| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Randomness also makes the game more exciting. With unexpected rolls, a straightforward encounter can turn into edge of your seat action.
Maybe for some, but I like my characters to succeed at the things they're supposed to be good at.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe for some, but I like my characters to succeed at the things they're supposed to be good at.
Randomness also makes the game more exciting. With unexpected rolls, a straightforward encounter can turn into edge of your seat action.
Q4E
Tactics become less relevant and character choice also matters less and less when the dice decide more for you than you do. If I wanted that, I'll play a game designed around it like WoD.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe for some, but I like my characters to succeed at the things they're supposed to be good at.
Randomness also makes the game more exciting. With unexpected rolls, a straightforward encounter can turn into edge of your seat action.Q4E
Tactics become less relevant and character choice also matters less and less when the dice decide more for you than you do. If I wanted that, I'll play a game designed around it like WoD.
On the contrary, I want the dice to decide very little. I prefer the old static bonuses, based on build choices, that were extremely reliable. This new edition gave too much power to the die.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe for some, but I like my characters to succeed at the things they're supposed to be good at.
Randomness also makes the game more exciting. With unexpected rolls, a straightforward encounter can turn into edge of your seat action.Q4E
Tactics become less relevant and character choice also matters less and less when the dice decide more for you than you do. If I wanted that, I'll play a game designed around it like WoD.
On the flipside, very high numbers make tactics irrelevant.
Why buff, debuff, flank, use tactics, when you already have really high success rate even without that hassle?
The aforementioned 60% chance to hit, with heroism and flank, becomes 80% already as an example.
But they tax you actions that dip into your DPR, and you need to toggle the crit ratio for wasting those actions to be worth it thanks to the math on how criticals work now. Unless you have those buffs, non-martial characters can expect to never crit, and martial characters care about it so much that it prevents them from taking interesting choices.
I don't hate the hit range as it were, I just would like to see more tactical options to change it up with the action system, rather than limited use daily abilities. It'll make the game more accessible, make martial characters good at their jobs, and balance out mathematically.
Feint is really good, I'm glad the word is going around, even if it gets used against me in an argument after I made a whole thread about single action abilities needing to improve hit chance. You say this to me like I should be insulted but in reality it only serves my purposes more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm starting to come around on the decreasing accuracy, at least for martials. I think the casters could use a little tweak upwards.
I am all for higher CR creatures being more competent and harder to kill, even at equal levels, as characters advance. Sort of gives the game a deadlier feel as players advance. Very OD&D-ish.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a relevant reddit post with average tohit and saves.
While attacks are around 50%-60%,saves go as down as 20-40% success rates for casters.
I think this is one of those interesting cases where the numbers tell several different stories.
Because those attacks are doing nothing 40-50% of the time (on any failure) but most spells are doing nothing 10-30% of the time (on a critical success on the saving throw).
If we're thinking of the same post, it also didn't touch on Spell Resistance, which is a huge change in how magic is handled. But it's not in the data because there literally isn't a number for it anymore.
In our level 10-13 homemade campaign, we noticed this trend of casters starting to fall quite behind the martials (as opposed to around level 5-7ish which they felt on par)
This, right here, is the part that matters, though. Poking numbers and pretending we can forecast how the game will work doesn't buy anyone anything, we need actual play experience like this.
So thanks for including that. I'm curious to see if my play experience start to line up past level 5.
Cheers!
Landon
"DPR " is a made up number. If monsters are balanced around you hitting them for 1-2 attacks/round, a theoretical DPR of 3 attacks is irrelevant.
All numbers are made up.
DPR can be determined a number of different ways, and it's handy to know how the numbers play out. It's possible to calculate average DPR for taking 1, 2 or all 3 actions to attack in a given situation, and that way know which choice is mathematically most likely to get you the best results.
It's also a good thing to figure out during a playtest, because if monsters are supposed to be balanced around a player hitting them 1-2 times per round, but actual play shows that they are regularly being hit 3 times per round, then there might be a balance issue that needs tweaked.
|
|
Don't get me wrong, casters were still relevant as the most diverse source of buffs and debuffs, it's just that their "damage" fell and they mostly felt relevant for the statuses rather than the success effects.
Which didn't feel that great, but it was still effective.
Fair enough. I'm glad they at least had a role, though I agree a lot of people have more fun laying out the damage.
Cheers!
Landon
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"DPR " is a made up number.
Yes, so is AC, HP, and Proficiency. Numbers relate to each other, and understanding those relationships together creates DPR, or rather DPA.
If monsters are balanced around you hitting them for 1-2 attacks/round, a theoretical DPR of 3 attacks is irrelevant.
Unless you're making 3 attacks in a round, or have feats/abilities which make your DPA equal to the amount of damage you can do with 3 attacks in a round compared to other options. In a playtest it's our job to sort these things out.
As for relying on others, it's a party based game. Obviously, some party configurations are more optimal, that has been the case since 1st ed dnd.
"relying on others" is also a very good thing imo, it promotes the party feeling rather than each player doing whatever they feel like.
It's a turn based game where you don;t get to all act in tandem, you need to understand time management and action economy to even engage it before you consider team aspects.
Lastly, the decoupling of all maneuvers from feats gives plenty of options to martials imo. A few more obviously can only make the system better, but for a core rulebook, the 4-5 maneuvers are enough for a starting point.
More importantly, converting them to single actions, using the same d20 mechanics as attacks, and removing most AOOs from the game has also made them better, but their execution often comes coupled with selective feats on classes to make them more functional in play.
I haven't tested high levels yet, but the implication that understanding the underlying math of the game is somehow playing the game wrong is inflammatory and offensive. Stop that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"DPR " is a made up number.Yes, so is AC, HP, and Proficiency. Numbers relate to each other, and understanding those relationships together creates DPR, or rather DPA.
If monsters are balanced around you hitting them for 1-2 attacks/round, a theoretical DPR of 3 attacks is irrelevant.Unless you're making 3 attacks in a round, or have feats/abilities which make your DPA equal to the amount of damage you can do with 3 attacks in a round compared to other options. In a playtest it's our job to sort these things out.
As for relying on others, it's a party based game. Obviously, some party configurations are more optimal, that has been the case since 1st ed dnd.
"relying on others" is also a very good thing imo, it promotes the party feeling rather than each player doing whatever they feel like.
It's a turn based game where you don;t get to all act in tandem, you need to understand time management and action economy to even engage it before you consider team aspects.
Lastly, the decoupling of all maneuvers from feats gives plenty of options to martials imo. A few more obviously can only make the system better, but for a core rulebook, the 4-5 maneuvers are enough for a starting point.More importantly, converting them to single actions, using the same d20 mechanics as attacks, and removing most AOOs from the game has also made them better, but their execution often comes coupled with selective feats on classes to make them more functional in play.
I haven't tested high levels yet, but the implication that understanding the underlying math of the game is somehow playing the game wrong is inflammatory and offensive. Stop that.
That was never my intention. Maybe my English is more rigid due to not being my native language.
What I'm mostly trying to say is that the initial 55-60% is easily buffed by another 10-15% with minimal effort and more with some more effort. Bringing the numbers up...
Here's the crazy thing: I actually agree with you for the baseline of the engine. After running the numbers roughly, I came up with ideal conditions being that the action system makes improved hit chance is the most important commodity of the game. Forcing team play works for single player experiences like playing a ttff like game. It's fun if you've never tried it. People should have the option of that play style rather than forcing it on everyone. People don't always like being told what to do.
Giving more abilities which boost attack to martial characters will work if you control it's margin between where you want it to balance how often crits happen. So happens to be +3 to +5, according to the table. That maintains the 60% normal rate, then gives you upwards of 25-30 on martial builds, maintaining the original rate on non martial builds. Fighters get to do it the most, and thus are king.
