|
Mike And Mark, would you consider adding scaling the size of encounters to the table size. RIght now senarios are optimized for a 4 person table. Would it be possible in the future to add a few lines of text adding creatures/npc's for 5 and 6 man tables?
ON tacticts we had a problem with Tide of Twilight last night.
the senario was great BTW and would have been even better if the druid room was bigger.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I would like to see the following reforms:
-Include paragraphs in the actual modules about how to beef up fights for larger, higher level, and possibly all-optimised parties. These rules must be within the individual modules. We must not have vague rules that apply to all of PFS on GM ramping up difficulty. These rules should include the following details:
Maximum amount of enemies allowable. Pre-buffed spells in effect when combat begins (both pcs and npcs have single use magic resources they should be using). Terrain features that can give an advantage to the enemies. Allowable resources held by BBEGs that will save em from one 'save or suck' spell failure.
I would agree with this. Living Forgotten Realms does this. We have argued time and time again on these boards to do this. I imagine the campaign coordinators are aware of this idea.
However, it will take away valuable space for writing. There was another thread recently where people argued vehemently against taking away the new "coolness" of PFS modules. Dedicating space to this kind of writing would take away from that coolness. Will the outcry over that outweigh this outcry? Where does it end?
I am well aware that these rules would mean that challenging GMs would siphon more resources from their players. But in my experience, optimizers optimise their resources. They buy permanent magic items that will never fizz out. They get their day job rolls maxed early on. I'm not concerned about this as much as I am concerned about seeing 6 sturdy, world-changing adventurers beating the snot out of a kobold 1st level druid growing turnips.
Pretty much agree with this. I doubt that optimizers will be upset about being challenged, as it will test their skills even more. Nothing wrong with that. And they certainly won't complain about expenses, because they aren't likely to incur any.
However...
-No 'forced (suggested) tactics'. GMs know the rules, they know the spells, let them be flexible to respond to the party's tactics intelligently.
No, they don't. At least, not all of them. There are many new GMs who pick up the torch for PFS. Assuming they "know" everything is incorrect, sometimes in the extreme. I have seen many, many, many GMs gloss over the tactics/positioning/abilities of bad guys, and get their butts handed to them because of it. I try to take them aside and point these things out after the module, and the response is almost universally, "Oh. I didn't know that."
Leaving the tactics sections out of modules because you assume that all GMs know what they're doing is a mistake.
|
Yeah, you're right. This GM confusion is probably doubled when the NPC is a non-core character class that the GM hasn't played. I'd be pretty lost in running an Inquisitor, for example.
So maybe we keep tactics, but we stress the word suggested written beforehand.
Are we really that concerned about the amount of pages in a mod? They are distributed as PDFs, so we can retain the coolness while having lift-out boxes with smaller fonts/text styles explaining revising combat challenges.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
So maybe we keep tactics, but we stress the word suggested written beforehand.
Agreed. And it leads to allowing for "suggested tactics to increase difficulty" type sections, as well.
Are we really that concerned about the amount of pages in a mod? They are distributed as PDFs, so we can retain the coolness while having lift-out boxes with smaller fonts/text styles explaining revising combat challenges.
I think you'd be surprised. I was.
Honestly, if you think about it, you'd see where the difference is made. Paizo only budgets so much space, as more page counts cost more money. Adding "a, b, c" tactics blocks to each creature would soak up extra space. That space would come from the "fluff" that many people were so happy with in that other thread (including me).
You can read all about it in this thread and in this thread, too.
|
The reason that tactics are there is to give DMs who aren't good at these things some help. The tactics are not (or, in my opinion shouldn't be) written as an end-all, be-all guide to the specific rules that the NPCs are allowed to *only* do such and such.
However, sometimes the tactics written into an encounter are the very thing that makes that encounter balanced for the tier it is created.
I gave an example up above on Penumbral Accords. A small and subtle change to the tactics essentially nearly TPK'd several tables and cost thousands of gold in consumables that it otherwise would not have. The combat would have been quite challenging anyways without the subtle change in tactics.
So yes, the tactics written for a specific encounter ARE or SHOULD be the end-all, be-all of that particular encounter. Sorry, that's just the way it is.
|
|
This post contains mild spoilers for a Season 1 scenario.
On the subject of NPCS using Coup de Grace, I've got a history.
Over a year ago, I was running an adventure set in Kaer Maga, where the villain was determined to kill the PCs; not turn them over to anybody else, not escape from them. He wanted the party dead, dead, dead. He was able to summon critters, and command them in combat. One critter downed a 1st-level PC, and during its next turn, there were no other PCs it could see (the party had gotten split up in a large encounter space).
I decided the villain would command his summoned critter to coup de grace the PC.
Now, a year later, I'm pretty sure I would just have the critter attack the downed PC, which might well have killed him. But moving on and hunting for other targets didn't seem consistent with the NPC's goals. Having said that, the term "coup de grace" never appeared in his list of tactics. So I'm not sure how badly I was going off-book.
I would say that you weren't going off book at all in this case. I'm pretty sure that what Michael Brock was saying, was a GM purposely using the Coup de Grace tactic simply to try and ramp up difficulty, rather than as a valid tactic in an encounter.
As you described the encounter, a Coup de Grace seems perfectly acceptable and within not only the bounds of the way the encounter was written, but within the bounds of the circumstances themselves.
