I mean it has the potential but you could roll max on the 1d6 then roll a 1 and a 3 on the 2d6 actually decreasing the damage. It is not a guarantee.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, so here's what I'm a little foggy on. I see some people saying that Edgewatch and Age of Ashes won't get a retroactive fix for these wonky/broken mechanics. But, why not? An errata document that deals with known issues seems a pretty obvious move that can only improve the product.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, so here's what I'm a little foggy on. I see some people saying that Edgewatch and Age of Ashes won't get a retroactive fix for these wonky/broken mechanics. But, why not? An errata document that deals with known issues seems a pretty obvious move that can only improve the product.
I imagine it's just more work than people think it is, and it is probably less profitable than new content. The CRB errata has been pretty dang slow, and there's still a bunch of issues left untouched... And I think the core ruleset being fixed is probably a higher priority. It is kinda like asking why the books don't spend anotber year being tested or edited... At some point you just need to publish.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For comparison here, throwing together a quick bard build suggests that a Lv.2 bard will likely have around 26 HP, +5 Fort, and +7 Ref, give or take; higher Fort saves would be better for surviving this, most likely.
A wasp swarm can, with one action (DC 21 Ref save), do 2d8 damage and try to poison you. Our test bard here would need to roll nat 14 (35% chance) to hide from this, which means a 65% chance of taking ~9 damage. If he takes the damage, then he needs a nat 16 (25% chance) to avoid being poisoned (and will crit fail on nat 6 or lower), and would thus have a 75% chance of being poisoned (45% chance of stage 1, 30% chance of stage 2). The poison lasts six rounds; stage 1 is 1d6 every round, and stage 2 is 2d6 every two rounds, so it's expected to do ~21 (6d6) damage on average (1-1-1-1-1-1 or 2-0-2-0-2-0), or max out at ~24.5 (7d6) (if, e.g., you spend the first round at stage 1, then go to stage 2 and stay there, for 1-2-0-2-0-2).
Assuming a string of bad rolls (not unlikely, since they'll need to keep making Fort saves from the poison), the bard could, e.g., take 12 damage from the attack (14 HP), then fail every poison save for 4 a pop, causing them to die from just a single sting. And if they hit stage 2, they also become clumsy 2, making them easy pickings if the wasps keep going after the bard (which they probably would, because wasps are evil and full of hatred).
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I'm just still seeing value in doing it even if it's less profitable. Like Temperans said, they're the introductory APs and kinda a big deal right now. Hell, even a pinned Discussion post from a Paizo employee on the product page with spoiler tags would be enough for me.
That said, I don't know the numbers on this, I'd just really appreciate it as a player.
|
And this is not the only time I’ve seen this. In a different AP I’m in our bard just died at level 2 to a swarm creature that hit you with two DC 21 saves per action, and it could do that up to three times a round. Our bard died not to an unlucky nat 1, but to several DC 10 saves at level 2. DC 10->crit fail->boatload of poison damage. Next round->The same. Next round-> the same and he’s dead even through all the healing we could give. Our heroic bard died not to some great evil threat or demon but to a swarm of wasps that were way overpowered for a group of level 2 adventurers.
Several things here :
1. Given the way the encounter is described, your GM could have given early warning, for example by having a NPC warn the party about the swarm, since someone could have walked in and triggered its attack before.
2. The swarm attacks whoever enters. Why was the Bard up front with the more resistant melee PCs, especially if they are squishy (low CON, see below) ?
3. Your Bard was absolutely unlucky.
A lvl2 Elf Bard, with CON 8, has Fortitude +3. And that is the most fragile Bard.
So, such a Bard would roll a 7 on the first save to get 10.
You mention using an antidote and medecine checks.
I make the worst hypothesis that the antidote was provided after the 2nd roll and that on this roll the Bard only benefited from a successful Treat Poison. And no successful Treat Poison on the 3rd roll.
So, only +2 on the second and third checks.
Which means the squishiest Bard would roll a 5 and another 5 on these checks.
That is basically a 1/3 × 1/4 × 1/4 = 1/48 = 2% chance of happening. A Nat 1 is 5% chance.
And that is with pretty much the worst conditions and the squishiest Bard there is.
I hope no one with low Medicine tried to Treat Poison, as the chances are very real to get a crit fail given the high DC, even with a Hero point for a reroll.
BTW, why didn't the Bard use his Hero Point ?
TL-DR : The dice were consistently against the Bard. It can happen with any rules system and usually ends up with the PC dead. So, no, it cannot be held against the system.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
TL-DR : The dice were consistently against the Bard. It can happen with any rules system and usually ends up with the PC dead. So, no, it cannot be held against the system.
I think your numbers are way off.
You have 5% chance to critically succeed at the Reflex Save. Considering your squishiest Bard, he has 85% chance to fail the poison save and roughly 60% chance to take the 4 rounds of damage (you need a nat 20 or two 18+ to get away from it once at stage 2).As you are Poisoned, Hero Points just buy you one round.
