... there’s a vey big gulf inbetween “always succeed” and “constant failure” in play.Only boring if you enjoy constant failure. I don't. It's the pinnacle of design, because you can fail constantly if you build one way, and succeed constantly if you build another, thereby enabling any level of play to suit taste.It is. It’s bad design, and boring at that.You're saying all this like it's a bad thing.One session with Monsters disarming aoe players and players will understand why disarm is something which is not worth in a system like this.
Or eventually a couple of mobs who disarm a player, loot his weapon worth all his equip, and run/teleport away.
Repeat until the players won’t have anything else left.
Players start to go with chain glove?
Mobs, which are not necessarily stupid, will do the same.Sometimes players see a mechanic only on their side, but they not always realize that it could be used against them.
In this case, disarm on Normal hit and chain glove to get a hold grip for their weapon.
If you're likely to fail the roll more than once or twice in a session it's constant.
Attack rolls after the first get a partial pass if the first one is a near guaranteed success.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like it or not my table is changing a single word in the disarm description.
We are changing the word their. To your.
They receive a negative 2 to their attack rolls until the start of YOUR next turn.
Simple fix. Brings it inline with other maneuvers and doesn't over power it.
It actually doesn't bring it in line with other maneuvers. It could also create cognitive dissonance by making the fiction not much the reality (why do they have a -2 for exactly 6 seconds? Depending on how much your players accept your answer will depend on whether or not they experience cognitive dissonance).
Trip makes a target prone until THEIR turn when they have to spend an action to fix it. Bull rush (or wahtever it's called in this edition) moves a target back a few feet until the THEIR turn when they have to spend an action to move back to where they were.
If you want to make disarm inline with these other maneuvers then you should require an action for a target to adjust their grip to undo the -2 penalty. This way there is always an affect (they either experience a -2 OR they lose an action) and there is no chance for cognitive dissonance (the in game fiction without any room for doubt matches the mechanics).
Wouldn’t that be true even without a critical success being necessary? Level’s already baked into the attack bonuses and defenses.It just feels like it should be uniformly easier, against a qualified opponent to feint them, grab them, knock them off balance, etc. than to force them to drop their weapon.
I'm not sure how you model this aside from "disarming requires a critical success".
I'm saying that you should need to roll higher to disarm (i.e. separate the person from the weapon) someone than you would in order to shove, trip, or grab them. But these are all just athletics rolls versus fortitude or reflex. So all we can do to reflect this is "increase the DC for disarm checks" which is essentially what they did.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
. If the game doesn’t appeal to that type of player... well, one less problem.How inclusive and welcoming of you.
Nobody enjoys having to find new players only to have the same exact problem within a month.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, mostly player category. I have had my fair share of disruptive players over the years and I can tell you the hobby gains absolutely nothing from that, if anything it leads to shrinkage.
I used to be very hesitant in pushing people away, and it cost me several good players. I learned not to do that anymore, takes a long time to convince them to try again.
Perhaps it makes me a jerk, but i'm a jerk whose newbies stick around and eventually lead their own groups. Very proud of them <3 they're my little dice babies. One leads an RPG program for schoolkids, too :3
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I try to build up groups so that they can be welcoming and inclusive, and let everyone have fun and enjoy the game.
Not everybody shares that sentiment.
I'm saying that you should need to roll higher to disarm (i.e. separate the person from the weapon) someone than you would in order to shove, trip, or grab them. But these are all just athletics rolls versus fortitude or reflex. So all we can do to reflect this is "increase the DC for disarm checks" which is essentially what they did.Wouldn’t that be true even without a critical success being necessary? Level’s already baked into the attack bonuses and defenses.It just feels like it should be uniformly easier, against a qualified opponent to feint them, grab them, knock them off balance, etc. than to force them to drop their weapon.
I'm not sure how you model this aside from "disarming requires a critical success".
disagree that is needed, if you feel dissonance you just change the wording more.
-2 penalty until the end of their next turn. instead of beginning of their next turn.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "action to regrip" house rule is an excellent change. It naturally explains exactly what the penalty meant (your grip was disrupted) and takes advantage of the new action economy paradigm of changing grip requiring an action.
I think it's a pretty elegant solution.
The "action to regrip" house rule is an excellent change. It naturally explains exactly what the penalty meant (your grip was disrupted) and takes advantage of the new action economy paradigm of changing grip requiring an action.
I think it's a pretty elegant solution.
ill admit i like it. personally. i actually thought it was RAW when i first starting messing with 2e, dunno why though.
I agree as well about needing one action to reajust your grip and lose the penalty. I'll have to convince some people in my group, but I'll try to get that house-rule in.
There exist class feats which enhance grappling, letting you crush people to do strength damage or throw them into stuff; that sort of thing.
So what if Disarm just hasn't had its feats printed yet?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There exist class feats which enhance grappling, letting you crush people to do strength damage or throw them into stuff; that sort of thing.
So what if Disarm just hasn't had its feats printed yet?
thats a possibility.
though tbh str damage on grapple is pretty...uninteresting? when your doing 3d10+5+4+2d6 ish in a single attack. spending that map and action to do 5 damage just seems....eeehhh, better feats probably.
So speaking as the guy who proposed that house rule, one thing to be aware of is how it compares to Trip since you're rolling against the same DC.
It seems to me that trip is better on a success, but disarm becomes better on a critical failure or critical success when you stack them up. Not sure if that's the right balance point or not but it is interesting.
The damage on grapple is fine though, since it doesn't cost an action- it just comes for free when you use an action to grapple (which you're going to do every turn if you want to keep someone grappled).
There exist class feats which enhance grappling, letting you crush people to do strength damage or throw them into stuff; that sort of thing.
So what if Disarm just hasn't had its feats printed yet?
thats a possibility.
though tbh str damage on grapple is pretty...uninteresting? when your doing 3d10+5+4+2d6 ish in a single attack. spending that map and action to do 5 damage just seems....eeehhh, better feats probably.
I mean, you don't grapple to do 5 damage. You grapple to grapple. The damage is just icing.
I could see myself skipping it even on a wrastlin' build, but it is essentially free damage once you have the feat. Comparing it to your strike damage misses the point. What it actually compares to is grappling without the feat, which does no damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno John, this is a person whose stated goal on the forums us to spend his time trying to make pf2 seem as bad as possible so it fails and they make a pf3 he personally is happy with. I think most people would agree that such an approach can only be detrimental to the community (and company) as a whole.
Thats...not at all what I said. I don't "hope PF2 fails". I want a PF3 that's better. Paizo has to stick around for that to happen. What I did say is that I'm being vocal about my complaints in the hopes that future versions (or this version, though I realize that's unlikely) will improve.
I honestly don't know how you could have gotten that I hope PF2 fails, or that I'm somehow 'out to destroy the community' from what I have said. Yes, it's not the game I hoped for and it is disappointing, but my aim is to make the next one better, not make this one fail.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel sherlock's game play style should be supported (guidelines in the gmg for making the game easier for example) but that doesn't mean I support the intent behind his posts.
I don't want an easy game, I want the challenge in a different place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if a two-action version of disarm would be a way to balance it via houserule. Quite apart from any additional benefits such a hypothetical action may grant, it could also scale anywhere from "Make a Disarm with a +10" (essentially altering it to success = disarm but costing an additional action) scaled all the way down to "Make a disarm check with a +1" (giving the mildest boost to the current Disarm). Groups can set their own level, based on how much better they think Disarm should be.
It seems to me the 3-action economy presents an alternative axis for balance/houseruling with a little more nuance than PF1's action economy.
There exist class feats which enhance grappling, letting you crush people to do strength damage or throw them into stuff; that sort of thing.
So what if Disarm just hasn't had its feats printed yet?
thats a possibility.
though tbh str damage on grapple is pretty...uninteresting? when your doing 3d10+5+4+2d6 ish in a single attack. spending that map and action to do 5 damage just seems....eeehhh, better feats probably.
