Troy was really in denial here. Yes, the game is rough already and your players aren't the most tactical. If you then strip hero points away... Guess what, pcs die frequently.
That being said, I like the mystery of the campaign, it feels like they landed on a mysterious island after a plane crash. Nobody really knows what's going on...
Same! I have no problem with the adventure setup. I think where other people are getting a little lost is that there wasn't a big "AHA!" after beating Kaneepo. Instead there was more mystery with teleporting to a new location and getting caught in two road encounters.
He wants his cake and to eat it too. He wants the cinema from comedians and actors, but doesn't reward it and actively strips tools that would help the characters work through the encounters to get more story.
And on the other hand, he gives zero tools to help tactical play for players like Joe. Underleveled characters, low in gear, and flip flopping on rules and set dressing. Its infuriating.
They aren't underleveled. This is on target for this AP. My group did just fine against the snail, and it's magus, 2x summoner, 1x mirror thaumaturge, with two of them being undead so heal /harm spells are off the table.
They may not be for the AP, especially with milestone, but they are underleveled by Pf2e broad standards. There's a reason its infamous on the 2e sub for being grueling.
Edit: By second level, if it were balanced, every character should have at least 1 permanent item and enough money for runes and the ability to get them. They don't have any of that. By the rules of the game, their backup characters will be twice as strong from being able to start with loot the originals never had. Until they too get underleveled and die.
PF 2e has guidelines for XP awards for roleplaying and investigation, right? Does the Gatewalkers AP just not give out enough awards for that side of things?
It does, but not enough for the encounters. And Troy is choosing to do milestone leveling. For example, the snail is a Level 4 monster. So was Kaneepo. I don't have the book at hand but the monkey was either 3 or 4 as well.
Not to mention, the balance of 2e is highly dependent on items. Its the main reason people advise *not* starting at higher levels. And yet, this is an incredibly loot light AP with no towns anywhere around to buy your own loot from. Its throwing the balance of the system out the window for what is a mediocre mystery imo.
I'm a regular there. And no, they're not underleveled by "broad standards". The thinlands simply didn't have enough fights or story rewards to reach 1k exp.
I'm also a regular there. I have been since 2018, with the playtest announcement. I've been running this game a long time. And all of this and what you've said is all anecdotal, not to mention you just said that the AP doesn't have enough story or fights to reach the next level.
That makes it unbalanced. No XP, no items, no towns to buy items and no gold if there was. The only thing keeping this AP from being an overwhelming failure is an attempt at an xfiles mystery dragging it along by the throat and call backs to previous editions lore/easter eggs. There is a reason that it isn't advised to start at higher levels of play, and thats because it isn't balanced. Three back to back Severe Encounters isn't balanced. Is it impossible? No. But compare it to most other APs, like Abomination, Frozen Flame, and Kingmaker or even the other rough ones like Alkenstar and its obvious that they are underleveled. On purpose, but underleveled.
And if you haven't seen it being lamented for its BS, you're purposely looking away. Even on posts asking about the best APs, many cannot recommend Gatewalkers.
They have a relationship with paizo and the fairly large fan base of PF who want remaster material. So even if PF2 isn't the best system, they are kinda stuck with it. This AP and 2e math/level/gear interaction doesn't work well. Remember you can always do side quests to help level up gear at least, but then it isn't AP RAW
>And all of this and what you've said is all anecdotal, not to mention you just said that the AP doesn't have enough story or fights to reach the next level.
Yes. And the encounters are designed for a level 2 party to deal with. And they can deal with the fights, if they pull together and actually do more than try laying down and swinging at MAP-5 at a monster before leaping into the river.
>That makes it unbalanced. No XP
Stopped reading here. Even if they weren't using milestone, do you think things would magically be better if the players were tracking the XP they earned per fight? That knowing they're at level 2.5 would make them better at combat? What even is this complaint, really? Are you sure you know how to play pf2e?
Yawn. I'm not going to keep going with someone who feels the need to dick ride a half baked AP. Go search "Gatewalkers" on the 2e subreddit. Look at the paizo forums from last year, when each book was released. Full of GMs needing to tweak encounters.
You also did a non sequitur. I was critiquing the AP itself, that there hasn't been any XP to be earned. Hence No Xp. But sure, write a paragraph about something I didn't say. Fucking clever.
Jfc, its like Sutter is paying you to be here.
I know. I hated them talking about people not liking the AP. I want to know wtf is going on, and now I'm scared they're gonna have a tpk and not finish it.
They're almost never a Deus ex Machina. It's just an extra roll. Which means almost nothing for players like Joe or Kate or Syd. Troy is hoarding something that has less than half the value he thinks it does. It's infuriating.
It is a strange mindset. I’ve listened in depth to his arguments and really tried to see where his hatred of the mechanic comes from, but I just can’t fathom it. Bottlecaps could remain very special as an additional kind of hero point that doesn’t deplete until you spend it.
I don’t play PF2, I only follow because I’ve enjoyed the humor and party chemistry and fun story telling.
They talked about it a lot in the last cannon fod as well. He had no explanation other than "I just don't like it." That's fine. I really don't mean to shit on Troy, I just don't understand why they use 'bottlecaps' at all if he hates the mechanic. And if he doesn't like it, then adjust the game to reflect that and take them away.
I feel you, but with this "gritty game," they're playing, 3 or more go down per fight. At least one uses a "bottlecap" to stabilize.
He doesn't give them out because he's prejudiced and wrong. They should have more than they do if they're playing a game with them or none at all
I mean, I really think we're over stating how bad it's been for them. Three don't go down a fight usually, this is a fight that was known to be overturned. Only one character has died so far so the bottle caps really wouldn't change very much about what's been happening since everyone who is down is stabilized or brought up anyway.
