Still Maintaining My TPK Every 3 Sessions Streak


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

151 to 179 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:

To come up with plausible bad moves for deadly enemies is one of the GM's hardest tasks because it is not easy riding the line in between keeping tension and a general sense of danger versus making fights feel cheated in favour of the players and the feeling of being invincible no matter what you do.

There is a Foundry module (name I'd have to look up) that auto adds adjectives to tokens as you place them. I've found this is great for role-playing, combat tracking and playing enemies less optimally.

Now my encounter of three goblins is with a Fiesty Goblin, Charming Goblin and a Cowardly Goblin. So now I've got one that I'll let over extend, one that will spend actions trying to intimidate and one that makes sure to not end its turn next to an enemy.

I am finding fewer and fewer reasons not to learn how to GM on Foundry. I can't say how much I love the idea of making it easier to give individual NPC creatures and villains motives to make them interesting and unique without requiring a lot of time or GM planning. This is a really, really cool tool for doing that.


Malk_Content wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:

To come up with plausible bad moves for deadly enemies is one of the GM's hardest tasks because it is not easy riding the line in between keeping tension and a general sense of danger versus making fights feel cheated in favour of the players and the feeling of being invincible no matter what you do.

There is a Foundry module (name I'd have to look up) that auto adds adjectives to tokens as you place them. I've found this is great for role-playing, combat tracking and playing enemies less optimally.

Now my encounter of three goblins is with a Fiesty Goblin, Charming Goblin and a Cowardly Goblin. So now I've got one that I'll let over extend, one that will spend actions trying to intimidate and one that makes sure to not end its turn next to an enemy.

Token Mold

I used to use it a fair bit and lost it in an incompatibility issue. I miss it. I'll have to try it again.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Unicore wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:

To come up with plausible bad moves for deadly enemies is one of the GM's hardest tasks because it is not easy riding the line in between keeping tension and a general sense of danger versus making fights feel cheated in favour of the players and the feeling of being invincible no matter what you do.

There is a Foundry module (name I'd have to look up) that auto adds adjectives to tokens as you place them. I've found this is great for role-playing, combat tracking and playing enemies less optimally.

Now my encounter of three goblins is with a Fiesty Goblin, Charming Goblin and a Cowardly Goblin. So now I've got one that I'll let over extend, one that will spend actions trying to intimidate and one that makes sure to not end its turn next to an enemy.

I am finding fewer and fewer reasons not to learn how to GM on Foundry. I can't say how much I love the idea of making it easier to give individual NPC creatures and villains motives to make them interesting and unique without requiring a lot of time or GM planning. This is a really, really cool tool for doing that.

It really is a great VTT.


Unicore wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:

To come up with plausible bad moves for deadly enemies is one of the GM's hardest tasks because it is not easy riding the line in between keeping tension and a general sense of danger versus making fights feel cheated in favour of the players and the feeling of being invincible no matter what you do.

There is a Foundry module (name I'd have to look up) that auto adds adjectives to tokens as you place them. I've found this is great for role-playing, combat tracking and playing enemies less optimally.

Now my encounter of three goblins is with a Fiesty Goblin, Charming Goblin and a Cowardly Goblin. So now I've got one that I'll let over extend, one that will spend actions trying to intimidate and one that makes sure to not end its turn next to an enemy.

I am finding fewer and fewer reasons not to learn how to GM on Foundry. I can't say how much I love the idea of making it easier to give individual NPC creatures and villains motives to make them interesting and unique without requiring a lot of time or GM planning. This is a really, really cool tool for doing that.

If you are any where near living on GMT +0 I'd be happy to run a demo where you can have GM rights and look around.


Harles wrote:


Has anyone else had a similar experience?

Yes, it's not unusual that situations like that happen.

In my experience, the cause of this can be:

1) Bad roll streak from the party and/or good roll streak from the enemies ( nothing you can do about this, unless you are using a DM screen for your rolls and want to cheat or, for example, make the enemies act dumb, like splitting attacks on the party rather than ending/focusing one target. But I won't push this way, as I hate either DM screen and cheating on players ).

2) Elite enemies ( this happens when the DM is dealing with a party larger than 4. I suggest to add instead a weakened version of an add the party fought before, rather than giving elite to enemies or bosses ).

