Repetition and 2e / "Taking20"s Break Up Letter

Reckless wrote:

Stangler wrote:

Tactical decisions still need information. How much information a player has when making that decision is 100% a bi-product of the game's design. If the GM has a responsibility to communicate this information then it should be really clear in the GM guide.

I can't stress this enough, understanding the information available to a player is a massively important aspect of game design.

Ok, so for PF2, it is clearly communicated.

In depth.

In the Core Rulebook and in the GMG.

Glad I could clear that up for you so you can stop repeating yourself and don't need to read the rules you continue to insist be clear to you without reading or playing them.

Reminder, this thread is about a group of experienced TTRPG players playing the game for a year where the vast majority of people here have accused them of not understanding the nature of the game design and the choices they have in combat.

You can't even tell me what is being clearly communicated. Or what needs to be communicated. Or what the player needs to do to know besides read the rules. So just reading no math?

Let's just come out and say it then: They thought that because they were veterans, they could apply their vast and curated well of knowledge in RPG's to this system and they failed. Because in other systems, your knowledge was basically "What feat to I have to take next level so I can gain a +1 somewhere?", so they chose several of those feats, called it a build, and forgot they had the feat because it was baked into their sheet. And that's it. The most novelty builds were those that chose a combat maneuver to break and those builds were awesome... When they worked, the first enemy immune to them and the player started crying.

In this edition, system mastery comes in battle, not in your crazy builds that don't have any sense of cohesion, theme or character, just a bunch of hand-picked features to make an amusing cardboard of a character that can swing and deal high numbers. In this edition, you have the freedom of choosing what you judge is the most fun and fitting and still feel like you contribute in combat, even though you're no Chosen One or Anime Protagonist.

Let's just come out and say it then: They thought that because they were veterans, they could apply their vast and curated well of knowledge in RPG's to this system and they failed. Because in other systems, your knowledge was basically "What feat to I have to take next level so I can gain a +1 somewhere?", so they chose several of those feats, called it a build, and forgot they had the feat because it was baked into their sheet. And that's it. The most novelty builds were those that chose a combat maneuver to break and those builds were awesome... When they worked, the first enemy immune to them and the player started crying.

When Cody said in his 2nd video something to the effect of: "My critics will be SURPRISED that my players are between 40 and 60 years old!", not only did he pull the "I'm old so I know what I'm doing" card, but it also betrayed exactly this problem you described.

Their 20+ years of experience has almost no relevance to what's being discussed here. Sure, perhaps they knew what hit points and AC were, and other things you just know after playing tons of other TTRPGs. But because PF2 is its own game what matters more toward your ability to play is your experience playing PF2. The fact that, to Cody, what was more important was his group's experience with other RPGs tells a lot about how wrong -- and hubristic -- they were going into the game.

I understand Facebook, so I should clearly understand TikTok.

An actual thought that may have entered my brain while talking with a sibling 10 years younger than me.

In this edition, system mastery comes in battle, not in your crazy builds that don't have any sense of cohesion, theme or character, just a bunch of hand-picked features to make an amusing cardboard of a character that can swing and deal high numbers.

System mastery always comes from battle, however because PF2 combat evolved beyond pure numbers crunch and the math has been standardized it may just not be as easy gaming the system as in other TTRPGs. However with PF2 being a modular system it is still easy to optimize your combat effectiveness by hand-picking your bits and pieces via complementing ancestry, class and archtype combinations.

The difference being that it probably takes a lot more experience to actually bring an "optimized" build to bear in PF2. So while I can hand out an optimized build to a new player in PF1 and have him doing well just because he probably has insane to-hit values and defenses, the same player will probably still struggle with a likewise optimized build in PF2 because he probably can not easily understand all the tools that have been given to him and how they interact with his environment.

Lightning Raven wrote:

Let's just come out and say it then: They thought that because they were veterans, they could apply their vast and curated well of knowledge in RPG's to this system and they failed. Because in other systems, your knowledge was basically "What feat to I have to take next level so I can gain a +1 somewhere?", so they chose several of those feats, called it a build, and forgot they had the feat because it was baked into their sheet. And that's it. The most novelty builds were those that chose a combat maneuver to break and those builds were awesome... When they worked, the first enemy immune to them and the player started crying.

When Cody said in his 2nd video something to the effect of: "My critics will be SURPRISED that my players are between 40 and 60 years old!", not only did he pull the "I'm old so I know what I'm doing" card, but it also betrayed exactly this problem you described.

Their 20+ years of experience has almost no relevance to what's being discussed here. Sure, perhaps they knew what hit points and AC were, and other things you just know after playing tons of other TTRPGs. But because PF2 is its own game what matters more toward your ability to play is your experience playing PF2. The fact that, to Cody, what was more important was his group's experience with other RPGs tells a lot about how wrong -- and hubristic -- they were going into the game.

Especially if their experience was focused on a handful of systems rather than being very broad. Lots of experience with D&D and PF1 gives you some skill, but broad experience with lots of different games can let you get good at adapting to different systems.

Of course, even then you can fall prey to assuming that superficial similarities will run deeper than they really do. I definitely remember that hitting my group when we started playing 3.0. It was easy to miss how important the build game was and how some of the roles had changed, because you could just start with characters much like AD&D character with a few extra options.

This discussion is focused entirely on the wrong thing, in my opinion. rather than arguing with somebody who knows extremely little about the system, why not just address what really matters?

Unless you're playing with a group that's extremely hardcore and specifically wants to power game, things that are suboptimal are still effective enough to be enjoyable and you can create the character you want without worrying about it not being viable.

Which is a hell of a lot better than pf1 when it comes to choice, and significantly better than pf2 if you want your character's themes to have mechanical traits assigned to them.

The most important question to me is whether the illusion of choice is a true problem or a false impression? Which choices are illusionary?

Cody claimed that the illusion of choice occurred during combat turns. His evidence is that many turns of combat by a single PC used exactly the same three actions. His theory was that players would naturally favor an optimal combination of actions. The problem is that repetition in combat was boring.

Cody also pointed out during his second video that PF2 character construction had meaningful choices rather than illusionary choices. This was probably in response to responses comparing PF2 to D&D 4e, where a lot of class designs were too similar.

An advantage of Strangler carpet bombing this thread with questions is that some are relevant. In comment #428 he or she asked, "OK what are the clear combat choices of a PF2 Ranger focused on bow use at level 5? How do the choices evolve as they level? How clear is any of this to players?"

Let me use my wife's halfling rogue Sam in my PF2 Ironfang Invasion campaign as an example. Sam was intended from character creation to take the Sorcerer Dedication at 2nd level. He is the cousin of a previous character my wife played, a halfling sorceress Wealday Addams. Sam's real name is Toilday Addams, he is an escaped lab experiment from slavemaster Dr. Addams, and the days of Golarion's week are named Sunday, Moonday, Toilday, Wealday, Oathday, Fireday, and Starday.

Sam started with Cha 18 due to his scoundrel racket and Dex 16. His halfling heritage was Twilight Halfling and ancestry feat was Unfettered. His background was Animal Whisperer. His 1st-level rogue feat was Trapfinder, his 2nd-level was Sorcerer Dedication (Draconic - Red), his 4th-level was Magical Trickster, and his 6th-level was Basic Bloodline Spell for dragon claws.

With those feats, Sam had an evolution of attacks with level.
1. At 1st level without any magic or strength he relied on his shortbow and tried to get sneak attacks from surprise attack rogue feature or from hiding.
2. At 2nd level he gained two cantrips: Produce Flame and Telekinetic Projectile. If Sam had stealth he used his bow for the sneak attack damage; otherwise, he used a cantrip.
3. At 3rd level the damage from his cantrips increased by one damage die, so he favored them more and hid less.
4. At 4th level Magical Trickster let him add sneak attack to spell damage. That did not work with casting a spell from hiding, since spellcasting breaks stealth without the flat-footedness from Striking from hiding, so I altered the rules to put the flat-footedness after an attack spell, too. Thus, Sam went back to attacking from hiding. He had Scoundrel Feint to create flat-footedness to a melee attack, but most of his opponents were hobgoblin soldiers trained in Attack of Opportunity, so spellcasting in melee range was too painful.
5. At 5th level, his cantrip damage increased to three dice and his sneak attack damage increased to 2d6 precision damage.
6. At 6th level with the Dragon Claws focus spell Sam finally gained a good melee attack that did not interfere with his spellcasting or climbing (his 5th-level ancestry feat was Sure Feet).
7. At 7th level, his cantrip damage increased to four dice and his Stealth skill became master.

Thus, currently at 7th level Sam's best attack is a cantrip from hiding, such as Telekinetic Projectile performing 4d6+4 bludgeoning damage plus 2d6 precision damage. Without hiding, he leaves off the precision damage, and the 30-foot range of the cantrips makes staying hidden difficult. If an enemy approaches, he prepares for melee by casting Dragon Claws. The claws deal 1d4 slashing damage and 1d6 fire damage with a possibility of 2d6 sneak attack damage with feint or flanking.

Also, the party acquired some 1st- and 2nd-level arcane wands at 6th level. Sam is the only arcane caster in the party, so he gained the wands. He occasionally uses a wand of Burning Hands or wand of Acid Arrow. He gave up his shortbow and instead carries a sling and 10 sling bullets.

Furthermore, those are merely his damaging attacks. Sam is multilingual, has Glad-Hand, and is expert in both Deception and Diplomacy. His most powerful effect on combat is preventing it in first place with a quick explanation or an outright lie. For example, at 5th level the party was supposed to fight their way into Fort Ristin, which had been taken over by exclusionary nasty fey who would keep out non-fey. Instead, Sam walked in by telling the korred guards that he was a fey, a chergl. They had never seem a halfling before and failed their Recall Knowledge (Society) check to identify Sam, so they fell for his successful deception. The fey-blooded gnome druid walked in, too, because she really was a fey. The two let the others in secretly and they finished their goal in Fort Ristin without killing any creatures.

Sam has real choices, not illusionary ones. However, this character was designed as a magical trickster, a versatile combat style, and I tweaked the rules a smidgeon at 4th level.

The gnome rogue with thief racket is probably the most repetitive combatant in the party. She prefers to attack from hiding with her shortbow. I think she likes that. I don't have her character sheet, so I don't remember the details but her feats focused on stealth and mobility and she is a master of Thievery. Several weeks ago, she found herself in melee and used the thief racket's Dex to Damage for the first time in eight months.

Caralene wrote:

This discussion is focused entirely on the wrong thing, in my opinion. rather than arguing with somebody who knows extremely little about the system, why not just address what really matters?

Unless you're playing with a group that's extremely hardcore and specifically wants to power game, things that are suboptimal are still effective enough to be enjoyable and you can create the character you want without worrying about it not being viable.

Which is a hell of a lot better than pf1 when it comes to choice, and significantly better than pf2 if you want your character's themes to have mechanical traits assigned to them.

PF2 is significantly better than PF2? Huh?

better htan pf1 i meant haha oops

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I don't know why so many of the critics or proponents aren't honest about PF2. It's a much harder game than they are used to. PF2 doesn't allow players to game the math like they've been doing for over a decade. Even 5E allows optimized players to trivialize the game in a way PF2 doesn't. It does make for a very different feel that can seem repetitious because you never reach a point as a player where the game is easy in PF2. If the DM is making level appropriate challenges, then you're always going to be in that 40 to 50% success range which in essence comes down to a coin flip. A lot of players don't enjoy this level of difficulty with no real relief up to 20.

I've been interested to see form the start if RPG players after 10 plus years of easy, they'll buy in to a game as difficult as PF2 with no way for a player to game the math to trivialize the game.

That's not a problem with the game, but with the GM. A hero that makes it to level 20 should not (under most circumstances) be encountering a 20th-level kobold in Tucker's cavern or having an equal or harder time scaling that same mountain that nearly killed him at level 5.

In any case, I've heard a number of reports that the game DOES get easier at high levels.

It does get easier, but never PF1 or 5E easy. Just not lvl 1 to 5 a TPK could happen at any time hard.

I have barely had to modify creatures in PF2. Maybe give them some extra hit points if the party is larger than normal.

In PF1 at high level, I gave big dragons and evil monsters insane amounts of hit points. I once gave a huge hydra 4000 hit points to make it a challenge for a lvl 12 party. I gave the Jabberwock 6000 hit points to make it challenging in PF1. PF1 characters did nutty damage on a per round basis and casters could make monsters trivial.

PF2 never gets that easy. It's more like going from you could die at any time to you're going to win after taking a lot of damage as long as your healers do their job easy.

In 5E I ran Out of the Abyss and the party was easily crushing Demon Lords out of the book. I quit at that point.

Whereas in PF2 I can run a lvl 15 humanoid enemy against a high level party and they can put up a fight. A demon lord would be a hellacious fight assuming that demon lord is going to be Challenge+2 or +3.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I don't know why so many of the critics or proponents aren't honest about PF2. It's a much harder game than they are used to. PF2 doesn't allow players to game the math like they've been doing for over a decade. Even 5E allows optimized players to trivialize the game in a way PF2 doesn't. It does make for a very different feel that can seem repetitious because you never reach a point as a player where the game is easy in PF2. If the DM is making level appropriate challenges, then you're always going to be in that 40 to 50% success range which in essence comes down to a coin flip. A lot of players don't enjoy this level of difficulty with no real relief up to 20.

I've been interested to see form the start if RPG players after 10 plus years of easy, they'll buy in to a game as difficult as PF2 with no way for a player to game the math to trivialize the game.

Hard in the sense that it is less easy to totally break it. Fine agreed.

But there are still good and bad tactics in play

There are still excellent and useless character build options to choose from. Its just that the difference between those is like 50% not 400%

The GM will still have to adjust the difficulty of encounters based on the coordination and skill of the players.

Sure, but it doesn't change that PF2 doesn't allow players to game the system like they've been doing for about 10 years plus. And that's something they aren't used to, especially 3rd edition and PF1 players.

I've seen what players have done for 10 plus years with PF1 and 3rd edition. I've seen what they've done in 5E. None of that is possible in PF2. It is the easiest edition to DM in terms of providing combat challenges to PCs I have ever played.

I haven't been able to pull monsters out of the Bestiary or Monster Manuals and run them as is past low level for decades. Even in 5E I ran Out of the Abyss with Demon Lords and my players housed them like they were nothing due to the exploitability of the 5E rule set.

They've been doing their best to do that in PF2. They haven't been able to do it. I can pull a marilith out of the book and toss it against a lvl appropriate party, play it tactically well with maybe a few equivalent minions, and it's a good fight. That's a big change for players used to being able to design characters that are 99.999% more effective than what they fight.

I could go on and on listing overpowered character options from PF1 and 3rd edition. Feats and multiclassing pretty much break 5E and make it trivial using monsters and encounters by the book. But not PF2. Do everything you can to design the best character and group you can. I can find monsters in the book to challenge you and make you feel like you might die. In fact, I have to be very careful designing encounters so I don't kill the players too easily.

First time that has happened in about 15 years or so. Since probably 2nd edition D&D.

I am saying if a game is designed to play like the way many people here have said then how was that information communicated to the player? Was it clear? All of the evidence presented in this thread points to no.

If you think it is clearly communicated in the Rules then tell me the page number.

If there is a breakdown in communication between Paizo and Cody's group then if I am Paizo I am definitely wanting to know what went wrong.

Keep in mind that by simply claiming that their decisions are wrong is admitting the thesis that the choices are illusions correct.

You said this before:

In Dark Souls I know when to move based on visuals. In Tetris I look at a block and can see how it could fit into the field.

In the same way as Dark Souls, if you keep doing the same thing over and over and over again and it keeps failing, maybe you should stop doing that thing. If you keep missing with your third attack, maybe that attack isn't very reliable.

