| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’d rather they all just work like Phantasmal Killer, worst tier off limits but anything else falls where it falls.
The only real downside I see there is a CF/CS is a bit less exciting for incapacitation traits, but getting those tiers on a creature that qualifies for Incapacitation is not that likely, even at the closest level comparisons vs a favored save. And really given that the other three tiers all suffer by extension of giving CS/CF meaning, is really just a boost of fun to 50% enjoyment for the Failure/Success (and the spell attack Success/Failure inverse) tiers which are going to be most of the time.
If my CR+1 or even my daily boss fails their save, they deserve the failure, as it’s not a game ender generally ever. The critical effect should be never, because those can turn whole fights to non-combats.
I’m not sure if that’s too complicated to codify, as simply saying “can never suffer the worst tier of success from an effect with the incapacitation trait and instead suffers the normal effect” but because of the inverse for spell attacks and spell saves (critical success for stunning fist is “worst” but critical failure of calm emotions is “worst”) it’s hard to write without getting super wordy which I hate doing for the sake of something that comes up not that often.
The simplest thing to do would be to remove it entirely, which I’m sure will be an option for some. I won’t do that without lots of play to back up the choice, but I imagine it might be in the GMG.
I usually learn rules one of two ways: it comes up in game and I have to read up on it to learn it for next time. Or by reading the forums.
I never heard of this incapacitation effect until about 10 minutes ago from reading this thread.
I'm not sure how I feel about it yet.
Although, I do think this: I would say I'd give an effect from an item or a creature two levels higher before implementing this effect.
Since PCs can cast 3rd level spells at level 5. And the rule says (on spells) that it goes into effect when encountering a creature of more than twice the level of the spell. So it would take a creature of level 7 to use the incapacitation rule against a 3rd level spell.
Therefore, I'd use the same reasoning with non-spell effects (purely as a personal rule). So, if it would take a 7th level creature to use the incapacitation rules against a 3rd level spell (cast by a 5th level character), I would say it takes a level 7 creature to use those rules against a monk using stunning fist, for example. Why let the wizard's spell effect work on a level 6 creature, and not the monk's ability?
And, conversely, a party would have to be two levels higher than the monster. So, a 3rd level party would be safer against ghouls, but not ghasts.
Apologies if this has already come up, but I'm also a bit concerned about the impact on a specific staple foe: ghouls (and ghasts). There's no degree of success considerations here, merely fail = paralysed. So incapacitate is a massive reduction in effectiveness.
In previous editions (right back to AD&D at least), these monsters had a tendency to be lethal in a "fair fight" (vs L1-3 PCs say) because the paralysis saves were not that easy, they had a lot of attacks to try and land this, and the duration was tough. Against higher level foes, there was "graceful degradation" of threat, both because the expected number of hits dropped and the saves became increasingly easy. But a pack could still be a nasty encounter up to fairly high PC levels. I seem to recall a PC death against a pack of *ghouls* at about level 8 or 9 (in Legacy of Fire) when they caught a spellcaster slightly separated, paralysed them, and finished them off before the rest of the party could get there.
In PF2, even a pack of ghasts are absolutely no threat at all once the PCs hit level 3. The PC has to CF the save to be affected (i.e. roll a natural 1, given the DCs involved).
(BTW, I think the introduction of a "save every round" mechanic is a great change on the other hand - noone want to be out of the fight with no method to recover just through 1 bad roll.)
It seems a shame that this kind of encounter - a pack of lower-level foes who collectively pose a threat through lots of chances to land a nasty effect - is a loss to the game. It needed different sorts of tactics and player choices & variety is good.
I guess the same kind of problem exists with e.g. cockatrices and basilisks, but they're perhaps not quite such a common "pack" foe so the situation isn't likely to come up as often.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the meanwhile, I will simply consider "Incapacitation builds" to be non-viable, and avoid creating such characters.
What in the world is an "incapacitation build"? Only picking incapacitation spells isn't a build, it's stupidity.
All that remains to be discussed, perhaps in a different thread, is if the Bard class can be salvaged - is there enough left (once you discard Incapacitation spells) for the idea to play a PF2 Bard to be viable?
I can't comprehend how this leap of logic came to be. Less than 10% of the occult list is incapacitation - if a bard doesn't want to take a single one of them that's utterly trivial. Bard also happens to have an extremely solid caster chassis with their amazing focus cantrips so, you know, that helps.
