|
This post is aimed mainly at Josh and the other PFS developers.
I have found that the PFS mods for levels below 5 are non chalanging in the extreme. If played corectly by expericenced players there is alomost no chance of death. On the ofther Hand I am playing in a CoT game and just finished the six fold trial annd found that not only very fun but very challenging Would it be possbile to increase the risk reward level of lower tier Mods?
|
This post is aimed mainly at Josh and the other PFS developers.
I have found that the PFS mods for levels below 5 are non chalanging in the extreme. If played corectly by expericenced players there is alomost no chance of death. On the ofther Hand I am playing in a CoT game and just finished the six fold trial annd found that not only very fun but very challenging Would it be possbile to increase the risk reward level of lower tier Mods?
With 4 Players or even 5 *what they are really written for* I don't find this at all. My players have been in many situations they have been close to death or even died.
Now when played with 6-7 players, then you run into the easy button.
It depends on the scenario. Some are notorious for TPKs (Silken Caravan, Shipyard Rats) and some are kind of pushovers.
In general, for PFS scenarios I'd prefer to err on the side of easy (for a tough party) than almost impossible (for a weak party).
We strive to read and absorb all feedback given about our more than two years worth of scenarios. While there are a few scenarios that have consistently been declared "too easy" for the lower sub-Tiers, that's the exception and not the rule.
Please also keep in mind that scenarios and APs serve two totally different audiences with two totally different play restrictions. Comparing them by difficulty level is apples and oranges.
|
|
This post is aimed mainly at Josh and the other PFS developers.
I have found that the PFS mods for levels below 5 are non chalanging in the extreme. If played corectly by expericenced players there is alomost no chance of death. On the ofther Hand I am playing in a CoT game and just finished the six fold trial annd found that not only very fun but very challenging Would it be possbile to increase the risk reward level of lower tier Mods?
What Josh said--but if you really do want to compare Council of Thieves to PFS mods, our CoT group has had a substantially easier time with the AP (which were also beefed up by the GMs) than our PFS group has had with a few of our PFS scenarios. I don't think we've even had someone drop to unconscious due to HP damage in Council of Thieves (an unwary guest player died to something else entirely in Part 3 though...)
It all depends on group composition (the CoT group has two Paladins, for instance). In PFS, they do very well in my opinion to err on the side of easier for a power group--after all, when you're mustering at a con, you can't be sure to get a balanced group, and some sorts of challenges are *much* harder for certain PCs. For instance, a PFS module exists that has a lot of traps and some undead. When we played through it, we had two rogues maxed out in finding traps, a Sorcerer who could Command Undead, and a Cleric. It was quite easy, but it would have been much deadlier if we had a Fighter, Ranger, Bard, and Cavalier, say.
|
|
It depends on the scenario. Some are notorious for TPKs (Silken Caravan, Shipyard Rats) and some are kind of pushovers.
In general, for PFS scenarios I'd prefer to err on the side of easy (for a tough party) than almost impossible (for a weak party).
It's also highly dependent on your GM and their style of GMing. If you sit at a table with a tactically oriented GM, I'm sure you'll be challenged no matter the scenario.
|
|
I agree that some seem too easy, but that is usually when we have a full table of six players. It may have been a little more challenging with 4, but once you beef the PC's up by 50%, the bad guys suffer.
My suggestions:
1) Scale the encounters for 4-5, and 6+ players. Either max out hit points or add a few more thugs.
2) Scale the difficulty of the skill checks for the faction missions per tier. For example, I recently ran a scenario that had a faction mission that required a Perception check of 12 to succeed. For the Tier 6-7 that we ran, I think the whole party made it. Or they say, we take 10. It would be cool to see the following "Perception check DC12 (T1-2), DC15 (T3-4), DC18 (T6-7), to find the top secret goody.
The last Tier 6-7 I ran, the six players just walked through the combat encounters.
On the same note; I ran scenario #31 for a party of 4 (Fighter 7th, Fighter 6th, Ranger 6th, and Barbarian/Bard 5th (4/1). We almost had a TPK. Lesson learned: Bring a balanced party. The Tier 5-9's seem to be pretty challenging.
|
I've run and played in PFS senarios for various groups. The deciding factors for how tough or easy it is is decided by multiple factors:
1) If I can roll well.