I don't know enough information about Cody's player's builds to make any definitive statements.

I will say that if zero of the builds have any dedications or archetypes I lean much more toward the assumption that the players have less mastery over the system than they believe. I am not making a blanket statement that dedications or archetypes create more optimized characters, but I have never sat at a table of PF2 yet that did not have at least 1 pc that had dedicated or archetyped.

As for the communication, I refer back to my earlier responses of "We have all read the same book(s). There is only so much that can be argued about different results from the same experience." Harp on communication all you want Stangler.
1) You can't speak with credibility until you too have read the book.
2) .....

Actually I think 1 is enough. Once you have read the core rulebook you can then have the credibility to waffle questions some more. As I said before, I am willing to gift you the pdf of the core rulebook because I am more than confident to put my money where my confidence is.

Jester David wrote:

I feel this video and Taking20.

As someone who was also a *huge* Paizo fanboy and PF1 proponent who happily adopted that system over 4e for many years. But bounced hard off of PF2.

I really wanted to love the game and keep throwing money at Paizo, but just couldn't work up the interest.

And thats all good, you might want to try it again down the line, but it's totally ok to just not like something.

I doubt it.

It's the golden age of RPGs. I have no less than five other games I really want to run, so finding time for a PF2 campaign is unlikely.

Especially as it is such a dense game. It's not going to work as a one-shot, as just getting the basics down will take 2-3 sessions.

Docflem wrote:

Jester David wrote:

I feel this video and Taking20.

As someone who was also a *huge* Paizo fanboy and PF1 proponent who happily adopted that system over 4e for many years. But bounced hard off of PF2.

I really wanted to love the game and keep throwing money at Paizo, but just couldn't work up the interest.

And thats all good, you might want to try it again down the line, but it's totally ok to just not like something.

I doubt it.

It's the golden age of RPGs. I have no less than five other games I really want to run, so finding time for a PF2 campaign is unlikely.

Especially as it is such a dense game. It's not going to work as a one-shot, as just getting the basics down will take 2-3 sessions.

Hey! Thats actually a good critique and one that I think most of us can agree on. Why I do not think its as rules dense as pf1 or 3.5 its definitely denser than a lot of rpgs on and it makes sense that feels like a significant time investment, one that not everyone wants to put in. I dont think its a pure negitive, for me that density means the systems have enough crunch to remain interesting for a long time, but it does make introducing new people harder than a system like 5e.

Jester David wrote:

I feel this video and Taking20.

As someone who was also a *huge* Paizo fanboy and PF1 proponent who happily adopted that system over 4e for many years. But bounced hard off of PF2.

I really wanted to love the game and keep throwing money at Paizo, but just couldn't work up the interest.

Depending on what your issues with the system are, you can try to check out the variant rules found in the Game master's Guide and try out the new classes that are upcoming, Magus and Summoner were playtested recently and there's a new playtest opening up January 5, with yet unknown classes and one of them will be a new.

I glanced at the GMG but my dislike really came down to some pretty fundamental aspects. Like how absolutely dense the system was. Everything seemed 75% more complicated than it needed to be, with a myriad little interactions and overlapping rules to memorize.

After playing & rejecting 4th Edition D&D, the Red Queen's Race design of levelling & advancement in PF2 just doesn't grab me. Where you get more and more powerful but the enemies advance at exactly the same rate, so you never really get any better.
I just look at that kind of design and think you could just make, oh, 5th level characters and never advance in numerical level, instead just gaining new feats every so often while reflavouring monsters as increasingly more powerful. Using the stats of a creature 7 young black dragon but describing it as creature 16 ancient black dragon, because a level 5 party facing the level 7 dragon seems roughly identical numerically to a level 14 party facing the level 16 dragon.

But that's me, and I'm happy for the people who are enjoying PF2.
It just makes me a little wistful not to be supporting Paizo any more. Which is where the video struck me, prompting me to comment. I like the game company, cheered them on for years, listened to endless panels and podcasts, and want a reason to give them more of my money... but they have nothing I want to buy.

Why I do not think its as rules dense as pf1 or 3.5 its definitely denser than a lot of rpgs on and it makes sense that feels like a significant time investment, one that not everyone wants to put in. I dont think its a pure negitive, for me that density means the systems have enough crunch to remain interesting for a long time, but it does make introducing new people harder than a system like 5e.

Whether or not PF2 is or is not as dense as 3.X systems is probably a topic that could be argued at length in either direction. I can't say for certain which is the heavier game.

Which does mean PF2 *really* needs a full campaign to shine. Where you can learn the complexity and get a handle on the rules, but also advance characters and take advantage of unfolding builds. Playing characters for a single level and not being able to take new feats or make new choices seems unsatisfying.

Docflem wrote:

Why I do not think its as rules dense as pf1 or 3.5 its definitely denser than a lot of rpgs on and it makes sense that feels like a significant time investment, one that not everyone wants to put in. I dont think its a pure negitive, for me that density means the systems have enough crunch to remain interesting for a long time, but it does make introducing new people harder than a system like 5e.

Whether or not PF2 is or is not as dense as 3.X systems is probably a topic that could be argued at length in either direction. I can't say for certain which is the heavier game.

But I would say PF2 is probably the most dense RPG game currently on the market. I can't think of any in-print games that are as complicated or more complicated.

Which does mean PF2 *really* needs a full campaign to shine. Where you can learn the complexity and get a handle on the rules, but also advance characters and take advantage of unfolding builds. Playing characters for a single level and not being able to take new feats or make new choices seems unsatisfying.

See, that is something I like about PF2 but I also think a major advantage of that rules density is that you can really dig into the moment to moment gameplay. You have rules that let you interact with the environment, the enemies, and your other players so you can come up with complicated battle plans and schemes and not have to put all that onto your DM.

I found in 5e, so often myself and others would come up with a unique kind of trap or surprise ambush and the burden of working that all out fell almost entirely on the DM, often forcing them to make up rules on the spot or just tell you no. Its not perfect, but that density means you have a lot of things to try.

Again, PF2 has its problems and its totally fine that you don't dig it, but man, I really appreciate its advantages.

The Rot Grub wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

Let's just come out and say it then: They thought that because they were veterans, they could apply their vast and curated well of knowledge in RPG's to this system and they failed. Because in other systems, your knowledge was basically "What feat to I have to take next level so I can gain a +1 somewhere?", so they chose several of those feats, called it a build, and forgot they had the feat because it was baked into their sheet. And that's it. The most novelty builds were those that chose a combat maneuver to break and those builds were awesome... When they worked, the first enemy immune to them and the player started crying.

When Cody said in his 2nd video something to the effect of: "My critics will be SURPRISED that my players are between 40 and 60 years old!", not only did he pull the "I'm old so I know what I'm doing" card, but it also betrayed exactly this problem you described.

Their 20+ years of experience has almost no relevance to what's being discussed here. Sure, perhaps they knew what hit points and AC were, and other things you just know after playing tons of other TTRPGs. But because PF2 is its own game what matters more toward your ability to play is your experience playing PF2. The fact that, to Cody, what was more important was his group's experience with other RPGs tells a lot about how wrong -- and hubristic -- they were going into the game.

Especially if their experience was focused on a handful of systems rather than being very broad. Lots of experience with D&D and PF1 gives you some skill, but broad experience with lots of different games can let you get good at adapting to different systems.

Of course, even then you can fall prey to assuming that superficial similarities will run deeper than they really do. I definitely remember that hitting my group when we started playing 3.0. It was easy to miss how important the build game was and how some of the roles had changed, because you could just start with characters much like AD&D character with a few extra options.

I have to say that I wouldn't think of someone as a veteran who hadn't played AD&D before 3.0 came out (consider there are people with 40+ years of experience with RPGs). And if they got through that, then they're well aware that games sometimes make very large changes from one edition to the next. That is a theme with modern D&D, after all. Any sort of appeal to experience that doesn't allow for changes from one edition to the next seems a little odd when experienced players are involved and have been through the same before.

My personal biggest problems with Cody's complaints is they are, at a certain level mutually exclusive. He claims that problem A is that his players have obtained such a level of mastery of the system that they figured out the perfect way to play, and that perfect way includes almost no variation.

Then his second problem is that players die all the time. His group of "veteran" players die and die and die and that makes them not want to play.

On the face of it, with no other context, these two complaints could be congruent. PF2 could just be brokenly hard, that no matter what you do you will lose because either the monsters are too strong or the player character are just too weak, the rules as written make the game basically impossible. That argument falls apart when you have thousands of people who do play the game and don't run into these problems.

So the deeper analysis leads people to believe that there is more going on than a perfectly played game that still sucks. As others have pointed out, the chances that Cody's players are actually making the most optimal choices is pretty close to null, especially since in his follow up video he gets basic rules and maths involved in the game wrong. Other people have pointed out (myself included) that within the greater context of him being a content created who is basically financially required to play the game for his fans (since, you know, they payed him too) and it's clear that even if Cody and his players just don't want to play the game, he can't just quit without a reason.

Add to the fact that at least in the short term, youtube rewards controversy, it seems clear to me that Cody would be in the position to benefit from flaring up a good ole' fashioned version war and we know that the "veteran Cody" understands this type of controversy well. So, if you put 2 and a 2 and 2 together you get a disingenuous "critique" that isn't going to help us learn more about the game and isn't going to help any game developers. Really there are only a few people who stand to benefit and honestly, the whole situation is kind of gross.

There is also the fact that a lot of the things that gets talked about as being good or needed requires that:

1) You know you have those options.
2) Understand that any action might be good on the right circumstance.
3) Finally, that just because it costed you a feat, it does not mean it is a better choice.

A lot of the problems in this thread boils down to one person or another not realizing those three things and then getting punished one way or another. Which is 100% a fault of the book and how dense and search dependent it is.

Some might say its the fault of the player/GM for not reading all the rules before playing. But even someone who has read all the rules will make mistakes because of the sheer amount of interactions. Not to mention that players usually look at the abilities they pick and only read the relevant rules. So its not strange for a new player to make an "archer" and then just shoot, whether they are experienced or not in TTRPGs.

Heck a lot of the examples can be summarized as: Me and my group of experienced PF2 players know all these things you can do and had no problems.

**********************

Going back to how dense and search heavy the book and game is. The book is written in such a way that its full of reference to one object leading to another. Its written the same way a computer programmer would write data. While that type of structure is incredibly modular by nature, its a pain for regular people to understand without giving it multiple passes.

Which explains why some people say they are fine, when they have a a program to handle it.

Example: To pick a spell, you must go to the spell list section, which then means going to the condition sections to check what those spells do, while going to the spell section to confirm what the spell rules are. Both of which have parts that point to other parts.

There is also the fact that a lot of the things that gets talked about as being good or needed requires that:

1) You know you have those options.
2) Understand that any action might be good on the right circumstance.
3) Finally, that just because it costed you a feat, it does not mean it is a better choice.

A lot of the problems in this thread boils down to one person or another not realizing those three things and then getting punished one way or another. Which is 100% a fault of the book and how dense and search dependent it is.

Some might say its the fault of the player/GM for not reading all the rules before playing. But even someone who has read all the rules will make mistakes because of the sheer amount of interactions. Not to mention that players usually look at the abilities they pick and only read the relevant rules. So its not strange for a new player to make an "archer" and then just shoot, whether they are experienced or not in TTRPGs.

Heck a lot of the examples can be summarized as: Me and my group of experienced PF2 players know all these things you can do and had no problems.

**********************

Going back to how dense and search heavy the book and game is. The book is written in such a way that its full of reference to one object leading to another. Its written the same way a computer programmer would write data. While that type of structure is incredibly modular by nature, its a pain for regular people to understand without giving it multiple passes.

Which explains why some people say they are fine, when they have a a program to handle it.

Example: To pick a spell, you must go to the spell list section, which then means going to the condition sections to check what those spells do, while going to the spell section to confirm what the spell rules are. Both of which have parts that point to other parts.

But thats not Cody's complaint. He has stated that his players understand and have found the ultimate beat rotation possible (the illusion of choice complaints) AND that TPKs happen all the time. Thats the problem people have.

It's fine for someone to say "hey, the system is super dense and finding the right thing to do is not fun for me." No one would bat an eye at that, and probably most of us here could point you to a system that would be more for those players and GMs. I also think its fine to point out that pazio doesn't always make it super easy to read the book and understand the rules at first blush, I think a ton of us would agree with you. HOWEVER! Supposedly Cody's expert veteran team has been playing for a whole year and has yet to show any mastery over the rules system and thats not going to be most peoples experience, to the point where its just kinda silly. They are not new players anymore and yet they are still doing what "new players would do" over and over again even though it kills them.

Temperans wrote:

There is also the fact that a lot of the things that gets talked about as being good or needed requires that:

1) You know you have those options.
2) Understand that any action might be good on the right circumstance.
3) Finally, that just because it costed you a feat, it does not mean it is a better choice.

A lot of the problems in this thread boils down to one person or another not realizing those three things and then getting punished one way or another. Which is 100% a fault of the book and how dense and search dependent it is.

Some might say its the fault of the player/GM for not reading all the rules before playing. But even someone who has read all the rules will make mistakes because of the sheer amount of interactions. Not to mention that players usually look at the abilities they pick and only read the relevant rules. So its not strange for a new player to make an "archer" and then just shoot, whether they are experienced or not in TTRPGs.

Heck a lot of the examples can be summarized as: Me and my group of experienced PF2 players know all these things you can do and had no problems.

**********************

Going back to how dense and search heavy the book and game is. The book is written in such a way that its full of reference to one object leading to another. Its written the same way a computer programmer would write data. While that type of structure is incredibly modular by nature, its a pain for regular people to understand without giving it multiple passes.

Which explains why some people say they are fine, when they have a a program to handle it.

Example: To pick a spell, you must go to the spell list section, which then means going to the condition sections to check what those spells do, while going to the spell section to confirm what the spell rules are. Both of which have parts that point to other parts.

But thats not Cody's complaint. He has stated that his players understand and have found the ultimate beat rotation possible (the...

My post was not about Cody, it was a follow up on jester David. I did not assume more posts would happen just before I submitted it. Call it bad timing on my part.

Lightning Raven wrote:

Jester David wrote:

I feel this video and Taking20.

As someone who was also a *huge* Paizo fanboy and PF1 proponent who happily adopted that system over 4e for many years. But bounced hard off of PF2.

I really wanted to love the game and keep throwing money at Paizo, but just couldn't work up the interest.

Depending on what your issues with the system are, you can try to check out the variant rules found in the Game master's Guide and try out the new classes that are upcoming, Magus and Summoner were playtested recently and there's a new playtest opening up January 5, with yet unknown classes and one of them will be a new.

I glanced at the GMG but my dislike really came down to some pretty fundamental aspects. Like how absolutely dense the system was. Everything seemed 75% more complicated than it needed to be, with a myriad little interactions and overlapping rules to memorize.

I don't know how they managed to add even more conditions to the game than PF1 had.

After playing & rejecting 4th Edition D&D, the Red Queen's Race design of levelling & advancement in PF2 just doesn't grab me. Where you get more and more powerful but the enemies advance at exactly the same rate, so you never really get any better.
I just look at that kind of design and think you could just make, oh, 5th level characters and never advance in numerical level, instead just gaining new feats every so often while reflavouring monsters as increasingly more powerful. Using the stats of a creature 7 young black dragon but describing it as creature 16 ancient black dragon, because a level 5 party facing the level 7 dragon seems roughly identical numerically to a level 14 party facing the level 16 dragon.

But that's me, and I'm happy for the people who are enjoying PF2.
It just makes me a little wistful not to be supporting Paizo any more. Which is where the video struck me, prompting me to comment. I like the game company, cheered them on for years, listened to endless...

The thing is, while things scale to keep the challenge, there are some major differences in practice. You won't fight the same type of encounters every time nor against the same kinds of enemies. If there's one thing that PF2e's design team hit it with 100% accuracy, besides the three action economy, is monster design. So while you think you're in some kind of static treadmill while rising up in levels, in fact, each battle has a different set of difficulties and your characters get actually stronger than the math at higher levels. People were worried that specialists wouldn't feel their investment, so back then, the designers changed some core aspects and at higher levels if you specialized in something, you will be well above the curve, but besides just having a big number, you will actually be able to do some crazy s#&+, depending on your skill, such as stealing a guy's armor while he's wearing them or jumping 50ft in the air and you can even fall from orbit without taking damage (seriously).

What you said are assumptions based on surface level understanding of the system, because they are surface level problems for any game. So, of course, it's been addressed by the system. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

The system, in action, plays pretty much like PF1e (just check any online table and you'll see: My suggestion is Knights of Everflame, ran by Paizo's Jason Buhlman). The system is indeed complex, but one thing is for certain, it is rewarding to understand it. It's up to you if you want to invest your time. If you played PF1e or earlier editions of D&D, then PF2e's design will be definitely more streamlined in many, many aspects (craft, skills, cover, HP, concealment, lighting, etc).

Docflem wrote:

Temperans wrote:

There is also the fact that a lot of the things that gets talked about as being good or needed requires that:

1) You know you have those options.
2) Understand that any action might be good on the right circumstance.
3) Finally, that just because it costed you a feat, it does not mean it is a better choice.

A lot of the problems in this thread boils down to one person or another not realizing those three things and then getting punished one way or another. Which is 100% a fault of the book and how dense and search dependent it is.

Some might say its the fault of the player/GM for not reading all the rules before playing. But even someone who has read all the rules will make mistakes because of the sheer amount of interactions. Not to mention that players usually look at the abilities they pick and only read the relevant rules. So its not strange for a new player to make an "archer" and then just shoot, whether they are experienced or not in TTRPGs.

Heck a lot of the examples can be summarized as: Me and my group of experienced PF2 players know all these things you can do and had no problems.

**********************

Going back to how dense and search heavy the book and game is. The book is written in such a way that its full of reference to one object leading to another. Its written the same way a computer programmer would write data. While that type of structure is incredibly modular by nature, its a pain for regular people to understand without giving it multiple passes.

Which explains why some people say they are fine, when they have a a program to handle it.

Example: To pick a spell, you must go to the spell list section, which then means going to the condition sections to check what those spells do, while going to the spell section to confirm what the spell rules are. Both of which have parts that point to other parts.

But thats not Cody's complaint. He has stated that his players understand and have found the ultimate beat

...

Ah, thats probably my bad, sorry about that and I think we're on the same page then.

Edit: also, I agree entirely with the post by lighting raven above mine and I'm glad you posted it. Just because PF2 doesn't get much easier, doesn't mean it doesn't progress, it just means the stuff you struggle to do gets more and more impressive and heroic.

Struggling making things more impressive/heroic is entirely subjective. For things like Grimdark, yeah it can be seen as heroic. But for people who want something more like ancient myths, its not that great. To some struggling actually means that you are lucky/skilled enough to have survived, not necessarily a "hero". There are many ways to define heroic, and previous threads have not resolved the issue, and it probably wont be resolved any time soon.

Jester David never said that its always the same enemies or the same type of encounters. No TTRPG keeps the encounter types or enemies the same as players level up, regardless of the scaling.

Also no one is debating about PF2 having streamlined parts. But something being streamlined does not mean it communicates the information to readers better. This is something that is easy to see with programming, when a program might be the most optimal, but it looks like a bunch of chicken scratch if you asked anyone that didn't know exactly what everything was.

No, I didn't say that the fact that you struggled made things more heroic, I said that PF2 character MAY struggle throughout thier career, but the things they struggle at will become more heroic, there is still a progression.

Like lighting raven said above, you can go from being able to high jump 5-10 feet in the air to jumping 50 feet. Your character will still have to work hard to jump that 50 ft (like an Olympic runner still has to run hard to beat a record) but that doesn't nix growth and progression. As objectively as heroic can be defined, jumping 50 feet in the air or falling from orbit definitely counts.

And your point about enemies misses lighting ravens point, its not just that enemies scale up, its that the types of challenges enemies pose change also. Thats something I think, subjectively, systems like 5e do not do well. Its the benifit of having a denser rules system.

Finally, while I dont think anyone would argue that PF2'S ules communication is the clearest out of all the ttrpg, how obscure it is really does seem at least mostly a subjective question. I think it could be written clearer, and I do think there are legitimate issues with certain bits, but its far from indecipherable.

Addtionally, no matter what you do, the more dense and complex the rule set, the hard it will be to understand without practice. If thats not for someone, thats cool, but its not objectively a bad thing.

After playing & rejecting 4th Edition D&D, the Red Queen's Race design of levelling & advancement in PF2 just doesn't grab me. Where you get more and more powerful but the enemies advance at exactly the same rate, so you never really get any better.

Except you do get better. First, not everything scales. Go back to the ogre lands at 10th-level and see if any of those old ogres can still touch you. Second, even those things that do scale, don't keep up with PC advancement.

That difficulty gap narrows by a fair margin at high levels.

Jester David wrote:

After playing & rejecting 4th Edition D&D, the Red Queen's Race design of levelling & advancement in PF2 just doesn't grab me. Where you get more and more powerful but the enemies advance at exactly the same rate, so you never really get any better.

Except you do get better. First, not everything scales. Go back to the ogre lands at 10th-level and see if any of those old ogres can still touch you. Second, even those things that do scale, don't keep up with PC advancement.

That difficulty gap narrows by a fair margin at high levels.

While I'm aware some people seem to think this way, I've never understood it. It's a game. There's supposed to be balance all the way through. That keeps up the challenge and the excitement. High levels aren't supposed to be easier than low levels. Enemies are supposed to keep pace, not just in terms of raw numbers, but in terms of new tricks and abilities. It gets boring if everything becomes a curbstomp.

Second, even those things that do scale, don't keep up with PC advancement. That difficulty gap narrows by a fair margin at high levels.

Which always struck me as a somewhat strange concept however as most people that do play high levels (not there yet personally) report that they feel more confident playing levels 15 to 20 than levels 1 to 5. So why am I worse off fighting a hobgoblin soldier at level 1 than I am fighting a Pit Fiend at level 20?

Don't get me wrong I understand that people want a feeling of getting better as they level, however for an easy start (and many complaints about PF2 stem from not having an easy start) why not have a math advantage during the early levels, which then flattens as the character has more and more tools in his toolbox and the player becomes ever more experienced to teamwork and using those tools instead of the other way round as it is now?

If anything the game should become more difficult as level progresses which would also make a lot of in-game sense from a commoners point of view, who probably will never be able to understand how you can go on for days about the hobgoblins that almost managed to kick your behinds while you stomping over a couple of Pit Fiends is barely worth a tale.

I for one, as both a player and a dm, appreciate an edition of dnd where you have boatloads of character options to reflect your pc AND it doesn't fall apart for the dm on the other side of the screen. This edition more than any other seems like it's geared towards the session running smoothly and everyone enjoying their particular piece of the pie. If I have an idea for making X character chances are, between classes, dedications, and archetypes, I can make it a reality with minimal fluffing necessary. Even better, no matter how edgelord, mary-sue broken the concept is the dm will be able to adequately challenge the party with unmodified monsters from the bestiary bc the math of the leveling system does not allow you to stray far outside the curve. I don't think the players having the most fun is the most important thing. I dont think the dm having the most fun is the most important thing. I think the session running smoothly is the catalyst of a good time being had by all. This edition delivers that while catering to players and dms at the same time. I've yet to see a dnd equivalent that juggles this much at once and I really do adore it for doing so

Which always struck me as a somewhat strange concept however as most people that do play high levels (not there yet personally) report that they feel more confident playing levels 15 to 20 than levels 1 to 5. So why am I worse off fighting a hobgoblin soldier at level 1 than I am fighting a Pit Fiend at level 20?

To some degree, it's a matter of your toolbox being bigger. As an example, I'll use my own 9th level primal sorcerer.

At 1st level, I had three spells available: Grease, Burning Hands, and Heal, and I could cast them a total of three times per day. This gave me a pretty shallow toolbox, and I spent a lot of time in combat just casting Electric Arc. Now at 9th level, I still have three spells from my top spell level (Animal Form, Cone of Cold, Elemental Form), but I also have useful spells at level 4 (Freedom of Movement, Hydraulic Torrent, Fly, Resist Energy), 3 (Fireball that's a signature spell, Fear, Slow, Earthbind), 2 (Signature Dispel Magic, Speak with Animals, Faerie Fire), and 1 (Fear, Longstrider, Heal for emergencies). This means that I have a much better chance of having something that can deal with a situation, and of having the endurance to handle protracted engagements. My allies, similarly have larger toolboxes. Taken together, this gives us a much larger margin for error than we had at lower levels.

It gets boring if everything becomes a curbstomp.

Tell that to every PF1 and 5E player who believes that once they make their one trick pony that they should never be challenged in a way that their one trick pony can't usually conquer.

Ravingdork wrote:

Second, even those things that do scale, don't keep up with PC advancement. That difficulty gap narrows by a fair margin at high levels.

Which always struck me as a somewhat strange concept however as most people that do play high levels (not there yet personally) report that they feel more confident playing levels 15 to 20 than levels 1 to 5. So why am I worse off fighting a hobgoblin soldier at level 1 than I am fighting a Pit Fiend at level 20?

Don't get me wrong I understand that people want a feeling of getting better as they level, however for an easy start (and many complaints about PF2 stem from not having an easy start) why not have a math advantage during the early levels, which then flattens as the character has more and more tools in his toolbox and the player becomes ever more experienced to teamwork and using those tools instead of the other way round as it is now?

If anything the game should become more difficult as level progresses which would also make a lot of in-game sense from a commoners point of view, who probably will never be able to understand how you can go on for days about the hobgoblins that almost managed to kick your behinds while you stomping over a couple of Pit Fiends is barely worth a tale.

I strongly believe that the developers didn't realize how this curve would work out until they really saw it in play over the course of the last year, and why the begginer's box is the right introduction tool for newer players to PF2, not just newer players to roll playing. (Everything I am hearing is that it avoids the pitfall encounters that brutalize new parties).

At the same time, what version of D&D or its fantasy Roleplaying games isn't most lethal for characters at lower levels?

Lethality is something that GMs can have a lot of control over and have to adjust based upon their players experience and expectations. PF2 is very flexible and easy to adjust these controls on.

thejeff wrote:

It gets boring if everything becomes a curbstomp.

Tell that to every PF1 and 5E player who believes that once they make their one trick pony that they should never be challenged in a way that their one trick pony can't usually conquer.

Probably the kind of player that will feel targeted if they encounter a bunch of enemies that are strong against their one trick.

Basically they are Karens of TTRPGs. "I wanna talk to the DM!"

I strongly believe that the developers didn't realize how this curve would work out until they really saw it in play over the course of the last year, and why the begginer's box is the right introduction tool for newer players to PF2, not just newer players to roll playing. (Everything I am hearing is that it avoids the pitfall encounters that brutalize new parties).

At the same time, what version of D&D or its fantasy Roleplaying games isn't most lethal for characters at lower levels?

Lethality is something that GMs can have a lot of control over and have to adjust based upon their players experience and expectations. PF2 is very flexible and easy to adjust these controls on.

I had a Ninja character that was crit by a level 2 enemy in PF1e, it was 22 damage in a critical hit with power attack, sufficient to bring my character down from Max HP to instant death. This doesn't happen in PF2e.

Here's a little secret from my table (I guess anyone that read this topic know what kind of scrapes we've been through), we only used Hero Points to stabilize a couple of times across 11 levels. We always used it to reroll attacks (many of those out of pure anger towards the dice screwing us) and our GM wasn't particularly generous with them, despite we having some big moments of awesome during the sessions (he forgot of handing them out). We were really proactive with their use and it actually paid off. I feel that if players at early levels risk those points more, they will manage to prevent complicated situations without even realizing it (instead of remedying the situation, you prevent them).

Cody's video was spectacularly bad and I for one am committed to letting it be known as such. I wouldn't mind us coining a phrase "Cody's Ranger" for posterity, so that this s*#!show is never forgotten. Let's add this term to the gamer nerdrage vocabulary, so that geeks for generations to come visit these threads, learn who Cody is, not simply to trash him but also as a cautionary tale of what not to do in civil discourse or in game-optimization discussions. He should not be permitted to live this down.

"CODY'S RANGER" noun

(1) A game character or build that is supposedly "optimal," "overpowered," "suboptimal," or "underpowered," but only by virtue of it being put in a specific scenario that makes it appear so. Rather, the claim makes an illusion of what is "optimal" or "suboptimal," either because the fictional scenario is flawed or is overly-specific. Also see "Schrodinger's Wizard."

(2) A contrived scenario, often with a pretense of objectivity, "facts and logic," that is subtly manipulated to prove one's point.

(3) A sportsman or contestant, real or fictional, who wins a contest, not by virtue of any talent or effort, but because it somehow has been decided that it be so. Also see "Plot Armor."

(4) A game character that can do one thing well, but lacks versatility.

(5) An RPG character whose player does the same series of actions or "rotation" every turn or cycle of turns. This is done regardless of whether other viable options exist, and without regard to enemy composition, environmental circumstances, abilities of other party members, or immediate dangers such as an ally about to be knocked out or killed. This behavior by the player may be due to lack of desire to do anything else. Or it may be due to lack of imagination or knowledge of the game system.

(Remember, kids: Don't be a Cody.)

It gets boring if everything becomes a curbstomp.

Oh I agree, but from the few high level reports I've come across, the gap doesn't narrow quite that much. :P

In any case, the GM can still easily adjust encounters to suit their table's preferred playstyle/desired difficulty since there monsters that go as high as level 25, I believe, and those can be further adjusted up or down a level or two with the elite/weak creature adjustment rules.

Jester David wrote:

After playing & rejecting 4th Edition D&D, the Red Queen's Race design of levelling & advancement in PF2 just doesn't grab me. Where you get more and more powerful but the enemies advance at exactly the same rate, so you never really get any better.

Except you do get better. First, not everything scales. Go back to the ogre lands at 10th-level and see if any of those old ogres can still touch you.

I saw that argument repeatedly brought up in defence of 4e back in the day, and now occasionally for PF2. But that situation very seldom happens.

You don't tend to actually run encounters with non-challenging enemies, because of the time it takes to set-up the map, position the minis, take initiative, and then run the battle. As there's no challenge or risk—no expenditure of resources—there's no reason to actually run the fight. It just eats up the finite time you have to play.

In actual play, if you do go to ogre lands at level 10 the low level ogres flee and they send their champions out, who will conveniently be several level 7 ogre bosses who weren't present last time.
Or several new variant ogres that are the appropriate level to be a challenge. An ogre hunter or an ogre savage or an ogre juggernaut.

Second, even those things that do scale, don't keep up with PC advancement.

That difficulty gap narrows by a fair margin at high levels.

So the fighter's accuracy goes up? They hit at-level foes more often as they advance? The rogue's odds of picking an at-level lock increase at higher levels?

The system's math doesn't expect you to use your Ability Boosts at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20 to boost your class' Key Ability, and you can instead use all of them to remove weaknesses with no impact on accuracy or effectiveness?

Ravingdork wrote:

Second, even those things that do scale, don't keep up with PC advancement.

That difficulty gap narrows by a fair margin at high levels.

So the fighter's accuracy goes up? They hit at-level foes more often as they advance? The rogue's odds of picking an at-level lock increase at higher levels?

The system's math doesn't expect you to use your Ability Boosts at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20 to boost your class' Key Ability, and you can instead use all of them to remove weaknesses with no impact on accuracy or effectiveness?

Yes, the difficulty will change by the time you're hitting legendary in things. Couple that with Apex LegendsItems and you have a character that is at least +3 above the curve (In context, it's like you're three levels above, you also are very likely to only receive damage or terrible status effects when you fail critically). Most classes will have at least 3 legendary skills and some features of the class will make them even go beyond. Another aspect that you'll be much more likely to find at higher levels is buffs and some class feats that grant passive bonuses to some things.Regardless of all that, due to the degrees of success, a Class' natural strong saving throws will offer mechanics like "Rogue Evasion" from other systems, to any type of save. For example, Barbarians will shrug off most fortitude effects because of their proficiency and high chance of success, Bards and other casters will do that with Will.

Pathfinder 2e at higher levels is still threatening, and balanced, but you have a lot of options available to you that can turn the tide in your favor and mitigate problems thrown at you.

Ravingdork wrote:

Jester David wrote:

After playing & rejecting 4th Edition D&D, the Red Queen's Race design of levelling & advancement in PF2 just doesn't grab me. Where you get more and more powerful but the enemies advance at exactly the same rate, so you never really get any better.

Except you do get better. First, not everything scales. Go back to the ogre lands at 10th-level and see if any of those old ogres can still touch you.

I saw that argument repeatedly brought up in defence of 4e back in the day, and now occasionally for PF2. But that situation very seldom happens.

You don't tend to actually run encounters with non-challenging enemies, because of the time it takes to set-up the map, position the minis, take initiative, and then run the battle. As there's no challenge or risk—no expenditure of resources—there's no reason to actually run the fight. It just eats up the finite time you have to play.

In actual play, if you do go to ogre lands at level 10 the low level ogres flee and they send their champions out, who will conveniently be several level 7 ogre bosses who weren't present last time.
Or several new variant ogres that are the appropriate level to be a challenge. An ogre hunter or an ogre savage or an ogre juggernaut.

Ravingdork wrote:

Second, even those things that do scale, don't keep up with PC advancement.

That difficulty gap narrows by a fair margin at high levels.

So the fighter's accuracy goes up? They hit at-level foes more often as they advance? The rogue's odds of picking an at-level lock increase at higher levels?

The system's math doesn't expect you to use your Ability Boosts at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20 to boost your class' Key Ability, and you can instead use all of them to remove weaknesses with no impact on accuracy or effectiveness?

The simplest solution for the ogres problem and one I have seen used many times is to struggle with 1 ogre as a boss monster at low level, then have a couple of them as a routine encounter on the way to the boss a few levels later and finally use a bunch of them as distracting minions along with a main boss a few levels after that. Mind you, this is the same problem in every edition of D&D or PF. The level gap may be a bit wider or narrower depending on the rules set.

I'm not even sure what you want here. Shouldn't encounters continue to be challenging as you go up levels? Why shouldn't an at level lock be as much of a challenge for the rogue at any level? How is it an "at level" challenge, if a 1st level lock is a struggle at 1st level, but a 15th level lock is trivial at 15th level? What does "at level" challenge even mean if that's the case?

I strongly believe that the developers didn't realize how this curve would work out until they really saw it in play over the course of the last year, and why the begginer's box is the right introduction tool for newer players to PF2, not just newer players to roll playing. (Everything I am hearing is that it avoids the pitfall encounters that brutalize new parties).

This is a step in the right direction as any game needs to be able to teach the game early on. And in order to support this I still advocate player biased early math because the difference in perception and usage of abilities can be quite different if all the learning is just based on trial and error. A player who has failed his combat maneuvers half a dozen times during his early levels due to any combination of targeting the wrong enemy save, trying to go for the wrong enemy (level+x), missing teamwork and/or subpar dice rolls will probably have a very much different view on the usage and probability of combat maneuvers than a player who successfully pulled off a couple of maneuvers during low level play.

The way I see it, it's a good thing that PF2 gives us the option of using standard ogres, ogre bosses, ogre champions, or veritable ogre gods.

It's a testament to the system that we can play the game however we want, as challenging or curb-stompy as we want. If that's not the case for your group, I would suggest having a conversation about it with your group.

But thats not Cody's complaint. He has stated that his players understand and have found the ultimate beat rotation possible (the illusion of choice complaints) AND that TPKs happen all the time. Thats the problem people have.

It's fine for someone to say "hey, the system is super dense and finding the right thing to do is not fun for me." No one would bat an eye at that, and probably most of us here could point you to a system that would be more for those players and GMs. I also think its fine to point out that pazio doesn't always make it super easy to read the book and understand the rules at first blush, I think a ton of us would agree with you. HOWEVER! Supposedly Cody's expert veteran team has been playing for a whole year and has yet to show any mastery over the rules system and thats not going to be most peoples experience, to the point where its just kinda silly. They are not new players anymore and yet they are still doing what "new players would do" over and over again even though it kills them.

The notion that TPKs happen all the time in Cody's PF2 campaign is an error. His party had one TPK.

He was talking about how his players were bored with doing the same thing in combat. For example, at time mark 5:09 he said, "they [druid's player] were getting bored just turning into dinosaurs and dragons to bite and claw things over and over again." At time mark 5:38, Cody explained how fast that boredom set in, "And before you dismiss what I am saying here as hyperbole, let me give you some additional context. Back at the end of book 2 of Age of Ashes my players TPKed, something that I haven't had happen in a game in 22+ years behind the screen. I've had plenty of character death, but never a complete wipe before. And so this druid player is already bored of his character just between the levels of 9 to 12. That's how little choice they feel they have after initiative has been rolled."

I think his point is that after the original party died against the final boss in book 2, his players created new 9th-level characters for book 3. And a mere 3 levels later, they were bored of their new characters doing the same thing in combat over and over again.

We have one or two other clues that the player characters might have been sub-optimal, such as the ranger using Strike as a 3rd action every turn despite the attack usually missing (Precision Edge ranger not Flurry Edge). However, dying to the boss at the end of a module is not a sign of bad tactics. Those final bosses are tough.

I have never had a TPK in my games, since my players are willing to run away when overwhelmed. Nevertheless, I guess that a new character created at 9th level would be more focused on a single theme, such as archery, than a character who reached 9th level through adventures starting at 1st level. And if some players were still relying on PF1 optimization strategy, I imagine them thinking that their previous character died because they did not specialize enough.

'm not even sure what you want here. Shouldn't encounters continue to be challenging as you go up levels? Why shouldn't an at level lock be as much of a challenge for the rogue at any level? How is it an "at level" challenge, if a 1st level lock is a struggle at 1st level, but a 15th level lock is trivial at 15th level? What does "at level" challenge even mean if that's the case?

I don't disagree, but it's also worth pointing out that a high level rogue (or anybody else who maxes out Thievery) will rip through just about any lock pretty trivially. Only something significantly ahead of the curve actually presents an inconvenience to them.

Docflem wrote:

But thats not Cody's complaint. He has stated that his players understand and have found the ultimate beat rotation possible (the illusion of choice complaints) AND that TPKs happen all the time. Thats the problem people have.

It's fine for someone to say "hey, the system is super dense and finding the right thing to do is not fun for me." No one would bat an eye at that, and probably most of us here could point you to a system that would be more for those players and GMs. I also think its fine to point out that pazio doesn't always make it super easy to read the book and understand the rules at first blush, I think a ton of us would agree with you. HOWEVER! Supposedly Cody's expert veteran team has been playing for a whole year and has yet to show any mastery over the rules system and thats not going to be most peoples experience, to the point where its just kinda silly. They are not new players anymore and yet they are still doing what "new players would do" over and over again even though it kills them.

The notion that TPKs happen all the time in Cody's PF2 campaign is an error. His party had one TPK.

He was talking about how his players were bored with doing the same thing in combat. For example, at time mark 5:09 he said, "they [druid's player] were getting bored just turning into dinosaurs and dragons to bite and claw things over and over again." At time mark 5:38, Cody explained how fast that boredom set in, "And before you dismiss what I am saying here as hyperbole, let me give you some additional context. Back at the end of book 2 of Age of Ashes my players TPKed, something that I haven't had happen in a game in 22+ years behind the screen. I've had plenty of character death, but never a complete wipe before. And so this druid player is already bored of his character just between the levels of 9 to 12. That's how little choice they feel they have after initiative has been rolled."

I think his point is that after the original party died against the final boss in...

Thanks for the correction, and I'm fine admiting to not watching Cody's video more than once. The points still stand, if tpks in other games are so rare for his team, then you would think that experiencing one would make one think twice about their rotations. Sure, maybe if you you were to feel like giving them the benifit of the doubt you could say it "sppoked" them into making the tactical error of doing the same thing over and over again, but for me, nkt so much.

The fact that his second video was not really in good faith and his reactions to reaction videos being so defensively s+%&ty (especially nonat's which to me seemed like a very kind and thoughtful video) leads me to believe that his arguments were not in good faith.

Additionally, how does anyone play ttrpgs and not tpk in 20+ years? Is that super common for other people?

While I'm aware some people seem to think this way, I've never understood it. It's a game. There's supposed to be balance all the way through. That keeps up the challenge and the excitement. High levels aren't supposed to be easier than low levels. Enemies are supposed to keep pace, not just in terms of raw numbers, but in terms of new tricks and abilities. It gets boring if everything becomes a curbstomp.

I think you can vary it up though. Have accuracy go up but hit points increase. Or having some things (like magic) not being assumed so they actually confer a bonus.

This is something commonly seen in non-d20 systems that use percentile dice and skill system action resolution.
(Like Call of Cthulhu, which is an odd example as you do get "weaker" as you advance as your sanity declines.)

Back in 2010 I walked out of 4e thinking that since advancement and progression was so rigid you could just drop all the numbers and math and reduce combat & skill accuracy to "roll a 10+ to hit." That your epic level awesome fighter never felt like they were better at hitting things or more successful in combat.
(At the time, given the board gamification of 4e, I actually wondered if 5e would drop the d20 and numbers for something simple like roll 2d6 and a 7+ hits.)
And it occurred to me that you could just stick to low level with easier to manage numbers and simpler & faster play and change the flavour. Tell the dramatic endgame adventure at level 5 where they're fighting a level 9 Runelord Karzoug and flavour everything as being higher level. Cap or slow "level" advancement but award regular powers/ feats and hit points.

So seeing Pathfinder 2 come out with even bigger numbers than 4e (adding full level rather than half level!) but just as tightly balanced and rigid accuracy just didn't excite me.

I think part of it is the Illusion of Choice the video linked by the OP mentioned. When you advance you have all these choices: new feats, Ability Boosts, gp to spend on magic. But you're always going to focus on your specializations, because to do otherwise means you fall behind the curve. There really isn't a choice. You have the option to make a sorcerer and then not boost Charisma with any of your 5th level Ability Boost. But you're not going to. That's not a real choice. It's a hypothetical choice at best. Cake or death.

Compared to 4th edition, PF2 has a lot more horizontal growth that makes higher levels more interesting than they would be otherwise. And it is not like the level pacing is enforced by the system. If you find the system too difficult, you could give everyone a level to give them an edge.

thejeff wrote:

While I'm aware some people seem to think this way, I've never understood it. It's a game. There's supposed to be balance all the way through. That keeps up the challenge and the excitement. High levels aren't supposed to be easier than low levels. Enemies are supposed to keep pace, not just in terms of raw numbers, but in terms of new tricks and abilities. It gets boring if everything becomes a curbstomp.

I think you can vary it up though. Have accuracy go up but hit points increase. Or having some things (like magic) not being assumed so they actually confer a bonus.

Increasing the warrior's odds of hitting from 55% to 80% over levels 1 to 20 doesn't make things a curbstomp or lack a challenge.

This is something commonly seen in non-d20 systems that use percentile dice and skill system action resolution.
(Like Call of Cthulhu, which is an odd example as you do get "weaker" as you advance as your sanity declines.)

Back in 2010 I walked out of 4e thinking that since advancement and progression was so rigid you could just drop all the numbers and math and reduce combat & skill accuracy to "roll a 10+ to hit." That your epic level awesome fighter never felt like they were better at hitting things or more successful in combat.
(At the time, given the board gamification of 4e, I actually wondered if 5e would drop the d20 and numbers for something simple like roll 2d6 and a 7+ hits.)
And it occurred to me that you could just stick to low level with easier to manage numbers and simpler & faster play and change the flavour. Tell the dramatic endgame adventure at level 5 where they're fighting a level 9 Runelord Karzoug and flavour everything as being higher level. Cap or slow "level" advancement but award regular powers/ feats and hit points.

So seeing Pathfinder 2 come out with even bigger numbers than 4e (adding full level rather than half level!) but just as tightly balanced and rigid accuracy just didn't excite me.

I think part of it is the Illusion of Choice the...

People here have pointed out before that the difference between specializing and not specializing isn't that great in PF2 and that suboptimal characters, within reason, are not a team killer. Its much more about team work than anything else. Additionally, while boosting your main ability score with your boosts is important, you do know you get 4 differnt boosts at level 5 and every 5 levels past that right? So while one of two of those boosts are generally going to be used the same you got 2 to 3 that you can place anywhere you want.

Compared to 4th edition, PF2 has a lot more horizontal growth that makes higher levels more interesting than they would be otherwise. And it is not like the level pacing is enforced by the system. If you find the system too difficult, you could give everyone a level to give them an edge.

Or you could shift the encounter charts down 1 level, giving more XP for lesser challenges, and the use lower level creatures. Suddenly the difficulty will shift down and the appearance of pcs kicking are will increase.

Valuing the degree of a challenge differently is probably the easiest and quickest fix you can do as a GM, and because of the way the game is built, you still won't be that far off the feel of a challenge-tone it down from overwhelming to merely dangerous.

Keep This chart

And drop each of the levels on this one by one.

real important analysis about Cody’s video and problem

Math use hit it out if the park with this last post and every one should go back and read it because the point stands and is a problem in PF2, although a bit of a niche one that most players won’t experience right away.

Characters who level up organically tend to end up more diverse and ready to handle a wide array of situations than characters that jump in at higher levels. On paper, the organic spread out character ends up looking like a mess of niche feats that should probably be retrained if and when the party gets enough down time, but they were also probably incredibly useful at the time and might still have an opportunity to shine.

The new character on the other hand is streamlined. No weird situational ancestry or skill feats that don’t directly contribute to the characters thing. The character has qualified for some archetype or master level skill feat at the exact level that would be possible but only through pretty hyper specialization. As a result the new character likely has a lot less flexibility and less random smattering of items to make average options complete with the shiny new ability the character was built for.

I see this pretty commonly in games. Rebuilt martial characters with no ranged options because they assume some will be able to cast fly on them now. Or a ranger built only to shoot a bow, even though they could easily have a back up melee weapon with useful weapon traits for when the character gets boxed in. Casters picking all spells built around a theme or minor bonus they get from some special feat, but having sacrificed the flexibility of multiple damage types and useful utility spells.

It sounds like a mid level TPK is the exact situation where this could happen to the entire party at once and then deflate the the whole group on the whole game, rather than be seen as a situational bug that will arise occasionally in play.

The more I think about it, the more I think the problem could be it the wealth by level system and GMs not looking over item selection and pushing back against players picking all highest level possible items focused around one idea. Like there probably should be something incentivizing picking up some cheaper consumable back up plan items that the character should have on them from finding them as loot.