| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All this discussion why a level 1 party went into problems with a level 3 Hazzard is because a GM made a bad ruling, reading the AP why oh why would the party be able to get there in level one? Easy, bad GMing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All this discussion why a level 1 party went into problems with a level 3 Hazzard is because a GM made a bad ruling, reading the AP why oh why would the party be able to get there in level one? Easy, bad GMing.
Or maybe the part about the trap not being present/active until part 4 and the GM (being a normal mortal) didn't read part 4 in order to run part 1 was an editing problem.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So our take away is:
It is a good idea, when running a published adventure, to read the whole thing at least once before trying to run it, because players will not necessarily advance through it in the order presented in the book and everyone can have more fun if the GM has a decent sense of where the story is building to, at least within the published module they are running?
And whether they do or do not, as a player, especially at very low levels, be prepared for the possibility that you will face some challenges that are beyond your ability. This is especially going to be the case when you chase a course of action that has the GM saying "wait a minute," or "well, I wasn't expecting you to do that," followed by having to flip around within the book to find the information related to your current location.
You know, assuming:
(a) you can remember every detail as you read it
(b) remember every detail for the duration of the campaign
I forget parts of recipes that are half a page long and I just read it (for the fourteenth time) ten seconds ago.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel "realizing flipping ahead 18 pages might be a Bad Thing for a level 1 party" isn't asking for a lot of cognitive bandwidth.
|
4) I’m not really seeing how the two examples are comparable, one was an editing foul up, the other is two paths are presented and one is trapped. That’s not bad design.One was an editing foul up, the other is two paths where the designers forgot to put a sign saying "go this way first."
Its not supposed to be a choice. The adventure was clearly written for the PCs to go one way and then return two levels later.
I'd call that an editing foul up.
Not holding your hand when presenting multiple paths in an adventure/dungeon is not an editing foul up.
|
|
All this discussion why a level 1 party went into problems with a level 3 Hazzard is because a GM made a bad ruling, reading the AP why oh why would the party be able to get there in level one? Easy, bad GMing.Or maybe the part about the trap not being present/active until part 4 and the GM (being a normal mortal) didn't read part 4 in order to run part 1 was an editing problem.
The trap is present and active, the party deciding to skip ahead is on the party, it’s not an editing problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The trap is present and active, the party deciding to skip ahead is on the party, it’s not an editing problem.
Unless there are actual physical signs saying 'you are now entering part 4' and a sign next to it saying 'this way to continue part 1', I'm not sure how it's on the party that they skipped some steps.
Not holding your hand when presenting multiple paths in an adventure/dungeon is not an editing foul up.
So what where the indicators which one was the right path and which was the path of death? Where they clear and explicit or subtle and missable? If they party can plausibly go down the bad path while doing things a 'normal' party would logically do then something suspect might be going on with writing and/or presentation.
Anyone answering that for this specific case should do so in spoilers
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone answering that for this specific case should do so in spoilers
For my post? I don't even need specific answers: I'm happy with an honest 'yes it was blatantly clear which path to take' or 'no, it was possible to accidentally go down the wrong path'. If there was super clear railroading and the player jumped the track, that's one thing but if they just did their thing and ended up there naturally it's something different entirely. Now if they want to further explain, then sure spoiler away. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it is the one I am thinking it is, the GM gave out information in an order that runs counter to the story unfolding as suggested and had certain events unfold too early, encouraging the players to skip necessary dungeon delving for additional information (and a lot of xp) that would eventually take them there.
Which really has nothing to do with whether a level +2 encounter should have a serious chance of one-shotting one PC. My answer would be yes, although the odds of full on death from that encounter decrease significantly past character level 1
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone answering that for this specific case should do so in spoilersFor my post? I don't even need specific answers: I'm happy with an honest 'yes it was blatantly clear which path to take' or 'no, it was possible to accidentally go down the wrong path'. If there was super clear railroading and the player jumped the track, that's one thing but if they just did their thing and ended up there naturally it's something different entirely. Now if they want to further explain, then sure spoiler away. ;)
It's not impossible to get to in part 1, but it involves some very odd choices on the PCs part. I honestly can't see very many lines of logic that lead to it unless the GM changes things, they're just trying to rob random people, or there's metagaming going on. I'm sure there's some I'm missing, but they're pretty niche.
It's not impossible, but it's a weird situation.
So from what I'm getting from this is that Traps have the same issue that they did before in RPG's where they either one-shot and feel arbitrary and unfair, or they just act as HP drains that do even less than they did before because the Cure Light Wounds out of combat heal is essentially always around just as different methods. I mean, threading that needle is pretty much impossible, not surprised it didn't happened here. I do think that if you are going to level gate dungeons, Age of Ashes should probably have telegraphed a bit harder? A big giant stone tree with hammocks I'd assume is just part of the scenery, which works as a hazard, less so as a sign that you are treading into really dangerous territory. I'd maybe put that after some big creature that the group has to deal with to progress, is above their level, but can be escapible. Animated Statue, one the level 3-5 Oozes, those could work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, assuming:
(a) you can remember every detail as you read it
(b) remember every detail for the duration of the campaignI forget parts of recipes that are half a page long and I just read it (for the fourteenth time) ten seconds ago.
That's why you prepare. Make your own notes. Hey, the PCs aren't supposed to do this. This character is in this place at this time. Make sure to check page so and so before running this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So from what I'm getting from this is that Traps have the same issue that they did before in RPG's where they either one-shot and feel arbitrary and unfair, or they just act as HP drains that do even less than they did before because the Cure Light Wounds out of combat heal is essentially always around just as different methods.
It can be both: if time isn't a factor, a trap that one shot you to dying but doesn't kill you can still be just a road bump: the fact that it's a road bump though doesn't change the fact it doesn't feel good if you get one shot.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is important to remember that traps also serve a narrative function in the game. Even if they do no damage and the party spots it, they realize that someone doesn't want them in their current location. The important thing is that their placement is not arbitrary and meaningless unless there is a very specific reason to demonstrate that the trap maker is cruel and has no regard for their own safety.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is important to remember that traps also serve a narrative function in the game. Even if they do no damage and the party spots it, they realize that someone doesn't want them in their current location. The important thing is that their placement is not arbitrary and meaningless unless there is a very specific reason to demonstrate that the trap maker is cruel and has no regard for their own safety.
Traps CAN sometimes have a narrative function but some seem to solely exist to mess with the players... and not all hazards are traps that are purposely placed by a sentient being.
As to the rest, if it's 'common knowledge' that traps must mean something is there to protect the very best trap is to place a very heavily trapped room to attract intruders and then place absolutely nothing of value there. Hide your valuables in plain sight and watch as they go to the traps like moths to a flame! ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So from what I'm getting from this is that Traps have the same issue that they did before in RPG's where they either one-shot and feel arbitrary and unfair, or they just act as HP drains that do even less than they did before because the Cure Light Wounds out of combat heal is essentially always around just as different methods.It can be both: if time isn't a factor, a trap that one shot you to dying but doesn't kill you can still be just a road bump: the fact that it's a road bump though doesn't change the fact it doesn't feel good if you get one shot.
I've seen games that do the ticking clock method on dungeons, but that's also very hard to pull off without grating on players. Some groups really like endurance runs, some don't. Either way, yeah the one-shot issue should be reconsidered for dice roll traps. I'm more forgiving for slow-acting puzzle traps because those don't kill players immediately, give a longer time for the player to get out and so on.
It is important to remember that traps also serve a narrative function in the game. Even if they do no damage and the party spots it, they realize that someone doesn't want them in their current location. The important thing is that their placement is not arbitrary and meaningless unless there is a very specific reason to demonstrate that the trap maker is cruel and has no regard for their own safety.
I'd argue a troll performs the same function without the chance of the player not realizing the troll isn't there.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's why you prepare. Make your own notes. Hey, the PCs aren't supposed to do this. This character is in this place at this time. Make sure to check page so and so before running this.If I have to do more than a quick read-through of a published adventure before I am 100% ready to run it, then the purpose of having bought the adventure is defeated.
Just like I shouldn't have to have read the description of padded armor to know what a character gets when buying heavy armor, I shouldn't have to know anything more about an area in an adventure than is mentioned within the area's description unless there is an explicit reference present cluing me in where else to look.
I really disagree with this. Every adventure I've run, it's been valuable to read the whole thing before starting off, because then I have an idea of what each scene is trying to accomplish in the overall story. Having read the whole thing makes it so much easier to adjust as GM when the players do something unexpected.
