I just want to mention that in The Skinsaw Murders, it's written twice that the group should be level 6 when starting the part of the adventure in Magnimar: once on page 40, and once in room D6. So I think they already made it pretty clear.
They did. That leads us back to the point that the estimated CR's were inaccurate.
"And, I don't need a whole lot of word count to give me a head's up (that's your concern right, excessive word count devoted to this?).. but a brief pointer isn't a horrible thing either."
I think you and SirUza are heading down a blind alley in any case. CR+4 is not necessarily an inappropriate CR for a BBEG. a PC group should be able to beat such an encounter - though their going to have to utilize all their resources without hesitation to pull it off.
The problem with Xesha, and in other encounters like this in the APs, is that the creature is not really a CR 10 at all but much more powerful. The designers can't give you fair warning. I'm sure James and the crew would have toned her down if they had realized what they had created.
Similarly they would not have put in the Advanced Eye of the Deep in Savage Tide if they had really clued into the fact the creatures stunning gave attack had a DC so high that the whole party would simply be perpetually stunned and dispatched by the creature with ease.
In the opposite extreme we were all warned in Age of Worms that the Lizard Folk where way above the PCs EL and this was a very dangerous encounter. In reality the encounter is a joke - the PCs will roll over the Lizard Folk with ease.
So fair warning really is not really, if the authours realized what they had created they would not have added text telling us that this was a brutally tough fight - they'd have instead toned the encounter down so that it was appropreate and there would therefore be no need for such text.
"And, I don't need a whole lot of word count to give me a head's up (that's your concern right, excessive word count devoted to this?).. but a brief pointer isn't a horrible thing either."I think you and SirUza are heading down a blind alley in any case. CR+4 is not necessarily an inappropriate CR for a BBEG. a PC group should be able to beat such an encounter - though their going to have to utilize all their resources without hesitation to pull it off.
The problem with Xesha, and in other encounters like this in the APs, is that the creature is not really a CR 10 at all but much more powerful. The designers can't give you fair warning. I'm sure James and the crew would have toned her down if they had realized what they had created.
Similarly they would not have put in the Advanced Eye of the Deep in Savage Tide if they had really clued into the fact the creatures stunning gave attack had a DC so high that the whole party would simply be perpetually stunned and dispatched by the creature with ease.
In the opposite extreme we were all warned in Age of Worms that the Lizard Folk where way above the PCs EL and this was a very dangerous encounter. In reality the encounter is a joke - the PCs will roll over the Lizard Folk with ease.
So fair warning really is not really, if the authours realized what they had created they would not have added text telling us that this was a brutally tough fight - they'd have instead toned the encounter down so that it was appropreate and there would therefore be no need for such text.
You're right Jeremy. I formally concede the matter. Not that I'm rolling over, but what you've just said makes sense... If the encounters were built properly, nothing other than the already existing notices about being sixth level should be required.
Like a lot of people around here, I can be sarcastic. To a point sarcasm has it's place, it's witty and brings the subject out clearly with humor. Taken to an extreme on the other hand, I get impatient with it.
Back to point.. I really appreciate Skinsaw Murders on many levels, but I'm start to think it wasn't playtested thoroughly. For more than just Xanesha
|
James has himself admitted in this thread that Xanesha was too much; which is exactly what I was hoping for, in the future I'm sure they'll remember her when building BBEGs.
She was an awesome BBEG, taking a spellcasting level away from her and changing up her spell list would've made her much more CR appropriate.
|
|
I'll just reiterate the fact that even if she was labeled, CR11 or CR12, it wouldn't have changed the fact that "Your party should be level 6 or 7" is unnecessary and space wasteful.
And you're right, I don't want a sidebar wasted on telling people how to level up their parties because it's redundant.
Similarly they would not have put in the Advanced Eye of the Deep in Savage Tide if they had really clued into the fact the creatures stunning gave attack had a DC so high that the whole party would simply be perpetually stunned and dispatched by the creature with ease.
The most reliable TPK in SCAP is a monster with class levels; so is the most reliable TPK in AoW. I haven't played STAP but it sounds like that's another example. They seem significantly hard to rate compared to either humanoids with class levels or regular monsters. It might be worth considering such creatures as "red flag" encounters which need to be vetted with particular attention. It seems very easy for one or two numbers (AC, DR, SR, damage, save DCs) to get out of the normal range.
I'll be interested to see if Mokmurian is a problem encounter when more groups reach that module; his CR certainly seems wildly wrong. (I can't say from my own game, because my player has adopted a strategy of never tackling a BBG without substantial NPC assistance--in this case, most of the giant army.)
For CotCT my GM is planning to make a table of the PCs' to-hits, saves, AC and hp, and to check each encounter against it. The TPKs in the previous APs were so hard on player morale that we really don't want to repeat them. We did a side adventure in SCAP in which a book CR12 creature (leonal guardinal) easily took out 9 PCs and NPC allies, levels 11-13. Since then I really do not trust even book CRs, and ones that have to be extrapolated are much worse.
Mary
I'll just reiterate the fact that even if she was labeled, CR11 or CR12, it wouldn't have changed the fact that "Your party should be level 6 or 7" is unnecessary and space wasteful.
And you're right, I don't want a sidebar wasted on telling people how to level up their parties because it's redundant.
I think its worth it to have the adventures state simply and clearly when the designers think the PCs should level up. One sentence to this effect whenever its supposed to take place should do the trick fine.
It seems to me that at a minimum there is a significant minority of DMs that are no longer calculating XP for APs but simply placing 'level up' points in the adventure. Now I personally love calculating XP. I have a very pretty spread sheet devoted to just the parties XP and I update it and send it off to my players after every session - but keeping it up to date probably uses up roughly 45 minutes after every session. Thats a fair bit of time.