2) If the players can roll well.
3) The level of experience among the players. (One of my (infrequent (damn it!)) players actually has a maneuver named after him.)
4) The party composition.
You also have to remember that the PFS scenarios are written so that as many different players and as many different play styles will be successful in them. If the low level stuff were written so that only the "experienced" players survived them, the PFS would probably see a dramatic drop off in new members. If the players are consistently having too easy of a time, then the GM is not fully doing his job and needs to play the enemies smarter, perhaps max out their hit points, etc. The GM does have some leeway in what can be done with the enemies.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
The GM does have some leeway in what can be done with the enemies.
Really?
I was under the impression that the orders from on-high are "Leave the encounters as written." With the further explanation of stating if changes are made (more hit points, more bad guys, different tactics than suggested), then players are more likely to die, get pissed at the GM and at PFS in general, and not play any more.
If we're allowed to make changes, what are the parameters?
|
The party survivability is also impacted by the mix of characters. for example, some scenarios have multiple trap encounters. This can pose a problem for a party of non-rogues. Combat heavy scenarios can be a huge challenge if your tank turns out to be the archivist bard or the skirmishing ranger.
For the first 6-8 months of my local, weekly PFS event, it felt like what the OP claimed was very true. There were only three character deaths (memory?) and two of those were pre-gens. However, in the last three weeks, we've had one full TPK and two near TPK's at my table and my fellow GM nearly TPK'd his table.
|
|
In my experience of approx. 30 games now, half as GM and half as gamer I would argue that the difficulty is as good as it gets. All of these are Tier 1-2, 3-4 or 4-5.
I haven't had a single TPK (good !!)
I did encounter at least three situations where the group feared a TPK is imminent but through some heroics or great idea of a single player it never happened (great - this is what players tend to remember for years !!)
Characters go down a lot - sometimes multiple times. I reckon there was an average of 3-5 characters down (below zero HP) in all the games. This goes even higher if I add other afflictions like charmed, stunned and blinded etc.
So far I only experienced two dead characters on my table (on each as a GM and as a comrade). Again - I regard low mortality good (as long as there was a chance you died).
I've been in only a single game that was a walk-through with no chance to the GM. I felt bad afterwords towards the GM. But he said he enjoyed it a lot as well - and other tables with the same scenario struggled a lot. We just had perfect teamwork, luck and a good representation on the table. And I'm told the same group without my wizard did have a lot tougher time in part 2 of the scenario.
So - all in all - is it perfect? No - it can't be ever perfect. As other explained - issues are
1) Great teamwork can make it easier
2) Lack of healing can be a challenge (my wizard with the caretaker feat was the prime healer in my fist few games. Thanks to my optimized Heal skill (and a healer kit) I was having a >60% change to stabilize. Compare this to a group with 2 clerics ...
3) Lack of magic can be a challenge. A wizard with the right spells (and an enemy who fails his saving throw) can make a difficult encounter to a simple one
4) Lack of fighting power can be a challenge. Just back from a game with 2 wizards and 1 sorcerer. The last fight was pretty tough after our cavalier ran away for 90% of the fight.
5) 4 players, 5 players, 6 or 7 can be a huge difference. Off course - you should have added +1 if you play with 6 or seven players. Six level 2 players officially make a tier 3-4 - and this can be pretty challenging.
6) One of the biggest issues I have seen is around the tier1-2 / 3-4 boundary. Five level 2 make a tier 1-2, six of them make a tier 3-4.
So what options are there to help?
I've solved the tier 1-2/3-4 dilemma at my own table by asking a player with two characters to either use the higher or the lower level one or by recruiting an additional fighter (my son). I also swapped scenarios to have one that would fit the group composition and be challenging. Off course - this won't always work. But at my home table I have flexibility.
Mixed levels of players seem to make it easier for me as a GM to challenge the players. If I have a mix of level 1, 2 and 3 on my table in a tier 1-2 I can focus on the weak character first to make it challenging or the strong character to avoid a TPK. All it needs is - if two players attack a larger monster - do I focus on A, on B or do I spread the damage.