What Michael Brock, I believe, is saying, when giving that as an example, would be as Jiggy explained:
When an NPC has other targets to take out, that are clearly dangerous right now, but instead chooses to Coup de Grace because the GM wants to make the encounter more deadly.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What Michael Brock, I believe, is saying, when giving that as an example, would be as Jiggy explained:When an NPC has other targets to take out, that are clearly dangerous right now, but instead chooses to Coup de Grace because the GM wants to make the encounter more deadly.
And you would be correct.
|
Who should we be sending feedback to if we have dealings with VCs that are not following along with the spirit of what Mike and Mark are talking about in this thread?
If it's a local judge that's the problem obviously we can go to the VC but what are we supposed to do if the VC him/herself is the problem?
|
|
So maybe we keep tactics, but we stress the word suggested written beforehand.Agreed. And it leads to allowing for "suggested tactics to increase difficulty" type sections, as well.
Are we really that concerned about the amount of pages in a mod? They are distributed as PDFs, so we can retain the coolness while having lift-out boxes with smaller fonts/text styles explaining revising combat challenges.I think you'd be surprised. I was.
Honestly, if you think about it, you'd see where the difference is made. Paizo only budgets so much space, as more page counts cost more money. Adding "a, b, c" tactics blocks to each creature would soak up extra space. That space would come from the "fluff" that many people were so happy with in that other thread (including me).
You can read all about it in this thread and in this thread, too.
In some scenarios, the tactics are purposely sub-optimal, as a way of allowing a more powerful creature to be used. And remember, not every opponent is a master tactician, sometimes stupid creatures use stupid tactics. And usually, the tactics don't cover more than the first 2 rounds or so.
The word count/page count thing is tricky. Sure, it's electronic, so there are no actual space/printing issues. However, writers are paid by the word. More word count means more difficulty meeting writing deadlines, increased development time, and a greater workload for Mark (who already does much more than people realize). And if they are going to have more material coming out, I think Paizo would rather have more scenarios than increase the size of the existing ones, and I suspect many of us feel the same.
|
|
Regarding the OP, I'm curious what everyone considers to be an acceptable threat level.
I run scenarios as written, and I'm far from a tactical genius beyond that.
I've run about 90 sessions. Most of them have been from Season 0 or 1. Two-thirds or more had 6 or 7 players.
I've had about 20 character deaths in those sessions. They probably came from about 13 sessions or so (a couple of TPK's in there).
So if I'm averaging PC deaths in about 15% of my sessions, with occasions where there are multiple character deaths, is that low?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who should we be sending feedback to if we have dealings with VCs that are not following along with the spirit of what Mike and Mark are talking about in this thread?
If it's a local judge that's the problem obviously we can go to the VC but what are we supposed to do if the VC him/herself is the problem?
You send those to me.
I'm just reminded of another way in which the threat varies without any changes to the scenario - group initiative. Ie the GM rolls one initiative for the bad guys and has them all act on that number. I played one mod where we effectively faced off against another party of adventurers. They all acted in the surprise round, then all went first again because of that one roll. The GM announced he was going to softball it once he'd basically destroyed us, but rolling initiative separately for different NPCs would probably have avoided the need.
If they'd rolled low and acted after the party on round 1 instead we'd have all been upright and would have had a much easier time of it. We were APL 5 playing tier 6-7 because we wanted the challenge... Sometimes it's the littlest things that make the difference.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I would like to see the following reforms:
-Include paragraphs in the actual modules about how to beef up fights for larger, higher level, and possibly all-optimised parties. These rules must be within the individual modules. We must not have vague rules that apply to all of PFS on GM ramping up difficulty. These rules should include the following details:
Maximum amount of enemies allowable. Pre-buffed spells in effect when combat begins (both pcs and npcs have single use magic resources they should be using). Terrain features that can give an advantage to the enemies. Allowable resources held by BBEGs that will save em from one 'save or suck' spell failure.
Two things here:
One, the "and possibly all-optimized parties" bit. Upping the difficulty because the GM thinks the party is sufficiently "optimized" is a dangerous idea. The incredible variety in how people define "optimized" would lead to all kinds of chaos if optimization was a factor in adjusting difficulty. Some people only call you optimized if they can't find a single stat/feat/spell choice that hasn't been used to greatest effect. Others call you optimized if you have any stats higher than 16, or if your CHA is less than 12. And of course there are people everywhere in between. So I just wanted to utter that caution.
As for your italicized bit, most of that is already available and/or implied in the scenarios, just sometimes overlooked. For instance, in scenarios where the BBEG is waiting for the PCs, they DO have buffs in place (sometimes multiple ones). Many encounters have exploitable terrain features, and it's just a matter of the GM running the NPCs intelligently (if the NPCs are intelligent, of course). And NPCs' gear is always listed, too.
Now, I wouldn't mind little reminders to use the terrain and whatnot, but it would need to be at very low word count (that's going to be a recurring issue with this, I think).
|
|
I'm just reminded of another way in which the threat varies without any changes to the scenario - group initiative. Ie the GM rolls one initiative for the bad guys and has them all act on that number. I played one mod where we effectively faced off against another party of adventurers. They all acted in the surprise round, then all went first again because of that one roll. The GM announced he was going to softball it once he'd basically destroyed us, but rolling initiative separately for different NPCs would probably have avoided the need.
If they'd rolled low and acted after the party on round 1 instead we'd have all been upright and would have had a much easier time of it. We were APL 5 playing tier 6-7 because we wanted the challenge... Sometimes it's the littlest things that make the difference.
So your complaint was that you had a tough time at a table where all of you were playing up, cause you wanted a challenge?...ok...
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So your complaint was that you had a tough time at a table where all of you were playing up, cause you wanted a challenge?...ok...
With respect, that doesn't sound like stormfriend's complaint. Rather, it has to do with "group initiative" making the encounter tougher than it should have been.
I confess, "group initiative" (in which both a boss NPC and her companions / moks / etc act at the same time) drives me nuts when I'm a player. I can appreciate, for ease and speed, assuming that every NPC "rolls" 10 for initative, but that shouldn't mean that a cleric and her zombie thralls should move at the same time, unless they have the same initative modifier.
And my PCs would benefit from this more often than not: two of them have companions / eidolons that move much slower than the PCs themselves, but most GMs will move them up to act on my initiative.
(As a GM, I've even had two experienced GM/players at my table insist that it was RAW that a druid's animal companion acted on its master's initative.)
Ooooh! Drives me nuts.
So your complaint was that you had a tough time at a table where all of you were playing up, cause you wanted a challenge?...ok...
I'm not complaining (we survived), just noting that rolling group initiative changes the difficulty level of a combat (either up or down, depending on a single roll), rather than being somewhat averaged out.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
...the "and possibly all-optimized parties" bit. Upping the difficulty because the GM thinks the party is sufficiently "optimized" is a dangerous idea. The incredible variety in how people define "optimized" would lead to all kinds of chaos if optimization was a factor in adjusting difficulty. Some people only call you optimized if they can't find a single stat/feat/spell choice that hasn't been used to greatest effect. Others call you optimized if you have any stats higher than 16, or if your CHA is less than 12. And of course there are people everywhere in between. So I just wanted to utter that caution.
Sorry. I often post replies to things assuming knowledge of all prior conversations regarding the topic. It's a fault of mine.
To add detail and perspective: In LFR the first thing the DM does after figuring out what level the group is playing at is ask whether they would like to "play up." That statement brings with it the following implications: 1 - there will be more minions. 2 - Big bads will have more hit points. 3 - most adversaries will hit harder and with more frequency. 4 - save DCs are higher. 5 - skill check DCs are higher.
It is not up to the DM to determine whether a group "plays up." It is up to the group. If they consider themselves optimized and the DM kills them all (which happens a lot, by the way), then it is on their heads, not the DM's. The DM can recommend "playing up" if the group is 5 or more players. He is supposed to keep groups from playing up if they are at the bottom of the level range and/or only consists of four players. They can ignore his warnings, of course.
With that framework in mind, I've never heard anyone ever complain that LFR is "too easy." Ever. And, as frequent as TPKs are while "playing up" no one ever complains there, either, because it is their own fault. By the way, the "death penalty" in LFR is pretty steep - 15k gp, if I remember correctly, and an adventure and one-half worth of doing everything with a -2 penalty on the die.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Regarding the OP, I'm curious what everyone considers to be an acceptable threat level.
I run scenarios as written, and I'm far from a tactical genius beyond that.
I've run about 90 sessions. Most of them have been from Season 0 or 1. Two-thirds or more had 6 or 7 players.
I've had about 20 character deaths in those sessions. They probably came from about 13 sessions or so (a couple of TPK's in there).So if I'm averaging PC deaths in about 15% of my sessions, with occasions where there are multiple character deaths, is that low?
To address this:
I firmly believe that what I outlined in my last post would be the best alternative for those who feel life in PFS is "too easy." LFR modules don't even waste space on the "playing up" part. There is a two sentence blurb at the beginning of the module:
"If the table decides to play up, add +2 to every die roll you make and increase the DC of every check a character has to make by +2. Increase the number of creatures as each encounter dictates." Each encounter will have a line next to the creature type that reads, "2 if playing down, 4 if playing up."
That's it. Quick and dirty. Nice and simple.
If it is handled like that, the onus on "playing up" will be the players' responsibility. The GM will be able to assess any given situation relatively easily and recommend one direction or the other, and everyone will be happy.
If this cannot be done, I really don't want to see "power creep" in PFS modules. As Scibbling Rambler said, he is more than deadly enough, and he considers himself average, and I'm sure he uses the modules as written. There is no reason for Paizo to get into an "arms race" with those who are complaining of not being challenged, to the detriment of all those who are plenty challenged (who, I suspect, are the majority; like any majority, they are "silent" as they don't even look at these boards, and are likely completely unaware that this debate even exists). I've been told that an "arms race" is what happened in Living Greyhawk, much to the detriment of the campaign. I'd rather not see that.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Drogon:
Regarding your reply to me, thanks, that makes sense. Yes, that would be a lot better.
Regarding both that and your following post:
I suggested in another thread somewhere (building on an idea posited by Andrew Christian) that perhaps encounters with multiple mooks could instead of being listed as "Mook (4)" to mean there are four of that mook, you could list them with something like "Mook (2+APL)".
In such a case, a table of four freshies would fight 3 mooks, while a six-man table of level 2 PCs would fight 5 mooks. A table of four or five level 2s, or a table of six level 1s, would fight 4 mooks.
And that would add a mere 4 letters per encounter to the scenarios.
