| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the direction of the new system a lot. A lot, a lot. Many issues I have with the old system have been addressed in some fashion. However, the +1 to almost everything each level does give me (and several others) cause for concern.
I deny there is a treadmill. If everything is leveling up at the same rate you are (did anyone played Elder Scrolls IV, disaster!), then you have a poor DM with incredibly poor world and encounter design. The fault does not lie with the system.
My concern is the steep power scaling from the +1 per level. Any monster that is a challenge for a part of level 10 adventures, is going to be brutally dangerous for the general populace. This makes world design more difficult. Now, this scaling is not such a bad thing if you want high powered heroic fantasy where adventures are the populace's only hope, but if you prefer a grittier game then it does not really work.
However the way PFe2 has been designed, such that it is very streamlined, presents and obvious solution. Decrease the speed of scaling. Rather than +1 every level, +1 could happen every two levels. Then the power difference between level 5 creatures and level 10 creatures becomes much closer. Level 10 creatures are still going to be deadly for the general populace, but a militia of low level characters could possibly hold one off, rather than be totally destroyed by them. +1 every second level also means that the other bonuses (stats, equipment, magic) become more significant.
So, I think there is definitely legitimate concerns regarding the scaling, but I also think the system has been designed very well and so presents an elegant solution. Heroic fantasy games should play with the standard scaling, but it is very easy mechanically, to tone it down for grittier fantasy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See I always thought that higher level monsters should of been more devastating to the local populations. Plus I tend to have higher level NPC's guarding cities the bigger the more leveled so I don't think it will be a problem for my games. I mean a level 10 to me is a serious threat for locals I feel like it should wipe out a small hamlet of farmers.
It is also partly about the strange coincidence that adventures always seems to be lucky enough to face encounters +/-3 the level. With the +1 scaling, an encounter 3 levels above you now is very dangerous, whereas with less extreme scaling it is not so dangerous.
With reduced scaling there are far more encounters that could be considered challenging. With the standard +1 scaling things have to be far more fine tuned for the party, which I find breaks the suspension of disbelief.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't take that much suspension of disbelief. You put the higher challenges in areas that locals know are more dangerous. Oh yeah we don't go into that valley the monsters that live out there are way to dangerous. Heck by the time a party in my game hits mid high levels I usually plan shift them to more dangerous territories. Or give a reason like an approaching apocalypse or something for why the world is getting more dangerous at higher levels I feel like the dangers should really scale up from small town to city to kingdom to world threatening. I don't feel that a 15+ character should have to worry about armies of orcs anymore.
Leveling up to me is suppose to represent a huge power increase and if your still fighting the same thing as you were fighting 6 levels ago whats the point. at least that's how I feel about it. anyways Paizo has said that they are not doing that 5E thing of low level minions being a challenge for higher level characters. It was a purposeful design choice and I would rather it be that way myself. High level should feel like high level.
I like the direction of the new system a lot. A lot, a lot. Many issues I have with the old system have been addressed in some fashion. However, the +1 to almost everything each level does give me (and several others) cause for concern.
I deny there is a treadmill. If everything is leveling up at the same rate you are (did anyone played Elder Scrolls IV, disaster!), then you have a poor DM with incredibly poor world and encounter design. The fault does not lie with the system.
My concern is the steep power scaling from the +1 per level. Any monster that is a challenge for a part of level 10 adventures, is going to be brutally dangerous for the general populace. This makes world design more difficult. Now, this scaling is not such a bad thing if you want high powered heroic fantasy where adventures are the populace's only hope, but if you prefer a grittier game then it does not really work.
However the way PFe2 has been designed, such that it is very streamlined, presents and obvious solution. Decrease the speed of scaling. Rather than +1 every level, +1 could happen every two levels. Then the power difference between level 5 creatures and level 10 creatures becomes much closer. Level 10 creatures are still going to be deadly for the general populace, but a militia of low level characters could possibly hold one off, rather than be totally destroyed by them. +1 every second level also means that the other bonuses (stats, equipment, magic) become more significant.
So, I think there is definitely legitimate concerns regarding the scaling, but I also think the system has been designed very well and so presents an elegant solution. Heroic fantasy games should play with the standard scaling, but it is very easy mechanically, to tone it down for grittier fantasy.
This was always a problem for pathfinder, remember pf 2 doesn't have as many numeric stat adders while pathfinder does. I haven't done the math but I don't think normal militia can do much against CR 10 critiers from pathfinder 1.0 either.
I think the solution appeared in one adventure path with devils? They has some short of swarm rules for companies of men.
Another solution that I have never actually tried in pathfinder but worked well in old school dnd, was this. You get +5 to your attack but you halve your damage (rounded down) and for +10 you dealt a quarter of your damage, this helps low level creatures still contribute to combats. I also had a rule for high level creatures usually fighters actually that went like you can take a -10 to your attack to make twice the amount of attacks, -15 for 3 times the attacks and -20 for quadruple attacks (attack roll can't go below +1).
Again I am not sure this can be done in pathfinder.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, the “+1 to everything problem” is not a problem. It’s a feature which is a component of a deliberate design direction, one that I wholeheartedly embrace. To be blunt, it’s becoming tiresome to constantly hear the same few posters saying “it’s too like 4e for my group” or “that’s not what pathfinder is supposed to be” or “I want to be bad at skills mechanically without roleplaying so everyone has to be bad at skills because if they aren’t they’re playing wrong” or “I can’t enjoy the game if paladins aren’t super-duper-special-lawful-best-only because any filthy casual who wants to play a non LG paladin is ruining it.”
