I mean I wouldn't even necessarily call the example a huge outlier. A bit extreme, but sometimes you just get ambushed with no forewarning or opportunity to prepare. That's just how PF2 is written sometimes.
That is a pretty big outlier to me. I've read a lot of the APs and it is my understanding blood lords was very much set up for the PCs to be undead and gain the benefits of doing so. This would offset the need for them to use positive energy damage.
It was that one change that made this encounter from something the PCs could handle to a TPK.
|
I mean I wouldn't even necessarily call the example a huge outlier. A bit extreme, but sometimes you just get ambushed with no forewarning or opportunity to prepare. That's just how PF2 is written sometimes.That is a pretty big outlier to me. I've read a lot of the APs and it is my understanding blood lords was very much set up for the PCs to be undead and gain the benefits of doing so. This would offset the need for them to use positive energy damage.
It was that one change that made this encounter from something the PCs could handle to a TPK.
PCs can be undead in Blood Lords. It is not required though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The players guide recommends players be undead from a thematic standpoint, that the adventure path being set in geb is a good place for players to try out being undead, it's not saying it's recommending it because of the mechanical benefits of being undead
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is a pretty big outlier to me. I've read a lot of the APs and it is my understanding blood lords was very much set up for the PCs to be undead and gain the benefits of doing so. This would offset the need for them to use positive energy damage.
It was that one change that made this encounter from something the PCs could handle to a TPK.
Not every group has a Cleric anyway.
I think Calliope's example is quite on point. And as usual when a party gets TPKed by anything but a boss, people consider the issue is on the party.Non boss fights kill characters, a lot. I've seen it and heard about it. At that stage, still trying to disbelieve it is pointless.
PF2 is a game where any encounter can be deadly if the situation or the dice (and in general both) decide to hate you. The one true rule about PF2 TPKs is that things didn't go as planned. Blaming the players or the GM is easy as the encounter always seems manageable (because it is). Still, it ended up unmanageable somehow.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its that snowball effect. Once you start winning an encounter it is hard for the opponent to make a comeback baring exceptional luck.
It's clearly generated by the extreme accuracy of the encounter system.
A Moderate encounter is equivalent to half a party and a Severe to 3 quarters.Which means that a single PC who's not contributing or who go down unexpectedly makes an Extreme encounter out of a Severe encounter: 50% chance of TPK. So, yes, it's kind of a snowballing effect as at that stage you need luck or excellent tactical acumen to win (and in my experience, people tend to panic in tough situations playing worse than they used to).
In the case of Calliope, having the Cleric going down at round one from an unexpected event has put the party on the brink of TPK. A little bit of bad luck and it was over for them.
PCs can be undead in Blood Lords. It is not required though.I mean I wouldn't even necessarily call the example a huge outlier. A bit extreme, but sometimes you just get ambushed with no forewarning or opportunity to prepare. That's just how PF2 is written sometimes.That is a pretty big outlier to me. I've read a lot of the APs and it is my understanding blood lords was very much set up for the PCs to be undead and gain the benefits of doing so. This would offset the need for them to use positive energy damage.
It was that one change that made this encounter from something the PCs could handle to a TPK.
Don't they recommend free archetype with that AP for PCs to be undead?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is a pretty big outlier to me. I've read a lot of the APs and it is my understanding blood lords was very much set up for the PCs to be undead and gain the benefits of doing so. This would offset the need for them to use positive energy damage.
It was that one change that made this encounter from something the PCs could handle to a TPK.
Not every group has a Cleric anyway.
I think Calliope's example is quite on point. And as usual when a party gets TPKed by anything but a boss, people consider the issue is on the party.Non boss fights kill characters, a lot. I've seen it and heard about it. At that stage, still trying to disbelieve it is pointless.
PF2 is a game where any encounter can be deadly if the situation or the dice (and in general both) decide to hate you. The one true rule about PF2 TPKs is that things didn't go as planned. Blaming the players or the GM is easy as the encounter always seems manageable (because it is). Still, it ended up unmanageable somehow.
