How lethal are other people finding Pathfinder modules? Are the BBEG's typically intended to kill multiple party members?
MINOR SPOILERS:
We played though Carrion hill recently where 2 of 5 PC's died to the BBEG (who was only killed due to some relatively heavy deus ex machina on the GM's part) and in this last session of Serpent skull it was very clear that we weren't intended to be able to tackle the natives camp at level 2... (but what was the alternative? Just sit back and let the rest of the castaways be eaten after 4 of the 5 NPC's got captured while the PC's were out of the camp?)
I'm just finding it hard to get attached to a character if the game design is that they're supposed/intended to die routinely, but then I don't enjoy the game as much if I don't care about the character either. (Kind of a nasty little conundrum that leads to why play the game at if you take it far enough.)
Any thoughts or advice?
How lethal are other people finding Pathfinder modules? Are the BBEG's typically intended to kill multiple party members?
Any thoughts or advice?
They aren't impossible to kill but they aren't pushovers. They are crafted and calculated to be on par for the level at hand. So I'd put them squarely in the middle where they need to be.
No modules in any of the pathfinder lines REQUIRES that kind of heavy handed DM intervention. That's just not how they were created from all the ones I've read.
The have the impression that Pathfinder modules are written with a fairly optimized party in mind. I see that you have five players, which should help.
Do the characters fill all of the expected roles?
Are the characters fairly well built for effect?
Are the players fairly experienced?
I'm not certain from your post whether you are the DM or a player. But I have a piece of advice for the DM. Don't use obvious DM intervention to help the players! It's very easy to take away the players' sense of accomplishment and agency, and really spoil the experience for them.
Heavy handed (bad):
* NPC comes to rescue the party
* Monsters give up a fight after they've won
* Monsters use blatantly bad strategy
Subtle (good):
* Monsters have 10-20% less HP
* Monsters deal -1 (or more) damage on each hit
* Saving throws are at -1 (or more) difficulty
How lethal are other people finding Pathfinder modules? Are the BBEG's typically intended to kill multiple party members?
My general feeling so far is that they're not what I would consider extremely lethal, but they're lethal enough that it's possible for things to go south in a bad way.
So far we've only lost one PC in our (admittedly still early-ish in the AP) Kingmaker game. To be completely fair to the AP, it happened because two members of the party went off on their own in a dangerous location for no good reason. That was the death of one of them, and could have been the death of more of us if some luck didn't turn it back around, but my feeling is that wouldn't be because the mod is killer as much as some of us made a classic mistake.
|
Well from my experience, the casual player will have a very hard time with the APs and without DM intervention will TPK. The hard core optimizers will find it a cake walk. And stupid players will kill the party. I had a kingmaker game where the party TPKed the first encounter because...
They are crafted and calculated to be on par for the level at hand... No modules in any of the pathfinder lines REQUIRES that kind of heavy handed DM intervention. That's just not how they were created from all the ones I've read.
I'm not sure I entirely agree:
Carrion HillIn carrion hill, the BBEG is a large tentacled monstrosity and apparently depending on how the module runs, can be up to a CR 10 encounter for a 5th level party. I spent 1 round charging my monk into combat with it after the barbarian and cavalier did and 7 rounds pinned and suffering con drain each round before I died. I would have been dead far sooner than 7 rounds in, if the DM hadn't said I recovered 6 con at some point from an unknown source. It should have been a TPK but the DM had the arcane theruge NPC who summoned it show up and distract it, and the wizard who hadn't been grappled, by fluke had grease memorized which barely let the other two melee types escape the pin and attack.
Also note that it was apparently capable of pinning 4 of the 5 PCs at the same time and doing con drain on each of them each round. (Keep in mind this is a 5th level party and the "helper" NPC was also somewhat hostile and was the one who killed the other PC that died.)
Serpent skull
Different DM, three of the same players 5 PCs total. On day 22, the cannibals attacked and captured 4 out of 5 NPCs and led to a long chase scene wherein the rogue used up most of the party healing because he kept missing the traps on the path (but the traps didn't miss him), that got followed up by the fighter playing mine detector the rest of the way there and the party sneaking to the camp. The rogue and ranger then got spotted by a guard while trying to sneak around the camp, while every one else was hiding in the forest waiting for them to report back. Then the alarm got set off and we killed 5 of the basic cannibals in the first two to three rounds as a distraction so the ranger and rogue could retreat. However in the encounter there were 10 or so level 1 barbarians, followed up by a witch (level unknown) with 4 skeleton minions and a barbarian leader (level 4 or 5) with four tough looking bodyguards.
I don't blame the module there, it makes logical sense what happened, but it's clearly not an encounter intended for a party of level 2 characters to survive. Arguably, none of the PC's should have survived except for the two "stealthers", because the cannibals could outrun us. (40' vs 30 move) but I think the DM was being nice and let them runaway. I died because I took two hits from the basic cannibals for 10 and 7 and then got critted for 26 by the leader. At level two I thought my dwarf barbarian with 27 HP was tough but evidently not.
But on the other hand allowing your friends to be eaten isn't very good or very heroic either.
Well from my experience, the casual player will have a very hard time with the APs and without DM intervention will TPK. The hard core optimizers will find it a cake walk.
Glad to see I'm not the only one. The group I'm playing in right now is a strange sort of mix of both types of gamers. Strange in that one night a given player can be casual, yet in the next session the hardcore optimizer too (I include myself in that grouping.) Then add in one guy who's always casual and more RP oriented and one guy who's more consistently optimization oriented.