To those posters, I say; you’ve said your piece, we know your opinions and your feelings, so check your sense of entitlement and let Paizo tell us about the changes they’re making and why they’ve decided to make them. I’m excited by the direction the game appears to be going. If you listen with an open mind, you might feel that way too. If after play testing you decide it’s not for you, well, there’s masses of PF1 content available still. Surely that’s better than insisting on changes to PF2 to make it into PF1 from a position of incomplete information?
It is also partly about the strange coincidence that adventures always seems to be lucky enough to face encounters +/-3 the level. With the +1 scaling, an encounter 3 levels above you now is very dangerous, whereas with less extreme scaling it is not so dangerous.
With reduced scaling there are far more encounters that could be considered challenging. With the standard +1 scaling things have to be far more fine tuned for the party, which I find breaks the suspension of disbelief.
Sorry, I don't want to spam your posts and say the same thing to boot, but isn't this the case with pathfinder 1.0?
Actually I guess it depends on the level as a 1st level party will find a cr 4 encounter super deadly. While a 20th level party will propably find it a 23 cr encounter normal.
However level+4 encounters are theoretically at least deadly since 3rd edition dnd and I am not certain an encounter 3 level higher than you will be deadlier for a party of 4 pcs's in pathfinder 2 than it was in pathfinder 1.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, the “+1 to everything problem” is not a problem. It’s a feature which is a component of a deliberate design direction, one that I wholeheartedly embrace. To be blunt, it’s becoming tiresome to constantly hear the same few posters saying “it’s too like 4e for my group” or “that’s not what pathfinder is supposed to be” or “I want to be bad at skills mechanically without roleplaying so everyone has to be bad at skills because if they aren’t they’re playing wrong” or “I can’t enjoy the game if paladins aren’t super-duper-special-lawful-best-only because any filthy casual who wants to play a non LG paladin is ruining it.”
To those posters, I say; you’ve said your piece, we know your opinions and your feelings, so check your sense of entitlement and let Paizo tell us about the changes they’re making and why they’ve decided to make them. I’m excited by the direction the game appears to be going. If you listen with an open mind, you might feel that way too. If after play testing you decide it’s not for you, well, there’s masses of PF1 content available still. Surely that’s better than insisting on changes to PF2 to make it into PF1 from a position of incomplete information?
I feel you've been holding on to that and it kind of bubbled over eh? I admittedly feel that way about a few posters on the forums and there arguments. I haven't necessarily noticed malthraz making a nuance of himself so that might have been a bit of an over the top reaction but I can relate.
I think there is a place for the discussion of there rules changes but some people tend to make to many uneducated guesses or try to hard to press there opinion (like making multiple threads arguing the same point.) And of course my favorite if they do X I will burn my books etc.
I don't think malth was being that unreasonable however. He even used I statements and gave praise while giving criticism which is about the best you can expect. so to sum it up I think you were being a bit harsh on him.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
From a world-building perspective specifically, unless they radically change the level demographics, which seems unlikely, this isn't as big a problem as you make it out to be.
I mean, when only slightly less than 1 in 1000 people is 9th-10th level and there are at least a couple 15th level or higher people for every 100,000, there are enough high level people in the setting to pretty effectively defend most civilized areas from even high level threats.
In short, yeah, a 10th level monster plows through 1st level people like they're nothing, but even some place like Sandpoint (a town of only a bit over 1000 people) has something on the order of a couple dozen people of the levels necessary to stand a chance (level 5+). And that number of people would kill it dead.
Now, they might change the level demographics a bit (or what level some of those NPCs are), but I doubt they're gonna change it enough to effect the basic calculus of what would happen to a Level 10 monster invading Sandpoint openly (it would die). And Sandpoint is not a large town.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My concern is the steep power scaling from the +1 per level. Any monster that is a challenge for a part of level 10 adventures, is going to be brutally dangerous for the general populace.
How is this different now or for any edition of Dungeons & Dragons? A CR 10 monster will always kill level one commoners en masse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*watches deadman's cape gently waft in the wind*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is also partly about the strange coincidence that adventures always seems to be lucky enough to face encounters +/-3 the level. With the +1 scaling, an encounter 3 levels above you now is very dangerous, whereas with less extreme scaling it is not so dangerous.
With reduced scaling there are far more encounters that could be considered challenging. With the standard +1 scaling things have to be far more fine tuned for the party, which I find breaks the suspension of disbelief.
Sorry, I don't want to spam your posts and say the same thing to boot, but isn't this the case with pathfinder 1.0?
Yeah, I think it is also a bit of a problem in PFe1, but I think the +1 scaling makes this problem worse.
It is also partly about the strange coincidence that adventures always seems to be lucky enough to face encounters +/-3 the level. With the +1 scaling, an encounter 3 levels above you now is very dangerous, whereas with less extreme scaling it is not so dangerous.
With reduced scaling there are far more encounters that could be considered challenging. With the standard +1 scaling things have to be far more fine tuned for the party, which I find breaks the suspension of disbelief.
Sorry, I don't want to spam your posts and say the same thing to boot, but isn't this the case with pathfinder 1.0?
Actually I guess it depends on the level as a 1st level party will find a cr 4 encounter super deadly. While a 20th level party will propably find it a 23 cr encounter normal.
However level+4 encounters are theoretically at least deadly since 3rd edition dnd and I am not certain an encounter 3 level higher than you will be deadlier for a party of 4 pcs's in pathfinder 2 than it was in pathfinder 1.
