Balance... whatever it is

[Gnarsh]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

One nasty battle tactic was to throw a countermagic on your foes. This was often good for messing up a protection or healing spell.

Hah. Actually, the nastiest tactic I like that I ever did as a GM was when the party was being attacked by a couple Krarsht initiates in the Inn they were staying at. A priest was hanging outside in the alleyway using spells (via vision) to help the attack (and conceal his identity, since he'd already met the party and was working on sending them into a trap while pretending to be selling them a map they needed).

I had the priest throw a sweat acid spell on the Challana Arroy *healer*. So when someone got wounded and he went to heal them (range touch spell, right?). Well... Let's just say the healer needed some therapy after that one.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Gnarsh

I had the priest throw a sweat acid spell on the Challana Arroy *healer*. So when someone got wounded and he went to heal them (range touch spell, right?). Well... Let's just say the healer needed some therapy after that one.

Now that's evil. Not as evil as the Vampire Monk in D&D , but still evil.

[soltakss]

In my opinion, balance isn't really that important.

A group of PCs working together will bring down a far more powerful NPc most of the time and a more powerful NPC group some of the time.

Of course, a group of PCs not working together will be beaten by a reasonably organised group of NPCs no matter their relative strength.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by soltakss

In my opinion, balance isn't really that important.

A group of PCs working together will bring down a far more powerful NPc most of the time and a more powerful NPC group some of the time.

Of course, a group of PCs not working together will be beaten by a reasonably organized group of NPCs no matter their relative strength.

Oh yeah. I've seen both of those happen to often to be coincidence. I saw a group of experienced (70%) PCs in good armor and with magic get wasted by a handful of trollkin (30%) simply because the PCs decided to exchange missile fire against targets with three-quarter cover, while standing out in full view. The heroes managed to take out one trollkin and inflict multiple arrow wounds to a house before being wiped out.

[soltakss]

Trollkin can be deadly. Can't they Rurik?

[golden wheel dancer]

soltakss wrote

Trollkin can be deadly. Can't they Rurik?

I would suggest that Trollkin are not inherently deadly. Their deadliness is largely dependent on the opponent they are facing.

A powerful foe would defeat a trollkin.

A namby pamby foe, however, would probably be captured by Trollkin and ransomed off.

[Rurik]

I don't think I like the direction this thread is going...

[raymond_turney]

There are some issues that have not been mentioned.

One is that a group of individually optimized characters can be collectively weaker than non-optimized characters. I remember once in Greg's campaign playtesting Griffin Mountain, we had a large group of about 25 mostly rune levels. My characters were two followers of a Yelmalion rune lord. For reasons that I have forgotten, we split the party. The group on the opposite side of the river was attacked at night by trolls. They were Orlanthi and Humakhti and turned out not to have any light spells {oops}. I can see how that would come about, after all most of the characters only had a certain amount of INT, and it was all used for Bladesharp, Protection, Countermagic, Healing 2, etc. Each player assumed that at least one of the other players would choose spells useful to the entire party, but not the best for an individual character. So they choose the spells that maximized the power of their character in the most commonly encountered situations - and failed miserably against a much weaker force of trolls and trollkin at night.

The second is that very powerful characters who are assigned to something other than a strike mission can be frustrated by enemies who cannot even injure them. A fairly powerful group of PC's, too strong to have random enemies appear and threaten them but escorting a caravan of mules, was very much annoyed by a fairly weak group of bandits. My bandits shot a couple of arrows at unprotected mules, and rode off. The PC's were forced to find a way to carry the goods that were loaded on the dead mule(s). They didn't have the ability to carry the goods themselves, and moved on. The bandits picked up the loot the PC's left behind and a couple of the less skilled bandits took the goods back to the village on their mules. The rest of the bandits got on their horses, followed the PC's, and dropped another couple of mules ...

Another trick can be borrowed from Asian horse nomads. They used expendable ghazis, subject allies, whatever to soften their enemies up. This is a good use for zombies or trollkin. You hit the PC's with these expendables, the PC's put up all their spells, you wait for the spells to go down, and then you launch the real attack.

Finally, players of high level near heroic and heroic and heroic characters can become overconfident. I recall one group, containing all high level characters, that decided to ride straight at an enemy fort and climb the walls. Everyone was much better with melee weapons than missile weapons, and wanted to play a glorious role. As 2/3 of the group ended up pinned beneath dead horses, we ended up parleying with the fort and withdrawing. The characters on the attack easily had more than the 3 to 1 advantage in power necessary to attack, but with most of that power pinned beneath dead horses, we had no hope of winning. Player stupidity can be a very strong equalizing force, but you cannot count on it when planning an encounter

Ray,

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by soltakss

In my opinion, balance isn't really that important.

I agree. What counts is roleplaying and portraying characters in a certain cultural environment. This neverending call for "balance" seems more like roll-playing to me.

Originally Posted by soltakss

A group of PCs working together will bring down a far more powerful NPc most of the time and a more powerful NPC group some of the time.

Why should this be?

Originally Posted by soltakss

Of course, a group of PCs not working together will be beaten by a reasonably organised group of NPCs no matter their relative strength.

Well then the PCs made a mistake by engaging them. History shows which destiny the loosers which overestimates their own abilities will have. More often than not, fighting should be not the primary solution for solving a problem and this is true in roleplaying too.
Another matter is of course if GM does not give the group any chance to get around the combat. This is then plain bad GMdom and should also be avoided.

[soltakss]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

Quote:
Originally Posted by soltakss
A group of PCs working together will bring down a far more powerful NPc most of the time and a more powerful NPC group some of the time.

Why should this be?

I don't know, but I've seen it very many times.

Probably PCs have more flexible magic and skills and are prepared to use odd tactics. NPCs aren't as detailed, have fewer tactics and the GM controls too many of them to have them perform optimally. Also, PCs can have special items/abilities that they can use to get them out of jams. If they have Hero points it makes it even more likely that they will succeed against the odds.

Originally Posted by Enpeze

Quote:
Originally Posted by soltakss
Of course, a group of PCs not working together will be beaten by a reasonably organised group of NPCs no matter their relative strength.

Well then the PCs made a mistake by engaging them. History shows which destiny the loosers which overestimates their own abilities will have. More often than not, fighting should be not the primary solution for solving a problem and this is true in roleplaying too.

True, but where a combat occurs then a badly orghanised group of PCs will do badly and a well-organised group of PCs will do well. Most of the time.

Originally Posted by Enpeze

Another matter is of course if GM does not give the group any chance to get around the combat. This is then plain bad GMdom and should also be avoided.

Well, yes and no. Sometimes it is part of the scenario, sometimes an NPC will plan it this way and ambush the PCs. Sometimes the GM has had a really bad day at work, his train was late, it was raining, he waited for an hour for the bus and the chip shop was closed, so they deserved every minute of it.