|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFS scenario design has the same issue that Guild Wars 2 (a MMO) has.
GW2 did away with the trinity (tank, heals, dps) so people were not forced into roles in a 5-person party. Initially, the playerbase still created tanky-type and support-type characters, but players realized all those builds did was extend fights and give bossess/mobs/etc more time to do more damage to the party. The community switched over to all DPS parties to burn through encounters--while players still had support abilities, for the most part, parties were based around damage-dealing and damage-boosting abilities first and healing/condition-cleansing skills second.
The PF system itself does not allow mmo-style "tanking" and generally, except in dire circumstances, in-combat healing is not the best use of resources. (And, with the easy access to CLW/IH wands, classes with CLW/IH on their spell lists and/or the UMD skill, post-combat healing definitely does not require a healer in-party for PFS.) For PFS scenarios, a competent six-person party primarily focused on combat ability or boosting combat ability with a secondary foci on skills or support abilities spread throughout the party is going to handily cakewalk through most PFS scenarios and use less resources than a "balanced" party by dint of ending encounters quickly. This has a snowball effect as it is assumed prior encounters tax the party's resources, but the party actually saves resources and can go full tilt in later in encounters.
This puts PFS in an awkward position: to change the meta-game of PFS scenarios would unfairly punish players with fair-to-middling system mastery or tables with problematical party composition, yielding a poor experience and driving away potential customers. Leaving it as is can lead to disengagement from their most involved players who grow bored from the lack of challenge, again losing players. While PFS has made strides in increasing the challenge in recent seasons (switching to the 6-person party assumption, Hard Mode), it is still hampered by the CR system and the necessity of one-size fits all encounters.
And, sure, self-regulation is a possible solution but it can be an unsatisfactory one.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To add to your GW2 analogy, Sammy, the wand of cure light wounds is to PFS as the active dodge is to GW2. Free out-of-combat healing makes uber-damage characters much more survivable. The Pathfinder Challenge Rating system is reliant on resource management, and the wands take away the need to manage resources.
I wonder what would happen if wands of cure light wounds had to be purchased with gold?
As always, if you really, really, actually want to challenge yourself, try playing with sub-optimal characters.
It would be nice to see someone else take the minimum-required-combat-ability challenge and make it all the way to the top.
-Matt
|
To add to your GW2 analogy, Sammy, the wand of cure light wounds is to PFS as the active dodge is to GW2. Free out-of-combat healing makes uber-damage characters much more survivable. The Pathfinder Challenge Rating system is reliant on resource management, and the wands take away the need to manage resources.
I wonder what would happen if wands of cure light wounds had to be purchased with gold?
As always, if you really, really, actually want to challenge yourself, try playing with sub-optimal characters.It would be nice to see someone else take the minimum-required-combat-ability challenge and make it all the way to the top.
-Matt
what do you consider "the top"?
I'm an 11th level PC who has never done a HP of damage to anything other than myself... does that count?
|
|
Here we go...
The minimum-required-combat-ability challenge!
It's funny how the linked thread is from 2011 and the same issues expressed by this thread's original poster were around then.
-Matt
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here we go...
The minimum-required-combat-ability challenge!
It's funny how the linked thread is from 2011 and the same issues expressed by this thread's original poster were around then.
-Matt
from your thread linked above...
"What has been your experience with noncombat-focused PCs in Society play? Are such PCs viable? What makes for effective ones? Or am I a lunatic for even considering making one?"
I have played many noncombat-focused PCs in PFS - I would in fact say MOST of my PCs are focused outside of combat.
"What makes for effective ones? " - I concentrate on the other parts of the game and leave the combat to the other players. So I "min-max" to get the most out of being the party "Face", or the "Skill monkey" or the "Professor of all knowledges" or "Trapsmith" or ... so many other things.
Such PCs are very viable - and are the ones I normally play.
This game we play is at it's base a story about a group of specialists who each have a part to play in the adventure. Each PC should have something he really shines doing - be it having the knowledge (local) to tell the rest of the party where the bathroom is (Knowledge monkey), or cutting monsters in half (combat), or talking the barmaid into giving up that little bit of information (face), or finding & disarming that Hot Fudge Death trap (Trapsmith), or whatever.
If you walk up to a table I am at and say, "Lord Chopsalot is a good tank, and he can handle the knowledge skills." I am not going to pull a front line fighter out, or a Knowledge weenie. I'm going to leave that to you. When I sit at the table I'll ask what else we have. After we cover that and I pull a PC out, I'll tell you want I cover, and my worst failings. ("Hi, I'm Katish. Call me Kat or Tish, never Kat-tish. I'll handle all the social skills, and I'm pretty useless in combat.") I am not likely to have a PC to cover an ability/skill/role that someone else said their PC brought that to that table.
I don't care if your PC has a 7 INT or a 20 INT... if you're running "the tank", I expect you to tank. If your PC does that thru smiling at the monsters and offering them Flaming Fudge Death - hey, maybe I'll take notes and build a PC like yours!
I don't know if I can tell you how to do this for yourself, to tell you what works for you. I am often amazed at how different people build their PCs. Everyone enjoys this game in different ways. What would be fun for you might not be fun for me and vice versa.
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
A bard who eschews all of the physical ability scores can still have a decisive impact on combat.
Heck, they're probably more effective. I gave my bard a 14 dex and con and picked up the whip feats so he could do something in melee if he had to. He's seventh level now and has entered melee a grand total of 2 times in his career. It's just not necessary as we never have a shortage of meleers in my area, and when you have a bunch of meleers there are a lot more effective things a bard can do than enter melee (like throw raspberry tarts at people).
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I would welcome an effective way for animal companions to assist in combat (something like the eidolon abilities to shield others), but even tricks like flanking help.
Maybe a special animal companion item, that serves ice cream to frontliners ^^
Animal Archive added Aid as a trick, which allows the combat use of Aid Another.
This trick would allow the critter to give an ally +2 to hit or +2 AC for the next attack involving a particular opponent.
See CRB, pg 197 for exact text of what Aid Another can do in combat.
Animal Archive also added the Flank trick.
Yes, I am aware of that, I should have phrased it better. What I was trying to say, was that those tricks are a good choice (of course skirmisher tricks have the potential to be far better).
Primal Companion hunters actually have some toys in their toy box that could serve to make them more useful (someone just has to take all those rusty nails and reactive armor).
|
I'm an 11th level PC who has never done a HP of damage to anything other than myself... does that count?
I just reached 6th level (Bard 5/Investigator 1/Pathfinder Chronicler 1), and the one time I actually drew my rapier and used it, it turned out VERY badly.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Go to town with a Gnome barbarian (unmounted).
Well, I don't know if Niel counts as
unmounted... But he is a gnome barbarian with two level one dips, and he wrecks any adventure, unless 8 foot ceilings come into play.More seriously, if every scenario had a 50/50 chance of killing your character, there would be no level 10 play. Even 20/80 is probably an unsustainable death rate. But a good GM can scare the s!&+ out of you without having to be much threat. Especially with a good scenario
Elven entanglement for example, was great in terms of having the PCs on the edge of their seat every encounter, with out ever actually having any real threat of death. (well, unless you missread rules, in which case it is a tpk)
|
|
I'd vote for Elven Entanglement, buuut, that's just me.
Port Godless, Golemworks Incident, and Weapon in the Rift (hardmode optional) are also solidly challenging.
You want a challenge OP (Cole)? If you are ever in Minneapolis. Let me know. I will run port godless at 8-9 for you. Want more challenge? Bring a divine caster (who relies on divine focus spells).
How about Where Mammoths Dare Not Tread? Run right, it is incredibly deadly!
I've had kills with most of the season five 5-9s... That's where things really ramp up.
|
|
I dunno, I play a greatsword-wielding paladin with power attack. Not particularly hyper-optimized; it's just a basic competent build. I played Perils of the Pirate Pact and one-shot the end boss in the first round of combat. I seriously was not expecting it.
I was told after by the GM that the first and second tier versions of said boss are the same and the third tier one is a lot tougher, like over doubled in levels tougher had the party been an average of one level higher. Its not so much that scenarios are easy at every level of play; it's that the gradient is often too steep so that if you're at the upper end of the tier the scenario will be easy but at the lower end of the next tier it will destroy you if you're not careful.
