Which is why I included the words "as presented."
I'm still here, which means they have the benefit of the doubt from me.
I'd hope something like proficiency level grants a number of re-rolls on the damage die happens, then a weapon that is legendary on a legendarily proficient character could theoretically re-roll their dice up to 6 times which both removes the need for flat bonuses and deals with the swingyness of the law of averages.
Or maybe that's what Hero Points do.
If some or any of these solutions pop up then I'm back in.
Consistency does not mean flat modifiers.
Re-roll mechanics that give you a better chance at landing at those average numbers works fine.
The math is inconsistent, which inevitably makes encounter design both inconsistent and difficult to gauge.
Insulting my play style does not fix this problem.
Lord Mhoram wrote:
And you walked instead of talking to him about it, at least according to your story.
The player/DM contract matters. Still, it doesn't solve the mathematical problem that the law of averages creates with regards to the currency of combat- damage, of which one third of the game is expected to be.
If my play style is alienated by the new edition, then I have a problem with the new edition.
"You're playing the game wrong" doesn't help me fix that problem.
We have samples of data that prove the law of averages needs to be accounted for mathematically in game design. Other games deal with this in giving out re-roll mechanics.
Even the Power Attack math thread is operating under the assumption of average, consistent damage. Which, might hold true, but unless we can consistently have those numbers show up then the calcs become useless to design a game around.
Lord Mhoram wrote:
And the DMs fun didn't matter to any of you, clearly. Is the DM is only there to make sure YOU have a good time?
Kain Dragonhand wrote:
So I'm playing the game wrong then?
Good to know.
Kain Dragonhand wrote:
But does designing the game around that make it better?
If I write and plan an encounter to last a whole night because it's an epic boss fight and the law of averages happens to work against me that night and the fight is over in less than 20 minutes and I have nothing else prepared for that night is the game better?
The law of averages is great and all, but it doesn't care about you, me, or our players.
World of Darkness is a system focused entirely on the law of averages in that you invest into your skills specifically to roll more dice to increase your odds of success. It's literally the system where 'fist fulls' of dice is the norm. But it accounts for the law of averages as part of the core system.
As presented, damage economy in PF2 does not account for this.
There actually is, there are ways to add your shield bonus in PF1 to both touch AC and Reflex saves already.
And fighters can add weapon training to Reflex saves.
If you want your PF1 fighter to have amazing reflex saves, you can have amazing reflex saves.
It does however, cost you two feats and/or a feat and an Advanced Weapon Training option.
Kain Dragonhand wrote:
Dice rolling is fun, but not if my players aren't getting favorable results. Are there going to be re-roll mechanics?
I have no problem with math myself but I see many new players struggling with the concepts of what does and doesn't stack. At the same time when they roll 5d6 they have a much easier time adding the dice together than 1d6+PA mod, divine favor, luck bonus, item bonus, multiple feat bonuses, etc. Yes if a player is prepared all of that is handled beforehand but that's not always the case, especially in organized play.
Sure, and that is a separate issue from the consistency in design. I'm all for streamlining the types of bonuses that stack to cut down on math time. But it doesn't solve the consistency problem.
Also the reliance on dice variance will lead to more tense moments. That aside, getting a doom and gloom feel/approach to the new edition and damning it before you actually see it in action isn't the route to go. There's always the option of staying with 1st edition, it's not like the books are going to evaporate.
More tense moments doesn't always make the game better, especially in the instance where I'm trying to design an encounter that isn't meant to be a challenge, but the law of averages makes the challenge much harder because the players couldn't do anything about the dice not favoring them and the engine of the game mandates they rely on dice and not on tactics or character building. This is not why I play Pathfinder.
It's not necessarily gloom and doom, but more like "I've seen this before, and it wasn't good."
Mark Seifter wrote:
Is it fair to say that the game math is designed to expect critical hits more often, and that is meant to be the trade off for less consistent numbers overall?
Are there re-roll mechanics being planned to give players a chance to fight off the swingyness of the dice?
It is to my understanding that you are not well versed in 5e, but this system is very similar in execution. In 5e however, their fighter eventually gets class features that specifically allow him to re-roll 1's, not unlike the abilities that the Trickster/Rogue gets in PF1 to alleviate the mathematical inconsistency of sneak attack.