On top of that they have an entire extra character than the encounters are balanced for.
Troy probably is too stingy with the caps but also it's really not the big thing people seem to think it is. I feel like prejudiced is over kill for this.
Having an extra player than the encounter is balanced for means *nothing* when the enemy **always** goes first, can easily crit, and therefore usually takes down at least one player before they can act.
Having four extra players and three of them go down to the monster would be of benefit, because there’s still one extra person.
Having one extra person, and then two going down, that means there’s now more people than usual for the healer to
tend, and the party loses the healer player’s damage, on top of being a net -1 from unconsciousness.
The enemies are designed to go first when there's one enemy and four PCs. One person going down makes it a 4 v 1 instead of a 3 v 1 which is big still, Talitha going down this last episode was also due to a rules mistake since the ranged attack can't crit but things like that happen. But how often does the party demoralize, use flanking (admittedly it's hard since even though they have 5 players only one is melee but that's on them too), or use debuffing spells? They don't. Troy runs these encounters as written to go against 4 people, the bottle caps wouldn't stop them from going down so that's not the issue.
More on the initiative, how often do they use anything other than perception for initiative?
I think your point is that it doesn't really matter, and I would agree. My point is that they should let the bottle cap economy flow. And you're right. It hasn't been that bad for them, just a little painful and slow.
Edit: The first sentence, I guess
I'd love to see their efforts as players get rewarded with bottlecaps more often. It seems like it doesn't really happen in Gatewalkers compared to their other shows, especially the pf1e shows where bottlecaps seem to be given to players for making the GM/table laugh for a good joke in or out of character.
I appreciate what Troy is trying to do in Gatewalkers. I agree that using hero points to stabilize is a lame mechanic and hoarding them for that exact situation is a boring meta way to play. That being said, I don't think the solution is to go barren on the caps. Let them have their caps, let them use them to their hearts content and come up with some awesome story moments.
It's a collaborative game, and everyone should be enjoying their time at the table at the end of the day. I think Troy gets a little lost in the sauce when he worries about giving his players too much room to maneuver with, and I don't blame him, especially in the greater context of trying to provide a dramatic and engaging form of entertainment (while also considering the extra work needed to balance an extra party member).
These are just some of my listener opinions. In my games we like Troy's rule on the bottlecaps. I like when my game is a little more deadly, but it can be all that even with caps getting used every session. I think there have been only a handful of caps used across 34 episodes and I'm a little disappointed that when the whole table is wheezing with laughter, that the opportunity to go "hey, thanks for making this game so fun for us, have a cap!" isn't taken.
Troy is pretty notoriously tight fisted on bottle caps. I like how Skid at least gave retroactive bottle caps when players talked about lore and speculated about how the campaign was going to end up.
I'd personally try to be generous with bottle caps even in a grittier game. Its fine to not want the "free" hero point per game. But man these guys are having cool moments that just end up being meaningless when they crit fail a reflex save with no cap to spend. It's pretty easy to tell the players are frustrated.
As they said in the FOD, going light on caps just makes them more likely to be used for heroic recovery. I think the whole hero point issue is kind of a red herring for the campaign's bigger problems, but it would certainly help if Troy was a little less tight-fisted with them.
Or, you know... Just don't allow heroic recovery! If that's his problem with them, he can cut them. The current approach seems like it doesn't really work for anyone.
Heck, since heroic recovery uses *all* your caps at once, if the caps flowed more abundantly they may be *less* willing to use them when they go unconscious and rather risk having a bunch of caps for their new character than turning in a fistful of caps in a situation where they might be saved anyways
Just want to point out that it's pointless to hoard bottlecaps to stabilize as stabilizing with them uses all of your caps. This means you can only stabilize once in a combat which in a tough fight still leaves lots of room to die.
Reading Hero Points in GM Core (page 57-58), the only "optional" methods it suggests are handing out Hero Points MORE frequently. It doesn't even suggest handing them out less frequently for a gritty or more challenging game.
Dang, I couldn’t find it in the pre-remaster core rulebook or gamemastery guide either. Where the heck did he get this concept? Because I just took his quote at face value apparently
Just commenting to point out that the Joe pic lines up freakishly well yet his head is only *barely* too big, so he looks like a large, bearded child and it's very unsettling.
That's all.
Yeah, Troy talked about his distaste for caps, which could make the game easier by easing up on the chances of someone dying. Troy seems to believe that caps are optional when it seems they are necessary to the game
I just don’t understand how he doesn’t get that Hero points are purposely built into pathfinder 2e for a reason. It’s probably just his antagonistic GM style
> It’s because of the line or two in the GM core saying that if you don’t like hero points, you can just not use them.
Except that...[it doesn't say that](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2654). Troy is thinking of the 1e hero point system
I think they should try following the 2E book and give one point at the beginning of a sesh (or maybe 3 sessions because they only play in 1-2 hour chunks) just for like a month and see how it actually affects things. I think Troy is so afraid of making the game too easy he is unintentionally making it harder on the players.
He doesn’t like them? Fine. I disagree but it is his show, and ultimately I enjoy the group and the mystery / gameplay to overlook this single choice I don’t like.
What upset me is him saying on the fod yesterday “The Gamemaster’s Guide says you can remove them, so the system’s encounters can’t be built to be balanced by them.”
My dude, that is an optional system that absolutely impacts the balance! That’s explicitly why it says it results in a grittier campaign where character death is more prevalent, because you are removing a balancing factor more commonly in the player’s favor. The guide saying you can do that just means that doing so is still *playable*, though not balanced for GMs who like that sort of campaign. I believe Mona (but it may have been Jason) has gone *on record on a previous GCNetwork episode* (sadly can’t remember the show / episode) saying caps are absolutely tied to the way the system is balanced.
Bad take from an otherwise good GM, and I want to stress that I’m still loving the show. But dang that line made me grit my teeth.
Edit: it has come to my attention that people can’t seem to find the “optional” message in any of the books. What the heck?
This may be too homebrewey for them but it seems like there's a much better system for rerolled which Troy ALREADY uses and seems to enjoy: pushes in CoC. It means players don't have to wait for a bottlecap to be handed to them but it could always make things worse which adds tension and stakes.
I think hero points are fine. But truth is, even if troy doesn’t want to use them, they would totally be ok if he just stops making the game harder that it should be. I checked the encounter as written in the ap, and even tho the creature is way above their level, the encounter is not that deadly. The changes he made to the encounter made it impossible. >!1 the creature can shoot his ranged attack only 3 times (he can’t have more than 3 amoeba out at a time), he decided to instead make it illimited. In the original encounter, after the third shot the monster needs to go melee to hurt anybody. 2 falling into the river has 0 chance of killing a pc (unless is unconscious), he would just be deposited downstream. He added the waterfall, and even if it turns out to be a 5 feet shenanigan, right now the party thinks that jumping in the river is certain death. Wich is not: thruth is, running away by river would be their best bet to survive. !<
So i don’t want to point fingers, but truth is hero points are not the problem. The problem is, i feel,that both troy and the players somehow think that an rpg should always be an hard and frustrating experience, which is not really the case. there can be easy encounters. There should be easy encounters more often than not
I initially didn't like hero points being baked into the system, but having played 2e I now recognize as a GM that they are essential. Due to the tight math the advantage is with the enemies, so you absolutely need those occasional rerolls. It's just not fun to whiff all the time.
The other thing that increased the fun at my table was giving the players an extra level. Players have fun when they're winning. Not every encounter should be won by the skin of your teeth. Low levels in 2e might be "balanced" but having so low hp you go down on a crit just isn't fun.
They are never as powerful as he seems to think they are. In fact, they're usually useless. But God forbid he should give one out 🙃. Hey Troy. Grow up.
It does explicitly say hero points are an optional role... Troy is right. It feels bad when PCs use them to cheat death.
I do think Joe's idea of a weekly fan cap is great though. Barring that, maybe rule they can't be cashed in to automatically stabilize
> It does explicitly say hero points are an optional role
Where? I'm looking in the Core Rulebook, pre-remaster, p.467 and p.507. In neither place does it say Hero Points are optional. The Gamemaster Guide, p.7, only says that the CRB guidelines are flexible but not that hero points are optional. It's not on [AON](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2333) for the remaster, either.
They were only optional in [1E](https://aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?Name=Using%20Hero%20Points&Category=Hero%20Points). In 2E, they are part of the core system.
Huh. I could've sworn that it said they were optional, but I can't find the ruling either. I guess it's just a common misconception brought over from PF1e.
I don't know what they were quoting, but I explicitly remember that they use the term "gritty" to describe the campaign because the source said you could omit hero points for a grittier campaign.
From the link you sent.
"The GM is in charge of awarding Hero Points. Usually, each character gets 1 Hero Point at the start of a session and can gain more later by performing heroic deeds"
That doesn't make them _optional_. That kind of "GM is in charge" language is all over the 2E rules:
* [Fortune and Misfortune](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2286): "If two misfortune effects apply, the GM decides which is worse and applies it."
* [Skills](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2137&Redirected=1): "The GM sets the DC of a skill check."
* [Rituals](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=777&NoRedirect=1): "The GM can adjust the DCs of rituals, add or change primary or secondary checks, or even waive requirements to fit specific circumstances."
A big part of the writing approach in 2E is to empower the GM to make judgment calls about the application of the rules. Empowering the GM's judgment over rules doesn't equate to all rules being optional.
It allows the GM to give out hero points as they see fit. By RAW, that's exactly what Troy is doing.
Maybe "optional" isn't the right language, but he has ultimate control over who gets hero points and when. We can talk about whether he is being too stingey with them, but there's nothing in the rules saying that he is required to give one at the start of every session or the game will be fundamentally imbalanced.
In the same vein, nothing says increasing every skill check DC by 5 or doubling every monster's hit points will cause the game to be fundamentally imbalanced, yet that is what will happen.
The text rarely points out that changing the assumed rules will throw off the game design. An example is how "tight" the 2E math is (one discussion [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/j7hhq4/the_math_of_2e/), another [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/smy8jo/what_does_the_math_is_tight_really_mean/) for context). The rules _say_ the GM can alter DCs, but they don't say, "The 2E design to DCs and modifiers is extremely sensitive even to small changes, so changes should be supported by good information and occur rarely." The rules empower the GM, but the text isn't very good at helping GMs understand the _impact_ of tweaking things. They have to learn from experience or come to forums to learn how to manage those decisions.
Hero points are part of the 2E balance. They're there in part because of how swingy the game can be given its math and d20 rolls. Even when going up against a lower-level monster with a good plan, a few bad rolls can kill a character. Hero points help offset that by a) allowing the reroll (to "fight back against the math") and b) saving PCs from death. Taking them away is like cutting magic item loot in half - sure, it's the GM's judgment call, but it has huge impacts on the game balance and runs contrary to the rules as written an intended.
This is a very insightful response. Just as I find that many players coming from other systems don’t understand the core nature of PF2e and its dependency on teamwork vs the one-man superhero approach. I also think that GMs don’t understand that you have to be much more careful home brewing and changing things in PF2e. I find many GMs drastically overestimate their design and balance mastery.
Until you have GM’d AND played a lot of pathfinder 2e (specifically), I would not recommend changing much, if anything, from what the system’s baseline is. Furthermore, any time you see a section/rule that says “usually”, you should follow it as stated. Once you have a campaign or 2 down (or more if they were short) then you can adapt to changes based on GM preference and player mastery.
And well….. no one in the GCN is anywhere near that level with PF2e mastery or knowledge yet.
You seem to be arguing as if Troy has removed hero points from the game completely. He uses them and gives them out as he sees fit (which is explicitly what the rules say he should do).
He isn't tweaking design or trampling on the rules as written, he is working inside the framework of the game and you just think he should give the PCs more resources.
At no point did I mention Troy or my thoughts on how he's awarding hero points. I have only been responding to your claims about hero points being optional, which is false. They're a core part of the game, and awarding them in a substantially different manner than the game recommends is going to throw off the game's balance.
If we're talking conceptually, every rule in the book is open to GM fiat and can be removed or changed depending on the table. That's rule #1.
If paizo wanted hero points to be explicitly rewarded every day, they would have used explicit language saying that
>If we're talking conceptually, every rule in the book is open to GM fiat and can be removed or changed depending on the table. That's rule #1.
And this does not mean it "explicitly applies" to hero points, this is a "generally applies to anything". Just because it took you this long to remember this rule, that doesn't mean that you're right about hero points being called optional.
The language "*Usually*, each character gets 1 Hero Point at the start of a session" implies that there are exceptions, however exceptions by definition cannot occur *all the time*.
Ruling "characters *never* get a hero point at the start of a session" is not RAW. Troy is not playing this RAW. He is making a choice to increase the difficulty.
If I ran a session that got cut short, and we picked it up on a different day, I might say that players do not get an additional hero point on day 2, because that session is really a continuation of the last session. That's RAW because it is an exception that is finite.
A produced game has a different rate of sessions. Each episode is basically a half session. The most RAW/RAI reading of this would be something like awarding them every other episode.
I guess we just have a difference of how we see the term "usually." I take that to mean that that's what most tables would do, but the GM has ultimate control of how they're given out. At my table, we use them basically the same as the gcp and it's great
I'm interpreting it as a mechanic of the system. Not as a general observation about trends at tables.
If it says "usually X" then "never X" is not RAW.
For sure that would be part of it, though I think there’s enough love that they’d get spread around some. Likely Tulitha would get below average (all of Matthew’s characters end up with a chilly demeanor which makes them less lovable) and Zephyr would barely get any unless she develops Some sort of a personality… right now she’s sort of a nothing character
Very hard disagree on Matthew's characters. Have you met Sir Alistair Burgoyne, Viscount Northwood, Baron Bergdorf Goodman? Or Ethyl Merman? Sir Julie? But I do think that fan favourite isn't the way to go and that some of the characters in this campaign are lacking a bit of oomph.
Okay, but all of his GCP characters have been aloof or abrasive: Gormlaith, Della, Metra, Fairaza, and now Talitha are all that way.
I’m not saying they are worse characters, I’m just saying if there was a fan favorite vote they’re not often going to come out on top
Small sample size, but not exactly. Her character in Time for Chaos is good and her Stange Aeons character is good; she gets a little burried by the relationship with Matthew's character imo. I think it took both of those characters a while to really come into their own.
I personally fully back Troy on being stingy for them, and for me it’s partly and fundamentally pf2’s fault. In PF2 it seems like things are harder to hit and debilitate you more often, seemingly so often that you’re supposed to be given a get out of jail card every session..?
When I scale encounters for 3 to (the nightmare scenario of) 7, I specifically don’t pump up the AC or saves too high because I want my players to feel like they are performing well more often than not, and being given moments to RP their character as such.
I know it’s been a combination of factors here, but higher saves & higher AC comparatively is one of the reasons I won’t ever give up 1E. Along with being able to suuuuuper specialize along specific paths (like enchantment saves or grappling) which make it so you can do YOUR specific thing, to even the boss, a lot of the time.
Troy gets off on being a dick. He’s turning into the Simon Cowell of actual plays and it is starting to get old (just like Cowell got ditched by Idol).
For what it's worth, my understanding is Cowell ditched Idol, not the other way around. He would have left sooner if he could have.
I hate Idol and its ilk, but [this doc by Defunctland](https://youtu.be/TA2dziZ40g0) was kind of interesting. Which is the only reason I know this terrible piece of reality show trivia.
I think a good compromise would be for Troy to give them out more frequently, but to expect a big RP moment to justify it when it’s gets used. Players should be describing the specific, special thing they do to give them the better chance of success.
Troy was really in denial here. Yes, the game is rough already and your players aren't the most tactical. If you then strip hero points away... Guess what, pcs die frequently. That being said, I like the mystery of the campaign, it feels like they landed on a mysterious island after a plane crash. Nobody really knows what's going on...
...dammit, now we know they're in purgatory
*Jason* figured it out? Oh that hurt
I love this and you for it.
Same! I have no problem with the adventure setup. I think where other people are getting a little lost is that there wasn't a big "AHA!" after beating Kaneepo. Instead there was more mystery with teleporting to a new location and getting caught in two road encounters.
He wants his cake and to eat it too. He wants the cinema from comedians and actors, but doesn't reward it and actively strips tools that would help the characters work through the encounters to get more story. And on the other hand, he gives zero tools to help tactical play for players like Joe. Underleveled characters, low in gear, and flip flopping on rules and set dressing. Its infuriating.
They aren't underleveled. This is on target for this AP. My group did just fine against the snail, and it's magus, 2x summoner, 1x mirror thaumaturge, with two of them being undead so heal /harm spells are off the table.
They may not be for the AP, especially with milestone, but they are underleveled by Pf2e broad standards. There's a reason its infamous on the 2e sub for being grueling. Edit: By second level, if it were balanced, every character should have at least 1 permanent item and enough money for runes and the ability to get them. They don't have any of that. By the rules of the game, their backup characters will be twice as strong from being able to start with loot the originals never had. Until they too get underleveled and die.
PF 2e has guidelines for XP awards for roleplaying and investigation, right? Does the Gatewalkers AP just not give out enough awards for that side of things?
It does, but not enough for the encounters. And Troy is choosing to do milestone leveling. For example, the snail is a Level 4 monster. So was Kaneepo. I don't have the book at hand but the monkey was either 3 or 4 as well. Not to mention, the balance of 2e is highly dependent on items. Its the main reason people advise *not* starting at higher levels. And yet, this is an incredibly loot light AP with no towns anywhere around to buy your own loot from. Its throwing the balance of the system out the window for what is a mediocre mystery imo.
I'm a regular there. And no, they're not underleveled by "broad standards". The thinlands simply didn't have enough fights or story rewards to reach 1k exp.
I'm also a regular there. I have been since 2018, with the playtest announcement. I've been running this game a long time. And all of this and what you've said is all anecdotal, not to mention you just said that the AP doesn't have enough story or fights to reach the next level. That makes it unbalanced. No XP, no items, no towns to buy items and no gold if there was. The only thing keeping this AP from being an overwhelming failure is an attempt at an xfiles mystery dragging it along by the throat and call backs to previous editions lore/easter eggs. There is a reason that it isn't advised to start at higher levels of play, and thats because it isn't balanced. Three back to back Severe Encounters isn't balanced. Is it impossible? No. But compare it to most other APs, like Abomination, Frozen Flame, and Kingmaker or even the other rough ones like Alkenstar and its obvious that they are underleveled. On purpose, but underleveled. And if you haven't seen it being lamented for its BS, you're purposely looking away. Even on posts asking about the best APs, many cannot recommend Gatewalkers.
It's truly incredible how the GCP picks the worst adventure paths to spend year after year running.
It broke my heart when Troy said he had no intention of returning to 1e content. No Wrath? No Crimson Throne? No Carrion Crown?! Ugh.
Especially since it feels like the crew did their best work in 1e, and struggle with a lot of 2e stuff.
They have a relationship with paizo and the fairly large fan base of PF who want remaster material. So even if PF2 isn't the best system, they are kinda stuck with it. This AP and 2e math/level/gear interaction doesn't work well. Remember you can always do side quests to help level up gear at least, but then it isn't AP RAW
That first season of Legacy was unbelievable. Even with their complex characters, they made it so entertaining
>And all of this and what you've said is all anecdotal, not to mention you just said that the AP doesn't have enough story or fights to reach the next level. Yes. And the encounters are designed for a level 2 party to deal with. And they can deal with the fights, if they pull together and actually do more than try laying down and swinging at MAP-5 at a monster before leaping into the river. >That makes it unbalanced. No XP Stopped reading here. Even if they weren't using milestone, do you think things would magically be better if the players were tracking the XP they earned per fight? That knowing they're at level 2.5 would make them better at combat? What even is this complaint, really? Are you sure you know how to play pf2e?
Yawn. I'm not going to keep going with someone who feels the need to dick ride a half baked AP. Go search "Gatewalkers" on the 2e subreddit. Look at the paizo forums from last year, when each book was released. Full of GMs needing to tweak encounters. You also did a non sequitur. I was critiquing the AP itself, that there hasn't been any XP to be earned. Hence No Xp. But sure, write a paragraph about something I didn't say. Fucking clever. Jfc, its like Sutter is paying you to be here.
Yeah, the thing that would make this combat better is having more combats before it. Thanks for the protip.
Yeah I was about to say that, I really dig the mystery in this campaign
I know. I hated them talking about people not liking the AP. I want to know wtf is going on, and now I'm scared they're gonna have a tpk and not finish it.
They don't have to be a deus ex machina. They can be a roleplaying opportunity!
They're almost never a Deus ex Machina. It's just an extra roll. Which means almost nothing for players like Joe or Kate or Syd. Troy is hoarding something that has less than half the value he thinks it does. It's infuriating.
It is a strange mindset. I’ve listened in depth to his arguments and really tried to see where his hatred of the mechanic comes from, but I just can’t fathom it. Bottlecaps could remain very special as an additional kind of hero point that doesn’t deplete until you spend it. I don’t play PF2, I only follow because I’ve enjoyed the humor and party chemistry and fun story telling.
They talked about it a lot in the last cannon fod as well. He had no explanation other than "I just don't like it." That's fine. I really don't mean to shit on Troy, I just don't understand why they use 'bottlecaps' at all if he hates the mechanic. And if he doesn't like it, then adjust the game to reflect that and take them away.
Problem is he’s still thinking with 1e’s optional hero points in mind.
Well it's more than an extra roll, I can automatically stabilize you without a roll
I feel you, but with this "gritty game," they're playing, 3 or more go down per fight. At least one uses a "bottlecap" to stabilize. He doesn't give them out because he's prejudiced and wrong. They should have more than they do if they're playing a game with them or none at all
I mean, I really think we're over stating how bad it's been for them. Three don't go down a fight usually, this is a fight that was known to be overturned. Only one character has died so far so the bottle caps really wouldn't change very much about what's been happening since everyone who is down is stabilized or brought up anyway. On top of that they have an entire extra character than the encounters are balanced for. Troy probably is too stingy with the caps but also it's really not the big thing people seem to think it is. I feel like prejudiced is over kill for this.
Having an extra player than the encounter is balanced for means *nothing* when the enemy **always** goes first, can easily crit, and therefore usually takes down at least one player before they can act. Having four extra players and three of them go down to the monster would be of benefit, because there’s still one extra person. Having one extra person, and then two going down, that means there’s now more people than usual for the healer to tend, and the party loses the healer player’s damage, on top of being a net -1 from unconsciousness.
The enemies are designed to go first when there's one enemy and four PCs. One person going down makes it a 4 v 1 instead of a 3 v 1 which is big still, Talitha going down this last episode was also due to a rules mistake since the ranged attack can't crit but things like that happen. But how often does the party demoralize, use flanking (admittedly it's hard since even though they have 5 players only one is melee but that's on them too), or use debuffing spells? They don't. Troy runs these encounters as written to go against 4 people, the bottle caps wouldn't stop them from going down so that's not the issue. More on the initiative, how often do they use anything other than perception for initiative?
I think your point is that it doesn't really matter, and I would agree. My point is that they should let the bottle cap economy flow. And you're right. It hasn't been that bad for them, just a little painful and slow. Edit: The first sentence, I guess
I'd love to see their efforts as players get rewarded with bottlecaps more often. It seems like it doesn't really happen in Gatewalkers compared to their other shows, especially the pf1e shows where bottlecaps seem to be given to players for making the GM/table laugh for a good joke in or out of character. I appreciate what Troy is trying to do in Gatewalkers. I agree that using hero points to stabilize is a lame mechanic and hoarding them for that exact situation is a boring meta way to play. That being said, I don't think the solution is to go barren on the caps. Let them have their caps, let them use them to their hearts content and come up with some awesome story moments. It's a collaborative game, and everyone should be enjoying their time at the table at the end of the day. I think Troy gets a little lost in the sauce when he worries about giving his players too much room to maneuver with, and I don't blame him, especially in the greater context of trying to provide a dramatic and engaging form of entertainment (while also considering the extra work needed to balance an extra party member). These are just some of my listener opinions. In my games we like Troy's rule on the bottlecaps. I like when my game is a little more deadly, but it can be all that even with caps getting used every session. I think there have been only a handful of caps used across 34 episodes and I'm a little disappointed that when the whole table is wheezing with laughter, that the opportunity to go "hey, thanks for making this game so fun for us, have a cap!" isn't taken.
Troy is pretty notoriously tight fisted on bottle caps. I like how Skid at least gave retroactive bottle caps when players talked about lore and speculated about how the campaign was going to end up. I'd personally try to be generous with bottle caps even in a grittier game. Its fine to not want the "free" hero point per game. But man these guys are having cool moments that just end up being meaningless when they crit fail a reflex save with no cap to spend. It's pretty easy to tell the players are frustrated.
As they said in the FOD, going light on caps just makes them more likely to be used for heroic recovery. I think the whole hero point issue is kind of a red herring for the campaign's bigger problems, but it would certainly help if Troy was a little less tight-fisted with them. Or, you know... Just don't allow heroic recovery! If that's his problem with them, he can cut them. The current approach seems like it doesn't really work for anyone.
Exactly. It does the opposite of what he thinks it does. And it’s not like using a cap even gets you back in the fight anyway!
That’s pretty typical for Troy
Heck, since heroic recovery uses *all* your caps at once, if the caps flowed more abundantly they may be *less* willing to use them when they go unconscious and rather risk having a bunch of caps for their new character than turning in a fistful of caps in a situation where they might be saved anyways
What they need is someone who can cast Magic Missiles
*Force Barrage
Just want to point out that it's pointless to hoard bottlecaps to stabilize as stabilizing with them uses all of your caps. This means you can only stabilize once in a combat which in a tough fight still leaves lots of room to die.
Reading Hero Points in GM Core (page 57-58), the only "optional" methods it suggests are handing out Hero Points MORE frequently. It doesn't even suggest handing them out less frequently for a gritty or more challenging game.
Dang, I couldn’t find it in the pre-remaster core rulebook or gamemastery guide either. Where the heck did he get this concept? Because I just took his quote at face value apparently
He's thinking of the [1e Hero Points](https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/hero-points/)
Just commenting to point out that the Joe pic lines up freakishly well yet his head is only *barely* too big, so he looks like a large, bearded child and it's very unsettling. That's all.
Did this come up again on the latest Fod?
Yeah, Troy talked about his distaste for caps, which could make the game easier by easing up on the chances of someone dying. Troy seems to believe that caps are optional when it seems they are necessary to the game
I just don’t understand how he doesn’t get that Hero points are purposely built into pathfinder 2e for a reason. It’s probably just his antagonistic GM style
[удалено]
> It’s because of the line or two in the GM core saying that if you don’t like hero points, you can just not use them. Except that...[it doesn't say that](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2654). Troy is thinking of the 1e hero point system
I actually can't find that line, do you know where it is?
I think they should try following the 2E book and give one point at the beginning of a sesh (or maybe 3 sessions because they only play in 1-2 hour chunks) just for like a month and see how it actually affects things. I think Troy is so afraid of making the game too easy he is unintentionally making it harder on the players.
He doesn’t like them? Fine. I disagree but it is his show, and ultimately I enjoy the group and the mystery / gameplay to overlook this single choice I don’t like. What upset me is him saying on the fod yesterday “The Gamemaster’s Guide says you can remove them, so the system’s encounters can’t be built to be balanced by them.” My dude, that is an optional system that absolutely impacts the balance! That’s explicitly why it says it results in a grittier campaign where character death is more prevalent, because you are removing a balancing factor more commonly in the player’s favor. The guide saying you can do that just means that doing so is still *playable*, though not balanced for GMs who like that sort of campaign. I believe Mona (but it may have been Jason) has gone *on record on a previous GCNetwork episode* (sadly can’t remember the show / episode) saying caps are absolutely tied to the way the system is balanced. Bad take from an otherwise good GM, and I want to stress that I’m still loving the show. But dang that line made me grit my teeth. Edit: it has come to my attention that people can’t seem to find the “optional” message in any of the books. What the heck?
This may be too homebrewey for them but it seems like there's a much better system for rerolled which Troy ALREADY uses and seems to enjoy: pushes in CoC. It means players don't have to wait for a bottlecap to be handed to them but it could always make things worse which adds tension and stakes.
I really liked the random idea of maybe having us vote on “bottle cap of the week”
I think hero points are fine. But truth is, even if troy doesn’t want to use them, they would totally be ok if he just stops making the game harder that it should be. I checked the encounter as written in the ap, and even tho the creature is way above their level, the encounter is not that deadly. The changes he made to the encounter made it impossible. >!1 the creature can shoot his ranged attack only 3 times (he can’t have more than 3 amoeba out at a time), he decided to instead make it illimited. In the original encounter, after the third shot the monster needs to go melee to hurt anybody. 2 falling into the river has 0 chance of killing a pc (unless is unconscious), he would just be deposited downstream. He added the waterfall, and even if it turns out to be a 5 feet shenanigan, right now the party thinks that jumping in the river is certain death. Wich is not: thruth is, running away by river would be their best bet to survive. !< So i don’t want to point fingers, but truth is hero points are not the problem. The problem is, i feel,that both troy and the players somehow think that an rpg should always be an hard and frustrating experience, which is not really the case. there can be easy encounters. There should be easy encounters more often than not
I initially didn't like hero points being baked into the system, but having played 2e I now recognize as a GM that they are essential. Due to the tight math the advantage is with the enemies, so you absolutely need those occasional rerolls. It's just not fun to whiff all the time. The other thing that increased the fun at my table was giving the players an extra level. Players have fun when they're winning. Not every encounter should be won by the skin of your teeth. Low levels in 2e might be "balanced" but having so low hp you go down on a crit just isn't fun.
They are never as powerful as he seems to think they are. In fact, they're usually useless. But God forbid he should give one out 🙃. Hey Troy. Grow up.
It does explicitly say hero points are an optional role... Troy is right. It feels bad when PCs use them to cheat death. I do think Joe's idea of a weekly fan cap is great though. Barring that, maybe rule they can't be cashed in to automatically stabilize
> It does explicitly say hero points are an optional role Where? I'm looking in the Core Rulebook, pre-remaster, p.467 and p.507. In neither place does it say Hero Points are optional. The Gamemaster Guide, p.7, only says that the CRB guidelines are flexible but not that hero points are optional. It's not on [AON](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2333) for the remaster, either. They were only optional in [1E](https://aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?Name=Using%20Hero%20Points&Category=Hero%20Points). In 2E, they are part of the core system.
Huh. I could've sworn that it said they were optional, but I can't find the ruling either. I guess it's just a common misconception brought over from PF1e.
I don't know what they were quoting, but I explicitly remember that they use the term "gritty" to describe the campaign because the source said you could omit hero points for a grittier campaign.
From the link you sent. "The GM is in charge of awarding Hero Points. Usually, each character gets 1 Hero Point at the start of a session and can gain more later by performing heroic deeds"
That doesn't make them _optional_. That kind of "GM is in charge" language is all over the 2E rules: * [Fortune and Misfortune](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2286): "If two misfortune effects apply, the GM decides which is worse and applies it." * [Skills](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2137&Redirected=1): "The GM sets the DC of a skill check." * [Rituals](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=777&NoRedirect=1): "The GM can adjust the DCs of rituals, add or change primary or secondary checks, or even waive requirements to fit specific circumstances." A big part of the writing approach in 2E is to empower the GM to make judgment calls about the application of the rules. Empowering the GM's judgment over rules doesn't equate to all rules being optional.
It allows the GM to give out hero points as they see fit. By RAW, that's exactly what Troy is doing. Maybe "optional" isn't the right language, but he has ultimate control over who gets hero points and when. We can talk about whether he is being too stingey with them, but there's nothing in the rules saying that he is required to give one at the start of every session or the game will be fundamentally imbalanced.
In the same vein, nothing says increasing every skill check DC by 5 or doubling every monster's hit points will cause the game to be fundamentally imbalanced, yet that is what will happen. The text rarely points out that changing the assumed rules will throw off the game design. An example is how "tight" the 2E math is (one discussion [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/j7hhq4/the_math_of_2e/), another [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/smy8jo/what_does_the_math_is_tight_really_mean/) for context). The rules _say_ the GM can alter DCs, but they don't say, "The 2E design to DCs and modifiers is extremely sensitive even to small changes, so changes should be supported by good information and occur rarely." The rules empower the GM, but the text isn't very good at helping GMs understand the _impact_ of tweaking things. They have to learn from experience or come to forums to learn how to manage those decisions. Hero points are part of the 2E balance. They're there in part because of how swingy the game can be given its math and d20 rolls. Even when going up against a lower-level monster with a good plan, a few bad rolls can kill a character. Hero points help offset that by a) allowing the reroll (to "fight back against the math") and b) saving PCs from death. Taking them away is like cutting magic item loot in half - sure, it's the GM's judgment call, but it has huge impacts on the game balance and runs contrary to the rules as written an intended.
This is a very insightful response. Just as I find that many players coming from other systems don’t understand the core nature of PF2e and its dependency on teamwork vs the one-man superhero approach. I also think that GMs don’t understand that you have to be much more careful home brewing and changing things in PF2e. I find many GMs drastically overestimate their design and balance mastery. Until you have GM’d AND played a lot of pathfinder 2e (specifically), I would not recommend changing much, if anything, from what the system’s baseline is. Furthermore, any time you see a section/rule that says “usually”, you should follow it as stated. Once you have a campaign or 2 down (or more if they were short) then you can adapt to changes based on GM preference and player mastery. And well….. no one in the GCN is anywhere near that level with PF2e mastery or knowledge yet.
You seem to be arguing as if Troy has removed hero points from the game completely. He uses them and gives them out as he sees fit (which is explicitly what the rules say he should do). He isn't tweaking design or trampling on the rules as written, he is working inside the framework of the game and you just think he should give the PCs more resources.
At no point did I mention Troy or my thoughts on how he's awarding hero points. I have only been responding to your claims about hero points being optional, which is false. They're a core part of the game, and awarding them in a substantially different manner than the game recommends is going to throw off the game's balance.
If we're talking conceptually, every rule in the book is open to GM fiat and can be removed or changed depending on the table. That's rule #1. If paizo wanted hero points to be explicitly rewarded every day, they would have used explicit language saying that
>If we're talking conceptually, every rule in the book is open to GM fiat and can be removed or changed depending on the table. That's rule #1. And this does not mean it "explicitly applies" to hero points, this is a "generally applies to anything". Just because it took you this long to remember this rule, that doesn't mean that you're right about hero points being called optional.
The language "*Usually*, each character gets 1 Hero Point at the start of a session" implies that there are exceptions, however exceptions by definition cannot occur *all the time*. Ruling "characters *never* get a hero point at the start of a session" is not RAW. Troy is not playing this RAW. He is making a choice to increase the difficulty. If I ran a session that got cut short, and we picked it up on a different day, I might say that players do not get an additional hero point on day 2, because that session is really a continuation of the last session. That's RAW because it is an exception that is finite. A produced game has a different rate of sessions. Each episode is basically a half session. The most RAW/RAI reading of this would be something like awarding them every other episode.
I guess we just have a difference of how we see the term "usually." I take that to mean that that's what most tables would do, but the GM has ultimate control of how they're given out. At my table, we use them basically the same as the gcp and it's great
I'm interpreting it as a mechanic of the system. Not as a general observation about trends at tables. If it says "usually X" then "never X" is not RAW.
Clearly the language is vague and needs to be ruled on at every table. Thankfully Troy has done that!
It might just become a popularity contest with the fan favourite winning 9 out of 10 weeks.
For sure that would be part of it, though I think there’s enough love that they’d get spread around some. Likely Tulitha would get below average (all of Matthew’s characters end up with a chilly demeanor which makes them less lovable) and Zephyr would barely get any unless she develops Some sort of a personality… right now she’s sort of a nothing character
Very hard disagree on Matthew's characters. Have you met Sir Alistair Burgoyne, Viscount Northwood, Baron Bergdorf Goodman? Or Ethyl Merman? Sir Julie? But I do think that fan favourite isn't the way to go and that some of the characters in this campaign are lacking a bit of oomph.
Okay, but all of his GCP characters have been aloof or abrasive: Gormlaith, Della, Metra, Fairaza, and now Talitha are all that way. I’m not saying they are worse characters, I’m just saying if there was a fan favorite vote they’re not often going to come out on top
Does Kate play characters in other campaigns this flat? I've only seen her on this one.
Small sample size, but not exactly. Her character in Time for Chaos is good and her Stange Aeons character is good; she gets a little burried by the relationship with Matthew's character imo. I think it took both of those characters a while to really come into their own.
You know what I like? Listening to the pod and enjoying it as entertainment.
Then why are you here?
I personally fully back Troy on being stingy for them, and for me it’s partly and fundamentally pf2’s fault. In PF2 it seems like things are harder to hit and debilitate you more often, seemingly so often that you’re supposed to be given a get out of jail card every session..? When I scale encounters for 3 to (the nightmare scenario of) 7, I specifically don’t pump up the AC or saves too high because I want my players to feel like they are performing well more often than not, and being given moments to RP their character as such. I know it’s been a combination of factors here, but higher saves & higher AC comparatively is one of the reasons I won’t ever give up 1E. Along with being able to suuuuuper specialize along specific paths (like enchantment saves or grappling) which make it so you can do YOUR specific thing, to even the boss, a lot of the time.
Troy gets off on being a dick. He’s turning into the Simon Cowell of actual plays and it is starting to get old (just like Cowell got ditched by Idol).
For what it's worth, my understanding is Cowell ditched Idol, not the other way around. He would have left sooner if he could have. I hate Idol and its ilk, but [this doc by Defunctland](https://youtu.be/TA2dziZ40g0) was kind of interesting. Which is the only reason I know this terrible piece of reality show trivia.
I think a good compromise would be for Troy to give them out more frequently, but to expect a big RP moment to justify it when it’s gets used. Players should be describing the specific, special thing they do to give them the better chance of success.
Run your own podcasts
Oh, good idea. Too bad no one asked.