Difficulty


Carrion Crown

1 to 50 of 108 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

How difficult is this in comparison to the other AP's, starting with RotRL? I am asking because I want to decide how to start the game off.


I'm pretty sure all of the APs have a similar difficulty...

From what I've seen (And I've only read RotRL, Kingmaker, and Serpent's Skull) they tend to start off with a few quick, easy encounters for your heroes to feel Heroic, and then start ramping up the difficulty until you hit the Big Bad in book 1, which tends to be either a tough dungeon or a tough fight.

Then each subsequent book has a similar arc.

As to how difficult a time you'll have with each encounter, that's kind of a hard thing to measure - it'll depend a lot on your GM and your players. If you're a GM, just read the book beforehand and get a feel for how you should handle it. If you're a player... just do the best you can.


I just like to know if I will have to ramp up encounters or not. Kingmaker did not seem all that challenging even though it was fun for me to DM.
I like to go into an adventure with a certain mindset, is all. :)


Kingmaker's sandbox design makes it less predictable, but if you read the forum for that AP, you'll discover plenty of groups who found the first chapter challenging, especially the combat with the Big Bad.

How large is your party? The APs seem geared towards groups of four, so larger groups might find them too easy.

Liberty's Edge

Depends on party make-up.

If the party has a pure cleric with a high Charisma stat? Not too bad. Lower charasima? Very challenging, but doable.

"We don't need a cleric, we'll go with an Oracle or a Witch to act as our primary healer?"

Then a TPK is quite likely.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

All of our APs are more or less equal difficulty. We generally aim for a "Middle of the road" when building them, so that they'll challenge the average group of players. If you've run a few APs before and your group's trouncing them, that means you have a particularly skilled group of players and you'll need to ramp up the encounters and challenges as appropriate.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
All of our APs are more or less equal difficulty. We generally aim for a "Middle of the road" when building them, so that they'll challenge the average group of players. If you've run a few APs before and your group's trouncing them, that means you have a particularly skilled group of players and you'll need to ramp up the encounters and challenges as appropriate.

I know they are built for a medium progression (I believe it says that at the start of each one, but what point buy are they built for?)


Galnörag wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
All of our APs are more or less equal difficulty. We generally aim for a "Middle of the road" when building them, so that they'll challenge the average group of players. If you've run a few APs before and your group's trouncing them, that means you have a particularly skilled group of players and you'll need to ramp up the encounters and challenges as appropriate.
I know they are built for a medium progression (I believe it says that at the start of each one, but what point buy are they built for?)

15 is standard, but I think most people use 20 if they don't roll.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Galnörag wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
All of our APs are more or less equal difficulty. We generally aim for a "Middle of the road" when building them, so that they'll challenge the average group of players. If you've run a few APs before and your group's trouncing them, that means you have a particularly skilled group of players and you'll need to ramp up the encounters and challenges as appropriate.
I know they are built for a medium progression (I believe it says that at the start of each one, but what point buy are they built for?)

Yup. 15 point buy is the standard assumption, but they work fine with 20 point buy as well, honestly. Your players' experience at the game will have a much greater impact on how difficult the adventure is than the difference between a 15 and 20 point buy.


I had thought to use the fast XP path with my rationale being that by the end of this AP when the players are aimed at around lvl 16 or 17 (usually) it would give them one whole level extra. That did not appear excessive to me, but am I giving my (rather experienced) players too much of an extra boost?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

liondriel wrote:
I had thought to use the fast XP path with my rationale being that by the end of this AP when the players are aimed at around lvl 16 or 17 (usually) it would give them one whole level extra. That did not appear excessive to me, but am I giving my (rather experienced) players too much of an extra boost?

That's not really something I can really answer. I'd say that letting an experienced part get to higher levels would make the adventure super easy... but that might still be fun. Not everyone equates "almost impossible" or even "really tough" to mean "fun."

Liberty's Edge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber

I am running LoF using the slow XP chart because I like to throw a number of side treks at the party to make it more of a sandbox feel, and I also award XP for treasure and other things besides killing creatures. Using the slow XP chart has given me greater flexibility in how I award XP, and allows for a bit more control on the advancement.

I am also a player in two other AP's and the GM's like to bump up some of the encounters to provide a bit more excitement into the combat encounters....and yes I find this to be fun on both sides of the screen :)


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I've glanced through the first module, and I have to admit I'm a bit concerned. In particularly the last two penultimate ghost look particularly rough.

Spoiler:
Especially the last wizard guy, the Splatter Man. He's an 8th level caster, but thats not the worst part (his casting is somewhat limited by his limited selection). Worse is his +5 6d6 corupting touch attack (Fort DC 17 for half). At third level he's an absolute monster to face, that attack will easily hit just about anyone, and could potentially kill most builds in a single hit (especially if softened up with his maximized magic missle first).

Defensively, his saves are decent, best is obviously will, with an awesome +12 against channel. And he's incorporeal so players have at best a 50% chance of hitting him. Hope they have a magic weapon, a brief skim only showed me two magic melee weapons and some ranged ammunition (which I hope they haven't expended on the OTHER ghost present in the dungeon). He also has a relatively huge total of HP, 62.

And if that wasn't bad enough the party faces him directly after facing a CR 6 haunt.

Now I enjoy a good challenge, but this looks to be setting up for a TPK.

Spoiler:
Oh, and the Loper is pretty mean too.


Max Mahem wrote:

I've glanced through the first module, and I have to admit I'm a bit concerned. In particularly the last two penultimate ghost look particularly rough.

** spoiler omitted **

Now I enjoy a good challenge, but this looks to be setting up for a TPK.

** spoiler omitted **

Incorporeal creatures don't have a 50% chance of being unaffected anymore, instead they are immune to nonmagical attacks and magical weapons deal half damage. The 50% miss chance only applies to spells without the force descriptor.

