|
There's a number of things at play here.
#1 How many characters are in your party? Paizo APs are built for four-man parties. If you're playing with more than that there's going to be more buffs going around, more resources to spare, etc.
#2 What method are you using for stat generation? If you're rolling, stop. If you're using point buy, drop it to 15. Paizo APs are built assuming 15 point buy characters.
#3 How optimized are your characters? How optimized are their tactics? Paizo APs are built assuming a moderate level of optimization. If your players are building character at peak or near peak effectiveness, they're going to crush most encounters. You need to either work with them to tone their character down, do the work to buff/rework most of the encounters, or accept that they're going to breeze through the AP.
A CR 11 monster (easy) should have about AC 25 at +19 to hit with its primary attack.
If the module is calling for CR 11-ish monsters at this point and they're not in that general ballpark, I'm guessing they have other abilities or tactics that might not be obvious. For instance, a CR 11 wizard will have much worse AC and to-hit than a CR 11 dragon because... spells.
I can't offer more advice because I'm a player in (book 1) of MM. I can tell you we've had two effective TPKs so far because of encounter design. Well, the second one also was because a cleric of Gorum (mine) had a win-or-die ability ready, wouldn't retreat, and when I rolled my touch attack, I got a natural 1, used my Paizo shirt for a re-roll and got a 2. Seriously? Anyway. First TPK was earlier, monster had a save-or-die, and all five PCs managed to fail simultaneously. CR 3? Yeah, no.
|
|
Unfortunately I can't offer much targeted advice either on difficulty for the AP. When I played through it we had a bleeding edge optimized magus and archer ranger so most encounters were over by turn two if not turn one. I honestly don't know what most of the monsters in the AP were even capable of.
If any of these things are intelligent (or commanded by intelligent creatures), then may mix things up and try maneuvers with the mooks.
I mean... if the party is tearing through them anyway, then might as well try to see if you can mess things up before they are destroyed. Grappling casters to mess them up for even one round, disarming the martial so he has to waste time picking it back up, repositioning /bullrushing so that put someone in 5' step range of two different enemies (to give them full attacks).
A GM's power often ends up being the fact that they have a lot of disposable pieces on the field. Unlike PCs, who lose their built up character if they eat too many AoOs, you will get another half dozen mooks in the next fight. So why not? And since this seems like an undead campaign, I doubt necromancers take a very different perspective with the mook skeletons.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually they've walked back on the 15 point buy. They built them for 20.
I'm pretty sure they didn't, since the last time I saw them say it was 15 was pretty recent. Citation, please?
You might be confusing APs with PFS. PFS is built on the assumption of 20 point-buy. APs (and other modules) on the assumption of 15.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With APs, I find it becomes necessary to tailor the difficulty of certain, but not all, encounters to the party's power level.
For me, this usually means increasing the number of monsters, or adding minions to a boss, or adding a couple of character levels. Never, ever scale difficulty by adding gear. The additional WBL will just make the party more overpowered.
Remember your terrain and circumstantial modifiers. Even a simple fight can become difficult in environments favorable to opponents.
It also depends on how much prep time the PCs have before a fight. A few rounds to cast buffs before going into a fight vs. a random encounter or unprepared PCs can mean a +/-5 on attack rolls or saves.
Also, remember a CR 11 monster is not supposed to be hard. The PCs are supposed to kill a CR 11 monster (at APL 11) with only a moderate use of resources or less. A CR 11 monster is supposed to be easy. Now throw a CR 15 monster and that is supposed to be a hard fight, but a CR 15 monster is supposed to have +5 higher to hit and 5 higher AC and deal 20 more damage a round.
Are you avoiding the 15 minute work day? Do you players have a chance to rest and rejuvenate between fights? It's easy to win every encounter when I can blow every limited use ability without needing to reserve some of the big guns for the next room. That CR 13 "boss" doesn't look so bad, but it gets a lot harder if you had to clear 10 CR 11 rooms first, having used your spells and abilities just to get to the "boss".
Actually they've walked back on the 15 point buy. They built them for 20.I'm pretty sure they didn't, since the last time I saw them say it was 15 was pretty recent. Citation, please?
You might be confusing APs with PFS. PFS is built on the assumption of 20 point-buy. APs (and other modules) on the assumption of 15.
It's 20 PT according James Jacobs for NPC in Adventure paths. Maybe that's what people remember incorrectly? I think 15 pt buy is the default though James said he prefers 20 pt buy.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nrby?Do-adventure-paths-assume-20-point-buy#1
What I see in this party is some really good synergies.
I've seen Bards and Paladins do really well together. And an Inquisitor who has really good self buffs that stack with smite and inspire courage. Haven't seen a war priest or investigator in play but they look to have some good self buffs too. This party looks very offense heavy.
Try
1. Max HP on monsters
2. Adding extra monsters, no single monster encounters unless high above APL, or party is significantly out of resources
3. Ditching XP and leveling them as you feel appropriate
4. Challenging environment to encounters
These are just a few general ways to address this issue
|
Try
1. Max HP on monsters
2. Adding extra monsters, no single monster encounters unless high above APL, or party is significantly out of resources
3. Ditching XP and leveling them as you feel appropriate
4. Challenging environment to encountersThese are just a few general ways to address this issue
While I agree that 2-4 can be useful, #1 is a bad idea. It only widens caster/martial issues, because it's martials who have to chew through HP, while casters generally use save vs suck/death which ignore HP.
If you really want to tweak the current monsters, you're better off adding the advanced template which also improves their saves by 2 each.
Try
1. Max HP on monsters
2. Adding extra monsters, no single monster encounters unless high above APL, or party is significantly out of resources
3. Ditching XP and leveling them as you feel appropriate
4. Challenging environment to encountersThese are just a few general ways to address this issue
While I agree that 2-4 can be useful, #1 is a bad idea. It only widens caster/martial issues, because it's martials who have to chew through HP, while casters generally use save vs suck/death which ignore HP.
If you really want to tweak the current monsters, you're better off adding the advanced template which also improves their saves by 2 each.
In all the game I play save vs suck/death rarely get used at higher levels. First lower level spells the save DC is too low so those don't get used. The higher level spells are much more limited resource. You might have 1 save or suck spell that works maybe 1 in 3 castings of it. I find higher level is better for battle field control, buff/debuff, utilities, and direct damage.
Max hit points on monster isn't a problem. It just burns through caster resource faster. More battle field control and between combat healing.
@ Voska66 - I think you're misunderstanding Mr. Jacobs' post.
Mr. Jacobs is explaining that making the PCs at 20 pt stacks the deck in their favor, and in his own campaigns he prefers the PCs being a little stronger.
Here's Mr. Jacobs affirms that APs are designed around 15 point buy PC.
(As already mentioned, Pathfinder Society scenarios assume 20 pt buy.)
Anyways, just keep in mind that encounters by default are stacked in the PCs' favor - the party has to be fighting an ECL+4 encounter just to be facing an even match.
I'm fond doing max HP on "important" monsters, though depending on the party and campaign I may go well beyond that.
Running an AP as-is for a 20 pt buy party generally makes for an "easy mode" game. Which is fine if that's what your group is after.
Well, according to Paizo, there is no martial/caster disparity. And since a wizard is totally functioning but a bit weaker at 10 point buy, that must be true for every character and this is totally a good way to make the game harder! Remember, everything with extra attacks (like flurry of blows, two-weapon fighting or whirlwind attack) is totally overpowered and therefor rightfully weakened by a 10 point buy!
Seriously though, it kinda surprises me that the even after five years of Pathfinder, the creative director apperently still either doesn't know what MADness is or doesn't realize it's effect on game balance.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, according to Paizo, there is no martial/caster disparity. And since a wizard is totally functioning but a bit weaker at 10 point buy, that must be true for every character and this is totally a good way to make the game harder! Remember, everything with extra attacks (like flurry of blows, two-weapon fighting or whirlwind attack) is totally overpowered and therefor rightfully weakened by a 10 point buy!
Seriously though, it kinda surprises me that the even after five years of Pathfinder, the creative director apperently still either doesn't know what MADness is or doesn't realize it's effect on game balance.
That James Jacobs quote you're citing is from over 3 years ago, he's not the entirety of Paizo, and it was about the Martial/Caster disparity, not MAD vs. SAD characters.
The two issues are related, but not actually the same thing at all.
Just to be clear here.
Try
1. Max HP on monsters
2. Adding extra monsters, no single monster encounters unless high above APL, or party is significantly out of resources
3. Ditching XP and leveling them as you feel appropriate
4. Challenging environment to encountersThese are just a few general ways to address this issue
While I agree that 2-4 can be useful, #1 is a bad idea. It only widens caster/martial issues, because it's martials who have to chew through HP, while casters generally use save vs suck/death which ignore HP.
If you really want to tweak the current monsters, you're better off adding the advanced template which also improves their saves by 2 each.
They were just suggestions based on a party that only the OP knows fully about.
Max Hp on the monsters can work perfectly well, depending on the party, and in this case the party is having no trouble chewing through HP in 2 rounds so it would seem to be a viable option. Is it a good idea in all cases? You are right, probably not.
I am a new PF Dungeon Master, and I am running Mummy's Mask adventure path. We are currently in the 4th module, and the characters are on the 11th level. The party consists of a paladin, warpriest, inquisitor, bard/rogue and an investigator. My problem is that the encounters in the adventure can't seem to challenge the characters. Monsters have significant trouble hitting and die in a round or two. Even the so-called boss encounters are easy. This has been an issue from about the 3th adventure onwards. Is this particular adventure path easy, or is this a systemic problem in PF?
Usually the monsters have an AC of about 22 at this point, and sometimes the characters can hit by rolling a 2+. The monsters' attack bonus is usually between +10-+15 but the characters' AC is about 25-35 so hitting is hard for the monsters.
There is a section of the forums which speak specifically about each individual Adventure Path and that might have specific items.
What I do:
1) I create a "standard mook" for each area which gets added into the fights. Basically, these are significantly lower-powered enemies that you can toss a good handful into fights. They'll act as "crowd control" and can be boosted quite well with an enemy cleric or bard buffing them but won't significantly increase the lethality of the encounter.
2) Any NPCs with class levels generally get a complete rebuild. The NPCs in the APs tend to be incredibly poorly designed. I tend to rebuild them to keep the character's flavor but make them a more optimized character.
3) Have the NPCs use smarter tactics - moving around, using crowd control spells, take advantage of cover, engage in hit-and-run, coordinate buffing and debuffing, you know - what the PCs do.
4) Have more encounters per day.
Looking for the citation. I know it was Mark Seifer who stated it.Actually they've walked back on the 15 point buy. They built them for 20.I'm pretty sure they didn't, since the last time I saw them say it was 15 was pretty recent. Citation, please?
You might be confusing APs with PFS. PFS is built on the assumption of 20 point-buy. APs (and other modules) on the assumption of 15.
I never said that they build APs for 20 PB (I'm not in the loop for APs at all). You may be remembering that I said 25 PB 3.0/3.5 which became 15 PB PFRPG seems to have been the result of a math error all the way back in 3.0's infancy while calculating the average PB from rolling 4d6 and dropping the lowest, since the average is actually ~30 PB 3.0/3.5 or 20 PB PFRPG.
|
|
I never said that they build APs for 20 PB (I'm not in the loop for APs at all). You may be remembering that I said 25 PB 3.0/3.5 which became 15 PB PFRPG seems to have been the result of a math error all the way back in 3.0's infancy while calculating the average PB from rolling 4d6 and dropping the lowest, since the average is actually ~30 PB 3.0/3.5 or 20 PB PFRPG.Looking for the citation. I know it was Mark Seifer who stated it.Actually they've walked back on the 15 point buy. They built them for 20.I'm pretty sure they didn't, since the last time I saw them say it was 15 was pretty recent. Citation, please?
You might be confusing APs with PFS. PFS is built on the assumption of 20 point-buy. APs (and other modules) on the assumption of 15.
True - but (to play devil's advocate) even with that being the case, with 4d6 drop the lowest, unlike PB, you're not getting the stats exactly where you want, and you're likely to get some mostly wasted points with odd numbers.
So - arguably 15 PB is equivalent from a power level perspective even if lower average stats.