If devoting six lines of text per module saves 30% of the DMs using the modules two or three hours of needless work its worth it.
The APs should be as useful as possible to as many DMs as possible. This sort of thing helps many DMs a lot and takes away only a very small amount from DMs that don't have need for this information.
I'll also second it. I'll be running RotR using True20, which doesn't even use xp. I know I'm not the only True20 Narrator on these boards either.
I think its worth it to have the adventures state simply and clearly when the designers think the PCs should level up. One sentence to this effect whenever its supposed to take place should do the trick fine.
Absolutely agree, and I'm surprised that it's even up for debate. (Well, there's only one dissenter, so I suppose there isn't a debate. Good.)
Noting the author's/designer's expectations is always a good thing. Always. If the designer expects that the PCs are of a certain level at a certain point, and designed said encounters that way, then it should certainly be mentioned. Consistently. (The one note in Skinsaw about being 6th level was appreciated, but the lack of noting when the expectation of the PCs being 7th was a problem, not to mention the lack of consistency).
This is useful even for those who still use XP, and who don't just level-up whenever. It's universally useful, AFAIC.
In any case, I certainly hope those trying to say that 3 sentences are "wasteful" are not those who then turn around and cheer the Chronicles section, or worse yet, the pre-gens. How ironic.
I'm not sure how one's supposed to use these modules if the PCs should not have to fight EL=PC level + 4, as every single module ends in such a fight.
My impression is that Paizo does not agree with you on the target EL for a party of a given level.
Mary
No, they don't. Nualia is EL 6 for a level 3 party. Barl is EL 12 for a level 9 party. The bosses in Sins are EL 16 for a level 13 party.
Also, you're completely forgetting, or outright ignoring, that EL+4 is not only a fight that PCs are supposed to be able to win (albeit by using 80% of their resources, including hit points), but also fights that the DM is supposed to throw at them. It's level+5 that's considered "too much" by the DMG. 5% of all fights are supposed to be level+4. That is straight from the DMG's section on encounter frequency and difficulty. So, having the BBEG of each module be +3 or +4 higher than the average party level is the way it is supposed to be according to the game designers.
No, they don't. Nualia is EL 6 for a level 3 party. Barl is EL 12 for a level 9 party. The bosses in Sins are EL 16 for a level 13 party.I'm not sure how one's supposed to use these modules if the PCs should not have to fight EL=PC level + 4, as every single module ends in such a fight.
Mary
You're right. I didn't have the books in front of me when I wrote that. (Though--what EL is Malfeshnikor? Higher than Nualia, I think.) But it's apparently always at least EL+3, whereas SirUrza is saying that more than EL+2 is too much.
Also, you're completely forgetting, or outright ignoring, that EL+4 is not only a fight that PCs are supposed to be able to win (albeit by using 80% of their resources, including hit points), but also fights that the DM is supposed to throw at them.
Here I think you are confusing me with the person I was arguing with. I certainly don't argue that EL+4 is impossibly high; I was just pointing out that, if one *does* argue that, the modules become hard to use. You're correct that not every one has an EL+4 fight, but at least three of them do, and the other three have EL+3.
My experience is that *most* EL+4 fights are very winnable for a careful party. You get trouble if the encounter happens to hit the PCs' weaknesses; if they go into it already depleted; or if the GM rolls high and the players roll low. Those aren't really avoidable by the module authors.
But every once in a while there's something labeled EL+4 that chews PCs up and spits them out, group after group. There's one in AoW; there's one in SCAP; and here's one in RotRL. Being able to spot these in advance would be nice. The EL alone doesn't do it: our SCAP party had been reliably able to take EL+4...up until that one.
Mary
The problem lies when something is overpowered for it's CR (Xanesha) or it's after a really really long dungeon crawl (Nualia). If PCs are expected to retreat and rest during dungeon crawls (which may have been the norm back for 2E players but to my group it's an alien concept entirely).
Modern adventure design runs toward more realistic situations, and frequently that doesn't mesh with doing one room a day (the standard for a lot of 2E games I've heard of). Quite a few APs have situations where something bad is happening and the PCs have to stop it *now*. You can't use the same EL mix for a scenario like that as you would for a static dungeon, that's for sure.
Both of the GMs in our group read WOTC's _Speaker in Dreams_ and refused to run it; it seemed utterly preposterous for the listed level. Other groups told us that it's winnable--if you do one encounter a day, thereby allowing the town to be utterly ruined. But we didn't think that would be a lot of fun. We finally ran it for a party +2 levels and +4 characters above what it was written for--at that level, they were able to do it in one day, and it was surprisingly enjoyable.
Mary
the standard for a lot of 2E games I've heard of.
Really?
I mean its certianly possible within the 2nd edition rules but I don't think it was a common issue in 2nd edition otherwise it would have presumably been 'on the radar' when they made 3rd and Monte and the crew would have tried to fix it.
I think one of the contributing factors to why I never really noticed the five minute workday in 2nd edition was that encounters tended to be easier then in 3rd edition. There was no presumption of 4 encounters a day and adventures often where designed around an attrition motif. Players might have many encounters against creatures that where essentially the same over and over again - you could easily do battle with one group of, say Dark Elves, after another and not really think about it until you'd been through something like nine battles and where finally beginning to run low on hps and spells.
the standard for a lot of 2E games I've heard of.Really?
I mean its certianly possible within the 2nd edition rules but I don't think it was a common issue in 2nd edition otherwise it would have presumably been 'on the radar' when they made 3rd and Monte and the crew would have tried to fix it.
I probably shouldn't have said "2E" as almost all my group's previous experience was with 1E, come to think of it. But my husband's perpetual complaint during our early games together was "You need to think 'dungeon style', meaning one room at a time, retreat, rest, return; instead your PCs try to behave like real people, so of course they die." That was the way his previous groups had taught him to play, and indeed what a lot of published material seemed to expect. We had a ton of TPKs before we adjusted to each others' styles.