We'll have to figure out how valuable Feint is, it affects a lot.
That's done for abilities like Evasion, to have their mechanics written directly into the spells, and then to open it up to everyone a little.
On the other end, (conceptually) your spells are not going to need feats like intensified spell, or other such buffs as much to make effective blasters. That part by the numbers may need work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the contrary, I want the dice to decide very little. I prefer the old static bonuses, based on build choices, that were extremely reliable. This new edition gave too much power to the die.Maybe for some, but I like my characters to succeed at the things they're supposed to be good at.
Randomness also makes the game more exciting. With unexpected rolls, a straightforward encounter can turn into edge of your seat action.Q4E
Tactics become less relevant and character choice also matters less and less when the dice decide more for you than you do. If I wanted that, I'll play a game designed around it like WoD.
The old rules put too much emphasis on character building that made tactics and in game options irrelevant.
"why bother being a party member when you're a one man army ".
In all of our playtests so far, martials feel like they're "almost there" balance wise. They just require more teamwork and tactics to reach that place compared to before.
If you've built your character well, that should be it - they should be able to easily overcome any obstacle within their specialization. You need a party because everyone specializes in different things, and because one fighter can't stab all the baddies at once.
Building a character to the maximum effectiveness possible within the design parameters for the character concept is my favorite part of an RPG - and something that PF1 excelled at. PF2 feels like it's full of hard caps and restrictions that prevent that.
Paizo has to please both these guys...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo has to please both these guys...Tbf, that's impossible, because we seek different things from the same game.
Thankfully, GM Fiat exists, and as long as the system works, both can be satisfied.
As an example, my "average" encounter with the old system was at cr+3,and my players still steamrolled those.
Pf2 might see me playing at cr appropriate and sherlock at cr-2 to capture the feeling he wants, or it might revert to old pf and force me to go cr+ and sherlock to cr appropriate.
As long as the system, as a system, works, difficulty level will stay adjustable between tables.
And I just want the system to work.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo has to please both these guys...Tbf, that's impossible, because we seek different things from the same game.
Thankfully, GM Fiat exists, and as long as the system works, both can be satisfied.
As an example, my "average" encounter with the old system was at cr+3,and my players still steamrolled those.
Pf2 might see me playing at cr appropriate and sherlock at cr-2 to capture the feeling he wants, or it might revert to old pf and force me to go cr+ and sherlock to cr appropriate.
As long as the system, as a system, works, difficulty level will stay adjustable between tables.
The problems with that are
A) It's dependent on GM fiat, which is not a guaranteeB) More importantly, you're then fighting weaker stuff, which isn't as cool. I want to walk up to a Great Wyrm Red Dragon at 18th-20th level and hit it (almost) guaranteed at least the first couple shots every round. Fighting a Marilith with a 20th-level fighter isn't cool.
I don't want a low difficulty, I want a high degree of success on actions in which I have specialized. I don't mind failing untrained/secondary checks, that's why you have a party.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want to discourage people doing math, but wow this just seems like one of those things you need to playtest and see how it feels...
I like that the 1st attack has a decent chance to hit, and the subsequent attacks don't. It makes choices of tactics such as feint and buffs and agile weapons more valuable.
I don't do stats maths. I am playtesting. This is how it's felt in my game sessions so far. I'm reserving judgement for later levels, but at the low levels it seems entirely down to the dice. First attack hits far less often (and later hits are almost reliant on a 20). Combat feels less satisfying as a result.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder why this edition isn't relying further on the 4 degrees of success style it uses with many spells. If a miss still did slight damage (enough that you could still roll a die and feel like you were helping), then people wouldn't care about sky high ACs.There's too much damage going towards the players already.
Enough that most noncleric healers don't even cut it.