I also have to say - most characters I have encountered are not battle optimized. My experience is - spending skill points and feats for non-battle related abilities does increase the enjoyment of play. Missions seem to be easier (you don't lack the knowledge skill in the party that you need) while fights just might get this tiny bit more difficult or need some alternate solutions.
I hope some of this might help. PFS won't change to ensure your specific group / play style is covered. But maybe some small changes on your side will ensure you have as much fun as possible at the table.
Just my opinion.
Thod
|
Well part of the problem with achieving a proper balance is the wide variety of groups that play.
Here are some personal examples / anecdotes:
There are 5 of us with fairly optimized characters (although not specifically with each other) we play at somebody's house and take turns GMing. Pretty much everything encountered was completely dominated, some times we'd be short a person and take the Wizard NPC for knowledge skill checks, which the party was lacking, even though he's pretty bad. We played up whenever we could (2 lvl 4s and 2 lvl 5s = 4.5 which rounds to 5 which lets us play 6-7) Then I ran the group's second 5-9 The Trouble with secrets and the players blindly went after the boss without preparing since they had stomped everything else and got a TPK out of it.
Then there's playing at the local game day of 2 stores in the SF Bay Area. The tables are generally 5-6 players however almost always at least one of the players in a blank. They sit there and participate but their character contributes almost nothing. Sometimes they are fun to play with, other times their social skills match their play skill. Generally there will be at least one tough melee character which is enough to carry the group through a low level adventure. If you get two big dumb fighters the adventure gets a lot easier. Every once in awhile though you'll end up with a table with 4 useless fops that struggle though an adventure but generally manage to get it done.
The problem is if you make it harder so that the fops start dying they will stop playing. That is bad.
The 4 5-9s I've played are all significantly more challenging than the 1-5s (although we did get in trouble once when we played a 6-7 with 3 people (lvl 5,5,4). This seems reasonable to me. By the time you've gotten up to level 5 hopefully you've learned something, also getting together the money or PA to raise a character from the dead is much easier and isn't so demoralizing.
There are 5 of us with fairly optimized characters (although not specifically with each other) we play at somebody's house and take turns GMing. Pretty much everything encountered was completely dominated, some times we'd be short a person and take the Wizard NPC for knowledge skill checks, which the party was lacking, even though he's pretty bad.
Just on a side note and not trying to be a downer, but you do know that the only time in a PFS game that you can add in a pregen as an extra character is if there are only three players, right? And even then the GM is the one controlling the pre-gen.
Just on a side note and not trying to be a downer, but you do know that the only time in a PFS game that you can add in a pregen as an extra character is if there are only three players, right? And even then the GM is the one controlling the pre-gen.
There are 5 of us with fairly optimized characters (although not specifically with each other) we play at somebody's house and take turns GMing. Pretty much everything encountered was completely dominated, some times we'd be short a person and take the Wizard NPC for knowledge skill checks, which the party was lacking, even though he's pretty bad.
There are five people (four players + one GM, rotating through GMs). If one person is missing...you do the math. :-)
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Everybody is debating the *merits* of making changes, and that's fine, but I still have not seen a reply to this:
The GM does have some leeway in what can be done with the enemies.
As I said above, I was under the impression that we are supposed to leave all encounters as written, including those from season zero (encounters with classes don't get PFRPG class abilities), those that have mistakes in them (I know of one mod that has a bad guy with prestige class levels in a prestige class he doesn't qualify for), and those that we feel are too easy/hard (even after proving it by playing them multiple times).
So, if we're allowed to make changes, what are the parameters?
|
Everybody is debating the *merits* of making changes, and that's fine, but I still have not seen a reply to this:
The GM does have some leeway in what can be done with the enemies.
See This thread
There are five people (four players + one GM, rotating through GMs). If one person is missing...you do the math. :-)Just on a side note and not trying to be a downer, but you do know that the only time in a PFS game that you can add in a pregen as an extra character is if there are only three players, right? And even then the GM is the one controlling the pre-gen.
There are 5 of us with fairly optimized characters (although not specifically with each other) we play at somebody's house and take turns GMing. Pretty much everything encountered was completely dominated, some times we'd be short a person and take the Wizard NPC for knowledge skill checks, which the party was lacking, even though he's pretty bad.
Yeah, this is called "reading and replying to posts when you are too tired to be doing so." lol I originally read his post as saying 5 regular players PLUS rotating GMs, not that the 5 of them also rotated as GMs.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
GMs should stick to the published tactics for enemies whenever possible. Sometimes parties will take completely off-the-wall approaches to encounters that require adaptation of the scenario as written, but a GM should never bump a creature's CR or increase the number of enemies in an encounter, even if the PCs outnumber or outclass the foes.
Sometimes and encounter (or even a whole scenario) will be a cakewalk, and sometimes it will feel like a meatgrinder. We try to develop them to fall somewhere in the middle as often as possible, and value feedback telling us how we're doing, but we can't predict exactly how every group is going to fare in every situation. A GM should use his or her best judgment, but never actually alter the scenario from what has been published.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
GMs should stick to the published tactics for enemies whenever possible...a GM should never bump a creature's CR or increase the number of enemies in an encounter, even if the PCs outnumber or outclass the foes.
This is what I was after. So, to stress the point, GMs are *not* allowed to make adjustments to the encounters, and are required to use them as written. I'm fine with that. Thank you for making it official.
Now, as for the feedback you asked for, Mark:
You need to work adjustments into the adventures. Not to bring up a potentially sore subject for message board posters, but 4th Edition Living Forgotten Realms modules all have a highly useful "Scaling this encounter" section at the end of each encounter's instructions. It includes simple things like, "If you have a table of 6 players, add two goblin warriors to the encounter. If you have a table of 4 players, remove one goblin warrior from the encounter." Or, with traps and such, it'll say merely, "The DC for this check is 18 at the low tier, 22 at the high tier."
As you can see from the above comments (and from comments in myriad other posts both in the PFS forums and in the RPG "Advice" forums), scaling is important to the participants of your game. Your players want to be challenged (i.e. "have fun"). We, as GMs, are fully aware of how a higher point buy, higher average level, or larger party will impact how an encounter plays out. Notice that this statement completely disregards words like "experienced" or "optimized." Throw that nonsense out. Simple math makes the other situations occur with regularity, and are not subjective.
The reality is this: if you have a group of 6 PCs, two of whom are 4th level and four of whom are 3rd (making the APL 4; (3+3+3+3+4+4)/6=3.33 round down to 3, add 1 for six players = APL 4 - please correct me if I'm wrong), and all of them are built using a point buy of 20 while the NPCs in the scenario only get 15, then it's just a fact that they will destroy the (sub)Tier 3-4 encounters. In our home games and one-off games, we adjust for this by increasing the number of bad guys, or by giving them maximum hit points. We do this because our players don't want to be bored.
I don't want the PFS players to be bored, either. I try to compensate for that with role playing and things that will amuse them, as I am unable to compensate by throwing more challenging encounters at them. It would be nice to have a "Scaling this encounter" line to tell me how to make things *slightly* more of a challenge. It shouldn't impact the module's reward. It doesn't need to be a huge burden on word count. Add a line (like LFR modules do) to the beginning of the adventure that the GM needs to ask: "According to the module, as there are six of you, I should scale the encounters up. Do you want me to do this?" A single vote of "no" means it doesn't happen and the module is played "low."
We bog ourselves down in these forums with debates and expansive arguments about "how it should be" for a reason: we love this game. Adding simple instructions to make things slightly more challenging for a large party will not make us love it less. Quite the contrary, it'll be that much more memorable.
Thanks for the response and the consideration.
|
|
"Experienced" and "optimized" are not words we can ignore.
The group I am currently GMing consists of 3 people. They've played WoW and similar, but never played a tabletop game before. I'm trying slowly to introduce them to the mechanics of the game without overwhelming them. Their combat tactics consist of three options - Charge, Run Away and Cast All Our Spells In Rapid Succession. They frequently make choices that would be considered "sub optimal", they don't do teamwork, they don't do tactics, and I occasionally have to, ahem, fudge something to stop them swinging the adventure too wildly off track.