He's changed his own tune now, and is a big proponent of "blow through the entire dungeon in one sitting" style. He's remarkably good at it, too, much better than I am. He saves precious rounds on the buff spells by ignoring all treasure--it's amazing what a difference that makes.
I love "five minute workday" as a name for that style, by the way--great description. I loathe the thing itself; it moves the game *so* far from any of the source material. I really enjoyed doing all of _Speaker in Dreams_ as one long night for the PCs (we called it the Night of Terror, and it was the best fight of its entire campaign). Doing it over ten nights instead would just not have been interesting, especially as the town would essentially have been unsaveable after the first night.
Mary
|
|
Since I just get pathfinder for ideas rather than to run the actual adventures, I must admit this bit with Xanesha has me intrigued. The optimizer in me really wants to try and build a party capable of taking her on. Hmm. Let's see...
Adventuring group name: The Sons of Virtue
Party member 1:
Marcinicus Sembilar
Lawful Good lesser Aasimar
Cleric (Iomedae) 4/Ordained Champion 3
Abilities: STR 14 DEX 8 CON 12 INT 10 WIS 18 CHA 15
Feats: Power Attack, Divine Might, Spontaneous Healer, Martial Weapon Prof: Longsword, Weapon focus: Longsword
Domains: Glory, Sun, and War
Spells Prepared:
0 Detect magic, Summon holy symbol (3), Cure Minor Wounds
1 Bless, Divine Favor, Protection from Evil, Doom [Magic Weapon]
2 Owl's Wisdom, Bull's Strength, Close Wounds [heat metal]
3 Holy Storm (x2) [Searing Light]
Tactics: Cast Bless on party, cast doom on enemy, cast holy storm on battlefield, close and engage.
Party member 2:
Savius Mirilem
Lawful Good Human
Ranger 3/Paladin 4 (RRPPPPR)
Abilities: STR 14 DEX 8 CON 13 INT 10 WIS 12 CHA 16
Feats: Power Attack, Track, Cleave, Improved Shield Bash, Two-Weapon Fighting (vitual feat), Endurance, Devoted Tracker
Spell Prepared:
Paladin 1: Divine Sacrifice
Tactics: Close and engage. Once flanking with Elucieth, pull out a divine sacrifice-augmented smite for hopefully a huge amount of damage.
Party Member 3:
Elucieth Telumriel
Neutral Good Elf
Rogue 4/Swashbuckler 3 (RSRSRSR)
Abilities: STR 12 DEX 18 CON 12 INT 14 WIS 10 CHA 8
Feats: Expeditious Dodge, Mobility, Weapon Finesse, Daring Outlaw
Tactics: Close and Engage. Flank with Savius.
Party Member 4:
Ilisar Tzidian
Lawful Good Human
Wizard (conjurer; necromancy & enchantment barred) 5/War Weaver 2
Abilities: STR 10 DEX 14 CON 14 INT 16 WIS 12 CHA 8
Feats: Enlarge Spell, Energy Sunstitution (electricity), Born of the Three Thunders, Fiery Burst, cloudy conjuration
Spells Prepared:
0 Caltrops, Prestidigitation, Mage Hand, Acid Splash
1 True Strike, Shield, Mage Armor, Expeditious Retreat [Wall of Smoke]
2 Fox's Cunning, Cat's Grace, Baleful Transposition, Acid Arrow [Summon Monster II]
3 Fireball, Electric three thunders fireball, Haste [Summon Monster III]
Tactics: Include Savius, Elucieth and self in weave; cast fox's cunning, cat's grace, and haste through weave, chuck 3d6 mini-fireballs at enemy from behind mage armor, shield, and mirror image, summon creatures to flank, act as screen, etc. When the opportunity presents itself, nail opponent with three thunders electroball, hopefully stunning and knocking prone where other party members can get in and finish them off.
|
|
Since I just get pathfinder for ideas rather than to run the actual adventures, I must admit this bit with Xanesha has me intrigued. The optimizer in me really wants to try and build a party capable of taking her on. Hmm. Let's see...
Her biggest threats are Warlocks (whose Eldritch Blast is a touch attack) and Sorcerors who have Ray of Enfeeblement (which would seriously drop her melee abilities). A scroll of dispel magic would also work wonders.
Also dropping bells on her is an awesome tactic and one I had thought of and hoped my players could've figured out but alas my group is not the brightest bunch of adventurers.
To be honest, it's one of the reasons we've stopped Rise of the Runelords for a bit. I have a very small group. Only three players. I have scaled back these encounters to a pretty barebones type of fight, but still manage to almost kill everyone. All I do is fudge rolls. My players have about 60 years of RPG experience (mostly D&D) between them and still get their butts kicked. Highly unmotivating.
Alright, I've known Paizo stuff to be pretty challenging for a long time (a number of TPKs in Shackled City proved that) but this is just getting ridiculous.
5 level 6 characters, with Shalelu level 5 and two level 4 cohorts didn't stand a chance against Xanesha. I'm tired of having to fudge dice in these adventures, scale it down a little bit.
Oh and the map of the clocktower was extremely confusing as to where platforms landings/how the stairs worked for the middle maps. This adventure just got completley 'blah' after Foxglove Manor (which was awesome except for Iesha being a little too powerful in the fight against Aldern). There wasn't anywhere near enough of a focus on the cult, the group is expecting 5 other 'justice ironbriar' like villains to make up the leadership of the cult, and I can easily understand why, the 15 cultist mooks seem just as they are, mooks. Thankfully they aren't too interested in that aspect of the storyline and we can just move on to Turtleback Ferry.