Spoiler:
But yes, the splatter man looks like a real challenge.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Mortagon wrote:
Max Mahem wrote:

I've glanced through the first module, and I have to admit I'm a bit concerned. In particularly the last two penultimate ghost look particularly rough.

** spoiler omitted **

Now I enjoy a good challenge, but this looks to be setting up for a TPK.

** spoiler omitted **

Incorporeal creatures don't have a 50% chance of being unaffected anymore, instead they are immune to nonmagical attacks and magical weapons deal half damage. The 50% miss chance only applies to spells without the force descriptor.

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
I believe the tactics of the splatter man pretty much say he doesn't use the corrupting touch, except against a particular challenging foe, and does what he can to avoid physical combat. As a ghost, he isn't supposed to be rational or particularly sane, he is a malevolent echo of his former self, and so acts like a mage. In other words he is handicapped by design, unless you choose to ignore his intended use.
Liberty's Edge

Spoiler:
Unfortunately, the module text does, indeed, suggest that the GM run the Splatter Man in an effort to throw the fight and "take a dive". The fact that the module suggests this, however, does not make it right or a good design choice. I think it is neither.

But “take a dive” is exactly the way it feels to me. There is no other credible way to view the fight other than to characterize it for what it is: a refusal to actually use the resources available to the foe in order to permit the PCs to defeat it. Worse, it does this in a glaringly obvious way.

I plan to have Michael Kortes on the podcast as soon as possible to discuss The Haunting of Harrowstone. Please do not misunderstand me, I LOVE this module and I think it is one of Paizo’s best of all time. I think it is their strongest Adventure Path issue since the change over to PFRPG.

But that doesn’t mean that I like the combat suggestions for The Splatter Man -- because I REALLY, REALLY don’t. Moreover, depending on the type of players that you have at your table, your players may become very disappointed and upset when they see that the GM is deliberately taking a dive with the BBEG of the module. Because that is what the module text suggests – and I 100% guarantee that my players will be quite angry with me (and with Paizo) if I run the encounter as suggested.

It comes down to this: A properly managed, run-of-the-mill human ghost straight out of the bestiary can easily TPK a party of four 8th level characters if a GM runs the monster with a veiw to achieving that objective. The vanilla ghost's CR is already understated for "roleplaying" reasons as it stands. Add spell use to that ghost template? It is a cakewalk for such a ghost to take on a group of four 3rd or 4th level characters. Use the ghost to its proper advantage and you will TPK your PC party -- every time.

So, how do you tilt the balance back in the favour of the PCs in order to permit them to stand up to The Splatter Man? That’s the principal design renovation that The Haunting of Harrowstone needs. In my opinion, there is a way to do it. The way to do it is NOT to repeatedly make sub-optimal and illogical combat choices wih your BBEG and call that a "fix". That's just taking a dive with your boss monster and your players are going to know it and a lot of players will not forgive you for it, either.

I believe that there are resources that you can easily place into the PCs hands throughout the module which will enable the PCs to defeat The Splatter Man is a more traditional and convincing manner – and at the very least – in a manner which will not seem so completely cheesy as the module text currently suggests.

Again, I REALLY otherwise love this module -- but I hate this BBEG fight as written. Deliberately taking a dive with your “boss monster” is not the way to end a module on a bang and have your players cheering, high-fiving and chomping at the bit to play the next instalment.

This aspect of the module DEMANDS a fix.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

But sometimes irrational and sub-optimal choices are exactly what a character does, whether hero or villain, big bad or mook. The Splatter Man was insane even in life, and now is reduced to, as so aptly characterized earlier, a maleveolent echo. The nature of ghostly existence places constraints on even the most intelligent. The Splatter Man is most certainly fantastically brilliant, but he also prefers to work from the shadows, manipulating others to do his dirty work and inspiring fear. Physical confrontation is not in his nature, except as a last resort, which is how he uses it.


Since CC is suppossed to be horror, I think it's okay to have really dangerous foes to scare the beejezuz out of the players. Not all foes are necessarily suppossed to be beaten in straight up combat, and fleeing might be a good option sometimes. I think this is even more appropriate in a horror game. If you think the splatter man is to tough it wouldn't be that hard to tone him down anyway.

Liberty's Edge

I do not agree that having to resort to character motivations and the suggestion that a ghost is "insane" is a proper or palatable excuse to provide to players to justify taking a dive with a BBEG during the climactic fight in an AP module.

Your players might put up with that sophistry; mine won't.

Instead, I think the best way to deal with this is to provide the PC's with the potential to acquire resources within the game to permit them to defeat TSM in a stand-up fight, without having to compel TSM to make sub-optimal and "insane" choices to "save" the PCs from certain doom.

I have introduced three “fixes” into my version of the module in my current campaign to deal with the issue of fighting The Splatter Man at the end of The Haunting of Harrowstone in order to make the PCs on a more equal footing against the ghost, as follows:

Spoiler:

1 – Amulet of the Palatine Eye: Each of the PCs were given an amulet by Professor Lorrimor during their interaction with the Professor many years prior to the events in The Haunting of Harrowstone. This amulet should allow the PCs to recognize one another as “kindred spriits” and the amulet functions, inter alia, as a specialized spell storing device. The only spell that the PCs are able to discern that the amulet can hold is protection from evil. When charged, an Amulet of the Palatine Eye will automatically cast protection from evil on its wearer when the wearer is attacked by a creature which would radiate a moderate aura of evil (or greater) if detect evil were cast upon it. This effect is automatic and does not require any act by the wearer in order to be triggered. Alternatively, at the option of the wearer, the wearer may cause a charged amulet to cast protection from evil upon the wearer as a standard action.

2- Brooch of Shielding: I strongly suggest that you place a brooch of shielding somewhere within the module where it is very likely to be found. The oubliette of The Lopper, for example, is a good choice. Because The Splatter Man has dispel magic prepared in his limited selection of spells, there is a very good chance that a shield spell will be dispelled by TSM during the fight. In contrast, the brooch of shielding must be specifically targeted by a dispel magic in order to be suppressed (and even then, will only be suppressed for 1d4 rounds) and it makes TSM’s use of his single dispel magic spell a more difficult tactical choice.

