The vault in Red Flags [spoilers]


Doomsday Dawn Game Master Feedback

101 to 123 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

TheFinish wrote:
Tamago wrote:

The kraken repositioned one of the rogues in order to get a beak attack in, but that wasn't super effective, so I didn't repeat the tactic. (It's more effective to just do another one-action double attack, even at -10, than to reposition and bite a single target.)

The PCs didn't move, but if they are being grappled by a thing, then surely it's close enough to attack! The idea that a character wouldn't be close enough to swing their sword at the giant tentacle that is literally touching them seems frankly ludicrous and didn't even cross my mind.

I can't remember for certain, but I think with respect to Freedom of Movement, the grappled casters did spend an action to automatically escape, and the kraken at that point realized that they were not going to be able to stay grabbed, and didn't spend a lot of actions trying to get at them.

Well no. If they're being grappled by the thing, they're not absolutely close enough to attack. To able to Strike, the Kraken needs to be in Reach of the player. If the Kraken has you Grabbed 40ft out,it's not within your reach. "Attacking the tentacle" isn't a thing you can do, and it never has been. You may consider it silly (it is), but that's RAW, and that's what Colette runs with. And I'm sure it would have made your encounter much, much harder.

And I know repositioning to bite is a bad tactic. But the Kraken could also just reposition them under the water in order to drown them, or force them to swim (especially for the spellcasters with freedom of movement).

The Kraken really aught to double attack, reposition one and ink cloud on its first turn and repeat the tactic with constrict instead of ink cloud until its moved everyone 40ft under poisonous water.

Freedom of movement is the only way of having a chance here aside from creating walls. And FoM still doesn't prevent the kraken from grabbing you and stuffing you under water stopping you from casting spells.

The kraken itself isn't going to be a very fun encounter at any level, since its primary means of interacting with the players is forcing them to spend actions doing nothing.


I am not here to run a RAI game. There are monsters with rules for attacking body parts, like the roper and the hydra. The roper is especially relevant, because it offers rules for attacking grabbing appendages.

The kraken offers no such rules, and therefore, its appendages cannot be attacked. It is as simple as that.


Colette Brunel wrote:

I am not here to run a RAI game. There are monsters with rules for attacking body parts, like the roper and the hydra. The roper is especially relevant, because it offers rules for attacking grabbing appendages.

The kraken offers no such rules, and therefore, its appendages cannot be attacked. It is as simple as that.

Then, again, therefore its tentacles cannot block line of effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is one thing I am curious about that would be good to know, it is something I had been making an assumption on by stuff I think I remember reading but to do so without making sure may be an error on my part.

Do your players actually enjoy the grinder you put them through? All the minmaxing, metagaming, biased rulings, complete lack of human adjucation, ignoring of RAI (and occassionally RAW), never making it through a chapter of the game you are testing, etc.

Because if they really do then I suppose I owe you some apology as the way you run is perfectly fine for anyone who enjoys it. Nothing inherently wrong with it.

But if you have been doing this completely irregardless of your players, if people are coming to play in your games because you're the only GM around or because they don't know what they're getting into and are under the impression you are running a Pathfinder game and not a Pathfinder slaughterhouse, then yeah, my objections towards you do stand in their entirety.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:

There is one thing I am curious about that would be good to know, it is something I had been making an assumption on by stuff I think I remember reading but to do so without making sure may be an error on my part.

Do your players actually enjoy the grinder you put them through? All the minmaxing, metagaming, biased rulings, complete lack of human adjucation, ignoring of RAI (and occassionally RAW), never making it through a chapter of the game you are testing, etc.

Because if they really do then I suppose I owe you some apology as the way you run is perfectly fine for anyone who enjoys it. Nothing inherently wrong with it.

But if you have been doing this completely irregardless of your players, if people are coming to play in your games because you're the only GM around or because they don't know what they're getting into and are under the impression you are running a Pathfinder game and not a Pathfinder slaughterhouse, then yeah, my objections towards you do stand in their entirety.

Yeah people seem to infer that I'm complaining about running an intense game. no my complaint is the complaining about it being too intense when you are in fact running it that way. Seems unfair to be to complain about everything being to hard for the players when you out and out state that your job is to make it as hard as possible for the players. Really If I wanted to run a hard game and couldn't that would be more of a problem. Apparently If I want to run an excessively hard game its doable which is good and going by all the people that said they never had that many problems with difficulty means that I can run a chill game when I want to as well. That's like all positives.


Edge93 wrote:
Then, again, therefore its tentacles cannot block line of effect.

Resilient sphere is an ambiguous mess, and I have been asking about it as early as this thread.

Wall of force says, "If the wall’s surface would be broken by any creature or object, the spell is lost." That does not refer to line of effect or anything mechanically-grounded; it is a loosey-goosey statement more grounded in narrative than anything, because there is no mechanic for determining whether or not a wall's surface would be broken. Thus, it is fair game to read that in a more narrative-grounded fashion, and the rules for reach in a more mechanically-oriented manner, because there are actually mechanics for reach.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
Then, again, therefore its tentacles cannot block line of effect.

Resilient sphere is an ambiguous mess, and I have been asking about it as early as this thread.

Wall of force says, "If the wall’s surface would be broken by any creature or object, the spell is lost." That does not refer to line of effect or anything mechanically-grounded; it is a loosey-goosey statement more grounded in narrative than anything, because there is no mechanic for determining whether or not a wall's surface would be broken. Thus, it is fair game to read that in a more narrative-grounded fashion, and the rules for reach in a more mechanically-oriented manner, because there are actually mechanics for reach.

Bull. There is mechanics for the surface of the wall being broken: If there is a creature or object in the area covered by the wall then it's broken. That's the mechanics. And as such it's subject to whether or not the Kraken's tentacles are a creature or object and thus attackable or not. You can't try to rule that narratively a wall is broken because the Kraken's tentacles are reaching out from the Kraken and to and around the player as a part of the Kraken and then simultaneously rule that the tentacles don't actually act as an extension of the Kraken when it would benefit the players instead of hindering them. That's bull and you know it.

With as much as you have been BLATANTLY refusing to inject ANY narrative into the battles of a game that is partly narrative-based, trying to suddenly use narrative to argue something against the players where ruling against them mechanically would conflict with another sketchy mechanics ruling you made against them just makes it even more transparent how biased you are in your rulings and makes it that much harder to take your feedback and assertions seriously.


Edge93 wrote:
There is mechanics for the surface of the wall being broken: If there is a creature or object in the area covered by the wall then it's broken

Says what rule?

I do not see the point in arguing that there is no ambiguity here, because there is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
There is mechanics for the surface of the wall being broken: If there is a creature or object in the area covered by the wall then it's broken

Says what rule?

I do not see the point in arguing that there is no ambiguity here, because there is.

I think Edge is referring to the following:

Wall of Force wrote:
You form an invisible wall of pure magical force up to 50 feet across and up to 20 feet high. The wall has no discernible thickness. If the wall’s surface would be broken by any creature or object, the spell is lost. The wall has AC 10, TAC 6, and Hardness 23, and it can take 3 additional Dents before being broken. If the wall is broken, the spell ends. The wall blocks physical effects from passing through it, and because it’s made of force, it blocks incorporeal and ethereal creatures as well. Teleportation effects can pass through the barrier, as can visual effects (since the wall is invisible).

So the argument is that that rule says the Wall of Force spell would only fail if an object or creature breaks the wall's surface. So if the spell fails due to something breaking its surface, that something must be an object or creature. If it's an object or creature, you can attack it using either normal attack rules for the creature or item damage rules for the object.

For Resilient Sphere, you could then make the argument that the spell description does not include any phrase about the spell being lost or failing if something is breaking the surface when it's cast (similar to the argument that you cannot attack the kraken's tentacle because it's not specifically called out as a possibility as it is with other creatures) and therefore cannot be disrupted. Does that make sense as a ruling? I personally don't believe so. Is it ambiguous/unclear? Yes.

If one's going by the "it must explicitly be called out/RAW-iest" ruling, it seems to me that one'd rule that Resilient Sphere doesn't get disrupted if cast while grappled because it doesn't say it can be disrupted (even though I think it's implied by the text of the saves), you cannot attack the tentacles because the bestiary doesn't say you can, and since you can't attack the tentacles, they must not be creatures or objects (since there are rules for attacking them), so Wall of Force would not be disrupted. Or I suppose one could rule tentacles are a special case of a creature or object that disrupts the Wall of Force and yet cannot be attacked somehow.