But I was very disappointed with the last half of Skinsaw I must say; shame too with such a strong start.
Edit: Just a note that I put this in Pathfinder General because it's a comment/request for the APs overall. The Gamemastery modules seem to be balanced much much better.
|
What would have ended as a TPK for my group actually turned into a very rules heavy fight.
My players actually asked for a beginning of round break to go over rules. This after three rounds of them not hitting and finally finding the spot to be out of the silence. Knowing this to be a tough fight I agreed.
A few minutes later they came back with a solid plan. The Sorcerer cast Summon Monster III and the Druid did Summon nature's Ally a few times and started to do aid another to get the fighter and the rogue up to snuff to start hitting her. then the touch AC spells started to drop with everyone trying to get through the SR.
In the end the party won and was alot wiser of rules.
It was not a well tested encounter nor was it entirely fair, but heroes are made from doing the practically the impossible.
It was not a well tested encounter nor was it entirely fair, but heroes are made from doing the practically the impossible.
The other players in other games that were TPKed obviously weren't heroes.
The other players in other games that were TPKed obviously weren't heroes.
It was not a well tested encounter nor was it entirely fair, but heroes are made from doing the practically the impossible.
Thanks; that's what I wanted to say, but you said it better.
(My PCs won this, with heavy NPC help, but they didn't feel like heroes: they felt inadequate, and it was hard to get them to do Hook Mountain because of the general "We're not up to this module" reaction. But then nothing was ever that hard again for them.)
Mary
|
|
The other players in other games that were TPKed obviously weren't heroes.
It was not a well tested encounter nor was it entirely fair, but heroes are made from doing the practically the impossible.
Thanks; that's what I wanted to say, but you said it better.
(My PCs won this, with heavy NPC help, but they didn't feel like heroes: they felt inadequate, and it was hard to get them to do Hook Mountain because of the general "We're not up to this module" reaction. But then nothing was ever that hard again for them.)
Mary
I hope that no one took my comments as an insult to their players or themselves. I just used the ideals of the Classical Hero, whom rises to the call of adventure and faces challange that they defeat not with just brute force but with wits.
My party didn't feel like heroes too much when they defeated the lamia, but now they tend to go into combat with an eye more set to use tactics than the standard hack and slash.
I think this is also a strength of the AP in that Paizo staff really wants to encourage players to keep thinking outside the box, with many if not all encounters. This way a party can have an adjustable encounter tactic at all times.
|
|
I hope that no one took my comments as an insult to their players or themselves. I just used the ideals of the Classical Hero, whom rises to the call of adventure and faces challange that they defeat not with just brute force but with wits.
After they've defeated a particularly challenging encounter my players sometimes ask me what tactics I had expected them to use in order to win the fight.
My usual answer is that I didn't have a clue how they were going to overcome such a tough opponent, but that I knew they'd figure out something that would work.
This is much less likely at lower levels, where the PCs have far fewer options, so I think the first two adventures are going to be the ones where they have the most risk of a TPK.
After they've defeated a particularly challenging encounter my players sometimes ask me what tactics I had expected them to use in order to win the fight.
My usual answer is that I didn't have a clue how they were going to overcome such a tough opponent, but that I knew they'd figure out something that would work.
This is much less likely at lower levels, where the PCs have far fewer options, so I think the first two adventures are going to be the ones where they have the most risk of a TPK.
Thats how I play it as well. I don't worry about how their going to beat the encounter - I'm probably wrong in any case. Most of the time they find a way.
That said CR can be really misleading and the higher one goes the more likely things go loopy and the fight is a push over or a death trap. My players recently where storming through an adventure where most encounters where EL 12 or 13 - then they hit the Roper. Holy frig that was a slaughter. 6 touch attacks that are hard to break away from and drain 2-16 points of strength if you don't make a DC 18 fort save ... every round. Its got an SR of 30 as well.
My PCs charged the room (lots of buffs going so they where in a rush) and basically got their asses handed to them. The players with lower fort saves were dropping like flies - if your helpless when you get to its mouth it coups you and you die. The players could not effectively retreat as there was always some player that dropped during the round and needed to be saved. One of the nastiest CR 12 creatures I've come upon against my party anyway.
|
My players nearly lost lives fighting off the goblins at the start of Burnt Offerings; Xanesha will probably chew them up and spit them out.
This is because they keep roleplaying during combat, and have not all chosen characters whose personality is "strong-willed, hard-nosed, old head on young shoulders, bona-fide hero" The show-off still shows off, the coward is still cowardly...
Quite a lot of the time this gets them out of as much trouble as it gets them in but I'll have to replace Xanesha or the options will be either drop the angel or die.
|
I think its worth it to have the adventures state simply and clearly when the designers think the PCs should level up. One sentence to this effect whenever its supposed to take place should do the trick fine.
Noting the author's/designer's expectations is always a good thing. Always. If the designer expects that the PCs are of a certain level at a certain point, and designed said encounters that way, then it should certainly be mentioned. Consistently. (The one note in Skinsaw about being 6th level was appreciated, but the lack of noting when the expectation of the PCs being 7th was a problem, not to mention the lack of consistency).
This is useful even for those who still use XP, and who don't just level-up whenever. It's universally useful, AFAIC.
Isn't part of the problem the fact that the PCs can level up during the adventure?
In 1st/2nd Edition, xp rewards were smaller, and targets were higher.
(Eg Level 4 Fighter needed an extra 8000 to reach level 5, not 4000)
It took longer to level up, so an adventure writer could assume that the PCs would confront the final boss at close to the level they started.
Maybe the PCs could earn enough xp along the way to earn a level rise (depending on the length of the adventure, and where along the xp track they started), but the official training rules presumed that all characters required at least a week of training, and thousands of gp. Most DMs I knew would ignore the official prices and time, but would still delay the levelling until the PCs had downtime.
