PFS influence of PF2 rules


Pathfinder Playtest

1 to 50 of 106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Saw some interesting discussions of PFS and PF2 rules and how they should interact, thought it was worth a thread of its own instead of being tucked in other threads.

How much should PFS experience and demands influence PF2's rules? How much do we suspect it will?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Paradozen wrote:
How much should PFS experience and demands influence PF2's rules? How much do we suspect it will?

Hopefully none. PFS has their own houserules and it should stay that way. If it's written for PFS then the game wouldn't have things like crafting rules.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I would prefer PFS has absolutely no bearing on the development of PF2. If PFS honchos have access to developers, the extent of what should be discussed is "how to handle this particular issue in PFS" not "how to change the rules to accommodate PFS."

I don't believe it's particularly appropriate for design decisions to privilege one particular way of playing the game over all other ways, even if that method is very popular.


What did you read in particular? It's the same game. Just because people are playing PFS doesn't mean they don't have questions regarding the new system. I play both campaign and PFS.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

PFS makes Paizo money (oodles, I bet) by requiring you to have all source materials your character uses past Core (right?). It is an appropriate business decision to give their needs special consideration.


Jason S wrote:

What did you read in particular? It's the same game. Just because people are playing PFS doesn't mean they don't have questions regarding the new system. I play both campaign and PFS.

There were parts of it in the ranger blog IIRC, though the specific thread that prompted this is the hunt target analysis thread.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v881?ranger-hunt-target-analysis

And I don't have any ill will towards PFS nor was any behind the creation of this thread. Just seemed like a topic worth discussing in its own thread rather than a different one about a different topic.

As to being the same game, I'd argue it isn't. In PF1, I can play a Mad Scientist alchemist or an evil oracle or an instructor wizard and not significantly slow down the game or derail it. Part of this is because of our dynamic as a party or my tendencies as a player or my GM's willingness to accomodate these options. In PFS's version of PF1, I couldn't play any of those, they have aspects which do not fit well in organized play. Nothing wrong with them banning this content or even modifying it to fit their campaign, in fact I absolutely think they should ban those options, they would be a nightmare to balance for organized play. But they aren't a nightmare for my gaming groups to balance, so I'd rather they keep those changes within their own auspices and not the rules I already will have to tweak to fit my campaigns.


From what I've seen when PFS gets brought up it is people trying to use as a reason why something SHOULDN'T change rather than a indication that PF2 is changing to suit PFS.

E.G we shouldn't take away CLW spam because in PFS you don't know if you'll have a healer at your table.

Or from the Hunt Target thread

Quote:
1) In PFS 1e, most combats don't last more than 2-3 rounds. This means that buffing (which is what Hunt Target essentially is) are often not worth the action cost. I know this as my Rangers use Gravity Bow and Lead Blades. The only thing that keeps those spells viable is that I can frequently cast them when I suspect a combat is coming and avoid the action cost.

and

Quote:
Hunt Target doesn't appear offer any of these non-combat benefits. And the +2 to Track something that I've attacked??? I've never had a situation in PFS where a creature we were attacking ran away and we had to track it

Etc etc.

The counter arguement to that this is often brought up is that PF1 PFS isn't a useful area of comparison as presumably PF2E PFS scenarios will be designed around PF2E and not PF1.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

When experience with PFS is used to help address how dedicated healer-less parties work I think that's useful feedback to get into the core game/rule set and tends to make things stonger.

When we're talking about other limitation of single-session episodic play, (things like no-Leadership, no crafting, no-evil, etc) those shouldn't filter into the "default" core rules. And we've already seen crafting rules discussed in passing so it feels like PFS isn't having an undue influence.

It is a nice feature of the game if you don't need extensive house rules for the official organized play. However we know there is a difference between hat works for organized play and what works for long running home games with fixed membership.

The developers _should_ at least consider what happens to a craft focused class (alchemist, ranger with snares investment) if house rules (PFS) say no-crafting, or can they structure their crafting rules in a way that its easy to house rule out things that organized play feel has been game breaking, without nerfing the classes that depend on it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

The "three-round" fight thing is caused, I think, by the combination of a) GMs needing to run the modules strictly as written, b) often having exceedingly optimized characters, and c) modules being written to be challenging yet do-able by "any" assortment of characters.

That is an assortment of challenges that I wouldn't want the core developer/rules to address, because that's a set of more stringent restraints than most home-games operate under. PF2 as reveled so far, should help with reducing item b's influence to some degree, so that alone might benefit PFS -- without it being a change inspired by PFS.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
The counter arguement to that this is often brought up is that PF1 PFS isn't a useful area of comparison as presumably PF2E PFS scenarios will be designed around PF2E and not PF1.

I never understood why people use PF1 PFS as comparison for what you cannot do in PF2E. For example: In the Hunt Target thread it was stated most fights in PFS are < ~160 ft as a reason why range increment help was suboptimal except for thrown weapons. Yet we have no indication of what range will be used for PF2E.

