| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First: Option to make multi-classing archetypes available at 1st level, and all classes having at least one class feat at first level. [to be able to pay for a dedication then] I see a potential option to have dedication feats potentially have some portion of their benefit that one only gets after getting to 2nd level, if they buy it earlier. I felt a little bit of loss at how difficult creating someone who actually makes a major life choice change reflected by change in class, but when I thought suddenly the multiclass archetype dedication would actually allow someone to start at first level as a fighter/wizard multiclass or rogue/fighter, I was exited. I was really disappointed that they seemingly arbitrarily forced multiclass archetypes to be 2nd level feats. I'm guessing they were concerned about balance for 1st level characters getting core pieces from two classes perhaps, but I'd think there would be easy ways of dealing with that and make a good optional rule, and they could explain any concerns they might have with enabling it.FOr some reason, this paragraphed reminded me of the Apprentice Level character variant in the 3.0 DMG, which was basically a set of half level classes you could take in order to multiclass right at 1st level. It wasn't brought forward to the 3.5 DMG, but the concept could be revisited.
Second: Rules to insure that fighters using non-magical weapons can keep up in damage with level appropriate monsters that are using similar manufactured weapons. What I am wanting is ABSOLUTELY not Automatic Bonus Progression. Magical items need to be able to remain magical, and better than mundane items, and not just because they do something really different. Some magical swords need to just be 'better', 'sharper' swords that hurt more as they cut through their enemies easier.I'm not sure I understand what you're looking for here. It sounds like you want martials to be able to be fully as powerful with or without basic...
Re: First - if I know what your are talking about, yes, I am aware of, and am pretty sure I played in a game that started out using those rules to facilitate playing a 1st level multi-class although the game didn't go very far due to real life constraints on those playing. I felt it was kind of clunky, as I recall, but was worth having. When they first described the multi-class dedications I was super excited, when I realized that it nicely facilitated it without such 'modification' to allow for a low level multi-class. It only lost the change of life focus type of character development. When I got the book and saw they artificially blocked it until 2nd level I was really disappointed since it broke one of its biggest advantage in my eyes.
Re: Second - Yes, best solution I've come up with so far is some sort of non-stacking bonus that can come from skill or magic items. The inherent non-item one coming up a little slower than typical item bonus perhaps. Best I could come up with was to grant them a +1d minimum inherent damage bonus for each +10 in their to hit bonus, that wouldn't stack with magic items damage bonus. That seemed close to damage advancement I saw in the bestiary for creatures attacking with manufactured weapons. In threads most
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Campaign specific backgrounds is a kind of neat idea. However, it also takes over a specific aspect of player creation over completely from the core book. Thus if you choose to take a campaign/adventure path background, you can't create your character with any of the one's in the Core book, or Setting Book background. You are locked out of the normal choices if you want to integrate your character that way.That was a big strong point of campaign traits. You typically had 2 traits, so giving up one, to take a campaign specific one, did not prevent you from choosing at least one of the non-campaign traits.
You know, if you had some half-feats, and had some campaign ones, that gave you tie-ins. If you don't pick a Campaign background, you can pick a Campaign half-feat. If you pick a Campaign background, you can choose to have a Background, or Racial half-feat. If calling them half-feats is too cumbersome, there could be a name, obviously not trait, as it is used. Perhaps perk?
The loss of campaign traits is going to annoy me as well. I’m toying with a couple ways around it, but the simplest seems to be to grant a campaign specific lore skill at character creation.
Some campaigns that might be easy, but the mind boggles at coming up with ones for something like “Strange Aeons”. It looks like they’re headed towards putting campaign backgrounds for PF2 APs, so at least I can be lazy there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The loss of campaign traits is going to annoy me as well. I’m toying with a couple ways around it, but the simplest seems to be to grant a campaign specific lore skill at character creation.Some campaigns that might be easy, but the mind boggles at coming up with ones for something like “Strange Aeons”. It looks like they’re headed towards putting campaign backgrounds for PF2 APs, so at least I can be lazy there.
Although I think it's unlikely to happen at this point, fractional Backgrounds that allow you to pick and choose would certainly scratch this itch for me (create a new pool for the current campaign just like the old APs).
Although I think it's unlikely to happen at this point, fractional Backgrounds that allow you to pick and choose would certainly scratch this itch for me (create a new pool for the current campaign just like the old APs).
It most assuredly won't happen in the CRB or in Age of Ashes, but if the devs see an interest in fractional backgrounds/traits/half-feats replicating 1e traits to some extent they might consider writing guidelines to optionally bring them back, in one form or another.
Although I think it's unlikely to happen at this point, fractional Backgrounds that allow you to pick and choose would certainly scratch this itch for me (create a new pool for the current campaign just like the old APs).It most assuredly won't happen in the CRB or in Age of Ashes, but if the devs see an interest in fractional backgrounds/traits/half-feats replicating 1e traits to some extent they might consider writing guidelines to optionally bring them back, in one form or another.
It would be fairly easy to house rule, and is something I will probably consider depending on how Backgrounds finalize.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It looks like they’re headed towards putting campaign backgrounds for PF2 APs, so at least I can be lazy there.
How the Campaign Backgrounds were implemented in Doomsday Dawn was pretty strange to me though. Like Campaign traits in PF1 were one of two (or more) traits, so you could have something else to go with your campaign trait. In DD though, it sort of implied that you could not be both a Mindquake Survivor and a Criminal, even though one is "something that happened to you" and one is "a thing you have decided to do."
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really won't miss traits. They were horribly balanced and there were way too many of them. I did have some affection for Campaign traits, but I think everything I liked about them is better represented by campaign backgrounds anyway. Being handed training in a relevant skill and lore makes a lot of sense from both a narrative and balance perspective. Certainly more than handing someone a highly specific bonus to something that they might forget they have anyway. In PF1, I could build a fighter with the giant slayer trait who didn't have the skill ranks to spare for Knowledge Local, and therefore couldn't actually tell you anything about giants. In PF2 they're going to have Giant Lore, and can tell you plenty.
The only major customization point a campaign background seems to be taking away from a player who would otherwise use a core background is the skill feat, and frankly if they give you a skill feat that's actually useful in the campaign that will quite likely be better than letting you choose one that isn't. For certain characters, losing one of your two campaign traits was a much bigger loss than anything you lose from backgrounds, because the best traits could completely redefine how your character functioned. For all I am hoping for better skill feats, I don't think they will ever be that.
(I'll note they have to make sure the background lores/skills/skill feats are actually relevant for this to be true. This was not the case for the Doomsday Dawn backgrounds, unfortunately.) It is also really easy to just give extra feats at character creation if it is appropriate for that campaign or your table. The more unique aspects of traits are probably best handled by scripted moments mentioned in the AP itself, because that sort of stuff tends to wind up floating around and getting attached to characters it has no right to be on once the d20pfsrd strips out all the Golarion stuff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It looks like they’re headed towards putting campaign backgrounds for PF2 APs, so at least I can be lazy there.How the Campaign Backgrounds were implemented in Doomsday Dawn was pretty strange to me though. Like Campaign traits in PF1 were one of two (or more) traits, so you could have something else to go with your campaign trait. In DD though, it sort of implied that you could not be both a Mindquake Survivor and a Criminal, even though one is "something that happened to you" and done is "a thing you have decided to do."
Eh, I don't really buy that. You're backstory can have a lot more going on than what you select as your background. If you give your mindquake survivor stealth and thievery and then say "they do crime" in your backstory write-up they are a criminal.
There needs to be a harsh penalty for this who resist changing over to the new edition.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, I don't really buy that. You're backstory can have a lot more going on than what you select as your background. If you give your mindquake survivor stealth and thievery and then say "they do crime" in your backstory write-up they are a criminal.It looks like they’re headed towards putting campaign backgrounds for PF2 APs, so at least I can be lazy there.How the Campaign Backgrounds were implemented in Doomsday Dawn was pretty strange to me though. Like Campaign traits in PF1 were one of two (or more) traits, so you could have something else to go with your campaign trait. In DD though, it sort of implied that you could not be both a Mindquake Survivor and a Criminal, even though one is "something that happened to you" and done is "a thing you have decided to do."
This. Also, I find constraint breeds creativity - I'm actually fairly excited about campaign backgrounds, for that reason, because in my experience whenever I hand my players "here is a list of options, each of you needs to build a character around one of these" they tend to both enjoy the challenge and blow me away with the results.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing I'm going to miss from campaign background replacing everything is being able to get some random trained/class skill based on your backstory. It wasn't uncommon for a player to want some random knowledge or perform skill and the leftover trait was excellent for this. (Campaign traits were great to help with integration to the campaign, but couldn't replace some basic traits).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could see a compromise where a campaign hook is like a background archetypes replacing either the lore, skill feat, skill training(which devs have confirmed are now part of backgrounds) or ability score choices of an existing background. So a mindquake survivor replaces their background lore and skill feat, but keeps the rest from their chosen base background.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing I'm going to miss from campaign background replacing everything is being able to get some random trained/class skill based on your backstory. It wasn't uncommon for a player to want some random knowledge or perform skill and the leftover trait was excellent for this. (Campaign traits were great to help with integration to the campaign, but couldn't replace some basic traits).
Uh...since there are no Class Skills any more you can now just take these skills because you feel like it. As many as you like, subject only to the number of skills you get (well, each Class has a skill or two pre-decided, but aside from that).
The thing I'm going to miss from campaign background replacing everything is being able to get some random trained/class skill based on your backstory. It wasn't uncommon for a player to want some random knowledge or perform skill and the leftover trait was excellent for this. (Campaign traits were great to help with integration to the campaign, but couldn't replace some basic traits).Uh...since there are no Class Skills any more you can now just take these skills because you feel like it. As many as you like, subject only to the number of skills you get (well, each Class has a skill or two pre-decided, but aside from that).
Indeed. And between the consolidated skill lists and the huge increase in skills trained to PF1 skill ranks most PF2 classes have, it will be significantly easier to cover those bases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could see a compromise where a campaign hook is like a background archetypes replacing either the lore, skill feat, skill training(which devs have confirmed are now part of backgrounds) or ability score choices of an existing background. So a mindquake survivor replaces their background lore and skill feat, but keeps the rest from their chosen base background.
Love this idea, but unless every background is supplemented explicitly it would be difficult to do, unless it swapped a specific portion like replacing the Lore or Skill feat, which is similar to how Alternate Racial abilities worked.
But with that comes optimization.
It's far more likely we just get campaign specific backgrounds.
I'd love for them to modular in a meaningful way without turning into an optimization focal point and serve the intended purpose. I'd like to be a Criminal Mindquake survivor, and I still can albeit just can't select both backgrounds, but being able to make a fusion would also be cool.
One thing you could do for the Skill Feat portion would be restrict the replacement to only Feats with a certain skill or trait (so an acrobatics with another acrobatics feat) or replace a Lore if it matches a corresponding knowledge category (Lore Vampire can be swapped for any other Lore under the "Religion" Skill purview.
