Magnus Arcanus's page

I'm not bragging - actually the opposite.

I manage to average out to a TPK every three sessions (or approximately 12 hours of game time). This is across different groups and different Adventure Paths.
So I'm left wondering - is it just me? Am I a Killer GM when it comes to running Pathfinder 2e? Or is it the Adventure Paths that are extremely difficult? (I was running Age of Ashes and then Extinction Curse.)
But in the process, I've managed to sour three different groups (more than a dozen people) on Pathfinder 2e.
Has anyone else had a similar experience?

As a GM who has had more TPKs running PF2e in the last two years versus the 20 years of GMing prior to it, I will say that, yeah a TPK every three sessions is very high.

Age of Ashes is known for being brutal at times (and yup, I had another TPK of a 15th level party that I adjusted on the fly to avoid). Yet even with all of its brutality, entire parties should not be dying every third session. If you are able to give some specifics, it would help maybe pinpoint some areas for improvement.

Question about the Creature Ability Sneak Attack. It reads:

When the monster Strikes a creature that has the flat-footed condition with an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, or a ranged weapon attack, it also deals the listed precision damage. For a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, that weapon must also be an agile or finesse weapon.

I was having a discussion where the other side said they think that when creatures have the sneak attack ability and it says "They deal XdY precision damage to flat-footed creatures" that the flat-footed extra text is a specific override to the creature ability, and thus their sneak attack works on any strike, not only those with finesse/agile/ranged.

Is there any clarification about this?

The "other side" you are discussing this is wrong. No clarification is needed or required.

18 str 10 dex, no dex bonus ^^

I'm waiting for an heavier armor indeed :)

Took ranged reprisal indeed, to expand the usefullness to 1.5m reach :)

But still it's meh, I hoped for an active skill, not a reactive one. If the GM want to screw us the only thing he has to do is attacking me. I'm not the tank thefore I don't have the highest AC and Retributive is useless :/ But I will deal with it :)

Except Champions are designed to be one of the best (if not THE best) tank classes in the game. You need to get full plate armor as fast as you possibly can with your build as you need the highest AC you can get. Your party should sell all the loot they can find to help you get plate mail. I'd try to get full plate before you hit level 2, it is that important.

I know you also like the 2H weapon deal, but a shield can increase your AC by +2, which is huge. It also opens up the Shield Block reaction to stop even more damage (but you only get one reaction a turn, so keep that aspect in mind).

Champions are built to have access to the best AC in the game. Attack the Champion? Great, I have the best AC. Don't attack the Champion? Great, I have reactions that can punish that behavior.

Mathmuse wrote:

Ah, avoiding unnecessary combat is another favorite of my players, though it is a strategy rather than a tactic. They interacting with NPCs, explore unknown enemy territory, and gather information from factions to learn the lay of the land before they approach combat. And often they decide that they can skip that combat. They would be low on experience from skipping so many encounters, except that due to their mastery of tactics I beef up the encounters that they do face, and they earn extra experience from the bigger battles.

Ahh, that's a good point. Our group is very fond of coming up with creative, offbeat, or (at times) downright crazy ideas for finagling encounters and challenges to bypass combat rather than fight. We love outwitting a situation or trying unexpected approaches. And the GM (not the same as the Age of Ashes GM, by the way) appreciates it... but then he unhappily informs us that, per the box text, our PCs therefore get no XP for the encounter, and certainly no treasure. And worse yet, we often fail to obtain the vital plot point needed to progress to the next stage of the story.

So maybe we need to discuss with him some greater flexibility on 'not sticking with the story sequence as written.'

Are you sure this is a different GM (rhetorical question)?

There is nothing so rigid in an Adventure Path as you are describing above. While I can't claim to have run Agents of Edgewatch, I am running Age of Ashes, there has never been any "boxed text" that says the players get no experience if they fail to solve an encounter as it is "written." Air quotes are intentional on that last part because often there is nothing specifically written about how an encounter is to be solved; instead the GM is given a set up, and is really up to the GM and the PCs to figure what happens next. Experience from such encounters should be awarded if the PCs defeat or neutralize the encounter.

For example, if a PC druid used Wild Empathy to convince an animal in the area (that was, as written, an encounter in the Adventure Path) to leave the PCs alone, I'd certainly award XP for 'defeating' the creature.