Are these options being considered? I'm guessing you can't give me spoilers, but you should be able to say "no" if they are not.
EDIT: Have I accidentally figured out what Hero Points do?
Yes, and that's my problem, but also I'm having a hard time understanding this point. If my choices matter more, then why do I have to rely on more dice to determine if I succeed? Do you see where I'm getting confused?
Personally I am looking forward to the new system because I want character design and choice to focus more on the kinds of things my character can do rather than how statically proficient they are at doing them, and that seems like the exact direction that the new edition is headed in.
Outside of combat, sure. That's why I was all for this edition with the skill blog because the numbers are all more consistent and my choices matter more. If I rely on dice to determine a whole third of the game space then my choices matter less. That's the problem, not the solution.
Maybe you would be more interested in a game that got rid of dice all together, or used lower variable dice than a D20 to make your fantasy games more chess like and less chutes and ladders like. Or maybe you are really happy with the first edition of pathfinder, and you make up your own adventures as a Game Master anyway, and already have a dedicated gaming group, so you can continue to use the massive amount of PF1 material out there to keep playing the game that you feel like gives you the right balance between chance and predicable outcomes?
The d20 is not the problem. Rolling dice is not the problem. Relying on them as a paradigm of game design is my problem. To be certain, your presumption about how I play the game is correct, I do write my own encounters and I do have a dedicated gaming group. Aspects of the second edition align perfectly with my style, especially when it comes to skills. That's the direction I want to go in, where my choices matter, not where the dice matter more than my choices.
Personally, I am finding the bloat of options (and wildly unequal options) to be getting in the way of bringing in new players and some specific issues like buff stacking and bonus types to make high level play in a live table game to be such a sluggish drag that I have been looking into other roleplaying games entirely. I am glad to see the developers seem to be tackling these specific issues and putting out a new product that will keep me with Piazo, because their adventure writing is what brought me over from WotC in the first place, and making up all of my own encounters is unappealing to me in the first place. That is a different style of game play than yours, obviously, and I am sorry you feel like the new system is...
This is my fear as well, you have extrapolated my thoughts exactly.
Law of averages. You can use average damage pretty effectively, especially once you get to two or three dice. That minimum result on 3d8 happens less than one percent of the time. You also don’t have to worry about things like x4 crit multipliers, and save-or-suck is supposed to be less swingy. Which introduces more statistical uncertainty to combat length- having 3d8+4 instead of 1d8+13, or whether the opponent makes their save vs. Hold Person?
Even in 5e there are rules in place that allow re-rolls to avoid swingy damage and hits. It's the core of that system in that the variety of results is counterbalanced with the ability to get different and more favorable results using the exact same law of averages you cite.
But it doesn't solve the problem I have in that encounter design (being one of the best parts of PF1 compared to other editions ime) is now less consistent.
Certainly I would want to see more options like the rogue gets in PF1 where I can ignore 1's or 2's on dice to get myself more consistent damage, but then if I am taxed to get those options then we haven't solved the problem from PF1. If we institute a re-roll mechanic to alleviate the swingyness of the range of variables invoking the law of averages then I find this to be poor design, again as I based my decision to continue giving Paizo my money instead of Hasbro specifically for this reason.
As presented I am not seeing consistent design with this dimension of the game. I want something to give me more consistency because that's what made Pathfinder feel like Pathfinder to me and it's what made the books worth my money in my own experience.
Mathematically speaking, skills are now more consistent. The game was even called out by the devs to say consistency was the goal.
There seems to be a disconnect here.
You have taken away consistency in favor of simplicity.
This does not by virtue accommodate good design.
Without some greater level of consistency, I'm having a hard time understanding the design paradigm of a third of the game space.
Sure, but completely nixing consistency so the dice are the only thing that matter is not necessarily better design by virtue.
Are enemy hp scaled to account for this?
Do I rely on critical hits to roll so much dice that my minimum expected values make up for it?
I want this information, not insults.
And so far, this edition of the game may cater to your style, exclusively.
Mine is alienated by the design with the information I have currently.
So you completely dodge my point yet again to milk more favorites for yourself.