Then a person with a background of Acolyte would have bonuses to Wis and a floating. A Lore Church , and a skill Feat for Student of the Canon".
But then there's a Background alternate:
Church of the New Dawn
Prerequisite: Background that grants a Lore that falls under Religion
Replace the Lore and associated Skill of your background with the following:
Lore Vampire
Student of the Fang
When you attempt to Recall Knowledge on Vampires or you treat Critical Failures as Failures (then I'd prefer it scales like all the Skill Feats are intended too)
More things we'd like to see in the options book:
Something like Unearthed Arcana's Oathbound class: a "champion" who doesn't care about alignment or deity, but simply swears an oath and recives the power to see it done (maybe a deity meddling, maybe some outsider, maybe sheer force of will or a sorcerous bloodline focused on that purpose or ambient energy from the universe...). In theory, could also be an archetype?
Also, if possible, an alternative progression of DCs with less DCs and better-established ranks for each. When you think, you don't go "That fencer is probably level 8, but her opponent must be at least level 13!", you use a scale like the one in Fudge and Fate: mediocre - average - fair - good - great - superb - et cetera (which is similar to UTEML now that I think about it!). Give us something similar to this, it will help a lot in understanding all DCs, even much higher or in between others!
That's it for now (yes I'm very apprehensive regarding DCs!! O_O ).
I think the thing with that, Roswynn, is that it's easy to convert one way but not the other.
If you have a table of DCs by level, it's fairly easy to assign a qualitative scale to it. "Level 1 DC is mediocre, level 3 DC is average, level 5 DC is fair, etc." There are enough data points that you can map any scale with as many as 20 levels of quality to a level-based DC scale. All you have to do is answer "what level character should be reliably performing at this quality?"
However, if you start with a quality-based scale then unless you have 20 qualities it's impossible to derive a level-based scale from it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the thing with that, Roswynn, is that it's easy to convert one way but not the other.
If you have a table of DCs by level, it's fairly easy to assign a qualitative scale to it. "Level 1 DC is mediocre, level 3 DC is average, level 5 DC is fair, etc." There are enough data points that you can map any scale with as many as 20 levels of quality to a level-based DC scale. All you have to do is answer "what level character should be reliably performing at this quality?"
However, if you start with a quality-based scale then unless you have 20 qualities it's impossible to derive a level-based scale from it.
I lost connection while replying.
I'm gonna destroy something.
... Okay. I was saying that my problem is distinguishing a level 10 dc from a level 11 or level 9. I get level 0 is a commoner, level 1-2 is a novice, level 19-20 is a legendary grandmaster, etc, but it's still mostly non-intuitive for me. And I need it to be as intuitive as possible because gods know my players will attempt all sorts of hare-brained schemes during the various APs, and I'm gonna need to assign difficulties on the spot.
So it's okay that the CRB has all those DCs, ship --> sailed, and probably I'll get better at using the method with practice, but something with qualitative description would definitely help out.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Am I the only one who doesn't want optional rules? I pretty much only play society and those are things I never see.
They are trying to make a game with wide appeal. Personally I never play society nor do I play in Golarion so as far as I am concerned they don't need to spend time on PFS or making a world guide. But my personal experience doesn't apply to everyone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, having the default books be Golarion and assume Golarion, but build the rules be such that they are extremely modular is a much better compromise for "make the game work how you want it to" than the setting neutral RPG line books were.
Plus, I mean, PFS got the unchained classes and those were optional rules.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
We wanted to make a game that's just easier to use and modify to meet your group's needs. Whether it's a group of five people playing at home or all of organized play, having that flexibility helps everyone play and enjoy the game. And organized play and variant rules aren't mutually exclusive; in fact, OrgPlay has originated some of the best variant rules content in terms of adventure subsystems throughout PF1, including iterated variants on the chase rules that led to new chases that worked a lot better in many situations than the original rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mythic rules are my favorite thing since forever, however I feel those should have their own book. I would REALLY like a town/kingdom building rule set, both GM AND player based, because what if my players wanna play Fire Emblem/Dragon Quest/Ni no Kuni: tale top edition, and they want to rule over a kingdom and oversee it's expansion and all that; or I hand them a town they have to guard, and they fall in love with the place and want to stay there and help guide it's path forward? Or >I< want a a nice, complex labyrinth of a city, with clear cut roads and shops, and they might have to Sherlock around the place and walk through back alleys, and oh wouldn't it be nice to have a proper grid based map with functionality in each square/hex the PCs find themselves in. Also ALL OF TEH EVIL PLAYER OPTIONS, dealing with Demons, casting rituals that **** everyone over, evil aligned spells, becoming a lich/vampyr/other evil thing that makes you super duper kill on sight for every paladin in a 1000 miles radius.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good stuff, guys.
Something else came up (I'm quite sure someone already expressed a similar concept, but I'd like to reiterate): an option allowing martial character to be even more badass. What I'm thinking about is mainly having their normally magic-item-related bonus to hit and damage be exclusively given by their normal advancement, which means the character will never need magic to stay competitive in the offensive department (and will potentially be able to pick up any weapon and still deal a lot of punishment). Perhaps extra hps could help on the defensive, too. At the same time all their attacks will need to qualify as a magic weapon (and maybe instead of extra hps they have damage reduction?).
Maybe this could be a good mythic ability, too...
Regarding martial options, also something like 1e power attack: a way to dramatically enhance damage output. The concept is that you could attack many times dealing moderate damage each time... or just once, with a potentially lethal blow. I appreciate that crits and extra damage dice already bring a similar effect to the table, but I'm specifically thinking of a crossbow-user who takes careful aim and hits the bullseye, killing their target or at least coming very close to it (yes, it would be my alchemist/ranger, nyah nyah nyah).