I will admit however that PFS allows for a great base to measure some things like combat duration, average dmg, and effects of different composition/strategies on fights; under relatively controlled conditions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
The counter arguement to that this is often brought up is that PF1 PFS isn't a useful area of comparison as presumably PF2E PFS scenarios will be designed around PF2E and not PF1.

I never understood why people use PF1 PFS as comparison for what you cannot do in PF2E. For example: In the Hunt Target thread it was stated most fights in PFS are < ~160 ft as a reason why range increment help was suboptimal except for thrown weapons. Yet we have no indication of what range will be used for PF2E.

I will admit however that PFS allows for a great base to measure some things like combat duration, average dmg, and effects of different composition/strategies on fights; under relatively controlled conditions.

The problem with the last part is all of those conditions are changing. What we need to evaluate those is for there to be PF2 Playtest PFS sessions. HP is changing, as is DPR expectations which will change combat duration and compositions. Even if we see similair compositions, the fundamentals of what those elements are has changed. E.G A PF2 Cleric is not equivalent to a PF1 Cleric.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, given that the craft rules are devoted to making crafting no longer a financial multiplier, I don't see any reason that any game (including PFS) needs to ban it.

Item levels also gate access to certain items that low level PCs should not have or be able to make, so there's no need to restrict access via fame or anything, since level does this automatically for you.

But that's not a fix for PFS, that's just a fix of a problem PFS identified.


Malk_Content wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
The counter arguement to that this is often brought up is that PF1 PFS isn't a useful area of comparison as presumably PF2E PFS scenarios will be designed around PF2E and not PF1.

I never understood why people use PF1 PFS as comparison for what you cannot do in PF2E. For example: In the Hunt Target thread it was stated most fights in PFS are < ~160 ft as a reason why range increment help was suboptimal except for thrown weapons. Yet we have no indication of what range will be used for PF2E.

I will admit however that PFS allows for a great base to measure some things like combat duration, average dmg, and effects of different composition/strategies on fights; under relatively controlled conditions.

The problem with the last part is all of those conditions are changing. What we need to evaluate those is for there to be PF2 Playtest PFS sessions. HP is changing, as is DPR expectations which will change combat duration and compositions. Even if we see similair compositions, the fundamentals of what those elements are has changed. E.G A PF2 Cleric is not equivalent to a PF1 Cleric.

And I agree with you.

What I wanted to express was that PFS makes for a great debugging/comparison tool. Allowing people to judge based on actual numbers (if available) or expected (if something is planned to be play there). However, it is not indicative of all play styles or the "ultimate way to play X class".

In other words, after a few sessions PFS can tell you if X combo is overpowered and needs balancing (Ex: the Oradin).


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, given that the craft rules are devoted to making crafting no longer a financial multiplier, I don't see any reason that any game (including PFS) needs to ban it.

Item levels also gate access to certain items that low level PCs should not have or be able to make, so there's no need to restrict access via fame or anything, since level does this automatically for you.

But that's not a fix for PFS, that's just a fix of a problem PFS identified.

I'd like to also point out that while a different game and campaign, SFS allows for crafting now because they've done away with it being a financial multiplier as well. (Crafting just makes this have a higher hardness, and halves the time it takes to repair, which could be useful).

If we take that into consideration and if PF2E ultimately has something similar for crafting rules, where it is gated by level and proficiency and not financial multiplier, I feel there is a high likelihood of PFS2E allowing crafting.

Temperans wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
The counter arguement to that this is often brought up is that PF1 PFS isn't a useful area of comparison as presumably PF2E PFS scenarios will be designed around PF2E and not PF1.

I never understood why people use PF1 PFS as comparison for what you cannot do in PF2E. For example: In the Hunt Target thread it was stated most fights in PFS are < ~160 ft as a reason why range increment help was suboptimal except for thrown weapons. Yet we have no indication of what range will be used for PF2E.

I will admit however that PFS allows for a great base to measure some things like combat duration, average dmg, and effects of different composition/strategies on fights; under relatively controlled conditions.

The problem with the last part is all of those conditions are changing. What we need to evaluate those is for there to be PF2 Playtest PFS sessions. HP is changing, as is DPR expectations which will change combat duration and compositions. Even if we see similair compositions, the fundamentals of what those elements are has changed. E.G A PF2 Cleric is not equivalent to a PF1 Cleric.

And I agree with you.

What I wanted to express was that PFS makes for a great debugging/comparison tool. Allowing people to judge based on actual numbers (if available) or expected (if something is planned to be play there). However, it is not indicative of all play styles or the "ultimate way to play X class".

In other words, after a few sessions PFS can tell you if X combo is overpowered and needs balancing (Ex: the Oradin).

