Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber. Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 19 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 38 Organized Play characters.
Though I still think on top of that they should still count as level+1 for treasure bundles when playing up to signify increased pay for increased difficulty. That way the player now has the elite adjustment or level bump plus a lil extra money to smooth out a possible hard game.
"Play up for more rewards" was super toxic in PF1 and resulted in people being pressured into playing tables they were not comfortable at and then getting their characters killed.
I would really rather we not go back to that.
I am guessing the tables you and I have seen have been very different and this is very possible. Had I seen what you described I might have a different outlook at the situation. For me though in PF1 I never seen anyone forced or pressured into playing up they always made the choice themselves. I can honestly say that the players I saw chose to play up and were grateful for the extra pay that came with the extra risk. If that was truly happening then that is awful and should not happen.
What I don't want to see is what is currently happening, that I have been seeing, which is villainizing a player for choosing (and in some cases not having a choice) bringing a high/low level character to the table. I have in PF2 seen people go, "Well there is the level 4. What as a$$" and on the reverse I have seen level 1s be shamed for not helping and making passing the victory point system (as one example) harder on the team due to the seat being full adding more points needed to succeed.
That is why when I hear people saying things like, well people will just private their table so the person can't play or people will just leave and close the table it is villainizing a player. The system should not be villainizing a player on a decision oh who they want to play and I for one never saw in PF1 a high/low level player sitting at the table ever be treated like they personally ruined a table because of their character choice. But what I can say is I have seen it happen at PF2 tables and that is what I want to help come up with a way to stop.
Players and GMs need to watch and manage the level mix. Don't bring a level 1 into a party of lvl 4s. The bump to the level 1 will not always be enough. Don't bring a lvl 4 into a party of lvl 1s. The level 4 might not have any trouble with increased difficulty, but it could crush the level 1s.
The problem with this statement is that at all society tables that have legal player show up and drops a legal character down the table cannot turn them away unless the table is full. (Even then I have in the past split the table into two and asked a friend to be the second DM) Have a table of 1s and 2s and someone shows up with a 4. Sure I can encourage them to to make a new character but in the end the player makes the decision and if they decide to drop the level 4 the table is forced up and so now everyone at the table gets punished...
Lets go the other way... You are running a table of 4s and a new player shows up with their level one. I would say the level bump does not help at all tbh from my experience. They still drop as fast and still fail as often as if they didn't have it because of how the math swings. So now that new player gets smashed in the face, doesn't have a good time and we lose a new member of society play.
PF1 playing up was not nearly as detrimental as it is in PF2. How tight they tuned the math makes even the smallest level difference crazy. This compounds the CR system and why it needs to be reevaluated completely. For fun lets set off 2 parties of equal CR and see that happens.
3v1 equal challenge rating characters:
Party 1
Level 4 Barbarian(1)
To hit
18 Str(4)+LvL(4)+Prof(2)+Potency(1)=11
Damage
1d12+Striking(1d12)+Strength(4)+Rage(2)=2d12+6
Armor Class
Base AC with stat/item (5)+lvl(4)+Prof(2)-Rage(1)=20
Hit Points
Ancestries(8)+16 Con(3X4=12)+Level(12X4=48)=68 plus 7 Temp HP
Initiative
Wis(0)+Expert(4)+Level(4)=+8 to initiative
Party 2
Level 1 Barbarian (3)
To hit
18 Str(4)+LvL(1)+Prof(2)=7
Damage
1d12+Strength(4)+Rage(2)=1d12+6
Armor Class
Base AC with stat/item (5)+lvl(1)+Prof(2)-Rage(1)=17
Hit Points
Ancestries(8)+16 Con(3)+Level(12)=23 plus 4 Temp HP
Initiative
Wis(0)+Expert(4)+Level(1)=+5 to initiative
Now let's play the 10.5 game where all rolls are 10.5 since that's the average. So let's call it 11 because the dice are hot.
4th level Barbarian will always hit his first attack.
1st level Barbarian will never hit at all (even with a flank ignoring barbarian 4 can't be flanked)
You are right, it is unfair of me to not give those poor level 1 barbarians a level bump of +1 for being level 1 playing up.
So my level 4 barbarian is still at 10.5 and the level 1s are 11.5. So let's call is 11/12 respectively rounding up because luck is on their side.
4th level Barbarian will always hit his first attack.
1st level Barbarian will never hit at all (even with a flank ignoring barbarian 4 can't be flanked)
So the level 4 smears the floor of the 3 level 1s and walks away.
I bring up the above to show that in the 1,1,2,2,2,4 or even anytime 3,3,4,4,4,7 or 5,5,6,6,6,9 or 7,7,8,8,8,11 the system is asking the 5 lower level players to stand against a foe that will easily destroy them. And for no added benefit or gain.
As I said in my first post if I am at a table and someone drops their level 4 and forces a table up (and sadly this happens way way way too often) should the table GM start denying a player from joining? Or if a level 1 new player show up to a table of level 4s should we deny them from playing? I mean both of those are a slippery slope and why this discussion needed to be handled during the beta but seemed to be largely ignored that the CR increase is much much worse now in this system.
If the system made it just harder I feel the system would be okay but in a world where you are in constant fear of rolling a crit fail and that the higher the DC the greater the chance of a crit fail is why players playing up refuse to participate because I don't want to be any more of an additional burden. If the system had no crit failing then at least then people would not worry and just role the die incase of the lucky 20... but when you have only 5% chance of a miracle against the possible 20% or more chance of a critical fail causing lose of victory points/increase failure/etc... it leads to what I when I am forced to play up, and I assume a lot of people playing up do... sit at a table and do nothing... and that's not fun.
My only solution I can offer is if the module was written with a if/then statement. Basically if character is lower 2 levels use these numbers for the creature/encounter/event/etc for purpose of DC/AC/Damage/to hit and if character is upper 2 levels use these number for purpose of DC/AC/Damage/to hit. Unfortunately that would require a lot more juggling for gms so I am sure it would be shot down but that's all I have been able to come up with.
Asking another potentially disruptive question, why use massive damage at all in org play? I do recall it being ignored in 1e, so why not continue to do so?
It happens so rarely, its not hard to "forget" to enforce it
So just because you "forget" to enforce it does not mean every gm "forgets" it. So the obvious answer is to remove the rule if the only way to deal with it is to "forget" it.
TwilightKnight wrote:
medtec28 wrote:
GMs are NOT allowed to alter DCs. I'm pretty sure that remains a constant.
Meh—GMs have always been empowered to add circumstance bonus/penalties that amount to the same thing as adjusting the DC. Not to mention the fairly liberal language in the Aid action to can allow allies to have a big impact on skill checks.
That is the issue we are all talking about. If you need to add a adjustment to DCs/ACs etc to make it more fair then it is not an appropriate number to be against. If for no other reasons than not every gm will make the adjustments you are leading to tables feeling like the whole mission is a lost cause. So if the answer is just apply an adjustment then the number in flat should be lower to begin with.
The modules should be written thinking not only this might be the first time someone is a player but also this might be someone's first time GMing. A GM following RAW and MAW could easily have a bad time since they might not think/know to do what you suggest and thus the community could lose both new players and/or GMs.
I figure I will throw my hat into this as both a player and as a GM. There has been and continues to be glaring issues that have been going on since the system was released.
I was there before season 6 when people on the forums complained that min maxers were destroying modules and that they were too easy.
I was there during season 6 of PF1 when the designers decided to follow the, “The bad guys have been watching societies tricks and are turning it against them”
I was there when scores of players called out that this had become unfun as this new stance severely hurt the average player.
I was there when John Compton spoke out and stated that the design team understood that tuning modules against min maxers only hurts the majority of the player base that are not, and promised to keep a closer eye on low level scenario difficulty.
I was there in the beginning of PF2 trying to convince my players, my friends that the system is solid and would just need some time and a few books to give extra resources and tuning to make it feel better.
I was there when season after season it felt like the difficulty curve just continued to go up and started to make task impossible.
I was there when a level 1 forced to play up did not succeed a single roll an entire session and was knocked out the first round of every combat even with the level bump.
I was there when that same player asked, “Wait if my character took all these risks why am I still getting the same reward?
And now we get to today...
Having your strongest stat/skill player only having a 40% or less chance of succeeding is not fun.
Having monsters that are able to remove player agency with similar saves DCs is not fun.
Watching a player slowly burn/bleed/freeze to death after an encounter from persistent damage despite all the help the team gives is not fun.
I feel forced to apologize to tables as a whole combat round passes by having the only hit that occurred by one hero just because it was a crit. This was for no other reason then the monster had an AC of 22 and the best plus to hit at the table was 8 with everyone much less.
Looking at modules that turns me, a GM who likes to give a great story, into almost the foe of the table by the above listed issues at the end.
I could sit and list everything that I see as glaring issues but this wall is already getting too long. Sadly most of this is an easy fix. And I come from a world where if you see a problem you need to develop solutions. So here are my solutions.
My possible solutions:
First: DCs/ACs of a monster/effects/trap/saves/gather info/haunts/etc... should be at least 50% to the average stated hero. (Average hero I would place as trained and with +1or +2 to the stat) A person who is speced/stated for the situation should be closer to 70%. This will allow everyone a chance to succeed while also allowing people who focus shine. The current state of the system has the strongest stated being at 40 percent and GMs looking at the rest of the table going, “Well you can at least try to crit to succeed.” In a world where crit failing could lead to dire consequences it doesn’t feel good to be in that situation watching one party member failing despite being spec/stated/trained for it while the rest stand by and do nothing in fear of crit failing. With the bar set closer to 50% for an average hero that would put the crit fail at closer to 5-10%. So an untrained person just rolling stats would end up at your current 35~40% with an 15~20% crit fail, your average stat a ~50% with a ~5-10% crit fail and your stated players at 70% with a flat 5% chance of failing. Now heroes who are average in a skill will not be too afraid to try while also giving a boon to your heroes who put extra effort in a particular field.
Second: Post combat all persistent damaging effects (bleed/acid/cold/fire/etc) should end without additional flat checks. The reasoning behind this is a person on fire, bleeding, covered in acid, freezing and surrounded by their teammates dousing them in water/bandages/blankets should be enough to auto succeed. There are no monsters and no immediate threats so it should just end. Slowly burning an unlucky hero to death is not the heroic ending you want to give players. That is not an honorable death and should never happen.
Third:
It is too easy for players to be forced to play up in the current CR system. For example in no world will a 1,1,2,2,2,4 level party (19 CR points) work well playing up. Even with the bump to the level 1s that turns them into not quite level 2’s. So what do these low level people get for all their efforts? Well let see nothing… Well, no that is not fair. They get to experience loss in rep as they generally will not complete the second condition, they get to make less gold as they now have an increased chance to lost/missed treasure bundles and oh yes a greater chance of not being able to do anything successfully for 4 to 5 hours because as outlined above with the current state of DCs/ACs they drop even further lower in success with more increased chance of crit fail. My solution is simple by doing one or all of the following suggested. A. Hero’s forced to play up get auto treasure bundle protection (IE max bundles for the mission) and bundles earned equaling level+1. This is to signify Society's acknowledgment of placing the hero/agent on a more deadly complicated mission than his peers of equal level. B An increased ACP gain to help offset the increased chance of character death and returning. C If the fear of B is people abusing the system for free ACP then give a free resurrection to the heros playing up as a thanks from Society for being placed in that difficult situation.
Tl;dr I have and remain a fan of Pathfinder. It is just becoming too much to defend now and adjustments need to be made sooner than later. This is the call to actions to fix the game/society/module play. As a GM who wants to tell a tale to my player I shouldn’t end feeling like the villain because of a system and design choices.
@Jeremiah... Well the easiest way I have learned to get players to learn the rules is to make an exciting story line that drives them to want to learn a system more.
For instance I made a "anti magic" campaign that made players explore how to survive in a world with limited magic and no casters.
Another one I came up with was a gestalt campaign. (If you don't know what it is basically it is you level two classes at the same time and that all the bonuses and minuses of both) A strange power struck the area causing unusual powers in people to appear and your band is trying to understand while trying to protect the population from the overpowered minions that also obtained these powers. Lots of moving parts that make players think and learn them all to be effective
I would say, "Hey guys what kind of story do you want?" or well you have been playing together for 4/5 years so you should have an idea of what they like. Use that throw in a twist and make it exciting so they want to learn.
I hope these ideas help. Sadly you will always have the, "What do I roll" player but even those players with the right character sheet can do well.
That is the point Jeff... It shouldn't be that way. A product well designed with a multitude of source books to create a fantasy world for people to dream up an imagine a character going on grand adventures should never feel pigeon holed into well I am melee let me grab my two handed weapon and get power attack or I won't be effective.
I mean look at all the stories you read or movies that you watch heros come in all shapes and sizes. So I am guessing following "The year of the two handed weapons" That small character will be out because their damage threshold will be too low.
I would think Piazo would want to inspire people to imagine characters beyond just the two handed weapon medium sized melee character. I would assume that Society would also have that same stance to help foster and inspire characters beyond this closed view.
Sadly it just seems that despite all of these new classes and races becoming available as well as well written source books to add to the pathfinder universe this bottleneck is a stranglehold from allowing people to build more then just a "two handed weapon melee fighter" if they want to build an effective melee combatant.
I am glad that after sitting and listening to all the post here I have figured out what the sky key is...
It is a two handed Adamantine Great Sword... with power attack behind it of course.
Well my Pally is set for season 6 knowing he already carries this sky key, and it is magic too (Level 6 of course and no where near 3-4). The rest of my characters are screwed unless I am in a party with this mystical sky key in the group.
At least I know before forming any group for season six at least two adventures must be carrying this sky key for true success to be possible it would seem.
