| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they just wrote the modules like they would any module that focused on undead and totally forgot that this campaign encouraged undead/evil PCs.
My guess would be that the AP was designed with a mixed party in mind. For instance, human, dwarf, changeling and halfling are all recommended ancestries alongside dhampir and skeleton.
They definitely dropped the ball in the player's guide though, they should have warned that 100% living parties, mixed parties, and 100% undead parties would all have radically different experiences.
We can't really use that encounter nor should it hqve been raised in this thread as ut is a h7ge deviation from RAW with custom house rules completely changing how that encounter ought to play out.
Not at all a good example of anything.
We can't really use that encounter nor should it hqve been raised in this thread as ut is a h7ge deviation from RAW with custom house rules completely changing how that encounter ought to play out.
Not at all a good example of anything.
If you feel like it's a big deviation from RAW and it would make you feel better, pretend that our party didn't have free archetype: undead and are just living PCs.
Nothing actually changes, except now we don't have some random undead abilities that we didn't use in the combat anyway. Living PCs can absolutely take negative damage.
Or we can instead talk about the magus encounter from hell, with magus NPCs that have at-will reaction conflux spells and 16 spell slots rather than the traditional 4. Which has nothing to do with house rules and which TPK'd us completely legitimately.
PCs can and do die to squads of lower level NPCs.
Yeah. They can and do die from them. It still doesn't change that the worst encounters I've faced are CR+2 bosses with squads of monsters.
Single big monsters are pretty weak.
Squads of lower level monsters aren't usually a problem either to a prepared and well built party, not even 6 dread wraiths, especially with a cleric.
Hardest squad of creatures I've seen is AoE caster monsters or ranged. Those can be really problematic for a lot of parties, which is why we almost include ranged blaster power and an archer in our groups.
To me that group should have been ok if they were able to use positive energy and had items like negative resistance rings or items. They apparently didn't have any pre-cast buffs from the previous fight that were still going.
I don't see 6 elite dread wraiths CR-3 wiping a party out that has decent AC and knows how to fight together. Main thing that seems to have jacked them is the lack of ability to use positive energy and if living a lack of items to resist undead attacks.
I'm going to try this encounter some time against one of our parties and see if with positive energy use this encounter becomes far, far easier.
My opinion after hearing all you told us is your GM may have made an error in judgment sending that encounter at you given the parameters of that particular campaign and that situation. Most DMs are not malicious and as I stated I've made the mistake of overestimating my players while forgetting they are not invincible causing a few TPKs over the years I did not intend. I hate that sour look from my players when I misjudge the power of an encounter and kill them, especially if they get minimal chance to fight back as it sounds like your party lost the healer early on and it was probably a downhill battle to a TPK after that.
I'm sure almost every DM that has done this for any length of time has made such encounters misjudging the power of an encounter in a particular set of circumstances, especially if coupled with unlucky rolls.
Not really. Even if I day an all living party I would have to chamge the assumption of positive energy was illegal which changes the encounter.
There is also the fact the undead rise through the floor with no counter play where 6 somehow know the cleric is the issue.
Basically a GM can make even moderate or lower encounter much harder by changing the default assumptions. In which case if you put the party at an extreme disadvantage then it is mo longer a moderate encounter.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We can't really use that encounter nor should it hqve been raised in this thread as ut is a h7ge deviation from RAW with custom house rules completely changing how that encounter ought to play out.
Not at all a good example of anything.
If you feel like it's a big deviation from RAW and it would make you feel better, pretend that our party didn't have free archetype: undead and are just living PCs.
Nothing actually changes, except now we don't have some random undead abilities that we didn't use in the combat anyway. Living PCs can absolutely take negative damage.
Or we can instead talk about the magus encounter from hell, with magus NPCs that have at-will reaction conflux spells and 16 spell slots rather than the traditional 4. Which has nothing to do with house rules and which TPK'd us completely legitimately.
PCs can and do die to squads of lower level NPCs.
Yeah. They can and do die from them. It still doesn't change that the worst encounters I've faced are CR+2 bosses with squads of monsters.
Single big monsters are pretty weak.
Squads of lower level monsters aren't usually a problem either to a prepared and well built party, not even 6 dread wraiths, especially with a cleric.
