A sober campaign journal of Doomsday Dawn: Doom, gloom, and TPKs

[Laik]

On the DC 20 open lock issue.

The group we had immediately abandoned all th lockpicking ideas when faced with "DC 20, 3 attempts, chance of breaking tools". However, Breaking Open objects is an Athletics check with default DC = unlock DC+5 for doors. So DC 25, manageable by a 18 STR trained character on natural 20; if someone else with good Athletics uses Aid actions repeatedly, that reduces to 18 most likely. Since there is no risk of breaking tools, just a lot of noise, the charatcers can just "take 20" to break the door open, with no risks.

The players eventually did exactly that. Looks like lockpicking should better be reserved for strictly-stealth operations.

[Noodlemancer]

As the Rogue in the first of the two parties ran by Colette, it felt frustrating that the only sane way to open the door was to break it down, rather than to pick the lock, despite being a Rogue, being trained in Thievery, and having a thieves tools kit.

[DerNils]

The major take away from this I have is to advise all my rogues to invest in backup lockpicks. Even though it still sounds like an awfully boring piece of gameplay.

[Colette Brunel]

Apparently, as janky as exploration and social tactics are (I have a thread up on them here), I was still neglecting to enforce an even jankier facet to them:

Quote:

Defending

You move at half your travel Speed with your weapon out and shield raised. If combat breaks out, you gain the benefits of Raising a Shield before your first turn begins.

By RAW, you cannot be Investigating, Searching, or Sneaking with your weapon out. You must be Defending instead. People have a hard time thinking or seeing when they have a sword in their hand, apparently.

Furthermore, it seems like I was also handling initiative incorrectly, because as per the book:

Quote:

Merisiel and Kyra have been captured and are negotiating with the kobold king. Things aren’t going well, so Merisiel decides she’ll launch a surprise attack against the king. As soon as she says this is her plan, you call for initiative.

For example, if in the prelude to the attack, Merisiel’s player had said, “I’m going to dangle down off the chandelier to get the drop on them,” you could let her use Acrobatics for her initiative roll.

I should have been allowing players to do things like inexplicably climb a chandelier in the middle of a conversation in order to use Acrobatics for initiative.

The exploration and social tactics are clunky, and how they flow into initiative is even more baffling.

[shroudb]

Colette Brunel wrote:

Apparently, as janky as exploration and social tactics are (I have a thread up on them here), I was still neglecting to enforce an even jankier facet to them:

Quote:

Defending

You move at half your travel Speed with your weapon out and shield raised. If combat breaks out, you gain the benefits of Raising a Shield before your first turn begins.

By RAW, you cannot be Investigating, Searching, or Sneaking with your weapon out. You must be Defending instead. People have a hard time thinking or seeing when they have a sword in their hand, apparently.

Furthermore, it seems like I was also handling initiative incorrectly, because as per the book:

Quote:

Merisiel and Kyra have been captured and are negotiating with the kobold king. Things aren’t going well, so Merisiel decides she’ll launch a surprise attack against the king. As soon as she says this is her plan, you call for initiative.

For example, if in the prelude to the attack, Merisiel’s player had said, “I’m going to dangle down off the chandelier to get the drop on them,” you could let her use Acrobatics for her initiative roll.

I should have been allowing players to do things like inexplicably climb a chandelier in the middle of a conversation in order to use Acrobatics for initiative.

The exploration and social tactics are clunky, and how they flow into initiative is even more baffling.

having your weapon out is not the defending tactic.

the defending tactic is literally having your shield raised infront of you and slowly walking foward, like a phalanx formation kinda, sorta.

hence why you get action and the reaction without spending actions to raise the shield or even having to go first in the initiative.

[DerNils]

Entirely depends on your interpretation. Going with how restrictive the other tactics are, I would not be surprised if defending is the only background that allows you to be battle ready.
It's as logical as saying that it's impossible to look for traps while sneaking.

[shroudb]

DerNils wrote:

Entirely depends on your interpretation. Going with how restrictive the other tactics are, I would not be surprised if defending is the only background that allows you to be battle ready.

It's as logical as saying that it's impossible to look for traps while sneaking.

initially, I too was pissed about that.

then I read the exploration part better and concluded that nothing prevents you from sneaking and searching simultaneously.

the guidelines say that the examples below are the most common tactics, but you describe what you're doing and the DM creates a tactic for you using them as a guideline:

"I'm searching for traps while staying as hidden as I can"
*GM looks the common tactics*
"Ok, neither sneaking or searching for traps is fatiguing, so doing both isn't either. But since each halves your speed, then you move at one quarter of speed"

*But then, what about Legendary Sneak?* (<- this was the reason I was pissed, it didn't feel legendary, until I realized what you can actually do)
akin to pickpocketing fullplates off the guards with legendary thievery:
Sneak while casting spells and still maintain your sneak bonus despite spells normally revealing you
like above with detect magic
running sneak (hustling)
sneak while swimming (if the water is blurry/opaque enough to provide concealment)
etc

[Jurassic Pratt]

Laik wrote:

However, Breaking Open objects is an Athletics check with default DC = unlock DC+5 for doors.

Where is the rule saying this is the DC located? I haven't managed to find it anywhere and it seems absolutely nonsensical that breaking down a door is harder because the lock is harder to pick.

A wooden door is still a wooden door regardless of what type of lock is on it.

[Colette Brunel]

shroudb wrote:

then I read the exploration part better and concluded that nothing prevents you from sneaking and searching simultaneously.

If characters can mix in tactics as they please, then there is no point in having the tactics in the first place, and every PC should rightfully be able to make any skill checks they could logically make in the situation.

[Forben Stralken]

As i see it, the tactics are only here to give you a basic point of view on how to handle it exploration mode, and more precisely how to handle the transition between exploration and encounter mode.

As the book states, these are merely exmeples to help you decide as a GM what's the appropriate roll the PCs have to make, and what kind of activity is fatiguing.

Nowhere does it states that these are the only ones your PC can use, so yes, your PC should be able to make any check given the situation seems logical to you, the GM.

[shroudb]

Colette Brunel wrote:

shroudb wrote:

then I read the exploration part better and concluded that nothing prevents you from sneaking and searching simultaneously.

If characters can mix in tactics as they please, then there is no point in having the tactics in the first place, and every PC should rightfully be able to make any skill checks they could logically make in the situation.

The tactics are explicitly for the GM, not the player.

The player does exactly what he did in PF1, describes what he's doing, how he's exploring.

The tactics are an easy way for the GM to translate that to mechanics.

So when your players say "We rush away from the orcs that are chasing us, Marc will try to mask our footprints, John will try to keep up while hiding next to us, and Jason will be the vanguard ready to intercept" you can on the spot calculate fatigue, rolls, and starting bonuses for upcoming battles.

You take a look at the examples and go "You can hustle for 10mins, but because X is moving in half speed, Y, is doing this, and Z is doing that, your total" running" speed is that."

They are a reference table for GMs, something that we keep asking to get more of.

. To put it more simply:
Yes the players DO roll whatever is reasonable. Tactics just give you guidelines for speed, bonuses, fatigue, etc, that goes along said rolls.

[DerNils]

I like that interpretation - I just fail to see, when it is interesting to use this chapter then? How often is travel time relevant? And if it would be, is anyone really going to meticulously calculate how many feet they go from room to room? Otherwise, players will take approximately two encounters until they say "I will go forward defending, looking for traps, investigating for strange signs - sneakily. So that is 1/16th of my speed - so what?"
Which, by the way, is the standard in any group I ever played with.
For overland travel these strategies are also fairly irrelevant. Either you are following someone, in which case your tracker will dictate your speed, or you don't. There are no rules for chases or catching up to someone.
Even the example adventure that gives those rules later says ( ignore the results, the enemy arrives when it is dramatically appropriate.)

[shroudb]

DerNils wrote:

I like that interpretation - I just fail to see, when it is interesting to use this chapter then? How often is travel time relevant? And if it would be, is anyone really going to meticulously calculate how many feet they go from room to room? Otherwise, players will take approximately two encounters until they say "I will go forward defending, looking for traps, investigating for strange signs - sneakily. So that is 1/16th of my speed - so what?"