Buying adventures is still valuable to me. I don't have time to come up with an entire campaign framework on my own, and buying adventures helps me break out of a pattern of always running "me style" adventures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All this discussion why a level 1 party went into problems with a level 3 Hazzard is because a GM made a bad ruling, reading the AP why oh why would the party be able to get there in level one? Easy, bad GMing.Or maybe the part about the trap not being present/active until part 4 and the GM (being a normal mortal) didn't read part 4 in order to run part 1 was an editing problem.
So we are assuming that GM (being the normal mortal he is), went into this adventure Path with the first book and didn't even read the chapter Tollbox or the Breachill Outpost of Secrets, because, well, there are several things there that would have solved this whole thread (at least the part concerning the level 3 hazzard vs a level 1 pc).
Sure environmental hazards can haphazardly exist, but making your players face one randomly in the wilderness without being a consequence of something (like critically failing survival checks in wilderness exploration), is the kind of arbitrary adventure design that makes players hate them. However, letting the world around natural hazards take advantage of them is another great use of them, so I retract that it would just be to protect something valuable: it might be the valuable feature itself for a predator or scavenger.
However all of those elements have important narrative consequence and establish tension, setting, or advance a plot.
Traps are also pretty expensive though so intelligent creatures spending more wealth on creating them than they protect or accomplish the task of defeating the most probable threats to the creature who made them is not really great adventure design unless “Perdue the completely illogical trap maker” is the adventure itself. (But even then the story is far more fun when the logic exists, but is nuanced or seen as completely irrational:i.e. the riddler.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's why you prepare. Make your own notes. Hey, the PCs aren't supposed to do this. This character is in this place at this time. Make sure to check page so and so before running this.If I have to do more than a quick read-through of a published adventure before I am 100% ready to run it, then the purpose of having bought the adventure is defeated.
Just like I shouldn't have to have read the description of padded armor to know what a character gets when buying heavy armor, I shouldn't have to know anything more about an area in an adventure than is mentioned within the area's description unless there is an explicit reference present cluing me in where else to look.
Two things:
First, even the most linear adventure is going to see players trying to break the walls down and play things out of order. It's what players do. Which is why preparation beyond just the next ten pages gets pretty important. This thread as point in case?
Secondly, how can you not read the whole thing? Maybe it's just me, but I tear through new AP volumes with a gusto, especially if I'm going to run stuff. And then I work through it, trying to sort out tweaks and contingencies. It doesn't take a particularly careful read through to figure out that the players will loop back to this building in town, which is not as it appears, and that doing so early is a complex mess to the story and that the GM really should figure out a way to keep their players from getting skooshed when cutting giant corners?
At least skimming the entire AP book at least once before running it is a huge help to the GM to ensure that certain content is Obviously Off The Path enough to discourage pursuing it too early. In the main case discussed here, when I ran the adventure, I had to discourage my party from doing something similar - but knowing it needed to be discouraged also informed how the location itself operated and should be described.
"Yes, this is the sort of place that would strenuously object to vigilantes breaking and entering without enough evidence to indicate such an investigation is warranted."
I'm not the first person to say this, but it bears reiterating because its super important - traps are really dangerous, but there's a lot on the GM to make sure that the party isn't encountering them before they should (because at that point they're EXTRA dangerous).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However all of those elements have important narrative consequence and establish tension, setting, or advance a plot.
They don't have to do ANY of those things: they can JUST be random damage. They do NOT automatically create tension, setting, or advance a plot by themselves.
Traps are also pretty expensive though so intelligent creatures spending more wealth on creating them than they protect or accomplish the task of defeating the most probable threats to the creature who made them is not really great adventure design unless “Perdue the completely illogical trap maker” is the adventure itself. (But even then the story is far more fun when the logic exists, but is nuanced or seen as completely irrational:i.e. the riddler.)
You can find old traps in the woods NOW that where just forgotten [from snares to bear traps]. Having the party find a trapped cabin in the woods with a trap in it isn't any great source of "tension, setting, or advance a plot" if that's all it is: you never know the background, it's no tention 'look I got shot be a random trap' and 'woods have cabins' isn't a real setting expanded. The party need never know that crazy joe was just a paranoid loner that set up a trap to protect his precious moonshine from the voices in his head before he dies 50 years ago. Sometimes a trap is JUST a trap.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Better design would be that a party without a trapfinder rogue would be challenged by a trap, and a specialized trapfinder rogue would bypass it easily. The current design skews somewhat more toward challenging the trapfinder, and absolutely hosing the party that doesn't have one.
Exactly. PF2 already has enough issues with assuming the PCs will be optimized and use optimal strategies, if we start dabbling into assuming the party has a certain class or kind of character as well, I don't see how this can get any better. The current expectations for hazards, instead of making the specialist feel awesome and the other characters feel like they have a chance, make the specialist feel "eh" and for the other characters they're just utterly f@!#ed.
However all of those elements have important narrative consequence and establish tension, setting, or advance a plot.They don't have to do ANY of those things: they can JUST be random damage. They do NOT automatically create tension, setting, or advance a plot by themselves.
Traps are also pretty expensive though so intelligent creatures spending more wealth on creating them than they protect or accomplish the task of defeating the most probable threats to the creature who made them is not really great adventure design unless “Perdue the completely illogical trap maker” is the adventure itself. (But even then the story is far more fun when the logic exists, but is nuanced or seen as completely irrational:i.e. the riddler.)You can find old traps in the woods NOW that where just forgotten [from snares to bear traps]. Having the party find a trapped cabin in the woods with a trap in it isn't any great source of "tension, setting, or advance a plot" if that's all it is: you never know the background, it's no tention 'look I got shot be a random trap' and 'woods have cabins' isn't a real setting expanded. The party need never know that crazy joe was just a paranoid loner that set up a trap to protect his precious moonshine from the voices in his head before he dies 50 years ago. Sometimes a trap is JUST a trap.
I think we are generally in agreement, I am just saying that writing traps like that in to adventures, with having no interesting connection to a story within the game, is what makes players feel like traps are arbitrary wastes of time, and the GM/adventure writer should avoid that mistake. Players should not just assume that they stumble into traps randomly just to test out their dice rolling skills, knowing that they are just going to take an hour or so afterwards of meaningless game time, and then continue.
So, especially in published adventures, finding a trap, either before or after setting it off, should be narrative marker telling the players to pay more attention to the setting of their current scene.
Better design would be that a party without a trapfinder rogue would be challenged by a trap, and a specialized trapfinder rogue would bypass it easily. The current design skews somewhat more toward challenging the trapfinder, and absolutely hosing the party that doesn't have one.Exactly. PF2 already has enough issues with assuming the PCs will be optimized and use optimal strategies, if we start dabbling into assuming the party has a certain class or kind of character as well, I don't see how this can get any better. The current expectations for hazards, instead of making the specialist feel awesome and the other characters feel like they have a chance, make the specialist feel "eh" and for the other characters they're just utterly f$$#ed.
As has been mentioned before, a high HP barbarian with good saving throws is often as good at "finding traps" as a rouge. There are many ways around or through a hazard. Just be careful with ones that affect multiple people at once and are more than 1 level ahead of the PCs.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Better design would be that a party without a trapfinder rogue would be challenged by a trap, and a specialized trapfinder rogue would bypass it easily. The current design skews somewhat more toward challenging the trapfinder, and absolutely hosing the party that doesn't have one.Exactly. PF2 already has enough issues with assuming the PCs will be optimized and use optimal strategies, if we start dabbling into assuming the party has a certain class or kind of character as well, I don't see how this can get any better. The current expectations for hazards, instead of making the specialist feel awesome and the other characters feel like they have a chance, make the specialist feel "eh" and for the other characters they're just utterly f!#!ed.
Barbarian, Bard, Fighter, Ranger, and Rogue all start with Expert in Perception. The Rogue is +1 better than the other classes with Trap Finder.
Nobody should be dumping WIS. It's used for Will Saves, Perception, Initiative, and 4 Skills, one of which is the invaluable Medicine.
Everyone can smash a Hazard by Attacking it.
Fighters and Barbarians can often "Disable" a Hazard by just going first and taking the Damage.
That's hardly being hosed for not having a specialist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Players should not just assume that they stumble into traps randomly just to test out their dice rolling skills, knowing that they are just going to take an hour or so afterwards of meaningless game time, and then continue.
I kind of see it from the other side: you can't assume stumbling into a trap has any great meaning beside that the adventure thought you hadn't taken enough damage yet. IMO, it's always good to assume where you're going has traps so IMO finding a trap doesn't change that.
As to the aftermath of a trap, that completely depends on the type of game you're running: not every game is a running clock and conversely not every game has enough time to heal up with medicine between damage so it's hard to attach any great general meaning to traps past 'free damage'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody should be dumping WIS. It's used for Will Saves, Perception, Initiative, and 4 Skills, one of which is the invaluable Medicine.
I think one stat being this essential for any character is already an issue on its own, but that's beside the point here.
Everyone can smash a Hazard by Attacking it.
Kind of? Most hazards have enough HP and/or hardness that they'll be able to do their thing way before someone can break them with attacks, even if they're not that much higher level than the party.
Barbarian, Bard, Fighter, Ranger, and Rogue all start with Expert in Perception. The Rogue is +1 better than the other classes with Trap Finder.
Well, the Rogue will usually be the only one that has enough skill increases to invest in Thievery in order to disable a hazard with a decent enough chance. And even then, that's when Staffan's point comes in. The DCs for detecting and disabling hazards are so high that even if you have a character with a good Perception scaling and the highest possible Wisdom you can have without a class boost, you'll still have a 50-ish percent (sometimes lower) chance to detect the hazard. And those characters are the specialists. For the other ones it's even worse.
Fighters and Barbarians can often "Disable" a Hazard by just going first and taking the Damage.
Is that a win for the group somehow? This sounds more like an HP/time tax for me than actually overcoming a challenge.
Everyone can smash a Hazard by Attacking it.
Not always. For one, most spells don't target objects.
While a Hidden Pit trap does have HP, you don't exactly remove the hazard by breaking it (it goes from being a Hidden Pit to a Pit, which may still present an obstacle).
An Electrical Latch Rune (and other magical traps) don't have HP, AC, and can't be attacked. While counterspelling is technically an option, you have to consider the fact that the spellcaster is consuming a spell slot to attempt the check with a roughly 50-50 chance of success, and if failed, the spellcaster might not have another slot to expend.
A Slamming Door has HP, but that's not relevant until after its triggered (as it becomes a barrier).
Attacking Yellow Mold has hilarious consequences. Not only does it boof spores at you for moving into its space, but also if you attack it.
The Armageddon Orb's disable condition is also hilarious. Not only does it take 10 minutes, but the person making the check suffers 500 damage over that duration. Oh, and it doesn't have HP either, and its trigger is "whatever its creator wants" which could, in fact, include someone attempting to disable it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your 'standard' starting stat array is typically either:......Barbarian, Bard, Fighter, Ranger, and Rogue all start with Expert in Perception. The Rogue is +1 better than the other classes with Trap Finder.
Nobody should be dumping WIS. It's used for Will Saves, Perception, Initiative, and 4 Skills, one of which is the invaluable Medicine.
Everyone can smash a Hazard by Attacking it.
Fighters and Barbarians can often "Disable" a Hazard by just going first and taking the Damage.
That's hardly being hosed for not having a specialist.
- 18 / 16 / 14 / 12 / 10 / 08, or
- 18 / 16 / 14 / 10 / 10 / 10.
You don't want to dump your primary stat.
You don't want to dump either Str (as a heavy armor user) or Dex (anyone else).
If your character needs the 'top 3' scores in other stats, you don't have a lot left to play with for your Wisdom score. Part of what makes thieves so nice is they only have two 'essential' stats (Dex + Con) so you are free to have a decent Wisdom as well: Not all characters are so lucky...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone can smash a Hazard by Attacking it.Not always. For one, most spells don't target objects.
Only if your DM is way too super literal. If something has HP and AC you can target it as a Creature.
creature: An active participant in the story and world.
A Hazard Attacking a PC is certainly actively participating in the story and world. They are obviously intended to be targetable.
commonly targeted items include doors and traps.
If your DM doesn't let you cast Produce Flame to damage a Hazard, he is playing the rules too literally and intentionally making the game harder on you.
While a Hidden Pit trap does have HP, you don't exactly remove the hazard by breaking it (it goes from being a Hidden Pit to a Pit, which may still present an obstacle).
Right, so you don't hit it or disarm it. You jump over it. Or fly over it. Or climb over it.
An Electrical Latch Rune (and other magical traps) don't have HP, AC, and can't be attacked. While counterspelling is technically an option, you have to consider the fact that the spellcaster is consuming a spell slot to attempt the check with a roughly 50-50 chance of success, and if failed, the spellcaster might not have another slot to expend.
A Slamming Door has HP, but that's not relevant until after its triggered (as it becomes a barrier).
Attacking Yellow Mold has hilarious consequences. Not only does it boof spores at you for moving into its space, but also if you attack it.
The Armageddon Orb's disable condition is also hilarious. Not only does it take 10 minutes, but the person making the check suffers 500 damage over that duration. Oh, and it doesn't have HP either, and its trigger is "whatever its creator wants" which could, in fact, include someone attempting to disable it.
So those are all interesting problems that are entire encounters in themselves, just like a group of creatures would be. They present a dangerous situation that the PCs have to find a way to overcome. That's kind of what the game is about.
Everyone can smash a Hazard by Attacking it.Not always. For one, most spells don't target objects.
Only if your DM is way too super literal. If something has HP and AC you can target it as a Creature.
creature: An active participant in the story and world.
A Hazard Attacking a PC is certainly actively participating in the story and world. They are obviously intended to be targetable.
commonly targeted items include doors and traps.
If your DM doesn't let you cast Produce Flame to damage a Hazard, he is playing the rules too literally and intentionally making the game harder on you.
While a Hidden Pit trap does have HP, you don't exactly remove the hazard by breaking it (it goes from being a Hidden Pit to a Pit, which may still present an obstacle).
Right, so you don't hit it or disarm it. You jump over it. Or fly over it. Or climb over it.
An Electrical Latch Rune (and other magical traps) don't have HP, AC, and can't be attacked. While counterspelling is technically an option, you have to consider the fact that the spellcaster is consuming a spell slot to attempt the check with a roughly 50-50 chance of success, and if failed, the spellcaster might not have another slot to expend.
A Slamming Door has HP, but that's not relevant until after its triggered (as it becomes a barrier).
Attacking Yellow Mold has hilarious consequences. Not only does it boof spores at you for moving into its space, but also if you attack it.
The Armageddon Orb's disable condition is also hilarious. Not only does it take 10 minutes, but the person making the check suffers 500 damage over that duration. Oh, and it doesn't have HP either, and its trigger is "whatever its creator wants" which could, in fact, include someone attempting to disable it.
So those are all interesting problems that are entire encounters in themselves, just like a group of creatures would be. They present a dangerous situation that the PCs have to find a way to overcome. That's kind of what the game is about.
stuff
I typed a longer response to this, but backtracking ate it and I don't feel like retyping it. (I don't understand how clicking Preview and Submit Post is backtracking...)
All 3 groups I play in have a stat distribution that looks more like some combination of (not in order) 18 14 12 12 12 10, or occasionally 18 16 12 12 10 10.
Starting DEX over 12 is only needed for Monks, Rogues, and Martials who focus on Range and Monks are the only class that needs both DEX and STR.
Only if your DM is way too super literal. If something has HP and AC you can target it as a Creature.
Not really, it's pretty clear that the intent is that only VERY specific things hurt objects. If any spell can hit objects, why have some specific spells target them. IMO, A Dm is pretty liberal to allow any random spell to hit objects. Now if you where talking about strike, I could understand a bit as that also only targets creatures.
creature: An active participant in the story and world.Clearly objects aren't actively participating. They can be reactive but not independently active.
commonly targeted items include doors and traps.
The problem there is most objects don't have any stats: no hp, saves, ac, ect... So I'm not sure how much value I'm meant to put into the section about damaging objects. It's a very vague thing without a lot of thought put into it IMO. This is bad for hazards as "Damaging a mechanical trap or another physical hazard works like damaging objects" which means most attacks can't target them and they aren't targeted any different that a random rock or tree.
Now I'm all for being able to target traps with other attack but I don't think they should do that because they are creatures but because most things should be able to target objects. For instance, I see no reason you shouldn't be able to Strike a door...
Not really, it's pretty clear that the intent is that only VERY specific things hurt objects. If any spell can hit objects, why have some specific spells target them.
Only if your DM is way too super literal. If something has HP and AC you can target it as a Creature.
Because the book has multiple writers and editors, and some of them chose different wording than others. There are myriad examples of different wording choices.
They wouldn't have written an entire section on damaging objects if a small handful of spells were the only way in the entire game to damage them.
Literally an entire chapter of the AoA AP revolves around the PCs destroying Hazards. You're basically saying that an entire chapter of a published AP is impossible to complete if you don't have a specific subset of spells, as even Strikes only target "Creatures".
That is far beyond the realm of belief.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the book has multiple writers and editors, and some of them chose different wording than others. There are myriad examples of different wording choices.
I don't see having or not having objects as a target of spells a matter of wording but one of mechanics.
They wouldn't have written an entire section on damaging objects if a small handful of spells were the only way in the entire game to damage them.
I have no way to divine their intent: that section could be the groundwork for future products for all I know. What I'm sure of it that what's there is poorly developed and inadequately explained and connected to other parts of the game.
Literally an entire chapter of the AoA AP revolves around the PCs destroying Hazards. You're basically saying that an entire chapter of a published AP is impossible to complete if you don't have a specific subset of spells, as even Strikes only target "Creatures".
That's what the rules say. An AP doesn't retroactively make spells and weapon able to target things they aren't able to. If it was an integral part of the AP, you'd think it'd be something they'd errata before they put it out vs assuming all the DM are going to ignore the written rules... It's not a matter of literal reading or not but a matter of literal rewriting and adding to the existing rules: I'm actually in favor of such a rewrite but I think it incorrect to say that's not what it is.
I really disagree with this. Every adventure I've run, it's been valuable to read the whole thing before starting off...Secondly, how can you not read the whole thing?Thank the both of you for proving my point that even if you've read the whole thing, you still need the relevant information to be put where you need it or you're not going to remember it.
Because my post was nowhere near the length of an adventure, and you both somehow managed to miss an important detail - I said I read the whole thing. What I said I shouldn't have to do is any more than that to be 100% ready to run the adventure.
Sorry, I was too harsh and am editing this.
Personally, I think the APs easily expect more than just a read-through to be run well. And also personally, I think when my table has a bad time with an event, action, location, whatever... my job as a GM isn't to blame the system, but to figure out how next time to make sure I can account for the deadliness, confusion, complexity, etc.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For a trap to kill a pc with damage, the needs to either be one shot by the trap and already have wounded 3 (which should never happen because at that point why would you press on instead of rest and remove your wounded condition), or the trap has to hit for double the pc's hp. In either case they also have to be out of hero points.
Due to pf2's death and dying rules, traps can be very powerful and still only a minor nuisance requiring a 10 minute rest.
I think it is safe to say that there could be confusion between adventure writers and game developers about how the rules for attacking objects work.
I also think it is equally dangerous to assume that: "An active participant in the story and world." only applies to living things, or that a living creature that is not actively participating in the story or world would not be targetable by spells. Otherwise, the "pretend your a rock" defense would be very effective as long as you started doing it before the attention of the story turned to you.
It seems pretty clear that the intention of this loose definition of creature is designed around making it easy to target anything that feels immediately important to the story.
Although there is a lot of sloppiness and confusion around what an object is and what it means to be able to target it that needs more clarification.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems pretty clear that the intention of this loose definition of creature is designed around making it easy to target anything that feels immediately important to the story.
"Some spells allow you to directly target a creature, an object, or something that fits a more specific category." Creature is a category and object in another category...
"Items have Hit Points like creatures, but the rules for damaging them are different (page 272). ": Items are different than creatures.
"A dropped object takes damage just like a falling creature.": no need to say this if objects are creatures.
"It can pass through solid objects, including walls. When inside an object, an incorporeal creature can’t perceive, attack, or interact with anything outside the object, and if it starts its turn in an object, it is slowed 1. Corporeal creatures can pass through an incorporeal creature, but they can’t end their movement in its space.": Note objects and creatures are talked about separately.
"Every creature has Perception, which works with and is limited by a creature’s senses (described on page 464)." do hazards/traps all have perception?
I can go on: I think it's super clear objects aren't creatures. If traps/hazards are meant to be targeted as creatures, we're missing some errata.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that traps have both AC and hit points, and that the section on Building Hazards includes this line when talking about HP: "Especially for complex hazards, you might want to divide the durability over multiple sections, located in different positions, to encourage teamwork and mobility" - strongly implies that you are meant to be able to Strike hazards at the very least.
The fact that traps have both AC and hit points, and that the section on Building Hazards includes this line when talking about HP: "Especially for complex hazards, you might want to divide the durability over multiple sections, located in different positions, to encourage teamwork and mobility" - strongly implies that you are meant to be able to Strike hazards at the very least.
I don't disagree that there SHOULD be other ways to attack them: I've wanted to attack objects since the playtest. The issue though is that it actually doesn't imply that since there ARE ways to attack it's HP by targeting it's AC that aren't physical attacks. Acid Arrow, polar ray, shatter [it actually has a reason to exist in PF2], acid splash, fire ray, force bolt, Hydraulic Push, winter bolt, Sudden Bolt, Disintegrate and Withering Grasp. You'll see multiple options you can take at first including cantrips so it is completely plausible that these options are what was meant.