Hardest squad of creatures I've seen is AoE caster monsters or ranged. Those can be really problematic for a lot of parties, which is why we almost include ranged blaster power and an archer in our groups.
To me that group should have been ok if they were able to use positive energy and had items like negative resistance rings or items. They apparently didn't have any pre-cast buffs from the previous fight that were still going.
I don't see 6 elite dread wraiths CR-3 wiping a party out that has decent AC and knows how to fight together. Main thing that seems to have jacked them is the lack of ability to use positive energy and if living a lack of items to resist undead attacks.
I'm going to try this encounter some time against one of...
The worst encounters you face are not necessarily those most playing groups face.
And you might not notice it, but you present your own experiences and conclusions as universal even though your group's game style and houserules are really specific.
It ends up reading as if you were scolding / belittling others, which, I guess, is not your intention.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not really. Even if I day an all living party I would have to chamge the assumption of positive energy was illegal which changes the encounter.
There is also the fact the undead rise through the floor with no counter play where 6 somehow know the cleric is the issue.
Basically a GM can make even moderate or lower encounter much harder by changing the default assumptions. In which case if you put the party at an extreme disadvantage then it is mo longer a moderate encounter.
It's a severe encounter in the book and honestly for me personally I'd hate removing the illegality of positive energy in geb more than a tpk if I were in that situation, it'd just feel too much to me like undercutting the roleplay and setting and being like what's the point
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...We can't really use that encounter nor should it hqve been raised in this thread as ut is a h7ge deviation from RAW with custom house rules completely changing how that encounter ought to play out.
Not at all a good example of anything.
If you feel like it's a big deviation from RAW and it would make you feel better, pretend that our party didn't have free archetype: undead and are just living PCs.
Nothing actually changes, except now we don't have some random undead abilities that we didn't use in the combat anyway. Living PCs can absolutely take negative damage.
Or we can instead talk about the magus encounter from hell, with magus NPCs that have at-will reaction conflux spells and 16 spell slots rather than the traditional 4. Which has nothing to do with house rules and which TPK'd us completely legitimately.
PCs can and do die to squads of lower level NPCs.
Yeah. They can and do die from them. It still doesn't change that the worst encounters I've faced are CR+2 bosses with squads of monsters.
Single big monsters are pretty weak.
Squads of lower level monsters aren't usually a problem either to a prepared and well built party, not even 6 dread wraiths, especially with a cleric.
Hardest squad of creatures I've seen is AoE caster monsters or ranged. Those can be really problematic for a lot of parties, which is why we almost include ranged blaster power and an archer in our groups.
To me that group should have been ok if they were able to use positive energy and had items like negative resistance rings or items. They apparently didn't have any pre-cast buffs from the previous fight that were still going.
I don't see 6 elite dread wraiths CR-3 wiping a party out that has decent AC and knows how to fight together. Main thing that seems to have jacked them is the lack of ability to use positive energy and if living a lack of items to resist undead attacks.
I'm going to try this
It's not my intent. I'm listing my particular experience in regards to encounters for that particular subject.
I had exactly the same experience in combat playing the base game, which is why all my analysis is based on the base game absent my house rules which applies to monsters and enemy casters as well. Good for the goose, good for the gander is how I tend to balance things.
I've greatly improved wizards and made everyone a spontaneous caster with Vancian preparation in my home games. My players enjoy casters more than they did prior. I understand why they enjoy it more and it was my intent to make it so. So problem solved in my personal games.
I did find it interesting that even the wizard's are fine players rated the class lower on the caster scale.
I've also read that Paizo has taken steps to improve the wizard as regardless of the reason why, there has been the most dissatisfaction with the current iteration of the wizard class amongst at last a small and vocal minority of the player base. They are not wrong about all their complaints.
If all of us pushing for a better wizard and witch leads to an improved wizard and witch, even the folks debating the other side will enjoy the class even more. So it's a win-win if the wizard and witch are improved in the remaster.
I've greatly improved wizards and made everyone a spontaneous caster with Vancian preparation in my home games. My players enjoy casters more than they did prior. I understand why they enjoy it more and it was my intent to make it so. So problem solved in my personal games.
You mean like in D&D 5E? Preparing spells on rest but you can cast the one you want with your slots like spontaneous?
