The issue there could be with whoever decided to put automatic damage on a bar fight, as it's not like there's a listing in the Bestiary or a hazard in the books called "bar fight" - and the bar fight I'm familiar with in a printed adventure doesn't have automatic damage built into it.One of my first experience in PF2 has been very similar: Bar fight and my character got one shot by the automatic damage of the bar fight at the beginning of the round.
But I don't think it's an issue with PF2 but with the conception of the bar fight. How come a bar fight automatic damage can one shot an adventurer, even a slightly inexperienced one???
Well, I may have badly described it, it's automatic attack, hence the high damage (I took a critical hit).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
40% crit chance means hitting on a 3.
Even with 10 Dex and no defensive measures, a Wizard will have AC 13 at level 1, which means that the civilians have a +10 to hit. As Deadmanwalking said, that's not the kind of mob one would expect.
One thing I don't like about PF2 is the fact that improvied weapons hit so hard: you can't go below 1d4. If I was the GM, I wouldn't roll that kind of damage (or any at all) if the trash being thrown isn't something actually dangerous.
|
Too much to quote, so I'll try to summarize what I'm responding to.
PF1 death was more likely than PF2 death at level 1 - I don't agree with that at all. Dropping to -1 in PF1 meant you had at least 9 rounds for someone to stabilize you (assuming you didn't dump CON to 8) or more like 11 or 13 for most characters. In PF2, if someone crit drops you to 0, you have 2 rounds to be stabilized. And you are rolling a flat check to stabilize yourself, with no bonuses. In 8 years playing PFS1, I've never had a 1st level character die, and I can think of only a couple of times when I've seen a 1st level character die at a table. I've had a 3rd level character die to a lucky crit when he was already injured, and a 3rd level character bleed out, because he had negative energy affinity, so the party had to take extra time to get to his wand of inflict light wounds. But that was also a situation where they threw something with DR 10/- at a level 3-4 party, and it was nearly a TPK as a result.
Ezren's stats - I did not give Ezren the benefit of Mage Armor, so he did have a 12 AC for the PF1 calculation. I did variations on whether or not Ledford was charging, power attacking, or if Ezren was flat-footed. The worst case with Ledford charging, power attacking, and Ezren flat-footed, was a 4.75% instant-kill. Vs a 5% for a much less threatening attack from the 2E creature. For 2E, I don't consider Ezren's stats unusually low. A 15 AC and 15HPs seems to be pretty standard for a 1st level caster. Again, Ledford was one of the most deadly creatures thrown at a level 1 party in PFS1, vs an average creature in PFS2. Both in scenarios designed only for level 1 characters.
For the mob with the big crit rate, they are written up as a hazard with a +14 to-hit (20 foot range increment) for 1d6+3, so they aren't going to insta-kill anyone, but they have a good chance of sending someone to dying 2. As I mentioned, my dwarf was safe from being one-round dropped at 18AC and 21 HPs, but all of the 15/16AC 15/16HP casters could easily be dropped. And a +14 against an 18AC hits on a 4 or better, crits on a 14 or better for a 35% chance to crit my 18 AC (sorry, was off by one number). Against Ezren, that goes to a 50% chance to crit and 33.3% chance to roll a 5 or a 6 for a 16.67% chance to drop him to dying 2 in 1 round.
Other things that appear in low level PFS scenarios...
A trap that does +14 2d6+6.
A creature that's +11 for 1d12+5
An area of effect trap that deals 2d10+7 with a DC20 reflex save, meaning a character that starts with trained Reflex and a 14 DEX has a 25% chance to critfail the save.
Same scenario an end boss that's +12 for 1d12+5.
These are all in "introductory" scenarios at a tier that could be a party of 4 level 1 characters.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the mob with the big crit rate, they are written up as a hazard with a +14 to-hit (20 foot range increment) for 1d6+3, so they aren't going to insta-kill anyone, but they have a good chance of sending someone to dying 2.
Written up where?
I still want to know where this encounter is found. If they're really described merely as throwing generic garbage, that's really off and a strong mechanical/flavor disconnect, but that's a problem with that encounter, not the rules as a whole.
If they are instead described as throwing rocks, then that's pretty reasonable for being stoned to death by a mob. That's almost invariably fatal when done in real life, after all.