Just a couple things I feel could be fun options.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see martial traditions/techniques be more mechanically meaningful. We see this start in the monk with stances that change damage type and dice. I'd like more of that, and to have damage escalation tied into it; like stances, techniques, and sequences/combos as full round actions for more damage and status effects.
Honestly, if they added a "close" style move to complement "open" and "press", you could come up with a ff14 style combo move system. "I USE MY OPEN! Now that he's off balance... PRESS! Now that he's under the effect of a negative status... CLOSE! Now he takes 3x my normal damage because I messed him up with my past two attacks" and other such chaining maneuvers that would lead to an actual strategy that isn't "wack wack wack wack wack (you get the idea), 'oh hey he's low' SUPER WACK!" Currently only Rogues get to do that, and only if they take VERY specific feats and runes
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, if they added a "close" style move to complement "open" and "press", you could come up with a ff14 style combo move system. "I USE MY OPEN! Now that he's off balance... PRESS! Now that he's under the effect of a negative status... CLOSE! Now he takes 3x my normal damage because I messed him up with my past two attacks" and other such chaining maneuvers that would lead to an actual strategy that isn't "wack wack wack wack wack (you get the idea), 'oh hey he's low' SUPER WACK!" Currently only Rogues get to do that, and only if they take VERY specific feats and runes
I agree, it would be cool to have an optional fighting system that introduced more tactical thinking for martial classes (or even more feats that allowed interesting and dynamic combat).
It would be awesome if it were also able to replicate movie fights more faithfully, or even actual hoplology where it diverges from the more cinematic fare (without needing to get too detailed and gritty).
I do like d20 combat in general, but I think it could help immersion if it sticked closer to some commonly accepted fighting tropes.
Different but related, I ran a bit of the playtest and for some reason found the first adventure's final boss a bit of a pushover. I think it's got a lot to do with action economy - a single enemy vs 3-4 pcs can't act very often, and that comes back to bite them in the ass. I found that the concept of reactions/"legendary actions" helped in 4e and 5e, and if it hasn't been incorporated in the core game, it might certainly be something to consider I think.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Different but related, I ran a bit of the playtest and for some reason found the first adventure's final boss a bit of a pushover.
For the record, this is a fairly atypical experience. Most people found Drakus quite challenging. He was by far the closest my PCs had to a TPK in the whole playtest (I admittedly added the Level 0 rat to the encounter, but I also had 5 PCs for Chapter 1), with the sole exception of Chapter 5 (a designed TPK), which was equally challenging in its own way (though they survived that one, too).
Now, I have no idea why your experience differed, but while action economy remains potent in PF2, a single foe of two or three levels above the PCs is a serious and horrifying threat all on their own, IME.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, if they added a "close" style move to complement "open" and "press", you could come up with a ff14 style combo move system. "I USE MY OPEN! Now that he's off balance... PRESS! Now that he's under the effect of a negative status... CLOSE! Now he takes 3x my normal damage because I messed him up with my past two attacks" and other such chaining maneuvers that would lead to an actual strategy that isn't "wack wack wack wack wack (you get the idea), 'oh hey he's low' SUPER WACK!" Currently only Rogues get to do that, and only if they take VERY specific feats and runes
I don't want this as an optional rule, so much as I want it in the actual rules.
I think maybe the straight +X to damage aspect and mimicking combos from fighting games might be a bit too gamey for a TTRPG, but I can see the appeal.
It would also be nice for weapons to augment or adjust certain tactics:
Open is easier with a Polearm, Polearms do more damage on a Close, Polearms make easier Athletics checks on a Press.
Then the combat organically supports complexity without requiring the player to focus on those aspects during build time.
And perhaps you could just do the example above for Fighters only (or a Weapons Master Monk) which would certainly be a unique and fun mechanic for them to have.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see the corruptions return at some point. I thought that was a nifty rules set, and with the current feat set up, would be easy to modify and integrate into PF 2E
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still not sure how much I like the combo mechanics in practice, as excited as I was about them in theory. They create some confusion around what can be done when, and with the smaller number of class feats you get there isn't as much variety in ways you can chain them together as I'd hope.
That said, I'll see how they look in the final version. Fighters certainly function pretty well regardless.
For the record, this is a fairly atypical experience. Most people found Drakus quite challenging. He was by far the closest my PCs had to a TPK in the whole playtest (I admittedly added the Level 0 rat to the encounter, but I also had 5 PCs for Chapter 1), with the sole exception of Chapter 5 (a designed TPK), which was equally challenging in its own way (though they survived that one, too).
Now, I have no idea why your experience differed, but while action economy remains potent in PF2, a single foe of two or three levels above the PCs is a serious and horrifying threat all on their own, IME.
Seriously? O_O I ran 2 groups, 1 consisting of 4 PCs and another of 3, without the "typo rat" admittedly, and they defeated him without a lot of troubles - I also tried to use good tactics on Drakus' part, and my players weren't particularly optimized... one thing they totally had in their favor was that each group could cast Magic Weapon, so they delivered some right bashing against the guy.
I wouldn't have thought my experience was atypical if you hadn't shared yours, really. Good to know! If a foe some levels above the party can actually present a decent boss challenge that's great and it's, even more importantly, the system working as intended (a few levels make a big difference and after a while they make the superior combatant almost unbeatable, contrary to say 5e where low level enemies can still be dangerous because of bound accuracy).
Perhaps I should've used even better tactics... I think my lack of experience with PF in general came back to bite me in the ass.
I don't want this as an optional rule, so much as I want it in the actual rules.
That ship has sailed, which is a big reason to start a thread about the optional rules of the game (which will be largely addressed very soon in the product line) - unless Mark & Co. already decided to make combat (or at least fighters' feats) more similar to this concept, which isn't impossible.
If OTOH they stuck more closely to the playtest experience in this, it's still something, and not only that, they can always add official fighter feats reinforcing this kind of mechanic in later products.
Unless they ignore this wish from the player base (which in theory they could if people are asking for a lot of other things more prominently) it's a win-win.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, this is a fairly atypical experience. Most people found Drakus quite challenging. He was by far the closest my PCs had to a TPK in the whole playtest (I admittedly added the Level 0 rat to the encounter, but I also had 5 PCs for Chapter 1), with the sole exception of Chapter 5 (a designed TPK), which was equally challenging in its own way (though they survived that one, too).
Now, I have no idea why your experience differed, but while action economy remains potent in PF2, a single foe of two or three levels above the PCs is a serious and horrifying threat all on their own, IME.
Seriously? O_O I ran 2 groups, 1 consisting of 4 PCs and another of 3, without the "typo rat" admittedly, and they defeated him without a lot of troubles - I also tried to use good tactics on Drakus' part, and my players weren't particularly optimized... one thing they totally had in their favor was that each group could cast Magic Weapon, so they delivered some right bashing against the guy.
I wouldn't have thought my experience was atypical if you hadn't shared yours, really. Good to know! If a foe some levels above the party can actually present a decent boss challenge that's great and it's, even more importantly, the system working as intended (a few levels make a big difference and after a while they make the superior combatant almost unbeatable, contrary to say 5e where low level enemies can still be dangerous because of bound accuracy).
Perhaps I should've used even better tactics... I think my lack of experience with PF in general came back to bite me in the ass.
Your experience wasn't as atypical as you might think. Drakus was somewhat swingy since he had some great stats but was quite outnumbered (combined with the dungeon containing a much higher than normal number of Severe encounters and some groups one-daying it, living through way more Severe encounters in a day than we expect to be possible without solid teamwork and good luck, only to come across Drakus pretty drained). Drakus did have a lot of people rating him as not so big a deal, but he also had a spike of people rating him as a big challenge. Imagine you have a group of four who have been trying to one-day the dungeon, core four classes. The wizard and cleric are totally out of spells except cantrips, but the fighter and rogue are at full health and that pair has been kicking butt so far, so you decide to continue. Drakus goes first and takes out the fighter with a lucky pair of attack rolls, leaving the rogue in trouble without her favorite flank buddy. It can ugly real quick.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the problem with CLOSE attacks is that the -10 penalty from the MAP is pretty stiff. So you end up in situations where your CLOSE action does nothing (since you rolled an 8), or else your CLOSE attack ignores the MAP in which case you use that option all the time every time.
Like I could see Certain Strike being a CLOSE, to restrict people's ability to spam it with forceful weapons. Or alternatively have the CLOSE option be something like a withdrawl or a defensive posture instead of an attack.
Different but related, I ran a bit of the playtest and for some reason found the first adventure's final boss a bit of a pushover.For the record, this is a fairly atypical experience. Most people found Drakus quite challenging. He was by far the closest my PCs had to a TPK in the whole playtest (I admittedly added the Level 0 rat to the encounter, but I also had 5 PCs for Chapter 1), with the sole exception of Chapter 5 (a designed TPK), which was equally challenging in its own way (though they survived that one, too).
Now, I have no idea why your experience differed, but while action economy remains potent in PF2, a single foe of two or three levels above the PCs is a serious and horrifying threat all on their own, IME.
It might be unusual, but certainly not unique. It was our group's experience too. He got absolutely curb-stomped before he could do much of anything. This was with a 5 member party, but my alchemist was useless (i think I did 2 points of damage from splash), so it was effectively a 4 member group. That whole first adventure in particular seems to really highlight a huge amount of swing. Some groups steamrolled without breaking a sweat, others got near TPKs (I think some actually did get actual TPKs). I think the swing mellowed out a bit with higher levels, but then curve tended to be weighted highly against the party. Hopefully this is fixed with the absolutely terrible math being replaced.
Your experience wasn't as atypical as you might think. Drakus was somewhat swingy since he had some great stats but was quite outnumbered (combined with the dungeon containing a much higher than normal number of Severe encounters and some groups one-daying it, living through way more Severe encounters in a day than we expect to be possible without solid teamwork and good luck, only to come across Drakus pretty drained). Drakus did have a lot of people rating him as not so big a deal, but he also had a spike of people rating him as a big challenge. Imagine you have a group of four who have been trying to one-day the dungeon, core four classes. The wizard and cleric are totally out of spells except cantrips, but the fighter and rogue are at full health and that pair has been kicking butt so far, so you decide to continue. Drakus goes first and takes out the fighter with a lucky pair of attack rolls, leaving the rogue in trouble without her favorite flank buddy. It can ugly real quick.
Definitely - if the groups had expended their spells and consumables in a single go and met Drakus at the end then I think we would have situations more similar to the quasi-TPK mentioned by DMW - but one party just traipsed through the dungeon barely exploring it, found D quite soon and the cleric of Gorum proceeded to cut him open, while the other group had a lot of difficulties against the various encounters (they were 3 players so that didn't help them out!), got beaten up badly by goblins and skeletons, went home, relaxed, watched their favorite Netflix series etc, and after they had rested to their liking they came back, finished the dungeon and killed the blood-sucker.
So yeah, not your typical intense, hurried adventure running the gauntlet in either case. If that had happened things would've certainly gotten more dire, that's for sure ^___^
(Relatedly one of these two groups had a nasty habit of killing off my dragon bosses without too many problems in 5e, but that's a whole other business. I was playing them not smart enough for instance. Huge satisfaction when a strike force of cultists and red dragons almost killed them off ^______^ ).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the problem with CLOSE attacks is that the -10 penalty from the MAP is pretty stiff. So you end up in situations where your CLOSE action does nothing (since you rolled an 8), or else your CLOSE attack ignores the MAP in which case you use that option all the time every time.
Like I could see Certain Strike being a CLOSE, to restrict people's ability to spam it with forceful weapons. Or alternatively have the CLOSE option be something like a withdrawl or a defensive posture instead of an attack.
The -10 MAP would indeed be a problem, unless
1) you can CLOSE in a following round too, or
2) some CLOSEs allow you to attack at a smaller penalty than -10
But you're right, having 3 actions does limit how many wild shenanigans you can effectively employ in a single round (although, when the economy was move + standard, you just had to plan for multiple rounds most of the time).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the problem with CLOSE attacks is that the -10 penalty from the MAP is pretty stiff. So you end up in situations where your CLOSE action does nothing (since you rolled an 8), or else your CLOSE attack ignores the MAP in which case you use that option all the time every time.
Like I could see Certain Strike being a CLOSE, to restrict people's ability to spam it with forceful weapons. Or alternatively have the CLOSE option be something like a withdrawl or a defensive posture instead of an attack.
Good insight. We actually initially did have Finishers as a bigger element, but it had some weird mechanical incentives and interactions. Stephen used his knowledge of dueling to revamp and put more emphasis on presses.
I feel like the problem with CLOSE attacks is that the -10 penalty from the MAP is pretty stiff. So you end up in situations where your CLOSE action does nothing (since you rolled an 8), or else your CLOSE attack ignores the MAP in which case you use that option all the time every time.
Like I could see Certain Strike being a CLOSE, to restrict people's ability to spam it with forceful weapons. Or alternatively have the CLOSE option be something like a withdrawl or a defensive posture instead of an attack.
I guess it depends on whether the stance persists to the next round, such as ending on a Press to Close as the first attack of the following round.
That said your suggestion is a good one, and as long as Close actions weren't always attacks or came with caveats they could be managed so that it wasn't a "must" every round. You could also mitigate them to where they're not always available by defining triggers for use (such as Prone, Flat-footed, Successful Press attack landed in the same round, etc.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess it depends on whether the stance persists to the next round, such as ending on a Press to Close as the first attack of the following round.
Do we want actions to have a memory about what happened in the last round? It seems like a can of worms we need not open. Plus, you'd end up in situations where you move, open, press and are waiting for the next round to use your finishing blow, but by the time your action comes around the person you were attacking is no longer in melee range (they moved away, or are already dead, say).
I mean, if you check the rulebook an action with the press tag is legal any time you are suffering the MAP- you can't use one at the start of the next turn after you opened at the end of the last turn.
Like the simplest way to define the three would be:
OPEN: Can use if you have no MAP
PRESS: Can use if you have MAP
CLOSE: Can use if you already used a PRESS this turn.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It might be unusual, but certainly not unique. It was our group's experience too. He got absolutely curb-stomped before he could do much of anything. This was with a 5 member party, but my alchemist was useless (i think I did 2 points of damage from splash), so it was effectively a 4 member group. That whole first adventure in particular seems to really highlight a huge amount of swing. Some groups steamrolled without breaking a sweat, others got near TPKs (I think some actually did get actual TPKs). I think the swing mellowed out a bit with higher levels, but then curve tended to be weighted highly against the party.Different but related, I ran a bit of the playtest and for some reason found the first adventure's final boss a bit of a pushover.For the record, this is a fairly atypical experience. Most people found Drakus quite challenging. He was by far the closest my PCs had to a TPK in the whole playtest (I admittedly added the Level 0 rat to the encounter, but I also had 5 PCs for Chapter 1), with the sole exception of Chapter 5 (a designed TPK), which was equally challenging in its own way (though they survived that one, too).
Now, I have no idea why your experience differed, but while action economy remains potent in PF2, a single foe of two or three levels above the PCs is a serious and horrifying threat all on their own, IME.
You're right about the swing mellowing out, but in general (with the exception of a few encounters where the monster was added to the adventure at the last minute and turned out to have something that was broken [sea serpent] or were the wrong level to begin with [kraken]), we found the opposite: the swing mellowed out but vastly in favor of the party. The number of groups that beat Part 5 with 0 casualties, for instance, was much higher than you might anticipate, and Part 7, which I had been worried about the whole time because it had so many severe encounters and so few chances to just stomp a fight at high level and "show off" turned out to be easier for PCs than we might have expected as well.
That said, we didn't make high levels harder even so. And they still weren't being reported as rocket tag instawins like high level in PF1.
Do we want actions to have a memory about what happened in the last round? It seems like a can of worms we need not open. Plus, you'd end up in situations where you move, open, press and are waiting for the next round to use your finishing blow, but by the time your action comes around the person you were attacking is no longer in melee range (they moved away, or are already dead, say).
It's really not that much different from remembering what statuses you carry from round to round. If you were Flatfooted last round, and the conditions are the same, you're still flatfooted.
And in the case of the latter scenario, a stride action wouldn't change the current stance and it makes tactical sense to move away from someone trying to finish you. Some Close actions could even offer gap closing to help with this, or it could encourage Press actions that stifle movement or make it harder to move. Basically, I like the idea that someone would want to move away in that scenario and would welcome it. It's the opposite of how combat worked in 3.5/PF1 where everyone stood still. Close existing as an action encourages movement.
Now in the aspect of wanting that to happen, the answer is I don't know.
I would like to have it if the general sense is to allow variation in combat, because if we define that Attacks break down into 3 categories with a lot of rigidity in when you can use them that's not offering much (and also makes Close actions super difficult to balance and basically impossible to integrate).
Now that seems to be kinda what is likely to happen, Close actions simply won't exist (or more simply they'll just be Press actions that are augmented by a previous use of a Press action).
However, in a space where your last used attack action dictates what you can do on the current turn, "I last used a Press, so now I am either allowed to use Press or Close, if I use Press again I keep my MAP the next round, if I use Close I have to use an Open action the next turn and my MAP resets".
That seems a lot more interesting to me. Is it too complicated? Maybe, but my argument would then be "why do Open/Press at all then?"
Typing the attack action creates a flow, and not rolling over actions makes the flow predictable and less meaningful (IMO). Why codify it if you're just going to force the following: Open -> Press -> Maybe Press again or Stride
Like the simplest way to define the three would be:OPEN: Can use if you have no MAP
PRESS: Can use if you have MAP
CLOSE: Can use if you already used a PRESS this turn.
And I agree it is simple, it however, doesn't serve a whole lot of purpose.
The only main purpose is to create more valuable second actions in Press actions, but then the scenario becomes "Open -> Press -> Something" rinse and repeat every round, which is rather uninteresting.
I actually don't think it would be too complex, because I see the value in the complexity that comes with it. I also think thematically it makes sense (since there are no "breaks" in combat between rounds, and it's really just one big continuous thing).
Obviously, the above isn't going to happen on release (or it would blindside everyone if it did) but it is a fun thought experiment.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously? O_O I ran 2 groups, 1 consisting of 4 PCs and another of 3, without the "typo rat" admittedly, and they defeated him without a lot of troubles - I also tried to use good tactics on Drakus' part, and my players weren't particularly optimized... one thing they totally had in their favor was that each group could cast Magic Weapon, so they delivered some right bashing against the guy.
Magic Weapon would definitely have helped (my group did not have it). Dice luck and, as Mark notes, whether they're low on resources, also matter quite a lot. My group did the whole dungeon in a day (having few difficulties until Drakus), so that probably had some impact (though they were a fairly martial party plus a Cleric and Divine Sorcerer, which helped make resource expenditures not the most damaging thing possible).
I wouldn't have thought my experience was atypical if you hadn't shared yours, really. Good to know! If a foe some levels above the party can actually present a decent boss challenge that's great and it's, even more importantly, the system working as intended (a few levels make a big difference and after a while they make the superior combatant almost unbeatable, contrary to say 5e where low level enemies can still be dangerous because of bound accuracy).
Even leaving Drakus aside, my entire playtest experiences strongly supports this being the case. By far the toughest encounters in the whole playtest were those vs. a single foe three or four levels higher than the PCs. The numbers difference is just so striking this edition.
Perhaps I should've used even better tactics... I think my lack of experience with PF in general came back to bite me in the ass.
Possibly. But like I said, dice rolls and, like Mark said, how drained the PCs were almost certainly played a definite role as well.
Your experience wasn't as atypical as you might think. Drakus was somewhat swingy since he had some great stats but was quite outnumbered (combined with the dungeon containing a much higher than normal number of Severe encounters and some groups one-daying it, living through way more Severe encounters in a day than we expect to be possible without solid teamwork and good luck, only to come across Drakus pretty drained). Drakus did have a lot of people rating him as not so big a deal, but he also had a spike of people rating him as a big challenge. Imagine you have a group of four who have been trying to one-day the dungeon, core four classes. The wizard and cleric are totally out of spells except cantrips, but the fighter and rogue are at full health and that pair has been kicking butt so far, so you decide to continue. Drakus goes first and takes out the fighter with a lucky pair of attack rolls, leaving the rogue in trouble without her favorite flank buddy. It can ugly real quick.
Huh. Interesting. Thanks for the info, Mark.
I will reiterate that, while Drakus might've been a bit of a fluke, high level enemies being super dangerous was not. He's just only two levels above the PCs, while the other really scary combats were more like three or four, so this does make sense, even if I wasn't expecting it (every Drakus story I'd heard lined up with my own experience).
The three level up threshold results in so many advantages like nearly auto-hits on the first attack, orders of magnitude more hits, and ACs the PCs can barely hit, let alone crit, that it can really do a whole lot to counteract action economy.
Fighting a single foe does make debuff effects inordinately powerful, but they usually get a Save which they'll usually make. A debuff focused party (particularly effects that cost the enemy actions) would have definite advantages vs. such foes making such encounters more swingy, but they remain the scariest encounters in PF2, IMO. Which isn't to say they are too hard or anything, just that they're harder than other encounters at the same level (ie: in the PF2 plytest, I'd rather fight three on-level foes than one foe three levels higher, something that was not true in PF1).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will reiterate that, while Drakus might've been a bit of a fluke, high level enemies being super dangerous was not. He's just only two levels above the PCs, while the other really scary combats were more like three or four, so this does make sense, even if I wasn't expecting it (every Drakus story I'd heard lined up with my own experience).
