What spells did he cast specifically? The more specific you are the better it will help Paizo.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
He got up and WALKED OUT over ONE difficult combat? In a scenario meant to stress-test the system?
What spells did he cast specifically? The more specific you are the better it will help Paizo.Glitterdust, heightened Burning Hands, sleep and Gust of Wind.
He used a cast for Magic Weapon on the rogues shortbow when the rogue got pinned by a volley as well.
My primary point here is that a Wizard was completely invalidated by the saves of the creature. Save DC's are too low or creature saves are way too high. My Wizard had a spell DC of 18. That means the beastie beat Fort saves on a 5, reflex on an 8 and will on an 11.
Please note that 18 is the absolute highest spell DC you can have at lvl 4.
It really wouldn't matter what spell it was, targeting saves vs that critter was something that would go against the player very often.
Glitterdust is a weak level 2 spell if not used on an invisible creatures. Gust of Wind could have been good but the creature's best save is fort so unlucky. Sleep should have worked but the rolls weren't in his favour and Burning hands is an AOE spell but still should have dealt SOME amount of damage unless he crit saved which would have been unlucky. None of this stuff is indicative that the system is broke, just unlucky prepped spells and rolls. In fact this system is better if your rolls are unlucky because more spells still have effects attached to them even when you make a save.
Creatures are OP at present. Look at Goblins - they have like +6 to hit! The devs have hinted at this.
From what I have seen, I think creatures basically need to take like -2 to every save, attack and spell/effect dc (at early level anyways). That would make them save less, hit less, crit less and screw you less. AC seems mostly OK.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He got up and WALKED OUT over ONE difficult combat? In a scenario meant to stress-test the system?
He was already upset because of how poorly his casting focused Druid handled in chapter 1. I didn't once claim the fellow was rational, or I agreed with him,
I am merely making the point that between his own reading of the rulebook and his in game experience with casters so far he was not impressed. Hell, of the 4 sessions I've played playtesting.
I had one group clear chapter 1 with no primary healer and almost no damage, then proceed to get demolished in chapter 2 but barely survive.
And then this guys group, who barely survived chapter 1 and didn't survive 2.
He was very unimpressed with the performance of the Wizard, and the overall utility and power of the spells in pf2e.
Fair enough - I figured there had to me more to it - a bad performance in Chapter 1, plus this, and maybe peppered with group stress on this being one of the last sessions together could definitely do it.
I'm playing a Dwarf Wizard through this myself as the "main character", and had a blast with the first session, though in my case I didn't get to use a single first level spell -- I was mopping up goblins with telekinetic projectile too much to get a chance.
The thing I think Paizo hasn't been successful in communicating is that Doomsday Dawn is in parts a Stress Test -- something Jason Bulmahn alluded to in the September 14th Twitch stream. The first chapter was pretty bog-standard, but Chapters 2 onward are going to have some unusual circumstances included, parts where they want to see what breaks and what doesn't - hence the "murder machine" you referred to for Chapter 2, he's meant to be tough, and in fact Jason mentioned in the stream that they discovered some things about ranged options for several classes (he mentioned Monks and Barbarians in particular). Our group wizard went down not once, but TWICE in that encounter, though he did get some good hits in with magic missile and the like.
I'm eager to see how my wizard performs in later chapters, myself.
Creatures are OP at present. Look at Goblins - they have like +6 to hit! The devs have hinted at this.
From what I have seen, I think creatures basically need to take like -2 to every save, attack and spell/effect dc (at early level anyways). That would make them save less, hit less, crit less and screw you less. AC seems mostly OK.
Jason seemed to say in that stream that player characters were in general not hitting the target numbers for attacks that they anticipated; I wonder what changed in the rules (player side) for this to be the case?
Truthfully, I would full stop say he over-reacted if the Casters got more than 3 spells per day (+1 in some cases, I'll grant you) if the Casters got 5 per day or 3 + casting mod per day of each level spell, I'm right there with you, that a 55% chance for a boss type encounter is acceptable.
55% chance on a spell against a creature 2 levels above the party, which described in the bestiary is equal to a "High- or severe-threat boss" Yeah I think that's fair. Especially when spells still have minor effects on normal successes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I sympathize with your wizard. Traditional caster builds have really been nerfed hard, and you're not going to have a good time trying to get through with spells and cantrips. Having a strong Str or Dex score and fighter dedication is all but mandatory, IMO. This definitely needs to be addressed, because as of right now the classic PF1-style wizard and sorcerer are trap options.
When my 3-person party hit this battle, the Cleric basically had to sit there healing for six turns until the Manticore finally charged into melee. They tried flying up to hit it, but the character they chose as recipient of the spell had a -5 ft speed penalty due to armor so there was only a 25 ft move speed. This meant that he could only move 75 feet per round with all three actions. The Manticore has 40 ft move speed and can move 80 feet per round with two actions, and was able to play a perpetual game of keepaway without interfering with its attack routine. Its spikes ran out before the cleric ran out of heals, and once it charged into melee they mobbed it and brought it down, but it basically consumed all their resources for the entire day (they were freshly rested, thank goodness).