And that's for one poison application. If there are 2 of them, you have 80% chance to take the 4 rounds of damage and that would put down any Bard (4d8 + 9d6 points of damage with a few half damage in the middle but not many considering how tough the saves are).
Poison is a killer, that's a fact. And not only at low levels, not only against a higher level opponent.
|
|
TL-DR : The dice were consistently against the Bard. It can happen with any rules system and usually ends up with the PC dead. So, no, it cannot be held against the system.I think your numbers are way off.
You have 5% chance to critically succeed at the Reflex Save. Considering your squishiest Bard, he has 85% chance to fail the poison save and roughly 60% chance to take the 4 rounds of damage (you need a nat 20 or two 18+ to get away from it once at stage 2).
As you are Poisoned, Hero Points just buy you one round.
And that's for one poison application. If there are 2 of them, you have 80% chance to take the 4 rounds of damage and that would put down any Bard (4d8 + 9d6 points of damage with a few half damage in the middle but not many considering how tough the saves are).Poison is a killer, that's a fact. And not only at low levels, not only against a higher level opponent.
The OP mentioned the Bard getting a total result of 10 at their Fortitude checks thrice in a round and that it was what killed them. That is the probability I calculated.
I agree that the attack is really rough. But pouring all the healing resources on the one PC who is in critical condition, as they did (antidote, healing, Medecine checks), will usually ensure the PC's survival.
By my reckoning, once the Bard went down, the party took optimal actions to ensure the Bard's survival : fleeing the encounter and focusing on healing them.
I stand by my calculation that getting the result of 10 thrice in a row was at maximum a 2% chance.
The deity of bad luck, you just cannot fight.
Even a fighter with 10 hp per level has a decent chance of dying. Only a max con barbarian could possible survive all 6 rounds. But even they they would just get stung again for another 6 rounds.
Yes, poison is a killer. Often overlooked, but I'd not be surprised if half of the non-TPK PC death was due to poison or persistent damage (and from both, the former's the toughest).
When you combine it with an early levels boss, it's clearly dangerous.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I'm just still seeing value in doing it even if it's less profitable. Like Temperans said, they're the introductory APs and kinda a big deal right now. Hell, even a pinned Discussion post from a Paizo employee on the product page with spoiler tags would be enough for me.
That said, I don't know the numbers on this, I'd just really appreciate it as a player.
It's less that it's not profitable but more that it's not going to be that impactful. They can update the PDF, but that doesn't help anyone who bought and is running a physical book, it doesn't help anyone who downloaded the PDF and doesn't check for updates to it. Likewise posting it in the forums on the product page doesn't really help anyone who doesn't come back to the product page after purchasing the product. The only time it's really impactful to make changes like this is with a reprint.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a document with assorted post-publication notes for APs isn't really such a weird idea. PF1 APs tended to get picked up by groups years after publication, this isn't some flavor of the month product where an oversight quickly becomes irrelevant.
It could be a relatively free-form sort of document, it wouldn't need to go through the sort of difficult process that errata has to go through. Errata to core rules is really hard, because it has to be consistent with lots of other published bits and not cause text to flow to different pages (causing page references in other books to be invalidated). A PDF with few pages of author commentary on various bits and bobs that is quite contained for the AP on the other hand would not be bound by such harsh requirements.
A key question of course is how to get this document to the attention of the intended audience, but I don't think that's insurmountable either; it could be appended to the PFS chronicle sheet document.
|
|
TL-DR : The dice were consistently against the Bard. It can happen with any rules system and usually ends up with the PC dead. So, no, it cannot be held against the system.I think your numbers are way off.
You have 5% chance to critically succeed at the Reflex Save. Considering your squishiest Bard, he has 85% chance to fail the poison save and roughly 60% chance to take the 4 rounds of damage (you need a nat 20 or two 18+ to get away from it once at stage 2).
As you are Poisoned, Hero Points just buy you one round.
And that's for one poison application. If there are 2 of them, you have 80% chance to take the 4 rounds of damage and that would put down any Bard (4d8 + 9d6 points of damage with a few half damage in the middle but not many considering how tough the saves are).Poison is a killer, that's a fact. And not only at low levels, not only against a higher level opponent.
The OP mentioned the Bard getting a total result of 10 at their Fortitude checks thrice in a round and that it was what killed them. That is the probability I calculated.
I agree that the attack is really rough. But pouring all the healing resources on the one PC who is in critical condition, as they did (antidote, healing, Medecine checks), will usually ensure the PC's survival.
By my reckoning, once the Bard went down, the party took optimal actions to ensure the Bard's survival : fleeing the encounter and focusing on healing them.
I stand by my calculation that getting the result of 10 thrice in a row was at maximum a 2% chance.
The deity of bad luck, you just cannot fight.
I didn't do a blow by blow because, let's face it, I couldn't have remembered it, and I was trying to get the point across but in addition to saving the bard, we were also trying to
-Save the witch who was also poisoned-Save the rogue who made every reflex save but was still at 1/2 health from the fact that a successful save still does damage.
