| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think a lot of PC deaths are due to ill-advised tactical decisions by the players.
Example: I'm GM'ing Rise of the Runelords at the moment, and our sole PC death so far resulted from the player deciding to bull rush a goblin off the edge of Thistletop. I allowed him a DC 13 reflex save to avoid falling over himself, which he failed,
As far as I know you don't even have to enter the square your opponent is in to bullrush him. Meaning the pc in this example didn't even have to go near the drop. So without knowing if there are special circumstances mentioned in this part of the AP for me it sounds as if this pc died due to ill-advised houseruling, not ill-advised tactical decisions by the player.
@ the spider encounter: When we met this spider we had some potions of lesser restoration with us to keep everyone up. After we killed the spider those who could used first aid on those who were still poisoned to help with the DC and a combination of potions and spells of lesser restoration did the rest. But it was close for some PCs.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think a lot of PC deaths are due to ill-advised tactical decisions by the players.
That's the definition of "hard", you know. APs are hard, because they are not very forgiving when you make mistakes. In an easy game you are only slightly punished for playing incorrectly, thus, its "easy". Being harder means exactly that - you loose easily whenever you make a mistake.
walking through a corridor is easy - if your foot didn't land where you planned it to, the worst that could happen is that you stumble on scrape your knees is a fall. Walking across a narrow bridge high up in a mountain pass is hard - any misstep could result in a fall, and you'll never be able to get to the other side if you fell down, right? So if APs punish greatly (say, with character death) for tactical mistakes, they are hard :)
|
I GMed RotRL (twice), CotCT, LoF and KM. Players didn't optimize much - or at all - and faced the whole gamut of situations, from easy to threathening, from barely challenging to deadly.
Deadly encounters usually happened when faced with situations they faced with poor planning, rather than when fighting super-powerful opponents.
Focused (not really optimized) characters sometimes literally ripped through strong enemies both with melee and magic spells, and other times sat almost powerless in front of otherwise trivial critters.
Magic items rarely made the difference, but terrain advantage most of the times determined the victor - as much as area control or utility spells did.
I agree with people saying that APs require optimization in the player side rather than in the character one.
Planning, cunning, patience, scouting, equipment (not necessarily magic), and the general idea that a well timed retreat means having another chance playing the same character in the future: prerequisite feats for the player.
How did they handle Thistletop? Did you let them back off, rest and come in again?
I should probably spoiler how my party handled it, and what I did...
The PCs took a defensive position in the briars, and tried to pick off the goblins with ranged attacks and spells-- until the barbarian decided to charge them and the goblins cut the bridge rope. The barbaian managed to hang on to the rope and made it to the other side, and due mainly to good luck on rolling dice, cut down half a dozen goblins while barely getting scratched. The goblins retreated back into Thistletop, and started pelting the PCs with arrows, burning pitch (I treated this as alchemist's fire), and dung (ranged touch, no damage, DC12 Fort save or be sickened for 1d4 rounds).
The PCs broke into Thistletop, and cleaned out the first level, killing Ripnugget and most of the goblins. The players didn't even consider that there would be dungeon levels, and by then they were pretty much out of resources (notably healing). While they were making plans to head downstairs, I decided that the goblins below plus Nualia's flunkies would mount a counterattack that would hopefully give the PCs the idea that retreat would be in their best interest-- which is what happened.
When the PCs returned two days later, they found the thistle maze and the grounds outside Thistletop's walls crawling with goblin and goblin dog zombies-- animated by Nualia and Lyrie as more guards (under orders to attack any non-goblin.) Creepily, they found more goblin bodies stacked like cordwood in the courtyard-- obviously raw materials for more zombies in the future. I decided that eight goblins (6 normal, 1 rider, 1 warchanter) who'd been out raiding had returned, as well. The rest of the invasion went pretty much as normal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems that the AP's are only easy if you know what is comming.
(skull & shackles) swarms in book 1.
Yeppers. Nevermind, that especially item placement in the recent APs is very.... problematic, and will in several paths require an enchanter. Be it for specific weaponry ( Still laughing hard at the proposed weapons in Skulls and Shackles, or the utter lack of any caster items except for CHA until the middle/end of part 3... ahem, Yeah, sensible planning, all around ).
Player foreknowledge or heavy foreshadowing by the GM at character creation is often a lifesaver| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm finally going to chime in, because I haven't found any of the AP's that particularly nasty (admittedly running AE RotRL and I heard it's been toned down), but Carrion Crown really is designed to churn through PCs.
