|
I was running some mods during a con this weekend and kept seeing ineffectual enemies. For example, one sorcerer had suggestion and charm monster, but was feated out to disarm and the tactics say they focus on disarming instead of simply asking the fighters to "go home" or "please drop the sword" or something in that nice enchanter manner. The Big baddie, in the same mod, literally could not drop any party member in the party unless something went serious wrong. In 3 rounds of combat, I think I did less than 20 damage to the party, and I had no save or dies or anything for them to save against. In that same mod, they put low level high hp rogues by themselves in a small room that made it tactically unfeasible to flank, so they just got murdered and did no actual damage to the party.
In a different level 10-11 mod with different players, the enemies, who could barely hit AC well into the 30s (e.g., an archer had 37) that most of the party had. The monsters had a +11 base to hit that became +15 to hit (with all their extensive modifiers and flanking added in), but were specified to power attack all the time...giving them a +13 to hit and meaning they literally only hit 3 of the party members on nat 20s instead of on 18s or whatnot. Even when they hit, they only did enough damage to possible threaten 1 party member, which was the wizard. It literally seemed like a trash fight, despite me having to spend 30 minutes figureing out the monster's 2.5 page write up. I completely felt like I wasted my time.
The big baddie in the end of that mod had a single dominate, which the party was immune to due to smart pre-buffing. As a result, the big baddies grand total effect on the party was to have a cleric cast remove fear on the one party member the big baddie feared. I wish I was exagerating, but I did no damage to the party in the finale. I didn't even slow the party down. The "support" monsters that were with the big baddie died without doing any damage because they could only hit the front line on a 20, and they had low Ac themselves and enough hit point to only survive 1-3 hits.
I've noticed this is more common in the higher level mods than the low level ones. What is a GM to do?
In LFR, I would simply raise the monsters to hit to level appropriate levels and/or raise the damage depending on what the issue is. However, pathfinder prides itself on DMs not making any changes to the mod. Thus I felt forced to run a drama free walk fest and do stupid things like have the sorcerer fail diarm attempts on characters with +5 will saves and high CMDs instead of simply using enchantments to remove characters from the fight or even have them disarm themselves.
|
What is a GM to do?
I'm sorry to hear that you had a frustrating time. I know it's discouraging after all the hard work that you've done to see it all evaporate at the gaming table. I can tell you that the players and the organizer appreciated the time and effort you put in volunteering.
I can't really give you advice here on how to fix broken scenarios at the table. The rules do state that you must 'run as written', no matter how badly the scenario is constructed.
Outside of the game, you have a couple of options. Before purchasing or running the scenario, read the reviews and any accompanying threads. Don't just rely on the star rating; plenty of reviewers will leave five stars and then mention in their review that the combat encounters were not a challenge (or were inappropriately constructed, etc).
After you run a scenario, you can leave a review for the next person. The information you have given in this thread would be valuable to a person trying to decide whether or not to purchase or even run.
I can tell you that those reviews and accompanying threads are gold to me as an organizer. They have really helped me decide which scenarios are OK to schedule and which ones I need to have a discussion with the GM. I would be interested in reading your reviews for those scenarios.
-Perry
|
Remember that tactics are general preferences for the creature, and that any creature who is intelligent can change his tactics if his current ones aren't working.
Surely you wouldn't ignore a creature's ranged capabilities when his opponents are all out of reach (flying/spider climbing etc) just because his tactics state that "he always charges to close with his target". If you've got creatures that 'always' power attack and miss when they know they should've hit, they will stop power attacking. Same as when the creature with mind-affecting spells who prefers to disarm realizes that she isn't able to disarm her opponents; she is going to try using her spells. That's what they are there for.
You can't do anything but report/review your findings on badly built creatures and their effect on encounters, but you can change tactics after taking into account the creature's motivations.
|
|
You're allowed to adapt tactics to the group. If the sorcerer is facing 5 fighter types, use his enchantments. If the rogue is alone, have him hide and sneak attack. Adapting to the situation doesn't constitute changing the scenario as written as long as you stick with the stats you're given.
If people wanted bad guys who would always do the same thing they'd just play an MMO.
|
|
You're allowed to adapt tactics to the group. If the sorcerer is facing 5 fighter types, use his enchantments. If the rogue is alone, have him hide and sneak attack. Adapting to the situation doesn't constitute changing the scenario as written as long as you stick with the stats you're given.
