|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fully prepared for being flamed, and accused of being a whiner, for starting this topic. Nonetheless...
Let me start with a little background. I'm a veteran RPG player -- I've been playing D&D and other RPGs for 31 years. I have been fairly active in various Organized Play campaigns (as a player, GM, and, in one case, campaign staffer) for the past 12 years.
I like to think of myself as a reasonably good gamer -- I'm pretty good at rules mastery, even if I don't know (or pursue) every edge for my characters. I enjoy creating characters who aren't one-trick ponies, can contribute well both in combat and outside of combat, and have backgrounds and flavor which make them fit well in their campaign worlds. I'm not the guy who's going to come to the table with a tricked-out combat monster, but I'm also not the guy who's going to come to the table with a character whose best option in combat is the Aid Another action.
I started out playing PFS at "opening day" at GenCon 2008, but spent a couple of years away from the campaign, until trying it again in early 2012. Over the past year-plus, I've become a pretty big fan of PFS, and Pathfinder in general.
I just got home from a local convention at which I played in a PFS scenario, and GMed another PFS scenario. I've now played or GMed in five different Season 4 modules, and every single one of them have had one (or more) truly brutal combat encounters. In every single one of these, there has been either (a) one or more PC deaths, or (b) a situation in which there would have been multiple deaths if the PCs had been just a little less lucky.
My understanding, in talking with other players and GMs locally, and reading these boards, is that this sort of experience has become very common in Season 4 scenarios. In the last two adventures I've played (Fortress of the Nail and Blakros Matrimony), we failed at our overall mission, due to having to retreat from / surrender in combats which were extremely challenging -- out of 8 PCs in those two sessions, we had three dead PCs, and could very easily have had TPKs in both.
Despite all this, I very much enjoyed the stories in these scenarios (and, for that matter, in most PFS adventures). I find Golarion to be an interesting, well-detailed campaign setting. I generally like what Paizo does as a company, and I think that Mike Brock and his team are, generally, doing great things with how they run the campaign.
I've been fairly active on these boards over the past year or so. I've seen a lot of comments about earlier seasons' adventures, along the lines of "PFS isn't challenging" -- and, frankly, from what I've seen of the earlier adventures, I think that, in a fair number of cases, that was a fair criticism. At the start of Season 4, I read here, "things will be more challenging now". My concern is that things have now swung to the other extreme, and PFS adventures have gone from cakewalks to bloodbaths.
From what I've experienced and heard, it seems like Season 4 requires you to have at least two of the following:
1) A table of players with very strong tactics
2) PCs who are strongly combat-optimized, and/or
3) Very good luck with dice.
At the convention this weekend, I spoke with a Venture-Lieutenant, and a 4-star GM (both of whom are friends of mine, with whom I've played in several earlier OP campaigns). Both of them said pretty much the same thing:
1) Yes, you're right, these adventures are crazy-tough
2) We won't run Season 4 adventures at the game stores (where there are a lot of new players), for fear of driving them away
3) If you think this is tough, just wait for Season 5
Please don't get me wrong -- I don't generally enjoy playing adventures in which the characters face no risk of failure. I understand that part of fantasy RPGs is the threat of character death. But, it feels to me that PFS has now listened too much to the power-gamer, the character-optimizer, and the player who likes his RPGs "grim and gritty". The threat of PC death is one thing; the strong probability is another. I don't mind if my OP campaign has some scenarios which are extremely challenging; if most (or all) scenarios are that way, it becomes evident that the campaign isn't appealing to me as a player.
At this point, I have to say that I have very little interest in playing any more Season 4 scenarios. I'm attending both Origins and GenCon this summer, but, right now, I'm thinking that I'm going to avoid playing PFS.
I'd like to understand if it's the intent of the campaign to have, as its core constituency, those who want "hard mode" as the norm. If so, I'm not sure how much room there is in the PFS tent for the player like myself, who wants a more balanced approach (or, for that matter, the novice player).
I'm very curious to hear others' takes on all of this. Am I the only one who feels that things have swung too far to the other extreme?
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I've been involved since the start of Season 1, and began GMing within 6 months of that. Due to how many players I have at the store, I personally took over the coordination of PFS when the first person couldn't do it any longer. I think I can be considered fairly active on these boards, as well, though I try very hard to be pretty neutral in my stance (except when it comes to replay...).
Personally, I think Season 4 has a lot of strong points, and it's "deadliness" is due to GMs gleefully taking advantage of all the new tools they've been given (because, face it, they very rarely had anything to work with during prior seasons). In prior seasons they just got pounded on, and now that they can return the favor, they're not pulling any punches.
Having said that, I think it takes a very adept GM to toe the line that has been created by Season 4, and not routinely kill people. I don't know that this is a good thing.
What makes me nervous is the comment you received from your VL and local 4-star about Season 5. I think Season 4 may have been an over-compensation, and was hoping to see Season 5 dial back to a bit more of a neutral ground (albeit one that a good GM could make dangerous, when desired). If Season 5 is, indeed, going to be even harder, I agree with you that things are going too far.
I'll keep playing though. I will just have to add "GM Coaching" to my schedule, and give lessons on How Not To Kill. I do hope to not have to do that, however.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First let me say, "stop being a whiner" :-)
IMO, the biggest change in late season three and four scenarios is the expansion of using all the available options. The first few seasons were tailored primarily with the CRB and the idea that *we* don't want to make every game a death-fest.