Is not that just Flexible spellcasting? But without sacrificing each level slot.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fairness they have life sense, which detects undead creatures.
And yes the entire point of Geb is that positive damage is illegal. It's not exactly fair to say "if you want to play in Geb and not be undead you deserve what you get". Which seems to be what is being said.
Also - what's to say positive energy is a thing you have? Wizards, bards, psychics, magi, many sorcerers...none of them have access to positive energy.
The default assumption seems to be "everyone should be armed to the teeth to fight undead". But take a look at the parties you've seen before. Is that borne out in your actual play experience? Did ALL of them come equipped with huge quantities of positive damage?
Maybe, depends on the party and the typical enemies of the campaign. In Geb where undead are super frequent I would expect the party to be prepared to deal with undead.
Sorcs can get access to heal pretty easily with cross blooded at 8th level for a feat and most sorcs take the feat to pick up a spell they are likely to need. Disrupt undead as a cantrip is easy for anyone to pick up with an ancestry feat (and if you are doing the remaster rules will scale nicely for casters in terms of spell DCs). Positive energy bombs are easy enough to pick up.
It does seem your party was very very suboptimal for that kind of encounter, not saying it doesn't happen to other parties but I wouldn't put that down as a typical encounter with lower CR enemies. It was on the back of another encounter without giving the characters a chance to regroup, it allowed no counter play with the undead coming through the floor. The GM set it up so they new to focus the cleric and were somehow able to get them all in range for reactive strikes. Any GM can create similarly unbalanced encounters using lower level enemies but this is not the typical (and certainly not in most APs as written) encounter design and you had a party that was really poorly designed to handle undead encounters in an undead campaign.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've greatly improved wizards and made everyone a spontaneous caster with Vancian preparation in my home games. My players enjoy casters more than they did prior. I understand why they enjoy it more and it was my intent to make it so. So problem solved in my personal games.You mean like in D&D 5E? Preparing spells on rest but you can cast the one you want with your slots like spontaneous?
Is not that just Flexible spellcasting? But without sacrificing each level slot.
I created these house rules before the flexible casting archetype.
Yes. It's 5E Vancian casting. People seem to think Spontaneous is not Vancian, but 5E made spontaneous Vancian casting which is what I now prefer as with the reduced number of slots, it allows more impactful use of the more balanced magic system. If you aren't going to have spells as powerful, might as well let the casters including wizards and witches use the best spell they have prepared in the most appropriate slot so they can have the most impact with their very limited casting resources.
It's Geb. Sure there are things out there to murder undead. But positive energy is illegal in Geb.
And it would have been even worse if we'd brought a necromancer wizard or an evil champion, like the player's guide recommended.
So yes. We didn't bring a shining oath champion or a good aligned sunburst cleric. They'd have been completely wrong for the campaign. And we didn't bring ghost touch. Maybe we should. But that's really the only thing that was legal that we didn't bring.
So I really don't think it's fair to say "oh you were just suboptimal".
Negative energy protection isn't illegal though? Adventurers are noted for playing hard and fast with the law in most cases - its only illegal if you get caught (kind of like the dreadwraith's tactic - no witnesses in an evil society = no legal issues).
The AP assumes a high likelihood for some undead PCs. You still have access to force spells/bombs, ghost touch runes. Kineticist is (unless healing) notably out of luck against incorporeal creatures. There are non positive energy ways of dealing with incorporeal undead, not as good but there are options.
But my point is the encounter has other things going on that make lower CR creatures a much bigger threat than they typically are so its not a good example of lower CRs being a huge threat. Your party was woefully unprepared and built to deal with undead no matter the reason for it. All of those things amount to an extremely rare circumstance that is hard to accept (even as an anecdote) about lower CR enemies being a big threat.
I've greatly improved wizards and made everyone a spontaneous caster with Vancian preparation in my home games. My players enjoy casters more than they did prior. I understand why they enjoy it more and it was my intent to make it so. So problem solved in my personal games.You mean like in D&D 5E? Preparing spells on rest but you can cast the one you want with your slots like spontaneous?
Is not that just Flexible spellcasting? But without sacrificing each level slot.I created these house rules before the flexible casting archetype.