3) Boss levels before some specific capstones ( lvl 5, lvl 13, lvl 17 ).

This means that "If Enemies have a level equal or higher than one of these, and characters are below those levels, it would result in more powerful than elites, because the DC is set for the level +0".

A standard example would be a lvl 10 party facing a lvl 13 enemy... on a hill... ( I guess you what I am talking about ).

If you have a larger party and made the boss an elite one, well then it would be somehow impossible for them ( reason why I always suggest to add a weakened add rather than dealing with elite bosses ).

4) Finally, the party composition. Some party would obviously result more efficient than others, and if you see that your party can't properly handle the standard difficulty, I suggest you to give them weakened enemies rather than TPK everytime or cheat during the encounter ( see point ).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:

To come up with plausible bad moves for deadly enemies is one of the GM's hardest tasks because it is not easy riding the line in between keeping tension and a general sense of danger versus making fights feel cheated in favour of the players and the feeling of being invincible no matter what you do.

There is a Foundry module (name I'd have to look up) that auto adds adjectives to tokens as you place them. I've found this is great for role-playing, combat tracking and playing enemies less optimally.

Now my encounter of three goblins is with a Fiesty Goblin, Charming Goblin and a Cowardly Goblin. So now I've got one that I'll let over extend, one that will spend actions trying to intimidate and one that makes sure to not end its turn next to an enemy.

I am finding fewer and fewer reasons not to learn how to GM on Foundry. I can't say how much I love the idea of making it easier to give individual NPC creatures and villains motives to make them interesting and unique without requiring a lot of time or GM planning. This is a really, really cool tool for doing that.
If you are any where near living on GMT +0 I'd be happy to run a demo where you can have GM rights and look around.

That is a a kind offer. I have foundry, I just haven't familiarized myself with it enough to run games confidently on it, yet, but the incentives to do so keeping going up. I am pretty far off GMT though.

Acquisitives

Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Harles wrote:
Paulyhedron wrote:
I've read this thread through twice now and part of me is wondering if this isn't a troll post? I've been in a tpk (Abomination Vaults), but only the one in my entire gaming life (2004). So I am not sure.

Hey there. Assuring you this isn't a troll post.

I can give you a few examples of PF2 TPKs I've had, as well as encounters that were so difficult the party just gave up. Alas, no full details because some of them were a couple years ago now. Some of these were admittedly due to my learning the system - especially one of the Age of Ashes TPKs.
Putting in spoiler tags...
** spoiler omitted **

AoA:
Oh! The Barghast. It tore my group up (sole survivor) as the group was all 5e players, and frankly spent a great deal of every session complaining it wasn't 5e.
The complete TPK in Abomination Vaults was the
deets:
Giant Scorpion with an AOO and Grab, was a disaster.
We learned a good deal later on about actual tactics and using what we built as a team rather than trying to super hero everything solo. It is a tactical game after all. I did have one more character of mine die in AV
AV:
bloodworm
but managed to finish the AP after.

Yeah I dunno I have read the other stuff, Pf2 has made me and several others retrain how we play RPG's what works here in others won't here.


Sounds like

1- multiple bad rolls on player side
2- multiple good rolls on GM side
3- a severe encounter
4- some mistakes

I had a player stop showing up when he realized he couldn't just face tank everything with his barbarian. Wasn't much of a loss,I had too many players as it was.


Do you think the Proficiency Without Level variant would help avoid TPKs? For example, would it decrease the likelihood of devastating critical hits by monsters? Would it decrease the monsters' AC to a sufficient level where the players might feel they aren't missing the majority of the time?


Harles wrote:
Do you think the Proficiency Without Level variant would help avoid TPKs? For example, would it decrease the likelihood of devastating critical hits by monsters? Would it decrease the monsters' AC to a sufficient level where the players might feel they aren't missing the majority of the time?

Only if you are pitting the party against enemies of significantly higher level than they are.

Proficiency Without Level will flatten and extend the range of levels of enemies that the party can take on. However, it isn't completely flat. There are still the proficiency bump levels. So at some levels there will be practically no difference in stats between a level n enemy and a level n+3 enemy, and at other values of n there will be a +2 or +3 difference in stats between a level n enemy and a level n+3 enemy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll still say that it is easier, more engaging and interesting to just give the party +1 level. Maybe FA as well.


