Pickles Grr's page

Tiene wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Thanks. That's what I expected.

I'd say it was better (or worse) - my players latched onto one target and successfully tracking them would have short circuited the adventure. So I was a bit heavy handed in foiling this. This is a weakness of the module and my under preparedness rather than the system of course.

I would prefer things be more on the character side. Being good with shields, rather than having a good shield.

Me too but that applies to striking runes as well.

I can live with it but shields are a mess with only one type that works, house rules time (I can give any shield any stats I want ;) ) .

You're assuming it is intended to plan out complicated builds rather than fix errors you made when levelling.

Turnips. Oh and more turnips.

Wonder if I'll ever remember that we add level along with proficiency. Does this apply to AC as well or just to hit and skills?

Technically proficiency (bonus) is level + 2/4/6/8.

I do not know if that will help you remember though

Animal Companion is not automatic, it requires your action to act.

Yeah sorry I meant thought did not so obviously the best action you will automatically take it.

And yes, maneuvers have map, you open with them usually to make the rest attacks benefit from the penalties they impose.

And don't know what I can tell you, but if you're just standing there are striking things, what's stopping the enemies just going around and smacking the cloistered in the head?

MAP on manoeuvres means you are trading an action for the chance of an action (with trip) and either making your attacks worse or using a low probability manoeuvre. This will be great sometimes - grappler grabs the boss for everyone to hit, but is often inconsequential.

Really the set up for the fights was not that interesting apart from the first one (lots of weak things that got obliterated or one tough thing which rarely makes an interesting fight) It looks like the rest of the scenario has more of the best type - several enemies about the same power as the PCs.

What's stopping them from moving and turning the flank on the party instead, maybe even opening with a trip so that the player can at most do 1 attack in his round if he wants to setup flank?

What's stopping them from going to the ranger?

And etc.

The problem probably lies with the GM not having yet adapted to the freedom a 3 action, no AoO system gives.

Well that would be me. My 5e monk & the cleric's 5e rogue hit & run all the time so we know it's worthwhile but only when the situation is right. The tankiness of PF2 monks also means it is less good and pretty anti-social to go & hide behind a fighter.

The set up did not really allow for any manoeuvring by the monsters, once they were engaged & the fighter locked down a couple.

Is the movement from Hydraulic Torrent spell a push effect?

The text refers to it being a push but the fail consequences say knock back

Similarly Hydraulic Push. It is called "Push" but the text only says knock back.

(spells p344, forced movement p475)

When do you save against Stinking Cloud spell? Right away?

The first time you end or start a turn in the spell AOE? Each time you start or maybe end your turn in the spell AOE

( I speculate the first time you enter the AOE & succeeding the save gives immunity, but that is not in the text)

I will say, after some test runs and a scenario in PF2e, it does feel like failure and especially critical failures happen a whole lot more often, noticeably so, and outweighed the critical successes. The math proves this, too.

EDIT: I will add that part of this is due to some players wanting to skill check when they shouldn't (due to being PF1e veterans), so that definitely impacts things a bit, but there is something to it feeling more common, for sure.

Presumably some of it is MAP too? If the first attack is 60% or so to hit (9+) the next will be 35% (14+) but with 20% (14) crit fail. Not that crit fails on attacks do much normally.

Really the theoretical issues with the asymmetry are drowned in practice by the variance on d20s and the fact the DC will shift all over the place.

even with only the basic actions available to them, as the GM and as experienced with the new version, you should at least point out to them how much more accessible, easy to use, and useful, the new maneuver system is (grab/trip especially, shove is as always bound by the terrain for usefulness and disarm is kinda terrible imo. As well as intimidate.

I'm really intrigued what the party composition is, because most martials have plenty of access from 1st level for things to do.

Shield Fighter, Monk, Pet plus Bow precise Ranger, Cloistered Cleric.

None of them had seen PF2 before we started and as they were expecting to play 5e there was some sulking.

Manoeuvres are effected by MAP so fail in the same way.

The Ranger had obviously got control pet and mark target but the pet was pretty automatic and we forgot the mark target (:O)) He also chose to move out of volley range on occasion (that is a dreadful rule). Archers have always been as dull as anything to play but the pet & the mark target will I hope make this more interesting by pressuring the actions. It was still pet shoot twice a lot of the time - not exciting to me, but I think the player likes it and much better than shoot 3 times.

In a static melee the monk was even more blessed with attacks at -10 (well -8) as flurry gets him a free one.

The cloistered cleric was particularly disgruntled at learning new things and cloistered clerics seem bad - no spammable cantrips and pretty poor with his X-bow. He is a gnome so will probably retrofit a primal cantrip or two and that seems fine. Or switch to battle cleric (which is also mediocre as a gnome, but looks OK otherwise).

They all set up flanking all the time - this is super easy at the cost of a terrible attack with no OAs.

Aargh sorry for long derail. I am excited by PF2 but it certainly has some red flags for me (arithmetic basically) so I'm feeling my way with rather conservative players.

This seems to be an issue of playing pf2 like pf1. Standing still and attacking three times is probably one of the worst tactical choices.

Only if you have actions that are not attack or move which a lot of characters will not. Well in my limited first one sixth of Plaguestone experience. The fighter had plenty to do with actions the others really ran out of things to do other than attack at -10.

I was DMing & they were completely new to PF2. I know if I get to play I will be making sure I have some, but not too many, auxiliary actions and reactions.

If it is easier think of it this way: if the DC is 15 you need to roll a 5 to fail, and a 15 to succeed. You only critically succeed on a 20. If you focus on the idea that the person rolling wants to shift their success tier up, the numbers all stay consistent.

The issue is that you do not need a 5 to fail, you need a 6.

Another way of expressing the asymmetry is that you can succeed by 0 if you hit the DC exactly but if you fail it is by at least 1.

Anyhow while this bugs me from an aesthetic point of view it is not a mechanical one.

The original point that crit fails are twice as likely as crit successes is only at one point on the relative attack/defence curve. At most other points they are skewed more and in either direction.

I will add my two cents and say, no it's not supposed to be an even statistical chance of crit failure or crit success. In fact, it almost never will be because your modifier to the roll and DC will impact more than anything. If you are targeting AC 10 with an attack roll of +20, guess what you're going to crit (except on a nat 1 which reduces success levels by 1 step, IIRC).

This I agree with

It DC+10 to crit success and DC-10 for crit failure. It's that simple. Don't over complicate it. Don't overthink it.

If it's a DC 15 challenge, a 25 is a crit success and a 5 is a crit fail.

Except in one case it's 25 or more and in the other it's 15 or less. to at least fail you have to get 16.

Essentially the asymmetry is because the active dice rolling player wins ties. eg If you sneak up on someone with the same perception as your stealth they have a 45% chance to see you, if they try to see you hiding they have a 55% chance to see you. Spells with attacks are a tiny bit better than spells with saves for this reason too.

It is hardly a new problem - 3.5 had failing by 10 when climbing meant you fell & it bugged me then. It still bugs me but I am used to it. Definitely overthinking it.

I see that as the opposite. (Well, as a player, not the PC). As a player, I want enemies to attack my allies, not me. Because it's only when they damage my allies that I get to use a retributive strike. If they're attacking me I might as well be a fighter.

Except paladins have better defences from level 7 anyway and a heal they can use on themselves.

But you (player not toon) are right - in 4e the punishment part of marks rarely got used as the DM usually focused on the tank, so they were sort of an anti synergy with having fun hitting things!

I like that the Champion has the high defences & "Active Tanking" schticks as it clearly differentiates them from fighters. On top of this the mystical nature of it presumably does not irritate people who had dissonance issues with fighters doing this sort of thing.

PC's also use weapons that have those traits.

Mace,Great Club, Maul, Warhammer can all shove.

Whips, Sickle, Flail, Bo Staff, Guisarme, Horsechopper, Kama, Kukri, Scythe, Spiked Chain, Temple Sword, War Flail, Aklys, Ogre Hook can all Trip.

The big thing though is that you have to invest in being a frontliner, can't just roll up and stand in front of an enemy.

That and casters/ranged need to be aware of their positioning and vulnerabilities.

There are also knockdown crit effects on hammers and flails or moves on polearms. I think fighters can crit fish a bit.

The Guisarme looks very solid with reach & trip - reach being very, very good much better than +1 damage from a d12 weapon.

About the AC thing being gamist, it was not as much as the concept per se, but the actuality of how it plays. You get a 10 level wizard wading unscathed into a 500 volley of arrows and cannonbals fired by lv1-2 guardsmans.

That's very much the same in PF2. It's the opposite "problem" in 5e - who needs heroes when 50 archers will take out a dragon and there are thousands of archers.

Given the suspension of disbelief I have to engage in as soon as there are levels and HP this is not really a problem for me. In practice PCs fight what they fight & the rules of the game do not necessarily define the rules of the world (very much not simulationist)

Well the thing that 4E started was "dumbing" down the game (a little provocative here), respectively trying to remove much of 3E complexity, which per se is not a bad thing, depending how it is carried out.

5e did that far more to the point it is now very slick. The "complexity" I came to hate in 3.0 - 3.5 - pf1 was the oodles of arithmetic from layers of buffs and situational modifiers, or laborious ways of doing inconsequential things. 4e and PF2 reduced this but not a lot

The key word for all editions after 3E and 3.XE is linearisation, which I find rather a good thing and from what I can tell so far PF2 seems to make a good job here.

It is so much easier to balance an adventure path or homebrew adventure when player power is at least somewhat within certain limits.

Nah it's still geometric it's just that the variance in power at any given level is far lower. Like you say far easier to balance.

Gust of Wind prevents you moving against it - super narrow situational use in corridors. It also shoots down fliers that fail saves which seems strong for a level 1 spell that you don't need to heighten.

in terms of pure "strength"

it's class>racial>skill>general

but since you can use General feats to pick up Skill feats as well, it overall goes like:

Class>racial>general>skill

NOT because general are stronger than Skill, but because General also include skill.

Skill feats are all over the place though, from the cool Catfall & the awesome Legendary ... to the truly pointless terrain specialisation.

Fair enough. Keep the numbers where they're supposed to be Or Else. Got it.

If you don't have the physical attributes for the job you will not be able to do the job well.

Crafting too - crafter level >= Item level p534

"The class says it gets wild morph focus spell for free and the wild shape feat for free (but there's also a wild shape focus spell which is same name but different which I don't quite understand)."

The feat grants you access to the spell. It's the only way to get to cast it.

"Do I get my focus point back after 10 mins if I use refocus? So I can use focus spells multiple times a day?"

Yes. Yes.

"When do I gain additional focus points for the druid?"

From Feats that say you do. They seem a little rare for Wild Shapers.

"When can I use higher level focus spells?"

When you take Feats that grant them. They are always heightened to half your level rounded up (like the highest level spell you can cast) so you get to use better animal forms etc.