Over time, there has been an ever increasingly loud call for more challenging encounters. The rate of prestige being earned was much higher than originally intended and the death rate of PCs seemed to be much lower than expected, certain GMs aside
Now that authors have been given seemingly free-reign to put whatever they want into a scenario without it having a negative impact on word-count, things are ramping up. I see it as a player influenced arms race rather than one being pushed by PFS. The options to make more capable, even game-breaking characters were given to the players first and they rightfully used them. Now, authors are doing the same thing and the "baddies" are becoming more capable of standing their own than ever before.
That and while I have not done any analysis, it "feels" like the average ECL is roughly +1 higher than previous seasons. Couple that with the above along with more specialized PCs (ie have exploitable holes in their build) and things are largely harder than before. YMMV
|
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My observation of Season 4 scenarios doesn't exactly map onto yours. What I've noticed is that they're quite challenging if characters work hard to meet the success conditions of the scenario, and that they can be deadly if characters instead try to kill every monster or "win" every encounter via combat. Note that those are two different things.
As a big softie, I have, on two different occasions GMing Season 4 scenarios avoided TPKs by stopping the action and directly asking the party as a group and as individuals what their goals are for the scenario. Once they realized that they could achieve success without "cleaning out every room" via combat, then they managed to survive.
There are, thankfully, an increasing number of scenarios that reward those players who pay attention during the mission briefing and use their skills, in-world setting knowledge, and patient thinking more than they reward those players who expect to "win" the scenario via their combat builds. I applaud this development and hope to see things continue that way.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
That and while I have not done any analysis, it "feels" like the average ECL is roughly +1 higher than previous seasons.
This should be accurate, simply because scenarios are now written for 6 players, which used to earn a +1 to APL. With no +1 to APL in Season 4, that number ends up on the bad guys' side, doesn't it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've played a /lot/ of PFS from Season 2 onwards (and cut my teeth with 2e) and have found that very, very few players were really in any sort of peril..
I've observed ONE character death in the entire time I've been involved in PFS, and it was from:
1) Bad tactics (LEEEEEEEERRRROOOOOOOYYYY JENKINS!)
2) Bad coordination
3) Bad rolling
Every other time, my players have stomped the BBEG.
In Season 4, I saw an increase in zero and lower hit point counts.
I will agree with the OP that you need:
1) A table of players with very strong tactics
2) PCs who are strongly combat-optimized, and/or
3) Very good luck with dice.
I don't know that "hard mode" is the norm... I think it depends on how hard your GM is running it. I agree with Drogon that good GM coaching is key.
I think that GMs sometimes know the party composition and don't think of what the BBEG would do if he saw a group of random people in armor.. and so they use excellent tactics and TPK people based on what they know in the party.
My personal take on how to run harder BBEGs without using this GM knowledge is to "script" everything beforehand. In other words, regardless of what party is coming, I will make a round by round "action chart". As an example:
1) Cast buff spell/quaff potion
2) Target obvious caster with ranged
3) Close to melee
4) Back up and pop somebody else with ranger
5) Heal if able
6) Melee somebody else
That's seemed to help temper the bloodbath problem in my area.
|
|
If you think this is tough, just wait for Season 5
As a VC, and at risk of sharing "secret" info, none of us have any idea what the season five encounters look like (easier/harder than season four) unless perhaps we personally know an author who has shared some of their manuscript with us. And even then, the developers can apply a liberal dose of "hard/easy" mode to the encounters before publishing them. Most authors have experienced an encounter being, at minimum, tweaked, if not completely changed. IMO, anyone who claims that season five will be harder/easier is speculating based on the idea that a large portion will occur in/around the Worldwound with/without demons and other extra-planar "baddies" that tend to test our skills to overcome.
My observation of Season 4 scenarios doesn't exactly map onto yours. What I've noticed is that they're quite challenging if characters work hard to meet the success conditions of the scenario, and that they can be deadly if characters instead try to kill every monster or "win" every encounter via combat. Note that those are two different things.
As a big softie, I have, on two different occasions GMing Season 4 scenarios avoided TPKs by stopping the action and directly asking the party as a group and as individuals what their goals are for the scenario. Once they realized that they could achieve success without "cleaning out every room" via combat, then they managed to survive.
There are, thankfully, an increasing number of scenarios that reward those players who pay attention during the mission briefing and use their skills, in-world setting knowledge, and patient thinking more than they reward those players who expect to "win" the scenario via their combat builds. I applaud this development and hope to see things continue that way.
As I read this thread more, I'm starting to agree that as we get more "expansion" type books and people make more specialist characters, combat exposes more "exploitable" holes.
Rowe is spot on that you should think about your goals and find ways to avoid TPKs, and combining that with Painlord's rules about having a viable character for combat AND skills should help:
(Summary from memory:
1) Everybody has some kind of melee
2) Everybody has some kind of healing
3) Everybody has some kind of range
4) Everybody has some kind of way to deal with swarms
5) Everybody has some kind of way to deal with casters
)
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
If you think this is tough, just wait for Season 5As a VC, and at risk of sharing "secret" info, none of us have any idea what the season five encounters look like (easier/harder than season four) unless perhaps we personally know an author who has shared some of their manuscript with us. And even then, the developers can apply a liberal dose of "hard/easy" mode to the encounters before publishing them. Most authors have experienced an encounter being, at minimum, tweaked, if not completely changed. IMO, anyone who claims that season five will be harder/easier is speculating based on the idea that a large portion will occur in/around the Worldwound with/without demons and other extra-planar "baddies" that tend to test our skills to overcome.