-Kill the swarm so that it didn't continue to kill us.
And no, the Bard didn't open the mill, the rogue did. And only he could see the swarm because it was 20 feet up and the door is only 7 feet tall so we couldn't sit outside and plink at them (our first thought)
But the fight went something like this:
Wasps win inititive, because of course they do. Fly down, get our rogue and Witch with two shots. Witch rolls a 10 on her second the reflex save, crit fails, and instantly goes down to dying 2, My champion prevents the poison damage with his reaction, so she doesn't instantly go down to dying 3. Rogue succeeds on both saves but is hurt because a save still deals damage.
Bard sings OUTSIDE THE MILL, and casts Soothe on the witch. My champion tries to pull it off by making some ranged attacks. Witch and Rogue seperate to prevent them both from being gotten again.
Wasp swarm goes after the next closest target, the Bard, who is outside. He crit fails the fortitude save (again, rolling like, a 10), going directly to clumsy 2, and almost goes down from that.
My champion tried to do what he could, but he couldn't use his DR ability because, guess what, then I'd be too near my companions and the swarm would get both of us. We run out of the mill and try doing tactical retreats while healing what we can (YES, I DID USE LAY ON HANDS) and our Bard Still died. In fact, his last act was to cast soothe a second time on our Witch, who was ALSO about to go down from poison, and she only survived because he rolled a 10 giving her 14 HP, and then we just watched the poison tick down and luckily it stopped after 6 rounds.
And before you say "Oh, that's some bad rolls there," no, it wasn't. If you look at the party's rolls in general, they were pretty even. I immediately overcame the poison after one tick with a 16 on the die, and the rogue never got poisoned because he made every reflex save. The point being, multiple hits means you are always going to fail some saves, and when the DC is really high for multiple different saves, the chances of wining are slim to none. And while a 21 may be 'a bit on the high end' for a level 4 fight, it's really, really hard for a level 2 fight.
That's why I KEEP saying 'CR is not the be all end all of a fight.' That's why I am asking authors "Check beyond the CR to see, 'is this going to be a fun fight for a lower level party'" because some monsters scale more poorly than others.
My poor elemental dwarf, animal barbarian, Dubu Moyo, died to that swarm....... his memory lives on!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I agree with Vamp, creature level just doesn't tell the whole story. Some monsters scale much more harshly to lower level parties than others.
Or just for different player comps / approaches. Casters with AoE, alchemists and anyone with bombs will absolutely thrash it. When I ran it I had a party of 3 level 2 casters beat it handily (cosmos oracle, companion druid, maestro bard). Recalled knowledge on wasp behaviours, went back to town to get some tools, kept distance and whittled their numbers down without letting it become a melee fight. I mean, not heroic... but fighting a swarm of wasps is more of an extermination situation anyway rather than high fantasy heroics.
The wasp issue really sounds like a mixture of general system inexperience and potentially a lack of a session zero between the GM and players to set the expectation of what sort of game they want to run/play in.
As written though:
- The party should know about the wasps before going in
- The party should immediately see the wasp nest before entering, either from one of the many windows or just from opening the door.
- The wasps only
And really, a party that runs in to attack a massive hive and doesn't do so with planning / recall knowledge checks... ooof. Some groups like the gungho playstyle, but as I mentioned before, it is important that the GM knows you want that style and agrees before playing.
Now the
Oh and the grikkitog from another book, in an enclosed space randomly where it is essentially impossible to kill if played to its abilities. Another random encounter the PCs have zero ability to account for in advance.
In support of numbers being off though, the Clay Golem is a well known threat. Requiring healing potions to remove the cursed wounds because spells can't beat the counteract level and non magical healing doesn't work. I personally think that will get errated one day.
|
|
Clay golems were kind of off the scale with how hard it was to get rid of their cursed wounds in previous editions (stretching back to 2E D&D...), so there's an outside possibility that was intended to be that way. But that would to my mind violate the "principle of surprise"; really surprising and unusually hefty things should be explicitly called out and pointed to, not some number that on close inspection doesn't fit the normal system math at all. If healing a cursed wound was supposed to require alchemical healing elixirs to sneak past the wording of the ability, or magical assistance from six levels up, that's something you expect to see pointed to in a sidebar.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I agree with Vamp, creature level just doesn't tell the whole story. Some monsters scale much more harshly to lower level parties than others.Or just for different player comps / approaches. Casters with AoE, alchemists and anyone with bombs will absolutely thrash it. When I ran it I had a party of 3 level 2 casters beat it handily (cosmos oracle, companion druid, maestro bard). Recalled knowledge on wasp behaviours, went back to town to get some tools, kept distance and whittled their numbers down without letting it become a melee fight. I mean, not heroic... but fighting a swarm of wasps is more of an extermination situation anyway rather than high fantasy heroics.
The wasp issue really sounds like a mixture of general system inexperience and potentially a lack of a session zero between the GM and players to set the expectation of what sort of game they want to run/play in.
As written though:
- The party should know about the wasps before going in
- The party should immediately see the wasp nest before entering, either from one of the many windows or just from opening the door.
- The wasps only ** spoiler omitted **And really, a party that runs in to attack a massive hive and doesn't do so with planning / recall knowledge checks... ooof. Some groups like the gungho playstyle, but as I mentioned before, it is important that the GM knows you want that style and agrees before playing.
Now the ** spoiler omitted ** in AoA that is brutal if played remotely tactically (and there isn't text telling a gm not to). But that unlike this has the threat hidden, is a +4 creature and even turns the terrain against the PCs with cliffs blocking exits. Couple that with AoO, huge size, resistances to everything and persistent damage.
Oh and the grikkitog from another book, in an enclosed space randomly where it is essentially impossible to kill if played to its abilities. Another random encounter the PCs have zero ability to account for...
Gotta love how everyone assumes our party of vetran players are incompetent, even though I have stated several times we weren't.
We tried to roll a knowledge check on them, guess what, level 2s trying to identify a level 4 creature, we didn't succeed.
We prepped, we bought four alchemists fires, we would have died if we didn't, It still killed our bard.
We didn't gung ho it. Rogue picked the lock, saw the swarm, decided to start off with an alchemists fire. Because we tried something hostile GM called for initiative with the rogue doing stealth because he was being sneaky. Witch was nearby hoping to hit it with her cone AoE. Surprise surprise, Wasps win inititive because they have higher inititive than we can possible get, fly down, combat proceeds as I laid out. GM did not let us shoot it from outside.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I almost set a Wasp Swarm creature 4 against a 2nd-level party. Then I reconsidered and used a Centipede Swarm, creature 3 instead.
In October 2019 I recruited four local friends for our first PF2 campaign. Age of Ashes did not seem to their taste, so I decided to convert the PF1 Ironfang Invasion to PF2 rules. This means that I had an obligation to correct anything that seemed out of place or too hard, because conversions could create errors.
The player characters had just finished part 1 of Trail of the Hunted, escaping the invasion by the Ironfang Invasion with many refugee villagers into the dangerous shelter of the Fangwood forest. This success earned them 2nd level.
The module had intended them to bed down on the forest floor. However, they had rescued half-blind half-lame retired Chernasardo Ranger/Cleric Aubrin the Green. Aubrin guided them to an abandoned farmhouse with a collapsed roof for the night. And that farmhouse had an encounter (labeled F1) with a wasp swarm. The encounter was intended for a fresh and rested party, not one that had been fighting an army, so I replaced the wasp swarm with a centipede swarm. The module had given Aubrin two scrolls of Delay Poison, but PF2 lacked that spell, so I had replaced them with one scroll of Neutralize Poison. Thus, if two PCs were poisoned, then one would be in big trouble.
The farmhouse was an excellent encounter. The elf ranger spotted tracks of the centipedes. They tossed a Light-illuminated stone into the shadows of the farmhouse, saw the swarm, and two succeeded on Recall Knowledge checks to identify the swarm's venom and armor and resistances. The halfling rogue who had just taken a Sorcerer Dedication for two cantrips decided to stealthily climb up the chimney and hit them with Produce Flame from above. He didn't know about the centipede swarm's tremor sense nor climb speed. The swarm met him at the top of the chimney, bwahaha, and got in a Swarming Bite.
The rest of the party and NPC 1st-level oracle Rhyna opened up with their ranged attacks against the swarm. The halfling hit the swarm with a Produce Flame and then jumped from the chimney, taking falling damage, to escape. The swarm followed him, managed two more Swarming Bites that turn, and then died to the continued ranged attacks.
The halfling failed at least one save against the centipede venom. The rules on Multiple Exposures to a poison affliction are that the afflictions don't accumulate; instead, they advance faster. The single scroll of Neutralize Poison was enough to stop all the poison. Treat Wounds several times during the night restored his hit points by morning.
I asked my wife, the player of the halfling rogue/sorcerer, whether adding the farmhouse encounter immediately after the invasion encounter was appropriate. She said yes, finding shelter established the refugees as capable and organized, and the players appreciated a battle against a creature 3 that they could defeat while out of spell slots. But she thought that a wasp swarm creature 4 would have been too much.
We tried to roll a knowledge check on them, guess what, level 2s trying to identify a level 4 creature, we didn't succeed.
We prepped, we bought four alchemists fires, we would have died if we didn't, It still killed our bard.
We didn't gung ho it. Rogue picked the lock, saw the swarm, decided to start off with an alchemists fire. Because we tried something hostile GM called for initiative with the rogue doing stealth because he was being sneaky. Witch was nearby hoping to hit it with her cone AoE. Surprise surprise, Wasps win inititive because they have higher inititive than we can possible get, fly down, combat proceeds as I laid out. GM did not let us shoot it from outside.