Another example, lets say the PCs find a way to use Stealth and Guile to sneak past a room full of guards they otherwise would have had to fight. This is potentially worth XP in my view.

As for equipment, if a GM notices PCs are missing loot from an encounter because of how it went down, they should be making up that loot in some other way. I've on many occasions just moved loot from one encounter to a different encounter as needed. In fact, I've often looked to make such loot 'earned' rather than found, by having it in the hands of an enemy they just fought and defeated.

Please correct me if I'm wrong: A character starting their turn near a wall of fire could move into it, run along the entirety of its length, then step out again on the same side they entered, ending their turn and taking absolutely no damage whatsoever.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say not only do I think RD is 100% correct, I think his interpretation is exactly what the designers intended.

The purpose for a Wall of Fire is to control the battlefield, restricting someone from moving through an area. If all a person is doing is moving laterally along the wall then the wall has served its purpose; e.g. "Thou shall not... PASS!!"

The spell could have easily been written to inflict damage immediately upon entering its space. It wasn't.

Wasp Venom (poison) Saving Throw Fortitude DC 21; Maximum Duration 6 rounds; Stage 1 1d6 poison (1 round); Stage 2 2d6 poison and clumsy 2 (2 rounds)

Emphasis added

That poison lasts a maximum of six rounds. Following that duration any conditions associated with it expire.

This past weekend, our group failed the end-boss fight against Belmazog & Kyrion and failed hard... so hard they decided to drop the Adventure Path entirely.

That is unfortunate to hear. I have some questions about this fight:

The enemy priests all opened with multiple Fireballs affecting the whole party, four in sequence. (Gotta love that huge radius!) Two PCs dropped before getting a single action. The enemy priests then followed with cones of fire breath for their second actions, further toasting the entire party; the healer had no chance of keeping up with that damage output, especially on top of the dragon-skull's blasts.

How many dragon priests did you face? As written there are two, and in a different post you mentioned your GM is running encounters as written, and not scaling them up for your party size.

Were there more than two dragon priests?

The melee warriors got a few bad rolls, and the arcane caster's spells all failed (which we're used to; no enemy in Book 2, where "every fight's a boss fight," has failed a save that we've seen). Belmazog didn't really have to do anything.

Can you clarify what you mean "the spells all failed"? The fights in book are not all "boss fights" by any stretch. Many of the encounters in the jungle are rated Severe, mostly because they are the only fight the PCs will have in the adventuring day, but even that aspect is misleading; the XP of the encounters include the Dragon Pillars. Once you know how the pillars work (and their glaring weakness), they are easy to dispatch.

I'm also struggling to understand how all monsters are saving against spells. This sounds like hyperbole to me. There is often a tendency to remember the bad rolls while forgetting the good ones.

There are no fights against L+3 monsters in Module 2, only a few L+2 fights. Even against an L+2 creature, spells should be landing 40% - 50% of the time.

Afterward, the GM filled us in on the storyline conclusion of what would have happened if we'd won:

GM: "So in looting the place, you find this starknife that looks super-special. In fact, after a bunch of Arcana checks you somehow determine that it's the key to one of the other elfgates."
Players: "Umm... okay? But we weren't looking for another key to begin with."
GM: "Yeah. Still, there it is."
Players: "... Right. Uhh, guess we take it along. And then go home. Because we're not seized with a mad desire to test out every gate. We took down the Cult of Dahak, yay, curse on the valley's broken, we win, we go home to Breachhill."
GM: "Yeah, I get ya. Not really sure how this is supposed to lead anywhere else...."

That is a pretty bad summary by your GM; there is far more exposition the PCs learn than just "you find a starknife". To be fair, it does require the players to be motivated to want to unravel a mystery.

Good tactics? The frontliners block for the others; the skirmisher grabs and trips; the bard Inspires Courage; the dedicated healer heals; the arcane caster blasts. And it doesn't do a blessed bit of good, the PCs get steamrolled time and time again.

Something is seriously off if your GM is running encounters as is for six PC band (e.g. no adjustment for group size) and your party is consistently getting steamrolled. Your group should be routing those encounters.

The tactics you described at high level sound reasonable, so I really have to think there are core aspects of the game rules that are being missed.

According to the GM:

*The dragon was at very low HP and had a single attack, which all the enemy priests were immune to anyway.
*The skull was not a trap, so Thievery wouldn't work on it.
*Dispel Magic would have required a check against a DC that the wizard couldn't beat.