I have to disagree with you when the APs recommendations and a rule change based on an unknown created a situation where the PCs were completely hamstrung when maybe the AP writer put them in such a position thinking, "The party is likely undead and will be able to handle these dread wraiths quick succession because of their undead state." When you circumvent the expectations of the module as a DM turning an encounter that may have been created to make the PCs seem tough or show how helpful their undead status is into screwed over on multiple levels with the no positive energy law combined with changing their undead stat to be damaged by negative energy then you can't put that on the players.
When we first started playing PF1, there was an encounter in Age of Ashes in a stone quarry that was absolutely brutal. We were surprised and pleased at its level of brutality because it really made us work to survive. But that didn't have anything to do with circumventing the expectations of the campaign involving a major rule change to a key component of the module.
It is my understanding that in blood lords the PCs being undead while investigating is supposed to show how undead on undead battles go where both sides can't use the normal means to harm the other. But this turned into the NPC undead having a severe advantage over the PC undead they shouldn't have had.
That is what bothers me about this example. The DM made a decision that TPKed his party where if he had followed the modules expectations, the PCs likely would have survived that encounter.
What is problematic for my group I'm well aware is not the norm. My group punches above their weight just by virtue of long experience playing these games and working together. I'm sure encounters with multipole lower level enemies can hammer the common PC parties of players composed of groups that come together for the first time in a given module like in PFS or don't spend much time constructing parties from the ground up.
I know that if I did what Calliope's DM did to his players if they had taken undead archetype, they would be pissed at me and not want to play that module series any longer if I made their undead archetype abilities meaningless in battle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blood lords doesn't have free archetype by default, it does note that allowing living PCs to retrain their latest class feat into an undead archetype after dying is something a GM can do.Don't they recommend free archetype with that AP for PCs to be undead?PCs can be undead in Blood Lords. It is not required though.I mean I wouldn't even necessarily call the example a huge outlier. A bit extreme, but sometimes you just get ambushed with no forewarning or opportunity to prepare. That's just how PF2 is written sometimes.That is a pretty big outlier to me. I've read a lot of the APs and it is my understanding blood lords was very much set up for the PCs to be undead and gain the benefits of doing so. This would offset the need for them to use positive energy damage.
It was that one change that made this encounter from something the PCs could handle to a TPK.
I know Paizo isn't going to force anyone to be undead or play with an optional rule.
It is my understanding that module was built with the idea of the PCs using free archetype undead to create the feel of being undead citizens in the land of Geb.
Calliope's DM allowed them to take undead archetype, then completely changed how negative damage worked mid module creating a situation where the dread wraiths had full power but the PCs were hamstrung.
I do not see that as a common or even uncommon scenario in Paizo APs and I've read a lot of them. If Paizo does something in their APs like outlaw positive energy, then they add something else to make up for it like encouraging the PCs to use the undead archetypes to make them resistant to undead attacks. Then both the DM and the players have to think outside the box about how to conduct combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blood lords doesn't have free archetype by default, it does note that allowing living PCs to retrain their latest class feat into an undead archetype after dying is something a GM can do.Don't they recommend free archetype with that AP for PCs to be undead?PCs can be undead in Blood Lords. It is not required though.I mean I wouldn't even necessarily call the example a huge outlier. A bit extreme, but sometimes you just get ambushed with no forewarning or opportunity to prepare. That's just how PF2 is written sometimes.That is a pretty big outlier to me. I've read a lot of the APs and it is my understanding blood lords was very much set up for the PCs to be undead and gain the benefits of doing so. This would offset the need for them to use positive energy damage.
It was that one change that made this encounter from something the PCs could handle to a TPK.
I know Paizo isn't going to force anyone to be undead or play with an optional rule.
It is my understanding that module was built with the idea of the PCs using free archetype undead to create the feel of being undead citizens in the land of Geb.
Calliope's DM allowed them to take undead archetype, then completely changed how negative damage worked mid module creating a situation where the dread wraiths had full power but the PCs were hamstrung.
I do not see that as a common or even uncommon scenario in Paizo APs and I've read a lot of them. If Paizo does something in their APs like outlaw positive energy, then they add something else to make up for it like encouraging the PCs to use the undead archetypes to make them resistant to undead attacks. Then both the DM and the players have to think outside the box about how to conduct combat.
