| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However when you face CR+1 creatures (Warg, Giant Bat) things can go south very fast, at least at level 1. Those mobs usually have enough to-hit and damage to conduct a good old one-two punch and down any non-fighter/champion character very easy.
Sure. But those are also meant to be boss fights. How many bosses are you facing in one adventuring day?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are two things at play here . One specific and one general
Specific - apparently Jason Bulmahn like to write lethal adventures for low level characters
General - the enemy “level” system is more robust than in 1E and also seems to mean something slightly different
A CR2 creature in PF1 has a much wider range of effectiveness than in PF2. And some are utterly hopeless and a walkover for a party of 4. Look at a Dire Badger with AC14 , +4 to hit, relatively low damage and about 20 HP
This is doubly true for many NPCs with class levels, especially NPC class levels. A level 4 warrior is CR2 but their stats are awful and will be similar to the Badger . They might scrape up to +5 to hit
Most PCs in 1E quite easily get over 15AC if not 18+ at level 1 leaving these foes laughably ineffective
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However when you face CR+1 creatures (Warg, Giant Bat) things can go south very fast, at least at level 1. Those mobs usually have enough to-hit and damage to conduct a good old one-two punch and down any non-fighter/champion character very easy.Sure. But those are also meant to be boss fights. How many bosses are you facing in one adventuring day?
Well, at least two apparently... ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, at least two apparently... ;)However when you face CR+1 creatures (Warg, Giant Bat) things can go south very fast, at least at level 1. Those mobs usually have enough to-hit and damage to conduct a good old one-two punch and down any non-fighter/champion character very easy.Sure. But those are also meant to be boss fights. How many bosses are you facing in one adventuring day?
Potentially four in that particular adventure...
Unless you are having them all go on the same initiative (which is against the PF2e guidelines) and dogpiling on one person, it seems unlikely your going to get the yoyo effect that you would see in PF1e.
Against the PF2e guidelines? Grouping enemy initiative has more support in this edition than any that has come before.
Even though just about everyone I've ever played with did it that way in past editions, the rules have never allowed for it, and most of us recognized it as a house rule.
When we saw that it was explicitly allowed in PF2e, we all finally felt validated. So don't go taking that away with your restrictive language. ;P
The game plays better than it reads. That is very strange to me. We often read these abilities that provide some boring bonus and it ends up being a very effective ability.
That's probably a result of how little those bonuses matter in other games and PF1e, you're conditioned to think of them as boring, but with the super tight math, they make a significant difference.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my play experience so far (2 sessions plus several playtest sessions) HP tend to go up and down faster than in PF1. But looking at the rules together I get a feeling that the abstraction behind HP has changed.
In 3.x, IIRC, the death from massive damage happened if an attack took away 25% HP at once. So the HP pool represented something like a literal blood loss or heavy trauma. Going 10-15 HP below zero meant permadeath even if it happened on a one unlucky crit.
In PF2, the death from massive damage only happens when a single attack takes away twice the total HP pool. And going to 0 HP just leaves you with a wound or two. So I feel like in this system HP represents something like a pain threshold - sapping the will to fight (or even move) but not actually life-threatening unless it is drained repeatedly.
If anything, this vision of the new system actually makes more sense to me in terms of how it represents constant battle prowess regardless of HP left and continual survival of the characters across the setbacks they face.
The game plays better than it reads. That is very strange to me. We often read these abilities that provide some boring bonus and it ends up being a very effective ability.That's probably a result of how little those bonuses matter in other games and PF1e, you're conditioned to think of them as boring, but with the super tight math, they make a significant difference.
I will always remember in one of the early Glass Cannon Podcast episodes someone cast a spell that gave a +1 (or perhaps they found a weapon) and one of the guys reacted like it was a HUGE deal that made a really big difference. Because at that level it kind of does
In 2E it seems like that is true throughout the game
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont think anyone is saying huge swings arent possible. I personally am interested in how its happening though. Goblins (a level-2 creature) deal 1d6 damage. 4 of them is a moderate fight. Unless you are having them all go on the same initiative (which is against the PF2e guidelines) and dogpiling on one person, it seems unlikely your going to get the yoyo effect that you would see in PF1e. So I'm curious how people are experiencing it so I can better understand how the system behaves.
So the scenarios I played. One encounter had some zombie shamblers, creature -1 that hit with +7 for 1d6+3 or 1d8+3 if you're grabbed, and a skeletal horse creature 2 that hits with +9 for 1d8+5.
Another encounter had 2 zombies, a skeletal champion (creature 2, with +10 for 1d8+4), and a negative channeling cleric.
