| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've met this problem recently. My parties are at level 3-4, which means that enemy casters start to get their level 3 and even 4 spells. And... the result has been awful. I was quite used to low level parties getting wrecked to pieces by nasty martial-type monsters, but these casters are just a level above.
The problem I find with them is that they are very valid casters with strong defenses and movement/melee options. So, they don't have any drawback, there's no valid strategy to fight them as they can handle every situation. It's even worse than that, they can very often optimize their action economy to crazy levels, with spell + movement + attack every round.
The example I had yesterday when GMing an AP is a level 7 creature with Spontaneous casting, High Spell DC, 3 slots of level 4 spells and 4 slots at every other levels. What I consider a Sorcerer.
In terms of defense, the guy has high AC, one high, one low and one Moderate save, low hit points and high weakness to area/splash damage. But, on top of that, he has crazy fast healing and high resistance to physical damage. So, it was actually very tough, with the martials dealing half damage on average outside of criticals.
And when it comes to melee abilities, it had a one action Stride and Strike ability, Reach, high attack and moderate damage. Come on...
A few weeks ago, I was GMing for 6 level 4 PCs. I thought putting 2 Brimoraks against them would be ok (Moderate encounter). The fight lasted a round, the party hardly inflicted 20 damage to the enemies. It's the first time I've downplayed monsters in this campaign as I really felt bad how the fight was one sided. It was more than Extreme for an encounter.
Got a TPK a bit before that. Same thing, casters. After a few rounds of casting, the monsters ran out of spells. They proceeded with melee combat and cut my party to pieces...
As the GM, I have perfect information and my conclusion is there was nothing my parties could have done. No weakness to exploit, no ideal strategy, it's just kill or be killed.
The problem I face is that my players are now running away from a monster the second it casts a spell...
Am I the only one to face that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the "Level 7 Caster", that character is tough, and exceedingly hard without the right tools. But the PCs should have decent control of the doors such that they can flee, and that character is fairly arrogant and obsessed with their project that it's quite reasonable to not have them pursue routed foes.
Give the PCs a chance to realize they need splash damage, and retreat to town to get some, lick their wounds, and return fore-warned.
Fleeing and returning is a part of a sandbox-ey megadungeon, and can build up the role of that foe quite well.
That character also has a special weakness via the portrait that you can nudge the characters towards, have Wrin give a reading, and give them clues about that.
My party actually handled it okay, because they had a lot of splash damage, so they negated the fast healing effectively every round, and pumped in magic missiles and striking rune weapons.
Beyond the specific of that encounter, which is AFAIK intended to be a very challenging encounter that you can flee to build up the PCs regard of the foe, the brimorak fight has some risks.
While it's ostensibly the same balance, fewer but more powerful foes are very swingey fights a lot of the time, and spellcasters tend to be swingey themselves (This is because the foes have fewer, but much more powerful actions than the PCs, and because spells tend to be more actions than rolls, and also powerful effects). This is especially true at lower levels.
It makes having a string of bad dice rolls feel a bit hopeless.
I would always err on the side of more foes, rather than more powerful foes when building encounters for parties larger than 4. Again, especially at low levels.
And be very conscious about when you will use incapacitation effects on PCs, because lots of them are not especially fun to be affected by, etc.
If certain spells don't work when a foe is too much higher level than the PCs, swap them.
I often talk about suggestion with players, and use confusion instead if it's something that's likely to cause trouble.
Or swap paralyze for agonizing despair, because paralyze is a deeply unfun condition, etc.
What level where hey when they faced the Level 7 caster? If they were six level 3 characters, that's kind of doomed. Probably best to apply weak to the creature, but give him allies to make up the xp difference. There are plenty of lower level creatures on that level that you could add an extra version of nearby.
It is said that many underestimate brimoraks due to their size, forgetting that tiny embers can blow into raging infernos in the blink of an eye.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, you are not the only one. There is a reason why we have a lot of PC Alchemists / Casters are weak as well as a lot of Plaguestone and other APs or modules are deadly threads, namely because your observation is true. Especially true for above party level casters that usually feature an increased DC in addition to their intrinsic level advantage. And while we might not have experienced a TPK during our 2 volumes of AoA (mostly because our GM was being nice and generally wants to keep the party stable for the sake of continuity of the main story), every single boss-type caster and Alchemist was nasty.
