...Wall of Fire has no saving throw tied to it, the only failure point is keeping the enemy in the area. If an encounter isn't overtuned there's gonna be a solution somewhere, a weakness you can exploit. That's why PF2 character building is all about diversity in options, you need to have a second and even third thing to try when your first thing doesn't work.Best moment when I was playing my Monk was using Whirling Throw to keep a boss enemy that we were all having a hard time hitting on AC locked in the Druid's Fire Wall every turn. Everybody should be supporting everybody to find the most effective tactic.For us that would go like this;
Druid casts fire wall. Boos saves takes no/half damage and moves out.
Monk tries whirling toss and fails.
Boss punches the sh!t out of monk and we have to pick up his unconscious body and run.
Again, its not about things to do and options to try its about the math. Nothing we do has any decent chance to work because 2/3 our fights are +3-4 levels higher than us. Our only hope is to chip away at the AC because the lowest saves are still high enough to succeed 80% of the time.
I thought the new 4 tier critical system would be fun. however, being on the wrong side of it has sucked so bad I dont want to play PF2 anymore. And, yes I do put the blame on our GM, but the system also allows this. How many other folks will experience this? Who knows...
I did experience this, it was frustrating as a player in my first game.
Then I learned what I was doing wrong, and I got better.
Recall knowledge is INSANELY GOOD, as a caster, provided your GM tells you which save is weakest.
There is on average a difference of 5 on saves between the highest and lowest save. That's 25% chance extra to land your spell and 25% chance extra to have them Crit fail. Mesh this with an aoe spell on a group and unless you are really unlucky
Fairly certain that's a correct diagnosis.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How so? If an encounter gives 160 exp for 4 players it gives 160 exp for 5 players. The GM is expected to add a certain budget of exp on top of that and not give exp to the grojp, but the exp rewards are the same.OP, how do you know that the encounters are +3-4 levels higher than you ?
Note : if the GM is giving out XP for encounters budgeted for 4 PCs but you are 5 in the party, it means you will often be 1 level below what the adventure expects. In AV, it has a HUGE impact, especially when facing enemies that have abilities with Incapacitation.
You are quite right, my bad. It is extremely different from previous editions. If the OP's GM has not realized this difference, they might be giving the encounter's XP value to the whole group instead of giving it to each party member. That would make them earn 20% of the XP they are supposed to get. That might explain the huge level discrepancy the OP describes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OP, how do you know that the encounters are +3-4 levels higher than you ?
Note : if the GM is giving out XP for encounters budgeted for 4 PCs but you are 5 in the party, it means you will often be 1 level below what the adventure expects. In AV, it has a HUGE impact, especially when facing enemies that have abilities with Incapacitation.
We are suing roll20 so all the numbers are being revealed during combat. After I balked at a few encounters the GM opened up a bit about what we were facing. We were told that we should be x level at y floor of dungeon which we held to, but still each fight is +3-4 levels higher than us.
GM is running it like a 4 person party and not making any adjustments for a 5th player, per the GM anyways.
|
** spoiler omitted **OP, how do you know that the encounters are +3-4 levels higher than you ?
Note : if the GM is giving out XP for encounters budgeted for 4 PCs but you are 5 in the party, it means you will often be 1 level below what the adventure expects. In AV, it has a HUGE impact, especially when facing enemies that have abilities with Incapacitation.
We are suing roll20 so all the numbers are being revealed during combat. After I balked at a few encounters the GM opened up a bit about what we were facing. We were told that we should be x level at y floor of dungeon which we held to, but still each fight is +3-4 levels higher than us.
GM is running it like a 4 person party and not making any adjustments for a 5th player, per the GM anyways.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **OP, how do you know that the encounters are +3-4 levels higher than you ?
Note : if the GM is giving out XP for encounters budgeted for 4 PCs but you are 5 in the party, it means you will often be 1 level below what the adventure expects. In AV, it has a HUGE impact, especially when facing enemies that have abilities with Incapacitation.
We are suing roll20 so all the numbers are being revealed during combat. After I balked at a few encounters the GM opened up a bit about what we were facing. We were told that we should be x level at y floor of dungeon which we held to, but still each fight is +3-4 levels higher than us.
GM is running it like a 4 person party and not making any adjustments for a 5th player, per the GM anyways.
Are there many enemies in these encounters or only a few strong enemies ?
|
|
Are there many enemies in these encounters or only a few strong enemies ?** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **OP, how do you know that the encounters are +3-4 levels higher than you ?
Note : if the GM is giving out XP for encounters budgeted for 4 PCs but you are 5 in the party, it means you will often be 1 level below what the adventure expects. In AV, it has a HUGE impact, especially when facing enemies that have abilities with Incapacitation.
We are suing roll20 so all the numbers are being revealed during combat. After I balked at a few encounters the GM opened up a bit about what we were facing. We were told that we should be x level at y floor of dungeon which we held to, but still each fight is +3-4 levels higher than us.
GM is running it like a 4 person party and not making any adjustments for a 5th player, per the GM anyways.
Its usually open a door and find an empty room. Open the next door fight a solo severe/extreme monster then rinse and repeat. This started on floor 3.
|
|
In the entirety of the level 4 part of the adventure, there is exactly one level +3 creature and one level +4 creature. In the level 3 section, there are only two level +3s. That's it. So something isn't adding up here.
If that's the case that's actually pretty darn steep. Recall that the one encounter in Age of Ashes that always gets brought up as a TPK is a L+3 monster encountered at level 4.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wall of Fire has no saving throw tied to it, the only failure point is keeping the enemy in the area. If an encounter isn't overtuned there's gonna be a solution somewhere, a weakness you can exploit. That's why PF2 character building is all about diversity in options, you need to have a second and even third thing to try when your first thing doesn't work.Best moment when I was playing my Monk was using Whirling Throw to keep a boss enemy that we were all having a hard time hitting on AC locked in the Druid's Fire Wall every turn. Everybody should be supporting everybody to find the most effective tactic.For us that would go like this;
Druid casts fire wall. Boos saves takes no/half damage and moves out.
Monk tries whirling toss and fails.
Boss punches the sh!t out of monk and we have to pick up his unconscious body and run.
Again, its not about things to do and options to try its about the math. Nothing we do has any decent chance to work because 2/3 our fights are +3-4 levels higher than us. Our only hope is to chip away at the AC because the lowest saves are still high enough to succeed 80% of the time.
I thought the new 4 tier critical system would be fun. however, being on the wrong side of it has sucked so bad I dont want to play PF2 anymore. And, yes I do put the blame on our GM, but the system also allows this. How many other folks will experience this? Who knows...
How many DMs have experienced the players not being challenged due to the lack of balance of PF1 or D&D 3rd edition? Similar idea.
You have a bad DM. But the PF2 system is must better at providing a challenge to PCs of any level. That is much, much better than the players running rough shod over the game due to the complete lack of any semblance of balance over previous iterations of the game.
So if players quit due to a bad DM, so be it. I quit PF1 and previous editions of D&D including 5E due to players making exploitative characters that ruined my enjoyment as a DM as they ran roughshod over the game as they gained higher levels.
I will never DM PF1 again or any iteration of D&D. After playing PF2 and how easy it makes my life as a DM, I don't plan to go back.
Sorry to hear your DM is running the game poorly, but PF2 is one of the greatest RPGs for a DM ever created. You have way more control and can more easily plan challenges and encounters without having to worry about spending all your time making sure they are challenging. You can focus more on story development and not have to worry about the game breaking.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its usually open a door and find an empty room. Open the next door fight a solo severe/extreme monster then rinse and repeat. This started on floor 3.Are there many enemies in these encounters or only a few strong enemies ?** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **OP, how do you know that the encounters are +3-4 levels higher than you ?
Note : if the GM is giving out XP for encounters budgeted for 4 PCs but you are 5 in the party, it means you will often be 1 level below what the adventure expects. In AV, it has a HUGE impact, especially when facing enemies that have abilities with Incapacitation.
We are suing roll20 so all the numbers are being revealed during combat. After I balked at a few encounters the GM opened up a bit about what we were facing. We were told that we should be x level at y floor of dungeon which we held to, but still each fight is +3-4 levels higher than us.
GM is running it like a 4 person party and not making any adjustments for a 5th player, per the GM anyways.
Floor 3? Floor 3 has some nasty encounters. But floor 4 has the most dangerous encounters. One of them is absolutely brutal if you don't have the right party composition. That encounter is not easy to get to.
I can only think of a few encounters as brutal as what you are talking about in AV unless you went down a level early as can happen in a sandbox. If the party went down some stairs to a level with very tough creatures at the wrong level, you're going to experience some serious pain.
|
|
Wall of Fire has no saving throw tied to it, the only failure point is keeping the enemy in the area. If an encounter isn't overtuned there's gonna be a solution somewhere, a weakness you can exploit. That's why PF2 character building is all about diversity in options, you need to have a second and even third thing to try when your first thing doesn't work.Best moment when I was playing my Monk was using Whirling Throw to keep a boss enemy that we were all having a hard time hitting on AC locked in the Druid's Fire Wall every turn. Everybody should be supporting everybody to find the most effective tactic.For us that would go like this;
Druid casts fire wall. Boos saves takes no/half damage and moves out.
Monk tries whirling toss and fails.
Boss punches the sh!t out of monk and we have to pick up his unconscious body and run.
Again, its not about things to do and options to try its about the math. Nothing we do has any decent chance to work because 2/3 our fights are +3-4 levels higher than us. Our only hope is to chip away at the AC because the lowest saves are still high enough to succeed 80% of the time.
I thought the new 4 tier critical system would be fun. however, being on the wrong side of it has sucked so bad I dont want to play PF2 anymore. And, yes I do put the blame on our GM, but the system also allows this. How many other folks will experience this? Who knows...
How many DMs have experienced the players not being challenged due to the lack of balance of PF1 or D&D 3rd edition? Similar idea.
You have a bad DM. But the PF2 system is must better at providing a challenge to PCs of any level. That is much, much better than the players running rough shod over the game due to the complete lack of any semblance of balance over previous iterations of the game.
So if players quit due to a bad DM, so be it. I quit PF1 and previous editions of D&D including 5E due to players...
I hear you. The GM definitely has way more confidence in their ability and perception of the game than they have any right to. A big part of my frustration.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd offer up a game for you to see PF2 from a different side, but I'm currently full up with 3 PbPs and an in-person game (AV, coincidentally!)
A lot of us here do really love this system and it's a shame if your first exposure to it is a frustrating mess with a GM who either doesn't know what they're doing or doesn't care enough to address the problems.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These here are actually interesting problems. But gonna toss it behind a spoiler tag (not spoilers for you at this point).
So, we just ran into another absolutely insane encounter today.
L8 characters running into a CR13 Froghenoth.
By Paizo's guidelines that is one CR HIGHER than an extreme solo level boss.
How the heck is that balanced or remotely fair? Let alone being easy?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These here are actually interesting problems. But gonna toss it behind a spoiler tag (not spoilers for you at this point).
So, we just ran into another absolutely insane encounter today.
** spoiler omitted **
I know where that happened, and it's weak, so only level 12, but also a sandbox situation where you should run away.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also froghemoths are the kind of monster that it pays to
1: be prepared agaisnt
2: succeed at recall knowledge agaisnt.
A shocking weapon on your fighter will turn this into a much easier encounter, or anyone being dedicated to cast electric arc every turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These here are actually interesting problems. But gonna toss it behind a spoiler tag (not spoilers for you at this point).
So, we just ran into another absolutely insane encounter today.
** spoiler omitted **
I mean
Rather than simply being clumsy, the froghemoth has the weak adjustment. A lazy hunter, the froghemoth tends to attack from the water and rarely pursues those who find shelter within the fungus garden. However, it’s vindictive in a simple-minded way; if it loses at least half of its Hit Points, there is a chance (DC 15 flat check) it becomes enraged and follow its attackers onto dry land.
If encountered as a random encounter it only attacks for one round, its lair is really well telegraphed, it has conditionals to make it easier to deal with, it is weakened, it is an off the path non essential fight in a horror themed sandbox dungeon.
It sounds like you want a different sort or game, I recommend session zeros with your GM and flat talking with them to discuss (not demand) games that fit your personal playstyle more.
Some folks like diablo, some folks like darksouls, neither is wrong (and ofcourse people also sit on the spectrum inbetween).
Me, I like having scary things out there players can run from. And at level 8 you have the tools to comfortably find out and flee. That is what my players did when squaring up against the first barbazu while level 2 and fighting on floor 3. Only a +3, but for a party of level 2s with level 2 health it is scarier than the froghemoth is imo, especially in such a small room with AoO, wriggling beard and infernal wound.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These here are actually interesting problems. But gonna toss it behind a spoiler tag (not spoilers for you at this point).
So, we just ran into another absolutely insane encounter today.
** spoiler omitted **
I'm not sure how you or your GM are approaching the "old school sandbox dungeondelve," but encounters in thouse style of game don't exist to be solved through combat every time.
The topic is "casters have trouble in severe and extreme encounters," which is fair because everyone does. The encounter system works. But you seem to be entirely misunderstanding the point of an AP's premise and that's fine, but you seem to take it as a personal affront. You even necro'd this old thread to say that it's got challenges in it that's too difficult, when that is the point of that style of game: gear up, come back, and approach the encounter with more knowledge.
I recognize that this is a type of play that has fallen out of style, so I don't blame anyone for being unfamiliar with it. But it's also something that many of us have stated in this thread over and over. Pan's problems aren't yours, in which they are having an adversarial GM who appears to be either running monsters incorrectly or in the very least, just not giving the players the information to succeed. Your problems are one of expectations and that's something you should have settled with your GM long ago.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure if the GM applied the weak adjustment or not.
So, maybe we missed some clue or maybe the GM failed to give us one but we certainly had no reason to know that a froghemoth was around. It was obvious that there was something dangerous nearby but that was all we knew.
As to running away, well round 1 went
Froggy wins initiative (hardly surprising)
Aquatic ambush - crit and improved grab
Flailing tentacles - one actually missed. Rest hit with improved grab
So, at this point 3 out of 4 characters were grabbed. Running away wasn't really much of an option.
As to what I want in a game, a game with slightly less tuned encounters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As to what I want in a game, a game with slightly less tuned encounters.
Talk to your GM, we're not running your games. That should be the biggest takeaway from this thread.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As to what I want in a game, a game with slightly less tuned encounters.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. A tuned encounter is one that's properly balance for the party facing it- surely that's what you want?
If what you actually want is never to have hard fights, as suggested above that's a conversation you need to have with your GM before the campaign starts, so they can make adjustments. But it's unreasonable to expect Paizo to write their APs that way, since having the occasional Severe difficulty encounter is part of the design of the game, which I assume Paizo did because their playtest and market research showed a significant portion of the playerbase enjoy that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure if the GM applied the weak adjustment or not.
So, maybe we missed some clue or maybe the GM failed to give us one but we certainly had no reason to know that a froghemoth was around. It was obvious that there was something dangerous nearby but that was all we knew.
As to running away, well round 1 went
Froggy wins initiative (hardly surprising)
Aquatic ambush - crit and improved grab
Flailing tentacles - one actually missed. Rest hit with improved grabSo, at this point 3 out of 4 characters were grabbed. Running away wasn't really much of an option.
As to what I want in a game, a game with slightly less tuned encounters.
You're getting the old you should run excuse. That sounds like a terribly designed encounter that could lead a situation where your party has to run while they let one of the party members who has been grabbed die. Doesn't that sound like a great thing for a party.
I've dealt with a few of these in PF2 where the players aren't sure what they're fighting. They attack, start getting their butts kicked, but at that point it's too late to run because they've been critically hit by the insane level encounter based on level based math.
Now you've got people telling you it's easy to run when it isn't because it basically takes a round or two for an enemy that tough to obliterate the hit points of a member of the party if not the entire party if it has AoE attacks.
Pf2 is not the game to put those type of encounters in. A lvl+4 or 5 creature is hard to make perception checks against if it has stealth, critically hits your party very easily, and at 13th level is built for creatures with Greater Striking runes to fight.
When I see these encounters in PF1 or 3E, I could send them at the party and expect a good chance of survival since the PCs could push the game in their favor so heavily. In PF2 this is asking to get the party killed because the level-based math is so heavily in favor the creature.
I think it's a bad idea for a GM to put this creature in your path, especially not weakened. I've seen parties have to run from lvl+2 creatures much less a lvl+4 or +5. I'm not sure what module this is, but what a terrible situation to put your party in.
Hopefully you lived.
As a DM when I run into this type of encounter unexpectedly, I play it soft against the party so they can escape. If I know it's coming, I will usually boost them a level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
snip
DF have you played/ran AV? Without going into spoilers, this isn't "running is the answer." This is "you have a very huge and massive environment that necessitates scouting -mundane or magical - along with and understanding that you are not the big fish in this environment." There is so much more here than "we walked into a room with a big tough encounter." That's not how AV works.
|
|
As to what I want in a game, a game with slightly less tuned encounters.I'm not sure what you mean by this. A tuned encounter is one that's properly balance for the party facing it- surely that's what you want?
If what you actually want is never to have hard fights,
I thought it was a well understood phrase that "highly tuned" means "too optimized, too difficult".
Its not that I don't want hard encounters. Its that I don't want ridiculously hard encounters where, if the GM is feeling merciful and severely underplays the monsters, you MAY be able to run away and live to fight another day.
So far in this AP we've had essentially at least 3 TPKs (or what should have been TPKs without extreme GM cheating). Quite possibly more where the GM was a bit more subtle.
But I think I'll shut up now. Obviously my group is playing a different module then the people posting here. Not at all sure why. Without seeing what actually happens at another table its really hard to know what is going on.
But to reiterate, the players are experienced, the characters are reasonably well made, we're playing fairly effectively. Could we do better? Probably. Are we almost certainly above average? Absolutely
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought it was a well understood phrase that "highly tuned" means "too optimized, too difficult".
Highly tuned means exceptionally well balanced to the point of precision. An encounter is exactly what it says on the tin. I.e. a severe encounter is severely dangerous:
Bad luck, poor tactics, or a lack of resources due to prior encounters can easily turn a severe-threat encounter against the characters, and a wise group keeps the option to disengage open.
"Over-tuned" on the other hand tends to get used when people mean to say that something is too difficult (though I disagree that it should be used that way).
But to reiterate, the players are experienced, the characters are reasonably well made, we're playing fairly effectively. Could we do better? Probably. Are we almost certainly above average? Absolutely
This gets tossed around all the time and it's fine, I get it. People like to display credentials when they're having a problem that other people aren't. But every time I hear this, I can't help but imagine "How could I be wrong? I've played games for X years!" and it's completely false equivalence. My PF1 group played 4e D&D and got wiped completely. My 4e group picked up PF1 and died to a pack of gremlins. My PF1 players never touched a single skill in PF2 and struggled. Hell, even my group of PF2 players who have been here since the playtest were completely stymied by an invisible stalker in one encounter and a trio of will-o'-wisps in the next (because of flying, you see). And those are encounter-based examples! Don't even get me started on the change of playstyles you have to go through in AV alone: where you were once bursting through doors and killing everything within, to navigating social situations, and eventually (the floor you're at) dealing with a massive environment that screams to be carefully scouted out and to track down and avoid monstrous threats.
I just truly believe that this is not the game you were looking for. Either you went in with different expectations or your GM lead you to believe this was something that it's not. James Jacobs himself has been very vocal about this style of play all over the forums around the launch (and in much less spoilery threads). Book 1 actually notes this in the preface for GMs to better inform their players. Perhaps if it were included in the Players' Guide?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As to what I want in a game, a game with slightly less tuned encounters.I'm not sure what you mean by this. A tuned encounter is one that's properly balance for the party facing it- surely that's what you want?
If what you actually want is never to have hard fights,
I thought it was a well understood phrase that "highly tuned" means "too optimized, too difficult".
Its not that I don't want hard encounters. Its that I don't want ridiculously hard encounters where, if the GM is feeling merciful and severely underplays the monsters, you MAY be able to run away and live to fight another day.
So far in this AP we've had essentially at least 3 TPKs (or what should have been TPKs without extreme GM cheating). Quite possibly more where the GM was a bit more subtle.
But I think I'll shut up now. Obviously my group is playing a different module then the people posting here. Not at all sure why. Without seeing what actually happens at another table its really hard to know what is going on.
But to reiterate, the players are experienced, the characters are reasonably well made, we're playing fairly effectively. Could we do better? Probably. Are we almost certainly above average? Absolutely
I'm by no means speaking from experience here - not having read, run, or played the AP - but it seems like there's something of a disconnect in what's being discussed here. Aside from some snide remarks about preferred difficulty levels, it seems most of the discussion has been focused on the fact that Abomination Vaults is quite different from a standard AP in how it's constructed and this may be leading to some of the issues you've described. Some of it may also be the GM missing rules elements - a level+4 creature is extremely dangerous but can be prepared for and at least had a reasonable shot at, whereas missing the Weak modifier and running a level+5 encounter is guaranteed to go badly. Similarly, missing notes on when monster tactics is exponentially more impactful the more challenging the encounter is (and I think Paizo might benefit from more clearly emphasising the tactic/difference from how one might expect it to be run in these situations, if they haven't already).
In terms of player approaches, if the AP is designed as a sandbox dungeon-crawl with non-combat resolution (or non-combat interactions weakening enemies) being quite frequent, an experienced table might even be a set-back. I've certainly found the groups that I've been running for years and years tend to get set into the assumptions of how APs normally work, and running for new players/introducing new players to more experienced tables tends to give a fresh perspective on things. That isn't an attack on the players at your table in any way, just that if the AP breaks some of those assumptions, it'd be more likely for experienced players to operate on different assumptions and find the AP more difficult than it's intended to be. Regardless of the exact reasons, it's clear that your table is finding this AP much more difficult than both other APs and other tables of this same AP - as you've mentioned the experience and skill of the players, it's worth looking at how the situations in the AP are being approached. And also potentially at how the GM is running the AP, it does sound like they're missing parts of it (though some parts of that, like missing that a monster is slated for errata and broken is entirely understandable, and unfortunate that it was at an early level in an AP :( ).
snipDF have you played/ran AV? Without going into spoilers, this isn't "running is the answer." This is "you have a very huge and massive environment that necessitates scouting -mundane or magical - along with and understanding that you are not the big fish in this environment." There is so much more here than "we walked into a room with a big tough encounter." That's not how AV works.
Yes. I have and am running AV.
That is the module I had one or two of these encounters in. I did exactly what I said. I played it soft or I boosted the party a level, so they could survive.
I am not a fan of sandboxes. These games in my opinion are made for GMs to design encounters for purposes. A random encounter tossed in that can wipe out the party isn't a great way to do things because engaging for even one round can lead to a wipe or having to leave a party member behind to die if it gets grabbed or incapacitated.
I did what I advised. I boosted the party a level or ran it soft. I usually run encounters in a fairly ruthless fashion as though the creature is doing its absolute best to kill the party. If I do that with a creature that many levels above the party, they are likely to die. So I run it soft if it is unexpected.
snipDF have you played/ran AV? Without going into spoilers, this isn't "running is the answer." This is "you have a very huge and massive environment that necessitates scouting -mundane or magical - along with and understanding that you are not the big fish in this environment." There is so much more here than "we walked into a room with a big tough encounter." That's not how AV works.Yes. I have and am running AV.
That is the module I had one or two of these encounters in. I did exactly what I said. I played it soft or I boosted the party a level, so they could survive.
I am not a fan of sandboxes. These games in my opinion are made for GMs to design encounters for purposes. A random encounter tossed in that can wipe out the party isn't a great way to do things because engaging for even one round can lead to a wipe or having to leave a party member behind to die if it gets grabbed or incapacitated.
I did what I advised. I boosted the party a level or ran it soft. I usually run encounters in a fairly ruthless fashion as though the creature is doing its absolute best to kill the party. If I do that with a creature that many levels above the party, they are likely to die. So I run it soft if it is unexpected.
Okay, my question then circles back to... why play this game? Like if the entire point is to have a large sandbox game and that's something you don't like, why play it? Why modify it to eliminate the portion that it's played for? Why not play any other AP, module, or game?
As to what I want in a game, a game with slightly less tuned encounters.I'm not sure what you mean by this. A tuned encounter is one that's properly balance for the party facing it- surely that's what you want?
If what you actually want is never to have hard fights,
I thought it was a well understood phrase that "highly tuned" means "too optimized, too difficult".
Its not that I don't want hard encounters. Its that I don't want ridiculously hard encounters where, if the GM is feeling merciful and severely underplays the monsters, you MAY be able to run away and live to fight another day.
So far in this AP we've had essentially at least 3 TPKs (or what should have been TPKs without extreme GM cheating). Quite possibly more where the GM was a bit more subtle.
But I think I'll shut up now. Obviously my group is playing a different module then the people posting here. Not at all sure why. Without seeing what actually happens at another table its really hard to know what is going on.
But to reiterate, the players are experienced, the characters are reasonably well made, we're playing fairly effectively. Could we do better? Probably. Are we almost certainly above average? Absolutely
It honestly seems like your DM is doing something to make these tougher like not understanding what weakened means or boosting things.
I have run AV through the 2nd module. There are a handful of extreme encounters, but not the number you appear to be dealing with.
The Voidglutton.
The Witchfire.
The Haunt in the first module in the tower on the first level.
The Contract Devil who can be beat with role-playing.
The Sarglagon partially due to the environment it fights in.
The River drake
In all these instances I generally boosted the party a level and it solved the issue. It's possible to beat these encounters at the level you encounter them, but it could just as easily go the other way and you wipe multiple times.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, my question then circles back to... why play this game? Like if the entire point is to have a large sandbox game and that's something you don't like, why play it? Why modify it to eliminate the portion that it's played for? Why not play any other AP, module, or game?snipDF have you played/ran AV? Without going into spoilers, this isn't "running is the answer." This is "you have a very huge and massive environment that necessitates scouting -mundane or magical - along with and understanding that you are not the big fish in this environment." There is so much more here than "we walked into a room with a big tough encounter." That's not how AV works.Yes. I have and am running AV.
That is the module I had one or two of these encounters in. I did exactly what I said. I played it soft or I boosted the party a level, so they could survive.
I am not a fan of sandboxes. These games in my opinion are made for GMs to design encounters for purposes. A random encounter tossed in that can wipe out the party isn't a great way to do things because engaging for even one round can lead to a wipe or having to leave a party member behind to die if it gets grabbed or incapacitated.
I did what I advised. I boosted the party a level or ran it soft. I usually run encounters in a fairly ruthless fashion as though the creature is doing its absolute best to kill the party. If I do that with a creature that many levels above the party, they are likely to die. So I run it soft if it is unexpected.
Because it's easy to fix any issues for an experienced DM like me and there is a lot of good material in it and a good overall story with an interesting villain.
A lot of the reason these games are fun is when an experienced GM who knows the group they're playing with well with an excellent understanding the game mechanics makes an AP or module fun using a variety of tools at their command.
I've had to modify or adjust for every AP Paizo has produced. This is nothing new.
Party compositions and players differ whether levels of experience or overall class capabilities. So you adjust the module accordingly to fit your group.
The idea is to make the game fun. Not punish the players running the modules as written if they're dying a lot and not having much fun. That's a recipe to make them hate a game and stop playing it.
Even if I criticize Paizo for their design decisions at times, I'm also not the guy who thinks they can design a game or AP that will fit all people all the time. That's expecting too much. So you take what they give you and modify it to fit what your group likes to do. That has been the nature of RPGs since I've been playing them. Each group has their own little quirks and preferences. So you adjust for them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something to note. Scouting is a level-based activity as well. You make a Stealth check to avoid notice versus the perception of an enemy creature.
So a lvl 8 rogue with Master Proficiency in Stealth and an 18 dexterity with a magic item would have a +19 stealth roll.
A Frogehometh has a +25 percepion. So that is a DC 35 check to avoid notice and scout the Frogehometh without initiating a fight.
So the rogue would have to roll 16 or better to avoid notice versus a Frogehometh.
My parties generally scout ahead. Never forget scouting is based on level-based math as well and can lead to some extremely dangerous encounters if against something with an extremely high Perception.
A frogehometh has a stealth of +27 (+30 in swamps). That means if it is hiding to ambush, then you have to roll to notice it or it engages you using its stealth as its initiative.
A rogue scouting ahead with a 16 Wisdom at lvl 8 would have a +17 perception. This would require them to roll a natural 20 to notice a Frogehometh scouting. Or require the Frogehometh to roll a 2 to beat the rogue's perception.
Suffice it to say it would be extremely difficult for a lvl 8 rogue to scout a CR12 or 13 Frogehometh. If you were to run this in a ruthless fashion, the rogue would likely end up like a crew member in the Alien movie. They would disappear after getting eaten and the party would wonder why they never made it back.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, my question then circles back to... why play this game? Like if the entire point is to have a large sandbox game and that's something you don't like, why play it? Why modify it to eliminate the portion that it's played for? Why not play any other AP, module, or game?snipDF have you played/ran AV? Without going into spoilers, this isn't "running is the answer." This is "you have a very huge and massive environment that necessitates scouting -mundane or magical - along with and understanding that you are not the big fish in this environment." There is so much more here than "we walked into a room with a big tough encounter." That's not how AV works.Yes. I have and am running AV.
That is the module I had one or two of these encounters in. I did exactly what I said. I played it soft or I boosted the party a level, so they could survive.
I am not a fan of sandboxes. These games in my opinion are made for GMs to design encounters for purposes. A random encounter tossed in that can wipe out the party isn't a great way to do things because engaging for even one round can lead to a wipe or having to leave a party member behind to die if it gets grabbed or incapacitated.
I did what I advised. I boosted the party a level or ran it soft. I usually run encounters in a fairly ruthless fashion as though the creature is doing its absolute best to kill the party. If I do that with a creature that many levels above the party, they are likely to die. So I run it soft if it is unexpected.
Because it's easy to fix any issues for an experienced DM like me and there is a lot of good material in it and a good overall story with an interesting villain.
A lot of the reason these games are fun is when an experienced GM who knows the group they're playing with well with an excellent understanding the game mechanics makes an AP or module fun using a variety of tools at their command....
I also think this is the best way to play. Remember that what matters isn't actual deadly challenge but the perception of actual deadly challenge.
I frequently complain the players killed my monster, try to make them feel bad about them, give random NPCs name and other various tactics to screw the meta or otherwise try to make them feel like I'm actively trying to kill them.
Secretly I'm just delighted to see them triumph and rooting for them the whole way. It's about telling a story tailored to the, the players, as the hero's of it not abiding by the deadliest dungeon.
As a player I greatly enjoy challenge but I've seen more than one TPK where the GM ran it through and deadly and what usually happens isn't "ok let's remake a party and go back at it" it's "f&$! this thing let's play something else" and that's a loss of sunk time, prep work enthusiasm and fun.
Also as a GM if I'm running a severe or extreme encounter I try to find a way to make it so total party loss isn't TPK. Maybe the froghemoth wants to impregnate them with its eggs and leave them, alive but glued to the wall with a special disease? They then have to escape their gluey underwater prison, cure the disease and enact vengeance?
I think one of the best exemples of this was in world's largest dungeon module in 3.5. the PC's had been carrying around an animated skeleton to carry all their loot, and then decided to attack a drow barricade.
The drows were too much of a challenge (sandbox adventure) and the players had to run, the drows had more speed and lizard mounts so technically could have run down the PC's and slaughtered them... But instead I had them run down the skeleton and stop because of all the treasure it was carrying. The look of pure indignation on my players faces when they realised they had gotten defeated AND looted by the drows was incredible ! They came back, ready, with a plan and a purpose and won match two.
This could have been a TPK, but instead it was an encounter they still talk about 15 years later.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a player I greatly enjoy challenge but I've seen more than one TPK where the GM ran it through and deadly and what usually happens isn't "ok let's remake a party and go back at it" it's "f+*# this thing let's play something else" and that's a loss of sunk time, prep work enthusiasm and fun.And then there's my 5e group who have had 3 or 4 TPKs and a total of something like 17 character deaths going through Curse of Strahd and just keep going back to finish it out of spite at this point.
Huh. I didn't even know TPKs were possible in 5e. That game is ridiculously easy from my experience, unless the GM goes out of their way to kill the PCs.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are two problems as I see it: First, monsters have crazy high saves in 2e for some reason. They almost never seem to fail saving throws. Second, spells r really weak in 2e compared to their 1e counterparts. So, because monsters have such high stats, they rarely fail, and when they do, the spells are so weak, the effects are underwhelming to say the least. It's a toxic combination for anyone that likes playing casters.
For martials, I think 2e is a very good system. For casters, it's terrible. I've never seen someone actually have fun playing a caster in 2e. They're typically frustrated and unhappy, at least the ones I've seen.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are two problems as I see it: First, monsters have crazy high saves in 2e for some reason. They almost never seem to fail saving throws. Second, spells r really weak in 2e compared to their 1e counterparts. So, because monsters have such high stats, they rarely fail, and when they do, the spells are so weak, the effects are underwhelming to say the least. It's a toxic combination for anyone that likes playing casters.
For martials, I think 2e is a very good system. For casters, it's terrible. I've never seen someone actually have fun playing a caster in 2e. They're typically frustrated and unhappy, at least the ones I've seen.
I've had a lot of fun playing a druid caster. But druids have a lot of very good options.
I've seen bard players happy.
Witch seems to be a popular healer option because you can heal and do other things. The cleric is an amazing healer, but otherwise pretty boring. Whereas a Divine Witch can heal and buff or debuff or do some damage.
I've had fun playing two sorcerers. You can build them in different ways and some of the focus options are fun.
I've not seen anyone successfully play up a wizard. Every single wizard players quits around lvl 5 to 7 when they see it doesn't get much better while the players around them are doing so much damage and being far more effective.
So far a player is enjoying the ancestor oracle. He likes the versatility and has built the character to take advantage of all aspects of the curse.
Wizards seems the only caster class in my group that isn't a competitive option. Just doesn't do anything that makes them stand out and doesn't have interesting build options.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizard is a mirror to cleric. It’s strong (once it gets enough levels at least) but incredibly boring. There’s no flash or pazazz - you just have the most high level spells. If your high level spells are strong (which once you get to level 9-11, they are) then the wizard is strong. If they aren’t, then the wizard is weak. Simple as that.
But I get why there’s this perception that casters are weak. People are almost exclusively playing level 1-6 or 8 and basing their perceptions on those. Debuffs are still a scaling factor in this game. Objectively, the value of frightened 1 is the same at level 1 as it is at level 20. But when you’re moving from hitting 1 target to frighten, to hitting 5, to hitting everyone every round (mask of terror) your power is actually increasing vs level appropriate encounters - at some point the level of buff/debuff you inflict to a number of targets becomes broken. Outside of reaction spamming, martials’ power never increases relative to on level threats - in fact it decreases. It plummets hard from level 1-4 and stabilizes (but slowly goes down) around level 5 - going from on average about 25% of a level+0 monster’s health (accuracy considered) on a 3 strike routine to approximately 22.5% by level 20.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are two problems as I see it: First, monsters have crazy high saves in 2e for some reason. They almost never seem to fail saving throws. Second, spells r really weak in 2e compared to their 1e counterparts. So, because monsters have such high stats, they rarely fail, and when they do, the spells are so weak, the effects are underwhelming to say the least. It's a toxic combination for anyone that likes playing casters.
For martials, I think 2e is a very good system. For casters, it's terrible. I've never seen someone actually have fun playing a caster in 2e. They're typically frustrated and unhappy, at least the ones I've seen.
1e spells were really broken. A single check should not outright disable a level appropriate threat - let alone an entire encounter - with that degree of accuracy.
2e spells kind of start getting there by roughly level 8 spells as well - maybe not outright disable an entire encounter but shift the numbers so heavily in the party’s favour that a single spell will probably remove about 40xp from the encounter.
I do agree that in general, accuracy feels terrible as a balancing mechanic. But crit fail effects on spells are largely still too powerful to happen with any degree of regularity on enemies. If you want to buff accuracy for casters, you’d have to move most current F effects to CF, and add a new F effect between S and the old F. Then you could boost fail rates by about 40%.
Something like
Slow
CS: No effect
S: Slowed 1 for 1 round
F: Slowed 1 for 3 rounds
CF: Slowed 1 for 1 minute (or Slowed 2 for 1 round then Slowed 1 for 3 rounds).
Wizard is a mirror to cleric. It’s strong (once it gets enough levels at least) but incredibly boring. There’s no flash or pazazz - you just have the most high level spells. If your high level spells are strong (which once you get to level 9-11, they are) then the wizard is strong. If they aren’t, then the wizard is weak. Simple as that.
But I get why there’s this perception that casters are weak. People are almost exclusively playing level 1-6 or 8 and basing their perceptions on those. Debuffs are still a scaling factor in this game. Objectively, the value of frightened 1 is the same at level 1 as it is at level 20. But when you’re moving from hitting 1 target to frighten, to hitting 5, to hitting everyone every round (mask of terror) your power is actually increasing vs level appropriate encounters - at some point the level of buff/debuff you inflict to a number of targets becomes broken. Outside of reaction spamming, martials’ power never increases relative to on level threats - in fact it decreases. It plummets hard from level 1-4 and stabilizes (but slowly goes down) around level 5 - going from on average about 25% of a level+0 monster’s health (accuracy considered) on a 3 strike routine to approximately 22.5% by level 20.
Casters do start to rip it up past lvl 11. I figure not many get to that level. I've been extremely happy with caster progression once I've picked up more experience. They have some real nasty effects.
Still don't think much of the arcane spell lists. For me the power of a spell list is based on roles you can feel. The arcane spell list feels like the most limited role wise in the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm running AV and I've personally tuned it down when getting to level 3-4 as my players were too often running away from monsters. Running away once or twice is ok, but when it starts to become a habit, it's not fun anymore.
In my opinion, encounter repartition is not good. From Thod numbers, there are 25% of Severe encounters. A Severe encounter should be a boss fight, so I would expect way closer to 10-15% of Severe encounters.
On the other hand, Low Encounters should be fillers, and as such the more common, but they are not (25% of encounters).
Moderate encounters should be common but they are still quite challenging if the dice are not on your side.
Also, Thod numbers don't take the terrain into account (it looks like Paizo only considers the monster level to calculate difficulty) and some encounters happen in annoying terrain, increasing the actual encounter difficulty and shifting it towards harder.
So, I understand the complaint, as I got the same from my players.
Wizard is a mirror to cleric. It’s strong (once it gets enough levels at least) but incredibly boring. There’s no flash or pazazz - you just have the most high level spells. If your high level spells are strong (which once you get to level 9-11, they are) then the wizard is strong. If they aren’t, then the wizard is weak. Simple as that.
But I get why there’s this perception that casters are weak. People are almost exclusively playing level 1-6 or 8 and basing their perceptions on those. Debuffs are still a scaling factor in this game. Objectively, the value of frightened 1 is the same at level 1 as it is at level 20. But when you’re moving from hitting 1 target to frighten, to hitting 5, to hitting everyone every round (mask of terror) your power is actually increasing vs level appropriate encounters - at some point the level of buff/debuff you inflict to a number of targets becomes broken. Outside of reaction spamming, martials’ power never increases relative to on level threats - in fact it decreases. It plummets hard from level 1-4 and stabilizes (but slowly goes down) around level 5 - going from on average about 25% of a level+0 monster’s health (accuracy considered) on a 3 strike routine to approximately 22.5% by level 20.
Casters do start to rip it up past lvl 11. I figure not many get to that level. I've been extremely happy with caster progression once I've picked up more experience. They have some real nasty effects.
Still don't think much of the arcane spell lists. For me the power of a spell list is based on roles you can feel. The arcane spell list feels like the most limited role wise in the game.
Arcane is not Occult, but it is miles better than Divine and comparable to Primal. The problem it has is that for some reason, full casters with access to arcane list are punished with really bad defensive stats and proficiencies. Wizard, Sorcerer and Witch have 6 health, no armor and garbage saves due to arcane.
Arcane has great battlefield control, great AoE, good debuffing, some buffing and is awesome at out of combat stuff. The list is very well rounded, don't know what you are talking about.
Wizard is a mirror to cleric. It’s strong (once it gets enough levels at least) but incredibly boring. There’s no flash or pazazz - you just have the most high level spells. If your high level spells are strong (which once you get to level 9-11, they are) then the wizard is strong. If they aren’t, then the wizard is weak. Simple as that.
But I get why there’s this perception that casters are weak. People are almost exclusively playing level 1-6 or 8 and basing their perceptions on those. Debuffs are still a scaling factor in this game. Objectively, the value of frightened 1 is the same at level 1 as it is at level 20. But when you’re moving from hitting 1 target to frighten, to hitting 5, to hitting everyone every round (mask of terror) your power is actually increasing vs level appropriate encounters - at some point the level of buff/debuff you inflict to a number of targets becomes broken. Outside of reaction spamming, martials’ power never increases relative to on level threats - in fact it decreases. It plummets hard from level 1-4 and stabilizes (but slowly goes down) around level 5 - going from on average about 25% of a level+0 monster’s health (accuracy considered) on a 3 strike routine to approximately 22.5% by level 20.
Casters do start to rip it up past lvl 11. I figure not many get to that level. I've been extremely happy with caster progression once I've picked up more experience. They have some real nasty effects.
Still don't think much of the arcane spell lists. For me the power of a spell list is based on roles you can feel. The arcane spell list feels like the most limited role wise in the game.
Arcane is not Occult, but it is miles better than Divine and comparable to Primal. The problem it has is that for some reason, full casters with access to arcane list are punished with really bad defensive stats and proficiencies. Wizard, Sorcerer and Witch have 6 health, no armor and garbage saves due to arcane.
Arcane...
It's the healing that makes Primal better imo. In PF2 you don't really need an arcane caster. They can only fulfill certain rolls that are better done by other classes. A bard makes a far better buffer and debuffer. A primal sorcerer or druid can bring plenty of blasting spells along with healing. The divine spell list is about on par with arcane save with a healing focus which at least makes it so you can run with one divine caster and all martials.
An arcane caster means you still need some kind of combat healer for emergencies. Whereas a primal or divine caster can run fine with 3 other martials. You might even be able to get by with one occult caster for healing, but it's not quite as easy. But the occult caster brings some great debuffing along with most of the utilty spells you need.
The arcane list really doesn't have anything in it that is so uniquely good that it stands out like synesthesia or the role versatility of the primal or divine list.
So far we've ran a bunch of groups with only primal or divine casters, which my group likes because it means they can run anything they want without much concern for casting. Whereas arcane casters have been the least played and most easily forgotten of the casters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arcane is good, it doesn't really have a unique amazing spell like synesthesia, but it has a much easier time targeting different saves than other lists.
Occult list is extremely will save heavy with fewer but still adequate fort save options mixed in and practically nothing for reflex.
Primal has plenty of fortitude and reflex, but basically nothing for will saves.
Arcane has good options for all three saves.
Divine is just lacking in general.
Arcane is clearly meant to be the generalist who does everything other than healing, which is perfectly adequate since medicine can handle all your healing needs, battle medicine is perfectly adequate for the emergency mid-fight heal.
It's true you don't really need a caster anymore, there's just not much that actually requires magic to do and utility spells are generally underwhelming rather than gamechanging.
Arcane is good, it doesn't really have a unique amazing spell like synesthesia, but it has a much easier time targeting different saves than other lists.
Occult list is extremely will save heavy with fewer but still adequate fort save options mixed in and practically nothing for reflex.
Primal has plenty of fortitude and reflex, but basically nothing for will saves.
Arcane has good options for all three saves.
Divine is just lacking in general.
Arcane is clearly meant to be the generalist who does everything other than healing, which is perfectly adequate since medicine can handle all your healing needs, battle medicine is perfectly adequate for the emergency mid-fight heal.
It's true you don't really need a caster anymore, there's just not much that actually requires magic to do and utility spells are generally underwhelming rather than gamechanging.
It's not about what spells you cast. Not sure why this gets brought up. There are certain high value spells everyone takes like haste and fly. They are in most of the lists. This idea the arcane caster is going to have all these spells attacking different saves heightened to the right level when needed just isn't a reality of play.
Spell lists have roles. The roles you can fulfill with primal and divine are more expansive than the role you can fill as an arcane caster. That role versatility is much better than attacking all three saves when a martial will attack their hit points every round and just wants you to back them up with healing if needed and a little blasting.
These combats are 2 to 5 rounds or so. So single target blasting isn't real efficient. Martials can just beat the enemy down quickly and any spell debuff longer than a round or two is mostly wasted.
On the monsters where the fight might be longer that are higher level, their saves are so high you are unlikely to land those key spells like slow or fear. So you're better off healing and adding a little damage with a maybe a no resource intimidate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arcane is good, it doesn't really have a unique amazing spell like synesthesia, but it has a much easier time targeting different saves than other lists.
It's actually surprising to me how little being able to target other saves matters in this edition. Since enemies are unlikely to fail as it is, the goal seems less to target their weak save and more to not target their strongest save.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I've definitely noticed is players capable of using heal spells feeling like they have to have one memorized or in reserve. Arcane casters get away with spending their spell slots however they see fit much easier.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the monsters where the fight might be longer that are higher level, their saves are so high you are unlikely to land those key spells like slow or fear. So you're better off healing and adding a little damage with a maybe a no resource intimidate.
What you're saying is not that the Arcane list fills no role, but that it doesn't have a back up plan when save-based spells are not working. Which is very different.
Also, as a side note, Magic Missile is a boss killer and intended to be so. It removes 10-20% of a boss hp pool every time you cast it, with 0 variability. It's a bit boring, but casters are not very good at single target damage.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arcane is good, it doesn't really have a unique amazing spell like synesthesia, but it has a much easier time targeting different saves than other lists.It's actually surprising to me how little being able to target other saves matters in this edition. Since enemies are unlikely to fail as it is, the goal seems less to target their weak save and more to not target their strongest save.
Well targeting the weakest save vs the stronger save is a 10-35% increased in your accuracy, which correlates to Crit failure chance too.
If you figure out that this bunch of slime has low reflex, you know to fireball, and then statistically a good chunk of those slimes will Crit fail and fail.
If those goblin alchemists are giving you a hard time, knowing that fireball will not do much because of their high ref, but level 3 fear will decimate them because they'll most likely be frightened 2 or frightened 3 and fleeing is priceless.
If you're fighting that thieve's guild with their pet wizards (think copper hands in AoE), knowing that you should drop a stinking cloud rather than fear is very important.
If you go at it with the mentality of "well they're gonna save anyway so what's the point..." You're kinda not getting the point...
But hey, martials are fun too so go play that ?