Here are a couple more notes on yesterday's game. Well, actual notes - I had basically none last night, as I had very little time to write a summary - even as brief as that one was.
- I highly encourage my players to take advantage of sages. They're a useful way to get background information you can use to inform your decision, or fill in enough background information blanks that you can figure something out. They're not the answer, they're the staff work that helps you decide on the answer.
Not to pick on any particular player of mine, because a lot of them do it, but this was a perfect example. Yesterday, when discussing next options, someone offhand suggested doing or getting "research on how to avoid the damage-causing floor down the second giant fantastic staircase," I shot it down. I don't want to waste time and money. A sage roll wasn't going to reveal the existance of heretofore unknown equipment that ignores contact-based damage from a floor.
Besides, the players already know the answer. They just don't like it - take the damage, figure out a way to dispel the magic of the floor, find a way to avoid touching the floor (Walk on Air, Levitate, Flight), etc.), or find some other way to avoid the damage.
It's worth asking yourself, what do we expect to learn from the sage? Given that the GM isn't going to give some answer . . . and even apparantly accurate divination and oracles will sometimes give you exactly the answer you already know. How to kill a beholder? Lots of damage will do it. I'm not sure what answer was expected, otherwise. I guess it's a good way to check if a monster isn't a "trick" monster that can only be killed by a specific method.
- We spent a good 30 minutes post-session discussing how to fight the draugr. Basically, it came down to, "We can't defeat them in a slog, so we need another way to defeat them." No progress was made on this. A good chunk of the group agrees that they can't just engage them in a straight fight, and another way has to be found, but can't decide on what that other way is. Brought up and discarded (or at least set aside for now) included:
- lots of archers to "harry" them from the back ranks (usual issues - need for skilled troops to shoot through the front-rank PCs, relatively low damage of bows vs. high DR of targets, and the unwillingness of the PCs to advance against the draugr.)
- lots of hirelings to "lob" alchemist's fire at them (issues here - cost, skill of hirelings, vastly reduced effectiveness of fire against armored targets with "splash" damage versus direct hits, difficulty of follow up if the draugr don't just stand there.)
- rushing in and killing them quickly before they get up (issues here - high DR and HP of the draugr, time consuming to open a sarcophagus and kill one.)
- draw out the draugr, kill a few, and drag off the dead (issues here - no idea how to do this) or get them to abandon their fallen due to area denial magic (issues here - no plan on how to do that.)
- cut off draugr with a Force Wall and kill a few of them; repeat 5-6 times (issues - spell would be from a powered scroll - which will be an extra expensive for a rare spell*, unclear if draugr count as "magical creatures" and can just walk though)
- cast Flaming Missiles on Galen, who apparantly will kill them all thanks to the fire bonus injury (issues - it's not that much damage, Shield Wall Training means it's unlikely even three arrows/second on one target will consistently result in a hit) and/or blind them so they can be dealt with by the melee fighters.
A lot of these have been discussed before.
The same issues apply as always - the draugr are tough, well-armored, skilled, tactically flexible and smart, and their undead vulnerability doesn't force them all to rest at the same time. The PCs don't want to risk a straight-up fight with them, and it's extremely hard to force foes you are not superior to, to fight on your terms. The draugr seem unwilling to throw away a tactical advantage to fight the PCs when the PCs have stacked up a tactical advantage in their favor. The PCs, who really want to fight the draugr, are unwilling to do so except on terms of advantage for them and won't willingly take situational penalties to do so. So it's a standoff, still.
I've said this before, here and to the group: I personally don't think the draugr are a puzzle. I think they're going to be hard battle. They might be too hard of a battle. They're purely physical but what they're most vulnerable (fire) also risks their treasure, and what the PCs are generally best at (physically overmatching foes) the draugr are also very good at. I could be wrong, but no one has found a way to prove me wrong yet by figuring out a vulnerability that reduces the draugr from a hard fight to a puzzle.
- We had less info-fishing than last time, but people did ask over and over and over again about the white triangle - dimensions, type of triangle, what symbols it covers, are those symbols in a special order, how wide are the lines . . . ultimately, meaning behind it or not, the triangle was just painted on with some white, non-water-soluable paint, and not particularly well. It wasn't mathematically precise. I really should have made an image right from the start, but as I said in the comments on my summary, from this side of the screen it didn't seem like that complex of a puzzle.
- On a lighter note, we found out the name of Mild Bruce's Gym - the Iron Church.