The question in my mind then becomes if you're not playing with a consistently optimized group, is there any point in playing? Is it really likely that the cakewalk moments are going to make up for the moments of frustration?
My group is finishing kingmaker (last book)
They were a group of six originally.
3 died and had to be replaced.
Considering that half the party made it all the way to the end (pretty much), I'm happy with it (as a dm).
I don't know about the short adventures (don't own them yet) but I'm assuming they have a similar difficulty level? (true?)
They were a group of six originally.
3 died and had to be replaced.
Did the players whose PC's died, only die once or did they have to make multiple new characters?
(For whatever little it's worth, I'm trying to figure out here what my expectations for pathfinder modules should be so I don't get disappointed by deaths or if it's simply a matter of acknowledging that I'm not playing the game well and chalk it up to experience.)
I'm not sure I entirely agree:
Carrion Hill ** spoiler omitted **
Well, for that,
As written, the final opponent is severely weakened at the start. During the course of the adventure, the PCs have opportunities to strengthen themselves and prevent it from regaining its strength. From your statement "the DM had the arcane theruge NPC who summoned it show up and distract it", I conclude that at least one of those was missed.
It is possible that the DM did not read the adventure thoroughly. The notes about "Concluding the Adventure" provide a lot of the DM's information about what the PCs need to do to be successful. It is also possible that the DM did read all of that, and the PCs just did not do the things needed. There are plenty of other possible explanations, but at least in this case the adventure is written to give the four expected PCs a fairly even fight against the enemy. Party composition doesn't sound particularly standard (Cavalier, Barbarian, and Monk are mentioned) which could also be a disadvantage depending on the classes of the other two.
Well, from a GM's perspective, it's a lot easier to ratchet down the power level if an encounter is playing out too tough than it is to ratchet up the power level, which always feels like cheatin' to me. So I don't personally mind that the adventures as printed skew a little toward the tough end of the spectrum.
But, being overwhelmed is no fun, and I'm sorry to hear that it is has made things less awesome for you. I might talk to the GM about it, maybe he can tone things down a bit?
They were a group of six originally.
3 died and had to be replaced.
Did the players whose PC's died, only die once or did they have to make multiple new characters?
(For whatever little it's worth, I'm trying to figure out here what my expectations for pathfinder modules should be so I don't get disappointed by deaths or if it's simply a matter of acknowledging that I'm not playing the game well and chalk it up to experience.)
Each died once.
...so far.
|
Ah, Petrus...
What he has failed to mention is that his benevolent DM (I DM the Serpent Skull AP) is quite often surprised by the party's actions.
As Petrus mentioned, the cannibals raided their camp on the 22nd day of being on the island. What he failed to mention is that the camp was scouted twice (once on the 16th, once on the 21st). Now the first time it happened, the party moved camp. The 2nd time it happened... they did nothing.
Then the party with the remaining castaway basically ran up the trails (because it was faster) hitting all the snares along the way. They also hit the ambush site (which was manned at the time). The ambusher fled (and warned the village btw).
When the party finally arrived at the camp they did a little bit of scouting and the two stealhy types decided to break cover to move behind one of the buildings. Unfortunately the blew their stealth checks and the cannibals made theirs... the camp went into high alert and the remaining PCs in the wood line (still hidden at this point) decided to step out and engage. Things went downhill from there.
Now there were some tactical errors that the party made, and there were some lucky dice rolls (which will eventually happen when you have more attacks than the party does). Could the party have successfully taken out the camp... IMO yes... however they would have had to:
1) scout the camp
2) make a plan
The real question is will the party 'learn' from this mistake? :)
|
I use Paizo APs and modules because they are consistently excellent.
However, they are tough. I know my beginner players' PCs would be rinsed and spat out by RotRL if I didn't help them out (high stats, extra magic-items).
I am so used to this that went to efforts to optimise my PCs for the game I am playing in (CotCT).
To get top stuff, I want adventures written be experienced players/GMs who know every trick in the book.
Unfortunately this sometimes means I get adventures written be experienced players/GMs who know every trick in the book.
Also might be relevant to add that the players in the party I've mentioned above have rolled their stats (4d6, drop the worst).
So their attributes might be a little higher than the point buy method would allow (not much though).
|
|
Well with the DM input, I may have to place the lethality on don't be stupid. Honestly, it sounds like a lot of no/bad plans more then the AP being the issue. Like I said, I had a party TPK the first encounter of kingmaker. It wasn't the AP's fault that they were being utterly stupid (not that I'm saying your group was THAT dumb...but the choices you guys made ain't exactly smart ones either).
|
|
Well with the DM input, I may have to place the lethality on don't be stupid. Honestly, it sounds like a lot of no/bad plans more then the AP being the issue. Like I said, I had a party TPK the first encounter of kingmaker. It wasn't the AP's fault that they were being utterly stupid (not that I'm saying your group was THAT dumb...but the choices you guys made ain't exactly smart ones either).
Well I will say in Petrus' defence, the modules & APs I've seen definitely mean the players need to bring their 'A' game to the table. And even the best laid plans can quickly go sideways with a couple of bad rolls.
And sometimes you don't realize how dangerous the situation is until it is too late.
An assumption my players may have made is that the DM wouldn't throw them up against something they couldn't handle... oopsie! :)
|
|
And sometimes you don't realize how dangerous the situation is until it is too late.
An assumption my players may have made is that the DM wouldn't throw them up against something they couldn't handle... oopsie! :)
..and sometimes PCs will encounter something that they should run away from! ...live to fight another day and whatnot.
