It depends on what problem you're seeing. Are combats going on too long because:
1) Attacks are not landing reliably/Saves are being made too often?
2) Healers are making things too hard to kill?
3) You're hitting reliably but it takes several rounds of hits to bring the target down?
4) Something else
If the problem is #3, lowering HP will speed things up. If it's #1, it will also speed things up, but in more of a "someone actually gets a couple times in a row due to lucky dice rolls and gets blasted" way.
It won't really help #2 at all.
The main unbalancing point will be that it helps big damage attacks like high level blasting spells, but that might not be a dealbreaker for you. It would certainly be worth trying out if you find things slow.
My experience is that we're not landing things reliably enough and so I'd rather go after the miss/save rates than HP, but I'm up for reasonably fast combat to keep the story moving.
Cool. Let us know how it goes. :)
PF1 always felt like most combats were over, or at least in "mop-up" territory after round 2-4. This felt way too fast for me. Pf2 has been typically 4-6 rounds which feels right. When players know what they want their chracters to do the rounds have gone reaonably fast, however when they don't know what to do, it feels slower than pf1. (Not sure if the three actions is introducing more analysis/paralysis when people don't have a basic idea/plan).
The fights that have felt too long are typically against ~2-3 level above boss monsters that have interesting, but not directly damaging abilities. the PCs can't hit them reliably, and the boss doesn't have the raw damage output to speed things along.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Miss chance is too high.
1st attack for level equivalent monster should be 70-80% hit chance, depending on character optimization.
Right now 3rd attack is just time wasting in search of a 20.
having 80/55/30% hit chance would be more streamlined and more reliable
than 50/25/0*
*- crit that is not
Also there should be mooks/henchman/red-shirt more involved in battles.
Same damage, 1/5 of HP, 1/5 of XP and treasure award.
Easy to deal with but will deal wagonload of damage if left unchecked for couple of rounds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A level equivalent monster is meant to be roughly equivalent to a PC. Do you think that a monster should also be hitting you 70-80% of the time?
Also, if you are fighting a level equivalent monster, than by the rules of encounter building you almost certainly outnumber it 2 to 1. Applying even minimal tactics shifts the numbers pretty substantially.
I mean, let's use an actual example. A non-fighter martial with expert proficiency and a +2 weapon at level 8 has a +15 to hit. The average level 8 monster has 25 AC, so you have a 55% chance to hit. For a high difficulty encounter, you are fighting at most 2 of those, so you are taking it on 2 on 1. It is trivially easy to apply Frightened 1 and Flat footed for a -3 to AC-- flanking and demoralize does it, many spells do similar effects even on a succsessful save, etc. That already takes you to a 70% hit rate, 75% if you're a fighter. Add a bard to the mix and you have 80%.
You aren't meant to be able to stand toe to toe with a level equivalent monster and take victory for granted anymore. The assumption is that thing is as dangerous as you are and you need your the help of your friends to reliably beat it.
If you look at an encounter equivalent set of opponents that you might actually expect to treat as a 1v1 threat, you want level-2. A High difficulty encounter for four level 8 PCs is four level 6 monsters. Our level 8 martial still has a +15 to hit, but the monsters only have 21 AC now. Which means you have a 75% chance to hit, 80% with a fighter, and it only goes up from there based on bonuses and penalties you can utilize.
In other words, the system supports your desired outcomes just fine. You just need to account for how encounters are actually designed based on the bestiary guidelines. Which are, for reference:
TABLE 4: CREATURE XP AND ROLE
Creature’s Level XP Suggested Role
Party’s level – 4 10 Low-threat minion
Party’s level – 3 15 Low- or high-threat minion
Party’s level – 2 20 Any minion or standard
Party’s level – 1 30 Any standard
Party level 40 Any standard or low-threat boss
Party’s level + 1 60 Low- or high-threat boss
Party’s level + 2 80 High- or severe-threat boss
Party’s level + 3 120 Severe- or extreme-threat boss
Party’s level + 4 160 Extreme-threat solo boss
TABLE 5: ENCOUNTER BUDGET
Difficulty XP Budget
Trivial 40 or less
Low 60
High 80
Severe 120
Extreme 160
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A level equivalent monster is meant to be roughly equivalent to a PC. Do you think that a monster should also be hitting you 70-80% of the time?