Again, pulling from SFS, I agree that we have no idea how many rounds the average combat will take in PFS2E or Playtest. SFS combat, I see take 4-6 rounds and typically the Solarion gets use their 3-round abilities at least once in most significant combats (some combats admittedly are easier/quicker).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Too much, I think.

I feel like many of what seem to be arbitrary changes to those of us who are NOT part of the PFS and do NOT play in PFS are a result of what Paizo has seen via PFS gameplay.

However, MANY of the problems that people experience via PFS are NOT problems I think that are part of the majority of games or from a majority of the players which I think have no participation in PFS.

Hence, some of the things that they are doing utterly mystifies many of the non-PFS players because they never saw it as part of the problem. I think many of these Non-PFS participants may also be those who have complained about many of the vast changes to PF2e from P1E.

Unfortunately, Paizo probably gets more feedback from PFS, these boards here, and cons than anywhere else and thus these areas probably affect many of their decisions far more than other sources of feedback regarding the game rules and what people like or dislike.

Whether or not this turns out for the better or worse is still to be seen probably with how well PF2e is received.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
The counter arguement to that this is often brought up is that PF1 PFS isn't a useful area of comparison as presumably PF2E PFS scenarios will be designed around PF2E and not PF1.

I never understood why people use PF1 PFS as comparison for what you cannot do in PF2E. For example: In the Hunt Target thread it was stated most fights in PFS are < ~160 ft as a reason why range increment help was suboptimal except for thrown weapons. Yet we have no indication of what range will be used for PF2E.

I will admit however that PFS allows for a great base to measure some things like combat duration, average dmg, and effects of different composition/strategies on fights; under relatively controlled conditions.

The problem with the last part is all of those conditions are changing. What we need to evaluate those is for there to be PF2 Playtest PFS sessions. HP is changing, as is DPR expectations which will change combat duration and compositions. Even if we see similair compositions, the fundamentals of what those elements are has changed. E.G A PF2 Cleric is not equivalent to a PF1 Cleric.

And I agree with you.

What I wanted to express was that PFS makes for a great debugging/comparison tool. Allowing people to judge based on actual numbers (if available) or expected (if something is planned to be play there). However, it is not indicative of all play styles or the "ultimate way to play X class".

In other words, after a few sessions PFS can tell you if X combo is overpowered and needs balancing (Ex: the Oradin).

While it can be a tool to try and determine balance it is vulnerable to PFS encounter design paradigms. If most encounters feature a particular type of enemy, abilities that are particularly good against that type of enemy are given greater weight than they would hold in the game overall.

For an example, see the old crane wing. Used to be it could deflect one attack per round, and was only available by level 5. Powerful, but it only worked on melee attacks around the time humanoid creatures were getting 2 attacks from BAB alone. But MoMS monks could get it by level 2, and because PFS primarily featured humanoid opponents and creatures with few natural attacks, it seemed OP. In a homegame, one can change the typical enemies, give them Two-Weapon Fighting or include more creatures to gang up on the party or monsters with 2-3 attacks, but in PFS these aren't options. Paizo took PFS's feedback and changed crane wing and MoMS rather than letting PFS restrict the feats using their own channels.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
However, MANY of the problems that people experience via PFS are NOT problems I think that are part of the majority of games or from a majority of the players which I think have no participation in PFS.

Part of it is adventure design. They have a love of single strong man sized foes instead of diversified enemies. As such, things that are good vs single humanoid sized targets have MUCH greater perceived value. As such, I think the results of 'testing' in PFS are flawed/biased in a certain direction.

PS: ninja's by Paradozen. ;)


Crane Wing isn't a good example, it was too powerful whether you were playing PFS or a campaign.

I don't find PFS has single enemies as the BBG. Maybe in season 0-2, but we're now in season 9. Because of 4 player adjustments, it's highly convenient to be able to remove mooks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason S wrote:
Crane Wing isn't a good example, it was too powerful whether you were playing PFS or a campaign.

Was it? I never thought that negating 1 attack out of 6 goblins was overly strong or a single attacks from a pouncing tiger. It's only overpowered if you ONLY fight single creatures with single attack.

Jason S wrote:
I don't find PFS has single enemies as the BBG.

At the time crane wing was an issue that was the case which is all that matters for the debate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason S wrote:

Crane Wing isn't a good example, it was too powerful whether you were playing PFS or a campaign.

Wasn't a problem for my campaign. I just included more creatures or creatures with more attacks when I felt like the character with crane wing shouldn't get a chance to walk over the bad guys. Similarly, Mobile Bulwark Style's capstone isn't a problem for us. Fortunately, PFS did the right thing with that particular style power to negate a single attack each round and banned it, so hopefully I don't have to worry about it getting nerfed later. Unless it gets reprinted at the end of PF1.

EDIT: Ninja'd by graystone. How the turntables turn and whatnot.