I definitely agree that there's a distinct lack of good options to deal with flying creatures this edition. The fly spell is too slow (and high-level, and short duration) to do its job, and strong ranged attack options are harder to come by. I suspect a lot of parties had no option but to withstand the onslaught and wait out the Manticore... and if your cleric went down (or you didn't have one, or he wasn't fresh) I can see that turning into a TPK rout very easily.
The monsters being overtuned is only part of the problem here, I feel.
I do think spell casting is weak in it's current iteration, but I am happy to see save or lose spells being nerfed. What could be less fun than "roll the dice, if you fail then this encounter is over"?That being said, I am on the fence on whether or not they have been nerfed too hard. Judging by the spells listed, it looks like your player picked spells that were golden in PF1 and assumed they would still be top picks in PF2. Glitterdust is a decent "anti-invis" spell now but is most certainly not the "the encounter is over unless they have blindsight" spell it used to be. Sleep is a good sneaking spell (if sneaking was not as insanely difficult as it currently is) but the fact that all they have to do to wake up is make a perception check at -4 vs any loud noise means it is no longer save or lose (though what constitutes a loud noise is up for debate. medium armor walking around the room? maybe fine? medium armor walking up adjacent to the asleep person? personally I'd rule that as requiring a save)
As you mentioned, the odds of success for most actions in this system is supposed to be around 50%-65%. I feel that with fort being strong, ref being normal, and will being low the saves should have been closer to +11/+8/+5 rather than +13/+10/+7 but as a particularly difficult encounter those saves look ok-ish. The situation your player faced was the unfortunate experience of "rolls don't always match probability." If all 4 spells had been targeting will saves, there is still a 1/16 chance that the beast passes all the saves. With the situation he faced (2 reflex, 1 fort, 1 will) odds are closer to 1/6. It stinks and it feels terrible, but sometimes the dice gods are just vengeful. Like I mentioned I do think spell casting is weak currently. I do agree that there should be more spell slots (although cantrips have helped this immensely) Buffs need to feel more important, blasting needs to be better, utility needs to be revamped, but saves seem to be where they should be (maybe -1 or -2). In PF1 it was easy to boost save DCs high enough not to care what you were targeting but in PF2 you pretty much have to be able to make knowledge checks to find their weak saves and target accordingly.
He got up and WALKED OUT over ONE difficult combat? In a scenario meant to stress-test the system?
He was already upset because of how poorly his casting focused Druid handled in chapter 1. I didn't once claim the fellow was rational, or I agreed with him,
I am merely making the point that between his own reading of the rulebook and his in game experience with casters so far he was not impressed. Hell, of the 4 sessions I've played playtesting.
I had one group clear chapter 1 with no primary healer and almost no damage, then proceed to get demolished in chapter 2 but barely survive.
And then this guys group, who barely survived chapter 1 and didn't survive 2.
He was very unimpressed with the performance of the Wizard, and the overall utility and power of the spells in pf2e.
So you used the same party in chapters 1 and 2? I thought you were supposed to use different characters in each of those chapters precisely because of the deadliness of chapter 2 (which leads me to believe that the chapters using the "original" party are less deadly).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What could be less fun than "roll the dice, if you fail then this encounter is over"?
While I do think many save-or-suck spells needed the nerf, I feel what we got in exchange is far worse. We're now in "roll the dice, if you fail then you're... slightly inconvenienced". I feel that we've lost something exciting and interesting with the nerf of all the spells and abilities that can change the course of a battle. I don't know what the middle-ground solution is, but I hope one can be found.
but the fact that all they have to do to wake up is make a perception check at -4 vs any loud noise means it is no longer save or lose (though what constitutes a loud noise is up for debate. medium armor walking around the room? maybe fine? medium armor walking up adjacent to the asleep person? personally I'd rule that as requiring a save)
The fact that the DC is unlisted means that there's going to be huge table variation on this spell. It could really stand for some more elaboration on that perception check. The fact that coup-de-grace is gone and they don't drop prone means it's not really that bad anymore anyways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, best thing an arcane caster can do at low levels is to prepare magic missiles only, save spells on minor encounters (using only cantrips there), and using 3-action magic missiles in boss fights, such as the manticore case. In this case, a wizard/sorcerer is the group's lifesaver.
At higher levels, you have more options for even spell levels, but your odd spell levels need to be filled with magic missiles. For the same reason.
All other arcane tactics currently work on groups of weaker opponents, but of zero use for bosses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fight is annoying as you don't have many options to deal with it and it has a ton of hit points.
The wizard is also frustrating in that they don't have anything beyond their limited amount of spells and spell powers. They don't have the skills and proficiencies of the bard, druid, and rogue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I do think many save-or-suck spells needed the nerf, I feel what we got in exchange is far worse. We're now in "roll the dice, if you fail then you're... slightly inconvenienced". I feel that we've lost something exciting and interesting with the nerf of all the spells and abilities that can change the course of a battle. I don't know what the middle-ground solution is, but I hope one can be found.
I agree that we went from too OP to too weak. I would prefer to see more spells with potent debuffs on normal fails and crit fails ending the encounter. So crit success means nothing happens, success means mild inconvenience, failure means hampered, and crit fail means game over. Sleep is trying to do that, but because it is meant to avoid combat it can't swing the tide of battle
Hmm yes there should be more guidelines for what DCs various noises require to be heard, but for people in armor for instance it is an opposed sneak vs perception roll (which is terrible for PCs since monster perception is absurdly high). From page 320 in the rulebook:but the fact that all they have to do to wake up is make a perception check at -4 vs any loud noise means it is no longer save or lose (though what constitutes a loud noise is up for debate. medium armor walking around the room? maybe fine? medium armor walking up adjacent to the asleep person? personally I'd rule that as requiring a save)The fact that the DC is unlisted means that there's going to be huge table variation on this spell. It could really stand for some more elaboration on that perception check. The fact that coup-de-grace is gone and they don't drop prone means it's not really that bad anymore anyways.
"If there is a loud noise going on around you, at the start of your turn you can attempt a Perception check as a free action with a -4 circumstance penalty against the noise's DC (or the lowest DC if there is more than one noise), waking up if you succeed. For creatures attempting to stay quiet, this is a Stealth DC.
Perhaps from a RAW point of view once asleep the PCs should make stealth checks all the time or the target can automatically wake up, but I like interpreting the "loud noises only" to give the PCs more leeway and make the spell less than useless.
So you used the same party in chapters 1 and 2? I thought you were supposed to use different characters in each of those chapters precisely because of the deadliness of chapter 2 (which leads me to believe that the chapters using the "original" party are less deadly).
From the context, I think he used two different sets of characters (he mentions the Wizard player using a Druid in Chapter 1).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps from a RAW point of view once asleep the PCs should make stealth checks all the time or the target can automatically wake up, but I like interpreting the "loud noises only" to give the PCs more leeway and make the spell less than useless.
Now I on the other hand interpret "loud noise" as the PC's doing something unusually loud. Simply walking past (regardless of ACP) would not even allow a perception check in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a bit out of left field but I suppose a decent play check test.
My own crew also got beat down by it but solved the issue by..., running. The Druid that was playing had Obscuring Mist ready. Drop it, go over the plan for maybe a turn, and then they booked it. I think they also summoned something to draw attention.
So it wasn't a complete wash. Druid player felt pretty good about getting them out. But the rest of the team was kinda bothered that they HAD to run.
For reference, the team was; Druid, Monk, Sorcerer, Barbarian.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I
For reference, the team was; Druid, Monk, Sorcerer, Barbarian.
A flying monk should deal some considerable damage (fly is on the druid spell list and you were given a scroll of fly).
When I played it my druid did exactly that on the monk. The cleric mostly kept the monk alive as he drew a LOT of damage. The rest of us primarily plinked away with ranged attacks (including my druid. Don't all druids take weapon proficiency :-)? )
I admit to be being heartily amused by Paizos apparent surprise that this fight showed that monks, barbarians, etc needed better range options. I mean, OF COURSE a fight with a ranged flier is going to show that all characters NEED some range options.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can sympathize with your wizard. I ran scenario 1 twice for about ten characters, of which five were full casters. Of those full casters, exactly one PC managed to make an enemy fail a save (even with one PC that cast Daze on goblins at least five times - which they always saved against). The only other useful thing done with spells was healing (and like 3 damage from burning hands once).
The scenario 2 encounter you list is a brutal one. I had four PCs (druid, rogue, barbarian, fighter) that had limited ranged ability. If I'd wanted to kill one of the PCs, I probably could have done so pretty easily. Instead, I had the manticore fling spines at each target once (well, double spine and then single spine - it only has 12, so that's all of them), which bloodied them pretty well and left half of them immobilized. It then made the mistake of landing to "finish them off", which let the fighter and barbarian reach it. It died about the time it hit the ground.
So... With suboptimal tactics from the manticore, it went okay. The one spell the druid threw that wasn't a heal (gust of wind) was saved against and had zero effect on the combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I
For reference, the team was; Druid, Monk, Sorcerer, Barbarian.
A flying monk should deal some considerable damage (fly is on the druid spell list and you were given a scroll of fly).
When I played it my druid did exactly that on the monk. The cleric mostly kept the monk alive as he drew a LOT of damage. The rest of us primarily plinked away with ranged attacks (including my druid. Don't all druids take weapon proficiency :-)? )
I admit to be being heartily amused by Paizos apparent surprise that this fight showed that monks, barbarians, etc needed better range options. I mean, OF COURSE a fight with a ranged flier is going to show that all characters NEED some range options.
I don't remember the outright turn to turn play. That was last week. But I believe that was the plan, but the Monk ate crit from the Jaws and dropped like a rock. Sorcerer(Angelic) was able to patch him up while the Barbarian kept the beast back. But it was looking grim till they used Mist to cover their escape.
They retreated, rested, and then went back on track, avoiding the beast in question(We are talking about the manticore right?)
My own crew also got beat down by it but solved the issue by..., running. The Druid that was playing had Obscuring Mist ready. Drop it, go over the plan for maybe a turn, and then they booked it. I think they also summoned something to draw attention.
Your GM was very forgiving as running should be impossible and impractical because:
1) The manticore is much faster than all of the core races. There's no way they could outrun it.
2) The encounter takes place on a narrow ledge along the mountain. There's no place hide and it takes more than an hour to get to your next destination. After the distraction, the manticore would easily be able to see the party and catch up to them.
3) Not killing the manticore makes things worse in the future. It complicates a future encounter, and you would have to fight the manticore again on the way back.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your GM was very forgiving as running should be impossible and impractical because:
You're partly right and partly wrong.
Clearly, yes, the Manticore should have killed the party.
But its a playtest. At that point the lesson of the Manticore (Wow, flying creatures with ranged attacks can be nasty, especially to parties with few ranged options) has been learned. Rather than have a TPK the GM decided to continue with the adventure.
Which seems the right decision to me. From a fun point of view, the party keeps playing. From a testing point of view, more information is learned.
Quick preamble; I don't say anything below to be disparaging or arrogant, just my experience with the play-test so far. I play with a group of experienced players that has been playing since 2nd edition (not together), prefer hard mode, low magic home brew campaigns, and are annoyingly good at breaking games with solid/focussed character builds.
It's funny, I keep hearing about TPK's and how tough monsters are but I feel my players have hardly broken a sweat in the Playtest... We are gearing up to play next weekend and they just camped at the knoll camp, so will be stepping up to the Manticore next. I have run a couple test scenarios myself and, barring some lucky crits, I don't think the Manticore has a chance at wiping the party... maybe if it had more spikes to exhaust the party of their heals.
Only KO we had was in Ch 1 when the overzealous rogue jumped in on the Sewer Ooze alone... couldn't sneak attack it and got knocked down after getting hit then crit'ed on 2nd attack. Every fight, including Draxus, has been a total breeze since. The rogue effectively tanked most of ch 1 since his AC was top tier, no one could hit him!
I think we are all in agreement that Spells got nerfed hard. I like the idea of bringing the old low tier and high tier classes closer together, but I feel like spell-casters may have gotten hit just a little too hard. Sword n' board looks to be too good to pass up.
The wizard is also frustrating in that they don't have anything beyond their limited amount of spells and spell powers. They don't have the skills and proficiencies of the bard, druid, and rogue.
In the chance that you aren't currently aware: that got heavily tweaked in update 1.2. Sig skills have been ditched, and unless otherwise stated classes start trained in their primary skill and 4+int mod others (druid and cleric/paladin being trained in nature+order skill and religion+deity skill respectively and 3 other each, before int mod. In some cases the primary skill is chooseable). Bard gets occultism+performance+6+int mod, ranger survival+5+int mod, rogue (steath or thievery)+9+int mod.
Because a standard wizard is starting with 16 or 18 int, they're starting with arcana+4+(3 or 4) skills, which is to say 8 or 9, 9 being on par with a 12-int Bard and only one skill behind a 14-int bard.
It's true that a wizard's other proficiencies fall behind, but being int-based in the new skill layout is a considerable starting advantage. As of Monday, this might prove slightly more useful by virtue of skill DCs coming down slightly and untrained being a greater penalty (the TL;DR of which being that trained probably equates to what a +2 bonus at present would be, with untrained about the same as it is now in relative to the DCs).
Your GM was very forgiving as running should be impossible and impractical because:
You're partly right and partly wrong.
Clearly, yes, the Manticore should have killed the party.
But its a playtest. At that point the lesson of the Manticore (Wow, flying creatures with ranged attacks can be nasty, especially to parties with few ranged options) has been learned. Rather than have a TPK the GM decided to continue with the adventure.
Which seems the right decision to me. From a fun point of view, the party keeps playing. From a testing point of view, more information is learned.
It skewes the results by recording 1 less TPK and 4 less death to the tally of the playtest. Then we have people saying it's impossible to TPK since non one reported having one.