If monsters did damage even on a miss, it would simply be too much imo.
The fighter has some cool "failure" enhancements though.
Tge Press system in general seems designed to capitalise on attacking with penalties and mitigating some of the failures that come from that endeavour (with different degrees of success at accomplishing this)
Damage, total health, and healing abilities can all have their numbers played with though. Just imagine a combat where hitting was the baseline instead of missing. You'd ramp up health totals, but you'd make steadier progress.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo has to please both these guys...Tbf, that's impossible, because we seek different things from the same game.
Thankfully, GM Fiat exists, and as long as the system works, both can be satisfied.
As an example, my "average" encounter with the old system was at cr+3,and my players still steamrolled those.
Pf2 might see me playing at cr appropriate and sherlock at cr-2 to capture the feeling he wants, or it might revert to old pf and force me to go cr+ and sherlock to cr appropriate.
As long as the system, as a system, works, difficulty level will stay adjustable between tables.
The problems with that are
A) It's dependent on GM fiat, which is not a guarantee
B) More importantly, you're then fighting weaker stuff, which isn't as cool. I want to walk up to a Great Wyrm Red Dragon at 18th-20th level and hit it (almost) guaranteed at least the first couple shots every round. Fighting a Marilith with a 20th-level fighter isn't cool.I don't want a low difficulty, I want a high degree of success on actions in which I have specialized. I don't mind failing untrained/secondary checks, that's why you have a party.
I think if you're nearly guaranteed to hit a CR 22 thing at level 18-20, the CR 22 thing is not as big of a threat as it should be.
Because then we have level 16s guaranteed to hit level 18 martially-focused PCs, and then it starts getting stupid again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo has to please both these guys...Tbf, that's impossible, because we seek different things from the same game.
Thankfully, GM Fiat exists, and as long as the system works, both can be satisfied.
As an example, my "average" encounter with the old system was at cr+3,and my players still steamrolled those.
Pf2 might see me playing at cr appropriate and sherlock at cr-2 to capture the feeling he wants, or it might revert to old pf and force me to go cr+ and sherlock to cr appropriate.
As long as the system, as a system, works, difficulty level will stay adjustable between tables.
The problems with that are
A) It's dependent on GM fiat, which is not a guarantee
B) More importantly, you're then fighting weaker stuff, which isn't as cool. I want to walk up to a Great Wyrm Red Dragon at 18th-20th level and hit it (almost) guaranteed at least the first couple shots every round. Fighting a Marilith with a 20th-level fighter isn't cool.I don't want a low difficulty, I want a high degree of success on actions in which I have specialized. I don't mind failing untrained/secondary checks, that's why you have a party.
The problem with that, it's that it stops feeling epic.
If you can always hit that ancient red dragon, then he's just a level appropriate "goblin" with more HP.
Similar to your tastes, I don't want my epic fights to be bland and boring and I don't want the random caves with goblins to be populated by goblin barbarians, cleric, and wizards, just to be challenging.
See?
Both sides have their merits, but, imo mine feels better, more epic, and more challenging. "Standard success" and "always hit" sounds the opposite of epic showdown to me (obviously, in your opinion, yours is better)
Sure, but there are already systems for that. Pathfinder has always allowed for truly epic heroes who can succeed at things reliably. We should keep it that way in this edition - those who want a different experience could always choose a different system.
I mean, I personally wouldn't do most things in real life on a 40-50% chance of failure, especially if significant amounts of resources are at stake. Why would I do so in a game?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want to discourage people doing math, but wow this just seems like one of those things you need to playtest and see how it feels...
I like that the 1st attack has a decent chance to hit, and the subsequent attacks don't. It makes choices of tactics such as feint and buffs and agile weapons more valuable.
Already did that part, and it feels... awful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, but there are already systems for that. Pathfinder has always allowed for truly epic heroes who can succeed at things reliably. We should...Paizo has to please both these guys...Tbf, that's impossible, because we seek different things from the same game.
Thankfully, GM Fiat exists, and as long as the system works, both can be satisfied.
As an example, my "average" encounter with the old system was at cr+3,and my players still steamrolled those.
Pf2 might see me playing at cr appropriate and sherlock at cr-2 to capture the feeling he wants, or it might revert to old pf and force me to go cr+ and sherlock to cr appropriate.
As long as the system, as a system, works, difficulty level will stay adjustable between tables.
The problems with that are
A) It's dependent on GM fiat, which is not a guarantee
B) More importantly, you're then fighting weaker stuff, which isn't as cool. I want to walk up to a Great Wyrm Red Dragon at 18th-20th level and hit it (almost) guaranteed at least the first couple shots every round. Fighting a Marilith with a 20th-level fighter isn't cool.I don't want a low difficulty, I want a high degree of success on actions in which I have specialized. I don't mind failing untrained/secondary checks, that's why you have a party.
The problem with that, it's that it stops feeling epic.
If you can always hit that ancient red dragon, then he's just a level appropriate "goblin" with more HP.
Similar to your tastes, I don't want my epic fights to be bland and boring and I don't want the random caves with goblins to be populated by goblin barbarians, cleric, and wizards, just to be challenging.
See?
Both sides have their merits, but, imo mine feels better, more epic, and more challenging. "Standard success" and "always hit" sounds the opposite of epic showdown to me (obviously, in your opinion, yours is better)
It's funny because the same logic can be used against your point of view: Actually Pathfinder2 gives more reliability and 'epicity' for the heroes, with the +1 per level, and in Pathfinder 1, if someone focused something that you're weak against, you consistently would fail;
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Sure, but there are already systems for that. Pathfinder has always allowed for truly epic heroes who canPaizo has to please both these guys...Tbf, that's impossible, because we seek different things from the same game.
Thankfully, GM Fiat exists, and as long as the system works, both can be satisfied.
As an example, my "average" encounter with the old system was at cr+3,and my players still steamrolled those.
Pf2 might see me playing at cr appropriate and sherlock at cr-2 to capture the feeling he wants, or it might revert to old pf and force me to go cr+ and sherlock to cr appropriate.
As long as the system, as a system, works, difficulty level will stay adjustable between tables.
The problems with that are
A) It's dependent on GM fiat, which is not a guarantee
B) More importantly, you're then fighting weaker stuff, which isn't as cool. I want to walk up to a Great Wyrm Red Dragon at 18th-20th level and hit it (almost) guaranteed at least the first couple shots every round. Fighting a Marilith with a 20th-level fighter isn't cool.I don't want a low difficulty, I want a high degree of success on actions in which I have specialized. I don't mind failing untrained/secondary checks, that's why you have a party.
The problem with that, it's that it stops feeling epic.
If you can always hit that ancient red dragon, then he's just a level appropriate "goblin" with more HP.
Similar to your tastes, I don't want my epic fights to be bland and boring and I don't want the random caves with goblins to be populated by goblin barbarians, cleric, and wizards, just to be challenging.
See?
Both sides have their merits, but, imo mine feels better, more epic, and more challenging. "Standard success" and "always hit" sounds the opposite of epic showdown to me (obviously, in your opinion, yours is better)
If you read my posts up to that point, you'll see that in in favor of a high failure rate for nonspecialized tasks, and I'm only asking for high success rates on a character's areas of specialization. I'm ok with my 20th level ranger failing hard when he tries to lie about something. When he's surviving in the wilds or sneaking around though, he better be making every check.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo has to please both these guys...Tbf, that's impossible, because we seek different things from the same game.
Thankfully, GM Fiat exists, and as long as the system works, both can be satisfied.
As an example, my "average" encounter with the old system was at cr+3,and my players still steamrolled those.
