2e appears not support a playstyle that 1e supported very well


General Discussion

101 to 113 of 113 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
But you have to roll it, because that nat 1 is not just a failure but a crit failure, so you must have your 5% chance to look like an idiot. If you don't make rolls that would normally succeed on a 1, there's no reason to even have a special rule for a nat 1.

Under the implication above that someone expects this should be DC 12, that's both within Assurance for an Expert climber and is also such a low DC that by the time someone might consider such a climb within your level, your bonus is at least +12.

Which means it's no longer a critical failure on a 1, but a normal failure.


Pathfinder Card Game, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The problem is that for the most part, optimized characters are succeeding on a 3+ against the challenges they're facing.

The issue is that at very low levels you haven't really invested that much in a given direction because you haven't been given the opportunity.

Your level 1 Rogue has how many Stealth-related feats? If your low-level character is already succeeding 90% of the time with little investment, by the time they're heavily invested they can't fail a reasonable challenge ever.

Looking at the playtest for level 7, a Stealth-oriented Rogue is going to have a +15 to Stealth against DCs in the 8-12 range heavily weighted towards the 8. Where is the problem? You already have an 85% chance of success.

At level 10, that same Rogue can take a feat so that, realistically, they only fail on a 1. Again, where is the problem?

At level 7 that fighter is going to be an Expert with at least a +1 weapon, if not a +1 master weapon. Assuming 18 STR, that's going to give them +13-14 against ACs in the 18-22 range, weighted towards the 18. Here you're hitting on 5s most of the time. Where is the problem?

Don't like MAP, use one of the fighter's many double action attacks.

I'm not trying to be dismissive, but it seems like so many of these arguments haven't actually looked at these things in depth. It feels like someone said coin-flip or 50/50 and presumed that's what the actual content was going to be like. And some of it might be, but it's not universally like that. Most fights I've done in the playtest have been fairly easy -- and yes, I'm aware of the TPKs.


neaven wrote:
The Once and Future Kai wrote:


Can a GM set up the players for high power play in a low power system? Absolutely. I can see many ways to offer "high power" campaigns using the playtest rules - the tight math actually makes it a piece of cake, especially with the critical set-up.
The need for the GM to alter or go outside of the ruleset in order to allow a playstyle contraindicates the possiblity of that playstyle in the first place. Although E6 and E8 are developed rulesets that also go outside of the base rules, the ability to merely finish a game at lower level accomplishes the majority of the same goals. There's no equivalent way to "play up" in 2e.

ofc there is

like you can play "up to level 6" in pf1, you can "start" at level 15 in pf2.

put a flat -3 to all monster rolls, and there you have it.

The very tight math even make it much more easy to "upgrade"PCs and downgrade monsters since everything is relatively the same number wise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
ryric wrote:
With skills, what I don't understand, and would honestly fix a lot of problems, is why we even have that DCs by level and difficulty table. Just give us the DCs for things outright like in PF1e. The table is awful because as we see, people will misinterpret it and scale everything, and it has no clear mathematical basis so you have to actually reference it every time instead of just knowing a formula. I'd much rather have something like, for climbing, knotted rope with wall, DC0, rope with wall, DC5, tree, DC10, rough rock wall, DC10T (where T means you have to be trained in Athletics), brick wall DC15T, and so forth. Heck, feel free and list things like wall of force at DC35L or something. Once you have a scale it's easy to set other DCs for things not included, and it makes the whole affair seem much less arbitrary.
The reason why the PF1e system isn't used is because it's cumbersome, rigid, and offers absolutely no help to the guy on the other side of the screen. Filling up page after page with a bunch of banalities like "climb rope DC x" "climb knotted rope DC y" and "climb knotted rope braced on wall DC z" is another thing I as a GM need to sift around a rulebook to get right in a rulebook already stuffed to the gills with tiny fiddly things to look up and may the gods help me if the party wants to climb a rope in a manner not covered by the rulebook. Conversely a level appropriate table (probably with a short list of examples to provide a framework for what a Level x challenge is) gives me a single place to look and make snap judgements and is most importantly flexible.

