| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Age of Worms was the worst for players deaths. It got to the point where we just started numbering our characters instead of naming them.
Pathfinder APs generally have lots of deaths in the first 2 parts and then very few in later chapters. Generally deaths in later chapters arise as the DM tries to increase the difficulty and over does it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to test whether the APs are overly deadly, you and the other players could do this by carrying out some test combats, of your PCs against typical creatures from the Bestiaries, at a variety of encounter levels from EL =Average Party Level, up to EL=APL+4.
Make them a mix of single creature encounters, and some encounters with mobs of multiple lower-CR goons. Don't cherry-pick enemies you know you're good against, such as your favored enemies, but aim for a wide range of creature types.
If you find that your PCs are dying in fights that take place in featureless arenas, to creatures that (on paper) are meant to only cause minor injuries and use up a few wand charges (where CR or EL is at or near APL), then there's probably something amiss with either the way the PCs are built, the player's understanding of how their abilities work, or how the PCs synergise with each other.
If the PCs can handle these fights, then try adding elements such as difficult terrain, poor lighting, poison gas, especialy where these elements match the kind of environment the creature would normally be found in. An example I found in an old homebrew game was lizardfolk, who possess several minor abilities, that on dry land, are irrelevant, but turned encounters deadly, when used to full effect in water.
See how these elements either wreck an individual PC's ability to perform their speciality, or hinder the PCs' ability to work together.
|
|
I suspect the encounters you are finding most difficult, will not be because they are an overly-high Challenge Rating, but because they include several elements (multiple creatures, terrain, hazards, ongoing magical effects) that synergise to make the overall effect more dangerous than the sum of its parts.
One Rogue 5 is less dangerous than two Rogue 3s, even though, on paper, they are the same EL. If the latter can separate a PC from the party, they can flank and deal out multiple +2d6 sneak attacks round after round. The former may get one +3d6 sneak, in the first round, before having to run for his life.
Whether that deserves an increase in EL is debatable, since the whole 'strength through diversity' schtick is how PCs are supposed to roll over encounters. If the PCs synergising, or being different classes and races doesn't increase their effective level (and therefore, the encounter xp budget cap), then why should it affect the EL of the opposition who employ the same philosophy?
Meanwhile, most of the parties that I am in find Paizo's APs way too easy, especially in the later books. If things got any easier I probably would cancel my AP subscription because I may as well be making my own encounters at that point, lol
In Serpent's Skull I had to buff the final boss into a CR 24 Mythic monstrocity to have a propper final boss fight.
The first modules of Carrion Crown and Rise both were pretty hard. I'm playing Rise, so I don't know how they end up, but at level 13 things are pretty easy. Carrion Crown was a pushover after module three as well.
Magnuskn, have you made it into module 6 of CC? Some of the stuff in Book 4 and 5 can be easy if you're a half-way decent player, but book 6 looks like it has some really hard stuff.
Also, the only group I ever TPK'd was a group that made it all the way to Karzoug in Runelords. (original edition)
By the time you make it to book 6 of Carrion Crown, anyone who doesn't have amazing saving throws and so on has been weeded out...
The first modules of Carrion Crown and Rise both were pretty hard. I'm playing Rise, so I don't know how they end up, but at level 13 things are pretty easy. Carrion Crown was a pushover after module three as well.Magnuskn, have you made it into module 6 of CC? Some of the stuff in Book 4 and 5 can be easy if you're a half-way decent player, but book 6 looks like it has some really hard stuff.
** spoiler omitted **
Also, the only group I ever TPK'd was a group that made it all the way to Karzoug in Runelords. (original edition)
Also, I had a Gunslinger in the party to deal with, who trivialized a lot of the encounters later on.
Having run Savage Tide, CoCT, 5/6th of CC and 4/6th of JR I've found the level to be just right overall. My groups have all been a blend of new players-experienced. There will likely be some PC deaths (CC in particular) especially if you're not using hero points.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only AP encounter I can recall that seemed remotely meatgrinder-y for my group was the S&S battle on the Man's Promise. Specifically, the party continually falling into the water, climbing halfway up the side, and then falling again.
And then getting eaten by sharks. Of five players, only two made it out of that both alive and whole, and a third lost an arm and a leg (literally). But that wasn't really the difficulty of the opponents so much as it was a succession of terrible dice rolls coupled with the encounter design.
The rest of the adventure was easy.
Now to be fair, The Wormwood Mutiny was written by Richard Pett... who decided to let him loose on low level PCs I don't know, but I'm fairly certain that in certain parts of the world it's considered a form of cruel yet hilarious punishment.
|
I am starting to think that if you run an ap and want it to be successful, you have to have an ultra optimized party or rebuild all the major encounters from scratch. That defeats the purpose of running an ap. This is a failure on the part of paizo. The adventures should be challenging instead of deadly. I know it's a fine line, and there are a lot of variables, but they are supposed to be the experts. I wonder if third party AP's are better? Anyone have experience with those?
I have found that the primary determinant of a party's ability to handle challenges is a party that works well together and uses a certain amount of tactics. The group I play with most regularly have little trouble to only minor trouble handling anything that Paizo can throw our way (regardless of character optimization). One of the players plays with another group who are quality tactic users that also hyper optimize and in general think everything that Paizo does is a cake walk.
I play with a group about once a month who I regularly kill because they just simply don't think in tactical terms or attempt to work together. It has been extremely hard to find the balance for this group as when I attempt to make things easier they breeze through and complain about how easy it has been but if I present any challenge they crumple. I TPKd this group in the second book of RotRL….
who hasn't TPK'd their group in part 2 of Rise!
CURSE YOU PETT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(not really it is an awesome adventure)
|
|
My players have mixed feelings with the overall difficulty of the AP's we've been through. Overall they don't feel them too hard, but there are times of obvious "OMG, really?" where we feel that they were made hard just to be hard.
Few examples:
Carrion Crown:
ToTB - DC30 perception check to notice a note on the back of a door. The Aberrant Promethean. Cinematic plot device required to actually have a more than off chance to defeat the APL+5 monster.
BM - Actually putting Circle of Death on Vrood's prepared spells. Party hated me for that, especially 1 round later when one of them is a zombie...
Skull and Shackles:
RUM RATIONS!
Mummy's Mask
Some of this I've learned to play around (like dropping the sarco's hardness after a 35m fight with the dolls), but the Scythe is forever used by all five of my players and myself as an example of the crazy unnecessary false difficulty injected into many of the AP modules.
Funny, but our group curb-stomped her.
If the APs were meat grinders, there would universal complaints about the toughness. There isn't.
Here is a personal reflection about the APs. My group consists of 5 players. Three have good system mastery, two don't but are competent. The two that don't are relative new comers with about 3 years experience. The other three have 20+ years of experience. All characters tend to be optimized for the theme of the campaign but not all power gamey so.
We have played the following. The core three haven't changed, the remaining two have changed over the years but are consistent for competent playing. The challenge rating is what our group would assess the toughness of the AP FOR THEM. YMMV obviously.
Age of Worms - 0 deaths. Challenge rating - 7/10. Our group was optimized against undead.
Savage Tide - 0 deaths. Challenge rating - 8/10
Rise of the Runelords - 1 death. Challenge rating 9/10
Curse of the Crimson Crown - 0 deaths. Challenge rating 6/10
Second Darkness - 0 deaths. Challenge rating 7/10
Legacy of Fire - 0 deaths. Challenge rating 6/10
Council of Thieves - 0 deaths. Challenge rating 6/10
Serpent's Crown - 0 deaths. Challenge rating 7/10
Jade Regent - 0 deaths. Challenge rating 8/10
Skull & Shackles - 0 deaths. Challenge rating 6/10
Currently on Reign of Winter -Book 1 and so far, breezing through it.
Our group started Kingmaker and got to Book 4 but they didn't enjoy it, not because it was tough but because about half of them hated the kingdom building aspect and the sandbox and exploration aspect. No point continuing a campaign that half the players were not enjoying.
None of the my players thought any of these were meat grinders. In many cases, as the DM, I had to tough up encounters, don't tone them down throughout all the campaigns.
So, I would say one's perspective of an AP is going to be colored by the DM's ability to adapt to the group's play style, the level of system mastery of the players and more importantly, how the group meshes and works together.
My group is like a fantasy game Seal Team 6. They work well and support each other and make sound decisions and plans 90% of the time. That makes a world of difference between a AP being a cake walk or a nightmare.
who hasn't TPK'd their group in part 2 of Rise!
CURSE YOU PETT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(not really it is an awesome adventure)** spoiler omitted **
Heh heh:)
Now to be fair, The Wormwood Mutiny was written by Richard Pett... who decided to let him loose on low level PCs I don't know, but I'm fairly certain that in certain parts of the world it's considered a form of cruel yet hilarious punishment.The only AP encounter I can recall that seemed remotely meatgrinder-y for my group was the S&S battle on the Man's Promise. Specifically, the party continually falling into the water, climbing halfway up the side, and then falling again.
And then getting eaten by sharks. Of five players, only two made it out of that both alive and whole, and a third lost an arm and a leg (literally). But that wasn't really the difficulty of the opponents so much as it was a succession of terrible dice rolls coupled with the encounter design.
The rest of the adventure was easy.
Heh heh:) It was Rob, lovely chap.
I love the idea that after losing a limb or two the adventure was easy, that is awesome.
who hasn't TPK'd their group in part 2 of Rise!