Yes. It's 5E Vancian casting. People seem to think Spontaneous is not Vancian, but 5E made spontaneous Vancian casting which is what I now prefer as with the reduced number of slots, it allows more impactful use of the more balanced magic system. If you aren't going to have spells as powerful, might as well let the casters including wizards and witches use the best spell they have prepared in the most appropriate slot so they can have the most impact with their very limited casting resources.
Well that sounds interesting, so we would have the 3 options:
- Spontaneous Vancian: have to prepare each spell to the level want to cast, so would need to prepare multiple times the same spell to cast it as different levels. In other words, no signature spells.
- Spontaneous: repertoire with 1 signature spell of each level.
- Flexible spellcasting: sacrifice 1 slot of each level to have a Collection with all spells as signature.
If the table is good with prepared and players handle it well and are happy OK, but if players are not comfortable or when no one uses prepared casters then you know there is a problem and trying that would be an option.
Has someone suggested it to Paizo for the remake? Maybe not (or yes) for replacing completely, but giving both as options for prepared so you could play with the most old fashion style or the new using the core rules instead house ones.
That system is used in a "similar" game (D&D 5E) so it should work and be balanced.
I've greatly improved wizards and made everyone a spontaneous caster with Vancian preparation in my home games. My players enjoy casters more than they did prior. I understand why they enjoy it more and it was my intent to make it so. So problem solved in my personal games.You mean like in D&D 5E? Preparing spells on rest but you can cast the one you want with your slots like spontaneous?
Is not that just Flexible spellcasting? But without sacrificing each level slot.I created these house rules before the flexible casting archetype.
Yes. It's 5E Vancian casting. People seem to think Spontaneous is not Vancian, but 5E made spontaneous Vancian casting which is what I now prefer as with the reduced number of slots, it allows more impactful use of the more balanced magic system. If you aren't going to have spells as powerful, might as well let the casters including wizards and witches use the best spell they have prepared in the most appropriate slot so they can have the most impact with their very limited casting resources.
Well that sounds interesting, so we would have the 3 options:
- Spontaneous Vancian: have to prepare each spell to the level want to cast, so would need to prepare multiple times the same spell to cast it as different levels. In other words, no signature spells.
- Spontaneous: repertoire with 1 signature spell of each level.
- Flexible spellcasting: sacrifice 1 slot of each level to have a Collection with all spells as signature.
If the table is good with prepared and players handle it well and are happy OK, but if players are not comfortable or when no one uses prepared casters then you know there is a problem and trying that would be an option.
Has someone suggested it to Paizo for the remake? Maybe not (or yes) for replacing completely, but giving both as options for prepared so you could play with the most old fashion style or the new using the core rules...
It's just like 5E.
Prepare your list like Vancian. Spells have levels or ranks. Heighten at will.
The only thing eliminated is the spell being forgotten after a prepared caster uses it which was only one aspect of Vancian casting, which is why I call it Spontaneous Vancian casting. It combines aspects of Vancian casting with spontaneous casting.
Some folks seem to think non-Vancian casting means spell points or something.
I think it's just easiest to keep the level or rank format of Vancian casting and the once prepared on the list it stays prepared until you can change the list, but when it comes to actually using the spells you use the spell needed.
The slots are already so limited, it makes your entire list more valuable. The number of balance limiters in place are so effective at ensuring you can't break the game, it works fine.
PF2 game designers did a really nice job of creating multiple balance points in the game. PF2 is layered with balance limiters that create this tightly balanced game. Once you understand all these layered balance points, you can remove a few without breaking the game.
PF2 is a very nicely designed game that is very modular, tightly balanced, and easy to modify all in one. I changed this one thing and all the other balance points in place ensure I can still run the game fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's just like 5E.
Prepare your list like Vancian. Spells have levels or ranks. Heighten at will.
The only thing eliminated is the spell being forgotten after a prepared caster uses it which was only one aspect of Vancian casting, which is why I call it Spontaneous Vancian casting. It combines aspects of Vancian casting with spontaneous casting.
Some folks seem to think non-Vancian casting means spell points or something.
I think it's just easiest to keep the level or rank format of Vancian casting and the once prepared on the list it stays prepared until you can change the list, but when it comes to actually using the spells you use the spell needed.
The slots are already so limited, it makes your entire list more valuable. The number of balance limiters in place are so effective at ensuring you can't break the game, it works fine.
PF2 game designers did a really nice job of creating multiple balance points in the game. PF2 is layered with balance limiters that create this tightly balanced game. Once you understand all these layered balance points, you can remove a few without breaking the game.
PF2 is a very nicely designed game that is very modular, tightly balanced, and easy to modify all in one. I changed this one thing and all the other balance points in place ensure I can still run the game fine.
Well notice that in that case the "prepared" are just the best, as it's like a repertoire that can be changed on rest with all the spells as signature, so there would be no reason to use a pure spontaneous.
Think that on D&D 5E that is balanced in other ways like Metamagic exclusive for Sorcerer and other features.Probably for your games is a way to balance the whole considering the focus spells and other features. But if we split by pieces, taking only the slots spellcasting, using the system I mention would be more balanced, with "prepared" not having signature but can change the "repertoire" on rest, so compensates.
For balancing, maybe in games like yours where focus spells are so important could allow the Wizard to get Sorcerer focus spells and things like that, instead improving so much the prepared casting. I.e. allowing the evoker to get the Elementalist Sorcerer focus spells with their corresponding 3 feats (the same than the Sorcerer ones at the same level).
This is balancing part by part.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's just like 5E.
Prepare your list like Vancian. Spells have levels or ranks. Heighten at will.
The only thing eliminated is the spell being forgotten after a prepared caster uses it which was only one aspect of Vancian casting, which is why I call it Spontaneous Vancian casting. It combines aspects of Vancian casting with spontaneous casting.
Some folks seem to think non-Vancian casting means spell points or something.
I think it's just easiest to keep the level or rank format of Vancian casting and the once prepared on the list it stays prepared until you can change the list, but when it comes to actually using the spells you use the spell needed.
The slots are already so limited, it makes your entire list more valuable. The number of balance limiters in place are so effective at ensuring you can't break the game, it works fine.
PF2 game designers did a really nice job of creating multiple balance points in the game. PF2 is layered with balance limiters that create this tightly balanced game. Once you understand all these layered balance points, you can remove a few without breaking the game.
PF2 is a very nicely designed game that is very modular, tightly balanced, and easy to modify all in one. I changed this one thing and all the other balance points in place ensure I can still run the game fine.
Well notice that in that case the "prepared" are just the best, as it's like a repertoire that can be changed on rest with all the spells as signature, so there would be no reason to use a pure spontaneous.
Think that on D&D 5E that is balanced in other ways like Metamagic exclusive for Sorcerer and other features.Probably for your games is a way to balance the whole considering the focus spells and other features. But if we split by pieces, taking only the slots spellcasting, using the system I mention would be more balanced, with "prepared" not having signature but can change the "repertoire" on rest, so compensates.
For balancing, maybe in games...
That's another thing that worked out fine as well. Spells are not overly strong, so the base class chassis becomes more important.
The sorcerer has much stronger feats than the prepared classes. They get 36 total spells, which rarely feels limiting.
Bard has a much better class chassis than the prepared casters as well.
Psychic also has much more interesting class abilities as does the oracle.
So the prepared casters still are rarely made other than the magus or druid, which both have strong class chassis abilities.
Spells alone are an insufficient reason to play a class in PF2, thus even with my house rule the prepared casters do not get played as often due to boring class feats and class chassis abilities.
One player likes the fervor witch for a healer/support caster when it is his turn to play one.
Another guy has been trying a wizard here or there but he gets bored of playing them as well as watching other classes do far more exciting things than cast a spell and hope for a failed save.
So due to how well they built certain classes, prepared casters don't dominate caster play either. They don't have very fun feats or abilities. And the powerful, encounter destroyer spells are all gone, so that attraction isn't there any more either.
Think that on D&D 5E that is balanced in other ways like Metamagic exclusive for Sorcerer and other features.It's not. Sorc in 5e has so little known spells that they are almost always strictly worse then Wizards (and especially Bards). Metamagic and (frequently very weak) class features don't make this right at all.
Single-class sorcerer isn't great but as a dip that another class takes it has a fantastic niche. I find many of the weaker classes in 5e have some role even if they aren't good played single class from 1 to 20.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
5E Sorc was great for the paladin/sorc/warlock multiclass smiter and caster. 5E wizard definitely better than sorc as straight class.