|
Mechanically it is better to focus all attacks on one player from all available foes. Once down move on to another player. Very much in the same way players would.
Out of the four scenarios that I have ran (yeah, still pretty much a rookie here for PFS... still don't have that first star;)), I have seen only one encounter where the tactics called out that the foes would concentrate attacks... and this was in a season 0 scenario.
During Combat Quint and her band work well together and focus on one target at a time, if possible.
Aside from that, I really haven't seen it. Now, I will admit this is in limited play... still have only played or GM about 25 times, but I haven't seen this called out. Now, on the other hand, foes such as rogues will by their nature look for flanks, etc., but this should be expected.
This does include 5 season 4 scenarios.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things that I have noticed with the power creep in Pathfinder is that the power creep is more horizontal than vertical. What I mean by that is that the power creep lets me build more weird characters rather than making traditional power builds. Certainly if you are a THF or an archer, there are good things for you in books other than the Core Rulebook (Furious Focus, Clustered Shot anyone?), but they help you build weird characters. My most powerful character is arguably my sorcerer, which is mostly Core Rulebook, while the character I have who uses the most outside sources is my fighter who only exists because UC styles, monk archetypes from APG + UC, and the Lore Warden all exist.
I think because Paizo's power creep tends to be more towards allowing weirder builds as opposed to the traditional builds, PFS scenarios need to see more encounters focused on unusual enemies or unusual combining of enemies (mechanic-wise, not flavor wise). Some examples of what I mean are below:
There have been some really creative encounters, and I hope that the PFS authors take the opportunity to craft creative encounters just as much as we have been given the opportunity to craft creative characters. I know that when the combat uses different options/monsters in a cool way, I enjoy prepping it way more.
|
Just as long as you don't run it. Take a gander at the last guy. *shiver*
Reading over it, I don't see a problem with the scenario. If you have a hack and slash kind of party, there won't be a lot of roleplay it is true. But a party taking captives should have plenty of chances to roleplay with amusing results. Dumb brutes are great sources of comedy. I can agree that the final boss is a beast, but I think that once you're at Tier 7-11 all bets are off. You need to know how to neutralize a melee beast so that your party can survive. Otherwise, yes this will be too hard.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
There is a scenario that does use a "Save or Die!!" spell in 4th season. It killed one of my party.Which one? Did it have a way to recover the character?
** spoiler omitted **
A caster has a certain spell that turns the character into dust if it does enough damage on a failed save. Yes, I seen it happen. No, it was not fun.
|
|
Agreed, TOZ.
There are several opponents that are at least that bad in previous seasons. I know of a season 1 and season 3 that can cast Inflict Serious Wounds in a sub-tier 1-2!!! That's 3d8+3 damage against first level characters (my paladin took 23!!!). If you have a 10 CON, and a character with less than a D10, that's an almost guaranteed insta-kill if you don't make your WILL save. Which, isn't guaranteed at this level.
Single use mega-attacks are nothing new... and I wouldn't be surprised to see a Wizard with Disintegrate as the BBEG in a sub-tier 10-11, as he would be ACL+2.
However, that wouldn't really be considered a "Save or Die" spell... like Phantasmal Killer, which is only a 4th level spell!
|
The First Steps adventures are from season 3. The start of season 3, actually, before season 3 started to get tough.
There's crit potential in any adventure, and especially with the one guy in part 1 who hits hard and has a x3 crit, but I don't think anyone's ever said that the First Steps series is too tough.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
For the record, it's pretty dishonest to use a damage per round number as the basis for saying something's too tough when said number requires three consecutive crits (each needing a natural 20 to threaten and a natural 13 or higher to confirm) with each getting nearly max damage in order to attain that number.
|
|
My players had a hell of a time on the last fight in first steps part 1.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Heck, I almost had my first TPK last night, and that was running 'Black Waters' (a season 0 adventure that is often recommended as an introductory scenario).
Admittedly several factors did line up: the party APL was 3, playing up to subtier 4-5; there were only 4 party members; and a couple of important rolls definitely went against the party (one player failed an important saving throw; one nasty monster got a critical at a very unfortunate time). But fortunately a couple of other significant party rolls in that encounter (one attack roll, one saving throw) that would otherwise have failed actually succeeded courtesy of a buff spell, so the party won through in the end, and there was much rejoicing.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
My players had a hell of a time on the last fight in first steps part 1.