Paizo Employee

3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

Was it? I never thought that negating 1 attack out of 6 goblins was overly strong or a single attacks from a pouncing tiger. It's only overpowered if you ONLY fight single creatures with single attack.

It could still be considered overpowered in that it's a single feat that by its very existence limits the kind of stories you can tell. While adding minions to a fight is generally a best practice anyways, knowing that you have a Crane Wing monk running around (particularly of the style that existed back when the nerf first occurred, where you had extremely low level access to a hard shut-down) means you can't tell a story about e.g. a rampaging tyrannosaurus. Or the rampaging cleric of Gorum whose Vital Strike charges are largely just a joke that ends with "...and then Crane Wing." Sure it's not overpowered if you're fighting six kobolds, but I'm going to get real tired of "fight half a dozen of these humanoid monsters" real fast. Or if every single monster I ever encounter has pounce. Even when iterative attacks come online, it still negates the attack that's most likely to hit and/or crit, which when combined with the AC boosts that that build supported meant that the enemy generally just didn't hit unless they could ignore the Crane Wing character.

It's also important to note that if you're here on the forums having this discussion right now, you're probably much more skilled at this game than the vast majority of people playing it. Using larger numbers of weaker enemies is a no-brainer if you happen to have the experience to know how to recognize the problem and implement the solution, but that takes time and experience. If there is a problem that is being experienced by PFS GMs, who have a support system of venture officers to help teach them the ins and outs of the game, then it is almost certainly being experienced by some not-insignificant portion of the players running home games who don't frequent the gaming forums (which is statistically far and away the largest group of Pathfinder customers). So removing or updating abilities that limit the stories you can tell and which stymie GMs is probably a significant net positive from a business and design perspective.

All of that is a bit of a tangent from the main topic of PFS and how it might influence PF2, but I suspect that that topic is kind of a dry well at this point. With a whole new system made around tighter math and more consistent expectations, it's very likely that organized play won't need to use as many bans and additional rulings to avoid edge-cases and "abuse". I strongly suspect that, barring major changes implemented as a result of the playtest, the game that people play at home and the game people play in PFS will be much more similar than is currently true. That would actually increase the value of both the main product line (since you would need less spin-up time to get familiar with how things work in organized play) and the value obtained from organized play reporting since that experience will hew even more closely to the "expected" flow and performance of the game.

Paizo Employee Designer

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
graystone wrote:

Was it? I never thought that negating 1 attack out of 6 goblins was overly strong or a single attacks from a pouncing tiger. It's only overpowered if you ONLY fight single creatures with single attack.

It could still be considered overpowered in that it's a single feat that by its very existence limits the kind of stories you can tell. While adding minions to a fight is generally a best practice anyways, knowing that you have a Crane Wing monk running around (particularly of the style that existed back when the nerf first occurred, where you had extremely low level access to a hard shut-down) means you can't tell a story about e.g. a rampaging tyrannosaurus. Or the rampaging cleric of Gorum whose Vital Strike charges are largely just a joke that ends with "...and then Crane Wing." Sure it's not overpowered if you're fighting six kobolds, but I'm going to get real tired of "fight half a dozen of these humanoid monsters" real fast. Or if every single monster I ever encounter has pounce. Even when iterative attacks come online, it still negates the attack that's most likely to hit and/or crit, which when combined with the AC boosts that that build supported meant that the enemy generally just didn't hit unless they could ignore the Crane Wing character.

Oddly, the data showed that on demand 1/round guaranteed hit negation was particularly problematic in those "6 kobold" fights as well, as long as you are not ignoring your AC (and that's easy to do with Crane's boost for fighting defensively). A lot of people had this vision of the problematic Crane Wing character as a low-AC, pre-iterative character who nonetheless was invincible to a singleton foe, but the real time you dominate is actually against groups of enemies that are, between them, going to hit you 0-1 times per round, since you can eliminate the single hit they luck into on some rounds (and cancel any tactic where they all Aid Another one guy as well). There were some eye-opening data points with ghoul groups and dretch mobs and other multi-mook fights in the dataset. The ghouls were particularly interesting since their shtick is "Make three low-accuracy attacks with devastating riders," so negating the hit also negated the paralysis chance, but you would think a priori that a group of ghouls would be a strong match for such a character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Isn't that as much a factor of using mooks 5 CR below the norm as anything else?

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Mad Comrade wrote:

Isn't that as much a factor of using mooks 5 CR below the norm as anything else?

Once you have a big group of things, they tend to be pretty low level. For instance, 6 CR 1s is a CR 6 encounter.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

With the tighter control on ACs, to hit, and saves I expect that mooks will be a little more balanced than in the past. I don’t think 6 CR1 creatures will be CR6 given the critical failure effect, but four mooks are less likely to be totally ineffective against someone who highly optimized their AC.

Paizo Employee

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Mad Comrade wrote:

Isn't that as much a factor of using mooks 5 CR below the norm as anything else?