In the meanwhile, I will simply consider "Incapacitation builds" to be non-viable, and avoid creating such characters.What in the world is an "incapacitation build"? Only picking incapacitation spells isn't a build, it's stupidity.
I'll wait until I try something akin to an "incapacitation build" before I subscribe to such wholesale absolutist thinking.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Almost all of the good incapacitation spells have effects on a successful save that are nearly as good as some other spells failure effects. That gives these spells a lot of utility. Calm emotions for example is a devastating multi opponent debug against any foes that do not slip outside the incapacitation cap. If a boss monster has any body guards, throwing this one spell on both gives you a decent chance of taking people out of the combat and even imposing a -1 to attack rolls on the boss monster. No it is probably not the game Enders spell that it would be without the incapacitation trait but sustained rebuffs on a successful save are brutal against a solo creature.
Making solo monsters scary again is one of PF2s crowning achievements. Making spells with a variable level of utility instead of always the best option is another strength and not a weakness of PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll wait until I try something akin to an "incapacitation build" before I subscribe to such wholesale absolutist thinking.
I still don't understand what this "incapacitation build" even is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll wait until I try something akin to an "incapacitation build" before I subscribe to such wholesale absolutist thinking.I still don't understand what this "incapacitation build" even is.
Neither do I, but I assume it's a character who relies heavily on some of the most powerful spells in the game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just found out about incapacitation last night. And after sleeping on it, I decided that if I can't make the incapacitation build I've been dreaming of, then I qu... oh, wait. I mean, after sleeping, I decided I'm fine with it. Makes boss monsters scary. Makes mobs of lesser wimps (with big powers on failed saves) less total party killers.
Especially with debuffing being much more a thing in this edition (sickened affecting AC and what not). A few points of dropping a save or AC is the difference in a critical hit or a crit fail on a save.
And, if you want to go RAW, but don't like the rule, just change 4 ghouls to 2 elite ghasts or something. There's ways around it that are still fair.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Almost all of the good incapacitation spells have effects on a successful save that are nearly as good as some other spells failure effects. That gives these spells a lot of utility. Calm emotions for example is a devastating multi opponent debug against any foes that do not slip outside the incapacitation cap. If a boss monster has any body guards, throwing this one spell on both gives you a decent chanceof taking people out of the combat and even imposing a -1 to attack rolls on the boss monster.
You don’t even have a decent chance of the boss suffering the -1 to attack rolls though. Any CR+1 is already beating your proficiency bonus by at least 1 (and depending on abilities/saves, much more).
The odds of doing what you’re saying to all of them no less is abysmally low, and that percentage is still greater than the literal 5% chance of triggering a success (which will likely require the automatic 1/20) on the “boss”.
I think when I found out how few spells were tagged with it and how the levels for spells at least stagger, I’m kinda fine with it, but the no notification to new players piece could use a look.
If a creature would normally receive a critical failure on a roll (10 below the dc) and it also rolls a natural 1 (thus “double” critical failure) does that mean you can still get a critical failure on an incapacitation trait spell?
Like does the application of the success tier occur in any specific order? If the “degrade/upgrade one tier” on 1/20 as the last phase of tier calculation, that would mean its possible. I assume no, but order of operations for tier changing effects like evasion are common enough that I’m curious what the order is anyways.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nvm. Found the text that says not so under determining degrees
“Some other abilities can change the degree of success for rolls you get. When resolving the effect of an ability that changes your degree of success, always apply the adjustment from a natural 20 or natural 1 before anything else.”
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My point was that it is worth casting if you can catch the boss in the same area as the body guard because you have about the same chance of inflicting a decent debuff on the boss as you would with a spell like bane, but you also have a decent chance of taking the other monster(s)/bodyguard out of the fight. The are not great spells to throw at a solo monster, but few spells are and that diversity of tactics is a strength of the system. So far, I have stumbled in to a lot of fights with mixed level foes. Spells that incapacitate more than one enemy with only 2 actions certainly have value, especially when they have a chance of doing something useful still against the boss.
I think a big change from PF1 is that it is much harder to spam one spell as your default action in PF2. There are less ways to boost spells so choosing the right one for the situation is even more important.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if it's relevant here, but I recently had a 4th level NPC cast color spray at a 7th level monster, inflict the dazzled condition on the monster (because the monster failed the save and thus succeeded at it), and then have that dazzled condition prevent two hits over the subsequent round of actions.