Castle Carouac (or whatever) is room after room of save-once-or-die. You have multiple bridges where constructs try to bull rush the lead person off a bridge to a 300' fall to their deaths. Money is so tight that Rings of Feather Fall are the last thing on your mind, so you've got to *hope* that one of your spellcasters has Feather Fall, and has a lot of it. But at least that one has some warning. ("You're going to a castle on a cliff face.")
Then comes the fun: First you have a trap on a narrow bridge (Acrobatics roll to cross) where if you fail a DC 31 Perception check (yes. 31. For 5th or 6th level characters) an erinyes is summoned and shoots the lead PC to death. Next bridge? You can get past the construct, but opening the subsequent door summons a large air elemental who tries to throw all the party members off the cliff. Hope you had LOTS of Feather Fall!
Then comes a door requiring a DC 28 Strength check to proceed with the adventure at all (seriously?!?!), and a series of rooms with basilisks, fungi, wights, and other stuff that just isn't fun if you lose the initiative battle.
Even then, I kept quiet.
But the next module has a necromancer in a locked, alarmed tower with only one way in (unless you count digging through rubble, and I just don't see the guy failing the Perception roll to hear that). Who drops Circle of Death on your 8th-level party the moment he detects them. Goodbye, half the party!
And the GM is saying the next module is even worse.
So yeah, Carrion Crown seems to delight in killing PCs with "save or you're dead" moments, and I despise those as both a GM and a player.
My group ususaly consists of 3 ten year veterans of dnd and 1 new guy who has been playing for a few months. Other players have come and gone in the last few years but those 3 veteran players always stick around. As the GM I have been changing the tactics of the monster to make them more aggressive, giving the more hit-points, increasing their numbers adding higher CR monsters as reinforcements just to make the campaign challenging for them because they would otherwise steamroll the entire adventure. The new guy was a bit overwhelmed at first (his first character was a lv 10 Oread monk but with the help of the veterans his character was pretty optimal and he has already learned the way of making a powerful characters without help. In fact he calls me almost everyday to discuss his latest character concept. He may be addicted now.
So far we played Kingmaker, Rise of the Runelords, Jade reagent, Skulls and shackles and crimson throne. I have noticed a few parts that were pretty brutal and that didn't need any changes but 80% would have been too easy for them so I buff the encounters to make it challenging.
In Kingmaker: There were some deaths but they have easy access to Resurrection magic so they always got Resurrected. However it wasn't exactly a happy ending...the lich turned out to be their downfall. The only things I changed to the lich in the 3rd part is that I have him a phylactery and made it fully functional, the thing is he had his phylactery on his person making it easy for the party to find and destroy if they defeated him. However when it became obvious to the lich that he was going to be destroyed he made a last ditch attempt to save himself. He cast dominate on the rogue and give him the telepathic command "protect my phylactery!" along with a description of what it was now here is the things the player who was playing the rogue loves playing an evil character and is always bugging me to Gm and evil campaign. He saved the phylactery by claiming it as his share of the loot and brought it to a safe place were the lich regenerated. From that point on he was helping the lich build his forces and at the same time helping the party. He was the spymaster so he had total control of the kingdoms intel and he secretly took the leadership feat and began building an army of assassins using the old Dwarven fort (the place were u fight the trolls in the second part) as a base of operations. With his help the lich was able to regain his former power becoming a 20th level wizard and they even managed to get an ancient black dragon to join them. After the campaign was done the rogue, the lich, the black dragon and his army of assassins attacked the kingdom. The barbarian died first, the wizard figured out what had happened and dispelled the domination on the rogue by casting protection from evil on him then the rogue and the wizard defeated the lich while the fighter was fighting the dragon by himself. The rogue then saw and opportunity and killed the wizard (yes he was no longer dominated but he was chaotic neutral and knew that the wizard would stand in the way of his ambition) the fighter beat the dragon and the rogue went and destroyed the phylactery to ensure the lich didn't return. He went back and convinced the fighter that the lich had worked some evil magic making Resurrection impossible and that he should become the new king (the barbarian was actually the ruler) the fighter had no ranks in sense motive and no knowledge in the working of magics so yeah...The rogue became king and the fighter stayed as the general. Of course my group loves this kind of stuff and even those that died were pretty happy whit this ending. This is generally considered the best campaign we played so far.