Dretch at CR -3 are within the expected range of the first point of entry for Crane Wing (5th level), and prior to updates it was trivially easy to have Crane Wing at 2nd level if you wanted it. Even without early access entry, ghouls, dretches, etc. are just a type of monster (lower hit value, nasty riders) that you would commonly want to use as "minions", which are typically going to come in at a lower CR than the parties APL. Four dretches is a CR 6 encounter, for example.

So if you're using one big monster, you're losing action economy and vulnerable to hard shut downs from something like OG Crane Wing. If you're using groups of lower level minions, then they're going to have relatively low accuracy and being able to shut down the one or two attacks that actually hit swings the encounter about as hard as blocking the one big guy's main attack. Unless all of your encounters are against CR=APL or higher opponents with pounce, you circle back to the same result.

This isn't actually a Crane Wing thread though, it's a "relationship between PFS and rules evolution" thread, and the general point is that Crane Wing wasn't nerfed because it was disrupting PFS, it's that PFS revealed a potential issue that was then examined, leading to surprising and unexpected data about the extreme efficacy of 1/round guaranteed negation (as Mark put it), wherein even the situations where the ability seemed to be less advantageous were still actually favoring the ability to an extreme degree.


A large number of already-ineffective foes provides no value to an encounter other than that of a very brief speed bump that provides a requisite amount of experience points for the characters' advancement in mechanical terms under normal/typical circumstances of game play.

The referenced data points were in light of data derived from (a) already ineffective foes that (b) have less-effective-than-normal attack bonuses against (c) a higher-AC-than-normal-target that (d) had a defense that was unusually effective in the "mobbed under by minions" thanks to the combination of (a), (b) and (c).

I'm with more than a few others in this thread: Nouveau Pathfinder should not require any modifications to be played in PFS.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
the data

I have to say, my experience doesn't match the data.

Mark Seifter wrote:
ignoring your AC

How can this be a thing? Your ability only negates melee attacks so you can't tank AC and defensive makes your normal attack hit less. Doesn't seem viable IMO.

Mark Seifter wrote:
and cancel any tactic where they all Aid Another one guy as well

Not dirty trick: Since "you must be aware of it and not flat-footed", blinded works. Catch off guard bypasses the feat. Anything that makes the attacker hidden or blocks the monk's vision. So it makes it harder but not impossible by any means.

Not that I've seen those tactics: generally multiple attacks are enough for hits. For instance, 2-3 ghouls for 6-9 attacks, in my experience, hit a few times [unless we're talking way under-level or the monk way WAY more than a normal AC]. I've seen some ghoul attacks on monks with this and it wasn't that they never got hit, but they had high enough saves that it was just damage.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Once you have a big group of things, they tend to be pretty low level. For instance, 6 CR 1s is a CR 6 encounter.

When I think of 'big group of things', class abilities allow for them without a large drop in CR. An animal companion or two, some summoned animals and suddenly it's a party that doesn't bump up the CR.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

PFS shouldn't have any effect on Pathfinder. The focus on direct AP running, irregular group composition, lack of focus on the social pillar, item shop access, and strict rules following allowing for edge case absurd optimization all work together to require a very tight character by character power tuning. If you make something for PFS, you'll have a product that's closer to a video game than a system made to support a DM telling a story.

You can't really use a system designed for the character group to organically grow together and learn to support each other's weaknesses, because every character needs to be an island able to hold their own. It's similar to requirement in more modern MMOs that each class be capable of playing solo.

You also can't necessarily use a system where it is tuned to be competitive only with combats per day carefully managed. The more rational your players and NPCs are, the less frequent violent encounters will be. If your game is tuned for a number of encounters per day more than 1, then the very tight balance between classes is merely restrictive.

I don't feel that ensuring balance between characters will ever produce a game that feels all that great. You quickly run into the five colors of damage style gameplay that video games end up hitting.

But hell, they want to sell adventure paths and I can't blame them. It's hard to balance adventure paths when numbers are all over the place and you don't have a DM who can take a player aside and let them know that they're overshadowing the rest of the party, or to bump up the power of a character who is falling behind, or to give the party an extra PC to fill out some utility they're missing. They could write APs with dynamic story lines and play options allowing for a diverse power level, but they'd be a pain to DM consistently.

If PF2 is just a PFS rules set, then I'm sure most of us don't need it and it would all seem sort of gray and samey. Sort of like 5thed or Starfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
The Mad Comrade wrote:

Isn't that as much a factor of using mooks 5 CR below the norm as anything else?

Once you have a big group of things, they tend to be pretty low level. For instance, 6 CR 1s is a CR 6 encounter.

I think this is relaly gonna feel like a CR0 encounter in practice... Granted CR doesn't even exist in 2E. In theory, though, level differences are a lot more dramatic this edition so that enemies that aren't close to your level are practicaly negligible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
the data
I have to say, my experience doesn't match the data.