If it was written intending for the players to be free archetype undead it would do what strength of thousands does and explicitly say to use that rule
If it was written intending for the players to be free archetype undead it would do what strength of...Blood lords doesn't have free archetype by default, it does note that allowing living PCs to retrain their latest class feat into an undead archetype after dying is something a GM can do.Don't they recommend free archetype with that AP for PCs to be undead?PCs can be undead in Blood Lords. It is not required though.I mean I wouldn't even necessarily call the example a huge outlier. A bit extreme, but sometimes you just get ambushed with no forewarning or opportunity to prepare. That's just how PF2 is written sometimes.That is a pretty big outlier to me. I've read a lot of the APs and it is my understanding blood lords was very much set up for the PCs to be undead and gain the benefits of doing so. This would offset the need for them to use positive energy damage.
It was that one change that made this encounter from something the PCs could handle to a TPK.
I know Paizo isn't going to force anyone to be undead or play with an optional rule.
It is my understanding that module was built with the idea of the PCs using free archetype undead to create the feel of being undead citizens in the land of Geb.
Calliope's DM allowed them to take undead archetype, then completely changed how negative damage worked mid module creating a situation where the dread wraiths had full power but the PCs were hamstrung.
I do not see that as a common or even uncommon scenario in Paizo APs and I've read a lot of them. If Paizo does something in their APs like outlaw positive energy, then they add something else to make up for it like encouraging the PCs to use the undead archetypes to make them resistant to undead attacks. Then both the DM and the players have to think outside the box about how to conduct combat.
I have not read it. So it didn't say to use the Free Undead Archetype?
Weird. The entire attraction of Blood Lords seemed to be using the Free Undead Archetype. Now you're telling me they didn't encourage it like they did in Strength of Thousands.
Prepared still doesn't have the advantage in that situation.
A spontaneous caster could chain off four death wards and still be loaded with spells. In an undead campaign, a spontaneous caster could make their signature spells specifically to resist undead and chain them off as needed.
A divine sorcerer could guaranteed have a heal even if evil. A sorcerer at 13th level could get heal by being primal or divine and have it as a signature spell to cast all day.
A sorcerer would be better than a cleric in blood lords because they are not restricted by alignment for their spell choices.
Just to add that there is also a major difference between Cleric & Druid vs Wizard & Witch. Cleric and Druid know all of their spells (of at least common) all the time because they literally just pray for the spell to happen. Wizard and Witch however have to actually learn the spell, much like spontaneous casters except with no limit.
Spontaneous has a small inversion of this difference with Arcane Sorcerer and Bard being able to get their own spellbooks. While the other spontaneous casters cannot.
This means that Arcane Sorcerer and Bard have the most flexibility and least flaws being able to cast spontaneously and prepare spells any additional spell they learn. While Wizard and Witch are the least flexible and have the most flaws being unable to cast spontaneously and needing to effectively learn all spells.
True, but the thread is nominally about prepping vs spontaneous in general. As opposed to the wizard thread. That's why I brought up a non wizard example, that's all.
But yeah I agree that it's not a big advantage in a surprise fight. It's sort of weird because we're having multiple simultaneous discussions. My point with the tpk was mostly about boss fights not being the only lethal sort of encounter.
That particular fight not a great example when the DM set up the situation for that party to be completely screwed even though the AP provided plenty of ways for them to win that encounter.
Do you have a better example more by the rules?
The main example I have is Age of Ashes:
Just to add that there is also a major difference between Cleric & Druid vs Wizard & Witch. Cleric and Druid know all of their spells (of at least common) all the time because they literally just pray for the spell to happen. Wizard and Witch however have to actually learn the spell, much like spontaneous casters except with no limit.
Spontaneous has a small inversion of this difference with Arcane Sorcerer and Bard being able to get their own spellbooks. While the other spontaneous casters cannot.