And another encounter had some creature 3 golem thing with +12 to hit for 1d10+6.
So... yeah. I never saw any 1d6 damage things, every enemy did more than that. These weren't homebrew either, they're the published PFS scenarios. My character was mauled in every fight, there was only one combat (out of 4) where no PCs dropped.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just had my second session as a player, playing as a pretty vanilla fighter: Human - axes and board fighter (I actually like using the hatchet more than the battle axe when possible because it has agile and sweep). STR 18, sudden charge and reactive shield, and I am loving it.
I feel like I have so many great options in combat. Against a lot of lesser enemies that swarm me, I can attack 3 times at +9, +6, +2 (if I can swing at 3 enemies or swing at 2 and then throw the axe at a +0 instead of a +2 on the last attack). AND I can still benefit from the shield with reactive shield to have an AC of 20.
Against bigger creatures I can be cautious and use an action to raise shield and then wait to decide if I want to shield block or take an Attack of opportunity depending on how the enemy reacts. Sudden charge allows me to cover a lot of ground, especially on a round of combat where I have to draw a weapon, (I am definitely thinking of MCing into rogue and eventually picking up quick draw with this character because being able to throw the hatchet at a new enemy to benefit from the sweep is a lot of fun.)
Honestly, I think all the talk of choosing between Dex or Str for fighters is way over blown. Dex skills are great for fighters, Armor specialization effects not that amazing and the difference between medium and heavy armor for those is pretty minimal, and thrown weapons with a good Dex and Str are great.
The fighter has proven to be versatile, tough, a powerful hitter, and having enough skills to do a lot of things (CHA 14 has proven enough to be the party face, and have fun with intimidate).
Athletics and combat maneuvers are a blast, but the most fun thing I have done thus far is managed to critical hit a swarm of bees with my shield boss and roll max damage (20) to one shot them after they flew up and stung me. (I had no weapon drawn, and the idea of drawing an axe to attack bees just didn't make sense to me).
Before actually playing, I wasn't really that excited about sudden charge or reactive shield as feats and thought about twin strike with a shield as the first weapon and the hatchet as the second, but the mobility and the ability to take three actions and still get the shield up if I needed are just so much fun on the actual battlefield. Due to a great GM, we have even managed to have 3 out of 5 fights where we had fun major objectives we could achieve without having to kill the enemy to accomplish them.
I highly recommend not over specializing into having only one ideal action that you want to repeat every round, because combats move all over the place and you have a lot of things you can do that can really set your allies up to shine.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dont think anyone is saying huge swings arent possible. I personally am interested in how its happening though. Goblins (a level-2 creature) deal 1d6 damage. 4 of them is a moderate fight. Unless you are having them all go on the same initiative (which is against the PF2e guidelines) and dogpiling on one person, it seems unlikely your going to get the yoyo effect that you would see in PF1e. So I'm curious how people are experiencing it so I can better understand how the system behaves.
Most characters are going to have 7 + level (+9 if they get expert in their armor) + 10 AC. Characters being built for heavy armor like plate won't have the money to actually buy heavy armor until later, giving them significantly less AC. Casters will start out with lower AC as well or may even sacrifice DEX to meet MAD demands.
That is a lot of room for crits.
Crits just happen more often now. There's no crit confirms and a lot of stuff doesn't need a 20 to crit.
Your bog standard Goblin Warrior hits with a +8. That means anyone with 17 AC will get crit on a 19-20, a 10% chance to deal with 2d6 damage. If they're flanking, which they're goblins so they probably are, you're getting a -2 circumstance penalty to AC - you get crit on a 17, a 20% chance for the initial attack without MAP, and an additional +2 damage because dogslicers have the backstabber trait. And they're not alone, whatever critted you will have another attack they'll usually try, and they'll have friends as well. They don't need to kill you outright in one hit, they just need a crit or two to make their normal hits much scarier.
Should anything stronger than that show up, there's a solid chance it will crit someone and deal real damage. Plague Zombies do 1d8+4 bludgeoning on a regular hit, 17 average damage on a crit which can be followed up with a grab. A good damage roll can really ruin someone, and if someone is in poor positioning or otherwise is getting tactically oumaneuvered they are in real danger of being torn apart by mooks.
A level 2 creature might have something like +11 to their attack roll, versus AC's that are going to be topping out at like 18 or 19. Against our AC 17 example, they crit on a 16, no flanks needed. That's pretty scary. If you get knocked prone or otherwise go flat-footed, it can possibly crit you on a 19 with its second attack. There's real two or even one-shot potential with some frequency.