Now there's a shocker.... xD


2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
the data
I have to say, my experience doesn't match the data.

Now there's a shocker.... xD

I'm sorry I don't worship at the altar of PFS perfection: I didn't drink the kool-aid. But good to see you bring your usual flare to the discussion... :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
the data
I have to say, my experience doesn't match the data.

Now there's a shocker.... xD

I'm sorry I don't worship at the altar of PFS perfection: I didn't drink the kool-aid. But good to see you bring your usual flare to the discussion... :P

Except that mark isn't talking about PFS, he's talking about how the data says Crane Wing doesn't work the way you think it does, and it has nothing to do with PFS... :P


Temperans wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
The counter arguement to that this is often brought up is that PF1 PFS isn't a useful area of comparison as presumably PF2E PFS scenarios will be designed around PF2E and not PF1.

I never understood why people use PF1 PFS as comparison for what you cannot do in PF2E. For example: In the Hunt Target thread it was stated most fights in PFS are < ~160 ft as a reason why range increment help was suboptimal except for thrown weapons. Yet we have no indication of what range will be used for PF2E.

Actually, we do have an indication:

The playtest will be using this flip map. Note that its size is 24"x30". That's 150' from top to bottom.

Two of the maps are obvious dungeon-style maps, where ranges are much shorter. Then there is "ruins in a swamp" (the most open one, but if the enemies are in the building, you're not going to get anywhere near 150'). And "building by a cliff". This is a long building, with uninterrupted views almost 100' in the optimal circumstance.

For combat to occur at > 160', the PF2 maps don't accommodate it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
graystone wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
the data
I have to say, my experience doesn't match the data.

Now there's a shocker.... xD

I'm sorry I don't worship at the altar of PFS perfection: I didn't drink the kool-aid. But good to see you bring your usual flare to the discussion... :P
Except that mark isn't talking about PFS, he's talking about how the data says Crane Wing doesn't work the way you think it does, and it has nothing to do with PFS... :P

What several people are saying is that their experience disagrees with that data.


Not to beat a dead horse, but my experience supports Mark's data. I leveled a crane wing monk from level 1 to 14 using both the original crane wing rules and the revised rules, and this is what I experienced with the original crane wing.

1) If the opponent has one attack, they cannot hurt someone with
crane wing.

2) If the opponent has iterative attacks, most likely they cannot hurt someone with crane wing because the AC will be high enough that the iterative attack will also not hit.

3) Multiple weak opponents don't matter because they can only hit on a "20". Even with 6 ghouls, one average they will hit a little bit less than once per round, which will be deflected. Plus I think we can all agree that encounters with many small opponents is not exactly challenging.

By Graystone's own admission, if you have to design every encounter to beat one character, something is wrong.

More details to not derail:

In 14 levels my monk got dropped only once and that was at level 13 when I was reckless. Never been killed. In most sessions, I was never threatened, the real threat was the enemy killing the rest of the party.

In several encounters, soloed anywhere from 10-20 mooks for up to 4 rounds by myself, which is exactly what Grapstone suggested as a "fix". The encounter was completely non-threatening, it just made my monk look awesome and put the enemy in fireball formation. lol. And that was with the revised Crane Wing.

Back to the original post. Although I play PFS, it shouldn't influence the game. However, PFS players still have concerns that need to be addressed in some fashion and it definitely needs to be part of the conversation. Part of the problem is we don't have all of the information right now, so we just need to be patient.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
The Mad Comrade wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
graystone wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
the data
I have to say, my experience doesn't match the data.

Now there's a shocker.... xD

I'm sorry I don't worship at the altar of PFS perfection: I didn't drink the kool-aid. But good to see you bring your usual flare to the discussion... :P
Except that mark isn't talking about PFS, he's talking about how the data says Crane Wing doesn't work the way you think it does, and it has nothing to do with PFS... :P
What several people are saying is that their experience disagrees with that data.

Confirmation bias is an issue, yes.


I also hope it has as little impact on PF2 as possible, I do not really like convention, tournament, league play and all that, so, I don't want it effecting the game.


Mekkis wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
The counter arguement to that this is often brought up is that PF1 PFS isn't a useful area of comparison as presumably PF2E PFS scenarios will be designed around PF2E and not PF1.

I never understood why people use PF1 PFS as comparison for what you cannot do in PF2E. For example: In the Hunt Target thread it was stated most fights in PFS are < ~160 ft as a reason why range increment help was suboptimal except for thrown weapons. Yet we have no indication of what range will be used for PF2E.

Actually, we do have an indication:

The playtest will be using this flip map. Note that its size is 24"x30". That's 150' from top to bottom.

Two of the maps are obvious dungeon-style maps, where ranges are much shorter. Then there is "ruins in a swamp" (the most open one, but if the enemies are in the building, you're not going to get anywhere near 150'). And "building by a cliff". This is a long building, with uninterrupted views almost 100' in the optimal circumstance.