Yes. (Though much of the time PCs should not be fighting level-equivalent monsters.)
When someone tries to do something, they should mostly achieve something. Achieving nothing with your turn is unsatisfactory and makes everyone involved seem clumsy and incompetent.
Player: "My ranger fires an arrow at the ogre!"
GM: "You miss."
Player: "My wizard casts Save Or Suck."
GM: "The ogre passes a saving throw. Your spell is wasted. The ogre then swings its club at you. He misses."
I'd like to see the game built around the presumption of a 75% success rate for actions, with the actual effect of success (in terms of average damage per hit, critical frequency, hit point totals, spell effects, etc) being balanced around that.
Hmm I kind of think they have a soft compromise in there with the minor effects for saves and misses. like the fighter one where you still do minimum on a miss and how a lot of saves have lesser effects even on a save. So maybe more effects like that?
A level equivalent monster is meant to be roughly equivalent to a PC. Do you think that a monster should also be hitting you 70-80% of the time?Yes. (Though much of the time PCs should not be fighting level-equivalent monsters.)
When someone tries to do something, they should mostly achieve something. Achieving nothing with your turn is unsatisfactory and makes everyone involved seem clumsy and incompetent.
Player: "My ranger fires an arrow at the ogre!"
GM: "You miss."
Player: "My wizard casts Save Or Suck."
GM: "The ogre passes a saving throw. Your spell is wasted. The ogre then swings its club at you. He misses."I'd like to see the game built around the presumption of a 75% success rate for actions, with the actual effect of success (in terms of average damage per hit, critical frequency, hit point totals, spell effects, etc) being balanced around that.
So are you cool with only missing on a 1 for your first attack? Because once buffs and debuffs enter the equation, you're looking at a 90-95% hit rate easy. Maybe that's cool by you, but it does certainly take out most of the reason to roll dice. I guess how much that matters is really just an opinion, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So are you cool with only missing on a 1 for your first attack? Because once buffs and debuffs enter the equation, you're looking at a 90-95% hit rate easy. Maybe that's cool by you, but it does certainly take out most of the reason to roll dice. I guess how much that matters is really just an opinion, though.A level equivalent monster is meant to be roughly equivalent to a PC. Do you think that a monster should also be hitting you 70-80% of the time?Yes. (Though... ffects, etc) being balanced around that.
? If you hit on an 2, then you crit on a 12, so it's absolutely still worth rolling, and on the second hit you're rolling with a notable 30% miss chance. I've absolutely had buff-stacked players rolling with 90%+ accuracy for first attack in PF1
You know its kind of funny in a way. People have been saying since regular 3.0 that the sweet spot in D&D is 8-12 because that is when the numbers work out best to you having about a 50/50 chance to succeed. I used to think that was part of the charm of the system that at low levels you had to roll exceptionally high to succeed while at high levels a realtivly low roll succeeds. basically reverse the level and that is the target die roll in a way (obvioulsy there are more factors involved but thats the jest).
With Pf2 it looks like the goal is to extend the 8-12 sweet spot much like 4E and 5E did as well. so that the die roll continues to matter and be competitive on similar leveled enemies and challenges. The other goal seems to be removing the high level side effect of some classes saves being next to unsaveable while others are almost auto succeed. (compare level 20 figthers will save vrs wizards and vice versa for fort)
The other complaint is the lack of a huge discrepancy between those numbers. So some people would like a 20th level fighter to hit on a 2 and the wizard to miss on a 18. I get it but I think i'm ok with it being more like fighter missing on a 5-6 and wizard missing on a 12-14 is acceptable enough of a difference.
last point which is more on topic I swear.
The plus side to haveing higher hp and less instant kills and huge damage hits is it makes other actions in combat more viable and makes your individual actions somewhat less crucial. for example you could disarm an enemy and expect an advantage from it work losing out on one attack while in PF1 If you attack is just as likely to kill the enemy flat out then you might as well just go for the attack.
