Just would like to point out that past 6 casters become much more manageable a lot of the time because of attack of opportunity.
Since you can only step to avoid, step is one action, and reach weapons are a thing (or positioning) one of the ways my party handled most casters in agents of edgewatch (or age of ashes) is that the paladin rushes the caster and <<stickies>> it. She stays there with her lance and wails on it with shield raised. Usually the caster is a prime target so most other mooks, if there are any, converge on her to protect it.
Then if the caster tries moving, AoO, if he tries casting AoO, and is the AoO crits, spell is interrupted.
Yes they have good AC and that's not a perfect strategy, but over several encounters it will more often than not ruin a caster's life.
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.
In my last 20 games as a GM, my players have fled 3 times, all these 3 times against casters. And among these 3 fights, 2 were Moderate encounters. So, I'm not speaking in generics but I also don't focus the debate on one monster (as one monster can be overpowered).
Just would like to point out that past 6 casters become much more manageable a lot of the time because of attack of opportunity.
Since you can only step to avoid, step is one action, and reach weapons are a thing (or positioning) one of the ways my party handled most casters in agents of edgewatch (or age of ashes) is that the paladin rushes the caster and <<stickies>> it. She stays there with her lance and wails on it with shield raised. Usually the caster is a prime target so most other mooks, if there are any, converge on her to protect it.
Then if the caster tries moving, AoO, if he tries casting AoO, and is the AoO crits, spell is interrupted.
Yes they have good AC and that's not a perfect strategy, but over several encounters it will more often than not ruin a caster's life.
That's why I have put my characters' levels, because it may happen at a specific level range.
Still, as these casters have perfectly valid melee attacks, they can just avoid to cast spells and fight like martials. That's actually my main point: the classical ways to fight casters (Grapple, AoO) only work if the casters don't have valid melee attacks. When you see this level 7 monster with +18 to hit (as much as a Fighter) or the Lich with martial level of attack that paralyze on hit, AoOs are not the solution.| 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.
In my last 20 games as a GM, my players have fled 3 times, all these 3 times against casters. And among these 3 fights, 2 were Moderate encounters. So, I'm not speaking in generics but I also don't focus the debate on one monster (as one monster can be overpowered).
Just would like to point out that past 6 casters become much more manageable a lot of the time because of attack of opportunity.
Since you can only step to avoid, step is one action, and reach weapons are a thing (or positioning) one of the ways my party handled most casters in agents of edgewatch (or age of ashes) is that the paladin rushes the caster and <<stickies>> it. She stays there with her lance and wails on it with shield raised. Usually the caster is a prime target so most other mooks, if there are any, converge on her to protect it.
Then if the caster tries moving, AoO, if he tries casting AoO, and is the AoO crits, spell is interrupted.
Yes they have good AC and that's not a perfect strategy, but over several encounters it will more often than not ruin a caster's life.
That's why I have put my characters' levels, because it may happen at a specific level range.
Still, as these casters have perfectly valid melee attacks, they can just avoid to cast spells and fight like martials. That's actually my main point: the classical ways to fight casters (Grapple, AoO) only work if the casters don't have valid melee attacks. When you see this level 7 monster with +18 to hit (as much as a Fighter) or the Lich with martial level of attack that paralyze on hit, AoOs are not the solution.
I will grant you that it's much less effective than it USED to be, but its still effective!
If that lich is hitting you in melee, it ain't hitting you with spells! If there's more of you than there are of it, then that's called winning.
Even if it kills Marty the fighter. He died the way he would have wanted.... paralysed by a lich so his betters could triumph.
RIP marty...
| 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.
In my last 20 games as a GM, my players have fled 3 times, all these 3 times against casters. And among these 3 fights, 2 were Moderate encounters. So, I'm not speaking in generics but I also don't focus the debate on one monster (as one monster can be overpowered).
Just would like to point out that past 6 casters become much more manageable a lot of the time because of attack of opportunity.
Since you can only step to avoid, step is one action, and reach weapons are a thing (or positioning) one of the ways my party handled most casters in agents of edgewatch (or age of ashes) is that the paladin rushes the caster and <<stickies>> it. She stays there with her lance and wails on it with shield raised. Usually the caster is a prime target so most other mooks, if there are any, converge on her to protect it.
Then if the caster tries moving, AoO, if he tries casting AoO, and is the AoO crits, spell is interrupted.
Yes they have good AC and that's not a perfect strategy, but over several encounters it will more often than not ruin a caster's life.
That's why I have put my characters' levels, because it may happen at a specific level range.
Still, as these casters have perfectly valid melee attacks, they can just avoid to cast spells and fight like martials. That's actually my main point: the classical ways to fight casters (Grapple, AoO) only work if the casters don't have valid melee attacks. When you see this level 7 monster with +18 to hit (as much as a Fighter) or the Lich with martial level of attack that paralyze on hit, AoOs are not the solution.
Running away from the powerful unknown is a totally reasonable and even highly logical strategy, that is incredibly common in our fiction and story telling. It might feel defeating for some tables to do so, and to have to do so all the time especially, but I find that many players really find that return mission, slightly more prepared with a couple of consumables, and destroy the enemy, to be an incredibly satisfying encounter. It is important to point out that 2 out of the 3 main creatures pointed to in this post dont have to start off as combat encounters, so the party doesn't even have to face the enemy in combat before deciding to leave and come back.
Another thing about casting in PF2 is that it absolutely can be shut down by a single caster that recognizes that shutting down an enemy caster's ability to cast is a worth while use of class resources like feats. Maybe getting wrecked by some powerful casters consistently will help players realize that those counteracting spells and feats are actually incredibly useful in PF2. This can include things like counter spelling but it can also include dispelling magic, having ways to counter act magical darkness and invisibility, and other common ways that powerful creatures get uncomfortably powerful with spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Running away from the powerful unknown is a totally reasonable and even highly logical strategy, that is incredibly common in our fiction and story telling.
Clearly. And it's something I want in this campaign. 3 games out of 20 that ends with the characters running away is a fine proportion to me. I want my players to know it can be hard but I also want them to feel like heroes. So it needs to happen but not often.
The issue I have is that it happened only against casters and during fights that were not supposed to be hard (Moderate encounters). That is a pattern to me (especially when you consider that encounters against casters only are the rarity).
Another thing about casting in PF2 is that it absolutely can be shut down by a single caster that recognizes that shutting down an enemy caster's ability to cast is a worth while use of class resources like feats. Maybe getting wrecked by some powerful casters consistently will help players realize that those counteracting spells and feats are actually incredibly useful in PF2. This can include things like counter spelling but it can also include dispelling magic, having ways to counter act magical darkness and invisibility, and other common ways that powerful creatures get uncomfortably powerful with spells.
I disagree on that. First, Counterspell is only available to Sorcerers and level 12+ Wizards, that's highly limited. I don't count the fact that the enemy needs to have your tradition or at least use spells in common with your tradition (main offensive spells tend to be in only one or two lists), that you can cast (so no higher level spells) and that you know. A lot of limitations.
And Dispel Magic only works on spells that have a duration. It won't stop a Fireball or a 3-action Harm.I completely agree that counterspelling and dispelling can be pivotal to a victory, but you can't consider that it should be a given considering how they are limited even when you have them.
Still, as these casters have perfectly valid melee attacks, they can just avoid to cast spells and fight like martials. That's actually my main point: the classical ways to fight casters (Grapple, AoO) only work if the casters don't have valid melee attacks. When you see this level 7 monster with +18 to hit (as much as a Fighter) or the Lich with martial level of attack that paralyze on hit, AoOs are not the solution.
Grapple to lower enemy defense and raise your shield to block the natural attack. Its a lot harder to completely shut down enemies in PF2 and that is mostly a good thing. You can still use tactics to gain the advantage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really enjoy working opportunities for players to question enemy combatants into my games, and have the subordinates have information like what kinds of spells they have seen the boss cast in the past as a way to help feel players useful information. Wizards can counterspell from level 1, they just need information in advance to make it worthwhile. Against an enemy like a brimorak that is willing to let them go the first time they encounter it. Learning it is going to likely unleash 1 fireball against the party and then follow up with other fire attacks is not unreasonable. Even just resist energy could be enough of a counter to the creatures abilities to radically tip the fight in the players favor.
That is the most noticable thing about PF2 to me, Even moderate fights often have a 10-25% chance of turning into difficult ones for parties, and almost always there are relatively minor things that will quickly turn a fight one way or another.
PF2 can be played in many ways. If you are going to play with players that tend to lead with their swords and want to assume that any encounter presented in front of them is smashable without preparation, then you absolutely can, but your really have to be careful about the tactics you use with higher level enemies, especially ones that can cast spells. because spells are incredibly dangerous against lower level opposition. It is ok to let cocky powerful enemies to underestimate the party at first, just as parties almost always underestimate their opposition, and wait to cast their powerful spells until they are in deep trouble and not as a lead into to every fight. Many creatures can have interesting goals, like take these fools prisoner so they can be interrogated, that will guide a powerful creature into not wanting to throw down a big AoE spell that could kill them all before they have a chance to surrender.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've definitely had the same experience as you, Bidi, both as the GM looking at how absurd those monsters are, and as the player being absolutely wrecked by them. I think it's just a symptom of Paizo taking their "NPCs don't follow the same rules as PCs" philosophy, which I agree with on a base level, way too far. Monster spellcasters have a higher, sometimes considerably higher DC than the high maximum a PC spellcaster of that level could ever have... for some reason. They also don't have almost any of the defensive disadvantages normally attached to being a caster, and can have Fighter levels of brawling without any significant payback.
Monsters in 2e are already very overtuned, and spellcasting monsters are the epitome of that by being better than all the PCs at their respective jobs at once. It's frustrating.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing that just clicked for me is that you said your party is running in that 3 to 4 range. There is a growing amount of evidence that the level 3 to 4 range is the most dangerous ones for PCs to encounter higher level creatures. Many APs run into problems here, and it could be a combination of shifting orociency expectations at levels 5 to 7 and the extent to which 3rd and 4th level spells are major game changers.
Intended or not, it is a good thing for GMs to pay attention to and be careful with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Running away from the powerful unknown is a totally reasonable and even highly logical strategy, that is incredibly common in our fiction and story telling.Clearly. And it's something I want in this campaign. 3 games out of 20 that ends with the characters running away is a fine proportion to me. I want my players to know it can be hard but I also want them to feel like heroes. So it needs to happen but not often.
The issue I have is that it happened only against casters and during fights that were not supposed to be hard (Moderate encounters). That is a pattern to me (especially when you consider that encounters against casters only are the rarity).
The first one you're quoting is closer to Severe than it is Moderate. Based on your party listings, a Severe is ~140 XP for a level 4 party, while a Moderate is ~95 (numbers mildly broken due to level splitting). A level 7 creature in that environment is going to be Severe for most of the the party, given you can toss in two level 0 creatures and it'll be fully listable as Severe.
Then you consider that a lot of spells are AoE, and your numbers advantage evaporated in the blink of an eye.
I disagree on that. First, Counterspell is only available to Sorcerers and level 12+ Wizards, that's highly limited.
A level 1 feat is highly limited, huh.
I don't count the fact that the enemy needs to have your tradition or at least use spells in common with your tradition (main offensive spells tend to be in only one or two lists), that you can cast (so no higher level spells) and that you know. A lot of limitations.
From how I'm reading Counterspell, you can definitely try to counter higher-level spells if they're a heightened version, it's just going to be a lot harder between both the higher DC and the fact you might need a critical success for anything too high.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Curiously, I was going to make a similar thread, but for PF1e and from a player's point of view.
Recently, my character went down twice (from full HP) in a single round, due to multiple AoEs from bunches of enemy casters.
A bit of that was due to very poor save rolls, another bit is on the DM (six wizards, each casting an offensive spell in the surprise round... what did he think would happen?), but the result is that I spent a good part of two sessions doing nothing, and almost lost a character with no fault on my part.
I barely resisted the urge to start arguing, but I did let trickle a few times into the chat that adventures should avoid placing several casters together, that stacking AoEs is unfair, expecially when you have no way to know what's coming, and... did I already say that multiple casters are something not to do?
I believe that the same principles are still valid in PF2e.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think one of the big things is that enemy casters don't tend to have any of the drawbacks of PC casters, they have defences appropriate to their level like everything else, they're reasonably effective with whatever melee abilties they have, they have DCs on their spells high enough that PCs are expected to fail relatively often (as opposed to PC casters who are expected to tolerate success as the default option) and they can just dump a whole day's spells into this one fight where a PC would cripple themselves doing that.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think many posters believe PCs usually succeed on Recall Knowledge checks and can act on them. What do you do when you face a higher level creature and both PCs who try RK fail miserably?
Or when you successfully identify the Fiend that materialized just next to you as a Brimorak and learn of its weaknesses but there is no water lying around?
I should know. I was there. You try to retreat and come back later with better preparation (you or another group of PCs). If you can even successfully flee.
And yes, when you are getting blasted in a corridor by Grim Tendrils after Grim Tendrils, you do not expect the casters to later just walk up to you in the wide room and start the clawing and biting hard with paralysis on top.
A bit of that was due to very poor save rolls, another bit is on the DM (six wizards, each casting an offensive spell in the surprise round... what did he think would happen?), but the result is that I spent a good part of two sessions doing nothing, and almost lost a character with no fault on my part.
A big part of that might have been the GM having the surprise round in the first place. There are no more surprise rounds in 2E. If your GM gave the enemy ambushers a full set of actions before any of you could respond, the encounter design was broken from the very start.
Had it been done properly, the PC and NPC actions would likely have been more intermixed, giving at least some of you a better chance to counter the enemy.
I think many posters believe PCs usually succeed on Recall Knowledge checks and can act on them. What do you do when you face a higher level creature and both PCs who try RK fail miserably?Insert my usual rant about level-based skill DCs in general and Recall Knowledge checks in particular being too high here.
If the GM uses level-based DCs on everything, then sure it can be a problem, but that's largely an issue with the GM, not with the game.
My 1st-level character might have trouble climbing a tree at 1st-level. However, if he came back to that same tree at level 10, the DC to climb it will be the same, not the DC for 10 levels higher.
On the other hand, if my 1st-level character had some difficulty scaling the enemy's castle walls, then gained a dozen levels then had to tackle the slippery slope of a sheer glacier in the Plane of Water that continually melted and refroze, then it would make sense for that to be a level 13 DC. It is an entirely different, more difficult challenge; one that the 1st-level PC would never stand a chance of succeeding at.
Not everything scales, nor should it.
A bit of that was due to very poor save rolls, another bit is on the DM (six wizards, each casting an offensive spell in the surprise round... what did he think would happen?), but the result is that I spent a good part of two sessions doing nothing, and almost lost a character with no fault on my part.A big part of that might have been the GM having the surprise round in the first place. There are no more surprise rounds in 2E. If your GM gave the enemy ambushers a full set of actions before any of you could respond, the encounter design was broken from the very start.
Had it been done properly, the PC and NPC actions would likely have been more intermixed, giving at least some of you a better chance to counter the enemy.
It happened in PF1e, with that group we are still trying to finish our AP before switching, so yes, surprise round it was.
In the other case I mentioned, same adventure, I did act in the middle of the round: after eating the first fireball (rolled 4 on the save, needed a 6), I hid behind a corner and started a summon; three more fireballs then were aimed further out in an attempt to catch me in the blast - which worked. Rolled 3, 4 and 18 - the last roll actually saved my life, but I was still down and bored. And technically, there were two more enemies able to cast and kill me for good.
Now I mean, those enemies are lower level than us, but it's still overkill: my Witch has got 78 HP, with six 7d6 fireballs she's eating an average of 147 damage. She may go down even if I pass ALL the saves (unless she happens to have the correct defensive buff on), and can easily end up dead without having a chance.
Something should prevent such an outcome, so either the adventure shouldn't employ bunches of casters with offensive spells, or warn the DM to take it easy and avoid going nova. I guess that after losing a character in such a way, most players would become hyper-cautious to the point of paranoia... how much fun is that?
I don't think that PF2e is any different in this regard, that's why I brought up first edition anecdotes. At least with no more surprise rounds, DMs have one less way to screw an unfortunate party :D
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My 1st-level character might have trouble climbing a tree at 1st-level. However, if he came back to that same tree at level 10, the DC to climb it will be the same, not the DC for 10 levels higher.
That assumes, of course, that the circumstances haven't changed. It could have just rained, or the tree could be rotting and causing its bark to peel more easily, or the lowest branches could be gone, etc. While I agree that if the tree presents the exact same challenge the DC should be the same, but there are many reasons under which that assumption could be wrong. Org play routinely has different DCs for the same challenge because their are additional factors the higher-level PCs have to address. That allows them to use the same challenge across a range of party levels.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Recall Knowledge comes up A LOT in 2E. I really wish someone would create a companion to the Bestiaries with every creature listed and what information should be revealed at each level of success, maybe listing it in order of more to less common, and some suggestions to use for crit fails. Even if that product was from a 3PP, I believe it would sell gangbusters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think often about making a GM guide to PF2 but maybe a good start toward that would be a recall knowledge guide. The trick is that recalling knowledge about a creature should not be one static thing. It should factor in what skill is being used, what context the creature is being encountered in and how that creature links to the current objective of the party. Sometimes the valuable information a party gains won’t even be about facing this specific creature again, but how it fits in its dungeon/setting ecosystem. When your players consistently feel like recalling knowledge helps them feel more connected to the larger story, they value it a lot more.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the GM uses level-based DCs on everything, then sure it can be a problem, but that's largely an issue with the GM, not with the game.
I mean, the topic here is identifying monster weaknesses. Those are always going to use DCs based on the monster's level. Not particularly a GM issue.
My 1st-level character might have trouble climbing a tree at 1st-level. However, if he came back to that same tree at level 10, the DC to climb it will be the same, not the DC for 10 levels higher.That assumes, of course, that the circumstances haven't changed. It could have just rained, or the tree could be rotting and causing its bark to peel more easily, or the lowest branches could be gone, etc. While I agree that if the tree presents the exact same challenge the DC should be the same, but there are many reasons under which that assumption could be wrong. Org play routinely has different DCs for the same challenge because their are additional factors the higher-level PCs have to address. That allows them to use the same challenge across a range of party levels.
I just didn't want to make my examples unnecessarily convoluted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Recall Knowledge comes up A LOT in 2E. I really wish someone would create a companion to the Bestiaries with every creature listed and what information should be revealed at each level of success, maybe listing it in order of more to less common, and some suggestions to use for crit fails. Even if that product was from a 3PP, I believe it would sell gangbusters.
I've always found this odd. Only once in my experience has recall knowledge been anything other than a wasted combat action. Weaknesses are so few and far between that they're rarely worth worrying about or in many cases apply to the entire type of creature. Resistances are known after hitting them once if they even come up or, like weaknesses, are often found in all creatures of a type. The only exceptions I can think of are golems and the Jabberwocky with their special weaknesses.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or when you successfully identify the Fiend that materialized just next to you as a Brimorak and learn of its weaknesses but there is no water lying around?Bad example given how rarely characters are without a waterskin... but
Well, none of the PCs, including mine, thought we had enough water around to trigger the weakness. So, it might be a bad example, but it comes from actual play. And truth be told, we were busy enough healing or carrying the downed PCs as fast as possible to escape the fiends that defeating them was not foremost in our mind. Survival through fleeing was.
Even with good RK check, you never get enough info to know from the get go how strong or durable the enemy is.
In my experience, one of the key things you can get from Recall Knowledge is saves; while a lot of enemies have obvious strong and weak saves, some are less obvious, and knowing which save to target for your spells and maneuvers can be huge.
The GM Guide for RK basically just tells you to give the most relevant information first. You want your players to get the serotonins from identifying a weakness and exploiting it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sadly, Recall Knowledge is so vague on what info you get that the result will completely depend on the individual GM.
The problem is that even with a most benevolent GM and customized answers the knowledge gained, though helpful, might still not be actionable.
If you encounter an ooze and learn that he will split if hit with the wrong damage type this should in most parts easily be actionable. If however you encounter a golem and learn of its antimagic properties this might still not be actionable if your casters do not have a bunch of the appropriate spells prepared and/or already used those.
In the later case if you can easily retreat and come back with the right spell selection, then fine. If however you are under some sort of narrative pressure to overcome the creature right here, right now, thats tough luck. You might not necessarily have lost an action (because the casters will not waste spells and future actions on the golem) however even a RK success can sometimes still feel bad.
I see. But it makes me want to flip that on its head though. If a level 10 DC is balanced around being a Master at something, then why not use the easy or very easy DC adjustment if it’s something easy enough that a less proficient person has a decent shot at it?
If it is something easy enough that a less proficient person has a shot at it then there should be a significant DC adjustment to the check.
At my table, identify that a dragon is a dragon is a very easy check. You even get the basic info about elemental damage and resistance with a very low DC, because I like playing with the assumption that dragons are creatures feared and mythologized. With a better roll I will more specific information about saves or attacks and I will often allow my players to start researching powerful enemies in advance, so if the creature is doing things in world while the players are chasing them, they can learn about if the creature is a caster and what spells it is using or if it has certain aversions, etc.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If however you encounter a golem and learn of its antimagic properties this might still not be actionable if your casters do not have a bunch of the appropriate spells prepared and/or already used those.
Or it saves them from wasting a bunch of actions finding out which spells don't work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If however you encounter a golem and learn of its antimagic properties this might still not be actionable if your casters do not have a bunch of the appropriate spells prepared and/or already used those.Or it saves them from wasting a bunch of actions finding out which spells don't work.
And it clues you in right away, that this might not be a creature to rush into combat with. Most creatures that have significant and exploitable weaknesses also have considerable resistances and strengths. If your party realizes in the first round of combat that you have no ability to exploit an enemies weakness, it might be worth considering it a sign that this might be a fight to come back to, rather than attempt to just power your way through.
Most APs are very good about not having such creatures pursue you beyond a specific area. As a GM, that is a good thing to think about when you have your players encounter them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your party realizes in the first round of combat that you have no ability to exploit an enemies weakness, it might be worth considering it a sign that this might be a fight to come back to, rather than attempt to just power your way through.
Most APs are very good about not having such creatures pursue you beyond a specific area. As a GM, that is a good thing to think about when you have your players encounter them.
Thats all good and fine if said enemy is guarding an ancient tome in a crypt that has been left undisturbed for thousands of years. The same enemy as a gatekeeper to the chambers where the ritual of doom is currently nearing completion? Not so much.
As such I do recommend to make enemy placement your top GM priority, aka what is the role of this enemy and is the party expected to overcome it in just one try?
Can't commend on later APs but the first volumes of AoA seem to often feature hard to very hard fights in front of final fights that are not telegraphed in any way and may also have some narrative pressure to complete, which by its very nature is less than ideal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your party realizes in the first round of combat that you have no ability to exploit an enemies weakness, it might be worth considering it a sign that this might be a fight to come back to, rather than attempt to just power your way through.
Most APs are very good about not having such creatures pursue you beyond a specific area. As a GM, that is a good thing to think about when you have your players encounter them.
Thats all good and fine if said enemy is guarding an ancient tome in a crypt that has been left undisturbed for thousands of years. The same enemy as a gatekeeper to the chambers where the ritual of doom is currently nearing completion? Not so much.
As such I do recommend to make enemy placement your top GM priority, aka what is the role of this enemy and is the party expected to overcome it in just one try?
Can't commend on later APs but the first volumes of AoA seem to often feature hard to very hard fights in front of final fights that are not telegraphed in any way and may also have some narrative pressure to complete, which by its very nature is less than ideal.
I actually liked what AoA did. People call it too hard or overtuned but it forces players to learn how to play effectively fairly quickly or die horribly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually liked what AoA did. People call it too hard or overtuned but it forces players to learn how to play effectively fairly quickly or die horribly.
Mostly the later. ;)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bad luck and bad choice combined, rather than the "no matter what you do, this campaign will kill you" that it seems like folks are claiming to be the case.
GM variance is high. And I'm not only speaking of GMs who play monsters nastily, but also GMs who will give you more or less information, GMs who cheat to help their players, GMs who are bad at tactical play or assume that monster psychology push them towards bad actions, GMs who bring multiple combats at once if they feel it's logical, GMs who don't read monsters stats block entirely and forget things, GMs who don't read monsters stats block entirely and make up things... I've known every one of these GM types.
So, with different GMs, the same AP can be a breeze or a meat grinder.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an utter aside,
One of my players sent me a screenshot of Aaron Shanks talking about this thread and the "Casters need some help-and here’s why" thread from some facebook group. Apparently they think the these two threads are at odds, when they are actually talking about two entirely different things.
I really hope someone actually reads these things instead of just skimming the titles.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For Recall Knowledge:
As a Dm I often give information on a failed check on RK checks, if it's pertinent.
Like say you're trying a recall knowledge check to learn more about Grothul the destroyer, leader of the orc hordes, and fail. Well... i'm not gonna tell you s!!% about **him** but I will tell you that orcs are hardy creatures who tend to favor might over mind, and usually have the ferocity to stand even after a lethal blow...
Same thing with, lets say, devils. If you fail a check vs a barbed devil, I'm not gonna tell you it's specific powers and resistances, but I **will** remind you that devils are vulnerable to silver and good damage, and immune to fire, because you could have rolled a critical success agaisnt an imp who has the same traits.
This type of thinking is especially important in AP's where every monster and their mom is unique, making a lot of the DC'S impossible. You might not know jaggaki can make stone shoot forth from walls and paralyze you with his lich touch, but you can definitely know that you need a blunt magic item to bypass its necromantically infused resistances.
I know this isn't RAW, but pf2e is a system with 4 results not 3, and it's important to grade those results in that scale. So for RK: Crit success= all info, including weakest save. Success=weaknesses and resistance, if those don't exist then an outline of its abilities. Failure: broad info about the creatures group if relevant, or maybe some fun obvious information for very straightforward monsters(you roll nature to identify the smilodon and realise.... its bigger than most cats!) critical failure: Vastly misleading information (Most people assume this gelatinous cube is acidic, but a little known secret is that it's actually... delicious...)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know this isn't RAW, but pf2e is a system with 4 results not 3, and it's important to grade those results in that scale. So for RK: Crit success= all info, including weakest save. Success=weaknesses and resistance, if those don't exist then an outline of its abilities. Failure: broad info about the creatures group if relevant, or maybe some fun obvious information for very straightforward monsters(you roll nature to identify the smilodon and realise.... its bigger than most cats!) critical failure: Vastly misleading information (Most people assume this gelatinous cube is acidic, but a little known secret is that it's actually... delicious...)
I really like that format, and while it might not be raw, it does fit the general framework of "you can get broadly applicable information at a low DC or specific information at a high DC". I think I'll consider adopting it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bad luck and bad choice combined, rather than the "no matter what you do, this campaign will kill you" that it seems like folks are claiming to be the case.GM variance is high. And I'm not only speaking of GMs who play monsters nastily, but also GMs who will give you more or less information, GMs who cheat to help their players, GMs who are bad at tactical play or assume that monster psychology push them towards bad actions, GMs who bring multiple combats at once if they feel it's logical, GMs who don't read monsters stats block entirely and forget things, GMs who don't read monsters stats block entirely and make up things... I've known every one of these GM types.
So, with different GMs, the same AP can be a breeze or a meat grinder.
LOL Sounds about right. It's like we played in the same groups. ;)