CURSE YOU PETT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(not really it is an awesome adventure)** spoiler omitted **
Plus, Captain, I hope you'll enjoy Shifting Sands for something similar.
Rich
Our Council of Thieves game has been in parts quite easy. We're at level 6 and have only had one character death (the AP specifically said these monsters would focus fire on this specific character, even if said character was unconscious).
My favorite Pett-Death(tm) was my wife's Undine Tempest Druid
the story
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From what I've read and experienced, APs seem to favour group cohesion over build optimization as means of survival; if you plan things out, know when not to fight, have everyone's bases covered, and are careful, the biggest cause of sudden death would either be lucky crits, rolling a 1 on climbing or something, and jumping to wrong conclusions.
I have had characters make it through the entire AP (one never died at all, mainly due to being cautious and unobtrusive with the Toughness feat), with character deaths coming from one of them rushing ahead, spreading around when it would have been more sensible to focus one one opponent at a time, or just provoking something dangerous into aiming for them first.
If your people keep dying, I'd suggest all the players and the GM get together and figure out what's going wrong: is the GM trying to take down PCs, is the GM ratcheting up the numbers due to thinking the AP, as written, will be too easy and inadvertently making it too hard, or are the players all ignoring each other?
Spending however long you need to with the characters discussing strategy won't progress the plot, but it could help their overall survivability.
who hasn't TPK'd their group in part 2 of Rise!
CURSE YOU PETT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(not really it is an awesome adventure)** spoiler omitted **Plus, Captain, I hope you'll enjoy Shifting Sands for something similar.
Rich
im so excited to get Shifting Sands im working extra so i can get it! I treat my job like the main character in Office Space, so yeah big deal! (i only work PT and my full time job as stay at home dad doesnt pay in monetary currency)
who hasn't TPK'd their group in part 2 of Rise!
CURSE YOU PETT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(not really it is an awesome adventure)** spoiler omitted **Plus, Captain, I hope you'll enjoy Shifting Sands for something similar.
Rich
You know what. After going through SS and all - I got to the end and went OMG - this is insane - AGAIN?
I didn't even connect that it was the same author until I read this thread.
/hats off - that encounter scares me and I'm the GM.
Funny, but our group curb-stomped her.
** spoiler omitted **
Judging by what you said i am pretty sure that you played the anniversary edition, try it in the original version and you'll see why she is such a TPK.
Judging by what you said i am pretty sure that you played the anniversary edition, try it in the original version and you'll see why she is such a TPK.Funny, but our group curb-stomped her.
** spoiler omitted **
You know it's funny - they didn't change her that much - a single different spell and a very slightly modified tactics block - and she went from a TPK to a average boss.
Just goes to show what very slight changes to the monsters and tactics as written (note her DC's and hit pionts and such didn't change - the thing that most people jack up when they try to make a boss harder), can be the difference between a really hard encounter and a not so much one.
Food for thought for those wishing to make the game more of a challenge - RotRL has two modified encounters (offhand) that make huge swings in how the fights are handled - this one at the end of book two - and the final fight stick out for me like a sore thumb - both are much easier in the newer version without having modified much in the way of the monsters - good reference for design in how you can make the stuff published harder (or easier) for your groups.
No, that's definitely not only you Jacinto. Paizo doesn't put very often long roleplaying segments into their AP's, GM's seem to be supposed to freeform it mostly. One of the most enjoyable segments of any AP I've ever played was a series of feasts given by a king in Jade Regent module four, which was only two pages of content in their module, but easily translated into two evenings of roleplaying. Since statblock laden fight segments take up just as much space in their books, I'd really prefer for them to include more roleplaying oriented content in their modules.
No, that's definitely not only you Jacinto. Paizo doesn't put very often long roleplaying segments into their AP's, GM's seem to be supposed to freeform it mostly. One of the most enjoyable segments of any AP I've ever played was a series of feasts given by a king in Jade Regent module four, which was only two pages of content in their module, but easily translated into two evenings of roleplaying. Since statblock laden fight segments take up just as much space in their books, I'd really prefer for them to include more roleplaying oriented content in their modules.
but then people get pissed off and whine "but my cliché half-orc paladin isn't high enough level". the complaints came in like that for CoT, S&S and were especially vocal about CC.
i get what you're saying, its just a very fine line they have to walk:)
Judging by what you said i am pretty sure that you played the anniversary edition, try it in the original version and you'll see why she is such a TPK.Funny, but our group curb-stomped her.
** spoiler omitted **You know it's funny - they didn't change her that much - a single different spell and a very slightly modified tactics block - and she went from a TPK to a average boss.
Just goes to show what very slight changes to the monsters and tactics as written (note her DC's and hit pionts and such didn't change - the thing that most people jack up when they try to make a boss harder), can be the difference between a really hard encounter and a not so much one.
