Shackled City. We've reached level 12. Still lots of story to continue (this campaign reaches level 20).
We took a break and a couple players switched to new PCs, including the group's healer. Now we have:
Fighter
Arcane Archer
Monk
Rogue
Wizard
No healer.
So I threw a few test encounters at the group. I figure their APL is 13 (they're all 12th level but it's a 5-man group).
This is a good group of players who know what they're doing. I'm used to regularly throwing APL+3 or APL+4 encounters at these guys.
First encounter, 7 Mohrgs. CR 8 each, 33,600 XP puts this squarely between CR 13 and 14. I should have had a TPK. After 4 characters were paralyzed leaving only the monk unparalyzed with still 4 morghs alive, this fight should have been over - instead, I had the mohrgs spend their rounds eating the paralyzed characters with weak pathetic bite attacks rather than slamming/paralyzing the outnumbered monk.
Basically, I pulled my punches to let them survive an encounter that was basically APL+0.5. Not even APL+1.
Sad - it shouldn't be this hard.
They healed up with potions and wands. Next encounter was 4 Witchfires from Bestiary 2. CR 13 exactly. APL+0.
Again, I had to pull punches to keep them alive, having the witchfires scatter their attacks instead of ganging up (INT and WIS both above 16 so they should not be tactical idiots) and even then I had to tone down their damage (I started using 6d6 damage instead of 8d6) and still almost TPK'd the party, with an APL+0 fight.
Pathetic - it shouldn't be this hard.
TL;dr:
The group has no healer and now I am almost TPKing them with EVEN fights when the same group of players regularly handles much harder fights if they have a healer.
I need advice:
1. How do you keep a group alive when they have no healer?
2. How does such a group handle healing between fights? They took SO MUCH DAMAGE that they could easily burn through dozens of Cure Light Wounds after every fight. I don't think a fully charged wand would last more than two fights. Do they really need to carry a dozen wands to get through a dungeon? Are there better solutions?
I don't think they are a good group tactically. They are obviously a group that is used to having a dedicated first-aid station as a crutch.
I have found that groups without a dedicated healer blow through encounters far easier than those that have them, and yes, you do burn a lot of cure wands, but they are cheap, especially compared to having 20% of a parties actions not actually defeating a foe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We're these two encounters all in one day? Also for teams low on resources, fighting multiple encounters per day may find more consumable goods, and less other goods more useful.
Unfortunately I don't know what's out there for higher levels, but I remember at lower levels, one of those water elemental summoning charms save the day in kingmaker against those lizard folk crossing a river, holding then off just long enough to kill the will'o'wisp
Consumables are useful for individual encounters :). Maybe try giving them consumables in one encounter that may be useful later in that encounter, or the next encounter. Atleast if they remember.
A lot of groups survive fine without in-combat healing. Lack of status-removal might be a bigger problem.
I'm guessing they're not very powerful apart in general? Most of the classes listed here tend to be lower-tier. If they're not too optimized on top of that, they'll have problems.
Note that witchfires and groups of paralysing creatures can be very dangerous encounters for their CR and more typical encounters might be easier.
Clever spell-casting (UMD?) could help in situations like the ones given. A well prepared group can go 'Freedom of Movement!' or 'Resist Energy: Communal: Fire!' and make the encounter far safer. Harder without a divine caster, though.
If you're looking for a way to go easy on them, perception checks to let them know in advance what they'll be facing could make a lot of difference.
Or: kill off weak characters so they have to make new, better characters.
Burning through large numbers of wands is OK (even if you have a cleric; they might want to save their channels for emergencies). They should be able to afford it at that level.
(I added a house rule: as a full-round action you can heal someone for 6 points per use of a CLW wand. This makes the whole process faster.)
|
First, you may not want to use the words "sad" and "pathetic" when describing the group you play with. I'm not sure it helps, and it may put you in the wrong mindset when dealing with the problem.
Second, think about their play style. If they don't care about optimization, then simply lower the CR of their fights or pull punches. Pit them against APL-1 and APL-2, saving APL+0 for boss fights. If they do take pride in their optimization and don't want you to pull punches, then let the dice fall where they may. If they die, they can come back as "better" characters.
1. When absolutely no one is up to playing the healer in the group, I'll try to give them an NPC cleric (or GM-PC). I do my best to make sure this cleric doesn't affect much. Or make sure that wands and potions and such are available as long as they are willing to purchase (or just count against treasure whenever I need to roll up a random treasure). It is preferable to try to get someone to step-up to cover healing, even if it is only minor (having bard, druid, paladin, or witch if no one wants to be a cleric or oracle).
2. Carrying wands or attempting to rest for long periods of time are their inital options. They can also get together and hire an NPC cleric(or allow someone to take leadership and gain a cohort) if you do not grant them a free NPC.
Above all, just remember that it is a game so try to not hurt the players for build decisions. We have only 2 people that normally step up to handle healing in my group, so when they get burned out and play something else we sometimes run into trouble. I only see the need to penalize players and not throw them a bone when they choose to do something really, really stupid just because they think they can.
NOTE: Nothing hurts a party worse than poor tactics. Except GMs out to force TPKs, but that is a different story.
I would ask your two casters (wizard and arcane archer) if they have any battlefield control spells and buffs/debuffs. Many spells in these categories can negate or at least alleviate the need for healing. It is possible that your players may have to resort to newer tactics of shutting down foes, tactical retreats, and/or using terrain/cover rather than going for slug fests. Also, if your rogue or monk are not acting as scouts, encourage them to do so. Being prepared or knowing which fights they can avoid will serve them well (especially with the lack of healers).
I don't think they are a good group tactically. They are obviously a group that is used to having a dedicated first-aid station as a crutch.
Maybe. None of us are used to 12th level since our campaigns usually end before this, so it's a learning curve for everyone. They'll get better but theoretically, so will I, which should even things out - and if the current status quo is that even fights lead to TPKs, the evening-out tactical improvement might not change that.
I have found that groups without a dedicated healer blow through encounters far easier than those that have them, and yes, you do burn a lot of cure wands, but they are cheap, especially compared to having 20% of a parties actions not actually defeating a foe.
Should be true, yes.
But, the mohrgs paralyzed party members for 1d4 minutes, taking away party action economy, with nobody to cast Remove Paralysis to get them back in. This severely limited their ability to blow through that encounter.
OK, maybe a fluke. The witchfires didn't do that, but 4 of them dishing out potentially 48d6 damage every round was incredibly lethal - if I did that to one PC at a time instead of spreading it around, there would have been much death, no matter how fast they blew through the monsters (having to deal 230 HP to each monster takes a while even on good days, since they had decent AC).
We're these two encounters all in one day? Also for teams low on resources, fighting multiple encounters per day may find more consumable goods, and less other goods more useful.
Pathfinder assumes about 4 even encounters per day. The APL/CR system is built for that. They only had two so far and had to rest because the wizard burned most of his good stuff and everyone was low on HP. That's half the expected number of even encounters.
Sounds like they haven't adjusted tactics to not having a dedicated healer. The fighter should be dealing good damage, the arcane archer should be safely at range, and the wizard should be doing all sorts of useful things to end combats quicker.
Our group has always played with a dedicated healer, so I can sympathize with the adjustment the players have to make. But it sounds like they want to try out the playstyle, so I wouldn't hold back on them. If they want to try it they need to try it for real. I'm sure they are a good group and will figure out how to adjust. Good luck!
Note that witchfires and groups of paralysing creatures can be very dangerous encounters for their CR and more typical encounters might be easier.
I agree, but I am not looking forward to fighting hill giants and advanced ogres for the rest of the campaign, just to make sure they don't face difficult status/conditions.
Or: kill off weak characters so they have to make new, better characters.
How very Darwin of you. You are definitely right, but it's a little more harsh than I usually run games.
Burning through large numbers of wands is OK (even if you have a cleric; they might want to save their channels for emergencies). They should be able to afford it at that level.
(I added a house rule: as a full-round action you can heal someone for 6 points per use of a CLW wand. This makes the whole process faster.)
They can, and it's a good way to handle healing between fights, but not so great to save someone who just got dropped by a big hit, or who is about to be dropped by the next big hit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The cr system is based on a four man party with a cleric-type character with atleast descent healing capabilities (spontaneous cure spells and channel energy). This may be a reason why your group is having trouble doig a couple encounters per day w/o a semi-capable healer.
First, you may not want to use the words "sad" and "pathetic" when describing the group you play with. I'm not sure it helps, and it may put you in the wrong mindset when dealing with the problem.
Good call. To be clear, I'm not calling my players "sad" or "pathetic". I think they did fine and didn't screw up the fight. Their near-TPKs were not really the fault of bad tactics or bad playing.
My use of those words was to describe the fact that a 5-man party, played fairly well, was sadly, pathetically, unable to handle a couple even fights unless I deliberately played the enemies badly.
Second, think about their play style. If they don't care about optimization, then simply lower the CR of their fights or pull punches. Pit them against APL-1 and APL-2, saving APL+0 for boss fights. If they do take pride in their optimization and don't want you to pull punches, then let the dice fall where they may. If they die, they can come back as "better" characters.
This is good advice. Nobody at this table is an optimization guru. People make fun characters and none of us set out to push the boundaries of game mechanics very far. So no, we don't have any PC who is on the forefront of top-tier optimization but frankly, I don't think the game is designed with the expectation that players must do that.
I would say the PCs are neither super-optimized nor are they under-optimized. I would further say they are right in the sweet spot of being right where the developers expect ordinary (good) players to be so that they're balanced for ordinary (good) encounters.
There is room for improvement. Our wizard is reconsidering spell selection and there is talk of using Leadership to bring in a healing cohort, even if mainly for status-removal or emergency healing. And arguably, the tactics could have been a little better, but that's the high-level learning curve I mentioned before.
I would ask your two casters (wizard and arcane archer) if they have any battlefield control spells and buffs/debuffs. Many spells in these categories can negate or at least alleviate the need for healing. It is possible that your players may have to resort to newer tactics of shutting down foes, tactical retreats, and/or using terrain/cover rather than going for slug fests. Also, if your rogue or monk are not acting as scouts, encourage them to do so. Being prepared or knowing which fights they can avoid will serve them well (especially with the lack of healers).
You might have hit that right on the head. This is probably the party's current Achilles Heel. The wizard loves blasting. Chain Lightning is his new favorite. It's what he wants to do.
So battlefield-control isn't his forte, but that means we're just trading DPR for DPR here rather than reducing incoming damage with battlefield control.
It's not optimal and we all know it, but it's what he likes.
He does use Haste liberally (who doesn't?) and he got some good use out of Resist Energy in that second fight, so he's not all blast and no defense, but he's rarely interested in the battlefield control tactics.
|
Is an NPC cleric out of the question? That would be the easiest fix. Otherwise gifting the group with a powerful magic healing item could be helpful.
If those options are not desirable, there is always the UMD route plus loads of consumables. However, that can get expensive plus none of the classes in that group are charisma based (maybe the Arcane Archer?) so that might be tricky. Still doable if they buy a skill boosting item though. The rogue is an obvious choice for the UMD duty, however, rogues have a bad habit of failing fort/will saves themselves so they might not be of great assistance in the middle of a fight. Having multiple people in the group invest in UMD would probably be a good idea. Alternatively, having someone splash a level in a divine casting class could be really helpful too in using items.
The cr system is based on a four man party with a cleric-type character with atleast descent healing capabilities (spontaneous cure spells and channel energy). This may be a reason why your group is having trouble doig a couple encounters per day w/o a semi-capable healer.
Maybe true, but MANY posters here say that having such a healer is actually a drawback to the party (at least if he's using in-combat healing).
My group has plenty of out of combat healing. They can heal fully between fights just fine.
It's the lack of in-combat healing and in-combat status removal that nearly wiped them twice in their first two encounters without their healer. But this is EXACTLY what many posters here say a group doesn't need.
So, theoretically, trading out our healing oracle for the arcane archer should have made this group more deadly so that they blow through encounters faster and take less damage and only need a little out-of-combat healing after the fight.
But it didn't go like that. Not even close.
So that's where I'm stuck.
How do other GMs handle this? Does EVERY GM just start dumbing down the encounters, using lower CR enemies, making the bad guys use inferior tactics? Is that the only way to keep their no-healer PCs alive during fights?
There are so many posters here that brag that their gaming group never uses a healer and is better off without one - are they all deluded by a GM going soft on all these groups, coddling them with weak monsters and weak tactics so that the players think their group is awesome when it's really just coddled?
I really doubt that.
So what am I missing? Does it really only work when the PCs are super rocket-tag optimization gurus? Is everyone else forever doomed to having a healer or being wiped out with frequent TPKs or being coddled by GMs?
Is there a balance for typical players to build good-but-not-super-optimized characters with no healer and play the published adventures with no GM coddling and no TPKs?
Is an NPC cleric out of the question? That would be the easiest fix. Otherwise gifting the group with a powerful magic healing item could be helpful.
No, the NPC is not out of the question. However, that turns this into a 6-man group (we're fine with that but it wasn't the original plan).
Gifting PCs with the ability to use in-combat healing will sort-of defeat the idea - the reason we have no healer is that nobody wanted to be the in-combat healer, so if I give one of them an inc-combat healing item, I'm turning that character into something the player didn't want to play.
If those options are not desirable, there is always the UMD route plus loads of consumables. However, that can get expensive plus none of the classes in that group are charisma based (maybe the Arcane Archer?)
I plan on letting them carry a bag of holding full of healing wands, but it really only helps out of combat. Also, our rogue has a level of cleric, so while he can't drop big heals to save anyone in combat, he can easily use the wands all day long.
1) Are your rogue/monk actually effecive? Cause sometimes you can add a figther here and do more damage than these 2 combined.
2) Your wizard actually knows what he is doing? Cause wizard is a very powerful class , blasting is usually only good if the player knows how to build for it.
3) Your party is used to lacking a healer? You said they are new to lvl 12 , but are they also new fighting without a dedicated healer?
4) Are they min/max their saves? If they lack a healer they should have noticed by now they trully need to pass those saves , are they making an effort for it with their items and such?
Does your rogue have UMD?
A wand of Freedom of Movement or Remove Paralasys could have made a major difference in that first fight. Or your Wizard could have used Freedom of Movement.
And even if he does like blasting why does the Wizard not at least use an extended communal (Rods of Extend spell are cheap as hell at level 12) Fire Resist as a regular spell? That would have made those 8d6 fire shots pretty trivial when you subtrat 30 from each ones average damage of 28.
Your two example fights could have been totally reversed with a little more thought and basic preparation from your players.
There are functions that a Divine Caster brings that are crucial as you level past 10 and creatures become more dangerous. Where most AC starts to become a non-factor and the effects you save against from monsters become more severe.
I am frankly suprised that the group does not have some sort of constant fire protection on a daily basis. I know it is a regular precaution in the group I play in since fire is such an amazingly prevalent energy attack form and it can be all but trivialised with a few very long lasting extremely low level spells.
If your Rogue has UMD (and in that group I would heavily recommend it) then a selection of key divine spell wands can make a huge difference.
1) Are your rogue/monk actually effecive? Cause sometimes you can add a figther here and do more damage than these 2 combined.
2) Your wizard actually knows what he is doing? Cause wizard is a very powerful class , blasting is usually only good if the player knows how to build for it.
3) Your party is used to lacking a healer? You said they are new to lvl 12 , but are they also new fighting without a dedicated healer?
4) Are they min/max their saves? If they lack a healer they should have noticed by now they trully need to pass those saves , are they making an effort for it with their items and such?
1. Monk was all right so far (this character is new to the group too, so he's only had the two fights, but did just fine). Rogue had troubles with this fight (got paralyzed quickly in the first one, weak FORT save, then couldn't Sneak Attack in the second one).
2. He is not "built" for blasting, so as mentioned, this is the party's Achilles Heel when it comes to optimizing. Has good buffs and is supplemented by having a familiar who is really a small silver dragon and is capable of adding to our fights quite nicely.
3. Nope. Never done this before.
4. Great idea. I don't know if any of them have made much effort on saving throws. Maybe this should be revisited - time for everyone to spend their downtime buying super cloaks...
Does your rogue have UMD?
A wand of Freedom of Movement or Remove Paralasys could have made a major difference in that first fight. Or your Wizard could have used Freedom of Movement.
And even if he does like blasting why does the Wizard not at least use an extended communal (Rods of Extend spell are cheap as hell at level 12) Fire Resist as a regular spell? That would have made those 8d6 fire shots pretty trivial when you subtrat 30 from each ones average damage of 28.
Your two example fights could have been totally reversed with a little more thought and basic preparation from your players.
There are functions that a Divine Caster brings that are crucial as you level past 10 and creatures become more dangerous. Where most AC starts to become a non-factor and the effects you save against from monsters become more severe.
I am frankly suprised that the group does not have some sort of constant fire protection on a daily basis. I know it is a regular precaution in the group I play in since fire is such an amazingly prevalent energy attack form and it can be all but trivialised with a few very long lasting extremely low level spells.