I mean, you don't grapple to do 5 damage. You grapple to grapple. The damage is just icing.
I could see myself skipping it even on a wrastlin' build, but it is essentially free damage once you have the feat. Comparing it to your strike damage misses the point. What it actually compares to is grappling without the feat, which does no damage.
only time im grappling is with combat grab or furious grab. if im honest.
monk can be fine for the other maneuvers, mixed maneuver is nice for that. But id never use one to strictly grapple.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There exist class feats which enhance grappling, letting you crush people to do strength damage or throw them into stuff; that sort of thing.
So what if Disarm just hasn't had its feats printed yet?
thats a possibility.
though tbh str damage on grapple is pretty...uninteresting? when your doing 3d10+5+4+2d6 ish in a single attack. spending that map and action to do 5 damage just seems....eeehhh, better feats probably.
I mean, you don't grapple to do 5 damage. You grapple to grapple. The damage is just icing.
I could see myself skipping it even on a wrastlin' build, but it is essentially free damage once you have the feat. Comparing it to your strike damage misses the point. What it actually compares to is grappling without the feat, which does no damage.
only time im grappling is with combat grab or furious grab. if im honest.
monk can be fine for the other maneuvers, mixed maneuver is nice for that. But id never use one to strictly grapple.
Then you probably shouldn't be looking at grapple builds. That doesn't make grappling a bad strategy for those that like it. A thrash build can do solid damage while also not letting enemies move around the battlefield and renders the enemy flat-footed for everyone, including ranged attackers who can't just rely on flanking.
Your trading raw damage for battlefield control. Ain't nothing wrong with that.
Or 'Until you take an action to tighten your grip'.
Always remember, Keep it tight!
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure how "want to autosucceed" isn't wanting an easier game.
In fairness to sherlock1701, he appears to want a game where making a character who can auto-succeed is a game in and of itself. One like PF1 where character creation is full of bad choices as well as good ones and you need a certain degree of system knowledge to achieve such a character.
I think that sounds hideous, personally, and suspect the majority agree with me, but I wouldn't call it an easy game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure how "want to autosucceed" isn't wanting an easier game.In fairness to sherlock1701, he appears to want a game where making a character who can auto-succeed is a game in and of itself. One like PF1 where character creation is full of bad choices as well as good ones and you need a certain degree of system knowledge to achieve such a character.
I think that sounds hideous, personally, and suspect the majority agree with me, but I wouldn't call it an easy game.
I think what sherlock wants is computer programming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure how "want to autosucceed" isn't wanting an easier game.
Autosucceed (or 95% succeed) at the two things you're specialised in, do not autosucceed at the seventeen things you're not? It's a reasonable preference... Less so if the thing you want to autosucceed at instantly makes someone else unable to fight back in combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well apart from the bad choices part the ability to design characters to auto succeed at tasks is possible, if you make the game easier by uniformly adjusting dcs down by about 4.I'm not sure how "want to autosucceed" isn't wanting an easier game.In fairness to sherlock1701, he appears to want a game where making a character who can auto-succeed is a game in and of itself. One like PF1 where character creation is full of bad choices as well as good ones and you need a certain degree of system knowledge to achieve such a character.
I think that sounds hideous, personally, and suspect the majority agree with me, but I wouldn't call it an easy game.
Problem is that maxing out your roll in PF2 is too easy, there's no challenge to be had then.
One of my favorite characters was a fighter built around armor spikes with bull rush and overrun - it took something like six or eight hours of digging through feat interactions and whatnot to come up with something really effective and powerful, that could succeed most of the time and deal heavy damage.
The fun was in spending all that time rooting around the rules to cone up with a character who was as good at something as they could be. I don't really see things like this ever being possible with the way PF2 is designed. It's too easy to max your roll and pick your options. There's little joy to be found in a game that gives you the best possible character without any major effort.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it’s more fair to say there’s little joy to be found for you, or for some people. Plenty of people enjoy the game more when it doesn’t work that way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The stated goal of PF2 was for it to be easier to get into (compared to PF1). So that is a 'fault' by design.
If you find "rooting around the rules" fun, well, I think PF2 won't ever be the system you will enjoy.
I hope you can keep playing Pathfinder 1st edition.
(That is to mean: I hope your group stays with 1st edition and doesn't leave you stranded when they decide to switch to second, for example.)
Do what is fun for you, and your group.
----------------
Re: disarm: I will play it straight from the book for some time, then talk with my players, about changing it to fall in line with other maneouvers (-2 until the 'disarmed' creature takes one action).
We'll see what klicks for us.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are, legitimately, different ways to enjoy games. There is some insightful literature on this subject:
MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research
Gaming for Fun (Part 1): Eight Kinds of Fun
The second link mentions creativity in character creation as one of these kinds of fun (#7: Expression). Finding impressive combos and building a clever character around it certainly can be fun. I guess Sherlock1701 might recognize himself in that one. I'm one of those people myself.
Where it clashes though is #4, Challenge. PF2 took a notably different tack on this than PF1, with a stark veer away from "sure thing" stats. On the one hand, it's harder to tank saves and AC so deep that monsters will hit you on a 2. On the other hand, it's almost impossible to raise them so high that they'll never hit. And vice versa. The outcome of every fight is more in doubt.
I personally find that very refreshing, challenging, and fun. But it caters to a different appetite than PF1 did. I'm hoping for a style of adventure writing that takes into account that 100% completion of obstacle courses is no longer to be expected, and that it's more about winning despite some things going wrong along the way.
There exist class feats which enhance grappling, letting you crush people to do strength damage or throw them into stuff; that sort of thing.
So what if Disarm just hasn't had its feats printed yet?
If disarm's feats haven't been printed, what is up with fighter?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There exist class feats which enhance grappling, letting you crush people to do strength damage or throw them into stuff; that sort of thing.
So what if Disarm just hasn't had its feats printed yet?
thats a possibility.
though tbh str damage on grapple is pretty...uninteresting? when your doing 3d10+5+4+2d6 ish in a single attack. spending that map and action to do 5 damage just seems....eeehhh, better feats probably.
I mean, you don't grapple to do 5 damage. You grapple to grapple. The damage is just icing.
I could see myself skipping it even on a wrastlin' build, but it is essentially free damage once you have the feat. Comparing it to your strike damage misses the point. What it actually compares to is grappling without the feat, which does no damage.
only time im grappling is with combat grab or furious grab. if im honest.
monk can be fine for the other maneuvers, mixed maneuver is nice for that. But id never use one to strictly grapple.
Then you probably shouldn't be looking at grapple builds. That doesn't make grappling a bad strategy for those that like it. A thrash build can do solid damage while also not letting enemies move around the battlefield and renders the enemy flat-footed for everyone, including ranged attackers who can't just rely on flanking.
Your trading raw damage for battlefield control. Ain't nothing wrong with that.
On principal I agree.
But for 2e specifically maybe not so much.
Facts are grapple at base does no damage. Adds to your map. And is harder to have a success vs just an attack.
So your giving up damage for a worse chance to land a debuff that also leaves you stuck next to the monster that may get 3 actions of attacks on you.
Meanwhile while it's not until level 12. I can with a barbarian multiclassing into monk. Fob. Apply stunning fist. Expend my second action to automatically grab (of Wich I have two chances from previous round to ensure this happens) and at that point I can thrash or even whirling throw depending on the build.
Not to mention if I go animal barbarian shark instinct I can apply the bonuses from my hand wraps to my grapple's and get another+2 from a feat. That's an extra +5 and can grab crushing grab along with brutal bully to do double strength damage every grapple check after furious grab.
A monk gets mixed maneuver wich is Good if you want to throw as many maneuvers as you can. But your still not doing damage.
Every round the enemy is still up is another chance to lose. Is where I'm coming from.
So while I love combat maneuvers. Majority of the time I'd only be using them if I had such abilities I describe. Or so niche situation like the creature likes to waste your actions on move actions and is annoying.