I thought that comment smelled fishy. Glad to see that feeling confirmed.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I read this thread more, I'm starting to agree that as we get more "expansion" type books and people make more specialist characters, combat exposes more "exploitable" holes.
Rowe is spot on that you should think about your goals and find ways to avoid TPKs, and combining that with Painlord's rules about having a viable character for combat AND skills should help:
I'm just going to hold up a little "Stop" sign here, if it's okay.
The base goal of an encounter should not be Kill The Party. Hell, the base goal of an encounter shouldn't even be Kill A Character.
No one should be forced to build their characters and adjust their thinking in such a way that they approach every single encounter as a death trap that needs to be avoided. I think that is what Mike is talking about.
So, an addendum to my "Stop" sign: this thread should not be about coaching people on how to avoid dying. This thread should be merely exploring whether Mike is right about it being more dangerous. Have authors and developers actually begun approaching each encounter with Kill Someone in mind? Have GMs begun approaching them that way?
If so, how do we dial that back?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have authors and developers actually begun approaching each encounter with Kill Someone in mind? Have GMs begun approaching them that way?
IMO, no. It just seems that way because they are starting to use the same skills/powers/tactics that PCs use against them. If my uber-archer build can stand in the back of a few blockers and destroy the baddies, sounds like there just might be an evil guy somewhere who develops the same idea. Players love powerful builds...until they are used against them. So, I don't think the authors/developers are specifically aspiring to boost the death-toll, but it is a by-product
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have authors and developers actually begun approaching each encounter with Kill Someone in mind? Have GMs begun approaching them that way?IMO, no. It just seems that way because they are starting to use the same skills/powers/tactics that PCs use against them. If my uber-archer build can stand in the back of a few blockers and destroy the baddies, sounds like there just might be an evil guy somewhere who develops the same idea. Players love powerful builds...until they are used against them. So, I don't think the authors/developers are specifically aspiring to boost the death-toll, but it is a by-product
Six of one, half a dozen of another.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like a comment I read once. With the lack of challenge of earlier seasons GMs learned to run everything as hard as they could (10 on a scale of 1 to 10) and still would get stomped. Now that many scenarios provide a reasonable challenge, GMs need to learn to dial there style to 5 or 6 or maybe lower (or higher for a great team with great builds).
The other thing is that character death should be an option. Now it is.
|
|
I have yet to kill any character in my organized sessions, and have played a number of the season 4 scenarios. My players are a range of optimizations, from totally to not at all. There have been close calls, and times I have deliberately backed off on weakened party members. (The most recent being in Fabric of Reality yesterday when the cleric was on the ropes.) I'm not seeing the same issue the OP is.
|
|
Replying to a few comments here (and thank you, all, for your thoughts):
My observation of Season 4 scenarios doesn't exactly map onto yours. What I've noticed is that they're quite challenging if characters work hard to meet the success conditions of the scenario, and that they can be deadly if characters instead try to kill every monster or "win" every encounter via combat. Note that those are two different things.
I'll note that I, generally, agree with this approach. My experiences that have been on the negative / TPK side have been mostly (a) combats which were expected, but much tougher than we had any reason to expect, and (b) combats which were (as far as I could tell) fundamentally unavoidable in order to achieve the scenario mission goal.
I don't know that "hard mode" is the norm... I think it depends on how hard your GM is running it. I agree with Drogon that good GM coaching is key.
I'll note that, with the exception of the scenario I ran myself, all of these Year 4s were run by either Venture Officers or experienced, generally strong GMs, most of whom noted something along the lines of "I really don't want to kill you guys." :-)
Rowe is spot on that you should think about your goals and find ways to avoid TPKs, and combining that with Painlord's rules about having a viable character for combat AND skills should help:
(Summary from memory:
1) Everybody has some kind of melee
2) Everybody has some kind of healing
3) Everybody has some kind of range
4) Everybody has some kind of way to deal with swarms
5) Everybody has some kind of way to deal with casters
)
I've read, and agreed with, Painlord's rules. In these cases, from what I've seen, his rules don't help much, when you have BBEGs who can pretty much (a) hit the typical PC with very low d20 rolls, and (b) do a metric ton of damage when they hit.
As a VC, and at risk of sharing "secret" info, none of us have any idea what the season five encounters look like (easier/harder than season four) unless perhaps we personally know an author who has shared some of their manuscript with us.
I have a feeling that their comments were mostly based on "Day of the Demon", which was being run by them at this con (acknowledged that it’s a “special”). I know both gentlemen fairly well, and I don’t have any reason to believe that they were divulging NDA information, or making things up otherwise.
The other thing is that character death should be an option. Now it is.
My personal observation (based on, admittedly, a small sample size) is that it's gone from "not even possible", past "an option", to "likely".
|
|
The key point I'd like to point out is that you have had to back off to avoid death. Nothing wrong with that, by the way, just that it somewhat proves the point that season 4 is harder.
Take what I say with a grain of salt though. I've only GMed 2 full sessions.
Yesterday was my 40th. :) I'm just sharing my experience, I'm not saying it is the norm.
The Sanos Abduction nearly killed our groups sorcerer with a well timed crit. I had to doublecheck the rules to make sure I calculated a few things right.
I recall pasting some PCs in Quest for Perfection I as well.
|
|
Well lacking much experience with PFS scenarios i can only speak about the few i played and mastered.
While i as a player found Frostfur Captives really easy, my group made it just so. One player was down, another heavily wounded and 3 goblins dying.
That said, it was a fair mix of 2 experienced players, 2 newbies and one medium, but they also had odd character choices. One life oracle that could not contribute to fights but in the end saved everyone. Also one summoner that went into fights with two weapons and his minion.
The thing is, that i have much more experience and probably could really corner them, and i do. But i´m not aiming at killing them, just provide some thrill. If someone´s down and no threat, the foe will turn his attention.
|
|
Players love powerful builds...until they are used against them. So, I don't think the authors/developers are specifically aspiring to boost the death-toll, but it is a by-product
As someone who "survived" the arms race in LG and LFR (and who had never had this sort of recurring experience in any other campaign), my question, I guess, is this: if the campaign is now being written to challenge the players who appreciate (and exploit) the "powerful builds", is there room in the campaign for those of us who don't?
|
|
Good lord yes, since it's usually mooks that get removed and not the heavy hitters. :)
In both of the last two that I played, we did, indeed, have 4-PC tables. OTOH, we also played "low" in both (though the table compositions had no business playing "up", anyway). In the case of one of the adventures, the GM showed us what the "high" monster looked like, and it was truly frightening.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a feeling that their comments were mostly based on "Day of the Demon", which was being run by them at this con (acknowledged that it’s a “special”). I know both gentlemen fairly well, and I don’t have any reason to believe that they were divulging NDA information, or making things up otherwise.
DotD is not as bad as they say. I had a table of 4 basically level 7 pregens run through it (the cleric wasn't a pregen but was lower level and was thus worse than level 7 pregen kyra in pretty much all ways, everyone else was a pregen) and curbstomp it (and trust me, I don't have a reputation as being a super-easy GM). They had not great dice rolls and pregen characters, and they didn't even come close to dying in any of the fights, though admittedly the players used moderately good tactics (nothing stellar). So I wouldn't worry about needing two out of three of those for Season 5 based off DotD.
Now, granted, I do agree that some of the other Season 4 adventures can be pretty hard, just not DotD (unless your PCs are less prepared for basic challenges of low-mid-level adventuring than the pregens are).
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Players love powerful builds...until they are used against them. So, I don't think the authors/developers are specifically aspiring to boost the death-toll, but it is a by-productAs someone who "survived" the arms race in LG and LFR (and who had never had this sort of recurring experience in any other campaign), my question, I guess, is this: if the campaign is now being written to challenge the players who appreciate (and exploit) the "powerful builds", is there room in the campaign for those of us who don't?
I get a lot of players running through my events. I'd say that, on average, I see somewhere around 50 different players each month, and most of them have two or more characters.
The majority of those characters are killing machines.
Even average players end up exploiting rules and builds, and end up with something about them that is over-powered, when compared to the typical encounter at their level. Whether they do it on purpose or not is what makes someone "experienced" in my eyes.
What I'm saying is that there are a ton of ways that things get out of hand in the PFRPG, and in PFS specifically. For instance: I honestly don't even know why damage reduction is an ability on a creature that modifies its challenge rating. There are very few DRs that are not overcome right off the bat in the games that I run. The character is a paladin that can smite, or they have a "golf bag" of weapon options, or they have scrolls of versatile weapon that they can use on a moment's notice. And DR/magic? Whatever.
So, I don't think "powerful builds" are the exception. I think they are the norm. The surest metric that your character is "cool" is how much damage it can do, and people like being cool.
If encounters are truly bending toward what Christopher Rowe said (that simply attacking it will end up in you losing), THAT is what I'm not seeing. It is still overwhelmingly the case that, if the GM is describing it, you should be figuring out how to kill it.
Of course, that certainly backs up your point that "deadly" seems to be the norm, and I would like to see that get switched. But I think Bob is correct: the arms race is brought about by players wanting to do damage. No fault of theirs, however. It's just how the game works.
Edit: I don't think I answered your question. I'll try to be more succinct: Yes, there is a place for your character, if you're not a damage machine. Yesterday my two tables were so sadly lacking in knowledge skills and investigative options that they should have been completely stymied in their efforts to go forward in the adventures. A "well rounded" character would have made those groups shine, because the combat encounters were nothing to them.
And one of the scenarios I ran was Day of the Demon, by the way. Rogue Eidolon is correct: it's reputation is undeserved. One of the four encounters is threatening at high tier by a competent GM. One of the other four (the optional one) shouldn't be an issue, as I really don't think explorers and prepared adventurers should be surprised by the abilities in that encounter that make it a challenge. And if they are unprepared it is not hard to step back, as a GM, and put on the "kid gloves." But that choice is hard to make, for some, I suppose.
The other two encounters in that scenario are standard fair: fun, and not deadly at all, unless the dice REALLY go against the players.
|
|
As someone who "survived" the arms race in LG and LFR (and who had never had this sort of recurring experience in any other campaign), my question, I guess, is this: if the campaign is now being written to challenge the players who appreciate (and exploit) the "powerful builds", is there room in the campaign for those of us who don't?
Yes. As pointed out above, this is largely the realm of the GM. Per the RAW expectations, a GM cannot create something that is not there to challenge "hard-mode" players. However, there is nothing to restrict a GM from lowering the effective CR of an encounter by taking un-optimized actions or making less efficient use of the resources available to the baddies. It can be a slipper-slope however giving players a false sense of security in their home/local environment and then getting hit in the face with the full-force of the baddie-hammer at a convention. You can more easily adapt to player-style when you see the same people all the time. All players should be prepared for a wide level of table variation at conventions, especially national vs. local/regional ones.
In the end, this all has more to do with GMs than authors or players. Authors have finally provided GMs with the tools to curb-stomp the players, if they want. We just need to learn how to better utilize those tools to provide a fun, challenging experience without the fear of impending doom every second of the game.
|
|
Even average players end up exploiting rules and builds, and end up with something about them that is over-powered, when compared to the typical encounter at their level. Whether they do it on purpose or not is what makes someone "experienced" in my eyes.
I'd like to get a little advice/insight, then. As I said in the OP, like to think that I'm a reasonably good player, but are my characters just really poorly built? Or, am I just too focused on some of the non-combat aspects of the game to make a combat-viable PFS PC any longer?
My two primary characters are a rogue 7 (pirate archetype) and a paladin 5 (no archetype, pretty much straight CRB stuff).
Short stat detail on the rogue:
Rogue 7
AC 22 Fort +4 Ref +11 Will +3
HP 45
Two-weapon fighting:
Atk +10 / +10 (1d6+1 -- +1 rapier, and 1d6+1 -- +1 shortsword)
Short stat detail on the paladin:
Paladin 5
AC 23 Fort +10 Ref +5 Will +9
HP 45
Atk +10, 1d8+4 (+1 longsword)
|
|
Edit: I don't think I answered your question. I'll try to be more succinct: Yes, there is a place for your character, if you're not a damage machine. Yesterday my two tables were so sadly lacking in knowledge skills and investigative options that they should have been completely stymied in their efforts to go forward in the adventures. A "well rounded" character would have made those groups shine, because the combat encounters were nothing to them.
(I wrote my initial reply to you before you added the edit. :D )
Now, I'll say that I do enjoy having characters that are capable of contributing outside of combat.
The pirate rogue (described above) is a character that I, generally, have a ton of fun playing; she's cracked out on Acrobatics, and has a lot of other strong skills. When I played her in "Race for the Runecarved Key" a couple of months ago, it felt like I had the ideal character for the adventure.
The paladin, noted above, is a very strong diplomat, and in this morning's game of "Blakros Matrimony", she shone...up until the weapons came out, at which point I felt like I'd brought a dagger to a gunfight. Of course, it didn't help that...
|
|
Even average players end up exploiting rules and builds, and end up with something about them that is over-powered, when compared to the typical encounter at their level. Whether they do it on purpose or not is what makes someone "experienced" in my eyes.I'd like to get a little advice/insight, then. As I said in the OP, like to think that I'm a reasonably good player, but are my characters just really poorly built? Or, am I just too focused on some of the non-combat aspects of the game to make a combat-viable PFS PC any longer?
My two primary characters are a rogue 7 (pirate archetype) and a paladin 5 (no archetype, pretty much straight CRB stuff).
Short stat detail on the rogue:
** spoiler omitted **
Short stat detail on the paladin:
** spoiler omitted **
Rogue AC seems low for a frontliner. Rogue damage and to-hit are probably mostly OK, as you'll usually be flanking or attackign flat-footed. Rogue could probably use a Cloak of Resistance +2 (it looks like you probably have a +1 or none depending on what your Wis and Con are).
What are the Paladin's stats? She clearly has 17 or lower strength. I'm guessing 16 Cha and 10 Dex then, with 14 Con and 12 Wis and a Cloak of Resistance +1 (and then favored class bonus in skill points)? At level 5, I would hope a paladin would be looking a bit more like Seelah7 at least, with an 18 in one or the other of Cha and Str after the level 4 stat raise. But you shouldn't be too much behind Seelah anyway, and paladins are strong enough as it is. AC is good enough for now, and to-hit should be fine especially when smiting.
So I'd say a little bit below average in a few places for both but very much a contributor if you have smart consumables and your team uses good tactics.
|
|
It just seems wrong. It seems that the scenarios should advertise what level of challenge that they offer, and then they should let you choose to play the ones that are appropriate for you.
Agreed. It's something that I've seen in some campaigns (Living Arcanis, in particular). The adventure blurbs for their "tough ones" would say something along the lines of "An extremely challenging adventure..." or "A combat-intensive adventure...", which was code for "make sure you're wearing your big-boy pants".
|
|
If you reasonably self-select, then everything is great for everyone. If you don't, then you're not a victim of the system, but instead someone who made a bad choice
Except that choice affects more than you. Everytime a character dies it increases the likelihood of another PC death or even a tpk. The players are suppose to win, largely due to the disparity in action economy. As you dwindle that disparity, it becomes increasingly harder to "win." So, when someone arrogantly takes their level 2 PC to a level 6/7 game, they risk more than their own PC. In a local environment where everyone knows each other, you can more easily accommodate character/class mix, player experience, etc. to account for "extremes" of playing up/down. In convention play, I see it being very problematic.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Even average players end up exploiting rules and builds, and end up with something about them that is over-powered, when compared to the typical encounter at their level. Whether they do it on purpose or not is what makes someone "experienced" in my eyes.I'd like to get a little advice/insight, then. As I said in the OP, like to think that I'm a reasonably good player, but are my characters just really poorly built? Or, am I just too focused on some of the non-combat aspects of the game to make a combat-viable PFS PC any longer?
My two primary characters are a rogue 7 (pirate archetype) and a paladin 5 (no archetype, pretty much straight CRB stuff).
Short stat detail on the rogue:
** spoiler omitted **
Short stat detail on the paladin:
** spoiler omitted **
See, now you're going to get all kinds opinions on what you're doing "wrong" with your characters. You must have tougher skin than I. (-:
You are under the norm of what I see at my tables.
I never see straight rogue levels on a character. Ninjas and alchemists have largely taken on the role of "trap finders" at the games I play and run, and the "Neat-o!" options on those classes break themselves. Also, it is "known" that it is too difficult to get into flanking position to use sneak attack ("known" being the common wisdom you'll get just by poking around on these boards; I don't necessarily agree with that). What I'd like to see is your acrobatics; if you can tumble reliably, then you're putting yourself on par with others via a reliable sneak attack. And, frankly, the way the mechanics work, tumbling is one of those options that is easily exploitable and can be pushed into the "don't bother rolling; you succeed" realm pretty quickly.
Paladins at my tables are rarely simply sword and board. If they are, their AC will get pretty high, pretty quickly. And, again, you're situational; this time with your charisma score being the bench mark. If you charisma bonus is +4, and you plan on pushing that higher, still, then you're smiting for half the encounters in a typical scenario, and doing just fine. And during Season 5 you'll be a power house, for sure. (-:
The "standard" thing I see at my tables are summoners, alchemists, barbarians, fighters and ranged characters. It's hard to not do damage with those types of PCs. But they all love seeing skill types and clerics show up to the table. Some players have realized this and have begun to build THOSE in an effort to be the "cool kid."
|
|
Rogue AC seems low for a frontliner. Rogue damage and to-hit are probably mostly OK, as you'll usually be flanking or attackign flat-footed. Rogue could probably use a Cloak of Resistance +2 (it looks like you probably have a +1 or none depending on what your Wis and Con are).
Rogue stats:
Str 11Dex 18 (20 with belt of dexterity)
Con 12
Int 13 (it's where the level 4 bump went, so she could get Combat Expertise, which led to Improved Feint)
Wis 10
Cha 14 (16 with headband of charisma)
Armor is mithral chain +1 (along with a Ring of Protection +1). Yes, Cloak of Resistance +1.
What are the Paladin's stats? She clearly has 17 or lower strength. I'm guessing 16 Cha and 10 Dex then, with 14 Con and 12 Wis and a Cloak of Resistance +1 (and then favored class bonus in skill points)?
Paladin stats:
Str 17 (including bump at level 4)Dex 10
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 10
Cha 16 (18 with headband of charisma)
Favored class bonuses were for HP at 1st level, skill points after.
Armor is full plate +1, buckler +1 (keeps shield hand free for spellcasting and lay on hands), and amulet of natural armor +1. No cloak of resistance at this point, as the headband gave the same bonus to saves, with other benefits as well.
|
|
See, now you're going to get all kinds opinions on what you're doing "wrong" with your characters. You must have tougher skin than I. (-:
Or, I'm just a glutton for punishment. ;-)
What I'd like to see is your acrobatics; if you can tumble reliably, then you're putting yourself on par with others via a reliable sneak attack. And, frankly, the way the mechanics work, tumbling is one of those options that is easily exploitable and can be pushed into the "don't bother rolling; you succeed" realm pretty quickly.
Her Acrobatics is +20, which I *thought* was in that "don't bother rolling" zone. Then, I played her in "Fortress of the Nail", tried to tumble away from a monster, rolled pretty darned well, and apparently didn't even come close to beating his CMD.
Paladins at my tables are rarely simply sword and board. If they are, their AC will get pretty high, pretty quickly. And, again, you're situational; this time with your charisma score being the bench mark. If you charisma bonus is +4, and you plan on pushing that higher, still, then you're smiting for half the encounters in a typical scenario, and doing just fine.
As noted above, her Charisma is, indeed, at 18 (+4), with the intent of cranking it up more. I know she's not going to be a powerhouse on offense if she's not smiting. :-)
|
|
Rogue AC seems low for a frontliner. Rogue damage and to-hit are probably mostly OK, as you'll usually be flanking or attackign flat-footed. Rogue could probably use a Cloak of Resistance +2 (it looks like you probably have a +1 or none depending on what your Wis and Con are).Rogue stats:
Str 11
Dex 18 (20 with belt of dexterity)
Con 12
Int 13 (it's where the level 4 bump went, so she could get Combat Expertise, which led to Improved Feint)
Wis 10
Cha 14 (16 with headband of charisma)Armor is mithral chain +1 (along with a Ring of Protection +1). Yes, Cloak of Resistance +1.
OK, yeah as I said other than maybe a slight AC boost when you can manage, he seems pretty good in vital statistics. I don't recommend Combat Expertise and Improved Feint (for a TWFer like you, it's a trap, is what I said about it in my rogue guide). With Ultimate Combat out, nowadays they even have a fancy-schmancy Improved Two Weapon Feint feat that lets you only sacrifice a single attack for it. So I'd say that if he's behind on anything, it might be just the feats.
What are the Paladin's stats? She clearly has 17 or lower strength. I'm guessing 16 Cha and 10 Dex then, with 14 Con and 12 Wis and a Cloak of Resistance +1 (and then favored class bonus in skill points)?Paladin stats:
Str 17 (including bump at level 4)
Dex 10
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 10
Cha 16 (18 with headband of charisma)Favored class bonuses were for HP at 1st level, skill points after.
Armor is full plate +1, buckler +1 (keeps shield hand free for spellcasting and lay on hands), and amulet of natural armor +1. No cloak of resistance at this point, as the headband gave the same bonus to saves, with other benefits as well.
Ah cool. So with 18 Cha the smite accuracy will be along the lines of Seelah. Alright, seems a viable paladin to me. You just got blindsided by that whole armor thing in Blakros Matrimony. A scroll or potion of swift girding is a good consumable to have for a heavy armored character.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
The pirate rogue (described above) is a character that I, generally, have a ton of fun playing; she's cracked out on Acrobatics, and has a lot of other strong skills. When I played her in "Race for the Runecarved Key" a couple of months ago, it felt like I had the ideal character for the adventure.
See, I thought that would be the case. You're chewing on the candy, too. (-:
The paladin, noted above, is a very strong diplomat, and in this morning's game of "Blakros Matrimony", she shone...up until the weapons came out, at which point I felt like I'd brought a dagger to a gunfight. Of course, it didn't help that...
** spoiler omitted **
You were very nice to your GM. When I played that everyone dogpiled my GM and insisted that their magical full plate was highly polished and should easily pass muster in a wedding. I actually bought glamoured armor; but that fit my character, so I was happy to do it.
Push your AC up a bit, and be ready to smite at the right time and you're fine. Get merciful on your sword (it fits a paladin perfectly) and you're adding 1d6 to your damage, then your damage is right in line during most combats.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Her Acrobatics is +20, which I *thought* was in that "don't bother rolling" zone. Then, I played her in "Fortress of the Nail", tried to tumble away from a monster, rolled pretty darned well, and apparently didn't even come close to beating his CMD.
You said you played it at low tier with 4 players? Your GM made an error. The final combat should have had the Young template applied, making it's CMD lower than what is listed by virtue of size (which is already a hittable 33 with a +20 acrobatics, by the way).
Nothing else had a CMD above 22 at the low tier.
Edit: If it wasn't an error, then this is one of those cases that we end up talking about a lot in these threads: GMs should not be making adjustments just to make it "harder." This is what your character does. Let her do it. If he did this, he was just grumpy that it was so easy for you, and needs to be told it's not his job to "win." It's his job to make your game fun. And fun for you is that +20 to acrobatics lets you get around things. It is not "fun" getting pounded on because you failed due to GM fiat.
|
|
You were very nice to your GM. When I played that everyone dogpiled my GM and insisted that their magical full plate was highly polished and should easily pass muster in a wedding. I actually bought glamoured armor; but that fit my character, so I was happy to do it.
Yeah, the conversation was pretty much like this, during the mission briefing:
Me: "So, no armor at all?"
DM: "Unless you have an actual noble title, nope, no armor."
Get merciful on your sword (it fits a paladin perfectly) and you're adding 1d6 to your damage
Yup, that's what my sights are set on next.
|
|
You said you played it at low tier with 4 players? Your GM made an error. The final combat should have had the Young template applied, making it's CMD lower than what is listed by virtue of size (which is already a hittable 33 with a +20 acrobatics, by the way).
Nothing else had a CMD above 22 at the low tier.
Edit: If it wasn't an error, then this is one of those cases that we end up talking about a lot in these threads: GMs should not be making adjustments just to make it "harder." This is what your character does. Let her do it. If he did this, he was just grumpy that it was so easy for you, and needs to be told it's not his job to "win." It's his job to make your game fun. And fun for you is that +20 to acrobatics lets you get around things. It is not "fun" getting pounded on because you failed due to GM fiat.
I know the GM well enough to doubt that he was cranking up the difficulty intentionally.
As it was, it bit me on the "unsuccessful" tumble, and took me from healthy to single-digit hit points. It also was able to recharge its breath weapon right away; the only reason that my rogue wasn't DOA was that I evaded both blasts of the breath weapon (which killed the alchemist and the cleric).
I also understand that, had we actually gotten past that doggie, there was still another nasty fight, but we never got that far.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Yeah, the conversation was pretty much like this, during the mission briefing:
** spoiler omitted **
Huh. I haven't read the scenario, so can't comment to the validity of that conversation, but that seems unusual.
However, I'll still say that this is what glamoured armor will get around. And Rogue Eidolon's suggestion of a scroll or potion of Swift Girding is spot on, if you didn't want to go that route. I'm totally okay with players having to think of little tricks like that; if they don't, they should be okay with taking it in the shorts. Designing the encounter to hit you on a 2 even when you're wearing your armor? No, that's not fair.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
You said you played it at low tier with 4 players? Your GM made an error. The final combat should have had the Young template applied, making it's CMD lower than what is listed by virtue of size (which is already a hittable 33 with a +20 acrobatics, by the way).
Nothing else had a CMD above 22 at the low tier.
Edit: If it wasn't an error, then this is one of those cases that we end up talking about a lot in these threads: GMs should not be making adjustments just to make it "harder." This is what your character does. Let her do it. If he did this, he was just grumpy that it was so easy for you, and needs to be told it's not his job to "win." It's his job to make your game fun. And fun for you is that +20 to acrobatics lets you get around things. It is not "fun" getting pounded on because you failed due to GM fiat.
I know the GM well enough to doubt that he was cranking up the difficulty intentionally.
** spoiler omitted **
That's the correct creature, yes. It's CMD is 33. With four players the Young template gets applied and CMD becomes 32. I don't have the scenario in front of me, but I think another condition gets applied to it, as well, which may lower it yet again.
Seeing as you know him, he owes you a drink for hitting you with a low blow when he shouldn't have.
Edit: Bah. So many edits. Sorry, everyone, if you're listing the thread and getting all these emails.