I'm currently GMing Cult of Cinders. And your GM is Flat. Out. Wrong. Full Stop. Period.

The dragon is low on HP, and has a bunch of nasty conditions, but he's still a level 10 red dragon, with three actions per turn to make attacks (or do other things). Further I have no idea where your GM got the dragon can't make attacks that hurt the dragon priests; they are immune to fire, not physical damage. Also note, Belmazog isn't immune fire.

Regarding the Skull, I am completely lost. The stat block not only has the Trap trait, it has the the Disable DC for Thievery checks. Same story for the dispel magic; the DC is only 22 and its a 4th level effect, so a 3rd level Dispel Magic will work on it 75% the time for an optimized 8th level wizard.

Hammerjack quoted the answer. Magnus Arcanus is just bitter about the discussion thread linked earlier.

I am bitter about a lot of things.

Posters I've never met before on a random Pathfinder thread is most certainly not one of them.

But thanks for thinking of me!

I think naratively the critical mechanic is good and it makes the dice rolls more interesting.

To each their own, I've never been one to like mechanics that are based on high dice variance. It makes for an unpredictable game and often robs players of their chance to shine.

Given the

For me the consequnce is that I have to play with really tight levels on the monsters. As a GM I prefer to run with a smaller number of higher level monsters as it is just easier to manage. But that should be done sparily as it is too hard for the PCs to get hits and successes of their own. Especially the casters.

The best fights I've run are large numbers of low level beasties with a couple of equal level commanders.

You really do need to talk to your players about the mechanical tactics in the game(trip, demoralise, etc, etc). Or just do it to them - from a lower level - till they get it. Fighting up level is very hard.

Folks, I need to stress my group fully understands how to use buffs and debuffs. When fighting above your weight class your options are limited. The bard is buffing as much as he can. The wizard will use things like Befuddle on bad guys since it even has an effect on a successful save. That said, there is still only so much you can do.

I'll also add, as a GM I've got enough on my plate just prepping and running published material (admittedly at the moment heavily modified but hoping to get the AP back on track). I do not need to add even more to my busy life trying to micromanage mechanics in the rules set will that slaughter PCs if you are not extremely careful.

Moving the Topic back. I am huge Pathfinder 2 fan. More choices each class, the architype system is great. Critical hits and misses if you hit or miss by 10. To me it is the best d20 game bar none.

Its interesting because I find the -/+10 crit mechanic to be highly problematic.

Consider the encounter I have planned for my PCs next. I've been waffling about making it a fight of an L+3 vs an L+2, as it is a 'boss' monster of the scene the PCs are now in.

If I make it L+3, against the raging barbarian in the group it on a roll of 11+, the beastie crits. The raging barbarian against the beastie, roll of 13 or less and barby misses.

L+3 just doesn't feel fun nor heroic for the PCs.

RAW yes, you're right...

But if you told me that I couldn't attempt to stab a creature that was grabbing me I would probably be very upset as a player.

I can certainly agree, and its why I asked about it. I could see my players getting annoyed fast. I've been clear to my table at the outset that I play "Rules as Written" not "Rules as we think they should be interpreted".

Basically because it's nonsense that you can't attack something touching you because it's out of "reach".

There is a lot of nonsense in the PF2e rules set unfortunately. At least this one has some guidance on the issue.

Page 474, where size and reach are explained, suggests not running this in a clearly illogical manner.

Quote:

The Space entry lists how many feet on a side a creature’s space is, so a Large creature fills a 10-foot-by-10-foot space (4 squares on the grid). Sometimes part of a creature extends beyond its space, such as if a giant octopus is grabbing you with its tentacles. In that case, the GM will usually allow attacking the extended portion, even if you can’t reach the main creature. A Small or larger creature or object takes up at least 1 square on a grid, and creatures of these sizes can’t usually share spaces except in situations like a character riding a mount. Rules for moving through other creatures’ spaces appear below.

I was hoping for something more definitive, but this section in the rules does address it somewhat.

More of an editorial, I am disappointed how often they've chosen to burden the GM with "Usually, you as the GM can just make a decision..."

I also want to highlight the fact that the party listed was a Monk, Ranger, Cleric, and Alchemist. This party is probably one of the worst possible I could pick for that specific encounter.