Yes, as a DM I like to have a general idea of how much damage the primary damage dealer in the group can put on the board. How do you not want that information? When you design an enemy that's meant to last more than one turn how do you make sure they have enough HP? How do you make sure their AC is high enough?
I'm not nitpicking every number, I'm not trying to control every number, I just want a lower expected range than seeing anyone swinging an axe going from 8-32 damage on the same attack.
Unless enemies are all designed to have low HP and die instantly anyway?
I'm genuinely trying to figure out how this is a good system to design a game around.
RE:Wizards- literally no one cares about fireball doing 10d6 damage because it never kills anything by the time you get there unless they've already taken damage from more reliable sources. Go read, the internet will tell you the world over that blasters are wasting their spell slots trying to do damage.
Matthew Downie wrote:
If your encounter design is so tailored to the group that it needs to account for the variance in the Fighter's damage dice, how are you going to cope if the Fighter rolls a series of misses, or fails a Will save?
Enemies with abilities that require Will saves or exceptionally high ACs tend to have lower HP, because that's how my game design works.Or are you trying to be a dick by asking rhetorical questions?
Unless an enemy is also designed to die sooner rather than later? You make assumptions about how I design and then insult your own assumption about me to milk favorites. Detestable.
Matthew Downie wrote:
While that's part of it, in testing we found it almost never worth it to take said action.
Like I said, we tested this for four years.
Kain Dragonhand wrote:
When I DM a game, I want my players decisions and thought process to matter more than whether or not the dice favored them that night, because you know, role playing.
Dice give you a variance, sure, but if the entire game turns into everyone rolling a fistful of dice then where is the design going?
5e has lots of variable damage for their characters.
I have play tested a similar system, it makes the game inconsistent and it's the reason that Paizo has been getting my money instead of Hasbro.
Encounter design seems to be close to impossible, the variance on damage is so large that without more information and just what you want me to know right now it does not create a better experience. If I wanted to play Yahtzee, I'd go play Yahtzee.
It's not about 'optimization'
It's about design. Do you really want to DM a game where you can't reliably know how much damage the fighter can do so you give the enemy 60 HP so he lasts more than one turn only for the fighter to do something like 12 damage overall?
The math matters, because as a DM I want to have more reliable numbers to base my encounter design around rather than knowing a fighter with power attack could land anywhere from 8-32 damage without even considering a critical threat first.
The swingy math makes it difficult to design around, and as a player difficult to build around.
Stone Dog wrote:
You don't? I put effort into every encounter to make sure it lasts as long as I want it to, most guides to DMing tell you to be aware of how much damage the party's primary damage dealer can expect to dish out.
Kiln Norn wrote:
You can think it's silly, but please don't call me or my playstyle dumb.
I roll plenty of dice to make sure I land my attacks, it's the d20 system after all.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Remember though, he got to roll 2d6+10 twice, at least according to using Power Attack with the Unchained Action economy.
Granted, this assumes the attack at -5 still hits.
Kiln Norn wrote:
Unless I'm the DM trying to design an encounter and I have no idea how many HP to give the BBEG because the fighter could land a hit anywhere from 8 damage to 32 damage on the same swing before I even consider crits and the metric by which I have to decide how long I want this enemy to stay alive for becomes impossible to design around because of how swingy damage gets?
From a game design perspective we should know about how long the fight will take, that way I can design encounters to last an appropriate amount of time at my table.
I'm not expecting system mastery on behalf of the players, I'm expecting it on behalf of the designers.
I expect the designers to know what product they are putting out.
But go ahead, keep not talking about the actual problem I have and taking cheap personal shots at me for favorites, I'm sure that will never get old while you sit there and smirk at your keyboard.
Kiln Norn wrote:
Blasters are considered and have always been considered not optimal uses of spell slots exactly because they rely on variable dice and cannot guarantee numbers.
Honestly I've seen the same argument used for rogues. How many threads exist claiming the rogue was useless?
These concepts can't suddenly become the most amazing things ever that no one complained about, just search the forums and you'll prove yourself wrong.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Perhaps it might be a more informed decision for critical threats to be less prevalent when interacting with Power Attack.
An example, let's say there's an enemy with around 15hp, stock out of the book.