It does not seem to me that the Incapacitation trait renders an effect utterly useless. Higher-risk for less reward, certainly, but not useless.
I really like the concept of Incapacitation trait, and find that it adds depth and fun to the game. I like the SoS spells from PF1, but I understand why they nerfed it greatly. And I find really funny to sometimes get back to it when you face low level threats.
Without the Incapacitation trait, these spells would have been removed from the game, and that would have been sad to me. Anyway, considering the number they are, I think you can easily just forget about them if you don't like them.
But I agree, there's a metagaming issue with monsters' level not written on their face. Even if, as a DM, I give such information to my players: Type of monster + level (unless the monster is disguised or concealed/invisible). For Recall Knowledge checks and Incapacitation effects mostly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I find really funny to sometimes get back to it when you face low level threats.
Don't take this as me trying to refute you or anything - your overall point stands - but I have a different perspective on this in particular. Incapacitation works on any creature equal to your level (or one level higher, on odd levels). I wouldn't say those are low level threats, they're your equal or stronger. Like, if you ran up against a classic Evil Adventuring Partytm you probably wouldn't call those low level threats.
Interesting thread. Makes me think. It might be a bit before I create a new PF2 character given that I usually play the same one in society or run the game, but I'm going to create a caster specialized in incapacitation spells, and see what happens.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I find really funny to sometimes get back to it when you face low level threats.Don't take this as me trying to refute you or anything - your overall point stands - but I have a different perspective on this in particular. Incapacitation works on any creature equal to your level (or one level higher, on odd levels). I wouldn't say those are low level threats, they're your equal or stronger. Like, if you ran up against a classic Evil Adventuring Partytm you probably wouldn't call those low level threats.
Yea a monster your level is a challenge for a party of 4 of the same level, they're stronger than an individual pc
I'm not a fan of the trait myself but it's easy enough to just avoid it at this point in the game: if we get inundated with spells with it in later books this might change though, so I hope they keep it 'rare'.
I don't mind the rule as is, it is a bit punishing but for the sake of better play flow I think it manages well for the most part.
I would have rathered the distance be a bit further than it is though vs not existing.
The metagame aspect on the player side is probably my biggest gripe with incap as it is - it can lead to feel-bads. With my upcoming game being all about magic, I'm considering ways to alleviate this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think PF2 has pretty definitively made level something that is not a metagame element of the world. If characters in world have any concept of having different levels of proficiency in things (which seems inevitable with the differences between trained and untrained in particularly, but also when they are ready to start training in higher proficiency feats), then it seems like they also have to be aware of the existance of level.
Because of that, I think asking for the difference in relative power level between a creature and yourself is not a metagame application of the recall knowledge action, but a very relevant question that would probably be the first and most important information that you want about a creature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think PF2 has pretty definitively made level something that is not a metagame element of the world. If characters in world have any concept of having different levels of proficiency in things (which seems inevitable with the differences between trained and untrained in particularly, but also when they are ready to start training in higher proficiency feats), then it seems like they also have to be aware of the existance of level.
Because of that, I think asking for the difference in relative power level between a creature and yourself is not a metagame application of the recall knowledge action, but a very relevant question that would probably be the first and most important information that you want about a creature.
To be absolutely honest, I'm probably going to go a step further and not ever require a recall knowledge check. If one of my players want to know if their incap spell will work on a creature I'll probably just tell them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Various animes have the idea that you can tell how powerful or strong someone is just by looking at them unless they are concealing their power. I have just been toying with using that as a PF2 action.
Yea a monster your level is a challenge for a party of 4 of the same level, they're stronger than an individual pcAnd I find really funny to sometimes get back to it when you face low level threats.Don't take this as me trying to refute you or anything - your overall point stands - but I have a different perspective on this in particular. Incapacitation works on any creature equal to your level (or one level higher, on odd levels). I wouldn't say those are low level threats, they're your equal or stronger. Like, if you ran up against a classic Evil Adventuring Partytm you probably wouldn't call those low level threats.
This is incorrect. A monster your level is meant to be about as dangerous as an individual PC. The monster may have somewhat higher numbers in areas but has far fewer abilities.
Pitting a single equal level monster against a party of 4 is a Trivial encounter-- that is literally what the book calls a 40 XP encounter.
Yea. The creature equal to a party as a challenge for the party was what Challenge Rating was in PF1. I still call it CR sometimes, just because I get stuck in old terminology. But this time around, they did it differently.
Various animes have the idea that you can tell how powerful or strong someone is just by looking at them unless they are concealing their power. I have just been toying with using that as a PF2 action.
I like it. I was looking for a way to be "logical" when giving this piece of information to my players, and this is a good way of doing it, I find. I take it for my own games :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point was that same-level enemies are about as strong as an individual PC (I'd argue the extra numbers foes get are roughly as good as PC versatility when you consider weaknesses and weak saves, but it doesn't really matter for my overall point).
Therefore, I don't think it's totally fair to call them "weak enemies". 2E isn't a jRPG where everything either falls under the category of "boss" or "fodder" - and a fight with 3-4 at-level enemies would absolutely constitute a boss encounter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a fan of the trait myself but it's easy enough to just avoid it at this point in the game: if we get inundated with spells with it in later books this might change though, so I hope they keep it 'rare'.
It would be easy enough to simply forget the Incapacitation Trait exists and play the spell anyway. I'm sure a lot of gamers miss it.
I find it a savage and unfair way to discriminate against certain tactics and certain spells. Some of the classic parts of the game don't work now. Why did they have to apply it to Suggestion?
There is no need for it to defend the PCs - they have Hero Points.
Honestly they should have just recommended that the GM has one Hero Villan Point that they can use once per session or once per BBEG. The players would understand the symetry of it, and we wouldn't have this ugly annoying rule which savages a large part of the Occult spell list.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is incorrect. A monster your level is meant to be about as dangerous as an individual PC. The monster may have somewhat higher numbers in areas but has far fewer abilities.And yet even the most cursory look in the Bestiary tells me it ain't so. Henro has a point.
Fun Story:
I had reason to stat up a NPC Monk that wanted the party to accompany her on an adventure (Jabyl Sorn of Sandpoint, actually). I pegged her as a level 6 NPC - the PCs were level 5 but expected to level up during the mission.
I quickly realized a "monster" Jabyl would outstrip the PCs so much it wouldn't be funny. If I followed the advice, to give a Monk monster very good attack bonuses and Armor Class, it's easy to see she would outclass the heroes.
Or maybe I should say could, because I could equally easy create a feeble stat block too.
But overall, it was shocking to see how much more dangerous a level 6 monster given reasonably average stats is than a level 6 PC (that just happens to be run by the GM).
I'm not talking about the expected stuff: that a NPC trades complexity and deeper abilities for, basically, hit points. That's something even D&D 5 does, and it's a reasonable compromise.
Even a moderate damage expression is 2d6+8. Nothing stops me from giving her 2d8+9 though, just to pick an example. As a PC, on the other hand, she would not have been able to go above 2d6+4, and there only by being equipped with a Striking rune on her Handwraps (which I was reluctant to do, since I didn't want to provide any reason for the party to risk their mission giver in combat in the hopes she'll die and can be looted. I mean, she could die just like any other party member, but if she did that is supposed to be an all-bad outcome.)
Yes, she would then not have any "monk class abilities" or feats. But guess what?
They are most specifically designed to not substantively change the power level of the character.
So it isn't logical to claim the "far fewer abilities" somehow...
I dunno what to tell you other than you're doing it wrong. Building an NPC monk has a suggested roadmap. At level 5, that means a "high" AC of 22, 2d8+7 for high damage, and moderate values for everything else. That means 72-78 HP, +12 to hit, and an average saving throw of about 12.
The monk in my Age of Ashes campaign, when given level appropriate equipment, has 24 AC, +14 to hit, 73 HP, and 11.66 as an average save bonus. They do 2d8+4 damage assuming they enter tiger stance. So better accuracy and AC, but worse damage and saves.
If you ignore the roadmap and fail to respect the action economy enhancers of the monk, then yes, you can make something OP. But that's on you for ignore the rules.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dont know if anyone have already suggested this but one simple solution could be create a metamagic feat that allow a casters to invalidate the incapacitation trait°
Is this a plausible possibility?
This seems fairly horrendous since it would make low level Incapacitation spells effective all the way through level 20.
For instance, Color Spray will remain an effective 1st level spell for your entire casting career (assuming your opponents are immune for some other reason, of course) while 1st level direct damage spell slots are quickly outstipped by cantrips...
|
I dont know if anyone have already suggested this but one simple solution could be create a metamagic feat that allow a casters to invalidate the incapacitation trait°
Is this a plausible possibility?This seems fairly horrendous since it would make low level Incapacitation spells effective all the way through level 20.