And once one person goes down there's an increased chance someone else will go down, because now monsters will start naturally focusing their attacks on fewer targets and the players will have lost one of their own turns with which to deal damage. Misfortune can cascade.
This was something I noticed during the playtest as well. For players very used to PF1, they will absolutely eat s+*% with goblins of all things because they're not used to the things being that capable of ending their sorry asses, they're not going to use all the new tools to avoid taking that damage.
|
A fighter with Dex 12 and in Hide or Scale is going to be lower than a Ranger with Dex 14 in the same armor.I'm quite aware. This is precisely what I meant by 'a profound mistake in their armor selection'.
Chain Mail is just not enough more expensive than those armors that taking them instead of it makes much sense even at 1st level.
It looks like he miscalculated his AC - at 2nd level - Ranger in Studded Leather (+2) with 18 Dex (cap +3) lvl 2+2 trained proficiency bonus = 19, not 20
2nd level - Fighter in scale +3 +2 dex cap + 2 and 2 = 19 + shield 2.So they have the same AC, but the fighter has to raise a shield with one of their actions if they want that better AC.
|
|
It looks like he miscalculated his AC - at 2nd level - Ranger in Studded Leather (+2) with 18 Dex (cap +3) lvl 2+2 trained proficiency bonus = 19, not 20
2nd level - Fighter in scale +3 +2 dex cap + 2 and 2 = 19 + shield 2.So they have the same AC, but the fighter has to raise a shield with one of their actions if they want that better AC.
Okay, that makes more sense. And this is certainly true. And will be at almost all levels assuming the Fighter sticks to Light or Medium armor. The Fighter also has the option of switching to Heavy Armor and trading some mobility for more AC if he wants.
Also, we definitely noticed that tactics trump numbers in terms of battle by battle survivability. Attacking with the wrong weapons and letting the enemy control the party by forcing the party to move often without having to waste many actions on movement themselves looks like a TPK waiting to happen. its been amazing to see how much mobility can deny actions. Spells that give a -10 to movement and difficult terrain can waste whole enemy turns.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the descriptions of the encounters people are giving, I'm thinking some adventure writers are still in the PF1 mindset. Throwing two severe encounters back to back at level 1 seems more likely to kill someone than not. For the examples gnoams gave with undead encounters, depending on the number of zombies and the level of the cleric the first encounter was moderate to severe, and the second was severe to extreme. That skeletal horse was a "low to moderate level boss", but from the sounds of it was just being treated like a bog standard creature and not a boss. The second encounter was definitely a boss battle.
I think the main issue is that there's not enough published level - 1 and 0 monsters, so writers throw in more level 1 and 2 for variety. I know I ran into this problem myself when designing an adventure.
Maybe they need to come up with level - 2 monsters so first level PCs have mooks to fight too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Weak lv-1 fits that niche well enough. Honestly the PF1 default standard fits in PF2 decently enough, I’ve been converting adventures using CR=Lv and it’s been working. Not sure what’s happened there.
The intent is to take 10m because the math is simple - two moderate fights back to back is the same as one extreme fight. Two severe is deadly TPK level.
Sum up the XP whenever they do not rest and give the PC 10m break when the encounter sum climbs too high. In the example of two severe back to back in plaguestone, the mutant wolves are GM directed to not attack until the party enters their den. So the GM should be giving a break between those fights and not have the mutants come out after the first fight. Both of these encounters have only 30' senses so staying ranged can easily steer clear of getting attacked, revealing that in a nature check would be a good idea if you need to give PC a break because they did not think to take one.
That's a little beside the point though, as after the first encounter even with rest between you likely have expended a lot of resources so the second encounter will still be fairly deadly. A severe encounter is supposed to be "end-of-the-adventure boss" levels of difficult, and extreme encounters should only happen once or twice per campaign, so I don't see why as an adventure designer you would want two in a row unless it's the only thing happening that day and it is actually the boss at the end of the adventure. If that's actually the case, then I think it's okay, if a bit intense for the very first published adventure many people will play for PF2e.
That's a little beside the point though, as after the first encounter even with rest between you likely have expended a lot of resources so the second encounter will still be fairly deadly. A severe encounter is supposed to be "end-of-the-adventure boss" levels of difficult, and extreme encounters should only happen once or twice per campaign, so I don't see why as an adventure designer you would want two in a row unless it's the only thing happening that day and it is actually the boss at the end of the adventure. If that's actually the case, then I think it's okay, if a bit intense for the very first published adventure many people will play for PF2e.The intent is to take 10m because the math is simple - two moderate fights back to back is the same as one extreme fight. Two severe is deadly TPK level.