Monk and (ranged) Ranger are good in damage, but probably aren't going to be tossing out much buffs/debuffs. Trying to get off a Trip is probably the best I'd expect from a Monk in that.
Cleric is good in healing, and has other spells, but the divine list is really not good at dealing with higher-level things, especially not at this level. Heroism is level 3, and even if they'd prepared for it Cleric can only really toss out Fear and Bless to help numbers.
I'm a lot less hard on Alchemist than others might be, but it's not a good debuffer. Lesser Mistform Elixir, Moderate Drakeheart Mutagen, and bombs are really the things I'd be looking at here.

Altogether, looking at it, this party really doesn't have many ways of affecting numbers. It also struggles on hindering enemy actions, which is super important in a level+3 fight - because every one of the enemy's actions is worth 3-4 of your own, stripping them of actions in any way possible is crucial.
So more than anything, the outcome of any difficult fight with this party lies in how they can use the environment to their advantage, and they're also going to have to retreat and reprepare a lot more than a more balanced party might.

The encounter in question took place months ago, before the APG was even out, so some of the alchemist options you mention weren't even a thing.

The PCs did what they could to limit its actions (going from memory here, again this fight is months old) and avoided giving it three attacks every round except the first (where the confused monk didn't get a choice). Tactics were not the issue.

Deth Braedon wrote:

but given RL commitments, investing the time to pre-vet, then adjust the AP is a non-starter

I’d love to full blown homebrew GM a game for our group
currently not viable

so we are playing ‘straight out of the box’

I mean what's wrong with adjusting on the fly? It's pretty easy to look down see CL 7 against a Party of 4th level characters and go "Hmm... this might be too strong, better take a little mustard off this guy. -1 across the board.'

It's not like modifying an encounter takes some huge rework in PF2, almost always "-1 to everything" translates to a CL X - 1 (at least most of the time).

Tough to argue with you there, though at the time I ran the encounter, I was still pretty green to PF2 (as were the players). It is easy to see how bad that encounter can go after the fact. At the time it took place, when you're knee deep in trying to keep a session going, its much easier to lose sight of the big picture.

The player who wanted throw in the towel after become confused did NOT in any way want to leave the moment a negative [event] happened to them. That comment is disingenuous.

Early in the battle the monk failed his save vs confusion, and the player was ready to quit right there on the spot.

Your exact words.

yes, they are, which is why I provided the context to understand why the player was so frustrated. I interpreted comments in this thread to imply the player in question was simply 'leaving at the first moment a negative event happened' to his character, and that the player was being unsporting.

In fact, the player in question showed a lot of patience in my view.

But I am also not going to argue about it. I probably should not have used the word disingenuous, it was more antagonistic than I intended to be.

While low level you had a grueling fight against a boss (one player wanted to leave the moment a negative happened to them) and won because you got crits. To most people that would be an awesome memorable encounter, the nature of fights in a d20 system.

You don't like that though.

I've been reading this thread, and I am the GM who ran the encounter that is being discussed here.

Since this does discuss an AP encounter, I am going to go ahead and spoiler alert here.

The triad knows the locations of each gate linked to Alseta's Ring (save perhaps Lotusgate's). Part of the reason Laslunn is in Ravounel in the first place is to keep an eye on Dreamgate.

Where I am missing this aspect in the Adventure Path? I thought it said that Laslunn was placed 3rd in command of the Triad and co-opted the slave trade in Cheliax. However she opted to start in Ravounel, knowing the Chelish slave trade networks are still around, just pushed underground due to Ravounel's new government.

There is one sentence description in Hellnight Hill about how the leader of the Scarlet Triad has an agent in Ravounel to keep watch on Dreamgate, but this is sort of at odds with the above and further the description of the exit out of Dreamgate is a simple cavern "empty and long forgotten"

I am just having some trouble wrapping my head around what the Triad knows or doesn't know about the gates, and the motivations of Laslunn. If she (and by extension the Scarlet Triad) do not know of Dreamgate, then it is pure coincidence that the PCs stumble upon her operations in Ravounel, doubly so since the gate just happened to spit them out where one of her lieutenants is rampaging.

If she does know about it, then she provoked the PCs, knowing they very well might just come directly to Ravounel and disrupt her operation, an operation she has been trying to keep under the radar.

Hi All,

So I am currently running this Adventure Path, with my group still jungle stomping in Cult of Cinders. I however like to have a sense of where things go next, so I've started reading module #3.

Near as I can tell, the Scarlet Triad is unaware of the existence of Eclipse, and that Dreamgate opens to Ravounel. Is this supposition correct? Just based on the behavior of Laslunn, but also the description of the exit from Dreamgate, suggests that the Scarlet Triad does not know of the existence of an Auidara gate in Ravounel.

So I wanted to share my party's encounter with Ralldar. This was a new party, after the first was TPK'd by Voz.

Party composition is:
Elf Alchemist
Human Cleric
Half Elf Monk
Half Elf Range w/ bird Animal companion.

In brief it went badly. Very dissatisfying experience for everyone at the table.

Two rounds into the fight, Alchemist player noticed that Ralldar had a +17 bonus to hit (we are using roll20, and this information is readily gleaned at my table). Then he made his own attack, rolled a 13 and missed. That was enough for this player. He open stated "I think we just flee. There is no point. This thing can fairly easily one shot me. I just rolled a 13 and missed, this thing hits me a on 4."

The other players at the table were equally frustrated, but the encounter kept going for a couple more rounds, mostly disorganized as nobody really made up their minds "Are we running or not?". Cleric player at the table remarked "There is no running. We are as optimized as we are going to get, we are not going to level up, we have to get past this if we want to continue the adventure."

Eventually, players started to withdraw, but the cleric had only a 15' move rate due to armor. Ralldar was going to chase him down, and then the Alchemist player from above said "You're not going to let the PCs even flee? If that is what is going to happen, I think I am done with this game." I can flesh this part out more if people want more context, it was a fairly complicated series of events that lead to this situation in the end.

At that point I ended the session, and we spent the final hour of the session discussing PF2 (all the players are new to it), what the game is predicated on, and that a solo level +3 encounter, while brutal, is expected by the game design to be something the PCs can (and will) face (and expect to be able to defeat).

After a lengthy discussion, I convinced the players to give the encounter one more crack, essentially a complete do over. I am hoping it will go better.

So I wanted to share my experiences with running this adventure thus far. Overall its been enjoyable, but my players finally hit the buzzsaw that is PF2 when fighting higher level bad guys, and it was a TPK during the fight with Voz. One of the PCs in question was taken out in one shot by Voz on a crit failure vs Vampiric Touch, and this PC was at full hit points.

The players have all agreed they want to keep playing with new characters and more or less pick up where we left off. I am tossing around a lot of ideas for hooks. A few aspects I want to incorporate are:

- The game world is not going to wait for the PCs. In this instance, Voz has accomplished her goal of finding Alsata's Ring

- She of course would also find the trapped Cinderclaws. I am thinking she is able to negotiate enough with Malarunk, with promises that she can fix the portal

- With the portal restored, the Cinderclaws are able to send reinforcements through the gate and become a major threat to Breachill, perhaps even launching a major attack that does **significant** damage before they are force to retreat back to the Hellknight keep

I would welcome any ideas here, including the rejection of all of the above!

Thanks!

So I've been running this AP adventure for a few weeks now, overall it is going well.

PCs have just cleaned up the main level of Citadel Altaerein, and returned Calmont to town to face justice. The Bumblebrasher tribe has instructed them where the secret door to the vault level can be found and they will be delving down there soon to liberate the Bumblebrasher's home.

One aspect I am having a little trouble wrapping my head around is the crypt section of the vaults. The undead that have risen there is a result of Voz tampering with things she should not have, which is fine, makes sense to me. But it appears as written, grave robbing is not something that would not have activated the necromatic ward, nor does it upset the risen undead guardians. In fact, as long as the PCs are wearing some kind of Hellknight regalia, they can loot to their heart's content, without danger from the undead hellknights.

Further, Alak seems, at worst, mildly put out by the concept of the PCs raiding the tombs of his order's esteemed dead. Only if they really start getting their full grave robbing on does he start to make a fuss.

I know the Order of the Nail abandoned the citadel, but I am still struggling a little bit with this concept that using a necromatic ritual to commune with the corpses is a desecration of the dead, but tossing their crypts looking for loot is not.

Anyone have any thoughts on this one? And for those that have already ran this part of the adventure any issues with suspension of disbelief?