You might have guessed, but there's a reason for that, the same reason that comes up a lot when we're talking about stories, and it's actually the reason that we heard more from groups that beat Part 5 than groups that curbstomped Drakus even though it was a lower percentage and a much much lower absolute number of people: People who had a lot of trouble were much more likely to post their story about it because winning is usually the default assumption (For Part 5, losing was, so winners posted more often as a proportion of how many groups won). Probably partly because a hard fight makes for a cooler story, partly because if things are too hard, you're more likely to say something, partly because after several people talk about having it be hard it might make you feel arrogant to post "Yeah well we beat it easily" partly a bunch of other reasons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You could also mitigate them to where they're not always available by defining triggers for use (such as Prone, Flat-footed, Successful Press attack landed in the same round, etc.)
That's what I tried to do in my example text, the "Press" giving a debuff, thus making the "Close"'s extra effect proc. But the "press" can only bestow a debuff because the "open" move landed, hence my referencing FF14's Monks (they have a 3-step combo based move set, and you have to use [and land] a move of one type before you can use the next in the chain, BUT they can activate that next ability whenever or keep using their current one).
|
|
I will reiterate that, while Drakus might've been a bit of a fluke, high level enemies being super dangerous was not. He's just only two levels above the PCs, while the other really scary combats were more like three or four, so this does make sense, even if I wasn't expecting it (every Drakus story I'd heard lined up with my own experience).You might have guessed, but there's a reason for that, the same reason that comes up a lot when we're talking about stories, and it's actually the reason that we heard more from groups that beat Part 5 than groups that curbstomped Drakus even though it was a lower percentage and a much much lower absolute number of people: People who had a lot of trouble were much more likely to post their story about it because winning is usually the default assumption (For Part 5, losing was, so winners posted more often as a proportion of how many groups won). Probably partly because a hard fight makes for a cooler story, partly because if things are too hard, you're more likely to say something, partly because after several people talk about having it be hard it might make you feel arrogant to post "Yeah well we beat it easily" partly a bunch of other reasons.
In retrospect, this of course makes perfect sense. I just hadn't thought about that particular fight in those specific terms previously.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's what I tried to do in my example text, the "Press" giving a debuff, thus making the "Close"'s extra effect proc. But the "press" can only bestow a debuff because the "open" move landed, hence my referencing FF14's Monks (they have a 3-step combo based move set, and you have to use [and land] a move of one type before you can use the next in the chain, BUT they can activate that next ability whenever or keep using their current one).
And certainly I think that makes for something cool, so long as the trigger isn't consistent enough that it's always something to shoot for or easily able to attain:
- Press move that does X damage but on a Critical Success knocks the person prone
- Close move that has that Press move as a prerequisite and a trigger of prone from the Press move ignores treats the attack as +X to hit to offset MAP
In order for something like the above to be worth it to implement into the game as a system, it can't digress into a "spam cycle", which a lot of video games (like FFXIV for instance and many fighting games) can turn into (spam the combo because it's the most effective combo).
Now the way Fighting games combat this, is there are a slew of other moves that can often counter that combo, but in a game like Pathfinder where you have to "buy" your moves with feats, that's not going to work as a counter.
So the options need to be diverse enough trigger wise to allow for their use, but narrow enough that they don't always come up and can't be triggered every time.
It's a very sticky wicket of balance, and admittedly probably not worth it in the long run as a Core mechanic for that exact reason.
That said I still think Fighters could benefit from Weapon modifications to move types (Press vs Open). I also wouldn't hate it as an optional rule (leaving it to the GMs to balance).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a possible combo could be similar to this (taken from Path of Exile's mechanics)That's what I tried to do in my example text, the "Press" giving a debuff, thus making the "Close"'s extra effect proc. But the "press" can only bestow a debuff because the "open" move landed, hence my referencing FF14's Monks (they have a 3-step combo based move set, and you have to use [and land] a move of one type before you can use the next in the chain, BUT they can activate that next ability whenever or keep using their current one).And certainly I think that makes for something cool, so long as the trigger isn't consistent enough that it's always something to shoot for or easily able to attain:
- Press move that does X damage but on a Critical Success knocks the person prone
- Close move that has that Press move as a prerequisite and a trigger of prone from the Press move ignores treats the attack as +X to hit to offset MAPIn order for something like the above to be worth it to implement into the game as a system, it can't digress into a "spam cycle", which a lot of video games (like FFXIV for instance and many fighting games) can turn into (spam the combo because it's the most effective combo).
Now the way Fighting games combat this, is there are a slew of other moves that can often counter that combo, but in a game like Pathfinder where you have to "buy" your moves with feats, that's not going to work as a counter.
So the options need to be diverse enough trigger wise to allow for their use, but narrow enough that they don't always come up and can't be triggered every time.
It's a very sticky wicket of balance, and admittedly probably not worth it in the long run as a Core mechanic for that exact reason.
That said I still think Fighters could benefit from Weapon modifications to move types (Press vs Open). I also wouldn't hate it as an optional rule (leaving it to the GMs to balance).
- Open: Joint Strike: Aim for the target's joint (knee, shoulder, whatever) taking a -2 to hit. Enhancement: The target is sluggish 1 for 1 round.
- Press: Bloody Strike: (prereq, the target is suffering from the sluggish condition, you have a p/s weapon) You aim at a vital spot on the target while they're impaired (-2 to hit on top of MAP). Enhancement: The target persistently bleeds for an amount of damage equal to the amount of dice rolled for the attack.
- Close: Cruel Blow: (prereq, the target is bleeding) You aim for an already open wound, causing an extreme amount of damage (-2 to hit on top of MAP). Enhancement: The target is drained 1.