Sum up the XP whenever they do not rest and give the PC 10m break when the encounter sum climbs too high. In the example of two severe back to back in plaguestone, the mutant wolves are GM directed to not attack until the party enters their den. So the GM should be giving a break between those fights and not have the mutants come out after the first fight. Both of these encounters have only 30' senses so staying ranged can easily steer clear of getting attacked, revealing that in a nature check would be a good idea if you need to give PC a break because they did not think to take one.
APs are tough, at least when compared to modules in my experience.
Rise of the Runelords had several encounters famous for TPKs, so even introductions can be rough. And many of those encounters became beloved, so that's notable.That said, Paizo does slip in poor tactics now and then to be aware of, like the badass Barbarian who might take a round to drink blood when he drops a PC (which is when the party most likely needs that pause). One frequent complaint in the playtest was when a basic goblin encounter killed too many PCs, but many who complained ran it "better" because it "made sense", not realizing there's was a reason (in setting & tactically) to have the goblins be unprepared.
So those wolves not attacking until somebody enters their lair is very much to separate the encounters, give the party time to heal to full.
I'm somebody who likes hard mode, and has found the story in the modules fun but unchallenging (though easy to beef up). Perhaps Paizo should put difficulty levels on their products?
|
|
Haven't run Plaguestone, but between converting WftC and playing in Age of Ashes, this feels pretty odd. Are your guys just sitting still to take the beating? What relative level enemies are they facing?They're currently Level 2, and last session fought three Bloodlash Bushes (https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=427) and then rested up before fighting two mutant wolves (which are Creature 3, have AC 19, 45 hp, bite for +11 doing 1d8+4 + 1d6 acid, and if they hit with the bite can spend and action to auto do a further 1d6 + 2 with 1 persistent acid). This just seems to be too high a to hit and damage compared to the PCs, and to be AC on par with the PCs with substantially more hit points.
Both these encounters appear to be "Severe" according to the XP budget system, but based on the way the book presents them and the described behaviour of the NPC that is leading them around in the story, it seems the assumption is that these fights should be taken back to back with perhaps a 10-20 minute break or so in between. That said, the same dynamic has occurred in a lot of the fights they had at level 1, and those were all moderate.
The Ranger is a TWF ranger, so his MAP maxes out a -4, so he wants to get next to them and "full attack", and if they backed off between goes the rogue would lose flanking, plus once they've been downed it's two actions to stand up and...Being experienced in PF1 can be a disadvantage in PF2. Not in character creation, but in terms of tactics in play.
For example (and this is only one example), vs. many higher level foes, their actions (especially their second and third ones) are worth more than yours so moving in, attacking, then moving back is extremely worth it. Versus foes with low movement this is even more true (and a lot of horrifying single foes in PF2, and especially in Plaguestone, have lower than 25 movement).
That's super unintuitive for people used to the full attack meta of PF1, but it remains true.
this was the 1st near wipe my players had
though that night it was just a druid, wizard and barbarian g all at at level 2this week we should have 4 or 5 players which will help,
as for range if i remember correctly they have 20 foot reach and a 20 spd movement but i do not have the book in front of me
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm somebody who likes hard mode, and has found the story in the modules fun but unchallenging (though easy to beef up). Perhaps Paizo should put difficulty levels on their products?
Maybe, if we got better advice on how to adjust it. "Hey, this particular encounter can be very lethal, here's how you can change it to suit less tactically-oriented groups."
|
|
I'm somebody who likes hard mode, and has found the story in the modules fun but unchallenging (though easy to beef up). Perhaps Paizo should put difficulty levels on their products?Maybe, if we got better advice on how to adjust it. "Hey, this particular encounter can be very lethal, here's how you can change it to suit less tactically-oriented groups."
that's easy bring a stack of blank character sheets ..or just have the players proactively make a spare :P
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, we definitely noticed that tactics trump numbers in terms of battle by battle survivability. Attacking with the wrong weapons and letting the enemy control the party by forcing the party to move often without having to waste many actions on movement themselves looks like a TPK waiting to happen. its been amazing to see how much mobility can deny actions. Spells that give a -10 to movement and difficult terrain can waste whole enemy turns.