Which, by the way, is the standard in any group I ever played with.
For overland travel these strategies are also fairly irrelevant. Either you are following someone, in which case your tracker will dictate your speed, or you don't. There are no rules for chases or catching up to someone.
Even the example adventure that gives those rules later says ( ignore the results, the enemy arrives when it is dramatically appropriate.)

For our play group exploration mode comes up fairly often.

Obviously, we don't use it to cross 2 rooms or a corridor, but exploring a cave, going from city to city, searching for the goblin camp in a forest, going from the quest giver to the quest location, etc.

Basically, as a rule of thumb, I personally use: more than 10 minutes of travel, less than 1 day of travel (unless in hostile territory, then I use it for stuff that can span more than a day)

[vestris]

Colette Brunel wrote:

Rameth wrote:

I would have to say that according to the rules if there is ANY light then that means the rest of the area is filled with dim-light

Is this an actual rule? Did both of the groups and I all miss it? This is a sincere question.

There is no rule in the book that states that, so you played that correctly to the book. Some people asked Jason on Twitch yesterday. Give that as feedback if you want it to be reinstated.

Colette Brunel wrote:

Rameth wrote:

Martial abilities

There simply was not a point to trying those fancy Athletics uses when directly attacking was the more straightforward method of solving the problem.

More straight forward but also less effective.

However for fighting classes I would really recommend looking at more then raw damage output helping the party to hit can really pay off, flat-footing (combat grab, which holds until the end of your next turn if the opponent does not move away -> AoO) opponents especially with a rogue is very good.

Most of the first level feats have corresponding weapons that work exceptionally well with them. I am actually really excited about the different ways a level 1 fighter can play out. Greatsword with powerattack for max burst alright, how about a forceful or backswing weapon with furious focus to utilize your misses, or the shieldblock reaction with a heavy steel shield so you can move twice and attack and still block if attacked if not AoO the moving opponent. Like there are so many things you can do.

Fighters are just so much more than move and swing max number of times.

Colete Brunel wrote:

Rameth wrote:

Having Drakus have his sword in hand was a terrible way to GM that.

The adventure prescribes, "Drakus reverts to his true form at the start of the battle and fights to the death." Given that he starts away from the PCs, the only legal way for him to revert to his true form and attack is for him to already have his sword in hand (action sequence: revert, move, attack), so that is how I ran Drakus.

Sure but I assume holding a longsword while eating is quite uncomfortable.

[OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0]

More great feedback Colette!

I will advise my parties to pack grappling chandeliers so as to Acrobaticise initiative.

I'm sincerely hoping that the devs are reading these playtests, correlating them with in-house playtests and honestly admitting (even if only to themselves) "hey, that seems to be a universal problem people are experiencing" (even if it isn't how the rules was intended OR written) and the opposite "yay - that is totally working for folks and we are happy".

Instead of (at least as far as we might know it)...nothing.

[OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0]

[EDIT]So, feedback IS creating change.

As discussed in THIS thread regarding a Twitch stream, there will be an PDF released on Monday with a bunch of crucial "updates" (clarifications snd changes).
[/EDIT]

[Colette Brunel]

I would like to post a mini-update before my two groups move on to Doomsday Dawn: Part #2: In Pale Mountain's Shadow. The second group has lost two players to shattered morale. I was able to pick up one replacement player, but I am still looking for another one (send a Discord friend request to Earth Seraph Edna#1648 if you are willing to play this upcoming Tuesday and the Tuesday after that, EDT, in a text-based game).

Here are some problems identified between the two groups during the leadup to the new adventure.

New Identified Problem #1: Unintuitive Action vs. Activity Rules, and Readying Spells: The rules for actions vs. activities in page 296 were unclear to my players and me. It seems that anything that costs a single action is an "action" (this really needs distinct and discrete wording to avoid confusion!), whereas anything that costs two or more actions is an "activity," unless it is a spell, which is always an "activity," because individual casting actions are the "actions." This would imply that a High Jump or a Long Jump is an "activity," whereas a Combat Grab is an "action." This also means that it is impossible to Ready a spell, because Ready works on "actions" and not "activities."

We are unsure if this is correct, because these rules are poorly-worded and unintuitive. This was relevant to us, because at a few points in The Lost Star, a player wanted to ready a spell, only to discover such a thing to be impossible.

New Identified Problem #2: Apathy Towards The Ranger: Thus far, nobody in either group has ever expressed interest in a ranger, or even considered a ranger. I told the players that half of In Pale Mountain's Shadow was wilderness survival, and still, nobody has even mentioned a ranger. People have stepped up to play alchemists, the weakest class in the game, simply out of interest in the overall alchemical concept, but the ranger is appealing to nobody, between Hunt Target's lack of appeal and the overall class concept being shoddy.

"New" Identified Problem #3: Bards Look Very Marginal Compared to Other Casters: One player in each group has stepped up to play a bard, and as a class, it is not looking appealing so far. One less spell slot per spell level than a sorcerer actually hurts, and inspire courage is failing to impress, since it is just a +1 conditional bonus to attack rolls, damage rolls, and saves against fear. Inspire courage takes an action to start up, and it takes Spell Points and successful Performance rolls on lingering composition to maintain. It is not exactly, well, inspiring.

New Identified Problem #4: Druids and Breastplates: One player brought up to me that the darkwood entry in page 355 (a terribly overpriced special material, like all the others) mentions "normal wood" armor, and wanted their druid to wear a wooden breastplate with the same AC. I found this rules implication quite unusual, and I think that it should be clarified, for the druid's sake. I ruled for now that wooden breastplates do not exist, which I am still unsure of as a ruling.

"New" Identified Problem #5: Fleet as a Skill Feat: Since Fleet is tagged as a skill feat in its actual entry, a plurality of players are taking it or at least considering it. Can anyone blame them, seeing how skill feats are terribly unremarkable for the most part?

"New" Identified Problem #6: Aiming for Medium Armor: Unsurprisingly, by 4th level, people are trying to aim for medium armor (i.e. hide armor or a breastplate) if their characters would otherwise be unarmored or lightly-armored. Can anyone blame them, given how trivial it is to acquire medium armor proficiency, and how much of an improvement it is over mage armor, bracers of armor, or light armor?

"New" Identified Problem #7: Riding Animals without the Ride Feat: To ride an animal without the Ride feat, a character needs to use Handle an Animal and make a success against... a completely unlisted DC. This means that GMs have to improvise a DC on the spot for something potentially important. Even then, on a success, they must then Command an Animal. This integrates very poorly with the already-clunky rules for exploration tactics, which have no guidelines whatsoever on how to handle a character fumbling around with Handle an Animal and Command an Animal to make a mount go forward in an overland journey. For now, since I cannot figure out how to even remotely handle this in a RAW fashion, I have had to ban mounts from characters without the Ride feat, which is an extreme solution, but at least it does not run head-first into a gaping rules hole.

New Identified Problem #8: Crafting, Medicine, and Survival as Recall Knowledge: There may be times wherein characters want to use Crafting, Medicine, and Survival as Recall Knowledge skills. Indeed, The Lost Star contains one such point with Medicine, and In Pale Mountain's Shadow does the same with Survival. However, there is currently no mechanic in the skills section for doing so, nor is there such a mechanic in the already-clunky exploration tactics rules. In other words, I have to fudge and creatively interpret the RAW to handle something that should be simple. This has already come up in both groups' playthroughs of The Lost Star, and it has a 100% chance of coming up in In Pale Mountain's Shadow as well.

New Identified Problem #9: Nobody Likes Secret Rolls: I have lamented secret rolls previously. During the leadup to the second adventure, I more openly confronted my groups with secret rolls. When I asked if I should use the guideline in page 293 to turn all secret rolls into non-secret rolls, those players who responded unanimously preferred non-secret rolls. I am thankful, because secret rolls are especially burdensome on the GM, and they do not feel very good for the players. Secret rolls are especially clunky when it comes to rerolls such as Lucky Halfling, which are essentially unusable on secret rolls.