Harles wrote:
Do you think the Proficiency Without Level variant would help avoid TPKs? For example, would it decrease the likelihood of devastating critical hits by monsters? Would it decrease the monsters' AC to a sufficient level where the players might feel they aren't missing the majority of the time?

Depends whether your party has everything in terms of potency weapon/armor runes, between the level up and the next task.

If they already have everything they need, it won't change anything.


HumbleGamer wrote:
Harles wrote:
Do you think the Proficiency Without Level variant would help avoid TPKs? For example, would it decrease the likelihood of devastating critical hits by monsters? Would it decrease the monsters' AC to a sufficient level where the players might feel they aren't missing the majority of the time?

Depends whether your party has everything in terms of potency weapon/armor runes, between the level up and the next task.

If they already have everything they need, it won't change anything.

Automatic Bonus Progression would take care of that.


breithauptclan wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
Harles wrote:
Do you think the Proficiency Without Level variant would help avoid TPKs? For example, would it decrease the likelihood of devastating critical hits by monsters? Would it decrease the monsters' AC to a sufficient level where the players might feel they aren't missing the majority of the time?

Depends whether your party has everything in terms of potency weapon/armor runes, between the level up and the next task.

If they already have everything they need, it won't change anything.

Automatic Bonus Progression would take care of that.

Would automatically take care of that, but if their group is on par with the characters progression, it would neither solve their issue, nor give a slightly change.

Not having a clue why they keep getting TPKed, it could be either also related to the progression or not.


Harles wrote:
Do you think the Proficiency Without Level variant would help avoid TPKs? For example, would it decrease the likelihood of devastating critical hits by monsters? Would it decrease the monsters' AC to a sufficient level where the players might feel they aren't missing the majority of the time?

Proficiency without level will 100% deal with a vast amount of enemies being too strong. While level will still be important due to: More feats, more/better spells, higher level items, etc. Proficiency with half level also helps while still allowing clearly dangerous encounters.

In both cases the reason why it works is that it decreases the swinginess of the math, specially when it comes to critical hits. Instead of a +4 enemy getting a ~20% chance to crit succeed they would have ~5% chance; Similarly, a -4 enemy instead of having ~20% chance to crit fail they would have a ~5% chance.

Someone mentioned the spikyness of level proficiency increases. That can be solved by spreading out when proficiency is given. The proficiency name would then symbolize "you have reached X bonus there for you are Y" as opposed to "because you are Y you have X bonus". I know its small but it can change a lot of how players think.


Harles wrote:

I'm not bragging - actually the opposite.

I manage to average out to a TPK every three sessions (or approximately 12 hours of game time). This is across different groups and different Adventure Paths.
So I'm left wondering - is it just me? Am I a Killer GM when it comes to running Pathfinder 2e? Or is it the Adventure Paths that are extremely difficult? (I was running Age of Ashes and then Extinction Curse.)
But in the process, I've managed to sour three different groups (more than a dozen people) on Pathfinder 2e.
Has anyone else had a similar experience?

Grass is always greener syndrome I guess. Have a lot of friends who complain 5e is too easy and there’s no challenge or risk and/or have to go way out of their way as a GM to make it hard and I personally love how deadly PF2E is. This planet is weird. Some people get sour on a game because they die, others because they never die. Strange planet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dargath wrote:
Harles wrote:

I'm not bragging - actually the opposite.

I manage to average out to a TPK every three sessions (or approximately 12 hours of game time). This is across different groups and different Adventure Paths.
So I'm left wondering - is it just me? Am I a Killer GM when it comes to running Pathfinder 2e? Or is it the Adventure Paths that are extremely difficult? (I was running Age of Ashes and then Extinction Curse.)
But in the process, I've managed to sour three different groups (more than a dozen people) on Pathfinder 2e.
Has anyone else had a similar experience?
Grass is always greener syndrome I guess. Have a lot of friends who complain 5e is too easy and there’s no challenge or risk and/or have to go way out of their way as a GM to make it hard and I personally love how deadly PF2E is. This planet is weird. Some people get sour on a game because they die, others because they never die. Strange planet.