We can probably assume that I'm not going to start out right in front of him, so I spend one act[ion] to move up to him, then spend my last two to swing. I roll [4d6+4] (still unclear on if this is the correct math for greatsword damage, is it still 2d6+1.5 STR?) and get let's say 12 damage. The enemy lives.
Conversely, if I forgo my chance to crit by taking that accuracy hit with something more similar to PF1 Power Attack, I then get to roll something like [2d6+10] twice and I get my 15 damage and kill the enemy.
While in theory I have the ability to cap out at much higher damage with Power Attack in PF2, the Power Attack in PF1 guarantees me more damage that I as a player, and the rest of the group is able to rely upon. When cleaning up mooks this is wonderful since it really doesn't matter if I land a crit or not.
The added reliability factor in the math heavily influences player choices in PF1. Is the game headed toward a more variable expectation of the math in PF2? This could have unexpected and negative results at the expense of the 'wow factor' of rolling more dice. At least that is my first impression.
Prove that isn't going to also exist in PF2.
Prove that that isn't going to exist on top of needing to add in all your variable damage for your base damage before coming to your final number.
Your math is based on PF1's AC, and PF1's CR expectations and doesn't include variety as it's calculated off static averages.
You have proven nothing.
There's no way of determining if and how the numbers you add to damage become more reliable off what's been presented, so my opinion is based off what's been presented and my views here are based on years of testing the action system with the PF1 style of static numbers being the primary factor in damage calculations.
Power Attack being changed certainly is a factor. It's probably safe to assume that Double Slice is the analogue to TWF, which in the Unchained System is actually just as viable numerically as a two-handed weapon.
Vital Strike, functioning in the Unchained system almost exactly as P2's Power Attack has proven to be less effective than simply making 2 attacks.
If at the table a player saw that average number exactly as often as a P1 player got to put ut their consistent damage, then sure you might be on to something, but your math comes not from testing, but rather a baseline assumption about the new system, where I am pointing out that without anything else being added to the new iteration of Power Attack we're going to see less reliable numbers which will push more players away from the game if they are less likely to succeed where in PF1 they would not have this issue.
It makes martials worse, not better, which is the absolute most complained about problem of PF1.
I MISS KOBOLD CLEAVER!!!!!
EDIT: "this doesn't feel like Pathfinder" specifically refers to the reliance on variable dice for the meat of the damage numbers, not the entire system as a whole.
Grammar is hard.
Smite Makes Right wrote:
It really doesn't change my point, if they were having problems adding 4-5 different numbers that are static and don't change turn to turn then how is the same group going to fare when they have to add 4-5 numbers that do change every turn?
Mark Seifter wrote:
Was that not the intended trade off though since the feat was written in 3.0?
Certainly your odds of threatening a critical under the system where you are penalized on the attack roll is an issue seemingly, unless it isn't.
If Power Attack was designed so that it interacted with criticals in a favorable way then sure, we could reasonably expect it to change. However I'm not seeing a problem with trading the odds of landing a critical for guaranteed damage. In fact, that seems like it balances it a lot better in theory than creating a scenario where the numbers jump nigh exponentially in the instance of a critical hit with power attack on.
I think we should consider play testing both to see which feels more Pathfinder.
I do find it interesting some folk are complaining about having to roll extra dice when one of the "problems" with fighters vs. spellcasters was that a wizard could learn and cast Fireball that at 10 level would do 10d6 damage while the fighter at 10th level would be relying on static damage and strength and power attack bonuses. I like the concept of power attack doing an extra damage die (or two)... and for that matter magic weapons doing extra dice of damage as well.
This was never the problem with wizards. 10d6 is an atrociously weak use of a 3rd level spell comparatively speaking. Narrative influence, battlefield control, and out of combat utility were the problems with wizards over fighters.
Rubber Ducky Guy wrote:
If adding 4-5 numbers from paper is derailing the game by 30 minutes, then how is adding 4-5 numbers from a dice going to change your experience and make it better? The process is the same, but instead the player now has to deal with the system working against them roughly half the time, at best.