* Also, because if you can "special order" any scroll, of any type, at any time, the game devolves down to searching through GURPS Magic to find "the spell" that will solve a problem, and then calculating the cost to solve it. Oh, and sending 3-5 emails to me to ask if it's possible to do so. And by emails, I means questions at the beginning of the game session. I don't really want my game reduced to "flip through GURPS Magic." It was bad enough when it was ordering magic items. And the more "we'll order 2-3 scrolls of (X)" that happen, the more likely I am to eventually change it so I don't have to deal with the old "I flip through my list of 30-odd scrolls I'm carrying at all times to find a spell that might work."
Wait until they have a large group then just get in there and slug it out is my suggested plan
ReplyDeleteThat's Aldwyn's suggested plan.
DeleteAldwyn for President 2021!
Delete"from this side of the screen it didn't seem like that complex of a puzzle"
ReplyDelete--Every GM's famous last words
Oh, those won't be my last words.
DeleteThere are a lot of ways magically to deal with the draugr, it's just down to whether or not the Wizards/Clerics have the spells, and the draugr have no way to counter...
ReplyDeletePlan 1 - Draugr are Undead Reanimated Corpses right? Right?
Turn Zombie is right there in the spellbook, Clerics can even start with it...
Drawbacks: Kinda cost intensive. Must suffer the slings and arrows and thrown spears of draugr. Also, draugr might not count as reanimated //servitor// undead. In my game I ignore the whole 'servitor' qualifier, it's only 1d damage, so it's going to take awhile to whittle a draugr down.
Plan 2 - The Eternal Lightness of Ethereal Body
Using Ethereal Body the Wizard infiltrates the draugr area and begins sealing the sarcophagi one at time with Shape Stone. As long as the draugr (and nothign else shows up) cannot attack the Wizard, he's got all the time to do this. Eventually all the draugr will be sealed in, out, or some combination of the two, their sarcophagi. The PC can then either deal with the diminished number of draugr directly, or return in a week once the ones sealed outside of their resting places have perished again.
Drawbacks: The entire tomb complex might count as their tomb, the sarcophagi might just be "individual beds". In this case, catching the most napping would be the more prudent measure. Also, the druagr might be able to break open their sarcophagi (they are kinda strong and some might have picks), and rest anyway.
Plan 3 - The Steam House
Now, I know you've previously said "But steam does damage!", but hear me out. What it's not doing is //fire// damage. Things shouldn't be catching on fire and thus taking even more damage. Sure, leather armor, scrolls, flimsy stuff will probably be destroyed/unusable/worthless, but the metal armor, weapons, and jewelry should survive pretty hardily.
Drawbacks: Steam isn't in DFRPG. Also, it's a big area and the draugr are likely to shelter in their sarcophagi (but that's when enterprising Fire Resistant/Heat Resistant Wizards use Earth magic to seal them in!).
Plan 4 - Wall World
Using Shape Earth, or even Create Earth followed by Earth to Stone, wall off the areas within the tomb complex (it's one big room right? So bisect it a lot). Only so many draugr can fit in each area, so once you've got them sectioned off into smaller groups, take them out in bite sized chunks area by area.
Drawbacks: Of them all, this is the most energy intensive plan. However a pair of Wizards, working together with topped up FP, PF, and a belt full of potions (or Clerics with Lend Energy), should be able to pull this off pretty easily. One advantage is, if the draugr cannot break the stone walls down easily, the Wizards can even rest in between walling areas off. Might need to have Earth Vision up, so that's an added cost, maybe hire an Apprentice who knows Earth Vision just for this purpose...
Crazy Plan 5 - The Undead are Undead right? Right?
Why isn't Gerry figuring out how to turn these guys into minions? Gerry, get on it man. If Turn Spirit is to Turn Zombie, then Command (Spirit) should be to Command Zombie.. right? Find that spell! Draugr minions await thee!
Drawbacks: I can see no way this could backfire on Gerry in any manner, hilarious or otherwise. [innocent whistling]
Just quick notes, in case my players (or other readers) wonder:
DeletePlan 1: Turn Zombie won't affect draugr.
Crazy Plan 5: There isn't a spell that'll do what you're suggesting Gerry do.
The others . . . they can try them. The issue has largely been the draugr don't wait quietly while wizards (or others) do stuff, nor stay confined to their room once they're up.
I think what the group needs to do is maximize as many advantages as it can, and do what it can--and there may not be much--to dictate the terms of battle instead of having the Draugr dictate them. Easier said than done. It's not about figuring out a puzzle (it's not a puzzle), but taking more of a Sun Tzu approach and less of a "I'm sure everything will be fine if we just go down there and beat them up" approach.