New Identified Problem #10: PCs Being Coerced: It is unclear and it really should be clarified, but PCs are immune to the Diplomacy skill, since the conditions glossary in pages 320 to 324 stipulates that PCs are never considered hostile, unfriendly, friendly, or helpful. However, as per the Haughty Obstinancy human ancestry feat on page 37, PCs can be Coerced via the Intimidation skill. I can buy that player characters can be Demoralized using the Intimidation skill, but it is really rather unappealing for PCs to be vulnerable to basic bullying attempts over the course of a minute. It is especially bad when PCs get forced into a dying state, captured, and then subsequently bullied via Coerce.

This is poor for player agency, and it feels strange for PCs to be immune to diplomatic efforts, yet susceptible to good old-fashioned bullying. I will be running Doomsday Dawn: Part #2: In Pale Mountain's Shadow soon, and coincidentally, the two encounters that are most likely to TPK the party just so happen to contain enemies with high Intimidation. I expect that in the event of a party defeat, the enemies will use Intimidation to bully the characters with Coerce, because it is only sensible for the enemies to do so, and the PCs will subsequently lose a good chunk of player agency.

That should be all for this mini-update. After I run the first session of In Pale Mountain's Shadow, I will simply give a link to the full update.

[shroudb]

Colette Brunel wrote:

I would like to post a mini-update before my two groups move on to Doomsday Dawn: Part #2: In Pale Mountain's Shadow. The second group has lost two players to shattered morale. I was able to pick up one replacement player, but I am still looking for another one (send a Discord friend request to Earth Seraph Edna#1648 if you are willing to play this upcoming Tuesday and the Tuesday after that, EDT, in a text-based game).

Here are some problems identified between the two groups during the leadup to the new adventure.

New Identified Problem #1: Unintuitive Action vs. Activity Rules, and Readying Spells: The rules for actions vs. activities in page 296 were unclear to my players and me. It seems that anything that costs a single action is an "action" (this really needs distinct and discrete wording to avoid confusion!), whereas anything that costs two or more actions is an "activity," unless it is a spell, which is always an "activity," because individual casting actions are the "actions." This would imply that a High Jump or a Long Jump is an "activity," whereas a Combat Grab is an "action." This also means that it is impossible to Ready a spell, because Ready works on "actions" and not "activities."

We are unsure if this is correct, because these rules are poorly-worded and unintuitive. This was relevant to us, because at a few points in The Lost Star, a player wanted to ready a spell, only to discover such a thing to be impossible.

New Identified Problem #2: Apathy Towards The Ranger: Thus far, nobody in either group has ever expressed interest in a ranger, or even considered a ranger. I told the players that half of In Pale Mountain's Shadow was wilderness survival, and still, nobody has even mentioned a ranger. People have stepped up to play alchemists, the weakest class in the game, simply out of interest in the overall alchemical concept, but the ranger is appealing to nobody, between Hunt Target's lack of appeal and the overall class concept being...

1: you can ready anyting that takes only one action to accomplish, but no more. As an example for spells, you can ready true Strike (only V) but not a cantrip (2 actions)

2:yup, seen this too. On the other hand, on our table, anything nature related (ranger, druid, etc) is usually greed upon with nicknames like stinky and etc. That goes back to 2nd ed adnd though.

3:you hav e to be kidding me. Bard is one of the most powerful classes in the playtest. probably 2nd best behind clerics. That "measly" +1 to attack (the damage bonus and vs fear is just icing) group wide, always on, is godly (and it scales accordingly later on with inspire heroics). Plus the way performance actually matters and modifies their spells is awesome. Next up in their "good" things, is that finally, counter performance is not only viable, but actually really good vs a plethora of monsters and it's actually usable now. Their spells are solid, their skills are as good as they were, etc. Again, easily on of the best playtest classes atm, both in feels and actual power.

4. If i were to allow such a thing, it would certainly have negative traits, most obviously frail, but probably a really bad check Acp as well. Just the volume of wood necessary to match steel's hardness would make it unwieldy.

5.Individual feat tags are borked. use the table above them to see which is what. i disagree on them being uniletral bad. Some are really, really good (others are either bad or simply stuff i would rule you do already with a skill, looking at you noble-whatever). They're just not balanced with each other, but in general, there are both physical, meantal and social skill feats that are very worth their Feat status.

6. medium is good, heavy is junk, light is good for it's purpose (high dex characters)

7.Action to command, action to give it movement. Either ride or that-animal-feat-that-i-foget-its-name should reduce those two actions to one action, but they cannot be combined (one give free action command on succesful handle, the other eliminates handle)

8. i don't see the issue. just use any recall knowledge rules but different skill... they are all the same.

9. some stuff need to be secret imo, but this will always come down to group preference. just use what your groups like.

10. yeah, i agree on that. worst case scenario, if they're caught and bound, you can make the roll secretly and just inform the player that "he had caved in and revealed some stuff". Keep in mind, that even if that happens, it should only be 1-2 things relevant to the interogation, akin to what the players gain when they sucedd, not spill his guts about everything. But in general i tend to avoid such situations as well, they just dont feel right.

[Colette Brunel]

I am not entirely sure I would call the +1 attack bonus from a bard "godly," particularly given the action needed to start it up, and the relative fragility of sustaining it.

Handle an Animal takes a Nature skill check... with no DC listed. It also has little integration with exploration tactics.

[ChibiNyan]

Great job Colette, showing us the truth of the universe. Thanks for taking your time to write your experiences in intricate detail.

Many things I already feared and experienced were confirmed here:

- Low level monsters have ridiciulously good attack bonuses. And level 0 Goblins with shortbows are a lot more dangerous than CR system would indicate.
- Handling animals is a complete waste of time. Riding them is super complicated, apparently.
- PCs are extremely incompetent at low levels, DC 15 is very unlikely to succeed at at Lvl1 because there's no bonuses, yet a very common DC. DC 20 is just silly. In PF1 characters can pull these off, not in 2 (trained skill was +4 with possible traits/racials/feats, now +1 with nothing else). Rogue specialists are not exempt.
- Trying to do basic roleplaying things like exploring feels so rules-heavy and unantural now.
- Dying rules are fiddly and annoying to actually use, even if sounded cool in theory.
- Rangers are lame.
- Bards feel like walking buffbots who can't do the cool stuff.
- Cleric is the best and the one class that feels rewarding to play. But afraid they'll nerf them to be lame like others.
- The balance is so tight that if the GM messes up or tries to change anything, the whole adventure goes to hell. Very little wiggle room.
- Players like to roll dice, specially for their own skills.

[shroudb]

Colette Brunel wrote:

I am not entirely sure I would call the +1 attack bonus from a bard "godly," particularly given the action needed to start it up, and the relative fragility of sustaining it.

Handle an Animal takes a Nature skill check... with no DC listed. It also has little integration with exploration tactics.

at the early levels (before heroics) it is indeed really good. And then it scales to keep up as well.

a flat 5% increase to hit, crit and damage for the whole party, without any resources spend, just an action, is beyond what others can do with their cantrips.

to put it into perspective, at level 1 when you get it, it's like upgrading the whole party's proficiency to expert, later on you make them legendary from the get go.

single action also allows you to continue casting your normal spells, or move and attack with a weapon.

Think of it this way: if at level 1 a bard starts with 16 in dex/str inspire boosts him up to the same %to hit as the martials starting with a 18, and boosts the martials starting with 18 to even further simultaneously. All without expending resources and using only 1 action (or 0.5 with lingering)

and etc.

due to bounded accuracy, the +1 now is much more important than the +1 before. I think +3 is the highest buffs can give you either way, and you get that for free.

[graystone]

Colette Brunel: Your experiences are mirroring mine. My major difference is I played an alchemist that used all her resonance at the start of the day to make minor elixirs of life and then used quick alchemy until I quickly failed the check and could use no more. My main attack was OTHERWORLDLY MAGIC [electric arc] as bombs as a lot of suck.

Lets see...
ooze KO'd animal companion in one shot before we dogpiled it.
My familiar managed to kill the last goblin after they almost wiped up out. Yes, they took out 4 PC's and an animal companion...
We got wrong info and let the quasits out and that was a near wipe. A lucky crit from the ranger was the only reason we made it past them.
The boss was... I can't accurately describe it without the profanity filter kicking in.