Food for thought for those wishing to make the game more of a challenge - RotRL has two modified encounters (offhand) that make huge swings in how the fights are handled - this one at the end of book two - and the final fight stick out for me like a sore thumb - both are much easier in the newer version without having modified much in the way of the monsters - good reference for design in how you can make the stuff published harder (or easier) for your groups.
Are you kidding me? The changes (or nerfs) they made to the monster were major and were on top of making the AP easier, i will go in detail but i will do so in a spoiler tag.
First of all let's start with the changes that the PCs have when playing AE over original, in the AE the PCs are 7th level instead of 6th and have more wealth (because PF modules and APs give more treasure than 3.5 modules and APs).
Now to the actual statblock, in the original version she was a lamia matriarch sorcerer 2 and in the AE it's a lamia matriarch rogue 1, which led to the following:
1) the one in the original version to have one higher spell level and more known spells of lower spell level.
2) the one in the original version had more hitpoits and one more point of BAB.
3) her tactics in the original version was to attack with extreme prejudice (petrifying a PC standing near the edge as the opening move) where in the AE her tactics aren't that aggresive.
Also they didn't just a change a single spell, in the original she had 4 defensive spells (mirror image, invisibility, mage armor, shield) and 6 offensive spells (charm monster, divine favor, haste, scrorching ray, silence*, magic missile), where in the AE she has 2 defensive spells (mirror image, invisibility) and 3 offensive spells (charm monster, scorching ray, magic missile, ), in addition in the original she also had the fly spell which gave her a fly speed.
*she can pretty much drop a silence on the first round, since she is pretty buffed, to pretty much deny the party their spellcasters with very little loss for herself
So no they didn't just change a spell and a slightly mod in her tactics, also while i didn't run the AE version of Xanesha**, given all of the above i am pretty sure she would be something for the PCs to wipe the floor with.
Don't get me wrong, i am not saying that the original Xanesha was good design, the odds are pretty much stacked against the PCs, and yes she was a TPK waiting to happen (although my PCs being what they were they managed to defeat her and it led in a very memorable battle), but the one in the AE is a joke from what i can tell.
How is the final battle of RotRL easier in the AE than in the original? Sure the wealth of the PCs is higher and the nerf (from PF) to mindblank really hurt big K but why do you say that it's an easier battle? the level of the PCs are the same in both versions and in the AE big K also has company.
Was the spell selection in the AE that bad? (i didn't use the spell selection of the book because i had made my own).
**i run the first 3 books of RotRL using the original and the last 3 books using the anniversary
but then people get pissed off and whine "but my cliché half-orc paladin isn't high enough level". the complaints came in like that for CoT, S&S and were especially vocal about CC.
i get what you're saying, its just a very fine line they have to walk:)
Giving XP for roleplaying challenges is just as proper as for combat challenges.
Judging by what you said i am pretty sure that you played the anniversary edition, try it in the original version and you'll see why she is such a TPK.Funny, but our group curb-stomped her.
** spoiler omitted **You know it's funny - they didn't change her that much - a single different spell and a very slightly modified tactics block - and she went from a TPK to a average boss.
Just goes to show what very slight changes to the monsters and tactics as written (note her DC's and hit pionts and such didn't change - the thing that most people jack up when they try to make a boss harder), can be the difference between a really hard encounter and a not so much one.
Food for thought for those wishing to make the game more of a challenge - RotRL has two modified encounters (offhand) that make huge swings in how the fights are handled - this one at the end of book two - and the final fight stick out for me like a sore thumb - both are much easier in the newer version without having modified much in the way of the monsters - good reference for design in how you can make the stuff published harder (or easier) for your groups.
Are you kidding me? The changes (or nerfs) they made to the monster were major and were on top of making the AP easier, i will go in detail but i will do so in a spoiler tag.
** spoiler omitted **...
I'll use the tag as well then.
1) the one in the original version to have one higher spell level and more known spells of lower spell level.
Yeah but Dimension door wasn't what made this fight killer - the big change was removing fly from her list of spells. Haste is arguably the second most significant change, so I'll give you that.
2) the one in the original version had more hitpoits and one more point of BAB.
142 hps in the original - 133 in the new - that's not enough to make a single round of difference in a fight - but seriously if you think that 9 hps make the fight a TPK (instead of a meh) go for it. The BAB is one lower though - again I'm not sure that it swings the fight from TPK to 'meh'.
3) her tactics in the original version was to attack with extreme prejudice (petrifying a PC standing near the edge as the opening move) where in the AE her tactics aren't that aggresive.
old: During Combat Xanesha activates her Sihedron medallion’s false life
ability and casts divine favor (enhanced by Silent Spell if necessary)
on the first round of combat. If she’s stillinvisible, she casts a major image to make an illusory flying demon appear in a cloud of smoke that then begins to circle the top ofthe tower. On round three, hopefully as the PCs are distracted,she attempts to petrify a PC near the edge using her mask; this, of course, makes her visible. After this attack, she prefers to fight in melee. She may try to topple a petrified PC off the edge to smash into fragments on the ground 160 feet below. If reduced to less than 60 hit points, she flies out into the sky around the tower to continue the fight using her spells.
new: Xanesha uses major image to make an illusory flying demon appear in a cloud of smoke that then begins to circle the top of the tower. She then moves to make a sneak attack on the nearest PC. After this attack, she prefers to fight in melee, saving her medusa mask to temporarily petrify any particularly dangerous foe. If she is reduced to fewer than 60 hitpoints, she casts cure serious wounds on herself.
I marked the differences - old version she spends 2 rounds casting spells - new version she has pre-buffed and starts attacking on round 2.
Old version she petrifies with first attack and tries to smash the statue - new version she saves the mask for a 'dangerous foe' - this *could* be interpreted as GM's discretion with the removal of smashing the statue (I guess so as not to be so mean?)
Old version she flies out the window - and attacks with spells - new version she tries to heal (which any 'optimiser' knows is a waste of action).
Simply put - the only real modification with her spell selection and *tactics as written* between old and new is the fly spell, and divine favor - her tactics didn't use dimension door - they didn't use haste to buff herself (although I'm sure many GM's used this). You can change her 3rd level spell selection to fly, change level 1 spell sanctuary to divine favor and run her *exactly* as written in the old book. I'll note the saves on the mask and her most dangerous spell ability (charm monster) are the same in both books.
These changes weren't 'massively nerfing' the monster - it's a few small changes that make her go from TPK to 'average boss' - I see people arguing all the time on how they have to max out hps on boss encounters to have a challenge - 9 hps difference here doesn't seem like that makes the swing difference.
I see other posts arguing about giving a solo boss against a party more actions is the only way to balance things - yet here you are arguing that a *slightly* different spell loadout and 1 point of BAB is 'major and were on top of making the AP easier'
My point here is that the monster as written with very minor mods becomes a much bigger threat.
If you regularly go through the AP's you'll notice that the NPCs as written almost always have poor feat selections and odd choices - it's too common to not be intentional - poor spell selection is also very frequent. Many monsters could be juiced up just by getting rid of 'skill focus (doesn't make any difference)' with something a bit more appropriate - and getting rid of 'spell selection '3 spells that will never be cast' with more interesting ones. I'm very sure the designers that make these guys up know about treamonk's guide - yet you rarely see a caster with a spell loadout including black tentacles (until the PCs are so high that it doesn't matter) - or a large amount of battlefield control - you see almost every melee monster take vital strike (and upgrades) - despite the overwhelming evidence that it doesn't really help that much (although with monsters it's arguably better than PC's)..
I am making the point that this encounter shows clearly 'arms proliferation' in terms of HPs and damage aren't the *only* ways to make you monsters and encounters more of a challenge.
Is the OP still around?
Is the OP still around?
Does it matter?
|
for RotR:
The AC difference was pretty significant. The new version has an AC of 25. The original had it printed as 26 which was an error. She cast mage armor in the Before Combat section so should have had a +4 armor modifier instead of a +1 ... which would put her at a 29 AC. The original version also has the ability to cast shield which would have bumped it up further to an AC of 33 (which she would most certainly cast if her opponents actually hit her in combat), putting all but the most optimized 6th level fighter into the position of needing a nat 20 to hit ... even a 7th level fighter would be mostly hating this fight and their chances of landing a blow.
Additionally, her saves in AE are Fort +8, Ref +17, Will +10 compared to the original of Fort +11, Ref +15, Will +16 ... pretty significant change there as well.
Finally, the melee damage she dealt also changed significantly. AE is Impaler of Thorns +17/+12/+7 (1d8+8/19–20/×3) for an average of 13 points per hit (for a potential max of 39 points of damage per round excluding critical hits) compared to the original of impaler of thorns +20/+15/+10 (2d6+9/19–20/×3 plus 1 Wisdom drain) for an average of 16 points per hit PLUS 1 Wisdom DRAIN, putting her potential max excluding critical hits to 48 points of damage AND 3 WIS Drain). This is an EXTREME change considering in both versions after her first attack "she prefers to fight in melee" ... the original has her dealing a more devastating attack with a better chance of landing most if not all of the hits.
for RotR:
** spoiler omitted **
The wisdom drain still happens - the fact that it's not there is an error (just like the first book and the AC). In both versions the wisdom drain from getting hit by a lamia matriarch's weapon is limited to just once per round - so that's a wash - 39 damage vs 48 damage again - very small change - the bigger change with the weapon damage is the range for 2d6 vs 1d8 will not only have a higher max but a higher curve as well.