An assumption my players may have made is that the DM wouldn't throw them up against something they couldn't handle... oopsie! :)
Yeah but in this case it was the module that did it as opposed to you :) (Hence my line of thought for the post.)
..and sometimes PCs will encounter something that they should run away from! ...live to fight another day and whatnot.
After re-reading, I guess I didn't point this out earlier, but my guy was killed a round or two after yelling retreat. I had stuck near the font line because otherwise the party fighter would have been surrounded and unable to flee given the map geometry and proximity of the other barbarians.(And equally importantly, the party wouldn't have been able to outrun the barbarians with a 40' move either.)
|
|
After re-reading, I guess I didn't point this out earlier, but my guy was killed a round or two after yelling retreat. I had stuck near the font line because otherwise the party fighter would have been surrounded and unable to flee given the map geometry and proximity of the other barbarians.(And equally importantly, the party wouldn't have been able to outrun the barbarians with a 40' move either.)
Just recall that once the barbarian rage ends, the barbarians are fatigued and cannot run for 2x the number of rounds they rage for... so once the barbarians fall out of rage they can only move 90' a round using a double move vs the party's run speed of 120'.
|
|
Pathfinder products sometimes like to put you 'on-the-clock' as well, meaning that you have to struggle on after most of your resources have been used up.
Crown of the Kobold King is a great example.
|
I had the exact same "on the clock" experience running Legacy of Fire this past weekend.
In my LOF game I have had 4 character deaths. 2 players have played their characters from the first session without dying and the players have had serious (potential TPK) trouble in only 3 fights:
That's about correct as far as I am concerned.
They are crafted and calculated to be on par for the level at hand... No modules in any of the pathfinder lines REQUIRES that kind of heavy handed DM intervention. That's just not how they were created from all the ones I've read.I'm not sure I entirely agree:
Carrion Hill ** spoiler omitted **
Edit: putting my response in a spoiler
I dont have the module in front of me, but I am confident the dm played the monster wrong. It does have several tentacle attacks with the grab ability, (thus getting a free grapple on a successful hit) the grapples dont STAY free. On subsequent rounds the monster takes a standard action to maintain ONE of the grapples. The others have to be dropped and if the grapple is maintained it cant make other attacks. Even at full power (without the potential negative levels) this monster isn't as deadly as he made it out to be.
|
|
OK, I can speak for Carrion Hill as a GM and RoTRL as a player. Very mild spoilers on general plotlines below.
Carrion Hill:
The individual foes up until the end of the module are relatively easy... they could present a challenge to a 5th level party, but only if something astray. Chances are, with so many encounters leading up until the end, one of the secondary foe fights strays into "man, that sucked" territory. That's OK, about what you'd expect.
The BBEG could be horribly tough, but only if the party somehow fails utterly to handle every single previous encounter "correctly". Details are given on what is going on, and players really should understand the hook of why the previous encounters all matter. If somehow they do not, the GM pretty much has to see it coming and clue them in sooner or do something to help mitigate the threat the beast poses (giving the party a second chance to get clever). I certainly would not have ran my BBEG fight the same way if my players had failed to eliminate the cultists in the proper way, and I thought the module adequately warned the GM about the whole thing.
RoTRL:
We've not had any TPKs, but yes... the end-boss fight of every module has killed someone. They are tough. The fights aren't too far over APL/CR, but simply having the BBEG sprung on us cold half the time has severely crippled us. Knowing ahead of time, for instance, that Foe X can fly / turn invisible, made a huge difference in attempt #2 on one of them (and our subsequent fight against her friend in the next module). I wish we had had more clues on the sort of threats we might be facing, but maybe we got those and completely missed them.
I don't know that you need to be a completely optimized party to do well in Paizo modules, but you do need to be a smart party. PFS adventures seem more tolerant of casual play, and I'd perhaps be more inclined to use them as intro adventures for new players than I would a Paizo module. In a group with at least 1-2 experienced gamers, though, the modules seem to work fine -- the concerned GM might just want to read the text carefully first, and make some notes on Plan B in case no one "gets it" and they start towards the path to Certain Doom. The modules always seem to have good NPCs suitable for dropping that one extra hint that gives them the best chance to play smart, though.
|
|
So I don't personally mind that the adventures as printed skew a little toward the tough end of the spectrum.
I usually find that Paizo takes the time to give at least some hints when fights are expected to be tough, and lets a GM know if maybe he wants to carefully monitor how things are going.
In most cases, simply chopping down AC and HPs by a smidge, dropping a feat or ability that helps lower save DCs by that 1-2 that makes a difference, etc -- those small adjustments for your parties composition or play style -- those make the difference between success/fun and failure / not so fun.
I'm of the opinion that Paizo's stuff seems pretty difficult. Especially worthy of mention is their habit of putting swarms in very low level adventures. Burning Hands, formerly considered a weak spell, has become kind of a must have at our tables.
That by itself probably would have turned the fight around quite a bit. Something to keep in mind for next time.Yeah that would have ever made a difference and with that in mind, I don't feel quite so concerned about things as I once did. Thanks for the input everyone. It's greatly appreciated.
Adventures should be lethal. That's why they're adventures. From what I've seen, the Pathfinder adventure paths can be difficult but not overpowering; especially for experienced players.
Really, challenging encounters are fun. If every encounter was a cake-walk, it would get really boring really fast. The idea that you should try to actively avoid players dying is a really bad one, in my opinion. It leads to poor adventures with poor gamers.
I'm of the opinion that Paizo's stuff seems pretty difficult. Especially worthy of mention is their habit of putting swarms in very low level adventures. Burning Hands, formerly considered a weak spell, has become kind of a must have at our tables.
