Greetings Paizonians,
I remember the controller caster was an absolute powerhouse in PF1, how does he hold up now and who's list is most favorable for that style of caster? Is the controller still an optimal style or is the blaster the new benchmark?
It can still be effective. Most disabling and Crowd Control have been nerfed quite dramatically, so don't expect to shut down all enemies with a single cast.
Battlefield control will mostly delay enemies by a turn or two. Most spells that can take someone out of combat only last a round and many have the Incapacitate trait, making them ineffective against bosses.
The wall type battle field control spells all feel very weak to me.
There are still a few good spells, calm emotions is great at level 2 (but thankfully has the incapacitation trait). I think I saw some decent ones that didn't have that trait, but I can't remember which.
Most control spells are bad now, you really have to try to find good ones. I don't think that's too different from pf1 though
Instead of making opponents just lose entire turns or just be removed from battle the battlefield control in 2e looks to be around making the enemy lose actions.
Stinking Cloud, Grease, Wall of X, Black Tentacles, Web all work to make the foes lose actions or give penalties.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm yes seems quite inferior to straight blasting. Let us have a moment of silence for this particular style of casting. R.I.P old friend, you will be missed Web, Slow, Create Pit, Shifting Sand, etc.
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Control casting is still very viable. Debuffs, particularly costing the enemy actions or giving them defensive penalties are very powerful with PF2's math.
They look a tad weak when you're used to PF1, but in practice they can be very strong indeed if you have allies to make use of the opportunities they provide.
Control casting is still very viable. Debuffs, particularly costing the enemy actions or giving them defensive penalties are very powerful with PF2's math.
They look a tad weak when you're used to PF1, but in practice they can be very strong indeed if you have allies to make use of the opportunities they provide.
Hmm? Which spells would you recommend?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A few highlights:
- Slow. Reducing enemy actions is very powerful.
- Mask of Terror. For 1 minute, anyone targeteing the bufed creature must make a will save on their first hostile action each turn. Failure makes the attacker frightened 2, which is a pretty substential debuff, lowering not only attacks and save, but also AC and save DCs! Can be cast on 5 creatures (i.e. the whole party, most likely) hen heightened to level 8.
- Resilient sphere. At first glance, it's destroyeed very easily, especially at higher levels since there's no way to increase it's Hp. but than you realise that the enemy will msot likely use his first (and by far most dangerous) attack to break it, making his overall turn much less threatening. A caster might need a spell to get around it, which more or less costs him his whole turn. And the spell does all this still pretty well when the target succeeds at its save.
- Blindness is still a good debuff. It has the incapacitation trait so it works best against lower enemies (still up to your level, mind you, just not bosses). One minute blindness doesn't only meak 50% miss chance but also most likely at least one action per turn spent with the seek acton.
- Vibrant Pattern works like PF1 glitterdust. It does come quite a bit later, though (level 6 spell). Still powerful.
- Feeblemind give an enemy caster permanent 40% spell failure chance with a permanent duration. And it's still 30% for one round on a successful save.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stinking Cloud: Sickened and Slow while inside the cloud.
Wall of Fire/Stone/Ice/Force: No save, it split the field in two, possibly making one extreme encounter into two moderate encounters.
Grease: Enemies moving into the Grease space make a reflex save or will be prone, forcing them to spend an action to get up.
Solid Fog/Obscuring Mist: This harass ranged attackers so hard with the 20% flat miss chance, Solid Fog gives difficult terrain as well making harder to get out.
Synaptic Pulse: Occult list, it's incapacitation but it's a 30ft emanation stunned 2, it's crazy strong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stinking Cloud: Sickened and Slow while inside the cloud.
Stinking Cloud has lost most of its steam. It only affects creatures that end their turn in the cloud. And with 20 ft radius, that means at best you force one move action. Which isn't bad, mind you. Just the chance to actually slow/sicken someone with it is rather low without a good setup.
Wall of Fire/Stone/Ice/Force: No save, it split the field in two, possibly making one extreme encounter into two moderate encounters.
For one round. All the walls have too few HP to stop enemies for much longer, with the possible exception of Wall of Force with its pretty high hardness.