They tell me they're having a blast with "this Pathfinder thing".
The encounters are just at the right level for them - dangerous and challenging.
If you bring a balanced party of 6 optimized characters to the table, you will find things a lot easier. Of course you will. You're a highly trained, well-equipped SWAT team. You should blow the opposition away.
Here's a suggestion - instead of ramping up the encounters to present a challenge to your optimized characters, why not de-optimize your characters slightly? Take a strange feat. Specialize in an offbeat weapon. Dump some points in another stat. Then the encounters will challenge you, and you'll have a richer roleplaying experience.
|
|
Drogon
Your example - 4.33 rounded down to 4 - does of course strain the tier system. It is at the edge - so may be a tier 4-5 could be a better match. I know - it's not always possible.
Waynemarkstubbs
I like the idea of de-optimizing a character. PFS players should be encouraged to add stats that are relevant to role-play. What's wrong with a fighter who spends skill points in perform (instrument). Is it so wrong because he isn't a bard and it is unlikely he will gain much benefit?
What about a feat that adds role play character instead of power.
PFS isn't a computer game. We should have fun - and sometimes this could be achieved with less power and a more roleplay based character. de-optimizing might be the wrong word to sell it - but yes - in the end this is what it is.
Thod
|
Drogon
Your example - 4.33 rounded down to 4 - does of course strain the tier system. It is at the edge - so may be a tier 4-5 could be a better match. I know - it's not always possible.
Waynemarkstubbs
I like the idea of de-optimizing a character. PFS players should be encouraged to add stats that are relevant to role-play. What's wrong with a fighter who spends skill points in perform (instrument). Is it so wrong because he isn't a bard and it is unlikely he will gain much benefit?
What about a feat that adds role play character instead of power.
PFS isn't a computer game. We should have fun - and sometimes this could be achieved with less power and a more roleplay based character. de-optimizing might be the wrong word to sell it - but yes - in the end this is what it is.
Thod
I completely agree, I've tended to de-optimize quite a few of my characters, like having a Paladin who at 3rd level decided she wanted to take 2 bard levels because it just fit better with roleplay. However, even then the character can do quite well if you choose feats/abilities that may not be optimal, but are good choices. In addition some people just like making good characters, you can't expect people to want to create a suboptimal character on their own.
I personally would love to see a small written statement in encounters to give advice on how to scale up an encounter for 6+ PCs. I recently was DMing at Dragon*Con and for two of my games I had a group that was exceedingly optimized and there were 6 of them. If I could, I would've scaled up the encounters for them because most were a cakewalk. To compensate I tried to do everything possible within the tactics to make it difficult, but even then out of 2 scenarios there was only one part where a character was even close to death, and this was in decently difficult scenarios.
I would've loved to have added 1 more goon, or increased HP slightly, or added a permanent "haste" buff or something to have made the encounters more difficult. I feel like the scenarios for this group just weren't as satisfying because I, as the DM, didn't have the power to make it more difficult.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
"Experienced" and "optimized" are not words we can ignore.
When doing development, you have to ignore them. You have to put the encounter "in the middle" in terms of whether a group is optimized or not, or experienced or not. There are tons of variables in these two words, and a lot of people think they are are "experienced" and want to "play up" in LFR and wind up dying because, well, they aren't. Writers and developers of the module should not have to make that judgment call. Nor should a GM.
However:
Here's a suggestion - instead of ramping up the encounters to present a challenge to your optimized characters, why not de-optimize your characters slightly?
...this is what I would personally love to see. It just won't happen 100% of the time. When I consider a group "experienced" or "optimized," I simply make sure to play the NPCs smart. That's usually enough. Again, that isn't the issue; groups of 6 or 7 are the issue, optimized/experienced or not, they are going to walk through an adventure with little difficulty.
Your example - 4.33 rounded down to 4 - does of course strain the tier system. It is at the edge - so may be a tier 4-5 could be a better match. I know - it's not always possible.