As for the rest, most of those are pretty reasonable for a level 3 foe, though the area effect seems like a higher Save DC than it probably should have (it's technically within the guidelines, but those assume single targets for the most part). Simple Hazards in particular tend to have ridiculous damage because they go off...and then you can spend all the resources you need to heal up. If they weren't vicious, they'd be speed bumps and completely meaningless.
|
|
You can’t spend resources to heal if they kill you from massive damage. The trap at +14 2d6+4 can pretty easily instant kill anyone with 15 or 16 HPs.
The hazard is described as Crowd With Trash. It appears in
The trap at +14 and creature at +11 1d12+5 are in
The enemy I ran the comparison for Ezren against is from
And finally the AoE trap and that creature are from
As for the rest, most of those are pretty reasonable for a level 3 foe
That is my point. Typical creatures/traps/hazards that you encounter in 2E have very high chances to instakill level 1 characters. I did not find that to be the case in 1E. There were more extremes, because there was more variation overall, but in the majority of cases when something was even 3 or 4% likely to instantly kill a character it felt like an outlier. Very little had more than a 5% chance (looking at invisible shocking grasp crit fishing magus bosses for the exception). In 2E we’re starting at 5% on an average encounter and going up to 25% on things that appear in scenarios designed for new players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When our group transitioned from 1e to 2e we had similar troubles early on. The malfunction, we belatedly realized, was that we were treating combat encounters more like higher level 1e encounters: get in the BG's face and trade full-attack actions.
We took a break for a bit to analyze our issues. It turns out that we basically behaved as though we're still playing Pathfinder. It's easy mistake to make since the game is called "Pathfinder" and many of its aspects still use the same nouns (with slightly different underlying rules and mechanics).
We realized that we had to stop playing Pathfinder, "forget" everything we know, (mechanics and rules) about 1e, and approach the 2e game as a completely new and separate game ("Trail Blazer").
Reevaluating 2e in that context, we changed our encounter tactics to minimize or reduce in-face time. Forcing opponents to burn actions -- standing back up, picking up or drawing a weapon, stepping or striding, attempting to remove persistent damage, etc. -- instead of Strike three time, changed the experience dramatically for us.
YMMV.
This. I believe that trying to treat PF2 like PF1 was one of the key factors as to why my first Fall of Plaguestone group had a negative experience of PF2 with the other factor being "GM shock"; different GMs run games differently, who knew?
Based purely on my experience of running Plaguestone, I didn't find encounters to be OP. Yes players got knocked out, but did they die? No.
I think it's important to manage expectations e.g. you will be knocked out at times but this isn't the end of the world and you're still a long way from actually dying. It also helps to make it clear that PF2 isn't PF1 or D&D 5e for that matter.
|
|
Typical creatures/traps/hazards that you encounter in 2E have very high chances to instakill level 1 characters. I did not find that to be the case in 1E.Whereas I did find it to be the case more so in PF1 than it is in PF2, and also experienced much higher level characters suffering random instant-kills which seem near to literal impossibility in PF2.
Such is the reality of table variance, I suppose.
I mean, the math on it is pretty simple. A creature that threatens a crit 5% of the time can at most crit 5% of the time, and will typically crit less than 5% of the time.
A creature that crits 35% of the time will crit 35% of the time. And when 25% of those crits autokill a character, it's autokilling a character 8.75% of the time.
Again, this is an anomaly of level 1 in PF2E. In 1E, it was much more likely above level 1 that you could get killed in general, because you could be at 1 HP when the enemy hits you for 40+damage. I'm not disagreeing that in those situations 2E is less deadly.
What I'm saying is that at the earliest parts of the game, when new players are trying to be brought into the system, the system is at its deadliest if you follow the rules. It is far more likely in 2E that a new player wanders into an encounter with their spell caster, the GM rolls one attack die and one damage die, and that character is dead. It doesn't take an overpowered enemy. Just two die rolls, that have a pretty good chance of occurring.
EDIT: I feel like maybe people don't know the massive damage rules in 2e:
You die instantly if you ever take damage equal to or greater than double your maximum Hit Points in one blow.
So anything that deals 30+ damage to a 15 HP character instantly kills it. Even hero points can't save you, because those only apply when your dying condition increases, and Massive Damage skips the dying condition completely. Your only hope is something like a Champion's reaction that can trigger on you taking the damage and prevent some of it.
|
|
Anecdotal numbers are anecdotal. I've played over 300 tables of PFS1 and not seen a single level 1 character die, and rarely had one of my own level 1 characters be anywhere close to -CON.