For combat to occur at > 160', the PF2 maps don't accommodate it.

And if a player says, "I move 30ft this way?" do you just stop them? Unless there is a legitimate things stopping them (idk a lava flow in the way or something) players can always move off map. It doesn't matter how much map is included (they have to choose to stop drawing it at some point) as a DM you will have to be ready to either draw a bit more on or (more commonly in my experience) put a marker indicating how far away some character(s) are.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Mad Comrade wrote:
What several people are saying is that their experience disagrees with that data.

It's been proven that the geometry of the earth is not affected by how many people think experience it as flat.


Paradozen wrote:

Saw some interesting discussions of PFS and PF2 rules and how they should interact, thought it was worth a thread of its own instead of being tucked in other threads.

How much should PFS experience and demands influence PF2's rules? How much do we suspect it will?

***

There were parts of it in the ranger blog IIRC, though the specific thread that prompted this is the hunt target analysis thread.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v881?ranger-hunt-target-analysis
And I don't have any ill will towards PFS nor was any behind the creation of this thread. Just seemed like a topic worth discussing in its own thread rather than a different one about a different topic.

While I have no intent to restrict the discussion, I need to point out that you're conflating two concepts and your question clouds the distinction.

Asking whether PF 2e should be designed around or for PFS is a categorically different discussion than determining whether the outcomes in PFS should be used as data for tweaking the rules, or more accurately the degree of validity PFS data be given in assessing the situation.

The issue came up in the Ranger thread because some vocal minority of non-PFS players seem to resent that fact that I would refer to PFS as proof of anything when it comes to how the game works. My response is that PFS represents the largest group of players under a single coherent ruleset; that PFS requires the Paizo published and sanctioned scenarios be played as written. And, as someone else identified, Paizo has an incentive to make PFS play as complimentary to the PF game as possible. Paizo would prefer nothing more than having players move seamlessly as possible from PFS to home games involving purchased contest.

Obviously people can debate about what ever they want, but as I read the thread, conflating the value of PFS data with the idea that 2e should designed around PFS doesn't seem particularly helpful to either question.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
The Mad Comrade wrote:
What several people are saying is that their experience disagrees with that data.
It's been proven that the geometry of the earth is not affected by how many people think experience it as flat.

HOWEVER, there were many scientific conventions, many societies, and many discussions among those in the church in Europe and major groups that pushed that the world and earth WAS actually flat before the Americas were discovered.

However, despite those Cons, Societies, and Discussion groups, a vast many already felt that the Earth was actually round. Columbus was part of this group (he was not even close to being the ONLY one that felt the Earth was round, it was actually quite common for people to feel and believe this, and even had math to back them up...even if the math used at Cons, Societies, and Groups had alternate maths showing the exact opposite) and today we feel similarly to Columbus.

The problem was that the Cons, Societies, and groups were actually quite small among the educated (though they had a large impact among the non-educated on their results), and the focus on their trade goals made it hard for those who felt the Earth was round to actually get funding to prove it (even Columbus had a very hard time, only after his voyages did people start to ease up).

This idea though, isn't really a terrific parallel to how PF2e is being designed (though it can be used, both ways as your and my example show) as the design ideas are not so much pure science as more of trying to find out what people want and what will sell rather than figuring out some scientific fact or theory.

AS such, it can be difficult to figure out what to change and what to keep the same. My own opinion (which has no data to back it) is that a majority of P1E players are NOT PFS players or Con goers, nor do they come to the discussion boards (or reddits or discords). However, I also think that this is where the primary data on what to do in PF2e (combined with the designers own personal ideas and thoughts) are what are the major influencers behind PF2e.

I haven't seen much of any other research (doesn't mean that it hasn't been done or it isn't out there) beyond anything found on the Boards, PFS, or Cons to indicate they have gotten information from anywhere else...and certainly haven't seen general surveys sent out to most RPG players or to try to get as wide a swath of RPG players as possible...yet.

I think the playtest is designed to do that.

In the end, as someone more succinctly put it above in this topic...

If people like it, then they will buy PF2e.

If they don't, then they won't.

At that point, once all is done and said and the final version is out, no amount of one opinion or the other will really change the rules of the game.

Hence, try the playtest and give your feedback and hope for the best!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*chuckling* Well said.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Paradozen wrote:

Saw some interesting discussions of PFS and PF2 rules and how they should interact, thought it was worth a thread of its own instead of being tucked in other threads.

How much should PFS experience and demands influence PF2's rules? How much do we suspect it will?

***

There were parts of it in the ranger blog IIRC, though the specific thread that prompted this is the hunt target analysis thread.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v881?ranger-hunt-target-analysis
And I don't have any ill will towards PFS nor was any behind the creation of this thread. Just seemed like a topic worth discussing in its own thread rather than a different one about a different topic.