Just had to laugh there for a second. Cr 4 at level 1 is by no means deadly. You can take down Cr 5s and 6s at level 1 if you play right and optimize. Cr 4 is if you don't optimize.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Action economy is a hell of a drug. Even fighting Level +5 foes gets pretty easy when you outnumber them 10 to 1. Much higher than that and you start only hitting them on 20s, which can be an issue, but up t Level +5 numbers just become overwhelming real quick, if talking about stuff like militias.
From a world-building perspective specifically, unless they radically change the level demographics, which seems unlikely, this isn't as big a problem as you make it out to be.
I mean, when only slightly less than 1 in 1000 people is 9th-10th level and there are at least a couple 15th level or higher people for every 100,000, there are enough high level people in the setting to pretty effectively defend most civilized areas from even high level threats.
It means that these people exist, not that they are necessarily on hand to defend the city. They might be in a dungeon trying to get some loot, meanwhile the pyrohydra has set fire to a local village and eaten everyone.
I am not trying to argue that the +1 scaling is game breaking. More that it enhances problems with having a world that has an appropriate number of challenges at your level for you to encounter and defeat so you can level up. Then having another number of appropriate challenges +1 within adventure range. The treadmill is bad, so a system succeeds if it makes it easy for GMs to create adventures that feel immersive and genuine.
The +1 just means that a 5 or so level make things super dangerous. Turning the chance of successes into the chance of critical failure. It shrinks the encounter range that players can safely engage. Because players need to be defeating or successfully evade the vast majority of encounters to have an ongoing game, it makes the GM's job harder.
Also, on the flip side, high level characters (especially if teleport exists) can essentially drain the world of mid level encounters. It seems that you can defeat encounters 5 levels below you without using any resources. Maybe 1 resonance or 1 spell point for an area heal.
I think it is something worth thinking about and discussing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel you've been holding on to that and it kind of bubbled over eh? I admittedly feel that way about a few posters on the forums and there arguments. I haven't necessarily noticed malthraz making a nuance of himself so that might have been a bit of an over the top reaction but I can relate.
I think there is a place for the discussion of there rules changes but some people tend to make to many uneducated guesses or try to hard to press there opinion (like making multiple threads arguing the same point.) And of course my favorite if they do X I will burn my books etc.
I don't think malth was being that unreasonable however. He even used I statements and gave praise while giving criticism which is about the best you can expect. so to sum it up I think you were being a bit harsh on him.
Yeah, I think upon rereading my post it ended up being more directly targeted at Malthruz than I intended. Only the first two sentences were a direct response to him, the rest was a much more general statement.
Sorry, Malthruz.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel you've been holding on to that and it kind of bubbled over eh? I admittedly feel that way about a few posters on the forums and there arguments. I haven't necessarily noticed malthraz making a nuance of himself so that might have been a bit of an over the top reaction but I can relate.
I think there is a place for the discussion of there rules changes but some people tend to make to many uneducated guesses or try to hard to press there opinion (like making multiple threads arguing the same point.) And of course my favorite if they do X I will burn my books etc.
I don't think malth was being that unreasonable however. He even used I statements and gave praise while giving criticism which is about the best you can expect. so to sum it up I think you were being a bit harsh on him.
Yeah, I think upon rereading my post it ended up being more directly targeted at Malthruz than I intended. Only the first two sentences were a direct response to him, the rest was a much more general statement.
Sorry, Malthruz.
I respect that! Good job sir!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I think upon rereading my post it ended up being more directly targeted at Malthruz than I intended. Only the first two sentences were a direct response to him, the rest was a much more general statement.
Sorry, Malthruz.
I did not take it personally. I hope I did not come across as one of those ultra-negative posters that seems to infest these forums (especially the paizo blog threads). I really wish they would have an open mind and stop dragging the tone down. It is a minority, but I find their attitude immature and very disappointing.
The +1 is absolutely a design decision that Paizo are making, and I really respect the time and effort they are putting into PFe2. I am very excited. I just wanted to start a thread to discuss something I have concerns about. Get some good insight from other posters. Maybe make some suggestions.
A lot of us are here because we want to contribute to what is shaping up as the best fantasy RP to date.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Is proud* Civility is important yo! XD
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It means that these people exist, not that they are necessarily on hand to defend the city. They might be in a dungeon trying to get some loot, meanwhile the pyrohydra has set fire to a local village and eaten everyone.
Very few high level people are 'adventurers' in the sense PCs are. Most have an actual job of some sort that generally keeps them around. Heck, that whole set of demographics is based on spellcasting services section of the settlement rules, so most of them are around in town and available to provide spell casting services most of the time.
I am not trying to argue that the +1 scaling is game breaking. More that it enhances problems with having a world that has an appropriate number of challenges at your level for you to encounter and defeat so you can level up. Then having another number of appropriate challenges +1 within adventure range. The treadmill is bad, so a system succeeds if it makes it easy for GMs to create adventures that feel immersive and genuine.
Generally PCs go out looking for gigs within their skill set/in the proper league for them, or in something like an Adventure Path are involved in overarching events that send them looking for more challenging stuff.
And I'm not saying that high Level creatures don't exist, I'm saying they mostly don't want to take the risks of attacking well populated areas since that'll get them dead.
The +1 just means that a 5 or so level make things super dangerous. Turning the chance of successes into the chance of critical failure. It shrinks the encounter range that players can safely engage. Because players need to be defeating or successfully evading the vast majority of encounters to have an ongoing game, it makes the GM's job harder.