Pf2 might see me playing at cr appropriate and sherlock at cr-2 to capture the feeling he wants, or it might revert to old pf and force me to go cr+ and sherlock to cr appropriate.
As long as the system, as a system, works, difficulty level will stay adjustable between tables.
The problems with that are
A) It's dependent on GM fiat, which is not a guarantee
B) More importantly, you're then fighting weaker stuff, which isn't as cool. I want to walk up to a Great Wyrm Red Dragon at 18th-20th level and hit it (almost) guaranteed at least the first couple shots every round. Fighting a Marilith with a 20th-level fighter isn't cool.I don't want a low difficulty, I want a high degree of success on actions in which I have specialized. I don't mind failing untrained/secondary checks, that's why you have a party.
I think if you're nearly guaranteed to hit a CR 22 thing at level 18-20, the CR 22 thing is not as big of a threat as it should be.
Because then we have level 16s guaranteed to hit level 18 martially-focused PCs, and then it starts getting stupid again.
It's still a threat. It can toast you or rip you apart with it's attack line. But you can also hit back. In this example, I simply think a fighter should be good at fighting, and reliability is far and away the most important factor in that. Versatility is secondary to reliability.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a reason 70 accuracy moves aren't used.
...Sure, but there are already systems for that. Pathfinder has always allowed forPaizo has to please both these guys...Tbf, that's impossible, because we seek different things from the same game.
Thankfully, GM Fiat exists, and as long as the system works, both can be satisfied.
As an example, my "average" encounter with the old system was at cr+3,and my players still steamrolled those.
Pf2 might see me playing at cr appropriate and sherlock at cr-2 to capture the feeling he wants, or it might revert to old pf and force me to go cr+ and sherlock to cr appropriate.
As long as the system, as a system, works, difficulty level will stay adjustable between tables.
The problems with that are
A) It's dependent on GM fiat, which is not a guarantee
B) More importantly, you're then fighting weaker stuff, which isn't as cool. I want to walk up to a Great Wyrm Red Dragon at 18th-20th level and hit it (almost) guaranteed at least the first couple shots every round. Fighting a Marilith with a 20th-level fighter isn't cool.I don't want a low difficulty, I want a high degree of success on actions in which I have specialized. I don't mind failing untrained/secondary checks, that's why you have a party.
The problem with that, it's that it stops feeling epic.
If you can always hit that ancient red dragon, then he's just a level appropriate "goblin" with more HP.
Similar to your tastes, I don't want my epic fights to be bland and boring and I don't want the random caves with goblins to be populated by goblin barbarians, cleric, and wizards, just to be challenging.
See?
Both sides have their merits, but, imo mine feels better, more epic, and more challenging. "Standard success" and "always hit" sounds the opposite of epic showdown to me (obviously, in your opinion, yours is better)
Isn't this better accomplished by proficiency gates that make it so that the ranger doesn't even need to make checks? if the goal is to make it so that she doesn't ever fail them, there might be more elegant solutions than having a bonus so high she can't. (turning crit failures to regular failures for example, and making things that used to register as failures require critical failures accomplishes your goal with relatively flat DC values. GIving other characters a good chance of failure without stretching the numbers universally for every check that might be made with that skill.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a reason 70 accuracy moves aren't used.
Even 90 accuracy ones are suspect.
It's still a threat. It can toast you or rip you apart with it's attack line. But you can also hit back. In this example, I simply think a fighter should be good at fighting, and reliability is far and away the most important factor in that. Versatility is secondary to reliability.Paizo has to please both these guys...Tbf, that's impossible, because we seek different things from the same game.
Thankfully, GM Fiat exists, and as long as the system works, both can be satisfied.
As an example, my "average" encounter with the old system was at cr+3,and my players still steamrolled those.
Pf2 might see me playing at cr appropriate and sherlock at cr-2 to capture the feeling he wants, or it might revert to old pf and force me to go cr+ and sherlock to cr appropriate.