For my most recent group who had a TPK, the dichotomy between the lethality of the system and the expectation that a party would be able to experience the story of a 20 level Adventure Path was too strong. It killed all the enjoyment of the AP. They got the mentality of "I guess this is just going to be a series of difficult combat encounters, rinse and repeat."

It's really a shame too. The system mostly works for me - better than 5e. But the encounters should probably be 2 levels easier to reinforce that the story is the most important part of the game, and then the "filler" encounters should be minimized in an AP. You don't need to meticulously count XP between chapters when you're doing a story-based game.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Here is my recommendation:

Tell them that the developers have learned that some players feel the difficult of adventures are overturned, especially at low level against powerful solo monsters. Offer to let them play dual class characters, which is an official variant and run one of the newer APs. Read the message boards about that AP and look out for the troublesome encounters that kill party members and how GMs modified things.

Also consider dropping excessive +1 weapons and armor early. It will feel cool and any unbalancing it does will equal out after just a couple levels.

I bet your players, looking to feel like heroes will enjoy dual class and the newer APs have cool stuff going on.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Harles wrote:
You don't need to meticulously count XP between chapters when you're doing a story-based game.

You don't have to do that with APs.

At the beginning of each book, look for the sidebar "Advancement Track". It's usually on the first page of the adventure. That will tell you exactly when characters level.

For example, "Zombie Feast" (Part 1 of Blood Lords), has the following suggestions
1. The characters begin this adventure at 1st level
2. The characters should reach 2nd level once they've cleared out their new manor.
3. The characters should reach 3rd level after exploring the Bone Shards hideout and Graydirge Bank.
The characters should reach 4th level by the time they complete the adventure.

If you're meticulously counting XP, you're making it much harder than you need to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dancing Wind wrote:
Harles wrote:
You don't need to meticulously count XP between chapters when you're doing a story-based game.

You don't have to do that with APs.

At the beginning of each book, look for the sidebar "Advancement Track". It's usually on the first page of the adventure. That will tell you exactly when characters level.

For example, "Zombie Feast" (Part 1 of Blood Lords), has the following suggestions
1. The characters begin this adventure at 1st level
2. The characters should reach 2nd level once they've cleared out their new manor.
3. The characters should reach 3rd level after exploring the Bone Shards hideout and Graydirge Bank.
The characters should reach 4th level by the time they complete the adventure.

If you're meticulously counting XP, you're making it much harder than you need to.

I'm not doing that. Paizo is. (Or at least, they were in the earlier APs that I have tried.)

To shoehorn all the XP into the AP chapters, they seem to cram in a lot of Severe encounters just to get the characters to a specific level, when it would be simpler (and better serve the story) to make Milestone XP the default. By doing this they can have encounters that fit the story & don't risk slaughtering the party on an unimportant encounter that isn't telegraphed in the module.


Harles wrote:

the characters to a specific level, when it would be simpler (and better serve the story) to make Milestone XP the default. By doing this they can have encounters that fit the story & don't risk slaughtering the party on an unimportant encounter that isn't telegraphed in the module.

They are giving you the option to run it either way. They tell you exactly when the milestones occur so that you don't have to cram all those encounters into the story you're telling.

No one is forcing you to slaughter the party. No one is forcing you to meticulously track XP. Paizo tells you exactly what to do if you want to use milestone leveling instead of XP.

If your players enjoy the arithmetic of precise XP, Paizo tells you exactly what to do if you want to do that.

It's up to the GM which method gets used. Paizo isn't railroading GMs into either system.


Its is much easier to base things around XP and then adjust to milestone. As opposed to starting at milestone and adjusting to XP.

Not only does XP makes it so you know exactly when a character would level up, it also helps to plan out how many fights any given level should have.


Harles wrote:

For my most recent group who had a TPK, the dichotomy between the lethality of the system and the expectation that a party would be able to experience the story of a 20 level Adventure Path was too strong. It killed all the enjoyment of the AP. They got the mentality of "I guess this is just going to be a series of difficult combat encounters, rinse and repeat."

It's really a shame too. The system mostly works for me - better than 5e. But the encounters should probably be 2 levels easier to reinforce that the story is the most important part of the game, and then the "filler" encounters should be minimized in an AP. You don't need to meticulously count XP between chapters when you're doing a story-based game.

The contrast between Harles's campaign and my campaign feels weird. I am converting Ironfang Invasion to PF2, and I am currently rebuilding an encounter with a CR 13 blood hag witch and her two CR 11 Advanced Fen Mauler pets as an encounter with a 13th-level blood hag witch, her two 11th-level Elemental Inferno pets, two 13th-level Shadow Giants, and two 13th-level Jorogumo. That is 3 times harder than intended, because that the party is 3 times stronger than intended (7 members and 15th level instead of 14th).

Nevertheless, combat will be easier than a moderate threat. This PF1 adventure path has been softening encounters since 12th level. My wife jokes that it lulls the party into complacity until the story gives me an excuse to push the threats up to severe, like I did at the end of the previous module, bwahaha. She likes tough encounters.

Yet pushing up the threat is half the reason the party is 15th level instead of 14th level. The other half is that they invent side quests.

Dancing Wind wrote:
Harles wrote:
You don't need to meticulously count XP between chapters when you're doing a story-based game.

You don't have to do that with APs.

At the beginning of each book, look for the sidebar "Advancement Track". It's usually on the first page of the adventure. That will tell you exactly when characters level.

For example, "Zombie Feast" (Part 1 of Blood Lords), has the following suggestions
1. The characters begin this adventure at 1st level
2. The characters should reach 2nd level once they've cleared out their new manor.
3. The characters should reach 3rd level after exploring the Bone Shards hideout and Graydirge Bank.
The characters should reach 4th level by the time they complete the adventure.

If you're meticulously counting XP, you're making it much harder than you need to.

Dancing Winds' advice is good. I can't use it myself, due to my players' love for side quests. But keeping the threat low would reduce XP from combat. Earning XP from story milestones instead would keep the PCs at a proper level so that the GM won't have to reduce the threat much.

My current module, Prisoners of the Blight, says, "The PCs begin this adventure at 14th level," and suggests 15th level by page 38 and 16th level after the conclusion on page 51. The final module, Vault of the Onyx Citadel, is supposed to begin at 16th level and end at 18th level, but I am curious whether the party will reach a full 20 levels.


BTW, TPKs have little to do with XP tracking and more to do with how the encounter was designed fundamentally and the way both the GM and players go about things.

Take for example an easy encounter vs 5 enemies. If you double the enemies it suddenly becomes a hard encounter. Same thing happens if the encounter's environment doesn't favor the party, if the party composition is not set up to handle the encounter, if the players/enemies are having a lucky night, etc.

In fact XP tracking actually helps prevent a lot of TPKs by making sure that players are not unknownly made to fight a diffult battle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I also don't use xp ( come to think of, non of our groups never really used/loved them ).

In addition to the milestones, I think it's appropriate to give players the time to properly manage their level up.

We just had a quite deep discussion about it yesterday.

What I mean is that unlike other systems, this 2e has 2 peculiar features one should take into account:

- retraining
- downtime activities ( which are complementary to default loot provided by the AP)

After a level up, characters unlock the possibility to craft ( or search for) new equipment, which may drastically improve their chances of survival.

For example, hitting lvl 10 and being able to craft weapon potency runes +2 would be gamechaing.

But same can be said about feats which become obsolete at some point, and if retrained would provide a significant boost.

For example, retraining an attack, when you become eligible for a better one, into something different ( maybe a defensive passive perk).

If the players, or the DM, feel the urge to complete the book without having a chance of properly do downtime, they are probably pushing things unnecessarily harder.

Consider some events as triggers is imo also bad.

The mighty lich didn't attack for decades, and it's not going do to so because the adventurets arrived in town or completed a task. Or else the group is going to find themselves into an infinite loop, always running to save the world.

My suggestion here is to take it easy, both the DM and the players, allowing time to properly do the required stuff whenever is required.

Dark Archive

Here is one way to make game naturally more easy in case you ever run 2e homebrew adventures in future: Mostly focus on enemies from -4 to -1 player range, use equal level enemies as "bosses with allies" and then reserve +1 to +4 enemies for what are supposed to be various degree of harder fights, either minibosses(with +1) or hard bosses(moderate +2 can sometimes be hard enough to feel like boss especially with few mooks or if players are low in resources. Avoid doing solo severe or extreme for levels 1-5 until you are confident in party).

This is mostly from my experience of converting Jade Regent to 2e. Some of 2e AP dungeons follow design of "dungeon mostly mostly moderate encounters with couple low and severe sprinkled in, maybe one trivial joke encounter. Every room has a +1 or +2 miniboss, with occasional severe soloboss that can be avoided but comes as surprise" with occasional "mooks encounters of -2 to 0 level foes" sprinkled in. 1e on otherhand sometimes had dungeons were majority of enemies were ridiculously weaker than PCs with few stronger encounters sprinkled in.

So converting that to mooks being -4 or -3 trivial mooks and either having multiple sets of "trivial" encounters capable of being combined into larger encounters(still containing trivial mooks) has been good way to translate 1e dungeon style to 2e and keep it as dynamic(as in reinforcements arriving to support encounter group pcs are fighting), where in 2e aps combining encounters is extremely dangerous unless you know exactly what is going to happen. And doing this still means that players level up in same pace as in 1e book even with 2e exp.

(yeah, so 2e miniboss design you see in some dungeons(like specific AV levels) isn't really about exp. Its because 1e also had miniboss design sometimes, but it didn't work there because single enemies got decimated easily, so in 2e where that design means minibosses are challenging having too many of them in dungeon feels exhausting ^^; Though at least by high levels +1 and +2 enemies aren't that bad anymore, but during levels 1-4 I feel like +1 and +2 foes are really dangerous)

In general, I feel that trivial encounters are somewhat rare in 2e APs, where areas I think larger dungeons should actually have multiple trivial encounters with some low and moderate mixed in and severe being either boss of dungeon or particularly challenging encounter mixed. Such as by having several trivial encounters composed of 4 enemies in adjacent rooms, so if players don't prevent alarm being raised or block the doors, they can combine into moderate or severe encounter.

By time party are feeling encounters are easy or feeling confident in system, its possible to ramp up things gradually. Like doing things like having two equal level meat shields and four trivial back up shooters in severe encounter. Still not punishingly hard but its challenging.

One thing to also recognize is that this also works flavor wise. Heavily defended fortress where enemies are in good defensive positions? Makes sense for majority of soldiers being -4 or -3 enemies, with "elite soldiers" being level -2 to +0 and commanders being in level +1 to +2" range. +3 or +4 could be monster they captured in cage and players could either release it or avoid fighting it at all.

(not sure this is helpful to OP since not sure they are able to return to 2e in long time, but I do hope this helps someone else with similar problem as well ^^; )


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I know this sounds like an IT tech asking you to check if a PC is plugged in, but are they calculating their proficiency bonus to the roll accurately? I’ve done a fair few society games where a character keeps getting dropped in combat and upon checking their character sheet they have forgotten to add their level to the proficiency bonus. In particular they have forgotten to add their level to AC, saves, spell DCs and attack rolls.

I probably isn’t that but I have found it is something worth checking before you start looking elsewhere.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Helvellyn wrote:

I know this sounds like an IT tech asking you to check if a PC is plugged in, but are they calculating their proficiency bonus to the roll accurately? I’ve done a fair few society games where a character keeps getting dropped in combat and upon checking their character sheet they have forgotten to add their level to the proficiency bonus. In particular they have forgotten to add their level to AC, saves, spell DCs and attack rolls.

I probably isn’t that but I have found it is something worth checking before you start looking elsewhere.

In my case, it should all be done automatically on Foundry VTT.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Paizo includes enough encounters to account for XP between levels for GMs that use XP. If you don't desire all those encounters for your milestone game, simply remove encounters you think are unnecessary. It is easier for GMs to remove unwanted content than for a GM to create needed content.

If the encounters are too hard, simply advance your party one level above recommended and the experience will be much easier on them. If the players bristle at this (and why would they, if it's what everyone at the table thinks would make for a better game?), don't tell them it's what you're doing.

151 to 179 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Still Maintaining My TPK Every 3 Sessions Streak All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.