This means that Arcane Sorcerer and Bard have the most flexibility and least flaws being able to cast spontaneously and prepare spells any additional spell they learn. While Wizard and Witch are the least flexible and have the most flaws being unable to cast spontaneously and needing to effectively learn all spells.
True, but the thread is nominally about prepping vs spontaneous in general. As opposed to the wizard thread. That's why I brought up a non wizard example, that's all.
But yeah I agree that it's not a big advantage in a surprise fight. It's sort of weird because we're having multiple simultaneous discussions. My point with the tpk was mostly about boss fights not being the only lethal sort of encounter.
That particular fight not a great example when the DM set up the situation for that party to be completely screwed even though the AP provided plenty of ways for them to win that encounter.
Do you have a better example more by the rules?
The main example I have is Age of Ashes:
** spoiler omitted **
hmph
I maintain that those methods all involve "taking a specific archetype" and that that can't be assumed. But like I said earlier we really should move on and I didn't mean to monopolize the thread.
But anyway, party comp same as scarlet triad in age of ashes?
Age of Ashes Party Comp
Bard Maestro secondary Polymath HumanRanger Precision Archer Human Was using a bird animal companion
Cleric of Cayden Caliean Battle Cleric before we knew it wasn't great.
Champion Redeemer Human
Rogue Thief Human
Mook numbers boosted by 25% to account for additional party members.
|
|
Prepared still doesn't have the advantage in that situation.
A spontaneous caster could chain off four death wards and still be loaded with spells. In an undead campaign, a spontaneous caster could make their signature spells specifically to resist undead and chain them off as needed.
A divine sorcerer could guaranteed have a heal even if evil. A sorcerer at 13th level could get heal by being primal or divine and have it as a signature spell to cast all day.
A sorcerer would be better than a cleric in blood lords because they are not restricted by alignment for their spell choices.
Which is why positive energy on the whole is banned in Geb.
Sure yep. That's a solid gang (though as you say the cleric presumably falls off at higher levels)
Got TPK'd in Blood Lords by a moderate encounter of lower-level monsters again, you all will be pleased to know.
** spoiler omitted **
A party with any focus at all on mobility can kite around that 30 ft. aura all day. If they're forced to cast a spell and futilely chase you around trying to get within 30 ft. they aren't that big a threat. Or throw Silence onto your front liner of choice and let them go play with the enemies so they can't cast spells unless they spend even more movement ditching that PC. Or, if you position so only one of them can teleport in, cut the other two off with a wall spell.
It seems like you guys just aren't playing to the strengths of your characters and aren't using your spell slots and movement options effectively.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure yep. That's a solid gang (though as you say the cleric presumably falls off at higher levels)
Got TPK'd in Blood Lords by a moderate encounter of lower-level monsters again, you all will be pleased to know.
** spoiler omitted **
A party with any focus at all on mobility can kite around that 30 ft. aura all day. If they're forced to cast a spell and futilely chase you around trying to get within 30 ft. they aren't that big a threat. Or throw Silence onto your front liner of choice and let them go play with the enemies so they can't cast spells unless they spend even more movement ditching that PC. Or, if you position so only one of them can teleport in, cut the other two off with a wall spell.
It seems like you guys just aren't playing to the strengths of your characters and aren't using your spell slots and movement options effectively.
As SuperBidi mentioned, apart from high-severity solo boss encounters, any TPK can be analysed with ideas on what should have been done.
It does not actually help the people who got TPKed and it does not help with the fact that lower level mobs can and do TPK PCs. Which is a fact of the game.
The encounter in question takes place in a 30 x 20 ft room with only one exit, back the way you came. And we don't have walls. Reminder - kineticist, cleric, fighter, ranger.
(also, silence doesn't work, because they never actually Cast A Spell at all. And they can do ranged combat SOOOOOO much better than PCs can. You do not want to be trading ranged attacks with statblocks that have 16 level 6+ ranged spells. Do not turn off your melee PCs like that)
So kite them out of the room and use angles to deny their line of site so they need to spend two moves getting a bead on you and are no longer able to cast a spell or perform a spell strike. You aren't stuck in a room just because that's where the monsters started.
Also, why does it sound like this was another encounter that caught you off guard? Does your Ranger not scout for the group, use mirrors to peek under doors, or use pitons to nail doors shut to slow the pace of a fight? It feels like you're not playing the game as if your characters are skilled highly tactical experts.
As for the other points:
I would argue that silence would work because you still need to perform the actions of the spell to channel it but I'll admit that it is a grey area.
As for "turning off your melee PCs" whatever you did clearly didn't work, so why get defensive over things you could have done but didn't?
As SuperBidi mentioned, apart from high-severity solo boss encounters, any TPK can be analysed with ideas on what should have been done.
It does not actually help the people who got TPKed and it does not help with the fact that lower level mobs can and do TPK PCs. Which is a fact of the game.
If every TPK can be approached with the idea that the party had options they didn't use then every TPK is a failure to be analyzed, a data point to be gathered, and an experience to be learned from. You shouldn't be TPKing against any encounter that you can escape from and you shouldn't be losing to moderate encounters at all unless the dice run ice-cold. If you do, you need to step back and ask if you're playing your characters like the professional problem solvers they are.
Play dirty. Light fires outside an enclosed cave and suffocate the dungeon's occupants. Nail doors shut. Hang fishing line covered in poison-coated fish hooks over a door frame and bait enemies to charge you through it. Be the nasty bastards that your characters logically should be by the time they've left the first few levels behind.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, why does it sound like this was another encounter that caught you off guard? Does your Ranger not scout for the group, use mirrors to peek under doors, or use pitons to nail doors shut to slow the pace of a fight? It feels like you're not playing the game as if your characters are skilled highly tactical experts.
If your obvious solution to a TPK is to perform nonstandard actions that have to be adjudicated by the DM, then you're just reinforcing the argument that the fight is in fact dangerous.
Sure yep. That's a solid gang (though as you say the cleric presumably falls off at higher levels)
Got TPK'd in Blood Lords by a moderate encounter of lower-level monsters again, you all will be pleased to know.
** spoiler omitted **
That reminds of an Agents encounter. Far harder enemy when a magus doesn't have to care about preserving their spells and gets to blow them all off killing the PCs.
Which is why positive energy on the whole is banned in Geb.Prepared still doesn't have the advantage in that situation.
A spontaneous caster could chain off four death wards and still be loaded with spells. In an undead campaign, a spontaneous caster could make their signature spells specifically to resist undead and chain them off as needed.
A divine sorcerer could guaranteed have a heal even if evil. A sorcerer at 13th level could get heal by being primal or divine and have it as a signature spell to cast all day.
A sorcerer would be better than a cleric in blood lords because they are not restricted by alignment for their spell choices.
What they don't know won't hurt them or if they're dead. Sorc is a charisma class who can build up a high deception and take spells they are not expected to have. Much easier to hide with illegal "weapons" than a cleric.
Another reason why this forum doesn't see many threads about how bad the sorcerer feels because it feels pretty darn good and can be built a lot of different ways. And spontaneous casting with sig spells is very, very nice in this edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to disagree with you when the APs recommendations and a rule change based on an unknown created a situation where the PCs were completely hamstrung when maybe the AP writer put them in such a position thinking, "The party is likely undead and will be able to handle these dread wraiths quick succession because of their undead state." When you circumvent the expectations of the module as a DM turning an encounter that may have been created to make the PCs seem tough or show how helpful their undead status is into screwed over on multiple levels with the no positive energy law combined with changing their undead stat to be damaged by negative energy then you can't put that on the players.
Sorry, but I disagree with your complaints.
Even if Positive damage was allowed, chances are great the Cleric wouldn't have had a Positive energy spell. The only obvious one being Heal, but the party being Undead I hardly see someone taking it (I rarely see a Harm going on in flesh parties).As for Negative damage, the GM turned a non-functional encounter into a Moderate one. Sorry, but I'm on their side: What's the point in playing an encounter where the enemies are not able to damage the party? I fully understand the concept of putting sometimes fights that the PCs trivialize so they can feel powerful. But in this case, it looks like a blatant mistake from a writer who didn't realize the enemies are not able to harm the party at all.
|
|
Which is why positive energy on the whole is banned in Geb.Prepared still doesn't have the advantage in that situation.