As long as the system, as a system, works, difficulty level will stay adjustable between tables.
The problems with that are
A) It's dependent on GM fiat, which is not a guarantee
B) More importantly, you're then fighting weaker stuff, which isn't as cool. I want to walk up to a Great Wyrm Red Dragon at 18th-20th level and hit it (almost) guaranteed at least the first couple shots every round. Fighting a Marilith with a 20th-level fighter isn't cool.I don't want a low difficulty, I want a high degree of success on actions in which I have specialized. I don't mind failing untrained/secondary checks, that's why you have a party.
I think if you're nearly guaranteed to hit a CR 22 thing at level 18-20, the CR 22 thing is not as big of a threat as it should be.
Because then we have level 16s guaranteed to hit level 18 martially-focused PCs, and then it starts getting stupid again.
The big problem with being a 100% reliable fighter (okay, 95%), especially against a target 2-4 levels above you, is that then we get to the problem that enemies can run on the exact same system. And then investing into AC or physical defenses is practically worthless, because even in the best scenario for this - 95/70/45% - you're still getting hit 45% of the time on the third attack, by enemies two levels lower than you. And there's also that attacking 3 times is always the best tactic (and then I guess we're going back to the era of guaranteed ranged superiority).
And we're not even getting to the problem where that's an even bigger problem for a martially inclined enemy two levels above you, who is going to utterly destroy you with their guaranteed crits.
And adjusting enemies to counteract that (say, giving them low AC, low attack, high HP) has its own set of problems. I don't quite remember the problems with the Starfinder monsters, but I do recall they run on a very different set of math than players and that's been hotly debated.
...Sure, but there are already systems for that.Paizo has to please both these guys...Tbf, that's impossible, because we seek different things from the same game.
Thankfully, GM Fiat exists, and as long as the system works, both can be satisfied.
As an example, my "average" encounter with the old system was at cr+3,and my players still steamrolled those.
Pf2 might see me playing at cr appropriate and sherlock at cr-2 to capture the feeling he wants, or it might revert to old pf and force me to go cr+ and sherlock to cr appropriate.
As long as the system, as a system, works, difficulty level will stay adjustable between tables.
The problems with that are
A) It's dependent on GM fiat, which is not a guarantee
B) More importantly, you're then fighting weaker stuff, which isn't as cool. I want to walk up to a Great Wyrm Red Dragon at 18th-20th level and hit it (almost) guaranteed at least the first couple shots every round. Fighting a Marilith with a 20th-level fighter isn't cool.I don't want a low difficulty, I want a high degree of success on actions in which I have specialized. I don't mind failing untrained/secondary checks, that's why you have a party.
The problem with that, it's that it stops feeling epic.
If you can always hit that ancient red dragon, then he's just a level appropriate "goblin" with more HP.
Similar to your tastes, I don't want my epic fights to be bland and boring and I don't want the random caves with goblins to be populated by goblin barbarians, cleric, and wizards, just to be challenging.
See?
Both sides have their merits, but, imo mine feels better, more epic, and more challenging. "Standard success" and "always hit" sounds the opposite of epic showdown to me (obviously, in your opinion, yours is better)
Maybe on skills, but it doesn't help on attacks or save DCs.
The big problem with being a 100% reliable fighter (okay, 95%), especially against a target 2-4 levels above you, is that then we get to the problem that enemies can run on the exact...It's still a threat. It can toast you or rip you apart with it's attack line. But you can also hit back. In this example, I simply think a fighter should be good at fighting, and reliability is far and away the most important factor in that. Versatility is secondary to reliability.Paizo has to please both these guys...Tbf, that's impossible, because we seek different things from the same game.
Thankfully, GM Fiat exists, and as long as the system works, both can be satisfied.
As an example, my "average" encounter with the old system was at cr+3,and my players still steamrolled those.