Bard: ko'd 3 times, 0 resonance 2 times
Ranger: 5 times, 0 resonance 2 times, failed resonance 1 times
Alchemist: 3 times, 0 resonance 4 times
Fighter: KO 6 times, 0 resonance 2 times
Animal companion [bear]: KO 4 times
familiar [red panda]: 2 KO
Lock pick checks: easily 2 dozen before we just broke down the door.
Party: dead at boss, 4 trips back to town [3 to regain resources, one for lock picks]

Even with soothes and 8+ minor healing per try it was a bloodbath of KO's.

[shroudb]

graystone wrote:

Colette Brunel: Your experiences are mirroring mine. My major difference is I played an alchemist that used all her resonance at the start of the day to make minor elixirs of life and then used quick alchemy until I quickly failed the check and could use no more. My main attack was OTHERWORLDLY MAGIC [electric arc] as bombs as a lot of suck.

Lets see...
ooze KO'd animal companion in one shot before we dogpiled it.
My familiar managed to kill the last goblin after they almost wiped up out. Yes, they took out 4 PC's and an animal companion...
We got wrong info and let the quasits out and that was a near wipe. A lucky crit from the ranger was the only reason we made it past them.
The boss was... I can't accurately describe it without the profanity filter kicking in.

Bard: ko'd 3 times, 0 resonance 2 times
Ranger: 5 times, 0 resonance 2 times, failed resonance 1 times
Alchemist: 3 times, 0 resonance 4 times
Fighter: KO 6 times, 0 resonance 2 times
Animal companion [bear]: KO 4 times
familiar [red panda]: 2 KO
Lock pick checks: easily 2 dozen before we just broke down the door.
Party: dead at boss, 4 trips back to town [3 to regain resources, one for lock picks]

Even with soothes and 8+ minor healing per try it was a bloodbath of KO's.

your first mistake was thinking alchemist can actually heal... 1/3 of the healing of a channel and it costs the party 1.5RP and like 4 actions (take out the potion, move next to taget, give him potion, target drinks potion (if he has a free hand to take and drink)) to do so. Alternative, you can handle them the potions before hand, and it still requires 2 actions and a free hand.

All that for 1d6 (3.5) vs the 1-2 actions d8+4 (8,5) of a heal...

[Cantriped]

Colette Brunel wrote:

...nearly caused a TPK in a long room full of darkness and bowslinging goblins...

I noticed this mentioned in several places but that shouldn't have been that much of a problem.

Did you know: "If a creature [in darkness] can see into a lit area, it can target creatures within that lit area, but it treats such targets as concealed (see page 302)." (pg. 301)
Goblins sniping lit targets from the darkness have to make DC 5 Flat checks, or miss.

[magnuskn]

The goblins have darkvision, they are not in a darkened area for their purposes.

[graystone]

shroudb wrote:

your first mistake was thinking alchemist can actually heal...

I'd say the GAME'S mistakes is that the alchemist can't do much of anything. My best option was 'what cantrip can I pick up'... That said, I WASN'T the only healer. The bard ended up casting all soothes[1d6+4 too] for spells too [other than inspire courage of course].

shroudb wrote:

1/3 of the healing of a channel and it costs the party 1.5RP and like 4 actions (take out the potion, move next to taget, give him potion, target drinks potion (if he has a free hand to take and drink)) to do so.

Soothes were the go to in combat heals while 'potions' where passed out 2 per person to use on themselves or others.

Secondly, if the cleric is a REQUIREMENT of every new pathfinder party, that's an issue all on it's own that needs to be reported. We were TOLD a barbarian could manage healing, so an alchemist should be awesome at it. :P

shroudb wrote:

Alternative, you can handle them the potions before hand, and it still requires 2 actions and a free hand.

Yep, this is what it was: I don't see an option I had that was better than the electric arc cantrip. Overspending was used to make antidotes or extra life elixirs.

[Cantriped]

magnuskn wrote:

The goblins have darkvision, they are not in a darkened area for their purposes.

Yes they are:

Darkvision wrote:

A creature with darkvision can see perfectly well in areas of darkness and dim light, though such vision is in black and white only. Some forms of magical darkness, such as a 4th-level darkness spell, block darkvision. However, a creature with greater darkvision can see through even these forms of magical darkness.

I don't see anything here about them "not being in darkness" (as that would prevent using Stealth), or negating the penalty that being within darkness imposes when attacking targets in a lit area (such as those holding a torch or subject to Light). If the goblins had been standing in the light themselves, or the humans standing in darkness it would have been different. Darkvision favors operating in total darkness, not sniping from darkness into lit areas.

My opinion is the penalty makes sense. Realistically, if your eyes are adjusted for darkness it is painful to look directly at a light source.

[Byron Zibeck]

Cantriped wrote:

Colette Brunel wrote:

...nearly caused a TPK in a long room full of darkness and bowslinging goblins...

I noticed this mentioned in several places but that shouldn't have been that much of a problem.

Did you know: "If a creature [in darkness] can see into a lit area, it can target creatures within that lit area, but it treats such targets as concealed (see page 302)." (pg. 301)
Goblins sniping lit targets from the darkness have to make DC 5 Flat checks, or miss.

The sentence before this one makes it clear that this rule only applies to creatures that can't normally see in darkness.

[graystone]

Cantriped: I'm going to have to side with magnuskn with darkvision. As far as I can tell, they just aren't affected by darkness effects. Your eyes aren't adjusting to anything as you always see through the darkness: for them there is no difference.

[Cantriped]

graystone wrote:

Cantriped: I'm going to have to side with magnuskn with darkvision. As far as I can tell, they just aren't affected by darkness effects. Your eyes aren't adjusting to anything as you always see through the darkness: for them there is no difference.

Per RAW you would both be incorrect. Though that may have been the intent. The RAW is clear. Darkvision or not if you are standing in darkness, and your target is within a brightly lit area, the target is treated as concealed.

Darkvision explicitly only affects your ability to percieve targets in dim light or darkness, not targets standing in bright light (such as that of a torch).

But sure, feel free to cheat your players out of the miss chances they deserve, just don't complain when they get TPKed by your willful decision to ignore the RAW.

[Cantriped]

Note: Darkvision and Low-Light Vision do prevent the creature within darkness from suffering concealment penalties against a target in Dim Light (as that condition is explicitly covered by both abilities). Just not Bright Light.

Without such a rule, light sources are mostly just liabilities to players, and creatures with any sensory enhancements become overpowered when combat occurs in dim light or darkness.

[Colette Brunel]

No, Cantriped. If we want to get really RAW, then, "If a creature can see into a lit area, it can target creatures within that lit area, but it treats such targets as concealed." If a creature, any creature, anywhere, can see into a lit area, it can target creatures within that lit area, but it treats such targets as concealed.

I have started up a thread here to cover this.

[Byron Zibeck]

As per the rulebook:

Quote:

A creature or object within darkness is considered unseen

(see page 303) to those without blindsense, blindsight, or
darkvision (see Special Senses below). A creature without
these senses is blinded (see page 320) while in darkness,
though it might be able to see lit areas beyond the
darkness. If a creature can see into a lit area, it can target
creatures within that lit area, but it treats such targets as
concealed (see page 302).

This paragraph as a whole make it clear that it is talking about creatures without darkvision (or blindsenses/blindsight).

[Cantriped]

Byron Zibeck wrote:

As per the rulebook:

Quote:

A creature or object within darkness is considered unseen

(see page 303) to those without blindsense, blindsight, or
darkvision (see Special Senses below). A creature without
these senses is blinded (see page 320) while in darkness,
though it might be able to see lit areas beyond the
darkness. If a creature can see into a lit area, it can target
creatures within that lit area, but it treats such targets as
concealed (see page 302).

This paragraph as a whole make it clear that it is talking about creatures without darkvision (or blindsenses/blindsight).

No... just that sentence. Which is simply reaffirming what the actual rules for Darkvision and other senses also tell you just a page over. The sentence before it applies to all creatures, as does the one afterwards.