While I have no intent to restrict the discussion, I need to point out that you're conflating two concepts and your question clouds the distinction.

Asking whether PF 2e should be designed around or for PFS is a categorically different discussion than determining whether the outcomes in PFS should be used as data for tweaking the rules, or more accurately the degree of validity PFS data be given in assessing the situation.

Keep in mind that the existence of the alchemist as a base class has been confirmed as a result of PFS data analytics


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
My own opinion (which has no data to back it) is that a majority of P1E players are NOT PFS players or Con goers, nor do they come to the discussion boards (or reddits or discords).

I would agree. But you're ignoring the inherent problem with non-PFS, and that is normalizing the data from feedback. The Crane Wing anecdote is a perfect example of the problem. You have Player A who claims this X feat is a problem in Y scenario and solved by Z. You have Player B saying X feat isn't a problem in their campaign, and then you have your own data which says X feat is is problematic in both Y and Z.

How does one determine which data represents actual information for crafting the game? In normal statistics, you try and normalize data to isolate factors to increase the accuracy of the information you're getting. But that requires you have more complete information on the environment and circumstances under which the data was gathered. Ask yourself if you think that's more easily done within PFS or outside of PFS? It's impossible to know what factors are at play in anyone's home game. In PFS, that uncertainty is reduced by orders of magnitude, and, you can more easily determine if the conditions of how that data was collected is consistent with the gaming environment and assumptions your game is operating under.

Will PFS provide the complete picture? No. You're not going to to get data on mechanics that are a priori problematic for organized play e.g. crafting magic items. But the idea that everyone not playing PFS is playing the same game is not supported by any data whatsoever. The idea that there is a coherent non-PFS group that is larger and has the same adherence to a given set of rules, isn't supported by any evidence I've seen, anywhere. You can make assertions that whatever differences exist are minor, but that is conjecture and opinion and has no basis in fact or science. What one campaign may consider a minor or insignificant rule change could represent a substantive rule change in another campaign.

Quote:

If people like it, then they will buy PF2e.

If they don't, then they won't.

Alas, it's just not that simple. Paizo is a publishing company. That means they need the product to be liked in the long term. They need the product to have sufficient depth so that players don't get bored, but not have the rules be so complex and granular that players give up before they learn to enjoy it. They need the product to have sufficient similarity with the old product that it is attractive to existing customers. They want the product to have sufficient change that represent a substantive improvement as well. The game has to appeal to veterans and newbs.

The design goals for an RPG have many competing interests. It requires professional game designers to complete or an individual who is the Mozart and Einstein of game design combined. These types of games require the blending of art and science, and more importantly an understanding of how to manipulate the science to achieve the art. The various mechanics employed have to work in concert. The artistic vision has to be cohesive.

Crane Wing is an important lesson for Paizo that designers don't always get it right. It should remind Paizo that sometimes their first instinct isn't always correct. Mark admitted that openly in the Sorcerer blog. So Paizo has to recognize that it's never done. If Crane Wing could slip through, then it stands to reason that there are many other things that are detrimental to the game and haven't been identified. One could reason that Paizo found so many of these problems with 3.5, that they decided to start over. WotC screwed up 4e so badly they had to start over with a whole new version. I'm pretty sure Paizo doesn't want to go through that with 2e, so they need to figure out which data is information and which data is misinformation.

When players tell us feat X works like Y and not Z, the fact that Paizo says otherwise tells me that Paizo is aware that everyone's experiences playing the game are not equally informative.


Mekkis wrote:
Keep in mind that the existence of the alchemist as a base class has been confirmed as a result of PFS data analytics

Do you know if PFS data has been able to to prove the existence of Bigfoot? I've heard NASA has been on the PFS forums looking for UFO sightings.


N N 959 wrote:
Mekkis wrote:
Keep in mind that the existence of the alchemist as a base class has been confirmed as a result of PFS data analytics
Do you know if PFS data has bene able to to prove the existence of Bigfoot? I've heard NASA has been on the PFS forums looking for UFO sightings.

I did hear some new conclusive evidence of an Elvis sighting.


Chest Rockwell wrote:


I did hear some new conclusive evidence of an Elvis sighting.

Yeah, that must have been back in Season 1 because I know for a fact that Elvis got the banhammer. One of the few bard archetypes to be banned in PFS.

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Chest Rockwell wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Mekkis wrote:
Keep in mind that the existence of the alchemist as a base class has been confirmed as a result of PFS data analytics
Do you know if PFS data has bene able to to prove the existence of Bigfoot? I've heard NASA has been on the PFS forums looking for UFO sightings.
I did hear some new conclusive evidence of an Elvis sighting.

Wasn't that in Kyonin? Maybe in Scenario 5-05: The Elvis Entanglement

Silver Crusade

I died in that one. Paralyzed by the crooning.

1 to 50 of 106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / PFS influence of PF2 rules All Messageboards