Pf2 might see me playing at cr appropriate and sherlock at cr-2 to capture the feeling he wants, or it might revert to old pf and force me to go cr+ and sherlock to cr appropriate.
As long as the system, as a system, works, difficulty level will stay adjustable between tables.
The problems with that are
A) It's dependent on GM fiat, which is not a guarantee
B) More importantly, you're then fighting weaker stuff, which isn't as cool. I want to walk up to a Great Wyrm Red Dragon at 18th-20th level and hit it (almost) guaranteed at least the first couple shots every round. Fighting a Marilith with a 20th-level fighter isn't cool.I don't want a low difficulty, I want a high degree of success on actions in which I have specialized. I don't mind failing untrained/secondary checks, that's why you have a party.
I think if you're nearly guaranteed to hit a CR 22 thing at level 18-20, the CR 22 thing is not as big of a threat as it should be.
Because then we have level 16s guaranteed to hit level 18 martially-focused PCs, and then it starts getting stupid again.
It worked fine the last time around...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, enemies explicitly don't run off the same system as players now, as seen with +6 to attack of the lv0 Goblin Warrior. (+5 is the best I can manage even for a 1st level PC Fighter)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a reason 70 accuracy moves aren't used.Even 90 accuracy ones are suspect.
I'm glad someone got it.
It worked fine the last time around...
Only if you consider constant rocket tag and completely broken high-level play 'working'. There's a reason initiative was the master stat.
Also, enemies explicitly don't run off the same system as players now, as seen with +6 to attack of the lv0 Goblin Warrior. (+5 is the best I can manage even for a 1st level PC Fighter)
They run reasonably close from what I recall, but I definitely think the numbers on the level 0s and 1s need to be looked at again.
I'm talking numbers more like how Starfinder monsters (at least from the arguments I recall) have noticeably lower ACs than players, significantly lower damage, and abnormally high to-hit.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest issue I have with this is that boss enemies will be 2-3 levels above the party, resulting in hit chances around 30% for the party while the boss enemy has it around 70-80%, resulting in the boss constantly crits every other attack, which feels awful.
Wasting your action 70% of the time (aka a hit chance of 30%) should not be okay.
EDIT: 30% hit chance also makes the new action economy useless, as a second attack would already only hit on natural 20.
The biggest issue I have with this is that boss enemies will be 2-3 levels above the party, resulting in hit chances around 30% for the party while the boss enemy has it around 70-80%, resulting in the boss constantly crits every other attack, which feels awful.
Wasting your action 70% of the time (aka a hit chance of 30%) should not be okay.
EDIT: 30% hit chance also makes the new action economy useless, as a second attack would already only hit on natural 20.
I mean 3 levels above usually means its a 50/50 TPK. It going to be a nasty fight just like it was in PF1.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest issue I have with this is that boss enemies will be 2-3 levels above the party, resulting in hit chances around 30% for the party while the boss enemy has it around 70-80%, resulting in the boss constantly crits every other attack, which feels awful.
Wasting your action 70% of the time (aka a hit chance of 30%) should not be okay.
EDIT: 30% hit chance also makes the new action economy useless, as a second attack would already only hit on natural 20.
In addition to Vidmaster's point, The developers have give the party resources for handling these situations. For Martials, Power attack is clearly useful against bosses since it actually has a chance still of getting a critical hit and moving into flanking and then power attacking is clearly a better option than standing still and attacking 3 times in this instance. It makes boss fights more tactical.
Magic Missile has some clear tactical use now as well, even with its lower damage capacity.
What will prove highly lethal for parties is wandering into a boss fight without any awareness the monster is there. As a GM, I think I will be trying to make it clear to my PCs that running away in the new game is a much more viable option than it was in PF1, (with far less AoOs), and that movement in general is going to be the most effective form of Defense against high level monsters. Rushing in to stand next to a boss monster in the hopes of dropping it in a round or two is not a good strategy since you will get hit more often in that first round then you will be doing the hitting.