Why didn't the GM let you shoot it from the outside? There's a whole bunch of windows. From the sounds of it you didn't see the swarm until you'd opened the door, which seems weird.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess the people who wrote the wasps encounter thought the wasps tactics mentioned above in a spoiler would be enough to ensure the survival of an outgunned party.
The players cannot take advantage of pre-scripted behavior that they don't know about. An alert GM can apply alternative restrictions that work better with the party's behavior. Maybe a PC runs out into the water to escape the wasps and the GM decides, sure, the wasps don't like water so he gets away.
The bigger problem is that four PCs are not supposed to be outgunned by a level+2 challenge. This was a 2nd-level party versus a single creature 4, a Moderate-threat encounter.
Swarms are tough against parties that aren't prepared for swarms. The Wasp Swarm has AC 18 and 45 hp, both low for a creature 4 according to the Gamemastery Guide, but it had Resistances bludgeoning 7, piercing 7, slashing 3. Shooting arrows from an unenchanted shortbow against it would have no effect. The 2d8 piercing damage from its Swarming Stings is also low damage for its level, and the DC 21 Reflex save is like a +10 strike attack bonus which is also low, but the Swarming Stings does not suffer a multiple attack penalty. And the venom is additional damage. I presume that the low combat values and the strong resistances and lack of penalties balance out to creature 4; nevertheless, fighting a Wasp Swarm requires different techniques than fighting a non-swarm insect such as Giant Dragonfly creature 4.
It would be like sending a flying creature against a party that forgot to purchase ranged weapons.
The Wasp Swarm and Centipede Swarm are both immune to precision damage, and my 2nd-level party had two rogues who depended on precision damage from sneak attack. The druid had already used up his spell slots and was down to cantrips, which did not deal any area nor splash damage. The ranger was an archer with a longbow. I took these details into consideration--such considerations are practically mandatory in PF1--when judging whether a Wasp Swarm was a balanced encounter for the party. However, such judgments require experience. The PF2-converted Ironfang Invasion is the 4th adventure path I have run.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Deep detail, but you left out the wasp swarm's weaknesses. Paint the whole picture.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't "this was a problem, here's why or what I did to handle it" one of the main roles for the GM threads in the various AP subforums?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deep detail, but you left out the wasp swarm's weaknesses. Paint the whole picture.
My party had been chased out of town by an invasion. They had none of their consumables left. The druid had no area-of-effect spells left. The swarm's weaknesses against area and splash damage did not favor my party at all in this situation.
For more of the picture, the sun had set and the party was traveling by moonlight. Despite their low-light vision, shadows were too dark and provided concealment. In contrast, the Centipede Swarm that they fought had darkvision and tremorsense, and their Swarming Bites wouldn't have been affected by concealment anyways.
Furthermore, I don't need to paint the whole picture to point out that fighting a swarm is different from fighting a solid creature. I was not arguing that a Wasp Swarm was too powerful for creature 4 or that a Centipede Swarm is too powerful for a creature 3. I was arguing that they could be a surprise.
VampByDay's party had prepared for the weakness against splash damage, but they were surprised by the rapid damage of the wasp's Swarming Stings against a witch who probably had weak Reflex and Fortitude saves.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you are going to list the creative's resistances (which you did) you should also list its weaknesses (which you did not).
Looks more overpowering. One without the other.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gotta love how everyone assumes our party of vetran players are incompetent, even though I have stated several times we weren't.
Inexperienced in PF2e doesn't mean incompetent Having experience in prior editions and their optimal approaches / assumptions only means so much in PF2e.
Nor does it mean you are a group of well organised players just because you say you are.
We tried to roll a knowledge check on them, guess what, level 2s trying to identify a level 4 creature, we didn't succeed.
They are wasps, if your GM didn't adjust the DC down to very easy or incredibly easy they are ignoring what the book says when it comes to recalling knowledge. Or they are overestimating how rare knowledge of wasps is -laughs-. Heck if your PCs haven't been around wasps, ask townsfolk?
Also the knowledge DC even unmodified is only 19, it isn't nearly as high / unlikely as you seem to be suggesting especially when factoring in hero points, guidance, multiple attempts.
But again, they are wasps if they didn't have their knowledge DC adjusted down that is on the GM. As it is a level 4 creature not because each wasp is level 4, but because it is a swarm of wasps contributing to a greater threat.
CRB.505 "On most topics, you can use simple DCs for checks to Recall Knowledge. For a check about a specific creature, trap, or other subject with a level, use a level-based DC (adjusting for rarity as needed). You might adjust the difficulty down, maybe even drastically, if the subject is especially notorious or famed. Knowing simple tales about an infamous dragon’s exploits, for example, might be incredibly easy for the dragon’s level, or even just a simple trained DC."
We prepped, we bought four alchemists fires, we would have died if we didn't, It still killed our bard.
We didn't gung ho it. Rogue picked the lock, saw the swarm, decided to start off with an alchemists fire. Because we tried something hostile GM called for initiative with the rogue doing stealth because he was being sneaky. Witch was nearby hoping to hit it with her cone AoE. Surprise surprise, Wasps win inititive because they have higher inititive than we can possible get, fly down, combat proceeds as I laid out. GM did not let us shoot it from outside.
"Wasps win inititive because they have higher inititive than we can possible get"
They have a bonus of +10, while you are right it is higher than what the PCs can have at level 2 without magical assistance, it isn't THAT high."GM did not let us shoot it from outside." that sounds like the issue here...
The wasps shouldn't be hostile until someone either enters the floor or takes a hostile action against the hive. Initiative would start when someone declares a hostile action or enters the room sure, but if someone doesn't win initiative then the wasps shouldn't be actively hostile until one of those triggers occurs, so winning initiative doesn't really matter.
Not letting you attack through an open portal is just weird.
How my party of three handled it.
- Approached the building, saw the wasp nest inside that they had been warned about and debated how to tackle it.
- Recalled Knowledge DC9 was easy with guidance, no hero point spends were necessary.
- Picked up some alchemist fire for third actions after spells were cast.
- Slung some rocks with light cast on them through the windows to try and agitate the wasps. (as the recall knowledge didn't tell them the exact trigger, but more specified that they would be territorial and likely swarm if threatened but wouldn't chase and leave their nest too unprotected)
- When that didn't work to lure them out they tried making noise and finally settled on throwing a lit torch at the nest and booking it back to the group of PCs who had spells chosen and alchemist fires in hand.
- Then it was just rinse and repeat, some PCs took hits and one got poisoned but between a PC using treat poison, a hero point spent, guidance and antidote giving a +2 item bonus. It really wasn't much of a real risk for a PC who wasn't being actively attacked.
And that would have been easier with 4 players and if they had more ideal setups to tackle the wasps (the oracle wasn't of huge use outside of their focus cast).
On the off chance there is a party that is REALLY poorly suited to fighting it, doesn't have the money to deal purchase goods (Say they used it all on holy water earlier that day)... Then simply, not fighting the wasps and approaching from a different angle or deciding the risk is too high given their skill set is entirely viable. Given that it
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have to expect the blinders about that on this forum. There are no problems with either the system or the adventure paths, there is just either astronomically bad die rolls or horrendous lack of tactics.
I mean, if it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck... What else are you to expect us to go on?
As for saying there are no issues, well no... lots of people including myself have pointed out issues. It is just that the wasp swarm isn't a systemic issue.
It is very much an issue for that group or that player, and one that if they don't like harder encounters can be circumvented with a conversation with the GM in a session zero or simply having more system experience.
People share counter opinions not because they want to "stand up for pf2e" but because they have counter experiences or evidence. The GM not letting them attack through the door despite being able to see the nest is utterly inane.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess the people who wrote the wasps encounter thought the wasps tactics mentioned above in a spoiler would be enough to ensure the survival of an outgunned party.The players cannot take advantage of pre-scripted behavior that they don't know about. An alert GM can apply alternative restrictions that work better with the party's behavior. Maybe a PC runs out into the water to escape the wasps and the GM decides, sure, the wasps don't like water so he gets away.
The bigger problem is that four PCs are not supposed to be outgunned by a level+2 challenge. This was a 2nd-level party versus a single creature 4, a Moderate-threat encounter.
Swarms are tough against parties that aren't prepared for swarms. The Wasp Swarm has AC 18 and 45 hp, both low for a creature 4 according to the Gamemastery Guide, but it had Resistances bludgeoning 7, piercing 7, slashing 3. Shooting arrows from an unenchanted shortbow against it would have no effect. The 2d8 piercing damage from its Swarming Stings is also low damage for its level, and the DC 21 Reflex save is like a +10 strike attack bonus which is also low, but the Swarming Stings does not suffer a multiple attack penalty. And the venom is additional damage. I presume that the low combat values and the strong resistances and lack of penalties balance out to creature 4; nevertheless, fighting a Wasp Swarm requires different techniques than fighting a non-swarm insect such as Giant Dragonfly creature 4.
It would be like sending a flying creature against a party that forgot to purchase ranged weapons.
The Wasp Swarm and Centipede Swarm are both immune to precision damage, and my 2nd-level party had two rogues who depended on precision damage from sneak attack. The druid had already used up his spell slots and was down to cantrips, which did not deal any area nor...
I agree, but this is on the GM. Not on the system nor on the adventure's writers.
Also, fleeing an encounter when outgunned is both IC common sense AND the way most PF2 encounters are done IME. Just look at AV and its Too high now come back later encounters.
The OP mentioned as one of their objectives trying to kill the swarm. At one point you cannot both try to flee and try to fight. You have to commit to one strategy, and it should not always be try to fight.
We had a pretty similar situation in another AP, and the most difficult thing IMO is to realize when you are outgunned and it's time to cut your losses.
We ended up fleeing with 2 party members left behind, and, in the flight, lost 2 more (including my PC).
If we had run away only 1 round earlier, we might have lost 1 party member. But some in the party didn't want to leave anyone behind and some wanted to fight on, even though things had started to go downhill.
I think experience with PF2 encounters is the only thing that can help feel the moment when the fight is turning against you and you should flee.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@The Raven Black. Running away is not always what players do.
I don't know why, but a lot of people follow the mentality of "just kill everything" regardless of whether they even have a chance to do it. It's not something a GM can control either without effectively changing the entire encounter.
Even then running away is not always the solution as a creature might be vastly faster than the PCs, or at least able to catch up.
(I have lost characters by trying to run away)
Was that in PF2 ?
I was under the impression that PF2 encounters usually made it possible to flee if outgunned. And that flight was far less suicidal than in PF1.
|
|
As you are Poisoned, Hero Points just buy you one round.
Actually this is only true if you are healed between rounds. Since spending the Hero Points removes the Dying condition completely, but not the Wounded one, it is paradoxically better to stay Dying while being poisoned until you would go Dying 4 and only then spend your Hero Points.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even then you have to be lucky with dealing enough damage with what probably is a limited supply of Alchemist Fire. Dealing AoE fire damage is useless if you roll minimum damage or miss. Which is not hard to miss, people roll low often and frequently.
A miss with Alchemist Fire deals 6 dmg to the wasp swarm due to weakness 5 splash.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@The Raven Black. Running away is not always what players do.
I don't know why, but a lot of people follow the mentality of "just kill everything" regardless of whether they even have a chance to do it. It's not something a GM can control either without effectively changing the entire encounter.
Even then running away is not always the solution as a creature might be vastly faster than the PCs, or at least able to catch up.
(I have lost characters by trying to run away)
We ran away from that encounter. We weren't prepared. Players that don't ever run away should experience the consequences of bad decision making.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have to expect the blinders about that on this forum. There are no problems with either the system or the adventure paths, there is just either astronomically bad die rolls or horrendous lack of tactics.I mean, if it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck... What else are you to expect us to go on?
As for saying there are no issues, well no... lots of people including myself have pointed out issues. It is just that the wasp swarm isn't a systemic issue.
It is very much an issue for that group or that player, and one that if they don't like harder encounters can be circumvented with a conversation with the GM in a session zero or simply having more system experience.
People share counter opinions not because they want to "stand up for pf2e" but because they have counter experiences or evidence. The GM not letting them attack through the door despite being able to see the nest is utterly inane.
You say this, but on my first game there was a death to a swarm of crabs. This was persistent damage instead of poison, but still a death.
It sounds like the encounter does not say you can attack through windows, so the GM is not obligated to allow it. Why should the GM allow it if the book does not say it's possible? Even if the GM allows it, they might very well be attacking through cover. And even then they have a large amount of resistance so ranged attacks without a striking rune are useless. So chances are they wont be dealing any damage.
The book also doesn't explicitly say you can make a sandwich. A GM who doesn't let you make a sandwich despite the book laying out bread, cheese and meat for you is still pretty weird.
Also, from that first bit it sounds like you finally got to play PF2? If so, congrats.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have to expect the blinders about that on this forum. There are no problems with either the system or the adventure paths, there is just either astronomically bad die rolls or horrendous lack of tactics.I mean, if it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck... What else are you to expect us to go on?
As for saying there are no issues, well no... lots of people including myself have pointed out issues. It is just that the wasp swarm isn't a systemic issue.
It is very much an issue for that group or that player, and one that if they don't like harder encounters can be circumvented with a conversation with the GM in a session zero or simply having more system experience.
People share counter opinions not because they want to "stand up for pf2e" but because they have counter experiences or evidence. The GM not letting them attack through the door despite being able to see the nest is utterly inane.
You say this, but on my first game there was a death to a swarm of crabs. This was persistent damage instead of poison, but still a death.
It sounds like the encounter does not say you can attack through windows, so the GM is not obligated to allow it. Why should the GM allow it if the book does not say it's possible? Even if the GM allows it, they might very well be attacking through cover. And even then they have a large amount of resistance so ranged attacks without a striking rune are useless. So chances are they wont be dealing any damage.
The book also doesn't explicitly say you can make a sandwich. A GM who doesn't let you make a sandwich despite the book laying out bread, cheese and meat for you is still pretty weird.
Also, from that first bit it sounds like you finally got to play PF2? If so, congrats.
A sandwich has no mechanical/tactical effect, Windows in this case most certainly do.
That aside, it's not always obvious there are windows, let alone ones you can attack through, on any given map. Adding a terrain element like that is certainly beyond what many GMs I've played with would be comfortable with. And without the map/description to indicate it's an option, it won't be taken.
Player/GM psychology will also vary, just because it's obvious to u you doesn't mean it's obvious to me or anyone else, and the other way around as well.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A sandwich has no mechanical/tactical effect, Windows in this case most certainly do.
That aside, it's not always obvious there are windows, let alone ones you can attack through, on any given map. Adding a terrain element like that is certainly beyond what many GMs I've played with would be comfortable with. And without the map/description to indicate it's an option, it won't be taken.
Player/GM psychology will also vary, just because it's obvious to u you doesn't mean it's obvious to me or anyone else, and the other way around as well.
Except people are talking about a SPECIFIC encounter here and the capabilities of the writers and the windows are called out as existing to the GM and are on the map. I was also talking about attacking through an open door that the nest is visible through, that the PC was able o walk through... alhough someone not being allowed to attack through a window if a player suggests it is similar in weirdness.
Sure some players won't have that tactical accumen, and some GMs will behave in weirdly adversarial ways. But that really shouldn't be blamed on the adventure's writing. The PCs always hae the opportunity to walk away from this encounter or to investigate later if they need to and don't see a safe way to proceed. But there are lots of avenues and concessions the adventure writer made for the PCs in this specific scenario.
You say this, but on my first game there was a death to a swarm of crabs. This was persistent damage instead of poison, but still a death.
It sounds like the encounter does not say you can attack through windows, so the GM is not obligated to allow it. Why should the GM allow it if the book does not say it's possible? Even if the GM allows it, they might very well be attacking through cover. And even then they have a large amount of resistance so ranged attacks without a striking rune are useless. So chances are they wont be dealing any damage.
A DC 19 Knowledge check is not impossible no. But guess what it is perfectly reasonable for a group to fail it. Specially given that not everyone has training in nature,aka perfectly reasonable to fail.
Even then you have to be lucky with dealing enough damage with what probably is a limited supply of Alchemist Fire. Dealing AoE fire damage is useless if you roll minimum damage or miss. Which is not hard to miss, people roll low often and frequently.
Not sure what your point is regarding the crabs?
Cool, I didn't say to attack through a window. But to attack through the open door, the swarm would still come out and retaliate the point is that there is no reason for the swarm to be hostile AS WRITTEN until they are struck or their area is entered. The goal isn't to do damage with the intial attack (although it is appreciated)
Or do you usually have GMs who stop you from attacking through open spaces? The whole point is to aggravate the enemy out into the open and whittle them dowm, not to cheese the fight as if it operated on video game logic)
"A DC 19 Knowledge check is not impossible no. But guess what it is perfectly reasonable for a group to fail it. Specially given that not everyone has training in nature,aka perfectly reasonable to fail"
Do you just half read things before responding? Go back and read my statements within context of the two comments... The point isn't that someone can't fail, the point is that across a group of 4 it is quite likely someone would have succeeded EVEN if the GM had ignored that the DC should be 9 for something as commonplace as wasps and decided asking npcs if they didn't know was a no go.
My point is that it isn't a foregone conclusion that they would fail because the creature is of a higher level (again, ignoring that a swarm of wasps should have had a DC adjustment for common beavioural traits and weaknesses, they are wasps).
As for the alchemist fire element... that is just a part of the fight... I even accounted for parties that don't have the gold to purchase them, don't have an alchemist, and don't have a spellcaster with a basic save AoE spell.
This whole "you have to account for players rolling badly" thing is weird, that isn't a sensible way to balance a game. Yes it happens, I had a barbarian who rolled over 10 twice in 4 sessions (nearly he entirety of the cult of cinders book). A good plan allows for PCs to try and account for this, but the game system shouldn't otherwise rolling would be pointless.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a window right next to the door on the map.
The GM deciding the Wasps will directly attack the Rogue after they try to hit with Alchemical fire is GM fiat. They deciding the wasps will attack people who were not inside the room is GM fiat. They stating that the party could not see the nest and shoot at it when it is pretty obviously at the center of the room is GM fiat.
Granted, maybe the Rogue should have retreated and talk with the rest of the party before trying an attack.
But really, the GM played the Wasps Swarm like a single intelligent monster and not like a swarm of normal insects IMO.
If you shoot (and hit) from a distance a nest of wasps in real life, they will not come directly for you. They will swarm out of the nest and look in the immediate surroundings for what causes the disturbance. If they find nothing, they will spread a little more in smaller groups and get back to the nest if they still find nothing.
They will not leave the nest unprotected if they do not find the source of the disturbance nearby.
And if you do not hit the nest, they will just not care.
The GM deciding the Rogue attack, being a hostile action, started the initiative checks (and the wasps striking first because of high initiative) is yet another GM fiat and not how a swarm of normal wasps would act at all.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM deciding the Rogue attack, being a hostile action, started the initiative checks (and the wasps striking first because of high initiative) is yet another GM fiat and not how a swarm of normal wasps would act at all.
It's the classical spider sense issue, when you roll initiative before there's any reason for the fight to start. And it's another case where it can screw things. I also fully agree that you should avoid this rule as much as possible, even if it means starting a fight after a hostile action has been taken (and as such go back to some form of surprise round). But when an enemy is completely unaware of your ability to attack, it should take the first damage before retaliating.