DeleteAlso, Ulf's priorities are a little bit different than perhaps the rest of the group. He wants to eradicate them, and if fire gets it done, he likes that, even if it melts some of their gold necklaces and such. Loot drives the XP gain, and we certainly need loot, but his motivations (given his various disadvantages, such as Compulsive Generosity, Selfless, Sense of Duty: Adventuring Companions, and Sense of Duty: Coreligionists) means that his goals are: (1) Eradication of Draugr; (2) Keep Everyone Alive; (3) get loot. So he's 100% fine with using alchemist's fire, explosive fireballs, etc.
DeleteRelated: I think the flaming missiles would help just for Galen to pile on the damage--not that they would light Dragur on fire. I also feel like people have to be systematic in choosing their targets, and not merely engaging in five or six not one-on-one fights to the extent we can do that. Three guys can attack one Dragur as well as Galen from the back. Lots of guys can do multiple attacks. They have sacrificial block and such, but if we can focus fire and take out one per round, great. Probably can't, at least not initially, but maybe in later rounds it can be done, maybe even one or two a round if they are badly wounded to start. So long as people aren't crippled, we can do a lot of healing and they can't (as far as we know...they *apparently* have no magic, but maybe we just haven't seen it yet).
It's still an extraordinarily difficult battle due to the size of the forces (33 or 30 vs. 8 to 11). The trick will be when they withdraw...as they will...and force the crew to come into the room and expose themselves to potentially being surrounded. If there is a way to avoid that, or delay that until we are closer in numbers due to blinding or other Draugr casualties, we've got a shot at doing it with minimal casualties. And the casualties are a legitimate concern not just because we want everyone to come back, but because of the battlefield. If one or two people go down, it can be really hard to withdraw, and if we can't withdraw, it can easily lead to a TPK. So that's the challenge.
It's maximizing the advantages and accepting that the enemy will partly dictate battle and you can partly dictate battle. So far, the group has been unwilling to continue to fight if the draugr manage to dicate any part of the fight. Actually, that's been true in more than one case, as if the enemy getting a vote means the PCs must exercise the veto of fleeing. Not always - the last Lord of Spite fight was a counter-example - but often enough.
DeleteIt's the last bit that gets you guys so often - "If one or two people go down, it can be really hard to withdraw, and if we can't withdraw, it can easily lead to a TPK. So that's the challenge."
DeleteThat can be read as, we can't fight any battle we can't win without casualties. Because any casualties can mean an inability to withdraw, and an inability to withdraw means a potential TPK, and a TPK is disaster, so any casualties is disaster. That makes for a powerful, but very fragile, group of adventurers. It's understandable but it contributes to the situation you're in with the draugr, the beholder, the dragons (all three), the dwellers down the second staircase, the golems, the orc village . . .
Hirelings can help with anchoring flanks and pulling the fallen to safety. The Draugr are loaded enough you could afford some hirelings
Delete"Crazy Plan 5: There isn't a spell that'll do what you're suggesting Gerry do."
DeleteDF tries very hard to replicate all the feeling and tropes of early [A]D&D. One of those is that the spells in the books are just examples and anything is possible if the character puts in the time and money to research/invent the new spell they want. Are you saying that the books are the end all of what is possible in your game and players add to the setting but not the spell lists?
Personally I like Gerry but feel he's been stagnant for most of his career. I don't see growth (there has actually been shrinkage of capabilities from being denied the evil skull spirit). I'm all for seeing Gerry add some great new minions to his repertoire if the GM and party mores allow.
"Are you saying that the books are the end all of what is possible in your game and players add to the setting but not the spell lists?"
DeleteMore or less. My players have suggested spells and we've modified spells based on suggestions, but there isn't any in-game new spell development in my game at all, on purpose. "Is there a spell for that?" then becomes "I'll make a spell for that, let's wait until I can make that spell." Ugh.
"And the more "we'll order 2-3 scrolls of (X)" that happen, the more likely I am to eventually change it so I don't have to deal with the old "I flip through my list of 30-odd scrolls I'm carrying at all times to find a spell that might work.""
ReplyDeleteI find that with enough exp, Wizards eventually start to become this anyway. Though I do have a Wizard I'm playing with over 60 spells, and I keep finding there are so many spells I don't have... (Too much of "I'm only going 5-6 spells deep in the this college right now, because i just want [X] spell" means you have an awful lot of bs spells that aren't worth your time.)
It's fine if someone spends XP to do it. That cuts down on a lot of spells because the player doesn't see repeat value in it. With scrolls, why not just spend a little cash on a "just in case" spell?
DeleteSo I want to make it clear there is a limit.