The length of the adventure. My game was 4 hours in and the PCs were just reaching the tomb and had not even entered it! My players and I thought these adventures would be short, similar to society scenarios, but the length alone makes this long. Add to that the general lack of split-second rules decisions and having to look rules up using a format that is not that great makes the game run twice as long. My players are not in favor of continuing with the playtest, unfortunately, and would rather get back to the Kingmaker AP. I hate this, but the playtest may be better served by hardcore players who have the time, brains, and motivation to continue, especially now that the adventures are getting higher level, which will really slow down play I imagine.
The story is great. The overall adventure is great. However, the combat just took far too long and hurt the fun experience, not to mention the resonance point issue.
I really like that the characters had a chance to spot the Ankheg's nest; but it wasn't clear whether or not the PCs also had to spot the quicksand, because when they spotted the nest, the doubled back and went around to avoid the next- it was unclear if the quicksand was part of the Ankheg encounter or a separate encounter far from the nest. I really like the simplicity of the monster stats in that they offer a couple of options without overloading the statblock with unnecessary junk. The monsters certainly hit harder and more often than PF1, which makes it more challenging. However, being PF1 players, the PCs are so used to mostly dominating they are having a difficult time with these new rules. I am all for pairing back from PF1 the munchkin syndrome, but when level 4 characters go down so early in the adventure the game bogs down and becomes un-fun (I'm going to copyright this phrase). The characters were scared to death to run out of resonance points and really hated this mechanic. The ranger, due to low charisma, couldn't even take a healing potion without making the check. Also, his animal companion could not drink a potion?! This is ridiculous. We could not find if a creature didn't have resonance points to begin with whether they could even drink a potion. I allowed it, but it failed its check and could not be healed. This just seems punitive.
This may have been a product of the rules still being new, but the confusion on where to find certain rules as written, combined with the difficulty of the encounters, made for a rough time for the PCs. I believe the difficulty stems in large part from the poor tactics and lack of rules knowledge- the poor tactics leading to harm and lack of knowledge leading to frustration and ultimately simply being glad when the party TPKd.
I believe the encounters should be set up more for those who have less experience playing. For example, the gnoll encampment: I had the scorpion hiding in the shade of one of the tents, while the 2 gnolls were laying about near one of the tents. They did not initially spot the PCs; the PCs moved up to investigate, then left. Upon leaving, they failed their stealth and the gnolls saw them and I had them go to the bank of the river and fire arrows. The text did not provide much instruction on their actions. As an experienced GM I know how to infer things, but I'm certain new players would not. All of the encounters that were encountered took far too long and got boring. So boring, in fact, nobody had fun. Granted, the tactics of the 4 PCs were not that great, but the gnolls were hitting hard and, sensically, stayed on the bank firing arrows while the scorpion closed in to melee. The wizard, being played by someone with zero wizard experience, was knocked unconscious due to being too close to the fray. The manticore battle also took long and was boring for the PCs. They mostly had to shoot arrows which is just boring. The Ranger lost their animal companion. When they reached the cliffside encounter with Zafka, the difficulty of that encounter was so great that when the barbarian was knocked unconscious, the other 3 fell rather quickly.
Can spellcasters hold a spell? It’s unclear. For instance, produce flame. Can a wizard cast this and hold it until next turn?
Some guidance on the DCs on some of the skills is necessary, especially Handle Animal.
My players and I do not do secret rolls- I let the players roll unless there is a very specific, narrative reason for not doing so.
As I’ll stat elsewhere, it appears Paizo has formed In Pale Mountain’s Shadow to see how less maps and more encounters does, especially since they ask this question in the survey and mention it in the scenario. Lessening encounters is always a boon. Providing maps for the GM is always a boon which allows them (me) to save time. This would also be an opportunity for Paizo to sell maps. I’d imagine smaller maps (not those clunky 6x3 map packs) that have a single encounter could sell well.
I ignored most of the map directions for the encounters. I instead just pulled out my purchased maps and used those, modifying them somewhat. There was no way I was going to go by the detailed “put 5x5 trap here just past x spot near river” wordage to draw my map. I did draw the manticore fight, ignoring most details given on that one, too.
We had trouble finding rules for how long demoralize through intimidation lasted for.
We do not like the death and dying rules, even the updated version. For GMs, keeping track of a DC for the player who was knocked unconscious is annoying; for players, they said they hate that one creature could do all the damage to them while another creature could come over and tap them with a weapon and knock them unconscious, with that creature’s DC being the recovery check. Moving the knocked-out player’s initiative is also annoying.
We could not find any rules on the range of scent. We assumed 30 feet.
Does the Ranger’s animal companion also die upon reaching Dying 4?
Using the word “bolster” is not intuitive. For example, if using the feat Battle Medic, the subject you’ve used it on is bolstered. That implies a benefit. However, bolstered is a negative in thsi instance because you can’t use it again on that creature.
Since the survey asked if we’d rather have more encounters over more maps, I’d opt for the maps. More encounters really slows down gameplay and makes the game boring. I’ve also noticed the lessening of encounters in society play and the play has been fantastic. I believe lessening the combat encounters is beneficial. This is a roleplaying game, so there should be an equal amount ro roleplaying with the combat. In combat, players have to sit and wait for their turn, which provides them an opportunity for distraction which slows the game down.
If a whole team of rule lawyers is needed to figure out how to use a simple, first level feat, then it might need a rewrite.
Please, in the monster stat blocks, list out iterative attacks with penalties included.
I don’t understand the lack of coup de grace actions on an unconscious creature. Armor should have zero impact on this.
I also don’t understand the physical armor adding to touch AC. If the point is to offer a barrier, then why wouldn’t someone just buy a snuggie and wear it. That’s a barrier but wouldn’t offer any AC protection.
PC ability scores are starting to appear very similar among those of the same class. I’m not sure this is a good thing.
I’m quickly not becoming a fan of perception being such an aggregate skill for so many checks. Appraising? Silly.
A druid needs to have wildshape at first level. That’s part of the fun of a druid. It’d be ok to nerf it at level 1, but at least make it available.
Nobody likes the fact that you “grow” more elvish, or more dwarvish. Becoming more like the ancestry you already are doesn’t make sense.
I think more than anything, there needs to be a way to expand your signature skills, and have at least some choice in them at level 1. Signature skills aren't a bad idea if they have a little more flexibility.
“Negative healing” not defined, although I know what this means. A new player does not.
I want to reiterate one important point before closing: lessen the number of combat encounters. 5 hours of play is probably the max for a group to have fun with. If there are too many encounters, this becomes UN FUN. Every single game I’ve played in over the years have been very fun (in society play) when there were 3 or less combat encounters. This allows time for roleplaying (frankly, if your group doesn’t enjoy roleplaying, than the GM can simply increase the monster stats or add monsters and encounters.) In my long experience, the more players have “downtime” between turns of combat, the more they become bored, distracted, and uncaring, especially when higher levels see increases in numbers of combatants. Listen, I really enjoy combat encounters and so do my players, but not 8 of them.
To close, my group will probably not participate in the next part of Doomsday Dawn unless there are some significant changes. Not because we are mad at Paizo( we love Paizo) but because we aren't having fun doing it. Listen, we all realize 100% this is a playtest and meant to stress the system, but if people aren’t having fun doing it, Paizo will be losing out a bit (of course, maybe it should just be hardcore gamers stressing the system!). I would love to be a part of a hardcore playtest group, but my players are unfortunately not this type, and if they aren’t having fun, I’m not having fun. Once again before the hate comes, we know this is a playtest, but if people aren’t having fun doing it then obviously there is a large chunk of feedback paizo won’t be getting. I hope the chinks can be worked out and will pay attention to all the feedback of the 3rd part and eagerly await the twitch stream updates, which are great. Jason is doing one hell of a job as well as everyone else, Mark included who lives on the forum apparently.
P.S.- just read that the PFS Playtest scenarios are a great way to playtest without “playtesting” and when the new updates are out, I’ll be trying one of these for my groups.