This made it easier to travel through an adventure in whatever order the players chose, since all the encounters would assume the PCs were the same level. Some may be easy, some may be difficult, some did in fact depend on the PCs finding an item or clue to progress further, or else back-track, but there was not the current sense that the 1st-level PCs who walked underground that morning would be flying out as 5th-level PCs that same evening.
This rapid levelling can also IMHO discourage clever or realistic tactics. Many players believe (possibly correctly) that the BBEG will currently be out of their league, and in order to have a chance against him, they will have to start a fight with every single minion along the way, in order to earn the xp to level up for tomorrow.
In 1st/2nd Edition that attitude would be futile. The 200xp gained from a room of 10 orcs would not be worth the risk of raising the alarm (especially not after being split 4 or 5 ways), so it would be better to bypass them. Nowadays, the players worry that missing out on the 1000xp from those same orcs would leave them short.
A prime example of this dilemma occurs in SCAP, right at the start. The PCs can spend several sessions travelling through Jzadirune (about 100 rooms!), or can find a path to their goal almost straight away. Those that methodically pick the place apart go into the next area richer and more powerful, with no apparent downside for their delay; those who believe time is short, lives are at stake, and act decisively are 'punished' by being thrown against opponents designed for higher-level PCs. We lost a PC at that point, but I think we all agreed it was a better game, and more in character for us to have gone straight to the heart of the problem, than to meta-game and assume that we had all the time in the world, and that encounters would be served up on a conveyer-belt for us at level-appropriate CRs, until we were ready.
Isn't part of the problem the fact that the PCs can level up during the adventure?
Oh, absolutely it is. However, I'm going to have to pick my battles.
Whether we like it or not, fast leveling is a reality, and it's only getting faster from now on. We have to work with what we have - and in this case, Paizo can best help the DM by giving a single sentence in each 'section' of a module that notes what the author's expectations are for party level at that point.
It would be unbelievably helpful, and take up an immaterial amount of 'real estate'. A no-brainer decision, to be sure.
|
|
This rapid levelling can also IMHO discourage clever or realistic tactics. Many players believe (possibly correctly) that the BBEG will currently be out of their league, and in order to have a chance against him, they will have to start a fight with every single minion along the way, in order to earn the xp to level up for tomorrow.
In 1st/2nd Edition that attitude would be futile. The 200xp gained from a room of 10 orcs would not be worth the risk of raising the alarm (especially not after being split 4 or 5 ways), so it would be better to bypass them. Nowadays, the players worry that missing out on the 1000xp from those same orcs would leave them short.
I'd call that bad DMing. The PCs get XPs for overcoming an encounter. If that encounter is a pointless fight that will delay them from saving the day, and the PCs slip by un-noticed and continue the adventure... well, I'd probably hand out bonus XP on top of the XP for overcoming a CRx encounter.
I'd call that bad DMing. The PCs get XPs for overcoming an encounter. If that encounter is a pointless fight that will delay them from saving the day, and the PCs slip by un-noticed and continue the adventure... well, I'd probably hand out bonus XP on top of the XP for overcoming a CRx encounter.
In SCAP, though, PCs who go through straight to the endgame of #1 (which is the roleplaying-optimal thing to do) would have to be given 2 levels for doing essentially nothing. That's kind of hard to stomach. And it would probably mean the PCs are never 2nd level at all: they would have to jump from 1st to 3rd.
And then if they go back and do what they skipped, they'll either get no EXP for it (feels weird), or be ahead of expectations.
I'd say that SCAP #1 is a poor design. If the module author wants the PCs to be desperately trying to save some hostages, s/he should not put an obligatory fifty-room dungeon between them, and should not assume two level increases. But the fast advancement does, in my experience, make scenario design significantly harder.
RotRL #5 has some problems of this kind. The PCs can approach the quadrants in any order; it is hard to scout effectively; and a bad choice of order is quite dangerous, because some of the quadrants assume PCs of level X and others apparently assume X+2. I like the freedom of choice, but it doesn't go all that well with the fact that #5 is quite a small scenario but you're still expected to go up three levels during it.
Mary
|
|
Isn't part of the problem the fact that the PCs can level up during the adventure?
Oh, absolutely it is. However, I'm going to have to pick my battles.
I hear you. I think, whether you consider levelling to be fast, depends on which edition you grew up on. I feel I'm wasting my breath, even with the rugrats who started with 2nd Ed. :)
Whether we like it or not, fast leveling is a reality, and it's only getting faster from now on. We have to work with what we have - and in this case, Paizo can best help the DM by giving a single sentence in each 'section' of a module that notes what the author's expectations are for party level at that point.
It would be unbelievably helpful, and take up an immaterial amount of 'real estate'. A no-brainer decision, to be sure.
I agree with you; and I think it doesn't even have to take up any column inches, if it's part of a subtitle.
Clock Tower (Assumed Character Level 7). Done.I was stating the case for perhaps delaying level increases, until the PCs can actually rest, research, pray and train.
Every edition mentions training times, either as a rule, or as an option. Yet, in most scenarios, the writers hand-wave it away.
Part of that reason is that the writers are tempted to throw in a lot of encounters in quick succession to really test the PCs, yet that results in high xp. The players are now savvy to how xp is calculated, and the cogs are turning in their heads..."We should have levelled up! A blargbeast is quite clearly CR6, and it had at least 2 sorceror levels, which are non-associated, so it's at leastCR7, and according to the chart in the DMG, which I have memorised, that gives us this much each....". So the scenario contains a suggestion that 'The DM should consider allowing the PCs to level up at any point in the adventure'.
Why assume they level up at all?