If people wanted bad guys who would always do the same thing they'd just play an MMO.
Well, that's good to hear. I didn't think GMs should alter tactics, as mods commonly are written such that encounters are less than 50 feet from each other. Combat, being a loud violent activity, would draw the encounters together. Hell my boss's desk is about 50 ft away through, with 2 concrete block walls in between, and she still comes in every time I tell a story.
Yeah when I saw the sorc's tactics I first checked his int score, which was positive, and his str wasn't impressive. As melee types are the one weilding weapons, I couldn't figure out when it ever would be good for a sorc to disarm someone using martial rather than magical means. You'd think at some point someone would simply hand him a wand of grease or ask him why he's swordfighting when he simply could assert his will over the opponent from a much safer distance.
It's just frustrating when you run 6 mods over three days and they go like this:
1- Complete cake walk- mod cannot cope with party
2- Complete cake walk- mod cannot cope with party
3- Mod likely to kill everyone- Party is cracked out and perfect for mod, so they squeak by without anyone dying due to some dev post a player found halfway through the mod.
4- About right because I apparently misread a misprint that would have killed players
5- Complete cake walk- mod cannot cope with party
6- Complete cake walk- mod cannot cope with party
Venture captains and leuts were commonly in the party, so it's not like there was anything untold going on on the player side.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Please note that there's a difference between starting with the tactics and then applying the NPC's deductive reasoning/self-preservation instincts as applicable based on the PCs' actions; versus reading the tactics and just deciding you'd like them to be different.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
We're always working to improve the effectiveness of NPCs' tactics and combat viability in scenarios, which is one reason we're moving to the scalable 6-person assumption next season. I'm sorry to hear the specific scenarios you ran weren't challenging, and I encourage you to provide specific feedback on those scenarios in their respective GM reference threads. This will help the campaign's authors as well as me and other developers gauge how we're doing on the balance side, especially when trying new things. I hope you find Season 4's scenarios more challenging and that your feedback helps us perfect the system so it works better for you and other GMs in the campaign.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AC is king in 3.5/Pathfinder and you'll find that characters optimized for AC will often out perform those that optimize for other things.
That said, raising overall power level of the campaign to challenge optimized characters isn't any better of a solution. Characters with ACs 30+ may be invulnerable but do you want to see AC 30+ become the standard?
My stance on this is the same as it's been for a while.
If people want to min/max themselves out of a game, let them.
"You want into the room and the cult's champion howls a challenge. Fortunately, due to your incredible agility and myriad magical defenses he's unable to even scratch you."
Here's your Chronicle. I hope everyone had fun!
|
|
Please note that there's a difference between starting with the tactics and then applying the NPC's deductive reasoning/self-preservation instincts as applicable based on the PCs' actions; versus reading the tactics and just deciding you'd like them to be different.
90% of the fights in the ineffectual mods took 2 rounds or less, with virtually every combat decided for the players on round 1. For example, the sorc was in melee combat by the end of round 1. There was no time for NPC using deductive reasoning other than "I probably should use my powerful spells." An idiotic caster with literally 30+ spells left keeping themselves in melee will simply shorten combat even further.
The changes I made to the sorc's tactics let that combat last for around 4 rounds, which made it the longest combat in the mod and literally the only combat in which I took even a quarter of hp from someone.
|
|
That said, raising overall power level of the campaign to challenge optimized characters isn't any better of a solution. Characters with ACs 30+ may be invulnerable but do you want to see AC 30+ become the standard?
My stance on this is the same as it's been for a while.
If people want to min/max themselves out of a game, let them.
"You want into the room and the cult's champion howls a challenge. Fortunately, due to your incredible agility and myriad magical defenses he's unable to even scratch you."
Here's your Chronicle. I hope everyone had fun!
30ish ac was pretty standard for melee at the con starting from the 6 to 8 level range. (10+Plate11+Shield 3+deflection 2+ dex 1+Nat armor 1+ dodge1+haste1=30). The highest Ac I saw was a level 9 or so archer with 37 ac. The parties also always did a ton of damage, with control, buffs, and healing.
Of course, some characters did have a lower ac, like mid 20s, but I wasn't about to go asking what everyone's AC was so I could pick on those people. I simply asked what everyone looked like and responded appropriately.