If we want any sort of "scaling", I think this would be the easiest, cleanest, most impartial way to do it. It would also be small enough to be kind of a "safe" experiment to see how it goes. It would only affect one or two encounters per scenario.
|
I confess, "group initiative" (in which both a boss NPC and her companions / moks / etc act at the same time) drives me nuts when I'm a player. I can appreciate, for ease and speed, assuming that every NPC "rolls" 10 for initative, but that shouldn't mean that a cleric and her zombie thralls should move at the same time, unless they have the same initative modifier.And my PCs would benefit from this more often than not: two of them have companions / eidolons that move much slower than the PCs themselves, but most GMs will move them up to act on my initiative.
(As a GM, I've even had two experienced GM/players at my table insist that it was RAW that a druid's animal companion acted on its master's initative.)
Ooooh! Drives me nuts.
I hope that it is not pervasive that GM's require eidolon's, animal companions, familiars, etc to act on their master's initiative. Having a highly mobile, nimble & dextrous companion is not a benefit for a "squishy" if they have to fall to the master's action. For many, it is just easier to run both at the same time. Although, IMO, having them act on their own initiative would make things like Handle Animal or actually talking during combat more apparent. Better rids us of the "hivemind" that seems to exist with all tandem classes.
On the GM side, using group initiative can make things move along a bit quicker. Of course it creates the same hivemind for the NPC's to use integrated tactics without having to talk to each other.
Most of the time, encounters know the PC's are coming, so theoretically they can buff and quickly prepare actions. "I'm going to toss a Fireball and then you immediately charge." The need for initiative to adjudicate those actions is less important if they get a surprise round after which the PC's can act normally.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I suggested in another thread somewhere (building on an idea posited by Andrew Christian) that perhaps encounters with multiple mooks could instead of being listed as "Mook (4)" to mean there are four of that mook, you could list them with something like "Mook (2+APL)".
In such a case, a table of four freshies would fight 3 mooks, while a six-man table of level 2 PCs would fight 5 mooks. A table of four or five level 2s, or a table of six level 1s, would fight 4 mooks.
And that would add a mere 4 letters per encounter to the scenarios.
If we want any sort of "scaling", I think this would be the easiest, cleanest, most impartial way to do it. It would also be small enough to be kind of a "safe" experiment to see how it goes. It would only affect one or two encounters per scenario.
Agreed that simple is best. The only thing your method doesn't account for are "solos." There are many encounters where there is a single bad guy, and those are often what people are citing when they say that they have a problem with low challenge level. [As a side note - why is it that bards are always the solos? So many modules where that's the case, and that seems weird, when considering a bard's abilities...] Those encounters need a method of being beefed up, too, and the LFR method does that.
Regardles, both your idea and the LFR method are simple. If a change is enacted, this is what I want to see.
Now, I'm going to land very firmly on the side of "I don't think change is needed."
Bob Jonquet, Andrew Christian, many VCs and some writers are all giving very good reasons why the current shape of things is fine, even challenging when done correctly. I'd rather see GMs figure out how to challenge groups by using the existing rules. Again, I don't want an "arms race."
|
|
. The only thing your method doesn't account for are "solos." There are many encounters where there is a single bad guy, and those are often what people are citing when they say that they have a problem with low challenge level.
Solo Mooks & BBEGs could always have their HP total presented as X+(Y*APL)
|
|
. The only thing your method doesn't account for are "solos." There are many encounters where there is a single bad guy, and those are often what people are citing when they say that they have a problem with low challenge level.Solo Mooks & BBEGs could always have their HP total presented as X+(Y*APL)
What kills solo's is the action economy, not the hitpoints. While a BBEG can get off a nasty spell, if you double their hitpoints, they could then get off two spells. Making a BBEG drop in two rounds as a horde of pathfinders descend upon them and attack them from all sides isn't much better that getting one rounded. What they need are mooks, to keep the action economy better. Give them a generic bodyguard NPC, designed to keep people off the boss for that extra round or two. Would they personally do that much more damage, no. Would they allow the BBEGto actually earn the title of BBEG instead of being known as "That one schmuck the archer took out in one round" (literal name for the boss of the Shades of Ice Trilogy), hopefully.
|
|
I confess, "group initiative" (in which both a boss NPC and her companions / moks / etc act at the same time) drives me nuts when I'm a player. (As a GM, I've even had two experienced GM/players at my table insist that it was RAW that a druid's animal companion acted on its master's initative.)Ooooh! Drives me nuts.
Yeah. Its a a better experience to roll for the boss, minions, and other non-homogeneous groups seperately. If they land together in the count - well, that's the way it goes.
|
|
I'm not complaining (we survived), just noting that rolling group initiative changes the difficulty level of a combat (either up or down, depending on a single roll), rather than being somewhat averaged out.
Gotcha. To a certain extent though, I think its a neccessary evil. Sure, it can be somewhat deadly at times, and I dont think it should go to the extremes like Chris Mortika pointed out (with the mooks and the main baddie going together), but if you rolled individual initiative for each mook on the board and tried to keep track of each one separately, it would bog the game down even slower.
Occasionally, I will have all the baddies act together (all the ghouls and the ghast too, for example), but if and when I do, I always average the Init mod of all the monsters out and use that, which generally leaves the monsters with a lower init mod than they would have had.