Its always nice when your party Wizard casts Fireball on a caster boss and some mooks and the party gets a taste of their own medicine when the Fireball comes back at the party with a DC at least 3 higher. So anytime anyone asks me if Alchemists or Casters are weak my (not entirely serious) answer is: not if they are of higher level and NPCs...
One bad group of saves to an aoe spell even at low level can decimate a party. A lvl 7 caster to a lvl 4 or 5 party with its higher spell DC can be super nasty. If it can martial too, then soften up the entire party then head in and crush them.
One of the few encounters that decimated my PC group almost to the point of a TPK was a higher level lich. Unloaded nasty spells on the party then could add a nasty melee attack as well. Not a fun combination for a party. Then if the creature is also invisible with haste, not fun at all. Unloads a nasty AoE attack, then two melee attacks, while the party has to figure out how to spot them. Not fun at all.
So no, you're not alone. You have to be careful with caster creatures with good martial ability. Way nastier than some martial only creature the party wails on easy while buffed up.
Plan accordingly as a DM if your party isn't ready. If you have a group of martials with no ranged martial or support casters, you're probably going to end up with a dead party.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I think the issue here is in pat using higher level NPCs against the party.
That level advantage means all the spells are that much more likely to work against PCs.
Combined with bad luck on something that affects the whole party and now the players are having a bad time.
What level where hey when they faced the Level 7 caster? If they were six level 3 characters, that's kind of doomed. Probably best to apply weak to the creature, but give him allies to make up the xp difference. There are plenty of lower level creatures on that level that you could add an extra version of nearby.
1 level 5, 4 level 4 and one level 2. I really didn't expect the party had to flee.
And yes, it's an encounter that is easy to run away from. It's less about how deadly it is than how tough it is.That you find magic to be powerful is because of the level difference. Yes, a level 7 caster will be deadly against level 3 heroes. But every level 7 monster is deadly against level 3 heroes!
Not my experience. When I use martial monsters, I get what I was expecting. I've put a Salamander against 6 level 3 characters and they killed it (it has 28 AC, I really feared a TPK, but the fight has been exactly as exected, a tough one but a manageable one). Martials haven't caused much trouble to me. But casters...
Also, I've experienced many combinations of casters, higher level casters, lower level casters, always the same result. As soon as you have casters, they have decent (at least) martial abilities on top of excellent spellcasting and being able to use both of them at the same time is crazy efficient.So anytime anyone asks me if Alchemists or Casters are weak my (not entirely serious) answer is: not if they are of higher level and NPCs...
Well, if a level 7 Alchemist could one-action Stride and Strike with that efficiency, noone would call them weak. As said above, my problem is not with the spells. The spells are scary, but you have a limited quantity to cast. So once the party survives the first couple of rounds, spells are no more the issue. But when the monster suddenly wades into melee and start cutting through PCs like butter, it feels very unfair. Top spellcasting abilities + good survivability + good melee abilites and sometimes even mobility, that's just not balanced at all.
So no, you're not alone. You have to be careful with caster creatures with good martial ability. Way nastier than some martial only creature the party wails on easy while buffed up.
Yes.
I'm just a bit annoyed because I don't have to take so much precautions with martials. I can just calculate the difficulty of the encounter and play it accordingly.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Swarms and swarm like monsters are very dangerous because few parties have the resources to exploit their weaknesses well. Higher level casters can present a very challenging threat to parties because they can overwhelm even strong defenses. Put the two together and you have a potential murder machine for sure.
It is critical to give PCs a lot of incentive to research their enemy and prepare for it, especially in a variable level party where the thing is a level +5 creature for one party member. Bosses in PF2 should be really dangerous when you stumble into them unprepared. But they don’t need to be TPK machines if they have interesting enough motivations to not just seek to kill the party as quickly as possible.
I like how interesting and capable caster monsters can be in PF2.
What level where hey when they faced the Level 7 caster? If they were six level 3 characters, that's kind of doomed. Probably best to apply weak to the creature, but give him allies to make up the xp difference. There are plenty of lower level creatures on that level that you could add an extra version of nearby.1 level 5, 4 level 4 and one level 2. I really didn't expect the party had to flee.
And yes, it's an encounter that is easy to run away from. It's less about how deadly it is than how tough it is.
