paizo.com Recent Posts in So I ran 2e for the First Time . . .paizo.com Recent Posts in So I ran 2e for the First Time . . .2019-08-14T20:01:07Z2019-08-14T20:01:07ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: So I ran 2e for the First Time . . .Mark Seifterhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42p8f?So-I-ran-2e-for-the-First-Time#402019-08-15T17:39:13Z2019-08-15T01:05:08Z<p>Yeah, that 3-4 version of the final is so far beyond an extreme encounter for level 1s, even with maximum success on the rest of the adventure. It's basically supposed to be a boss fight for level 3 characters. Honestly great job beating the <redacted> at 3-4. Its [Spoiler omitted] make that a nasty fight for 1st level characters! So it's not the system, it's not the adventure, it's not your group (who are majorly awesome for winning that fight down a member!) It's just a mistake of running a 3rd level adventure for 1st level characters. If anything it shows the resiliency and power of a clever and tactical group to achieve the really impressive victories you did achieve, in combat and skills alike.</p>
<p>It's not called a mentor bonus, but basically the only time a level 1 would be forced to play in a correctly-run PFS adventure is when say 3 4th level characters and a 1st sit down to play. In the case where you are the absolute minimum level possible (so 1 in this case), the higher-level Pathfinders are basically assumed to take extra effort to give you pointers and look out for you, so you get some extra benefits (a proactive Pathfinder can even gain boons to increase the way they can help their lowbie buddies out). This wouldn't matter to you in not playing PFS since ideally you can just all be the same level and not play the other subtier.</p>Yeah, that 3-4 version of the final is so far beyond an extreme encounter for level 1s, even with maximum success on the rest of the adventure. It's basically supposed to be a boss fight for level 3 characters. Honestly great job beating the at 3-4. Its [Spoiler omitted] make that a nasty fight for 1st level characters! So it's not the system, it's not the adventure, it's not your group (who are majorly awesome for winning that fight down a member!) It's just a mistake of running a 3rd level...Mark Seifter2019-08-15T01:05:08ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: So I ran 2e for the First Time . . .Anguishhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42p8f?So-I-ran-2e-for-the-First-Time#392019-08-15T00:46:13Z2019-08-15T00:46:13Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Reckless wrote:</div><blockquote>For 5 players</blockquote><p>Thanks for the details. What you describe is what happened. More later, as I reply to Mark.
<p>[Spoiler omitted]</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Mark Seifter wrote:</div><blockquote> Also a level 1 character in the 3-4 subtier would get a significant mentor bonus from the higher-level Pathfinders (and there must be higher level Pathfinders around to be playing 3-4 in the first place). It sounds like you somehow played the 3-4 subtier with 5 1st-level characters though, and even completed the investigation as fast as possible, in which case Anguish, your group are incredible tacticians and great at teamwork to even make it that far. You guys rock! Now I want to try to play that adventure on the same settings with my most tactical players and see if they can make it there. I kind of like the name "Anguish mode" for the play on words, but only if you would feel it was an homage / positive thing. If I do this (not sure I have the time), I will report back with how it goes.</blockquote><p>You're welcome to the name. It'd be amusing, if anything.
<p>Some of the words you use mean things to me in a dictionary sense, but not a game sense. We don't do PFS. I bought these adventures for us to have something shorter to run than the month's module or AP. "Mentor bonus?"</p>
<p>As for our progress...</p>
<p>[Spoiler omitted]</p>
<p>Anyway, thank you (both) very much for engaging and discussing this. I don't deserve any dev input, let alone the time you've burned on me so far. I just want you to know it's appreciated.</p>Reckless wrote:For 5 players
Thanks for the details. What you describe is what happened. More later, as I reply to Mark. [Spoiler omitted]
Mark Seifter wrote:Also a level 1 character in the 3-4 subtier would get a significant mentor bonus from the higher-level Pathfinders (and there must be higher level Pathfinders around to be playing 3-4 in the first place). It sounds like you somehow played the 3-4 subtier with 5 1st-level characters though, and even completed the investigation as fast...Anguish2019-08-15T00:46:13ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: So I ran 2e for the First Time . . .Mark Seifterhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42p8f?So-I-ran-2e-for-the-First-Time#382019-08-15T02:16:42Z2019-08-14T23:36:09Z<p>Also a level 1 character in the 3-4 subtier would get a significant mentor bonus from the higher-level Pathfinders (and there must be higher level Pathfinders around to be playing 3-4 in the first place). It sounds like you somehow played the 3-4 subtier with 5 1st-level characters though, and even completed the investigation as fast as possible, in which case Anguish, your group are incredible tacticians and great at teamwork to even make it that far. You guys rock! Now I want to try to play that adventure on the same settings with my most tactical players and see if they can make it there. I kind of like the name "Anguish mode" for the play on words, but only if you would feel it was an homage / positive thing. If I do this (not sure I have the time), I will report back with how it goes.</p>Also a level 1 character in the 3-4 subtier would get a significant mentor bonus from the higher-level Pathfinders (and there must be higher level Pathfinders around to be playing 3-4 in the first place). It sounds like you somehow played the 3-4 subtier with 5 1st-level characters though, and even completed the investigation as fast as possible, in which case Anguish, your group are incredible tacticians and great at teamwork to even make it that far. You guys rock! Now I want to try to play...Mark Seifter2019-08-14T23:36:09ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: So I ran 2e for the First Time . . .Recklesshttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42p8f?So-I-ran-2e-for-the-First-Time#372019-08-14T23:23:58Z2019-08-14T23:23:58Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Anguish wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Reckless wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Ran Escaping the Grave 6 times at GenCon. Setting the tone with a standardized "now I'm not saying time is important, but I <b>am</b> keeping track of it" helped to set a sense of urgency. </p>
<p>The players were engaged with the scenario and for the most part tried to find the quest goals with a sense of urgency. One group preferred caution over urgency, avoiding as much as possible splitting search parties too far. Overall, 2 groups had the best possible time, two a medium result, and two were too slow and triggered the hardest boss fight.</p>
<p>Compared to the scenario I played and the other non-special being run, my impression is that EtG had the best, most "boss-fight" feeling boss fight of the three release non-special scenarios. It is a tough fight.</blockquote><p>This suggests to me what happened with us.
<p>The DM said we were on the "easiest tier". Others have mentioned that word with regards to the overall difficulty/statblocks involved, as a PFS module. I assumed that's what he meant. Now, I think he meant that we were on the easiest version of the boss fight based on time. We likely were on a higher <i>tier</i> due to having 5 PCs instead of 4. So this too explains some of what we experienced.</p>
<p>I should read the module. </blockquote><p>Could be a misread by your GM. They have scaling in the scenario for 5 or 6 players. For 5 players
<p>[Spoiler omitted]</p>Anguish wrote:Reckless wrote:Ran Escaping the Grave 6 times at GenCon. Setting the tone with a standardized "now I'm not saying time is important, but I am keeping track of it" helped to set a sense of urgency.
The players were engaged with the scenario and for the most part tried to find the quest goals with a sense of urgency. One group preferred caution over urgency, avoiding as much as possible splitting search parties too far. Overall, 2 groups had the best possible time, two a medium...Reckless2019-08-14T23:23:58ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: So I ran 2e for the First Time . . .Perpdepoghttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42p8f?So-I-ran-2e-for-the-First-Time#362019-08-14T22:53:49Z2019-08-14T22:53:49Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Danbala wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Bill Dunn wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p>Yeah, I'm with Malk_Content in that you don't need to be that anal. You could say (and I'd hope to see more of this): "I take a potion out, go over to James, and pour it into his mouth. That's an interaction, stride, and interaction for my 3 actions, Dan."
<br />
Then it feels more natural for the description, but includes the player accounting for the specifics with the GM. </blockquote>Hopefully, we get to that point. In this first game, things sometimes slowed down when I clarified the specific action and the traits associated with that action — it caused some players to revise their turn. </blockquote><p>I'm sure we will. I like the trait system and I think that, yeah, it has a bit of a learning curve out of the gate but once it's been played with a bit people will be able to quickly internalize it, which will in turn lead to quickhand jargon and descriptive turn narration like Bill suggested.Danbala wrote:Bill Dunn wrote:Yeah, I'm with Malk_Content in that you don't need to be that anal. You could say (and I'd hope to see more of this): "I take a potion out, go over to James, and pour it into his mouth. That's an interaction, stride, and interaction for my 3 actions, Dan."
Then it feels more natural for the description, but includes the player accounting for the specifics with the GM.
Hopefully, we get to that point. In this first game, things sometimes slowed down when I...Perpdepog2019-08-14T22:53:49ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: So I ran 2e for the First Time . . .Anguishhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42p8f?So-I-ran-2e-for-the-First-Time#352019-08-14T21:59:05Z2019-08-14T21:59:05Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Reckless wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Ran Escaping the Grave 6 times at GenCon. Setting the tone with a standardized "now I'm not saying time is important, but I <b>am</b> keeping track of it" helped to set a sense of urgency. </p>
<p>The players were engaged with the scenario and for the most part tried to find the quest goals with a sense of urgency. One group preferred caution over urgency, avoiding as much as possible splitting search parties too far. Overall, 2 groups had the best possible time, two a medium result, and two were too slow and triggered the hardest boss fight.</p>
<p>Compared to the scenario I played and the other non-special being run, my impression is that EtG had the best, most "boss-fight" feeling boss fight of the three release non-special scenarios. It is a tough fight.</blockquote><p>This suggests to me what happened with us.
<p>The DM said we were on the "easiest tier". Others have mentioned that word with regards to the overall difficulty/statblocks involved, as a PFS module. I assumed that's what he meant. Now, I think he meant that we were on the easiest version of the boss fight based on time. We likely were on a higher <i>tier</i> due to having 5 PCs instead of 4. So this too explains some of what we experienced.</p>
<p>I should read the module.</p>Reckless wrote:Ran Escaping the Grave 6 times at GenCon. Setting the tone with a standardized "now I'm not saying time is important, but I am keeping track of it" helped to set a sense of urgency.
The players were engaged with the scenario and for the most part tried to find the quest goals with a sense of urgency. One group preferred caution over urgency, avoiding as much as possible splitting search parties too far. Overall, 2 groups had the best possible time, two a medium result, and two...Anguish2019-08-14T21:59:05ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: So I ran 2e for the First Time . . .Excaliburproxyhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42p8f?So-I-ran-2e-for-the-First-Time#342019-08-14T21:09:17Z2019-08-14T21:09:17Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Colonel Kurtz wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Excaliburproxy wrote:</div><blockquote>I would argue that this sort of thing generally works against a monster more than it does players when the number of players is greater than the number of monsters.. </blockquote><p>I find it best to throw a number of monsters at least equal to the number of party members against the PCs.
<p>Focus fire/action economy is a big thing. </blockquote><p>I feel that. I am setting up my own campaign to start in the next two or three weeks and I am going to try a few different balances of enemies and see if I get any unusual or disastrous results. I can maybe comment more on it then.Colonel Kurtz wrote:Excaliburproxy wrote:I would argue that this sort of thing generally works against a monster more than it does players when the number of players is greater than the number of monsters..
I find it best to throw a number of monsters at least equal to the number of party members against the PCs. Focus fire/action economy is a big thing. I feel that. I am setting up my own campaign to start in the next two or three weeks and I am going to try a few different balances of...Excaliburproxy2019-08-14T21:09:17ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: So I ran 2e for the First Time . . .Danbalahttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42p8f?So-I-ran-2e-for-the-First-Time#332019-08-14T20:58:15Z2019-08-14T20:55:45Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Bill Dunn wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p>Yeah, I'm with Malk_Content in that you don't need to be that anal. You could say (and I'd hope to see more of this): "I take a potion out, go over to James, and pour it into his mouth. That's an interaction, stride, and interaction for my 3 actions, Dan."
<br />
Then it feels more natural for the description, but includes the player accounting for the specifics with the GM. </blockquote><p>Hopefully, we get to that point. In this first game, things sometimes slowed down when I clarified the specific action and the traits associated with that action — it caused some players to revise their turn.Bill Dunn wrote:Yeah, I'm with Malk_Content in that you don't need to be that anal. You could say (and I'd hope to see more of this): "I take a potion out, go over to James, and pour it into his mouth. That's an interaction, stride, and interaction for my 3 actions, Dan."
Then it feels more natural for the description, but includes the player accounting for the specifics with the GM.
Hopefully, we get to that point. In this first game, things sometimes slowed down when I clarified the...Danbala2019-08-14T20:55:45ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: So I ran 2e for the First Time . . .Bill Dunnhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42p8f?So-I-ran-2e-for-the-First-Time#322019-08-15T15:29:56Z2019-08-14T19:47:39Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Danbala wrote:</div><blockquote><p> There were also few things about 2e, that were more difficult as a GM than I expected:</p>
<p>First up: Action List. When I played to 2e at Gen con and I said “I swing my sword” Jack, our GM, would often correct me by saying “Ok. You take a strike action.” I found it irritating at the time, but now that I have a game as GM under my belt, I know why he did that. Each of the actions have different attributes. The GM needs to understand clearly what action you are using because these actions may trigger certain reactions. For example, if you say “I take a potion out go over to James and pour it into James’ mouth” what you are really saying is “I use an interact action to take out a potion. I use a Stride action to move to James. then I use my final action to use Interact to poor the potion into James’ mouth.” </blockquote><p>Yeah, I'm with Malk_Content in that you don't need to be that anal. You could say (and I'd hope to see more of this): "I take a potion out, go over to James, and pour it into his mouth. That's an interaction, stride, and interaction for my 3 actions, Dan."
</p>
Then it feels more natural for the description, but includes the player accounting for the specifics with the GM.</p>Danbala wrote:There were also few things about 2e, that were more difficult as a GM than I expected:
First up: Action List. When I played to 2e at Gen con and I said “I swing my sword” Jack, our GM, would often correct me by saying “Ok. You take a strike action.” I found it irritating at the time, but now that I have a game as GM under my belt, I know why he did that. Each of the actions have different attributes. The GM needs to understand clearly what action you are using because these...Bill Dunn2019-08-14T19:47:39ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: So I ran 2e for the First Time . . .lordcirthhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42p8f?So-I-ran-2e-for-the-First-Time#302019-08-14T18:16:58Z2019-08-14T18:16:58Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Danbala wrote:</div><blockquote><p> There were also few things about 2e, that were more difficult as a GM than I expected:</p>
<p>First up: Action List. When I played to 2e at Gen con and I said “I swing my sword” Jack, our GM, would often correct me by saying “Ok. You take a strike action.” I found it irritating at the time, but now that I have a game as GM under my belt, I know why he did that. Each of the actions have different attributes. The GM needs to understand clearly what action you are using because these actions may trigger certain reactions. For example, if you say “I take a potion out go over to James and pour it into James’ mouth” what you are really saying is “I use an interact action to take out a potion. I use a Stride action to move to James. then I use my final action to use Interact to poor the potion into James’ mouth.” The interact action has the manipulation trait which means it triggers certain reactions — most notably attacks of opportunity. Also the traits effect how often an action can happen in a turn (actions with the “flourish” trait can only be used once per turn). They can also effect the order of you action as some actions can only happen after you use the Strike action, for example. All of this has the potential to be pretty complicated. I wasn’t expecting just how complicated this could be to run. I think Im up to the challenge but it will take some work.</p>
<p>Another thing that will take some getting used to: Item traits. So all of the weapons have traits, armor has traits and so on. This created some confusion in my mind. There are 12 different traits that apply to weapons and they all have special rules. On top of that there are “weapon critical traits” that apply to classes of weapons. Weapons also have materials as before and can be subject to runes or other enchantments that also have special terminology. This is also true of armor that has its on set of traits and materials. For the players this is straightforward: they only have to worry about the traits of the weapon they are using and they can’t use the... </blockquote><p>One correction: critical specialization effects work by weapon Group, which is not considered a "trait".Danbala wrote:There were also few things about 2e, that were more difficult as a GM than I expected:
First up: Action List. When I played to 2e at Gen con and I said “I swing my sword” Jack, our GM, would often correct me by saying “Ok. You take a strike action.” I found it irritating at the time, but now that I have a game as GM under my belt, I know why he did that. Each of the actions have different attributes. The GM needs to understand clearly what action you are using because these...lordcirth2019-08-14T18:16:58ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: So I ran 2e for the First Time . . .Danbalahttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42p8f?So-I-ran-2e-for-the-First-Time#292019-08-14T20:00:52Z2019-08-14T17:44:57Z<p>There were also few things about 2e, that were more difficult as a GM than I expected:</p>
<p>First up: Action List. When I played to 2e at Gen con and I said “I swing my sword” Jack, our GM, would often correct me by saying “Ok. You take a strike action.” I found it irritating at the time, but now that I have a game as GM under my belt, I know why he did that. Each of the actions have different attributes. The GM needs to understand clearly what action you are using because these actions may trigger certain reactions. For example, if you say “I take a potion out go over to James and pour it into James’ mouth” what you are really saying is “I use an interact action to take out a potion. I use a Stride action to move to James. then I use my final action to use Interact to poor the potion into James’ mouth.” The interact action has the manipulation trait which means it triggers certain reactions — most notably attacks of opportunity. Also the traits effect how often an action can happen in a turn (actions with the “flourish” trait can only be used once per turn). They can also effect the order of you action as some actions can only happen after you use the Strike action, for example. All of this has the potential to be pretty complicated. I wasn’t expecting just how complicated this could be to run. I think Im up to the challenge but it will take some work.</p>
<p>Another thing that will take some getting used to: Item traits. So all of the weapons have traits, armor has traits and so on. This created some confusion in my mind. There are 12 different traits that apply to weapons and they all have special rules. On top of that there are “weapon critical traits” that apply to classes of weapons. Weapons also have materials as before and can be subject to runes or other enchantments that also have special terminology. This is also true of armor that has its on set of traits and materials. For the players this is straightforward: they only have to worry about the traits of the weapon they are using and they can’t use the weapon critical effect if they have a special feat. But for the GM you need to have a handle on all of these rules and how they interrelate. In some cases these rules impact the tactical options of the NPCs. It’s a bit much to try to take in all at once. Again, I’m optimistic I can get on top of it, but it caught me off guard how much extra load this put on my brain.</p>There were also few things about 2e, that were more difficult as a GM than I expected:
First up: Action List. When I played to 2e at Gen con and I said “I swing my sword” Jack, our GM, would often correct me by saying “Ok. You take a strike action.” I found it irritating at the time, but now that I have a game as GM under my belt, I know why he did that. Each of the actions have different attributes. The GM needs to understand clearly what action you are using because these actions may...Danbala2019-08-14T17:44:57ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: So I ran 2e for the First Time . . .Recklesshttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42p8f?So-I-ran-2e-for-the-First-Time#282019-08-14T19:28:20Z2019-08-13T12:11:51Z<p>Ran Escaping the Grave 6 times at GenCon. Setting the tone with a standardized "now I'm not saying time is important, but I <b>am</b> keeping track of it" helped to set a sense of urgency. </p>
<p>The players were engaged with the scenario and for the most part tried to find the quest goals with a sense of urgency. One group preferred caution over urgency, avoiding as much as possible splitting search parties too far. Overall, 2 groups had the best possible time, two a medium result, and two were too slow and triggered the hardest boss fight.</p>
<p>Compared to the scenario I played and the other non-special being run, my impression is that EtG had the best, most "boss-fight" feeling boss fight of the three release non-special scenarios. It is a tough fight. </p>
<p>I also ran the beginning of Age of Ashes, just getting through the initial Call for Heroes. Players are exploring their characters, role-playing, using their skills to know stuff, and did pretty well in first combat.</p>
<p>So far, so great for my experiences.</p>Ran Escaping the Grave 6 times at GenCon. Setting the tone with a standardized "now I'm not saying time is important, but I am keeping track of it" helped to set a sense of urgency.
The players were engaged with the scenario and for the most part tried to find the quest goals with a sense of urgency. One group preferred caution over urgency, avoiding as much as possible splitting search parties too far. Overall, 2 groups had the best possible time, two a medium result, and two were too slow...Reckless2019-08-13T12:11:51ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: So I ran 2e for the First Time . . .Colonel Kurtzhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42p8f?So-I-ran-2e-for-the-First-Time#272019-08-13T09:38:05Z2019-08-13T09:38:05Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Excaliburproxy wrote:</div><blockquote>I would argue that this sort of thing generally works against a monster more than it does players when the number of players is greater than the number of monsters.. </blockquote><p>I find it best to throw a number of monsters at least equal to the number of party members against the PCs.
<p>Focus fire/action economy is a big thing.</p>Excaliburproxy wrote:I would argue that this sort of thing generally works against a monster more than it does players when the number of players is greater than the number of monsters..
I find it best to throw a number of monsters at least equal to the number of party members against the PCs. Focus fire/action economy is a big thing.Colonel Kurtz2019-08-13T09:38:05ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: So I ran 2e for the First Time . . .Erpahttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42p8f?So-I-ran-2e-for-the-First-Time#262019-08-13T03:23:17Z2019-08-13T03:23:17Z<p>OP; glad to hear about your game! Looking forward to more of people's experiences (and maybe less complaints on theory craft and builds).</p>OP; glad to hear about your game! Looking forward to more of people's experiences (and maybe less complaints on theory craft and builds).Erpa2019-08-13T03:23:17ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: So I ran 2e for the First Time . . .Molotovhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42p8f?So-I-ran-2e-for-the-First-Time#252019-08-13T03:09:27Z2019-08-13T03:09:27Z<p>Glad to hear the OP's positive experience with PF2 in play. I'm looking forward to giving it a trial run this coming weekend.</p>Glad to hear the OP's positive experience with PF2 in play. I'm looking forward to giving it a trial run this coming weekend.Molotov2019-08-13T03:09:27ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: So I ran 2e for the First Time . . .Anguishhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42p8f?So-I-ran-2e-for-the-First-Time#242019-08-13T09:59:57Z2019-08-13T02:40:31Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">HidaOWin wrote:</div><blockquote> Eh, if you are Strength 14 or better you can ignore speed penalty from hide armour, but I understand what you mean. </blockquote><p>Damnit! I caught that meeting the Strength value let you ignore the check to skills, but missed that it worked on speed too. Okay then. More blame on me.
<p>Thanks for the tip!</p>HidaOWin wrote:Eh, if you are Strength 14 or better you can ignore speed penalty from hide armour, but I understand what you mean.
Damnit! I caught that meeting the Strength value let you ignore the check to skills, but missed that it worked on speed too. Okay then. More blame on me. Thanks for the tip!Anguish2019-08-13T02:40:31ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: So I ran 2e for the First Time . . .MerlinCrosshttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42p8f?So-I-ran-2e-for-the-First-Time#232019-08-13T02:23:49Z2019-08-13T02:23:49Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Excaliburproxy wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I would argue that this sort of thing generally works against a monster more than it does players when the number of players is greater than the number of monsters. If one strong monster uses an action to skitter away from the melee fighters then the monster has more or less used 1/3 of its "side's" actions just to reduce the number of attacks the melee characters can make; recall that a certain percentage of the party are going to be ranged casters or ranged fighters so the monster's action spent re-positioning isn't going to reduce damage from those guys. There are also plenty of ways to get power attack and barbarians can pick up No Escape at level 2 to similarly bypass an enemy's chance of escape. </p>
<p>Hit and run tactics maybe work a little better with many weak enemies but that is why god made burning hands. </blockquote><div class="messageboard-quotee">Danbala wrote:</div><blockquote> [Maybe. But when you are fighting giant rats and skeletons it doesn't seem in character for the enemy to do that. Also, in most cases the monsters are outnumbered which limits that tactic's effectiveness for them. </blockquote><p>Against 1 big target sure. And against Several targets yeah AoE still exists.
<p>4 PCs vs 4 Bandits or even like 4-6 goblins I've just seen it turn into a running battle. And not an actual epic running battle the kind you'd seen in movies or fiction. More like Tom chasing Jerry. So then my own groups see this cartoonish running fight or the martials standing in place to screen the Ranged, usually in a corridor to the point we're back where PF1 put us. </p>
<p>That's funny once. Having it happen all the time is annoying. </p>
<p>Besides, where are we in the multi swing math?</p>Excaliburproxy wrote:I would argue that this sort of thing generally works against a monster more than it does players when the number of players is greater than the number of monsters. If one strong monster uses an action to skitter away from the melee fighters then the monster has more or less used 1/3 of its "side's" actions just to reduce the number of attacks the melee characters can make; recall that a certain percentage of the party are going to be ranged casters or ranged fighters so...MerlinCross2019-08-13T02:23:49ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: So I ran 2e for the First Time . . .HidaOWinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42p8f?So-I-ran-2e-for-the-First-Time#222019-08-13T05:31:58Z2019-08-13T01:40:52Z<p>Eh, if you are Strength 14 or better you can ignore speed penalty from hide armour, but I understand what you mean.</p>Eh, if you are Strength 14 or better you can ignore speed penalty from hide armour, but I understand what you mean.HidaOWin2019-08-13T01:40:52ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: So I ran 2e for the First Time . . .Anguishhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42p8f?So-I-ran-2e-for-the-First-Time#212019-08-14T19:27:12Z2019-08-13T01:34:51Z<p>AC 15. -1 raging. Studded leather, because I'm not looking to reduce mobility. Of course... that means dead. Which is - I guess - the consequence of not picking the highest possible number.</p>
<p>But really, this is derailing a little.</p>
<p>I would like to add two <b>good</b> comments:</p>
<p>1} I was VERY pleased at being able to play against the stereotype. My character, Pho, was our very first ever gnome barbarian. With the voluntary flaw system, she sacrificed by having one extra flaw overall (Wis), and was able to be Str +4, Con +2. Very cool.</p>
<p>2} In the module, there is a DC to move a thing. Her background gave her Heavy Hauler. That specific choice (maxed Str plus that feat) was the only way to meet the DC. So this gnome... she was able to do that which normally would take a team of people. Which was roleplay gold. I mean, really, really cool.</p>AC 15. -1 raging. Studded leather, because I'm not looking to reduce mobility. Of course... that means dead. Which is - I guess - the consequence of not picking the highest possible number.
But really, this is derailing a little.
I would like to add two good comments:
1} I was VERY pleased at being able to play against the stereotype. My character, Pho, was our very first ever gnome barbarian. With the voluntary flaw system, she sacrificed by having one extra flaw overall (Wis), and was...Anguish2019-08-13T01:34:51ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: So I ran 2e for the First Time . . .HidaOWinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42p8f?So-I-ran-2e-for-the-First-Time#202019-08-13T01:20:22Z2019-08-13T00:47:42Z<p>That seems an pretty low AC even with the -1 penalty.</p>
<p>Your barbarians level 1 AC should be 10(base) + 2 (trained in armour) + 1 (level) +3 (hide armour if your dex is bad) +1 (dex) = 17 AC, 16 with Rage, you could also be 14 dex which pumps that up one higher. </p>
<p>It’s a potentially tough fight alright and your AC being lower than expected can really sting especially against the tougher foes in it.</p>That seems an pretty low AC even with the -1 penalty.
Your barbarians level 1 AC should be 10(base) + 2 (trained in armour) + 1 (level) +3 (hide armour if your dex is bad) +1 (dex) = 17 AC, 16 with Rage, you could also be 14 dex which pumps that up one higher.
It’s a potentially tough fight alright and your AC being lower than expected can really sting especially against the tougher foes in it.HidaOWin2019-08-13T00:47:42ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: So I ran 2e for the First Time . . .Anguishhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42p8f?So-I-ran-2e-for-the-First-Time#192019-08-13T00:34:15Z2019-08-13T00:34:15Z<p>@Fumarole, it was the second creature you mentioned. I did not see the specific statblock, but I had AC 14 due to rage and being a two-hander. I may be misremembering the exact roll the DM said was required, but with the attack modifier you point out we're still looking at a 50% chance of <i>critting</i>. Which seems really wrong. Like... not even in the ballpark of sensible when that crit is fatal. I volunteer that the second crit against my barbarian was my own fault because I chose to stand up and provoke deliberately in the hopes that I might buy the alchemist a chance, if the dice were lucky. They weren't even remotely.</p>
<p>@Michael, I was explicitly told the DM ran the lowest tier. There were five PCs, but the DM (note: this is NOT society play... this was just at home) specifically said he ran the easy tier.</p>
<p>I can only relate what I'm told and what I experienced, but the encounter was a meatgrinder, which shredded all the hitpoints that went near its components. 21 damage with an attack that crits even vaguely close to 50% of the time isn't something you can learn from; you're dead already. It's also basically auto-hit on first attacks, 75% on seconds (which together is fatal), and the same 50% on a third attack.</p>
<p>But more importantly, that encounter was designed to happen after a day of sapping the party's resources, not allowing rest. Again, I try to separate the rules from the module.</p>@Fumarole, it was the second creature you mentioned. I did not see the specific statblock, but I had AC 14 due to rage and being a two-hander. I may be misremembering the exact roll the DM said was required, but with the attack modifier you point out we're still looking at a 50% chance of critting. Which seems really wrong. Like... not even in the ballpark of sensible when that crit is fatal. I volunteer that the second crit against my barbarian was my own fault because I chose to stand up...Anguish2019-08-13T00:34:15ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: So I ran 2e for the First Time . . .Michael Sayre (Design Manager)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42p8f?So-I-ran-2e-for-the-First-Time#182019-08-13T09:46:56Z2019-08-13T00:11:30Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Fumarole wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Anguish wrote:</div><blockquote>And the final fight was... dumb. Deliberately not metagaming, my barbarian provoked an AoO from a bad guy and went from two points from raging maximum hitpoints to... dying 1. Due to the math, the bad guy basically had to roll a 7 in order to crit, which issues fatal damage. It nuked our alchemist next. The rest of the party ran away because there was no way to address the CR +1 monster, let alone his henchmen.</blockquote>I think your GM may have changed something, because •• spoiler omitted •• </blockquote><p>And those are the numbers for the higher Subtier; the numbers for the lower Subtier are 2 less.
<p>Though that does bring up the question of whether the right version was being used for the group? If the party were 1st or 2nd level and the 3-4 encounter stats were being used, it would be pretty rough and the success rates for just about everything would dip precipitously. I've seen a few people note the final encounter as being pretty rough, but critting on a 7 shouldn't happen even if you're a 10 Dex wizard wearing a bathrobe, unless you're a level 1 character playing up into the higher subtier (and even then I can't think of a situation where a 7 works out to a crit.)</p>Fumarole wrote:Anguish wrote:And the final fight was... dumb. Deliberately not metagaming, my barbarian provoked an AoO from a bad guy and went from two points from raging maximum hitpoints to... dying 1. Due to the math, the bad guy basically had to roll a 7 in order to crit, which issues fatal damage. It nuked our alchemist next. The rest of the party ran away because there was no way to address the CR +1 monster, let alone his henchmen.
I think your GM may have changed something, because...Michael Sayre (Design Manager)2019-08-13T00:11:30ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: So I ran 2e for the First Time . . .larsenexhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42p8f?So-I-ran-2e-for-the-First-Time#162019-08-12T23:39:27Z2019-08-12T23:39:27Z<p>The 5' step is still a thing. It just costs an action. I am rather happy its still there but does have a cost.</p>The 5' step is still a thing. It just costs an action. I am rather happy its still there but does have a cost.larsenex2019-08-12T23:39:27Z