Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7465018" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Tackli,g it from both rules and as a GM1 Keg has flaws, bonds, ideals etc and giving herself disad on a specific combat set vs a specific foe is imo just fine. It would earn the rewards for such in my games. Personally, i felt she did show how dsngerous she thought they were many times.2 Strikes against downed foes are iirc auto crits and autofail death saves. So even with just one attack, its just two saves down. So, by the rules Matt just rolled thru it narratively, not mechanically. As GM unless there were PCs in a position to do something about it, i would do the same. Key being, that scene would not have been better with 10 minutes to run a round for a two strikes down death save followed by a save that if they made it would be pointless due to the final strike.3 - I wont get into debating how much of CR is work vs shoot. During the scene prior to the death, Matt did i think a great job of showing Lorenzo as focused on Keg and treating the others as secondary. I felt the surrender of Keg served as the pivot point for the scene and how it played out simply flowed directly from how Lorenzo had been played. I did not ser it as a "dialed it back gm" but as a case of follow-thru and highlighting that not every conflict is about "kill them all" when sern outside the context of video games.What i saw was a strange case of players and characters acting very odd and disjpinted, coming up with a plan that was bad on many organic levels, convincing themselves it was good, then sticking to it way way way long after seeing its not what we expect.As soon as i saw "Nott wont be fighting" and thought thru how key he is usually to their offense, i knew we were heading to very bad outcomes.</blockquote>

Verification