Or we can have both so you and me can be happy. Because one of the reasons I like PF are those damned tables so I don't have to be depending on my DMs memory, current mood and "common sense" on what my DC will be.


Tridus wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Wasted actions are frustrating. Anything less than 70% and I start to feel actively incompetent. Imagine if Legolas sent arrows flying off in all directions...

It's worse in a group activity, because if one person failing causes the group to fail and the odds are a coin flip... someone's going to always fail. Thus, that thing isn't even worth attempting.

70% is a minimum where if you have to succeed multiple times to do something, you might have a reasonable enough chance of success to attempt it. Below that, you're just setting yourself up for failure.

70% chance to succeed becomes 49% chance to succeed if you have to manage it twice. Not exactly something to bet on even if you get even odds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperSheep wrote:
perception check wrote:
SuperSheep wrote:

To those people who want to hit 90% of the time on their optimized rolls... "Why?"

It sounds like what you want is a complete power fantasy. Do you also like your having your critical hits described by the GM as eviscerating your enemies with their bowels spilling out or their heads being flung across the field after being decapitated?

If you want that, your GM can run you through really easy encounters. They can give you a chance to dominate. But if you can only feel really good about yourself if everyone else in the party can only fail challenges in your area of expertise, that's not a good experience for the table.

Your post eviscerates the straw man, spilling its bowels in a room-temperature pile at your feet and flinging its head twenty feet in a random direction! Roll a d8.

This isn't about feeling good about oneself; nor is it about domination fantasies. The ideal is that a character build to perform a certain activity really well should be able to succeed at that activity more often than not.

The target percentage is up for debate, but I personally think a 70% to 80% success rate for an optimized character is superb.

Fair enough. 80% seems too high to me personally. I guess 65% (or a 8 or higher) for the optimized character is good, which is where the 2e fights have been that we've done. Taking a look at the current playtest where you're level 7:

** spoiler omitted **...

Well, that spoilered data would be swell, if this part of the adventure was aimed at fighters *at all*. This section of the playtest is specifically for healers - 2 clerics with the ability to channel energy, and all remaining party members with healing abilities (bards, druids, alchemists, paladins). Folks certainly may be running this with fighters, but that's not what was suggested.


Pathfinder Card Game, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Requielle wrote:
Well, that spoilered data would be swell, if this part of the adventure was aimed at fighters *at all*. This section of the playtest is specifically for healers - 2 clerics with the ability to channel energy, and all remaining party members with healing abilities (bards, druids, alchemists, paladins). Folks certainly may be running this with fighters, but that's not what was suggested.

So we're looking at 1-3 less for the healers? And just because they're testing healers, doesn't mean the encounters would change. They can be taking a normal scenario and testing an extreme case. But even in the later cases we're looking at level-5 and up where the math is mostly going to hold.

But what's your argument, that everyone should hit 90% of the time? Or even 80%? If that's the case where is there room above for the true specialists?

A High difficulty encounter is two enemies of party level. Most fights we've seen up to this point are more enemies than that and designed to be easier than High.

Six monsters at Level - 4 which feels like a common fight is a Low encounter. Eight at Level - 4 or four at Level - 2 would be a High encounter, which is a normal fight. Most encounters are with at least 4 enemies which means you're typically dealing with at most enemies of your level - 2.

4+ at level monsters is considered an Extreme encounter and that's the one time you would be trading blow for blow. And even then it's not a coin flip for the specialist as they've got a better than 50% chance.

If you have a GM regularly throwing 4-6 at-level enemies, good luck, because they're well outside where they should be for encounter design and you should be expected to blow a decent amount of gold on consumables as well as a large percentage of your daily resources.


vestris wrote:
Honeybee wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
So if you have sequences which are somewhat challenging for non-specialists, this lets you provide opportunities for the specialist to feel "I am good at this" and when you have truly heroic challenges (like the aforementioned frozen waterfall clock) only the specialist has a realistic chance of succeeding so if they do, they feel *awesome*.
And then they roll an 8 and fail. And not only do they feel absolutely terrible about missing their obvious opportunity to be the hero, they also feel like every resource they spent on that skill was completely wasted.