The math doesn't really bear you out too well here. AC goes up a bit quicker, but not a whole lot at low to mid levels (Redcaps have an AC 20 at 5th level, while 1st level folks can easily have +4 or +5 to hit, and AC almost certainly doesn't go up more than 2 per level for the next couple of levels). So AC doesn't hit the 'you only hit on a 20' point until level 7-8. And it was already almost there by that point in PF1. By default, critically failing on attacks does absolutely nothing, so that's not a relevant concern. Meanwhile, HP is actually around equivalent (or maybe slightly higher) by the same point.
That's just...really not enough of a change that it matters hugely. Meanwhile, Resistance has become rarer and Weaknesses are around, making a lot of creatures much easier for a militia to deal with.
Also, on the flip side, high level characters (especially if teleport exists) can essentially drain the world of mid level encounters. It seems that you can defeat encounters 5 levels below you without using any resources. Maybe 1 resonance or 1 spell point for an area heal.
This has always been true. It has not notably become more so. The real obstacles to doing this are logistical. It's going around doing something you are vastly overqualified for and pays less than fighting foes in the same league as you, but it takes just as long to do.
People who do this will be vanishingly rare.
I think it is something worth thinking about and discussing.
Oh, it's definitely worth discussing. I just think your conclusions aren't actually borne out particularly well by the way the world seems to work mechanically.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just had to laugh there for a second. Cr 4 at level 1 is by no means deadly. You can take down Cr 5s and 6s at level 1 if you play right and optimize. Cr 4 is if you don't optimize.It is also partly about the strange coincidence that adventures always seems to be lucky enough to face encounters +/-3 the level. With the +1 scaling, an encounter 3 levels above you now is very dangerous, whereas with less extreme scaling it is not so dangerous.
With reduced scaling there are far more encounters that could be considered challenging. With the standard +1 scaling things have to be far more fine tuned for the party, which I find breaks the suspension of disbelief.
Sorry, I don't want to spam your posts and say the same thing to boot, but isn't this the case with pathfinder 1.0?
Actually I guess it depends on the level as a 1st level party will find a cr 4 encounter super deadly. While a 20th level party will propably find it a 23 cr encounter normal.
However level+4 encounters are theoretically at least deadly since 3rd edition dnd and I am not certain an encounter 3 level higher than you will be deadlier for a party of 4 pcs's in pathfinder 2 than it was in pathfinder 1.
Maybe if you have a witch or sth? I haven't experimeted that much with running multiple scenarios for level 1 pc's. I remember a kind of chance encounter with a barghest causing huge problems for 1st level party of 4 and it wasn't like the barghest was especially lucky or that the fighter didn't have magic weapon oil. Even a giant phantom armor could end up being really dangerous at these levels. As for CR 6 I am really having trouble imagining a mudlord losing from a 1st level party.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is also partly about the strange coincidence that adventures always seems to be lucky enough to face encounters +/-3 the level.
My games have always explained this away by saying that the DM's narrative focus is on the lucky ones. What you don't get to see is that 'offscreen' hundreds of 1st level wanna-be adventurers walk into dungeons guarded by dragons, manticores, stone golems and the like, and are therefore never seen or heard from again...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The +1 just means that a 5 or so level make things super dangerous. Turning the chance of successes into the chance of critical failure. It shrinks the encounter range that players can safely engage. Because players need to be defeating or successfully evading the vast majority of encounters to have an ongoing game, it makes the GM's job harder.The math doesn't really bear you out too well here. AC goes up a bit quicker, but not a whole lot at low to mid levels (Redcaps have an AC 20 at 5th level, while 1st level folks can easily have +4 or +5 to hit, and AC...
I think the maths does bear it out. A redcap is only +4 level above a party of level 1, yet it has +13 on it's scythe attack. It is going to be critting 25% of the time with it's first attack against AC of 18.
That's 4d10+4 (I think). 2d10 for the scythe, 1d10 for deadly, 1d10 for crit (or 2d10?), is the strength added twice on a crit? So, 4d10+4 or 4d10+8 or 5d10+4 or 5d10+8, help me out. Anyway, adventurers are going to be dying even with 4d10+4 (average 26 damage crits are not nice).
Standard hit is still 2d10+4 for 15. That's still pretty brutal.
With deadly cleave there is going to be another attack when he downs someone, and he will.
Even the boot attack is fairly nasty if it wants to move and attack.
I think +5 to attack looks likely for martial characters at level 1. That means they only hit 25% of the time against AC 20. With 1d12+4 damage per successful attack it is going to be hard to outpace the fast healing 10. Sure they can knock the hat off, but adventurers are going to be dead in this encounter and it is only level +4.
If they have cold iron, and controls spells they might get lucky, but the damage output on this little bastards is really strong vs. level 1 adventurers.
|
|
Maybe if you have a witch or sth? I haven't experimeted that much with running multiple scenarios for level 1 pc's. I remember a kind of chance encounter with a barghest causing huge problems for 1st level party of 4 and it wasn't like the barghest was especially lucky or that the fighter didn't have magic weapon oil. Even a giant phantom armor could end up being really dangerous at these levels. As for CR 6 I am really having trouble imagining a mudlord losing from a 1st level party.
A barghest is a particularly nasty CR 4 due to Blink and (vs. 1st level PCs) DR. A Grizzly Bear or Slicer Beetle or Harpy or Minotaur or Firbolg (just to pick a few at random) are much smaller issues for a properly optimized 1st level party (though I wouldn't call any of them easy, personally).
CR 6 is a much harder row to hoe, though even there I'll note that a Mudlord's DR makes it a much worse foe for a level 1 party than a Lamia or Cave Giant or something.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the maths does bear it out. A redcap is only +4 level above a party of level 1, yet it has +13 on it's scythe attack. It is going to be critting 25% of the time with it's first attack against AC of 18.