This isn't elements of the community. This is the community, and it has been since LG and LC days.
I'm just trying to figure out how to handle this.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Out of curiosity, Furious Kender, what were the 6 scenarios over 3 days you ran? I would normally look at reported sessions to get an idea of which adventures caused a problem, but I'm not seeing anything reported recently for you. Feel free to put them under a spoiler if you want. I'd just like to get a sense of what scenarios you had issue with so I can effectively use yout feedback.
|
Venture-Captain, Arizona—Tucson
|
As a GM, you need to walk a line between respecting the scenario as written and adapting enemy tactics to suit the current situation. If changing an opponent's tactics seems to be warranted, consider the reasons for the tactics given.
Some creatures' tactics have become outdated as new rules have come out, such as the foes in season-zero mods. Other foes' tactics were chosen to illustrate their values and goals, such as a disloyal lackey who refuses to risk himself or a companion beast that furiously assaults anyone who harms its master. In some scenarios, creatures have been given deliberately suboptimal tactics to spare the PCs from facing their full power, such as one potentially brutal encounter at the climax of Shipyard Rats.
Also, remember that comparably-leveled parties may vary wildly in abilities. An optimized character in his "sweet spot" might demolish foes that would seriously challenge less potent characters. I've had people tell me about a scenario's cakewalk encounters, then had others report that the same encounters were too lethal.
|
|
I agree with both Mike and James, even though some of their comments seem to conflict.
In general, you want to run the tactics of the NPCs as written.
However, there would be no reason to give the NPC certain spells or abilities or items in a stat block if they were never expected to be used. Unless the tactics specifically say not to use those abilities.
So what you do is start with the listed tactics. If they aren't working at all, move on to what else the NPC can do.
If the fight only lasts a round and they don't get a chance to try another tactic, likely that charm monster wouldn't have been effective anyways.
|
|
Out of curiosity, Furious Kender, what were the 6 scenarios over 3 days you ran? I would normally look at reported sessions to get an idea of which adventures caused a problem, but I'm not seeing anything reported recently for you. Feel free to put them under a spoiler if you want. I'd just like to get a sense of what scenarios you had issue with so I can effectively use yout feedback.
The Event Coordinator said he would post mods. Most of the players were like me, and had over 20 years of gaming experience.
Rats of Round mountain Part 1 played at level with level 8 or so party. Everything dead inside of 2 rounds, including the dragon. I couldn't hit the party, even playing as smart as I could. I even thought I was being mean by holding the final battle (that doesn't have a map) on a stone bridge, and giving the dragon a surprise round. End result: dead dragon in 1.5 rounds.
Rat of round mountain part 2, playing up with level 8 or so party. Everything dead inside of 2 rounds, except for 1 encounter in which the ratfolk couldn't hit most of the party but there were too many to kill in 2 rounds. I couldn't hit the party with the melee creatures. I didn't even damage anyone in the finale. The end boss did fear someone before being turned into a turtle that was eaten by the grappling animal companion. This was the grand effect of that combat: one action lost by the cleric casting remove fear and they had to wait 2 days for the treasure.
Goblinoid Dead: Fun mod overall. The final two battles I ran together, as I understood was proper from the tactics, as the PCs alerted the guards and they fell back to the central room as the players were playing with the haunt. The final battle had some tension to it and I dropped a couple of players there. No deaths. This was my favorite mod to run overall.
Temple of Empyreal Enlightment: I fully expected a party wipe. However, the 2 cracked out paladins, 1 cleric, 1 oracle and 1 rogue pulled it off after finding a dev post stating the heresy points went away after being used. Btw, this doesn't work well as knowledge checks and whatnot would remove heresy points before they would come into effect. I made a judgement call that I could force a player once to reroll something per heresy point, and the players thought that was fair. They also had a hard time with the juju zombies, but no deaths due to the cracked out party. People said this was their favorite mod of the con as they liked the rp and the combats were challenging. However, with a less cracked out party, I expect everyone to die as written, as my own party did when I played it.