Once against a fairly powerful melee enemy in my WftC game, the alchemist debuffed its Speed to be below the PCs', and then they tripped it and moved away at the end of their turns. It literally lost its turn at that point without being slowed or stunned. Then the archer fighter crit Debilitating Shot, which slowed 1 and pinned the foe to the spot. So as I was slowed, my two actions were to make the easy Athletics check to remove the arrow (still cost an action though) and then stand up. I didn't even get to start moving toward the PCs. Debilitating Shot crits with the bow crit speciailization effect are nasty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, we definitely noticed that tactics trump numbers in terms of battle by battle survivability. Attacking with the wrong weapons and letting the enemy control the party by forcing the party to move often without having to waste many actions on movement themselves looks like a TPK waiting to happen. its been amazing to see how much mobility can deny actions. Spells that give a -10 to movement and difficult terrain can waste whole enemy turns.Once against a fairly powerful melee enemy in my WftC game, the alchemist debuffed its Speed to be below the PCs', and then they tripped it and moved away at the end of their turns. It literally lost its turn at that point without being slowed or stunned. Then the archer fighter crit Debilitating Shot, which slowed 1 and pinned the foe to the spot. So as I was slowed, my two actions were to make the easy Athletics check to remove the arrow (still cost an action though) and then stand up. I didn't even get to start moving toward the PCs. Debilitating Shot crits with the bow crit speciailization effect are nasty.
Mark,
I have to say the balancing of mobility and the multiple attack bonus the way you all have is an absolutely mechanic. Because that first attack is so powerful and important, the party can do amazing things when they pull it off right, or accidentally set their most vulnerable party member up for an attack that can have a high chance of getting a critical hit. It is so much fun because you can never know if you will be able to set it all up until you are at the table.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
APs are tough, at least when compared to modules in my experience.
Rise of the Runelords had several encounters famous for TPKs, so even introductions can be rough. And many of those encounters became beloved, so that's notable.
Oddly, in PF1 my experience was the exact opposite, modules tended to end in a TPK 9/10 times and APs only did... once, and that involved multiple shocker lizards at level 2. Could have been my groups' choice of modules though.
I'll contribute to the rest, tactics matter more than build. Build still matters, but tactics are vastly more important to character survival.
You can't just consult a guide and create a windup toy that shreds adventures anymore, you have to do the thinking and tactics and strategy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I cannot speak to the other adventure as I have not read it yet - but for Plaguestone ... that is on the players if they blew all their resources on the first fight of the day. Maybe it does take a TPK for them to learn they have very limited dailies and you will not allow camping out after every fight.
If the players hadn't "blown" all of their resources on the first fight then it would have either been a TPK or at the very least the death of 2 PCs. I'm not going to insist that my players conserve resources and force them to die, and punishing them for trying to rest having spent all of their resources just trying to stayt alive seems like appalling GMing at best.
Even so for this specific encounter they have a ranger guide they can camp overnite with if they need to. While she is written to not get into combat, she certainly is helping with handouts. I am saying as a GM add up the 'sequential' encounters and give the breaks and even naps where they can be justified that continuing on is not going to add up.
And they did get her to set them up a campsite so they could safely rest between the two encounters. This does not change the fact that as written the encounters are supposed to run back to back, and both encounters nearly wiped my players from full resources, consuming all of their daily resources each time.
The lashers fight is actually only severe if you melee them. Range they can do nothing but die in place. As I said it took a near TPK to figure this out. The next lasher encounter was very lopsided (and boring to GM as there is nothing you can do). So when you see a severe out of place as the first fight of the day, look for that weakness that was put there to make it not severe. If players are not using recall knowledge give them a freebie to clue them into this game mechanic whose sole purpose is making fights easier.
The bloodlash bushes have resistance against piercing damage, making bows fairly ineffective, and the area the combat takes place in is small enough that you can either let them melee you, or you can leave. Kiting them and making ranged spell attacks with cantrips from the one character that has one simply isn't possible.
Alternately if the suggested course of action is for the sorcerer to run into sight of the clearing, fire off acid splash or similar, and then run back out of sight, waiting until the bushes return to their starting location before repeating the process ~46 times until the bushes are dead; why is the fight even in the scenario?
'PC Ranger you would know from having lived in these woods (or been warned by your Ranger Guide) to steer clear of lashing vines". The fight just became trivial...then let players know next time they need to spend an action roll for that free advice - or choose investigate mode in exploration before hand.
They saw the wolf corpse and tried to sneak around the edge of the clearing, which didn't work for them.
Anyway, if my complaint was "these two fights that are supposed to be back to back are too hard" your encounter specific advice, good or bad as it may be, might be useful, but it isn't. As per my original post in this thread my complaint is "almost every fight I have run has gone the way I have described, to the point that two of my players are gritting their teeth and letting me finish running the scenario rather than just quitting the game in frustration". I'm pretty sure that if this wasn't something I was running for 8-10 weeks and then we stop, and was instead Book 1 of an AP, both of them would have quit the game by now.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spoiler tags, please.