The wisdom drain is a wash if you played it correctly - and if you are pointing out errors from the first book then it's fair to say the wisdom drain isn't 'missing' as it's also an error.
|
|
Fair enough, but
Bottom line is these are not minor adjustments. A 4 point AC swing is a very significant change ... a potential 8 point change is EXTREMELY significant.
A difference in the attack modifier by 3 points is also a very significant change ... also, her melee touch attack in AE is +11 for 1d4 WIS Drain compared to +18 for 2d4 WIS Drain in the original ... great way to drop fighter-type and far more effective in the original.
And a net difference across the saves of 7 points is also a significant change.
To say modification along these lines is minor, especially when coupled with the reduction in available spell castings by 4 4th level, 2 3rd level, and 1 2nd level and the change in the spell lists to remove silence, haste, fly, mage armor, and shield, is a bit silly.
EDIT: as to the WIS drain being once per round, to quote form the original text:
Wisdom Drain (Su) A lamia matriarch drains 1d6 points of Wisdom each time she hits with her melee touch attack. If she strikes a foe with a melee weapon in addition to the weapon’s normal damage, she drains 1 point of Wisdom instead. Unlike with other kinds of ability drain attacks, a lamia matriarch does not heal damage when she uses her Wisdom drain.
As Book 2 of the RotR was the first introduction of the Lamia Matriarch for PFRPG, this text was the rule for those attacks. There is no "once per round" stipulation, but is instead EVERY time she hits.
ADDITIONAL EDIT: The PRD still lists this as EVERY hit, not once per round.
well all i know is the only thing that saved my pcs vs ae xanesha was that night i found and used my gm screen.
|
|
If you regularly go through the AP's you'll notice that the NPCs as written almost always have poor feat selections and odd choices - it's too common to not be intentional - poor spell selection is also very frequent. Many monsters could be juiced up just by getting rid of 'skill focus (doesn't make any difference)' with something a bit more appropriate - and getting rid of 'spell selection '3 spells that will never be cast' with more interesting ones.
+1
It's not just the classed NPCs that have rotten choices, monsters straight out of the bestiaries and monster manuals are often given CRs, that are way over their actual capabilities.
A recent example of this in my game (admittedly a ported 3.5 example, but it's carried over into PF monster design) was an advanced night twist (evil nightmare-inducing tree), which on paper was CR20, yet it was a landbound melee monster, with a short range mental attack. Its signature nightmare ability was potentially dangerous, but only if the PCs slept on its island, which they weren't likely to do, given the deadlines they were under, and they are specifically warned of the creature as part of the NPC exposition.
A CR 20 creature, that can be soloed by any party with flight and medium range attacks, with no danger to themselves. So, level 5 or higher?
I can give it all the extra feats, to bring it up to PF standard, but increases to its attack rolls, damage, CMB, CMD or saves, don't alter that basic weakness of being a landbound sack of hp.
Only if another movement-buffing NPC or monster comes along and persuades it to cooperate, will it affect the PCs in any way.
Giant CR 20+ grappling monsters, with CMB +billion, which fail to account for every PC past level 7 having reliable access to freedom of movement or silent dimension door?
Let's clear out the chaff monsters, and recalculate the CRs of what's left, based on what level PC could actually be affected (and no, save DCs that can be passed on 2+ don't count).
And then we can talk about making APs dangerous.
Fair enough, but
** spoiler omitted **
No it doesn't
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/additionalMonsters/lamiaMatriarch.html#_ lamia-matriarch
Wisdom Drain (Su) A lamia matriarch drains 1d4 points of Wisdom each time she hits with her melee touch attack. The first time each round that she strikes a foe with a melee weapon, she also drains 1 point of Wisdom. A DC 21 Will save negates the Wisdom drain. Unlike with other kinds of ability drain attacks, a lamia matriarch does not heal damage when she uses her Wisdom drain. The save DC is Charisma-based.
But you have a point on the original - I failed to notice they changed it. The original matriarch was a template - oddly the template calls for 2d4 wisdom drain in the statblock but then under special abilities it is listed as 1d6.
They changed it again with the 'pathfinder' rules to 1d4. Go figure.
You are arguing over using things that aren't in the monsters tactics - the point I'm making is for the people who say they don't do that. To reiterate the point they make it is (paraphrasing) "I pay money for the AP so I don't have to write the adventure - I run the monsters and tactics as written".
My point is *as written* it's not a huge change between them - I still say the bigger part of what makes this a TPK are the tactics - most parties at this point aren't going to be able to deal with a flying nuking sorcerer that can go invisible and backstab.
|
It's always interesting to see how differently games run for people.