[Byron Zibeck]

Respectively disagree. The first sentence says creature without dsrkvision et al may still see into lighted areas. The second sentence elaborates on this on says it trests target as concealed. Since they both reference seeing into a lit area, the c9ntext makes the intent clear, even if it could be worded better.

If we look just at the last sentence, out of context, it never even mentions hat the creature is in darkness, so any creatures looking into a lit area would be have concealed.

[Cantriped]

Byron Zibeck wrote:

If we look just at the last sentence, out of context, it never even mentions hat the creature is in darkness, so any creatures looking into a lit area would be have concealed.

True... Which is why one shouldn't read singular rules out of context. For example, quoting "The rules in this book are presented assuming all creatures are in bright light." (301) out of context doesn't tell us anything, and confuses the current issue.

If I had to guess: "If a creature [within darkness] can see into a lit area, it can target creatures within that lit area, but it treats such targets as concealed (see page 302)." Is how it was originally written or else intended to be read. It was either edited later or the writer thought it was clear after the first two sentences did so, that the third sentence also refered to creatures within darkness. Especially considering that this is all one paragraph explicitly describing rules for creatures in Darkness (as opposed to Bright Light, which is otherwise the stated assumption per the earlier sections).

[magnuskn]

So, it's just an educated guess, alright.

[Colette Brunel]

The saga continues. If you have not read the previous mini-update for context, please do so.

I am running two separate groups through Doomsday Dawn. I will be writing up playtest reports under the following format: introduction, character sheets, identified problems, playthrough notes, GM feedback survey. I am skipping the player feedback surveys from henceforth, because I think that my "KO log" notes paint a more accurate picture.

Introduction: I did not previously think it possible, but my party suffered two TPKs in a row during their run of Doomsday Dawn: Part #2: In Pale Mountain's Shadow. They had some trouble during their first battle. Their second battle resulted in complete and utter defeat, after which two players rage-quit the game right then and there, swearing off 2e indefinitely. I then had the manticore bully the party with the Coerce rules to force them to continue the adventure under a new mistress. With two PCs under my control, the party TPKed to their third battle, for good this time. A PC dropped to 0 hit points a total of 12 times this session.

This ordeal had shattered group morale to such a magnitude that two players forswore 2e forevermore (which, by the way, means that if you would like to playtest under me, send a Discord friend request to Earth Seraph Edna#1648 so that we can try to work out a schedule).

Character Sheets: I once again believe that our characters were reasonably optimized for their respective classes and builds at 4th level.

• Elf alchemist multiclassed into wizard, mostly for cantrips, 1/day magic missile (not listed on this sheet), and wand usage. The cantrips are, in theory, a means of at-will damage that are divorced from alchemical items, the 1/day magic missile is definitely better than an alchemical bomb, and the wand is a last resort. Charisma 12 is for Remarkable Resonance, giving an alchemist a little more leeway. Sadly, the alchemist is a trap class to begin with.

• Goblin bard multiclassed into fighter for breastplate and dogslicer proficiency, and also for Sudden Charge, which helps a bard's action economy a good deal. Virtuosic Performer helps land the ever-scaling Performance DC for lingering composition, which in turn prolongs inspire courage. False life and mirror image help with survivability.

• Human monk also multiclassed into fighter for Combat Grab. Unarmed weapons are not actually "weapons," but that is what the character carries a whip for. They enter Tiger Stance at the start of each combat and mostly spam Flurry and Combat Grab, using their mobility to flank with the rogue.

• Human rogue also multiclassed into fighter for Double Slice and dogslicer proficiency. Double Slice wreaks havoc on flat-footed enemies, and dogslicers add damage against flat-footed enemies, too. Thanks to Natural Ambition, this character can have both Trap Finder, letting the character stay in the Sneaking exploration tactic for Stealth-based initiative while still searching for traps, and Nimble Dodge for extra AC, which, by the way, is terribly annoying to resolve the timing of.

While there were many recurring problems, I will only go over the especially noteworthy ones.

Especially Noteworthy Recurring Problem #1: The Dying Rules: 12 times. A PC dropped to 0 hit points 12 times over the course of this session. At many points, players were sitting around waiting for their turn to come up, at which point they would roll a Fortitude saving throw, fail, and then sulk in a corner again. Even on a successful Fortitude saving throw, the lost action, the proning, and the dropped items all added up to a painfully annoying comeback. The dying rules are overwhelmingly punishing, cruel, and morale-shattering.

Especially Noteworthy Recurring Problem #2: Exploration Tactics and Perception vs. Stealth: This session contained by far the most vocal outcry against the janky exploration rules, both from the players and myself. We struggled to use and properly adjudicate them, and the players constantly seemed as if they had no idea if they were actually doing anything correctly when declaring or not-so-subtly implying their exploration tactics.

In particular, on no less than three separate occasions, the Searching tactic should have revealed enemies beforehand... but instead, it did absolutely nothing and segued into the usual Perception vs. Stealth initiative roll for ambushing enemies anyway. Another strange instance was one enemy ambushing the party and thus downgrading from initiative Perception +13 to initiative Stealth +7. I really have no idea how to handle exploration tactics and Perception vs. Stealth at all.

Especially Noteworthy Recurring Problem #3: Alchemists are Still Bad, and Every Party Still Wants a Heal Channeler: We had an alchemist in our party, and they were a bad character, plain and simple. In combat, they mostly contributed by slinging wizard cantrips and casting magic missile with their one spell slot. Outside of combat, they contributed via healing, sufficiently so, but only by filling up all of their Advanced Alchemy batches with lesser elixirs of life. Even then, that forced others to drop Resonance whenever healed. Why does feeding other characters alchemical items cost the recipient Resonance anyway?

Regardless, the alchemist significantly underperformed. At one point, we had to supplement their healing with the bard's own soothe. We would have been vastly better off bringing a cleric for all our party support, occasional blasting, and noncombat hit point recovery needs. It really seems like a heal channeler is nigh-mandatory for every party, and while a cleric is ideal, a 4th-level or higher paladin with Channel Life could be a mildly decent substitute.

Especially Noteworthy Recurring Problem #4: Critical Hits Are Common and Swingy: I thought that the swinginess of automatically-confirmed critical hits would be a problem only at 1st level. I was completely wrong. This was a 4th-level adventure, and enemies still had the capacity to land automatically-confirmed critical hits on terrifyingly wide dice ranges, especially while attacking a flat-footed PC. Higher-level enemis were especially capable of wrecking PCs this way. The sheer damage spike caused by landing a critical hit makes battles extremely swingy and more luck-based than anything.

Especially Noteworthy Recurring Problem #5: If You Lag Behind in AC, You Will Be a Punching Bag, Especially Against Higher-Level Monsters: Neglecting to fortify AC as much as possible is liable to be a death sentence in 2e. Having lower AC not only means being hit more often; it also means being critically hit more often. Our party's monk had no choice but to sally forth with below-average AC, and, completely predictably, they became a punching bag for enemies, especially higher-level enemies. Our party's alchemist had merely Dexterity 16 and studded leather armor, so they were likewise quite the punching bag.

It really is worrying just how fragile characters become if they fail to scrounge up every bit of AC they can muster. Sorcerers and wizards should be springing for medium armor ASAP, whether via Armor Proficiency or Fighter Dedication. Alchemists and bards should likewise invest in Armor Proficiency. Monks, well, monks are just screwed as far as AC is concerned. (Despite all this, I am still optimistic towards the monk, since the class has good mobility and actually decent noncombat utility for a martial, given their lack of armor check penalties.)

Especially Noteworthy Recurring Problem #6: Erroneous Knowledge is Not That Fun: Erroneous knowledge from critical failures might work for a beer-and-pretzels, light-hearted game, but it simply has not been a hit with any of my players thus far. Indeed, erroneous knowledge has sown nothing but annoyance, mistrust towards the GM, and feelings of resentment. Furthermore, I personally find it quite difficult to present erroneous knowledge that is actually plausible and actionable without it being too contrived.

New Identified Problem #1: The One-Hour Delayed Preparation Trick: This actually came up after the session, from one of the players in the other group, but even if we had discovered it earlier, it would not have influenced this adventure due to its rest-forcing pacing. However, I can easily see this problem screwing up the resource management of other adventures, especially those that are supposed to take place in a single day.

Essentially, the rules for resting and daily preparations seem broken and overpowered, especially for spellcasters. Have a look:

Quote:

REST AND DAILY PREPARATIONS

You perform at your best when you take enough time to rest and prepare. Once every 24-hour period, you can take a period of rest (typically 8 hours), and then prepare, which typically takes 1 hour. After your rest, you regain a number of Hit Points equal to your Constitution modifier (minimum 1) times your level. When you prepare, you regain resources that you can use only a limited number of times per day. For instance, if you are a spellcaster, you regain spell slots and can prepare new spells. If you have Spell Points, you regain those. Magic item uses refresh, and so on.

You can make your daily preparations only if you’ve rested, and it’s typically best to do so right after. If you don’t rest at least 6 hours in a 24-hour span, you become fatigued (you cannot recover from this until you rest).

Suppose the party undertakes an adventure that is supposed to take place over the course of a single day. Each PC has been fresh on resources for the past few days, so of course, the PCs likewise enter this adventure fresh on resources. They slept a good 8 hours before the start of the adventure, but they did *not* perform daily preparations. Instead, the PCs blow their daily resources, and then rest for an hour, instantly recharging all of their daily resources. They can then blitz through the rest of the adventuring day.

This is broken. Daily preparations should be tied to the eight-hour rest, not delayable, or else you wind up with parties resting for an hour mid-adventure to recharge all of their daily resources, which heavily favors spellcasters.

"New" Identified Problem #2: Ranged Weapons Are Weak: I know that Pathfinder 1e was where archery builds reigned supreme, but 2e is taking things in the opposite direction. Ranged weapon options simply are not that good. Even with Strength 14, a composite shortbow deals 1d6+1 damage, and a composite longbow deals 1d8+1 damage while being saddled with the volley trait. That is very poor. At higher levels, a character may as well not even bother with a ranged weapon as a backup option, because magic weapons are expensive, and attacking with anything but an up-to-date magic weapon is a losing proposition.

It does not help that the two dedicated archer options in the game are the fighter, which is stuck with Attack of Opportunity and heavy armor boosts and has little in the way of good archery feats aside from Point-Blank Shot; and the ranger, which is a poor class all-around. There just is not much support for ranged weapons.

Incidentally, this means that flying ranged monsters out in the open will ream a party.

This was especially apparent in our playtest session, wherein the monk and the rogue brought out their backup shortbows (not longbows, because they were fearful of the volley trait) against a flying enemy in the sky, and promptly accomplished absolutely nothing of note against their target.

"New" Identified Problem #3: Timing of Reactions: The timing of reactions is very poorly-defined. It is unclear when, precisely, the fighter's Attack of Opportunity is supposed to be resolved. It is likewise unclear when the rogue's Nimble Dodge is supposed to be declared, especially when compared to the paladin's Divine Grace. The way we handled the rogue's Nimble Dodge was to have the rogue preemptively declare Nimble Dodge at every possible targeting opportunity, which is excessively cumbersome. Divine Grace and Nimble Dodge alike could stand to be declarable after a failed saving throw or a successful hit, so as to improve their power level and to make them more streamlined.

New Identified Problem #4: "Have a Deity": This is a minor issue, but our bard's player was confused over the "have a deity" stipulation of spiritual weapon. They thought that the spell was unusable in the hands of anyone other than a cleric or a multiclass cleric. It is minor, but it could stand to be clarified.

New Identified Problem #5: Decreasing Armor Check Penalties: This is also a minor issue, but one our rogue's player brought up. Essentially, can armor check penalties be reduced beyond 0? It sounds silly, but the rules never actually clarify this. This affects expert/master/legendary-quality armor, and also the Quiet Allies skill feat, which, by the way, runs into the same old "Are you your own ally?" problem as Retributive Strike. For that matter, does a master-quality chain shirt effectively have no noisy trait?

New Identified Problem #6: The Lack of Proper Maps: I strongly disliked how this adventure fails to provide premade maps, and how it forces the GM to sketch up a map under certain guidelines.

From a purely aesthetic viewpoint, it is displeasing to go from professionally-drawn maps to MS-Paint-quality maps, as though the "animation budget" just took a sharp drop. From a practical perspective, they defeat the point of premade adventures providing a plug-and-play, minimal-assembly-required experience for the GM. From a mechanical perspective, premade adventures are supposed to provide a standardized and pre-balanced experience to a group, and forcing the GM to meticulously think about the advantageousness and disadvantageousness of the terrain positioning they draw up also defeats the point of a premade adventure package. In particular, for the maps for the gnoll camp and the mountain path, I genuinely did not know which areas were supposed to be difficult terrain or uneven ground.

Playthrough Notes: Free Gifts: The players appreciated the gift of a free scroll of fly at the start of the adventure. The monk's player, on the other hand, was disappointed when I gifted them with +1 handwraps of mighty fists. They felt disappointed, because they had already allocated one of their starting items to expert handwraps of mighty fists, so they felt like that investment was a waste if the adventure was going to hand out a free gift like that. I can see the player's logic, and personally, I find it bizarre that the adventure wants to supercharge a single PC's weapon attacks at the start.

Playthrough Notes: Camels, or a Lack Thereof: The adventure offers the party camels to ride upon during their journey to Pale Mountain. I covered this in my previous mini-update, but handling animals and riding mounts is currently unusable by RAW due to a missing DC for Handle an Animal. It is all the more unusable as part of exploration tactics, which have no provisions for such a thing. Given a lack of rules on the topic, I wound up dictating that the camels would be unfeasible as mounts for anyone with the Ride feat, so the party set off on foot.

Playthrough Notes: Survival Checks: After setting off at 6:00 A.M. of day #1, The players found this segment rather monotonous. The rogue rolled Scouting Lore to use Aid on the monk's Survival checks, and this repeated for a total of five iterations. The monk succeeded thrice and failed twice, so travel time was slightly behind schedule compared to simply not making any survival checks at all. The module specifically stipulates that "one PC can lead," so the party would have been better off not bothering with Survival checks.

Playthrough Notes: The Hyenas and the Hyaenodon: It was mid-morning of day #5 by this point. Here was where the exploration tactics started to get especially janky. The adventure stipulated, "If the hyenas detect the characters (usually because the characters’ Stealth check results are less than the hyenas’ Perception DCs or because the characters aren’t trying to be stealthy), they attempt to sneak up on the group, using Stealth for initiative; otherwise they use Perception."

In my case, only one character was using the Sneaking tactic, and that was the rogue, since they had Trap Finder. The rest of the party was using the Searching tactic, which... meant that the hyenas and the hyaenodon spotted the party. Ergo, the hyenas and the hyaenodon got to use Stealth for initiative, despite the party being dedicated to Searching. Needless to say, the group was quite miffed about this.

The hyenas and the hyaenodon appeared behind the party's back row, 20 feet away. This was just enough for the hyenas and the hyaenodon to get within range with a single 40-speed move action through difficult terrain. The hyenas and the hyaenodon went first in initiative. I openly and randomly determined which of the two back-row characters they would focus their fire on, and that target wound up being the alchemist. A few hits, an automatic Knockdown action, and a critical hit from the hyaenodon later, and the alchemist was down to 0 hit points. They spent a Hero Point. The hyaenodon followed up with a nasty hit on the monk.

From there, the bard, the monk, and the rogue worked together. They successfully took out one hyena and chunked away much of the hyaenodon's hit points. The bard proved reasonably capable with their inspire courage, lingering performance, and dogslicer. The rogue's Double Slice payed off. Even after having to blow an action just to enter Tiger Stance, the monk's Flurry was fairly useful. Unfortunately, the alchemist failed their Fortitude saving throw to gain consciousness, and their player cursed the dying rules.

The hyaenodon and the remaining hyena chunked the monk down to 5 hit points thanks to the wonders of critical hits on low-AC targets. The party finished off the predators, and the alchemist was still unconscious by the end of the battle.

KO Log:
• Alchemist went to 0 hit points, then spent a Hero Point

The alchemist healed themselves and the monk up with lesser elixirs of life, though it was quite clear that the elixirs had their flaws in the Resonance cost. The monk even had to incinerate Resonance for them, and subsequently overcharge to top off their hit points.

The alchemist, the bard, and the rogue landed the Society check to identify the hyenas and the hyaenodon as former gnoll pets. This knowledge, combined with the fact that failing to have the entire party sneak around had led to the hyenas and hyaenodons securing an "ambush," misled the party into unanimously shifting into the Sneaking tactic.

Playthrough Notes: The Ankhrav (Ankheg): By half past noon of day #5, the entire party was in Sneaking mode, which was quite a blunder that the adventure had misled them to. Fortunately, the rogue had Trap Finder, so they landed the Perception check to discover the ankheg mound and the quicksand. They further succeeded on a Survival check to identify the mound as an ankheg lying in wait. The party wisely chose to simply avoid the ankhrav.

Playthrough Notes: The Gnoll Camp: By morning of day #6, the party stumbled across the gnoll encampment and saw the clearly skittish gnolls from afar. The alchemist and the rogue, both fluent in Gnoll, identified that the gnolls were "bored, nervous, and distracted," which was frustratingly obvious already. The alchemist and the rogue further identified these gnolls as being the type to tame scorpions and other poisonous beasts, as if it was not already obvious from the scorpion-carapace-themed accoutrements, while the monk critically failed and forced me to conjure up some gobbledygook about the gnolls loathing scorpions and similar creatures, which the monk's player was miffed by. The party wisely chose to simply spend two hours going around the gnoll camp.

Playthrough Notes: The Base of the Mountain: By morning of day #7, the party reached the base of Pale Mountain. The bard succeeded on the Survival check to find a safe path up. Along the way, they spotted the six gnoll corpses riddled with "arrows." Nobody landed the DC 22 Nature check to identify the projectiles as manticore quills. Indeed, the rogue critically failed and thought that the gnolls became possessed by nature-spirits and shot one another up, and further thought that it would be wise to offer prayers and tributes to the mountain spirits. The group was miffed by this clearly erroneous knowledge, the rogue's player especially, so they opted to ignore it.

Playthrough Notes: The Manticore's Attack: While the rogue was Sneaking, the rest of the party was Searching. Unfortunately, as per the adventure, that did absolutely nothing to prevent the manticore's ambush, because "the manticore notices the PCs unless the entire party is stealthy in their exploration," and "[it] uses Stealth for initiative; it tries to approach as quietly as it can from the air." Please note that the encounter does not mention cover in any way, so this encounter really does seem to pit a party against a manticore in its perfect element: the open sky with no cover below.

Bizarrely, this caused the manticore's initiative to drop from initiative Perception +13 to initiative Stealth +7, which we thought was terribly weird, but I went with Stealth +7 regardless. The manticore acted first and acted according to its prescribed tactics of "keep[ing] its distance, lobbing spines rather than engaging in melee." The manticore opened up with nasty critical hits on both the monk and the alchemist, and then kept its distance in the air using the rules for the Fly action. From here, everything went downhill.

The bard retrieved the scroll of fly and cast it on themselves. The monk and the rogue retrieved their shortbows and started firing away at the manticore, but they landed no hits. The alchemist invoked a three-action magic missile to deal a measly 11 damage to the manticore.

The manticore landed a critical hit on the monk and a regular hit on the alchemist, taking them out. The bard flew up and cast command on the manticore, trying to order it to go prone, but the manticore succeeded on the saving throw. The rogue opened fire with a shortbow triple attack, but missed again.

The manticore demanded surrender, and the bard refused. For the bard's impudence, the manticore one-turn-KOed the bard with two melee attacks, one critical hit (welcome to high monster attack bonuses) and one regular hit. That left three of the party unconscious.

Everything went downhill from here. The manticore played whack-a-mole with the monk regaining consciousness and standing up twice. The rogue simply could not land a hit against the manticore with their shortbow. Then the rogue went down By the end of the battle, the manticore had taken only 11 damage from that single casting of magic missile, while the entire party lay defeated.

KO Log:
• Monk went to 0 hit points, then spent a Hero Point
• Alchemist went to 0 hit points, then spent a Hero Point
• Bard went to 0 hit points, then spent a Hero Point
• Monk went to 0 hit points, then spent a Hero Point
• Monk went to 0 hit points
• Rogue went to 0 hit points

Let it be known that ranged weapons in 2e are weak, and flying ranged monsters out in the open will wreck a party.

The monk's player and the rogue's player had rage-quit and forswore 2e indefinitely by this point, so I took over their characters.

Playthrough Notes: The Manticore's Bullying: The adventure stipulated that the manticore "attacks anyone it sees climbing the mountain," and while it may have outright killed the six gnolls from earlier, I thought that it would be appropriate for the manticore to bully the PCs into submission. After all, as I had covered in my mini-update above, PCs are actually vulnerable to Intimidation (Coercion), as janky and as unfun as that is. I was trying to make the most of the remaining session time, anyway, and the manticore just so happened to have Intimidation +11 listed down.

From the morning of day #7 to the night of day #7, the manticore thoroughly bullied the PCs with headpats and other petty tactics. The manticore removed the party's +1 magic armor during this process, thus stripping them of their +1 item bonus to Will. The manticore used Intimidation (Coercion) "against the target's Will DC, modified by the circumstances at the GM's discretion," so I thought that a DC reduction of 5 was appropriate given the circumstances. The manticore subsequently critically succeeded against all four PCs. The manticore became the party's new mistress for 24 hours, and the party was fear-bound to give the manticore any treasure they found, though I stipulated that the party had enough courage to avoid handing over the countdown clock if they found it.

The group was rather miffed by this rules-supported application of the Intimidation skill towards PCs, since it was a great blow to player agency. Was this in the premade adventure as it stood? No, obviously not. However, it did not actually go against the premade adventure, it allowed me to test the (really rather poisonous) rules for using Intimidation (Coercion) against PCs, it let us make the most of the remaining session time, and the manticore had Intimidation +11 listed.

By the night of day #7, the entire party was at 1 hit point each. The alchemist nearly topped everyone off, though Resonance was a problem. The bard finished the topping-off with soothe.

Playthrough Notes: The Gnolls at the Entrance: By the morning of day #8, the party reached the entrance to the tomb proper. This was a weird situation, because the adventure assumes that the manticore is dead, thus giving the PCs a diplomatic option against the gnolls. The alchemist opened up by explaining to the gnolls that they were the manticore's servants, so I thought it appropriate to offer a similar social option, namely, Intimidation (Coercion). I set the DC at the gnoll sergeant's Will DC of 19, plus an additional +5 for the gnolls' suspicions, for a final DC of 24. The bard single-handedly landed that check, forcing the gnolls to stand aside.

The party had trouble landing the Perception check to find the door handle to the tomb, until the rogue, controlled by me, succeeded in the necessary Perception check. The party advanced onwards.

Playthrough Notes: The Chamber of the Sunken Stones: Once again, the rogue was undertaking the Sneaking tactic, while everyone else was Searching. They inspected the Chamber of the Sunken Stones first, which I ruled was brightly-lit, since I rationalized that the holes letting water pour in were sunlit. The game immediately ground to a halt as I tried to figure out how to resolve Perception vs. Stealth. The minor earth elemental and the lesser water elemental had yet to "manifest," and were supposed to be using Stealth. After wracking my mind over this, I simply called for the straightforward Perception (or Stealth for the rogue) vs. Stealth initiative roll, since that seemed like the most straightforward method of resolving the tangled mechanics.

The minor earth elemental and the lesser water elemental acted first. The minor earth elemental used earth glide to get into a good position, then booped the monk for paltry damage. The lesser water elemental's high attack bonus slammed the monk with a critical hit and a regular hit, knocking the monk out.

For the next two rounds, the party fought hard, they really did. The rogue could never get into a good position for a flank due to the wretched aquatic terrain, and the elementals were immune to precision damage and critical hits anyway, so the rogue had to settle for Double Slicing without Sneak Attack. All the alchemist could really do was cast magic missile and ray of frost. The bard inspired courage and attacked; when the bard was slammed unconscious by the minor earth elemental and the lesser water elemental, the bard used a Hero Point and a lucky Fortitude saving throw to regain consciousness and take out the minor earth elemental with a spiritual weapon.

Unfortunately, even with the minor earth elemental out of the metaphorical picture, there was still the lesser water elemental at full hit points. Said elemental promptly took out the rest of the party, earning zero damage in the process.

The strength of the elementals came from their respectable attack and damage bonuses, their ability to rapidly navigate the PC-disadvantageous terrain, and their host of immunities, including immunity to critical hits and precision damage. As usual, the higher-level monster was the terror of the battlefield due to its ability to easily land critical hits.

KO Log:
• Monk went to 0 hit points
• Bard went to 0 hit points
• Bard went to 0 hit points, then spent a Hero Point
• Rogue went to 0 hit points, then spent a Hero Point
• Alchemist went to 0 hit points

And so the manticore's press-ganged servants suffered not one, but two total party defeats that session. Group morale is quite fragile at the moment, between half of the group having dropped out, and the remaining two players lingering out of jaded numbness.

GM Feedback Survey:
• 1. How long did it take to play this part of Doomsday Dawn (not counting preparation or character creation)?
5 hours.

• 2. How long did it take to prepare this part of the adventure (time spent reading, gathering materials, etc.)?
8 hours.

• 3. How many sessions did it take for you to play through this part of the adventure?
1 session.

• 4. How many Hero Points (in total) did you give out during this part of the adventure?
4 total, all for the out-of-character act of showing up to the session on time, a virtue I place in high esteem.

• 5. How many times was a player character reduced to 0 Hit Points during this part of the adventure?
12 times in total, including the times when a character was reduced to 0 Hit Points, brought back up, and then reduced to 0 Hit Points again.

• 6. How many player characters were killed during this part of the adventure?
4, the entire party.

• Did the player characters beat the rival adventuring party to the site? If so, how much sooner did the PCs arrive?
The PCs technically arrived in the tomb during the morning of day #8, although they subsequently TPKed to the first room.

[magnuskn]

Thank you for your great effort you are putting into your playtest journals. I hope you have enough still motivated players to continue to the end and I really hope the devs are looking at your threads and taking notes.

[Noodlemancer]

I was the Double Slice Rogue there. During the Manticore encounter, I shot at it 15 times with a shortbow. 15 misses. That rather miffed me. Monster attack bonuses and AC's are way too inflated to the point where they are blatantly unfair towards PC's.

[DerNils]

Thank you for this really detailed Analysis. Even though using coercion that way is quite evil, it is really not any different from monsters with mind control spells which come along soon enough. I actually like that a skill in this case is as powerful as a spell.

Unfortunately your report cofirms my suspicion about the useless survival trek intro. Did you offer your group exploratoin tactics for this? I am still struggling if I should, but as all tactics are traps anyway I will probably skip it.

The saga continues absolutely unclear interaction of exploration tactics and encounters.
Did you go the harsh way this time and didn't even allow weapons drawn at the beginning of the Encounter without the Defending tactic?

By the way, I just realised that even if the whole Party was sneaking, doesn't that mean that they all must defeat the Manticors Perception DC of 23? At Level 4? Good luck with that.

[Dekalinder]

Just here to say i'm following this with great attention. And I appreciate someone inflicting themselves this playtest. Best of luck going forward to you and your players.

[OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0]

Thanks again for your reports Colette.

Love the booping earth elemental and the high levels of jank.

[Darkbridger]

I am having some minor confusion from your original post. The adventure states the goblins are on the north side of the room constructing a statue. The north side of the room is nearest the entrance the PCs would be coming in from. There is no "North" indicator on the map sadly, but the first room description indicates direction. Did you allow them to notice the light early enough that they moved south?

[DerNils]

North is a bit counterintuitively to the left of the map, on top if you rotate it to be readable. You can most clearly see this from the description of A6:

On the north side of the room, a nearly ten-foot-tall visage of
a woman’s face is carved into the wall. Trickles of water run
down her cheeks like tears into a foul and polluted reservoir
below, which itself drains to a large pool of fetid black water
on the south side of the room.

If you align this with the graphics, it becomes clear.

Actually, even A1 makes this clear.
The damp sewer passages have led to a slimy cistern that
stinks of decay. On the northern edge of this circular chamber
lies a pile of burnt bones in front of a scorched tunnel.

There is only one scorched tunnel - it is not the one the PC's are entering through.

[Kerobelis]

Interesting, the second report.

Some of this may have to do with the party composition. I recall reading a report of a Fighter, Paladin, Druid, and Cleric party for the first adventure and they had a fairly easy time. Compare that to Rogue, Monk, Bard, and Alchemist. Especially as the Alchemist is by far the weakest class.

In theory, any party should have a chance. The rogue and bard are good classes. I know the alchemist is bad. The monk, I am not sure of. Missing one tank style of character hurts this team (may of not helped vs. the Manticore though). Someone with high hps, AC and shield block. Or a Paladin.

The manticore is nasty! I can see this inclicting a lot of hurt in this adventure. No one could hit AC 20 though with those short bows? With 95hps I guess you need more than short bows.

[magnuskn]

Darkbridger wrote:

I am having some minor confusion from your original post. The adventure states the goblins are on the north side of the room constructing a statue. The north side of the room is nearest the entrance the PCs would be coming in from. There is no "North" indicator on the map sadly, but the first room description indicates direction. Did you allow them to notice the light early enough that they moved south?

That is wrong, the first paragraph under "The Ashen Ossuary" clearly states that it is a "10-minute trip to make it back to the surface from the exit south of area A1." You probably were confused by areas A1 description that the "charred tunnel entrance on the north side of the cistern is the primary entrance to the Ashen Ossuary", but that references the tunnel out of area A1, not into it.

[Kerobelis]

Noodlemancer wrote:

I was the Double Slice Rogue there. During the Manticore encounter, I shot at it 15 times with a shortbow. 15 misses. That rather miffed me. Monster attack bonuses and AC's are way too inflated to the point where they are blatantly unfair towards PC's.

You must have rolled really poor. As a rogue, I assume +8 to hit with a short bow? The first attack is almost 50/50 to hit. I suppose it could have been in long range but the short bow has better range than the quills.

[Noodlemancer]

Kerobelis wrote:

Noodlemancer wrote:

I was the Double Slice Rogue there. During the Manticore encounter, I shot at it 15 times with a shortbow. 15 misses. That rather miffed me. Monster attack bonuses and AC's are way too inflated to the point where they are blatantly unfair towards PC's.

You must have rolled really poor. As a rogue, I assume +8 to hit with a short bow? The first attack is almost 50/50 to hit. I suppose it could have been in long range but the short bow has better range than the quills.

The Manticore would rest at an altitude of 80ft on our turns, and then do the following chain of actions on its turn:

1. Descent by one move action to 40ft.
2. Attack from the edge of one range increment.
3. Ascend back to 80ft.
Thus giving the Manticore a huge accuracy advantage (+12 vs +6).

[Kerobelis]

Noodlemancer wrote:

Kerobelis wrote:

Noodlemancer wrote:

I was the Double Slice Rogue there. During the Manticore encounter, I shot at it 15 times with a shortbow. 15 misses. That rather miffed me. Monster attack bonuses and AC's are way too inflated to the point where they are blatantly unfair towards PC's.

You must have rolled really poor. As a rogue, I assume +8 to hit with a short bow? The first attack is almost 50/50 to hit. I suppose it could have been in long range but the short bow has better range than the quills.

The Manticore would rest at an altitude of 80ft on our turns, and then do the following chain of actions on its turn:

1. Descent by one move action to 40ft.
2. Attack from the edge of one range increment.
3. Ascend back to 80ft.
Thus giving the Manticore a huge accuracy advantage (+12 vs +6).

Its pretty smart for an INT -2 creature! I guess it would have instincts.

Another thing changed is manticores use to be terrible flyers (clumsy). Looking up flying, it is now simplified. I think in the past they couldn't hover (They can now at the cost of an action). The fly action (pg 309) also states flying upwards is difficult terrain, so that would have been in your favor.