It's not just "not always possible." It's explicitly forbidden in certain circumstances. If you have a module scheduled that is Tier 1-7 (subtiers 1-2, 3-4 and 6-7) you run the adventure for the group at your table. In my example, you have no choice but to run at 3-4. Groups are not allowed to "play up" unless their APL exactly lands them in between two tiers. Add another two 4th level characters to that group and they can play up. In the meantime, at tier 3-4, those guys in my example are just going through the motions to collect their gold and get their PA. Where's the fun in that?
Remember, just because some of us like the idea of role playing (and de-optimizing our characters) doesn't mean everyone does. Just because some of us have difficulty getting four players at a table doesn't mean others aren't fighting to limit their tables to seven. These things aren't really debatable, or controllable. What is capable of being fixed is the way the encounters are written. Read the LFR modules for examples. They're easy instructions that make sense, and they work.
|
|
Try harder. :)
lol...but I have to agree. Most scenarios have basic tactics for the monsters, but that doesn't mean you can't expand on them. Is the monster intelligent? If so, use PC tactics against them. Flanking, 5ft steps, tumbling for position, charge, trip, disarm, over-run, jump, are all good skills and can increase the challenge. If the enemies have magic items either in their gear or in their treasure, use them against the PC's. Will the enemy be aware of the PC's prior to the combat encounter? If so, use all their available buffs. Fighting a warrior with an AC20 at levels 1-5 is hard enough, but a spell caster with AC20-22 (mage armor, shield, high dex, magic items, etc) can be deadly. I am especially fond of environmental advantages like higher-ground, doorways (for cover and bottle-necking), stairs, difficult terrain, etc. Most enemies are not optimized, but you can make up for that with a couple circumstantial bonuses. Rarely should your monsters just stand and exchange blows with the PC's unless it makes sense due to intelligence or they can outlast the players.
This is why I enjoy going to local/regional conventions so much. You can learn a lot from watching other GM's or playing in their games.
|
|
Try harder. :)lol...but I have to agree. Most scenarios have basic tactics for the monsters, but that doesn't mean you can't expand on them. Is the monster intelligent? If so, use PC tactics against them. Flanking, 5ft steps, tumbling for position, charge, trip, disarm, over-run, jump, are all good skills and can increase the challenge. If the enemies have magic items either in their gear or in their treasure, use them against the PC's. Will the enemy be aware of the PC's prior to the combat encounter? If so, use all their available buffs. Fighting a warrior with an AC20 at levels 1-5 is hard enough, but a spell caster with AC20-22 (mage armor, shield, high dex, magic items, etc) can be deadly. I am especially fond of environmental advantages like higher-ground, doorways (for cover and bottle-necking), stairs, difficult terrain, etc. Most enemies are not optimized, but you can make up for that with a couple circumstantial bonuses. Rarely should your monsters just stand and exchange blows with the PC's unless it makes sense due to intelligence or they can outlast the players.
This is why I enjoy going to local/regional conventions so much. You can learn a lot from watching other GM's or playing in their games.
While I could go outside the tactics and beef up the encounters that way, that's not what I'm looking for. I'm a "go by the rules" kind of guy. It's been said by Josh that you should go by the written tactics, so that's what I do. Could I quaff those buff potions beforehand and it'd still last through the encounter? Sure. Could I cast the dominate and stop the party? Sure, but unless I've run out of options written, I'm not going to expand it past that.
Do I use smart tactics that aren't defined? As in moving to flanking points, stairs, choke points, etc.? Yes of course I do. I actually think it's slightly insulting to say that I don't know how to use these tactics. What I'm saying is that I'd like more leeway written down into the missions to give me permission to go above and beyond.
My point above was that the 6 member party that is on the cusp of having the choice to play up, even with the choice and chooses to play down, generally makes a scenario a cakewalk, no matter whether you use extra tactics or not.
|
|
I actually think it's slightly insulting to say that I don't know how to use these tactics.I don't think TK meant it that way.
I probably should've put a note mentioning that I didn't think his comment was directed at me, but I think my point still stands that I'm a "play it by the book" guy and would like a little more leeway.
I did though! Down with the impostor! There can be only one!
I agree. So when is Doug going to get rid of you?
|
|
While I could go outside the tactics and beef up the encounters that way, that's not what I'm looking for. I'm a "go by the rules" kind of guy. It's been said by Josh that you should go by the written tactics, so that's what I do. Could I quaff those buff potions beforehand and it'd still last through the encounter? Sure. Could I cast the dominate and stop the party? Sure, but unless I've run out of options written, I'm not going to expand it past that.