I fully understand that. Your example here is a particular combination of the difficulty of overcoming swarm-like defenses with a spellcaster several levels above the PCs abilities.
But those encounters will likely appear again. Best thing that can be done is to set expectations that in a sandbox, sometimes you need to run away. Either to get tools for the job, or simply to explore elsewhere until more powerful.
My PCs went to the Library at level 2, and walked with a character into an incredibly dangerous fight. I had the enemies be a bit inefficient, the most powerful one make one or two attacks to show their numerical advantage, then leave the minions to work on the PCs who fled.
Those characters were now an obvious powerful force, and when the PCs returned and defeated them it felt great because they knew who these villains were, and that defeating them mean they had become much more powerful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think adding a Brimorak played to the Brimoraks' strength.
It's a larger party and the creature has good AoE options, so it's not like the first Brimorak's offense was being spread out much by the extra PCs; it was being amplified.
Now add another and each PC has to endure twice as much damage. Whoops.
It'd take coordination and focused fire to balance that, but it's difficult when the first rounds begin with emergency measures.
And let me note that they only have one spell worth worrying about, so I'm not sure we can place the blame at the feet of casters in general. Most any creature with a breath weapon w/ similar area could have destroyed the party equally.
And this problem will continue with a larger group; they will be vulnerable to AoEs unless they account for them. On the flip side, when they do get all their engines revved, their focus fire will destroy enemies. With those in mind, I'd recommend adding minions rather than equivalent buddies to most encounter (depending on context of course).
But those encounters will likely appear again. Best thing that can be done is to set expectations that in a sandbox, sometimes you need to run away. Either to get tools for the job, or simply to explore elsewhere until more powerful.
I'm thinking in lowering the difficulty by increasing the PCs level. But honestly, even when they are clearly above the encounter they struggle. I'm puzzled.
I think adding a Brimorak played to the Brimoraks' strength.
It's a larger party and the creature has good AoE options, so it's not like the first Brimorak's offense was being spread out much by the extra PCs; it was being amplified.
Now add another and each PC has to endure twice as much damage. Whoops.It'd take coordination and focused fire to balance that, but it's difficult when the first rounds begin with emergency measures.
And let me note that they only have one spell worth worrying about, so I'm not sure we can place the blame at the feet of casters in general. Most any creature with a breath weapon w/ similar area could have destroyed the party equally.
And this problem will continue with a larger group; they will be vulnerable to AoEs unless they account for them. On the flip side, when they do get all their engines revved, their focus fire will destroy enemies. With those in mind, I'd recommend adding minions rather than equivalent buddies to most encounter (depending on context of course).
When I saw the Fireball, I thought: The first round gonna be bad, but then the party will recover and kill them.
The problem is: The first round has been bad and then the Brimoraks have started cutting my PCs to pieces. So, it's not just the Fireball, it's the combination of sword and magic.Also, Fireballs are way more dangerous than breath weapon. You can target wherever you want, you don't have to move and to be close, so you can use your third action to attack the PC who came for you.
The issue for me is the combination of 2-action spell + potent attack with no MAP. It's 50% more powerful than what a PC caster or martial would be able to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What level where hey when they faced the Level 7 caster? If they were six level 3 characters, that's kind of doomed. Probably best to apply weak to the creature, but give him allies to make up the xp difference. There are plenty of lower level creatures on that level that you could add an extra version of nearby.1 level 5, 4 level 4 and one level 2. I really didn't expect the party had to flee.
And yes, it's an encounter that is easy to run away from. It's less about how deadly it is than how tough it is.
Er...are you doing split levels?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I think the party levels are a big part of the headline here. That's a 4 level range in the PCs. PFS does a range that wide as its maximum and we see there that it gets pretty janky if people actually cover that full spread even with a lot of juggling scaling of the challenges they go up against and the campaign special rule to boost characters at the lowest level.
If I'm reading this right, that means you had a level 2 character in a fight against a level 7 monster? There's basically no way for that to not be a disaster. Are we misunderstanding this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Er...are you doing split levels?
I handle the campaign in a special way, it's a multi table. The level 2 character is a very specific case, all the other characters in the campaign are level 4 or 5.
If I'm reading this right, that means you had a level 2 character in a fight against a level 7 monster? There's basically no way for that to not be a disaster. Are we misunderstanding this?
You have properly read. And it has caused no issue at all in this fight. The problem was a party one: The party was unable to prevail against a level 7 monster. Even if you remove the level 2 character, 4 level 4 character and 1 level 5 character are supposed to handle without issue a level 7 monster. It's not even a Severe encounter.
But it hasn't been the case.| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like an rule for home games of PF2 should just be:
"It's a real bad idea to have players of various levels (due to the underlying mechanics of the system. Don't do it without really good reason. And if you do, the normal methods of calculating for CR wont really apply."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like an rule for home games of PF2 should just be:
"It's a real bad idea to have players of various levels (due to the underlying mechanics of the system. Don't do it without really good reason. And if you do, the normal methods of calculating for CR wont really apply."
Sorry, but number one rule is: If people are having fun, then so be it.
I've asked my players if they wanted milestone levelling and they refused. So be it.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, at the levels you're talking about, many adversaries that are +3 or even just +2 levels above the party level can be highly problematical. For homebrewed campaigns, I tend to stick to on-level or below-level adversaries, and rarely go above +1 or +2.
Also, a party's chances against a spellcaster depend so much on the specific party composition and the terrain available. I had a recent battle with an occult spellcaster using darkness to cloak his movements, and none of the PCs had darkvision. It was rough.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really think the specific issue with the level 7 creature is that it is nearly impossible to defeat with traditional party tatics and traditional martial superiority, but it is not limited in the way most such creatures are, in being kite-able or overcome at range.
It casts, the party assumes that means martial dominance will prevail, and they will quickly be proven wrong, after moving into a killing field. He is willing to talk to the PCs for a bit, which might allow you to give the party time to try some recall knowledge checks before things devolve into combat, which is probably a really useful thing to do with a creature like this. Or they might be able to fast talk their way into having the creature let them go so they can research it more later.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Er...are you doing split levels?I handle the campaign in a special way, it's a multi table. The level 2 character is a very specific case, all the other characters in the campaign are level 4 or 5.
If I'm reading this right, that means you had a level 2 character in a fight against a level 7 monster? There's basically no way for that to not be a disaster. Are we misunderstanding this?You have properly read. And it has caused no issue at all in this fight. The problem was a party one: The party was unable to prevail against a level 7 monster. Even if you remove the level 2 character, 4 level 4 character and 1 level 5 character are supposed to handle without issue a level 7 monster. It's not even a Severe encounter.
But it hasn't been the case.
It's a level+3 vs four members of the party, level+2 for one, and level+5 for another. That's going to be Severe for most party members, though the technical determination is the high end of Moderate.
I feel like an rule for home games of PF2 should just be:
"It's a real bad idea to have players of various levels (due to the underlying mechanics of the system. Don't do it without really good reason. And if you do, the normal methods of calculating for CR wont really apply."
Advice along those lines is already in the CRB, in the game mastering section.
But as Superbidi says, the only real rule is "make sure everyone (DM included) enjoys themselves".
He is willing to talk to the PCs for a bit, which might allow you to give the party time to try some recall knowledge checks before things devolve into combat, which is probably a really useful thing to do with a creature like this. Or they might be able to fast talk their way into having the creature let them go so they can research it more later.
I don't think I say this enough, but I do appreciate the practical, clearly derived from experience, advice you give in these posts. I don't always agree (and that usually comes down to our respective tastes than anything else), but I do take it seriously even when that's the case.
In my experience, at the levels you're talking about, many adversaries that are +3 or even just +2 levels above the party level can be highly problematical. For homebrewed campaigns, I tend to stick to on-level or below-level adversaries, and rarely go above +1 or +2.
Brimoraks were one level above my PCs. So it's not a problem of having a monster that is too high of a level. I had this issue with nearly every spellcaster since my players are level 3-4. And the problem has always been with the martial attacks. Because I have no issue with casters being strong with spells, it's kind of what I expect from them. But when they add strong martial attacks with sometimes incapacitating or movement effects, it's just too much for one creature. And it looks like it's the case every time.
My overall feeling is that casters have nearly the same attacks than martials, but they are casters. And on top of that, they are quite resilient. No flaw.It's a level+3 vs four members of the party, level+2 for one, and level+5 for another. That's going to be Severe for most party members, though the technical determination is the high end of Moderate.
I'd be ok with that if martial monsters would have been similar. But putting a level 7 martial monster against the party would have been a very simple fight, at least it's what I've experienced even when putting monsters way out of the level range (like a Salamander against level 3 character, the martials were hitting on an 18 and still they got it).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well to be fair to the creatures, they are neither casters nor martials exclusively. They are designed to be difficult for a whole party. The spell casting is making them feel more difficult because they are monsters capable of doing more than just one thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, at the levels you're talking about, many adversaries that are +3 or even just +2 levels above the party level can be highly problematical. For homebrewed campaigns, I tend to stick to on-level or below-level adversaries, and rarely go above +1 or +2.Brimoraks were one level above my PCs. So it's not a problem of having a monster that is too high of a level. I had this issue with nearly every spellcaster since my players are level 3-4. And the problem has always been with the martial attacks. Because I have no issue with casters being strong with spells, it's kind of what I expect from them. But when they add strong martial attacks with sometimes incapacitating or movement effects, it's just too much for one creature. And it looks like it's the case every time.
My overall feeling is that casters have nearly the same attacks than martials, but they are casters. And on top of that, they are quite resilient. No flaw.It's a level+3 vs four members of the party, level+2 for one, and level+5 for another. That's going to be Severe for most party members, though the technical determination is the high end of Moderate.I'd be ok with that if martial monsters would have been similar. But putting a level 7 martial monster against the party would have been a very simple fight, at least it's what I've experienced even when putting monsters way out of the level range (like a Salamander against level 3 character, the martials were hitting on an 18 and still they got it).
Examining the creatures stats, and you are not kidding. Extreme damage on their main strike, high damage on their off strike, high attack roll, just shy of high DC for their spell attacks, multiple AoEs, including 1 that hits like a truck (albeit with a cooldown). High AC, decent saves and perception.
I don't think I'd be out of line crossing off that "5" and putting it at "7" without changing a thing about it. Might be on the easy side of level 7, but mostly within the guidelines. The water vulnerability gives me pause saying that, and at least its HP isn't top tier, but still. That water bit is the part where Unicore's advice about Recall Knowledge comes into play. A couple splash attacks with a water bucket might turn the deadly into a more reasonable challenge.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Demons, devils and undead tend to be on the more difficult side of things. A big part of that is that they all have glaring, well known weaknesses that parties often learn to prepare for in advance. When parties don’t, those creatures being extra dangerous helps set an expectation and understanding of why they are so reviled. At least one of the devils in this one is willing to talk to the PCs and let them go the first time they are encountered with relative ease. I think there is a problem in a sandboxy mega dungeon if parties advance with the assumption everything encountered can be fought and beaten, especially if creatures are giving them the opportunity to talk first and the players aren’t taking it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@superbidi, I am following your running of this AP across multi threads and something that just clicked for me is that the mega dungeon your PCs are running through is chock full of really subtle clues and throwbacks to past encounters that can really really help the players in later encounters. If a revolving band of players plows through some of these encounters but not others, they could be missing out in really vital information that is making some encounters much more difficult than intended.
The idea of how you are running it is really cool, but you might need to think about having some if the encounters be more directly broadcast in their immediate environs, especially as the parties dig deeper and some might have no idea what is going on or being built up towards. The encounter design of that AP is sandboxy, but not disjointed. There is a lot more story being directly linked together than is typical in PFS scenarios, for example, even chasing meta plots from one to the next.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like an rule for home games of PF2 should just be:
"It's a real bad idea to have players of various levels (due to the underlying mechanics of the system. Don't do it without really good reason. And if you do, the normal methods of calculating for CR wont really apply."
Sorry, but number one rule is: If people are having fun, then so be it.
I've asked my players if they wanted milestone levelling and they refused. So be it.
If this is an issue of some characters not being present during moments where experience is awarded, RAW all characters get experience regardless of whether or not they were involved.
Any XP awarded goes to all members of the group. For instance, if the party wins a battle worth 100 XP, they each get 100 XP, even if the party’s rogue was off in a vault stealing treasure during the battle. But if the rogue collected a splendid and famous gemstone, which you’ve decided was a moderate accomplishment worth 30 XP, each member of the party gets 30 XP, too.
Well to be fair to the creatures, they are neither casters nor martials exclusively. They are designed to be difficult for a whole party. The spell casting is making them feel more difficult because they are monsters capable of doing more than just one thing.