Rise of the Runelords: (Original version) ended with a TPK in the runeforge at the hands of the lich and that room that deals like 10d6 negative energy to everyone in the room every couple rounds. I'll admit that part was pretty brutal. I didn't buff the lich at all and he still killed them. Thought there was some bad luck involved. The monk failed his save against disintegrate and since he hadn't healed after the last battle he was low enough hp that it killed him. The wizard died to slay living in the next round and the cleric and the fighter brought him to low hit points but chased him in that room were he was healed a bunch and the negative energy downed the cleric. The fighter did what he could but in the end he too fell. I did pick up the anniversary edition and we are planning to run it again at some point.
Jade Regent: One death in the first part when the paladin was tricked by the illusion of pharasma to remove his armor, drop is weapons and proceed ahead alone and naked because only those of pure hearts can proceed. (He was the only good-alignment member the party the rest being chaotic neutral, lawful neutral and neutral) Anyway the half fiend Decapus killed him although by smiting evil and punching it he did a big chunk of damage. The rest of the party went it later and killed it. The paladin (who was being played by the new guy) re-rolled a barbarian who was found in the cells having been captured along with Kelda. The rest of the campaign went fairly well. A few close calls two deaths that were Resurrected and Ameiko became empress.
Skulls and Shackles: Nobody died but they quit after the end of the 3rd part and wanted to move on to another campaign. They really enjoyed being pirates for a while but they wanted to retire after they got their own island. (In this campaign each of my players decided they were each going to recreated a character from the anime One Piece...Zoro (samurai had to invent a 3 weapon fighting feat for him. Brooks undead skeleton bard. Nami- Human Druid. Sanji - human monk. It was fun for a while but they got tired of their characters.
Crimson Throne: they were really enjoying it but we had to stop because half the party left and stopped playing and we didn't restart it. It is indefinitely on hold we were doing the 3rd part when we stopped. The party was 3 human barbarians, a half-elf bard thundercaller and a blind Dhampir oracle who was haunted, all of them being from the shoanti...It was pretty interesting
Anyway in brief my players are all pretty optimized and tend to be very well prepared for just about anything. If I describe a monster they know what it is right away and start describing it's abilities to the new guy. I occasionally surprise them by making changes to the monster, making up new monster, buffing the monster with extra HD, giving it class levels, or Just finding this obscure monster they never saw before but usually they are somehow prepared to deal with it.
So while some parts of the adventure paths can be hard to deal with if you unprepared a properly optimized and prepared party will ususaly decimate them.
Currently we are running a home-brew campaign but I've been thinking of getting Shattered Star or picking up Wrath of the Righteous.
Every AP seems to have 1 or 2 TPK worthy encounters, but overall I don't find them to be that difficult, especially with a table of tactical players. I think for the average player they can be more difficult though.
Lessee...
I died 6, 7 times in Runelords? And once in Crimson Throne. Both of those were 4-5 PC parties.
No deaths in Second Darkness or Carrion Crown. Got close several times but no actual deaths. Both with 2 PCs.
The difference between these two groups, aside from number, is that the 2 PC group consists of a WW2 Flames of War tactician and the GM. The 4-5 PC group involved a lot of apathy and some hardcore goofing off.
The type of group you have is more important than the number of PCs taking actions, in my experience.
So far my group has only finished the updated volume one of Rise of the Runelords.
Erylium didn't cause any death, but my players suffered "death by a thousand cuts", with none of them being really prepared to hit a flying demon, while Erylium herself soon ran out of spells and was stuck using her dagger/claws, and either missing or only doing 1 or 2 points of damage. An hour in the paladin finally realized he had smite evil, which damaged the Quasit and gave me and excuse to make it flee.
Gogmurtz would have been a TPK if I hadn't started flubbing his attack roles. As is he knocked two character unconscious, including our druid tank.
Surprisingly, Nualia was a pushover. The Shadows though caused the party to flee in terror. At least two character were dropped to 1 strength (one would have died completely, but I flubbed the damage roll, since it seemed anticlimatic to get through everything else only to die from some random undead.)
Personally I think the danse macabre in CotCT is the only one I ever really had an issue with being way too tough. Other encounters have been tough and the trial of the beast finale certainly toed the line. Danse macabre was absurd though.
Unless everybody makes her/his will save.
Also, optimization is often narrow focusing. Meaning when you play an adventure path that tries to expose you to as wide variety of encounters as possible, if you aren't ready for everything you are gonna have a rough time.
Just because you can tear through the most common encounters doesn't mean you are ready for everything else that might come your way.
This is why I hate optimizers and their philosophy/ego. They never build defensively, and are not used to serious dungeon crawls. The best enchanted weapon, for example, will get through almost all forms of DR. That means grabbing things like Ghost Touch on your sword, and a Holy because most of your opponents will be Evil, etc.
It also means taking feats like Gt Fort, Lighting Reflexes, Iron Will, Combat Casting, Spell Penetration, Dodge etc.
Dammit. I have a hard enough time teaching noobs how to back each other up in a fight, and then I gotta deal with munchkins/power gamers hosing themselves over in the long run.
Been considering trying some of these Pathfinder adventures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why I hate optimizers and their philosophy/ego. They never build defensively, and are not used to serious dungeon crawls. The best enchanted weapon, for example, will get through almost all forms of DR. That means grabbing things like Ghost Touch on your sword, and a Holy because most of your opponents will be Evil, etc.
It also means taking feats like Gt Fort, Lighting Reflexes, Iron Will, Combat Casting, Spell Penetration, Dodge etc.
Dammit. I have a hard enough time teaching noobs how to back each other up in a fight, and then I gotta deal with munchkins/power gamers hosing themselves over in the long run.
Been considering trying some of these Pathfinder adventures.
Er, I don't think you've played with real optimizers if that's what you think of them. I think you've probably played with the copy-cats who read optimization threads, steal the real optimizer's ideas, and then execute them poorly/incompletely.
For example, almost every true optimizer recommends Iron Will (and often Improved Iron Will). An optimizer makes a specific concept work in the best possible way--"best possible" does not mean "glass cannon."
Close, but in addition, they don't build in response to what's happening in the campaign. For example, when told they were going to enter a seriously undead infested area for 3-4 levels, and that it was going to be very nasty BY THE DM, they won't take Gt Fort or Iron Will because they want to be badasses and go for offensive stunts. THEN they complain when a Circle of Death spell wipes out half the party at 6th level via a scroll and an easy spellcaster level check. Remember, I was being nice in telling them what they would be facing, and gave recommendations.
I can't recall if I got the name of the spell right. The spell was a "save or die" type, and I think it was necromancy.
The thing is, I have enough on my hands just teaching them to help each other in a fight, not splitting up and each attacking a random target. Worse, their design is such that they create wholly offensive, but never defensive feats. Makes for damned fragile PC's, and most players (college kids) don't like to listen to the DM giving them tips/warnings. So, I shrug and let them get nailed hard into the dirt.
The current group I have is better, since one is conscientious (the Wizard), one is a veteran (the Fighter) and one is a goofball military kid who nonetheless knows how not to hose himself over in a fight. The guy running the Rogue is a flake, so I've had to take care of running it.
That 2 or less comes up surprisingly frequently on saving throws. Not sure why, it just does. Yeah, I know it's only an extra 10%, but it really helps. Not sure what the mathematical consequences are of getting a free reroll on one save a day is.
|
Some people enjoy playing an awesome char with an achilles heel. My untouchable mobile rogue in CotCT had a terrible will save. My cleric/knight of ozem in CC is a wall of steel with a terrible reflex save. I would rather build a charactercawesome at one thing with a flaw than someone bland at everything.
Or you can play a Paladin with a high Charisma. ;) Paizo actually made Paladins worth playing in that they're not Awful Good and instead have decent codes of ethics they follow.
To be honest, the roll of a die shouldn't dictate the absolute fate of a character. I'm all for death by stupidity. But death because someone got hit by a monster that critted and rolled max damage? A good GM would make sure to fudge results so the character was unconscious and in a bad state... allowing his or her companions a chance to rescue their friend. A poor saving's throw shouldn't just spell someone's doom. Instead, make things interesting.
This goes for the villains as well, mind you. If the party one-shots the Big Bad, lie. It was an illusion or a mirror image or an illusion. Or the villain is just. that. tough. There's no fun with a quick uneventful win. Instead, let them work at it... and feel they're risking their characters lives in order to succeed. That is the way to ensure a game is truly enjoyable.
Some people enjoy playing an awesome char with an achilles heel. My untouchable mobile rogue in CotCT had a terrible will save. My cleric/knight of ozem in CC is a wall of steel with a terrible reflex save. I would rather build a charactercawesome at one thing with a flaw than someone bland at everything.
No thanks. You can't build a personality out of a bad saving throw. Typically, players use feats in my games to negate huge weaknesses, but that doesn't change attributes. Some players hang character personality on bad or really good attributes, and then play off that.
And as a DM, I know darned well I would happily exploit huge holes in a character's defensive capabilities, simply out of running typical crawls. When the player complains that his character is stone dead, I simply reply that they decided not to listen, and I gave them enough rope to hang themselves.
Can't stand minmaxer/munchkins/"optimizers". They die fast, and repeatedly, while the rest of the players groan at oblivious stupidity. Great for laughs, but bad for success.
To be honest, the roll of a die shouldn't dictate the absolute fate of a character. I'm all for death by stupidity. But death because someone got hit by a monster that critted and rolled max damage? A good GM would make sure to fudge results so the character was unconscious and in a bad state... allowing his or her companions a chance to rescue their friend. A poor saving's throw shouldn't just spell someone's doom. Instead, make things interesting.
Sort of. What happens if the same player keeps making the same bad mistakes out of sheer ego? I've had players like that far too many times. They keep making glass cannons, and dying like lemmings.
I do not have a problem with rolling crits on my players, just like they don't have problems rolling ones on my monsters. Turnabout is fair play, after all.
Now, will I claim a bout of blindness when a player has a particularly unlucky streak? Yup, and I will ask for a reroll. Will I fudge die results vs the final boss that the game has been building to, if it's over too quickly and likely resulting in a real letdown? Yup.
But I don't do such things often, maybe rarely. Keeps some tension in the game, and players feel like they really earned something when they get past my NPC minions. The whole point is to have fun, but you can't have adventure without risk to create tension.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example, when told they were going to enter a seriously undead infested area for 3-4 levels, and that it was going to be very nasty BY THE DM, they won't take Gt Fort or Iron Will because they want to be badasses and go for offensive stunts.
So, first, I don't see how going into an area full of undead, why you'd think "Oh, well undead have Mass Save or Die spells on scrolls all the time..."
That said, please stop conflating their stupidity with optimization. They, in fact, were not optimized, because they didn't take any measure of defense. All out offense is not optimization, it's DPR obsession. Not the same thing, and seriously, I've never known an optimizer that does not consider defense and survival at all. Like I said, Iron Will and high Con scores are things every optimization guide recommends.
Can't stand minmaxer/munchkins/"optimizers". They die fast, and repeatedly, while the rest of the players groan at oblivious stupidity. Great for laughs, but bad for success.
This does not add up. Actual optimizers would be the last ones to die, because optimizing includes not dying. You're dealing with dumbasses obsessed with DPS meters who read optimization guides for damage, but don't really understand what they're doing.
But seriously, a mass save or die spell against 6th level characters is a really douchey thing to pull.
Piccolo, you obviously didn't read the rest of what I stated.
This goes for the villains as well. If you don't want the villain to die in one lucky crit? Explain it away. Smile and say "it was a wonderful shot... but it seems the villain had an illusion up." Or for that matter "he phases out of existence at the last moment because of the Blink spell he had up" (which was a quality possessed by a Greater Barghest in Runelords... which resulted in a fully-buffed Barbarian nearly dying because only one of his attacks hit - for half the Barghast's hit points, mind you, without a critical, because of Power Attack, Rage, Bull Strength, and other buffs).
In short, the adventure is to be fun. That means that the villain doesn't die instantly... and that the heroes don't win instantly.
That said, please stop conflating their stupidity with optimization. They, in fact, were not optimized, because they didn't take any measure of defense. All out offense is not optimization, it's DPR obsession. Not the same thing, and seriously, I've never known an optimizer that does not consider defense and survival at all. Like I said, Iron Will and high Con scores are things every optimization guide recommends.Can't stand minmaxer/munchkins/"optimizers". They die fast, and repeatedly, while the rest of the players groan at oblivious stupidity. Great for laughs, but bad for success.This does not add up. Actual optimizers would be the last ones to die, because optimizing includes not dying. You're dealing with dumbasses obsessed with DPS meters who read optimization guides for damage, but don't really understand what they're doing.
But seriously, a mass save or die spell against 6th level characters is a really douchey thing to pull. ** spoiler omitted **
That was precisely what was written in the adventure already. You want to complain? Talk to the guy who wrote it. Personally, I got no problem with dirty tactics. It makes perfect sense, THEY ARE VILLAINS AFTER ALL, AREN'T THEY? Sheesh!
Now, perhaps our definitions vary, since I've noticed that what one person calls optimization and another calls it are very very different things. And MOST of the people on this website that mention it are talking about glass cannons, whether or not they admit it. So in another thread, I posted this response:
Optimization should take place not between a PC and some grand design intent on "winning" but instead on what you face in game. I've noted time and again that if a player takes their PC, and crafts it to match what's happening in game, they end up having a LOT of fun.
Really wish I could run some of you "optimizers" in a few of my encounters. I'm betting I'd watch you fall apart. It's not about beating one or two encounters, it's about surviving and protecting your buddies over the long haul.
I certainly hope nobody in this thread is attempting to be the sole definer of "optimizer"...
I have the optimal definition of optimisation!
Bow down before my glory!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Optimise = make things better.
Good optimising means taking your character concept and trying to make the most effective and survivable character within that concept.
I do see a experienced players making characters with bad saving throws and justifying it with 'I prefer having some weaknesses'. Of course this is the kind of weakness that leads you to die a random meaningless death around the time enemies start getting Save or Die attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just how hard are the adventure paths
I personally think they are really hard, I've run two AP's about half way through and have had a lot of turn over in characters. I do feel that the player's lose interest as their characters continue to die and because of that I have to do a balancing act of propelling the story forward without making the players feel too safe.
One of the main problems I have with the AP's is the reliance on a single spell or skill check. A six adventure campaign shouldn't end because no one rolled high enough on a skill check or didn't have a particular spell. I am all for letting a combat encounter play out and if the party makes poor tactical decisions that they die from those decisions.
I am also all for the party having to deal with the consequences of no one playing a Rogue or healer, those are choices they need to live or die by, but requiring that someone in the party have access to 1 spell or that someone have 1 skill or the game ends is a poorly written adventure.
And I know I should have an example here but I am drawing a blank on a specific instance that has come up. I believe there was one in Kingmaker as they explored the empty town looking for a clue as to where everyone was...The adventure could have ended if they hadn't made a roll, I believe it was a Knowledge Check which can't be repeated once failed.
Anyway, I would like to see more modules which give more options for how to propel the adventures along and less reliance on 1 roll of the die determining the fate of the game.
My apologies for not having specific examples...
=Dan
But seriously, a mass save or die spell against 6th level characters is a really douchey thing to pull. ** spoiler omitted **
seems to happen more often than not.
Entered the local church to bury the (off-screen dead) mayor, and the local priests cast it the instant you open the door. From a (the single one in the whole adventure) scroll.
How utterly ........logical - no forewarning, no idea the priest was "the ultimate local evil"... nothing, nada, no idea.In reverse, he had no idea, who actually opened the door, or why...
Pretty stupid fun on behalf of the designer (none of our characters rolled more than a 14 on that save - Monk/rogue 7th, Oracle 7th, Fighter/rogue tank and a sorcerer... all 7th level.). GM instead slew every NPC in range... killing most of our motivation. Nevermind the "local" priest wearing platemail under his robes *facepalm*
And that was mostly a "greet and meet" encounter, not the BBEG.
So some designers seem to think such stuff is "necessary", at least for a horror adventure ?
Answering the OP here. For background, I've only played through about half of Jade Regent and Kingmaker, and am just gearing up to DM Skull & Shackles. In all of these, we have a four player party, with approximately 20 point buy (we actually use our own weird little system, but it works out approximately).
So far, we've found most of the AP stuff, as written, to be pretty easy. There is definitely the occasional "holy crap" encounter, especially in Kingmaker, and we've definitely been in danger from time to time, but we've only had one casualty in both Jade Regent and Kingmaker.
In Kingmaker, it was due to pure player arrogance - mine, actually. The GM had said something flippant about us more or less having things wrapped up, so we wandered through the rest of the current dungeon without bothering to heal up, and I got grappled to death by a horrible plant monster with a swarm in it.
In Jade Regent, our monk took a critical hit at near max damage and died. It happens.
These incidents aside, we typically breeze through damn near every encounter. We run into more issues in Kingmaker than elsewhere, but in post-analysis this is mostly due to the GM being really liberal with the recommended tactics. Like someone said earlier, it seems to us that the APs are pretty well balanced, maybe a little on the easy side: Unless the GM starts messing with NPC tactics. Then things can turn ugly really fast.
experience (player and GM ) with the following
CotCT : not too hard, some stuff stuck out as "slightly unfair", but overall (without actually having played Scarwall, AP#5 ) it seems demanding but balanced.
RotRL : Old version. Extremely nasty, we got TPKed several times (though it was our first time AP in Pathfinder); what I have seen of the new and pathfinder adapted cversion, things have gown even more nasty. Think we got the party (completely) killed about 4 times up to part #5, where we quit for CotCT.
BoE/CoT : bored stiff to tears, we broke that one off. Although, the initial setup requires a lot of chuzpah. 1st levels vs
LoF : average difficulty.
CC : no freaking way, ever again. We got slaughtered so many times in AP#1 alone, that nobody felt like going for the rest of the AP. What I have read up on since then.... yeah, very difficult to accomplish AP.
SaS : Has some excessively nasty setups (AP#1, AÜ#4, AP#6), which you have to ram straight through... Harsh
Never had the interest to play or even GM Second Darkness, Serpent's Skull or Jade Regent. Same for "Shattered Star" and the current "Reign of Winter".
Overall : the APs average from decently difficult (especially with a nice and foreshawdowing GM, who might drop hints on 2hat will be needed" ) to extremely hard and inveterately unfair.
Just how hard are the adventure pathsI personally think they are really hard, I've run two AP's about half way through and have had a lot of turn over in characters. I do feel that the player's lose interest as their characters continue to die and because of that I have to do a balancing act of propelling the story forward without making the players feel too safe.
One of the main problems I have with the AP's is the reliance on a single spell or skill check. A six adventure campaign shouldn't end because no one rolled high enough on a skill check or didn't have a particular spell. I am all for letting a combat encounter play out and if the party makes poor tactical decisions that they die from those decisions.
I am also all for the party having to deal with the consequences of no one playing a Rogue or healer, those are choices they need to live or die by, but requiring that someone in the party have access to 1 spell or that someone have 1 skill or the game ends is a poorly written adventure.
And I know I should have an example here but I am drawing a blank on a specific instance that has come up. I believe there was one in Kingmaker as they explored the empty town looking for a clue as to where everyone was...The adventure could have ended if they hadn't made a roll, I believe it was a Knowledge Check which can't be repeated once failed.
Anyway, I would like to see more modules which give more options for how to propel the adventures along and less reliance on 1 roll of the die determining the fate of the game.
My apologies for not having specific examples...
=Dan
In Carrion Crown, there's a door that requires a DC 28 STR check to open, and it's the only way to get in to continue the adventure. The GM had to fudge and then some to get our party through that door.
experience (player and GM ) with the following
CotCT : not too hard, some stuff stuck out as "slightly unfair", but overall (without actually having played Scarwall, AP#5 ) it seems demanding but balanced.
RotRL : Old version. Extremely nasty, we got TPKed several times (though it was our first time AP in Pathfinder); what I have seen of the new and pathfinder adapted cversion, things have gown even more nasty. Think we got the party (completely) killed about 4 times up to part #5, where we quit for CotCT.
BoE/CoT : bored stiff to tears, we broke that one off. Although, the initial setup requires a lot of chuzpah. 1st levels vs ** spoiler omitted **. Group quit after AP#2.... too many dungeons, and Westcrown, unlike Korvosa) not really being a place you want to protect, come what may.
LoF : average difficulty.
CC : no freaking way, ever again. We got slaughtered so many times in AP#1 alone, that nobody felt like going for the rest of the AP. What I have read up on since then.... yeah, very difficult to accomplish AP.
SaS : Has some excessively nasty setups (AP#1, AÜ#4, AP#6), which you have to ram straight through... Harsh
Never had the interest to play or even GM Second Darkness, Serpent's Skull or Jade Regent. Same for "Shattered Star" and the current "Reign of Winter".
Overall : the APs average from decently difficult (especially with a nice and foreshawdowing GM, who might drop hints on 2hat will be needed" ) to extremely hard and inveterately unfair.
Glad to hear someone else gave up on CoT and Westcrown. My players just kept asking, "Why on Golarion would we WANT to save this town?"
Going on an AP-by-AP basis:
RotRL: Excellent party tactics have meant only 1 death through Module 4 (Xanesha, of course), so I'm darned happy with it.
CotCT: Mostly easy, but the temple of Urgathoa can be a TPK if the party sets off the alarm, and the final book has some really brutal stuff for inexperienced players who don't pick exactly the right spells.
CoT: As mentioned, we gave up on it as 'too boring'.
KM: Our party was smart enough to run from every 'too tough' monster, and I was kind enough to let them.
CC: So many save-or-die moments, or "Surprise, this XXX pops out of hiding and throws you off a cliff," that its sheer brutality has become a running joke among the players. We have 6 PCs, the GM isn't toning up anything, and we're still dying or barely eking our way through.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Carrion Crown, there's a door that requires a DC 28 STR check to open, and it's the only way to get in to continue the adventure. The GM had to fudge and then some to get our party through that door.Just how hard are the adventure pathsI personally think they are really hard, I've run two AP's about half way through and have had a lot of turn over in characters. I do feel that the player's lose interest as their characters continue to die and because of that I have to do a balancing act of propelling the story forward without making the players feel too safe.
One of the main problems I have with the AP's is the reliance on a single spell or skill check. A six adventure campaign shouldn't end because no one rolled high enough on a skill check or didn't have a particular spell. I am all for letting a combat encounter play out and if the party makes poor tactical decisions that they die from those decisions.
I am also all for the party having to deal with the consequences of no one playing a Rogue or healer, those are choices they need to live or die by, but requiring that someone in the party have access to 1 spell or that someone have 1 skill or the game ends is a poorly written adventure.
And I know I should have an example here but I am drawing a blank on a specific instance that has come up. I believe there was one in Kingmaker as they explored the empty town looking for a clue as to where everyone was...The adventure could have ended if they hadn't made a roll, I believe it was a Knowledge Check which can't be repeated once failed.
Anyway, I would like to see more modules which give more options for how to propel the adventures along and less reliance on 1 roll of the die determining the fate of the game.
My apologies for not having specific examples...
=Dan
Couldn't you just hack the door to pieces?
In Carrion Crown, there's a door that requires a DC 28 STR check to open, and it's the only way to get in to continue the adventure. The GM had to fudge and then some to get our party through that door.Couldn't you just hack the door to pieces?
My recollection is that it's 1' thick solid stone, so unless you're carrying the proper tools, you're really out of luck. (I'm not the GM, but he made it clear that hacking through wasn't an option...)
Hacking is always an option :)
What CC adventure was this?
Hacking is always an option :)
What CC adventure was this?
This was the infamous castle at the end of "Trial of the Beast". (Carouac? Caromac?)
An entire building choc-full-of, "Make a Perception roll or die. Make a saving throw or die. This creature throws you off a 300' cliff. Describe how you survive. Oh, you cannot possibly defeat the BBEG unless you deciphered this clue. Good luck!"
Oh, you cannot possibly defeat the BBEG unless you deciphered this clue. Good luck!"
So, we didn't. Most of the group got abused pretty badly by the monster thing, but my Paladin archer had adamantine blanched arrows, and Liberating Command memorized, and I just piled arrows into and avoided the grapple. We actually ended up killing it.
The GM was clearly unhappy--he had the Beast leap through the wall and defeat the thing in a cutscene anyway, even though we actually earned the kill. Kind of lame.
That Paladin was so powerful, I actually offered to switch to a different kind of Paladin (a Hospitaler healer type), and the GM seemed grateful. The other players were pretty upset, though. Fights take a lot longer now, and they're getting frustrated.
But I'm actually happier--I prefer support builds anyway. I wanted to be an Oracle of Life from the beginning, but the GM asked me not to because he was afraid I'd heal too well. Of course, my Hospitaler actually has more healing power--don't tell him ;)
I personally think they are really hard, I've run two AP's about half way through and have had a lot of turn over in characters. I do feel that the player's lose interest as their characters continue to die and because of that I have to do a balancing act of propelling the story forward without making the players feel too safe.One of the main problems I have with the AP's is the reliance on a single spell or skill check. A six adventure campaign shouldn't end because no one rolled high enough on a skill check or didn't have a particular spell. I am all for letting a combat encounter play out and if the party makes poor tactical decisions that they die from those decisions.
I am also all for the party having to deal with the consequences of no one playing a Rogue or healer, those are choices they need to live or die by, but requiring that someone in the party have access to 1 spell or that someone have 1 skill or the game ends is a poorly written adventure.
=Dan
Well, them's the breaks. If you don't have a group that designed their characters to cover each other's weak spots and thus have versatility, they SHOULD suffer. When designing teams like this in real life, the military picks out people who have wildly differing skills, and who can handle all sorts of situations as a result, plus they have the right character to want to back each other up. Pretty logical, imo.
That said, there should always be multiple ways around a problem, so any adventure that deliberately restricts the options to the point you suggest it got to is lazy writing, period.