That's 4d10+4 (I think). 2d10 for the scythe, 1d10 for deadly, 1d10 for crit (or 2d10?), is the strength added twice on a crit? So, 4d10+4 or 4d10+8 or 5d10+4 or 5d10+8, help me out. Anyway, adventurers are going to be dying even with 4d10+4 (average 26 damage crits are not nice).
Standard hit is still 2d10+4 for 15. That's still pretty brutal.
With deadly cleave there is going to be another attack when he downs someone, and he will.
Even the boot attack is fairly nasty if it wants to move and attack.I think +5 to attack looks likely for martial characters at level 1. That means they only hit 25% of the time against AC 20. With 1d12+4 damage per successful attack it is going to be hard to outpace the fast healing 10. Sure they can knock the hat off, but adventurers are going to be dead in this encounter and it is only level +4.
If they have cold iron, and controls spells they might get lucky, but the damage output on this little bastards is really strong vs. level 1 adventurers.
Oh, it's a nightmare for a PC group, I totally agree. But that's not a world building issue. It becomes a world building issue if it's a nightmare for the local militia as well...and it isn't. It's ugly, but the Redcap's gonna die and do so quickly.
With 10 people making full attacks with bows with a +5 (a pretty crappy local militia, actually), you're gonna get a crit and three hits a round or so. Assuming cold iron arrows (not hard to get) that's gonna be 46 damage or so to the Redcap in round 1, followed by death in round 2.
Can the Redcap kill one 1st level foe a round, maybe two if it gets lucky? Absolutely. But the militia is gonna outnumber the Redcap by enough to absorb the losses and still bring it down and, if they have a healer, most of the people brought down probably won't even die.
And a 10th level foe will suffer a similar fate vs. a similr number of 6th level people (and there are something like 20 of those in a town of around 1000 people, remember).
Like I said, action economy is a hell of a drug.
Oh, it's a nightmare for a PC group, I totally agree. But that's not a world building issue. It becomes a world building issue if it's a nightmare for the local militia as well...and it isn't. It's ugly, but the Redcap's gonna die and do so quickly.
With 10 people making full attacks with bows with a +5 (a pretty crappy local militia, actually), you're gonna get a crit and three hits a round or so. Assuming cold iron arrows (not hard to get) that's gonna be 46 damage or so to the Redcap in round 1, followed by death in round 2.
Can the Redcap kill one 1st level foe a round, maybe two if it gets lucky? Absolutely. But the militia is gonna outnumber the Redcap by enough to absorb the losses and still bring it down and, if they have a healer, most of the people brought...
Roger roger. Yeah, I think a well trained and disciplined militia will be able to take a redcap in favourable circumstances. This assume that everyone is set up and ready, and the redcap just charges in. Possible, not likely. Stealth +13, Int 16. I think they will over come the little bastard, but hit and run tactic at dusk, in the woods would be a hard fight.
We do not know that much about cold iron in PFe2, but you may be right about it being easy to get hold of.
I accept that the majority of high level classes will be hanging out in town, but they should not fight as effectively as hardened group of adventurers. Not going to help smaller villages and hamlets.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Roger roger. Yeah, I think a well trained and disciplined militia will be able to take a redcap in favourable circumstances. This assume that everyone is set up and ready, and the redcap just charges in. Possible, not likely. Stealth +13, Int 16. I think they will over come the little bastard, but hit and run tactic at dusk, in the woods would be a hard fight.
Oh, totally, but if it's using ambush tactics on individual people then that takes time and is when the local authorities get involved in an investigative capacity (or hire some PCs to do that for them...)
Where I'm going is that a Redcap is a threat to individual people walking alone at night, not to the whole village.
We do not know that much about cold iron in PFe2, but you may be right about it being easy to get hold of.
It's really easy in PF1. I doubt it's gotten notably harder.
I accept that the majority of high level classes will be hanging out in town, but they should not fight as effectively as hardened group of adventurers.
Oh, they almost certainly won't. But they don't have to, given their numbers compared to things invading. High level stuff tends to be pretty rare.
Not going to help smaller villages and hamlets.
Even a village of 250 has a 7th-8th level person and two 5th-6th level ones. Anything smaller than that and you're probably not located anywhere isolated enough to have mid to high Level monsters wandering in.
I mean, people who set up a 20 person community in the Ogre-infested woods don't tend to come back...but that's accurate to the setting as presented, not a problem.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
tl;dr; of Bounded Accuracy thread
In case you haven't read it already, a lot of the same concerns were discussed in the bounded accuracy thread as well:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uz5s&page=last?Bounded-Accuracy-Isnt-Bad
The tl;dr; of that thread was that most pathfinder players seemed to be against bounded accuracy (+2 to max +6) because:
* they wanted higher level adventurers to feel extremely powerful against lower level guys
* they didn't like how the untrained guy could "upstage" a trained guy in the skill with a high roll vs low roll (which isn't fixed in the new +1 level system)
+1 -> +1/2 level is a good compromise
I for one like your compromise option of +1/2 level. It allows lower level townsfolk AND lower level adventurers have more interactions with higher tier monsters.
And i think +1/2 level bonuses also highlight more of a skill difference between trained, expert, and master which is also nice as well (surprised more people aren't complaining about this...) but not such a huge difference that everyone's character still feels like they have a chance to contribute rather than being bored when their highlighted skills aren't being used (like clerics, sorcs, and fighters often did in PF1).
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about: The rules are not a physics simulator. NPC stats only exist so that they may interact with PCs. When not interacting with PCs an NPCs stats don't matter, and thus do what the story needs them to do.
Some people, myself included, find this deeply dramatically unsatisfying. We want the world to make sense with the stats as given and it's a better game for us if that's the case.
Since you seem not to care about that (which is fine), this thread is really not intended for you and you won't get much out of it, but many people do care about this sort of thing.
While I am a fan of the +1/lvl scaling I see the issue with playing grittier styles of games.
I found E6 to be a good option in PF1 for that type of game. Perhapse a similar breakpoint (maybe E5 or E10) would work well for Pathfinder 2.
How about: The rules are not a physics simulator. NPC stats only exist so that they may interact with PCs. When not interacting with PCs an NPCs stats don't matter, and thus do what the story needs them to do.Some people, myself included, find this deeply dramatically unsatisfying. We want the world to make sense with the stats as given and it's a better game for us if that's the case.
Since you seem not to care about that (which is fine), this thread is really not intended for you and you won't get much out of it, but many people do care about this sort of thing.
Yeah no kidding. Wraithstrike thinks that the syringe spear and Adhesive Blood don't interact because the syringe spear doesn't specifically state that it can push air. You know, like a syringe does.
While it shouldn't just be hand waved away, the rules are not a physics simulator, and they will break down upon close inspection. The only way to avoid that would be balloon the CRB to thousands of pages long as to include biology, physics, economy, etc text books.
For example, the 1E CRB does not include any actual rules for breathing. It has rules for what happens if you don't breath, but not what combination of gases you need, how much you need, the apparatus for breathing, how different levels of gases effect your physical abilities, etc. There are rules for what happens if you don't eat, but no specific rules on the mechanics of eating, or how to poop for that matter.
Maybe if you have a witch or sth? I haven't experimeted that much with running multiple scenarios for level 1 pc's. I remember a kind of chance encounter with a barghest causing huge problems for 1st level party of 4 and it wasn't like the barghest was especially lucky or that the fighter didn't have magic weapon oil. Even a giant phantom armor could end up being really dangerous at these levels. As for CR 6 I am really having trouble imagining a mudlord losing from a 1st level party.A barghest is a particularly nasty CR 4 due to Blink and (vs. 1st level PCs) DR. A Grizzly Bear or Slicer Beetle or Harpy or Minotaur or Firbolg (just to pick a few at random) are much smaller issues for a properly optimized 1st level party (though I wouldn't call any of them easy, personally).
CR 6 is a much harder row to hoe, though even there I'll note that a Mudlord's DR makes it a much worse foe for a level 1 party than a Lamia or Cave Giant or something.
I have seen a lot of people investing in magic weapon oils even at level 1 due to allips and stuff. I guess not everyone in the party will necessary have it though. Still I am not sure even if the main damage dealers can penetrate the dr you would have much chance against a mudlord or even a barghest with a party of 4. I mean I could be wrong because there is some weird spell or cheap item in a companion book, but baring sth like that I think its highly unlikely.
I don't see the harpy and the grizzly bear as creature than can fight very well solo they seem to be made to support other creatures or each other. But yeah you are right about those. I should have said a cr 4 encounter can potentially be super deadly with the correct monster, perhaps a monster that's the overall good on stuff type and not of the brute force or weird gimick variety.For funsies:
Minotaur can be dealt with a grease spell but is still very dangerous, if he crawl out of it.
Firbolg is pretty dangerous he can throw with a +5 (2d6+10) rocks, has a strong attack, deflect arrows and can cast fricking confusion 1/day.
Lamias have wisdom drain, spring attack, movement 60 and mirror image combat wise, but I have never used one against a low level party so I have no idea how bad this can get. Also you will end up trying to remove drain at level 1.
Cave giant is also extremely dangerous due to power attack with cleave that can make a +9 (2d6+18) cleave attack and having too many hd to be dealt by color spray or sleep.
In any case my point was that's its generally harder for 1st level party of 4 to deal with cr 4 creature than its for a 19th level party of 4 to deal with a CR 22 creature?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, I generally try and avoid personal comments, but this attitude of "don't talk about what I don't agree with" - especially from someone who walked away from Pathfinder in 2008 after Paizo refused to convert to 4e - stinks of hypocrisy.
Well, that thread sure was a trip down memory lane. Best quote: "Have fun being a footnote." Sure didn't turn out the way that guy envisioned things. ^^
I just finished a campaign that went from 1 - 16 or so in PF1. High level Pathfinder needs the most attention, it is a total mess as it is.
More to your concerns, I share them. Looking through bestiaries I caught myself thinking "why is this monster a CR 11 and this a CR 7 when they are almost identical even in lore power?". This also stems from the problem that 11 and 7 difficulties is miles ahead, a CR 7 creature cannot challenge anyone at level 11, 4 of them neither, because of how things scale (+hit, +ac, +everything) makes everything outside of a couple of CR obsolete. At higher levels, beefy enemies without any breaking rules are a joke too.
What could work, and is the presented +1/level, is that you just add a flat +X (x=level difference) to get something up to CR. However this can end up being generic. I like your suggestion that the scaling should be linear but at a slower rate. It is one of the reasons bounded accuracy makes sense to me, even if curbed a bit for PF use.
Perhaps the last few levels should go into epic scalings. Say, an 18 wizard is not a 16+2 levels wizard, but an epic entity in itself. Some serious design space to look into here though.
|
|
This also stems from the problem that 11 and 7 difficulties is miles ahead, a CR 7 creature cannot challenge anyone at level 11, 4 of them neither, because of how things scale (+hit, +ac, +everything) makes everything outside of a couple of CR obsolete. At higher levels, beefy enemies without any breaking rules are a joke too.
This actually isn't true, or at least doesn't seem to be more true than in PF1. A pretty high AC for a PC at level 11 is probably around 32. A lower one might be more like 29.
Based on the Redcap's bonuses, we can expect a +15 attack bonus or so on a CR 7. Two of them flanking thus hit the high AC guy on 15+, and the low AC one on a 12+, and that assumes no buffs or much in the way of actual tactics beyond flanking.
They're not great, but they're doing about as well as a PF1 CR 7 does in a similar situation (the +13 to hit they average does not do any better vs. typical 11th level PC AC, which tends toward high 20s or occasionally low 30s).
|
|
How are characters reliably reaching 29-32 AC at level 11?
Okay, it's math time:
10 Base AC +11 Level +5 Dex +2 Armor (the bonus given by both studded leather and a chain shirt) +3 Magic Armor = AC 31. Add in Expert Proficiency and you get to 32.
That's a fairly optimal set up armor-wise (someone really dedicated can probably get it a bit higher), but assuming Dex 14 and +2 armor the practical minimum is still around 27 (the actual minimum is, of course, 21 but that assume Dex 10 and no armor at all). And that goes up in heavier armor or with better Dex.
So...yeah, that's around what you'll have for AC at 11th level.
|
|
Oh, totally, I thought you were talking about PF1 AC at 11th level, never mind. Adding +1/2 character level to AC in PF1 takes care of the amulet and ring thing.
You can get that high in PF1, too, though it involves more work:
Full Plate +3, a Dex of 16, being a Fighter, a +2 weapon, an AoNA +1, a Ring of Protection +1 and the Advanced Weapon Training options of Defensive Training and Warrior Spirit can easily have the following:
AC 31 (+12 Armor, +3 Dex, +1 NA, +1 Deflection, +1 Ioun Stone, +3 Shield from Defensive Training and how it works).
I think the maths does bear it out. A redcap is only +4 level above a party of level 1, yet it has +13 on it's scythe attack. It is going to be critting 25% of the time with it's first attack against AC of 18.
That's 4d10+4 (I think). 2d10 for the scythe, 1d10 for deadly, 1d10 for crit (or 2d10?), is the strength added twice on a crit? So, 4d10+4 or 4d10+8 or 5d10+4 or 5d10+8, help me out. Anyway, adventurers are going to be dying even with 4d10+4 (average 26 damage crits are not nice).
Standard hit is still 2d10+4 for 15. That's still pretty brutal.
With deadly cleave there is going to be another attack when he downs someone, and he will.
Even the boot attack is fairly nasty if it wants to move and attack.I think +5 to attack looks likely for martial characters at level 1. That means they only hit 25% of the time against AC 20. With 1d12+4 damage per successful attack it is going to be hard to outpace the fast healing 10. Sure they can knock the hat off, but adventurers are going to be dead in this encounter and it is only level +4.
If they have cold iron, and controls spells they might get lucky, but the damage output on this little bastards is really strong vs. level 1 adventurers.
Oh, it's a nightmare for a PC group, I totally agree. But that's not a world building issue. It becomes a world building issue if it's a nightmare for the local militia as well...and it isn't. It's ugly, but the Redcap's gonna die and do so quickly.
With 10 people making full attacks with bows with a +5 (a pretty crappy local militia, actually), you're gonna get a crit and three hits a round or so. Assuming cold iron arrows (not hard to get) that's gonna be 46 damage or so to the Redcap in round 1, followed by death in round 2.
Can the Redcap kill one 1st level foe a round, maybe two if it gets lucky? Absolutely. But the militia is gonna outnumber the Redcap by enough to absorb the losses and still bring it down and, if they have a healer, most of the people brought...
This kind of assumes dex 16 and expert with bows or level 2-3 maybe? Or am I missing sth? Makes me wonder if base stats are higher in pf 2.0 for npc's and even if npc classes exist.
I also think they hit for less than 3 and a critical. 10 normal attacks are sth like 3 hits of which half is a critical. Then the 10
+0 attacks give another half critical or anyway 50% for a crtical hit or no hit. So you are at two normal hits and a critical. And then the last -5 10 attacks give you half a hit with zero chance for a critical. So you end up with 2,5 hits and one critical or 4,5 hits total. Very close to what you said.
What damage do these longbows deal? If they deal 1d8+5(vulnerability) average 8,5. So 8,5*4,5=38,25 damage per round, pretty certain death in two rounds.
I wonder if we had an exploding d20 rule, instead of a automatic hit and critical (if the dc is reached) at 20 rule, the results would have been the same.
Note the redcaps can be frightened by a simple holy symbol so that makes the kill it with arrows scenario easier.
So in the end I like the fact that if the town is prepared it can deal with it just with its militia, but if its not prepared the redcap can deal some pretty horrible damage, but still not even come close to destorying the town.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, the “+1 to everything problem” is not a problem. It’s a feature which is a component of a deliberate design direction, one that I wholeheartedly embrace.
The deliberate design feature is not the +1 to everything nor the unbounded accuracy. It is the Challenge Rating (CR) system. The Pathfinder CR, which is much better than the D&D 3rd Edition CR, is exponential. A foe at CR 3 is twice as dangerous as a foe at CR 1, a foe at CR 5 is twice as dangerous as a foe at CR 3, etc. This means that a CR 3 highway bandit is the equivalent of two CR 1 bandit recruits, a CR 5 bandit swordmaster is the equivalent of four CR 1 bandit recruits, and a CR 7 bandit chief is the equivalent of eight CR 1 bandit recruits. That is pretty easy to envision--it is not all that different from the bandits and samurai in The Seven Samurai. But the CR keeps going up. CR 9, some kind of bandit combat master, is the equivalent of sixteen CR 1 bandit recruits and CR 11, the world's greatest bandit, would be the equivalent of thirty-two CR 1 bandit recruits. That's a one-man squad and one-man platoon.
Yet CR 11 is not enough for some monsters that the party wants to face. We need CRs for dragons like Smaug from The Hobbit and the balrog from Lord of the Rings. So the CRs go up even further, doubling in deadliness every two steps.
Likewise, the PCs need to double in deadliness every two levels, too. That is a 41.4% increase at each individual level, because the square root of 2 is 1.414. It does not take much to manage that. Increasing hit points from 20 to 24 is a 20% improvement. Increasing the attack bonus so that hitting on a roll of 13 or more improves to hitting on a roll of 12 or more, a 12.5% improvement. Add a 5% improvement in skills to make up the difference, 1.2 × 1.125 × 1.05 = 1.417.
Paizo could redesign the CR system so that the danger doubles in five steps instead of two steps. Then each +1 to CR would be only a 15% increase in danger. That is barely noticeable and the different monsters at each CR would seem awfully similar.
I like having my characters feel stronger after they level up. The new strength does not have to be a full +1 to BAB. It could be a new spell at the characters' highest spell level. It could be a new feat that can be used every other encounter. But it has to be at least a 20% improvement to feel significant. And since I want some better skills, too, and less risk of dying, that is about another 10% improvement. Our options with an exponential CR system are: doubling at every level 100% improvement, doubling every two levels 41% improvement, doubling every three levels 26% improvement, or doubling every four levels, 19% improvement.
To be blunt, it’s becoming tiresome to constantly hear the same few posters saying “it’s too like 4e for my group” or “that’s not what pathfinder is supposed to be” or “I want to be bad at skills mechanically without roleplaying so everyone has to be bad at skills because if they aren’t they’re playing wrong” or “I can’t enjoy the game if paladins aren’t super-duper-special-lawful-best-only because any filthy casual who wants to play a non LG paladin is ruining it.”
I do want to have the option of being bad at a skill. If I pretend to not be good at what does not fit my character concept--for example, a big clumsy barbarian who shouldn't be good at picking locks--then I would be letting down my party by not using all the abilities my character has. The party rogue thinks that lock might be trapped, so could the very tough barbarian please pick the lock for him? If I say no for roleplaying reasons, "Brock hates fiddly work. He wants to noisily smash door into kindling with greataxe instead," then the other players would suffer due to my roleplaying. If I made a trade-off--Brock became better at athletics because he never wasted time studying lockpicking--then the other players would understand that Brock is good at what makes sense for him.
But bounded accuracy might mean that Brock is never far behind the rogue in lockpicking, so he should pick the locks that might trigger a trap. (Order of the Stick 36, Building a Better PC Trap) Regardless of what Brock or I want.
|
|
This kind of assumes dex 16 and expert with bows or level 2-3 maybe? Or am I missing sth? Makes me wonder if base stats are higher in pf 2.0 for npc's and even if npc classes exist.
There's no longer a mechanical distinction between NPC class characters and monsters. Nor do NPCs stats directly determine things like attack bonus.
But PC characters using the full PC rules are also appropriate threats for their level, so NPCs come pretty close to matching their math (both the Redcap and Ogre are right about on par with an optimized Fighter of their level in terms of attack bonus).
Either way you do it, 1st level 'martial' characters probably have a +5 or +6 to hit.
I also think they hit for less than 3 and a critical. 10 normal attacks are sth like 3 hits of which half is a critical. Then the 10
+0 attacks give another half critical or anyway 50% for a crtical hit or no hit. So you are at two normal hits and a critical. And then the last -5 10 attacks give you half a hit with zero chance for a critical. So you end up with 2,5 hits and one critical or 4,5 hits total. Very close to what you said.
Yeah, fair enough, I was rounding a bit there.
What damage do these longbows deal? If they deal 1d8+5(vulnerability) average 8,5. So 8,5*4,5=38,25 damage per round, pretty certain death in two rounds.
Again, based on them being built via PC rules (or mathematically equivalent if built as NPCs), I'm betting on 1d8+2 or so for damage. But yeah, it doesn't change the results any in this case.
I wonder if we had an exploding d20 rule, instead of a automatic hit and critical (if the dc is reached) at 20 rule, the results would have been the same.
No clue. Maybe.
Note the redcaps can be frightened by a simple holy symbol so that makes the kill it with arrows scenario easier.
So in the end I like the fact that if the town is prepared it can deal with it just with its militia, but if its not prepared the redcap can deal some pretty horrible damage, but still not even come close to destorying the town.
Yeah, that's where I was going with that. A Redcap could do a lot of damage before going down, but this remains a suicidal thing for them to do, and most creatures are not suicidal.
Non-suicidal creatures help make even high powered settings make sense. The monster might be able to take out a small village no problem but that's going to get the kings high level enforcers (PCs?) hunting him down the next week. Having such a setup could keep most intelligent monsters in check without having widespread high level PCs.
It would take a while but less intelligent monsters could be taught the same lesson. I grew up in a place with mountain lions and it was known that if a mountain lion wanted to it could rush into a backyard barbecue and kill everyone there no problem. But years of having every mountain lion that wanders too close to town get hunted down by the specialists make sure that the don't come close.