The Golden Serpent: Party level was around 7 and ran high. Couldn't hit anyone as party acs were all decent. There were 2 paladins and an oracle with 30ish ac in the party, which also made conditions hard to stick. For example, I think I confused one person for one round in the final combat. Final boss was dead in 2.5 rounds, with me doing like 20 damage to the party. The only fight that didn't feel like a trash fight was the middle one with the disarming sorc and rogues. At this point I was very tired of only hitting on a nat 20, so I apparently messed up and had the sorc use good tactics and gave the rogues a +3 to hit (making them +12 to hit, with the haste) that allowed me to hit the melee guys if I rolled well. My dice were also hot (and I could now hit them on a 16 or so), which allowed me to drop a paladin, nearly drop a second party member, and charmed a VO's rogue. This was the only challenging fight, which again was only challenging because I messed it up.
Icewind Outpost: Ran low I believe. Cake. I ran some encounters together to make it more challenging, but they stomped it anyway. There simply wasn't enough damage to threaten them most of the time. People seemed to have a good time.
|
|
Also, remember that comparably-leveled parties may vary wildly in abilities. An optimized character in his "sweet spot" might demolish foes that would seriously challenge less potent characters. I've had people tell me about a scenario's cakewalk encounters, then had others report that the same encounters were too lethal.
This is a large part of the problem. As levels get higher, variance in party abilities increases wildly. This makes predicting difficultly level difficult.
Allowing the DM some small executive abilities to adapt to the party would help solve this. For example, in other living campaigns, mods actually write in instructions for how to handle these sorts of groups, which goes beyond the "if there are 4 people, remove a monster" sorts of modifications.
|
FK, not sure how much research you have done into this subject, but there have been extensive threads/discussions about more GM caveat. The campaign coordinator (Mike Brock) has listened to the comments here and with the volunteer leadership team (venture-officers) as well as discussed it at length with other Paizo staff. In the end, the decision was made that allowing additional freedom to table GM's to deviate from the written scenario text is not in the best interest of the society. The expectation is that we stick to the printed material.
*We/You* may or may not like that ruling and/or agree with it, but by agreeing to participate in PFS, we all agree to follow the guidelines set down by Paizo. Feel free to continue this topic, but do not expect a change in the expectations. The message is "run as written."
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This thread might be of interest to you, Furious Kender.
|
|
I even thought I was being mean by holding the final battle (that doesn't have a map) on a stone bridge
The 1/2 page map on page 19 isn't enough? I find it very curious that you had trouble challenging anyone with this scenario. Did you follow the tactics provided? If you read the reviews, you'll find almost everyone has had a different experience than you describe.
|
|
FK, not sure how much research you have done into this subject, but there have been extensive threads/discussions about more GM caveat. The campaign coordinator (Mike Brock) has listened to the comments here and with the volunteer leadership team (venture-officers) as well as discussed it at length with other Paizo staff. In the end, the decision was made that allowing additional freedom to table GM's to deviate from the written scenario text is not in the best interest of the society. The expectation is that we stick to the printed material.
*We/You* may or may not like that ruling and/or agree with it, but by agreeing to participate in PFS, we all agree to follow the guidelines set down by Paizo. Feel free to continue this topic, but do not expect a change in the expectations. The message is "run as written."
I'm not sure how suggesting suggestions be written into the mod so groups may be challenged or not mopped the floor with is the same as suggesting that a mod not be played as written. If the campaign wants completely static mods, and completely dynamic parties, so be it.
With that said, it also seems that the campaign wants dms and players scouring the forums for dev guidance, which isn't really feasible for most people. For example, a player finding Mark's reversal of a clearly written rule regarding heresy in an obscure post is the only reason there were no deaths in Temple of Empyreal Enlightment when I ran it. In that mod, the circumstance bonuses originally in the playtest to the DC 35 diplomancy check (in a 1-5 mod!) also were removed from the final draft in favor of a "can try again if more evidence is gathered mechanic." Now Mark has stated these bonuses should now be added back in, seemingly because people like me completely wiped on it. Neither of these modifications of the raw are in the errata, so people already with the mod aren't using these fixes.
I honestly am not sure whether these errors are any different than my only hitting on a 20 experiences this weekend anytime I ran something above level 1-5. Neither having ineffectual creatures not getting wiped was fun. That was the reason for this thread.
|
|
It sounds like you may have had a combination of a well-balance group with respect to class choices, as well as being twinked/optimized. Either that or the players rolled well vs. the GM rolled poorly. It happens. Most of the scenario you had listed were at least a challenge if not deadly to many/most groups.
There are inherent challenges to the authors in making universally challenging scenarios/encounters. They are limited by the Paizo's requirements for things like length, maps, etc. There is also the issue of core assumption vs. complete use of the published material. If the author uses a monster, feat, spell, etc from books outside of the core assumption, they have to include the complete description. That eats up additional word-count. Adding subjective advice on how to adjust the scenario (each encounter) to accommodate an ever-expanding array of character options is a bit outside their ability. Not to mention the variability of things you cannot account for, like player skill, gaming experience, serious/hardcore vs. casual, etc. and I think you can see that it would be a near impossible challenge for the author to anticipate all, most, or even some of the possible adjustments needed to challenge an "uber" group or ease-up on a "weaker" group.
Scenarios are written to the challenge level of an "average" character, of an "average" group. Sometimes, characters are going to cake-walk a scenario. Occasionally, a player creates a character with a "perfect" set of skills that is just beyond the scope of PFS to deal with. Other times, the characters can be complete unable to defeat a challenge due to their character build choices.
|
|
I even thought I was being mean by holding the final battle (that doesn't have a map) on a stone bridgeThe 1/2 page map on page 19 isn't enough? I find it very curious that you had trouble challenging anyone with this scenario. Did you follow the tactics provided? If you read the reviews, you'll find almost everyone has had a different experience than you describe.
Kyle: I liked the premise of the mod and the rp scenarios, and spent a lot of time prepping the mod.
I drew maps before hand and I didn't see the page 19 map, probably because the map was posted in the middle of the conclusion of the mod right next to the faction missions. Btw, I wasn't the only DM at the con who did that. I used a similar map based on the descriptions on page 16, but before that scenario I redrew the map to tilt it more to the dragon's favor. The dragon was on a ledge 20 feet above the stairs, and the fight was on the stairs.
I used your tactics though and gave the dragon a surprise round so the party couldn't alpha strike it, or so I hoped. I got off a stone to mud and the aura (free action) in the surprise round to keep most of the party locked in place on the stairs. The party delayed until the wizard went, which was before the dragon. One dimension door later and the fight was basically over. The dragon was dead in less than 2 rounds due to massive fighter induced trauma and a flying animal companion who grappled the dragon mid air. The 30 something ac fighter alone did 95 damage to the dragon in turn 1, and yes I checked his math. I got off a breath weapon and 1 full attack, but the party took minimal damage. I only think I hit once versus AC 37 on the "soft archer" I thought I was attacking.
Because I saw people saying the mod was hard, I told the party they might think of playing at level. That was my mistake apparently, as they should have played up, as they walked the second half too.
I am tempted to say it was all the particular group, but the rest of the parties that weekend were similar.
|
|
The dragon should have little challenge breaking said companion grapple with a CMB of +23. Either that or it could just full-attack the companion. I'm sure Bite/Claw/Claw/Gore/Tail Slap would have been an unpleasant experience for said companion. With an attack bonus of +21/22 for most of its attacks, it should be hitting at least 50% of the time vs. AC30.
I also think this is one of those cases where after the initial round, the tactics don't apply. If the fighter does 95 damage, the dragon (Int 16) would know to get the heck away from said damage-dealer. It would probably withdraw into flight to get separation and then consider dealing with the archer or wizard before going back to the melee guy. With Stone Shape and Soften Earth and Stone at will, it'll probably outlast most wizards with Dim Door.
And the fighter sounds like he might be closer to the uber-opto side of builds than average. Since the wizard spent round one casting Dim Door, I assume that Haste was not up. Which means the fighter had only two BAB attacks (maybe three with a speed weapon or some other enhancement). Alternately, he could be a TWF build, but that would reduce the damage per attack as well as add attack penalties. Sounds like he either rolled high, confirmed a crit, or is a powerful build. None of those things are an inherent problem, but when they occur, it can have a dramatic impact on the challenge of the encounter. We all know that economy of actions is a problem for most BBEG.
|
|
Bob-
Thaksfor the comments. The fighter critted once, and I breathed and flew down to the archer. He provoked, but was missed due to 37 ac. Next round I full attacked the archer, and hit like once. Flying cat then pounced and grabbed and the archer then killed the dragon.
I know these are opt characters. I am used to running for these sorts of characters, just not in PFS.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they are fully optimized characters, can you please stop complaining about encounters being too easy? Scenarios can not and will not be designed for characters solely focused on pushing the boundaries of the rules. FWIW, did they (or you) even give the BBEG a chance to talk?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4
|
The Golden Serpent: Party level was around 7 and ran high. Couldn't hit anyone as party acs were all decent. There were 2 paladins and an oracle with 30ish ac in the party, which also made conditions hard to stick.
Three characters with AC 30+ at level 7? Respectfully I have to suggest that is a significant contributing factor.
Kyle Baird is right, we're hard pressed to design for that level of optimization. Especially in Season Three where we must assume there are four players.
|
|
The Golden Serpent: Party level was around 7 and ran high. Couldn't hit anyone as party acs were all decent. There were 2 paladins and an oracle with 30ish ac in the party, which also made conditions hard to stick.Three characters with AC 30+ at level 7? Respectfully I have to suggest that is a significant contributing factor.
Kyle Baird is right, we're hard pressed to design for that level of optimization. Especially in Season Three where we must assume there are four players.
Having just spent some time crunching numbers on AC in a thread about evaluating Crane Style, I can firmly say that being in the 30s for AC on a level 7 character's budget is extremely difficult for most characters without short-term buff spells. Of course, if they played up a lot due to high AC, they might have more than a level 7 character's budget, I guess.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4
|
Having just spent some time crunching numbers on AC in a thread about evaluating Crane Style, I can firmly say that being in the 30s for AC on a level 7 character's budget is extremely difficult for most characters without short-term buff spells. Of course, if they played up a lot due to high AC, they might have more than a level 7 character's budget, I guess.
It seems a bit high even for full out optimization. I know a CR 17 Marilith is about AC 32, and a CR 14 Nalfenshe has about AC 29. Now monster ACs versus PC ACs are apples and oranges, but still they're not so far off that you can't see a radical discrepancy.
I don't want to stir the pot with an old and tired conversation, but something Furious Kender wrote confuses me. He says, "I accidentally screwed up and used good tactics" (presumably instead of what I suggested).
I'm not concerned about the poke in the eye—but I thought the tactics were there to help the GM, but not constrain them to what they feel are bad choices. Is my understanding of this incorrect? I know GMs are not supposed to alter the creatures, but don't they have the grace to run the combat as they see fit with the tools they're given?
|
|
Having just spent some time crunching numbers on AC in a thread about evaluating Crane Style, I can firmly say that being in the 30s for AC on a level 7 character's budget is extremely difficult for most characters without short-term buff spells. Of course, if they played up a lot due to high AC, they might have more than a level 7 character's budget, I guess.It seems a bit high even for full out optimization. I know a CR 17 Marilith is about AC 32, and a CR 14 Nalfenshe has about AC 29. Now monster ACs versus PC ACs are apples and oranges, but still they're not so far off that you can't see a radical discrepancy.
I'd expect a two-handed Fighter to have AC 26ish at level 7, unbuffed and not fighting defensively or anything (+2 fullplate, +1 amulet of natural armor, +1 ring of protection clocks it all in at ~9k). With a shield, then maybe 30, but then they're paying a lot for AC (since that costs 4k more).
I don't want to stir the pot with an old and tired conversation, but something Furious Kender wrote confuses me. He says, "I accidentally screwed up and used good tactics" (presumably instead of what I suggested).I'm not concerned about the poke in the eye—but I thought the tactics were there to help the GM, but not constrain them to what they feel are bad choices. Is my understanding of this incorrect? I know GMs are not supposed to alter the creatures, but don't they have the grace to run the combat as they see fit with the tools they're given?
There's a thread going on right now about this, actually. It seems that in some case, the scenarios have been developed on purpose with sub-optimal tactics to make certain encounters with tougher CRs more manageable. For that reason, the official line seems to be that you shouldn't adjust the tactics from the outset (for instance by preparing different spells than the wizard prepares), but if the situation changes to warrant it, you should absolutely have the NPCs react by changing their tactics.
|
|
Unless he's abusing dump stats pretty hard it's tough for a two-handed fighter to have 18 strength, 16 dex, and the assumed 14 con.
That's also only fighters. Two-handed barbarians/inquisitors/rangers/everything else is going to be lower.
Well yeah, I agree. Barbarians especially are going to be way lower. My point is that even if the characters were near best case for AC (like Fighters), the AC stated was extremely high. Obviously most characters will have even less, no? I think we're on the same side.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A thought about those who play up, it makes designing scenarios harder because these PCs get more wealth = more powerful PCs, making it harder to challenge them because of how far above the Wealth by Level curve they are. And it gets worse the higher level they get.
I wouldn't might seeing a rule stating that a PC gets the wealth of the subtier that PC is in (not the subtier he/she plays at). Only when a PC is between the subtiers and plays up do they then they get the higher tier gold.
For example: a level 1 or 2 PC plays up in tier 1-5 scenario at the 4-5 subtier. That PC gets the 1-2 subtier gold, the other PCs of levels 4 and 5 get the 4-5 subtier gold. A level 3 PC gets the higher subtier gold because he/she is in-between the subtiers.
Why? Because it stunts the 'play up for more gold' mentality that some players have. Which basically bends the Wealth by Level curve to breaking point. And to be honest, why should a level 1-2 get a full share of treasure for being carried along by higher level PCs? The argument that you use more consumables really doesn’t hold, because the amount used is usually a whole heap cheaper than the extra gold gained.
I don't mind playing up for glory or the challenge, but not as an exercise in getting more and more gold.
Thoughts?
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
A thought about those who play up, it makes designing scenarios harder because these PCs get more wealth = more powerful PCs, making it harder to challenge them because of how far above the Wealth by Level curve they are. And it gets worse the higher level they get.
I agree this is an issue. A few of these guys I'm not sure ever played at level. They had tons of stuff.
Another issue is that I never had a party of 4. I had a party of 5 maybe half the time. I am fairly new, but I think I've only played in a party of 4 once.
So the party is having 50% more players, who are getting the same exp and gold, but the monsters aren't changing.
I'm glad things are changing in season 4. I do however hope there is some manner to compensate for 6 players written into the mod. "For 6 players, add 1 more _____" doesn't really jack up the word count.
|
|
That's how it was written, however, and I can only assume that both the scenario author and the developer at Paizo realized this when designing the encounter.
They are human. They do make mistakes.
If people want to min/max themselves out of a game, let them.
But what if they're min/maxing the GM out of a game?
If they are fully optimized characters, can you please stop complaining about encounters being too easy? Scenarios can not and will not be designed for characters solely focused on pushing the boundaries of the rules.
Maybe this is the problem, then. Have you played at a lot of tables with characters that aren't easily described as "optimized?" I know I haven't.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm glad things are changing in season 4. I do however hope there is some manner to compensate for 6 players written into the mod. "For 6 players, add 1 more _____" doesn't really jack up the word count.
Then prepare to be happy:
Season 4 is assuming 6 players by default, and adding options to scale down if there are only 4.|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If they are fully optimized characters, can you please stop complaining about encounters being too easy? Scenarios can not and will not be designed for characters solely focused on pushing the boundaries of the rules.Maybe this is the problem, then. Have you played at a lot of tables with characters that aren't easily described as "optimized?" I know I haven't.
That depends a lot on who's doing the describing. I've seen someone react to an official ruling* by calling developer Sean K Reynolds and everyone who was right about the rule in the first place "retarded", and did so based on his belief that the rule was cheesy/powergamey/whatever. That guy would call probably every PC he doesn't build himself "optimized".
|
|
Sure, but trying to decide when they made a mistake vs. when they purposely wrote suboptimal tactics as a balance mechanism is something I am not comfortable doing.That's how it was written, however, and I can only assume that both the scenario author and the developer at Paizo realized this when designing the encounter.They are human. They do make mistakes.
I agree. Unless circumstances completely make the tactics insanely stupid or impossible, try to use the written tactics. If after the first couple rounds (assuming the badguy is still alive), they aren’t working, I would feel free to use whatever tactics the badguy has at their disposal.
|
|
Thoughts?
I like the idea that a specced-out team can 'gamble' and take on a highly challenging mission but I agree that the overall wealth gain is pretty amazingly delicious. I do think a compromise is needed.
If low tier treasure is x
and high tier treasure is y
Then a low tier character who plays up should receive [x + (y-x)]
So if high tier is 4000 and low tier is 2000, then a successful 'playing up' low tier character would claim 3000 gold.
This way there's actually a point to 'playing up' but the wealth by level distortion is halved.
I'm saying this as a player that chooses to eschew the burnt-after-one-use magical resources. I choose to buy permanent bonus items. I'm sure characters that buy many scrolls and potions and wands would be fairly annoyed by this sort of change.
