All these TPKs. Curious:


General Discussion

201 to 231 of 231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

magnuskn wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Or maybe your definition of super heroes is different.

A level 20 Monk is someone who literally punches out dragons the size of palaces. I'm not sure how to categorize this as anything else than a superhero story.

Steve Geddes wrote:

This is certainly true for me (in ten years, we’ve never made it to level ten without a TPK). I’ve played low level, mythic PF1 (the mythic rules seemed to me to be pretty super heroey) but never high level stuff.

I wonder if trying to make high level play more palatable in PF2 for those who don’t like it in PF1 sets up an inevitable “conflict of expectations” with those that do?

I'm pretty sure it does, since the approach so far seems "make everything like the low levels", which plainly doesn't work for me.

High level characters really. Unless the monk is dressed in a costume hiding his identity and has laser vision and can lift mountain etc. no. that is not super hero genre. I feel your being really reductionist with what the super hero genre consists of. Also it tends to be a modern setting. It also tends not to go into dungeons etc.

Hmm now maybe IF I was playing a vigilante. I have always wanted to play zorro but hes not strictly a super hero although he does seem really close.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Arguing about what is and isn't a superhero is fairly tangential to the discussion. The question is to what degree the strength and resilience of characters are greater than that of real-life humans, not the degree to which they belong in a particular comic book universe. Is anyone who disputes the "superhero" label also disputing that even low-level Pathfinder 1e characters can take and dish out a lot more punishment than real life adventurers would be able to--especially real people at the beginning of their adventuring career?


arcaneArtisan wrote:
Arguing about what is and isn't a superhero is fairly tangential to the discussion. The question is to what degree the strength and resilience of characters are greater than that of real-life humans, not the degree to which they belong in a particular comic book universe. Is anyone who disputes the "superhero" label also disputing that even low-level Pathfinder 1e characters can take and dish out a lot more punishment than real life adventurers would be able to--especially real people at the beginning of their adventuring career?

Not talking real life adventurers I'm talking fantasy adventurers. Bormir taking a ton of arrows the as big around as your finger (unless you have small fingers). Manderallen chargeing through an army of giants monsters and single handedly driving an army back, Hercules beating up death in a fight and strangling giant serpents (actually pretty much everything Hercules did really.) Its not super hero genre its fantasy genre.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:

High level characters really. Unless the monk is dressed in a costume hiding his identity and has laser vision and can lift mountain etc. no. that is not super hero genre. I feel your being really reductionist with what the super hero genre consists of. Also it tends to be a modern setting. It also tends not to go into dungeons etc.

Hmm now maybe IF I was playing a vigilante. I have always wanted to play zorro but hes not strictly a super hero although he does seem really close.

I think the exact opposite is true. You are being reductionist if you think superhero's need to have a secret identity and multiple powers to be defined as superhero's. I can counter every single one of your points with current examples.

Secret identity: The Fantastic Four, Tony Stark have no secret identities.

Costume: Well, it is debatable if adventurer's gear is not a "costume" per se, especially monk robes. But to count someone who runs around in what is basically the same, Shan Chi the master of kung fu.

Multiple powers: Cyclops, Nightcrawler, many many more have one power.

And "superhero" is just a modern definition of the superhuman hero of legend, IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I like how the consensus on this forum was that high level play in 1e was horrid and not fun at all. But now the playtest comes out trying to fix that and suddenly there's a bunch of people screaming for the old high level one round rocket tag to come back? Yikes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
I like how the consensus on this forum was that high level play in 1e was horrid and not fun at all. But now the playtest comes out trying to fix that and suddenly there's a bunch of people screaming for the old high level one round rocket tag to come back? Yikes.

I haven't seen any mention of desire for rocket-tag and what-not (1 round combats).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
I like how the consensus on this forum was that high level play in 1e was horrid and not fun at all. But now the playtest comes out trying to fix that and suddenly there's a bunch of people screaming for the old high level one round rocket tag to come back? Yikes.
I haven't seen any mention of desire for rocket-tag and what-not (1 round combats).

That's what your endorsing if you want the old 1e high level play. Because that's what it was. Unless you're not very proficient with the system you can end most high level combats within a single round pretty easily.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Some people like some aspects of 1e high-level play. The aspects they like are probably not the one-round combats. Which are more a feature of encounter design than game design anyway; one-round combat is a sign that there weren't enough enemies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
I like how the consensus on this forum was that high level play in 1e was horrid and not fun at all. But now the playtest comes out trying to fix that and suddenly there's a bunch of people screaming for the old high level one round rocket tag to come back? Yikes.
I haven't seen any mention of desire for rocket-tag and what-not (1 round combats).
That's what your endorsing if you want the old 1e high level play. Because that's what it was. Unless you're not very proficient with the system you can end most high level combats within a single round pretty easily.

I doubt that is what people are honestly endorsing. As for not ending combats in 1 round because you are not very proficient, that would also be a DM's end problem.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
I like how the consensus on this forum was that high level play in 1e was horrid and not fun at all. But now the playtest comes out trying to fix that and suddenly there's a bunch of people screaming for the old high level one round rocket tag to come back? Yikes.
I haven't seen any mention of desire for rocket-tag and what-not (1 round combats).
That's what your endorsing if you want the old 1e high level play. Because that's what it was. Unless you're not very proficient with the system you can end most high level combats within a single round pretty easily.
I doubt that is what people are honestly endorsing. As for not ending combats in 1 round because you are not very proficient, that would also be a DM's end problem.

Is it really the problem of the GM when the only way to make combats harder is to either fudge the dice and cheat or to add more enemies which *might make the combat last a little longer but more likely causes the scales to tip in favour of the enemies who then slaughter the PCs in 1 round? Or would you say that's more of a system problem? Because that's what I think. When the most efficient way to build characters is to make characters that can kill or disable the most amount of creatures per round that's what happens. Obviously I'm being hypberbolic but that's how it feels trying to run and play high level 1st edition.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
I like how the consensus on this forum was that high level play in 1e was horrid and not fun at all. But now the playtest comes out trying to fix that and suddenly there's a bunch of people screaming for the old high level one round rocket tag to come back? Yikes.
I haven't seen any mention of desire for rocket-tag and what-not (1 round combats).
That's what your endorsing if you want the old 1e high level play. Because that's what it was. Unless you're not very proficient with the system you can end most high level combats within a single round pretty easily.
I doubt that is what people are honestly endorsing. As for not ending combats in 1 round because you are not very proficient, that would also be a DM's end problem.
Is it really the problem of the GM when the only way to make combats harder is to either fudge the dice and cheat or to add more enemies which *might make the combat last a little longer but more likely causes the scales to tip in favour of the enemies who then slaughter the PCs in 1 round? Or would you say that's more of a system problem? Because that's what I think. When the most efficient way to build characters is to make characters that can kill or disable the most amount of creatures per round that's what happens. Obviously I'm being hypberbolic but that's how it feels trying to run and play high level 1st edition.

I appreciate the hyperbole, yet I don't really agree with much of that; I am not saying they're aren't problems with the system (I have house-rules to address the problems I find), but not to the extent you are asserting. I just don't want them to cure the headache by cutting off the head.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
I like how the consensus on this forum was that high level play in 1e was horrid and not fun at all. But now the playtest comes out trying to fix that and suddenly there's a bunch of people screaming for the old high level one round rocket tag to come back? Yikes.

Wait. What?

Pretty much no one here is saying that. You're being dramatic and it doesn't help the discussion.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
John Mechalas wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
I like how the consensus on this forum was that high level play in 1e was horrid and not fun at all. But now the playtest comes out trying to fix that and suddenly there's a bunch of people screaming for the old high level one round rocket tag to come back? Yikes.

Wait. What?

Pretty much no one here is saying that. You're being dramatic and it doesn't help the discussion.

Ok I see. When there's a dissenting opinion "it doesn't help discussion". I think 1e rocket tag is a perfectly fine topic when discussing power level of high level play considering that's what high level play in 1e boils down to.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
John Mechalas wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
I like how the consensus on this forum was that high level play in 1e was horrid and not fun at all. But now the playtest comes out trying to fix that and suddenly there's a bunch of people screaming for the old high level one round rocket tag to come back? Yikes.

Wait. What?

Pretty much no one here is saying that. You're being dramatic and it doesn't help the discussion.

Ok I see. When there's a dissenting opinion "it doesn't help discussion". I think 1e rocket tag is a perfectly fine topic when discussing power level of high level play considering that's what high level play in 1e boils down to.

We never had rocket-tag in high level PF1. You know how? GM optimized the monsters and NPCs. Is it a lot of work which he would rather not do? Sure. Could the difference between optimized and un-optimized PCs be lesser? Sure. Did we need all magic nerfed and everyone's numbers mostly the same? Hell no.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
I like how the consensus on this forum was that high level play in 1e was horrid and not fun at all. But now the playtest comes out trying to fix that and suddenly there's a bunch of people screaming for the old high level one round rocket tag to come back? Yikes.

I like how you suddenly have insight into the "consensus on this forum".


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure believing that a fix to a problem is worse than the problem is the same as liking the problem. Sawing off your toes may beat a hole in the head, but I'm not running off to buy smaller shoes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Is it really the problem of the GM when the only way to make combats harder is to either fudge the dice and cheat or to add more enemies which *might make the combat last a little longer but more likely causes the scales to tip in favour of the enemies who then slaughter the PCs in 1 round? Or would you say that's more of a system problem? Because that's what I think. When the most efficient way to build characters is to make characters that can kill or disable the most amount of creatures per round that's what happens. Obviously I'm being hypberbolic but that's how it feels trying to run and play high level 1st edition.