Indeed. Much like the scarab swarm in the Eberron starter adventure (a 1st level adventure). The makings of good stuff, those swarms. Always crazy to fight a swarm, haha.
By 3rd level, you can bet virtually every character I have carries some splash weapons, an oil of magic weapon (for incorporeal or damage reduction), a couple of potions, and so forth if the GM is following the rules at all - and that's if I'm a fighter-type.
"I whack it with my sword" should not always be the correct answer.
|
|
Adventures should be lethal. That's why they're adventures. From what I've seen, the Pathfinder adventure paths can be difficult but not overpowering; especially for experienced players.
So if they're difficult but not overpowering for experienced players, what are they like for inexperienced players?
I always think that printed adventures should be pitched at inexperienced players/GMs because it is much easier for an experienced GM to raise the difficulty of an encounter than it is for an inexperienced GM to lower the difficulty of an encounter.
Really, challenging encounters are fun. If every encounter was a cake-walk, it would get really boring really fast. The idea that you should try to actively avoid players dying is a really bad one, in my opinion. It leads to poor adventures with poor gamers.
Please don't criticise other peoples' play-style.
By 3rd level, you can bet virtually every character I have carries some splash weapons, an oil of magic weapon (for incorporeal or damage reduction), a couple of potions, and so forth if the GM is following the rules at all - and that's if I'm a fighter-type.
To me, that suggests that you need to metagame and/or have your play-style constricted to feel like you can survive. Which is fine if you like doing that but doesn't suit how everyone plays.
So if they're difficult but not overpowering for experienced players, what are they like for inexperienced players?
I always think that printed adventures should be pitched at inexperienced players/GMs because it is much easier for an experienced GM to raise the difficulty of an encounter than it is for an inexperienced GM to lower the difficulty of an encounter.
Quite the opposite. It's amazingly easy to nerf an encounter, since many inexperienced - let alone experienced - GMs will run encounters in a less than ideal method. An average encounter with 6 CR 1/3 creatures who don't use actions like aid-another, flanking, general teamwork, and perhaps the odd alchemical item, is trivial without them actually using their numbers and tactics. It's like Tucker's Kobolds in reverse.
It's generally more difficult to make a well built encounter that is difficult and yet not overpowering and/or unbalanced. It should be challenging, and difficult, but doable with teamwork and good thinking. If I buy an adventure path, I'd like to know I don't have to completely re-write the encounters to make them worth something to people who can play the game.
Please don't criticise other peoples' play-style.
Sorry, I think there's been a communication problem. I wasn't criticizing a play-style. I was commenting on the obvious, that boring encounters are boring, and players don't actually become any more experienced by playing them. I've seen it happen a lot. One group I ran for, by request, wanted to play in a higher level game and all talked about how much they had played. Their group got torn apart by enemies of a much lower CR who were supposed to be just window-dressing because the party didn't know how to actually deal with obstacles.
Imagine, if you will, a party of characters higher than 17th level getting torn apart because of some simple charm and dominate spell-like abilities cast on the party's fighter. A 1st level spell could overcome this, and the caster was such a lower level that dispelling it wouldn't have even required a check, but the party was thrown into absolute chaos by an enemy who wasn't even strong enough to provide XP.
I've seen a 20th level ranger who yelled at his GM because "the encounter was too hard and unbalanced" because he couldn't fly and the enemy could. A 20th level character was complaining because he couldn't fly. FLY. That thing that by 10th level is trivially easy via a mere potion.
Is this the playstyle I'm criticizing?
To me, that suggests that you need to metagame and/or have your play-style constricted to feel like you can survive. Which is fine if you like doing that but doesn't suit how everyone plays.
By 3rd level, you can bet virtually every character I have carries some splash weapons, an oil of magic weapon (for incorporeal or damage reduction), a couple of potions, and so forth if the GM is following the rules at all - and that's if I'm a fighter-type.
Meta-game? That's a pretty serious statement, I think. If it's metagaming to prepare, then you should likely leave your armor, your sword, and your adventuring gear at the entrance to the dungeon 'cause you shouldn't need a 10ft pole for traps, nor should you really need a torch since lighting probably isn't a big deal, nor should you bring your healing potions 'cause there might not be any danger at all and bringing them would be meta-gaming.
Exactly at what point did it become meta-gaming to carry around some flasks of acid to use for what they're for?
Exactly at what point did it become meta-gaming to carry around an oil of magic weapon (1st level potion) for when you need a magic weapon?
Exactly at what point did it become meta-gaming to carry around a few healing potions for emergencies (cleric is down, revive him)?
Exactly at what point did it become meta-gaming to chug a potion of enlarge person and begin decimating your foes as a giant?
Exactly at what point did it become meta-gaming to carry a sling 'cause it's cheap and effective for high strength characters, and good for lobbing the aforementioned flasks of acid greater distances.
Exactly at what point did it become metagaming for adventurers to try to prepare to survive?
Can you explain, exactly when? 'Cause I think I missed the memo.
|
|
Exactly at what point did it become meta-gaming to carry around some flasks of acid to use for what they're for?
Exactly at what point did it become meta-gaming to carry around an oil of magic weapon (1st level potion) for when you need a magic weapon?
Exactly at what point did it become meta-gaming to carry around a few healing potions for emergencies (cleric is down, revive him)?
Exactly at what point did it become meta-gaming to chug a potion of enlarge person and begin decimating your foes as a giant?
Exactly at what point did it become meta-gaming to carry a sling 'cause it's cheap and effective for high strength characters, and good for lobbing the aforementioned flasks of acid greater distances.
Exactly at what point did it become metagaming for adventurers to try to prepare to survive?Can you explain, exactly when? 'Cause I think I missed the memo.
Wow.
I wasn't expecting to put your back up like that.
but, yeah...
Characters are complex and have instincts, inclinations and personalities. Carrying acid to use as a weapon is a product of a few certain personalities, it is not, in my experience, typical behaviour.
Most of the fighter-types I have played have not, at level three, been thinking: "It seems like many of the creatures I encounter in the future may have immunities that I need a magic weapon to overcome. Sure, if they had studied exotic creatures at some point, but not for a typical ranger/bard/fighter the way I have played them in the past.
Healing potions make perfect sense, all creatures who have been in a few close scraps will appreciate that.
Enlarge person, I can imagine a fighter who has had a taste of that deciding: "I want more of that." But not everyone will have a taste by then.
Carrying a sling is not meta-gaming if your character is from a culture that uses slings to hunt, control animals and (even) wage war. But if you're choosing it purely for the high-strength leverage then it is pure meta-gaming.
Adventurers prepare to adventure based upon their experience, not the opinions of the player as to what is required to 'survive'.
My characters prepare to survive upon their own terms, not the terms of the game-system, my experience of the GM's style or anything else.
I don't usually play sub-opt. characters but my characters, once created, react to their experiences and environment, not what I, as a player, know about PathfinderRPG at level X.
That memo comment was pure snark. As I may have mentioned before: appreciate other people's play style and don't assume you're doing it right and the rest of us are doing it wrong.
Wow.I wasn't expecting to put your back up like that.
but, yeah...
Characters are complex and have instincts, inclinations and personalities. Carrying acid to use as a weapon is a product of a few certain personalities, it is not, in my experience, typical behaviour.
etc.
To be fair, adventuring is typical behavior either. :P
Adventurers are anything but typical. Adventures are supposed to be dangerous. That we we have monsters, traps, and hazards. We have all these fun tools and options for overcoming them, but ignoring those options means your character SHOULD die. It's the same as a warrior rushing into battle in a loin-cloth and then complaining he gets hit too much or he died 'cause that critical confirmed against his AC 12. Would you really give much credit to said warrior, or say he was asking for it?
There's a reason most people don't go out hunting ogres and giants. Most people will get themselves killed.
EDIT: Also, I wasn't trying to be snarky or anything. My previous post was mostly to make a point. We're cool. ^_^
Most of the fighter-types I have played have not, at level three, been thinking: "It seems like many of the creatures I encounter in the future may have immunities that I need a magic weapon to overcome. Sure, if they had studied exotic creatures at some point, but not for a typical ranger/bard/fighter the way I have played them in the past.
I'm pretty sure that the guy at the potion/oil shop could at least give you some information as to what the item is useful for. Somehow I doubt that it's incredibly secret knowledge that some creatures are only harmed by magical weapons.
Healing potions make perfect sense, all creatures who have been in a few close scraps will appreciate that.
Enlarge person, I can imagine a fighter who has had a taste of that deciding: "I want more of that." But not everyone will have a taste by then.
Again, it's a 1st level spell potion. Any five year old knows that the guy twice your size has an advantage in a fight, so being bigger, stronger, and with more reach is just obvious. A taste for it? Really?
Carrying a sling is not meta-gaming if your character is from a culture that uses slings to hunt, control animals and (even) wage war. But if you're choosing it purely for the high-strength leverage then it is pure meta-gaming.
Let's see. I'm a fighter, warrior type, or other adventurer that has proficiency in multiple weapons - meaning I'm trained to use and understand them. So, obviously, I would know that throwing weapons are stronger when thrown by strong people, or is that meta-gaming too? Slings hit harder when launched by stronger people, so seeing as I'm both proficient and stronger, choosing a sling over a light crossbow just seems like a no brainer. You would actually call this meta-gaming?
Adventurers prepare to adventure based upon their experience, not the opinions of the player as to what is required to 'survive'.
My characters prepare to survive upon their own terms, not the terms of the game-system, my experience of the GM's style or anything else.
A fighter in a fantastic world ought to know a bit about fighting, don't you think? I think you're thinking of commoners, who lack weapon proficiencies, armor proficiencies, and any form of combat training or adaptation. Even then, most commoners - out of sheer reasoning - could tell you a muscle powered weapon is better for a guy with muscle, and could tell you a magic sword is probably better for hurting magic monsters.
What you're describing is called "lucky" or "the ones that didn't get away". Learning to survive on your own terms is fine. I'm sure the first time you encounter a creature that swallows you, your hunting knife might be a godsend. Or when that creature spits its venom into you, you're gonna be glad you packed antitoxins for snakebites.
Adventurers aren't complete morons.
I don't usually play sub-opt. characters but my characters, once created, react to their experiences and environment, not what I, as a player, know about PathfinderRPG at level X.
I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm still confused as to your meta-gaming comments, since it sounds to me like you're the one meta-gaming. You see, the way I see it, you're intentionally trying to ignore things that even in-game would be obvious to most people because of mechanical reasons.
Is it also meta-gaming that my wizard bought a mule 'cause she's not very strong, and doesn't like carrying a backpack around everywhere that's really heavy?
|
|
I don't usually play sub-opt. characters but my characters, once created, react to their experiences and environment, not what I, as a player, know about PathfinderRPG at level X.
Yes... I don't put down someones play style for playing up any of those elements (and in organized play, I'd go right for it on any and all of those, they're a part of the core assumptions), but I think the game is much more fun if you do not go down that road in the standard long-running campaign.
