounters as punching bags that cater only to the PCs' strengths. No challenge.
@KorvinStarmast As I said, I can see your point and agree with you. The question is long, and it might complicate people understanding the problem. But I've re-read it after sleeping and I really wouldn't remove much from it. I appreciate the suggestion though :) and I agree with it, I just don't know how to do it and atm I feel like I'm getting good answers, which means people are understanding the problem. Not fixing what ain't broken :P
@NautArch I can only see that actually being made when you've already created the entire world before your first session. That works if you re-use a setting you've played before or you spent lots of time preparing it. Otherwise, "pretending to not know something" or trying to ignore that knowledge usually doesn't work.
It does have plenty of mechanics for "top-tier megademon death lord detects you from 500 feet away with supervision and extracts your soul through your butt"
@goodguy5 I don't really have the time to go through all the ways that D&D makes a tactical retreat unnecessarily difficult
But having the PCs encounter an enemy and then letting them run away...seems pointless when you could just present them an encounter they can actually interact with in a meaningful way
@goodguy5 This has happened on multiple occasions in my party. It's always alarming because we don't have a healer but I always somehow manage to tough it out.
While I agree with SPavel - if an Ancient Red Dragon simply wants to kill a bunch of level 1 players, it will and the players simply can't do anything about it, the DM shouldn't be making it chase them unless they are being dumb and actually trying to fight it.
The whole point of a human being at the other side of the table is that you have better tools than "whatever the designer put here is good enough I guess" for judging what would be a fun encounter.
@SPavel Okay, try it this way: PCs know a horrific beast lives in a cave. THey know it can crush them. THey go in anyway.
That decision is a bit o nthe players, but the DM can still try and give them an opportunity to run.
If they continue to choose to push forward and the TPK ensues. I'm not sure that's the DMs fault. Much like @SirCinnamon's story earlier, players can make bad decisions.
@NautArch Or the DM can run an actually entertaining encounter. Maybe the monster likes to play with its victims. Maybe the cave has minions and the PCs encounter stiff resistance that isn't the Big Boss right away.
"Hey you found the angry thing and it is strong and now you can leave" is a waste of my time as a player.
@SPavel But maybe the story and the world that creature is known. For instance, in the current campaign I'm in we've known for a long time that the ultimate threat is a demon lord. But we haven't gotten to the 9 hells to fight him yet because we weren't prepared enough.
If we did, we'd have died.
having an open world means players get ot make choices.
the DM can present options, improvise, etc. but ultimately, Players can choose to do something stupid. An then continue to do stupid things.
@NautArch I have no doubt in your ability to construct endlessly elaborate hypothetical scenarios that try to exploit technicalities in what I am saying.
There is any number of increasingly stupid, increasingly hypothetical things the party might have done - but at a certain point, it stops being an issue of what the PCs are doing in the game, and starts being a mismatch of DM/player expectations.
I think that's the type of DM pitfall @SPavel is referring to - when the DM doesn't communicate that a challenge will be too hard, and doesn't cater the challenge to fit the players' capabilities. As if the encounter is outside of the DM's control.
My personal experience was the counter to that. And I think for the most part players will take the hint.
@MikeQ While I've had DM problems, that thankfully has not been one of them.
but that's also different than what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying design an encounter players can't win. I'm saying that the DM could have encounters in their world that the players are not ready for (that they may stumble upon.)
@goodguy5 (I was joking btw. I got what you were saying.) I don't think I have heard dummy used with the intent to insult since middle school at latest.
@NautArch That assumes a static world. Which is the case in a video game but not necessarily a tabletop RPG where the DM can change things arbitrarily. Because as @SPavel said, it's a waste of time if the players are put in an unwinnable challenge.
I guess I'm saying two things: 1)It's okay for a world to be fully fleshed out with creatures that are both above and below the grade of adventurer and 2)I like to plan my combat scenarios with respect to the players to let them both struggle and shine.
@SPavel And I'm saying I agree with that - but that it's okay for tables who are on board with that to do it (plurality of play styles and whatnot.)
An encounter with the demon lord who is sated from consuming the souls of the City of Endless Souls and doesn't feel like fighting the party is not a combat encounter, so the PCs might interact with him in some meaningful way and it's not pointless
@SPavel I think you can have meaningful encounters like this though. Also I think it is perfectly fine to, say, allow the players to see BBEG and realized they are outclassed and need the Sword of Grom and a bunch more spells to defeat him or whatever.
@MikeQ I'd counter that having a world where things are going on (both bigger and smaller) than the party level is interesting as well. Adventurer's hear of a kraken attacking shipping lanes? Cool, but they know they can't fight it yet. But maybe later!
@SPavel Isn't that exactly what different playstyles mean?
@NautArch That's kind of a flavor thing though, part of the worldbuilding. It would be different if you actually fleshed out an encounter that was impossible to win, then presented it in a similar way as the winnable encounters. Because what purpose would it serve?
@SPavel That's a very narrow view; maybe true at your table, or at any table where there is a short attention span. Encounters the PCs cannot meaningfully interact with should not exist in the world, because having those encounters wastes time We support a plurality of play styles.
@NautArch Nonsense. "Okay, you want to get to the kraken? Well you'll have to make through the docks, which are full of bandits (which are of the appropriate level)". So the DM consistently provides the players with challenges that they can participate in and have a decent chance of success.
@MikeQ okay, so they go through the bandits at the dock. Now what? I'm just saying that players can create situations that place themselves in a dangerous spot.