I dunno, man. I ran the anniversary edition of Runelords. Those poor fools went in to the demiplane with Karzoug, and within about 6 rounds, I saw their shoulders start to slump when they saw how the fight was gonna go. Brutal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Ok I see. When there's a dissenting opinion "it doesn't help discussion". I think 1e rocket tag is a perfectly fine topic when discussing power level of high level play considering that's what high level play in 1e boils down to.

No, when you try to argue with a position virtually no one is taking, that's when it's not contributing to the discussion. It's what is called a strawman argument: you build your argument up out of straw and then knock it down.

Silver Crusade

Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

I dunno, man. I ran the anniversary edition of Runelords. Those poor fools went in to the demiplane with Karzoug, and within about 6 rounds, I saw their shoulders start to slump when they saw how the fight was gonna go. Brutal.

I think this must be a Your Mileage May Vary thing. We took on Karzoug with our Core characters with a GM who is quite good tactically but also quite fair.

We had some difficult moments (it most certainly was no cake walk) but we won fairly handily with no character deaths.

Admittedly, all experienced players and the group had played together quite awhile so we worked well as a team. Were also PFS so I think that may have put us a little ahead of the WBL curve.


John Mechalas wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
That's the biggest thing there; every Fortitude Saving Throw in that adventure can be easily avoided if the players are smart enough and approach the relevant encounters the right way,

Please stop insulting my players, because that is what you are doing.

A3 is only optional if you are the GM because they players don't know what's optional.

The Fort saves in A6 are only avoidable if you know the thing that causes it is optional. See A3 for the definition of "optional".

Maybe the GM should reconsider if they gave out all the information, then. The adventure explicitly points out Taiga can draw a crude map and tell them what to expect in most of the rooms. Thus, the players know A3 doesn't go anywhere (unless you're looking for something), A5 doesn't go anywhere, and A6 is pretty obvious.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Maybe the GM should reconsider if they gave out all the information, then. The adventure explicitly points out Taiga can draw a crude map and tell them what to expect in most of the rooms. Thus, the players know A3 doesn't go anywhere (unless you're looking for something), A5 doesn't go anywhere, and A6 is pretty obvious.

They had a map and a rough description of each room per the scenario.

Just because a passage is a dead-end that doesn't mean it's not important, especially since the players are literally searching for something and don't have the benefit of omniscience. I'm a player in a Paizo AP where a campaign-critical item was literally discarded at the bottom of a well, unguarded, in a dead end room. That's as-written in the AP.

You just don't know until you look around.

Only part of A6 is obvious.:
The water is obviously contaminated, but that the idol cracks open and releases quasits is far from it. That's the part I am referring to.


John Mechalas wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Maybe the GM should reconsider if they gave out all the information, then. The adventure explicitly points out Taiga can draw a crude map and tell them what to expect in most of the rooms. Thus, the players know A3 doesn't go anywhere (unless you're looking for something), A5 doesn't go anywhere, and A6 is pretty obvious.

They had a map and a rough description of each room per the scenario.

Just because a passage is a dead-end that doesn't mean it's not important, especially since the players are literally searching for something and don't have the benefit of omniscience. I'm a player in a Paizo AP where a campaign-critical item was literally discarded at the bottom of a well, unguarded, in a dead end room. That's as-written in the AP.

You just don't know until you look around.

I will question any strategy that assumes that the boss will have tossed the treasure he's stealing into a centipede room. Said AP has it in there because it's dangerous to the enemies to even keep it around. That's not remotely comparable to a nonmagical jewel where the point is its value. It still theoretically could be in there, but there's pretty much no reason to check it first.

The spoiler is definitely the one exception to Fort saves, which is why I'm pretty sure the original thing stated that most were avoidable with planning. (Technically, that's avoidable too, but you'd have to do it by luck.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
I will question any strategy that assumes that the boss will have tossed the treasure he's stealing into a centipede room. Said AP has it in there because it's dangerous to the enemies to even keep it around. That's not remotely comparable to a nonmagical jewel where the point is its value. It still theoretically could be in there, but there's pretty much no reason to check it first.

The point still stands: players don't know what's optional until they look.

I didn't give the players a written manifest of the room contents to make the game easier on them. Talga said that room is just rubble. My thinking was: the centipedes ignore her tribe of goblins, so she didn't bring it up. It's not a hazard or a threat in her eyes.

And, there are also play style differences that make "optional" irrelevant. Some parties also just like to explore everything, even dead-ends. Some don't like leaving unexplored rooms, and possible threats, at their backs. Some are looking for clues everywhere because clues might be anywhere.

Edited to add: Don't knock PC's for wanting to explore. Killing people for curiosity hasn't been a thing in this game since 1st Edition.

201 to 231 of 231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / All these TPKs. Curious: All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion