Incapacitation trait rules: a solution in search of a problem?

[AsmodeusDM]

Ubertron_X wrote:

I am a little thorn about the current boss fight mechanics as they scream "xp only for blood" right into my face. Of course it can be quite anti-climatic if the bad guy falls victim to the very first save, however it can also be quite anti-climatic when your whole party knows that in order to bring that enemy down you need to wear down every single of his HP, spending yours in the process. No other way or outcome possible.

Exactly all this.

The issue is that for years in the attempts to create "the perfect climatic cinematic ending" to their linear adventure DMs were forced to come up with all ways to fudge and cheat in order to "keep their cool boss/final villain" alive so that they could have a "proper cool final fight just like the movies!".

In order to facilitate this, instead of cheating... PF2e just codified it into the ruleset making it so that every boss fight will be grindhouse affair where every PC will "get a chance to contribute" as you are forced to smash your way through hundreds of hit points.

blurg.

[swoosh]

Have to say, "epic, challenging final confrontations are anticlimactic" is a really, really weird take to me.

[Henro]

From my point of view, if you have a fantasy RPG system where epic battles against solo evil guys/gals is impossible, that's a failing of the system. A party of heroes facing off against an evil mastermind in his/her lair is a classic trope of the genre, and absolutely something people expect to be able to do.

[Cyouni]

AsmodeusDM wrote:

Ubertron_X wrote:

I am a little thorn about the current boss fight mechanics as they scream "xp only for blood" right into my face. Of course it can be quite anti-climatic if the bad guy falls victim to the very first save, however it can also be quite anti-climatic when your whole party knows that in order to bring that enemy down you need to wear down every single of his HP, spending yours in the process. No other way or outcome possible.

Exactly all this.

The issue is that for years in the attempts to create "the perfect climatic cinematic ending" to their linear adventure DMs were forced to come up with all ways to fudge and cheat in order to "keep their cool boss/final villain" alive so that they could have a "proper cool final fight just like the movies!".

In order to facilitate this, instead of cheating... PF2e just codified it into the ruleset making it so that every boss fight will be grindhouse affair where every PC will "get a chance to contribute" as you are forced to smash your way through hundreds of hit points.

blurg.

Ah yes, because actually having a climactic final encounter is somehow worse than "the wizard casts a single spell and everyone goes home".

[RicoTheBold]

Incapacitate is one of those rules that I know I'm going to screw up as a GM because I forget about it. Threads like this are helpful reminders, but it also got me thinking.

A neat thing about PF2 for home games is how easy it is for your group to ignore the trait (intentionall) if you don't like it in your game. I really appreciate the modularity of traits here because you can just say, "I understand what it does but that's not the game we want, so just know the incapacitate trait doesn't exist" without having to edit a bunch of individual spells or abilities that would be affected. It's neat.

I also think the trait is at least somewhat doing the same thing as scaling proficiencies by level. I think the incapacitate trait might be more helpful and important to consider keeping, for instance, in a game where people are playing without the +level to proficiencies.

[BellyBeard]

AsmodeusDM wrote:

In order to facilitate this, instead of cheating... PF2e just codified it into the ruleset making it so that every boss fight will be grindhouse affair where every PC will "get a chance to contribute" as you are forced to smash your way through hundreds of hit points.

blurg.

You've shown you recognize that there was a problem before, as lots of GMs had to "cheat" to play the game in the expected way. Do you think leading up to a big fight that's over before the boss even swings their weapon is better? If not, how else do you think a big final fight should go, if not by attacking the boss until they're dead? That's typically the goal in any fight. You can jazz it up with special objectives to weaken the boss or something, but in the end you have to reduce their HP to 0.

Note that the notion you just stand there and slog through the boss's HP is diminished by boss creature design in PF2. They are generally mobile, attack multiple party members per attack, have minions to contend with, and otherwise their abilities make fights as dynamic as the designers could come up with. Add in a good setting for the fight, and maybe some twist that happens after a few rounds, and it should hopefully not feel like a boring slog.

[ChibiNyan]

I think the Incapacitate trait, in spirit, is a great rule to prevent big boss fights from falling flat. I think that's the only thing it should do, but it's very all-or-nothing that makes a lot of spells completely worthless in situations where you would want to use them and also has some side-effects on non-boss battles.

Think it could stand to be weakened a bit (for example only blocks Crit Fail effect but could still get second best result) or made it based on the character level rather than spell slot (like monsters) or more lenient in other ways so you could pop a few on level equivalent enemies (moderate but not boss-tier fight) without wasting your best slot. These incapacitate spells, for the most part, aren't AOE, so they are kinda underwhelming vs the groups of mooks they're supposed to be used against. Im sure there's a sweetspot between "mook that fighter will oneshot anyways" and "Big boss that deserves an epic fight" where these spells could shine without being on your max slot.

[Temperans]

How about a very simple, "the target gets a +2 on the save for every level above the caster"?

Most of the time the boss (usually CR+3) will succeed preventing the problem of it always happening, while still allowing for a small chance that the spell succeeds properly. Versus closer level opponents (CR+1) the spell becomes slightly less useful, but no way near as useless as the current method granting +10.

[RicoTheBold]

Temperans wrote:

How about a very simple, "the target gets a +2 on the save for every level above the caster"?

Most of the time the boss (usually CR+3) will succeed preventing the problem of it always happening, while still allowing for a small chance that the spell succeeds properly. Versus closer level opponents (CR+1) the spell becomes slightly less useful, but no way near as useless as the current method granting +10.

Why throw out the elegance of proficiency by adding another level-based number? They already get +1/level above the effect source.

Better to adjust it by having it kick in later, like if the target is two or more levels above the effect source. Changing it to three or four levels higher could also work if you only want it to stop parties from hurting severe-level solo foes (or keep minions more relevant against the party for longer).

Assuming you don't want to toss it out entirely.

[Eoni]

Has anyone done any real analysis of the spell lists and Incapacitation? Just searching AoN, there's only 22 spells with the trait plus another 3 that have a special clause about it out of 300+ spells. Naturally, they're all of the big SOD/SOS spells that can end combat in one turn which did need some curbing but even if an enemy succeeds thanks to Incapacitation they will still be subjected to some part of the spell. In 1e if you didn't land your big spell then you just wasted your slot.

[Temperans]

RicoTheBold wrote:

Temperans wrote:

How about a very simple, "the target gets a +2 on the save for every level above the caster"?

Most of the time the boss (usually CR+3) will succeed preventing the problem of it always happening, while still allowing for a small chance that the spell succeeds properly. Versus closer level opponents (CR+1) the spell becomes slightly less useful, but no way near as useless as the current method granting +10.

Why throw out the elegance of proficiency by adding another level-based number? They already get +1/level above the effect source.

Better to adjust it by having it kick in later, like if the target is two or more levels above the effect source. Changing it to three or four levels higher could also work if you only want it to stop parties from hurting severe-level solo foes (or keep minions more relevant against the party for longer).

Assuming you don't want to toss it out entirely.

I'm not throwing away the simplicity of +1/level by adding more level effect, I'm simply modifying how the extra bonus is distributed. As it stands right now the incapacitate traits gives: If the target is 2* or higher level than the spell they get +10 on the save. So a lv 2 spell would stop working for a lv 4 creature and a lv 6 spell would stop working for a level 12 creature.

My version would prevent high level enemies from failing (5 levels above is +10 on the save), while still allowing low level spell to work vs enemies of the same lv as the caster. For the lv1 Ghouls. The players being lv 2 would have +2 (instead of +10). And a lv 10 player would have +18, effectively immune to the low lv ghouls.

Yes I know the difference is huge, but that's the effect when everything has plus level in the first place, so nothing new.

[thenobledrake]

Minor note: it's more than twice the level of the spell, so it kicks in for level 5 creatures against 2nd level spells, or level 13 creatures for a 6th level spell.

[Tectorman]

Cyouni wrote:

AsmodeusDM wrote:

Ubertron_X wrote:

I am a little thorn about the current boss fight mechanics as they scream "xp only for blood" right into my face. Of course it can be quite anti-climatic if the bad guy falls victim to the very first save, however it can also be quite anti-climatic when your whole party knows that in order to bring that enemy down you need to wear down every single of his HP, spending yours in the process. No other way or outcome possible.

Exactly all this.

The issue is that for years in the attempts to create "the perfect climatic cinematic ending" to their linear adventure DMs were forced to come up with all ways to fudge and cheat in order to "keep their cool boss/final villain" alive so that they could have a "proper cool final fight just like the movies!".

In order to facilitate this, instead of cheating... PF2e just codified it into the ruleset making it so that every boss fight will be grindhouse affair where every PC will "get a chance to contribute" as you are forced to smash your way through hundreds of hit points.

blurg.

Ah yes, because actually having a climactic final encounter is somehow worse than "the wizard casts a single spell and everyone goes home".

What I believe AsmodeusDM et al are getting at is, essentially, that they prefer the natural tension that arises when Fred digitizes Jason out from under the rock monster in the nick of time in GalaxyQuest as opposed to the scheduled, mandated tension that arises when the self-destruct sequence inevitably stops at 1 second, because that's what it did in the show.

[mrspaghetti]

It's the little things in life you treasure...

[BellyBeard]

Tectorman wrote:

What I believe AsmodeusDM et al are getting at is, essentially, that they prefer the natural tension that arises when Fred digitizes Jason out from under the rock monster in the nick of time in GalaxyQuest as opposed to the scheduled, mandated tension that arises when the self-destruct sequence inevitably stops at 1 second, because that's what it did in the show.

I think it comes down to narrative style. Some people like very consistent narratives where the heroes have a pitched battle against a tough foe, and others want to be less predictable, so maybe that tough foe turned out to be a real pushover and now we have to change the narrative. I like that the PF1 system allows those emerging narratives, because fun and memorable stories happen when the narrative is more collaborative, but the problem is many builds and playstyles skew the narrative too far, so that the only things which won't be a pushover are guaranteed party wipes. Then there can't be any enemies which the party feel threatened by, so it limits the narrative in other ways.

[AsmodeusDM]

I was definitely implying and leaning towards the "contrived narrative" vs. "emergent gameplay."

As for spells and Incap effects; we were not just looking at spells but specifically monster abilities (like the ghouls, but also medusas) as well as our party's monk who in the course of this discussion realized his Stunning Fist has the Incap trait meaning he can't use it against the type of enemies he'd most prefer to use it against (tough foes... who cares really if you stun 1 one of the six lower level foes).

Additionally the incap rules seems arbitrary. Hideous Laughter cuts into a foes actions, limits their reactions and can even remove all their actions for one round, but it is not Incap. The Slow spell removes actions (even on a successful save), but it is not Incap.

Maybe they feel there is a difference between Slow 1 and Stun 1; but uhhh there is not.

In discussing this with my players and thinking of options to alleviate it; we brewed up this possible house-rule based on the Character class expert save class features (like Juggernaut) but in reverse.

Incapacitation: If a creature is more than twice the level of a spell; it treats Critical Failure results as Failure instead.

In this way you solve two issues:

#1 the Crit Failure results are really the worst offense of the Incap effects, so you eliminate that result and still let the PCs get some effects with their spells.

#2 It means you also eliminate the extreme swinginess that happens when a high-level foe just happens to hit that Nat 1 and may end up with the Crit Failure effect anyway.

[Parduss]

"the DC cumulatively decreases by 1 on each such save."

I wonder if expanding that part would be helpful, as in each time a creature has to make a save vs incapacitation (during a 24 hour period maybe) they lower the required DC by 1 (or more)

[Vidmaster7]

graystone wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I swear gray you look for the worst possible side to of something to be on then fully commit.

I've posted with someone before that used classy = elegant [pleasingly ingenious and simple] before so maybe my perspective is different.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I'm personally completely fine with the incapacitation rule.

I'm fine with them in the same way I was fine with spells HD capped in PF1*: I didn't take them and skip right past them when I see the tag. So here too I can see sherlock's perspective. There are less slots to go around in PF2 with top ones at a premium, then you add that most heightened spells tend to be inferior to spells actually of that level... It's a tough sell for me.

Secondly, the affect that warrants such a tag seem scattershot: Cloak of Colors [1 rd blind/stun] is hardly the encounter ending spell like Phantasmal Killer [dead].

* now I did take them in PF1 if I had a way to replace them later: my 5th+ level sorcerer isn't going to keep Daze as a cantrip...

Eh I don't know I felt like the tone was pretty clear to me anyways.

Are you looking at it from a player perspective then? Because Since I primarily DM I feel like it will be super helpful but I guess if you look at it from a player perspective maybe I can see wanting the option to just end combats. Also on a critical failure it's still pretty bad even with incapacitate isn't it?

[thenobledrake]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Also on a critical failure it's still pretty bad even with incapacitate isn't it?

I had been wondering if people were forgetting that rolling a natural 1 would effectively negate the benefit of being higher level and leave the roll up to the math, but had yet to ask about it in-thread.

Even an enemy a few levels higher than a character is likely to fail the save by at least 10 on that kind of roll if there was ever any significant chance of the save being failed in the first place. So the "I used a spell and took the bad-guy out of the fight" thing is still possible, it just requires a bit of luck to work rather than a bit of luck being the only thing that could possibly stop it.

[Vidmaster7]

Right incapacitate doesn't completely remove the chance of it getting a terrible effect just lessens it by a bit.

[Temperans]

Lessens it by a lot, remember 1 save higher is effectively +10 and every point matters; especially when there are so few ways to increase save DC. But yes, there is a 5% chance of rolling a 1.

[Eoni]

Temperans wrote:

Lessens it by a lot, remember 1 save higher is effectively +10 and every point matters; especially when there are so few ways to increase save DC. But yes, there is a 5% chance of rolling a 1.

There are fewer ways to increase save DC but a multitude of ways to debuff an enemy's saves. A well timed Demoralize can make them crit fail on a 3-1 and that's a no resource one, action effect you can use on any enemy you're casting on or something you can ask an ally to do. But even beyond that, there are powerful spells at level 1 without the Incapacitation trait that you can be using instead. You just have to get out of the 1e mindset of these insta-win spells.

And once again, there isn't a proliferation of spells with the Incapacitation trait in the book and the ones that are there all have an effect on a Success. I get people aren't used to the 4 degrees of success yet but to call it terrible is just disingenuous when in 1e that spell would've just been a straight up waste of a turn if the enemies made their saves. Now at least there will be some effect.

[sherlock1701]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

graystone wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I swear gray you look for the worst possible side to of something to be on then fully commit.

I've posted with someone before that used classy = elegant [pleasingly ingenious and simple] before so maybe my perspective is different.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I'm personally completely fine with the incapacitation rule.

I'm fine with them in the same way I was fine with spells HD capped in PF1*: I didn't take them and skip right past them when I see the tag. So here too I can see sherlock's perspective. There are less slots to go around in PF2 with top ones at a premium, then you add that most heightened spells tend to be inferior to spells actually of that level... It's a tough sell for me.

Secondly, the affect that warrants such a tag seem scattershot: Cloak of Colors [1 rd blind/stun] is hardly the encounter ending spell like Phantasmal Killer [dead].

* now I did take them in PF1 if I had a way to replace them later: my 5th+ level sorcerer isn't going to keep Daze as a cantrip...

Eh I don't know I felt like the tone was pretty clear to me anyways.

Are you looking at it from a player perspective then? Because Since I primarily DM I feel like it will be super helpful but I guess if you look at it from a player perspective maybe I can see wanting the option to just end combats. Also on a critical failure it's still pretty bad even with incapacitate isn't it?

No, I spend about twice as much time in the GM seat as I do playing. Critical failures are unreliable at best; that's why I would avoid both incap effects and any of the cantrips with crit fail effects.

[Ravingdork]

sherlock1701 wrote:

Consider Mass Effect Andromeda or Fallout 76, PF2 is in the same league as far as I'm concerned.

But did you actually play a few games before arriving at that conclusion?

My friends and I didn't think we'd like it either, but then we tried a few games and positively fell in love with the new system.

[ChibiNyan]

+1 for just treating Crit Failure as Failure, so you can actually get some slow-equivalent effects on Incap spells rather than basically negated every single time.

[sherlock1701]

Ravingdork wrote:

sherlock1701 wrote:

Consider Mass Effect Andromeda or Fallout 76, PF2 is in the same league as far as I'm concerned.

But did you actually play a few games before arriving at that conclusion?

My friends and I didn't think we'd like it either, but then we tried a few games and positively fell in love with the new system.

Given that the fun went out of character creation, games weren't enjoyable at all.

[graystone]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Eh I don't know I felt like the tone was pretty clear to me anyways.

Tone in an internet post? I know I can't read that 100% and I doubt anyone can...

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Are you looking at it from a player perspective then? Because Since I primarily DM I feel like it will be super helpful but I guess if you look at it from a player perspective maybe I can see wanting the option to just end combats. Also on a critical failure it's still pretty bad even with incapacitate isn't it?

As I only play, it's 100% player... That's one of my biggest issues with the game is the huge shift to the DM side, making it largely 'dm fiat' instead of actual codified rules. Secondly, the scattershot results are there no matter if you're DM or player. 1 rd stun/blind and DEAD aren't in the same ballpark: if we're talking something that always take out a target for the whole fight, I'd be more understanding... Taking away a single rounds actions? Not so much.

[BellyBeard]

graystone wrote:

Secondly, the scattershot results are there no matter if you're DM or player. 1 rd stun/blind and DEAD aren't in the same ballpark: if we're talking something that always take out a target for the whole fight, I'd be more understanding... Taking away a single rounds actions? Not so much.

The reason they are also covered in incapacitation is the effect they can have on a boss fight. If two players spend two actions each to remove one boss action, and the other two focus on just damage, that fight probably becomes trivial. This isn't even a hypothetical, I'm quite sure you can find a success save effect that will apply slow 1 for one round and another that will apply stun 1 for one round. This means the boss has to crit succeed some saves or be moved down to 1 action every round against such an obnoxious party (and low level slots can be used to spam like this, since we've changed how incapacitate works).

[SuperBidi]

I have to remind you that Stunned don't stack with Slowed.

[Megistone]

sherlock1701 wrote:

Excuse me for liking games that I enjoy and being disappointed that paizo decided to make something that's basically unplayable as far as I'm concerned as a followup for my favorite ttrpg. Consider Mass Effect Andromeda or Fallout 76, PF2 is in the same league as far as I'm concerned.

The point is not that you love PF1, but that you love the aspects of it that have traditonally and widely been considered its biggest flaws, and you double down on them.

[ChibiNyan]

BellyBeard wrote:

graystone wrote:

Secondly, the scattershot results are there no matter if you're DM or player. 1 rd stun/blind and DEAD aren't in the same ballpark: if we're talking something that always take out a target for the whole fight, I'd be more understanding... Taking away a single rounds actions? Not so much.

The reason they are also covered in incapacitation is the effect they can have on a boss fight. If two players spend two actions each to remove one boss action, and the other two focus on just damage, that fight probably becomes trivial. This isn't even a hypothetical, I'm quite sure you can find a success save effect that will apply slow 1 for one round and another that will apply stun 1 for one round. This means the boss has to crit succeed some saves or be moved down to 1 action every round against such an obnoxious party (and low level slots can be used to spam like this, since we've changed how incapacitate works).

This would work 1-2 rounds at best, though, and assumes the boss will be failing the saves, which he has more than 50% to succeed at (probably way more).

If this is what's considered "mages are too good" then I'm flabbergasted.... It's the least they should be contributing with. Pretty sure you can get very similar results with the way more reliable and spammable "Trip" from the Martials.

[graystone]

BellyBeard wrote:

If two players spend two actions each to remove one boss action, and the other two focus on just damage, that fight probably becomes trivial.

So players are trading 2 of their actions for one of a foes and that's a bad thing when it costs resources? I thought that's spells/feats were meant to have meaningful effects is the foe fail their normal saves... I don't see it.

[RicoTheBold]

ChibiNyan wrote:

This would work 1-2 rounds at best, though, and assumes the boss will be failing the saves, which he has more than 50% to succeed at (probably way more).

If this is what's considered "mages are too good" then I'm flabbergasted.... It's the least they should be contributing with. Pretty sure you can get very similar results with the way more reliable and spammable "Trip" from the Martials.

This is what's considered "mages don't make martials irrelevant." Martials probably need to use their first attacks to reliably succeed on trips vs. bosses, which is a pretty big trade-off, and they get nothing on a failure. And there's nothing saying the opponent has to stand up, casters can use spells with saves while prone with no penalty. Martials could just take the -2 circumstance penalty to attack.

The foe is, notably, not Incapacitated by a trip. Disarm comes closer, but requires a critical success to pull off.

[RicoTheBold]

graystone wrote:

BellyBeard wrote:

If two players spend two actions each to remove one boss action, and the other two focus on just damage, that fight probably becomes trivial.

So players are trading 2 of their actions for one of a foes and that's a bad thing when it costs resources? I thought that's spells/feats were meant to have meaningful effects is the foe fail their normal saves... I don't see it.

It's bad against multiple/weaker foes. It's good against a boss, because their actions are generally worth more than a party member's actions.

[sherlock1701]

RicoTheBold wrote:

graystone wrote:

BellyBeard wrote:

If two players spend two actions each to remove one boss action, and the other two focus on just damage, that fight probably becomes trivial.

So players are trading 2 of their actions for one of a foes and that's a bad thing when it costs resources? I thought that's spells/feats were meant to have meaningful effects is the foe fail their normal saves... I don't see it.

It's bad against multiple/weaker foes. It's good against a boss, because their actions are generally worth more than a party member's actions.

Which is exactly why bosses shouldn't be immune to the effects. They're best used against them.

[sherlock1701]

Megistone wrote:

sherlock1701 wrote:

Excuse me for liking games that I enjoy and being disappointed that paizo decided to make something that's basically unplayable as far as I'm concerned as a followup for my favorite ttrpg. Consider Mass Effect Andromeda or Fallout 76, PF2 is in the same league as far as I'm concerned.

The point is not that you love PF1, but that you love the aspects of it that have traditonally and widely been considered its biggest flaws, and you double down on them.

Yes, because those things are 80% of what makes the game fun to play for me. I wish more people shared that interest.

It's a little bit like a Souls game. Hard to understand and learn all the moving parts when you first pick one up, but rewarding and cool if you stick with it. Paizo could have really leaned into that niche, and made something that was even better than PF1.

[Rysky]

sherlock1701 wrote:

RicoTheBold wrote:

graystone wrote:

BellyBeard wrote:

If two players spend two actions each to remove one boss action, and the other two focus on just damage, that fight probably becomes trivial.

So players are trading 2 of their actions for one of a foes and that's a bad thing when it costs resources? I thought that's spells/feats were meant to have meaningful effects is the foe fail their normal saves... I don't see it.

It's bad against multiple/weaker foes. It's good against a boss, because their actions are generally worth more than a party member's actions.

Which is exactly why bosses shouldn't be immune to the effects. They're best used against them.

If a boss is as easy to defeat as its minions then what makes it a boss fight?

[sherlock1701]

Rysky wrote:

sherlock1701 wrote:

RicoTheBold wrote:

graystone wrote:

BellyBeard wrote:

If two players spend two actions each to remove one boss action, and the other two focus on just damage, that fight probably becomes trivial.

So players are trading 2 of their actions for one of a foes and that's a bad thing when it costs resources? I thought that's spells/feats were meant to have meaningful effects is the foe fail their normal saves... I don't see it.

It's bad against multiple/weaker foes. It's good against a boss, because their actions are generally worth more than a party member's actions.

Which is exactly why bosses shouldn't be immune to the effects. They're best used against them.

If a boss is as easy to defeat as its minions then what makes it a boss fight?

The fact that it's a/the leader of the opposing faction, aka their boss. If a party went to fight Apple I doubt that Tim Cook would be the toughest one there. But the fight with him would still be the final boss battle. If you're unseating a corrupt king, his best guards are probably stronger than him, but he's the boss.

Even if you're going for a boss who's stronger, his stats are already better than those of his minions. A balor is more likely to make his save than a marilith is, because he has higher stats. He doesn't also need a side rule to protect him.

[Phntm888]

sherlock1701 wrote:

It's a little bit like a Souls game. Hard to understand and learn all the moving parts when you first pick one up, but rewarding and cool if you stick with it. Paizo could have really leaned into that niche, and made something that was even better than PF1.

Unfortunately, that's a shrinking niche. Look at the popularity of 5th Edition D&D. It's a simple, rules-light system with bounded accuracy that has a high appeal to a great number of people. It's the same thing with the rising popularity of non-d20 based systems like Powered by the Apocalypse. They're less rules-heavy systems with a lot fewer moving parts.

I don't think Paizo went the direction they did with PF2 just because they could. I think they looked at trends in the TTRPG industry, and took PF2 in the direction they did because that's the way the industry is trending. They decided to lower the bar to entry into the system, but still made a robust system with more options than D&D 5E offers to try and appeal to those who wanted a more mechanical system.

Now, in your case, that system isn't in keeping with what you and your group enjoy - which is perfectly fine. But industry trends are moving away from systems with a high bar of entry that's difficult to pick up and be good at while rewarding those who put in the time to master the system's subtle intricacies of character creation. It's not ideal for you or your group, but it is something that has to be lived with.

[Rysky]

sherlock1701 wrote:

Rysky wrote:

sherlock1701 wrote:

RicoTheBold wrote:

graystone wrote:

BellyBeard wrote:

If two players spend two actions each to remove one boss action, and the other two focus on just damage, that fight probably becomes trivial.

So players are trading 2 of their actions for one of a foes and that's a bad thing when it costs resources? I thought that's spells/feats were meant to have meaningful effects is the foe fail their normal saves... I don't see it.

It's bad against multiple/weaker foes. It's good against a boss, because their actions are generally worth more than a party member's actions.

Which is exactly why bosses shouldn't be immune to the effects. They're best used against them.

If a boss is as easy to defeat as its minions then what makes it a boss fight?

The fact that it's a/the leader of the opposing faction, aka their boss. If a party went to fight Apple I doubt that Tim Cook would be the toughest one there. But the fight with him would still be the final boss battle. If you're unseating a corrupt king, his best guards are probably stronger than him, but he's the boss.

Even if you're going for a boss who's stronger, his stats are already better than those of his minions. A balor is more likely to make his save than a marilith is, because he has higher stats. He doesn't also need a side rule to protect him.

I was specifically asking for boss fight, not someone being a boss though. Boss fights are supposed to be climatic, a threshold. Dealing with them exactly the same as their minions... isn’t.

Balor and Mariliths don’t have side rules to protect, it’s as you said a matter of having better stats from being higher level.

[Tarik Blackhands]

I like to think all those various devs looked at a bunch of wargaming communities and in a sudden burst of revelation realized that "winning in the list building phase" is not a design to strive for (and is in fact a purgative over there).

[Cyouni]

sherlock1701 wrote:

Megistone wrote:

sherlock1701 wrote:

Excuse me for liking games that I enjoy and being disappointed that paizo decided to make something that's basically unplayable as far as I'm concerned as a followup for my favorite ttrpg. Consider Mass Effect Andromeda or Fallout 76, PF2 is in the same league as far as I'm concerned.

The point is not that you love PF1, but that you love the aspects of it that have traditonally and widely been considered its biggest flaws, and you double down on them.

Yes, because those things are 80% of what makes the game fun to play for me. I wish more people shared that interest.

It's a little bit like a Souls game. Hard to understand and learn all the moving parts when you first pick one up, but rewarding and cool if you stick with it. Paizo could have really leaned into that niche, and made something that was even better than PF1.

A Souls game doesn't require 6-10 hours to build a character and start the game, as you've stated is basically mandatory in the past.

A Souls game doesn't stop midway because someone has to look up details about the system because it's incredibly convoluted.

And most of all, a Souls game is primarily a single-player affair, not a cooperative one.

[BellyBeard]

Apologies to those responding to me, I was addressing the houserule of "incap only modifies crit fails" but I probably quoted the wrong post. The arguments I have were against that specific house rule, though they also apply to removing incap entirely.

Two of the party's twelve actions is less of a cost than one of the boss's three actions. Making the boss lose one action on successful save and more than one action on failed save is much better than trip, where they lose one action if the trip hits and nothing if the trip misses (you can even eat your own actions on a crit failure). Plus trip has MAP, which was pointed out. Never mind if the boss has a chance of actually crit failing an incap save and ending the fight in one spell.

The other point I was trying to make is, if you have either of these house rules, a level 3 slow is just as effective against enemies above your level than a heightened slow is. So a high level caster could prepare slow or blindness in all slots level 3 to 5 or 6, for example, and get at least 10 or so debuffs which are nearly guaranteed to eat up boss actions (unless they crit save) since DCs still scale on lower slots. It may seem like a good thing to make lower spells scale better into late game, but every other spell competing for that lower slot will be much less useful in comparison because, so it makes the incap spells overly powerful in low level slots (though I guess you could argue buff spells are kind of already like this, but not as bad).

Spells should be useful, but they shouldn't be too useful. And I think nearly guaranteeing the boss loses one action, with not terrible chances that they lose more than 1, is too much value for any single spell. Unfortunately it's sort of a binary thing, because if you take out incap but nerf the spell effects they'll probably end up being worse than a martial's trip and that just becomes the new issue. I'm happy with them just not being useful against certain enemies.

One last thing I'll point out is that some people may be talking about incap with PF1 encounter levels in mind, where a PL+3 or 4 enemy was common. In this game the only ones you won't be likely to affect with incap effects are bosses who are severe threats to the party all on their own. I would say probably 75% or more of the enemies you fight will be affectable by these spells if the rules for PF2 encounter design are followed.

Sorry for the sort of rambling post.