The final combat is optional. And it is not nasty at low tier, at all.
|
Contributor
|
If encounters are truly bending toward what Christopher Rowe said (that simply attacking it will end up in you losing), THAT is what I'm not seeing. It is still overwhelmingly the case that, if the GM is describing it, you should be figuring out...
To offer a clarification, that tendency I noted and that Drogon is ably spinning off of with his comments is not necessarily I see as something that is happening by design. But I certainly wish it were.
|
|
However, I'll still say that this is what glamoured armor will get around. And Rogue Eidolon's suggestion of a scroll or potion of Swift Girding is spot on, if you didn't want to go that route. I'm totally okay with players having to think of little tricks like that; if they don't, they should be okay with taking it in the shorts.
Good advice on glamered -- and, I agree, it's good, it's just situational, and I had spent the GP on other areas.
Until reading this thread, I'd not heard of swift girding. As I read it, I'm not sure how it helps when one's armor isn't actually present. I'm guessing that...
|
|
Players love powerful builds...until they are used against them. So, I don't think the authors/developers are specifically aspiring to boost the death-toll, but it is a by-productAs someone who "survived" the arms race in LG and LFR (and who had never had this sort of recurring experience in any other campaign), my question, I guess, is this: if the campaign is now being written to challenge the players who appreciate (and exploit) the "powerful builds", is there room in the campaign for those of us who don't?
I absolutely believe you are watching the arms race come to fruition here too (albeit differently). As to why...well the road to hell is always paved with good intentions. In an effort to keep long-term players who complain about the scenarios getting "too easy", the developers have tried a number of fixes all at once (6-player table scenario designs, beefed up encounters using more material). The result is scenarios that can (and do) eat new, and inexperienced PCs alive. The pendulum has swung from one end to the other.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
If encounters are truly bending toward what Christopher Rowe said (that simply attacking it will end up in you losing), THAT is what I'm not seeing. It is still overwhelmingly the case that, if the GM is describing it, you should be figuring out...To offer a clarification, that tendency I noted and that Drogon is ably spinning off of with his comments is not necessarily I see as something that is happening by design. But I certainly wish it were.
I do, too. I wish that, back at the beginning of this campaign, the Pathfinder Society part had been pushed. Instead, combat got pushed. Again, I think that's a natural byproduct of the game (huge damage = cool kid), but I wish it had been mitigated. Instead, so many arguments were made about how fighters shouldn't be expected to waste their paltry 2 skill points on knowledge skills, and how they shouldn't be left out in the cold because of that.
C'est la vie.
Developer
|
Referring only to the OP, we hear your concerns and are watching the difficulty of the campaign closely to try to reach that ever-elisive balance that will both serve the overall needs of the campaign and players of all levels of experience. In terms of what your VL and 4-star GM friends told you, I don't know how they have insight into the difficulty of Season 5, as the only folks who know how the "hard mode dial" is going to be set are John, Mike, me, and the freelancers with whom we've already shared our Season 5 design guide.
|
|
Referring only to the OP, we hear your concerns and are watching the difficulty of the campaign closely to try to reach that ever-elisive balance that will both serve the overall needs of the campaign and players of all levels of experience. In terms of what your VL and 4-star GM friends told you, I don't know how they have insight into the difficulty of Season 5, as the only folks who know how the "hard mode dial" is going to be set are John, Mike, me, and the freelancers with whom we've already shared our Season 5 design guide.
Thanks for the reply, Mark. I've come to trust that you, Mike, and now John, have good intentions, and work very hard to make it a fun campaign. If I hadn't, overall, been having a great time playing PFS over the past year, I wouldn't have bothered to start this thread.
As I noted above, I suspect now that those comments were more opinion than informed knowledge, and they were probably extrapolating based on what they (a) perceived in "Day of the Demon" and (b) felt they saw in the campaign's direction.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
However, I'll still say that this is what glamoured armor will get around. And Rogue Eidolon's suggestion of a scroll or potion of Swift Girding is spot on, if you didn't want to go that route. I'm totally okay with players having to think of little tricks like that; if they don't, they should be okay with taking it in the shorts.Good advice on glamered -- and, I agree, it's good, it's just situational, and I had spent the GP on other areas.
Heh. Don't actually TAKE my advice on glamered. It's terrible. Unless your character thinks it's awesome. Which mine does. And you're okay with social encounters. Which we should be.
Referring only to the OP, we hear your concerns and are watching the difficulty of the campaign closely to try to reach that ever-elisive balance that will both serve the overall needs of the campaign and players of all levels of experience. In terms of what your VL and 4-star GM friends told you, I don't know how they have insight into the difficulty of Season 5, as the only folks who know how the "hard mode dial" is going to be set are John, Mike, me, and the freelancers with whom we've already shared our Season 5 design guide.
Proving, once again, why Paizo is awesome. Thanks, Mark. (-:
|
|
Heh. Don't actually TAKE my advice on glamered. It's terrible. Unless your character thinks it's awesome. Which mine does. And you're okay with social encounters. Which we should be.
For certain. I'd much rather have a game with some social encounters in it, rather than a game with nothing but combat.
Hmm, from my point of view and personal experience I've seen season 4 as more difficult though not exactly killer. Most of the groups I was with and I've seen have had a lot of close calls or had to high tail it at the end, and it was very within the GM's power to kill people.
That said, not all of the groups I've been with play intelligently or have any optimization so YMMV. That's the nature of the setting I guess. I would rather it lean more towards being casual myself, but with the variety of people I've met I'm not sure where that line would be.