Anon A Mouse wrote:
Colette Brunel wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
There is mechanics for the surface of the wall being broken: If there is a creature or object in the area covered by the wall then it's broken

Says what rule?

I do not see the point in arguing that there is no ambiguity here, because there is.

I think Edge is referring to the following:

Wall of Force wrote:
You form an invisible wall of pure magical force up to 50 feet across and up to 20 feet high. The wall has no discernible thickness. If the wall’s surface would be broken by any creature or object, the spell is lost. The wall has AC 10, TAC 6, and Hardness 23, and it can take 3 additional Dents before being broken. If the wall is broken, the spell ends. The wall blocks physical effects from passing through it, and because it’s made of force, it blocks incorporeal and ethereal creatures as well. Teleportation effects can pass through the barrier, as can visual effects (since the wall is invisible).

So the argument is that that rule says the Wall of Force spell would only fail if an object or creature breaks the wall's surface. So if the spell fails due to something breaking its surface, that something must be an object or creature. If it's an object or creature, you can attack it using either normal attack rules for the creature or item damage rules for the object.

For Resilient Sphere, you could then make the argument that the spell description does not include any phrase about the spell being lost or failing if something is breaking the surface when it's cast (similar to the argument that you cannot attack the kraken's tentacle because it's not specifically called out as a possibility as it is with other creatures) and therefore cannot be disrupted. Does that make sense as a ruling? I personally don't believe so. Is it ambiguous/unclear? Yes.

If one's going by the "it must explicitly be called out/RAW-iest" ruling, it seems to me that one'd rule that Resilient Sphere doesn't get disrupted if cast while grappled...

Thank you, that is indeed a more concise way of phrasing what I was trying to get at.


If there is an ambiguity in the grab/restrain rules, then that should be clarified.

If there is an ambiguity in the resilient sphere and wall of force rules, then that should be clarified.

This is a playtest, and one of the goals is to identify ambiguities. I think that that job has been done.

Once again, I am not your enemy. I am on the same side as you, trying to help polish up the game.


I mean, the RAW regarding wall spells, cover, terrain, it's all a mess.

By RAW, the Kraken's tentacles cannot be attacked. No more that you could attack any other monster part, with exceptions.

Also by RAW, a creature only occupies the spaces it has alloted due to size. If a creature with Reach attacks you, you don't count the squares between you and it as occupied (that'd be a freaking nightmare). I mean can you imagine having to calculate what squares the Kraken's 60 foot tentacle went through, to see if it triggers AoOs or god knows what else?

So if you have a Kraken grappling someone 40ft away, and you wall of force at the mid point, the spell goes off fine. The tentacle in the middle is a transdimensional phasing entity from the beyond, it does not actually exist for the rules as occupying any space.

But the even funnier thing is that the wall does absolutely nothing to protect whoever is behind it. It blocks Line of Effect, for sure, but the Kraken doesn't give a toss about Line of Effect. It's using melee attacks. And melee/ranged attacks are not stopped by blocking terrain. The guy on the other side of the wall would have Cover, per page 314, and it would probably have screening, barring some weirdo positioning. But other than that, it's fair game for the tentacles. And the beak. And basically everything, except spells.

And this is why getting rid of the Total Cover rules was a bad idea; as well as getting rid of the clause that stated that when you Grapple someone from far away, they get pulled to an adjacent space. You get absolute shenanigans.


The wall blocks physical effects so you can't strike right through it. But however if the creature would have the reach to go around a section of the wall and back towards it target it would be able to hit. So the kraken 60ft reach attacks Jim the wizard on the other side of the 20ft high 50ft across wall. Both creatures are standing ground level at the middle of the wall. Assuming the wall touches nothing else other than the floor the kraken would be able to reach Jim through either striking from above the wall 20ft up and 20ft down for a 40ft reach and from the side 25ft across and 25ft back for a 50ft reach. But Jim would still have cover because center to center still passes through the wall.


Right, my bad, I was thinking of wall of ice and wall of stone.

Though wall of force still creates problems if the person is already grabbed. As does resilient sphere, which has been pointed out.

Adding the "grapple moves people adjacent" solves the first problem, at least. Not the second one though, that one's still a bit iffy.


TheFinish wrote:
And this is why getting rid of the Total Cover rules was a bad idea; as well as getting rid of the clause that stated that when you Grapple someone from far away, they get pulled to an adjacent space. You get absolute shenanigans.

I really hope I am not the only one going crazy over the lack of rules on line of sight, preventing walking through blocking terrain, and preventing attacking through walls.


Edge93, I have my playtesting style, and you have yours. Once again, I am not your enemy. We are on the same side, and we can offer the developers different and diverse viewpoints. Let us continue to do that.


Colette Brunel wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
And this is why getting rid of the Total Cover rules was a bad idea; as well as getting rid of the clause that stated that when you Grapple someone from far away, they get pulled to an adjacent space. You get absolute shenanigans.
I really hope I am not the only one going crazy over the lack of rules on line of sight, preventing walking through blocking terrain, and preventing attacking through walls.

You probably are. Most people know that you can't see, walk, or attack through solid objects.


Colette Brunel wrote:
Edge93, I have my playtesting style, and you have yours. Once again, I am not your enemy. We are on the same side, and we can offer the developers different and diverse viewpoints. Let us continue to do that.

By all means, have your own playtesting style. I'd just like to see you iron out some of the obvious things that hinder your proclaimed goal of bettering PF2. You could certainly make the good points you do find a lot more palatable and agreeable without too much effort while simultaneously getting more feedback as well, which would also work towards your goal. But in the end to do so or not entirely falls to you, no matter how I may object to questionable decisions or ones that seem self-destructive to the goal of bettering PF2.

I expect both our times could be spent better than quibbling the same points repeatedly here, as I feel we've reached something of an impasse where both have said all there is to say and little agreement is reached. As such I will likely take my leave from this thread unless something new arises, Istill have a crapton of work to do on a writeup of how my group somehow survived Heroes of Undarin (Despite my many concerns) and I should probably be working on that instead.

As you say, we have very different styles, and it seems disagreement on the productivity of the approach to the proclaimed goal of those styles yield little.

And I have said this before and will say it again, I do appreciate some of the inconsistencies and errors and exploits in the rules you have found, I just wish they came in a way that was more likely to spark productive discussion rather than argument.


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

For what it's worth Colette. Your round by round break down of the TPK against the Kraken was very enlightening and let us get a better idea of what's going wrong (specifically your DMPCs did literally nothing but flounder for the entire fight and the "non-combat built" caster characters just tried to cast offensive spells instead of going for more creative solutions around the kraken problem.) I'd honestly really like to read more round by round break downs of other TPKs your party had. Perhaps one that was a bit more straight forward than this kraken one. So we can get to the bottom of why your games are such ridiculous outliers from others.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am really not sure what the GMPCs were supposed to do given that they had no ranged weapons at hand (and even if they did, they would effectively deal scratch damage due to having outdated weapon potency runes and no ability modifier to damage), they could escape only on a natural 20, and they were not in reach to attack the kraken.

The bard was attempting an everything-or-nothing play with possession, and the wizard was simply tossing out what they could.

I really do not think it is surprising that a noncombat-optimized party would flounder to a sudden encounter with a level + 3 monster with 60-foot-reach and high-escape-DC grabs, especially given the overpowered monster math.

Could the party have attempted something similar to this?

Maybe, but given the necessary string of very lucky rolls, even such a noncombat solution would have been shut down by even one failed roll.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Just go invisible before going in the room and go to the vault. your casters should have plenty of castings of this since invisibility is kind of THE go to infiltration spell.

Anyways the Kraken TPK isn't too surprising. Your players fought a really powerful foe that you were supposed to find a way around and died. I'd like to read round by round breakdowns of other TPKs where the party died to foes that they should have had a better chance at defeating.

101 to 123 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Playtest Feedback / Doomsday Dawn Game Master Feedback / The vault in Red Flags [spoilers] All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Doomsday Dawn Game Master Feedback