My 2E Champion has been to Dying 3 4 or 5 times already. So much that I felt like taking Diehard was obligatory for the character.
I really don't know what enemies you've been fighting in 1E, but my experience with it has not been representative of what yours has been. My 2E experience has been at least 1 character going unconscious in almost every level 1 scenario I've played. With much more urgency when they have gone down for someone to rush over and pour healing into them.
The numbers I've been posting on crit chances aren't (completely) anecdotal. They're across several scenarios and based on the math of the system.
For orcs specifically, they have Falchions, which are an 18-20 crit weapon. That's unusual for enemies in 1E. It does increase the danger from fighting them significantly, bringing their chance to threaten to 15%. They still have to confirm those crits, though.
2E is like every (significant) enemy having a Falchion and autoconfirming.
|
|
Lol. No, only because of hero points. One particularly nasty aspect of 2E is the effect of additional damage while you are down. I've been caught down at dying 1 and taken additional damage from area of effects several times. (Edit: Not that this is exclusive to 2E, but it seems to be coming up a lot in scenarios. 1E had some issues when negative channeling characters were introduced in season 1.) My swashbuckler only survived a similar situation due to a hero point. Being knocked down to dying 1, then taking three area of effects from auras on his round. Thankfully I had the hero point to survive that one.
I'll amend my previous statement about 1E deaths. I have seen one first level character killed at a table. From a Coup de Grace written into the scenario after we drank sleeping poison. Everyone in the room with him failed their perception checks to wake up. He got hit with a CdG and killed. That player never came back to PFS after that. That's exactly the kind of experience I think should be avoided for new players, and why 2E making it more likely they'll face a character death is a bad thing.
My guess on massive damage is that it's either just being ignored or people don't think about it at the time. I know of at least one game locally where a character should have died from massive damage, but the GM didn't realize it was a rule until later. i know my champion has taken 30 points of damage from a single attack before, but didn't die due to having 21 HPs and not 15.
I have found PFS scenarios to be deceptive about the danger of death, because there is a lot of skill and social challenges building up to one or two big fights that can stack some powerful hazards and monsters on top of each other to make for a severe final encounter. Especially if you are the character at first level and everyone else is a level ahead. Persistent damage and some creatures with some high bonuses create a lot of danger. It has been a lot of fun to me, but I tend to like challenges with some threat to them.
The spear hazard you mentioned (+14 to hit, 2d6+6 damage) is a level 2 one that hits a single character. It's likely to crit a level 1 PC and down it, and there's a chance that the trap springs on a squishy victim and kills it outright; but it's unlikely that you are sending your Wizard to check for traps, or to open the way for the group.
In the majority of cases it will hit someone sturdier, maybe send them down to zero HP - it's a brutal trap that does heavy single-target damage, after all - but the group will be able to save the wounded friend.
Please consider that such a trap is already over-level and unlikely to be used together with other dangers (adding creatures probably puts the encounter up to severe or worse, at that point it's ok to have a real risk of character death).
A similar hazard, but level 1, should probably have only a +12 to hit and deal 2/3 damage compared to the spear; the mob instead had the same accuracy of the spear, but deals half damage. It's ok, more or less, but it's also hitting everyone: that's the problem!
That's a level 1 hazard for each PC, which amounts to an extreme encounter.
|
|
But it is present at tier 1-2 (well, if it's chosen off the options). Plenty of PFS tables I've been at have the wizard running off to look at stuff. We had a pregen Ezren last night (level 5 in tier 7-8) doing just that. It doesn't matter what level the trap is if it's there and can hit a level 1 character. A GM probably shouldn't choose that option against all level 1 characters, but a lot of GMs just roll randomly for that quest. It's not unlikely at all, though, that a new player might havve their character wandering around the map. Especially online in a VTT, where players tend to just move their tokens all over the place while the GM is trying to talk.
There's also a difference between figuring out how often something will actually kill a character based on how characters act in a scenario and how often it will kill a character if that character is targeted. The numbers I've been posted are based on a character being targeted. Of course they will be lower in practice. So will the 1E numbers. But relative to each other, the 2E situations are far more deadly than the 1E situations in the event that the wrong character is targeted.
Run correctly, Ledford should not have been particularly lethal in 1E, because there's supposed to be an obscuring mist (preventing him from charging on round 1) and the number of characters in that alley can quickly clog things up to keep him from getting to the squishier characters. In practice, a lot of GMs didn't run the obscuring mist being present, and would just charge up and crit.
|
|
I think starting a post with "anecdotal numbers are anecdotal" and then proceeding to list your own anecdotes under the pretense that they aren't anecdotes isn't a great way to approach the conversation.
Especially not when the anecdotes showing the PF2 side as too harsh are demonstrably not in line with PF2's guidance on the topic (by which I mean the game calls these relative levels of creatures "boss monsters" and the scenarios described toss them in as if they weren't "boss monsters").
PF2, when actually following the guidelines it establishes, just doesn't strike me as being as deadly as PF1 was.
I wasn't giving the pretense that those weren't anecdotes. I was providing anecdotes to demonstrate that they can be vastly different experiences.
The earlier situations that I posted aren't anecdotal, because they are just numbers and stats from scenarios, not references to my specific experiences. Looking at the actual encounters presented in actual published material is the only way to look at the game objectively. If you want to argue that Paizo publishes too much difficult material, that's fair. But looking at what they publish in scenarios intended for new players is also a fair way to look at how the game plays for a new player.
EDIT: To put it another way, the numbers in 2E are so narrow that comparing to an 18 AC and 21 HPS or a 15 AC and 15 HPs have very little to do with the individual characters. An 18 AC and 21 HPs is just about the best you can do at 1st level (a Barbarian could have more HPs, or a Champion with a 16 CON and Toughness could have 22). 15 and 15 is pretty normal for a caster or a small race. So looking at what several published encounters meant for characters with those numbers gives a pretty good picture of how most characters will be affected. 1E had a lot more variance in that regard, which is why I looked at a worst case there, to show that the numbers are still far higher in 2E.
|
|
I provided 5 examples. I’m not looking a a single situation. I looked at a single situation for 1E, because it is one of the worst balanced encounters in 1E.
I can’t go and pull the post right now, but someone in the PFS thread looked at all of the published scenarios that include level 1 characters, and the numbers are similar across the board. I’ll link to that later when I’m somewhere I can go search for it.
The issue is mainly the massive damage rule and how it disproportionately affects level 1. Of you just don’t use that, then the situation gets a lot better.
Bounties, quests, and the intro PFS scenarios are being run at conventions all the time for new players. When 1-01 was published everyone was a new PFS player. Maybe they’ll have learned some lessons from those for the beginner box and make it less dangerous, but the content they’ve published so far is pretty consistent.
|
|
It’s not quite as complete a set of data as I remember, but here is the post I was remembering.
He came up with 9 of the 15 (at the time) level 1-4 scenarios in season 1 of PFS can instakill a PC with 15 HPs. Add onto that at least 1 scenario in season 2 so far, plus at least 1 Quest and the first bounty, it’s far from a small number of situations.
And again, just to show that I’m not purposefully picking the worst situations, he does call out the worst one he found, which is an area effect trap that deals 4d6 with a fort save, so could instantly kill anyone with up to 24 hitpoints in an area (so potentially an entire party). I don’t know which scenario that is from off the top of my head.
I picked the examples that I’m aware of, because while I’ve now played most of the published society content, I’m not a subscriber to the scenarios, so I don’t own them all.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF1 death was more likely than PF2 death at level 1 - I don't agree with that at all. Dropping to -1 in PF1 meant you had at least 9 rounds for someone to stabilize you (assuming you didn't dump CON to 8) or more like 11 or 13 for most characters. In PF2, if someone crit drops you to 0, you have 2 rounds to be stabilized. And you are rolling a flat check to stabilize yourself, with no bonuses. In 8 years playing PFS1, I've never had a 1st level character die, and I can think of only a couple of times when I've seen a 1st level character die at a table. I've had a 3rd level character die to a lucky crit when he was already injured, and a 3rd level character bleed out, because he had negative energy affinity, so the party had to take extra time to get to his wand of inflict light wounds. But that was also a situation where they threw something with DR 10/- at a level 3-4 party, and it was nearly a TPK as a result.
I think this is definitely missing some important context - PF1 tracks negative hitpoints. You're as likely to be killed from a blow at 1HP as at max HP in PF2, whereas PF1 that's definitely not the case - almost any crit when you've taken a blow will stand a good chance of killing you at 1st level. If we stick with Ezran, given the average monster damage around 1st level, it's not unlikely that he'll get hit to 0 to 1 HP from a single blow, and then before he can act, hit again for a similar amount of damage to go to -7 to -8 (in the best case scenario; in worse scenarios, a mook hits him to 1HP and then the boss hits him harder, or there's a crit, and then he's very close to dead if not dead). You say the 'flat check with no bonuses' like it's a disadvantage for a PF2 character, but PF1's check is essentially a DC 10 check where you add your con modifier and subtract your negative hitpoints. In this good-case scenario for Ezran, he'd be at a DC 18 check with a +1 bonus - sure, he can fail it 5 times before dying, but that's not particularly helpful if you're 1st level and there's no in-combat healing easily available, or the party is unable to get to you, and so on.
This is also much more true for non-squishy characters in PF1. If you're playing your 21HP rogue in PF2, you're not technically immune to being one-shot by the massive death rules, but it's nearly impossible for anything level-appropriate to inflict them. In PF1, 'tankier' characters can sometimes be more susceptible to killing blows than squishier ones - I've seen a fair few paladins with 12 CON, because they've got so many other defences. If you're hit to 0HP and disabled and another enemy goes before you act, there's a very real chance that your PC is dead (or 1 or 2 turns away from dead with almost no chance to succeed at the checks), regardless of their maximum hit points. This also makes being hit when you're down a death-sentence in PF1 - almost any dying character with with errant AoE effects is dead, whereas PF2 that will 'just' increase your Dying value. It's bad, but it's not instant death.
On the topic of the PFS scenarios, I do basically agree with you - and I do think PF2's massive damage rules aren't very enjoyable for 1st level characters. I'm not arguing PF2's rules are flawless here, just that the PF1 dying rules were flawed at best. In a home game, I'd be tempted to ignore the massive damage rules for 1st level (unless they were experienced players). It does sound like the PFS scenarios could tweak these effects a little to be less likely to one-shot PCs (perhaps more consistent damage, but lower maximums) - but this is also not something that's rare from PF1. The quintessential introduction scenario in PF1:
The Confirmation is explicitly designed as an introduction to the Society and the world of Golarion, and it throws a minotaur at you for the big boss. I've seen GMs kill PCs several times here, and I'll happily admit to having handwaved a PC death away here twice - that's not a fun introduction for new players. As you've identified up-thread, Ledford is also infamous for killing PCs.
|
|
Arcain - I don’t generally disagree with most of that. I’m not claiming 1E was perfect. I’m pointing out that 2E has a flaw that is particularly affecting 1st level characters.
On the stabilization check, keep in mind a crit takes you straight to dying 2, so you start out with needing a 12 or better, meaning you’re more likely to fail than succeed, and that doesn’t stabilize you. It just brings you back to dying 1. If you fail, then you need a 13 or better on round 2 or you’re dead. Hero points and the three action economy are the main things that make it easier to keep someone from dying. Yes, in PFS1, you might need an 18 with only a +2 or something, but the other characters could generally finish the fight and then deal with stabilizing you. And there was no chance their heal check would kill you just because they rolled a 1.
On the AoE effects, it depends what kind of effect you’re talking about. Getting hit with 1 point of splash damage lowers your dying condition just as much as being hit by a fireball. An alchemist could throw 3 bombs in a round. So just being next to the target could take you from dying 1 to dead.
I also happen to not be a huge fan of the crit mechanic in 2E in general, because I think it’s unnecessary and that the game is too restricted as a result of having that mechanic in the game. The reason every character basically has the same attack bonuses, AC, etc. is that if they don’t, then they are underpowered, and that’s largely due to the existence of the crit mechanic. But it’s less of an issue at higher levels.
Well, how are you interpreting comments like this then?Well, when Ubertron says the game feels like a meat grinder, I'm assuming they mean... that the game feels like a meat grinder.
But just because someone finds the game slogging as is doesn't mean that what they're looking for is a game so easy it doesn't have any stakes. To insinuate as much is absurd.
Whoa there. I'm just pointing out that there is more than one meaning of 'heroic' characters. I'm not trying to say any of them is wrong.
Sometimes you just want to play a character with large thews. The game does support this. You just have to adjust the encounter levels to match the game you are trying to build. The published APs and the recommended encounter building rules don't do that though.
But trying to have a conversation about this without even realizing that there is more than one way to be a hero is just going to cause unneeded arguments.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
... Do allies just not heal their friends? I don't see hero points get used very often because allies almost always heal a downed PC before they have to roll a stabilization check. I guess PFS you don't have as much guarantee for having a healer, and maybe people feel less invested in their fellow players and their characters. But still.
In my experience, you CAN bleed out faster in PF2, but in practice it almost never happens because your friends heal you and get you back in the fight, and that is without touching hero points.. This works because healing spells are powerful and negative hit points aren't a thing.
In PF1, cure wounds spells were weaker and you could actually be brought below zero. The two combined mean you might only heal a knocked out friend up to single digit hit points if you brought them above zero at all. And THAT is where characters get killed, especially at high levels. You would probably bleed out slower if left alone, but you had to get left alone because an ally healing you to rejoin the fight would mean you probably die.
Personally, I'd much rather be encouraged to rejoin the fight than safely sit it out. If you have a hero point in the tank and allies that actually heal you, you can get dropped three times in the same fight without dying or ever needing to succeed at recovery roll.
|
|
Healing is sometimes limited, yeah. But that's what I meant by the three action economy helping. In 2E, you can move to someone, take out a potion, and pour it down their throat in one round. That wasn't possible in 1E (without things like spring-loaded wrist sheaths and other tricks).
But it's also more urgent that you do so in 2E. One, because they'll bleed out faster. And two, because it's much more dangerous in general, so you probably want the other character up and fighting.
But don't forget the crits take you to dying 2, and then you add your wounded condition. So if you're at wounded 1 and get dropped from a crit (a pretty good chance) you go straight to dying 3. Moving in initiative is a good thing, but that's generally how my characters will end up at dying 3. Either that or from taking damage while down.
If you're dropped twice in a fight and get back up, then you're a crit away from being dead.
And as I alluded to above, if someone is trying to battle medicine you at 1st level, there's a chance that they critfail and make things worse (at least 5%, possibly 10%, though you'd hope they have a WIS bonus and are better than +3).
Healing in general is more effective in 2E, though, for sure.
But again, it comes back to healing and all of these other things being unable to help you if you die from massive damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I much prefer how monsters work now in PF2e. They feel quite powerful and able to harm the players pretty consistently. I like that as a design philosophy.
When I'm in the kitchen I make sure the knife is sharp and I am just more careful with it, as opposed to making sure its blunt and using it carelessly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of the reason why PF2 is less deadly is because hero points are a default part of the system. In PF1 they were an optional rule to make characters more heroic.
If PF2 did not had hero points like PF1 it would be incredibly more deadly. Specially because creatures get 2 strikes and a move at level 1 instead of only 1 and a move.
There are a lot of considerations as to why a PC is more/less likely to die.
* P.S. High AC characters in PF1 were less likely to get hit, and even if the enemy rolled a nat 20, they had to confirm to deal crit damage. So AC was effectively doing double duty, and making them considerably less prone to death. There is also the fact that PF1 chracters could have lower AC and be relatively fine, something that is unthinkable in PF2. But that is a matter of bound math.
I've actually only seen someone use a hero point to stabilize about three times in a year of playing. The people I play with almost exclusively use them for rerolling checks (I have a reputation in my group for using my initial point within the first half hour of play). I've seen three deaths during that time. The first was a witch who was killed in a single turn. Hero points would have genuinely helped here, but we misunderstood the rules and thought you could only use them on your own turn. The other two were my own characters, because I also have a reputation for making really stupid decisions with my characters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every story that involves combat will have either Storm Troopers, Red Shirts, or Death Eaters. Usually all of the above.
Storm Troopers: Enemies can't kill anything.
Red Shirts: Enemies can kill only non-main characters.
Death Eaters: Enemies can kill main characters.
Which do you want in your story?
Again, there isn't a wrong answer here. But it is a decision that you and your group need to make.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other two were my own characters, because I also have a reputation for making really stupid decisions with my characters.
And blowing your hero points in the first half hour of play. ;)
Rerolling is objectively worse than "save me from dying" to the point that if you use a point to reroll and still fail you have to spend one to avoid dying anyway.
Its why I like Shadowrun's Edge mechanic better. Bonuses and "make me not dead" come from different ends of the candle.
The other two were my own characters, because I also have a reputation for making really stupid decisions with my characters.And blowing your hero points in the first half hour of play. ;)
I figured that was covered by "making really stupid decisions".
|
Rerolling is objectively worse than "save me from dying" to the point that if you use a point to reroll and still fail you have to spend one to avoid dying anyway.
I think a lot of hero points get spent on checks where the player feels that if they (critically) fail them, they'd receive the dying condition.
In a choice between:
- reroll that 1 vs Heightened Fireball
- save it to stabilize while you're dying from critically failing to save against Heightened Fireball
...I don't think the latter is an objectively better choice.
This edition is really more about calculated gambles than playing the safe-but-poor-returns strategy.
|
|
Rerolling is objectively worse than "save me from dying" to the point that if you use a point to reroll and still fail you have to spend one to avoid dying anyway.I think a lot of hero points get spent on checks where the player feels that if they (critically) fail them, they'd receive the dying condition.
In a choice between:
- reroll that 1 vs Heightened Fireball
- save it to stabilize while you're dying from critically failing to save against Heightened Fireball...I don't think the latter is an objectively better choice.
This edition is really more about calculated gambles than playing the safe-but-poor-returns strategy.
This is a PFS specific point, so not a comment on the system in general. In PFS, I find that a lot of players use hero points on skill challenges, because of the way that PFS handles rewards. People are afraid of missing out on treasure bundles or reputation, so they often prioritize using hero points to try to make sure they get all of those, leaving them without any left for the final (usually toughest) fight. There also sometimes seems to be some peer pressure from the tables for them to do so.
|
|
I keep getting the backtracking error, so it won't let me edit that. I just wanted to add that in PFS, players often start with 2 (or sometimes 3) hero points, due to GM glyphs, campaign coins, or other boons. So using one for a skill check doesn't always leave a player with none left. But it happens enough to have affected some games.
Whoa there. I'm just pointing out that there is more than one meaning of 'heroic' characters. I'm not trying to say any of them is wrong.
But you're doing so in such a way that redefines the term in a way that's inconsistent with what the people you're commenting on are actually saying and creating a false binary in the process.
When you do that, it reads more like you're throwing shade at one group of people than trying to genuinely explain a difference in perspective.
Rerolling is objectively worse than "save me from dying" to the point that if you use a point to reroll and still fail you have to spend one to avoid dying anyway.
Holding onto points in the "hopes" of hitting dying 4 is really, really, sub optimal and in my experience as a fairly hard RAW gm who attacks downed players, damn rare.
Spending points on rerolls won't always change a result, but if succeeds it is more likely to make a difference than "well I didn't die, but I am unconcious... now let's see if the enemy hits me again". That is to say, a reroll on something that benefits the whole party or disadvantages an enemy before you are in major peril can and often has a greater effect than saving it for the worst case scenario imo.
Neither are guaranteed to come into play, but the latter can help prevent the former.
|
|
Also, if you spend a point and still fail, but have one left to prevent you from dying, you haven't actually lost anything, because you have to spend all of your remaining hero points to prevent dying. So if you've got 2 or more hero points, you should absolutely try to reroll that crit failed or failed save if it's going to knock you down.
Healing is sometimes limited, yeah. But that's what I meant by the three action economy helping. In 2E, you can move to someone, take out a potion, and pour it down their throat in one round. That wasn't possible in 1E (without things like spring-loaded wrist sheaths and other tricks).
But it's also more urgent that you do so in 2E. One, because they'll bleed out faster. And two, because it's much more dangerous in general, so you probably want the other character up and fighting.
But don't forget the crits take you to dying 2, and then you add your wounded condition. So if you're at wounded 1 and get dropped from a crit (a pretty good chance) you go straight to dying 3. Moving in initiative is a good thing, but that's generally how my characters will end up at dying 3. Either that or from taking damage while down.
If you're dropped twice in a fight and get back up, then you're a crit away from being dead.
And as I alluded to above, if someone is trying to battle medicine you at 1st level, there's a chance that they critfail and make things worse (at least 5%, possibly 10%, though you'd hope they have a WIS bonus and are better than +3).
Healing in general is more effective in 2E, though, for sure.
But again, it comes back to healing and all of these other things being unable to help you if you die from massive damage.
I think we agree on all this. I will note massive damage deaths seem very unlikely to me. I've seen a level 1 elf wizard with 8 CON come close, but even she survived that hazard blow. And to clarify, even at wounded 2 a hero point can still keep you from increasing your dying condition. Hero points aren't just for flubbed recovery rolls.
Monsters are definitely more threatening in PF2, but I think when fighting an actual threat you're much less likely to die than PF1. It is harder to make an actual threat for an optimised character.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At wounded 2 a hero point can still save you, yes. But it can't save you from massive damage ever (by the rules, excepting GM fiat).
There... are no optimized characters in 2E. There's have as good of a bonus as is possible, or there's underpowered. 1E had the over optimized characters that made actual risk of death pretty rare past 1st level. 2E just has a flukey mechanic that is making the risk of death at first level higher by ignoring all of the other safeguards in the system.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In PFS, I find that a lot of players use hero points on skill challenges, because of the way that PFS handles rewards. People are afraid of missing out on treasure bundles or reputation, so they often prioritize using hero points to try to make sure they get all of those...
Honestly, that sounds like a META issue whereby the players themselves are making bad risk/reward evaluations by trying to spend their Hero Points to get a higher payout at the end of a module instead of reserving them to save their PCs life... that's not a flaw with the damage/lethality of the system, that's a problem with people expecting to never get unlucky and blowing their resources (Hero Points) on something with lasting value (Treasure/Reputation) as opposed to, say, being able to continue playing that Character in the future.
So if you've got 2 or more hero points, you should absolutely try to reroll that crit failed or failed save if it's going to knock you down.
(1) Assuming you have more than one hero point
(2) Assuming that's what took you down to 0Regardless of both of those things, that still leaves skill checks, extra actions, and other d20 rolls as things that don't fall into the "it would be a good idea to do this" bucket you just outlined.
And I recognize that that bucket exists, but I'm saying that its a very tiny bucket.
|
|
In PFS, I find that a lot of players use hero points on skill challenges, because of the way that PFS handles rewards. People are afraid of missing out on treasure bundles or reputation, so they often prioritize using hero points to try to make sure they get all of those...Honestly, that sounds like a META issue whereby the players themselves are making bad risk/reward evaluations by trying to spend their Hero Points to get a higher payout at the end of a module instead of reserving them to save their PCs life... that's not a flaw with the damage/lethality of the system, that's a problem with people expecting to never get unlucky and blowing their resources (Hero Points) on something with lasting value (Treasure/Reputation) as opposed to, say, being able to continue playing that Character in the future.
I started that post with "This is a PFS specific point, so not a comment on the system in general." I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to remove that part of my post then tell me it's not a system specific issue.
I would actually say that people gambling by spending Hero Points to try to ensure mission success, instead of always keeping them as insurance, is a Meta success, not a meta issue. Low level PFS scenarios do have a significant meta issue, in that scenarios are being written to try to accommodate groups of 4-6 players, who might range from level 1 to level 4 and that the scaling of threats has sometimes been done poorly, leaving you with level 1 characters in an adventure with things that have a good chance of killing them instantly by massive damage.
At least one that I believe Ferious Thune brought up as an example has two separate points where a party of 6 level 1 characters will end up with threats more appropriate to 4 level 3s like
But the system characteristics in play there have as much to do with 2e being less friendly to parties with a level difference as with low level being dangerous (and Massive Damage having exaggerated impact at level 1 underscores it).
I will say that while it's smart to save hero points to save yourself, it is kind of unfortunate that there's only one resource both for spending to improve your rolls and to save yourself from death. It creates almost a sort of trap where a character who wants to ensure they pass a skill check they deem important is in turn increasing their own odds of dying at the same time.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's pretty self contained. What kind of thing do you think needs an interaction with Hero Points?
It's pretty self contained. What kind of thing do you think needs an interaction with Hero Points?
"It's self contained" is the complaint. In terms of "what" my response is, "I don't know, how about anything at all."
How about a fighter feat that when you kill an enemy with a critical hit, you recover a hero point.
A cleric feat that when you heal an ally and harm an undead in the same turn, recover a hero point.
A generic feat that increases your maximum hero points to 4.
The fact that I just wrote out three ideas in less than a minute should give you an idea of how easy it would be to integrate the system with everything else. It doesn't even matter if they're good ideas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't asking what could have an interaction. That's easy.
I'm asking what people who think an interaction is needed think should. I'm asking whats needed or called for, not what's possible. The answer to that question does matter if the ideas are good.