Pathfinder 2E Another Deadly Session, and It's Getting Old

[ronaldsf]

Traps in PF2 hit above their weight class because they're balanced to be "speed bumps" that the party follows up with about of healing. If a simple trap figures as part of an encounter, I include complex trap XP instead of simple trap XP which is 80% lower, and I include it in the Encounter's math.

That said, while the phantasmal killer trap adhered to the guidelines for a Level 10 trap, it did NOT have the effect of being a "speed bump" like most traps. For level 8 characters, there is no easy way to come back from death.

So I question the wisdom of placing an instakill trap tuned to 2 higher levels than the party. Plus, particularly severe effects merit lower DCs according to the guidelines.

 

[ronaldsf]

I think the big encounter areas in Age of Ashes Volume 2 were designed with the following mindset:
-enemies can react dynamically like similar areas did in PF1 APs
-use a certain proportion of severe/moderate/low encounters as prescribed under the "recipes" in the GMG
-not considering that a party needs to rest and recover after a severe encounter or from a trap

Paizo's team had done the math on the one hand, but they neglected what happens when you smash all these things together. And the lack of guidance in both the core rulebook and the GMG about time between encounters how to manage and balance intelligence anime Sue combined forces, is a significant mistake.

 

[CapnZapp]

I was looking at the average damage table in the gmg. The average of 10d6 (it’s heightened to level 5) is equivalent to a 14th level complex hazard.

Any old level 9 spellcaster gets to cast level 5 spells... shrug

Not that I think the damage of the effect has come up - all we have been discussing so far has been about the death effect.

But we are in agreement that the simplest change to make the Wrath of the Destroyer trap "compliant" would be to simply make it single-use.

A slightly more involved change would be to make it a level 7 hazard (using the un-heightened spell), with lower DCs of course. Then you could even run it the intuitive way - the way Retreater ran it: the trap triggers as the doors open. Adding a level 7 hazard to the three existing monsters probably increases the difficulty of the combined encounter beyond "moderate", but still nothing out of bounds.

My point here is that it's quite possible Retreater's player's rolls would still make the character end up dead even if the trap did conform to guidelines.

(I'm here assuming it is the spell's level, not the hazard's level, that matters for the purpose of the Incapacitation rule. Not 100% sure what applies to spells cast by hazards; if the hazard actually casts the spell or merely recreates its effects. If level 8 heroes are protected, make the hazard level 8)

 

[CapnZapp]

I read it quite differently! To me it seems like the writer was expecting the temple to be run dynamically. Look at the descriptions of the creature tactics in areas C3 and C4:

Spoiler

C3: Should the cultists here the sounds of combat or otherwise become aware of intruders, however, they rapidly equip their gear and move to join the battle.
C4: Should they become aware of intruders within the fortress, they heat their warhammers in the trench before running to join the battle.

Very clearly a frontal assault is intended to be cause a dynamic response from the dungeon. The tactics of the priest in c7 are to avoid the negation of the door trap by having him open it when he hears fighting or to keep a reserve force in case the PC’s choose to use attrition tactics.

Also notice how the walls are described - they tell both how to climb them and how to break through them. Clearly the author intended for the characters to try creative approaches to the situation.

It's even possible the writer had no understanding of the first commandment to PF2 gamesmastering:

Thou shalt not smush encounters together.

By that I mean, you can totally have dungeon denizens act "dynamically".

Just as long as they practically never combine forces...

 

[CapnZapp]

Yes, and that's how I'm going to handle it at the (virtual) table. They're going to go back to the same encounter, one level higher and with a bonus Hero Point (I hope that's enough), with the same characters to try again. Future encounters can be tweaked, but they want to see (from a purely academic perspective) if they can beat the encounter as it was presented if they have an extra edge and knowledge of the hazard.
Considering the recommendation of a Stealth approach, I did describe the temple as having exterior walls that could be climbed and hinted that they could approach in a more favorable method than attacking the front gates.
However, in systems such as PF2 when it benefits the party to have highly specialized characters, only a few characters might be good at such an approach. This would either make the Stealth approach fail for everyone due to bad rolls or having a split party. Perhaps the wizard could levitate up there and the monk could Stealth approach, leaving the warriors and cleric on the ground - but that could get very bad.

This is another bugbear in the system. Without very specific feats, PF2 characters come across as strangely hobbled once you leave the core "move on a grid and kill stuff".

But it will have to wait until another time.

 

[CapnZapp]

Traps in PF2 hit above their weight class because they're balanced to be "speed bumps" that the party follows up with about of healing. If a simple trap figures as part of an encounter, I include complex trap XP instead of simple trap XP which is 80% lower, and I include it in the Encounter's math.

That said, while the phantasmal killer trap adhered to the guidelines for a Level 10 trap, it did NOT have the effect of being a "speed bump" like most traps. For level 8 characters, there is no easy way to come back from death.

So I question the wisdom of placing an instakill trap tuned to 2 higher levels than the party. Plus, particularly severe effects merit lower DCs according to the guidelines.

This is clearly a complex trap. It rolls initiative, it spends actions, and it alone counts as a "Moderate 8" encounter. So it is complex, not simple.

As stated elsewhere, even before we take the death effect into account, the damage alone of a Phantasmal Killer spell the trap can cast over and over again, is more like a complex level 14 hazard.

But this hardly matters. You can easily create a "moderate 8" encounter with a caster capable of getting off at least two Phantasmal Killer spells.

The only variable that matters is that this specific spell has a considerably higher risk of instadeath than most other spells. This does not mean that it is inappropriate. Just that it should be used sparingly. A single Phantasmal Killer spell cast would have been enough (and would probably still have killed Retreater's player's character)

 

[CapnZapp]

I think the big encounter areas in Age of Ashes Volume 2 were designed with the following mindset:
-enemies can react dynamically like similar areas did in PF1 APs
-use a certain proportion of severe/moderate/low encounters as prescribed under the "recipes" in the GMG
-not considering that a party needs to rest and recover after a severe encounter or from a trap

Paizo's team had done the math on the one hand, but they neglected what happens when you smash all these things together. And the lack of guidance in both the core rulebook and the GMG about time between encounters how to manage and balance intelligence anime Sue combined forces, is a significant mistake.

Failing to take what happens when you smash many rules subsystems together into account, yep, that is a good summary of me grading Paizo's design expertise.

In area after area I find rules that - viewed in isolation - appears reasonable or even fine. But when used in conjunction with other systems (and the entire game) completely falls apart and needs either to be houseruled or dropped entirely.

 

[kenada]

(I'm here assuming it is the spell's level, not the hazard's level, that matters for the purpose of the Incapacitation rule. Not 100% sure what applies to spells cast by hazards; if the hazard actually casts the spell or merely recreates its effects. If level 8 heroes are protected, make the hazard level 8)

If the examples in the CRB are any indication, they’ll only tell us the spell level when it doesn’t matter (e.g., when the hazard casts fireball).

 

[!DWolf]

Considering the recommendation of a Stealth approach, I did describe the temple as having exterior walls that could be climbed and hinted that they could approach in a more favorable method than attacking the front.

They are also relatively fragile, so you could also perform a dynamic-entry kool-aid man style

However, in systems such as PF2 when it benefits the party to have highly specialized characters, only a few characters might be good at such an approach. This would either make the Stealth approach fail for everyone due to bad rolls or having a split party. Perhaps the wizard could levitate up there and the monk could Stealth approach, leaving the warriors and cleric on the ground - but that could get very bad.

Not 100% relevant to this exact situation, but in my experience, the way it works is that one or two high stealth characters sneak forward while the rest hang back covering them with ranged weapons. The high stealth characters (and those who can Follow the Leader) then sneak up and secure an area (either by watching the guard patrols for an opening or eliminating them) and the rest of the party moves up into it. Repeat until the infiltration is complete or the alarm goes up. They often argument their approach with magic (silence, invisibility, pest form, spider climb, etc.) and occasionally mundane items: pitons, ropes, traps, etc.

There is also an infiltration subsystem in the GMG. It might be overkill for what you are doing though.

 

[Campbell]

As far as Stealth goes do not forget about Follow The Expert which makes things still pretty difficult, but doable.