A spontaneous caster could chain off four death wards and still be loaded with spells. In an undead campaign, a spontaneous caster could make their signature spells specifically to resist undead and chain them off as needed.
A divine sorcerer could guaranteed have a heal even if evil. A sorcerer at 13th level could get heal by being primal or divine and have it as a signature spell to cast all day.
A sorcerer would be better than a cleric in blood lords because they are not restricted by alignment for their spell choices.
What they don't know won't hurt them or if they're dead. Sorc is a charisma class who can build up a high deception and take spells they are not expected to have. Much easier to hide with illegal "weapons" than a cleric.
Another reason why this forum doesn't see many threads about how bad the sorcerer feels because it feels pretty darn good and can be built a lot of different ways. And spontaneous casting with sig spells is very, very nice in this edition.
Using forbidden means when trying to become new movers and shakers in a totalitarian (Lawful Evil) state while fighting a hidden conspiracy within the state sounds rather suicidal IMO.
Better than TPK for sure, but a last resort. And frankly players usually do not build their characters for last resort options. They build them to win before last resort becomes necessary.
I have to disagree with you when the APs recommendations and a rule change based on an unknown created a situation where the PCs were completely hamstrung when maybe the AP writer put them in such a position thinking, "The party is likely undead and will be able to handle these dread wraiths quick succession because of their undead state." When you circumvent the expectations of the module as a DM turning an encounter that may have been created to make the PCs seem tough or show how helpful their undead status is into screwed over on multiple levels with the no positive energy law combined with changing their undead stat to be damaged by negative energy then you can't put that on the players.Sorry, but I disagree with your complaints.
Even if Positive damage was allowed, chances are great the Cleric wouldn't have had a Positive energy spell. The only obvious one being Heal, but the party being Undead I hardly see someone taking it (I rarely see a Harm going on in flesh parties).
As for Negative damage, the GM turned a non-functional encounter into a Moderate one. Sorry, but I'm on their side: What's the point in playing an encounter where the enemies are not able to damage the party? I fully understand the concept of putting sometimes fights that the PCs trivialize so they can feel powerful. But in this case, it looks like a blatant mistake from a writer who didn't realize the enemies are not able to harm the party at all.
Because the module designer created the encounter with the idea they would be resistant to negative energy so they could handle an immediate attack from 6 elite dread wraiths and not TPK after another fierce battle?
A group of characters in an undead campaign who have made it to level 13 should have the means to counter undead. Would you really run in an undead campaign and not take advantage of the undead archetypes when undead rule the nation and a book with the undead archetypes specifically to be featured in this module was released at the same time as this AP?
This was the featured AP of the Dark Archive release.
You would really ignore that and prefer that the players die?
Not sure if you're being contrary to be contrary, but everything about this situation just seems like a DM screw job or a bad decision by the DM.
You're supposed to be undead. You're supposed to be immune to negative energy by level 13. This is the AP released at the same time as the Dark Archive set in the undead ruled lands of Geb with massive amounts of undead.
It was expected that you be able to face down undead during your investigation because you are undead.
I find it hard to believe that you Superbidi would do that to your players when this entire AP was set up so the PCs could turn many encounters of this nature into trivial encounters because they are undead.
If you want to jack your players that way and make their choice to be undead not meaningful as the negative energy immunity is probably the biggest advantage of being undead since everything else is minor save bonuses, I guess have at it.
Not what I would do. I have a player that is a lich right now. Hen's not immune to bleed or poison or disease. But he is immune to negative energy and death effects. That is his biggest advantage of being an undead archetype. I would not take it away as a DM to make a module designed with the idea of the PCs being undead harder since the module designer likely created encounters like this that seem brutal with the idea at least a few PCs would be immune to negative damgae.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again if it was supposed to be undead and supposed to be immune to negative energy they would've made that happen with the forced free undead archetype like strength of thousand's forced wizard/druid (also it's book of the dead not dark archive), given that you didn't even read the player's guide for it maybe it might be a good idea to properly read through at least that if not some of the actual AP before talking about how it was intended to be run and how the writers intended for encounters to be engaged
It does suggest resurrecting dead players as undead though no?