My group for Rise of the Runelords is not very optimized: a cleric who basically only heals, an awkwardly multiclassed fighter/paladin, an archer ranger, and a rogue with very inconsistent damage. The ranger is arguably the most dangerous, but still nothing that would impress a moderately well-played arcane caster.
Even so, I tend to hit them pretty hard. It's strange for the party to hit one encounter at a time, often drawing in one or two additional encounters as the battle progresses.
We're halfway through the last book of Rise. There haven't been any permanent deaths, but three or four incidents would have been awkward to reverse without breath of life. The only person actually needing a raise so far was, ironically, the cleric.
The party composition could be a lot stronger, really just plowing through things. It could also be a lot weaker, probably wiping out in one of the earlier "boss fights."
Cheers!
Landon
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
You are arguing over using things that aren't in the monsters tactics - the point I'm making is for the people who say they don't do that. To reiterate the point they make it is (paraphrasing) "I pay money for the AP so I don't have to write the adventure - I run the monsters and tactics as written".
Ummm ... really then why have ANYTHING in the stat block other than what gets used in the tactics section. The fact there are additional abilities would make it quite clear they are to be used if needed. Considering in both versions the opponent is most likely more intelligent an wiser than her martial opponents, one would expect those to get used. Additionally, I really don't recall focusing on folks who run tactics as written without taking the actual encounter into account as being a criteria for this discussion ...
But even ignoring that, an an opponent with a 15% better chance in landing any given hit is nothing to ignore or brush off (or a 35% better chance to land a more powerful touch attack). Especially if that opponent is 20% harder to hit. And has a 15% better chance of making any give Fort save, a 10% less chance at Reflex and a 30% better chance at Will saves. Even run "as written" without using any abilities outside of what is used in the tactics section, Xanesha is a significantly more powerful opponent in the original version than the AE version.
My point is *as written* it's not a huge change between them - I still say the bigger part of what makes this a TPK are the tactics - most parties at this point aren't going to be able to deal with a flying nuking sorcerer that can go invisible and backstab.
And I differ. As written it is a significant difference. While the tactics makes a difference , the change in spells (which RESULTED IN a change in tactics), the change in Attack mods and Saves still make for a major change.
And to be clear, by acknowledging the change in tactics being significant, you also acknowledge the change of spells to be significant, as she cannot follow the original tactics without the spells which were removed.
@Ckoricx
Can you respond to your comment about big K in the anniversary edition?
@zylphryx
Don't forget that the PCs are 1 level higher when they face her in AE than in the original.
It's not just the classed NPCs that have rotten choices, monsters straight out of the bestiaries and monster manuals are often given CRs, that are way over their actual capabilities.A recent example of this in my game (admittedly a ported 3.5 example, but it's carried over into PF monster design) was an advanced night twist (evil nightmare-inducing tree), which on paper was CR20, yet it was a landbound melee monster, with a short range mental attack. Its signature nightmare ability was potentially dangerous, but only if the PCs slept on its island, which they weren't likely to do, given the deadlines they were under, and they are specifically warned of the creature as part of the NPC exposition.
A CR 20 creature, that can be soloed by any party with flight and medium range attacks, with no danger to themselves. So, level 5 or higher?
I can give it all the extra feats, to bring it up to PF standard, but increases to its attack rolls, damage, CMB, CMD or saves, don't alter that basic weakness of being a landbound sack of hp.
Only if another movement-buffing NPC or monster comes along and persuades it to cooperate, will it affect the PCs in any way.
I'm not really sure this is necessary. One of the types of encounters advocated back in 3.5's DMG was the encounter that's got a high challenge but gets significantly easier when you have the right key to defeating it. In this case, flight/medium range attacks which, let's face it, not every group is going to have readily available, particularly if caught unawares by the surprising close-up power of this creature. (It's amazing how many people will reinforce failure rather than retreat and revise tactics.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I don't see 'flight' as being some clever application of rare abilities, that deserves to make an encounter a triviality. It's one of the core, no-brainer effects, that everyone should aim for, as early in their career as possible. Like 'wearing your armor'. Or 'not blindfolding yourself'.
There's so many defences become available, with more universal application than necessary (seriously, does freedom of movement have to have such universal applicability? Does it really require auto-success to be worth casting?), earlier than most of the attack modes that would require it, that many of the creatures in the bestiaries may as well have abilities like
Pffft (Sp): Like that's going to do anything.
Meh (Su): Why bother?
Whatever (Ex): If you're reduced to trying this, you've already lost.
@Ckoricx
Can you respond to your comment about big K in the anniversary edition?@zylphryx
Don't forget that the PCs are 1 level higher when they face her in AE than in the original.
Regarding big K....