Do I use smart tactics that aren't defined? As in moving to flanking points, stairs, choke points, etc.? Yes of course I do. I actually think it's slightly insulting to say that I don't know how to use these tactics. What I'm saying is that I'd like more leeway written down...
My comments were not necessarily directed at you, but a general statement for all GM's. I'm not suggesting that you should fail to follow any tactics specifically written for an encounter, but that does not mean that additional, impromptu, tactics cannot be used. I'm running a scenario this week that has a caster with levitate. The scripted tactics do not reference it, but am I remiss if I fail to use that spell as part of the encounter? I think so, especially if the PC's are lacking in ranged combat. If a challenge has resources/abilities/spells listed in the stat block, they should be utilized even if not specifically referenced in the tactics section. This would be in addition to, and not in lieu of, any tactics as written. All the "reknowned" PFS GM's that I have observed follow this practice.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
The scripted tactics do not reference it, but am I remiss if I fail to use that spell as part of the encounter? I think so, especially if the PC's are lacking in ranged combat.Or not using Power Attack because the tactics didn't say the NPC uses it...
These elements are listed in an NPC's statblock and are fair game. If, however, the tactics list other things the NPC prefers to do before using something listed in the block (like doing nonlethal damage before taking 70% total hp or tripping PCs or buffing then casting damage spells or whatever) then follow those tactics first. A scenario won't tell you to use point blank shot if you have the opportunity, for example, because we assume you know what those feats do.
|
|
Okay- let's get technical. Say the PCs are fighting an enemy cleric. Every one of her stat blocks reference her Tier 1-2 details for tactics which are generally, "Mingle with a group and surprise the PCs with a channel energy. Fight by channeling and fear aura. Retreat and recoup at 5 hps."
Now- according to this scenario if I must play according to the tactics as written she will use the same Tier 1-2 approach even at Tier 6-7. That means she won't cast any of her spells or otherwise behave like someone representing the CR she is intended to be. While I understand what you are getting at above with not changing the scenarios and playing by the tactics you should know that some people will (and are) interpreting that to mean NPC enemies may not do anything unless the tactics section says they do and that GMs are breaking the rules by having them use other resources or items in their stat block.
EDIT: If you were running this and the boss were about to go down in the first round of the fight would you ignore an invisibility or dimension door in the stat block because they aren't written in her tactics? I can't imagine you would.
|
|
Okay- let's get technical. Say the PCs are fighting an enemy cleric. Every one of her stat blocks reference her Tier 1-2 details for tactics which are generally, "Mingle with a group and surprise the PCs with a channel energy. Fight by channeling and fear aura. Retreat and recoup at 5 hps."
Now- according to this scenario if I must play according to the tactics as written she will use the same Tier 1-2 approach even at Tier 6-7. That means she won't cast any of her spells or otherwise behave like someone representing the CR she is intended to be. While I understand what you are getting at above with not changing the scenarios and playing by the tactics you should know that some people will (and are) interpreting that to mean NPC enemies may not do anything unless the tactics section says they do and that GMs are breaking the rules by having them use other resources or items in their stat block.
EDIT: If you were running this and the boss were about to go down in the first round of the fight would you ignore an invisibility or dimension door in the stat block because they aren't written in her tactics? I can't imagine you would.
You have a point and so does Mark. Mark was speaking in generalities because often the tactics are part of the storyline.
There are exceptions, no GM should be a robot. Just because the map says the PC enters the room and stands on the location marked "x" on the map means that they will only do that even if the party has erected a bonfire at "x". All GMs have to adapt, good GMs should konly have to change just a little bit to keep the theme intact and the encounter flowing.
So if it wouldn't be so bad if the Cleric threw in a few spontanious Cause Light Wounds on the spell caster she is in base to base with if the rest of the party hot footed it and she wants to save up her channel negative energy till the time she can catch up with them.
As the saying goes; "All battleplans are perfect until they meet the enemy."
|
|
One of my problems with adaptation is interpretation.