So sure they're not enforcing undead PCs, but they're also giving players a get-out-of-jail-free card where if the encounters proved too much for their living PCs they get to try again with undead immunities.
Playing as undead with the weaknesses of the living short-cirtuited that built-in safety.
Again if it was supposed to be undead and supposed to be immune to negative energy they would've made that happen with the forced free undead archetype like strength of thousand's forced wizard/druid (also it's book of the dead not dark archive), given that you didn't even read the player's guide for it maybe it might be a good idea to properly read through at least that if not some of the actual AP before talking about how it was intended to be run and how the writers intended for encounters to be engaged
I've read the first module of Strength of Thousands. There is no forced free archetype. It's recommended that you use it. Paizo doesn't force anything on anyone. Not their style.
I'll read the Blood Lords myself myself and see what they recommend. I cannot debate you at the moment because I have not read the player's guide or the books.
I've read the synopsis and discussion in the Blood Lords forum. I knew they released the Blood Lords AP with the Dark Archives with the intent that you use Free Undead Archetype with the module.
So I'll see once I pick up the books what it recommends. You continuing to post that it wasn't intended to use Undead archetype when everything I've read about the module indicates it was intended including the Dark Archives release sounds like defending a bad decision.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again if it was supposed to be undead and supposed to be immune to negative energy they would've made that happen with the forced free undead archetype like strength of thousand's forced wizard/druid (also it's book of the dead not dark archive), given that you didn't even read the player's guide for it maybe it might be a good idea to properly read through at least that if not some of the actual AP before talking about how it was intended to be run and how the writers intended for encounters to be engagedI've read the first module of Strength of Thousands. There is no forced free archetype. It's recommended that you use it. Paizo doesn't force anything on anyone. Not their style.
I'll read the Blood Lords myself myself and see what they recommend. I cannot debate you at the moment because I have not read the player's guide or the books.
I've read the synopsis and discussion in the Blood Lords forum. I knew they released the Blood Lords AP with the Dark Archives with the intent that you use Free Undead Archetype with the module.
So I'll see once I pick up the books what it recommends. You continuing to post that it wasn't intended to use Undead archetype when everything I've read about the module indicates it was intended including the Dark Archives release sounds like defending a bad decision.
The whole spellcasting for everyone section of the strength of thousands player guide is not a recommendation, it is saying that the characters are either a druid or wizard multiclass archetype under the free archetype rules, not that they may be or that it's recommended for the GM to give it to them just flatly that they are
It does suggest resurrecting dead players as undead though no?
So sure they're not enforcing undead PCs, but they're also giving players a get-out-of-jail-free card where if the encounters proved too much for their living PCs they get to try again with undead immunities.
Playing as undead with the weaknesses of the living short-cirtuited that built-in safety.
Calliope said they had the undead archetype or at least a few of them, but his DM arbitrarily decided to make it so undead were not immune to "void" damage because he somehow had access to the Remaster rules that indicate undead can now be damaged by void damage.
I don't even know if that is the case as those rules are not fully released.
I'm going off what I know of the undead archetypes as I'm running one right now. They are immune to negative energy damage and can only be healed by negative energy and death effects. They get circumstance bonuses against poison, disease, and the like.
Basic and Advanced undead benefits.
The whole spellcasting for everyone section of the strength of thousands player guide is not a recommendation, it is saying that the characters are either a druid or wizard multiclass archetype under the free archetype rules, not that they may be or that it's recommended for the GM to give it to them just flatly that they areAgain if it was supposed to be undead and supposed to be immune to negative energy they would've made that happen with the forced free undead archetype like strength of thousand's forced wizard/druid (also it's book of the dead not dark archive), given that you didn't even read the player's guide for it maybe it might be a good idea to properly read through at least that if not some of the actual AP before talking about how it was intended to be run and how the writers intended for encounters to be engagedI've read the first module of Strength of Thousands. There is no forced free archetype. It's recommended that you use it. Paizo doesn't force anything on anyone. Not their style.
I'll read the Blood Lords myself myself and see what they recommend. I cannot debate you at the moment because I have not read the player's guide or the books.
I've read the synopsis and discussion in the Blood Lords forum. I knew they released the Blood Lords AP with the Dark Archives with the intent that you use Free Undead Archetype with the module.
So I'll see once I pick up the books what it recommends. You continuing to post that it wasn't intended to use Undead archetype when everything I've read about the module indicates it was intended including the Dark Archives release sounds like defending a bad decision.
I'll read Blood Lords at some point and see if they have the same type of recommendation in there myself.
There is literally nothing you can say to make me think that level 13 characters in an undead heavy campaign shouldn't have been far more prepared to deal with undead than the group Calliope was with. I would never have been in a group that wasn't prepared.
As a DM I would not have likely been able to position 6 large creatures around the cleric to all AoO him.
Clerics built in my group would likely have had a much higher AC to at least avoid quite a few of the AoOs.
If my players did have undead archetype, I would not have taken away the primary benefits of immunity to negative energy damage and death effects since they get almost nothing else worthwhile for using the undead archetype.
I consider that particular TPK example a combination of the following:
1. Bad preparation by the players.
2. A DM that either wanted to purposefully kill the PCs or miscalculated what they could handle.
3. And a bad decision on the undead archetype negative damage resistance removal.
I would not run it that way. I want my players to feel the benefits of being undead, not the undead are undead but the undead archetype players don't get those benefits as well as being hamstrung to not use positive energy.
It reeks of killer DM play. Any DM can set their players up to fail by putting them in a bad position to survive using disadvantageous rules for the PCs while using advantageous rules for the enemies.
But that isn't a good representation of the danger of PF2. To me it's an example of bad and problematic DMing, hopefully not purposefully.
The reason I say that is I've made those mistakes myself where I think an encounter is survivable, but I've made it too tough and TPKed the PCs when I did not intend to. That's what this situation seems like to me.
It does suggest resurrecting dead players as undead though no?
So sure they're not enforcing undead PCs, but they're also giving players a get-out-of-jail-free card where if the encounters proved too much for their living PCs they get to try again with undead immunities.
Playing as undead with the weaknesses of the living short-cirtuited that built-in safety.
Calliope said they had the undead archetype or at least a few of them, but his DM arbitrarily decided to make it so undead were not immune to "void" damage because he somehow had access to the Remaster rules that indicate undead can now be damaged by void damage.
I don't even know if that is the case as those rules are not fully released.
I'm going off what I know of the undead archetypes as I'm running one right now. They are immune to negative energy damage and can only be healed by negative energy and death effects. They get circumstance bonuses against poison, disease, and the like.
Basic and Advanced undead benefits.
Ah, no, sorry about that. It went a little differently.
We asked our GM to please let our evil/negative abilities work, and the decision was made as a group that all evil and negative damage dealt by both PCs and monsters counted as spirit damage. Which damages anything with a spirit. That's probably not how it works in the remaster - we just wanted to not have our stuff not work, and our GM has gotten sick of "this encounter literally isn't a thing because shadows have nothing but negative damage attacks"
We were making the module functional. As opposed to "this encounter literally doesn't matter because nothing in it can damage you" and also "none of your undead archetype abilities do anything because they mostly just give diseases or bonus negative damage or only hurt living creatures"
I just don't think the writers intentionally wrote over a dozen encounters that literally did nothing to an undead party. Likewise, I don't think they'd...
Aren't you supposed to be investigators for powerful NPCs? I figure they would have accounted for you being undead and being able to enforce their will on other undead.
Blood Lords is one of the APs I found interesting. If Kingmaker hadn't come out, I'd probably have started that AP.
I read up on Geb. It's an undead kingdom where undead outnumber the living. So it was expected that you be the enforcers able to hammer the undead as undead because they couldn't hurt you the usual ways, but you were PCs who could hurt them with other methods.
I'll read it and run it at some point. I'm looking forward to the undead archetypes. Hopefully they update them enough to be usable with the remaster.