Grease: Enemies moving into the Grease space make a reflex save or will be prone, forcing them to spend an action to get up.
And you can debuff a weapon user with it. -2 attack for a minute isn't too shabby. And there's not even any reason to use a slot above 1st for it.
Note that I still consider all thses spells very good, with the possible exception of Stinking Cloud, which requires a bit too much setup for my liking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget silence. Stops verbal casting, stops enemies feom calling for reinforcements, can be combined with reach metamagic and has no saving throw.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget silence. Stops verbal casting, stops enemies feom calling for reinforcements, can be combined with reach metamagic and has no saving throw.
And targets only willing creatures ;)
He heightened version comes with 10 ft radius, though. Good against casters if you have someone good at grappling in the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget silence. Stops verbal casting, stops enemies feom calling for reinforcements, can be combined with reach metamagic and has no saving throw.
It has no saving throw because it has to be cast on a willing target now. You have to heighten it to the 4th level version, put it on an ally, and they have to move within 10' of a spellcaster. Who then just has to move at least 15' away from the target. So only grapplers need apply.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A grappler, or a barbarian that can chase down someone who tries to walk away, or anyone who stays on top of them, yes. The point is that they don't get a save against the effect if they're in the area. Also, grappler is not a specialized character now, but anyone with a hand and decent athletics. I don't see that as a niche application.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The action-reducing spells are much better when you get the higher-level versions that affect multiple targets. Fear and Fear(3) might be OK if someone in the party is built to exploit the frightened condition. Command(5), Slow(6), Paralyze(7) all look good to me.
I'm not convinced that losing one action is as big a deal as others do..
Obviously it is definitely always of some use, I'm not denying that.
If the creature is already in range for its attacks its really not that powerful. Having the creature lose an attack at -8 or -10 isn't that impressive. Ditto with when the creature has some form of 2 attacks for 1 action ability (fairly common).
Its most useful when the creature needs to close and therefore loses a decent attack.
Of course, IF the battlefield allows it AND the creature doesn't have an attack of opportunity then you can hit twice and run which is very effective against a 2 action creature WITHOUT a 2 for 1 ability. But battlefields are often NOT that open and often you're holding the line protecting the squishies. And attacks of opportunity ARE still a thing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget silence. Stops verbal casting, stops enemies feom calling for reinforcements, can be combined with reach metamagic and has no saving throw.It has no saving throw because it has to be cast on a willing target now. You have to heighten it to the 4th level version, put it on an ally, and they have to move within 10' of a spellcaster. Who then just has to move at least 15' away from the target. So only grapplers need apply.
Sounds like a cool strat. Nice.
I’m digging how spells interact with casters now due to the new skill system, it makes the environment and tactics a lot more diverse. And spells seem to thrive in creative diversity.
I feel like now spells are strong but not “paper” strong, it’s how you use it that matters.
Action Combos seem to be king this edition, so losing an action is effectively losing a combo (like losing a full attack and having to standard almost)
Disintegrate true strike comes to mind as well as Malk_Contents players that ran monk and a Druid with a monk acrobatically using earth platforms to force opponents to take falling damage and lose actions.
Then since tactics are king, it leaves the GM some ammo to get creative too, so it doesn’t even have to be rocket tag to first combo. Plus extra HP helps with that.
First encounter in new edition this weekend! Hypeeee
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gust of Wind prevents you moving against it - super narrow situational use in corridors. It also shoots down fliers that fail saves which seems strong for a level 1 spell that you don't need to heighten.
The action-reducing spells are much better when you get the higher-level versions that affect multiple targets. Fear and Fear(3) might be OK if someone in the party is built to exploit the frightened condition. Command(5), Slow(6), Paralyze(7) all look good to me.I'm not convinced that losing one action is as big a deal as others do..
Obviously it is definitely always of some use, I'm not denying that.
If the creature is already in range for its attacks its really not that powerful. Having the creature lose an attack at -8 or -10 isn't that impressive. Ditto with when the creature has some form of 2 attacks for 1 action ability (fairly common).
Its most useful when the creature needs to close and therefore loses a decent attack.
Of course, IF the battlefield allows it AND the creature doesn't have an attack of opportunity then you can hit twice and run which is very effective against a 2 action creature WITHOUT a 2 for 1 ability. But battlefields are often NOT that open and often you're holding the line protecting the squishies. And attacks of opportunity ARE still a thing.
At higher levels, it becomes increasingly common to find monsters that pack both significant martial and magical prowess. Stopping a creature from casting and striking in the same then is pretty great. As is limiting their ability to position for things like breath weapons.
I also think PF2 reduced the specialization that was there in PF1.
In PF2, a Barbarian can draw a bow without losing much efficiency, the bomber/mutagenist/etc Alchemist is no more a thing, and I think it's the same for casters. Any caster is a controller, as there is nearly nothing preventing you from being a great controller even without investment. So, to answer the question: No, controller casters are no more a "thing", but all casters are now controllers.
The action-reducing spells are much better when you get the higher-level versions that affect multiple targets. Fear and Fear(3) might be OK if someone in the party is built to exploit the frightened condition. Command(5), Slow(6), Paralyze(7) all look good to me.
I read a lot about Heightened Fear, is it only good to cast at high levels if someone has an ability specifically that can exploit the Frightened condition? Or is it good even if you don't? We have the ability to cast ninth level spells now and I seldom ever find a time to cast 3rd level Fear. I find myself casting Heightened Slow, Synaptic Pulse and other spells 5th level and above.
I also think PF2 reduced the specialization that was there in PF1.
In PF2, a Barbarian can draw a bow without losing much efficiency, the bomber/mutagenist/etc Alchemist is no more a thing, and I think it's the same for casters. Any caster is a controller, as there is nearly nothing preventing you from being a great controller even without investment. So, to answer the question: No, controller casters are no more a "thing", but all casters are now controllers.What do you mean "lose no efficiency"?
Rage is melee only and takes a feat to include throwing.
I don't think there's a way to get Rage on ranged ever.
Raging Thrower class feat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Powerful necromancy is at work here. Also, I couldn't help but chortle at the idea that "blaster is the new benchmark."
If only we'd known how bad it really was.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have seen casters and kineticists absolutely shut down encounters with well placed walls. Even if it only lasts a round or three before an enemy can get around it or break through it, few other effects can disrupt as many actions for as long at those spell ranks, to say nothing of breaking line of sight and line of effect to various monster abilities, giving your party an extended reprieve.
Anyone claiming walls and other control abilities aren't potent in PF2e loses all credibility in my mind.
Walls are very GM-dependent. If the enemies try to pierce through the Wall it's definitely super strong. If they run for their caster(s) to get their help, you just combined encounters and are now in deep trouble.
Walls are very GM-dependent. If the enemies try to pierce through the Wall it's definitely super strong. If they run for their caster(s) to get their help, you just combined encounters and are now in deep trouble.
I didn't combine encounters. The GM broke the unspoken rules of PF2e and combined encounters. Whatever may come of it falls solely at their feet, not mine.
Besides, any reinforcements likely must still contend with the wall, and even if they get past it, it's not really two encounters so much as one and a half at that point (as the first encounter half on the wrong side has likely been annihilated before the reinforcements can arrive).
This actually happened to us on one occasion. The reinforcements broke through quickly, but the hole in the wall created a choke point which allowed us to more easily deal with the new threat. It was nothing but a boon the entire time.
I didn't combine encounters.
With great power comes great responsibility.
The GM broke the unspoken rules of PF2e and combined encounters.
I play by RAW.
I strongly encourage you to lose such beliefs unless you play always with GMs you know for years. Sure, some GMs won't combined encounters but others have no issue doing it. And in general, you discover it the hard way.Besides, any reinforcements likely must still contend with the wall, and even if they get past it, it's not really two encounters so much as one and a half at that point (as the first encounter half on the wrong side has likely been annihilated before the reinforcements can arrive).
One and a half? Or two and a half, three and a half...