As far as companions go, Id leave it up to the player to decide how they want to handle it, and Ive never seen anyone choose to have them go separately. I dont think it particularly matters, but as long as you give everyone the same opportunity, I think its fine (dont keep the cavalier from having them on different inits if the druid is doing it).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Gotcha. To a certain extent though, I think its a neccessary evil. Sure, it can be somewhat deadly at times, and I dont think it should go to the extremes like Chris Mortika pointed out (with the mooks and the main baddie going together), but if you rolled individual initiative for each mook on the board and tried to keep track of each one separately, it would bog the game down even slower.
Occasionally, I will have all the baddies act together (all the ghouls and the ghast too, for example), but if and when I do, I always average the Init mod of all the monsters out and use that, which generally leaves the monsters with a lower init mod than they would have had.
What you could do is roll initiative for everything, but only note the lowest init for any given group of baddies, and just have all the rest delay until that count. Keeps the reduced-bookkeeping perk, is 100% rules-lawyer-approved, and can even educate the players about the potential tactical advantages of delaying. Everybody wins!
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
What you could do is roll initiative for everything, but only note the lowest init for any given group of baddies, and just have all the rest delay until that count. Keeps the reduced-bookkeeping perk, is 100% rules-lawyer-approved, and can even educate the players about the potential tactical advantages of delaying. Everybody wins!
Been wondering when someone would bring this up.
Honestly, that's what I assume every time. I roll once, look at the lowest modifier, and put the bad guys there. Otherwise I'm rolling too many dice and keeping track of too many positions on the init board. Then there's the back and forth from player to GM to player, back to GM, etc. All of these things slow games down. Readying/delaying seems designed, in part, to fix this.
For the same reason, I'm not sure why a player with an animal companion *wouldn't* want to go on the same init so that they could take advantage of positioning, etc. I guess if you're just the support druid who buffs his party and you have a bada$$ animal who goes super quick on initiative, I can see it. But, even then, I would think the druid would want to buff his animal, first.
To each their own, I suppose.
|
|
What kills solo's is the action economy, not the hitpoints. While a BBEG can get off a nasty spell, if you double their hitpoints, they could then get off two spells. Making a BBEG drop in two rounds as a horde of pathfinders descend upon them and attack them from all sides isn't much better that getting one rounded. What they need are mooks, to keep the action economy better. Give them a generic bodyguard NPC, designed to keep people off the boss for that extra round or two. Would they personally do that much more damage, no. Would they allow the BBEGto actually earn the title of BBEG instead of being known as "That one schmuck the archer took out in one round" (literal name for the boss of the Shades of Ice Trilogy), hopefully.. The only thing your method doesn't account for are "solos." There are many encounters where there is a single bad guy, and those are often what people are citing when they say that they have a problem with low challenge level.Solo Mooks & BBEGs could always have their HP total presented as X+(Y*APL)
There are other ways to help the solo BBEG other than cluttering an encounter with mooks.
The environment is a huge part of creating an encounter that is often overlooked to the detriment of the encounter both for underpowering and overpowering.
If you create choke points, difficult terrain, elevations, less than ideal light conditions, concealment, cover, and other terrain or environmental features that hinder the movement of PC’s towards the NPC or line of sight, then you create a more difficult encounter where the solo BBEG can stand up for several rounds sometimes.
Some modules that include environmental factors that allow a solo BBEG to stand on his own include The Infernal Vault, Delirium’s Tangle, and The Dalsine Affair.
I don’t know why more author’s don’t choose to use the environment to help beef up an otherwise lackluster final encounter, and conversely, why they don’t neuter the environment when it obviously creates an abbatoir.
|
|
Been wondering when someone would bring this up.
Honestly, that's what I assume every time. I roll once, look at the lowest modifier, and put the bad guys there. Otherwise I'm rolling too many dice and keeping track of too many positions on the init board. Then there's the back and forth from player to GM to player, back to GM, etc. All of these things slow games down. Readying/delaying seems designed, in part, to fix this.
For the same reason, I'm not sure why a player with an animal companion *wouldn't* want to go on the same init so that they could take advantage of positioning, etc. I guess if you're just the support druid who buffs his party and you have a bada$$ animal who goes super quick on initiative, I can see it. But, even then, I would think the druid would want to buff his animal, first.
To each their own, I suppose.
Have to be careful with delaying, and make sure you still roll individual Init for everyone, so You know when they are not Flat-Footed, even if they Delay to go with the slowest Guy, they are no longer Flat-footed once their original Init comes up.
|
|
If you create choke points, difficult terrain, elevations, less than ideal light conditions, concealment, cover, and other terrain or environmental features that hinder the movement of PC’s towards the NPC or line of sight, then you create a more difficult encounter where the solo BBEG can stand up for several rounds sometimes.
Some modules that include environmental factors that allow a solo BBEG to stand on his own include The Infernal Vault, Delirium’s Tangle, and The Dalsine Affair.
I don’t know why more author’s don’t choose to use the environment to help beef up an otherwise lackluster final encounter, and conversely, why they don’t...
As someone who has a module under review, I'll tackle that list.
Choke points are down how, make the terrain narrow? Then the PC's race through on the same turn.
Difficult terrain is handy for foes who need to stay clear, but their primary issue is other ranged combatants, which difficult terrain doesn't help.
Elevations go in the same category as difficult terrain: great if the party doesn't have archers, otherwise irrelevant.
Light conditions, countered by the 0 level spell light, on nearly every spell list, and if the party doesn't have at least one light spell on, I'm pretty baffled.
Concealment can work, but that works for one round, after which the party beats the BBEG to death.
Cover? Works against the BBEG just as much as the players, except for the players get more attacks per round, so they can absorb the penalty.
I don't recall any terrain features that helped the BBEG in the Dalsine Affair, the only thing that helped him is
Delirium's Tangle, our party took him out before he even got to do anything. The ninja walked in invisible, and delayed until the archer could full attack. The two of them together dropped him before he could do anything.
The problem with using the terrain to hinder PC's is that it doesn't actually hinder them the same way an NPC will. In order to actually hinder the PCs by enough to matter, you would need nine squares of contiguous difficult terrain that the PC's have no recourse but to walk through. Further, terrain disadvantages only further the edge ranged characters have, which is where a lot of the one round kills on BBEG come from.
|
|
I confess, "group initiative" (in which both a boss NPC and her companions / moks / etc act at the same time) drives me nuts when I'm a player.
Group initiative sucks; and future mods should actively discourage it. It's simultaneously deadly (because they can gang-up on a single PC) and boring (no tit-for-tat interplay on the INIT tracker that ordinarily makes party-vs-party the most interesting type of encounter).
Even when you survive, it's always unsatisfying to watch a "nice" GM who rolled a group-20 INIT move the charge/gore monsters to different PCs rather the have them all cream the most obvious, nearest target which they all could have reached. Conversely, if he rolls a group-1, then the PCs nuke the site from orbit, and it's also unsatisfying.
|
|
scaned over some of this, and did not know some did group initiative. I am definitly against that. I think it ruins the flavor of all being different. Its not that much work to roll them all up is it?
Main reason for posting. I did alter once and added some one shot mooks for the BBEG. She was a high level goverment official, so I felt she needed some door gaurds to help slow the 7 PC's comig at her. She still didnt last to do 3 actions. This is the problem i have alot of th time is I prep, by reading spells and abilities and The lone BBEG dies in 2 rounds.
I suppose it would be different if had only 4 players or even worce 3 w/pre-gen, but I get 6-7 alot. So please powers that be, help me challenge mt players better legaly. thanks!!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I confess, "group initiative" (in which both a boss NPC and her companions / moks / etc act at the same time) drives me nuts when I'm a player. I can appreciate, for ease and speed, assuming that every NPC "rolls" 10 for initative, but that shouldn't mean that a cleric and her zombie thralls should move at the same time, unless they have the same initative modifier.And my PCs would benefit from this more often than not: two of them have companions / eidolons that move much slower than the PCs themselves, but most GMs will move them up to act on my initiative.
(As a GM, I've even had two experienced GM/players at my table insist that it was RAW that a druid's animal companion acted on its master's initative.)
Ooooh! Drives me nuts.
I hope that it is not pervasive that GM's require eidolon's, animal companions, familiars, etc to act on their master's initiative. Having a highly mobile, nimble & dextrous companion is not a benefit for a "squishy" if they have to fall to the master's action. For many, it is just easier to run both at the same time. Although, IMO, having them act on their own initiative would make things like Handle Animal or actually talking during combat more apparent. Better rids us of the "hivemind" that seems to exist with all tandem classes.
On the GM side, using group initiative can make things move along a bit quicker. Of course it creates the same hivemind for the NPC's to use integrated tactics without having to talk to each other.
Most of the time, encounters know the PC's are coming, so theoretically they can buff and quickly prepare actions. "I'm going to toss a Fireball and then you immediately charge." The need for initiative to adjudicate those actions is less important if they get a surprise round after which the PC's can act normally.
My position is kind of in the middle. I roll initiative for each set of identical creatures, so all the zombies in the room will have 1 initiative, all the goblins another, and so on. All named characters get their own initiative, even if their stats are identical to the mooks.
For animal companions, eidolons and familiars, I ask the player at the start of the session whether they want their companion going on their initiative or seperately and then go with that. The exception is mounts, which go on their rider's initiative.
|
|
As someone who has a module under review, I'll tackle that list.
Choke points are down how, make the terrain narrow? Then the PC's race through on the same turn.
Difficult terrain is handy for foes who need to stay clear, but their primary issue is other ranged combatants, which difficult terrain doesn't help.
Elevations go in the same category as difficult terrain: great if the party doesn't have archers, otherwise irrelevant.
Light conditions, countered by the 0 level spell light, on nearly every spell list, and if the party doesn't have at least one light spell on, I'm pretty baffled.
Concealment can work, but that works for one round, after which the party beats the BBEG to death.
Cover? Works against the BBEG just as much as the players, except for the players get more attacks per round, so they can absorb the penalty.
I don't recall any terrain features that helped the BBEG in the Dalsine Affair, the only thing that helped him is ** spoiler omitted **
Delirium's Tangle, our party took him out before he even got to do anything. The ninja walked in invisible, and delayed until the archer could full attack. The two of them together dropped him before he could do anything.
The problem with using the terrain to hinder PC's is that it doesn't actually hinder...
Choke points often should be longer than a single 5 foot square to do them any justice. Although a door is a great choke point that can cause many issues with maneuvering, especially if the characters walk into a 40 foot long room with a door at the end. The sorcerer is through the other door tossing ranged spells at the characters, and it will take them at least one round to get to the door (some might make it into the room on a double move. This will give the sorcerer at least 2 rounds of spell slinging (not including a potential surprise round) before the characters get to do damage (well except for ranged characters like spell casters and archers).
Distance and Elevation can indeed be overcome by archers or spell casters. But anything can be overcome by something. And you don't want to make the environment so difficult that it overcomes everything, or the characters will just be slaughtered, and that's overbalanced instead of underbalanced.
Some examples of difficult terrain would include greased floors, stairs, caltrop covered floor, ice, entangle spell area, etc. You could even have a series of walls or book shelves that can be maneuvered around and make it difficult to surround a BBEG.
Give the BBEG ranged attacks instead of melee. Make him good or efficient at both.
Set up a surprise encounter like an ambush or dark room in which the BBEG can see but the characters cannot.
Concealment works every round that the BBEG is concealed. A nice obscuring mist will give him concealment against anyone within 5' and anyone outside of 5' will have total concealment.
If you took out the BBEG in Delirium's Tangle before he got to do anything, then it is likely the GM didn't run him correctly or efficiently.
Terrain does and can hinder PCs. You just have to know how to apply it.
|
|
I follow ninjaiguana and roll group initiative for similar creatures. For instance:
Like heck I'm going to sit there and keep track of 5 different mooks, 4 of which have the exact same stats, on different initiatives. Talk about a great way to slow combat down even more.
I also ask players if they'd like their AC to act on a different initiative. I prefer they don't but I give that option regardless of my preference.
|
|
As someone who has a module under review, I'll tackle that list.
Choke points are down how, make the terrain narrow? Then the PC's race through on the same turn.
Difficult terrain is handy for foes who need to stay clear, but their primary issue is other ranged combatants, which difficult terrain doesn't help.
Elevations go in the same category as difficult terrain: great if the party doesn't have archers, otherwise irrelevant.
Light conditions, countered by the 0 level spell light, on nearly every spell list, and if the party doesn't have at least one light spell on, I'm pretty baffled.
Concealment can work, but that works for one round, after which the party beats the BBEG to death.
Cover? Works against the BBEG just as much as the players, except for the players get more attacks per round, so they can absorb the penalty.
I don't recall any terrain features that helped the BBEG in the Dalsine Affair, the only thing that helped him is ** spoiler omitted **
Delirium's Tangle, our party took him out before he even got to do anything. The ninja walked in invisible, and delayed until the archer could full attack. The two of them together dropped him before he could do anything.
The problem with using the terrain to hinder PC's is that it doesn't actually hinder...
Choke points often should be longer than a single 5 foot square to do them any justice. Although a door is a great choke point that can cause many issues with maneuvering, especially if the characters walk into a 40 foot long room with a door at the end. The sorcerer is through the other door tossing ranged spells at the characters, and it will take them at least one round to get to the door (some might make it into the room on a double move. This will give the sorcerer at least 2 rounds of spell slinging (not including a potential surprise round) before the characters get to do damage (well except for ranged characters like spell casters and archers).
Distance and Elevation...
Was run by a VC. He commented on how cool the fight could have been, but the party used smart tactics to shut him down.
|
|
If you took out the BBEG in Delirium's Tangle before he got to do anything, then it is likely the GM didn't run him correctly or efficiently
The scenarios says
He doesn't have tremorsense, so he's not going to sense the ninja.
He's not going to activate (or perhaps he loses initiative) for the archer. In addition his AC is 16 at subtier 1-2 and AC 22 at subtier 4-5.
He's done. Dead. Gone.
That fight is pointless anyway, he has next to no offense, and very little defense, it's just delaying the inevitable.
Please tell me (and the VC who ran it) how it should have been done differently (without changing the scenario).
|
|
The scenarios says
** spoiler omitted **
But, It is not outside the realms of realism to say if an Archer shoots at him he will activate. If he is shot before he’s activated, it is essentially a surprise round, and thus the archer only gets a single shot. Additionally the Ninja would only get a single attack.
Now not having read the scenario, I don’t know if this was part of it or not, but our GM had him moving these plates and such about when he activated, that gave him cover from particular directions.
Even at 1st level, with an uber optimized Ranger, I can’t believe you could get more than a +8 at 1st level, and maybe bump that to +10 or 11 at 2nd to hit with the bow, and as such still have a 35 to 55 percent chance of not hitting. With cover, that chance gets worse.
Additionally, I think he can cast spells (albeit my memory is spotty on this one, and it may have been a PC for some reason or other) and cast Obscuring Mist to give him concealment.
Not outside the realms of possibilities that you could take him out before he does anything, but in this particular encounter that is definitely the exception and those players who pulled it off should be very proud of themselves for excellent tactics.
|
|
If you don't want to allow them to full attack on the 1st round , it gets harder of course (they will likely do 15 damage in the surprise round). When they win initiative on the next round (Dex helps), they can full attack and finish the job.
It's still a win, with only 2 PCs, before the BBG can act.
And remember, there are 4 other PCs who can (hopefully) contribute 4 points of damage over the surprise round and (maybe) a full round.
In that scenario, I say the BBG dies sometimes without acting and most of the time within 1 round, doing minimal or no damage. It's possible the players made bad choices or the PCs are mostly melee, but even then they'll only be delayed 2 rounds.
1) He was awake to start the encounter, so he could buff and not get taken by surprise.
2) He had tremorsense or was buffed with See Invisibility (his tactics don't list him as pre-buffed)
3) He was buffed with Mage Armor (not on his spell list)
4) Toughness feat
5) Had mooks like perhaps 4 animated objects (chains) (to knock PCs off the ramp or to grapple archers), or perhaps even a dominated Nuar at subtier 4-5.
If he had all of those things, maybe he'd last a little longer. That would involve changing the scenario though, and since that can't be done, we're left with him dying in the 1st round most of the time. Yay! :)
|
|
TO make the PFS senarios more chalanging I would do te following
1: All non mooks would be built with a 20 point buy
2:Non Mooks would get a WPL the same as a PC of the same level
3: Give the BBG casters depleted staffs and or wands. Depleted means
less than 10 chares. IF BBG is a devine caster give them the chaneling feats to heal/harm
4:Make smart bad guys cast spells like deeper darkness, blindness defeness on PC casters invisibilty buff spells on their minions pre encounter. Worst spell that I have been hit with is power word stun by a demon in an 10-11 mod like it made the enconter good and deadly
5: Make larger rooms by useing ten foot squares on senario maps in stead of 5' squares.
6:Make better use of traps and locked doors gives rouges somthing to do other than stabity stabity.
7:Throw in a summoner BBG and his Eliodon buddy
8: have a Bad guy organization working aginist the Pathfinders in the background.
Just a few things to chew on. I am not in any way saying that the DEVS are doing anything less than a stelar job as they provide me with
a very enjoyable tuesday evening every week
|
|
|Xrgf
d gg
|Xr
|c
| w
| = wall
d = doorway the PCs want to go through (left to right)
r = bad guy rogues with Combat Reflexes
g = Grease patch
c,w = bad guy casters
f = bad guy fighter with pole-arm (among other weapons)
X = heavy crates double-high slid up against the wall to turn the doorway into a tunnel of sorts (thwarting ranged attacks), with pitons wedging them into place
NPC ambush set-up: rogues delay; wizard lays down Grease; "top" rogue is 5' away from indicated position...he drops a rug over the slick spot he intends to stand in (or moves a crate over it and hops on for an elevation bonus); cleric casts Bless or other buffs depending upon level; both casters move farther away (to avoid PC blast spells)
-- This set-up will have the players tearing their hair out at almost any level prior to teleportation.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If you don't want to allow them to full attack on the 1st round , it gets harder of course (they will likely do 15 damage in the surprise round). When they win initiative on the next round (Dex helps), they can full attack and finish the job.
It's still a win, with only 2 PCs, before the BBG can act.
And remember, there are 4 other PCs who can (hopefully) contribute 4 points of damage over the surprise round and (maybe) a full round.
In that scenario, I say the BBG dies sometimes without acting and most of the time within 1 round, doing minimal or no damage. It's possible the players made bad choices or the PCs are mostly melee, but even then they'll only be delayed 2 rounds.
** spoiler omitted **
If he had all of those things, maybe he'd last a little longer. That would involve changing the scenario though, and since that can't be done, we're left with him dying in the 1st round most of the time. Yay! :)
Maybe I missed something... but if the BBEG hadn't "activated" yet, how did the ninja and ranger know to attack it?
|
|
Concerning group initiative, one of the things that would help prevent the desire of GMs todo so for giant group of monsters would be to....use less large groups of monsters. Sounds simple, right? It'd be really helpful if instead of just adding more cannon-fodder when you move up tiers in games you actually made harder enemies.
Concerning the original question of this thread...I would say that, in my experience, difficulty of a scenario in PFS largely depends on the group you have and how strongly built the group is, how well they take advantage of tactics, cover, things like that. Some are probably too hard, some are really easy (Especially some of the Season 0 mods that were unable to take pathfinder rules into consideration). But you can't make the scenarios harder because some people on the forums are complaining its too easy. Because that's not your base of players, I don't think. If you scale up the difficultly of scenarios for the veteran players, you'll kill all the new people.
Also, some playtesting and a stronger review process of scenarios might help to keep some bad things from getting in. The best example I can think of is the Frostfur Captives.
If any of this is already tired or repeated, I do apologize, I just wanted to get my two cents in.
|
|
|
Maybe I missed something... but if the BBEG hadn't "activated" yet, how did the ninja and ranger know to attack it? ** spoiler omitted **If you don't want to allow them to full attack on the 1st round , it gets harder of course (they will likely do 15 damage in the surprise round). When they win initiative on the next round (Dex helps), they can full attack and finish the job.
It's still a win, with only 2 PCs, before the BBG can act.
And remember, there are 4 other PCs who can (hopefully) contribute 4 points of damage over the surprise round and (maybe) a full round.
In that scenario, I say the BBG dies sometimes without acting and most of the time within 1 round, doing minimal or no damage. It's possible the players made bad choices or the PCs are mostly melee, but even then they'll only be delayed 2 rounds.
** spoiler omitted **
If he had all of those things, maybe he'd last a little longer. That would involve changing the scenario though, and since that can't be done, we're left with him dying in the 1st round most of the time. Yay! :)
Because a certain faction's faction mission mentions the BBEG by name and race, so its not hard to figure out who that is. Couple with the fact that everything else has attacked you down here, its not a stretch to think that the only other person in the room other than the
|
|
-- This set-up will have the players tearing their hair out at almost any level prior to teleportation.
Don't forget Moonlight Bridge. That has nerfed far more environmental setups in PFS than anything else I've seen. I suspect that I used it in the module which is being discussed in some of these posts.