Or the task is proficiency gated only a master can even attempt it and the DC is 20 so with assurance he automatically succeeds.

Your avatar changing while I tried to answer was really awkward :D

unless there's been an errata for assurance, it IS horrible, for the simple fact of it not allowing any bonuses, scores, etc to be added to the flat result (see: YOUR CHARACTER'S INVESTMENT, so what was the point of investing at all?), and by the level you reach those proficiencies (barring extremes, which are almost entirely determined by class from the start, rather than conscious player choice as you go), those flat, bonusless amounts wont succeed at much of anything.

this makes even assurance unreliable.

as a basic example: assurance is pretty much entirely pointless until master proficiency (when it hits 20) for pretty much all low-end content in doomsday dawn, since the lowest DC on anything i could find were greater than 10, and usually 15 or higher for level 1 hazards and check DCs, some of which required two or more high-DC successes to complete or avoid (such as attempting to pick... literally any lock or disable any of the traps in the lost star).

it's also incredibly galling that the previously everpresent "take ten" mechanic (even with limitations) now requires a feat, and that using a skill for certain previously universal uses is now gated behind arbitrary proficiencies, and these are somehow supposed tob e taken as a positive.


AndIMustMask wrote:
it's also incredibly galling that the previously everpresent "take ten" mechanic (even with limitations) now requires a feat, and that using a skill for certain previously universal uses is now gated behind arbitrary proficiencies, and these are somehow supposed tob e taken as a positive.

Does it? I thought the idea was that assurance lets you "take 10" (or 20 or 30) on a check. Previous take 10 & take 20 rules were effectively telling the gm "if there's no consequence for failure, don't roll 40 times until the party eventually succeeds." Previously take 10 only worked if not distracted or in danger. Assurance can be used at any time.


(Note I read the 1st and 3rd pages only)

Some basic thoughts on the topic:
1) To me PF 2 B1 is so different from PF 1st that they should not really be compared to one another.
2) Also PF 2 B1 seems to be a one player PC game design trying to branch out into a multi-player Pen and Paper game.
2a) To me the core might work as a post-apoc game engine if most of the stuff was ripped out.
2b) The core system of PF 2 B1, reminds me of Might and Magic (1-4) PC game for some reason.
3) PF 2 B1 seems to; identify and try and fix issues that I have very very rarely had a problem with since I started gaming in 1978. And when I have encountered them I have expected to encounter the issue. Again this is in Pen and Paper (P&P) group play vs computer game play or 1 player P&P play.
4) Some of the ideas presented in PF 2 B1, could be very interesting if they are tied to a setting and provided a good and valid reason for existing (not just I the game designer want it to be so, so here is a reason that very few rational people will except outside of my core game lovers who love everything we do)
...but in general the rules in PF 2 B1 do not in any way bring to mind my past experience and enjoyment in playing PF 1 and in Golarion.

MDC

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ranishe wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
it's also incredibly galling that the previously everpresent "take ten" mechanic (even with limitations) now requires a feat, and that using a skill for certain previously universal uses is now gated behind arbitrary proficiencies, and these are somehow supposed tob e taken as a positive.
Does it? I thought the idea was that assurance lets you "take 10" (or 20 or 30) on a check. Previous take 10 & take 20 rules were effectively telling the gm "if there's no consequence for failure, don't roll 40 times until the party eventually succeeds." Previously take 10 only worked if not distracted or in danger. Assurance can be used at any time.

The new Assurance feat lets you get a result of 10, not take 10 as the PF1e way. This means, for example, if you're trained with a bonus of +12 and you use Assurance, you've effectively chosen to roll a -2 on the d20.