I personally dislike when a player tries to metagame me out of my encounter design and monster reactions. If you ever play with me, play soundly. And if you see the couple of enemies you Wall of Forced out of the fight running out of the room, I strongly encourage you to do the same and run to the exit. Death is worse than failure.
Walls are super strong but GM-dependent. With nice GMs they can be an "I win" button, with less nice GMs they are still strong but niche, as you need to be sure the enemies you walled off the fight can't screw you somehow.
|
I think this one is a bit on the GM, but it might not be obvious to the GM.
Almost every encounter is clearly in favor of the PCs. In every adventure. Sure, some are harder than others but if the adventure is "playable" then overall the PCs are expected to win every separate encounter.
So if the GM were playing monsters realistically the monsters might go "Gee, these adventurers are totally wrecking us, maybe we should retreat and alert the rest of the dungeon, if we all band together then maybe we stand a chance".
But that doesn't happen really; most dungeons are written with "fight to the death" tactics. There's a few more sophisticated adventures out there, sure, but I'd say 95% of adventures basically have monsters using inadequate tactics / threat assessment.
So when the GM reacts to a wall spell by suddenly having the monsters wake up and start doing commonsense things, yeah, the GM is kinda breaking the veil there.
Arguably it would be "better" to have been playing smarter monsters from the outset, if you can write fun and challenging but playable dungeons that way. But you can't really do that with the majority of published material without some major GM work to rebalance things.
But that doesn't happen really; most dungeons are written with "fight to the death" tactics.
Once an enemy is walled of a fight, the "fight to the death tactics" is off. Most enemies aren't Trained in the spellcasting skills and as such don't know anything about Walls. That's why I say they run for their spellcasters, as they are the only ones able to help them in this situation.
Sure, some are harder than others but if the adventure is "playable" then overall the PCs are expected to win every separate encounter.
That's before the PCs start meddling with the adventure. There are consequences to your actions and one of the potential consequences is "You lose". There's no hidden assumption that the PCs have to succeed, there's just an assumption that the adventure must be balanced.
So if the GM were playing monsters realistically the monsters might go "Gee, these adventurers are totally wrecking us, maybe we should retreat and alert the rest of the dungeon, if we all band together then maybe we stand a chance".
Why would they not? Depending on their psychology my monsters flee when they are beaten hard. Sure, it doesn't happen at each and every fight because it would quickly get boring, but it happens sometimes.
Edit: Anyway, it's GM-dependent. I'm used to combining encounters, having my monsters flee and encounters that are beyond the Extreme difficulty. Off course, all of that done with common sense so the PCs can react accordingly. Some of my players have started interacting with my dungeons in a different way. For example, when there are multiple doors to a room, they sometimes block the doors they won't open before opening the door they want to open to avoid enemies in the adjacent rooms to come for help.
Also, it really depends on the adventure. In Abomination Vault, I've been as hard as possible, when for other adventures I sometimes tell my players that it'll be run in easy mode. It depends what is the core of the adventure.
But clearly, if a PC uses Walls all the time it'll quickly get old and as such my monster will react more nastily as I want to keep some challenge in my adventures.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm yes seems quite inferior to straight blasting. Let us have a moment of silence for this particular style of casting. R.I.P old friend, you will be missed Web, Slow, Create Pit, Shifting Sand, etc.
Controllers/Debuffers are still enormously powerful within the PF2 paradigm. Slow is much better than blasting. It turns encounters into cakewalks.
You seem to want to do things alone like PF1. That aspect is gone.
When you land slow on a creature with a martial tripping it, that creature is all done, end of story, it's just waiting to die. When you hit a group with mass slow with a few critical fails, oh boy that encounter is practically over.
Wall Spells are still good. Not as good, but still good. Definitely use them a lot. Big difference being is monsters can pound through them now. That can take quite a while for spells like wall of force. So still works great.
Synestehsia is an amazing spell at debuffing.
Debuffing and control are still the most powerful options in the game, especially so in the tough encounters.
Phantasmal Calamity can be a combination blast and control spell against mooks.
Phantasmal Killer is also great for debuffing and damaging with the same spell.
I still prefer control casters over blasters. Occult list is the best control list now, but Arcane and Primal can do the job too with different spells.
Walls are very GM-dependent. If the enemies try to pierce through the Wall it's definitely super strong. If they run for their caster(s) to get their help, you just combined encounters and are now in deep trouble.
I combine encounters all the time. Walls slow the ability of combined encounters to bring their full force on you. If you are having trouble with encounters that aren't combined requiring walls, I would be surprised.
You don't really pick up quality walls until around level 9. A well built level 9 party is a powerhouse. You have to combine encounters to challenge them.
At least that is my experience, which as I've been told many times does not mirror the standard experience. So maybe that is not how it works for others.
But our main application of walls is to slow the ability of combined encounters to bring their full force against us. I always felt dividing a battlefield with a large number of foes is the primary use of walls.
A well built level 9 party is a powerhouse.
From my experience, these are the easiest levels. Low level is super swingy and bosses are party killers. Around level 10 you have enough hit points to easily survive a few critical hits and you don't have the crazy high level spells that can kill an encounter... or a PC. When you get to level 15+, any spellcaster or magic-oriented enemy, even a lower level one, is a powerhouse able to mess with your party like crazy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Walls are very GM-dependent. If the enemies try to pierce through the Wall it's definitely super strong. If they run for their caster(s) to get their help, you just combined encounters and are now in deep trouble.I didn't combine encounters. The GM broke the unspoken rules of PF2e and combined encounters. Whatever may come of it falls solely at their feet, not mine.
Besides, any reinforcements likely must still contend with the wall, and even if they get past it, it's not really two encounters so much as one and a half at that point (as the first encounter half on the wrong side has likely been annihilated before the reinforcements can arrive).
This actually happened to us on one occasion. The reinforcements broke through quickly, but the hole in the wall created a choke point which allowed us to more easily deal with the new threat. It was nothing but a boon the entire time.
I'm going to back RD on this one, strongly. Combining encounters must be done with extreme care.
If a foe runs to get help when a wall goes up, there is no reason they would not have done the same if a fight broke out. Getting help is the natural default response, especially if that guy feels he'd loose the fight. Going by "natural" or "smart thing" for foes to do, every fight should start with one guard/cultist/ect running like hell instead of staying to fight.
--------------------------------
The use of a wall spell should not at all be a factor in the reinforcement issue, that is suuuuuper artificial and feels like GM punishing smart play.
Combat noise is already supposed to be super loud, and if foes are "off-screen" but can hear a fight, the RP thing is for them to come running, no need to send for them.
Importantly, the players must know this, if the GM does not signpost the possibility of reinforcements, wall or not, that's a big deal. *Especially* if it's a boss fight.
The "RP smart thing" is already almost *never* what NPCs do. Any form of leader / boss would never fight to the death, only fight to escape. Foes would drop their weapons and beg for mercy far more often than the PCs would want to deal with it. As mentioned, every single fight inside a keep/ect would have a runner make a dash to raise an alarm. But because doubling a fight breaks the game balance, it really shouldn't happen most of the time.
All at the table need some self-awareness in regard to this layer of artifice. When a GM breaks it unexpectedly to combine encounters because someone used a wall spell instead casting a Sound Burst, that hugely hurts player enjoyment and leads to feelings of "vs GM"
It's all about having a shared set of expectations, if there's a disconnect btwn the PCs and GM, that really should be resolved in any way that avoids it suddenly doubling an encounter. I can't imagine how shitty it would feel to be a players whose PC died in that resulting double-fight, especially if they knew it was become of some surprise "wall rule".
Combining encounters is NOT RAW.
More precisely, it does not follow the Encounter Budget rules.
Technically, this is no rule but guidelines: "the guidelines that follow will help you build combat encounters that pose appropriate challenges for your group." As such you can choose not to follow them.
It can be considered a violation of RAI, but even in that case, nothing specifically states that a challenge that is outside the guidelines is something that should never happen.
We may disagree on that as we have a past together but I clearly dislike when a player metagame a situation using these rules. I've seen it a few times and it always tends to annoy me, to be polite (and when I'm the GM this kind of metagame can be very wrong).
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I combine encounters all the time. Walls or not. There is a rhythm to it and it takes practice to learn the balance between just overwhelming the players because, and creating the illusion of overwhelming the players, but giving them a way through it. It probably isn't a great thing for all GMs just to start doing randomly in the middle of campaigns.
My players know I do this. We talk about it in session 0. I establish that most creatures don't want to die, and will not fight to the death without cause. I also encourage players to try talking to enemies, even in the middle of encounters and will sometimes even fold an influence encounter over a combat encounter, making it clear to the players that they can talk some enemies down from a fight in those situations. I am a big fan of dynamic encounters with objectives bigger than "kill the other team."
The other positive flip side of all of this (and related to the OP topic) is that longer encounters vastly favor control casting. Spells with 10 round durations get cut short of their value when an encounter is over in 3 rounds. When encounters fold on top of each other and last 15 rounds, and players can pretty much tell "ok, this is it for the day, we either win this fight and are done, run away and are done, or all die," then spending 2 or 3 rounds early on throwing out control spells that can used the whole encounter are massively game changing. If those encounters were split over 3 or 4 encounters, there is a good chance that your control spells maybe steal an action or 3 per casting, but in a rolling collapsing encounter situation, you might be buring 10 or more actions with each of those spells.
Discrete isolated encounters favor certain kinds of spells (single target slow, good blasting spells, spells that cause fear), complex rolling encounters can favor very different kinds of spells (more elaborate battle field control such as clouds, darkness and walls). Generally speaking, it is a really good idea as a player to ask questions about how the GM is going to handle encounters in the campaign, as well as general themes of the campaign before deciding what type of caster you are going to play.
Several good points, Unicore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A well built level 9 party is a powerhouse.From my experience, these are the easiest levels. Low level is super swingy and bosses are party killers. Around level 10 you have enough hit points to easily survive a few critical hits and you don't have the crazy high level spells that can kill an encounter... or a PC. When you get to level 15+, any spellcaster or magic-oriented enemy, even a lower level one, is a powerhouse able to mess with your party like crazy.
Level 15 plus has pretty brutal PCs as well able to handle the heavy hitting.
I do agree high level casters, especially if more than one, are an extremely brutal enemy, even at level 9. Which is why DMs have to be very careful using multiple high level casters. Really, in my opinion you have to be careful using multiple boss monster casters period.
It's kind of strange situation as a DM. A single high level boss monster caster is super easy. A high level boss monster caster with sufficient support to cast while the minions do damage is dangerous. Multiple casters past a certain point is a brutal attack on the PCs hit point pool and abilties.
It's another reason why I thinks classes able to focus their statistics to maximize saving throws have an advantage over a class that can't.
Combining encounters is NOT RAW.
More precisely, it does not follow the Encounter Budget rules.
In my games, combat encounter budget does not override verisimilitude. If the party acts in a manner that causes a combined encounter to occur, it's gonna happen. Monsters are not sitting in their rooms going, "Damn. I can't do anything. It's not fair. The encounter budget rules will make the encounter too tough and the DM said he would kill us if we went to help out."
I'm not playing this way. Game needs to be able to handle combined encounters and still live.
Fortunately, it does.
I'll take fewer, severe-extreme encounters over a bunch of moderate speedbumps every day of the week. Given that wave/reinforcement type encounters aren't as difficult as front loading everything, you can even take it further than extreme with a good enough party.
|
|
Combining encounters is NOT RAW.
More precisely, it does not follow the Encounter Budget rules.
In my games, combat encounter budget does not override verisimilitude. If the party acts in a manner that causes a combined encounter to occur, it's gonna happen. Monsters are not sitting in their rooms going, "Damn. I can't do anything. It's not fair. The encounter budget rules will make the encounter too tough and the DM said he would kill us if we went to help out."
I'm not playing this way. Game needs to be able to handle combined encounters and still live.
Fortunately, it does.
To avoid their PC dying, players coming from PF1 have to unlearn their PF1 best practices to adapt to the completely different PF2 paradigm.
Ditto for GMs if they want to avoid TPKs.
Combining encounters in PF1 was far more feasible without risking a TPK. In PF2, it is extremely easy to get a TPK by combining encounters that were budgeted separately.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I read a lot about Heightened Fear, is it only good to cast at high levels if someone has an ability specifically that can exploit the Frightened condition? Or is it good even if you don't? We have the ability to cast ninth level spells now and I seldom ever find a time to cast 3rd level Fear. I find myself casting Heightened Slow, Synaptic Pulse and other spells 5th level and above.
I mean most parties can take advantage of Frightened enemies - it reduces their saves and ACs while also protecting you by their attacks and DCs. But like most spells it’s a matter of how and when you use it. Since Frightened naturally goes away, casting Fear right away only for the rest of the party to spend the following turn bugging or moving, or when the ememy’s turn is directly after you (and so it’s condition will be better by the time any of you can act) isn’t making good use of the debuff. But you could hold off the spell until your Allie’s are in the thick of it, or even Delay to cast it right after a group of enemies go to get a full ‘rounds-worth’ of the higher Frightened condition.
It’s a good spell, but like most control spells in 2e knowing when to use which tool is key. Slow (regular or heightened) is usually best as an opener, Synethesia (which is already one of the more overturned spells) is most effective when the whole party’s set up for one big turn on the boss. More awareness of the current tactical situation is required compared to the plethora of 1e control spells that were ‘save or lose’
It’s also normal that higher rank spells are better and more desireable to use in more situations than lower rank ones. But there are cases where you might either be out of those or not want to use them on a more moderate encounter when you know there’s more to come: then lower-rank control spells like Fear can still maintain their usefulness (often much more than lower-rank blasting magic)
Re: combining encounters
I have combined encounters many times before in my 2e games, in response to the PCs’ actions and behavior. However, it is the case this can go against the typical assumptions of 2e design and thus when GMs do so it’s important to consider when/if to do so and how that will affect things.
In general, I try to keep encounter areas separate enough to minimize the chance of spillover, or to establish good reasons why group B wouldn’t go to help out group A. Sometimes in written adventures the placement of enemies can stretch disbelief in this happening (there are more guards just on the other side of that door, how could they not hear a fight?). In those cases, I find it better to adjust the encounters/adventures to move around the enemies - have them be further away from each other, or remix the two sets into a single combined encounter.
But I also believe that PC choices and approaches should have consequences in the world. If they are especially reckless and flashy in an enemy-filled area, or barge ahead noisily, the world may react accordingly. What is important to do however is to make sure the PCs are aware of the situation and area in such cases though, so they can potentially adjust their approach.
A well-known example: in Age of Ashes there is a very prominent location in Book 3 where if the PCs rush straight in they could risk triggering an overwhelming amount of enemies down on them . But before the PCs even get their they are aware it’s an enemy stronghold, with likely large numbers of forces there, and even cursory scouting can reveal the main areas are exposed and likely to draw attention from elsewhere. So my party was able to (for a while) tackle the encounters a bit more subtly, being careful to try to end fights quickly, prevent enemies from escaping to raise alarms, and stealth-scout as they went. And then when at the end they did in the middle of one encounter ‘break cover’ in a way that alerted others it was something they did understanding the risks
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Walls are super strong but GM-dependent. With nice GMs they can be an "I win" button, with less nice GMs they are still strong but niche, as you need to be sure the enemies you walled off the fight can't screw you somehow.
This seems like kind of a weird take. It almost reads as "I don't like this kind of spell, so I'm going to have the enemies react to it by suddenly behaving in a far more lethal way." Like, in any case where you could react like that, you could also have some of the enemies fight a rearguard delaying action while their buddies ran for help.
Past that... having that be your go-to answer to walls assumes a few different things.
- The enemies you're facing are sufficiently intelligent and self-willed to actually come up with such a strategy.
- There's a back door that they can run out through.
- They actually have allies within easy running distance through that back door that they can bring in.
- Those allies are going to react to "There's an adventuring party here and they're killing Hans and Franz!" by coming running to help, rather than fleeing and hiding or whatever.
Like, it's certainly true that these things can all line up, but if that's a plausible result every time, then you're playing a very specific kind of campaign.