3- Charged Haunt Siphon – I suggest that the haunt siphons the party can recover from the False Crypt of Pharasma in the Restlands be upgraded in its potential power and effects. I would suggest that a haunt siphon operates normally as per the text; however, Vesorianna Hawkran will tell the party that a haunt siphon can be used to even greater effect when it is used to capture and destroy a major malevolent haunt (i.e., The Piper of Illmarsh, Father Charlatan, and The Mosswater Marauder). If a haunt siphon is used to deliver the killing blow to a major malevolent haunt, the haunt siphon can then be “charged” with positive energy and used as a weapon against The Splatter Man or other incorporeal foe. Vesorianna knows that TSM is a ghost, like her, and so she knows his vulnerabilities to a charged haunt siphon – as she is equally as vulnerable to such an attack.

Charging a Hunt Siphon: A haunt siphon that has been used to defeat and trap a major malevolent haunt can be detonated by a cleric channelling positive energy through the haunt siphon. When used in that manner, a charged haunt siphon will explode, creating a destablilization of all ectoplasmic and incorporeal energy within a 15 foot radius of the detonation with the following effects:

a) Any incorporeal creature within the area of effect at the time the charged hunt siphon is detonated in this manner takes 4d6 of positive energy damage (DC20);

b) The energy destabilization in the area persists for 1d6 rounds, in the form of insubstantial mist and sparkling light. During that time, any incorporeal creature within the area of affect of the destabilization is subject to the continual effects of a ghostbane dirge (DC20) and must save every round; and

c) Any living creature within the area of effect of the destabilization for as long as the effect persists receives Corruption Resistance 10 to the corrupting touch effects of a ghost.

Using one or more charged haunt siphons, the party should be able to confront The Splatter Man on a far more equal footing. Combined with the effects of protection from evil spells, and the brooch of shielding, the party should be able to win the fight without the GM having to pull punches.

But in order to achieve this success, the PCs must first capture one or more major haunts using the available haunt siphons. As a matter of timing and coordination of attacks and resources, this will make the fights against the Piper, Father Charlatan and the Mosswater Marauder more meaningful and, potentially, a little trickier to pull off.

Obviously, creating a charged haunt siphon is not only dependent upon the magic item creation rules for the item that appear at page 19 of the text of The Haunting of Harrowstone, but such an item also requires that it be used to capture a major malevolent haunt before it can be used in this manner. That critical detail should prevent the PCs from selling such items at great profit in the future – as well as provide an explanation to the GM why such iteme are not readily available for purchase.

In any event, those are my suggested fixes in order to deal with the threat presented by The Splatter Man in a more satisfactory way.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I think you will reget item #1, that spell is way to buff especially when it comes to enchantment/compulsion or at the very least, if your PCs are that discerning of DM fiat, this reeks of it. It is one thing to find an item to help you in a quest, and another for each player to be handed a key item at the beginning that they MUST have.

The charged Haunt siphons sound good, maybe a little too juicy, I'd consider dropping c) and having b) be a one time save, especially since this is already taking a single target spell and making it a burst, which is slightly better then the Mass version which is still limited to # targets/level. Which is to say that you would be an item that casts a level 5 spell once around for 1d6 rounds.

As alternative approach you could recreate TSM with the ectoplasmic template.

Liberty's Edge

HEY PLAYERS. IF YOU ARE STILL READING THIS THREAD?? **STOP READING**. THERE ARE SERIOUS SPOILERS HERE

Spoiler:

Galnörag wrote:

I think you will reget item #1, that spell is way to buff especially when it comes to enchantment/compulsion or at the very least, if your PCs are that discerning of DM fiat, this reeks of it. It is one thing to find an item to help you in a quest, and another for each player to be handed a key item at the beginning that they MUST have.

I would disagree. The chances of an amulet making it through to TSM without being previously triggered and drained of its protection from evil spell by Father Charlatan, the Marauder and -- especially - the Lopper are slim to none. The Lopper is almost certain to trigger the spell to be cast from most of the amulets long before the PCs reach TSM.

If the PCs want the benefit of that spell, they will have to take the time -- and spend the resources -- to recharge the amulets prior to going in to the chamber. They may or may not choose to do this. (and probably won't have enough 1st level spells available to do it even if they wanted to). Time is still a factor here and TSM is still spelling out letters and names back on the monument.

Quote:


The charged Haunt siphons sound good, maybe a little too juicy, I'd consider dropping c) and having b) be a one time save, especially since this is already taking a single target spell and making it a burst, which is slightly better then the Mass version which is still limited to # targets/level. Which is to say that you would be an item that casts a level 5 spell once around for 1d6 rounds.

There is only going to be one target. TSM has a Will of +8. On a DC20, that's only a 55% chance of failure vs Ghost Bane Dirge. If the PCs are going to have a chance against him, they need a greater chance of success than that. Having that chance every round will, on average give the PCs at least one attack each with normal damage against TSM. That's a fair kick at the can, imo.

1d6 rounds is not a lot of time. It's inherently random (maybe too random) 2d4 rounds might be a wiser length of time for the effect to persist.

I think one of the points you may have missed was how DIFFICULT it is for the PCs to obtain any charged siphons at all. When the haunt siphon has to deliver the killing blow against the Piper, Charlatan or the Marauder, the chances of the PCs being able to charge all four haunt siphons in their possession is woefully low. Hell, if they manage to charge more than one? I'll be surprised.

Even then, the PC cleric will have to expend one of his channel abilities to detonate the charged haunt siphon. In this sense, the 4d6 damage is really only +2d6 with an elevated DC. It's not big a deal, damage wise. What matters is the ghost bane dirge effect with a DC20 and the automatic DR10 vs corrupting touch.

Remember, the real issue here is that Corrupting Touch is a 6d6 touch attack which bypasses armor, DC 17 Fort for half. If the PC makes his or her save, with DR10, they will escape injury. Otherwise? They are in trouble and a TPK is a certainty. The charged haunt siphon is intended to avoid the possibility of that otherwise certain result

In the end, I think it comes down to this: is the item really going to let the PCs meaningfully compete with a CR7/8 ghost played with the gloves taken off -- or not?

I think my original version might; I think your suggested scaling back won't let the PCs having a fighting chance to win unless they have multiple charged siphons.

And that's a bet I wouldn't make.


Steel_Wind wrote:
** spoiler omitted **...

I don't like the idea either. I may have to read this one again, but is there an in game reason for him to want to die(be destroyed)? In any event my players will most likely have to deal with a full assault. I don't hand out XP.


Steel_Wind wrote:
** spoiler omitted **...

Spoiler:
I agree. I don't agree with the idea of throwing a fight. Is there an in game reason such as guilt that would make him do it? In any event my players might get the full force of the ghost. I do know I don't give XP away. I will tone him down before I do that.

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Spoiler:
If he's not supposed to use that ability, why is he stated up with it? I mean it really just is to deadly to unleash on a 3rd level party in any situation, a player being an aggravating attacker or not. The toned down version the Lopper wields (something like 2d6+1d6 bleed IIRC) is already bad enough. The 6d6 is just plain unfair, that's 21 avg damage on a hit, a tough melee focused build might only have 25 hp at 3rd level. Any 3rd level guy can potentially be killed in a single hit, and no 3rd level build can take two.

I am seriously all for unconventional encounters, but the Splatter Man is not set up to be one. The players more or less have to beat him down or the whole adventure goes pear shape. Which might be fun, but it would be more fun if the players felt like they had an earnest chance at defeating him. Played correctly (for example if the GM skim's his combat tactics section), he's not just a very challenging encounter (of which this adventure already has several, notably the Lopper) he's guaranteed death.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Not to get into the details... but if you don't like how any creature's tactics work in an adventure, the fact that you can change them as the GM is a GOOD thing! ;-)

Personally, I actually enjoy having monsters periodically not fight to their 100% fullest potential when the PCs go up against them. Particularly in cases where doing so would likely result in a totally unfair fight.

That said, if I had a group of players who got pissed at me whenever they got the feeling that I wasn't using every possible rule in the book to destroy them, then I'd take the gloves off and have at them too.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I thoroughly disagree his tactics have him 'take a dive'--he does use his corrupting touch attack; he just doesn't use it as a weapon of first resort, because he is not someone who has ever made a practice of closing with those he wants to kill. 'Old habits die hard' is, I find, an especially apt aphorism for a ghost. Undeath, particularly ghostly undeath, is notoriously stultifying.


Revan wrote:
I thoroughly disagree his tactics have him 'take a dive'--he does use his corrupting touch attack; he just doesn't use it as a weapon of first resort, because he is not someone who has ever made a practice of closing with those he wants to kill. 'Old habits die hard' is, I find, an especially apt aphorism for a ghost. Undeath, particularly ghostly undeath, is notoriously stultifying.

He is taking a dive, and the fluff is being used to justify it. He should be using all those magic missiles on one person instead of splitting them up.

In the end the DM has to go with what will work for his group though. My group would balk at not having all the missiles go at one person. Other groups would not care so much.


revised tactics that don't compromise the intent of the AP, but don't suggest a cakewalk either:
I think that what I will do it so use the suboptimal tactics at first since this guy wants to make the PC's suffer, but if the BBEG drops to 1/2 hp then it is time to stop fooling around.


wraithstrike wrote:
Revan wrote:
I thoroughly disagree his tactics have him 'take a dive'--he does use his corrupting touch attack; he just doesn't use it as a weapon of first resort, because he is not someone who has ever made a practice of closing with those he wants to kill. 'Old habits die hard' is, I find, an especially apt aphorism for a ghost. Undeath, particularly ghostly undeath, is notoriously stultifying.

He is taking a dive, and the fluff is being used to justify it. He should be using all those magic missiles on one person instead of splitting them up.

In the end the DM has to go with what will work for his group though. My group would balk at not having all the missiles go at one person. Other groups would not care so much.

Don't forget about alignment. I have no idea what this guys alignment is but I always factor alignment into a monsters tactics, it's a stat just like Str or Dex to me:

Chaotic: Unpredictable. What seems like sub-optimal tactics to some is actually the Chaotic creature surrendering to the beauty of chaos. To have an optimized plan would not only be untrusting of chaos but a disgraceful nod toward the Lawful. Or, the creature is just a bad tactician unable to form long term cohesive plans.

Lawful: Follow the hierarchy. What seems like sub-optimal tactics to some may be just a case of following orders or sacrificing for the greater plan. Protecting the hierarchy may mean the creature has to die in this battle even though it thinks it can win it, so be it, but it'll be sure to do some damage on the way out. Or, the creature is deadly precise with it's choices and abilities it thinks every thing through and always has a plan.

Neutral: Make sure I survive. 50% hit points? It runs. It won't use the most powerful abilities because it may need them later. It'll live to fight another day. Or, the creature focuses insanely on a single target due to some hatred, personal vendetta, or the just pleasure of seeing it in pain. It may use its entire arsenal destroying this single target before moving on to the next.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

This has become the opposite of the classic RP vs Optimization debate.

Instead of suboptimal characters, we have sub optimal monsters, so I guess what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you have players who prefer to play as mechanically optimized as possible, then there is no reason that shouldn't be met with a like GM. If you have players who make sub optimal decisions to satisfy a character thematic purpose then as the GM you can have monsters who likewise have tactics that derive from their character and not their statistics.

The mechanics of combat should be abstracted from character knowledge. Granted the vancian magic system allows that the characters are aware of "spell level" but most of the rest of the game rules don't totally break through the role playing boundary. Which is to say a monster not using its most powerful ability doesn't necessarily know he is taking a dive. Especially in the case of a ghost who was a mage in life, he may perceive that his spells are more powerful, in fact he may never have been given the opportunity to use his touch before, and as such has no reason to know that. I will grant that he as a reasonably competent mage he should be slamming one target with his missals, although first round he may test the water in case someone is shielded.

Liberty's Edge

cibet44 wrote:
"Many controversial statements about alignment..."

Without putting too fine a point on it, I do not think that a creature's views as to, inter alia, slavery, personal freedom or the relative virtues of (or his or her willingness to serve in) a hierarchy or bureaucracy have much to say about the kind of split-second choices that being might make in the middle of a combat for its own survival.

In such circumstances, peronal morals tend to count for little.

After all, what PC who professes to have a "chaotic good" alignmnet makes choices on this basis? Would a GM suggest a PC who professes to be "chaotic good" is being too methodical or exacting in his combat choices by making an optimal attack -- and so should override or persuade the player that the PC's choices in favor of a more "chaotic" (i.e. stupid) choice would be more "faithful" to their professed alignment?

Your characterization of the choices in a survival situation of a Chaotic or Lawful creature can, unfortunately, be distilled down into the following:

Lawful = Smart; Chaotic = Stupid.

Generally speaking, combat survival choices are not the proper sphere for the application of alignment in an RPG, imo.

Instead of alignment, I think the more relevant statistic in question is the creature's intelligence.

Spoiler:
And in this case, The Splatter Man's Int = 20

Quote:


Neutral: Make sure I survive. 50% hit points? It runs.

Spoiler:

The scenario is quite specific that The Splatter Man cannot leave the chamber for any reason. It is trapped there by virtue of the laws which govern its very existence as a ghost and it is not able to violate those restrictions, even if it wants to (and it most assuredly wants to).

This restriction makes sense in all of the circumstances and I would not interefere with it for any reason. Accordingly, the chamber is TSM's Alamo. He will make his final stand in the chamber, come what may.

A reminder that the sub-optimal "dive" choices we are talking about here relate to the spell casting abilities of TSM. He has a very limited selection of spells as the ghost is without his spell book. What he does have, however, are a CRAP LOAD of magic missles which have been memorized at higher level spell slots and had metamagic feats applied to them.

TSM has the following spells:

4th—maximized magic missile (2), empowered summon monster II
3rd—dispel magic, empowered magic missile (2)
2nd—summon monster II (4)
1st—magic missile (6)
0 (at will)—detect magic, light, mage hand, read magic

Played intelligently, TSM should be:

-- using detect magic and perception prior to the encounter to understand the roles and abilities of his foes. As it so happens, he gets an ample opportunity to do this while the PCs are fighting the CR6 haunt prior to TSM entering the fray. So TSM will know exactly who is who.

-- TSM should then enter the fray and cast his maximized magic missles at the cleric.

1st round = maximized magic missile and 20 points to the cleric;
2nd round = Move incorporeally to put further objects in path of charging combatants, cast maximized magic missile again at PC cleric for 20 more points. This may or may not kill the cleric, depending on whether or not the cleric has healed himself adequately;
3rd round - Move + empowered magic missile will down the cleric with 19 points of damage and the ghost is now in melee. He is probably struck by a ghost touch weapon but will easily be able to take the damage from the +1 ghost touch hand-axe. He's been hit by a couple of spells at this point but his hit points are still pretty good. (TSM has 62 h.p.) vs a group of 3rd or maybe 4th level PCs.
4th round = TSM moves to stop any flank, casts empowered magic missile at melee fighter with ghost touch weapon. Maybe TSM gets hit again; maybe not.
5th round = Moves again to disrupt a flank, magic missle on melee fighter or corrupting touch. Either way, melee fighter probably goes down.

Assume that TSM has taken some more damage all along from arcane caster and maybe from other combatant (rogue, say).

By this point at the beginning of the sixth round, we have a spell casting ghost, CL8, with 6 magic missles and one dispel magic and a couple of monster summon II spells (one of which is empowered) left, vs. an arcane caster and a rogue with no -- or almost no -- healing abilities left.

This is a TPK. Even if the corrupting touch is left out of the mix until virtually all spell are exhausted - it's over.

What makes the fight a "dive" is the refusal of the Int 20 ghost to take out the cleric first and to instead spend one metamagicked magic missile on each of the four PCs, all while permitting the PC cleric to use channeling to then heal that damage by channeling on successive rounds so that the PCs are almost completely healed up of that ~20 points or so done to each over the course of those four rounds.

All while the ghost touch weapon armed fighter is hitting the ghost and the PC wizard is casting magic missles right back at the ghost.

Yet, the Int 20 Ghost WIzard can see all of this happening before his eyes, but does nothing to stop it or change his tactics? This is because he's insane, wants to prolong the suffering, or because he's chaotic?

Where, exactly, does this Int=20 come into play again?

If your players would be happy with that sort of fight? Ok. Mine, 4 of which are extremely experienced Pathfinder GMs with a collective RPG gaming experience of over 150 years between the four of them, will rebel on the spot. I guarantee it.


Steel_Wind wrote:
cibet44 wrote:
"Many controversial statements about alignment..."

Without putting too fine a point on it, I do not think that a creature's views as to, inter alia, slavery, personal freedom or the relative virtues of (or his or her willingness to serve in) a hierarchy or bureaucracy have much to say about the kind of split-second choices that being might make in the middle of a combat for its own survival.

In such circumstances, peronal morals tend to count for little.

After all, what PC who professes to have a "chaotic good" alignmnet makes choices on this basis? Would a GM suggest a PC who professes to be "chaotic good" is being too methodical or exacting in his combat choices by making an optimal attack -- and so should override or persuade the player that the PC's choices in favor of a more "chaotic" (i.e. stupid) choice would be more "faithful" to their professed alignment?

Your characterization of the choices in a survival situation of a Chaotic or Lawful creature can, unfortunately, be distilled down into the following:

Lawful = Smart; Chaotic = Stupid.

Generally speaking, combat survival choices are not the proper sphere for the application of alignment in an RPG, imo.

Instead of alignment, I think the more relevant statistic in question is the creature's intelligence.

** spoiler omitted **

Quote:


Neutral: Make sure I survive. 50% hit points? It runs.
** spoiler omitted **

Well obviously I disagree. I believe alignment comes into all aspects of ones being including fights. Lawful Good characters will not kill the helpless and will accept surrender. In fact in a setting (like a city) where murder is happens to be illegal a Lawful PC/NPC would try avoiding killing as much as possible and would seek to subdue. This is the very definition of "Lawful", following the law of the current environment even in a fight. A Chaotic PC/NPC would, of course, ignore the law if they saw fit including in a fight.

You may characterize my alignment choices as Lawful=smart, Chaotic=stupid but I don't. My characterizations would be:

Lawful=planned, deliberate, follow orders, sacrifice if I must.
Chaotic=random,spur of the moment, do what I feel.
Neutral=survive, don't take a side, kill easily or flee.

I think all of them have advantages and disadvantages. None are clearly better then the other. Not so simple as smart/dumb.


When discussing tactics for TSM and party, one should not forget:

Spoiler:
the spellbook found earlier.
Holding this item can help greatly against this foe.

Just a thought/reminder. :)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just for the record:

I hate the "Lawful = smart, Chaotic = stupid" paradigm. Almost as much as I hate it when people refer to flavor text as "fluff."

I'm less annoyed by the "Lawful=stubborn, Chaotic=creative" paradigm, though.


James Jacobs wrote:

Just for the record:

I hate the "Lawful = smart, Chaotic = stupid" paradigm. Almost as much as I hate it when people refer to flavor text as "fluff."

I'm less annoyed by the "Lawful=stubborn, Chaotic=creative" paradigm, though.

Thats why I think flavor, and crunch are best :)

Liberty's Edge

I do not dispute that alignment will bear on the decision of whether to fight, whether to use lethal or non-lethal damage, whether to make an indiscriminate area attack spell in a crowded area, etc..

I do think that the question of survival, however, is foremost in the minds of every combatant, whether lawful good or chatoic evil. Selfless self-sacrifice, an exceedingly rare human quality, is a matter generally reserved for Paladins, Clerics and other zealots. In a knife-fight, it is a choice rarely made by others.

Spoiler:

In any event, the questions in this thread were raised in a context of the tactical choices in combat that will be used by a cornered, Chaotic Evil, spell-using Wizard/Ghost. That ghost cannot flee and must defeat the PCs in order to have a chance to secure its freedom and to survive. What choices will it make?

That ghost will not, in my view, make choices which are plainly and obviously going to result in his destruction because he is "chaotic"; rather, he will make lethal, merciless and deliberate choices calculated to destroy his foes in order to secure his freedom.

In particular, he will not, imo, "take a dive" by spreading out his magic missle attacks across all party members to permit that damage to be easily mitigated for the "fluff" reason offered that by doing so he "prolongs" their pain. The pain will be just as meaningfully prolonged and evenly distributed by concentrating his attacks in order to knock cleric into a downed and dying state, and then turn to the next greatest threat and do the same to him, downing each in the general order of the threat that each presents.

He can kill each downed foe later, as may please him most.

That's just as much "merciless Int 20 CE" as it is "merciless Int 20 LE". Lawful and chaotic don't enter into these basic tactical survival choices, where the outcome of one tactical choice is easily forseeable as his own doom and destruction while the other probable outcome is victory, survival and freedom.


Steel_Wind wrote:


Good stuff...

I'm curious, lets say you had two ghosts identical in every way except alignment. Ghost 1 is LE Ghost 2 is CE. Would they both use the exact same tactics in battle? Remember the only difference here between the combats is the Ghost alignment everything else is the same. Would G1 and G2 fight the exact same way? For me as DM, these would be very different fights.

Shadow Lodge

@Steelwind

Pathfinder, like all roleplaying games, is an exercise of the imagination.

I am not impressed by arguments that run "This is the most efficient and/or logical tactic and therefore the ONLY one I can reasonably imagine occurring." I am sure you are capable of imagining many different possible combinations and outcomes. That you have arrived at the one you think is most plausible is fine, but to imply that it is the only plausible one is silly.

This is a fantasy game. There are an infinite variety of ways we might explain any given scenario. Furthermore, the characters in the scenario don't view it as a game of tactical combat as you seem to. People don't always make the most ruthlessly efficient choice even if they are aware what that choice is, and most times they don't actually know all the factors involved or what the ramifications of their choices may be.

It made sense to the designers, and apparently to many of the players on this board that this Ghost would behave somewhat irrationally (yes even people of genius intelligence behave irrationally at times). The idea that an murderous undead psychopath would focus on present pain rather than efficient victory isn't unreasonable. Perhaps TSM doesn't quite understand the level of danger he is in until it is too late. Perhaps he dismisses the PC's as a non-threat. There are many possible angles to take that don't require your interpretation as the only valid one.

Nor do I think it is helpful to say "My players and I have a metriccraptonlol of experience and this is the ONLY way they will accept something." The implication of such a statement is that their is a right way to play learned through experience and the rest of us are simply too naive or we would automatically agree with you. There's no point in comparing gamer cred on an internet forum, but I assure you that I am no neophyte and I wouldn't want to game with a bunch of players who only have fun if they believe I am using exactly the "right" tactics (according to them) in every situation.

The object of the game is fun not maximum mechanical leverage. If we get to the end of the story and everyone had a good time - we win.


sabedoriaclark wrote:
(yes even people of genius intelligence behave irrationally at times)

I would even go one step further: Chaotic people of genius intelligence behave irrationally all the time!. Hah! ;)

Liberty's Edge

Quote:

“I am sure you are capable of imagining many different possible combinations and outcomes. That you have arrived at the one you think is most plausible is fine, but to imply that it is the only plausible one is silly.”

Spoiler:

No, that’s not what I am implying. You misunderstand. What I am saying is that when TSM is run logically, the encounter will result in a TPK. It’s the current module text that suggests a particular and unswerving set of tactical choices in order not to result in a TPK, not me.

Yes, I am pretty sure that I am capable of coming up with some other logical tactical choices too. But I am just as certain that none of those choices I will propose to make are going to result in me electing to distribute one metamagicked magic missle attack against each PC on four successive rounds so they can easily heal that damage. That sort of round-robin pointlessness is not in the cards. I am quite certain of that.

The point of the discussion on tactics was to illustrate that a logically played ghost with the resources noted in the module text will almost inevitably result in a TPK against a party of four, 3rd or 4th level characters. Indeed, that’s why the module suggests TSM should use certain illogical tactics – in order to change that inevitable TPK result.

So really, the discussions here about the chaotic nature of the ghost and TSM’s sanity and psychopathic qualities are not aimed in a genuine, bona fide manner so as to determine what a ghost such as TSM would actually do.

Instead, the current tactics section in the module directs the GM to make illogical choices which will result in the PCs surviving the encounter, so as to justify how a group of weak PCs might prevail against a CR8 encounter that should, in all fairness, simply slaughter the PCs. Every. Single. Time.

IMO, the module text is all about that result driven exercise. And no, I don’t like that at all. And yes, four of my six players are extremely experienced GMs and they will see the result driven nature of the tactical choices of the ghost and they will readily recognize that the ghost is taking a dive. As a climactic boss battle, that recognition is certain to diminish their enjoyment of the module and to leave the strong scent of camembert in the air.

Given that that is so, I think what we are left with is genuine problem of how to throw a foe whose power level is out of all proportion to the PCs power level and still make it work. Rather than try to justify fitting a square peg into a round hole, I’m for filing down the corners of the squae peg until it all fits into the round hole nicely. We do that by increasing the PCs relative power against the ghost through situational modifiers and specialized magic items.

Hence, my suggested changes to the module in terms of adding certain low power magic items and modifying the haunt siphons to permit the PCs to defeat TSM in a stand-up fight.

On the haunt siphon angle, I have thought more about it, and I think it is wisest to have the haunt siphons be examined by Vesorianna Hawkran during the PCs encounter with her. As she does so she can:
a)revert and “reset” any used siphons at that time; and
b) charge the siphon with her positive ghostly energy.

After the haunt siphon has been charged by both Hawkran and used to capture a major persistent haunt, the charged haunt siphon should be able to be used by any PC as a splash weapon without the need to channel energy into it. It seems to me that the purpose of Mike Kortes’ design for the haunt siphons was to permit parties without clerics to succeed in the module. By my requiring a cleric to channel energy into a “charged haunt siphon” in order to detonate it, I think that’s a case of making one step forward, and taking two steps back for parties that don't have a cleric.


sabedoriaclark wrote:
(yes even people of genius intelligence behave irrationally at times)

Oh, excellent. Another chance to quote my favorite author:

"A stupid person can make only certain, limited types of errors; the mistakes open to a clever fellow are far broader. But to the one who knows how smart he is compared to everyone else, the possibilities for true idiocy are boundless."

Thanks, Sabedoriaclark! :)

Sovereign Court

Steel_Wind wrote:
(...) Mine, 4 of which are extremely experienced Pathfinder GMs with a collective RPG gaming experience of over 150 years between the four of them (...)

Sorry, I don't mean to doubt you, but that has really made me curious. ;)

D&D began around 1974, if I am not mistaken? So 37 years ago.
And your 4 players have an average of over 37.5 (150/4) years of experience?
That is quite amazing.

Really, I don't mean to distrust you, I am just really curious as it is rare that 4 such people are still hanging out together since the very beginning of the hobby (never mind having just survived so many decades of existence, since a number of the founders of these games have passed away in recent years!)


Moonbeam wrote:
Steel_Wind wrote:
(...) Mine, 4 of which are extremely experienced Pathfinder GMs with a collective RPG gaming experience of over 150 years between the four of them (...)

Sorry, I don't mean to doubt you, but that has really made me curious. ;)

D&D began around 1974, if I am not mistaken? So 37 years ago.
And your 4 players have an average of over 37.5 (150/4) years of experience?
That is quite amazing.

Really, I don't mean to distrust you, I am just really curious as it is rare that 4 such people are still hanging out together since the very beginning of the hobby (never mind having just survived so many decades of existence, since a number of the founders of these games have passed away in recent years!)

38+13=51. Some people started young.

Even if they were 18 then they would be near 55.

Even my 1 year players can see a handout a mile away which is why I am going to have to play him up as crazy, but intelligent if I go the route of the book. I may also just use the adept(NPC class) and redo his backstory as someone could have been a great caster, but due to whatever reason never made it into a wizard's academy.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

I see two obvious fixes, one elegant, one thematic:

Elegent:
Just make TSM a 6th level Wizard. Access to 4th level spells isn't really nessecary for any plot or combat reason. Then play him up somewhat erratically, still deprive him of his melee attacks, but otherwise do straight combat.

Thematic:
It may be the case that the TSM *has* to spell out a victim's name before he can kill them. That would both make sense, as well as be really dramatic for the PCs when they see him start scrawling out their names, knowing what that manes. Have him begin making Concentration checks to write while in combat, and have him fly around, or fight defensively so that he can write out a name. Then once he gets the name written, he can attack that particular party member. Since the party can figure out that TSM can only attack that one person, they can use that to their advantage by hiding him in the back, etc.
If that character goes down, TSM has to begin writing another name.

Liberty's Edge

Moonbeam wrote:

D&D began around 1974, if I am not mistaken? So 37 years ago. And your 4 players have an average of over 37.5 (150/4) years of experience?

That is quite amazing.

Not simply amazing -- bloody unlikely!

My math is off. It's not 150, it's 140. Sorry, my bad.

The years of experience for the four are:
1975 (Dave, I've been playing with him since 1979),
1976 (Mark, co-host on the podcast, been playing with him since 1996),
1976 (Azmyth, my co-host on the podcast since last-year)
and 1977 (Charles, Azmyth's friend and old gaming buddy since '77.)

Add em up?

36+35+35+34 = 140


Smart people will be some of the oddest, and most self destructive people you might meet. I can't imagine how one made a ghost would act..

Can you imagine this person in that role?

During his youth, his specialty was a branch of complex analysis known as geometric function theory. His professors at Michigan were impressed with his intellect and drive. "He was an unusual person. He was not like the other graduate students," said Peter Duren, one of his math professors at Michigan. "He was much more focused about his work. He had a drive to discover mathematical truth." "It is not enough to say he was smart," said George Piranian, another of his Michigan math professors. In fact, he earned his Ph.D. with his thesis entitled "Boundary Functions" by solving a problem so difficult that Piranian could not figure it out. Maxwell Reade, a retired math professor who served on his dissertation committee, also commented on his thesis by noting, "I would guess that maybe 10 or 12 men in the country understood or appreciated it."

Later:
Kaczynski's activities came to the attention of the FBI in 1978 with the explosion of his first, primitive homemade bomb. Over the next 17 years, he mailed or hand delivered a series of increasingly sophisticated explosive devices that killed three people and injured 23 more.

The first mail bomb was sent in late May 1978 to materials engineering professor Buckley Crist at Northwestern University. The package was found in a parking lot at the University of Illinois at Chicago, with Crist's return address. The package was "returned" to Crist. However, when Crist received the package, he noticed that it was not addressed in his own handwriting. Suspicious of a package he had not sent, he contacted campus policeman Terry Marker, who opened the package, which exploded immediately. Although Marker only received minimal injuries, he required medical assistance at Evanston Hospital for his left hand.

Now, imagine him as a ghost locked up in a prison and he has magic powers. Who the heck knows what he is going to do ;)


Ice_Deep wrote:

Smart people will be some of the oddest, and most self destructive people you might meet. I can't imagine how one made a ghost would act..

Can you imagine this person in that role?

During his youth, his specialty was a branch of complex analysis known as geometric function theory. His professors at Michigan were impressed with his intellect and drive. "He was an unusual person. He was not like the other graduate students," said Peter Duren, one of his math professors at Michigan. "He was much more focused about his work. He had a drive to discover mathematical truth." "It is not enough to say he was smart," said George Piranian, another of his Michigan math professors. In fact, he earned his Ph.D. with his thesis entitled "Boundary Functions" by solving a problem so difficult that Piranian could not figure it out. Maxwell Reade, a retired math professor who served on his dissertation committee, also commented on his thesis by noting, "I would guess that maybe 10 or 12 men in the country understood or appreciated it."

** spoiler omitted **

Now, imagine...

I don't think he takes the least destructive path for others, which is what the AP is suggesting. The tactics are more of a common sense issue than a book sense issue. Even if the ghost has only a 10 it should only take one round of the cleric curing his magic missile damage to realize he has to remove the barrier(cleric) if he wants the others to suffer.

Sovereign Court

Steel_Wind wrote:

The years of experience for the four are:

1975 (Dave, I've been playing with him since 1979),
1976 (Mark, co-host on the podcast, been playing with him since 1996),
1976 (Azmyth, my co-host on the podcast since last-year)
and 1977 (Charles, Azmyth's friend and old gaming buddy since '77.)

I think it's awesome that you guys have all been playing together for so long! I hope there are more groups like yours out there. Most of the friends I used to play with as a teenager have long since stopped playing as their lives shifted away deeply into "real life".

I wish you many more decades of happy RPG gaming!!


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Moonbeam wrote:
Steel_Wind wrote:

The years of experience for the four are:

1975 (Dave, I've been playing with him since 1979),
1976 (Mark, co-host on the podcast, been playing with him since 1996),
1976 (Azmyth, my co-host on the podcast since last-year)
and 1977 (Charles, Azmyth's friend and old gaming buddy since '77.)

I think it's awesome that you guys have all been playing together for so long! I hope there are more groups like yours out there. Most of the friends I used to play with as a teenager have long since stopped playing as their lives shifted away deeply into "real life".

I wish you many more decades of happy RPG gaming!!

Especially since to get their books, they had to walk ten miles, up hill both ways... through five feet of snow!! :-)

Liberty's Edge

Jam412 wrote:


Especially since to get their books, they had to walk ten miles, up hill both ways... through five feet of snow!! :-)

"In the old days, we had to assemble our own polyhedral dice by gluing them together using shards of broken glass. So when you rattled them in your hand before rolling them, you'd cut your hand to ribbons first. And we LIKED it that way!"

Actually, in all seriousness, Dave, the guy who I've known forever and who started gaming as a kid in 1975, actually has some WOODEN polyhedral dice. Story goes, back in 1975, it wasn't possible to easily obtain these dice in Calgary, Alberta (and if it was, he was just a kid in grade six and didn't know any better). So his older brother made their dice in shop class. Dave still has this wooden d4 and d8 which are both somewhat off in dimensions, but are, for all that, still pretty reasonable approximations of a "proper" d4 and d8.

The numbers on these wooden dice were scratched into the wood with an empty ballpoint pen, and inked in with a blue ballpoint later. This numbering features all the "fine penmanship" you would expect of an 11 year old kid, too. The childish writing and somewhat skewed dimensions make the dice look rather quaint, if not laughable.

For all that, when you know the story behid them, they are still the coolest dice I've seen. After 36 years to know, precisely, which were your first dice and to have made them yourself? Pretty cool!

We'll leave aside any discussions of "high-impact" d20s that came with our Basic D&D blue boxed set, all of which have chipped and smoothed out over the years so that the d20 now resembles a gumball :)

1 to 50 of 108 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Path / Carrion Crown / Difficulty All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.