If any skills can be repeated, you can always take 20 the "hard way," by holding up the game and rolling over and over until the check succeeds magically on a 20, even if you bonus isn't high enough for the task you're attempting.


ryric wrote:
Ranishe wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
it's also incredibly galling that the previously everpresent "take ten" mechanic (even with limitations) now requires a feat, and that using a skill for certain previously universal uses is now gated behind arbitrary proficiencies, and these are somehow supposed tob e taken as a positive.
Does it? I thought the idea was that assurance lets you "take 10" (or 20 or 30) on a check. Previous take 10 & take 20 rules were effectively telling the gm "if there's no consequence for failure, don't roll 40 times until the party eventually succeeds." Previously take 10 only worked if not distracted or in danger. Assurance can be used at any time.

The new Assurance feat lets you get a result of 10, not take 10 as the PF1e way. This means, for example, if you're trained with a bonus of +12 and you use Assurance, you've effectively chosen to roll a -2 on the d20.

If any skills can be repeated, you can always take 20 the "hard way," by holding up the game and rolling over and over until the check succeeds magically on a 20, even if you bonus isn't high enough for the task you're attempting.

taking 20 is all but impossible due to the critical rules.

at any point where you need such a high number, you'll crit fail half the time.

Assurance is nice when you're expecting penalties. Example: assurance in acrobatics while you're wearing full plate.

at level 2 when you get your plate, that's a 10 instead of 1d20-1, so an 11 on the roll. At level 3 that's a 15 instead of a 1d20, so a 15 on the roll, at level 7 that's 20 instead of 1d20+5 (expert armor), so 15 on the roll, level 15 that's a 30 instead of 1d20+14 (master armor)so a 16 on the roll. From then on it starts to drop off, but even at 20, with legendary armor it's still a 10 on the roll, even ith armor features dropping the penalty even further, it's still a 9.

It's a level 1 skill feat, so it's not suppossed to be all powerful wise, it does it job at ensuring that you're "assured" that you won't crit fail, but it also only helps vs easy stuff.


Seems like a lot of people are just frustrated by missing--why not just argue for removing the accuracy roll from the equation entirely? If you attack, you only roll for damage, not to hit unless the enemy has some sort of special quality that makes them evasive. If the expectation was that the average character only hits a character with an average AC for their level 70% of the time, then their average damage is actually only 70% of what their average damage on a hit is, or to put it another way, the hp of a monster of average evasiveness for their level is 43% higher than it appears to be if you're not accounting for the hit probability.

So in terms of battle pacing, you would get the same effect if instead of rolling to hit, you automatically hit and just either reduce damage or increase targets' hit points. A fight would take the same number of turns to end and have almost identical levels of deadliness and/or swingyness.

So if the argument is that missing in battle is inherently so frustrating as to reduce overall satisfaction with the game, why not petition the design team to just increase hit points (and have armor and/or dex, and spell bonuses there-to increase hit points or grant temporary hp instead of increasing AC, which would be removed as a concept) and stop rolling to hit altogether? It would reduce player frustration over perceived incompetence and makes the progress one is making toward defeating an enemy with each turn more palpable, even though the only difference is psychological. It would probably speed up combat a little bit, too, since you wouldn't have to do any on-the-fly lookups/recollection of target ACs. Although it admittedly might increase character creation time for players and the complexity of creating monsters for GMs to do it that way, the emotional benefit to players might be worth it if the frustration of frequent misses is that big an issue.

ETA: It does occur to me on reflection that that could increase the already high psychological power of healing for players who feel like their HP needs to be topped off after every fight. More paranoid players might well burn through their daily healing resources a lot quicker if they accumulate damage faster, even if with higher max hp they're not closer to dying or being knocked unconscious than they would've been before. Given the grumbling I've already heard about the increased reliance on healer characters over consumables, I could see that worsening that particular issue, so it's worth keeping in mind.

101 to 113 of 113 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / 2e appears not support a playstyle that 1e supported very well All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion