Why I worry that the things I like about PF2 might be "bad".


General Discussion

51 to 85 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.
gwynfrid wrote:
But I don't think it's harder than doing the same thing in PF1, especially since stat blocks have been greatly simplified (no more FFAC, CMD, CMB, SR, and much shorter lists of abilities, defenses and attacks for monsters).

Removing feats from monsters has pleased me very much. Dealing with all of a monster's special attacks and SLAs is enough, without also dealing with all of its feats (some are rather extensive and complicated, fiddly).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
In PF1 there’s a useful shortcut (at our table anyhow) where once they’ve hit early on with a 21 or something they can adjudicate that themselves in later rounds (ie they roll a 26 or something and just report “I hit again. I do such-and-such damage.”)

I think this shortcut made more sense in Pathfinder First Edition in which Martials were making many more attacks (with many more modifier types that may or may not have stacked/been conditional). After Summoning, few things bogged down combat more than a high level dual wielder with buffs up.

We don't have to adjudicate a dozen different modifier types and conditional bonuses...so this quick bit of math feels pretty lightweight in comparison.

Steve Geddes wrote:
In PF2 the DM still needs to be involved even once they’ve started landing blows. In PF1 they can often focus on more important things than Armor Class Admin and each PC’s turn goes a few seconds quicker.

I still had to be involved in Pathfinder First Edition; usually due to the myriad of buffs and conditional bonuses.

gwynfrid wrote:
I'm pretty sure this is the way the game is supposed to be run. It requires more work and organization on the DM's part : The monsters' ACs, TACs, save bonuses and key DCs must be recalled instantly. It's feasible, with good preparation. But I don't think it's harder than doing the same thing in PF1, especially since stat blocks have been greatly simplified (no more FFAC, CMD, CMB, SR, and much shorter lists of abilities, defenses and attacks for monsters).

I'd say that it's significantly easier. I keep monster stats (as well as conditions, initiative order, and hp totals) on my clipboard - the new streamlined statblocks are much easier to manage than in Pathfinder First Edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
After Summoning, few things bogged down combat more than a high level dual wielder with buffs up.

Yes, I have experience with this. In my 3rd Ed Planescape campaign, we had a high level barbarian/ranger all about TWF (all the feats, tweaked out), and the player running the character was not so swift with maths (common enough, no big deal), so his turns could sometimes become interminable.

...there was also a thri-kreen monk build, back when (stacked flurry off blows, TWF, and secondary natural weapon attacks, was absurd).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
ErichAD wrote:
The +/- 10 has slowed down our games as well. I like it, but it's annoying enough that making the AC and saves known to the party seems like the best way to get around the issue.

Huh. Please elaborate. The +10/-10 usually goes like this for us.

1) Player tells me their total.
2) I compare it to the AC/DC.
3) I calculate if it is 10 higher/lower.
4) I tell the player the result.

It adds a step of simple math for me but that hasn't really slowed things down at our table. Totally worth it for the reaction players have when I tell them, "Actually, that's a Critical." It's been awhile since I've seen them this giddy over landing a Critical. I never tell them the AC/DC until an encounter is over or they figure it out themselves.

Where it has slowed things down is in Exploration Mode. Critical Failures are often momentum killers and rarely do anything interesting. I've seen a few people use the expression that the system "does not fail forward". I think this sums it up - players end up trying something totally different rather than persisting. Not good, I don't want my players to be afraid of failure. That leads to slow, overly cautious play.

The main difference is, without knowing their modifiers, the players and I can typically tell if a roll of 16 or 5 hits or misses without any other information. So we can skip from halfway through 1 to rolling damage. With the +/- in place, we need to do all of step one, and players won't know step 4 based on the result seen at halfway through 1.

Like you say, it's just some simple math, and some bouncing information between people at the table, but ensuring that check is done on every round causes it to build up. I still like +/- 10, but it does slow things down a bit.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
AndIMustMask wrote:
however, with how clamped the numbers are presently, only monsters really ever reach that +10 crit threshold, making it simply a means of further punishing the players. that, and monsters will likely never hit -10 on a DC by the same token due to their inflated stats (for example, a bog-standard goblin warrior only needs to roll a 2 to never fumble against anyone with AC 16 or less, period, and only needs a 4 to never fumble against the AC-optimized players at 18--th

There are no fumbles for strikes, unless you're using a houserule.


DM_Blake wrote:
That's one of the very best things about this system. Nobody does nine things (in your example 11 things) in a round anymore. Nobody rocket tags the enemy in round 1 and annihilates them to death before they get their turn.

Not to mention that of those 9 attacks, fully 4 or 5 of them almost every round AREN'T going to hit due to decreased attack bonus on two-weapon fighting, etc. However, you'll still do around the same type of damage in PF2 when attacking three times and hitting twice for multiple dice of damage each time with that highly magical weapon.

Quote:

Maybe, I'll grant that it's unfortunate that it is pretty much impossible to plan a successful ambush in which you launch an attack from stealth and kill the enemy before it gets a turn. I'd like some kind of special rule system in place for this. Something like "When transitioning from exploration mode to encounter mode, if you take an enemy by surprise, all your attack rolls are automatically criticals" or something like that (just spit-balling, doesn't have to be that). Something that lets ambushes be dangerous.

Because, in the current version, your ambush will really go like this: "You take the monsters by surprise and unload an entire round of your maximum firepower, but they're just wounded about exactly as much as if you had walked up to them, issued a challenge, waited for them to acknowledge you, and then won initiative."

I can see that, but honestly you couldn't in PF1 or 3.x either, because if you ambushed someone, you only got a surprise round, which was one standard action, you didn't get a full round to blow them away. I wouldn't mind seeing something critical in surprise as an optional rule anyway. One rule that impressed me with its lethality was from Green Ronin in their Black Company d20 Campaign setting book back in the mid-2000s. If you successfully got surprise on someone, all damage you did WENT STRAIGHT TO CONSTITUTION. You could, indeed, flat-up murder someone in the surprise round in Black Company if you caught them - but then, it's a super-grim setting, it fit with their style.


+- 10;
Are there not some strange interactions with this rule?
1) Low level person shooting a bow at a high level creature the not only miss but fumble as well.
2) The same example as above but using melee or hand to hand combat. They not only miss or bounce off the creature but fumble.
ie: Imagine a student and martial arts teacher and the teacher says "attack me" and the student just fumbles (apply what ever result is appropriate, fall on face, trip, etc)

I can understand the +10 part of the rule but the -10 part of the rule to me just does not make sense.

MDC


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

+- 10;

Are there not some strange interactions with this rule?
1) Low level person shooting a bow at a high level creature the not only miss but fumble as well.
2) The same example as above but using melee or hand to hand combat. They not only miss or bounce off the creature but fumble.
ie: Imagine a student and martial arts teacher and the teacher says "attack me" and the student just fumbles (apply what ever result is appropriate, fall on face, trip, etc)

I can understand the +10 part of the rule but the -10 part of the rule to me just does not make sense.

MDC

Critical Failures only exist for actions that specifically define them, which regular attacks do not. Nothing happens if you roll AC-10 on an attack, it's still just a regular miss.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

Re: action economy:

'3 actions' are a lie.

I'm really sympathetic with that first post on the action economy, because in practice it doesn't work out that way, often because of the things stated in the OP. But there are also some additional, things, mainly that _meaningful_ actions come up to a completely different number entirely.

First, you've got casters, who are more or less on a two action economy. They cast and either move or take some sort of defensive action. Or they pretend to be martial classes. Yes, a lot of spells require '2 actions' but from the PoV of what the player is doing, it's one thing, with a move action left over.

Second, you've got various martial abilities that are multiple actions as a single action or vice versa. Which means depending on build, a dual wielder, monk or errated ranger are 4 action classes (or more with a couple combinations), while a two-handed character can often be stuck as a 2 action class, unless forgoing feat actions altogether... which given power attack is probably for the best.

And again, this doesn't count fiddly stuff involving hands and juggling and whatever, which often makes things so much worse.

Third, eventually haste and other forms of Quick come in. At that point the '3 action' economy mutates even further. And Slow just utterly breaks people, if you can get the effect off.

Fourth, movement speed as actions is also a major issue, especially when the two sides move at different speeds, as a 5' difference means the slower side needs two 'actions' just to get into melee at all.

---

So yeah, that's my take on it. Different characters interact with this action system in wildly different ways, it's incredibly fiddly and inconsistent and is a bear to juggle it all at the table.

The system also just looks at you funny if players try to be creative or do complex actions that aren't spells or hitting things. It has no way to cope with that whatsoever.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:

Re: action economy:

'3 actions' are a lie.

I'm really sympathetic with that first post on the action economy, because in practice it doesn't work out that way, often because of the things stated in the OP. But there are also some additional, things, mainly that _meaningful_ actions come up to a completely different number entirely.

First, you've got casters, who are more or less on a two action economy. They cast and either move or take some sort of defensive action. Or they pretend to be martial classes. Yes, a lot of spells require '2 actions' but from the PoV of what the player is doing, it's one thing, with a move action left over.

Second, you've got various martial abilities that are multiple actions as a single action or vice versa. Which means depending on build, a dual wielder, monk or errated ranger are 4 action classes (or more with a couple combinations), while a two-handed character can often be stuck as a 2 action class, unless forgoing feat actions altogether... which given power attack is probably for the best.

And again, this doesn't count fiddly stuff involving hands and juggling and whatever, which often makes things so much worse.

Third, eventually haste and other forms of Quick come in. At that point the '3 action' economy mutates even further. And Slow just utterly breaks people, if you can get the effect off.

Fourth, movement speed as actions is also a major issue, especially when the two sides move at different speeds, as a 5' difference means the slower side needs two 'actions' just to get into melee at all.

---

So yeah, that's my take on it. Different characters interact with this action system in wildly different ways, it's incredibly fiddly and inconsistent and is a bear to juggle it all at the table.

The system also just looks at you funny if players try to be creative or do complex actions that aren't spells or hitting things. It has no way to cope with that whatsoever.

In my group we also found that the game scaling basically demands that you optimise your characters, Which is funny when they said they wanted the game to be nicer to new players and we still have low level trap feats like half the paladin oath feats, don’t get me wong I LOVE the flavor but oath of the dragonslayer makes no g!& d&%n sense on a lowlevel character, it’s like when a ranger in 1E takes favored enemy dragon at level 1 everyone just rolls their eyes because they know the only dragon you ever hunted was an iguana that grew really big.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
ErichAD wrote:
The +/- 10 has slowed down our games as well. I like it, but it's annoying enough that making the AC and saves known to the party seems like the best way to get around the issue.

Huh. Please elaborate. The +10/-10 usually goes like this for us.

1) Player tells me their total.
2) I compare it to the AC/DC.
3) I calculate if it is 10 higher/lower.
4) I tell the player the result.

It adds a step of simple math for me but that hasn't really slowed things down at our table. Totally worth it for the reaction players have when I tell them, "Actually, that's a Critical." It's been awhile since I've seen them this giddy over landing a Critical. I never tell them the AC/DC until an encounter is over or they figure it out themselves.

In PF1 there’s a useful shortcut (at our table anyhow) where once they’ve hit early on with a 21 or something they can adjudicate that themselves in later rounds (ie they roll a 26 or something and just report “I hit again. I do such-and-such damage.”)

In PF2 the DM still needs to be involved even once they’ve started landing blows. In PF1 they can often focus on more important things than Armor Class Admin and each PC’s turn goes a few seconds quicker.

After any player hits I just always tell the players the AC.

I never understood why anyone keeps it secret for longer than one hit.

Once you have the foe's measure you know what's up.

In PF2E I just tell the players the AC even before the first hit, because it's a big time-saver to have the player tell the when a strike is a hit or a crit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Same once they hit I tell them. I figure by that point they should of figured it out themselves anyways.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Same once they hit I tell them. I figure by that point they should of figured it out themselves anyways.

If the opponent's AC changes, for whatever reason (spell, manoeuvre, etc), do you inform them right away?


Depends if the spell is identified or If they are fighting defensively I say that because one can observe that behavior. I can't think of any other ones off hand but its probably gonna be a case by case basis.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Depends if the spell is identified or If they are fighting defensively I say that because one can observe that behavior. I can't think of any other ones off hand but its probably gonna be a case by case basis.

Right on, so let's say they attack, and assume they hit, due to the previous AC, but the creature has cast a protective spell they did not identify, so they missed, how would you inform them they missed, and would you state the new AC?


I would say that a magical force (depending on the spell) deflected there blow this time. I probably wouldn't say the new AC until they hit as a strict rule but sometimes I'm more casual and would just say sorry his ac is 2 higher for reasons. I play with friends so its not like this one time knowing the AC is going to ruin the game or some such but as a general rule I try and keep it on a need to know basis.

There is times where I would tell the AC right out because it just saved so much time. For example in 3.5 I had someone playing this ridiculous thri-kreen swashbuckler with multi weapon fighting. It just saved to much time to just go ahead and tell him the AC and let him worry about calculating his 18 something attacks. Of course I also trusted that player not to try and slid anything by me too.


Vidmaster7 wrote:

I would say that a magical force (depending on the spell) deflected there blow this time. I probably wouldn't say the new AC until they hit as a strict rule but sometimes I'm more casual and would just say sorry his ac is 2 higher for reasons. I play with friends so its not like this one time knowing the AC is going to ruin the game or some such but as a general rule I try and keep it on a need to know basis.

There is times where I would tell the AC right out because it just saved so much time. For example in 3.5 I had someone playing this ridiculous thri-kreen swashbuckler with multi weapon fighting. It just saved to much time to just go ahead and tell him the AC and let him worry about calculating his 18 something attacks.

Ha, I can commiserate, we had a Thri-Kreen Monk that stacked Flurry of Blows, MultiWeapon Fighting, and Secondary Natural Attacks...


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

I would say that a magical force (depending on the spell) deflected there blow this time. I probably wouldn't say the new AC until they hit as a strict rule but sometimes I'm more casual and would just say sorry his ac is 2 higher for reasons. I play with friends so its not like this one time knowing the AC is going to ruin the game or some such but as a general rule I try and keep it on a need to know basis.

There is times where I would tell the AC right out because it just saved so much time. For example in 3.5 I had someone playing this ridiculous thri-kreen swashbuckler with multi weapon fighting. It just saved to much time to just go ahead and tell him the AC and let him worry about calculating his 18 something attacks.

Ha, I can commiserate, we had a Thri-Kreen Monk that stacked Flurry of Blows, MultiWeapon Fighting, and Secondary Natural Attacks...

Mine was a havily multi-classed I think he had seen the build online and wanted to try it. I remember he defeintly had a lot of levels as a dervish dancer for sure. Its ok It was really easy to counter. Hindering terrain or just monsters with DR. 5 Dr cut is damage down by more then half IF something had 10 it pretty well made him useless in a fight to where he would find ulterior methods to contribute. I did still occasionally throw mobs at him he always seemed to enjoy droping 18 mooks a round.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

I would say that a magical force (depending on the spell) deflected there blow this time. I probably wouldn't say the new AC until they hit as a strict rule but sometimes I'm more casual and would just say sorry his ac is 2 higher for reasons. I play with friends so its not like this one time knowing the AC is going to ruin the game or some such but as a general rule I try and keep it on a need to know basis.

There is times where I would tell the AC right out because it just saved so much time. For example in 3.5 I had someone playing this ridiculous thri-kreen swashbuckler with multi weapon fighting. It just saved to much time to just go ahead and tell him the AC and let him worry about calculating his 18 something attacks.

Ha, I can commiserate, we had a Thri-Kreen Monk that stacked Flurry of Blows, MultiWeapon Fighting, and Secondary Natural Attacks...
Mine was a havily multi-classed I think he had seen the build online and wanted to try it. I remember he defeintly had a lot of levels as a dervish dancer for sure. Its ok It was really easy to counter. Hindering terrain or just monsters with DR. 5 Dr cut is damage down by more then half IF something had 10 it pretty well made him useless in a fight to where he would find ulterior methods to contribute. I did still occasionally throw mobs at him he always seemed to enjoy droping 18 mooks a round.

Ah, yeah, I had a similar character in my 3rd Ed Planescape campaign: a barbarian/ranger TWF (all the feats, monkey grip, dual weapon rend, etc), dual wielding bastard swords; some of his turns took forever.

As for DR, can really screw with low damage dice weapons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
After any player hits I just always tell the players the AC. I never understood why anyone keeps it secret for longer than one hit. Once you have the foe's measure you know what's up.

I try to avoid telling the players any stats unless they learn them through a mechanic means (e.g. Knowledge checks, Slayers knowing their Studied Target's HP, etc). I'll give them descriptive leads (e.g. you expected that fire spell to do a lot more damage but the warrior is barely scorched) but giving them the exact stats/numbers results in mathematical gymnastics that most of my players don't enjoy. It's better, at my table, for immersion for them to not to know and to focus on their own stats.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
In PF2E I just tell the players the AC even before the first hit, because it's a big time-saver to have the player tell the when a strike is a hit or a crit.

Whatever works for your table. I haven't noticed this taking up a lot of time at mine but perhaps that's because we haven't gotten to higher levels yet.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Depends if the spell is identified or If they are fighting defensively I say that because one can observe that behavior. I can't think of any other ones off hand but its probably gonna be a case by case basis.
Right on, so let's say they attack, and assume they hit, due to the previous AC, but the creature has cast a protective spell they did not identify, so they missed, how would you inform them they missed, and would you state the new AC?

I just tell the players the new AC. But to be honest it rarely comes up, because most enemies cast their defense spells before the fight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Depends if the spell is identified or If they are fighting defensively I say that because one can observe that behavior. I can't think of any other ones off hand but its probably gonna be a case by case basis.
Right on, so let's say they attack, and assume they hit, due to the previous AC, but the creature has cast a protective spell they did not identify, so they missed, how would you inform them they missed, and would you state the new AC?
I just tell the players the new AC. But to be honest it rarely comes up, because most enemies cast their defense spells before the fight.

Yeah I had to really struggle to think of a time it had ever came up.


FowlJ wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

+- 10;

Are there not some strange interactions with this rule?
1) Low level person shooting a bow at a high level creature the not only miss but fumble as well.
2) The same example as above but using melee or hand to hand combat. They not only miss or bounce off the creature but fumble.
ie: Imagine a student and martial arts teacher and the teacher says "attack me" and the student just fumbles (apply what ever result is appropriate, fall on face, trip, etc)

I can understand the +10 part of the rule but the -10 part of the rule to me just does not make sense.

MDC

Critical Failures only exist for actions that specifically define them, which regular attacks do not. Nothing happens if you roll AC-10 on an attack, it's still just a regular miss.

I must have missed this in the rules, can you provide a page #?

Thanks
MDC


2 people marked this as a favorite.

p. 292 "If an action or activity does not specify a critical failure effect, then the effect for a critical failure is the same as that for a failure."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

I must have missed this in the rules, can you provide a page #?

Thanks

The strike action is on page 308 (you can look this up in the index at the back of the rulebook, btw). It doesn't list any effect that happens on a critical failure, therefor there isn't one.

Bardarok wrote:
p. 292 "If an action or activity does not specify a critical failure effect, then the effect for a critical failure is the same as that for a failure."

Actually, strike doesn't have a failure clause, either. Which make sense, because a missed strike literally does nothing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:
Actually, strike doesn't have a failure clause, either. Which make sense, because a missed strike literally does nothing.

Yes, at least they have not gone with critical fumbles, where you can stab your own buttocks off or something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Depends if the spell is identified or If they are fighting defensively I say that because one can observe that behavior. I can't think of any other ones off hand but its probably gonna be a case by case basis.
Right on, so let's say they attack, and assume they hit, due to the previous AC, but the creature has cast a protective spell they did not identify, so they missed, how would you inform them they missed, and would you state the new AC?
I just tell the players the new AC. But to be honest it rarely comes up, because most enemies cast their defense spells before the fight.
Yeah I had to really struggle to think of a time it had ever came up.

Not a Spell but having to retell people AC when Rage dips in and out could be annoying. Or when they turn on Magic items mid fight. Or switch from Fight Defensively to normal(Granted I think that's removed). Or in this case, Parry. Or Feint

I can see a lot of ways someone's AC can change mid battle without just using magic. And while I can take a mental guess(Or hand wave it to keep the pace going), PF2 kinda wants me to take the extra time to see if it's Crit.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Depends if the spell is identified or If they are fighting defensively I say that because one can observe that behavior. I can't think of any other ones off hand but its probably gonna be a case by case basis.
Right on, so let's say they attack, and assume they hit, due to the previous AC, but the creature has cast a protective spell they did not identify, so they missed, how would you inform them they missed, and would you state the new AC?
I just tell the players the new AC. But to be honest it rarely comes up, because most enemies cast their defense spells before the fight.
Yeah I had to really struggle to think of a time it had ever came up.

Not a Spell but having to retell people AC when Rage dips in and out could be annoying. Or when they turn on Magic items mid fight. Or switch from Fight Defensively to normal(Granted I think that's removed). Or in this case, Parry. Or Feint

I can see a lot of ways someone's AC can change mid battle without just using magic. And while I can take a mental guess(Or hand wave it to keep the pace going), PF2 kinda wants me to take the extra time to see if it's Crit.

I tell the players the AC every time they declare an attack on a turn.

In the same way I tell players the DC when they declare a skill check. Sometimes the players jump the gun and roll before I tell them the attack or AC, but either way the calculation is on the player's end rather than always being on the GM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Depends if the spell is identified or If they are fighting defensively I say that because one can observe that behavior. I can't think of any other ones off hand but its probably gonna be a case by case basis.
Right on, so let's say they attack, and assume they hit, due to the previous AC, but the creature has cast a protective spell they did not identify, so they missed, how would you inform them they missed, and would you state the new AC?
I just tell the players the new AC. But to be honest it rarely comes up, because most enemies cast their defense spells before the fight.
Yeah I had to really struggle to think of a time it had ever came up.

Not a Spell but having to retell people AC when Rage dips in and out could be annoying. Or when they turn on Magic items mid fight. Or switch from Fight Defensively to normal(Granted I think that's removed). Or in this case, Parry. Or Feint

I can see a lot of ways someone's AC can change mid battle without just using magic. And while I can take a mental guess(Or hand wave it to keep the pace going), PF2 kinda wants me to take the extra time to see if it's Crit.

I tell the players the AC every time they declare an attack on a turn.

In the same way I tell players the DC when they declare a skill check. Sometimes the players jump the gun and roll before I tell them the attack or AC, but either way the calculation is on the player's end rather than always being on the GM.

Problem with telling them AC and DC is... well it's not that often but I know of abilities(At least in PF1) that allows you to add bonuses or reroll BEFORE the result is known. So it's roll, see the number and then debate if you want to roll/boost before you find out if you missed or not. Which adds a bit of risk to the roll.

I'm not saying people who tell numbers to their players are wrong, just that I can see some issues in doing so. If it works for your group go for it.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Depends if the spell is identified or If they are fighting defensively I say that because one can observe that behavior. I can't think of any other ones off hand but its probably gonna be a case by case basis.
Right on, so let's say they attack, and assume they hit, due to the previous AC, but the creature has cast a protective spell they did not identify, so they missed, how would you inform them they missed, and would you state the new AC?
I just tell the players the new AC. But to be honest it rarely comes up, because most enemies cast their defense spells before the fight.
Yeah I had to really struggle to think of a time it had ever came up.

Not a Spell but having to retell people AC when Rage dips in and out could be annoying. Or when they turn on Magic items mid fight. Or switch from Fight Defensively to normal(Granted I think that's removed). Or in this case, Parry. Or Feint

I can see a lot of ways someone's AC can change mid battle without just using magic. And while I can take a mental guess(Or hand wave it to keep the pace going), PF2 kinda wants me to take the extra time to see if it's Crit.

I tell the players the AC every time they declare an attack on a turn.

In the same way I tell players the DC when they declare a skill check. Sometimes the players jump the gun and roll before I tell them the attack or AC, but either way the calculation is on the player's end rather than always being on the GM.

Problem with telling them AC and DC is... well it's not that often but I know of abilities(At least in PF1) that allows you to add bonuses or reroll BEFORE the result is known. So it's roll, see the number and then debate if you want to roll/boost before you find out if you missed or not. Which adds a bit of risk to the roll.

I'm not saying people who tell numbers to their...

Those abilities have always been an issue for me. Let's say you roll like a 9 on an attack, you're a martial character and your GM doesn't tell you the AC of the monster at all. You're a fighter, but you have some feat or ability that gives you a reroll before the result is known.

A 9 is just a little under average, so you opt for the reroll, and get a 7. Since you take the better result, you still get to use the 9, you find out that you hit. So now you've wasted a daily resource for absolutely no reason.

It would be like a Paladin that has no ability to detect Evil. You spend one of your precious smites on a skeleton, it doesn't work, your GM tells you no bonus damage (or worse just subtracts the bonus damage secretly). You have no way of knowing why.

I know my style of GMing isn't for everyone, but man, hidden information just slows down game play and punishes new players for not knowing the underlying math of the game, or memorizing the bestiary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
I know my style of GMing isn't for everyone, but man, hidden information just slows down game play and punishes new players for not knowing the underlying math of the game, or memorizing the bestiary.

To be fair I dislike anyone that memorizes the bestiary.

"What do you mean I don't hit, it's AC is 15!"

Me: Not this one. (Swapped out a feat for Dodge).

If telling them works for you, go for it. But given there might be a lot of moving numbers, I just don't because I don't want to have to tell them it 2-3 times a fight. More if I have to update them for Touch attacks.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like a lot of the time players just figure out the AC pretty quickly by noticing stuff like "a 21 hits, but a 19 doesn't" anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the new edition of TORG, basic opponent values are considered to be known by PCs, as are DCs. A big part of the mechanical heft of that game is determining when to spend resources (cards or possibilities) to boost rolls, and it sucks to spend a bunch of stuff boosting a roll only to have it fail anyway.

Anyway, when playing that game, I realized that just giving the PCs the values needed sped the game up by quite a lot, so I think I'm going to do that on Saturday when we do the next playtest session. Except for explicitly secret stuff, that is.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Staffan Johansson wrote:

In the new edition of TORG, basic opponent values are considered to be known by PCs, as are DCs. A big part of the mechanical heft of that game is determining when to spend resources (cards or possibilities) to boost rolls, and it sucks to spend a bunch of stuff boosting a roll only to have it fail anyway.

Anyway, when playing that game, I realized that just giving the PCs the values needed sped the game up by quite a lot, so I think I'm going to do that on Saturday when we do the next playtest session. Except for explicitly secret stuff, that is.

I've never played or read TORG, maybe I should...


Thanks for all for the pages #'s.
MDC

51 to 85 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Why I worry that the things I like about PF2 might be "bad". All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.