If your Rogue has UMD (and in that group I would heavily recommend it) then a selection of key divine spell wands can make a huge difference.
Awesome advice. I hope they're reading this.
|
|
Does it really only work when the PCs are super rocket-tag optimization gurus? Is everyone else forever doomed to having a healer or being wiped out with frequent TPKs or being coddled by GMs?
Is there a balance for typical players to build good-but-not-super-optimized characters with no healer and play the published adventures with no GM coddling and no TPKs?
Other groups may be playing more flexible classes to offset their lack of a healer. How strong of a tactician are the players playing the wizard and arcane archer? They are the main hope for improved tactics as the other classes in the group are pretty rigid in their roles. In addition, to control spells, there are lots of tactical options available. Approaching enemies with invisibility sphere and silence up, dimension dooring into the midst of the enemies...that sort of thing. The group needs to think beyond the typical kick in the door approach and be more cunning in how they deal with their foes.
Your particular wizard that likes CHain Lighting might have to fall on Fireball at these lvls for making dazing spell to work, but with the magical lineage (fireball) trait it should become a perfectly viable...
All your advice is great. This last bit might fail for this wizard because he doesn't have that trait.
I suppose he could "retrain" it if he's interested.
I actually had a somewhat similar issue with my dm. Try asking them in a friendly way, what they thought their tactics should do? If they expected something different. Their tactical choices might make sense to them and not you, as an example read my story below.( story is based on 3.5, but concept can be used in 3.5)
My party came upon a ramshackle building known to house thieves and slaves. Party was level 2. Cleric, rogue,Dragon Shaman and me, a warlock.
Now we knew there was 10-15 brigands inside. We didnt want to enter and be ambushed, so i summoned a swarm of spiders into the house as far as i could, and we waited. Soon the screams started, when i felt the "disconnect" of my swarm, i summoned a swarm of bats. we waited, eventually they too died.
Now, my tactics were in knowing how hard it is to kill a swarm, that they had to either have a caster inside or some sort of aoe, so i wanted to cause serious damage and kill everyone, force them to flee willy nilly, and or waste their resources.
The DM however, thought a flask of alchemist fire should destroy a swarm, and that we were "signaling our presence" by multiple swarms, one could be accident of nature, 2+ too much. so the brigands began attacking us from the windows and i nearly died to a well placed critical arrow.
After this fight he asked me what on earth i was thinking. and i explained how swarms are immune to melee damage, and are basically capable of killing any level 1 or 2 brigands without magic. he told me about the alchemist fire, and i explained how that only meant 1.5 damage to a swarm and would have taken a LOT to kill any swarm, in the meantime several brigands should have died, he was surprised and restored several of our expended resources for his "mistake"
My tactics HAD been sound, but he didnt understand everything as i expected some of it to be "known" as a fellow dm. So we communicate our tactics to the dm more often so he understands our purpose and THEN decides if it would work or not. He was actually quite surprised at my cunning afterwards :)
I think the need for a party healer depends on the style of the GM. For the GM who uses speedbump encounters that are easily vanquished in 2-3 rounds, then obviously there is no need for healing until after the fight.
Personally, when I GM, the combats are more challenging and drawn out, usually lasting more than 10 rounds. A group without healing, is just not going to survive those kinds of fights without some casualties.
If no one wants to play a healer, the easy solution is to have a NPC heal-bot. This NPC doesn't really do much other than keep the group in the fight. Have the NPC a few levels lower than the rest of the group, and have the NPC demand a full share of the treasure. If a player's character gets taken out of the action, allow them to play the NPC healer.
If you allow Leadership, one character could have a dedicated healer cohort, albeit two levels behind him. Otherwise, you can't coddle a group that doesn't prepare thusly. My last PF game was TOUGH, with plenty of TPKs, and we all took a turn at the healer role.
Thought of a couple more things, one to save money, and one as a suggestion for your wizard (depending on alignment).
1). The monk should have a decent wisdom, allow him to rank up the heal skill (maybe grant it as a class skill as well). This should save on on cost of out of combat healing. He can treat everyone except himself granting everyone else up to 24 HP for 8 hours of rest (or 48 for a full day). Treat deadly wounds is also available 1/day per character for new damage (12 HP restored with adding wisdom possible). They would most likely need healer's kits, but still comes out cheaper.
2). If the wizard has summon monster spells (specifically 5 and 6) he can summon the Bralani (#5) for 2 cure serious wounds, or the Lillend (#6) for 2 CSW as well as 5 CLW. Both will only cost him a single spell, and should last long enough to help fight as well as provide in/out of combat healing. The Vulpinal (alternate suggestion for #5) can cast remove disease and can use lay on hands 6/day for 3d6. There are a few other options (including more for controling the fight). A well placed summon can provide decent additional damage and possibly mitigate some damage on the party (I wouldn't have the enemies always go for the summoned creature, but maybe throw an attack that way from time to time).
So what am I missing? Does it really only work when the PCs are super rocket-tag optimization gurus? Is everyone else forever doomed to having a healer or being wiped out with frequent TPKs or being coddled by GMs?
Players who say in-combat healing is a waste of time are comparing it to optimized attacks and spells.
And they usually don't say the same about anti-status-effect spells.
Knowing a bit more about how your players are running things, I think the problem is that they aren't really using their strengths and planning ahead.
First, as others have said, having a way to remove conditions is important. Scrolls with UMD usually can handle this, especially if the party knows ahead what sort of things they will encounter.
The wizard really needs to do some battlefield control. Keeping enemies at bay, debuffing them, etc. is essential, and it does become more essential without a someone to constantly patch you up.
That said, these are particularly brutal monsters for ganging up. Having touch attacks means even lower cr creatures are probably consistently hitting (except maybe your monk) and if you get hit with enough save or lose effects sooner or later you are going to lose.
I can't imagine a cleric making much difference in these fights, even if the cleric had a remove paralysis or two (and wasn't one of the ones paralyzed) if you had 4 PCs paralyzed with only 3 enemies down, I imagine you were losing at least one each round, take away one player (who ever would have been a cleric instead since the cleric is doing nothing but trying to keep up with the paralysis) and your defeating the monsters isn't any better.
Same is true with the witchfires. The Cleric (if he isn't the one blasted in the beginning) isn't going to be able to keep up with the damage, and the witchfires are going to die slower, due to less offense.
I'm still puzzled by all your players making different characters half way through an AP.
Hell, if they're level 12, that means they probably just finished the bit in Occipitus... where one of the characters should have (and needs to) gain the smoking eye template... If they change out after this, then you have no characters with this template... which kind of hoops them once they get to the end of the AP.
Correct. Our wizard has the smoking eye. One player left and has been replaced, one player decided to swap out his oracle for a monk, and one player originally started with fighter, then went ranger, and now has retired his ranger and returned to his fighter. The wizard and rogue have been in the group since the start, and the fighter for much of the campaign but not all of it - 4 of the 5 players have been in the campaign since the start.
Back on topic... I think your wizard needs some better strategy to be honest. More control spells.
Have him take a look at wall spells for instance... its amazing how much easier you can make a fight by walling off the bad guys into smaller bunches.
After every encounter, your party should be discussing what went wrong, and why it was so hard, and what they can do about it.
After that first fight, the paralysis should have been noted, and then efforts made to boost saves, or get Freedom of Movement, or remove paralysis (wands, scrolls, items, et al)... and from there ponder other status effects and how to deal.
No time. They're basically fighting their way out of a small trap-dungeon. They can revise tactics and acquire stuff when they finish this.
The second fight, one 3rd level Communal Protection from Energy would have shut the bad guys down on round one. Your wizard could have that.
This is where an arcane bond rocks over a familiar... the ability to pull a random spell out of your book in a pinch is so versatile
He didn't, but he did help a ton with two individual Resist Energy spells, and a Resist Energy potion, not as good, helped save the fighter.
The incorporeal part of it should also raise some red flags, and they should start trying to account for this... incorporeal sucks... they got lucky you made it fire based incorporeal... they just sucked at dealing with the fire.
Usually this sort of thing happens organically as a PC goes about his career... when you start out new pc's at level 12, they have to start all over again accessing weaknesses like this.
They didn't start at level 12 - the party changed at level 12, but the wizard has been here all along, since level 1. But, he had the oracle who provided more buffs than he did. Now it's more on him (and our new arcane archer, too).
Maybe true, but MANY posters here say that having such a healer is actually a drawback to the party (at least if he's using in-combat healing).
My group has plenty of out of combat healing. They can heal fully between fights just fine.
It's the lack of in-combat healing and in-combat status removal that nearly wiped them twice in their first two encounters without their healer. But this is EXACTLY what many posters here say a group doesn't need.
So, theoretically, trading out our healing oracle for the arcane archer should have made this group more deadly so that they blow through encounters faster and take less damage and only need a little out-of-combat healing after the fight.
But it didn't go like that. Not even close.
So that's where I'm stuck.
How do other GMs handle this? Does EVERY GM just start dumbing down the encounters, using lower CR enemies, making the bad guys use inferior tactics? Is that the only way to keep their no-healer PCs alive during fights?
There are so many posters here that brag that their gaming group never uses a healer and is better off without one - are they all deluded by a GM going soft on all these groups, coddling them with weak monsters and weak tactics so that the players think their group is awesome when it's really just coddled?
In combat 'healing' of hit points can be done without. The ability to remove negative conditions (paralysis, poisons, ability damage etc) is not optional. As you have seen just a couple bad saves can leave the party crippled. This doesnt necessarily have to be with a 'healer' but its the general perview of divine spells. A rogue could potentially umd some wants, or an inquisitor could do it, but SOMEONE has to be able to do those things at mid to high levels.
I really doubt that.So what am I missing? Does it really only work when the PCs are super rocket-tag optimization gurus? Is everyone else forever doomed to having a healer or being wiped out with frequent TPKs or being coddled by GMs?
Is there a balance for typical players to build good-but-not-super-optimized characters with no healer and play the published adventures with no GM coddling and no TPKs?
Magic items are your best bet here, scrolls and wands and permanent items that can recover not just hit points, but negative conditions and improve saves. There is a reason whay a cloak of resistance is considered standard equipment. Its a necessity. Especially with a party like yours where likely each except the monk has one or two low saves naturally.
|
It may be too small a sample of fights to make conclusions just yet; four witchfires are nasty and could wipe an APL appropriate party and morghs may be the result of just bad dice rolls. However, the 5 characters don't appear to have much in the way of control, looks like pure hack, and pure hack is vulnerable to damage soak encounters like incorporeal or certain DR monsters.
I've run groups past 12th without dedicated healers and they can work, but players absolutely must optimize to avoid hurt.
I tend to a 'survival of the fittest' and from experience, I shy away from advising my players how to make their characters. If they ask I'll give input, but otherwise I'm interfering. Lost two good players from a group long ago after a battle I thought they should have handled better by giving my input "here's what you should have done." They played their characters as they saw fit and took their lumps, wasn't my role to tell them they "stunk."
So, to summarize so far:
1. Players need to work on tactics, especially the two arcane casters who need better situational spells and more battlefield control.
2. PCs need to stock up on condition removal stuff - our rogue with one cleric level can use all this stuff with little chance of failure (except high level scrolls).
3. PCs need to focus heavily on saving throw items.
4. Either they should uber-optimize or I should lower my expectations of what CR they can handle.
4. Either they should uber-optimize or I should lower my expectations of what CR they can handle.
They dont need to super optimize, but they definately have to be above average. Just keep in mind the rocket tag style that works without in combat healing is often unsatisfying to dms, since generally it means explicately that the pcs kill the enemies before they are significantly injured themselves.
5. 7 monsters who can paralyze for minutes with touch attacks can be very dangerous, for any group, when they survive long enough to take their first action :)
With some (bad) luck, they could easily have left all 5 PCs paralyzed, regardless of the PCs' capabilities.
If I was running this encounter, I'd probably have had no more than 4 mohrgs (as that would mean at least 1 PC would be left unparalyzed after round 1). To compensate, I would have advanced them to match the same total CR.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of putting them up against a large group of monsters, try throwing them up against less monsters. In this situation, you've reversed the action economy against the party.
Let's analyze the two encounters:
1)In the first encounter, you put them up against 7 mohrgs. Mathematically, this is an CR 13 challenge, which should be an 'average' encounter. The CR system isn't perfect, however, and doesn't take into account easily spammed abilities a monster might have that can make a challenge far more dangerous.
The Mohrg's real ability isn't it's claws, or it's spawn, it's his paralysis. A +10 touch (almost guaranteed hit against most PCs) with a DC 21 fortitude save. Now, people can talk about 'Fighters have high Fort, save is no problem!' all they want, but a bad roll and the character is screwed. The more rolls he makes, the higher the chance of a character rolling badly. Unlike a save vs poison, or fireballs, the mohrg's paralysis is basically an instant KO.
While, mathematically, the encounter is CR 13, it is in no way an 'average' encounter with the multiple paralyzing tongues lashing about. It's easy to see how this could result in a TPK, even if a Cleric were present, it's unlikely he came prepared with a bunch of Break Enchantments now is it? Sure, the Cleric has channel, but the mohrg's Will save is high enough they are likely to only take half damage on most of the channels.
2) In the second encounter, there are less enemies, but they are incorporeal. This means, that even with their low AC, the party is dealing only half-damage on all their attacks, unless they have Ghost Touch, which is unlikely.
In addition, their witchflame ability forces enemies to take 1.5 times as much fire damage as normal. So instead of rolling 8d6, you are, effectively, rolling 12d6 fire damage. I'm not sure what attacks you used, but withcfires have at-will invisibility, and a 60 ft. ranged touch attack. In essence, you have a perfect ambush/skirmisher creature.
The problem here, is only the Monk is likely to have a high touch AC, so the witchfires are going to hit almost every attack. So the party is, essentially, taking a fireball every round, with no reflex save for half damage. Sure, fireballs don't do a lot of damage, but they do deal damage, and that damage can add up really fast.
================================
The problem isn't necessarily the party, but it's not wholly the fault of the encounters. A healer could have helped mitigate much of the damage or effects, but some bad rolls on the part of the Cleric, or focus fire from the enemies, and the Cleric doesn't really change the outcome of the fights.
Fact is, the fights weren't as easy as the CR system says it was. Not because the party is bad, it's because there are hidden factors the CR system doesn't take into account. Take the [http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/azata/ghaele]Ghaele Azata[/url] for example; she is a CR 13 creature, but if you take a hard look at what her abilities really allow her to do, she is capable of taking on much more powerful creatures with relative ease.
She is capable of turning into an incorporeal light form, and sinking into the ground and using her Cure Light Wounds SLA to heal herself until she's topped off, before using her SLA to turn invisible and then teleporting back to the fight. Still invisible, she can shoot her laser beams (light rays) and then transform back into her humanoid form and fight with her sword. She can also use her Cleric Spells to buff herself up (like any Cleric can) and then whoop some serious ass with spells like Divine Power, Divine Luck, Blessing of Fervor and Righteous Might. Since she casts spells as a 13th level Cleric, they are capable of changing out their spells each day to adapt her spell list to fight at hand.
When you take all of her abilities into account, she is much more than just a CR 13 encounter, and is more like a CR 15 creature.
The point is that the abilities that the Mohrg and Witchfire possess make the encounters substantially more difficult, especially when played by a GM who knows how to use them.
The cr system is based on a four man party with a cleric-type character with atleast descent healing capabilities (spontaneous cure spells and channel energy). This may be a reason why your group is having trouble doig a couple encounters per day w/o a semi-capable healer.Maybe true, but MANY posters here say that having such a healer is actually a drawback to the party (at least if he's using in-combat healing).
My group has plenty of out of combat healing. They can heal fully between fights just fine.
It's the lack of in-combat healing and in-combat status removal that nearly wiped them twice in their first two encounters without their healer. But this is EXACTLY what many posters here say a group doesn't need.
So, theoretically, trading out our healing oracle for the arcane archer should have made this group more deadly so that they blow through encounters faster and take less damage and only need a little out-of-combat healing after the fight.
But it didn't go like that. Not even close.
So that's where I'm stuck.
There are so many posters here that brag that their gaming group never uses a healer and is better off without one - are they all deluded by a GM going soft on all these groups, coddling them with weak monsters and weak tactics so that the players think their group is awesome when it's really just coddled?
I really doubt that.
So what am I missing? Does it really only work when the PCs are super rocket-tag optimization gurus? Is everyone else forever doomed to having a healer or being wiped out with frequent TPKs or being coddled by GMs?
Yeah. They're wrong. Well, maybe for their campaign they're right. But in our campaigns a healer is needed. And in James Jacob's games a healer is needed. And in your game a healer is needed. I have never played in a campaign where a healer wasn't needed except for a all roleplaying no combat game.
Sure, HP can be fixed after combat by wands of CLW. Mind you, that burns thru a lot of WBL, but it can be done. But not condition removal. And that can be a game breaker. Also, inability to do a LOT of healing when a tank really needs it leads to dead tanks.
The only two things that I think allows other games to play without a healer is hyper-optimized rocket tag PC's vs ordinary monsters. The combats aren't really a challenge. Not to mention a lot of novaing and resting. So, not the encounters are "dumbed down' so much as the encounters are ordinary but the PCs have 20-25 pt builds, and are hyper-optimized. The PC's aren't really going against a equivilant CR encounter.
Then there's the game where everyone plays with a stack of toons, so when one dies, another just comes in.
To me, neither would be fun, but if they're having fun- why not? But I don't think Blake that you'd have fun in those or that your players would. So again, all those who say "Healing isn't necessary' are right- but only for their style games. Not ours.
The game is designed for a healer. There's five of them. Someone needs to step up and play a healer. Don't coddle them. Sure, give them a few breaks, why not? But if too much coddling them makes the game no fun for you, then that's not fair either. Just talk to them OOC.
From my analysis it would appear the Monk is the fifth wheel.
Maybe I'm old school, but I still subscribe to the "there should be one healer type" in a balanced group. Not that a group without one can't work, lots of folks have already shown that they can and do, but with a group that's not playing for optimization they need to focus on balance.
I also agree with the people who've pointed out that the encounters you tested them against aren't really fair representations of APL+0 encounters. I'd say some extra tests are necessary if you really want a feel for what they can do. I'd suggest the following as fair tests of a APL 12 group
1) Big Bad Melee Guy - Greater Cyclops. Should be a straight forward and simple fight for the group. How do they do against one massive opponent that is going to be focused on physical damage?
2) Big Bad Wizard Guy - Lich. It's a classic, gives you the versatility to do fun stuff, and will make the party think on their feet. Also tests the gamut of "are their saves good enough for APL?" argument
3) Bad Boy with Mob - Hill Giant with a group of Ogres (maybe with class levels even). Another physical fight, but with multiple opponents to spread the damage around.
4) The "Evil PC" match up - Have them fight a mirror match (or a more balanced party) to let them see how all the elements will play together.
If you're really concerned about balance and are afraid they'll get wiped by the actual AP, then do all this OOC as a fun exercise for everyone to get used to their characters at this level and see what they might run into. I agree the mob of morhgs and wychfire encounters were probably way harder than their CR would indicate.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tark wrote this very nice essay, On Building a Balanced Group that perfectly describes what's going on with this group. If someone knows of a more recent version, please link to it.
In his terminology, the group has four 'hammers' plus the wizard. Since the wizard has demoted himself from 'anvil' to 'hammer' by choosing to blast, that's really 5 hammers. Not one PC plays an 'anvil', and not one PC plays an 'arm'. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Combine the worst problems of 'Groups without Anvils' with the worst problems of 'Groups without Arms', and you describe this group's situation:
Groups without Anvils: Groups without anvils typically end up having an overabundance of hammers with one or two members playing the part of arms. These groups typically have fast, furious fights where the group takes a lot of damage. In these situations the arms often take on a reactive role providing healing and buffs as able while the hammers frantically try to end the encounter quickly. Depending on the nature of the hammers this often drains the arms very quickly of resources or forces the hammers into more and more defensive roles draining overall resources more as the group is not ending encounters efficiently enough.
Groups without Arms: Perhaps the most forgiving of the three major imbalances. These groups usually spend more resources than necessary to finish an encounter. When they don't they exist on a razor's edge where an enemies passed save or a characters failed save can mean the difference between failure and victory. This is much worse in groups that lack the means to magically heal themselves and are thus forced into shorter adventuring days or burning wealth on tons of cure light wound wands.
A healer/buffer would fill the roll of arm. The party wizard could fill the roll of anvil, but is choosing not to. As Tark notes, the anvil is more important than the arm. Even if this party got a dedicated healer, they would still take massive 'rocket tag' damage every fight.
I can't imagine a cleric making much difference in these fights, even if ...
Free Action, pre-buffed. Communal Protection from Evil. Communal Protection from Energy(fire).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, I said I never played in "a campaign" where a healer wasnt needed (the odd combat-less campaign aside). But I have played in a single PF GAME where they didn't really have a healer. The party was ;
A elf wizard
A crossblooded orc bloodline (dragon was the other?) sorc.
A Magus
I sat in for the archer paladin. I tried a healing oracle. I was almost useless.
Here's how they ran their game. 25 pt buy, dumping like crazy too. High WBL, and consumables didn't count. 9th level.
Every single book, even 3PP was allowed. Mind you, they owned hardly any books- they used D20pfsrd for everything. If it was on the site, it was OK.
Each spellcaster had two powerful rods. The wiz would scry, usu two encounters. Next day. using a scroll they would T-port in. The wiz and sorc would unload, their spells being empowered or quickened. Quickened Scorching ray does quite a bit of damage. The magus would get up and do a FAO with rod enhanced shocking grasp. (the pally would smite arch, but I never got to see him in action).
This vs the normal, un-enhanced AP encounter. Over in two rounds. Maybe three.
Afterwards they'd use wands to heal up whatever damage. If necessary the wiz would whip out another scroll of Teleport. The pally would do a little out of combat healing too, I heard.
Next encounter, the same. Then Tport back to town.
Rest. Two encounters a day, max, due to the rods and spells.
The DM never really challenged them. They never got attacked while resting. The BBEG never took steps to prevent scrying or move after being scryed.
No one roleplayed. At all. I asked the sorc IN CHARACTER about his Orc bloodline "I get extra damage". That's why he took it.
I was boggled. BUT- they had fun. Lots of fun. So, they were doing it right too.
But to me, it was hardly a standard game. They said it was the way a lot of people played. They didn't need in combat healing.
Now, most of our encounters lasts 6 rounds or so. We usually have one PC drop then healed back. We use lots of in combat healing. BUT- the DM only allows a few books. We do get 20 pt buy and wbl, but few "ye olde magik shoppes" so our loot isn't optimized. If we start blowing thru encounters (as most of the PC are optimized), the DM makes the next encounter more powerful until we're challenged again. We have fun. Lots of fun. So, we're doing it right also.
According to James Jacobs, his games are more like our than theirs.
Mind you, that doesn't mean the 'rocket tag" school of gaming is wrong. Do they have fun? If the answer is yes, then they are doing it right. For them.
But guys- if that's how you're playing, your style is WAY different than mine, or Blakes or JJ's. Your advice on how a group doesn't really need healing other than a few wands of CLW isn't helpful.
DM Blake and his guys aren't having fun. So, I think they need a healer. Not a band-aid.
1. This is Shackle City, one of the more difficult AP's.
2. I think tactics are an issue if the healer is actually healing in every fight.<----I did skip a few post, so this may not be true.
3. I did see where you said the group is new to 12. That could be a factor.
4. Give us a breakdown of the fights they almost lost. If you have already done this, then don't worry about it, I will go back and read the other post.
5. I will suggest someone start using knowledge checks to gain information if they group is not already doing so. Knowing basic things about a monster can be quiet useful. I will read the rest of the thread now.
Dr. D.,
All your advice is awesome. The one thing I would disagree with is your last sentence. Well, nearly last:
DM Blake and his guys aren't having fun.
That's not true. Everyone did have fun. Only two encounters so far, and some people have suggested a few more test encounters which, not to say great minds think alike, I've already mapped out and prepared, almost identical to what the previous suggestions were.
Nobody so far is worrying that the game is no fun.
I, however, am worried that I'll kill them. Those two encounters should have been two TPks. I pulled punches and I'm pretty sure they knew it at the time; it was pretty obvious when 3 of the 4 surviving mohrgs started doing 1d6 chewing damage to paralyzed victims rather than smearing the only un-paralyzed character after which they could all the fresh corpses at their leisure. Coup de Graces for ALL! They're smart enough as intelligent undead and THEY know how to get the most out of paralysis because it's really their only trick - one trick ponies should and do know their trick very well.
So I coddled and they know it. Fine. We're all figuring this out together.
I'm just afraid that if I stop coddling they'll die, and if I keep coddling they'll get bored with wimpy care-bear monsters all the time.
The gray area in between is what I'm looking for here - how to challenge them without coddling or killing them.
There's been great advice here and in the other thread. I really appreciate all the input so far.
After having read some and seeing your group likes to do what they want as opposed to optimize, and they dont have a healer I can tell you they will be in trouble. A lot of it has to do with the AP you are running. That was the first time I really tried to make an optimized character, and while I was effective I still almost died a few times. You are going to have to tune these fights down especially if they are used to having a healer around, and the wizard wanting to be a blaster.
3. I did see where you said the group is new to 12. That could be a factor.
Only a little bit of a factor. 3 of them played their characters up to this point, one of them played a different character up to this point, and one of them is new to level 12. So, mostly, they earned it and should be able to handle it.
Without being super-optimized, they did all right. They could go for optimization-guru builds, but nobody here really plays that way, so theire characters have been and still are fine for our usual (typical by Paizo standards) style of play.
Tactics were mostly OK. The first fight they popped into the middle after a blind teleport got redirected to this trap-dungeon. A few-second speech by a recurring bad guy who left, and the mohrgs attacked. No time to plan for it, but they were fully rested before they teleported.
Second fight had depleted resources from the first fight, but everyone healed between fights. Tactics there were fine too, though they did let themselves get a bit split up and didn't really focus too heavily on bringing down one witchfire at a time - to compensate, I didn't focus on bringing down one PC at a time either. Turned into multiple one-on-one or two-on-one brawls. That could have been better, but then I would have returned the favor, so it was a wash.
5. I will suggest someone start using knowledge checks to gain information if they group is not already doing so. Knowing basic things about a monster can be quiet useful. I will read the rest of the thread now.
They do this regularly. Both fights they rolled about a 30 on the checks, so I told them everything. No surprises for them in these fights.
After having read some and seeing your group likes to do what they want as opposed to optimize, and they dont have a healer I can tell you they will be in trouble. A lot of it has to do with the AP you are running. That was the first time I really tried to make an optimized character, and while I was effective I still almost died a few times. You are going to have to tune these fights down especially if they are used to having a healer around, and the wizard wanting to be a blaster.
Yep, I'm getting that impression too.
Or they'll need to bring a NPC/Cohort healer.
Or I'll give some kind of tricked up Staff of Healing (but not an actual one since nobody can recharge it, but something like it with natural daily limits instead of a recharge function) and someone will have to suck it up and use the item and be, at least part-time, a heal-bot.
3. I did see where you said the group is new to 12. That could be a factor.Only a little bit of a factor. 3 of them played their characters up to this point, one of them played a different character up to this point, and one of them is new to level 12. So, mostly, they earned it and should be able to handle it.
This is another issue. When you grow a character from one to 12 you have time to learn its abilities. When you start off with a brand new high level character you won't know it as well, and you will forget things. So not only are they running new characters, they have them in a difficult AP, not as hard as Age of Worms, but still not a walk in the park, and the healer, is gone. I would suggest you run an NPC healer for them or allow one of them to run a 2nd character(NPC)as a healer if any of them are interested. Good tactics are more important than being really optimized in my experience. The wizard as an example would help more if he did use battle-field control spells, but I know he likes evocation so in order to allow them to continue on while playing however they want to I would suggest an NPC, and/or scaling the encounters back. I just read where tactics are ok, so in that case I would do with scaling encounters back or dumbing monsters down first. That way nobody has the burden of an extra character if they don't want to.
PS: I do like your part time heal idea with the staff instead of creating an NPC. I would ask them outside of the game since they don't mind knowing you helped them out. If you think they want to rely on themselves to actually win then go with whatever you think is the best idea.