Stone Dog wrote:
I didn't say that you have to squeeze every drop of math out of the game. I'm saying that the options we are being presented which make the characters less mathematically reliable in practice at the table which ultimately creates less fun characters if they are not able to beat encounters due to the second set of dice they are forced to rely upon not landing where they need them to to succeed in the encounters they are supposed to be designed to succeed at. You don't have to be a genius to understand that a fighter that does 2d6+20 three times per turn is going to have more consistent and reliable numbers they can play with than a fighter who gets 4d6+4 and then 2d6+4. If the player can't win their combats because the 'simpler system' created a scenario where they were punished by dice and not by their own choices when playing the game then odds are they won't be having more fun than in a system where their choices mattered.
You all have proven nothing about game design, in fact all you've proven is that you like to be smug so you can milk each other for favorites.
Simple design doesn't make it better by virtue. Other systems exist for simple design that anyone can sit at and play. That was never what playing Pathfinder 1E was about, and if P2 is going to be about this, then I have no need to play it because as stated, there are already systems that do this.
I have actual questions I want answered, and none of them are covered by you guys.
Hyperbolize, name call, do whatever you want guys. I want to challenge the design of the system critically because this is a play test and if in that play test I find that the game isn't fun because the absolute most complained about problem with the previous edition was made worse instead of better, then Paizo wants me to tell them that.
By all means, quote me and snark some more without proving your points or refuting mine. Better yet, take the wrong parts of my statements and attack them because it's easier for you. I'm expecting it.
Drakhan Valane wrote:
If you don't want dice in your game, there are diceless game systems.
It's not that I don't want dice at the table, I just don't want the new system to give me 'better martial characters' that aren't better.
C/M/D was something I wanted fixed, and this doesn't sell it for me.
I don't think it's wrong to want to know how to play the game before I do it. I don't think it's wrong to want to have some level of understanding of the character I'm playing before I bring it to the table.
I also don't think I'm going to stick around.
Well, then you must love derailing your game every 5 minutes to explain to him how the rules work and making sure he understands how his character works while everyone else at the table sits there bored too.
Doesn't stop him from being a Schmuck.
Stone Dog wrote:
There are other systems that do that. In fact, there are systems out there that don't even require you to learn the full rules.
That's not what PF1 was, and it's not what I want. If this is what PF2 is, then Erik doesn't get any of my money. In fact I may skip my plans to preorder if this is the direction the game goes.
You reward your players for playing sure, but the dice may not. You going to fudge damage rolls because the fighter couldn't outpace the enemy in damage to no fault of their own?
How do you reward your players for playing then?
Or are you just taking a shot at me for enjoying my hobby?
Sadly, damage economy and martial characters being nerfed was a major issue with the lengthening of PF1.
I suspect there will not be anything like this and that 'yay more dice to roll' is supposed to be the big sell here. Why would they give us both when the argument already has been "yeah old power attack is less reliable because of average damage" whereas statistically speaking you're going to have a lot less reliable martial characters than you ever could with flat bonuses.
Seems especially weird given the proficiency system, unless that system is also added into damage (which I assume it is not given the dev comments).
Critting more often seems like it's supposed to sell me, but even then I'm not getting more reliable damage, I'm still just getting more dice.
Unless there's feats that mirror the mythic abilities that increase the minimum value I expect from those dice consistently, then there isn't going to be consistency from the game for martial characters and even if they can move around more they lose out on that being a buff if the whole point of moving around more was to become more reliable.
I don't want to rely on dice for damage, it makes me feel like I'm in less control of my character and that what I do doesn't matter.
So please devs, elaborate for us on whether or not this is intentional to counterbalance the fact that martial characters can move more, or if they simply want less reward for reading their products more thoroughly so Joe Schmuck can be just as good as someone who toiled for hours reading their book.
The die should be superfluous, because it means your character can be reliable regardless of the weapon they are using.
It won't be good design when killing the dragon becomes two battles of you vs. the dice landing correctly instead of making sure your properly trained fighter hits and the team can rely on him/her to kill the dragon within a small margin of #of hits landed. Now you could see a swing of something like 6 damage per hit to 28 damage per hit on the same weapon.
This is not good design, I'm not being rewarded for learning the system. This is not Pathfinder.
I joined this forum sometime late in 2012 when I first transitioned over to Pathfinder from 3.5. I loved the 3.5 system and Pathfinder allowed us to play with a similar set of rules, with updates that mostly reflected what our house rules were already. It was an amazing and enlightening experience.
Since then, you guys know I have toyed with optional subsystems, and buried myself deep into the rabbit hole of optimization to better my understanding of the game and hopefully to improve the experience of the game for myself and (I pray) you guys.
Now I have been coming into the PF2 Playtest with an open mind that once again, I can see improvements to the rules of the game I love, mostly with updates that may or may not reflect my own house rules.
Feel free to enjoy the linkception I have laid out here, but if you do not wish to I shall reiterate my findings with the action system as I have been using what will become PF2's action system literally since Unchained came out:
Now, given the fighter blog and the information I seem to have discovered that I am not liking the direction the game is going compared to what I was expecting given my excitement with the new action system. I have completely 180'd on my excitement because the one thing I wanted from the new edition (striking a gameplay balance for martial characters) seems to be not the focus of the game but rather to force more and more reliance on the variety of dice rolls.
This mostly stems from how Power Attack is now functionally parallel to how Vital Strike used to work in 2014 under the Unchained System, which after four years of practice we have written out of the game entirely. Where martial characters were once being given the promise of being able to do their jobs more reliably, they have had their reliability taken away in what they can expect to put out every turn. Even +X to weapons now according to what I read tells me I am going to roll more dice which means less reliability. It's fun to roll dice, sure, but it's not fun when it means my fighter is no longer good at fighting. Now we rely on the dice gods giving us fortune rather than our wit and reading comprehension rewarding us for understanding and learning the game.
This does not feel like Pathfinder.
I like that actually, doing average damage in place of rolling.
But still, it is going to create more scenarios where we will find the "one true weapon" and everyone will use it because it has the best dice to roll to reliably deal damage.
If this is the result of the fighter being the best at weapons, then by virtue all the other classes will be terrible too. Damage is no longer going to be the economy of the game.
This is bad design. This doesn't feel like Pathfinder, which rewarded me for buying all the products and learning what the best choices were, but rather forces homogeneity on us in favor of 'balance at all costs.' This was my red line.
I do not want to derail the blog thread, and I feel I now have enough information to inform my own opinion of where I see this edition going.
I'm not, it adds two layers of variation to lessen martial reliability whereas in PF1 there was more focus on making sure you hit. Now not only do you have to make sure you hit, but your damage is also swingy. I'm already having visions of snake eyes ruining the fighter player's night over and over again meaning he can't do his one job well at all.
More dice is not good game design, it just attracts people who like simplicity, it's the reason I stay away from 5e still.
Is there a source somewhere that confirms weapon damage dice? Is a greatsword still 2d6? Does Power Attack make it 4d6? Do two-handed weapons still add 1.5 STR?
Where did the information on +1/+2 weapons come from? Do we know that each +x results in more dice? Are there weapons that deal multiple dice in damage?
Seems martials got nerfed, and fighters got worse not better. Not happy, and now much less excited for the other classes.
To be sure, the paladin is more than likely going to be our Tank class, most likely with CHA related abilities to draw aggro, since I can't really see a class that focuses on armor being able to use that feature without making enemies want/need to attack them.
Seems the 4e comparisons are coming more and more true. I'm losing faith in this edition now.
Move+ Power attack is just as bad as move+ vital strike. That's why we hated vital strike.
At what rate does this power attack scale? How much does it scale?
You've created many questions that I didn't realize I never wanted to have to ask.
Here's my post for context.
The fact that this subsystem is so inherently tied to all other systems means it needed to be exposed first, but because it's tied to every system it's hard to understand how each of those systems will work in a vacuum.
Skills have become the system we seem to understand the least, hopefully this informs the devs to release the skills blog sooner rather than later so we have a better grasp of what's really going on.
Gregg Reece wrote:
That's called good DMing and it needs to be praised.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Brace yourself, "wizards have invisibility" posts are coming.
Stat dumping by any name is so largely opposed by this community that I imagine it's role in the game design structure most likely what lead to this system in the first place.
I can answer at least one of these questions: in the Know Direction podcast Erik Mona said they have gotten rid of the paradigm of identifying magic items, as it slowed down actual gameplay and drained resources for seemingly no reason [sic].