** spoiler omitted **
For the record:
|
|
My players had a hell of a time on the last fight in first steps part 1.
** spoiler omitted **For the record:
** spoiler omitted **
Beat me to it. I keep seeing comments about how hard that fight is, and every single time, it's because of that. The GM didn't stick to the tactics specified in the scenario, which made the fight tougher. Those bad guys are intentionally written as NOT being team players, so they shouldn't coordinate that well or fight that intelligently.
|
|
My players had a hell of a time on the last fight in first steps part 1.
** spoiler omitted **For the record:
** spoiler omitted **Beat me to it. I keep seeing comments about how hard that fight is, and every single time, it's because of that. The GM didn't stick to the tactics specified in the scenario, which made the fight tougher. Those bad guys are intentionally written as NOT being team players, so they shouldn't coordinate that well or fight that intelligently.
Well...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did not think I was allowed to change the written tactics for an adventure or are we?
Tactics are an area in which PFS does allow the GM some leeway. From p.35 of the Guide to Organized Play:
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgements, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com. What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right for your table during cases not covered in these sources. Scenarios are meant to be run as written, with no addition or subtraction to number of monsters (unless indicated in the scenario), or changes to armor, feats, items, skills, spells, stats, traits, or weapons. However, if the actions of the PCs before or during an encounter invalidate the provided tactics or starting locations, the GM should consider whether changing these would provide a more enjoyable play experience.
|
|
For the record, it's pretty dishonest to use a damage per round number as the basis for saying something's too tough when said number requires three consecutive crits (each needing a natural 20 to threaten and a natural 13 or higher to confirm) with each getting nearly max damage in order to attain that number.
I think he assumed she won initiative and then hit three times, but all were sneak attacks.
|
|
EMERGENCY POST COUNT UPDATE:
1. Has PFS gone too far into 'hard mode'? - 369 posts
2. PFS too safe for characters? - 326 postsThis update has been brought to you by 'man what the-', official sponsor of making things as clear as possible since 1977.
The key point to remember is that the "too safe" thread is from before season 4. Things are harder this season. The question is whether it's too far in the opposite direction of what we had before. I doubt we'll get a consensus.
And while I thing some scenarios were "too safe" in the past seasons, there were still some tough ones, especially at the end of season 3.
|
|
Two Observations:
1) Three threads down from this is a thread called "PFS Too Safe For Characters?"
2) I was in a 7-11 online mod last night that killed two characters.
It wasn't the monsters or the GM that killed the characters last night, although a good GM with the right attitude can make the simplest mod an exciting and deadly good time (as anyone who has played on a table run by, say, Mike Brock can attest). I was a front rank type who never went below 1/2 hit points the whole time last night and you know why? Because I prepare for the worst and adjust my tactics CONSTANTLY to give myself the upper hand. I've drunk a gallon of antitoxin when I didn't need to, spent THOUSANDS of gold pieces on buff scrolls even though I can't cast a single spell, I am almost never near the party when an AOE goes off, and I would say AT LEAST 50% of my gp expenditure has gone to defensive items.
Also at three points in the game last night characters made choices that triggered my inner voice to scream, 'why on earth would an adventurer worth his/her salt make a decision like that?' I never said anything out loud because hey, your character, your call. But in each of those three cases it went PHENOMENALLY SOUTH for the character in question shortly thereafter.
I'm not saying that in any given mod there is not a chance to snuff it hard. The character I am bragging on here has a death under his belt (back to back Ice Storms, no save, no evade). What I am saying is the choices you make both in your build and on the table can make it hard for even the best GM to kack you.
|
|
How about an entry into the Guide that says "After the first encounter, ask your players if they thought it was too easy. If they respond in the affirmative, run the rest of the game in Baird Mode. Simply use the 5-6 player adjustments for groups of 4 and double the adjustments for groups of 5-6." I can almost hear the cries of anguish from here.
But seriously, it's too hard to nail down what is "too much" when there is so much variance between player and GM styles. Personally, I think Season 4 has been great so far and I appreciate the 4 player versus 5-6 player split in adjusting the power level.
|
|
My players had a hell of a time on the last fight in first steps part 1.
** spoiler omitted **For the record:
** spoiler omitted **
Just wanted to mention that I am currently playing First Steps PbP. Not five minutes before reading this, I posted my turn, wherein
Of course, if we weren't already that far, I wouldn't have been reading spoilers. (Besides which it's my second time through -- though I obviously hadn't remembered that part of the fight.)
|
|
I'd suggest that they let players choose their own level of difficulty. It's simple, and it solves many problems.
This would involve two easy changes:
1. Standardize wealth, and award simply based on level. Not doing this has already raised other issues.
2. Rate scenarios and tiers within them on a reasonably steady scale. Rather than a wide swing of 'too safe' to 'way too deadly' being given the same rating, adjust the ratings based on the individual scenarios and even adjust them after the fact if warranted. You can list scenarios that you think were more challenging than others for its tier.. rather than have to guess, there should be a reasonable indication before the game what level of challenge the scenario is written to deliver.
Players can already choose their level of difficulty. With a little planning, they can often choose to play up or down, which offers a wide variation of difficulty.
Question: What point are you trying to make when you say that people rate scenarios inconsistently? I’m assuming that only one designated person would rate scenarios (for consistency), otherwise players would never be able to “choose their difficulty” (like you suggested). However, don't we already have "one consistent rater" in Mark Moreland and now John when they edit/tweak/adjust a scenario for a selected subtier?
As for standardizing wealth and then letting any level of PC play in any scenario, don’t you think it would be ridiculous if a level 11 PC played in subtier 1-2 and received level 11 gold? Do you think that no one would do this?
Your #2 suggestion is part of the problem right now, rating scenarios correctly. We can’t even do that now, why do you think assigning it a level would help? Part of that problem is that everyone rates differently, including the players. You’re somewhat right; rating is futile, so how is a player supposed to choose the difficulty if the scenario rating is inconsistent?
Also, there’s already an easy way to determine if a scenario is too easy or challenging. Read the reviews. Although they’re not always consistent, trends do appear. After a while you’ll know which camp you’re in.
Also, PFS is not broken at all; it doesn’t need a major revamp. If a major revamp like you’re suggesting was done, it would cause more harm than good.
|
|
Others have said this in many different ways, but the actual difficulty of a scenario is basically impossible to objectively measure. Some potentially deadly fights can be trivialized with an Adamantine weapon or a timely Daylight spell (or a Color Spray, or Sleep, or Hold Monster, etc.). And all that assumes the GMs are properly following the published tactics.
As long as GMs are reporting properly, Paizo staff should also be able to see how many PCs are dying in each scenario. It's a blunt instrument for measuring difficulty, but I'm sure it's useful data nonetheless.
Maybe they can add a death counter to each scenario? They'd have to stress test it for Dalsine Affair, of course.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this has been mentioned before, but I think it bears repeating: one very simple adjustment that could be made is to give 5-player tables the option to choose the 4-player version of the scenario or the 6-player version.
This would require *no* additional development, since the two versions of the scenario are already there. And it would give five-person tables more flexibility to decide whether they want a "hard mode" challenge or an easier time of things.
|
|
I see DA referred to a lot, I played his and our group cake walked this. What am I missing?
If he gets the attack off, it's often enough to drop the target. Now the party is fighting with one less person, and if that person is their main damage dealer, or healer, things can go from bad to worse. I've personally never had someone die while playing it, but he's come very close.
Plus, deadly at low level is generally worse because PCs will have far less options available to them to overcome whatever is making the fight difficult to begin with (DR, SR, lighting, etc.).
|
|
I see DA referred to a lot, I played his and our group cake walked this. What am I missing?
** spoiler omitted **
|
|
They'd have to stress test it for Dalsine Affair, of course.
I see DA referred to a lot, I played his and our group cake walked this. What am I missing?
** spoiler omitted **
I think people say it's a deadly scenario rather than a hard one. He has a relatively good chance for an instant kill, but then the PCs win.
|
|
Yes, you can game the system.. but why even have the system? The goal is to deliver the right amount of challenge to the table. Let the table decide that... different people want different amounts of challenge, and different tables can handle different amounts as well.
Then you get group A, who has played with little challenge messing up the WBL curve because they haven't had to buy consumables and other buff items while group B, who has played at the maximum challenge rating has had to pay for consumables and the random raise dead and is actually behind on the WBL curve. What do you do when people from these different groups wit down at a table together? They are used to different levels of challenges and the folks from the group used to weaker challenges may not be able to cope with a higher challenge level that they may be presented with when they play outside their group.
The whole point of Organized play is to try to keep the level relatively consistent so that you don't have these problems. And people sometimes but not always play with the same people and sometimes they play with different groups. What happens when you get a table of three that like challenge and three that want the easy way? What does the GM do then?
|
|
The end result is neither side is happy
This is being waaay over-emphasized by this thead. PFS is the biggest, and fastest growing OP RPG on the planet. Even the people who yell the loudest here in the messageboards about having a "bad" experience with too easy/hard scenarios, good/bad GMs, blah blah blah keep coming back. Does anyone really think that this issue is sooo huge that we have to take extreme actions to correct it? I don't really think so. I have attended roughly 30 conventions and participated in over 300 tables in the past four years and I can count on one hand the number of "problem" tables to point of requiring action to be taken.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
How often have you seen players exchange sheets at a table?
Never. If we're lucky there will be some amount of discussion beforehand (especially if there's quite a power spread at the table, and one or more players is considering switching to a different character). But I've encountered one or two players who won't even tell you anything about their character until the mission briefing has started (and one who is reluctant to tell you anything even then; watch and learn, pathfinders!).
|
|
if you sit down at a completely random tier 8-9 scenario you have no idea that the characters putting you in that tier carry that weight, nor do you really know for certain the real level of challenge you are going to face
I fail to see how your proposed solution would change that. IME, the vast majority of players cannot accurately measure their own character's abilities with respect to a scenario of which they have no idea what to expect. Regardless of what system of tiering we use, you, as a player, will still have no idea if the players you sit with can pull their weight or not. Unless of course you play with them regularly, in which case, again the tiering system matters little since you'll know when to play up and when to play down.
|
|
If a level 3 character can pull the weight of a level 5, then let them play at level 5. Likewise if a level 7 character can only pull the weight of a level 5, then let them too play at level 5. Both can then likely get what they want out of this game of ours with the opportunity not to step on the others toes.
This is predicated on the idea that players can accurately judge the strength of their characters and choose the correct tier to play. My experience says we are not able to consistently do that. In fact, I believe that by allowing players free reign to chose their tier regardless of actual level, we will see even more cases of "calk-walk" and "killer" sessions.
|
|
Almost every character has strengths and weaknesses. Difficulty it a huge part that too. Some builds can not do a thing against a swarm, golem, or invisible creatures. If you have a team that encounters high CRs for things weak agaisnt that build then it is easy mode. This involves having a rounded team, and if you are not rounded aware of your weaknesses and prepare for them.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
The end result is neither side is happyThis is being waaay over-emphasized by this thead. PFS is the biggest, and fastest growing OP RPG on the planet. Even the people who yell the loudest here in the messageboards about having a "bad" experience with too easy/hard scenarios, good/bad GMs, blah blah blah keep coming back. Does anyone really think that this issue is sooo huge that we have to take extreme actions to correct it? I don't really think so. I have attended roughly 30 conventions and participated in over 300 tables in the past four years and I can count on one hand the number of "problem" tables to point of requiring action to be taken.
*jab* So those season 0 scenarios were retired for no reason? */jab*
My overall concern with the difficulty direction, with season four having a bit more bite than previous scenarios, more so than the transition from 2 to 3, is that the next season will end up with the Guygaxian crawls that most gamers today want to avoid. This is seen with the King of the Stoval Stairs, one particular battle starting as the other is finishing up or just done.
TPK's shouldn't be particular to any one scenario as it has been in the past and I hope that a season isn't remembered for being harsh when there was no need.
Season 5 needs to temper down the BBEG's being so much over tier, the Save vs. Die situations, and the hard battles that somehow "make up" for role play at the beginning.
I hope that it doesn't go for the throat instead, making a "role another character" situation common place.