Thus... the observation that "of course, every 3rd level player has oil of magic weapon" just doesn't ring true for me. I find too many gaps there -- should we assume that item purchasing is wide-open and that the PC understands the way DR rules work? In most of my games, this isn't going to be 100% true (not because of this circumstance -- oil of magic weapon is no big deal), because I find the Ye Olde Magic Shoppe version of D&D to be less fun. For similar reasons, the Big Six approach to PC advancement doesn't interest me and I'd rather tweak other parts of the game to suit.
Back to the the OP, my observation -- the modules and APs can be really tough. It helps to being your A-game. It helps even more when the DM realizes that the players need a fair chance to know that they're on a thin margin of error and should be well prepared.
For example -- swarms. Totally fair to use, great thing to make parties have to play smart (and playing smart usually encourages good teamwork, and that pays off in plenty of RP ways). To be fair with them, I'd encourage direct inclusion in the module of alchemist fire or scrolls of flame sphere, or avenues of retreat appropriate to buy the party some time to organize anti-swarm tactics. Or you let them retreat and then (now armed with knowledge of the threat) return with the required gear. If the module doesn't include this, no big deal -- but the DM has to either see that possibility ahead of time or be able to shuffle on his feet to say "uh oh, this just got a lot tougher than it should have, time to cut them a small break this time and get them out of here, let's delay the swarm's advance and strongly hint they get out of here ASAP".
I think so long as you're prepared for some small adjustments to keep things true to the intended threat levels, the modules and APs run fine.
I don't usually play sub-opt. characters but my characters, once created, react to their experiences and environment, not what I, as a player, know about PathfinderRPG at level X.
It is not metagaming. Assuming you play a fighter I can only assume you had specialized training. Apart from physical work you had classes in tactics and possible hazards. Your game world's workings would be included in that.
You may not know a level 2 wizard can turn invisible, but you might know even a wizard who is just learning the trade can do so, and that a wizard of similar power can counter it. Even if you don't know I think it is fair to assume the party trains together, and the party wizard/sorcerer is giving you tips on how to defend yourself against certain things. In a world with magic and strange creatures defending against certain things should be a part of your training.If it is know that fighters sometimes fall to wizards because their training does not allow them time to strengthen their minds it would make sense for you to take iron will(improve you ability to resist magical spells mentally).
I am sure your party wizard would tell you this freely so you don't end up stabbing him in the face or running away(fear).
I don't usually play sub-opt. characters but my characters, once created, react to their experiences and environment, not what I, as a player, know about PathfinderRPG at level X.
It is not metagaming. Assuming you play a fighter I can only assume you had specialized training. Apart from physical work you had classes in tactics and possible hazards. Your game world's workings would be included in that.
You may not know a level 2 wizard can turn invisible, but you might know even a wizard who is just learning the trade can do so, and that a wizard of similar power can counter it. Even if you don't know I think it is fair to assume the party trains together, and the party wizard/sorcerer is giving you tips on how to defend yourself against certain things. In a world with magic and strange creatures defending against certain things should be a part of your training.
If it is know that fighters sometimes fall to wizards because their training does not allow them time to strengthen their minds it would make sense for you to take iron will(improve you ability to resist magical spells mentally).
I am sure your party wizard would tell you this freely so you don't end up stabbing him in the face or running away(fear).
Pretty much this. D&D isn't X-Files where the supernatural is known to the very few.
Likewise, I hate this complaining about "Magic Marts" and "Ye Olde Magick Shoppe". The biggest thing I mentioned was a 1st level potion on my 3rd level character. Her armor is more expensive than that. 50gp for an oil of magic weapon. According to the rules it's available in a THORPE.
Seriously, it's that common in your standard game. If you're ignoring stuff like this and them complaining the game is too hard, and the adventure paths are brutal, then you should really step back and look at how much of a problem you are causing that is irrelevant to the adventure path.
Other equipment my characters usually pack?
Chalk: 100 pieces (for marking things like walls, trees, and more)
Bags of Chalk: 100 pieces of chalk, ground into chalk powder and placed into containers to use as a splash weapon - great for blinding foes temporarily or revealing invisible foes.
Lantern, Bullseye: Need some light. If I'm playing a spellcaster, I cast light on the interior to avoid the light going out in harsh winds.
Oil, Flasks: 'Cause everyone's gay for fire.
Gauntlets, Slashing and Cestus: 'Cause you're never without a weapon.
A Pole-arm: Keep your distance!
Food: I prefer dry bread & cheese, 'cause it's portable and lasts a while. Trail rations work too though. If possible, I'll just pack dried ingredients and cook meals myself. For this, I often carry a few spices.
Blankets: It can get cold, and you never know when you can use blankets for something else, such as when you need to transport something (placing a heavy object on a blanket can make it easier to drag, or to carry a downed companion).
Bedroll: Sleeping on the ground can suck sometimes.
Light Armor: 'Cause you can sleep in it.
Shaving Cream & Razor: 'Cause your face or legs get kind of prickly.
Antitoxins and Medicines: For poison and disease of course.
Traveler's Cloak: For the weather, but preferably masterwork for a +2 bonus to Stealth.
Flint & Steel: For when you have time to light a fire.
Tindertwigs: For when you don't.
Thunderstone: I don't use these offensively most of the time, but they make great distractions or signals; especially combined with my sling.
Heavy Wooden Shield: If I'm trying to escape an ambush, grabbing one of these and using a total-defense while fleeing can help. Doubly so if you're riding your horse or similar.
Mule: Cheap method of carrying your gear.
Ox: I prefer these guys over mules. They're stronger, and larger, so they can carry sooooo much more stuff. When trained they're a powerful ally. Mr. Bunyan had a good idea.
So that's most of my cheap low-level gears. At higher levels, I typically want equipment that helps me help my party. Stuff that helps guard against mind-control (protection from evil), helps you move (freedom of movement), energy resistances (while permanent buffs to your armor are expensive, x/day buffs aren't), and stuff that can help me rescue my allies (healing potions, or even 1/day remove disease or similar items). Of course, that kind of stuff doesn't come 'till post 3rd level, generally.
Our group has played Legacy of Fire and Kingmaker. The former has chewed through several characters whereas the latter has TPK'd us at least once.
Did I mention we were 25-pt buy characters? Yeah. They can be hard.
So far my players feel like they are half asleep in Kingmaker. They just trounced the first book, killing the Stag Lord with only 1 person needing serious heals. The only things that have been a threat at all have been the ones that can do 15+ damage/hit, and most of them can barely touch 20+ ACs.
I guess it really depends of the Module. I'm a player in CotCT and we have blown through the first four books. However, we're three or so sessions into book five and we've been trounced a couple times already (thank you dimension door).
|
|
I don't usually play sub-opt. characters but my characters, once created, react to their experiences and environment, not what I, as a player, know about PathfinderRPG at level X.
It is not metagaming. Assuming you play a fighter I can only assume you had specialized training. Apart from physical work you had classes in tactics and possible hazards. Your game world's workings would be included in that.
You may not know a level 2 wizard can turn invisible, but you might know even a wizard who is just learning the trade can do so, and that a wizard of similar power can counter it. Even if you don't know I think it is fair to assume the party trains together, and the party wizard/sorcerer is giving you tips on how to defend yourself against certain things. In a world with magic and strange creatures defending against certain things should be a part of your training.
If it is know that fighters sometimes fall to wizards because their training does not allow them time to strengthen their minds it would make sense for you to take iron will(improve you ability to resist magical spells mentally).
I am sure your party wizard would tell you this freely so you don't end up stabbing him in the face or running away(fear).
Your fighter does not decide to take iron will because he knows that wizards mess with your mind.
He doesn't take that decision at all.Your fighter has no notion of feats.
The player makes that decision, for whatever reason suits the character (Big Doug has been through some harrowing stuff and come out mentally stronger. So I'm giving him Iron Will to reflect that).
Also, that assumption that a fighter has specialised training is interesting and will reflect some fighters but far from all.
I have played fighters who got caught up in a civil war, lost their lands and fled into the wilderness with a dead soldier's gear. I have played soldiers who were cannon-fodder in massive armies and had brutal, basic training that involved preparation for nothing besides staying in line and killing other humans, and I have also played fighters who trained at sophisticated martial academies. All are valid but only one fits your assumption.
As a current example, my sorcerer in a pbp Rise of the Runelords was at a big street party when a load of goblins attacked. He helped to fight them off and has now been roped into helping protect the town he loves.
He barely understands his own magic, has had no training and has always expected to be another anonymous itinerant trader/entertainer.
How is he supposed to be decked out in the most effective equipment at all times without breaking character?
I'm not saying that you cannot play that way, I'm just suggesting that published adventures should not assume that you have a cart full of carefully-chosen, level-appropriate gear with you at all times.
Also, that assumption that a fighter has specialised training is interesting and will reflect some fighters but far from all.
I have played fighters who got caught up in a civil war, lost their lands and fled into the wilderness with a dead soldier's gear. I have played soldiers who were cannon-fodder in massive armies and had brutal, basic training that involved preparation for nothing besides staying in line and killing other humans, and I have also played fighters who trained at sophisticated martial academies. All are valid but only one fits your assumption.
What you're describing in the first two examples is an NPC warrior. If you're so hung up on being true to your character and not metagaming, you should play a warrior NPC.
As a current example, my sorcerer in a pbp Rise of the Runelords was at a big street party when a load of goblins attacked. He helped to fight them off and has now been roped into helping protect the town he loves. He barely understands his own magic, has had no training and has always expected to be another anonymous itinerant trader/entertainer.
How is he supposed to be decked out in the most effective equipment at all times without breaking character?
He doesn't have to, but he might suffer for it, 'cause that's life. You have access to equipment and tools, and choosing not to use those because of character concept is entirely on you. It's the same thing as with the example of choosing not to wear armor. Armor is uncomfortable and maybe even a bit itchy (probably smells bad after a while too), so maybe you don't wear it 'cause your character is very finicky. Doesn't mean that the game should be designed based on the idea you don't want to wear armor. Not using the expected tools is your fault, not the modules.
I'm not saying that you cannot play that way, I'm just suggesting that published adventures should not assume that you have a cart full of carefully-chosen, level-appropriate gear with you at all times.
Have you by chance looked at the Curse of the Crimson Throne pregens? At 1st level, 3/4 of the characters have alchemist fires, acids, tanglefoot bags, and sunrods, and most have around 23-31 gp left to spend on additional gear.
You also seem to ignore the fact I said "practically all of my characters, by 3rd level", which means by this point you're already far more elite than the average person or even the average adept, expert, or warrior. You've got some adventuring experience, and likely a solid amount of treasures to use or purchase equipment with.
So what, exactly, are you biting at?
So far my players feel like they are half asleep in Kingmaker. They just trounced the first book, killing the Stag Lord with only 1 person needing serious heals. The only things that have been a threat at all have been the ones that can do 15+ damage/hit, and most of them can barely touch 20+ ACs.
How'd you manage that? The stag lord solo'd our entire party to death!
My experience is that the modules will render 50% of most characters KIA/MIA. Now this is only my experience, and we use 25 point buy systems. However, we DO NOT have Ye Old Magic Shops around for 1-3rd level characters to stock up in. Well we do not have them for anyone actually...
So far my players feel like they are half asleep in Kingmaker. They just trounced the first book, killing the Stag Lord with only 1 person needing serious heals. The only things that have been a threat at all have been the ones that can do 15+ damage/hit, and most of them can barely touch 20+ ACs.How'd you manage that? The stag lord solo'd our entire party to death!
Stag Lord can easily be forced either into melee or to greater range than 30 feet. From there, he needs a flanking buddy to get sneak attack (which he got 1 round of against the PC rogue), but darkness or obscuring mist prevent all sneak attack damage and reduce his damage output to a single 1d8. Combined with the rogue having some strength poison, The Stag Lord ended up being completely surrounded by PCs in an obscurring mist dealing a whopping 1d8-2 damage, and PCs with an Oracle who hadn't cast a spell yet.
I even gave the Stag Lord an extra bard buddy, who was able to use light to cancel the darkness spell so the rogue did not destroy, and gave him, and all the mooks, an extra +1 to hit and damage.
Edit: He only gets to use the helmet once.
Edit edit: And he was never within 30 feet of my players and not in melee and flanked.
|
|
So what, exactly, are you biting at?
Sorry, I don't really know what this means.
If it means: "What is my point." Then my point is that Paizo APs and Modules have to be written for a broad swathe of players and that this should mean they are less challenging because it is easier for an experienced GM to boost the difficulty of an encounter than it is for an inexperienced GM to drop the difficulty.
I actually think Paizo have responded to this and, beyond the tendency to make end-of-chapter bosses OMGAwesome, the difficulty of recent APs is not as overwhelming as the Darkmoon Vale modules and the early APs.
Evidence: Xanesha, Merkolep, Malfeshnekor
My experience is that the modules will render 50% of most characters KIA/MIA. Now this is only my experience, and we use 25 point buy systems. However, we DO NOT have Ye Old Magic Shops around for 1-3rd level characters to stock up in. Well we do not have them for anyone actually...
Since I'm not sure what you mean by Ye Old Magic Shops in this case, I'm just going to note that if your players don't have access to level appropriate magic items like potions, scrolls, and so forth, you're increasing the difficulty and limiting their options. 1st level potions are, according to the rules, purchasable in Thorpes.
So if basic goods like these constitute, then you're stealth-nerfing adventurers and should expect everything to be more difficult.
** spoiler omitted **...So far my players feel like they are half asleep in Kingmaker. They just trounced the first book, killing the Stag Lord with only 1 person needing serious heals. The only things that have been a threat at all have been the ones that can do 15+ damage/hit, and most of them can barely touch 20+ ACs.How'd you manage that? The stag lord solo'd our entire party to death!
Heck yeah! That's what I'm talking about. *applauds Caineach and his/her group*
Tactics for the win. Simply granting concealment screws up sneak attack hard. It's nice to see some good teamwork to overcome a good challenge.
How'd you manage that? The stag lord solo'd our entire party to death!
** spoiler omitted **
Although the Stag Lord didn't cause a TPK, there was still some points that were touch and go. We're just about finished the 2nd book and we've lost 5 PCs though never more than 2 at a time in our party of 4:
Creative Director
|
Malfeshnekor WAS supposed to be too tough to tackle. The point of that encounter was to blur the line between volumes of the total AP—essentially, you'd finish most of a single dungeon and then start the next adventure and then come back when you're tougher to finish that first dungeon.
Turns out, though, that it's probably a bit too "meta" to do stuff like that—the idea that "if it's in the adventure it has to be part of THAT adventure before you move on" is just a bit too ingrained in RPG society, I guess. With later adventures, like Kingmaker and Serpent's Skull, we try this again, but much more subtly; the sandbox elements of those adventures work pretty good "outside" of their adventures.
In any event... as mentioned upthread (although I'm paraphrasing here); no two gaming groups are exactly alike. Some are more experienced at the game than others are, and what's challenging to them would be a cakewalk to others. Our goal with our adventures is to adhere to a midpoint between those two extremes, so that the adventures are right for everyone. We DO skew toward the tough side, though, because when you look back in time, what adventures do folks remember and talk about the most? The tough ones.
And in the end, we don't know your group at all. They could be ANYONE. You, as the GM, have a huge advantage over us, and that's why we depend on our GMs so heavily to present our adventures to their players in a way that's fun. If that means adjusting adventures to match your style of play or your player's experience and mastery of the game, that's what it means—it's kind of the GM's job to make those final fine-tuned adjustments. If we do our job right with the adventure, though, those final adjustments are quick and easy to make.
I'm not saying that you cannot play that way, I'm just suggesting that published adventures should not assume that you have a cart full of carefully-chosen, level-appropriate gear with you at all times.
I think it's fair to assume that most PCs are professional adventurers, so to speak, and will try to round up what reasonable tools they can to tackle the problems before them -- because that will be the case (albiet with varying levels of completeness/success/skill) for most people playing a published adventure.
I mean, you could put an elaborate puzzle or trap in an adventure that's utterly defeated if any PC happens to be carrying 50' of rope, but that would be silly. It's more reasonable to design an encounter that can't be passed if no PC is carrying 50' of rope, even if people in real life basically never carry 50' of rope anywhere.