For arguments sake let's say we have a BBGEG who's tactics state he will retreat and regroup if at less than 5 hit points. This character has 50 hit points total. If he takes two hits and is dropped to 10 hit points, you as a GM might want to initiate your fiat and deviate from the written tactics because you know that the only way he's going to survive the second round is by not being in combat and regrouping in his secret hidey-hole. Yet this character's block states that he won't flee to regroup until reduced to 5 hit points and the module was written for the characters at that level, so the writer/Josh knows flat out that party members may be dealing 20 points a hit. Your interpretation of the situation (the fact that the party has a couple big hitters who are likely going to take him down) is entirely different than what was intended for his level of concern about the party. This is fine in a home game, where GMs might constantly be adapting fights to best meet the party's strength, but in a PFS game, you've made a personal judgment that may not fit within the intended parameters of this NPC. His "concern threshold" is lower than your personal GM threshold. As has been mentioned before, this may cause players to expend resources not intended (making the module a cakewalk), but that's the way the system was intended to be run. Josh has stated elsewhere (I'm too lazy to look up the thread) that often the bad tactics presented for NPCs is deliberate (which again is another reason they shouldn't be deviated).
I wish there were any easy way to arbitrate this, but frankly, I've seen things swing both ways which is why I've changed my GMing style to be as close to the written line as possible. Some groups plow through modules, others struggle with the same encounter. A an example, last weekend I ran Silent Tide for the third time for a newer group of level 1's. I like the module because it is fairly easy and straightforward which in turn works well for a bunch of level 1's. This group though was nearly wiped off the map with the "standard tactics" presented in combats that have never been a problem before. They had some bad rolls and some bad tactics which made things really difficult. Had I run it with "appropriate intelligent tactics" for the NPCs instead of some of the bad tactics I was told to use use, the group would have TPKed easily.
The system was designed to GM A and GM B will roughly provide the same challenge to groups (obviously some GMs are more fun from a GMing standpoint). I've seen modules listed as TPKs which were obviously caused by deviating from the written tactics. That's the worst-case of what you're describing here. Ideal? No, but there's a reason it was done the way it was.
|
|
I don't think anyone is advocating altering the tactics just because they think the bad guys should be smarter than the writer has presented them. More like- giving the PCs a break when they need it, or slightly more challenge (without deviating from the presented situation and stat block) for the final encounter when the scenario has been steam rolled. In both cases for the enjoyment of the players. This is the area where I see some leeway for the GM to make sure the table had a good time without being bored or pulverized. The majority of the time tactics would run as printed.
Such a rigid adherence to the tactics section would nearly require a round by round directive for spell casters and leave them no room to improvise. Am I to assume that boss encounters are never allowed to use their items like scrolls unless the tactics references it, and then only on round 2 or whatever it might say?
|
|
The system was designed to GM A and GM B will roughly provide the same challenge to groups (obviously some GMs are more fun from a GMing standpoint). I've seen modules listed as TPKs which were obviously caused by deviating from the written tactics. That's the worst-case of what you're describing here. Ideal? No, but there's a reason it was done the way it was.
Yes--this is what happened to our group in Azlant Ridge (from my other thread), though it also made the scenario run out of time before anyone flat-out died, so we all at least lived. The GM ran things with way better tactics than would be possible, and ignored/missed things that would be major tactics inhibitors
|
Venture-Captain, Arizona—Tucson
|
In the end, it becomes a matter of GM judgment whether to deviate from established tactics or not. I assume the tactics reflect the typical reactions and plans from the monster and build from there. If a party's approach is markedly different from the norm, their foe will change his plans.
Sometimes the optimal tactics for a creature could result in a long, drawn-out slogfest. At that point the GM needs to change the equation. One group (on another thread) talked about a 50 round fight: That's just insane!
Sometimes it's difficult for an author and editor to determine just how tough to make a scenario's final fight. An effective party that cakewalked through earlier fights can handle a much more challenging finale than a weaker group that fell into traps, failed a few saves, and suffered a few crits from the beasties on the way. I've seen (and played with) parties that stumbled into a scenario's final fight when they should have found a hole to hide in. Those fights can get ugly.