In the original he's flying above the platform when the party enters - in the AV he's sitting on his throne - while flying by itself isn't a make or break issue for PC's at this point of the game (or it shouldn't be anyway) - it does prevent a quickened DD with your melee comrades followed by full attacks should they happen to win the initiative - Big K is not really mean to stand toe to toe with a melee so a party that gets the drop on him in the AV pretty much instantly wins - for an example check the Runelords subforum with nobodyshome's thread on the final fight. Again for the entire course of the fight - it shouldn't result in a instant win for Big K - regardless it *should* give him the opportunity to last more than a round if the party rolls well. Given his abilities two-three rounds more of him living will at least make the party feel like the were in mortal danger - depending on party makeup and defensive buffs it could make a big difference.
** spoiler omitted **...
** spoiler omitted **
Heheh non spoiler stuff finally really - I agree with you as to the tactics - however when reading about where people get frustrated because the boss went down with a whimper - overwhelmingly the posts go 'running the monster as written they died in the (1st, 2nd - pick one) round - I get the feeling that many of the monsters (especially if they have multi round tactics blocks) get run as written often. That's just how it seems from reading through the threads - I like to read through these because it helps me to figure out how I can avoid 'dumb boss' syndrome.
I try to play my encounters so that monsters with intelligence lower than 10 are a bit random in targeting - and or focused as they lack the wits to think about 'biggest threat' - those with low wisdom I try to play up making tactical mistakes. That being said the rest of it I try to base on my group - tactics to me are just a starting point to think about how the big bad is going to react, not a script.
Regarding the differences in the stat block - we can disagree, the world won't end - I just don't think those differences are what make or break the TPK she was. If the stat changes make or break the encounter James Jacobs advice to apply the simple (nonrebuild) advanced template to monsters for advanced groups should be more than fine - as is the most vocal state that it's worthless because higher AC HPs DCs and saves just aren't enough. For the sake of argument however - ignoring that point - would you agree that looking at pre-AV and post-AV snake woman is a great place for any GM that feels the AP's aren't challenging to look at in terms of how just a few changes to a single encounter, changes the difficulty level drastically?
That was my underlying point. It's a great way to look at how to make things less like a meatgrinder as well (as in how to tone down things when a party is getting stomped).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heheh non spoiler stuff finally really - I agree with you as to the tactics - however when reading about where people get frustrated because the boss went down with a whimper - overwhelmingly the posts go 'running the monster as written they died in the (1st, 2nd - pick one) round - I get the feeling that many of the monsters (especially if they have multi round tactics blocks) get run as written often. That's just how it seems from reading through the threads - I like to read through these because it helps me to figure out how I can avoid 'dumb boss' syndrome.
Yeah, I agree. I've run RotR twice and both groups had multiple PC deaths. Whenever I hear that it was a cakewalk, my first thought is GM Fiat, but running tactics solely as written with no variance or consideration of what the NPCs are actually experiencing could definitely play a role as well.
I try to play my encounters so that monsters with intelligence lower than 10 are a bit random in targeting - and or focused as they lack the wits to think about 'biggest threat' - those with low wisdom I try to play up making tactical mistakes. That being said the rest of it I try to base on my group - tactics to me are just a starting point to think about how the big bad is going to react, not a script.
I tend to follow a similar route when GMing. NPCs get played to their Int and Wis and react to what happens around them. The tactics section is always a good start point and a glimpse into an NPC's intended mindset, but if what they are experiencing goes counter to the tactics section (i.e. - "hmmm that fireball did not seem to do anything to them. The script says I should hit them with scorching ray next ..."), the tactics section goes out the window and they start utilizing other abilities/spells/etc.
For the sake of argument however - ignoring that point - would you agree that looking at pre-AV and post-AV snake woman is a great place for any GM that feels the AP's aren't challenging to look at in terms of how just a few changes to a single encounter, changes the difficulty level drastically?
That was my underlying point. It's a great way to look at how to make things less like a meatgrinder as well (as in how to tone down things when party is getting stomped).
Honestly, yeah, with the caveat that you have to use the tactics section of any encounter as a guide, not some unbreakable rule that must be followed to the letter regardless of the situation. Villains that continue to follow a course of action that obviously lead to their doom without using other potential tactics at their disposal is not a serious villain.
And yes, looking at her build before and then after could work as a means to modify other encounters to make them less meatgrindery.
Oh, and regarding Big K
Yep, had to throw in a spoiler. ;)
@Ckoricx
Can you respond to your comment about big K in the anniversary edition?@zylphryx
Don't forget that the PCs are 1 level higher when they face her in AE than in the original.Regarding big K....
** spoiler omitted **
Oh yeah that.
My PCs were using that tactic (mostly with bard's escape) so i had Karzoug place a dimensional lock on the area that the PCs arrive.