You can then write an adventure (or chapter) where all the encounters assume a specific character level, and not have to worry about the PCs having the crap kicked out of them, after they skilfully avoided the guards and struck straight for the heart of the enemy, which is what one would do if one were actually role-playing a character whose home/family/tribe/city were threatened, instead of meta-gaming a character who wanted to pick on some goons to bump up his Base Attack.
Levelling up in the dungeon carries a whole heap of problems. Time wasted during the session, realism issues, access to libraries and prestige class trainers. A pure Fighter is usually OK; he gets a bump to his base attack, hp, and maybe a new feat, which he can claim to have been practicing, but a wizard can hardly crack open a bureau from his portable hole, and start researching his new level of spells.
And it's that aspect of 'You've all levelled up, but some of you haven't quite levelled up' that leads to PC deaths, as the DM thinks he can throw encounters at them which are fine, on paper, but when the wizard has not got his best spells, or someone hasn't yet crafted a spell focus/bonded weapon/item, are too much.
Once each discrete bite-size portion of the adventure is over, then the DM can send the players off to do their bookkeeping, craft items, scribe scrolls, do shopping, identify or trade treasure, while he checks out the next chapter, and decides if he needs to insert a side-trek, a little bit of roleplay xp, have an essential item come up for grabs, introduce some NPC guide or muscle, etc. And it can all be calculated with a clear head, rather than in a blur, on the fly, where mistakes can be made.
|
So the scenario contains a suggestion that 'The DM should consider allowing the PCs to level up at any point in the adventure'.
Why assume they level up at all?
It really depends on your group and your style of play. In the past year I have played with 5 groups, and only one has made you wait to level up until you rested. In the other groups, you trained for your next level or two during the downtime at town.. the DM would mark off (especially for spellcasters/healers) who went somewhere to copy/learn spells or pray. If they hadn't done this then they didn't get their new spells/abilities.. the more steel based classes, they learn more in battle
Why assume they level up at all?
If you require the PCs to take downtime to train, a certain proportion of adventures don't work as written unless you also cut the advancement rate so that the PCs don't need to level up during them. There's a striking example in SCAP: the PCs are trapped somewhere very hostile for a very long time. We had a lot of trouble with the assumption that the PCs would go up 2 levels, and would somehow have level appropriate magic items too, when there was no way they could do research, training, crafting, or shopping during the whole scenario.
I'd have liked that one a lot better if it simply hadn't had any advancement until afterwards.
This is particularly pronounced in our recent games, which don't have Teleport. So if the PCs go off to a remote location, they will be there for a while. They can't shop, they may well not be able to craft or train. I enjoy this more if they don't level at all, but the 3e advancement rate is not cooperative. (My player is really keen on distant locations actually feeling distant, so he does not want the Teleport option back. We did all of RotRL without it and I don't either. But the PCs' equipment was very sub-par, even though I made an extra effort to give them things they could use.)
Mary
Out of curiosity, Mary, what was a TPK in AoW? My group was on the rocks a couple of times, and I certainly saw several deaths over the course of the entire campaign, but nothing came close to a TPK.
Out of curiosity, Mary, what was a TPK in AoW? My group was on the rocks a couple of times, and I certainly saw several deaths over the course of the entire campaign, but nothing came close to a TPK.
Spoilers for AoW:
Xyrxog in HoHR. My PCs not only did not win, but we ran the fight twice and came to the conclusion that they could not win, short of going away and spending their whole fortune on specific anti-Xyrxog items.
After that the player said "I'm not holding back anymore--I have to do power builds" and we never had another challenging fight for the remainder of the campaign.
Mary
A prime example of this dilemma occurs in SCAP, right at the start. The PCs can spend several sessions travelling through Jzadirune (about 100 rooms!), or can find a path to their goal almost straight away. Those that methodically pick the place apart go into the next area richer and more powerful, with no apparent downside for their delay; those who believe time is short, lives are at stake, and act decisively are 'punished' by being thrown against opponents designed for higher-level PCs. We lost a PC at that point, but I think we all agreed it was a better game, and more in character for us to have gone straight to the heart of the problem, than to meta-game and assume that we had all the time in the world, and that encounters would be served up on a conveyer-belt for us at level-appropriate CRs, until we were ready.
Ok, I was the guy that bought it (and I wasn't even at the game that night!) but I agree with Snorter's point. The DM could've been kinder in cluing us in that we were outclassed though, presumably.
I still maintain that if I were there I wouldn't have died. My character rocked man! No it wasn't Kaile.
Isn't part of the problem the fact that the PCs can level up during the adventure?
Another aspect is that the difference between levels is a lot more significant in 2nd edition. The power curve was simply lower in 1st and 2nd after the first few levels. Thus if one looks at the level range/party size recommendations for 1st and 2nd edition adventures its usually got about a 3 level range and I've certianly seen higher. However a 3rd edition party is in mortal danger if they enter an adventure even a single level higher then they currently are and will blow through an adventure made for a single level below their current level with relative ease.
Thats not so much the case in 1st and 2nd edition except at about two, maybe three points. At very low level where a 2nd level character is nearly twice as powerful as a 1st level character and a 3rd level character is about 50% more powerful then a 2nd level character. At 5th level where spells went from being OK to really powerful and again when one hit 18th level spells and suddenly had access to wish. Outside of these three points 1st and 2nd edition games tend to have flatter power curves then 3rd edition games.
There is also all that magic in 1st and 2nd edition games. If you tend to play one official adventure after another while slowly gaining levels, in 1st and 2nd edition, you'll eventually find that a lot of magic goes through the players hands. My players would tend to hoard that magic against need. The result was that when the fight really was one far more powerful then expected the players would start pulling out all that stashed magic and which would allow them to beat or escape encounters far more powerful then the DM might expect.
This was exaberated by the fact that the players were not on a budget - they might not be able to buy magic but they could and did find it. In 3.5 players don't usually hoard that much because they have exactly X amount of gold and the optimum use of the gold is to buy magic items you can use all the time in every fight. In 1st and 2nd you kept everything you found except maybe excess low plus magic weapons and armour and saved it just in case you ever needed it so when the crap hit the fan people start gulping back stuff like potions of super heroism and reading powerful scrolls or using other one use powerful magic that would allow them to beat the adventures odd really tough encounter.
I personally find 3.5 to be a much tougher game then 2nd ever was mainly for this reason. I've killed more PCs every year in 3.5 then I managed to do in eight years during my two 2nd edition campaigns.
|
Ok, I was the guy that bought it (and I wasn't even at the game that night!) but I agree with Snorter's point. The DM could've been kinder in cluing us in that we were outclassed though, presumably.
Do you think?
I believed we were outclassed, after questioning the guard, but just didn't care. As an ex-slave of the Suloise, I had a point to prove.No way was I sloping off to fight another day, when there's people need rescuing, and others need gutting like fish.
You can take solace in the fact that you were picked on for doing most damage.
Well, no, not really; it was just you were the nearest, straightest target for a charge in the rear...
I think I pissed the boss off most, by gluing his pet to the floor, then critting him with an Acid Arrow. Fast Healing is rather poor when you've just lost 6d4 off your max hp!
However, I simply had the wisdom to say "My work here is done.", and be out of charge effect, freeing prisoners from the crossfire, when the beast got free and the proverbial hit the fan.
I still maintain that if I were there I wouldn't have died. My character rocked man! No it wasn't Kaile.
Why do you think I've turned up to every session bar 2 in the last 2 years?
I'm more afraid of the other players than I am of the enemy!
|
|
It really depends on your group and your style of play. In the past year I have played with 5 groups, and only one has made you wait to level up until you rested. In the other groups, you trained for your next level or two during the downtime at town...
Just to be clear here in case I've given the wrong impression; I'm only talking a day or so. I wouldn't try enforcing the official 1st Edition training times. I'd be lynched!
My players just finished Foxglove Manor, and I figure they'll reach Xanesha next session. Although they're highly experienced players, and are prone to surprise me (despite my hints to protect them, they went toe to toe with Malfeshnekor and beat him in a fair fight), I have some concerns about Xanesha absolutely destroying them.
I was looking at the base Lamia Matriarch in the Bestiary, and I'm thinking about swapping the base model instead of the stats given for Xanesha (she'll lose her 2 sorceror levels). Part of Xanesha's deadliness is her extra hit points and superior stats. The base model is about 2/3 as deadly.
The only stats I'll change on the base model is to change her 3rd level spell to Fly instead of Haste (so she can fly around the tower - that makes too much sense to change) and give her Xanesha's equipment.
Her challenge rating will drop to 8 instead of 10, but I'm thinking of giving an ad hoc bonus due to the tactical disadvantage (the tower) and Xanesha's powerful magic items. This will bring the CR back to 10, so the players will have the same experience point reward.
What do y'all think?
My players just finished Foxglove Manor, and I figure they'll reach Xanesha next session. Although they're highly experienced players, and are prone to surprise me (despite my hints to protect them, they went toe to toe with Malfeshnekor and beat him in a fair fight), I have some concerns about Xanesha absolutely destroying them.
I was looking at the base Lamia Matriarch in the Bestiary, and I'm thinking about swapping the base model instead of the stats given for Xanesha (she'll lose her 2 sorceror levels). Part of Xanesha's deadliness is her extra hit points and superior stats. The base model is about 2/3 as deadly.
The only stats I'll change on the base model is to change her 3rd level spell to Fly instead of Haste (so she can fly around the tower - that makes too much sense to change) and give her Xanesha's equipment.
Her challenge rating will drop to 8 instead of 10, but I'm thinking of giving an ad hoc bonus due to the tactical disadvantage (the tower) and Xanesha's powerful magic items. This will bring the CR back to 10, so the players will have the same experience point reward.
What do y'all think?
Mary makes a good suggestion similar to this that still provides flavour. In Hook Mountain Massacre you meet Xenesha's sister. She has some neat stuff but despite being made for a higher level party she is not nearly as powerful as Xenesha and she'll die pretty quick against the now more powerful party. If you swap these two your likely to find that each is a better fit with the strength of the party at the time of the encounter and they both have some fluff and abilities that will allow them to be a little more interesting then just a the straight up monster from the back of the book.
Thanks very much for your suggestion. I had looked at Mary's idea of swapping Lucretia, but couldn't wrap my brain around it. I'll try it again - Lucretia would be a somewhat easier fight, and she has some good gear to reward the players.
Based on James Jacob's post that Xanesha probably should have been a bit easier, and Justice Ironbriar should have been more challenging, I'll see about swapping Lucretia for Xanesha, and then possibly tweaking Ironbriar a bit to bring is CR up (possibly adding another level of rogue and another level of cleric.
Appreciate the advice.
Dave
When we faced off against Xaneesha we went up and fought her on the tower. When it became clear we weren't doing jack against her, we fled. She pursued us and things were looking very bad for our heroes when I convinced our druid to use a spell to break the chains holding one of the bells up. It fell, slamming into Xaneesha and knocking her against a wall. When she recovered, the druid summoned a hippogriff to grapple her. Needless to say the hippogriff didn't last long but the DM ruled that Xaneesha was still tangled in its corpse and falling towards the ground. Thats when we lit the hippogriff on fire.
This is IMHO exactly the way this encounter should be handled by a good DM. Fantasy stories and even earlier incarnations of the game are full of situations where an enemy seems unbeatable. Almost every action/horror movie has a situation like that where the main characters is about to die and then it manages victory at the last second through clever ideas instead of brutal force (see the movie Terminator for instance).
I blame it on 3.x WOFRPG to have uberstatted everything so much that every encounter is supposed to be beatable by proper tactics. Encounters like these, where the player has to use imagination, instead of obsessive rule picking and boardgame strategy are very welcome at my table.
Besides, I recently read the Gamemastery guide paragraph on ECL levels and encounters which should range from ECL-1 to ECL+3.
My group is ECL 6 now, while Xanesha is CR 11 under PF rules: I'll add a +1 CR for terrain advantage for a total of CR 12 encounter.
An ECL +6 encounter is going to be a slaughterhouse.
BUT
my players are all veterans with minmaxing disorders, and have stormed through the whole AP so far with ease. They even took Mafeshnekor down in 3 rounds. So far they haven0t trembled ONCE against any encounter. I won't hold my punches this time, and see what they can do against the b**h!
And the CR10 next to her name isn't fair enough warning for the DM?Would adding in a bit that says what average party level each of the various portions of the adventure expects be a good thing?Yes it would. You can't really control pacing, but having suggestions for it would be a great help.
Actually, it is MUCH worse then a CR 10 encounter because of the location.
If the party does not have access to the FLY spell (relistic if the party's main arcantist is a Sorcerer) then she has a big combat advantage - on top of her CR. And the location on top of the tower means that they really have no cover or way to force her to close if she does not wish to.
Further, the climb up the watchtower means that the characters have no realistic option to retreat. Remember also that when the Bell was dropped, the stairs back down were broken - not that they were easy to climb in the first place.)
Finally, an AC 34 (when you add in all of her buffs) is a bit much for all but the most heavily optimized character to hit (and she is not light on hit points either). WAY above what would be expected at that character level.
So, the CR 10 did send up alarm bells. But it still under rates the difficulty of that battle.
And the CR10 next to her name isn't fair enough warning for the DM?Would adding in a bit that says what average party level each of the various portions of the adventure expects be a good thing?Yes it would. You can't really control pacing, but having suggestions for it would be a great help.Actually, it is MUCH worse then a CR 10 encounter because of the location.
If the party does not have access to the FLY spell (relistic if the party's main arcantist is a Sorcerer) then she has a big combat advantage - on top of her CR. And the location on top of the tower means that they really have no cover or way to force her to close if she does not wish to.
Further, the climb up the watchtower means that the characters have no realistic option to retreat. Remember also that when the Bell was dropped, the stairs back down were broken - not that they were easy to climb in the first place.)
Finally, an AC 34 (when you add in all of her buffs) is a bit much for all but the most heavily optimized character to hit (and she is not light on hit points either). WAY above what would be expected at that character level.
So, the CR 10 did send up alarm bells. But it still under rates the difficulty of that battle.
I think her AC is 26 WITH all the buffs.
Our party had 5 characters level 5 and 6. It took some time and a LOT of healing, but they managed to just take her out. Now, she did roll three crit fumbles and those fumble cards can be ruthless.
But I also expected her to kill a lot more of the party than she did. Xanesha IS a great boss villain and she requires some party teamwork to take out.
I think her AC is 26 WITH all the buffs.And the CR10 next to her name isn't fair enough warning for the DM?Would adding in a bit that says what average party level each of the various portions of the adventure expects be a good thing?Yes it would. You can't really control pacing, but having suggestions for it would be a great help.Actually, it is MUCH worse then a CR 10 encounter because of the location.
If the party does not have access to the FLY spell (relistic if the party's main arcantist is a Sorcerer) then she has a big combat advantage - on top of her CR. And the location on top of the tower means that they really have no cover or way to force her to close if she does not wish to.
Further, the climb up the watchtower means that the characters have no realistic option to retreat. Remember also that when the Bell was dropped, the stairs back down were broken - not that they were easy to climb in the first place.)
Finally, an AC 34 (when you add in all of her buffs) is a bit much for all but the most heavily optimized character to hit (and she is not light on hit points either). WAY above what would be expected at that character level.
So, the CR 10 did send up alarm bells. But it still under rates the difficulty of that battle.
Nope:
This gets us to her AC 26
Then you add her buffs.
So a base AC26 + 8 from buffs = AC34 A.K.A. !
But I also expected her to kill a lot more of the party than she did. Xanesha IS a great boss villain and she requires some party teamwork to take out.
Xanesha is a lousy boss villain.
And with other factors, such as the physical location forcing the heroes to "Stand or Die," she is also an example of poor encounter design.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Our group had relatively little difficulty with Xanesha. You can see our method of dealing with her right here in our play-by-post thread. Party consisted of a fighter, ranger/transmuter, cleric, bard, evoker, and ranger all level 6 (I think) at the time. I don't honestly know if the GM fudged any of her stats, but we sent her packing rather handily. It's definitely a winnable fight. Maybe our party composition is to blame for our ease.
|
|
Our group had relatively little difficulty with Xanesha. You can see our method of dealing with her right here in our play-by-post thread. Party consisted of a fighter, ranger/transmuter, cleric, bard, evoker, and ranger all level 6 (I think) at the time. I don't honestly know if the GM fudged any of her stats, but we sent her packing rather handily. It's definitely a winnable fight. Maybe our party composition is to blame for our ease.
Yeah, based on how tough she was when we met her the second time with her sister), that first fight did seem ridiculously easy for such a badass opponent. BUT, Vethran (the party evoker) hit her in the first round with a very effective dispel magic which presumably dispelled her buffs and quite possibly suppressed some of her magical items. At any rate, our archers seemed to be able to hit her with a 24 to hit. We hit her with arrows and spells (a couple of fireballs since she was flying outside the tower by that stage) and acid arrows and she fled rather than engage the group in melee.