For instance, Color Spray will remain an effective 1st level spell for your entire casting career (assuming your opponents are immune for some other reason, of course) while 1st level direct damage spell slots are quickly outstipped by cantrips...
And what if we make this metamagic feat similar to quickened casting?
I agree with your answer. As a GM this doesn't bother me but i have a lot of players disappointed and angry with this rule.
I dont know, but maybe Paizo should address this issue.
Sorry for my bad english
|
|
kayman,
I am assuming you are the GM.
Ask yourself this: Are you okay with your players using Incapacitating effects to reliably take out your game's major villians in a single round of combat?
If that is something you are okay with - if those are the kinds of stories you want your group to tell together - then go for it!
Otherwise, reconsider.
|
|
kayman,
I am assuming you are the GM.Ask yourself this: Are you okay with your players using Incapacitating effects to reliably take out your game's major villians in a single round of combat?
If that is something you are okay with - if those are the kinds of stories you want your group to tell together - then go for it!
Otherwise, reconsider.
Thanks for the reply
You are correct, Iam a GM. Current running the final episode of Age of Ashes. I think the incapacitation rule is fine. The problem as i see are the constant complains of my players. First i thought that was a problem in my group , then i saw reading treads like this one, that a lot of player have the same feeling.
Sorry for my bad english.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
kayman,
I am assuming you are the GM.Ask yourself this: Are you okay with your players using Incapacitating effects to reliably take out your game's major villians in a single round of combat?
If that is something you are okay with - if those are the kinds of stories you want your group to tell together - then go for it!
Otherwise, reconsider.
You probably know how players are ... They love to complain. Especially when they played with a overpowered wizard for 20 years.
I came here to see if i could find some advice without breaking the game with a house rule.
Thanks for the reply.
If you are the DM, I encourage you to read your AP and look at what monsters will be immune to your player Incapacitation spells. I'm pretty sure it'll be a very small portion, nearly negligeable. If it's the case, then your players are complaining about nothing.
If you see that most encounters will resist Incapacitation spells, then maybe you could modify them a bit by increasing the number of enemies but applying a difficulty-reducing template (like the weak template) and consider they are one level lower. It should do the trick.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once per day incap-removal metamagic seems like a non-terrible idea actually. It'd be a fun way to get extra mileage out of low-level spells. The big risk would be running into the "players instantly win against the BBEG" problem, and it'd be fairly nova-enabling.
Perhaps having the same wording as Quicken (must be X levels lower than max) would be worth considering for such a feat? Would that solve things or is the Nova still too scary?
I tend to avoid incap spells like the plague. Though in theory they are still fine versus n or if you are lucky n+1 opponents, which can still constitute a hard fight, I dont like to carry dead weight in case of a boss battle, and 100% of my APs boss battles so far have not been properly hinted at or telegraphed in any way. Also because you always have to have them on max level in order to be at least somehow effective they clutter your top slots really fast.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for all the advices , i brought this issue on the APG discussion and receive a reply from Mark Seifter Design Manager. He said this:
"Everything Ssalarn and others have said is accurate. But maybe this will help kayman:
Incapacitate does prevent disappointing fight-enders against bosses, yes, but it was even more so created to protect the players and their characters from weird situations with multiple low level incapacitation enemies. If you get attacked by 8 harpies in PF1, or 8 mummies, even if every character in your party of 4 only needs a 5 on the d20 to save, the chances each character will fail and get incapacitated is about 5 in 6, meaning the chances everyone is incapacitated (and eats a coup de grace, TPKing) is about 50/50. And we saw that happening in those types of encounters a lot unless the GM pulled punches or used other methods to help save the PCs (you can likely see the pattern yourself if you check online reviews for any adventures you remember that have such an encounter).
Over the course of a long game, PCs are the ones most likely to benefit from effects like this that make things a little more likely for survival (since monsters don't need to survive an encounter but PCs need to keep surviving each encounter in the campaign). So you could also try to remind your players that this benefits them."
I think this argument is very reasonable and when i showed to my players they felt the same.
Hm...
Not feeling any benefits yet, but that might be due to overall party level still being low, i.e. every spell and ability hits you for full effect in addition to there not being any low level enemies everybody is always talking about...