So are you cool with only missing on a 1 for your first attack? Because once buffs and debuffs enter the equation, you're looking at a 90-95% hit rate easy. Maybe that's cool by you, but it does certainly take out most of the reason to roll dice. I guess how much that matters is really just an opinion, though.A level equivalent monster is meant to be roughly equivalent to a PC. Do you think that a monster should also be hitting you 70-80% of the time?Yes. (Though much of the time PCs should not be fighting level-equivalent monsters.)
When someone tries to do something, they should mostly achieve something. Achieving nothing with your turn is unsatisfactory and makes everyone involved seem clumsy and incompetent.
Player: "My ranger fires an arrow at the ogre!"
GM: "You miss."
Player: "My wizard casts Save Or Suck."
GM: "The ogre passes a saving throw. Your spell is wasted. The ogre then swings its club at you. He misses."I'd like to see the game built around the presumption of a 75% success rate for actions, with the actual effect of success (in terms of average damage per hit, critical frequency, hit point totals, spell effects, etc) being balanced around that.
I know I absolutely am. A specialist should succeed 90-100% of the time in their area of specialty. I want certainty in my rolls.
I've said this before, if I succeeded only 50-75% of the time at my job, at a task reasonable for my tenure, I'd be fired.
I'd like my characters to be at least as competent at their jobs as I am at mine.
So are you cool with only missing on a 1 for your first attack? Because once buffs and debuffs enter the equation, you're looking at a 90-95% hit rate easy. Maybe that's cool by you, but it does certainly take out most of the reason to roll dice. I guess how much that matters is really just an opinion, though.A level equivalent monster is meant to be roughly equivalent to a PC. Do you think that a monster should also be hitting you 70-80% of the time?Yes. (Though much of the time PCs should not be fighting level-equivalent monsters.)
When someone tries to do something, they should mostly achieve something. Achieving nothing with your turn is unsatisfactory and makes everyone involved seem clumsy and incompetent.
Player: "My ranger fires an arrow at the ogre!"
GM: "You miss."
Player: "My wizard casts Save Or Suck."
GM: "The ogre passes a saving throw. Your spell is wasted. The ogre then swings its club at you. He misses."I'd like to see the game built around the presumption of a 75% success rate for actions, with the actual effect of success (in terms of average damage per hit, critical frequency, hit point totals, spell effects, etc) being balanced around that.
I know I absolutely am. A specialist should succeed 90-100% of the time in their area of specialty. I want certainty in my rolls.
I've said this before, if I succeeded only 50-75% of the time at my job, at a task reasonable for my tenure, I'd be fired.
I'd like my characters to be at least as competent at their jobs as I am at mine.
A fight is not like a job. Your opponent may be as competent as you at fighting, so what? You both win?
Some skills also work like that, in a direct or inderect opposition between two characters; others don't, but the logic behind the DC is the same.Since you make a real life example, I'll make another: climbing. How many competent climbers have died trying to climb an hard mountain? How many times they have to quit an attempt and go back, before finally getting to the top? We aren't looking at a 90-100% success rate, for sure.
In your job, you are probably attempting tasks that are lower level than you, and thus you can beat the DC reliably. Some are just harder.
|
One issue keeps coming up: combats are running too long for us.
Apparently you aren't alone in this experience. On Friday's Twitch stream Jason said it's one of the big trends emerging from playtest survey data. So they're looking at it.
(I was a little surprised to hear this. Not my group's experience. But apparently we're in the minority.)
Just don't put only equal-level challenges in the adventure.
I don't think it's so much the 50% miss chance, but how that translates into a 12.5% for single attackers and 5% for multi-attackers chance of doing nothing over three rounds that gets to people.
So are you cool with only missing on a 1 for your first attack? Because once buffs and debuffs enter the equation, you're looking at a 90-95% hit rate easy. Maybe that's cool by you, but it does certainly take out most of the reason to roll dice. I guess how much that matters is really just an opinion, though.A level equivalent monster is meant to be roughly equivalent to a PC. Do you think that a monster should also be hitting you 70-80% of the time?Yes. (Though much of the time PCs should not be fighting level-equivalent monsters.)
When someone tries to do something, they should mostly achieve something. Achieving nothing with your turn is unsatisfactory and makes everyone involved seem clumsy and incompetent.
Player: "My ranger fires an arrow at the ogre!"
GM: "You miss."
Player: "My wizard casts Save Or Suck."
GM: "The ogre passes a saving throw. Your spell is wasted. The ogre then swings its club at you. He misses."I'd like to see the game built around the presumption of a 75% success rate for actions, with the actual effect of success (in terms of average damage per hit, critical frequency, hit point totals, spell effects, etc) being balanced around that.
I know I absolutely am. A specialist should succeed 90-100% of the time in their area of specialty. I want certainty in my rolls.
I've said this before, if I succeeded only 50-75% of the time at my job, at a task reasonable for my tenure, I'd be fired.
I'd like my characters to be at least as competent at their jobs as I am at mine.
A fight is not like a job. Your opponent may be as competent as you at fighting, so what? You both win?
Some skills also work like that, in a direct or inderect opposition between two characters; others don't, but the logic behind the DC is the same.Since you make a real life example, I'll make another: climbing. How many competent climbers have died trying...
He is not refering to that. I think...
Point is that if 1st attack is missed half the time then 2nd is really bad and 3rd and possible 4th are in theory only.
Hitting more often and getting hit will not only speed up the fight but put the thrill and danger back in. If you get hit every round by one attack atleast, you will get the feeling that fight is dangerous.
So yeah with buff/debuff/tactical aproach; 1st attack should be in 90-95% hit rate.
Also +1/lvl treadmill does not help this problem across different levels at all, but that is another topic.
So, I would go with more hit rate than reduced HPs
YOu could even increase HPs to adjust to better hit rate.
I.E. now you have lets say 55/30/5% hit rate(and you get 3rd attack only 50% of the time due to actions, and 2nd attack only 75% of the time). and you deal 10 damage per hit.
That comes out at 8 damage per round.
if you boost hit rate to 75/50/25%, that comes out to 12,5 damage per round.
Even if you increase all HPs by 55%, combat would "feel" more fluid as more damage would come in at more reliable and consistent rate.
A fight is not like a job. Your opponent may be as competent as you at fighting, so what? You both win?
You both get in at least one hit, rather than flailing around ineffectually?
But the flailing is what makes it suspenseful and drama.
90-95% hit rate seems pretty outrageous, to me.
Even in cases where you're a maximally optimised character with maximum buffs on your first attack of the round against a maximally AC-debuffed enemy who didn't have an especially high AC in the first place?
Basically, people would be rolling only to see if they have an automatic miss (1).
You forgot about critical hits.
90-95% hit rate seems pretty outrageous, to me.Even in cases where you're a maximally optimised character with maximum buffs on your first attack of the round against a maximally AC-debuffed enemy who didn't have an especially high AC in the first place?
That's already achievable. 8th level fighter has +16 to hit, inspire courage or bless to make it a +17. (I haven't immediately spotted a higher level appropriate conditional bonus for what it's worth.)
Level 8 Anaconda has 23 AC. Make it flanked and frightened 2 and it's AC drops to 19, the fighter now hits 95% of the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it's not so much hitting, it's just really rolling for Crits that you want?
I didn't say all attacks would be at 95%. I'm saying baseline first attacks could be 75%, and you can get that up to a 95% / 70% / 45% attack routine if you bring along a bard and cast a couple of spells and get into flanking.
Sometimes you won't have a bard. Sometimes you won't be an optimised martial. Sometimes you'll be the one getting debuffed. Sometimes the enemy won't let you flank them. In which case you might reduced to a comically incompetent 50% / 25% / 5% attack routine.
With a greatpick, it would be 10 damage on a failed crit and 26 damage on a successful crit.
Only if we change nothing else about the system. I was suggesting 75% success rate as the starting point for everything, and then balancing things out for desired combat duration from there.
While I still support higher accuracy, I also support lower HP (possibly lower damage-per-hit if things become too deadly). Now that hit dice are maximized, and you have extra racial hit points at first level, the effect of con on HP is almost halved. I was considering dropping all class hit points by 2. Barbarian to 10, Fighter to 8, etc. Same applied to monsters of course.