NPCs often are excellent gishes, something a player may not recognize from the player-side of PF2 (where it's quite taxing/impossible to be at peak performance in both tracks). NPCs, as you've noted, do more than one thing. They are level-appropriate in every role they're built to perform.
So yeah, in battles where they can do both (especially per round), they'll be exemplary. That might be something the developers need to address in sidebars and tactics because it's quite frequent.
But again, I don't see this as a caster issue, so much as a multi-role monsters issue. Many can launch a high DC MAP-less attack alongside a powerful Strike, and it hurts! It's almost as if NPCs come built in with the bonuses that PCs need teamwork/prep/consumables to acquire. And I appreciate this, but it's something to consider if NPCs also add in actual teamwork, buffs, or have an advantage in context (like Brimoraks vs. 6 person parties).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But again, I don't see this as a caster issue, so much as a multi-role monsters issue.
It can be a caster issue insofar as that spells are balanced around PC assumptions, where wizards have low health, accuracy issues, and reduced saves relative to frontliners. Sticking those same spellcasting capabilities on someone who essentially has a fighter's chassis can inherently cause some problems, which then get exacerbated further by level advantages. It basically flips the script regarding a lot of basic assumptions about how spellcasting works in PF2.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But again, I don't see this as a caster issue, so much as a multi-role monsters issue.It can be a caster issue insofar as that spells are balanced around PC assumptions, where wizards have low health, accuracy issues, and reduced saves relative to frontliners. Sticking those same spellcasting capabilities on someone who essentially has a fighter's chassis can inherently cause some problems, which then get exacerbated further by level advantages. It basically flips the script regarding a lot of basic assumptions about how spellcasting works in PF2.
This has been the core idea behind many iconic fantasy creatures since well before PF2. Dragons for example have often been the fastest, toughest, most fierce some creatures around, and the really powerful ones have been full casters at the same time.
But again, I don't see this as a caster issue, so much as a multi-role monsters issue.It can be a caster issue insofar as that spells are balanced around PC assumptions, where wizards have low health, accuracy issues, and reduced saves relative to frontliners. Sticking those same spellcasting capabilities on someone who essentially has a fighter's chassis can inherently cause some problems, which then get exacerbated further by level advantages. It basically flips the script regarding a lot of basic assumptions about how spellcasting works in PF2.
I'm saying it's casters AND more, that the problem's larger. The Brimorak, for example, has only one strong spell so it's not the casting, it's the casting + striking + breath weapon, with all being fierce. Any two would be fierce because they're all at the top of their power curves, i.e. the casting could fill in a gap while the breath's recharging.
Similar to how a player (coming from the player-facing side of PF2) might think an archer NPC would be weaker in melee when there's a decent chance they're stronger simply because melee does more damage and they're at peak performance in both (and they might get flanking, etc.).Or that a creature relying on special abilities might work fine even when those abilities get neutralized.
So sure, be alert that an enemy caster (especially a non-humanoid who's never be built w/ PC rules) will be proficient in melee, but also that the stealthy guy might be as beefy as any barbarian and the "special abilities" monster may fight fine without that ability and so forth.
NPCs can fulfill multiple roles at the peak for their level, something it's hard for PCs to do (at least w/o teamwork, prep, or consumables).
I think this if fine because GMs if a monster's built for a role it should be able to perform that role at level without bells & whistles added, but we all (players/GMs/devs) need to be aware of situations where a monster's performing more than one role at once (effectively stacking) or does get those bells & whistles via teamwork/prep/consumables/buffs/setting/etc..
Then they'll perform > level (especially from a player POV).
Honestly, Brimorak should be running on Medium DC casting, given precedent.
Though looking at the PF1 version, it's more of a caster, so Medium hit/Low damage.
There is a PFS scenario that runs up against a Brimorak, often with a party of 1st level characters. It is a real monster, especially without the tools to overcome its resistances.
Sometimes you need to look pretty close at a monster's stat block before deciding if it needs additional allies or boosting to face off against 6 PCs, or if you can just have it really take its gloves off in the fight.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Split levels in PF2 is a rough way to run.
If this is an issue of some characters not being present during moments where experience is awarded, RAW all characters get experience regardless of whether or not they were involved.
By milestone levelling, I mean mostly having everyone at the same level. But players told me they prefer to earn their own XP.
@superbidi, I am following your running of this AP across multi threads and something that just clicked for me is that the mega dungeon your PCs are running through is chock full of really subtle clues and throwbacks to past encounters that can really really help the players in later encounters. If a revolving band of players plows through some of these encounters but not others, they could be missing out in really vital information that is making some encounters much more difficult than intended.
The idea of how you are running it is really cool, but you might need to think about having some if the encounters be more directly broadcast in their immediate environs, especially as the parties dig deeper and some might have no idea what is going on or being built up towards. The encounter design of that AP is sandboxy, but not disjointed. There is a lot more story being directly linked together than is typical in PFS scenarios, for example, even chasing meta plots from one to the next.
You would be surprised be the amount of player cooperation. Well, I've also been surprised, I must admit. There is a core of players with strong involvement who are sharing information between each other. The fact that information is split actually increases the amount of sharing and discussion, as it's a necessity to understand properly the campaign. Compared to a normal party, I don't find that my players lack information, and I'm even thinking they may have more information as there are more brains to proceed this information.
But, well, it's a conversation for another topic.NPCs can fulfill multiple roles at the peak for their level, something it's hard for PCs to do (at least w/o teamwork, prep, or consumables).
I partly disagree. Filling multiple roles is fine. But you have to take into account 2 things:
- Can the monster fulfill both roles at the same time?- Do the roles complement each other?
If you have a barbarian that can be stealthy, it's fine. But an invisible barbarian is not. If you give a barbarian a second type of attack, it's fine. If you give the barbarian a range area of effect attack without reducing anything, it's not.
Melee attacks and spellcasting completement each other incredibly well and can be used during the same round. That's a very strong improvement of a monster efficiency, not just another role to fulfill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I have said several times in this thread that fulfilling multiple roles is fine. IMO it's more than fine, it's necessary and welcome.
It's just that sometimes it fools players (i.e. this ambush predator doesn't really need to ambush) or leads to unexpected synergy between roles; those who can cast/Strike every round being the most obvious one, but there are other 2-action abilities that let the creature add on a Strike to make matters worse.
This is one reason IMO that most martials should skirmish unless specifically built with defense as their priority (like most Champions).
(As a side note, I appreciate that Trample is usually 3-actions, and likely because it had been so effective in PF1. Put Haste on that trampling creature though and you get much more out of that spell than you would casting it on a PC.)
I doubt we'll see an invisible creature equivalent to a Barbarian (by which I mean it remains invisible during combat) since that implies h.p. + a flat miss chance for too much defense. (See Will O' Wisp for extreme alternate defenses and how low their h.p. are because of that).
But I wouldn't be surprised at an invisible enemy that hits like a Barbarian (factoring in that it likely catches its targets flat-footed).
At higher levels, 12th+, like where a PC Barbarian might be able to cast a 4th level Invisibility, then you might see both (and maybe a breath weapon too!).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your players are for some reason willingly choosing to nerf themselves by not sharing XP and being lower level than they're supposed to, they probably should not be surprised that they're getting their asses kicked. Turns out things are harder when you intentionally make yourself weaker.
The real difference between PF1 and PF2 NPC casters is that PF2 casters get highly competitive DC's out of the gate, without any sort of investment. PF1 casters were often terrible as they were built with the NOC stat array, had NPC level equipment and poorly chosen feats to support their spellcasting. That often made them fairly trivial as any sort of opposition.
Even the developers were likely aware of this. I believe it was why so many published NPC casters always said something to the effect of "They have [these five spells] active on them at the time of the encounter." It allowed them to remain marginally competitive and survive long enough to get one or two more spells off.
In 2E if they tried something similar, the buffed caster would likely crush one or more PCs.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with NPC spellcasters is that they don't play by PC spellcaster rules. They don't have the same spellcasting progression that PCs do, especially in regards to Save DCs and spells available, and they don't have any of the martial drawbacks PC spellcasters do, such as having low Strength, little to no Athletics/Acrobatics, and no good weapon proficiencies (though this one in some cases is unnecessary due to natural weapons like claws and bite attacks).
That doesn't mean they are undefeatable, but it does mean you can't just use the same tactic of "That caster is screwed if the melee get in their face." And they will have minions, too. It's not much different than fighting a Dragon that can cast spells. Not many people will see a Dragon and think that when it casts spells that it's a weakling in melee combat. Quite the contrary. Dragons are notoriously difficult if you don't prepare for them, but most APs and other campaign-type games will probably give you some sort of advance warning of them, and you will have access to tools that will help you win/survive the encounter.
Speaking from real play experience, there was really only one NPC spellcaster that essentially played by PC spellcaster rules and they were pretty much a joke once we put our Fighter with Disruptive Stance in his face in a small room, and this was at 11th level. The game assumed they were going to get away, but with proper tactics and better offensive capabilities, he couldn't escape, making future fights that much less problematic.
Consequently, the very next character level, we faced another NPC spellcaster that was much more difficult (but not impossible) to defeat, largely because it wasn't your typical PC humanoid, and had special rules interactions with certain spells that made certain tactics much more palatable for it to use compared to us in a later level. It was defeated, but not easily, nor was it meant to be. In fact, I believe this NPC has returned by this point and may come back to fight us again later down the road.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
differnt PC levels in a party in PF1 isnt a big deal, but its just not a good idea in PF2 just because of how the math works. its doable i suppose but you definitely will have to fudge a lot as GM if you want to keep it compelling for all the characters.
|
Am I the only one to face that?
Its time for the players to expand their tactics. Leeroy Jenkins only works for a few levels. After that, if you don't expand your "bag of tricks" you are not going to be very successful. Player-characters get more powers and expand on what they do, is it unexpected that their enemies wouldn't do the same thing?
All creatures have weaknesses, its just a combination of discovering what they are and being pragmatic enough to prepare for them. You say spellcaster and I say, silence, grapple, counter-spelling, protective buffs like energy resistance, etc. Spell-casters are such a common foe to encounter players need to develop tactics to deal with them. Sometimes those tactics won't work, but as you progress, you should get better and dealing with them as is the expectation of the experience system.
By the time you reach 4th level+, there are a number of common tactics used by enemies that PCs need to be able to deal with including but not limited to: spellcasting, invisibility/stealh, resistance/immunity to damage types, flying/ranged combat, darkness/concealment, poison (and other persistent effects), etc. If they are not prepared for these with ways to counter them, the PCs are going to have a REALLY hard time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By milestone levelling, I mean mostly having everyone at the same level. But players told me they prefer to earn their own XP.Sometimes, people prefer something because it's what they are used to and they are thinking 'it works, so why mess with it?' - but if they've never tried out the other way/thing they aren't actually sure whether or not they'd like it too, or possibly even like it more.
So, my players don't know what they want, I haven't been able to determine that they don't know what they want but, luckily, you have been able to determine that I haven't been able to determine that my players don't know what they want from a post in these boards...
Sarcasm aside, you can PM me if you want to talk about it, as it's outside the subject of this discussion.All creatures have weaknesses, its just a combination of discovering what they are and being pragmatic enough to prepare for them. You say spellcaster and I say, silence, grapple, counter-spelling, protective buffs like energy resistance, etc. Spell-casters are such a common foe to encounter players need to develop tactics to deal with them. Sometimes those tactics won't work, but as you progress, you should get better and dealing with them as is the expectation of the experience system.
Unfortunately, no. I haven't found a single weakness in these casters as GM, and that's the point of my first post. Silence and Grapple don't work as they hit nearly like a martial. Protective buffs work, but you need to know beforehand what they have in their spell list, something that no recall knowledge check will give you.
You can't face them at range or use hit and run, you can't swarm them in melee, you can't use attrition as they have rechargeable abilities or fast healing. The only thing you can do is run away and come back with an extra level or consummables to specifically counter the spells they have. That's not a strategy...| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've noticed a lot of this advice seems to assume a near-perfect layout by the PC spellcaster. Is it common at these tables for PCs to know exactly what the encounters they're going to face are ahead of time? Because from my experience players generally have limited knowledge about upcoming encounters and it's not uncommon to even just go into fights completely and utterly blind.
Which makes it seem impractical to write with the assumption that a prepared spellcaster will have three, four or even five or more specific spells prepared at specific levels to mitigate a certain encounter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, an oft-repeated thing here is that the encounter discussed (not the brimoraks), is specifically set up in such a way that you can learn clues before the fight to give you information and/or run away, and stock up on what you need if it's too hard.
Talking in generics won't achieve too much a lot of the time.